When US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central
Asia Nisha Biswal speaks, there’s usually someone listening and taking down
notes. The lady knows subtlety and there’s plenty of THAT in what she says. Big
time. So when she makes her second or third (I forget which) visit to Sri Lanka
barely a WEEK after elections were done and dusted, questions are raised.
Whether she answers them or pleads ignorance, then, is not important. What’s
important is inference. And conclusion.
We know Biswal wasn't exactly comfy with Mahinda
Rajapaksa’s presidency. Whenever her colleagues visited here they usually
privileged the opposition and more importantly parties known for hardcore
communalist stances. They demanded accountability and THEN inserted
reconciliation. Biswal in particular spoke about the international community
and how its patience (whatever that meant) was running out with regard to this
government "delivering the goods".
That was then. Times have changed. The lady who
seemed to privilege and hobnob more with the opposition, strangely, has opted
to do the same with the government now. She went easy on the government, curiously
enough, and went to the extent of meeting the president himself, something she
could never do with his predecessor given that she was someone whom the then
president neither had the time for nor the patience with. Rightly.
Her choice of words is different too. True, some words haven’t
changed. She still wants investigation into war crimes (“alleged”, please
note). She hasn’t inserted “accountability” but that’s a word that’s still
being tossed about, never mind whether it’s achieved through a domestic or
international mechanism. But for the most, her comments on the USA sponsoring a
resolution of “collaboration with the government” and thereby widening scope
for domestic investigation merit assessment.
Biswal has a way with words. So does everyone representing
her country’s interests in the field she’s cut out for herself, diplomacy. That’s
why, when she inserts a caveat (she added “along with other key stakeholders”
to “collaboration with government”) we should worry.
Let’s not forget that the US knows and (s)elects these
stakeholders. Let’s not forget that it tends to privilege some stakeholders and
push out others. Let’s not kid ourselves that the reaction of the “international
community” to alleged war crimes here amounts to anything other than a need to
bully a democratically-elected government into condemning and censuring itself,
even irrationally.
And then there’s the investigation itself. As Chris
Dharmakirti comments in an article (“Sinister Campaign Afoot To Block Sri Lanka
Using Paranagama Report At UNHRC”), the TNA and an organisation calling itself
Sri Lanka Campaign for Justice and Peace effectively tried to cripple the
Mahinda Rajapaksa-sanctioned report on missing persons (the Paranagama
Commission) and more importantly one of its chief advisors, Sir Desmond de
Silva.
Having inferred that this move was tilted towards the
pro-LTTE Diaspora, Dharmakirti then concludes that by stifling the Commission,
what will get preserved is the accusation (unsubstantiated) that Sri Lanka’s
war against the LTTE was committed by a “genocidal army”, in particular because
the Commission at once rubbishes the findings of the controversial Darusman
Report ON THIS COUNT.
Biswal will not speak about this and nor for that matter
will the government. There’s no need to, some will offer. Maybe, but that doesn’t
really counter the issue. If at all, by pleading ignorance here, neither the
government nor whatever Biswal represents will be doing itself any favour.
Point is, Sir Desmond de Silva erred. He coughed up
something the TNA wasn’t comfy with. He commented that the “great mass of
civilian deaths which occurred in the final stage of the conflict were
regrettable but permissible collateral damage”.
Now the TNA, despite that moderate-garb it wears from time
to time, has been known to pander to anything that absolves (in part at least)
the LTTE. It’s known to have censured the government and some of its heads have
been wont to openly invite the international community to bully and arm-twist
this country. So it shouted “rescind Sir Desmond’s appointment!” and (without
really explaining) alleged “lack of independence”.
Having thus got rid (technically, that is) of Sir Desmond
and therefore the crux of the Paranagama Commission (which mind you created to
counter the United Nation’s howls against Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government), these
people should, we feel, be grilled. They should be questioned.
There’s that allegation they levelled against Sir Desmond,
for one thing. Speaking about independence or the lack thereof, what would the
TNA say about the fact that a key panellist advising the NGO which opposed that
gentleman was (surprise, surprise!) none other than Yasmin Sooka, who was on
the Darusman Panel! This isn’t just about bias after all. It’s about conflict of
interest too, never mind that
Sri Lanka Campaign has denied that WITHOUT denying Sooka is in it.
Then there’s the fact that the Paranagama Commission was (technically
speaking) a domestic mechanism. Isn’t that what Biswal wanted? Isn’t that what
we were forced to resort to and didn’t that in the end become a mechanism
through which Darusman and his credibility-challenged report (it speaks about
40,000 civilian deaths even as the UN itself concluded a figure of 7,721 towards
the end of the war) could be countered? If so, why are we howling? Why are we arguing?
These are questions that will not be asked and for reasons
of (we hope not but fear) expediency. In the end reconciliation is and will be
a two-way process, whether or not the likes of the TNA will be okay with
someone as distinguished and relatively untainted as Sir Desmond. As such the
implications of both the Paranagama Commission and Biswal’s official support
for Sri Lanka the next time the country’s grilled will, no doubt, be taken up and
assessed.
Whether this bodes well for us is for another article. For
now, what matters is whether Biswal comes with clean hands. Given that we have
no option but to trust that the American government will stick by us (in a world
where governments stick by each other as long as there’s submission to whoever’s
affirming “sticking-by loyalty”), we can only wait and watch.
So far Karunandhi, self-professed lover of Sri Lankan Tamils
and no stranger to the anti-Sri Lanka lobby in his country (India), has condemned
Biswal. Superficially at least that bodes well,
notwithstanding the caveat that all that might be “show”. The important thing
however is that the US sticks by us and that in a way which sustains the truism
that reconciliation (and yes, accountability) was and will have two sides or
more, never mind what NGOs and civil society groups that love to badmouth the
country will say.
I noted “no option” for Sri Lanka. This means, logically
enough, that the US’s promise will have to be accepted and trust between that
country and ours will be based on whether we accept the promise or act with
caution, extreme or otherwise. Sad, yes. Can’t help.
Uditha Devapriya is a
freelance writer who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment