|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 14 December 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Sri Lanka First: It's not so clever by Lucien Rajakarunanayake Several newspapers last week carried an advertisement by the organization of the business community known as "Sri Lanka First". It was a message to Her Excellency the President and the Hon. Prime Minister, calling upon them to work together for peace and the interests of the nation. The message said: "This is the greatest gift that you, as our leaders, can give to our nation, our people and our future generations". It concluded: "Please do not deny this. This is our last chance." It is a message that is supposed to reflect the mood of the people today, and not only of the various organizations of the business sector that constitute "Sri Lanka First". This message appreciates the positive outcome of peace on the nation's economy and its people, in the past two years. Note that economy comes before people. The sugar coating It says: "We are very encouraged by the shared view of both the President and the Prime Minister that a negotiated solution is the only way forward". However, on reading what is said further, one notices this as some sugar coating to make palatable what is to follow. Very importantly, "One Sri Lanka" says: "It is no secret that in the past it was the divisive party politics that repeatedly thwarted attempts to find a solution to the crippling ethnic issue which has had serious repercussions on our nation's economy... We ask you not to allow history to repeat itself." And here comes the twist: "Your country and your people need you to sweep aside past prejudices by joining hands and working together for peace in the interests of our nation." What a wonderful appeal, is no doubt the initial reaction. However, on more careful study, one finds that "Sri Lanka First" is either totally ignorant of, or not bothered with current reality in making this appeal. Harking back to divisive party politics of the past is always very easy, but what justification is there today, except in the convoluted mind of a badly briefed advertising copy writer to say, "We ask you not to allow history to repeat itself." This is distorted thinking that tries to pass itself off as conventional wisdom, and "Sri Lanka First" cannot escape this charge. The entire tone of the advertisement gives the impression that we have taken another step back into the divisive politics of the past. Said in simple terms this means what the Government proposes, the Opposition opposes, and brings it to naught. Those are the several instances of divisive politics of the past that contributed to failure to resolve the ethnic crisis. Those we can forget. There were other events too, such as the attempt to fool the Tamils with District development Councils by J. R. Jayewardene, post 1977, who with his five-sixth of members in Parliament could have done anything to bring about a positive change to the modern history of this country, but failed to do so. There was also the terrible and terrifying experience of Black July in 1983, well manipulated by government, for which it sought to pass off the blame on the left parties such as the CP, LSSP and mostly the JVP, none of which had anything to do with it. This is part of the past that "Sri Lanka First" wants the President and Prime Minister, and no doubt the people who are behind them, to put aside. May be it is time to forget the days of 1958 and 1960 the periods of the Banda-Chelva and the Dudley-Chelva pacts. But it is not so easy to forget the robbing of the franchise of the people of Jaffna in the deliberate rigging of the elections to the District Development Council of Jaffna, done by the UNP. Is it easy or even possible for Tamils affected by it directly or not, and even the others who saw it, to forget the barbarism unleashed by the UNP in July 1983? The answer I think is in the negative. In fact to remember some of these would, I believe, help in a cathartic process to heal the wounds of divisive politics. Part of the catch or the deft attempt at misleading the people by "Sri Lanka First" is referring to the divisive politics of the past, and using the lowest common denominator of thought to quickly say: "We ask you not to allow history to repeat itself". The politics of inclusion Is history being repeated in any manner in the current instance? What one can see in the President's efforts to form a broad national coalition to address current problems is not divisive politics by any interpretation, but the politics of inclusion. Committed to the sharing of power, she wants the UNP, and in fact other political parties too, to join in finding an adequate and reasonable response to the needs of the Tamil people, and the demands of the LTTE. This is where all this call for the need to sweep aside past prejudices, as "Sri Lanka First" wants to, begin to fall apart. What we see today is not the opposition rejecting what the government has proposed. It is the reverse. The government is fighting shy of what the President, who heads the main Opposition Alliance has proposed. All talk of history repeating itself is in fact bunkum. Instead, history is being written. What indeed are these "past prejudices" one has to cast aside? Is it the President extending the hand of cooperation to the UNP and its leader immediately after her re-election for a second term in December 1999, so soon after an attempt on her life? Despite the attack she invited the LTTE that carried out that attack too, to join in the task of achieving national unity. Is that past prejudice of divisive politics to be set aside? Should one set aside as past prejudice, the manner in which the UNP, led by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, burnt the Draft Constitution presented in Parliament by the President in August 2000, after long deliberations with the UNP too, that agreed to most of its provisions? If that is past prejudice, as "Sri Lanka First" would see it, let's get to more recent and current reality. I refer to the period after December 5, 2001, when the UNF obtained its slim majority in Parliament, and its false claim of a mandate for peace. Is one to forget as past prejudice, how the MoU with the LTTE was signed, even without a draft of it being shown to the President and Head of State, who is constitutionally responsible for all matters concerning war and peace? To call such an action discourtesy is an understatement of the highest order. Instead, it is a total absence of statesmanship and a violation of the Constitution, by whoever that did it. In this congenial world of political amnesia that "Sri Lanka First" wants us live, is one to forget that the Prime Minister and UNF government refused to have a representative of the President in the Government negotiating team, either as a full member or even as an observer? How is one to forget or ignore the Prime Minister not even bothering to accede to the President's proposal that a committee comprising herself, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, review the progress of the "peace talks"? Is that a matter of mere past prejudice or the current mind set of those in government? How is anyone expected to forget as past prejudice, the various proposals for an Interim Administration for the North & East that were sent to the LTTE not even bothering to show them to the President? Even worse, how can one erase from one's mind how the final proposal sent to the LTTE differed from what was sent by the Prime Minister to the President, apparently because the Norwegian courier had altered it on the way to delivery at Kilinochchi? Let's now come to the bone of contention the portfolio of Defence. All one needs to do is to read admissions made in Parliament by the then Minister of Defence October 8, 2003 just a month before the President transferred the portfolio of Defence, to where it constitutionally belongs. Let me quote Mr. Marapana himself: "It is true that with the ceasefire and the MoU, many opportunities have been afforded to the LTTE to strengthen themselves. No one denies this". Regarding Trincomalee: "Mr. Deputy Chairman, to my mind the significance is not the number of camps in which this increased strength is stationed. What is important is the fact that the LTTE strength in this area has nearly doubled since the time of the ceasefire. We are well aware of this because there is a regular monitoring of the LTTE presence everywhere. We know that during the last 18 months or so gradually the LTTE has been coming into this area. They have been roaming in this area for a long time. They have stationed themselves in this area. So, to our mind what is important is not that there are 12 or 13 camps but we consider the larger presence of the LTTE in the area as a threat that we have to contend with, if some unfortunate incident is to happen and we have taken this into consideration." Threatening reality This is certainly not past prejudice, but dangerous and threatening current reality. And, it has taken place during the watch of the UNF post- December 2001, with Defence in the hands of the UNF and a peace process on. Why is it that "Sri Lanka First", in whatever plea it makes to anybody, not say that any solution should be within the Constitution of Sri Lanka and not outside it? I say this because, the call for the portfolio of Defence to be in the hands of someone other than the President, is extra constitutional, to say the least. In its call for collective amnesia, is "Sri Lanka First" endorsing that one acts outside the Constitution, as the Hon. Prime Minister, who has made oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, seems to want? If this were to happen in one instance, will it not justify the LTTE's demand that the Interim Administration it seeks should be established beyond the scope and purview of the Constitution of Sri Lanka? It is necessary here to conclude with a word about "Sri Lanka First" itself. It is an organization born soon after the LTTE's attack on Katunayake that affected our economy so badly, months before September 11, 2001 made it even worse. That was when most of these Chambers and other organizations of business suddenly awakened to the fact of war in Sri Lanka. After a blow at the solar plexus of their business interests, people who had been blinded to the reality of war for nearly 18 years suddenly discovered its harsh realities. They then got their executives and other employees to hold hands in Colombo and demonstrate for peace (replace business as usual) and not war. As one who has campaigned for peace in this country from many years before, when the business community had shut its eyes to the war and our campaigns against it, I see "Sri Lanka First" as the search for the limited ends of business through peace, and not the larger interests of the people. "Sri Lanka First" may not admit it, but how many of the members, in its supposedly laudable organizations, have refused to pay taxes or extortion money to the LTTE, for the opportunity of doing business in the North? Why was there no plea when the Muslims of Muttur and Valaichchenai came under attack, and more recently at Trincomalee and Kinniya? Anyone in business should know it is futile to attempt imposing a collective amnesia on our people, especially about current reality. There are matters of the past that one can forget or agree to do so. But there are also matters of the present that cannot be brushed off as a repeat of past prejudice. It is best if you put your weight behind the President's efforts to bring as many parties, and especially the two main political parties together, Defence notwithstanding. It is also time you made an appeal to the Prime Minister to stop this new fatalism, of the inevitability of war, in his speeches. Said quite simply, peace in Sri Lanka cannot be the exclusive hunting ground of the UNP and LTTE. Others should also be included in the process. What we have today is only a semblance of peace with a flawed peace process. The pay-off line of "Sri Lanka First" says "It's now or never". I don't believe in such fatalism coming from those who entered the peace front so late and for pursuit of profit. Your pay-off should rather be: "It's not so clever". |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
