Call for OHCHR field office:
SL Peace official replies
Secretariat for Coordinating
the Peace Process (SCOPP)
10th December 2007
A few weeks back Ms Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights,claimed
in an interview given in Afghanistan that she had publicly suggested
while in Sri Lanka that a Field Office of her office be established
in Sri Lanka. This was not actually the case, and the Minister for Disaster
Management and Human Rights who had facilitated her visit expressed
some surprise at her claim. Her response was that she continued to be
convinced that such an office, 'reporting to me' as she put it, was
desirable.
Though the Sri Lankan government was surprised by her claim that she
had been saying this all along, others were not. The Sri Lankan opposition
had claimed earlier that the UN wished to impose a Monitoring Mission
and that nothing could stop it. This was the position in websites and
pronouncements of organizations associated with the LTTE, and also of
various human rights organizations in Sri Lanka and elsewhere that claim
to be objective. More sadly, some awareness of Ms Arbour's position
may have underlain the pronouncement, at the session of the Human Rights
Council in Geneva last September of the Ambassador representing the
EU when he requested the government of Sri Lanka to agree to such a
presence.
The EU ambassador in Geneva was however circumspect in his statement,
unlike his counterpart in New York who was harshly critical of Sri Lanka,
in a manner that even the EU ambassador to Sri Lanka granted was 'not
helpful'. It was reported that he was simply stating what he had been
asked to by Brussels. This again is not surprising in a context in which
the European Commissioner for External Relations had last year criticized
the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister for having the LTTE banned in Europe.
His comment that the decision had been taken by the European Commission,
doubtless for good reason, went unheeded. The claim of the Commissioner,
no doubt intended in good faith, was that the ban had taken away her
opportunity to confront the LTTE in person.
She may have been under the impression that her remonstrations would
have converted them from terrorism to good democratic practices.
Such sentiments seem to have underlain the claim of Ms Arbour that
she was sorry the Sri Lankan government did not permit her to go to
areas under LTTE control, so that she could have told them what she
thought of their practices.
She may not be aware that she could do this without actually visiting
the LTTE leader, and allowing him to claim, as he has done with many
dignitaries in the past, though none perhaps as distinguished as Ms.
Arbour, that this is an example of the international community dealing
with a de facto government.
Unfortunately, whilst some of their governments have conducted very
aggressive campaigns against terrorism, which have involved suspension
of certain civil liberties hitherto thought sacrosanct, some individuals,
as represented by these otherwise admirable ladies, seem to believe
that a little maternal finger wagging would do the trick. Going hand
in hand with this belief is a continuing tendency of the UN and some
other international agencies in Sri Lanka to refrain scrupulously from
criticizing the activities of the LTTE.
Though it is claimed that they have made clear their abhorrence of
terrorism, there has been a stunning silence about particular acts of
terrorism that contrasts with criticism of each and every act of what
they elsewhere may categorize as more terroristic terrorists.
Thus, though it has been well known for the last year that the LTTE
engages in forced conscription, the UN has never highlighted this in
its reports. When the head of the UN in Sri Lanka was asked about this,
he claimed that there were reports, and then granted that this was in
internal documents. Though he promised to remedy this, when asked a
few months afterwards why he had not done so, he claimed that the UN
had given information to reporters.
This is simply not good enough, when taken in conjunction with recent
revelations of direct UN assistance to LTTE adjuncts which have clearly
promoted terrorism. Most recently it tranpired that the LTTE Peace Secretariat
had posted on its website adulatory pictures of suicide cadres meeting
with their leader, Mr Prabhakaran, before being sent off to their deaths.
The ambassador of the Royal Norwegian government, which had provided
funds to the LTTE PS (with the acquiescence of successive Sri Lankan
governments, in their belief that this would promote peace), had the
courage to call the LTTE PS and suggest they remove these photographs
- though of course they have not done so. However the head of the UN
in Sri Lanka, though requested to do the same, does not as yet seem
to have done so.
Meanwhile, though he cannot be blamed for this in a context in which
his predecessors do not seem to have followed basic norms of accountability,
he has as yet not answered several questions concerning a UNDP grant
to the LTTE PS. His counterpart who heads UNICEF is only now conducting
a detailed audit of Rs 100 million given to the TRO, an aid organization
now under investigation in several countries more consistent in their
fight against terrorism, for using their funds to purchase and transport
weapons after the Ceasefire was signed.
An earlier request to the previous UNICEF head for detailed accounts
and a statement of outcomes was ignored, and it was only after a parliamentary
question by an opposition member of parliament that UNICEF has decided
to do an audit. Meanwhile UNICEF has promised disciplinary action against
its officials in Sri Lanka who engaged in anti-government activity that
their terms of employment specifically forbid. Again when the current
head of UNICEF was asked why this inquiry follows a parliamentary question,
and was not taken six months ago when the offences first occurred, he
could only say that he had no idea.
Current UN officials in Sri Lanka cannot be faulted for the untoward
indulgence, carelessness or sheer incompetence of their predecessors.
As requested by them, in the memorable words of the Beatles, they will
be given time and 'a chance'. But unless and until such UN agencies,
headed in Sri Lanka by individuals from nations that seem to have previously
reached a consensus on increasing Ms Arbour's presence in Sri Lanka,
improve their performance, it would be unwise for a government struggling
against one of the most ruthless terrorist movements in the world to
multiply the entities with which it has to be firmer than it has been
in the past.
This does not of course mean that human rights can be ignored. The
Sri Lankan government continues to ask for assistance to improve both
its institutions and personnel engaged in the field. It has been granted,
by the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission amongst others, that the record
of the army in this regard is much better than it was.
Certainly we are light years away from the eighties, when the then
Sri Lankan government received almost unstinted support from nations
and agencies that are now concerned, and it was only the Indian government
that raised questions about the treatment of minorities.
However much more needs to be done, for instance with the police, who
interact more often with the public, and whose training has been comparatively
neglected. At its simplest training in other languages, to ensure that
language rights are upheld positively in any interactions, is vital
but government requests in this respect have gone unanswered. Again,
training in investigation and interrogation techniques would help to
professionalize the force, but apart from some sterling support in this
regard from the Swedish government, and some still basic assistance
with community policing by the British, little has been done.
It is extremely regrettable that, though there was a Senior Adviser
on Human Rights from the office of the High Commissioner, none of this
was taken forward. Instead there are records, including from the Sri
Lanka Human Rights Commission, of steadfast refusal to assist. It is
perhaps no coincidence that the previous holder of that position arrived
in Sri Lanka along with Ms Arbour and, almost before his visit began,
declared that he thought an increased presence a good idea, if only
- 'not to criticize his colleagues' as he engagingly put it - to make
up for the incompetence of other UN agencies in this field.
However his own record in the three years in which he was supposed
to make a difference suggest that, far from outputs being important,
it is simply the process that he favours.
All this should also be taken in conjunction with what, as one American
observer put it, may be characterized as 'an unhealthy obsession' with
a previous government. The UNDP project that assisted the LTTE PS was
signed by an earlier Secretary to the Prime Minister, who was a political
appointee who continues a close adviser of the Leader of the Opposition.
He has also been the Chair, or a member of the Board of, various Civil
Society organizations that benefited enormously from foreign assistance
during the tenure in office of the Prime Minister he served. Not perhaps
coincidentally, it was the Executive Director of one of those organizations
who chaired the Committee that dished out grants through that project,
while the UNDP failed to appoint either the National Coordinator for
that project, nor the high powered Steering Committee that should have
included senior government officials. Instead it used the services of
one of its own local employees who had previously worked for another
of the organizations in which the Secretary to the Prime Minister was
prominent.
This system of interlocking directorates as it were, all benefiting
enormously from the aid that flooded in during the initial stages of
the Peace Process, perhaps explains the vociferous demands for an office
reporting to Ms Arbour to be established in Sri Lanka. The government
of Sri Lanka has now realized that is must ensure a thorough audit of
the funding and outputs of such organizations. Meanwhile it will do
its best, through a more judicious use of aid than in the past, to ensure
development of its own national institutions that safeguard human rights,
welcoming international advice and assistance on how to ensure the credibility
and effectiveness of these.
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
|
