Presidential Candidate Malinda to Putin and Trump: The dead don't blink, boys

Malinda Seneviratne, likely presidential candidate in 2020, wrote to US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on the subject of Syria.  The following is the full text of the letter:

April 17, 2017

TO: 

President Vladimir Putin

Through

His Excellency Alexander A. Karchava

Russian Ambassador to Sri Lanka

404 Bauddhaloka Mawatha,

Colombo 7

and

TO:

President Donald Trump

Through

His Excellency Atul Keshap

US Ambassador Extraordinary to Sri Lanka

210 Galle Road,

Colombo 4

The dead don’t blink, boys

Let’s cut to the chase.  It’s not about right and wrong.  It’s not about joy and sorrow.  It’s not about the living and not about the dead either.  Syria is a stage and its players, the citizens I mean, are dispensable.  

Now there are theories about how this is a win-win situation for both your countries and in particular for the two of you, politically.  There are theories about oil and other strategic ‘interests’.  Then there’s the United Nations, the Security Council and relevant protocols.  

Let’s face it, the world is not flat.  Multilateralism is not about one country having one vote and the triumph of the numerical majority.  I need not tell you boys about the history of voting patters in the UN.  I am sure you would have heard of the speech Ernesto Che Guevara delivered on  March 25, 1964 at the plenary session of the now defunct United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) where he talked of numbers, integrity and how power works in these so-called august chambers.

We know how legitimacy is manufactured and made to stick.  We’ve heard the tunes of justification, the expressions of horror, the firm lip-lines of indignation.  They are old songs lipped ad nauseum by your predecessors.  We know what’s what in Syria.  We are not impressed, boys.  

Now let there be no illusions about the sizes of boots and the incongruent nature of alluding to David and Goliath.  The world is not flat.  And equality is a lie.  We know all this, boys.  

But let me say it as it is.  We know that you know that we know that you don’t give a damn about the people of Syria, just like your predecessors didn’t give a damn about people in countries you’ve waged proxy wars.  

We must say it nevertheless.  You can play ‘let’s see who blinks first’ until the cows come home, but this you must know that we know: the dead don’t blink; not in Syria and not anywhere else.  

Sincerely and with much compassion,

[Signed] Malinda Seneviratne

Read more

Who 'owns' the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Syria?

There’s saber-rattling in Washington.  There’s saber-rattling in Moscow.  Tit-for-tat talk.  Rattle-for-rattle.  Neither the USA nor Russia is under attack.  Neither country can claim that there is a threat to its security.  It's all about a country that is located almost 11,000km from the USA and about 5,500km from Russia.  Syria.

It all followed a chemical attack which Washington blamed on the Syrian President  Bashar al-Assad and then proceeded to launch some 60 Tomahawk missiles on the al Shayrat airbase.  US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson warned that Russia was at risk of becoming irrelevant in the Middle East if it continued to support Assad.  

Damascus has denied US allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.  Moscow, in a wry dismissal, has alluded to the ‘events of 2003’ when the US representative (Colin Powell) insisted at the UN that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.   

Russian President Vladimir Putin observed that ‘the military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage.’

They can laugh about it and they will

Just because the USA lied in 2003 does not mean that it will always lie and has done so in this instance.  On the other hand, that 2003 lie has given cause for any allegation to be properly investigated before any action is taken.  Russia in fact has called for such an investigation.  

Bolivian Ambassador to the UN, Sacha Llorenti lambasted the USA for its unilateral response, pointing out that the principle of multilateralism has been violated. He added that following the 2003 lie, the UN had set up modalities for dealing with such situations which included in the first instance independent and comprehensive investigations.  

But Washington does not care.  Washington rattles sabers.  Washington has promised to repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.  Moscow has not blinked.  Russia (along with Iran) has responded likewise, telling the US to expect ‘response with force’ if ‘red lines are crossed in Syria’. 

There are no diplomatic niceties in the joint communique issued by the two countries: ‘What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.’

It is hard to argue with Llorenti when he asserts that ‘the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about.’   The problem is that when any law is violated with impunity, that law ceases to be effective.  The problem with Llorenti’s argument is that it makes sense only if the UN makes sense (when it comes to multilateralism).  What we have is a monumental hypocrisy, a lie which makes it laughable when a liar is called out.  

If the UN cannot rein in the rogue state that is the United States of America, then we have to accept that Washington’s do-as-we-please ways in fact invite do-as-we-please from Russia, Iran or whoever.  It won’t take too long before we get to that terrible point where the question ‘who started it all?’ ceases to matter.  

Well, what’s new?  Isn’t this what ‘multilateralism’ has always been about?  Huff, puff, hot air and not much else? Lovely words that get lost in the misery?  Well, should we then shrug shoulders, raise and then lower eyebrows and wait for the next great example of hypocrisy?  

Perhaps we should use it to call to question certain groups and certain assumptions.  The International Crisis Group, for instance, has issued a statement following the US attack.  It is ‘an opportunity’ (yes, those words!) they say.  An opportunity to jumpstart diplomatic efforts, they say.  No mention of the legality of that attack.  Nothing on investigations.  The ICG takes the US narrative as valid.  

‘If regime chemical attacks were to continue (perhaps employing chlorine instead of the much deadlier nerve agent sarin), the U.S. might find itself compelled to launch additional, more significant strikes,’ ICG states.  Now this is certainly a cute license to trigger-happy Donald Trump.

What needs to be understood is that while these games are being played with Trump and Putin trying to out-stare one another and while outfits like the ICG tosses out character certificates to preferred aggressors, there are people who cannot stare, cannot blink and in fact are dead.  

This forces us to ask, ‘what happened to all those who were waving a flag called Responsibility to Protect?’  Is it about protecting Syrians from Assad?  How about the risks that Syrians face at the hands of the ISIS and a global thug wearing a Good Samaritan name-tag?

But wait, why should we even bother about these rag-tag outfits who are operating as approvers for the actions of preferred parties who don’t do too much apart from constructing legitimacy for aggression against the chosen enemies (of their chosen buddies), when the United Nations itself does just that when it is divested of the somber architecture and established procedures for the conduct of discussions?  

The UN’s impotency has been revealed once again. It is not a forum that can do anything of significance to prevent wars.  It can only pick on weaker nations that have for one reason or another fallen out of favor of the favored member states.  

Just imagine if Bolivia had taken the kind of initiative that the USA took in Syria.  The UN Security Council would not be discussing the legality of the particular action.  We won’t hear impassioned speeches of past errors, the reiteration of established procedures, calls for investigations and so on.  They would be discussing sanctions.  That’s if they didn’t authorize the USA to bomb the Bolivian capital.  

It’s all happening in Syria, folks.  For now, maybe we can call it ‘a show’ and watch from the sidelines.  After all Syria is more than 5000km from Sri Lanka.  But what if Sri Lanka became tomorrow’s Syria?   Sacha Llorenti may lash out at the USA at a hastily arranged emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.  The ICG would bend over backwards, touch its metaphorical heels and salute the USA for ‘opportunities produced’.   Trump and Putin would indulge in a game of who will blink first.  There would be Sri Lankans who won’t be watching though.  They won’t be able to blink.  They’d be dead. 

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.

Read more

The ‘Syrian Vote/Veto’ undressed the self-righteous

Can eyes that choose not to see Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan have tears for Syria?

The United States of America and its allies are a trigger happy lot. They are also heavily invested in hanging people.  Sorry, that’s a crass claim.  There is a caveat to all this: selective.  They are ready-’n-able to shoot some people, invade some countries, drag some people to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and push through UNHRC resolutions on some countries.  That ‘some’ implies ‘some others’.  There are nations and individuals whose track records on the very same counts are as or more horrendous than that of the ‘some’.   For reasons of ‘interest’ are left alone.  Anyway, of the ‘some’, the country that was in censure-focus recently is Syria. 

The USA wants to hang Bashar Hafez al-Assad, the President of Syria.  The USA wants to take Syria to the ICC. The USA tried.  The attempt was vetoed, again for ‘interest-reasons’, this time of Russia and China. 

Let there be no tears and let there be no hurrahs here.  None of it is about human rights and the protection of the same. None of it is about democracy, justice or peace.  It’s just global politics.  Let’s not kid ourselves that it is otherwise. 

Old hate though it is, the theatrics certainly have their benefits.   Shows people up.  Yields a good laugh. 

Let’s start with what Britain’s UN Ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant had to say after the vote: ‘The effect of their actions is to protect a brutal regime. They have chosen to put their national interests ahead of the lives of millions of Syrians.’  The ‘they’ here are of course Russia and China. 

When, ever, did Britain do anything that put their national interest behind anything else, lives of millions included?  Wasn’t Britain the key ally in the US-led illegal invasion of Iraq (Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said by way of confession that it was illegal), putting the national interests (of Britain) ahead of the lives of millions of Iraqis?  Isn’t it this same ‘national interest’ that prompted the tag-along with the US in the matter putting millions of Afghan and Pakistani lives at risk?  ‘Come, come Mr Grant, you can’t be serious?’ did someone ask?  Well, the fact is, Grant is serious.  Lying comes easy.  Partial blindness is second nature.  Selectivity is a cultural trait. 

The same goes for the US Ambassador to the UN, who called the Russian and Chinese moves ‘dangerous and deplorable’ and said the Security Council had ‘failed utterly.’  Rice knows that the Security Council has had a long utterly-failing history.  Whisper ‘Israel’ and that should do.  All those US moves have been dangerous and deplorable.  Indeed it is not just the Security Council that has failed vulnerable peoples all over the globe courtesy Washington’s veto option but the entire UN system. 

The French Ambassador Gerard Araud called it a sad day for Syria. Well Monsieur Araud, did you or your predecessors ever feel sad on those days that turned into weeks and these into months and years for countries like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan? What are we to make of your sorrow, your tears, then, Monsieur Araud, pray tell us?

The US representative claims that the draft resolution was about accountability for ‘crimes so extensive and deadly that they had few equals in modern history’.  Really?  Had this individual heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ‘Road of Death’ in Iraq, where US fighter jets killed thousands of fleeing soldiers, and the US sponsored sanctions regime on that country which killed approximately half a million children? 

There’s more humor.  The representative is reported to have recalled that ‘the International Criminal Court had been able to act when extraordinary crimes had been committed in the past’ and had asked why the Syrian people did not equally deserve international justice.  We don’t know if anyone responded, but there is an easy answer: ‘because your country does not believe in justice or in the equality of its dispensation, can we move on already?’ 

Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson’s intervention before the vote takes the cake.  He says, ‘for more than three years, the Council had been unable to agree on measures to bring an end to the brutal war that hurt not only Syrians, but the entire region.’ 

‘The Syrian people had a fundamental right to justice, and the United Nations had a duty to defend it, he emphasized, warning ‘if the Council could not agree, the credibility of the entire Organization would continue to suffer’.

Correct, the Syrian people do have a fundamental right to justice and correct, the UN has a duty to defend it. The same goes for people in Gaza.  The same goes for people in Iraq.  The Council has not been able to do anything to end the brutality that hurts both the people resident in these unhappy regions and those in the region and all thanks to whom?  Why, the United States of America, didn’t Eliasson do his homework?  As for the ‘credibility’ of the ‘entire organization’, doesn’t Eliasson know that the word ceased to qualify for tagging to anything that has to do with the United Nations?

The French representative, speaking after the vote, is reported to have said that the resolution ‘appealed to the human conscience and was not a political gesture.’  When did France (or the USA or the UK) ever have a conscience (we can stick to contemporary machinations, recent history or pick the last 500 years to look for this thing called ‘conscience’ in the policy preferences of these countries)?  When, indeed, were they ever apolitical, did anyone ask? 

Monsieur Araud had earlier said that the failure to adopt it would amount to an insult to humanity.  Well, humanity has been insulted enough by acts of omission and commission by France and its ‘besties’ in the West.  Assuming that the world can’t remember is the Mother of all Insults to Humanity, one has to conclude.

So we have hysteria and anger coming from the USA, Britain and France. Need we say anything more than ‘Oh dear!’ considering their respective track records on these matters?  These are war mongers, notorious ones too. 

As for China and Russia, there are certainly no saints in this drama.  The above mentioned individuals are not off-mark when they point fingers about ‘national interest’.  The only problem is that the finger-pointers don’t have a moral leg to stand on. 

So can we just conclude, ‘move along, move along, there’s nothing to see here, folks’ as the police does when curious people gather at a crime scene?  Or should we just laugh and tell these respectable and self-righteous individuals that there’s a wonderful cartoon doing the rounds in social media depicting an American (of the US) asking the question, ‘Why do you hate us?’ and answering it himself thus: ‘Why do you hate us? All we want to do is invade your country, drone strike your women and children, steal your natural resources and install a vassal king who will be useful to our imperial ambitions and then call you a terrorist if you resist.’? 

So the ‘Syrian’ vote/veto, it clearly put the US, Britain and France in a funk, made them trip over words and struggle to cover up nudities.  The bottom line is that the only thing to draw from these Security Council deliberations is knowledge of process and machination.  That, and ample reasons to guffaw.  

msenevira@gmail.com

Read more