Stay safe Ms Bachelet, wherever you may be

I have no idea where the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet is right now. Her missives have a Geneva address, but that could be on account of the location of her office. Perhaps she’s holed/held up in her office. Perhaps at her residence. Perhaps somewhere else she was visiting but is unable to leave on account of strict restrictions on movement imposed as a measure to battle Covid-19. I hope she is well. I hope she is safe. I hope she is washing her hands frequently. I hope she’s maintaining social distance. I hope she uses a face mask. As per precautionary protocols. I want all creatures, vocal and otherwise, powerful or powerless, young or old, male or female, belonging to every race, religious, political/ideological community and of every conceivable sexual orientation to be safe, to be in good health and at peace with themselves and one another. na antalikkhe na samudda majje na bappathaanan vivarang pavissa Na vijjati so jagathippadeso yatthatthitan tappasabhetha maccu Thus spake Siddhartha Gauthama, the Enlightened One. In the seamless skies, in the vast ocean, deep within a mountain or anywhere else, there is no place that is known to anyone where one can from the jaws of death hide, the Buddha said. So, let me repeat. I wish that Ms Bachelet is well, safe and in good health.  It’s something, as I mentioned, I wish on one and all, but I am thinking of Michelle in particular. The lady has quite rightly stated in the context of combating Covid-19, that emergency powers ‘should not be a weapon Governments can wield to quash dissent, control the population, and even perpetuate their time in power.’ Indeed! Well said! Not some deep philosophical observation, true, but still. Needed to be said. Now the UNHRC has clearly stated that international law does allow states to restrict some rights in order to protect public health, with additional powers available if a state of emergency is declared. The UNHRC states that more than 80 countries have announced a state of emergency related to Covid-19 and that others have put in place ‘exceptional measures.’ The World Health Organization (WHO), i.e. the supreme multilateral body pertaining to healthcare and disease control and prevention, and a sister agency of the one that Michelle heads, is doing its best but is understandably a bit clueless. The WHO cannot be blamed. The world finds itself in trial-and-error mode. What we know today we didn’t know yesterday and might be found to be false tomorrow. The WHO initially told the world that the virus cannot be transferred from human to human. They recanted. The WHO claimed that face masks are unnecessary; now they strongly recommend them. The WHO issued guidelines for disposal of bodies, but those guidelines have been brought into question by the fact that those handling cadavers have been infected and of course the need to apply the better-safe-than-sorry adage given the enormity of overall ignorance about the virus’ behavior. So, individual states are doing what they feel is best. Sure, that can be a convenient cover for the kinds of excesses Michelle is worried about. Such things have happened and are happening. The USA, to use an analogy, bombed countries into the middle ages so that they can enjoy democracy (hmm… well ...so that the US could obtain strategic edge, expand markets and plunder resources). Anyway, someone in Michelle’s office has made a list and it’s being shaken many times. Of the 80 that have declared emergency, we told that there are 15 where ‘the allegations were deemed most troubling.’ Sri Lanka is one of the ‘dirty fifteen,’ no surprise there given Michelle’s ignorance and/or arrogance based in part probably by lies agreed upon by the cabal that controls the rights mafia, supported in no small measure by the rent-a-signature cohorts in Sri Lanka masquerading as rights activists. I don’t know in what ways Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and other countries have erred in Michelle’s eyes. Georgette Gagnon, Director of Field Operations (nice names they come up with, almost as though the UNHRC is a war machine!) has claimed ‘there are probably several dozen more we could have highlighted.’ How very generous of the UNHRC not to name and shame them. The only reference to Sri Lanka is the fact that ‘more than 26,800 people have been detained.’  