Tuesday, 6 October 2009

There is no crude anti-Americanism in Sri Lanka, the coarse vitriolic is show of anger for baseless criticism and false accusations.

There is no anti-Americanism, and above all there is no anti- Obamanism, in Sri Lanka. There is on the other hand a dislike and displeasure of the American State Administration. It was not started by an identified or self identified nationalism or patriotism of the Sri Lankans, but by the American State Department Personnel and American politicians taking a pro terrorist and anti government move with regard to Sri Lanka.

The avalanche of attacks by the Sri Lankans who took an offence over the statements made by Robert O’Blake the Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs and the Secretary of State Ms.Hillary Clinton, were justifiable and cannot be stated as tirades by self identified nationalists or patriots against American people or its President Barrack Obama.

The President Obama will of course receive the same treatment by the Sri Lankans if they were offended by any of his pronouncements on unverified information given to him by his Officials of the State Department who have personal interest in discrediting the Government of Sri Lanka due to their close connection with the pro-terrorist Tamil expatriates calling themselves the “Tamils for Obama”.

Therefore, it is in the interest of the Obama Presidency that all statements pertaining to Sri Lanka are verified from the “source” before they are submitted to the President or the Congress.

Politically knowledgeable writers using pedantic Marxist verbiage some times write knowingly or unknowingly to give a lopsided view of the Sri Lankans who rightfully take offence over remarks or uncalled for statements against Sri Lanka made at International Forums by American Officials.

The sophisticated political analysts become verbal pugilists attacking people who feel for their country in a simple non affected way, and react to offensive unsubstantiated criticism , as xenophobic chauvinists, taking a distance form the new political revival brought about by Obama.

The Sinhala who seem to have taken more offence over the statement made by Hillary Clinton and efforts of those others like Robert O’Blake to accuse Sri Lanka for violation of human rights are nonetheless aware of the importance of American revival brought about by President Obama, which should be an example for the racist politicians the world over, and specially the Tamil politicians of Sri Lanka, and the pseudo intellectuals like Kumar David, Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Narapalasingham and the lot.

Understanding Obama phenomena should make those who clamour for separation of communities under a federal system of government, to support communal unity through abolition of a political system highlighting the ethnic difference.

The first step in this respect would be to have political parties named according to a political system it proposes rather than the Community which it supports. That has to be encouraged, but the move to introduce legislature in this respect has failed. It would be encouraging if the Tamil and Muslim Intelligentsia move to fall in line with the political systems where there are no political parties identified by reference to an ethnic or communal group they represent.

The Sinhala do their part for the protection of the country and the Nation, taking arms against terrorism, or others come forward to oppose those who discredit the country or make damaging statements against its heroes who risked their lives in defence of the country, some speaking from public platforms, while others taking their pens writing to media with words that describe best their feelings. In such reaction there is no xenophobia, chauvinism or Sinhala supremacism. They rise to the occasion as a call of duty to support their motherland and its defenders.

What differentiate the vitriolic reaction of Sri Lankans for the criticism of the Country or its Armed forces is that such criticism has been made to discredit the government and bring disrepute to its armed force, without supporting their venomous words with examples of instances of actual acts on which the accusations are made.

Sri Lanka had suffered for 30 years under terror and many of its worthy political leaders, Army Officers, religious persons and hundreds of innocent men, women and children had been massacred , while the world looked on without giving any help to stop the carnage .

America took arms against Al Qaida the terrorists, who for America were the terrorists posing a danger to America and its allies. The terrorists in Sri Lanka was not their concern, being not a danger either to America or its allies. The West was therefore more considerate and ready to accommodate them, demanding the government of Sri Lanka to negotiate with the terrorists for a political settlement.

Negotiation was furthest from the minds of the Sri Lanka terrorists. They wanted “the pound of flesh” -a separate Eelam State. The West had nothing to loose and would have even liked Sri Lanka to have negotiated to grant the terrorists the Eelam State they wanted.

It was in that climate the Government of Sri Lanka began its determined military operations in 2006, and eliminated terrorism and rescued over 200,000 Tamil people held in captivity by the terrorists in May,2009.

How can then Sri Lanka, like Cuba speak to the West in a different tone and style without using corrosive vitriol ?

The Sri Lankans speak up with anger against the critical West, because the West which is America and its allies, have no real interest in Sri Lanka, its Tamil, Sinhala or Muslim Communities, other than a political interest in Sri Lanka’s strategic situation in the Indian ocean.

Now the West having had done nothing to help Sri Lanka to rid itself of the cancer of terrorism that had eaten into it, now comes out as angels sent from heaven to defend the poor Tamil IDPs .

These IDPs were rescued by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces from the terrorists who had kept them as a human shield. The Sri Lanka Army risked their lives in the daring rescue mission which had no parallel any where else in the world. But the West interferes now in Sri Lanka which they had left to be terrorised by the ruthless armed terrorists, for no other reason than to help the pro terrorist expatriate Tamils, to divide Sri Lanka, which they failed to do through terrorism.

Sri Lanka government which had without any one else’s help had rid itself of terrorism and rescued over 200 000 IDPs is quite capable of completing the task they had undertaken. What Sri Lanka needs is only financial aid, and not foreign NGOs to assist the IDPs which can easily be done by the Sri Lankans, with the Sri Lankan “peace time” Army.

But the West instead takes the advantage of the occasion to divide Sri Lanka, a task left undone by the terrorists. The attempt of the West is a subterfuge to divide Sri Lanka differently with the aid of the expatriate Tamils, by bringing discredit to the government, put the IDPs and political parties of the opposition in Sri Lanka against the government to prepare a climate to politically divide the country between the Tamils and the Sinhala.

That is the real situation in Sri Lanka vis-à-vis the Western interference, with false accusations . This is not the same as the situation of Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Vietnam or China vis-à-vis the West.

The reason why the Sri Lankans speak out with anger is not because of Sinhala ultra-nationalism or anti-Americanism , but it is to react against the injustice and unfair way in which the people with power try to be little their country despite what it has achieved, which the rich and affluent have failed.

Saturday, 3 October 2009

Hillary Clinton makes damaging remarks against Sri Lanka Army to satisfy her informants the Tamils expatriate terrorist front Organisations, the “T

People living in glass houses should not throw stones at others is an old adage .How could it be related to the damaging Statement the American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the UN Security Council, against the most disciplined Armed Force of Sri Lank, which not only eliminated a heavily armed ruthless terrorist force from Sri Lanka, but also rescued over 200,000 Tamil civilians kept as a human shield by these terrorists ?

Sex and rape are offences that could easily be made against any one, and leave a scar all his or her life. It was an “ innocent “ sex play by a 22 year old intern who crept under a US President’s desk in the Whitehouse to give the President a little sexual excitement that occasioned, for the first time in the history of America, for a US President to be summoned before a Federal Grand Jury, in August, 1998.

That being so the US State Secretary Hillary Clinton should have been more circumspect in making accusations against the Armed Forces of a Sovereign State. No one, not even the Secretary of State of America has the right to make a general statement accusing all armed forces of developing countries put together, for an offence that tarnishes for ever the good name of a Sovereign State.

The Secretary of State of America is an important personality , and no one expects her to make statements detrimental to a country or persons merely to satisfy the interest of a certain groups of the people, or some interested parties. The statements she makes should be studied, and examined from different points of view, and above all verified for the correctness of the facts before presenting them not relying entirely on her informants, who may only have hear say evidence to support their claims.

In this case she seems to have placed absolute trust in her informants, who are evidently the Tamil expatriates in America- who had for years supported the cause of terrorism in Sri Lanka. They have, therefore an interest to bring disrepute to the Government of Sri Lanka and its Armed Forces for the very reason of elimination of the terrorists, and Hillary Clinton has played into their hands.

If the Secretary of State merely read out a report prepared for her, she should have read it before and got those responsible to verify whether the facts stated are correct and obtained from reliable sources.

The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , as a responsible person, which she is, should have consulted the President of Sri Lanka directly or through the Ambassador of Sri Lanka assigned to her country. After all Diplomatic Mission are established and Ambassadors assigned to a country to be consulted.

If the Secretary of State deliberately avoided consulting the Sri Lanka Ambassador and instead consulted the Associations of expatriate pro-terrorists Tamils , who are the front organisations for terrorists banned in USA, to prepare her report to the UN Security Council, what is the necessity to have Ambassadors in USA accredited to represent their countries.

Hillary Clinton has in her statement to the UN Security Council put “ within the same bracket” Congo, Sudan, Balkan, Burma and Sri Lanka as countries using rape as a tactic of war. She of course avoided putting America within that bracket despite the American Army being the worst case in this respect.

Violent sex attacks and rape by American soldiers in Iraq have been revealed and documented. She avoids that, to include Sri Lanka being a country using rape as a tactic of war. That itself makes her statement a false statement of facts. She accuses the Sri Lanka Armed Forces based on false propaganda material of the pro terrorist Tamil expatriates, who seem to have access to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State for Asia Robert O’Blake claiming themselves to be the “Tamils for Obama “.

Rape is an offence with which not only the soldiers , but any one could be accused to create a doubt about their character in the minds of a listener. That was why quite often the rape is broached when the necessity to discredit a party arises. Recently the UK Channel 4 used that tactic , again to accuse the Sri Lanka soldiers for the death of three women in a bathing area.

One who accuses a person, or even an army for rape without substantial evidence is a very low and a wicked person. Because, it defiles the character of a person, and leaves him with the stain of it making him live all his life with that stigma. It is the worst form of character assassination.

The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not only made an irresponsible statement, but put in question her suitability to hold such an important office in an administration which is looked up to by the entire world for its democratic principles, justice and fair play. It is respect for others, that bring respect to one self. If the Secretary of State does not deal honestly and honourably with developing countries, they will begin to doubt the honesty of America.

Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State of America, should deal directly with the Officials of the respective countries despite their size, or significance of the political importance. Politics are like personal relationships. A person who can be trusted to stand by , consults and advises is more a respected friend, than one who judges one, listening to gossip or tale carriers is a doubtful person to be avoided.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made a completely false, and an incorrect, and a damaging statement against Sri Lanka Armed Forces without even wanting to know who Sri Lankans are , and who are their political leaders. Even a new neighbour who settles in a new environment, gets to know the people by either inviting them or calling over to see and speak to them, but Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State of America is behaving like a bull in a China shop. She speak with least concern for the people and governments.

Why is it absurd and foolish , more than being wicked , to say that the Sri Lanka Armed Forces used rape as a tactic of war ?

Because the Sri Lanka armed forces did not resort to rape during its war against the terrorists as they could not have, even if they wanted to, because terrorists were vigilant and present even if they were not seen and if the Soldiers were not alert in their duty of relentlessly pursuing the enemy, the out come would have been disastrous.

The military operations against terrorism lasted only about three years. Within that “short” space of time the Army could not relax to seek pleasure or” rape like gunning down an enemy”, as they were kept on their feet rain or sunshine. The Armed Forces could not give the terrorists time to come back to attack them, therefore the soldiers kept the enemy running away from the advancing forces.

In such a climate how could the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speak about the Armed Forces using rape as a tactic of war. Hillary Clinton had merely been reading out a statement written by a speech writer whose imagination lacks intelligence.

A political leader cannot behave like a “thug” making accusations and calling names to all and sundry. There should be a certain decorum and respectability in behaviour or in speech. A political leader of a great nation should search for information going to the very source not listening to every Dick and Tommy, and Harry coming forward with half backed false hood.

Once it was Navi Pillai the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who collected information from the website of the terrorists to accuse the Sri Lanka Armed Forces for war crimes. And now it is sad to see the Secretary of State of the leader Nation of the World accusing Sri Lanka on hearsay evidence provided to her by the pro terrorist expatriates posing as the “Tamils for Obama “.

These expatriates have been out of the reality of Sri Lankan political situation since they arrived in America in the 1980s. There is no reason for Hillary Clinton to have accused the Government of Sri Lanka depending on their evidence without speaking directly to the President of Sri Lanka or his accredited Ambassador in America.

During the USA Presidential election campaign, Hillary Clinton spoke of not putting all terrorists into the same bag, as one is different from the other. That was a wrong evaluation of the reality. She considers that those terrorists that are harmful to America or Europe are real terrorists while others are “ freedom fighters” or liberators. The terrorists who terrorise a country an its people, massacre innocent people, explode bombs, use suicide bombs are as much terrorists even if they have no intention of carrying out terrorism in America.

Hillary Clinton, now as the Secretary of State of USA should re-examine her earlier lopsided view of terrorism. Because she is now responsible for the humanity the world over as a the Secretary State of the leading Nation of the World. Therefore, her narrow view of terrorism carries no credence and is a danger to the world at large.