Columns

When the Soothsayer warned Julius Caesar to beware the Ides of March, Mighty Caesar brushed it aside haughtily.

But before the day was done Caesar was done for.

History tells us that the Ides of March—March 15—is not a day of ill-boding though Shakespeare and subsequent writers and film makers turned it into an inauspicious day, a bad omen.

In ancient times, as journalist Martin Stezano has stated, ides meant the first new moon of a given month and usually fell between the 13th-15th. In fact, the Ides of March once signified the new year, said Stezano, which meant celebration and rejoicing.

Whether it was the assassination of Caesar or Shakespeare’s dramatic work that first darkened the day now called the Ides of March and is looked at with ominous significance, one could only speculate.

Some believe—especially those in ruling circles and those with nationalist proclivities– that Sri Lanka has its own “ides” cast in a Shakespearean mould by former colonial and imperialist powers determined to skin the country to the bone for playing Tonto to Beijing’s Lone Ranger. That could be any day in March whenever Sri Lanka is due to appear on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

For several years now March has been seen as the cruellest month, the time of year when the country’s governments await with trepidation and understandable concern at what could happen when Sri Lanka is stretched out in an operating theatre in Geneva’s Palais des Nations like a “patient etherised upon the table”, in the words of TS Eliot.

It is the month when UNHRC meets and dissects Sri Lanka’s performance over the previous year and more in the fields of human rights, accountability, reconciliation and other areas of concern that have been highlighted by the UN Human Rights Commissioner and other UN agencies and special rapporteurs.

That update comes against the background of last year’s tough resolution calling for significant reforms in several areas to bring them in line with international good practice and laws.

So inevitably the government attempts to smoothen ruffled feathers, quieten aggrieved nations and engage in some play acting in the hope that those in the international community that demand we mend our ways would be appeased by the minor changes put on display.

Therein lies one of the problems that faces governments and their advisers who think that sleight-of-hand and layers of tinsel would convince the sharp minded and the eagle-eyed of reforms in the making.

Nor would the pretentious prattle dished out at media conferences and lengthy statements in response to meaningful arguments convince anybody but the gullible.

In recent days the government had devoted considerable time if not energy (which Sri Lanka seems to be short of these days!) trying to prove that important changes have been made to the Prevention of Terrorism Law (PTA) one of the issues that has figured prominently in critiques of Sri Lanka’s human rights record and the rule of law.

It is said that the amendments have been tabled in parliament. But it is not amendments that are called for, if by amendments are meant the ones that have been announced, for amendments could mean changes that are progressive or retrogressive.

What is being called for from Sri Lanka are progressive reforms that bring the PTA, for instance, in line with accepted international law. Already there have been strong criticisms by respected lawyers and civic rights groups of the amendments that have been passed off as progressive changes to a long existing law.

Given the limited space it is hardly necessary to go over the same ground. But it is interesting that as Sri Lanka’s date with the UNHRC approaches there appears to be convulsive agitation in ruling circles to empty the jails of some held in detention under the PTA and try to present a clean sheet of justice done.

Granting bail belatedly after months of detention without charge would certainly be good for the physical and mental health of those who are released. But it certainly does not add ballast to the reputation of a government that claimed on Independence Day that it safeguards the rule of law and respects international conventions and human rights.

While welcoming the release of some PTA detainees, the UK said last week it “will continue to raise concerns of those held under the PTA including those held in pre-trial detention for lengthy periods and uphold their right to a fair trial.”

It is well to remember that though the US has reactivated its interest in the UNHRC, the UK still plays a lead role in the “core group” on Sri Lanka and its voice cannot be downgraded as officials at times try to do by describing those who last March voted in favour of Resolution 46/1 as “white” nations trying to construct racist arguments in an attempt to discredit the resolution.

It was bad enough when last year a minister and some officials engaged in a peculiar mathematical exercise by juggling the votes recorded when the resolution was put to the test that saw a vanquished Sri Lanka being hailed as victor.

It is this kind of political skulduggery that denigrates Sri Lanka in the eyes of the world. Instead of presenting valid and dignified ripostes to criticism of Sri Lanka’s conduct domestically and internationally that is perceived as violations of international laws and conventions, Sri Lankan officials often engage in machismo diplomacy that compares with fallow fields without fertiliser.

The release on bail of Hejaaz Hizbullah, former MP Rishad Bathiuddin, both held under the PTA, and journalist Keerthi Ratnayake, might well be the result of judicial decisions, but to outsiders looking in it could appear as too contrived, especially when such magnanimity comes just days before the UNHRC’s Geneva meeting.

Such actions, apart from the tabling of the PTA amendments and other softeners may be projected as initial new steps to satisfy the concerns of sections of the international community that Sri Lanka’s leaders consider are raising Cain.

But those who believe that briefing Colombo-based diplomats and discussions with senior politicians and officials during whistle-stop visits abroad is adequate stage management to convince critics and sceptics of the genuineness of government intent, they miss a crucial point.

Colombo-based diplomats have their own sources; they acquaint themselves with media commentaries of contemporary events and have their eyes open and ears to the ground.

If politicians mislead themselves into thinking that an hour or two of official briefings would convince these diplomatic watchdogs that ministers and their official minions walk the talk, nothing can be further from the truth.

This is compounded by ill timed and careless utterances by ministers such as the recent opinion of Justice Minister Ali Sabry recent proposal to ban the right to strike of trade unions in six sectors that tramples customary international law of the last 70 years or so and held in esteem by nations of the European Union which are members of the Human Rights Council.

(Neville de Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London)