Tories tap Britain’s Tamil vote at Sri Lanka’s unitary expense
Britain’s ruling party, Boris Johnson’s Conservatives issued their Election Manifesto on Sunday, the 24th of November and immediately had egg on their face when Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to London accused it of containing a distortion in its reference to Sri Lanka.
The paragraph over which the Lankan Government took offence was para 53 which reads as follows: "We will continue to support international initiatives to achieve reconciliation, stability and justice across the world, and in current or former conflict zones such as Cyprus, Sri Lanka and the Middle East, where we maintain our support for a two- state solution."
In her letter to the co- chair of the Conservative Party, Ms. Maneesha Gunasekara labelled as unacceptable the assertion in the Tory manifesto that Sri Lanka would require a two state solution to end the simmering ethnic conflict. She also noted that it has never been the position of any political party in the United Kingdom.
True. During the long and violent thirty year terrorist war raged in Lanka and ten years of peace that has followed since, no British government, be it the Tory or Labour, has ever advocated the view that a solution to Lanka’s ethnic crisis was the establishment of a separate state exclusively for Tamils on Lankan soil. Naturally the Tory, Labour, Liberal, Social Democrats parties’ manifestos didn’t contain it. Neither did Lord Sutch’s Official Monster Raving Loony Party have the division of Lanka on their agenda though they could have well been forgiven if they had put forward such a preposterous raving mad loony idea.
Well, apart from Sutch’s Party outfit, no political party in the British establishment can advocate a two state policy as a device to resolve conflict in a foreign land, today.
Of course, they did it in the past. On every foreign shore they planted their colonial flag, they assiduously followed a divide and rule policy as a means of extending their unwelcome stay; and in the case of India when Gandhi’s staff of non-violence forced them to quit India, they left it drawn and quartered with Mother India flanked on both East and West with two Muslim states, East Pakistan and West Pakistan. That was the price Gandhi and his people had to pay for their dream of seeing a free India come to light.
Even in Lanka, the British followed this divide and rule policy and the far reaching consequences of that saw a section of the Tamil minority community take up arms to establish a separate Tamil state on Lankan soil, which now the ruling party of Britain has listed, in their own Queen’s English as being one of the promises it intends to keep if elected back to office on December 12th.
Another is a pledge they have made in their manifesto to fortify the resolve upon leaving the European Union. "We will further develop an independent Magnitsky- style sanctions regime to tackle human rights abusers head on." It adds, quite pompously, that ‘the United Kingdom has long been a beacon of freedom and human rights and is proud of its peace- building and humanitarian efforts around the world, particularly in war-torn or divided societies, and of our record in helping to reduce global poverty.’
But it is not only their past that haunts them now but also their evergreen present. For can any British government made up of either Conservatives or Labour keep a stiff upper lip and call for a two state policy to settle another country’s internal matter when in their own backyard the centuries old wail of Scotland crying out to be an independent state can be heard echoing in her hills and dales and resounding in the Scotts’ stout heart.
In the middle ages, Scotland emerged as an independent body and the kingdom’s level of independence was fought over by the Scottish kings and resisted by England’s Norman rulers. Though their demand for independence has been defeated at every turn it still stays close to the Scottish heart.
Ten years ago the Scottish government published a white paper titled ‘Choosing Scotland’s future’ which outlined options for Scotland including independence. In 2014, Scotland held its first referendum. Cities in Scotland delivered different verdicts. Glasgow backed independence while Edinburgh voted against it. Another referendum was held but this too was a no- independence. Presently, there is agitation for a new referendum to decide on the issue whether Scotland will remain a member of the United Kingdom.
It is the same with Northern Ireland which is more or less described as a country, province or region of the United Kingdom. Whilst there had been a terrorist war over the unification of Northern Ireland with the rest of independent Ireland and demands still persist for it to be unified. England still clings to it and refuses to let go of this patch of land that is located in the North East of the island of Ireland on the basis that there will be bloodshed between the protestants and the Catholics of Northern Ireland should Britain leave and thus deny giving protection to its two million inhabitants.
The Tory Party should be told, in no uncertain terms, that before venturing to give unsolicited and gratuitous solutions to other countries and recommend its bifurcation, they should first sort out matters that affect their own countryside.
But what did Lanka’s High Commissioner to the Court of St James say to the Tories in the letter she wrote to them on 27th November? Sending her missive to The Rt Hon James Cleverly, the co- chairman of the Conservative Party and addressing him as ‘ Excellency’ she politely brings to his attention that “We have noticed a reference to Sri Lanka on page 53 of the Manifesto which appears to convey the impression that the Conservative party supports ‘ a two- state solution’ with regard to Sri Lanka. This, in addition to raising concern among British constituents of Sri Lankan heritage, has been reported in the Sri Lankan media and has raised concerns among different groups in Sri Lanka.
Then she proceeds to give the relevant excerpt from the Manifesto which is published above. Then she lodges her protest. It’s as follows:
“The distortion contained in the above reference to Sri Lanka as a country which requires a two state solution is unacceptable. It has never been the position of any party in the United Kingdom. It only allows for abuse by anti- Sri Lanka elements with vested interests who have for many decades supported LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka and continue to undermine efforts at reconciliation.”
Then after pointing out that ‘successive British governments led by all parties have always enjoyed cordial relations with Sri Lanka, and have supported peace and reconciliation in a united Sri Lanka,’ Ms Gunesekera request the Rt Hon Cleverly for a clarification and hopes that a suitable correction in the Manifesto will soon be made.
Hats off to High Commissioner Maneesha Gunesekera for spotting the seeming anomaly in the Tory Manifesto and seeking clarification by immediately dispatching a letter on the 27th November and now since two weeks have lapsed the question must be asked whether the Rt Hon Cleverly, the co-chairman of the Conservative party, has responded? Has he indeed replied Lankan High Commissioner’s letter with an official clarification and positively responded to her request to carry a suitable correction reflecting any clarification made?
Lanka’s ministry of foreign relations issued a media statement on Wednesday listing two responses received so far.
Apparently, it looks like the Rt Hon Cleverly, co- chair of the Conservative party had given the opportunity to clarify the matter a miss; and had passed the buck and the letter to his deputy Paul Scully and do the needful and calm Ms Maneesha’s troubled mind with a few reassuring words of comfort. Replying the letter the same day, Paul Scully says, “The party’s position regarding Sri Lanka has not changed. To be absolutely clear, the twostate line in the section was intended to refer only to the Israel-Palestine situation in the Middle East (as is stated policy). The commitments to Sri Lanka and Cyprus were simply about continuing existing efforts to support peace and reconciliation in divided societies.”
Apparently someone has not told Scully the importance of being clear and definite when using language to convey one’s position and how vital it is not to leave any room for any ambiguity to creep in. Unless of course, it is the intention of one to introduce a certain element of ambiguity as an escape route if the worst should fall.
Another one to respond was Theresa Villiers, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK through her public post on social media (Facebook) of November 30 where she has further added the following: ‘The subsequent reference to a two-state solution refers to the Middle East, NOT to Cyprus or Sri Lanka. I have been in contact with Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, and he has confirmed this.’
Deputy Chair, Paul Scully came back with another response on December 3. In the manner of a man who thinks that he had not watered enough the bed he had planted his seedling and returns to it again to water it more to make his plant grow, he reiterates his earlier response again in a Tweet, “There is no Conservative manifesto commitment relating to the makeup of governance of Sri Lanka…two states relate only to middle east.”
The matter maybe considered closed and the clarifications so made acceptable to the Foreign Relations Ministry. But when Paul Scully says “To be absolutely clear, the two state line in the section was intended to refer” he implies, does he not, that the stated paragraph is ambiguous and liable to be misunderstood. Thus, can his email to the Lankan High Commissioner and his subsequent Tweet override the printed word contained in the Tory manifesto printed and distributed to the British masses as the Tory Bible and Testament of Faith?
But who is Paul Scully? True, he has been introduced as the Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party. Anything else?
On October 25, this year, four weeks before the Tory Manifesto was released to the public, Britain’s All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils (APPGT) posted its first ever conference on Tamil genocide recognition in the House of Parliament. Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum spoke in ‘ support of obtaining justice and accountability of the massacre of Tamils in Lanka’.
And who was the convener of the conference which called for recognition of Sri Lanka’s genocide of Tamils? It was Paul Scully. Occupying the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, Paul Scully told the audience “In order to move forwards we need to look back, especially now on the 10th anniversary of Mullivaikkal. We need to reflect on the fact that it was a genocide... We are here for you to get closure for a dark period of the island’s past.”
The conference was also attended by the Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, the former Conservative party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, and the Deputy Leader of the LiberalDemocrats, Sir Ed Davey. The conference also featured a number of eminent academic and legal experts including a panel featuring former UN AssistantSecretary General Charles Petrie, former UN Special Rapporteur on CounterTerrorism and Human Rights Ben Emmerson QC, current Member of Canadian p a rl i a m e n t G a r y Anandasangaree, and head of Together against Genocide, Jan Jananayagam.
A report published in the Tamil Guardian on the conference proceedings quoted the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as saying what a Labour government would do to address human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan government.
He said; “I want to lead a government based on foreign policy dedicated to peace, justice, human rights and democracy […] If a country refuses to cooperate with the international community and the UN Human Rights Council, we have to look at our economic policy and international trade”.
“The big issues are investigating the crimes against humanity; the allegations of genocide that have been put, that need to be investigated; and, you will know that, following the Pinochet judgements in the courts of Britain, a crime against humanity anywhere in the world is a triable offence in British courts, in British law, it is an offence in UK law.”
Corbyn also spoke about the need for demilitarisation of the North and East, the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), and the pain of not knowing the truth about what happened for families of the disappeared.
"Tamils have been through some awful things," he told the audience. "You deserve answers. We must act in a way that will prevent this from happening again."
Britain is in the throes of a general election. Both the Conservatives and the Labour are desperately fighting to win the Tamil vote and thus play to the Eelam gallery. Spokesman for the British Tamil Conservatives officially affiliated to the Conservative Party.
But in the Tory pursuit to grab the vote and clinch the polls -- has it gone too far to hurt the sensitivities of Sri Lanka?
By including in its election manifesto paragraph 53 which contains the canon that only a two state setup will do to bring down the curtain on Lanka’s theatre of ethnic conflict, the Tories have thrown a friendly nation into the gutter to pick up a few bloodstained votes from the sewer. Furthermore, when t he Sri Lankan High Commissioner wrote to the Tory Party’s Co- chairperson the Hon. Cleverly and politely requested him to clarify Para 53, he ingeniously passes the task to his Deputy Peter Scully – the man who only four weeks ago was the Convener of Britain’s All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils Conference held in the British Parliament, the subject being ‘ The recognition of the genocide of the Tamils in Sri Lanka’ – to put the spin on the reply.
It is to the lasting shame of the Tories that they have followed this ignominious course, not that their advocacy of a two state policy in Lanka is going to break this nation’s resolve nor will it light up the distant dream of a Tamil Tiger to see his utopian Eelam dawn.
What is pathetic in this shabby vote grabbing exercise is that a major British political party now ruling Britain had thought it fit to pull the wool over Lankan eyes and balm Sri Lanka’s hurt by casually claiming that it did not mean what it said in print in Para 53 whilst at the same time assuring British Tamils and giving flight to their hopes by asserting that Tory intentions were clearly spelt out in printer’s ink in Para 53 of their manifesto.
Britain is in the throes of a general election. Both the Conservatives and the Labour are desperately fighting to win the Tamil vote and thus play to the Eelam gallery.
The matter maybe considered closed and the clarifications so made acceptable to the Foreign Relations Ministry. But when Paul Scully says “To be absolutely clear, the two state line in the section was intended to refer” he implies, does he not, that the stated paragraph is ambiguous and liable to be misunderstood