'Harrold gets a mauling in our arena'

PETER Harrold is a person one could like to dislike, especially when it comes to the neo-liberal economic policies that he promotes on behalf of the World Bank. However, he is also one who while being careful in the use of words does not mince what he says.

As the Country Representative of the World Bank he is a most unlikely winner in a popularity competition, given the fact that the World Bank is a very convenient whipping boy, when it comes to the failed economic policies of our own governments and politicians.

I have had many an exchange of views with Peter Harrold over economic policy and the role of the World Bank in the peace process, and although disagreeing with many of the views he expressed, found that he was at no stage transgressing the limits of his mandate or the boundaries of diplomacy.

That is what surprised me, when I saw him at the centre of such a major controversy where even Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, who uses his words with great care, said that Harrold's comments about an "unofficial state" published so prominently in the "Sunday Times" last weekend were hostile towards Sri Lanka.

As the World Bank's Country Representative here for several years Peter Harrold is certainly no stranger to the politics of Sri Lanka, and to the attitudes held by many vocal sections of the Sri Lankan political spectrum about the policies of the World Bank vis-...-vis Third World economies.

It is in this context that having read the subsequent correction that he made regarding the undoubtedly incendiary statement attributed to him about "a kind of unofficial state" referring to the territory that is under the control of the LTTE under the Cease Fire Agreement, that I was surprised no little that he delayed so long to put out the flames before they began to spread so fast.

After the fire

Issuing a correction or clarification after the virtual political explosion caused by the words attributed to him, is certainly not the best diplomatic or reasonable way to douse such a dangerous fire, and I am surprised that Peter Harrold was unaware of that aspect of trouble-shooting.

There is no doubt that Harrold himself would have read the Sunday Times report of the interview with him, the same Sunday morning it was published.

It was written by Tyron Devotta a senior journalist, which added to its credibility. Having admitted that he has often "been roasted by the media and the Patriotic National Movement" because they considered the World Bank's consultation with the LTTE inappropriate, he should have summoned the fire-fighters the moment he read the sentence that said, "Given the fact that there is an officially recognized LTTE-controlled area, a kind of unofficial state.....".

He should have known the nature of the fire that those words could cause. In a country that has been fighting the LTTE's separatist war for more than 20 years, even the most cursory mention of an "unofficial state" in relation to the LTTE can certainly cause more than mere ripples of anger.

Even after his explanation of what he actually said, which he admits is far from a reference to any kind of unofficial state, there are posters on the walls of Colombo and the suburbs calling for Peter Harrold's expulsion from Sri Lanka.

There are those from the JVP who say his clarification is not sufficient, given the nature of the alleged original offence.

The experienced hand that Peter Harrold is, it would have been very easy for him to have issued his clarification on the same day as the offending news item appeared so prominently in a widely read newspaper, and not wait until the guns began to boom all around him.

It is the fact that he failed to do that, but waited till he was mauled in the local political arena or roasted once again by the PNA to have issued his clarification that led to all the fire he has had to face.

A virtual landmine

One would believe that, in keeping with the clarification he has issued, even by now he has sent a correction of the story to the Sunday Times for publication tomorrow.

We are yet to see what the Sunday Times and its journalist who interviewed Harrold would have to say.

However, the topic at issue is not one of neo-liberal economics or the policies of the World Bank and the IMF, with regard to their support of such policies. When one treads into an area that is a virtual landmine zone, it is very important to steer clear of unwanted controversy or provoke unwanted opposition.

The signs are that the issue of Peter Harrold and the attacks on him will continue for some time to come, during which time he should seek greater shelter from the verbal barrages directed towards him.

It will certainly be some time before he is able to make any statement on World Bank policy in Sri Lanka, without the matter of the "unofficial state" being raised. But that is the price one pays either for straying into dangerous territory or even worse being misreported or misquoted by the media.

If it is any comfort to Peter Harrold, he should by now know that he is not the only person who has been so misquoted, as he says he was, or roasted by the media.

There are many others especially in the field of politics who have been misquoted in the media, either deliberately or by error, and whose complaints of such misquoting have only helped in adding fuel to fire. Peter Harrold it appears has unwittingly joined such unhappy company.

Not knowing the response of the 'Sunday Times' to Peter Harrod's clarification, I consider it incorrect to comment on it in anticipation. Regrettably though, there is a growing media culture here that roasting of persons who can do little about it should be the order of the day.

In any event, Peter Harrold who does not deny that he has often been roasted by the sections of the media and the Patriotic National Movement gives the fleeting impression that he doesn't mind too much being put back into the pan for yet another roast.

Unless he is like those stunt-men of the cinema, I cannot believe it could be a pleasant experience.