“Personal contact isn’t everything—it won’t change a nation’s fundamental interests—but it can make a big difference where interests might align,” said Mr Abbott. “Mostly, though, articulating a significant but often unacknowledged truth turned out to be a good diplomatic ice-breaker.”
He then went on to state,
“I’m sure that the Sri Lankan president was pleased that Australia didn’t join the human rights lobby against the tough but probably unavoidable actions taken to end one of the world’s most vicious civil wars”.
Mr Abbott has long faced criticism over his close relationship with the former Sri Lankan president and his government’s policy towards dealing with human rights abuses on the island.
The former prime minister said that this led to Sri Lankan becoming an “even stronger” partner in “the Abbott government’s most urgent initial task” – stopping asylum seekers from reaching Australia.
Writing in New Matilda, Max Chalmers said:
No doubt he was pleased. But the brutal statement looks all the more confusing when you compare it to what Abbott writes later in the essay, justifying Australian intervention in the Middle East.
“The Abbott government’s objective in the Middle East was never to create liberal democracy in a region where (Israel aside) it doesn’t exist,” he states. “It was merely to support or to foster governments that didn’t commit genocide against their own people or permit terrorism against ours.”
Funny, because the former is exactly what Sri Lanka is accused of doing.
