UN officials’ involvement in hardliners’ programmes
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
Yesterday I wrote a satirical account of a meeting held at the house
of the American Ambassador, reportedly at the request of Dr Paikiasothy
Saravanamuttu of the Centre for Policy Alternatives. In noting some
versions of stories in circulation about what had been going on there,
and why, I had based my account on what Jehan Perera had said to the
newspaper which had leaked the story, namely that the discussion was
about how the Report of the Darusman Panel could be made use of for
reconciliation, instead of for ‘division and polarization’.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP |
I was naive. I have since found out that there was a strong school of
thought, reported as extremist or hardline, which had intended the
discussion to be about how the Report could be used to precipitate an
external war crimes investigation. This view had been expressed
forcefully, though I was assured that none of the ambassadors present
had taken that line.
UN officials
I then asked whether that line had been pushed purely by the
non-governmental organizations present, which the newspaper report had
indicated were purely Sri Lankan. This would not have surprised me given
the divisive and polarizing agenda of many of those cited as present. In
my take-off of the Darusman Report, I had noted earlier that ‘The
failure of Ambassador Butenis to invite anyone from government, or any
NGOs not overtly hostile to government, for a meeting supposedly
dedicated to reconciliation points to a possible violation of the
responsibilities and obligations of diplomats’.
But I was not only being naive now, I was also being careless. The
newspaper had mentioned that UN officials were also present, which had
slipped my attention. It was reported that these officials had been
amongst the hardliners, along with some junior officials from embassies,
in addition to some of the Sri Lankan NGO representatives.
This highlights serious questions, which I should have raised
previously. Who were the UN officials present? I have long known the
Acting UN Resident Representative, Adnan Khan and, though I have not met
him for a very long time, my recollection is that he is unlikely to have
been present at such a meeting. I am sorry to say, since I would like to
give Ambassador Patricia Butenis the doubt, that I suspect she would not
have invited him, though I hope she thought of doing so and had simply
been dissuaded by those who had been instrumental in getting her to have
such a meeting (assuming that she had not been the moving spirit
herself).
Misleading information
Hillary Clinton |
Robert Blake |
Patricia Butenis |
It is vital that our Ministry of External Affairs immediately call in
Khan, and find out whether he or any of the Heads of UN agencies had
been present at the meeting. The Ministry should also find out who from
the UN had attended the meeting, and whether they had done so
officially, as representing the United Nations, with appropriate
authorization from those to whom they report. I am assuming that these
individuals report to UN Heads of Agencies, and the Resident
Representative, in Sri Lanka.
The Head of the UN should be told that it is not appropriate for
anyone to have attended such a meeting, to discuss further action on a
Report issued from the office of the Secretary General. Even if they
might claim to have attended as individuals, the newspaper report makes
it clear that they were seen as attending as UN officials.
It is vital that the Ministry of External Affairs find out about this
because we are well aware that some individuals working for the UN were
busily subverting the good work that the senior members of the
organization were attempting to do in Sri Lanka. I have indeed
frequently cited the information given me by journalists in explaining
why they attributed to the UN statements that senior and responsible
officials of the UN had denied. What I have written previously, in an
article (available on my blog www.rajivawijesinha.wordpress.com)
entitled ‘Aid Agency Abuse of the Media’, may be worth citing at length
here -
What struck me most however in the discussions was that they
justified stories I pointed out were false on the grounds that they had
received the information from officials on the ground, in what seemed
several cases from the United Nations. When I pointed out that the
senior leadership of the UN had repudiated these stories, the response
was that younger officials sometimes felt they had to speak out because
their superiors were seen as too close to the government.
Primary obligation
I told the UN when I was back in Colombo that this was an unexpected
compliment from our point of view. I would still like to think it is
true and - though an Indian journalist warned me that sometimes the
leadership of the UN said different things to different people - in
general I believe most of the leadership with which we have to deal has
been quite positive, and certainly opposed to terrorism, unlike the
situation that obtained some time back. But there is a problem in that
they do not categorically refute the misleading information provided by
their underlings, and thus contribute to the multiple suspicions that
abound in what should be a straightforward situation.
Journalists of course have different perspectives and, since their
primary obligation is not to the people of the country they are serving
in, they can privilege their fraudulent sources.
