Paul KeenanThe forthcoming papal visit might be hijacked for political ends, writes Paul Keenan
Dip into the internet in search of facts on Sri Lanka and you quickly find a nation with two faces.
At the click of a mouse, the country becomes a gateway to the world of cricket – being a country no less passionate about that sport than India or Pakistan – and a portal to tropical destinations with unspoiled beaches, ideal for tourists. The latter aspect is once again a growing industry for Sri Lanka since the end, in 2009, of its 26-year civil conflict.
However, there is the other face of Sri Lanka, also a click away for the online researcher. This path of inquiry brings up phrases such as ‘war crimes’, ‘nepotism’ and ‘religious attacks’ and paints a picture of a darker Sri Lanka currently at odds with the international community despite the positivity of sport and tourism trails.
Renewed media focus has turned to Sri Lanka this month with news of both the snap election called by President Mahinda Rajapaksa for January 8, and Pope Francis’ impending January 13 visit (en route to the Philippines).
Sadly, it is the confluence of these events that has caused discomfort among the island nation’s Christian/Catholic population and to public calls on Pope Francis to postpone his visit to allow a greater interim after the election.
Appeal
One advocacy group, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) appealed for such a move in a letter to the Vatican, expressing concern that the “election organisers will exploit the Pope’s visit as a political tool”.
News of the letter was followed by one of similar concerns expressed in Sri Lanka’s Catholic community.
In a letter – predating the CSW letter but only revealed last week – the Rev. Leo Perera, director of laity for the Archdiocese of Colombo, suggested to the country’s bishops and priests that postponement was a sensible option now, given both the danger of election violence overshadowing what is intended to be a positive visit and apparent moves by politicians to utilise the visit for their own ends. (Despite previous assurances that no election would be held close to the Pope’s itinerary, President Rajapaksa announced polling two years earlier than scheduled, and months after the Pope’s visit was confirmed.)
Concerns
The Catholic and CSW concerns appear to be well founded at this point. According to the AsiaNews agency, posters have already begun to appear in Catholic communities photo-shopping Mr Rajapaksa (a Buddhist) and Pope Francis together, a most cynical political exercise to a community hard-pressed by unchecked Buddhist extremists.
Aside from accusations of political opportunism, Mr Rajapaksa’s move may also be indicative of a desperation on his part in a changing Sri Lanka.
First elected in 2005, Mr Rajapaksa garnered much glory in steering his country through the latter stages of its civil conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (aka the Tamil Tigers) and assured him a second term in office.
However, an arrogance that so often comes with power appears to have affected the president’s judgment, causing him to see no reputational impact in farming out prime political posts to family members as he oversaw curbs on press freedoms and legal constraints on political rivals.
For the record, Mr Rajapaksa’s three brothers hold positions at the head of government ministries and as parliament speaker, while cousins have served as ambassadors to the United States of America and Russia. (In the case of America, former ambassador Jaliya Wickramasuriya caused familial embarrassment in July when he was named at the centre of a case of major financial misappropriation while in Washington DC.)
Wily politicians have survived worse scenarios, of course, but Mr Rajapaksa faces two additional complications in his desire for rule.
Apparently a great surprise to all inside and outside the president’s inner circle after the election announcement was the declaration by health minister Maithripala Sirisena of his intention to run in opposition to his old party colleague.
Promising a new style of politics and a renewed independence for the judiciary, Mr Sirisena has caught the ear of many among the majority Buddhist community, a reality serving to explain Mr Rajapaksa’s sudden eagerness to court the Catholic vote with his doctored posters.
Then there is the growing issue of Sri Lanka’s recent history of conflict, to which the president is so intimately bound.
Since the end of the Tamil Tigers’ insurgency, many grave questions as to the conducting of the final operations against the entire Tamil community have been repeatedly raised, each time to be fudged or ignored by Sri Lanka’s authorities.
The United Nations, for example, estimated that at least 40,000 civilians were killed. Working from testimonies of activists who have had to flee surveillance and intimidation in Sri Lanka in order to have their stories heard, it passed resolutions in 2012 and 2013 for a full investigations of alleged war crimes committed on both sides of the conflict, only to have Sri Lanka obstruct inquiries and attack the UN as biased in its approaches.
A fresh attempt in March of this year to get such an investigation under way was subsequently met by Sri Lanka’s refusal to allow UN investigators to enter the country in August.
The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, has denounced Sri Lanka’s “unacceptable conduct” in seeking to undermine the United Nations (of which it is a member sworn to uphold its ideals). Moves are in train within the European Union (Sri Lanka’s largest export zone) to convince leaders that sanctions are now warranted. Clearly, Mr Rajapaksa needs to be in an unassailable position before any such actions are felt by the populace.
Unfortunately, the president’s attempt to court the Catholic vote (there are 1.2 million Catholics in Sri Lanka) came just as the UN pointed the finger at Sri Lanka’s dismal record in dealing with violence against minority communities by Buddhist groups.
During a sitting in Geneva on November 25, Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues Rita Izsák said extremists were responsible for 150 attacks on Christians over the past two years (350 on Muslims) and that the UN had been calling on Sri Lanka to deal with the issue.
In this, and in placing his electoral hopes so close to the papal visit, Mr Rajapaksa may well have committed the ultimate sin for politicians: bad timing.