Midweek Review

Lanka warned of Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Published

1 year ago

2023/06/28

Actually LKI owed public an explanation as to why it never addressed the accountability issue and related matters in spite of it being the toughest foreign affairs challenge faced in post-independence era. There is no harm in addressing a variety of issues of interest but the failure on the part of the LKI to examine this issue by initiating a wider discussion is inexcusable. This criticism also applies to the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU) as it continues to ignore this vital issue.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Three years after Sri Lanka formally withdrew from an accountability resolution moved against our own country, instigated by the West and the US in particular, the UN body has reiterated that Sri Lanka’s political and military leaderships are under investigation in ‘third states,’ therefore subjected to extraterritorial jurisdiction.

A treacherous Yahapalana government co-sponosred the US-led resolution at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.

UNHRC is certainly a club for the rich and powerful, who can kill millions of innocents and render millions more homeless in places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., by staging turmoil by way of rebellions, regime changes and invasions on false excuses and even commit outright war crimes, but getaway scot-free if you are a member of the self-appointed international community. But a country like little Sri Lanka has no such luck simply because we simply defied the above criminal international community and managed to defeat the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization, despite their underhand nourishment given to it by repeatedly claiming that our security forces were incapable of militarily defeating the LTTE.

UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif issued the unmistakable warning on 21 June at the 5th session of the HRC. The Jordanian (and her country is a well-known servile follower of the West) dealt with the 2015 US-Sri Lanka joint resolution on reconciliation, accountability and human rights.

Nashif declared that a special team assigned for Sri Lanka that had been established in their Geneva Office to continue to make progress pursuant to resolution 51/1. She stressed: “The team is in the process of providing concrete support to several jurisdictions that have ongoing criminal justice investigations. It is conducting proactive investigative work on key cases and collecting, consolidating and analyzing information and evidence from a variety of UN and other sources, which is preserved in a repository so as to be used for future accountability initiatives. Victims continue to be placed at the heart of this work, including through our active engagement with victim organizations and civil society more broadly.”

Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader Dinesh Gunawardena, who announced Sri Lanka’s withdrawal in March 2020 from the treacherous 2015 accountability resolution, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, is the Prime Minister today. Perhaps Premier Gunawardena should explain the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government’s response to the latest UN declaration.

The then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who gave the go ahead for the signing of the 2015 Geneva resolution, is the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces today. President Wickremesinghe, accompanied by First Lady Maithree, was in Europe when Geneva issued the warning. The delegation included National Security Advisor Sagala Ratnayake.

Maithripala Sirisena, under whose watch the co-sponsorship of Geneva resolution took place, is a lawmaker representing the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) while war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, represents the same party in Parliament. The war-winning Army commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka represents the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya. Unfortunately, none of them at least bothered to exercise their privileges as members of Parliament to counter unsubstantiated allegations.

Obviously with the full blessings of Washington, the Canadian Parliament, in May last year, passed a resolution claiming Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka, unchallenged. A year after the Canadian declaration, retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, MP, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, has suggested that Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, should move a resolution in Parliament to counter the Canadian move. In response to the writer’s query, the Foreign Ministry assured that the suggestion would be dealt with, in consultation with President Wickremesinghe.

In the absence of a cohesive mechanism to counter the Geneva project, the UN has exercised maximum pressure on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, successive inane governments have simply kicked the can down the road by quite conveniently failing to address war crimes accusations head on by simply exposing to the whole world the double standards of the UN body. By remaining silent those unfairly targeting us have only been given further opportunity to pursue high profile political project meant to introduce a new Constitution at the expense of Sri Lanka’s unitary status.

We as a country should get someone competent to take our case to the world full time, putting aside whatever our political differences.

Except for forthright lawmaker Gevindu Cumatatunga, no one in Parliament has ever declared that the proposed new Constitution should reflect Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism. The leader of civil society organization ‘Yuthukama’ strongly pushed the Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s administration to take the eradication of terrorism into consideration in post-war reconciliation process. Unfortunately, forced by circumstances, and Western intelligence services, and some of their key diplomats working in not so mysterious ways against it, day and night, the erratic GR administration didn’t heed such advice.

The latest Geneva declaration should be examined along with the Canadian declaration of genocide, though for a few days some tended to believe Ottawa was divided over its Sri Lanka stand. But, in response to a specific query as regards the genocide charge, the Canadian High Commission in Colombo reiterated their commitment to 18 May Tamil genocide remembrance day.

Role of LKI

One-time Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Aryasinha, on 19 June, 2023, received appointment as Executive Director, Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies. The appointment was made by Foreign Minister Ali Sabry in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Management of the institute. Other members of the board are Suganthie Kadirgamar, widow of the slain much-loved Minister, Rajan Asirwatham, a member of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s delegation for talks with the LTTE, Thusantha Wijemanna, one-time legal advisor to External Affairs Ministry, and Malinda Seneviratne, former CEO/Director, Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute.

Aryasinha retired in September 2021 having last served the country as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington. Before taking up that appointment in December 2020, Aryasinha served as Foreign Secretary for nearly two years during a turbulent period.

The appointment of Aryasinha took place at a time Geneva has taken an unmistakably dangerous course against us, with Nashif declaring relentless pursuit of Sri Lanka, now at the mercy of Western powers due to an unprecedented financial crisis, leading to IMF loan facility in March this year, entirely on its terms.

It would be pertinent to mention that it was Aryasinha who endorsed the Geneva resolution, in 2015, after some behind-the-scene arm twisting by the then shameless Yahapalana government. In spite of his strong opposition to the resolution, Aryasinha, in his capacity as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, had no option but to accept the resolution following instructions issued by the then Foreign Minister, the late Mangala Samaraweera. The then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe gave the go ahead for the US-led resolution. President Maithripala Sirisena, too, gave his tacit support in terms of the Yahapalana agreement.

Perhaps Aryasinha, now at the LKI’s helm, can pave the way for an in-depth examination of the entire gamut of issues – ranging from UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts’ investigation into the circumstances Sri Lanka brought the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a successful conclusion in May 2009, to the most recent declaration that universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction would be applied against Sri Lanka.

The incumbent government shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the UN backing for investigation and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators and support to the relevant accountability processes in third States, as well, as what it called fair application of targeted sanctions against credibly alleged perpetrators. The reference is very clear. Nada Al-Nashif obviously referred to sanctions imposed by the US and Canada, as well as other countries, including Australia, on the war-winning military. Among those who had been sanctioned were former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, Chief of Defence Staff General Shavendra Silva and Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage.

In fact, LKI owed the public an explanation as to why it never addressed the accountability issue and related matters in spite of it being the toughest foreign affairs challenge faced in post-independence era. There is no harm in addressing a variety of issues of interest but the failure on the part of the LKI to examine this issue by initiating a wider discussion is inexcusable. This criticism also applies to the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU) as it continues to ignore this vital issue.

Mannar mass graves

Sri Lanka never really exploited the exposure of the blatant UNHRC lie over Mannar mass graves to counter unsubstantiated lies propagated by interested parties. The Western propaganda project regarding Mannar mass graves at one point threatened to overwhelm Sri Lanka but the then Yahapalana government was determined to keep quiet about it.

The Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights obviously threw its weight behind those propagating lies. The UN became part of the lie. The Mannar mass graves was accommodated in the annual report of the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

The Commissioner went to the extent of referring to the Mannar mass grave site in her latest annual report (section 23) submitted to the UNHRC. The following is the relevant section: “On May 29, 2018, human skeletal remains were discovered at a construction site in Mannar (Northern Province), Excavations conducted in support of the Office on Missing Persons, revealed a mass grave from which more than 300 skeletons were discovered. It was the second mass grave found in Mannar following the discovery of a site in 2014. Given that other mass graves might be expected to be found in the future, systematic access to grave sites by the Office as an observer is crucial for it to fully discharge its mandate, particularly with regard to the investigation and identification of remains, it is imperative that the proposed reforms on the law relating to inquests, and relevant protocols to operationalize the law be adopted. The capacity of the forensic sector must also be strengthened, including in areas of forensic anthropology, forensic archaeology and genetics, and its coordination with the Office of Missing Persons must be ensured.”

What Bachelet never expected was the US report on Mannar mass graves to go against its strategy. A report by a reputed Miami-based laboratory on the Mannar mass grave samples cleared the Army of the responsibility for extra-judicial killings.

The remains of over 300 men, women and children were found, beginning early 2018, and resulted in high profile accusations of battlefield killings and extra-judicial execution of civilians. Although in terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord that was forced on then President JR Jayewardene by New Delhi, the Indian Army, too, had been deployed there during July 1987 to January 1990, but the know-all UNHRC bluntly pointed the finger at the Sri Lanka Army. During the Indian deployment, the Sri Lankan military was confined to barracks, not only in Mannar, but also the entire northern and eastern administrative districts.

The carbon testing report from the internationally recognized US laboratory concluded that the victims likely died up to 615 years ago — predating even the first European colonization of the country by the Portuguese. That was the end of the sensational Mannar mass grave accusation. But as expected the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that once served as the LTTE’s representative in Parliament, rejected the US report.

