Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is an American non-profit organisation that monitors the US media.
To hear some tell it, says FAIR, the intelligence clues that ultimately led to Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan were generated by the use of torture. However, it adds that the evidence available so far does not bear this out.
Nevertheless, the cross section of the mainstream US media that FAIR documented this week would interest Sri Lankans. This is particularly those who draw parallels between the events that led to Osama bin Laden's killing and the military defeat of Tiger guerrillas in May 2009. That included the death of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. The US has recanted on an earlier claim that the al Qaeda leader died in an exchange of fire. It has now admitted he was unarmed. This has generated a worldwide controversy. Human rights groups have argued that even terrorists had rights. They say bin Laden should have been captured, subjected to a judicial process and punished.
The second anniversary of the death of guerrilla leader Prabhakaran is just ten days away. Yet, the exact circumstances under which he died are not documented officially. If indeed it has been, it is not in the public domain. The comparisons below would also strike a chord among those who have read the United Nation's Panel report on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. Are there parallels in many ways? More so, over allegations levelled against the Government of Sri Lanka and the newly emerging accusations against the US over bin Laden? Here is FAIR's observation:
"Torture advocates on the right are claiming vindication. On Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, Rep. Peter King (Republican - NewYork) announced that we obtained information several years ago, vital information about the courier for Obama [sic]. We obtained that information through water boarding. And so for those who say that water boarding doesn't work, to say that it should be stopped and never used again-- we got vital information which directly led us to bin Laden.
(Note: Water boarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning)
This led O'Reilly to proclaim: "You're not going to hear that on the other networks. I guarantee you."
"Actually, talk about how water torture may have revealed the identity of bin Laden's trusted courier could be heard widely. On the CBS Evening News, reporter David Martin said, "Some of the leads to that courier came out of the CIA's secret prison where those al-Qaeda captives were water boarded."
"And ABC World News reporter Jonathan Karl tapped Dick Cheney (former vice president) for expertise:
Karl: One key, Cheney suggests: the CIA's enhanced interrogation program that Obama stopped because he said it included torture. An early tip leading to bin Laden's courier came from some of those interrogations.
Cheney: All I know is what I've seen in the newspaper at this point, but it wouldn't be surprising if, in fact, that program produced results that ultimately contributed to the success of this venture.
"The Los Angeles Times reported: Crucial information about the trusted courier who owned the compound came years ago from CIA interrogations of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, the official said. This is significant, because the al-Qaeda mastermind was subject to water boarding and other brutal interrogation methods.
"Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted that Obama killed bin Laden "with an apparent assist from the Bush administration's interrogation program." And on NBC's Today show, Jim Miklasziewski reported:
U.S. officials tell NBC News that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, while in CIA custody, provided key information regarding a courier close to bin Laden. Intelligence sometimes obtained through aggressive interrogation techniques like water boarding….
"But the details that are known so far do not support the argument that torture produced any of the key intelligence. As New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer wrote (NewYorker.com,):
You would think that if the CIA's interrogation of high-value detainees was all it took, the U.S. government would have succeeded in locating bin Laden before 2006, which is when the CIA's custody of so-called "high-value detainees' ended.... This timeline doesn't seem to provide a lot of support for the pro-torture narrative…
"The blog Think Progress noted that administration officials disputed the idea that critical information came from torture sessions:
This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Obama's counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan confirmed that the information acquired over nine years did not come from water boarding but was pieced together from multiple sources.
"The New York Times, interviewing an array of intelligence sources, reported that "a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden's trusted courier and exposing his hide-out."
"Most importantly, the Times noted that "two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment--including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was water boarded 183 times--repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier's identity. "
"An Associated Press dispatch reported that
Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as water boarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.
This "up for debate" conclusion is strange, given that evidence would suggest that the pro-torture side of the "debate" has little to support their case. And such discussions serve to reaffirm a media narrative that tries to normalize torture by making it a debate that prioritizes outcomes--i.e, Does it work?--over legality and morality.
