Miliband’s sounds not music
B. Saranapala
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband
|
I just finished watching The British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband’s’ report to the UK House of Commons, concerning his recent
visit to Sri Lanka. At least ten members from all sides of the House of
Commons participated in the ensuing discussion and debate. After
listening to these so-called people’s representatives, I have to confess
that I have never been so depressed.
My concern is not for the future of Sri Lanka. Against conventional
wisdom and all odds, she is on the verge of achieving a fantastic
victory against one of the most ruthless terrorist groups on this
planet. In the process, Lanka will destroy the myth professed by many in
the western liberal progressive elite that there is no military solution
to terrorism.
Once LTTE is crushed, Sri Lanka will stand tall among the family of
nations. They will look up to Sri Lanka in admiration, even some who are
critical of the current operations, will grudgingly acknowledge the
achievement in private.
So my worry is not the future of Sri Lanka. It is the state of
British Politics and Politicos? The discussion at the Parliament was
intellectually dishonest, bankrupt of ideas, and driven by self
preservation.
How mother of all parliaments became hostage to a Tamil Diaspora,
which comprises a tiny fraction of the UK electorate, is beyond belief.
If you think David Miliband is bad enough, you should have listened to
some of the others.
They failed to realise that the defeat of the LTTE was in the best
interest of the United Kingdom.
After all they are fighting the same war and ideology, albeit against
different terror groups. They did shed some crocodile tears about the
plight of the civilian population.
Their solution, immediate cessation of hostilities, which is what the
LTTE desperately needs for survival. The tragedy is that the
consequences of the survival of LTTE did not even enter their mindset.
During the course of the debate Miliband in answer to a question said
that he will be discussing with Hillary Clinton the possibility of
raising this issue in the UN Security Council. However, he did admit
that there was not much support among this body, even to discuss this
matter.
Now this brings me to my pet subject, the US role in this matter.
I am somewhat puzzled by the muddle stand taken by the US concerning
this issue. Hillary’s statement that the whole world is disappointed
with Sri Lanka is diabolical to say the least. When did she start
speaking for the Chinese and the Russians?
The talk of using the IMF loan as a bargaining chip to submit Sri
Lanka to their will is pathetic. I am puzzled because the defeat of the
LTTE is a huge win for the global war on terror, and instead of being
disappointed with Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton should be opening champagne
for the celebration of the demise of LTTE.
After all it was her husband, who as President of US in 1997 first
proscribed LTTE as a terrorist organisation, in response to the
assassination of Dr Neelan Thiruchelvem, who was a friend of the
Clintons. US were the second country to outlaw LTTE, and designate it as
a terrorist organisation. India was the first to do so, as a response to
the assassination of Rajiv Ghandi.
After 9/11 the Bush administration launched the ‘War on Terror’.
There is no doubt that Sri Lanka either by direct or indirect means
benefited enormously. Arms and technology were provided via surrogates
such as Pakistan and Israel. As part of Bush’s global war on terror, the
FBI carried out a number of sting operations against top LTTE arms
smugglers. As a consequence, today most of them are languishing in US
prisons.
The War on Terror was multifaceted, and was very successful on the
economic front. In the execution of this element of the war, the US
introduced stringent controls on international movement of funds and
transfers. Under tremendous US pressure the international community
adopted these controls, which adversely affected LTTE fund raising
activities.
The US also was instrumental in pressurising many western countries
to proscribe the LTTE. It is said that without US pressure, the EU
comprising 27 countries would never have banned the LTTE. To day the
LTTE is a banned organisation in 36 countries, compared to 2001, when it
was a proscribed organisation only in US and India. All these events and
activities gradually chipped away at the aura of invincibility of the
LTTE.
In Bush’s War on Terror, the liberal cliché ‘One’s terrorist is
another’s freedom fighter’, had no place. To Bush there was only one
type of terrorist, and his administration’s determination to destroy
global terrorist movements, thwarted the LTTE’s attempt to rebrand
themselves as ‘freedom fighters’.
So in my view, US quite rightly can take great pride in the demise of
LTTE. Instead, the State department under the leadership of Hillary has
gone in the opposite direction, and appears to be trying to protect the
LTTE. Unfortunately, to Hillary and her progressive liberal cabal there
appears to be two types of terrorist, the bad ones and the not so bad
ones.
The conventional wisdom among many progressive liberals is that there
is no military solution to terrorism, and only way to finally defeat
terrorism is to address the underline causes. The annihilation of the
LTTE by military means will severely challenge this point of view, and
make the liberal elite in Washington, London and other European capitals
very uncomfortable.
The ‘Conservative Right’ in these countries will use the Sri Lankan
experience to promote their hardline agenda, and put liberals on the
defensive. Hillary Clinton is a progressive liberal elitist. Self
preservation of the liberal ideology appears to be the rationale
underpinning the US behaviour.
This brings me to my last point. Who appointed her? President Obama
cannot hide behind his Madam Secretary of State. His current policy on
Sri Lanka is a disaster, and has angered almost all Sri Lankans of
Sinhala origin; most I have to admit were admirers of him.
Unfortunately for him, 70 percent of the inhabitants of that island
happened to be Sinhalese. Obama has been and still remains one of the
most intelligent, articulate, charismatic and thoughtful individuals to
grace the US Presidency.
Unfortunately, he has been presiding over a not so clever
administration, and is a prisoner of the progressive liberal ideology,
which underpins his thinking. All national and international problems
will be viewed through this prism of liberalism, and responded
accordingly. Their lies the problem.
|