Victor's magnanimity can ensure
stability in Sri Lanka

Jehan Perera in Colombo

The result of the presidential election held last week has a possibility of further dividing the country on both political and ethnic lines unless the spirit of magnanimity prevails. One of the important challenges for President Rajapaksa will be to address the sense of alienation of the ethnic minorities and provide a political solution for their problems and grievances by way of devolution of power. The President said he called for early presidential elections because he wanted a mandate from the people of the North and East who were unable to vote at previous elections due to intimidation by the LTTE. During most of the election campaign both the major candidates gave considerable attention to the issue of inter-ethnic harmony and reconciliation.
   Unfortunately during the latter stages, the allegation that the opposition candidate had a secret agreement with the major Tamil party that could divide the country, led to the rousing of communal sentiments. In addition, the failure of the ethnic minority population of Tamils and Muslims to vote in large numbers for the President has led to influential opinion makers making assertions that the minorities have not been grateful to the President. This will make them uneasy about their future. While President Rajapaksa himself has spoken conciliatorily to the ethnic minorities, this has not been the case with regard to other ruling party politicians whose campaigning during the elections was supercharged with communalism and continue to express themselves in the same vein.
   
   Challenges ahead
   President Rajapaksa is likely to face formidable challenges in the days ahead. The opposition parties and General Fonseka himself have threatened to challenge the election result in courts of law. The use of the state machinery to bolster the chances of victory of the incumbent President has created an impression of a government that was determined to win the elections by all means at its disposal. The abuse of state resources that took place prior to the election to secure the President's victory has been documented by election monitoring organisations. In these circumstances it is likely that in the days ahead the opposition will endeavour to project the President's victory as an illegitimate one that was won by unlawful means.
   The opposition's campaign against the election verdict is likely to grow in strength due to the prospect of Parliament being dissolved soon to pave the way for general elections. There are reports that the President is contemplating dissolving Parliament today to coincide with Independence Day. The government may be planning to capitalize on the President's victory and obtain a large Parliamentary majority on its strength. But this in turn will give the opposition an added incentive not to give up on alleging election rigging of one sort or the other at the presidential elections. President Mahinda Rajapaksa's unexpectedly overwhelming triumph at the Presidential elections has led to opposition claims that the results are not authentic.
   
   Increased confrontation
   Adding to concerns about the overall free and fair nature of the elections was the drama that took place with regard to General Fonseka and other opposition leaders even while the counting of ballots was taking place. In the early hours of January 27, as counting was taking place, hundreds of army troops surrounded the luxury Cinnamon Lakeside Hotel where the opposition candidate had set up a temporary election office. In addition army troops took up position outside the election commissioner's office and independent media stations. These moves added to the rumours of possible irregularities in the election and encouraged speculation as to what was going on during the counting of votes.
   The government spokespersons have given various explanations why army troops surrounded the hotel where the joint opposition candidate and most of the opposition leaders backing him had set up temporary office. Some said that the hundreds of soldiers who surrounded the hotel were for the protection of the opposition leaders while others have said that it was to prevent a possible coup against the government on the night of the elections.
   It is difficult to imagine why a victorious candidate should stage a coup, and in the event of facing defeat how even a former army commander could have summoned up troops in defiance of their present commanding officers. It goes without saying that the Sri Lankan military has always shown itself to be professional when it comes to politics and obeying orders of the democratically elected political leadership.
   There was much in the election campaign itself that suggested a high degree of personal animosity between the two main contenders for the presidency. There were accusations of personal treachery, corruption, nepotism and threats of punitive actions against the other in case of victory. Unfortunately the hostile actions taken by the government against the defeated opposition candidate are suggestive of a vendetta that has yet to end. After the election Fonseka complained about the humiliation suffered by the security personnel who were protecting him. Some of those who were guarding him during the election campaign had to come out of the hotel and kneel on the ground at the behest of military officers representing the government before being led away.
   In these circumstances the media reports that most of Fonseka's security has been withdrawn and he himself is to be arrested which is very much a cause for public concern. Leading members of the religious clergy have requested the government to continue to provide Fonseka with security. The fact is that he is the person who led the Sri Lankan army to military victory over the LTTE when previous army commanders had said it was not possible.
   
   Opposition attitude
   However, it is not only the government leadership who need to be magnanimous to General Fonseka, the commander of the army, who is now a defeated politician. His candidacy revived their effectiveness and party machineries that were dormant and dispirited. The challenge he posed compelled the government to adopt people-friendly actions to prevent erosion of its electoral support, including the reduction of the price of petrol and other essential commodities.
   After the unexpectedly severe election loss by Fonseka there are reports emerging about many mistakes he made in his election campaign. His style of speech was sometimes harsh, and threats to government members he accused of wrongdoings may have alarmed those in the government and turned away prospective voters. As a newcomer to politics who did not have his own political party, he also appears to have relied heavily on the advice of his former military colleagues who were unsophisticated in the ways of politics. Those who are defeated tend to blame others and to break relationships. There is a possibility that in the face of defeat, the advantages that General Fonseka brought to the opposition will be put aside, just as much as the other political alliances break up.
   The very basis of the opposition alliance itself is now being questioned. It is being argued that the alliance with the Tamil National Alliance permitted the government to go on a propaganda blitz about a secret pact to divide the country. The alliance with the JVP alienated traditional UNP voters who got concerned that the conservative UNP would lose out to the Marxist JVP. There are lessons to be obtained from these experiments so that mistakes made are not repeated. From the viewpoint of the opposition's interests, it is better to be united than divided. From the perspective of the country's interests it is important that the spirit of magnanimity be demonstrated all round.
   Over two millennia ago the Buddha gave expression to the human experience that those who are defeated and harshly treated will await their time to retaliate in a never ending cycle of hatred. Indeed, magnanimity of victor towards the defeated is one that will resonate deep within the Sri Lankan psyche.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Why Tony Blair still lying?

Maswood Alam Khan

Last Friday, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair while testifying in front of an official inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq War said “he would take the same steps again to counter what he portrayed as a threat from Saddam Hussein that had assumed far greater dimension after the attacks of September 11, 2001”, while several hundred protesters gathered outside Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the venue in central London, calling Blair a criminal.
   During the 6-hour session he denied the accusation that he had struck a covert deal with the then US President George W. Bush in 2002 pledging British backing for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The committee is being headed by former British civil servant John Chilcot.
   What really shocked people listening to proceedings, that was telecast live on BBC, was that there was not an insinuation of regret in Tony Blair's voice or statements in spite of the fact that bereaved family members who lost their near and dear ones in Iraq War their loved ones, including 179 British troops killed, were listening to his every word sitting just behind him in the same room where the trial was being held.
   Observers in Britain and elsewhere in the world were quite eager to know why there was “the 45-minute claim” mentioned in the foreword to the intelligence document, known as the September Dossier, that was published in September 2002 prompting The Sun, Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, to carry the headline “Brits 45 Mins from Doom” and The Star newspaper to report: “Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 minutes from a Chemical War”.
   '45-minute claim'
   In the foreword, written by Tony Blair, was mentioned: “The document discloses that his (Saddam Hussein's) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.” The claim was subsequently proven completely untrue as no significant caches of chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq since the invasion.
   The dossier, Blair said during the trial, was “clear” in backing up the (45-minute) claim he made in the preface. He however denied he had inserted the '45-minute claim' to make the intelligence document seem more important.
   One statement made by Blair during the session, which may spark debates, was: “Even knowing what we know now, had we left Saddam in power we may have had to deal with him in circumstances that would have been worse”.
   The phrase 'what we know now' would be interpreted by skeptics and critics alike as 'knowing there was no WMD', especially after a controversy Blair sparked by indicating in an interview with Fern Brittan aired last month on the BBC that he would have gone to war even if Saddam had been found to have no weapons of mass destruction though he subsequently denied that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had thought Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD.
   Mr. Blair also said during the session that if Saddam had not been removed, today we would have a situation where Iraq was competing with Iran both in terms of nuclear capability and in respect of support of terrorist groups.
   Hundreds and thousands of critics in Great Britain as in other parts of the world want that Tony Blair be tried in The Hague and be awarded a long prison sentence. One blogger said: “That despicable little man has a great deal to answer for and I don't just mean on the lone issue of Iraq. Everything he's touched has been a disaster”.
   Many British critics also assailed Mr. Blair for what they depicted as his slavish support of Mr. Bush, who, unlike the British leader, has not been called to account publicly for his decisions.
   Many Britons believe that 'Blair took them into a war on lies and is responsible for hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children being killed, probably more than the number of people killed by Chemical Ali. He has brought Britain into disrepute in the eyes of the world and he should face trial'.
   Blair was seen desperate to secure a lasting place in history but he, many of his critics believe, has already gone down in history as a slave of Bush and as a disgraceful British Prime Minister, best known for his bungling and ill-conceived foreign policy disaster.
   Some critics are still hoping that at the end of the Blair would be exposed as a criminal and that as a result he, being charged with war crimes, will have to appear before the International Court of Justice.
   Some critics are still hoping that at the end Blair would be exposed as a criminal and that as a result he, being charged with war crimes, will have to appear before the International Court of Justice.
   Whatever the conclusion of the enquiry many will continue wondering: 'Why did Blair lie before the Iraq war? Why did he lie during the Iraq war? And why is he still lying?'
   maswood@hotmail.com

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE