Dial Miliband for Murder
Prof. Rajiva WIJESINHA
One of the few consolations of having to travel to Geneva practically
weekly to deal with yet another British thrust against Sri Lanka is the
range of old Alfred Hitchcock movies available en route. One I had not
heard of before was ‘Dial M for Murder’, starring Grace Kelly as a rich
young lady who married a tennis star who soon tires of her as she does
of him. He decides to have her murdered, and blackmails an old
acquaintance into attempting this, but the lady manages to fatally stab
her assailant during the attempt.
British PM Gordon Brown |
The husband gets back home and makes a few swift rearrangements of
the scene so that the police then charge the wife with murder. She is
convicted, but a solid police inspector smells a rat and turns the
tables on the husband, who is duly arrested while the wife is released
and able to marry the other man in her life.
The husband was played by Ray Milland, but that was not the only
reason I thought of David Miliband in the role, with the wife being
either the Tamils of Sri Lanka, or else the Sri Lankan government,
depending on which has been placed in greater danger by his current
maneuvers.
Human rights
Most obviously it is the government that is threatened by his
endorsement of ‘the conclusions reached at the European Council on May
18, calling for alleged violations of international humanitarian and
human rights law to be investigated through an independent inquiry and
for those accountable to be brought to justice.’ When he adds that ‘This
could play an important role in the post-conflict reconciliation
process’, clearly he is gunning for the government, believing that this
sop to Cerberus, ie the ghost of Prabhakaran, as represented by the
pro-Tiger Tamil diaspora, will be the route to peace in Sri Lanka.
Sops to Cerberus only lead to Cerberus getting fatter, and therefore,
from the perspective of promoting peace in Sri Lanka, Miliband’s
intervention can only make matters much worse. It is even sadder that
this comes hard on the heels of his earlier refusal to request that the
LTTE surrender. The logical conclusion is that, having tried to destroy
Sri Lanka by resuscitating the LTTE, he now, like Ray Milland, has
decided to introduce incriminating evidence to get rid of Sri Lanka
through a flawed judicial process.
Pro-Tiger diaspora
Miliband apologists would claim that he has made clear in his most
recent statement his abhorrence of the LTTE. But, firstly, the passing
assertion that ‘Our concern has never been whether it was right to
defeat the LTTE.’ Is scarcely categorical condemnation. More
horrifyingly, it is only stated now, after the LTTE in its current form
has been defeated.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband |
Another extenuating claim with regard to the particularly nasty
attempt to put Sri Lanka on trial is that he is bound to respond to what
is termed the international outcry about possible war crimes. This is
arrant nonsense. In the first place, Miliband knows well that the outcry
is driven by the Pro-Tiger diaspora, aided and abetted by a few
organizations funded by the West that also did their best to attack the
Sri Lankan government in the last few months so as to stop its victories
against the Tigers. Secondly, we have not heard even a squeak from
Miliband about the need for investigating possible war crimes on the
part of nations he favours.
This is not to say that Sri Lanka believes such investigation is
necessary, it is simply to point out the disgraceful double standards
exemplified by the Miliband approach to international relations.
Finally, when he takes refuge behind a resolution at the European
Council, he conveniently forgets that it is the British who were most
anxious for such a resolution, as they are anxious now for a Special
Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
They failed to get this on May 14, although evidently it had been
promised to the pro-Tiger diaspora who turned up in force for the event.
Then the claim had been that a session was required for the sake of the
civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Now that those civilians have
been brought to freedom, over 70,000 of them, with minimum casualties
except those the Tigers fired on as they sought to flee, the goal posts
have been changed, and the session is about something else.
But only in theory. While what might be termed decent Brits claim,
and perhaps believe, that the special session is supposed to be about
humanitarian needs, about rehabilitation and resettlement, about a
political solution, the Times gave the game away in an article written
by Jeremy Page. This is the reporter who has been pushing the British
Foreign Office line on Sri Lanka, including attempts to sow suspicions
about Chinese support for us in our difficulties.
He has written today that ‘Britain, the EU and the UN rights chief
are calling for an investigation into whether Sri Lanka committed war
crimes by firing on civilian targets, including hospitals. They won an
early victory yesterday by persuading the necessary one third of the 47
members of the UN Human Rights Council to convene a special session next
week. But the Council has no real power and is still dominated by China,
Russia and Middle Eastern and African nations that routinely block
scrutiny of each others’ human rights records.’
Whilst we are proud of the support given us by the countries Page
denigrates, it is interesting that he does not mention the sterling
support of India and other Asian nations, the South Americans and East
Europeans who stood firm at the hour of greatest danger, until their
arms were forcibly twisted. In short, what Page, and his shadowy
informants, are trying to do is polarize, and force Sri Lanka into the
dock by claiming that anyone who opposes this should be in the dock as
well.
What is all this for? If the move succeeds, the greatest
beneficiaries will be the LTTE, because they will be able to convince
other Tamils that they still have the support of the West. This can only
lead to a renewal of struggle, in which again the greatest suffering
will be for the Tamil people - and also the Tamil politicians who can
now work towards a post-LTTE solution, free of the danger of the
assassinations the LTTE inflicted on so many other democratic Tamil
politicians.
Miliband approach
It is for this reason that I feel that the murders which the Miliband
approach will entail are mainly those of Tamils. Just as his approach
last week led the Tigers to assume that they need not surrender, that
their taking of hostages would succeed, and so endangered further the
lives of those civilians (miraculously rescued for the most part by the
skilful operations of the Sri Lankan forces), so the current approach
will lead to even further suffering for these victims of international
intrigue. But there is another motive to be feared. The Miliband
approach will only lead to instability in Sri Lanka, and further
attempts to Balkanize.
That in turn could lead to threats to India too. It is no coincidence
that the loudest claims that Jayalalitha would triumph in Tamilnadu came
from British commentators.
National framework
Fortunately the people of Tamilnadu have shown clearly that they are
no longer interested in parochial considerations, that they know that
the Tamils of India can do better for themselves and their country by
working within a national framework. The triumph of the current
government of India is a triumph for the unifying pluralistic approach
that has been the hallmark of mature Indian politicians, and it will
lead to an India able to play a leading part on the world stage along
with other large Asian countries. It will also lead to better relations
in the region, with less danger of sectarian inclinations.
That some British politicians believe their sacred place in the world
order is threatened by a resurgent India is no secret. Fortunately there
are more amongst them who are less obsessed by a zero-sum mentality, and
realize that a stable and prosperous South Asia is in everyone’s
interests, except those of the arms dealers. And the United States
certainly cannot be interested in further instability at this stage.
We have to hope then that someone from a country and a government
with greater self confidence than the current regime in Britain will
play the mature policeman of the Hitchcock film, and put a stop to the
murder of the innocent. And perhaps even Gordon Brown will realize that
such an adventurist foreign policy should be modified, if Britain is not
to end up playing into the hands of terrorists.
The writer is the Secretary General, Secretariat for Coordinating the
Peace Process |