How Offshoring Has Destroyed the Economy

Nobel Laureate: Globalism Has Been Ruinous for Americans

US President Barack Obama (L) signs the guest book under the look of his wife Michelle (C) after participating in a wreath-laying ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London on May 24, 2011. Obama basked on May 24, 2011 in the lavish royal pageantry of a state visit to Britain, given an extra dash of glamour by a brief encounter with Prince William and his new bride Catherine. -Getty Images
BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

(May 31, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) These are discouraging times, but once in a blue moon a bit of hope appears. I am pleased to report on the bit of hope delivered in March of 2011 by Michael Spence, a Nobel prize-winning  economist, assisted by Sandile Hlatshwayo, a researcher at New York University. The two economists have taken a careful empirical look at jobs offshoring and concluded that it has ruined the income and employment prospects for most Americans. 

To add to the amazement, their research report, “The Evolving Structure of the American Economy and the Employment Challenge,” was published by the very establishment Council on Foreign Relations.
For a decade I have warned that US corporations, pressed by Wall Street and large retailers such as Wal-Mart, to move offshore their production for US consumer markets, were simultaneously moving offshore US GDP, US tax base, US consumer income, and irreplaceable career opportunities for American citizens. 
Among the serious consequences of offshoring are the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that made the US an “opportunity society,”  an extraordinary worsening of the income distribution, and large trade and federal budget deficits that cannot be closed by normal means. These deficits now threaten the US dollar’s role as world reserve currency. 

I was not alone in making these warnings. Dr. Herman Daly, a former World Bank economist and professor at the University of Maryland, Dr. Charles McMillion, a Washington, DC, economic consultant, and Dr. Ralph Gomory, a distinguished mathematician and the world’s best trade theorist, understand that it is strictly impossible for an economy to be moved offshore and for the country with the offshored economy to remain prosperous. 

Even before this handful of economists capable of independent thought saw the ruinous implications of offshoring, two billionaires first recognized the danger and issued warnings, to no avail.  One of the billionaires was Roger Milliken, the late South Carolina textile magnate,  who spent his time on Capital Hill, not on yachts with Playboy centerfolds, trying to make our representatives aware that we were losing our economy.  The other billionaire was the late Sir James Goldsmith, who made his fortune by correcting the mistakes of America’s incompetent corporate CEOs by taking over their companies and putting them to better use. Sir James spent his last years warning of the perils both of globalism and of merging the sovereignties of European countries and the UK into the EU. 

Sir James' book, The Trap, was published as long ago as 1993. His book, The Response, in which he replied to the “free trade” ideologues in the financial press and academia who denigrated his warning, was published in 1995. [

Sir James called it correct, as did Roger Milliken.  They predicted that the working and middle classes in the US and Europe would be ruined by the greed of Wall Street and corporations, who would boost corporate earnings by replacing their domestic work forces with foreign labor, which could be paid a fraction of labor’s productivity as a result of the foreign country’s low living standard and large excess supply of labor. Anytime there is an excess supply of labor, or the ability of corporations to pay labor less than its productivity, the corporations bank the difference, Share prices rise, and Wall Street and shareholders are happy.
All of this was over the heads of “free trade” ideologues, who threw accusations such as “protectionist” at Goldsmith, Milliken, Daly, Gomory, McMillion, and myself. These “free trade” ideologues are economically incompetent.  They do not know that the justification for free trade is based on the principle of comparative advantage, which means that a country specializes in those economic activities in which it performs best and trades for those goods that other countries do best. Instead, the ideologues think that free trade means the freedom of capital to seek absolute advantage abroad in lowest factor cost.  In other words, the free trade incompetents have never read David Ricardo, who formalized the case for free trade. 

Other economists, especially those high profile ones in high profile academic institutions, were bought and paid for. In exchange for grants from offshoring corporations these hirelings invented “the New Economy,” in which everyone would prosper as a result of getting rid of “dirty fingernail jobs.”  The New Economy wouldn’t make anything, but it would lead the world in innovation and in financing what others did make.  The “new economists” were not sufficiently bright to realize that if a country didn’t make anything, it couldn’t innovate. 

Let’s go now to Michael Spence and Sandile Hlatshwayo, who have provided an honest report for which we should give thanks. Professor Spence could have made many millions using the prestige of his Nobel Prize to lie for the Establishment, but he chose to tell the truth.  
Here is what Spence and Hlatshwayo report:
“This paper examines the evolving structure of the American economy, specifically, the trends in employment, value added, and value added per employee from 1990 to 2008. These trends are closely connected with complementary trends in the size and structure of the global economy, particularly in the major emerging economies. Employing historical time series data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. industries are separated into internationally tradable and non-tradable components, allowing for employment and value-added trends at both the industry and the aggregate level to be examined. Value added grew across the economy, but almost all of the incremental employment increase of 27.3 million jobs was on the non-tradable side. On the non-tradable side, government and health care are the largest employers and provided the largest increments (an additional 10.4 million jobs) over the past two decades. There are obvious questions about whether those trends can continue; without fast job creation in the non-tradable sector, the United States would already have faced a major employment challenge.
“The trends in value added per employee are consistent with the adverse movements in the distribution of U.S. income over the past twenty years, particularly the subdued income growth in the middle of the income range. The tradable side of the economy is shifting up the value-added chain with lower and middle components of these chains moving abroad, especially to the rapidly growing emerging markets. The latter themselves are moving rapidly up the value-added chains, and higher-paying jobs may therefore leave the United States, following the migration pattern of lower-paying ones. The evolution of the U.S. economy supports the notion of there being a long-term structural challenge with respect to the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in the United States. A related set of challenges concerns the income distribution; almost all incremental employment has occurred in the non-tradable sector, which has experienced much slower growth in value added per employee. Because that number is highly correlated with income, it goes a long way to explain the stagnation of wages across large segments of the workforce.”
What is Spence telling us?  Spence is careful not to say that globalism is the intentional result of enhancing capital’s profits at the expense of labor’s wages, but he does acknowledge that that is its effect and that globalism or jobs offshoring has the costs that Daly, Gomory, McMillion, Milliken, Goldsmith, and I have pointed out. Spence uses the same data that we have provided that proves that during the era of globalism the US economy has created new jobs only in nontradable services that cannot be offshored or be produced in locations distant from their market. For example, the services of barbers, waitresses, bar tenders, and hospital workers, unlike those of software engineers, cannot be exported. They can only be sold locally in the location where they are provided. 

Tradeable jobs are jobs that produce goods and services that can be exported and thus can be produced in locations distant from their market. Tradeable jobs result in higher value-added and, thereby, higher pay than most non-tradable jobs. 

When a country’s tradeable goods and services are converted by offshoring into its imports, it is thrown back on low productivity domestic service jobs for its employment. These domestic service jobs, except for dentists, lawyers, teachers, and medical doctors, do not require a university education. Yet, America has thousands of universities and colleges, and the government endlessly repeats the mantra that “education is the answer.”   

But with engineering, design, and research jobs offshored, and with many of the jobs that remain within the US filled by foreigners on HB-1 and L-1 visas, we now have the phenomenon  of American university and college graduates, heavily indebted with student loans, jobless, and living with their parents, who support them.  

Spence also acknowledges that the change in the structure of American employment from higher productivity to lower productivity jobs is the reason both for the stagnation in US consumer income and for the rising inequality of income. Sending middle class jobs abroad raised the earnings of capital. Spence understands that the lack of growth in consumer income has resulted in a shortfall in domestic demand, resulting in high unemployment.  He could have added that jobs offshoring also gave us the Federal Reserve’s policy of pumping up consumer debt as a substitute for the missing growth in consumer income. There is an obvious limit to the ability to maintain the growth of consumer demand via the growth of indebtedness.  

The offshored economy is the “New Economy,” which the “free trade” hirelings of Wall Street and the global corporations invented in order to pay, with grants from the offshoring corporations, for their summer homes in the Hamptons. 

As a graduate student in economics, I was fortunate to study with a number of professors who had or were subsequently awarded  Nobel Prizes. Among these creative people there are two economists whom I did not study under, but whose work I have read, and whose work is of great importance to our economic prospects. The two most important economists of our time, who, without any doubt, deserve the Nobel Prize are Ralph Gomory and Herman Daly. 

Ralph Gomory’s book, “Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests,” coauthored with William J. Baumol, a past president of the American Economics Association, is the most important work in trade theory ever produced. This book, and subsequent papers by Gomory, prove beyond all doubt that the free trade theory set out by David Ricardo at the beginning of the 19th century is merely a special case, not a general theory. 
Economists learn in their graduate courses that free trade is an unchallengeable doctrine and that only ignorant protectionists dispute the theory. This mindset was sufficient for Gomory’s book to be largely ignored, even though Paul Samuelson, the dean of American economics, acknowledged the critical point that there are situations in which free trade is not mutually beneficial. 

The other deserving recipient of the Nobel prize is Herman Daly.  On the trade issue, Daly’s point is different from and less revolutionary than Gomory’s.  Daly makes the same point that I make, which is that the classic theory of free trade is based on comparative advantage, not on absolute advantage, and that offshoring is based on absolute advantage. Thus, offshoring is not free trade. 

Daly’s revolutionary contribution to economics comes from his realization that the production function that is the basis of economic science is wrong. 

This production function is known as the Solow-Stiglitz production function. This production function assumes that man-made capital is a substitute for nature’s capital. It follows from this assumption that whatever humans do to use up and destroy the natural environment can be overcome by the resourcefulness of science and technology.  

Daly shows that this reasoning is incorrect.  If the Gulf of Mexico is destroyed by fertilizer run-offs from agri-business and by oil spills, only nature can correct the problem after many years measured in decades or centuries.  In the meantime, humans are without the resource.  

Daly’s argument is brilliant in its simplicity.  In former times, nature’s capital was enormous, and man’s reproducible capital was small.  For example, fish in the oceans were plentiful, but fishing boats were not. Today fishing boats are in excess supply, but ocean fishing stocks are depleted. Thus, the limiting factor is not man-made capital, but nature’s capital. Daly stresses that by leaving ecological and social costs out of the computation of GDP, economists do not have a reliable measure of the effect of economic activity on human welfare. 

All of economics is predicated on the notion that resources are inexhaustible, and that the only challenge is to use them most efficiently. But if resources are not inexhaustible and cannot be replicated by human capital, the world economy is being ruthlessly exploited to its detriment and to the detriment of life on earth. 

Thanks to Bush/Cheney/Obama and the wars for military/security profits, we might not last long enough to test Daly’s hypothesis. As American hegemony confronts both China and Russia, hubris can rid the planet of humans before nature does.  

To find a Nobel prize-winner documenting the high cost of globalism to developed economies is extraordinary. For the Council on Foreign Relations to publish it suggests that the Establishment, or some part of it, suspects that its hubris has run away with its fortunes, and that different thinking is needed to restore the US economy. 

We must hope that Spence’s paper will encourage thought.  On the other hand, the bought-and-paid-for-economists will confront Spence with their fantasies that the US would be enjoying full employment if only government did not discourage employment with unemployment compensation, food stamps, income support programs, unions, minimum wages, and regulation.  

Recently, yet another high-level warning came from the International Monetary Fund.  The IMF report said that the US economy has been seriously eroded and that the age of America is over. 

Will the US business and economic establishments heed these warnings, or will the US become a third world country as I predicted at the beginning of this century?


Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.  His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
 

Tell a Friend

An impartial body of advisers is urgently required

The complaint of ordinary people, however, is that these persons and organizations fail to play their expected role satisfactorily. The general public who are at the receiving end of intense propaganda unleashed by competing political parties, are today placed in a quandary. Even on matters such as economics where statistics and data should lead to common conclusions, there is no agreement. These statistics are either distorted or the same data are used for reaching different conclusions.


by Milinda Rajasekera

(May 30, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Persons and organisations dedicated to intellectual pursuits have been many throughout history. Their efforts have been to reduce the widely prevalent ignorance among people and to enhance their level of rational and logical thinking on human affairs. The importance of intellectual pursuits was accentuated by Francis Bacon thus: “Seek you first the good things of the mind and the rest will either be supplied or its loss will not be felt.” 

The words and deeds (of course, more words than deeds) of those who have attained high states of intellectualism throughout have infused inspiring thoughts into the minds of people who strive to reach higher levels of thinking. Intellectuals are basically philosophers whose aim, according to Henry David Thoreau, is to love wisdom so as to live, according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity and trust.” There have been and there are those - although the percentage is small - who had fully attained or come close to this standard of wisdom. Most of them, however, shun publicity and live in isolation.

This brief introduction to the nature of intellectualism is intended to focus attention on the role of intellectuals in this country. Sri Lankan society is not bereft of those falling into this class of people who could broadly be described as intellectuals. They are those who have obtained higher education and ascended to high administrative and executive positions. More advanced among them occupy various positions in institutions of higher education such as universities. Apart from these persons there are those belonging to various professions who could be identified as those belonging to the intelligentsia.

This category of people contributes to the enhancement of public awareness and enlightenment, individually and collectively. Some have organized themselves into associations. Among such organizations that have come into being in recent times are: Sri Lanka-Alliance of Progressive Professionals and Intellectuals (APPI), The Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) and the Friday Forum. These groups add to the plethora of such voluntary organizations of public spirited persons who make an effort to raise public awareness on matters of vital importance to public life.

The complaint of ordinary people, however, is that these persons and organizations fail to play their expected role satisfactorily. The general public who are at the receiving end of intense propaganda unleashed by competing political parties, are today placed in a quandary. Even on matters such as economics where statistics and data should lead to common conclusions, there is no agreement. These statistics are either distorted or the same data are used for reaching different conclusions. So it is in this situation that the intellectuals have to examine the pros and cons of these issues objectively and analytically and present to the public their assessments and recommendations.

Unfortunately, these intellectuals and their associations seem unable to play this role effectively mainly because some of these organizations also have fallen prey to divisive party politics, instead of being above narrow divisions. They often betray their political party preferences and prejudices while declaring their assessments and decisions. The high quality of independence and impartiality expected of them is thus sullied. Some among those considered intellectuals unfortunately follow the example of some politicians whose main concern is self-aggrandisement. Some have become obsequious sycophants singing the praises of persons at the helm of affairs for personal gain thus throwing the required quality of independence and impartiality to the winds. What is necessary, therefore, is for all these public spirited organizations of real intellectuals to band themselves into a group to examine the present national problems and issues objectively and dispassionately and to declare their opinions and conclusions for the benefit of both the administration and the public. Great care has to be taken to exclude from this group all those who have close political party connections and affiliations. It becomes then the duty of the opposition and the media also to give due respect and consideration to views expressed by this body.

If these intellectuals fail to act in this fashion, the government has to intervene to accomplish the task of forming a body of this nature to look at national issues objectively and make recommendations. The galaxy of numerous advisors that is employed at high cost today to advise the President and ministers could be disbanded after the creation of this new advisory board. The members of this advisory board should be picked from among those outstanding scholars and experts who have shown independence and impartiality on national issues. Extra care has to be taken to exclude those with political party connections. This proposal will, no doubt, seem idealistic in the present context intensified politicization of all segments of our society. But this is an urgently required step if the country is to emerge unscathed from the whole complicated entanglement of impediments it is confronted with today. 

Tell a Friend

We need to build mutual confidence with the UN


We need to build mutual confidence between the office of the Special Rapporteur and the Government of Sri Lanka which share a common objective of ensuring of the upholding of the rule of law. To this extent it is important that disclosure is made fully and unconditionally at the earliest opportunity in a spirit of constructive engagement and transparency. No less could be expected from an engagement with a sovereign nation.


Statement by Attorney-General of Sri Lanka Mohan Pieris, during the Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns

17th Session of the Human Rights Council, 31 May 2011

by Mohan Pieris

(May 31. Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to provide the government an opportunity to respond to his technical note, we would however like to observe that the whole exercise did not achieve its full potential. Firstly the report contained blurred and illegible images which were not of a quality that could be examined and therefore precluded the government from making a proper assessment. It would therefore be useful for legible copies to be made available in a timely manner. A request was also made to provide documents in their original forms. These too were transmitted by way of a scanned document of a faxed document. The illustrations in the Spivac report were also illegible which meant that the images on which many assertions were made could not be revealed in time. We assure the SR that the outcome will be shared with him once such analysis is complete.

Mr President
We need to build mutual confidence between the office of the Special Rapporteur and the Government of Sri Lanka which share a common objective of ensuring of the upholding of the rule of law. To this extent it is important that disclosure is made fully and unconditionally at the earliest opportunity in a spirit of constructive engagement and transparency. No less could be expected from an engagement with a sovereign nation.

Sri Lanka notes that the expert document submitted by Mr Spivac concludes that the reports are authentic. By a public assertion on the 15th of October 2009, he seeks to change this position with regard to the extended video which also includes the 2009 video. What reliance can we then place on evidence of this nature? Should he then be ultra cautious in the reception of unverified material of a political flavor?

We would also urge the Special Rapporteur to endeavour to move away from the practice of engaging the same experts in evaluating the 2010 video lest it lends itself to a general reaffirmation of the conclusions of 2009. It is suggested that it would be more prudent for the Special Rapporteur with all the resources available to him to identify other experts of equal or better repute to examine and evaluate the videos. The commissioning of the self same experts who had arrived at definitive conclusions will lead to allegations of bias on the part of the Special Rapporteur.

May I say a word of Spivac’s report. The government has discovered that Mr Spivac is a technical representative for a brand of special software which was used to enhance the 2009 video and which was shared by the two other experts. This procedure does not augur well for the concept of independence as after all justice , the say, should not only be done but should appear to be done.

Mr President
It must be borne in mind that an expert should provide an objective and unbiased report within his competence and not play the role of an advocate,

The Special Rapporteur will be pleased to learn that the LLRC has taken cognizance of this matter and heard the testimony of the most competent expert who has conducted research with a view to ascertaining the veracity of the video. It is to be noted that the LLRC had taken cognizance of this matter well before the Special Rapporteur had prepared his report. Woud not it then be prudent for the Special Rapporteur to have held his hand to await the findings of the LLRC?

Mr President
It is our view that the Special Rapporteur should facilitate the testimony of the experts before the LLRC with a view to assisting the LLRC to strike the right balance in executing its mandate.

You will also note that as far back as 2009 the Attorney General has given his serious consideration to the video immediately after its broadcast. The Attorney General complained to the OFFCAM in the UK and demanded an inquiry into the conduct of Channel 4 which declined to provide the original version of the video.
It has to be highlighted that the legal efficacy of any report or publication is hinged upon the fundamental requirement of impartiality and a complete lack of bias, having regard to the rules of natural justice. It is our respectful position that having regard to the reception of complaint in the first instance, rules consonant with natural justice were not complied with by a culpable failure to afford an opportunity to Sri Lanka to respond.

Reports by NGO’s, human rights defenders and media personnel are quick to report the tragic incidents which result in the deaths or injuries of civilians occurring during armed conflicts to communicate the most generalized conclusions in a very short time of casualties which per se appear to be violations of international law or even war crimes. In most times than not there is a complete failure to examine and find out the legal basis upon which the operation was carried out.

It is easy to comprehend the sensitivity with which the civilian losses are perceived. But it is equally important that one does not rush to conclusions. We must therefore bear in mind that it is fundamentally indispensable that any legal inquiry such as the one undertaken by a Special Rapporteur more particularly with regard to an internal armed conflict cannot assume conclusions without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances surrounding the military operations as a whole. One would accept without demur that the humanitarian operation conducted by the GOSL was to free its own citizens from forced captivity and to that end the GOSL was legally justified in resorting to the use of necessary force. We were conscious of the principle of proportionality in the execution of the humanitarian operation.

It is respectfully submitted that the process adopted in regard to the publication of the videos and subsequent steps taken fall far short of this requirement and is tainted with the fundamental vice of bias and partiality. The fact that the contents of the video were not made available to the Sri Lankan government by Channel 4 lends support to the suspicion that the broadcast of the videos was for a collateral purpose.

The Government of Sri Lanka is ready to constructively engage with the Special Rapporteur in the future on the basis of transparency and fair processes being adopted. Progress achieved through domestic procedures and mechanisms will be communicated to the Special Rapporteur upon completion of internal processes.

We thank the Special Rapporteur for facilitating a very constructive meeting last afternoon and we look forward to continuing this engagement and closer co-operation in the times ahead.

Thank You Mr President.

Tell a Friend

CHR condemns the police attack on Katunayake FTZ protesters

Guarantee the constitutional right to peaceful protest

by Surangi Ariyawansa

(May 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Centre for Human Rights (CHR) condemns the Police attack on the protesters from the Katunayake Free Trade Zone (FTZ) who were demonstrating against the proposed pension scheme for private sector.

Article 14 of the constitution guarantees that ‘every citizen is entitled to - (b) the freedom of peaceful assembly; (c) the freedom of association; (d) the freedom to form and join a trade union.’ Therefore the government and its agents do not have the right to oppose/suppress trade union action of the workers. In addition Sri Lanka has signed several international agreements which guarantee workers rights including peaceful demonstration and trade union action.

Yesterday (May 30) the Police charged and tear gassed FTZ workers who were leaving their factories in a peaceful manner. When the workers resisted the Police fired at them using rubber bullets and live ammunition, this is accepted by the IGP himself. Over 240 workers were wounded and many were arrested. There is also evidence that those who were arrested were assaulted by policemen.

Workers have a right to be concerned about their earnings and they have been against the proposed ‘pension scheme’ from its inception. Due to their ceaseless trade union action the government has decided to temporarily suspend the implementation of the scheme and have decided to revise it.

Whether you agree with the workers or not, everyone who believes in democracy should accept the right to peaceful assembly and protest. CHR demands the Police and other law enforcement authorities to guarantee the constitutional rights of workers.

Tell a Friend

Jaya & India’s Lanka Policy


The tragic fallout is that the rich fishing grounds on the Sri Lankan side of the Palk Bay has become a bone of contention between Tamil Nadu fishermen and the Sri Lankan Navy, leading to the death of several Indian fishermen.


by V. Suryanarayan

(May 31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) In her first interaction with the media, soon after unprecedented electoral victory, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa assured the people that she will exercise pressure on the central government to revise its Sri Lanka policy not only to expose the heinous crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government during the last stages of the fourth Eelam War and bring the guilty to book, but also to ensure that justice is done to the Tamils in the island nation. Jayalalithaa’s timely appeal in support of the Sri Lankan Tamil cause has been welcomed by Tamils across the world. However, it raises one important question — what is the role of federal units in the making of Indian foreign policy?

In a large country like India foreign policy towards neighbouring countries will have its immediate fallout on contiguous Indian states. India-Pakistan relations will have its fallout on Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat; policy towards China will affect Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Jammu and Kashmir; policy towards Nepal will have profound consequences on Bihar, Sikkim, Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh; India-Bhutan relations will have its effect on West Bengal, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim; equations with Myanmar will affect Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur, India-Bangladesh relations will impinge upon West Bengal, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura and Assam and the policy towards Sri Lanka will have its consequences on Tamil Nadu.

Under the Indian Constitution the formulation and implementation of foreign policy comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government. In actual practice, on several occasions, New Delhi has sacrificed the interests of the contiguous Indian states. Such a policy has also created frictions between the central government and the federal units. The problem is not peculiar to India; it is common to many countries like the United States, China and former Soviet Union. In Yugoslavia, before its disintegration, the federal units had their departments of foreign affairs. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating that the federal units should administer foreign policy; what I am pleading for is a mechanism by which the interests of contiguous Indian states are fostered and protected by the central government. What is good for the people of Tamil Nadu need not necessarily be bad for the government of India. To put it differently the federal units must make their benign inputs into the making of India’s neighbourhood policy.

A few illustrations are given below to drive home the point how the conduct of India’s Sri Lanka policy has adversely affected the interests of Tamil Nadu. The Sirimavo-Shastri Pact, 1964 by which New Delhi decided to confer Indian citizenship on large sections of Indian-origin Tamils in Sri Lanka was not only a reversal of the time-tested policy of Jawaharlal Nehru, it was also concluded without taking into consideration the wishes of the affected people in Sri Lanka. All important leaders in Tamil Nadu — Kamaraj Nadar, V K Krishna Menon, C N Annadurai and P Ramamurthy — expressed their opposition and indignation. However, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, advised by the then Commonwealth secretary C S Jha, was more interested in befriending the Sri Lankan government than in protecting the interests of the people of Indian origin.

The second example is the conclusion of the maritime boundary agreements between India and Sri Lanka in 1974 and 1976. As a result of these agreements not only the island of Kachchatheevu, which belonged to the Zamindari of Raja Ramnad, was ceded to Sri Lanka, the traditional fishing rights enjoyed by Indian fishermen were also given up. Faced with a similar situation in the 1950s when the central government decided to transfer Beru Bari to East Pakistan, B C Roy, then West Bengal chief minister, took the issue to the Supreme Court, won the case and prevented the ceding of Indian territory. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why a judicial remedy was not resorted to by the Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam government in Tamil Nadu in 1974 to prevent the transfer of Indian territory of Kachchatheevu to Sri Lanka. The tragic fallout is that the rich fishing grounds on the Sri Lankan side of the Palk Bay has become a bone of contention between Tamil Nadu fishermen and the Sri Lankan Navy, leading to the death of several Indian fishermen.

It is not proposed to analyse the sharp twists and turns in India’s Sri Lanka policy during recent years, but one fact must be underlined. There are obvious limitations as to what India can do to influence the domestic developments in a neighbouring country, but Sri Lanka, as Prime Minister Indira Gandhi told the Lok Sabha in 1983, is not “just another country”, India has vital stakes not only in its stability, but also in the dignity and welfare of the Tamils. Based on this premise, New Delhi not only helped the Tamils to internationalise the gross human rights violations, but also made it clear to Colombo that it will not remain a silent spectator if a military solution to the problem was pursued. So effective was India’s policy that when Indian planes air dropped food and medicines in Jaffna in May 1987, not even one country raised its finger against India. But much water has flowed through the Palk Strait since 1987. More tragic, India’s Sri Lanka policy changed for the worse. When the war against the LTTE degenerated into a war against Tamil civilians during the last stages of the Fourth Eelam War and when nearly 40,000 innocent Tamils were massacred, India remained a silent spectator. Adding to this India also bailed out Sri Lanka in the United Nations. To our shame, in the United Nations we were in the company of China and Russia.

Given this, Jayalalithaa’s welcome statement holds out the promise that Tamil Nadu will not remain a mute witness if distortions take place in India’s Sri Lanka policy.

V Suryanarayan is senior research fellow, Center for Asia Studies.

Tell a Friend

Et Bhullar die in ignominy, not in Gallows

File Photo

They are without influence, without following, but not without lingering traces of the anger which initially gave rise to the movement.


by B.Raman

(May 31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) How many of you have heard of the so-called Khalistan terrorist movement, which spread death and destruction across Punjab and Delhi for 14 years between 1981 and 1995?

How many of you have heard of the repeated hijackings of Indian Airlines aircraft by the Khalistani terrorists in the 1980s?

How many of you remember the military operation in the Golden Temple, Amritsar, in June 1984, to flush out a group of Khalistani terrorists who had taken shelter there?

How many of you remember the desertions of some Sikh soldiers from the Army and the assassination of a Brigadier by some angry Sikh soldiers after the Golden Temple operation?

How many of you remember the assassination of Indira Gandhi by some of her till then highly trusted Sikh bodyguards, enraged by the Golden Temple operation, in October,1984?

How many of you remember the blowing-up of the Kanishka aircraft of Air India in 1985 and the 1986 assassination in retirement of Gen. A.S.Vaidya, who was the Chief of the Army Staff at the time of the Golden Temple operation?

How many of you remember the assassination of Beant Singh, the Chief Minister of Punjab, in 1995?

These are distant memories now. The Khalistan terrorist movement almost died in the months following the assassination of Beant Singh.

It is 95 per cent dead, but the embers are still there.

In Pakistan in the form of some remnants of the terrorist movement who have been given shelter by the Pakistan Government.

In the West, in the form of some recalcitrant individuals, who are not prepared to say die.

Even in our own country in the form of some individuals here and there in Punjab and Delhi.

They are without influence, without following, but not without lingering traces of the anger which initially gave rise to the movement.

The fact that for 16 years since 1995, the embers have remained embers and are slowly dying their natural death goes to the credit of the people of Punjab, who have ignored them with the contempt they merit.

Is it wise to give these discredited elements a source of new anger that they could exploit in an attempt to give themselves a new lease of life?

This is a question that the Government should carefully consider before it goes ahead with its reported decision to send Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, a notorious Khalistani terrorist, to the gallows in implementation of a long-pending death sentence awarded to him by a court.

Even if there is only a five per cent chance that his death could be exploited by the remnants of the Khalistan movement to re-kindle the embers, should we take the risk?

What do we hope to achieve by carrying out his death sentence?

We don’t need to teach any lesson to anybody 16 years after the movement went into a state of living death.

We don’t need to do any justice to the relatives of the victims of the Khalistan terrorist movement years after their painful memories have faded.

Executions have rarely ended any terrorist movement. Living ignominy has.

Like the ignominy of Carlos, the dreaded international terrorist of the 1970s and the 1980s. He was as dreaded in those years as Osama bin Laden was in the subsequent years.

Where is Carlos, the jackal, now?

Nobody knows. In some unheard of jail in France, spending a life sentence, almost forgotten by his old followers and the people. His movement is dead since 1994.

Nothing wipes out the persona of a terrorist more decisively than ignominy.

Let Bhullar die in ignominy and not in the gallows.


( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )


Tell a Friend

The Sambuddhatva Jayanthi and the New World Order

The first step is to make a commitment toward ending poverty. This could be done nationally, regionally or globally. To start with, the national dimension would be the initial approach. Secondly, we need a plan, which we already have in the United Nations Millennium Goals. Thirdly, we need to empower the poor. The rich nations may not be encouraged to assist in this goal if the poor nations and their citizens are silent.

Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

(May 31, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) Construction, Engineering and Common Amenities Minister Wimal Weerawansa addressing the UN special ceremony to mark the 2600th Sambuddhatva Jayanthi on May 16, 2011 said: “Let us all wish together on this 2600th Sambuddhatva Jayanthi for a new world order and a better world for humankind…I am hopeful that we all will be fortunate enough to witness this profound change in our lives, societies, nations and finally in the whole world.

The Honourable Minister obviously linked the term “new world order” with a “better world for mankind”, and, in the context of the holy event aligned his speech to the noble precepts of tolerance, understanding and compassion.

In the modern context of global governance (where the word “governance” is taken to mean the processes, systems and institutions that are used by governments) the Honourable Minister’s words have a special significance: “ One nation attempts to outdo or weaken the other in order to have control over the geo-political sphere, natural resources and the markets around the world. By such actions the physical world is currently faced with issues such as global warming and other devastating environmental changes, which in turn creates catastrophic weather conditions such as La Nina and El Nino etc. All these disasters have been brought about by the selfish actions by us; unsatisfied and greedy humans”.

A new world order, in the context of the Minister’s speech can only be achieved through consultation, cooperation and consensus among nations as against segregation and polarization. This way, judges of a particular jurisdiction keep in close contact with their counterparts in other jurisdictions across the seas, which enables them to infuse global trends into their judgements; ministers keep in touch with their counterparts overseas, making them aware of the single thread of statecraft that comes with globalization; and police investigators collaborate closely with other police officers across the world to make inroads into the solving of crime. Anne-Marie Slaughter, author of A New World Order (Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 2004) extends this approach and quotes the unfortunate instance of such networks being formed among terrorists, arms dealers, money launderers, drug dealers, pirates of intellectual property and traffickers in women and children. Politics is no longer an isolated discipline of statecraft but is rather a conglomerate of international trends and ideas that weaves a uniform thread of governance.

