You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Political Commentary’ category.
At the Frontline Club discussion on Sri Lanka, I finally came across Frances Harrison. The name had been familiar, for in recent years, whenever I went to England, she used to tweet madly about me, in what seemed to me desperate hysteria, though I soon enough found out that many journalists tweet in that mad fashion. This time round, her fascination with me continued, in that she saw the discussion as ‘Ch 4 vs prof rajiva debate’ as she tweeted an hour before the discussion.
It is possible however that the lady is cunning rather than obsessional, because this was also a way of cutting out the contribution of Arun Tambimuttu to the discussion. Initially it had indeed been meant to be me and the High Commissioner debating Jon Snow and Callum McRae, but Snow dropped out. I thought it was because he was nervous since previously, when the High Commission had asked Channel 4 to invite me for a discussion, they had dodged, except once when we managed to corner them with the help of the BBC Today programme. However it is possible that, as one of his loyal fellow employees said before the discussion, in explaining his absence, he simply says ‘Yes’ to everything, and then changes his mind.
Roma Tearne
Amongst the most interesting offshoots of the discussion on Channel 4 and Sri Lanka held at the Frontline Club in London was a wonderfully creative piece by the novelist Roma Tearne. Her photograph is that of a very smart young lady, long face set off by bullet shaped ear-rings and long dark hair, with a tasteful fringe on the forehead.
I dwelt the more on this fine picture because aesthetics is clearly important to her, and I suppose if you look like that, it should be. She had described me as having a ‘fine pudding basin style hair cut’ which was flattering since I simply have cheap hair cuts whenever my hair becomes too unruly. The last one cost just over one pound, which must be much less than Roma pays for her superb styling.
The result of my carelessness however gave Roma great pleasure, for she brought it into her article six times. After her first description of my hair, she referred to me twice simply as Pudding Basin, which is the sort of humour which has schoolgirls rocking in the aisles. I could just imagine the joy with which she anticipated guffaws as she then referred to me as PB. Finally, doubtless worrying that the joke was wearing thin, she rallied her troops by twice calling me Pudding Head.
I presume this type of prose is what goes down well now in England, since the lady’s first novel, the incisively titled ‘Mosquito’, was shortlisted for the 2007 Costa Book Awards First Novel Prize. She is now a fellow at Oxford Brookes University, which suggests intellectual distinction of an admirable sort.
The more extreme elements in the Ministry of External Affairs have at last put their cards on the table in the form of an article by the wife of one of its rising stars. The same young lady kindly gave me an opportunity to engage in a strong critique of the viewpoints she represented, when she gratuitously attacked me some weeks back.
What is astonishing is that this article is based on the premise that countries like Cuba and Venezuela are anathema at present to Sri Lanka. I suspect it will be news to President Rajapaksa that Cuba is a failed state and that a positive view of Chavez ‘fundamentally undermines everything Sri Lanka has stood for since it inherited a liberal democracy post 1948’.
Certainly those countries have weaknesses which is why they should not be absolute models for us. But the same applies to the countries to which we are supposed to subscribe without question, if the article is accurate in suggesting that Sri Lankan policy will now focus on its ‘relationships with its traditional liberal democratic allies’, ie the West. It is claimed that this new departure is the reason that Tamara Kunanayakam and Dayan Jayatilleka are being sidelined, while ‘a career diplomat with proven ability to engage the West’ is now being sent to Geneva.
Oddly enough, the article completely ignores the fact that the attack on us as developed by the United States focused on what were seen as inadequacies precisely with regard to what Tamara and Dayan also noted. Their commitment to a pluralistic society with greater attention to Human Rights has never been questioned. It should also be noted that they have both consistently stressed the need for both Reconciliation and truth telling. It was not they who attacked me when, three years ago, I noted that there had been civilian casualties, a position about which supposedly more ‘liberal democratic’ colleagues were in a state of denial.
What this latest policy statement of the Ministry of External Affairs suggests is that its denizens have no understanding at all of foreign policy. The West basically has three reasons for its continuing assaults on us over the last few years.
The first and the one publicly proclaimed was the argument that Sri Lanka was violating Human Rights consistently, and this had to be prevented.
The second was the pressure applied by the diaspora, which exercises a disproportionate amount of influence on some governments.
Finally there was the desire to bring Sri Lanka into its sphere of influence, and in particular prevent China from gaining a strong foothold here.
Like this:
When we were in Geneva in the dark days of March, I was surprised to read that Senior Minister D E W Gunasekara had been appointed Acting Minister of External Affairs. It was only long after I got back to Colombo that I realized it was an excellent choice, and the Acting Minister’s clear vision and determination had avoided what might have contributed to further catastrophe.
One of the heartening aspects of the aftermath of the vote was continuation of good relations between India and Sri Lanka. Personally I believe India did the wrong thing in voting against us, and I think we must engage in private with Delhi and show the possible unfortunate consequences of that vote for India and the region as well as for us. But it was and is essential to avoid recrimination. In addition, while deploring the result, we must look at the reasons that led India to take this fateful step, try to understand the compulsions, remedy whatever shortcomings we might have displayed and ensure that India appreciates the need for continuing positive engagement with us.
By and large both countries have worked hard at maintaining the relationship. The Indian Prime Minister sent a gracious message after the vote, and our politicians have by and large refrained from provocative reactions. Unfortunately there have been some harsh comments about India by journalists who are normally sensible and supportive of the position of the Sri Lankan government, and they should be advised to look at the whole picture rather than particular unpleasant aspects. But on the whole I believe, with the recent generally positive visit of the Indian Parliamentary delegation, and a return soon to the type of diplomacy that confirmed a congruency of interests during the conflict period, we have both avoided what might have been an unpleasant fallout at the time of the vote.
Much of the credit for this goes to Minister D E W Gunasekara. While his patriotism is not at all in doubt, he made it clear when he was Acting Minister that there was no question of blaming India for what was going on. He seems also to have ensured that this approach was followed by all his colleagues in Cabinet, including those who might have been rearing to have a go, as it were, at India. I am not sure whether this was the reason the President took the unusual step of appointing an Acting Minister for just a few days, but I believe the result was admirable, and both countries owe him a lot for ensuring that moderation prevailed.
Like this:
I have just been sent a typical distortion by Groundviews of what I said three years ago with regard to an Amnesty claim about cluster bombs. GroundViews declares that -
‘Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, in February 2009, called those in Amnesty International “lunatics” and their concern over the use of cluster bombs by the Sri Lankan army “rank idiocy”. ……What new levels of spin, deception, counter-claims, propaganda and hate speech through spokesmen, Ambassadors, advisors and other assorted apologists will the government employ to counter this damning new evidence of what can constitute war crimes by the armed forces?’
This is total distortion of what I said. The term rank idiocy was applied to a man called Jim McDonald who suggested it was possible that some lower ranks ‘used captured LTTE cluster bombs’.
I am grateful to Groundviews however for having, in their careful study of what I write, drawing attention to this article. It makes it clear that even Jim McDonald accepted that the LTTE had used cluster bombs. For him to claim then, in order to justify his determination to condemn the Sri Lankan forces, that what might have happened is that the Sri Lankan forces used captured LTTE cluster bombs is indeed the height of lunacy – which is perhaps even within Amnesty they began to tease Jim McDonald about his strange logic, and called him the ‘cluster bomb’.
It is useful, in the present controversy, to quote at length from my 2009 article. I should note too that several years ago I pointed out individuals who I believe had a destructive agenda. One was Rama Mani, who had to leave, despite the best efforts of the establishment trying to keep her. Sadly the advice I gave about Guy Rhodes and Gordon Weiss was not taken. It was much later that Wikileaks revealed that one of the principal sources of American charges against us was Guy Rhodes, and I suspect this fed into the contributions by Steve Rattner, who began by assuming that we were an apartheid state.
Like this:
Last week, I was told, a mysterious lady approached the President while he was at a funeral, knelt at his feet, and came out with a terrifying story. The person who told me the story evidently thought of the lady as she who must not be named, but she was nothing like the fictional character who could not be named. Young and rich and beautiful, I believe she had long raven locks and sparkling dimples.
The story she had to tell was however a sad one, for it was a tale of betrayal. The President was told that the previous night, at the dinner given by the Indian High Commissioner, at least one senior member of his Cabinet had joined with the Indian Parliamentary delegation in criticism against him.
My interlocutor thought this upsetting news, whether it was true or not. If it was true, it would explain why the President has not moved forward in accordance with his Manifesto, since obviously he would be worried about being criticized on all sides if he took steps that were controversial. If it was not true, the matter was more upsetting, because it indicated that there were those he trusted who were deliberately creating doubt about the next tier of leadership in the party. And that of course is how many seemingly solid governments have collapsed.
I was quite saddened by some of the responses to my article entitled ‘Letting down the President’, which recorded instances in which I thought the President’s instructions had been completely ignored, to the detriment of the country. I had been prepared for those who believe this government is appalling to claim either that I was being hypocritical, or else that I was naïve to have thought that progress towards pluralism was possible. But what upset me was the view of someone who I believe appreciates what this government has done, who suggested that the body tasked to work out an Action Plan for implementation of the LLRC Report had perhaps ‘been warned not to go ahead with the meetings’. The response went on to claim that ‘the LLRC was an opportunist ploy so as to meet the widespread criticisms’.
When I asked for evidence for this view however I got none, except for the suggestion that I did not really understand politics, and in particular what was described as Palace Politics. That is possible, though sometimes I feel the study of literature is a better preparation for politics than more obviously relevant subjects, because it is personalities that govern politics and particularly so in Sri Lanka (which, in this respect as in others I studied for my doctorate, is more like Victorian England than most Western societies are now). Indeed recent events concerning the abduction of the mysterious Mr Mudalige make me wonder whether my comments on the dysfunctionality of government did not err on the side of caution.
