How About Minding Our Own Business for Once?

The U.S. is urging Sri Lanka to carry out a war crimes investigation of actions taken during its long civil war with Tamil separatists.  

The appeal by Stephen Rapp, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues, came hours after his office presented Congress with a detailed account of alleged atrocities during the conflict that suggests both sides may have violated international law and committed crimes against humanity.

Why is the this any of our business whatsoever? Why do we even have an ambassador at large for war crimes? Does Congress have nothing better to do than to hear reports about what went on in a civil war in Asia? You might think we had enough to worry about with our own wars.

Meddling in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka is not only pointless, it is clearly not in the U.S. interest. By accusing others of war crimes, when we have no involvement or interests, we invite other countries to examine our own conflicts and accuse us of war crimes. The civil war is over. How the Sri Lankan government deals with the aftermath, and whether or not it wants to conduct any investigations, should be up to Sri Lanka. The U.S. constantly invites problems by interfering in the affairs of others where it has no actual interests.

Human rights groups and political analysts have accused the Obama administration of failing to confront Sri Lanka more forcefully over reports of indiscriminate shelling of displaced civilians as it moved in to crush the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Not only should the administration not have confronted Sri Lanka "more forcefully," it should not have confronted them at all. The U.S. is not and should not be an agent of human rights groups, many of which are often inimical to American interests.

Death Toll in Sri Lanka

According to the latest reports

MORE than 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the final throes of the Sri Lankan civil war, most as a result of government shelling, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

Essentially the Sri Lankan army just blasted its way to victory with little regard for civilian casualties. Since the Tamil Tigers were mixed in with the civilian population, there wasn't really any way to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Interestingly enough, despite complaints by humanitarian organizations and some western governments,

Sri Lanka was cleared of any wrongdoing by the UN Human Rights Council after winning the backing of countries including China, Egypt, India and Cuba.

What are the chances of a similar verdict from the UN investigation of Israel's Gaza operation. which killed far fewer civilians?

Victory for Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has apparently achieved a complete victory in its long war with the Tamil Tigers. The Tiger's leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was "shot dead while trying to flee the war zone in an ambulance after the final battle." Although it is still too early to assess fully the implications of Lanka military success, one thing is clear. Sri Lanka was able to utterly crush the rebel terrorist organization only because it ignored international pressure to stop its offensive. There was no ceasefire that allowed the Tigers breathing space to regroup, and no negotiated settlement that would have preserved the organization in some capacity. Instead they were wiped out along with their long-time leader. Sri Lanka did what needed to be done to achieve victory. 

Human Rights & War Don't Mix

Under pressure from Western countries and human rights organizations, Sri Lanka apparently promised to avoid using "heavy artillery" as it attempts to finish off Tamil Tiger resistance. But Human Rights Watch says they are using "heavy guns" anyway, and killing civilians.

"Recent satellite photos and witness accounts show the brutal shelling of civilians in the conflict area goes on," said Brad Adams, the Asia director of HRW. "Neither the Sri Lankan army nor the Tamil Tigers appear to have any reluctance in using civilians as cannon fodder."

Guess what? That's called war. Sri Lanka is attempting to crush Tamil Tiger resistance. The Tigers follow no "rules" of war, carry out terrorist attacks, employ child soldiers, and hide amongst civilians who they use as human shields. But the Sri Lankans are supposed to hinder their own military operations, and put their own soldiers at greater risk, all in the name of human rights. The idea that Sri Lanka can't use artillery because they might kill civilians is completely idiotic. Why not just tell them they can't fight at all?

The Obama administration has been involved in the West's efforts to restrain Sri Lanka, interference that is both unnecessary and dangerous. It is unnecessary because it is none of our business what Sri Lanka does in quelling a separatist movement. The area has no particular strategic interest for the U.S. But more importantly, such action is dangerous to U.S. interests. If we recognize a principle that outside states, let alone human rights organizations, can dictate what weapons can and cannot be used during military operations, that principle will be used against the U.S. in the future. 

Obama and Sri Lanka

There's a post at The New Republic blog, The Plank called, "Obama's First Humanitarian Crisis." The author, Mark Leon Goldberg, praises Obama's response to the Sri Lankan/Tamil War, saying that his actions are

encouraging to those who believe that human rights--in name and deed--should enjoy a prominent place in American foreign policy.

For those of us that do not agree with such Carter-esque foreign policy priorities, Obama's actions are much less encouraging. 

According to the article the Obama administration is

"appalled" at the government's treatment of the civilians who managed to escape and called on the government to "cease the shelling and the offensive military action." The same day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, "I think that the Sri Lankan Government knows the entire world is very disappointed that in its efforts to end what it sees as 25 years of conflict, it is causing such untold suffering"

The administration is so concerned by wartime actions during a war that has nothing to do with the U.S., that it has moved to block IMF loans to Sri Lanka. In effect, the U.S. is siding with the Tamil Tiger terrorist organization, and trying to restrict Sri Lankan military operations. 

Goldberg notes that in the Sri Lankan crisis "few geopolitical interests were at stake" for the U.S. Since he doesn't particularly care about U.S. interests, Goldberg is happy that the Obama administration decided to "stick its neck out" to confront a "humanitarian crisis." And a Human Rights Watch spokesman declares,

"The administration has done virtually everything we would have wanted them to do," Malinowski says. "The response has been clear, crisp, and strong."

When Human Rights Watch thinks the U.S. is doing the right thing, that's a pretty good indication that the U.S. is acting against its interests.

Tamil Tigers in Desperate Straits

After having a unilateral ceasefire rejected by Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers only hope appears to be international intervention. They released a statement saying in part,

"We are in full agreement that the humanitarian crisis can only be overcome by declaration of an immediate ceasefire. As the first step we have now announced this unilateral ceasefire and call upon the international community to pressure the Sri Lankan government to reciprocate it."

Since the Tigers have never had the slightest concern with humanitarian issues before, this is clearly a cynical attempt to stave off final defeat. For some reason the U.S. joined other nations in urging a stop to hostilities, suggested that the Tigers surrender to an unspecified "neutral third party," and advocated that Sri Lanka offer them amnesty. Why would Sri Lanka agree to any of that? How is this war any business of the U.S., Europe, Norway or Japan, the countries giving unwanted advice? Sri Lanka has fought a long war against the Tamil Tigers, and final victory now appears in sight. Why is the U.S. lending any weight to the Tigers' attempt to save themselves? We've defined them as a terrorist organization since 1997.

A War Nobody Cares About

If you actually look for it, you might learn that a major government offensive is underway in Sri Lanka, an assault that succeeded in capturing the rebel administrative capital. According to this article in The Economist, the Tamil Tigers are facing defeat.

The long conventional war in Sri Lanka, pitting the Sinhalese-dominated government against the vicious rebels of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who have been fighting for a separate homeland for the Tamil minority, is almost over.

The Tamil Tigers often employ terrorism and even suicide bombers, and they are fighting for their own homeland. I don't know, but that sounds vaguely similar to someone else. Oh yeah, the Palestinians. Isn't it interesting that The Economist actually characterizes the Tamils as "vicious." What are the odds of seeing such a description of the Palestinians in any mainstream UK reporting outlet?

Here's the description of what's left of Kilinochchi, the Tamil capital:

buildings smashed by artillery fire; a vast LTTE cemetery; and a score of women, children and old men.

I wonder how many civilian casualties were inflicted by the Sri Lankan Army? Where are all the articles condemning the "disproportionate" attack on the outgunned Tamils? Where are the American and European leftists who are screaming about Israel's evil onslaught against the peace-loving, rocket-firing residents of Gaza? Why aren't all the Muslim countries -- so hypersensitive every time Israel accidentally kills a Palestinian civilian -- up in arms about Sri Lanka?

I know the Sri Lankan conflict is obscure in the West, so I thought I'd visit a couple of Asian news outlets. Surely the latest news from Sri Lanka would be front page material there. I went to The Jakarta Post.  Surprise, no front page story on Sri Lanka. But there was one called "Indonesia told to seek coalition against Israel." How about Malaysia? I went to The Star Online  and was shocked to see that their headline was, "Malaysia wants UN special assembly on Palestine." Wow, nothing about Sri Lanka, and more concern for the poor oppressed Palestinians. Why are Indonesia and Malaysia so worried about the Palestinians, and so oblivous to the plight of the Tamils? I wonder.

What's missing from the Sri Lankan conflict? Why doesn't anyone care about the Tamils and their civilian casualties? What about their desire for a homeland? Why are even Asian countries obsessed with Israel & Gaza, even though there is a far deadlier conflict going on in Sri Lanka?
It's actually very simple. The Sri Lankans are not Jews, and Sri Lanka is not an ally of the United States. If Sri Lanka were a vital U.S. ally, and the U.S. backed its military campaign against the Tamils, there would be a worldwide outcry, and the plight of the Tamils would instantly become an important cause to be championed by leftists everywhere, including here in the U.S.  And if the Sinhalese were Jews, and Sri Lanka were a Jewish state? Every Muslim country in the world, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, would suddenly become vigorous defenders of the poor Tamils.