On PS (Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu) and his BS

Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu (PS) is wondering if the Rajapaksa regime is caught in what he calls ‘The Missing Enemy Syndrome’ published in an article in a daily newspaper. He offers that in an LTTE-less Sri Lanka, the regime misses an enemy (implying that the regime needs an enemy) and therefore is doing its best to conjure one. PS is basically saying ‘there is no enemy’.

I don’t know what kind of psychological effect the end of the LTTE has had on the President, but it would be utterly naive to claim that the LTTE was the only enemy that this country has to contend with. That would be to be absolutely ignorant about global political economy, the play of hegemonic cultural drives (including conversion drives that would have, I sincerely believe, appalled Jesus of Nazareth), global power games, the clash(es) of civilization and issues of climate change.

PS wants us to believe that the regime and the country are threat-free. He must be living in some other country if this is the case. Or perhaps he inhabits some rarified and rabidly incestuous political space in Sri Lanka where mutual back-scratching, self-congratulation and intellectual arrogance have taken up permanent residency.

But what does PS have to say? Let’s see.

Human rights issues are stubborn ones. They will not go away. They cannot be dealt with by denial, bravado, defiance, conspiracy theories or neglect. Moreover they are indubitably in the national interest and to the detriment of no one other than the perpetrators of violations.

At the same time, foreign policy cannot be conducted through allegation and counter allegation, shrill incoherence and what increasingly looks like incomprehension and incompetence. Most importantly governance cannot be served or sustained by conflict and conspiracy, fear, paranoia and insecurity.

We are part of an international community. Human rights and the international community have to be dealt with maturely, responsibly, constructively. Surely this is not beyond a regime, which enjoys such unprecedented popularity?

His complaint is that when the term ‘human rights’ is raised, the Government suddenly sees ‘conspiracy’. It is all about context though, isn’t it? Who is making the allegations, what have they done before, what do they do now? It is all about what is not saying who is not saying what should be said, right PS?

Sure, denial, bravado, defiance, conspiracy theories and neglect cannot adequately address human rights concerns. The question though is this: how come ‘human’ rights is an issue for Sri Lanka and not the USA or UK, for example?

Isn’t there something wrong about being selective in raising human-rights concerns? After all, PS says, ‘We are part of an international community’. Or is he assuming that we are just an underclass of this international community and therefore are somehow lesser members? Is it his position that maturity, responsibility and being constructive is nothing more nothing less than letting some rogue states define us and to inhibit that definition (with ‘bated breath and whispering humbleness’)

Isn’t it ‘incomprehensible’ that glaring human rights violations in Iraq and Afghanistan go uncommented whereas allegations of HR violations in Sri Lanka generate calls and even machinations from all quarters for regime change? Isn’t there ‘shrill incoherence’ when PS and his ilk enumerate regularly all the ‘HR concerns’ raised by people who have clearly been briefed by PS and Co themselves when they do not take issue with gross exaggeration and manifest mischief-making by Channel 4 News and BBC (subsequently and predictably echoed by the likes of Phillip Alston, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, HRW, AI and others)? Why don’t they question the integrity of these people and agencies when they take claim offered by clearly dubious and unverifiable sources as fact?

PS says: This is surely not the time for enmity, but for peace, reconciliation and unity to realize the full potential of this country and capitalize on the military defeat of the LTTE.

This is not the time for enmity, true, but PS and his pals are certainly not acting ‘friendly’ to those who are not in the club, i.e. those who will not receive membership in that anti-intellectual and arrogant society of the ignorant that cannot stand Mahinda Rajapaksa’s guts.

Friendship is earned and PS has to earn it. He is nowhere near earning the friendship of anyone outside his tiny circle of friend, for he looks the other way when his friends lie about Sri Lanka. That kind of friend would be what we call a ‘Paapa Mithraya’ (an evil ‘friend’).

PS never advocated any policy even remotely associated with militarily taking on the LTTE. What right does he have now to talking about capitalizing on the military defeat of the LTTE? That kind of capitalization will take place and is taking place whether or not PS advocates it. He does not have the right to tell anyone how to capitalize on it. Not before he confesses to his crimes of commission and omission with respect to how the Government sorted out the LTTE and all he did to subvert that effort. Then, and only then, can anyone take him seriously.

Is the regime (and the overall polity in Sri Lanka) blameless? Absolutely not. We still have to deal with those other abiding ‘enemies within’ such as the manifest dismissal of efforts to change institutional arrangement in favour of the citizen, re-establish Rule of Law, fostering inter-community resolve etc. (all quite unpalatable to all politicians, whatever their colour or creed). That’s our business. Those who swept such things under a carpet called ‘ethnic issue’ can’t afford to pontificate at this moment in time, though.

Let Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu write a treatise on HR violations by Washington before he offers consultation services to the Foreign Ministry and the President, who, for all their faults, have done what no other regime dared to do or was capable of doing. There is a long road to walk and this country will walk it, with or without this regime.

We could do without guys burying landmines and setting up claymore mines though. So PS must relax, first. Take a deep breath.

Then write his book on the Washington Doctrine of Foreign Policy (and advocate an ‘alternative’). Can he be ‘mature, responsible and constructive’ in this regard? Does he even dare? I am not betting on it!

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at [email protected].