President holds key to turning world opinion rround

by Jehan Perera

(December 07, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The events that occurred during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s recent visit to the United Kingdom ought to serve as an early warning to the Sri Lankan government. There is a negative portrayal about the situation in Sri Lanka that is growing especially in the Western world as well as other parts of the world that have access to Western media. This is a problem that needs to be addressed or else there is a danger that what happened at Heathrow airport, at Oxford University and at the Dorchester Hotel in London where the President was staying can happen again. In particular, the ability of members of the Tamil Diaspora to prevent the President from addressing the prestigious Oxford Union could encourage anti government groups in other parts of the world to do repeat performances.

President Rajapaksa was originally scheduled to visit the United Kingdom in mid November but postponed the visit and obtained a fresh date from the Oxford Union for his address. When the President postponed his visit there was concern that possible legal action under the British Universal Jurisdiction legislation regarding war crimes allegations had deterred him from entering the United Kingdom. However, President Rajapaksa proved those apprehensions to be wrong when he went ahead with his trip to address the Oxford Union in early December. The President would have deemed the invitation to speak a second time at the prestigious debating society to be an opportunity to represent the country to the world in the best traditions of oratory.

There is also no doubt that the President’s legal advisors would also have assured him that the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as a sitting President and Head of State would protect him from any legal challenge. Therefore, the Sri Lankan government has reason to be disappointed that the British government did not ensure a secure environment for him to visit the United Kingdom, even though it was indeed a private visit. It is difficult to believe that the British law enforcement agencies were so helpless that they could not protect a cherished right in a democracy the right, the right to freedom of expression, from being exercised by a visiting Head of State. The British government’s failure to show solidarity with the Sri Lankan President in his time of need requires a response that is more constructive than organizing a noisy protest outside of the British High Commission in Colombo.

IMAGE REVERSAL

After the Norwegian facilitated ceasefire effectively ended in 2006, the Sri Lankan government received support from all parts of the world to militarily defeat the LTTE. The most militarily powerful countries relevant to Sri Lanka, including the United States, Pakistan, India, China and Iran supported the government’s war effort through the supply of offensive and defensive weapons systems and through the provision of military intelligence. Other countries such as Japan, which did not directly support the military campaign, provided large scale economic assistance, which took the pressure off the government’s budgetary deficits. Having ended a thirty year war on a decisive note more than a year and a half ago, Sri Lanka ought to have become a beacon of hope and new life to the world.

Instead, Sri Lanka’s international image is becoming quite the reverse. Indeed the direction that Sri Lanka is heading for in terms of its international profile seems very much similar to that which existed post-1983. The international media images of the anti Tamil pogrom of July 1983 that took place with the backing of sections of the then government created a very negative international environment. This paved the way for the strong-armed Indian intervention that followed in not so long after, culminating in the Indo Lanka Peace Accord of 1987. Sri Lanka became increasingly isolated in the international community. This time however, Sri Lanka is fortunate to have the strong backing of Asian countries such as China, Pakistan and Myanmar and also India, which has been offering the country large scale humanitarian and economic assistance to rebuild the war zones of the north and east.

While President Rajapaksa has demonstrated uncommon resilience in dealing with the evolving situation, and in being statesmanlike in his verbal responses, it appears that the Sri Lankan government mis-read the mood as well as the organizational capacities of the Tamil Diaspora. The Diaspora may have broken up into three or more groups, each jostling for leadership, after the defeat of the LTTE. But they continue to be a formidable force with the ability to quickly mobilize large numbers who are prepared for sustained protests. The Sri Lankan government also appears to have mis-read the willingness of the British government to go out of its way to support it and the President’s right of free expression in the world’s oldest parliamentary democracy. The recent Wikileaks revelations show how top British politicians took the Tamil Diaspora votes into consideration when making decisions.

PRESIDENT’S ABILITY

It is unfortunate that there are sections within the Sri Lankan government who believe that Sri Lanka can defy the sentiments in the Western world, whether from the Tamil Diaspora or from foreign governments and human rights lobby groups in those countries, and still prosper. The more friends and allies that any country has, the better it will be for that country whether big or small. It ought not to be forgotten that the Sri Lankan government was able to finally fight the LTTE to a finish on favourable terms because of the ground work that had been done in an earlier period by the governments headed by President Chandika Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Both of them stood for a negotiated political solution to the ethnic conflict. It was this commitment that restored the faith of the Western countries in the Sri Lankan government after the diplomatic debacles of the post-1983 period.

If the Sri Lankan government is to overcome the challenge posed to it by the Tamil Diaspora and also by the critical attitudes of Western countries, it needs to address their core concerns. It must not be forgotten that the impact of the deterrent action taken by foreign governments against fund raising and arms purchases by the LTTE was a significant contributor to the government’s victory. Crackdowns on LTTE cells working internationally saw several key international operatives of the LTTE being arrested and LTTE front organisations being banned. The LTTE itself was banned in a number of countries, including India, the United States, Canada and the entirety of the EU countries. This had a crippling effect on the LTTE’s ability to wage war in Sri Lanka. The asymmetry that exists between the state and a rebel organisation increased to a level that proved to be decisive.

When President Rajapaksa returned to Sri Lanka there were large crowds to greet him. The majority of the Sri Lankan people would continue to repose their trust in him. There is arguably no other political leader in Sri Lanka with a greater capacity than President Rajapaksa to bring about a political solution to the ethnic conflict with the informed consent of the majority of people. At the height of the war with the LTTE the President answered his critics by promising a political solution based on the existing scheme of devolution of powers in the 13th Amendment "plus one" as he pithily put it. The All Party Representatives Committee that he himself appointed during the war to come up with a mutually acceptable solution to the ethnic conflict has come up with such a formula, which is gathering dust in the President’s cupboard. The key to that cupboard and to turning around international opinion to be favourable to Sri Lanka is with the President.