Peace, Pluralism and Polarization: A Quarterly Reflection - 30th August 2007

by Rajiva Wijesinha

Peace, Pluralism and Polarization : A Quarterly Reflection

Establishing a role – the need for targeted education

When I was rather surprisingly asked three months ago to take on the post of Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat, I thought I knew the main areas in which I would have to work. These were: a) peace negotiations in terms of the Cease Fire Agreement b) the All Party Representatives Conference, working on constitutional reform c) reconstruction and rehabilitation as part of building confidence in the peace process

Now in all these areas there were others already deeply involved, so clearly, if SCOPP was to play a role, it had to be innovative, to address areas that others might omit. For instance, with regard to the first, where negotiations seemed very far away, there might be room to initiate lower level discussions, perhaps with the LTTE Peace Secretariat, to find out say unofficially views on the proposals for constitutional reform that were being advanced. With regard to the second area, we could work on concrete proposals for actions in areas where there was no controversy, whilst waiting for the politicians who represented the different parties to reach consensus on the more contentious issues.

The third field I took as our main area of action, to target areas that needed particular attention if Tamils in particular were to feel confidence in the peace process. For this empowerment was essential, so that Tamils and all minorities could not only feel an integral part of the Sri Lankan state, but also participate actively in decision making as equal members of society.

Hence our concern with education, with remedying the deprivation that minorities had suffered through the system, not necessarily through discrimination but through the neglect that also left behind so many other of our peripheral provinces. A system that developed those too was of the essence, but our own priority had to be the minority areas, particularly in terms of the opportunity for new initiatives that developments in the East had provided. So we initiated much discussion on the subject, individual scholarships as well as wider programmes for which we needed large scale sponsorship. Though some chambers of commerce were cautious, the Business for Peace Alliance took up the proposal enthusiastically, and have produced a comprehensive project proposal. It remains to be seen however whether aid programmes, which seem to prefer what they term awareness programmes, the impact of which can rarely be measured, will pick up on this concrete attempt to help youngsters who have suffered from conflict.

Connected to the issue of education was the burning necessity of increasing minority recruitment to the public sector, and in particular the security services. I had often been told, when complaining of deficiencies in this regard in the past, that qualified minority candidates did not apply. It seemed to me that stopping at this reason was simply not good enough. There had to be a proactive policy of encouraging minorities to apply, and also of helping unemployed youngsters in this category to the basic qualifications that would facilitate employment.

Whatever the situation in the past, a polity that had permitted what amounted to quotas for university admissions, quotas that reduced minority entry so as to increase entry it was claimed of relatively deprived sections of society, had an obligation to use similar tools to increase minority representation in services where it was woefully low. This was a priority, and it was not an area in which significant efforts were being made.

Other areas of concern were ensuring satisfactory supplies to areas affected by conflict, and promoting livelihood development. Empowerment of females was particularly important in this regard, given the numbers of female headed households in these areas. Whilst much was being done in this regard, there seemed room for particular interventions that would introduce new areas and fresh ideas too.

Ensuring Balance in Reportage Whilst positive action in these fields was, and continues, our priority, I soon discovered that there was much to do in other areas too. With regard to the CFA for instance, we were in theory responsible for its monitoring, since we were the chief point of reference for the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission. I knew from my research in this area that relations between the government and the SLMM had not been too good, though recently there had not seemed to be many problems, following the departure of the previous Head of Mission.

Certainly the new Head seemed easy to work with, seeking an objectivity in the activities and approaches of the SLMM that had been lacking in some instances in the past. Sadly I found that some elements in the SLMM seemed to hanker after that past – or, rather, that our media assumed they did, and were determined to report their activities in a manner that was detrimental to the government. In my first week practically my attention was drawn to a headline in which it was claimed that the SLMM had said the security forces were responsible for abductions. Reading the relevant SLMM report however it transpired that they had drawn attention more forcefully to other perpetrators, primarily the LTTE, and only added that in some instances it was alleged the forces had been responsible.

This seemed perfectly valid, since obviously they had every right to draw our attention to allegations and ensure these were investigated. However, they were not willing to refute the newspaper headline, going by a media policy that did not take account of Sri Lankan realities, where mischief making was the norm. Fortunately we had recourse to the Press Complaints Commission, and an apology was issued. Perhaps more fortunately the SLMM realized that something had to be done, when a couple more instances arose of what we were told was misquotation, and now they seem as concerned as we are about ensuring accurate reporting.

This does not mean they should not criticize governmental actions. On the contrary, we should welcome this when it is based on substantiated fact, and we should do our best to correct lapses. But sadly in the past there had been a tendency to assume that the government was necessarily bad. And, while certainly no one claimed the LTTE was all good, the habit had arisen of refraining from criticizing it.

Thus, given the clear evidence provided by the Norwegian ambassador amongst others, of ruthless recruitment by the LTTE, conscripting one person from each family, it was depressing that this did not figure in reports provided by the international community. When I questioned the UN about this they said it had figured, and then corrected themselves to say this was in internal reports.

Why the omission? My view was that this was a form of cowardice. After all, if the international community criticized the government, several Sri Lankans would be delighted, and probably a majority of those in Colombo who were the people who interacted most with internationals. Then another segment, like myself, whilst objecting to blanket critiques, would look seriously at individual points made and ask for reports and suggest remedial measures. There was only a small number of people, and those would not interact too much with the internationals, who would be angry. Conversely, the LTTE as a whole would be furious if they saw any criticism, and would react vigorously. Especially for agencies working in Kilinochchi, this was too much to take.

Hence what amounted in fact to appeasement, the refusal to highlight abuses in those areas, the willingness even it seemed to turn a blind eye to conscription enforced on most families provided the families of the local employees of agencies working there were not touched. I even heard a rather plaintive cry that initially all agencies had been spared, and then it was hoped that at least international NGOs would be spared but this too did not happen. I was reminded then of the famous poem about what happened to those who ignored the sufferings of others in Nazi Germany, hoping to escape themselves, and then found there was no one to help them when they in turn became the victims.

I realized it was difficult for them, but the recent vicitimization of their own, reported graphically by Reuters for instance after the Norwegian ambassador’s visit, perhaps made them understand that appeasement will not do. Finally the SLMM has begun now to report on abductions in what are termed unclear areas. And even the UN, which scrupulously recorded tension in other districts while ignoring this in Kilinochchi, began recently to affirm that tensions continue there as well.

Concerted attempts at denigration – the ICJ distortions

But these agencies, working in Sri Lanka, are perhaps the least of our worries with regard to attempts to undermine the peace process, which will be the inevitable consequence of attempts, if successful, to undermine the government. My belief, on the strength admittedly of interactions over just three months, is that particularly the more senior decision makers of the international community working here have a genuine desire to help, and are not promoting a destructive agenda. In some cases some of their younger colleagues have a more excitable approach, fuelled by the elite Sri Lankans they interact with, and based on their genuine awareness of what Tamils suffered in the past. But by and large I believe that concerted action to promote reforms and rehabilitation will meet with the whole-hearted support of the main agencies.

What is more worrying is the emergence of deliberate distortion on the part of some elements in the international community, to denigrate the government, in pursuit of some undefined yet not especially elusive agenda of their own. I had earlier thought fears about this fanciful, but in my very first week I was struck by an intervention that was quite outrageous. Fortunately nothing of this enormity has occurred since, but I have been bemused by the manner in which it has been allowed to pass, without the categorical condemnation that it deserves internationally, let alone in the Sri Lankan media.

I refer to the extraordinary allegation against Sri Lankan government officials made by a Queen’s Counsel, Michael Birnbaum, acting on behalf of the International Commisison of Jurists, that they tampered with evidence. His allegation was made without any evidence whatsoever, and arose from a simple discrepancy in the identification of a single bullet by two experts. The ICJ itself, in the form of its Secretary General, made the allegation more distinctly, referred to bullets in the plural, and then issued a public press release on the subject.

At the press conference SCOPP held in this regard, my own concern was not the discrepancy. The Attorney General’s Department very clearly spelled out the problem, and their whole approach was justified when a few weeks later the Australian expert, on whose report Mr Birnbaum had made his wild allegations, withdrew his identification, at the same time categorically dissociating himself from Mr Birnbaum.

The problem to me lay in this latest evidence, capping and confirming what had gone before, that some members at least of the international community were determined to give the Sri Lankan forces a bad name and hang them. As I said at the press conference, it was conceivable the forces were responsible, but this type of witch-hunting, conducted by a body that is supposed to embody our highest hopes for justice and the rule of law, made clear the threat to our duly elected government.

My correspondence on this subject drew from a Sri Lankan columnist the suggestion that I was farting against thunderbolts, and was similar to Pol Pot. I suppose this is typical of a country that can only see flaws in its own citizens, and that believes a body like the ICJ is as sacrosanct as the gods in their heavens. What made me sadder, because I suppose I too had a greater regard for institutions like that, is that to date there has not been a word of apology. The Birnbaums of this world can go on to wreak destruction, their allegations will be reported sensationalistically in the international and the local press, there will be no similar coverage when they are proved both wrong and amoral, and only terrorism will in the long run benefit.

Patronage without precision – Gareth Evans and elements in the European Union

Similar distortions occurred when the former Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, delivered a lecture on the Responsibility to Protect, which he thought was a concept that was even now applicable to Sri Lanka. In his speech, referring to situations which justified such intervention, he made great mention of genocide and ethnic cleansing, implying that these had taken place in Sri Lanka and could well take place again.

Gareth is of course a skilled politician, and when I reprimanded him, unable to give any instances of such genocide or ethnic cleansing himself, he promptly referred the question to his young assistant who had apparently drafted much of the speech. The young man promptly claimed that ethnic cleansing had taken place, in 1990, on the part of the LTTE when they sent Muslims out of the Northern Province. Whilst this may have been correct, the way the speech had been constructed was clearly designed to suggest that it was the government of Sri Lanka that had been responsible for ethnic cleansing, which it was granted had never been the case. Gareth benignly suggested I sort the matter out with the assistant, thus – I hope not typically – dodging responsibility for pronouncements that of course are attributed to him in the media, not to some poor young man with no international standing.

It was similar with allegations in the last report issued by his Eminent Persons Group. When I took up the issue of misrepresentation about the ACF issue, it transpired that Gareth had not read the Dodd report on which the ICJ extravaganza was purportedly based. His assistant also could not recall his authority for asserting that there were discrepancies in the number of bullets discovered. Sadly, this type of shoddy and insidiously targeted reportage is taken seriously by the international community.

This is perhaps understandable when their followers, or arguably their leaders, amongst Sri Lankans opposed to the government, then write articles suggesting that those contesting such claims are necessarily prejudiced and ignorant. I cannot believe that I was specifically referred to as an apparatchik who had not read Gareth Evans’ report, but the general critique failed to address any of the particular refutations I had made, and completely ignored the fact that Gareth self-confessedly had not read the reports on which his own compendium was based, and knew little of the issues involved.

I would hesitate to say they are all like that, for undoubtedly there are perfectly sincere people concerned with human rights, and there is no doubt that the government of Sri Lanka could do much to improve the situation. I have myself pointed out that the questions the original ICJ report raised about procedures were valid, and that there is urgent need for a Witness Protection Act as suggested by the International Group of Eminent Persons headed by Justice Bhagwathi.

But, sadly, these legitimate concerns are overlaid by the particular agendas of some members of the international community. In particular the European Union, or rather some of its members who may be under pressure from elements in the diaspora opposed to the elected Sri Lankan government, are anxious to undermine the government by suggesting that international interference is now essential. The fact that this is precisely what the LTTE wants, and also the main Sri Lankan opposition, cannot have escaped their notice, but such interference in the internal politics of small countries is now justified on sanctimonious grounds.

So unfortunately the Peace Secretariat has to waste a fair amount of time dealing with such criticism. I would prefer to use that time in promoting the benefits of peace to Sri Lankans in general, and in particular to minorities and those in the Eastern Province who now have an opportunity for rapid development of a sort that the periphery of Sri Lanka has not benefited from. But fire fighting too is essential in a context in which those opposed to democracy, whether in the LTTE or in the Sri Lankan opposition, make use of outsiders to undermine the government, its determined opposition to terrorism, and the sterling work being done by the leadership of the APRC in trying to produce a widely accepted package of reforms that will promote pluralism.

If those who wish to interfere succeed, we will be back to the bad old days of 2002, when the LTTE was able to strengthen its control over areas it controlled, extend its controls elsewhere, bring in weapons of enormous potency, and decimate other Tamil groups. What we should be concerned with now is making it clear to the LTTE that there is no option but to negotiate, and that it should do this now with the elected government, which will be able to promote a reasonable package if there were less diffidence about the commitment of all interested parties, internal and external, to a democratic pluralistic dispensation.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process