"War Crimes" could be the only Weapon left to Ranil to Bring Fonseka Down
by Kalana Senaratne
The Presidential election of 2010 has brought out some of the most glaring delusions and dilemmas which shape the political stance of the Opposition, and which confront the voter, in particular.
The run up to the election of 26th January has largely shown how bankrupt the political elements opposing President Rajapaksa are, which indeed is a great political tragedy – for while President Rajapaksa’s track record concerning notions of good governance is somewhat dismal, the alternative that is offered to the voter in the form of Sarath Fonseka and his political allies, is abysmal. In supporting Fonseka, numerous problems are conveniently forgotten, and people seem to be imagining that a country under the leadership of Fonseka would be a very beautiful, splendid and different one - where corruption doesn’t exist, where ‘executives’ will not rule, and where human rights would be guaranteed to all. Fonseka promises ‘change’, but it lacks coherence, direction and is frighteningly unsustainable, in the long term.
The choice of voting in President Mahinda Rajapaksa for a second term would have been an easy one by any measure, if Ranil Wickremasinghe had been his opposing candidate. The former is popular for defeating the LTTE, the latter is not so for reasons we all know. But the entry of General Fonseka changed all that, and all of a sudden, you were (are) faced with two ‘war heroes’; one who gave the much required political leadership, the other who gave a brave military leadership.
However, at the time of Fonseka’s entry into politics, ‘good governance’ wasn’t what he really wanted to ensure. His entry was largely motivated by personal grievances, even animosity and hatred towards the Rajapaksas (especially Mahinda and Gotabaya), as his famous and (again) controversial letter of resignation of November, 2009 very clearly shows. It didn’t take long for the man to call President Rajapaksa a ‘tin-pot dictator’; a statement that placed Fonseka firmly, on par, with the rest of the politicians who are well known for their outrageous remarks and character vilification.
This wasn’t the change that was required; and was disadvantageous for many who loved Fonseka, for he was a man who could have received greater admiration than that received by our run-of-the-mill politician. Furthermore, it was never explained to us, why this man who claimed to have forgiven the likes of Ranil, Mangala, Ravi and Kiriella for their past utterances was unable to forgive, with what seems to be a rather delicate, humane and forgiving heart of his, a President and a Defence Secretary who gave him all the necessary powers to fight the LTTE to the end.
The suspicion that Fonseka is in it for personal revenge, and not really to ensure democracy, was made very clear when he stated that Gotabaya Rajapaksa made ‘stupid’ orders to shoot LTTE leaders who would try to surrender with white flags; as was told by him to the Sunday Leader. Sarath Fonseka, it should be noted, did not retract what he said. He merely clarified, and thereafter reiterated his point in subsequent interviews. Frederica Jansz, to her great credit, stood by her story.
This was followed by a most coruscating account of the final stages of the war, written by DBS Jeyaraj; in which he alleges that it was Fonseka’s Special Force personnel who shot the surrendering LTTE leaders, and not Brig. Shavendra Silva’s 58th Division, and certainly not under the orders of Gotabaya Rajapaksa. This compelling and most damaging accusation leveled by DBS Jeyaraj was never countered squarely by the Fonseka camp.
The reasons are quite obvious. While Fonseka’s sole intention has been to pin down Gotabaya, he finds himself utterly lonely within his camp when it comes to the issue of ‘war crimes’. Apart from, perhaps, MP Sajith Premadasa (and Karu Jayasuriya, who was part of the government but crossed over before May 2009), there has been no credible voice from the Opposition that has come out decisively, declaring that the Armed forces did not commit war crimes during the conflict, or that they will be defended; only a reluctant ‘thanks’ by Ranil, and that hilarious spectacle when Mangala thanked Ranil for not signing the Rome Statute. And the UNP, by and large, has taken a very calculated approach, under Ranil’s leadership, by remaining silent on the issue; knowing very well that ‘war crimes’ is the only issue on which the government could be stumped, brought down.
But the danger in being silent is this: ‘war crimes’ could also be the only weapon left for Ranil to bring down Fonseka, in case Fonseka is elected, and international pressure is brought to bear upon Fonseka. And at that moment, Ranil would have no qualms whatsoever of sending his gallant leader packing. In a sense, this could be a trap that Fonseka has fallen into, and will find difficult to get out of, unless of course he adopts a military stance; which would not be too difficult with the JVP backing him to the hilt. And an Opposition which is silent on ‘war crimes’ is today supporting the man accused of committing war crimes; which raises a lot of troubling concerns.
What is equally alarming, and this adds to the confusion inherent in the Fonseka-camp today, is the support he received from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The TNA was the proxy, the alter ego, of the LTTE. And its claim over the years has been that the Sri Lankan Army was a most brutal one; which raped and murdered Tamil women, girls and children, which killed innocent Tamil civilians, and which carried out a campaign of genocide against them.
How then could the majority within the TNA come to believe that this man who was part of that alleged brutal outfit, who had ordered the killing of their political masters carrying white flags, was fit enough to lead the nation of which they were citizens? Is there a hidden ploy to elect Fonseka and oust him; which would greatly benefit the demands of the TNA which still come out now and then wrapped up in the old and ragged secessionist garb.
Isn’t there also a grand game of deception at play here? Fonseka remains absolutely silent on the 13th Amendment or a ‘political solution’ (silence which is quite amusing, for a man who talked about going beyond 13A during his first press conference), and TNA remains mum on what it exactly needs in terms of a political solution: the intention of both being, it seems, to get into power and ‘take it from there’. And this mutual approach is greatly disturbing, and the question posed by Prof. Sumanasiri Liyanage whether the TNA is getting ready for the second phase of its Eelam struggle is a pertinent one.
On the other hand, TNA’s deception has virtually thrown it into a political dustbin. It is far removed from what I believe is the most pragmatic two-point programme it could have adopted, as pointed out by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka – i.e. full implementation of the 13th Amendment within a specific time-frame and a move towards equal rights legislation.
And while Rajapaksa offers 13A as a start, TNA chooses a man who doesn’t promise anything. This raises reasonable suspicion as to the ulterior motives of both Fonseka and the TNA; suspicion that promises nothing in terms of ethnic reconciliation and greater unity. Is this acceptable ‘change’?
And what of political stability and democracy with the JVP’s overpowering support? (did the TNA forget?). How can there be greater reconciliation with a JVP that does not even believe in 13A which plays such a prominent role within the alliance? In the face of the JVP, terms such as ‘13A’ or ‘political solution’ are redundant. And when you consider the eclectic mix of parties within the Opposition having contradictory and conflicting ideas, the most immediate problem that a Fonseka-presidency would face is not ethnic reconciliation but inter-party reconciliation. And such a situation takes us back, rather than forward, as a nation.
That Fonseka promises us nothing much in terms of getting rid of corruption which is rampant within the Rajapaksa administration is clear by the unaddressed and unmet accusations of serious corruption charges leveled against Fonseka and his relations. And more importantly, that Fonseka lacks a proper vision as regards the rule of law, human rights and the independence of the judiciary is also seen by the role that is played by former CJ Sarath N. Silva; a brilliant legal mind which gave all types of dubious, even flawed, judgments during his tenure.
The Sunday Leader, which editorially supports Fonseka, calls him the ‘bully’ in its recent edition. And Silva adds greater confusion when he says what would really happen if Fonseka is elected is not the ‘abolishing’ of the Executive Presidency (because Fonseka cannot ‘abolish himself’) but rather a whittling down of the powers of the President.
And if Fonseka’s promise of the rule of law and human rights is to be realized, I do not think it can be through Silva’s magic wand: given Silva’s tragic attitude towards international human rights law in particular, as signified most pitifully in his Singarasa case judgment of 2006. Can Fonseka be considered to be really thinking of human rights protection and rule of law when he gets the assistance of a man who one fine day in 2006 thought that the ICCPR rights are not part of Sri Lankan law, and then forgot about it and thought that they are part of our law in 2008?
Conclusion
The current support for Fonseka, it should be noted, is driven by a lot of anti-Rajapaksa sentiment, and only that. There is no cohesion within the Opposition camp. Some support Fonseka, and only him. Others support those supporting him, and not Fonseka. And many of the parties which are rallying behind Fonseka do so, not because he is the hope for the future, but because their sole intention is to throw Rajapaksa out. Such a political alternative does not promise hope. Rather it leads to a lot of uncertainty, doubt and eventually, internal friction; and it could easily dissipate causing much chaos.
Mano Ganeshan, talking to Al Jazeera, said something that he will never be able cry out from Fonseka’s political platform; i.e. it is ‘not that we believe totally in Sarath Fonseka … we have no choice’. This is a damning indictment. Listening to Mano, a different thought struck me: is this Fonseka-campaign a move to oust Rajapaksa, or really, a move to oust Ranil Wickremasinghe? Is Rajapaksa the true ‘villain’ here, or is it an exaggerated anti-Rajapaksa cry that shows how bitter they are with Ranil?
This again throws up a lot of doubt on what this Fonseka coalition is really gearing towards, in a post-election period. Ousting Rajapaksa would never address the underlying problem of a ‘leadership deficit’ within the UNP or the Opposition, which is also a national problem today; it would only exacerbate it.
Much of this would not have been the case if the UNP had been able to find for itself a credible and popular leader apart from Ranil, who could promise the kind of change that is truly needed today. This has not happened. Until that happens, until there is greater vision and clarity as to what the Opposition wants to do with this nation and her people, continuity, I am sad to say, is a safer option than change.
11 Comments
The writer clearly roots for a Rajapakse win - and why not? We still have shades of democracy here and not entirely Talibanish yet.
As to the contradictions of Fonseka, the TNA, Mano Ganesan and so forth that is brought forth here one might recall the wry comment "politics sometimes makes strange bed-fellows" as they did during WW2 when Rooseveldt and Churchill joined forces with Josef Stalin whose sole objective was to dig the graves of the other two and the system they came from. The duo may have found succour in the somewhat morality lacking rational thought of Lenin in support of their unconventional alliance "the end will justify the means"
And so they succeeded in getting rid of Hitler and on to their own ways since. The rest is history.
ISS
The Author is Absolutely correct.
Fonseka and his band of Losers (aka: "ME FIRST and the GIMME GIMMES") offer nothing to Sri Lankan people. Its all well and good for him to stand up there and use his Military Exploits to sell the Warm FUZZY feeling of change but what exactly are the UNF selling to the people?
The TNA (TAMIL TERRORIST PROXYS) are allying with the JVP (COMMIE NATIONALISTS) - who were their Enemies only a short while ago so that they can all get back at Mahinda because they could not get their own self interests met. The Split in the JVP only goes to show the reality of just how self-Serving the JVP Leadership is. Somawansa is nothing more than an opportunist who represents himself and not the so called "working man" of Sri Lanka.
These two parties will Switch Sides the minute FONSEKA does not give them what they want in parliament. After that is what they did to Mahinda. These two parties are for sale to the Highest Bidder and Sarath Fonseka currently hold the USA's checkbook in his hand.
A Note to the author of this article:
Please leave the Tamil minority alone. They know what they are doing now. They do not want to be at the mercy of MR after he wins the election to receive a so called “Home Grown” political solution discarding the 13A and listen to his deception that there are no minorities in Sri Lanka.
Even though SF has earlier commented that the minorities should not make undue demands from the majority he does recognize that 13A is an amicable political solution. Had MR been sincere he would have implemented it during his tenure of his Presidency.
As you have rightly said that this unholy alliance with SF is to remove MR and his deceptions to the minorities and the country as a whole.
Author stews a pickle of ideas in support of Rajapakse. Given the current despotic style of governance by Rajapakse who would opt for more of the same? Recipe for disaster.
War Crimes is the weapon (in addition to the money) he used to make Sarath Fonseka as a presidential candidate against Mahinda Rajapakse too.
Devinda Fernando will have to take many more U-turns before he comes to terms with the political reality of his country. Until now he was singing the praise of his "hero" Gen. Sarath Fonseka and now
calls him a traitor. How many more u-turns must he make before he
sees it all is the Dylanish question. The answer will be known on
Jan 26, the answer, my friend, the answer.
ISS
This writer is quick to point out that there is a mix of parties with a set of "conflicting and contradictory ideas" with respect to a political solution, within the opposition. However, he conveniently forgets that the situation is not very different in the government camp. Are the Weerawansa party and JHU in agreement with the (full) implementation of the 13th amendment? How about Tissa Vitharana, D.E.W. Gunesekara, Dilan Perera and the lot who strongly favors a federal solution? Then there is another set of ministers who have no clear idea about what position they should take. Rajitha Seneratne who is normally seen as being sensitive to the search for a political solution,that facilitates significant power devolution. Recently, in a TV debate (Satana)he argued that he is for 13+. When the host questioned whether this would mean going beyond the unitary state structure, he was quick to say "No, No, it's 13+ within a unitary structure." Ranjith Siyambalapitiya and Senaratne even took "India" as an example of a unitary state, to justify their argument. On one hand, this clearly shows the ignorance of ministers about what is unitary and what is federal. On the other hand, it shows that this government is not in any way genuinely interested in a political solution; every govt representative says whatever they feel like because up to now, the government has not been able to form a common consensus among themselves about the nature of the solution, if ever it is to be granted.
Contrary to what you say, in the Mahinda Chintana, it only states that the Northern PC will be established. There is nothing clear about fully implementing the 13th amendment -rather it promises a vague discussion on whether the PC system should be continued or not. At the same time, speaking to foreign media MR had said that he wishes to grant power-sharing to Tamils. No one knows what he means by that. Do you really think any one can trust a man who fooled around with the APRC reports and still cannot put together a common consensus? His Mahinda Chinthanaya doesn't have anything about the draconian PTA and emergency regulations that has been the norm rather than the exception in this country for 30 years. Do you really think anyone can genuinely believe that MR will initiate a process for a devising a political solution, when he wants to continue the emergency regulations despite them being a barrier to people's freedom? MR's past record shows that he is likely to avoid the search for any political solution if he is reelected,which then gives no surprises that the TNA is compelled to support his rival, SF.
Leave all the war crimes.
Who will be punished for these election crimes? killing each other.
UNP is a grand party that shaped the country's future
in one direction which was the best fit at the time of
introduction and by the best man at the time.It's naive even to imagine that someone from outside the party without any affiliation,suddenly pop in and offer an alternative which cost the head of the party
and this someone does the same to a party like JVP.
Writer fails to look at the issue unbiased.He pats MR
as delicate,humane and forgiving and recommends that
SF could have benefitted from MR by submission.
What's happening in Srilanka today,as a result of a
decision to annihilate LTTE operation in the north,is the making of one man and it's MR.What he decided and SF carried out has consequences and these consequences were already forewarned by proper channels.But by clever manoeuvring and proper postwar management MR could have minimised what was to follow.But what happened next was unimaginable behaviour of a cheap politician.Go to the south celebrate and come to the north in tears.How do you want to describe this?
Leaders must exhibit statesmanship,if not all the time
at least most of the time and that should include cruicial times.That's not all,in his eyes part of sinhala people themselves are traitors because the UNP
were traitors.Is it not cheap politics? Those who did
not favour war,all became traitors.In any war,peace is the most desirable option and the opposite to that is
not only victory and defeat but also loss and destruction.Leaders don't celebrate loss and destruction.You won't find a single Tamil who doesn't condole with the loss of LTTE.Not because all Tamils
love them but because LTTE was Tamil.
UNP had it's own way and it prefered peace to war though it had to support last pace military push to
finish off LTTE.This war was not only aimed at LTTE but also at UNP and western nations who voiced concern for civillians.It's no secret that UNP enjoys friendly relations with the west and the rest of the world.MR
used this war to humiliate all those who had different
views on war and other domestic policies.He often forgets that we are not a nation of self sufficiency,
the world is not eager to learn from us and our people
are now branched out all over the world and equipped
with enough knowledge.
Ranil is not going to use SF warcrime noices as an excuse to bring him down.Differences might develop like
all other times in history but they will solve them
among themselves.Paradisians are quite matured enough
about what to expect from whoever on the top.Nobody has
a huge task to do.Just look after what JR has cultivated and paradisians will be ever in the paradise
Nadee,
I understand your concerns. There can never be absolute unanimity in terms of what should be an acceptable political solution - neither within the MR camp, nor the SF camp. But that wasn't the point. While MR has at least offered PCs, what has SF offered? And what has the TNA requested? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because surely, there are enormous contradictions re. what SF wants to offer (i.e. absolutely nothing OR everything beyond 13A!), and what the TNA wants/demands. And what is the justification provided by TNA? Simple - that they understood that SF is concerned about a political solution...Is that reason enough for a party which seemed to have taken a serious stand about the notion of a 'political solution' (however flawed it may have been) to support a candidate? MR's PC might not be enough - but that's a different matter altogether. The man has offered something, whereas SF has not - simply because he has nothing to offer! Btw, I wonder whether one should take all this to mean that MR has made a mistake by promising PCs ... ? Should he have gone the SF way?
Musammil,
The generous, humane and forgiving heart was not that of MR - I was referring to SF's heart! SF is a very forgiving man, you know...
The election was yesterday, and the vote count is on. As we expected, MR leads by a comfortable margin, while SF and the clan are cooped in a loft somewhere in a plush Colombo hotel, purportedly with ulterior motives backed by the usual culprits in the Imperial western world. Depending on how paranoid you choose to be, there are rumors you can choose to accept about what's going to happen next.
The reality is a combination of good and not so good that we've seen emerge thru this heated and not always pleasant election.
This fight brought out the best of democracy (the sort we have here) and voter participation. Voting took place in an overwhelmingly peaceful environment, all over and across the land. On all sides there was an abiding interest in keeping the proceedings civilized and a wait and see attitude towards who should win; an acceptance is emerging from among most people, especially the younger generations, that whoever wins in a fair election will be accepted.
This election's close contest and its message must be crystal clear to Mahinda Rajapaksa, whose victory was never in doubt. Sri Lankans are watching carefully and they are not stupid. They've given a verdict on Ranil and will not hesitate to relegate the Rajapaksa's into the forgotten past very quickly if things don't get better.
They've also given a firm verdict to those who've clamoured to militarize the political process in Sri Lanka; it will not be tolerated. Any attempts to usurp power in Sri Lanka using military power will meet a swift and unpleasant end. In Sri Lanka the ballot has come to rule over the bullet.
That's how it should stay.