HRW undermining Human Rights in Sri Lanka - Prof. Wijesingha
 Responding to criticism of Sri Lanka's HR record by an
NHR activist published in the Guardian of January 21, 2010, Prof. Rajiva
Wijesinha, Secretary to the Ministry of Human Rights said "With its
false accusations and refusal to engage, Human Rights Watch is
undermining the cause of human rights in Sri Lanka"
Prof. Wijesinha's further states: "This is not the
first time we have found HRW seeking to further its own agenda by
adopting a selective approach to evidence. Not only this, but it seems
ready to overlook the real progress that is taking place in Sri Lanka.
Before outlining the key plans we are undertaking to improve Sri Lanka
for the benefit of all, let me provide some background on our own
grievances against HRW."
Here is the text of Prof. Wijesinha's response
published in the Guardian Online "Comment is Free" of January 28, 2010.
Sri Lanka's real human rights record
With its false accusations and refusal to engage,
Human Rights Watch is undermining the cause of human rights in Sri Lanka
The recent
Guardian article by a Human Rights Watch officer
exemplifies what EM Forster
described as the world of telegrams and anger. Today, he would have used
the term "soundbite", and this is what
HRW
has engaged in relentlessly against
Sri Lanka, with no
attention to accuracy, nor to engagement.
This is not the first time we have found HRW seeking
to further its own agenda by adopting a selective approach to evidence.
Not only this, but it seems ready to overlook the real progress that is
taking place in Sri Lanka. Before outlining the key plans we are
undertaking to improve Sri Lanka for the benefit of all, let me provide
some background on our own grievances against HRW. In 2007, HRW issued a
press release referring to "indiscriminate attacks on civilians",
regarding a report about the liberation of Sri Lanka's eastern province
from terrorists. The report only cited a single example of civilian
casualties in these operations, and our forces, in granting this,
explained that it had happened because of their use of mortar-locating
radar. The HRW report conceded that the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) had used
weaponry in a civilian encampment, but claimed that this was not heavy
weaponry and therefore they could not be held responsible.
After one casuistic reply to our reasoned protest,
they stopped answering letters.
After one meeting with a new representative in Geneva
in September 2007, we were promised a response, but none was
forthcoming. Since then, HRW has avoided discussion altogether, refusing
to meet government representatives in Geneva, cancelling a meeting in
the House of Commons when it heard the Sri Lankan government was sending
someone who would refute its allegations. It claimed to our High
Commission that it did not want to be "rubbished", but the way to avoid
being rubbished is to refrain from lies, not dodge reasoned discussion.
Typically, while refusing to talk - quite unlike
Amnesty
International, which readily discusses problems at length
- in 2008, HRW issued a glossy booklet that claimed abductions were on
the increase in Sri Lanka. This report distorted the reality: it
contained only three examples from 2007, with the rest of the 90-odd
cases recorded dating from 2006. We accept there were problems in 2006,
largely arising from diminishing LTTE domination following years in
which it had freely killed members of Tamil groups opposed to them -
their claim to represent Tamils clearly did not extend to those who
challenged their supremacy. By 2007 however the situation was better
and, in the last couple of years, instances of abduction have fallen
still further - though even a single case is one too many and we are
working to prevent this in its entirety.
Now, with regard to the pronouncements of
Philip Alston, the UN independent expert
who explained to me why he feels obliged to "behave like a
bulldog" towards Sri Lanka, HRW pronounces on a controversial video on
which he bases his report that the "government has consistently claimed
the video is fake, without providing any evidence that the gruesome
scene was staged or the footage tampered with."
This is simply untrue. Even Alston's three experts
declare that a moving leg of a supposedly dead person is strange. The
experts note, too, that there "are unexplained characteristics of this
file, the most troubling of which appears in the final 17 frames of
video", while they are equally unable to explain why the date on the
footage is six months later than the incident was supposed to have taken
place (and after the battle had been concluded).The claim that there may
be a legitimate explanation remains simply a claim, with no effort to
justify it. Thankfully, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has
adopted a more measured approach. Earlier this month, Ban distanced
himself from the report - something not as widely reported as Alston's
claims - suggesting that Alston "acted alone" and that his report does
not represent the view of the United Nations.
We are also accused of refusing to investigate
allegations of human rights abuses. And yet this is precisely what we
are doing. In response to the US State Department report, presented in a
balanced manner last October, on alleged incidents during the military
action last year, President appointed an independent commission to
investigate. The report will be provided in April.
The problem with all this sound and fury is that it
detracts from the real problems with human rights issues that Sri Lanka
does face, and to which it can now devote attention. While it could be
argued that the authoritarianism of the government of the 1980s
contributed to the growth of terrorist movements, this cannot be said of
more recent administrations. None the less, the first priority of
government had been to ensure security and defeat terrorism once and for
all.
Alongside this, we have moved apace on much-needed
reforms, which are now being introduced to the north and east. In
consultation with the police authorities, we have helped with
reinforcing training programmes to enforce rights that suffered during a
decade of increased recruitment. The new inspector-general of police has
begun a policy of improving women and children's desks in areas of
particular vulnerability and, through the ministry of child development
and women's rights, we are strengthening community structures to enhance
protection capacity.
During the relative quiet of election day, I was able
to go through the draft action plan for human rights, a monumental
effort by eight consultative committees, including some of the most
vociferous critics of government. We were also able, last November, to
present to the president, fulfilling an earlier campaign pledge, a
proposed bill of rights, prepared by a group of independent experts who
consisted of four Sinhalese, two Tamils and two Muslims. The ministry -
before I became its secretary - had picked eight admirably qualified
people, who represent the pluralistic society we were, and will be,
without the corrosive divisiveness of terrorism.
This is the real picture of human rights in Sri Lanka.
We are happy to receive and respond to criticism, but we do expect
proper engagement and an attempt to understand the full picture. There
is enormous promise for Sri Lanka over the decade ahead and we know that
all Sri Lankans must benefit from sustained peace in our country after
nearly three decades of terrorist threat. Organisations that seek to
stoke division and not engage will not help us meet this goal.
|
