'Its your world' - Terrorism in Sri Lanka and the international
community
(By: Manisha Fernando)
Sri Lanka is on the brink of finally ending a bleak
era of terrorism that was purported by the LTTE, a ruthless terrorist
group for nearly 30 years. The LTTE is an internationally proscribed
terrorist organization, an honour they have sincerely earned through
sheer hard work specializing in the acts of terrorism defined by various
legislatures across the world. To name a few, these include the genocide
of several tens and thousands of remote Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim
villagers butchered in cold blood; illegal shipment of arms across
international borders; training of guerilla fighters for clandestine
groups who are no doubt fighting for the same rights as the LTTE;
suicide attacks; destruction of economic property; political
assassinations (i.e. Rajiv Gandhi, Ranasinghe Premadasa, and over 30
Tamil politicians), extortion and finally crowing it by mobilizing and
availing of the largest human shield to stall the military forces from
wiping them out completely.
Whilst the UN, US and EU nations have resorted to call
the LTTE as 'rebels', they seem to be apprehensive to term other
militant groups (Al-Qaida, Taliban etc.) engaged in similar activities,
as rebels or freedom fighters. It is extremely funny that the world has
two different terminologies for terrorists. If the justification lies in
the fact that Taliban and Al-Qaida operate at global level and that LTTE
does not, then it would be wise to recollect the LTTE members caught red
handed in USA and Canada procuring arms, engaged in extortions, pro-LTTE
demonstrations and damage to the foreign consulates of Sri Lanka and
India in Norway and UK.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is described by many as a
ruthless and fabricated 'war' carried out without any concern for
repercussions on civilians. According to records and reports, the
invasion in March, 2003, was spearheaded by the United States, backed by
British and smaller contingents from Australia, Spain, Poland and
Denmark. The invasion and the resulting turmoil which ranged from
torture, murder, rape and genocide was later heard through the world
media with live footage, photos and confessions of troops.
Several key points should be noted here - The UN
states that the invasion of Iraq by the US was not sanctioned. But did
the UN genuinely attempt to make the US redeem for their act? All they
did was make statements, especially when the world began to see the
fabrications falling apart and mounting public pressure, by expressing
concern for human rights violations that took place in the aftermath! At
the initial stages, some of the permanent members of the Security
Council - the French and the British made allegations to support the
invasion, but these are now proved to be nothing but pies in the sky and
not even closer to the so called weapons of mass destruction!
The inaction of the UN or the US congress to halt
deterioration of human rights was not visible in the same vigour and
form that other countries are forced to adhere when dealing with
terrorism. Even in the wake of impunity for human life by the US
military, the UN did not voice any objections. For example, the US
military spokesman Major Brad Leighton told AFP, "We regret when
civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq
of terrorism." This implies that the US military acknowledged the fact
that civilian deaths are part and parcel of their strategy to eradicate
terrorism. There are numerous occasions where the coalition forces had
shot and bombed civilians, assuming them to be terrorists and which have
simply been shunned away by passive acknowledgements from US
representatives stating that they had bombed on available ground
information, but which eventually turned out to be nothing but unarmed
civilians. Even these apologies are blurted after the media aired an
incident. This shows the little effort taken to ensure a low civilian
casualty rate in the onslaught against terror by the US or the UN. (E.g.
U.S. says 15 Iraqi civilians killed in raid against militants - Nineteen
suspected insurgents also were slain in the operation. Elsewhere,
bombings leave 12 people dead, by Christian Berthelsen, October 12,
2007; U.S. military acknowledges Iraqi civilians killed - The statement
reverses earlier claims that victims were suspected militants, by
Associated Press, updated 4:52 p.m. ET July 27, 2008).
It is amusing to note that in the backdrop of human
right violations by the US, the current Secretary of State, Hilary
Clinton was a senator in the US congress. Today, she has the stomach to
call on Sri Lanka and accuse this nation of causing grave civilian
deaths and grossly violating human rights. Perhaps she must be under a
misconception that she personally had nothing to do with the US war on
terror, and temporary amnesia that her inaction to shout out for human
rights then, would save over 90,000 Iraqi civilians. She is also blind
to the fact that the US deploys drones to attack alleged militants in
the vicinity of civilians, in contrast to the interceptor tactics of the
SL military to attack identified LTTE units who are using a civilian
shield.
In this context, Hilary Clinton should take note that
from the very off-set of the humanitarian operation, the Sri Lankan
forces had deliberately used a zero civilian casualty approach, which
obviously cost the military the lives of several soldiers - a
contrasting element to the retaliation of coalition forces in Iraq
against civilians and militants. 03 years after the US invasion, the BBC
correspondent David Gritton puts the civilian casualties at 37,800
(article: "Iraqi civilian deaths shrouded in secrecy"), and today (6
years after), it stands around 91,586 - 99,991 (www.iraqbodycount.org).
This number is almost equal, if not less than the number of Tamil
hostages the SL military rescued from the LTTE tyranny.
If Hilary did absolutely nothing to intervene and stop
these civilian casualties in other parts of the world, resulting from
the repercussions of the US activities, what right has she to intervene
in internal matters of Sri Lanka, under the pretext of human rights or
lives? Why did she not request the Taliban or Al-Qaida to surrender to a
third party, if that would save lives? How can this individual assume
that these terrorist groups would not surrender and that the LTTE would?
Perhaps rather than making unwarranted hypocritical comments, she should
consider this an opportunity to rally up the pro-LTTE diaspora in her
country and contribute to re-establish the lives of their own brethren
here.
Soon after the Mumbai attacks, David Miliband visited
India and wrote in an article, "Resolution of the dispute over Kashmir
would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to
arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on
tackling the threat on their western borders." Obviously, this
insinuation sparked an angry response by the Indian government as it has
been India's long stand not to accept any third party in the dispute of
Kashmir. This is a very good example of how deliberate statements of a
few international figures can create chaos among nations and ethnic
unrest among communities. In fact, historians give credit to the British
for creating most of the internal conflicts in countries which were
under British Colonial rule (Eg. Rhodesia, India -Pakistan issue, Sri
Lanka etc.) Some historians view the current Kashmir conflict as a job
well done by the British to create instability in South Asia, and halt
development of two nations with great potential - who were instead bound
by communal and cultural disharmony!
Having said that, why would the same David be
interested in interfering with a national issue in Sri Lankan soil?
Undoubtedly, we will be privy to the answer soon! However, Miliband has
come under pressure from UK MPs and several non-profit organizations to
regulate the Private Military Companies (PMCs) in the UK. Yet, Miliband
is reported to have described the MPC industry as "essential" and
recommended self-regulation only. Some economic analysts say that this
PMC industry is now a 100 billion dollar industry in UK, and that these
companies can be deployed as mercenaries and security consultation
groups for nations which require "intervention". So could it be that
there are conflicts of interest in his agenda for developing nations
such as Sri Lanka.
According to foreign media reports, David has also
called on the Sri Lanka military to halt its operations and allow a
British-French joint humanitarian rescue mission to free trapped
civilians. This suggestion came only after the SL military rescued over
114,000 Tamil civilians held as hostage by the LTTE. It simply can't be
a result of bureaucratic delays that took him so long to figure out the
need for such a rescue mission, therefore it is more likely the lobbying
of the pro-LTTE diaspora of the two countries had prompted the decision.
Or perhaps other motives of vested interest can be hypothetically
assumed such as making it an opportunity to embark on fuel explorations
in the Eastern coast of Sri Lanka with a pact with the LTTE and/or the
use of PMCs for whatever reasons in this part of the world.
Miliband is joined by his French counterpart Bernard
Kouchner. Publicity for Bernard can be interpreted by some quarters as
an effort to gain public acceptance for him to become the head of the EU
in the near future. Media reports indicate that Bernard Kouchner has
been the mastermind behind the rebuilding of French relations with US
(post Iraq conflict), and the catalyst of various actions and
resolutions adopted by EU members. French reports show that his
publicity is indeed growing as he is a proactive individual, and an ally
of the large number of immigrants domiciled in France.
Yet he is now in Sri Lanka, apparently on a mission to
rescue the trapped civilians who he believes are being killed in the
effort to eradicate terrorism. His convictions seem to be backed purely
on biases and not on facts, as he has not mentioned nor acknowledged the
rescue of more than 100,000 Tamil civilians during the past few days.
Despite being a co-founder for the MSF (M‚decins sans FrontiŠres),
Kouchner has in the past made some interesting remarks, which apparently
are not in line with practitioners of medicine and the art of human
rights! One such was published in an editorial with Antoine Veil in Le
Monde on 4th February, 2003, titled "Neither War nor Saddam", where he
said he was opposed to the impending War in Iraq, but in favour of
removing a dictator like Saddam Hussein. He is one of the very few
advocates who favoured the US invasion of Iraq, and the resulting
civilian casualties.
Yet this is not astonishing, for a man like Kouchner,
who had once revealed to the Dutch Magazine, Vrij Nederland that, "When
people were suffering too much and I knew they were going to die I
helped them. I did that in Lebanon, I did that in Vietnam. I gave
injections to people, never pills, injections with lots of morphine". He
had stated this when he was the health minister in 2001. The world
wonders how a man of such attitude gets the right to talk of human
rights and killings!
Another, instance of Kouchner's empathy towards human
life and human rights were displayed when he called the nurse Christine
MalŠvre "an angel of mercy", when she was arrested and charged with
killing up to 30 terminally ill patients at a hospital in a Paris suburb
in 1998. She was sentenced to 10 years in jail for murder. (It is also
joked that when Kouchner's colleague in government, the then interior
minister Jean-Pierre ChevŠnement, fell into a coma after a routine
operation later in 1998, his first words on regaining consciousness
were: "Keep that man Kouchner away from my bedside." !!!). Perhaps
Kouchner now feels that the LTTE's action towards the Tamil civilians by
using them as a human shield was 'an act of mercy', since they would any
how die out of malnutrition, child conscriptions or as suicide bombs in
the hand of the LTTE!!!
Besides Sri Lanka, Kouchner's foreign infatuations lie
with Iran and he is reported to have said that war in Iran is
'inevitable' and later, back-peddled by stating that "The worst
situation would be war, and to avoid the worst, the French position is
very clear: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate," - after criticism from his
own government and Iran. (Refer news items published by the CNN, BBC and
Newser on September 17th and 18th, 2007). Kouchner - a man who wages
war, but is opposed to it... a man who does not believe in killing
civilians, but in acts of mercy!
Last but not least to intervene in internal matters of
Sri Lanka is the UN. The Security Council is made up of 15 member
states, consisting of 5 permanent members - China, France, Russia, UK
and the US, and 10 non-permanent members, currently Austria, Burkina
Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Turkey, Uganda, and
Vietnam. The five permanent members hold veto power over substantive but
not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent member to block
adoption but not to block the debate of a resolution unacceptable to it. The
recent visit of UN's humanitarian chief, John Holmes is subsequent to
vetoes on the Sri Lankan issue.
Strangely, Sri Lanka has had diplomatic visits of 3 of
the UN's Security Council's permanent members! Why would the UN be
concerned about human rights in Sri Lanka, when it had been blind to the
civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and Africa, the instability
of governments of nations where the UN intervention was felt after the
WWII, and the violations committed in foreign nations against the
consulates of other nations. Some accuse the UN of being a front for the
US, UK and French interests, the Allied Powers during the WWII, and
claim that UN is trying to force pro-US governments in member states.
The John Birch Society, which began a "get US out of the UN" campaign in
1959, charged that the UN's aim was to establish a "One World
Government."
In fact, some of the statements of US leaders and
politicians show that they have very little regard for the UN - Richard
Nixon, criticized the UN as "obsolete and inadequate" for dealing with
the Cold War (1967). Jeane Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to UN wrote in a
1983 opinion piece in The New York Times that the process of discussions
at the Security Council "more closely resembles a mugging" of the United
States "than either a political debate or an effort at problem solving."
In a February 2003, George W. Bush (shortly after Iraq was invaded)
said, "free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into
history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society." In 2005, Bush
appointed John R. Bolton who had in 1994 stated, "There is no such thing
as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which
can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United
States."
Of course one should not forget to mention the
outstanding billion dollar debt of the US to the UN in recent times!!!
In the wake of such comments and acts over the recent
past, is it possible for the UN to have a genuine and unbiased interest
in the Sri Lankan conflict or any other issue of a member country? If
the UN wishes to envisage human rights, shouldn't the rights of people
be the same anywhere in the world, be they Sri Lankans, Indians,
Kashmiri, Chinese, Africans or the terminally ill? Sadly, it has proved
to be an institution following the footsteps of the League of nations,
unless it seriously restructures its values and codes of conduct to be
more equitable among members!
These antics of the international community are a
malady, combined with the LTTE's track record for violence that would be
tempting for any youth to embark on a lucrative career in terrorism
anywhere in the world! Why lucrative? Well, because it seems the
international community is sending mixed messages to the pro-LTTE
diaspora and seem to be 'hell-bent' in persuading the cessation of
military operations against the LTTE and offering them a fresh breather!
Even attacks on diplomatic missions are not a concern for the UN!
Of course, none of these countries with the exception
of John Holmes (UN) have yet donated or reached out a helping hand to
provide the IDPs with food, clothing, medicine and other basic
necessities. In fact today, these items are donated by the generous
contributions of the Sinhalese in the country - the very Sinhalese the
so called pro-LTTE diaspora and pro-LTTE groups accuse of being
racial!!! From individuals to business corporates, state institutions
and religious institutions, the donations have increased to help the
innocent Tamils rescued from the ruthless LTTE. This was the very same
case when the Tsunami hit Sri Lanka - the Sri Lankans in unaffected
parts took care of their ethnically diverse brethren long before
international aid arrived!
Despite so many obstacles and international pressure,
the people in Sri Lanka want to eradicate terrorism now, perhaps the
visiting diplomats in our country now, should learn and understand what
peace, harmony and brotherhood means in Sri Lanka in the wake of current
events and preach it to their people!
References :
The UN's official website (and public documents
available therein)
War on Want
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The UN Cash Position, 9 May 2008 by Warren Sach,
Assistant-Secretary-General, Controller
Reports from Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Al-Jazeera,
Newster, Asian Tribune, The American conservative
www.thefreelibrary.com/Pro-Life+News+in+Brief-a077557233
www.worldrtd.net/node/483
www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jul/25/health.healthandwellbeing
www.iraqbodycount.org
http://www.newser.com/archive-world-news/
Related Article >>
BBC - 'Barefaced' Broadcasting Corporation -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- |
