Freedom to terrorise?

[Thinking CAP - Palitha Senanayaka]

Last week’s Oxford Union fiasco made two things very clear. Those are:

* that the LTTE is not an organization banned in Britain and it is more powerful than the Oxford Union facilitating a Head of State.

* that the UNP in its desperation has not realized yet that its role is in opposing the Government and not in opposing the country.

After World War II, Albert Einstein said, “We do not know what arms will be used to fight World War III but World War IV would certainly be fought with sticks and stones” and Dwight Eisenhower said, “The only way to survive after World War III would be to prevent it.” Thus such predictions of end of civilization in the event of another war made those nations who used arms to dominate the world realize the limits of armed power. Hence out of necessity they adopted new paradigms to ensure world peace and that meant co-existence had to replace domination of one nation by another and that ‘Jaw Jaw’ should replace ‘War War’.

Co-existence however meant equity and that required equitable distribution of global resources and opportunities among every nation. This did not go well with the wealthy and powerful nations who always entertained a sense of superiority in their people and nations and they were not prepared to let go the advantages and privileges they had acquired over the years. Thus political dogmas replaced colonial policies and the world super powers continued to invade other countries in the name of ‘democracy’, ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘human rights violations’. Thus America invaded Vietnam to liberate the Vietnamese from communism and in the process killed three million Vietnamese over a period of 20 years using more weapons and bombs than that were deployed in the World War II.

At the end America had to give in to the will of the Vietnamese people but this failure did not deter the former colonial powers from using politics (new universal values) out of context to ensure world domination. Thus they helped ‘liberation movements’ all over the world mainly in former colonies to ensure that there is civil strife that prevented those countries from reaching required level of development. These exercises killed more people in third world countries than those killed during World War II and thus this became both a lucrative business in arms as well as a way of keeping the third world ‘developing’ forever.

However the Alqaeda bombings of New York and London compelled them to question these practices. The focus then shifted from undermining less powerful States through politics to fighting terrorism and that called for the banning of terror organization in the world. These bans however were implemented with double standards and as we could see even today the World No One terror organization could hold the London city to ransom prevailing on the activities of a prominent University that was considered the ‘Hall of intellectual expression’. They were carrying LTTE flags and thus, effectively it was not the LTTE that was banned in the UK but the State of Sri Lanka.

The important lesson for Sri Lankans however is to ensure that terror that was eliminated from the country does not raise its head again, even in the name of ‘political solution’ and avoiding London where there is ‘freedom to terrorize’ is small price to pay to keep away from terror.

Anti Sri Lankanism seems to be an infection in the UNP and its latest victim is Karu Jayasuriya. He has chosen a time when the people in Sri Lanka are relieved to see the back of terror to advocate war crimes internationally against the Government of Sri Lanka. Ironically this is after having supported the man whom the UNP identified as the biggest ‘war criminal’ at the last General Election still ironically ‘to save democracy’. In Sri Lanka the UNP conduct processions in support of Fonseka calling him the ‘war hero’ who liberated the country from terror and in London they join the supporters of the LTTE calling that those who fought the war should be brought before the International tribunal. When is the UNP going to rise above this political opportunism?

How could the UNP take a stand against alleged violation of human rights when it had established the worst record in that front after having failed to avoid July, ‘83 and having ushered the conditions for ‘88/’89 siege? The year ‘88/’89 was the worst period of civil unrest in the history of this country and it was a time where human rights were observed only in the breach.

The situation warranted Anita Prathap to write a book about the Sri Lankan situation and she quite appropriately titled it The Island of Blood. The leaders of the UNP seemed to be ‘born again’ every minute and the changing positions they adopt amply demonstrate that the party has no proper policy for the issues facing the country and their only policy is to come to power by means of legitimate or illegitimate.

Jayasuriya however deserves a response for his allegation that the present Government is only cultivating relationships with the Asian and socialist blocks and is not friendly towards the West. He should look back to the UNP foreign policy during JR Jayewardene times and note that this country was servile enough to be the only country that supported Britain in the Melvinas (Falkland) crisis. That too was also the time that Mrs Ghandhi chose to punish us for being an ‘American stooge’ in the region. But what happened when India invaded us with parippu, did the West come to our rescue?

The risk in taking the country to the Western orbit is that the West, just as the UNP, does not have policies but only their interests. They do not respect our sovereignty and equality but wish us to continue as servants depending on them forever.