Thoughts from London

Act now or forever hold your tongue
I suppose it had to be. Terrorism dominated the opening days of the United Nations sessions when world leaders met in New York recently. After all, they had gathered in a city that had witnessed a great human tragedy only four years earlier. The world had watched with horror, and perhaps ghoulish fascination, the terrible destructive force of terrorism brought right into their sitting rooms by the power of modern television.
New York might have risen from the ashes like the biblical Lazarus. Many of the visible signs of the devastation might have disappeared. Yet it would require more than glass, concrete and mortar to erase the memories of 9/11, whether one was in the Big Apple itself that day or somewhere else in the world.

One could easily dismiss President George Bush as a born-again evangelist.
Yet for all his ravings there was a moment of sanity that penetrated the thick cloud of religious zeal. That was his plea for a greater effort by the world to fight the scourge of terrorism.

The case for a concerted international effort was more ably articulated by British Prime Minister Tony Blair whose passionate plea was born out of this country’s own anguish at the horror of 7/7 and its implications. Yet it brought home to Blair and the British Government that soft-pedalling acts of terrorism, however minor, is naïve appeasement that they would have to atone for later.

In the aftermath of the Northern Ireland peace agreement that the British hoped would end IRA violence, the Blair Government turned a blind eye on IRA criminality such as robberies in the hope that they could achieve the large purpose of bringing peace to a violently divided territory.

Not until the great Belfast bank robbery last Christmas when the IRA is believed to have staged the biggest bank heist netting some £26 million, did the British realise that appeasement had only encouraged the terrorist IRA to be more daring, putting the whole peace process in real jeopardy.
Today the Blair government has realised that engaging armed groups or their political front organisations is not enough. Any engagement must not be merely a sop offered in the hope that those who live by the gun will mend their ways and embrace democracy and political pluralism.

If the west hopes that appeasement would turn terrorist leaders into paragons of democratic virtue as dramatically as the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus, these advocates of appeasement are living in cuckooland.

That is what makes the utterances of persons such as Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the external relations commissioner of the European Union, so naïve. Had she studied the 20th century history of Europe, particularly the rise of Nazism under Adolf Hitler, one of her Austrian compatriots, she would know what happened to Neville Chamberlain’s much celebrated Munich Agreement. She would also know what happened to Russia despite Stalin’s pact with Hitler.

Ferrero-Waldner succeeded Chris Patten as commissioner for external relations. It might be recalled that when Chris Patten met the LTTE leader in the Wanni he made four specific points to Prabhakaran. It is worth recalling the points made by Patten because it seems that two years later the EU appears to have gone back on the firm commitment held out then on behalf of the European Union. Let me quote from Chris Patten’s statement on his meeting with Prabhakaran.

“…. In my meeting with the LTTE, I underlined four points: that they must definitively and without delay renounce violence; that any solution must respect the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka; that there must be an end to human rights abuses including the recruitment of child soldiers; and that the Moslem community must have its own representatives at the table when peace talks resume.”Watching the conduct of the European Union and some of its constituent members, including those that parade themselves in the plumes of peacemakers, one is constraint to ask a basic question.

Has the EU under the present incumbent in the seat of the external relations commissioner, moved away from the clear and succinct position taken by Chris Patten? If so who is responsible for this change of direction? Did the European Union Council of Ministers authorise such a shift?

Britain which currently holds the presidency surely has a duty to inquire and inform whether the policy so clearly articulated by its own nominee to the external relations portfolio in the EU, has been turned on its head, sidelined or been jettisoned in the name of appeasing terrorism.
As a corollary to that one needs to ask the present incumbent of that portfolio to set out in some detail what this change in policy has achieved in practical terms. Mr. Patten did not merely call for an end to violence. He called for a renunciation of violence.

Has that happened? Not even the deaf, dumb and blind (bar those in the EU) would make such an irresponsible and fatuous claim.
Is the solution that the LTTE urges even now, respect the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka? Even if Ferrero-Waldner has twice the brains she has now, she would find it difficult to concede that, particularly since Herr Doktor Balasingham cannot find any trace of that Oslo Declaration or whatever it is called.

Has the LTTE put an end to human rights abuses including the recruitment of child soldiers? Over to you, Benita, dear Benita. Interestingly a little over one year ago a delegation from the European Union that consisted of Dutch Ambassador Susan Blanchard and UK High Commissioner Stephen Evans conveyed to Thamilselvan its “concern and alarm” over the “recent increase” in the violations of “fundamental human rights” and said that adhering to “good governance, pluralism, human rights and democracy” were vital if the LTTE wishes “to obtain recognition as a political player in Sri Lanka.”

So one year later it is surely appropriate to ask the EU whether it seriously believes that any of these features characterised by it, has actually improved. If it seriously does think so could the EU please substantiate its conclusion?

If not could the Ferrero-Waldners and others who try to lead a parasitical existence on the political carcasses of developing countries that their ancestors exploited for centuries, please shut up.

By the way, the so-called co-chairs issued perhaps their strongest statement last week mainly chastising the LTTE for its seeming lack of commitment to the peace process and for the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar though it avoided naming names. But the intention was clear enough.

One thing, however, amused me. A couple of months ago this column had a good laugh at a statement issued by the Americans who referred to the co-chairs of the peace process. A couple of days ago I received an email from a prominent person who shall remain unnamed, saying that this column should claim credit for pointing out the linguistic aberration of there being co-chairs to a process.

We are happy to note that the latest statement refers to “The Co-Chairs of the Tokyo Donor Conference in support of the peace process in Sri Lanka.” Quite a mouthful, no doubt. But at least it makes some sense, linguistically at least. Now the speeches have been made, statements issued and terrorism damned. It’s time to roll the cameras and call for action, real action.

Back to Columns