Australian Tamil Referendum April 2010 - SBS News
Australian Tamil referendum attracts media, provokes Colombo's envoy
More than 10,000 registered to cast their votes in the referendum across Australia last weekend, on the creation of independent Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka, reported SBS Australia, citing organisers.
John Dowd, the president of the International Commission of Jurists in Australia, SBS said, citing him saying that the referendum highlighted the aspirations as well as the plight of Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka.
The spokesperson of the Australian Tamil Congress Dr. Sam Pari called for a UN led referendum in the North-East to ascertain the Tamils opinion on the creation of an independent Tamil homeland.
Australia is the 10th country, but the first in the eastern hemisphere to conduct the referendum on the creation of independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam, the main principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution of 1976.
The polls in several countries have delivered a resounding 'yes', the SBS observed in a lengthy coverage of the referendum in its World News.
-------------------------------------
read more here :-Tamilnet
WAToday Australia
GreenLeft Online Australia
Showing posts with label Eelam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eelam. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Friday, 5 February 2010
Gotabhaya outbursts against UN, International investigations
Gotabhaya outbursts against UN, International investigations
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=31142
[TamilNet, Thursday, 04 February 2010, 23:01 GMT]
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan defence secretary and the brother of the SL president, in an exclusive interview to the BBC on Tuesday, opposed any international investigation on war crimes during the final stage of the war. Meanwhile, the official news website of the Rajapaksa government in its Sinhala and versions has blamed external forces for rejuvenating the claim of Tamil Eelam by backing Sarath Fonseka, citing the pattern of the results of the recent presidential elections. The Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa also warned the politicians not to guide the 'innocent people' in 'wrong path', while he referred to the election participation in North and East in his Tamil version of the February 04 speech.
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa became visibly irritated responding to the question posed by BBC's Asia Today on Tuesday:
"Any international entity can ask for any investigation. There will be no investigations in this country. I will oppose any body, who is trying to do [investigations], because there is no reason [for investigations].
"The real thing we have to do is to bring this country, develop this country, bring peace to the country, reconciliation, by bringing out all these [war crime] things ... will not.
"These are the people who [...] have other motives, asking [for investigations]. Whether it is United Nations or any other country, we are not - I am not - allowing any investigations in this country. There is no reason. Nothing wrong happened in this country. Take it from me. There will be no investigations for anything in this country. I will not allow [it]. That is not what public wants. That is not what this country wants.
"Don't ask anything about any investigation. Don't talk to me [on] any investigation. There will be no investigations in this country. Take it from me. I am the Secretary of Defence and I will oppose anybody who want to have these things. I will not [allow] anything [like it]. This is my final word."
In the meantime, Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa in his Tamil version of the February 04 address delivered from Kandy, warned the politicians not to lead innocent people in wrong ways, while he referred to the conduct of presidential elections in the North and East.
Watch this video in a new windowGotabaya Rajapakse to BBC
In his "Indpendent Day" address, Mr. Rajapaksa went on record once again saying that there is no minority in his country. "All those who love the mother of Ilangkai (Sri Lanka) are the people of this country. Don't betray your homeland," he said in Tamil.
"We will resolve our problems within us by talks, all people will have the same facilities, that is equality, that is equal rights. One country, one people and one justice," Rajapaksa proclaimed.
In the meantime, Colombo government's official news website news.lk compared the election results illustrating the voting pattern with the map of Tamil Eelam and stating that the pattern revealed separatist agenda. The news was published in Sinhala and Tamil versions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=31142
[TamilNet, Thursday, 04 February 2010, 23:01 GMT]
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan defence secretary and the brother of the SL president, in an exclusive interview to the BBC on Tuesday, opposed any international investigation on war crimes during the final stage of the war. Meanwhile, the official news website of the Rajapaksa government in its Sinhala and versions has blamed external forces for rejuvenating the claim of Tamil Eelam by backing Sarath Fonseka, citing the pattern of the results of the recent presidential elections. The Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa also warned the politicians not to guide the 'innocent people' in 'wrong path', while he referred to the election participation in North and East in his Tamil version of the February 04 speech.
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa became visibly irritated responding to the question posed by BBC's Asia Today on Tuesday:
"Any international entity can ask for any investigation. There will be no investigations in this country. I will oppose any body, who is trying to do [investigations], because there is no reason [for investigations].
"The real thing we have to do is to bring this country, develop this country, bring peace to the country, reconciliation, by bringing out all these [war crime] things ... will not.
"These are the people who [...] have other motives, asking [for investigations]. Whether it is United Nations or any other country, we are not - I am not - allowing any investigations in this country. There is no reason. Nothing wrong happened in this country. Take it from me. There will be no investigations for anything in this country. I will not allow [it]. That is not what public wants. That is not what this country wants.
"Don't ask anything about any investigation. Don't talk to me [on] any investigation. There will be no investigations in this country. Take it from me. I am the Secretary of Defence and I will oppose anybody who want to have these things. I will not [allow] anything [like it]. This is my final word."
In the meantime, Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa in his Tamil version of the February 04 address delivered from Kandy, warned the politicians not to lead innocent people in wrong ways, while he referred to the conduct of presidential elections in the North and East.
Watch this video in a new windowGotabaya Rajapakse to BBC
In his "Indpendent Day" address, Mr. Rajapaksa went on record once again saying that there is no minority in his country. "All those who love the mother of Ilangkai (Sri Lanka) are the people of this country. Don't betray your homeland," he said in Tamil.
"We will resolve our problems within us by talks, all people will have the same facilities, that is equality, that is equal rights. One country, one people and one justice," Rajapaksa proclaimed.
In the meantime, Colombo government's official news website news.lk compared the election results illustrating the voting pattern with the map of Tamil Eelam and stating that the pattern revealed separatist agenda. The news was published in Sinhala and Tamil versions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friday, 9 October 2009
Behind The Sri Lankan Bloodbath
Behind The Sri Lankan Bloodbath :- Brahma Chellaney
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/08/tamil-tigers-rajiv-gandhi-opinions-contributors-sri-lanka.html
Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is the author, most recently, of Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of noncombatants, according to the United Nations, were killed in the final phase of the Sri Lankan war this year as government forces overran the Tamil Tiger guerrillas. Nearly five months after Colombo's stunning military triumph, the peace dividend remains elusive, with President Mahinda Rajapaksa setting out--in the name of "eternal vigilance"--to expand by 50% an already-large military. Little effort has been made to reach out to the Tamil minority and begin a process of national reconciliation.
China, clearly, was the decisive factor in ending the war through its generous supply of offensive weapons and its munificent aid. It even got its ally Pakistan to actively assist Rajapaksa in his war strategy. Today, China is the key factor in providing Colombo the diplomatic cover against the institution of a U.N. investigation into possible war crimes, or the appointment of a U.N. special envoy on Sri Lanka. In return for such support, Beijing has been able to make strategic inroads into a critically located country in India's backyard.
Unlike China's assistance, India's role has received little international attention. But India, too, contributed to the Sri Lankan bloodbath through its military aid, except that it has ended up, strangely, with its leverage undermined.
For years, India had pursued a hands-off approach toward Sri Lanka in response to two developments--a disastrous 1987-1990 peacekeeping operation there; and the 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a member of the Tamil Tigers. But having been outmaneuvered by China's success in extending strategic reach to Sri Lanka in recent years, New Delhi got sucked into providing major assistance to Colombo, lest it lose further ground in Sri Lanka.
From opening an unlimited line of military credit for Sri Lanka to extending critical naval and intelligence assistance, India provided sustained war support despite a deteriorating humanitarian situation there. A "major turning point" in the war, as Sri Lankan navy chief Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda acknowledged, came when the rebels' supply ships were eliminated, one by one, with input from Indian naval intelligence, cutting off all supplies to the rebel-held areas. That in turn allowed the Sri Lankan ground forces to make rapid advances and unravel the de facto state the Tigers had established in the island nation's north and east.
