- By Dr. Shanthikumar Hettiarachchi
- Sunday, 08 December 2013 00:00
- http://www.nation.lk/edition/lens/item/23444-colonial-mindset-and-foreign-policy.html
Edward said in his seminal work, Orientalism (1978), contended that not only the geopolitical domination, but also the intellectually domineering approaches of the colonial mindset are operative even to this day. His work paved the way for many streams of thought to evolve postcolonial and subaltern theories and culturally astute tools of analysis for modern social workers, economists, social planners, historians, anthropologists, sociologists and political institutions to critically understand levels of domination.
The so-called colonies never recovered from collectively paying homage to ‘a master who knows everything.’ Sudu hoora or sudu mahathaya were how they called Spittle and Woolf with kindness and hora sudda or para sudda the terms used with distaste in the case of Governor Brownrigg for their conduct in Uva-Wellassa in Sri Lanka.The British institutions and its media that visited Colombo in November 2013 must be constantly reminded of their historical legacy and accountability to the people of this country as well as the British tax payers.
CHOGM and coloniality
Commonwealth is a result of an approach on the part of Britain to maintain good relations with its former colonies despite its political stubbornness and the unkind governance as an empire. It is to the credit of some of the colonized countries to remain in this institution with civic cordiality given the history of treatment by some of the British governors, mercenaries and other officials who considered that they owned the land and also its people.
The modern wrath directly level against ‘British interference’ in the internal affairs of the Gambia resulted in that country’s resignation from the Commonwealth just prior to the Colombo summit. India indicated its own neo colonial approach to a friendly neighbor bending over backward to political pressure from Tamil Nadu. Harperite Canadian boycott and the misguided Mauritius’ malfunctional diplomacy and its unilateral decision to refuse to be the CHOGM 2015 host are all self-created traps of foreign policy precipices.
CHOGM, which meets every two years, is a bitter reminder to Britain of its sometimes cruel past. United Kingdom as a political unit should be credited for being politically broad minded to handle its past, deal with its presence and to look to a future realistically, despite its unpalatable colonial history. It is in this context that Prince Charles and the British Premier James Cameron with their entourage attended CHOGM 2013 in Colombo.
Charles was but representing his mother and seemed less interested in CHOGM than sightseeing. Cameron, on the other hand, had bread and butter issues to deal with; he visited Jaffna because it was imperative for him to do that before he left for Westminster. He promised ‘hard talk’ to his counterparts in Colombo and to impress his voters back home. He delivered.
He was determined but in a hurry to accomplish ‘his mission’ and ‘their wish’. The ‘holier than thou’ position was unbecoming of a British premier. Tony Abbot of Australian Prime probably taught Cameron a lesson about how a prime minster ought to behave at an international summit
We don’t know if Cameron was acting on the recommendations of Downing Street spin doctors. He might think that being educated at Eaton and Oxford or being representative of a posh electorate gives him the authority to wear a glum face (unsmiling as if brought to Colombo by force) especially when one is a respected visitor hosted with generosity. May be he forgot for a moment that he was in a sovereign country with a very literate population that perhaps has a higher literacy level than some of the deprived pockets in the boroughs of London.
Cameron’s enthusiasm about ‘Sri Lankan affairs’ is rather new. Sri Lankans are aware that he has had absolutely no track record of being interested in any of the political upheavals of Sri Lanka over the last 30 years. He was in his early teens perhaps in elitist Eton when Sri Lanka got into this mess. South Asia is one of the most diverse places on earth, messed up first with the British colonial machine, and then the mishandling of the copy-cat Westminster model by those who were appointed successor. Cameron’s lack of understanding of the region was evident from his behavior.
Apology?
Now where was Cameron when Sri Lanka was besieged by terrorism? Where was he when Sri Lanka was hit by the tragic tsunami? Has he ever raised his voice or intervened in any Sri Lankan charity campaign to collect even a single sterling pound? He is aware that Sri Lanka will not leave the Commonwealth like the Gambia. Sri Lanka will claim its rightful place within the Commonwealth until perhaps Cameron and his party alongside the opposition party in Westminster can offer an apology and begin to prepare at least symbolic compensation for killing thousands of civilians and severe arson attacks in Uva-Wellassa in 1818. My proposition is that the Cameron Government offers an apology and then start assisting the government of Sri Lanka to re-irrigate and resuscitate the lands abandoned ever since the massacre of Wellassa.
This is also about accountability and an aspect of good governance. This is imperative on the part of the Cameron Government and Members of Parliament such as the Leicester Labor MP Keith Vaz who has not even visited Sri Lanka but now has become a ‘savior’ of the Tamil people in his constituency and Britain at large. We heard the same from the now politically defaced David Miliband when he was rushed to Sri Lanka by the then premier Gordon Brown as the long struggle against terrorism drew to a close in 2009. Ed Miliband, current leader of the opposition, is also in the bandwagon of a colonial mindset, ‘We have to teach Sri Lanka a lesson’. Cameron recently (after his CHOGM visit to Colombo) accused Ed Miliband: “if he knows anything about foreign affairs – and I doubt it, because he barely gets out of Islington….”
In Sri Lanka, though, Cameron and Miliband have a common enemy. They seem to have lost the nerve of diplomacy, deferring on the side of electoral imperatives at home. They could learn something from what happened to David Miliband.
Coalition
Cameron must play his cards as he prepares for his re-election with the first ever coalition government in British politics. The spin doctors of the No 10 now have to pull their strings if the conservatives wish to remain the majority party of the coalition and prevent the Liberal Democrats from making gains. The interest in Sri Lankan issue is also exaggerated by the British media and could be a deciding factor in any post-election power sharing arrangement. For the first time then the political history of a former colony is capable of deciding the political future of Westminster politicians (the Camerons, the Hagues, the Milibands and the Vazes)!
Sri Lanka staying on spotlight of the UK politics indicates a certain level of political uncertainty of both the ruling coalition and the opposition as well. Looking at the current British Parliamentarians one can hardly find an imaginative and a practical politician who can salvage the pretty lethargic debates of Westminster. Discussion on Sri Lanka intensified with the equally intensified electoral threat by the respective voter base of various constituents.
They must know that Sri Lanka is no longer a British colony, even though Cameron tried to behave with his Eton-Oxford arrogance, which was quite different to the royal demeanor of the Prince of Wales. Cameron might have had his elitist education, but any ordinary streetwise person in Sri Lanka could see that he lacked right diplomacy and political etiquette to be reciprocal to the typical Sri Lankan hospitality.
He perhaps could not understand the political strategy and imagination of his counterparts, because the British entourage seemed to have come with an agenda and a load of biases. The average Sri Lankans may have expected in a British prime minister some strains of the spirit of R. L. Spittle, the cultural sensitivity of Leonard Woolf and the sense of history of Robert Knox. They would have been disappointed of course but interestingly, it appears that the prince did win some hearts here in Sri Lanka.
Not a conclusion
Sri Lankans now have an unusual interest in the next general election of the United Kingdom, to read and analyze the election manifesto of each of the parties. Westminster must know that Sri Lanka is not a colony but a sovereign state, with a proud people who are resilient and could live contended lives. They will fight for their rights while fighting among themselves but defeat all external and internal threats that rise to negate its sovereignty. The politically conscious population of this country is its treasure. Politicians at home know it well, and it is better that their counterparts in the UK learn about it as well. They have made kings and also deposed them at the right time. Their power is the deciding factor of its future. The British prime minister should know it by now or try to understand once he is back in his comfort zone in the UK.
The so-called colonies never recovered from collectively paying homage to ‘a master who knows everything.’ Sudu hoora or sudu mahathaya were how they called Spittle and Woolf with kindness and hora sudda or para sudda the terms used with distaste in the case of Governor Brownrigg for their conduct in Uva-Wellassa in Sri Lanka.The British institutions and its media that visited Colombo in November 2013 must be constantly reminded of their historical legacy and accountability to the people of this country as well as the British tax payers.
CHOGM and coloniality
Commonwealth is a result of an approach on the part of Britain to maintain good relations with its former colonies despite its political stubbornness and the unkind governance as an empire. It is to the credit of some of the colonized countries to remain in this institution with civic cordiality given the history of treatment by some of the British governors, mercenaries and other officials who considered that they owned the land and also its people.
The modern wrath directly level against ‘British interference’ in the internal affairs of the Gambia resulted in that country’s resignation from the Commonwealth just prior to the Colombo summit. India indicated its own neo colonial approach to a friendly neighbor bending over backward to political pressure from Tamil Nadu. Harperite Canadian boycott and the misguided Mauritius’ malfunctional diplomacy and its unilateral decision to refuse to be the CHOGM 2015 host are all self-created traps of foreign policy precipices.
CHOGM, which meets every two years, is a bitter reminder to Britain of its sometimes cruel past. United Kingdom as a political unit should be credited for being politically broad minded to handle its past, deal with its presence and to look to a future realistically, despite its unpalatable colonial history. It is in this context that Prince Charles and the British Premier James Cameron with their entourage attended CHOGM 2013 in Colombo.
Charles was but representing his mother and seemed less interested in CHOGM than sightseeing. Cameron, on the other hand, had bread and butter issues to deal with; he visited Jaffna because it was imperative for him to do that before he left for Westminster. He promised ‘hard talk’ to his counterparts in Colombo and to impress his voters back home. He delivered.
He was determined but in a hurry to accomplish ‘his mission’ and ‘their wish’. The ‘holier than thou’ position was unbecoming of a British premier. Tony Abbot of Australian Prime probably taught Cameron a lesson about how a prime minster ought to behave at an international summit
We don’t know if Cameron was acting on the recommendations of Downing Street spin doctors. He might think that being educated at Eaton and Oxford or being representative of a posh electorate gives him the authority to wear a glum face (unsmiling as if brought to Colombo by force) especially when one is a respected visitor hosted with generosity. May be he forgot for a moment that he was in a sovereign country with a very literate population that perhaps has a higher literacy level than some of the deprived pockets in the boroughs of London.
Cameron’s enthusiasm about ‘Sri Lankan affairs’ is rather new. Sri Lankans are aware that he has had absolutely no track record of being interested in any of the political upheavals of Sri Lanka over the last 30 years. He was in his early teens perhaps in elitist Eton when Sri Lanka got into this mess. South Asia is one of the most diverse places on earth, messed up first with the British colonial machine, and then the mishandling of the copy-cat Westminster model by those who were appointed successor. Cameron’s lack of understanding of the region was evident from his behavior.
Apology?
Now where was Cameron when Sri Lanka was besieged by terrorism? Where was he when Sri Lanka was hit by the tragic tsunami? Has he ever raised his voice or intervened in any Sri Lankan charity campaign to collect even a single sterling pound? He is aware that Sri Lanka will not leave the Commonwealth like the Gambia. Sri Lanka will claim its rightful place within the Commonwealth until perhaps Cameron and his party alongside the opposition party in Westminster can offer an apology and begin to prepare at least symbolic compensation for killing thousands of civilians and severe arson attacks in Uva-Wellassa in 1818. My proposition is that the Cameron Government offers an apology and then start assisting the government of Sri Lanka to re-irrigate and resuscitate the lands abandoned ever since the massacre of Wellassa.
This is also about accountability and an aspect of good governance. This is imperative on the part of the Cameron Government and Members of Parliament such as the Leicester Labor MP Keith Vaz who has not even visited Sri Lanka but now has become a ‘savior’ of the Tamil people in his constituency and Britain at large. We heard the same from the now politically defaced David Miliband when he was rushed to Sri Lanka by the then premier Gordon Brown as the long struggle against terrorism drew to a close in 2009. Ed Miliband, current leader of the opposition, is also in the bandwagon of a colonial mindset, ‘We have to teach Sri Lanka a lesson’. Cameron recently (after his CHOGM visit to Colombo) accused Ed Miliband: “if he knows anything about foreign affairs – and I doubt it, because he barely gets out of Islington….”
In Sri Lanka, though, Cameron and Miliband have a common enemy. They seem to have lost the nerve of diplomacy, deferring on the side of electoral imperatives at home. They could learn something from what happened to David Miliband.
Coalition
Cameron must play his cards as he prepares for his re-election with the first ever coalition government in British politics. The spin doctors of the No 10 now have to pull their strings if the conservatives wish to remain the majority party of the coalition and prevent the Liberal Democrats from making gains. The interest in Sri Lankan issue is also exaggerated by the British media and could be a deciding factor in any post-election power sharing arrangement. For the first time then the political history of a former colony is capable of deciding the political future of Westminster politicians (the Camerons, the Hagues, the Milibands and the Vazes)!
Sri Lanka staying on spotlight of the UK politics indicates a certain level of political uncertainty of both the ruling coalition and the opposition as well. Looking at the current British Parliamentarians one can hardly find an imaginative and a practical politician who can salvage the pretty lethargic debates of Westminster. Discussion on Sri Lanka intensified with the equally intensified electoral threat by the respective voter base of various constituents.
They must know that Sri Lanka is no longer a British colony, even though Cameron tried to behave with his Eton-Oxford arrogance, which was quite different to the royal demeanor of the Prince of Wales. Cameron might have had his elitist education, but any ordinary streetwise person in Sri Lanka could see that he lacked right diplomacy and political etiquette to be reciprocal to the typical Sri Lankan hospitality.
He perhaps could not understand the political strategy and imagination of his counterparts, because the British entourage seemed to have come with an agenda and a load of biases. The average Sri Lankans may have expected in a British prime minister some strains of the spirit of R. L. Spittle, the cultural sensitivity of Leonard Woolf and the sense of history of Robert Knox. They would have been disappointed of course but interestingly, it appears that the prince did win some hearts here in Sri Lanka.
Not a conclusion
Sri Lankans now have an unusual interest in the next general election of the United Kingdom, to read and analyze the election manifesto of each of the parties. Westminster must know that Sri Lanka is not a colony but a sovereign state, with a proud people who are resilient and could live contended lives. They will fight for their rights while fighting among themselves but defeat all external and internal threats that rise to negate its sovereignty. The politically conscious population of this country is its treasure. Politicians at home know it well, and it is better that their counterparts in the UK learn about it as well. They have made kings and also deposed them at the right time. Their power is the deciding factor of its future. The British prime minister should know it by now or try to understand once he is back in his comfort zone in the UK.
– See more at: http://www.nation.lk/edition/lens/item/23444-colonial-mindset-and-foreign-policy.html#sthash.clLUhv4k.dpuf