A loverly bunch of coconuts - Philip Alston on centre stage again

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

This article was written after the last Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial killings decided bizarrely that, despite anomalies, the original Channel 4 video was genuine. Now his successor has said the same about the latest Channel 4 version, which is supposed to be an extension of that original video, but is given a different date.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

I thought earlier comments on that initial attempt to frame us as it were are worth considering. Obviously I have no expertise in video (or mobile phone technology) and cannot comment on the incident depicted or the editing/splicing that is alleged.

However I do understand logic, and the claim of an expert that a man might have been drunk or asleep while people were being shot through the head all around him is too preposterous for even a UN Special Rapporteur to take seriously. And surely such lawyers must understand that, once evidence is so badly tainted, it would be absurd to assume it should lead to further criminal proceedings.

At the height of campaigning for the Sri Lankan Presidential election, Prof Philip Alston issued a missive regarding the Channel 4 video which I read with great interest.

He reported there that he had finally engaged three experts to check on the authenticity of the video he saw on Channel 4. This was something he should have done a very long time ago, well before he rushed publicly into the matter. Indeed I noted in my initial response to him that, almost as soon as we got the letter, we were also ‘sent a press release which you had had dispatched to our Mission in Geneva at 15.37 on that same Friday afternoon, a release which seems to make your letter redundant.’

Original letter

Alston is therefore disingenuous in claiming that he was going public with his latest effusion in early January because of ‘the very public nature of the comments already exchanged on this matter’. He it was who had showed a determination to go public from the very start, for reasons that even he must realize are obvious, just as the January salvo seemed intended to have maximum effect at a time of election.

That original letter had not been at all clear about what was to be investigated, as I noted, viz ‘Your letter refers to reports you have received “concerning the alleged summary execution of a significant number of men by the Sri Lankan army”.

Have you received reports of such an alleged incident, or are they simply reports of video footage allegedly documenting this alleged incident? Any independent report should be conveyed to us at once but, if your report is only of the video footage, it would be best if you first sought further details about this, to help to establish whether an investigation of the alleged incident would serve any purpose.’

Channel 4 video

Alston for once replied to me promptly, but answered hardly any of my queries. I pointed this out to him in early September, noting that ‘The most important question you have avoided is that of whether you received any reports of an incident taking place in Sri Lanka on the lines of that shown in the video or whether it was simply a report of the video itself that prompted your letter.’

Alston continued to dodge this question, but instead contented himself with denigrating the analysis of the video provided by experts who had reported to the government. I will quote at length from my response to him of September 17th, since his current position shows he has now finally taken my suggestions seriously, having ignored them previously -

‘I find very strange your argument as to why you did not see fit yourself to look further into the Channel 4 video. You now go further with your analogy and claim that, “if an individual was beaten up or raped and reported the matter to the police, but because of the trauma suffered was unable to identify when or where the alleged assault took place, it would not be justified for the police to throw up their hands and say “well, if you can’t give us the details, there is nothing we can do in terms of investigating the incident.”

Various sources

I am duly entertained by your moving on now from your initial claim that our request for details of the incident was “equivalent to a police officer telling an alleged victim that no investigation will take place until the victim can definitely prove to the officer’s satisfaction that the alleged crime took place”.

It is surely sleight of hand now to introduce trauma, but can you seriously claim that Channel 4 or those who supplied it with the video are in a state of trauma and cannot supply you with further details? Channel 4 informed me that you had made no attempt when you spoke to them to seek information about the video, which suggests a lack of seriousness on your part about the incident you wish investigated.’

Previously Alston had argued that “the allegations made are sufficiently credible as to warrant investigation by the government. Only the government, or others acting with the support or permission of the government, would be in a position to undertake the type of investigation required...If it can be convincingly shown to be a fake, so that the scenes of killing depicted in the video were staged or contrived, as your government apparently believes, I will be immensely relieved and the allegations submitted to me by various sources will be shown to have been unreliable”’. This is typical of Alston’s confusion.

It was doubtless an incident in Sri Lanka that he thought could be investigated only by government or an authorized agent, whereas obviously anyone could have investigated the authenticity of the video. However, having insisted that government investigates the video, after that was done he claimed that a government investigation was insufficient.

Government investigation

His reasons for this assertion were simply, I noted, ‘that it was conducted by Sri Lankans. You are categorical in your distaste for army experts, though obviously, given your prejudices, you will not be able to understand that experts in computer technology who have produced clear arguments should be challenged in terms of those arguments rather than through personal denigration.

Sri Lanka is however used now to shooting of messengers without any concern for the content of the message. You go further, in denigrating a Sri Lankan University don, simply because ‘he has advised the government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past’. You may not understand, given the circles in which you move, that established experts are not so many in Sri Lanka - though your general approach makes clear that even someone who had not advised previously would have been suspect if he were Sri Lankan.

Providing relief

Finally you also engage in denigration of a Sri Lankan now resident in Australia, who had not previously advised the Sri Lankan government. With your customary circumspection where Sri Lankans are concerned, a circumspection you do not extend to Channel 4, you say that he ‘is said to be the former head of Cisco’s global broadcast and digital video practice’. Obviously you have not bothered to check this out yourself, even though a link to his credentials was given in the report, and you could, if you had doubts since he is a Sri Lankan, have checked with Cisco direct.

To be continued