The United Nations Human Rights Council at its recent sessions held in Geneva, adopted a US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka, expressing dissatisfaction with the pace of reconciliation and accountability since the end of the war with the LTTE, urging the government to make haste in implementing the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and also calling for other more credible measures to ensue accountability. The resolution also promises “technical assistance” to further these ends. The basic problem with the resolution, from the Sri Lanka government’s point of view, is that the attempt to judge a nation’s intentions or sincerity in carrying out certain reforms, instead of what it has already done or is doing with regard to those same matters, is a violation of fundamental concepts in international law such as sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of a country, among others. Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka’s representative at the HRC, has said, “They are judging our intentions, not the ground reality…. [I]t gives a role to the Council that was never intended.”[1] She has also said, “A resolution on Sri Lanka will, many feel, be the ultimate test of the Council’s politicization. It will make it or break it.”[2]
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, the USrepresentative, has pointed out some of the difficulties the resolution entails from the American point of view: “The case of Sri Lankais different and difficult. It is essentially dealing with large-scale civilian casualties, allegations of government involvement in large-scale civilian casualties during a civil war that took place over many years, but ended in 2009. It’s not an on-going crisis, and for that reason it’s slightly more challenging.”[3] So, theUS is itself admitting that there’s no ongoing “crisis” inSri Lanka, and that this makes the resolution “difficult.” Meanwhile, at least prima facie, it is clear that the attempt to judgeSri Lanka’s “intentions” is a violation of the sovereignty and freedom of action allowed every nation under international law. All this therefore raises the interesting and crucial question as to why theUS is still willing to pursue the matter with such single-minded focus? Why isSri Lanka suddenly so important to theUS? Explanations, theories, and conjectures abound. The purpose of this essay is to briefly consider some of the main explanations, and to give an assessment as to the best one.
There are four explanations generally given for why the Americans are acting as they are: first, that they are pursuing the R2P (“Responsibility to Protect”) agenda; second, “domestic pressure” (i.e., pressure coming from the Tamil diaspora); third, what can be called the “they hate us” explanation (i.e. they are jealous of our success in defeating terrorism and certain other matters); and fourth, “geopolitics.” In my view, the first is the best and most likely explanation, while the other three, though perfectly reasonable, can’t quite explain, individually or in combination, the particular intensity and focus with which the USseems to be pursuing Sri Lanka. I argue, however, that the R2P connection to Sri Lankaand to this resolution in particular is relevant in a slightly different way than has hitherto been explored in public discussions, but to see this, one has to set it in context with the other explanations. So, let’s first review the latter, starting with “domestic pressure.”
It is indisputable that there is a powerful pro-Tamil Lobby in countries likeBritainandCanada. The question, however, is whether the Tamil Lobby in theUnited Statesis powerful enough to exert direct pressure on the government at its highest levels, particularly at the level of the policy-making apparatus. InBritainandCanada, this may indeed be the case. With regard toBritain, for instance, there is evidence that UK-based Tamils may have the ability to influence if not dictate the priorities of no less than a Foreign Secretary.
A Wikileaks cable reveals that former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s frantic shuttle-diplomacy to Sri Lanka during the last stages of the war, ostensibly to plead the cause of the civilians trapped in the conflict zone, may well have been to win Tamil votes back home. The cable details the assessment of seniorUSdiplomats inLondon, of conversations they had with one Tim Waite, the Sri Lanka Desk “team leader” at the British Foreign Office:
Waite said that much of HMG and ministerial attention to Sri Lankais due to the “very vocal” Tamil Diaspora in the UK, numbering over 300,000 and who have been protesting in front of Parliament since April 6. He said that with UKelections on the horizon and many Tamils living in Labour constituencies with slim majorities, the Government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka, with Miliband recently remarking to Waite that he was spending 60 percent of his time at the moment on Sri Lanka.[4]
To turn to Canada, Martin Collacott, a former Canadian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, has pointed out that Canadian Diaspora Tamils once prevented the government from designating the LTTE a terrorist organization. Writing in the National Post, he says,
Canada’s failure to label the Tigers as terrorists … contravenes the recommendation of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) which is the Canadian agency best suited to determining the nature of militant groups. The reason for the government’s failure is clear. Through intimidation tactics, the LTTE exercises a considerable measure of control over members of the Tamil community. LTTE-friendly community leaders are willing to ensure that liberal candidates win votes in Tamil-heavy urban constituencies, provided the federal government turns a blind eye to fundraising.[5]
The question, however, as I have pointed out, is whether Tamils in the US have the same capacity and clout to exert direct pressure at the highest levels of the government. The US certainly has a significant population of Tamils (over 300,000 by some estimates[6]) but due to the way US Congressional districts are demarcated by slicing through various demographic groups, it is unclear whether US-based Tamils, even in places where they are numerically concentrated, can leverage themselves to become a crucial swing-vote in close elections. It may be that US-based Tamils have an “ace up their sleeve” of this kind, but in my view it is unlikely, or at any rate the matter has not been adequately investigated as yet. Until there’s some certainty on the matter, until someone shows exactly how, or through what channels, or through some other type of concrete evidence or corroboration, that the influence is being exerted, we can’t use it as a basis for an explanation.
We next turn to the “they hate us” explanation. What this explanation says, in essence, is that the US (and the West) is jealous or envious of Sri Lanka’s success at defeating terrorism, and in general, in pursuing an independent path with respect to its interests and developmental goals (and having some positive results to show for it). In this regard, a remark by well-known lawyer and political commentator S.L. Gunasekera is interesting, because it captures something of the frustration felt by many Sri Lankans:
There can be little doubt that the Resolution before the HRC was borne, not out of any kind of concern for human rights or justice, but out of the limitless pique of the West that we “WOGS” had what they deem to be “impertinence” and “insolence” to spurn their advice to commit national suicide by declaring a “ceasefire” when we were on the point of defeating the LTTE, and that we succeeded in defeating them and restoring a very significant degree of peace in our land, whereas the West has only failure to show for their endeavors in those countries which suffered from their “tender ministrations”—the wholly chaotic situations that exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc., etc.[7]
The explanation is quite reasonable, and it also makes a certain amount of intuitive sense. The crucial question, however, is whetherSri Lanka’s smug attitude, behavior or recalcitrance is enough to cause American planners, who are usually seasoned professionals, men and women operating from very rational assessments of theUS’s long-term interests, to contemplate “regime change.” In my view, for the US to contemplate “regime change,” the country that is targeted either has to have some resource of overwhelming value, or have some other capacity to threaten core American interests in a concrete and definable way. (As a general matter, it should be remembered that the notion of a “threat of a good example,” as it has been used in other contexts, for instance to explain American actions in the Vietnam War, is that the targeted country possesses some idea, philosophy or outlook that it can export to other countries, that in turn can have a concrete and definable impact on American interests, in terms of negating or countermanding the ideas, ideologies, philosophies, and doctrines that America itself holds dear, and which, in effect, sustain the American system.)
This is a silly article and I am surprised that it has been published at all! It is the Sri Lanka Govt’s interpretation of events which completely ignores the fact that the U.S. resolution is very important for Sri Lanka to stop the current Rajapakse regime’s disregard for democracy and move towards a military dictatorship. The resolution is NOT about the PAST but rather the PRESENT AND FUTURE of minority rights and democracy in Sri Lanka.
I also have big problem with this narrative of “traditional victimhood” and colonization Sri Lanka has been independent for 63 years and during that time has being practicing INTERNAL COLONIALISM against minorities in the country. So this story about the west against the third world is rally old hat and a dead horse. We need to speak of new forms of colonialism which is to say INTERNAL COLONialism been would not have been possible if the current
What this writer write is humbug. Either this writer doesn’t know colonialists history in Sri Lanka or chose to ignore it.
So, types of his elk may list four or forty explanations for the US and its lapdogs’ pursuance against Sri Lanka eradicating terrorism and hinder similar efforts against Israel. There may well be some truth in all of them but I see; there is only one only one prime reason to continue their witch-hunt and assault. And that is to eradicate Buddhism that lasted for over 2500 years in our beloved Sri Lanka for good. Anyone interested learning more about it should Google and read professor Nalin de Silva’s many a write up.
Leela
I’m familiar with Nalin Silva’s work, but this is not the context or the occasion to discuss it. As far as I know, he has not commented on the international law ramifications of the US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka, which is my focus in this essay.
But you raise a very interesting and important general point, (which I think Nalin Silva also raises,) which ought to be pursued in its own right: it has to do with what may or may not be attempts by various groups, particularly Christian missionary or evangelical groups, to undermine Buddhism in Sri Lanka to gain converts. To have a divided and unstable Sri Lanka is obviously to the benefit of missionaries, since it is then easier to exploit the ensuing misery to convert people. The problem is that the evidence for these efforts has to be amassed systematically and thoroughly, and then presented clearly: otherwise, when Sri Lankans speak of these things, especially to a Western audience, it tends to come across as mere ranting, and turn off people.
There is no question that during the 19th century there were systematic attempts by missionaries and evangelicals to undermine Buddhism (not just Buddhism, but Hinduism also,) to gain converts. In fact, as you probably know, the trigger for both the respective Sinhalese and Tamil “Revivals” of the late 19th century were these “attacks” by the missionaries. I don’t have to tell you about the famous “Panadura Debates” where the missionaries tried to humiliate the Buddhists in an open forum and it backfired on them. (If you’re interested in these things, I recommend Professor K.N.O. Dharmadasa’s book, Language, Religion and Ethnic Assertiveness, published by the University of Michigan Press, a respected academic press.)
As for the Tamils, Arumukar Navalar, the “father” of Tamil Nationalism, was in fact one of the sternest opponents of the missionaries. Professor A. Jayaratnam Wilson says of Navalar’s activities, that among other things, “He also launched and organized a Tamil Hindu school system so that Tamil children would not become subject to conversion while attending Christian schools.” (Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism: Its origins and growth in the 19th and 20th centuries, p.27.)
The problem, however, as I have said, is that when it comes to missionary and evangelical subversive activities in the present era, the evidence is not amassed systematically, at least to my knowledge. So you should really take up the project. In the meantime, there are numerous promising undergraduates and even graduate students, of Sri Lankan origin, who are probably looking for interesting and relevant research topics. As I believe Howard Zinn said, much of academic work these days, especially in the humanities, is the pursuit of “monstrous irrelevancies”: so you should encourage some of these students, if you know any, to take up some of these issues in a systematic way, that can then be useful and meaningful not just to them, but to the country as well.
Dharshan Weerasekera is intellectualising a pathetic situation with Gota-talk he picked up during his stint with Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence. HIST101 – for thousands of years, Taprobane (now called Sri Lanka) consisted of distinct and clearly demarked Tamil and Sinhalese kingdoms. From 16th century till early 19th century Portuguese and then Dutch colonised the island but retained the two entities. From 1815 the island was under British rule. For administrative purposes the kingdoms were merged (named Ceylon) but aspects of the traditional distinctness were retained. From independence in 1948, the Sinhala majority governments were hell bent on eroding the fundamental rights of minority Tamils for example the Sinhala Only Law of 1956. The ONE and ONLY attempt to address the grievances of minorities was the Bandaranayake-Chelvanayagam pact signed on 26 July 1957 and abrogated before the ink dried. Peaceful protests were met with heavy handed force – culminating in the 1958 pogrom against Tamils followed by another in 1977. Here is a famous quote attributed to the then President JR Jayawardene in Daily Telegraph in July 1983 “I am not worried about the opinion of the Jaffna people… now we cannot think of them, not about their lives or their opinion…Really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy.” The pogrom of 24 July 1983 was brutal. Thousands were killed by Sinhala goons. LTTE came into existence and the civil war started. In 2008 the then Army Commander Sarath Fonseka told National Post of Canada that “I strongly believe, that this country belongs to the Sinhalese, ……….”. The Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in on record branding all Tamils as terrorists. The gist of the UNHRC resolution is “Try a political solution”. No need to beat about the bush Dharshan.
Name calling and personal insult do nothing to further a discussion of serious issues. Whether I dabble in “Gota-speak,” or “Prabakaran-speak” or anything else, facts are facts. I’ve presented certain of these and drawn certain conclusions: my main thesis is that the facts relating to the resolution (as I see them) indicate that the issue at stake is not limited to just Sri Lanka, but impacts the future integrity of international law itself. This means that the resolution ought to be of concern to people throughout the world, including the West, who want to preserve international law. Now, if this reader wants to dispute my facts or my reasoning from those facts, fine. He hasn’t done so. So, there’s really nothing more to say on that head.
Dhashan W uses the word “thesis” to describe his article. A thesis should examine all aspects. Dhashan does not mention that the basic grievances of Tamils remain unattended for more than sixty years. The UNHRC resolution was a nudge. India voted the way it did because the government listened to the people of India. The longer the issue is left unaddressed, the deeper the country will sink into a black hole of lawlessness. Surely Dhashan knows about White-van abductions. He must Google IBAHRI (International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute) Sri Lanka to find out about the sad state of the Sri Lankan legal system. The decline is attributable to the feeling of insecurity among the rulers. Aung San Suu Kyi said “It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it”.
I used the word “thesis” to mean the main idea or argument I was trying to present in the essay. The Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary (international edition) defines the word as, “A proposition: specifically, a formal proposition, advanced and defended by argumentation.” Look it up.
So, to repeat, the main idea I was trying to argue in my essay is that with the resolution the US is trying to erode, weaken or compromise core principles of international law, and that therefore this was an issue that went beyond Sri Lanka and affected all people, including in the West, who may want to preserve international law. This reader has still not addressed this issue. But of course it’s never too late.
I did not (repeat, did not,) try to comment on the domestic relations between the Sinhalas and the Tamils (whether the Tamils are being oppressed or not by the Sinhalas, and so on.) I’d be happy to write an essay on it if you want. Better yet, why don’t you write one, and I’ll comment on it.
There are two other irrelevant but somewhat interesting points in your comment, which I’ll address:
1) You say, “India voted the way it did because the government listened to the people of India.” I don’t agree with this. How do you know all the people of India were polled with respect to this resolution? I’m not an India-expert, but one of the journalists I read says this: “On Wednesday, we were told we are “inclined” to vote for the US-backed resolution…….On Wednesday evening, we were told that since the prime minister had received only three paragraphs of the proposed text, we should not rush to judgment. Votes in, we are now called to decide whether we voted under US pressure or to placate the DMK.” (www.dnaindia.com, March 26, 2012.)
So, it appears, at best, that the push to vote for the resolution came exclusively from Tamil Nadu. And even there, what proportion of the entire population of Tamil Nadu? For all we know, it was just Karunanidhi and a few others pulling their weight—hardly the entire “people of India.” The point is, we still don’t really know why India voted the way it did: at any rate, we can do with more analysis on the matter. Again, why don’t you write a good essay on it, or get one of your “friends” to write one.
2) You refer to Tamil “grievances”: “Basic grievances of Tamils remain unattended for more than sixty years.” If there are such grievances, you need to name them specifically and concisely, and also show that they are exclusive to the Tamils. For instance, in your own comment, you refer to the “sad state” of the judicial system in Sri Lanka. But these problems would affect all ethnic groups—Sinhalas, Tamils, Muslims, Burgers, everyone. So what are the “grievances” you claim are the exclusive lot of Tamils?
As for me, I’m writing primarily to a Western audience. And a Western audience, in my view, is not really interested in the minute details about the squabbles between the Sinhalas and the Tamils. What they want to know is the overall structure of the conflict, who is on the side of right and justice, and who isn’t. Now, in the past, people in the West tended to automatically give the Tamils the benefit of the doubt and consider them the oppressed “victims,” while considering the Sinhalese the “villains” in the conflict. I have to tell you this is changing.
In Canada, for instance, with respect to a boat-load of would-be Tamil refugees who had arrived in August 2010, 74% of respondents in a Poll (in Alberta) said send the boat back to Sri Lanka. 64% in Quebec also said send the boat back. (Toronto Sun, Aug. 20, 2010.)
In Britain, they are starting to deport long-term Tamil asylum seekers. This is because some of these asylum seekers have been abusing and exploiting the British immigration system for years by claiming they will face horrible discrimination if they return to Sri Lanka and that they simply must remain in the UK. The British are not buying it anymore. At the Parliamentary debate on the deportations, a pro-LTTE MP raised an objection that the deportees would be subject to grave danger. To this, Alistair Burt, the British Parliamentary Undersecretary of State, replied, “We are aware of allegations that returnees are being abused. All have been investigated by the high commission, and no evidence has been found to substantiate any of them. (Colombo Gazzette, Feb. 22, 2012.) So there you have it.
So, to repeat, the West is starting to wake up to the realization that perhaps they’ve been taken for a ride all along. In any event, if you want to make a case for “grievances,” the burden is on you. I don’t think people are going to give you a free-pass anymore.
True, you can always keep referring to the 1983 riots. The riots were a horror of horrors. It should never have happened, and the Sinhalas have apologized. There haven’t been any such incidents ever since, have there? Can’t we just forgive and forget and move on? Are the Tamils going to demand an eye-for-an-eye until the end of time? Wasn’t it Gandhi who said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?” So, to repeat, if there are Tamil “grievances,” please state them concisely and clearly, and show they are exclusive to Tamils. If not, let’s just give up unreasonable demands for things like separate states, and try to get along as best we can. Isn’t “reconciliation” one of the big buzz words these days, anyway? Well, it takes two to tango.
I agree with all three comments so far. The US sponsored resolution – which received support from countries from all regions of the globe – is primarily an expression of frustration at the lack of progress the SL govt has made on any of the major issues facing the Sri Lankan people – and fear about what the consequences will be if the Rajapaksas don’t change course soon. It’s not only Tamils who are suffering under the Rajapaksas family-military dynasty – it’s all Sri Lankans who are rapidly losing the last bits of their democratic rights, as the judiciary and police and all institutions are fully politicised in the interests of the Rajapaksas and their cronies. Too many Sinhalese are still going along with this plan, but increasing numbers are growing aware of the long-term danger they, too, face. The Geneva resolution was meant as a wake-up call. But with govt-sponsored abductions continuing at a rapid pace in the past month, it appears the Rajapaksas are still dreaming of permanent and absolute power.
This reader says that the US resolution is “primarily an expression of frustration at the lack of progress the SL government has made on any of the major issues facing the Sri Lankan people.” Really? Perhaps we should listen to what Stewart Bell, (one of Canada’s foremost journalists covering LTTE-related activities,) has said about 3 Canadian Tamils convicted and sentenced in the United States for procuring arms for the LTTE. He says: “Facing another 16 year’s imprisonment (Federal convicts must serve at least 85% of their sentences,) the men are seeking to be transferred out of the United States. Canada has a prison transfer treaty with the United States, but Ottawa would have to agree to take them back. Alternatively, they have been looking into transferring to Sri Lanka, where they were born. Since the Sri Lankan war ended in 2009, almost all the roughly 11,000 Tamil Tiger rebels captured during the conflict have been rehabilitated and released. The three Canadians are hoping Sri Lanka will take them back and give them the same treatment.” (Stewart Bell, “Letter of Regret,” Independent Post, October 8, 2011.)
If convicted felons want to (escape from the US) and return to Sri Lanka to serve out their prison sentences, surely, Sri Lanka can’t be as much of a hell-hole as its detractors claim. At least, not so much as to cause the United States such “frustration” over the supposed injustices that are happening here. I don’t think anything more need be said on this theme, for now.
I’m a MA in Foreign Policy and I cal tell you that this article was probably written by the Sri Lankan Government. Surprised the “foreignpolicyjournal” published it real loss of reputation.
If you have an MA in foreign relations, (and the knowledge to go along with it,) then why not write a full-length paper refuting the facts I have presented and the inferences I have drawn from them, or setting out other facts that argue for a different thesis. I’m sure FPJ would be happy to publish it. You seem to expect everyone in the world to present only opinions and perspectives that you like, or with which you agree. Part of the purpose of an education, especially a “higher education,” at least in the old-fashioned way of looking at it, was to gain an appreciation for and tolerance for diverse points of view. The more diversity the better. So, in my view, FPJ is not “losing” reputation by publishing my paper. It’s doing exactly what a journal of its kind ought to be doing, and so will actually “gain” reputation, at least in the circles that count.
If James Arnold Rothstein really is a MA in Foreign Policy (As opposed to an MA in Foreign Policy, for which we have to take his word, this hardly makes him an unimpeachable source of wisdom first of all. Secondly, even ifd the article was written by the Sri Lankan government, which it obviously was not, that would not necessarily invalidate the argument. No one seems to be pretending that this is an objective and neutral news story. It is an opinion piece, something which Mr. Rothstein seems not to have learned about in his studies at (what distinguished university?)
I am only a humble MA myself (San Francisco State University 1972) and by no means a foreign policy even in my own mind, but I do know a well-reasoned and well-documented argument from a poorly reasoned one when I see it, no matter who the author may be.
Excellent observation, Mr. Rothstein.
Articles in FPJ should be *balanced*.
No wonder the GoSL changed its name from
– republic of Sri Lanka
– then Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
– then Democratic Socialist republic of Sri Lanka, whatever these words meant!
You say, “Articles in FPJ should be “balanced.” You must mean “balanced” as in Fox News (“Fair and Balanced,” isn’t that what they call themselves?) Or, in other words, you’re perfectly happy as long as they carry out your propaganda work, or only say things favorable to your “side.” Why don’t you write to FPJ and let them know this. I’m sure they’ll love to hear it.
Meanwhile, over the last six months (that is, since November 2011,) I count six articles on Sri Lanka on FPJ, all of them by one Gibson Bateman, and all containing observations like the following: “Impunity in Sri Lanka is not sporadic, but systemic. It is a cancer that will continue to grow as long as the current regime faces no repercussions for its actions. The Sri Lankan military’s intrusion into virtually all aspects of civilian life is appalling. State security forces should not promulgate the idea that the words “ethnic minority” and “inferior citizen” are synonymous. When it comes to media, Sri Lanka is one of the least free places in the world.” (Gibson Bateman, “US foreign policy and Sri Lanka,” FPJ, November 21, 2011). Is that “balanced” enough for you?
Touché! Nicely done, Dharshan.
I think it is an excellent article. Last month a Sinhalese Assistant Superintendent of Police was arrested for bribery and produced before a Tamil judge. According to the comments here, such a thing would be impossible. The Western experts should live in Sri Lanka before pontificating on these matters. The Tamil diaspora (who funded the war, lost it and now seek revenge)must be sorry that so many Tamils still live in Sri Lanka and don’t emigrate.
It’s very interesting that everyone who has attempted to attack this article has done so from the limited perspective of their own feelings about the situation in Sri Lanka and they have ignored the central premise of the article. The whole point of the article, as Dharshan Weerasekera clearly states, is that Sri Lanka is just a pawn in a larger game.
Personally, I believe that just the fact that so many people have the time and energy to focus on Sri Lanka as a supposed problem the world needs to attend to urgently, when thousands of people are being slaughtered, right now, in places like Syria and the Congo, shows that there is a larger agenda at work and Sri Lanka is indeed being unfairly singled out for “concern” and Dharshan Weerasekera may have hit on one very logical, if frightening reason for this phenomenon.
the writer here is spitting hate crimes against the tamils. srilanka won the genocides of 300000 innocent tamil civilians including todlers.
mr writer look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself , ask your conscience. oh sorry i don’t know if you have one. but ask if you have one if you are not guilty of promoting, advocating genocides. the srilankan government agents are responsible for training and sending individuals with fake tamil identities to make trouble in UK Canada , US and europes and australia to make the innocent tamils look bad and to justify the sihala government warcrimes.
Please comment more on impacts due to UNHCR resolution against SL
Dharshan W has brought some important issues into the purview of those interested in International Law – issues that need to be debated without the kind of rancour that many comments in the thread, clearly made by Pro-LTTE persons determined to digress from the main issue at hand and who wish to make this a barrage of invective against the Sri Lankan Government instead.
The point that Dharshan has made so clearly is that Hillary Clinton is attempting to take the US away from the path of existing International Law, to enable intervention into countries through one excuse or another, and through collaboration with a cabal of countries (in the case of Sri Lanka at the UNHRC, it was India and some other perhaps unsuspecting nations), as well as a propaganda barrage via the media, bypass the UN Security Councilm created a dangerous precedent. The model was the way the US and NATO countries collaborated in finding the rationale for George Bush’s Iraq War.
A highly dangerous precedent was created at Geneva when countries allowed this Resolution against Sri Lanka to be passed. Many nations did not sense the sinister intent of this resolution. India’s collaboration has already lost the good will among Sri Lankans that had replaced bitterness over its previous training of LTTE cadres etc. and the “Parippu Drop”. What was fading in history, is now revived by a new realization of India’s mala fide motives against the island’s majority people, as India moves to defend only demands of the pro-LTTE Tamils (the Tamil parties which had openly declared themselves proxies of the LTTE), in order to appease Tamil Nadu. What the LTTE did to Sri Lanka and to its own Tamil people has been driven underground in the process.
The US under HIllary Clinton’s policies seems determined to use this opportunity to push US global interests in an increasingly aggressive manner, couched under HR and the R2P. The nations now collaborating in the effort will no doubt have to face the day when they themselves will become the target. The undermining of Indian cohesiveness will be evident very soon come the next elections.
That ManMohan’s India sacrificed Sri Lanka as well as the principle of “Rejecting Selective Targeting” in a historic faux pas at Geneva, will mar India for a long time to come, for with it India lost its position as the moral leader and elder of the region.
India in succumbing to the sinister strategies of the West, has demonstrated its weak Center and leadership, and of the Federal system with its coalition politics that has itself left room for external intervention.