The Journalist Ranga Jayasuriya writing on 27 Mrch,2011 to Sunday Lakbima News begins his anti Sri Lanka Government article, “ Who is important to Sri Lanka Gaddafi or Libyan people ? ”
He ends his article stating that, the “…..Present regime’s affinity with the authoritarian regimes in Libya, Iran, Burma and Venezuela is not a secret. That camaraderie would have provided impetus to the government to display its solidarity with the Gaddafi regime.
Gaddafi’s petro dollars would have spoken too. Gaddafi is known for his generous monetary support to a wide range of political, resistance and Islamic groups.
Gaddafi would be grateful to his Sri Lankan allies. But would the people of Libya be? ”
We could in turn ask Ranga Jayasuriya, who knows little about the Libyan people, whether he is speaking to please his pay masters the NGO Funding International Community who sought UN Security Council sanction to bombard Libya with least concern for the Libyan Civilians, but with the only objective to assassinate Gaddafi for a regime change in Libya ?
The IC loves petrol more than the Libyan people. Ranga Jayasuriya is, knowingly or unknowingly, becoming a party to these massacres and destruction of a sovereign state by the International Community seeking to redeem an undisputed leadership of the World of Nations , a dangerous precedence that the International Community could use hereafter against any developing Nation.
Ranga Jayasuriya quotes BBC- another arm of the International Community, and an unnamed “ rebel spokesman” to defend his “paymasters” . The quote reads: “After coalition aircraft hit Gaddafi’s ground forces which had laid siege to the rebel held city Misurata, a rebel spokesman told the BBC:
“Misurata was in a desperate state yesterday, we almost lost all hope, but the strikes came at a good time with good intensity and frequency... Gaddafi’s forces have been hiding in a hospital... I can tell you that there’ve been zero casualties from international strikes. ”
Can any intelligent person believe that ? One has to wait for another wikileak information for the real truth to come out.
These NGO paid writers like Ranga Jayasuriya and web pages like Lakbima are a part of what the American Ambassador Butenis calls the “ Civil Society Groups ” to whose existence Billions of Rupees are being paid by the American Embassy, under the cover of rebuilding war torn areas, to make them carry out favourable propaganda for the nefarious activities of the International Community.
These journalists and web sites are commissioned to make unfavourable reports on national leaders loved by the people, to put the people against popular governments, to create situations highlighting government decision that cause economic difficulties etc. that could draw people to make manifestations against governments.
If these NGOs succeed to put sections of people against the government it would facilitate the International Community through their agencies such as the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc. to create situations to demand international interventions to control and survey implementation of development activities, appoint commissions of investigation or set up organisations like Gareth Evan’s R2P –which, “.. puts into practice the doctrine of interference in the affairs of sovereign states where security is an issue……”
The International Community could not have intervened in Libya if there was no anti Gaddafi movement in Benghazi. Such situations had been created in the past by the CIA with their paid agents, that finally resulted in regime changes. But now they use the NGOs quite often from among the people,( such as Jehan Perera or Pakiasoth Saravanamuttu in Sri Lanka) where the International Community has in mind a regime change.
The other day I was listening to an interview conducted by Sanjana Hattotuwa of the Groundviews a NGO funded website with Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu the executive director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives another well-known anti-government NGO organisation. It was interesting to see how these NGOs are thinking according to the agenda of the International Community.
They were discussing about the impassivity of the people in Sri Lanka, the absence of the citizen led agitations against the government. That was of course what the International Community was trying to create in Sri Lanka, so that it could have intervened like they are doing in Libya today.
We should be thankful to the President and the Government for their vigilance, and the People of Sri Lanka for their patience and absolute trust they had placed in the President and the Armed Forces, and not retaliating against the Tamil Community in the South when ever atrocities were committed by the terrorists against the Sinhala villagers in the North.
It was the inability of the International Community to intervene in Sri Lanka during the last phase of the military operations against the terrorists in the absence of a “citizen led agitation” that angered the International Community which now threatens Sri Lanka to be hauled before a war crimes tribunal.
Secretary of the UNO Ban Ki Moon is just a powerless puppet in the hands of the International Community. That is why he is still , “encumbered with a panel” to investigate violation of human rights at the close of military operations against the terrorists by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces, which he had appointed at the behest of the International Community.
Ban Ki Moon who made a hue and cry over Sri Lanka is reduced to a “ mute” spectator of the crimes being committed ( quite contrary to what actually happened in Sri Lanka) by the erstwhile International Community in Libya, having fooled the UN Security Council to pass the resolution 1973. Today Germany which abstained from voting for the resolution is being boycotted by the “big guns” in the International Community . Is Ban Ki Moon proposing to send his “panel” to Libya to investigate the “ crimes that are being committed by the IC in Libya ” ?
The French dislike the immigrants- that is all whose origin is outside France, including their descendants i.e the coloured people, and more the Arabs or Muslims. Therefore it seems strange that the French who dislikes its own citizens, who are coloured or Arab, choose to rescue the civilians in Benghazi with whom the West has no affinity ?
All this preoccupation with human rights by the International Community is just ballyhoo, it is merely trying to enlarge its “power base” .
You remember Ranga Jayasuriya how your paymasters used the question of human rights to boycott the Olympic Games in Russia ? They succeeded, but it did not work with China. They tried their level best to make Tibet an issue to boycott the Olympic Games in China. In that they miserably failed.
China has grown up and human rights issue will not stand up to foil the success achieved by her. Even the President Barrack Obama and President Sarkozy tried to intimidate China with the human rights issue broaching the subject at their meetings with the Chinese leaders, without any success. Now they have found another topic to make the Chinese people agitate against their rulers. It is the question of pollution. That too will not work.
There was recently a regional election in France called the Election Cantonale. They have a system of two rounds of elections. First is to elect a candidates from a number of candidates from different political parties, and in the second round only the two candidates who have got the highest number of votes in the first round of election contest.
In the recent Cantonales in France for the second round there were in some Cantons either a Socialist Candidate against a Extreme Right Wing candidate or a Sarkoz’s UMP Party Candidate against an Extreme Right Wing candidate.
The Marine Le Pen’s Extreme Right Wing (Xenophobic) Candidates are against the immigrants, and becoming popular among the French people. The Socialist Party wants the Extreme Right defeated and they instructed those who voted for the Socialist Candidate in the first round of elections to vote for the Sarkozy’s UMP candidate in the second round of elections where the contest is between a Sarkozy’s UMP candidate and a Extreme Right Wing candidate, so that the Extreme Right wing candidates will be defeated.
The Socialist Party expected Sarkozy’s UMP to do like wise and instruct those who voted for the UMP candidates in the first round of elections to vote for the Socialist Candidate where there is a contest between a Socialist Candidate and an Extreme Right wing candidate, to stop the advance of Extreme right. But UMP did not give such instructions but said “Ni, Ni ” that was to say neither Socialist nor Extreme Right.
Because the Sarkozy’s UMP is also against the immigrant communities ( though it does not say so openly) therefore he does not mind the Extreme Right Wing candidates winning against a Socialist candidate. This shows the hypocrisy of Sarkozy who is not favourable to the Arab or Muslim and other Communities in France itself, but showed an exceptional sympathy for the civilians in Benghazi where he feared a “ blood bath” of the civilians instigated by Colonel Gaddafi.
It is therefore evident, that Sarkozy’s sympathies are not for the civilians in Benghazi, he has other motives. But hastened to fool the UN Security Council along with his partners, Barrack Obama and David Cameron, with their fear of the “blood bath” in Benghazi, to pass a resolution, as a means to enter Libya to bomb Benghazi and the rest of Libya and bomb Gaddafi’s residence to assassinate him. President Barrack Obama said that Gaddafi should go, ignoring the purpose itself of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
The story of a “blood bath” in Benghazi was only an illusion in the minds of these leaders of the International Community. Of course Colonel Gaddafi as the Leader of the Libyan people has the right to maintain peace and order in his country, and for that purpose he has to use his security forces to put down insurgents, rebels and terrorists. Gaddafi is the leader of the people and he could have easily put down the rebel movement without a “blood bath”
It has been reported that the President Obama defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have “stained the conscience of the world.”
Is it any different from the “lie” George Bushs said on 28 January,2003 in his State of the Union Address that, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.", before declaring war on Iraq ?
George Bush did not find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Colonel Gaddafi had already stopped rebellious groups in Libya without any “massacres”, and there was no reason to believe there would have been a massacre in Benghazi.
Colonel Gaddafi recaptured rebel held Brega ,Ajdabiya, Tabruk without any “massacres”, therefore there was not even a reasonable doubt that he would have massacred the rebels in Benghazi.
Ranga Jayasuriya is just gulping any thing that the “ attackers” mouth to justify their aggression, without seeking to understand any logic in their statements.
Democracy in the sense in which we understand is not there in Arab countries, but there is another system which is a form of tribalism –“ a tribal consciousness with a strong sense of loyalty ”.
This is why the International Community and all its agencies, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and R2P bungle. They do not understand the culture, custom and social make up of different people of different nations. They expect every one to be of the “Christian Civilization” only system they “profess” to understand, and bungle as a result.
The rebels at the beginning did not have arms to fight against the forces of their leader Colonel Gaddafi, but immediately after “ no fly zone” was declared and the International Community commenced their bombardments, the rebels seemed to have found large quantities of Arms and ammunitions, did Ranga Jayasuriya question who had suddenly equipped these rebels with large quantities of arms ?
The Decan Herald of 30 March 2011 reports , “Meanwhile, the US and other Western nations are considering supplying the Libyan rebels with weapons, according to the Washington Post. Defying Gaddafi's forces, the rebels have been receiving military training at a camp set up by the opposition National Council in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.”
Has the UN Security Council resolution 1973 allowed this- supply of arms to rebels and give them military training ? Ranga Jayasuriya, Do you at least now understand that there had been a conspiracy not to save the Libyan Civilians in Benghazi, but for the International Community to enter Benghazi to have a foot hold in Libya to prepare the ground for the “ouster” of Colonel Gaddafi ?
No Nation has the right to interfere militarily against another Nation. Libya was rich. Its people had been well provided for with food and other provisions and facilities. Libya generously gave monetary aid to several developing countries.
Only thing which was wrong in Libya, in the eyes of the West was that Gaddafi was a leader who would not give into the West.
The West if it wanted to could have helped these Arab Nations, when it was in friendly terms with them, by advising them to organising their administrative system. But then it was only negotiating to enter into various contracts with Lybia. It did not then care how the civilians were being looked after.
Ranga Jayasuriya poses the question, Who is important to Sri Lanka Gaddafi or Libyan people ?
Of course the Libyan people are important, but it is the leader that represents the people therefore for any Nation , including Sri Lanka the Leader of the People of Libya is important.
A leader cannot be condemned, and taken to task by any other Nation or Nations, because there are a few rebels who want to change the leadership.
It is only the people who have the right to change the leadership, but no foreign Nation has the right to do so.