"Along those lines, CNN's Kiran Chetry posed this question to former Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice:
Things like enhanced interrogation have fallen out of favor. This administration has said they were ending some of those controversial practices like water boarding that were acceptable under the Bush administration. The other big thing is the so-called black sites, these CIA interrogation sites around the world. All of this met with huge criticism. As more trickles out about whether or not any of these strategies played a key role in eventually killing Osama bin Laden, do they have to rethink this administration?
Along with rethinking the Bush administration, there are many media voices suggesting we should be re-evaluating the question of whether torture should be an accepted practice for the U.S. government. One can only hope the media treat the subject more carefully than they have in the past. "
These developments shifted the focus from the UN Panel's report to the killing of Osama bin Laden when Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary in the State Department for Central and South Asian Affairs addressed a news conference at the American Centre in Colombo on Wednesday evening. It turned out to be one of Blake's shortest news conferences with the Q & A lasting just a little over ten minutes with seven questions asked. Of them, three drew one-line responses.
One was "QUESTION: Just to verify, there was a story in the Daily Mirror that you came with a secret message to the government that you would divulge only after you met the government. Do you have any message, having met the government?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: If there was a secret message I wouldn't be a very good diplomat if I told you what it was. [Laughter]. " Another was "QUESTION: Have you met the Government? ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: I have met the Government and I've said all I need to say about what I said to the Government."
The third was "QUESTION: During your visit in Sri Lanka, you said that you've visited several places in the North and East, and you might have witnessed the ongoing reconciliation programmes in those areas. ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: "Yes."
Yet, the evident shift in focus at the news conference prompted Blake to end it somewhat abruptly. Perhaps, the need for damage control was felt strongly. That was not before a question on bin Laden. This is what it said. "QUESTION: I have actually two questions. Where would you rate Osama bin Laden and Prabhakaran? My first question. My second question is, when the U.S. forces killed one of the worst terrorists in the world, the U.S. President in fact hailed the troops who killed Osama bin Laden as heroes. However, the UN report, the expert panel report, is now searching the whereabouts of the Sri Lankan armed soldiers who killed Prabhakaran. Do you think that there is a dual policy over here by UN? How do you see this?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: First of all with respect to your question about Osama bin Laden and Prabhakaran, I think they'll both go down in history as two of the worst terrorist leaders. Certainly, Osama bin Laden has more directly targeted the United States, so that has been a particular priority for us to ensure his capture or death. The President (Obama) said his death marks one of the most significant accomplishments in our decades-long fight against al-Qaeda, which is the principal terrorist group in the world targeting the United States.
Yet, the highlight of Blake's visit to Sri Lanka became clear in his answers to two other questions. This is how he responded to the first. "The United States has continually expressed to the Government of Sri Lanka the importance of implementing a credible and independent process to ensure accountability. Domestic authorities have responsibility to ensure that those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law are held accountable. International mechanisms can become appropriate in cases where states are either unable or unwilling to meet their obligations."
Blake was asked "Would you say at this point the United States would propose a domestic mechanism to use for accountability first before moving on to an international one?" ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: "As I said earlier, we look first to host governments, in this case the Government of Sri Lanka, to take responsibility for these issues, and we hope they will do so." Then, Blake declared, "I'm sorry I have to run off. It's nice to see all of you again, and thank you so much for coming."
The Presidential Secretariat regretted their inability to a request by the US Embassy in Colombo to arrange a meeting for Blake with President Mahinda Rajapaksa. As a result he held a meeting with External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris on Wednesday. Contrary to boasts by Fisheries Minister Rajitha Senaratne to some western diplomats, he was not with Peiris for this meeting. Last month, a Blake visit was put on hold because Peiris was abroad. However, it is noteworthy that President Rajapaksa had met Blake during previous visits.