Sri Lanka, for its part, practiced adroit but duplicitous diplomacy: It assured India it would approach other arms suppliers only if New Delhi couldn't provide a particular weapon system it needed. Yet it quietly began buying arms from China and Pakistan without even letting India know. In doing so, Colombo mocked Indian appeals that it rely for its legitimate defense needs on India, the main regional power. It was only by turning to India's adversaries for weapons, training and other aid that Colombo pulled off a startling military triumph. In any event, Colombo was emboldened by the fact that the more it chipped away at India's traditional role, the more New Delhi seemed willing to pander to its needs.
StoriesIn PicturesVideosRate This Story
Your Rating
Overall Rating
Reader Comments
Economic greed of the powers changed the colour of Indian Ocean red. "Despite extensive media coverage and global sympathy for their cause, the Palestinians are today still stateless and under occup
Read All Comments (9)Comment On This StoryIndeed, Rajapaksa deftly played the China, India and Pakistan cards to maximize gains. After key Tamil Tiger leaders had been killed in the fighting, Rajapaksa--to New Delhi's mortification--thanked China, India and Pakistan in the same breath for Sri Lanka's victory.
Today, India stands more marginalized than ever in Sri Lanka. Its natural constituency--the Tamils--feels not only betrayed, but also looks at India as a colluder in the bloodbath. India already had alienated the Sinhalese majority in the 1980s, when it first armed the Tamil Tigers and then sought to disarm them through an ill-starred peacekeeping foray that left almost three times as many Indian troops dead as the 1999 Kargil War with Pakistan.
India's waning leverage over Sri Lanka is manifest from the way it now has to jostle for influence there with arch-rivals China and Pakistan. Hambantota--the billion-dollar port Beijing is building in Sri Lanka's southeast--symbolizes the Chinese strategic challenge to India from the oceans.
Even as some 280,000 displaced Tamils--equivalent to the population of Belfast--continue to be held incommunicado in barbed-wire camps, India has been unable to persuade Colombo to set them free, with incidents being reported of security forces opening fire on those seeking to escape from the appalling conditions. One of the few persons allowed to visit some of these camps was U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said after his tour in May: "I have traveled around the world and visited similar places, but these are by far the most appalling scenes I have seen ..." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said recently that India has conveyed its "concerns in no uncertain terms to Sri Lanka on various occasions, stressing the need for them to focus on resettling and rehabilitating the displaced Tamil population at the earliest." But India seems unable to make a difference even with messages delivered in "no uncertain terms."
The story of the loss of India's preeminent role in Sri Lanka actually begins in 1987, when New Delhi made an abrupt U-turn in policy and demanded that the Tigers lay down their arms. Their refusal to bow to the diktat was viewed as treachery, and the Indian army was ordered to rout them.
Since then, Sri Lanka has served as a reminder of how India's foreign policy is driven not by resolute, long-term goals, but by a meandering approach influenced by the personal caprice of those in power. The 1987 policy reversal occurred after then Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene--a wily old fox--sold neophyte Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi the line that an "Eelam," or Tamil homeland, in Sri Lanka would be a dangerous precursor to a Greater Eelam uniting Tamils on both sides of the Palk Straits. In buying that myth, Gandhi did not consider a simple truth: If Bangladesh's 1971 creation did not provoke an Indian Bengali nationalist demand for a Greater Bangladesh, why would an Eelam lead to a Greater Eelam?
Actually, the Tamils in India and Sri Lanka have pursued divergent identities since the fall of the Pandyan kingdom in the 14th century. While the Eelam struggle is rooted in the treatment of Tamils as second-class citizens in Sri Lanka--where affirmative action has been instituted for the majority Sinhalese and a mono-ethnic national identity sought to be shaped--the Tamils in India face no discrimination and have been fully integrated into the national mainstream.
