Columns

LOUD-MOUTHED NONSENSE Have you ever heard such garbage. One can expect such rot from some of those who inhabit that House by the Diyawanna Oya. Armed with dubious educational qualifications, it would come as no surprise if some of the gallant 225 reach out into areas of competence way beyond their intellectual reach.

But the citizenry expects creditable and credible contributions from those who represent the country at the highest level in the world’s pre-eminent assembly known as the United Nations, not unadulterated untruths and piffle that tarnish the national image even more than it is blackened already.

It is bad enough when our recent foreign ministers have tried to play Rambo in Geneva where Sri Lanka has been fighting losing battles at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). That is because at home the governments they are part of have cared little for world opinion as they resort to outdated and obnoxious laws to repress dissent besides other disastrous policies that have brought a once respected nation to its knees.

But when those who head or headed until recently, our missions in New York and Geneva believe that appearing macho and lashing away needlessly at those we must cooperate with, as they themselves admit, with reasoned and civilised argument, ‘diplomacy’ becomes a heavy burden for the country to bear.

Such self-serving bravura might win them applause at home and hopes of extended stay at their postings even if they chair the UN First Committee in New York. But it is well-nigh time not only to rethink our crude diplomatic approaches but also have in place qualified, intelligent, seasoned diplomats instead of political lickspittles who, if needs be, can be planted in far less important capitals where diplomatic misadventures would be far less damaging to a nation struggling to retain friends around the world.

The current contretemps is at the UN Fifth Committee sessions in New York where an enhanced budgetary allocation of US$ 3.4 m is sought to conduct the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Sri Lanka has opposed the allocation of this “staggering” amount to enforce the latest Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 51/1 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, which the Government rejected.

Before over-exerting their tonsils rushing to denounce the call for funding, perhaps Sri Lankan ministers and their diplomatic chorus might consider the amounts spent by presidents, ministers and government agencies for and during visits abroad, including for their accompanying acolytes and the use of diplomatic vehicles and resources at our missions.

That is public money, often unaccounted for unless squeezed out of servile officials via the Right to Information (RTI) law or through the courts. What is being asked for at the Fifth Committee is funding from Member States with their approval, not people’s money creamed off the top by thieving politicians and cronies.

This enhanced allocation was sought at the UNHRC sessions last October when Resolution 51/1 was passed with Sri Lanka receiving a paltry 7 votes in its favour, the lowest it has gained at the UNHRC for the last decade or so—a sign of our diplomatic adventurism.

The purpose of the funds is to strengthen the OHCHR’s capacity to collect and collate information and evidence relating to Sri Lanka’s reported violation of human rights, international human rights law and abuse of international humanitarian law and make such information available to member states if they seek to proceed with judicial action against those suspected of abuse.

“No sovereign state can accept the superimposition of an external mechanism that runs contrary to its Constitution and which pre-judges the commitment of its domestic legal processes,” Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said, at the time the resolution was before the UNHRC in Geneva late last year

Coming from a person with a legal mind and was Justice Minister at the beginning of the President Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration it seems a pretty curious comment to make. Pray what are these domestic legal processes he crows about that have proved their worth in bringing justice and accountability?

Perhaps Mr Ali Sabry, now foreign minister skipped his homework, busy as he is now trying hard to elevate the current president to the level of a new messiah.

Pity he has not studied the promises made by the post-war governments including the President Mahinda Rajapaksa administration to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in late May 2009, and subsequently to the UNHRC and others and adhered to those promises instead of strewing the international scene with a litany of broken pledges.

Then the “superimposition of an external mechanism” could most probably have been avoided.

To resurrect Foreign Minister Ali Sabry’s faded memory and those of others who to continue point the finger elsewhere, let me quote the last but highly relevant paragraph from the joint statement between Ban Ki-moon and Mahinda Rajapaksa.

“Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations.  The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.  The Government will take measures to address those grievances.”

Since this faithful promise was made to the world, how many others have spouted from the mouths of ministers officials and diplomats to the point that most countries no longer believe the word of Sri Lanka’s representatives however aggrieved and discriminated they sound in the international arena.

Consider the first words of Ali Sabry’s statement to the UNHRC session last October.

“At the outset, on behalf of our government, I reiterate our unwavering commitment towards advancing, securing and protecting the human rights of our people and continuing our engagement with the Council in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue”.

Perhaps he had his tongue in both cheeks when he said this. For this “unwavering commitment” came only a few months after pro-government goons physically attacked peaceful protestors opposite Temple Trees and the Aragalaya site at Galle Face and the dreaded PTA was used to arrest and incarcerate two protesters for months without judicial oversight.

This was the same law that the then Foreign Minister GL Peiris told the UNHRC the government has clamped a moratorium on and would be amended to comply with international human rights norms.

Such is our diplomacy especially when some of its missions are headed by appointees who have proved to be unfit for purpose.

Our Political Editor had previously written about the manner in which Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva has shown little concern for protocol attending meetings which were not meant for the head of mission or more recently walking out of a meeting irate at some of Sri Lanka-proposed amendments to the UNHRC draft resolution being rejected.

But it is Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in New York, former chief justice Mohan Pieris who has caused concern and still does. One might recall his first address to the UN General Assembly following the presentation of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ Annual Report.

Mohan Pieris disregarded customary practice and charged like the proverbial bull at the China shop. Accusing the then UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet of attempting “regime change” in Sri Lanka, he said mechanisms such as that of the High Commissioner were being used by terrorist supporters and passed strictures on the Secretary General himself.

Due to space limitations, I cannot quote Mohan Pieris’ words in full. Nor those Antonio Guterres. But the Secretary General’s consequent rebuke gave the former chief justice a lesson in Truth, Reconciliation and Accountability which should have led to a normal person to keep a civil tongue in his head.

But apparently Pieris has not, as his most recent foray into unaccustomed diplomatic territory shows. Instead of regime change he was so concerned about, some constructive change in New York would better cover Sri Lanka’s diplomatic nudity.

(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).