Amongst continuing misconceptions about Sri Lanka one of the central points addressed in the debate regarding Sri Lanka in the British House of Commons, was the issue of the opening of the A9. It was widely believed by various speakers that the closure of this road was an arbitrary decision of the government, and that it had contributed to humanitarian problems for Tamil citizens.
 
This was a topic that has concerned us closely at the Peace Secretariat. Our Economic Affairs Unit, which maintains close and committed relationships with chambers of commerce in the North and East, has raised this issue constantly and it figured largely in the discussions we held with Civil Society in the months of June and July. Indeed it was perhaps the single most important topic, rivaled only by the issue of restrictions on fishing.
 
With regard to the latter, we were immensely grateful that, despite security problems, the government relaxed fishing restrictions a couple of months back. It should be remembered that, when the Indian Peace Keeping Force was operating in these areas, there was a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week ban on fishing. The government of Sri Lanka at the time did not see this as a problem.

Though we must appreciate the urgent security considerations of the IPKF, battling terrorism on behalf of Sri Lanka, we must also register the comparative concerns of the current Sri Lankan government about the welfare of all its citizens. We have regretted previously the manner in which the LTTE responded to the government relaxation of security measures, by attempting to transport a 1000 kg bomb. We have noted the signal failure of the international community to condemn this, and we emphasize again now the importance of humanitarian considerations, and the continuing failure of the international community to address such issues, for reasons that defy understanding given their other humanitarian priorities.

Regrettably the same problem exists with regard to the threats of the LTTE that have impeded free movement on the A9. When the Peace Secretariat took up the issue of the opening of this road with the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, back in June, it was to find a markedly liberal approach to the issue. It was pointed out that opening the road southward from Jaffna would not be possible, given that the LTTE had taken advantage of such opening to launch its attacks at Muhumalai in August last year. Though the sequence of events is largely now forgotten, it should be noted that, after a series of guerilla attacks between November 2005 and July 2006, the LTTE then launched two concerted efforts, amounting practically to regular offensives, in both the Eastern and the Northen Provinces. These attacks, in Muttur first and then in Muhumalai, were successfully repulsed.

Though the armed forces have since then successfully eliminated the threat of further such attacks in the East, this has not happened in the North. It was therefore understandable that the road southward from Muhumalai could not be opened at this stage. However the Secretary made it clear that he had no objection whatsoever to opening the road northward from Omanthai, but at that stage the ICRC had not been able to sanction this.

The Peace Secretariat at this stage contacted the ICRC, also raising the issue of sea transport to Jaffna. ICRC involvement in this had been stopped after what was reported in the press as LTTE warnings. These followed on a helpful relief operation by the ICRC, following an LTTE attack on a vessel carrying a member of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission.

E-mail correspondence with the ICRC suggested that indeed in both these cases the government of Sri Lanka was keen on greater mobility. Following further questions on the part of the Peace Secretariat, the ICRC discussed the matter confidentially and indicated its reasons for its approach, but agreed that the matter should be reconsidered. Though the ICRC complacence with three days a week was based on the indubitable fact that movement of personnel was limited, SCOPP pointed out the need, based on actual demand, for greater movement of goods, which the ICRC acknowledged.

Meanwhile our Economic Affairs Unit was concerned with the possibilities of a scanner that would help reduce delays at checkpoints, whether at Omanthai or at Medawachchiya. However the Secretariat felt that the costs involved were too high, given the threat of violence. The ICRC restriction had in fact been decided upon following an incident in which the LTTE had fired in close proximity to the checkpoint.

At the meeting of the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Affairs which was attended by Sir John Holmes, the Peace Secretariat had been asked to report on progress with regard to the scanner. We noted then that this seemed unnecessary if the road northward from Omanthai could be opened for more than the current three days a week. The Secretary of Defence then made it clear that he was happy to open it even seven days a week, but noted that it was the ICRC that was responsible for the restrictions.

Of course the ICRC only recommends and it is the government that makes decisions on such matters, but in the current situation it is desirable to act in consultation with the ICRC. At the CCHA meeting the ICRC response was cautious, but Secretary of Defence made clear the urgency of the situation and the ICRC promised to look into the request.

This took some time, because it was reported that the ICRC also needed to consult its Head Office in Geneva. This was finally done, and then the ICRC also approached the LTTE in Kilinochchi, since as had been mentioned earlier the ICRC needs guarantees from both parties. Finally the required guarantees were received. As mentioned before, the government of Sri Lanka had been ready for extended opening for a long time previously. The Peace Secretariat therefore welcomes the ICRC response to the request made at the insistence of the Secretary of Defence, and its success in getting the LTTE to respond positively.

The Secretariat also hopes that a similar outcome will be possible with regard to its concerns about transport by sea. The admirable effort of the ICRC in providing transport last year should be repeated in a context in which the people of Jaffna could do with more regular supplies. Though the Secretariat lauds the tremendous efforts of the Commissioner General of Essential Services in overcoming the shortages that prevailed towards the beginning of 2007, the nearer we can move to an ideal of the free flow of goods and passengers, the better for the people of the area and the country as a whole.

We would therefore urge the ICRC to respond positively to any request for better transport facilities, and in particular for shorter ferry services as well as longer journeys, for both people and goods. Given the recent success in persuading the LTTE to provide the required guarantees, it is likely that ICRC efforts in this respect  would also prove successful.

Meanwhile it should be clearly understood that, unless there are grave security considerations, the government is anxious to encourage movement and economic activity. As noted, the clear difference between the restrictions on fishing today, and twenty years ago when LTTE capacity was much less, makes clear the commitment of the government to the welfare of all its citizens. The Peace Secretariat can only hope that the international community will play a greater role in convincing the LTTE that security threats to economic activity is as unacceptable as threats to attack economic targets.