Ban Ki-Moon is dragging UN down to his level-Part II
Posted on July 9th, 2010

H. L. D. Mahindapala

Tensions between Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General (UNSG) and Sri Lanka are rising. Consequently, the gulf between the two is also widening. Ban, in particular, is hardening his stand hoping to impose his will on Sri Lanka. Publicly he claims that the UN has the expertise to handle conflict situations but his actions reveal that he is as incompetent as some of his predecessors in handling simple issues that confront the UN.

Take the current situation in Colombo. Reacting to public protests at the UN office in Colombo Ban declared that he has decided to (1) recall the United Nations Resident Coordinator, Mr. Neil Buhne, to New York for consultations and (2) close the UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo. Then, climbing the pedestal of a morally righteous preacher, he added: “The Secretary-General calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to live up to its responsibilities towards the United Nations as host country, so as to ensure continuation of the vital work of the Organization to assist the people of Sri Lanka without any further hindrance.”

After creating the problem in the first place of appointing a three-man panel against the will of the Sri Lankan people and the government, he now claims that his intention is “to assist the people of Sri Lanka.” Leaving aside the public protests against the UN in Colombo, the general public opinion in Sri Lanka is decisively against interference in the domestic affairs by any foreign agents. This was public knowledge and if Ban was a competent peace-maker, genuinely trying to cool down feelings instead of inflaming them, he should have known not to provoke and exacerbate the political environment of a sensitive nation trying to recover from a 33-year-old war “”…” a war perpetuated mainly by foreign funding, foreign interference and bogus theories promoted by I/NGOs and foreign offices. .

There is no doubt that the current impasse was created by Ban. The UN would not be facing any confrontation from the Sri Lankan public if Ban knew his limitations and stuck to the provisions in Chapter XV of the UN Charter which deals with the functions of the Secretariat. Sri Lanka has no problems with any other branch of the UN. Sri Lanka is needled and harassed only by the anti-Sri Lankan Secretariat headed by Ban. The inevitable tensions were created by the confrontational action of Ban who had no authority from the UN, Security Council or the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to appoint a panel to dabble in Sri Lankan affairs. The UNHRC, which dealt with the last stages of the Vadukoddai War launched  by the political class of Jaffna Tamil elite, told Ban Ki-Moon and Navi Pillay, the UNHRC Commissioner to mind their own business as far back as June 2009.

In fact A. Gopinath, the Indian delegate to UNHRC, told Navi Pillay in no uncertain terms that her duty was to carry out the decision of the UNHRC. It was a clear mandate given to the UN. The voting was 29 “”…” 12 against. What better advice and expertise could there be for Ban and Navi Pillay? So why has Ban decided to over-rule UNHRC and the will of the Sri Lankan people? What is he after? What’s his agenda?  He is bent on having his way and decided to confront Sri Lanka with a panel of his own to get “advice” “”…” advice for what? Is it advice to find an excuse to take Sri Lanka before an international tribunal? He knows that 29 nations at the UNHRC have told him to back off. But he decided to confront Sri Lanka and now he has to face the music.

His unwarranted intervention has made him an additional part of the escalating problem and not the solution. As he can see with the emerging developments, he has worsened the Sri Lankan situation by going down his path of confrontation. Instead of preaching to Sri Lanka that it should live up “to its responsibilities towards the United Nations as a host country”, he should first live up to his responsibilities of adhering to the expressed wish of his own UN body, the UNHRC which explicitly told him to get lost

The calculated machinations of Ban Ki-Moon to appoint a three-man panel to probe the last days of the Vadukoddai War in Sri Lankan came after the West manipulations to take punitive action against Sri Lanka for refusing to obey their orders failed at the Security Council and at the UNHRC. The West could not win at the Security Council because China and Russia, who had stood steadfastly by their position that it is purely a domestic affair. Knowing that they can’t get far with the vetoes of Russian and China at the Security Council they shifted the battle ground to UNHRC where they were beaten to their knees by a majority of the member states. When the only two options available to get even with Sri Lanka closed they took the backdoor route through Ban Ki-Moon, a willing collaborator who was ready to go beyond his boundaries to initiate a panel of inquiry that will provide a report conducive for his political agenda and that of the West.

What will this panel achieve? It is neither going to provide the war-weary Sri Lankans a chance to work out their own solutions for reconciliation nor  provide any legitimate or credible  report that can guide Ban for any further action. All what he has done so far will add up to one huge problem that will land on his desk confusing him more than ever: he will be faced with two reports, perhaps one contradicting the other. For the Sri Lankans what matters is not what Ban thinks about the reports but which one will provide a useful map for reconciliation, peace and stability for them to leave the bitter past behind.

But Ban is not seeking a smooth way out for the Sri Lankan people who are sick of the war and the legacies and the bitter memories left behind by it. He is after a report that will take him to the next level of arraigning Sri Lanka before and international tribunal for war crimes. This is his agenda and the panelists are expected to provide a report (written without moving out from New York) that will give him the ammunition to call for an ad hoc international tribunal.

Even before this panel sits down to make their first move one thing can be predicted without fear of being contradicted: they will produce a report that will fit into the political agenda of Ban Ki-Moon which, as everyone knows now, is anti-Sri Lankan. Besides, the panelists themselves have reason to take an anti-Sri Lankan stand. Steven Ratner (USA) has written that the Tamils represented by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) are an oppressed minority. More than his ignorance this reveals his bias when he calls the most privileged Jaffna Tamils “the oppressed minority”. What expert knowledge, based on objectivity, can he give when he comes out with this kind of ill-informed punditry? This statement itself should have disqualified him instantly. The leader of the panel, Marzuki Darusman, (Indonesia’s former Attorney General) who was a member of an international team appointed to observe proceedings of a previous Sri Lanka commission, left in a huff squabbling over fees with strong anti-Sri Lankan feelings. So one does not have to be an Einstein to know what the contents of the report will be.  

Sri Lankan has come along way having braved the anti-Sri Lankan fire directed at it from diverse foreign sources. Sri Lanka is a battle-hardened nation. They know that these anti Sri Lankan tactics will not solve their problems. First hand experience during the 33-year-old war has convinced the Sri Lankans that the foreign agents have only exploited their plight to meddle in their domestic affairs “”…” all in the name of peace, human rights and reconciliation that never materialized with their fake formulas. Whether it is Indira Gandhi who mothered the Tiger terrorists in military training camps in India, whether it is David Milliband rushing to garner the Tamil votes in Labour electorates in UK, or whether it is Ban Ki-Moon hoping to get an extension with the backing of the West for a second term, the general trend indicates that foreigners had their own personal and political agendas. It was the Sri Lankans who had to pay for it.

Now it’s time to say: Enough is enough! Sri Lankans cannot rely on any of these political humbugs, mouthing pieties of holy human rights, to resolve their problems of the past or future.  Sri Lanka will have to evolve its own solutions. It is also invested with the sole responsibility “”…” not Ban Ki-Moon or any other meddlesome interloper in the West — for restoring normalcy and security for its own people. Ban, however, will be trapped inside the predictable anti-Sri Lankan report of his three-man panel which he can’t reject. So where does that leave him? Hasn’t he painted himself into a foolish corner of his own making? How competent is he in handling international issues, particularly issues that does not come within his province?

Of course, he will hide behind the cover of pretending to own the exclusive expertise of handling conflict crisis more than the member states. The least said about the competence of the UN in handling critical international issues the better it is for the image of the UN and its CEO. Though there are some rare successes it is obvious that the world would not be in this mess if the UN has been successful in peace-building, peace-making, peace-keeping and peace-promoting objectively, without dabbling in partisan politics.

Take the glaring instance of where the UN-sponsored naval cordon was thrown round Iraq. This prevented medicine and other essential supplies reaching the Iraqis. UNICEF figures claim that 600,000 children died as a result of this naval blockade. Why did UN allow such a crime against humanity to occur under its watch?  Why was no action taken against Kofi Anan, predecessor of Ban Ki-Moon, who was overseeing this criminal operation? What is more, wasn’t Anan’s son involved in the scandal of oil-for-food deal in Iraq? How did he and his son get away with so many questions hanging over their heads? Is this the great mark of the competence of the UN in handling international crises, war crimes and crimes against humanity? On any scale of justice or morality, can Ban compare the 600,000 deaths of children to whatever figure he has in mind about the last stages of the Vadukoddai War in Sri Lanka?

Going deeper into the history of UN, one of the degrading episodes that blackened the office of the UNSG is the appointment of Kurt Waldheim, a lieutenant in the high command of German Army Group E, whose commander, General Alexander Loehr, was later hanged for atrocities. Jewish hunters of Nazi war criminals exposed that that Waldheim had served in Yugoslavia and Greece at a time when reprisals, deportations, and other war crimes were being carried out by the German Army. After examining the records of the War Crimes Commission in the UN archives  the US Justice Department, placed Waldheim on a watch list in 1987. If pursued further there was a possibility of US refusing entry to Waldheim.

Lieutenant Waldheim must have left some of his Nazi legacy behind because when Kofi Annan visited Sri Lanka during the tsunami, he went out of his way to offer condolences to lieutenant Kausalyan, a low-ranking fascist terrorist, who was killed in an internecine clash between the LTTE of the north and Karuna Amman’s group in the east. What purpose did Annan’s condolence serve other than to boost the morale of the Tigers committing war crimes and crimes against humanity? Is it the function of the UN Secretary General to condole with war criminals? When did a UNSG offer condolences to high-ranking officers of the Sri Lankan forces killed by the Tamil Tigers? How come this overly sympathy was offered selectively by Annan for an insignificant Tiger lieutenant, knowing that he was a criminal in the terrorist outfit of the Tigers?

Annan would have been influenced by the advice given to him by UN officials in Colombo. This clearly reveals the lack of judgment both by Annan and his officials located in Colombo office. What was the necessity to offer condolences to a petty apparatchik in a terrorist outfit banned by the international community? Isn’t Ban exhibiting the identical lack of balance, judgment and competence in rushing to appoint a panel which is not going to advance peace, reconciliation or stability? What is necessity for this unwanted, meddlesome panel when the Sri Lankans are heading nicely and smoothly, at their own pace, with their own mechanisms, solutions and strategies towards a future that is growing brighter with each dawn?  Do we need to go down Ban’s way to find reconciliation? Isn’t reconciliation a positive move to advance into the future than to go into the negative past?

The moral, legal and political aspects of an investigation into a violent past are highly controversial and there is no concrete evidence to prove that reconciliation depends on crying over the bitter past. Nor is there a prescribed formula for reconciliation. Each nation has its own formula and, according to international norms, that right must be first given to each state before any international busy body decides to step in. So why is Ban Ki-Moon violating accepted international norms and rushing hastily to appoint a panel of his own and that too without authority from the UN?

Besides, there are other international practices that serve the needs of peace and reconciliation. In Australia, for instance, where the British settlers ran amok, grabbing land on the fictitious legal theory of terra nullis, abducting Aboriginal children to civilize them according to superior values of the White settlers, decimating the Aboriginals (from an estimated 300,000 to 60,000), infecting them Western diseases, depriving them of their culture and their rights for 222 years there was no commission of inquiry “”…”national or international — into the past. In fact, John Howard, a former Prime Minister, dismissed such claims as a “black arm band view of history.” Eventually, there was, quite appropriately, a march for reconciliation over the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000 and in 2010 an apology from the Prime Minister. So what is the hurry and the necessity to appoint an international panel to look into what happened in the last three months of the 33-year-old Vadukoddai War?

Leaving aside all other applicable principles, it was incumbent upon Ban Ki-Moon to go with the elementary principle of proportionality before embarking on an imaginary and exaggerated notion of conditions that prevailed in the last stages of the Vadukoddai War. As in all other wars, violations of human rights were bound to occur from both sides, as acknowledged by another anti-Sri Lankan critic like Louise Arbour, the CEO of the International Crisis Group. Invariably most violations take place in the last stages of any war where the victors go on the rampage seeking revenge on the defeated. In the case of World War II the highly righteous West, now preaching human rights from even toilet seats, never hesitated to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima (140,000 instant civilian deaths) and Nagasaki (80,000) solely to save the lives of their soldiers in a long drawn war.

The British carpet bombed Dresden (300,000) again to cut short the stiff resistance of the Nazis in the last stages. There was no commission of inquiry into the war criminals who deliberately decided to slaughter the civilians to grab a quick victory to save the soldiers of the Allies. Examples: No inquiries into “Bomber” Harris who flattened Dresden and later knighted by the Queen, and Prime Minister Churchill who was at the top of he chain of command endorsing the bombing. They are treated as war heroes and not war criminals. Compared to this scale of war crimes does Sri Lanka come anywhere near it? Where is the principle of proportionality?

Apart from all these issues, right now the critical issue that surpasses all other consideration is to examine how an international panel of inquiry can help reconciliation “”…” an outcome that can be achieved only through peace and stability. Will not two inquiries conflict with each other and exacerbate the wounds of the past? Also, when there is already an internal inquiry probing the past and the future what is the necessity to duplicate the process by initiating another inquiry from outside to go over the same grounds? What purpose will two inquiries serve? Is pleasing the fancies of Ban Ki-Moon the criteria for achieving peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka?

Besides, unlike the wars waged by the West, the last stages of the Vadukoddai War did not result in vindictive reprisals against the Tamil civilians. Nor was the war prosecuted to end it in a hurry. On the contrary, the last stage of the war was temporary slowed down for the Indian government, facing an election, to appease the Tamil Nadu politicians who were whipping up the issue of the Sri Lankan war to gain political mileage. Furthermore, “No Fire Zones” were set up to open up space for the Tamil civilians to seek refuge. It was the Tamil Tigers who shot the fleeing Tamil civilians and also fired from the “No Fire Zones” to provoke counter-attacks on civilian targets. This was a deliberate tactic adopted to push the David Millibands, Erik Solheims and Richard Kouchner to intervene on their behalf.

In any case, the casualty figures, in the last stages of the war are highly contradictory and unreliable for any verifiable assessment of the scale of deaths, or to pass any serious judgment on the conduct of the Sri Lankan Forces. For instance, Mr. Gordon Weiss, the UN representative in Colombo, said initially (when he was located in Colombo), that 7,000 died in the last days of the war. Mr. Weiss, an Australian citizen, changed and exaggerated his figures to 40,000 after he arrived in Australia. The London Times quotes a figure of 20,000 not from a body count but from aerial photographs! Prof. Francis Boyle, a pro-LTTE academic in USA quoted a figure of 50,000 without providing any proof. At the last count, pro-Tiger sources quoted a figure of 70,000.

On the other hand, the Tamil doctors who were quoted as authorities for the original figure of 7,000 told a different story when they got out of the clutches of the LTTE. They admitted at a press conference that they were under pressure from the LTTE to exaggerate the figures. Quite accurately (and also quite cynically too) an official source said that they would have had to postpone the ending of the war by another three months at least because that is the time that was required to bury the unspecified “tens of thousands” quoted by Louis Arbour of the ICG.

Separating fiction from fact is a basic task facing any commission of inquiry. Since the UN and other international agencies do not have the means of verifying the ground realities it is best that the Commission of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation should be allowed to look into the issues facing them, not so much to find fault as to achieve the primary goal of reconciliation. The growing trend in the post-war period Sri Lanka is to move slowly but surely towards reconciliation that is emerging out of a determined awareness to avoid going back to the violent past.

Where does Ban Ki-Moon fit into this scheme of things He has picked a panel to please his anti-Sri Lankan coalition of the West and, of course, himself. How is this going to help the Sri Lankans yearning for peace, stability and reconciliation? The last thing Sri Lankans needs is a busy body like Ban Ki-Moon who seems to have nothing better to do than poke his unwanted fingers in Sri Lankan affairs. He also lacks credibility when he poses as the dove of peace in Sri Lanka when he is in reality flying on the wings of American eagle armed with deadly arrows. He is doing a disservice to himself and the reputation of the UN by going down this doomed path.

Anyway, since Ban is strapped for cash he has two choices left now: 1. scrap the panel as a cost-cutting exercise or 2) issue his panel with some recycled paper as their predictable report is destined to end up in the nearest waste paper basket.

8 Responses to “Ban Ki-Moon is dragging UN down to his level-Part II”

  1. Susantha Wijesinghe Says:

    Banki seems to have his hand deep into the Tamil Terrorists LTTE Treasury. What he is reflecting, is, the power of money, and not the power of UN. Also, he has become so servile to the two Tamil viragos who handle him. Poor Banki Poodle Dandy. Banki poodle do or die.

  2. A. Sooriarachi Says:

    Double talk by USA. Whilst warning the UNSG not to investigate events linked to Israel, the USA highly commends the UNSG for interfering in the SriLankan matter relating to the rescue of civilians held hostage by the LTTE terrorists operating inside SriLanka. Following extract from an article by Ms Ira deSilva from Canada, is worth noting for future reference.
    Mr. John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the UN in an op-ed to the Washington Times on June 24,2010, regarding Israel and the events on May 31,2010 regarding the clash off the Gaza strip states, “United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is close to making an enormously significant misjudgement about his role and authority.” He further states, “for Mr. Ban to act without express U.N. Security Council authorization, however, would far exceed his legitimate authority”.

  3. Raju Says:

    Susantha Wijesinghe is incorrect.

    Tamils are not that powerful to “over influence” or “control” the West.

    The actions of Moon and the UN are being directed by the US/EU/West.

    The Tamil agenda and interests happen to coincide with the West which is why both are working together.

    The appearance of Tamils as the “driving force” as depicted by Western media covertly and foolishly by Sinhalese (and arrogantly by Tamils) is to provide a “cover” of “plausible deniability” for the West to pretend and act as though they have been “mislead” while also playing “neutral” (they also enjoy the sight of seeing “little brown people” everywhere begging them to “be on their side” it gives them a great feeling of power and superiority smugly knowing they are the master key holders, pulling all the strings).

    Western countries are using Tamils for their goals of regional dominance. They know very well as documented by their Governments, Foreign Officers, policy centres and think tanks that Tamils in Sri Lanka (who are docile and loyal to the white world as history and current events shows) can be used to destabilise India through Tamil Nadu if India gets powerful like China and starts acting independently –currently the West is using India to “counter balance China”. However they being acutely aware of what happens if they create another major power need a control mechanism which is why they are so desperate to have a Tamil separate state in some form (devolution gives this) that when India becomes to powerful they can accelerate the Tamil separatists project in Sri Lanka and use it to infiltrate India, essentially destabilise India via Tamil Nadu setting India alight with conflict and internal problems (as the West does to Sri Lanka and tries to with China and has done to many African and South Americans countries) that the nation weakens and the Wests dominance is ensured.

    I am not too bothered with what happens to India, but the issue here is that Sri Lanka is the “sacrifice” for this. There are of course also other reasons for backing war and Tamils in Sri Lanka such as eradicated Buddhism and suppressing a non-white culture in Sri Lanka, but the primary reasons for backing Tamils is long term geopolitical interests.

    The West tried their best under the name of “peace” to keep the LTTE alive for their own geo-political and economic desires.

    With the LTTE leadership gone (despite the disgusting and despicable depths they went to save it involving the human shield tactic) the West has been desperately trying to maintain and sustain Tamil racism and chauvinism which is the root cause of all problems in Sri Lanka. Vile Tamil chauvinism is what advocates brutal violence against Sinhalese. Hence why the West inaugurated and created the GTF and TGTE, to sustain Tamils racism and the violence it brings to some how keep Sri Lanka divided, people at war, nation unsecured and a importantly have that tool to “control” Sinhalese and the region as a hole (which is permanent feature unlike white worshipping kalu-suddha Colombian slave governments which are usually thrown out by Sinhala masses and chances of one coming to power any time soon is zero).

    So long as there is violence and Tamil racism our nation and people are divided, unsure, unsecured and at war.

    Tamils are a conduit of interference.

  4. Raju Says:

    Western countries are furious with Sri Lanka for ending the civil war and destroying the LTTE. The LTTE is the just another manifestation of the Tamil hit force in Sri Lanka, the historic tool used against Sinhala people and as a conduit of instability, violence and destruction (which speaks volumes about these “human rights” preachers). Everyone in Sri Lanka also knows that during the war the more and more the LTTE started loosing territory the more and more the West tried to save the LTTE, the more and more trumped up “concerns” for “human rights” increased at the same rate as LTTE defeats. It was obvious that it was all fabricated to prevent the arrest and detention of suicide bombers and assist the LTTE as much as possible as well as creating perfect justification for “aid” threats and use of economic weapons against the country to try and stop the war, however that did not work as this current Government out witted the West in this area. When peoples lives start improving economically and the war is being won at last to have the Wests start screaming against us it becomes clear who is backing who and who is trying to undermine the rights of the people. Same mighty Western countries backed Fonseka and gave him the green light to launch coup, start a blood bath and create a Military dictatorship assisted by the nations bankrupt opposition politicians and other power craving maniacs.

  5. Raju Says:

    Accountability & responsibility for war crimes

    Robert Blake (former US Ambassador to Sri Lanka), David Milliband and other Western countries along with certain UN officials (Navi Pillai, Radhika Coomaraswamy and Gordon Wiess) as well as prominent Tamils in the West should be held responsible for violating human rights in Sri Lanka, and made accountable for war crimes during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s conflict.

    It was Robert Blake and David Milliband in collusion with the LTTE (through the Tamil diaspora in the West) that ordered the creation of a human shield using the civilian population with the intended goal of engineering a humanitarian catastrophe so as to justify intervention to save the LTTE and perpetuate war, human rights violations and bloodshed in Sri Lanka.

    When this failed they ordered the LTTE to carry out a “blood bath” and trap the Sri Lanka Armed Forces in it, this also failed due to the consideration given to the civilian population by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakshe, and involved sacrificing nearly 1300 soldiers to safeguard the lives of civilians (something Western countries would never do as the lives of their soldiers and people of white skin colour are of more importance -just see Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam as well as Western media coverage where only tears are spilt for their trigger happy soldiers).

    It is out of anger at their failures to save the LTTE and prolong war and instability in Sri Lanka along with the manner in which the Rajapakshe Government not only defied their dictates but also did not fall into their well engineered traps that Robert Blake, David Milliband and others are attacking Sri Lanka with falsified reports and artificial claims of “war crimes” and “blood bath”. They HOPED a “blood bath” would happen; they created the conditions for one to take place, yet they failed. That is a testament to the brilliance, dedication and sacrifice of our Armed Forces. Out of frustration of their failures to get a “blood bath” the West along with their “free” media decided to concoct one with assistance from their Tamil allies. The only “blood bath” to happen is the one they made up on paper.

    The Wests so called “free media” is an extension of their foreign policy, which under the illusion of the lofty ideals they peddle of “being free” and “fair” is in fact the biggest user of censorship, silencing of opposing arguments which do not suit their pre-set agenda and the greatest manufactures and broadcasters of out right fabrications, exaggerations and grotesque racially driven propaganda. Most comical is their arrogant thinking that their white skin coupled with their bogus title of “being free” gives them the right to go anywhere and must be believed as the absolute truth –those who oppose are either “brainwashed” or “not independent”. There reporting is riddled with racist bias but it must be the sole truth because they claim to be “free” and “report all sides” so naturally the side they choose is the “righteous” one like them.

    It must be remembered that immediately after Killinochchi fell it was clear to the West the LTTE was over, there much touted claims of invincibility and “Stalingrad” proved to be empty. It was at this same time out of nowhere did the West and their associated organs such as the UN (Wiess, Coomaraswamy & Pillai), NGOs (ICG, AI, HRW) and media start taking about “war crimes” and “blood baths” long before any conditions for such came into being. What was happening was clear: a “message” was being sent to Sri Lanka to “stop the war or be punished” and thus conditions for “stopping the war” were hastily put together, primarily the creation of a human shield and a humanitarian catastrophe and if Sri Lanka did not play ball “reasons” to punish Sri Lanka for such defiance were thus also there.

    Thus the ICG’s or HRWs pronouncements is nothing new or unexpected, they made this false accusation of “war crimes” back in January 2009, there latest “report” is merely finding (fabricating) “facts” to fit pre-made conclusions. As back then and today they have resorted to manipulations and exaggerations, using “evidence” that is unsubstantiated and artificial with no basis other than fiction to push an agenda different to the one projected i.e. punishing Sri Lanka for ending its civil war despite the lengths and depths of human depravity the West and Tamils have gone to try and continue the war, and this is seen by the cusp of the ICG’s (and other Western organs) argument lamenting “their was no ‘ceasefire’” (to enable the LTTE to escape) which is the source of their “rage” towards Sri Lanka.
    In fact the ICG report is a carbon copy of the US State Departments “report”, they have merely re-rashed and re-packaged what was written (using the same aforemention “methods” of manipulating, exaggaerting and fbricating evidence).

    The hard reality is the West could not care less how many civilians died or were saved but how to do their best to preserve the LTTE, preserve division, instability and war in Sri Lanka, all pivotal foreign policy tools used to control Sri Lanka. The hollow preaching about “civilian casualties”, “human rights” and other “concerns” today are driven out of the desire to get revenge for Sri Lanka’s defiance, for Sri Lanka’s refusal to follow their “authority” and demands of pro-longing the war and enabling the LTTE leadership to escape thereby ensuring their control mechanism against Sri Lanka, the “alternative power”, was some how intact (lest we forget the pilgrimage Milliband made to Sri Lanka to make this demand).

    Robert Blake, David Milliband, prominent members of the Tamil diaspora, certain UN officials along with Western media and human rights organisations need to be held accountable and responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights violation in Sri Lanka if justice is ever to be served to the people of Sri Lanka who have suffered at the hands of these war criminals and their assailants both within and out of Sri Lanka.

    It is hilarious for the Tamils (and the West) to be “protesting” against Sri Lanka for a humanitarian catastrophe that they engineered on their own people to prolong war and misery in Sri Lanka, and as always without taking responsibility for their own actions they blame Sinhalese using inflated casualties numbers and other manipulative propaganda pieces. What must be remembered and not forgotten is that thousands of our soldiers died trying to ensure the safety of 300,000 civilians a sacrifice of which the high and mighty West would never consider even as an afterthought since the lives of their soldiers, and for that matter any white life, is more important than that of civilians and people of colour (best examples are Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam).

  6. Susantha Wijesinghe Says:

    Raju, I concur with your analysis. Mine was just a point of view.

  7. Geeth Says:

    Excellent analysis, a clear cut vision with no nonsense. You must consider writing to Lanka Web. People need to know your views in more comprehensive articles. I hope you will seriously consider my request.

  8. Priyantha Abeywickrama Says:

    An interesting article and comments on a subject that has much greater relevance. What is going on may be just a preparation before the actual event that could be seen if we just move a bit up the ladder in our thought process taking into account the Natural History, past events and the guiding principles that decide the final outcomes. We tend to believe that world is a chaotic, uncontrolled and anarchic place quite contrary to the reality. As an observer, I see how true certain predictions could be from what is happening now and am sure we will see more interesting events in the coming years.

    Certainly I did not believe that things could be this close to certain predictions that came across me given the fact that Rajapaksa Regime is just a continuation of the regime created and nurtured by Westerners that still lives deep inside the English womb. As I found in another recent article (Written by Geethanjana), Rajapaksa has become the Sovereignty and vice versa for the time being. Whether it is unwittingly or to benefit some others is to be seen yet. It is true that no sovereignty means no Rajapaksa though it may not be the same the other way because it is much more than just Rajapaksa. Sadly, it is also the reality that makes me ponder what to do. What comes next when the current leadership is gone could be more interesting to speculate on western influences.

    It is interesting to read comments made by Raju. I have followed your comments that appear at the local websites with greater interest. Your resourcefulness could be used more effectively, provided you use your Sinhala language skills and reach out to the Sinhala people, who could be the only people that could stay above all these chaos and offer the solution as expected, than a website like this, which is out of touch with the local Sinhala community, and which can do very little to shape their future. There is an interesting forecast about the destiny of Sinhala people apparently revealed ages ago, that seems to get realised now though I did not believe it that much then.

    Though Sinhala people are held back by the current regime still carrying the white man’s burden amid all these chaos, political and otherwise, they, specially regime leaders, seem to be going to pay a much higher price for staying in the middle. Having turned them against the wishes of their own old master sounds a bit like cutting pork on the back of a pig, which is also the tip of an iceberg of things to come. However, justice comes at its own pace and Sinhala people have more than what is required to match the need in time to come though there are many others worried about their own futures.

    I wish those interested have had an understanding of certain ancient events that led to what is happening today. The role played by Tamils, English etc. have a clear pre-historic design. I see that all these events occur not because those involved want them including Rajapaksa regime, but because of an unexplained external factor. Actually, all the evidence indicate to this hypothesis. Let the history reveal itself while we play to our own tunes.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress