The Curse of Ranil, and a General’s great fall

Whatever Ranil touches ends up in disaster. His becoming Prime Minister of the UNF Government during the Presidency of Chandrika Kumaratunga resulted in the drawing up of a CFA by the Norwegians, the signing of which by Ranil and Prabhakaran resulted in a disaster which required a man like Mahinda Rajapakse to put it right. The CFA strengthened the terrorists and nearly paved the way for the terrorists to set up a separate Tamil Eelam State in the North East.

UNP led by Ranil did not win any elections since 2005. Nevertheless Ranil has a one track mind . He wants to be the President of Sri Lanka hook or by crook and leaves no stone unturned to make his dream come true. But all attempts to realise that dream seem to end in disaster.

He wanted a war hero to give credence to his political attempts to get closer to being the President of Sri Lanka. He got the late General Janaka Perera join the UNP, hoping that the reflected glory of a war hero besides him as the leader of the UNP, would enable him to win elections for UNP.

It was not difficult to rope in the Late Janaka Perera as he already belonged to a family who had been supporting the UNP for generqtions. But unfortunately it resulted in disaster to General Janaka Perera, and his dear wife, among others. If the Late Janaka Perera had joined the SLFP, or if he had kept away from politics, he would still be living with us. Late General did not know of the curse of Ranil.

The latest gimmic Ranil has concocted is to form a political alliance in line with the UPFA. But he cannot muster many political parties to his side, therefore he is forced to make do with those nonentities orphaned without a proper political base, who had clung on to him as the last « straw » to remain afloat in the flood waters of the political stream. The three of these guys, the so called political leaders have no great number of followers and their political credence is much to be desired.

One of them is Mangala Samaraweera, a political party by himself, another Rauf Hakeem, a most undependable politician of our epoch, he is one day here and next day else where. It is however crditable Ranil had been able to keep him by his side for so long. He had hopes of a terrorist « victory» in the North having signed a MoU with Prabhakaran, which would have paved the way he thought to lead the Muslims in a « Tamil Homeland » under Prabhakaran.

The last is a goon, Mano Ganeshan, who had been wooing th terrorists for quite a long time and seems to have hung on to Ranil, as he has no where else to turn after the « tragic» end of his terrorist sponsers. This concoction is supposed to be the United National Front of the accuursed Ranil to oust Mahinda Rajapaksa from the Presidential chair.

In Ranil’s childish mind this would be the « gundu» that would finally settle matters with the President Mahinda Rajapakse, and allow him at last to feel the comfort of the Presidential chair.. He hopes to have the support of a failed Sinhala terrorists of another sort Lal Kantha, and his JVP cohorts whose only trump card now is a part of the government and the public work force who blindly follow these « culprits » hoping for personal benfits from a salary increase, what ever happens to the country. They are modern Neros, playing their violins when « Rome » is burning.

These unthinking workers who merely follow any « pied piper » if the tune he plays pleases them, do not realise that the increase of salaries is not the panacea to end the high cost of living. They should understand despite the harrang that they are fed with by Lal Kantha and the crowd, that increase of salaries would be the commensement of a spiral of price hikes that would leave them back where they started.

The demand of salary increases is therefore not the solution to the problem of the workers. They should instead demand the government to bring down the prices of consumer commodities, which would allow them to cope with the rising cost of living with their earnings, thus stopping a spiralling price increases.

Ranil cannot either help the workers nor the people of this country with his brand of politics. People have seen his perfomances before and know that he is a mere pawn in the hands of the foreign powers, and would be utilised by them to serve their « anti developing countries agenda». Ranil is not a man of the people, he is apart and away from the common man. He is what the UNPers had always been, a reactionry, unpatriotic man depending on the West, seeking his own salvation..

UNP was never a progressive political party. It was not the UNP that faught for Independence. UNP came into being after Independence. It was composed of the upper class imitation English Wallahs who took to politics for their personal prestige. They believed in the existence of a rich upperclass, with the the people down the lower rungs depending on that rich and the influential « nobility ». It was, and is the party of the « haves », for the « have nots » .

UNP still remains in that past, and now the UN P is out dated and out moded . UNP never consisted of real patriots, and they are even today as much the imitations of the « Black English » as they were at the beginning. They cannot think of a Sri Lanka without the Western Powers offering « bread crumbs » for an euphoric development programmes according to their dictates.

Ranil will never get over the age old ways of the UNP. It would therefore be a disaster to help this accursed man to come back to power. And there is little chance that it will ever happen even with his ridiculous United National Front.

Ranil « brays » about the Chief of Defence Staff Sarath Fonseka being their common Candidate against the President Mahinda Rajapakse at the next Presidential elections. It is not likely to happen, and even if it does people have not forgotten the disaster that took place with the Late General Janaka Perera joining Ranil to give UNP a break, and we hope and pray such an eventuality will not befall on the Chief of Defence Staff Sarath Fonseka if he were to follow suit.

Sarath Fonseka is a real patriot far from what Ranil and UNP stand for. Sarath Fonseka cannot mingle with people like Mangala Samaraweera, Rauf Hakeem and Mano Ganeshan let alone Ranil. If by some misfortune Sarath Fonseka were to fall into the trap, and join the cursed Ranil and his gang, one would rightly presume that he is like a man who ha come out of the Maggona Mental Hospital.

The whole commotion of Sarath Fonseka being the Common Candidate of the UNF, seems to be a fib in the retarded mind of the cursed Ranil, to give himself a bit of publicity which he never had, ever since Mahainda Rajapakse was elected the President of Sri Lanka .

Despite all the agitation the curse with which Ranil is forced to live is far too great to change the situation for a man like Sarath Fonseka to be hailed by Ranil now. Ranil called him then by all names and said that Sarath Fonseka is not suitable even to lead the Salvation Army.

Having eliminated the terrorist which every body thought was an empty dream, Sarath Fonseka cannot stoop so low now to come to politics from UNP or from an alliance led by UNP with Ranil as its accursed leader.

But from the latest news in circulation, it appears that the unthinkable has happened, and the cursed Ranil has it seems got the Chief of Defence Staff fall a prey to his eternal curse. Only glory Sarath Fonseka who became a national hero and a treasured figure in the minds of the people, brings with him to what ever political party he may join is the prestige of leading the Armed Forces for a victory over a « damned » terrorism that sapped the best of men and material of the country for almost thirty long years.

That alone is not sufficient to deviate the voting public to swing over toSarath Fonseka from a more prestigious and a beloved President. It was the President Mahinda Rajapakse whose determination, and the ability to hold his head high in the troubled waters in which the Interfnational Community kept on poking him with long poles, yet not giving into them or the local forces alone, that enabled the Armed Forces of the Government to carry out undetered , the Military operations that ended the terrorism at Nandikulam on the 18 May,2009.

Though Sarath Fonseka is well known to the people as the great Commander of the Armed Forces, they are also aware that he will not fit in as a politician. Politics is, by and large different from waging a war. If Sarath Fonseka does not understand that simple logic, he is putting himself in the fray without reflection, perhaps at the behest of some « unknown » forces unfriendly towards Sri Lanka.

The known devil is better than the one unknown. Therefore, whatever differences Sarath Fonseka has with the President Mahinda Rajapakse, it is better he remains with him , rather than take the risk of joining his worst critics to play their game.

Sarath Fonseka’s sudden decision , even to join the devil himself, to become the President, having been the Commander, may be to fulfil his personal ambition, unless he blindly become the « cat’s paw » of another’s ambition to oust the President Mahinda Rajapakse from power, or he is perhaps acting under duress. Nevertheless, it is sad that Sarath Fonseka who had been raised to the Himalayan heights of popularity , losing all the laurals he had so far gained, falls to the ridicule.

It is best that CDF Sarath Fonseka gives a second thought , before he ventures further in to the shifting sands of politics.

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.

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.

What good would it have been for the President of Sri Lanka to attend the UN General Assembly ?

Jacobo Arbenz President of Guatamala ousted by CIA Operations in 1950s



Mossadeq Prime Minister of Iran ousted by CIA Operations in 1950s



Salvador Allende President of Chile elected in 1970 ousted by CIA operations in 1973

United Nations Organisation “had been “ a symbol of equality and Unity of Nations of the World. But to-day the UN does not symbolise either the Unity or the equality of Nations. The developed countries dominate the World Forum and the Chief Executive the Secretary General of the UNO is only a “ puppet “ of the rich Nations, who are determined to use the UNO for their political strategy to dominate the world.

The United Nations representing the Nations of the World is nominally , the Forum to settle conflicts, encouraging dialogue between Nations avoiding armed confrontation. But despite the UNO, America declared war against Iraq, hanged in “public” its Head of State and continues a war allegedly to eliminate the Al Qaeda terrorists.

The powerful Nations have no concern for the UN and aggresses and takes covert action of all sorts against developing Nations, who are nevertheless, members of the UNO with equal rights. Despite the UNO- the forum of world Nations, the developed Nations other than being Members of the UN, run parallel Administrative Organs to control and take punitive actions against developing Nations by way of withdrawal of special trade concessions and imposing trade embargos, making reports discrediting governments on hearsay evidence to US Congress Committees.

Thus the rich and developed countries have reduced the UNO to a banal talk shop, a biannual meeting place to make resounding speeches of hope and glory by World Leaders. UNO is no more what it was meant to be when its founding fathers with all sincerity launched it with the hope of make it a forum for Nations to debate and find solutions to make the world a safe and peaceful place for the humanity.

The UNO was recognised by all Nations as an Organisation of consultation for settlement of conflicts avoiding armed confrontation. America should not have gone to war in Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. If the UNO was meant to stop conflicts between Nations, the US State Department should not be taking unilateral action to control nuclear proliferation. It should been referred to the UNO, as a decision making body for world affairs to establish peace and harmony among the Nations of the World, to take up the matter directly with errant nations and to be debated in its respective Committees.

If UNO is the recognised Organisation of its Member States, a Forum for Nations to come together and decide collectively before any action is taken by one Member State against another, America as a Member State of the UNO should not threaten Iran or North Korea with consequence of war if they continue with their nuclear programmes.

That issue should be debated even before a meeting of the Security Council is called to decide punitive action against Iran or North Korea for continuing its nuclear programme.

But as it is UNO is skipped over by America to take unilateral decisions against a Member State. President Obama’s America while denouncing the Bush Administration for going to war with Iraq, pursues the same hackneyed old dangerous methods of the Bush Administration, to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear programme.

If USA, Russia, France, China, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, why should America go all out to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapons in its turn. What is the difference between Iran and other Nations who have developed nuclear weapons ?

It is time for America and its European allies to decide whether they want the UNO to continue for the purpose for which it was established or leave it to take their own unilateral decision against member states and suffer the consequences.

No Government would subjugate their sovereignty without making an attempt to defend itself. A time may come when all those countries that do not toe the American and European line may unite to rise against them. In such an event even a nuclear warfare cannot be ruled out.

The election of the Heads of UNO, and its sister Organisations such as UNESCO are a mockery of democratic principles. It is the rich countries who get a “puppet” candidate appointed to the Organisation, by political manoeuvres to win over smaller member state to vote for the “puppet” selected by them. Therefore, the more qualified and suitable candidates put forward by poorer countries are voted out in the first few round of voting.

The UNO has set up its Commission of human rights, and the present High Commissioner does not take any objective and independent decisions. We have seen it happening recently in Geneva, where the UN HCHR, was working hand in hand with the powerful Member States of the West who were making an all out effort to discredit the government of Sri Lanka and accuse its armed forces for war crimes, simply because it eliminated the ruthless group of terrorists, with whom they Western Countries were conniving to break up Sri Lanka.

When the High Commissioner found that the aims of the anti-Sri Lanka Western Member States were foiled, Navi Pillai the UNHigh Commissioner for Human Rights went all out to call for another vote to over rule the decision of the Human Rights Council.

The UNO should be an organisation of Nations where they help each other, and take concerted decisions to help and develop the poorer nations, and settle conflicts . The UNO looses its right to exist as an Organisation of the Nations of the World if the “ junior official “ of the Organisation are allowed to make individual statements against a member State.

Any criticism of a member state should normally be made to the UNO and placed before a special General Assembly or a Committee of the Organisation called to debate on the matter to settle it, and any statements pertaining to the subject of criticism should be issued by the Secretary General.

