Connect with us

Opinion

Duel with Dual Citizenship

Published

on

The 20A almost failed to get passed through because President Gotabaya wanted the ban on dual citizens holding the highest offices binned. A worry that was not there before the 19A has now become a passionate concern.

Interestingly, the very people who opposed the 20A (from the Government side) were the very ones who wanted Gotabaya Rajapaksa as Sri Lanka’s President. When he was persuaded to run for presidency he was a dual citizen. Throughout the presidential campaign he was a dual citizen. He only renounced his US citizenship just a few months before the elections.

Yet, his dual citizenship was not a concern to any who supported his ascent to presidency. His opposition – the Yahapalana Government, certainly tried their level best to use Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s dual citizenship against him. This was laughable and only served to discredit them further.

Hypocrisy and Vindictive Politics

After all, having appointed a foreigner as the Central Bank Governor, their worry over a dual citizen cannot be taken seriously. The Yahapalana Government on blind faith co-sponsored the UNHRC Resolution against Sri Lanka. After thus caving into US pressure so treacherously, to anticipate such a move from Gotabaya Rajapaksa was hypocritical. The Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration risked antagonizing our neighbour by politely sitting on the ECTA. The Yahapalana Government, on the other hand, signed with flourish an FTA with Singapore that spelt doom for our trade, industries and manpower.

Clearly, the Yahapalana Government’s concerns over dual citizenship were not genuine. The sole objective was to prevent two of the Rajapaksa brothers from contesting at the presidential elections. This is the point that President Gotabaya directed the attention of his MPs and clergy. He noted that the clause on dual citizenship stemmed from vindictiveness. Therefore, the principle on which this is based on is unacceptable and on that basis the clause needs to be rejected.

However, he assured, at the ongoing exercise of making the new constitution, genuine concerns over dual citizenship can be revisited and the ban can be re-imposed. Clearly, no one in the Government could reject this irrefutable logic and so supported the 20A.

Now that the Government MPs have supported the 20A with the intention of repelling this clause from the new constitution, they have an important task ahead of them. That is, to genuinely analyze the real reason to oppose dual citizens in high offices. The clause was removed because the principle in which it was introduced was corrupt. Then, they cannot re-introduce it on a corrupt principle of their own. That is, their decision cannot be influenced by the effect this would have on Basil Rajapaksa.

Pros and Cons of Dual Citizens

Many unfairly equate dual citizens to the Tamil Diaspora. While some of the Tamil Diaspora may be dual citizens, not all dual citizens are part of the Tamil Diaspora. Therefore, to take a decision on a whole group based on the reservations against some in that group is wrong.

On the whole, one million Sri Lankan expatriates (in which group a subset are dual citizens) remit USD 7 billion annually. As was pointed out by an FB post, when we travel overseas, Sri Lankan expatriates (who may hold dual citizenship) host and save us from food and lodging expenses. Sometimes they even chauffeur us around, saving us from our transport expenses. They send us fancy goods or essential items not available in Sri Lanka. They also fight in our stead with their host governments.

Furthermore, the Yahapalana era attests to the frightening aspect that the physical presence of the Tamil Diaspora is not needed to carry out its separatist agenda in Sri Lanka. Therefore, simply banning dual citizens from becoming leaders or decision-makers alone is not enough. We need to include the matter of foreign funding and influence into this debate.

In the US, it is not enough to be a citizen to hold a high office like the presidency. One must be born in that country as well. However, our best brains are draining out of SL to end up in the US. So, naturally the US can be picky where as it is not clear if SL can afford the same luxury.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a case in point. Certainly he became the Defense Secretary because his big brother was the then President. However, nepotism may secure the job but keeping the job is up to the individual. Gotabaya Rajapaksa not only justified the appointment by defeating the LTTE, but also proved himself as an administrator with a vision with his urban development projects. Today he is the President of SL all on his own merit.

The bottom line is, as a Colonel Gotabaya Rajapaksa outperformed the Generals in the same Army he served. The Generals before Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Administration too received political support to defeat the LTTE. Gotabaya Rajapaksa as Defense Secretary managed to convince President Mahinda that Sri Lanka was on the winning path. Had he failed, then the political will of that administration too would have waned.

