Meet the duo of UNwilling
That always 'mess things up' for ordinary Sri
Lankans:
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP
Last week, after a long silence, David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner,
former Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom and France, weighed in
again to attack Sri Lanka. They had last hunted together in April 2009
when they came to Sri Lanka to try to save the terrorist Tigers from
defeat at the hands of Sri Lankan forces.
Why did they do this? With regard to David Miliband, Wikileaks made
it clear that he was doing this for electoral purposes. The explanation
given to the Americans for his keen was that ‘with UK elections on the
borazon and many families living in Labour constituencies with slim
majorities, the government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka’.
In short, Miliband was willing, in order to enhance his own political
prospects, to stop Sri Lanka overcoming the terrorist forces that had
caused such suffering in the country, and in India too, over such a long
period.
Bernard Kouchner was probably not so cynical. Certainly he made a
better impression in Sri Lanka, where he seemed much more polite, unlike
the bumptious Miliband. In fact Kouchner is later reported to have
admitted to his envoys in Sri Lanka that he had been wrong about the
situation.
They indeed had reported more objectively, and the Ambassador at the
time - who was honest enough to admit, after he got to Sri Lanka, that
he had not known before that it was the Sri Lankan state that had funded
all services in Tiger controlled areas - was refused an extension for
his honesty. But Kouchner , though a shrewd operator, did have the
excuse of being an amateur and an idealist of sorts. And one can forgive
the French their ignorance about Sri Lanka - as with another fish out of
water, a Junior Minister who also had to be dismissed soon enough, who
solemnly asked us if we had stopped using child soldiers. She clearly
did not know the difference between the government and the Tigers, and
more obviously she did not care.
The British however had no excuse for their monumental hypocrisy and
lies. Thus Miliband, along with Kouchner, now claim that they came to
Sri Lanka ‘to draw attention to the human suffering, to call for
humanitarian aid and workers to be allowed in, and to call for the
fighting to stop.’ On the contrary, the message they delivered was that
the fighting had to stop, and Miliband, contrary to the position of the
Co-Chairs on Sri Lanka, who had asked the Tigers to surrender, dodged
the question put to him by the BBC in that regard.
Miliband’s culpable ignorance is apparent even in the latest article
he has co-authored, if that is the right word, with Kouchner, who once
again seems to have been taken along for the (or a) ride. He talks about
‘refugee camps that had been created to house Tamil refugees from
Jaffna’, forgetting that Jaffna had been in government hands for years,
and the camps were for the civilians from the Wanni, which the Tigers
had previously controlled, who had been forced to accompany the Tigers
in their retreat, to act as human shields.
The article declares that there was ‘Random shelling in areas of
fighting - including after the government had announced an end to
fighting’ which is nonsense because the fighting continued to the middle
of May. The further claim that they saw ‘Tamil life treated as fourth or
fifth class’ is nonsense, as those who were rescued from the Tigers have
testified, and as the UN has acknowledged in noting how the government
managed to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that so many doomsayers
were confidently predicting.
Amongst these were the two senior British diplomats in Sri Lanka,
both handpicked as having served previously in David Miliband’s private
office. And while the Deputy was at least human, his boss was described
by a colleague as a total yes-man. His lack of social skills made him
quite unfit to represent his country, and it seems that he was only made
an ambassador because of his unquestioning loyalty to his minister.
Miliband’s total lack of attention to fact is apparent when he talks
about the UN Secretary General visiting Sri Lanka in March 2009, when
the visit was in May, after the war ended, well after Miliband’s April
visit. He claims then that BanKi-moon ‘wrenched from President Rajapaksa
a commitment to independent investigation of alleged human rights
abuses’ which is a total mis-representation of what was said in the
joint statement.
That characterization is typical of Miliband’s pompous approach -
which he displayed in India too, as the BBC correspondent there
graphically described to me - which was also indicated in his claim
about how he and Kouchner lectured the Sri Lankan President - ‘When we
met President Mahinda Rajapaksa and members of his government, we argued
that his government had legal obligations to its people, whatever the
heinous tactics of the Tamil Tigers. We also urged a recognition that to
win the peace, President Rajapaksa needed to reach out to Tamil
minorities to make real the constitutional pledges of equal treatment
for all Sri Lankans.’
Miliband assumes the rest of the world does not understand such
principles. But he also forgets that, when he visited, there was no
peace, and he tried to prevent peace by giving the Tigers a new lease of
life.
Miliband again talks nonsense in relying for his next arguments on
the panel of Experts that Ban Ki-moon set up to advise him on
accountability issues. He claims that ‘tens of thousands of people lost
their lives in the space of three months at the beginning of 2009’ which
again ignores facts since, at the time Miliband visited at the end of
April, the worst case possibility, which the UN declared was not
reliable, was around 7,000 altogether. But Miliband’s determination to
persecute Sri Lanka was apparent from the moment after we defeated
terrorism.
He instigated a Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council in
Geneva, which he admitted in the House of Commons was intended to charge
us with war crimes. This put the kibosh on the efforts of his diplomatic
sidekick in Colombo, who claimed that the session was intended to ensure
that we treated the displaced well and resettled them quickly. There was
no peep of acknowledgment however that their initial gloomy
prognostications had been wrong, though we have now resettled almost all
the 300,000 displaced, with full access to services such as education
and health.
Miliband however continues to preach, asking whether the government
will ‘recognize that the continued failure to resettle Tamils in an
equitable way, and give them economic opportunities as well as social
rights, is a dangerous cancer at the heart of Sri Lanka’s future?’ He
obviously has not bothered to look at what is happening in Sri Lanka
now, and the massive developments in infrastructure and educational
opportunities in the area. We can certainly do better, but to talk of
‘continued failure’ is nonsense, and it is a pity that he does not read
the reports of those on the ground with regard to progress.
Finally, when David Miliband, who was fully complicit in the attack
on Iraq, claims that a failure to put Sri Lanka in the dock might ‘only
fuel the arguments of those who want to take the law into their own
hands’, one realizes he is talking from experience. Such efforts at
justifying neo-colonial excesses should be recognized for the hypocrisy
they are. But more seriously, such relentless hostility to a government
that has got rid of terrorism from its shores suggests an even more
insidious agenda - continuing turmoil for countries in which grand
panjandrums like David Miliband can interfere at will.
|