Friday, 21 May 2010

West with its pants down. Part One.

What does the West Stand for ? Is it Democracy politically, and Christianity as its civilizing influence ? But unfortunately it seems as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, the West stands neither for Democracy nor for Christianity as its civilising influence.

They stand more for money, power over those who are different and those who are feeble.We see the role money plays in their lives to the complete absence of a religious compassion for others.

The West, with the “do-gooders” such as the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, are more like school thugs bullying small, feeble fellow students.

In America during the worst of a financial crisis, resulting from financial mismanagement of Banks, Insurance Companies, etc., when people lost their jobs, parents were unable to keep their children in school, the sick were without resources to pay their heavy medical bills , the Government passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to redress the situation and advanced financial aid to Banks , Business Enterprises etc..

It was found that the money so bailed out to ameliorate the financial situation and to activate the economy for the people to find jobs, pay their housing loans etc. were squandered by the recipients to pay large bonuses to their retiring Directors and Executives( The Wall Street Journal of the 14.1.2010). Is that the mentality of a people having Christianity as its civilizing force ?

West keeps its social secrets hidden behind, a display of high morality finding faults with the developing countries. But it was a shock when the world became aware of the existence of the poverty stricken people in America when the hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans .

It was only then that they spoke of urban poverty and segregation of poor families to extremely distressed neighbourhoods. But what have the rich Americans of the Christian civilization done to reduce poverty and enhance the living condition of these people not only in New Orleans but in many other States in the USA. They do not seem to care much about it. The Republicans took a long time to decide even on the President Barack Obama’s Health Reform Plans .

They who speak of the 200, 000 IDP’s in Sri Lanka do not know that our Government of predominantly Sinhala Buddhists have treated the IDP’s with more respect, and within the shortest time possible resettled thousands of them in their homes having cleared personal mines in the settlement areas, and preparing the basic infrastructure requirements.

They who criticise the Government of Sri Lanka for keeping IDPs in temporary camps , and the International Crisis Group accusing the Government of Sri Lanka for war crimes should read the Brooklyn Institution report on Hurricane Katrina, an excerpt of which may help our Tamil friends as well, to have an insight into things happening in those foreign lands to which they crave to migrate:

“ Overall, nearly 50,000 poor New Orleanians lived in neighborhoods where the poverty rate exceeded 40 percent.New Orleans ranked second among the nation's 50 largest cities on the degree to which its poor families, mostly African American, were clustered in extremely poor neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward. In these places, the average household earned barely more than $20,000 annually, only one in twelve adults held a college degree, four in five children were raised in single-parent families, and four in ten working-age adults—many of them disabled—were not connected to the labor force.

Areas of concentrated poverty are not confined to New Orleans. Despite improvements in the 1990s, nearly every major American city still contains a collection of extremely poor, racially segregated neighborhoods. In cities as diverse as Cleveland, New York, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, more than 30 percent of poor blacks live in areas of severe social and economic distress.”

The report says in conclusion “Though these policies alone cannot erase the gaps between rich and poor in America, creating more neighborhoods of choice and connection would offer millions of low-income Americans—especially children—a true chance at social and economic mobility.”

That is where the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and now the International Crisis Group should cast their nets to catch the creators of this social imbalance , violation of Human Rights and the more important human crisis of not providing amenities for decent livelihood.

That does not seem to be the priority for the Western humanitarians, who think that it is more important for them to accuse the governments of developing countries for violation of human rights, when they are in fact doing their utmost to save the people from terrorism, build unity amoung communities, find ways and means to develop their countries to come out of poverty, and work for better prospects in the future.

What is the moral sense of the accusations and interference the Amnesty International, Human Rights watch and now the International Crisis Group are indulging in, without even substantial evidence other than hear say or “doctored” photographs.

Louise Arbour the Canadian Legal luminary should know very well that the report issued against Sri Lanka by the International Crisis Group contains no verifiable evidence, and the whole of it is unsubstantiated.

One can understand serious cases of violation of human rights under normal circumstances. But no one can say that military operations during terrorism come under “normal circumstances”. Therefore one cannot understand the reason for these actions of the Western “do-gooders” in question.

Un less of course there is big money coming in from some where, because these “Groups” Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group have to have money to run their “road shows” accusing every one crossing their respective paths.

Louise Arbour -a Legal celebrity with a collection of law degrees, should perhaps know better, that if they dare question what happened during an “abnormal “ time an year back in Sri Lanka, she could as well begin inquiries into the atrocities committed by the Canadian Armies against the aborigine Canadian Indians.

While she is at it she may as well investigate why David killed Goliath, and whether there was collateral damage in that killing ,because there was also a war with Philistines.

There is also the question of Palestine. About 800 000 Palestinians were displaced to carve out the State of Israel, and the Palestinian problem have still to be re-settled. It is a human disaster. We have nothing against Israel, but rights of the Palestinians had been violated in the creation of the State of Israel. Who is responsible for this human disaster ? Coul not they have found a place for the Jewish diaspora without removing the Palestinians from their homes ? What has the International Crisis Group to say to that ?

This is a matter for Louise Arbour with a whole list of legal qualifications attached after her name , now adorning the helm of International Crisis Group to consider, instead of bothering herself with Sri Lanka which carried out a justifiable military operation against ruthless terrorist vermin. Terrorism cannot be eliminated without removing the root cause and that was what Sri Lanka did in eliminating the terrorist Prbhakarana and his cohorts.

Louise Arbour said in an interview, that the last phase of military operations against the terrorist was carried out in an unprecedented secrecy. That shows her ignorance on war strategy. One important strategy in war, Louise Arbour, is secrecy of operations.

However, more relevant to the Western absurdities and the utter hypocrisy in the attempts it is making, interposing their “yes man” in the UN- Ban Ki Moon, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group , to bring Sri Lanka to an International Tribunal for war crimes, is the following excerpt (long but worth reading in View of the utter hypocrisy of the International Crisis Group) from an article by Daya Gamage entitled “ Killing Civilians as legal”, that appeared in the Asian Tribune .com on 24.4.2010

“…..Here is the section of Harold Hongju Koh Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State declared at the March 25 address which is the official position of the Obama administration:
Use of Force
(Begin Quote) “In the same way, in all of our operations involving the use of force, including those in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, the Obama Administration is committed by word and deed to conducting ourselves in accordance with all applicable law. With respect to the subject of targeting, which has been much commented upon in the media and international legal circles, there are obviously limits to what I can say publicly.
What I can say is that it is the considered view of this Administration—and it has certainly been my experience during my time as Legal Adviser—that U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.
“The United States agrees that it must conform its actions to all applicable law. As I have explained, as a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks, and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law. As a matter of domestic law, Congress authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). These domestic and international legal authorities continue to this day.
“As recent events have shown, al-Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks. As you know, this is a conflict with an organized terrorist enemy that does not have conventional forces, but that plans and executes its attacks against us and our allies while hiding among civilian populations. That behavior simultaneously makes the application of international law more difficult and more critical for the protection of innocent civilians. Of course, whether a particular individual will be targeted in a particular location will depend upon considerations specific to each case, including those related to the imminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those states to suppress the threat the target poses.”

How inconsistent is the Western attempt to accuse Sri Lanka for war crimes, if any atrocity committed by the West against the humanity is acceptable and legal ?

No comments: