___________________
by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
(April 30, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Peace Secretariat is amused at the intemperate reaction of Sir Nigel Rodley, ‘an eminent person from Britain’ as he was described, to the revelation that the eminent Indian head of the IIGEP Justice P N Bhagwati has made it clear that he does not accuse the government of lacking political will with regard to the Commission of Inquiry into several cases concerning Human Rights.
Such blustering on Sir Nigel’s part simply confirms the impression some elements in the IIGEP had helped to create, that their prime motive was to engage in confrontation with the government of Sri Lanka, without regard to propriety or the truth.
Sir Nigel is quoted as telling the BBC that “I think you or anybody else should be treating with extreme skepticism any representation by the government of Sri Lanka what (sic) any of us says,”
Having made this crude comment on what the government was reported to have said, Sir Nigel than sanctimoniously says, “I am not prepared to comment on anything the government of Sri Lanka quotes what (sic) Mr. Bhagwati says. When I see the letter I would be willing to comment,” he told BBC Sinhala.com.
He is then reported to have added that ‘the panel is not aware of any letter sent to President Rajapakse by their president’. It was not indicated whether he had spoken to the other members of the panel including Justice Bhagwathi, or whether he felt entitled to pronounce on behalf of the panel as a whole.
It is quite understandable that Justice Bhagwathi did not show Sir Nigel the letter, given the patronizing tone of the latter. It is also evident from other comments he made that he simply did not understand the mandate or the actual workings of the IIGEP.
For instance, he is reported to have declared that “The government claimed that we had no right to conduct public hearings, but we certainly did have and we made these statements only after discussing with the CoI and the AG’s office. All these statements contain their comments,” he said. This is simply untrue.
In September 2007 what was supposed to be an IIGEP statement was issued without the comments of the CoI. It turned out that the CoI had addressed their comments to Justice Bhagwati, the head of the IIGEP. However the assistants of the Eminent Persons from some developed countries, who had set up their own Secretariat, assumed that, because they had not received the comments, they did not exist. Sir Nigel should have looked at the statement issued in September before he made his lofty generalization. Sir Nigel however has perhaps reached a level in his profession when he does not need to consider evidence, but gets by on his reputation.
In speculating on the motives of some elements in the IIGEP however, Sri Lankan officials considered the evidence, the claim by the assistants to the CoI that responses had to be received in time for a statement to be issued to coincide with the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva for instance, or the attempt to stymie attempts by Sri Lankan officials to promote Witness Protection, claiming that this was interference with their own tepid efforts to obtain training for a single policemen.
This patronizing approach fitted in with the irresponsible approach of those members of the IIGEP who had assistants who took their places, though the government of Sri Lanka had appointed eminent persons, not callow young men. Unsurprisingly, all the assistants came from rich countries, which funded their own but would not fund the far better qualified assistant proposed for Justice Bhagwathi. These assistants had an agenda and, as bad money drives out good, they and those few members of the IIGEP who seem to have shared that agenda managed to over-ride the rest.
Justice Bhagwathi perhaps realized that, sitting together with Sir Nigel, he had been dragooned into seeming to support a position he realized was inappropriate, given the evidence and given his mandate. What he wrote seems to represent his own considered view. It is of course up to Sir Nigel to disagree. But to insinuate that the Sri Lankan government is lying is unworthy of his title or his past.
Sir Nigel’s performance finally puts the lid on the claims of those who believe that external validation is necessary for Sri Lankan efforts to be deemed respectable. With a Queen’s Counsel being so shallow and so snide, it is unlikely that the nation will allow itself to be patronized by unknown quantities such as the assistants whose only claim to superiority seems to have been, as Paul Scott so tellingly put it, the colour of their skin.
(The writer, Secretary-General, Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process in Government of Sri Lanka)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment