Opinion
Ranil’s undiplomatic DW interview
I write his comment after reading and rereading the Editorial and Dr Upul Wijayawardhana’s opinion –Ranil seems to have seen sense at last, in The Island of Friday October 6. Also having listened twice to the videoed interview.
As usual, The Island editor in his editorial, wrote perfect sense. His header, Berlin Buster conveys so much summing up the interview as bluster on the part of Ranil W. ‘Bluster’ is defined as ‘Talk in a loud, aggressive, or indignant way with little effect, which was exactly President Ranil Rajapaksa – whoops sorry –Ranil Wickremesinghe’s stance with the TV news network Deutsche Welle in Berlin recently.
To comment on Dr W’s title. I say it should have additions inserted: Ranil seems to have seen sense at last, ‘but became insensible and intolerant in the Berlin interview.’ His article carried not much critical comment on the interview per se but praised RW and digressed to UNHCR and Mangala Samaraweera.
To this careful listener and observant reader our Prez was totally out of character and disgraced himself. He was undiplomatic; took offence where no offence was meant; was from very early on in the interview on the defensive and assumed insults and fault finding and very definitely Western degrading of Sri Lanka. To this woman he appeared childish in his assumptions, attitude and even in the language he used.
As the editor wrote “Wickremesinghe, who was once accused of being subservient to the West, is now taking on the West as vigorously as the Rajapaksas.” He mentions the radical change of RW and asks whether it is “due to his close association with the Medamulana family since last year’s political marriage of convenience.” Of course it is and some say he is defending those brothers. He seems to have even caught the ‘makka’ of being abrasive, aggressive and not able to carry through an interview with diplomacy and no show of temper. Hope the flea of hounding journos has not been caught; we want to live longer. So different from the RW, who was intellectual and cool and admired by oldies whatever his political tactics were.
I quote certain statements made by RW in the interview which prove my negative judgment of how he handled the DW interview. Given the fact that interviewers are not the most unbiased, the onus to keep cool is on the person interviewed, which RW definitely was not. The interview started off well and degenerated to almost a word slamming match.
Talking of children being deprived of adequate food and a Save the Children report, RW retorts: “Don’t accuse us …” Then who is to be accused of what the child of SL suffers? RW admitted we had food scarcity and added that under his presidency things are much better. (?)
About the BBC Channel 4 documentary: “Why do you treat C4 as sacred?” Uncalled for remark and accusation since the interviewer just asked his question, not loaded at all with blame of accusation or even innuendo. Then started the battle of words – heated on RW’s side. RW insisted he and his government were dealing with the Bishops’ Conference and not the Cardinal. Then he burst out: “You take a piece of paper from Cardinal… You have no business… You try to corner me.”
About missing persons and reconciliation: “We had British, Australian, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese secret service policemen in Sri Lanka helping us…” He asked the interviewer whether they ever got international help to solve their problems, meaning so why insist on us getting international persons to investigate Sri Lankan matters. “You are talking nonsense …
“Don’t accuse me. I have run the business long before you. Western media thinks we are bad; what international enquiries have you had? Do you think Sri Lanka is second class?” “Don’t shout at me!” “You have made a serious accusation” which was denied by interviewer.
After more or less answering a question on Missing Persons Commission, RW shouts: “You are shouting I am bad.” Childish comment and we know about the Commission and how slow it has been.
The Interviewer asked several times to be allowed to complete asking his question. RW retorts towards the end of the interview: “What you have got is all bunkum” about the human rights situation in the country.
What was the purpose of the bravado? One cannot imagine RW merely lost his cool or was badgered by the interviewer who was good in his job; he could not be accused of belittling Sri Lanka
I sum up my assessment with these words: surprising; uncalled for belligerence; jumping to negative conclusions; accusing interviewer of statements he did not make; very disappointing.
One further point. No one must claim that if Modi brought down an interviewer, our Big Boss can do the same. So different are the two countries and respective leaders. India is sought after by the most important nations, while Sri Lanka is looked askance as a miserably failed, bankrupt country that allowed its past leaders to set the rot in.
Interested woman