Behind the diplomatic rhetoric

Peiris, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Rauff Hakeem, Rishard Bathiudeen, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa and Douglas Devananda, whose paramilitary unit the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission wanted dissolved.

They were supported by two deputy ministers Neomal Fernando and Faiszer Musthapha and parliamentarians and presidential advisors Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha and Sajin Vaas Gunawardene.

To use cricketing parlance, they were batting on a bowler-friendly or tough wicket. They went on the backfoot, offered forward defence, let the ball go to the wicket keeper and at times tried to hit out. In the end, they lost the game, but not before they made some stroke play that won Sri Lanka 15 votes and eight abstentions - a total of 23 -- as against the 24 votes for the Us-backed resolution.

Also batting for Sri Lanka - although behind-the-scene -- were Cuba, China and India. Cuba came out strongly in opposing the resolution in the council, while China used its diplomatic influence to coax the developing countries to support Sri Lanka -- and India, which voted for the resolution, succeeded in making last-minute changes to dilute the draft.

In the final analysis, it is not the human rights record of a country under scrutiny or a country that sponsors a resolution that matters. It is the power one wields at the international arena that decides moves in international politics.

NGO games, side events and special effects

The power of the nations that had ganged up against Sri Lanka was evident in a number of Ngo-sponsored side events that took place at the United Nations' Geneva headquarters. The speed with which the NGO community acted in censuring Sri Lanka ahead of the vote made even an obstinate cynic suspect the existence of a nexus between the NGOS and the main sponsors of the resolution.

For instance, the California-based NGO - Humanitarian Law Project - made use of the time given to it to make a scathing attack on Sri Lanka under agenda Item 9 -Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

The statement made by this NGO, whose main focus was on international educational development, in the council was akin to the popular joke on 'Mekka' or ticks that live on animals. An abridged version of the joke goes like this: when the boy who studied only about ticks for a Russian language oratory test, was asked to speak on lion by the examiners. After a general description of lion, the boy says the animal has hair on which live ticks. And he then carries on speaking on ticks. An examiner stops him and asks him to talk about cow. The boy resorts to the same trick and says the cow has hair on which live ticks. And he goes on to talk about ticks. The highly annoyed examiner stops him and asks him to talk about fish, a creature that has no hair. The boy as usual starts with a general description and says, "if only fish had hair, it will surely have ticks on its body…" and goes on to speak about ticks.

The Humanitarian Law Project, instead of talking about educational rights, slammed Sri Lanka during the twominute speech. It said:

"Former Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that whenever there is an ethnic conflict, the issue of genocide arises. Protocol Additional 1 to the Geneva Conventions applies to conflicts against 'racist regimes'. Using Sri Lanka as an example, we propose some: 1. Acts of violence by the majority group against the minority group over time, as has occurred in Sri Lanka against the Tamil people; 2. Concerted efforts by a majority population to undermine the social, cultural and religious rights of a minority population, as has occurred against the Tamil people since 1949; 3. International demonization of a minority population using terms such as 'terrorist' as has occurred in the course of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka deflecting attention from the rules of humanitarian laws and providing the government with a seemingly free pass for violations against Tamil civilians…"

The NGO statement also said that failure to establish clear indicators for 'racist regimes' severely hampered the R2P process. Using again the situation of Sri Lanka, the statement noted that the international community had failed to protect the Tamil civilian population as mentioned in the report of the Experts Panel of the UN Secretary General.

Earlier, the Amnesty International in a council statement said Sri Lanka was playing victim after committing serious crimes and its position was akin to a child who kills his parents and claims protection saying he is now an orphan.

Coinciding with such NGO attacks in the council were statements released by Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group and the Tamil National Alliance and the release of the second Channel 4 video. These developments made the Sri Lankan delegation's task tougher and tougher in Geneva. Its task became multi-pronged. It had to defend not only the conduct of the government and the security forces during the last stages of the war but also counter new allegations pertaining to the post-conflict era.

The allegations varied from militarization of civilian areas in the north to rape, abductions and disappearances.

Weapons supplied by Sri Lanka

In this concerted attack on Sri Lanka, the weapons for the enemy were supplied by Sri Lanka itself. One such weapon was an attack on Colombo-based human rights activists in the state-run media. A papercutting of an article in a state-run daily which vilified the human rights activists as traitors was produced as proof that a culture of impunity still prevailed in Sri Lanka though the war had ended three years ago. The alleged threat to human rights activists found mention in statements made by Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay, the Belgian representative during Thursday's council debate on Sri Lanka and during many side events where Sri Lanka's human rights record came under fire.

The NGO community exploited this threat and made announcements replete with special effects that appealed to the emotions of the participants. The side events on Sri Lanka began with the chair appealing, "Please don't take photographs of the panelists as they face threats in Sri Lanka."

Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu (Centre for Policy Alternatives), Sunila Abeysekera (the Global Campaign for Women's Human Rights), Nimalka Fernando (President of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism), Farah Mihlar (Minority Rights Group) and Sandya Ekneligoda (wife of disappeared journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda) felt their lives were under threat because they came to Geneva to highlight Sri Lanka's human rights situation and canvass support, directly or indirectly, for the resolution.

However, some of the speakers at side events where the Sri Lankan government was taken to task appeared as though they had been coached. Or, perhaps, they overdid it to please the donors on whom they depend for their survival. But whatever it was, their speeches had the desired effect or were full of special effects to quench the thirst of the international human rights community.

Isolated incidents were blown up or generalized to give the impression that in Sri Lanka rape, extrajudicial killings, disappearances and threat to journalists and human rights activists were the order of the day.

One cannot blame the international human rights community or their Sri Lankan counterparts for slating Sri Lanka. They have a role to play in promoting human rights even if they are paid for it in dollars by their foreign donors, some of whom are linked to their governments or intelligence services of their countries. A world without the human rights community would certainly be worse than the one we live in. They play a supportive role in strengthening democracy, which is theoretically the policy of any government elected to office through democratic means.

But the blame should fall on the government for giving the human rights activists the weapons to fire at or tarnish the image of Sri Lanka, Asia's oldest democracy. One could make a long list of the weapons which the government gave its critics in the post-conflict era. Here are some issues which the human rights community in Geneva highlighted. The non-implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Not taking serious and speedy measures to address the ethnic question. Abductions and involuntary disappearances - the cases being mentioned are the abduction of Ramakrishnan Prabhakaran from Wellawatte, the abduction of Velayutham Mathias Chandrapala at the Hulftsdorp court premises and the disappearances of Kumar Weeraraj and Kugan Muruganathan, two human rights activists, in the north. A high number of rape and sexual harassment cases involving security forces personnel. The rape of a 13-year-old girl allegedly by an EPDP politico in the EPDP stronghold of Delft and the police failure to entertain the complaint. The alleged incident took place while the Sri Lankan delegation was fighting its battle against the world's mightiest nation to defeat the UNHRC draft resolution. Militarisation of civilian areas in the north, depriving the traditionalminded Tamil people the right to privacy. Sinhalisation of Tamil road names in the north and east and destruction of Hindu shrines and replacing them with Buddha statues. Though some of the allegations were overstated, they put the Sri Lankan delegation on the defensive, making it necessary for Sri Lanka to organize counter side-events at the UN premises. The Council for Liberal Democracy headed by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha organized two side events where the professor-turned-parliamentarian was joined by Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies President Jeevan Thiyagarajah and former ambassador Javid Yusuf. They took pains to explain to the human rights community and the Tamil Diaspora members the progress the government was making in its reconcilia- tion efforts and pleaded that the government be given time and space to implement the LLRC recommendations and develop the war-ravaged areas.

They said the government had already taken some positive steps and the military and the Attorney General's Department had taken initiatives to address the accountability issues raised in the LLRC report.

However much they tried, they failed to persuade the human rights zealots, especially those who were dancing to the US tune.

The allegations against the government made a huge echo in the corridors of the UN building in Geneva. The maverick and loquacious minister, Mervyn Silva, is not taken seriously by Sri Lankans who are sick of his antics and the government leadership's failure to subdue him. But his utterance that it was he who assaulted journalist Poddala Jayantha and chased him out of the country and that he would break the limbs of human rights activists - remarks he made barely 24 hours after the vote on Sri Lanka was adopted by the UNHRC -- made so big an impact in Geneva that the human rights community there felt vindicated.

Cheering on the human rights community and feeding them with anti-sri Lanka material were the members of the Tamil diaspora - also Tamils for Obama -- who were seen in large numbers in the UN corridors and at the side events. They clapped, cheered and joined the human rights community in celebration when on Thursday the council adopted the resolution on Sri Lanka.

Now that the resolution has been adopted the question is what's next. Is this the first step towards taking Sri Lankan leaders to the war crimes tribunal, even though Sri Lanka has not signed or ratified the Rome Statute that established the international criminal court?

Sri Lanka cannot take lightly the resolution even though it is non-binding. But failure to implement the recommendations of the LLRC, provide a political solution to the ethnic issue through the Parliamentary Select Committee or through other means, and promote the human rights situation in the country would make Sri Lanka's defence a tougher task in March next year.

Sri Lanka which underwent untold misery for well-nigh three decades and finally triumphed over Tiger terror should not be threatened with international blackmail. True, allegations need to be probed, but it is essentially a matter for Sri Lanka to decide. But the government's failure to pre-empt by implementing LLRC recommendations has given the Western powers an opening to intervene.

Although human rights issues are used as a political weapon by some powerful nations, activists who are apparently in cahoots with their donors defend and promote human rights on the premise that they are universal. The claim human rights are universal finds its place in the western liberal ideology which gives pride of place to individual liberty. This ideology is in constant conflict with cultural relativists who believe that community rights take precedent over individual rights. Both these ideologies portend danger; universalism leads to anarchy and social decadence while the cultural relativism doctrine allows politicians to exploit it and consolidate their hold on power. Where does Sri Lanka fall in the human rights spectrum? Is it for universalism or cultural relativism? Or will it say human rights are contextual, depending on the political stability, war, peace, national security or similar excuses.