By Kalinga Seneviratne
Giving a press conference at
the end of her week-long visit to Sri Lanka, United Nations Human Rights Council
(UNHRC) head Mrs Navi Pillay, A South African, said that she was highly
offended by comments in the Sri Lankan media accusing her of bias because of
her Indian Tamil ethnicity.
“Some media, ministers, bloggers and various propagandists in Sri Lanka
have, for several years now, on the basis of my Indian Tamil heritage,
described me as a tool of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). They
have claimed I was in their pay, the ‘Tamil Tigress in the UN’. This is not
only wildly incorrect, it is deeply offensive,” said Mrs Pillay at the
beginning of the press conference.
In the same vein, she also added, “the LTTE was a murderous organization
that committed numerous crimes and destroyed many lives ….. those in the
diaspora who continue to revere the memory of the LTTE must recognize that
there should be no place for the glorification of such a ruthless organization”.
These comments have not
stopped the Sri Lankan media and the blogsphere continuing their attacks on the
perceived bias of both UNHRC and its head for overstepping her mandate to
attack the Sri Lankan government from its own soil.
In a hard-hitting
editorial in the government-owned Daily News the day after she left Sri Lanka,
it said that “the UN High Commissioner’s prejudices have long been clear, but
they have never been clearer than after her recent visit to this country”.
The editorial went
on to argue that the reaction at the end
of her tour was so expected and in fact, President Mahinda Rajapakse
himself predicted it the day before. “He
told her at Temple Trees (President’s official residence) that the people of
this country think that her report to the U.N at the end of her tour of duty
will reflect her prejudice” the paper disclosed.
Welcoming her
comments on the ruthlessness of the LTTE, the Daily News said “we may very well
be able take her at her word that she has no truck with the Tamil Tigers, but
if anybody on the streets gets that impression she has only herself to blame
for it”. It pointed out that without informing the government in advance she
had tried to lay a wreath in Nandikadal, the location of the final battle in
which the LTTE was annihilated. The army officials on the location have stopped
her from doing it.
During her meeting
with President Rajaakse, Mrs Pillay was reported to have told him that it was
good she was able to come to see the developments in the country and it was
“very visible” to her that the government has invested a lot in reconstruction
work in the North. Yet, the pro-LTTE TamilNet said that according to informed
sources in Jaffna when the Northern Province Governor Major General (retd) G.A.
Chandrasiri was showcasing the development work in the area, she’s told him
that she was more interested in witnessing what had been achieved on the human
rights front. She also questioned whether the people on the ground had been
consulted in designing the ‘development’ projects that were being displayed to
her.
In addition to her
perceived ethnic Tamil bias, a lot of criticism in the Sri Lankan media and
websites have focused on her double standards in demanding an independent war crimes investigation on the final days of
the war against the LTTE in Sri Lanka, while being silent on US and NATO
actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and currently in Syria.
Writing in
LankaWeb, veteral journalist M.L.D
Mahindapala argued that Mrs Pillay has worked hand in glove with the European
Union to accuse Sri Lanka of war crimes.
“As early as May 2009 she has fired a broadside with regards to human
rights violation which ran on parallel lines to the EU resolution tabled at UNHRC”
he pointed out.
“On what criteria
did she confine her condemnation of Sri Lanka to the last five months of war,
leaving out selectively 32 years and 7 months of the longest war in Asia in
which the Tamil Tiger terrorists used every conceivable weapons of war,
including chemical warfare?” asked Mahindapala.
The independent
Island newspaper reported that the Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse has
told Mrs Pillay that the United States had no moral right to move a resolution
targeting Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. He has questioned Mrs Pillay’s silence and
argued that it reflected the difficulties experienced by the UNHRC in dealing
with atrocities committed by US-led Western powers.
When Mrs Pillay was asked this question at the press conference, she
merely said that UNHRC release a country report on every country each year and
last year the US had to respond to 19 queries. But, she avoided saying anything
more about these queries or why she has not articulated it publicly as she’s
done with Sri Lanka.
“The bottom line was that Mrs Pillay would remain as UN rights chief as
long as she didn’t antagonise the US” Defense Secretary has told the Island.
Sri Lanka’s
Foreign Minister Prof G.L Peiris has reiterated during a meeting with Mrs
Pillay in Colombo that it is important to have an
objective approach and extend equal treatment to all countries when fulfilling
the assigned mandate of the UNHRC. The Minister added that Sri Lanka accepts
constructive and justified criticism, but resents vicious and baseless
positions, which are incessantly repeated.
He had
explained to her the difficulties encountered in identifying the perpetrators
of human rights violations due to the conditions prevailing at the time of
incidence, with regard to a number of cases UNHRC has raised that occurred
during the war. He drew a parallel with the case of the assassination of the
former Foreign Minister late Lakshman Kadirgamar (by the LTTE), where
conviction has not been possible due to the lack of evidence. In cases of
missing persons, he outlined the difficulties in identifying the missing due to
instances involving persons having migrated to other countries holding multiple
identities, and those host governments not divulging their details.
It
was indicated to Mrs Pillay that the repeated use of baseless and arbitrary
figures in respect of disappearances, eventually acquire authenticity in the
face of the massive propaganda that is being carried out against the Government
of Sri Lanka. Regarding comments made by the High Commissioner on the PTA
(Prevention of Terrorism Act), the Minister had stated that some of the
countries that criticize, have provisions in their domestic legislation far
beyond those of the Sri Lankan PTA.
He had advised Mrs
Pillay to look at the human rights situation in Sri Lanka from a more broader
perspective and pointed out the impressive development indicators in the
country since the war ended in 2009. He
gave her information on the enormous amount of resources
being channeled to the North, which has resulted in a 27% growth rate in that
region, as against corresponding national figure of 7%. In this context the
Minister had also informed her that there are 225 bank branches and 76 finance
and leasing companies that have been
established in the Northern Province since 2009.
Mrs
Pillay is due to make a report to the next UNHRC sessions in October on Sri
Lanka, but, many commentators in Colombo tend to believe that it will not be
fair to the country.
However,
political columnist D.B.S Jeyaraj of the
Daily Mirror newspaper warns against using the “ethnic bias” argument to
discredit Mrs Pillay’s report. “The proponents of this ethnic bias argument are in effect
playing into the hands of those seeking an impartial international
investigation into charges against Sri Lanka” he argues.
“The line pursued
by those who desire an international investigation into alleged war crimes
during the final phase of the war against the LTTE is that Sri Lanka would not
be able to conduct an impartial investigation into those matters because of the
ethnic factor. The predominantly Sinhala Govt. would not conduct a free and
unfettered probe into allegations against the predominantly Sinhala armed
forces is the crux of the argument”, notes Jeyaraj. “Colombo however, invokes
the concept of sovereignty and counters such demands by saying that Sri Lanka
as a nation is above ethnic considerations and is capable of conducting an
impartial probe”.
“What the
denigrators of Navi Pillay on grounds of ethnicity fail to take note of is that
their campaign against the UN High Commissioner is strengthening the hand of
those seeking an international investigation into Sri Lankan affairs” he warns.
“If Navi Pillay is deemed unsuitable because of alleged partiality due to
ethnicity then the same argument would be applicable to Colombo too”.
(END)
