ISSN: 1391 - 0531
Sunday March 16, 2008
Vol. 42 - No 42
Columns - Focus on Rights  

The republic of the conscience

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardena

Human Rights, it must clearly be said, is not for the 'developed world' to teach the 'developing world." This indeed, has never been the case and those who enjoy resorting to this particularly useful battle cry in Sri Lanka do so in order to press ahead with xenophobic agendas while shedding obnoxiously crocodile-like tears for human beings who die, are maimed or suffer intense mental anguish as a direct consequence of such horrendous policies.

The most fervent cry for universal human rights, it needs scarcely be remembered, was in the wake of the world wars when a 'developed nation' under the guise of a perfectly 'lawful' Constitution and laws of the Weimar Republic embarked on the most horrific racist cleansing that the world had ever seen. Many worthy citizens of so called, 'civilized' countries; ie, Austria, the Netherlands and so on, (and despite courageous resistance movements) turned a blind eye to the atrocities perpetrated on thousands of Jews by the jackbooted soldiers of Germany's Third Reich. The fact that the State of Israel has, in turn, fallen in all its fury on the hapless Palestinians, a people who did them no historic wrongs, is a different debate altogether.

Human rights not the province of the 'privileged'

But my point is that the definition of 'human rights' is entirely separate from the notion of 'developing' and 'developed.' Protection of human rights is not the exclusive province of the 'privileged' or the 'developed.' On the contrary, it was none more beautifully expressed in Irish Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney's musings when he called it a Republic of the Conscience. Heaney's words bear repetition for the sheer and powerful poignancy of their message; he asked 'What price, the death of a man or a woman in a culture of brutality? What price, a conscience? Ultimately, who remembers? Who, indeed, cares?"

These words came to my mind some four years back when remembering Richard de Zoysa's death at the hands of a regime just marginally more conscienceless than what we have today. It is an ironic and profound pity that some individuals who were the sternest critics of this senseless killing of a gifted and consummate communicator as well as several others whose worst crime was to engage in legitimate opposition, are today at the vanguard of not only covering up the sins of the regime but still worse, attacking with a ferocious and uncontrolled fury, all those who dare to dissent.

The US State Dept Report in context

The other argument is that the focus on human rights protections affects only the poorer nations of the Third World while powerful nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom escape with scarcely a murmur for their equally egregious violations. In terms of realpolitik, this is certainly true. We have seen the horrific abuses committed in torture camps in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, sanctioned expressly or impliedly by the current US administration which, hopefully will change come end of this year.

In that sense, the Annual Report on the State of Human Rights issued by the US Department of State needs to be viewed for what it actually is; a barometer by which aid and other means of support to various countries are measured not only by the US itself but by other nations as well, rather than a holier-than-thou pronouncement on the human rights compliance of other countries. And it is indeed true that America can scarce afford to preach, even internally. For example, reflecting on the 1999 US State Department Report on Sri Lanka in a column I wrote in 2000, I pointed to studies showing that police brutality in the US arise from individual misconduct encouraged by an institutionalised failure to hold officials accountable, inadequate systems of control and an outright refusal to recognise or respect international standards for human rights protection. The difference is however that the vitality of activists fighting for change in that system cannot be doubted.

But after all, the problems that plague the American system need not unduly concern us given that we do not live in that system unlike those 'expatriates' who are most fervent in promoting the war in Sri Lanka through hysterical emails from cities as varied as Boston, Los Angeles or New York. From the perspective that concerns those of us who have a deep love for this most green and verdant land, the issues in the State Dept Report cannot be disregarded merely by pointing to the excesses of the Bush administration. Instead, they should be weighed on their merits and met soberly if not for the sole reason that rantings and ravings can only be counter productive.

Criticism of the 'developed' as well as the 'developing' countries

But continuing this reasoning further, to claim that 'developed countries' have escaped criticism from international human rights bodies betrays either a nonchalant penchant for falsehood or sheer rude ignorance. The jurist arms of the United Nations, often its most praiseworthy bodies, (as differentiated from the politically affiliated United Nations Human Rights Council), have been unequivocally stern in their criticism of nations that renege on rights sans any distinction between 'developed' and 'developing.' For instance, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (which includes some four members of Sri Lanka International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) who have declared their intention to terminate their involvement here due to lack of bona fides by the government) has subjected not only Sri Lanka but Canada, Finland, Netherlands et al to reprimands in various contexts.

Then again, the United Nations Committee Against Torture has constantly delivered harsh criticism of the torture policies adopted by the US and UK. It may be contended that such criticism has had little effect. However, this would again be untrue. The strong backlash in voter opinion in the US against the Bush administration, for example, shows that the fundamentally sound American polity has a way of reasserting itself. Further, to point to these issues in a justification of abuses committed by Sri Lanka's politicians is a different matter altogether. Such arguments lack clear logical progression and are characterised by skillfully woven rhetoric that masks an essentially hollow if not hypocritical core.

A Republic of the Conscience

Indeed, just as much as there are charlatans (or indeed, racists) among journalists, doctors, lawyers and academics, there must also of necessity, be charlatans among 'human rights activists' whose notion of activism is more confined to plush five star hotels or the unabashed claiming of one million rupee 'expatriate salaries' for their political wheeler dealing. Such persons should be strongly scorned and exposed rather than tolerated or suffered. And again, in striving towards uncovering injustice in an environment that risks life and liberty and where the sole aim of government agencies is to cover up, there may be human errors committed. But this is no reason to scorn the very idea of human rights protection during war or to label all criticism as 'anti-State.' What we need right now perhaps, is less attention paid to the idea of a United Nations monitoring mechanism in Sri Lanka in which there is little or no public faith and more attention devoted to rebuilding the courage and energy of Sri Lankans themselves to correct their abysmally weak national institutions, most particularly the institutions of the 17th Amendment. Ultimately, there is no doubt that though we should garner constructive and sensitive international support, our problems must remain ours to solve.

 
Top to the page  |  E-mail  |  views[1]


Reproduction of articles permitted when used without any alterations to contents and a link to the source page.
© Copyright 2008 | Wijeya Newspapers Ltd.Colombo. Sri Lanka. All Rights Reserved.