Connect with us

Features

Channel 4’s latest documentary reveals Sri Lanka’s political divisions

Published

on

By Uditha Devapriya

There appears to be no love lost between Channel 4 and the Sri Lankan government. The Channel 4 documentary on the 2019 Easter bombings, released this week but expected for a long time, has opened a can of worms, unleashing arguments from both sides. In a nutshell, the documentary centres on the alleged complicity of the country’s former ruling family, the Rajapaksas, in these bombings, which left 269 people dead.

Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who figures in the drama as its chief antagonist, has called it a “tissue of lies.” The government has stated it will conduct a fresh investigation into the attacks, a pledge that is not likely to win them support from the Catholic Church. What is particularly damning in the documentary is the line which the directors draw between the Rajapaksas’ rise to power, the rise of anti-minority nationalist sentiment in roughly the same period, and the shift in anti-minority discourse, after the war, from the Tamil to the Muslim population. Whether or not Channel 4 has extrapolated wildly, it is clear that the directors have noted a link between these developments, and have framed the Easter bombings as a tragic culmination to them, avoidable but at one level inevitable.

The documentary comes at a particularly sensitive time for the government. The regime’s very raison d’être has come into question. The President rests on the support of the SLPP, the party which rose to power in the aftermath of the attacks. Yet in 2019 it was this same party which accused the President, who was then Prime Minister, of neglecting national security.

While the Supreme Court ordered the then President, Defence Secretary, and other officials to pay compensation to the victims of the attacks, the Prime Minister is largely seen as a victim of the nationalist mobilisation which led from the bombings, even if, as the Prime Minister, he also had a mandate over security. Given that two Ministers in the government who do not belong to the SLPP – Manusha Nanayakkara and Harin Fernando, both of whom defected from the Opposition last year – have already called for a “more comprehensive and impartial investigation”, how long this setup will last is left to be seen.

Secondly, while the government has managed to secure economic aid, or pledges to that end, from multilateral and bilateral donors, it continues to battle an ever-growing mass of discontent and dissent from the country’s trade unions and civil society. The documentary, in that regard, will likely complicate matters even further for the government.

Moreover, the UNHRC’s annual sessions, which are coming up in September, will in all probability pick up the documentary. Already two MPs from the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya have pledged to make representations in Geneva regarding the country’s health crisis and the government’s complicity in it. On the accountability front too, then, the Channel 4 dispatch is not going to help the current dispensation.

A common refrain running through almost all criticisms of the current government is that it lacks credibility. This is largely because the current government is linked, by necessity and opportunity, to the previous. There is of course no love lost between them: on more than one occasion the ruling party, the SLPP, has criticised if not denounced the current President.

But this arrangement has been a two-way street: the SLPP has been giving the numbers to the President in parliament – they were, after all, crucial in electing him to that position in the legislature, after Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country – while the President in turn has ensured their numerical preponderance in parliament. The Channel 4 documentary has the vaguest potential, in that sense, of rupturing this arrangement.

It would be far-fetched to claim the documentary will bring down the government soon, however. For one thing, Opposition parties are heavily divided: they seem more prone to taking potshots at each other than at the government. The Opposition itself is riddled, one could say muddled, with parliamentarians who were at the forefront of the nationalist mobilisations that followed the Easter attacks. While these MPs have not commented on the dispatch yet, their response to international scrutiny of Sri Lankan politics is predictable. If these MPs will use the documentary in their campaigns against the current regime, then, it is likely they will do so while appealing to nationalist sentiments.

In other words, the documentary is likely to rupture the Opposition. In the course of last year, a number of parties entered into several pacts. These included a section of the SLPP which now sits in the opposition, the radical left Frontline Socialist Party, and the main opposition, the SJB. While it is possible that the Channel 4 dispatch will help them rally around a common front against the government, their antagonism to the regime may be articulated in different ways, with some parties pandering to nationalist sentiment and others calling for further investigations into the attacks. It goes without saying that this is likely to benefit the regime temporarily, even as it faces pressure abroad.

The documentary can either strengthen or weaken the ruling party’s dependence on the President. In the short term, it is likely to strengthen it. Regardless of his unpopularity at home, the President has remained untainted by the Easter attacks. The situation would have been different if Gotabaya Rajapaksa was President. But Gotabaya Rajapaksa is no longer President. His rival from the 2019 election is. The SLPP, on the other hand, is seen as part and parcel of the series of events that led from the Easter attacks to two massive victories – the 2019 Presidential polls and the 2020 parliamentary polls – and as a result they lack any credibility, even if they have the numbers which President Wickremesinghe – who was the sole sitting MP from his outfit, the United National Party – does not.

To be sure, the President and the SLPP don’t see eye to eye on many issues, particularly on Sri Lanka’s recent negotiations with India over such sensitive areas like devolution of power to the country’s north. Reports of the Sri Lankan government preparing to hand over the Trincomalee Harbor to Indian entities have exacerbated these tensions, to the extent that the General Secretary of the SLPP, Sagara Kariyawasam, questioned the President’s capacity to take decisions on such issues.

More recently, Kariyawasam contended, in response to ongoing protests against the regime’s tax hikes and austerity measures, that such policies were what protesters across the country had asked for last year, cryptically adding that “as a party, we do not agree with the ongoing activities.” In the longer term, then, the Channel 4 documentary can potentially deepen these tensions.

Complicating the domestic political picture, hence, are the many ideological linkages that have connected seemingly disparate parties together. The Opposition today is riddled with nationalist, liberal, leftwing, and rightwing figureheads. The government is not as diverse. This point has so far been in the latter’s favour. But there is a fundamental contradiction in the current dispensation between a party known for its mobilisation of divisive nationalism and a President known for his pro-Western views and sympathies.

Indeed, the President has gone beyond many of his predecessors in making amends with India, to the consternation of leftwing parties and at least one political analyst. On the economic front, of course, there is no fundamental disagreement between the President and the ruling party: sectors like fuel are being opened to foreign companies. On the security front, vis-à-vis sensitive topics such as devolution of power in the north, however, there is.

Against this backdrop, the Channel 4 documentary will deepen divisions and contribute to an even more polarised society. It has the potential of dividing an Opposition already divided from within, and of unifying a government also divided from within, though the divisions in the latter have yet to completely come out into the open. At the centre of the documentary are the 269 victims of the bombings, and their families.

For them, justice has been evasive, and authorities have been too slow, for some reason, to find out the truth. Unwittingly, then, Channel 4 has revealed the many ruptures that have, since 2019, defined Sri Lanka and more or less epitomised it. Come election time next year, and the documentary may serve an even more crucial purpose: that of helping Sri Lankans decide its outcome.

The writer is an international relations analyst, independent researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Trump’s tariffs, AKD’s gazette and Sri Lanka’s diplomatic slumber

Published

on

“We are rather respectable in Colombo. We go to bed fairly early, and we remain there till morning. “

According to Sri Lanka’s diplomatic folklore, the late S.W. R. D. Bandaranaike uttered these words while explaining the reasons for Sri Lanka’s abstention on the UN resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Apparently, SWRD’s foreign ministry officials were asleep at home when the diplomatic cable seeking instructions was received from New York. In those days, there were no cell phones, Internet, or even fax or telex machines. The diplomatic cables were sent through post offices. Decoding them was a slow and time-consuming process. Thus, the government could not provide appropriate instructions to our mission in New York in time, and the Sri Lankan delegation abstained on that sensitive UN vote.

Sri Lanka’s Absence from Section 301 Consultations

But then, how does one explain Sri Lanka’s absence from the crucial bilateral consultation held in Washington by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during March-April on “Forced Labour” under the Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974? Didn’t our foreign and trade ministries send appropriate instructions to Washington in time? Even if the instructions from the foreign ministry were transmitted to our embassy in Washington by pigeon carriers, there was enough time for Sri Lanka to participate in those meetings.

In March, the USTR initiated these 301 investigations on 60 trading partners, and invited all of them for confidential consultations. Out of the 60, 46 participated in these consultations. Sri Lanka was not one of them. Other countries that didn’t participate in these consultations included China, Russia, and Venezuela! In addition to that, the Section 301 Committee conducted a public hearing with interested parties on April 28 and 29. Washington-based diplomats, representatives from few trade ministries as well as representatives from many foreign trade associations and chambers participated in these hearings. Sri Lanka was once again conspicuously absent.

As a result, when the USTR published the proposed forced labour tariffs on June 2nd, Sri Lanka ended up with a 12.5% duty. Pakistani and Indonesian diplomats participated in these consultations and took appropriate follow-up measures, and managed to enter the 10% duty category. As even a threat of a modest tariff hike could disrupt supply chains and reduce competitiveness, particularly in an industry such as garments, I discussed this issue on 15 June and underscored the importance of Sri Lanka’s participation at the next hearing, which was scheduled to be held from July 7th .

Awakening from Diplomatic Slumber and AKD’s Gazette

Fortunately, Sri Lanka finally awoke from weeks of diplomatic slumber, and Ambassador Mahinda Samarasinghe participated in the public hearing on 9 July, and promised, “…. · We have agreed to the text in our negotiations with the USTR on forced labour, …. The gazette as we speak is being printed and I’m getting the gazette tomorrow morning, and the gazette will be shared with USTR as I get it“.

As promised, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette on 10 July banning the imports of goods produced by forced labour. These new regulations are very similar to what Pakistan and Indonesia enacted in April, after their consultations with USTR in March. Why couldn’t we do it in April? Why did we wait till the very last minute?

Challenges ahead

“War is too important to be left to generals alone,” is a famous saying attributed to former French Premier Georges Clemenceau. Similarly, monitoring our main markets is too important to be left to diplomats alone. The United States is the largest single-country market for Sri Lanka. Therefore, Sri Lankan trade chambers and associations should become more proactive in these markets and participate in these events. For example, the chairman of the Pakistani apparel exporters association participated in the April hearings. Similarly, representatives from the Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and Reliance Industries also participated in July hearings. At an event where each speaker is given only five minutes (strictly enforced), having a number of speakers from a country is an advantage. The presence of industry representatives in these kinds of events also help them understand the market dynamics and the future challenges. This is important, particularly because there will be many more challenges with Trump’s tariffs.

With the gazette issued on 10 July, Sri Lanka has imposed a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour. Now, the challenge will be to effectively enforce the prohibition. And what are the goods produced with forced labour? The USTR list only focuses on aluminum, cotton, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, rice, and tobacco. However, according to the U.S. Department of Labour, the list is much longer. Hence, this list may change continuously during the next two years and tariffs may fluctuate once again.

So, this is definitely not the time to slumber.

(The writer, a retired public servant, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

by Gomi Senadhira ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Tales of Mystery and Suspense 10 Casino for Sale

Published

on

After the overwhelming grotesquerie of J K Rowling’s latest Cormoran Strike novel (written, I should have noted, as the others were, under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith), I thought I should return to the world of fun, and also a much shorter description since this thriller moves quickly without the layers of detail that Rowling engages in.

I then move to the second comic thriller by Caryl Brahms and S J Simon. This, their second story to feature Vladimir Stroganoff and Adam Quill, was Casino for Sale, as lunatic a romp as the first, though without the emphasis on the ballet that characterized A Bullet in the Ballet.

This one begins with the impresario Stroganoff buying a casino cheap from Baron Sam de Rabinovich, only to find that it was a rundown place, not the grand casino of La Bazouche, a resort on the Frenc+h Riviera, as he had initially thought. The grand one belonged to Lord Buttonhooke, and Stroganoff could  not compete, until he thought of bringing the Ballet Stroganoff to the casino – which of course leads to Buttonhooke deciding to have ballet performances in his Casino too.

Stroganoff invites Quill to visit him, which Quill decides to do since he has left Scotland Yard, having come into a legacy. No one believes this, and he has to face questions as to what he did to have been sacked, with sympathy for having been found out.

Caryl and Simon

The day he arrives in La Bazouche there is a murder, of a vitriolic critic called Citrolo, in Stroganoff’s office. He had been going to write a damning review of the opening night of the ballet and Stroganoff, when he realizes Citrolo cannot be swayed, drugs him and dictates the review himself to the papers. He leaves Citrolo sleeping and finds him shot the next morning, whereupon he decides to muddy the waters and leave a suicide note and lots of other murder weapons. So much overkill, as it were, of course ensures that he is arrested.

But the excitable French detective who makes the arrest follows up his suggestion that Buttonhooke was also involved, and so the two casino owners find themselves in cells next door to each other, with the detective Gustave quite happy to provide creature comforts for a fee.

Quill decides he must investigate, and finds Gustave most cooperative, since he has a laid back attitude to work. So it is Quill that finds a notebook which makes it clear Citrolo is an accomplished blackmailer, and that there are lots of possible murderers, including Stroganoff’s croupier, who was crooked, Rabinovich, who was now working for Buttonhooke, a confidence trickster called Kurt Kukumber, whose prospectus for a dud gold mine was found in the office and Prince Alexis Artishok who was engaged in a deal to buy diamonds from the ballerina Dyra Dyrakova.

Stroganoff had been trying to get Dyrakova to dance for him, but having done so previously she had refused. But then to Stroganoff’s chagrin she agreed to dance for Buttonhooke. The clearly crooked Artishok had told Buttonhooke’s mistress Sadie Souse, who was not very bright, that Dyrakova possessed diamonds she was willing to sell cheap, and Sadie was determined to have them.

Quill meanwhile finds out that there was a secret passage to Stroganoff’s office, the obvious solution to what had begun as a locked room mystery, and that this was known by almost everyone apart from Stroganoff himself. And then Rabinovich is murdered, just after Gustave had released his two original suspects, leading him to blame Quill for having insisted on that and thus allowing them to kill again.

Soon afterwards Dyrakova arrives, and the town is full of posters announcing that she will appear in the casinos, elaborate posters for either one, since Stroganoff is determined that she will dance for him, and if she does not come willingly, he has devised a scheme to make her do so unwillingly. So, though Buttonhooke has her taken off to his yacht immediately she arrives at the station, Quill along with Arenskaya gets her into a launch and to Stroganoff’s casino, where she performs to tumultuous applause, not knowing for whom she is dancing.

When Quill asked her about the diamonds, she said she had sold them long ago, and that gave Quill the solution to the mystery. Rabinovich had known about this, and Artishok had killed him to prevent Sadie learning it from him, he had killed Citrolo who had recognized him for an accomplished card sharper, not a Russian prince at all. But before he is arrested, he gets away in a boat, and the police launch that pursues him is on the point of catching him up when it runs out of petrol.

Again, lots of excitement, and entertaining references  – Gustave grows marrows – and if not quite as brilliant as its predecessor, Casino was certainly a delightful read.

Continue Reading

Features

The challenge of being positive about SAARC

Published

on

The RCSS forum addressed by SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar in progress. (Pic courtesy RCSS)

It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.

Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.

However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?

There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.

The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.

Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.

Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.

The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.

On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.

In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.

Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.

Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.

The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.

These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.

Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.

There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.

However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.

Continue Reading

Trending