The Poverty of Michael Roberts’ Enlightened Humanitarianism
Dilemmas at War’s End, by Prof. Michael Roberts, is an essay of profound importance. Sadly, not for its genius, but to the extent that it provides an abject lesson in the tragic consequences of the failure of one’s moral imagination. I offer this study of it, therefore, as primarily a cautionary tale.
The focus of Roberts’ essay is the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, as the Colombo government moves closer to defeating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Roberts makes the case that all true humanitarians should give Sri Lanka’s government the leeway it needs to finish the job of decimating the LTTE –- even at the cost of a massive loss of Tamil civilian life.
My task here is to dissect Roberts’ essay to illuminate the gruesome moral foundations on which his case rests — notwithstanding its cultivated air of reasonableness and respectability.
My intention, also, is to reveal that Roberts’ pretence to being driven fundamentally by humanitarian concerns is, at best, a vacuous claim and, at worst, a sinister one — as we observe today the consequences of his moral vision unfolding before our own horrified eyes.
To appreciate this, one needs to closely study the logic of Roberts’ argument. In the summary of his essay that follows, I do not believe I have missed any part of the argument that Roberts would himself consider critical to his case. In each instance, I have stated Roberts’ point and answered it with my own.
- People calling for a ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and LTTE are driven by “emotion’’ not “reason’’.
This dichotomy establishes Roberts as the sober voice of reason in a sea of emotionally-driven people calling for an immediate ceasefire to end the horrifying loss of innocent life on a practically daily basis.
It is an attempt, effectively, to neuter growing international criticism of the Sri Lankan government’s brutal tactics by implying that such criticism is hysterical, misguided and ultimately immoral.
- People driven by emotion misunderstand the “context’’ and “pragmatics’’ of the present situation.
Here, Roberts is taking aim particularly at foreign humanitarian organisations, who are deemed to be allowing their understandable despair at the scale of the carnage they are witnessing to interfere with a sober moral assessment of the situation that is unfolding.
- Ignoring this context risks prolonging the war and will make life no better for Tamil civilians in the long run.
According to Roberts, these well-meaning but sadly ignorant humanitarian organisations risk making things worse for the Tamil people that they are trying to help. For, if they got their way and a ceasefire was implemented, the war would simply continue over a longer period, bringing those Tamils more misery than if it were concluded quickly through the use of the more ruthless tactics currently being employed by the Sri Lankan army.
- The Sri Lankan government is behaving no more atrociously than Allied forces behaved in World War 2.
Roberts now treats us to examples of how the Allies showed little regard for civilian casualties on the enemy side, or even civilians on the side they were aiming to liberate, so that they could finish the war as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The subtext here is that well-meaning foreigners observing the Sri Lankan conflict have no right to feel morally superior to, or impose a higher moral standard on, the Sri Lankan military. This is a chiefly rhetorical device aimed at implying that there is an element of double standards, if not racism, in their approach.
Here we get the first glimpse of Roberts’ moral vision. It’s worth noting that he is effectively seeking to excuse, if not justify, the bad behaviour of one group of people by pointing to the equally bad behaviour of another group.
- The Sri Lankan government has behaved, arguably, more honourably than those Allied forces –- after all, it has provided food and medicines to the Tamil population even as it fights to defeat the LTTE.
So, the Sri Lankan government is not just no worse than other well-meaning governments — it is a lot kinder. While fighting a war, it has taken on the responsibility of feeding and providing medical care to the very population its enemy, the LTTE, claims to be fighting for.
That idea must not be allowed to go unchallenged.
For one thing, it is misleading to imply, as Roberts does, that the Sri Lankan government has been graciously providing food and medicine to Tamil areas as a matter of goodwill.
Rather, since the 1983 anti-Tamil riots, it has been vital for Sri Lanka to keep up at least the appearance of being a non-racist, pluralist democracy catering to all its people equally, in order to access foreign aid. Successive governments (the latest one being a notable exception) have sought to present an image internationally of liberating the Tamil people from the LTTE, and thus have been at pains to show its concern for the Tamil people by providing minimal support towards their subsistence.
Even so, successive governments have also sought, as far as possible, to restrict supplies to LTTE-controlled areas, as well as sabotaging attempts by people in those regions to develop economically on their own. The LTTE has long complained about the economic embargo place on their areas. This has not been a demand for government resources, but for the removal of the blockade that prevents ordinary economic activity from taking place.
Roberts’ efforts to paint the Sri Lankan government as being driven by fundamentally honourable intentions in this regard is laughable.
- The LTTE, driven by fanatical dedication, established a “command state” in areas that it ran.
This is a weak effort by Roberts to deny any political legitimacy to the LTTE’s cause. The LTTE, a national resistance movement forged through a long history of discrimination and state violence against Tamil people, is transformed by a single stroke of Roberts’ pen into a historical aberration driven purely by some malign political ideology.
- Many Tamils in the north are actually Eelam supporters, so cannot totally escape responsibility for what they are being subjected to by the Sri Lankan army.
In other words, anyone tempted to feel too much sympathy for those Tamils currently facing the brunt of incessant shelling and aerial bombardments should remember that a lot of these Tamils actually support the Tigers – so can they really complain about being blasted to smithereens?
I guess that depends on whether you think that being an “Eelam supporter’’ is something for which one ought to be severely punished, as Roberts clearly believes.
This gets to the heart of the matter: Roberts’ reductionism.
What many academics like Roberts fail to grasp is that the yearning for Eelam is not a mere ideological objective. It is a yearning borne of decades of systematic oppression – beginning with discrimination, followed by the denial of democratic rights (recall the annulling of the 1977 election, where Tamils in the north and east voted overwhelmingly for independence), and culminating now in the military occupation of virtually all Tamil-dominated areas by an ever-expanding, and increasingly brutal, Sinhalese army.
- Eelam supporters on the ground are complaining about being bombed by government forces, yet have the audacity to demand that the same government provides them with essential food and medicine.
And the Tamils are an ungrateful to boot! Subtext: Do such a thankless people really deserve too much of our sympathy?
- A ceasefire at this point would not really help Tamil civilians, because it would only delay the inevitable resumption of violence at a later date.
And even if they did deserve our sympathy, a ceasefire at this stage would only delay a resumption of the Tamil people’s suffering, suggests Roberts. This reasoning is notable for its duplicity. In the previous breath, Roberts is hinting that the ungrateful Tamils don’t necessarily deserve too much of our sympathy. And in the next, he wants us to believe he too is as deeply concerned about their suffering as we are.
The more seasoned among us will have observed a familiar smell here. This is precisely the reasoning that all successive Sri Lankan governments have used in their quest to subjugate the Tamils – they deserve what they’re getting, but it’s all still being done for their own good. The magnanimity of the likes of Roberts, along with Sri Lankan presidents past and present, is truly enough to bring tears to one’s eyes.
- The Sri Lankan state displays some worrying fascist tendencies, but that is nothing compared with the LTTE’s outright fascism.
Although he keeps urging us to consider the “context” and “pragmatics”’ of the situation, it is Roberts himself who fails to do precisely this.
A careful study of history will show us how and why the LTTE came into existence – as a counterforce to escalating Sinhalese state oppression. The characterization of the LTTE’s resistance as fascism, therefore, ignores totally the specific “context” in which that resistance is taking place.
Roberts views the conflict completely ahistorically — as a contest between two competing fascisms, with one being a lesser evil than the other, and thus more worthy of being supported. He thus elevates the conflict, wholly inappropriately, to the level of competing political ideologies.
The reality on the ground, on the other hand, is that a struggle for free political expression has been underway for decades by a small nation on an island that it happens to share with a neighbouring bigger nation, and where that bigger nation has not only refused to recognize its existence, but has insisted on occupying its territory and bombing its people into submission until they abandon any claim to independence.
The struggle will go on, even if as Roberts hopes the LTTE is dealt a crippling blow in this particular phase of the conflict. In this fight, Roberts has placed himself, wittingly or not – and whether he cares about it or not – at the service of the oppressor nation, the colonizing power.
- There is extensive Tamil support for Eelam, as demonstrated by the physical evidence of substantial logistical help they’ve given to LTTE fighters. Given this context, the “category of civilian is ambiguous’’.
This is the point in the argument where the true decadence of Roberts’ perspective – disguised until now – is revealed in all its glory. He is personally handing over the hammer and the club to the Sri Lankan army to beat Tamils over the head with. He has now dispensed with professing his love for the Tamil people and any concern for their welfare. Instead, Roberts is firing the pistol that launches the turkey shoot.
His outrageous remark that the “category of civilian is ambiguous’’ because of apparent physical evidence that Tamils have helped the LTTE with logistics in the past is a disgraceful justification for indiscriminate attacks on the Tamil population as a whole, and as such it deserves to be treated with contempt.
Such depraved statements — emanating partly from Roberts’ failure to understand the Tamil independence struggle in the context of its historical evolution — must throw doubt upon the humanitarian credentials he is at pains to demonstrate, and on the basis of which he presumably requests an audience.
Any true humanitarian should vehemently reject his calls for indiscriminate violence against Tamils to be allowed to continue – however “reasonable’’ these calls are made to sound.
- While their logistical support is obvious, it is hard to be certain how many Tamils are “happy’’ to support the LTTE without having an “army of flies on many walls’’ to report back to us.
The weakness of Roberts’ case now starts to become even more obvious. Having acknowledged significant Tamil support for the LTTE, as seen in their extensive logistical support, Roberts realizes that this assertion sits uncomfortably with the other key plank of his argument – that the LTTE is fascistic and stands basically in opposition to the Tamil people.
Unless he’s able to establish some doubt in our minds as to the level of popular support the LTTE actually has, he cannot claim that they are fascist tyrants standing in the way of Tamil people’s freedom. Hence, we are treated to the quaint idea that “happy’’ support for the LTTE cannot be determined without having an “army of flies’’ on people’s walls.
Let us look more closely at the logic being used here. Roberts has, remember, already told us that the Tamil people and LTTE are so indistinguishable that the very category of a Tamil civilian is at best questionable.
On the other hand, he has told us that the LTTE’s defeat should be welcomed by any right-thinking person because they are a bunch of tyrannical fascists oppressing their own people.
Both lines of argument point to the same conclusion — that the Sri Lankan army should not be hindered in its mission to defeat the LTTE by any means necessary by bleeding-heart humanitarians overly concerned about the “civilian’’ carnage.
And yet these two planks of his argument are entirely inconsistent – that Tamils and the LTTE are indistinguishable, on the one hand, and that the LTTE is a force that is oppressing the Tamil people, on the other.
The problem Roberts has is that if the Tamil people and the LTTE are indistinguishable, as he suggests, this implies a certain democratic legitimacy to their cause – hence his tyrannical characterisation of the LTTE would be undermined, and thus, too, Roberts’ case that one should welcome the defeat of the LTTE.
If, on the other hand, the Tamils might not be with the LTTE, as Roberts suggests in the next breath, then it would obviously be pure callousness to target Tamil civilians in such a ruthless manner in order to defeat the LTTE.
In his heart, Roberts wants the indiscriminate targeting to be allowed to continue, and he therefore winds up in the doubly dishonourable position of being entirely inconsistent in support of a nefarious cause.
He is effectively saying that the Tamils may be considered to be, and considered at the same time not to be, with the LTTE — whichever is the more convenient argument for allowing Tamil men, women, toddlers and babies alike to be mercilessly slaughtered with the minimum amount of outrage and opposition.
- The stark choice we face is between the two moral imperatives of delivering a knockout blow to the LTTE’s conventional military machine and catering to a humanitarian crisis.
One wonders how Roberts could dare appeal to our moral instincts after what has gone before. But he does so shamelessly. This point forms the basis of his war “dilemmas’’. Is it better to hasten the defeat of the LTTE or cater to what he sees as a temporary humanitarian crisis?
