Opposition ganging up to save Prabhakaran

H. L. D. MAHINDAPALA

The Opposition has decided to publicly challenge the Government’s war strategy, according to media reports.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Leader of the Opposition, is leading the attack on the soldiers who are knocking on the gates of the Tiger terrorists. His latest gamble is to stop the war purely for his gain - an aspect that will be explained later.

Apart from openly challenging the war strategy he has adopted the devious tactic of attacking the soldiers by posing as the champion of the media. Wickremesinghe defends the media critics attacking the Security Forces and not the Security Forces who could, at this critical juncture, do without snipers attacking them from behind.

The following is the relevant part of the statement he made at the SLFP (M) convention held last Thursday: ”It is a right of the media to question military strategy. The war was comprehensively questioned during the Chandrika period. Why is the media being branded traitors for questioning the war? The US media questions the war in Iraq.

Right of media

The British media does the same. Why is it treacherous to question the military strategies of the Defence Secretary if it is leading to heavy casualties and bomb explosions all over the country? Since the time of J.R., the media has been questioning the war by the country’s rulers.”

There are two basic arguments here: 1. the right of media to question the military strategy and (2) it is not treacherous to question the military strategies if it is leading to heavy casualties and bomb explosions all over the country?

Re; 1: Winston Churchill too faced a similar situation at the height of the World War II. In the midst of one of the debates in the House Commons he produced a sleazy newspaper with tits and bums spread on page three and an attack on him on page one. Lifting the paper over his head he brought the House down by declaring: “Lechery on page three and treachery on page one!”

Wickremesinghe has no argument to prove that this media right is going to save the nation from the brutal violence unleashed by Prabhakaran. His reading of Churchill’s biography (he is fond of reading biographies) would have convinced him that it is not media criticisms that win wars.

As demonstrated by Churchill, it is perseverance, ignoring all criticisms and losses that paved the way to final victory. The people rallied round Churchill’s cry and made selfless sacrifices to defeat the Nazi fascists.

Who remembers and who cares to remember now the newspaper critics who attacked his strategy?

Churchill and the allied war leaders had a choice: to surrender to the critics and the fascist agents like Oswald Mosley in UK which would have been a humiliating surrender to the Nazis or give courageous leadership to end the fascist evil threatening global peace and stability.

Liberty

The democratic world, of which Wickremesinghe claims to be a regional leader, enjoys the liberty, peace and prosperity because there were leaders like Churchill who doggedly refused to surrender. After being in the wilderness for years, Churchill rose to power rejecting paper deals that failed to deliver peace though they sounded promising when written on paper.

He is remembered in history because he was the pragmatic nationalist who refused to believe in peace deals signed with fascist leaders who are dependent on wars against their own people and neighbouring nations to retain their grip on power.

Let’s leave that for the moment. Let’s consider how Wickremesinghe dealt with his media critics. Let’s consider what he did to Paul Harris, the correspondent of the Jane’s Weekly who exposed the biggest land sell-out in the history of Sri Lanka by Wickremesinghe.

CFA

Which leads to (2): If it is not treacherous to question war strategy why was Paul Harris expelled by Wickremesinghe? Mark you, Paul was not even attacking his war strategy. Wickremesinghe had no war strategy at all to begin with. In fact, he advised the most successful officer at that time, Maj-Gen Janaka Perera, to stay abroad as ambassador to Australia for the good of the country.

Paul Harris, during this time, was exposing how Wickremesinghe had handed over the East on a platter to the Tigers in the false hope of gaining peace.

His revelations were a serious embarrassment to Wickremesinghe who was denying that the Tiger terrorists were gaining ground as a result of his Ceasefire Agreement.

At the height of his efforts to raise awareness of the underhand deal in the CFA, Paul was invited by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mahinda Rajapaksa, to address the Parliamentary group on his findings. Paul accepted the invitation.

This was too much for Wickremesinghe, the then Prime Minister who was hoping to win the Nobel Prize as the peace-makers of Sri Lanka. His response was to set his Police dogs on Paul who was staying at the Galle Face Hotel. Shortly afterwards, he found a policeman outside his door who followed him wherever he went.

Once a friend introduced him to Wickremesinghe who bluntly refused to shake Paul’s proffered hand saying: “I know who you are!” in a threatening tone of voice. Within days he was summoned to the Foreign Office and expelled from the country.

That is the Wickremesinghe who is now talking of the right of journalists to criticise the government. In principle it is agreed that the media should be free to criticise the powers-that-be.

But as T. S. Fernando, the intrepid and respected Supreme Court judge, told Peter Van Ryk, the amiable colleague of mine in grand old days of The Observer when Wickremesinghe’s distinguished father, Esmond Wickremesinghe, was running Lake House: “freedom of the press is not the freedom of the wild ass”.

Peter had to apologise to court. Of course, the tag of “wild ass” stuck to poor Peter like glue and we never let him forget it either. In the irreverent and care free ambience of the News Room, headed by equally irreverent News Editor, Clarence Fernando, a rough diamond, genial Peter was always the “lanci wild ass!”

Incidentally, Paul Harris came initially to work for the Leader Group. But the so-called champion of the “free media” who claims to be “unafraid” was running scared to take him on board. Lasantha Wickrematunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe are two of a kind: They can neither grasp the grim realities of the day nor the historical forces unravelling as contemporary politics.

In his own head Wickremesinghe is confused as to how he should handle the media. His utterances indicate that he does not know whether he should attack the media or defend the media. From one corner of his mouth he lambastes the journalists for not backing his “juck-muck-toot-toot” politics to make him he next prime minister/president.

And from the other side he pretends to be the champion of the journalists. No wonder his new political ally, Chandrika Kumaratunga, once said so memorably: “Ranil katha karanney katin no-wei.” (“Ranil does not speak from his mouth,” meaning that he speaks from the other end of his anatomy.)

Chandrika also noted the other characteristic of Wickremesinghe: “Ranil-gay katay pittu.” (Ranil’s mouth is stuffed with pittu - a dish made of steamed flour).

Hidden agenda

These apt remarks have pinpointed Wickremesinghe’s basic flaws. He shies away from making public statements and tends to get “chokkas” like Lakshman (not-so-bright) Ka-kiriella, or Nut-tanayake to speak on his behalf.

But on the rare occasions he speaks he commits the most stupid blunders like promising to build the biggest Buddhist dagoba not knowing that the biggest dagoba is in Sri Lanka, or denigrating the victories of the soldiers in the East as capturing a piece of rock and a plot of jungle.

Right now he is on the offensive against the soldiers who are on their way to the Wanni.

His latest attack on the soldiers inching their way into the Wanni is a typical example of Wickremesinghe loosening his tongue without engaging his brains.

Of course, there is a hidden agenda for his latest statement. His cheap tactics, initiated and promoted by his sidekick Wickrematunga, have run out of steam. After failing in successive elections to win power he has laboured in vain to bring the people out into the streets. But the people who have a better understanding of the current politics are refusing to follow him.

The people, by and large are behind the war effort. It is the progress of the war that has blunted all his protest campaigns. The people have voted confidently to signal that they prefer military victories that would restore peace to vague and failed promises of peace by Wickremesinghe.

Naturally, Wickremesinghe is against the war because it is the biggest threat in his way to grab power from President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He realises that he cannot mount an effective political campaign against President Rajapaksa as long as the Security Forces keep winning.

The people also acknowledge that the government has delivered convincing results in the battlefield, which Wickremesinghe, Kumaratunga and Samaraweera (WIKUSA) said could not be achieved. Each victory in the battle field is a nail in their coffin. So Wickremesinghe has to stop the war claiming it’s a failure and costing the nation too much.

The WIKUSAs are fully aware of the political consequences of a military victory. They know that when Lt. Gen Sarath Fonseka’s soldiers march into Wanni that would seal their fate for the rest of their lives.

The only option left for them now is to save Prabhakaran who is fighting with his back to wall to halt the march of Security forces. Both WIKUSA and Prabhakaran are moving on parallel lines bent on stopping the advance of the Security Forces.

This makes it clear that the WIKUSA alliance is now engaged not in saving the nation but in saving Prabhakaran as well as their backs. Right now they see Prabhakaran as their only saviour. They know that if Prabhakaran goes down they too will go down with him. So WIKUSA is now preparing to stab the nation in the back by attacking the soldiers.

Myths

The WIKUSAs have demonstrated in their dealings with Prabhakaran that they have no intention of removing him from the political equation as a means of achieving peace.

They adopted the defeatist attitude that Prabhakaran is invincible. Like the NGOs the WIKUSAs were happy to go along with Prabhakaran one way or other. In fact, Wickremesinghe first attempted to enthrone Prabhakaran with his Ceasefire Agreement (CFA).

Kumaratunga attempted to legitimize Prabhakaran’s grip on the north and the east through her P (Pacha)- TOMS. Having failed in both WIKUSAs are now firing at the Security Forces from behind to save Prabhakaran.

Following the anti-national politics of the NGOs WIKUSA is going along with their agenda of (1) stopping the war and (2) giving the Tamils a package which they claim would wean the Tamils away from Prabhakaran.

Both factors are based on delusional myths. First, stopping the war against Prabhakaran is not going to bring peace.

It has not done so in the past. Nor will it bring peace in the future. Second, to believe that the Tamils will leave Prabhakaran if the fanciful formula of WIKUSA is implemented is like believing in Prabhakaran giving up arms once the WIKUSA package is announced.

This argument of a political package that could serve as a magic formula to restore peace flies in the face of all known realities. Didn’t the CFA which came with international guarantees promise exactly that - an alternative package for the Tamils to join the mainstream?

Wasn’t the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement precisely what the Tamil leadership agreed to on the promise of returning to peace and mainstream politics? Why did these notable experiments fail? Was it because the Tamils had no alternative package or was it because no package short of Eelam can work with Prabhakaran?

Survival

The hard reality is that it is not the war-weary Tamils who are standing in the way of a reasonable solution. It is Prabhakaran that has blocked peace deals with the Tamils because none of the proposed deals will fulfil his dream of becoming the sole king of Tamils.

Prabhakaran’s notoriety for ruthless vindictiveness has inhibited the Tamil people from opposing him.

Their political maturity informs them that peace can come only the day after Prabhakaran is removed from the political equation. So removing Prabhakaran through an overall military strategy is the last remaining option available for those who are realistically engaged in establishing a lasting peace.

This is sine qua non for peace.

As long as Prabhakaran has a grip on the Tiger killing machine the Tamils will not have the freedom to express their political will. However appealing the alternative package may be to the peace-seeking Tamils they will not have the freedom to embrace it as long as the main obstacle to peace remains - i.e, Prabhakaran.

Peace, in short, can be achieved only in a world without Prabhakaran. And he can be removed only by defeating him militarily. But the WIKUSA campaign is to save Prabhakaran from impending defeat.. Their mistaken belief that they can have both - Prabhakaran and peace - is what has prolonged the agony of the nation.

Every realist will agree that allowing Prabhakaran to oil the killing machine in the Wanni will never result in restoring peace.

The illusion promoted by WIKUSA is that a separate peace deal with the Tamils in the mainstream will force Prabhakaran to surrender because the Tamil people will leave him. At this stage of exhaustion, it is reasonable to expect that the war-weary Tamils will accept a reasonable deal.

But Prabhakaran is not fighting for reasonable deals. He is fighting for his own survival hiding behind the promise of an Eelam which he can’t deliver. He is using the Tamils as a shield to protect him. And he will not let go of the peace-loving Tamils because if he allows the Tamil people to find their own solution he has no future or protection.

Consequently, any search for lasting peace must lead to the liberation of the Tamils from the grip of Prabhakaran. Only then can a formula be worked out with the Tamils to settle the issue once and for all. To believe in a peace solution that will alienate the Tamils from Prabhakaran is the biggest myth which has muddied the thinking of the national and the international communities.

The evidence visible in the historical experience of the crisis confirms incontrovertibly that Prabhakaran is not a rational political leader who can negotiate a deal that will fall short of his elusive Eelam.

To be Continued