Ban Ki Moon or Diaspora has no moral right to speak behalf of Tamils in Sri Lanka -(Part 9 A)
Posted on June 26th, 2010

Geethanjana Kudaligamage

Rajapakse, regional politics, “Eurocentric Developmentalism” and the western hegemony 

The western attack against Sri Lanka is a global effort. It is an attack instigated by the global minority of western countries with the help of some world institutions hijacked by the west like UNO. Therefore, our counter strategy also must be a global one. The rest of the world, although they are less powerful in the global south, they are the majority of the world. Actually in other words, “ƒ”¹…”we are the world’. Why whole world must be hegemonized by a minority in the west? The world must not be controlled by whims and fancies of a minority in Europe. We must organize a consort global attack against European aggression. If we do not go global, our chances will be narrowed by our limitations, but if we go global, then western chances will be narrowed by exposure of their insincerity in the pursuit of punishing Sri Lanka for eliminating their pet dog. We must organize the entire global south against western agenda of using human rights and regional conflicts as political instruments for their interventions in the third world.

 To put our counter strategy in right perspective, first thing to do is to get rid of all ideological fallacies to clear our vision. Then the second, we must get out of our fixation into this reactive/defensive mod of strategy of countering western attack. Instead we must go offensive. We must force west to go defensive time to time. This can be done only by a bureaucracy who can handle direct and open diplomacy abandoning our orthodox “ƒ”¹…”slap on the wrist at the worst occasions’ type diplomacy in grave situations like this. The third is to separate Diaspora Tamils from Sri Lankan Tamils who I think genuinely need to build our nation collectively. At this point, of course, Tamils must understand, with their Diaspora’s consort effort of punishing Sri Lankan nation by in coalition with the traditional aggressor of the west, they have lost the legitimacy of singing the same song of the oppressed. It is in this context that people of Sri Lanka must consider separating the Sri Lankan local Tamils from global Tamil Diaspora, because Tamil Diaspora has become a part of the oppression of the west.

  I said we must get rid of all ideological fallacies. One such fallacy is the notion of a presumed pressure of Tamil Diaspora over the western administrations to take actions against human rights violation in Sri Lanka. We accustomed to think that western pressure on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a UN panel of experts to investigate war crimes during the period of the campaign against the Tamil Tigers is occurred as a result of such pressure of Diaspora Tamils. This fallacy only serves Western agenda of keeping their neo-colonial interventionist agendas safely obscure under the fog, hard to take a clear picture of what happens. It is not the west that has been used by the Tamil Diaspora for their political agenda. Actually what happens here it is the reverse of it. The Tamil Diaspora has become instrumental to the west on their immoral agenda. Ban Ki Moon is just one among millions of intellectuals who has lost their conscience. Don’t we have millions of Moons among us in the third world? Moon’s actions have become a damn shame tainting the purity of the moon, considering it as one of the prime religious symbols for a large majority of the world south including Buddhists and Muslims.

 However we must understand that, blaming Diaspora for western intervention is taking the west “ƒ”¹…”off the hook’ of their sins over the suffering they unleashed upon us. Our barking on wrong tree will enhance the western strategy of going into their next stage of hounding Sri Lanka. We must realize that the real culprit is the west; Diaspora is just a contractor who performs a part of the design, like all those NGOs performing another part. Reducing the grandiose western design of their “ƒ”¹…”neo-colonial intervention’ to a mere “ƒ”¹…”pressure of Tamil Diaspora’ is the exact way that west really needs us to see it. This on the other hand diverts our focus away from the real culprit. Who made who? This is not different to the debate over chicken and the egg.

 Let us get back to the history. Then we can see that the Diaspora is not spontaneously sprung out of nowhere as such a powerful force, but it is a making of the west. These are old tricks; you do not need to be a Harvard political science graduate to understand these tricks. These tricks are widely used even in student councils of universities in Sri Lanka. If you want to attack somebody without exposing the real agenda and your hidden hand in it, you must create a lobby pretending to be pressurized to justify actions. In politics all actions must be justified, locally and internationally. When the action is a big blunder the justification also becomes even bigger blunder than the action. We must take hue and cry of Diaspora as such. I will never be surprised to see if Diaspora slogans also made in foreign offices of the west.

 Western diplomacy is multi faceted, multi layered. One cannot just interpret western diplomacy and their policies just by reading the pronouncements of their foreign secretaries. They do one thing by one hand while doing a complete opposite by the other. They ban terror groups in the west while allowing them to function there. When one agency of a western administration supply humanitarian aid to a war ravaged region, the other agency supply arms to keep the conflicts continually running. It is not because their administrations are unfocused and disorganized; actually it is the nature of well organized multi disciplinary, multi layered bureaucracy of the west.

 Their policies will never go upside down due to a change of political administrations. They work on long term strategies. For instance, project of dividing Sri Lanka was begun in British colonial era. Just see how they have demarcated provinces changing their borders time to time, creating future ethnic enclaves in North and East. See how they have brought new settlers from India and have settled them in the East changing the demographical composition of the province for future strategic needs. See how new settlements conducted by organizations like “ƒ”¹…”Red Banna’ in north central province. See how some NGOs originated and what the aims of their researches, and how they related them to ethnic issue later on. See how they eliminated potential Sri Lankan national leadership that could be a threat to their interests in the region in future, through assassination and supporting massacres of selected targets in 1989. Who benefited eliminating Rajiv Gandhi the most, Tamils or the west? If Rajiv was there, west knew that Indian policy of eliminating pro western LTTE will be a threat to their interests in the region. At that point the best thing to keep the western tool unchallenged is to eliminating Rajiv. Some people think that it is a political mistake of the LTTE. But from western point of view Rajiv must go. With the elimination of Rajiv Gandhi, they eliminated the Indian strategy of using Tamil issue in Sri Lanka as leverage for annexation of north east to India. Two interests clashed in Sri Lanka. They were the Indian interest on the one hand and the western interest on the other. The more violent more brutal faction, the west ended triumphantly by eliminating Rajiv. The blame of Rajiv assassination goes to the west because LTTE had become clearly a western pet at that time while other Tamil parties were still working on Indian agenda. But all they were eliminated or ended defunct through violent suppression of the LTTE. Did west never knew all these developments, when the LTTE’s ideologue was a citizen of UK? Come-on, give us a brake!

 The western attack on Sri Lanka through UN is on the other hand, is to side track their own guilt of the reprehensibility of human right violations elsewhere by them. That is why we have to be even more direct in diplomacy, to switch into a type of diplomacy telling western foreign ministers directly what we think about their strategies/actions. We must tell them that we have uncovered their strategy of using our internal issues to divide our country, so we do not buy their Tamil Diaspora thing, their HR thing, war crime thing. And we know that they do not care about human rights because of their inaction over other conflict zones in the same vigor; and if they care, they must allow us to investigate Iraqi, Palestinian and Afghanistan situations, the situations in East Timor and Kosovo.

 The next strategy is to get out of our fixed position of reactive mod of actions. We must be proactive. We must send our foreign minister to all countries in the global south to negotiate the impending danger of western neo-colonial agendas, and must form a global solidarity in action. We must form a single voice of global south against western NGOs and neo colonial policies. We must form a new frontier to counter western attack while putting them into defensive mod. For that, we must bring resolutions in the UN against the actions of the west in other regions although at the behest of them to be vetoed by west. We must bring no-confidence motions against Ban KI moon, Navaneetham Pillai and Louise Arbour. We must create venues to put forth our charges against western administrations against their cultivation and manipulating separatist forces housing in the west to unleash them against the rest of the world time to time. We must appoint specific panel to investigate and report all global and national level conspiracies that undermine our sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

 We must establish a development bank in the global south to eradicate the dependency on the western development aid. By that way, we can create an alternative source, a buffer of resources and capital for the poor nations in occasions when they are struggling to get out of the western traps. We must establish a pool of professionals in the global south to exchange technology and human resources between nations.   

 If we can form solidarity in the global south against western neo-colonial attack, then definitely we can deliver a humiliating defeat to the west. United we stand, divided we fall!          

 Ban Ki  Moon is trying to clear the route for legitimacy of intervention

In contemporary western politics of fragmentation, they have employed new framework with inventive forms and new articulations to justify their exercise of legitimate force, either in the form of international force of the UNO or regional force like NATO. Twenty years back, people in the region would never have envisioned of a possibility of NATO deployment in south Asia in any circumstance. But not anymore, it is knocking the door at the gate of Asia, Afghanistan. Now south Asians may be wondering of what this so-called North Atlantic Treaty Organization is doing in South Asia. 

 The legitimacy of the use of force is directly related with the effectiveness of such force in conflict zones like Sri Lanka. Ban Ki Moon is trying to build ground of legitimacy for such intervention by only effective force in his disposal, the “ƒ”¹…”moral force’.

 The arsenal of legitimization of force is indeed already a vast combination of different forces. It is combined with not only military intervention, but also moral and judicial interventions. (Hardt/Negri) NGO operations fall within this category of legitimizing forces of moral intervention for a direct military intervention. Even they failed their operation in Sri Lanka, still they must prevent any repetition of such failure in the future. If they can take Rajapaksa to war crime tribunal, like Milosevic, then they can have a cake walk again with the help of Ranil.

 “What we are calling moral intervention is practiced today by a variety of bodies, including the new media and religious organizations, but the most important may be some of the so-called non governmental organizations (NGOs), which, precisely because they are not run directly by governments, are assumed to act on the basis of ethical or moral imperatives.” (Hardt/Negri)            

 This so-called “ƒ”¹…”ethical or moral imperatives’ are soiled by the funds these NGOs receive from the governments in the west who has vested interests in the region. Can Tamils of Sri Lanka be a part of this gigantic western conspiracy while claiming to be Sri Lankans? They have to make-up their minds at this crucial historical juncture.

 Tamil Victimology

This is our case in point, the hot spot in Sri Lankan example. Anywhere in the world, minority political ideology has been formulated on the basis of the dialectical relationship of the oppressor and the oppressed. In Sri Lanka, challenging national sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the nation under the alleged reason of Tamil grievances has been the bedrock of all arguments for the demand of self determination of the Tamils in Sri Lanka since the independence.

 In this regard, H.L.D. Mahindapala says”¦

“The other fallacy promoted by the ICES, headed by Neelan and Radhika Coomaraswamy, his successor, is that the north-south conflict was a phenomenon that arose from the mono-causal force of Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarianism that victimized and oppressed the Tamil-speaking minority. This enabled the ICES and allied NGOs to market victimology as their main ideology.” (H.L.D. Mahaindapala)

 Although many scholars have challenged the claim of these so-called grievances and even have challenged them to submit all those grievances that do not fall within the common  grievances of poor masses among all other races in Sri Lanka, yet the answers have never been put forward by those moaners. But actually instead of submitting the grievances, these victimologists have submitted Tamil aspirations vaguely.

 With this new argument of aspirations, a plethora of questions emerged on to the surface.”¦

1.       In this era of globalization and its fragmentation of nation state, can we consider these Tamil aspirations reasonable?

2.       What is the border line that limits aspirations of a race within the framework of a nation state?

3.       Can aspirations of a race overrule that of the nation?

4.        What are the priorities of the nation; are they colluding or colliding with Tamil aspirations?

5.       Is the “ƒ”¹…”nation’ means a mono ethnic enclave or multi ethnic socio-political  entity?

6.       Can Tamil people live in harmony with other races within the nation?

7.       Who are the patrons of the Tamil aspirations world over, is this patronage has any other agendas colluding with them?

8.       If globalization is meant for unification of differences, how it becoming  paradoxical with the regional politics of the west’s supporting separatism?

9.       What is their actual policy of globalization unification or separation; and what are the targeted goals this policy of fragmentation of the third world, and who are the beneficiaries?

10.     Is it possible Tamils to prove their willingness to be within the parameter of the nation?

 Who is the victim? The slippage in the representation of oppressor and the oppressed in post Nantikadal Sri Lanka

In this background of marketing Tamil victimology, I wish to bring another observation related to the said category. The coalition of Diaspora Tamil’s “ƒ”¹…”Tamil-state’ agenda with western Trans National Corporations’ globalization agenda of fragmentation of nation state in the region has changed these traditionally assumed positions of two races. By becoming cahoots of the western global and regional agenda, Tamils have swapped their traditionally assumed position of oppressed to oppressor. In the backdrop of Sinhalese’ all-out willingness to reconciliation with Tamils to build the nation within the limit of unitary state, the only obstacle has been the Tamil demand for regional autonomy that goes beyond limits fearing Sinhalese of such autonomy becoming a spring board for future separation. Considering western regional agenda of fragmentation in the region, such autonomy will only be a disaster to the nation. Why we must distance ourselves by division? Why can’t we live together is the question most nationalists ask. Isn’t that unification brings the meaning of globalization any way, they question.

 In this power relationship of the conflict zone, armed with the overwhelming western diplomatic, moral, political and military power, Tamils loose the ground for their claim as the “ƒ”¹…”oppressed.’ It is mainly due to the shift of their positions between Tamil politics with that of western politics, sending Tamil aspirations to the back bench by west’s taking over the mobilization of their struggle bringing their western regional aspirations to the front. We witnessed this reality throughout the struggle through the victimization of innocent Tamil masses that virtually never had a voice in any decision making of their future political destiny. In other words, in this process, on one hand the LTTE separated Tamil subjectivity by psychologically separating them from the national sovereignty of the state of Sri Lanka and then they invested that off-set sovereignty in the hands of the west to take decisions behalf of the Tamils. Prabhakaran did the same thing in the north like Ranil did in the south by CFA.

 Prabhakaran’s claim of holding Tamil sovereignty was being challenged for the first time when Sri Lankan forces knocked the gates at Kilinochchi. Sovereignty becomes a joke if there is no means of protecting it. Tamil sovereignty was idling in the void without a military to safeguard it from Prabhakaran’s terror when Sri Lankan forces were appeared before the gates of Kilinochchi. What did Tamil do? Did they go behind Prabhakaran pleading safety? No, they chose their true sovereignty by crossing the lines to the government side. Thus they declared loud and clearly to the whole world that they are sons and daughters of Sri Lankan nation; but not a bunch of hooligan supporting a terror group sustained by western funds and materials. If they went behind Prabhakaran for their safety, then of course one can claim Tamil sovereignty is not with the sovereign rights of the nation of Sri Lanka.

 The west on the other hand was manipulating whole issue by handling the sovereignty of both conflicting parties. Isn’t this a classic case of the deceptive politics of the west? In reality, Tamils had never invested their sovereign rights with Prabhakaran. But Prabhakaran claimed it by means of terror for a short period of time by declaring that Tamils were no longer under the sovereignty of the nation of Sri Lanka. But he couldn’t keep the Tamils together when his enemy, the SL forces was at the gate of his terror enclave. As I said, Tamils determined where they belonged to by coming into government side at the very crucial stage of the conflict. Why Ban Ki Moon never asked Prabhakaran to let Tamils to consider what they want and what side they want to stand with, free of intimidation by LTTE in the last moment of the conflict? And why he never asked Prabhakaran to stop killing Tamils who were crossing the lines?

 When we consider the scale of the external force behind Tamil separatism and its related regional agenda, we can imagine the dimension and the scale of the enemy that little island Sri Lanka had to confront with. Only in that context we can understand that Sri Lanka battled all along with an enemy of the whole region. Only in such conditions we can realize what president Rajapakse meant by saying that he fought a “ƒ”¹…”war behalf of India.’ Only in such backdrop we can realize why and on what relationship that Bernard Kouchner and David Millband came to Sri Lanka at the very crucial stage of the war to save terrorist leadership of the LTTE.

 In this background, it is very essential to separate local Tamils from global Tamils who work with the neo colonial agenda of the west. Local Tamils must be aspired of national politics than regional ethnic politics. Most essentially, local Tamils must demonstrate their willingness to be within the fold of the nation, while without being a part of the ugly politics of the global agenda of the west.

 Tamil separatism, sustained by the western program of fragmentation of South Asia with its all political, military and financial resources is based on the rejection of fundamental historical truth in this conflict. In the background of vastly deployed western resources in the said political project to attack the territorial integrity of sovereign country of Sri Lanka, we can see a drastic slippage in the dichotomy of traditionally assumed positions of oppressor and the oppressed between the Tamils and the Sinhalese within the current context of Sri Lankan conflict. Sinhalese fight for one nation and Tamils fight for two nations. But in the post Nantikadal politics, Sri Lankan Tamils do not fight for two nations and only the global Tamils in Diaspora fight for two nations. Diaspora Tamils fight for two nations because, in the world scale, Tamil community does not have a nation state for their own, although their population has reached up to seventy million. But approximately for about sixteen millions of Sinhalese people have a nation state. Although Sinhalese are the majority in the island, comparing to the strength of their counterpart Tamils, the Sinhalese become a minority in global level.

 In regional and global scale, Tamils as the majority, it is impossible for them to portray Sinhalese as oppressors within the 21st century global political apparatus in which, Tamils have been well supported by highly sophisticated media arm of the west. Traditional Tamil political leadership portrayed them as if they were oppressed by Sinhalese. But situating this issue within current global scale; Sri Lanka becomes the weak and therefore extremely vulnerable in the face of mighty empire of the west that hiding behind the Tamil cause.  Sri Lanka is the “ƒ”¹…”real victim’ of this whole network of marketing victimology according to the master-plan of fragmentation of the region. Although SL was narrowly escaped from the climax of the drama, it could have been witnessed the actual picture of this dichotomy of oppressor and the oppressed and their power imbalance if the events went in the way according to the original blue prints of separatist agenda of the west. 

 The Tamils living in the west, who experiencing the western culture and its domestic social conditions, cannot be unaware by now of the difference between western man’s socially grounded, philosophically justified, above all institutionalized white racism in the west. And they must be aware by now the difference between white racism and ethnic consciousness of Sinhalese, which is a common symptom of exclusivity of any race suffering from paranoia of the threatened survival. This sort of exclusivity is common both among the Tamils and the Sinhalese. If anybody calls this ethnic consciousness as racism, then they will have to invent a new word for the White racism in the west, as white racism is not just an ideology but an institution. 

 Within the global theater, Tamil issue is not a Sri Lankan issue but a global issue. In this situation, Sri Lanka will struggle with a global Tamil question that has global consequences. The Tamils on the other hand, actually a majority in the global that with the boost of nurturing, abating of globally powerful Pan-Tamil Diaspora comprising millions of Tamils and their Western aspirants, and sponsors attacking the tiny nation of Sri Lanka. In this situation, Diaspora Tamils must fight for their legitimate geographical location in India. Sri Lanka must get ready to face the next round, when India is struggling with the same problem. Who is the victim now?

 It is pretty obvious, that the Tamil aspirations and the all too well known western regional aspiration are the same. Not only that, the modern clash between Tamils and Sinhalese is a cultivated situation through colonial discordant racial policies rather than natural differences between these two races; therefore, the clash between the Tamils and the Sinhalese in broader sense is not between them, but it need to be considered as a clash between separatism of the traditional colonial oppressor and the Anti-separatism of Sri Lanka seeking her unity of the nation.

 Sri Lanka says “ƒ”¹…”Tamil are ours, we are all the same nation’ the west says “ƒ”¹…”no, they are not yours, and you are not the same nation, you are different.’ Then they plot widening the crack they created. The reason is, they need to keep the iron hot in the region, and then only they can shape it up into the desired form to achieve their goal. Then only they can justify their moral intervention in the biopolitical structure of the society, which ultimately will justify the military intervention. But that stage is nowhere close now. That danger has been removed, but the problem of separatism still remaining.   

 In relation to this background I must say that it is so puzzling to understand the misjudgment of Arundathi Roy and Noam Chomsky failing to notice this above said vital slippage in power relations of Sinhala Tamil conflict in their recent pronouncements about Sri Lankan situation.

 The miracle of the twenty first century

We can never forget the fact that, to the scale our ethnic issue had been globalized comparing to other similar situations of ethnic conflicts in the world, the separate state in Sri Lanka was only away of a mere declaration and acceptance of the west. It had been reached to that final stage when President Rajapaksa took over the administration. It was a nightmare to think of getting out of the trap that had been laid by the west. The victory over separatism in Sri Lanka was a miracle. It is an incredible defeat to western diplomacy, espionage and military operations in the region.  Sri Lankan case is the only defeat that west experienced in similar interventions since world war two. The Russian Chechnya was never been globalized like our case. In our case, culprit of the problem was in the heart of resolving the problem. Although it appeared to be disadvantageous, actually that was the exact entrapment that west was caught-in without being having any justification to take severe military reactions. Having said that I must say, that Sri Lankan example is not only an example to the global south, it is also a big lessen to the west. They not only lost in the game, but also facing a chain reaction in the rest of the world threatening their twenty fist century neo-colonial apparatus of divisionism entrenched in NGO/diplomatic mechanism world over. Moon’s action is to counter this tide of events pending to experience by the west in near future. So our attack against aggression must be aimed in pinpoint accuracy at this system of operation. We can do it only in collaboration with other nations in the global south. We have to fulfill our historical obligation to the oppressed masses in the global south. Yes, we can do it.

 To be continued)

 

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2017 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress