Bush's argument backs Lanka's right to fight terror
H.L.D. Mahindapala
President
Mahinda Rajapaksa
|
US President George Bush |
Bishop Desmond Tutu |
Jimmy Carter |
When I was listening the other day to President George Bush's speech
delivered at the Knesset, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the
birth of Israel, it occurred to me that I had heard somewhere else
before the salient issues he was expounding and stressing. Then it
dawned on me that I had heard Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka
focusing on the identical issues that President Bush was placing on the
international agenda.
Consider, for instance, the following declaration made by President
Bush: "We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves
and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers
pledged to its destruction.
We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political
objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against
terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our
resolve."
Challenge
"The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of
our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a
great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the
ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the
other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control
by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.
This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but
at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil."
Prime Minister Wickramanayaka did not spell out his theme in the same
words, or to this extent but the underlying theme was the same. The
"right of nations to defend themselves" and that 'no nation should ever
be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction' is a
theme that would strike a chord with all democratic nations facing the
ruthless challenges of intransigent terrorists.
The 'great ideological struggle' in 'the fight against terror' is
another theme that resonates in the 'clash of visions.'
Then, as if he was describing the situation in Sri Lanka, President
Bush said: "We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human
rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations
routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest
democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world."
Isn't this what is happening to Sri Lanka? Isn't it a shame that John
Holmes, Alan Rock, Louis Arbour, Gareth (R2P) Evans, - all allied to
moon-faced Radhika Coomaraswamy hiding her dark side - are routinely
passing censures on Sri Lanka, the oldest democracy in Asia, without
taking appropriate action against the deadliest terrorist group bent on
eliminating leaders in the democratic mainstream and destroying
democratic institutions?
The basic fact that We believe that democracy is the only way to
ensure human rights' was demonstrated unequivocally and courageously by
President Mahinda Rajapaksa when he, against all odds and objections,
held the recent elections in the Eastern Province.
Any objective analyst exploring the quality of human rights when the
region was run by the Pol Potist regime of Velupillai Prabhakaran and
after it was liberated by the Sri Lankan Forces will agree that there is
a quantitative and qualitative improvement in the record of human rights
and freedoms in the east than before.
One of the greatest achievements of President Rajapaksa is that he
had provided the environmental conditions for the protection and
preservation of human rights by restoring democracy to the east.
President Bush's next quote applies aptly to President Rajapaksa's role
in the East: 'This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be
achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time.
When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it
was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be
free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions
into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later
Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of
America's closest friends.'
The historical parallel applies to President Rajapaksa. His
liberation of the East adds to his stature as a leader who had done his
best to integrate the East into the mainstream politics. Any alternative
to Prabhakaran's one-man regime is an addition to democratic freedoms.
To deny this is to go over the top.
Quibbling about electoral processes is not going to take away the
shine from his achievements. Soon the street protests and the ho-ha
about voting will be forgotten. What will be remembered will be the
improved quality and the quantity of human rights, freedoms and
democracy.
It is necessary to emphasise that the declaration of war contained in
the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976 is an act that would necessarily lead
to violations of humanitarian law.
A counter-offensive to the war declared in the Vaddukoddai Resolution
does not have the power to eliminate total infringements of
international humanitarian law. Therefore, it is inevitable that all
wars must necessarily end in violations of human rights.
Just war
Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Laureate, would know that even the
Holy Crusades of the Christians, were not fought on the principles of
St. Augustine's 'just war'.
The only way to guarantee non-violations of human rights is not to
wage war. Period! But when there are wars - and no one has yet found a
way to prevent wars - there is no way that Bishop Tutu's Church, Jimmy
Carter's Centre or even the UN, three agents that censured Sri Lanka
when it sought a second term in the Human Rights Council (HRC), can
prevent violations of human rights.
For instance, if one of those African dictators decides to occupy a
segment of South Africa, violating its territorial integrity and
national sovereignty, not to mention the sadistic oppression of S.
African nationals, would the good Bishop argue against the State
applying the full force of its State power to protect the sanctity of
human lives, freedoms and the independence of S. Africa?
What is the shield that Bishop Tutu can provide to prevent the State
from violating human rights in a situation like that?
States are established to confront evil with all its powers to
protect its citizens. Any threat to the human rights of its citizens
must be protected with the full force of the State powers, if necessary.
There are no mantras available to avoid that.
Truth and reconciliation commissions can be introduced later for the
healing of wounds. But while the evil exists, whether it is apartheid,
or oppressive regimes run by war criminals, democratic states,
exercising the will of the people to live in peace and unity in
multi-cultural diversity, should be granted the right to end the spiral
of violence leading to the incremental exacerbation of the violations of
human rights.
The State has the moral, legal and constitutional powers to protect
human rights of the larger community, even if it entails temporary
violations of human rights of a small terrorist group taking cover
behind civilians.
It is when the State fails to fulfill its moral, legal and
constitutional duty that a supra-national RTP (Responsibility to
Protect) intervention can come into force. However, national and
supra-national actions are fraught with dangers of violating the human
rights of one or the other section involved in the war. The irony is
that human rights can be protected only by violating human rights. That
has been the lesson of history and that will continue to be so in any
given situation of war.
Freedom
Besides, history has evolved over the ages to the current level of
concern about human rights enshrined in the UN Charter only by violating
human rights 'on a massive scale at times as a necessary evil to protect
the human rights on a global scale.
All the great wars of the twentieth century were fought on this
principle. Winston Churchill, the vaunted icon of freedoms and
anti-authoritarianism, who rallied incessantly against the Hitler's
fascism and Stalin's Iron Curtain, said: "Let them (the enemies) have a
good dose where it will hurt most". It is time that the Germany should
be made to suffer in their own homelands and cities."
The burning of Japanese cities by incendiary bombs (will bring home
their errors) in a most effective way." (The New York Review of Books -
May 29, 2008, quoting Human Smoke) Let us also not forget that Jimmy
Carter, who protested against Sri Lanka running a second term in the HRC,
presided over the button at White House that could destroy the world ten
times over.
He wasn't going to be the president of the most powerful nation on
earth, twiddling his thumbs worrying about human rights if the occasion
arose for him to press the button to save the interest of US.
Hillary Clinton, the presidential aspirant, has already declared that
she would 'totally obliterate' Iran if it was necessary. And what did
she mean by her advertisement of responding to the '3 am call' at the
White House when some urgent action is required to protect America's
interests threatened by 'the evil axis'? She didn't mean protecting
human rights.
She meant "totally obliterating" enemies of America, without any
regard for human rights. And let us not forget, America did obliterate
Hiroshima and Nagasaki "two non-military targets - purely to shorten the
war for their convenience.
I guess the time has not yet come for Hillary Clinton to open one of
those NGO centers and join hands with Bishop Tutu and Jimmy Carter to
talk of human rights. That will have to wait till Hillary Clinton loses
the presidential race, leaving her with ample time to preach the virtues
of human rights. Now wouldn't that be 'Hillaryous' To advocate the ideal
of fighting wars with roses without thorns, however desirable it may be,
is a pipe dream.
Therefore, if any sanctions, or punitive actions are initiated it
should be solely against three categories: (1) whoever initiates and
perpetuates wars disregarding the horrendous consequences and the
opportunities provided for working out a negotiated settlement; (2)
those who pursue war purely to grab power without any regard for the
preservation of the cherished values of humanity (in the current context
to restore democracy, freedoms, liberalism etc by eliminating a fascist
one-man rule) and (3) those who lack restraint and proportionality in
waging a war.
All three criteria must be applied simultaneously, without picking
selectively one or two, to justify any war. The solution recommended by
the pipe-dreamers of trying to eliminate all violations of human rights
in a war situation is not only unrealistic but a cop out to advance a
dubious morality to condone evil.
Forces of evil
It is a virtual surrender to the forces of evil who refuse to be
placated by compromises and/or concerns for the protection of human
rights. To surrender to those forces of evil is, in fact, a negation of
human rights because the implacable forces of evil, when not confronted
with counter-violence, will be given the unfettered licence to
perpetuate violence that would lead to ever-increasing and unending
violations of human rights.
The issue, therefore, is either to stop all wars to end violations of
human rights (which has been the unattainable dream of all civilized
communities) or to confront the violators of human rights with the
necessary force which would invariably result in violations of human
rights of varying degrees.
In short, the logic of any war situation would lead to violations of
human rights. The grieving conscience of the world recoils from its
horrors and rightfully so. Wilfred Owen, the leading war poets of World
War I, fighting in the cold, rain-drenched trenches of Somme, wrote
poignantly about the horrors of war. He died when he was shot in the
last week of the War.
But before he died he raged with all his poetic powers (he was an
innovative poet with great promise) against "the truth untold / The pity
of war, the pity war distilled." (Strange Meeting).
And in Dulce Et Decorum Est he wrote (note the grim, graphic details
leading to the telling conclusion): "If in some smothering dream, you
too could pace / Behind that wagon that we flung him in, / And watch the
white eyes writhing in his face, / His hanging face, like a devil's sick
of sin; / If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood / Come gurgling
from the froth-corrupted lungs, / Bitter as the cud / Of vile, incurable
sores on innocent tongues - / My friend, you would not tell with such
high zest / To children ardent for some desperate glory, / The old Lie:
Dulce Et decorum est / Pro patria mori."
Aspirations
All Sri Lankans who have lived through the obscenities of the
unwanted war, initiated and perpetuated by northern racist fascism
(ideologically it was endorsed in 1976 by the Jaffna elite who passed
the Vadukoddai Resolution) have been searching for a formula for
multi-ethnic co-existence where the aspirations of all communities, and
not just or exclusive community, are fulfilled.
It has been a testing time where the values of individuals,
institutions and communities have been running through irreconcilable
twists and turns with no end in sight.
Of all the obscenities the most obnoxious have been the hired
peace-mongers who have been selling their bodies and souls to the
highest bidders. These chrematistic careerists, parading as high-minded
moralists and do-gooders in the NGO circuit, have shown inexhaustible
and extraordinary skills for bootlicking their Western masters and
marching to their drumbeats than serving the genuine needs of our
people's yearning for peace.
They have been good at describing the situation rather than
prescribing any viable solution. Some of them like Godfrey Goonetilleke,
the ex-civil servant turned into a peace mudalali, has been in this game
from 1972 when MARGA was established.
What positive gains have come out of MARGA seminars, publications,
trips abroad (with family), lectures etc to stabilise the nation and
restore peace? In the name of peace he and cronies in the NGO circus
have been destroying virgin forests to record justifications, in devious
ways, for the perpetuation of northern violence.
Some like Kumar Rupesinghe, drawing a salary of Rs. 1.1 million a
month, is yet to justify the cost-benefit ratio to the peace movement.
This is as unacceptable as that gang of NGO-mudalalis who met in a
five-star hotel down south to discuss poverty alleviation. Is it
surprising that the people in the vicinity stoned them?
Then there is Jehan Perera who moves around like a dazed zombie just
raised from the graves littered all over Prabhakaran's killing fields.
He is forever ready, willing and able to lend his jesuitry to anyone who
hires him like the Norwegians (he gets a substantial amount from them),
A. T. Ariyaratne, and the Church-oriented NGOs in the international
network, including the National Council of Churches in Australia in
which John Ball of the Uniting Church acts as the liaison between NCCA
and the self-appointed National Council of Peace.
Among them you find Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, all togged up in
sartorial casuals as if he is about to parade in a men's catwalk, posing
as the poosari of all things bright and beautiful in the world of
peace-making.
He competes fiercely with other NGOs for the dwindling dollar in the
Western funding agencies and gets away mainly by running down the Sri
Lanka Government. His funding increases by the amount of anti-Sri Lankan
propaganda he generates for his Western bosses.
He must have pleased his bosses no end by writing reams to NGO
networks to unseat Sri Lanka from the Human Rights Council. But does a
seat in the Human Rights Council really matter? Is Sri Lanka going to
collapse because it has lost a second term (with a narrow margin) in the
HRC?
More of this in the next article. |