"If Sri Lanka has reached the stage of having a 'democratically elected' government mandated for genocide by the ethnic majority, then that is the strongest reason why the country has to be democratically divided", writes TamilNet's political commentator in Colombo, responding to British envoy John Sawers' comment Thursday at UN that "Sri Lanka is a democratically elected government fighting a terrorist organization". Pointing out that this stand, worse than the fallacy of viewing an ethnic war as war on terrorism is not isolated in the IC, the commentator cautioned "as long as the IC, jaundiced in eyesight, fails to acknowledge that genocide and terrorism are 'democratically elected’ in Sri Lanka, they endanger democratic ideals globally” adding that "it is time for Tamil Nadu and the diaspora to demonstrate mandate for secession".
Further comments from the political commentator:
It is unfortunate a distorted perception of democracy comes from the envoy of a country regarded as the cradle of democracy. The British and French foreign ministers endorsed the stand of John Sawers on the same day.
In the Western Province elections the Sinhala people have given full mandate to Mahinda Rajapaksa to go ahead in the war against ‘Tamil terrorism’. The same can be seen in any forthcoming elections under the Sri Lankan state system.
Sri Lanka shouldn’t be penalized for what it is doing was a decision of the UN Security Council Thursday, revealed by Mexico’s Heller who chaired the session and by Britain’s Sawers.
China that has funded Colombo and has supplied the country with lethal and even prohibited weapons of conventional warfare knowingly for internal use is sitting on UN action, maintaining that what is happening is purely an internal matter of Sri Lanka.
The Indian Establishment is busy in petty manoeuvrings centring-around Pirapaharan, setting agenda for Colombo for the genocide and to permanently nullify the national question of Eezham Tamils. It seems Pirapaharan is more important to it than contesting the democratic elections.
The secret protocol of four days time and the open statement of 48 hours by Chidambaram, the home minister of the Establishment, lapsed long back but the brutal massacres of Colombo continues. Anyway, this is not the first time the Indian Establishment loses its credibility.
The world has seen how another minister of the Establishment, Pranab Mukherjee, not caring for any credibility, played second fiddle to Colombo in insisting on the number of civilians in the safety zone at 70,000. Only war partners are capable of risking credibility in such ways.
No wonder Mahinda Rajapaksa, encouraged by the international community itself in openly defying the community, is not honouring any of its pledges: either in the use of heavy weapons against the civilians or in allowing UN observers to the conflict zone.
Once the war is won nothing will be questioned is the stand of Colombo.
Colombo, on Saturday, boldly shelled the only makeshift hospital in the ‘no-fire’ zone that too after getting the coordinates of the hospital from the ICRC, and while its un-manned aircraft was monitoring whether the 'right target' has been hit.
Could there be any fallacy worse than the IC pledging the responsibility of finding a 'post-conflict' political solution with such a state and with such a government?
How does the IC expect the Tamils at the height of genocide to have faith not in their fighters and in the armed struggle, but in the manoeuvrings of the IC, when its statement diplomacy fails to achieve even insignificant concessions from Colombo?
Further comments from the political commentator:
It is unfortunate a distorted perception of democracy comes from the envoy of a country regarded as the cradle of democracy. The British and French foreign ministers endorsed the stand of John Sawers on the same day.
In the Western Province elections the Sinhala people have given full mandate to Mahinda Rajapaksa to go ahead in the war against ‘Tamil terrorism’. The same can be seen in any forthcoming elections under the Sri Lankan state system.
Sri Lanka shouldn’t be penalized for what it is doing was a decision of the UN Security Council Thursday, revealed by Mexico’s Heller who chaired the session and by Britain’s Sawers.
China that has funded Colombo and has supplied the country with lethal and even prohibited weapons of conventional warfare knowingly for internal use is sitting on UN action, maintaining that what is happening is purely an internal matter of Sri Lanka.
The Indian Establishment is busy in petty manoeuvrings centring-around Pirapaharan, setting agenda for Colombo for the genocide and to permanently nullify the national question of Eezham Tamils. It seems Pirapaharan is more important to it than contesting the democratic elections.
The secret protocol of four days time and the open statement of 48 hours by Chidambaram, the home minister of the Establishment, lapsed long back but the brutal massacres of Colombo continues. Anyway, this is not the first time the Indian Establishment loses its credibility.
The world has seen how another minister of the Establishment, Pranab Mukherjee, not caring for any credibility, played second fiddle to Colombo in insisting on the number of civilians in the safety zone at 70,000. Only war partners are capable of risking credibility in such ways.
No wonder Mahinda Rajapaksa, encouraged by the international community itself in openly defying the community, is not honouring any of its pledges: either in the use of heavy weapons against the civilians or in allowing UN observers to the conflict zone.
Once the war is won nothing will be questioned is the stand of Colombo.
Colombo, on Saturday, boldly shelled the only makeshift hospital in the ‘no-fire’ zone that too after getting the coordinates of the hospital from the ICRC, and while its un-manned aircraft was monitoring whether the 'right target' has been hit.
Could there be any fallacy worse than the IC pledging the responsibility of finding a 'post-conflict' political solution with such a state and with such a government?
How does the IC expect the Tamils at the height of genocide to have faith not in their fighters and in the armed struggle, but in the manoeuvrings of the IC, when its statement diplomacy fails to achieve even insignificant concessions from Colombo?