Ambassador Blake and Island Editor Sahabandu duke it out:

Lunstead’s perspective on SL balancedI wanted to correct several of the points articulated in your paper’s editorial of 27 February entitled "Tigers, toads, and twerps."

First and foremost, Ambassador Lunstead is no "twerp"- he is a former career diplomat with deep knowledge, experience in and affection for Sri Lanka. Ambassador Lunstead, testifying last week before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, gave a balanced perspective on the situation in Sri Lanka. He noted that the LTTE has demonstrated "remarkable brutality and willingness to murder anyone, Tamil or Sinhalese, who dares to disagree with it." But, he emphasised that the Government of Sri Lanka faces a choice. It should not just focus on a military victory against the LTTE, but seek political reforms that "will give better governance to all Sri Lankans, and set a standard for responsibility and accountability which will diminish human rights violations and strengthen democracy."

Ambassador Lunstead may have been speaking as a private citizen, but these comments reflect the perspectives of successive Democratic and Republican administrations, including the Obama Administration—namely, the United States believes that terrorism must be defeated; however, a lasting peace in Sri Lanka will not occur through a military victory alone, but by reaching a political agreement that promotes and protects the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka.

The second point to which I take issue is the notion that the United States has a double-standard when it comes to winning wars and protecting human rights. Shortly after taking office, President Obama commented: "We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that you see emanating from terrorist organisations around the world."

I believe that Sri Lanka should not fall victim to that same false choice. Yes, terrorism must be defeated—in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. But, Sri Lanka has a long and rich democratic history that has given great prominence to freedom of expression, education for all, and gender equality. A true victory against terrorism will only occur if these traditions are preserved and expanded to all communities in Sri Lanka.

Finally, I would like to make a historical clarification. In the online version of the editorial, the author claims, "President Lincoln, whose ruthless military campaign to prevent America’s disintegration left over 600,000 people dead, became a national hero!" Lincoln was a national hero, not for his victory on the battlefield, but because he did not fall victim to the false choice that President Obama referred to. Union forces were victorious in the war, but Lincoln recognised that a lasting peace and our nation’s survival depended on our ability to unite as a nation.

As he said at his second inauguration, days before the war officially ended, "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." Words that ring as true now as they did then, and as true in Sri Lanka as they did in the United States.

Robert O. Blake
U.S. Ambassador to
Sri Lanka
(See editorial today)

Island's Sahabandu's Editorial attack on Ambassador Blake and US Foreign policy.
( GOSL must be hallucinating if they expect more aid and concessions from US, Canada, EU or UK. Nor do the fools realize
who provides the funds for the World Bank, ADB, IMF and other major
institutions and NGO's inckuding the UN, and Red Cross. Only countries like Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Eastern Europe and China provides arms, ammunitions, and cluster bombs for the GOSL to kill it's own citizens, since there has been only less than 1,000 Tigers for the past year according to the Army Generals. -T4J)

Tigers, toads and twerps – IISri Lanka is in the same predicament as a pregnant woman writhing in labour surrounded by a team of doctors and midwives who, instead of helping her with an agonising delivery complicated by abnormal baby presentation, are proffering unsolicited advice on postnatal care.

What Sri Lanka needs urgently from the international community is help to extricate civilians from the LTTE's clutches so that the outfit could be decapitated to pave the way for a durable peace. But, no such help is forthcoming from the crusaders for global peace and democracy. They are only paying lip service to defeating terrorism and protecting democracy here. They are busy holding meetings, appointing committees and issuing inconsequential statements.

US Ambassador in Colombo Robert O. Blake has taken exception to our editorial comment, Tigers, toads, and twerps (Feb. 27), on his predecessor Jeffrey Lunstead's testimony on Sri Lanka before the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee last week. Ambassador Blake says Lunstead is no 'twerp'. So be it! He is entitled to his opinion––and we are to ours!

Ambassador Blake describes Lunstead's testimony as 'a balanced perspective on the situation in Sri Lanka'. Lunstead, he says, noted that the LTTE had demonstrated 'remarkable brutality and willingness to murder anyone, Tamil or Sinhalese, who dares to disagree with it.' But, that was no revelation. Lunstead did not suggest ways and means of neutralising the LTTE. Nor did he call upon the international community to help defeat LTTE terrorism.

Instead, Lunstead, who, Ambassador Blake says, has 'affection for Sri Lanka', proposes that aid donors slap tough conditions to pressure Sri Lanka to offer a political solution. He does not say that Sri Lanka needs help to finish the war first of all.

On Lunstead's own admission, the US has terminated military assistance and its military relationship with Sri Lanka is almost nil. Here, the US finds itself in a glaring contradiction. It has banned the LTTE as a foreign terrorist organisation and advocates that terrorism must be wiped out but refuses to provide military assistance to Sri Lanka engaged in battling terrorism.

However, it showers military aid on Colombia, which is fighting FARC, another terrorist group. Why? If Lunstead loves Sri Lanka as Ambassador Blake claims, he should have tried to persuade the US government to help Sri Lanka fight terrorism instead of terminating military assistance. Affection, when confined to empty words, becomes a mere pretence.

Never mind military aid: US development assistance to Sri Lanka has remained relatively small according to Lunstead. In fact, the US has not disbursed a single cent to Sri Lanka as loans, over the years, compared to around one billion US dollar loan proceeds Sri Lanka has been receiving from other development partners such as World Bank, ADB, Japan, China, Iran, India. The US has given some grants for a few projects but compared to the total grants Sri Lanka has received from other donors, it is not very significant. However, there is some outstanding debt to the US mainly due the sale of its excess wheat flour production on loan basis. Sri Lanka is still paying this debt. Can anyone dispute these facts?

Did Lunstead or any other ambassador with affection for Sri Lanka ever try to influence the US aid policy in favour of her? Instead of making any such attempt, Lunstead has, as pointed out earlier, suggested that aid donors impose constricting aid conditions on Sri Lanka. What moral right does the US have to try to use others' aid as a bludgeon to frighten Sri Lanka into submission?

Isn't Lunstead aware that the donor Co-Chairs once tried this method by pledging an aid package of $ 4.5 billion for Sri Lanka and tying its implementation to the progress to be made in a fragile peace process between the previous UNF government and the LTTE? That only emboldened the LTTE to flout the CFA at will as an aid-hungry UNF government chose to grovel before the terrorists, unable to retaliate for fear of scuttling the peace process and thereby losing aid. What happened to the UNF regime as a result is history.

The US government has said it is funding some projects in the Eastern Province to develop that region so that terrorism will not take root there again. If so, why doesn't the US intervene to have a tranche of the aid pledged in Tokyo released so as to develop the newly liberated North and prevent terrorism taking root in that part of the country as well? Shouldn't Lunstead et al be campaigning for that worthy cause, if they have any affection for Sri Lanka?

Ambassador Blake takes issue with a 'notion' in our editorial in question that the US has 'a double standard when it comes to winning wars and protecting human rights'. While agreeing that Sri Lanka must defeat terrorism, he quotes President Obama as having said, "We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that you see emanating from terrorist organisations around the world." (Is it that US does not derive its strength from its economic prowess and military might?) At his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, President Obama also said, "For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." He sent a strong message to America's enemies. He did not speak of political solutions, did he?

"Sri Lanka," Ambassador Blake says, "has a long and rich democratic history that has given great prominence to freedom of expression, education for all and gender equality. A true victory against terrorism will only occur if these traditions are preserved and expanded to all communities in Sri Lanka." We could not agree with him more! But the fact remains that the US is not devoid of double standards on fighting terrorism. Suffice it to say the way the US is battling its terrorists in Afghanistan and how it wants Sri Lanka to fight terrorism here are as different as chalk and cheese.

Ambassador Blake makes a historical clarification! He says, "Lincoln was a national hero not for his victory on the battlefield but because he did not fall victim to the false choice that President Obama referred to. Union forces were victorious in the war but Lincoln recognised that a lasting peace and our nation's survival depended on our ability to unite as a nation." He adds that Lincoln said at his second inauguration, days before the civil war officially ended, "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations."

Lincoln did not say so while his war was on and his ruthless generals like Sherman were resorting to the scorched earth policy and putting hundreds of thousands of people to the sword indiscriminately to preserve America's territorial integrity. What we pointed out in the original version of our editorial comment at issue, which was pruned in the City and the Late City editions for brevity, was that Lincoln's military campaign did not prevent him from becoming a national hero. History has always been on the side of the victor!

Now that Ambassador Blake has commented on some parts of our editorial, while thanking him for his effort, we would like to have his comment on what immediately precedes our reference to Lincoln: "Is the US really concerned about the human cost of war? One may find the answer in a comment a US Secretary of State (Madeleine Albright) made in 1996 in an interview with CBS television on the Iraqi invasion:


Interviewer (Lesley Stahl): We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think is worth it."

Albright speaking in her official capacity, we believe, articulated the US policy, which runs counter to America's ideals President Obama and Ambassador Blake laud so passionately. How sad!

end:

If these racist attack US foreign policy and it's ambassador in trying to bully them into silence, what chances these Tamil quisling
political parties have dealing with the racist, chauvinist, extremist elements of the state headed by the Rajapakse brothers and their gang.

Isn't it , why the Tamils took up to an arms struggle 25 years ago, after all non violence methods of protest failed for 35 years?

The Tamil struggle will continue whether armed or unarmed, until the last Tamil says it is over, temporarily.
Tamils will always be armed with the truth and justice, and Tamils believe that one day, Truth and Justice will prevail which will finally free them from the chokehold of the Singhala tyranny, repression, suppression, and oppression.

Tamils For Justice: