Pondering over Sison’s speech

US Ambassador Michele J. Sison, addressing the Foreign Correspondents Association is reported to have flagged some important concerns her Government has with respect to Sri Lanka.  She has mentioned threats and attacks on media institutions and journalists, while commenting on issues of accountability and human rights.

Sison should be applauded for her efforts to help keep these concerns alive especially since they echo the sentiments of everyone concerned about democracy, reconciliation and peace.  On the other hand, it is important to keep things real, practical and with fidelity to the notion of proportionality.  When this is not done the morality of assertion gets questioned and the exercise is subverted to the detriment of the masses and the benefit of those who violate rights.  
The aversion to contextualize certain circumstances takes a lot of shine off the more serious issues of inaction on attacks on journalists including the murder of Sunday Leader Editor LasanthaWickramatunga.

It is true that the media does not operate in ideal circumstances in Sri Lanka.  This does not mean that journalists in other countries are better off in this regard or that Sri Lankan journalists are a quiescent lot. There are restrictions and threats, some real and some imagined. These are constantly challenged.  Things could be infinitely better, as Sison points out, but perhaps she is ignorant of the fact that in intent and act, advocates of media rights have actually made things harder over the years.  

Sison also seems unaware of the fact that self-censorship more than threats has been the most significant stumbling block.  A good example is the fact that Sison was not taken to task on the issue of accountability with respect to US foreign policy and in particular military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This not only raises the question of whether the US is selectively targeting Sri Lanka but gives credence to Government claims of the UNHRC being a pawn of that country’s global agenda.  The foreign correspondence haven’t covered themselves in glory either, it must be noted.

There is a difference between friendly advice and interference in domestic matters.  Sison has diplomatically stated that international screws on Sri Lanka would be tightened if the Government fails to ‘play ball’.  However, the fact is that the USA is choreographing the political drama does not strengthen the opposition, but distances it from the people.  Force or the threat of force, veiled or otherwise, then can lead not to better democracy but conjuring the spectre of anarchy.   That is good for the Government, not the people.  

The USA, for all its rhetoric about thier interest in people, has never factored them in its strategic calculations.  Whether the Government is cognizant of this or not, it would be erroneous to assume that the people are ignorant.