Font size: 
This is why several public interest organizations in Sri Lanka have joined hands with media institutions to take legal action against the government’s attempt to control privately owned media by subjecting their broadcast licenses to a national security test.
Students of Sri Lankan politics do not rely on state media alone for accurate and unbiased reporting of political developments. But there are others who may believe totally in the word of the government.
Only today, my aunt questioned me about the white van and those behind it. The white van she was referring to is the vehicle that many victims, and their relatives, have alleged took them or their loved ones away, often never to reappear. My aunt said state media had claimed that the white van had been traced to Sirikotha, the headquarters of the United National Party, the country’s largest opposition party. This highlights the irony of the government’s bid to control privately owned media.
However, the use of the media to mislead and deceive the general public is not exclusive to the Sri Lankan government. For eight years, a very large number of people in the United States were made to believe by the George W. Bush administration that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. On that basis, the U.S. government launched a global war against terrorism that impacted the whole world.
Only now, with the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States, is there a hope that a tragic phase of world history will come to an end and a new chapter will open up. It was the free media that is constitutionally protected, and guarded by that country’s Supreme Court, that helped to turn the tide.
In his campaign, Obama promised to resort more to dialogue and to understanding the other, instead of seeing the other as an enemy to be defeated, if not destroyed. At one point, he also referred to Sri Lanka as an example in which two groups of people who looked alike were embroiled in civil war and fighting each other.
It is unlikely that the Sri Lankan government’s primary reliance on military power to rid the country of terrorism will be in line with the new president’s likely policies. As the United States continues to be the world’s sole superpower, the change of consciousness that emanates from there is likely to have global implications, including on the Sri Lankan conflict.
With its limited resources, Sri Lanka continues to wage a war with the deadline for its successful conclusion continuously being extended. In these circumstances, the country will invariably become more vulnerable to external pressures.
The agitation in the neighboring Indian state of Tamil Nadu, despite efforts by the two main political parties there to defuse it, continues to grow. This indicates vulnerability in the Indian polity that has to be addressed by the Indian government, especially as general elections are due in a matter of months. There are signs that Indian pressure on the Sri Lankan government is increasing significantly. There are media reports that India has insisted that the Sri Lankan government should come out with a credible political package within three months.
The statement by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa to the Indian media, that there is no military solution to the ethnic conflict and that he is prepared to devolve powers to the provinces within the framework of an undivided country, is a significant concession by the president.
Until recently the Rajapaksa government had been adamant that any political solution had to be within the confines of the country’s existing unitary framework. But now the president is stating that the solution could go beyond the existing system if the opposition parties are prepared to give the government a two-thirds majority in Parliament to change the Constitution.
If President Rajapaksa really means what he says, his challenge will be to obtain this bipartisan political support in a manner that no Sri Lankan government leader has obtained before. Over the past half century, there have been several attempts by enlightened government leaders to resolve the ethnic conflict through political reform.
History reveals that they all failed due to the absence of bipartisan political support that brought in the major opposition parties. It is essential that the opposition should support the government to secure the necessary numbers in Parliament to change the Constitution and convince the people to go along with the changes.
On the other hand, the government cannot reasonably expect to divide and discredit the opposition in order to ensconce itself further in power, and at the same time expect the opposition to cooperate with it on national issues. Obtaining bipartisan support requires that the government find ways to win the confidence of the opposition and treat them as partners. Unfortunately, my aunt’s query suggests that the imperatives of partisan party politics are at play, perhaps in anticipation of forthcoming provincial elections in the western and central provinces.
The present period may well be the calm before the storm. The northern battles seem to be entering their fiercest phase, with progress by the Sri Lankan military being slow in the interest of reducing loss of life, according to the government.
At the same time, international pressure is being stepped up, not only from India but also from Europe, on the grounds of human rights violations that could cost the Sri Lankan economy the benefits of the GSP+ tariff concession. The accession to office by U.S. President Obama and the shift in policy by the United States might mean that the world changes, but Sri Lanka does not, to the cost of its people, including those who currently lead the government.
--
(Dr. Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. ©Copyright Jehan Perera.)
