THREAT TO PEACE

Warmongering in The Media

Ana Pararajasingham

“Media has always been part of the problem, it has not played a role solving the problem. If you read the media, it is very chauvinistic”

- Waruna Karunatilleke
quoted by Johan Milkaelsson in
“Building bridges or adding fuel to the fire?
War Reporting in Sri Lanka”

As the peace process facilitated by Norway unfolds, it has become increasingly plain that much work needs to be done to ensure that the ensuing peace is indeed a lasting one. Not a peace imposed by the international community but an enduring peace where all people of the Island win. To use the hackneyed phrase of the conflict resolution pundits – a win-win solution.

A win-win solution is one that by addressing the aspirations of the Tamil nation and the fears of the Singhalese nation delivers to both people dignity and freedom without endangering the dignity and freedom of the other.

Such a peace can only be the end product of prolonged negotiations where all issues are raised, discussed and resolved. Given the mutual mistrust between the parties, the process is indeed fragile and fraught with much danger.

The greatest danger comes from sections of Southern opinion makers and pseudo intellectuals whose antipathy to a negotiated peace is reflected in all its venom in the pages of the Island Newspaper, the Lanka Academic Web Page and the Sri Lanka Web (to name but a few).

The temptation to dismiss these writings as the ravings and ranting of disgruntled warmongers is to trivialize a serious threat. The threat is real and needs to be understood in all its dimensions. The articles by Dayan Jayatilleka in the Island Newspaper and by Tissarani Gunesekera in the Lanka Academic are prime examples of the kind of writings that have the potential to undermine the peace process. This is because they are carefully crafted to exploit the following:

Dayan Jayatilleka does not mince words, all pretensions of being a liberal, progressive thinker and (self proclaimed) revolutionary are cast aside as he laments the Government’s reluctance to continue with the war. The very war that has killed and maimed thousands, devastated and destroyed entire towns (Chavakacheri reminded the Prime Minister of Bosnia), rendered hundreds of thousands refugees, resulted in the Northeast being dotted with mass graves. None of it seems to bother him. Instead he makes the point that Prabakharan was unable to liberate the fairly small North-East, while Mao had liberated the world’s most populous country and Ho Chi Minh had beaten the Japanese, the French and the Americans (the mightiest power in world history) in an identical or shorter time span. Meaning that the ‘final solution’ is simply a matter of time and resources. A few paragraphs later he is more explicit” Had the Government made the case against the LTTE and secured US and Indian inputs (not manpower) it could have won the war. (‘The siege is coming’; The Island 31 March 2002)

Tissarani Gunesekera’s point of view is identical. She has this to say:

“After almost two decades of armed struggle, the Tigers have not managed to win their separate state by force. All they have to show for such a long war is a small piece of mostly wooded land. They were not even able to re-capture Jaffna, let alone the supposed capital of the future Tamil Eelam, Trinco.”
                       (‘Talks about Talks”, Lanka Academic 31 March 2002).

In a later article she mourns the failure of the Sri Lankan Government to exploit two opportunities to canvass the international community to help pursue the military solution (“A time of Indifference”, Lanka Academic, 7 April 2002). One of the missed “opportunities” lamented by Gunesekera is the carnage on September 11. She blames the then Sri Lankan Government for having missed out on cashing on this carnage.

Gunesekera does not seem to realise that this failure was not for want of trying, but because of the US Government’s stand on this matter. A stand that was made clear by Stephen Holgate, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Colombo, who drew a clear between Tiger guerillas, and the United States war against countries harbouring or encouraging terrorism. Furthermore Holgate had said, “The US has not changed its stand in calling upon the Sri Lanka Government to initiate peace talks with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)”. The U.S. stance towards Sri Lanka was further underscored when the U.S. Embassy staff joined the “Sri Lanka First” campaign where participants formed a human chain by holding hands to resume the peace process.

The Mahavamsa Mindset

What these two and other warmongers are demanding is the continuation of the war. An obscene proposition in view of the immense suffering of the people in the North and the wish for peace by an overwhelming number of people in the South as well. But then not obscene but quite the noble path if one is to subscribe to the Mahavamsa mindset!

The main theme underpinning this particular mindset was brilliantly summarised by Kumari Jayawardene, in a 1986 publication entitled “Ethnic and Class Conflicts in Sri Lanka” as the doctrine of primacy and superiority of the Sinhala “race” who are the original, true inhabitants of the Island. (Interestingly the publication is a collection of articles published in the Lanka Guardian, under the editorship of Jayatilleka’s father Mervyn De Silva). The legend of Duttugemunu as told in the Mahavamsa forms the cornerstone of this ideology. It is used to assert that the entire Island (including those regions where the Tamils form the dominant population) belongs to the Sinhalese and that the Island needs to be “unified” under Sinhala rule. It is in keeping with this tradition that Sinhala historian K.M de Silva, refers to King Duttugemunu as someone engaged in “a relentless quest for domination of the whole Island” and that he accomplished what he set out to do, by establishing “control of the whole Island”. (A History of Sri Lanka, C Hurst & Co London, University of California (Berkeley, 1981).

To those sporting this particular mindset, war is the only option because only then can they establish ‘control of the entire Island’. In an article in the Island of 23rd March (The only God in town) Jayatilleka has cleverly worked in the Duttugemunu doctrine aptly sub titled “Dutugemunu’s defence doctrine?” It is an unashamed appeal to this mindset.

Demonised Tamil Leadership

But, then neither Jayatilleka nor Gunesekera relies solely on the Mahavamsa Mindset to make their case for continuing the war. They rely on an even more potent factor-the cumulative effect of two decades of demonisation of the Tamil leadership.

This particular approach is designed to appeal to those who have been taken in by the sustained propaganda of the Sri Lankan political establishment over the last two decades. According to Johan Mikaelsson, the author of “Building bridges or adding fuel to the fire? War Reporting in Sri Lanka”, the Sri Lankan media in general has not only failed to educate the people about the effects of the war but has contributed towards the continuation of the conflict.

Both advocates for the military solution, base their arguments on the spurious notion that the Tamil leadership is a fascist organization. Gunesekera’s tactic is to drag in the Nazis and compare the actions of the LTTE to that pursued by Nazi Germany sixty odd years ago. Despite a complete lack of any discernable logic, the link is nevertheless made presumably on the strength of two decades of propaganda. Jayatilleka’s position is even more peculiar, he claims that he is all for self-determination for the Tamils but not when they are represented by the LTTE, who, are not for self-determination but for fascism. Again, an argument not based on facts but on the cumulative effect of twenty odd years of demonisation.

Fears and insecurities

The warmongers also capitalise on Sinhala insecurities of being a minority within the region (in view of the large Tamil population in neighboring Tamil Nadu) and on the uncertainties facing the minorities (Muslims and Singhalese) in the Tamil Homeland. Now these are matters that have to be raised during negotiations and satisfactory arrangements reached and clarifications provided.

Role of the media in building bridges