The doublespeak of the International Community
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary General, Secretariat for
Coordinating the Peace Process
Many years ago George Orwell wrote a book called 1984, in which he
prefigured Mr Prabhakaran, a dominant figure who presided over a well of
human misery.
As we hear more from the Sri Lankans who have now escaped his
clutches, as we see pictures of the luxury he and his family enjoyed, as
we shudder at the injuries caused to the fleeing by bullets and
landmines, we are reminded of the destruction and human misery imposed
by those who seek and achieve absolute power.
But there was another aspect of 1984 that also came to prominence
last week, as we noted the extraordinary perversion of language used by
those who want to hold the Sri Lankan state responsible for the misery
Mr Prabhakaran has caused.
For Orwell also invented something called ‘Doublespeak’, namely the
use of language to mean the opposite of what was said.
Thus last week saw a spate of visits by foreigners, all of them
complaining that the Sri Lankan government has limited access to the
welfare centres in which our fellow Sri Lankans who escaped the Tigers
are now housed.
They claim that journalists are not allowed to go there, when the
place has been bursting with journalists who have been reporting quite
freely on what they saw and even on what they did not see.
The most remarkable use of doublespeak has however been that of the
UN, which has mastered the art of expanding its bureaucracy whilst
delivering much less than what it promised, much less than could be
expected from the funds lavished on it by donors who seem to suspect the
intentions, the capacity and the financial integrity of the Sri Lankan
government and Sri Lankan Civil Society.
The exception to this is non-governmental organisations devoted to
what is termed advocacy, which is interpreted as being not advocacy on
behalf of the Sri Lankan people, but advocacy against the Government the
Sri Lankan people elected - which was why the European Union, having
sworn blind that it did not give funds to humanitarian national NGOs
because its regulations forbade this, had to confess that it did give
money to other types of national NGOs such as the Centre for Policy
Alternatives, but that was under a different scheme.
Still, donors are entitled to do what they want with their money, and
we cannot complain if they have their chosen beneficiaries.
There may be a moral flaw, in that the taxpayers in donor countries
are told that they are paying for poor people in the third world, but
the poor intended recipients of largesse get very little of it by the
time the funds have gone through the bureaucracies of the donor country
(necessary), the United Nations (perhaps desirable, if it truly
represented the Nations of the World rather than a small segment of it),
an International NGO (undesirable unless that NGO, like the old capable
ones, actually collects money at home rather than seeking it in the
target country), and then often local NGOs (acceptable, since at least
salaries are expended in country instead of back in the West).
But morality has nothing to do with it, the world of international
aid being as much about the naked exercise of power as other aspects of
diplomacy. We must be glad about what we get, and even more glad that
there are at least some countries who give ungrudgingly and without
making a song and dance about it.
But Asian traditions are not Western ones, and like Oliver Twist we
must learn to be humble.
It does however become a bit much when we also have to put up with
doublespeak from at least some elements in the UN, who forget that they
are supposed to be our partners. Last week saw a particularly ugly
display of patronage, when the self-obsessed young women who think they
are protecting Sri Lankans misled their superiors in Colombo about how
they had handled what they presented as serious issues.
Ignoring their obligation to work together with Sri Lankan partners
to correct anything that might be wrong, they trumpeted it publicly,
achieving the mass media publicity that was obviously their intention.
But more serious perhaps was the squalid treatment meted out to the
IDPs. From the start we had asked that decent housing be provided, and
we were assured that this would be done. I had a pleasant description of
the type of shelter that would be built, with tarpaulins and frames
which allowed one to stand, instead of the ghastly tents we had found so
painful previously.
But then, lo and behold, it was precisely those tents that were flown
in, at great expense, the efforts of the Ministry of Nation Building to
suggest local purchase being ignored when a whole host finally managed
to escape the Tigers.
That so many tents should have been put up so quickly was however
something for which we had to be grateful. What was surprising was that,
after we had been specially enjoined to ensure that there was land to
pitch them, and after our forces worked day and night to ensure this, we
were told that a designated site might not be to the satisfaction of the
UN.
Then, not only after the sudden rush, but even before, contrary to
what had been promised, the toilets did not keep up with the shelters
that were put up, and what we had was ghastly.
There were insufficient open spaces, insufficient learning centres
for children. Sadly, there had been a controversy about putting up
comfortable sheds using thatch, some foreigners claiming either that
this was inadequate or else that it cost more than was permissible
(these two opposite excuses are heard all the time, often
simultaneously).
Again, with regard to toilets, decent toilets at a reasonable cost
had been put up earlier, but these met with a storm of protest, with
UNHCR claiming that they were being blamed by their donors on the
grounds that water and sanitation was not their business. No wonder
several Sri Lankans have come to believe that at least a few individuals
in the UN system want to create problems, to have overflowing toilets,
so that they can claim that the state is incapable of looking after its
own.
And sure enough the expected barrage about this did come, in the form
of first letters and then a demarche from a number of Special
Rapporteurs, none of whom had indicated any desire to engage with the
Sri Lankan delegation to the last session of the Human Rights Council in
Geneva.
These included Rapporteurs on Food and Health and Water, and also for
good measure the Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Killings, who is evidently
under the impression that our attempt to rescue the hostages in the Safe
Zone must be stopped at once. That all of them should pounce together,
just when the principal donors were trying to arrange a special session
to rouse emotions about Sri Lanka, cannot be mere coincidence.
Those Rapporteurs surprisingly received no complaints from UN staff
on the ground when the food we sent in to the citizens in the Vanni was
grabbed by the Tigers for their own purposes, which included using rice
bags for bunkers.
Though their concern now is touching, and will we hope lead to better
toilets at least, it seems of a piece with a system that has managed to
ensure two leaks, one mistake and a couple of direct hits in the form of
media performances by junior staff, all damaging to Sri Lanka, in the
course of the last few months.
This contrasts magnificently with the fact that their records of
continuing forced recruitment by the Tigers, which were confined to
internal documents, were kept scrupulously safe from any publicity, all
the time they remained in the Vanni.
What is quite remarkable is that, having acted either carelessly or
callously in a way that damaged the Government, such people think it is
our fault that they do not have the confidence of the Sri Lankan people
at large.
It is our fault that individuals they see as connected to Government
criticise them roundly and their name is mud in most national newspapers
and amongst the average Sri Lankan. Conversely it is also our fault that
we are losing the media battle elsewhere, and that the newspapers they
read, the media outlets they watch and listen to (and call up when there
are particularly juicy bits to publicise) are so critical of us.
Sometimes I wonder whether they think we are all complete idiots. But
then, perhaps we are. Politeness is mistaken for obsequiousness, and
perhaps we would have done better to be firm.
We have allowed falsehoods about Sri Lanka to be propagated in
official documents, without any protest. We have allowed an agency that
purports to coordinate humanitarian assistance to do so without giving
us any information as to who gave what aid for what purpose over the
last three years.
We have accepted apologies in private and not insisted that they be
given in writing.
And we have not made it clear that, whilst we can also see the many
amongst them who are here to do good on behalf of our people, and whilst
we will do whatever we can to help such people to help us, we will
resist hypocrisy and doublespeak and assistance that traduces the
dignity of our people.
|