Thoughts from London - What about that mote in your eye, Mr. Boucher

In the "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," Eliot wrote of the women who come and ago, talking of Michelangelo.

The high profile foreign diplomats who make visits to our land do not speak of Michelangelo, not unless they have been excitedly reading the Da Vinci Code.

So if one might adapt Eliot's lines "To Colombo they come and go/ Talking of rights and little more."

The US State Department's Richard Boucher who turned up a couple of weeks ago on his way home from the Tokyo meeting, taking a rather circuitous route like some of our politicians, held a round of meetings with government and Tamil representatives.

Later he articulated his thoughts though they did not come in a little red book like those of Chairman Mao but in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Colombo at a media conference.

I've looked at the verbatim reports of his remarks, some of which seem to signal a departure from previous US policy on Sri Lanka, causing a degree of excitement in official and academic circles.

What seems to have aroused concerns is Boucher's reference to a Tamil "homeland" and to areas that "they have traditionally inhabited."

Words such as these have apparently never been used by US policy makers before. So this was immediately noted as a change in Washington's policy on the Sri Lanka question, as it appeared to recognise some areas as traditional Tamil areas.

As far as I know neither the JVP nor the JHU- or for that matter any other Sinhala nationalist group- asked that Boucher be kicked straight back to Washington where he could mull over the traditional homelands of the various indigenous tribes, that were plundered by the ancestors of the present US policy makers, and the Indians sent off to reservations often far from their traditional habitations.

That, of course, was centuries ago when in the American wild-west they were shooting from the hip unlike Mr Boucher and another former colleague of his, Teresita Schaeffer now up to her neck in some think tank, who prefer to do so from the lip.

I'm no great shakes as a researcher preferring to leave these things to academics and others who are better suited to the task.

So if they say this is a significant change then so be it. I will take it as read.

Mr Boucher was not all about "homeland" and "areas traditionally inhabited by the Tamils". There were many things he said that are true and should have been taken aboard many years ago. Had our politicians done so seeing the inherent dangers in following policies that were narrow and self- serving, Sri Lanka would not be in this predicament.

Remember the oft-quoted words of Dr Colvin R. de Silva about one nation and two languages or one language and two nations.

But even the sagacity of Dr de Silva seems to have deserted both the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the learned doctor himself. Shedding its principled stand for political expediency the party's language policy was changed in the early sixties.

Richard Boucher was right when he said that the Tamil community had legitimate grievances and that they would like to control their own lives.

We failed to recognise the signs of grievance that were manifest decades ago. When we tried to correct the imbalance in position and privilege bestowed on the minorities by the British as it had done in many other colonies in days of empire, the pendulum swung too far.

Admittedly the concept of a "traditional homeland" has strong emotive connotations on both sides of the ethnic divide and Boucher's words have revived this debate.

But there are two interesting remarks in the Boucher statements that need to be considered.

Go back to the much-vaunted Oslo statement, if some do not like to call it a declaration. It is useful to recall its words: "Responding to a proposal by the leadership of the LTTE, the parties agreed to explore a solution found on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking people based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. The parties acknowledged that the solution has to be acceptable to all."

Note that it refers to "Tamil speaking people" which was surely intended to include the Muslim community in the northeast who speak Tamil.

The Boucher remarks refer to the "Tamil community" and to the "Tamils."

Boucher is therefore drawing a clear distinction between the Tamils and the Muslims just as he drew a very clear line between the Tamil people and the LTTE. Boucher's conclusion therefore is that the LTTE does not represent the Tamils and the Muslims are distinct from the Tamils.

This interpretation is enhanced by another remark in which he called for a different governing structure that "enhanced the role of all people of Sri Lanka but particularly to take into account the desire of Tamils and Muslims to have greater control over their destinies.

If that conclusion is correct then the "areas of traditional habitation," cannot take in the entire north and east as demanded by the LTTE.

What is so irksome about the Boucher remarks is the sanctimonious preaching to us about democracy and what is expected of democratically-elected governments.

Perhaps Mr Boucher is swayed by the evangelical zeal of the Bush administration in which his boss Condi Rice is a central figure.

"We have high expectations of a democratic government- respect for human rights, outreach to all citizens, respect for the rights of minorities, clean government for all."

All this, of course, we must learn from the US Government which surely is the epitome. Where would one find a cleaner government, one that has such a respect for human rights and for the rights of all minorities, etc, etc.

So taking Mr Boucher's advice, Sri Lanka should find a place where we could create our own Guantanamo Bay.

Then like the great United States we could say to hell to human rights for we have our own hell.

Just the other day three inmates of that hell, called the Guantanamo detention camp killed themselves because they could no longer endure life- if you wish to call it that- in that miserable place.

Or perhaps Mr Boucher could advise us on how to build our own Abu Ghraib prison in which detainees are tortured, humiliated and mentally and physically broken.

And does the rule of law apply to the many hundreds held in such inhuman conditions without charge and little or no prospect of ever being brought to court?

How many of these human rights abuses have been checked and those really responsible for this appalling state been punished as Mr Boucher wants us to do.

Or maybe we should follow the United States into invading a sovereign state and bomb it back into the stone age killing thousands of civilians in the illegal occupation.

Would that be democratic enough for you Mr Boucher? We are not a super power so we cannot say might is right and go bomb the Maldives.

And where else but Washington would you find such a clean government where the Bushes, the Cheneys and the Rumsfelds seem to be doing all right for themselves.

Of course we must stop human rights abuses, respect the rights of minorities eliminate corruption and do whatever should be done to provide good governance.

But do we need the advice of the United States whose record is not exactly unsullied, if an understatement might be permitted.

The Richard Boucher I knew in Hong Kong was a sensible, clear thinking diplomat heading the US Consulate-General there.

Well, when you work for the Bush administration one tends to preach what you don't practice.