Shivanti Ranasinghe
Is a society that endorses torture, civilized? Democratic? Respects the rule of law? Protects women? Upholds human rights?
On the other hand, what should a civilized, democratic society that respects the rule of law and upholds the rights of women and humans as a whole do, when held hostage by terrorists?
Terrorists are not lone wolves. They belong to an organization, which makes their crimes, organized crimes. They aim for maximum impact and so are not engaged in petty crime, but carnage that often amounts to crimes against humans and humanity. Often, they have the support of powerful nations. Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS are said to be created by the CIA. The Liberation of Tamil Tigers amongst other terrorist groups, said to be numbering over 80, were sponsored and trained by RAW. A North Korean link was suspected behind the 1971 Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna insurgency.
The world, particularly the Human Rights champions, takes cudgels against terrorism only if it becomes a problem to them. Al Qaeda became a real issue to U.S. after 9/11. The LTTE lost the Indian support only after they assassinated Rajiv Gandhi. Even when terrorism is in larger proportions than a mere group’s hit and run strategy, as when a State against its own citizens or another State, the world does not always react as it should. It is pertinent to remember that even Hitler was allowed by the European powers, until he started biting his neighbors.
Jews were systematically persecuted by the Nazi regime. Those who tried to escape found they had no where to run. Scores of ships carrying Jew refugees to America were turned away by the authorities. Hundreds, if not thousands of men, women and children just perished at sea. Their plight was never the cause for the World War II fight. It was only when Hitler starting invading his neighboring countries, the world recognized his evil. Until the Japanese bombed the Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was their chief supplier. This despite the atrocities and genocidal acts the Japanese were committing in their own East Asian neighborhood.
Even when the world powers are supporting States to combat terrorism, whether enough or the needful is done is questionable. For instance, when Indian sponsored terrorists asserted themselves, the Reagan regime did not want to antagonize the growing Indian markets. Kudus to America however for not abandoning Sri Lanka altogether either. It was the U.S. that established the Israel link that stood in our support during our long protracted war against terrorism. The Bush regime was openly supportive however and helped us greatly to defeat terrorism.
Though the civilized world proscribed the LTTE and froze their assets, restricted their freedom, and assisted the Sri Lankan government with armaments, information and many other vital supports, the LTTE not only survived, but continued to grow in strength.
Almost with each passing day, they became more atrocious. They continued to spurn every value and virtue beholden by the civilized world. They categorically rejected democracy. Anyone who refused them as his sole representative was vaporized. Rivals brutally annihilated. Thousands of children as young as eight or younger were forced into the front lines. The once God worshipping women, even pregnant women, were turned into killer machines. Indiscriminate mass killings and attacks on civilians continued. Captives were gruesomely tortured to death.
All the powers the world reckons – U.S., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the Arab world backed Sri Lanka. Of course the European and the Scandinavian countries had their reservations, but not all that openly. Thus, with all these support, how did the LTTE continue to grow in strength as they did? With time, the LTTE morphed into such a force that they created their own administration and they became the law.
Even so, the LTTE became only more aggressive and depraved. Like all terrorist movements before them, they achieved only utter destruction. There is not a single right or freedom the LTTE or anyone else won through terrorism.
However, unless well and truly cornered and without options, no terrorist organization on its own accord will sit at a negotiating table much less renounce violence. All Indian sponsored terrorist groups, except the LTTE, agreed to enter mainstream politics when they realized the Indian Government, having coerced the Sri Lankan Government into a made-in-India political package, was pausing their sponsorship to terrorism. The LTTE however found a strange bedfellow in the Sri Lankan politicians who were utterly opposed to the Indo-Lanka Accord.
Since 1989, the JVP has returned and remained in mainstream politics only after it’s murderous top leadership was taken out. Therefore, unless that life-supporting plug is removed from the group, there is no negotiating with the terrorists.
However, terrorism is not a straight game between good guys and the bad. This issue is deeply confusing as the face does not always belongs to the brains. More often than not, it is the so-called ‘good’ guys who surreptitiously create or sponsor terrorism in other countries. Facts may prove that terrorism is organized crime engaged in crimes against humans and humanity, but it is marketed as a fight for some rights or minorities that somehow justifies their evil.
The West sponsored democracy in Libya is a case in point. The Libyan intervention was marketed as a humanitarian response and as Obama declared, “people in Libya must be saved.” Renowned business consultant Gerald Celente however asks whether U.S. would have been equally concerned about Libya if its main export was broccoli.
A documentary by RT, highlights Gaddafi’s plans to move away from the American dollar to gold Dinar as the more realistic motive. This would have distributed wealth in the gold and oil rich African and Middle East countries. Gaddafi organized two conferences, in 1986 and 2000 and most African countries were keen.
“In the months leading up to the military intervention,” reports RT, “he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world. A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded.”
Such a move, says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell, “would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks. So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal.”
The documentary states that it happened before when “in 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.
“A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa.”
“The U.S. have denied self-determination to Africans inside the U.S.,” exclaims Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman. “So, we are not surprised by anything the U.S. would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent.”
The Obama regime certainly stands exposed when Libya disintegrated because in Obama’s own words, they not have a plan for day after. He claims it to be his greatest mistake. However, the world did not see any tangible effort on his part to rectify his mistake either.
The world too continued to pretend it was a mission of goodwill gone astray. Though the problems of Libya has exacerbated beyond measure, many intellectuals agree that getting rid of Gaddafi was a good move and the situation can only improve from now on. Of course, the situation can only improve after hitting rock bottom.
What the intellectuals and other humanitarians do not question – at least loudly enough – is, if this was indeed a humanitarian mission, then why did the NATO forces deliberately destroy the Great Man-Made River?
Humanrightsinvestigations.org notes, “95 percent of Libya is desert and 70 percent of Libyans depend on water which is piped in from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System under the southern desert. The water pipe infrastructure is probably the most essential civilian structure in Libya. Key to its continued function, particularly in time of war, is the Brega pipe factory which enables leaks and breaks in the system to be repaired.
“NATO has admitted that it’s jets attacked the poor factory on 22 July, claiming in justification that it was used as a military storage facility and rockets were launched from there,” though they had so far been unable to prove their accusation.
This action amounts to a war crime.
According to Major General Kamal Gunaratne, airstrikes by the Obama regime against the Sri Lankan military in support of the LTTE was a very realistic threat. Thus, defeating the LTTE became a race against time to avoid such a development.
Thus, terrorism is a much larger issue that what meets the causal eye. The world cannot be depended on to protect civilians from terrorism and thus the responsibility that falls squarely on the respective government.
However, how can a government fight terrorism while within the framework of normal law and democracy? How can the government uphold human rights when the entire State structure is challenged by marauding murderers, often with powerful friends? Whose human rights weighs more – that of the suspect in custody or his potential victims? In the process of fighting terrorism, how can the government ensure that its security forces do not act with impunity, nor become a terrorist as well? How can the security establishment ensure that the law will not haunt them afterwards for doing the needful?
“Any government, anywhere in the world,” explains Presidential Counsel Manohara de Silva, “resorts to extrajudicial killings when confronted with an insurgency. It’s not correct and no one should resort to such actions. Judicial means, you have to connect the evidence, lead the evidence and cross examine the subject. When governments have the soldiers, ammunition and intelligence,they resort to the easier way.
“What the section 15 of the Constitution states is that the freedom of others can be limited to protect the rights of another. So, my freedom ends when your rights begins. I can’t exercise my rights in violation of yours. Human Rights should be drawn from this distinction in the interest of national security and the rights of others to maintain a democratic society.
“However, only a judiciary can decide the rights and wrongs of a person and no other body. To deal with terrorism, we need to have a comprehensive National Security Act. Soon after 9/11, America passed its Patriotic Act. However, the Prevention of Terrorist Act we have is very limited in scope. There are other laws that we have passed like the terrorism financing act, money laundering that also have some connection to the PTA. However, it is not as comprehensive as it should be. The NSA must have checks and balanced inbuilt so that it’s power is not abused.
“To ensue that NSA protects small nations from larger powers, the law must be amended so the legislature must approve the contracts the executive signs with other States. This will protect the country from covenants that are inimical to national interests of the country like the Indo-Lanka Accord and the Geneva Resolution. This way, no matter who is in power, there will be a safeguard for the national security of the country.”
