The Government's triumph over terrorism last week was soured by a concerted effort this week by European Union member states to bring charges of human rights violations against Sri Lankan leaders.

That the Government mustered the support of a sizeable section of the members of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva to outmanoeuvre and outvote the proponents almost gave it a sense of invincibility - a feeling that it can do no wrong.

To those who defended Lanka must go credit for surmounting the formidable charge by the European states. Having been unable to stop the government from liquidating the secessionist LTTE, some of these states were now behaving like bad sports -- trying to punish the Sri Lankan administration in a different forum.

The UNHRC special sessions on Sri Lanka followed a string of events that took place on the eve of the Sri Lanka Security Forces' final victory over the LTTE. Europe and the US appealed for a stop to the fighting on the grounds that civilians were being killed in the crossfire -- something they do not seem to advocate in their theatres of conflict - while ignoring the 'bigger picture' - the end to terrorism.

It was only a few centuries ago that the native Indians of America who were systematically decimated and relegated to reserves in the backwoods coined the phrase; "White man talk with forked tongue". It rings true even today and there is no greater proof than the West's duplicitous policy on the global war on terror.

For these states, this war only began post-9/11/2001 and now the menace of terrorism must be eliminated in all its manifestations but it would seem only in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan - and North Korea. Here, civilian casualties are part of the collateral damage. Elsewhere, their hearts bleed for human rights. While we don't agree with the nascent 'war crimes' charges campaign against Sri Lankan leaders by the European Ministers who were snubbed recently by the Colombo government, no government has a licence to trample human rights which is an integral part of good governance in any modern democratic nation-state.

What the Western powers are trying to impose by way of good governance in return for trade, aid and loans might turn out also to be counter-productive. Without helping in institution-building in Sri Lanka, they are now engaged in a confrontational course that could impede whatever efforts are being made, however ineffective they may seem, through local initiatives.
Sri Lanka's victory this week in Geneva, as much as its survival in a similar previous attempt by the same co-conspirators to debate the country's then military offensive at the UN Security Council seems to have inevitably forced the government to rely on the support of nations that were once the pillars of the Non-Aligned Movement - and the Islamic nations that have their own axe to grind with the Western powers. At the UN, we have had to seek the comfort of the 'big boys' Russia and China for 'protection'.

These favours don't come without quid pro quos. And already the West has begun raising questions as to what the deal is, especially with China. In local parlance, they are asking what kappam Sri Lanka is paying for China's protection, or the motives for China's support for the Hambantota port. And ironically, just this week, while making those accusations, the US has urged China to support Pakistan in their fight against the Taliban.

While Sri Lanka may have been pushed into this corner due to circumstances concerning its own war on terror, starting with India's attitude and the lukewarm approach by the West, its present leaders do need to take stock of the situation.

Is Lanka comfortable alienating itself entirely from the West? Is the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration going to take a cue from the Sirima Bandaranaike government's 'rapacious West' attitude? Could it end up as a basket case economy? Already, the government is facing an uphill battle on the emerging new 'war' - the economic 'war'. The EU looks set to tighten the screws on the GSP+ duty concessions given to Sri Lankan products, and the IMF is under pressure from the Western powers to take into consideration the government's recent military conduct.

Thus the government needs to look afresh at where its foreign policy is heading. How is it affecting people-to-people relations? Are we saying goodbye to the tourism industry? Where do Lankan exports go? Isn't it largely to Europe and the US? Who employs our un-skilled workers? Where do our youth pursue their studies; and where do our professionals and citizens wish to work?

The West has been thoroughly unfair by a country that struggled, and eventually triumphed over terrorism. But isn't there a need for Colombo to be less confrontational? Less belligerence and more understanding on both sides, should be the order of the day.