State does a twist on Arbour ‘assessment’

When coming to conclusions on important matters of inter-Government relations one would expect the US State Department to be more circumspect, than most organisations in Sri Lanka eager to rush in with demands that the solution to all problems regarding human rights or the humanitarian situation here is the establishing of a UN monitoring mission.

A statement by a State Department spokesperson is expected to be studied and measured, and not an exercise in jumping to convenient conclusions that are not borne out by the facts of the situation.

The recent statement by State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack on the situation in Sri Lanka, supposedly based on observations by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour following her recent whistle-stop visit to Sri Lanka, is an example where one has rushed in with comments far removed from the reality; with the least concern for what such comments can do to a country that is battling to preserve its democracy from the threat of totalitarian terror.

In fact the statement by spokesperson Sean McCormack seemed as if tailored to suit the needs of those in various quarters who cannot have a good nights rest until they know for sure that some foreign agent, whether it be the United Nations or some other power that may fit their bill, comes marching inof the On My Watch

to Sri Lanka to bring “civilization” to us, as the Christian missionaries of the western colonial powers, whether supporting the Vatican or the Reformation, did in the past.

It has been left for the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe, to set right the wrong impressions created by the State Department’s recent statement about Sri Lanka, vis-a-vis the visit by High Commissioner Louise Arbour.

In a letter to the US Ambassador Robert Blake, Minister Samarasinghe has clarified some important matters in this statement that would have given a completely wrong impression of the situation prevailing in Sri Lanka, much to the satisfaction of those who persist in their demand for foreign intervention in the situation in the country, under cover of improving the human rights situation here, while helping the LTTE strengthen its hold over the Tamil people held in thrall by Velupillai Prabhakaran and the LTTE.

The statement by the State Department spokesperson titled “Government of Sri Lanka’s Reaction to High Commissioner Arbour’s Visit” stated: “The United States calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to reconsider its opposition to expansion of the OHCHR office and mandate in Sri Lanka.

We remain concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, as confirmed by the recent assessment of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.

An international human rights presence in Sri Lanka would be an important step in improving human rights, accountability, and the rule of law, and ultimately resolving the conflict in Sri Lanka.”

This appears to be a cleverly, and somewhat artfully or deceitfully, worded statement that has drawn conclusions which are not established by the reasons for Louise Arbour’s brief visit to Sri Lanka, that had so much advance publicity as the final blow on Sri Lanka’s defence of her position regarding human rights in the country.

It fitted very well with the advocates of a UN Monitoring Mission over here, who felt let down and weakened when Louise Arbour made no such firm recommendations at the conclusion of her visit to the country.

OHCHR office

Interestingly, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack says “the United States calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to reconsider its opposition to expansion of the OHCHR office and mandate in Sri Lanka.”

It is strange that such a call for expansion of the office of the OHCHR should come from the United States when a little inquiry would have shown McCormack and the State Department that the Office of the High Commissioner does not maintain an OHCHR “office” in Sri Lanka that can be expanded. Minister Samarasinghe rightly states in his letter of clarification that: “OHCHR’s presence in Sri Lanka consists of a Senior Human Rights Advisor and an assistant working under the aegis of the UN Country Team. I would like to reiterate, moreover, that not once in her statement of 13 October did Madame Arbour request the establishment of an “office” in Sri Lanka.”

It is misleading stuff like this from the State Department and other sources that appear to have their own agenda about Sri Lanka, that strengthens the voices in Sri Lanka that keep on pressure for foreign intervention aimed at diminishing the sovereignty of the country.

These are the types that must be waiting as cheer leaders at any proposal for regime change in Sri Lanka, just like those CIA trained agents (the Ahmad Chalabis of Iraq), the locals who were all so eager to see President Bush’s regime change carried out in Iraq, under the guise of establishing democracy there. The cover here will obviously be the strengthening of human rights.

Arbour’s “assessment”

The next is the reference by spokesperson McCormack about the US remaining concerned “about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, as confirmed (my emphasis) by the recent assessment of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.”

This is the stuff that would be like manna from heaven for those so eager to have the new crusaders march in to Sri Lanka. But it is now evident that this observation is based on a completely wrong premise.

The question of such an assessment being made by Louse Arbour never arose in the arrangements made for her visit to Sri Lanka. As Minister Samarasinghe tells the US Ambassador: “the spokesperson refers to an ‘assessment’ purportedly conducted by the High Commissioner.

As she herself has stated in her communications to the Government, the High Commissioner’s objective in visiting Sri Lanka was to enable her to deepen her understanding of the situation in Sri Lanka and how her office can best support the Government of Sri Lanka’s efforts to protect human rights.”

It is interesting to quote here what Minister Samarasinghe says about such an “assessment” being in sync with the various forces that were calling for a UN monitoring mission to be established here. I quote: “I must point out that both preceding and subsequent to the High Commissioner’s visit, there were numerous calls, from certain quarters, for a UN monitoring mission on human rights.

The High Commissioner did not at any point during her visit call for a “monitoring mission”- either directly or tacitly. What the High Commissioner actually said in this regard (as published in her statement of 13 October) was: “the current human rights protection gap in Sri Lanka is not solely a question of capacity.

While training and international expertise are needed in specific areas, and I understand would be welcomed by the Government, I am convinced that one of the major human rights shortcomings in Sri Lanka is rooted in the absence of reliable and authoritative information on the credible allegations of human rights abuses” and, accordingly that there is a “need for independent information gathering and public reporting on human rights issues” in addition to the capacity building requested by the Government.

Accordingly, the High Commissioner went on to say that “OHCHR is willing to support the overnment of Sri Lanka in this way.” Unfortunately, some news outlets have creatively misinterpreted her words to the effect that she did, in fact, call for a monitoring mission.”

If some news outlets here have “creatively misinterpreted” Louise Arbour’s comments, it now appears that the State Department spokesperson has also joined in this creative work, which is not the stuff one expects from a State Department on another country.

Such creativity is not strange to the lobbies that are demanding, the subjugation of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty to other powers, even of the UN, for the purposes of petty advantage.

But considering the matters as they are, the record of the State Department especially on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and yesterday’s use of the same words against Iran shows the State Department can easily twist its tales to suit its purposes - which in Sri Lanka does not seem to be the support of Asia’s oldest democracy.

There is no purpose in claiming that Sri Lanka has no problems of human rights. To expect a country that has been fighting the most ruthless terrorists for over two decades not to have such problems would be the height of folly.

Yet, one has to be realistic in finding a solution to the problem, and not just wave the most convenient flag that suits those who generally thrive on foreign funding for their lobbying activities.

We need to develop much better institutions for monitoring human rights here by our own people; and we also must have a credible means of verifying human right abuses in areas still controlled by the LTTE.

The mere presence of a foreign monitoring office, whether under the aegis of the UN or not, can certainly not be the answer to this. This assessment should also receive the careful consideration of the US State Department.