Prof. Peiris takes on INGOs pushing partisan politics

After giving a free hand for the INGOs to play the role of subversive interlopers in the domestic affairs for decades the Sri Lankan government has at last decided to confront the foreign-funded agents in INGOs head-on.

In Washington External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, last week took them on and challenged their moral/political authority to dictate terms to Sri Lanka.

Quite bluntly, he told them that Sri Lanka will give due consideration to Security Council and the Human Rights Commission in Geneva but not to a couple of INGOs. In an interview with Al-Jazeera in Colombo President Mahinda Rajapaksa too fired a salvo, questioning bluntly, the partisan role played by INGOs and the media. Both were targeting the orchestrated campaigns of foreign agencies - particularly the INGOs and the media — to erode the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation.

This is a front that should have been opened up a long time ago. Confronting INGOs demanding instant solutions to the complex and inescapable consequence of the 33-year-old Vadukoddai War was an imperative that needed the backing at the highest level and it has come from the President and the External Affairs Minister. The unelected INGOs dictating unworkable, unrealistic and counter-productive recipes have not been helpful either to the victims of Vadukoddai violence or the governments grappling with complex factors and limited resources.

Besides, these INGOs representing themselves and not the people are not tasked with the grave responsibilities of protecting the people. That is the task of the elected governments and when the INGOs pose as the moral alternative to elected governments they are intruding into the legal, moral and political space of democratically elected governments to protect the people and democratic institutions battling fascist terrorism.

What is most unacceptable is the tactic of the INGOs to mount politically motivated international pressure aimed not so much at protecting human rights, or easing of human suffering but to force the democratically elected governments of the day, just not in Sri Lanka but in practically all developing countries, to fall in line with their hidden agendas.

Exposing the arm-twisting tactics of these unelected institutions, representing no one but themselves, is an urgent political necessity not only to expose the hidden agendas of INGOs but also to protect nations from unacceptable intrusions of foreign-funded agencies acting as proxies for vested interests of the West.

The mushrooming of INGOs in less developed parts of the world is a cancer that must be removed surgically for they neither have the ability to diagnose nor prescribe the cures for the plagues exported mainly by the West to the non-Western world.

The people of Sri Lanka have been the victims of these INGOs which had stoked the fires of destabilisation and human rights violations with their bogus theories, analyses and solutions. The International Crisis Group (ICG) report is the latest. (More of this later).

Irony

President Rajapaksa and Minister Peiris have quite justifiably taken on the INGOs because these interlopers are blatantly using human rights as a devious - if not, a neo-colonial — instrument to dictate terms only to less powerful democracies devastated by the political violence exported from Western bases of terrorism.

Invariably the agencies that funded and supplied the military hardware to perpetrate and perpetuate violations of human rights in Sri Lanka had their political and financial bases in the West.

The I/NGO moralists of the West had no compunction in justifying the existence and the activities of those who launch, sustain and finance violent movements hiding in bases in their countries. London, Paris, Berlin, Oslo, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, Sydney are well-known to their intelligence services as key bases for the illegal operations of the Tiger agents.

The mammoth task of combating fascist terrorism exported from these Western bases fell on the shoulders of successive Sri Lankan governments.

They have done so for the last 33 years since the Vadukoddai War was declared on May 14, 1976. The irony in all this is that the it is exporters of terrorism to Sri Lanka who are accusing the government of violating human rights, as if they had no hand in contributing to the violence that led to inevitable counter-terrorist operations...

They can’t have it both ways. If they are genuinely for human rights then they must first take drastic measures to prevent the agents of fascist terrorism from exploiting the political space in liberal democracies to export terrorism from Western backyards. Their posture of being saintly moralists protecting human rights at all costs does not sit well with their active support for agents of violence in Western bases exporting violence to countries like Sri Lanka.

If their bases are used to export men, material and resources to violate human rights abroad what right have they to accuse or blame the victims of their exported violence of violating human rights? The law and the morality should be spread evenly across the board - and that includes the Western bases that have been the primary source of strength to the Tiger terrorists.

The INGOs who are a part of this machinations ignore their responsibility to look inwards and initiate steps to protect human rights by monitoring and reporting on all sources and agents contributing to violations of human rights. Instead they craftily invoke principles of human rights to blame only the victims of the fascist violators of human rights operating from approved bases in the West. Pursuing this one—eyed policy INGOs like Amnesty International (AI) and International Crisis Group (ICG) are increasingly on the warpath against selected nations - mostly the less powerful.

High priestesses

Sri Lanka is an example of a nation which is targeted by AI and ICG without applying the Principles of Responsibility to Protect at the identified sources of violence located in the West.

When the high priestesses of human rights hide the agents of fascist terrorism under their skirts what right have they to blame the victims of their machinations and blinkered visions? If harbouring these agents of terrorist violence is legal and moral in the West why is it illegal and immoral for the victims of Western terrorism to fight back with all their resources, even if it entails some inescapable violations of human rights? From one end of the mouth, Western human rights agents claim that they are protecting human rights by providing all facilities for agents of fascist violence to operate from Western bases and, from the other end, they also claim, in their questionable reports, that they are protecting human rights by blaming the victims of terrorist violence they export. Sri Lanka is making a desperate bid to recover from destabilizing violence engineered and promoted with funds raised in Western bases.

Most of the weapons used by the Tiger terrorists were procured from the Western bases. Instead of writing reports accusing the victims of terrorism exported from the West isn’t it better for these worthies to focus on stemming the flow of arms destabilising global peace and order? Disregarding these responsibilities the INGOs join the pro-violent lobbies in their neck of the woods and blame the government for not taking action prescribed in R2P. Is R2P only for the nations facing the brunt of violence exported from the West? Or does the West also have an equal responsibility to take effective measures against the agents using Western bases for violations of human rights? Why are the INGOs ignoring the sources of violence based in the West and focusing only on the victims of the violence exported by them? Sri Lanka is an outstanding case where the victims are blamed by the victimisers.

A glance at the history of political violence in Sri Lanka will reveal that the INGOs were the primary agents that provided theoretical, political and international cover for the Vadukoddai violence to explode and lead to the massive violations of international humanitarian law. They were the Gobbelsian propagandists who distorted the realities of the Sri Lankan polity and blamed the Sinhalese ONLY like the way the Nazis blamed the Jews.

Rationale

Like Goebbels they were effective as long as the war lasted. But since the end of the war they have lost their earlier rationale for blaming the Sri Lankan government and have nothing to hang on to except to adopt the ruse of accusing the Sri Lankan government of not concluding the war according to their expected standards.

The primary accusation of not concluding the Vadukoddai War according to their high moral standards - taking the word of the ICG for the moment — would be a fair argument if they can answer the following three simple questions with substantive evidence:

1. Can Louise Arbour and Naveethan Pillay name one war conducted or concluded by the Western countries according to their own moral standards?

2. If not why are they picking on Sri Lanka?

3. Can an investigation imposed by the West, or from the UN, stop human rights violations in wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name only two hot spots of the world?

The big moral issue highlighted in the ICG report runs like this: if Sri Lanka is allowed to get away with the alleged war crimes other nations too would follow the example. Louise Arbour, the CEO, of the ICG who must take full responsibility for this fear-mongering canard, then must provide the answers to the three questions above.

If she can’t the moral basis on which she relies to push her agenda in the ICG report against Sri Lanka falls apart. The clearly stated moral argument in her report is that Sri Lanka must be made an example by the international community as a warning to other nations engaged in tackling internal violence.

Her argument is that one report from a panel appointed by Ban Ki-Moon will act as a brake on the violations of human rights in “Israel, Myanmar, Thailand, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Colombia and the Philippines”.

Does she really want the world to believe her yarn?

Without being cynical it can be asked which human rights report has either curtailed or prevented violations of human rights when the combatants decide to engage in a free-for-all? Take, for instance, the example of Radhika Coomaraswamy naming and shaming the LTTE for forcibly recruiting underaged Tamil children into its “baby brigade”. Did it stop the LTTE from dragging children to the grave till the last day he fought his futile war? Did it stop him from shooting children running away from his brutal army? Again, take the case of the 600 civilians killed in the US operations last year in Afghanistan, some of whom were children, and tell us how the voluminous reports of INGOs, Security Council Resolutions, and other activities of do-gooders have tamed violence and secured human rights?

Clearly, the ground situation demands a more realistic approach to assess the critical situation faced by the Sri Lankan government in the last days of the war.

Prof. Peiris publicly appealed for space and time to handle the crisis with domestic solutions. Hillary Clinton warmly accepted this principle. It was a triumph for Prof. Peiris’ diplomatic skills. It is a clear signal to Ban Ki-Moon to not rush into places where angels fear to tread.