In one case, though I was told that a particular story had been
subsequently recognized as untrue, and the source for that would not be
trusted again, there was no inclination to provide a correction.
And by and large my point that, unless they referred to ‘an employee
of the UN’ rather than ‘the UN’, they were in danger of reducing the
effectiveness of the UN, was not accepted. Such precision would
obviously make the story less effective, so in essence those within the
UN system who wish to subvert it have a free rein.
Given such a situation, it is vital that our Ministry of External
Affairs work together with the UN leadership to stop this rot. It is
also important that one or both of these questions the American
Ambassador on why she had invited particular individuals, and whether
had she done so in terms of their responsibilities to the UN or
otherwise. Much as I love the lady, I believe she is now in danger of
rousing the suspicions she created in her last posting, Bangladesh,
where reportedly ‘Dr.
Abdullah Dewan Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University
and a Bangladeshi American said: ‘To judge objectively, there was no
‘misunderstanding’ on our part and we find that she was not just
‘outspoken’- Butenis openly meddled, apparently beyond her mandated
duty, in the internal affairs of a sovereign country and made it look
like a client state of America.’ In Bangladesh the claim was that she
was promoting advocates of terror. While she could claim she was
advocating inclusivity, I begin to wonder whether she was not proceeding
on the old fatal CIA line, that those who shared the particular
interests of the Americans at any stage should be promoted, regardless
of the consequences - a policy we have seen fulfilled with disastrous
effect in Afghanistan, when the Taleban and even Al Qaeda were used to
get rid of the Soviet backed regime.
I hope nothing so dramatic is happening here. But whereas yesterday I
thought the meeting Ambassador Butenis had arranged was in response to
Dr Saravanamuttu, the information I had missed out on, this information
that suggests use of the UN as a body as a tool through encouragement of
individuals in it with personal agendas, has led me to find out more
about the lady, and what I discovered was worrying.
She may not be Robert Blake, but certainly she is too bright and able
to be simply a tool of Dr Saravanamuttu and the other hardliners at her
meeting. In case I seem too critical of the United States, I should add
that there was one piece of good news. I had been worried about Dr Paul
Carter, the head of the political section of the embassy, with its close
contacts with the JVP, on the lines of those sketched out in the article
on Bangladesh with bodies one might have thought the United States was
wary of. I felt that, whether arising or not from his putative
passionate commitment to human right, his bizarre sympathy for Sarath
Fonseka and his continuing close association with Dr Saravanamuttu did
not bode well for pluralism and peace in Sri Lanka.
But reportedly Dr Carter was not amongst the hardliners, or rather,
he said nothing, confining himself to taking down notes. Those notes I
assume have now been sent to Washington and will form part of the
briefing received by Robert Blake, and perhaps even conveyed to Hillary
Clinton, if we are important enough for her at this stage. It would be a
great pity if those notes suggested that this was a representative
gathering of Sri Lankans, and that the views of the UN were also
presented.
I had long wondered why Hillary Clinton was wrongly briefed about
rape being used as a weapon of war in Sri Lanka, a mistake for which
Ambassador Butenis apologized, though there was no evidence that Hillary
Clinton’s mindset had been adjusted, nor or any inquiry into how such a
gaffe had occurred.
The frequent references to rape in the Darusman Report, always
described in very tentative terms as though to make clear that this is
now simply a weapon of war in the conflict the Report seems to want to
provoke rather than a serious concern, raise my worries again.
Previously I had assumed that Hillary Clinton had been misled by old
information lying in US State Department files, by those more idealistic
souls who found it and cleansed their minds of the fact that in the old
days Sri Lanka was seen by the United States as a compliant ally, and
such information should not be used against us.
That was worrying enough. However I now fear that the purveyors of
false information exist in the here and now, and that what they say may
be being conveyed to Washington with the use of designations that belie
the absence of responsibility and accountability.
Nothing can be done about the Sri Lankan organizations that seem
responsible only to those who fund them, given the continuing
incompetence of Sri Lankan agencies to ensure accountability. But I can
only hope that Adnan Khan, if he has not changed from the old days when
we worked well together, will make the position clear not only to
Ambassador Butenis but also to the senior officials in the United
Nations - and that he will make clear to those UN officials who attended
the meeting at the Ambassador’s residence that they need to understand
for which institution they work, and that it cannot continue to speak
with a forked tongue. |