Tiger violence fixed Ranil in East
H. L. D. Mahindapala
The post-election phase is developing into a more bizarre scene than
anything that happened in the East. Actually, the elections took place
under more reasonable conditions without any of the hysteria that is
driving the opposition, the NGOs, the diplomats and pro-UNP media round
the bend.
To their astonishment, the Asian Election monitors commended the
electoral process and praised the voters who participated in it. But
this was not music to the ears of the anti-national Jeremiahs. Unable to
take the loss, this motley mob, following the Wickremesinghe-Hakeem
bandwagon, has gone bonkers.
They pretend that "violence" the main cause of their loss, according
to their claims - was instigated and perpetrated only by the Pillayan
group, when, in fact, the worst violence originated from the Tigers who
came out publicly in support of the losers.
The following quote from Jehan Perera (even though he is utterly
confused in his conclusions) illustrates the violence perpetrated by the
Tigers as a hidden tactic to lend support to Wickremesinghe and Hakeem:
LTTE attacks
"On May 10, the LTTE launched three major attacks in the East. They
sank a naval cargo ship within the highly defended Trincomalee harbour.
In addition they launched a series of mortar attack in Damana, a
Sinhalese-inhabited part of the Ampara district and exploded a bomb in a
restaurant in the middle of the Sinhalese-inhabited Ampara town killing
over a dozen civilians and injuring many more.
These incidents appear to have been timed by the LTTE to cast a pall
of fear and apprehension over the voters as they prepared to vote at the
decisive Eastern Provincial elections set for that same day. (Daily
Mirror May 13, 2008)."
He added: "The LTTE's multi-pronged attacks on Government and
civilian targets in the East on the day of the elections would have
reminded the people in the East of the LTTE's continued presence and
destructive power.
It would have served to confirm the worst fears of the non-Tamil
majority in the East, comprising Muslims and Sinhalese, that the LTTE
continues to be an organisation that is willing to engage in terror
attacks against them, as they have done in the past."
Statement
Perera's statements make two things clear: 1 the LTTE to cast a pall
of fear and apprehension over the voters as they prepared to vote at the
decisive Eastern Provincial elections set for that same day and 2. the
violence of the Tigers drove the Sinhala and Muslim voters into the arms
of the UPFA.
And he confirms it when he says later: "A majority of the Tamil and
Muslim voters appear to have supported the government."
So why are the Western diplomats, the anti-national NGOs allied to
the Western embassies, and the pro-UNP media crying foul when the
evidence of one of the leading henchmen of this mob points out that it
is the violence of the LTTE that defeated Wickremesinghe and Hakeem ?
Eastern population
Dealing with the demographics of the Eastern electorate Perera argues
that roughly 80 per cent of the Eastern population is equally divided
between the Tamil and Muslim communities and as the Mahinda Rajapaksa
Government is closely associated with the forces of Sinhalese
nationalism, there seemed to be every likelihood of the Tamil and Muslim
vote going in large measure to the Opposition.
Then in the same breath he states: However, the results of the
election have shown otherwise. A majority of the Tamil and Muslim voters
appear to have supported the Government.
This is the bit that is hard for them the UNP, Jehan Perera,
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu et al - to swallow. They are finding it
difficult to accept that the majority in all three communities in the
East voted for the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government.
First, they went all out to oppose the holding of elections under
various pretexts. The TNA boycotted it saying that it would legitimize
the separation of the north from the east. PLOTE went to courts to
postpone the election.
Rajiva Wijesinghe, head of the Peace Secretariat, told the BBC, (it
was a polished performance delivered with consummate panache) that the
EU summoned the Sri Lankan ambassador and insisted that the government
should not hold elections. Why? Why are these kattadiyas and berakarayas
of democracy opposed to elections?
EU and America are vociferously and aggressively exporting democracy
to the Middle East under conditions which are far more trying than in
the East. Why should these champions of democracy then oppose the
triumph of democracy in Sri Lanka?
Though the TNA boycotted the elections they were manoeuvring, behind
the scenes, to direct votes to the UNP-SLMC combo. This was a gift that
the UNP-SLFP could have done without. The endorsement of the Tigers and
TNA was seen as a move of the Tigers to return to the east with the
blessings of Wickremesinghe and Hakeem.
That sent the Muslim and the Sinhala voters in the other direction.
Earlier UNP also lost Minister D. J. Dayaratne, the traditional and the
most visible symbol of the UNP in the east, when he joined the Mahinda
Rajapakse Government. He has been the direct link between the UNP and
the Sinhala people.
On top of all this, those who believe in coming events casting their
shadows will point to the fact that Wickremesinghe nearly crashed in a
shuddering helicopter that was running out of control in midair. The
pilot landed in time on the compound of a Police station which saved all
their lives. He even missed his step and injured his foot at a meeting.
It seemed as if everything was going against him.
Only the Western diplomats rushed to rescue him after he lost the
election. The American ambassador, Robert Blake, rushed to
Wickremesinghe's residence at Cambridge Place , with a couple of other
diplomats from the IDU, as if the Sri Lankan sky has fallen down with
the sun, moon and the stars.
This naked act of playing partisan politics has been encouraged by
the Wickremesinghe camp with damaging consequences to the nation's
sovereignty and economic well being of the people. This unacceptable
interference should be deplored by all parties as an offensive act that
insults the intelligence of Sri Lankan people and their democratic right
to express their political will.
Besides, these diplomats, however powerful they may be in global
politics, should not be accepted as the arbiters who would decide the
fate of Sri Lankan elections. Wickremesinghe has invited them to his
place obviously to solicit their support.
Legal process
As a lawyer he should know that if anything goes wrong in the
elections the courts are there to correct it. The losers, in fact, have
vowed to take the issue to the courts. So why are these meddlesome
busybodies in the diplomatic colony, running to rescue their political
client, Wickremesinghe?
It is a blatant political act that goes against the interests of the
Sri Lankan people. They rushed to demonstrate political solidarity with
their political client who has served their interests well in the past.
But they have no legitimate role in the outcome of an election in a
province, or even in a national election, because if there is any
irregularity the losers have the right to get it redressed by the
courts.
It would have been different if President Rajapaksa suspended the
Constitution, sacked the judiciary, sent the Parliamentarians home and
took over power in a military coup crushing the established traditions
of democracy. Then it could be argued that they have some legitimacy,
though very limited, to protect the sovereign will of the people.
It is when diplomats like Blake overstep their limits, ignoring the
bitter lessons of the past, that they are seen as putting their foot
into the shoes of the Ugly American. Besides, they are stepping in to
meddle in the results of a province which was transformed from a violent
tyranny to a democracy.
Victory
Whatever the shortcomings of the election may be it stands out as a
magnificent triumph for democracy. If further proof is necessary, the
prestigious Hindu, hailed it as a victory of ballots over bullets.
The record of Wickremesinghe in defending democracy is absolutely
reprehensible and dismal. On the one hand, he runs his party as a
constitutionally entrenched as a dictator with no possibility of
challengers to throw him out under normal procedures.
On the other, he allied himself with the one-man regime in the Vanni
when he handed over the east and the north to a pathological and serial
killer ? (Prof.James Jupp of Australian National University).
President Mahinda Rajapaksa's task in this election was to liberate
the people from the fascist grip of this war criminal and handed it over
to the oppressed communities. So on whose side should the ambassadors,
who are parading as guardians and promoters of democracy, be? The drama
enacted by the Western diplomats evokes scenes from the theatre of the
absurd.
To begin with this election is a peripheral issue, both in
geographical and political terms, than, for instance, the sacking
Wickremesinghe from the Prime Ministerial post, at a time when he was
seated in the White House chatting to President Bush.
President Chandrika Kumaratunga booted him out and all what
Wickremesinghe could do was to twiddle his thumbs on the White House
(see replay of that clip) and accept the well-placed kick in his pants
saying that it is the nature of Sri Lankan politics.
Rejection
It was a major crisis in which the elected Prime Minister was sacked
by the President using arbitrary powers.
President Bush didn't jump out of his seat and rush to save him from
the sacking, did he? So why is the American Ambassador (aided and
abetted by a gang of Western diplomats) in such indecent hurry to rush
to Cambridge Place after an election in the periphery? Isn't this
election a rejection of Tamil Tiger tyranny and an endorsement of the
restoration of democracy ? In the light of this, it must be asked
whether the diplomats were rushing to save democracy or their political
client ?
