Promoting treachery - a new dimension to political affairs
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
I was told yesterday by one of those NGO activists who had benefited
hugely from foreign funding that several embassies were furious with me
because of an article I had written about a meeting at the house of the
American ambassador at which UN officials were present.
I was surprised, because I had not been negative about the embassies
in general, and had indeed made it clear that I thought most embassy
representatives were victims of an attempt to dragoon them into
complicity in the agenda of others. Soon it was clarified that it was
only the American embassy that was angry. This too was surprising,
because Patricia Butenis is a sensible sort, and would not have been
angry with me, though she might have been cross at those of her guests
who had leaked the story.
![](z-p08-Promoting.jpg) |
Prof Rajiva
Wijesinha, MP |
Sure enough, the anger was not hers, but Paul Carter’s. He is the
Political Affairs Officer of the embassy, given to bow ties and pride in
his southern heritage, certainly not someone one would have thought part
of the CIA, except perhaps in its very early days. But I was surprised
at the expressed vehemence, and decided I needed to check things out a
bit more.
LTTE leaders
After all it was at his house that I came across Sambandan in close
conclave with the ambassador and the EU Representative, when only the
latter managed to be polite, and the other two made it apparent that I
was interrupting a serious private conversation. It was shortly after
that that the TNA decided to support Sarath Fonseka actively, something
I found bizarre, given that he had been against swift resettlement of
the displaced, that he had wanted to expand the army by 100,000 men
after the war had been won, given that he had taken credit for having
prevented the surrender of some LTTE leaders that he claimed had been
arranged in air-conditioned rooms.
But that swipe at civilian officials had been made in August. By
December the boot was well and truly on the other foot, with his claim
that it was those in air-conditioned rooms who had been responsible for
the killing of surrendees. Though he subsequently denied the story, it
seems he used it again, and certainly by January he was the darling of
the advocates of human rights. How had this happened? And could this
apparent transformation convince anyone, unless they had other reasons
for disliking the current government and the President? Certainly a
number of European ambassadors told me afterwards that they had been
astonished at the phenomenon. It was only Anglo-Saxons it seemed who had
swallowed the line.
Human rights
Paul Carter certainly seemed to me the strangest votary at the Sarat
h Fonseka shrine, reminding me of one of those characters in C S Lewis’
‘That Hideous Strength’, who makes a fetish of a machine that becomes
increasingly bloodthirsty and demands its votaries too as sacrifice. I
was told by someone I trusted that this phenomenon was due to Paul
Carter’s passionate commitment to human rights, but mature reflection
suggests that that is not entirely plausible. The explanation struck me
when I was told that there is a move at present to convince army
officers to testify against their superiors (though not against Sarath
Fonseka) in a War Crimes Trial, for which they would be offered a safe
haven in the United States. Paul Carter would obviously be a superb
proselytizer, earnestly explaining the joys of southern cooking to
soldiers who were being subtly threatened too with prosecution if they
did not comply.
And then I remembered that this was what I had been told was done to
Sarath Fonseka all those many moons ago, when he went to the States and
suddenly came back again, and announced his candidacy for the
Presidency. It was claimed that he had been threatened while in the
States with prosecution, and the evidence presented to him had made him
nervous.
Certainly the Americans at that time thought he was the principal
suspect, and indeed brought to the notice of the government the speech
in which he seemed to have boasted of having stopped a surrender his
superiors had arranged. And there are strong inferences that, if there
was carelessness in the course of the advance of our forces, which led
to more civilian casualties than our policies permitted, it was because
such niceties did not mean much to the then Army Commander.
Civilian casualties
At the time I pointed out that that American demarche, which referred
in particular to Sarath Fonseka, graciously brought to me by Paul
Carter, should be answered because it was presented without prejudice.
Because of my own concern with possible harm to civilians, I had
monitored all allegations on TamilNet, so I could pretty much answer the
questions raised myself, but the last question in the document, about
Sarath Fonseka and his claim that he stopped a surrender, was beyond me.
However, we were slow as always. After Sarath Fonseka made his move,
it would have seemed churlish to have investigated him further.
Certainly the Anglo-Saxons seemed to lose or rather suppress their
suspicions of him, which is apparent too in the manner in which the
British have forgotten the note about Fonseka which they gave me on
January 12, 2009, four days after the murder of Lasantha Wickramatunga.
What is happening now suggests that the technique used to turn Sarath
Fonseka is being revived. Credible allegations point to Paul Carter as
the main instrument of persuasion. It is reported that he and
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu are thick as thieves and were responsible for
organizing the meeting and for the guest list, which included UN
officials with no reference to the Head of the UN in Sri Lanka.
If this is true, I can feel comfortable again with Pat Butenis, whom
I had begun to wonder about after hearing what the UN officials and some
of the NGOs and junior diplomats had advocated at her meeting. In a
sense she too may be a victim of these machinations, because she had
previously been developing a much more productive dialogue that included
government too. It is understandable then that the good doctors,
Saravanamuttu and Carter, would have wanted to subvert this.
I shall be sorry about Carter if all this is true, for I have enjoyed
the man's hospitality, but I would not be surprised. I would not even
call him a hypocrite, for his commitment to human rights may be genuine,
it is just that it is subordinate to his patriotism as an American. This
explains the hysteria with which the death of Osama bin Laden was
greeted, hysterical because of what he had done to them. It was not
terrorism that was the problem, for they had made use of him against the
Soviets, but terrorism against them. That is why they simply cannot
understand similar feelings of relief at the death of other terrorists,
for other terrorists cannot harm them.
If you are convinced that America is the best country in the world,
then pursuing what you see as America's foreign policy imperatives
becomes the best possible course of action. If this involves promoting
treachery, that can be seen as the lesser evil, because you are
promoting human rights in accordance with American interests, and
treachery in such a cause is a virtue.
I think you have to have a particular mindset to swallow all this,
but perhaps it is not all that unusual.
I hope Robert Blake and Pat Butenis are made of sterner stuff, but I
have noticed that in diplomacy, as it affects countries that are not
considered particularly important, the tail often wags the dog. It will
be a pity if Pat Butenis' more positive initiatives are ruined.
Unfortuantely, though perhaps we could work harder at keeping her on the
straight and narrow, I fear that dogged determination will prevail, even
if it involves the encouragement of treachery. |