Kicking Facts Around
Secretary General
The Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP)
16th October 2007
The Peace Secretariat is sad but not surprised that much of the media
now claims that Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
has recommended that a UN Monitoring Mission be established in Sri Lanka.
This was after all what had been affirmed would happen by many of those,
led by Tamilnet, who were determined that the Sri Lankan government
should be penalized, as one newspaper memorably put it.
Given this determination, it was not likely that, when she made no
such recommendation, they would simply report what had happened or what
she had said. Earlier they had confidently claimed that the EU would
bring forward a resolution critical of Sri Lanka to the Human Rights
Council in Geneva. When this did not happen various explanations were
offered. The basic claim was that Sri Lanka had been narrowly saved
from censure, principally because the Human Rights Council was dominated
by banana republics and similar potty regimes. No such explanation was
however available when Louise Arbour failed to live up to expectations,
so a new strategy was required.
What might have appealed to the less dishonest amongst them was an
attempt to argue that what Louise Arbour said amounted as it were to
the recommendation that a UN Monitoring Mission be established. That
however would have required some semantic somersaulting that might not
have been plausible. Since retreat was not conceivable, and subtlety
is not the strong suit of the anti-Sri Lanka lobby, the only available
alternative was to claim that Ms Arbour had said what she did not say.
After all, as Goebbels proved, the louder and more often you assert
a falsehood, the more likely it is to be believed.
The particular agenda behind all this was made crystal clear in one
of the first announcements of the falsehood, in a radio station that
had a couple of seconds of Ms Arbour's speech, followed by a long translation
in Sinhala. Not only was the thrust of this quite different from what
the lady had said: the news had been preceded by the obviously much
more important and newsworthy announcement that Lakshman Kiriella had
announced the full support of the UNP for Ms Arbour's recommendation
of a Monitoring Mission.
Mr. Kiriella, it may be remembered, has been claiming for the last
month that the UN wanted to establish a Monitoring Mission here, that
nothing could stop it, and that if the Sri Lankan government did try
to stop it, the European Union would impose economic sanctions.
Meanwhile the Sunday Times also weighed in with a very dramatic lead
story headlined 'Showdown on key HR issues: Arbour insists on direct
UN monitoring; Lanka says no way.' Quotations from the press conference
had been carefully chosen to justify the headline, indicating the urgency
attached to the issue by the newspaper. Previously the Sunday Times
had rarely engaged in actual prevarication, leaving that to its sister
paper, which both the Peace Secretariat and the Sri Lanka Monitoring
Mission have had to correct on factual issues.
Now however the Times has also to be brought in for the heavy work,
given the urgency of the situation facing the UNP. I hasten to add I
do not the owner of the paper is responsible since, despite his relationship
to the opposition leader, he has always been a perfect gentleman as
far as manipulation of the press goes. But the paper has always had
certain predilections, and now perhaps it recognizes that this is the
last chance to promote them. Hence the almost vicious disclosures about
Mr Maharoof in the center page, which is usually so gentlemanly in its
analyses as compared with those who pursue a similar agenda more anxiously.
What does this agenda entail? I have no idea whether its proponents
understand the goals they will attain if they are successful, but certainly
it cannot have escaped their notice that these are precisely those of
the LTTE. Tamilnet was perhaps the first network to declare categorically
its own version of what Louise Arbour had proposed, and its backers
will leave no stone unturned to have this statement replicated internationally.
In short, what I predicted last week has been fulfilled in full measure.
Louise Arbour has become a football, to be kicked about at will, to
score goals for terrorists and others who do not mind sharing a terrorist
agenda provided it gets them their goals too. And perhaps they hope
that their opponents will join in too, and start kicking the poor lady
around, and then they can shed crocodile tears for her as they did for
Sir John Holmes. He, due to what he himself described as a report of
a single remark taken out of context, in an interview he gave contrary
to a commitment to the Sri Lankan government, was the subject of criticism
by a single minister. That criticism is now used to characterize the
Sri Lankan government's response to Sir John, even though everyone else
concentrated on the undoubtedly positive aspects of his visit.
Interestingly enough, there was an attempt to get Louise Arbour too
to grant an interview to the BBC contrary to her agreement, but fortunately
she did not give in to pressure on this score. The fact that the request
had not straight away been turned down may indicate what happened with
regard to Sir John. It would after all have been quite wonderful if
something she said privately had then been presented in a way that could
not be authoritatively questioned, and then this had led in turn to
a reaction from just one Sri Lankan that could then have been kicked
around as well. Indeed, one wonders whether the barrage of falsehoods
in the press regarding what Ms Arbour said are designed precisely to
provoke some reaction that could then be turned to good use.
All this could be prevented if Ms Arbour shows herself determined not
to be a football. Sir John did send a fairly handsome letter of apology,
which the Minister who had arranged his visit accepted gracefully, but
this was scarcely noticed in the media which concentrated instead on
controversial aspects. But now that Ms Arbour has been so clearly misrepresented,
she is in a position to issue a categorical denial. For too long now
the UN has been in a state of denial about the antics of the LTTE, its
terrorism and suppression of basic humanity in the area still under
its control, its ruthless abuse of UN funding. If Ms Arbour does actually
issue a correction as to what has been claimed about her, the Sri Lankan
government can work with confidence to develop its relationship with
her office as she desires. As Minister Samarasinghe made clear, the
government has already begun reforms in areas highlighted by her. It
would be useful if this activity could be taken further in active cooperation
and confidence.
Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
|
