I just love this picture of Mahinda and Gaddafi. What I would give to be a fly on that bulletproof glass.
The Economist has an interesting take on hypocrisy and the west.
The end of the war in Sri Lanka was marked by little of the celebratory tone that has marked some of the reporting of the death of Muammar Qaddafi this month. A few days before the Sri Lankan army’s final victory, President Barack Obama had called on it to stop using heavy weaponry in civilian areas. And when victory came, there was almost immediate condemnation of the tactics the Sri Lankan army had used in the final months of the war; calls for war-crimes inquiries predated the last battle, and persist to this day. Over Libya, there was no such call for restraint in the battle for Sirte, and on Qaddafi’s death, Mr Obama was quick to hail “the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya”.
Yeah, it’s basically bullshit. Banyan tempers this argument by saying that western countries temper their violence with accountability but, honestly, they’re only accountable in the sense that they have power and are safe to say sorry without consequences. The US is not party to the International Criminal Court and whatever they investigate is internal.
For Sri Lanka they’re talking about international investigations and basically prosecution and punishment, so of course the government reacts by feeling threatened and maligned. I’ve also talked to people from the US government and they’re basically like, ‘we get calls from Tamil constituents complaining so we have to do something’. Yet a lot of these constituents supported the LTTE (not all, for shizz) and that LTTE transnational lobby is still driving this war crimes stuff in a deeply cynical way. Meanwhile they get lobbied by Israel to ignore whatever they’re doing and don’t pay attention to the Pakistani people that don’t like being drone bombed. It’s actually unfair, and not reality driven.
For the moralistic tone they take, the US is actually driven by their interests and lobbying. I would say this is whatever, but this heavy-handed approach cheapens the actual cause of accountability by substituting posturing that pleases lobby groups for policy that can actually support the stated aims.
So, I guess, I’d agree with Banyan’s blog thing except where he loops back at the end and qualifies it. The international community’s persecution of Sri Lanka and support for bloody wars that eliminate tyrants and terrorists they don’t like (Gaddafi, Bin Laden, Saddam) is bullshit. This is not to say that SL doesn’t need a reality check, but these world governments should really support Sri Lanka for emerging out of a national nightmare and give the government the room to look at itself without the threatening, nagging sanctimony.
It all could have been so different, though. The spin that the GoSL put on the war by saying utter rubbish like not one civilian harmed was the real problem, IMO. If they had been more honest about the brutal realities of such warfare, then they could not have been so condemned for the blatant lies that they told. If they lie about something so fundamental as non-deliberate civilian casualties (which is common to every war ever fought), then what else were they lying about? Tactics of deliberate, or indiscriminate shelling? Summary executions? Torture? It opened them up to suspicion that they brought on themselves.
The NATO forces that led the Libya campaign of military support to the rebels (mainly France and the UK, but with significant US presence) admitted to accidental civilian casualties and this had the impact of numbing criticisms. The protection of the wider civilian population and of course the eventual victory of the rebel ground forces (with what appears to be minimal civilian casualties) has pretty much castrated opposition. I don’t think that it’s the result of impunity that created this strategy, not least since most of the NATO countries involved are subject to the ICC. It was just a more honest and sensible approach by rather more sophisticated governments than the GoSL.
Add to this a pretty open attitude by both sides in the Libyan conflict to allowing the international media in to witness the war (less open by the regime, but they had some access) and (a) it’s difficult to commit atrocities; (b) there’s more confidence that they didn’t happen if they were not witnessed; and (c) claims told by either side about casualties were easier to prove (or in many cases disprove).
Ultimately the end of the war in Sri Lanka was fought by a determined government whose sophistication could not hope to match their arrogance. I hear they’re now spending millions of dollars on a foreign PR company to win the Commonwealth Games. Perhaps the money would have been more wisely spent seeking expert presentational advice during the war.
It’s easy for those countries to admit stuff because they have a veto on any consequences. Much harder for SL.
They could have done better, but the LTTE/separatist lobby is really quite strong abroad. Personally, I think it’s better that they finished the war than figuring out how to present it better to an external and often hostile environment.
Minimum civilian casualities? Admission of “accidental civilian casualities”? Where did you hear that?
“AFTER days of shelling during which untold numbers of diehard loyalists and unfortunate civilians were traumatised, maimed and killed, the despised dictator was cornered like an exhausted fox at the end of the hunt. How he took the bullet that killed him was disputed—in crossfire, the confusion of battle, or in what amounted to an execution. But so what? It was kinder than the lingering, agonising death he deserved and he was better dead than alive. Whoever pulled the trigger should be counted a hero, not investigated as a war-criminal. This was a time for rejoicing: a war over at last, and one of the great villains of the past half-century rendered incapable of causing further cruelty.”
trials are taking place in other countries with regard to the fundraising for the LTTE and such.. like this Dutch Tamil case in the past weeks. http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/tamil-tigers-terrorists-or-freedom-fighters-%E2%80%93-dutch-court-decide
Sri Lanka should be also in the forefront with its own investigations… hypocrisy of the West or not, or diaspora lobbying. it’s our own people that died. we should care on that basis.
but of course the verdict of the Dutch courts on that trial was less than satisfactory. the 5 fundraisers for the LTTE were convicted of coerced fundraising. BUT they questioned that LTTE was a banned terrorist group. http://www.globalpeacesupport.com/globalpeacesupport.com/post/2011/10/22/Court-convicts-5-Dutch-Tamils-of-fundraising-for-Tamil-Tigers-but-acquits-them-of-terror-links.aspx
we should be pushing for our own national investigations even if to be able to counter such with proper investigated backup to the other national governments who are trying to prosecute for illegal funding activities.
I think you have to understand that Gaddafi was considered an enemy by NATO and the west, unlike VP, so it’s perfectly normal that they should celebrate his capture and death, just as they did Saddam’s or Bin Laden’s. In contrast, VP was just a bloodthirsty psycho on a far off island.
Partly agree with Carasek that the way the PR war was fought by the GoSL contributed to the prob; particularly pissing off the western media by keeping them out. But I think we could have gotten away with that if the same commitment to the war was continued after it was over. I think the Rajapakses basically misunderstood how the world would react, and what was needed to keep a lid on that. They thought that once the war was over, it was over, and everyone could take holiday.
Gaddafi was considered an enemy by NATO and the west ? ? Many western countries supported these tyrants. But they were the first to abandon when they falling. For Prabhakaran, we know who is behind these voices.