Inviting Intervention
GOMIN DAYASRI
The presentation of Dr G.L.Peiris in the Sunday Island (28.10.07) on
the visit of Louise
Arbour, if it is the official position of the Government, displays servility
with accompanying flattery which provides more substance and strength
to those visiting emissaries to plant more explicit/implicit unwarranted
strictures on Sri Lanka giving rise to unjustifiable interpretations
and unwarranted incursions into our domestic sphere.
G.L.Peiris observes;
"Ms Louise Arbour, it seems to me, certainly right in recommending
a closer examination of the relationship between the UN High Commission
for Human Rights and the mechanism in place in Sri Lanka".(emphasis
mine)
Having blessed Ms Arbour for her righteousness in her call for the
development of a closer nexus between the UN body and local mechanism,
he thereupon embarks on paying tribute to her and UN being "engaged
in a variety of beneficial activities in Sri Lanka" and legitimizing
her status and a right to intrude into affairs of Sri Lanka, with the
pronouncement:
"It is not as though her office has no role or influence at all
in the country today: on the contrary her office and generally the United
Nations system are engaged in a variety of beneficial activities in
Sri Lanka at this time".
Minister Peiris seems to forget that that the government had to counter
statements of these "high ranking officials from the United Nations
system", Peiris refers by name - Alan Rock, John Holmes, Manfred
Novak, Louise Arbour". Probably having been in diverse platforms
espousing contradictory positions at different times, Peiris still finds
statements made by UN missionaries resulting in "beneficial activities"
and the virtue of "recommending a closer examination of the relationship"
to some such previous causes which he may have subscribed.
The immediate reaction to the Louise Arbour statement are the comments
made by Sean MaCormac (22.10.07)spokesman for the US State Department
in the official US State Department website.
He stated:
"The United States calls on the government of Sri Lanka to reconsider
its opposition to expansion of the OHCR office and mandate in Sri Lanka.
We remain concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in
Sri Lanka, as confirmed by the recent assessment of UN High Commissioner
for Human rights Louise Arbour. An international human rights presence
in Sri Lanka would be important step in improving human rights, accountability
and the rule of law and ultimately resolving the conflict in Sri Lanka".
The State Department interpretation of Arbour statement which is an
early bird warning to Sri Lanka is as faulty as the certificate of commendation
issued by Peiris but neither Louise Arbour or G.L Peiris raised issue
with the State Department on the obvious misinterpretation, though Mahinda
Samarasinghe made a feeble diplomatic response withholding the trumps
in his hand. Instead of placing the Arbour statement in its correct
perspective in reading the State Department communiqué, Peiris
attempted to dry clean Louise Arbour who made an ambiguous statement
that enabled the US Government to reach an adverse inference.
Western Paternalism has intervened in the affairs of the weaker countries
which are economically underdeveloped under the cloak of human rights
legalizing an extended international role for itself in conflict situations.
The thrust is made politically, economically or militarily. From UN
to NATO from IMF to World Bank integrated are human right concerns and
aid is conditional on an ethical agenda.
The Human Rights bandwagon has rolled on from Bosnia to Sudan to Somalia
to Haiti to Sierra Leone to East Timor to Congo to Kosova to Afghanistan
to Iraq during the last decade. Was the dominant consideration of the
receiving state obtained by the Western interventionists before entering
as believed by Pieris?
Under different pretexts Russia intervened in Chechnya, India in East
Pakistan and China in Tibet and the United States in Cuba (Bay of Pigs),Nicaragua
(Contras) Grenada (removal of Maurice Bishop),Guatemala (overthrow of
Jacobo Arabenz) Viet Nam (Communist takeover ) Chile (installing Pinochet)
El Salvador (backing Salvadorian National Guard). Human Rights after
the Cold War and the War on Drugs replaced the Communist threat to interfere
and intervene.
Such interventions breaches international law, Article 2(4) of the
UN Charter and disregards the concept of sovereignty and therefore requires
an ethical and moral human face with human rights utilized as the licensed
vehicle to intervene in the affairs of other states. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
is never treated as genocide and what would otherwise be termed barbaric
and treated as uncivilized becomes moral and ethical and lauded as an
honorable triumph.
Peace movements which opposed military interventions have been replaced
by NGO's concerned with peace education and conflict resolution encouraging
such military activism as revealed by Amnesty International, Medicinis
sans Frontieres and Human Rights Watch. Barbaric aspects of warfare
are seen to reside in the cultural backwardness of the non Western world,
while an idealized version of 'just' and 'humanitarian' war categorize
the military action of the western states. (From Kosova to Kabul and
Beyond-David Chandler ) Social Democratic Left and Neo Liberals are
in support of military engagement with the UK Labor Government dropping
more bombs in 18 months than the Conservative Governments in 18 years.(John
Pilger- Acts of Murder Guardian 18 May 99).
Human Rights provisions under UN treaties provide no obligation for
States to act on breaches alleged committed in other countries. Ratification
of International Human Rights treaties cannot imply a waiver of sovereignty
for breaches as was not treated in the treaties themselves. Karagiannakis
- State Immunity and Fundamental Rights - Leiden Journal of International
Law.
The irony of the interventionist approach is by internationalizing
the situation which weakens the local mechanism of cooperation between
the disputing parties. This process has enabled separatist groups to
appeal to external institutions weakening State legitimacy and encouraging
a continuation of the conflict . It might promote secessionist movements
to deliberately provoke governments in order to trigger external intervention.
Internationally imposed conditions have little regard to the democratic
requirements for the people of the region displacing the local players
and making them passive objects to give effect to international proposals.
Instead of promoting democratic elections, peace builders encourage
rival parties to share power in a non democratic environ, on the basis,
democracy is an unaffordable luxury for under developed countries. Human
Rights have often led to arbitrary power over domestic affairs making
the intervening powers the final political arbiters. Human Rights imperialism
has no concern for local cultural norms.
Historically human rights interventions on the basis of human rights
projects are not inclined to exercise an exit strategy; .UN civil administration
mandate of one year was extended indefinitely after two years in Bosnia
with the international community having assumed complete legislative
and executive power over the formally independent state. The UN presence
in East Timor is indefinite, and the leading political group CNRT was
ignored by UN and refused office space in the capital Dili (Financial
Times 12.Nov1999-Frustration with UN) So is it in Kosova notwithstanding
Rambouillet proposals whilst after elections in Iraq and Afghanistan
hardly any power has been transferred to the elected representatives
and western powers continue to rule with heavy military presence. The
political sphere has been colonized by the external regulators with
no understanding and care of the internal problems in trouble torn communities
which need to rebuild fragmented societies.
It is noteworthy 77% of the UN troops are currently contributed by
the under developed countries and no developed country contributed troops
to the most difficult UN missions in Sierra Leone or Congo whilst Western
powers contribute troops forces to NATO led operations. Source: Report
of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations.
Having being a vociferous supporter of the CFA and the peace process
under Ranil Wickremasinghe with the Norwegians, there is consistency
in the conduct of Peiris in wanting to please Arbour, but it should
not be to the detriment of the nation. So Peiris needs to be checked.
Are we inviting, interference, intrusion and intervention by being
docile and servile- without rectifying our deficiencies and stressing
on our strengths. Chronically and chronologically our position on human
rights in a conflict situation is stronger than of the United States
and Russia if presented properly and given a fair hearing.
Where were these UN angels in the days of Pinochet, Suharto, Doc Duvalier
and Pol Pot?
|
