America should change its divisive foreign policy to be a unifying force promoting peace, and bring together dissenting parties in a country.
Posted on March 1st, 2014

By Charles.S.Perera

USA was about to intervene in Syria to help rebels to depose President Bachar el Assad and his government.  Fortunately Russia intervened  requesting America not to intervene in Syria as it was an internal problem.  To-day the rebel forces in Syria are withdrawing, despite an opposition to the regime of el Assad says that they have not given up their battle,  Syrians are able to take rest to evaluate the wisdom of their action against the regime of Bachar  el Assad.

All internal problems of countries could be solved by the government and its people  if they are left alone without outside intervention to help those who rebel against the regime inside a country.  Even in Thailand the situation is  changing and the opposition to the government is considerably less and people begin to accept that aggressivity does not pay and a dialogue between the warring parties may pay dividends.

In Ukraine the population  around Kiev wants to form a  pro European government and President Viktor Yanukovych who was opposed to it was forced to step down,  while the people in Crimea have requested  Russia to intervene to stop it from falling into the hands of those manifesting around Kiev.

America could play the role of a mediator to bring both sides together and bring back peace to Ukraine, but instead there is manoeuvring with a re-emerging ” neocon” elements  to break up Ukraine.  If there is an armed intervention from either side that beautiful city of Kiev will also be reduced to rubble.

In a Sovereign State there is  always an  opposition to the government in power.  Such opposition now does  not follow democratic principles  of  constructive criticism.  They oppose the government to fulfil political ambitions to depose a government in place whether it is following its political manifesto or go outside it,

Such political opposition to  a ruling party creates a state of chaos making it impossible for the government to maintain law and order.  In such a situation more often there are foreign interventions to support those who oppose the government which gives them an added strength to fight against the government and use undemocratic methods to make the government to step down, which also saps the strength of the people who support the government to stand by the government against those who  manifest against it.

This is what happened in Egypt , Tunisia, Libya, and Yugoslavia.  It is exactly what is happening in Ukraine and Venezuela.  The American and European intervention is uncalled for both  in Ukraine or in Venezuela, but they are behind the manifestations.  Such interventionists do not act in the interest of the people, but to fulfil their own political interests as it is in Ukraine where American and European support for those who  manifest are to ward off  Russia and breakup Ukraine.

In Venezuela it is to stop a Socialist Government become popular within the area of American influence as it happened in Chile. It is still the Monroe doctrine of maintaining American Influence over Latin American countries, though John Kerry had said that the Monroe Doctrine is dead.  It is merely to include European countries in a combined effort  for balkanisation and regime change.  But America still maintains a  protectionist foreign policy.

If a country is  left to itself without foreign support to those who are opposed to the government in place,  the country will be able to settle the problems in dialogue.  As it may perhappen in Syria and Thailand.

It is inconceivable why USA, and Britain is all out to  destabilise Sri Lanka accusing the Government of  discrimination against the Tamil population, and calling for an International Investigation into the last phase of Sri Lanka Military operations to eliminate terrorism.

There is John Kerry the Secretary of State, with  the American Ambassador Michelle Sison,  Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Nisha  Biswal , American Ambassador ”at-Large Stephen Rapp, 16 US Senators, David Cameron UK PM, and Hugo Swire Minister of State at the Foreign Office they are all their in strength to defend the Tamil people.

But strangely  none of them were heard of through out the 30 years of terrorism in Sri Lanka when its people the young and old men ,women and children  were murdered, massacred, assassinated or blasted in claymore bombs or by  suicide bombers. Then there were none to sympathise with the Tamils, the Sinhala or the Muslims that were dying  in scores every month or so.

But after Sri Lanka without any ones help eliminated that cancer of terrorism eating into it the USA , UK and the rest of the Western countries come in numbers calling for International Investigation of violation of human rights, and war crimes during the last phase of the elimination of terrorism as if there had been no terrorism before that.

These interventions have become so nauseatingly offensive  as if they are all digging up old graves.  If they now find an unclaimed dead body some where in Sri Lanka, or a person missing or a  journalist not heard of, or  find  skeletons, the opposition to Government accuses the government and its armed forces as responsible. It is as if the Government of Sri Lanka is  doing  nothing other than killing and hiding dead bodies, and use white vans to kidnap people.

However,  USA is not without intelligent and wise people who could sympathise and understand the predicament of developing countries.  One such is  Senator James Inhofe who tabled a resolution in the US Senate on behalf of 11 other Senators ” Calling on the United States Government and the international community to assist the Government of Sri Lanka, with due regard to its sovereignty, stability, and security, in establishing domestic mechanisms to deal with any grievances arising from actions committed by both sides during and after the civil war in Sri Lanka ”

Please give  Sri Lanka a space of time to recover from what it suffered for nearly three decades, heal its wounds and find ways and means to unite the separated communities, without  interference from outside to support the disgruntled Tamil politicians and their followers  to strengthen them. If not the USA and its allies will only  stop the progressive development of Sri Lanka  and  reconciling the divided  communities at its own pace by a government led by a popular President dedicated for the cause of the people.

It is time the USA changes its negative influence in the world , clean itself of its  intoxication for  power, to become a Nation  able to help those who are in need of help and assist countries to unite its people and advice them when called upon to do so to develop their economic and social development.

Sri Lanka fought a war against terrorism and eliminated the terrorists five years ago, and let us leave it that as there is no necessity to go back five years to find out what happened then.  An international investigation will satisfy the USA and the West because the investigators would be men selected by them, and could therefore be trusted, but what can they discover  other than what the Government of Sri Lanka’s own Commission of Investigation discovered ?

Further more we see in the report which  is to be presented by Navi Pillai the UN Commissioner at the UNHRC in Geneva, that she uses  the Darusman report issued by the UNSG’s Panel which was appointed by the Secretary General of UN to inform him of  what happened in Sri Lanka during the elimination of terrorism.

That report prepared by the UNSG’s Panel of Experts on Accountability without moving from the Un Secretariat was based completely on hearsay evidence. It   was not an official document but a report prepared for the Secretary General’s personal information.  Navi Pillai as the UNHRCommissioner has no right to present it or present  extracts from it, as it is not  an official document

Darusman report states that the witnesses who gave evidence before the Panel should be made known only 20 years after its presentation. How could any one depend on a report stipulating such suspicious conditions ?

Any evidence given by a witness should be presented to  the party accused to cross examine the witnesses, that is the law.  Any evidence without such legal access to witnesses cannot be accepted as correct.  Therefore the Darusman Report to which Navi Pillai refers is not a legal document, and the facts stated cannot therefore be accepted as correct.

 America should at least now change its aggressive foreign policy.  The Government of United Kingdom is always prepared to help USA in any of its ill conceived activity. It is well known that Tony Blair the Prime Minister of UK prepared false documents to allow  President Bush to declare war against Iraq.

 We therefore appeal to America and its allies to stop continuing to bully Sri Lanka, and grow up to be reasonable democratic Governments, and engage in a friendly dialogue with the President and the Government of Sri Lanka to settle problems on which there are disagreement.

8 Responses to “America should change its divisive foreign policy to be a unifying force promoting peace, and bring together dissenting parties in a country.”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    If there is peace in the world how can Americans survive?

    They survive on HUNGER, WAR, MISERY, VIOLENCE, POVERTY, etc. of others.

    It is foolish for Americans to bring world peace because it will starve them to death!!

  2. Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha Says:

    The only thing constant is change. The US is no longer in the position to play the role of a super power. President Obama plans to cut the US military to pre world war 2 levels or roughly 450 thousand down from one million four hundred thousand. This drastic cut does not include the soldiers but the military budget which means US soldiers stationed in nations since world war two to other wars will be withdrawn. From South Korea, Japan, to Germany those bases will be closed or downsized.

    This would also effect the Philippines where the US has a military bases. This would effect the eight hundred military bases across the world. Without a powerful military against Russia and China who are rapidly developing theirs the US power to orchestrate peace will be greatly diminished. One must keep in mind that on this issue the US has not been a success story. There are hardly any examples where the US has managed to negotiate peace and harmony when she steps in.

    The other issue that will make the US more of a regional power is the rapidly collapsing US economy, the skyrocketing national debt where China alone holds 40% of our debt renders the US into a fading power and must be treated as such. Once President Obama exits there is a high probability that Hillary Clinton or a Democrat will take the office since the number of electoral votes that are controlled by the Democrats is around 230. All they need is another 40 for a grand total of 270 electoral votes to continue the Socialist policies of Obama that has brought the US economy to her knees.

  3. Ananda-USA Says:

    It is the height of HYPOCRISY for us Americans to be preaching to Russia about violation of International Law.

    In the last three decades the USA has HABITUALLY RESORTED to violating International Law and invading and bombing multiple foreign countries on various fabricated pretexts,all in the name of NATIONAL INTEREST, with or without “coalitions of the willing” and other assorted mafias in tow when even the puppet United Nations cannot swallow hard and sanction our aggression.

    With our repeated threatening of Russia since the demise of the Soviet Union, by stationing missiles along her borders, undermining her allies around the world, and inciting separatism within nher borders, we have pushed Russia into a corner from which Russia has no option but to fight its way out. And the patriotic Russia people will succeed, as they did against all odds during WW-II despite torture by both internal and external enemies. The events in the Ukraine were carefully fostered and engineered by the US without regard to the consequences. We are spawning a new Cold War in which the Russian Federation will abandon collaboration and will openly lead those opposed to the United States.

    We have missed a GREAT OPPORTUNITY to treat Russia, emerging from Communist subjugation, decently and to make it a reliable and trusted partner in a peaceful new world order. By threatening its essential national interests, we have transformed resurgent Russia into an implacable enemy.

    Chief among those who led us into this MONUMENTAL FOLLY is Hillary Clinton who perfected and implemented the machiavellian art of destabilizing and undermining other countries from within using “human rights” and “democracy” as her tools of choice, pitting the citizens of these nations against each other.

    Contrary to her expectations, when the dust settles, the United States will have no friends or allies left in the world, and will have lost much blood and treasure on the way, leaving our citizens needs unmet at home. Have we no wise leaders left to replace these covert gun-slingers of both sexes eager to carve one more notch on their six-gun handles in the quest of immortality which continues to elude their grasp again and again? The best laid plans of both mice and men, it seems, do often go astray!

  4. Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha Says:

    The Ukraine is but one problem the US and NATO will lose. Iran is one of two issues in the Middle East that the Obama government has lost to Russia and by that China. During the Sanctions both Russia and China sided with Iran. Russia considers Iran as part of her domain. President Obama has reversed the sanctions on Iran and is about dead on the issue regarding Syria.

    The ongoing crisis in the Ukraine is another example where President Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place. He genuinely cannot remove Russia from the G8 (France, Canada, UK, US, Japan, Italy, Germany, and Russia) which does not include China. Removing Russia from the G8 would hurt the G8 more than it would Russia. The new alliance between Russia and China through the joint formation of the Collective Security Treaty Org (CSTO) of Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Org (SCO) of China has created an unbroken power from the China sea to Eastern Europe. Belarus which is part of the CSTO shares a border with the Ukraine. Any drastic action by the US and China can liquidate even half of our debt by selling it on the open market as junk bonds. China currently holds 40% of our debt.

    This is not a new “cold war” for during the cold war the US was against the Soviet Union which in turn was against Maoist China. President Reagan helped the Mujahedin in Afghanistan defeat the Soviets. But now the new alliance between Russia and China is a force felt even in the Security Council where they jointly veto any decisions detrimental to either of them. If Russia is removed from the G8 then the US will feel that in the Security Council on issues that normally would not be fractious and the US may feel it from China as well. Another blunder of the US is her “containment policy’ of China which to date has backfired.

  5. Ananda-USA Says:

    Bottom Line: Russia will not allow the West’s Regime Change activities to go unchallenged when its essential national interests are at stake.

    The US policy makers , aka serial global bunglers, have failed to understand that there is a limit to what Russia will tolerate. That limit appears to have been reached. Russia has too much historical experience of the consequences of failing to act, and the MONUMENTAL FAILURE of US leaders to understand that is INEXPLICABLE!

    About fifty years ago the US also miscalculated the consequences of deploying nuclear missiles in Turkey directed at the USSR and reaped the Cuban Missile Crisis when the USSR responnded in kind by deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba. The crisis was resolved when both parties agreed to remove the missiles from both Cuba and Turkey. That was a classic case of tit-for-tat. So is the present crisis in Ukraine, with the Russian Federation asserting its rights to national security.

    The Ukraine Crisis may benefit Sri Lanka, by giving pause to the US in its efforts to undermine and destabilize Sri Lanka at the UNHCR meeting in Geneva in March 2014. Also, Russia is likely to support Sri Lanka much more strongly than it may have intended before the Ukraine crisis. Recent reports indicate that China and a number of other countries voicing support for the Russian Federation.

    Do I detect a global polarization of the world into Western and Eastern blocks?

    ………………………….
    Russia to the West: We’re the good guys in Crimea

    To Russian eyes, Vladimir Putin’s decision to deploy troops to Ukraine is a peacekeeping measure, not a matter of expansionist aggression.

    By Fred Weir
    Christian Science Monitor,
    March 3, 2014

    .

    Is economy Russia’s Achilles heel?

    Though Russia’s military intervention into Ukraine occupies the West’s full attention, it remains unclear just what Vladimir Putin’s intentions are.

    The Russian president has yet to address his nation, so the full calculus behind Moscow’s stunning weekend decision to assert its right to use military force “on the territory of Ukraine” remains a matter of guesswork.

    But judging from officials’ public comments and interviews with Kremlin-connected analysts, it appears that Russia sees itself as acting defensively to protect fellow Russians in Crimea, and possibly Russian-speakers in other parts of eastern Ukraine. The threat, in their eyes: a Western-inspired “coup d’état” in Kiev, which brought an illegitimate, minority-backed, and anti-Russian government to power in Ukraine.

    Ukraine is not only one of Russia’s closest neighbors and trade partners, but also a land whose eastern half was part of Moscow-led states for over 300 years. The vast majority of its people speak Russian, have myriad economic connections with Russia, attend the Russian Orthodox Church, share a Russian cultural heritage, get their information from Russian media, and look to Moscow to protect their interests.

    But the new nationalist government, which was immediately recognized by most Western countries, has destabilized and potentially split the country of 46 million, say Russian analysts. So Moscow had little choice but to take some sort of strong action, says Gleb Pavlovsky, a onetime close adviser to Mr. Putin who has since become a critic of Kremlin policies.

    “Who can say what is legal in Ukraine today?” after revolutionaries representing one-half of the country – the nationalist west – seized power from a legally elected government using pressure from the streets, and began pushing through their own narrow agenda, Mr. Pavlovsky says.

    “Obviously the sudden appearance of a government that had no representation from the east of the country triggered a wave of panic around Ukraine’s south and east. In my opinion, Russia should not have intervened, but it still had to put pressure on Kiev, it had to do something,” he adds.

    RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT?

    Some pro-Kremlin media commentators are even citing R2P [Responsibility to Protect], a recent Western concept – adamantly opposed by official Moscow in the past – which postulates that big powers have a duty to intervene in cases where populations are endangered, because humanitarian concerns should trump national sovereignty.

    Russian military forces are so far confined to the majority-Russian autonomous republic of Crimea where, over the past week, they have ensured that a solidly pro-Moscow local government is in place; Ukrainian forces are either besieged or persuaded to change sides; and the borders, airports, rail links, and administrative buildings are all under tight guard by Russian troops.

    There have been reports that Russia has issued ultimatums to Ukrainian bases and warships to disarm, but the Russian defense ministry called the reports nonsense.

    “Russia does not want a war with Ukraine,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin told a Russian TV station Monday. “I am absolutely positive that no one in Russia wants a war.”

    Contrary to Western news reports, Putin has not yet made use of the authorization to use force, Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the Duma’s international affairs committee, told the Kremlin-funded RT network in an extensive interview Monday. The authorization had been unanimously passed by the Russian parliament on Saturday.

    According to Mr. Klimov, the Russian troops seen on TV screens patrolling and guarding buildings in Crimean cities do not yet exceed the limits of the Kharkov Agreement, under which Russia is entitled to base about 25,000 military personnel at its naval base in Sevastopol.

    “We know that there is a real civil war now on Ukrainian territory, we know well that there are a lot of people, thousands and thousands of people with weapons, whom we do not know and who are not the part of the official military forces of Ukraine,” Klimov said. “To protect our military ships, our military base – even missiles, what we have there in Crimea – we have to be sure that we’re really able to do that even in case if they open fire.”

    But other analysts point out that, regardless of whether Russia has overstepped its legal troop limits in Crimea, it has certainly gone way beyond the terms of the accord with Ukraine by effectively putting the Crimean republic under firm control from Moscow.

    “Of course the introduction of Russian troops into Crimea lacks any legitimacy,” says Alexei Makarkin, deputy director of the independent Center for Political Technologies in Moscow. “The world doesn’t agree that you should be able to send the military into a country just because a president is overthrown.”

    PREVENTING A MOSCOW MAIDAN

    Another strand in the Russian narrative is the firm Kremlin belief that the West not only cheered, but also aided and abetted pro-European protesters in their confrontation with legally elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, leading to his downfall.

    “We see that there was a plan, approved in the West, to impose an irreversible change on Ukraine. We have always agreed that Ukraine is ‘not Russia,’ but the goal here was to make it anti-Russia,” says Sergei Markov, a frequent Kremlin adviser, reached by phone in Crimea on Monday.

    “We think the ultimate goal is to establish power in Kiev, force Ukraine [into the Western camp], and then foment a Maidan-style revolution in Moscow to overthrow Putin,” he says.

    A poll carried out by the independent Levada Center in Moscow in late February found that a majority of Russians are primed to view Ukrainian events from the Kremlin’s perspective. According to the survey, 43 percent saw the Kiev upsurge as a “coup d’état” and another 23 percent thought it was a “civil war.” Far fewer responders identified the events as a “national uprising” or protests against government corruption. Nearly half of respondents blamed the “influence of the West, pursuing its own interests” for the unrest, while another third put it down to “nationalist moods.”

    The Russian media, which loves to decry Western “double standards,” has had a bit of a field day with US Secretary of State John Kerry’s jab at Russian behavior, made on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, that “you just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests…. It’s really 19th century behavior in the 21st century.”

    ECONOMIC ISOLATION?

    But some Russians do worry about the price they may be compelled to pay down the road in terms of economic sanctions, diplomatic penalties, and perhaps even a return to full-scale cold war isolation.

    Russia’s currency hit all-time lows on Monday, and the Moscow stock market plummeted, in part due to worries over the global reaction to Russian moves in Ukraine. Canada withdrew its ambassador from Moscow, and several countries said they will boycott the June Group of Eight meeting that was to be hosted by Russia in Sochi.

    But pro-Kremlin experts argue that Russia, which has nearly $500 billion in foreign currency reserves, can weather the economic storm, and that any sharp diplomatic gestures are likely to be short-lived.

    Alexei Pushkov, head of the State Duma’s international affairs committee, likened it to the wave of international condemnation that followed Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia.

    “The 28 countries that comprise NATO are far from being the whole world community,” Interfax agency quoted him as saying on Monday. “Western countries will not succeed in setting up some kind of cordon around Russia now,” any more than they did in the past when calls for Russia’s isolation were made over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he added.

  6. Fran Diaz Says:

    Re American Debt with China, these are the facts :

    “China and U.S. Debt

    The largest portion of U.S. debt, 68 cents for every dollar or about $10 trillion, is owned by individual investors, corporations, state and local governments and, yes, even foreign governments such as China that hold Treasury bills, notes and bonds.

    Foreign governments hold about 46 percent of all U.S. debt held by the public, more than $4.5 trillion. The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the Treasury.

    In total, CHINA owns about 8 PERCENT of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund’s holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve’s nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy”.

  7. Fran Diaz Says:

    Re President Obama and so called Socialist policies :

    Another misunderstood area is Affordable Care for Health or ObamaCare. America is the only developed nation that still does not have universal health care, and the Affordable Care Act attempts to rectify this area. Many millions have already benefitted from the Affordable Care Act. Here are some facts re the cost of the program :

    “What is the cost of ObamaCare? ObamaCare, Obama’s new health care law, has a massive impact on health care costs. ObamaCare’s cost is estimated at up to net cost of $1.36 trillion dollars by 2023. Although Obamacare’s net costs are in the trillions, the law actually REDUCES the growth in health care spending by tens of billions each year, REDUCES health care costs for many Americans, helps to insure tens of millions and is estimated to result in an overall net decrease of the deficit.

    Obamacare is projected to cut the national deficit by over $200 billion during its first 10 years and over $1 trillion over the next two decades. This helps offset the up-front cost of ObamaCare. Please be aware the cost estimates are changed on a regular basis and are often quoted as being between $1 and $2.6 trillion. Our cost estimate is taken directly from the front page of the official CBO report on ObamaCare’s costs. ObamaCare is paid for through collected taxes, penalties, spending cuts and reformations to the health care industry”.

  8. Fran Diaz Says:

    Re the Social Security program in America, it was started in 1935 and NOT by President Obama. It is funded by payroll. Also the Medicare and Medicaid programs existed long prior to President Obama was elected to office.

    Here are some facts on that program :

    In the United States, Social Security is primarily the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.The original Social Security Act (1935) and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs.
    Social Security is funded through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) and/or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund which comprise the Social Security Trust Funds. With a few exceptions all salaried income has a FICA and/or SECA tax collected on it. With few exceptions all legal residents working in the United States now have an individual Social Security number. Indeed nearly all working (and many non-working) residents since Social Security’s 1935 inception have had a Social Security number since it is required to do a wide range of things from paying the IRS to getting a job.
    In 2013, the total Social Security expenditures were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the Federal expenditures of $3.684 trillion. Income derived from Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 20% of all Americans, age 65 or older, above the Federally defined poverty levels’.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2018 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress