HRW and its fear of engagement and discussion
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
Amongst the more depressing discoveries of the last few years has
been the realization that so-called human rights organizations are
totally unwilling to discuss matters with transparency. I found this
initially with Human Rights Watch (HRW) when, in 2007, they issued an
outrageous press release about what they claimed were indiscriminate
attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan forces, when in fact their
detailed report on the retaking of the East recorded only one instance
of civilian casualties.
I pointed this out to HRW, who did not admit their mistake but sent a
general letter, to which I responded in detail. After that they cut off
communication with me.
Public performance
I made another effort in September when I was in Geneva. The new HRW
representative in Geneva seemed a decent type and seemed to engage
positively, after which we agreed I should write to her with my
complaints about the previous public performance put on by HRW in New
York. She agreed to respond, but evidently was advised against it, for I
received no reply to my letter.
|
Security Forces personnel providing
medical assistance to an IDP woman. File photo |
A few months later the Foreign Minister asked me to go to London to
speak at a meeting at the House of Commons which HRW was arranging. He
had been asked, but was busy so requested me to go instead. When HRW
heard I was coming, they cancelled this meeting. I believe there was a
causal connection for the diplomat in London who was liaising said that
they had expressed fear that I would rubbish them.
I should add that, in contrast to HRW with its cowardly ways, I had
the highest regard for Amnesty International, so much so that its
representative in Geneva, Peter Splinter, asked me why I did not rubbish
them.
Political agendas
I said that I felt Amnesty was generally sincere, even though I might
disagree with them on particular points. They had been concerned about
Human Rights before it became fashionable, and as was noted in the
Australian Parliament recently, they used to criticize left and right
alike.
This was before Human Rights became a tool in political agendas -
though I should note that, after Sam Zarifi joined them from HRW,
Amnesty International seems to have changed a bit.
I should add that Peter noticed that I did not rubbish certain Sri
Lankan organizaztions too, such as the Jaffna University Teachers for
Human Rights and the National Peace Council, and my response was that
they too seemed to me sincere, and the NPC certainly had always been
willing to engage, even if we had different points of view.
Human Rights Watch however makes a fetish of ignoring anyone and
anything that they dislike, and in particular reasoned debate and
discussion based on evidence if they do not like the protagonists.
Thus they have condemned out of hand the Seminar on defeating
terrorism: The Sri Lankan experience to be held from May 31 to June 2,
2011 in Colombo. They declare that it is a ‘Military Conference to
Whitewash War Crimes’ and that ‘Invited Countries Should Stay Home,
Press for Accountability’.
Legal issues
Brad Adams, the sanctimonious Asia director at HRW declares
unequivocally that the model of counter-insurgency the Sri Lankan
government will illustrate ‘included repeatedly shelling civilians,
targeting hospitals, and trying to prevent the world from finding out
about it’.
This is nonsense. Even if Adams believes that such activities took
place, the argument Sri Lanka will advance indicates a more humane
approach. Surely those who believe that different tactics were adopted
should listen to what is said, and critique on the basis of evidence,
instead of setting up a scarecrow they can blithely knock down.
Adams quotes from a report he claims came from a panel of experts
that seems to substantiate his view. He does not mention that these are
not experts in counter-insurgency warfare, they are experts in legal
issues asked to advise the Secretary General on accountability issues,
not sit in judgment as a war crimes tribunal. They have recorded
allegations, which perhaps is acceptable if they are thinking about
accountability, but their determination that the allegations are
credible goes beyond their brief, since there is no indication of them
sifting evidence and sometimes the backing they purport to cite is quite
contradictory.
Civilian casualties
Worse, Adams cites as definitive what even the panel records merely
as allegations, credible or otherwise. He uses the word
‘indiscriminate’, which his agent Charu Latha Hogg trotted out in 2007,
even while the report noted only one instance of civilian casualties.
Though he records the Panel’s findings that the LTTE deliberately put
civilians in danger by firing from amongst them, and by siting heavy
weaponry near hospitals and other areas of humanitarian activity, it
never occurs to him that it is precisely through discussion and debate
that one can work round the moral issues this type of conduct by
terrorists raises (Does one refrain from firing and allow the LTTE to
kill one’s own forces? Does one fire indiscriminately? Does one fire as
carefully as possible to limit civilian casualties, knowing that these
may be inevitable but that not firing will be to expose both one’s own
forces as well as civilians to greater danger).
Brad Adams does not care, because he lives in a cosy world which
terrorist activity does not affect, where the hard decisions as to how
one stops terrorism are not made. We have recently seen even a humanist
like Elie Wiesel seeming to blame Osama bin Laden for putting children
at risk, as though those who harmed children in the course of
eliminating bin Laden did not need to think any further about the moral
dilemmas the presence of children presented.
It would be nice to live in the simple safe world of Brad Adams, but
we in Sri Lanka suffered from terrorism, we are all glad it has been
eliminated. The viciousness with which Adams still pursues the Sri
Lankan government, his adamant refusal to engage and discuss issues,
will not serve the real world well. Had he encouraged people to attend
and ask hard questions about the problems we faced in eliminating
terrorism, I could have respected him. But a man who runs away from a
discussion in the House of Commons is not likely to help the world in
maintaining moral perspectives whilst also dealing with the evils -
indeed the terror - of terrorism.
|