Sri Lanka does not encompass a murderous struggle of two races, as was the case in the cases cited. Rather, there are problems of political deprivation, that must be addressed, as with for instance the aborigines in Australia. Ensuring that these are addressed in a context in which some politicians are recalcitrant does not lead to a R2P situation.
However, it is true that a violent resistance movement has sprung up. It could be argued that this was a consequence not only of the political problem, but also of state sponsored violence in the eighties. Though the actions of the UNP government at the time did not amount to genocide, certainly the attacks on Tamils in 1977, 1981 and 1983 justified international concern. Fortunately there have been no incidents since then of state support for or connivance at attacks on minorities. Certainly there has been nothing even remotely approaching the genocide of the other countries that are distinguished above, without sufficient explication of the differences. To talk of potential genocide or an apprehended threat of genocide in Sri Lanka is excessively alarmist.
Secondly, there is the question of ethnic cleansing. This has never taken place in Sri Lanka, except when the LTTE drove Muslims and Sinhalese out of the Northern Province in 1990. Bandying the word about loosely is most irresponsible.
Recently opposition politicians and others have made much of the security operation that took place in early July, with the Leader of the Opposition making comparisons with Hitler. Certainly the manner in which the operation was conducted was regrettable and the Prime Minister has already apologized. The targets however were not Tamils resident in Colombo, nor indeed Tamils in Colombo on business, but those who could give no reason for being in the city. That they too however have a right to remain in the capital was established by the Supreme Court as well as the Prime Minister’s statement.
The only other possible reason for alleging ethnic cleansing is the state sponsored violence of 1983 which led to many Tamils leaving Sri Lanka, including long term residents of Colombo. Sadly the government of the time did not apologize, though President Kumaratunga did make an apology on behalf of the nation many years later. However, the UNP leadership that was associated with that event was sidelined, and though that wing may be seen as currently resurgent, it has certainly never returned to the ethnic assaults of the early eighties.
With regard to rape, though there were incidents of this in the eighties and nineties in connection with war, on the part of both the Sri Lankan army and the Indian army when it was here, this has hardly ever been alleged recently. During the recent operations in the East there was not a single alleged case of rape.
As for starvation, that has not occurred in Sri Lanka, and it should be noted that the state continues to service even areas under LTTE control, with provision also of health and education, financing all personnel. These services are provided free of charge. There have been incidents of malnutrition, and these have increased recently, but they are not confined to the conflict affected areas. Certainly the recent inclusion by the UN of Sri Lanka in a list of ‘Hunger Hot Spots’ that included Afghanistan and Ethiopia and Somalia and the Sudan as reported prominently in at least one Sri Lankan paper seems excessive, though it may have contributed to a mindset that is determined to see Sri Lanka as an R2P situation.
Finally, the suggestion that the Sri Lankan state has engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity should be substantiated in a responsible fashion. The repeated violations of international humanitarian law that are alleged should be enumerated, and the catalogue of the recent ICG report, which deals largely with allegations based on largely dubious sources is insufficient for a charge of this nature. Statement b) is particularly irresponsible, given that it does not specify what is meant by ‘recent’. The catalogue in the ICG report of major incidents is confined to the last decade of the last century.
Certainly there were enormous abuses in the eighties, and though the governments of the nineties tried to improve things, old mindsets seemed to have died hard. However no credit whatsoever is given to the armed forces which have largely eschewed such behaviour in the present decade. As mentioned above, ethnic cleansing has never occurred, and it is sad to see Mr Evans aligning himself with politicians who try to rouse memories of the Holocaust.
Finally, though the lecture tries to be evenhanded in its recommendations, it falls once more into the trap of failing to deal responsibly with the terrorism of the LTTE. Though it highlights recent measures to restrict funding, the fact remains that the LTTE was not proscribed in many countries for many years, and still operates with impunity in many countries including unfortunately Norway, which is thus subjected to pressures it can ill afford in its current responsible position.
More worryingly, the collection of funds continued apace until very recently, and organizational changes were permitted which make current attempts to restrict funds ineffective. The influx of funds was increased in the initial years of the Ceasefire Agreement, and these were readily translated into lethal weapons, brought into the country with virtual impunity. The failure of the international community to recognize the massive threat posed to Sri Lankans because of this, and to content itself with bolting the stable door after the horse has fled, explains why the Sri Lankan government, which strenuously avoided confrontation for four years of the Ceasefire Agreement, now has to expend such effort, to say nothing of funding, to redress the situation.
Furthermore the failure of the international community to deal satisfactorily with LTTE recruitment has exacerbated the situation. Recent pronouncements suggest that many agencies, including members of the UN family, were content to permit the LTTE to insist that every family in areas under their control contributed one member, provided their own staff were exempt. Sadly, through its failure to make clear what I am sure is its abhorrence of such activities, the international community seems to have condoned this abhorrent practice, as the price of keeping its own workers safe.
The lecture also talks about the possibility of LTTE provocation as though this were an acceptable strategy. It seems more concerned with ensuring that the government, and civilians in government areas, do not respond to such provocation. Certainly that is important, but the historical record shows that such reactions have not occurred since 1983, due to the attitude of the government at the time. Rather, what is needed is much more public condemnation of the bombs that have taken so many civilian lives, and the attempts to transport even larger bombs in the last few weeks.
Sadly there is insufficient awareness of the ruthless continuation of terrorist activity. Given Mr Evans’ awareness of the impact of this on Tamils, as the reason for his lecture indicates, it is depressing that he so forcefully equates Sri Lanka, even if only in terms of potentiality, with other countries where genocide etc have patently occurred. This approach contributes to an erosion of confidence in the objectivity, consistency and responsibility of international agencies, which could contribute so much to promoting peace.
Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process |
Violations Committed
by the GOSL - 351
