Obama’s West Point address ‘missing’ Sri Lanka is double edged
The US President Barack Obama missing Sri Lanka in a key foreign policy address is double edged, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island. Obama was addressing the US Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday. He was listing out his administration’s direct, indirect and collaborative deliberations as well as achievements over ‘terrorism’ all over the world and was coming out with his vision for future. Sri Lanka didn’t figure among the 30+ countries noted by Obama, in past, present or future. Whether the USA now feels embarrassed in claiming its unprecedented ‘achievement’ in the island, or is it another tactic of down playing the gravity and establishing a paradigm, asked the Tamil activists.
Further observations by Tamil activists for alternative politics:
The US President was talking of Afghanistan, Benghazi (Libya), Brazil, Burma, Central African Republic, Congo, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, India, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Nairobi (Kenya), North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Seoul (South Korea), South Ukraine, Somalia, South China Sea, Sub Saharan Africa, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine and Yemen.
Syria and Ukraine were discussed at length.
During 2006–2009, the USA mobilised 30+ countries in directing a war labelled as against ‘international terrorism’ in the island of Sri Lanka, but in reality it was against the chronic national question of the nation of Eezham Tamils in the island.
The war, which ended in the biggest genocide in recent human history, was conducted without witnesses and by down playing the gravity of what was being committed, once again due to the mobilisation of the USA.
While the main international investigation on the war should have been conducted on the US Administration of Obama and his predecessor, the USA now seems to totally disown its connections and global responsibilities, as could be deduced from the ‘blackout of Sri Lanka’ in Obama’s address.
In a way, it may mean a sense of shame and indirect acceptance of fault by the USA.
But it may also mean deliberate detraction of a major issue, by complete suppression of it, while many other issues are projected with global importance.
A tactic always followed in the case of the island was achieving paradigms of global importance by the keeping the island off the radar and by saying that the island is not as important as the others.
While the genocidal engineering experiment started by the USA in the island proceeds unhindered under the agent regime of Rajapaksa, Obama’s foreign policy outline had no reference to any global paradigm that would bring in justice to nations like that of the Eezham Tamils.
A major danger unfolding today is the USA passing its doctrine to BJP’s India, to detract the question of Eezham Tamils in consideration of other issues for which the din comes from the USA.
Mr Narendra Modi inviting Rajapaksa, which is actually a part of inviting Nawaz Sharif and Hamid Karzai, and now the US Secretary of State’s visible approach to New Delhi’s MEA, Sushma Swaraj, are not unconnected.
After Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s time, citing other issues, India was from time to time ‘advised’ by the USA to detract the Eezham Tamil question in favour of the State in Colombo.
The net result is that another epicentre of crisis has evolved in the south for India.
J.R. Jayawardane shrewdly divided New Delhi and Eezham Tamils over the folly of Rajiv Gandhi. Now the Rajapaksa jinx at Modi’s inauguration has divided New Delhi and Tamil Nadu.
A strategy for Tamil Nadu should be achieving the national and global inevitability of attending the question of Eezham Tamils.
Israel is involved in the island for well over three decades, right from early 1980s. However, a renowned Israeli military historian, Prof. Martin Van Creveld, in giving an interview to TamilNet last week, said on the COIN war in the island: “I do not know enough either about the war, or about its background, or about its outcome.”
Tamils have to see that the world should not pass with that excuse or with the kind of detraction that comes from the foreign policy of the USA.
The White House: