|
|
|
| Sunday, 11 September 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Candidates and their international profiles
by Gotaimbara Falkland Islands, so close to Argentina, so far away from Britain, belong to the British. Northern Ireland, so close to Southern Ireland, so far away from Britain, is British. Britain, so close to Europe and so far away from the USA, is another State of the United States of America. There are other examples, such as the US Naval Base in Guantanamo, a territory that paradoxically belongs to Cuba. What do these quirks of political geography tell us about globalisation, that inimitable creature that is supposed to have rendered meaningless the nation State, erased national boundaries and facilitated the free flow of human beings, goods and services? What do they say about the term "geo-political realities"? And what do they say to us about "the international image of presidential candidates"? Polities located in well defined geographies accompanied by fire power and capital of one form or another have roamed the earth for centuries, plundering wealth, annexing other such polities and enslaving peoples. The peoples thus subjugated have known (or have been made to understand) what is meant by the term "geo-political realities". They have known that proximity is not a necessary and sufficient condition for the imposition of hegemonies. Speaking in terms of the international context, Wickremesinghe has forgotten that the West, and especially the capitalist west is not interested in assessing the relative merits of a given party's geo-political loyalties. They are interested in establishing and securing markets and in securing mechanisms of value extraction. They are interested in democracy only to the extent that democracy ensures political stability. A monarchy, a military regime or an out and out despot would be equally acceptable if the result is a polity that is relatively stable for commerce. Now accepted wisdom There is another important subplot in the story of globalisation that Wickremesinghe seems to have forgotten, namely regionalism. Globalisation is not an overarching process that inexorably sucks the village into the metropolis or the third world into the first. It is contested, it concedes ground, adapts or is made to adapt to specific local conditions, both political and cultural. Even the USA understands that comparative advantage is something that often needs to be buttressed by regional blocs. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) came into being as long ago as January 1, 1994. It is now accepted wisdom that the future of countries whose political borders globalisation is finding to be more resilient than expected, has as much to do with embracing globalisation in terms that are not detrimental to the general population, as the strength of regional trade arrangements. Darling or not Thus, even in purely economic terms, the geo-political realities of proximity and size do impinge on the seamless operational called globalisation. A senior Sri Lankan diplomat once told me that the most important diplomatic assignment as far as the country was concerned was Delhi. This was long before the LTTE became a factor, long before SAARC, long before the Soviet Bloc evaporated, and long before globalisation entered the political lexicon. It is an observation that holds true even today. In short, the region will not be erased from the equation, and as such the South Asian region as a whole and India in particular cannot be discounted in any "internationalist" posturing of parties, leaders and presidential hopefuls. In the end, a darling of a superpower who is not a darling of his/her own people cannot solve the people's problems or achieve the long-term political stability that is the dream of the foreign investor and the bedrock of a vibrant stock market. Such a leader cannot even negotiate the terms of extraction, but will be forced to pick up the crumbs from the table where his/her people, their resources, their self-respect, culture and heritage are being consumed. Wickremesinghe is offering to Uncle Sam and others the political stability that is demanded of him. His stability plan is unadulterated capitulation. War or the threat of war, are admittedly destabilizing factors. On the other hand, wholesale capitulation to the enemy causes such rifts in the polity that are as or more destabilizing. When the enemy happens to be a terrorist concessions as such have been given by the Wickremesinghe regime results in immense loss of valuable human resources. There are two reasons why a Sri Lanka under Wickremesinghe can never aspire to be the Malaysia of Mahatir. Wickremesinghe just doesn't have the cultural capital to create any kind of comparative advantage that can secure any kind of niche in a global economy for this country. Secondly, he does not have the political sense to understand the import of regional realities and use them to good effect. In the recent past when the government could not see eye to eye with the resident UN representative, Lakshman Kadirgamar suggested that the position should go to someone who understands the culture of the region. That kind of thinking cannot be brushed aside by anyone who aspires to lead this country. Mahinda Rajapakse, the other presidential hopeful, has not had the opportunity to position himself internationally in the way Ranil Wickremesinghe has. He is the Prime Minister of a government which is led by a President of the same party. Wickremesinghe, on the other hand, led a government at odds with the President but was still seen as the decision-maker, locally and internationally. He placed his cards on the table: "I will do your bidding for I have no choice". Rajapakse in this sense still has a clean slate. His international profile is still to be built and this is reason for hope rather than cause for worry. The indications are positive, though. He has long been a friend of the Arab world. He has no hang-ups about the free market. He, more than Ranil Wickremesinghe, has shown that a "Southern Consensus" is not reduced to a cohabitation arrangement between the PA and the UNP, but can be obtained by unifying the nation against terrorism. In his agreements with the JVP and JHU he has shown remarkable maturity as a democratic statesman, agreeing that negotiations should take place but be more inclusive and transparent and nothing like the behind-closed-doors between-you-and-I that characterised the Wickremesinghe-led dialogue with the LTTE. With this kind of strength the State called Sri Lanka would indeed be able to actually negotiate with the LTTE instead of submitting to the agenda of a terrorist and a separatist. He has, then, a recipe for stability. Regionalism: important leverage Rajapakse, unlike Wickremesinghe, understands the geo-political realities of the region. In 1991, when questioned by the Indian press regarding India's nuclear tests, he unequivocally said that as a show of strength it is a source of pride to the region of South Asia. This is not the samething as championing nuclear proliferation. He had the wisdom to understand that regionalism is an important leverage in working the global economy to our benefit. Rajapakse was not the Foreign Minister. He was not Prime Minister even. He was just the Minister of Fisheries then and if he harboured any presidential aspirations then they were clearly not in evidence. He was not positioning himself, but speaking the politics of common sense. He came good. Today, global positioning, is all about political stability and having a good pulse on the cultural ethos of a given political entity. Wickremesinghe believes political stability can be purchased at the cost of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the security of the people. Rajapakse, unlike Wickremesinghe, is a person who is in touch with the common people of this country. He has a good sense of this country's history, its heritage and its culture. And yet he is not one of those extreme traditionalists who are rabidly anti-West, anti-technology and anti-progress. He, more than Wickremesinghe, would be able to stay rooted deep enough in nation and culture and so be able to decide what kind of international cultural commerce should take place. Nomination draws near As the date of nomination draws near, we have two candidates. Wickremesinghe, a consummate European and Rajapakse an unmistakeable South Asia; Wickremesinghe, a recipient of others' agendas and Rajapakse, an amiable negotiator intractable when his people are at stake; Wickremesinghe, who embraces federalism because "it is too late now" and Rajapakse, who recognises that national security cannot be purchased by bartering history and cowing down to a terrorist. No internationalist who is not at the same time conscious of national roots and regional realities can deliver. No one who snubs India can hope to secure long-term stability and deliver economic prosperity. Today the Norwegians are desperately looking for a way to go home. It was bound to happen. No agreement or process that does not have the blessings of India can hope to succeed. This is the secret of Wickremesinghe's failure. His political fortunes are not our concern. The country's future is. He has already proved a failure and has not seen reason to change his perspectives. Rajapakse, in the end, is a fresh face. Reason enough for hope in a political climate bathed in hopelessness. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
