Truth in 2031, reconciliation when and how?

The early versions of Udayasiri Wickramaratne’s celebrated theatrical piece ‘Suddek Oba Amathai (A white man addresses you) contained a short soliloquy, ‘Baya Vunu Minisek Oba Amathai (A scared man addresses you).’ The man was essentially scared of two things: a) that he would speak the truth even when he wanted to deceive, and b) that he would do the right thing by mistake.

This delightful piece came to mind when reading an exchange between Lord Naseby and Lord Tariq Ahmad in the House of Lords a few weeks ago. Naseby wanted the UK government to do two things: a) release to any commission the un-redacted dispatches from the UK’s respected and experienced military attaché, Colonel Gash, who was on the battlefield every day from 1 January to 18 May 2009, proving beyond doubt in his dispatches that there was no genocide, and b) persuade the United Nations to remove the 20-year restriction on the source of the evidence in the Darusman report of 2011.

We know that the Darusman report was a sham, that it was illegally constituted and contained hilarious errors. We know two that those who wanted a particular narrative to stand did a lot of mutual back-scratching and cross quoting to give credence to that laughable document where the claims were based on anonymous testimony, mostly likely from highly dubious sources.

Come 2031, though, the truth will be out. We will know who said what. We will be able to peruse the political track records of those who offered testimony. Reliability will be assessed. My hunch is that the story wouldn’t be too pretty and that it would embarrass the former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, the panelists Marzuki Darusman, Steven R. Ratner  and Yasmin Sooka, and all those who have since treated their report as though they had faithfully transcribed the observations of some omniscient entity.

Truth is important. Reconciliation is important. These two words are tossed around freely, sometimes (from the Sri Lankan side) grudgingly and from the side of Sri Lanka’s detractors (USA and her minions including the UK and EU) in threatening tones.

But when do they want the truth? If people want to swear by the Darusman Report then they are honour-bound to open it to scrutiny. If they don’t want sources disclosed then we need to ask, ‘what are you scared of?’ The truth? Perhaps!

It’s the same with the Gash dispatches. Either he was being truthful or he was lying. If he was, for whatever strange reason, dispatching falsehoods, then the relevant authorities should call him out. If he was not, then is it that the UK is terrified that his contentions would contradict those of the Darusman Panel?

Ahmad, the Minister of State for the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the United Nations at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, responded to Naseby. The response is cagey and thumb-twiddling.

‘I cannot agree with all aspects of my noble friend’s questions because it is very clear that the whole point of standing up a truth and reconciliation commission in 2015 was that there was a real recognition, even by the Sri Lankan Government of that time, of the importance of bringing communities together to ensure that atrocities could be fully investigated and, more importantly, perpetrators could be held to account. That is why we have pursued the issue at the UN Human Rights Council, which is the right approach. Of course, in time, there is a need for domestic mechanisms, but the sad truth is that, since 2015, despite successive changes of Government, we have seen little progress with the truth and justice commission in Sri Lanka.'

He's stated the obvious. No one disputes the importance of truth and reconciliation. Perpetrators of any and all wrongdoing from Day One (that’s way back in 1975) should be held accountable. That would include, probably, security forces of the Sri Lankan Government, the Indian Peace Keeping Force, the LTTE and other Tamil militant groups such as the EPRLF, PLOTE, EROS, EPDP and TELO. The aiders and abetters of terrorism, i.e. those who provided funds, smuggled weapons and disseminated falsehoods, and those who tried to bail out the LTTE’s military leadership including Velupillai Prabhakaran at the last minute (that would be the USA) will also received a shout in all probability. Ahmed doesn’t get into these uncomfortable and possibly disconcerting details and one cannot fault him; after all the ‘long’ and ‘comprehensive’ of the matter is a touch-me-not of those targeting Sri Lanka.  

But Ahmed is clearly a not-so-artful dodger. Not a word about the Gash dispatches or the sources Darusman and his team depended on. That’s what Naseby raised. What’s he scared about? Is he terrified, on behalf of the UK Government, that the truth would prove some people have blatantly lied?  
 
Nevertheless, he’s correct about the importance of bringing communities together. That’s ‘reconciliation’ at some level. Well, at some level people have come together. Elections have been regularly held. There’s commerce among communities. There are no open or veiled hostilities any more. The demand for a separate state has been unceremoniously abandoned. Heck, the diehard Eelamists and their liberal backers in Colombo have not uttered a word about provincial elections not being held. Provincial Councils, Ahmed needs to know, were supposed to ‘resolve’ and ‘reconcile.’ The 13th Amendment which gave us these political entities, was seen as a useful stop on the way to Eelam. It was forced down Sri Lanka’s throat by Rajiv Gandhi who saw the move ‘as the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka.’  

So when people talk of ‘resolution’ if they are adamant that it cannot stop short of wild aspirations that have nothing to do with true grievances and completely disregard historical, demographic and geographic realities, they just cannot be serious. We don’t know what Ahmed was thinking. All we know is that he is, as mentioned, an artful dodger, that he seems to be scared of the truth. So when he or anyone else indulges in reconciliation-speak while insisting that the truth be concealed, we cannot but conclude that they are joking. Political clowns can entertain, but they do not have the right to chair or wax eloquent on any process associated with obtaining truth and reconciliation.

Well, we’ve been lectured for more than a decade by people who are scared of the truth. That notwithstanding, Sri Lanka certainly cannot afford, politically or economically, to shy away from the truth. Sri Lanka cannot and certainly shouldn’t submit to kangaroo courts of any kind such as have been proposed by the likes of Ahmed. Sri Lanka has to set up a mechanism peopled with men and women of impeccable integrity (unlike the members of Ban Ki-moon’s clown-jury), mandated to obtain as comprehensive a narrative as possible of all atrocities from 1975 to 2009.  

In all likelihood, a lot of bad mouths will get shut come 2031. In all likelihood, the likes of Ahmed will fight tooth and nail to keep the Gash dispatches hidden. There is more than one way to obtain the truth. That’s a 'for Sri Lanka, with Sri Lanka and by Sri Lanka' matter, simply because the key governments of foreign countries don’t seem to be interested in the truth. [P.S. They never were and not just about Sri Lanka: remember the narrative about weapons of mass destruction?]

[Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance columnist who can be reached at malindadocs@gmail.com]

Read more

Let us wish Yasmin Sooka truth and justice (for a change)

Some years ago, the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon appointed ‘a panel of experts’ to advise him on Sri Lanka’s three decades long battle to rid the island of terrorism.  The panel was led by a man called Marzuki Darusman, former Attorney General of Indonesia. The others in the panel were Steve R Ratner, a professor of law, and Yasmin Sooka, a South African high court judge.

The report they produced was littered with inaccuracies and contained conclusions drawn from claims made by absolutely unreliable sources with no substantiation whatsoever. The then Government refused to recognize the panel and in hindsight this may have been a mistake. The panel, lacking any information other than that furnished by politically and ethically tainted individuals and groups, went along with their narrative. It doesn’t absolve them of unprofessionalism though.

Enough time has passed for the authors to reflect on veracity. Darusman and Ratner have been largely quiet except for lending signature to various petitions related to Sri Lanka. Sooka, however, doesn’t seem to have the intellect, courage and integrity to let go. She is, as far as we can tell, a paid employee of the European Union (Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa), but doubles up as the Executive Director of the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka (ITJPSL).

Some people lie, some other make honest mistakes. The latter, if decent, apologize or go silent. The former can be embarrassed into silence but can also try to face-save. Typically, they get more egg on their respective faces. Sooka is a good example.  

The IRJPSL typically gets agitated whenever anyone connected with the defeat of terrorism is in the news (if they get elected, like President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, if they get diplomatic posting or even promotions). Immediately there’s a flurry of activity.  Sooka’s outfit issues a missive which in turn is picked up and reported by various dubious websites fronting for pro-LTTE groups or run by NGOs with equally dubious agenda and track records. Typically, also, we get to see petitions regarding such claims being issued by the same or similar outfits signed by largely the same individuals and representatives of the same organizations.

It’s regurgitation to the point of absolute ridiculousness. Documents used to to back claims include missives from the US Embassy in Colombo (notorious for trying to facilitate the escape of the LTTE’s military leadership among other quite undiplomatic operations) and statements (yes, them!) Issued by various NGOs and media outfits. If you check sources, they all go back to one or more LTTE operatives. It’s good to check footnotes and bibliographies. It’s good to do background checks on track record, political position, ideological predilection and outcome preferences of ‘the sources’ and of course their sources. Tells a story.

It is the same in the latest Sooka-Operation where she targets Suresh Sallay, recently promoted to the rank of Major General. The whine is about alleged mistreatment of a Tamil doctor, Thurairajah Varatharajah.

Varatharajah was one of five doctors serving in LTTE-controlled areas and who surrendered to the security forces during those last days of ‘the civil war.’ Varatharajah claims that essential surgery to an injured arm was delayed by Sallay. He claims he was threatened. Sooka claims he was subjected to prolonged detention without trial, psychological torture and deprivation of medical treatment.’

Varatharajah was considered ‘one of the few credible reporters’ as far as UNICEF, Red Cross and Oxfam were concerned with respect to estimating supplied required in LTTE controlled areas. The LTTE pilfered supplies. This is known. Varatharajah’s purpose then is obvious. The ‘reliable’ doctor also dished out numbers regarding civilians in LTTE-controlled areas. He never dared say that they were being held hostage — ‘the (notorious) human shield’ of the terrorists. In such circumstances no one can fault anyone for lying and deceiving, but whatever Varatharajah said then was taken as fact; small wonder that the believers continue to believe him. Naiveté is not easily cured, after all, and those who pretend to sleep are hard to be persuaded out of ‘slumber’.  

Sooka doesn’t wonder why the other four doctors don’t corroborate Varatharajah’s testimony, not then, not now and not in the more than 10 years since the defeat of the LTTE, not even during the yahapalana years when the then government was hell bent on lynching one and all associated with military operations ‘during the last days’. These four doctors left Sri Lanka on numerous occasions. Not once have they claimed they were under duress when they spoke at the press conference following their surrender. They could have looked for greener pastures, just like Varatharajah. They did not. Such things don’t bother Sooka. Neither is she bothered by the fact that it is this doctor who has become the poster boy of various outfits directly or indirectly linked to the LTTE.

Varatharajah surrendered on Mar 23, 2009. Surgery was performed the very next day and thereafter, upon his request, he was admitted to a paying ward of the National Hospital. Neither he nor any of the other doctors claimed to have been subjected to psychological torture although they had ample opportunity to do so at the time.

Sooka claims ‘Sallay was summoned to appear in court in 2016 in connection with the investigation into the murder of Lasantha Wickramatunga in January 2009.’ Sallay was in Paris as the First Secretary of Sri Lanka’s diplomatic mission from September 2006 to March 2009. He was never summoned to appear in court over this issue. Sooka claims that one Kandegedara Piyawansa was on Sallay’s personal staff. Sallay never had an aide by that name.

Sooka’s outfit in an infographic on the military personnel close to the President mentions Sallay, but hilariously uses a photograph Brigadier Ravindra Dias who was attached to the Engineering Regiment. In her rant against Sallay the very same photo has been used. Dias has since taken legal action against Sooka and her truth (sic) and justice (sic) project. Project. Yes. They got that word right.

Salley has since taken Sooka to court. Sooka wails ‘I’m being threatened,’ and her choir boys and girls pick up the cry ‘Sooka’s being threatened.’ Legal action on account of defamation is a threat? What then of tall stories vilifying an individual that’s tossed around? That’s ok in Sooka’s book? For the record, of the hundred odd individuals who have signed a petition supporting Sooka’s threat-claim only a handful have even a cursory knowledge of Sri Lanka. My hunch is that if anyone knows anything it’s from the tainted Darusman report. Prejudiced. That’s the word.

So why all this fuss, one might ask. Well, the doctors were key to the narrative preferred by certain sections of the international community and of course the pro-LTTE groups. The doctors effectively killed that narrative. The doctors had to be rehabilitated, then. Varatharajah’s integrity was anyway compromised by the fact that he was certainly no ‘independent’ information-giver while in the LTTE-controlled area. Weak, unreliable and compromised in multiple ways though he was Varatharajah seems to have been good enough Sooka’s low benchmarks when it comes to truth and justice.  

Sallay became a target only after he was promoted. If Sooka had a comprehensive dossier (which she ought to have with her after more than a decade), why was Sallay missing in it? Why was nothing mentioned for 11 years? Why didn’t Varatharajah remember Sallay when he ‘spilled the beans’ in all these years?

As for Sooka, her career and stature are at stake. She has to keep the lie alive because that’s bread and butter. She may know that she embarrasses herself but probably has no choice. Poor lady. It starts when you retire reason. It gets worse when you want to cover up. Obviously, when intelligence and integrity happen to be one’s weakest suits, it gets pretty ugly.  

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Stars of the Geneva Pantomime (Revisited)

[Go through this -- written 3 years ago -- and you will find the guys making noises are the same guys who've always made noises when they batted for the LTTE.  The exception is of course Sunila Abeysekera, now no more.  Oh yes, and Patricia Butenis has a new name: Michele Sison.  More importantly, you will find that this is indeed a pantomime and should be treated as such.  Applaud if you are duly entertained!]  

The US Ambassador, Patricia Butenis is reported to have invited some people to discuss a report submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by some personal advisors.  Why Ki-moon has to make public a personal communication I do not know.  It does seem odd that he treats the said notes as documents that have official and legal standing within the UN system.  As odd is this meeting called by Butenis ‘to discuss’ we are told, the above personal communication, in order to figure out ‘how to make use of it as a constructive instrument for reconciliation instead of one of division and polarization’.  
 

First of all, if a representative of the United States Government was to use anything to bring about ‘reconciliation’ in another country, then protocol demands that relevant discussions should be held with responsible and appropriate authorities in the Government of the particular country.   While the Embassy has refused to comment on the meeting or what has been discussed, one of the invitees has revealed what it was all about. 

The report (in the Daily Mirror online version) came under the heading ‘Diplomats, NGO talk on report’.  The identities of the party-goers were embedded in the title, at least as far as those who are alert to political machinations in Sri Lanka are concerned.  There was Paikiasothy Saravanamutt (Centre for Policy Alternatives), Jehan Perera (National Peace Council) and J.C. Weliamuna (former head of Transparency International).  All three organizations are under a cloud suspect regarding financial deals and how and on what they spent enormous amounts of money obtained from various donors including the USA.  That Butenis, who came out to publicly defend (to the best of her ability) these three organizations, invites them to a chit-chat about how Sri Lanka should manager her (Sri Lanka’s) affairs does not come as a surprise.   Not surprising either that Perera subsequently underlined the fact that Butenis had come out in his defense.

There had been three other invitees.  Sudarshana Gunawardena (Rights Now) once engaged in shameless chest-beating, claiming ‘The Government’s war balloon will burst in Killinochchi!’ That was wish, not prediction based on sober consideration of ground realities. Sunila Abeysekera has accumulated considerable credentials as a mouthpiece for Eelamists.  She has campaigned tirelessly to conflate the LTTE and the Tamil Community. Her loyalties are well known.  The third, Sherine Xavier (Home for Human Rights) has openly stated that among her role models was Adela Balasingham, widow of the LTTE’s longest serving ideologue, Anton Balasingham. Adela was not an LTTE sympathizer. She was and is an ardent and unrepentant LTTE activist and an apologist for that organization.  Xavier has made her ideological and political loyalties pretty clear.

These individuals have frequently argued for legitimization of the LTTE and granting of status-parity vis-à-vis the Government of Sri Lanka, and demonstrated a consistent determination to turn a blind eye on atrocities perpetrated by that organization.   Wikileaks has revealed that Butenis has been one of the biggest advocates for an international investigation into the manner in which the military offensive was executed.  Saravanamuttu has been a cheerleader for the same and one of the first to applaud the love-notes exchanged between Ki-moon and his ‘advisors’.  There are no prizes for ascertaining the identities of the principal sources tapped by these ‘advisors’.  This post-report tea party therefore was scripted a long time ago, i.e. when Ki-moon was prevailed upon by individuals such as Butenis to circumvent and thereby undermine the UN system and all procedural statutes.  In short, it would not be incorrect to say that Butenis had in fact met with the local branch of the LTTE’s rump.  That she invited other diplomats shows attempts to broaden the political base of this insurgent collective. 

Jehan Perera says that the meeting was about turning the advisory note into a ‘constructive instrument’.  He does not dare question the validity of the document in terms of procedural norms of the UN.  He is blind to the manifest double standards embedded in the very exercise.  He does not dare question the reliability of sources.  He will not dare comment on the neutrality-credentials of Ki-moon’s advisors nor acknowledge their slant towards the LTTE position regarding all things Sri Lankan. 

He will not pick out discrepancy, contradiction, exaggeration, meanness of spirit, LTTE-slant, whitewashing of terrorism, lack of substantiation, malice, selectivity, academic dishonesty etc., all of which jumps out of the text at every turn.  That he (and others, probably) believe that anything ‘constructive’ can be squeezed out of such a woefully compromised document says a lot about his intellectual ability and overall integrity. 

I challenge Jehan Perera, here and now, to an open debate at a forum of his choosing, about how such a document can be used ‘constructively’ for reconciliation.  It would be incumbent upon him to prove its worth as an effective instrument against division and polarization. 

The meeting indicates a need to close ranks.  It is the typical response of those who have nowhere to hide.  Now it is official.  It is now established beyond a shadow of doubt that Ambassador Butenis has entertained the local representatives of the LTTE’s rump.   Jehan Perera has confirmed this.  Full marks for his honesty (but will he tell us if the ‘advisors’ consulted him?).  Zero for his intellectual worth. Zero for his political designs.  Zero for his malice. 

msenevira@gmail.com

Read more

The Ki-moon panel’s report and the strippers it spawned*

It's a neat plan. The ill-willed gets some quotes from the ill-willed, write a report, the 'informants' say 'see, even they say it' and mutual-massaging inflates, inflates and inflates.  And so the infamous 'Darusman Report' will in fact chair the UNHRC sessions later this month.  So let's get that 'telling story' out again.

The most positive about the report drawn up by the panel appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to advise him on Sri Lanka is that it has helped a lot of arrogant, ill-informed (or partially or fully blind), doubled-tongue individuals to strip themselves in public.  No surprises in terms of the identity of the strippers of course, not to those who are alert about these machinations. 

First off, there’s Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, in clearly reduced circumstances these days courtesy funding dry-up and questions regarding inordinate amounts of money obtained from multiple sources for the same project with little to show by way of delivery or indeed who got what for what and when.   Now it is no secret that most ‘experts’, whether commissioned or not by respectable or dubious organization come fortified with pre-conceived notions about Sri Lanka and the conflict.  It is no secret that one of their key informants is Saravanamuttu and that courtesy calls are duly made on arrival, notes compared etc.  So when misinformation with pernicious agenda that include(d) deliberate moves to downplay LTTE atrocities and grant that terrorist outfit parity of status vis-à-vis the Government of Sri Lanka hurrah the comments made by a recipient of hospitality and (mis)information-largess and says ‘see, see, even they are endorsing what I’ve said for a long time’, it is time to ask Charlie Chaplin to roll over. 

Then there’s a woman called Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, saying ‘If Indian wanted to emerge a leader on the global political stage then the leadership would have to take a position on Sri Lanka’s war crimes’.  This is in response to the above report.  Cute.  First of all, the panelists themselves aren’t sure whether such crimes were committed.  The report talks of ‘allegations’, whose ‘credibility’ is of course predicated on the (un)reliability of their sources. 

Ganguly has deftly twisted allegation into fact.  What’s funny is that Ganguly has not called on India (or anyone else) to take a stand on India’s crimes against humanity, for example in Kashmir.  Neither has Ganguly made note of the fact that India funded, trained and armed the LTTE. 

Ganguly wants India to ‘show intention of protecting the rights of people over Government’.  This would require Dr. Manmohan Singh to engage in self-flagellation.   Ganguly’s meanness is pretty naked when she says ‘There are people in Tamil Nadu who also care about the issue’.  So it is not about Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans, it is not about the victims of a war, it is not about the perpetrators of proven war crimes (the LTTE) as opposed to alleged transgressions (the allegations coming mainly from those associated with known terrorists).  It is not about enhancing the dimensions of reconciliation or expanding the democratic space. It is about malice. It is perhaps even about revenge for preventing a preferred outcome.  Ganguly therefore gives a good run for Sara’s money.

Then we have former UN spokesman in Sri Lanka, Gordon Weiss telling Jon Snow that the said report indicates a ‘Srebrenica Moment’ for Sri Lanka.  This man was found guilty of leaking totally unsubstantiated information about the conflict to the international media, causing much damage to the country’s image.   He quoted the so-called ‘doctors’ serving in LTTE-held areas.  The UN later retracted all these statements, including a horror-mongering one about 20,000 people having been killed in a matter of a few weeks.  As for the ‘doctors’, they all confessed later that they were forced to lie by the LTTE.  Weiss and others did not, as reasonable, impartial people might do, adjust picture.  Weiss went with the misinformation.  Called it ‘fact’.  Naturally, a set of panelists with dubious track records engaged in a pernicious witch hunt, found these cooked up numbers delicious.  With no regard for the ethics pertaining to source-reliability, they took fiction as fact. And now we have Weiss saying (like Saravanamuttu), ‘see, see, even they are saying what I said two years ago!’    

 I am perturbed, though, that David Miliband hasn’t joined the clown-wagon yet.  He has all the credentials to outstrip Saravanamuttu, Ganguly and Weiss. 

Last but not least, we have the United National Party, not knowing whether to strip or dress.  We had some initial statements condemning the report. This was followed by a novice parliamentarian saying that the party can’t reject the report for it would amount to rejecting the charges against the LTTE.  Now that’s good for a thousand guffaws!  It is clear that the ‘LTTE’ part of the story had to be thrust into the report for reasons of balance-cosmetics.  What is most important for a responsible political party to do is to assess the credibility of the exercise in the first instance and then to examine whether or not the contents add up to stated mandate and relate a cogent story that is flavoured with fact and integrity. 

This is no Srebrenica moment, folks.  This is a Sri Lanka moment.  As Sri Lankans we need to ask some questions from ourselves.  Here goes:

Are we better off today than we were in April 2009? Are we happy or sad that the LTTE is out of the political equation?  Was it possible to end the war in any other way?  Do we want the affairs of our country to be run by a bunch of people who are clearly hand in glove with the LTTE rump overseas and others who entertain fantasies about dividing our country?  Can we respond to the above strippers in any better way than to live, breathe and act the truth that we are best when we are united?

*First published in April 2011. 

Malinda Seneviratne is the Editor-in-Chief of 'The Nation' and can be reached at msenevira@gmail.com

Read more

Why lament when we can still laugh?

There are moves in Geneva, we hear.  Documents authored by politically compromised and intellectually inept people who lack integrity and have horrendous writing skills have been tabled for discussion in forums chaired by people who have axes to grind and suffer from partial myopia.  Al Jazeera interviewed me a short while ago, asking me for my thoughts.  My response could be summarized as ‘not surprised!’

The commissioning of a panel, appointment of those appointed, scandalous refusal to recognize the malice and incompetence evidenced in the report, and acceptance of tall tales manufactured by politically motivated individuals and organizations who have been as thick as thieves with terrorists all add up to one thing: witch-hunt.  It was not for purposes of securing entertaining toilet-read, clearly. 

Around the same time, the prime minister of a western monarchy called for a boycott of the Commonwealth heads’ confab in Sri Lanka.  Let’s leave aside the fact that there was never a commonwealth but just a common-thief interested only in passing around a common-welt.  The same premier once claimed he had no truck with dictators (re-claimed, I should say) but not too long afterwards was making deals with the man who carried out a military coup against a democratically elected leader in a Latin American country. 

This self-righteous premier stated ‘the kind of values [he and his country] have in the world: freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law’ and added, “those societies that promote those values tend to share our interests, and those that do not tend to, on occasion, if not frequently, become threats to us.”

My friend, who sent me these tidbits observed wryly: ‘I wonder why we get excited about this kinda news…as if we expect something different...as if they can do anything different considering their way of life.’

That’s what I had to tell Al Jazeera. 

So what do we do in this land called ‘damned if we do, damned if we don’t’ that we are living in?  Weep? Submit? I don’t know.  I just laugh. 

I can’t remember where I heard this first, but after some horrendous right-wing crime, there was a slogan some radical had coined that stayed with me: ‘don’t lament; organize!’ 

In the end, we need to be pragmatic.  We need to have a decent assessment of relative strengths.  We need to factor in friend and enemy, their relative strengths and the possible shifts in degrees of support.  I returned again and again to words penned by my father 27 years ago in a boy scout souvenir: ‘…So, if it is not prudent to stand ramrod straight in the face of storms beyond your strength, you must let them pass over you.  Stand firm if you can, retreat if you must; above all, never panic!’ 

There is no need to lament.  No need to get emotional.  What is required is sobriety.  What is required is assessment of strength, correction of flaw, enhancing overall abilities on all fronts, respecting the enemy, treating things with equanimity, figuring out the correct compassion-wisdom mix and doing the best we can without compromising integrity. Our foundation is strong and even if bombardment takes away the walls, rebuilding will not be impossible. 

Time is longer than life.  Empires are born, thrive, decay and die.  The flame burns brightest before it goes out.  I see a bright western flame and I come to conclusions.  It is darkest before the dawn.  I see darkness and I anticipate light. 

[Courtesy, Daily News, September 15, 2011]

Read more

A note on power, truth and their relative lifetimes

The worth of a statement is not necessarily associated with its truth-value.  Truth does stand on its own, but very often by the time it is so recognized and even consecrated, a lot of water has already passed under the bridge. Blood-stained, we might add.

How many innocents have been slaughtered in the name of justice courtesy the death penalty? How many communities, cultures and languages have been obliterated from the face of the earth in the name of progress?  How many thousands are being rendered homeless, orphaned, widowed, limbless and distraught even as I write, all in the name of pursuing democracy and peace?
 
We all know that things are seldom as they seem. When the USA invaded Iraq, the excuse trotted out was ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Tommy rot, it turned out to be. Barack Obama’s Libyan testosterone-test was about no-fire zones and protecting civilians. Both Bush and Obama were cheered all the way by the mainstream media in the West. The cheering has not stopped.  Crimes against humanity are being perpetrated in gay abandon and with 100 per cent impunity. Truth, like justice, is slaughtered on the altar of expedience. This was how it was and this is how it is. There is no reason to believe it will not be so in the future.
 
It is all about power. Glen Ford in an article titled ‘African Union says ‘UP YOURS!’ to International Criminal Court’ (published on July 7, 2011 by Black Agenda Report), lays it all out. He talks of the US-led attack on Libya and how original reason has been left far behind and how the International Criminal Court appears to be half or almost totally blind when it comes to crimes against humanity perpetrated by the West, in particular the USA and the UK.  Israel too is a no-no as far as the ICC is concerned, one notes. The ICC does not see what the West is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
Ford tells us what the current AU Chairman, Jean Ping, had to say about Navaneethan Pillai, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, the lady with more than a soft spot for LTTE terrorists.  It is worth a full quote:
 
‘Without doubt, the International Criminal Court is as Eurocentric in its view of the world as are the governments in Paris, London and Washington. So is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillai, who had the nerve to chastise China for ignoring the ICC indictment against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Bashir has travelled in Africa and the Middle East on state visits, and went to China for high level talks, last week. Navi Pillai, the Human Rights Commissioner, whined that she was disappointed with China for not arresting Bashir – although China, like the United States and Russia, is not a member of the International Criminal Court.
 
‘Nevertheless, Pillai showed herself to be a true servant of the West. “The whole world favours” putting Bashir on trial,” said the bureaucrat. Most of the continent of Africa does not want to put Bashir on trial. Isn't Africa part of the world? China does not want to put Bashir on trial. And one out of every five people in the world is Chinese!’
 
We haven’t heard Pillai calling for George W Bush’s arrest or for that matter the arrest of Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nicolai Sarkozy or David Miliband. She hasn’t expressed regret or dismay that countries these gentlemen have visited had not arrested them.
 
Ping lays it out as thick as it deserves: ‘Pillai thinks the whole world revolves around Paris, London and Washington. So does ICC chief prosecutor Luis Morena Ocampo, who wants to deputize the United States military to enforce the criminal court's arrest warrants – regardless of what the African world or the Chinese world or anybody that is not European or American thinks. It's sad to say, but at this point in history, the UN serves the Empire.’

There is no such thing as unadulterated truth, ladies and gentlemen. Truth comes out of the barrel of a gun. It is something that strains out of power realities and relevant structures of approval and rejection.

The most important thing to remember is that truth does not win the day.  Power does. Truth wins. Later. It keeps us waiting, very often. In the long run, we are all dead, they say. In the long run, our children may be alive and if not, their children would. Time is longer than life, some Africans say. This is true. Time beats power. That’s small consolation for us of course. 

Civilizations, however, outlasts tyrant and idiot both. That’s why we are Sri Lanka, have been, are and will be. A bump along the road will trip the Obama’s, not a nation, a civilization and a culture.

http://print.dailymirror.lk/opinion1/50441.html

Read more