Columns
A rhetorical trap: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
View(s):From the sidelines By Lasanda Kurukulasuriya
On Wednesday,TNA leader and Trincomalee district Parliamentarian R. Sampanthan made a statement in Parliament about an attack on the office of TNA Parliamentarian S. Sritharan in Kilinochchi two weeks ago. A mob of about 50 persons armed with rocks and a national flag had launched the attack, disrupting a meetingwhere some TNA MPs had been talking to area residents. Police who were present at the scene did nothing to prevent it, he charged.
What is interesting about this incident — which needs to be seen in the context of the Northern Provincial Council election said to be scheduled for September –is that one of the assailants apprehended by those present at the meeting was identified as an officer of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). He was handed over to the police but released shortly afterwards,Sampanthan said. This information has not been explained or contradicted to date.
Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratna responding to Sampanthan’s speech said the number of such incidents in Jaffna was comparatively lower than in other areas, and that the matters detailed in his statement represented only some ‘minor disturbances’(‘sulu kalabalathathvayak’).
In a peculiar and negative way this episode would seem to confirm that the Northern Provincial Council election is indeed on the cards. Doubts have periodically been expressed as to whether it would ever materialise. Since the state-sponsored thuggery has started, the election must be around the corner, it would appear.The holding of this election in a free and fair manner would represent a move in the direction of restoring the political life and democratic rights of people of the North after decades of war.
The reasons for the tardiness that has characterised moves towards a political solution to Sri Lanka’s problems are possibly more complex than made out by some. The degree of pressure brought to bear on the Government by certain external forces in the aftermath of the war has been unprecedented. Whether this pressure helped move the country towards reconciliation is another matter.
The latest salvo came from the US ambassador Michele Sison who, in an address to the Foreign Correspondents Association on Monday,warned of measures that may ‘go beyond’ the Human Rights Councilto bring Sri Lanka in line with its objectives. (“As we examine next steps, we will renew our consideration of all mechanisms available, both in the Human Rights Council and beyond.”)
This announcement comes after the second US-led resolution adopted at the 22nd session of the HRC last month in Geneva. It called for an ‘oral update’on Sri Lanka by UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay at the 24th session of the council later this year, and a ‘comprehensive report’ to be presented at the 25th session next year.As External Affairs Minister G L Pierisrealises, this will keep Sri Lanka on the HRC agenda every six months.
In her report to the 22nd session of the HRC, Pillay called for an ‘international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.’ Earlier, addressing the UN Security Council, she referred to the Petrie report which reviewed UN action in Sri Lanka, found it wanting, and drew a parallel of sorts with the UN’s failings in Rwanda. The Petrie report in turn drew on the findings of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts report of 2010. So the ‘building blocks’ are being put in place, and it would appear that a case is being built up for action of some sort against Sri Lanka.
Media commentaries have repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy and double standards of western powers’ criticism of Sri Lanka’s human rights record, when they themselves are to blame for some of the worst violations in trouble spots around the world. It is argued that western rhetoric and moves against Sri Lanka in international fora in fact have done little to strengthen democracy, but tended to destabilisenot only Sri Lanka but India as well.
There is a distinct perception in the public eye that the actions of sections of the international community are insincere, driven by their own agendas and not by considerations that have Sri Lanka’s welfare at heart. These developmentshave only supplied the Government with excuses to delay moves towards arriving at a political solution. The ‘busybody’ aspectof the external factor has led to a situation where legitimate stakeholders within the country rightly demanding, for example, that the recommendations of the LLRC be implemented, can becast in the light of ‘traitors.’ Lack of progress in implementing the LLRC recommendations was one of the main components of the US-led resolutions.
While India’s stake in Sri Lanka may be different from that of western powers, here again the counter productiveness of external interference is seen. Tamil Nadu’s violent anti-Sri Lanka campaign has embarrassed the Indian central government and demonstrated the manner in which coalition pressures can lead to a ‘tail-wagging-the-dog’ type situation. This immediately lent fuel to arguments in Sri Lanka,against the devolution of power to the provinces.
Perhaps the most unfortunate fallout of the international community’s disproportionate focus on Sri Lanka is that it has railroaded the discussion on the reconciliation process that should be taking place within the country among legitimate stakeholders.As a result of the virtual non-existence of any opposition worth the name, outside parties seem to have,by default, colonised the territory that the opposition should rightfully be occupying in this debate.
It may be seen that the pressure being brought on the Government is having the opposite effect of that which the US and its friends in the UN say they want. Ironically it seems to have created a situation that in fact suits the feet-dragging Government, by providing excuses for stalling on a political solution. Meanwhile the Government’s inaction – as if through a self fulfilling prophecy – gives Sri Lanka’s enemies abroad all the ammunition they needto advance their own agendas.
A process of reconciliation that has national interest at its heart would require that the ongoing discourse does not get caught up in this ‘rhetorical trap.’ If it flounders,the losers will be the people of Sri Lanka who want lasting peace and reconciliation.
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus