"Brownies of Lords," an indigestible delicacy for third world."

Keerthi Godayaya.

"Foreign Minister Lord Malloch-Brown, stated that Britain with Europe will be taking a stronger position against the Government of Sri Lanka at the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva next week. This meeting will be attended by the Minister in person. Lord Malloch-Brown acknowledged that the Sri Lankan delegation would seek to maintain status quo. His Lordship further stated that they will be demanding and pressing hard for wider access by John Holmes, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Radhika Coomaraswamy UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. They will also demand that all recommendations made by Louise Arbour, Head of UNHCR and Radhika Coomarasamy be implemented in full."

This is a quotation from a news item published on the web site on Feb/27/2008.

This statement shows how heavily western powers depend on the chorus of HR as their main and trusted weapon that has brought positive result in their pursuit of the division of the peripheral third world for their economic, political and military agenda of the center (the west). The other clear signal is that they are utterly desperate, in regards to the Sri Lankan issue. Why, and for what reason? Is it because the HR situation in Sri Lanka is worsening beyond that of Iraq or Afghanistan? Or, is that just because our Lord is dumb founded to think that 70,000 combatant and noncombatant deaths in SL for twenty five years is greater than 10,00,000 (one million) innocent civilian deaths in Iraq? No, not at all; but the reason is that the SLDF is doing an outstanding job to eradicate terrorism of 'LTTE,' the western political instrument destabilizing south Asia. I think we must present a second grade pupil from a Sri Lankan school as the Lord Brown's Sri Lankan counter part to teach him that one million is greater than seventy thousand, therefore Lord Brown must make a 180 degree turn and go back to England to take strong action against the HR abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus maintaining the status quo what Lord Brown is suggesting here.

But by now President Rajapakse must have recognized the wicked conspiracy of Lord Brown of seeking control of selecting his opposite team in this game of human rights. We hope our President wouldn't fell victim to this plot of Lord Brown. In this up coming meeting in the UN Human Rights Council, Dr. Dayan Jayathilake and Prof. Rajeeva Wijesinghe should hold the leadership; If Lord Brown unilaterally decided to come for this meeting, it must be limited to his own freedom of choice, but shouldn't be a point to dictate terms upon us at a moment we supposed to stand up for our fate.
One thing is pretty clear here.

We cannot stand against this intense diplomatic attack of the west just by the defensive mod. But we need to realize that only way to defense before this orchestrated attack of the west is to switch into offensive mod. In other words, we got to be frank to tell them that their record of HR is much worse than ours, so therefore they do not have any moral right to dictate terms upon us. Rightfully that has been the strategy of Dr. Dayan Jayathilake and Prof. Rajeewa Wijesinghe doing in countering western attack.

The west wants us to take their stance of placing the prevailing nature in world politics as a standard condition, in which the west will have the sole right to abuse HR all over the world and still will have the right to preach us to safeguard them in the highest standards even at conflict situations. They expect us to be silent and be blind followers of the west. But we have to display our opposition to accept this binary standard. That is the only way to defense.

The western diplomacy with all its ambivalence, will try not only to deceive us and prevent us identifying their agendas clearly, but also to disrupt our unity, confuse us being organized to stand against their thrust upon our will to keep the country together as one integral political unit. Following news threads will say something about their deliberate ambivalent politics that related to Sri Lanka.

In a news item published on the 'Lankaweb' of the Island newspaper of Sri Lanka said... "Lord Malloch Brown warned the Tamils in London not to take Kosovo as a precedent in a bid to claim independence.

…He said Kosovo was a unique case and a number of European and Asian countries are concerned about it… He said they could support the efforts of Louis Arbour, Radhika Kumaraswamy and John Holmes to address the human rights issues."

In another Asiantribune a news item said ""Whereas, in light of NATO's military intervention in Kosovo and the United Nations trusteeship established in Kosovo pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), the international community has recognized the political circumstances in Kosovo as unique, and the settlement of Kosovo's status therefore does not establish a precedent for the resolution of other conflicts;"

But, can we believe them taking these statements by face value? The situation of Kosovo was different in terms of cause of the conflict and its history. But the way western powers used the HR issue as the key element of achieving pre conditions for the UDI in Kosovo is same for the Sri Lankan case. After they miserably failed in military front using the LTTE to devide the nation, now they want to use HR in Sri Lanka to achieve the pre conditions for their separatist goals in the same manner they did in Kosovo. UN HR Commission will be a major breakthrough for that direction.

While taking note into those news items, let us see what his Grace Bishop of Ras-Prizren and Kosovo-Metohija Artemije to say. He delivered a lecture titled "NATO at Work: The Case of Kosovo and Metohija" at the international conference entitled "Ukraine's Development towards NATO or Bloc-Free: Prospects and Risks", September 19-20, Somferopol, Crimea. (Please note that this lecture was delivered way before the Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. I decided to bring a large portion of his speech to share the feeling of the human catastrophe that NATO deliberately brought into that land under the guise of prevention of humanitarian catastrophe).

He said…(quote)"You may already be guessing that I am talking about the war that NATO waged against SRJ (that is Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999. It was an unusual war, the first of its kind in the history of warfare. It was the aerial war in which the "warring factions" never stood face to face against each other. For the full 78 days NATO was illegally, unjustifiably, heartlessly and violently destroying my homeland by dropping bombs and missiles of all makes, reeking more destruction to civilian (hospitals with maternity wards, residential districts, power lines, bridges, factories) than military targets, purposely aiming at trains and buses packed with passengers and killing over two and a half thousand civilians.

All this terribly hurts my people. But what hurts incomparably more than this is the cynical explanation, the "justification" of their bestial rage, that it was not intended against the Serbian people but the government in Belgrade of that time, while the innocent civilian victims were categorized under the two monstrous words - "collateral damage" - the term so hideous that even the international media proclaimed it "the ugliest term" of 1999.

It was with the extreme delectation that NATO assassins took to darkening the sky over Kosovo and Metohija, providing aerial support to the terrorist organization known as the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), throwing on the sacred land of Kosovo and Metohija all available munitions such as cassette bombs (forbidden to use) and rockets "enriched" with depleted uranium whose detrimental effects are felt even today in Kosovo and Metohija regardless of nationality, including the members of NATO and the soldiers of KFOR themselves.

They lied that the bombing campaign, inaptly named "the Angel of Mercy", was organized to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe that did not even exist at the time, (my emphasis) but only instigated one through their aggression against our county (and masterfully directed with the Albanian leaders of the KLA).

But that, ladies and gentleman, is not all. The crimes of NATO against our people reached their full expression only after the "war" had ended, that is when the armed forces of KFOR stepped onto the soil of Kosovo and Metohija based on the resolution of the UN Security Council and the Kumanovo Treaty (military-technical) from June 10, 1999. The mandate of KFOR, according to the agreement, was to prevent the animosity between the warring factions, to establish a secure environment as well as to demilitarize the KLA. According to the resolution 1244 SC, KFOR came to Kosovo and Metohija to establish a peaceful and secure life for all citizens of Kosovo, and to facilitate the unconditional and safe return of the refugees and displaced persons.

Not even one of these listed tasks has since been accomplished. It was exactly after the very arrival of KFOR and the civil authorities of the UN and UNMIK, that, not only did the humanitarian catastrophe ensue, but it culminated in the unprecedented ethnic cleansing of the province. The unique genocide over the Serbian population in peacetime, unheard of in the history of mankind, is unfolding under the auspices of KFOR and UNMIK whose members render their services and offer the support to the Albanian extremists and the terrorist organization KLA, enabling them to persecute and execute two thirds of the Christian Serbian people (250,000), as well as other non-Albanian communities of the Roma, Egyptians, Ashkali and Goranci.
(end quote)

Must we follow this road to disaster? Taking the prevailing world conditions into serious consideration we need to formulate our future strategies. We can learn a lot from Kosovo, and East Timor. In both cases UN has played a major role of the division of these countries. All our missions in the world must rediscover their strategies in our defense to counter the attack of diplomatic terrorism of the west. One thing is clear, old diplomacy will never deliver goods in handling these new challenges.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of .



Copyright 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reproduction In Whole Or In Part Without Express Permission is Prohibited.