It is nice to have legions of commentators, punters, analysts to discuss and to deconstruct the international relations of states. All this convoluted deployment of intellect is a way to entertain the public opinion, which is growing more and more educated and can be fooled easily.
Take the Bolivarian revolution of Chavez in Venezuela: roaring speeches on one side, “world public enemy number one” on the other. 70% of Venezuelan oil goes to the US; Chavez has been Swissly through and precise in the repayment of Venezuelan bonds: Goldman Sachs and the other made a fortune with the socialist revolution.
In Sri Lanka, the government of Rajapaksa is strenuously resisting the siege of Western powers; Sri Lanka stands the assault of foreign interference in national sovereignty. But the substance of the critics is: where are the 80 000 civilians missing. Of course nobody mentions this; the confrontation in the diplomatic sphere is about government-sponsored recommendations that the government doesn’t implement. President Rajapaksa is using the international stage to re-affirm the right to develop: de-colonized nations to choose their own destiny. Standing ovation.
In private he sold at bargain prices concession for oil exploration. Cairn-Vedanta will pocket 90% of the sales from the Sri Lankan oil. Now, if you are a colonial power, will you prefer to have a hard confrontation on the matters that count, like oil or empty speeches about principles and human rights?
Rajapaksa is working hard for colonial powers and the colonial powers are benefitting with sound, material profits. In public they accuse each other, reinforcing the perception of a clash: European citizens are satisfied of fighting (diplomatically) the right cause and unknowingly (?) pocketing the money; Sri Lankan citizens are happy of maintaining their independence and unknowingly (!) to be stolen once again by the Europeans. When the two parties are extremely happy of the contract, either the deal is very good or it is a scam.