Armchair warriors have a long and undistinguished tradition of couching moral dilemmas in terms outside the frame of reference of the people facing the direct consequences of the war that academics of Roberts’ ilk are in effect supporting.
To a Tamil in Vanni today, the defeat of the LTTE does not mean quite the same thing as it does to Roberts. The people who are corralled in army-run concentration camps (or rehabilitation centres, as Roberts might prefer) know too well the nature and intent of their “liberators’’.
And the people whose lives are deemed by Roberts to be worthy of being sacrificed in pursuit of the destruction of the LTTE comprehend perfectly that the current military onslaught is simply the logical conclusion of a racist urge to suppress their longstanding, legitimate and just yearning for independence.
To a Tamil cowering now in the jungles of Vanni, tending to their terrified children amid the persistent blasts of artillery, and witnessing the regular pulverizing of their friends and relatives by the Sinhala army, the fundamental “dilemma’’ as Roberts chooses to frame it is, at best, a tasteless insult.
- The call for a ceasefire at this juncture by woolly-minded humanitarians is thus misguided. Imagine as Hitler’s defeat was immanent that we negotiated with the Nazis simply to avert a humanitarian catastrophe.
The Hitler analogy in relation to the LTTE is, again, grossly misleading. Hitler was essentially a colonialist, seeking to subjugate other nations under German control.
That is more akin to what the Sinhalese leadership is aiming to do, bombing and maiming Tamil civilians on a massive scale in order to wrestle control over areas in which they have lived for centuries.
Roberts’ case rests on the fallacy that the LTTE’s demands are unjust – like the Nazis’ – and the moral “dilemmas’’ that he wrestles with flow from that assumption. Once you have pitched the Sri Lankan army as the lesser evil in this conflict, and the Sri Lankan government’s cause as the nobler one, it is all too easy to draw the Nazi analogy and thus dehumanize the Tamil people and urge us to be tolerant of their indiscriminate slaughter.
- A political solution involving devolution or federalism is anyhow not workable while two armies exist on the island.
In other words, Roberts is saying that the LTTE’s defeat is a precondition for a political solution. That is sheer nonsense. There is no reason to suppose that a power-sharing agreement could not be reached allowing the co-existence of two armies on the island. It depends on whether one considers the Tamils to be a nation with a right to their own armed forces under any political agreement.
Roberts clearly does not believe they are a nation, and thus is predisposed to reject any claim to an army of their own. But to suggest that power-sharing is impossible while two armies exist is mere assertion disguised as fact.
- The tendency towards a “Sinhala supremacist government’’ is an obstacle to a political settlement, I agree.
Finally, Roberts acknowledges that the emergence of a Sri Lankan government with “supremacist’’ tendencies is a potential danger.
Once again, had Roberts developed more sensitivity to the historical specifics of the conflict, he would realise that the existence of a Sri Lankan government with increasing supremacist tendencies is no surprise or accident, but quite a logical development given that supremacism has always been the driving force behind the majority nation’s efforts to subjugate the island’s minority nation.
All that we are seeing today is the result of the escalation of that supremacist tendency to its maximum frequency – reflected in the near-total occupation of traditional Tamil lands by Sinhalese armed forces. A more pragmatic, less ideological, observer than Roberts would have no trouble seeing this glaring reality.
Furthermore, the conflict will not, as Roberts optimistically hopes, end here. For its fundamental cause – Sinhala supremacism – is now at its most virulent.
This will become clear the moment president Mahinda Rajapakse tries to introduce power-sharing proposals – if he ever chooses to do so, which is itself doubtful. The emboldened Sinhalese nationalism that he has unleashed by his apparent crushing of Tamil resistance to Sinhala rule will cause his Sinhalese brethren to now ask: why do we need to share power with Tamils when the problem of LTTE terrorism has been eradicated?
And that, sadly, will ensure that Tamil resistance will resurface in most likely an even more virulent form — for colonialism necessarily meets resistance.
Mr. Roberts’ recommendation to allow the Sinhala armed forces to finish their task without all those bothersome howls of horror from interfering humanitarians is really something quite reprehensible.
It amounts to appeasement of a salivating colonial monster that has grown as large and fearful as it can possibly grow. Indeed, the next stage of the Tamil liberation struggle begins here. And it will get fiercer, fueled by the callousness with which it is being suppressed right now, egged on, sadly, by the likes of Michael Roberts and his rather quaint preference for “reason’’ over “emotion’’.
If those are the conclusions flowing from Roberts’ enlightened reason, I’ll take emotion any day of the week
12 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Mr White, you make a vain effort under a lily white guise, to whitewash the monstrous tyranny that has callously herded Vanni Tamils to serve as a human shield, shooting dead and slashing the legs off those who try to escape. This ruthless Tamil international mafia, masquerading as a liberation movement, makes the Italian version look like boy scouts. Your verbose defence of the Eelam project, labouring to come across as a superior intellect at work, is quaint, but it just doesn’t cut it.
P.S. Behind your lily white mask, we smell an Eelam propagandist, blacker than a Black Tiger, trying hard to whitewash the black deeds of the Tamil terrorists.
This is someone who is crying for the loosing dream Tamil Elam. Why the western people so worring about Sri Lanka? You all wants to unstable this country and the region. You people would like to see unstable India in future too. Your analysis are naked and throuth can be seen anybody who knows the actual situation in war zon. LTTE is killing the innocent people every day. LTTE is eating what is government send to the civiliens, they are selling those foods to the civilian and earn out of it. This is really a business for the LTTE and the people who are writing these kinds of analysis. They are getting paid by the international terrists. Few days left to finish the LTTE, the dogs can do nothing. I am asking these writers, Dont waste your time and mind your own business.
Wow that profound essay by Dr. Roberts is still reverberating minds of some? Most people can’t comprehend beyond the simple boundaries of morality in life. Given such an essay which pushes the envelope of morality from its core to the outer fringes, it’s not surprising some struggle to keep their own morality afloat justified by weak juxtapositions.
If I was Michael Roberts I’d be self adulated (i’m sure he’s too modest and only cares about the logical yet rationale arguments) by this lengthy dissection which I lost interest half way through reading with its monotonous agenda. Yes I get it.. you’re saying what Dr. Roberts said was rubbish? Let the individual readers be the judges. It’s a silent majority that couldn’t have expressed the sentiments any more articulately.
* People calling for a ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and LTTE are driven by “emotion” not “reason”.
Ceasefires are being called for to save civllian lives.
But they forget what happened during the most recent one.
When GoSL declared a two day ceasefire in April 2009, the LTTE did not allow Tamil civilians to leave their ever shrinking area of control.
If the GoSL calls another ceasefire, how can Mr White say that the LTTE will not do the same?
The LTTE have willingly exposed their Tamil supporters to this kind of violence, herding them like cattle from their homes, holding them in a tiny area, deny them medicine and beating and shooting them when they step out of line or try to leave.
Whatever the GoSL is and isn’t, they are very much the lesser of two evils.
Mr. white nice story but I agree with the prof.
I have now read both your response and the original Michael Roberts’ essay and I am little confused. I am not taking sides but I fail to understand your arguments.
You have for all intents and purposes quoted Michael Roberts in each bullet in bold format followed by your comments in regular text.
When I look for the bulleted text in Michael Roberts essay I get no match.
For example, you say that he says.
- Eelam supporters on the ground are complaining about being bombed by government forces, yet have the audacity to demand that the same government provides them with essential food and medicine.
I closest match to this is
- This is a convenient retort that will be directed by the emotive partisanship of an empathetic heart. Be that as it may, I am unaware of any rule that says that a participant in a war – whether civil war, or war between nation states – is bound to supply the civilians on the enemy side with medical supplies and essential food items. Yet Sri Lanka’s government has been doing this for years (maybe insufficiently, but yet as policy).
—-
You have clearly attempted to distort and translate his argument in your favor.
–
When I read Michael Roberts’ article he painstakingly prefaces in text many of his seemingly insensitive statements or arguments, to explain how and why they should not be taken out of context and should not be used to judge his moral character. He is just trying to present the cold hard facts. Yet you have managed to still distort. A tall order indeed.
–
Personally I found Michael Roberts’ essay to be extremely well constructed and a true reality check for all of us who follow this war with open minded and moderate biases.
Hi All, we are always talking about LTTE, but forgetting the thousands of thousands of civilians.I am asking the sinhalese , would you encourage the cruel war to go on in the south when you loved ones are traped?? no matter what, even if they are the deadliest people you still would want to save your loved ones wont you.Now this is happening in North and who cares some body elses children is dying and loosing their limps,lets just erradiacte LTTE.I will tell you guys one thing you cannot erradicate LTTE if you carry on this way, you would infact creat more.90% the Srilankan Tamils are asking the war to be stoped and if you think that we are also Srilankan you would stop the war.Of course 90% sinhalse are supporting the war because the war is not in south or any sinhala area.So if you really look at it, you can see why the Tamils are asking for a ceasefire not to save the LTTE but to save their loved ones.If we ask the war to be stoped then we all are LTTE.This needs to be stoped.This is a CRIME.You want to solve the problem talk, dont kill.
Thanks NICOLAI
Martin White’s piece reached me about a month back, courtesy of my friend Lionel Bopage (presumably for my edification and re-education). I skimmed through it then. I skimmed it again after it made groundviews.
I decided that it would be counterproductive and exhausting to reply, a kind of Catch 22 situation. White seems to be a tiger-in-humanitarian-garb. Totally biased in my view and duplicitous in his production. But, then, my reading may be biased, no!
Nicolai has done a terrific job, matching his patienct analytical competence with lucid prose. His comments gain value from the fact that he is Tamil who has returned to Lanka (if my recollections of recent dialogues with Ergun and others is correct).
Muchos obligandos, AMIGO.
Thanks to all for engaging with my admittedly indulgent reply to professor Roberts’ original thought-provoking essay (and this indulgent reply). First to Nicolai. The ‘match’ you dug up in Roberts’ piece was not exactly the bit I had in mind. In fact, it was this:
I’m grateful to you, Nicolai, for alerting me to my possible misinterpretation of this point. If the words are taken purely at face value, Roberts’ intent here is merely to show how a constitutional peculiarity has helped Eelam supporters in Tigerland to have their cake and eat it, so to speak – and this isn’t necessarily to imply anything about the attitude of the Tamils themselves. For that, I apologize.
I hope you’ll forgive me for not leaving the matter there, however. It seems to me that if that is indeed the intended point, it is conspicuously irrelevant to Roberts’ overall case – which is to justify the continuation of the Sri Lankan military’s current (grisly) tactics in the north (note: the ICRC has just said it is witnessing an ‘unimaginable’ humanitarian catastrophe in Vanni).
Merely to inform us that a constitutional anomaly has resulted in pro-Eelam Tamils being able to protest simultaneously against the denial of food by the government AND incessant shelling (my how fortunate they are to be able to protest!) adds nothing at all really to Roberts’ overall thesis, nor does it illuminate in any way the moral dynamics of the conflict. One is thus tempted to ask Roberts: pray, tell, what is the intent of making this point within the context of your argument? Maybe Nicolai can help us out?
I seem to have made the error of assuming that all Roberts’ points are supportive of his overall thesis. For any misinterpretation that has resulted, of course I apologize unreservedly. And yet, I still feel the extract above cannot be totally divorced from the context of Roberts’ entire essay. Indeed, it seems to me that while apparently lacking any substantive relevance to his case, it has rhetorical significance insofar as it helps to generate a specific perception in the minds of the reader – that these Tamils of Puthukuduyiruppu have somehow been merrily manipulating the system to enjoy the ‘best’ of both worlds, as Roberts puts it. I don’t know about you, but I find such a characterization works hard at diminishing our sympathy for those Tamils in Vanni now – which IS of course relevant to Robert’s thesis that there should be no humanitarian ceasefire.
I am yet to be convinced that undermining our sympathy for the suffering thousands in Vanni isn’t one of Roberts’ key objectives. The other key planks are more obvious, and include delegitimizing the LTTE’s cause by characterizing its leadership as fascistic, and neutering Westerners’ calls for humanitarian mercy by hinting that such calls are hypocritical. This devastating troika (an intricate mesh of substantive points and rhetoric) is what I referred to as the underpinning logic of Roberts’ essay that I was addressing. Incidentally, in my original piece, I point to much less ambiguous evidence of Roberts’ attempts to undermine growing international sympathy for the hapless Tamils. (And, lest we forget, even the category of civilian is potentially ambiguous, according to Roberts!).
As a rhetorical aside of my own, I am tempted to ask whether Roberts would have supported the aerial bombing of Sinhalese towns and villages in the current indiscriminate manner during the last JVP uprising, if victory over that insurgency (or another worse one) was immanent? If not, why not? The answer is sure to be revealing.
Finally, let us be in no doubt as to what Roberts is advocating here. He is calling for the type of ruthless military operations that have already killed thousands of Tamil civilians this year to be permitted to continue without opposition from ‘do-gooders’. That he prefaces this with appeals to us not to judge his moral character, as Nicolai puts it, is I’m afraid irrelevant as far as my own moral sensibilities are concerned. Recall the ghastly attempts during the Bush administration to treat the issue of torture in much the same way. There were people advocating the use of torture then, asking us not to judge their moral character and to see their appeals through the ‘context’ of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
At the time, I did not regard their arguments as any less despicable or immoral because of the context in which they were presented. Just as torture is torture, indiscriminate mass killing is indiscriminate mass killing, whether it’s of Tamils, Sinhalese, Palestinians or anyone else. We oppose it quite simply because we are decent people. The extent of our own moral degeneracy, in my view, can in fact be measured by the extent to which we permit any ‘context’ at all to render such willful actions (as torture and mass killing) as permissible.
Finally, to Roberts’ charge of my being ‘biased’, I make no pretense not to be. I am deeply biased in favor of human decency, and hope I shall forever continue to be. Thanks again.
Hello Martin White:
Well you two foes have a couple of things in common. You both have Anglo names and you both write beautifully. I had to keep checking the URL to make sure I was on a Sri Lanka blog. Don’t either of you have at least a Ranil or an Ajanthan or a Suresh somewhere in your name? Actually come to think of it, the other guy with the Anglo name, David Black…(can’t remember the full surname) also writes very eloquently. Hey maybe I should change my name and something magical may happen to my writing skills. Ahh I can only dream. I do envy you guys.
Well given that I have only read about two books in my life and that I only wrote one essay in my 6 years at the University of Toronto, I am not about to get caught in the middle the mighty duel of the pen between you two expert literates. By the way my one essay was a paper arguing that Hitler was not the architect of the “final solution” as it was allegedly decided at the Wannsee conference, but rather that it was really Himmler and his cronies. That is how pathetic it was.
No my expertise unfortunately is in solving Hyperbolic equations using the tridiagonal matrix transformations or determining if a problem is computable by proving NP-completeness. A valuable life skill no?
Now that I have established that I am out of my league, I will jump right in and allow myself to get destroyed.
–
One is thus tempted to ask Roberts: pray, tell, what is the intent of making this point within the context of your argument? Maybe Nicolai can help us out?
–
No I only defended him in that obvious case. Otherwise I would not even attempt to speak for him. Heck I don’t even understand most of what either of you say.
I did enjoy reading his article very much (one of the best) and it is what got me to Groundviews. I think his response to the the responses was published in the Island and a reference was made to Groundviews.
–
Finally, to Roberts’ charge of my being ‘biased’, I make no pretense not to be. I am deeply biased in favor of human decency, and hope I shall forever continue to be. Thanks again.
–
Now to this statement, I do have a comment. In fact I cannot understand this one. Now I will go along with you that the Govt. authorities have very little regard for the lives of the civilians. I am sure that many of the accusations made against them such as rape, separation of loves ones, horrible living conditions and other subhuman treatment are in fact going on in the IDP centers. I would also agree that the people are being shelled in the no fire zone and that one of reasons they use any caution is to try to show a humanitarian front to the international community or even us for that matter.
I am sure if no one was looking, the results would be much more catastrophic.
But you also have to admit that after several failed attempts for peace (please humour me on the separate state is no option scenario, even though you obviously do not agree with that) their hands are somewhat tied on the collateral damage front mainly due to my points below. This is where I wrestle with my own human decency daemons to be honest, but I will continue with my argument.
If one is in fact biased towards human decency though, then one has to go all the way on the ‘human decency” platform. I don’t think there are muliple choice answers to decency questions unless the answer is all of the above.
I believe from what I have read above, I would surmise that you are in fact a card carrying supporter of the LTTE. Example below while not directly admitting it, it is pretty well a done deal to me.
–
The LTTE, a national resistance movement forged through a long history of discrimination and state violence against Tamil people, is transformed by a single stroke of Roberts’ pen into a historical aberration driven purely by some malign political ideology.
–
I argue that you cannot support this so called resistance movement and still believe in human decency.
1) They repeatedly convert the young and impressionable into suicide terrorists. In one case the bomber was even mentally challenged (albeit allegedly, but I gave you that on some of your accusations against the troops and govt. already so give me this one).
2) They hold their own people hostage and put them in the firing line and even fire at them if they are defiant in any way (please give me this one also. There is enough evidence) . Their own people I repeat? I have not read anywhere above where you chastise this behavior? The decent thing of course for the LTTE to do is to surrender, wouldn’t it? Should you not be asking for this in the name of decency?
3) They blow up buildings containing innocent people.
4) They kill any of their own who don’t support their cause or who oppose them and their most educated ones to boot. And they are now left with what?
–
I argue further. What has become of the Tamil people as a result of this “resistance movement”? By the way I am Tamil as well but too chicken to give out my real name for a lot of very good reasons. Maybe seek me out at the Cinnamon grand coffee stop on any given morning and I will give you my reasons in person. But you have to find me in the crowd first. But then again, what are the odds that you live in this country? Probably less than zero. I digress…
I left Sri Lanka very young and returned two years ago. Are the people of the North better off when I returned almost 40 years later than they were when I left? Are there better schools set up for them now than the ones that were refusing them entry then? Can they have ambition? Can they have hope? What has 40 years for the cause given them?
I will also argue that they would have had a lot more today if there was no “resistance movement” at all.
Who has the better life? We know it is the political refugees who got away, don’t we? They were the opportunistic ones weren’t they, intended or not? And I say that also about all the Sinhalese ones who conned their way out as political asylum refugees.
So you see based on my view of the situation, I hope you can understand why I am confused why you would be biased towards human decency if you do not chastise the activities of the LTTE as well? For that matter you did the same thing in your Bush comparison. You said nothing against the despicable activity of Al Quaeda who the were the catalysts of the post 9-11 debacle.
This argument between Roberts and White harks back to an earlier argument, where the difference between “Ends” and “Means” is forgotten. Every body agrees on the “Ends”, i.e., “human rights, safety of civilians, defeating terrorism, apple pie, and motherhood”. But how to achieve this is in the “means” sector. We need to free the civilians held hostage by the LTTE. While white is fullu enmeshed in his own dielectic, people are dying trying to flee the LTTE which fires at the. The army is trying to free these hostages. There is a difference of opinion as to how to free these hostages. The peace people say “have a ceasefire”. The others say, “no, no, that will merely prolong the agony and help the LTTE”. Personally, after having watched the thousands of people fleeing the LTTE, I am a Tamil living in Colombo, and I THINK THE ARMY IS DOING A GREAT JOB. I detest the LTTE and that is far more important than my distrust of the Government.
Editors note: Martin White’s detailed response to Nicolai’s last comment can be read here – http://www.groundviews.org/2009/05/23/the-sinhala-conquest-of-the-tamil-nation/