Fantasies of Virtue


In his article in The Atlantic dated 1 July 2009 entitled To Catch a Tiger, Robert D Kaplan acknowledged the success of the Sri Lankan government in defeating the Tamil Tigers

Kaplan admits that tiny, cash-strapped Sri Lanka, generally thought of as “third world” or “developing”, has succeeded where the mighty USA has failed. The man who dominated Sri Lankan life for the worse for thirty years, Vellupillai Prabakharan, leader of the Tamil Tigers, is dead, while Osama Bin Laden is still living, a free man.

Kaplan asks if the US can learn from Sri Lanka’s success but answers:

“These are methods the U.S. should never use.”

The Sri Lankan government defeated, within its own sovereign borders, with the support of its electorate, what Kaplan admits to be a terrorist group “among the best organized and most ruthless to have emerged anywhere since the Second World War”. The US has for long used and continues to use even more brutal methods than those condemned by Kaplan.

The birth of the American nation was mired in the genocide of the indigenous races and its development depended on slavery. In his book, Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920, Jackson Lears describes how many Americans embraced militaristic fantasies of national rebirth through war and empire. US soldiers were awarded medals in 1890 for firing Hotchkiss cannons at unarmed Indians at Wounded Knee. When Filipinos resisted US imperial claims, the US Army ‘civilized’ them with indiscriminate slaughter – as Mark Twain put it ‘Maxim Guns and Hymn Books’.

America is today an imperial power with military bases instead of colonies. George Orwell commented in 1943, “It is difficult to go anywhere in London without having the feeling that Britain is now Occupied Territory.” Citizens of many nations today get that same feeling. Those populations hosting US bases are expected to be grateful that the bases are contributing to democracy and freedom, but instead feel exploited because the bases are used to control trade, resources, local supplies of cheap labor, and the political, economic, and social life of host countries. They also force them to support American imperialism, including foreign wars, despite harmful fallout to local populations.

There are 38 U.S. military facilities on Okinawa. They account for 78 percent of the bases in Japan and use up 30 percent of the land mass of the island. The U.S. military bases on Okinawa also cover over 40 percent of the arable soil, once some of the best agricultural land in Japan.

Figures up to 1998 show that since 1972, 4,905 crimes were committed against Japanese people by U.S. military personnel, their dependents and U.S. civilian contractors and employees. More than 10 percent of these crimes involved serious crimes of murder, robbery or rape. In most cases the Japanese authorities were not allowed to arrest or question the alleged perpetrators.

Possibly the most famous case was in 1995, when three U.S. soldiers abducted and raped a young schoolgirl. This provoked massive protests. One demonstration drew a crowd of over 92,000, demanding the bases be removed and that the soldiers be turned over to the Japanese authorities for trial. This was never done.

The US is the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons. 90,000 (this is the low estimate) died immediately at Hiroshima. The estimate for Nagasaki is 20,000.

During the Vietnam War up to 5 million civilians (including citizens if Laos and Cambodia) lost their lives.

On May 26, 2009, a report by Australian law professor Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, was published. The report focused mainly on transgressions during the Bush administration's “war on terror”. The report found that accountability in the U.S. has been "deplorable.” Few would doubt that the USA has killed innocent civilians and used torture in Iraq. According to The Lancet, the US adventure in Iraq has led to a death toll in excess of 650,000 and four million civilians have been displaced.

The CIA has kidnapped people and outsourced their torture. Torture is illegal under international law; the Obama administration is reluctant to face the issue but supports calls for Sri Lanka to be investigated for war crimes.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan civilians continue to die because of US air attacks. Kaplan dismisses this: “The Americans have carefully targeted select al-Qaeda members and, in the process, killed a few—at the most, dozens—of civilians among whom the fighters were surrounded.” Small drone attack - not many babies or wedding guests killed. Sri Lankans feel that, in a world where innocent Afghan and Pakistanis are killed on a regular basis by unmanned Predator drones in the name of fighting terrorism, the west should not preach to Sri Lanka.

President Obama said: “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can (my emphasis). . . For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralysed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al-Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.”

Sri Lanka had an even greater interest in avoiding falling to the Tigers. As Kaplan points out 3,000 died on 9/11 – perhaps as many as 100,000 Sri Lankans have died because of the Tigers.

The most worrying thing for those of us not fortunate to be US citizens is the delusional nature of US policy. As Rory Stewart wrote recently in the London Review of Books, “It papers over the weakness of the international community: our lack of knowledge, power and legitimacy. It conceals the conflicts between our interests: between giving aid to Afghans and killing terrorists. It assumes that Afghanistan is predictable. It is a language that exploits tautologies and negations to suggest inexorable solutions. It makes our policy seem a moral obligation, makes failure unacceptable, and alternatives inconceivable.”

Ian Birrell wrote about elections in Afghanistan in the Independent: “Once again, we are chasing a chimera, falling for the myth of democracy rather than the reality. Buttressed by our own history, we see the ballot box as the ultimate expression of democracy… The dream is back on. Meanwhile, warlords wash the blood from their hands and dress up as democrats, doing deals to carve up the country… At the end of the process, there will still be some tribal tensions, gangsterism and poppy fields. Even to get to this point will cost billions. It will take many years. And sadly, there will be scores more teenage soldiers slaughtered and maimed. ”

There is an assumption that the US has a moral justification and obligation to intervene in other nations’ affairs. There is also the fantasy that it has the capability to address terrorism and, simultaneously, support ill-defined humanitarian objectives. The US is not as tough and powerful or as humane as thinks. It is unlikely that it can defeat the Taliban for ever. In trying to make its fantasies real it causes havoc and suffering.

Who could dare to argue that ‘morality’ is a bad thing? Morality can be dangerous in politics, particularly if it is not clearly thought out and just used as a buzz concept, part of the jargon. Blair and Bush told many lies (a justifiable immorality?) about Iraq and ended up with Saddam’s ‘evil’ as the only justification for the mess. Saddam was killed; Prabakharan was killed. Large numbers of people might have been killed in Iraq but the purpose was noble wasn’t it? President Rajapaksa could also argue that difficult decisions had to be taken in order to achieve the ultimate good of ending the horror wrought by the Tamil Tigers.
There are certainly very real concerns about human rights and freedom of speech in Sri Lanka. However, Kaplan should look at the beam in the USA’s eye before calling attention to the mote in Sri Lanka’s. The Obama administration said it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

“In fact, there are no useful pointers to be gleaned from the Sri Lankan government’s victory.” I hope that Kaplan is correct and that the US does not try to learn from the Sri Lankan experience.

One lesson that might be learnt is that even those Sri Lankans who were dubious about the government’s decision to pursue the military option, are relieved, Tamils among them, that the venture has been successful.

Does the fact those accusing Sri Lanka of war crimes are not free of guilt themselves, mean the issue should be ignored? Some would argue that a full investigation of war crimes would be a distraction from the reconciliation process. Others argue that the bitterness felt by many of the Tamil community will make reconciliation impossible if this issue is not addressed.

The reconciliation process in countries such as South Africa, Rwanda, Chile and Northern Ireland are sometimes cited.

Sri Lanka does not have direct parallels with any of these countries.
• Whatever discrimination and violence Sri Lankan Tamils may have suffered, Sri Lanka is not an apartheid society like South Africa, Palestine or even Louisiana. Whatever notion the western media might convey, Sri Lanka’s entire Tamil population has not been confined to a narrow strip of beach being bombarded by a racist government intent on genocide; the entire Tamil population is not currently imprisoned in concentration camps prior to extermination. Tamils are spread throughout the country and generally live normal lives. Many of them are prosperous and influential. Some held senior positions in government until the Tigers killed them.
• In Chile, General Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected government; in Sri Lanka a democratically elected government increased its popularity with the voters by overthrowing a de facto totalitarian, fascist, military dictatorship in part of its internationally recognised sovereign territory and intends to restore democracy to that area.
• In Northern Ireland, peace was achieved through negotiation when both sides became exhausted and accepted that neither could win. The IRA gave up its goal of a united Ireland. The LTTE went into every negotiation with an uncompromising demand for nothing short of a separate homeland, comprising two-thirds of the territory of Sri Lanka.

Reconciliation will be difficult but it is possible. Sri Lanka needs help in this process rather than sanctimonious lectures.


Padraig Colman July 29, 2009 - 2:13am
( categories: USA: Homeland Security )

Reading between the lines it sounds that the Sri Lankan govt went ruthlessly after the tigers but in a manner that made it clear to the Tamil people that they weren't after them, or their lives and livelihood or their property. I assume that after an area was cleared of tigers that the govt provided effective protection from violence.

Jeff Wegerson July 29, 2009 - 12:10pm

it's not necessary for the gov to provide effective protection from violence in the area cleared of tigers because there is no longer anybody there. The population is either dead or relocated to one of the worst concentration/refugee camps on the face of the earth.

Also Doctors Without Borders - Medecins Sans Frontiers for more.

Chickadee July 29, 2009 - 12:36pm

...

"The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipino soldiers. Civilians were forced into concentration camps, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. The camps and slaughter of civilians was excused by the fact that the media told the American population that the savages were little children needing America's help and cleansing. The guerilla warfare helped this case by giving a moral right to what the American's were doing since the "savages" were cowardly uncivilized enemies.[50]

The subsequent American oppression of the population tremendously reduced the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino soldiers, compelling them in one way or another to surrender. The start of guerrilla warfare fuelled pro war journalists with more material to spin. The journalists basically criticized the Fillipinos for their style of waging war.[51]"

NateTG July 29, 2009 - 1:30pm

"The start of guerrilla warfare fuelled pro war journalists with more material to spin. The journalists basically criticized the Fillipinos for their style of waging war." How familiar and what a rotten dilemma. To acknowledge that people are fighting for their homes, families etc. is to oppose the nation's invading troops: that's how the issue is framed. Ultimately, the argument doesn't make any difference. There was a uniform adherence to separating the troops from the political leaders as objects for criticism. The anti-Iraq war movement succeeded in building a majority opposition that matched the pre war figures but it didn't matter. Bush-Cheney did what they wanted and Congress bellied up to the bar every single time funding was needed for fear of "not supporting the troops." The rhetorical conflict once wars start is just dreadful. "Supporting the troops" in what, risking and losing their lives?
----------------
Furthest from him whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals.

Michael Collins July 31, 2009 - 4:01am

In Northern Ireland the funding for the IRA came from US based Irish Catholics. How could Bush fight again terrorism if the US was support terrorism in Ireland?

Personally, I believe Blair & Bush agreed for Blair to support Bush, Bush would dry up the funding for the IRA from the US. Only then did the IRA negotiate.

A quid pro quo. Then Blair's behavior is justified.

It follows, this statement may not be so correct:

"In Northern Ireland, peace was achieved through negotiation when both sides became exhausted and accepted that neither could win."

and

It would explain Blair as Bush's sock puppet, for unlike Bush, Blair is very intelligent.

Synoia July 29, 2009 - 5:02pm

Padraig Colman

Thank you all for your comments.

Sean Paul assured me that The Agonist is a space for civility of debate. The issues I am covering tend to generate more heat than light on blogs where the different sections of the Sri Lankan diaspora hurl nationalistic insults at each other.

The main purpose of this article was to expose western hypocrisy and double standards rather than to defend or attack the Sri Lankan government. Jeff, I will examine the arguments for and against the government’s conduct of the war later. There are many worrying features about the current situation in Sri Lanka in relation to human rights and press freedom which I will deal with in future articles.

Chickadee – the issue of the government’s conduct of the final phases of the war and the current situation in the camps is a fraught one which I will deal with in more detail in another article. I have tried to write about it in a balanced manner elsewhere and for my pains have been called both a government stooge and an LTTE sympathizer – the actual words were “You crazed Irish monkey, you IRA fugitive, you should be in a zoo or a lunatic asylum.”

Synoia says: “It follows, this statement may not be so correct: ‘In Northern Ireland, peace was achieved through negotiation when both sides became exhausted and accepted that neither could win.’ It would explain Blair as Bush's sock puppet, for unlike Bush, Blair is very intelligent.”

There are detailed accounts of the Northern Ireland peace process in Deaglán de Bréadún’s “The Far side of Revenge” and Jonathan Powell’s “Great Hatred Little Room”. My friend the Rev. Harold Good was a member of General de Chastelain’s decommissioning body and had the job of announcing to the press that the IRA had given up their arms. (He saw at first hand the terrible effects of IRA violence but still describes Martin McGuinness as a friend, which shows that there is hope for reconciliation.) Peter Taylor has written much about the troubles themselves.

All these bear out the fact the talks were an exhausting process of attrition but throughout there seemed to be an acknowledgement that a stalemate had been reached in the armed struggle.

Blair may have been more intelligent than Bush but then so is that patch of mildew on my wall. Blair could have been remembered for the great achievement of bringing peace to Northern Ireland but instead he is reviled as Bush’s poodle for the Iraq misadventure. Not so intelligent.

I stick by my main point which is that although Irish peacemakers like John Hume and Martin McGuinness have visited Sri Lanka in an advisory capacity, the Irish experience has little direct relevance to the Sri Lanka situation.

In Ireland terrorists were fighting to join the north east of the country to the rest of the island; in Sri Lanka terrorists were fighting to detach the north east from the rest of the country.

Many attempts at negotiation and cease fires have failed because the LTTE left no room for compromise and used lulls in fighting to re-group and re-arm.

Padraig Colman July 29, 2009 - 11:00pm

Very good post and you will certainly find much (mostly civil) debate here. There are many sharp minds that comment frequently on this board; it's quite refreshing to have find a place with so much (mostly) informed and rational debate on so many subjects.

Mattyb719 July 29, 2009 - 11:17pm

Padraig, as you point out in your post about the U.S. and its human rights record over the centuries and especially recently, we are not in a strong position to be telling other countries like Sri Lanka how to handle their affairs. This is a thoughtful and well documented piece.

designanator July 30, 2009 - 9:20am

But the united states has a lot of fish to fry in this battle and the long term trend has been outstandingly successful.

The fact is that terrorist acts have declined steadily since peaking in the early 1970's, down almost 75% in terms of violent activity. The coordinated efforts have been continual for the past forty years. The collapse of the soviet union has probably done more for the decline than anything else. Only one area of terrorism has risen, that of 'lone wolf' terrorism or suicide terrorism. It was the only thing left in their arsenal.

Similarly death from warfare is down some 80% from the 1950's, and state to state warfare is perhaps at its lowest level in history. We are currently living in probably the most peaceful of times, contrary to the news bites. The interesting thing about violence is that the human mind is inured when the numbers are 3million killed or 35 million killed, but when it is three their eyes bug out of their head. We can personalize small numbers and depersonalize large. The internet has also contributed to awareness to every event in the world and so they cannot go hidden. It is truly amazing when you look at the numbers how low state-state violence has gone.

The removal of figureheads is also not as important as incapacitating the organization. In that regard the US has been very successful. Al Qaeda has gone from being an organization able to project itself on a global level, to one which is basically tied down to a regional menace. It is also one divided among a variety of factions. Gone are the days when there was talk of a pan-arabic monolith committed to the downfall of america. Al quaeda in penned in at waziristan, a menace in the hinterlands of pakistan, and not even particularly welcome in afghanistan. It is also divided between sunni and shiite, between persian and arab, between the younger members and the older, and between the middle eastern and african geographic regions. It has been diced eight different ways.

This stuff is complex, and I would end with the fact that the success of sri lanka was in no small part due also the help received from the United States. We still have high interest in communist terrorism of the sort employed by the Tamils.

Scotjen61 July 30, 2009 - 5:04pm

Padraig Colman

Thank you for the further comments. You make some good points Scotjen. Modern warfare and terrorism impacts more on civilians than old-fashioned wars did. The role of the US in reducing terrorism could be the subject of another lengthy article. One would have to factor in the role of the US in supplying some of the causes of terrorism (frying its fish in other people's kitchens) as well as helping out in stopping it. I would be grateful if you could explain why you describe the LTTE as 'communist'.

Padraig Colman July 30, 2009 - 9:59pm

with regard to the LTTE. Considering the President of the local branch of the communist party there was shot dead by the ltte, as well as the local president of the LSSP, another left wing party. So the LTTE was shut out of all left parties. That has some to do with frustration and the divisions inside due to the relentless pressures on this long standing terrorist organization.

But even their 1998 mission statement outlines, "the LTTE has resolved to work in solidarity with the world national liberation movements, socialist states, and international working class parties. We uphold an anti-imperialist policy and therefore we pledge our militant solidarity against western imperialism, neo-colonialists, Zionism, racism and other forces of reaction." Not communism per se, but they were also funded for a number of years by the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's.

Quite a group though, didn't they basically invent the suicide bomber concept, and the suicide belt. First to use women as suicide bombers as well as children.

As far as the US frying its fish in other peoples kitchens, that was the fruit of WWII in my view and the acquisition of the worlds sea bases. What has to change are the organizations that grew out of WWII. That is part of the problem, particularly as the rest of the world rises. Exciting times, and ironically much less violent. I really put much hope in the internet, and I do believe Iran is showing the way. Thank you for your article.

Scotjen61 July 31, 2009 - 9:58am

Padraig Colman

Thank you very much Scotjen for taking the trouble to comment again.

You say: “That has some to do with frustration and the divisions inside due to the relentless pressures on this long standing terrorist organization.” I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Not so much “relentless pressures” or “frustration” as a relentless mission to obliterate any opposition and establish itself as the sole representatives of Sri Lankan Tamils. As well as eliminating left-wingers they assassinated any Tamils who were not totally with them as well as some who were totally with them. I could provide a very long list.

This is why it is somewhat difficult today to find moderate Tamil politicians with whom to engage in a process of reconciliation and reconstruction. The LTTE killed most of them.

“1998 mission statement outlines, ‘the LTTE has resolved to work in solidarity with the world national liberation movements, socialist states, and international working class parties. We uphold an anti-imperialist policy and therefore we pledge our militant solidarity against western imperialism, neo-colonialists, Zionism, racism and other forces of reaction.’

I would bet that those words were drafted by Anton Balasingham, the “acceptable face” of the LTTE who took part in many of the futile peace negotiations and was someone the west could cope with. Incidentally, he used to work with my father-in-law at the British High Commission. Balasingham was indeed a committed Marxist. He was one of the few people Prabakharan trusted wholeheartedly. The fact that he was a Marxist ideologue was incidental because Prabakharan just wasn’t interested in all that lefty jargon.

Most people in Sri Lanka would describe the LTTE as fascist rather than communist. The de facto state they established in the north was certainly totalitarian but right-wing rather than left. I was amused to hear a man called Prabakharan with whom I was doing business refer to his namesake as “Hitler”.

I am not sure how important funding from the Soviet Union was. If you have any sources on that I would be grateful if you could share them with me. My understanding is that funding mainly came from the Tamil diaspora and was supplemented by ill-gotten gains from organised crime – bank robberies, drug running, gold smuggling, people-trafficking.

Padraig Colman August 1, 2009 - 1:49am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.