In Sri Lanka, over 100,000 civilians have managed to flee the fighting between government forces and Tamil Tiger rebels in the northeast of the island. But not all got away; several thousands, possibly as many as 50,000, are still trapped and many have been caught and killed in the cross-fire. A humanitarian disaster is taking place.

In Pakistan, the number of civilians who managed to flee the fighting in the Swat Valley between government forces and Taleban rebels is even larger, over 360,000 in just over a week. But there too, thousands have not managed to get away and are now trapped without food and power between the two sides. Another humanitarian disaster is in the making.

Despite the compelling similarities between the two conflicts, the response by the international community could not be more different. In Sri Lanka’s case, the UN and international leaders have been pleading with the Sri Lankan authorities — to no avail — to call a cease-fire so as to prevent further carnage among the trapped civilians. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wants an immediate end to the fighting; the British and French foreign ministers, in an almost unprecedented move, flew to Colombo to beg the authorities to suspend action; after three days, UN Humanitarian chief John Holmes gave up trying to persuade the government to open a humanitarian corridor and left.

With Pakistan, it is a different story. There is concern about the civilians but most of it is focused on the needs of those who managed to flee, not those still trapped. There are no calls for a cease-fire so that they can get out of the firing line. British and French foreign ministers have not rushed to Islamabad to ask President Asif Ali Zardari to halt the offensive; Ban’s reaction has been limited to concern about the refugees. At best, NGOs have called on the Pakistani government to do the most they can to avoid civilian casualties.

Why the difference in the world’s responses? Why one standard for Sri Lanka but another for Pakistan? The situations are, after all, so similar as to be almost identical: government forces in an all-out struggle with rebels intent on destroying the country; rebels using identical tactics: terror and suicide bombers. Only the players are different, not the situations.

There is only one uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn. It is that political considerations will always outweigh humanitarian ones. The international community is so determined to see the Taleban smashed that it turns a blind eye to civilian casualties; it accepts them as the price to be paid in this case. Sri Lanka is judged differently. The war there is seen as a local affair; there are no major global considerations. The international community can afford to exercise its moral indignation, even if that indignation is relative.

That said, the attitudes adopted in these two cases are probably the best that can be hoped for. At least there is a sense of horror at the scale of suffering in Sri Lanka. But it is painfully clear there is no such thing as absolute morality when it comes to politics.

Grand bargain for Mideast achievable

The Independent in its editorial yesterday detailed the problems US President Barack Obama faces in resolving the Middle East crisis in view of the hawkish policy of the new Israeli government. Excerpts:

There is a sense that the politics of Middle East peacemaking, largely suspended since Israel’s general elections, are returning to the boil once again. The United Nations Security Council met to discuss injecting some impetus into Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.

Meanwhile, new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Egypt, hoping to build up an anti-Iranian regional coalition. There was also an intervention from King Abdallah of Jordan, warning that unless serious progress is made in peace talks between Israel and its neighbors over the next 18 months another conflict is likely.

Yet the most significant moment in this international re-engagement will come next week when Netanyahu visits Washington for talks with Obama. The Israeli prime minister has been talking of a “triple track” approach toward the Palestinians (referring to political, economic and security development in Palestinan areas) but the words “two-state solution” have not passed his lips. Worse, Netanyahu’s hard-line Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has dismissed the peace process with the Palestinians as a “dead end”.

Many expect the Israeli prime minister next week to try to persuade the White House to focus on Iran’s nuclear program rather than Palestinian peace talks. President Obama needs to impress on Netanyahu that the two-state solution is Washington’s primary objective and that US pressure on this front will be unrelenting.

At the weekend, James Jones, President Obama’s national security adviser, acknowledged Israel’s concern about the “existential threat” from Tehran, but went on to argue that “there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard toward achieving a two-state solution”. There is a logic to this approach. By actively addressing Israeli fears about Iran, it should be easier for the US to demand serious compromise from Netanyahu over the Palestinians.