|
Sri Lanka slams Sir Nigel Rodley's "Sanctimonious
Bluster"
Secretariat for Coordinating
the Peace Process (SCOPP)
29th April 2008
Sir Nigel Rodley
The Peace Secretariat is amused at the intemperate reaction of Sir Nigel
Rodley, 'an eminent person from Britain' as he was described, to the
revelation that the eminent Indian head of the IIGEP Justice P N Bhagwati
has made it clear that he does not accuse the government of lacking
political will with regard to the Commission of Inquiry into several
cases concerning Human Rights. Such blustering on Sir Nigel's part simply
confirms the impression some elements in the IIGEP had helped to create,
that their prime motive was to engage in confrontation with the government
of Sri Lanka, without regard to propriety or the truth.
Sir Nigel is quoted as telling the BBC that "I think you or anybody
else should be treating with extreme scepticism any representation by
the government of Sri Lanka what (sic) any of us says,"
Having made this crude comment on what the government was reported to
have said, Sir Nigel than sanctimoniously says, "I am not prepared
to comment on anything the government of Sri Lanka quotes what (sic)
Mr. Bhagwati says. When I see the letter I would be willing to comment,"
he told BBC Sinhala.com.
He is then reported to have added that 'the panel is not aware of any
letter sent to President Rajapakse by their president'. It was not indicated
whether he had spoken to the other members of the panel including Justice
Bhagwati, or whether he felt entitled to pronounce on behalf of the
panel as a whole.
It is quite understandable that Justice Bhagwati did not show Sir Nigel
the letter, given the patronizing tone of the latter. It is also evident
from other comments he made that he simply did not understand the mandate
or the actual workings of the IIGEP.
For instance, he is reported to have declared that "The government
claimed that we had no right to conduct public hearings, but we certainly
did have and we made these statements only after discussing with the
CoI and the AG's office. All these statements contain their comments,"
he said. This is simply untrue.
In September 2007 what was supposed to be an IIGEP statement was issued
without the comments of the CoI. It turned out that the CoI had addressed
their comments to Justice Bhagwati, the head of the IIGEP. However the
assistants of the Eminent Persons from some developed countries, who
had set up their own Secretariat, assumed that, because they had not
received the comments, they did not exist. Sir Nigel should have looked
at the statement issued in September before he made his lofty generalization.
Sir Nigel however has perhaps reached a level in his profession when
he does not need to consider evidence, but gets by on his reputation.
In speculating on the motives of some elements in the IIGEP however,
Sri Lankan officials considered the evidence, the claim by the assistants
to the CoI that responses had to be received in time for a statement
to be issued to coincide with the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva
for instance, or the attempt to stymie attempts by Sri Lankan officials
to promote Witness Protection, claiming that this was interference with
their own tepid efforts to obtain training for a single policemen.
This patronizing approach fitted in with the irresponsible approach
of those members of the IIGEP who had assistants who took their places,
though the government of Sri Lanka had appointed eminent persons, not
callow young men. Unsurprisingly, all the assistants came from rich
countries, which funded their own but would not fund the far better
qualified assistant proposed for Justice Bhagwathi. These assistants
had an agenda and, as bad money drives out good, they and those few
members of the IIGEP who seem to have shared that agenda managed to
over-ride the rest.
Justice Bhagwathi
Justice Bhagwathi perhaps realized that, sitting together with Sir
Nigel, he had been dragooned into seeming to support a position he realized
was inappropriate, given the evidence and given his mandate. What he
wrote seems to represent his own considered view. It is of course up
to Sir Nigel to disagree. But to insinuate that the Sri Lankan government
is lying is unworthy of his title or his past.
Sir Nigel's performance finally puts the lid on the claims of those
who believe that external validation is necessary for Sri Lankan efforts
to be deemed respectable. With a Queen's Counsel being so shallow and
so snide, it is unlikely that the nation will allow itself to be patronized
by unknown quantities such as the assistants whose only claim to superiority
seems to have been, as Paul Scott so tellingly put it, the colour of
their skin.
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
|
