Powered by WebAds

Sunday, November 01, 2009

The Sri Lankans don't get it

On Friday, a blog (at least that's what I think it is - it's on Blogspot's web site) called the Sri Lanka Guardian published a post complaining that Sri Lanka has been accused of war crimes while the 'Western powers' are defending Israel (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad).
It is indeed a bizarre state of affairs when the US secretary of State Hilary Clinton accuses the Sri Lankan military forces of war crimes and remains passive and silent and makes every effort to prevent the Israelis from being hauled before the International Criminals Court for war crimes in Gaza, such attitudes and actions have incensed the people of the world and hatred for the Obama administration grows by the day. All the Obama euphoria has evaporated and in Afghanistan a creeping Vietnam syndrome is gathering with Pakistan becoming slippery and Iraq again sliding into anarchy. Despite the war on terror, the US and its allies have not succeeded, in fact terror has grown and is growing.

Sri Lanka is the only country in the world that has put down terror. We expected plaudits and cheers for this success, but the US and its allies are openly down playing the victory with inane charges of rape, war-crimes and abuse of human-rights. Now the Sri Lankans can clearly see the unmasked face of the ugly American clearly.
If this author is indicative of public opinion in Sri Lanka, there are several things the Sri Lankans need to understand.

First, 'war crimes' are not limited to countries that are the subject of UN reports, countries that (allegedly) use phosphorus bombs or countries that place their enemies under siege. The fact that Sri Lanka has yet to be accused of doing any of those things and has not yet been the subject of a UN report, does not absolve it of the accusation of war crimes.

Second, Sri Lanka killed 20,000 civilians to enable it to kill 2,000 terrorists. That's 10 civilians killed for each terrorist. Israel killed somewhere between 1,100 - 1,400 people over 80 percent of whom it has demonstrated were terrorists. So that's one civilian killed for every four terrorists. Which of the two is more likely to have committed 'war crimes'? I would think it's the one who killed a disproportionate number of civilians.

Third, if Sri Lanka does not find itself the subject of a UN report, it is only because its good friends like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and Evo Morales have valiantly not bowed and caved in to the demands of the Western powers are using the corrupt one-country, one-vote system of the United Nations to protect Sri Lanka (yes, they really wrote what I crossed out). It says nothing of their guilt or innocence. Israel, of course, is the perpetual victim and target of the international system. There is no comparison. One must assume that a UN report on Israel - yes, even one written by someone who claims to be an Israel-supporting Zionist - is biased against Israel.

Fourth, it could well be that Sri Lanka committed no war crimes in fighting terrorists, and that it is being made a sacrificial lamb to prove to the West that the United Nations doesn't only pursue Israel. But if that's the case, wouldn't it be in Sri Lanka's interest not to attack Israel?

Finally, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Think about it.

The picture at the top is a Sri Lankan soldier.


At 4:37 AM, Blogger Alpha3958 said...

Maybe they are the Sri Lanka branch of the UK Guardian. That would explain it.

At 6:58 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

What the Sri Lankans don't get is their "friends" can always withdraw their protection. Then they will be left exposed to the winds. The UN is corrupt and no champion of peace in the world.


Post a Comment

<< Home