THE AMERICAN WAY - II
The Island editorial of Monday the twenty fourth on double standards on terrorism ends with the following question. If terrorism is to be defeated, can there be double standards? The answer to the question is obviously no. However, the answer implies that by terrorism we understand terrorism against any culture, any civilisation, any country or any group of people, whether a nation, a tribe, a race or even a cast. If it is not the case then surely there can be not double but multiple standards. It is clear that many well meaning Sinhalas, especially the English educated (and English speaking at home), find it difficult to understand the position taken by USA and UK in particular, and the west in general with respect to Tamil terrorism in Sri Lanka. In the weekend English language newspapers there were articles that tried to put the blame on the Sri Lankan government for not capitalising on the terrorist attack on pentagon and the world trade centre to get the support of the USA to defeat Tamil terrorism in Sri Lanka. They argued that the government should have given the wholehearted support to USA to defeat terrorism against USA instead of merely issuing a statement on the matter, and got the USA "involved" to defeat Tamil terrorism of the LTTE. By the way India and Pakistan have been rewarded by USA for the stand they took and the economic sanctions that were imposed on those two countries have been lifted.
While I agree that the government was more involved with appointing and removing ministers and drafting amendments to the constitution "honouring" the memorandum of understanding between the PA and the JVP during this period, and that they should have done much more than issuing a statement, I do not think that it is the attitude of the Sri Lankan government that prevents the USA from assisting the Sri Lankan government in a more productive way to defeat Tamil terrorism. It is simply that Tamil terrorism is no terrorism as far as USA, UK in particular and the west in general is concerned.
We Sinhalas have a problem. After the Anuradhapura period we have not attempted to create "general" theories and we are satisfied with creating "excuses" and not answers to questions. At best we try to "explain" individual or particular events based on some general theory that somebody else in a different civilisation or culture has created. Theories are nothing but stories. They are stories created by so called intellectuals either in answering "general" questions or collecting data. ( In Sinhala theories or stories of the intellectuals are called "pravada" while the stories of the ordinary people are called "janapravada"!) The questions and data collection are not independent of theories and it works in a cycle. It has to be noted that very often people, whether Sinhalas or USAites (We call them Americans but we have to remember that the whole continent is known as America.) come out with excuses and explanations and not theories. It is the function of the "intellectuals" to create theories. What the Sinhalas, especially the "intellectuals" among them, have been doing is to answer "particular" questions which amount to giving excuses or coming out with explanations. For "general" theories we have either looked up to India in the distant past (probably after Ven. Buddhagosha Thero - we have still not overcome the effect of translating Dhamma into Pali that became the language of "intellectual discourse" ) or to the west in the recent past (the language of "intellectual discourse" being English).
Why does USA have double standards? Why do the apples and the coconuts fall to the ground? These are questions that are posed by us based on our observations. (If a person does not observe any double standards by USA then needless to say that the first question does not arise. The questions are dependent on how one looks at the world which in turn depends on theories and this cycle cannot be broken.) Newton had a story on the latter question in the seventeenth century and Einstein told an entirely different story with respect to the same question in the twentieth century, of course centuries as reckoned by the west and not with respect to the Buddhist era. To the first question we do not want to give "excuses" such as the government of Sri Lanka failing to give the wholehearted support to USA after the terrorist attack on USA, or that there is a difference between the LTTE and the al Qaeda of bin Laden, assuming that the latter is responsible for the attacks on the pentagon and the world trade centre. This excuse has been offered by Mr. Stephen Holgate, the USA embassy spokesman, as reported in a Sunday newspaper.
According to Mr. Holgate, the LTTE demands something and therefore there is a basis for negotiations. However, this is not what Mr. George W. Bush made us to understand. As far as terrorism is concerned he, meaning Mr. Bush and not Mr. Holgate, said that there would not be any negotiations. This is an unconditional statement and it did not imply that if the terrorists have some demand either in the form of a separate state in USA or even some working space in the white house, then the president of USA would negotiate. No negotiations that is what Mr. Bush stated and he further said that either one is with USA or with the terrorists. If by terrorists Mr. Bush meant all terrorists then I am afraid Mr. Holgate is not with USA, according to his president. Fortunately for Mr. Holgate, Mr. Bush does not mean what he says. I mean when he, that is Mr. Bush, speaks of terrorism in general, he does not mean terrorism in general but means only terrorism against the western civilisation and particularly the protestant culture.
While reiterating our position that the terrorists who attacked the world trade centre and the pentagon should be punished we cannot agree with Mr. Holgate and some others that there is a distinction between the LTTE and al Qaeda. Everybody knows that there is a problem in Palestine and the Muslims have been demanding certain things with respect to Israel. It is also true that USA has been pro Israel not only due to the strong Jewish lobby in USA but also due to the clash of civilisations between the protestant culture and the Islamic civilisation. I am not arguing that the Palestinians are right in this matter and Israel and USA, UK are in the wrong. Whoever is right all that I am trying to point out is that there is a demand from the Muslims in general. The fact that USA has been able to "convince" some Muslim countries and get them on the side of USA is immaterial to the issue. Also that Mr. Arafat has been negotiating with Israel, with USA as the "mediator", on certain issues is irrelevant. If the LTTE has a demand, then there are some Muslim organisations, that have a demand which most probably exceeds what Mr. Arafat is demanding and Mr. Holgate or anybody else is not in a position to say that one should negotiate with the LTTE but not with those Muslim organisations. The excuse given by Mr. Holgate, I am afraid, does not explain why USA is behaving differently with respect to LTTE and al Qaeda. It is no better than the excuse I used to give whenever I was late to school. With my limited knowledge of English (not that it has improved much over the years) I always said, "sir, the train came late". It appears that Mr. Holgate has missed the train altogether.
We have a theory to "understand" why USA has double standards. It is nothing but clash of civilisations. However, I must hasten to add that our theory is different from that of Dr. Samuel Huntington, if my memory is correct, who incidentally had served as an adviser to the pentagon ( I do not have a copy of his Clash of Civilisations with me to verify this). Dr. Huntington in his book warned of a clash of civilisations that was to come in the future. He wrote his book after the collapse of the Soviet Union and after "The End of History" written by Dr. Fukuyama. Dr. Huntington was trying to tell the authorities not to be complacent with the state of affairs and that though the Soviet Union had collapsed there would be threats to the west from others. By others he meant non western civilisations and he warned of an impending clash of civilisations.
As far as we are concerned the clash of civilisations was not something for the future, but it has been there at least for the last five hundred years. The "world history" of the last five centuries is, in general, nothing but the history of the project of the cultural hegemony of the western civilisation (protestant culture to be more specific). In fact, even communism of Eastern Europe could be explained in terms of clash between the western Christian civilisation and the Orthodox civilisation. We are not reductionists who try to reduce everything to culture and civilisation but it is good to have some sort of a meta narrative in spite of what the post modernists have to say on meta narratives. After all the most meta narrative one can think of is due to Buddha. "Siyalu Sanskara Anithya we" ( Sabbe Sankara Anicca in Pali the language of "intellectual discourse") is a meta narrative (it is not only the most meta of the meta narratives but I suppose is also the meta narrative expressed in the least number of words in any language.) that surpasses any general (universal) theory and those who try to compare Derrida's deconstruction with anicca or sunyatha are clearly mistaken. They are only trying to present (is sell the better word?) Buddhism to the western post modernists for their fellowships, degrees etc.
It is said that the westerners came to this part of the world for trade with the sword in one hand and the bible in the other hand. The bible here represents the civilisation (culture) more than the Christian (Catholic) religion. The economic, political and cultural components of world imperialism are all united when it is said that the westerners came for trade with bibles and swords. Unfortunately we have neglected the cultural component for too long concentrating on political and economic aspects. The west has been at war with the other civilisations (cultures) for the last five hundred years or so and for them terrorists are only those terrorists from other civilisations that attack the western civilisation (protestant culture). USA in spite of the general terms used by Mr. Bush and others think only of the terrorists against their civilisation. USA will help us to defeat Tamil terrorism that stems from Tamil racism that was created by the British only if it is established that the LTTE has some connections with al Quaeda. However, that should not prevent us in supporting USA to defeat terrorism against western civilisation.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>