|
|
|
| Sunday, 7 May 2006 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
The most inclusive Presidential Statement after 1977: Will action follow words? Rajan Philips During the Kennedy-Khrushchev standoff over Cuba, Defence Secretary Robert McNamara was aboard a US warship and countermanded the order of the vessel's captain to fire at the oncoming Russian fleet. In a rare and dramatic civilian overruling of a military command at the battlefront, McNamara humiliated and lectured to the naval captain that the US President and his Russian counterpart were not sending their navies to fight each other but to communicate with each other. A strange way to talk, you might say. On April, 25 at the Army HQ in Colombo, the LTTE chose a horrific way to talk to the government while absconding from talks in Geneva. The government talked back in kind, and the two sides pulled themselves back from their respective bluffs. President Rajapakse ordered a firm and proportionate retaliation, but stopped short of going further despite the pressure to do so. Addressing the country in an explosive situation, President Rajapakse, in my view, made the most unaffectedly inclusive statement by a Sri Lankan head of state after 1977. He condemned the killing of LTTE supporter Vigneswaran in Batticaloa, which was the trigger for the current spate of violence. More significantly, he omitted from his speech any reference to that loaded and much abused word: 'unitary'. Some commentators wanted the government to end the ceasefire unilaterally even before the attack on the Army HQ. The ceasefire is on fire, no doubt, but you don't deal with it by pouring petrol on it unless you are a pyromaniac. Thankfully, the President is not heeding such maniacal advice. He should instead pay heed to the principled and politically robust views expressed by Kumar Rupasinghe and Dayan Jayatilleke in last week's Sunday Observer (30 April). Rupasinghe is against using war to solve political problems, as any intelligent and honest person in our time should be. At the same time a state cannot avoid its responsibilities and has to be firm in the face of threats. Dayan Jaytilleke, a firm grasper of the state's imperative to be firm, has pointed out that to be moral at home and credible abroad the Sri Lankan state should be democratic and devolutionary while being militarily ready to retaliate against the LTTE. DJ's list of Five Errors to be avoided by the Rajapakse government should be printed in bold and posted at the desk of every minister, mandarin and panjandrum of the government machinery. There is a great deal of frustration and anxiety among many Sri Lankans over Norway's ineffectiveness, SLMM's incompetence, the Co-Chairs' lack of urgency, and India's cynical detachment vis-…-vis the worsening situation in the country. Contrast with Sudan and the accelerated and high-profile international mediation in the Darfur crisis. The US President, his Deputy Secretary of State, senior officials from Britain, Canada and the EU, the Congolese President of the UN Security Council, and the leaders of South Africa, Congo, Egypt, Nigeria and Senegal all directly got involved in mediating between the Sudanese government and the rebels of the Justice and Equality Movement. Without concerted international involvement Sri Lanka cannot break through the current stalemate. The only way to get international pressure on the LTTE and break the stalemate is for the government to move vigorously on the political front and set about restructuring the state. This has been the clear signal from Delhi to Washington. It is here that President Rajapakse has to show that he is capable of acting inclusively just as he has shown that he is capable of talking inclusively. I will offer a few unsolicited suggestions. The restructuring of the state cannot be accomplished in one fell swoop and for this reason the government should avoid wasting energies on a grand constitutional change. The President should establish a secretariat or agency entrusted with the task of identifying short-term and long-term restructuring initiatives and putting together an evolving comprehensive restructuring plan. There have been enough studies, recommendations and proposals over the years and it should not be a problem to identify measures that can implemented without legislative changes, those that will require simple laws, others that will require formal constitutional amendments and still others that will involve negotiated agreements with LTTE and other parties. The government has to undertake without delay local government reform, a template for which has already been carved out by the 1999 H. A. P. Abhayewardhana Commission. The government also has to address the role and the future of Provincial Councils in the South and a new unit or units of devolution for the North and East. By starting with the easily implementable and least controversial measures, it would be possible to establish trust and confidence among the people and demonstrate that devolution works and works positively. It will also make restructuring a work-in-progress involving the people of the land rather than being a rarefied subject for talks in far away places. Restructuring has to be a people's project but needs principled and
robust leadership. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
