• Memories of two Eelam Tamils’ leaders, who worked hard to create a culture of peace in the Island of Ceylon.
• Former Political leader of Eelam Tamils J.V. Selvanayagam  built-up his political thoughts in the influences of Martin Luther King.

The United Nations celebrates International Conscience Day on April 5, beginning with the International Day for Mine Awareness Day on April 4.

On the International Mine Awareness Day, the United Nations calls on the world to work together as partners to ensure the safety of such weapons that destroy the lives of humans and animals, and to improve the lives of those affected by such weapons.

In fact, on April 4, it is natural for all Eelam people to have memories of the victims trapped in landmines in their homeland and the thoughts of their own people who lost their lives by Mines in the National Liberation Struggle of Eelam Tamils and the people who became physically handicapped are fighting with hope for a better life.

All the Tamils ​​of the world and specially Tamil Eelam originated Tamils of the world  have the great responsibility to make plans, efforts and funds to work for the betterment of the lives of those who have dedicated their lives and to live a better life without the idea that the bereaved are physically fit.

Meanwhile, on International Conscience Day on April 5, Martin Luther King (15.01.1929 – 04.04.1968) celebrated his commitment to the rights of the American people of color and his world-famous “I Dream” in front of 250,000 people in Washington on 28.08.1963. The fighting power he gave to the people was also immense.

Samuel James Velupillai  Selvanayagam (31.03.1898 – 26.04.1977), who served as the political leader of Eelam from 1947 to 1976, listened to Martin Luther King’s Violent Denial Struggles during his Sunday sermons at his Christian church and reverted to the political revolution of Eelam. The Eelam people hoped that the non-violent political struggle would give the Eelam Tamils ​​legitimate political rights until the satyagraha in the 1960s, when the right to life was denied in linguistic terms, was thwarted by Sinhala forces for three months, preventing the Sri Lankan government from operating in the Tamil homelands in the 1960s.

Yet the American political culture is different from the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist Tamil annihilation political culture. To this day, political analysts point to the failure of the Tamils ​​as a historical factor in the political backwardness.

History has it that Former Eelam Nation leader Selvanayagam also realized this through the experience of his democratic struggles. As the sovereignty of the Sri Lankan Tamils ​​was merged with the sovereignty of the Sinhalese under Article 29 (2) of the Soulbury Constitution to rule in the unitary parliament, the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists arbitrarily declared the Sinhala Buddhist Republic of Sri Lanka on 22.05.1972 to enslave the Eelam Tamils.

Against this, S.J.V. Selvanayagam, resigned his parliamentary representation in Kankesanthurai and challenged the Sinhala government to hold the election as a symbolic sign (Plebiscite)  of whether the Sri Lankan Tamils ​​accept the Republic of Sri Lanka. He publicly called on the people on 07.05.1975 to re-establish Tamil Eelam after winning this election by a margin of 16000 votes.

‘Sinhalese and Tamils ​​have been living here as two different sovereign peoples of this country from prehistoric times to the time of foreign rule. I would like to remind you that the Tamil people fought in the war of independence with full confidence that they could regain their freedom. For the past 24 years, we have made every effort to protect our political rights in Sri Lanka, which is united on an equal footing with the Sinhalese.

The sad truth is that all the Sinhala governments that have continued to use their power over freedom have denied us our basic rights and reduced us to slavery.

These governments are acting against the Tamils ​​because of the general sovereignty of the Tamils ​​and the Sinhalese. On the basis of this election verdict, I assure my people that they, the people of Tamil Eelam, must get their freedom and that the Tamil Alliance will work for that. ‘

History has it that he and his party’s representatives later withdrew from parliament after making this declaration of Self-determination of Eelam Tamils in parliament. This is how the Tamils ​​in their historic homeland of Tamil Eelam, based on their indivisible right to self-determination, defended their nationality, formed a pragmatic state that countered the well-founded  fears of everyday life and maintained good governance within the country for thirty-seven years.

It was the delay in its international recognition that gave Eelam the historic tragedy of experiencing the Mullivaikkal genocide.

The practical fact is that even today the external autonomy of Eelam is not recognized by the international community and they are living as a people at risk of genocide. On this International Day of Conscience, 05.04.2021,  the World  Tamils humbly asked the Leaders of the Nations to act soon as possible to take the necessary steps to save the life of the Tamil people in the Island of Ceylon (Sri Lanka it’s Sinhala name) from the hands of Genocide.

By S.J. Fatimaahran

At his first press conference held by US President Joe Biden on March 25, 2021, he called on democracies to unite against individual states. The countries under a single monarchy are striving to become the world’s leading, richest and most powerful nations.

“I will not allow that to happen until I am in office,” Biden said. U.S. policymakers believe China’s economic development, technological development and military build-up must be suppressed.

Representatives of the United States and China met face-to-face on March 19 and 20, 2021 in Alaska, the North Pole of the United States. The talks were held with the aim of easing the trade war between the two countries and the talks did not go smoothly. After the talk, they exchanged words.

Trade war

The United States has increased import duties on many goods imported from China as China exports more to the United States and robs Americans of jobs. In competition with that, China also increased its tariffs on goods imported from the United States. The trade war is when the two countries compete to increase imports. During Donald Trump’s presidency, it was decided that China’s economic and technological development would pose a threat to US security and world domination. Trump’s national security strategy statement stated that China was seeking to dismantle the world order around the United States and build a world order in its favour.

Technological war

At the heart of the technology are semiconductors, also known as chips. Leading semiconductor manufacturers are the United States and Taiwan. The United States and Taiwan have imposed restrictions on semiconductors exported to China to block China’s technological development. In addition, the United States has allocated $ 3.4 billion for the development of the semiconductor manufacturing sector to widen the gap between the United States and China in this technology. China has already lagged ten years behind the United States in this field.

Suppression of China’s military.

The Chinese military was originally created to have the largest number of troops in the world. China later became the country with the largest number of submarines, with a greater focus on submarines to counter the massive US Navy. Later the navy was upgraded to have the largest fleet in the world in terms of numbers. Nevertheless, the United States continues to technologically improve its naval strength. The United States has ten aircraft carriers. They also include fifth-generation fighter jets.

China’s two aircraft carriers are the most backward in terms of attack. China does not have the wreckage that can protect an aircraft carrier. Thus China focused on its missile production and developed hypersonic missiles that could fly at twenty times the speed of sound. These could not be intercepted and destroyed by US anti-missile systems. Some military analysts have suggested that US aircraft carriers may have been wrecked. The United States has developed laser weapons that can easily and cheaply intercept and destroy China’s hypersonic missiles.

Is China or the United States stronger?

Taiwan’s position will answer the question of whether China or the United States is strong in the military. It can be said that China surpassed the United States on the day when China annexed Taiwan. The capture of Taiwan will benefit China in two ways. One is that China can get the technological development of Taiwan. If China captures Taiwan, which has the second fifteen deep-sea ports, its naval strength will be much higher. China will become a threat to the United States in the Pacific. The United States has accused China of infiltrating US technology and stealing its warplanes.

Although China produces many aircraft, it has not yet developed aircraft engines. Copying machine production technology is very difficult. So the Chinese Air Force is less powerful than the US Air Force. If the US-China war breaks out in the region around China, both countries will suffer huge losses first. The US loss will be high. But China will suffer massive losses as US troops move into China from different parts of the world. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and Vietnam will go to war against China because defeating the United States is a threat to their security. Then China will be defeated. This will be the case for the next ten years. Meanwhile, in the next ten years, a military alliance against China will be formed with the United States, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, India, Thailand and Indonesia. Then China will have to surrender.

China may shrink.

China’s one-child-per-family policy is now having a massive impact on its population structure. The number of elderly people in China’s population is increasing and the number of young people is declining. This is going to have a massive economic impact. Not only that, but there may be a shortage of personnel in the army. Thus China can automatically shrink.

Pics: US Navy and AFP

As the UNHRC member states voted on the Sri Lankan resolution last month, it is important to know how member states generally make their decisions on country focused and thematic issues.

In the last 46^th session, as a usual practice, countries differed from each other on their  policy approaches based on global north and south geographical divisions regarding the resolution on Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council. The global south and north divide is one of the major factor in terms of cultural, political and geographical differences in the context of country-specific resolutions. The global south countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America continue to oppose resolutions by the countries of the global North, West and Eastern Europe.

Western European countries, Canada and the United States often through diplomatic means exert their pressure on small African, Asian and Latin American countries to push them to vote in their favour. Powerful countries like China, Russia and India are  in general take positions against country-specific resolutions. It is an extension of their political and foreign policy decisions. China has often opposed to interfere in the internal political affairs of other countries in the name of human rights. During the discussions on the report of the Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka, Mr. Chen Soo, the Chinese Representative, expressed his views on the double standard and duplicity of international politics on human rights, the politicisation of human rights and the intervention into the domestic affairs of countries.

Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Pakistan, meanwhile, have condemned the High Commissioner’s report. India’s position on the Sri Lankan resolution is based on its regional politics and neighborhood policy. Because of its neighbors first policy India  gives priority to its neighboring countries. In the context of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka’s pro-China stance also becomes a deciding factor.  Recent geopolitical developments such as  initiative of India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives in setting up a maritime joint secretariat of the Indian Ocean in the backdrop of   last Indo-Pacific Quad Summit of India, the United States, Australia and Japan has also direct impact on  the human rights council. Furthermore, Sri Lanka’s current agreement to hand over the Western Container Terminal of the Colombo port to the India-Japan Development Program also should be taken as a key factor, although it is less of a strategic importance than the Eastern Container Terminal.  These pro-India geopolitical moves.

As a consequence, Sri Lanka resolution further watered down by the West and India.  In light of these geopolitical developments  India had two options to oppose or abstain from voting on the resolution on Sri Lanka. Finally, India abstained from the voting in the human rights council.   In the meanwhile, Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Colombage confirmed in an interview that there had been an ongoing talks between India and Sri Lanka regarding the Indo-Pacific regional security at the National Security Council (ICC) level.  This again made it clear that the activities of the Human Rights Council, especially the content of the resolution on Sri Lanka and the vote on the resolution are in line with the geopolitical interests of major powers in the Indo-Pacific region.

In the same interview foreign secretary Comlombage used the terms strategic competition, strategic convergence and strategic dilemma to describe the importance of the Indo-Pacific region and the activities of the regional powers in the region. In this backdrop the Tamil people must be aware of the fact that in international relations economic and political interests of the West in the liberal world order inevitably linked to geopolitical interests. Further, it has direct relevance to their human rights approach towards other countries like Sri Lanka.

To this end, the Sri Lankan issue has been consistently maintained by the West as a tool of pressure within the United Nations human rights council agenda. It gives them a leverage to exert pressure on Sri Lanka based on its China centric approach. A letter from the British Minister of State for South Asian and Commonwealth Affairs (TARIQ) AHMAD OF WIMBLEDON, Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth to a Tamil diaspora organization makes it clear that these countries are currently reluctant to take the Sri Lankan issue to the other international forums like International Criminal Court and continue to keep Sri Lanka only within the human rights council agenda.

In the context of the current situation, Asian, African and Latin American countries, with the exception of the African country of Malawi, supported Sri Lanka.

Main and co-sponsors of the resolution :

Main sponsors:

United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Malawi, Motenegro, North Macedonia

Co-sponsors;

Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slocakia, Slovenia. Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America.

Therefore, the Tamil people must be aware that the content of the Sri Lankan resolution and the final voting on it were not be determined by the moral values ​​of the West on human rights, but by their geopolitical interests and the political positions of the globally divided human rights member states.

by Kananathan

Master of International Relations.

Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations

UNITED NATIONS (IPS) – During the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1960s, the United Nations was the ideological battle ground where the Americans and the Soviets pummeled each other — either on the floor of the cavernous General Assembly (GA) hall or at the horse-shoe table of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

Perhaps one of the most memorable war of words took place in October 1962 when the politically feisty US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson (1961-65), a two-time Democratic US presidential candidate, challenged Soviet envoy Valerian Zorin over allegations that the USSR, perhaps under cover of darkness, had moved nuclear missiles into Cuba — and within annihilating distance of the United States.

Speaking at a tense Security Council meeting, Stevenson admonished Zorin: “I remind you that you didn’t deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today — again, if I heard you correctly — you now say they don’t exist, or that we haven’t proved they exist, with another fine flood of rhetorical scorn.”

“All right sir”, said Stevenson, “let me ask you one simple question. Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the USSR has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range missiles and sites in Cuba?” “Yes or no? Don’t wait for the translation: yes or no?”, Stevenson insisted with a tone of implied arrogance. Speaking in Russian through a UN translator (who faithfully translated the US envoy’s sentiments into English), Zorin shot back: “I am not in an American courtroom, sir, and therefore I do not wish to answer a question that is put to me in the fashion in which a prosecutor does. In due course, sir, you will have your reply. Do not worry.”

Not to be outwitted, Stevenson howled back: “You are in the court of world opinion right now, and you can answer yes or no. You have denied that they exist. I want to know if …I’ve understood you correctly.” When Zorin said he will provide the answer in “due course”, Stevenson famously declared: “I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over.”

The battles of a bygone era are likely to be re-enacted with the emergence of a new Cold War – this time between the US and China (with strong Russian support to Beijing).

With all three countries holding veto powers – along with the UK and France, backing the US — the UN’s most powerful body, name the Security Council, will continue to remain paralysed and deadlocked.

The current criticism is mostly against the Security Council for its failures primarily in Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq, North Korea and Libya — and its longstanding failure over Palestine.

As of now, the sharp divisions between China and Russia, on one side, and the Western powers on the other, are expected to continue, triggering the question: Has the Security Council outlived its usefulness?

US President Joe Biden has described the growing new confrontation as a battle between democracies and autocracies.

In an analytical piece last week, the New York Times said China’s most striking alignment is with Russia, with both countries drawing closer after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The two countries have also announced they will jointly build a research station on the moon, setting the stage to compete with US space programmes.

“The threat of a US-led coalition challenging China’s authoritarian policies has only bolstered Beijing’s ambition to be a global leader of nations that oppose Washington and its allies,” the Times said.

Asked about the killings in Myanmar, and the lack of action in the UNSC, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters on March 29: “We need more unity in the international community. We need more commitment in the international community to put pressure in order to make sure that the situation is reversed. I’m very worried. I see, with a lot of concern, the fact that, apparently, many of these trends look irreversible, but hope is the last thing we can give up on.”

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told reporters on March 31: “And then in terms of working with my counterparts in the Security Council, I know that there are areas — and this is a discussion that I’ve had with both my Russian and Chinese colleagues — we know that there are red lines”.

“There are areas where we have serious concerns, and we’ve been open and we’ve been frank about those concerns. In China, what is happening with the Uyghurs, for example. With Russia, in Syria, and there are many others. We know what the red lines are,” she added.

“We tried to bridge those gaps, but we also try to find those areas where we have common ground. We’ve been able to find common ground on Burma (Myanmar). With the Chinese, we’re working on climate change in, I think, a very positive way. We’re not in the exact same place, but it’s an area where we can have conversations with each other.”

“So, as the top US diplomat in New York, it is my responsibility to find common ground so that we can achieve common goals, but not to give either country a pass when they are breaking human rights values or pushing in directions that we find unacceptable,” she declared.

Ian Williams, President of the Foreign Press Association in New York, and author of ‘UNtold: The Real Story of the United Nations in Peace and War’, told IPS the Security Council is functioning almost as designed.

Without the veto, the Council would split, but with it, the UN as an organisation survives, nominally, allowing all the good vital but geopolitically peripheral activities to continue.

“I do not believe that adding new privileged members would add to its efficacy nor do I think that Council representing (India’s Narendra) Modi and (Brazil’s Jair) Bolsonaro would be a more ethical body!”

He argued the Council’s effectiveness will depend on how much pressure the “World Community” can apply on the P5 (the US, UK, France, China and Russia), particularly the P3, and on the role of the Secretary-General and the 193-member General Assembly (GA) in that.

The GA has sold the pass by allowing the temporary seats to be rotated without regard to the actual independence or principles of candidates, he pointed out.

It is not a function of size: Ireland, for example is a better world citizen than Canada would be! Regardless of the rules, a forthright GA with Uniting for Peace majorities could have a political effect, said Williams.

A serious SG could use powers to affect the agenda and name and shame those who stall the work of the UNSC, said Williams, a senior analyst who has written for newspapers and magazines around the world, including the Australian, The Independent, New York Observer, The Financial Times and The Guardian.

(Thalif Deen is the author of a newly-released book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That.” Published by Amazon, the 220-page book is filled with scores of anecdotes– from the serious to the hilarious—and will soon be available in bookstores in Colombo.)

Sunday Times.