By M M Zuhair
Veteran journalist, the celebrated British war correspondent Robert Fisk is no more. A man whose columns and reports from the war zones were widely read and readily accepted, passed away on 30th October 2020, at the age of 74, in a hospital in Dublin, Ireland, at a time when the world was engrossed in the US presidential elections.
This piece is penned in appreciation of this ‘vigilante’ sort of scribe, for frisking the likes of us to see the victims’ side of the numerous wars that were covered at tremendous personal risk by this committed correspondent, whose reports we will no longer see. The ‘New York Times’ described Fisk as “probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain”.
Leer en Espanol, staffer at the UK’s ‘The Independent’ wrote: “Fisk was renowned for his courage in questioning official narratives from governments and publishing what he uncovered in frequently brilliant prose.” Christian Broughton, Managing Director of the ‘The Independent’ described Fisk as, “Fearless, uncompromising, determined and utterly committed to uncovering the truth and reality at all costs. Robert Fisk was the greatest journalist of his generation. The fire he lit at ‘The Independent’ will burn on”.
Robert Fisk’s reporting from major conflict zones showed he was not one of those ‘embedded’ with the forces telling the world what the forces probably wanted journalists to tell. He did not indulge in what he called ‘hotel journalism’ either, reporting from hotel rooms without risking a visit to the attack site. His reports were testimony to his courage of visiting invariably deadly sites often under continuous attacks and reporting what he saw and what he heard from the victims.
Fisk was at times criticised for portraying the victims’ side as not being ‘independent’. Such criticisms though not entirely unfair also came from persons who did not dare the risks that Fisk never hesitated to take. The criticisms however invariably recognised that there was always a victim’s side and obviously an attacker’s side. Fisk saw the aggressor’s excuses for war, happening to be very well reported, while the war itself was severely under-reported.
By reporting from the perspectives of the victims, Fisk probably tried to correct an imbalance that the world of western journalism had created. He was indeed a heroic independent journalist. This is evident from the exclusive quality of the reports filed by Fisk from 1989 for ‘The Independent’, which were picked up by the electronic media in most parts of the world and I for one never wanted to miss!
Fisk knew Arabic. He covered the wars in Lebanon, Algeria, Syria, Iran-Iraq conflict, wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US invasion of Afghanistan, the US invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring and the wars in Syria. He was physically present at the receiving end of the onslaughts.
He was reportedly the first Western journalist to visit the bombed Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Shattila in Lebanon. He filed heart-rendering reports of what he saw of the Israeli massacre of refugees. Wikipedia in its first paragraph on Robert Fisk said that Fisk was “especially critical of United States foreign policy in the Middle-East and the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians”.
Sean O’ Grady, an Associate Editor at ‘The Independent’, a day after Fisk’s death, said, “For anyone at The Independent or indeed in journalism anywhere, Robert Fisk was a hero… When Fisk nailed NATO for killing civilians during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, he took the trouble to go and find the remains of the missiles and discovered charred componentry that could be traced back to the American manufacturers. The Indy’s subs gave him a great headline for the story too: ‘The atrocity is still a mystery to NATO. Perhaps I can help…’. That was smart journalism, and it got him an award, one of very many…. As a personal memory too I admired his championing of the cause of the Armenian people, victims of the first Holocaust, as Fisk insisted it be capitalised.”
Fisk worked at the powerful media giant Rupert Murdoch’s ‘The Times’, briefly but soon walked out as he thought his reports were being tailored to suit Murdoch’s taste! He moved onto ‘The Independent’ in 1989 from where he served the world for over 30 years with first hand reports that exposed the horrors of war, much to the dislike of many in the Western war lobbies. The US and NATO graciously gave Fisk enough wars to report about. For more on wars by the present writer, you may read The Island 14/11/2020, “Trump quotes President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech: Nothing has been done to break the US military from the arms industrial complex”. True to form he was an independent journalist for which he is widely respected across the world.
I had the privilege of meeting him once in Tehran on 30th August 2012 at the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Iran. It was attended by over 20 presidents, a number of prime ministers, four dozen foreign ministers and three kings. He was there to cover it. President Mahinda Rajapaksa represented Sri Lanka and I was there as my country’s Ambassador. I spotted Fisk in the media block. As much as his name, his face was also globally known. I had seen Robert Fisk in action via the electronic media in war zones that seemed to me then ‘suicidal’ for anyone to be in.
From where I was, I had already crossed over to the media block, shook hands and said I was a regular follower of his reports in the media and conveyed my appreciation for his bold reporting from the war zones. After the preliminaries, he asked me whether I had read his interviews of Osama bin Laden. I said yes; you had wanted to know more from Bin Laden about how the US armed this millionaire Saudi construction contractor to help Afghans to throw out the Soviet ‘invaders’ from Afghanistan.
I said, in the Western media Bin Laden was then a heroic freedom fighter! Yes – freedom fighter. But when Bin Laden, after 9/11 allegedly turned the Afghans against the invading American forces, how did he become a terrorist? He understood my query. Fisk was blunt. He said Robert Fisk, no! Rupert Murdoch, yes! I couldn’t figure out what Fisk was trying to say. He went on, ‘that man defines’, to the world! Depends on which side the fighter is! He then probed into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapaksa. After a while, he said, ‘Fisk has to file a report’ about (then Egyptian President) Morsi handing over NAM presidency to Ahmadinejad at the leaders meeting and he needed to pick up more and moved away.
This chat, later on, was however not in my mind. But I recalled this with some nostalgia when I read a recent media report by Borzou Daragahi “… the dangers of giving one family with an extremist agenda so much power…” where he referred to former Australian defense and energy secretary Paul Barratt’s response to a cheeky tweet. The query was why the United States, United Kingdom and Australia all found themselves “with lunatics and/or shysters” at the helm. Barratt tweeted, “Rupert Murdoch”!
The world owes much to Robert Fisk, this extraordinary journalist. He had a doctorate in political science earned in 1983. He could have lectured in a university. He could have lived a life of ease and comfort. Instead he roamed amidst falling missiles and firing ones! He lived on the threshold of death for most parts of his life uncovering the horrors of man-made wars and the miseries from inhuman massacres. He deserves the universal appreciation of all those who desire peace for mankind.
(The writer can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org).
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Take Human Rights seriously, not so much the council or office
By Dr Laksiri Fernando
The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.
In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.
UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.
His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.
High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.
Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.
But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.
China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.
He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”
“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”
It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.
His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.
His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,
“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”
‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.
What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.
In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.
President’s energy directives ignored by the Power Ministry: Another Point of View
Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya
Dr Janaka Rathnasiri laments (The Island 19 Feb 2021) that the Power Ministry has ignored the President’s directive to draw 70% of energy from renewable sources by 2030. I saw the approved costs of electricity production for 2019, published by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL).
PUCSL has also approved the prices to sell electricity to customers. Although various customers pay at various “approved” prices, the average income from such “approved” prices in 2019 was Rs 17.02 per unit. It is not only the Ministry, according to Dr Rathnasiri, ignoring the President; PUCSL is also breaking the law, which says prices and approved costs should be equal.
So there is already an illegal gap of Rs 21.59 minus 17.02 = Rs 4.57 per unit of electricity sold. If electricity prices are not to be increased, as stated by many in the government and PUCSL, let us say the following: Distribution costs should decrease by 0.57 Rs per unit. Generation costs should decrease by Rs 4.00 per unit.
PUCSL also published the approved cost of purchasing or producing electricity from various sources for 2019. The actual energy values were different to what was approved, but let us stick to PUCSL approved figures:
I suggest Dr Rathnasiri fills-up the following table, to show how much electricity will cost in 2030 to produce and deliver, if the President’s 70% target is to be achieved and for PUCSL to abide by the law. Let us assume that electricity requirement in 2030 will be double that of 2019.
Since PUCSL has to save Rs 4 from 13.92, the average selling price for energy should be Rs 13.92 minus 4.00 = Rs 9.92. With a target network loss of 7% (in 2019 it was 8.4%), the average cost of production has to be Rs 9.27 per unit. Eight cages have to be filled-up by Dr Rathnasiri.
In 2012, PUCSL approved the energy cost of electricity produced from coal power to be 6.33 Rs per kWh. In 2019, PUCSL approved 9.89 (56% increase). For renewable energy, it was 13.69 in 2012, and 19.24 in 2019 (a 40% increase, but double the price of electricity from coal fired generation). In 2012, rooftop solar was not paid for: only give and take, but now paid Rs 22, against Rs 9.89 from coal. There seems to be something wrong. The price reductions of renewable energy being promised, being insulated from rupee depreciation, are not happening? Either Sri Lanka must be paying too little for coal, or it may be renewable energy is severely over-priced?
On coal we hear only of some corruption every now and then; so Sri Lanka cannot be paying less than it costs, for coal.
Enough money even to donate
Another reason for the Ministry of Power to ignore the President’s directive may be the Ministry’s previous experience with similar Presidential directives. In 2015, the President at that time cancelled the Sampur coal-fired power plant, and the Ministry faithfully obliged. That President and that Prime Minister then played ball games with more power plants until they were thrown out of power, leaving a two-billion-dollar deficit (still increasing) in the power sector. Not a single power plant of any description was built.
Where is this deficit? You do not have to look far. In the second table, replace 24.43 with 9.89, to reflect what would have happened if Sampur was allowed to be built. The value 12.79 will go down to 8.55, well below the target of Rs 9.27 per unit to produce. Not only would CEB and LECO report profits, but the government too could have asked for an overdraft from CEB to tide over any cash shortfalls in the treasury. All this with no increase in customer prices. Producers of electricity from renewable energy could enjoy the price of 19.24 Rs per unit. And that blooming thing on your rooftop can continue to enjoy Rs 22 per unit. The Minister of Power, whom Dr Rathnasiri wants to replace with an army officer, would have been the happiest.
In the absence of Sampur (PUCSL’s letter signed by Chairman Saliya Mathew confirmed cancellation and asked CEB not to build it), PUCSL approved electricity to be produced at Rs 21.59 and sold at Rs 17.02 per unit. The annual loss would be Rs (21.59 – 17.02) x 15,093 = Rs 69 billion per year of approved financial loss. Sri Lanka has a Telecom regulator, an Insurance regulator, a Banking regulator, who never approve prices below costs. Sometime ago the telecom regulator asked the operators to raise the prices, when operators were proposing to reduce prices amidst a price war. But the electricity industry regulator is different: he approves costs amounting to 27% more than the price, not just once but, but continuously for ten long years !
That is 370 million dollars per year as of 2019, the economy is spending, and for years to come, to burn oil (and say we have saved the environment). Did the Minister of Health say we are short of 160 million dollars to buy 40 million doses of the vaccine? Well, being a former Minister of Power, she now knows which Presidential “order” of 2015 is bleeding the economy of 370 million dollars per year, adequate to buy all vaccines and donate an equal amount to a needy country.
Prices are the production costs approved by PUCSL for 2019. The selling price approved by the same PUCSL was Rs 9.27 per unit.
Confusion on NGOs and NSOs in Sri Lanka
If you listen to politicians and journalists here, you will hear of that curious creature rajya novana sanvidane, a Non-State Organization (NSO). Where do you get them? In the uninstructed and dead minds of those who use those terms. In the real world, where politicians and journalists have developed minds, there are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The United Nations is an organization set up by state parties, not by governments. It is true that agents of states, governments, make the United Nations work or fail. Governments may change but not the states, except rarely. When Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia, a new state was formed and was so recognised by the United Nations. However, the LTTE that tried to set up another state was crushed by the established state that it tried to break away from, and the UN had nothing to do with them.
This entirely unnecessary confusion, created out of ignorance, is so destructive that organizations completely loyal to the existing state, are made to be traitorous outfits, for they are ‘non-state organizations’ within the state. There are citizens of each state, but no citizens of any government. Government is but an instrument of the state. In most states there are organizations, neither of the state nor of government: religious organizations including churches. But none of them is beyond the pale of the state.
Those that speak of rajya novana sanvidane give that name partly because they have no idea of the origin of non-governmental organizations. NGOs came into the limelight, as donor agencies, noticed that some governments, in East Africa, in particular, did not have the capacity and the integrity to use the resources that they provided. They construed, about 1970, that NGOs would be a solution to the problem. Little did they realize that some NGOs themselves would become dens of thieves and brigands. I have not seen any evaluation of the performance of NGOs in any country. There was an incomplete essay written by Dr. Susantha Gunatilleka. NGOs are alternatives to the government, not to the state.
Our Constitution emphatically draws a distinction between the government and state, and lays down that the President is both Head of Government and Head of State (Read Article 2 and Article 30 of the Constitution.) It is as head of state that, he/she is the Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints and receives ambassadors and addresses Parliament annually, when a prorogued Parliament, reconvenes. He/she presides over the Cabinet as head of government. The distinction is most clear, in practice, in Britain where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and head of government. However, in principle, Johnson is the Queen’s First Minister appointed by the sovereign, and resigns by advising her of his decision to do so.
In the US and in India the term ‘state’ has special significance. In India there is a ‘rajya sabha’ (the Council of States) whose members represent constituent States and Union Territories. Pretty much the same is true of the United States. In the US, executive power is vested in the President and heads the administration, government in our parlance. The Head of State does not come into the Constitution but those functions that one associates with a head of state are in the US performed by the President of the Republic. The US President does not speak of my state (mage rajaya) but of my administration, (mage anduva). Annually, he addresses Congress on the State of the Union. Our present President must be entirely familiar with all this, having lived there as a citizen of the US for over a decade. It is baffling when someone speaks of a past state as a traitor to that same state. It is probable that a government was a traitor to the state. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their (States’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort’. That a state was a traitor to the same state is gobbledygook.
Apart from probable confusion that we spoke of in the previous paragraph, it is probable that a president and other members of a government, including members of the governing party here, find it grandiloquent to speak of his/her/their state (mage/ape rajaya), rather than my government (mage anduva) or Sirisena anduva’ and not Sirisena state; it was common to talk of ‘ape anduva’ in 1956; politicians in 1956 were far more literate then than they are now.
When translating from another language, make sure that you understand a bit of the history of the concept that you translate. A public school in the US is not the same as a public school in the UK.