US-Indian Resolution a punishment for leaning towards China
Posted on May 7th, 2012

H. L. D. Mahindapala interviews John Laughland, a strong opponent of interventionism by big powers in the domestic affairs of smaller nations, on the net.

John Laughland , Director of Studies, Institute of Democracy and Cooperation based in Paris, was the first to open the Side Event of the Sri Lankan government, “Sri Lanka: Road to Reconciliation” held on March 1, 2012 in Palais des Nations, Room XXI, in Geneva. The Room was packed with diplomats, I/NGOs, Tamil diaspora activists, representatives of GOSL, journalists etc. The GOSL panel consisted of Ministers and officials. It was meant to be an “interactive dialogue” between the GOSL panel and the audience.
His replies to questions sent by e-mail are as follows:
Q: After the aggressive ideological offensive waged in the Cold War against the Communist bloc the Western powers have adopted the strategy of using human rights as a tool to dominate the global agenda, particularly to interfere in the domestic affairs of small nations. The US Resolution against Sri Lanka is a case in point. You opened the side event on Sri Lanka held in UNHRC, Geneva recently commenting critically on the invasive role of Western powers meddling in the domestic affairs of small countries. I presume you could not elaborate on your theme due to the limitation of time at this forum. Considering the overwhelming focus on human rights in the foreign policies of Western powers do you agree with their argument that they are using human rights because they are committed to human rights as the new religion that can save the world or are they using it aggressively and excessively to interfere in the domestic affairs of small nations, with a view to push their political agenda?

A: I did ask a question at the Side Event about interventionism and I would indeed have spoken for longer if I had been able. Unfortunately the format did not permit this and I was conscious that others wanted to speak too. My question was whether Sri Lanka would fight its corner on the facts alone – publicising the work of the Lessons Learned Commission and the implementation of its recommendations – or whether it would also campaign on a more general position of non-interventionism. The answer I received to my question from the former Attorney General was very encouraging: he said that indeed Sri Lanka’s position was that these issues, and internal affairs generally, should be left to individual states and not be subject to international inspection or interference. This is my own position, concerning all countries and not just Sri Lanka. I was encouraged to hear the Russian representative making the same point because indeed I believe, as do many people in Moscow and as does my own Institute for Democracy and Cooperation that, as you suggest in your question, human rights are but an instrument in the service of a political agenda being pursued by Western powers.

Q: It is now well documented that Western offices use local NGOs as “soft power” to influence domestic politics of non-Western nations, particularly the vulnerable small nations. Some critics also argue that NGOs are a cheap way of outsourcing Western foreign policies. In the case of Sri Lanka Wikileaks revealed that the American Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Ms. Butenis, had sent out a rallying call to her colleagues in Colombo it defend the NGOs against possible threats from diverse sources. How do you evaluate the role of NGOs in conflict zones? Are they serving the needs of the people on the ground or are they serving their paymasters of the West?
A: The role of NGOs can be extremely negative and this is an issue on which I have written a certain amount, most notably at the tile of the “colour revolutions” in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. In April 2008, I contributed an essay to a book published in Moscow on the subject by my friend, Natalia Narochnitskaya, who is now my boss at IDC: entitled “Technique of a Coup d’Etat” it is widely available on the Internet in English. The matter is very simple: of course if there is a genuine civil society organisation which is run and funded by ordinary citizens, then its work can be useful and its voice listened too. Too often, however, bogus NGOs are created which are in fact fully or largely funded by governments – so-called GONGOs – and which simply peddle a political line. One of the best examples of this was the so-called “Committee of Ukrainian Voters” which played a key role in the Orange Revolution in 2004 but which in fact received not a single penny from a single Ukrainian voter: it was instead a fully-funded subsidiary of the National Democratic Institute chaired by Madeleine Albright and funded by USAID.

