The thing about post war diplomacy

Posted June 7, 2014 Avatar Thamara Kandabada

Avatar Thamara Kandabada View Profile
Member since June 7, 2014
  • 16 Posts
  • Age 20

As many expected and predicted, the resolution against Sri Lanka was adopted by a majority vote at the Commission that is for Human Rights of the Nations who Stand United. Any thought on ignoring its impact is officially a goner. They will watch us. That’s what Navi Pillay says.

So our people have one question now; why did they do this to us?

Well I for one have a different set of questions; how did our post-war diplomacy fair? Did we get the mix right? And if we did, why did we fail?

I have found that there’s no simple answer that would put my mind at ease. The contemporary developments surrounding this issue have been so complex to fathom, yet so simple to comprehend. The complexity arises owing to the fact that Human Rights have proved to represent double standards throughout the modern history of the world, and the simplicity lies in its cyclic nature. Ever since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights came into existence in 1948, the domination of the Western powers in the ‘‘Human Rights Industry’’ has been an evident trend. Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was once the US Secretary of State, contributed concrete fact to this argument when he said, ‘‘The US believes it could bring about universal peace by insisting on the implementation of its own values of democracy and self-determination.’’ So if you don’t do it the American way, you’re doomed.

So the question still remains unanswered. Where did we go wrong?
There are certain truths in life that are unchangeable. No matter how badly your heart ails for a change, the inevitable happens. Pretending otherwise would amount to nothing but public humiliation. Simply put, war is a bloody affair. This is a universal truth, despite the strategies, the politics, the geography and all other circumstances involved therein. The pretence of claiming the status of a Humanitarian Operation with zero civilian casualties is nothing but a farce. I have all the respect in the world for our armed forces who made victory over the LTTE possible, but denying the death of civilians by their attacks is one simple cartoon I cannot seem to draw. As an ‘‘understanding’’ member of the civilian populace, I believe that they had all the rights to take a chance if it meant the destabilisation of our foes.

So our ‘‘we-didn't-do-it’’ attitude doesn't work a charm when we act out our story for the world to see, because every single person who has been in and out of war knows that not to be true. What our diplomats and authorities failed to do was to show the Human Rights Watchdogs worldwide that we have implemented the necessary mechanisms on the ground to look into the largely unintentional incidents that took place during the course of the war.

Our next big diplomatic flop was failing to engage the diaspora communities efficiently. The 1.2 million people who play a crucial role in making or breaking Sri Lanka’s image, the ones who left with grievances and often hatred toward their motherland’s administration. So our diplomatic strategy should be one which is necessarily ‘‘diplomatic’’.

If this little blog of mine was to be seen by the ‘‘patriotic’’ majority of our proud nation, I will surely be dealt with a dozen accusations of being pro-American, which I am not. Because there arises a LEGITIMATE question; if the USA can, why can’t we? Their drones attack civilian gatherings in a country in the Middle East, and the attacks are justified by their ‘‘suspicion’’ of ‘‘potential terrorist presence’’, which turns out to be fallacy in most cases. So, if we DID do it the American way, would we have been better off?

I don’t really think so. After all, the idiosyncrasies pertaining to Human Rights are not daily bred for simpletons; I can picture Mr. Kissinger saying that to my face.

human rights war Sri Lanka LTTE LLRC UNHRC




comments powered by Disqus

Learn More