H. L. D. Mahindapala

In this age of terrorism where ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-well over 60 countries (are) facing threats of armed conflictƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (ICRC report, Geneva 2011 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” p. 5) International Humanitarian Law (IHL) ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” i.e., laws governing armed conflicts, or laws of war — and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” i.e., law specific to the right of individuals in the main — are in a moral crisis of huge proportions. The crisis is not in IHL or IHRL per se but in their politics. Both are manipulated perversely by those who proclaim from roof tops to be champions of human rights and, most deplorable of all, by the known war criminals violating both.

When, for instance, Amnesty International accepts a $50,000 donation from the Canadian Tamil Congress ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a front of the war criminals of the internationally banned LTTE ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” and justifies it at the 19th UNHRC side event organized by the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva (March 1, 2012, Palais des Nations, Room XXI) it is clear that even those espousing the highest principles are happy to live with the distortions and perversions that had infected IHL and IHRL as long as they can make a fast buck by posing as the high priests and guardians of international morality. By and large, I/NGOs are in the business of making a fast buck to maintain their extravagant and expensive life style by hawking morality like fish in the market of Mervin SilvaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s electorate.

It is somewhat akin to the kind of moral crisis faced by the Bible when it was also the main reference point in the age of Western colonialism. The Bible provided all the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-moralityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ that was needed to justify Western colonialism, slavery, oppression, white supremacy, apartheid, KKK, segregation, ethnic cleansing in colonies, mass scale slaughter of Africans, North and South American indigenous peoples, Aborigines in Australia, plunder of land without compensation etc., etc. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” all of which amount to denial of basic human rights to the historical owners of the colonies.

Invoking the text in the Bible gave the colonial masters the expedient justification to cover up the crimes they committed in the name of Christianity and civilizing the heathens. It also gave them a sense of superiority over the natives. Non-Western cultures were downgraded as heathenish or barbaric. The Churches of various denominations were the earliest NGOs which posed as do-gooders, hiding their political and religious agenda. They aided and abetted the destruction of traditional cultures, uprooted the people from their ancient homelands and exploited the cheap labour of helpless people to increase their profits and expand their global empires.

Nothing much has changed in Western agendas since Vasco de Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope and came to the east, or since Christopher Colombus landed in America except for two major items: 1. the Bible has been replaced by IHL and IHRL ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the new secular religion and 2. the Churchmen have been replaced by hired I/NGO apparatchiks. They are the new moral guardians of Western values stalking the ex-colonies, aiming to convert the native barbarians to the political gospels of the West.

Like all humane values propounded by well-meaning founders from the dawn of history the Bible IHL and IHRL have fallen into the hands of those who are bent on exploiting the highest values of man for evil ends. Big powers, terrorists masquerading as freedom fighters, I/NGOs (some of whom are linked to terrorists), hired academics, media sources and even churchmen who openly act on behalf of terrorists have had no compunction in condoning violations of human rights if it fits into their political agendas. They have overturned the sacred overnight into the profane.

Consequently, the lines are blurred and it is rather difficult to decipher who is genuinely on the side of human rights to protect lives and humane values and who is merely invoking human rights to justify drones dropping bombs to kill civilians, or drag civilians to serve as human shields to protect retreating war lords, or throw under aged children forcibly recruited into the frontline of futile wars.

Of course, in the unending debates of politics, morality is used by all sides to justify their actions, or to condemn the actions of the opponents. Universal human values ultimately stands or falls not by invoking principles to justify perverse actions but by the essence of morality contained in decisions, actions, resolutions and other publicly proclaimed principles. If the morality doesnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t match the action and vice versa then the contradiction exposes the hollowness of both. Immorality is a corrosive factor that can undermine the most powerful states. The ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Arab SpringƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, for instance, demonstrates that even the most powerful armies could not prop up dictatorial regimes because the foundations were on shaky moral grounds.

More often than not, in politics morality is invoked like the text in the Bible: it is often quoted by the devil to cover-up evil agendas. Distorting morality can, up to a limited time, help to promote and sustain villainous agendas of state and non-state actors. Rival parties declare war, or aid and abet local conflicts in neighbouring and distant nations, or wage proxy wars, or commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, all by inventing morality to justify their actions.

The twisting, turning and bending of morality to pursue expedient politics in the international arena is most common among big powers. This practice of double-standards is used with utter contempt to deceive and mislead the public to win global backing for their political agendas. The presentation of fictitious material to the Security Council by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, accusing Iraq of being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, is one of the most disreputable acts that would go down in history as despicable diplomacy of any nation. Over a million Iraqi civilians have died since the US-led war in Iraq was launched based on a fictitious report. US, the biggest power on earth, has got away with impunity simply because it is a big power and not because it is on the right side of morality.

If there is one single ruling principle that determines the actions of big powers as they flex their muscles in the international theatre it is simply this: do as I say and never dare to do what I do. Those small nations which attempt to do what the big powers do to protect their sovereignty, territorial borders and national interests end up in the bad books of the Big Brothers who never fail to use international humanitarian law in the post-Cold War period as the new religion to save the world.

America professes to be the leading champion of international humanitarian law. But no other nation has in the post-World War II period ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a period dominated by America — violated international conventions and international humanitarian law as America. And they do it brazenly without any compunction. Consider how Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State (1989 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” 2001) justified the unnecessary deaths in Iraq in an interview on ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-60 MinutesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ programme of CBS (May 12, 1966). The interviewer questioned about the 500,000 children (UNICEF figures) that died in Iraq as a result of the US-led and UN -sanctioned embargo on the supply of essential items ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” including food and medicine ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” to Saddam HussainƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Iraq.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Albright: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-It was a hard choice, but the price was worth it.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

The answer is chilling, coming particularly from a woman who is supposed to be endowed with motherly concerns toward children. Without batting an eyelid she justifies the deaths of 500,000 children simply because it served AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s interests. If the price of sacrificing 500,000 children was necessary ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” and worth it — to protect AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s national interests then what value does America place on innocent children? On human rights? Are human rights worth anything at all to America?

How can a nation that says it is worth killing 500,000 to protect its security and interests be moral? How can God bless America if the children of God are sentenced to slow death by using food and medicine as a weapon of war to serve the interests of America? Under what prerogative can it invoke the principles in the UN charter to lecture to others and even punish them using international instrumentalities like the Security Council and the UNHRC set up to protect human rights? How can ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-PakiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Saravanamuttu and Jehan Perera, two NGO high priests, sit at the table of the American Ambassador and dine and wine knowing that they are eating the flesh of babies and drinking the blood of America’s war victims?

Consider, for instance, the high principles invoked in the resolution presented by US against Sri Lanka at the 19th session of the UNHRC. With all the arrivisme of a pompous big power US states in its preamble:

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The Human Rights Council,

Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, (Ha! Ha!) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Ha! Ha! Ha!) the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments, (Ha! Ha! Haaaaaa!)ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.

Reaffirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, as applicable,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

This preamble in the American resolution contains the base of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the moralƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ argument on which the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution was moved at the 19th session of UNHRC in Geneva in Feb-March, 2009. The operative phrases in the anti-Sri Lankan resolution claim that the Sri Lankan state ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-must ensure that (1) any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, (2) in particular international human rights,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ The Resolution then proceeds to prescribe measures against Sri Lanka on the ground that the GOSL did not combat terrorism in accordance with their obligations ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-under international law, in particular international human rights.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Combating terrorism ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” or any other violent force confronting democratically elected states ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-in accordance with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rightsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ is sound in principle but never applied in practice. In principle it can be argued that all states ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” including America, India. EU and even Sri Lanka — engaged in wars against terrorism are guilty of violations of IHL and IHRL. America is a leading example. It has been fighting terrorism since 9/11with the least respect for IHL or IHRL. Having led the war against terrorism on an intense scale ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” there is no difference in the intensity and the scale between the counter-terrorist war waged by Bush and Obama — it is relevant to ask America which of its extreme anti-terrorist measures (example: water-boarding, torture in Guantanamo, rendition in Egypt and other dictatorships, questionable military trials, Patriot Act etc) taken to combat terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-complies with their obligations under international law and in particular human rights?ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

In targeting their perceived enemies Bush and Obama have repeatedly made their foreign policy and military strategy crystal clear: if anyone threatens America sovereignty, territorial integrity, security, and national interests whether in America or abroad he/she will be hunted down and killed with no questions asked. Example: Osama bin Laden. Killing/destroying enemies (perceived or real) is the cornerstone of American foreign policy whatever the price may be ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” even if it means killing 500,000 children, as stated by Madeline Albright.

But has the killing of 500,000 children, or Osama bin Laden helped to achieve lasting peace in Iraq or security for the Americans? Has it stopped the killings of civilians in Iraq? Has it stabilized the Middle East? Has it brought home the Americans? Has it guaranteed democracy in the Middle East? How stable is the regime that replaced Saddam Hussain? How many more billions must America keep pumping in to prevent Iraq from sliding back to another Saddamic state?

On the contrary, consider the case of Sri Lanka and ask whether the price of sacrifices made in the counter-terrorist campaign worth it? The unequivocal answer: Yes.

To begin with, it was a just war which was endorsed overtly or covertly by the international community. Elimination of Velupillai Prabhakaran from the political equation was accepted as a prime requirement for the restoration or peace, stability and democracy. The GOSL did not initiate or fight the Vadukoddai War with cooked up reports like the one presented by Colin Powell to the Security Council. After 30 years of war it decided in 2006 that enough was enough and launched an all out offensive after the failure of the formulas prescribed by the regional super power (Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement) and the international community (Ceasefire Agreement).

Unlike Madeline Albright Sri Lanka saved 300,000 Tamil civilians used as a human shield. The Sri Lankan death toll for the longest war in Asia (33 years) was far less than the millions killed under chemical warfare, or carpet bombing in short wars in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan and Iraq where the killed and displaced run into millions. Prabhakaran was killed in the battlefield in Nandikadal. Unarmed Osama-bin Laden was killed in his home when he was taking cover behind his wife, with the least regard for IHRL or IHL (the Navy Seals crossed Pakistan border without approval from Pakistan), and due process.

Besides, the ending of the war in Sri Lanka has restored democracy in the north and the east. America is still not sure whether democracy will work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Development work is forging ahead promising better conditions for living in Sri Lanka . The economy is growing at a commendable rate. The return of normalcy has attracted investors. Despite the prophets of doom and gloom Sri Lanka is not likely to be state that would turn to a dictatorship. Clearly, the price of ending the war ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” whatever the costs ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” was worth it considering the return to normalcy in the homes and streets.

Against this background why is only Sri Lanka hauled up before the UNHRC ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” of all nation by the US, mark you! — for failing to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-ensure that (1) any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, (2) in particular international human rightsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Besides, how could India join America when its IPKF ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the so-called peace keepers — committed crimes against the civilian population of Jaffna by raping their women, torturing Tamil youth, incarcerating suspects without trial, killing dissidents and suspects on sight, and committing other war crimes documented in the reports of University Teachers for Human Rights, Jaffna? Where is the morality in this? Is this justice?

Finally, if Sri Lanka was arraigned before UNHRC for the sins of commission and omission which other country in International Armed Conflicts (IACs) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs) can be exempted from the kind of resolution sponsored by US and India? Going back to the Bible, shouldnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t US and India both ask: why look at the mote in the eyes of Sri Lanka and not the beam in their own? Or to put in in the pithy Sinhala idiom, why are they running around like prawns crying that they are clean and pure when they carry loads of faeces in their heads?