A TNA lawmaker, representing the Vanni region, called for a fresh testing in another lab in some other country. Our Vavuniya correspondent Dinasena Ratugamage quoted Mullaitivu District MP Nirmalanathan Sivamohan as having said:” This is not to say that we do not accept the reports sent by a lab in Florida, US, but given the importance of the Mannar grave site we need to get a second opinion.”

The MP insisted that the lab in Florida had not attempted to identify the victims and further tests were necessary to determine the identity of those in the graves.

A section of the local and foreign media spearheaded a high profile campaign on the basis of Mannar mass graves. Some Colombo-based diplomats, too, supported the project. The then German Ambassador in Colombo, Joern Rohde, visited the site on 27 November, 2018. The German envoy’s visit was followed by a British delegation on 11 December, 2018. The British visit took place close on the heels of the discovery of two pieces of human bones, bound by a cable, on 07 December, 2018. The recovery prompted some ‘experts’, as well as those engaged in excavating the mass grave, to speculate whether some of the people buried there had been tortured before being killed. Interests shown in the Mannar mass grave site by those countries, pushing for full implementation of the Geneva Resolution, unfortunately co-sponsored by the then servile government in Sri Lanka, in October, 2015, strengthened the campaign directed at the Army. A section of the Catholic clergy, too, facilitated the project meant to blame the Army over the Mannar mass grave.

During the propaganda campaign over the Mannar mass graves, the Foreign Ministry and Army Headquarters did absolutely nothing because the then government cooperated fully with the Geneva project. The Yahapalana government response to Mannar was in line with its handling of Lord Naseby’s revelations in October 2017. Even to date, Sri Lanka never made a genuine attempt to use the House of Lords member’s disclosure to our advantage.

On the basis of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) records obtained with the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, Lord Naseby challenged the very basis of the October 2015 Resolution. Sri Lanka refused to take advantage of the revelation that countered two major allegations (1) killing of 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front and (2) Sri Lanka political and military leaderships deliberately targeted the civilian community.

The British disclosure coupled with wartime US Defence Advisor Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith’s declaration in support of Sri Lanka, in June 2011, two years after the conclusion of the war, would help Sri Lanka to build a strong case.

The latest UN warning again highlights Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to set the record straight. Sri Lanka should place all available information before the international community even if they won’t accept our version.

How govt. ignored JD’s assertion

One of Sri Lanka’s celebrated career diplomats, the late Jayantha Dhanapala, discussed the issue of accountability when he addressed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), headed by one-time Attorney General, the late C. R. de Silva, on 25 August, 2010.

Dhanapala, in his submissions, said: “Now I think it is important for us to expand that concept to bring in the culpability of those members of the international community who have subscribed to the situation that has caused injury to the civilians of a nation. I talk about the way in which terrorist groups are given sanctuary; harboured; and supplied with arms and training by some countries with regard to their neighbours or with regard to other countries. We know that in our case this has happened, and I don’t want to name countries, but even countries which have allowed their financial procedures and systems to be abused in such a way that money can flow from their countries in order to buy arms and ammunition that cause deaths, maiming and destruction of property in Sri Lanka are to blame and there is therefore a responsibility to protect our civilians and the civilians of other nations from that kind of behaviour on the part of members of the international community. And I think this is something that will echo within many countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, where Sri Lanka has a much respected position and where I hope we will be able to raise this issue.”

Dhanapala also stressed on the accountability on the part of Western governments, which conveniently turned a blind eye to massive fundraising operations in their countries, in support of the LTTE operations. It is no secret that the LTTE would never have been able to emerge as a conventional fighting force without having the wherewithal abroad, mainly in the Western countries, to procure arms, ammunition and equipment. But, the government never acted on Dhanapala’s advice.

Instead the Mahinda Rajapaksa government squandered over USD 6 mn on a foolish US project in 2014 that didn’t help Sri Lanka at all. That project was meant to thwart the 2015 US resolution in Geneva. The rest is history.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Extraterritorial jurisdiction Jayantha Dhanapala Nada Al-Nashif PM Dinesh Gunawardena Ravinatha Aryasinha

Up Next

Alienness within walking distance

Don't Miss

The Jailor’s Loneliness

Sahan Weerasooriya

Click to comment

Midweek Review

General election: The choice before the electorate

Published

6 days ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

The key issue at the forthcoming parliamentary election should be economic recovery, based on the IMF formula, or whatever an alternative solution that the President AKD-led government can come up with if the existing remedy, already negotiated by the previous regime with one of the twin sisters of Washington, is far too difficult to swallow. All political parties, including the JVP represented in the last parliament, however, agreed to adhere to the IMF formula by endorsing the Economic Transformation Bill. Unfortunately, sufficient attention hasn’t been paid to the primary issue at hand at all as the NPP sought to consolidate its political power. The challenge before the executive and the legislature is how to turn around the ailing national economy to pave the resumption of debt repayment in 2028. None of the political parties in the fray seem to be prepared to face the daunting challenge.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The National People’s Alliance (NPP) and Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) are the main contenders at the forthcoming parliamentary election. At the last general election, held in August 2020, the NPP won just three seats, including one National List (NL) slot, whereas the SJB secured 54 seats.

The breakaway UNP faction, the SJB that had been registered under controversial circumstances in early 2020, but emerged as the second largest parliamentary group, with the UNP, the Grand Old Party that was reduced to a humiliating one seat and that, too, coming from a NL slot it managed to scrape. The SJB, in its inaugural electoral contest at the previous general election, managed to grab 54 seats, including seven NL members.

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), that won the election, secured a staggering 145 seats, including 17 NL slots.

But within five years, the NPP has turned tables on traditional middle of the road parties that clearly lost their grounds due to succumbing to political expediency for too long, which caused much of the electorate to lose their trust in them, with the NPP rightly playing up all the political chicanery they had been up to over the years. But it has to be mentioned that the NPP is still very much an old wine in a new bottle with its bulwark being the JVP that cannot easily erase its bloody past.

It is now poised to win the parliamentary elections, scheduled for Nov. 14. The NPP intends to win it primarily on the strength of NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s (AKD) comparative superlative performance for a Marxist, despite so much fearmongering, rightfully or wrongly, from the established order at the presidential election, even though he couldn’t obtain 50% + 1 of the total number of valid votes.

AKD polled 5,634,915 votes (42.31%) while SJB leader Sajith Premadasa (SP) obtained 4,363,035 votes (32.76%). AKD and SP received 105,264 and 167,867 preferences, respectively. With the preferences, their respective tallies were AKD 5,740,179 votes and SP 4,530,902 votes.

Therefore the masses definitely wanted a break with the past without further political horse dealings and a clear stop to ingrained corruption that is eating into every fabric of our society. In that sense the NPP can now start with a clean slate after the general election, if it maintains the no-nonsense discipline it has shown since the unlikely victory at the presidential election.

At the last parliamentary election, the SJB received 2,771,980 votes, whereas the NPP obtained just 445,958 votes and secured fourth place in terms of number of seats won. NPP’s elected members were (AKD, Vijitha Herath and NL member Dr. Harini Amarasuriya). Although Parliament has been dissolved in the wake of AKD’s victory at the presidential election, Herath and Dr. Amarasuriya constitute the caretaker Cabinet, with AKD as its head.

If we go by the presidential election result, the NPP will be able to obtain 105 seats. If it happens the NPP wouldn’t have at least a simple majority in Parliament. In other words, AKD will be at the mercy of the Opposition. Former SJB parliamentarian Mujibur Rahuman recently declared that the SJB-led Opposition could form a government under the premiership of their leader Sajith Premadasa. The Colombo district contestant asserted that the NPP would end up with 105 seats whereas the combined Opposition could obtain 120 seats. Rahuman is certainly not the only ex-lawmaker to think so. Unfortunately, that would be nothing but wishful thinking. For one thing indications are some key Tamil parties are likely to be in the AKD-led government, after the general election, as they to see the winds of an inevitable and much needed change. EPDP leader Douglas Devananda has already declared his intention to back an NPP government.

Parliament consists of 196 elected and 29 appointed lawmakers. Let me remind readers of the allocation of seats in the last Parliament.

The SLPP obtained 145 (17 NL), SJB 54 (07 NL), Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) 10 (01 NL), NPP 03 (01 NL), Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) 02, Ahila Ilankai Thamil Congress (AITC) 02 (01 NL), Thamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) 01, Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) 01, Muslim National Alliance (MNA) 01, Thamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) 01, All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) 01, National Congress (NC) 01, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) 01, United National Party (UNP) 01 NL and the Our Power of People Party (OPPP) 01.

Fifteen political parties were represented in the last Parliament. What would be the outcome of the forthcoming parliamentary election? In spite of the Opposition assertion that the NPP may end up even without a simple majority in Parliament, the ground realities seemed to be quite different.

In addition to the main contenders, there are three other notable political parties in the fray in the South. In the Northern and Eastern regions, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) is the main party, while the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) contests Nuwara Eliya district under the UNP’s ‘elephant’ symbol.

UNP leader and former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, though not contesting the general election and also not in its NL, leads the New Democratic Front (NDF). That party had its symbol ‘swan’ changed to ‘gas cylinder’ recently to contest the general election. In spite of never having been represented in the Parliament, the NDF is not an ordinary political party. Since the end of the war, in 2009, the UNP fielded three presidential candidates in 2010 – the then retired General Sarath Fonseka (promoted to the rank of Field Marshal in 2015), 2015 Maithripala Sirisena and 2019 Sajith Premadasa.

Actually Sri Lanka’s type of democracy is a mystery. Having been involved in the UNP-led presidential campaigns in 2010 and 2015 and also part of that camp during the 2009-2019 period, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) discarded its ‘bell’ symbol in 2019 to field AKD on the NPP ticket at the last presidential. Even prior to that, the JVP has had honeymoons with both Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa and helped them gain their electoral victories.

SLPP in tatters

The SLPP that won a near 2/3 majority at the 2020 general election is in tatters. The party had been so weakened, that Namal Rajapaksa (NR), widely believed to be the current SLPP Chairman Mahinda Rajapaksa’s chosen successor, sought the protection of the NL. Having polled just 342,781 votes (2.57%) at the recently concluded presidential election, NR must have realized his inability to re-enter Parliament from the Hambantota district by winning the required votes as a candidate.

At the last parliamentary election, the SLPP polled 6,853,693 votes (59.09%), the SJB a distant second with 2,771,984 votes (23.90%) and the NPP a hopelessly positioned third with a paltry 445,958 (3.84%). What really influenced the electorate to give such a mega boost to the NPP at the presidential election five years later?

The issue at hand is whether the NPP can attract more voters at the parliamentary election than it did at the presidential.

The SLPP has been badly divided into three groups, with the largest joining hands with Wickremesinghe, the failed independent candidate at the presidential election, to contest the parliamentary polls under the ‘gas cylinder’ symbol. Another group that included Prof. G. L. Peiris and Dallas Alahapperuma placed its faith in the SJB, leaving only a handful SLPPers with NR. Quite a number of former SLPPers had decided against contesting this time with the curtain coming down on war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political career. Regardless of him putting a brave face the other day by declaring that he would be back and the SLPP could secure a simple majority, the dye was cast in wake of the humiliating defeat at the presidential election.

The possibility of the SLPP being reduced to just one NL seat cannot be ruled out. The UNP suffered a similar fate at the 2020 general election. The UNP that had 106 MPs in 2015-2019 (Yahapalana Parliament) was unceremoniously reduced to just one NL seat.

The SJB, too, despite putting on a brave face, is facing a huge challenge in at least retaining the same number of seats won at the last election. The SJB, beset by internal strife, may not be able to cope up with another heavy defeat at national level in less than two weeks.

Sarvajana Balaya received quite a significant media attention due to Pivithiru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader and ex-parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila’s battle with the NPP government over the refusal on the part of the latter to release two Easter Sunday reports commissioned by AKD’s predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Gammanpila earned the respect of many for taking an unwavering stand in the continuing controversy but it may not help Sarvajana Balaya at the general election. While the Catholic Church has thrown its weight behind the NPP government in continuing to seek justice for victims of the Easter carnage, without being politically neutral, at least in public, UNP leader Wickremesinghe strongly disapproved of the stand taken by the government and the Church. However, the Church has dismissed Gammanpila’s assertions, as well as the much touted committee reports, out of hand. Therefore, the NPP can be sure of receiving the backing of the influential Catholic belt at the general election.

The outcome of the general election must be examined taking into consideration the unbelievably huge number of voters who skipped the presidential election. About 1/5 of 17,140,354 registered voters refrained from voting at the Sept, election. Although some of them had been overseas, political parties, under any circumstances, cannot ignore the danger in a significant group of electors keeping away from polling booths. Of 17,140,354 electors, only 13,619,916 (79.46 %) had exercised their franchise and of them 300,300 (2.2 %) votes were rejected. The total number of valid votes at the presidential election was 13,319,616 (97.8 % of the total polled).

The NPP is confident that at the forthcoming general election it can definitely improve on its performance at the presidential election. Addressing rallies at Katunayaka (Oct. 20) and Polonnaruwa and Trincomalee (Oct. 23), President AKD called on the electorate to wipe out the Opposition at the general election. The writer was present at an NPP rally at Katunayake where AKD explained why the next Parliament should be overwhelmingly dominated by NPP lawmakers.

The NPP leader, who is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (both are registered political parties recognized by the Election Commission), said that the defeat of no-confidence motions moved against Ravi Karunanayake (UNP), who, as a Minister giving evidence in the bond scam probe, claimed he could not remember the name of the person who had provided him with a luxury penthouse, and Keheliya Rambukwella (SLPP), in June 2016 and Sept. 2023, underscored the need to overhaul Parliament. That couldn’t be achieved unless the new Parliament was filled by members of the NPP, the President declared.

The Joint Opposition-led no-confidence motion against Karunanayake over the Treasury bond scams was defeated by a majority of 94 votes. The no-confidence motion received 51 votes in favour and 145 against, while 28 didn’t turn up at the time of the voting on June 09, 2016. Among the absentees were Mahinda Rajapaksa and the late R. Sampanthan.

The no-confidence motion moved against Keheliya Rambukwella, on Sept. 08, 2023, over corruption charges, pertaining to the procurement of medicine and surgical equipment, was easily defeated by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government. The motion received 73 votes in favour, while 113 voted against it.

AKD repeatedly declared that the actions of the MPs resulted in Parliament earning the wrath of the public and widely considered as the most hated institution in the country.

Elpitiya PS result

Comments on the result of the Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha election, held on Oct. 26, indicated that politicians and other interested parties took advantage of the outcome to pursue their own agendas. Some asserted that the Elpitiya result meant that the NPP’s decline has started quite early and portends the likelihood of a significant setback for the ruling party at the parliamentary election.

Others asserted that the SLPP has done well at Elpitiya though the party suffered a humiliating defeat at the presidential polls.

Eight registered political parties, and one independent group, contested the Elpitiya Local Government election. The UNP was not among them. The 30-member Elpitiya PS was shared by NPP (17,295/15 members), SJB (7,924/06 members), SLPP (3,597/03 members), People’s Alliance (2,612/02 members), People’s United Freedom Alliance (1,350/01), National’s People’s Party (521/01) and Independent Group (2,568/02).

The NPP polled 17,295 votes whereas the seven registered political parties, and the one Independent Group, polled 19,010 voters.

However, pertaining to Elpitiya, the issue at hand is why out of 55, 643 registered voters only 36, 825 exercised their franchise in spite of growing interest in the general election. Of 55,643 registered voters, 18,818 didn’t turn up to vote.

Having compared the Elpitiya PS result with that of the Elpitiya presidential polls outcome, some have come to the conclusion that the SLPP has made a strong comeback by increasing its percentage of votes from 3.56% to 9.89% while both the NPP and the SJB recorded a drop in their respective percentages.

The security scares caused by the alleged threat on Israeli tourists visiting the east coast continues to dominate the media attention, with the Opposition and various other interested parties, too, seeking to exploit the developing situation.

The Opposition found fault with the government over the way the police and higher security authorities had handled the threat, whereas the incumbent administration stressed that the relevant alert was received on Oct. 07 and local authorities were in the process of addressing the threat when the US Embassy issued a public warning, almost three weeks later.

The crux of the matter is whether the Arugam Bay fallout can influence voters at the forthcoming parliamentary election. The issue has to be examined taking into consideration Sri Lanka’s response to the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza and Lebanon and the extremely dangerous developments in Iran-Israel lethal exchanges and the Houthi threat to international shipping.

Unfortunately, those who find fault with Israel for the continuing bloodshed are silent on Hamas invasion of southern Israel in October last year that created an environment conducive for the Jewish State to unleash war on Gaza and then extend hostilities to Lebanan and Iran with the backing of the US and the UK.

Recently, some interested party posted a video of a pro-Israeli march in Batticaloa. The video was meant to deceive the electorate that the AKD government has allowed such a controversial public display of support for Israel in the wake of the ongoing war and security crisis caused by alleged threat on Israelis here. However, inquiries revealed that the video had been taken in 2015 during the Yahapalana administration. A similar demonstration had been organized in 2019 by the same non-Roman Catholic Church group based at No 118, Bar Street, Batticaloa.

The government should be mindful of the accusations directed by the breakaway JVP faction Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), or Peratugaami pakshaya, regarding the government role in facilitating, what the party called, Israeli military tourism. The FSP insists that the project that had been launched during the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa administration posed a major security threat and the new government should re-examine the controversial decision.

The government should pay utmost attention to the developments pertaining to the Arugam Bay security threat or be prepared to face the consequences.

Midweek Review

The Western Gaze: Orientalism and Middle East Conflict

Published

6 days ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

A file photo of Israeli attacks on Gaza

by Amarasiri de Silva

After moving to the United States a decade ago, I quickly noticed how people from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim backgrounds were often viewed through a peculiar, almost mystifying lens. In conversations, media portrayals, and even school settings, these communities were consistently depicted as fundamentally different—exotic, foreign, and, at times, dangerous.

Hollywood frequently portrayed Middle Eastern landscapes as barren deserts filled with shadowy figures, while news stories reduced entire cultures to images of conflict and chaos. This persistent thread of “otherness” seemed to frame anyone with my skin tone, a similar cultural background, or shared religious beliefs as unfamiliar and fundamentally separate from the Western norm. Over time, particularly after reading Said’s book ‘Orientalism,’ I understood that this wasn’t coincidental but part of a legacy of Orientalism. This framework has long influenced how the West perceives and engages with the Middle East. Examining the origins of this mindset, I began to see how these deeply ingrained misrepresentations continue to fuel political and cultural misunderstandings that shape conflicts to this day.

The Middle East conflict is a deeply rooted and multifaceted struggle involving political, religious, and territorial disputes that have spanned centuries. At the heart of many modern interpretations of this conflict lies the pervasive influence of Western intervention, particularly through the lens of orientalism. Edward Said’s groundbreaking work, Orientalism, provides a theoretical framework for understanding how the West’s imperialistic endeavours shaped perceptions of the East, particularly the Middle East, leading to centuries of misrepresentation, exploitation, and ongoing strife. By examining the Middle East conflict through Said’s concepts of Orientalism, we can better comprehend how Western ideologies of superiority and domination have exacerbated and, in many ways, sustained this protracted crisis.

In this essay, I will explore the historical context of the Middle East conflict, focusing on the influence of European colonialism and its lingering impact on modern-day geopolitics in the region. Drawing on Said’s theory of Orientalism, I will analyze how the West’s misrepresentation and dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and instability. Through this exploration, it becomes clear that Orientalism, far from being an abstract academic concept, is central to understanding the ongoing power dynamics and struggles in the Middle East.

Historical Context of Western Involvement in the Middle East

To fully appreciate the relevance of Said’s theory to the Middle East conflict, it is essential first to understand the historical context in which Orientalism emerged. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, European colonial powers such as Britain and France expanded their empires into the Middle East, driven by economic interests, strategic motivations, and a desire for political dominance. The British occupation of Egypt, the French control of Algeria, and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I are just a few examples of how European imperialism shaped the region’s political and social landscape.

One of Said’s key assertions is that colonialism/orientalism was not just a physical act of territorial expansion but also an intellectual and cultural project. In Orientalism, Said argues that the West constructed an image of the “Orient” as backward, irrational, and barbaric to justify its colonisation. This process of “othering” created a stark dichotomy between the “civilised” West and the “primitive” East, allowing European powers to rationalise their domination over Middle Eastern societies.

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman territories between Britain and France, exemplifies how colonial powers viewed the Middle East as a region to be divided and controlled for their benefit. The arbitrary borders drawn by Western officials without regard for ethnic, religious, or historical realities have had long-lasting consequences, sowing the seeds for many of the conflicts we see in the Middle East today. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most enduring and contentious disputes in the region, is deeply rooted in the legacy of colonial intervention and Western-imposed territorial divisions.

Orientalism as a Justification for Colonial Domination

At the heart of Said’s Orientalism is the idea that the West’s representations of the East were shaped not by objective observations but by a desire to assert dominance over a perceived “other.” Said explains that Orientalism served as a justification for colonial domination by portraying Middle Eastern societies as incapable of self-governance and in need of Western intervention to “civilise” them.

This sense of Western superiority is reflected in many of the cultural artifacts produced during the colonial era, from travel writing to scholarly works. European artists and writers often depicted the Middle East as a mysterious and exotic land, filled with danger and intrigue, but ultimately inferior to Europe’s rational, orderly world. These representations were not mere fantasies; they had real-world implications, shaping public opinion and government policy in ways that reinforced colonial power structures.

Said highlights the work of European scholars and colonial officers who produced knowledge about the Middle East, noting that this knowledge could have been more neutral. Instead, it was designed to reinforce Western hegemony and justify the exploitation of Middle Eastern resources and people. As Said states, “knowledge of the Orient, because generated out of strength, in a sense creates the Orient, the Oriental, and his world” (Said, 1978, p. 40). In this way, Orientalism became a tool for maintaining Western dominance over the region, as it allowed Europeans to assert control over the land and the narrative surrounding its inhabitants.

The Impact of Orientalism on Western Perceptions of the Middle East

Gaza Strip (Image courtesy of BBC, https://www.bbc.
com/news/newsbeat-44124396)

One of the most insidious effects of Orientalism is the way it has shaped Western perceptions of the Middle East and its people. By consistently portraying the region as violent, irrational, and backward, Orientalism has contributed to a widespread dehumanisation of Middle Eastern individuals and cultures. This dehumanisation is evident in the ways that Western media often depicts conflicts in the Middle East, focusing on images of chaos and destruction while ignoring the underlying causes of the violence or the humanity of those affected by it.

This Orientalist framework has played a significant role in shaping Western policies toward the Middle East, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader “War on Terror.” The United States, in particular, has frequently invoked Orientalist tropes to justify military interventions in the region, framing its actions as part of a broader effort to “civilise” or “democratize” the Middle East. However, as Said’s work clarifies, these justifications often mask underlying economic and political motivations, such as securing access to oil or maintaining geopolitical influence.

The American involvement in the Middle East post-World War II is deeply tied to Orientalism. The rise of the United States as a global superpower after 1945 coincided with the decolonisation of much of the Middle East. Still, rather than marking an end to Western domination, this period saw the U.S. take on the region’s ” protector ” role. According to Said, the U.S. approached the Middle East much like Britain and France, viewing the region as a place to exert control for strategic purposes, particularly in terms of oil. This is reflected in America’s foreign policies, which have often involved backing autocratic regimes in the name of stability or supporting Israel without fully addressing the complexities of Palestinian sovereignty.

The Middle East Conflict Through the Lens of Orientalism

One of the central components of the Middle East conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, a dispute with roots that extend back to the early 20th century, when Zionist migration into Palestine began. Western support for the creation of Israel in 1948 is often seen through a humanitarian lens, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. However, Said’s Orientalism allows us to view the establishment of Israel—and the subsequent displacement of Palestinian people—through the framework of colonialism. The Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, treated Palestine as another piece of territory to be “managed” and divided without adequately considering the rights and aspirations of the indigenous population.

Moreover, Said’s work draws attention to how Western media and political discourse have framed the conflict. Palestinians, especially during periods of violent uprising, have often been portrayed as irrational and inherently violent, while Israeli actions are justified as necessary for self-defense. This asymmetrical portrayal mirrors the Orientalist dichotomy of a rational West versus an irrational, violent East.

In the broader context of the Middle East, Orientalism has also influenced how the West views and interacts with other nations in the region. The Gulf Wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq can all be seen as extensions of the Orientalist mindset that views the Middle East as a place in need of Western intervention, whether for “liberation” or “stabilisation.” The dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples through Orientalist tropes has allowed Western nations to engage in military actions that have had devastating consequences for the civilian populations of these countries, often with little domestic scrutiny or opposition.

Orientalism and the War on Terror

The events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent War on Terror offer a stark illustration of the enduring power of Orientalist thought in shaping Western policies and perceptions. In the wake of the attacks, the U.S. government launched a series of military interventions across the Middle East and Central Asia, framing these actions as part of a broader struggle between the civilised, democratic West and the barbaric, extremist forces of the East.

This narrative, deeply rooted in Orientalist tropes, ignored the complex political, economic, and social factors that contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, instead reducing the conflict to a simple clash of civilisations. The War on Terror not only perpetuated violence and instability in the Middle East but also reinforced negative stereotypes about Muslims and Middle Easterners in general, contributing to a rise in Islamophobia and xenophobia in the West.

Moreover, the War on Terror has had devastating consequences for civilian populations in the Middle East, with millions of people killed, displaced, or otherwise affected by the violence. Yet, these human costs are often downplayed or ignored in Western media, which tends to focus on the actions of “terrorists” rather than the suffering of ordinary people. This selective coverage is a direct result of the dehumanisation of Middle Eastern people fostered by Orientalist discourse.

Conclusion

Edward Said’s Orientalism provides a critical lens through which to examine the Middle East conflict, revealing how Western perceptions of the region have been shaped by centuries of colonialism and cultural imperialism. By constructing the Middle East as the “other,” Western powers have justified their domination and exploitation of the region, often at the expense of its people.

The Middle East conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the broader War on Terror, cannot be fully understood without recognising the influence of Orientalism. As long as Western nations continue to view the region through this distorted lens, the cycle of violence and misunderstanding is likely to persist. For true peace and stability to be achieved in the Middle East, it is essential to move beyond Orientalist stereotypes and engage with the region in a way that respects its history, cultures, and people on its own terms.