“President Mahinda Rajapaksa's task in this election was to liberate the people from the fascist grip of this war criminal and hand it over to the oppressed communities. So on whose side should the ambassadors, who are parading as guardians and promoters of democracy, be? The drama enacted by the Western diplomats evokes scenes from the theatre of the absurd.”_________________________
by H. L. D. Mahindapala
Link to Part 01
(May 16, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) The post-election phase is developing into a more bizarre scene than anything that happened in the East during the election. Actually, the election took place under more reasonable conditions without any of the hysteria that is driving the opposition, the NGOs, the diplomats and pro-UNP media round the bend.
To their astonishment, the Asian Election monitors commended the electoral process and praised the voters who participated in it. But this was not music to the ears of the anti-national Jeremiahs. Unable to take the loss, this motley mob, following the Wickremesinghe-Hakeem bandwagon, has gone bonkers.
They pretend that "violence" -- the main cause of their loss, according to their claims - was instigated and perpetrated only by the Pillayan group, when, in fact, the worst violence originated from the Tigers who came out publicly in support of the losers.
The following quote from Jehan Perera (even though he is utterly confused in his conclusions) illustrates the violence perpetrated by the Tigers as a hidden tactic to lend support to Wickremesinghe and Hakeem:
“On May 10, the LTTE launched three major attacks in the East. They sank a naval cargo ship within the highly defended Trincomalee harbour. In addition they launched a series of mortar attack in Damana, a Sinhalese-inhabited part of the Ampara district and exploded a bomb in a restaurant in the middle of the Sinhalese-inhabited Ampara town killing over a dozen civilians and injuring many more.
These incidents appear to have been timed by the LTTE to cast a pall of fear and apprehension over the voters as they prepared to vote at the decisive Eastern Provincial elections set for that same day."
He added: "The LTTE's multi-pronged attacks on Government and civilian targets in the East on the day of the elections would have reminded the people in the East of the LTTE's continued presence and destructive power.
It would have served to confirm the worst fears of the non-Tamil majority in the East, comprising Muslims and Sinhalese, that the LTTE continues to be an organisation that is willing to engage in terror attacks against them, as they have done in the past."
Perera's statements make two things clear: 1 the LTTE cast a pall of fear and apprehension over the voters as they prepared to vote at the decisive Eastern Provincial elections set for that same day and 2. the violence of the Tigers drove the Sinhala and Muslim voters into the arms of the UPFA.
And he confirms it when he says later: "A majority of the Tamil and Muslim voters appear to have supported the government."
So why are the Western diplomats, the anti-national NGOs allied to the Western embassies, and the pro-UNP media crying foul when the evidence of one of the leading henchmen of this mob points out that it is the violence of the LTTE that defeated Wickremesinghe and Hakeem?
Dealing with the demographics of the Eastern electorate Perera argues that roughly 80 per cent of the Eastern population is equally divided between the Tamil and Muslim communities and as the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government is closely associated with the forces of Sinhalese nationalism, there seemed to be every likelihood of the Tamil and Muslim vote going in large measure to the Opposition.
Then in the same breath he states: “However, the results of the election have shown otherwise. A majority of the Tamil and Muslim voters appear to have supported the Government.”
This is the bit that is hard for them -- the UNP, Jehan Perera, Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu et al - to swallow. They are finding it difficult to accept that the majority in all three communities in the East voted for the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government.
First, they went all out to oppose the holding of elections under various pretexts. The TNA boycotted it saying that it would legitimize the separation of the north from the east. PLOTE went to courts to postpone the election.
Rajiva Wijesinghe, head of the Peace Secretariat, told the BBC, (it was a polished performance delivered with consummate panache) that the EU summoned the Sri Lankan ambassador and insisted that the government should not hold elections. Why? Why are these kattadiyas and berakarayas of democracy opposed to elections?
EU and America are vociferously and aggressively exporting democracy to the Middle East under conditions which are far more trying than in the East. Why should these champions of democracy then oppose the triumph of democracy in Sri Lanka?
Though the TNA boycotted the elections they were manoeuvring, behind the scenes, to direct votes to the UNP-SLMC combo. This was a gift that the UNP-SLFP could have done without. The endorsement of the Tigers and TNA was seen as a move of the Tigers to return to the east with the blessings of Wickremesinghe and Hakeem.