From a materialistic perspective, a better world for mankind can primarily be achieved through the eradication of poverty. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and onetime Special Advisor to former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on the UN Millennium Development Goals and Economic Advisor to Governments around the World, in his book, The End of Poverty – Economic Possibilities of Our Time (Penguin: New York, 2005), says it is a distinct and real possibility. Sachs quotes the prescient 1930 book of British economist John Maynard Keynes, Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, where Keynes envisioned that there would be no more poverty by the end of the 20th century, attributing to the eradication of poverty the relentless march of science and technology resulting in exponential global economic growth.

Sachs follows through without reservation, by invoking the same logic as Keynes, claiming that by 2025, we could be totally poverty-free by using the wealth of the world and the power of unending repositories of knowledge that we have. Of course, as every good news has a caveat, Sachs lays down the condition that our ability to transcend global poverty would depend on our collective wisdom in using our resources prudently and with good judgment. In his book, Sachs shows the way towards charting a wiser path towards global wealth and prosperity.

To examine this issue the first thing one must do is to define the word “ poverty”. Poverty is defined as a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life. Since poverty is understood in many senses these essentials may be material resources such as food, safe drinking water and shelter, or they may be social resources such as access to information, education, healthcare, social status, political power, or the opportunity to develop meaningful connections with other people in society.

According to the World Bank, extreme poverty is the condition in which a person lives on less than US$ 1 per day, and moderate poverty is when he is forced to exist on less than $2 a day. Although the most severe poverty is in the developing world, there is evidence of poverty in every region. In developed countries, this condition results in wandering homeless people and poor suburbs and ghettos. Poverty may be seen as the collective condition of poor people, or of poor groups, and in this sense entire nation-States are sometimes regarded as poor, but euphemistically called developing nations..

When measured, poverty may be absolute or relative. Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. An example of an absolute measurement would be the percentage of the population eating less food than is required to sustain the human body (approximately 2000-2500 calories per day).

Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on the social context applicable. For instance, the number of people counted as poor could increase while their incomes rise. A relative measurement would be to compare the total wealth of the poorest one-third of the population with the total wealth of richest 1% of the population.

In many developed countries the official definition of poverty used for statistical purposes is based on relative income. As such many critics argue that poverty statistics measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. For instance, according to the United States Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage). Furthermore, the measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the Development (OECD) and the European union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 50% of the median household income. It is reported that the US poverty line is more arbitrary. It was created in 1963-64 and was based on the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "economy food plan" multiplied by a factor of three. The multiplier was based on research showing that food costs then accounted for about one third of the total money income. This one-time calculation has since been annually updated for inflation.

Of course, at the present time, even if poverty may be lessening for the world as a whole, it continues to be an enormous problem. This is due to various socio-economic factors.

The World Bank's "Voices of the Poor", based on research carried out over 20,000 poor people in 23 countries, identifies a range of factors which poor people consider elements of poverty. Most important are those necessary for material well-being, especially food. Many others relate to social rather than material issues such as precarious livelihoods; excluded locations; gender relationships; problems in social relationships; lack of security; abuse by those in power; disempowering institutions; limited capabilities, and weak community organizations.

So how can we make our dream a reality? Through sheer hard work of course. The first step is to make a commitment toward ending poverty. This could be done nationally, regionally or globally. To start with, the national dimension would be the initial approach. Secondly, we need a plan, which we already have in the United Nations Millennium Goals. Thirdly, we need to empower the poor. The rich nations may not be encouraged to assist in this goal if the poor nations and their citizens are silent. Sachs cites the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King who did not wait for the rich and powerful but went ahead helping the cause of the poor and downtrodden. We also need to ensure sustainable development by harnessing scientific and technological advancement. The last frontier is of course individuals – all of us as separate beings, contributing to the cause and supporting our governments. We have to ensure together that democracy, the rule of law, health care and education are fostered and protected in our societies.

The President of Sri Lanka in his Mahinda Chintana, has said: “a Nation grows to its heights through unity, discipline and handwork. Honesty and good governance are essential in growth. The quality of rural economy, national human resource are new growth factors. Creating benefits for common people and improving their life are growth goals. Trusting, development and utilization of local resources are our growth aims”.

There could be no better wisdom than this for a New World Order, if it can be put to practice.

Tell a Friend

Rating Sri Lanka’s investment prospects

by FS

(May 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) How does Sri Lanka rate internationally as an investment centre? Have we put the war behind us? Are foreign investors, keen on Sri Lanka, concerned more about good governance or how quick they get a return on investments, or vice versa?

Is Sri Lanka’s economy and development in the hands of a military-styled administration? Are the fundamentals in place? Is the new tax structure working? Is the budget deficit on track? Will the Government be as ‘disciplined’ as (it should be) under the IMF-guided reforms when the IMF ends its programme at the end of the year (December 2011), and when there is no ‘monitor’ to ensure the country stays on track?

And, irrespective of the current perspective relating to what some may call “the IMF’s cosy relationship with the Government vis-à-vis budget fundamentals”, the fund’s role in guiding financial discipline in expenditure and revenue is a good one and welcomed now, and in the past, by local economists.

These are among many of the issues, one would assume, being examined by a two-member team from international rating agency Standard & Poor’s during a visit this week to Sri Lanka pursuant to the Central Bank’s request for an upgrade of the country’s rating status.

Why is a rating important? A ‘good certificate’ or the higher the ‘stars’ (one to five star) provides confidence to the outside world interested in Sri Lanka in terms of investment, trading or in the case of the trio of multilateral agencies - World Bank, IMF or the ADB, a reason to ramp up funding. Though these agencies have their own, well-laid out mechanisms of analysing a country’s risk and governance structures, ratings are also a plus point.

While the move to seek an IMF Stand-by Arrangement (facility) in 2009 was to prop up foreign reserves which fell sharply owing to the global financial crisis, another reason is that an IMF programme in a country is considered a ‘good certificate’ and a positive for foreign investment. Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves have since then improved tremendously and according to the Central Bank Governor Ajit Nivard Cabraal there is no need for another IMF programme when the current one ends in December. “Our reserves position is very strong,” he says.

Referring to the rating agency process, Cabraal says rating agencies are quick to pounce on unfavourable developments and are not as sensitive or positive on favourable developments. “So it is in own interest to somehow convince them that with the positive features in the economy, the rating needs to be revised upwards,” he says, adding that the global financial markets perceive Sri Lanka as doing much better than what the rating agencies perceive.

So while the Central Bank and the Government say Sri Lanka has done well in economic terms, is that the real picture? Does transparency and governance come into the equation?

According to rating experts, issues of transparency and governance vary among potential foreign investors. “If it is a short-term investment, an investor would be more concerned about his or her return. In the case of long-term investments, these issues (governance) are more prominent and also that of political stability,” one expert noted.

Transparency is a big problem for the current administration. Take the recent Colombo land deals involving leisure group Shangri-La, China National Aero-technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) and the former Commercial Co. property opposite the Beira Lake. Figures mentioned in various press releases vary at times. The Beira Lake deal is yet to go through and trying to get information about its progress, in the public interest, is near impossible. Furthermore the public is unaware at what cost (interest rates) the huge ‘commercial’ loans from China have being obtained at. There is nothing called ‘public interest’ in this administration. Everything is secretive – as good as ‘military secrets’.
Then, again, take the compulsory training for university entrants at military camps. There was no public discussion or even a discourse with universities on this scheme.

Sri Lanka is ideally positioned to take off on a new, growth-filled, development path after the end of the conflict. Pro-government supporters argue that political stability is also a plus point with major elections not expected until 2016 and President Mahinda Rajapaksa backed by his brothers – Basil and Gotabaya – firmly in control to ensure that things happen.

However some economists believe that despite the vision of development via the Mahinda Chintana, there are few policy reforms taking place while there is talk and action in terms of infrastructure, roads and power stations.

“For example, what are the returns and when will it come in terms of the new harbours and airports? These are huge investments,” one economist said adding also that Sri Lanka is still running on the 1977 policy reforms combined with the peace dividend. “Our post-war focus is still on domestic agriculture growth which cannot be sustained at expected 8-10% growth,” he said.

Government spending is on the high side and there is the occasional tinkering and ad-hoc policies like the recent move to lift taxes on some categories of vehicles and re-impose it a few months later, which doesn’t provide any consistency and discipline in governance.

Treasury Secretary P.B.Jayasundera is under pressure to give in to wage demands from public sector workers while on the other hand reducing expenditure to keep up with budget deficit targets. At a recent meeting with academics when the question of a salary increase arose, the President turned to Jayasundera and asked him to explain (to the academics) why such a high increase was not possible.

Ever though the UN and the Western lobby are involved in a tit-for-tat fight with Sri Lanka over alleged war crimes, the country has an excellent chance to improve on its rating if the authorities are also more transparent and accountable among other matters.

Tell a Friend

Development of former war zones neglects reconciliation

by Jehan Perera

(May 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Mahinda Rajapaksa replied to his government’s detractors at the second anniversary celebration of the war victory over the LTTE. Although the President showed no signs of anxiety that his government was under siege by sections of the international community on the issue of human rights violations in the last phase of the war he sought to address those concerns. He argued that the war victory and elimination of terrorism had established genuine human rights in the country. What was important, he opined, was to liberate the people so that they could enjoy their human rights. In addition, the President stressed the importance of ensuring development for the people and emphasized the role of the victorious troops in this development process.


 Despite the impressive signposts of development, there is a problem of reconciliation that festers. There still remains a problem of thousands of LTTE cadre held incommunicado by the military. The government has failed to provide the name lists to their families. 



So far the main showpieces of the government’s success in achieving development have been in the area of infrastructure development. The claims of high rates of economic growth have been vitiated in the minds of most people due to the high inflation that has eaten away at their purchasing power. But the hope of future prosperity has been sustained by the infrastructure projects, that include the new port built at Hambantota, the power plant at Norochcholai and the international airport being constructed at Weerawila. Without a doubt the most widespread sign of infrastructure development has been the road network being upgraded in different parts of the country. A black and gleaming road with white lines in the middle can transform the appearance of an area. Parts of the hill country have been a beneficiary of this investment, with the carpeted roads in lush green and terraced surroundings making a beautiful picture.

The approach road to the town of Mannar in the north west extremity of the country is another such example, though it is the sea that provides the background not mountains. Mannar is a town that has long being neglected both on account of having been in a war zone for three decades and being far from the mainstream of the economic life of the country. However, the new road that connects Mannar to the rest of the country, and the long bridge that connects Mannar Island to the mainland, is an impressive sight that conveys an impression of modernity.

TOURISM POTENTIAL

Residents of Mannar concur that the town has seen more development of its infrastructure in the past two years after the end of the war than in the decades that came before. During most of the war period, Mannar Island on which the town of Mannar is located, remained under the control of the government. There was also a brief period in the early 1990s when it came under LTTE control.

It became a site of heavy fighting in the battles for its control. At that time the population evacuated setting a precedent for later evacuations in other parts of the north that culminated in the tragedy of the last phase of war, with its hostage and human shield situation that was exploited by the LTTE. The scars of war can still be seen with the shells of buildings destroyed in the fighting still remaining. The upgraded road to the important Catholic shrine of Madhu Church is a part of the development that has taken place in Mannar. The Madhu shrine is an important symbol of the links that bind the north and south, Sinhalese and Tamils together, as it is a place of common religious worship. During the period of war, Madhu was home to one of the largest welfare centres for internally displaced persons.

Even today there still remain a few thousands of internally displaced people in the area. But overshadowing their presence is the fact that the Madhu shrine has once again become a site of pilgrimage for people from all parts of the country. This also enhances the prospect of Mannar as a tourist destination in the future. The tourist potential of Mannar Island will be further enhanced once the railroad to Talaimannar are laid again. The railway lines were sabotaged during the war by the LTTE, and used to make bunkers.

The railroad bed has now been cleared of jungle and land mines with the assistance of the Indian government. Once the railway is functioning it will be possible to restart the ferry service to India, from the Talaimannar pier which is the closest point to India. It was reported that Indian workers have been at work, including Sikhs with their turbans, which makes them unmistakable. A complaint that community leaders in Mannar made was that so far employment opportunities for the local people on the rail road project have been limited and it is hoped that this will change.

