Of MR’s swipe
Editorial-January 1, 2014,
Critics of Sri Lanka’s human rights situation are either uninformed of the ground situation here or sympathetic to the LTTE, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has said in a newspaper interview. With a little over two months to go for the next UNHRC session in Geneva, where Sri Lanka is expected to face another condemnatory resolution moved by the US, his swipe is obviously aimed at undermining the credibility of his detractors.
President Rajapaksa never misses any opportunity to tear into those who have embarked on a war crimes campaign against his government. His indignation is understandable, but their hostility stems from anything but ignorance, we reckon.
India has been quite au fait with the situation here. If not for its blessings, the LTTE couldn’t have been eliminated. True, there were times when New Delhi succumbed to pressure from Tamil Nadu and wanted the military operations in the Vanni suspended, but, overall, it was supportive of Sri Lanka’s war which effectively neutralised a threat to India’s national security as well. India had even been compelled to tighten security at nuclear power stations in its southern regions in view of the LTTE’s crude air wing. It must have been relieved to see Prabhakaran dead. But, today, it is one of the most vociferous critics of Sri Lanka’s war owing to some domestic political imperatives. It has also been left with no alternative but to join forces with western governments campaigning for a war crimes probe against Sri Lanka because it aspires to a seat in the UN Security Council and, therefore, wants to be in the good books of the global powers. Thus, it may be seen that India is on a campaign against Sri Lanka not because it is either uninformed/misguided or pro-LTTE.
In the UK, too, there are some constituencies where LTTE sympathisers claim to be able to determine the outcome of any election by voting for a party of their choice. David Miliband has admitted in a diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks that he, as the British Foreign Secretary, focused on this country and even rushed here during the final phases of the war in 2009 because of the pro-LTTE votes in Labour constituencies with slim majorities.
Politicians, the world over, hunger for votes and thirst for power, and it is only natural that most British politicians, especially the ruling party ones, are falling over themselves to woo pro-LTTE activists and have taken to Sri Lanka bashing in return for votes. But, by no stretch of the imagination, could they be described as uninformed about Sri Lanka. It’s just that they don’t give two hoots about facts, which they unflinchingly distort to suit their own agendas. The same goes for most of the Scandinavian countries where the LTTE is still strong. The US is a different kettle of fish in that its governments are not dependent on pro-LTTE voters for survival, but it also uses the Sri Lankan issue to further its geo-political interests.
The Rajapaksa government is in the current predicament mainly because it is perceived to be anti-western. It has so far launched expensive campaigns spearheaded by foreign PR firms to counter hostile propaganda overseas. But, such measures are of little use as regards the UNHRC, where, as External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris has pointed out, voting is determined not by the merits of a particular issue but by ‘strategic alliances and domestic political issues in other countries which had nothing to do with the subject matter of a resolution or the best interests of the country to which the resolution relates’. If the Sri Lankan government switches its allegiance to the West, the US and its allies will not give a tinker’s cuss about what is alleged to have happened during the Vanni war and/or other human rights issues they have made a big issue of; in such an eventuality they may even back it to the hilt in Geneva the way they have been protecting Bahrain.