Seeking Solace in Statist Socialism - 07 February 2009

by Rajiva Wijesinha

One of the more entertaining aspects of the current situation is the strange combination of bedfellows it has propelled out of the woodwork. I was struck by this aspect when I saw a report to the effect that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament had boycotted a vote on Sri Lanka, on the grounds that they would not vote 'on an imbalanced text'.

The comments came from Robert Evans, who had previously been implicitly condemned for in effect fibbing, when the European Parliament accepted that it was not the fault of the Sri Lankan government that the European Parliament delegation had failed to get to Trincomalee. The story Evans had given out was that the government had delayed clearance for the flight and after a long inexplicable wait the delegation had finally given up and left the airfield.

It turned out that Evans, supposedly the expert on Sri Lanka, had refused the offer of a government plane on the grounds that this detracted from the 'neutrality' of the delegation. Why Evans thought that, in visiting a country run by a democratically elected government, he had to remain neutral between that and a group the European Union has recognized as terrorist, would defeat me - were I not aware, from British friends, that Evans represents a constituency in which pro-Tiger Tamils are one of the most efficient lobby groups.

Evans then, dealing with the European Union office in Colombo, which made no secret under Julian Wilson of not only its own political predilections but its distribution of largesse in accordance with those predilections, ended up waiting for a South African plane and pilot, which had naturally to be cleared, for competence as well as security. The fact that this took time ended up, in his report, being the fault of the Sri Lankan government. Thankfully, after investigation, the European Parliament, while refraining from actual criticism of Evans, made it clear that his version of events was nonsense.

Unfortunately, as we know even in Sri Lanka, a small minority that makes a big noise is often thought of as representative, simply because others have neither the energy nor the commitment to engage in matters about which they have little interest. With regard to Sri Lanka, we suffer from the fact that most Europeans are content to leave the running to Britain, and most British are content to leave the running to those who are deeply involved. But, unfortunately, except for sterling characters like Lord Naseby, who worked in Sri Lanka and therefore has a strong affection for this country, any affection British parliamentarians have for Sri Lanka depends on the votes they can get.

Thus we find that the most vociferous speakers on the issue are a bunch of urban MPs in whose constituencies the Tigers are immensely well organised. Many are Labour, others are - sadly - Liberal Democrats, the exception that proves the rule being the former Conservative MP Andrew Pelling who was deprived of the Conservative whip after being accused of beating yet another of his wives. He has not been convicted of this, as he proudly told a Croydon newspaper, when I first drew attention to the moral inadequacies of British MPs who attack Sri Lanka, but clearly he may have to seek refuge in the Labour Party if he is to get back into Parliament.

Fortunately for Sri Lanka, some Conservative MPs have now made it clear that they will not let the battle for Sri Lanka's soul go by default. Some of them indeed assert a moral authority that goes further than even our government, in saying, as Charles Tennock did, 'Although we support the Government's offer of amnesty for the majority of LTTE, it is vital that no-one responsible for the most serious war crimes is allowed to get away with impunity'. And recently Shadow Defence Minister Liam Fox, in trying to pin down how precisely the British government used its aid funds, indicated that they needed to check on what precisely was happening, given the enormous strength of the lobbyists who had danced round successive British High Commissioners. Thankfully the current British High Commissioner, whilst doubtless pursuing worthy ideals, does not see his role as one of making waves, a la Gareth Evans, who has now finally decided to retire.

So the Tigers now seem to be left only with the more extreme Socialists, those who like Joan Ryan think Gordon Brown is not good enough really. In this we can see parallels with America, where the strongest supporter of the Tigers is Bruce Fein, who has already diagnosed President Obama's faults, perhaps on grounds of consistency, given his attacks on Presidents Clinton and Bush.

And unsurprisingly they seem to have their parallels also in Sri Lanka, where Ranil Wickremesinghe is bringing a distinguished career to a culmination in the arms of the old eccentric left. Even the Daily Mirror could not resist a splendid juxtaposition of pictures showing how the UNP marked independence. All four pictures featured Ranil, understandably enough given his relationship to the paper's proprietor, but the editor seems to have used a wicked discretion in highlighting two pictures, one of Ranil engaged in religious observances, looking immensely pious, and another of him giggling together with Wickremabahu Karunaratne, the old leader of the New Left Front, and Siritunga Jayasuriya of the United Socialist Party.

I am not even sure that flanking Ranil with Rauff Hakeem and S B Dissanayake in the prayng picture was not also intended to send a message about the UNP marking independence by showcasing its dependency. I was reminded then of the anguish of Ranil's supporters when Mr Prabhakaran stopped people voting in 2005, because by then they were so dependent on his largesse that it never occurred to them that there must be something morally wrong with a leader who had put all his eggs into a terrorist basket.

But when it comes to elections, even terrorists smell sweet, and especially terrorists with a track record of delivering votes. Ideology too scarcely matters, so Robert Evans will be happy to deal with a fascist terrorist group. Of course for Ranil, who declared that democracy could wait until economic development had occurred, hardline authoritarianism is not a problem, but now to win brownie points and more he is obviously happy in the company of the diehard left.

Or perhaps there is no paradox in this at all. The Tigers had shown their collectivist inclinations, in a vicious assault on American efforts to develop the east through market oriented public-private partnerships. While they might prefer National Socialism, they would certainly be more at home in Wickremabahu's Socialist Paradise than they would in a market economy where social services are a prerequisite for an equal playing field, not a condescending handout from an all powerful state. And perhaps Ranil, who could not understand the need to empower people through high quality education, English and IT (which President Rajapakse has flagged for 2009), would be equally happy in that den of self-regarding collectivists.

The lesson of all this however is the questionable credentials of those who claim the moral high road in their efforts to save the Tigers. We were shocked by the total lack of concern over several months for civilians who wanted to get away to government controlled areas, but were rigidly held back by the Tigers. Now it is clear that the Tiger gamble, of keeping these people to increase and highlight their suffering now, is paying off. Even now it is not too late for those who care for our fellow Tamil citizens to demand, as the people of Jaffna have done, that the Tigers let our people go. But I fear that electoral considerations will preclude such a simple solution to all this suffering.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process