|
Dhanapala: Defending the Indefensible
17 September 2005
Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala is no novice when it comes to
diplomacy. But even he cannot defend the indefensible.
Sent to Washington to defend the Sinhala regime’s appalling failure
to implement the Cease-Fire, its abject indifference to the
survivors of the tsunami in the Tamil Homeland and its blatant use
of paramilitaries to destabilise the East, Dhanapala has resorted to
demonising the enemy and in the process exposed his own latent
chauvinism.
On 8 September this year, in the course of his
speech to the Sri Lanka Caucus of the US Congress, Dr Dhanapala
launched a vituperative and virulent attack on the LTTE. Four days
later he attacked again, this time the Tamil diaspora for
“sustaining the conflict” when
he addressed the Asia Society forum on “Sri Lanka Peace Process:
Problems and Prospects”, at the Willard Inter-Continental,
Washington D.C.
The attacks by Dhanapala come as a surprise because he is a seasoned
diplomat expected to be constrained and diplomatic in his
utterances. Furthermore, as the Secretary General of Sri Lanka’s
Peace Secretariat, Dhanapala is obliged to project an image of a
peacemaker and not that of a warmonger hell bent on demonising the
enemy. Unfortunately, Dhanapala’s behaviour in Washington was
reminiscent of a crude Sinhala chauvinist than that of a suave and
ambitious diplomat with aspirations to the highest office in the UN.
There are a number of possible reasons for Dhanapala’s
uncharacteristic and undiplomatic outbursts.
The most obvious is that his Government is under considerable
pressure from the international community for its appalling failure
to implement the Cease-Fire, its abject indifference to the
survivors of the tsunami
in the Tamil Homeland and its blatant use of paramilitaries to
destabilise the East.
These were driven home, on 19th July this year
when the co chairs to the peace process (US, Japan and the EU) said,
“The Sri Lankan government, in accordance
with the Ceasefire Agreement, must ensure that all paramilitary
groups are disarmed and prevented from any activity that might
lead to acts of violence. The government must also guarantee the
security of unarmed LTTE cadres in government controlled areas”
In less than a month, on 16 August,
the UN Security Council called on the parties "to implement
fully the provisions of the Cease-Fire Agreement and to continue
their dialogue, in order to attain sustainable peace and stability
in the country." “.
Although couched in diplomatic language, both statements were
primarily directed at the Sri Lankan Government whose disregard for
clause 1.8 of the Cease-Fire Agreement calling for the disarming of
the paramilitary forces had become the major impediment to
maintaining the Cease-Fire.
Dhanapala’s visit to Washington was to counter this pressure and
defend his Government’s conduct. Given the indefensible position,
particularly in respect of the activities of the paramilitary,
Dhanapala was forced to fall back on the strategy of the
desperate-attack when cornered.
But surely Dhanapala could have been as diplomatic and restrained as
he was when he addressed the Sri Lanka Development Forum on May 17th
this year. On that occasion he spoke of reconciliation and even
referred to the President’s apology on to the Tamil people
who suffered in July
1983 during the state orchestrated attack on Tamil lives and
property. (Of course being a diplomat he was careful to refer to the
July 1983 happenings as a ‘riot’ not by its proper name-pogrom)
There is no doubt that Dhanapala was rattled by the actions of the
international community. As a diplomat he was able to detect the
impatience on the part of the international community, which, was
becoming increasingly conscious of the intransigence of the Sinhala
regime.
It appears that Dhanapala agitated by the pressure exerted on his
Government and confronted with the spectre of the international
community’s treatment of the Tamils as equals had allowed his latent
chauvinism to dictate his response. The result was his shrill
outbursts in Washington during which he reverted to type by
attacking the LTTE and the Tamil diaspora.
Dhanapala’s unbecoming conduct ought to be an eye opener to those
who subscribe to the notion that Sinhala chauvinism is simply
confined to the JVP and the ‘patriotic’ parties. The extent to which
this chauvinism has permeated Sinhala polity comes to the fore
at times of crisis. This is when the likes of Dhanapala, despite
their veneer of sophistication become undone. |
