 |
RONRIDENOUR.COM |
| |
RONRIDENOUR.COM |
| Home |
| About Ron Ridenour |
| Articles |
| Themes |
| Poems |
| Short stories |
| Books |
| Links |
| Search |
| Contact |
| Dansk |
| Español |
Cuba did so—along with the Bolivian and Nicaraguan governments
and members of ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America)—on
May 27, 2009 when signing a UN Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution
praising the government of Sri Lanka for “the promotion and protection
of human rights”, while only condemning for terrorism the Liberation
Tigers for Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which fought the government in a civil
war since 1983 until their defeat on May 19, 2009.
During the last year of war the Sri Lankan government illegally and
brutally interned nearly half-a-million Tamil civilians; 280,000 of
these civilians were entrapped in several “welfare centers”
upon the LTTE’s surrender. Half-a-year later, only a few thousand
have been released. Their conditions are the opposite of “promotion
and protection of human rights”. Hundreds have died and are dying
for lack of food, water, basic health care.
Since advocating for and signing the unbalanced HRC resolution, I have
found no text or evidence that these progressive-revolutionary-socialist
governments of ALBA have criticized Sri Lanka for routinely practicing
brutality and neglecting basic life necessities of these illegally interned
people. The conduct of Sinhalese-led governments towards Tamils ever
since Sri Lanka’s independence from Great Britain, in 1947-8,
has always been one of mistreatment and inequality, even genocide.
While ALBA leader Venezuela is not a member of that council, President
Hugo Chavez followed suit by applauding Sri Lanka’s victory. (3)
I hope that these revolutionary leaders will undo that damage by coming
to the aid of the interned and all 2.5 million Tamil survivors of this
horrible carnage, and condemn Sri Lanka for its beastly and racist conduct.
Tamils national rights must also be recognized, especially by governments
representing other indigenous and once enslaved peoples.
In this first of a five-part series, I begin to lay the case that Sri
Lanka’s governments practice genocide. I will also speculate about
why the four ALBA countries involved in this matter could have decided
to ignore this reality, why they disallowed an investigation into the
assertion, and why they support such a cruel, chauvinistic regime. In
the forthcoming parts, I will sketch the history of the Sinhalese and
Tamils; outline the right and necessity for Tamil nationhood; delineate
their struggles for equal rights; and show the geo-political power game
being played out between the west and its’ sometimes antagonistic
counterpart regimes in China and Iran; and conclude with the present
state of affairs for Tamils.
Human Rights Council Resolution S-11/1: Assistance to Sri Lanka in the
promotion and protection of human rights
Upon the end of the war, 17 countries on the 47-member Human Rights
Council called for an extraordinary session about the Sri Lankan situation.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, spoke for an “independent
and credible international investigation” into the reports of
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law on both
sides of the civil war.
“For its part, the Government reportedly used heavy artillery
on the densely populated conflict zone, despite assurances that it would
take precautions to protect civilians”…and the “reported
shelling of a hospital clinic on several occasions”…”
“These people are in desperate need of food, water, medical help
and other forms of basic assistance…there have already been outbreaks
of contagious diseases.”
“The images of terrified and emaciated women, men and children
fleeing the battle zone…must spur us into action.”
Pillay’s professional, compassionate and balanced proposal was
not tabled or even discussed. Instead 17 members—mostly EU countries
and Canada, but also Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Chile—proposed
only that an investigation into these charges of human rights abuse
be pursued by the Sri Lankan government itself, that is: the government
investigating its brutality, hardly anything radical or effective. This,
and the call for “rapid and unhindered access” for humanitarian
aid from the UN and International Committee of the Red Cross, was the
only significant difference from another resolution proposed by the
majority, mostly Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries. Chile was the
only NAM member to vote against the majority, which wanted no investigation
at all. And the “rapid and unhindered access” for humanitarian
aid was reduced to: “provide access as may be appropriate”,
thereby giving Sri Lanka’s government the power to use food/water/medicine
as a weapon against their enemy: the Tamil people and not the now defeated
LTTE.
