No more tough-talk or talk-down

H.L.D. Mahindapala, in an article titled ‘Exact nuance of CHOGM’s success’ points out that under normal circumstances ‘a loose, scattered and wobbly institution like the Commonwealth should have withered and died shortly after its birth.  It has survived for 64 years without any tangible benefits to the collective or individual members.  Perhaps it indicates the strength of an abiding colonial mentality.  Perhaps this is also why Prime Minister David Cameron feels empowered to talk the colonial language of condescension. 

Cameron has vowed to ‘talk tough’ during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Colombo.  Talk tough to Sri Lanka, that is.  He would do well to revisit Robert Mugabe’s post-colonial moment when Tony Blair deigned to lecture the Zimbabwean patriarch. Mugabe, very conscious of the multilateral nature of the forum and the caveats of ‘free’ and ‘equal’ that preface the ‘logic’ of the body, retorted ‘You look after your country Tony Blair, I will look after mine!”  Blair duly sat down like a schoolboy chided for impertinence.

That said, like in any association, each and every member has the right and duty to point out flaw in fellow-member, especially where it is felt that the articles of faith, whatever they may be, have been challenged or violated.  We could give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and forgive what might be a surfacing of some subconscious anxiety over lost glory that gives a ‘talking down’ tone to his tough-talking intent.  If he does not get the kind of tongue-lashing that Blair got, it would only be due to the good natured ways of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who might drop a few names such as Abu Ghraib and make a casual reference to complicity in drone-terrorism. 

Someone can ask Cameron a question: ‘How did a population exceeding one million indigenous people living in a land that is now called Australia in the year 1788 dwindle down to less than 100,000 in 1901 barely a century later?’ If Cameron wants to single out Sri Lanka, then Sri Lanka can talk about what the British did to this country and her people.  And if it is about naming and shaming, then we could go one by one, each plundered and devastated nation listing crimes against humanity perpetrated by Britain and all the cultural and other artifacts robbed and deposited in museums all over Cameron-Land.   And if it is about general behavior, then of course Britain’s role as the Global Thug’s boy-boy can be talked about.  

Just before Cameron lands in Sri Lanka for the CHOGM it was brought to light that

Jacques de Maio, ICRC’s Head of Operations for South Asia had informed US Ambassador to Geneva Clint Williamson in July 2009 that whatever excesses that may have taken place in the last days of the conflict, there was nothing to indicate directive from the central command.  The cable had been signed by the US Ambassador to Geneva Clint Williamson on July 15, 2009.

While there is no logic to limiting investigation of any kind to a few weeks in May 2009, especially in the context of a violent conflagration lasting close to three decades where an entire country was held to ransom by the world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit, a key point that Cameron and others seem to be missing is that April and May 2009 were dominated by a heroic effort at great cost by the Sri Lanka army to carry out what turned out to be the greatest hostage rescue operation the world has known. 

Jacques de Maio has clearly observed that if not for a policy of doing the utmost to protect civilians, the Sri Lankan forces could have ended it all long before May 2009.  D Maio also notes that the Government was determined not to let the LTTE off.  In a world where the likes of David Cameron are ‘ok’ with the manner in which Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi were assassinated or with drone attacks and torture chambers, all sanctioned by the doctrine of zero-tolerance of terrorism, no one can blame Sri Lanka for wanting to rid the country of the terrorist menace. 

Velupillai Prabhakaran, aptly described by Mahindapala as the Tamil Pol Pot, at the time, was holding Tamil civilians hostage, using them as a human shield.  The Army rescued some 300,000 civilians, among whom were even children sent to ‘Receiving Centers’ manned by soldiers with knapsacks loaded with explosives with the express goal of detonation in order to deter other civilians from moving to areas secured by the Government. 

David Cameron can do something.  He can think. He can google stuff.  He can, as Mahindapala suggests find out ‘how Britain ended World War II by carpet bombing Dresden in which 300,000 innocent Germany civilians died purely because the imperialist British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, wanted to end the war in a hurry’.

Welcome to Sri Lanka Mr. Cameron.  Just remember that this is not just a land with a written history that goes back a couple of millennia, it is also home to people who remember history, not just theirs but yours too. 

msenevira@gmail.com

Read more

From Here to ‘Houla’

Those who are tagged ‘World Leaders’ are those who have two things: money and power.  Those who have intellect and have contributed to the alleviation of disease or have made life easier are called scientists.  Those who hone sensitivities are called artists.  World leaders call the shots.  The others are peripheral to history or rather historiography, 

We live in times where world leaders preach democracy, peace and justice.  We live in times where these same benefactors of humankind and prophets of decency and civilization are also guilty of unimaginable crimes against humanity.  George W Bush is a war criminal, it has now been acknowledged.  Tony Blair has not been named and shamed.  Tony Blair and David Cameron too.  Barack Obama who bailed out robber barons who caused a global financial meltdown and who incarcerated the victims who cried ‘foul’, the same man who Rev. Jesse Jackson called a war criminal (‘Those who own the drones are war criminals,’ Geneva, March 2012), was given the Nobel Prize for Peace in a way akin to someone being named ‘Man of the Match’ before the toss.

We got the ‘Houla Massacre’ in Syria, courtesy a media industry that went to town at end-point and scarcely murmured about all that went before, not to mention its scandalous myopia and shy-making when the authors of war criminality have addresses in Washington DC, London, Paris etc.  It’s all about ousting unfriendly regimes and getting the world to cheer war criminals re-christened as benefactors of oppressed peoples.  If you want to know the script, go to Page 14 of this newspaper. 

It is all about R2P or ‘Responsibility to Protect’, the 21^st Century name for ‘White Man’s Burden’.  And the ‘protectors’ can, if they so wish, bypass the worst butchers and swoop down on relatively benign polities.  Has happened, is happening and will probably happen again. And the ‘protectors’ can always count on help from within, for no country on earth has a population that cheers its leaders en masss.

Now there have been times when helplessness prods people to call for help, but help-calling in general although done in the name of ‘the people’ are essentially exercises in power-capture.  In general, it is best that people deal with the horrors that rule them, sometimes even elected by them, by themselves.  Even the strongest of regimes have weaknesses. No one is invincible.

This however is not about regime change but about resisting interference.  Strong states resist better, naturally.  Strong governments are more resilient than weak ones. 

There are all kinds of ‘strong states’. They need not be ‘democracies’.  Military juntas, monarchies, totalitarian systems and theocracies have proved to be as strong as certain democracies.  And there’s nothing to say that one type less popular than another, unless of course you happen to be an uncritical consumer of drivel dished out by Washington-friendly media.

But is Sri Lanka under threat?  All countries are and those (like Sri Lanka) which are reluctant to follow Washington-scripted policies are particularly vulnerable; and a threat is often more potent than its execution, Ksawery Tartakower, the Polish chess grandmaster noted more than a century ago .  We must also add the arm-twisting neighbor India into the equation, the machinations in Geneva and the veiled and open threats issued against Sri Lanka to get the full picture of intent. 

What does the domestic picture look like?  Bleak.  We have a constitution that is made to make dictators.  We have institutional flaws that no one is interested in correcting while those pointing out error have themselves benefitted from the same when in power or else have so aided and abetted spoilers (like the LTTE) to be taken seriously by the masses.  There is corruption.  There is power-abuse.  Checks and balances are woefully inadequate.  We can be thankful for the more-than-a-small-mercy of not having to deal with terrorism, but that won’t erase away the abiding anomalies, systemic flaws and the truth that citizen is not insulated by arrogant and thieving politician. 

All these, in light of what one may call the ‘Houla Doctrine’, are eminently exploitable by external forces who may appear to be regime-haters but in reality have no love for people or nation (unless as exploitable labour, ‘plunderable’ resources or convenient bases for military purposes). 

Two things need to be done.  First of all, we must be aware of the possibilities, the avenues that the interferer may take and the allies they may depend on.  Secondly, we must become stronger as a nation. 

The first is easy.  The second, tough.  Strong government is not the same as strong nation.  A strong nation is one that can make a government that is strong, effective and just.  And this, in spite of a flawed constitution, bribe-taking politicians and officials, a pathetic opposition, easily purchasable academics and media personnel, and racketeers masquerading as civil society activists.    

On thing is certain.  We are not Bahrain.  We are not Saudi Arabia.  We won’t be granted favours.  Neither are we Syria. Yet.  And that ‘yet’ is something that can be taken out of the sentence without too much difficulty.   

   

 [The Nation Editorial, June 3, 2012]

Read more