Columns

With Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s ire on fire as he pitched into some of the local media at a UNESCO- sponsored conference in Colombo it seemed an appropriate subject to comment on. But then our former colonial masters intervened to remind the ignorant Sri Lankans a lesson or two on how parliamentary democracy functions and also teach us a few other things. It might well be that the high commission response was intended for a local newspaper that posed a couple of questions. But since that response is now public knowledge it is fair game for comment.

Any dimwit would know that Lord Naseby (pictured) was not speaking for the British Government

Back to the classroom boys seemed to be the attitude of the British High Commission in Colombo as it too tried to use a tactical smoke- screen to divert attention from the recent controversy stoked by the Naseby disclosures at the House of Lords almost two months ago. First it was our foreign ministry that issued an embarrassing statement talking of the President Sirisena government’s 100-day programme and all sorts of irrelevancies in an attempt to cover up one of the ministry’s fatal flaws in co-sponsoring a damaging resolution at the UN Human Rights Council two years ago.

Two days later the ministry did a back slide trying to minimise the impact of its messy affair. One thought all that had now been done and dusted. The Unity Government finally recognised that the information Lord Naseby presented at the Lords debate was of much import to Sri Lanka’s own post-war case that was being built up by international critics and the Tamil diaspora working in cahoots with media engaged in “fake news”, in the memorable words of Donald Trump.

The first to accept the importance of Naseby’s contribution to our defence was State Minister of Foreign Affairs Vasantha Senanayake who officially thanked the British peer for the good deeds he had done. This was followed up by President Sirisena and finally the Foreign Minister Marapana who thought he was concealing an ‘ace’ though everybody with any interest in the issue knew all about it by then.

But once the British High Commission (BHC) representing the Theresa May government which has enough problems trying to survive, got into the act with some puerile remarks one had to drop everything else and return to the Naseby issue. In responding to a media query the High Commissioner James Dauris and his diplomatic cabal down Bauddhaloka Mawatha gave the ignorant Lankans an elementary lesson in the functioning of parliamentary democracy.
“Lord Naseby was not speaking for the British Government when speaking recently in a debate in the House of Lords. As a Member of Parliament he is entitled to express his own views.”

Besides the unmistakable sense of hauteur evident in the tone of the BHC statement, whoever authored this statement seems to think we need to be taught a few things about how parliament functions and Naseby’s role in it as though the peer was playing for the minor countries. If anybody needs to be taught a lesson it is the author of the high commission missive which the pundits at the British mission seem to have thought that its verbal missile would end all further discussion of the subject.

Had the diplomat or whoever wrote it had done his/her homework prior to arriving in Colombo the individual concerned would have known that Sri Lanka has had a functioning parliamentary democracy since independence in 1948. Admittedly the democracy has been somewhat shaky at times but parliament did function.
Secondly any dimwit would know that Lord Naseby was not speaking for the British Government. One does not need the high commission to point this out. Those who read his speech would surely understand that.

Maybe those in the mission needed some assistance in sorting out what Naseby was saying. But one does not believe that the BHC’s assistance is needed to elucidate to a Sri Lankan audience Naseby’s line of argument. Naseby’s position is clear enough. Having struggled for three years to extract some despatches sent by the British Defence Attache’ in Colombo Lt. Col Anton Gash, some of which were withheld or heavily edited as to be left at times with only Gash’s name or otherwise, pieces of meaningless paper.

Even so Naseby was able to squeeze out enough information which coupled with other sources, provided a credible platform from which to challenge the number of civilian deaths of 40,000 or more touted by Ban Ki-moon’s committee of experts which had also picked up bits and pieces from other sources.
That figure with little credible and supportive evidence to buttress it came to be accepted as bona fide by those determined to castigate Sri Lanka including the UK and US governments.

What is so galling is the condescending attitude of the British High Commission which appears to think that Sri Lankans needed to be taught some basic principles on how parliamentary democracy functions. “Lord Naseby was not speaking for the British Government when speaking recently in a debate in the House of Lords. As a Member of Parliament he is entitled to express his own views.”

It is pretty obvious that Naseby was not speaking for the government. He was trying to have the Conservative Party government make some course corrections in the light of the information he had collated and which – and much more – was available to the government. That is why the FCO redacted so much from the despatches.
Now that we have learnt that a member of parliament is “entitled to express his own views” let us pick up the other issue which the British mission flaunts as a telling argument.

“A point that has not been in dispute in all that has been written and said since Lord Naseby spoke is that many thousands of civilians died during the conflict.”
Surely that is obvious from the underlying case that Naseby has been urging the British government to accept and advice the UN and UNHRC about it.

It would be ludicrous for any knowledgeable person to take up the position that thousands of civilians did not die in the last stages of the war. It would be an unusual war if it did not happen. After all Britain of all countries should know that, given its colonial and post-colonial history when it was directly involved in such killings or was a party to them.

Perhaps the panjandrums at the high commission might profitably spend their time pondering the civilians being killed even today in Syria and Yemen not to mention other sovereign countries where Britain’s finger prints are visible. Of course it is not disputed that civilians died. After all Lt. Col Gash’s despatches say so. Moreover they say that the LTTE was responsible for some killings, especially of Tamil civilians held hostage by the Tigers and shot at if they try to escape to cross over to the government lines.

The question here is not whether it happened. What is crucial is how many were killed. The high commission talks of “many thousands”. Surely the question is how many is “many”. That lies at the heart of this particular debate. The British Government seems happy to go along with the figure of 40,000 or more. The figures that Naseby has collected and collated from multiple sources that are not particularly pro-Sri Lanka Government gives the British peer anything between 7000-8000.
In fact the high commission is repeating what a Minister of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said at the debate on behalf of the government. Referring to the numbers he said that “while the differential may remain what is undisputed is that a number of civilians died in the final stages…”

But the differential is huge. There is a gap of 32,000 between the 40,000 that has now become an accepted figure though it has never been proven and the maximum 8,000 that Naseby has gathered from varied sources. Surely that is an enormous gap which cannot be allowed to stand uncontested. The British high commission keeps harping on Resolution 30/1 and the unfulfilled promises by the Sri Lanka Government. There is some truth in that. But the British mission is on much shakier ground when it refers to the non-appointment of a Truth Commission.

In the case of Sri Lanka Britain is particularly concerned in arriving at the truth. Whether this is to divert international attention from Britain’s own follies and constant bombings and shellings that are killing civilians or by providing weapons of war to its allies, or a genuine interest in finding the truth as a step towards reconciliation.

If it is the latter then would Britain be ready and willing to assist in finding the truth? Would Britain permit Lt. Col Anton Gash to appear before a Truth Commission and tell under oath what he knows and what was contained in the despatches that were denied to Lord Naseby. Would Gash be permitted to give evidence and tell of his own experiences and what he gathered without being punished for it? Will his unredacted despatches be made available to the commission?

Then Sri Lanka will believe that Britain is genuinely interested in the search for truth. Otherwise its sanctimonious appeals to fulfill some of the promises made would be discarded as pretentious prattle.