Party politics or peace ?

By Kumbakarana

The presidential election was followed by relative normalcy in urban areas. The question is whether this was due to a sober and mature electorate or an indifference to an electorate which needs commercialization. In this election one saw the commodification of both the electorate and the candidates selling themselves making the electorate the consumers. In that process of the commodification of politics, money plays a more dominant role than ideas while eliminating the poor competitors and monopolizing the game between two or three wealthy 'investors'.

In 1977 J.R.J. came into office riding an emerging tide of right wing politics -globally the politics of Thatcher, Reagan and Kohl. Yet in 1988, he had to give up his office with the country in shambles. Although the western power bloc fully supported him, he failed to take into account the realities of national feelings and regional politics. The defeated UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe should also take note of this Although he had the backing of the west, the business community, foreign funded NGO's and racial elements among minorities, he failed to win the election.

Mrs.Kumaratunga in 1994 came into office using an oncoming social democratic wave in Europe and North America and allying herself with these powers. At that time she was also backed by the foreign funded NGO sector and racial elements among minorities.

However recently she strayed away from this path of international alignment and took into consideration the realities of anti-terrorist national feelings of the people specially among the majority community and regional politics. This helped her considerably in retaining her office at the present election. The present election did not result in a significant electoral change. The UNP, however, lost maintaining virtually the same vote level in 1982 presidential election. A difference of two lakhs of votes can be accounted from the LTTE controlled areas. The rest of the country gave Mr.Wickremesinghe, relatively the same level of votes J.R.Jayawardene got 17 years ago. Although the UNP talks of election malpractices, they did so in the past. It also proved that minority vote is not a decisive factor in winning elections. It clearly demonstrates that minority parties may not act as the king makers of Sri Lanka any more.

The LTTE strategy to dominate the politics in Sri Lanka failed despite the waves of military campaigns, assassination attempts and voter influencing by constructing the 'media bubble' that the LTTE is going to win.

There is a parallel between the 1970's political situation and now. In 1970 at the general election then SLFP coalition got the two third majority of the parliament by expounding the myth that no party could get a two third majority without the support from the Tamil parties. Tamil political leaders then formed TUF which was later known as TULF. By using the same strategy, now one can see the attempt made by the Tamil groups to unify and present a single Tamil party including the estate sector. The question that Tamil politics should raise is as to whether it is to go through another 25 year cycle in the coming century. It could not be easy to form a single Tamil identity of the politics of Colombo, the up country estate sector, the East and the North.

Although there is public sentiment towards military victory over LTTE and even her own experience would dictate so, in reality President Chandrika Kumaratunga probably will not be able to continue a military campaign to defeat the LTTE due to the forces surrounding her. The latest example is the attempt to unite the UNP and the PA to form a national government and initiate talks with the LTTE. Any kind of so called peace talks or constitutional reforms will not bring peace. The only solution seems to be for all the democratic forces within the country including the JVP to unite and defeat the LTTE.

The Indonesian experience in East Timor or the Yugoslavian experience shows the fragmentation of the nation state would develop from a single division. Now Indonesia is in a state of anarchy with all the islands facing the ethnic divisions, after forming an independent state in East Timor. In our case, such fragmentation would have to bear the consequences not only of the break up of Sri Lanka, but also the Balkanization of the Indian subcontinent. This must be prevented at all costs and a broad regional alliance is a must for its prevention.

Why Senaka could not win UNESCO post

By Russell Martin

At its biennial general conference in Paris in November (UNESCO) appointed a new Director General, Koichiro Matsuura, formerly the Japanese Ambassador to France.

UNESCO was founded as the war ended in 1945 to be the agency charged with responsibility within the United Nations system for education, science, culture and communications. It originated in a belief on the part of prominent western intellectuals that the defences for peace should be created in the minds of the world's peoples.

For its first 50 years, UNESCO has largely been led by Directors-General from Western Europe. There has for some years been a view that it was time for a Director-General from Asia, a region which stretches from Iran to Korea and New Zealand. As well as the size of the region there is also the principle of rotation, and the compelling argument that this region includes 60% of the world's population.

Twelve years ago, a strong but ultimately unsuccessful bid was made to elect Pakistani Foreign Minister, Yaqub Khan. Federico Mayor, a biochemist from Spain, and former Deputy Director-General of UNESCO, won the top post at the end of 1987 and held it until his retirement in November of this year.

With the position of Director-General becoming vacant this year, eleven candidates came forward. Five were from the Asia Pacific region, two each from the Arab States and Eastern Europe, one from Western Europe and one from the Caribbean. Many of us in the Asian region believed that this time we were going to make it, and there was pressure from some quarters for us to agree beforehand on one candidate.

The Asia Pacific candidates were Senake Bandaranayake (Sri Lanka), Gareth Evans (Australia), Makaminan Makagiansar (Indonesia), Rosario Manalo (Philippines), and Koichiro Matsuura (Japan). Some of us belong to another important group, the Commonwealth. At that level we were faced with a choice between three men who were arguably the best candidates in the field — Bandaranayake, Evans and Lawrence Carrington of Trinidad.

The other strong candidates were Ismail Serageldin of Egypt, and Ghazi Algosaibi of Saudi Arabia. Serageldin was a Vice President at the World Bank, and had appealed among some African and European countries, while Algosaibi commanded strong support from Arab and other Islamic states.

One horse race

In the event, it became a one-horse race. Japan put very considerable resources and diplomatic effort into the campaign for Matsuura.

Ultimately, nobody could match the Japanese effort and the fact that Japan (in the continuing absence of the United States) is the largest contributor to UNESCO. Neither Islamic solidarity (for Algosaibi), a distinguished career as Foreign Minister (Evans), a brave and principled term as Chairman of the UNESCO Executive Board (Pataki of Hungary), a high World Bank profile (Serageldin) nor impressive personal and intellectual credentials (Bandaranayake and Carrington) could prevail against the power and effort of Japan. If it had been simply a population question Professor Senake Bandaranayake would have won. He had, from the outset, the support of the two largest nations in the world, India and China.

If it had been a question of performance before the Executive Board (which interviewed the candidates, then voted on a recommendation to the General Conference) then Bandaranayake would have been a strong prospect. But the decisions were ultimately not made on those criteria.

Ability to lead if I were watching all of this from Colombo or Kandy, I might have wondered at the decision by Sri Lanka to put up a candidate. But I am a New Zealander, and have just completed a four year term representing my government on the Executive Board. I met all the candidates (save the Romanian Caramitru, whom nobody met).

As one of the twelve Asia Pacific Board members and one of about sixteen Commonwealth members, I was impressed with Professor Bandaranayake's ability to represent us well. However, it was also clear that he had the ability to lead the organisation well for all member states.

Some years ago, the Japanese government persuaded UNESCO to change the nature of representation to the Executive Board. For the most of its first half century, Board members were nominated and elected as individuals.

However, since the Japanese amendment, countries rather than individuals have been elected. One consequence is that for the first time the decision on who would be Director-General was effectively made in capitals.

The 58 people sitting around the Executive Board table cast the votes under direction from their capitals, where much of the lobbying from Tokyo had taken place. Although for the first time, the Board interviewed the candidates for Director-General, the real decision was made not at the Board table, but in capitals.

I would like to thank Sri Lanka for nominating a man I regarded as one of the star performers in the contest. Senake Bandaranayake came with impressive credentials as an intellectual to a contest for the leadership of the intellectual arm of the United Nations.

He came with extensive experience as an archaeologist to the organisation which runs the World Heritage system, seeking to preserve and protect historic sites. He came with experience as a successful university administrator to a body badly in need of administrative reform.

He came with vision to an important part of the United Nations system needing to rediscover and reassert its visionary role. He came as a representative from a moderately sized Asian country to an agency which must take Asia more seriously. His candidacy did Sri Lanka proud.

Valued and appreciated

All the candidates, and the countries that put them forward, have to be thanked and congratulated for the importance they attached to the UN system's principal intellectual organisation and the serious effort they made in their campaigns to give UNESCO new vision and new vitality.

The quality of many of the candidates and the intensity of the competition lies to the credit of UNESCO, testifying to the value attached to its unique mission. Candidates like Carrington and Bandaranayake also carried an additional message — that even small and medium sized states from the developing world have a distinctive and qualitative contribution to make to global action and leadership — in this case in the spheres of science, culture and education.

The fact that they did come forward, therefore, and did such credit to the countries that they represented, must be properly valued and appreciated.

(Russell Marshall recently concluded a four year term as New Zealand's representative to the UNESCO Executive Board, where he chaired the Finance and Administrative Commission for the last two years. He is a former Cabinet Minister, having served variously as Minister of Education, Conservation and Foreign Affairs. He was recently elected Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington.)

More News/Comment

Return to News/Comment Contents