MORE ON MR. CHILCOTT
Excerpts from a speech made by Mr. Chilcott the British High Commissioner in Sri Lanka apparently on the topic "The UK's peace building efforts in Sri Lanka" were published in "The Island" on 19th and 20th of June 2007. The following are some responses to the experts as published in "The Island". Mr. Chilcott is referred to as the British High Commissioner though his country is referred to as the United Kingdom. Why do not they call him the High Commissioner for United Kingdom? Mr. Chilcott also refers to the British government's peace building strategy and not to that of the government of the United Kingdom. Is United Kingdom equivalent to Britain? One could say it is the standard practice but we want to make sure that Mr. Chilcott represents the Northern Ireland as well, as he keeps on referring to that part of Ireland having achieved a peace after a long struggle.
Before I respond to Mr. Chilcott I must say Britain has been kind to me as a person, and I have been treated well by one of their universities, which even waived in my case the minimum period one has to spend as a full time student working for a Ph. D. degree. They were prepared to give me employment though I could not accept. The Royal Society of London awarded me a fellowship later on which I made use of to spend a sabbatical and I am grateful to all those institutions. However, it is not the personal treatment that matters in political matters.
Mr. Chilcott has seven sections in his speech as reported in the newspaper. He first considers the motivation of UK and their rationale in engaging in peace building in Sri Lanka. He refers to a statement by the Defence Secretary in which the latter had correctly mentioned of Bullying by Britain and some other countries. Then he asks the question as to why they do not pack up go home and save themselves all that money and effort, if that statement by the Defence secretary reflects the view of the government. It is a good question to ask, and if a referendum could be held, not those bogus surveys conducted by the NGOs funded by British and others, I am sure that the majority of the people in the country would have said the British could save some money by acting the way the High Commissioner had suggested, but also that they owe us a great deal in the form of compensation and that money should be paid without much delay.
Mr. Chilcott speaks of their enlightened self interest. There are some apologists of the British who want to defend him. However as far as many of us are concerned it is the enlightened self interest of the British that brought them here in the latter part of the eighteenth century and then massacred those Sinhala people who rose against the British raj in 1817 - 1818, and later in 1848. The British raj was shaken so much by these freedom struggles that they destroyed the cattle, paddy fields of the Sinhalas after killing almost all their leaders. The British who wanted no more "trouble" from the Sinhalas brought people from South India to act as a buffer between the Sinhalas and the British government, after they failed to import people from China
The enlightened self interest of the British was more than that of the Dutch who brought people from South India for the tobacco cultivation. (Contrary to what Mr. Ananda Sangaree may think it is not the Portuguese but the Dutch who brought people for the tobacco cultivation.) The Dutch did not think of using the Tamils as a buffer between the Sinhalas and the government, and in that respect at least had other motives. In any event the crux of the problem is in these imports and we will come back to it later.
Mr. Chilcott claims that the British government is pressurised by the Tamil Diaspora to do something whenever conflict in Sri Lanka stirs them up. He talks of the large number of people of Sri Lankan origin living in UK, and of the large number of MPs and local councillors of South Asian origin. What Mr. Chilcott trying to communicate to us is the politicians in UK cannot just neglect the Sri Lankan community. However Mr. Chilcott is very careful not to use the word Tamil in referring to this Diaspora and does not mention anything about the complains by the Sinhala community living in Britain against the LTTE. Why not Mr. Chilcott has the same enlightened self interest in talking to the representatives of the Sinhala community living in UK. After all most of them are also citizens of UK but the MPs do not seem to be that much interested in the complains by the Sinhalas.
Of course Britain is concerned of British passport holders travelling in Sri Lanka. These days Sri Lanka government should be concerned of Sri Lanka passport holders travelling in UK. Would that fact give Sri Lanka an entitled self interest to question the British on Al Qaeda and other groups operating in UK. Talking of Al Qaeda it appears that LTTE has connections with this terrorist group and one suspects that it is these connections that have made the British authorities to take into custody Shanthan the LTTE leader in London. It is indeed British enlightened self interest to take LTTE leaders living in UK into custody when they become a threat either directly or indirectly to the British government. We do not question this enlightened self interest of Britain to arrest people whom they think are a threat to their state and or the government.
Yes as Mr. Chilcott says the internal conflict has a direct impact on the interests of his country, but the question is how significant is the impact? Is the conflict in Sri Lanka the only dispute in the world that has a direct impact ob UK or Britain for that matter? Does Britain glow with enlightened self interest whenever there is a conflict anywhere in the world that has a direct impact on the country? Even if it is so what about the conflicts in the world that have a direct impact on Sri Lanka?
Iraq, Lebanon and the so called middle east (I prefer to call it west Asia, it is middle east relative to Britain and not to Sri Lanka. It is with enlightened self interest that Britain has named various parts of the world.) not to mention Britain or UK are some places where conflict has direct impact on Sri Lanka. Even with enlightened self interest what is Sri Lanka supposed to do under such circumstances? Surely Mr. Chilcott, Britain is trying to impose their will on us in the name of enlightened self interest when we cannot reciprocate. There is an asymmetry of relationship that Mr. Chilcott has forgotten due to the enlightened self interest that the British are supposed to posses according to the High Commissioner.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>