Sri Lanka was present at the HRC sessions as an observer. It had been
a member from 2006 to 2008 when it lost reelection as one of the six
Asian State members. Poignantly overlooked by most NAM members assembled
a year later, it had been severely criticized by Tamils around the world
and by internationally respected Nobel Peace Prize winners Desmond Tutu
and Adolfo Perez Esquivel.
“The systematic abuses by Sri Lanka government forces are among
the most serious imaginable. Torture and extrajudicial killings are
widespread [as is] kidnappings of its own people,” said Tutu in
May 2008 when opposing its seat on the Human Rights Council.
A year later, the HRC majority unfastidiously praised Sri Lanka for
continuing “to uphold its human rights obligations and the norms
of international human rights law”. The key promoter of the majority
resolution was, to my dismay, Cuba—the homeland of my heart and
where I had lived and worked for the government for eight years.
The Cuban ambassador to the Council, Juan Antonio Fernández
Palacios—who also spoke on behalf of the NAM—praised Sri
Lanka’s governments over the years, and “congratulates”
it on “putting an end” to the armed conflict. A key sentence
is: “Sri Lanka’s sovereign right to fight terrorism and
separatism within its undisputed borders must be respected.”
The words “separatism” and “undisputed borders”
will be dealt with at length later. But no one familiar with the history
of Sinhalese and Tamils for decades since independence and centuries
before could have chosen to speak of “undisputed borders”.
Tamils had a homeland, a kingdom, for centuries before the Sinhalese
came to the island and for centuries afterwards.
Cuba also acted as a special advocate for Sri Lanka as an “interlocutor”,
in addition to Egypt, India and Pakistan. The resolution about Sri Lanka
was actually its own draft, which Cuba tabled. (4)
Just before the vote, the Bolivian HRC ambassador, Ms. Angélica
Navarro Llames, made it clear she was perturbed by the manner in which
many of the 17 countries had presented their resolution and for insisting
upon a special meeting just a week before the scheduled one. She objected
to “neocolonialist attitudes”. The Bolivian then spoke of
LTTE terrorism used against the people and the government and people,
and defended its right to fight for its sovereignty.
Resolution S-11/1 adopted by the majority (29 members
for, 12 against, 6 abstentions). Here are pertinent excerpts:
“Reaffirming the respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity
and independence of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,
and its sovereign rights to protect its citizens and combat terrorism,
Condemning all attacks that the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)
launched on the civilian population and its practice of using civilians
as human shields…
“Welcoming the conclusion of hostilities and the liberation by the Government of Sri Lanka of tens of thousands of its citizens that were kept by the LTTE against their will as hostages, as well as the efforts by the Government to ensure safety and security for all Sri Lankans and bringing permanent peace to the country…
“Emphasizing that after the conclusion of hostilities, the priority in terms of human rights remains the provision of the necessary assistance to ensure relief and rehabilitation of persons affected by the conflict, including internally displaced persons, as well as the reconstruction of the country’s economy and infrastructure,
“Encouraged by the provision of basic humanitarian assistance, in particular, safe drinking water, sanitation, food, and medical and health care services to the IDPs [Internally Displaced Persons] by the Government of Sri Lanka with the assistance of the United Nations agencies…
“1. Commends the measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka
to address the urgent needs of the Internally Displaced Persons;
“2. Welcomes the continued commitment of Sri Lanka to the promotion
and protection of all human rights and encourages it to continue to
uphold its human rights obligations and the norms of international human
rights law;…
”5. Acknowledges the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka
to provide access as may be appropriate to international humanitarian
agencies in order to ensure humanitarian assistance to the population
affected by the conflict, in particular IDPs…”
In Favour: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India,
Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South
Africa, Uruguay, Zambia;
Against: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy,
Mexico, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
Abstaining: Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, Ukraine.”
(4)
I will show in upcoming articles how pts. 1, 2 and 5 cited here have
never been the reality: Sri Lanka has not respected Tamils lives or
their rights nor provided them their “urgent needs.”
Terrorism and Genocide
Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was first dubbed a terrorist
organization by India, in 1992. Ironically, it wasn’t until 1998
that Sri Lanka’s government so characterize them that way, and
it did so only after the US did, in 1997. On May 30, 2006, the EU placed
LTTE on its terrorist list and banned the organization. It made it a
terrorist crime to economically or military aid LTTE and it froze all
LTTE bank and financial assets in Europe. The EU appeared to be even-handed
by calling upon the Sri Lankan government to end its “culture
of impunity” and to “curb violence” in its areas of
control. At the time of LTTE’s defeat, 32 countries had defined
them as terrorists.
Never having been in Sri Lanka or South Asia, it is difficult for me to know whether LTTE was a decidedly terrorist organization or not—that is, one which seeks to terrorize civilians. After reading many accounts of atrocities, such as killing hundreds of civilian Sinhalese in their homes, on buses and trains, I conclude that this once Marxist revolutionary organization resorted to terrorism.
At the same time, it must not be forgotten, or acceded to, that, according
to the world’s greatest state terrorist, the United States of
America, any liberation movement, which it does not agree with, is “terrorist”,
and therefore illegitimate. Other terrorists, such as the government
of the separatist state of Kosovo, are no longer considered terrorist
although its drug-smuggling paramilitary organization had been so described
even by the US. Superpowers support or oppose autonomy-independence
when it suits their interests. This is also the case with Ireland, Basques
in Spain, and Palestinians.
Furthermore, the US systematically practices terrorism in its permanent
war—invading or “intervening” militarily in 66 countries,
a total of 159 times since World War Two. (5)
We must lament the unacceptable methods the LTTE committed against many
people, and do so without ignoring the history of why and how it was
born. Nor must we reject out-of-hand the basic rights and needs of the
Tamil people. Their plight must not be abandoned, especially by governments
and organizations grounded in anti-imperialism and equality amongst
peoples.
Sri Lanka’s history since independence is one of conducting genocide
against the Tamils. Genocide is defined by the UN, and Sri Lanka ratified
its promise to adhere to it on October 12, 1950.The Geneva Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted December
9, 1948 and entered into force, January 12, 1951, states (6):
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Destroying “in whole or in part” an ethnic group is certainly
what Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese governments, as well as Buddhist monks,
have been doing to the Tamils for six decades. Evidence will be forthcoming.
There is so much evidence that even a former US deputy assistant attorney
general in the Reagan Administration filed a 12-count indictment against
S.L. defense secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse and army commander Lt. Gen.
Sarath Fonseka for “perpetrating genocide against Tamil civilians.”
The suit was filed by Bruce Fein, in February 2009, in the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California. (7)
The case can be filed in the US because G. Rajapakse is a naturalized
citizen and Fonseka holds a resident green card. They are charged with
responsibility for: “3,750 alleged extrajudicial killings, with
10,000 suffering bodily injury and more than 1.3 million displacements,”
which, according to Fein, “far exceed displacements in Kosovo
which led to genocide counts before the International Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia.”
Fein noted that G. Rajapakse said in a BBC interview that, “if
you are not fighting the Tamil Tigers you are a terrorist and we’ll
kill you.” The attorney represents Tamils Against Genocide. He
believes that G. Rajapakse will be “the best witness of the genocide.”
Why ALBA voted as it did; some points of contention:
I ask the three ALBA governments, which voted for the above mentioned
resolution, to take Sri Lanka’s government to account on the serious
charge of practicing genocide against the Tamil people. At the very
least, ALBA should be able to see that hundreds of thousands of displaced
persons are brutally treated, and that routine discrimination and abuse
have been the Tamil’s plight at the hands of Sinhalese. This is
a dichotomy to ALBA’s ideology of equal rights for all: in language,
in religion, in the economy, in all aspects of life. In fact, the very
new constitution of Bolivia recognizes itself as a pluri-nation in which
all the languages and religions of all the peoples are recognized equally.
The same is the case in Venezuela with its new constitution.
How can it be, then, that these peoples’ governments have fallen
in the arms of such an oppressive, racist government? Possible reasons
are:
1. Separatism! It is ironic and ideologically insupportable
that anti-imperialist progressive and revolutionary leaders in Cuba,
Nicaragua and Bolivia—mainly dark-skinned peoples, and many of
them, especially in Bolivia, are aborigines long abused by many whites
and creoles—side with the Sinhalese chauvinist elite in Sri Lanka.
Perhaps they have not studied the sordid history of Sri Lanka. But more
certainly is it that they do not support separatism or dual nationhood
within one land mass. Cuba especially has, from its revolutionary start,
argued for unity. What Cuba and the others fail to realize or acknowledge
is that the Tamil people had tried for decades to achieve equal rights
with the Sinhalese, many of whom assert adherence to Marxism, yet to
no avail. Most Sinhalese do not wish to unify equally with the other
ethnic group. Once peaceful means are exhausted, armed struggle is the
only means to achieve liberation, as was the case with Cuba and other
Latin American guerrilla movements.
In the case of Sri Lanka and separatism, ALBA governments could be prompted
to side with it because, in part, of the role of China! The threat of
separatism, which has been the desire of many Tibetan Buddhists, is
an impelling factor for China’s position of one nation in its
own region, and may be how it views the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Here, China sides with, ironically, Buddhists against Hindus-Christians-Muslims.
Bolivia and Venezuela, too, are pressed by separatist demands but they
come not from an ethnic group but from a rich class of Whites-Creoles,
which has no historic ethnic Homeland.
2. Geo-politics! Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated
governments have been supported militarily and economically by many
States, some of which are sometimes antagonistic to one another. Some
leftist governments and leftist organizations often operate on the notion
that the enemy of my enemy is a friend. If that is the way some socialist-communist-revolutionaries
view China and Iran, both totalitarian regimes, in regards to US-Europe-Canada-Australia-Japan
imperialism when it comes to Sri Lanka they are mistaken. Surely there
are economic and geo-political interests on the part of China and Iran
in investing and trading with countries in development, including Sri
Lanka but also Cuba and all in Latin America. Fortunately most Latin
Americans and the majority of their governments have ceased jumping
when a US president or general barks, and they are combining in regional
alliances and seeking foreign investments and aid from non-traditional
partners.
So now since China and Iran have begun to extend their interests into
Sri Lanka and thus commend it without any questions of its brutal treatment
of Tamils, many leftists and progressive governments could think in
the black-white geo-political manner. The US-EU States question, for
their own propaganda image, Sri Lanka for possible abuses of human rights
against Tamils. Ah, no one with experience or knowledge about the duplicity
of the empire and its allies could side with them so one must back the
other side.
But China is no longer socialist rather its economy is mainly based
on government-sponsored private enterprise with exploitation of labor
in the extreme: no union protection, long work hours, low wages, child
labor, no say on the job or national and international policies. The
working class no longer even has access to full education and health
care without paying on a capitalist basis. In fact, workers in most
capitalist countries in Europe have better access to health care than
workers do in China. Millionaire capitalists now sit on leadership bodies
of the so-called Communist Party, and make important decisions over
the heads of workers and the population. China is interested mainly
in accumulating capital in the grand old raw capitalist style, and it
owns more of the US economy (8%) than any other government or economic
entity. China’s economy is intricately interdependent upon US’s
capitalism and therewith its imperialist wars.
Iran is run by fundamentalist religious fanaticism. Its economy is basically
a capitalist one. Its working class, just as the working class in China,
is not a decision-maker. Iran is also a warring partner with US imperialism
in its illegal war against Iraq, whose troops are a key factor in the
violence against millions of Iraqis. Iran supports their co-religious
Muslims in the
Quisling government under US domination
Is it possible that the developing countries, which back Sri Lanka against
the Tamil population, do so out of economic reasons? China and Iran
provide needed investments and technology and thus one must not criticize—is
that possible, and if so is it ethical, is it consistent with our humanitarian
principles and socialist ideology? Cannot one be a trading partner without
cowing politically?
Another issue is secularism. The ALBA countries and all truly socialist
oriented governments are not and cannot be theocracies! How can secular
nation States and organizations consider the Sri Lanka State “democratic
socialist” when it declares a religion, and only one, as THE national
and official religion? Secularism is the only common ground by which
all can be united.
Conclusion
I concur with progressive Tamils in the Tamil Nadu state of India, who
have for decades supported Cuba and the new ALBA formation. The Latin
American Friendship Association there has held many solidarity activities
for these countries, and published scores of books by Latin American
authors, including Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Upon learning of the
HRC resolution, they were appalled. The author of the excerpted letter
below is Amarantha Visalakshi. For 25 years, she has translated books
about Latin America into Tamil and written some herself.
“We here in Tamil Nadu celebrated the 80th birthday of Comrade
Fidel by releasing eight books on Cuba’s achievements in various
fields…and are in the midst of our preparation for the commemoration
of the 50th anniversary of the triumph of the Cuban Revolution and evaluation
of the consolidation of Latin American countries in ALBA…
“We are struck dumb and rendered disheartened and disillusioned
by this act [the HRC resolution] by those countries of Latin America
on which we have pinned our hopes for the future—Socialism of
the 21st century.
“Why do these countries wish for wiping out the Tamils from the
Sri Lankan soil where they rightfully belong? What are the sources of
information for these Latin American countries to decide against the
Tamils and in favour of the racist Sri Lankan government in the UN Human
Rights Council?...more than any other time we feel the absence of Che
Guevara, the true internationalist, who laid down his life for the oppressed
people of the world.” amarantha1960@gmail.com
I also concur with Australia’s largest left-wing organization,
the Democratic Socialist Perspective and Socialist Alliance, which publishes
the www.greenleft.org.au
We need “to undertake work to help convince the revolutionary
governments of Latin America, including Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia,
to cease support for the Sri Lankan government, and to recognize the
national rights of the Tamil people. There is a long-run danger if revolutionary
governments, for whatever reason, fail to support genuine movements
for national self-determination in Third World countries, and endorse
repressive regimes on the basis of a bogus `anti-imperialism…´”
(8)
Notes:
1.Fidel told writer-photographer Lee Lockwood: "Castro's Cuba,
Cuba's Fidel", Macmillan, N.Y. 1967.
2. “Socialism and man”, Marcha, Uruguay, March 12, 1965.
3. “Hugo Chavez praises President Rajapaksa’s leadership
in defeating LTTE”, Sri Lanka Daily News, September 4, 2009.
In this piece, published by a pro-government newspaper, there is not
one quotation by Hugo Chavez, who spoke with Rajapakse when they were
in Libya. The piece paraphrases what the anonymous writer asserts Chavez
said—an example: Chavez apparently said that the defeat of LTTE
terrorism “is a glowing example to other countries beset with
the same problem,” words of the writer. Chavez allegedly praised
Rajapakse for his leadership.
4. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/11specialsession/S-11-1-Final-E.doc
http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/11thSpecialSession;
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/270638,un-resolution-commends-sri-lanka-on-human-rights--summary.html
5. http://www.ronridenour.com/articles/2006/0815-rr.htm
6. http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm.
Although the US signed the 1948 convention, it did not accede to it
until November 1988. As of 2008, 140 nation states have acceded.
7. http://www.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//news/2009/feb/10genocide-case-filed-against-lankan-authorities-in-us.htm
8. http://www.dsp.org.au/node/22
Copyright © 2006-2009 Ronridenour.com