Why Sri Lanka is NO R2P Situation
- SL Peace Secretariat Head
SECRETARY GENERAL
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
Points of Clarification on International Crisis Group
CEO Gareth Evans' Neelan Tiruchelvam Memorial Lecture On The Limits
of State Sovereignty: The Responsibility to Protect in the 21st Century
Throughout the lecture there was reference to indicators of a Responsibility
to Protect situation being genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and
crimes against humanity. or other similar mass atrocity crimes. At one
point there is mention, in addition to these two factors, of systematic
rape and starvation of children. Sometimes the reference is to large--scale
killing instead of genocide.
In addition to reacting effectively to such situations, the lecture
also notes the need to prevent such situations from occurring, and talks
about situations not only actually but also potentially involving the
above factors, about a threat which is 'occurring or apprehended'.
Unfortunately the lecture does not go into detail about the manner
in which potential situations are to be assessed, which is extremely
unfortunate because, as any study of moral perspectives shows, deriving
an 'ought' from an 'is' is not an easy exercise.
The latter part of the lecture goes on to claim categorically that
a. government and LTTE forces have repeatedly violated international
humanitarian law
b. Recent Sri Lankan history offers all-too-many examples of large-scale
atrocities, mass-graves, serious war-crimes, and ethnic cleansing
This and some other assertions lead to the claims that:
"All this makes it hard to argue that Sri Lanka is anything but
an R2P situation. It may not be one where large-scale atrocity crimes
- Cambodia-style, Rwanda-style, Srebrenica-style, Kosovo-style - are
occurring right now, or immediately about to occur, but it is certainly
a situation which is capable of deteriorating to that extent. So it
is an R2P situation which demands preventive action, by the Sri Lankan
government itself, but with the help and support of the wider international
community, to ensure that further deterioration does not occur."
However, none of the factors the lecture notes are or have been present
in Sri Lanka. As the examples cited indicate, the concept of R2P arose
in the context of genocide, where a country was divided almost absolutely
on racial lines. This is not the case in Sri Lanka, where many Tamils
have died at the hands of the LTTE, and indeed after the Ceasefire was
in operation other Tamil parties and groups were in more danger from
the Tamils than Sinhalese were. Mr. Evans knows of the murder by the
LTTE of leading Tamil politicians
a) three Mayors of Jaffna - Alfred Durayappah, Sarojini Yoheswaran
and Pon Sivapalan, the last two within the last five years
b) Parliamentarians - Messers Amirthalingam, Yoheswaran, Tambimuttu,
Tiruchelvam and Kadirgamar to name a few
c) Leaders of other Tamil groups - i.e. Sri Sabaratnam, Kingsley Rasanayagam
(who had been elected to Parliament in 2004 but was forced to resign)
d) Human Rights and Political Activists - i.e. Rajini Thiranagama, Kethesh
Loganathan
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.
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
31st July 2007
Web Link:
The Limits of State Sovereignty: The Responsibility to Protect in the
21st Century, Gareth Evans
Eighth Neelam Tiruchelvam Memorial Lecture by Gareth Evans, President,
International Crisis Group, International Centre for Ethnic Studies
(ICES) , Colombo, 29 July 2007
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4967
|
