The Tribune

In today’s world of instant communication via the internet, news of the horrors of the recent evil and cowardly terrorist attacks on churches and hotels in Sri Lanka will have reached far and wide. The country has had a history of ethnic and religious strife, but its civil war lasting a quarter of a century ended in 2009 when peace was restored – and that may have made the latest atrocities, with more than 250 people losing their lives and so many more injured, all the more painful and distressing for those concerned.

Reportedly, the local security forces are hunting for accomplices of the suicide bombers and members of an ISIS terror cell that remains a threat to the island. So it is clear the terrible incidents on Easter Sunday were not isolated and that the authorities are engaged in an ongoing operation to identify militants who might be intent on causing further chaos and destruction.

Against this background, I imagine anyone watching developments would agree the immediate need is for other countries to offer not only sympathy but also practical help in response to requests from the Sri Lankan authorities. While the Colombo government’s priority must surely be to impose immediate control and to focus on the continuing danger to the country as well as dealing with the damage already caused to lives and property, it seems an investigation about alleged intelligence failings over prior warning of the attacks will take second place.

Seen from afar - and with limited knowledge of the local political situation - that looks to be a sensible order of priority. Although some sort of conspiracy to stop intelligence reports from being passed up the chain of command is presumably not impossible, the greater likelihood is that government ministers were not informed because of a breakdown of communications resulting from human error and bureaucratic muddle.

In light of this, I wonder whether other observers might have been as concerned as I was about a BBC interview a few days ago with Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister. I thought the interviewer put him on the spot in a condescending and disdainful manner, demanding to know why he was ‘not in the loop’ about intelligence material and whether that demonstrated serious divisions within his government. To my eye, this sort of hectoring was both ill-informed and inappropriate in the immediate aftermath of the worst violence Sri Lanka has seen since the end of the civil war. The fact that the BBC reporter had arrived in the country just a few days before and had purported to have become an instant expert on Sri Lankan politics only made the situation worse.

Deservedly, the BBC has a fine reputation for accurate and comprehensive reporting. It is one of Britain’s great institutions and people both at home and overseas trust it as a consistent source of reliable information. However, its standing overseas tends to be better than at home where it is accused of Left-wing bias and of taking a political stance on issues rather than sticking to objective journalism.

People in other countries are often in awe of the organisation’s unrivalled expertise and professionalism, and perhaps it was partly because of this the Sri Lankan Prime Minister allowed himself to be treated disrespectfully by one of its reporters.

Investigative journalism is important in a democracy because it is in the public interest for politicians to be held to account for their actions. But one cannot help thinking that in this case the BBC was seeking to stir up a row to create maximum publicity based on limited evidence.

Meanwhile, it is inevitable that Sri Lanka’s national security system is less developed than in a country like Britain. In recent years serious terrorist incidents have taken place there – from the horrific attacks in London in 2005 that cost 52 lives and injured more than 700 to the more recent terrible Manchester bombing, to name just two - and there is evidence that other possible attacks have been thwarted by pre-emptive action based on good intelligence. But the British security authorities admit at any one time there could be anything up to several thousand people under surveillance on a watch list of home-grown fanatics and potential terrorists and it is impracticable to check on all of them around the clock.

The term ‘war on terror’ was first used by the US government after the 9/11 bombing of the twin towers in 2001. This was later considered to be contentious and a misnomer since terror was not an identifiable enemy in itself against which to wage war but rather a means by which perpetrators sought to achieve their objective of damaging or destroying the US and other Western countries. The threat of terrorism will always exist and it cannot be prevented by military means, though its incidence can be inhibited, and its effects reduced, through action based on sound intelligence reports.

The spirit of Anzac Day remains as strong as ever

A notable event on the world stage last week was the anniversary of Anzac Day. This is a national day of remembrance for Australia and New Zealand to commemorate and honour the service, courage and sacrifice of generations of members of their armed forces. This year, Prince William travelled to New Zealand to participate in the ceremonies there, while Prince Harry attended a commemoration service at Westminster Abbey in London.

The day itself is observed on April 25 because that was the date in 1915, during the First World War, that the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, together with other allied troops, landed on the Gallipoli peninsular as a part of what became known as the Dardanelles campaign.

After fierce fighting and heavy casualties in the face of sustained Turkish resistance, this military expedition was eventually abandoned and the invasion force evacuated. I have a personal interest because my grandfather, who was a colonel in the New Zealand army at the time, was in charge of the Gallipoli evacuation and succeeded in withdrawing the allied forces – under cover of darkness and under the noses of the Turks – without suffering any casualties. Some years later he was placed, as a general, in overall command of New Zealand’s armed forces.

It is claimed the involvement in the First World War of the armed forces of Australia and New Zealand and the Anzac spirit forged a powerful sense of national identity in both proud nations. As the Australian Prime Minister said at the Anzac centenary in 2015: “The Gallipoli landing was in an important sense the birth of our nation.”

By common consent, the spirit of Anzac Day remains as strong as ever.

A load of hot air - and not just in balloons

Protests were relatively limited when Mr Trump paid an official visit to Britain in 2018 and he met The Queen and the Prime Minister and attended various high-profile events. However, the recent announcement of his three-day state visit in June, during which he will attend ceremonies to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings, has already resulted in opposition from those in Britain who claim he is not welcome. They cite a variety of reasons, from being a misogynist and racist to vulgar behaviour and even his denial of climate change and global warming - and overall they regard him as a controversial figure who should not be formally honoured by The Queen.

A state visit is defined unofficially as a formal visit with the full panoply of ritual and ceremony of a head of state of a foreign country at the invitation of another head of state to show deep friendly relations between the two nations.

State visits to Britain have often caused controversy. People may question the desirability of rolling out the red carpet for leaders of nations with whom Britain maintains good relations but whom are regarded by some as unsuitable for this level of recognition because of their unsatisfactory records and the way they rule their own countries. Infamous examples have been Ceausescu of Romania and Mugabe of Zimbabwe as well as, most recently, President Xi Jinping because of China’s notorious human rights record.

As an unconventional and divisive leader, Mr Trump provokes strong reactions. But, whatever the personal criticism of him, it is surely right that The Queen should invite him to make a state visit as the elected president of Britain’s strongest ally – and one of its oldest friends in international affairs - and a major trading partner and leader of the Free World. Nonetheless, one example of the strength of feeling in some quarters is that the leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has snubbed The Queen’s invitation to a state banquet in Mr Trump’s honour.

This unprecedented action by a political leader is shameful in light of the Labour leader’s willingness in the past to meet the Chinese president and Assad of Syria and to consort with terrorist organisations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA.

Even worse is  the Speaker of the House of Commons is opposed to Mr Trump addressing a joint session of Parliament while, controversially, the Mayor of London has approved a request to float over central London during the visit a giant balloon of a baby Trump figure in diapers. But, to the delight of many, who find this childish, silly and offensive, there has been talk of another group planning to fly a similar inflatable of the Mayor to embarrass him in return!

It is in Britain’s national interest to be on the best possible terms with the US, and one can only hope that this visit will be a success despite the inevitable security problems.