The government's apparent aim, the Sunday Times learnt, was to downplay the visit since Colombo believes US is a staunch backer of moves for a "credible international mechanism" to investigate alleged war crimes. However, western diplomatic circles argue that the President's reluctance to meet Blake was in keeping with a change of stance by the Government towards the UN. In its front-page exclusive report last week, the Sunday Times revealed that the Government would respond to the UN report -- a move that signalled that it would engage the world body as against its previous stance to ignore it. "In such a situation, the Government does not want to be seen as having shifted position at the behest of US," one source argued.
Obama administration's message
The Obama administration's message, conveyed by Blake to Peiris, was two fold. One was the US position that the Sri Lanka Government should address accountability issues raised in the UN Panel report domestically. If such a measure was not forthcoming, the US would call for an international mechanism. The US position is that the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) is not a fit and proper mechanism to carry out a "credible" domestic process.
The Government has taken up the position that the LLRC is the "essential mechanism" of its domestic response to issues arising from the now concluded separatist war. However, the UN Panel's report notes that "the LLRC's mandate does not satisfy international standards for clarity in the mandate of an accountability mechanism, which should explicitly refer to the power to investigate violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, committed by any party in a conflict, including the State or its agents." Thus, there is a divergence in views between the US and Sri Lanka. In addition, the US view is shared by western nations including Britain, France and other EU countries. This week, they were joined by South Africa.
The second issue raised by Blake related to reconciliation. On his arrival in Colombo from the Maldives on Monday evening, Blake had a 90-minute meeting with a delegation from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The engagement at 'Jefferson House,' the official residence of the United States Ambassador in Colombo gave Blake an opportunity to obtain a first hand account. The TNA is engaged in a dialogue with the Government to resolve issues relating to Tamil grievances. However, its meeting on April 29 to discuss core issues turned unproductive.
The head of the Government team, former Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremenayake, had resigned after the TNA concurred with the findings and recommendations of the UN Panel, as exclusively reported in the Sunday Times last week. Thus, the meeting turned acrimonious with the Government side accusing TNA members over their position and the latter insisting that their stance was no different to what their members have said in Parliament.
In these circumstances, besides the euphoria generated from propaganda to create a patriotic hype, the government finds itself in an unenviable situation. Firstly, with the mandate of the LLRC extended until November 15, this year, the Government believes the Commission would address some of the critical issues raised in the UN Panel Report. Yet, the UN Panel Report and the strong views of the US and its allies are that the Commission is not an instrument of "retributive accountability."
On the question of reconciliation, one of the key instruments is the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. President Rajapaksa has said, following repeated reminders from the Government of India, that he would concede "13th Amendment Plus". He used the word "plus" to signify additional measures though they were not spelt out. However, a dialogue with the TNA towards its enforcement has become a thorny issue. If they have not moved forward during talks, the hard line constituent partners of the United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and their supporters have demanded a stoppage of any dialogue with TNA. In the light of this, how far the Government could go becomes a critical issue. Our front-page report reveals today the Indian Government's concerns, which, a high-powered delegation from New Delhi will express in Colombo in the coming week.
Peiris told Blake the Government would engage the UN -- again confirming a shift in its original position. He had said that a response to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon signed by him had been sent. The Sunday Times learnt that the Government had acknowledged receipt of the UN Panel's report but gone on to point out that it is "flawed" and hence unacceptable. It has also protested to Ban over the official release of the report despite an appeal made to him not to do so. Even more importantly, Peiris explained to Blake that a comprehensive response would also be made in due course.
Though not pointedly addressing issues raised in the UN Panel's report, the response would set out in detail the conditions that prevailed in the North before the onset of the war, the measures taken by Government to protect civilians during the war, the caring of displaced persons, their re-settlement after the war, the reconstruction of war-ravaged areas, the rehabilitation of guerrilla suspects among others. It will also incorporate inputs from the Ministry of Defence in respect of allegations over the use of heavy artillery and other issues. Blake, accompanied by US Ambassador Patricia Butenis, also called on Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Belated response by Govt.
