International support for Sri Lanka and continuing legacy of war

"Another area in which the legacy of war is to be seen is in politics, and the question of a political solution to the ethnic conflict. The government’s decision to pursue military victory over the LTTE required the mobilisation of ethnic Sinhalese nationalism to sustain the war effort and bear its heavy costs."
_____________

By Jehan Perera

(September 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) There are many reasons that may be given for Sri Lanka having historically received a significantly higher level of international assistance in relation to its population than other similarly situated countries. One reason is that the country is sufficiently small so that foreign aid can actually be seen to make an impact unlike in the case of bigger countries. Another reason is that successive Sri Lankan governments have adopted innovative policies to improve the life of the people, such as social welfare measures that have included free food rations, and free education and health which even much richer countries have deemed to be unaffordable for their own people.

At the present time, the international community’s desire to support Sri Lanka may be seen as stemming from a desire to see its ethnic conflict being resolved in a peaceful and just manner. The importance of such conflict resolution is that it would lead to reconciliation and long term development. There are, however, contrary views that are based on a different understanding. Those who hold such views would see at least part of the international involvement in Sri Lanka as having an ulterior motivation, this being to strengthen Tamil separatism, weaken Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and employing traditional colonial methods of divide and rule.

Such a belief in an international conspiracy reached a peak during the last phase of the war which ended less than four months. At that time there was considerable pressure from sections of the international community for a ceasefire that might have saved thousands of lives, including those of the LTTE leadership. However, many influential opinion leaders in Sri Lanka saw this as an unwarranted and biased international intervention that was primarily motivated by the ulterior motive of saving the LTTE and its leadership to fight another day. This same mistrust continues in a new form today.

The most controversial issue today, and one that has the ability to capture international media attention, is the humanitarian crisis that revolved around the quarter of a million displaced persons in government-run welfare centres in the north. The government has interpreted international pressure to release these displaced persons, or at least to permit them the freedom of movement, as being motivated by a desire to give the LTTE and its supporters a new lease of life. Government leaders have taken a strong stance that they will not jeopardise the security of the country by any premature release of the displaced persons, and no amount of pressure is likely to change that decision.

DOMINANT FEATURE

There needs to be recognition that the dominant feature in Sri Lankan society today continues to be the legacy of the war. The war that ended was an internal war that polarised its people on ethnic lines for nearly three decades. During this period there was terrorism and counter terrorism and human rights violations that hardened feelings on all sides of the ethnic divide. The last phase of the war led to the mobilisation of ethnic nationalism that gave first place to conflict resolution by military means. The continuation of this military frame of mind is most evident in the ongoing confinement of virtually the entire population who lived in the formerly LTTE controlled areas of the north.

It is possible that hundreds if not thousands of former and present LTTE members may be mingling amongst the displaced population and screening them out is difficult. Sections of the international community have been strongly critical of this measure as being a gross violation of the right of those who have been displaced to enjoy their basic human right to freedom of movement, so that even if they cannot go back to their home areas due to land mines, they can at least go somewhere else where they have relatives or friends. However, government spokespersons have made it clear that they believe that this displaced population contains within it a grave threat to national security. The balance between freedom of movement and national security is weighted heavily in favour of the latter.

Another area in which the legacy of war is to be seen is in politics, and the question of a political solution to the ethnic conflict. The government’s decision to pursue military victory over the LTTE required the mobilisation of ethnic Sinhalese nationalism to sustain the war effort and bear its heavy costs. The victory over the LTTE has strengthened the forces that supported the government and vindicated the government’s own belief in its capacity to quell ethnic Tamil nationalism. The forces of ethnic Sinhalese nationalism now make the argument that the gains of war, obtained through the sacrifice of Sinhalese soldiers, should not be surrendered through the stroke of a pen by granting greater devolution of power to the Tamil majority areas.

There are however two mitigating factors to this rather bleak assessment regarding the government’s preparedness to reach out to its Tamil citizens. The first of the mitigating factors is the moderating impact of elections due to the need to obtain ethnic minority votes in the longer term. Today the President is riding a wave of ethnic Sinhalese majority support, due to the victory in the war. But in the longer term the likely scenario is the break up of the Sinhalese electorate into the two traditional camps, one SLFP and the other UNP. At the last presidential election, President Mahinda Rajapaksa won with the barest majority of votes overall, with only limited support from ethnic minority areas, although he secured handsome majorities in Sinhalese majority areas.

MITIGATING FACTORS

The results of the recently concluded local government elections in the north of the country suggests that the ethnic Tamil vote in the north and possibly east and elsewhere will not go to the government unless the government changes its position on matters that affect the Tamil minority. This is a pressure point that the government is likely to be sensitive to, as it means votes and can mean the difference between a sweeping electoral victory and scraping through at elections. The second pressure point on the government is the international community, especially its western component, with whom Sri Lanka has strong economic, trade and tourism links, and which have been generous aid donors in the past.

On the other hand, the government has shown that any reduction in aid from that section of the international community can be more or less compensated for by unconditional aid from another section of the international community, including China and Iran. It needs to be recognised that the focus on national security and on Sinhalese nationalism is the core feature of the present government and its success. Therefore, whatever the external pressures on it, the government is unlikely to shed its commitment to national security and Sinhalese nationalism.

In these circumstances it is unlikely that all displaced persons will be resettled any time soon or given the freedom to move wherever they want. Similarly the devolution of power to the north and east is unlikely to go beyond the present constitutional arrangements for the foreseeable future. On the other hand the government is likely to resettle some of the displaced people, even if all are not resettled. In addition, even if there is no extra devolution of power at this time, the government may proceed to set up an elected provincial council for the north, though subject to the present limitations of the system of provincial administration.

Those in the international community who seek to assist Sri Lanka in its growth and development need to adopt an approach that is mindful of the government’s core positions and concerns which no amount of pressure is likely to change. A strategy that the international community can consider in these circumstances would be to actively and materially support whatever positive actions that the government takes that correspond to internationally accepted standards. Financial support for the improvement of conditions in the welfare camps, resettling of displaced persons, functioning of provincial councils and independent human rights groups merit consideration by the international community.

-Sri Lanka Guardian