Detained for what? Well, curfew violation. What would Michelle have authorities do? Should Sri Lanka have not imposed curfew? Having imposed curfew, should Sri Lanka lift it because Michelle is upset? Is Michelle saying that those who violate curfew should be ignored, that the police and security forces tasked to enforce such restrictions should turn a blind eye on them? Should the violators have been patted on their backs and conferred medals for bravery? Should they have been given lollipops? Michelle’s ignorance is legendary of course. Just after the much-talked of ‘Mannar Mass Graves’ were found out to have been more than 400 years old, the lady referred to the same in dire tones of censure when speaking of Sri Lanka. She has bones to pick, clearly. Interestingly, Michelle hasn’t included Nepal and India in the list of ‘dirty’ nations, even though civilians were brutally attacked in both countries. Containment measures imposed by India resulted in migrant workers being thrown out of their houses by landlords and hundreds of thousands forced to walk hundreds of miles to their villages. Sri Lanka, in contrast, took every possible measure to fly back citizens trapped in other countries. Sri Lanka extended the visas of all foreigners currently in the island and unable to get to their respective home countries, assuring them that they will be treated as though they were also citizens. Sri Lanka even treated infected patients in ships that happened to be in Sri Lankan waters. Every possible step has been taken to track and trace the possibly infected. Quarantine, isolation and treatment — that’s the order of the day. Systems are in place to ensure that the  sequestered don’t run out of food or medicine, especially the poor. Measures are in place to ensure that schools and universities continue to function even in these restrained circumstances. Perfect? Of course not. The testing regime is weak and is only now taking off the ground. There is abuse in the distribution system. Sri Lanka is also in trial-and-error mode, after all. What is interesting is that the Sri Lankan people have not protested the so-called ‘brutal lockdowns.' Even the Opposition (which include the darlings of rights agencies who are clueless about their track records and machinations or else know but choose to be ignorant) hasn’t complained. In fact when they do whimper, it is to urge the government not to open up too soon. All relevant agencies, the WHO included, have praised Sri Lanka’s efforts so far. We are not out of the woods, most certainly not. We might see things getting much worse before it gets better. That’s not on account of being lax though. Maybe Michelle, wherever she may be, needs to feel relevant, fearing perhaps that she might be the victim of a redundancy edict or cost-cutting measures of the UN post-corona. Poor thing. She’s exposed herself once again. The government would do well to ignore her altogether. She doesn’t deserve an answer. She, on the other hand, could take a chill-pill. Who knows, it might work in the absence of a treatment regime guaranteed to succeed.  In any event, let me for the third time say it: I hope she is safe and in good health, maintaining social distance, wearing a face mask etc. And I hope she reflects deep on what her life has been and the errors of her ways. Perhaps the following words of the Buddha might be relevant. Time passes. The night ends, consuming life. The life to live diminishes. Those who are at death’s door may be fearful and therefore, in anticipation of the bliss of nirvana, is well advised to let go of attachment.’ (Accenti Sutra, Samyutta Nikaha).   We are all dying and the fact is palpably evident thanks to Covid-19. Michelle Bachelet, wherever she is, is clinging to ‘Sri Lanka’ for dear life, ironically. A burden unnecessary, that’s what it is. RELATED ARTICLES: When you have a bone to pick Michelle Bachelet needs a tutor Mangala Samaraweera and his little pals of spin Taking ownership of reconciliation: truths, half-truths and humbuggery On misnaming victim, misconstruing victimization and wishing away aggressor Being in the Republic of Fear Gota, parliament and the question of representation  Avurudu in enhanced circumstances  The Theory of Three Chillie Plants  Vulnerability, fear and the legitimizing of prejudice Prioritize the poor and vulnerable Homovirus and Coronavaccine The WHO, 'civil society' and the parameters of sanity Every citizen has to be a ˆsuvaviruwa' A test run for a better tomorrow The Coronavirus could sober up the 'Development Intoxicated'   Lockdown is a key to unlock minds Let's not stop singing in the lifeboats When the Welikada Prison was razed to the ground Looking for the idyllic in dismal times Avurudu in the time of Covid-19 Let's raise an army of rainmakers  Water the gardens with the liquid magic of simple ideas, right now   A heart-note to Italy There's canvas and brush to paint the portraits of love  We might as well arrest the house  Vo, Italy: the village that stopped the Coronavirus The 'village' in the 'city' has more heart than concrete We need 'no-charge' humanity The 'we' that 'I' forgot  Liaashya keeps live alive, by living  Heroes of our times   malindasenevi@gmail.com.

Read more

On misnaming victim, misconstruing victimization and wishing away aggressor

They were forced into a cage by the LTTE and they were rescued. That's it.

Does withdrawing from Resolution 30/1 demonstrate a rejection of human rights and accountability? Does it indicate total disregard for the UN, UNHRC, UN member states and the international community? 

Not necessarily. It’s not as though the entities referred to above are error-free, without bias and impervious to machination, from within and without. Countries err, multilateral bodies err too. It can be cogently argued that Sri Lanka erred in 2015 regarding Resolution 30/1. It can also be argued that the UNHRC was ‘moved’ by powerful nations with agenda that had little to do with human rights and accountability, indeed countries that have routinely thumbed their metaphorical noses at such things for decades. As for ‘international community’ that’s a crude and much-abused term. We live in a one-country-one-vote international system but only in appearance. There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes arm-twisting, cajoling and even purchase.  

Let’s return to the first question. The answer would be ‘yes’ only if one believed Resolution 30/1 to be a decent document that took into account ground realities, histories, political contexts, constitutional limitations and so on. Resolution 30/1 simply ignored all of that. 

We are still left with the issues of human rights and accountability. These are perennial issues. They arise or rather they are breached and corrected in different contexts. They are there and therefore they can be violated. This is why we have to have rules and mechanisms, first to do our best to see these things are upheld and if not to a) correct flaws that make for violation and b) hold those who violate accountable. We are not there yet, obviously, but there’s nothing to say that we cannot get there on our own. In any event, the do-gooders who want to ‘help’ really don’t have any credentials, do they now?

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet has spoken of systemic barriers that impede real justice. She believes that ‘as a result’ victims remain denied justice. No justice system is perfect and ours has numerous flaws, agreed. However, it is also possible that Bachele’s gripe has to do with an absolute misreading or misrepresentation of victim and aggressor, either deliberate or on account of rank ignorance. I suspect it’s a mix of both but heavy on the former. 

The focus is on the so-called last days of the battle against terrorism. Some limit it to the final days before the LTTE’s military leadership was annihilated. Some talk of the first five months of 2009. That dating is wrong. It was a 30 year long war. There was blood. There was death, dismemberment, destruction and displacement. In wars there is aggression. You don’t get passive wars, ever. There were terrible violations on the part of the Sri Lankan security forces, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, a period when politics was dominated by the United National Party (especially under J.R. Jayewardena) and the People’s Alliance (when Chandrika Kumaratunga called the shots). If it’s about victims, accountability and compensation then all those affected during that time (including of course those who bore the brunt of terrorism) would have to be considered. 

But no, we are told it’s about ‘the last days of the war.’ So let’s go there. 

Here’s the scenario.  The world’s second most brutal terrorist organization (No 1 would be the US military) fleeing the advancing Sri Lankan security forces corralled hundreds of thousands of people (Tamil civilians), forcing them to retreat along with combatants. That was the infamous human shield. In fact they were held hostage by the LTTE. 

Now the LTTE had for years pilfered food and medicine sent to people living in the conflict zones. Sacks of grain were used to line bunkers. Equipment transported to LTTE held areas during the infamous ‘Ceasefire Agreement’ between Ranil Wickremesinghe and Velupillai Prabhakaran, ostensibly to help restore normalcy, was seized and deployed for military purposes. For decades the LTTE abducted children, gave them military training and sent them to battle. During this time, the LTTE set up and operated a lucrative international network that engaged in drug-running, arms-smuggling, people-trafficking, extortion and all manner of crimes. 

Last days. The hostages wanted to leave, but the LTTE did not let them. In one gory incident the LTTE herded wounded female LTTE cadres into two buses and blew them up. The logic? They were a liability — if they were allowed to leave the No Fire Zone and into areas cleared by the Sri Lankan security forces, there was a risk of vital information passing into the hands of ‘the enemy’ and if they remained, they would constitute an additional burden in already trying circumstances. In order to discourage those who wanted to leave, the LTTE fired at fleeing hostages. In order to dissuade the security forces the LTTE sent to a ‘receiving point’ a kid, strapped with a backpack full of explosives which were duly detonated. 

So we had victims. They were victimized for years by the LTTE and in particularly pernicious ways during ‘the last days.’ They were each given one glass of rice gruel a day. That’s it. If the security forces did not move in, they would have perished of hunger. The security forces did move in. People did die. They were victims of a war that the LTTE called for. Remember that all attempts at negotiated settlements from the eighties onwards (Thimpu, 1985) were scuttled by the LTTE. One time LTTE international spokesperson Lawrence Thilakar famously said ‘we view all initiatives at negotiated settlements such as ceasefires and peace talks through a military lens.’  The LTTE without doubt was the main aggressor here. They created a situation that made a bloodless freezing of hostages untenable.   

And it is not the case that the only victims are those held hostage by the LTTE and who died in that massive hostage rescue operation. Every single citizen of Sri Lanka was a victim of LTTE terrorism. There were people who died in suicide attacks, there were villagers hacked to death, rival political organizations decimated, heads of state assassinated, children abducted and countless acts that wrecked the economy and further burdened the population. How about some human rights narrative about all that? How about accountability? How about talking about all victims and not only those whose victimhood was a consequent to LTTE aggression and its ending the result of military action to which there was no other alternative? 

Victim. Victimhood. Aggressor. Aggression. Talk about these things selectively, leave out certain key elements of the story and ignore the main perpetrator and yes, you will get a skewed picture. Gaze long enough at that visual and all of a sudden you are talking about systems that are flawed. And you worry over past patterns of human rights violations recurring.  

The interesting thing is this part narrative also increases the risk of recurrence. That’s how it is. And that’s why this lament over withdrawing from Resolution 30/1 silly if not obnoxious. 

This article was first published in the DAILY MIRROR 

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Taking ownership of reconciliation: truths, half-truths and humbuggery

Nothing 'general' about these assemblies, nice visual notwithstanding

Reconciliation. That’s a word that’s been abused much. Just like ‘peace,’ in the heady days of the ‘Ceasefire Agreement’ (CFA) signed by Ranil Wickremesinghe and Velupillai Prabhakaran. The main problem of such terms is that they are open to multiple interpretation. 

What ‘peace’ meant for the LTTE and of course its mouthpieces, including the TNA at the time, was ‘Eelam’. What it meant for the United National Party was ‘space to implement a pro-USA neoliberal agenda.’ Reconciliation is similar. A vague term. Describable in multiple ways. Ideology-framed. Veer from what YOU think it means, and immediately you can say ‘he/she is against peace, is a warmonger,’ or ‘he/she doesn’t want reconciliation.’ 

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet exploits this definitional vagueness well. She’s unhappy that Sri Lanka withdrew from the ill-conceived and pernicious Resolution 30/1. She says she’s not convinced that yet another commission of inquiry would deliver. Commissions haven’t really delivered, this is true. On the other hand, non-delivery of one commission doesn’t mean another wouldn’t deliver either. Thirdly, what is the ‘deliverable’ here? Bachelet’s understanding of what ‘reconciliation’ means?  

What does she want, really? She has said she’s troubled by a recent trend towards moving civilian functions under the Ministry of Defense or retired military officers. Such trends are certainly a concern, but then again, in a situation where civil administration in certain spheres is at a standstill if not collapsed, that’s a reasonable interim remedy. 

She’s also upset by ‘reports’ of surveillance and harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and victims. She knows that we’ve had terrorist sympathizers masquerading as rights defenders and journalists. As for victims, she probably doesn’t know that every citizen was a victim of terrorism and there’s nothing wrong in a country subject to terrorism from being alert to possible victimization of the same kind. Take context out and she has a point. On the hand, take context out, and it’s a caricatured and even shady narrative that emerges. Use that as foundation and you can extrapolate in any direction you want, naturally framed by your outcome preferences. 

Anyway, none of these ‘reports’ are substantiated. The ‘sources' at best are unreliable. We’ve had a lot of that in the past and that’s what went into the substance of the infamous Darusman Report, based on which the UNHRC needled Sri Lanka at every turn. Eventually, the movers and shakers, principally the USA (which called the UNHRC ‘a cesspool of bias’), got a pliant government to co-sponsor and anti-Sri Lanka resolution (30/1) in 2015.

So she’s upset. She regrets the fact that the new government ‘has announced a very different approach to the commitments previously made in the resolution which risks setting back efforts to advance reconciliation, accountability and human rights.’

Lovely play with words! What ‘reconciliation’? What kind of ‘accountability’? Does throwing in ‘human rights’ purify a cesspool? Why hasn’t she come clean on the utter lack of accountability on the part of the UNHRC with regard to all the falsehoods in the Darusman report? Has she ever asked who fed that ill-willed panel to advise Ban-ki Moon? If she did, was she appalled to find out that the feeders of misinformation happened to be wearing journalistic and rights advocacy garb? 

Bachelet believes that Sri Lanka’s ‘independent institutions’ were strengthened under the 19th Constitutional Amendment and that they are key pillars in its democratic structure. What utter ignorance! Has she read the 19th or is she taking the word of ill-willed, politically and ideologically compromised ‘human rights activists’ and ‘journalists’? The 19th was a piece of trash. It was pushed through ignoring a Supreme Court observation that certain sections were unconstitutional and would require a referendum. The composition of the all important Constitutional Council (which plays a key role in setting up these independent institutions) is so politician-heavy and, given context, was scripted to constitution institutions that were heavily pro-Government. The lady needs to do a bit of reading, obvious. 

Not unexpectedly, the UNHRC’s and USA’s point-man in Colombo, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mangala Samaraweera has chirped an echo.

His missive, on the same subject (of withdrawal), is different only in terms of lament-volume. 

He brags about how the then President, Prime Minister, Secretary of the Foreign Affairs Ministry and himself discussed over telephone and decided to go along with the US-scripted (sure, sure, they didn’t sign it — Montenegro, the UK and Macedonia did, but who’s fooling whom here?) Resolution 30/1. He brags that thanks to this move, Sri Lanka obtained ownership of all related processes. What unadulterated rubbish! Sri Lanka tied itself to the agenda of the bullies in Geneva, Sri Lanka ceded in part her sovereignty, Sri Lanka offered co-ownership (that’s sanitized, mind you) of local affairs to outsiders, and that’s obtaining ownership? 

He talks of lost respect and dignity. As though such things figure in the way nations think of one another. They don’t frame not mark multilateral affairs. Just rhetoric. Perhaps for Samaraweera, being in the good books of the USA, UK and EU is what matters most, but that's got nothing to do with sovereignty except conceding it to such global thugs!

He says ‘Resolution 30/1 (helped bring) back home all relevant issues from the international arena.’ Which planet has he been inhabiting all these years? If that was the case, why did the Yahapalana Government get so excited and anxious just before all UNHRC sessions, doing this and that, saying this and that, so Sri Lanka could say ‘said this, did that’ in Geneva? 

The Resolution was tabled in Parliament AFTER it was passed at the UN. Samaraweera's government agreed to stuff without consulting the people or their representatives. It did so knowing well that certain things agreed to were unconstitutional. And now he laments that the then Joint Opposition didn’t provide ideas about how to implement the Resolution! That Joint Opposition was not consulted. Indeed no one was consulted. The opinion of the Permanent Representative in Geneva was unceremoniously brushed aside! And this man calls it a ‘consensus resolution’. Consensus among whom? Anti-Sri Lankan elements in the USA, UK and EU on the one hand, and their local slaves?

Samaraweera goes on to brag about how the Resolution facilitated the USA to ‘support’ Sri Lanka’s military in terms of training, joint-exercises. Clearly he has absolutely no idea about the history of the US military. ‘Normalizing relations with the international community,’ is what it produced.

Normalizing! Another word like ‘reconciliation’ and ‘peace’. What’s normal? For Mangala, ‘friendship with the USA’ (read, submission to US will on all matters, including SOFA and MCC). ‘International Community’ is essential shorthand for NATO and its allies. Indeed, as was aptly put in a Facebook comment, ‘the whole UN and its agencies are Trojan horses deployed post WW2 by NATO and its western allied partners to enable, install and keep intact a mechanism of “systemic barriers (and intrusions)” against a rising Russian and Chinese threat.’

That’s what Resolution 30/1 was all about. A part of THAT story. Bachelet’s and Samaraweera’s ‘disappointments’ and ‘worries’ relate to THAT agenda being derailed somewhat.

Samaraweera believes that a signal has been sent by ‘backtracking on the resolution’.  Now ‘backtracking’ is all about perceptions of direction. Such things are not ideology-free. He believes that it means ‘Sri Lanka cares not for reconciliation, accountability or even democracy.’ Those words again. What’s reconciliation? What’s accountability? What’s democracy? Well, in the Yahapalanists’ lexicon there’s no ‘sovereignty’. As for reconciliation, it’s about pandering to the demands of a particularly pernicious segment of the international community and to communalists back home who, after their masters’ military adventure ended and finding themselves in reduced circumstances, would leverage a spineless government to deliver what terrorism could not. Sorry.  

As for accountability, that government was not accountable to the people, not accountable to the Supreme Court and cared not a hoot for constitutionality. It was undemocratic in the way it went about with respect to Resolution 30/1. Consensus without the citizenry is not consensus, it is subversion of democracy. Such machinations do not produce reconciliation. They subvert reconciliation. 

He is upset that the ‘toil’ has come to naught. Well, that’s understandable. He must be upset. He cannot expect others to be upset too and certainly not people whose opinions were shoved aside to accommodate those of individuals and institutions that obviously knew nothing of Sri Lanka, her people, her history and the context relevant to these machinations. 

Sri Lanka has, it can be argued, rolled back the obstacles to reconciliation, simply by creating room for debate that is not framed by arbitrary and silly understanding of context and definitions of key terms. The people are back in the equation which was under Yahapalanists dominated by the arrogant and stupid.

Any discourse that can yield something positive cannot happen in an environment where outsiders demand that Sri Lankans inhabit their version of Sri Lanka’s reality. It has to happen the other way about. We create room for our story, with all its complexities, contradictions, trauma, despair and hope. That’s something that was ruled out by the Yahapalanists and Resolution 30/1. 

Peddlers of half-truth and humbuggery were voted out. No conspiracy there. That was voice replacing “his/her master’s/mistress’ voice.” 

Consequences! That’s the warning end-note of Samaraweera’s missive and it’s all there in Bachelet’s diplo-speak. Sure. Then again, it’s better not to sweep things under the carpet for that could trip us, and better not to genuflect and get kicked in the teeth for the effort.  

This article was first published in the SUNDAY OBSERVER [March 1, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Related Articles

Mangala Samaraweera and his little pals of spin

When you have a bone to pick...

Time to drop conservatives and conservatism 

And here comes the equivalency circus

Michelle Bachelet needs a tutor

Read more

Michelle Bachelet needs a tutor

A year ago, UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet made the following observation in her report on Sri Lanka (tabled on March 8, 2019): 

‘On 29 May 2018, human skeletal remains were discovered at a construction site in Mannar (Northern Province). Excavations, concluded with the support of the Office on Missing Persons, revealed a mass grave from which more than 300 skeletons were recovered. It was the second mass grave found in Mannar following the discovery of a site in 2014. Given that other mass graves might be expected to be found in the future, systematic access to grave sites by the Office as an observer is crucial for it to fully discharge its mandate, particularly with regard to the investigation and identification of remains.’ 

Pointing out that the said mass grave has been dated back to 1499-1719 CE, as per tests done by Beta Analytic Institute, Florida, USA, I made the following observation:

‘Bechelet may have not known (which indicates sloth) or knew very well (which indicates she’s toxic) when she tabled that report. Those who were ecstatic when these graves were discovered and may have uttered equivalents of ‘Pay dirt, baby!’ are playing ostrich right now.’ [Ref: 'When you have a bone to pick....'].

There’s been no apologies or explanations. Not then, not since. Not about the mass grave nor about the blatant lies and tendentious claims she dished out in her report, clearly refuted by then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tilak Marapana.

A year later, Bachelet revisits. No mention of mass graves. Instead she offers a whine. Read on:

‘“A contributing factor to a lack of delays in implementing human rights reform appears to be a lack of common vision among the country’s highest leadership, deadlock on important issues is an addition and an avoidable problem with damaging impact on victims currently from all ethnic and religious groups and society as a whole.

Wordy, much. 

What does she mean by ‘common vision’? Before we answer that, there are a couple of things we need to deal with. First, ‘leadership’. Contrary to her claim, there doesn’t seem to be disunity. The Yahapalana Regime was brought with division. There was a maverick Minister of Foreign Affairs (before Marapana) who was like a law unto himself, bullishly co-sponsoring an anti-Sri Lanka resolution (30/1) on behalf of a Government led by two individuals in a coalition of two parties that had been going hammer and tongs for more than half a century and was too busy with petty political fights to figure out what he was up to.  Indeed THAT government, at THAT time, had all but lost its mandate, having been routed in the local government elections a year before. In stark contrast, the current regime does not seem to be suffering from any vision impairment on account of disunity with regard to these issues. ‘One Voice’ is what we have now. We can tell her something like this: There’s no deadlock miss; ask the UNP’s presidential candidate Sajith Premadasa what his views are on Resolution 30/1.’ 

The disunity we see comes from differences among different political parties/coalitions. That’s natural. That’s why there’s ‘government’ and there’s ‘opposition’. It’s about having power and wanting power. However, today, the main opposition United National Party (UNP) doesn’t seem to have any issues with the position that the ruling party, the SLPP (Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna) has taken vis-a-vis Resolution 30/1. 

So when Bachelet talks of ‘common vision’ we need to unpack ‘vision’. Whose vision? Is she dismayed because a nation appears to be unwilling to inhabit her version of its reality? Probably. But what’s her vision and what is it based on? 

In her elaboration on Sri Lanka, Bachelet says, ‘the recent appointment to a senior position in the SL army of Major General Shavindra Silva implicated in alleged serious violations of national humanitarian rights law is a worrying development.’ Key word: ‘alleged’. Then she laments ‘lack of progress’ in ‘setting up  special judicial mechanism to deal with the worst crimes committed in the 2009 conflict.’ That’s not allegation, it’s conclusion and condemnation. A quick shift, that. 

She’s also mentioned ‘an important next step’: ‘legislation and the establishment of an independent truth and reconciliation commission.’ Aha! So we need to legislate. This seems to be an acknowledgment of the frivolous and pernicious nature of Resolution 30/1 where Sri Lanka (well, Mangala Samaraweera, actually) pledges to violate her own constitution! Naturally, new laws would have to be made. Now that promise was made without any mandate for constitution-violation. Today, Bachelet says ‘legislate!’  

 There has been minimal progress on accountability, she says. True. Of the UNHRC, sections of the UNP, the Tamil National Alliance and various I/NGOs with absolutely no standing in civil society but whose word has been taken as biblical truth by UN agencies, the USA and the UK. They lied. The lies were picked up and agreed upon by the charlatans commissioned by former UN Secretary General, Ban-ki Moon to advise him on Sri Lanka. Lies were agreed upon. Based on these very same lines, ‘vision’ was produced. Now that the whole edifice is askew on account of a weak foundation, people like Bachelet wail, ‘there’s no unity among leaders in Sri Lanka!’ They use ‘allegation’ and treat it as ‘guilt’. They talk of ‘damaging impact on victims,’ interestingly ‘from ALL ethnic and religious groups and society as a whole.’

Wow!

Has Bachelet done a survey of some sort? And who are these ‘victims’? Yes, all ethnic and religious groups suffered. ‘Society as a whole’ suffered too. Happens when a rabid terrorist outfit holds country and community hostage for decades. The victims are those who suffering has been all but discounted by the UNHRC and people like Bachelet. Resolution 30/1 kicks them in the teeth, so to speak simply because it infringes upon their sovereignty, makes light of their suffering and attempts to force them to submit to someone else’s version of what they’ve suffered.   

So when Bachelet talks of ‘deadlock,’ it is essentially disagreement between the people of Sri Lanka and the UNHRC’s (or should I say ‘Uncle Sam’s’) notions of Sri Lanka’s past, present and future. 

Since she talks of ‘all ethnic and religious groups and society as a whole,’ she needs to understand that Resolution 30/1 panders to the pernicious designs of a small minority of a single ethnic group that has been whipping communalism for decades. That’s what legislation a la Bachelet would do.

When I said Michelle Bachelet needs a tutor it was tongue-in-cheek. She knows stuff. She knows stuff and knows her job. Upholding human rights is her official job, but the United Nations being a creature of North America and Europe, that job is framed, more or less, by the interests of the relevant nations. Sure, the USA has called it a ‘cess pool of bias’. That’s correct. Bias in favor of the global political formations mentioned above. Sure, the USA quit the UNHRC, but no one’s fooling anyone. The US can operate (read, ‘arm-twist’) directly or through proxies. And Bachelet seems to be playing her part in that game. 

This must end. Soon. Sri Lanka has been hauled over the coals by countries that have the worst human rights records and their apologists. Sri Lanka should not be held to ransom on account of the stupidity of an inept government utterly servile to the designs of the USA. Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans should not be held to ransom just because a maverick minister suffers from a postcolonial condition that makes victim hate him/herself and believe fervently in the ‘curative power’ of vilifying and destroying his/her community. 

Enough. We need closure on this. Bachelet, we must not forget, is someone who refused an audience to the victims of the US-sponsored coup that ousted the democratically elected government of Salvadore Allende during two separate terms as  President of Chile. She can’t pretend to shed victim-tears for tears she did not have to shed for victims in her own country. 

We need closure on spin. No tutors required for that.

This article was first published in the SUNDAY OBSERVER [February 23, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Mangala Samaraweera and his little pals of spin

Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine. They were the original ‘spin twins’. They played in the  1950s, especially after helping the West Indies secure a maiden test victory in England. They were celebrated in a calypso song that became a hit that year (1950), ‘Those little pals of mine - Ramadhin and Valentine.’  

Since then we had the Indian spin quartet of Erapalli Prasanna, Srinivas Venkataraghavan (both off spinners), Bhagwat Chandrasekhar (a leg spinner), and Bishen Singh Bedi (a left-arm spinner). Sri Lanka, in the seventies and early eighties had D.S. De Silva, Ajith De Silva and Lalith Kaluperuma. In more recent times Rangana Herath and Dilruwan Perera have proved to be a formidable duo, hunting from both ends of the wicket. 

Spin, in a political context, is not new. Neither is fake news. It’s just that the lie has been given terminological respect. Money talks. Power executes. The fake is often unrecognizable or, more potently, saluted as the authentic. Sometimes, however, the spinners slip over their own slime. The political spinners, that is (no disrespect whatsoever intended to the great bowlers mentioned above).  

Just the other day, we had the UN boss on human rights, Michelle Bachelet, tripping over half-truths and wild conjecture on Sri Lanka in the report submitted to the membership of the UNHRC. She has all but resurrected those dead and buried almost a millennia ago and clothed them as ‘civilians killed in the last days of the war’. That entire narrative of ‘last days,’ ‘war’ and ‘war crimes’ is fraught with glib arrogance and bare faced lies, but such things don’t embarrass liars who are comfy in high seats of power; that’s another story though.

We are concerned here with the spin of Mangala Samaraweera. It was a lengthy spell, to use the cricketing metaphor, a full page no less where he has tried out variations in flights of fancy and wrong-‘uns.  Not hard to read. It would of course bamboozle the readily-bamboozled (read, ‘partners in spin’ — like Bachelet) but those who read delivery from run-up through arm-action, flight and movement off the pitch, are less likely to be fooled. 

He has spoken as someone who once held the Foreign Affairs portfolio in cabinet and now feels it is his duty ‘to respond to some of the malicious arguments being made and misrepresentation of facts’ regarding the UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka (yes, ‘against’). In the rush he has effectively rubbished the work of his cabinet colleague and current Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana. Mangala had hoped for ‘maturity, skill, finesse and grace’ but believes Marapana’s team had ‘made a spectacle’ of themselves. 

He believes that what’s on offer today across the political spectrum is ‘a plethora of contradictory, improvised and exaggerated accounts.’ Well, he can speak for himself and has effectively implicated himself in his lengthy harangue.  

First of all, he oversteps (that’s a ‘no ball’) by claiming to speak on behalf of ‘sane, rational, decent, sincere, compassionate, serious-minded and honest Sri Lankans who fervently wish to consolidate peace and reconciliation in our country, heal the wounds of our fellow citizens, and ensure non-recurrence of conflict, to lead us towards economic prosperity.’ We can’t fault a man for his ego and self-image but a convincing case can be made to the effect that Mangala (and indeed this government) embody the opposite of the attributes he has enumerated. Insane. Irrational. Indecent. Insincere. Heartless. Clownish. Dishonest. Yes, and wreckers of peace and reconciliation hell bent on recurrence of conflict and leading us to economic disaster. 

Mangala apologizes to Bachelet for alleged ‘misrepresentation’ of statements. He may be referring to what is now being called a misquotation of Suren Raghavan regarding what Bachelet had told a Government delegation in Geneva. However, as Tilak Marapana’s submission clearly points out, it is Bachelet who is guilty of misrepresentation. She has lied about the release of lands previously occupied by security forces, deliberately taken accusation and conjecture as established fact, and indulged in fairy-tales regarding mass graves. Mangala, in his ‘innocence’ has not thought of rapping the lady’s knuckles or apologizing on behalf of her friend to the Sri Lankan citizenry. 

The ‘biggest misrepresentation,’ he claims, ‘is the version that Sri Lanka has somehow managed to produce an accusation against itself’ via Resolution 30/1. He correctly chides the delegation for self-incrimination and incompetence because contrary to their rhetoric regarding self-incrimination’ they not only ensured that the resolution’s extension by two years (Resolution 40/1) passed without a vote along with co-sponsorship, but even partied on account of the outcome! That’s the confusion of the Yahapalana Government led by Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena. 

On the other hand, Mangala has conveniently pussy-footed around the contents of the resolution. Following the usual ‘good done by us’ lecture, Mangala tosses in what he might think is the wicket-taking delivery, the debate over the judicial process pertaining to investigation of alleged rights violation. He insists that the resolution ‘explicitly’ calls for a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, albeit with the participation of foreign jurists. 

Why then has he not taken issue with Bechelet for the following recommendation in her report on Sri Lanka? 

‘Adopt legislation establishing a hybrid court to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of international human rights law and violations of international humanitarian law; (d) Review.’ [A/HRC/40/23 (C)]

Will Mangala tell her something like this: ‘Er…Your Excellency, pardon me for being a purveyor of bad news, but A/HRC/40/23 (C) clearly compromises the spirit of Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and now 40/1 which, according to MY reading gives Sri Lankan ownership of the responsibility regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms?’ Will he now tell the ‘‘sane, rational, decent, sincere, compassionate, serious-minded and honest Sri Lankans’ that he lied, that he spun and that if there was ever any doubt that he could be deceitful, indecent and insincere, such doubts could be laid to rest? 

With this kind of idiocy does it to prompt careless and politically suspect ‘celebrities’ such as Arundhati Roy to repeat unsubstantiated lies drawing from tall tales uttered by people with dubious agenda and conjured from questionable claims uttered unreliable sources. Referring to a soon to be released novel titled ‘Vanni,’ Roy says ‘The story of the 2009 war in Sri Lanka, in which tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were brazenly and brutally killed is rapidly being buried by powerful countries with strategic and business interests in the region; this book seeks to unbury those terrible, sordid secrets and place them in clear view for the world to see.’

Secrets, huh? An interesting word. Perhaps she should consider the possibility that the word is used because it can, ironically, make something out of nothing.  Mountains out of molehills or less.  Indeed, such un-burial would be welcome because we would get closure on the number and the rank anti-intellectualism that has marked the narratives on Sri Lanka the likes of Bachelet have privileged. ‘Spun,’ rather. Mangala and his little pals of spin are but doing their part, no doubt. In any event, for all the rhetoric, lies and deceit, sycophancy and spin will not help peace and resolution. They would, more likely wreck such lofty projects. 

malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

Read more