1. And Tamils in India needs to take a leave out of SL issues. Sinhala people have treated tamils both in good ways and bad ways, rather like how other multi ethnic societies function. Tamils had problems and they faced riots. But these are natural in any post colonial multi ethnic country. Even in india didnt you have Gujarat 2002, Sick riot 1984 followed by massacres of Sikhs and Bombay 1992? the same way SL did undergo such episodes.
Do you know that tamils (majority of them) live amidst Sinhala people? Do you know that Colombo itself has a 30+% tamil ethnic people? and that there are many tamils in central parts of the country? If SL had a dangerous discriminative policy how does that hapen?
In constitution or law there is no discriminatory regulations. In SL all are equal before the law. No one barrs a tamil from holding a high office actually they do.
If what you are talking about is the Swabhasha act in 1956, it was corrected in 1987 and tamil is an official language now.
2. I assume you are ignorant on SL issues. The reason tamils took weapons is manifold. Yes discriminative policies (which are corrected now) and riots did affect it, spillover effect of Dravidian nationalism into Sri Lanka, India supporting tamil militancy due to geostrategic reasons, and of course history. It has been 5 years since the end of war and expecting SL to deliver and solve all the problems within that period is stupid. British took 70 years to come with a solution to Ireland. And now the same Brits talk about reconciliation here. (ironically)
3. You still didnt get it right? The reason is Cam did NOT capture any killing. what the cam captured is a photo of the alive person and of the dead person.
4. Not even in SL in all the world killing captured combatants is not allowed. This is not deciding what is morally right or wrong. The fact is killing captured combatants is a norm all over the world even in your india. That is a fact. And another fact is GOSL has arrested and rehabilitated 13000 rebels. That shows killing captured was not a policy. And Sl is not the only country that needs to upheld the UN norms. If the big boys are violating pretty much every UN norm all over the world, what is wrong if SL does the same to safegueard its territotial intergrity. Unlike US who bombed Japan and iraw SL defended its state from an existential threat. And who is US or any other country to check on SL? what authority they have. SL has a moral high ground above US.
5. US will lose Diargo Garcia in 2016. And read the following.
"At least three recent developments in the Indian Ocean Region are worth mentioning here. One is that the lease on Diego Garcia, a British-controlled territory in the Indian Ocean where the US has a military base, expires in 2016. Any agreement to extend, modify or end it has to be negotiated in 2014 between the US and the UK. The US used Diego Garcia as a long-range bombing base targeting Iraq and Afghanistan and for the CIA’s secret rendition flights.
These negotiations would be complicated for the big powers by the fact that Mauritius, which lost the Chagos islands including Diego Garcia in a colonial-era UK decision, is now staking its claim to sovereignty over the islands and will reportedly be party to the talks. The ‘Guardian’ in 2012 quoted an international law expert saying “The UK, now it has been made aware of the illegal use of Diego Garcia, has a duty not to renew the lease. It could and, in law should, return possession and control to Mauritius…” The expulsion of the Chagos islanders to accommodate the US military base has been described as “one of the worst violations of fundamental human rights perpetrated by Britain in the 20th century.” With all these considerations in the mix there would appear to be uncertainty, in US eyes, over the continuance of their Diego Garcia base.
Another factor affecting US interests in the region is that the Maldivian government has rejected the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that the US sought to negotiate to have a base in the Maldives. The announcement last year by former president Mohamed Waheed (that Maldives will not sign the agreement) was re-asserted by new President Abdulla Yameen at a press conference he held in Colombo on 22 January. Minister at the President’s Office Mohamed Hussain Shareef told reporters the deal raised issues of sovereignty and constitutionality.
The fact that the US is looking around for new options in the Indian Ocean Region is further reflected in a recent study by the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York based think tank. It recommended that with the troop pullout from Afghanistan in 2014 the US should explore the possibility of basing its military in India. The special report titled ‘Reorienting US Pakistan Strategy: From Af-Pak to Asia’ says the US should start discussions with Indian leaders on counter-terror cooperation “up to and including the possibility of basing US military and/or intelligence operatives in India to address Pakistan-based terrorist threats in a post-Afghanistan context,” the ‘New Indian Express’ reported.
Redesigning international architecture
It’s clear that the US, in the context of a rising China, is hunting for potential new bases in the Indian Ocean Region that has become key to controlling the world. Are the US moves against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC related to this project?
One observer who thinks so is Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to Cuba and later to the UN. The US needs to control the Eurasian region to maintain global supremacy, she said. This relates to the need to find ways to bring out the oil and gas that’s locked in the Caspian area. The US and its allies don’t have many options, they need to contain China, and Sri Lanka assumes importance because it is located on a strategic maritime route.
“The US is in the process of redesigning international architecture to give themselves a legal instrument to intervene unilaterally,” she told the ‘Sunday Times.’ ‘R2P’ (Responsibility to Protect) is a tool that justifies unilateral intervention, clothed in international human rights law. Sri Lanka is vulnerable because of what happened in 2009 and because the state is not confronting the danger, it is not united internally and not addressing the issues that divide it.
Kunanayakam also noted that the US wanted Trincomalee “for a long time,” and recalled that an important reason for the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord was former president J. R Jayewardena’s discussion with Washington regarding this natural harbour, and the Voice of America broadcasting station. Through an Annex to the Accord India ensured that Sri Lanka would not allow external powers a base, and would not permit VOA to be used for anything other than civilian purposes.
"
This is by former UN ambassoder of SL Kumanayagam (an ethnic tamil).
And what is the last point in US resolution that they presented to the parliament today?
5)calls upon the President to develop a comprehensive policy towards Sri Lanka that reflects United States interests, including respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, economic interests, and security interests.
For you first lesson in geostrategy, IF USA is talking about human rights somewhere it has a lot of American geo strategic interests. Otherwise US has no concern for HR, they have toppled democratic governments, killed people and helped despotic rogue regimes if their interests are met. And SL is far from in a situation that needs UN or US intervention.
And do you think Indian ocean is all about India? Do you think US concern India as its all time ally?
![Smile :) :)](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smile.gif)
US doesnt have a single ally. US treats India as competition in indian ocean.
SL army didnt commit atrocities of a huge magnititute as you say. Atrocities do happen as in any war but not special ones to get special attention. US has done far more attrocities than SL can ever imagine. And SL has had elections in North and there is a tamil minister with a local government.
I dont say GOSL has been magnificient, but at the same time they have done a lot and not that bad as western media says.