Well, it depends who is trying to make what of what
she has said of course, but let’s take a stab at it anyway. Let’s first state bias (something that
‘neutrals’ who are ideologically driven contrary to claim do not). I am suspicious of Navi Pillay. She is selective in her targeting of
countries, plays pussycat to big name nations and acts tiger to nations that
big name nations she’s terrified of want to target for censure.
She is quick to pick up horror stories, slow to
check reliability of source. She has the
gumption to talk about which department best fits which ministry and about
constitutional enactments of her preference, as though she is Viceroy, but is
tight-lipped about the US Patriot Act. Tokenism is her ‘out’ when it comes to
Sri Lanka’s detractors, imply that allegation is proven crime her pat-line on
Sri Lanka. She doesn’t compare and contrast
because that would amount to stripping in public. Understandable.
But what has she said?
She says Sri Lanka is heading towards authoritarian
rule. Correct. Not news.
That piece of ‘news’ is 35 years old (someone should give her a copy of
the 1978 Constitution). Can it be
changed? Yes. The Government has the
numbers. But do politicians have the
will? Are we naïve enough to believe
that those with power will agree to have wings clipped? Saying and doing are two different
things. Criticism is good, political
activism is better, but regime-change projects are different from system-change
projects. Tougher.
As for her enumeration of various ‘disturbing
developments’ she is perhaps swayed by inflated versions of interested
parties. Inflation serves politicians
and detracts from the aggrieved. On the
ground, there is disappointment, but is there widespread ‘horror’? No.
That’s unfortunate of course, but Pillay can blame the inflators, for
the people are not unaware of their track records during and after the long
struggle to rid the country of the terrorist menace.
She has threatened Sri Lanka in no uncertain
terms. She has said that if Sri Lanka
doesn’t set up credible (i.e. independent, comprehensive and transparent)
processes to investigate allegations, then calls for international inquiry will
continue. Leaving aside that the ‘if’,
if complied with, never really resulted in the ‘then’ of if-then clauses as far
as the movers and shakers of the international community are concerned, there’s
nothing to stop the Government of taking this as a positive and even friendly
suggestion. The downside is that we live
in a world where once a country is targeted, nothing done is deemed ‘enough’.
The most important part of her missive is the following:
‘The LTTE was a murderous organization that
committed numerous crimes and destroyed many lives. Those in the diaspora (sic) who continue to
revere the memory of the LTTE must recognize that there should be no place for
the glorification of such a ruthless organization.’
First, she should have mentioned those in Sri Lanka
who ‘revere the memory of the LTTE’ to that note. Secondly, she should understand that the
human rights activists and journalists she is concerned about (and whose
glorious lies have been repeated enough, expanded, believed and written as fact
in reports she has read and which no doubt color her reading) are part of that
group. The Government can and must ask
her to make the connection, with adequate substantiation of claim of course. Fourth, Messers Suresh Premachandran, R.
Sampanthan, M. Sumanthiran and Chief Ministerial aspirant Vigneswaran will now
be required to explain their conduct vis-à-vis this ‘diaspora’, the
diasporic-funds, moral support and so on.
Whereas Pillay wants the Government to set up
mechanisms to investigate allegations (note, ‘allegation’ is not the same as
‘proven charge’), she has squarely concluded that the LTTE committed crimes
against humanity. Now the Government can
insist that she follows up, by taking to task the approvers, beneficiaries and
glorifiers of those horrendous crimes.
The Government can and must take this as the base
document for all future engagement with the UNHRC, with a permanent
introductory note on all missives quoting Pillay’s LTTE take. The Government can and must work out
modalities for proper investigation, not because Pillay wants it, but the
people need to know.
She spoke of ‘truth, justice and reparations for
people’s suffering during the war’. Excellent!
Can Pillay please use her friends in high places to get the ‘Diaspora’
to cough up on behalf of the LTTE? And
can Pillay please ask Dr. Manmohan Singh to compensation Sri Lanka for Delhi’s
considerable role in causing untold suffering in Sri Lanka?
As for authoritarian tendencies, Pillay must
understand that it is our business and not the business of the international
community. Pandering to the
regime-change lobby will only give further credence to the general perception
that the UN and UNHRC are out of order.
That will strengthen regime. That
will postpone democratization and put constitutional amendment on the
back-burner (without gas).
Her piece disappoints Eelamists and their tag-along circus of internally
displaced politicians and ideologically misplaced 'human rights activists' and
'journalists' more than it would dismay the Government. Pillay has
done a poor ‘worst’, the Government might conclude. [You can write directly to Malinda Seneviratne at msenevira@gmail.com]
0 comments:
Post a Comment