Mon, 27 May 2024 Today's Paper



28 March 2012 06:56 pm - 0     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}


Country is in the dock with the men who won the war, providing the space to inhale freely, being targeted by the West for punishment and by India designing to bring the full impact of its fissiparous 13 Amendment. This is a government, successful in the war theatre and found wanting in its peace venture. After the war, the country securely positioned in a 'safe zone', has fallen into the 'endangered zone' with the Indo-American resolution. A unique situation has developed - Government and the NGO lobbies are singing in harmony the same theme song- of an innocuous harmless resolution that carries no poisonous fangs. Is it to make it worse by falling into the 'danger zone' from the present 'endangered zone', of doing nothing, the route often taken by resting on "our laurels" after having lost the resolution? If the resolution had no sting or bite in it, why was a team of over fifty air dropped into Geneva to hibernate in Europe's most expensive city and send Ministers globe trotting around the world in fifteen days to defeat it. Lack of foresight, state sponsored go-slow on LLRC recommendations, stupid strategy and diplomatic misadventure contributed to the sorry state. Put it aside and start afresh making a situation that is bad better instead of indulging in silly talk that is making it worse. We cannot bow down to the resolution and lose our rights to sovereignty that is vested in the people. [A unique feature of vesting sovereignty in the People and making it "unalienable" is due to the prudence and skills of the draftsmen of 1972 Constitution.
The magic phrase was retained in its purity in the changes made in 1978.] The resolution permits the UNHRC to trespass on our land with our 'concurrence' devaluing our cherished sovereignty secured in the people. Denying the right of access by electing not to 'concur' would mean an adverse report at the next session of the UNHRC where the consequences would be worse. Government will find it hard to refuse in a virtually no-win situation. The Indian amendment to the draft resolution made the obvious appear less compulsive cosmetically, without taking Sri Lanka out of the nightmare. Point of desired entry is on war crimes to punish the men-of-war, if possible casting aspersions on the President, Defense Secretary and the Military Commanders to effect a limited regime change. It's the point where endangering enters the equation. Commencing on a slow benign note, as is usual in the UNHCR circles and progressively enter the domestic realm: with time the intensity increases to reach uncomfortable proportions. It happened last time when the socalled "Eminent Persons" were granted official observer status including the jolly old Darusman (who appeared by proxy having never visited Sri Lanka) delivering a stinging report on Sri Lanka with a symbolic walk out, at the Presidential Commission on Human Rights Violations headed by Nissanka Udalagama, after a courteous beginning. (Why was a biased Darusman not disqualified on the basis of a pre judgment on Sri Lanka when nominated to the Moon panel-the objection that we failed to punch home based on the rules of natural justice?). Expect a repeat performance if foreign visitors are allowed to meander on our soil. Without bartering away our sovereignty the need is to vault over the barricade imposed by the resolution. Defy it diplomatically- in other words - circumvent it craftily. Navigate around by doing what we should do in the national interest. Implement the LLRC report picking on the priorities according to the need of the national almanac and execute it on a timing shown on our stopwatch. Do what we need do without being told what to do. Had this course initially being followed, the resolution would not have surfaced. Lets not make the mistake twice with the watchdogs now on the prowl.
The areas to concentrate, fashioning it according to our interest in a transparent manner, are as stated in the LLRC report: (i) address Accountability (ii) work on the Tamil grievances as out lined in the LLRC (iii) wipe off the slate land and police powers from the Constitution (iv) import good governance (v) devolve power to the grassroots as outlined in the LLRC report by empowering the people. (vi) implement the trilingual schedule. This is the balance to satisfy all communities. The importance lies in a quick take off. UNP continues to make the mistake of being on the side of the anti national forces against the interest of the nation. UNP says it is stands for the country but in practice does the virtual the opposite by siding with the foreign forces by their pronouncements -except for Sajith Premadasa - who is against the resolution but remains critical of the government, which is a stand an enlightened UNP should take to succeed. Even those who call the government obnoxious finds it against their grain to vote for the UNP due their stand on the prime issue but would rather abstain than vote for the UNP. At a crunch election, the wavering locals can move back to the UPFA column jettisoning the abstention standbecause people prefer to have a government positively pro Lanka. Ranil Wickremesinghe shows himself as the local boy servile to the western elements that ushered the Geneva resolution.UPFA government defeats itself by its own inept performance while the UNP revives the government by its antics,which is the perennial equation.
---By Gomin Dayasri---

  Comments - 0

Add comment

Comments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.

Reply To:

Name - Reply Comment