Skip to main content

Silence over Sri Lanka

Geoffrey Alderman, writing in Comment is Free in The Guardian, asks why do those in the international community who expressed outrage over Gaza stay silent while Tamils die?

It's a very pertinent and relevant question as the devastation and bloodshed in Sri Lanka continues. Some of the answers lie in Alderman's piece.

"In Sri Lanka a bloody conflict is reaching its bloody conclusion. Some 30 years ago, the Tamil population that inhabits the north and east of the island began an insurrection against the government, establishing for this purpose an organisation known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The ultimate aim of the Tamil Tigers was to establish an independent Tamil state, thus partitioning the island. The means chosen to bring this about was to create terror and mayhem throughout the island, and, if necessary, beyond it. Not content with common-or-garden political assassinations and random murders, the Tamil Tigers pioneered the use of the suicide bomb and the suicide belt. Banned and proscribed as a terrorist organisation by more than 30 countries, including the US and the European Union, the Tigers are said to have been responsible for more suicide attacks than Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida combined.

Now the endgame is in sight. Using methods pioneered by the British army in its successful campaign against the Boer insurgency more than a century ago, the Sri Lankan army has systematically removed civilians from the war zone while simultaneously refusing to heed international calls for a ceasefire because of the inevitable loss of civilian lives in coastal strips that remain under Tiger control. War crimes have undoubtedly been committed by the Tigers. They may well have been committed also by the Sri Lankan military.

Yes, this bloody conflict is reaching its bloody conclusion. So where, I ask myself, is the international outrage against the government of Sri Lanka? Why haven't we heard calls from, say, the Arab League for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire on the island and for Sri Lankan forces to leave Tamil areas? Why did President Ahmadinejad not condemn Sri Lanka from the Geneva podium that he occupied so shamelessly last week? Why, in this country, have we not heard calls for an economic boycott of Sri Lanka? Why have the offices of travel agencies offering package holidays to Sri Lanka not been picketed? Why has the Royal Court theatre not promoted a play highlighting the plight of the Tamil population? Why has the Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, not demanded an immediate cessation of British arms shipments to Sri Lanka, and the EU not suspended all economic cooperation with the country? Why has Gordon Brown's international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, not announced that British taxpayers' money is to be used to fund a scheme to highlight Sri Lankan human rights abuses in Tamil areas and that the UK government will give legal assistance in Sri Lanka to individuals and institutions challenging (to quote a brochure recently issued by Alexander's department) "military policies that violate human rights"?"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Climate change: Well-organised hoax?

There are still some - all too sadly people with a voice who are listened to - who assert that climate change is a hoax. Try telling that to the people of Colorado who recently experienced horrendous bushfires, or the people of Croatia suffering with endless days of temps of 40 degrees (and not much less than 30 at night time) some 8-10 degrees above the norm. Bill McKibben, take up the issue of whether climate change is a hoax, on The Daily Beast : Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is “harmful to the environment is almost comical.” The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: “Scientists will fig