Benevolent Foreign Intervention
(By: Gomin Dayasri)
The New Scourge of the Third World?
The discerning observer of events sees the recent
voices of a constructed calumny raised against Sri Lanka, accusing it of
being a major violator of human rights, as an ominous sign of the
malevolent designs of the Western Powers to bring about the death and
destruction of a great civilization that has hitherto been the envy of
many in the world. Is this the revenge which the West seeks against Sri
Lanka which has defied the grim forebodings of inevitable defeat in the
"unwinnable war", that was unfailingly preached during the last two
decades, to kill or undermine the Island's determination to defend its
sovereignty and protect its territorial integrity? This serves as a
timely warning to all loyal and patriotic citizens of Sri Lanka to be
ready to man the barricades in defense of our motherland and meet this
challenge unflinchingly and with determination.
Ominous portents of the feared intrusions appear on
the radar screen. Indeed this may prove to be the fateful Year of
Foreign Intervention. The early "pilgrims", from Rock to Holmes, from
Arbour to Novak have left their unmistakable markings to pave the way
for heavy traffic in Human Rights Tourism, including safaris into the
Vanni marketed by their local guides.
Intervention inevitably promotes the intrusion of a
foreign element. Those who descended to Sri Lanka with the Bible and
Bayonet in each hand in earlier times, are now in the twenty first
Century seeking an arrival visa preaching a sermon called Human Rights
while administering soporifics called Aid and Assistance. Human Rights
serve as a smokescreen for neo-colonialism and recolonization.
Historically, the more powerful nations have entered
the forbidden territory of weaker nations scattering sovereignty to the
winds. Often it has been to impose an ideology favoured by them, to
increase their centres of power, to gain control of valuable resources,
or to secure advantages in a geo-strategic area.
In modern times, to give naked intervention a veneer
of legitimacy, a moral and ethical standard has been projected as the
test to justify intervention. Yet the selected target is chosen for
reasons which have little to do with Human Rights, laying bare the
original objectives for intervention. Ordinarily there would be no
interference where a nation is under the protective umbrella of a
powerful nation State. Different considerations would arise in the case
of other aspects of Human Rights, whether one called it genocide or
ethnic cleansing or a denial of democracy or a quest for freedom. But a
vulnerable issue would be that of national security back home for the
intruders.
Sri Lanka has enjoyed a proud record of having been in
the vanguard of the Non-Aligned Movement. But after it ceased to be a
force, the Country has had no patron saint in the community of nations.
Its neighbour India has herself not wished to conclude a defence pact
with Sri Lanka and even objects to Sri Lanka concluding a defence pact
with another friendly country. Having isolated Sri Lanka, India, to
serve her own interests, continues to have for herself a multiplicity of
alliances with Western Powers which are mutually beneficial to serve
their commercial or military interests. India has assumed unilaterally
for herself the role of guardian in the Indian Ocean and as the agent of
the Western Powers in the containment of China, emerging as the
industrial giant of Asia. In contrast, Sri Lanka is a solitary figure
isolated, with no protective cover. In this vulnerable state Sri Lanka
has to defend her vital national interests and honour with her own
meager resources. It is a handful of patriotic persons who have
fearlessly raised their protesting voices and has thus so far saved Sri
Lanka from these predatory forces. The opinion makers have alerted the
decision-makers mindful of the clamor that has reverberated through this
vociferous group.
Unfortunately, Sri Lanka like a wounded animal
fighting for its very survival, offers a tempting target to the Western
Powers to achieve their predatory designs. It is situated strategically
on the sea lanes that enable a safe transport of oil to the Far-East and
it is clear that a blockade of the Island's ports can impede supplies to
China from the Middle-East, Africa and South America. The undetermined
extent of petroleum and natural gas and other products beneath the
territorial sea and the continental shelf are added incentives to the
oil-thirsty international community. India herself would prefer a weak
and defenceless Sri Lanka dependent on the goodwill of the Western
Powers rather than one that has the friendly support of Asian Nations.
India desires to hold the strings like the puppeteer, to make Sri Lanka
gyrate as the Western Nations wave the cane. Thus it seems clear in
these circumstances that Sri Lanka falls within the category of a
threatened state. We are confident, however, that the patriotic people
of Sri Lanka will not suffer their country to suffer the indignity of
appearing as a craven state that cringes in pitiful fashion before such
intimidatory tactics in abject fear.
The failed state concept
The standard technique of the neo-colonials is to make
it appear quite insidiously that state authority and control have
progressively collapsed and that the country is on the verge of being a
failed state. This is an absurd idea. Sri Lanka as an independent state,
with its vibrant democracy that has lasted for over sixty years, with
structures that provide for political pluralism, the right of dissent, a
free media, enjoying high rates of life expectancy, high rates of
literacy, admirable standards of health care, a judicially protected and
enforceable system of fundamental rights, actively concerned with and
taking adequate steps for the protection of the environment, a vibrant
private sector and an articulate civil society, can hardly be considered
a candidate to be relegated to the category of a failed democracy. So
new tactics are sought to be adopted, and a case is sought to be
constructed on the alleged failure to conform to standards of good
governance and the failure to curb and control violations of Human
Rights. This is not an allegation that bears critical examination and
does not on any account warrant intervention, more so as the inbuilt
democratic framework and its operatives are active and ever watchful and
ready to expose such infirmities and calls for immediate remedial action
to prevent further deterioration. Such anomalies in governance as may
exist are commonly found in many other countries, and are not so
pronounced in Sri Lanka as in some of the client states of the West
which have a dismal record. They are much worse by comparison. But the
West turns a Nelsonian eye to all this. This is therefore not an area in
which Sri Lanka would tolerate any interference. We have reason to feel
wary of the motives of the West which we feel are clearly tainted. We
have a proud record of achievements in many spheres which can be
defended in any world forum, and we reject outright these mala fide
allegations.
Selection of target countries
Invariably, interventionists concentrate on their
selected target states such as Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Serbia,
Sudan and Syria, ignoring Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Mexico,
Indonesia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, India and Zaire where violations
of Human Rights occur and principles of good governance are relatively
in a much weaker condition. These States are immune from criticism by
reason of their alignment to the Western Powers that seek intervention.
Sadly, Sri Lanka notwithstanding the fact that it is a vibrant democracy
in South Asia and has a system of well organized welfare facilities for
its citizens, is sought to be made a victim of their foul designs. India
and Pakistan, being patronized by the Western Powers for reasons of
trade and commerce and as a staging ground for the assault on
Afghanistan enjoy favoured treatment, notwithstanding serious breakdowns
of law and order, sustained terrorist acts for over thirty years in
places such as Kashmir and Baluchistan. Repressive governance and human
rights violations against the Naxalites and Baluchis are notorious,
while Maldives, Bangladesh and Nepal where democracy is under greater
threat escape criticism. India has declined to open its doors to foreign
Human Rights intruders, unlike Sri Lanka as admitted by the U.N.
Representative, Philip Alston. Sri Lanka has displayed transparency and
made facilities available for inspection on request. India, Pakistan,
and Bangladesh have peremptorily rejected such requests. The LTTE, the
Tamil Diaspora, Western diplomats with their doubtful credentials,
procured local academics basking in their new found affluence, foreign
funded NGOs and their acolytes advertise Sri Lanka as a happy hunting
ground for Human Rights vultures searching for prey.
Ironically, "the saffron belt of Asia" - Cambodia,
Viet-Nam, Laos, North Korea, Burma - unfortunately suffered by being
categorized as victims of the so-called "red-peril", while Thailand
being a client nation of the United States has been left alone. At
present, the threat of malignant interventions looms large where Islam
prevails, as in the Middle-East and Central Asia, sought to be justified
by the supposed "clash of civilizations". Africa, the largest
beneficiary of aid and assistance from the West, is in a state of
permanent deprivation and has a very dismal Human Rights record, yet has
escaped notice as their colonial masters continue to derive benefits
from states willing to compromise such as the French in Central African
Republic or the United States with bases in Djibouti on the border of
Ethiopia/Somalia. The venues for intervention are accordingly on a
selective basis with the humanitarian aspect being more a convenient
excuse rather than a genuine concern, where the real priorities are
based on extraneous economic and political considerations with no
semblance of any fairness or justice in assessment.
The proliferation of NGOs and the Role of the UN
The foreign funded NGOs with their local agents
including well funded "seminar-trained" activists, itinerant academics
and representatives of the kept media, fabricated the call for foreign
intervention in the case of Sri Lanka. It must be noted that some of the
NGOs work alongside the United States military in humanitarian-military
expeditions such as Operation Provide Comfort (to settle Kurds in Iraq)
and Operation Restore Hope (Somalia)
The former Defense Secretary Colin Powell treated NGOs
as an arm of the military and described it as the fifth column of the
USA. These NGOs compete with each other in the quest for funding, and
their very existence is often dependent on timely financial
transfusions. Their objectives are not well intentioned and seek to
achieve hidden agendas. The local sycophants hang around them to collect
handouts for which they have to perform according to plan as directed.
The UN officials and bureaucrats have assumed a new
role as protectors of human rights and their agents have been the INGOs
and the NGOs with vested interests, and Western Nations who want to
intervene in countries of interest to them. Instead of following its
lawful and legitimate mandate to support Sri Lanka as a sovereign state
and a member of the UN, they have joined the international community,
the INGO and NGO mafia, to aid and abet in furthering the process for
intervention which has the effect of protecting the notorious terrorist
organization - the LTTE. Its record of stopping gross human rights
violations in Sri Lanka - such as child recruitment by the LTTE, has
been a pathetic failure. It is well known that the LTTE has shown
complete disregard and treated with contempt the strictures and the
adverse comments made by the UN on the child soldier issue. The UN
agencies have been ineffective on the child soldier issue and there has
been a failure to meaningfully monitor aspects of malpractice in Sri
Lanka. The UN is fully aware of this, but has complacently continued to
accept the lack of commitment by the LTTE showing great leniency and
laxity in curbing terrorism.
US $1 million was given by UNICEF to TRO which is
globally known as a 'Front Organization "of the LTTE. The TRO collects
funds ostensibly for welfare in the conflict prone areas but there is no
proper accounting to the authorities.. There are several complaints
against UN agency employees of strategically and stealthily assisting
the LTTE which brings no credit to the UN agencies. The killing of two
UN workers from Killinochchi was kept hidden from the Government for
several months to shield the LTTE, as it would have brought discredit to
the LTTE. In recent times, several UN staffers took part in a pro LTTE
human rights rally contravening their designated role and mandatory
functions to respect the sovereignty of the country.
UNICEF was a signatory to the Action Plan for Children
together with the Government and the LTTE. Nevertheless the LTTE/Karuna
Group has continued with their child recruitments irrespective of the
presence of UNICEF and the number of children released has been
negligible. Some children so released have been forcibly re-taken and
made to enter military service. UNICEF has been unsuccessful in making
an impact on child recruitment and reliance could not be placed on the
assurances given by the LTTE due to their callous disregard of such
undertakings. This situation has arisen due to a desire to accommodate
the LTTE and acquiesce in the obvious contraventions of the guidelines.
The UN agencies, we regret to observe, are not working on a genuine
humanitarian agenda and in the best interests of Sri Lanka.
There are emerging NGO groups in Sri Lanka, which are
financially heavily dependent on a few western powers to provide funds
for their operations. Their programs are donor directed and do not
necessarily serve national interests.
The activist peace movements which in Western States
opposed military interventions and contributed to the bringing of troops
back home from Vietnam and fought for disarmament have been displaced by
NGOs engaged in conflict resolution and are collaborating with the
interventionists. Military Intervention is supported by human rights
oriented NGOs like Amnesty International, Humans Rights Watch and
Medicine sans Frontiers. Some of the active NGOs, unlike the peace
activists of former times, are dependent on state agencies and
multinationals for financial support and compete among themselves for
available financial resources.
Sri Lanka has experienced foreign intervention in
covert and overt forms during the last 25 years. In consequence of the
Indian intervention in 1987, the Tamil people of the North and East
suffered immensely due to the physical presence of the IPKF. It led to
strong agitation by the Tamils that the IPKF be removed forthwith. The
IPKF lost much territory that had been under the control of the Sri
Lankan forces and it was recovered at great cost from the LTTE. They
left behind a truncated portion of territory and a considerable area
with the LTTE to the dismay of the forces. The terrorist activities
continued unabated. The presence of the IPKF in Sri Lanka while it
lasted led to much public unrest and a rigged election where a
pro-Indian administration came to office in the North/East Provincial
Council, which collapsed with the departure of the IPKF, and the Chief
Minister Varadharaja Perumal sought sanctuary in India. There was
virtual unanimity among all communities that the IPKF should be
withdrawn and the Indian Government withdrew, realizing it was an
unsuccessful venture. It was during the period of intervention by India
that relationships between the otherwise friendly countries became
rather acrimonious.
The arrival of the Scandinavian monitors under the
arrangements of the CFA of February 2002 proved to be a dismal failure.
Their monitoring exercise has become dysfunctional and irrelevant. It
neither reduced terrorist activity nor diminished violence but their
presence merely provided an opportunity for Norway to present itself as
a prominent player on the international scene where Norwegian
politicians could have their moment of glory as peacemakers having
experienced failures elsewhere. The cry for the dismantling of the CFA
that was dysfunctional was persistent, and the Government has now
formally ended this charade.
There are nascent NGO groups in Sri Lanka, which are
financially heavily dependent on a few western powers to provide funds
for their operations. Their programs are influenced by their donors, and
do not serve national interests. In recent times, several UN staffers
took part in a pro-LTTE human rights rally contravening their designated
role and mandatory functions to respect the sovereignty of the country.
The Record of Achievement of So-Called Defenders of
Human Rights
The sinister movement for intervention has gained
momentum with the visit of Gareth Evans to preach a new heretical
doctrine, namely, the Theory of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which he
has insinuated could become operative in Sri Lanka, if the war escalated
leading to the displacement of people being extended to areas in the
North by the government forces who recently resumed control over parts
of the East, much of which had been lost during the IPKF intervention.
Evans appears to be anxious that the limited territory in the North, now
in the control of the LTTE, remains intact and unimpaired and allowed to
remain in the hands of this internationally recognized terrorist
organization with its record of brutalities. As is well known, the LTTE
has a history of keeping people in subjection, denying them all
democratic rights, without the right of dissent or free expression, or
the benefits of political pluralism. It continues to employ children in
military operations, does not observe the Rule of Law, and eliminates
its political opponents at will, without fair trial. It assassinates any
Tamil political leader who does not comply with their terrorist
objectives. Despite all this, it is indeed ironic that the warning
should be issued to the Government seeking to liberate Tamils, and not
to their oppressors - the LTTE, which denies human rights to the Tamils
in their claimed limited territory.
What is the record of Gareth Evans? Gareth Evans,
onetime Australian Foreign Minister, supported the Administration of
President Suharto of Indonesia, which had a horrifying record of a
million political killings, having invaded East Timor, co-operating in
the ethnic cleansing of many areas in that Country, and exterminating
200,000 East Timorese. It is strange that Evans in his book "Cooperating
for Peace" makes hardly any reference to the genocide in East Timor,
though written after the massacre of the East
Timorese in Dili in 1991. What is the credibility that
one can attach to the doctrine called R2P? Indeed Evans and Indonesian
Foreign Minister Al Alatas signed the Timor Gap Treaty which allowed the
Australian and international oil companies to exploit the seabed off
East Timor yielding 7 billion barrels of oil. Within two months of the
massacre, 11 contracts were awarded to Australian oil companies.
Therefore his affinity to the Suharto administration and his silence on
such massacres is understandable, as Australia was diverting to itself
natural resources of East Timor with the collusion of the Suharto
administration. Evans was in the administration that awarded the highest
honor in Australia (Order of Australia) to Al Alatas who made the
aforementioned gift to oil companies. Evans, understanding of terrorism
is such that notwithstanding the American embassy having issued a valid
terror alert and the President of Indonesia having warned of a probable
terrorist attack, Gareth Evans down played the effectiveness of the
dreaded terrorist outfit Jemmah Islamiyah in a speech made in Australia.
Three (3) days later in Bali, 23 Australian tourists were killed 125
were wounded by the explosion of 3 bombs by the same terrorist outfit in
association with a splinter group. It is the same Gareth Evans who now
seeks to threaten Sri Lanka with an R2P humanitarian intervention if a
military advance is initiated in the North against terrorists! Are these
so-called champions of Human Rights in truth guardians of terrorist
outfits denying human rights? It is reported that a foreign funded R2P
research and advocacy centre is to be set up in Sri Lanka which is the
only projected venue in South Asia, to be financed by Ralph Bunche
Institute of USA.
Parallel to this exercise, the traveling human rights
missionaries from UN agencies instigated a campaign to condemn the human
rights record of Sri Lanka unmindful of the fact that the State was
confronting a brutal terrorist organization that was targeting civilians
who required protection from murderous attacks and were not acting
according to the rules of armed combat. Nor were such rules observed by
their own patrons in supposedly fighting terrorism in such places as the
horror chambers established outside their territorial jurisdiction in
places like Guantanamo Bay and Egypt, and the flights of rendition
transporting human cargo for torture. Louise Arbour called for the
establishment of a human rights office in Colombo to overlook the
country situation, reminiscent of the role of the Scandinavian monitors
under the CFA and the Indian High Commissioner during the IPKF
occupation, which provided those intervening a mechanism to interfere in
the domestic affairs of the host nation.
Prabhakaran, who is fast losing ground militarily and
politically, in his recent address on Mahaveer Day blamed the
international forces for not intervening and called for intervention,
more in an effort to save the LTTE from the expected military operation
to be launched by the armed forces. Significantly, it coincided with the
call of Gareth Evans for foreign intervention in the event of the
Northern Front being opened by the Sri Lankan forces. To provide a case
for such intervention, Prabhakaran followed his address by launching a
series of attacks on civilian life exploding bombs at Nugegoda, Slave
Island and Buttala to make it appear that the State is incapable of
providing security to the people. It appears that a well orchestrated
and coordinated operation is taking place to invite intervention where
supporters of foreign intervention are acting in collusion with the
LTTE, to save the terrorist organization from sliding into oblivion.
Relevant country situations
It seems worthwhile here to examine some relevant
situations where foreign intervention has taken place and the resulting
impact it has had on the affected Country and its People.
Bosnia:
After the intervention of Bosnia by NATO forces and
the Dayton Agreement in 1995 international forces took control of the
country; constantly expanding the role of a multitude of international
organizations and restricted the authority of all ethnic groups
consisting of Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs whose elected
representatives merely have the right to discuss questions of policy
with the Office of the High Representative (Foreign Holder) and make
minor adjustments or delay the implementation of externally prepared
rules and regulations. The holder of the Office of the High
Representative has now reduced even these limited powers of the
democratic bodies of the tripartite Presidency, Council of Ministers,
and the State Parliament as being unnecessary delays in implementing
international policy.
By the end of 1997, the international community went
further and decided it was unnecessary to require the Bosnian
representatives to assent to international edicts and removed all such
powers, and the High Representative was empowered to dismiss the elected
representatives who obstructed policy and to impose legislation
directly.
In this manner, the international community has
assumed complete legislative and executive power over a former
independent state, in consequence of making Bosnia a human rights
protectorate. It is western paternalism appearing in the guise of human
rights colonialism.
The provisions of the Dayton Agreement promised
decentralization of political power and the creation of a multi-ethnic
administration to provide security to ethnic minorities and to safeguard
their autonomy.
Minority protection has not been provided to the three
constituent ethnic groups, notwithstanding the Dayton Agreement. Power
has not been decentralized to give minorities security or a stake in the
administration but such powers have been transferred and centralized in
the High Representative. At State-entity, City and Municipal levels
elected majorities have not been given any control over policy making
and the international community regulates life down to the minutiae of
local community service provision, employment practices, school
admissions and sports.
The Muslims, Croats and Serbs have claimed that
institutions of government in Bosnia are but hollow structures and have
sought greater political autonomy in policy making and uphold the rights
protected in the "letter" of the Dayton Agreement, while the
international community is stressing on ad hoc interpretations based on
the "spirit" of the Agreement. Furthermore, the international community
has extended its stay indefinitely. The critics point out that there is
a high degree of external regulation making, but no visible democracy
and the mechanism to re-build a fragmented society. The structure has
become corrupt and local politicians are open to corrupt deals to act on
the whims of the international community.
The ramifications of intervention as revealed in
Bosnia mean that the interventionist once inside the State, like the
proverbial camel that enters the tent is reluctant to depart, and the
prime objectives for arrival have become irrelevant, and they act
according to their own agenda weakening the local mechanism and
internationalizing the situation in a fragile state causing unforeseen
conflict and discouraging cooperation between ethnic groups.
Kosovo.
US led NATO forces without a Security Council mandate
bombed Serbia relentlessly to force Serbian troops out of Kosovo (which
was a province of Serbia) on the basis of a humanitarian intervention to
save the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo from alleged ethnic cleansing. UN
Security Council Resolution 1244 determined Kosovo as part of Serbia but
placed it under UN administration and NATO with strength of 17,000
constituting the Kosovo Peace Keeping Force (KPA).
After 8 years of UN administration it is now the areas
occupied by the Serbs and the Roma (gypsies), the ethnic minorities that
are being ethnically cleansed by the majority Muslim Albanians in
Kosovo. The establishment of a UN protectorate has created a state of
"reverse ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.
The recent proposals of UN Special Envoy Martii
Athisaari may form the basis of a Security Council resolution that may
lead Kosovo to independence. President Bush after receiving a hero's
welcome in Albania declared he would issue a unilateral declaration of
independence for Kosovo and that Washington will recognize it without
waiting for the Security Council to decide on it. This is not surprising
as the Americans funded the Muslim militia in the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA) in their struggle against Serbia which contributed to the
atrocities. The US was desirous from the beginning to bring about a
fragmentation of Yugoslavia because Serbs at the helm were culturally
and politically aligned to Russia; and place it within the ambit of the
EU and NATO.
However, just as in Bosnia, restrictions will be
placed setting up an international body to supervise it for an
indefinite period. According to the Athisarri proposals, special powers
are to be allocated to the International Civilian Representative (ICR)
to represent the UN/EU with powers to impose/annul laws passed by the
local parliament and to remove political leaders from office. Majority
Muslim Albanians in Kosovo have expressed dissatisfaction with these
proposals being aware of the events in Bosnia.
During the 8 years of UN administration, no attempt
has been made to build a multi- ethnic society but instead they have
watched the mass exodus of Serbs and Roma from Kosovo, helplessly. The
legal system that existed is in tatters and the province is in a serious
social and economic predicament with more than half the population
unemployed. The angry locals call the UN officials the "white 4x4 gang"
due to their pastime of driving around the province in their white
Toyota Land cruisers without attending to the needs of the people.
The possibility of the Serb enclaves seeking autonomy
originating in the province with Serbian Government assistance, may lead
to further fragmentation which will be resisted by the Albanian Muslims
as they would not agree to a substantial portion of Kosovo being
reduced. It is unlikely that Serbs will agree to be citizens of Kosovo.
Therefore it is obvious that the intervention has merely aggravated
existing problems and caused fresh tension among the ethnic groups. It
enables separatist groups to appeal to external forces whose arrival
leads to unanticipated issues encouraging conflict rather than
compromise.
The prevailing pattern of foreign intervention could
give an impetus to dissatisfied groups in other entities to declare
unilateral independence. A similar pattern may follow in Western Sahara
(Morocco) Transnistria (Moldova) Kurdistan (Turkey) Basque Country and
Catalonia (Spain/French) Chechnya (Russia) Abkhazia (Georgia) Nagarno
Karabakh (Azerbaijan), to name a few.
Sri Lanka, after the Indian intervention, had to face
a comparable situation when a unilateral Declaration of Independence was
declared by the Chief Minister Perumal of the Northern/Eastern
Provincial Council, a protege of India, before seeking sanctuary in
India. The Chief Minister was supportive of the IPKF forces and it was
well known that he came to power with the assistance of the IPKF under
whose control the North-Eastern Provincial Council elections were held,
which was considered to be a "disturbed" election. In the circumstances,
the UNP of President Premadasa had to dissolve the North East Provincial
Council.
The Kosovo precedent is more likely to be in the
trajectory of India's learning curve, as foreign interventionists could
plan to destabilize India with a long time presence in Sri Lanka, so as
to create the vision of a Greater Tamil Nadu preparatory to the
disintegration of India.
Intervention often provides a happy hunting ground for
the stronger states but not for the residents of the Country who are the
ultimate victims as experience has shown in history from time
immemorial.
Somalia.
Situated in the Horn of Africa, Somalia is a country
ethnically and linguistically homogenous with many entanglements with
the super powers due to its geo-strategic position. Under Siad Barre it
veered originally towards Russia and then sought to align with America
for arms and patronage. It became the arms bazaar in Africa and was the
most militarized state in the Gulf of Aden.
After the death of Siad Barre, Somali tribal warfare
commenced and the country fell apart in an orgy of inter clan fighting.
Continuous droughts and famine led to mass starvation amidst the
fighting among the heavily armed war lords and a situation of anarchy
prevailed. The Somalis in desperation began to flee to neighboring
countries.
The humanitarian crisis that resulted called for the
intervention of UN forces which was necessary to mobilize the
distribution of food convoys and to facilitate the cessation of
hostilities between the war lords. The Americans took over the
leadership of the UN forces in consequence of the immense public
pressure which arose due to news coverage in the media portraying the
human tragedy being enacted in the capital
Mogadishu. The UN forces met strong resistance from
the militia of General Aidid. In a skirmish 18 US soldiers were killed
and 75 injured. Then when the bodies of the US Rangers were gruesomely
paraded along the streets, President Clinton immediately withdrew the
American forces from Somalia forgetting the humanitarian exercise, to
allay outraged American public opinion.
This shows that where genuine humanitarian conditions
require presence, the western powers prefer to evade any responsibility,
unlike in situations where political or economic factors are dominant
such as in Iraq or Afghanistan or East Timor or Bosnia or Kosovo. It was
the same in Rwanda (1994) where genocide on a gigantic scale was taking
place; the Tutsi were being slaughtered by the Hutus- the Clinton
administration not only refused to intervene, but even used its
influence on the UN Security Council to mandate the withdrawal of UN
peacekeepers from Rwanda and blocked all efforts to redeploy them.
Clinton in 1998 formally apologized for the episode and rather lamely
stated that 'they did not fully appreciate" what was happening, despite
the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis that had taken place.
After the American withdrawal, Somalia slid into
anarchy and the feuding clan leaders controlled the country without any
law and order and the people, being at the mercy of the clan chieftains,
lived without any security in a society where the rule of the jungle
prevailed. In this backdrop, the Mogadishu traders who no longer could
tolerate the state of anarchy, funded men of the Union of Islamic Forces
(movement created by businessmen in Somalia) to take over the seat of
power and were successful in eliminating the warlords. Again there was
law and order in Somalia after 15 years of chaos and the country
gradually returned to normalcy without the aid of foreign intervention.
The US after 9/11 in its global war on terror showed
sudden interest in Somalia once again, as Osama bin Laden was believed
to have taken refuge in Somalia; the Taliban and the Mujahideen fleeing
Afghanistan and Iraq took shelter in Mogadishu; US government 'freezed'
the assets of the largest company in Somalia, Al-Barakat (blessed) in
remittance trade from the Somalian Diaspora after the attack on the Twin
Towers and called Somalia a frontline state fomenting terrorism.
Americans were supportive of the deposed warlords and opposed the new
Administration of Union of the Islamic Court (UIC) and targeted it due
to its close relationship with Islamic states, especially Iran. The US
was not prepared to permit the UIC to remain in power.
With a mandate from Washington its proxy holder
Ethiopia marched into Somalia with a blitzkrieg to effectively dispatch
the UIC. The US provided aerial reconnaissance and satellite
surveillance support. This has now taken the form of Christian Ethiopian
troops engaged in battle against Islamic forces in a holy war in the
Horn of Africa. Eritrea is on record providing supplies to the Islamic
Forces demanding the withdrawal of its perennial enemy Ethiopia.
Meanwhile, the US has closed its eyes to the human rights violations
which are rampant. In the light of the human rights violations, the US -
led International Somalia Contact Group (ISCG) has called for a UN peace
keeping force in view of the country sliding to anarchy. At present,
600,000 Somalis have sought refuge in neighboring countries due to the
ongoing conflict. However, this has not materialized with only Ethiopia
and Uganda prepared to send troops.
This reveals that powerful states are not interested
in genuine humanitarian exercises when it becomes imperative. They enter
countries (for their own narrow self interest), and internationalize
local conflicts giving rise to situations where violations of human
rights takes place, and are only prepared to watch from the sidelines
the ensuing human suffering from events for which they are responsible .
US interest in Somalia is to combat international terrorism, and
therefore it sanctioned a regime change which has caused the country to
return to anarchy from which it had been gradually extricating itself.
It has radically changed the scene to an extent that it now requires a
peace keeping force and an alien hostile nation, Ethiopia, to control
the affairs of the country, while insurgent activity thrives with war
lords in action and with the local population supporting the rebel
Islamic forces. Foreign interventionists who pretend to lend a hand to
solve problems, arrive at the scene to create more problems, as was the
case of the IPKF forces and the Norwegian facilitators in Sri Lanka. The
Norwegians entered the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia as
peacemakers but was found to be unduly biased towards Eritrea (which
stands accused of providing arms to the LTTE), and were banished by
Ethiopia. The Norwegians responded by cutting off the aid flow to
Ethiopia.
Cambodia.
The treatment of the UN and the Western Powers of the
Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea, with its well documented records of proven
genocide reveal the true nature of humanitarian interventions when
influenced by political factors and geo-strategic considerations.
The image of Pol Pot still lingers on as being the
Field Marshal of the Killing Fields of Cambodia which accounted for the
most grotesque forms of human rights violations in Asia, yet when his
regime was finally ousted by the Vietnamese forces, he took sanctuary in
the jungles of the ally of the U.S., Thailand. It was the UN on the
instigation of the western powers that decided to recognize Pol Pot
wearing the butcher's apron in the jungle rather than the Government
with years in office in Phnom Penh which had eliminated a genocidal
regime. What a travesty of Justice! This could well happen in other
contexts as well.
The UN's recognition of Pol Pot in hiding in Thailand
meant international aid could not flow to the Cambodian people by the
UNDP and allied UN agencies and health facilities could not be provided
by the WHO to a country where by Western estimates 600,000 had been
killed previously by American carpet bombing of Cambodia, at a time when
the US decided to destroy the Ho Chin Minh trail which ferried supplies
to Vietnam across Cambodia. It was this US bombing that enabled Pol Pot
to come to power, which ultimately led to the slaughter of two million
people. The Cambodians were reeling under a double blow from the
Americans and Pol Pot, and thus Cambodia became the only country on the
planet denied aid and assistance due to the UN continuing to recognize
an ousted Pol Pot.
To make it worse, the US government decided to supply
arms and the UN supplied food and seed convoys to the ousted Pol Pot,
the worst offender of human rights in Asia living in the jungles off
Thailand while making preparations to re enter Cambodia. In truth, the
United States and Pol Pot are partners in crime - the Americans had
killed a million Cambodians in a secret war, that was not known to the
American people or to the Congress, and Pol Pot had eliminated 1/3 of
the Cambodian population. The role of the Human Rights Commission (now
headed by Louise Arbor) on Cambodia is even more bewildering as it
refused to consider a report of 955 pages of testimony on mass violation
of Human Rights in Cambodia.
For ten long years the UN rejected all efforts by the
Cambodian government to bring the Khmer Rouge leaders to justice, and
from all official documentation at the Peace Talks at Paris where the
Western Powers were participants, phrases such as 'crimes against
humanity' and 'genocide' were deliberately deleted from the script to
allow Pol Pot to gain recognition and respectability. Such dishonest
suppressions of the Truth are in reality a form of abetment of crimes
against humanity and genocide - deserving of universal condemnation and
expulsion from the community of civilized nations, for they are
unforgivable crimes.
What was the reason for such soft-pedaling? The
background was that the Western Powers were anxious to enter the
expanding Chinese market at the relevant time; ASEAN nations were keen
to pander to China which was supporting Pol Pot because a pro-
Vietnamese government was in office in Phnom Penh; and the Americans
were still smarting after being defeated by the Vietnamese who were
clients of Russia during a period when the cold war was still in
progress between America and Russia. It was 30 years later, conscious of
their guilt and shame that the UN was prepared to appoint a tribunal to
investigate human rights crimes in Cambodia, and the chief culprit Khieu
Samphan, the political face of the Khmer Rouge was arrested by the
Genocide Tribunal in November 2007 after having lived openly in
Cambodia. Pol Pot was permitted to die peacefully in Thailand after
having remarried. It was the pressure exerted by the western powers
including the UN that saved the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot from any form of
inquiry for 30 years and a just retribution for their crimes, which
reveals the extent that the UN Human Rights Commission is manipulated by
the agenda of the Western Powers, and that no credibility can be
attached to this body.
The UN architects of the R2P dogma, in practice
fashion their designs to suit their masters at the expense of weaker
states. In combating terrorism which is universally abhorred, the UN and
the powerful states maintain differing and variable standards dependent
on their alignment to the terrorist outfit or the Victim State. The
United States adopted a soft line on the IRA; the UN soft pedaled on the
Khmer Rouge, and Western nations assisted the Talibans/Muslim militants
fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, revealing varying standards
dependent on alignments based on geopolitical considerations or
placement or the location of natural resources or political/cultural
affinity. This manifestly contradictory approach was neatly presented by
the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee which stated:
"However, there are other regimes which arguably have
comparable human rights records and yet, for reasons which may be
strategic or commercial, do not attract the opprobrium or condemnation
of the international community, if at all."
This is a frank and candid admission of the
application of double standards by the international community and its
blatant disregard of ethical values, and negates all pretensions to
justice.
Conclusions
Neither the UN nor the Powerful Nations has made any
impact on the LTTE's policies and practices. The LTTE is uncompromising
on the issue of recruitment of child soldiers, inflexible on its
continuing violations of human rights, unrepentant on inflicting
violence against civilians, continuing its policy of selective political
assassinations and obstinate and unyielding on negotiations. Sri Lanka,
a member of the community of nations has at all times afforded a hearing
and calibrated its reactions according to its observations, has provided
its facilities as transparently as security considerations deemed
possible, has heeded advice provided it was not contrary to national
interest, and has shown flexibility, unlike the LTTE which has remained
intransigent.
In this background, intervention, interference, or
intrusion is sought-whether under the abbreviated appellation of R2P or
by the long title of humanitarian intervention, merely to check mate,
obstruct and undermine Sri Lanka from an opportunity of eliminating
terrorism, at a time that Sri Lankan forces are successfully pursuing
their campaign against the forces of terror. It is bewildering to find
that the same nations that are vociferous on this issue, as well as the
UN, which hunt terrorists that endanger their national/international
security and thereby violate human rights, take no steps to control the
LTTE, while continuing to threaten and intimidate Sri Lanka that is the
victim of such crimes. This is reminiscent of the weird judgments of
that crazy figure King Kekille in the Island's folk lore!!
Human rights must no doubt be respected while at the
same time the war against terrorism has to be conducted relentlessly
towards its final elimination. In these circumstances, it is plain to
see that when confronted with high priests of terror who have no respect
for life or law, the war cannot be carried on in the conventional
manner, especially where civilians are being used as human shields. In
such a context, inadvertent, unpremeditated or involuntary consequences
may well result; unwarranted or disproportionate outcomes may occur; and
these must be strictly controlled by effective and efficient local
mechanisms. If such an apparatus is not placed in position, the State
will have to bear responsibility. Due regard must be given to these
abnormal conditions that prevail. We must bear in mind the maxim: salus
populi suprema lex (Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law).
Sri Lanka possesses an activist and assertive
judiciary on fundamental rights which has not been subject to
interference in the performance of its functions. The Human Rights
Commission (HRC) requires to be strengthened and sanitized against
political interference and men of integrity, courage and independence
must be appointed. It is in this area that the State appears to have
been remiss sometimes, which has enabled foreign observers to make
adverse comments. The noteworthy anomalies are the feebleness of the HRC,
the inadequate investigative capacity of the enforcement authorities and
the lackadaisical attitude of the political authorities to intervene and
make necessary rectifications. These anomalies need immediate attention
but not foreign intervention which would complicate, confuse and
confound issues even more. Sri Lanka has men of experience with
independence, integrity and skill to overcome such infirmities. More
power and authority and guaranteed independence should be conferred on
the HRC provided personnel of the aforesaid quality and qualification
are appointed. HRC and such allied bodies should be made to provide
results and not be mere holders of honorific titles. They should be
trained and equipped for their assignments and given wide exposure in
the field of human rights.
The admitted flaws, omissions, defects and lapses on
Human Rights recorded in Sri Lanka are due more to weakness in
governance in a country which has relentlessly battled terrorism for 30
years. Such deficits in performance are more prominent in other States
where western powers act as guardians. The issues highlighted locally
are isolated and are not of a serious nature and are not of a continuing
nature. Not so, are the acts of terrorism in other countries on which
the critics of Sri Lanka maintain a thunderous silence. Incomprehensible
and wayward, are the double standards of the international community!
The threat of intervention becomes more likely with
the abrogation of the CFA, as it has closed the front door which was
open to the forces of intervention to make their presence through their
resident Viking representatives to roam at will and destablize the
country. The campaign to open other avenues we anticipate will now begin
in earnest. So let us be on our guard and take appropriate action to
block such ventures.
We place our trust, faith and responsibility on the
Patriotic People of this Country to avert the tragedy of foreign
intervention. We believe the People who have sacrificed overwhelmingly
at times of crisis to save the nation will not fail the Country at this
hour. It is the People, that need to guide the nation collectively and
not the forces of partisan politics or foreign embassies or foreign
funded NGOs. WE must beware of the deadly virus spread by hired
academics and pontificating analysts of the media. In a democracy, with
sovereignty vested in the People, the State is obliged to give heed to
the views and desires of the People who should decide issues in a free
and fair manner. It is this right of sovereignty exercised by the People
that the foreign interventionists have decided to destroy with their
doctrine of R2P. The high priests of this canon can act as upper
guardians by granting a hypothetical undocumented global citizenship
which confers so called rights to the international community for a
stake in any country, with no reciprocal rights to any citizen of that
country. Are we prepared to be ruled again by those elected to office by
voters of distant lands who may have no knowledge of Sri Lanka, or
holding office in international organizations who have no obligation for
the welfare of the people in Sri Lanka? After 60 years of independence,
we seem to be confronted with a bizarre transformation of International
Relations that will surely lead to anarchy.
Sovereignty in its essence implies on the one hand to
freedom from subjection and immunity from constraints which are unfair
and unreasonable impediments on liberty of action. Such intervention is
for obvious reasons considered detrimental and injurious to the
principle of equality of status amongst states in the international
system. From a juristic point of view, equality of states is an
attribute of sovereignty, and the essential quality of a state's
membership in the community of states. Control over a state's territory
and the government of its people are concomitant rights. This basic norm
was recognized right from the time of the birth of the concept of
statehood after the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia which
recognized the principle cujus regio eius religio - (Whose the region,
his the religion; those who live in a country should adopt the religion
of its ruler), ending the internecine wars of religion that plagued
Europe in the Seventeenth century
Corresponding to this essential attribute of
statehood, was the co-relative duty and obligation on the part of other
members of the international society to respect and refrain from acts
and omissions which were injurious to the independence and hurtful to
the dignity of its fellow members. This no doubt was the theory, but its
observance amidst the harsh realities of politics and among members of
the international society deviated from the required norms of this
standard, giving rise to inter-state displeasure, friction and acrimony,
sometimes leading to armed conflict. Acceptable behaviour was judged by
a State's willingness to adhere and conform to the expected ethical and
moral standards of respect for other States. Abstaining from
interference in the internal affairs of other States, more often than
not, depended on realistic considerations of whether or not it was
conducive to a state's own "national interest". Political considerations
were accordingly paramount and the arts of diplomacy were harnessed to
that end and the niceties of its exercise often degenerated into the
crudities of "gun-boat diplomacy" and other displays of military muscle.
Such acts of intervention were considered a prerogative of the Big
Powers who thought that they were destined to rule the world. Such
excrescences of arrogant and insolent behaviour have fortunately
disappeared from the international arena, and interference appears in
more subtle and sophisticated forms.
The obvious discrepancy in respect of economic and
military strength and administrative efficiency in the arts of
government of the new states freed from colonialism became evident in
the post-decolonization era, and the appellation "the Third World" with
its derogatory implications soon attached itself to a considerable
number of former colonies, including Sri Lanka and India as well as many
African, Asian and Latin American countries, lacking the capacity for
effectively managing their new status. They were often content as a
first priority to protect the external indicia of their newly won
freedoms. They were no doubt zealously concerned in seeking to safeguard
their right to be protected against the numerous infringements of their
right to non-interference through the exertion of devious pressures,
diplomatic, economic, and military assistance, which inexorably devalued
their new-found status. But regrettably, more often than not, they
lacked the manifold capacities required for this purpose. Political
scientists like Robert Jackson have described this category of states as
"quasi-states" which no doubt carried with it pejorative implications at
variance with the sovereign equality of states that was proclaimed in
the United Nations Charter. But it was nevertheless a correct
description as later events showed. Sri Lanka may be considered to be in
this unfortunate position. But what was most obvious was the
vulnerability of these states to the manoeuvers and manipulations of the
hegemonic powers in their quest for world-dominance. These were the grim
realities they had to face in the post Colonial era.
Having regard to the debilitated state in the exercise
of what Robert Jackson describes as, "positive sovereignty", as in the
case of the well established states, the Third World states came to
realize that their most valued possession was the guaranteed immunity
against unlawful and unwarranted intervention in their internal affairs,
however tenuous and fragile a right it often turned out to be. If one
glances at our recent history, perhaps the deepest sense of
disappointment and disillusionment among the vast majority of Sri
Lankans was occasioned by the refusal of the Government of India to
allow the Government of Sri Lanka as was its lawful right as a Sovereign
State, to complete it's counter offensive against the LTTE in the
Vadamaratchy area in 1986-87 and bring the rebel area under its control.
It was further exacerbated by the so-called "humanitarian aid" through
an aerial drop of some items of food and medicine escorted by MIG
fighters brazenly violating our air space to emphasize the futility of
any resistance to Indian military might. These preliminary gestures
ominously indicative of Indian determination to impose its will on a
friendly neighbour, preceded the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of July 1987
which provided for the induction of the Indian Peace Keeping Force. Its
dismal record when called upon to meet the challenge of the LTTE finally
led to its withdrawal from Sri Lanka in 1990, and to India's own sense
of disillusionment at this unsuccessful venture. This must surely have
made the high priests of the Indian Foreign establishment painfully
aware of the perils of such ill-considered forays that were part and
parcel of intervention.
The solemn guarantees found in Article 2(1) and
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter proved to be of no avail. Considerations
of realpolitik and a realization of the impracticability of embarking on
a path that would lead to further embitterment between the two states
led to a prudent decision not to press the issue. The events of the two
intervening decades, and the painful lessons which the Governments and
the people of these two countries have learned in the interim suggest
that as with the so-called " unwinnable war", patience and resolute
adherence to one's own convictions bring their own rewards. We sincerely
hope that such ill-conceived ventures will not be repeated in the future
in the relations between our two countries.
To win the so called "unwinnable" war, it is necessary
that Sri Lanka acts in her own interest and the interests of her own
People. Without winning the war against terrorism, there is no space for
peace. The LTTE has extended itself beyond the frontiers of returning to
democracy and the Rule of Law. The practicality of engaging in talks and
discussions to bring peace with the most brutal terrorist organization
in the World, is a myth that exists in the minds of those who support
foreign intervention and who are seeking a place for themselves for
their own benefit in Sri Lanka, taking advantage of the ongoing
terrorist activity. If terrorism is eliminated in Sri Lanka they stand
to lose, for they will cease to be able to exert the undue influence and
coercion they have hitherto done against a State vulnerable to such
pressures.
We appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka, and its
President who has so far safely guided the destinies of the Nation
against tremendous odds, to steadfastly oppose any foreign intervention
and not to yield on this vital issue, as it will inexorably lead to the
destruction of our Nation and the disintegration of our beloved Sri
Lanka.
-The Ministry of Defence bears no responsibility for the ideas and opinion expressed by the numerous contributors to the “Opinion Page” of this web site-
|
