Thoughts from London

Canada snubs while ICRC ducks for cover
Another faux pas and another slap in the face. It seems that our governments never learn that when they are vulnerable they should never leave an opportunity for exploitation and humiliation. When the country is saddled with politicians who put self before nation, it is no surprise there would be moments of acute embarrassment.

The main interest of many politicians today is to look after themselves, their kith and kin, and dole state jobs to their faithful followers as though they were sharing the family boodeley.

Such public displays of nepotism and cronyism without any feelings of shame, a semblance of moral or political rectitude, is not new of course. But now it is the order of the day perhaps more than at any other time.

When there is blatant cronyism in doling out jobs for which the taxpayer meets the bill, there is an immediate public hue and cry and the media devotes some column inches. But soon protests fade, the media turns to other things and another stooge is maintained at state expense.

The trouble starts when diplomatic appointments are made at the level of head of mission. Then it takes two to tango. A country might nominate a person as ambassador or high commissioner to a foreign capital. Thereafter the host country must accept that nomination which, in diplomatic parlance, is called the agrement.

So however much the political leaders might be desirous of having their nominee that nomination must satisfy the norms and requirements of the recipient nation and not be seen as a possible embarrassment or 'burden' to the host.

The potential for clashes between the nominating nation and host lie in political appointments. It is very rarely that career diplomats are refused the agrement. This is not because career diplomats are necessarily seen as better diplomats than non-career people. It is because they are, generally speaking, non-controversial.

The same cannot be said of those selected from outside the service, the political appointees, some of whom are rewarded with diplomatic postings for services rendered to the party in power at one time or another.

There are also instances when individuals are exiled abroad with diplomatic postings because they are seen as political threats to those in power. It is because political appointees are the most vulnerable that extra care should be taken in selecting the right persons for the right postings. The recent brouhaha over the nomination of Kusumsiri Balapatabendi, a former Secretary to President Kumaratunga and Chandrananda de Silva, a former defence secretary in President Kumaratunga's earlier administration, would not have occurred had greater care been exercised in matching the person with the post.

Much of the opposition to Balapatabendi came from Sri Lankans and expatriate Sri Lankans in Australia. Though representations were made to the Australian Government against accepting Balapatabendi over the business activities of his son, Canberra was not moved by it.

But Canada is a different kettle of fish. Ottawa has every right to refuse a nomination from any country. There is no dispute there. However there would be different constructions given to why Canada made the decision to turn down the nomination of Chandrananda de Silva.

This might not have happened if our politicians and the so-called diplomatic experts among them, had learnt the lesson from Ottawa's initial refusal to accept the nomination of one-time army commander Tissa "Bull" Weeratunga as high commissioner.

President Junius Jayewardene who decided to nominate his nephew for the post refused to blink and toughed it out with the Canadians who finally allowed "The Bull" to enter the Okay Corral.

A government better equipped with wits would have switched posts and sent Chandrananda de Silva to Canberra and Balapatabendi to Ottawa. After all Australia accepted Major-General Janaka Perera. It would have been still better to have avoided all embarrassment by dropping both.

Whether it was the Tamil lobby in Canada which has its supporters in the Canadian Government or differences in the government itself between those who want to take a tougher stance against the LTTE and those who advocate a softer line, time will, I suppose tell.

But it is a lesson for those who made the nomination and those who sit in the parliamentary committee on higher appointments to be cognizant of the gaffe they made by such thoughtlessness.

Even if quiet diplomacy over the next couple of months leads to some accommodation between Ottawa and Colombo, right now the LTTE, spreading its wings and influence abroad, is likely to take credit for blocking President Kumaratunga's nominee on grounds of human rights abuses.

The LTTE, however, should clean its finger vigorously before pointing at the spots on others. People who have heard the tales of the unlawful detention and sufferings of Rajasingham Jeyadevan and Arumugam Vivekanandan held in the Wanni by the LTTE, have turned particularly critical of the Tigers.

They now say that the LTTE has no right to accuse others of human rights abuses after subjecting two Tamils who have steadfastly advocated the Tamil cause, to such inhuman treatment.

It is not only the Tigers who have emerged with tarnished images after this sorry episode of detention and abuse. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) has not covered itself with particular glory either.

When I wrote last Sunday about the accusations against the ICRC levelled on air by Jeyadevan, the ICRC's head of communications in Sri Lanka, Marshal Izard was reported as commenting that as an international organisation they could not comment on a particular case.

Why? Izard's position that an international organisation cannot comment on a specific case, sounds like bureaucratic buffoonery. Why should an international organisation not comment on any particular case, unless it has something to hide?

If in Bosnia or Darfur, in Aceh or the Wanni there is genocide or mass killings one particular day, would the ICRC maintain a deafening public silence claiming it is a "particular case"? Is that what Marshal Izard is telling us.

Perhaps Izard should marshal more acceptable arguments as to why an international organisation that claims to be in the frontline fighting for the humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty, refuses to comment when individuals are forcibly deprived of their liberty?

Had Izard said that he could not comment because the ICRC had no information about the case from its field staff, the complainant or anywhere else, one could have understood though it would still have been spurious.

For weeks before Izard's comment there had been media reports in the local press as well as in the Asian Tribune about the abduction and detention of these two persons.

Still the ICRC remains silent. And then when the ICRC comes under fire, it quickly ducks for cover. There are several questions the ICRC must answer. Is there an ICRC office 100 yards or so from where Jeyadevan and Vivekanandan were held, the former for two months. Did they or anybody else in the ICRC know about this? If not why? Is it because in an imitation of the three monkeys, the ICRC in the Wanni sees nothing, hears nothing and says nothing?

While you're at it could you tell us how many ICRC persons were brought to Sri Lanka on the back of the tsunami?

Back to Columns