Promoting confrontation
Prof Rajiva WIJESINHA, MP
What seemed the positive remarks of the United States Defence Attache
at the recent seminar on Defeating Terrorism were promptly challenged in
Groundviews, the electronic journal established a few years back with
funding from Canadian and Australian aid agencies. At least, this was
the proud boast on its website, until I drew attention to this,
whereupon the claim was removed from the public domain. Interestingly,
the Australian Embassy responded to my query to say they had not funded
Groundviews per se, even though they had provided some assistance to the
Centre for Policy Alternatives, which may have used those funds for
Groundviews. Canada, represented at the time by Angela Bogdan whom even
fellow envoys found embarrassingly critical of the Sri Lankan
government, did not respond.
|
Vocational
training for IDP youth. File photo |
|
Lakshman
Kadirgamar |
Incidentally, I have noted previously that the failure of our
External Affairs Ministry to have called in Angela Bogdan when she tried
to blackmail a Sri Lankan NGO so as to save her protege Rama Mani was
symptomatic of why our international relations are so messy. I have
little doubt that one reason for the funding bestowed on Groundviews was
the baldly stated credo of its editor, that ‘I stand, as you know,
vehemently against the government you so staunchly defend’.
Self-righteous correspondents
I hasten to add that I have no personal quarrel with Sanjana
Hattotuwa who, though an extremely shrewd operator, has a sense of
humour, which is more than one can say of most of his self-righteous
correspondents. But I do find it strange that our government does not
put in place mechanisms to ensure that aid, contributed for the welfare
of the Sri Lankan people, does not pour into elite wordmasters who make
no secret of their animosity to a democratically elected government.
Part of their technique, whether home grown of learnt at the feet of
those who have made manipulation of social media an art, is to promote
confrontation. Thus in its coverage of the seminar on Defeating
Terrorism, Groundviews paid special attention to claiming that the West
was on its side as it were, and opposed to the Rajapaksa government.
Noteworthy was its characterization of the speech of David Kilcullen
as ‘the best for the day where he insinuated that by giving strong
political leadership to finish the war, the MR is indirectly responsible
for war crimes. He got a very good ovation from the audience, which
included the army commander and Rajiva Wijesinha. We were laughing,
because the ‘government’ folks missed the egg on their face lines.”
Peace Secretariat
Sanjana evades responsibility by claiming about this strange effusion
that, ‘as with everything else on the site, it was put up not as gospel
but for contestation’ but since he had previously indicated that he was
responsible for emphasizing this section, it is clear that he was trying
to get across a particular point. Perhaps the gratuitous inclusion of my
name was in fulfillment of his desire, very kindly advanced soon after
the Peace Secretariat was closed, that I write for Groundviews, which I
thought was inappropriate given the emotively vicious language it used
about the government in general.
I did indeed respond, but only to convey to Groundviews David
Kilcullen’s own response to the misuse of his speech. He wrote;
Rajiva,
The Groundviews report is a total mischaracterization of my remarks.
I never mentioned war crimes, nor suggested in the slightest possible
way that any senior official encouraged or condoned them.
What I did say is that the international community has some serious
questions about human rights issues in the way the final campaigns were
conducted, and that Sri Lanka (from what I can see) has nothing to hide,
and therefore nothing to lose by engaging in an open discussion about
these issues.
I also pointed to the need for full accountability and reconciliation
going forward, and mentioned our experience in Afghanistan as a
cautionary tale: military victory over the enemy is the start, not the
end, of a process of peacemaking and it’s incredibly important to get
this process right, otherwise the conflict will simply come back.
As the chairman of the session correctly pointed out, I made these
remarks from a position of strong solidarity with the people of Sri
Lanka - Tamils and others - who have suffered so egregiously from the
predations of the LTTE over 30 years, and after fully half of the speech
where I talked in detail about the achievements and innovations of the
Sri Lankan Armed Forces.
As I said, I’m stunned that anyone could misinterpret my remarks in
such a way and would urge anyone to simply read the speech or listen to
what I said - anyone who does that can judge for themselves.
best wishes
Dave Kilcullen
Open discussion
Characteristically, Sanjana, having promised to carry the piece in
full, merely included it in the string of comments on the original
mischaracterization. It was followed by a string of the usual suspects
claiming that Kilcullen had in fact said what the mischaracterization
claimed, notwithstanding his explicit rejection of this. After I pointed
out that this was scarcely the way to carry a rebuttal, Sanjana assured
me that the piece did stand on its own, but I was unable to find this.
This may be due to my ignorance of the way Groundviews works, but since
previously Sanjana had sent me the link to the string of comments, I
cannot help wondering if there is yet more sleight of hand involved.
Be that as it may, the mischaracterization of the speech, and the
desperate efforts to claim that Kilcullen’s rebuttal meant the opposite
of what it said, indicate why there is so much distrust and concealment
all around us. Kilcullen makes it clear that, while he believes Sri
Lanka has nothing to hide, he believes open discussion of the issues
raised is advisable. This has been my position throughout, which is why
I have never made any bones about the fact that there were civilian
casualties, while pointing out that government policy was to avoid
civilian casualties.
I believe that, as far as government agency went, in almost all cases
civilian casualties arose from collateral damage which was never
disproportionate to the military aim, an aim that was calibrated in
terms of the absolute necessity to get rid of the terrorist menace that
had abused all our citizens, and in particular the Tamils who were being
held hostage. I have also argued that when there are specific
allegations, as with the White Flag incident, we should conduct a
careful investigation.
However, when Kilcullen says similar things, he has to be presented
as having insinuated that the President was responsible for War Crimes,
ie he is willy nilly put into the same boat as those determined to
undermine the Sri Lankan state. So, almost immediately I had a query
from one of those many Sri Lankans abroad who has done so much to combat
unfair attacks on us. Had I not reassured him that Kilcullen had not
said what he was reported as having indicated, there might well have
been a critique of his statement, born entirely of the mischief making
that Groundviews indulges in.
I can understand therefore why government is wary about admitting
that there were civilian casualties, because immediately they are
reported as having 'admitted' that there were such, as though it was not
a given that there are always civilian casualties. The question is, not
just agency, but intention and culpability. When we have clear evidence
that the LTTE knowingly provoked firing by using its heavy weaponry from
amidst civilian and humanitarian sanctuaries, it is preposterous that we
continue to be accused of criminality.
Unfortunately, when we have Sri Lankans such as those who
mischaracterized Kilcullen's remarks, and continued to do so even after
he had issued his clarification, it is not surprising that a few
foreigners try to leap on the bandwagon.
But, as Lakshman Kadirgamar, perhaps the saddest victim of Tiger
Terrorism said of himself, even if the frosting on that particular cake
was externally derived, the cake was baked at home. We in Sri Lanka who
treat foreign foes as a monolithic menace, should remember the domestic
input into encouraging confrontation - and should work out ways in which
those foreigners who fund such domestic mischief making are required to
function with transparency and accountability, to both Sri Lankan and
foreign taxpayers.
|