Whither Sri Lanka?
Pessimism & Scolding at Asia Society Discussion
Do President Rajapaksa & Sinhalese suffer from 'Illusions?'
by Hassina Leelarathna
Who would have guessed? President Rajapaksa and the legendary Hollywood actress Vivien Leigh share something in common: Blanche DuBois, the leading protagonist in Tennessee Williams Pulitzer Prize winning drama, A Streetcar Named Desire. In the 1951 movie version of A Streetcar, Leigh played the role of the emotionally fragile Southern beauty who lives in a world of fantasies and illusions. Now Rajapaksa is playing it in real life, deluding himself that the war is really over and that the country is on its way to prosperity.
This was some of the invective heard at the Asia Society’s discussion titled ‘Whither Sri Lanka,’ when three former US ambassadors to Sri Lanka got on stage June 16 to deliver their assessment of post-war Sri Lanka.
“Sri Lanka is a land of illusions, people deluding themselves all over the place. .. . Mahinda Rajapaksa [like Blanche Dubois] is deluding himself if he thinks that this problem has been sorted out and that Sri Lanka can be stabilized and can be moved in a very positive direction without confronting the real issues in the Tamil-Sinhala equation,” said Ashley Wills, Ambassador to Sri Lanka (2000-2003) in his summation.
The former ambassador, a key figure in the signing of the ceasefire agreement between the Ranil Wickremasinghe government and the LTTE in 2002, believes the Sinhalese in general share the same malaise of illusion: they suffer from a “pervasive sense of persecution.”
“[They believe] the world is against the Buddhists … and they are the only people who can stand and defend themselves. “
Under the aegis of Asia Society, the discussion was organized by the Washington DC-based Serendipity Group, a loose cabal of former US envoys and other Americans associated with the island nation , which tags itself as ‘Friends of Sri Lanka.’ In addition to Ashley Wills there was Shaun Donnelly who served from 1997-2000 and Teresita Schaffer whose term ran from 1992-to 1995. Current Ambassador Patricia Butenis, also billed to speak, apparently made a last-minute cancelation.
Both Asia Society and the Serendipity Group have drawn criticism from the Sri Lankan community for failing to invite the Sri Lankan ambassador or another representative to the event.
Ambassador Donnelly, who spoke next, echoed Will’s pessimism, describing post-war developments as being reflective more of ‘triumphalism’ than a serious attempt at reconciliation. He was particularly critical of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. He was even ‘worried’ about Sri Lanka “drifting away from the traditional place in global community” into the lesser orbit of countries such as Myanmar and Libya. “China, of course, falls into that community too,” he declared. Sri Lanka needs the IMF, the World Bank, and the west and could not afford to ‘denigrate’ the ambassadors and media of the countries that fund these international institutions. “A country that’s the size of Sri Lanka frankly has to care about what the world is thinking about it … you’re not big enough or important enough to go it alone,” he scolded.
Emphasizing that the US has no national strategic interests in the island, Donnelly warned that unless Sri Lanka shaped up and stopped being difficult “you’re going to see people in US government finding other things to focus on and let Sri Lanka go its way.”
'Good Cop'
When her turn came, Ambassador Teresita Schaffer played the ‘good cop,’ striking a less strident, more constructive note. She did not share Donnelly’s dismissiveness of Sri Lanka as being of ‘no strategic interest to the US.’ Given the growing influence of South Asia, smaller nations in the region were growing in importance in strategic and geopolitical terms. “What happens in Sri Lanka matters, it raises issues for the United States.” She also disagreed that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy was being steered away from traditional associations, observing that the country has maintained a longstanding relationship with China and Iran. She attributed the souring of diplomacy partly to the fact that as soon as the war was over some traditional donors were ‘very quick’ (even within days of the war’s conclusion) in calling for ‘accountability of accusations of war crimes.’
“I’m prepared to stipulate that horrible things happened at the end of the war. But making that the only point of your sphere is not a particularly effective way of making progress.”
After the event, a Sri Lankan who had earlier braced for a round of ‘Sri Lanka bashing,’ breathed a sigh of relief saying ‘it wasn’t so bad.’ If it was not a bashing, it was indeed a public scolding, punctuated by compliments that had that inevitable ‘but’ attached.
· Sri Lanka is today is at peace … but events of early 2009 continue to reverberate.
· It is true that Sri Lanka won a military victory … but the problem still remains
· The Sri Lankan economy has done well partly because of good decisions and good fortune … but it’s a mistake to assume that SL is on a good economic path.
The ‘buts’ spread their intended gloom and pessimism. It’s ‘an unhappy time’ in Sri Lanka, with democratic institutions and the judiciary virtually in shambles and the economy, at best, only enjoying a brief, fortuitous respite. To use a phrase the foreign media and wire services often threw in with their own doomsday versions of ‘Whither Sri Lanka’ during the Eelam war, the country is ‘teetering on the brink of collapse.”
The problem with this and similar post-war discussions post-war is not that they occur but that they do within their own limited spheres. In an email to me, Mr. Camp emphasized said it was ‘a U.S. perspective on Sri Lanka,’ (an explanation as to why there was no Sri Lankan representation on the panel?).
The panel pretty much assumed a hierarchical role, of exclusivity tinged by moral righteousness. The overall tone was similar to that taken by parents when they order their kids to their rooms or tell them how disappointed they are with their behavior. To use a buzz phrase, the US envoys were talking at, and not to, Sri Lankans. The exclusion of an official Sri Lankan presence only accentuated that impression.
Much blame was apportioned to the Sri Lankan government for what the panelists saw as a failure to hasten post-war ‘reconciliation.’ The rhetoric that has gathered around this topic suggests there is a measure for this thing called ‘reconciliation,’ as if an indicator light will start blinking wildly when full reconciliation is reached. What specific or comparative factors, one is compelled to ask, did the panelists use in their ‘reconciliation scorecard’? Do developments such as the release of nearly 7000 LTTE cadres from detention count at all, considering America’s own intransigent hard-line stance against Al Qaeda? Will anyone dare suggest ‘reconciliation’ with Al Qaeda to Washington? Does the dwindling of 300,000 IDPs in May 2009 to just a few thousand at present deserve a passing nod in light of America’s Katrina experience, where five years after the disaster, in August 2010, there were still 12000 (of the 275000) people left homeless? There was no indication as to what factors prompted sweeping generalizations such as “There’s no real reconciliation effort,” and “There’s no focus on reconciliation.”
'US Policy Expertise'
Pre-event, Serendipity Group’s Donald Camp, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, who moderated the discussion, said it would be an ‘opportunity to tap US policy expertise on Sri Lanka.’ Had Mr. Camp asked around he might have discovered that Sri Lanka’s burning need at this time is not ‘US policy expertise,’ certainly not that of officials who served in the island long before the onset of the Rajapaksa regime and the other new dynamics of the past decade. Much was said at the discussion about deteriorating Sri Lanka-US relations; this, no doubt, is where Sri Lanka needs the most leg up. Colombo does need to stem the tide of its growing isolation from Washington. At the same time, there has to be some leveling on the US side. Among other things, Wikileaks documents have revealed that in the last stages of the war, the US made desperate attempts to save the LTTE hierarchy from certain annihilation. Sri Lankans also remember other such attempts to thwart their final victory over the LTTE, such as Secretary of State Clinton making an unsubstantiated and irresponsible statement about the Sri Lankan army using rape as a weapon!
To be taken seriously, any post-war discussion must start with: some leveling and honesty about the big powers and their concerted attempts to save the LTTE (nothing to do with Sinhala Buddhist paranoia, Mr. Wills); a better understanding and acknowledgment of ground realities, such as the strides made in inter-communal relations over the past 30 years and the positive developments in the quality of life since the end of the war; and some humility. Sri Lankans in that audience were given a demonstration of the buzz word ‘triumphalism’ when they were tauntingly told that due to size and location Sri Lanka was of no consequence to the mighty US of A. Are the rights of a people to stand up for their national interests proportional to geographic size and their place in America’s radar of national interests?
To come back to our starting point, viz., Mr. Wills’ ‘A Streetcar’ analogy: in the play, Blanche Dubois meets with an ignoble ending. After raping her, Stanley Kowalski, her brutish, macho brother in law covers up his offense by declaring her to be insane and having her committed to a mental asylum. In the final scene, as she’s led out by a compassionate doctor, Blanche delivers her famous final line: "Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."
Sri Lanka is not depending on the kindness of strangers, but does need the understanding and cooperation of those individuals, groups, and governments that bill themselves as her friends.
Pessimism & Scolding at Asia Society Discussion
Do President Rajapaksa & Sinhalese suffer from 'Illusions?'
by Hassina Leelarathna
Who would have guessed? President Rajapaksa and the legendary Hollywood actress Vivien Leigh share something in common: Blanche DuBois, the leading protagonist in Tennessee Williams Pulitzer Prize winning drama, A Streetcar Named Desire. In the 1951 movie version of A Streetcar, Leigh played the role of the emotionally fragile Southern beauty who lives in a world of fantasies and illusions. Now Rajapaksa is playing it in real life, deluding himself that the war is really over and that the country is on its way to prosperity.
This was some of the invective heard at the Asia Society’s discussion titled ‘Whither Sri Lanka,’ when three former US ambassadors to Sri Lanka got on stage June 16 to deliver their assessment of post-war Sri Lanka.
“Sri Lanka is a land of illusions, people deluding themselves all over the place. .. . Mahinda Rajapaksa [like Blanche Dubois] is deluding himself if he thinks that this problem has been sorted out and that Sri Lanka can be stabilized and can be moved in a very positive direction without confronting the real issues in the Tamil-Sinhala equation,” said Ashley Wills, Ambassador to Sri Lanka (2000-2003) in his summation.
The former ambassador, a key figure in the signing of the ceasefire agreement between the Ranil Wickremasinghe government and the LTTE in 2002, believes the Sinhalese in general share the same malaise of illusion: they suffer from a “pervasive sense of persecution.”
“[They believe] the world is against the Buddhists … and they are the only people who can stand and defend themselves. “
Under the aegis of Asia Society, the discussion was organized by the Washington DC-based Serendipity Group, a loose cabal of former US envoys and other Americans associated with the island nation , which tags itself as ‘Friends of Sri Lanka.’ In addition to Ashley Wills there was Shaun Donnelly who served from 1997-2000 and Teresita Schaffer whose term ran from 1992-to 1995. Current Ambassador Patricia Butenis, also billed to speak, apparently made a last-minute cancelation.
Both Asia Society and the Serendipity Group have drawn criticism from the Sri Lankan community for failing to invite the Sri Lankan ambassador or another representative to the event.
Ambassador Donnelly, who spoke next, echoed Will’s pessimism, describing post-war developments as being reflective more of ‘triumphalism’ than a serious attempt at reconciliation. He was particularly critical of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. He was even ‘worried’ about Sri Lanka “drifting away from the traditional place in global community” into the lesser orbit of countries such as Myanmar and Libya. “China, of course, falls into that community too,” he declared. Sri Lanka needs the IMF, the World Bank, and the west and could not afford to ‘denigrate’ the ambassadors and media of the countries that fund these international institutions. “A country that’s the size of Sri Lanka frankly has to care about what the world is thinking about it … you’re not big enough or important enough to go it alone,” he scolded.
Emphasizing that the US has no national strategic interests in the island, Donnelly warned that unless Sri Lanka shaped up and stopped being difficult “you’re going to see people in US government finding other things to focus on and let Sri Lanka go its way.”
'Good Cop'
When her turn came, Ambassador Teresita Schaffer played the ‘good cop,’ striking a less strident, more constructive note. She did not share Donnelly’s dismissiveness of Sri Lanka as being of ‘no strategic interest to the US.’ Given the growing influence of South Asia, smaller nations in the region were growing in importance in strategic and geopolitical terms. “What happens in Sri Lanka matters, it raises issues for the United States.” She also disagreed that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy was being steered away from traditional associations, observing that the country has maintained a longstanding relationship with China and Iran. She attributed the souring of diplomacy partly to the fact that as soon as the war was over some traditional donors were ‘very quick’ (even within days of the war’s conclusion) in calling for ‘accountability of accusations of war crimes.’
“I’m prepared to stipulate that horrible things happened at the end of the war. But making that the only point of your sphere is not a particularly effective way of making progress.”
After the event, a Sri Lankan who had earlier braced for a round of ‘Sri Lanka bashing,’ breathed a sigh of relief saying ‘it wasn’t so bad.’ If it was not a bashing, it was indeed a public scolding, punctuated by compliments that had that inevitable ‘but’ attached.
· Sri Lanka is today is at peace … but events of early 2009 continue to reverberate.
· It is true that Sri Lanka won a military victory … but the problem still remains
· The Sri Lankan economy has done well partly because of good decisions and good fortune … but it’s a mistake to assume that SL is on a good economic path.
The ‘buts’ spread their intended gloom and pessimism. It’s ‘an unhappy time’ in Sri Lanka, with democratic institutions and the judiciary virtually in shambles and the economy, at best, only enjoying a brief, fortuitous respite. To use a phrase the foreign media and wire services often threw in with their own doomsday versions of ‘Whither Sri Lanka’ during the Eelam war, the country is ‘teetering on the brink of collapse.”
The problem with this and similar post-war discussions post-war is not that they occur but that they do within their own limited spheres. In an email to me, Mr. Camp emphasized said it was ‘a U.S. perspective on Sri Lanka,’ (an explanation as to why there was no Sri Lankan representation on the panel?).
The panel pretty much assumed a hierarchical role, of exclusivity tinged by moral righteousness. The overall tone was similar to that taken by parents when they order their kids to their rooms or tell them how disappointed they are with their behavior. To use a buzz phrase, the US envoys were talking at, and not to, Sri Lankans. The exclusion of an official Sri Lankan presence only accentuated that impression.
Much blame was apportioned to the Sri Lankan government for what the panelists saw as a failure to hasten post-war ‘reconciliation.’ The rhetoric that has gathered around this topic suggests there is a measure for this thing called ‘reconciliation,’ as if an indicator light will start blinking wildly when full reconciliation is reached. What specific or comparative factors, one is compelled to ask, did the panelists use in their ‘reconciliation scorecard’? Do developments such as the release of nearly 7000 LTTE cadres from detention count at all, considering America’s own intransigent hard-line stance against Al Qaeda? Will anyone dare suggest ‘reconciliation’ with Al Qaeda to Washington? Does the dwindling of 300,000 IDPs in May 2009 to just a few thousand at present deserve a passing nod in light of America’s Katrina experience, where five years after the disaster, in August 2010, there were still 12000 (of the 275000) people left homeless? There was no indication as to what factors prompted sweeping generalizations such as “There’s no real reconciliation effort,” and “There’s no focus on reconciliation.”
'US Policy Expertise'
Pre-event, Serendipity Group’s Donald Camp, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, who moderated the discussion, said it would be an ‘opportunity to tap US policy expertise on Sri Lanka.’ Had Mr. Camp asked around he might have discovered that Sri Lanka’s burning need at this time is not ‘US policy expertise,’ certainly not that of officials who served in the island long before the onset of the Rajapaksa regime and the other new dynamics of the past decade. Much was said at the discussion about deteriorating Sri Lanka-US relations; this, no doubt, is where Sri Lanka needs the most leg up. Colombo does need to stem the tide of its growing isolation from Washington. At the same time, there has to be some leveling on the US side. Among other things, Wikileaks documents have revealed that in the last stages of the war, the US made desperate attempts to save the LTTE hierarchy from certain annihilation. Sri Lankans also remember other such attempts to thwart their final victory over the LTTE, such as Secretary of State Clinton making an unsubstantiated and irresponsible statement about the Sri Lankan army using rape as a weapon!
To be taken seriously, any post-war discussion must start with: some leveling and honesty about the big powers and their concerted attempts to save the LTTE (nothing to do with Sinhala Buddhist paranoia, Mr. Wills); a better understanding and acknowledgment of ground realities, such as the strides made in inter-communal relations over the past 30 years and the positive developments in the quality of life since the end of the war; and some humility. Sri Lankans in that audience were given a demonstration of the buzz word ‘triumphalism’ when they were tauntingly told that due to size and location Sri Lanka was of no consequence to the mighty US of A. Are the rights of a people to stand up for their national interests proportional to geographic size and their place in America’s radar of national interests?
To come back to our starting point, viz., Mr. Wills’ ‘A Streetcar’ analogy: in the play, Blanche Dubois meets with an ignoble ending. After raping her, Stanley Kowalski, her brutish, macho brother in law covers up his offense by declaring her to be insane and having her committed to a mental asylum. In the final scene, as she’s led out by a compassionate doctor, Blanche delivers her famous final line: "Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."
Sri Lanka is not depending on the kindness of strangers, but does need the understanding and cooperation of those individuals, groups, and governments that bill themselves as her friends.