Post-war politics

Victors, if the pre-election shenanigans in the South are any barometer, violently differ on how to share the spoils of war. Unsurprisingly, the war and LTTE are still alive in the pre-election campaigns in the South. Victory against the LTTE and those who championed it are projected as superior, and better fit for political office than those who did not. The nostrums of national security gloss over concerns regarding IDPs. Promises of development abound, as usual without any real basis in economics. Promises of systemic political change, anchored to various pronouncements of the Executive, are also paraded, again without any real sincerity – minority grievances in and to the South, after all, remain largely peripheral to concerns over post-war economic recovery. This however is the first election in the South, the bedrock of the SLFP and its allies, conducted without the glue of war to bind them to a common purpose and enemy. The result is petty bickering, outrageous sexism and high incidents of violence against fellow candidates, usually reserved for those from competing political agencies. Those, especially outside the country interested in regime change, are advised to observe these trends. This fissiparous trend in what during war was an impregnable regime occurs independent of any impetus from the international community, NGOs or independent media. It is rather a reflection of the essential nature of our party politics and electoral system, where course correction eventually checks the worst authoritarianism. Without any all-engulfing effort like war enjoying support in the South, the design and establishment of hegemony becomes increasingly difficult. The regime, deeply cognisant and fearful of this growing disintegration within the party, will seek to contain it through mechanisms it controls and knows best – favouritism, nepotism, party political manipulation, and if the family future is threatened or thwarted, violence.

The end of war provided a significant opportunity for the establishment of a different and more progressive political culture, that we have so tragically lost. Internationally, our hydra-headed post-war foreign policy is about as nuanced and strategic as petulantly giving the West the middle-finger. Domestically, our policies of post-war reconciliation, constitutional reform and development are a mess. Ricocheting from the bizarre to the outrageous, policies and practices of government – from Police brutality to corruption – no longer contained or overwhelmed by coverage of war or by censorship are out in the open and generating public disdain. There is already a shift in media and editorials that were supportive of war yet increasingly impatient with the government’s handling of post-war realities. The tired worldview defining of patriots and traitors and the other pedestrian piffle this government loves to wallow in is political currency soon expended, and not easily replenished. It was useful in war-time. It is useless in peacetime.

We could have instead learnt from a significant failure in Africa – President Julius Nyerere and his experiment in one-party democratic socialism in Tanzania. As the economist Paul Collier notes in his latest book Wars, Guns and Votes, Nyerere’s political leadership built a sense of national identity, without resorting to the idea of an enemy to build this identity – “indeed, he emphasised a Pan-African as well as national identity”. His experiment in socialism was a failure, and in 1985 Nyerere publicly admitted his failure and stepped down from office, the first African head-of-state to voluntarily do so. And yet his enduring legacy, in a region riven with violent identity based conflict, was country enjoying a high degree of social and political cohesion and peace. Or we could learn from China. Zhang Pengjun, one of the key negotiators of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was a polymath – diplomat, scholar, poet, playwright, Broadway producer and opera singer. He noted that differences in philosophy and ideology did not impede securing and protecting human rights. Who is of the same mind in the Rajapakse regime, despite their avowed affinity to China today? The economic prosperity New China enjoys is not because of the doctrine of socialism and revolutionary struggle against capitalism. It is because of economic liberalisation and participation in a global compact of nations. India offers very different lessons of identity formation, economic development and multi-lateral diplomacy, no less compelling. Is our government interested in studying and adapting from these and other post-conflict models of social cohesion, economic development and international engagement from Asia to South America and Africa? There is no evidence in this regard. Amongst a tragic collection of similar examples, the Prime Minister’s audacious reference to Monica Lewinsky in a derogatory attack on Hillary Clinton in the media recently and his repeated assertion at the Asia Society in New York that the ICRC was harbouring LTTE terrorists suggest that asinine policies and statements are, far from a source of embarrassment, a matter of pride for the Rajapakse government domestically and internationally.

Ergo, cui bono – therefore, who stands to gain or benefits?  The international pro-LTTE lobby for starters, and the pro-Eelam parties in Sri Lanka. The bungling of post-war policy-making by the government, it’s complete lack of over-the-horizon strategies to address challenges of peacebuilding, and above all, its incarceration of over a quarter of a million IDPs in hellish conditions gives succour to international campaigns supporting violent secessionism in Sri Lanka. There are also powerful regimes that appear to be our friends today who want this. Blueprints designed by them for post-war development, resettlement, reconstruction and military expansion in the North and East not just envision, but actively foment communal unrest in the future. A government pathologically unable to think beyond its own self-preservation and aggrandisement is easy prey for these mercenaries, who are equally adept at greasing palms and egos.

Despite all this of course, this regime will win the Southern Provincial Council elections, and go on to win the Presidential election next year. Thus unshakable and unbeatable in the short term, the EU for example may find that the manic frenzy of activity over the probable non-extension of GSP+ is useful to replay in the future to hold the government accountable for what it has promised regarding the resettlement IDPs, democratic governance and human rights. Unless there is damning evidence from US Department of Defence satellite imagery analysis, evidence of war crimes within Sri Lanka will be limited to the sort of partial narratives broadcast and published in British media recently. None of this registers domestically, or was an issue in the elections conducted yesterday. The significant violence within the SLFP and its erstwhile coalition partners in the lead up to the election signifies greater violence to come, especially as the memory of victory against the LTTE fades. Especially during a general election, this will result internecine violence that costs lives. This loss of life will decrease political capital and increase international scrutiny. Quite independently then, growing international and domestic pressure on multiple fronts could overwhelm and de-stabilise the incumbents to such a degree that the only thing needed for regime change would be the most difficult to engineer and envision.

A new leader for the UNP.

Article published in the Sunday Leader, 11 October 2009.

An enduring mypoia

A news report published week suggests a novel approach by the Sri Lankan government to thwart allegations of war crimes and is anchored to Damilvani Gnanakumar, a British Tamil present in the Vanni during the final bloody weeks of war, was subsequently interned in Menik Camp. Upon her release from Menik Camp, she left to the UK. Once safely at home, she recounted damning first hand accounts of government atrocities during war and appalling conditions in Menik Camp, receiving wide coverage in the British press and broadcast media.  Unable to contain or censor her by other means, the news report notes that the government “arrested members of the family that provided lodging to her while she was in Vavuniya”, effectively silencing Damilvani. The report also suggests that the government has decided to delay the release of Tamil nationals who are citizens of Australia and Canada from IDP camps, for fear of more Damilvani’s amongst them.

So what has the government achieved here? It has effectively silenced Damilvani, obviously its intended goal. After her initial outbursts on the Guardian and Channel 4, she has not appeared again in the media, obviously for fear of endangering the lives of relatives now in custody. But by doing so, the government has given her account, which as I noted last in my previous column is deeply partial and biased, new legitimacy, greater appeal and vigour. Precisely because of government attempts to silence her, Damilvani’s narrative strengthens the argument that allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by both government forces and the LTTE can only be verified or denied by independent inquiry. By attempting to blackmail her into silence, the government guarantees more domestic and international media scrutiny on the fate of a quarter of a million Tamil IDPs, especially those with foreign citizenship, still interned in Menik Camp. Diplomatic pressure and censure will not be far behind, at a time when the government is trying its utmost to retain the EU’s GSP Plus trade concessions. And with this inescapable international pressure will be growing calls for accountability, precisely what the Government is so violently opposed to and seeks to avoid. The Sinhala adage “uda balan kela gahanewa” comes to mind.

Based on this incident alone, it’s remarkable how such a victorious government, enjoying unprecedented adulation, has lost so comprehensively the post-war plot. Braggadocio of the Executive to stand trial on behalf of the armed forces over any investigations into war crimes does nothing whatsoever to prevent punitive sanctions and whether we like it or not, the possibility of Washington backed, UN mandated war crimes investigations in the future. This glass jawed patriotism is at best silly for it ignores, at great peril, vital domestic and international post-war realities. Functioning as if it still commanded the services of glib gentlemen in peace secretariats and at the UN to defend Sri Lanka’s human rights abuses, the government’s continuing offensives against human decency and democracy are without reason. Worse, it is self-defeating.

For example, the JHU loudly proclaimed last week that it would start a campaign to generate a million signatures to hold the US accountable for its own war crimes, forgetting momentarily perhaps, inter alia, the sheer absurdity of challenging the moral authority and popularity the incumbent US President commands. Columnists and commentators, in print, broadcast and increasingly online, have gone on the offensive, offended at what they see is the chutzpah of the US and West to rain on our parade after the LTTE’s decisive defeat. New enemies are being created apace by the regime and its apparatchiks to cover up for the lack of post-war democracy. From the UN to the IMF, from the US to the EU and all their domestic agents, this is a conspiracy of such power, reach and complexity that it would put Dan Brown’s imagination to shame. In a bizarre twist, there is even now the demonization of the ICRC on the Ministry of Defence website. Yet it is the UN that is helping with post-war demining, development and the existential needs of interned IDPs. Government media record that in July, Sri Lanka’s U.S. Envoy, Jaliya Wickramasuriya at a meeting with Robert M. Scher, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South & Southeast Asia at the US Department of Defense thanked the United States for providing support, especially in terms of curbing the funding and logistical network in the effort to eliminate the LTTE. We need the money from the IMF just as much as we need the GSP Plus extension. Leave aside GSP Plus – the EU in 2006 alone gave Sri Lanka over one hundred and seventy million Euros as post-tsunami development and reconstruction aid. As noted on its website, over the coming years, the EC will spend an average in grants to Sri Lanka of around two billion rupees a year. And finally the ICRC, that lost three aid workers this year alone, continues to care for those displaced and affected by war it has access to. Quite simply, without the aid and assistance of these governments and agencies, Sri Lanka would tank.

While for some an affront to national pride, this is a reality that one cannot erase through bitter invective and silly posturing. To speak out in favour of domestic conditions that encourage the continued engagement of these actors is not, as it is often simplistically made out to be, uncritical of Western assistance or to be a lackey of some foreign agenda. On the contrary, our ability to negotiate favourably loans, grants and trade concessions is inextricably pegged to real change in our post-war democratic institutions. To my knowledge, Sri Lanka is being judged today against rights enshrined in its own constitution and UN declarations and treaties it has ratified as a State. It is being judged on the basis of official statements to the international community by the Executive, promising the resettlement of IDPs in Menik Camp within 180 days and the full enactment of the 13^th Amendment. These are not promises made by and statements crafted by NGOs or an operative in Langley hell-bent on regime change. Why then viciously blame it on NGOs and the West when the divide between promises and reality stands exposed?

Our best chance at international respect and recognition post-war will not come from photo-ops with pariahs like Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Gaddafi, or for that matter through supine subservience to bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors. It can only ever be achieved through the restoration of the dignity of all our peoples, a return to democracy, the Rule of Law and a country all its citizens are proud to be associated with and part of.

Celebrating 60 years of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2009, the President noted that “we in Sri Lanka renew and reaffirm our commitment to upholding the values and goals proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also requires the elimination of terrorism in all its forms”.

Damilvani and others may wonder if the President was thinking of his own government’s policies and practices when he said that.

###

Published in The Sunday Leader, 27th September 2009

Eyes Wide Open

On my instructions, due to the priority given to the policy of zero civilian casualties the security forces are limiting themselves to rescue operations of the entrapped civilians held hostage as a human shield by the LTTE. – Address by President Mahinda Rajapakse to the diplomatic community, 7 May 2009

“Firing should stop,” Mr. Anandasangaree, a former MP and the leader of the Tamil United Liberation Front party, said in an interview. “The government has no business to kill people like this.” He said he believed the latest casualty figures because he had heard them directly from a doctor at the hospital that received the dead and injured. “These are 100 per cent true,” he said. “We can’t trust the LTTE’s version, but this is from the horse’s mouth.” – Interview with V Anandasangaree in Canada’s National Post, 11 May 2009

A day after torrential rain resulted in widespread flooding in Menik Camp in late August, I published online the first images of what conditions were really like for IDPs interned inside. The photos, taken from a mobile phone, were low resolution but clearly showed the scale of catastrophe. Amongst many who expressed shock and outrage at the Rajapakse government’s inhumanity so evident in these photos, a particularly revealing comment came from an individual called ‘Sunday Sinha’ who noted,

“Your images don’t bear any date or time-marks, and we wonder why. Could it be that your images are doctored, just like many LTTE images were in the last days and weeks of the war?”

To which my response was,

“I’ve yet to see a time-stamps and dates on photos published on the Ministry of Defence and Army websites… Prove they are. Go on. Fetch the evidence. And by the same token of scepticism, why don’t you question the images and video released by government during and after war?”

‘Sunday Sinha’ has yet to prove these images were doctored, or for that matter point to any time and date stamped photos published by mainstream media journalists who are actually in Menik Camp covering what is happening on the ground.

One encounters a similar pattern of vehement denial and accusations of falling prey to LTTE propaganda with the video broadcast by Channel 4. Let me be very clear about this. Media literacy rightly teaches us to be sceptical of content such as the photos I published and the video broadcast by Channel 4. New media, such as mobile videos and photos published on the web, allow for new perspectives to emerge. Sometimes these perspectives bear witness to events that we may otherwise have not known about, or add fresh perspectives to events we may only have been told a specific version of. But any camera is a still or moving frame, and no frame covers all angles. So interlocutors who question the bona fides of Channel 4 in broadcasting this video are partly right – we cannot be sure that what we see is real and without context, temporal information or the original video file for digital forensics, its veracity must be held up to scrutiny. Obviously, the government will seek to prove it is well-staged LTTE hog-wash, others will see it as evidence of war crimes with a view to using it as evidence in campaigns of accountability, justice and punitive sanctions against the Sri Lankan government. This thrust and parry of competing worldviews is not new. The President and V Anandasangaree, one of the most senior Tamil politicians in government and hardly a supporter of the LTTE, showed a remarkable difference of opinion during Vesak this year. Whereas the President believes he conducted a rescue operation with zero civilian casualties, V Anandasangaree claimed otherwise. Unsurprisingly, only one of these worldviews found sustained and unquestioned publication in Sinhala and English media. Videos such as the one broadcast by Channel 4 allow for a critical, open contestation between what the government wants us to believe, and what some of us know is a far more bloody, outrageous reality.

This is inconvenient for those who want to keep believing government propaganda. Calling the government’s bluff that this video is false, Philip Alston, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions said last week that “There’s nothing on the surface to indicate that it is not authentic and, if that’s the case, it would raise very grave concerns”. Alston went on to note that the Sri Lankan government had a poor record investigating such cases. “Given the not-very-happy record of such investigations in the past, it would in my view be desirable that this be an international investigation, which would ensure its independence and impartiality”. Alston was being diplomatically polite. Successive Sri Lankan governments have with complete impunity executed civilians. The Rajapakse regime’s emblematic red sash is deeply symbolic of its own complicity in terror. As Amnesty International notes in Twenty Years of Make Believe: Sri Lanka Commission’s of Inquiry published earlier this year, “Commissions of Inquiry have not worked as mechanisms of justice in Sri Lanka. Presidential Commissions have proved to be little more than tools to launch partisan attacks against opponents or to deflect criticism when the state has been faced with overwhelming evidence of its complicity in human rights violations.” To expect this government to conduct any meaningful investigation into the veracity of this video, and those that in invariably surface in the months and years to come, reminds us of the Sinhala proverb “Horaga Ammagen Pena Ahanawa Wage”.

This same report notes that Sri Lanka’s formal justice system is in tatters. It is a raw nerve for the government, particularly in light of vehement and growing local and international condemnation of the sentence handed down to journalist J.S. Tissainayagam. The judgement also comes in the context of growing media reports that suggest Sri Lanka stands little chance of getting the EU’s GSP Plus trade concessions, vital for our garment industry, because of its terrible human rights violations. This is cogently expressed in The Economist last week when it noted that rarely has a government soiled its reputation as dramatically as Sri Lanka’s, and quotes a confidential report from the EU submitted for government review,

“Widespread police torture, abductions of journalists, politicised courts and un-investigated disappearances have all played a part in creating a state of “complete or virtually complete impunity in Sri Lanka”. The internment of the Tamil displaced, which the government claims is necessary to weed out the last Tamil Tiger rebels and to protect them from munitions left in their fields, is “a novel form of unacknowledged detention”.

Prefiguring the EU’s trenchant and wholly justified critique, I noted in my last column that what was needed in Sri Lanka was not more support to maintain these horrendous, inhuman IDP camps, but the international and local impetus to dismantle them and allow inhabitants to return to their homes. It is interesting to speculate whether the Channel 4 video combined with the EU’s confidential draft report contributed in large part towards Tissa’s judgement. Tissa’s incarceration, his treatment in prison, and his case are no small warnings against independent journalists who wish to hold government accountable for its actions, particularly during war and now increasingly in the domains of security, reconstruction and rehabilitation in the North and East. The revealing combination and conflation of high security zones and special economic zones, coupled with new army installations, new cantonments and the resulting demographic shifts colour any appreciation of post-war development and the demarcation of land. Tissa’s predicament suggest that few journalists will dare explore these vital issues rigorously, or name the countries that are guiding and funding these developments.

Ergo, it may also be the case that, public optics aside, the government does NOT really want an extension GSP Plus and the attendant conditionalities that run counter to a growing totalitarianism. A government that sees victory in and the resulting absence of war as peace is unlikely to take kindly to growing concerns of war crimes, human rights abuses and a supine, subservient judiciary to boot. And well beyond the significant war-centric human rights abuse, Nipuna Ramanayake’s case and the fiasco in Angulana suggest that under this government, the Rule of Law exists, akin to minority rights, only as a legitimate aspiration of our peoples. It does not really exist in fact.

We must also ask why journalists who trespass private property now charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), despite assurances by the pathetically disempowered Media Minister that the PTA will not be used to clamp down on media freedom? Is it because the owner of the property these journalists trespassed on is really the key agent, even above the judiciary, of the PTA’s application and interpretation? The Sunday Leader editorial today submits that the PTA facilitates arbitrary and capricious official conduct, including torture and also makes serious incursions into the freedom of expression and the media. Sri Lanka’s post-war descent into totalitarian rule by a frothing, murderous fraternity is disturbing because it is occurring without shame or disguise. The corruption, the abuse of power, the hypocrisy, the lies, the rabid racism, the violence – they are all out in the open. This degree of impunity, mirroring the LTTE’s chutzpah, is worrying. It reveals that democracy is hostage to the whims of a powerful few, who are really answerable to no one. It suggests that there is little local and international actors can do to stop this manic lawlessness. It reveals that truth-telling and reconciliation are non-starters, whatever photos, videos and other narratives that make it out to the public domain.

It reveals that eyes wide open, though validation, collusion, ignorance and indifference, voters are supporting a brutish regime that will never bring a meaningful peace to a country that so richly and urgently deserves it.

Published in The Sunday Leader, 6th September 2009