Against a backdrop of growing discontent, and widespread allegations of fraud, Russia’s recent elections heralded Vladimir Putin’s re-election to the presidency. The man who many still saw as Russia’s de facto leader will now resume his tenure, four years after ostensibly ceding power to Dmitry Medvedev.
In light of these developments a panel of experienced commentators gathered at the Frontline Club to assess the past, present and future of Putin’s Russia. The evening was chaired by Edward Lucas, The Economist’s Deputy International Editor, in discussion with Masha Gessen, a Russian-American journalist and author, and Bill Browder, an outspoken shareholder activist who was the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005, when he was banned from the country.
Gessen, author of The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin, described Putin’s Russia as a mafia state in which large-scale corruption at the top relies on small-scale corruption at the bottom. She claimed that Putin “thinks the KGB is the best thing that was ever invented”, adding that she saw him as pleonexic – in that he suffers from the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others.
Browder agreed, describing his own experience as “the story of how bad things have got in Russia, and emblematic of the bare face of Russia from the beginning to the end.” He began to withdraw his money when he realised that all of his companies were hemorrhaging money to corrupt officials. A saga ensued in which Russian police seized his assets, took control of his companies and – amongst other things – conspired to reclaim $230m that Browder’s companies had paid in tax.
What followed has now become an infamous tale of state corruption and brutality. Sergei Magnitsky, the lawyer investigating matters on Browder’s behalf, was imprisoned and eventually murdered in custody.
His is not the only case of this kind, as Browder and Gessen observed, but the unfailing bureaucracy of all involved led to the publication of an exact account of the events, written by Magnitsky, and a list of those responsible. Lucas described the Magnitsky list as “one of the most effective fires lit under the regime”, and Browder summarised the reasons behind its impact:
“The people who committed these crimes didn’t do it because of religious intolerance, or ideological intolerance. They did this for money.”
Browder suggested that the regime was unsustainable, given the prevalence of events like this, but the panel recognised the inherent difficulty in ensuring a genuine transition of power. Gessen offered her own analysis of the regime’s ability to adapt and protect itself:
“With the whole reset campaign of the last 3 years, there were a lot of people who fell into Medvedev’s trap. The best way to think of Putin and Medvedev is of a president and a first lady: the first lady gets to reach out to people, and perform humanitarian gestures. That humanitarian gesture deceived a lot of people.”
Despite this, Gessen noted that the West is an important influence, even to the most corrupt Russian officials:
“More important than anything else, it’s the place where they keep their money. You can’t keep your money in Russia, there is always somebody better connected than you are.”
And, as the question and answer period drew to a close, Lucas suggested that Putin’s hold on power might begin to loosen if another disaster on the scale of the Kursk or Beslan were to strike:
“He handles these situations very badly. The people who’ve got a huge stake in the survival of the regime may wonder if they can keep it going for a few more years by pushing him downwards or sideways.”
Watch the event here:
]]>
This time last year, when we witnessed uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Shaimaa Khalil’s curiosity took her to the streets of Saudi Arabia to investigate what was happening in one of the world’s richest oil-producing countries.
The resulting documentary, An Arab spring in Saudi?, is a study of the authoritarianism of the Saudi government and was screened last night at the Frontline Club in front of a captivated audience.
While the ‘Day of Rage’, advertised on popular social networks saw many Arab countries in the grip of mass protest, the demonstrations in Saudi Arabia were much more muted in comparison: security, helicopters and media outnumbered the fearful protesters.
But why the difference? As one interviewee in the film put it:
“If people have everything, why would they want to revolt? They have stability and unity."
However not all Saudis are of the same opinion. A victim of injustice, featured in the film, is Khalid whose son is autistic and yet has no support from the government.
As the film ended asking the question: ‘Where is Khalid?, the same thing resonated on everyone’s mind.
"He is in prison, half an hour after his drive home from his interview with BBC Arabic, he was arrested. I tried to keep in touch with his family. They have tried to block his Facebook page to prevent us from knowing about his whereabouts. His health is not in very good condition and he is deteriorating," Khalil said.
Another audience member asked: "Why did he choose to do what he did?"
"The situation is fluid and tense at the same time. He was a 40-year-old teacher and it was more of a personal motive than a political one. There was no institution for his son’s education and he was frustrated, " Khalil said.
One asked her reasons for making the film:
"I was curious to find out what the people wanted for their country…when I would sit at the majlis in Jeddah and meet fellow young bloggers in a coffee shop, I saw a stark difference between what the young Saudis want and how complacent the elders and tribal leaders were."
Khalil recalls the filming experience being daunting at times:
"Women on the street talking to people is seen as antagonistic."
On several occasions her own personal safety was at stake because of her Egyptian passport:
"If you are carrying a Western passport, its relatively easier," she said.
On being asked about Khalid’s families’ thoughts, she said:
"They just want to see him again. When he went to prison, his wife was expecting another child so he has not yet seen his newborn; it’s eleven months now."
Several questions were raised on the possibility of an uprising, and foreign intervention:
“From what we have seen to date, there isn’t a consensus with the general public, and if the Saudis want reform, it has to come from internally. People who are demanding change are not necessarily the ones who are suffering financially. It’s not only about the money, because how much can you do with it? They genuinely feel in this day and age they are left far behind than most other countries."
]]>
A packed house at The Frontline Club heard Matt Frei regale them with tales from his long and illustrious career. The former BBC Washington correspondent, recently poached by Channel 4 News, was on fine form as he spoke to former BBC executive Vin Ray about more than 20 years with the BBC:
“The BBC is mother, and it’s been a very good mother to me, but now and again it’s a good idea to leave mother and elope with a mistress. I’ve always admired Channel 4 because it’s a cross between current affairs and news. Newsnight with a bit more of a newsy edge at a decent hour. I’ve had my eye on it for some time, and I guess they may have had their eye on me for some time.”
The event was delivered in conjunction with the BBC College of Journalism, as part of the ongoing Reflections series in which journalists including Alex Crawford, Jon Snow, Bill Neely and Martin Bell have discussed their experiences as journalists.
Frei spoke of the time he met Bell in Serbia, during the Bosnian war, and the valuable lessons that he took from him:
“He taught me the craft of television. It’s a very strange craft because it’s more about what you deny yourself than anything else, he said: ‘If you can’t say it in one minute and 42 seconds you can’t say it. Don’t bother.’”
Delivering his reflections alongside a series of memorable video clips, he discussed some of the high and low points of his career, including his coverage of the fall of the Berlin wall:
“I was told by a famous American journalist that this was the best story I would cover, and that it was all downhill from here. He was sort of right – it was such a happy event.”
He also spoke of some less orthodox approaches to stories, including one particular experience during his time in Rome:
“Giorgio Armani was accused of bribing the financial police. I got an interview by saying I was a fashion journalist for the BBC – I said I wanted to talk about hemlines and colours. Halfway through the interview he turned to me and said, ‘You know **** all about fashion, don’t you?’ I said, ‘Did you pay the money?’ He said, ‘Yes, in brown paper bags.’”
With regard to the challenges facing the next generation of young journalists Frei expressed some optimism:
“I think the challenges are going to be the same: find a story, tell it well and make sure somebody is going to pay you for it. If you’re starting out now you have an incredible range of tools at your disposal – much better than the tools we had, and cheaper.”
The issue of social media was subsequently raised, and the question of what it meant for the future of sending journalists like him around the world – particularly in light of the numerous journalists who have recently been killed and injured whilst reporting from warzones:
“I don’t think most serious organisations are thinking social media will replace what they have. It’s just another source of information – if you can’t get into Syria but you have evidence on your mobile phone you’re going to use it.”
As the evening drew to a close he discussed his only regret, the fact that he had to cover the Iraq war from Washington:
“I never went to Iraq, and in some ways I wish I’d covered it. In some ways talking about it from Washington makes you a bit of a fraud: unless you’ve seen the impact of policy on the ground you can’t really talk about it.”
Watch the full event:
]]>By Alan Selby
Much has happened since this time last year. The 15th of February 2011 saw the first Libyans take to the streets of Benghazi against a brutal dictatorship which ruled over them for 42 years. The events that followed sent shockwaves around the world, led to a NATO intervention and culminated in victory for the Libyan people, albeit at a heavy cost. An estimated 30,000 people lost their lives during the campaign and the dust is still settling following Muammar Gadaffi’s death four months ago.
A panel came together at the Frontline Club to discuss how far Libya has come, as well as what the future holds. A tone of cautious optimism prevailed as each member of the panel delivered their own frank assessment of the work of the National Transitional Council (NTC), as well as its ability to uphold the promise of democracy for the people of Libya. Ian Black, The Guardian’s Middle East editor, steered a discussion which exposed differing views on the NTC’s work to date.
Ahmed Gebreel, deputy head of the Libyan embassy in London, suggested that “The NTC has been established for less than a year, with limited resources, and they’re doing their best.”
However, Khaeri Aboushagor, a Libyan writer and spokesman for the Libyan League for Human Rights, made his view that the NTC has a lot of work to do abundantly clear:
The reality sometimes hits us in the face. The ex-prime minister recently said that Libya is not a functioning state, has no proper army, no proper police and that the militias run the show… Democracy is not just elections. It’s much broader and deeper than that. We have to recognise this, if we deny that problems exist it won’t work.”
Carsten Jurgensen, Libya researcher for Amnesty International, echoed this view as he made reference to human rights abuses which have taken place in detention centres:
“What struck us was that those who committed the abuses were quite open about it… No investigations are conducted. The judiciary is totally weak. Prosecutors say that they can’t go and interrogate the chiefs of the militias. It’s quite worrying.”
The panel also suggested that post traumatic stress is now a real issue facing many of the young men who must now try to re-integrate with society and rebuild their country. However, Dr. Faraj Najem, a Libyan writer and historian, made it clear that the damage runs much deeper than at first glance:
I was horrified when I heard that 400 women were raped, but then it was announced that 8000 women had suffered. We need help from psychologists and social workers. We need to reinvent a culture where we can talk openly about the sexual violence that these women suffered for no reason.”
The panel largely agreed that it will be a long road to recovery, as Rana Jawad, a Tripoli-based BBC journalist and author of Tripoli Witness, observed:
]]>“Overall I am optimistic of the journey Libyans will take, but I don’t doubt for a second that it will be extremely difficult. Anyone who thinks it will happen in the next year or two is quite delusional. It’s a very long process and it’s going to take a long time, but ultimately Libyans are striving for it.”
A lot has changed in the years since 9/11. The date itself has become emblematic of a change in attitudes towards Islam, perhaps most notably in the country which bore witness to the infamous attacks that day. Popular opinion has shifted, and the land of the free has become an increasingly hostile environment for Muslims. American Muslim: Freedom, Faith and Fear examines what it means to be a Muslim in America today and the consequences of the fact that, for many, the words Islam and terrorism are now permanently intertwined.
The documentary, featuring Karen Zarindast from BBC Persian and Samir Farah from BBC Arabic TV, was screened at the Frontline Club. The team travelled across the length and breadth of the United States in order to examine the lives and experiences of a vast range of American Muslims. They discovered a country in which fear and confusion surrounds Islam, and where politicians and the media often foment unrest in order to further their own objectives. What was once a thriving cultural melting pot where Muslims were welcomed has now developed into a nation over which a sinister and pervasive Islamaphobia has taken hold in the last decade.
A question and answer session followed, during which Darius Bazargan, the film’s producer, Azadeh Moaveni, the author of Lipstick Jihad, and Zarindast discussed the film and some of the key themes that emerged. One of the most important issues was the impact of American foreign policy, as Bazargan suggested in response to the question of whether or not American Muslims will ever be able to escape the dogma associated with 9/11:
“I don’t think there’s any chance of going back to the quiet life, especially because of the impact of American foreign policy in Islamic countries; either through the involvement with Israel or elsewhere. It will be less resonant if there are fewer coffins coming home, and there will be fewer coffins coming home if American foreign policy changes.”
The panel also talked about some of the difficulties faced when filming, including budgetary and time constraints, as Bazargan made clear:
“We had editorial difficulties, you’re a slave to the road in these kinds of documentaries. There were lots of interesting people we had to drop from the final cut simply because they popped up at the wrong point in our journey and didn’t fit the arc of discovery."
As the evening ended somewhat acrimoniously, with conflicting views being raised from the floor over what is clearly an emotive issue to many, Zarindast did offer a consolatory take on her experience:
]]>“I asked people if they would leave the country. They said no. I think it was fascinating, because I spoke to people in Birmingham after some of the recent trouble and they had never been to Pakistan or Bangladesh but they said that they would leave England in an instant. Nearly everybody I spoke to in America said no… this is their country.”
By Sara Elizabeth Williams
The West’s reaction to 9/11 was excessive and misguided, wrongly influenced by hubris, hysteria and ignorance. Ten years on, we are still mired in a mess largely of our own making.
Last night’s First Wednesday Special: Changing world – conflict, culture and terrorism in the 21st century, which was in association with BBC Arabic, looked at how the decade post-9/11 has reshaped our world. Chaired by presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House, the discussion at the Royal Institution of Great Britain turned to the question of what we learned – and how could we have done things differently?
For all their differences of opinion, the five members of the panel – journalists Mehdi Hasan, Isabel Hilton and Michael Goldfarb, ex British diplomat and founder of Independent Diplomat Carne Ross, and co-Founder and executive director of Quilliam and Founder of Khudi, Maajid Nawaz were in agreement on the most critical point: the reaction to 9/11 was a wrong one.
The response to non-state terrorist action should no be a declaration of war against individual states, but action against the non-state organisations.
The state-directed violence employed has destabilised entire populations and brought about some of the very things it sought to eradicate. Homegrown radicalisation comes at a devastating cost, and it is one we are becoming all too familiar with in the Islamic world and in the US and Europe.
Nawaz, who was formerly on the UK national leadership for the global Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir, reminded the audience that the process of radicalisation is the result of a political awakening, not a religious experience. For this reason, the right reaction would have been to support democratisation. But this wasn’t on the policy agenda:
“For decades we have been following a policy of sponsoring dictatorships and human rights abusers, and we ended up with a choice: support dictators or terrorists. But there was a third way: we could have supported civil society.”
While terrorism undermines the rule of law, Ross and Hasan pointed out that the West’s reaction did the same: we failed ourselves and the communities we sought to reach. The price of this mistake, according to Hilton, who is editor of chinadialogue.net.
“Now we have no moral standing to talk about human rights. In the course of the war on terror, we threw away everything that was worth defending. The damage we did to ourselves was greater than that which was done to us.”
Hilton also brought up the language of fear and safety – the American rhetoric over the last ten years. This, again, was the wrong invocation: ten years on, Americans still don’t feel safe. But is the mistake reversible? Hasan, who is senior political editor at the New Statesman, described a “fear industry grown our of control”.
Another cost is financial. Being at war has become normal for Americans. This affects policy: few politicians are willing to question Homeland Security spending. But for how long? Goldfarb, who is an author, journalist, broadcaster and GlobalPost’s London correspondent, answered:
“‘The war on terror’ is the worst phrase ever concocted. It’s a forever concept that can never end.”
The panel also looked at how the West’s misreaction to 9/11 may have paved the way for China’s global advance. Hilton, an expert on the subject, pointed out that China is seeking economic power by securing food, resources and access to water while letting other states get on with the international security agenda. In another ten years, we may consider this anniversary the beginning of a second turning point in the geopolitical landscape. One of the evening’s most-tweeted comments was made by Hilton, who noted:
“Wars have very, very long tails… they don’t end when the whistle blows.”
For those at tonight’s event, it would seem that the end of these wars will be a long time coming, indeed.
The hashtag for this event was #fcbbca
]]>On the day after al Qaeda’s “leader” Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces in a daring raid on a nondescript compound outside Jalalabad, BBC Urdu sent out reporters into four cities across Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not to ask questions, but to observe. To sit at bus stops, to listen.
Aamer Ahmed Khan, the head of the BBC’s Urdu service, told a packed Frontline Club panel on Wednesday: “They reported back that hardly anyone was talking about it. They were talking about power cuts and security.”
He said the first joke in Pakistan was ‘oh my god it’s so dangerous here, not even Osama bin Laden is safe’.
This illustrates the disconnect between the western view of world events – and its 24-hour media cycle – and other parts of the world. For many in Pakistan, this was not earth-shattering news. But it’s huge news for the UK and even bigger in the US – so no doubt the Frontline was full of people seeking some analysis. Here’s what went down…
Lynne O’Donnell, an author and former bureau chief in Kabul for AFP, underlined the apathy felt by many in Urdu and Arabic speaking lands: “The people I’ve been speaking to in Kandahar and Kabal… say the overwhelming response is one of indiffrence. They say al Qaeda is not a man. When you think about it they have never looked at Osama bin Ladan as their leader.”
She went on to say that there are about 260 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan – some of whom are ideologically motivated, while others are simply “supporting 10 kids and a mother-in-law, they might have three acres and the choice of whether to grow a crop or poppies”.
Zaki Chehab, editor-in-chief of ArabsToday.net, the “largest Arabic-language news website” saw a silver lining in all this: we might now start talking again about more important things:
I met [former Palestinian leader Yassir] Arafat one month after 9/11 and it was the beginning of US putting him under siege. His words were exactly, ‘if it wasn’t for 9/11 we would be having a Palestinian state within to to three months…. Now there is no Bin Laden anymore we hope that Israel and Palestine returns to centre stage.
Dr Farzana Shaikh, associate fellow of the Asia Programme at Chatham House, was in doubt that the Pakistani political elite has lost some bargaining power through its failure to identify and capture bin Laden. “The most immediate impact with the loss of Osama bin Laden is that in the leadership and intelligence agencies have lost their leverage… and the idea that they were entitled to a seat at the top table. They are now in a much more vulnerable position.”
She continued on the theme of Pakistan’s alleged indifference towards radicalism – a criticism levelled at the state by many in the US:
[former Pakistan leader Pervez] Musharraf capitalised on the threat of terrorism to keep his rule intact… Pakistan’s problem is really the problem of the state’s ambivalence towards Islam. Islam and religion have been repeatedly used as means of propping up regimes. Pakistan has become much more vulnerable and environmentally friendly to different waves of radical Islam. This has been taken advantage of our military regimes which have nurtured a policy of militantism, which have used radicalism to pursue regional interests against India
Rosemary Hollis, professor of Middle East policy studies at City University, London, broached the tricky subject of whether the execution of bin Laden was legal. “They have killed thousands, hundreds of thouands, after 9/11. Was it legal? Probably not exactly,” she said.
“If you make might right, how can you preach rule of law to others? Of course it’s absurd to say ‘justice was done’. Obama’s a lawyer…but he was speaking as a politician, not as a lawyer.”
And turning to the issue at hand – is the world a safer place without bin Laden? – she offered a more sociological analysis: radicalisation inside Europe is caused by the treatment of Muslims in Europe and the amount of immigration, she argued, which is a far wider issue than, who are the bad guys and how do we get them.
“So I don’t think Osama bin Laden is responsible for all these sources of radicalisation.”
Hollis also made what was for me the point of the night – don’t think this superdsedes some of the genuinely era-defining democracy movements in the Arab world…
]]>Watch the event here.
With detailed insider knowledge David E Hoffman told the story of how the president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev and the US president Ronald Reagan prevented the escalation of the Cold War into a full-blown conflict.
As a reporter for the Washington Post Hoffman followed Reagan throughout his campaign and subsequent presidency but found him to be something of an enigma – “he was a terrific actor, he played roles”.
Neither Hoffman nor his fellow journalists knew what his private papers later revealed, that Reagan was in favour of disarmament. Today support for nuclear deterrents is one of the foreign policy benchmarks for Republicans, said Hoffman, but Reagan held a different perspective, which became more apparent later in his presidency.
Gorbachev was a similarly unlikely candidate for change – as a Soviet Communist he rarely deviated from the party line. According to Hoffman, by the time Gorbachev was made General Secretary in 1985 he had already concluded that by reducing the vast sums spent on defence and the Cold War he could bridge the gap between what Hoffman termed “the rotten lives” that most Russians led, and the country’s substantial resources.
The title of Hoffman‘s book The Dead Hand refers to a semi-automatic system developed by the Russians in the 1980s whereby three people who remained in the bunker were able to start the nuclear retaliation should everyone else be wiped out by a US attack.
The major problem, said Hoffman was that the Americans never knew about it – the Russians forgot that an effective deterrent needed to be common knowledge, said Hoffman.
It is not known how much Gorbachev knew about the development of biological weapons in the 1980s and he denied all knowledge when questioned by a concerned British prime minsister Margaret Thatcher and Reagan’s chief of staff James Baker. Whether the real Gorbachev was a “participant or saviour?” remains unknown, said Hoffman.
But if a more hawkish character been leading the Soviet Union, things could have turned out very differently.
Instead of following through with the Generals’ plans, Gorbachev “put them in the bottom drawer” and ignored them, said Hoffman, who added that “without Gorbachev the Cold War would not have ended”.
As for Reagan, he “played an enormous role too” in ending the Cold War, but, concluded Hoffman “needed a partner” in order to do so.
]]>
By Will Spens
With scores of protesters killed or injured in recent clashes, February’s First Wednesday was a sold out discussion focusing on the current and dynamic wave of popular protest across parts of the Arab world. What was seen in Tunisia two weeks ago has been replicated on the streets of Egypt’s largest cities: angry and frustrated people in their hundreds of thousands demanding an end to dictatorship and for the implementation of fair and accountable democratic government.
Chaired by Paddy O’ Connell, presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasthing House, the audience and panellists focused primarily on the present and volatile crisis in Egypt, addressing both the causes and implications.
Over a Skype link from Cairo, author Tarek Osman opened up the discussion by recounting the dramatic events he witnessed. Explaining why clashes were seen between rival groups of protesters he said:
Until late last night it was very calm in Tahrir Square. After Mubarak gave his very emotional speech last night, pro Mubarak supporters started to come out onto the street.
Jane Kinninmont, a Middle East specialist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, believed that the recent popular unrest has had far reaching consequences for authoritarian governments, calling the unrest a ‘seismic event for the opposition’ and echoed what is a common feeling among many that ‘the barrier of fear’ had been broken:
Root causes had been building up for years but Tunisia showed people that demonstrations can change things.
Discussing the role of the army in the Egyptian crisis and apparent neutrality, verging on support, of the protesters, Mohamed Yehia, BBC Arabic Online Editor, said:
The army will remain neutral; there is no tendency to seize power. People look at the army in a very romantic way and there is a long history of antagonism between the army and the police.
Mustafa Abulhimal of the Quilliam Foundation said the influence of Egypt in the Middle East is "obviously quite undeniable," adding that the majority of Egyptians did not support Mubarak or Islamist parties and were "ordinary people" now engaging with politics and taking a nationalistic stand.
It is down to Egyptian character: What we are seeing now is and a nationalist revival where the old pictures of resistance are seen again – people are calling this resistance to the Egyptian occupation.
Egyptian people were asleep and the Tunisian effect is undeniable but the rhetoric we are seeing from this Facebook generation is incredibly nationalistic. There is a feeling that we have to free our country and the sentimental songs are back again.
The question of the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood was put to Davis Lewin of foreign policy thinktank the Henry Jackson Society:
The Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the road to totalitarianism and a grave danger.
He went on to say that the Iranians believe the Brotherhood would support Iran’s conservative Islamic doctrine and as such this would be a very negative consequence of their gaining power. The chance of this was low however, as all the panellists were adamant that their influence was not as much as some in the Western media would seem to suggest.
You can download the podcast here.
]]>More than 30,000 civilians may have died in the final days of the Sri Lankan civil war, according to the International Crisis Group.
But an “information black hole” created by the Sri Lankan government has prevented the world from uncovering the actions of both state forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), according to members of a Frontline Club panel debating press freedom in Sri Lanka.
If you couldn’t be with us for this event, you can watch the whole thing here:
Channel 4 foreign affairs correspondent Jonathan Miller said that western journalists were last year obstructed from investigating reports of atrocities in the small strip of north eastern Sri Lanka where the LTTE made their final stand.
He said that he and others are still being denied visas to enter the countr, and are the target of propaganda campaigns designed to discredit their reporting. Miller added that conditions for Sri Lankan journalists are far worse:
“In the last three years 15 journalists have been killed in Sri Lanka. In the last year, 29 journalists have been forced to flee the country. Others have been abducted and beaten…Very few are left who dare raise their heads above the parapet.”
Amnesty International Sri Lanka researcher Yolanda Foster claimed there is “a climate of fear for journalists” in Sri Lanka, adding that suppression of the press was compounded by a lack of “enforceable justice mechanisms”.
Douglas Wickramaratne, president of the Sinhala Association of Sri Lankans in the UK, provided a dissenting voice. Addressing an often hostile audience, he claimed the country is a “vibrant democracy” with a healthy press unafraid to criticise its government.
Wickramaratne warned that investigations by international bodies and journalists risked jeopardizing reconstruction following the LTTE’s defeat. Sri Lanka is “quite capable” of investigating allegations of human rights abuses, he claimed.
“It is not the time for others to intervene…to disrupt what is going on in Sri Lanka…No sovereign state would allow that kind of interference by an international organisation.”
Miller claims Sri Lanka has set a dangerous precedent for internal conflicts in other countries:
“The international crisis group has referred to this as the ‘Sri Lankan option’. This is a reference to what they say is un-restrained military action combined with refusal to negotiate, disregard of humanitarian issues and clamping down on the press…Now other countries are interested in how they managed to do that and get away with it.”
Edward Mortimer, former Financial Times writer and chair of the Advisory Council for the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, argued that developing countries emerging from their own struggles must help hold Sri Lanka to account.
]]>“If it’s left to the west, probably nothing will change. The crucial thing is what attitude are the democracies in the developing world going to take…They should insist that their elected governments apply the same principles in international life that they have applied domestically.”