What happened in Geneva?

| by Gunadasa Amarasekera

( March 30, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) On 2nd March 1815, we ceded our sovereignty to the - greatest empire at the time-The British Empire- of which it was said ‘the sun never set’.

On 22nd March 2012 we were intimidated into taking the first step to cede our sovereignty to the most powerful empire of today—the US.

Though separated by 200 years, these two events have many similarities, except for one. At that earlier event, the enemy was there in person, while at the latter it was only his hand that was visible. Nevertheless, it does not guarantee that he will not be there in person when the occasion demands. Except for this single dissimilarity there are many similarities between these two events.

When we handed over our sovereignty to the British, we did so willingly on our own initiative. It was not forced on us. The Kandyan chieftains, who signed on behalf of us, did so as equal partners to the Convention. It was made out that it was being done for our well-being in the name of liberty and equality. It was these very sentiments that were expressed in Geneva. We were asked to agree to that resolution in the name of liberty, equality and fair play for all. Further it should be noted that, the resolution was not ‘made in USA’. The core of it was manufactured by us, by our LLRC pundits. Uncle Sam using his usual ingenuity only improved on it, and made some ambiguous garbled additions, which appeared rather innocuous at first glance. How could anyone object to such a resolution, which only asked us to implement what we ourselves had formulated? (It was a good example of that ingenious method, described by that pithy Sinhala saying—urage malu urage pita thiyala kapanawa. No (English) translation can convey what it means.

In addition we were given one year to comply with it. And they were prepared to give any advice or assistance we needed. Our big brother, may be to ease his conscience, added a rider that such advice and assistance must be given with our concurrence.

I could not help seeing the similarity between these two events. But is this comparison justifiable? Is it realistic? Is it based on a verifiable reality, or is it just a figment of my fictional mind? And we know too well how fiction can invest reality where it is non-existent. I had my own doubts. I was in that mood when a document circulated by the global research unit reached me through a friend of mine in Australia with the marginal comment- they are getting ready for a third World War-make no mistake.

This document of the global research unit is edited by Brandon Turbeville-one of the researchers. I have read some of his writings earlier.

The title given to the document is Police state; New Obama Executive Order seizes US infra structure and Citizens for military preparedness.

It reads as follows: ‘In a stunning move on March 16th 2012, Barrack Obama signed an executive order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic US resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct American citizens into the Military"

After a detailed analysis of the Executive Order, Turvbeville admits that he is unable to come to a definite conclusion as to the motive behind this action. He ventures to suggest that it could possibly be in preparation for a third World War. These are his words. "Nevertheless some have no doubt begun to wonder why the President has signed such an order. Not only that but why did he sign the order now? Is it because of the looming war with Iran or the third World War that will likely result from such a conflict? Is there a coming natural disaster of which we are unaware? Are there plans for Martial law?"

He ends up his summing up on a prophetic note. ‘Whatever the reason for the recent Obama order, there is one thing we know for sure- It wouldn’t happen here’ has been the swan song of almost every victim of domicide of modern human history’.

I felt vindicated after reading this epistle by the Global Research Unit. I felt that my comparison of the two events, though a product of my fictional imagination, was more than justified. If the thesis advanced by this document –that it is to place the US on a war footing-isn’t that resolution passed on the 22nd a part of that very same- diabolical plan?

One is free to draw one’s own conclusions!

Leaving aside these speculations of mine I would like to now touch upon the role played by US and India to vilify and incriminate us at Geneva.

The two roles though aimed at achieving the same objective emphasise two different aspects which complement one another in a symbiotic relationship without overtly displaying it.

The resolution presented by Eileen Chamberlain on behalf of the US was as follows; "Given the lack of action to implement the recommendations of The Sri Lankan Government’s own LLRC, and the need for additional steps to address accountability issues, not covered in the LLRC reports it is appropriate that the UN HRC consider and adopt this moderate and balanced resolution. It is a resolution that encourages Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of its own LLRC, and to make concerted efforts at achieving the kind of meaningful accountability upon which lasting reconciliation efforts can be built."

As one can see, there is no mention of devolution of power or the implementation of the 13th Amendment. All the emphasis is on accountability and reconciliation suggesting that no reconciliation is possible without accountability, without accounting for the violation of human rights.

On the other hand, the Indian emphasis has been entirely on the devolution of power and the implementation of the 13th Amendment. This is exemplified by Manmohan Singh’s statement soon after the Resolution. ‘India which has already welcomed the recommendations made by the LLRC has once again drawn attention to the need for a political solution to the simmering ethnic problem in the Island nation. New Delhi also wants the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to press ahead with devolution of powers and implementation of the 13th amendment. We hope Sri Lanka will usher in genuine political reconciliation in a credible and time bound manner.’

As can be seen the emphasis is entirely on a political solution suggesting that reconciliation has to be based on the devolution of power and implementation of the 13th amendment.

How ingeniously the two partners have divided the task between them! Without treading on one another’s toes.

Going further the Indian press,-The Times of India and The Hindu- have come out to warn us of the dire consequences awaiting us. ‘Rajapksa’s feet should be held to the fire, to push him to implement political reforms. India should use everything it has to push Colombo to take political steps . What Rajapaksa cannot see now, but what we should show him is that a few years down the line he could be looking at LTTE 2.0"

If I remember right, it was Robert O Blake who came out with this prophecy a few days ago-that the LTTE will be there in power. It looks that India has not only lost its identity but also its own voice, and has to resort to ‘His Master’s Voice’.