Challenges posed by the international community

Wasantha Priya Ramanayake Translated by A. A. M. Nizam

Why did Hillary Clinton send such a letter to us? It says that a proposal will be brought against us in the UN Human Rights Council and that it will be brought by America. This is serious interference in our internal affairs and a blow to our independent status.

The powerful states talk about democracy, good governance and human rights but try to implement them in small states instead of theirs. To do politics it is necessary to learn about this reality and the strategic mechanisms. It seems that President Mahinda Rajapaksa has mediated to make them realize the reality of the world. This readiness to find solutions is shown by trying to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and establishing a Parliamentary Select Committee

They forcibly entered Pakistan to kill Bin Laden violating all diplomatic obligations. Obama proudly said at that time that if they want they can go to any place. The same thing is done in Iraq. It is only to small states that human rights are imposed. Large states carry out forcible acts.

Hillary Clinton's letter was one that went beyond the limits of diplomacy. This cannot be done.

The letter is sufficient to hold demonstrations in streets pretending to be patriotic. But, fortunately no one went before the US embassy to hold demonstrations.

This shows our people's understanding of things happening in the world. It is not a sign of submission. There were times in such situations when some people responded violently.

Why are the powerful states worried about the internal matters of this country? One reason is this country's geographical location as an island. The second is that the human rights sector is focusing attention throughout the world. The third is that there is an attempt to implement a political proposal to the Tamils by forcing President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The powerful states talk about democracy, good governance and human rights but try to implement them in small states instead of theirs. To do politics it is necessary to learn about this reality and the strategic mechanisms.

It seems that President Mahinda Rajapaksa has mediated to make them realize the reality of the world. This readiness to find solutions is shown by trying to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and establishing a Parliamentary Select Committee.

Problems cannot be solved if the Opposition think that they are in a good position if the government is falling. It is necessary to analyze changes in international politics comparing the past and present to find solutions. There was a violent situation in the country during 1988/89. Yet, the government emerged victorious by suppressing the terrorism. But it was reported that after suppressing this terrorist uprising, the number of persons missing amounted to over 30,000.

This is what was reported to the then People's Alliance government by the commission appointed to inquire into that incident. In this uprising both sides violated human rights. The known and unknown gunmen should be held responsible. At that time there was no face to face fighting using heavy weapons similar to the recent Eelam war. In this context the 4th Eelam war was a cruel war. But after the 88/89 violence, neither the United States nor the Europeans questioned about the 30,000 missing persons.

Even the international human rights associations limited their criticisms just by issuing statements.

That was because at that time the international community was with the governments in power. Also, there was no focus on human rights in the world at that time as now. Amnesty International said at that time around 20,000 youths were killed in the 1971 insurgency.

They said the number of deaths in the 88/89 violence amounted to 40,000. Why is there so much of international concern at present unlike at that time? One reason for this is that there had been no clear explanation presented about this.

As it is being pointed out by the International Expert on Wars Professor Rohan Gunaratne, we did not have a white paper relating to war.

Even the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission was issued two years after the Eelarm IV war. Even the international community has now built a partial opinion with the assistance of the diaspora. Once Prof. Rohan Gunaratne said the diaspora has become ten times stronger in influence than it had at the period when Prabhakaran was alive. The international opinion against Sri Lanka is being built under these conditions.

The international community holds a different opinion about Sri Lankan than the position they held at the 1971 and 1988/89 periods. They hold the view that after the war, Sri Lanka had delayed the process of investigating the reasons for the war and finding an expeditious political solution. For example, the way India acted in the Nagaland guerilla issue and the way Indonesia acted after the end of Ache guerrilla issue was faster than Sri Lanka's reaction.

The manner the international community thinks about the current leadership in Sri Lanka has also contributed to this pressure imposed by the international community. They think Sri Lanka has a leader today who only tries to satisfy the South when providing a solution to the North. This is not true. The President will provide a solution acceptable to both the North and South.