Bruce Fein & the Debate

"The proposed debate should be done not between a current Diplomat and a civilian lawyer, but between two carefully-chosen panels of eminent debaters from each side. Now Bruce Fein could take all the time in the world to select his own panelists who would try to swim upstream trying to legitimize the Tamil Elam cause, while, Sri Lanka would get to choose its own team of eminent debaters who would be able to win against Bruce Feign’s ill-informed arguments."

_________________________________

by S. B. Vithana

(March 13, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Bruce Fein, has openly challenged the Sri Lankan Ambassador Bernard Goonethilaka for a debate on legitimacy of Tamil Separatism in Sri Lanka. First of all, this is a good opportunity for Sri Lankans to confront people like Bruce Fein who openly support the LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka with lies and deceit, and expose them to the whole world. On the other hand, such a debate should not be taken lightly, as it would be a make or break situation for Sri Lanka, in the attempt to triumph over the disinformation campaign carried out by the Tamil separatists.

However, one thing should be understood. First of all, Bruce Feign is a lawyer sympathizing with the LTTE. He is a lawyer and everybody would know that lawyers are renowned for their ability to sometimes hide behind wordplay to win their point of argument when the facts may be completely different. Sri Lanka has suffered the menace of LTTE terrorism for decades and, therefore, cannot afford to let a cunning lawyer win arguments in a crucial debate. That kind of high-profile knockout would be too costly for Sri Lanka.

Secondly, Bruce Feign is a Former U.S. Associate Attorney General. He holds no diplomatic status at present. However, he is challenging the current Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the US. In this context, a serving diplomat should not accept the challenge of an ex-associate attorney general, who is now a civilian, for an open debate that is sure to make world headlines (Sri Lankan ambassador could have agreed to debate with his US counterpart, Robert Blake, instead, which would have been a more appropriate challenge). Bruce Feign against a serving ambassador simply would not match unless the Sri Lankan ambassador decides to do it just for the kicks, which, however, Sri Lanka cannot afford - the stakes of the game being so high.

Nevertheless, what should ideally be done in the face of this open challenge by Bruce Feign is to accept it on principal but to differ on the composition of the debaters. The proposed debate should be done not between a current Diplomat and a civilian lawyer, but between two carefully-chosen panels of eminent debaters from each side. Now Bruce Feign could take all the time in the world to select his own panelists who would try to swim upstream trying to legitimize the Tamil Elam cause, while, Sri Lanka would get to choose its own team of eminent debaters who would be able to win against Bruce Feign’s ill-informed arguments.

I do not know whom Bruce Feign should chose to defend the Tamil Elam cause, but I pretty well have an idea who Sri Lanka should pick. If I may take the liberty, the Sri Lankan delegation would ideally comprise of Professor Nalin de Silva, Messrs. H. L. de Silva and Gomin Dayasri, Ambassador to the UN, Dr. Dayan Jayathilaka and one eminent historian in the calibre of Mandis Rohandheera.

- Sri Lanka Guardian