|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
The systemic abuses of Human Rights Watch, the individual aberrations of Amnesty Internationalby Prof Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary-General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process - Sri Lanka09 September 2008 The moral authority that we would all like NGOs concerned with Human
Rights to exercise has sadly been eroded in recent years. This has coincided
with the apotheosis of such organizations into recognized players on
the world stage. Unfortunately, a mechanism designed to enhance their
stature has led in many cases to their being prey for skilful lobbyists,
anxious to bend their pronouncements to purposes that have little to
do with Rights. Countries that can influence such organizations, through
funding or more subtle means, have also got into the act, and we find
that increasingly organizations that should look after the Rights of
all are selective about their pronouncements. Not entirely surprisingly,
such selectivity is often at the expense of countries that strive to
remain independent of the dominant consensus. Perhaps the most obvious example of selectivity in pursuit of a particular
agenda is that of Human Rights Watch. Its recent simplistic pronouncements
with regard to South Ossetia were of a piece with the failure earlier
this year to join other NGOs in their critique of what was going on
in Gaza. Mulling over the reasons for these idiosyncrasies can however
be left to other commentators. This article will be confined to the
HRW's lack of objectivity and balance in its comments on Sri Lanka,
and particularly its constant disparagement of the Government of Sri
Lanka regardless of facts or the context in which Sri Lanka maintains
a better record than that of any other country struggling against terrorism.
Whilst comparisons would be odious, it is obvious, given the constant
deaths of civilians in other theatres, deaths that are swiftly forgotten,
that focusing attention on comparatively minor tragedies in defenceless
states like Sri Lanka allows greater problems to be forgotten. So, while
Lanka is pilloried with epithets such as 'indiscriminate attacks on
civilians', there is no challenge from the favoured agencies to the
barrage of excuses that the dominant consensus trots out relentlessly
for their own mistakes, viz hardly anyone died, and in any case those
who died were terrorists (well, all but a few), and only terrorists
were targeted (well, all but a few), and any mistake was the fault of
certain individuals, who will be duly tried (after some years, and then
they will all be acquitted, except one or two), not part of the system,
which is obviously beyond question and would certainly never deceive
its own people. HRW has often in the last fifteen months peddled stories on Sri Lanka
meant to orchestrate adverse media coverage about alleged human rights
violations on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka. These have little
relation to ground reality. HRW has blown stories out of proportion
to fact, striven to seek newspaper publicity with sensational headlines
and aired blatantly false interpretations about the movement of the
internally displaced seeking refuge in Government controlled areas. In maintaining its campaign of denigration and condemnation of a sovereign
state battling terror almost single-handedly, Human Rights Watch has
generated not only strong criticism of its conduct but also raised legitimate
questions about its own background, its objectives, both overt and covert,
and its double standards when approaching similar conflicts in different
parts of the world. Human Rights Watch appears to be guided as a matter
of policy by a strong desire to push to their limits the elitist views
of the more patronizing amongst Western political and social activists,
whether dealing with national security and foreign policy, or resolution
of conflict, including intervention, whilst using the disarming rhetoric
of Universal Human Rights. This article, in looking at specific examples of misinterpretation
and exaggeration, will raise the question whether the subject of Human
Rights has been hijacked by bodies such as HRW to isolate and demonise
countries that resist external influence or control, with the ultimate
aim of using 'human rights violations' as an excuse for political operations
against such countries. It is manifestly clear that 'Human Rights' has
now replaced earlier catch phrases as the justification for intervention
in the internal affairs of sovereign states and the subsequent overthrow
of governments. HRW released a statement at the beginning of July 2008 that Sri Lanka
should end what it referred to as 'internment of displaced persons'.
This resort to sensationalistic language was highly unwarranted as the
uninitiated reader might have been inclined to equate the conduct of
Sri Lanka with that of the excesses perpetrated against the Japanese
in America during the Second World War, or the forcible detention of
Jews in Concentration Camps in many countries of Nazi occupied Europe.
'Internment' is a term that is applied to situations where people are
taken forcibly from their homes and placed in forcible detention or
prison camps. The Sri Lankan Government adopts no such policy towards
the people, overwhelmingly Tamil, fleeing Tiger controlled areas to
the safety of Government controlled areas. In LTTE controlled areas
there is forced recruitment of children and young adults, extending
now to two per family, and cancellation of marriages with a view to
forced recruitment of the parties to the dissolved marriage. Interestingly,
even now NGOs, possessed by a love that dare not speak its name, keep
quiet about such matters, circulating them only privately, fearful of
LTTE retribution in the face of overt criticism. Not only from the complaints
of idealists sick and tired of the pusillanimity of their bosses, the
Sri Lankan Government is well aware of the tyranny imposed by the LTTE
on Tamil people in uncleared areas and the reasons for their flight
from despotism. The Government, which continues to provide food, health
and education facilities to people in LTTE controlled areas, will also,
with the assistance of the UN and other agencies that are not frightened
to transfer their operations to government controlled areas, provide
shelter, food, medicine and security, in welfare centres, to people
who manage to escape. Freedom of movement during the day for refugees in welfare centres is generally permitted, but whatever restrictions that are imposed at other times are to prevent terrorists, who infiltrate government controlled areas by taking cover behind genuine refugees, from engaging in acts that may cause severe damage to both life and property of civilians. This is current LTTE strategy: to inflict maximum damage on the people in the south through terrorist bombings and provoke a repetition of events that occurred in July 1983 in Sri Lanka. Both the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and comments of
the UN Special Rapporteur Walter Kälin make it clear that precautionary
steps can be adopted by a State under 'exceptional circumstances'. Any
restrictive steps taken by the authorities are because of the absolute
necessity to curtail terrorist bombings and the resulting loss of lives
of innocent civilians. In a Report on Sri Lanka submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in
May 2008 in connection with the Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka,
HRW again resorted to canards beginning with the baseless charge that
'Sri Lanka security forces have conducted indiscriminate bombing and
shelling resulting in civilian casualties'. In August 2007, HRW, in
a statement, claimed that 'Security forces have subjected civilians
to indiscriminate attacks …. Both the government and the LTTE have
a shown a brazen disregard for the well being of non -combatants' The Peace Secretariat has emphatically refuted these allegations in
a response entitled 'HRW's dirty war and the clean record of the Sri
Lankan army', which was sent to HRW. There has so far been no response
to this piece, nor a rebuttal of the arguments presented with regard
to the Kathiravelli incident, the only one in the military action in
the East in which civilians were killed. SCOPP was able to show that
this particular incident had occurred because of 'mortar locating radar'
which had led the forces to believe that they were actually firing in
the direction of LTTE guns. In fact even the HRW report concedes that
'The LTTE had sentries in the area of the camp, ostensibly to monitor
the movement of displaced persons' and that they were told that 'In
the daytime, the LTTE didn't carry weapons….When the LTTE has heavy
weapons, they don't show them because they're afraid someone will inform'.
There were bunkers in the camp, though HRW claims that these had been
built by the displaced. It is doubtful whether the displaced could have
built such structures without the knowledge or support of the LTTE cadres
living in the area of the camp. In another section HRW says that, since the abrogation of the Ceasefire
in January this year, `the fighting has claimed hundreds of civilians
lives, and tens of thousands more have been displaced'. This is simply
not true. According to available figures, the total number of civilian
deaths caused by the conflict from the beginning of the year until the
end of April amounted to 325. Of these, 137 were the result of indiscriminate
LTTE terrorist attacks including suicide bombings in regions in the
south of the country. The highest number of civilian deaths recorded
in a district was in Moneragala where terrorists not only bombed a bus
but shot the passengers as they were rushed out from the bombed vehicle. The total number of civilian deaths to the end of April in the Northern
Province which is a conflict zone amounted to 80. The figure of 325
is certainly excessive, but in comparison to the deaths of civilians
in other parts of the world in conflicts against terror, the actual
figure of less than a score of civilian deaths in the actual course
of fighting is proof of the precautions taken by the forces out of concern
for the civilians. Indeed, the Bishop of Mannar singled this aspect
out for praise, in a recent discussion concerning the situation of IDPs.
In contrast, during this same period, as a consequence of LTTE bombs
alone, 98 lives were lost. The total number of internally displaced had risen by 149 between the end of December and the end of March 2008, according to UNHCR figures. In actual fact 2384 more people were displaced, but 2235 have been resettled in the Eastern Province. In the two predominant LTTE districts the increase was 480, while in the four areas under LTTE dominance in three other districts, one has shown no change, another indicates an increase of 311, a third area shows the numbers declining by 446 in two months before rising again by 2214, and the fourth area a decrease of 1156. Disregarding these figures, HRW resorted to a sensationalistic style
in asserting a figure of tens of thousands displaced. Again, its fuller
Report, in contrast to the flamboyant press release, recorded a UNHCR
spokesperson saying of those displaced in the course of 2006 and 2007,
'Our staff monitoring the situation on the ground say the majority of
people are eager to return home, the returns are voluntary and in line
with international protection standards. UNHCR will continue to monitor
the returns and report directly to the government on any problems regarding
the voluntariness and any deviation from the civilian characteristics
of the move'. Given all this high drama in May, to divert attention from more serious
issues, HRW has indeed found itself having to cry 'Wolf' all the louder
when serious IDP problems began in the North, with the recent offensives.
Had it studied the past seriously, without basing its critiques on its
knowledge of countries where IDP problems have gone on for years, it
would have realized that it should strive to replicate the success story
of the Eastern IDPs by urging the LTTE to release into government controlled
territory the displaced it is hoarding in the North. After all, those
who harp on the prevention of returnees to one area in the East, because
of the creation of a High Security Zone, ignore the fact that alternative
lands in close proximity have been found for all displaced families,
and except for a few areas where demining still has to be concluded,
the situation in the East is almost back to normal as far as displacement
goes. Given the complexity of the situation in the conflict areas, the conduct
of the Sri Lankan government in resettling most of the displaced and
restoring normalcy to the Eastern Province should be commended. It should
serve as a role model for good governance in all conflict affected countries,
but since HRW cannot really insist on durable solutions to many of the
displaced in the world, it chooses to ignore the achievements of a country
which has succeeded better than most in dealing with this problem. " HRW Press Release regarding the arrest of Journalist J.S. Tissainayagam
This is another false insinuation on the part of HRW. The factual position
is otherwise. Mr. Tissainayagam was taken into custody because of his
suspect connections to the LTTE, and the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation
(TRO), two terrorist organizations banned in several countries. TRO
was blacklisted when it became clear that its funding was used for terrorist
activities. Mr. Tissainayagam had developed connections to both the
LTTE and TRO during the period of the ceasefire, and had actively colluded
with his other business associates to disparage the Government through
false accusations via their publications. An example of his false accusation
that has been published reads as follows: 'Such offensives against the
civilians are accompanied by attempts to starve the population by refusing
them food as well as medicines and fuel, with the hope of driving out
the people of Vaharai and depopulating it. As this story is being written,
Vaharai is being subject to intense shelling and aerial bombardment'. Mr. Tissainayagam has now been indicted for violating the law. The charge sheet contains the above passage, among a series of other charges. The law in Sri Lanka as in many other civilized countries presumes a suspect to be innocent until he is found guilty by a court of law. Mr. Tissainayagam still enjoys this presumption of innocence. The matter is before the courts. Due process will be followed. He will be freed if the prosecution fails to establish its case. The Strange Case of Yolanda Foster, and Amnesty International Meanwhile,
Amnesty International, which had generally shown itself as more balanced
in its general approach, has over the last month taken the lead in attacking
the Sri Lankan government. This is in the form of releases issued by
a young lady called Yolanda Foster, who spent many happy years in Sri
Lanka when she was even younger, and is a wonderful example of what
Paul Johnson would have called the bane of the 21st century, the professional
do-gooder (even more irresponsible than his bane of the 20th century,
the professional politician). Obviously no one is in charge in London, because Yolanda has returned
to the charge with another couple of statements, each one shriller than
the earlier one. Whether Irene Khan will take command responsibility
for all this remains to be seen. What I hope she will definitely disown
is the attempt of Yolanda, along with her sisters and her cousins and
her aunts to write to the Secretary General of the United Nations, badmouthing
Sri Lanka. She was working on the letter along with an elderly gentleman
called Peter Bowling of something that terms itself the International
Working Group on Sri Lanka, based in London and believed to be close
to LTTE networks; and also another youth who works for Gareth Evans'
International Crisis Group. Gareth, who seems to relish his new role
as the Tailor of Panama, has floated yet another version of the Responsibility
to Protect, which he hopes will allow him to pull rabbits out of a hat
in Georgia or wherever he can strike gold. Surely, there must be some sort of responsibility amongst these self-appointed guardians of morality, and surely, if they are entitled to pronounce in international bodies, they should at least answer letters, refrain from pronouncements which are not checked, ensure that all falsehoods are promptly retracted. Sadly, instead of any of this, they seem now to be single-mindedly or subtly pursuing an agenda suspiciously close to that of the LTTE. More worryingly, given the support they get from some governments, they help to create the impression that there is uncertainty about whether the world really wants terrorism to be eradicated from Sri Lanka. But, as ample examples have shown in recent times, you cannot play with fire. Responsible governments should recognize that and discourage collusion that will provide succour to terror.
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Disclaimer: The comments contained
within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents
of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the
views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual
authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any
loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which
you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or
reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
Copyright
© 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com
Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||||||
