Take middle path on foreign policy

TSUNDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2016

he Government received a reality check last week in Geneva when the Attorney General (AG) and the chief of National Intelligence (CNI) got a rude shock at a UN committee monitoring torture when they were cross-examined to the point that they had to beat a hasty retreat from the floor. That some of the UN agencies are now agents of the West and its double-standards is a given. Russia has just pulled out of the International Criminal Court on these grounds; one hopes it is not like Hitler pulling Germany out of a Disarmament conference in Geneva in 1933 as a prelude to withdrawing from the League of Nations before unleashing World War II.

The torture at the US prison at Guantanamo is well documented, but there is nary a UN investigation into it. And yet, the US is in the forefront of UN agencies on torture. That is the world right now, and the Government of Sri Lanka made a serious error of judgement recently by abstaining in a Western triggered UN vote on the human rights situation in Iran, a longtime friend of this country.

India and Pakistan both have close relations with the West, yet voted against the resolution and in support of Iran. Only a month or so ago, Sri Lanka abstained in voting in UNESCO, hurting Palestine’s sentiments. On November 29, we celebrate Palestine Solidarity Day. Is our foreign policy drifting in a different direction?

We have dumped the Non Aligned Movement and are seemingly gravitating towards the Western orbit. There again, in Britain we miscalculated and supported the wrong side in the ‘Brexit’ vote. In the US, we seem to have put all our eggs in the Democratic Party basket and have some catching up to do now with the newly elected President. At least the UNP kept a line open to the victorious Republicans.

While we get bashed in Geneva ourselves we showed no solidarity with those at the receiving end of the same stick. Back in Colombo, the Government remains on the defensive over its human rights record with a draft law on counter-terror causing concern on the basis that its proposed contents are even more draconian than the Prevention of Terrorism Act which it seeks to replace. The draft, much of which has already been written on, denies the right of independent legal counsel to a detainee until the Police statement is recorded; a similar provision having crept into a proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, raising a storm of protests and forcing the Government to backtrack.

That draft is wide-ranging and even defines “an act of terror” as attempting to “illegally cause a change of the Government of Sri Lanka” through inter-alia, “endangering of the lives of the public”. This can cover a wide range of political activity.

There is little doubt that stringent laws are required at times when the nation-state is under siege. What Sri Lanka needs for its contemplated counter-terror legislation is to strive for a midway point between being idealistic and merely bowing to external pressure and being pragmatic because people exploit loosely drafted laws – on either side of the divide. Achieving that essential balance should be up for public discussion rather than left to be conceived behind closed doors. That would arouse fear and suspicion and is contrary to transparency which still remains the avowed policy of this Government.