Thoughts from London

UN gaffe or official's misreading?
The stage, it seemed, was getting a little crowded. Those who have been in boarding school might remember those end-of-term concerts in the dormitories when every student had a part to play - even if it was just walking across the stage without uttering a word.

Those who imagined that they had the makings of a John Gielgud or a Ralph Richardson (the Sinhala screen had only Eddie Jayamanne of any note and not many were keen on following in his footsteps) did not mind even momentarily strutting across the makeshift stage.

So when the United Nations announced that a former US president Bill Clinton would be Kofi Annan's special envoy not only to visit the tsunami-affected countries but also possibly lend a hand to "facilitate peace negotiations" in the disputes between the governments of Sri Lanka and Indonesia and their separatists movements, one could be pardoned for putting one's memory in rewind mode.

Let's leave Indonesia and its problem with the Aceh rebels for the moment. In Sri Lanka the Norwegians were already playing the role of facilitator or mediator or whatever it is called nowadays.

Not everybody is happy, if an understatement might be permitted, about the role of the Norwegians who have been accused not only of bias but also of actually aiding and abetting the separatist Tamil Tigers.

Such accusations are, of course, not new. The issue of bias goes back a couple of decades when Norwegian NGOs were operating in the north of the country and Norwegians were working with certain international NGOs.

Anyway whatever the charges against them, they have their hand in the peace process that seems to be going nowhere. Even they cannot just pull their hand out of the mess and take off to cooler climes as once they did hoping that the threat of a permanent pullout would work some magic and get the talks back on track.

The problem is that a major component of the Chandrika Kumaratunga government, the JVP, wants to dump the Norwegians because in its perception Oslo's agenda is detrimental to Sri Lanka's territorial integrity and half a dozen other grouses.

Curiously the JVP would like the Indians to step in after having launched a bloody campaign in the late 1980s to kick India and its peacekeeping force out of the country. Though only the Norwegians are actually carrying the can running hither and thither talking to this one and that one - and having a free holiday in Sri Lanka away from the artic winter - there are other dramatis personae in what is turning out to be a tragicomedy.

There are what are called, perhaps for the lack of a more elegant phrase, the co-chairs, from East and West not to mention the middle - the European Union. They hold meetings here and there threatening not to cough up the promised help unless the two sides to this unfortunate conflict sit down and talk.

But as they say you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink - particularly if it is an ass. While both sides want the money that will hopefully start flowing if the negotiating table is cleared of its clutter at the moment, nobody seems to want to do that 'dirty' work.

So while everybody is standing around waiting for the first move, the UN decided to get into the act. Whether this had to do something with the rebuff to Kofi Annan during his Sri Lanka visit, one does not know yet.

If some member-states are not particularly enamoured of the UN Secretary-General also bidding for a place at their table, the tsunami that affected several countries in Asia provided him with an opportunity to try and get in where he would normally not be welcome.There is India that politely but firmly, tells the Sec-Gen that he is not really wanted. But then India is a major power and vying for a place in any revamped security council.

Small member-states such as Sri Lanka, whose economy is dependent on foreign aid, is more vulnerable to the blandishments and indeed, coercion of the big powers, rich nations and international institutions, especially lending institutions.

As fellow columnist Thalif Deen wrote from the UN, Clinton was expected "to make political advances with the rebel movements in those two countries" and "capitalise" on the willingness of the rebel groups to cooperate with their respective governments to rebuild their devastated regions.

Let us leave this "willingness" aside for the moment since this desire does not appear to have been translated into concrete action at this writing. Just 24 hours after trying to carve out a role for the UN to play peace-maker with the help of Clintonian charisma, the UN does a volte face.

Imagine, just 24 hours. It would have taken Tara de Mel's task force (apparently she has now withdrawn to safer ground) to put pen to paper to authorise some post-tsunami reconstruction. Colleague Deen says that the UN retracted its statement and when asked why UN spokesman Fred Eckhard pleaded mea maxima culpa and said it was his "misunderstanding of the mandate."

How many people will really swallow that story? Eckhard is not an inexperienced UN civil servant. Those who are cast in the role of spokesman are not amateurs who merely go out there and read a statement or communiqué. They must face a battery of international journalists and field their questions, sometimes in rather hostile situations.

Could any one as experienced as Eckhard have misread and misinterpreted the role that Clinton was to play and assign a second controversial task to him knowing only too well that when Annan went to Sri Lanka, the Kumaratunga government managed to keep him away from key Tiger-controlled areas such as Mullaitivu.

Moreover such a role cannot be assigned even to a UN special envoy without the concurrence of the government concerned. Even UN envoys cannot go about trampling all over a country facing a conflict situation without a by-your-leave from the member-state.

So what really happened? Certainly there will be as many stories as there are special envoys of one hue or another. It would be interesting to await the various tales that will emanate not only from New York but some other capitals and from Tiger lairs too.

After such a diplomatic gaffe will Fred Eckhard fall on his sword and be carried away for a decent official burial? Not on your life.

Back to Columns