On May 13, 2009 President Obama addressed the Press on the "Situation in Sri Lanka and Detainee Photographs". Regarding the situation in Sri Lanka the President stated: "Now is the time, I believe, to put aside some of the political issues that are involved and put the lives of the men and women and children who are innocently caught in the crossfire, to put them first. So I urge the Tamil Tigers to lay down their arms and let civilians go. Their forced recruitment of civilians and their use of civilians as human shields are deplorable. These tactics will only serve to alienate all those who carry them out". (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary).

While calling on the Sri Lankan Government to "alleviate this humanitarian crisis", President Obama said: "First, the government should stop the indiscriminate shelling that has taken hundreds of innocent lives, including several hospitals, and the government should live up to its commitment to not use heavy weapons in the conflict zone. Second, the government should give United Nations humanitarian teams access to the civilians who are trapped between the warring parties so that they can receive the immediate assistance necessary to save lives. Third, the government should also allow the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross access to nearly 190,000 displaced people within Sri Lanka so that they can receive additional support that they need"(Ibid).

This statement needs to be considered in detail for the significance of the issues involved and its long term implications in dealing with unconventional or irregular wars initiated by non-state actors such as the LTTE. There is no denying that the humanitarian crisis has been brought about by the LTTE trapping civilians for its protection. But "deplorable" as it is, the President and the International Community can only "urge the Tamil Tigers to lay down arms and let the civilians go", thus conveying the frustration and impotency when it comes to non-state actors. This situation has to change.

Apart from urging, what other options are there to save the civilians? If no action is taken the civilians would continue to languish. Conversely, any action to save the civilians would involve some being "caught in the crossfire". Without doubt, some had to die for over 150,000 civilians to be liberated from the LTTE. Therefore, the question is whether the Sri Lankan Government should be faulted for sacrificing its soldiers in order to save hundreds of thousands of civilians, or should the government have allowed them to stay trapped with no end in sight?

The charge that the government should "stop indiscriminate shelling" means that the President Obama has rejected the assurances given by a democratically elected government whose legitimacy is derived by the free will of its Peoples. When the US and the International Community rejects such assurances it is insulting the Peoples of Sri Lanka. For President Obama to reject the assurances of the Sri Lankan Government, evidence of a more compelling and credible nature has to exist. Thus far no evidence of a compelling nature has been presented.

Sri Lanka being a Democracy and a long standing member of the United Nations and a signatory to International Treaties, there has to be an obligation on the part of other democracies to reveal the sources on which opinions are based and statements made. To state that they are from "credible sources" is not good enough. By reciprocity the Sri Lankan Government should be entitled to demand the sources on which charges are based. This raises the question, "Are only some democracies credible and not others"? Are only some entitled to be part of the "Concert of Democracies" - a concept that is being incubated by the Obama administration - and not other democracies? If such discrimination is to be part of US policy, would not the promotion of democracy as one of the 3Ds (Defense, Democracy, Development) suffer?

Since there is no access inside the conflict zone the charge that "several hospitals" have been shelled has to be based on sources from within. One such source is a medical official. Media reports by Associated Press and reports by INGOs such as Human Rights Watch and others cite this medical officer as the source. However, this same medical officer claimed a hospital had been bombed by the Government, but when the area in which the hospital was located was secured by the security forces they found the hospital in question undamaged, thus discrediting the credibility of this individual.

An Associated Press report published in the Washington Post of May 14 cites this same medical officer as the source for most of its report. The report states: "It was the third attack this month on the hospital and follows shelling last weekend that killed as many as 1,000 civilians…On Wednesday afternoon, the area around the hospital again came under heavy attack according to physician V. Shanmugarajah who said by telephone…". Other citations refer to this "physician" as S. Vartharajah.

By contrast, a report in The Hindu of May 15, 2009, by Muralidhar Reddy titled "3,000 flee LTTE zone" states: "The military-facilitated visit to Karyamullaivaikkal, the village which caught international attention after reports of 378 civilians killed and 1,000 injured purported indiscriminate shelling, showed no trace of fighting. Two separate make-shift hospitals in thatched huts stood intact".

It is evident from the foregoing that reports of several hospitals being shelled are fabrications. Despite common knowledge that LTTE resorts to extreme distortions, President Obama went so far as to state that indiscriminate shelling by the Government "has taken hundreds of innocent lives, including several hospitals" showing the extent to which even the office of the President of the US has been infiltrated by LTTE influences. This should be a matter of deep concern for the administration.

The third issue raised by President Obama’s pertains to access to the Internally Displaced. The charge that the Government "should also allow the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross access to nearly 190,000 displaced people" is another example of the President’s office being fed with wrong information. Not only are the two organizations providing support for the IDPs but so are 52 other INGOs and NGOs, e.g. CARE, OXFAM, Save the Children, WUSC, Caritas, CHA, Sewalanka, Sarvodaya, to name just a few, are jointly involved with providing support .

Reason would make it clear that the Government has very little to gain but much more to lose by indiscriminate shelling. It is reported that there are nearly 50,000 civilians trapped in the conflict zone and about 500 LTTE cadres. This makes it a ratio of 100 civilians to 1 LTTE cadre. Since the intention is to overpower the LTTE, shelling would have to kill 100 civilians to kill one LTTE. This makes no sense militarily. Furthermore, if the civilians believe that the Security forces are resorting to indiscriminate killing, would they flee to Government controlled areas?

Thus, President Obama’s office has become a victim of misinformation by sources who are interested in discrediting the Sri Lankan Government. If this is in fact what led the President to disregard the assurances of the Sri Lankan Government and rely on the credibility of other unspecified sources, it could turn out to be an embarrassment with serious implications; a situation that needs to be addressed forthwith because it could impact policy. It also shows the extent of the outreach of the LTTE’s influence.

The budget proposals presented by the Secretary of Defense reflect the need to prepare for unconventional and/or irregular wars. In preparation for such wars democracies must expect non-state actors such as the LTTE to resort to unimaginable tactics such as terrorism and trapping hundreds of thousands of civilians in the pursuit of its goals. In the event of such possibilities legitimate democratic governments need to defend themselves against challenges to the writ of their respective states by non-state actors.

It should be the obligation of other democracies to support legitimate governments faced with such prospects. This has not been the case with Sri Lanka. Throughout 25 years of the conflict in Sri Lanka fellow democracies have addressed the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE as "parties to the conflict", thereby giving parity to a legitimate democracy and a non-state actor without legitimacy. What is disturbing is the lack of consistency when it comes to non-state actors; some are treated as more equal than others, the LTTE being one of them.

The tendency of some in the International Community has been to threaten Sri Lanka with intervention on humanitarian grounds. If non-state actors resort to violence in the pursuit of their goals humanitarian consequences are inevitable. If such consequences are to be avoided democracies need to band themselves together for each other’s protection because activities of non-state actors are bound to be transnational in the future and without cooperation among states the negative effects would be felt by all.

While the US Defense establishment gets ready to meet new and emerging challenges from irregular wars, the rest of the administration appears to be stuck in a time warp where legitimate democracies are equated with non-state actors, whether their tactics involve the sacrifice of innocent civilians or not. This disconnect is going to haunt global policies towards non-state actors. Unless the democracies of the world unite with a common purpose to deal with these contradictions, global security is likely to be jeopardized. A signal of such solidarity should be more respect for Democracies over non-state actors.

Throughout Sri Lanka’s conflict the tendency of so called "mature democracies" has been to ignore the assertions of the Government and to give credence to sources with no accountability. The promotion of project Democracy requires respect be accorded to a Democracy. At the least, respect for a Democracy will entitle Sri Lanka to the benefit of the doubt.