Western Hypocrisy and LTTE Terrorism
Professor Laksiri Fernando - University of Colombo
It is difficult to generalize, but at least in the case of Sri Lanka it is clear that Western hypocrisy has strengthened terrorism. The most recent example is the way that they have behaved on the issue of rescuing Tamil civilians from the ‘no fire zone.’ It has in fact been an arduous task for the Sri Lankan government to circumvent the Western pressure and finally act decisively without allowing the LTTE to regroup and restart their acts of terror under the proposed ‘ceasefire’ by some of the Western governments. The 20th of April will go into the history of at least this country as the Government of Sri Lanka could ‘say no’ to the Western ‘advice’ and decided to rescue the Tamil civilians on its own against the LTTE terror.
The operations on the first day itself have shown amazing results disproving Western misconceptions. In early hours of the day, the 58th Battalion entered the ‘no fire zone’ from the western side of Puthumalan and brought down the ‘earth bund’ that the LTTE had built to prevent the civilians leaving the zone and entering the government controlled areas. The area was no longer a ‘no fire zone’ as the dwindling LTTE cadres with their leader Prabhakaran had infiltrated the area with heavy weapons over a month ago making the efforts of ‘sparing the civilians’ a mockery. The Western governments should have known that the LTTE did not have an iota of respect for the international humanitarian law.
The aerial pictures obtained through UAV technology released for the international media very clearly showed how people ran towards the government side taking the opportunity of the corridor created by the government troops. The pictures also showed brave men and women with infants in hand crossing the lagoon towards the south without any belongings. Having heard the news of troops entering the zone from the western side, some others located towards the north and on the Mullativu beach also have escaped braving their lives from LTTE fire. Altogether, over thirty five thousand civilians have been rescued on the first day itself. Of course there had been some unfortunate incidents. Three suicide cadres had mingled with the civilians and blown themselves up killing seventeen and injuring many more. The LTTE had also opened fire on the fleeing civilians but their success of preventing them has been extremely minimal.
The success of the first day without any doubt of continuity would vindicate the government’s view that Tamil civilians could not be rescued without government intervention. That intervention was rightly called a humanitarian intervention. While the government strongly believed that it is its democratic responsibility to defeat terrorism and rescue the Tamil civilians it also believed that the intervention should be conducted on the basis of the international humanitarian principles, priority giving to civilian safety and their welfare. The humanitarian principles were faithfully followed during the whole intervention whatever the incidental aberration in the process.
The Western governments differed. Why? Perhaps they did not believe that a government like Sri Lanka could at all defeat terrorism like the LTTE. There had been some prejudices involved. Most of them used to call Sri Lanka a failed state during the ascendancy of the LTTE. At least the ‘peace facilitator’ Eric Solhiem is on record commending on the LTTE’s military prowess. The ascendancy of the LTTE was partly governed by the resuscitation given by outside forces from time to time. India also was responsible at the beginning. Some of the international non governmental organizations with their local cohorts were in particular responsible.
There were internal reasons as well. Some erroneous policies on the part of former governments in respect of language, education and employment gave rise to some unrest among the minority communities. But all minority communities did not behave in the same manner. And these were matters which should have been resolved democratically without resorting to violence or what transpired as terrorism. Sympathy for the grievances real or perceived should not have resulted as sympathy for violence or rebellion let alone terrorism. This is where the West was utterly confused if not hypocritical. There were forces instigating in particular the northern Tamil community to rebel against the Sri Lankan state.
It is also possible that the West thinks that countries like Sri Lanka could not at all care for its civilians. This is also a common prejudice. It is more than a prejudice as it denies the basic right of self-government or sovereignty for these countries. The perception is disturbing as it comes after long centuries of colonialism. Perhaps they are incapable of getting rid of colonial mentality even after all these years of change and development. This may be considered a hangover from colonialism.
The British government in particular seems to harbor these prejudices against Sri Lanka, one of its former colonies. It is unfortunate at present the prejudices come from a Labour government. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown first wanted to appoint his representative, Des Browne, to Sri Lanka without proper consultation with the Sri Lankan government. The usual protocol was not followed. Then his Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, wants the UN Secretary General’s Representative, Vijay Nambiar, to submit a full report to the UN Security Council after his visit to Sri Lanka recently.
It is clear that the appointment of the UN Representative was made under the pressure of the British government. When the Representative came, his main submission to the government was to declare indefinite ceasefire on the pretext that then the civilians could escape. The government in fact had been flexible on Western ‘advice’ and declared on and off several ceasefires, the last one being on the 13th and the 14th of April without any reciprocation from the LTTE or the LTTE allowing the civilians to leave.
It cannot be a complete secret to the West or the British government that the LTTE was holding the civilians as a ‘human shield’ particularly at this juncture to prevent the capture of Prabhakaran by the Sri Lankan troops. They should no better that any ceasefire at this juncture only would allow Prabhakaran and other LTTE leaders to escape and not the civilians. It may be partly correct that the British government is under some pressure because of the protests going on in London by the Tamil Diaspora demanding an intervention to ensure an immediate ceasefire in Sri Lanka. But a responsible government should not act merely under the pressure of politically motivated section of the people.
The British government should know very clearly that the protests are organized by the remaining LTTE sympathizers, if not the organizers in London. It is in this context that it is extremely unfortunate that what the British government demands from the Sri Lankan government is exactly what the London protesters demand from the British government.
There may be some concerns on the part of the protesters about the safety of the civilians. But this cannot be the main reason. But anyone who sympathizes with the LTTE should know that the outfit does not have any regard for the civilian life. The protests are conducted on ideological grounds rather than on humanitarian ones. This may not be completely the case on the part of the British government. There is no difficulty for the Sri Lankan government or the people at large to share some of the concerns of the British government in respect of the civilians. But if that concern is completely a genuine one without any prejudice of colonialism then the British government should cooperate with the Sri Lankan government not only to ensure safety for the civilians but also to eradicate terrorism.
The safety of civilians and eradication of terrorism are interlinked. One cannot be achieved without the other, although in practice one may go against the other if not conducted in a balanced and a coordinated manner as the government of Sri Lanka is at present doing. It is a puzzle for many people in Sri Lanka why the Western countries do fail to understand the link between the two and appreciate the crucial task that the government is faced with.
It is a complete mistake to think that the West knows better than a government of a country legitimately elected by the people. In the case of Sri Lanka, the present government has obtained the endorsement for it’s polices from the people at several elections held recently. In addition, many key members of the opposition are now in the government representing various communities and sectors. There is no denial that even an elected government could make mistakes. This however applies not only to countries like Sri Lanka but also to the West as well. Given the above, there is no other way to understand the recent Western behavior on Sri Lanka other than understand them as hypocrisy and prejudice.
- Asian Tribune -
Comments