MISSING DIMENSION

Despite the impressive signposts of development, there is a problem of reconciliation that festers. There still remains a problem of thousands of LTTE cadre held incommunicado by the military. The government has failed to provide the name lists to their families. As a result no one knows whether they are living or dead. The lack of closure which prevents families from closing the door to the past, creates bitterness and frustration which is the reverse of reconciliation that is needed after war. The government’s focus on infrastructure development is not going to resolve this problem, which requires a commitment to human rights that is implemented at the community level in accordance with the vision spelt out by President Rajapaksa in his latest victory speech..

Another problem that requires attention is the competition between adherents of the different religions who wish to stamp their identity and ensure their place. In Mannar, with its predominantly Catholic population, it is the Catholic Church that is taking a leading role in consolidating its presence. This is causing tension with the Hindu and Muslim adherents. A Christian statue that has come up on public land at the entrance to the town is an example of a phenomenon that takes place in other parts of the country as well, where the majority religion of the area asserts itself. Another source of inter religious tension is the activity of the omnipresent military which is putting up Buddhist shrines, especially in locations where there are Bo trees.

A new temple is coming up at Murunkan on a piece of land that has a small Hindu shrine where there is a Bo tree. With the military dominating civil governance in Mannar, as it does in the rest of the north and east, the people find it difficult to look to the government to be a neutral arbiter in resolving these conflicts. Until such time as the government restores civil administration in Mannar, and indeed the rest of the north and east, it is likely to be only NGOs and civil society groups that could do such peace and reconciliation work with credibility. However, they are not given permission by the government to form community groups for such purposes. It appears that the government is concerned about anti-government and pro-LTTE ideologies being imparted to people that could stir up trouble in the future. Even in death, and amidst victory celebrations, it appears that the ghost of the LTTE haunts the government and reconciliation is yet to come.
Tell a Friend

The fine line between LTTE terrorism and state terrorism

How the West rocked the cradle and pinched the baby

What distinct elements were there between state terror and rebel militancy? This war was not without witnesses as is publicly pronounced. This war had more witnesses than the media and NGOs put together.
by Pearl Thevanayagam

(May 31, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Public servants functioning in the North and East during the most turbulent times in the last two years deserve plaudits and recognition. Ms Imelda Sukumar is one such figure whose courage and strength and above all her duty consciousness amidst threats from some members of the LTTE and of course amidst a spiralling war scenario saved hundreds of civilians.

Many criticisms were levelled at her by the Tamils abroad and others in the country. Following her evidence at LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) I could not help pondering that hers was but what she saw and not exactly what happened to others. While it is easy to dismiss her as a stooge of the government or government politicians and putty in the hands of the security forces I empathise with her situation where she was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Were she to carry out her functions as a civil servant it was inevitable that she maintained a working relationship with the security forces. The excesses of the security forces or the militant tactics of the LTTE did not hinder a public servant from co-ordinating with them for the greater security and well being of the civilians particularly in times of armed conflict.

During my time in the country visiting LTTE controlled areas in the ‘90s as a reporter I had the co-operation of army chiefs such as Shantha Kottegoda and Nanda Mallawarachchi who went beyond their call of duty amidst increasing media censorship to allow me access past security points.

Hence I understood the need to convince heads of the security forces to carry out my function as a journalist through co-operating with them to proceed to the LTTE controlled areas in the North and East although my sojourns into LTTE territory were only a few whereas Ms Sukumar lived through an entire period of armed conflict to serve the people of the North and East.

Apart from the public servants the unsung heroes in the war period are the doctors and nurses, volunteers both international and local including the UNHCR and ICRC, SL Red Cross and several more NGOs such as International Crisis Group, Medicines sans Frontieres, Save the Children and Redd Barna and of course the clergy who defied aerial bombardment and rocket launchers to save the fleeing civilians.

This war was the mother of all wars and unprecedented in Sri Lanka’s history so far. The media was totally kept out and even NGOs were asked to pack their bags and leave or else they were warned their safety would not be guaranteed.

Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka is purported to have warned Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the defense Secretary and brother of President Mahinda Rajapakse, that civilian casualties should be kept to a minimum and therefore to proceed with caution and take things gradually. But caution was thrown to the wind by the Defense Secretary who in his fervour and with international support of intelligence, surveillance and arms support from Pakistan, India, US, UK, Russia and China chose the time was ripe to wipe out the LTTE with scant regard to civilian lives.

What distinct elements were there between state terror and rebel militancy? This war was not without witnesses as is publicly pronounced. This war had more witnesses than the media and NGOs put together.

The survivors of this abominable and horrendous war gave evidence at the LLRC along with public servants. If these are not available in the public domain the UN or any international body only need to skim through media reports and not await a government response in making public a finalised report. The LLRC report is being delayed citing various excuses and when the time comes for the final verdict the public and the media would have been side-tracked with other issues affecting the country.

Ms Sukumar is just one of the witnesses and her evidence should not be taken as the total picture of the last throes of the war. Channel 4 videos of surrendering LTTE cadres blindfolded and shot at close range by government soldiers, women in detention denuded and raped by the same and the aerial bombardment of safe zones such as hospitals and schools are enough evidence to bring the government to account for its war crimes.

The UNSG Ban Ki Moon is prevaricating and biding his time despite hard evidence gleaned by his very own investigators. The government is despatching envoys after envoys justifying its stance in conducting the war and patting itself on its back for ending `terrorism’ which is balm to the western ego.

Its gung ho attitude is playing on the US’s recent victory over killing Osama Bin Laden branded a terrorist by the West but mourned all over by Muslim adherents as the upholder of their religious convictions and rights over western dominance. That petrodollars are at the heart and soul of the West is not lost on the discerning public. Otherwise why would Sri Lanka, Diego Garcia and Phillipines would be left out of the list of countries deserving assistance to combat state terror in subjugating its minorities?

That Tamils have suffered enough and international protests by Tamils abroad have still not awaken the conscience of those who assisted the government in annihilating a sizeable proportion of the minority Tamils is not lost on the wider community all because they were active participants in the war for whatever reasons should not detract public prosecution of the government by the war tribunal.

The reasons touted out by the supporting countries of the government that terrorism must be wiped out does not hold water with the actual reason that they are suppliers of arms, weapons, intelligence and in the final analysis it is the kudos that counted. These countries profited hugely from this war. Their atonement and overt sympathising is secondary to the cost of lives lost.

Would Mannar’s potential oil reserve change the scenario for the West to intervene in the manner they did in the Middle East?

Only time will tell.

Tell a Friend