The US Ambassador, Patricia Butenis is reported to have invited some people to discuss a report submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by some personal advisors. Why Ki-moon has to make public a personal communication I do not know. It does seem odd that he treats the said notes as documents that have official and legal standing within the UN system. As odd is this meeting called by Butenis ‘to discuss’ we are told, the above personal communication, in order to figure out ‘how to make use of it as a constructive instrument for reconciliation instead of one of division and polarization’.
First of all, if a representative of the United States
Government was to use anything to bring about ‘reconciliation’ in another
country, then protocol demands that relevant discussions should be held with
responsible and appropriate authorities in the Government of the particular
country. While the Embassy has refused to comment on
the meeting or what has been discussed, one of the invitees has revealed what
it was all about.
The report (in the Daily Mirror online version) came under
the heading ‘Diplomats, NGO talk on report’.
The identities of the party-goers were embedded in the title, at least
as far as those who are alert to political machinations in Sri Lanka are
concerned. There was Paikiasothy
Saravanamutt (Centre for Policy Alternatives), Jehan Perera (National Peace
Council) and J.C. Weliamuna (former head of Transparency International). All three organizations are under a cloud suspect
regarding financial deals and how and on what they spent enormous amounts of
money obtained from various donors including the USA. That Butenis, who came out to publicly defend
(to the best of her ability) these three organizations, invites them to a
chit-chat about how Sri Lanka should manager her (Sri Lanka’s) affairs does not
come as a surprise. Not surprising
either that Perera subsequently underlined the fact that Butenis had come out
in his defense.
There had been three other invitees. Sudarshana Gunawardena (Rights Now) once
engaged in shameless chest-beating, claiming ‘The Government’s war balloon will
burst in Killinochchi!’ That was wish, not prediction based on sober
consideration of ground realities. Sunila Abeysekera has accumulated
considerable credentials as a mouthpiece for Eelamists. She has campaigned tirelessly to conflate the
LTTE and the Tamil Community. Her loyalties are well known. The third, Sherine Xavier (Home for Human
Rights) has openly stated that among her role models was Adela Balasingham,
widow of the LTTE’s longest serving ideologue, Anton Balasingham. Adela was not
an LTTE sympathizer. She was and is an ardent and unrepentant LTTE activist and
an apologist for that organization.
Xavier has made her ideological and political loyalties pretty clear.
These individuals have frequently argued for legitimization of
the LTTE and granting of status-parity vis-Ã -vis the Government of Sri Lanka,
and demonstrated a consistent determination to turn a blind eye on atrocities perpetrated
by that organization. Wikileaks has revealed that Butenis has been
one of the biggest advocates for an international investigation into the manner
in which the military offensive was executed.
Saravanamuttu has been a cheerleader for the same and one of the first
to applaud the love-notes exchanged between Ki-moon and his ‘advisors’. There are no prizes for ascertaining the
identities of the principal sources tapped by these ‘advisors’. This post-report tea party therefore was
scripted a long time ago, i.e. when Ki-moon was prevailed upon by individuals
such as Butenis to circumvent and thereby undermine the UN system and all
procedural statutes. In short, it would
not be incorrect to say that Butenis had in fact met with the local branch of
the LTTE’s rump. That she invited other
diplomats shows attempts to broaden the political base of this insurgent
collective.
Jehan Perera says that the meeting was about turning the
advisory note into a ‘constructive instrument’.
He does not dare question the validity of the document in terms of
procedural norms of the UN. He is blind
to the manifest double standards embedded in the very exercise. He does not dare question the reliability of
sources. He will not dare comment on the
neutrality-credentials of Ki-moon’s advisors nor acknowledge their slant
towards the LTTE position regarding all things Sri Lankan.
He will not pick out discrepancy, contradiction,
exaggeration, meanness of spirit, LTTE-slant, whitewashing of terrorism, lack
of substantiation, malice, selectivity, academic dishonesty etc., all of which
jumps out of the text at every turn.
That he (and others, probably) believe that anything ‘constructive’ can
be squeezed out of such a woefully compromised document says a lot about his
intellectual ability and overall integrity.
I challenge Jehan Perera, here and now, to an open debate at
a forum of his choosing, about how such a document can be used ‘constructively’
for reconciliation. It would be
incumbent upon him to prove its worth as an effective instrument against
division and polarization.
The meeting indicates a need to close ranks. It is the typical response of those who have
nowhere to hide. Now it is
official. It is now established beyond a
shadow of doubt that Ambassador Butenis has entertained the local
representatives of the LTTE’s rump.
Jehan Perera has confirmed this.
Full marks for his honesty (but will he tell us if the ‘advisors’
consulted him?). Zero for his
intellectual worth. Zero for his political designs. Zero for his malice.
msenevira@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment