groundviews » Invading Sri Lanka! An intrapolitical imagination

Invading Sri Lanka! An intrapolitical imagination

September 22, 2007 at 12:07 pm · Categories: Colombo, Peace and Conflict | by groundviews

Suren Raghavan

In the recent past, once again, the conceptual debate of a (direct) international intervention in the ethnic conflict of Sri Lanka has emerged with some raciness. What began with the international campaign by AI1 during the Cricket World Cup season has advanced to a translucent rationalization by advocates like Gareth Evans2 and the last addition, a haunting episode around the interview of John Holmes the UN under secretary for human rights?3 Disparate reactions have filled the political air. There are at least four manifestations.

1. The nationalists in the south have damned the thought as another âjathyanthra kumantranayakâ while their northern counterparts have espoused it.
2. The GOSL, led by its flagrant defence secretary and the uncouth members of the cabinet have camouflaged the state with the âsovereigntyâ uniform and named Holmes- a terrorist.
3. The Peace Industry responded with hybridized abstractions (depending on their proximities to the conflicting protagonists)
4. The civilians (of both sides of the dived), like in many other issues had the tiniest attention amidst their fight for survival.

This article is a brief reflection on the imagination of an (direct) international intervention in Sri Lanka. Please download the article in full here.

The writer is a researcher at University of Ottawa and could be reached via srag015@uottawa.ca

1,137 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

Focus on Human Rights The diplomatic offensive of the government is in full swing even though there continues to be confusion as to who speaks authoritatively for it on the matters of war, peace and human rights â the Foreign Minister, other assorted cabinet ministers, the defence secretary, the foreign secretary, the secretary general of the peace secretariat or... Dr. P. Saravanamuttu, September 12, 2007
The Government’s farcical international relations The traditional Sinhala press has failed to report on the unmitigated farce that constituted the President’s recent visit to New York and the United Nations and the dire state of Sri Lanka’s international relations and diplomacy in general. My article brings out some of the salient points. For example, that friends and relatives of the President’s... groundviews, October 4, 2007

Permalink | Share this article on Facebook

Kadalay said,

September 22, 2007 @ 3:40 pm

India is the best bet to do it. I hope and pray they do come in and take over?

Bentzz said,

September 22, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

Before responding to ur comment i hav a question.Mr.Kadalay r u a srilankan???

kadalay said,

September 23, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

Sure, I am.

suntzu said,

September 24, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

Like I have always said…’Bring Back the British!’…or any other 1st world country! Let’s lease out Sri Lanka to Britain on a 99 year lease like it was done in Hong Kong! Lets see what they can do with Sri Lanka! Since 1948 when the British left Sri Lanka…we have been a ‘Developing Country?’ That’s 59 LONG years!
As long as the majority in this country try to impose their religious and cultural values on the minorities…Sri Lanka will always be a ‘Can’t Be Developed Country!’ A failed state…a Banana Republic…call it what you like!

ps: I was born in Sri Lanka…but I don’t consider myself a Sri Lankan….I prefer to go with what Socrates said…”I’m neither an Athenean, neither a Greek…i’m a citizen of the world!”

kbob said,

September 26, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

Suntzu, I must disagree with your views. To bring back the British and beg for their rule over us is akin to calling ourselves donkeys who need the guidance of the west to move forward. No matter how poor we may be, I am proud to say that I come from a country where the people are literate, educated, hard-working, and yearn for progress. The root cause of our predicament today lies in precisely what you are trying to bring back- colonization. Colonization planted the seeds of division that have grown into the war we see today. Ask any investor and they will say that Sri Lanka is a gold mine for development and investment. We have a robust private sector and an entrepreneurial society. The problem is not in our people or business- it is in the ethnic conflict. And bringing back the british to rule us is not going to bring justice to tamils or bring the GOSL and LTTE to shake hands. This is something we have to solve. As always, I am optimistic.

Bentzz said,

September 26, 2007 @ 9:29 pm

Well,my previous comment haven’t been published.Never mind ill say again..
I feel pity for people who think that bringing British back is the answer to the problem.
According to your idea we should have been savages before British came here,and we know that is not the case.

My view is that reason for us becoming a “failed state”(Which i don’t believe it is) is ppl’s mind set.India too is a failed nation for the majority of there population because they live way below the poverty line. But have you ever heard they blaming country for that.Yes they blame politician’s, economy but they never talk about bringing back British.They are proud for who they are and thats what drives them towards success.and we keep talking about bringing back the people destroyed our land by politically dividing our people.So how could we think about a future.

In Tagore’s famous novel “Gora”, when someone speaks ill of the Indian nation Gora says this.

“what right do you have to criticize your country,What have you done for your country,You should be ashamed of your self, ”

Yes,we all should be ashamed…….

Tiny Little Fractures :: A cause for colonialism :: September :: 2007 said,

September 28, 2007 @ 10:28 am

[...] I’ve come across some interesting posts and reactions to posts recently that really got my wheels clinking on the subject of Sri Lanka as a failed state and how we would be so much better if we were still a colonized country. This theory of course ties into the view that we are a ‘failed’ state. I personally do not buy into either theory. This is not to say that there is a lot and I mean a lot wrong with the country, evidenced by the fact that I am currently not living there (again that has its reasons which I will elaborate on later).  [...]

suntzu said,

October 8, 2007 @ 10:15 am

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/070902/International/i516.html

Well kbob the above is an interview that Lee Kwan Yew gave on August 24, 2007, called “We saw Sri Lanka: Lee Kwan Yew says it again” which appeared in the Sunday Times International on Sunday September 2, 2007. Lee was interviewed by Leonard M. Apcar, deputy managing editor of the International Herald Tribune, Wayne Arnold, a Singapore correspondent, and Seth Mydans, Southeast Asia bureau chief.

I will quote just two paragraphs from his interview.

” To begin with we don’t have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors, a homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny. We are migrants from southern China, southern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, before it was divided, Ceylon and the archipelago. So, the problem was, can we keep these peoples together? The basis of a nation just was not there. But the advantage we had was that we became independent late. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid â racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon. Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we’d be damned. So, there’s no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We’re all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.”

IHT (International Herald Tribune): Let me connect one more thought here that I am not clear about. In this more open, interconnected world where the educated and the elites are traveling and easily moving all over the world, what does this do to Asian values? Does it inevitably dilute them?

Lee Kuan Yew: It’s already diluted and we can see it in the difference between the generations. It’s inevitable. One of the things we did which we knew would call for a big price was to switch from our own languages into English. We had Chinese, Malay, Indian schools â separate language medium schools. The British ran a small English school sector to produce clerks, storekeepers, teachers for the British. Had we chosen Chinese, which was our majority language, we would have perished, economically and politically.

Riots â we’ve seen Sri Lanka, when they switched from English to Sinhala and disenfranchised the Tamils and so strife ever after. We chose â we didn’t say it was our national language â we said it was our working language, that everybody learns English whatever language medium school you go to. Which means nobody needs interpretation to read English.

So kbob…either do in Sri Lanka what Lee Kwan Yew did in Singapore…or bring back the British, or get Lee Kwan Yew to manage Sri Lanka as a Lifetime Executive President!

Mark said,

November 1, 2007 @ 8:16 pm

Sri Lankans should realize that globalization is here to stay. With every nation being accessible in a few hours by air, the acceptance of tolerance of different people is paramount to success in today’s world. Countries that have embraced tolerance such as Singapore, US and Japan are classic examples for our reference. Sri Lankans have yet to accept and understand that the norm is NOT Sri Lankan and that there are 6 billion others who are not like us. With a government (and LTTE) that exacerbates the feelings of intolerance in the country, it is only a matter of time until Sri Lanka seizes to exist in any map not including the geographical map of world.

The only way forward is for someone who understands the position of Sri Lanka in the world and embraces it’s position with tolerance to any individual regardless of race, colour or religion. Leading Sri Lanka also requires someone who is honest and just. The rule of law should be maintained regardless of repercussions internally or externally. In Sri Lanka, a country of many races, the law must take a hard line towards race related matters. Any tolerance in this respect would bring the whole country back to square one.

Victor Ivan has made an accurate analysis of the current political situation in our blessed (cursed) country. With the political structure as unfair as it is, the corrupt government looks likely to stay it’s term rather than be ousted by any political moves by anyone. There are not many solutions to such situations, and the few that remain require a lot more courage to implement than any Lankan has displayed in the history of this tiny island.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI