International alert and its activities

Jansz case could blow the lid off global secret operations and rebel links

By Susantha Goonatilaka

The exchanges between International Alert (IA) and its local representative Frederica Jansz before her dismissal would have raised many eyebrows across the country.

The incident illustrates not only the new imperialism's brand of conflict resolution but also its many transgressions of elementary labour laws. It also calls as in Sierra Leone for resolute action by local authorities to immediately throw out and investigate International Alert.

The Foreign Minister has already made some encouraging comments, casting doubts on motives of western-funded NGOs and saying that LTTE fronts would be investigated.

International Alert is only the tip of an iceberg which has seen the country's implicit foreign policy privatized by foreign interests operating through foreign-funded NGOs. Their agendas would not be allowed in India or any other Asian country.

Ms. Jansz's curt dismissal is highly questionable under the normal labour laws and practice in the country. Any wayward employee has to be first informed of the transgression he/she is alleged to have committed, then will be given time to reply before an enquiry is held. If she was wrong, then a suitable punishment will be given, usually for a mild transgression only a warning.

But the facts in this conflict resolution go against these minimum criteria which millions of Sri Lankan employees take for granted.

Ms. Jansz had not been told that writing adversely on one party to the conflict —the LTTE— was not appropriate. She had already written adversely on the other party, the Sri Lankan government under whose laws she operates.

The person who informed her of her dismissal, Tris Bartlett said he himself found this incompatibility "a fair point" which he "cannot answer".

The pressure on her dismissal, it appears had come from not only the LTTE but also the Norwegian government, it is alleged. So not only has IA been shown to be essentially a Tiger front as the Foreign Minister hinted at, but also the Norwegian government.

Ms. Jansz could now file a case for wrongful dismissal and demand a large compensation. Sri Lankan labour lawyers are competent in this.

But to aid their efforts may I suggest some additional and vital points with precedence from judgements against IA in Britain and help from pending British cases.

There has been a consistent pattern of IA involving itself in arbitrary anti-employee actions.

The labour courts in Britain have already ruled against IA in some cases, including one of racial discrimination against an African employee.

These have resulted in settlements amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. There are other cases pending.

My information is that IA has one of the highest ratios of labour disputes to employees in any British organization, definitely in a voluntary organization. The donors' evaluation report on IA after the Sierra Leone accusations of coup involvement already had remarked on the loss of staff morale at IA.

Ms. Jansz is a Sri Lankan working in an international organization. It appears Tris Bartlett is a foreigner.

There are well known criteria that govern salaries between locals and expatriates in international organizations. An expatriate is hired only if there is no local expertise.

Reading through the transcript of the conversation between Ms. Jansz and Mr. Bartlett, it appears the latter is ignorant of the basic tenets of fair play and of sensitivity to the local culture which should be the minimum requirements of an expatriate in conflict resolution, even for a personnel officer in a local company.

But what IA had wanted Ms. Jansz to do is a more serious matter and demands special compensation for trying to involve her in possible criminal activity. Let me digress.

The government regulation banning the LTTE (Gazette 1998 Jan. 27) says the ban "shall also apply to every other organization and to everybody or group of persons engaged in activities substantially similar to those carried on by the (LTTE)", meaning Tiger fronts.

The gazette lists the offences as "making, printing, distribution or publication of any writing" by or on behalf of the LTTE.

The minister is authorized under the regulations to look into any person or organization and if it is fronting for the LTTE, to forfeit its property. The minister's actions shall be final.

The action that Jansz was asked by IA was not to present the facts as she saw it, but as the LTTE saw it, that is to be a front person for the LTTE and thus break Sri Lankan law and court stringent punishment.

She also had not been given this apparent hidden agenda by IA. There is ample evidence to show that this secrecy and lack of transparency has been normal in IA. She has the testimony of the donors' evaluation report on IA as well as a special report by the British Parliament.

Let me quote from them, showing not only their pattern of secrecy but also casting strong doubts about their impartiality, in fact having sided according to these reports with the Sierra Leone rebels (RUF) who overthrew the elected President of Sierra Leone.

The equivalent armed rebels in our case are the LTTE.

The evaluation report of the IA donors is very explicit on IA secrecy and non-neutral politicking "IA had been subject to serious allegations.... in Sierra Leone which the organization itself has celebrated as its main achievement .... IA's neutrality and transparency was.... widely questioned by the Freetown (Sierra Leone) authorities, international organizations and other governments" ... Many in the international community (believed) that IA was working as an adviser (to the rebels), not a neutral facilitator, in the peace process .... IA's interventions, in particular its continued lobbying of senior politicians and international civil servants, despite the Trustees" (of IA) decision to become "non-operational", served to create confusion (and thus suspicion) regarding IA's intentions".

This document also faults IA for "lack of clarity and transparency" ... Problems of credibility and transparency - contradictions between IA's stated position and its actual interventions - continued to affect IA.... and led to mistrust and suspicion that the organization was not neutral nor transparent in its dealing with international organizations.

"These negative features were now "seriously affecting the organization's reputation, credibility and effectiveness and, therefore, also (the IA) staff morale". .

These revelations of the real nature of IA by its own donors' report at the end of 1997 had already being mentioned in a British Parliament report in 1996.

This report said, "International Alert (was) not seen to be entirely transparent in its actions.

This sentiment was expressed.... by members of the government delegation, the press, many NGOs and the public (The Conflict in Sierra Leone September 1996, Parliamentary Human Rights Group, p 30).

So IA was a secretive organization suspected by many in Sierra Leone, its major operational area.

But these same evaluation reports had already acknowledged similar problems in Sri Lanka.

The donors' report questioned "the wisdom of the high profile held by IA in Sri Lanka at the present time"

The report noted correctly that in Sri Lanka "particularly following the largely negative press coverage of IA's activities, there are worries that a close association with IA may be considered a possible liability".

The donors' report had warned IA.

"International Alert needs develop a management style characterized by openness and a willingness to be actively self-critical if it is to defend its interests.

An ability to see oneself as others see us is an elusive, but necessary, skill to develop. Denial of others' perceptions risks reinforcing the impression of organizational insensitivity and lack of analytical capacity."

The Jansz incident is exactly the opposite of what the donors wished as a desireable management style. IA seems to be a rogue organization beyond even the ken of its donors. But it had been so even earlier.

In the Sierra Leone case it "continued lobbying of senior politicians and international civil servants, despite the Trustees" (of IA) decision to become "non-operational". That is, IA defied its own board of trustees. The present exercise of IA including the sacking of Ms. Jansz is clearly in keeping with its past. Now in any labour tribunal taking up Ms. Jansz's case, other key issues from the past will come up.

In the meantime Ms. Jansz should make public all the beneficiaries of IA largesse directly and indirectly, including through such organizations like the Sasakawa Foundation. She should not be deterred by the fact that she may have signed a secrecy clause.

National security overrides any secrecy clauses signed with a neo colonial agency. A local labour tribunal will look on such actions of exposure with special benignness. Ms. Jansz's case should also be widely publicized internationally.

She should also write to the incoming New Zealand director of IA, to headquarters employees battling the IA in courts, to James Bone, the UN correspondent of the British Times who reported on IA, to the donors of IA, to their board of trustees, to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who surely has a file on IA after the letter from Sierra Leone's deposed President accused IA of involvement in the coup and also to the now restored legal government in Sierra Leone who will find her information valuable in the coup trials to come.

Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in his Sunday Times interview has taken the correct and only stand that any self respecting foreign minister should. Mr. Kadirgamar has implied that IA could be an LTTE front and that the NIB would be alerted about this.

The information provided above about IA amply fits the criteria for an LTTE front as given in the gazette banning the LTTE of an "organization and.... group of persons engaged in activities substantially similar to those carried on by the (LTTE)" including activities of "making, printing, distribution or publication of any writing" by or on behalf of the LTTE.

The IA should be immediately banned. Its offices sealed. its workings made public.

The writer is a former director of the Research and Publications Department of the People's Bank, Editor of 'Economic Review' and is currently an activist with the National Movement Against Terrorism.

Rights activist pulls out of IA's 'Cost Of War'

Dr. Elizabeth Nissan of Article 19 informed The Sunday Times that she has pulled out of a project titled Cost of War which was sponsored in Sri Lanka by International Alert. Readers of this newspaper will remember that International Alert sacked one of its employees, Fredrica Jansz who works in the Colombo office, after she wrote an article in this paper exposing LTTE activities in Norwegian soil. International Alert is funded by the Norwegian government.

Dr Nissan, who was involved with the project at the time Ms. Janz was removed from International Alert, has pulled out from the project since. The steering committee of the project comprises Bradman Weerakoon, Dr Charitha Ratwatte, Tyrol Ferdinandez and former Air vice Marshall Harry Goonetilleke.

Harry Goonetilleke, when contacted after Dr Nissan pulled out from the project, said he really doesn't know what to think about the whole affair of the removal of Ms Jansz from International Alert. But, he said he presumes IA will continue with the project. He said Mr. Kumar Rupasinghe had informed him that Ms. Jansz was removed due to the fact that she had violated the terms of her contract by voicing opinions outside. When told that Ms Jansz has written other articles before this particular article was published about LTTE activities, he said he really doesn't know what to think. The project Cost of War was aimed at high quality information on the true cost of the Sri Lankan conflict through rigorous research. The information will then be targeted in such a way as to develop the will for peace in Sri Lanka and to encourage a more pro-active approach to peace building by the international community.

The Rationale of AI was:

The violent ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has continued since 1983. Today, the war is being pursued with a hitherto unprecedented intensity, with hundreds of casualties every month and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced in appalling conditions. Despite this, most observers agree that possible resolution of the conflict has never been further away. The government is arguing that they cannot talk to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and therefore are pursuing a partial or complete military victory in order to present a package of devolution to the Tamil population and to all other Sri Lankans. It is by no means clear that the package will receive sufficient support even from the Sinhalese majority for implementation to be possible, and it does not address many of the more intractable questions central to the conflict; for its part the LTTE has showed no sign that it is ready to compromise on its hard-line approach and have stated that a military withdrawal from Jaffna is an essential pre-requisite before negotiations can take place.

At present, there appears to be little political will towards pursuing a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In this, it is evident that decision makers on both sides as well as members of the different ethnic groups in general, perceive the price of peace to be higher than the cost of pursuing the war. Away from the north and east, vast majority of the Sri Lankan population is effectively distanced from the most devastating affects of the war.

Objectives

l To engage in broad based research in order to ascertain strong estimates for the true cost of the conflict in Sri Lanka.

l To organize a comprehensive advocacy strategy that will enable hard facts to be targeted for appropriate organizations in Sri Lanka and internationally. In achieving the above, the more specific objectives will be:

o To develop political and popular will for a peaceful resolution of Sri Lanka's conflict.. to increase awareness about the true cost and effects of the conflict.

o To mobilize specific sectors of the Sri Lankan population, through specifically targeted advocacy work, to be more active in working for peace in Sri Lanka.

o To inform the international community of the cost of the Sri Lankan conflict and to suggest ways in which their support may be better enhanced towards an end to the conflict.

Journalists face off with the military

By A. Lin Neumann

The amiable banter on a sweltering late spring evening in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, turned suddenly serious when a handful of journalists pressed their point on Information Minister Mangala Samaraweera inside his gracious home. Will you drop charges of criminal defamation against journalists? Will you allow the press to cover the civil war freely? Is the government serious about reform?

The courtly Samaraweera told a group of Sri Lankan editors and foreign guests, that the government wanted to work with the press to reform a repressive record of censorship. But he wasn't ready to give in to a completely free press. Not yet. "We have to have limits," he said. "The press has to be responsible."



Media Minister Samaraweera: "We have to have limits. The press has to be responsible."

In the face of a bitter and bloody fifteen-year war waged by the minority Tamil separatists that has claimed more than 50,000 lives and deeply strained the social fabric, keeping the press free can be a tricky business. On June 5, the military establishment, apparently stung by a stalled offensive against the rebels in the north of the country, may have derailed efforts by Samaraweera and others to negotiate with the Sri Lankan media over constitutional protections for the press. It imposed harsh censorship restrictions on both foreign and local press coverage of the war.

Weeks earlier, Samaraweera had hosted the party for press freedom advocates, signaling dramatic progress for the Sri Lankan press. The process was thrown into confusion by the military. "If you will be reasonable, we will be reasonable," Samaraweera told an editor at the party who faces multiple defamation suits brought by several government officials.

The new defense ministry censorship rules seem certain to strain relations with press. All news organizations are banned from carrying uncensored news about military operations. The Free Media Movement in Colombo called the action "a flagrant violation of the commitment made by this government in its election manifesto to defend media freedom." The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York similarly denounced the rules. The last time the government attempted to muzzle the press was in 1996, but the regulations were eventually overturned.

A military affairs analyst in Colombo said the moves were a sign of panic in the armed forces. "This is a reaction to military debacles in the war," said the analyst, who asked not to be quoted due to the new censorship regulations. "The doves in the government are worried because the censorship is in the hands of the army. This a great embarrassment to the government."

It is unclear where the latest move leaves free press initiatives in Sri Lanka. The April meeting at the home of Samaraweera had come at the end of a round of talks that united all the major players in the national press and set the stage for an unprecedented dialogue between Sri Lankan media and President Chandrika Kumaratunga's People's Alliance government. The editors, publishers, journalists, academics, and activists who participated were responding to deteriorating relations between the press and a government that came to power in 1994 pledging to strengthen constitutional guarantees for a free press after seventeen years of increasingly authoritarian rule by the United National Party.

The group hammered out a document, with the encouragement of allies within the government and opposition parliamentarians, which they hope will form the basis for lasting reform. The "Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social Responsibility" seeks to bring Sri Lanka into general compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by calling for the repeal of laws on criminal defamation, the easing of censorship, and the repeal of constitutional restrictions that forbid discussion of "peaceful secession," a particularly thorny topic in a nation torn by civil war. The group urged the parliament to replace a tough "Official Secrets Act" with a "Freedom of Information Act" and to pass laws that would protect journalistic sources from attack in the courts.

The group also called for the creation of a BBC-style public broadcasting service to replace state control and the formation of an independent broadcasting authority.

The Sri Lankan action is remarkable for the degree to which powerful editors and publishers joined in the effort. The final declaration was signed by the Editors Guild of Sri Lanka, the Newspaper (Publishers) Society, and the Free Media Movement. The Working Journalists Association expects to follow suit. It was the first time the groups had ever worked together. In calling for change, the journalists also drew up an extensive code of ethics as part of their declaration.

Organizers will present the final document to a parliamentary committee on press reform. "We hope this works," said Iqbal Athas, a defense analyst for The Sunday Times of Sri Lanka and CNN. "This is too important to abandon. We have to protect our right to a free press after so many years. It is now up to the military to respond to the weight of domestic and international criticism against the censorship regulations and allow the press to function freely in Sri Lanka."

The writer is the Asia Program Coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists and he contributed this to article Columbia Journalism Review

More News/Comments * Out old, in new, but no change * The Catholic, Protestant and the 'Other' * Milestones of peace, violence

Return to News/Comment Contents