This belated response by the UPFA Government raises some important questions. If it had engaged the UN Panel in a transparent manner, the responses to allegations would have found a place in the Panel report. Thus, member countries of the UN would have received the two sides of the story -- one; representation made to the Panel by the Tamil Diaspora including those who backed the Tiger guerrilla rump and two; the answers from the Sri Lankan Government. Both positions would have been incorporated in one report.
Instead, without the knowledge of the Sri Lankan public, a delegation headed by Attorney General Mohan Peiris engaged the UN Panel secretly on February 22. In addition, the Presidential Secretariat also set aside procedural issues and responded to written queries sent by the UN Panel. Thus, the government of Sri Lanka formally and officially recognised the UN Panel. It gave legitimacy to it although the government has chosen to call it the "Darusman Report" now.
 |
| The UPFA May Day procession at the Town Hall saw pictures of world leaders representing a new world order, veering away from the west. Pic by M.A. Pushpa Kumara |
The government's documented response that will go to UNSG Ban is the outcome of the UN Panel's report. UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky told a media briefing at the UN this week that the Sri Lanka Government's response would also be circulated to member countries. This is much the same way the UN Panel's report was circulated. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Ministry of External Afffairs, if there is one indeed barring a name plate and a Minister, deputy and officials, caused a colossal blunder by secretly engaging the UN Panel without taking the Sri Lankan public into confidence, and whose support it relies on very heavily to ward off any UN intrusions. It also ignored the Non Aligned community, which expressed solidarity with Sri Lanka in their opposition after the UN Panel was appointed.
Therefore, the Government finds itself adopting a dual track approach. One - it created a public perception against the UN, that the Panel Report has been rejected outright and required no response. Added to it is a hate campaign against the UN officials and western leaders, until now a culture spawned by the present administration where only perceived adversaries within the shores of Sri Lanka were victims. Two, it chooses to now engage the UN and send in its own response.
Once again, this response underscores the legitimacy of the UN Panel though the Government may reject its findings totally. This is notwithstanding the fact that the response will be sent to the UN Secretary General. Therefore, the question that begs an answer is why there was no foresight to take a similar position earlier. The fact that there is no capable mechanism or a think tank available within the government to study issues and provide an educated input is evident. As a result, senior Ministers have vied with each other to express different views, some of them bizarre.
Those promoting an international inquiry could argue, when the Sri Lankan response is made available to UN member countries, that both sides have made their positions known. Hence, let an international probe determine what the truth is, they could say. On such an occasion, the response of the Government of Sri Lanka would be deemed as an official reaction to the UN Panel's report though there would be some vicarious satisfaction among politicians and officials in Colombo that they have now re-named it the "Darusman Report."
Thaw in the Government's position
There are clear signs that there is a thaw in the Government's position. It wants to engage the UN. This week, two senior Ministers held a news conference to express the views of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the main party in the UPFA. "The Government would not go into any attacks against the UN. It would rather rely on a diplomatic offensive," declared Maithripala Sirisena, the General Secretary of the Sri Lanka SLFP. He added that the "UN is our organisation and we are members. We have no intention to fight it."
Added Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva; "We will make contact with members of the Security Council. We are aware of elements, both local and foreign, who want to hide behind the report to harm Sri Lanka. We need to prevent it." De Silva said that the report contained "hearsay" evidence and UNSG Ban had expressed his limitations."
The comments of the senior SLFP ministers came as a message to the other more hardline partners of the UPFA that the SLFP, the major partner in the Government, did not subscribe to their views.
There was disappointment, however, at the highest levels of the Government after it had hoped for the unstinted support of the main opposition United National Party (UNP). Some sections believed it would be in return for the UPFA's committed position of backing Opposition UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe for re-election as the head of his party. So much so, some members were expressing disappointment. None other than President Rajapaksa chided Wickremesinghe's rival, Sajith Premadasa, for not showing gratitude when he was challenging Wickremesinghe's leadership. Rajapaksa said Wickremesinghe had stood steadfastly with Sajith's father, the late President Ranasinghe Premadasa.
Before making what was a balanced and well-nuanced statement in Parliament last Tuesday, Wickremesinghe entertained a group of Colombo-based western diplomats to dinner. He obtained their thoughts on what he proposed to say. The Sunday Times learnt that most of the diplomats present welcomed the proposed statement as "timely and appropriate." Wickremesinghe said the appointment of the UN Panel was after a commitment given by the UPFA government. He noted that the Panel was unable to accept the Sri Lankan Government's claim that it was a humanitarian operation with zero civilian casualties. Here are some highlights of Wickremesinghe's speech in Parliament:
"The present situation is perhaps the single most difficult position we have faced externally since the airdrops of 1987. In whatever we do, we, as a responsible party in the Opposition are committed to putting the country first. I do not intend to make political debating points on a partisan basis. The stakes are too high for this. We need to be unified and dignified in our response to what is a major challenge to our nation…..
"…….Whether we like it or not, the report has now a life of its own. In this background many Human Rights Organisations have called for further inquiries to be undertaken internationally. Many countries have stated that they are studying the report. Today international relations are not confined to discussions between Foreign Ministries. Many governments are influenced by public opinion in respect of Human Rights and humanitarian issues. Public opinion in turn is shaped by the global electronic and print media.
"The social media driven by web and mobile based technologies is equally important. The recent events in the Middle East were driven by the social media. The Advisory Report has already become the subject of discussion in these media. Therefore, we face a fluid situation in which the outcome is uncertain. The measures that can be taken by individual countries and international organisations can have an adverse impact on Sri Lanka. Then the first step is to prevent the situation from deteriorating.
"Sri Lanka must maintain a dialogue with the UN. Sri Lanka is a member of the United Nations and a significant stakeholder. In the Joint Statement issued on 23rd May 2009 (after talks between visiting UN Secretary General and President Rajapaksa) Sri Lanka committed itself "to the promotion and protection of human rights in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka's international obligations. Implementing this commitment requires an ongoing discussion with the Secretary General……
"We should not ignore the international Human rights organisations. To do so will be to our detriment. We have focused rightly on the sovereignty of the country. Sovereignty has two aspects. Firstly, the non-interference in the internal affairs of the country. Secondly, it is the duty of the state to uphold the rights and freedoms of the people. This includes carrying out the international obligations, which we have voluntarily taken on ourselves. Any government must address the human rights issue that arises within its territory.
"It is when a government is unwilling to do so that provisions of some of the international agreements come into play. Sloganeering is no answer……… Then, national reconciliation is the key to regain our prestige in the international community. ….The government must take the first step to create an environment to build a national consensus based on unity, strengthening democracy, power sharing, equality and respect for the rights of all communities……."
Having made such a weighty statement on behalf of the Opposition, Wickremesinghe flew to Bhutan with his party still boiling with internal strife over appointments, an issue that has plagued the UNP for far too long now.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, confirmation that the South African Government will back the recommendations of the UN Panel also emerged this week. The African National Congress (ANC), the majority party in the South African Government, issued a statement on Friday. It said:
"The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, had appointed a Panel of Experts to advise him on accountability in the Sri Lankan conflict. Amongst those who served on the panel is Yasmin Sooka, a prominent South African jurist. The Panel of Experts concluded that there were serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by both the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers Tamil Eelam (LTTE), some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"The African National Congress has consistently condemned any act of violation of human rights in all conflict areas. We therefore urge all conflicting parties to resolve problems through peaceful dialogue and negotiation. We have noted, with regret, that breakdown of the ceasefire and the negotiations between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE led to a military solution of resolving the problems.
"The ANC supports the recommendations of the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel of Experts that called for the establishment of an independent body to investigate all violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws committed in the conflict.
"We also call on the government of Sri Lanka to take immediate steps to address the core grievances of the Tamil population and engage in a genuine reconciliation process."
Ebrahim Ebrahim, head of International Relations of the ANC, signed the statement. Both sides - the Government as well as Tiger guerrillas - consulted Ebrahim, a one time Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, during peace talks under the tenure of the late President J.R. Jayewardene. In 1960, he joined the armed wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe , and the next year, he was arrested and charged under the Sabotage Act. He was released in 1979 after serving a 15-year imprisonment. In December 1986, he was kidnapped from Swaziland by the South African Security Forces, charged with high treason and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in Roben Island. In 1991, he was released. In 1994 he became an MP. In 2002 he resigned to become a political advisor of the Government.
Last Tuesday, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague also responded to a question in the House of Commons. Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark) asked: "The recent report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations made it clear that war crimes had been committed in Sri Lanka by both the Tamil Tigers and the armed forces of the Government of Sri Lanka. What action do our Government propose to take in the UN and the Commonwealth to make sure that Sri Lanka, a member of the Commonwealth, upholds the rule of law and that war crimes are punished?"
Hague replied: "This is a vital subject and it is crucial for the long-term health of Sri Lanka that these problems are addressed as a part of reconciliation for the long-term future and in bringing different communities together in Sri Lanka. Our Government strongly supported the commissioning of the report by the Secretary-General. We are considering that report carefully, but in the meantime we look to the Government of Sri Lanka to respond to it in detail and make it clear how they intend to proceed."
Further elucidation of Britain's position came in a reply in the House of Commons on Friday by Alistair Burt, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He said, "The Government of Sri Lanka established a 'Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission' (LLRC) in May last year to look at conflict issues during the period 2002 to May 2009. We expect the LLRC to produce its final report on 15 May 2011. We have made clear our desire for an independent and credible inquiry into allegations of war crimes. We have also expressed our concerns about the LLRC process. While we cannot predict the outcome of the LLRC report, we have urged the Government of Sri Lanka to use it as an opportunity to promote national reconciliation."
The remarks were in response to a question by Heidi Alexander MP.
A more important development this week came when senior officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London met a delegation of the Global Tamil Forum led by Father S.J. Emmanuel. Among those present were Andrew Patrick, Director for South Asia, William Middleton, Deputy Director and Ms. Christine McNeill, the Head of Sri Lanka Desk. This is whilst Sri Lanka's acting High Commissioner, Mohamed Amza, was in damage control mode meeting Lee Scott MP and Siobahn McDonagh MP of the "All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils."
SL important subject in UN agenda
Despite other issues dominating the UN's agenda, Sri Lanka continues to remain an important subject. On Friday, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq told the organisation's noon news briefing, "It should be noted that the Secretary-General established the panel of experts in follow-up to the Joint Statement between the UN and the Government of Sri Lanka arrived at during his May 2009 visit to the country. In that statement, the Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, and the Government pledged to take measures to address those concerns. The panel's main recommendation is that Sri Lanka itself should carry out a proper investigation of the credible allegations on violations of international law that occurred during the closing stages of the conflict and institute an effective accountability process."
The Government's wheels are now grinding slowly in initiating a series of diplomatic initiatives to counter any moves to discuss the recommendations of the UN Panel report at the upcoming sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. For starters, the Government has recalled our envoy Kshenuka Seneviratne back to Colombo and it is likely that Sri Lanka's current Ambassador to Cuba, Tamara Kunanayagam will be sent to take Ms. Seneviratne's place. Kunanayagam has lived in Geneva and had been a human rights activist there and was known to President Rajapaksa when he himself visited Geneva to complain of human rights violations by the then Sri Lankan Government. The Government hopes she would know the ropes and have the credentials to defend Sri Lanka at the UN when human rights issues turn up against the Rajapaksa regime.
The UNHRC sessions begin on May 30, just three weeks from now. Other initiatives to canvas Non-Aligned countries are also under way by the Government. With a change of heart, how much the Government can now achieve diplomatically remains a critical question.
|
E-mail