21 May, 2019

Blog

President Under Pressure

By Dayan Jayatilleka

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Going by a recent report on a ‘behind the news’ segment on TV, President Sirisena has told the UPFA leaders that he is under tremendous pressure from the West and India. What Prime Minister Modi wants cannot be done but nor can we refrain from doing so, he is supposed to have said. He explained his advocacy of a national government which included the UNP by saying that it was an unavoidable answer to western pressure because Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP were the only ones who could talk to the West, interface with it and keep it at bay.

If this story has veracity—and it has yet to be denied—this Presidential disclosure tells us many things.

Democratic “regime change” and the Western applause notwithstanding, the new President is under pressure.

This in and of itself reveals that contrary to the perception of even those in the pro-Mahinda camp and perhaps Mahinda himself, “regime change” was NOT the aim and objective, but only a means. The primary target was not Mahinda; or rather Mahinda was targeted because he stood in the way of the attainment of the real objectives of the West. If Mahinda were the target and regime change the aim, then there should be no serious pressure on President Sirisena, now that Mahinda is no longer the President.

According to the President, the source of the pressure is the West and India.

At least one aim and objective is that which was articulated by Prime Minister Modi who recommended “moving beyond the 13th amendment” and explicitly flagged federalism.

One receives confirmation from the reports of discussions between the government and visiting US Asst Secretary of Human Rights and Labour Tom Malinowski that the pressure from the West is on accountability.

In a recent interview with the Delhi News Agency (DNA) former President Kumaratunga spoke of “an internal investigation with the assistance and presence of the international community”, while the British PM says that he urged Sri Lanka’s President to fully support the UN investigation.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe writing in the Japan Times disclosed a third objective, namely “re-setting the strategic position of Sri Lanka in the world”. One notices that State Minister for Defence Ruwan Wijewardene, writing in a daily newspaper, draws attention to, commends and almost upholds as a model, Sir John Kotelawela’s embarrassing attempt at confrontation with China’s Premier Zhou En Lai, an Asian icon, at the Bandung Conference 1955. That’s a suitable note to accompany his boss and uncle Ranil’s attempt at “resetting of Sri Lanka’s strategic position in the world”. 60 years ago, that conduct earned Sir John the local sobriquet of “Bandung Booruwa”. It also fed into the silent revolution of the following year 1956. (Now, 60 years later will Ranil Wickremesinghe earn the same response from the voter at the upcoming parliamentary election?)

According to The Hindu, “Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe has said Sri Lanka is neither pro-India nor pro-China.” (‘Sri Lanka neither pro-India nor pro-China: Ranil’, K. Santhush, The Hindu, April 19, 2015). In this the PM is wrong because Sri Lanka is and should be both pro-India and pro-China, though perhaps in reverse order (for eminently Kautilyan reasons). However, it could have been a political Freudian slip on Mr. Wickremesinghe’s part, because he, his Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and his neoliberal clique at the apex of the UNP are certainly “neither pro-India nor pro-China”; they are simply pro-West.

These three objectives – (i) de facto federalism, (ii) intrusive accountability and (iii) realignment with the West—constitute the agenda. MR was the obstacle and regime change was the prerequisite to achieving these aims and implementing this agenda.

Now the time has come to pay the piper and President Sirisena discloses that he is under pressure to deliver.

The character of the ethnic reforms envisaged by the Tamil Diaspora and the agency through which they expect it is made transparently clear in an open letter to Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga from Rev Fr. SJ Emmanuel, President of the Global Tamil Forum.

He names, perhaps accurately, the prime mover, or should I say the prime local proxy of the regime change strategy as ex-President Kumaratunga.

He names her as the leader of a forthcoming ethnic reform and reconciliation through a radical re-designing of our political order.

He also indicates the sheer magnitude of the change they envisage—nothing less than “the very foundations of the structure of our government”.

The role of CBK in the Diaspora agenda is clear:

“Your wisdom in becoming the architect of the new coalition to effect a regime change is well accepted and appreciated.

In my recent article “For genuine Reconciliation all religions must collaborate” (The Island 08.04.2015), I had mentioned in passing your choice to lead the initiative of the new regime for reconciliation. Today I wish to give my comments about your role for a new and challenging leadership… 

…A second bold initiative you made was by your proposals or political package of 3rd.Aug.1995 for constitutional changes.

…your role assumes a unique opportunity, to reflect on the very foundations of our structure of government …Now is the time, a second chance for all the people to rethink and organize their system of governance…

You are uniquely called at this hour of the nation to mobilize all the progressive forces from the different sectors of our population, not merely the politicians, but also the civic and religious leaders, philanthropists and professionals, to make a collaborative effort for Reconciliation and peace…” (‘An Open Appeal to Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga’, S.J Emmanuel, The Island April 17th 2015)

The question is: who on earth elected Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, the Queen of Has-Beens who is jeered at her own party’s conclaves, to play this role? What mandate does this faded political pin-up of two decades ago, have? Where, when and from whom does it derive?

If President Sirisena finds the pressure quite so difficult to withstand in peacetime, one can well imagine Sri Lanka’s fate if he had faced the combined western pressure, from Hillary Clinton, David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner – together with a call for a “humanitarian pause and reopening negotiations” that President Obama delivered from the White House lawn– that Mahinda Rajapaksa did in 2009! General Fonseka would have found himself in the same situation as Denzil Kobbekaduwa and Vijaya Wimalaratne in 1987, with the added factor that the US would have promised to use whatever means necessary to neutralize the Sri Lankan troops in case they rebelled against a ceasefire. Those who know the inside story of Kargil, know who interdicted the column of heavy tanks of the recalcitrant Pakistani general (deceased by drone), who sought to defy the ceasefire that the US had pushed through.

Luckily for this country and its armed forces, in April-May 2009 it was Mahinda Rajapaksa who was facing the international pressure and making the final political decision. History will record that was Mahinda’s and sovereign Sri Lanka’s finest hour.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 6
    4

    [Edited out] Dayan, what have you got to say that ex-President Rajapakse is above the law for refusing to appear before the bribery commission and instigating other MPs whose files are being investigated by the bribery commission to sit in the well of the Parliament. Do Gotha and Mahinda think they are above the law? Why Puss Pundit Dayan you do not comment on this?

  • 5
    1

    Park

    Dayan will never talk about these acts of the parliamentarians to cover up their corruption. He may even say these are heoric acts.

  • 1
    5

    Dayan, Thank you for the comments. It is obvious that the country is moving towards rapid decline of democracy, with two traitors of the nation Ranil and CBK pulling the strings of the village puppet Sirisena. But at least it is some kind of consolation to know that the mighty west is shit scared of our national hero MR.

  • 1
    0

    Time Magazine did not think Sir John was a Booruwa/Ass in Bandung.

    http://www.wilpattuhouse.com/MiscStuff/time_before66/index.html
    The Man from Ceylon. Nehru’s greatest irritant came from a restive member of his own Colombo powers, Ceylon’s Sir John Kotelawala. While Nehru debated how to approach Chou over the Formosa question, Sir John plunged ahead on his own. Meeting Chou early in the week, he demanded cheerily: “Why don’t we try to settle this Formosa problem?” Three times Kotelawala set up a luncheon meeting for Chou to discuss Formosa with the five Colombo powers and Romulo and Prince Wan. Chou begged off, once was whisked off to a dinner given by Nehru to which Sir John was not invited. Sir John lost patience.
    Stomping into the conference room in his black coat and jodhpurs, he announced his own plan: withdrawal of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, abandonment of Quemoy and Matsu, a trusteeship for Formosa either under the U.N. or the Colombo powers.
    Nehru was scornful. “Why under the United Nations?” he asked with heavy sarcasm. “I should think Ceylon would be quite enough.”
    Annoyed, Sir John furiously delivered himself of the conference’s plainest talk. If Chou really believed in coexistence, said Sir John, why did he not call off the subversive activities of the Communist parties throughout Asia? (see box next page). From that moment on, any move at Bandung to denounce “Western colonialism” while ignoring Communist imperialism was doomed to failure.
    Nehru, his carefully fostered illusions of coexistence rudely shattered, was furious. “Bloody fool,” spluttered Krishna Menon. Demanded Nehru: “Why didn’t you ask me before you did a thing like this?” Retorted Sir John: “Do you ask me for permission before you make a move?” Scowling, China’s Chou rose and demanded an opportunity to reply.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.