1. In the past 60 years in SL the tamil issue came into play due to British policies of minority control over the majority. Once we gained independence things changed as more positions were taken by Sinhalese (as per population) and if Tamils say this is discrimination, I say this is the correct and way of the world.

2. Did the elected law makers, by major consensus ask for military intervention? The TNA, who stuffed ballot boxed behind LTTE line? Are they elected? Don’t make us laugh.

3. Would you be so kind to hold your breath and wait for Obama?

You fail to give me an English word for the process of discrimination, dehumanisation, and destruction of Tamil lives and property.that is taking place for the past 60 years in SL. Probably, you do not have any other word than genocide. My definition falls also within the usage in the legal circles.

Therefore, there is no hidden agenda. The trruth is that the GOSL and its cohorts are hiding an agenda of Tamil genocide to the world. Soon the world will accept in totto, though it is taking time as usual. Evidence of genocide is open and everywhere in the NE. But those who can see it see.clearly

You speak of democracy and say that Karuna and others asked for military intervention. Did the elected law makers, by major consensus ask for military intervention? No never.

The world knows the “puppet” part the Tamil cabinet ministefrs and frustrated politicians, seeking mere selfish ends, do in SL. In fact the state abuses them against the legitimate rights of Tamils. You appear to be holding candles for such puppets.

Such events occured even in South Africa also. So do not worry about that. History will determine their future democratic rejection by those affected.

Let us wait to see how Obama with all his experience will see the evil of humanity against humanity in SL.

It is easy to awake a person who is really sleeping but is difficult to awake one who is pretending to sleep.

Any person with any common sense would know that there is genocide in the North East of Sri Lanka. As I explain often, genocide is not dependent on the number of persons killed but is an intention to discriminate, dehumanise and destroy the lives and proerty of a people in stages.

One should open his eyes without green, blue or red glasses to see if there is no history of Tamil discrimination, dehumanisation and destruction of lives and property of Tamils in the North East for the past 60 years.

If your answer is “yes” then you agree with me that there is genocide though you may use a different word to describe it.. If your answer is “no” then you are wearing coloured glass to view Tamil matters ! The latter appears to be true.

I now come to your points;

1. If you do not know the foreign guardians of Sri Lanka ask Mahinda Rajapakse in confidence and he may tell you. They may may expolit you because you exploit Tamils without giving equality and legitimate democratic rights. Obama need not help anybody, he only has to use the “Stick” on SL for its human rights violations, torture, mass displacements, collective punishment and genocide meted out to Tamils. Especially if he can make Rajapakse or the soldiers responsible for war crimes appear in the war crimes court in the Hague, to be judged, as process of justice is denied for Tamils murdered in SL by the state.

Is the USA bulldozing over Sudan for the sake of its security?

2. In the NE who is the terrorist the state or the LTTE ? A state carrying out state terror against its own civilians is criminal to the core and should be punished. Is the state defending or offending civilians? Did the civilians in the NE ever ask the state to defend them ?

You will see soon that the government and Karuna would be taken to task by Obama for recruiting child soldiers in the East. It is a heinous crime when carried out by the state. A state should protect its children.

Do you think that pillars of democracy exists in SL? Democracy is about equality, freedom, justice and human rights for all. None of these exist for Tamils in the NE. There is a type of Sinhala autocracy that we see in the NE.

Sovereignty is derived from people. The GOSL does not recognise Tamils as people but as “animals” as you refer to the LTTE. You are angry with LTTE because they stand for the freedom and rights of Tamils.

3. Non violence movement was started by SJV Chelvanayakam at the time Dr Martin Luther King started in the USA. It worked with civilised people of the USA. It will never work with uncivilised and uncultured or barbaric people. A reason why it failed in SL causing violent protest by armed militants.

4. The culprit of violence is the Sinhalese government. Violence can never be ended by violence. Obama knows this principle.

It is wrong to think “yes we can” continue with violence. You will fail.

I want to acknowledge explicitly two factual clarifications:
(1) Filius Dei’s comment suggests that my pollution per capita information is outdated. I’d welcome a reference to the latest data.
(2) I have been forwarded an email comment on this article by Jayantha Dhanapala (who I mentioned) to clarify that the proposal on curbing small arms didn’t get to the “treaty” stage. That would mean the US objection took place at the “conference” stage, from which the agreement didn’t proceed further. This article is worth a look: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E5DC1F38F932A25754C0A9679C8B63

The comment by Robson Monteiro is I think based on a misunderstanding of my article. I am not making the assumption ascribed to me and not denying the responsibility or obstructionism of other nations. I pointed out only that US actions are significant in preventing certain positive changes in the world, and that an Obama presidency is unlikely to change US actions in these areas .

1. Sri Lanka does not have foreign guardians. They all just want to exploit us – esp India. Open your eyes. We are on our own and our destiny lies in our own hands. Even Obama can’t/won’t save us. He’s an admirable, extraordinary person who achieved the impossible and I have immense respect for his due to that as a person. But, now, he’s going to start looking after his own country! He will run bulldozers over any country if it is essential for the security of USA w/o hesitation as any president would and should do. Only difference is he may think twice about ruining other countries when it comes to general prosperity of US of A.

2. There is no military expansionism in Sri Lanka. It is called defending civilians against terrorism which aims to create a dictatorship which recruit children in part of the island and undermines the very pillars of democracy which Obama him self believes in. So don’t criticize a government that pushes a trigger against these animals. Even Obama supports the fight in Afghanistan to the end where democracy is in shambles. Iraq was a prosperity decision for USA with a good excuse at the time which turned out to be an absolute disaster. Any incumbent president was going to withdraw regardless. So Sri Lanka has a right to protect its sovereign borders just the way Obama would protect United States of America any day.

3. If you want to take Obama as an example please learn starting from the days of Martin Luther King at the pinnacles of civil rights movement in USA where he fought for civil rights not through violence. The very Martin Luther Kings of our day, in our Sri Lanka (Tamil politicians who picked the correct path) that got killed by the LTTE not for towing their hard line, violent, destructive path.

4. Once you learn violence only brings further grief, then allow the government to bring an end to those who want to destabilize a country holding innocent civilians ransom at gun point. And to eventually bring much needed PEACE! “YES WE CAN!”

The USA and other countries recognised the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka(SL), initiated the ceasfire agreement (CFA) between the government of Sri Lanka(GOSL) and the LTTE with Norway as the mediator and asked the parties to the conflict to negotiate a peaceful political solution.

The negotiation process commenced with much hope, and when both parties agreed to try and work out a solution based on a federal governmental structure for the island, light of moderation was visible at the end of a dark tunnel of hardline politics.

But, when Mahinda Rajapakse was elected the president of SL, he categorically rejected federalism, pronounced a contrasting unitary state policy, unilateraly abrogated the CFA, called off the peace process and started a brutal war.

Inspite of the CFA and the possibility of a negotiated solution, Rajapakse dashed all hopes of a peceful co-existence of North East(NE) and the South under a federal or confederal governmental structure and chose the most inhuman policy; military control of NE by collective punishment of Tamil people, mass displacements and genocide.

Contrary to the voice of human reason and by violating the UN charter and international covenants, Rajapkse chose the political adventure of “Sri Lanka for the Sinhalese” which is openly and arrogantly articulated by his military commander and a cabinet minister.

Logically, if SL is for the Sinhalese, Tamil Eelam should be for Tamils in the island. Independance of Tamil Eelam would be inevitable.

Foreign guradians of the Sri Lankan state provided weapons and miltary intelligence, which served to reinforce the impunity of the state. Rajapakse felt like a “super power” and started military expansionism into the NE. To their utter amazement, the GOSL became very defiant to suggestions to improve human rights violations, appoint human rights monitors and seek peaceful resolution of the conflict. In a BBC interview last week Gotabaya Rajapakse even blamed the west for the present impasse in SL.

Russian president Dimitry Medvedev, on 26 August 2008 said that the motto of “Georgia for Georgians” caused the genocide in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and ultimate secession of the two countries in August 2008.

Georgia had ceasefire agreements in 1992 and 1994 with South Ossetia and Abkhazia respectively but abrogated the cesefire agreements and statrted a genocidal war.

Likewise, the motto of “Sri Lanka for Sinhalese”, the abrogation of CFA by the GOSL and its present genocidal war would justifiably bring about the secession of Tamil Eelam from SL; initiated by a popular self referendum in the NE in 1977 and repeated by subsequent requests democratically.

The USA and other countries having given the last chance for peaceful co-existence within the territorial integrity about six years ago, should now recognise the sovereignty and independence of Tamil Eelam, so that, justice would triumph over injustice; peace over war and life over death.

Above all, Tamils should no longer be subject to the yoke of ethnic slavery in their own land, to which Obama should be firmly committed and lead new America with determination.

During his acceptance speech last week, Obama told the world “To those who seek peace and prosperity – we support you”.

The GOSL never sought and will never seek peace and prosperity for the people of NE. They will continue to tear down the civilian life and social structure by bombing Tamil civilians and waging a genocidal war. To such people Obama in the same speech said ” … we will defeat you”.

The evil of Sri Lankan state remains to be defeated.

As most politicians in a democracy do, Obama has also pandered to the navel-gazing-ness of the common voter – so people are far more concerned about the price of fuel and their housing mortgages rather than justice for the Palestinian people or the oppressiveness of the Saudi regime. This is similar to people caring more about price of rice, getting salary increases, winning the war in the North (and being oblivious to the inflationary consequences) rather than a just settlement to the ethnic issues in our own part of the world. So it is not too surprising that these issues have not been the focus of his pre-election campaign.

There is a chance that he might seek change in at least some areas mentioned by the author during his presidency. If McCain had been elected the world would surely have been in a much worse plight.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fY3L1IgiUNs

The article was pointing out that “changes” which would be good for the world in many areas of activity by the United States (I’ve listed 8 examples) are not likely be forthcoming from an Obama presidency, because Obama in everything he has said and shown of his views during his campaign has not provided reason for us to expect such “changes”.

The way to counter my argument would be to provide examples of Obama’s speeches or interviews in which he indicates that he would like to make those “changes”. I am curious to see if anyone would be able to do this.

Sinthaamani – I agree – A president leads and translates the wishes of the peoples. Just because the American people have elected an African American president it doesn’t mean that the American people wish of engagement in the world will now be moral and benevolent. Internal race related political advances doesn’t translate necessarily in the international geo-political considerations. For example, I believe that Israel’s conflict shall only be resolved once Americas economic and military might is devalued. and it stops bank rolling the state of Israel. No amount of negotiations and good will is not going to solve it.

Nonetheless the elction of Mr Obama is truly astounding and will make some changes in the international arena. As Punitham says ‘ he is sure to inspire young people in all areas of life all over the world to aim high, to be open, to be optimistic … in other words to have the audacity of hope for a better world for all.’ I should add he certsinly has inspired me!!
jiva parthipan
http://www.jivajiva.com

The preemptive excuses made for president Obama, in some of the comments above, are pointing out issues that would have been more relevant in another context, but not so much in the one that president Obama finds himself. He has the political and popularity deck stacked in his favour and has after all got an enthusiastic mandate to bring about “change”.

All that aside, I am in any case expressing the stronger view that president Obama would NOT EVEN TRY to make the 8 important changes suggested. Not the weaker view that he might be unsuccessful in doing so. Even if president Obama failed to EFFECT the changes suggested, if he simply tried to champion them, then my assessment will have been mistaken.

I am only trying to assess the reality that we (the world) are dealing with, based on my reading of the facts — the conclusion is very disheartening, I don’t like it. It would make me very glad if a president Obama showed me up to have been too pessimistic. We must hope against hope that he will. But as my grandmother was wont to remind “facts are stubborn things”. I am not rolling out my optimism just yet.