The Geneva Battle
Dr.Dayan Jayatilleka Sri Lanka's Ambassador /Permanent Representative
to the UN Geneva (Speaking) and Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary General
- SCOPP
The success of Sri Lanka's aggressively independent stance was reflected
in the outcome of the 6th session of the UN Human Rights Council in
Geneva that concluded Friday.
To the great embarrassment of Sri Lanka, the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Louise Arbour, declared that the Colombo government's
human rights enforcement machinery was ineffective and urged the setting
up of a UN rights monitoring office in the country.
Arbour's call came in the context of the fact that, through 2006 and
2007, 290,000 civilians, mostly Tamils and some Muslims, had been displaced
by the war and over 3,500 were killed. Attacks, extortions, abductions,
disappearances and arbitrary detentions were going on, sometimes with
state backing and aided by the tough anti-terror law made in December
2006.
The delegations of the US, EU, France, South Korea, Sweden, Canada
and New Zealand voiced support for Arbour's call to set up a UN monitoring
office in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka seemed to be isolated, but it fought the move tooth and nail
-- and succeeded in scuttling it.
Talking the battle into the adversary's territory, its ambassador to
the UN in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleke, said his country did not want to
be 'preached' by states whose human rights record was 'far from perfect'.
Sri Lanka would take advice from international bodies only when these
had 'transparency of funding' and when their agendas were 'not donor
driven', he declared brazenly.
Sri Lankan officials had kept hammering the point that their country
could not be asked to observe Queensberry Rules in a war-cum-insurgency
situation in which a beleaguered state was battling one of the most
ruthless and well-organised insurgent groups in the world. They accused
the UN agencies and international rights organisations of not taking
adequate note of the LTTE's rights violations or rapping it hard enough.
To the delight of Sri Lankan delegation and disappointment of Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch, the UN council concluded its deliberations
without passing the expected resolution castigating Sri Lanka. Japan,
India and the Philippines had thrown their weight behind Sri Lanka at
the council.
Clearly, the LTTE's behaviour since the Norway-sponsored ceasefire
agreement in 2002 had helped the Sri Lankan government bolster its case
against censure.
The LTTE had scuttled peace talks, provoked the government to take
military action, bombed civilians outside the war zone and assassinated
political leaders by using suicide bombers.
The international community was indeed concerned about the suffering
of the Tamils and Muslims in the war zones of the north and east. But
this concern could not be translated into concrete support for these
communities because the LTTE would not play ball. The LTTE was also
using forms of violence like suicide bombing which are deplored in the
present day world.
India shared Sri Lanka's views on the LTTE as it had discovered, over
years of close interaction, that it could not have any meaningful interaction
with that militant group. The LTTE was too narrow minded and intransigent
for that.
As for Japan, it had turned hostile to the LTTE after its repeated
efforts to get it to the negotiating table failed. The LTTE had also
spurned Japanese offers of development aid if it took the path of peace.
No wonder then that both New Delhi and Tokyo stood by Colombo at Geneva.
While Colombo's case at the Human Rights Council may have some merits,
the persistent attacks against UN organisations and international NGOs
seem to be needlessly confrontational. But here again, there has been
no backlash of any kind from the affected parties.
Unicef has come in for much flak both in parliament and outside for
having, in its offices, 'Ready to Eat' food packets supplied by a French
military contractor. It was alleged that the packets were meant for
the LTTE's fighting units!
Unicef explained that such packets were routinely distributed among
its offices in conflict areas across the globe as part of a survival
kit. But the government remained unconvinced and police sleuths were
told to probe the allegation.
International NGOs working in the conflict zone routinely face hostility,
both in word and deed.
British High Commissioner Dominic Chilcott appealed to Sri Lankans
not to demonise UN organizations, but this fell on deaf ears. At any
rate, Chilcott had spoilt his case by saying that the LTTE's demand
for an independent 'Eelam' was not 'illegitimate'.
The government not only summoned him for a dressing down but also announced
that it would complain to the Foreign Office in London.
Earlier, in August, cabinet minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle called the
UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes, a
'terrorist who had taken money from the LTTE'. Holmes had said that
Sri Lanka was a 'risky' place for aid workers.
When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described Fernandopulle's remark
as 'unacceptable and unwarranted', the minister made it plain that he
did not 'care a damn.' The UN's response to this was silence.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/071217/43/6oidp.html
|
