Sri Lankan who led fight against Tamils seeks Presidency

By LYDIA POLGREEN - The former chief of Sri Lanka’s army formally announced Sunday that he would seek to replace his onetime ally, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in elections to be held in January.

Gen. Sarath Fonseka retired from the army in mid-November after months of tension with Mr. Rajapaksa, who has staked his re-election campaign on the resounding military victory over the Tamil Tiger insurgency in May.

General Fonseka led a tough counterinsurgency strategy that took small teams of fighters deep into the jungles of northern Sri Lanka, striking a mortal blow to a rebel army that had battled the government for more than two decades.

“We have done away with the terrorists,” General Fonseka told reporters at a news conference on Sunday. “But now you can’t leave the country in the hands of a tin-pot dictator.”

After the war was won, Mr. Rajapaksa moved General Fonseka into a largely ceremonial post, and the uneasy alliance between the two men crumbled. A coalition of nationalist and left-wing opposition parties named General Fonseka as its candidate to face Mr. Rajapaksa.

The general has been withering in his criticism of the president since stepping down, accusing him of eroding Sri Lanka’s democracy.

But critics of the general say he oversaw a military strategy that killed thousands of civilians. According to the United Nations, at least 7,000 people died in the final bloody battle against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers, who were fighting for a separate state for the ethnic-Tamil minority in northern Sri Lanka.

Western countries and human rights organizations have accused the government and the Tamil Tigers of war crimes and have demanded an independent international investigation, but Sri Lanka has rebuffed the demands.

When the fighting ended, 300,000 Tamils who had been displaced by the fighting were herded into closed camps, where they were detained in poor conditions for months.

In his resignation letter, General Fonseka criticized what he described as “appalling conditions” at the camps. He promised to shift to Parliament much of the power that comes with the office of the president. He also accused Mr. Rajapaksa of failing to bring Sri Lanka together after the long and bloody war with the Tamil Tigers.

Still, many of Sri Lanka’s Tamils and other minorities remain skeptical of General Fonseka because of his role in prosecuting the war and his strong alliance with the nationalists from the ethnic-Sinhalese majority.

© The New York Times

Read More

Summary only

"We will be compelled to resort to other methods, if the General does not return his vehicles': Army Spokesman

By Munza Mushtaq - Military Spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara yesterday warned that the army will be compelled to resort to ‘other’ methods if former Chief of Defence Staff Sarath Fonseka does not comply with their ‘diplomatic’ pleas to return the vehicles and security he is still using without authority.

“We have written and asked him to hand back the vehicles and troops which he is using unauthorised but so far he has not yet responded to our request,” Nanayakkara said.

He emphasised that because Fonseka was a former Army Commander and Chief of Defence Staff, the military would like to sort out the issue in a ‘diplomatic manner’ even though the army has various ways and means of recovering such items and troops.

“Taking his stature we are trying to resolve this diplomatically, but if he doesn’t cooperate then we will have to resort to ‘other’ methods,” Nanayakkara warned.

His warning came amidst reports that around 50 military police officers and soldiers had tried to force their way into General’s House last week and take Fonseka’s vehicles, however the General had intervened and stopped them from carrying out their orders which allegedly came from Army Commander Jagath Jayasuriya.

According to the Army, Fonseka is currently retaining a total of 103 security personnel and vehicles not authorised for his present use, this includes; four commando officers, 24 commando other rankers, three administration and signal officers, 17 other rankers, 55 cooks, drivers, riders, seven soldiers of the Medical Corps and three cars, seven Land Rovers, a double cab, one bus, one ambulance, four vans and nine motor cycles.

© The Sunday Leader

Read More

Summary only

Associates close to the Rajapaksa brothers push hoteliers to purchase large tracts of lands

By Mandana Ismail Abeywickrema - Leading hoteliers told The Sunday Leader that they were being approached by “associates close to the Rajapaksa brothers” pushing them to purchase large tracts of land at Kuchchaveli in the Trincomalee District. The land is held in the names of companies registered “overnight” they said.

A leading hotelier requesting anonymity told The Sunday Leader that a “bogus businessman” who had received a plot of land in the coastal area of Kuchchaveli had requested him to invest Rs. 5 million to construct a hotel in the area.

He said most of the businessmen who have applied for land in the Kuchchaveli coastal area were either from the Hambantota District or supporters of the Rajapaksa administration.
Collaborating these charges, Eastern Province Chief Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan said he has objected to a proposed tourism development project in the Kuchchaveli coastal area in the Trincomalee District claiming it did not have the official approval of either the Chief Minister or the Provincial Land Commissioner.

Chandrakanthan told The Sunday Leader that the UDA, Trincomalee GA and the Tourism Ministry had decided the project without receiving the necessary approval from the Chief Minister.

According to the proposal about eight acres of prime land in the Kuchchaveli coastal area are to be distributed among 132 businessmen to develop the area as a tourist destination.

“I objected to it and stopped the project as neither the Provincial Land Commissioner nor I were informed of it. According to the prevailing laws, it is necessary for any project to be launched in the Province to receive necessary approval from the Chief Minister,” Chandrakanthan said.

© The Sunday Leader

Read More

Summary only

Commonwealth vetoes Sri Lanka bid to hold 2011 gathering

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent - Sri Lanka has been blocked from hosting the next meeting of Commonwealth leaders in protest at Colombo's military repression against the Tamil population earlier this year.

Australia will instead host the next biennial Commonwealth heads of government meeting in 2011 after Canberra and London joined forces to block the Sri Lankan bid.

The decision, made at the summit in Trinidad and Tobago over the weekend, is a victory for Gordon Brown and his Australian counterpart, Kevin Rudd.

Brown faced down advice from the Foreign Office to issue a strong briefing on the eve of the summit last week that Britain would block the Sri Lankan bid.

British diplomats were nervous when the British media, including the Guardian, reported that Brown would tell Commonwealth leaders that it would be unacceptable for a gathering of one of the world's largest collection of democracies to be hosted by Sri Lanka. Officials in Colombo, who had expected to be able to host the 2011 summit after formally submitting a bid in 2007, were said to be alarmed by the strength of the No 10 briefing.

A Downing Street source said on Thursday: "We simply cannot be in a position where Sri Lanka – whose actions earlier this year had a huge impact on civilians, leading to thousands of displaced people without proper humanitarian access – is seen to be rewarded for its actions."

Colombo ended a 26-year civil war this year in a campaign against the Tamil Tigers. Up to 300,000 people were held as they fled the last days of the fighting.

The Australians are expected to hold the 2011 summit in Perth.

Brown and Rudd, who are natural political allies on the centre left, joined forces on a series of fronts at this year's meeting. They worked closely on climate change and persuaded the 53 Commonwealth members to accept a $22.5bn (£13.6bn) climate change finance package.

British officials regarded the blocking of Sri Lanka and the climate change package as triumphs. They were particularly pleased that Stephen Harper, the centre-right Canadian prime minister, who is regarded in London as an "outlier" on climate change, signed up to the package.

But Harper only accepted the package in a one-to-one meeting with Brown, shortly before a banquet on Friday hosted by the Queen. Brown told Harper he should drop his concerns about the cost of funding climate change initiatives in the developing world because it would end up costing more if the $22.5bn package, covering 2010-13, was rejected.

Brown then asked Harper to persuade John Key, New Zealand's centre-right prime minister, who also had doubts. Harper agreed and succeeded.

Britain was also encouraged by support for its proposal to readmit Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth in 2011. Harare will be allowed back if Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF party implements a series of reforms.

© Guardian

Related Links:
SL to host CHOGM in 2013 - Ceylon Daily News
Commonwealth 'did itself some good' at summit - BBC News

Read More

Summary only

Commonwealth leaders must focus on Sri Lanka crisis

Amnesty International has called on Commonwealth leaders to press the Sri Lankan government about the plight of the displaced.

The organization made the call in an open letter to heads of government attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago this week.

The UK government said on Friday that it will oppose Sri Lanka hosting the next Commonwealth summit because of concerns over its conduct in the conflict and its treatment of refugees.

At least 130,000 people displaced by war and living in government camps in northern Sri Lanka are being denied their basic human rights, including liberty and freedom of movement.

Amnesty International has a global campaign, Unlock the Camps, calling on the Sri Lankan government to end its policy of forcibly confining people to camps, which amounts to arbitrary detention.

In recent weeks the government has speeded up releases from the camps. Amnesty International has welcomed the Sri Lankan government's recent promise to lift any restrictions on movement of at least 130,000 people still unlawfully detained by 1 December.

However, amid reports of some re-arrests following releases from the camps, the organization has called on the Sri Lankan authorities to abide by the principles of international humanitarian law and ensure that displaced people are supported to make voluntary and informed decisions about their future.

The open letter also asked Commonwealth leaders to support calls for greater accountability for abuses of human rights and humanitarian law suffered by Sri Lankan civilians.

Click here to read the open letter to Heads of Government attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

© Amnesty International

Related Links:
UK wants to prevent Sri Lanka from hosting Commonwealth summit - Guardian
Canada opposes Sri Lanka's bid to host Commonwealth - The Star

Read More

Summary only

"No need to reveal" journalists' sources

A court in Sri Lanka has rejected a police request to order a journalist to reveal his sources regarding a news story.

The Colombo magistrate said journalists cannot be forced to reveal their sources.

The court made the decision after considering a case filed by police Criminal Investigation Department (CID) against the editor of Lankaenews web newspaper.

The magistrate ordered the editor of the website, Sandaruwan Senadheera, to report to the CID and record a statement within two weeks.

The police wanted to know the source for a Lankaenews report regarding the transfers of police officers.

The counsel representing the website, Gunaratna Wanninayake, told BBC Sandeshaya that the CID is "trying their best" to find the source of the story.

"But the magistrate clearly said that my client is not bound by the law to do that," he added.

© BBC Sinhala

Read More

Summary only

National Unity based on Equality, Autonomy, and the Rights of Self Determination - Dr.Vickramabahu

Presidential candidate of the Left Front Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne say that he will take up the issue of national unity based on Equality, Autonomy, and the Rights of Self Determination. Announcing the decision by left and democratic parties, organizations and intellectuals Dr. Vickramabahu said that the incumbent president followed the agenda given by the Indian rulers backed by global powers while the terrible bankruptcy in Lankan society is used by far-right militaristic section of the global powers to put forward the former military chief.

Following is the statement issued by the Left Front:

"We are suffering because we have failed to resolve basic problems in our country. We cannot claim to be a free and democratic country unless we resolve the national problem and also stop international global capitalist interference. Mahinda regime used military forces backed by India and global powers to crush the Tamil uprising caused by continuous discrimination and repression. They claim it is a great victory. However our country is devastated. The Tamil homeland is in ruins and people are made paupers drifting here and there. Thousands were killed; thousands disappeared; thousands are disabled, and thousands are made political prisoners. Large numbers living abroad curse the rulers who brought this misery to them. In Sinhala areas too a large number is killed while a larger number are made invalids. The people in general are made poorer. Many young people are unemployed. Cost of living is simply unbearable and the working masses are forced to bear the cost of the war. Continuation of 300,000 armed forces means that they are unable to find suitable jobs for them. On the other hand the war is not over. If this situation continues, and there is no other way out, inevitably youth will take up arms against oppression and discrimination. In the mean time unbelievable corruption exists from top to bottom. Corruption and misappropriation has become the common practice in society. Indian and global companies are gobbling up the economy. We have become vassals of Indian rulers.

Estate worker's powerful strike started a wave of strikes that came to Colombo shaking the regime. The inability of Mahinda to use the military power accumulated during the war, against the workers, created a big hole in the system. The repercussion of this strike wave was a split in the monolithic chauvinist structure. The inability of Mahinda Regime to crush worker's strikes, student's actions and mass protests, made the capitalists to seek an alternative leadership from a military hard liner, General Sarath.

Mahinda followed the agenda given by the Indian rulers backed by Global powers. He is still prompted by these masters to continue their agenda. On the other hand the terrible bankruptcy in Lankan society is used by far-right militaristic section of the global powers to put forward General Sarath. Sarath hails bloody devastation created by the war and stands for strengthening the military, and also for centralization. JVP four points proposal designed to eliminate devolution and crush aspirations of Tamil speaking people is accepted as the common programme of General Sarath. It is no way an answer to the tragedy created by Mahinda Chinthanaya.

It is necessary to condemn what Mahinda regime has done and sharply take up the issue of national unity based on Equality, Autonomy, and the Rights of Self Determination. Democracy and freedom can prevail only if there is state based on national unity. Without this fundamental task achieved, no development could take place, and we will be eternally trampled by Global powers. Therefore on behalf of workers, peasants, fishers and other suffering masses, Left Front with the support of other left and democratic parties, organizations and intellectuals decided to put forward Comrade Vickramabahu as its Presidential Candidate."

© NSSP Info

Read More

Summary only

Lanka presidential polls on Jan 26

Sri Lanka’s Election Commission on Friday announced that the Presidential elections will be held on January 26 next year, with incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa expected to face a challenge from former Army Chief Sarath Fonseka, architect of the military victory against the LTTE.

“Elections will be held on the 26th of January,” Commissioner of Elections Dayananda Dissanayake said. An official statement said that nominations would be accepted on December 17. Sri Lanka has over 14 million eligible voters.

The announcement came four days after President Mahinda Rajapaksa decided to advance the polls by nearly two years.

Rajapaksa and his allies decided to hold the polls by January next year apparently to cash in on the military victory against LTTE, which held one-third of Sri Lanka’s land under its control when he took over as President in 2005.

However, the President is expected to face a tough challenge from Sarath Fonseka, who quit as Chief of Defence Staff a fortnight ago following a spat with Rajapaksa, as he is expected to enter the fray as the common candidate for the Opposition.

Almost all the Opposition parties, including former Premier Ranil Wickremasinghe’s United National Party, have expressed support for Fonseka’s candidature.

Fonseka is yet to formally announce his candidature. However, local media reported that the Army General may formally announce his decision on Sunday.

UNP chief Wickremesinghe had on Thursday announced his party’s support to Fonseka. Earlier, the radical JVP had announced shifting of its support from President Mahinda Rajapaksa to Fonseka.

In his bid to unseat Rajapaksa, Fonseka is also expected to get the backing of regional and minority parties, who have formed an umbrella grouping along with the UNP to contest the elections.

An ally of the United National Front in Sri Lanka has said if Fonseka wins the presidential polls, UNP chief Ranil Wickremasinghe will be made the Prime Minister.

“If Fonseka wins, UNP leader Ranil Wickremasinghe will be appointed the Prime Minister,” Sri Lanka Freedom Party (Mahajana wing) leader Mangala Samaraweera, said on Thursday. He said the government had been spreading rumours that Fonsaka’s victory would pave way for a military rule, the Island newspaper reported.

© Indian Express

Related Links:
Sri Lanka's presidential poll set for Jan. 26 - AP
Sri Lanka to hold presidential poll on Jan. 26 - Reuters

Read More

Summary only

Manufacturing of a ‘Common Candidate’ and Our Collective Political (Un)Conscious

by Jude Fernando - “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” — Karl Marx

“The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility.” — Paulo Freire

As news of the upcoming election unfolds, I find myself considering the meaning of the notion the “common candidate” in general, and its application to General Fonseka in particular. In the broadest sense, a common candidate is one who represents and promises to fulfill the people’s common aspirations and desires. Whether the General meets these criteria is still open to question, and I think our understanding and our judgment on the matter would be improved through reflection. I find myself, perhaps along with my readers, wondering what is unique about the timing of this “common candidacy,” and what, exactly, is “common” about General Fonseca. Why would he appeal to different constituencies, and what are the consequences for Sri Lanka if he is elected? And, finally, how can we hold the “common candidate” accountable for his claims and promises if he is elected? The way we grapple with these questions will influence the political discourse leading into the next Presidential elections and have far reaching consequences for the future. The purpose of this article is to lay out some broad and tentative parameters to help us explore answers to these questions.

I am torn between pessimism and optimism. The public’s desire for a common candidate is founded upon an ideology deeply rooted in the contested narratives of our nation’s history (or histories), particularly how these narratives shape our individual and shared ideas about the ethnic conflict, and economic and political crises of the country. My pessimism finds expression in Marx – that the selection of General Fonseka at this moment, in this election, may very well turn out to be an expression of our desires, rather than a positive action: “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world…the spirit of a spiritless situation, and the opium of the people.” But I have always chosen to be an optimist, believing that there is good in every human being, In the final analysis, we citizens have the creativity and power to make a blessing or a tragedy out of our choice of common candidate,. To improve our nation, we must reexamine and change our ideas about inclusive citizenship and material well-being, and demand the same changes from our leaders.

If we view Fonseka’s candidacy as the expression of an ideology, we might have better luck in understanding it. Ideologies draw their power from a base of public opinion that naturalizes and universalizes a particular world view, while simultaneously dismissing or excluding other systems of thought. You can think of an ideology as a kind of “social cement” that supports the foundation of a given social order. The ruling classes shape and enforce it through their institutions (media, educational system, etc.), and legitimize their position of power. A strong ideology structures our thinking processes and limits our understanding of how meaning is produced, represented and consumed. But ideology is not always all bad; it can also contain a utopian residue or surplus that can be harnessed to critique society and to advance progressive goals. Ideology creates utopian hopes and fantasies and can bring happiness as well as tragedy to the commons.

Looked at through an ideological lens, the appearance of a common candidate in the current political scene is not an accident. Rather, it is a manifestation of trends in political economy, and a strategic necessity for capturing state power, at the same time it is also a reflection of our yearning for a better future. Our political community is fragmented by intense competition between the elites and their political patrons, all of whom wish to expand and consolidate wealth and power. It has been impossible for a single party to capture state power because no one party can manage the diversity of the Sri Lankan population. Thus, power has been shared among the elites in such a way as to create incoherence in ideology and in policy, and this gives us an opportunity for progressive change. Many see the next elections as a turning point in our country’s history: a true common candidate could help us navigate a way out of economic, political and social uncertainties and insecurities; more importantly, he could bring meaning and stability to our understandings and aspirations as citizens, past, present and future. Our situation is not unique; indeed, it is typical of developing countries struggling to adjust to the demands of a neoliberal economy and to manage the crises resulting from it by negotiating between our population’s class and primordial (e.g. race, caste, territoriality, religion etc.) identities.

Ideology shapes our historical consciousness and vise versa. The past war was not simply a contest of force against force, as some intellectuals and intellectuals-turned-diplomats suggest. The objectivistic position advocated by supporters of the war (who like to call themselves “realists”) is both naive and disingenuous. This narrow and militaristic perception of the state juxtaposed against a group of terrorists fails to to take into account the subjective aspects of state behavior. By subjective aspects, I mean worldviews, ideologies, norms, values, and power relations that shape the relations between state and society. The war can just as well be described as a contest between the Sinhalese and the Tamil sense of “space and place” — a contest, in short, between ideologies and world views, and interpretations of history. In the same way, postwar practices are not simply concerned with peace and development, but also reflect the attempt of both winners and losers to rewrite history and to bring past and the present in line with their respective agendas. This also means that we simply cannot limit our evaluation of the ‘common interests’ of the common candidate’ to his contribution to defeat terrorism. With that in mind, let us turn to the particular candidacy of General Fonseka.

General Fonseka is formidable because he can satisfy the aspirations of many different stakeholders. He already possesses multiple public images. His success in using a clinical approach to defeat the LTTE, despite opposition from Western countries and NGOs, earned him the kind of public accolades accorded to benevolent warrior kings of the past. His war heroics and ideas on relations between Sinhalese and Tamil appeal to ethno-religious nationalist groups–particularly those invested in enforcing a belief in a nostalgic history of Sri Lanka disrupted by colonial powers, missionaries, and the NGOs. Although such groups are a numerical minority, they do exert ideological control over the political discourse, and their narratives are regularly exploited by mainstream political parties to legitimate their respective claims on the state. Fonseka’s own letter of resignation and farewell speech to CDS articulate an additional identity as a champion of freedom of expression, human rights, justice, communal harmony, and democracy. Such image under the current political conditions Fonseka may help Fonseka to muster majority and minority community support for his bid for presidency. Yet another image articulated by a minority of citizens cautions that Fonseka’s leadership would inevitably lead to further militarization of civil society and worsening of ethnic relations. Among this latter group are many Tamils, including those in Diaspora, who are suspicious and cynical about Fonseka’s claim he is committed to peace and democracy with justice. They view him as the military arm of the Sinhala nationalist project. We also have no good reason to ignore the opinion that Fonseka’s popularity is also due to the desperation of politicians driven by their bankrupt political ideologies and lack of committment to principled politics.

The newly elected President, whoever he is, will be forced to aggressively implement neoliberal economic policies and suppress dissent against them. Fonseka’s military credentials will earn tacit support from members of the Unholy Trinity (The World Bank, IMF and the WTO) as well as from Western and non-Western powers interested in disciplining our society to conform to neoliberal rationality. Fonseka could provide economic leadership like that of military-turned-civilian leaders such as Chun Doo-hwan and Park Chung-hee, the Presidents of South Korea who produced the “economic miracle.” Since the beginning of the war, sales of our country’s assets to multinational corporations have increased. These corporations now control areas that public protests had previously closed to them. For them, the war has been a cover to develop the necessary infrastructure to suppress dissent against neoliberal policies. This explains why ethnoreligious nationalism and militarization are importance forces in current global economy. But such forms of neo-colonialism and suppression of dissent do not seem to trouble our so called patriotic leaders, since their narrow notion of sovereignty focus only on the conflict over power sharing between the different ethnic groups within Sri Lanka.

Tamils still hoping for a political settlement to the crisis have plenty of reason to be cynical about promised changes in competitive party politics: whenever one political party proposes a political settlement to the conflict, the others oppose it. The collective experiences of the Tamils in relation to Sri Lankan governments have been mostly of betrayal, violence, loss of life and property. In this election, they see neither domestic nor international incentives for a common candidate to act any differently than his predecessors. Still, many factors compel Tamils to extend their support to Fonseka. The Tamil community in Sri Lanka and abroad is internally divided. The LTTE’s policy of eliminating intellectuals and public officials left a huge vacuum of civil and political leadership. The continuing association of some in the Tamil Diaspora with the symbols and martyrdom of the LTTE has placed Tamils in Sri Lanka in a highly vulnerable and insecure position vis-à-vis the state. Some Tamils believe that the defeat of the LTTE has opened up greater democratic space for their struggles for justice, since during LTTE rule there was no space for freedom of expression for any group opposed to LTTE, nor were such freedoms demanded by the Tamil Diaspora. Many Tamil are frustrated with the alliance between Kurana, Devanadna, Sadagiree, Pilliayan and the government. The average civilian, and particularly the displaced, are helpless and vulnerable; they lack ideological and pragmatic inclination to trust their own politicians. Finally, Tamils in areas under the control of the state apparatus may not be able to exercise their freedom at the polls. Some Tamils think that Fonseka may actually punish and remove from power the politicians who led the war and caused the hardships in their community.

There are many reasons to worry about the political stability of the country under Fonseka. Interest groups are now pursuing charges of genocide against him, making him vulnerable to manipulation and blackmailing. The increasing politicization of, and possible divisions within, the military itself (owing to the conditions under which Fonseka resigned) raise questions about his ability function as the Commander-in-Chief. We must understand these facets of politicization of the security establishment in relation to the ideological control of ethnoreligious nationalism(s) over the social, economic and political processes of the country. Militarization, combined with ethno-religious nationalism, can be lethal: the latter practice normalizes the former, and allows those in power to characterize criticism as unpatriotic and sacrilegious. We have no way of knowing how Fonseka, once a hero to both the military and ethnonationalist groups, will engage with them as a civilian.

It reassures some people that Fonseka’s is entering the contest as the common candidate for the United National Alliance (UNF) and he is willing to negotiate with some minority Tamil parties. They view the alliance between Wickramasinghe and Fonseka as good for the common interests of the country, believing that they complement each other. Wickramasinghe is an experienced and mature civilian leader full of new ideas, but he has not yet proven himself as a strong leader who can connect with the interests of the common people. On the other hand, Fonseka’s strength in the face of stiff opposition against the war by powerful international actors and media outfits, has already earned him a reputation as strong leader.

The media have reported that Fonseka is expected to satisfy ten conditions in order to qualify as the common candidate of the UNF, but these points bring us nothing new. For now they are no more than the rhetoric we could hear from any politician. The UNF offers nothing concrete, nor any reason to believe that they have the political will to implement new policies. At the moment, we have no clue about Wickramasinghe’s and Fonseka’s intention to engage with the interest groups that have caused disruption in the past, nor about their commitment to policies that sought political solution to the ethnic conflict. Though small in number and unlikely to capture any significant number of voters, these groups influence people’s perceptions all out of proportion to their size. In Noam Chomsky words, what appears as the ‘common interests of the common candidate’ may very well be parochial interests of these groups manufactured and forced to masquerade as common interests of all Sri Lankans!


In the midst of the war, Fonseka’s public assertion that “Sinhalese should rule the country as they are the majority,” wearied those still longing for a just political settlement to the ethnic conflict. Though apologists have called this statement a slip of the tongue, to many they sound like a threat. Despite the hypocrisy and contradictions in Western human rights policy, if a Western politician had made such a statement, it would have resulted in acrimonious debate and jeopardized his or her political career. A public apology would have been required and perhaps even withdrawal from public life. Sri Lankan society lacks examples of its leaders expressing remorse, asking forgiveness, being penalized or suffering tarnish to their political careers tarnished when they utter baldly racist statements. But critique of racism or secularism is not a popular theme in our country’s political discourse, and it has not been a standard used to evaluate the character of public officials. There are no compelling incentives for politicians to renounce racism or secularism; quite the contrary, since these expressions can make a politician a hero in their respective communities. These are the reasons for my skepticism about the argument that the end of war has brought changes in our collective perceptions of justice and equality (or what constitute as common interests and common candidate) that are partly responsible for the war in the first place. (The UNF under Fonseka and Wickramasinghe could very well be the Sri Lankan version of colonial justice and courageous leadership narrated in Joseph Conrad’s novel Lord Jim!)

I would still like to be an optimist. As J.R.R. Tolkien (author of the Lord of the Rings) noted that there are many tragedies in the midst of a story before it finally leads to the ‘happily ever after’ at the end. There are even good (or useful) catastrophes, which Tolkien called ‘eucatastrophies.’ Sri Lanka may well be at the point of eucatastrophy. World history provides examples of both the successes and failures of leaders like Fonseka. The military may instill positive qualities necessary for good leadership, just as the consensus for justice may not always be possible under democratic rule. I would like to give Fonseka the benefit of the doubt, as he could very well honor the promise that the defeat of the LTTE was a precondition for peace with a just solution to the ethnic crisis. People are always capable of doing good, and it is not always fruitful to be dogmatic about judging their future potential with respect to past actions.

If we vote for Fonseka as common candidate, however, we must first reflect on our assumptions, and on our expectations. The ideology of the common candidate is seductive to the extent that it allows us to remain unconsciousness and ignore the subjective, human dilemma. We must be vigilant in engaging with our ideals, considering our actions and reflecting on their effects. I am talking about praxis, by which I mean the ideas, disciplines, and actions that dominate our ethical and social life, and are instrumental in our efforts to bring freedom with justice. A common candidate could usher in freedom and democracy only if he and the society have the will to embrace paradigms of our nation’s history and economy that are radically different from the ones that shaped have shaped the conflict since Sri Lanka’s independence. Our population must have the will to hold our candidates, and our politicians, accountable. This endeavor is within the reach of Sri Lankans, if we remember that all our communities (perhaps with the exception of Veddahs) and our respective religions are foreign to this country, and that they all have an illustrious history of “doing good” against all odds.

History is not about the past, but about the present—how we make sense of and justify our actions. Oppression of all types can lead to freedom if we transform our consciousness. Our unwillingness to challenge received historical “wisdom” stems from the fact that we suffer a duality long established in our innermost being. On the one hand, we want to be part of an inclusive and just Sri Lankan identity. On the other hand, we feel pressure to align with the very forces that undermine that identity, and that work against equality. But we cannot achieve justice if we oust the oppressor by ousting him and then simply occupy his position, preserving inequality. Changing our President does nothing to bring about radical change in our economic aspirations or in racial relations if our political participation ends the moment after we vote. In the final analysis, we the people decide the specific goals of common interests and how they are fulfilled by our leaders.

We are capable and free to make changes that bring us closer to the good, and to the creation of a just and equal Sri Lanka. But we are prisoners of the human dilemma best described by Paulo Freire, and I would like to end this essay with his words::

“The conflict lies in the choice between being wholly themselves or being divided; between ejecting the oppressor within or not ejecting them; between human solidarity or alienation; between following prescriptions or having choices; between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being silent, castrated in their power to create and re-create, in their power to transform the world.”

© groundviews.org

Read More

Summary only

Left Front's Vickramabahu to contest presidential polls

The Left Front has decided to field Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne as its candidate at the upcoming presidential election.

At a media briefing in Colombo today (Nov. 25), Dr. Karunaratne said that his mission would be to create national unity, without which no development could take place.

With the support of other leftist and democratic forces, the Left Front leader said, he would take up the fight on behalf of the working class and the suffering masses.

Dr. Karunaratne alleged the regime of president Mahinda Rajapaksa was backed by India and global powers, while Gen. Sarath Fonseka was the alternative of the far-right militaristic section of global powers.

© Colombo Today

Related Links:
Bahu to contest as Common Left Candidate - NSSP Info

Read More

Summary only