The people of Sri Lanka have defended democracy with their lives,
resisting right-wing coups, left-wing rebellions in the South and racist
fascism from the North. They certainly would appreciate genuine aid to
strengthen democracy from any source but not the unwarranted
interventions of self-appointed Western interlopers and their local
agents to undermine the will of the people, thank you, Mr. Ambassadors
and High Commissioners!
The Sri Lankan democracy has demonstrated convincingly that like all
viable democracies it has a self-correcting mechanism built into its
polity whenever politics veer away from the straight and narrow.
The best service that the ambassadors and the high commissioners can
do is to let Sri Lankans sort out their problems as they struggle their
way through to their destiny, once they get rid of the racist fascism of
the North.
Performance
Ambassador Blake's performance in Sri Lanka , it is sad to note, does
not jell with some of his distinguished fellow-diplomats in other US
missions. Compare, for instance, his performance with that of his
counterpart in Iraq, Ryan Crocker.
He is one of the seasoned and respected diplomats of America. In an
editorial that highlighted the distinguishing characteristics of
Ambassador Crocker Washington Times wrote (April 14, 2008) that he spoke
bluntly about the need for a mature discussion in this country about
what will happen if U.S. troops are withdrawn before Iraq is stabilized.
"I hear people say: Bring the troops home and end the war," Mr.
Crocker said Friday at a roundtable with journalists at the State
Department. "My g-d... It's going to give you a... war of significantly
greater proportions.
I remember how we reacted to Rwanda ," Mr. Crocker said, referring to
the genocide that occurred in 1994, in which an estimated 800,000 people
were slaughtered.
Washington Times added: Ambassador Ryan Crocker, a veteran of more
than three and a half decades in the U.S. Foreign Service, chooses his
words with great care and is not given to bombast.
So, when the United States ambassador to Iraq suggests that a
precipitous withdrawal of American troops from that country could lead
to a bloodbath on the scale of the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s,
serious people need to listen.
In fact, Mr. Crocker has been candid sometimes brutally so in
describing the situation there. He lamented the fact that the Arab
nations treat the country like a pariah: No Arab cabinet minister has
visited in a year, and there is not a single Arab ambassador in Baghdad.
"This is a time for Arabs to step up" and build a relationship with
Iraq , Mr. Crocker says. No doubt, these words should ring a bell in
Ambassador Blake's ears. He certainly has the capacity to see the
parallelism. He may also have reason to question his role in Sri Lanka
when his colleague Ambassador Crocker who went before the American
Congress with Gen. Petraeus argued for more commitment to fight the war
in Iraq.
Human rights violations
Unlike Ambassador Blake he was not harping on the human rights
violations, or collateral damage, or Guantanamo jail, or cutting of
Congressional funds to fight the war. Both diplomats are serving in
countries engaged in fighting wars of terrors. Both are working with
governments struggling to restore democracy.
Both are facing the identical kind of enemies. The difference is that
Ambassador Crocker is openly committed to help the fledgling Government
of Iraq to stand up and defend itself against the terrorists targeting
US forces and democratic leaders while Ambassador Blake is aggressively
nitpicking to undermine the Sri Lankan Government facing the biggest
challenge from terrorists who, according to US reports, are the
deadliest in the world.
It is significant that while the American Ambassador in Iraq is
asking the international community, particularly the Arab nations, to
get closer to Iraq, Ambassador Blake is writing reports back home urging
punitive action against Sri Lanka and even isolate it.
This is a classic example where two ambassadors from the same country
experiencing similar conditions in their missions abroad write two
different reports. The contradictions question the assumed moral
superiority of the Western diplomatic corps whose main objective seems
to be to assert that might is right.
The time has come for them to go through a process of agonising
reappraisal, if necessary, to get their act together. Rushing to save
Wickremesinghe he is beyond redemption! - is one of those quixotic acts
that tend to cut down the image, the credibility and the status of
diplomats to zilch. When the National Organiser of the UNP, S. B.
Dissanayake, blames the Wickremesinghe leadership for the failure in the
East what role can the Western diplomats play to save their client So is
it too much to ask the Western diplomats to follow the good and
constructive example set by Ambassador Crocker in Iraq and not the
example pursued by Ambassador Blake in Colombo. |