London kills me
A few years ago Hanif Kureishi made a film with the above title. It
was not a success, unlike his two previous films which were sharply
critical of Asian communities in Britain.
The third film may not have been so good, but it also struck me at
the time that perhaps the British establishment was not quite so happy
about the English being at the butt end of criticism - at least by an
Asian, though a British director might have got away with it.
The title of the film came to mind last week, when it seemed that the
Tigers were making their last stand in London as well as on the beaches
north of Mullaitivu. Sri Lanka was the victim of a series of blows that
were doubtless intended to knock us out during the meeting in Geneva of
the Human Rights Council, at which we were told some European countries
were attempting to arrange a special session on Sri Lanka.
Not entirely coincidentally, these blows originated in London,
beginning with the BBC misquoting the ICRC and then Bishop Tutu leading
a group of swans onto that most prestigious of stages, the London Times.
Last year there had been an attempt, led by the hugely entertaining
then British Ambassador in Geneva, Nick Thorne, to have a motion on Sri
Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council.
This was avoided, largely because of the efforts of our own
ambassador, Dayan Jayatilleka, as Thorne indicated in telling me that
our ambassador thought he had won - but Thorne also added that we should
wait and see.
His replacement however struck me as a much calmer sort of man, much
less competitive, Peter Hayes to Dominic Chilcott perhaps.
At the same time one should not forget, as I was gently reminded by
yet another British official, that they all represent the same policy,
as expressed by the Foreign Secretary, who has been as avuncular to both
Sri Lanka and India as only a bright young Oxonian could be.
But therein lies the rub. The policy may be the same, but the manner
in which it is expressed leads to different reactions, and that in turn
can contribute to shifts in policy. Certainly the British have
throughout history been famous for having two sides to their head. If
there is always an official circumspect one, they have also had a
predilection for the buccaneers who sweep the country along on a path
that their more responsible counterparts half fear, half admire.
As always, and this is why one loves them so much, the British are
the best analysts of these little quirks. John le Carre does it
dramatically, Paul Scott with greater analytical skill, as in his superb
assessment of how the bounder Merrick pushed the well meaning Robin
White along a path of racist oppression. But all this fiction is no
stranger than for instance the Jameson Raid that led to the British
conquest of all South Africa, or even the bizarre history of General
Gordon, who precipitated the British takeover of the Sudan when he had
been sent in to lead them out.
So, while one is quite content to believe that the official British
approach is support for the Sri Lankan government in its struggle
against terrorism, the amount of unsolicited support now for the Tigers
is quite startling. And it is not new.
After all, when the poor Norwegians were criticised for the Tiger use
of vehicles belonging to Norwegian People’s Aid, it turned out that
there were no Norwegians near the place, only Britishers.
It might only be coincidence that Britishers were heads of all the
NGOs that make up Solidar, the unregistered entity that encompassed not
only NPA but also ASB. It might only be coincidence that Solidar and its
components seem to have mopped up enormous amounts of aid funding,
including much of what is supposedly UNHCR money.
It might even be coincidence that the Head of Solidar was the most
vociferous of all NGO representatives in demanding access to the Vanni.
But a little bit of John le Carre goes a long way in making one wonder
what precisely is the romance the separate state the Tigers were setting
up had for these adventurers.
Now, with the Brits in Sri Lanka not able to renew their relationship
with the Tigers, the scene has shifted to London, where the more dubious
British MPs are plaguing the poor Foreign Secretary with questions.
He may have done his best not to let down a friendly country, but
TamilNet was able to claim that he had agreed with the suggestion that
genocide was being practised in Sri Lanka. Then another MP actually lent
his blessing to the funeral celebration of the poor young man who burnt
himself to death in Geneva.
The Times and the Telegraph have gone overboard in attacking the Sri
Lankan government, and they are joined now by even the Harrow Times, if
TamilNet is to be believed.
What is all this about? The British government may want peace and
stability, but for adventurers a rogue state they could influence would
be a pride and joy.
Unlike the Americans, who have a distinctly important role in the
world, or the Indians, who are just establishing themselves in one, the
British have never got over their decline from being top nation.
Like Ronald Merrick, trying to warm his hands before a fire that was
going out, there are individuals who would like to command an influence
they cannot find on their own. To drive the agenda then of particular
journals is not difficult, given that not many people really know much
about Sri Lanka, and are content to believe what they are told.
And so we have the BBC misquoting the ICRC, we have a UN spokesman
referring to the ICRC, which means that what the BBC falsely claimed the
ICRC said is attributed to the UN, we have the BBC saying that, since
the Economist said the same they did, they must both be right and the
ICRC clarification can be ignored - in short, it must be so because the
British say it is so.
If all this were mere romanticism it would be understandable and even
perhaps excusable. But underlying this is the very real danger that this
sort of pronouncement could lead to the Tigers being let off the hook.
It would be useful then if the sensible part of the British character
reasserted itself, and told the adventurers that enough is enough, and
that they should stay quiet until terrorism is eradicated - when,
surely, given the Sri Lankan romance with all things British, they can
return in triumph to advise us on everything from English to the
rehabilitation of terrorists.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha,
Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the
Peace Process |