Where ignorance and indifference are more than bliss

By Neville de Silva

When concerns were raised in our parliament over the recent House of Commons debate at which the Sri Lanka government ran into a barrage of flak, Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama reportedly treated the matter rather lightly.

He seemed to think that the castigation of the government and the call for the British government to lift the ban on the LTTE were the personal opinions of some government and Liberal Democrat MPs and not the view of the British government.

Such casually dismissive remarks show a lack of political perspicacity. They are dangerous at a time when this Sri Lanka government appears to be losing friends round the world faster than one could say Bogollagama.

It seems the Foreign Minister is unaware that the British government is now going through a change in leadership and the prime minister who launched himself into the war on terror alongside President Bush will soon give way to another whose policies have not yet been publicly articulated.

If the Minister is indeed aware of the coming change of guard at Westminster but is blithely indifferent to it, then the situation is even more regrettable.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that changes at the top will not mean a change in policy or attitude which has some permanence.

The French would call such an attitude “plus ca change, plus c’est pareil”. If that is the thinking of the Foreign Minister and reflects the government view which itself is not really clear, at least as far as the UK is concerned, it could very well be to err.

Admittedly it is too early to say how Labour under a new leader and UK under a new Prime Minister would respond to international and domestic developments and pressures. It will take some time before the position becomes clearer.

Yet one could examine the background and the political situation of the Labour government and its standing in the country against the broader picture of parliamentary elections in a year or two.

Right now public opinion polls indicate that the opposition Conservatives are in pole position and leading Labour by at least two percentage points - admittedly a drop over the last month. When the two party leaders - Conservative David Cameron and Labourite Gordon Brown- are compared as potential Prime Ministers, Cameron has a clear head start over his new opponent.

Though Labour might be ahead of the Tories in some areas such as the economy, the overall indicators suggest that there has been a swing to the Conservatives since Cameron took over the Tory leadership.

That is the UK’s present political complexion and how the broader canvass will appear would depend much on how Brown tries to shape party and policy in his own image and how the internal picture of the Labour Party will emerge as the ideological tug-of-war within the party goes. Then there is the smaller picture as to how present Labour MPs try to retain their nominations and their seats at the next election. With the Conservatives making some headway in the south of England at the recent local elections, there would clearly be electoral tussles for marginal Labour seats that have now increased because of the fall in Labour popularity.

Therefore ethnic minority votes are particularly important to both Labour and the Liberal Democrats who have generally attracted minority voters more than the Conservatives.

The Sri Lankan Tamil community, like some other minorities, has by and large voted Labour or Lib Dem particularly because of their more liberal immigration policies and the social benefits made available to asylum seekers and refugees.

Moreover there are a handful of Tamil Labour borough councillors who round up the community vote for the party in order to maintain their influence within the party and their local Labour/ Lib Dem MPs.

So there is this symbiotic relationship between the Tamil community, the Tamil borough councillors and their local MPs that is mutually beneficial.

The Tamils have a functioning relationship which other Sri Lankan ethnic communities do not have because of their numbers in Britain. Their concentration in certain boroughs and their social activities give them a greater influence in domestic politics.

The flip side is the power shift to a new leadership. How much of the earlier policies will be continued and how far would Gordon Brown go to stamp his personality on the political landscape through his new cabinet.

At a meeting in the Commons at which the Labour Party’s deputy leader hopefuls had with some party members, questions were asked about the Sri Lanka Tamil question. At least one current Cabinet Minister reportedly said Tamils should be allowed self determination.

Reporting this, a Tamil news report disingenuously added that future PM Gordon Brown was present. In fact, he had been there only briefly and I understand, was not present when these issues were raised.

Peter Hain’s supposed remark might have been merely a political gesture as the candidates have to win the support of grassroots membership. But the fact that political and propaganda capital is being made of it shows the task the Sri Lanka government faces.

Still Colombo seems to view all this as immaterial or inconsequential as it concentrates on appeasing local opinion. These factors cannot be ignored in evaluating whether policies will be dropped, altered or simply continued by a new- look Labour government.

Take, for instance, the proscription of the LTTE. While there was a call from speakers of two parties (a coalition between them is possible if Labour does not have a working majority at the next election) at the Commons debate for it to be lifted, Bogollagama seems to think little of it.

From a Sri Lankan government standpoint, it cannot be taken for granted that British policy is set in stone. In a recent newspaper interview British High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott seemed to pride himself on the fact that Britain was one of the first countries to ban the LTTE.

The question is not just the ban but its implementation by those mandated to do so. As TS Eliot wrote, “Between the idea and the reality… falls the shadow,” the shadow of the proverbial three monkeys.

Minimising the political impact of these actions by Britain and expecting a depleted diplomatic staff to confront such situations on a continuous basis is to underestimate, if not ignore, the limitations of diplomatic intervention or lobbying.

Much of the lobbying of politicians and MPS should be done by others in the Sri Lankan community using whatever political, professional or argumentative skills they possess. But these would have to be genuine and systematic efforts at lobbying, taking a leaf out of the book of the Tamil community which has done so successfully.

This should not become the preserve of parlour patriots and “I” specialists who sell themselves to the government in a vainglorious attempt to inflate their own importance and denigrate others.

It is bad enough Sri Lanka is losing its traditional friends abroad. The government should not make it worse as seems to have happened during the Richard Boucher visit the other day. Leaders must be able to distinguish between UN General Assembly polemics and bilateral meetings.

Otherwise we will be up the gum tree before long.