Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

What happens to these leftists just because they are against George. W. Bush? One Nimalka Fernando castigates George Bush and says that "...today human lives are threatened by poverty and the 'thirst for fuel' of (U.S. President George W.) Bush." Fernando said so in a recent interview with IPS. She castigates Bush and then she castigates terrorists. But then she goes onto say that because of Bush, all forms of liberation movements have come to be seen as terrorist movements. From here on, it becomes obvious that where her leftism and her anti Bush ism-ends, her vapidity begins.

This is like saying that because wolves eat chickens, the chickens are like wolves and should never be reared not even for eggs but should be banished. As one scientist said recently, bird flu should make you anxious only if you are a bird.

Leftism is dangerous only if you are a dunderhead, oops, only if you don't know to make the difference between capitalism, neo liberalism and all of the bad values it fosters, such as terrorism separatism and splittism in other countries. If you lump all of that together, then you are inside this Fernando's head.

This Fernando goes onto say that Sri Lanka is a failed state and then really gets her hands onto the gears that attempt to grind the Sri Lankan state to a pulp, by saying that "the Sinhala extremist forces inside the government have embarked on a campaign to spread hate speech against the Tamil leadership fighting for self-rule and democratic rights (in northern Sri Lanka) for several decades. (The Sinhalese are the largest ethnic group in the country)."

Yeah, right... she should ask Vasudeva Nanayakkara, a dyed-in-wool leftist who now works for one of those Sinhala governments, ha ha, come to think of it, the incumbent one.

Vasudeva is against George W. Bush, we have heard him before, and he gives the Bush neo liberals beans, but he still joined forces with a Sinhala government which is supposed to "spew hate speech against the leadership of the liberation tigers."

Being anxious about George. W. Bush, for Fernando, seems to have been predicated upon considerations of being the NGO fire-breather. But we could consider some logic that this Fernando person may have missed.

Who funds the kinds of NGOs that she uses as a platform stump pulpit read bully pulpit to harangue the Sri Lankan government for "spewing hate speech" against the Tigers? Its very often governments on the side of George. W. Bush, yes, the same George W. Bush. Sometimes, it's the same George. W. Bush government, which funds these NGOs.

It should be quite straightforward to anyone who works for such NGOs that if their agenda is to castigate the Sri Lankan government for spewing hate speech against the Liberation Tigers, that they must be furthering the agenda of maybe the self same George W. Bush.

This article is not a diatribe against the George Bush government. Its raison d' etre is to say that those who marry their leftism with anti Sri Lankan government rhetoric, stay divorced from reality.

They do knot know they are playing right into the hands of the forces they condemn in the first place the trendsetters of the global economic and political order that she rants against. ("Human lives are threatened by poverty and the 'thirst for fuel' of (U.S. President George W.) Bush," to use her words.) She says Sri Lanka is a failed state. To quote: "Sri Lanka is a classic example of a failed nation state. A country that could not handle its post-colonial politics to secure a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious political ethos and power-sharing.."

She must be talking of Europe, or Australia, countries in which the leadership demands assimilation within a dominant culture. In Australia, the governing elite wants the Sri Lankans to behave as if they are Australians, which means that they insist on education in the dominant language without which, immigrants are treated as pariahs who could not "assimilate".

By her definition Australia is a failed state. So are many European countries with immigrant minorities such as Denmark, or England. But she enjoys rating against Sri Lanka and characterising our country which does not demand that kind of assimilation as a 'failed state' very probably because the kinds of NGOs she gets funded by are Australian or British sponsored. Nothing against Australia or Britain per se here, but this is just by way of saying that he who pays this piper certainly calls her piped-up tune.

I recommend to her Tariq Ali's books, in which Ali makes short work of the zealotry of 'minorities' and shows that Muslims fight Muslims are often egged on by the foreigners who wants a stake in often oil rich Muslim societies.

"In today's world, the 'other' than me and my community is an alien and an object to be dealt with and annihilated somehow," says Fernando. Tariq Ali writes that this is true of those who want oil dominance or strategic dominance over various countries. For these dominant powers, the 'other' are the hordes and multitudes in communities that inhabit countries such as ours.

How do they accomplish the annihilation of communities such as ours? Very often, they make use of the Nimalka Fernandos of this world to sow dissension among perfectly harmonious groups.

Who puts Sunni against Shiite, and Shiite against Sunni? Who sells warring Sunnis the weapons to annihilate the Shiites? Who puts Sinhalese against Tamil? If these questions are pondered by the likes of this person who sings to IPS about the 'hate speech' of the Sinhala state, she would invariably realise what a inglorious pawn she is in the hands of the very global forces of hegemony she condemns.

She addresses the issue of 'terror movement' versus 'liberation movement.' Are all movements that use certain tactics of 'terror' that harm civilians etc., necessarily terrorist movements?

Certainly, there were certain characteristics especially in the early Palestinian liberation movement for instance, which were identifiable characteristics of terrorism. But, at a certain time in history, such acts were justified, as the Palestinians were desperately seeking justice having been ejected from their lands.

But, certain other groups which used egregious forms of terrorism, realised that their struggles don't justify the use of terror. If Fernando or anybody wants names named, we could name some big names. There is the ETA in Spain, which gave up arms recently because they know that their liberation struggle cannot justify the widespread egregious use of terror.

To assume as this Fernando does with the naivety that's second nature to her, that every liberation movement that uses terror is legitimate and is legitimate in the use of its terror tactics is the same as assuming that every woman who says she has been accused of rape has actually been raped, meaning that there should not be any trial for rape.

Some years ago, a NGO legal charlatan proposed the above. He said "no woman who goes to court alleging rape, would risk sullying her name therefore we should assume that she is telling the truth."

In effect this legal charlatan was saying that its not politically to correct have a trial for rape, and that all suspected rapists should be summarily sentenced. After we took him to the cleaners, he accepted, by default, that whoever gave him a legal degree was a prize idiot.

Now, from the same environs of happy-hooker NGOdom (I'm talking of prostitution in the sense of selling mind and soul for mess of pottage) comes this other charlatan, who assumes much like the previous one, that every movement that uses terror such as LTTE or ETA has a legitimate liberation struggle on their hands.

For her the terrorism of suppressing human rights of other groups, of child soldiers being made to lose their limbs is all the fault of the Sri Lankan government.

We end by quoting UNICEF's spokesperson Junko Mitani in Sri Lanka. He said on April 16th 2006 that 'UNICEF deeply regrets the death of a 17 year old child in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) auxiliary killed on 13 the April in a reported claymore mine incident in Vavuniya.

This incident underlines the risks children are exposed to when used in direct combat or in support roles such a delivery of supplies. Recruitment of children is a direct violation of their right to protection from violence. UNICEF calls on the LTTE to immediately release all under-age recruits within its ranks and to cease recruitment of children. UNICEF conveys its condolences to the family for their loss.'

So, why doesn't Fernando now begin another mindless rant, and say UNICEF spews hate speech?

| News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security |
| Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries | Junior Observer |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.