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"?"
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