Ten days that Shook Sri Lanka

By Sumanasiri Liyanage

(May 13, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Since the dawn of April 20, 2009 events that have unfurled in Sri Lanka, particularly in the context of ethno-political conflict are of great importance because they not only reveal the extreme human suffering caused by internal armed conflicts but also raise theoretical and practical issues related to an unfinished state-building project in a small post-colonial country. Sri Lanka is a microcosm that helps understand how the ‘big’ and the ‘powerful’ who often treat the rest of the world as their backyard operate in current global setting and how a small post-colonial country can use the new space created by the same process of globalization in reducing the impact of the pressures of the powerful global actors.

Sri Lanka would also be an interesting case study showing how and to what extent a small pluri-national society could develop an accommodative governing structure ensuring parity of participation for its peoples not only as individuals but also as groups and communities. This article attempts to examine events of the last ten days of April 2009 in Sri Lanka focusing primarily on military operations of the Sri Lankan security forces, massive inflow of civilians to government-controlled areas, the politics of Tamil Nadu on the eve of State and General elections, response of Indian Union Government and the international community. The article begins by narrating the main events as they have unfolded in Sri Lanka in the last ten days of April 2009. The issues and challenges reinforced by the events are the subject of Section 2. Measures to deal with those issues and challenges are briefly outlined in the Section 3.

Narrating the Episode

At the dawn of April 20, the 53rd and 58th divisions of Sri Lankan Army broke the earth embankment built by the Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) creating a space for trapped civilians to flee the so-called no-fire zone, the last patch of Sri Lanka under LTTE control, and enter into government controlled area. By Thursday April 25 around 109,000 people from Palammaathalan, Ambalavanpokkanai and Puthumaathalan had been freed from what was in reality an open prison of the LTTE. Even French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner who visited Sri Lanka had to admit that "the civilians are hostages of the LTTE." The response of the international community was mixed. USA, Canada and some countries of the EU continued to insist that contending parties should agree to a permanent or prolonged ceasefire. Their argument has been that a ceasefire, notwithstanding failure of the government’s decision to stop military action for two days to mark the Tamil and Sinhala New Year, would help in release of civilians. Sri Lankan government refused to buy that argument and continued its own operations of freeing trapped civilians and of capturing the LTTE leadership. Attempts by countries of Global North to raise the issue at the UN Security Council were thwarted by a possible veto by China and Russia. The firm policy of the Sri Lankan Government based on the understanding that there is no uniform international community angered the countries of Global North. According to Reuters, US has advised the executive body of IMF to delay processing the Sri Lankan request for $1.9 billion SDR facility (SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries) to ease the Sri Lankan balance of payment problem. Mohammad Qadaffi announced that Libya would release the promised $500 million grant to Sri Lanka immediately. In the meantime, Co-Chairs (USA, Norway, EU and Japan) issued a statement calling for a ceasefire and suggested that LTTE leadership be given a chance to submit themselves to a third-country. Interestingly, none of the co-chair countries have expressed their willingness to accept them if the Sri Lankan government would go with their suggestion making the option an incomplete one. Paradoxically, in Colombo, both Bernard Kouchner and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband stressed that their governments do not seek to save Prabhakaran—leader of the LTTE.

The pre-election heat in Tamil Nadu and the competition between DMK and AIADMK to use the Sri Lankan Tamil issue for their election gains as well as DMK’s links with the Congress Party made it imperative for India to engage with the Sri Lankan government to find an amicable solution to the humanitarian crisis of the remaining civilians in LTTE controlled areas that has now been reduced to 10- 12 square kilometers. India’s concerns are legitimate and stem from different reasons. For India, the Sri Lankan Tamil national question has partly been an internal issue embedded in the Indian political landscape. It also has a security dimension, though that aspect has gradually been reduced in importance as a result of new foreign policy formulations by President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government. In an interview with NDTV x 24 Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan defense secretary, accepted that India’s concerns were legitimate and Sri Lanka understood them. Indian defense secretary and national security advisor visited Sri Lanka on April 24 and met President Rajapaksa to brief him on India’s concerns. Meanwhile, the LTTE announced a unilateral ceasefire that the countries of Global North praised heavily, but the Sri Lankan government rejected as a farce. On 26, Indian Home Minister, P. Chidambaran announced that there would be an important announcement by the Sri Lankan government in the next 24 hours. DMK leader, Karunanidhi began a fast unto-death asking for immediate ceasefire in Sri Lanka. On April 27, the Government of Sri Lanka announced that the military operations against the LTTE had come to a conclusion and the security forces would engage only in securing the release of remaining civilians trapped in the tiny silver coastal belt of 10 square kilometres. Hence, forces were advised not to use heavy weapons or air-shelling thereafter.

UN sent three high level officials to Sri Lanka. France announced that it would donate 100-bed hospitals to treat freed civilians. The UK announced a financial grant of more than 2million pounds and Indian government promised a 1.9 billion Rupee grant for relocation and rehabilitation. Bernard Kouchner and David Miliband visited Sri Lanka on April 29 and insisted on their usual demand of ceasefire, but the Sri Lankan government refused.

The response of the countries of the Global North is not only inconsistent with their declared policies but invariably dominating in approach and substance. One may even perceive that the old ‘sticks and carrots’ policies continue to appear though in a different garb and through different techniques of domination. They have failed to explain how a ceasefire proposed by them would assist in releasing innocent civilians trapped in the tiny sliver of coastal land in Sri Lanka’s North being used by the LTTE as ‘a human shield’. The Washington Post in its editorial has revealed this inconsistency in the following words: "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, one of the world’s most violent terrorist outfits, are surrounded in northern Sri Lanka and about to be destroyed - but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European self-styled peacemakers are getting in the way of victory. The meddlers should let Colombo finish off this menace." It further added: "Last week, Mrs. Clinton played into the hands of the terrorists by blaming the Sri Lankan government for the crisis. ‘The entire world is very disappointed’ that they were ‘causing such untold suffering,’ she said." Ceasefire would have produced only two results in the context that the LTTE continue to use civilians as a human shield. First, it would have prolonged the suffering of Tamil civilians forcefully brought into this small stripe of land by forcing them to continue to live in that hell-hole for a longer period. Secondly, had the space been opened for outside forces to operate, it would have given LTTE a new legitimacy, making a tiny Tamil Eelam and new life for the LTTE leadership. The question asked by Foreign Secretary of Sri Lanka Dr Palitha Kohona is interesting and revealing. He asked the USA and EU to do what they preach for Sri Lanka in relation to Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Problems and Challenges

The depressing video reports unfurled on TV screens worldwide on April 20 and 21 showing Tamil civilians fleeing the last patch of Sri Lanka under LTTE control would have made anyone wonder if there was no way to prevent the extreme human suffering of innocent Tamil civilians trapped in the North. Like in any massive hostage rescue operation, there were so many casualties, some civilians were killed, some injured. Among them were women, children and elderly people. With the influx of more than 160,000 people since March this year and another 15,000 to 20,000 trapped in LTTE area, the Sri Lankan government has to face an enormous task that is more complex than the co-chairs have envisioned. Its challenges are basically three-fold, namely, (1) immediate humanitarian crisis, (2) return, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and (3) structural reforms.

The immediate humanitarian tasks are huge since the exodus was so sudden and unexpected and involved some degree of security threat owing to possible suicide attacks and LTTE infiltration. The security concerns have made the situation rather different from the Tsunami situation about five years ago. The result was it took quite a long time to send the civilians to their temporary accommodation. Provision of food, clothing and other basic services to rescued civilians was a challenging task so the government had to use air force helicopters and planes for transport of food and other requirements. Most interesting development is that people in the South came forward like in Tsunami disaster to help their Tamil fellow citizens. Understandably there have been many gaps and flaws in the mechanism of providing basic requirements. The government is now taking steps to build new institutions with more civil participation to handle these immediate humanitarian concerns.

Initially, there was a rumour that civilians rescued from the LTTE controlled areas would be kept in IDP camps for a period of three years. However, the government has recently announced that the process of sending them to their normal habitat will begin in six months time. The commencement of these tasks is assigned to one of the chief ministers. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of destroyed villages and infrastructure would be a mammoth task requiring a huge budget.

Thirdly, Tamil national question is not only an issue of allocating material, physical and human resources, but also restructuring old state structures of power-sharing. The critical question is how to introduce new democratic structures after three decades of military conflict?

What is to be done?

International community can play a big role in helping Sri Lanka meet these problems and challenges if they adopt a non-dominant but directional donor policy. Foreign assistance as a means of domination would make things worse in the Global South. Instead, assistance should be linked with normative principles. The most important ingredient in non-dominant, but directional assistance in relation to Sri Lankan national question is that foreign assistance should be aimed at rebuilding and strengthening local governments thus reducing over-centralization that in fact lies at the heart of the national question. With the end of the military conflict, Sri Lanka will encounter two dangers. First, in the last three years, the war has given the military establishment a relative independence and popularity. As a result, the military may, in future, play a more influential role in Sri Lankan polity further weakening democratic structures. A more dangerous trend however would be the reemergence of exclusive Sinhala nationalism that would jeopardize attempts for state re-structuring. The military victory would be interpreted as the end of the Tamil national question. The current interference of the governments of Global North is indirectly feeding the Sinhala exclusive nationalism as Sinhala exclusive political groups, like Janata Vimukthi Peramuna, National Freedom Front and Hela Urumaya, link national independence with Sinhala exclusivism.

The countries of Global North can play a positive role if their policies are based on a qualitatively different perspective. International donors of the Global North should link their assistance to power-sharing programmes without limiting it to constitutional changes. First, in the North and East, it is imperative to rebuild and strengthen local government institutions. International donors should fund directly these bodies [money may be transferred through normal channels] and that would gradually assist in engendering people at the grass root level. Funding through line ministries and NGOs should be discouraged. Second, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects should come not under the government but under Provincial Councils and local government bodies. Essentially what is currently happening in the East should not be encouraged. New criteria such as degree of implementation of bi-lingualism may be helpful in making donor projects more ethnic sensitive. Third, any long-term assistance should be linked with explicit state-restructuring programme with substantial power-sharing and democratization.

The writer teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya.E-mail: sumane_l@yahoo.com

-Sri Lanka Guardian