The Security Council should be the ultimate resort for any serious decision to be taken against a member state.

UNO cannot serve any useful purpose as long as the powerful Member States have their own Agenda. As it is, they are there to use the UNO to serve their own political ends. The powerful nations are not interested in the welfare and development of the smaller member states seeking the help of the rich to rise out of their poverty or underdevelopment, but they are interested in setting up their political strategies to maintain their political leadership among Nations.

We have seen it happening in Chile, where America used CIA operations to organise manifestations and a military coup against its first Democratically elected President Salvador Allende, and set up the Western “puppet” Augusto Pinochet the Military Commander , as the President of Chile.

America was determined to oust Allende, whom they called a pro Soviet Communist. His close friendship with the Cuban leader Fidel Castro did not please them either. It is said that the CIA spent over one million Dollars for the Anti Allende propaganda Campaign, and to aid his opponents.

(In the light of this, can we accept that Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu and Jehan Perera went to meet O’Blake at the American State Department for nothing ?)

We saw unilateral action taken by America against Cuba in 1961 with the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. Another one of the CIA operations. It tried to use these same tactics again in Tiamenan in China, but failed. All that, while the UNO which had been set up to settle conflicts between Nations stood helplessly inactive.

America was out to rid the developing Nations with their forward looking progressive National leaders. as far back as in 1950s. Jacobo Arbenz President of Guatamala, and Mossadegh the Prime Linister of Iran were ousted by CIA Operations.

The powerful Nations are again back on their “war path” against developing Nations.

All the while these nefarious activities of American CIA were going on, UNO remained a silent observer ?

UNO has become an Organisation of inaction, the Secretary General merely parroting the words of the powerful nations. The rich Member States disregarding the UNO continue to create chaos in smaller Member States. UNO wakes up only when the powerful Nations accuses a developing Nation, not to defend it, but to join with the powerful nations to accuse the developing nation in its turn.

Sri Lanka is a case study of the powerful states moves to break up developing countries and use them for their political end. Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, is a country with a high percentage of literacy and a skilful population. It has all the potentials to rise above its underdevelopment to become a self sufficient Nation. It would be able to stand proudly along with the Nations of the rest of the world despite its “size”, and contribute for the peace and development of the World.

Unfortunately, to-day the Western Powers have become dangerous “ terrorists” against the developing countries. In Sri Lanka while the terrorists openly declared their intention to break up the country to set up an Eelam State, the Western Nations carry out undercover operations for the same purpose.

Sri Lanka’s development was hampered by a group of terrorists that had been trained by the RAW of the Indian Government and sent to Sri Lanka in the early 1980s. This band of terrorists continued a campaign of terror assassinating all their opponents, and government officials. They were financially assisted by a large expatriate Tamil community . With the funds provided by the expatriate Tamils the terrorists built a strong armed force.

They were helped by a former Prime Minister of Sri Lanka with a CFA which enabled them to strengthen their military capabilities. These terrorists were utilised by an interested group of Western Countries such as the USA, UK, France, Germany, and Canada, with Norway as their “anchor man” to be in secret contact with the terrorists.

Their object was to use the LTTE terrorists to break up Sri Lanka and use its strategic position for their political leadership, and use it as a barrier against China and Russia. With that objective they manoeuvred from the beginning to discourage the military operations against the terrorists by the Sri Lanka Government, insisting that the government should negotiate for a political settlement.

The terrorists became more ruthless massacring innocent people and assassinating politicians . They were finally banned as a terrorist organisation in 33 countries around the world. Despite the terrorists of Sri Lanka being band , the USA and the European Countries, secretly assisted the terrorists to continue terrorism, to arrive at their object of breaking up Sri Lanka following their new policy of Balkanisation as another form of colonization to keep the poor nations poor, and for the powerful nations to lead the world in the guise of benefactors of developing nations.

However, the Sri Lanka Armed Forces determined to end terrorism in Sri Lanka, which had hampered its development for thirty years, conducted a systematic, disciplined, humane military operations against the terrorists and eliminated terrorism completely by killing the terrorist leadership in a final military operation on the 19^th May,2009.

For the first time a small nation- that is Sri Lanka, vanquished terrorism, while the powerful Nations are still embroiled in their attempt to eliminate terrorism they have vowed to do. But their war against Talibans and Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan continues without an end in sight.

This great feat of the Sri Lanka Armed Forces against terrorism should have been applauded and Sri Lanka Government and its Armed Forces felicitated by all peace loving Nations of the World, and specially by those intelligent powerful Nations.

But what happened is the opposite. The International Community have changed rolls and treat the Government of Sri Lanka and its armed Forces the terrorists, and the terrorists and their sympathisers the innocent victims of the Governments military operations against terrorism.

This hypocrisy of the West the USA, UK, France, Norway and the rest will remain the most heinous political crime against a developing Nation. On the 11 September, 2001, the world changed. The West took arms against terrorism vowing to fight terrorism any where it exists. But paradoxically on the 19 May, 2009 the same West, changed again vowing this time to take Sri Lanka Armed Forces that successfully eliminated ruthless terrorism from its soil, to a tribunal accused of war crimes !!!

UNO being what it is, we understand why the President Mahinda Rajapakse preferred to send his Prime Minister to the UNGeneral Assembly.

Even then the Secretary General Ban Ki Moon meeting the Prime Minister had “ underlined the importance of winning the trust and confidence of the population in the North, especially those in the IDP camps, as failure to do so could undermine the prospects for reconciliation”. These are the words of Robert O’Blake, which Ban Ki Moon had shamelessly repeated.

Robert O. Blake, a vestige of the Bush Administration contradicts President Obama’s statement to the UN General Assembly, and promotes ethnic segregation in Sri Lanka.

Robert O’Blake US Assistant Secretary of State for Asian and Central Asian Affairs, is not promoting the USA President Barrack Obama’s foreign policies. In the 38 minutes long speech to the UN General Assembly the USA President made significant statements. But O’Blake is making a mockery of President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly in his all out effort to discredit Sri Lanka for eliminate the whole lot of his terrorists friends.

President Obama said, “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.”

But his speech to the UN General Assembly is contradicted by his own Assistant Secretary of State for Asia Robert O’Blake , who comes from the Bush Administration ,which as the US President said was viewed with scepticism and distrust, and has not changed in keeping with the President Obama’s above statement to which he added that, “ the time has come for the world to move in a new direction”.

O’Blake still carries out the foreign policies of pre-Obama Administration that the President Obama says , “….. has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction “.

O’Blake was a sympathiser of the Sri Lanka terrorists, therefore despite the President Barrack Obama’s efforts to change America’s unpopular image, O’Blake leaving aside President Obama’s hope to move in a new direction, continues his vendetta against Sri Lanka for the elimination of his friends the Sri Lanka terrorists.

For it is now known that the terrorist leader Prabhakaran pushed by the Government Forces into a narrow strip of land between the sea and the Mulaitivu lagoon, was awaiting to be rescued by the American Forces by a commando operation.

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, and the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, were trying to negotiate with the Government of Sri Lanka a ceasefire to enable them to enter into the no-fire zone where the terrorists leaders had been cornered , probably to arrange a rescue operation of the terrorist leaders, perhaps in connivance with Robert O’Blake.

Having failed in that endeavour, the West along with O’Blake is now all out to take revenge from the Government of Sri Lanka by actively moving to accuse the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka for violation of human rights and war crimes.

O’Blake’s report to the US Congress with damning condemnation of the Government of Sri Lanka, and the European Unions refusal to grant Sri Lanka G+ Concessions for export of garments are the aftermath of this failure on their part to rescue the terrorists as they may probably had secretly promised to do.

While the US President tells the UN General Assembly, that “America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, ……. “, O’Blake his Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs” following that blameful tradition acts, “…. Unilaterally without regard for the interest of others” submitting a report based completely on hearsay evidence, to the US Congress against Sri Lanka without giving Sri Lanka its right of being heard before such a critical report is submitted to the US Congress.

The President Obama said, “ no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation”. But this statement seems to have no significance to Robert O’Blake who had through out his mission as the US Ambassador for Sri Lanka, had denigrated the Government of Sri Lanka criticising her actions even from public rostrums in South India during a determining military operations against terrorists, and continues all possible methods to discredit the Government of Sri Lanka.

O’Blake now with greater “power” bestowed upon him by the Obama Administration takes Sri Lanka for a vassal state. He consults expatriate Tamils in America some of who have not even put their foot in Sri Lanka for many decades, and well known local anti-Government elements such as Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu and Jehan Perera, about matters concerning Sri Lanka rather than have direct consultations with the leaders of the Government of Sri Lanka.

The President Obama continuing his speech to the UN General Assembly said , “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.” Sri Lanka respectfully accepts President Obama’s responsibility to his people. But that responsibility should be the same when it comes to a President of any developing country, even that of Sri Lanka .

As a corollary to President Obama’s assertion , the right of the President of Sri Lanka to act in the interest of his country and his people cannot also be questioned, and he too need not apologize to any one for defending those interests.

In the light of seemingly candid statement of President Obama’s speech we question him whether such responsibility is reserved only to America , and whether the President of a developing country has to “ apologize for defending interests of his nation and his people”.

President Obama’s remarks are respectfully taken note of, but he should, demand his Assistant Secretary of State Robert O’Blake to extend that honourable principles of his in dealing with other Presidents of developing nations-such as Sri Lanka.

President Obama gives the World of Nations hope when he says, “We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems -- it will take persistent action.” But there is a difference with his speech and the actions of his subordinate the Assistant Secretary of State Robert O’Blake, who seems to have not understood President Obama’s policies and principles in dealing with other Sovereign States.

What Rober O’Blake refuses to understand or does not seem to have understood is that which triumphed in America with the election of an Afro American as the President was the integration of the black minority community into the majority white community.

Robert Blake is aware that in 1950’ s America still practiced segregation of the black Americans, treating them no better than animals, not allowing them to sit in the same row of seats in buses, not serving them in restaurants reserved for the whites, not allowing black children to walk into a sweet shop to buy sweets. Robert O’Blake is well aware that in America the blacks were lynched, burnt alive or hanged by the notorious Ku Klux Klan merely for their being “black”.

In that atmosphere of American past notoriety, the election of an Afro American representing the then segregated black Community, as the 44^th President of USA was the greatest historically meaningful American triumph .

Then why should Robert O’Blake the US Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs promote segregation of the minority Tamil Community in Sri Lanka, calling for a political separation of the Tamil Community from the Majority Community.

If Robert O’Blake has really understood the significance of swearing in of the 44^th President of the USA on the memorable 21 January,2009, he would not have given into the unpatriotic Tamil Expatriate Community, to promote ethnic separation in Sri Lanka. He should have instead advised them to encourage the Tamil Community in Sri Lanka to integrate or coordinate with the Majority Sinhala Community to forge a larger United Nation of Sri Lankans, where there would be no separate identities of the minority, and the majority.

None of the Governments of Sri Lanka, nor the people of the Majority Community –the Sinhala, practiced segregation against the minority Tamil Community as it was practiced by the American Governments and the American White population to the Afro American Community. In that context Robert O’Blake is a “nasty American” promoting ethnic segregation in Sri Lanka.

Finally the President Obama said, “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions…….”

It is important that every one in the American State Department and the Members of the US Congress understand this truth. In this respect what USA and the EU and the rest of the Western Developed countries should realise is that for true democracy to prevail in the world, the rich countries should make a sincere effort to help those countries who need help to rise above their under development.

Such help should not be made conditional, making those countries subordinate their Sovereignty to the donors, but allow them to develop their countries independently according to their own “culture and past traditions”.

The now common practice of America and the European Union withholding aid and assistance or imposing trade embargo amounts to “black mailing “those developing Nations and halting their development. The rich countries should be intelligent enough to treat separately their aid and assistance to developing countries, and settlement of disputes and disagreements through dialogue. The latter should not be a barrier to promote the former.

We fervently hope that the US President Barrack Obama will not fail to convert his words to reality with persistent action, as he said, “We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems -- it will take persistent action.” Those persistent actions should not be to the benefit of America, and its friendly European States but to all Nations of the world without distinction.