26 October, 2020

Blog

Respond Positively To Issues Raised During Pillay’s Visit

By Jehan Perera

Jehan Perera

The recently concluded visit to Sri Lanka of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay was in pursuance of two resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council in relation to serious human rights problems in the country.  The visit enabled the Commissioner to see the country situation at first hand without having to rely on the interpretations of other interlocutors.  She met with a wide range of stakeholders, including leaders of the government, opposition, civil society and war victims.  In her concluding statement to the media, the visiting Commissioner appreciated the Sri Lankan government’s efforts to give her access to all parts of the country and to all persons she wished to meet, and facilitating her visit in general, which she described as “excellent cooperation”.

But the visiting UN Human Rights Commissioner has now come in for scathing criticism at the conclusion of her visit.  This was after she made her final statement in Sri Lanka and made critical comments on the government both for its lack of progress investigating war crime allegations and a general drift towards an authoritarian style of rule.  She said she was “deeply concerned that Sri Lanka, despite the opportunity provided by the end of the war to construct a new vibrant all-embracing state, is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction.”  It would be more unfortunate if the government gets itself into a confrontational stance with the UN High Commissioner as a result.  The better way forward would be to address the issues that she raised.

The first half of UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay’s visit to Sri Lanka seemed to go well.  But after she had spent a week which she said was the longest she had spent on mission to any country the picture that emerged was more complex, as befits the complex reality that is post-war Sri Lanka.  Ms Pillay herself said and there was more she could have done, more places to visit and more people to meet that would encompass the plurality of issues in the country and views on them.  She ended her visit by saying that the people were warm and friendly, and they were all Sri Lankans to her.  She appears to have been particularly impressed by the Youth Parliament where she listened to the voice of youth who are Sri Lanka’s future.

Positive Impression

When I met her along with a small group of civil society activists, in the middle part of her visit, she did not come across as arrogant or with a grudge against anyone, but sober and thoughtful. She came across as being highly educated, with a refined intellect, a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. During her weeklong stay, Ms Pillay was able to see the different facets of Sri Lanka, its ups and downs.  Her final media briefing, where she issued a balanced and well crafted statement that accurately captured the complexity of the challenges faced by the country, even if parts of it were hard for the government to accept, but she spoke as well on its positive potentials.

On the positive side, she noted that the government authorities at all levels had been keen to show her how much they had achieved in terms of resettlement and recovery since the war had ended.  She gave credit to the government for its achievements in the former war zones of the North and East, where there had been large scale destruction, by pointing to the large number of roads, bridges, houses, medical facilities and schools that had been built or rebuilt, and the electricity and water supplies that had been provided.

However, as a result of her visit, she was also able to get a glimpse into the less visible realities of the country, which escape the attention of even the majority of citizens living in the country.  She met with the families of the disappeared.  In an interview with the media she is reported to have said that “reconstruction and development is impressive, but the government needs a holistic picture of adding human rights concerns including the counseling of clearly traumatized victims.  I have never experienced so many people weeping and crying.  I have never seen this level of uncontrolled grief.”  These were words from a judge who had presided over the international tribunal on war crimes in Rwanda.  She saw the sorrow, mistrust and polarization that continue to exist within the hearts and minds of people, despite the end of the war.

Ms Pillay also got a glimpse into another less visible reality that now routinely affects those who engage in community level work especially in the area of inter-ethnic relationship building and human rights.  It was reported to her, and made her very upset, that some of those whom she had met with in the North and East were subsequently visited and intimidated by members of the security intelligence services.  While those of us who work at this level in Sri Lanka have come to expect this as normal, she noted that it was “Utterly unacceptable at any time, it is particularly extraordinary for such treatment to be meted out during a visit by a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.”  This behavior of the security forces is indicative of a system that is repressive and suspicious of the people.

Way Forward

In the aftermath of Ms Pillay’s visit the way forward for the government would be to focus on the better implementation of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).  Both resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council, which she is tasked with reporting on, called on the government to implement the constructive recommendations of the LLRC, which include measure to ensure national reconciliation in the future through practices of good governance, poverty alleviation and economic development.  The LLRC report contains the blue print and, possibly, the best ever thinking produced by a governmentally-mandated group of experts on how to unite the country and its people, and to become a modern democratic state that is able to hold its own in any international forum on the issues of good governance and human rights.

The members of the LLRC were handpicked by the President who has years and years of experience of those who have run the governmental system of the country in the past.  Therefore, it has to be the case, that what the LLRC commissioners recommended in their report would be in the best interests of the country.    Language committees are being set up in all parts of the country, where the two official languages are being taught to those who wish to learn, and government officials in particular are being encouraged to undergo language training.  More recently the government has set up a new ministry of Law and Order under which the police is vested, and has set up a commission to look into the fate of missing persons.  These are all in accordance with the LLRC recommendations it has promised to implement.

At present there is no government programme to popularize the LLRC, its findings and its recommendations.  The essence of democracy is people’s participation, so that people both know and take part in implementing what is in the national interest alongside the government.  But most government officials know next to nothing about the LLRC.  If the government is serious about implementing the LLRC, the challenges that are likely to be posed by the reports that Ms Pillay is likely to make can be taken on and surmounted.  What is important is the sincere effort a government makes to improve the lives of all people, and this will strike a chord with the representatives of other governments that are members of the UN’s Human Rights Council to whom she will report.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Three important points Ms.Pillay made in her statement, give us some insight as to where the end game is headed:
    1) Intimidation of witnesses/victims and those who spoke to the commissioner before and after her visit.
    2) Vulnerability of Girls/Women and Women headed households
    3) Continued military involvement in civilial life.

    These same points were made in the UN panel of experts report. Ms.Pillay is now confirming that the above is true based on her own personal visit to the NE. This sets the stage for what needs to occur before a “credible, independent investigation” takes place. There is no way the GOSL can escape such an investigation for the simple reason that the United States has already put its credibility on the line by passing two resolutions that affirm the need for an independent investigation.

    The UN is carefully preparing to make an argument that before the investigation takes place, the SLA will have to completely withdraw from the NE in favor of a UN protection mechanism. Without this, there is no way to ensure the safety of victims/witnesses, to protect girls/women and to stop military involvement in civilian life.

    What’s harder to predict is the timeframe. My guess is that by 2015 there will not be a single Sri Lankan soldier in the NE.

    • 0
      0

      Keep dreaming. By 2015 more 500 Sinhalese will be settled in the North & East while genuine IDPs are still languishing in Refugee camps.

  • 0
    0

    All these special interest groups are preaching. But, US want UNHCR help for some other things.

    This is the US human rights record:

    ” Make no mistake: the United States would be committing an act of war against Syria — and judging by the 2011 Libyan intervention, it would be doing so unconstitutionally, without congressional authorization. If history teaches us anything, it is that war is unpredictable. Even limited “surgical” strikes can have unintended consequences (civilian deaths and American losses) and could elicit unanticipated responses, including from Syria’s allies Iran and Hezbollah.

    Exploiting unsubstantiated allegations about chemical weapons also runs the risk of repeating the blunder of a decade ago, when dubious intelligence was used to justify an unlawful war of aggression against Iraq. Are there grounds for confidence in the claims that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons? Maybe they did, but something does not add up. Assad has much to lose by their use, while the rebels have much to gain: Western intervention on their behalf. (In May a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria concluded that the rebels may have used chemical weapons at that time.) As Peter Hitchens writes,

    What could possibly have possessed [Assad] to do something so completely crazy? He was, until this event, actually doing quite well in his war against the Sunni rebels. Any conceivable gains from using chemical weapons would be cancelled out a million times by the diplomatic risk. It does not make sense.

    Hitchens urges caution:

    It seems to me that there are several reasons to be careful. The first is that we seek to believe evil of those we have already decided to be enemies, especially in democracies where voters must be persuaded to sign the vast blank cheque of war.

    Finally, it is grotesque to see officials of the U.S. government, such as Secretary of State John Kerry, condemning anyone’s war tactics as something “morally obscene” that should “shock the conscience of the world.” Since 1945, the U.S. government has launched aggressive wars in violation of international law. It has tortured prisoners detained without charge. It has dropped atomic bombs on civilian centers, and used napalm, Agent Orange, depleted-uranium shells, and white phosphorus incendiary weapons. It has carpet bombed and firebombed cities. America’s unexploded landmines and cluster bombs still threaten the people of Vietnam and Cambodia. (Tens of thousands have been killed or injured since the war ended in 1975.)

    Today the U.S. government cruelly inflicts suffering on Iranian men, women, and children through virtually comprehensive economic sanctions — just as it did to the Iraqi people from 1990 to 2003. It also threatens aggressive war against Iran.

    And while it selectively laments the humanitarian crisis in Syria, the Obama administration bankrolls Egypt’s military government, which massacred over a thousand street demonstrators, and Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

    The U.S. government should get its own house in order and quit lecturing others.”

    Read about US Grand plans are completely different. Read here;

    “http://www.globalresearch.ca/great-power-confrontation-in-the-indian-ocean-the-geo-politics-of-the-sri-lankan-civil-war/15667 “

    • 0
      0

      Jim,
      Have you written to Obama?

      • 0
        0

        why does he wants to write to mr Obama.

        He is a relative of M Jarapassa.

        So there is an open line for him to contact Obama directly.
        and Jaraapassa will appoint him to the advisory board of white house,
        and will purchase a Doctorate also ,similar one like to Kudu Merviya.

  • 0
    0

    Jim Softy,

    “Are there grounds for confidence in the claims that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons? Maybe they did, but something does not add up. “

    This was a set up with the Saudis, who wants to turn Syria into a Wahhabi-Salafi State and the Syrian Dictatorship really helps in making a case. This is a Wahhabi-Shia proxy war, and USA does not want to make the same error as the WMD in Iraq. At least here, they have the planted evidence.

    The list is long, long long.

    http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwar1/p/lusitania.htm

    The Ship Lusitania by tge US, the Nazi Germans Staging the Polish Attack, the Gulf of Tonkin attack, etc. the false flag operations, to fool the world populace, the same the current regime in Sri Lanka is doing to the people and international community.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

    The second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved “Tonkin Ghosts”[6] (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.

    The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression.” The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

    The Russians and the Chinese Know that.

    De Ja Vu..

  • 0
    0

    Mrs. Navi Pillay hails from South Africa where LTTE had been able to mislead the ANC(in the midst of their struggle against Apartheid). They said Tamils were the majority community in Sri Lanka and that they were subjected to the rule of the minority similar to the Apartheid system. The ANC swallowed the pill and Desmond Tutu was vociferous about the plight of Tamils. The lady could not have been ignorant of this. Assuming she did not have the time do her homework to assess the authenticity of LTTE claims, her visit would have at least convinced her that she was blatantly misled. If that may be so she would be able to shed some of her prejudices and we would be better able to respond positively to whatever issues raised by her.

  • 0
    0

    have they taken your doctorate off? How do you feed the family now that you are not a published “journalist”?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.