Header Ads

 New website available at www.slguardian.org

US, Britain Dancing Naked

By Nacholibre

(February 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) When Bin Laden blew down the Twin Towers in New York in one single attack, and when the US intelligence erroneously reported that Sadam Hussein has WMDs, the US lost no time in harnessing support of Britain and other world leaders to destroy the whole of Iraq, and Afghanistan. Did the US heed the UN call not to attack Iraq in the first place? No it didn’t . In that instance, the UN was reduced to the mere state of a neutered dog, which could produce nothing than a feeble whine against the US and its allies.

Sophisticated and state-of-the-art weaponry was used against those victim Nations with one objective. Capture or kill Sadam and Bin Laden. Was it going to be a zero civilian causality affair? Not by any any long shot. Did the US try to cut any slack for these two “terrorists” (to use their own terminology that they used to identify Sadam and Bin Laden) because the war on terror is killing and miming innocent civilians too? No they didn’t? Did Britain refused to support the US war in Iraq, objecting to the possible civilian misery that would arise out of such a blatant move against another country? No it never did. It wholeheartedly supported the campaign disregarding critics that said the war is bringing death and destruction to innocent civilians and property. Did they stop and think that may be they could talk to Sadam and Bin Laden instead of attacking? One had to be been dreaming some dream to see that happening!

The US and Britain had one simple reason to reject all those: Sadam and Bin Laden are two dangerous terrorist leaders that the world cannot afford to let live. Us and Britain decided that human misery or not, those two criminals had to be eliminated at any cost. Thus, two hoots to the rights of the humans that would be killed and maimed as collateral damage in their endeavour, they went to war. In that instance, they figured they had no choice but to wage war and kill Sadam and Bin Laden.

Cut to the Sri Lankan conflict, the US and Britain think there is a choice. They are of the opinion that the Sri Lankan State should stop the war and cut some slack for the cornered terrorist leaders of the LTTE including Prabakaran. Why? Their argument is most humane and simple. They say the war causes civilian casualties, and therefore, the State should stop hunting down the terrorist remainder and talk to them! By God, what a wisdom the US and Britain have!

Veluillai Prabakaran, the infamous leader of once the world’s most ruthless and sophisticated terrorist organization, went on a killing spree for nearly thirty odd years. He masterminded hundreds of devastating terrorist attacks against the Sri Lankan State to enable his terrorist organization to carve out a monoethnic enclave in the North and East of the island. Prabakaran killed thousands of members of our tri-forces, destroyed billions of monies worth defence establishments, and property, attacked the financial capital and nerve centres of the Sri Lankan economy as well as places of religious and cultural importance, maimed and destroyed thousands of innocent children, men and women and monks, assassinated two world leaders and dozens of intellectuals. Sri Lanka never saw a monster like Prabakaran after the carnage left by the exiting imperialistic Portugese, Dutch and British crowns during the colonial period. In other words, Velupillai Prabakaran and his deputy terrorists of the LTTE single-handedly destroyed post colonial Sri Lanka and destroyed its people and their livelihood with the assistance of a carefully laid network of terror supporters of all walks of life around the world.

The Sri Lankan people had had enough of this brutal terrorism perpetrated by Prabakaran and his terror gang crippling lives and the country for so long as they can remember. They correctly decided that Prabakaran and his menace had to be stopped and stopped as soon as possible, as a result of which we see what we see today. The LTTE is almost destroyed, most of its carder and deputies killed and the remainder cornered to not more than 60 square kilometers of land. Sri Lanka is about to nail the most brutal terror organization in the world, where as Bin Laden is still at large and US nor Britain has a clue where he is.

Although the US and Britain took steps to destroy Iraq beyond salvation in their bid to kill Sadam and are still waging war on Bin Laden, they are outraged by the effort of the Sri Lankan State to finish off Prabakaran. Why? They say that civilians are being killed by the State in its campaign to hunt Prabakaran. The British officials such as Milliband, G. Brown and Lunstead are so worried at the Sri Lankan armed forces counter-terrorist offensives, citing possible civilian misery. The truth of the matter is, they seemed to have had no such worry when they jump started the War on Terror alongside the US and attacked Iraq and Afghanistan from land and air, bombing and destroying everything that came in their way. They are still doing it and are calling on Sri Lanka to stop the war and talk to the terrorists. When they were destroying Iraq and Afghanistan, they put down their Human Rights spectacles go on about their business and when they want to watch the Sri Lankan scene, they put them back on.

Thus, we would like to say this to the US and Britain. Rather than trying shameless acts of cutting some slack for a brutal terrorist organization, is it not wiser for the US and Britan to cut some clothe and cover their nakedness first?
-Sri Lanka Guardian

4 comments

WilfredP said...

Dear Nacholibre,

I understand your frustration and agree with many things you have stated, but a few. As an example, you said,
“Cut …, the US and Britain think there is a choice. They are of the opinion that the Sri Lankan State should stop the war and cut some slack for the cornered terrorist leaders of the LTTE including Prabakaran. Why? Their argument is most humane and simple. They say the war causes civilian casualties, and therefore, the State should stop hunting down the terrorist remainder and talk to them! By God, what a wisdom the US and Britain have!”.

I think you are reading too much of the general news. You should be reading facts from their original source, for example the letter written to president Rajapaksa by former ambassadors of US in the witness statements of
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090224p.htmlAn excerpt of the text from the letter (below) shows that US position on this matter is not what you think.

My friend, you should be careful when you write, because more people will start believing in what is not true and it will only make things worse for Sri Lanka. Also, understand that there are a majority of Tamil Diaspora (thousands) lobbying politicians and the politicians have no option but to bring the issue up in the parliament, but politicians know what’s really going on in SL from UN and Human rights organisations (read the other documents from the above link).

We, Sri Lanka public also should challenge false claims with credible evidence wherever possible. This is happening and as a result the majority Tamil Diaspora original claim of genocide is now proved to the world to be false. We also should request the government to protect democracy. As former ambassadors of US have rightly pointed out in the letter such action by the government will give the government and the president more majority support.

Excerpt… (I made important points in bold font)
.... We have all, at different times and in different ways, made it clear that we
believed the goals and tactics of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were
unacceptable, and that the Government of Sri Lanka was engaged in a difficult
but necessary fight against terrorism. We have all supported and argued for
United States assistance to Sri Lanka in that struggle.


It is for all of these reasons that we are now so upset by developments in Sri Lanka, the most recent of which was the murder of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunga. We fear that, even as Sri Lanka is enjoying military progress against the LTTE, the foundations of democracy in the country are under assault. The killing of Mr. Wickrematunga has prompted this letter, but there have been many previous incidents in which the rights of individuals and the media have been violated.

... We are familiar with your history as a defender of those whose rights were threatened by the Government. We assume, therefore, that if Government forces are carrying out these acts, they are acting without your permission and knowledge. We believe it is imperative that these actions stop, and that those who have carried them out be prosecuted.

Fighting an unconventional war against a terrorist enemy is a difficult task, and the sad truth is that it almost always results in some brutal and illegal acts. This is as true of our country as it is of Sri Lanka. The important thing is that the country's leadership not condone these acts, and that an atmosphere is set from the top that they will not be accepted, and that those who commit them will be held to account.

We urge you to take steps to reestablish accountability and the rule of law in Sri Lanka. Investigations have been promised before but have been futile. At times Government officials have not appeared diligent, as happened in the investigation of the killing of NGO workers assisted by the International Eminent Persons Group. It is crucial that an investigation now not follow that same fruitless path. It must also be made clear to members of the security forces that discipline will be enforced and violators will be brought to justice. Only you can provide the leadership and clear direction that will make this happen. We have seen before the positive results that such leadership can have, for example, when the decision to issue receipts for all detained persons dramatically reduced the number of disappearances.

Sri Lanka has gone through difficult times, but its democratic system has always persevered. Neither the LTTE nor assaults by other radical forces have been able to destroy it. It would be a tragedy if it were destroyed now, not from without, but from within.

 

Anonymous said...

WilfredP, here's a fact for you.

Respected British medical journal, The Lancet puts the civilian casualties in the US invasion of Iraq at a whopping 655,000 and some accounts cite the figure as high as 1.3 million. I wonder whether the Bush administration were worried about the plight of the civilians back then?

Do you have any comments for this WilfredP? I wonder what the former ambassadors of US have to say about this!

freedom said...

Why then...Not now????Read this wilfredP...I think you must start to read the history.......
This is what he has said in June 2006 while he was the ambassador here.

US ambassador to Sri Lanka threatens the LTTE
By K. Ratnayake
14 January 2006
In a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Sri Lanka on Tuesday, US ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead delivered a blunt warning to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to return to the negotiating table or confront a strengthened Sri Lankan military backed by the US.

Lunstead’s comments come amid rapidly escalating tensions on the island where the military and the LTTE are engaged in what amounts to an undeclared war. There is mounting evidence that both sides are deliberately heightening communal tensions and carrying out provocative attacks and murders. Each denies responsibility for the wave of killings.

Washington has already signalled where it will stand in the event of open war. Just four days before Lunstead’s speech, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera in Washington and lauded the “restraint” shown by President Mahinda Rajapakse government “in the face of the LTTE provocations.” She declared that Washington was working with “Sri Lanka to defeat terrorism.”

Lunstead began his comments by explaining that the US and other major powers would continue to pressure the LTTE to restart peace talks stalled since 2003. “There can be a role for the LTTE in future development of Sri Lanka, but only if it returns to the peace table, renounces terrorism in word and deed and becomes a responsible participant in Sri Lanka’s future,” he declared.

But while saying “We want peace. We support peace,” Lunstead warned: “If the LTTE chooses to abandon peace, however, we wanted it to be clear, they will face a stronger, more capable and more determined Sri Lankan military. We want the cost of a return to war to be high.”

To make the point unmistakably clear, Lunstead added: “Through our military training and assistance programs, including efforts to help with counter-terrorism initiatives and block illegal financial transactions, we are helping to shape the ability of the Sri Lankan government to protect its people and defend its interests.”

“Now you may be asking, why is the American ambassador using such blunt language at a gathering of the business elite,” Lunstead told the gathered corporate leaders. “It is imperative that business community become seized with the peace process.”

While US officials still speak of “wanting peace”, Washington is also preparing for the eventuality of war. As Lunstead was addressing the Colombo business elite, a report in Ravaya, a weekly newspaper, indicated that US defence attaché James F. Oxley and US political affairs secretary Evans Williams were in the northern town of Jaffna inquiring into the military situation and the needs of the Sri Lankan armed forces. The two US officials held discussions with the Jaffna commander, Major General G.A. Chandrasiri.

Successive governments in Colombo have been keen to cultivate close military ties with the US. Both of the major parties—Rajapakse’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the opposition United National Party (UNP)—have backed the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism” and tacitly supported the US-led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. For the Pentagon, the island is located in a key strategic position in the Indian Ocean aside naval routes between the Middle East and South East Asia.

In June 2002, Washington held discussions with the UNP-led government on a far-reaching Access and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that would enable US warships and aircraft to use facilities in Sri Lanka. Following the December 2004 tsunami, the US military dispatched warships, helicopters and marines to the island setting a precedent for future US involvement in the name of “humanitarian aid”.

As Lunstead indicated, the US military has been quietly engaged in training programs for the Sri Lankan armed forces for more than two decades. In 2004, closer ties even were established. An Institute of Peace Support Operations Training, Sri Lanka (IPSOTSL) centre was established and used by the US Pacific Command to train “peace-keeping” troops from Sri Lanka and other regional countries. In October 2004, Sri Lanka dispatched 700 troops to help bolster the so-called peace-keeping force on the small Caribbean nation of Haiti sent to prop up the US-installed regime of Prime Minister Gérard Latortue.

By indicating US support for the Sri Lankan military, Lunstead’s comments will only encourage the Rajapakse government, its Sinhala chauvinist allies and the military to escalate their aggressive stance towards the LTTE. An editorial in the right-wing Island newspaper on Thursday hailing the US ambassador’s remarks made clear that the message has been understood in Colombo ruling circles.

“When one deals with an erring child, one has to be soft and mild,” the editorial began. “But being soft and mild doesn’t pay in dealing with grown-up men unleashing unbridled terror. In dealing with them, one has to speak the language they understand most. The US ambassador in Sri Lanka Jeffrey Lunstead has minced no words in telling the LTTE where to get off. His message to the outfit is loud and clear: ‘Return to war at high cost!’”

Reflecting the frustrations of sections of the Colombo ruling elite, the Island has repeatedly criticised the major powers for backing Washington’s “war on terrorism,” but failing to support Colombo’s. It routinely castigates “the peace lobby” and “the LTTE appeasers”. Feeling vindicated, its editorial concluded with the jubilant cry: “Three cheers to the US warning and hats off to Mr Lunstead!”

Mr Lunstead entitled his talk “Peace and Prosperity: US Policy Goals in Sri Lanka 2006”. In the name of “peace”, increasingly overt preparations are being made for war.

WilfredP said...

Hi Freedom,
Like p12345, you too have misunderstood my comments.
In simple English, and in summary, US ambassadors say
1) in the past they have and now they support the war against LTTE
2) they understand that fighting terrorism causes civilian causalities from their own experience
2) they request the government to use the law of Sri Lanka to bring the killers of Lasantha Wickrematunga and others to justice
3) request the government to do (after the LTTE is defeated) something about the ethnic problem through the constitution of Sri Lanka, so that LTTE will not regroup and a united Sri Lanka can develop.

Do you get it now? Don’t you think above is reasonable? If not, what do you think should be done?
Sincerely, Wilfred Perera

Powered by Blogger.