Why adopt double standards?

US President Barack Obama, in his election campaign debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, had said that the national security of his country is more important than politics.

Defending his record on diplomatic security, Obama accused Romney of trying to gain political mileage out of the recent violent attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya which killed four Americans at the Consulate, including the US Ambassador, Chris Stevens.

We commend the US leader for the bold and candid statement as it behoves him as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States, to give priority to matters pertaining to the country's national security and protect all Americans.

Sri Lanka, as any other sovereign nation, enjoys the same inalienable right when it comes to national security and people's safety. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the Head of State and the Commander-in-Chief, has the supreme responsibility to ensure the protection, safety and well-being of all Sri Lankans.

This is precisely why he had directed the Security Forces at the time to embark on a humanitarian operation to rescue over half a million people who had been forcibly held as a human shield by LTTE terrorists. The 2006-2009 humanitarian operation ended on a victorious note in May 2009 and went down the annals of history as the world's largest human rescue mission.

When the hapless civilians, mostly Tamils, in the North and the East were at the receiving end, and subjected to untold misery by the LTTE, the world's most ruthless terrorist outfit, barely anybody came to their rescue. As the Head of State, President Rajapaksa fulfilled his prime obligation by ordering the Security Forces to rescue those civilians from the jaws of death.

None of the so-called godfathers of human rights and international organisations which now weep buckets over the human rights of LTTE terrorists in their battle against a legitimate army of a sovereign State uttered a word on their behalf.

LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran died when he and his elite terrorist cadres confronted the Security Forces in the Nandikadaal lagoon. Prabhakaran, the leader of the world's deadliest terrorist outfit, had mercilessly killed tens of thousands, including religious and social leaders, apart from the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Despite all the macabre killings, certain countries and international organisations still question Prabhakaran's death while blatantly ignoring the human rights of others killed by Tiger terrorists. At the time of their death, Prabhakaran and his henchmen were armed to the teeth.

In sharp contrast, the very same countries and international organisations turned a Nelsonian eye to the assassination of Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. It was said that Gaddafi was unarmed at the time.

The latest reports disclosed that Gaddafi had died of wounds inflicted in an attack by rebels after he had been captured, and not in a fire-fight. In the most definitive account to date of his final moments, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that Gaddafi was injured by shrapnel from a hand grenade that had exploded yards from him as he tried to escape his home town of Sirte.

The HRW report added that Gaddafi had been then stabbed in the rear with a bayonet by one of his rebel captors, causing a catastrophic loss of blood. However, the same godfathers of human rights who take Sri Lanka to task over Prabhakaran's death are now making a shameful attempt to justify the inhuman manner in which Gaddafi had been killed. We are, by no means, trying to justify Gaddafi's conduct, if he had perpetrated any inhuman acts as alleged by the West. But he definitely deserved a better deal, a just hearing! Do the Western forces have the licence to kill a Head of State such as Gaddafi, even if he had done anything wrong?

On the other hand, though Prabhakaran was killed in a fire-fight with the Security Forces, the soldiers respectfully carried his body.

In contrast, the US Marine Corps, in full combat gear, were seen urinating on several bodies of their rivals in Afghanistan. In the extremely graphic video that came to light, at least four soldiers had exposed their genitals and urinated on the bodies. In the video, one of the men was heard saying, "Have a great day, buddy".

Aren't these heinous acts against mankind? Yet, certain countries and international organisations seem to be only interested in the human rights of LTTE terrorists and not those of Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim civilians who had been brutally killed by the Tigers.

There was a time when LTTE terrorists killed thousands of civilians in broad daylight, violating all accepted norms and human rights. There was hardly anybody at that time to support Sri Lanka, except for a handful of friendly countries. It was due to the supreme sacrifices by the true sons of our soil that all communities are today enjoying the dividends of peace. In the guise of the so-called liberation to Tamils, LTTE terrorists inflicted untold misery on hundreds of thousands of hapless civilians, including their own community. Regrettably, certain Western countries are still making an attempt to take Sri Lanka to task purely for the 'sin' of becoming the first country to eradicate terrorism.

It's time the world made a careful study of Sri Lanka's progress since terrorism was crushed and the mega development projects that have been launched in the North and the East. Moreover, the Government is also making a sincere and determined effort in national reconciliation.

Nevertheless, there are no instant solutions or crash courses on reconciliation especially for a nation which had suffered the brunt of terrorism for almost three decades. The international community should commend the Government for providing a peaceful environment for all communities to live in peace and harmony.

Sri Lanka had set new world standards in resettling over half a million people who had been liberated during the humanitarian operation. When the Government was going ahead in resettlement in a responsible manner by demining the areas affected, it was the West which pushed Sri Lanka to expedite the process. The self-same people in the West now express concern over the "hurried resettlement of displaced persons" from the Menik Farm camp in Vavuniya. They allege that many of the most vulnerable families of those affected in the North have been "placed on land hastily cleared without adequate shelter, water and sanitation, or provisions to continue their livelihoods".

This is exactly why Sri Lanka called for a reasonable time-frame though the West more or less imposed an "instant resettlement". Despite all these setbacks, Sri Lanka has achieved new international standards in resettlement. No other country has bounced back and resettled such a large number of displaced persons so quickly as Sri Lanka.

If the West is more concerned about the well-being of those in the North, it must prove it through action, by making a tangible contribution for the resettlement and development projects in those areas. There are enough and more countries which try to play the role of arbitrators and pontificate to us on how things ought to be done. Regrettably, they have not proved this by deed.