Another personality driven shift in India's Sri Lanka policy came after the 2004 change of government in New Delhi, when the desire to avenge Gandhi's assassination trumped strategic considerations, with the hands-off approach being abandoned. That handily meshed with the hawkish agenda of Rajapaksa, who began chasing the military option soon after coming to power in 2005. "It is their duty to help us in this stage," Rajapaksa said about India. And Indian help came liberally.
In fact, such has been the unstinting Indian support that even after the crushing of the Tamil Tigers, India went out of the way to castigate the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, in June for shining a spotlight on the deplorable human-rights situation in Sri Lanka, including the continuing internment of internally displaced Tamils. India accused Pillay--a distinguished South African judge of Indian descent who has sought an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes committed by all sides in Sri Lanka--of going beyond her brief, saying "the independence of the high commissioner cannot be presumed to exceed that of the U.N. secretary-general."
The costs of lending such support have been high. New Delhi today is groping to bring direction to its Sri Lanka policy by defining its objectives more coherently, even as it struggles to respond to the Chinese strategy to build maritime choke points in the Indian Ocean region. Indeed, India has ceded strategic space in its regional backyard in such a manner that Bhutan now remains its sole pocket of influence. In Sri Lanka, India has allowed itself to become a marginal player despite its geostrategic advantage and trade and investment clout.
More fundamentally, the pernicious myth Jayewardene planted in Gandhi's mind triggered a chain of events still exacting costs on Indian security and interests. In fact, nothing better illustrates the fallacy Jayewardene sold Gandhi than the absence of a Tamil backlash in India to the killings of thousands of countless Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka this year, and to the continued incarceration in tent camps of 280,000 Tamil refugees, including 80,000 children. In fact, even as the Sri Lankan war reached a gory culmination, India's Tamil Nadu state voted in national elections for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by Gandhi's widow, Sonia Gandhi, although that governing coalition had shied away from raising its voice over the Sri Lankan slaughter.
Today, the upsurge of Sinhalese chauvinism flows from the fact that the Sri Lankan military accomplished a task whose pursuit forced the mightier Indian army to make an ignominious exit 19 years ago. Consequently, Colombo is going to be even less inclined than before to listen to New Delhi. Indeed, the manner in which Colombo played the China and Pakistan cards in recent years to outsmart India is likely to remain an enduring feature of Sri Lankan diplomacy, making Sri Lanka a potential springboard for anti-India maneuvers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/08/tamil-tigers-rajiv-gandhi-opinions-contributors-sri-lanka.html
Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is the author, most recently, of Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of noncombatants, according to the United Nations, were killed in the final phase of the Sri Lankan war this year as government forces overran the Tamil Tiger guerrillas. Nearly five months after Colombo's stunning military triumph, the peace dividend remains elusive, with President Mahinda Rajapaksa setting out--in the name of "eternal vigilance"--to expand by 50% an already-large military. Little effort has been made to reach out to the Tamil minority and begin a process of national reconciliation.
China, clearly, was the decisive factor in ending the war through its generous supply of offensive weapons and its munificent aid. It even got its ally Pakistan to actively assist Rajapaksa in his war strategy. Today, China is the key factor in providing Colombo the diplomatic cover against the institution of a U.N. investigation into possible war crimes, or the appointment of a U.N. special envoy on Sri Lanka. In return for such support, Beijing has been able to make strategic inroads into a critically located country in India's backyard.
Unlike China's assistance, India's role has received little international attention. But India, too, contributed to the Sri Lankan bloodbath through its military aid, except that it has ended up, strangely, with its leverage undermined.
For years, India had pursued a hands-off approach toward Sri Lanka in response to two developments--a disastrous 1987-1990 peacekeeping operation there; and the 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a member of the Tamil Tigers. But having been outmaneuvered by China's success in extending strategic reach to Sri Lanka in recent years, New Delhi got sucked into providing major assistance to Colombo, lest it lose further ground in Sri Lanka.
From opening an unlimited line of military credit for Sri Lanka to extending critical naval and intelligence assistance, India provided sustained war support despite a deteriorating humanitarian situation there. A "major turning point" in the war, as Sri Lankan navy chief Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda acknowledged, came when the rebels' supply ships were eliminated, one by one, with input from Indian naval intelligence, cutting off all supplies to the rebel-held areas. That in turn allowed the Sri Lankan ground forces to make rapid advances and unravel the de facto state the Tigers had established in the island nation's north and east.
Sri Lanka, for its part, practiced adroit but duplicitous diplomacy: It assured India it would approach other arms suppliers only if New Delhi couldn't provide a particular weapon system it needed. Yet it quietly began buying arms from China and Pakistan without even letting India know. In doing so, Colombo mocked Indian appeals that it rely for its legitimate defense needs on India, the main regional power. It was only by turning to India's adversaries for weapons, training and other aid that Colombo pulled off a startling military triumph. In any event, Colombo was emboldened by the fact that the more it chipped away at India's traditional role, the more New Delhi seemed willing to pander to its needs.
StoriesIn PicturesVideosRate This Story
Your Rating
Overall Rating
Reader Comments
Economic greed of the powers changed the colour of Indian Ocean red. "Despite extensive media coverage and global sympathy for their cause, the Palestinians are today still stateless and under occup
Read All Comments (9)Comment On This StoryIndeed, Rajapaksa deftly played the China, India and Pakistan cards to maximize gains. After key Tamil Tiger leaders had been killed in the fighting, Rajapaksa--to New Delhi's mortification--thanked China, India and Pakistan in the same breath for Sri Lanka's victory.
Today, India stands more marginalized than ever in Sri Lanka. Its natural constituency--the Tamils--feels not only betrayed, but also looks at India as a colluder in the bloodbath. India already had alienated the Sinhalese majority in the 1980s, when it first armed the Tamil Tigers and then sought to disarm them through an ill-starred peacekeeping foray that left almost three times as many Indian troops dead as the 1999 Kargil War with Pakistan.
India's waning leverage over Sri Lanka is manifest from the way it now has to jostle for influence there with arch-rivals China and Pakistan. Hambantota--the billion-dollar port Beijing is building in Sri Lanka's southeast--symbolizes the Chinese strategic challenge to India from the oceans.
Even as some 280,000 displaced Tamils--equivalent to the population of Belfast--continue to be held incommunicado in barbed-wire camps, India has been unable to persuade Colombo to set them free, with incidents being reported of security forces opening fire on those seeking to escape from the appalling conditions. One of the few persons allowed to visit some of these camps was U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said after his tour in May: "I have traveled around the world and visited similar places, but these are by far the most appalling scenes I have seen ..." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said recently that India has conveyed its "concerns in no uncertain terms to Sri Lanka on various occasions, stressing the need for them to focus on resettling and rehabilitating the displaced Tamil population at the earliest." But India seems unable to make a difference even with messages delivered in "no uncertain terms."
The story of the loss of India's preeminent role in Sri Lanka actually begins in 1987, when New Delhi made an abrupt U-turn in policy and demanded that the Tigers lay down their arms. Their refusal to bow to the diktat was viewed as treachery, and the Indian army was ordered to rout them.
Since then, Sri Lanka has served as a reminder of how India's foreign policy is driven not by resolute, long-term goals, but by a meandering approach influenced by the personal caprice of those in power. The 1987 policy reversal occurred after then Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene--a wily old fox--sold neophyte Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi the line that an "Eelam," or Tamil homeland, in Sri Lanka would be a dangerous precursor to a Greater Eelam uniting Tamils on both sides of the Palk Straits. In buying that myth, Gandhi did not consider a simple truth: If Bangladesh's 1971 creation did not provoke an Indian Bengali nationalist demand for a Greater Bangladesh, why would an Eelam lead to a Greater Eelam?
Actually, the Tamils in India and Sri Lanka have pursued divergent identities since the fall of the Pandyan kingdom in the 14th century. While the Eelam struggle is rooted in the treatment of Tamils as second-class citizens in Sri Lanka--where affirmative action has been instituted for the majority Sinhalese and a mono-ethnic national identity sought to be shaped--the Tamils in India face no discrimination and have been fully integrated into the national mainstream.
Another personality driven shift in India's Sri Lanka policy came after the 2004 change of government in New Delhi, when the desire to avenge Gandhi's assassination trumped strategic considerations, with the hands-off approach being abandoned. That handily meshed with the hawkish agenda of Rajapaksa, who began chasing the military option soon after coming to power in 2005. "It is their duty to help us in this stage," Rajapaksa said about India. And Indian help came liberally.
In fact, such has been the unstinting Indian support that even after the crushing of the Tamil Tigers, India went out of the way to castigate the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, in June for shining a spotlight on the deplorable human-rights situation in Sri Lanka, including the continuing internment of internally displaced Tamils. India accused Pillay--a distinguished South African judge of Indian descent who has sought an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes committed by all sides in Sri Lanka--of going beyond her brief, saying "the independence of the high commissioner cannot be presumed to exceed that of the U.N. secretary-general."
The costs of lending such support have been high. New Delhi today is groping to bring direction to its Sri Lanka policy by defining its objectives more coherently, even as it struggles to respond to the Chinese strategy to build maritime choke points in the Indian Ocean region. Indeed, India has ceded strategic space in its regional backyard in such a manner that Bhutan now remains its sole pocket of influence. In Sri Lanka, India has allowed itself to become a marginal player despite its geostrategic advantage and trade and investment clout.
More fundamentally, the pernicious myth Jayewardene planted in Gandhi's mind triggered a chain of events still exacting costs on Indian security and interests. In fact, nothing better illustrates the fallacy Jayewardene sold Gandhi than the absence of a Tamil backlash in India to the killings of thousands of countless Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka this year, and to the continued incarceration in tent camps of 280,000 Tamil refugees, including 80,000 children. In fact, even as the Sri Lankan war reached a gory culmination, India's Tamil Nadu state voted in national elections for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by Gandhi's widow, Sonia Gandhi, although that governing coalition had shied away from raising its voice over the Sri Lankan slaughter.
Today, the upsurge of Sinhalese chauvinism flows from the fact that the Sri Lankan military accomplished a task whose pursuit forced the mightier Indian army to make an ignominious exit 19 years ago. Consequently, Colombo is going to be even less inclined than before to listen to New Delhi. Indeed, the manner in which Colombo played the China and Pakistan cards in recent years to outsmart India is likely to remain an enduring feature of Sri Lankan diplomacy, making Sri Lanka a potential springboard for anti-India maneuvers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Neither Sri Lanka nor Israel should have impunity in their 'wars on terror'
Neither Sri Lanka nor Israel should have impunity in their 'wars on terror'
By Antony Loewenstein
Antony Loewenstein is an Australian journalist, author of “My Israel Question” and “The Blogging Revolution.” He sits on the Advisory Council of the British-based Sri Lankan Campaign for Peace and Justice.
:
Listen to the Article
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=30&article_id=107256
Israel’s war against the Gazan people in December and January devastated the tiny Strip, killing over 1,400 people, a majority of whom were civilians. The Western powers, including America, England and Australia, backed Israel’s battle against Hamas and shared its belief that destruction of the Islamist group would benefit their interests.
More than six months later, however, the political realities in the region remain virtually unchanged, with Hamas still in control of Gaza, Israel and Egypt imposing an inhumane siege on the area and Israel regularly launching military strikes against “terrorist” targets.
During my visit there in July, I found many of the 1.5 million Palestinians desperate for a normal life, something denied to them for decades due to Israeli occupation and irregular bombardment.
The recent UN released report on Gaza, investigated by distinguished South African Justice Richard Goldstone, found overwhelming evidence that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the conflict and should be held to account in an international tribunal. Goldstone stressed that the culture of impunity endemic in the Middle East must end the targeting of civilians and their infrastructure and the lack of international will to fully investigate the atrocities carried out in the name of “defeating terrorism.”
Goldstone told US magazine Tikkun that, “the powerful are protected because of their power. But it’s not prejudice it’s politics. They use their power to protect themselves.” Israel and US are determined that the former never face justice for its crimes.
Compare the international outcry over the Gaza massacre to the relative silence toward Sri Lanka’s war against the Tamil people in 2008 and 2009. Conservative estimates place the death roll at over 20,000 people, perhaps as high as 50,000. The Colombo regime dismissed all attempts to cease its military operations, negotiate with the Tamil Tigers or allow the transfer of hundreds of thousands of civilians to safety. Today, close to 300,000 Tamils are trapped in government-imposed camps, surrounded by barbed wire and unable to leave.
The International Crisis Group told the European Parliament in early October that “such restrictions on freedom in the absence of due process are a violation of both national and international law.”
Sri Lanka was fighting its own “war on terror” with the Israeli playbook. Ban all independent media from the war zone, demonize human rights groups as sympathetic to terrorists, dismiss all questioning of tactics as giving in to terrorism and support the doctrine of overwhelming fire-power. Like Israel, Sri Lanka won the battle, but will inevitably lose the war.
Israel has battled Palestinian nationalists for decades and remains unable to destroy the spirit of the people. Independence for the Palestinian people will come one day. Despite extensive media coverage and global sympathy for their cause, the Palestinians are today still stateless and under occupation. But their plight is far better understood than the Tamils.
Israel’s ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, wrote in the London Times in late September that the “farcical” United States Human Rights Council, tasked to investigate the Gaza massacre, should not examine Israel because, it “did its utmost to direct Palestinian civilians out of harm’s way.” Every human rights group in the world has evidence to prove the fallacy of this argument. Israel should be treated like any other country calling itself a democracy and not excused because of its bellicose tactics in the global arena.
A growing number of Jewish groups are joining this call, unafraid of being labelled anti-Semitic or self-hating and simply believing in equitable justice. An initiative I co-founded, Independent Australian Jewish Voices, is part of this conversation, regularly working with Palestinians over our shared concerns.
Proser demanded to know why the UN wasn’t investigating the “300,000 Tamil civilians currently languishing in Sri Lanka.” It’s a fair question, except his ideal outcome would be impunity for Western states fighting their own “war on terror.” In this worldview, it’s only developing or Third World nations worthy of sanction.
Sadly, the vast majority of Muslim and Middle East countries, except Bosnia, voted with Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council in May to support its war against the Tamil people. The idea of non-democratic nations backing a brutal regime isn’t new; defeating “terrorism” is a language democracies and dictatorships both share. The fact that the UN is a flawed body doesn’t prevent it from conducting important work in the field of human rights and abuse prevention.
Sri Lanka doesn’t enjoy favored nation status like Israel but it should face a thorough examination of its conduct during the war. Many states, such as Israel and China, have no desire to discover the truth behind the conflict because they provided arms to the Sri Lankan government. Israel is reportedly protecting Sri Lanka from any American pressure against its actions. But obstacles to international justice should not preclude their commencement. Crimes in Congo, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia were thoroughly investigated by legal bodies, even if the final outcomes were not perfect.
It is time for the Sri Lanka leaders to understand that destroying a terrorist infrastructure without political and social assistance to the vanquished is doomed to failure. The Sri Lankan government will need to be convinced that normal relations with the world will not be possible until its crimes against the Tamils are acknowledged.
Peace with justice demands nothing less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
By Antony Loewenstein
Antony Loewenstein is an Australian journalist, author of “My Israel Question” and “The Blogging Revolution.” He sits on the Advisory Council of the British-based Sri Lankan Campaign for Peace and Justice.
:
Listen to the Article
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=30&article_id=107256
Israel’s war against the Gazan people in December and January devastated the tiny Strip, killing over 1,400 people, a majority of whom were civilians. The Western powers, including America, England and Australia, backed Israel’s battle against Hamas and shared its belief that destruction of the Islamist group would benefit their interests.
More than six months later, however, the political realities in the region remain virtually unchanged, with Hamas still in control of Gaza, Israel and Egypt imposing an inhumane siege on the area and Israel regularly launching military strikes against “terrorist” targets.
During my visit there in July, I found many of the 1.5 million Palestinians desperate for a normal life, something denied to them for decades due to Israeli occupation and irregular bombardment.
The recent UN released report on Gaza, investigated by distinguished South African Justice Richard Goldstone, found overwhelming evidence that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the conflict and should be held to account in an international tribunal. Goldstone stressed that the culture of impunity endemic in the Middle East must end the targeting of civilians and their infrastructure and the lack of international will to fully investigate the atrocities carried out in the name of “defeating terrorism.”
Goldstone told US magazine Tikkun that, “the powerful are protected because of their power. But it’s not prejudice it’s politics. They use their power to protect themselves.” Israel and US are determined that the former never face justice for its crimes.
Compare the international outcry over the Gaza massacre to the relative silence toward Sri Lanka’s war against the Tamil people in 2008 and 2009. Conservative estimates place the death roll at over 20,000 people, perhaps as high as 50,000. The Colombo regime dismissed all attempts to cease its military operations, negotiate with the Tamil Tigers or allow the transfer of hundreds of thousands of civilians to safety. Today, close to 300,000 Tamils are trapped in government-imposed camps, surrounded by barbed wire and unable to leave.
The International Crisis Group told the European Parliament in early October that “such restrictions on freedom in the absence of due process are a violation of both national and international law.”
Sri Lanka was fighting its own “war on terror” with the Israeli playbook. Ban all independent media from the war zone, demonize human rights groups as sympathetic to terrorists, dismiss all questioning of tactics as giving in to terrorism and support the doctrine of overwhelming fire-power. Like Israel, Sri Lanka won the battle, but will inevitably lose the war.
Israel has battled Palestinian nationalists for decades and remains unable to destroy the spirit of the people. Independence for the Palestinian people will come one day. Despite extensive media coverage and global sympathy for their cause, the Palestinians are today still stateless and under occupation. But their plight is far better understood than the Tamils.
Israel’s ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, wrote in the London Times in late September that the “farcical” United States Human Rights Council, tasked to investigate the Gaza massacre, should not examine Israel because, it “did its utmost to direct Palestinian civilians out of harm’s way.” Every human rights group in the world has evidence to prove the fallacy of this argument. Israel should be treated like any other country calling itself a democracy and not excused because of its bellicose tactics in the global arena.
A growing number of Jewish groups are joining this call, unafraid of being labelled anti-Semitic or self-hating and simply believing in equitable justice. An initiative I co-founded, Independent Australian Jewish Voices, is part of this conversation, regularly working with Palestinians over our shared concerns.
Proser demanded to know why the UN wasn’t investigating the “300,000 Tamil civilians currently languishing in Sri Lanka.” It’s a fair question, except his ideal outcome would be impunity for Western states fighting their own “war on terror.” In this worldview, it’s only developing or Third World nations worthy of sanction.
Sadly, the vast majority of Muslim and Middle East countries, except Bosnia, voted with Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council in May to support its war against the Tamil people. The idea of non-democratic nations backing a brutal regime isn’t new; defeating “terrorism” is a language democracies and dictatorships both share. The fact that the UN is a flawed body doesn’t prevent it from conducting important work in the field of human rights and abuse prevention.
Sri Lanka doesn’t enjoy favored nation status like Israel but it should face a thorough examination of its conduct during the war. Many states, such as Israel and China, have no desire to discover the truth behind the conflict because they provided arms to the Sri Lankan government. Israel is reportedly protecting Sri Lanka from any American pressure against its actions. But obstacles to international justice should not preclude their commencement. Crimes in Congo, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia were thoroughly investigated by legal bodies, even if the final outcomes were not perfect.
It is time for the Sri Lanka leaders to understand that destroying a terrorist infrastructure without political and social assistance to the vanquished is doomed to failure. The Sri Lankan government will need to be convinced that normal relations with the world will not be possible until its crimes against the Tamils are acknowledged.
Peace with justice demands nothing less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
