Letter to the Human Rights Tribune - 10 June 2008
Ms.Carole Vann, Editor-in-chief
Human Rights Tribune
InfoSud
Rue du Valais 9
1202 Genève
Switzerland
Dear Madam,
I read with some surprise the article by Isolda Agazzi, under the delightful headline ‘UN wimps out on Sri Lanka’, which appeared in your journal on June 6th. Admittedly the article was translated from the French, but from what appeared it would seem that your writer’s concern for facts and rationality are deficient.
She sees Sri Lanka’s failure to be elected to the Human Rights Council as a victory for regional and international NGOs. To whose genius then does she attribute the failure of Spain and East Timor to get elected? Clearly she does not understand how the United Nations works, and that a triumph for some countries, such as the United Kingdom which pipped Spain at the post by a single apparently contested vote, is not a defeat for others. Sadly, stuck in what might be termed a zero sum mentality, she cannot understand what might be described as a win-win situation, in which good friends of Sri Lanka, such as Japan and Pakistan and Bahrain, were elected in our stead, friends who understand our difficulties and will help us to improve our situation whilst not permitting certain selected NGOs and their friends to ride roughshod over us.
Ms Agazzi also privileges the comments on Sri Lanka by Philip Alston, who was certainly critical, but was much more critical of NATO in Afghanistan, suggesting that many of those countries who have raised questions about Sri Lanka would, if they valued consistency, also question the activities of those for whom they are responsible. Sri Lanka does not, as it made clear in criticizing the unfair criticism of Italian policy in the speech of Louise Arbour, believe that governments should be held responsible for the aberrations of individuals, unless it is clear that such aberrations are deliberate and constitute policy. We therefore sympathize with the harsh criticism of Mr Alston’s judgment by NATO, even while we sympathize with the victims of NATO excesses, and hope that remedial measures are being taken by those responsible, which should include not just those countries with forces in Afghanistan, but all members of NATO.
Ms Abrazzi goes on to quote Mr Alston as claiming that the Sri Lankan government did not try to discuss his recommendations with him. I cannot speak for what happened in 2006, but she should know that Mr Alston has delayed or failed to respond to letters addressed to him in the last year. His lame excuse when I asked him about this was that he was very busy and had no time, and that this position was unpaid. I had to tell him that if he had no time to do a job he should not undertake it. We have made it clear that we would welcome a response to our last letter, but it is entirely up to him whether he wishes to engage or not.
We have found that other Special Rapporteurs such as Walter Kalin and Manfred Novak, whilst drawing attention to problems, are anxious to help to improve matters. If Mr Alston insists on being confrontational, so be it. Sri Lanka recognizes areas in which improvement is necessary, but we will not be deflected from dealing with terrorism whilst seeking a pluralistic democratic solution to our problems. We are saddened then by the tendentious attacks of reporters such as Ms Abrazzi, and would suggest that, if she does not understand the dangers of terrorism, she should at least aim for consistency, which Mr Alston at least does, in his aggressively scattershot fashion.
Yours faithfully,
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process