Concepts of Responsibility

issues: As noted last week, I thought the outbursts regarding the murder of 17 Aid Workers in Mutur, two outbursts in fact, by the former Head of the SLMM, the retired Swedish General Ulf Henricsson, quite uncalled for.

The first outburst was first his farewell letter to the Sri Lankan Government, in which he got everything wrong that he conceivably could have, from grammar and syntax to the date of the murder.

The second was when he seems to have got together with the French organisation that sent the workers into danger, to dance on their graves as it were, so as to blame the Sri Lankan Government again two months after the murder.

In between it was reported that the Sri Lankan President had met the Norwegian Prime Minister, and brought up the matter, and the latter had dissociated himself from the comments of the SLMM in this regard.

I have no idea what actually happened at that meeting, but certainly it does not seem to me good enough for the Norwegian Prime Minister simply to say that he does not control the SLMM.

That he does not, and should not, is clear enough. The SLMM should not work to anyone's political agenda, neither Tiger nor Norwegian. But, equally, the Norwegian government is responsible for the SLMM, and when it commits an egregious mistake, or worse, the Norwegians should register the fact, apologize if appropriate, and ensure that it does not happen again.

The Prime Minister simply dissociating himself from the purported ruling, after the event, and in a private meeting, is simply not good enough. Such conduct is an invitation to the retired Major General to compound his error, and that is precisely what he did amongst his French friends.

What happened, I would suggest, is similar to what Sri Lankans suffered some years back from another biased umpire, who was clearly out to make his millions, and was allowed to do so by those who were responsible for him. I refer to Darrel Hair, who no-balled Murali so intensely.

Understandably however, given the conventions of the game, it was Murali regarding whom the ICC had an inquiry, nor Hair, despite the rest of his record. And up to that point one could have accepted that Hair genuinely had a problem about Murali's action, and as an individualistic umpire he had not just a right but even an obligation to keep calling him.

However, after the ICC inquiry had cleared Murali conclusively, it was perverse of Hair to persist in his views. Even worse, he published a book, which made him a lot of money, in which he stuck to his views despite the ICC having made it clear that those views were contrary to the rules of the game.

And, far from the ICC disciplining him, they continued to act as though he were a fine umpire, a position indeed reasserted recently by the powers that be there, in spite of his latest money-grubbing performance.

I find this quite preposterous. There is no point in criticizing Hair, because he has made it quite clear where his priorities lie. What is worrying is the attitude of the ICC.

If, in cricket, the umpire's word is law, and players must obey without question or quibble, then surely umpires must obey the word of the body in authority over them, and not quibble and indeed insinuate that that body is a bunch of cowards as opposed to the only true defender of the cricketing faith, who knows what a no-ball is much better than all the purported experts.

But that in effect is what Hair got away with doing. So too Henricsson, having got away with his first flawed statement, now feels free to perform at will. Given the greater damage that he might yet do, I believe the Government must be much more forceful with the Norwegians about a code of ethics to be followed by monitors, not only while they are in active service.

Having said all this, I should note that such principles should also apply within Sri Lanka. Without them, I fear that we will go on making mistakes that we can ill afford. I refer in particular to what happened recently at Muhumalai, when the army suffered considerable losses.

Amidst continuing uncertainty as to who really was responsible, it would be useful if the Government ensured a proper inquiry, and that action was taken to ensure that such a debacle does not occur again.

It is conceivable that the commanders in the field thought that they could score a great victory, and had they succeeded in their aims they might well have been celebrated.

But, though initiatives are to be welcomed, in a context in which the earlier Tiger action had shown how vulnerable we were, such initiatives need careful planning, and solid logistical support.

What the views were of the intelligence wing, and indeed other elements that should have been involved, should be ascertained, and any failure in planning must be remedied for the future.

That can only happen through careful analysis and a clearcut attribution and acceptance of responsibility. Norwegians and the ICC can afford moral laxity in what is simply a game for them. For us the issues are too serious to sweep them under the carpet.