What is it that Ranil can do that Mahinda cannot? What is it about Ranil that would make the
international community, so-called, get off Sri Lanka’s back? If the UNHRC Resolution refers to things that
may have happened more than five years ago, how can a Wickremesinghe Regime
sometime in the future get it all off the agenda? After all, just because
someone else is in power, it doesn’t change what is said to have happened, does
it? In this context what are we to make
of Ranil’s assertion, his confidence and his confidences?
What Ranil is basically saying is that the movers and
shakers of the UNHRC Resolution, namely the USA and UK backed by Canada, France
and other member states of the European Union, is not really interested in
truth, justice, accountability, resolution of grievances via preferred
arrangements (such as power-devolution) or buttressing democratic institutions. Instead, all that is desired is
regime-change. All the rhetoric and
talking-points in Geneva, then, amounts to just foil for the real
objective.
Now this should not surprise anyone. The USA, after all, has
backed and defended with military might if necessary all kinds of tyrants,
including monarchs, military juntas, dictators and even totalitarian
regimes. It does business with the
rogues and rogue-states even as it decries autocrats and autocracies. It’s all
about which dictator and dictatorship are whose friends. The current initiative against Sri Lanka has
nothing to do with truth, justice, reconciliation and such and not only because
these things never mattered to Washington outside of rhetoric-need.
While Ranil’s statement betrays what can only be called an
unholy friendship with Sri Lanka’s enemies, it points to a more serious issue
pertaining to what political scientists call ‘the social contract’. The Minister of External Affairs, G.L. Peiris
has argued on several occasions that the pressure exerted unfairly and
selectively on Sri Lanka by Washington through Geneva can easily be dealt with
by the simple matter of agreeing to the terms of surrender. Those terms, as currently articulated, are
squarely against the general sentiments of the population save the Tamil
National Alliance, which is a communalist party representing only a fraction of
the Tamil community and beholden to the best friends of terrorists.
Regime change would not amount to a radical departure from
these sentiments. No one in the UNP, for
example, would say that the Government was wrong in crushing the LTTE or that
there was anything in method warranting investigation of any kind. Objection to the regime there is and might
even be growing but none of that has anything to do with operations against the
LTTE or the current position of the regime vis-Ã -vis the issue of
devolution. A referendum on whether the
13th Amendment should be enhanced with greater degree of devolution
or another on the relevancy of the 13th Amendment and Provincial
Councils after more than a quarter of a century worth experience is likely to
result in rejection on both counts. No
enhancement and indeed a call for abrogation, in other words.
The social contract among other things is about sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and not giving on a platter the land-theft sought by
terrorists through 30 years of terrorism.
It is also about good governance, the primacy of the law, independence
of the judiciary, and a need to depoliticize institutions. The latter set, although stressed in the
Resolution, have to be treated as means to the end called ‘regime change’ for
if these were troublesome there should have been similar resolutions on each
and every member state of the United Nations.
There weren’t and there will not be either.
What Ranil Wickremesinghe is not elaborating in his casual
‘put me in charge and I will get you and all of us out of jail’ statement is
the relevance of the Resolution to the vexed issue of the larger social
contract. Ranil is no fool. He is probably the best read Member of
Parliament. His understanding of
political philosophy and even the politics of the possible is probably second
to none among his contemporaries.
He, more than anyone else, would be able to explain why this
Government or any government for that matter has to reject the Resolution and
refuse to submit to arbitration by what is essentially a Kangaroo Court. He would understand that submission amounts
to buttressing a bad precedent and more than that subverts the very foundations
of a political society that values democracy based on true representation. This government has not lost the legitimacy
of authority vested in it by the people and whatever erosion there is has
nothing to do with the articles scripted into Washington machinations in Geneva
and elsewhere. This Government was not
mandated to concede ground to Eelamists.
The people did not confer on this government the authority to open the
door to intervention by outsider forces clearly operating against their overall
interests.
For all this, it must be acknowledged that mandates are
twisted and re-interpreted by politicians all the time. For example, President A may be ousted by
Presidential Candidate B because President A was seen to be corrupt, tyrannical
and incompetent, but President B, after assuming office, can say that he/she
was mandated to ‘resolve minority grievances through excessive devolution of
power to the provinces’. We have to live
with that reality. The reverse can also
be true. President A can brush aside corruption, tyranny and incompetence, and
claim that his one and only task is to ensure that not one inch is conceded
when it comes to sovereignty, territorial integrity etc.
Ranil Wickremesinghe knows all this; all the more reason why
he ought to elaborate on what would otherwise be a careless statement that
amounts to confessing that he is in cahoots with the USA and UK for purely
personal/party political reasons.
The key question that is relevant to the people of this
country at this point is whether or not they are willing to have the larger
social contract be re-written by those who cannot in any way claim to be
representing them, namely the USA and UK.
It is a question that all political entities, parties included, need to
ponder over, regardless of love or hatred for the regime.
A clear and comprehensive response from Ranil Wickremesinghe
at this point would not hamper his electoral fortunes. Indeed, the UNP as a whole could only benefit
from stating its position in this regard.
Failure to do so would force conclusions of the following kind: the UNP
does not care about the social contract and would gladly support its subversion
and consequent submission to Washington in return for securing power. It holds for the Democratic Party as well as
the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna too.
To recap, in Ranil’s case, he needs to answer some other
relevant questions. If he can, as he
claims, get the USA off Sri Lanka’s back if he were in power, does it amount to
an acknowledgment that the current debate on Sri Lanka has nothing to do with
truth, justice, accountability and reconciliation? Secondly, is he saying that the USA is only
talking about war-related issues because it believes that these issues can help
affect regime-change? Also, is he saying
that vexed issues such as what really happened during the last stages of the
war (and of course before that, including the period when the IPKF was
‘handling’ terrorism and terrorists) can just disappear into a column called
‘Non-Issues’ if this regime is overthrown?
He is not a simpleton and therefore it is incumbent on him to
response.
We await.
3 comments:
Poor Ranil. He has reached the unenviable position as the only contender hopelessly outclassed to defeat the incumbent President. He is sending out feelers to test the electorate but they only worsen his position. In the last election, the number of voters in the coalition, however motley the crew, proved a creditable challenger in the common candidate Sarath Fonseka, but alas they were too good to be true and it was.
i hope you have read the full doc. You have accept the fact there is no freedom of expression and freedom of living. The resolution has said clearly to find the truth of the activities of LTTE and and the SL forces. This is correct. In addition you have forgotten that LLRC is appointed by the government, Implementation of its recommendation is the responsibility of the appointee. you have understand that you can cheat Sri Lankan masses but not the outside World. i cannot understand your thoughts. do you think the law and order is there in Sri Lanka. i challenge you can you write something about critising the current government you family will find you are either in red or white van. this is what human right is
yes, i have. and i can read and read between the lines too. and i know the context too. i am not impressed. as for the LLRC and implementation of recommendations thereto, i am aware of all that too; what's done, what's not done and what's not possible to do. you don't read, i am pretty sure of that too, because if you did then you won't throw such challenges at me. cheers.
Post a Comment