Big power politics flush UN Charter down the toilet
H. L. D. Mahindapala
Barack Obama
|
Of all the human rights issues in global conflict and post-conflict
zones why is India, EU and USA focused relentlessly -- and, more
importantly, selectively -- on Sri Lanka? What is behind their
persistent and the holier-than-thou obsession to hunt Sri Lanka with a
vengeance? Is it pursued to fulfill the aims and objective of a higher
morality, or the principles of the UN Charter, or a Mosesian legal code?
US drone |
Or is it because Sri Lanka has committed such unspeakable gross
violation of human rights like the Indians in Kashmir, or the Americans
in Afghanistan where President Obama is competing with Herod to beat the
record of the slaughter of innocent children at the birth of Christ? Are
they after justice or are they after vengeance for not toeing their
political agenda?
This Troika -- the international axis of anti-Sri Lankan manipulators
-- has hijacked the universal principles declared in the UN Charter,
international humanitarian law, Vienna Declaration and Programme Action
(VDPA) R2P and other conventions and declarations related to human
rights and use them as oppressive tools of neo-colonialism to force less
powerful nations obey their dictates. The current deplorable plight of
humanitarian law is that it has fallen into the hands of unscrupulous
international mafia with America as its Godfather. Backed by might
rather than right, they pursue only one noted policy for those who are
outside their network: target anyone and everyone who are a threat to
their self-interest.
If they can’t target their perceived threat/enemies in the UN because
of the veto of China and Russia then they shift their manoeuvres to a
more pliable theatre like the UNHRC. This act of targeting its perceived
threats/enemies is not a secret. Every American President in the
post-World War II period in particular, including Nobel Peace Prize
winning Obama, is on record saying that they reserve the right to strike
at anything that threatens their security which means destroying the
security of others, including children.
Nor is this anything new. American history began with violent
aggression, shooting from the hip, to destroy anything and everything
that were seen as a threat to their expansion and occupation of the
territory in the “wild west”, as they say, which did not belong to them.
Occupation of virigin land was of strategic importance to their
survival in the new world and human rights were put aside for the
political necessities of imposing the white man’s rule over the
indigenous owners of the land known then as Amerigo. First they led
genocidal attack on the native Indians. After the mass massacres of the
natives they penned them in reservations just in case they should get
out of hand.
|
|
George Bush |
Madeleine Albright |
The reservations were the precursors to the Guantanamo camps to come.
Not satisfied with the genocidal attacks on the Amero-Indians the white
man handed them small-pox infected blankets for protection. First
examples of biological warfare. There is a moral in this for the world:
Beware of Americans bringing blankets for the sick and the needy! It is
worse than the Greeks bringing gifts.
American history
Then they went for the Negroes running race-based clinics in
Tuskegee, Alabama, between 1932 and 1972 to discover the effects of
untreated syphillis. Hundreds of black Afro-Americans were selected and
kept in the dark without letting them know that they had syphillis. Even
when penicillin was discovered in the forties they were not treated
because the doctors were more keen on finding out how syphillis
progressed in the human body. Of course, they committed these crimes
against their own people under the burning cross of KKK.
Rendition too is nothing new. It began with the white masters
torturing the disobedient black slaves. Hardly anything has changed in
American history. The only difference is that the American dream of
oppressing, torturing, slaughtering human beings and experimenting with
their new war weapons has gone global. To achieve this American dream
nowadays they use either drones -- the newest lethal weapon in modern
warfare -- or human rights. There is no difference between the two
either. Both are used as exchangeable weapons to keep America safe.
The pretentious American morality refuse to accept the apparent
contradiction in trying to run with drones aimed at protecting and
preserving American security on a global scale and, on the other hand,
hunt other nations with international humanitarian law forbidding them
to use the same tactics and weapons for their security.
When it comes to choosing between international humanitarian law and
the security of America’s security they have never hesitated to opt for
American security without caring tuppence for human rights. Big power
goes invariably with big moral responsibilities. The principle of
noblesse oblige apply. But those responsibilites are kept aside for
either pious Sunday morning sermons, or to receive Nobel Peace prizes.
From Saturday to Saturday -- give or take a few hours on Sunday service
-- Americans have no qualms about bombing the hell out of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and then sitting down, under the mushrooming nuclear cloud, to
draft the UN Charter enshrining all the grand principles of preventing
war.
Guantanamo prison, Cuba |
But what effect has the Declaration of the UN Charter had on America?
Though there has been no global wars America has been in every bloody
mini-wars since then -- from the Bay of Pigs to Afghanistan. In Vietnam
America not only burnt the fauna, flora and human beings in Vietnam by
dropping “Agent Orange” but also exceeded the tonnage of bombs dropped
in whole of World War II. This, in short, sums up the morality of
America. And it has the audacity to invoke the principles of the UN
Charter in moving the resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC in
Geneva.
The resolution against Sri Lanka begins by saying: “Guided by the
Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant
instruments,......” If American is “guided by the Charter of the United
Nations ....and other relevant instruments” in moving the resolution
against Sri Lanka what relevant chapter, para, sentence of international
humanitarian law has guided America when its drones killed 200 children
in Afghanistan? Was it the UN Charter or utter contempt for human life
that caused the deaths of 600,000 children in Iraq (UN figures) when the
American-led naval cordon thrown round Iraq cut off medical and food
supplies?
Violations of human rights
This contempt for human life is not only a common to all big powers
in the Troika targeting Sri Lanka but even among the UN officials who
are appointed to keep the law clean, untainted by double standards,
hypocrisy or even gross violations of human rights.
This is where Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner for the Human
Rights Council comes in. In her opening statement to the 22nd session of
the Human Rights Council in Geneva the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Ms. Pillay focused specifically on VDPA as the most significant
overarching human rights document produced in the last quarter of
century.
Agreed. She also said that the most pertinent feature in this
document is its universality. Agreed wholeheartedly. So how come she
sees the mote in the eye of Sri Lanka and not the log jams in the eyes
of the bullying Troika -- the axis of anti-Sri Lankan evil?
Right now the focus is on issues of transitional justice that are
touted as panaceas for the post-conflict period. In the transitional
period between May 2009 and the final settlement of the issues arising
in the post-conflict phase there has to be a mechanism for achieving
peace and reconciliation. It is the transitional justice aimed at
achieving peace and reconciliation that is contested domestically and
internationally.
Should it be truth-telling commissions like in S. Africa? Should it
be ad hoc international tribunals for war criminals, as in Nuremberg?
Should it be community-based explorations of the war-torn past at the
grass root level to build a new future as in gacaca in Rwanda? Or should
Sri Lanka evolve its own method based on the LLRC report, or an
alternative to it, or a mixture of both?
There is no one-size-fits-all solution in coming to terms with the
past of each country facing complex post-conflict issues. Different
nations have chosen different routes to reconciliation and peace. The
riots this week in Bangaladesh were caused by sentencing to death Delwar
Hossain Sayeedi, one of the leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh’s
biggest Islamist party, for the murder, abduction, rape, torture and
persecution of his countrymen that occurred in the violent movement that
gave birth to Bangladesh in 1971. Rwanda, where 800,000 Rwandans were
massacred in 100 days, rejected both the S. African and the Nuremberg
trial models, and adopted its own grass root gacaca model.
Whatever the infirmities of these models may be small nations have
made serious attempts to reconcile with the horrors of the war-torn
past. But why are these mechanisms for accountability missing in
America? Who was responsible to protect the 600,000 Iraqi children that
died because the naval cordon of the Coalition of the Willing led by
America cut off life-supporting essentials, using food and medicine as
weapons of war?
No NGO has asked for accountability of the 600,000 children killed
under the watch of George Bush. On the contrary when Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl on US “60 Minutes”
(5/12/1996) whether the price was worth it she replied : “I think this
is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.”
Chilling, isn’t it? The blood runs cold when the highest ranking
official in charge of American foreign policy says that it is worth
killing 600,000 children just to protect America’s security from
imagined threats of weapons of mass destruction never found in Iraq. Can
moral depravity sink any lower than this American example of showing
utter contempt for human life -- and innocent children at that!
Anyway, the known models of reconciling with the past in conflict
zones have varied from traditional grass root gacaca in Rwanda to
do-nothing-about-war-crimes policy in America and India.
The vindictive international and national campagins against Sri Lanka
have refused to acknowledge Sri Lanka’s own model. So far four
methodologies have been operating at different levels: 1. the political
process at the very top which seems to be in a stop-start mode with no
consistent traction; 2. economic development which has gathered momentum
and produced tangible and visible results right across the board from
North to South which has resulted in an extraordinary growth of 27
percent in the North compared to 8 percent overall average nationwide;
3. people-to-people programmes initiated at individual and institutional
levels and 4. implementation of LLRC report in parts. There is also the
possibility of recasting the constitution to address the new
post-conflict ground realities.
Though these are discrete and independent processes which are moving
on different planes, taking different routes, all are heading towards
the same goal of reconciliation with the promise of arriving jointly and
simultaneously on the ultimate destination of peace in the long run.
Political agendas
The hue and the cry so far has been on the lack of speed and not
conforming to the political agendas of the Big Troika and their agents
in the NGOs. When Robert O’Blake went before the Congress his main
criticism was that Sri Lanka is “slow” in implementing the LLRC report.
He did not say that Sri Lanka was not implementing it.
Their indecent haste demanding instant solutions to a vexed and
complex issue that had bedevilled the nation from the thirties of the
20th century is totally unrealistic and immoral, particularly in the
light of America’s own historical experiences. For instance, O’Blake
should know that Abraham Lincoln made the historic Emancipation
Proclamation, freeing the Negro slaves, on January 1, 1863. What would
O’Blake’s reply be if President Mahinda Rajapaksa ask him why America
failed to elect a prototype of an Obama in 1864?
Historical problems have not been solved according to the timetable
or mantras, or theories of imported from abroad. A telling example is
the ending of the 33-year-old Tamil terrorist war. It was not done
according to any foreign formula but according to the home-grown
strategies and leadership.
Each historical problem must find its own solutions which can evolve
primarily from the soil which created the historical problems. Besides,
the idiosyncratic peculiarities of the uneven development of history
makes it impossible to make giant leaps from one stage to another
overnight -- the fatal flaw in Trotsky’s theory of the Permanent
Revolution. He argued that feudal societies like Russia can skip the
capitalist stage and jump straight into his ideal socialist state.
Mao too failed in his Great Leap Forward. Modern China and Russia
have proved that history takes its own evolutionary time to transit from
one stage to another. In America too it took 150 years for the
Emancipation Proclamation to mature historically and manifest itself in
the person of Barrack Obama. Why is it right for America to take 150
years to make the change, taking their own route and why is it wrong for
Sri Lanka to take its own route in its own time?
Incidentally, the record it has set now within less than four years
is by any standards of post-conflict recovery a remarkable achievement.
As Bob Morrison, the Shadow Minister in the Liberal Party Opposition,
wrote in The Australian, (March 1, 2013) if this level of achievement
was recorded in Afghanistan or Iraq they would have been awarded a Nobel
Peace Prize. Instead Sri Lanka is hauled up before the UNHRC with some
sections of the local media going along with their sponsors in NGOs
singing hossanas for the Troika in the axis of anti-Sri Lankan evil.
UN Security Council
The fundamental failure in the interventionist foreign policy of the
bullying Troika is in pushing demands that serve their domestic
interests and not the interests of Sri Lanka. Their interventionist
politics, dictating terms to Sri Lanka, are actually counter-productive
impediments obstructing the road to smooth progress for the simple
reason that they are intervening to resurrect the forces that
destabilized Sri Lanka.
It will be four years since the end of the Tamil terrorist war only
in May this year. To expect overnight miracles, based on the political
agendas of the Big Troika and their NGO agents, is contrary to
historical reality and even theoretical rationality. The South African
Truth and Reconciliation took seven years (from May 10, 1994 to November
30, 2001) to close just the work of the Commission. Rwanda abandoned the
Western Nuremberg model of international tribunals and adopted its own
traditional model of reconciliation through gacaca and is yet to
complete its work. To insist that Sri Lanka should do its job according
to the timetable of the Big Troika and their NGO agents amounts to
nothing less than neo-colonialism.
It is time that Sri Lanka dismissed the hypocritical moralities
passed by UNHRC with contempt. Instead Sri Lanka should follow the
excellent example set by India which had thrown into the waste paper
basket all the resolutions passed by the Security Council on Kashmir --
a territory occupied by India against international law and principles
laid down by the UN.
When India talks of militarisation of the North and not holding
elections in the North Sri Lanka should counter it by telling India
bluntly: Mr. India, you set the example in Kashmir by withdrawing your
forces and hold the referendum recommended the UN Security Council then
we might -- mark you, “might” not “will” -- consider reducing our forces
in the North and holding Provincial Council elections in the North
according to your timetable.
Until then the most pragmatic course of action for Sri Lanka is to
tell the Troika to “fforeggub”, a la Dylan Thomas’s “llaregubb”! |