H. L. D. Mahindapala, reporting from Geneva

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ America claims that it has tabled the resolution on ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ at the 19th session of the UNHRC for the good of the people of Sri Lanka. Mario Otero in her speech told the Council: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Action now in this Council will sow the seeds of lasting peace on the ground.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ At the same time, the US Ambassador to the Human Rights Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, told a press conference that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.itƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s a very challenging thing to figure out what will actually work in the present in Sri Lanka. We are walking a very fine line right now, still trying hard to get the Sri Lankan to consent to our initiativeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

It is quite apparent that not much has changed in America since the indigenous Amero-Indians discovered that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the White Man speaks in forked tongue.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ One says that American action ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-will sow the seeds for lasting peace on the groundƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ and the other says that it is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-challenging to figure out what will actually work in the present in Sri Lanka.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (More of this later.)

This is typical not only of the wooly thinking and the inability to grasp the ground realities but also of their forked-tongue. In fact, AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s resolution, from beginning to end, consists of double-talk. America is using the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report as a peg to hang its case against Sri Lanka. Mixed with backhanded compliments it is also using the LLRC report as a stick to whack Sri Lanka. It is AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s selective approach to the LLRC report which makes its anti-Sri Lankan stand so naƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚¯ve, vindictive and unacceptable.

Before going further into this aspect, it is necessary to point out that America is blatantly using the LLRC report as a fig leaf to cover up its hidden political agenda. This move of America in the UNHRC has nothing to do with the LLRC report, or its merits or demerits. Those who know the history of the post-Prabhakaran period, will realize that the tabling of its Resolution is merely an extension of the policy of the West to punish Sri Lanka for ending the war the way it did in 2009. First, EU, spearheaded by Switzerland, moved a resolution in UNHRC in 2009. Because she could not appear in person Navy Pillai, the UNHRC Commissioner, made an in-house screen appearance urging the nations to take action against Sri Lanka. Despite that the West lost in 2009. Then the West made its second move against Sri Lanka in 2011. It was led by Canada. The rest won against the West again. After two successive defeats the West has come for the third time led by its mightiest power, America.

The repetition of the offensive against Sri Lanka three times is not accidental. It represents a decisive trend to crush Sri Lanka at any cost. The rest is all eye-wash, mere excuses to justify their vindictive action of bullying a small nation. This brief history of the West against the rest (including Sri Lanka) also indicates that the West is not going to be conciliatory or pleased even if Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s advances towards reconciliation, accountability, reconstruction and peace at the pace it demands.

Consider, for instance, the response of Hilary Clinton. She has conceded that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-some aspects of your domestic work have been very good.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Well, if within two months of LLRC ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-some aspects are very goodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ how much better would it be in the next phases? But Hilary Clinton takes the bizarre route of attacking Sri Lanka signaling that the West is out to get Sri Lanka no matter what it does. The only other charitable explanation can be that America expects Rome to be built in one day.

If she should care to take a glimpse at American history she would be amazed at the similarities shared by both America and Sri Lanka. If there is one nation that should understand the historical and political consequences of a separatist war it is America. Of all the wars fought by America the highest casualty figures of Americans (600,000) was recorded in the Civil War fought to the bitter end to keep America united. The wounds and memories of the north-south conflict still linger in some remote quarters. Have those historical memories gone with the winds that blow over White House? Why is it that America which boasts of over 3,000 think tanks and the best of academics working at the cutting edge of knowledge refusing to recognize the historical realities? What mental perversions inhibit America from acknowledging that the north-south conflict in Sri Lanka was a just war which ended on the most favourable terms for 300,000 Tamils held as a human shield? If the Civil War led to the rise of united America, without outsiders imposing unreasonable conditions, why is it that America has failed to apply its historical experiences in evaluating the north-south conflict in Sri Lanka?

Drawing from their own historical experiences isnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t it fair for the Americans to give space and time for Sri Lanka to develop their own solutions? For instance, Abraham Lincoln signed the first Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Did it end the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-SlaveocracyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ in America, the land of the free?

When America acts vindictively against Sri Lanka they are denying their own history. They are refusing to acknowledge the historical process with which they broke through to emerge as a super power. They want Sri Lanka to achieve in two months what took them a couple of centuries. They have set the time table and they are demanding that Sri Lanka performs according to their definition of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adequacyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ which can be stretched as far as they want arbitrarily. What Sri Lanka has done so far is not ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adequateƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, says Ambassador Donahue. Sri Lanka , therefore, is taken before the UNHRC not because it has failed or is unwilling to fulfill its tasks but because it has not satisfied the elastic definition of AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s idea of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adequacyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ within the time span laid down by America.

Where is AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s sense of history, morality and proportionality in judging other nations who have gone through the same existential experiences as the Americans? Instead, America is today leading a gang of Western cowboys trying to impose its own laws by riding rough shod over the natives who have lived and settled their scores with each other long before America was even a twinkle in the eyes of their Founding Fathers.

The concerted Western moves led by America have a well defined pattern. All three moves have come one after the other. All three moves have come from the West. All three moves come from the West where the agents of Tamil Tiger terrorists find a safe haven to fund a terrorist war in Sri Lanka. All three moves are aimed directly at targeting Sri Lanka despite ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-some aspects of the domestic work have been very good.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ All three moves are completely out of proportion to the realities on the ground, particularly the kind of crimes committed West which imposed, with the concurrence of the UN, a naval cordon round Iraq, denying essential supplies to Iraqis which led to the deaths of 600,000 children. All three moves come from the West which claims to possess a monopoly of moral righteousness.

But their arrogant morality has failed to restore peace and stability in the areas they had invested most. This failure stems from their refusal to work amicably and jointly with the people on the ground. They rush into places like bulls in a China shop. Their formulas are better at destroying what has been established and not at replacing the vacuum with viable alternatives. American interventions have dragged them into quagmires of their own making and get stuck in their own hell-holes not knowing how to get out of it.

Having learnt the lessons of foreign interventions Sri Lankans have opted to work out their own solutions. America must learn, at least in their declining days, that other nations too have their own destiny and they have the capacity to work out their own solutions. The known records of contemporary history demonstrates that Sri Lanka would have been better off if they were allowed to find their own way out. It is the foreign interventions that have queered the pitch for Sri Lanka.

Clearly, Sri Lanka has been the victim of the West which should be held responsible for not applying its full resources to protect the people of Sri Lanka. And they continue to victimize the Sri Lankans who had succeeded on their own to defeat the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s deadliest terrorists without the consent, advice and resources of West still battling to defeat their hydra-headed monsters.

The Western morality is inapplicable to Sri Lanka by any standards. Sri Lanka is not Iraq, or Libya or Egypt. Sri Lanka has showed a willingness and an ability, as acknowledged by Hilary Clinton, to do good and correct itself. So why is America rushing to the UNHRC when Ambassador Donahue says that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.itƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s a very challenging thing to figure out what will actually work in the present in Sri Lanka. We are walking a very fine line right now, still trying hard to get the Sri Lankan to consent to our initiativeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ The contradiction facing them is clear: they are not sure of what will actually work in Sri Lanka and they still insist on imposing their initiative. What makes America think that only their initiative will work? IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t it best that they back off and let Sri Lankans resolve their own problems?

The current thrust of the West is not in imposing a moral order. The meaning of the US led move in UNHRC has been spelt out unequivocally in the International Herald Tribune. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-It is time for the council (UNHRC) to correct its embarrassing decision from 2009,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ screamed the three panelists, Marzuki Darusman, Steven Ratner, and Yasmin Sooka appointed by UN Secretary-General, in their latest intervention published in the International Herald Tribune, (March 3-4).

The unequivocal objective of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-correcting the embarrassing decision from 2009ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ must be taken seriously because it comes from these three top international actors involved in the post-Sri Lankan period. They have exposed as plain as plain can be that the primary objective of the American move is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-to correctƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ the embarrassmentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ faced by the west. This debunks the theories of its allies in the West the NGO pundits who argue that America is acting out of high moral considerations based on the LLRC report. The reality, as explained by the three panelists, is that America is moving in to succeed in the UNHRC where its allies failed in the past. When two of the lesser Western powers failed the big bully has stepped in to beat Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. This, in short, is the sum and substance of the Resolution before the UNHRC. This is the pursuit of vindictiveness and not morality.

There is, however, a difference between the two previous resolutions and the latest one produced by America. In the previous two resolutions there was no LLRC. America has moved in quickly to make use of the LRRC as its moral centre to justify its action against Sri Lanka. But it is forced to walk a tight rope on this. It has selectively used parts to legitimize its action. On the one hand America welcomes ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the constructive recommendations in the LLRC reportƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ and also acknowledges the LLRC reportsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-possible contribution to Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s national reconciliation processƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. And, in the same breath, America moans that the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Ambassador Donahue focused on these two aspects of the LLRC when she told a press conference: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-She (Hilary Clinton) herself has said aspects if your domestic work have been very good. At the same time she has said clearly, and they have made this public in the media, not adequate.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ The central issue boils down to a matter of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adequacyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. This is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Hilary-ousƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, to say the least. Apart from that, the question is who is going to define ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adequacyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚.

America is saying imperiously that Sri Lanka must satisfy American demands and its definition of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-adequacyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. Whatever good that has been done and acknowledged by America is not good enough for America. Ambassador Donahue summed it up in the following words: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-So either the Sri Lankans will consent, or if they donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t consent theyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ll see the outcome and they might ultimately see theyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢re going to have to do more and they will do more.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

This is nothing less than arrogant American imperialism at its obscene depths. Which Sri Lankan will bow their heads to such dictates? If the Sri Lankans have learnt anything from their history it is that they have the capacity to resolve their issues through their innate genius, however slow or faulty it may be.

Take, for instance, the history of the longest running war in Asia. Under pressures from the regional super power Sri Lanka accepted Indian intervention. A formula was imposed and in the end the peace-maker, Rajiv Gandhi, paid with his life. Again under international pressure, President Premadasa entered into negotiations. He was assassinated in the middle of it. Then President Chandrika Kumaratunga initiated her peace process under considerable international pressure. She narrowly escaped death. Finally, the big powers of West walked in with their solutions which ended in the Ceasefire Agreement. The Scandinavian Peace monitors wrote that 95% of the Agreement was violated by the Tamil Tigers.

Ultimately, it was the home-grown solution of President Mahinda Rajapakse that worked. The concessions made to foreign pressures failed to produce the desired results. What guarantees can America give now that their formulas will be the ultimate answer to the long term peace, reconciliation and stability?

History has proved that foreign interventions and imported theories never succeeded. The West and their local agents have been experimenting with their alien theories, backed with gun boats, since 1505 and all of them had to retreat leaving the Sri Lankans to handle their own affairs.

American history is bloodied with the failures of its ill-conceived adventures in trying to fix the problems of other nation without first fixing its own problems. Besides, the American diplomats and the Resolution itself make it amply clear that the West is not going to let Sri Lanka resolve their issues with home-grown solutions ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a practice that has served the nation for 2500 years. America is determined on two things this time round: 1. to win at any cost in UNHRC and 2. to force Sri Lanka to bend to its will.

The long and the short of the Sri Lankan story is that concessions made to foreign pressures failed to produce the desired results. America is intervening claiming that they can fix the problems (“sow the seeds of lasting peace”) in Sri Lanka. If they are so smart how come they have failed to sow the seeds of peace where their soldiers are dying like flies?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

The dismal failure of the super power might of America to fix the hot spots of globe is also accompanied by the moral failure of America to live up to its own ideals. In the Cold War era America did have some legitimacy as a force for the good. The contemporary issues are no longer black and white as in the Cold War era. It is complex and America is floundering in uncharted waters not knowing how to extricate itself from the mess into which it has fallen.

Declining America, making a desperate bid to protect its over-extended reach threatened by emerging new forces, is increasingly forced to be defensive and reactive just to retain its grip on its shrinking grounds. Intervention in Sri Lanka is a clear example of its ill-conceived bid to hang on to places which it cannot hold. It is not a show of its strength but of its weakness. It can’t even argue its case cogently to convince the Sri Lankans that American intervention is the best solution for the nation. In this inexorable process the tragedy is that America is forced to withdraw deeper into the center of evil just to survive. It is a gravitational force which drags it down accelerating its decline as it falls into the dustbin of history.

In short, it is a nation that can no longer live up to its professed ideals. Not that it ever did in the past. But right now its declining power is driving America, almost against its will, into a desperate position where it is not only losing ground but also the friends it needs to face the future. America is a nation in decline without any hope of regaining its lost stature.

America has all the symptoms of moral decay of a declining nation. Nothing illustrates this better than President Barack Obama, who sat coolly in his golf clothing in the White House, surrounded by Hilary Clinton and other key operatives, to watch his trained assassins (Navy Seals) cross the border of Pakistan illegally to murder Osama bin Laden, a 57-year-old father in the presence of his children and wives and helicoptering his body to be dumped somewhere in the depths of the Indian Ocean.

There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden had to be removed from the political equation just as much as Prabhakaran had to be removed from the Sri Lankan political landscape. However, it is the difference between the two deaths that makes Obama a latter day Genghis Khan with an American accent. Prabhakaran was killed in the battlefield when he was attempting to cut across the Nandikadal Lagoon and escape into the east. It is most unlikely that Prabhakaran would have come waving a white flag. Surrender was not in his political vocabulary. If he did surrender when he had offered cyanide pills to his cadres to serve his regime without betraying LTTE secrets to the Sri Lankan forces, then he should be condemned as the most despicable coward that came out of the womb of Jaffna. What pride is left in any Jaffna man if Prabhakaran crawled before the Sri Lanka forces begging for his life? So it is safe to assume that he died in the battlefield.

But President ObamaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Navy Seals, all of whom were honoured, murdered in cold blood Osama bin Laden, an unarmed civilian, who was taking cover behind one of his wives. What would have been the outrage of the world if the roles were reversed? What if Islamic fundamentals trained by Osama bin Laden raided the White House and murdered Obama in the presence of his wife and children?

Perhaps, the verdict on America’s morality was expressed bluntly by no less a person than President Obama’s pastor in Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was his spiritual mentor for decades. He even baptized his children. Outraged by American treatment of its own citizens, primarily the Afro-Americans, he burst out crying: “Not God bless America. God damn America!”

If that is the wrathful reaction of President Obama’s spiritual guide it would not be difficult for the Americans to understand the bitter anger of Sri Lankans disgusted by American morality pursuing vindictive politics of a street thug. The American flag which should be flying side by side with the Sri Lankan flag is now flying in Western capitals side by side with Tamil Tiger terrorist flag — the most obscene of all flags flown by any political organisation. That is the level to which American morality has sunk.

Considering the abysmal failure of American foreign policy to set moral standards for global peace and stability the citizens of the world, I believe, have a right to join the spiritual guide of President Obama and cry in unison: GOD DAMN AMERICA!