The general tenor of US statements through the remainder of the war remained one of condemnation of the LTTE, combined with politely worded requests to the Sri Lankan regime: to avoid firing at civilians, to allow international humanitarian access to the trapped civilians, and for a post-war scheme power-sharing involving all Sri Lankan communities (but not the LTTE). This stance served to obscure the glaring truth that, irrespective of the actions or character of the LTTE, the “conflict” was not a battle between two armies to conquer Sri Lanka. It was an entirely one-sided drive by the Sri Lankan regime to annihilate the LTTE and wipe out any organised expression of the Sri Lankan Tamils’ aspirations. This has been amply borne out in the nearly four years since May 2009, after the LTTE has ceased to exist as an organised force.
"Whose Agenda? US Strategic Interests, India, and Sri Lankan War Crimes"
It’s hard to find a—for lack of a better word—leftist take on Sri Lanka’s civil war and ongoing persecution of non-dominant ethnic and religious groups; liberal websites like Groundviews provide good analysis on occasion but a lot of articles tend to retreat behind a wishy-washy “the LTTE committed crimes just like the Sri Lankan state” stance that basically posits both as equals, when in fact the militancy of the LTTE grew as a response to an increasingly fascist state, as this article points out.
I was grateful to read this, grateful to have the truth stated plainly; and one of the crucial things about this article is that it shows how American imperialism works even when it appears inactive. And it does so by linking to how the US maneuvered in Burma: “In short, US policy toward Burma shows us how genuine questions of human rights can be used by the dominant powers, such as the US, as points of pressure against a third world country in order to get it to change its strategic alignment (and open up its economy to boot); once that end is achieved, the human rights situation may even deteriorate, yet will not invite US opprobrium. While we are all familiar with the use of ‘human rights’ as an instrument of US foreign policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and so on, Burma provides an example of how the US can secure its objectives without ‘regime change’, but merely through ‘regime realignment’.”
Also points out how the Sri Lankan army received support from imperial and neigbouring powers via arms, ammunition, training, powers that for all intents and purposes appeared to be entirely uninvolved in the Sri Lankan civil war. “All of these powers have blood on their hands.”