THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND THE MARXISTS
I was not amazed to read Vasudeva Nanayakkara defending the right of the British Parliament to debate the Sri Lankan situation. The Marxists are, if I may borrow a phrase frequently used by them, in the final analysis, defendants of western Christian modernity, though Marx had a flirtation with the Catholic Chinthanaya as the fascists who came later on. Both Marxism and fascism which are partially based on Catholic Chinthanaya have been defeated by western Christian modernity based on what we call the Greek Judaic Christian (GJC) Chinthanaya, and the Marxists such as Vasudeva Nanayakkara can only be with the British Imperialists (Lenin's identification) in their "struggle" against Sinhalathva based on a chinthanaya anti thematic to the GJC chinthanaya.
Vasudeva Nanayakkara had defended his masters in Westminster, claiming that in his day he used to defend Vietnam struggle in the Sri Lankan Parliament. We remember the debates in our Parliament those days and also the demonstrations that told the American Imperialists in no uncertain terms to take their hands off Vietnam. Vasudeva Nanayakkara is clearly using an analogy to defend the British Parliament. What he says is that if Sri Lankan Parliament could defend Vietnam against US imperialists then the British Parliament, after all it is the mother of Parliaments, should have the right to defend Tamils against the Sinhalas.
However, like in the case of all the analogies, the argument fails with further details. Vasudeva Nanayakkara seems to be implying that the Sinhalas have gone into foreign territory as aggressors, colonialists, imperialists and what not, as in the case of the Americans who went to Vietnam. Those who compare Northern Ireland with Sri Lanka also forget that English are in Northern Ireland as conquerors, and the remnants of old battles between Catholic Chinthanaya and GJC Chinthanaya could be found in that part of the world. The English are in Scotland and Wales also as conquerors and to camouflage that fact they use words such as Britain and United Kingdom in naming the "country". Incidentally those who are taken up by the adventures of Chavez and others in South America do not realize that they reflect the "struggles" of a dying Catholic Chinthanaya against the GJC Chinthanaya.
Further I cannot remember the Sri Lankan Parliament appointing a committee to look into the problem of the Vietnamese, and sending or even proposing to send a Parliamentary delegation to Vietnam under the leadership of Vasudeva Nanayakkara or anybody else. The Sri Lankan Parliament had a debate or debates and that was that. To his credit Vasudeva Nanayakkara did not volunteer to go to Vietnam leading a Parliamentary delegation to see the "worst affected areas" in Vietnam due to war. Tissa Vitharana, the present leader of the LSSP and the non rotating chairman of the All Party Representative Committee was not in "active" politics those days, though a member of the LSSP, and would not have thought of visiting Vietnam even as a medical doctor to assist the Vietnamese people even in a small way.
Vasudeva Nanayakkara and others who defend the British Parliament should realise that it was not a mere debate that took place in the "mother of parliaments". The British Parliament has taken the burden (another burden of the white man) of finding a solution to an internal problem of Sri Lanka. The MPs have appointed a committee called All Party Parliamentary Group and want delegations of the Sri Lankan Government, the LTTE and Norway to come to London to have talks. Surely it is not an evening tea party that they want to have in Westminster and later a tour of London in one of those open double deck busses of London Transport. What would have happened if Vasudeva Nanayakkara and others wanted a delegation of the USA government to come to talks in Colombo, with a Vietnamese delegation?
If we cannot understand what is taking place behind all these debates and talks on violations of human rights then we would not be able to come to terms with the present political situation in the country. The west and India, as we have said number of times, though do not like the LTTE, do not want the terrorists to be defeated by the Sri Lankan armed forces. It is the feeling of some of the non LTTE Tamils as well. They want federalism which gives autonomy to the Northern and the Eastern Provinces as a solution to the so called ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. They do not want the LTTE to come into power in those provinces but at the same time they think that without the LTTE they cannot achieve what they want. Therefore the strategy of those Tamils as well as the west and India is to protect the terrorists, albeit their so called bans of the LTTE in their countries, at least until a federal "solution" is found.
If the LTTE is banned in England and its colonies in Scotland and Wales, how could Anton Balasingham live in London, and how could the British Parliament invite Thamilchelvan to address the MPs there, and then invite a delegation of the LTTE to the country? In spite of the rhetoric India has had negotiations with the LTTE to get the terrorists to release the abducted fisherman. One might say that there is nothing else that India could have done in the case of fishermen, but it is obvious that nobody is prepared to talk of violations of human rights not only of Sri Lankans but even of Indians by the LTTE.
It is now known, thanks to "The Island" that information supplied by businessmen to certain embassies in order to obtain their visas, has been released to the underworld dealing with "kappan". When these businessmen were abducted the so called international community made a big hue and cry over the human rights of those people. Does it mean that the embassies are also involved in at least some of the abductions, and that there is a group operating to discredit the government on the violations of human rights? If it is so then it is a classic case of "naduth hamuduruwange baduth hamuduruwange".
The so called international community though pretending to be saints are known for their dirty tricks, and they may be attempting to achieve their objective through devious means. What they are interested is in protecting the LTTE at any cost, and not allowing the Sri Lankan armed forces to defeat the terrorists. The human rights campaigns, including those of the leader of the opposition in the other countries would be used by them to send UN forces and/or to impose economic sanctions. They may even oust the Mahinda Rajapakse government and replace it with a Ranil Wickremesinghe government to deprive the Northern and the Eastern Provinces to the Sinhala people. The appointment of the All Party Parliamentary Group by the British Parliament cannot be equated to a speech by Vasudeva Nanayakkara on Vietnam in the Sri Lankan Parliament, as the British are more than mere protestors.
It is true that it is the British who created the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka, but it does not give them the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the country. Though the problem was created by the British it is now an internal problem in what the pundits call a post independent Sri Lanka. However, it is unlikely that the Marxists in Sri Lanka would realise it. They are as international as the "international community" and are mere servants of western Christian modernity.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>