It all started in that same year of 1985, but not in Libya. She was also covering in that year the separatist war by the Tamil Tigers, to break off, from Sri Lanka (Ceylon), the far-northern and far-eastern sections of that country, so as to create an independent nation, which would be controlled by Tamils, and no longer be merely a region within the nation of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is not Tamil-majority, but is instead overwhelmingly Sinhalese population. Marie Colvin was embedded there, along with the anti-Government fighting forces, Tamil separatists, anti-Sinhalese fighters who were at war against Sri Lanka’s Government. This was a Tamil-versus-Sinhal war, and she was reporting it, from the standpoint of the separatist-Tamil rebels.

Her much-celebrated career ended 27 year later, with her own death, on 22 February 2012, in Homs Syria, while she was embedded with anti-Government forces there, who were trying to overthrow Syria’s Government, instead of to overthrow Sri Lanka’s or Libya’s Government.

In all three of those instances — from the very start, to the very the end, of her illustrious career — she was embedded along with, and her articles were in support of, anti-Government forces that the UK-US aristocracy supported, in order to break up countries that this aristocracy were hoping to ‘free’, so as to take control over them, away from the existing independent Governments there. This was her constantly recurring pattern, from her start, to her widely lionized end, as being a promoter of US-UK international empire: journalism that embraces and unquestioningly accepts and endorses imperialism, while never indicating to its audience that it has any connection whatsoever to imperialism.

In between her Sri Lankan start and her Syrian end, she prominently reported several times from Libya, likewise from the standpoint of opponents of that independent nation’s Government. Libya had previously been a vassal state of Turkey (Ottoman Empire), then of Italy (Italian Empire), then was an ‘independent’ nation within the UK-US Empire. And, then, finally — as a result of Libya’s Revolution, which was led by Gaddafi in 1969 — Libya actually did win its independence. Gaddafi became killed in 2011, from forces that had been unleashed by the US-UK Empire and France. That successful assassination happened on 20 October 2011, and America’s Secretary of State promptly and publicly exulted about it, by bragging “We came, we saw, he died — ha ha ha!.”(The Democratic National Committee and its duped voters rewarded her with their Presidential nomination five years later in 2016 because she was ‘the most experienced candidate’, having had lots of such disastrous ‘experiences’, which the duped voters were misled to think to have been an asset, instead of a liability.) Thus, ‘democracy’ was finally being brought to Libyans, by that country’s former foreign imperial masters, plus their agents, Al Qaeda and other local proxy-forces against Gaddafi.

What all of Colvin’s reporting exemplified was ‘journalism’ by a ‘reporter’ who is embedded along with the fighting forces that were being propagandized for by her own nation’s aristocracy — and, though she was American, she was in the employ of American vassals, UK aristocrats. This US-UK aristocracy wanted those countries to become either broken up, or else taken over by themselves entirely; and she was a ‘journalistic’ agent for that, though she was unaware of the fact, and was actually proud of her work, because of her obliviousness to the broader and deeper reality around her.

Here are some crucial details of her career-highlights, in this regard:

—

The Tamil Tigers constituted the fighting force of Sri Lanka’s 18% minority of the Sri Lankan population who were 74%-majority Sinhals. Ceylon’s (Sri Lanka’s) Sinhal population had been ruled by the British Empire through that 18% minority of Tamils as UK’s local agents, until Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was finally released from British bondage, and won independence in 1946, when the British Empire was breaking up.

A key Sri Lankan law that passed in 1956, the Sinhala Only Act, made Sinhalese language replace the British-imposed English language as Sri Lanka’s official language. Though the Tamil language had never been Sri Lanka’s official language, many Tamils, who had been accustomed to ruling the land for their British masters, were infuriated that the ‘inferior’ Sinhal people now ruled the land. One of those Sinhals was their own leading aristocrat, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, the progressive who became elected Prime Minister in 1956 and won passage of the Sinhala Only Act and of other laws to actually end British control, but he was assassinated in 1959 by a Buddhist monk because Bandaranaike had just then signed an agreement with the leader of the main Tamil party to bring some degree of local autonomy to the Tamil minority, who were concentrated in the far north and far east. Bandaranaike’s wife, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was then elected as Prime Minister in 1960, and she not only tried to increase political participation by Buddhists, but she firmly established democratic socialism (or progressivism) as the Government’s policy. But then, the Marxist (dictatorial socialist) Lanka Sama Samaja Party eroded popular support for her government, which became resoundingly defeated in the general election of 1965. Sirimovo became re-elected back into power in 1970. However, her Government’s support of Buddhism and of the Sinhalese language alienated the country’s large Tamil minority, 80% of whom are Hindu (the others: 13% Muslim, 2% Christian, 2% Sikh, and only .8% Buddhist). By contrast, 93% of Sinhals are Buddhist. According to the US Library of Congress in 1988, “93 percent of the Sinhala speakers were Buddhists, and 99.5 percent of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka spoke Sinhala.” (By contrast, the entirety of Sri Lanka is 70% Buddhist, 13% Hindu, 10% Muslim, and 7% Christian — very different from the Tamils.) So: Sri Lanka’s political split was along religious lines — mainly Tamil Hindus versus Sinhal Buddhists — in addition to being along tribal lines; and the Tamils represented, in both respects, supporters of the Hindu caste-system, and of the former British aristocracy, which are America’s vassals, against the Sri Lankan public.

In 1976, the militant separatist Tamil Tigers were born, basically as a reaction against the 1946 freeing of that country from its former colonial British masters.

Starting in 1985, the Tamil Tigers “forcibly occupied more than 35,000 acres of Muslim residential, agricultural and cattle farming land. The government did nothing to help Muslims regain their properties based on title deeds, government permits or the paddy cultivation register. During the ethnic conflict in 1983, 1985, and 1990, more than 12,700 Muslim families were chased out by” the Tiger forces. Wikipedia’s article “Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE” calls the October 1990 portion of that sequence an “ethnic cleansing,” of Muslims, from the north Sri Lankan, Tiger-controlled, city of Chavakachcheri.

Colvin’s ‘news’-‘reports’ were strongly pro-Tamil, anti-Sinhal, but she seems to have known nothing about the country from which she was reporting (at war), and to have cared even less about it. (She even said [12:00-] “The history, and the ability to put into context anything in a war … It didn’t mean anything,” because “it never happens the way you think it’s going to.” She exhibited no interest whatsoever in understanding the background of a war. To her, for example, the war in Chechnya was simply bombings by Russia, “an indiscriminate bombing of Chechen villages,” and she had no curiosity as to why whatever was occurring was actually happening.) Instead, she was obsessed by, and focused only on, the immense suffering that civilians on the US-UK-backed side experienced. Of course, the owner of her newspaper, Rupert Murdoch, probably knew the historical background in this former British colony of Sri Lanka, but her employers never told her about that, and she apparently never asked them about it. They simply couldn’t find any other journalist who was stupid enough to do their bidding in their bosses’ former Empire and who was willing, indeed eager, to accept the pay that they offered to do it. This well-intentioned, but willingly ignorant, employee lost an eye — and was nearly killed — because of her being embedded there, with what were actually (though she never knew it) UK proxy-forces. She thought that she was helping ‘the good guys’ (Tamils) in a war against ‘the bad guys’ (the Government). She was the archetypal star-‘journalist’, having faith in ‘our’ side. She is beloved, by her ‘journalistic’ colleagues, as if she hadn’t been merely the empire’s most effective war-propagandist.

—

In 2011, in Libya, she was accepted again into Gaddafi’s tent for an interview, even though she despised him as one of the ‘bad’ guys. (This doesn’t mean “bad” as Hillary Clinton was bad, but instead ‘bad’ as one of the Clinton-Biden-Obama regime’s many victims who all were ‘bad’, in her view. And, of course, the US-UK aristocracy are all ‘good’, in that view: the imperialists’ view.)

In 2012, in Syria, at the conflict in Homs, she was telecasting to CNN, and other TV networks, regarding how evil Bashar al-Assad was for bombing the enclaves there that, in fact, were cooperating with Al Qaeda (though Colvin didn’t report that they were such). It was on 22 February 2012, and Britain’s Telegraph  bannered “Marie Colvin: Britain summons Syria ambassador over killing.” This newspaper reported: “In her broadcasts on Tuesday night, Colvin had accused the Syrian Army of perpetrating the ‘complete and utter lie that they are only targeting terrorists.’ Describing what was happening as ‘absolutely sickening’, Colvin said: ‘The Syrian army is simply shelling a city of cold, starving civilians.’” When the US and UK had done more-widespread, entire-city, bombings in World War II, it was fine, in this view; but, now, when Syria’s Government were doing more-targeted versions of that, in order to prevent a takeover of Syria by the US, and a subsequent hand-over of Syria to the Sauds, it wasn’t okay. And, of course, the Western ‘press’-corps, of US-UK invasion-propagandists, place Colvin upon a pedestal, as having constituted the ‘ideal’ ‘ war journalist’.

That’s one way of interpreting wars and international relations — the way that Colvin memorialized.

An excellent docudrama movie about Marie Colvin’s reporting from Sri Lanka in 1985, and Libya in 2011, and Syria in 2012, is the November 2018 “A Private War”. It provides an honest portrayal of her. (Some incompetent critics downgraded the movie because of what actually were deficiencies — basically Colvin’s stupidity and shallowness — in the real person herself. Other incompetent critics, such as at the neoconservative Washington Post, praised it largely because they shared Colvin’s neoconservatism. It’s just an honest, and very skillfully done, biopic.) On the basis of its strictly cinematic values, I consider it a superb film.

——

The opposite way — the anti-imperialist viewpoint — of reporting about war and international relations, has been embodied, to cite two prime authentic journalists — NOT propagandists (such as Colvin was) — by Vanessa Beeley, and also by Eva Bartlett. Both of these authentically great reporters have also covered the war in Syria. Here, from them, is this opposite way of interpreting war and international relations:

——

“Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)”

VIDEO, 19 mins., Eva Bartlett, 10 December 2016, U.N.

——

https://www.rt.com

“‘They know that we know they are liars, they keep lying’: West’s war propaganda on Ghouta crescendos”

Eva Bartlett, on 21 March 2018

——

“Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett & Patrick Henningsen Exposes the White Helmets”

VIDEO, 27 mins., 7 October 2016, rt.com

——

21stcenturywire.com

“Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception – Part I”

Vanessa Beeley, 23 October 2015

——

21stcenturywire.com

“Part II – Syria’s White Helmets: War By Way of Deception ~ ‘Moderate Executioners’”

Vanessa Beeley, 28 October 2015

——

21stcenturywire.com

“WHO ARE SYRIA’S WHITE HELMETS (terrorist linked)?”

Vanessa Beeley, 21 June 2016

——

21stcenturywire.com

“EXCLUSIVE: The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked Imposters”

Vanessa Beeley, 23 September 2016

——

mintpressnews.com

“Faux Humanitarian Irwin Cotler, the White Helmets, and the Whitewashing of an Appalling Agenda”

Vanessa Beeley, 1 August 2019

——

Those journalists DON’T win awards from the Foreign Press Association, etc., and AREN’T hired by mainstream ‘news’ media, but they are vastly superior to the ones who do.

If India had abstained, the resolution would have perished. Several major regional powers opposed the resolution – Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc. – as well as India’s neighbors Bangladesh and Nepal.

What caused the volte-face in the Indian stance? In a nutshell, domestic political considerations prevailed. Indeed, a sense of frustration had begun creeping into the Indian foreign policy establishment as regards its diplomatic agility to prod Colombo to find a lasting solution to Sri Lanka’s Tamil problem following the decimation of the LTTE as a militant organization espousing separatism.

New Delhi counted that it could leverage the substantial political, diplomatic and military support it extended to Colombo in the decisive stages of the war to influence the latter’s post-war policies. However, the triumphalism in Colombo chose to feed on the massive upsurge in Sri Lankan nationalism, and the demons of Sinhalese chauvinism staged a comeback, while Sri Lanka’s ruling party found it useful to tap into these reservoirs to win successive presidential, parliamentary and local-body elections and tighten its grip on power.

Colombo banks on getting robust, unwavering support from India’s major neighbors – China, Pakistan and Iran – and on finessing the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean to its advantage, besides exploiting international disquiet that intrusive or prescriptive involvement by the world community would be precedent-setting.

Notwithstanding this complex matrix, the main reason for India’s decision to vote against Sri Lanka is to be found in its domestic politics. India’s coalition politics is delicately poised, which gives the two main Tamil regional parties in Tamil Nadu a larger-than-life role to play in national politics. Any future coalition government in New Delhi would have to depend heavily on the support of the Tamil parties.

Thus, in the current political fluidity in India, with growing talk of a possible mid-term parliamentary poll, both the main national parties – Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] – are under compulsion to be sensitive to Tamil politics. Even the Left parties demanded that India supported the US-led move against Sri Lanka in Geneva. All the national parties have resorted to political opportunism in pandering to the Tamil parties.

The great paradox is that it was left to the right-wing nationalistic Hindu organization known as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS] to take a highly principled position on the Sri Lankan issue. The RSS argued that India should not support the US-sponsored resolution for the following reasons:

•    The western move is a motivated one to interfere in the internal affairs of a country with a democratically-elected government;

•    The western move is precedent-setting and India may also become a victim of such moves some day;

•    India’s geopolitical interests lie in robustly opposing the Western interference;

•    The West should not be allowed to manipulate the UN forum to serve their agenda;

•    The US’ intentions are highly suspect with regard to re-opening the wounds in the Sri Lankan body polity;

•    The US has no locus standii to champion human rights issues as its own record is abysmal;

•    The LTTE was a terrorist organization and is not worthy of any sympathy;

•    The Mahinda Rajapaksa government in Colombo deserves support for putting down terrorism successfully;

•    However, the responsibility to rehabilitate the displaced Tamils lies with the government in Colombo since they are equal citizens of that country.

•    India has an interest and a moral responsibility to speak for the Tamils of Sri Lanka, which India has been doing all along. But India cannot make a case for anybody to intervene in Sri Lanka.

Obviously, these are weighty reasons and, conceivably, some of them do reflect perspectives held by Indian strategists, too. Suffice to say, the deep-rooted contradictions in India’s Sri Lanka policy surged to view during the voting at Geneva.

What lies ahead for Indian diplomacy? No one fancies that India’s vote at Geneva secured for it a handle to ‘pressure’ the Sri Lankan government. Nor does India propose to partner the US over the Sri Lankan affair. Indeed, within 48 hours of the voting at Geneva, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wrote to Rajapaksa to mollify any sense of hurt in Colombo. Colombo too seems to have has decided not to display any anger. Since Sri Lankans are astute practitioners of diplomacy, we may never even know the range of emotions in their heart of hearts.

That is to say, the Delhi-Colombo tango continues. Delhi will continue to counsel Colombo to find a just, fair and lasting solution to the Tamil problem and forever will Colombo patiently appear to be listening to the Indian demarches.

Having said that, Colombo is savvy enough to know that although the support from two permanent members of the UN Security Council – Russia and China – ensure the West cannot mount any drastic act of intervention in Sri Lanka in a near term, it would do no good to Sri Lanka’s interests to alienate India. In some ways at least, this is a South Asian variant of the “as-close-as-lips-and-teeth” syndrome involving China and North Korea.

The Sri Lankan ploy has been to prolong the national reconciliation and thereby discredit New Delhi’s interference and incrementally wear out the Indians rather than confront them. But this is where Sri Lanka may be making a mistake. Given the vagaries of India’s coalition politics for the foreseeable future, the policy of non-interference in Sri Lanka is becoming a non-option for Indian policymakers. Nor are Indian policymakers unaware that the human rights discourse is highly politicized in the context of international relations.

The external pressure through discussions at the UNHRC or other international forums could help Colombo understand that there are ‘red lines’. But the issue is whether Colombo sees things that way.

On the other hand, the political base of the Rajapaksa government is showing signs of wear and tear even as socio-economic problems are piling and anti-imperialistic rhetoric cannot be the perennial distraction. When repressive measures continue, when force is used to disrupt social protests, when extrajudicial killings remain a dreaded feature of life, Sri Lanka’s credentials to withstand the questioning by the international community is also getting steadily eroded.

There is glaring disconnect between Sri Lanka’s national (domestic) policies and its foreign policy imperatives. The point is also that the global environment is changing and it is only through responsible and principled policies in the domestic sphere with regard to the Tamil problem that ultimately Colombo can hope to ‘assimilate’ the Western pressure.

Washington also has a ‘hidden agenda’ toward the Sri Lankan political arena; after all, it was in the run-up to the UNHRC vote that it chose to affirm that the former army chief Sarath Fonseka is a political prisoner. Again, Sri Lanka’s close ties with China and Iran have definitely provoked Washington to keep Colombo on its toes.

To be sure, Colombo is on legitimate grounds in upholding its national sovereignty and the will of the majority opinion in the country as the ultimate benchmarks to decide its national reconciliation policies. These are fair principles. But then, life is not always fair. And more so when Sri Lanka’s capacity to defend itself and uphold its principles is heavily predicated on the willingness of its ‘friends’ to extend seamless support to it.

The heart of the matter is that the West is only demanding the implementation of a report handed over by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission [LLRC], which was appointed by the Sri Lankan Government. New Delhi would expect Colombo at some point to seek its help, since the role that India is uniquely placed to play in helping Sri Lanka to implement the LLRC cannot be matched by any of its friends individually or collectively.