Columns -Thoughts from London

Sanctimonious Britain up to its old game

By Neville de Silva

So the UK wants to send food aid to the besieged people of the Wanni bypassing the Sri Lanka government. That is if the minister in charge of the Department for International Development (DfID) Shahid Malik has been correctly quoted by the British Tamils Forum in its media release.

Let's leave alone the question of the diplomatic acceptability of such a gesture, especially after Sri Lanka's experience in the post-tsunami aid effort which saw attempts to smuggle in materials of war and other suspect items to the North and East.

Many would feel pain for the people of the Wanni who are caught up in the war especially those who are prevented from leaving the area by the LTTE which operates a permit system that decides who could leave the area and who may not as has been frequently reported in the media. The question here is whether British politicians genuinely feel for those people or this is another expression of concern that is more directed at ensuring the Tamil vote at the next elections due in two years or so but couched in spurious moral tones.

The Labour Party and especially those who now represent marginal seats are acutely aware of their political fragility. A recent poll for the Harrow area showed that both Labour MPs- Gareth Thomas and Tony McNulty would lose if an election is held now. It was not surprising then why Gareth Thomas was so keen to invite the Tamil diaspora and bring along his foreign office colleague Lord Mark Malloch-Brown to explain British policy on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately for him Malloch-Brown sang a different tune from what was generally expected. It is not only the British but also their friends on either side of the Atlantic-the US and the European Union- that have expressed their deepest concern at the plight of the people of the Wanni who we are told are being deprived of food and other amenities by the Sri Lanka government's policy of ordering the INGO and NGO representatives to withdraw from the conflict zones.

While it is true that the people trapped there need help in every way that is conceivable in the current circumstances, one should be rather careful in blindly accepting these western expressions of concern or cringing before virtual threats. Are they purely politically motivated or are the humanitarian concerns true and not a mere masquerade of moral indignation? Perhaps one way of examining the validity of their humanitarian position is to look at how these western countries, especially the UK since that is our starting point - have treated their own people, those who have helped in their times of need and those suspected of actual participation or complicity in acts of terrorism.

A useful starting point is last week's High Court decision here in London. It concerns the Gurkha soldiers of Nepal who have served alongside British soldiers since 1815 and won 26 Victoria Crosses for bravery. They have fought for Britain in countless wars. For their loyalty to Queen and country Britain has paid them back by acts of discrimination that have been described as a national disgrace and shame. When I was working in Hong Kong, there was Gurkha regiment based there. The stories I heard from the Gurkhas there of blatant discrimination clearly undermined what we had been taught in school of British fairness and how it plays by the rules. Unfortunately for the Gurkhas the rules were made by Britain. I mention Hong Kong because it is relevant to the story. Britain decided that Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army who retired before 1997-the year Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty- would not have the right to live in Britain and several of them were deported to Nepal.

The Gurkhas whose fearlessness in battle in diverse war fronts has been duly recognized, were victorious in perhaps the most important battle last week when they won the right to settle in Britain. Recognising the unswerving loyalty with which they served Britain, often at great personal cost, Mr Justice Blake said that this earned them "an unquestionable moral debt of honour from the British people." He said that the government ruling regarding the 1997 deadline was discriminatory, illegal and needed urgent revision. The Gurkhas were good enough to fight for Britain and die for Britain. But they were not good enough to live in Britain. That is British fair play.

That is not the end of this disgraceful story of the treatment of the Gurkhas. Although they served alongside British soldiers the Gurkhas receive only one-sixth or less of the pension paid to British soldiers. Both fight and die for the same cause and the same side. But both do not deserve the same pension. A classic case is that of the 81 year old Lalit Bahadur Gurung who served Britain for 24 years and was awarded the Military Cross by Prince Philip and chosen to meet the Queen when she visited Nepal because of his exemplary record. After a massive stroke the retired captain was prevented from coming to the UK for medical treatment because he cannot afford to pay the Pounds 500 visa fee.
Take another case also reported last week. An Ethiopian national resident in the UK is now held in Guantanamo Bay where he was taken by a roundabout route after he was arrested in Pakistan and questioned by British Intelligence. The British were complicit in his ending up in Guantanamo Bay. The man's lawyers said last week that he has no prospect of a fair trial. Not only have several prosecutors resigned in protest at what they perceive as prejudicial procedures, even Judges presiding over these military commissions have attacked the manner in which these trials have been conducted against terrorism suspects. The chief prosecutor at these trials resigned last year saying fair trials were impossible and the system had become "deeply politicized."

So much for the rule of law! Those from the UK and Europe who preach to us about justice and fairness have also been complicit in the CIA's rendition flights that have flown suspects to European and other countries where torture is known to be practised exposing them to possible torture. While Britain peaches to us, it pulls the curtain over its greatest moral turpitude on modern times when British politicians and civil servants conspired to deceive its own parliament and the world over the ethnic cleansing of the Chagossian people from Diego Garcia. In 1965 the British government, hand in glove with the US to which it wished to lease out the Indian ocean island of Diego Garcia, summarily removed all the people living there (after killing over 1000 pet dogs), dumping them in Mauritius and a few in the Seychelles.
Though the Chagos people have had to fight their battles in court, like the Gurkhas, and have won from the highest court the right to return to their former homes, the British who wave the wand of the rule of law before us have waived the court's ruling preventing the Chagossians from returning home.

If the British treat their own subjects and those who faithfully served them fighting for Queen and country in this despicable fashion how much faith can one place in the moral righteousness they display over others?

 
Top to the page  |  E-mail  |  views[1]
 
Other Columns
Political Column
Govt.- Judiciary sparring hots up
5th Column
Trust them to pass the buck and use us as chopping block!
Situation Report
Fierce battles rage, flashpoint ahead
Thoughts from London
Sanctimonious Britain up to its old game
The Economic Analysis
Gamani Corea’s insights and perspectives on economic policy
Lobby
Not issued with this week
Focus on Rights
Inside the glass house

 

 
Reproduction of articles permitted when used without any alterations to contents and a link to the source page.
© Copyright 2008 | Wijeya Newspapers Ltd.Colombo. Sri Lanka. All Rights Reserved.| Site best viewed in IE ver 6.0 @ 1024 x 768 resolution