In the 10 years in the US, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was in an environment where he met intellectuals and academics from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds on a daily basis. Coupled with the Sri Lankan Army’s “nothing is impossible” motto, he had developed an attitude to think “outside the box” (a phrase he uses frequently).

It is clear that an outstanding officer had returned home as an exceptional human being. He is however not an isolated case. Many Sri Lankans returning home have undergone this transformation.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that as dual citizens these individuals have pledged their allegiance to another country. Interestingly, as natives we have never pledged a similar allegiance to our own country. This natural bond one forms with his birth country that defines him and his loyalty to his adopted country that caters to his comforts would be a very difficult one to gauge.

Loyalty is one that can only be proven with action and time and can be fickle at the most unexpected moment. This makes the question of loyalty so serious and significant that it pales all pros of a dual citizen. Decisions of leaders affect the whole nation. Therefore, we must be without a reasonable doubt on the integrity of prospective candidates – whether they be dual citizens or not. In the question of dual citizenship, however, it is important that our leaders and decision makers should not have an escape route from the effects of their own decisions.

It is thus hoped that our own lawmakers, intellectuals, academics and other analysts and opinion-makers would initiate this debate in earnest. It would of course help the country that if this debate was engaged with an open mind. If the participants enter the debate with a preconceived opinion, and interpret facts from that perspective then this would become a lost cause.

SHIVANTHI RANASINGHE

 

 

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

A journalist of courage and deep conviction

Published

on

Robert Fisk (12 July 1946 – 30 October 2020) was a legendary journalist and author who penned down meticulously the sufferings of millions of people reporting not from secondary sources or keeping a safe distance from the theatres of the war but from the battle front, endangering his own life. He was attacked many times, once even with the possibility of losing his life.

by SUBRATA MUKHERJEE

During the period of the Cold War, North America and Europe never became war zones and the battle for ideological domination shifted to the non-European world primarily West Asia (Middle East) and Southeast Asia. This led to untold suffering for ordinary people in these areas. Whereas Southeast Asia has now settled for a relatively peaceful order, many regions of West Asia are still riven by strife and uncertainty.

Robert Fisk (12 July 1946 – 30 October 2020) was a legendary journalist and author who penned down meticulously the sufferings of millions of people reporting not from secondary sources or keeping a safe distance from the theatres of the war but from the battle front, endangering his own life. He was attacked many times, once even with the possibility of losing his life.

Fisk’s journalistic career began with covering the conflict in Northern Ireland as a London Times correspondent in 1972. His reports annoyed British authorities as it tilted towards the republicans. He earned in the process a massive following. Out of his reports he published a book The Point of No Return: The Strike which Broke the British in Ulster in 1975. In his Ph.D. thesis he explained the issues connected with Irish neutrality during the Second World War. Later on, he took up Irish citizenship.

He also had a stint in Portugal during the 1974 Carnation Revolution (April Revolution), which not only ended the authoritarian regime in Portugal but also led to the demise of Portuguese colonialism in Africa. But the most important evolution in his journalistic career was his appointment by The Times as its Middle East correspondent in 1976.

For the next forty-four years from Beirut where he witnessed fifteen years of Lebanese Civil War (1975-90), he reflected on the unfoldment of history in the region full of bloody conflicts, ethnic cleansing, wars, revolutions and uprisings. His parting of ways with The Times came in 1988, when he sent a report on the US warship Vincennes having shot down an Iranian civil airline. Fisk’s scoop was not published because by the time the report reached the newspaper editorial office the ownership of the newspaper had gone to media Mughal Robert Murdoch. He was also advised to take up more balanced reporting. Fisk switched to left-leaning British newspaper The Independent, where he spent the rest of his journalistic career (His contributions to both newspapers were re-published in The Statesman.)

As part of his journalistic requirements Fisk travelled extensively. That included Algeria, Libya, the Balkans and Turkey, strife torn homelands of Kurds and Afghanistan. What made his reporting different from other journalistic accounts was his understanding of both colonial and postcolonial history in comprehending contemporary conflicts in West Asia. He was trenchant in his criticism of the Western powers led by the USA and Israel as their policies and machinations had humiliated local people fuelling their anger.

Even when he was grievously injured after being attacked by Afghan refugees in Pakistan he wrote that this “brutality entirely the product of others, of us – of me who had armed their struggle against the Russians, and ignored their pain and laughed at their civil war and then armed and paid them again for the war for civilization” just a few miles away and then bowled their homes and ripped up their families and called them ‘collateral damage’.

In 1982, Fisk was amongst the few journalists to enter the Palestinian refugee camps in Sabra and Shatila where more than a thousand unarmed people were massacred by pro-Christian, Lebanese militia in the presence of Israeli armed personnel. He described this as a war crime. In 1993 in Sudan, he was the first Western journalist to interview Osama Bin Laden, whom he subsequently met twice. The title of his article was “Anti-Soviet Warrior puts his army on the road to peace”.

Laden in the first interview revealed that he was a construction engineer and an agriculturalist. But instead of taking the road of peace he became the most dreaded terrorist who successfully planned and meticulously executed the killing of 3,000 innocent people in the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. Laden praised Fisk for his neutrality. The latter tried to remain neutral but severely condemned the brutal attack and also reminded the need to highlight and investigate the motivation of the attackers.

Fisk examined in detail the Israeli-Palestinian animosity, the US led invasion of Kuwait and Iraq and the US entry into Afghanistan. He was critical of the former as he pointed out that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The US bombing of Kosovo under NATO auspices and other involvements of the USA in the Middle East were examined critically by him. Though he was critical of the USA, he was a frequent visitor and popular speaker in the USA. He analysed war but despised it as he was a proclaimed pacifist.

Regarding being neutral as a journalist, Fisk had this to say “if you watch wars the old ideas of journalism that have to be neutral and take nobody’s side is rubbish. As a journalist you have got to be neutral and unbiased on the side of those who suffer”. His magnum opus The Great War for Civilization (2005) chronicled critically the relationship of former colonial powers with the ordinary people of Arabia. His journalistic outpouring was always controversial and divisive. Some even blamed him for self-promotion and for being biased.

The most serious controversy came up during the ongoing civil war in Syria. Fisk accompanied the Syrian army while fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) and Syrian independent militias. However, though he was critical and condemned the Syrian army’s atrocities before, he exonerated President Assad in 2018 for lack of evidence of using chemical weapons in Duma. A follow up book to the Great War for civilization would be published posthumously which would cover the period of US intervention in Iraq to present times.

Fisk was winner of many journalistic awards and is widely revered in the Arabian Peninsula. He was a critic like IF Stone. His journalistic accounts were not based on official briefing as these did not fully and properly reflect the actual situation. His account of the protracted civil war in Lebanon was published as Pity the Nation, a phrase that he borrowed from Khalil Gibran (18831931). He referred to reporting that was not based on first hand accounts as ‘Hotel Journalism’. He looked to journalism as search for truth and his enduring legacy is the dedication of his entire journalistic career to search for roots of conflicts and war.

(The Statesman/ANN)

The writer is a retired Professor of Political Science, University of Delhi

Continue Reading

Opinion

Who cares for our dumb friends?

Published

on

On 29/11/20 Al Jazeera had shown ‘Kavaan’ being transferred to Cambodia, where he would live the rest of his life in a sanctuary for elephants. Kaavan was a gift from Sri Lanka to Pakistan. I understand he had been very cruelly handled and a certain group had been agitating for some time for his release. Firstly, why should we gift our elephants to anyone? Secondly who owns the elephants in the wild and Pinnawela? Is it the party in power who owns these elephants? Elephants are gifted to countries and places of worship, and most times the treatment meted out to the elephants is disgusting!

I wondered why Kaavan was not brought back to Sri Lanka. We are supposed to be very religious, but the way we treat our animals is shocking.

Recently a dog had been injured by sniffing a “hakka patas” and his mouth was blown off. The dog was a female and pregnant. Fortunately, some kind organization took charge of the dog. It had five pups, and a couple of days later passed away. Fortunately, the pups are taken care of. Cruelty to animals goes on daily, but unfortunately there are no laws for punishment. The existing laws go back to the year dot!

Once again appeal to the President to have the Animal Welfare Bill’ passed as soon as possible. I am aware, Mr. President, that you have enough on your plate, but I am sure some sort of priority will be given to our “dumb friends”

 

SITA UNDUGODAGE

Continue Reading

Opinion

China has overtaken the US – says IMF

Published

on

It was expected but not so swiftly, possibly the Covid-19 has expedited what was inevitable. A report published in “The Our Asian Times” on 1st December 2020, titled ” IMF Admits China Has Overtaken The US As The World’s Largest Economy; But Why Is The Media Silent?” says the world has to wake up to the new reality – China is the undisputed new economic super power.

In the past, economists have traditionally been using the index called MER, which means Market Exchange Rate, to calculate the GDP when comparing the economic performance of different countries. This method has been viewed with extreme suspicion as it doesn’t reflect the real figures because it underestimates the buying power of currencies of many countries. More reliable and now widely accepted yardstick called the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) which is used by IMF, enables you to compare how much you can buy for your money in different countries.

To explain this further, according to the traditional exchange rate, one US Dollar is equivalent to 6.9 Chinese Yuan, but 6.9 Yuan can buy in China more than one US Dollar in America. On this basis 99 trillion Yuan the Chinese produced in 2019, is equal to USD 26 trillion which is much greater than the USD 21.4 trillion America actually produced in 2019. This is the PPP method which is said to be better than the MER method to compare economies.

The IMF is clear in its report, it says “PPP eliminates differences in price levels between economies and thus compares national economies in terms of how much each nation can buy with its own currency at the prices items sell locally. Using the PPP method, the Chinese economy is determined to be USD 24.2 trillion compared to America’s USD 20.8 trillion”. This is a huge difference, for USD 3.4 trillion is lot of money.

After the IMF, the CIA also decided to switch from MER to PPP in its Annual Assessment of National Economies. The CIA Fact Book notes “The official exchange rate measure of GDP is not an accurate measure of China’s output; GDP at the official exchange rate (MERGDP) substantially understates the actual level of China’s situation, GDP at purchasing power parity provides the best measure for comparing output across countries”

Everybody knows that IMF is pro-US in its approach in matters of global finance and economy. In the 1970s, the IMF and the World Bank were restructured to serve neoliberalism which the US and Europe embraced and forced on the rest of the world, letting loose the market forces which have really ravaged the economies of the poor countries. Therefore the IMF could be considered a tool of the US and Western powers. It would not dare lie regarding the economy of its biggest sponsor. The CIA is the central intelligence service of the USA and it is advising the US government about the seriousness of the problem due to Chinese ascendancy. CIA too , will not give wrong information to the US government.

One cannot be surprised by the Chinese phenomenon. It’s economy has been growing at the mind-boggling rate of 10% in the last 30 years. Only the Covid-19 succeeded in bringing it down and that too, by a small margin. China is expected to contribute 1/4 th of the global growth next year, mainly in the manufacturing sector.

Joseph Needham who had studied ancient Chinese science and technology, has commented on the capability of the Chinese and the uniqueness of their culture.. The methods adopted by the Chinese have bewildered Western social scientists and economists. Some believe that it is the habit of thrift of the people that had contributed to the economic growth as the rate of savings in China ranges around 25%. Others think it is due to the concept of Township and Village Enterprises that has been adopted recently. However, Needham and his associates think the close affinity between the Chinese people and the government to be the secret of their success.

The world has to come to terms with China. The Western countries cannot continue to treat China as an outcast and do its utmost to undermine its development and spread of influence. Australia for instance, supports all such efforts of the US though China is its biggest trade partner. It had agreed with the US policies regarding sanctions on China and implemented similar measures, but complains to the WTO when China retaliates.

One hopes, for the sake of world peace and prosperity that these big powers would stop their childish rivalry and work together. One hopes the new US President Joe Biden would change their policy towards China. He must realize that greater benefit would result to the US, as well as the world by adopting a lesser confrontational approach. If the US and China come to be lesser rivals and greater trade partners the rest of the world could be expected to be more peaceful and conciliatory. Middle East could be less of a cauldron, South Asian rivals may mend fences. China itself would be less belligerent in its neighborhood.

More money would be available everywhere for health and education, employment and culture as the defense budget could be cut as there is no need to spend on weapons as there is no threat of war.

But is this wishful thinking. Would weapons industry allow Biden, even if he wants to, to make peace when their economy, employment, growth and power depends on the perpetuation of a war situation cold or hot in the world.

N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending