24 September, 2020

Blog

1914 And 2014: Uncomfortable Parallels And Continuing Conflicts

By Rajan Philips

Rajan Philips

Rajan Philips

The hundredth anniversary of the Great War (World War I) has spawned many speculative comparisons between 1914 and 2014. The Economist, as well as the New Statesman, saw “uncomfortable parallels”, while eminent historians in the West have weighed in on either side of the debate as to whether the world’s financial crisis, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, and big power tensions around the South China Sea are similar to the antecedents of World War 1 and can ignite a major conflagration this decade, if not this year. There is optimism, and there was optimism in 1913 and for the first five months of 1914, that the world after World War II (that killed 50 million people and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is so different from the worlds that preceded and soon followed World War I (that took out a mere 10 million in a relatively primitive way), with copious checks and balances, formal and informal, to prevent history from repeating itself hundred years later. Writing in December 2013, The Economist saw the two most troubling parallels between 1914 and 2014 as complacency and nationalism, and recommended two precautionary measures: a set of mechanisms to diffuse potential dangers before they blow up, and an active American foreign policy.

“Complacency is the enemy of study”, wrote Chairman Mao in his little Red Book many decades ago. The China that Mao unified and strove to turn into a communist example is now America’s biggest challenger as a capitalist economic power.  And The Economist that was once the flagship of unbridled capitalism is today a well-rounded journal of sober comment. It rightly sees complacency as the enemy of peace. The differences between the middle and late twentieth century Cold War years, and early twenty first century could not be more dramatic. Yet, those differences do not necessarily negate the similarities between 1914 and 2014. Britain was the imperial superpower and Germany its main challenger in 1914, and the school of similarity sees their replication in the current power tussle between the US and China. Similarities are also seen in the rivalries for domination in the world of finance and in the penchant for information and intelligence gathering – with the US eavesdropping even among friends and China accused of pilfering trade and technology secrets. The geopolitical flashpoints have shifted from the Balkans to the Middle East and more recently to Crimea and northeast Europe, but there are similarities in the practice of economic sanctions, and the intrusion of geopolitics into international banking, as a form of military containment.

At the same time, it is not difficult to see that the competition between the US and China is a world apart from the competition that dogged Britain and Germany and eventually led World War I. The US and China have no interest in declaring war on one another to show ultimate solidarity with any of the parties to ongoing conflicts. The veto power at the UN Security Council is a harmless alternative to pulling the trigger in support of an ally. Here’s the real rub about complacency in our time. Because of the mindset that no conflict is likely to explode on a global scale, there is no real incentive to bring any conflict under control and deal with it sooner than later. The deterrents of nuclear disaster and dual superpower ensured relative peace during the Cold War, and when the superpowers recklessly ventured into wars on their own, to wit – the US in Vietnam and USSR in Afghanistan, they ended up with bloody noses but not before wreaking havoc on Vietnamese and Afghan societies. Vietnam has since risen from the ashes with characteristic Indochinese lightness of being. Afghanistan, with all the heaviness of South Asian and Middle Eastern cultures, is still struggling after not one, but two superpower onslaughts.

Old conflicts in new conditions

Almost all of the ongoing twenty first century conflicts had their origins in the twentieth century, some as early as the first World War, if not even earlier.  True, nationalism is a parallel between 1914 and 2014, but if it is troubling now it is for different reasons from what they were a hundred years ago. The First World War triggered the ‘globalization’ of the nation-state model beyond its European origins, and formalized the right of self-determination externally between countries (Woodrow Wilson) and internally within empires (Lenin). By the end of the twentieth century the nation-state had passed its peak of relevance as a territorial socio-political matrix. The 1980s saw a proliferation of self-deterministic claims but hardly any of them reached fruition.

The breakup of the Soviet Union and the re-balkanization of Yugoslavia were not a new phase in nationalist revolutions, as the West self-servingly provoked them, but necessary aberrations which could have been managed less bloodily.  The Scottish referendum this coming September is more a charm offensive than a bitter confrontation between the proponents and opponents of Scottish independence.  But nationalist conflicts are not always that pleasant or have a happy ending for all parties. This is not to suggest that nation states have become redundant and are about to disappear tomorrow, or in this century. While nation states have not become redundant, the states are losing their autonomy and power in the face of globalization. Ethnic and transnational sentiments are seeping through state boundaries. Non-state actors have become a major force in every political conflict in the world.

The crisis in Ukraine, which started off as a petty tit for tat between Putin and the West, has now snowballed into something bordering on a new Cold War.  The difference this time is that financial sanctions have replaced nuclear armaments. While the conflict is not likely to escalate beyond the borders of Ukraine, its implications have a far wider reach. In a bold prognosis envisaging “A Grand Bargain with Russia”, Russian academic Vladislav Inazemetsev and Moscow-based commentator Anton Barbashin have suggested the dissolution of NATO and the creation of a new alliance including Russia, a new Marshal Plan for all the countries that were part of the USSR, and cooperation between Russia and the West in developing Siberia, as long term strategies to prevent Russia’s alienation from the West. In such a scenario, Russia will invariably have to return Crimea to Ukraine and respect its independence. Both Putin and the West are equally at fault for the present crisis. Putin’s misdemeanors are well known, but the West also has contributed to the current standoff by picking favourites from within the former USSR, and encircling Russia and Putin for no reason instead of including Russia in a new alliance.

In the Middle East, it will be difficult for anyone to imagine any kind of bargain, grand or humble. Almost all of the current state boundaries in the Middle East were drawn following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. A hundred years later, they remain as contentious as ever.  In fact, the new non-state contender, the Islamic State (the organization now simply calls itself by the first two words, and not ISIS or ISIL), has turned the inviolability of national boundaries on its head. On the other hand, the Kurds, having waited forlornly for so long may end up having a territorial nation state of their own. The Palestinians continue to struggle for a two-state solution without the prospect of even half a state. After scorching Gaza Israel has finally got some comeuppance with charges of war crimes at the UNHRC. Rather than avoiding summons Israel is claiming to be getting ready to mount a legal defense of its asymmetric warfare in Gaza, at the UNHRC inquiry.

What the Economist saw in “active American foreign policy” as a precautionary means to contain conflict situations within limits, was given a more muscular exposition last week by Hillary Clinton in her much publicized interview with The Atlantic magazine. Taking a not at all subtle swipe at President Obama, the former Secretary of State (and upcoming presidential contender) derided Obama’s “don’t do stupid stuff” approach to foreign policy as not an “organizing principle” befitting a “great nation.” Mrs. Clinton has since clarified that she was not criticizing her former boss and received equal publicity for reportedly hugging it out and making up with the President at a mutual friend’s birthday party.

There is no denying, however, that Hillary Clinton stands for a forthrightly forceful American foreign policy far more in line with Cold War era American Presidents than President Obama. The question is whether the old muscular foreign policy is appropriate to today’s circumstances. Former President Bill Clinton used to say that America must lead “by the power of its example and not the example of its power.” That is as good an organizing principle as any “great nation” could aspire to have.  And President Obama’s approach is closer to this principle than what is suggested by Hillary Clinton.  One can only hope that as a potential next President, Hillary Clinton is not predisposed to espouse as America’s organizing foreign policy principle, President Bush’s “moral clarity” that led him to invade Iraq.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    2

    Rajan Philips –

    1914 And 2014: Uncomfortable Parallels And Continuing Conflicts

    1914 Was the first great Imperialist and colonial War.

    Now the Same Players plus USA are at it again in a different format.

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement was signed in 1915-1916 Between Britain and France to divide the Middle East.

    It is still active and taking a different form

    Territorial allocations[edit]
    Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[6] France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[citation needed] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets.[6] The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas.[6] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.[6]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

    The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”[5]

  • 1
    1

    Rajan Philips –

    Sykes–Picot Agreement

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

    Territorial allocations[edit]
    Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[6] France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[citation needed] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets.[6] The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas.[6] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.[6]

    British–Zionist discussions during the negotiations[edit]
    Following the outbreak of World War I, Zionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.”[7][8] Lloyd George’s law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the Uganda Scheme.[9] In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.”[7][10] Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Samuel’s memoirs state: “I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. … I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk”[7][11] The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet.[12]

    In January 1915, Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: “When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee … and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews”[13][14] After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

    Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the de Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.[10]

    Prior to the departure of Sykes to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Samuel. The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy.[citation needed] Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote:[7]

    “By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing center of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd.”[15]

    Read on

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

  • 1
    4

    The world has changed.

    There was no Israel in 1914 but today there is (thank God for that).

    With Israel comes hope.

  • 3
    2

    Read and this and think;

    know much about what actually happened, let me recount some salient points.

    A decade after Columbus landed on Hispaniola in 1492, its indigenous people were extinct. They had done nothing to deserve that fate; Columbus in a letter to his royal sponsors in Spain said they were “loving, uncovetous people,” with “good features and beautiful eyes,” who “neither carried weapons nor understood the use of such things.” Yet many were tortured to death in a vain attempt to get them to reveal non-existent hoards of gold and others worked to death or driven to suicide. Such gratuitous violence continued as Europeans extended their domains in the “New World.”

    Many of the smaller tribes followed the Arawak of Hispaniola into extinction while the populations of larger groups fell by as much as 85 percent, victims not only of indiscriminate violence but of induced famines and new diseases to which they had no immunity. The spread of smallpox through blankets distributed free to Native Americans and the wanton slaughter of the great herds of bison on which the “Plains Indians” depended for food, clothing and shelter were the most outrageous cases of genocide. Estimates of the numbers killed range up to 100 million.

    In South America, the Conquistadores engaged in a zestful mass murder that has no equivalent to this day. Bartolomeo de las Casas (1484-1566), a Spaniard who went to the New World for fortune but was driven by the atrocities he witnessed to enter the Church, left a vivid description in Brevissima Relacion de la Destruycion de la Indias (Short Report on the Destruction of the Indies):

    “One time the Indians came to meet us, and to receive us with victuals and delicate cheer, and with all entertainment, ten leagues from a great city, and being come at the place they presented us with a great quantity of fish and of bread, and other meat, together with all they could do for us to the uttermost.” The Conquistadores put them all to the sword “without any cause whatsoever,” more than “three thousand souls, which were set before us, men, women and children,” committing “great cruelties that never any man living either have or shall see the like.”

    “The Christians, with their horses and swords and lances, began to slaughter and practice strange cruelty among them. They penetrated into the country and spared neither children nor the aged, nor pregnant women, nor those in child labor, all of whom they ran through the body and lacerated, as though they were assaulting so many lambs herded in their sheepfold. They made bets as to who would slit a man in two, or cut off his head at one blow: or they opened up his bowels. They tore babes from their mothers’ breast by the feet, and dashed their heads against the rocks. Others they seized by the shoulders and threw into the rivers, laughing and joking … They spitted the bodies of other babes, together with their mothers and all who were before them, on their swords. They made a gallows just high enough for the feet to nearly touch the ground, and by thirteens, in honor and reverence of our Redeemer and the twelve Apostles, they put wood underneath and burned the Indians alive. They wrapped the bodies of others entirely in dry straw, binding them in it and setting fire to it; and so they burned them. They cut off the hands of all they wished to take alive. They generally killed the lords and nobles in the following way. They made wooden gridirons of stakes, bound them upon them, and made a slow fire beneath: thus the victims gave up the spirit by degrees, emitting cries of despair in their torture.”

    Casas, writing as the Bishop of Chiapas, estimated that just in the Caribbean his compatriots had killed some 15 million Indians, leaving “destroyed and depopulated” the large islands of Cuba, San Juan [Puerto Rico], and Jamaica, and some 30 smaller islands.

    In Australia and New Zealand, the killing was less zestful but it was more comprehensive, and there was no Casas to call attention to what happened. The Anglican Church and British authorities looked the other way as settlers in Australia hunted the Aborigines like animals, poisoned their food and water, raped their women and savaged their children, all in a deliberate campaign to reduce the indigenous population. The Aborigine numbered about 750,000 at the end of the 18th Century and about 30,000 a century later; both figures are estimates for they were not included in Australian censuses until 1971.

    Australian policies to “protect” and “assimilate” the Aborigines continued the oppression into the second half of the 20th Century. It inflicted prison terms on adults for “crimes” ranging from “cheeky behavior” to “not working” to “calling the Hygiene Officer a big-eyed bastard.” Government officials took infants from their parents and placed them in White families or orphanages. That “adoption” policy openly aimed at eliminating the Aborigines as a cultural group, the legal definition of genocide. In the face of mounting international criticism, the government discontinued the program grudgingly in 1970; it was not until 1997 that it noted the negative impact on the victims and their families.

    In New Zealand, a country larger than Britain (103,738 sq mi to 94.526 sq miles), the first British settlers in the mid-1800s found a tribal population said to be around 100,000 – almost certainly an underestimate, for the newcomers were soon engaged in a series of “Maori wars” to expropriate tribal land. By 1896 the number of Maoris was down to 42,000.

    In Africa and Asia the death tolls were far larger.

    The slave trade out of Africa began with the first Portuguese explorations down the African coast in the 14th century and continued into the 19th. By the time it ended, slavers had taken an estimated 25 to 35 million Africans across the Atlantic and killed an equal number during capture and conveyance.

    Within Africa too, wherever Europeans settled, they displaced and often enslaved the local population. The “Orange Free State” established by Belgium’s King Leopold II in the Congo reduced the native population from an estimated 20 million to 8 million. Under the pretext of “civilizing the natives,” his regime established a reign of terror, mandating wild rubber collection quotas for each village and punishing unmet targets by lopping off the arms of workers. Supervisors were required to bring in baskets of limbs to show they were implementing policy rigorously.

    In Namibia, the Germans massacred the Herero. In Kenya, the British ran the Kikuyu off the best agricultural land in the country, pushing over a million people into lasting poverty. A movement to reclaim the land in the 1950s resulted in a second displacement as the colonial regime hunted down, tortured and killed over 100,000 “Mau Mau terrorists.”

    In South Africa, the British slaughtered the Zulu to get at the diamonds and gold in their land and the Boers (descendents of Dutch settlers) imposed racial segregation on the whole country in 1948, as India’s independence heralded the end of the era of European world domination. The system stayed in place until 1994.

    Asia saw the highest death tolls of the colonial era, and as K.M. Panikkar noted in Asia and Western Dominance (1959), the violence began with Vasco da Gama. On his second voyage to India, he came upon an unarmed Arab vessel and, “after making the ship empty of goods” he “prohibited anyone from taking out of it any Moor” and then ordered it to be set afire.

    A commentator in Portugal justified that as follows: “It is true that there does exist a common right to all to navigate the seas and in Europe we recognize the rights which others hold against us; but the right does not extend beyond Europe, and therefore the Portuguese, as Lords of the Sea, are justified in confiscating the goods of all those who navigate the seas without their permission.”

    That “strange and comprehensive claim,” commented Panikkar, was “one which every European nation in its turn held firmly, almost to the end of Western supremacy in Asia. The principle that the doctrines of international law did not apply outside Europe, that what would be barbarism in London or Paris is civilized conduct in Peking, and that European nations had no moral obligations in dealing with Asian peoples, was part of the accepted creed of Europe’s relations with Asia.”

    In India, the first of the “man-made famines” under British rule occurred in the decade after the 1757 fall of Nawab Siraj ud Dowlah in Bengal; it killed seven million people, a third of the population. The last famine the British created, also in Bengal, occurred in 1942-1943; it killed between 3 and 4 million. In all, the total of such deaths has been estimated at several hundred million; the Gandhian Dharampal calculated the total number of Indian deaths from all causes under British rule at 500 million.

    China was never under colonial rule, but Britain fought two “Opium Wars” in the 19th century to force it to import the drug. By the first decade of the 20th Century a quarter of its population was estimated to be using the drug.

    This litany of European depredations in the global South is not a mere scratching at old scars. It is, in fact, essential to understanding the “Great War” of 1914-1918. German disaffection at not having enough colonial “lebensraum” (elbow-room) was perhaps the most important factor that drove its competition with Britain that turned into war. In that sense, it was a direct karmic consequence of the Real First World War.

    • 0
      0

      ‘Civilisation’ does not come cheap. Some 60 million natives in the Americas paid the price, along with 20 million Negroes who did not survive the journey to the Americas (almost as many as that did). Of course the diet of ‘comics’ that were familiar to us, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers etc were used to present a different picture of the victims as they were dispossessed of the meagre worldly wealth, land and their lives. Today the few allowed to survive are restricted to tiny slivers of desert where they have the freedom to run their own casinos.

      Aboriginals numbered about 3 million when fate brought them calamity in the guise of Captain Cook. The Tasmanian aborigines were completely, deliberately wiped out. The 300,000 or so allowed to live in Australia do so in drunken stupor trying to forget what they’ve lost. Some Christian priests kept copious notes unlike the Muslims hordes that had previously decimated the Africa and parts of Europe.

      And today even while carrying out similar vile deeds in the Middle East, US/UK/EU trumpet their own ‘virtues’ to the rest of us. The world that we’ve inherited and the one we will leave behind for our children is not a nice place.

      • 1
        1

        Ramu

        “I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being good all the time. That would be hypocrisy.”

        ― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

    • 1
      1

      Jim softy

      Thanks, almost all factual.

      This was and is Christianity. If the Portuguese and Spanish were Agnostics or Atheists they may not have committed such crimes.

      Christopher Hitchens about the Catholic Church (1of2) from the Intelligence² debate

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilfSlpENb2Y

      Remember, the Muslims were in Spain for more than 500 years. They did not commit such crimes. Once the Catholic controlled Spain, they either killed, expelled or converted the Muslims and Jews. That was Catholic Culture, as spread buy the “infallible’ Pope who, many Protestants say represents the Devil on Earth. ( The Devil’s Representative will com to Lanka, the Land of Native Veddah during 2015, to pop up another Devil, MaRa).

      Steven Weinberg
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

      His views on religion were expressed in a speech from 1999 in Washington, D.C.; see also Quotations related to Steven Weinberg at Wikiquote:

      “‘Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”[15]
      He modified his comment in a later article derived from these talks:

      “Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God’s will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”[15]

    • 1
      1

      Jim,

      Thanks. Almost factual.

      The Crimes of the Catholic Church and the Infallible Popes. who sold Indulgences.

      Is Catholicism for Peace:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZnJr_2HbXc

      Christopher Hitchens about the Catholic Church (2of2) from the Intelligence² debate

      and

      Christopher Hitchens about the Catholic Church (1of2) from the Intelligence² debate

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilfSlpENb2Y

      Hitchens delivers one of his best hammer blows to cocky audience member

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ2LehsA1dk

    • 1
      1

      Jim softy , Lorenzo, Sumanasekera, Leela ans VAvtats,

      Yes, Double Standards. Here is double standards of lankaweb. They will not post Amarasiris comments to Shill Shinali Shill Waduge’s Writings. “Your (Amarasiri’s) comment is awaiting moderation?”

      The freedom with which Sri Lanka’s Media denigrates Sinhala Buddhists
      Posted on August 15th, 2014
      Shenali D Waduge

      http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2014/08/15/the-freedom-with-which-sri-lankas-media-denigrates-sinhala-buddhists/

      Amarasiri Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      August 16th, 2014 at 6:26 am

      1. “No other minority religion has been called by such names to the extent the Buddhist priests have been subject to, even the Catholic priests who have been linked to LTTE have not been subject to the same denigration despite terror links.”

      That is Probably because the Buddhist Monks attack directly and participate in killings and riots. Example Monk Somarama BBS “Buddhist” etc.

      2. “There were and are no foreign envoys, UN special rapporteurs, UN human rights head, civil society organizations that came out to say that the trend of denigrating the majority Sinhala Buddhists of Sri Lanka via disproportionate media coverage was incorrect, unjustified and unethical. Yet, we ask, is this the freedom with which media should function?”

      That is what happens when you have a bad reputation. Globally, whenever, Terrorism happens, it the Islamic Jihadis who are the Prime suspects.

      Similarly, in Lanka, the Land of Native Veddah, These days it is Sinhala Buddhists. It used to be LTTE and Tamils.

      That is what happens when you have a bad reputation.

      So try to keep your reputation by NOT attacking Tamils, Christians and Muslims.

      Yes, Double Standards. Here is double standards of lankaweb. They will not post Amarasiris comments. The liars at lankaweb claim. Since they lie, they must be following the Sinhala “Buddhist” Culture.

      Express Your Opinion – Read What Others Say!
      The Independent Interactive Voice of Sri Lanka on the Internet for more than 17 years. Lankaweb Social Media- Tools that allow sharing of information and creation of communities through on line network of people. Today we can post, we can view, we can share and we can comment.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.