The costs of pleading the fifth

Michele Sison can be loquacious

 

Americans of the United States are familiar with the term ‘Pleading the fifth’.  It refers to the 5^th Amendment to the Constitution which, in popular understanding, gives witnesses the right to desist responding to questions if it was felt that the answer would contribute to self-incrimination.  It has been used so often, in and out of court, that ‘pleading the fifth’ in common understanding in fact yields what it was designed to hide: incrimination. 

Now in US courts it is standard practice for witnesses  to place hand on Bible or whatever religious text that goes with the individual’s faith and pledge to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (“So help me God!”).  That said, the ‘fifth’ really doesn’t make any sense for its reference clearly wrecks the ‘whole truth’ part of the pledge.  For whatever reason, US courts (and of course constitution and amendment architects) don’t seem to mind. 

Sison can be as tight-lipped as Obama

Practice, however, has made that plea meaningless for juries do take note of that which is said and do reflect on reluctance to respond.  People take note too. 

Perhaps it’s a cultural thing.  Perhaps it is habit, having used ‘the fifth’ to get away with anything (should we say ‘to get away with murder’?) that prompts its ready use by citizens of that country who are stationed as diplomats in other parts of the world when tough questions are thrown at them. Perhaps it is nothing more than taking a leaf out of the President’s handbook for dealing with the uncomfortable (Barack Obama once said, ‘Please don’t ask us about that’).  Whatever it is ‘No comment’ seems to be the top response scripted for whoever has to answer the phone at the US Embassy in Colombo (and elsewhere too). 

It is strange indeed that the loudest mouth, so to speak, in the international community, that not only spits out threats and indulges in nauseating justification for countless crimes against humanity, cannot respond to a simple question for which the answer could be an equally simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. 

Last week it was alleged that an USAID official had promised to fund an opposition election campaign.  This was after the organization took an ad calling ‘civil society organizations’ to submit proposals for a voter education project.  The United States has support various election-related projects over the years.  Voter education is a patently joke-subject in a country that has enjoyed universal adult franchise for over 80 years, much longer than the USA which, even today, selects and does not elect its president and which on one occasion experienced a hilarious situation where the president was selected by a vote by a panel of judges!  What these voter education projects seek to obtain is therefore matter for suspicion, not least of all given the credentials of the outfits that have benefited from US largesse (see 'Is an election a "village tank" to monitors and donors' and 'On making valid points and fudging critical issues' for details of how the US was either swindled by prominent NGOs or else knowingly propped up dodgy outfits engaged in equally dodgy projects). 

That project has since been canceled and that is telling!  But never mind all that.  When the question is put, ‘was such an offer made?’ or if clarification is sought on the allegation, the US Embassy says ‘no comment’.  Pleading the fifth, essentially. 

As of now, to be fair to the opposition, no one has come up with any solid proof to substantiate the contention that such a meeting did take place and such an offer was indeed made.  The US does not help the opposition by pleading the fifth because conclusions can and will be drawn.  Given the long history of political interference outside stated mandate by USAID (the outfit was hoofed out of Russia), the Government has every right to summon officials for explanation.  Saying ‘I will come only if my momma accompanies me’ (momma being US Ambassador Michele Sison of course) doesn’t help un-cloud the picture.  It only gives credence to allegation. 

The Loudest Mouth in the World can do better than plead the fifth.  And if it fears conversation then it is laughable that it wants to educate voters because democracy is about debate and discussion, not silence and shy-making.  

Read more

Sison wrong, Cameron right

US Ambassador Michele Sison got it wrong.  Addressing a media briefing following the UNHRC vote on Sri Lanka, Sison dismissed allegations that the US-backed resolution was ‘against’ Sri Lanka.  In other words it was ‘for’ Sri Lanka, she implies. 

Now if the Government of Sri Lanka, which represents the people of Sri Lanka, thinks a resolution is ‘for’ the country, it would not oppose it.  The main opposition parties blame the government for putting the country in a position where such a resolution could be tabled and approved, have not exactly endorsed the document.   Only the Tamil National Alliance has openly cheered the resolution. The TNA, one time mouthpiece of a terrorist organization which continues to let pro-LTTE elements or LTTE-remnants to dictate party policy, is but a regional political entity whose sway is limited to just one province. 

For Sison to imply that she knows better than Sri Lankan what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans is unadulterated condescension.  From any other diplomat it would deserve the tag ‘unbecoming’, but she’s the representative of a country that has the word ‘ugly’ stuck on diplomacy and diplomat.  She got it wrong, but that’s not a surprise then. 

It must be mentioned that the USA didn’t cover itself in glory when other resolutions were debated, in particular five resolutions condemning Israel (the USA was the sole ‘nay-sayer’) and the Pakistan-led resolution on drone attacks which sailed through over the objections of the USA, Britain, France and a handful of other members who interestingly had voted against (yes) Sri Lanka.  

The USA objected to ‘the singling out of Isreal’, even though not too many hours before it put its full weight on ‘singling out Sri Lanka’. 

Sison got it wrong, but British Prime Minister David Cameron did not.  Cameron said ‘the UNHRC decision on Sri Lanka is a victory for its people’.  He got the wording right. His reasoning was off the mark and in that he was quite ‘Sisonic’.

It was a victory for Sri Lanka but not in the sense that Government spokesman mean ‘victory’.  The vote was a defeat, never mind that the US got one less than half the voting members to vote ‘yes’.  It is less than consolation to count each abstained vote as a ‘no’.  It was a victory, again in a consolation kind of way, that Sri Lanka, given the massive mismatch vis-à-vis the USA managed to have 12 countries support her, including China and Russia, not counting out the fact that there were political blocs to contend with. 

It was also consolation that India abstained, but too much should not be made of India’s position since the Indian ‘explanation of position’ demanded rejection and not ‘hands-off’.  A perusal of the Congress Party’s election manifesto would reveal the truth of India’s oft-uttered assertions of ‘friendly relations’ with Sri Lanka.  The Bharathiya Janathan Party is no better since it is talking ‘Monroe Doctrine’ these days with obvious reference to Sri Lanka’s ties with Pakistan, China and Russia.  These three countries backed Sri Lanka to the hilt.  Their statements were unambiguous and not compromised by the kind of pernicious meddling India is known for. 

But Cameron got it right because any process which reveals friend as well as enemy is a significant positive.  The vote revealed that India is no friend. The vote revealed that Pakistan, China and Russia are solidly on Sri Lanka’s side.  The vote revealed that there is absolutely no point in going beyond general courtesies in relations with the USA, UK, France and India; placating will not purchase a ‘back-off’. 

The bigger victory is that the government is now forced to acknowledge all this but especially the fact that its own survival and that of the country is dependent on the people standing as one.  The government must realize that such unity as necessary to meet the obvious threats articulated in Geneva cannot be obtained without rectifying institutional, constitutional and policy-related flaws that are patently anti-people.  Without redressing general grievances that are of economic and political nature, the government cannot count on continued support that is the final and most effective bulwark against meddling of any kind from the likes of Washington and London.

That ‘truth’ is political and pertinent.  ‘Geneva’ has produced it.    In that sense and that sense only, David Cameron, side-kick to Barack Obama though he is, is quite spot-on.  There’s ‘victory’ that counts in all this, subject to the caveat ‘if recognized, digested and acted upon’. 

msenevira@gmail.com

Read more

Stars of the Geneva Pantomime (Revisited)

[Go through this -- written 3 years ago -- and you will find the guys making noises are the same guys who've always made noises when they batted for the LTTE.  The exception is of course Sunila Abeysekera, now no more.  Oh yes, and Patricia Butenis has a new name: Michele Sison.  More importantly, you will find that this is indeed a pantomime and should be treated as such.  Applaud if you are duly entertained!]  

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-à-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

Read more

Michele Sison chortles (privately)

[In a parallel universe, of course]

I read somewhere that some cabinet ministers are peeved that I am in the habit of inviting heads of state institutions for chit-chat over coffee, tea, wine or whisky.  They are upset, I heard, that I ask them about developments taking place on the ground. They are upset that I don’t inform them of these invites and neither do these ladies and gentlemen.

They say I summon them.  I don’t do that.  I just say ‘drop in for a chat’.  Of course I have no illusions and neither do they, i.e. about the differences and similarities of ‘invite’ and ‘summon’, considering that I consider myself a Viceroy and most of them have deeply ingrained colonial chips on their shoulders.  Deep down I think the true source of this ministerial discontent is that I didn’t ‘invite’ them to salaam me and offer ground-situation reports.  Cracks me up!

So when I hear that the Sri Lanka Government is going to express its displeasure to my government over my behavior I can’t stop chortling.  Who was it who explained to me the meaning of the Sinhala saying horage ammagen something something? Was it Sara or Jehan?  Tissa J?  I can’t remember.  What these worthies don’t know is that I am by definition, JD and whatnot Washington’s creature.   

This is my job. This is my mandate.  Public discourse, these people still don’t know, is part and parcel of my duties.  It’s no state secret that US diplomats are trained to keep under check governments or elements within government that are not exactly buddies.  It’s all transparent.  It’s all mandated. All legal.  I am a busybody, true, but a busybody not by choice but by JD.  We are paid for to be busybodies. 

Senior politicians and officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs might remember a time when another busybody from another era did the same kind of things I do.  Gladstone.  He wined and dined. He entertained.  He did the destabilization number. He had willing dancers-to-tune.  I think Mangala would know.  At the time, we were all new to this business of ‘public discourse’.  He was a guinea pig of sorts and I believe he noted this in a memoir penned subsequently.  He was shown the door by President Ranasinghe Premadasa.  He was, we could say, ‘PNGed’.   That man, for all his faults, had the balls, as they say. 

It is less easy to declare me a Persona Non Grata.  Now someone might say that the difficulty arises from a delicate international situation where we have the power to tilt the balance of opinion against Sri Lanka.  Please remember that we are not talking about truth-worth and s*** like that.  Who the flower cares about right and wrong anymore, huh?  So, yes, we are planning to help Sri Lanka with a third resolution in Geneva.  Yes, we decide what helps and what detracts. That’s none of Sri Lanka’s business.  It’s our foreign policy cornerstone, folks: we decide, you better submit or else.  We won’t say that to China or Russia though, but Sri Lanka is neither of these countries. We know. They know. 

On the other hand (and this is what makes me almost choke with chortling) Sri Lanka has played the appeasement game to the max and has zilch to show for it.  It’s like water going over the nose – it really doesn’t matter if it goes over the ceiling.  There’s power there.  I can be shown the door. I can be PNGed.  It won’t make things better but neither will it make things worse in Geneva. 

This side of kicking me out, a general memo could be circulated to all Government servants regarding accepting invitations from my office.  It would look odd and would not be practical to extend this to all the missions in Colombo, but we could be black-balled for say three months.  It won’t be fun partying with me when the invited officials would have to check if someone’s watching them, waiting to throw the Establishments Code (I think that’s what it is called) at them.  These are surveillance days after all and don’t I, a Washington rep know that, never mind Snowden’s revelations. 

But I know that Sri Lankans or rather the top advisors to the President are essentially suffering from a serious set of post-colonial disorders.  For the one or two who would say ‘Let’s do a Premadasa’ there will definitely be two dozen who would say ‘oh no, we can’t afford to displease Washington’.  The truth is that Washington cannot be displeased any more than it already has. Sri Lanka has nothing to lose and doesn’t know it.  Stop!  I can’t bear this.  It’s so funny.  So damn funny.  I need some water. 

Ok.  Had water.  Breathed.  And I remembered that the Agfhan dude Karzai had said that the Americans can leave anytime and that they, the Afghans, will continue with their lives.  Now that’s sobering news.  He is dead right. I hope and pray that Mahinda doesn’t get to hear of it.  I would definitely not be getting the last laugh if he did.  It won’t be funny if I get PNGed.  I might suffer from PVTS and might never fully recover.  That’s Post-Viceroy-Trauma-Syndrome.

Flower! I need some tissue now.

Read more

Aney Haamuduruwane!

There is a school of opinion which holds that the clergy should not be involved in politics.  In fact UNP MP Wijedasa Rajapaksha has called for constitutional measures prohibiting clergy from entering Parliament, which would of course see his party man Eran Wickramaratne being barred as well, a fact which neither individual has dared comment upon.  The merits and demerits of such a move notwithstanding there is no escaping the fact that every single citizen has a right to opinion and the expression of the same, subject to the caveats pertaining to character assassination, libel and so on.   Everyone makes choices and very few choices are apolitical.

 

As such, no one can complain about the Maha Nayaka Theros expressing opinions on matters of national import, including that of the present tensions between the legislature and judiciary.  They can write to newspapers, make speeches and even express views privately.  Whether or not such privately expressed views are thereafter published for purposes unintended is a matter they may or may not know about or care about, but that’s not the point.  They have the freedom to express. 

The word of the Prelates needs to be listened to by all, of this there is no argument.  They may not get it right, but that’s a different matter.  They have on many occasions made political choices, some of which have been detrimental to the country and the people, which too one can dismiss as decisions prompted by notions of the wellbeing of all albeit based on incomplete information and inadequacies pertaining to reading the political.  Opinion is opinion, however, and as citizens they have the right to express views. 

So there is nothing wrong about the Maha Nayaka  of the Asgiriya Chapter the Most Venerable Udugama Sri Buddharakkita Thero chit-chatting with anyone, even with the US Ambassador Michele J Sison.  The Venerable Thero has every right to talk about anything with anyone; even the US Ambassador and even about the current tensions between Parliament and Supreme Court.  The Thero can pass judgment too.  By the same token the Thero will also be judged, with all due respect. 

Sison asked about the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, as she is entitled to, and the Venerable Thero responded, as is his right.  It was then, not just a courtesy call, but a visit to play agent provocateur as has been the not so side-role of US diplomats all over the world. 

Now it would be childish to say that the Maha Nayaka Thero is part of an international conspiracy led by the USA against the Government.  The question is, why even bother to discuss the subject with someone whose government cares next to nothing about justice, fair play, decency, propriety and such in domestic or international affairs.    It is certainly not something one expects from those who are often referred to as the Mura Devatavo (Guardian Deities) of the nation. 

The Venerable Thero perhaps out of courtesy is reported to have referred to acts of friendship.  Perhaps, again out of courtesy, the Venerable Thero kept silent on unarguable acts of aggression and enmity.  Perhaps out of ignorance, we could add, but let’s err on the side of compassion here.  Either way, circumspect ought to have been demonstrated.  It was not.  Pity.  

 

 

Read more

Goodbye Pat, hello Michele!

Michele Sison has not yet been appointed as the next US Ambassador to Sri Lanka.  She’s still ‘Ambassador Designate’, meaning that she has to subject herself to scrutiny by the US Senate before being confirmed.  She’s been asked questions, she’s answered; she’s been required to articulate statements of purpose and she’s done that.  One thing can be concluded: we don’t need to anticipate any surprises from Ms. Sison in the likely event of her being confirmed.

When the outgoing Ambassador, Patricia Butenis, assumed office a couple of years ago, she took the trouble to make a statement to the press of sorts, outlining her position on various issues and giving the impression that she is willing to field any questions on any issue.  She made out that she was for dialogue and openness.  It didn’t fool anyone of course.  The lady chose when and where and on what to speak. She chose her ‘friends’ carefully to.   There were those she listened to of course, but when you are the representative of a nation that has the power to blow up the world several times over, it probably doesn’t matter if you don’t get it right.  You can, simply, write it as you want to and not necessarily as it is.  That she did. 

No, there was no dialogue and there was no openness.  There was malice and unabashed interference in the internal affairs of the country in absolute violation of diplomatic protocol.  The best that can be said of her is that she was no worse that the man she replaced, one Mr. Robert O Blake, a meddler of the first order.  In that sense, and drawing strictly from history, both Blake and Butenis are excellent and representative specimen of US foreign policy.  Good for the USA, bad for US-Sri Lanka relations and terrible for Sri Lanka. 

It would be folly indeed to believe that the USA is lax when it comes to training diplomats.  They get the best men and women available for each and every job at whatever corner of the earth it may be.  There is no reason to believe that Ms. Sison would flip the script of her employer. Indeed, her statement could very well have been cribbed from whatever Butenis and before her Blake uttered when they went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Not that she had to memorize anything, for the exchange of views was framed by the Acting Chairman of the Committee, Bob Casey, who rattled off the litany of things that bother such people when they talk about Sri Lanka, but about which they really don’t give a damn when it comes to what their own policies produce. 

So Sison wants Sri Lanka to achieve ‘genuine reconciliation’ and she believes that this can only happen if steps are taken to ‘ensure equality and justice for all Sri Lankans, particularly those living in the former conflict areas’.  She even wants elections held in the North.

Why, thank you Ma’am! 

I doubt that when she said ‘equality and justice’ she meant the dismantling of the structures of exploitation that is also called ‘capitalism’.  I wonder, though, what she meant by the word ‘genuine’ because it implies that there is something called ‘bogus reconciliation’.  She believes too, it is clear, that she has some kind of authority to define ‘reconciliation’. 

If any non Sri Lankan mouthed such disingenuous rubbish, I would not hesitate to call that person ‘Nutcase’, but we are talking about the would-be US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Ms. Michele Sison, a woman who in the very least can be expected to do what Butenis did and what Blake did before that. 

One thing is certain, ‘reason’ will not work with her.  ‘Truth’ will not work with her.  Money and guns might, but we really can’t match the USA in a buck-for-buck, bullet-for-bullet manner and anyway, we are not that kind of a nation in the first place. 

So what are the options?   We could smile and tell the truth. We can resolve to whisper to her the truths that ought to bite her ear but may very well go unheard.  There’s not much we can do, really.  Except to keep saying ‘don’t think we don’t know; we do and we are not only horrified but amazed at the idiocy that persuades you to think we don’t’.

Are we being unfair?  Well, Butenis was asked many times to deliver on her promise of ‘openness’, but she remained clammed up throughout her tenure.  There’s no reason to believe that Sison would be different, given what she’s uttered so far.

Come on, Ms Michele Sison, prove us wrong!

Read more