Pillay’s message loud and clear
Editorial-September 1, 2013
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay went back, having delivered a strong message. What one gathers from her media statement on Saturday is that the government’s PR exercise, as it were, failed to have the desired effect on her though she courteously thanked it for ‘excellent cooperation’ etc.
Pillay stressed the need for probing the alleged war crimes and other human rights abuses while endorsing the Opposition’s slogan by saying that she was ‘concerned that Sri Lanka, despite the opportunity provided by the end of the war to construct a new vibrant, all-embracing state, is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction." (Emphasis added)
Pillay’s statement, when shorn of diplomatic frou-frou, is a foretaste of what is to be expected in her final report to be submitted to the UNHRC. The main thrust of her argument is that the LLRC has ‘side-stepped the much-needed full, transparent, impartial investigation into the conduct of a conflict that saw numerous war crimes and other violations committed by both sides’ though its recommendations must be implemented and a ‘proper investigation of the many outstanding allegations and concerns’ needs to be conducted. "Unless there is a credible national process [read an investigation] calls for an international inquiry are likely to continue," she has warned.
The UNHRC head minced no words when she said, "The Human Rights Council will also be looking to see something credible in terms of investigation of what happened at the end of the war and many other past cases’ and ‘appointing the army to investigate itself does not inspire confidence in a country where so many past investigations and commissions of inquiry have foundered one way or another’. Much room has thus been left for ‘calls for an international inquiry’ to continue. Pillay has not budged an inch!
The UNHRC chief, however, struck a responsive chord with all right-thinking Sri Lankans when she expressed her concern about the vulnerability of women and girls, especially in female-headed households, to sexual harassment and abuse. She deserves praise for having challenged ministers, provincial governors, military commanders et al to ‘rigorously enforce a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse’. She should also have taken up the issue of psychopathic predators in the garb of government politicians harming innocent women and children. Her call for either bringing charges against the remaining LTTE detainees or releasing them for rehabilitation is also reasonable. This, the government should have done out of its own volition. Her request for repealing the draconian PTA, probing all disappearances, providing counselling and other psychological support for the people in the former war zone, protecting journalists, ensuring witness protection and right to information and punishing those responsible for religious violence is to be commended.
Pillay did not forget to issue a dire warning that she would report to the UNHRC ‘the harassment and intimidation of two priests, journalists and many ordinary citizens’ who met her. She reminded the government that ‘the UN takes the issue of reprisals against people because they have talked to UN officials as an extremely serious matter’. The government should have known better than to allow these alleged incidents to happen.
It is unfortunate that while Pillay was here as a state guest some ministers kept on hurling abuse at her. She took exception to the allegation that she is the ‘Tamil Tigress in the UN’. Her consternation is understandable. Baseless allegations hurt people and that’s why they must not be levelled at anyone including heads of UN member states! She called the LTTE a murderous outfit. She has made no revelation. However, now that she has called upon ‘those in the diaspora who continue to revere the memory of the LTTE’ to ‘recognize that there should be no place for the glorification of such a ruthless organization’, the onus on her to ensure that the UNHRC agenda does not dovetail with theirs. Whether she will effectively silence her critics by maintaining objectivity and producing a balanced report on Sri Lanka’s human rights situation remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, the government ought not to lose sight of the fact that Pillay has specifically mentioned ‘the curtailment or denial of personal freedoms and human rights … persistent impunity and the failure of rule of law’. (Emphasis added) It should get its act together on the human rights front urgently if the not-so-surreptitious efforts being made in some quarters to project Sri Lanka as a failed state and set the stage for an R2P (Responsibility to Protect) intervention in one form or another are to be thwarted.
