“Every country in this world advances its own interests. It is economic and trade interests that determine the order of the present world

 Thanks

May I come into this fracas.

As I said earlier, the bottom line is that no country  who appear to be siding with the Tamil -cause would  ever act against their interests. Late VP too accepted this dictum saying
 “Every country in this world advances its own interests. It is economic and trade interests that determine the order of the present world, not the moral law of justice nor the rights of people. International relations and diplomacy between countries are determined by such interests. Therefore we cannot expect an immediate recognition of the moral legitimacy of our cause by the IC"
Jyotindra Nath Dixit who served as Indian High Commissioner in SL 1985 /89,
said the same principle in a different way, thus "....interstate relations are not governed by the logic of morality. They were and they remain an amoral phenomenon...."
The only country that spear- headed the call for an international investigation on SL is the US, although many followed or egged on to follow.
It was also unprecedented that TNA &Co was invited to Washington and the former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton met the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu- both non-governmental representatives.

What transpired between them and the US officials, no one knows. BUT, one could discern what could have transpired judging what stance these two leaders took since those meetings. In other words the course what TNA takes would be governed by what transpired at the meeting in Washington. Or putting it very bluntly, whatever the course the TNA takes now would not satisfy those who have an agenda of their own.

Note what I underlined in the last sentence of VP's  quotation I gave above. Hence I surmise that if SL ultimately does not respond adequately according to the 'constrained' US-led expectations of the TNA, then there is a possibility the US would agree to the type of agenda of those who are disgruntled now with TNA. This possibility is also endorsed lately by Tamara Kunanayagam for what ever agende she may have.

Joe    

Dear Friends,     

What Joseph Ladislaus has stated above is political reality. The rest of it is myth. There was a degree of morality in the utterances of the world leaders immediately after World War II, but when the Cold War started in the fifties, that morality gradually evaporated. 

The first one to pay the price for that was Patrice Lumumba of Congo, who was an honest patriot the country had ever produced. When he wanted Congo to be totally free from colonialism, the West decided to get rid of him, as the Congo province of Katanga was mineral rich. The West was willing to let all the countries to go free, but they wanted to have a strangle hold on their economy, So they deposed him and replaced him with the most corrupted puppet, Col. Mobutu Sese Seko, who robbed the country of billions of dollars. They tortured and assassinated Lumumba and his body was dipped in nitric acid by the Belgians to ensure his grave yard does not become a monument.

In politics there is no morality or spirituality; it is cut and dry geopolitics, either for security, money or both. George Bush's 'War on Terror' had the hallmark of all that. Iraq and Libya needed a regime change to prevent them from supplying arms to the terrorists. They were not worried of the minorities in those countries, who were likely to be slaughtered. Now the throats of Coptic Christians are cut in whole sale massacre; the West shed crocodile tears. The net result of all these, Iran had been spared of the regime change.

I would like to draw a parallel between what is happening in Syria and Yemen now and Mullivaaikkaal in May 2009. More Tamils died in 2009 than Arabs are dying now. Just look at the activity that is going on today than in 2009 - why? The West perceived ISIS victory in the Middle East as a threat  to their oil supply. Russia, on the other hand, is keeping a distance from the war zone. The West, who were keen to have regime changes in the Middle East with moderate leaders, now prefer to retain the old corrupted leaders. They are supporting both the old leaders and their Islamic opponents with arms against ISIS.

In the case of Sonia Gandhi's orchestrated Mullivaaikkaal Genocide, the West was fully aware of what was going on in May 2009, but they preferred to be silent. If they had wanted to act, they could have stopped the killing immediately, notwithstanding India's objection. They didn't want to offend India and at the same time the Sinhalese are a great geopolitical asset to them to safeguard the southern sea lanes, when compared to the Tamils, who may lean towards India. 

What is the way forward for we Tamils.  Internationally we have to unite ourselves, in the Diaspora, Tamil Nadu and in Eelam. The TNA had a lot of bickering among themselves, especially when a couple of them tried to prevent the passing of the Genocide Resolution, which was ultimately resolved when the Chief Minister Wigneswaran got it passed unanimously. It is a comprehensive document that laid out all the crimes committed against the Tamils by the Sinhalese from the date of independence to the present day. That sets the ball rolling.

Now the TNA members are arguing on the need to form an alliance party, instead of the five separate parties. Election is on the way and this matter is not solved yet. This business of appeasing the Sinhalese has to be given up. Whether the TNA leaders carry the Sinhalese flag or attend their independence day function, is not going to make any difference to their attitude towards the Tamils.

It is about time the TN Tamils stop ordering Narendra Modi how to govern India. He cannot listen to the Tamils alone, when he is answerable to the parliament and the voters who voted him in. Telling him not to invite Rajapaksa for his inauguration is suicidal. What explanation can he give to the world or the Indians on the reasons why he didn't invite him? He invited him and gave him a string of demands he had to meet, before Modi makes his first overseas trip to SL. Rajapaksa didn't and Modi made his first trip to Bhutan. India was one of the prime movers of regime change on 8 January in SL.

Modi visited SL after President Sirisena was elected, he visited all the Buddhist shrines, and even met Rajapaksa. These are all diplomatic stunts, which we have no right to criticise. What matters to us most is what he did in Jaffna. He met Wigneswaran and discussed the situation in the Tamil Homeland, which he can read in Genocide Resolution. He asked the TNA members one question, "Do you have faith in Delhi?" Their answer was, "Yes". The rest should speak for itself.

We Tamils cannot sit on a pedestal and give orders to world leaders. We should make the maximum use of all the materials that are available to us. Modi made two important statements in Jaffna. One is "13th Amendment and beyond" and the next statement was "cooperate federalism". These two phrases mean a lot. This was exactly what our national leader, Prabhakaran meant when he made the Oslo Declaration. He was willing to forgo separation.

There is no point in insisting on Eelam, when that is not achievable at present. Accept what we can get now and save our people decimation. As the situation changes move forward. In the first place at present no Sinhalese leader will accept a federal structure, but Modi had mentioned that. Then what? 

Regards,

Visvanathan