That sent the Muslim and the Sinhala voters in the other direction. Earlier, UNP also lost Minister D. J. Dayaratne, the traditional and the most visible symbol of the UNP in the east, when he joined the Mahinda Rajapakse Government. He has been the direct link between the UNP and the Sinhala people.
On top of all this, those who believe in coming events casting their shadows will point to the fact that Wickremesinghe nearly crashed in a shuddering helicopter that was running out of control in midair. The pilot landed in time on the compound of a Police station which saved all their lives. Wickremesinghe even missed his step and injured his foot at a meeting. It seemed as if everything was going against him.
Only the Western diplomats rushed to rescue him after he lost the election. The American ambassador, Robert Blake, rushed to Wickremesinghe's residence at Cambridge Place , with a couple of other diplomats from the IDU, as if the Sri Lankan sky has fallen down with the sun, moon and the stars.
This naked act of playing partisan politics has been encouraged by the Wickremesinghe camp with damaging consequences to the nation's sovereignty and economic well being of the people. This unacceptable interference should be deplored by all parties as an offensive act that insults the intelligence of Sri Lankan people and their democratic right to express their political will.
Besides, these diplomats, however powerful they may be in global politics, should not be accepted as the arbiters who would decide the fate of Sri Lankan elections. Wickremesinghe has invited them to his place obviously to solicit their support.
As a lawyer he should know that if anything goes wrong in the elections the courts are there to correct it. The losers, in fact, have vowed to take the issue to the courts. So why are these meddlesome busybodies in the diplomatic colony, running to rescue their political client, Wickremesinghe?
It is a blatant political act that goes against the interests of the Sri Lankan people. They rushed to demonstrate political solidarity with their political client who has served their interests well in the past. But they have no legitimate role in the outcome of an election in a province, or even in a national election, because if there is any irregularity the losers have the right to get it redressed by the courts.
It would have been different if President Rajapaksa suspended the Constitution, sacked the judiciary, sent the Parliamentarians home and took over power in a military coup crushing the established traditions of democracy. Then it could be argued that they have some legitimacy, though very limited, to protect the sovereign will of the people.
It is when diplomats like Blake overstep their limits, ignoring the bitter lessons of the past, that they are seen as putting their foot into the shoes of the Ugly American. Besides, they are stepping in to meddle in the results of a province which was transformed from a violent tyranny to a democracy.
Whatever the shortcomings of the election may be it stands out as a magnificent triumph for democracy. If further proof is necessary, the prestigious Hindu, hailed it as a victory of ballots over bullets.
However, the record of Wickremesinghe in defending democracy is absolutely reprehensible and dismal. On the one hand, he runs his party as a constitutionally entrenched dictator with no possibility of challengers throwing him out under conventional procedures.
On the other, he allied himself with the one-man regime in the Vanni when he handed over the east and the north to “a pathological and serial killer” (Prof.James Jupp of Australian National University).
President Mahinda Rajapaksa's task in this election was to liberate the people from the fascist grip of this war criminal and hand it over to the oppressed communities. So on whose side should the ambassadors, who are parading as guardians and promoters of democracy, be? The drama enacted by the Western diplomats evokes scenes from the theatre of the absurd.
To begin with this election is a peripheral issue, both in geographical and political terms, than, for instance, the sacking Wickremesinghe from the Prime Ministerial post, at a time when he was seated in the White House chatting to President Bush.
President Chandrika Kumaratunga booted him out and all what Wickremesinghe could do was to twiddle his thumbs on the White House (see replay of that clip) and accept the well-placed kick in his pants saying that it is the nature of Sri Lankan politics.
By any yardstick, it was a major crisis in which the elected Prime Minister was sacked by the President using arbitrary powers.
President Bush didn't jump out of his seat and rush to save him from the sacking, did he? So why is the American Ambassador (aided and abetted by a gang of Western diplomats) in such indecent hurry to rush to Cambridge Place after an election in the periphery? Isn't this election a rejection of Tamil Tiger tyranny and an endorsement of the restoration of democracy? In the light of this, it must be asked whether the diplomats were rushing to save democracy or their political client?
The people of Sri Lanka have defended democracy with their lives, resisting right-wing coups, left-wing rebellions in the South and racist fascism from the North. They certainly would appreciate genuine aid to strengthen democracy from any source but not the unwarranted interventions of self-appointed Western interlopers and their local agents to undermine the will of the people, thank you, Mr. Ambassadors and High Commissioners!
The Sri Lankan democracy has demonstrated convincingly that like all viable democracies it has a self-correcting mechanism built into its polity whenever politics veer away from the straight and narrow.
The best service that the ambassadors and the high commissioners can do is to let Sri Lankans sort out their problems as they struggle their way through to their destiny, once they get rid of the racist fascism of the North.
Ambassador Blake's performance in Sri Lanka, it is sad to note, does not jell with some of his distinguished fellow-diplomats in other US missions. Compare, for instance, his performance with that of his counterpart in Iraq, Ryan Crocker.
He is one of the seasoned and respected diplomats of America. In an editorial that highlighted the distinguishing characteristics of Ambassador Crocker Washington Times wrote (April 14, 2008) that he spoke bluntly about the need for a mature discussion in this country about what will happen if U.S. troops are withdrawn before Iraq is stabilized.
"I hear people say: Bring the troops home and end the war," Mr. Crocker said Friday at a roundtable with journalists at the State Department. "My g-d... It's going to give you a... war of significantly greater proportions.
“I remember how we reacted to Rwanda ," Mr. Crocker said, referring to the genocide that occurred in 1994, in which an estimated 800,000 people were slaughtered.
Washington Times added: “Ambassador Ryan Crocker, a veteran of more than three and a half decades in the U.S. Foreign Service, chooses his words with great care and is not given to bombast.
“So, when the United States ambassador to Iraq suggests that a precipitous withdrawal of American troops from that country could lead to a bloodbath on the scale of the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s, serious people need to listen.
“In fact, Mr. Crocker has been candid sometimes brutally so in describing the situation there. He lamented the fact that the Arab nations treat the country like a pariah: No Arab cabinet minister has visited in a year, and there is not a single Arab ambassador in Baghdad.
"This is a time for Arabs to step up" and build a relationship with Iraq , Mr. Crocker says.”
No doubt, these words should ring a bell in Ambassador Blake's ears. He certainly has the capacity to see the parallelism. He may also have reason to question his role in Sri Lanka when his colleague Ambassador Crocker who went before the American Congress with Gen. Petraeus argued for more commitment to fight the war in Iraq.
Unlike Ambassador Blake he was not harping on the human rights violations, or collateral damage, or Guantanamo jail, or cutting of Congressional funds to fight the war. Both diplomats are serving in countries engaged in fighting wars of terrors. Both are working with governments struggling to restore democracy. Both are facing the identical kind of enemies. The difference is that Ambassador Crocker is openly committed to help the fledgling Government of Iraq to stand up and defend itself against the terrorists targeting US forces and democratic leaders while Ambassador Blake is aggressively nitpicking to undermine the Sri Lankan Government facing the biggest challenge from terrorists who, according to US reports, are the deadliest in the world.
It is also significant that while the American Ambassador in Iraq is asking the international community, particularly the Arab nations, to get closer to Iraq, Ambassador Blake is writing reports back home urging punitive action against Sri Lanka and even isolate it.
This is a classic example where two ambassadors from the same country experiencing similar conditions in their missions abroad write two different reports. The contradictions question the assumed moral superiority of the Western diplomatic corps whose main objective seems to be to assert that might is right.
The time has come for them to go through a process of agonising reappraisal, if necessary, to get their act together. Rushing to save Wickremesinghe -- he is beyond redemption! - is one of those quixotic acts that tend to diminish the image, the credibility and the status of diplomats to zilch. When the National Organiser of the UNP, S. B. Dissanayake, blames the Wickremesinghe leadership for the failure in the East what role can the Western diplomats play to save their client?
So is it too much to ask the Western diplomats to follow the good and constructive example set by Ambassador Crocker in Iraq and not the example pursued by Ambassador Blake in Colombo?
END
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment