Midweek Review

‘Truth and Science’ has won the US presidential election;

Published

4 years ago

2020/11/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

will America win the world through it?

By Rohana R. Wasala

America is the most religious and the most nationalistic country in the world, in addition to being a global superpower. When the Democrats who fought the election on a platform of ‘Truth and Science’ defeated the Republicans who were guided or misguided by a person/a cult figure (instead of a coherent policy) whom many popular polls described as mendacious and ignorant on top of being an indecent narcissistic exemplar of religious and nationalistic extremism, racism and misogyny, it is natural for a world, persecuted by America’s hegemonic political economic and military power, to breathe a sigh of relief. Democratic Party’s Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been declared President and Vice-President elects respectively, beating Republican Party’s Donald Trump, incumbent President, and his Vice-President and running mate Mike Pence. Sri Lanka is, no doubt, currently sharing that universal sense of consolation. Although some anti-national, NGO-dominated social media are trying in vain to turn that hopeful feeling to gloomy apprehension by drumming up a certain unfounded ‘Kamala Harris’ phobia, signs are that, probably, average Sri Lankans cannot wish a better person to be in that post to channel America’s influence in their region in a universally beneficent direction. My purpose here is to take a look at hypocritical religiosity and nationalism-turned-racism (versions of fundamentalist religion and racist jingoism, respectively), both at the service of despicable value-free politics, that Truth and Science successfully challenged at the recent US presidential election.

Religion is about human ‘spirituality’. Spirituality is ‘the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things’, in other words, with the mind as distinct from the body. So, it is appropriate to approach the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism from a psychological point of view. Some psychologists assume religious fundamentalism to be ‘a collection of infallible beliefs or principles that provide guidance regarding how to obtain salvation. Religious fundamentalists believe in the superiority of their religious teachings, and in a strict division between righteous people and evildoers…… This belief system regulates religious thoughts, but also all conceptions regarding the self, others, and the world’ (frontiers.org). Isn’t every religion fundamentalist by nature in this sense? But there are two kinds of religious fundamentalism in my opinion, harmless and harmful. What should concern us is the latter. The more a religion tends towards harmful religious fundamentalism, the more it resembles a cult that thrives on unhinged minds. A cult, we know, is ‘a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object’. (Both dictionary definitions given in this paragraph are from google.com)

The rise of Christian fundamentalism in America in the 19th century as a Protestant movement to counter theological liberalism and cultural modernism can be described as the advocacy of a return to the basic ‘infallible beliefs or principles ….’ of the Christian faith. That was harmless fundamentalism and was viewed as something positive. Actually, the term fundamentalism as originally applied to Christianity in America had non-violent, ‘you mind your own business, we mind ours’ connotations; the word acquired the current pejorative meaning in the media when it began to be connected with violent Islamic movements in the Middle East in the 1970s decade, a most conspicuous event among which was the 1979 Iran Revolution, that toppled the US-backed Shah of Iran, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, during President Jimmy Carter’s last year in office. The latter, now 96, congratulated president elect Joe Biden and vice-president elect Kamala Harris as the media reported November 8.

Religious fundamentalism becomes a problem when any religion claims monopoly over

Truth (whatever that is), superiority over other faiths regardless of whether they also make similar claims about themselves, seeks to rescue the ‘misguided’ adherents of those faiths from allegedly false and evil beliefs and practices through coercion where conversion through conviction doesn’t work, or even resorts to violence to have its way with people, evoking divine authority to justify it. Religions are intrinsically political, but rarely democratically so. Religion and politics make a violently explosive mixture. (‘Politics has killed its thousands, but religion has slain its tens of thousands’. – Irish dramatist Sean O’Casey, ‘Religion kills’ ‘Religion poisons everything’ – British intellectual and socio-cultural and political critic Christopher Hitchens.) The Founding Fathers of the USA including Thomas Jefferson sought to establish a ‘wall of separation between the State and the Church’ to keep civil government free from the interferences of the Catholic clergy. The concept was termed ‘secularism’ only in the 19th century by British reformer George Jacob Holyoake.

Religious interference in what should come within exclusive state purview, for example public education, has persisted even into the third millennium, in America. A survey conducted in 2006 by Zogby International for the Discovery Institute found that approximately 70% of Americans approved of the view that biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also ‘the scientific evidence against it’ in contrast to 21% who held the opinion that only evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it must be taught in schools. This is the result of benighted ignorance – inexcusable in those who claim to be the greatest democracy and the only superpower in the world – that is at the root of religious fundamentalism. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says that ‘the theory of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science’. There isn’t any scientific evidence against it. Prof. Dawkins makes ‘a personal summary of the evidence’ available to support this factual reality in his fascinating book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’, Bantam Press, GB, 2009. The plain but profound final sentence of the book is worth quoting: ‘We are surrounded by endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random natural selection – the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth’.

In his book ‘Against Religion’ (Scribe Publications, Brunswick, VIC, Australia, 2007), Dr Tamas Pataki of the University of Melbourne makes a philosophical critique of religion, which goes beyond the neighbourhood of what, according to him, may be called psychology of religion. Pataki adopts religious scholar and philosopher John Haldane’s brief characterization of religion: ‘religion is best characterised as a system of beliefs and practices directed towards a transcendent reality in relation to which persons seek solutions to the observed facts of moral and physical evil, limitation and vulnerability, particularly and especially death.’

Scottish philosopher and academic John Haldane was a papal advisor to the Vatican. Obviously, he is not anti-religion; he is pro-religion.

He believes in the necessity of religion as a foundational political principle that fosters values like respect for others’ rights, and support for their well-being in multicultural multi-religious societies which are the global norm today for most countries; religion, according to him, is the best, and indeed, the only source of such ideas. Critics of religion argue that religions differ on what they consider to be moral and good, and instead of promoting goodwill and compassion towards people of other religions, sow feelings of mutual alienation, suspicion, and disunity, and egoistic self-absorption. Religious fundamentalism of both the benign and the malign kinds aggravate such attitudes.

According to Pataki, criticising religion is a complicated matter because there is so much diversity within religions. He writes: ‘The historical denominational differences are bad enough, but recent developments have completely erased any hope of perspicuous demarcation. Today the ineluctable longing for group identity drives even those who divest religion of its defining doctrinal content to religious affiliation. The denial of the Resurrection and the Deity is no bar to identifying as a Christian. Iris Murdoch (Irish British novelist and philosopher deeply concerned about good and evil) enjoined a Christianity without God or divine Jesus, a kind of Christian Buddhism. Unbelief has become belief.’

Pataki’s critical discussion is predicated on people that he describes as ‘religiose’, who include most of the groups currently identified as fundamentalist, among others. Another factor that forms an obstacle to criticism of religion is that it, like politics, cuts across a range of absolutely different fields: ideology/doctrine, practices, rituals, institutions, movements, attitudes, votaries, and priests. The evils of religion examined in the book are conspicuous in the three well known Abrahamic monotheisms, according to Pataki’s thinking.

Religion is not all bad, though, as already suggested. To many people religion is invaluable as the deepest expression of human worth and moral well-being. It is also an inexhaustible source of consolation for them in personally and socially distressful, emotionally draining situations such as bereavement and natural catastrophes. However, Pataki adds reservations to this: ‘There is no metric for religion at its best, but it is not hard to measure it at its worst, in the tenebrous collapse of reason and in corpses. Besides, it is obviously more important today to confront religion at its worst and most dangerous. The good takes care of itself.’ The further a religion is from blind irrationality and intrinsic violence, the greater is its potential as a socio-cultural institution for the general good of the community concerned.

Pataki describes ten characteristics of religious fundamentalism, which I will set down here – with my own elaborations given in parentheses, in some cases, as I understand them (Some of these were accidentally revealed during the US election): Religious fundamentalists are counter-modernists; they advocate religious, cultural and political isolationism; they are assertive, clamorous, and often violent, (but they play the victim card when confronted); fundamentalists believe that they are the Elect of their god, the Chosen people, the Saved, etc; they display public marks of distinction, which they think are necessary to maintain their superiority and distinctive identity (so, they may wear special body marks, adopt a special dress code, and use names that reveal their specific religious identity); religious fundamentalists believe that (as theirs is the one true religion and the one exclusively blameless way of life) these must not allow any inroads to be made into their domain from other religions (or secularist institutions, religious pluralism is unthinkable for them). A sixth characteristic belief that fundamentalists commonly share is that there is only one inerrant holy book, and one inerrant prophet or charismatic leader (both of which they have been divinely favoured with). They also believe that law and authority come from God and that God’s law surpasses human law. Yet another fundamentalist characteristic is the preoccupation with controlling female sexuality; unbreachable segregation must be established between men and women. Pataki identifies the ninth characteristic of fundamentalists as their major concern with the sexual behaviour of individuals; the fear of and opposition to homosexuality. The tenth characteristic of fundamentalists is that their religious fundamentalism is inseparable from their nationalism (nationalism of the evil kind, racism, the ‘all for ourselves and nothing for other people’ doctrine usually adopted by Americans that Noam Chomsky criticises in in his book ‘Who Rules the World’, 2016).

For me, evidence for the last point mentioned came from the tail end of Donald Trump’s election campaign. The nationalism slogan was loudly chanted on the stages of both camps, Democratic and Republican. There is nothing wrong with that. Good nationalism should be commended. Racism that passes for nationalism is what is bad. On the Republican side, the identity between the wrong kind of nationalism (white racism) and what can be described as religious fundamentalism in terms of the characteristics given above, was particularly conspicuous. Paula White, Trump’s spiritual adviser, held a number of prayer services invoking divine blessings for his victory even as his defeat had become a certainty by the final stages of the counting process which was still in progress in the wake of the just concluded presidential election. She, apparently, engaged in battle with the ‘demonic confederacies’ that were allegedly trying to steal Trump’s victory (cf. ‘a strict division between righteous people and evildoers’ in the second paragraph from the beginning of this essay). She loudly chanted: ‘Strike Strike…. I Strike the ground……..until you have Victory…..I hear a sound of Victory…I hear an overabundance of Rain and Victory in the Quarters of Heaven…..I hear Shouting and Singing…. Angels are being released……are being despatched…’ etc. Then she broke into speaking in tongues (directly communicating with God) like Paul did after Christ resurrected: ‘Amanda, Atha, Rasa, Baka, Ambo, Rike, Eka, Anda, Anda, Manda… I hear the sound of Victory, etc’. Trump lost in spite of all this. The Democrat Joe Biden, who, on his part, presumably, made as passionate a supplication for divine intervention for his victory, won the election. But his no nonsense main campaign slogan ‘Battle for the Soul of the Nation Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead No Malarkey! Build Back Better Unite for a Better America’ had little to do with religion.

When all is said and done, it is up to the American people, as Americans, to choose their ruler/s for the next four years; they are doing that now. On the face of it, especially to us outsiders, the winning margin of four million votes according to estimates at the time of writing (Biden’s 74 to Trump ‘s 70 million) is a bit disappointing; the gap should have been wider, we feel, given the unpopularity of the latter, deepened by the anti-Trump stance of the media and Trump’s own apparent personal perverseness, his unconcealed white supremacist bravado and his sexist prejudice displayed against his own near and dear ones. However, only his 70 million or more supporters know what endeared him to them. Outsiders cannot decide for Americans. The best we may expect from the incoming US administration is that they appreciate this reality in respect of Sri Lanka when considering whether or not to continue or modify the established tradition of intervention and interference in its affairs in pursuit of their geopolitical ends in its region as an essential part of their grand scheme of serving their own national interest back home.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Foreign policy: New Prez encounters same challenges

Published

3 days ago

2024/10/2

Sahan Weerasooriya

Santosh Jha meets Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Also in the picture is Vijitha Herath

Over the past couple of years, Quad members US and India provided much needed support to strengthen Sri Lanka’s military capabilities. Sri Lanka also received support from Japan and Australia, also part of the same military alliance. Since the declaration of bankruptcy our dependence on foreign support for maintenance, expansion of military assets as well as infrastructure has grown, while the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa administration at the same time declared its intention to reduce the Army to 100,000 by 2030. Chinese and Indian investments over the years in various sectors as well as envisaged projects in the Northern and Eastern regions and rest of the country illustrates the status of play and the developing scenario. The situation should be examined taking into consideration the 99-year lease of the Hambantota port to China in 2017 under controversial circumstances, a development that changed the overall picture. As to what happened to that one billion US dollars Sri Lanka received in return, as well as USD 12.5 billion that the Yahapalana government borrowed hastily from the international bond market at high interest rates during that period should be looked into with the help of the then Auditor General.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Having congratulated Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Chinese leader Xi Jinping declared that the former’s triumph at the Presidential Election marked a new chapter in China-Sri Lanka bilateral relations. The Chinese President called for deeper friendship and cooperation while proposing, what he called, a journey of mutual progress and prosperity.

Indian Premier Narendra Modi emphasized the importance of Indo-Lanka relations in the context of India’s Neighbourhood First policy and Vision SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region). Modi, too, declared his keenness to work closely with President Dissanayake.

Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha was the first Colombo-based foreign envoy to meet President-elect Dissanayake at the Pelawatte headquarters of the Janatha Vimukthi Peremuna (JVP), the leading party in the Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB)/National People’s Power (NPP). Jha was followed by Chinese Ambassador Qi Zhenhong. Both meetings took place at the JVP’s Pelawatte office on Sunday (22). On hand was MP Vijitha Herath, who received the Foreign Affairs portfolio two days later, hours before President Dissanayake dissolved Parliament at midnight on Sept. 24.

Dissanayake contested the Sept. 21 Presidential Election on the JJB ticket, his second attempt to win the country’s highest office. Dissanayake suffered a humiliating defeat at the 2019 Presidential Election.

In his congratulatory message Chinese President Xi Jinping referred to a new chapter in China-Sri Lanka relations against the backdrop of an unprecedented election result that brought an end to the two-party system. Obviously, both China and India intended to pursue their strategies meant to consolidate their position. The Asian nuclear powers are opening a new round here at a time the world is in deepening turmoil with two major conflicts – the Israel war in Gaza taking a deadly turn with the Jewish state attacking Lebanon, and Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening to use nuclear weapons in its war with Ukraine.

Putin quite rightly issued the warning in the wake of Western powers preparing to fire their long range missiles, positioned in Ukraine, at vital targets in Russia, using their intelligence inputs to guide them.

Bankrupt Sri Lanka has been trapped in the China-India conflict with the US throwing its weight behind New Delhi. Vijitha Herath, in his new capacity as the Foreign Minister, now faces the daunting task of steering the foreign policy scene without antagonizing either China and India. Having served as a parliamentarian since 2000, Herath is well-versed with long simmering issues and the developing situation as both powers seek to consolidate their positions here quickly.

The new President and his Foreign Minister are in an unenviable situation. The JJB will have to address opposing Chinese and Indian concerns as Sri Lanka’s major lenders wield immense clout.

As the leader of both the JVP and the JJB/NFF Dissanayake has the edge on all opposing political parties at the forthcoming General Election. Having already bagged the all-powerful Presidency and the Cabinet, the JJB/NFF, established in 2019, has a clear opportunity to comfortably win the November parliamentary election. But, dealing with longstanding Indian-US and Chinese concerns, as well as interests, would be quite challenging and problematic, as well.

Having been part of the UNP led political alliance that backed retired war-winning General Sarath Fonseka and then Prime Minister Maithripala Sirisena at the 2010 and 2015 Presidential Elections, respectively, the JVP cannot be unaware how the US brazenly pursued its interests, even at the expense of political stability here. The new President and his Foreign Minister face a herculean task in managing relations with New Delhi and Beijing.

Another issue of serious concern is Indian fishing fleet brazenly poaching in Sri Lankan waters. Successive governments have failed to address this vital issue. The poaching issue has taken a turn for the worse with some fishers responding aggressively to the Sri Lanka Navy efforts to contain the situation.

Acid test

Soon after the parliamentary election next month, the new government will have to take a stand, publicly, on the current year-long ban on visits by foreign research vessels imposed on January 1, 2024. Relentless US and Indian pressure compelled the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government to declare the ban that was only meant to bar Chinese vessels. The move quite obviously angered the Chinese.

During an official visit to Japan in early July 2024, the then Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, told the state-owned news agency NHK that the ban would be reversed to ensure Sri Lanka has a neutral voice in the dispute of others.

“The government cannot have different rules for different countries and only block China. Sri Lanka will not take sides in a dispute between others,” Sabry said. The former Minister should have explained as to why in the first place the government declared a moratorium on ship visits if Sri Lanka remained neutral in disputes among other countries. Unfortunately, the ground realities are different.

In fact, India resents Chinese ship visits. In the run-up to the Sept. 21 Presidential Election, destroyer HE FEI and two amphibious warfare ships WUZHISHAN and QILIANSHAN arrived in Colombo. The Chinese move underscored the pivotal importance Beijing attached to such visits. During August, before the arrival of Chinese vessels, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers USS Spruance and USS O’kane visited Colombo. They were followed by frontline Delhi class destroyer INS Mumbai. Interestingly, Chinese and Indian vessels arrived in Colombo on the same day (Aug, 26).

Both China and India will continue to test the new Sri Lankan administration. Whatever the Chinese and Indian game plans are, Sri Lanka won’t be able to appease both parties, simultaneously. Closer to the General Election, a section of the media would take up the issue afresh with the focus on Chinese conducting intelligence missions in the guise of research in Sri Lankan waters. Foreign Minister Herath, in his new capacity, attended the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. That was the first public function that he attended since taking oaths as the Minister. He holds scores of portfolios, in fact, portfolios that had been held by over 30 parliamentarians are now shared by three – President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya and Vijitha Herath

Among those present on the occasion were former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena. Chinese Ambassador Qi Zhenhong used that opportunity to stress the vital importance of bilateral relations in the context of what he called China-Sri Lanka strategic cooperative partnership based on sincere mutual assistance and ever-lasting friendship. The Ambassador predicted the relationship would continue to gain great momentum on a higher level.

Ambassador Qi Zhenhong didn’t mince his words when he tore into the US-led camp. “We are all equal members of the international family. However, today’s world is far from being fair and just, with hegemony, high-handedness, and bullying being prevalent. The Law of the Jungle which leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong is resurfacing and clamours of “Might is right” are forcing their way. Humanity has once again reached a crossroads in history.”

With Foreign Minister Herath among the invitees, Ambassador Qi Zhenhong emphasized several important points. (1) The Communist Party of China (CPC) role in building a ‘great modern socialist country’ and national rejuvenation through Chinese modernization.’ (2) Move to implement more than 300 major reforms by 2029, ahead of the 80th founding anniversary of the People’s Republic of China (3) China’s imports from developing countries expected to exceed US$ 8 trillion between 2024 and 2030 (4) Commitment to Belt and Road cooperation (5) China-Africa cooperation in the context of cooperation among the global south and, finally (6) China-Sri Lanka relations spanning over 2000 years.

Let me reproduce the section that underscored the importance of continuous China-Sri Lanka relations at a time the latter was under tremendous pressure to restrict cooperation with the emerging Super Power.

Ambassador Qi Zhenhong said: “History has proven that no matter how the international situation changes or whether facing traditional or non-traditional threats, the Chinese government and people always stand firmly with the Sri Lankan government and people. China remains a trustworthy friend and reliable partner to Sri Lanka. Facts have repeatedly shown that the closer and deeper the cooperation between China and Sri Lanka, the more capable Sri Lanka will be in safeguarding its sovereignty, security, development and dignity, and in playing a bigger role in regional and international affairs.”

In contrast, Washington cuts a sorry picture, with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and the likes, during their numerous visits to West Asia to ostensibly bring about a ceasefire, calls on regional players not to exacerbate the situation, especially after each major terrorist act carried out by Israel that is funded and armed to the teeth by the literal American deep state to carry out such acts. Recently during one such visit to Europe to garner support for the other conflict Washington is involved in up to its neck in Ukraine, a Polish member of the European Parliament plucked up the courage to ask him to get lost in public under the glare of the TV cameras.

While many honourable and wonderful members of the Jewish community, as well as a majority of Americans with a conscience are publicly speaking out against the continuing genocide that the despicable right wing Jews are committing against Palestinians with the full complicity of the same insidious deep state that President Eisenhower warned against more than a half century ago as the dangerous US military-industrial complex, to grab whatever lands the Arabs continue to hold between the Jordan River and the Sea, it is shocking to watch proverbial cheap Jews like Blinken continue to carry out this public charade destroying whatever standing the US has left in the world. But since much of the mainstream media is under the control of the deep state the world does not get to see the true picture of the sinister happenings yet.

However, the issues at hand, including the Israeli attack on Lebanon, including the target killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the Oct, 07 Hamas raid on the Jewish State. It would be a grave mistake on the part of those opposed to Israel to believe Tel Aviv and Washington could ignore threats whatsoever. Yemen may become another theatre of war unless the Houthi movement ceased attacks.

What would be Sri Lanka’s stand on the developing situation in the Middle East?

Counter strategy

Obviously, Sri Lanka is in a dilemma. A developing crisis that may have far reaching consequences. Just weeks ahead of the recently concluded Presidential Election, India declared her intentions. Their National Security Advisor Ajith Kumar Doval’s meeting three main presidential candidates, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake, accentuated the state of play. Eyebrows were raised when Pathfinder Foundation presented two vital policy documents which essentially dealt with post-Aragalaya economic direction (Economic Crisis in Sri Lanka: Policy Challenges for the New Government) and entire gamut of Indo-Lanka projects/issues (Bridging Borders: Enhancing Connectivity Between India and Sri Lanka). Clearly the Pathfinder move had the blessings of New Delhi as the document that dealt with Indo-Lanka matters was handed over to Doval before Wickremesinghe, Premadasa and top JJB official Dr. Nihal Abeysinghe received copies of the same. Dr. Abeysinghe accepted it on behalf of Dissanayake.

New Delhi reached an understanding with the then President Wickremesinghe regarding high profile project that dealt with maritime, air, electricity, economy and finance and land route between Dhanushkodi in India and Mannar in Sri Lanka -four-lane 40 km sea bridge estimated to cost as much as USD 4.9 bn. Wickremesinghe, elected by the SLPP parliamentarians in July 2022 as the eighth Executive President to complete the remainder of ousted leader Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, pursued a questionable agenda.

Would President Dissanayake abide by the consensus on the controversial sea bridge? Such an arrangement and such other foolish measures could automatically result in Sri Lanka losing its independent status, jealously guarded for over two millennia. Would the new administration revisit this vital issue or go ahead with it in line with the consensus blindly reached by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government with India?

The Presidential Election campaign conveniently discarded foreign policy issues. Three major contestants and the ruling party SLPP’s candidate Namal Rajapaksa never addressed foreign policy matters during the campaign. The parliamentary election campaign, too, wouldn’t take up the vital issues for obvious reasons. Utterly corrupt and irresponsible political parties seemed to be wholly incapable of appropriately addressing matters of utmost national importance.

Accountability issues

The new government should disclose its position on the ongoing Geneva process. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the last week of August 2022 released a “comprehensive” report on the human rights situation here through as usual their blinkered eyes and as expected beating their breasts, while they and their pet INGOs continue to turn a Nelsonian eye to what is happening, especially in Palestine. It dealt with an entire range of post and pre-war developments, at the end issuing a series of recommendations. Successive governments simply rejected UNHRC criticisms but the process continued and now has reached a critical point.

The following section in the August report highlighted the gravity of the developing situation. The High Commissioner recommended that the Human Rights Council and Member States, as applicable:

(a) Cooperate in investigating and prosecuting alleged perpetrators of international crimes committed by all parties in Sri Lanka through judicial proceedings in national jurisdictions, including under accepted principles of extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction, through relevant international networks and mutual legal assistance processes, and in cooperation with survivors, families, and their representatives;

(b) Consider using other international legal options to advance accountability in Sri Lanka;

(c) Explore, as part of a wider range of accountability measures and consistent with international law, further targeted sanctions such as asset freezes and travel bans against individuals credibly alleged to have perpetrated gross international human rights violations or serious humanitarian law violations;

(d) Review asylum measures with respect to Sri Lankan nationals to protect those facing reprisals and; and

(e) Support OHCHR to continue its monitoring and reporting and its strengthened work on accountability for human rights violations and related crimes in Sri Lanka.

The Presidential Election was held in the middle of 57 sessions of the UNHRC (Sept. 09 to Oct 09).

Having backed the candidature of war-winning Army Chief the then General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 Presidential Election, the JVP (JJB/NFF hadn’t been around at that time) cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for defending the armed forces on the Geneva front. The JVP threw its weight behind Fonseka at the time the party was under the leadership of Somawansa Amarasinghe.

In spite of the JVP having suffered at the hands of the armed forces during the 1971 and 1987-1990 insurgencies, the party not only backed Fonseka at the Presidential Election, it accommodated the warrior in a political grouping that contested the 2010 General Election under the symbol of Democratic National Alliance (DNA). The JVP-led DNA that had been founded in Nov 2009 won seven seats, including two National List slots.

The winning group, included Fonseka (later arrested and jailed by the Rajapaksa government.) The Sinha Regiment veteran was later jailed by a court martial and had to vacate his seat on Oct. 7, 2010. After a failed legal bid to save his MP status, Fonseka was replaced by Jayantha Ketagoda on March 8, 2011). The DNA group included Arjuna Ranatunga (former Minister) and Tiran Alles (former Minister), Anura Kumara Dissanayake (former Minister), Vijitha Herath, Sunil Handunneti and Bimal Ratnayaka.

What would be the new government’s stance on the accountability resolution Yahapalana Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe co-sponsored it in Oct 2015? The JVP had been an integral part of that administration (2015-2019) after having backed the UNP strategy since the end of the war in May 2009. Anura Kumara Dissanayake who succeeded leader Somawansa Amarasinghe in Dec. 2014 quit the UNP-led alliance to form JJB/NFF in July 2019. The JVP or JJB/NFF conveniently remained silent on the controversial co-sponsorship of the resolution against the war-winning military and the wartime political leadership.

Wartime Commanding Officer of the Mi-24 helicopter gunship squadron retired Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuyakontha, current Defence Secretary can brief the JJB/NFF leadership of the urgent need to address unsubstantiated war crimes allegations. New Foreign Minister Herath should examine the 2022 Canadian declaration of genocide here during the conflict taking into consideration the overall war crimes threat. Sri Lanka never bothered to counter Canadian strategy. The former government didn’t do anything except simply denying and denouncing highly politically motivated Canadian moves.

How do we counter the threat posed by those countries bending backwards to appease Tamil citizens of Sri Lankan origins baying for separate state here? Shouldn’t we be mindful of other commonwealth countries or those being influenced by Tamil Diaspora following the Canadians. The way the Canadians antagonized India in a bid to appease voters of Indian origin must prompt us to reexamine our lukewarm response.

Midweek Review

On that ‘unvarying’ identity

Published

3 days ago

2024/10/2

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Susantha Hewa

Identities are not intrinsic but socially constructed. It seems we are nothing but a bundle of identities. Some of them are imposed on us due to who we are in a web of relationships and others depend on what we do. For example, you can’t blame a person for being son, brother, father, uncle, nephew, grandfather, son in law, neighbour, friend, Sinhalese, etc. at the same time. Secondly, we also get our identities from what we do, such as teacher, lawyer, mechanic, labourer, scantiest, politician, businessman, philanthropist, singer, etc. However, surely, identity is context specific; it is the context which determines which identity one assumes at a given moment. Even within the course of a single day you can be conscious of or assume several of those ‘identities’ depending on the context. Often, one of those fluctuating identities takes the centre stage while the others remain in the background of our consciousness until the dynamics of the setting change to bring another or, perhaps, several to the surface. However, when one says “I”, he can’t possibly be thinking of all those identities but just one of them largely determined by the setting.

To illustrate the above point. A person in a group may use “I” to show either his commonality with or difference from the rest. For example, each person in a group of Buddhist pilgrims may think of himself or herself with a sense of belonging when they discuss religion before lunch, but the rare vegetarian amongst them may feel a sense of seclusion when they come to ordering lunch, given that most of the others happen to be meat-eaters. Even in the same group of people, your identity may shift from one to another within short spells. Social psychologists, William J. McGuire and Claire V. McGuire write, “One perceives oneself in terms of characteristics that distinguish oneself from other humans, especially from people in one’s usual social milieu…a woman psychologist in the company of a dozen women who work at other occupations thinks of herself as a psychologist; when with a dozen male psychologists, she thinks of herself as a woman” (Content and Process in the Experience of Self). What is important is the fleetingness of our identities. In other words, we have no fixed or core identity although we may feel we do, which is perhaps one of the leading causes of social segregation and disharmony.

In the foregoing paragraphs we saw that a person’s ‘identities’ are, by and large, socially constructed, based on his place in a web of personal and social relationships; and, most importantly, that these identities are continually shifting and also context specific. In other words, within a span of a few hours one may assume a number of identities, say, father, passenger, employee, client, activist, patient, etc., which is to say that none of those identities are lasting. Yuval Noah Harari in his new book “Nexus: a brief history of information networks from the Stone Age to AI”, asks the intriguing question, “When is a pigeon just a pigeon, and when is it information?”. He explains how a pigeon becomes ‘information’ when it is used to transmit a secret message. Harari further adds with a chuckle, “As Marshall McLuhan might have put it, the pigeon was the message.” Interestingly, this also explains the fluid nature of identity. Here, the pigeon we see in day-to-day life as a gentle, plump, small-billed bird changes its identity from ‘bird’ to ‘secret information’ in a context of espionage. Hence the unfixed nature of what we call identity.

What would be more interesting is to think of the seemingly fixed nature of any of those shifting identities. For example, let’s think of those fairly stable and relatively lasting identities like father, son, friend, neighbour, Buddhist, Christian, Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, Hindu, etc. How fixed is each of these identities? Think of an eighty-year-old mother and a fifty-year-old daughter. The two were, are and will be mother and daughter till they live. However, the nature of their mother–daughter relationship changes continuously; this is why the daughter, in terms of her relationship with mother, gradually changes from dependant to caretaker as time passes. Prof. Sharon Fraser says that our identities are socially constructed in a network of relationships with others and that it is “through our identity we come to understand our connection to the world, how that relationship is constructed…”.

It is true that in the above example, the two labels, “mother” and “daughter”, don’t change but the nature of their relationship changes, often in much more complex ways than merely swapping their places from “dependent” to “caretaker” and vice versa. In other words, although we generally feel that an individual’s identity, for example, as father, friend or neighbour is static, it is subject to change depending on changing contexts. To put it a bit bluntly, you wouldn’t be the same ‘father’ or ‘mother’ all your life, either in the eyes of your children or outsiders. Likewise, all socially imposed labels are in continuous flux. Perhaps, frustratingly, so is the case with any identity however affectionate or proud you are of them or however solid they may appear.

Just think of your religious and ethnic identities. Are you, for example, the same Buddhist from your infancy up to now? If you proudly claim, “I was a Buddhist, I am a Buddhist and I will be a Buddhist”, perhaps, you may not possibly be thinking of the term “Buddhist” as shifting, slippery or changeable. You may not think it worthwhile to question the quality of your relationship to Buddhism either in the past or at present, or even in the future. Anyone who says, “I am a Buddhist” may not think of his identity as a Buddhist as being fluid. So is the case with those who claim to be of other faiths. We feel smug in our self-made supposedly unchanging religious identity imposed on us at birth. However, it is not difficult to see that religious and ethnic identities that we consider as irremovable and permanently stamped on our ‘self’ are also context-specific and there couldn’t be one fixed religious, ethnic or any other seemingly indelible identity, which would accompany us all along from the cradle to the grave without changing its character. For example, when a child of five years calls himself a Buddhist, his Buddhist ‘identity’ is constructed on ideas, impressions and experiences that are totally different from those of a seventy-year-old person who introduces himself as a Buddhist. So is the case with anybody of any other faith. Richard Dawkins in his “Outgrowing God” refers to the nonsensicality of the “habit of labeling young children with the religion of their parents…[when they are] too young to talk, let alone to hold any religious opinions”. That’s your all-important ‘identity’ for you- be it religious, ethnic, or any other.

Should our so-called identity be a matter of life and death?