But, to get back to the President’s instructions and expectations, I believe the evidence suggests that he is the victim, rather than the fountainhead, of a wholly impractical system. In a Presidential system, and increasingly so now even in Westminster style systems, the Head of Government must have functionaries who ensure by working behind the scenes that the policies he has spelled out are implemented. That used to be the function of the President’s Secretary, but unfortunately the present incumbent has been snowed under with an excess of work that has prevented him from carrying out his primary function. As can be seen from his presence on political platforms as well as television chat shows, he is expected to do much more than his predecessors, and in the field of politics as well as administration.
In considering again the extraordinary attack on Dayan Jayatilleka by the destructive elements in the Ministry of External Affairs, being indeed forced to do so by their gratuitous inclusion of me therein, it occurred to me that one reason for the ongoing dysfunctionality of government at present is the contradictory motivations of some of those who exercise influence with regard to not just international relations but also those subjects that are of close concern to the international community.
I refer to those who believe that they are best equipped to deal with the West, and in particular those in the Ministry who believe that Dayan and I have been too tough and that, had things been left to them, the West would be very happy with the situation in Sri Lanka. According to the incisive commentary about divisions in the delegation in Geneva, they had been engaging in discussions with the West, as it seems they had been doing for many years before.
While I am not sure that that commentary is right in seeing such individuals as traitorous, I believe that their approach was wrong on two counts. One was the belief that the West would be happy with assurances without any action with regard to matters on which they could build up feeling against us. The second was the assumption that the West was concerned only about such matters, and that what has been going on over the last few years need not be studied, but can be dealt with by hasty reactions.
The recent intrigues by the nastier elements in the Ministry of External Affairs have prompted some thought about the confused and confusing nature of the diverse elements that make up the current government. The need to examine this in greater detail has been made clearer by the strange affair of Mr Gunaratnam. The implications of what occurred there have been explored carefully in a thoughtful article by Laksiri Fernando, through analysis of the statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. I believe that article should be studied carefully by all those concerned with the continuity and success of this government, which is I believe the perspective from which Prof Fernando has written.
There are some related considerations that I think should be explored further, given the statement by the Ministry, which in fact exposes its complete incompetence in this regard. Prof Fernando suggests that the statement indicates that ‘the “security establishment” has encroached into other ministries and in this case the Ministry of External Affairs’ but I think what it also indicates is that that Ministry has completely abandoned its responsibilities in dealing with international issues.
Benjamin Dix’s Paranoia, and the subtle effectiveness of Guy Rhodes in abusing aid in Sri Lanka
May 23, 2012 in Political Commentary | Tags: Allan Posten, Amnesty International, Benjamin Dix, Channel 4, Coffee Club, Felipe Atkins, Guy Rhodes, Peter Splinter, Rainer Fraufels, SOLIDAR, UN, UNOPS | Comments closed
The LTTE had to be defeated, and those who laid down their lives for this did not die unnecessarily. So too those who died because of the brutality of the LTTE, the hostage taking, the assassinations, the horrendous tactics such as electrifying water, were victims of a megalomanic mentality, and there is no point in recriminations about Prabhakaran’s brutality, just as there is no point in recriminations about the destructive power of a tsunami. One simply sorrows, for those who died, and for those who suffered, with perhaps some regret that no one had stopped him earlier.
Wikileaks – 09GENEVA584 2009-07-15 09:23 2011-08-30 01:44 CONFIDENTIAL Mission Geneva
But there must be anger about those who contributed to protracted delay, and on May 19th I was thinking of those wicked people who supported the LTTE in the last days, in particular those who contributed equipment to enable them to build up huge defences. These led to the taking of Kilinochchi taking much longer than it should have, with many of our youngsters dying in trying to get over the tall barricades. Worse, it gave the LTTE time to plan and ruthlessly execute the hostage taking that they had determined on, in Prabhakaran’s ‘Gotterdammerung’ vision.
The most horrible contribution to my mind was that of the organization called Norwegian People’s Aid, which allowed over 40 of their vehicles to be used. They did not inform us about them, and only acknowledged what had happened when the Defence Ministry asked. Even then they only admitted to a few, and it was only later that they acknowledged the full force of the aid they had given.
Abandoned earth moving equipment – LTTE bund construction.
They lied to the European Union by pretending that this had happened because we had not permitted any Europeans to remain in Kilinochchi. At a meeting of the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance they had to admit that this was not the case, and they excused themselves on the grounds that it was only a junior person who had stayed, as though such a person could not count the number of vehicles that the LTTE had taken away.
In Colombo, when what had happened was revealed, there was anger against the Norwegians. This was misplaced. There were no Norwegians in senior positions with NPA, rather it was managed by a conglomerate called Solidar, which was headed by British personnel. The leadership of this was pretty suspect, one Britisher called Peter Sunderland I think, another with several passports called Felipe Atkins, and the spider at the centre of the web a man called Guy Rhodes. There was also Mathew Todd, who was in charge of a German aid agency, who I used to think an innocent computer buff, married as he was to a great friend of mine, until he fled Sri Lanka quite suddenly when it seemed further information was emerging about the activities of the agencies that made up Solidar.
Read the rest of this entry »
Share this:
Like this: