Michael Radu writes:
To comprehend LTTE, imagine Jim Jones’ Temple cult of Guyana in possession of a “navy” and “air force,” as well as (at its height) some 20,000 fanatical and armed zombie followers.
(…)
While there are conflicting views over Prabhakaran’s fate, it is most likely he is still in that area—after all, he is a wanted man by the Interpol and most area countries. It is in this environment that the so-called “human rights” NGOs and their political supporters are actively, whether willingly or not, supporting the survival of the LTTE.
(…)For more than a decade Western liberal elites gave the LTTE a pass under the pretext that they represent real grievances of Sri Lanka’s Tamils. Ottawa, Washington, and Delhi closed their eyes to their own Tamil citizens’ being forced or manipulated into paying for the murder of civilians in Sri Lanka, despite officially declaring the Tigers a terrorist group. Military sanctions were imposed on Colombo, aid was conditioned on tolerance of, or “peace negotiations” with, Prabhakaran—and the Tiger cancer grew. All of this pushed the government in Colombo into some dubious friendships (Iran and Venezuela come to mind), counterproductive and unnecessary if common sense in London or Ottawa would have been the main policy criterion.
Ultimately, Western views and policies vis-à-vis Sri Lanka prove that humanitarian feelings and “human rights” are no policy alternative to common sense, and that even small countries, if desperate enough, could solve their secessionist/terrorist problems even despite the powerful human right NGOs pressures to commit national suicide.
Second, and most important and with wider implications, short term, obsessive preoccupation with “civilian casualties” is often a death sentence to civilians in a civil war. The longer the war, especially when the victor is obvious, the more civilian casualties. Hence a military solution is, in some circumstances, the best way to save civilian lives. In general, pacifism, disguised as “human rights” or not, always leads to more death, especially in remote, third world, small countries vulnerable to the influence of AI or HRW. Ending a war—by force if need be—protects more civilians than prolonging it under any pretexts.
