From the Blue Corner

What a way to gain new lease of life!

By Paakshikaya

Last week, my friend, Viruddha Paakshikaya had returned to The Sunday Times after a lapse of two weeks- to which he offers a feeble explanation- but he seemed to have forgotten his role as a columnist and has written what is virtually an editorial.

Viruddha Paakshikaya waxes eloquent about media freedom and the rights of the UNP to stage political protests and march to Temple Trees. By denying these, he claims the Peoples' Alliance government is violating democratic norms.

Tell me, my friend, what did you do when you held the reins of government? Did you allow people to stage protest marches or march to Ward Place or Sucharitha, let alone Temple Trees? How many people have died when police opened fire at demonstrators during the days of the UNP? And how many media people were killed, not for staging protests but for merely being critical of the then regime?

And, with this dismal track record behind you, you have the audacity to chastise the Peoples' Alliance for what happened on July 15! What really happened that day, my friend? There were a few hundred protesters shouting filthy slogans, they tried to march to Temple Trees ostensibly to hand over a petition to the President, they were tear gassed by the police and some people were injured in the ensuing melee.

There were no deaths and there were no serious injuries though your former minister Renuka Herath tried to earn her 15 minutes of fame, making a mountain out of a molehill from a few strategically placed bruises.

Tell me, my friend, what was the alternative for the police? Allow that drunk, violent, rampaging mob to march on to Temple Trees? And once there, what would have happened if the mob attempted to force their way there? Wouldn't the police have been compelled to open fire? And if that happened, wouldn't people have died?

Of course if that happened, the UNP would have had a field day saying the PA had killed innocent civilians. But those handling security had the foresight to anticipate such a possibility and prevented it by halting the protesters in their tracks. You can make your noises about democracy and media freedom but as we see it that was an essential precaution.

And of course, the protest was an illegal one because no one had obtained police permission for it, so the police had every right to do what they did, Virudhdha Paakshikaya.

Then I must also question the prudence of the UNP in deciding to hold this protest in July which is a high risk month and even schoolboys know there could be attacks set off by the LTTE.

Remember, Viruddha Paakshikaya when the government warned the public about the possibility of LTTE suicide bombers infiltrating the city and targeting VIPs, you pooh-poohed the idea and claimed it was a ruse to prevent the UNP from staging its protest.

Now, my friend, you may have realised the truth but at the cost of the life of Neelan Tiruchelvam, a moderate Tamil leader who was one of those who genuinely wanted to bring about a settlement in the ethnic war and was instrumental in helping President Chandrika Kumaratunga draft her devolution proposals.

And, on the subject of the devolution proposals, Viruddha Paakshikaya, may I ask why the UNP is still maintaining a deafening silence on the matter? Why, even your presently estranged former General Secretary Sirisena Cooray has announced his own proposals to end the present crisis but the UNP with all its think tanks and high-profile advisors, remains mum!

And, even though the UNP accuses the Peoples Alliance of not implementing its devolution package for five years what does your own leader Ranil Wickremesinghe do? He begins a house-to-house campaign asking people for their views on what the UNP should do!

Now, my friend, why did Ranil Wickremasinghe suddenly realize that he has to ask the people what they thought? Is it a genuine desire to seek their views or is it another election gimmick- a ploy to introduce Mr. Wickremesinghe to the masses and shed his elitist image?

Well, my advise to Mr.Wickremesinghe is this: before you try to take on the Peoples' Alliance or President Chandrika Kumaratunga, take on and settle the conflicts within your own party.

Why it was amusing to hear that your leader got his pants in a twist when he heard that Sirisena Cooray was attempting to unveil his proposals. So, he sent emissaries with a plea not to do so.

Mr. Cooray, now playing the arrogant patron of power said he will consider that and postponed the event. But that was all it was- a postponement. A few weeks later the proposals were released and Mr.Wickremesinghe- yet again- was made to look like a political infant.

Now I am sure Viruddha Paakshikaya will launch a stout defence of Mr.Wickremesinghe next week and say there are no serious differences between his leader and Sirisena Cooray- or even Wijeyapala Mendis for that matter! So, before he could say that I must ask him whether he was a guest at Sajith Premadasa's wedding for if he was there, he would have been a witness to the frantic attempts being made by party colleagues to attempt a reconciliation between the two.

There was no reconciliation- and not even a polite handshake just for the cameras and it was clear that Mr. Cooray and Mr. Wickremesinghe were avoiding each other like the plague. The latter particularly, not sure of what Mr. Cooray's response would be, did not want to meet him under the scrutiny of the waiting cameras of the press.

And, on the subject of the leadership crisis in the UNP, I must also remind our readers of an interesting point made by Viruddha Paakshikaya last week. He says the UNP has gained a new lease of life with the July 15 protests. "Whatever it is, it is now clear that what happened that Thursday was the beginning of a new era of public confidence for the UNP" were the words he used.

Now, isn't that a tacit admission that the UNP was a weak and ineffective opposition for five years with no achievements to its credit? And, Viruddha Pakkshikaya hopes to reverse all that with a few tear gas canisters, a couple of broken cameras of media men and some well-exhibited contusions from Renuka Herath!

Elsewhere in your essay, Viruddha Paakshikaya you have castigated the average Sri Lankan voter for being gullible in voting Chandrika Kumaratunga into power in 1994. Now, my friend, I believe that is not only your view but also the mindset of the UNP. And if I may venture a suggestion, that is also the reason why you will be in the opposition at least for another six years!

No, Viruddha Paakshikaya, the Sri Lankan people are not gullible at all. They vote for people who they think are sincere in their pledges to reform the country. That is why they voted for J. R. Jayewardene in 1977 and that is why they voted for Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1994.

Of course, by 1989, J. R. Jayewardene had violated that trust but in 1999 Chandrika Kumaratunga still has enough people trusting her sincerity- even if some may doubt the efficiency of her government- to be re-elected. And, most certainly, Viruddha Paakshikaya, our voters will never be gullible enough to entrust the country to Ranil Wickremesinghe!

US diplomacy skates on thin ice in Pakistan

By Adrian D'Melo The Sunday Times Special Correspondent in New Delhi

The United States has a pressing and delicate problem on hand in Pakistan. It needs Pakistan to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is sheltering the dreaded terrorist Osama bin Laden. The US is also keen on stemming militant Islamic fundamentalism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as an international ring of fundamentalists could use these countries as a springboard to attack American and western interests worldwide. To contain such elements the US needs to strengthen the moderates in Pakistan and the best bet for it, under the circumstances, is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the modern the businessman-turned politician.

But after the Kargil debacle, for which Pakistanis blame the United States squarely, an unprecedented anti-American wave is sweeping Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalists and even moderates have called upon Islamabad to break loose from the American political and economic grip and seek other allies. However, there has been no knee jerk reaction to all this from Washington. Through subtle and quiet diplomacy, it is attempting to prevent the moderates in Pakistan from being swamped by the militants. But the path ahead could be slippery, for though the US has a tight economic grip over Pakistan, politically its base is weakening by the day, forcing US diplomacy to skate on thin ice.

Ironically, the virulent fundamentalism that the US is now facing in Pakistan was nurtured by it during the long war to rid Afghanistan of Soviet occupation. It was the US-backed martial law regime of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq at the time of the Afghan crisis in the eighties, which introduced 'sharia' laws, which in turn legitimised Islamic militancy. The Kalashnikov culture, which rules the roost in Pakistan today, also owes its origin to the US-backed struggle in Afghanistan, when arms meant for the Afghan resistance, including the Taliban, were freely available in Pakistan. The fomenting and arming of Islamic militancy is now boomeranging on the US.

War cries from Islamic militants

The Jamaat-e-Islami, once a major beneficiary of US largesse, last week called for a 'jehad' against the Sharif regime for signing away Kashmir at Washington on July 4. Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the 'Amir' of Jamaat-ul-Ulema Islam, has accused the US of planning to attack 'Islamic' Afghanistan and has called for resistance. Anti-US organisations have formed an umbrella body called Majlis-Tawwun-i-Islami, and speaking at a rally organised by this body, Maulana Fazlur Rahman blamed the US for Pakistan's 'defeat' at the hands of India in the 1965 and 1971 wars. "If the US attacked Afghanistan, it would have to face the wrath of the Islamic forces," he warned. Meanwhile, the Taliban's envoy in Karachi, Rahamatullah Kakazar, warned the US that if Afghanistan were attacked, US missions the world over would be bombed. He was reacting to reports that US forces were seen in the waters off Gwadar. Giving an idea of the close co-operation between Pakistan and the Taliban, 'The Washington Times', reported last week that Pakistan-backed militants who had fought in Kargil, were in Afghanistan now fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Taliban against rival forces.

Despite American urgings to call off the adventure in Kargil, Islamic militant groups in Pakistan, like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, have been threatening to expand their operations to turn the whole of Kashmir into a Kargil. According to Sayed Salahuddin, supreme commander of Hizbul Mujahideen, a "war of attrition will bleed India dry." Even some moderates feel that the US had not been all that friendly to Pakistan as the world seemed to imagine. The general complaint now is that the US used Pakistan to throw the Soviets out of Afghanistan and after that objective was achieved, simply threw Pakistan out as if it was a used condom. The US had denied Pakistan F-16 planes and had applied crippling sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests even though Pakistan was only reacting to India's tests, in self defence. The current US tendency to equate Pakistan with India, and even point an accusing finger at Pakistan with even as India "immorally and forcefully holds Muslim Kashmir", is decried in Pakistan as a sign of un-gratefulness.

US tilt against Pak not new

M.H. Askari, writing in 'Dawn' on July 28, points out that way back in May 1990 itself, the US Dy. National Security Advisor, Robert Gates, had said that the Kashmir insurgency could not be what it was without Pakistani assistance, a statement which flew in the face of Islamabad's contention that the 'mujahideen' of Kashmir were from Indian held Kashmir and Pakistan was only giving moral support. Gates had also let it be known that if Pakistan were to go to war with India, it could not count on US support. More recently, Mathew Daley, a South Asia advisor to the State Department, said that Pakistan should learn from the US experience that "nuclear armed states cannot challenge each other militarily and directly," a view which shaped US response to the Pakistani intrusion into Kargil.

The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, stretched the Daley thesis further in Singapore, where she told the press that it was "important for Pakistan to follow through their commitment to withdraw the remaining portion of the force in the Kargil sector." Taking all this together, Pakistanis pooh pooh Nawaz Sharif's contention that he had got a personal commitment from President Clinton to intervene in Kashmir. 'The Frontier Post', in an editorial on US Kashmir policy said that the US would be quite ready to back India on Kashmir if it ensured democratisation there. The Pakistanis explain American action in the wake of Kargil by pointing to US fears of a nuclear conflagration in South Asia and concern for the fate of the CTBT. The US, 'The Frontier Post' said, had not and would not seek a more active diplomatic role in Kahmir for fear of antagonising India, with which it wants close economic and political ties. There is also a feeling that the US might want India and China to make up, and that would mean China becoming somewhat lukewarm towards its 'traditional ally' Pakistan to please India. The US could exploit China's fear of Pakistan and Afghanistan based militants exploiting Muslim disaffection in the Sinkiang province. The US tilt towards India could also be driven by the fear of China, which has said that it now has the neutron bomb.

American balancing act

The US, on its part, has deemed it prudent not to rub Pakistan on the wrong side too much. Ranking official Karl Inderfurth has told the Taliban that the US is ready for "confrontation as well as co-operation" with it and it was up to the Taliban to meet the American demands on bin Laden and human rights and secure US co-operation. Therefore, there is a possibility of the Taliban being backed in the US camp and the Pakistanis being mollified. An inspired in 'Washington Post' on July 26 which said that President Clinton acted the way he did on Kargil because India was poised to invade Pakistan, was the US's way of ingratiating itself to Pakistan. According to Shaheen Sehbai of 'Dawn', the US had also not endorsed India's view that dialogue could begin only after Pakistan stopped cross border terrorism, which meant the end of insurgency in Kashmir. Such a stand should be useful to Sharif in his battle against the extremists. A State Department official had told Sehbai: "The Secretary (Albright) and Mr. Singh (the Indian Foreign Minister) talked about the importance of resuming the Lahore Process. And that was it. She did not talk about anything else, in terms of conditions on resumption of Pakistani-Indian talks."

Return to News/Comments Contents