Q: As you may recall, I raised at the side event in Geneva the issue of Amnesty International in Canada accepting a donation of $50,000 from the Canadian Tamil Congress, which according to an ICG report is a
front for the internationally banned LTTE. Do you think it is morally acceptable for AI to accept money from a front of a terrorist organisation which has a known record of gross violations of international humanitarian
law, including recruitment of underaged children to fight its futile war? How is it congruent with AI’s objectives of promoting and protecting human rights?
A: You were right to raise the issue of AI funding. Of course I think it is wrong for AI or any other organisation to take money from terrorists or their fronts. More generally, your question rightly turned the tables on the sanctimonious representatives of AI who attended the Geneva meeting and spoke at it: like many such NGOs, AI thinks it has a right to hold governments to account. But given its own prestige and power – it has a special status at the Human Rights Council and its representatives are allowed to attend all meetings ex officio – it should of course be called to account itself. One of the key problems with NGOs in general is that they demand answers from government but that, unlike governments, they never have to bear any of the consequences of their own actions. The power of NGOs has increased, is increasing, and should be reduced.

Q: What is most obnoxious to small nations faced with charges of violations of human rights is the double standards where the big nations get away with violations of unacceptable
levels of inhuman cruelty to children, the aged, women and even use of chemical warfare as in Vietnam. In Iraq, according to UNICEF figures, 600,000 children died as a result of
the naval cordon thrown round Iraq based on a UN resolution. What mechanism or restraint can be introduced to prevent UN and its subsidiary institutions like the UNHRC being
used as pliant tools of Western powers who have shown utter contempt for the lives of non-combatants of their perceived enemies?

A: Double-standards are an inevitable consequence of the use of human rights in international relations and that is why I oppose it. In recent days, we have seen the British and Americans team up with the Saudi and the Qatari absolute monarchies to “promote democracy” in Syria – what a joke ! The way to prevent the UN and its subsidiary institutions from being abused by Western powers is for countries to form coalitions against them, and that is why I asked my question about non-interventionism generally. If the smaller countries of the world (and the big ones like the BRIC states who also oppose interventionism) do not hang together, they will hang separately.


Q:Sri Lankan forces rescued 300,000 IDPs used as a human shield by the retreating Tamil Tiger terrorists in the final stage of the war. But the UNHRC resolution accused Sri Lanka of not concluding the war according to international humanitarian law. The West and a report commissioned by UN Secretary-General concluded, without any scientific or a realistic count on the ground, that 40,000 died in the last stages of the war. The Census Department which conducted a house-to-house survey of the dead in each family in the conflict zone, according to UN standards, concluded that 6858 had died in the last stages of the war. Now if 300,000 Tamil civilians were rescued and restored to normal life, if steps have been taken by the GOSL to release over 10,000 LTTE cadres into civil life, if normalcy has returned to the conflict zone, if democratic institutions are revitalized and brought back to life, wasn’t it incumbent upon US and its backers of the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution to take into consideration the positive progress made towards reconciliation before rushing into indict Sri Lanka before the UNHRC? Furthermore, in the light of the progress made so far — a fact acknowledged by Hilary Clinton — can the anti-Sri Lankan US-Indian resolution advance reconciliation or exacerbate and retard the progress of reconciliation and peace? In other words, whose interest will be served by the negative US-Indian resolution brought against Sri Lanka?

A:. It is often difficult to understand whose interests are being served by such resolutions. Certainly I do not think that reconciliation in Sri Lanka is served because the resolution will only encourage those die-hard supporters of the LTTE, especially in the diaspora, to continue their struggle. I see two main interests served by this kind of resolution: 1) punishing Sri Lanka and its president for its independence and for its relationship with China; and 2) getting Israel off the UN Human Rights Council agenda. It is well known that the US dislikes what it sees as an excessive focus on Israel so, from Washington’s point of view, every minute spent on Sri Lanka is one minute less spent on Israel.

Q: The West has relentlessly and obstinately used the UNHRC three times to get the result it wants: to put Sri Lanka in the dock. On the first occasion in 2009 UNHRC commended the just war waged by Sri Lanka against the Tamil Tiger terrorists and defeated the Western sponsors of the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution. The second time too in 2011 the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution sponsored by the West failed. The West won only when the biggest power on earth joined hands with the other Asian big power, India — the mother of Tamil terrorist children that destabilized Sri Lanka. What is the morality of UNHRC rejecting two resolutions and accepting only the one that the West won? Is international law and morality considered valid only when the West wins and not when small nations defeats the big and powerful?
A: The UNHRC was conceived as a body for monitoring human rights and it has a mechanism for that, the Universal Periodic Review. To liberate itself from Western influence, the UNHRC should 1) concentrate on maintaining the independence and objectivity of its centre-piece mechanism, the UPR and 2) recall in all its acts the very numerous elements of international law, especially Article 2 of the UN Charter, which forbid interventionism. That Article states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter…” and this phrase should appear at the top of every UNHRC communication.

8. See my answer to 6. above.


Best regards

John Laughland

Director of Studies
Institute of Democracy and Cooperation
63bis rue de Varenne
75007 Paris
tƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚©l. 01.40.62.91.00
Le 24 avr. 2012 ƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚  14:55, Don Mahindapal a ƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚©crit :
Dear Mr. Laughland,
As you would note I have prefaced each question with a lengthy intro purely to place the questions in context. Hope this is ok by you?
I know you are busy. The time you suggested is ok by me.
Best.
Mahinda
———————————————————————————————————-
1. After the aggressive ideological offensive waged in the Cold War against the Communist bloc the Western powers have adopted the strategy of using human rights as a tool to dominate the global agenda, particularly to interfere in the domestic affairs of small nations. The US Resolution against Sri Lanka is a case in point. You opened the side event on Sri Lanka held in UNHRC, Geneva recently commenting critically on the invasive role of Western powers meddling in the domestic affairs of small countries. I presume you could not elaborate on your theme due to the time limit at this forum. Considering the overwhelming focus on human rights in the foreign policies of Western powers do you agree with their argument that they are using human rights because they are committed to human rights as the new religion that can save the world or are they using it aggressively and excessively to interfere in the domestic affairs of small nations, with a view to push their political agenda?
2. It is now well documented that Western n offices use local NGOs as “soft power” to influence domestic politics of non-Western nations, particularly the vulnerable small nations. Some critics also argue that NGOs are a cheap way of outsourcing Western foreign policies. In the case of Sri Lanka Wikileaks revealed that the American Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Ms. Butenis, had sent out a rallying call to her colleagues in Colombo it defend the NGOs against possible threats from diverse sources. How do you evaluate the role of NGOs in conflict zones? Are they serving the needs of the people on the ground or are they serving their paymasters of the West?
3. As you may recall, I raised at the side event in Geneva the issue of Amnesty International in Canada accepting a donation of $50,000 from the Canadian Tamil Congress, which according to an ICG report is a front for the internationally banned LTTE. Do you think it is morally acceptable for AI to accept money from a front of a terrorist organisation which has a known record of gross violations of international humanitarian law, including recruitment of underaged children to fight its futile war? How is it congruent with AI’s objectives of promoting and protecting human rights?
4. What is most obnoxious to small nations faced with charges of violations of human rights is the double standards where the big nations get away with violations of unacceptable levels of inhuman cruelty to children, the aged, women and even use of chemical warfare as in Vietnam. In Iraq, according to UNICEF figures, 600,000 children died as a result of the naval cordon thrown round Iraq based on a UN resolution. What mechanism or restraint can be introduced to prevent UN and its subsidiary institutions like the UNHRC being used as pliant tools of Western powers who have shown utter contempt for the lives of non-combatants of their perceived enemies?
5. US has taken on the role of a global cop policing those nations who violated international humanitarian law. The US-Indian Resolution against Sri Lanka is seen primarily as a punishment for the alleged violations of humanitarian law in the last phase of the terrorist war between January and May 2009? If so what punishment should be meted out by the UNHRC to India, a party to the Resolution, which trained, financed, directed under the guidance of RAW the Tamil militants to destabilize Sri Lanka, making India the primary cause for the violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. Germany was made to pay reparations in billions for its war crimes against the Jews. Should India too be compelled by the international community to pay reparations for the crimes committed against Sri Lankans, particularly the Tamils of the north who were raped, incarcerated, tortured and killed by Indian forces that came as peace-enforcers?
6. Sri Lankan forces rescued 300,000 IDPs used as a human shield by the retreating Tamil Tiger terrorists in the final stage of the war. But the UNHRC resolution accused Sri Lanka of not concluding the war according to international humanitarian law. The West and a report commissioned by UN Secretary-General concluded, without any scientific or a realistic count on the ground, that 40,000 died in the last stages of the war. The Census Department which conducted a house-to-house survey of the dead in each family in the conflict zone, according to UN standards, concluded that 6858 had died in the last stages of the war. Now if 300,000 Tamil civilians were rescued and restored to normal life, if steps have been taken by the GOSL to release over 10,000 LTTE cadres into civil life, if normalcy has returned to the conflict zone, if democratic institutions are revitalized and brought back to life, wasn’t it incumbent upon US and its backers of the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution to take into consideration the positive progress made towards reconciliation before rushing into indict Sri Lanka before the UNHRC? Furthermore, in the light of the progress made so far — a fact acknowledged by Hilary Clinton — can the anti-Sri Lankan US-Indian resolution advance reconciliation or exacerbate and retard the progress of reconciliation and peace? In other words, whose interest will be served by the negative US-Indian resolution brought against Sri Lanka?
7. The West has relentlessly and obstinately used the UNHRC three times to get the result it wants: to put Sri Lanka in the dock. On the first occasion in 2009 UNHRC commended the just war waged by Sri Lanka against the Tamil Tiger terrorists and defeated the Western sponsors of the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution. The second time too in 2011 the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution sponsored by the West failed. The West won only when the biggest power on earth joined hands with the other Asian big power, India — the mother of Tamil terrorist children that destabilized Sri Lanka. What is the morality of UNHRC rejecting two resolutions and accepting only the one that the West won? Is international law and morality considered valid only when the West wins and not when small nations defeats the big and powerful?
8. President Obama in his latest address at the Holocaust Museum in Washington (3/24/2012) said that US had rejected all unfair resolutions brought against Israel at the UN. How fair is the US-Indian Resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC? Was it concerned about human right or was there a hidden political agenda behind the US-India Resolution?
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:05 AM
To: Don Mahindapal
Subject: Re: Sri Lanka

Dear Mr Mahindapala,

Thank you for your email. I of course remember your intervention about AI’s funding in Toronto and thought the point was excellent and well made. I would of course be very happy to do an interview for you. How would you like to be in touch, by phone or by email?
Best wishes
John Laughland
Le 23 avr. 2012 ƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚  18:49, Don Mahindapal a ƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚©crit :
Mr. John Laughland
Director of Studies
Institute of Democracy and Cooperation
Paris
Dear Mr. Laughland,
I’ll introduce myself later but let me first get to the point I wish to bring to your notice.
Though I was there at the side event on Sri Lanka held in Geneva I’m sorry I missed you after the event. Your opening remarks about interventionism by the big powers of the West were very valuable to meet the challenges posed by the US Resolution against Sri Lanka. But unfortunately the presiding Minister for Human Rights, Mr. Mahinda Samarasinghe, missed the opportunity to explore your theme and drive the point to its logical conclusion.
Just to jog your memory I am the one who raised the issue about Amnesty International accepting $50,000 from the Canadian Tamil Congress, front of the LTTE, according to an ICG report. The Canadian Ambassadress, you may recall, intervened and argued that in Canada everyone has the freedom and the right to donate funds to institutions like AI. I was not given the right of reply. The issue was not of the right to donate but the right/morality of AI accepting money from an internationally banned terrorist organisation. As I stated then, how far can AI go in collecting funds? Can it collect funds from the Mafia or drug rings to promote human rights?
Unfortunately, once again the Sri Lankan Minster raised a technical objection about my not addressing the chair which I thought was a frivolous issue considering the immorality and the illegality of an institution like AI accepting donations from a front organisation of the LTTE. The LTTE agents have a track record of infiltrating respectable institutions like academia, media, churches, I/NGOs parliaments, trade unions etc, to white-wash their crimes. Their donations to AI is a classic example of their tactics to influence its decision-making process as seen in the case of running a propaganda campaign against the Sri Lankan cricket team in the world cup. Politicizing sport is generally considered off limits. Besides, why hasn’t AI run campaigns against US bout Guantanamo when they play baseball? Why not campaign against the UK team for ethnically cleansing the Chargossians from Diego Garcia to make way for the construction of an American base in the Indian Ocean? Isn’t it fair to conclude that even AI is on the market for the highest bidder?
I came across your organisation after I heard about it at the 19th session of the UNHRC in Geneva. Your organisation has come at the right time to play a critical role in the new global order emerging in the new world. It needs greater recognition by the global community. Right now it is NGOs of the West that dominate the international political agenda. The need of the hour is for your organisation to spread its wings right across the globe, particularly in critical areas where the interventions of the West are most dominant. It is tantamount to neo-colonialism.
Last night I was listening President Obama’s speech at the Washington Holocaust Museum. His statement that “(N)ationalism is not a licence to slaughter your people” expresses the hidden agenda of America to intervene in the domestic affairs of nations that do not dance to their drum beat. I agree with the essence of morality underlying his statement. By the same token, “internationalism” of the American type, using human rights as a cover, is also not a licence to slaughter Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians etc, to impose the will of America on smaller nations.
As stated by you, three years of peace in Sri Lanka has provided the space for the Sri Lankans to work out their home-grown solutions to advance reconciliation, peace and development and US Resolution has only exacerbated the evolving process.
I was wondering whether you will be willing to either expand on this theme and or give me an interview on this theme for me to publish a report in Sri Lanka.
I was the editor of the leading English newspaper in Sri Lanka, The Sunday Observer (1990 -1994). I was also the President of the Sri Lanka Working Journalists’ Association (1991 -1993) and the Secretary-General of South Asia Media Association (1993 – 1994). I read for my degree at the Melbourne University. I am an Australian of Sri Lankan origin. If you care to Google my name you could get more details of my background.
I am willing to work with your organisation in any way I can as I believe it can serve the interests of small countries like Sri Lanka besieged by bullying big powers of the West.
Yours sincerely
H. L. D. Mahindapala
ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Victoria, 3150, Australia.

7 Responses to “US-Indian Resolution a punishment for leaning towards China”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    “If the smaller countries of the world (and the big ones like the BRIC states who also oppose interventionism) do not hang together, they will hang separately.”

    BRIC includes India the BIGGEST interferer in the world!

  2. Fran Diaz Says:

    It’s the Economy !
    Those who control the Economy, rule the country. Wake up Lanka, get Self Sufficient. Don’t ‘sell’ the country.

  3. Jayantha Says:

    Very interesting!

    Sri Lanka can never be self sufficient. It has large and wasteful overheads with almost zero accountability.

    Case in point the very large cabinet, their dependants and all their props are a huge burden. What contribution do these easy riders make to SL’s economy. The very extravagent attitude of large contingents of these very same people and their henchmen going on joy-rides to UN, World Cup, Asian Games promotion, and for whateverthecasemaybe promotion.

    Then Sri Lanka goes with a begging bowl to every Tom, Dick & Harry and borrows from every organisation that will lend at exhorbitant interest rates.

    We are doomed and are putty in the hands of powerful and bigger powers. Should we really be fighting the bigger powers.

    It takes two to tango. If we cannot defeat them, join them. The LTTE rump is doing just that.

    JP / USA

  4. Fran Diaz Says:

    Jayantha,

    We haven’t got our act together yet as a Nation. The key problem is Tamil Separatism via the 13-A. Address that whilst developing the country. We are NOT a failed state ! In fact, we are a very successful state in that we have held together in spite of the massive problems.

  5. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    Sri Lankans should carefully look at what is going on in Syria now.

    The armed groups that are backed by the Western powers and Saudi & Qatari Monarchs rejected the recent Syrian polls, and showed their hostility by targeting candidates for assassination, usually by the use of explosives.

    Since the armed uprising began, several thousand members of the Syrian security forces and their family members have been killed by the insurgents, who themselves have lost thousands of their own.

    However, those relying on Western media are told that every such death has been caused by the Syrian security forces, ignoring the deadly violence that is being unleashed in Syria by groups of armed mobs.

    We have seen this before, in Libya, where tens of thousands of people have died so far as the result of externally backed civil war. In that country, those willing to kill regime elements were given training, cash and weapons.

    Today, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing the same assistance to those seeking to use deadly force against the Syrian government.

    Although Syria President Bashar al-Assad has announced a raft of reforms, including new media laws and the right to form political parties, each such announcement has been met by an escalation in violence, which has rendered null the ceasefire brokered by UN envoy Kofi Annan.

    Since mid-April, there have been numerous ceasefire violations by the insurgents, with the Alawi, the Muslim sect to which the Assad family belongs, and the Christian community the main targets of the insurgents. Syria is the home of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the oldest church in Christendom.

    For reasons not clear, the triumvirate of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have joined hands with the NATO powers to back the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has been the greatest beneficiary of the Arab Spring.

    Today in Syria, one can see women across the country dressed as they please. Were the Brotherhood to take control, this freedom might soon be replaced with the obligation to wear the chador (full veil). Already in Egypt and in Tunisia, the secular ethos of the country is rapidly giving way to Saudi-style conservatism.

    While European members of NATO are opposed to Islamic conservatives in their own countries, in the Arab world they favor such elements over those who are secular. The result is a galloping conservatism across the Arab world.

    Clearly, the NATO powers are aware that the more hardline local regimes are, the less chance that they will be able to compete with the US and the EU.

    Rather than support the process of democratization in Syria, the NATO powers have joined hands with regional powers to train, arm and provide cash to the armed opposition, thereby fomenting a violent civil war in the country.

    The 11 percent of the population that are Alawi and the 9 percent of Syria’s 24 million people that are Christian are terrified that they will become the target of ethnic cleansing. As for the majority Sunni community, more than two-thirds are moderate, with less than a third favoring the conservative Wahabbi-Salafi faith.

    We have seen this before, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where the US backed religious extremists to fight the USSR. The effects of that mistake are still creating harmful ripples across the region.

    Today, rather than support secular elements and encourage the transition to democracy, NATO is backing armed groups that create mayhem across the country, groups that overwhelmingly follow an extremist ideology.

    Of course, there are exiled Syrians who have congregated in Paris to provide a moderate face to the armed struggle. However, these people control nothing, only those with guns do.

    And these days, more and more guns are flowing into Syria, as NATO seeks regime change not through the ballot but through the bomb.

  6. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    We already know that the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar,Yemen and Bahrain are among the major human rights violators in the world; however, the US, Britain and EU cronies who frequently boast of their concerns about the preservation of human rights and freedom have been long indifferent to the persecution of political activists, incarceration of journalists and bloggers and other abuses of human rights in these countries. On the other hand, the superpowers have always employed the excuse of human rights for pressuring the independent and non-aligned nations such as Iran and Sri Lanka

    The dualistic approach is a reflection of the conflict between US rhetoric and reality. As with all political leaders, their promises typically contradict their observed behavior. The US has one standard when it comes to human rights: it prefers countries that suppress their populations in the name of providing the US with cheap access to raw materials and resources and a favorable investment climate for US Corporations. US leaders will never openly admit this, but on some level – whether it’s conscious or subconscious is irrelevant – they understand that the US cannot succeed in controlling global resources without supporting some very unsavory characters, or by engaging in atrocities themselves. The Iraq war was a classic example of such brutality, with the US openly engaging in collective punishment in the name of “pacifying” communities such as Fallujah and Ramadi, so as to actively turn them against the insurgency. The notorious “Salvador Option” in which the US trained Iraqi death squads to target suspected sympathizers with the insurgency and engage in torture and murder of these individuals, was a powerful example of active US contempt for basic human rights. Predictably, the implications of these actions for human rights in Iraq were consistently ignored by US intellectuals, journalists, and political/business elites.

    One can’t maintain an empire without engaging in some very unpleasant and nasty actions against the world’s poor and downtrodden. This was openly conceded by Bush near the end of his administration and as he celebrated the “surge” of US troops and US counter-insurgency violence and announced that a withdrawal from Iraq was unacceptable because of the US interest in retaining unimpeded control over Iraq’s oil resources.

    Of course, rationalizations of state violence are always a part of the equation. Bush and other imperialists justified using violence to control Iraqi oil under the assumptions that privatization and “free markets” would inevitably create a rising tide that lifts all boats, and that the US could be better trusted than the “terrorists” to control this vital resource. We’ve seen the poverty of these claims, in reality, in light of the widespread understanding of Iraqis (revealed continuously in polls) that they saw the US, rather than foreign Islamists or insurgency members, as the primary threat to Iraqi and regional peace. We’ve also seen such rationalizations thoroughly debunked in the case of Egypt, which has witnessed living standards for the masses rapidly deteriorate under a neoliberal regime. Regardless of the justification, the larger point is that you don’t become the most powerful military and economic force in the world without repressing local populations. Most people, after all, tend to opposed to occupations, violent domination, and neoliberal cronyism/extortion, as exercised by the US and its preferred dictators. The only way to get them to go along is through violence and coercion.

    I don’t think the US is “indifferent” to abuses in Saudi Arabia and other friendly states, but actively supportive of, and committed to those abuses. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is granted carte blanche to engage in human rights violations and terrorism, so long as it continues to provide the US with cheap oil and sell oil only for US dollars. Its actions are repulsive. It’s been the consistent recipient of U.S. military, economic, and political aid despite its recent outlawing of protest, its violent attacks on peaceful protesters, and its longstanding attacks on human rights. Of course, U.S. leaders can plead ignorance to these transgressions, but such claims are complete absurdities. You can simply read in the Washington Post reports from on the ground in Saudi Arabia from those suffering under this medieval regime, in which Shi’ite protesters are subject to “increasing detentions, beatings, and surveillance” in the government’s war on dissent. Then of course there’s the long record of abuses chronicled by groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Saudi dictatorship is notorious for its denigration of women, who are seen as third class citizens at best. Human Rights Watch reports that the government’s many practices include “arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, and reliance on the death penalty” for those who engage in theft, homosexuality, witchcraft, prostitution, and other criminal activities, real or imagined. Saudi police are known for breaking into individuals’ homes without a warrant in relation to charges as dubious as suspected alcohol possession and engaging in non-Muslim religious worship.

    Then there’s US support for Saudi Arabia’s active suppression of Shi’ite majorities throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The Wikileaks revelations were extremely valuable among other findings in that they showed that US diplomats were well aware of Saudi Arabia’s responsibility for bombing civilians in its counter-insurgency war in Yemen. The monarchy has also used violent intervention in Bahrain not to mention on Saudi soil in order to suppress Shi’ite revolts against repressive minority Sunni governments. As Wikileaks showed, US diplomats largely dismissed Saudi responsibility for killing civilians in Yemen under the claim that the regime was allegedly doubling its efforts to minimize collateral damage. Such rationalizations are largely disingenuous in light of the United State’s own responsibility for the deaths of tens to hundreds of thousands in Iraq due to US bombing and military operations in Iraq, all also pursued under the promise of minimizing “collateral damage”, and in light of Saudi Arabia’s escalation of human rights violations on its own soil. It’s been easy for the US to ignore the unpleasantness of US and allied policies. When confronted with the ugly consequences of their “bombing for democracy” campaign, George Bush’s response was simply to dismiss the figures suggesting US responsibility in mass killing as irrelevant and unfounded, despite the fact that those who engaged in these studies used widely recognized statistical methods ranging from collecting news reports on the dead to engaging in cluster survey sampling, as is typically done when estimating wartime casualties. He could count on a compliant media to promptly drop the issue, considering the complete refusal of Democrats and fellow Republicans to explore the issue.

    The humanitarian rhetoric is a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against their enemies, rather than a serious concern in its own right. Media scholars like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have performed a vital service by documenting this trend – whereby humanitarian rhetoric is used by politicians and journalists to condemn US enemies who engage in human rights violations. Conversely, US allies are consistently given a pass and embraced despite their many transgressions and regular terror. This politicization of human rights is at times manifested quite perversely, as seen when the Bush and Obama administrations’ loud public pronouncements of support for democracy and human rights, accompanied by their many efforts to court the Saudi king in public by holding hands, kissing, and bowing to him in a sign of mutual respect.

  7. Lorenzo Says:

    If we are unable to put the house in order by scrapping the 13 amendment, there is no point expecting good results OVERSEAS.

    SL is in a mess once again.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2024 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress