Persons such as Gareth Evans
should not prostitute themselves
By
K. Godage
Sri Lanka's former Ambassador to the EU
Courtesy: The Island
I write to congratulate Minister GL Peiris on his brilliant response
to Gareth Evans' specious argument that the international community
has an obligation to intervene in an internal situation in a country
when some do-gooders perceive that the legal government is not protecting
its people. The grave danger is that the decision to intervene could
quite possibly on the basis of some unsubstantiated and cooked up reports/
allegations of persons and organizations which have their own agenda.
If not for the fact that the man was the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Australia I would have even conjectured as to whether the man was
handsomely paid for his effort which undoubtedly was on behalf of the
LTTE. Prof. Peiris refers to an article published recently advocating
a UN military intervention and makes a very pertinent point namely that
it is extremely important for the public of this country to be made
aware of this threat.
We have had a series of visits by UN officials all from the west seeking
to reform the natives. I am inclined to think that this could very well
be a part of a diabolical plan put together by the very capable Tamil
Diaspora to make out that the situation in Sri Lanka is such that it
is obligatory on the part of the international community to mount a
humanitarian intervention and create another Cyprus. They may perhaps
think that it could be in the long term interest of India to allow this
to happen for it could later indulge in a Sikkhim type exercise and
incorporate the north and east of Sri Lanka into the Indian Union. These
bravadoes like Evans pick on small countries to write their names in
the good book, but they would dare not take on a big country or a country
where their own countries have economic interests.
I am reminded of the period between 1987 July and 1991 when the IPKF
was in Sri Lanka. In the period between 1983 July and 1987 July the
European Parliament passed a large number of resolutions on the HR situation
in Sri Lanka castigating the government but there was not a single resolution
after the IPKF took on the LTTE and in the three years they spent fighting
in the north and east of the country and this was not because the IPKF
was scrupulously careful and ensured that there were no HR violations
by them; in fact the LTTE published a three hundred page book titled
"The Satanic Force' documenting, according to them, the atrocities
they alleged were committed by the IPKF. This so-called international
community and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and other
such organizations said not a word, and this included the 'Embassy watch'
in Colombo. None of these heroes were prepared to say a word against
India for it was not in their interest to do so.
On an earlier occasion when the Indian Air Force violated our airspace
and our sovereignty, indulging in an act of gross aggression, violating
international norms, not a country was prepared to condemn India for
it; the European Union issued a statement faulting Sri Lanka for not
settling the issue by peaceful means; this incidentally was at the time
of the Vadamaarachchi operation when India bailed out the LTTE. Such
are the double standards of the west. They only pick on the weak and
vulnerable and it appears that many are making a living from this situation.
Evans' statement as analyzed by Prof. Peiris serves to show that what
Evans advocates is a positively dangerous 'doctrine', proposing naked
intervention, bypassing even the Security Council! He says that it is
the absolute responsibility of the government to 'protect' its people
and if it is perceived by whoever that this responsibility is not being
discharged to THEIR satisfaction (the self appointed arbiters nay 'saviors)
then coercive military action is justified ! Who is to decide? These
do-gooders have arrogated to themselves the right to decide on intervening
in a sovereign country.
For whose benefit does Evans propound his 'doctrine'? He gives himself
away when he states "should the war move into LTTE controlled areas
in the north, it is likely to be much more fiercer than the recent fighting
in the east and the impact on civilians is likely to be devastating….."
As Professor Peiris states "It is clear then that on the basis
of speculative anticipation Evans contrives to present a case for prospective
intervention by military means if necessary."...Prof. Peiris goes
on to state that can hardly be a more urgent reason to alert the public
of Sri Lanka about the perils attendant on cavalier acquiescence in
this doctrine." To quote Prof. Peiris further "There are many
dangers inherent in it.
The gravest among these without question is the incurable vague and
open-ended character of the suggested principle of intervention. Evans
contends that the basis of the doctrine he expounds is practical and
principled. Demonstrably, however the opposite is the case."
Evans seeks to make out that if the military offensive continues the
impact on civilians is likely to be devastating, in which war have civilians
not suffered Mr. Evans? thirty of the fifty plus million who died in
the Second World War were most unfortunately civilians. No, there can
be any justification under any circumstances for civilians being targeted
nor for civilian deaths consequent to conflict; Evans seeks to make
out that a situation such as that in Sudan could arise which would mean
that the government has been unable to protect its people and intervention
by military means is justified.
Who arrogates for themselves the right to decide this Mr. Evans? Your
theory can only cause more havoc than the intervention in Iraq. The
one way to ensure that a situation such as that which he anticipates
is avoided is for Evans and his ilk to get the LTTE to agree to laying
down arms and gives up their endeavour to establish a separate state.
That is indeed the role that the international community should play.
If they do that they can ensure that, in the first instance the blood-letting
would stop and secondly they would have the moral authority to ensure
not only that there would be no victor's justice but could insist that
the government comes up with proposals that ensure that the Tamil people
can live in security, dignity and be able to decide on their destiny
to the furthest possible extent compatible with the security and integrity
of the country and that they also have a say and role at the center
in the formulation and implementation of national policy. This is where
the international community can play a helpful role, not to make veiled
threats such as those made by Evans, no doubt whatsoever, at the behest
of those seeking to head off the present military operation to weaken
the LTTE. Persons such as Evans should not prostitute themselves. Meanwhile
it is of interest to know how much the man was paid for his lecture
( the usual price I am informed is USD 10,000) and by whom in foreign
exchange and where he was paid..
|
