|
MEDIA MISREPRESENTS MENTION
OF SRI LANKA IN U.N.
Secretariat for Coordinating
the Peace Process (SCOPP)
29th May 2008
Refuting on the article titled "Security Council concerned over
civilian deaths", published in the Daily Mirror on 29th May 2008,
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha writes to the Editor, Daily Mirror. Given below
is the full-text of Prof. Wijesinha's letter.
The Editor
Daily Mirror
Dear Editor,
I write in response to some misrepresentations in the article entitled
"Security Council concerned over civilian deaths' on the front
page of the Daily Mirror of May 29th. This is an example of the mischief
making that had to be corrected by some months ago by the Press Council
of Sri Lanka, when a reporter in the Daily Mirror sought to create the
impression that the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission had accused Sri Lankan
forces of assisting in the recruitment of child soldiers. The SLMM report
had said nothing of the sort, and you had to publish an apology.
My concern then was that you were trying to denigrate the army by
misquoting the SLMM, and I am happy to say that, following the recognition
by the SLMM of the tactics being used, they were more circumspect. In
this instance I fear that you are trying to insinuate that the Security
Council has been unduly critical of Sri Lanka, when in fact the report
of Sir John Holmes simply stated facts about which the government of
Sri Lanka also continues to worry.
The first paragraph of your report for instance claims that the Security
Council 'expressed great concern at the number of civilians who have
been killed or injured due to the war in Sri Lanka this year, and called
on all parties to the conflict to maintain international humanitarian
law and protect the people.'
The Security Council did nothing of the sort. In Sir John Holmes'
report he mentioned that 'In Sri Lanka, hundreds of civilians had been
killed or injured this year', which is a fact. Most of those civilians
have been victims of LTTE terrorism, whilst there are also instances,
which the Sri Lankan government must deal with firmly, of civilian killings
in areas outside the war area.
Your report however implies that these killings are due to the war,
which seems part of your efforts, exemplified in the instance I cited,
to denigrate the forces who are engaged in the war front. There seems
no other reason for your gratuitous inclusion of the words 'due to the
war' in what is presented as a statement of concern by the Security
Council, artfully phrased to suggest that the concern was only about
Sri Lanka.
In fact the situation in several countries was discussed, with categorical
condemnation of state forces in some instances such as Iraq and Afghanistan
(where the actions of national and multinational forces caused concern)
and Israel and the Sudan.
There was no condemnation at all of state forces in Sri Lanka, and no
measures were recommended in particular for Sri Lanka, contrary to the
impression created by your bulleted box. That seemed designed to make
your readers think that action with regard to Sri Lanka was required,
and that there were calls made on Sri Lanka, which was not the case
at all. Again, the word 'havoc' was used, quite understandably, also
of southern Israel and Gaza and Colombia and other places, whilst criticism
of particular actors was reserved for Iraq and Afghanistan, where there
was a clear implication that Western operations were at fault in addition
to terrorism - 'In Afghanistan and Iraq, civilians remained victims
of suicide attacks as well as aerial bombardments and search operations
against anti-Government elements.'
In short, Sir John Holmes was balanced, as he assured me was necessary,
and as befits a senior UN official, though unfortunately we have seen
how their words can be twisted to create havoc. If there was any trace
of unfortunate bias, it came in the remarks of the Canadian representative
who used a strange phrase to describe the situation in Sri Lanka, while
obviously objecting to the balance Sir John had suggested with regard
to Afghanistan, in implying that the Afghan Government (and by implication
the multinational forces responsible for civilian casualties) were only
doing what had to be done to deal with suicide bombings.
This strange selectivity deserves citation in full - JOHN MCNEE (Canada)
said that in places like the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Sri Lanka, Burundi and Somalia, civilians were part of the calculus
of conflict. In Afghanistan, indiscriminate acts of violence, such as
suicide bombings, were a potent reminder of why support for the Afghan
Government was so important. -And it may make sense for our Foreign
Ministry to check on exactly what was meant, and whether Canada did
not think 'indiscriminate acts of violence, such as suicide bombings'
in Sri Lanka did not warrant support for the Sri Lankan government.
Mr McNee's comment seems at odds with the helpful approach his government
is taking in Canada itself to stop terrorist activity. Had he known
how it would be used by your newspaper, referring his general comments
to particular countries, perhaps he might have been more careful.
Your skilful juxtaposition of three separate portions of Sir John's
speech is another aspect of what seems a deliberate attempt to create
the impression of hostility where none was intended. I hope this will
not recur, and that any political capital your paper hopes to gain will
not be through deliberate distortion of the generally helpful approach
of the United Nations.
I will copy this letter to the UN Resident Representative, so that
he will continue to be aware of a continuing process he and his colleagues
need to guard against.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
|
