Here’s the ‘word on the street’ or rather ‘word on
the walls’ on Saturday October 18, 2014: ‘යුරෝපා
සංගමය
LTTE තහනම
ඉවත්
කරයි…රනිල්
යුරෝපයෙන්
වැඩ
අරඹයි’
(The EU lifts LTTE ban – Ranil embarks (on campaign) from Europe).’
It is a neat juxtaposition. The first part is true in part. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) annulled
the EU regulations proscribing the LTTE but did so with an important rider, ‘on
fundamentally procedural grounds’ with the decision ‘not implying any
substantive assessment of the question of the classification of the LTTE as a
terrorist group’. The said measures
annulled, moreover, will remain temporarily ‘to ensure effectiveness of any
possible future freezing of funds’. ‘Ban
lifted’ is a fair claim but one which without details. Furthermore, ECJ is not European Union (EU),
after all the decision went against an EU body, the Council and Commission of
the EU.
The second part is pure conjecture. There’s absolutely no evidence that Ranil did
or said anything that could have moved the relevant judges. Indeed, if that was the case it indicates
considerable political and intellectual weight which makes his abysmal
performance on all fronts here in Sri Lanka hard to understand. What impact other less visible moves by the
movers and shakers of this world had on this decision we do not know but it is
certainly not profitable to indulge in conjecture about such machinations.
Now it is true that
Ranil and the UNP have always been the darlings of the West, in particular the
USA. It is also true that the USA and EU
have been particularly pernicious in their dealings with Sri Lanka for reasons
that have more to do with Sri Lanka having a leader who is not pliant enough to
their liking. These countries and their
official and unofficial agents have been very cosy with big names in the UNP as
well as those in the NGO sector that focus on human rights, good governance
etc., again notorious for regime-hatred and for this and other reasons quite
partial to the LTTE.
So although it’s quite a stretch to link Ranil to
the ECJ decision the line resonates well with entrenched perceptions about
Ranil, the West and the LTTE. What are
these perceptions? It has many
parts. There is the perception that only
Mahinda Rajapaksa (with Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of course) can preserve the hard
won victory over the LTTE. This has much
to do with their role in that victory as the track record of the Ranil-led UNP. The Ceasefire Agreement, the Millennium City
betrayal, hobnobbing with federalists who spared no pains to undermine the
military offensive against the LTTE etc. gives credence to this view.
If victory is to be preserved, furthermore, it is
perceived by many that the LTTE should remain a non-factor. EU/USA salutation of lies spewed by pro-LTTE is
also seen as something that does not help.
These countries have been comfortable in echoing the devolution demands
of pro-LTTE and pro-Eelam elements which, in the post-Prabhakaran
reduced-circumstances they find themselves in, take the form of exacting police
and land powers.
More than all of this is the terrible memory of
LTTE-terror. Any association with any
process that indicates even an outside chance of an LTTE resurgence in even the
mildest form can worry an electorate that has suffered three decades at the
hands of terrorism. It is a worry that
the ruling party can and will play on.
All the more reason for Ranil, the UNP and the rest of the Opposition to
make a clear break from the past ideologically and politically and make that
break stick in the minds of the voter.
The fact is that one of the biggest mind-blocks for
the floating voter is the UNP’s flirtation with federalism and federalists,
widely seen as gentrified name boards for Separatism and Eelamists
respectively.
People can and will ask, ‘how about the merger of
the North and East, how about police powers and how about land powers?’ They will add, ‘Why should we believe
them?’ They will think, ‘Their masters
in the West will dictate the solution to them and it will be 13+/federal.’
Thus, even though ‘preservation of hard won victory’
is no license to be corrupt and dictatorial or justify giving the finger to
‘Law and Order,’ the perception of politicians in general as being opportunists
and corrupt (the UNP was not a Party of Saints while in power and the JVP too
has a bloody history) is enough to see ‘no difference’ or ‘insignificant
difference’ with the regime. Not enough
to oust this other perception about ‘victory’.
There’s only so much political fuel that ‘victory’
can make. The ruling party has all but
exhausted victory-credit. The ECJ
decision, the way it is read and marketed, and politically linking the UNP to
the decision however amounts to a ‘reload’ of the victory credit card. The UNP and its leader have to come out
strong on the implications of the ECJ decision on prospects for peace and
reconciliation in Sri Lanka. It will
take some convincing of course to show that the decision is not as dark as it
is or will be made out to be and that’s because of the UNP’s
flirtation-history.
As things stand, no one can bet on anyone to do or
not do anything. Can we believe the
Rajapaksas, one can ask. What is the
guarantee that the Rajapaksas will remove the 13th (if that’s what
is ideal)? The answer would be ‘We can have more
faith in them than a Ranil-led UNP in this regard’.
Someone might say,
‘the Rajapaksas have tested the people’s patience, I think the rajapaksas
have tested the people's patience, they insult the people, there’s anarchy, no
law and order’ and add to that list of woes.
The tragedy is that such objections can and will be met with something
like, ‘True, but not new to Sri Lanka – wasn’t great either under the
UNP’. That’s never excuse enough, but
when picking between two bad apples, there are certain kinds of badness that
gives out a foul odor – in this instance the greater perceived likelihood of an
LTTE resurgence.
What’s come out of
Europe is a trump card. It’s one that
has been given to Mahinda Rajapaksa because he, more than Ranil, is seen as
preserver of sovereignty, defender of territorial integrity, objector to
federalism and crippler of separatists.
Dayan Jayatilleka recently wrote, ‘Defeating a war winning President against
the backdrop of a growing economy would be a tall order in any society.’ Add this ‘EU Gift’ and it could be a
no-contest unless Ranil and the UNP make a believable case for ‘changing of
ways’.
0 comments:
Post a Comment