Louise Arbour:
Wicked Witch of the West or a Munchkin?
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
I have long had a soft spot for Ban ki-Moon. I realize this might
make me unpopular with Sri Lankans who see the UN as a monolith, but I
believe that analysis of his statements over the years suggests that he
does his best to uphold basic principles, both those of moral decency as
well as those on which the UN was founded.
He does sometimes succumb to pressure, but many people do that. We
need to be more precise therefore about where that pressure comes from
and how ruthlessly it is applied, instead of criticizing those whom it
endeavours to crush.
Darusman Panel
With regard to Sri Lanka, one source of pressure was Louise Arbour,
who had been High Commissioner for Human Rights previously, and had
tried then to obtain for herself a proconsular role in this country.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP |
This was prevented, but she changed the very positive Adviser her
office had had in Sri Lanka, and appointed an American who seems to be
at the forefront of allegations regarding war crimes, going by the
account of one of those who seemed surprised at the vehemence with which
such views were expressed during the meeting summoned by the American
Ambassador.
Needless to say, to substantiate the point I have often made about
how the eminently decent senior officials of the UN are undermined, Ms
Veliko had not obtained the permission of the UN to attend the meeting.
Nor had the American Ambassador had the courtesy to obtain the
concurrence of the UN leadership for her invitation.
But this is typical of a body that believes it owes allegiance not to
the UN, but to the predilections of its own leaders, who often follow a
policy of trashing UN officials and UN procedures.
The Indian Ambassador to Geneva had occasion to reprimand the current
High Commissioner for Human Rights for attempting to undermine a
decision of the Human Rights Council in 2009, and it is arguable that
the pique of her office has contributed to current efforts to reverse
that decision.
And solidly in the forefront of this campaign was Louise Arbour,
Navanetham’s predecessor, who has now taken over the mantle of Gareth
Evans, another inveterate meddler with a Messianic vision of himself.
It is now forgotten that some of the pressure on Ban ki-Moon to
appoint the Darusman Panel came from Louise Arbour. She told ‘Turtle
Bay’, which has been one of the principal persecutors, in May 2010 that
the UN was ‘close to complicit’ in government atrocities. Naturally Ban
ki-Moon was then reported as having ‘responded angrily to suggestions
that the U.N. shared responsibility for the violence.’
In defending his own position, he lost sight of the full enormity of
the claim, and so the canard that there were ‘government atrocities’
went unchallenged. On the contrary, the cornered Ban said ‘he would move
forward with the establishment of a panel of advisors to counsel him on
how to hold perpetrators accountable for crimes during the decisive
final months of the decades-long war’.
European powers
I suspect this is an integral part of the Arbour technique, in line
with what she tried with us way back in 2007, to make such preposterous
claims that we end up accepting lesser ones that are also deplorable.
However, in writing about this at the time, I wondered whether she
was being used, given what the more insidious elements in her office
were up to, those for instance that had leaded Philip Alston’s initial
report, which led to criticism by our Ambassador which Alston claimed
justified his own subsequent bulldog responses.
Human rights
In Arbour’s case I continued to believe that she was a woman more
sinned against than sinning, since she also avoided the press conference
that the anti-Sri Lankan elements in her office had had tried to set up
in contravention of a previous commitment (the same technique had been
used previously with Sir John Holmes, who had had an excellent and
productive visit, but was then led into an unfortunate comment at an
unscheduled press conference, which caused some problems).
But reading through the relentless assault by Louise Arbour after she
had left the UN, with criticism of the Human Rights Council and the
Security Council too, one senses a more vicious agenda, to try to
undermine democratic elected governments in the interests of a world
order in which her perspective is dominant.
This is a new form of colonialism, reminding one of the European
powers who thought the enlightenment they claimed to be spreading
justified treating other races as subordinates.
I have no doubt that some at least of the priests who advanced
bearing crosses in addition to swords believed they were on a redeeming
mission. So it is possible that Louise Arbour too believes that she is
spreading sweetness and light.
But coming from a woman who was supposed to be in charge of Human
Rights worldwide at a time when the Tigers continued ruthlessly to
conscript children, to force each family to contribute one person to
their dastardly cause, to use UN employees to transport weapons, to
begin the practice of displacing people to use them as human shields -
during all of which the UN never unequivocally demanded they desist -
her assault in May 2010 on the UN is pretty rich.
Whether she is a hypocrite or someone who has deluded herself into
not seeing that she too was complicit in silence, for whatever reason,
is perhaps immaterial. In the last resort we may find that Louise Arbour
is as much a victim of forces stronger than herself as those she
bludgeons.
But her failure to look at the consequences of her acts of omission
and commission, her silence and her sermons, suggests someone who is
more concerned with her own aggrandizement than principles - and will
knock down anything that stands in her way, including the UN Secretary
General. |