The Manipulation of International Opinion

By: Prof: Rajiva Wijesinha

(October 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A Sri Lankan newspaper referred triumphantly recently to a report by a UN Special Rapporteur, in a characteristic attempt to attack the government. To quote the paragraph in full –

‘A damning report by Philip Alston the Special Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions has expressed serious concern over a spate of extra judicial executions by the military, para military and insurgent groups in Sri Lanka and said the situation had erupted into a crisis. Alston also castigated the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva and the General Assemby in New York for not having seen fit to take any action to address this situation. Alston has urged the UNGA and the HRC to penalize the government for its human rights abuses.’

However, examination of the report reveals that there is absolutely no trace in it of Mr Alston urging anyone to penalize the Sri Lankan government. It is unfortunate that the United Nations Office in Sri Lanka has not made this position clear although requested to do so.

Mr Alston’s report does raise questions about the working methods of UN special rapporteurs and the methodology of the reports they present in what seems to be all seriousness to the General Assembly. Leaving aside the question of Mr Alston’s 2006 report, which was thorough and helpful, it seems strange that, with no references at all to the Sri Lankan government in the body of his 2007 report (save for one historical mention pertaining to the correspondence of one of his predecessors in 1995), Mr Alston ends his report with the claim that the situation in Sri Lanka has now erupted into crisis.

The only reason he adduces for this is ‘the spate of extrajudicial executions being reported out of that country’. What he means by this is not clear. Over the last few months there have not been any letters from Mr Alston regarding this spate, save very recently when there has been a flood. His report was dated August 16th and then In September he sent several letters asking about the killing of civilians at Kathiravelli, about 38 Aid Workers (highlighting the ACF killings), about 13 killings in Kayts and about one killing at Ratgama.

The 13 killings at Kayts and the killings of the 17 ACF workers and 9 of the others took place before the commencement of the General Assembly last year. The Kathiravelli killings took place last November and the circumstances under which they took place, as a consequence of LTTE mortar attacks, has been clearly explained in several places to which Mr Alston would have had ready access. The recent spate then to which he refers turns out to be a trickle. Though of course these instances need to be investigated, they are hardly enough to justify the assertion of a crisis.

Elsewhere Mr. Alston complains how several countries do not reply to his letters. It is not clear whether Sri Lanka is supposed to be one of these, but recently certainly the Attorney General’s Department responded promptly to his query about the ACF workers. In any case it would be odd to have been faulted in August for having failed to respond to letters sent in September.

Mr. Alston’s decision then to include without any substantiation whatsoever a single paragraph about Sri Lanka at the very end of his report is the sadder in view of the much more balanced nature of his initial report, after his visit to Sri Lanka. Though he did certainly draw attention to shortcomings there, he was much more positive in his recommendations, and recognized that perhaps the greatest need was to build up capacity amongst for instance the police. Unfortunately, having gone away, he seems to have fallen prey to the general tendency to see Sri Lanka through reports that have a particular focus.

This indeed seemed to be the case with Sir John Holmes too, which is why his visit was in all respects save one so very successful. In discussion for instance he made it clear that he thought the situation in the East was much better than had been presented to him. This was the more significant, in that even the most recent UNHCR report on the situation had been relatively positive, but his comment suggested that he had been briefed by other sources too. However he was quite forthright in his insistence that there should be balance in UN reporting that had previously seemed without balance, and the positive results of this were apparent straight away.

And yet, despite this positive approach, Sir John ruined the positive impact of his visit by what he implied, in a rather handsome letter of apology, to have been a single remark in an interview. That interview was given contrary to his commitment to the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights who had arranged his visit. Now, clearly, Sir John Holmes had not arranged that interview. It must have been done by the local UN staff. Why did they do it? Did they not know of the commitment?

Whether Sir John, and the very positive relations that had been otherwise established, suffered as the result of manipulation or carelessness or folly will perhaps never be found out. But certainly there have been other examples of folly on the part of the UN, which suggests that it is not necessary always to suspect the worst. There was for instance the local head of UNICEF, who talked about new LTTE legislation being essential if they were to stop recruiting seventeen year olds. Though she promptly apologized, she would probably have continued to do this unthinkingly had she not been reprimanded. Conversely Radhika Coomaraswamy, who actually knows the situation, whose mentor Neelan Tiruchelvam was the victim of terrorism, addressed that particular problem forthrightly when she commented on the failure of the LTTE to subscribe to national law, thus making it clear that the UN itself gave no quarter to the UNICEF lady’s indulgence of LTTE bombast.

What we need then is knowledge, knowledge of the ground situation by senior intelligent personnel. This is why the Sri Lankan government welcomes visits by experienced analysts, who should be able to overcome the prejudiced and often illogical assaults on the country that are so common. When these assaults are accompanied by incredibly prejudiced reporting – Sir John’s comment transformed by Tamilnet into the claim that Sri Lanka was the most dangerous place on earth for aid, Philip Alston described as calling for the Sri Lankan government to be penalized, the European Union Parliament alleged to be debating Human Rights in Sri Lanka, the Canadian Representative at the UN in Geneva characterized as condemning Sri Lanka’s deteriorating HR situation – it is not surprising that some people in Sri Lanka feel we need to be defensive.

That would be a mistake. The remedy for the problems we face is engagement and more engagement. We need to discuss issues openly, welcome advice, appreciate assistance and institute reforms and better training where they are needed. We need also to register positive developments, such as the astonishingly decent record of the Sri Lankan forces in the recent operations in the East, whilst also recognizing that constant vigilance is necessary in combat situations to ensure adherence to rights and obligations. But such actions should be on our terms, based on the simple fact that the Sri Lankan democratically elected government represents all the people of this country, and is entitled to make decisions on their behalf without submitting to the fiats of other unaccountable bodies. Indulging prejudice and ignorance, whatever their source, would be a mistake in the context of the tremendous responsibilities, for security and livelihood development in long neglected areas, that the government has to fulfill.

The writer is a Secretary General, Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process of Government of Sri Lanka.