Fixation or friction? UN’s battle with Sri Lanka

When a senior UN official addressed a recent news conference on human rights violations worldwide, a reporter asked him about the incarceration of a UN human rights official, Sigma Huda, by the military-run government in Bangladesh. A native of Bangladesh and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Huda was barred from leaving the country on the ground she was "a security risk for Bangladesh as she may give statements detrimental" to the government in Dhaka, when she was scheduled to address a human rights meeting in Geneva later that month.

Responding to the question, the UN official unwittingly — and mistakenly — criticised the Sri Lanka government, instead of lambasting the Bangldeshi government. Obviously, he had Sri Lanka in his sub-conscious mind, when the real culprit was the Bangladeshi government. Was that a Freudian slip — a mistake in speaking or writing, which in effect, shows what you really think or feel about?

And last week, in another obvious goof, the UN spokesman's office put out a statement by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the suicide bombings in Algeria which killed 17 UN staffers, among others. The statement read: "The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attacks in Algeria." But the headline on the email message erroneously read: "Ban Ki-moon on Sri Lanka."

After the email message landed in the mail box of hundreds of journalists, the spokesman's office realized the mistake and ran a correction within minutes of discovering the blunder. Was it a second consecutive Freudian slip? Although both can be construed as genuine mistakes, the fact that the blame was laid on the wrong country gives the impression that Sri Lanka is very much in the subconscious mind — particularly when the world body talks of human rights, humanitarian assistance, suicide bombings, civilian killings, child soldiers and unbridled LTTE terrorism.

When we posed the question in this column last week whether Sri Lanka should stay in the UN or walk out of the world body because of the ongoing battle between the two, that piece was written with tongue firmly entrenched in cheek. As Kumar Fernando of the UN Association of Sri Lanka rightly points out no country has ever "left" the UN. "Of course, Sri Lanka must stay and fight," says Fernando, whose longstanding organisation has been promoting the ideals of the UN in Sri Lanka, and acting as a bridge between the two.

As we pointed out last week, the present government has been engaged in a running battle with the UN over several politically sensitive issues, including refusal of visas to some UN staffers, charges of human rights violations against the government, lack of security to humanitarian aid workers, and the participation of UN staffers in at least one public demonstration. But despite the total mis-characterization of a senior UN Under-Secretary-General John Holmes as a "terrorist" in the payroll of the LTTE, and despite charges of human rights violations and disappearances, Sri Lanka is still way ahead of countries such as Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus, Burma and North Korea, who are singled out for country-specific resolutions earning the wrath of the General Assembly every year.

Notwithstanding annual strictures for human rights abuses, none of these countries has ever threatened to quit the world body because they are conscious of the fact that all — or most — of these resolutions are politically-motivated and triggered either by the US or the 27-member European Union.

Sri Lanka has escaped any censuring by the General Assembly primarily because of our diplomacy and our ability to maintain politically cordial relations with other member states — either bilaterally or multi-laterally. But one fine day we may run out of smooth-talking diplomacy?

If the government thinks it's getting an unfair deal, we said rather flippantly last week, it should perhaps show its disdain by refusing any high level representation during the next General Assembly sessions rather than bring a 70-member delegation on a junket. We had two strong responses to this. An expatriate Sri Lankan in New York wrote: "There is no way in hell the Sri Lanka government will take your suggestion seriously for one simple reason: if there is no General Assembly sessions for 60 to 70 government officials and hangers-on every year, they will be deprived of their annual pilgrimage to New York at tax payer's expense." Perish the thought, he added. Sounds logical.

A more serious response came from a former Sri Lankan diplomat:"To go on in your article making such preposterous suggestions as to downgrade our representation at the UN General Assembly (was it tongue-in- cheek?) and so on, was only feeding the current mood of xenophobia in the country and quite unworthy of your role as the premier Sri Lankan journalist covering the UN."

"As we all know," he continued, "the UN is not perfect but then is the growing estrangement between the UN and Sri Lanka in anybody's interest? It is this amorality among some journalists that I find so sad when you should be upholding basic principles."
On the other hand, a deep throat from the bowels of the Foreign Ministry in Colombo writes: "Great Story. Well received here." And a longtime Sri Lankan international civil servant, who has served in several Western capitals and knows the UN inside out, sent an unsolicited email message that read: "Excellent piece." Well, you win some, you lose some.