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

Foreign policy and the doctrine of ‘conceding walkovers’

Sri Lanka has a severe human resources problem. That’s stating the obvious. Forget bad planning, the absence of an occupational classification, assessment of needs and charting of future requirements in terms of a reasonable view of how things economic and social would unfold; we lost several hundred thousand people over the last 30 years and even if just 1% of the number warranted the tag ‘talented’ it is a massive loss. Had ‘they’ been around, in a country of 22 million, it might have made the difference.

Ok, that’s preamble. Let’s get to specifics. In a country where there’s a severe human resource issue, it is natural that this be reflected in most if not all sectors. The foreign service is no exception. That said, it must be recognized that much of the good work done by our diplomats and indeed the various missions abroad go unrecognized. They don’t brag. They hardly issue media statements. And, anyway, that which has to be done ‘quietly’ does not make for noise. 

Unfortunately, there’s a tendency to berate the diplomats for not getting this or that done or for causing irreparable (harsh word, that) harm by what they do. The larger picture, the constraints, the contexts etc., are ignored. These include political buffoonery, let us not forget. 

There are, however, inexplicable tendencies which need to be flagged. Consider the 41st Sessions of the UNHRC underway in Geneva as I write. Sri Lanka is not on the hot seat, for now, having obtained an extension on delivery with respect to Resolution 30/1. Sri Lanka, however, and like most other nations, is not ‘excused’ from proceedings. 

As a member state, there are issues that we need to address, even if they don’t directly involve Sri Lanka. Representatives of many member states do engage, perhaps in the spirit of the collective endeavor to create conditions for a better human family and also because any determination anywhere can be cited in moves to obtain similar determinations elsewhere. What wrecks the Philippines in 2019 could very well bring down Sierra Leone in 2021. No one can take on all issues and indeed that could amount to spreading oneself thin. Limited resources mean that one has to pick the battles. Showing solidarity can cost, we know this. In a world of multiple inequities, a case can be made for sober pragmatism. 

On the other hand, it would be strange indeed if the representatives of Sierra Leone opted to remain silent when that country is vilified. Well, that holds true for Sri Lanka too. 

One cannot fault the Sri Lanka mission in Geneva for not attending all events organized to level unfair and highly tendentious charges. Side events of such sessions are vent-outlets for the most part. So too are ‘interventions’ by NGOs sandwiched between debates on important matters. The UNHRC probably place little value on 90 second rant-rave presentations. Still, we cannot ignore the fact that such invective does get heard by representatives of member states. This is why, there is a response-opportunity. Representatives typically respond to charges leveled at their countries and in some instances defend friendly nations. Not Sri Lanka, or at least, not Sri Lanka at this particular session of the UNHRC.  

In time slots allocated to various pro-Eelam and/or anti Sri Lankan groups, speaker after speaker uttered absolute falsehoods about Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan mission had nothing to say by way of response. In fact, in at least two of these sessions the mission was not represented by a diplomat. Perhaps they were busy with off-the-limelight work, but any random person listening to the anti Sri Lankan submissions cannot be faulted if he/she went away thinking Sri Lanka is one hell of a country. Literally. 

When a Sri Lankan took issue with the Ambassador of a European country for the position taken, the Ambassador was taken aback and had responded ‘I didn’t know all this’. He had heard one side of the story and didn’t know there were other and more compelling narratives with much better substantiation. 

The only attempt to put the record straight came from a Sri Lankans who used the time slots given to NGOs. J Tenny Fernando, Senaka Rajapakse and Hiru Makewitage representing the Executive Committee of the Global Sri Lanka Forum and several speakers from another organization based in Zurich  made pertinent points which included clarification on absurd claims made by the separatist lobby and also urged the Council to consider the fact that its ill-advised interventions in Sri Lanka with the happy and wide-eyed support of the current regime created conditions for the Easter Sunday attack. A drop in the ocean, no doubt, but a drop sadly made significant by the absolute silence of those who get paid to represent the country’s interests in such forums. 

That’s Geneva. Let’s take Canada.  Now it is no secret that Canada has been almost like the headquarters for the LTTE and its proxy outfits.  For reasons of justifying immigration and as a means of continuing covert criminal activity, such groups have continued to be vociferous. They engage in relentless lobbying of politicians, leveraging a significant vote-bank. 

And so we have politicians such as Patrick Brown, the Mayor of Brampton, talking about ‘the horror of the Tamil genocide. He has pledged to pass a municipal motion declaring ‘crimes against the Tamil Nation in Sri Lanka constitute a genocide’ and declare May 18th as ‘Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.  The good Mr Brown probably doesn’t known the meaning of the word ‘genocide’. He obviously doesn’t know anything about Sri Lanka, the terrorism of the LTTE and how they held several hundred thousand Tamil civilians hostage.  

He is not alone. Toronto Mayor John Tory issued a proclamation declaring May 18 ‘Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day’. Scarborough-Rouge Park MPP Vijay Thanigasalam recently introduced Bill 104, an Act to Proclaim Tamil Genocide Education Week during the seven days each year ending on May 18. 

We could go on. We could cross the Atlantic and talk about similar happenings in the UK. We cannot fault ignorant politicians in such countries for idiocy. We cannot fault criminal groups in these countries for the uttering of falsehoods and tossing around of wild claims and exaggeration. The issue here can be captured in a single question: ‘What have our diplomatic missions done?’

The truth is, sadly, ‘very little’. Well, THAT could be an exaggeration. In Toronto, they’ve done nothing to counter moves such as the ones mentioned above. What is stopping them? Is it lack of resources? Well, one is required to do one’s best, and if ‘nothing’ amounts to ‘best’ there’s something seriously wrong. Is it that their hands have been tied and their mouths gagged by the Foreign Ministry? That’s possible or even probable, given that this government has on many occasions acted in ways diametrically opposed to the national interest, showing incompetence, servility and sloth of unprecedented proportions.  

When claims go uncontested they become things that can be said in the ‘goes without saying’ manner. That’s not slippage, it’s conceding a fabricated narrative. 

When those paid to do their job are sleeping on things, indignant and patriotic Sri Lankans living in these countries have had to counter the lies. The missions probably do other work that’s useful, so we should not call for their closure.  We should not forget, however, that there have been very proactive missions and diplomats who worked tirelessly to set the record straight.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, anyway, cannot be left off the hook. The regime too.  In the absence of counterpoint the Eelamist narrative is becoming the default story in international forums and in countries like Canada and the UK. Not only is this a travesty of justice, it is an insult on all peace-loving Sri Lankans. 

malindasenevi@gmail.com

[First published in the Daily Mirror on July 13, 2019]

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

When you have a bone to pick….

‘Pay dirt!’ I am sure this term or an equivalent would have escaped the mouths of certain people when the much ‘celebrated’ (yes!) mass graves in Mannar were discovered.  Of course ‘pay dirt’ technically refers to a site where the ground contains ore in sufficient quantity to be profitably extracted. As a metaphor, ‘striking pay dirt’ or having ‘hit pay dirt’ is about achieving success beyond expectation, usually in financial terms.  

The Mannar ‘strike’ was seen as such a success that the successful tripped over themselves in glee (it turns out). Here’s what Michelle Bachelet, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, said 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.’

Should we be surprised? No and not because Bachelet is some kind of noxious creature. She has decent enough credentials. The problem is that people like her take certain things at face value. What’s come before, they believe (we have to conclude) to be ‘the truth’. Well, THE TRUTH. That kind of fixation has a way of tripping people.

Well, now it seems that the said mass grave is dated back to 1499 to 1719 CE, according to tests done by the Beta Analytic Institute, Florida, USA. 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. There’s been no apologies or explanations. 

How did this happen? Perhaps it is about a kind of arrogance and insane determination laced with punditry and rage. Why are they in such a hurry that they would with finger-snap treat opinion as fact, never mind the basic of any decent investigation such as reliability of source, corroboration, sensitivity to contexts etc.?    

We saw all this during the so-called ‘peace process’ initiated by Ranil Wickremesinghe and Velupillai Prabhakaran on February 22, 2002.  The peace-makers, so-called, engaged in subterfuge and it was all about language. They refused to understand that ‘peace’ in any given context can mean different things to different people. So anyone and everyone who did not subscribe to their version of peace was branded ‘warmonger’.  That discrediting, ideologically and politically, at least in the short-term, worked.  You take on the good-guy label. You get to ride the moral high horse.  

So they defined ‘peace’ as an accommodation of the LTTE, as a federal ‘solution’ or, at least, some kind of devolution that went beyond the 13th Amendment. Having thus decided, it was easy to pick sides, to make political choices based on who was more amenable to delivering this ‘peace’. Simultaneously, it became imperative that those believed to be detrimental to such designs be attacked mercilessly.  To be fair, that’s what ‘the other side’ did as well, except perhaps they had the logical edge of having fact and reality on their side. 

It’s the same scenario that we are witnessing today in the altered narrative, i.e. ‘reconciliation’. The term is taken as an eventuality where the nature of the state is altered from unitary to federal, although it won’t be called that (as M.A. Sumanthiran of the TNA, like the ideological predecessors in the Tamil communalist camp, did: federal in substance if not in name AND substance).  

It’s a simple plan. You give a sweet-sounding term (e.g. peace, reconciliation) to your pernicious design and gather ‘facts’ to support the case, picking bones and, as the Mannar mass grave fiasco showed, even picking ON bones. 

The lovelies forget (or have they, really?) in their rush to get to wherever any which way possible, that these things are about PROCESS. Yes, ‘process,’ which is defined as ‘a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end’. In the case of disputes about the ‘particular end’, one has to consciously unfetter oneself from preferred outcome. Political actors don’t do this of course, but those who would be facilitators (e.g. the Bechelets, the Navi Pillais and the peace/reconciliation advocating I/NGO) ought to. They didn’t during the ‘peace (sic) process’ and they do not, now, in the ‘reconciliation (sic) process’.  

That’s just one aspect only. There’s also the matter of bones. We are talking of a 30 year war where two armed groups shot to kill. We are talking about bombs and the firing of multi-barrel guns, claymore mines and territories laden with anti-personnel mines. Of course the number of dead is disputed and depending on political expediency either inflated or deflated.  What’s indisputable is that people died and in many cases in circumstances that did not permit formal funerals. 

What did combatants who survived a particular attack do with the dead (their own and those of the enemy)? In certain situations the demands of warfare probably did not permit them to worry about what to do with the dead, but when there was space for such things, would they not have buried them? Would any fighting force pushed by the life-or-death of combat worry about some rogue agent talking about mass burials and immediately concluding that those buried were summarily executed? 

People died. People were killed. It was a war. Mass graves do not necessarily imply mass slaughter. However, if you have for whatever reason convinced yourself (against all verifiable evidence by the way) that war crimes did take place, that there was a policy decision to slaughter a community etc., then one would most certainly conclude that any burial site containing dozens of bodies was ‘evidence’ of ‘genocide’ (to use another happy-pill word of the politically ignorant, ideologically narrow-minded and those hampered by a limited vocabulary).    

And now we have a situation where there are various theories about who really killed and buried those people. There’s one which claims it was a Tamil ‘king’ who slaughtered Tamils who had converted to Christianity.  And so, while we are at it, can some really enlightened truth-seeker demand that every inch of the island is excavated so that several strata that indicate different periods of history are ‘covered’ or rather unearthed, just so we can figure out who killed whom and when? 

We might get some embarrassing data about the atrocities of the Dutch, Portuguese and British, right?  And, we might also get a different kind of embarrassment. For example, some wide-eyed UN Secretary General or High Commissioner for Human Rights might say that Balangoda Man is Velupillai Prabhakaran or that the LTTE’s military high command was killed and buried at Ibbankatuwa!

That’s the problem with digging for bones — you really don’t know what you might come up with!  However, you cannot have half-way measures with such things. If you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth you can’t really stop digging.  You can’t stop with one ‘mass burial site’ simply because ‘justice’ should be served to all, to borrow from their lexicon.  

Does this mean that such discoveries should be brushed aside as irrelevant in the reconciliation process? No, they aren’t. However, making a song and dance about it before any serious tests have been done is silly and indeed detrimental to the very same process simply because it distracts and discredits.  

We are not close to reconciliation, however you want to define it. The Mannar ‘mass burial site’ has, in a grotesque way, demonstrated one of the reasons why we aren’t getting closer.

Pay dirt. That’s the word. And we can play with that. Ill-gotten ‘gains’ for example, for the Sinhala word for dirt is ‘jaraava,’ a word that is colloquially used to refer to the ill-gotten. Or ill-excavated. Or, as in this case, the ill-interpreted.

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

Cesspool or Cesspit: the Yahapalanists' Choice of Residence

Take a deep breath. Let it go. Suppress all urges to laugh your guts out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Have a cup of camomile tea. Think of the best joke you’ve heard so far. Think of Charlie Chaplin and other great comedians. Now read. 

The US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced that her country would withdraw from the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). Calling the UNHRC ‘a cesspool of political bias,’ Haley explained the decision thus:

“We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.’

The tutor and the tutored 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who appeared alongside Haley at a media conference held at the State Department said that the noble vision of the body notwithstanding, the US ‘needed to be honest’.  The ‘honesty’ he encapsulated in the following observation: “The Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights.”

It is reported that Haley had Pompeo had explained that the decision came after “a long year of efforts to shame the council into reform and to remove member states that themselves commit abuses.”

Take the key words/terms used or implied here: hypocritical, self-serving, poor defender of human rights, dishonesty, shamelessness.  Which country do these words/terms describe best if not the United States of America? Cesspool indeed! They were spot on with that descriptive, only they used it on the UNHRC which, the world knows, was the USA’s baby all along.  Just like the UN, one might add, which is for all intents and purposes a creature of the USA.  

The UNHRC, ever since it was formed in 2006, and the UN in general have always treated with leniency the USA and the various war-mongering, rights-abusing blocs of countries it has led. ‘Leniency’ by the way is a generous term. When the USA wanted to censure any particular country or regime, the UNHRC turned itself into a cheering squad. 

The USA might not think of itself as the cesspit that it is, and indeed it might be so used to the stench that it has become oblivious to the bad odor.  Well, it is more likely that they knew, but didn’t believe that the world knew the stinking truth as well.  

Nevertheless it can’t be that Washington suddenly discovered a foul-smelling cousin. It can’t be that the likes of Haley and Pompeo woke up one fine morning and discovered that the UNHRC was bad. They must have known, especially since the resemblance between the USA and UNHRC was too close for anyone to see the two as anything but blood brothers, so to speak.  What happened was that self-interest was not served one fine day. Stuff didn’t go down the tube as smoothly as it had before. 

Put simply, the USA was rudely awakened and decided that the best way to counter punch was to throw at ‘the newfound enemy’ the terminology that was core to Washington-speak.

In fairness, though, they’ve done their part in ‘removing member states that commit abuses,’ simply by adhering to the dictum ‘charity begins at home’.  It won’t make the UNHRC fragrant, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. 

We need not go into all that. We can laugh our guts out.

What’s more important about this veritable cesspit calling the UN agency concerned a cesspool is where it leaves those who were practically swearing by both on things such as human rights, truth, peace, justice and reconciliation. There’s little that a cesspool can deliver except, well, a lot of gooey stuff that stink.  

And yet, for purposes of political expediency there were many who ran to Washington as though the Messiah lived there. They ran to the UNHRC as though it was made of squeaky clean saints. Many worthies in this Yahapalana Government took policy and political cues from the US Embassy in Colombo, which actually facilitated the funding of the Yahapalana election campaign. 

So, will the Yahapalanists stand with the cesspit (USA) or the cesspool (UNHRC) now?  Will they take the cue from the US Embassy in Colombo and echo the words of Haley and Pompeo?  Will they take a deep breath, bite their lips, play ostrich, and wait for the UN system to recover its sense of purpose (read ‘Washington/Tel Aviv agenda’)? 

Let us not forget that the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera went as far as co-sponsoring on behalf of Sri Lanka a resolution on (read, ‘against’) Sri Lanka at the UNHRC.  What does he have to say about a resolution spawned in a cesspool now, one must ask.  The Yahapalanists can navel-gaze and lapse into “mumblement” as it often does. They can play ostrich. They can get the US Embassy to write a ‘position paper’. That’s if they have any shame. Shameless as they are, there’s one thing they really can’t wash their hands off from: the fact that they were dipped head-to-toe in the UNHRC by the USA.  That’s a cesspool, according to Haley and Pompeo. The US Ambassador Atul Keshap is mandated to go with that description. 

One thing is clear. Yahapalanaya is not the perfume it was thought to be. It stinks. All doubts about the source of the stench can now be laid to rest. Haley and Pompeo have give us the names and the addresses. More importantly, we need to recognize that the US leaving the UNHRC cesspool doesn’t exactly clear the air that’s polluted by those who were born and bred in cesspools (or cesspits if you prefer the word).  Perhaps they’ll pack their bags and take the next flight to the USA.  Perhaps not.  If not, then there’s a choice before us: do we hold our noses for ever or do we take these people to the cleaners?

Let us keep an eye on Uncle Sam

The UN 'family', its business and surname

The Ugly American as terrorist-mouthpiece

The forgotten, forgettable, unforgettable and 'forgetted'

Cornering Sri Lanka, US-style 

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. 

Read more

Yahapalana machinations subvert ‘transitional justice’

These are UNHRC days.  These are Yahapalana-UNHRC days which are therefore very different from the Rajapaksa-UNHRC days.  Both regimes use the same lexicon when it comes to ‘reconciliation’.  Back then too we heard talk of truth, reconciliation and what not.  There are of course differences.  

The previous regime created conditions to enable such talk simply by defeating the LTTE.  This regime says, rhetorically, that it wants to go beyond the rhetoric.  The previous regime rubbed the big name nations in the international community the wrong way, this regime is cosy with them.  

As for the movers and shakers, this much can be said: they have less illusions on what’s possible than those who swear on this government’s commitment to deliver on promises made.  

They’ll of course listen sympathetically to pleas about ‘ground realities’ and will appear to purchase the sob stories about spoilers in the opposition, but they probably know that spoilers notwithstanding the entire discourse of ‘reconciliation’ stinks on account of selectivity, gross exaggeration, editing out the uncomfortable and a fantastic brain-fade of context.  Yes, ‘context’, the basis for a deadline-extensions, is forgotten when it comes to the matter that’s at the heart of all this: the war and especially it’s final stages where the Sri Lankan security forces carried out an historic and massive hostage-rescue operation against the world’s then most ruthless terrorist outfit.  

Transitional justice.  That’s a lovely term.  It’s supposed to be about truth-seeking, accountability through courts of law, reparations and institutional reforms to ensure that there will not be recurrence of human rights violations.  Sure, all these are important and much needed too.  In the marketing of ‘need’ however there’s exaggeration, context-lack and such.  

There’s talk of continued suffering of those who were victims of the war.  They are said to be living in difficult circumstances and often out of the mainstream of life.  They are supposed to be struggling to survive without viable livelihood opportunities and burdened by uncertainty about the fate of their missing family members.  

Let’s get the marketing out of the way.

Not too long after the war then BBC correspondent in Sri Lanka Charles Haviland lamented in an article the plight of a former LTTE combatant who had been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.  The man, Haviland wrote sadly, didn’t have a job.  The government had failed him, we are encouraged to conclude.  

Someone picks joins an outfit that kills people, sets off bombs in crowded places, abducts children and proceeds to hold several hundred thousand people hostage, is apprehended, given marketable skills and then set free.  The man can’t find a job.  We are supposed to feel sorry for him?  We are supposed to rant and rave about a government that has failed him and about a ‘failed state’?   

Sri Lanka is a middle-income country in name.  There are lots of third-world areas in this country.  We have not had the privilege of being government by competent and honest people for decades.  In fact it is a considerable feat that terrorism was defeated in the first instance.  The fact of the matter is that difficult circumstances is not the preserve of a particular community living in a particular part of the country.  The victims of the war: they are not just Tamils or those living in the Northern and Eastern provinces.  Survival struggle is not witnessed just in these two provinces.  It is not that those living in other parts are right in the middle of life’s ‘mainstream’.  It is not that everyone else has ‘viable livelihood opportunities.  

This is not to say of course that those in these two provinces suffered less; indeed they suffered much more.  The blame for all that cannot be addressed to those who governed and no one else.  The governments in power have a responsibility of course to make things better, but if making things better is what it’s all about then those who took the LTTE out of the equation and effectively ended the war did better than anyone else.  

Then there’s the burden of uncertainty about the fate of loved ones, i.e. those who disappeared.  There are claims about abduction.  Easy to charge, hard to prove.  There were tens of thousands ‘disappeared’ between 1988 and 1989.  If ‘uncertainty of fate’ is a burden, that burden is now close to 30 years old.  Does not mean that the currently privileged burdens should not be dealt with of course.  Again, easy to demand, hard to deliver.  

We know that among those claimed to have been disappeared died in battle.  We know that some went abroad.  We know that in wars there are liberties taken that are unwarranted, but we also know that all this is painted in a politics that has little sympathy for the aggrieved.   

In Sri Lanka’s case, there’s a deafening silence when it comes to the LTTE’s role in all this and an equal and even more pernicious silence on the culpability of the LTTE’s key approvers, namely the TNA.  Throw all that into the category called ‘ground reality’ and you will begin to understand that those who ignore all this are as guilty of opposing reconciliation as anyone else.  The ‘ground reality’ is made also of those who see and understand the hypocrisy of those who talk of reconciliation as though it’s a single hand clap.  The Opposition will oppose as their predecessors have done, regardless.  It’s silly though to accept everyone to salute the ludicrous.  

Let’s return to ‘transitional justice’.  Those who demand ‘truth’ are silent on the truth.  Are we supposed to join them in the various forums they articulate their demands?  Those who talk reparations do so on tiptoe, making sure that their loved ones (politically speaking) don’t get egg on their faces.  

And yet, we need the truth, i.e. the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and not the comfortable ‘truths’ that the yahapalana-approvers or rather the lies they agree upon.  

And yes, we need accountability through courts of law, an eventuality that is being effectively subverted by the privileging of political revenge over justice-seeking, the preference for compromising sovereignty over credible investigation.  

As for institutional reforms that prevent recurrence of human rights violations, are they talking about federalism without using the F-word?  They did that for years until it became embarrassing to defend the LTTE.   Let them know then that not everyone believes that human rights violations are prevented or encouraged by the nature of the state, whether it is unitary or federal.  World history does not support such a thesis.

In the end, we need a better and broader definition of the term ‘transitional justice’ and maybe we’ll get there, not because of these justice-seekers but in fact in spite of them.  

Read Also:

Yahapalana Brain-Fade in Geneva

A love-bite release is hardly a palliative

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. Blog: www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more