What international solidarity? – SRI LANKA

In recent weeks there has been tacit international acceptance of the security measures taken by the Colombo government in the Sri Lankan north, which have included the request to international humanitarian organisations to withdraw from the battle zones. Underlying this acceptance is the recognition that international organisations require governmental consent for their presence in Sri Lanka. This has been the explicit position of the United Nations agencies, which particularly appear to feel obliged to conform to the will of the government, as they are governed by inter-governmental bodies in which Sri Lanka has a sovereign vote. But even other international organisations are cognisant that their work visas are dependent on governmental approval.

The withdrawal of the international humanitarian organisations from the battle zones of the north, despite protests by affected people, is indicative of the deference that is being given to the Colombo government by the international community. In addition, the present government has shown itself to be more determined to resist international pressures than previous administrations. Even the government headed by President Ranasinghe Premadasa of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which did not hesitate to expel a British high commissioner for complaining about electoral malpractice, ultimately gave in to international pressure on human-rights issues.

It accepted a long list of conditions given by Amnesty International that sought to remedy the rights excesses amidst the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrection.

The present government, however, has successfully resisted pressures from such organisations as Amnesty International, and has taken the loss of its seat on the UN's Human Rights Committee with defiance. The government has taken several legal measures, including passing new legislation to incorporate international human-rights agreements into national law, but it appears unyielding on the issue of the war and the humanitarian challenges that have arisen from it.

As a former human-rights defender himself, President Mahinda Rajapakse would be well aware of international human-rights standards. But behind Colombo's preparedness to justify its human-rights performance lies its overriding purpose of defeating the LTTE in battle and eliminating as many of its cadres as possible. Indeed, it is beginning to look as if the manner of the final crushing of the JVP's armed insurgency is guiding government's conduct today vis-à-vis its military campaign against the LTTE.

Global war
The government has a further advantage that it is utilising in its effort to crush the LTTE. This is the dramatically changed international climate that prevails today in the aftermath of the US-led global 'war on terrorism'. Today's world may be multi-polar when it comes to economic and cultural issues, but it continues to be unipolar on military and political issues, with the US being the overriding superpower. The manner in which many countries, led by the US, recognised the breakaway state of Kosovo, but in which none so far except Russia has recognised the breakaway units of Georgia, is only the most recent evidence of this US dominance.

Today, the LTTE is being steadily weakened internationally, with most countries pursuing and arresting its fundraisers and arms-purchasers. It is also evident that the world's big powers are giving tangible military assistance and intelligence to hasten the military defeat of the LTTE. This international support appears to be an important factor behind the Rajapakse administration's continued confidence that it can defeat the LTTE without being excessively cautious on human rights.

There is also likely to be another factor at play. This is the breakdown of the peace process and its ability to yield a sustainable solution through negotiations between the government and LTTE. The spirit of optimism in 2002-04 about the willingness of the LTTE to enter into a peace process that included a united Sri Lanka, democracy and decommissioning of weapons suffered a severe blow after 2005. The manner in which the LTTE disrupted the presidential election that year, and virtually goaded the new president into war, remains an indelible memory.

But the price of withdrawal of the international watch-dogging is high, especially to the people in the battle zones. A recent visit by a group of civil-society organisations to Vavuniya in the north found a people feeling abandoned and left to their fate amidst the raging war. Opposition parties are prepared to organise mass demonstrations on the matter of petroleum prices, but are surprisingly unwilling to engage the government on the humanitarian crisis in the north.

Unpopular cause
It is unfortunate that this humanitarian crisis should coincide with the decision of several European countries, with a track record of supporting human rights throughout the world, to opt out. European countries that have supported Sri Lanka's economic and human development for several decades have now decided to withdraw from the country, and to focus instead on other parts of the world. They need to reconsider their decision to withdraw, and to give greater importance to the principle of solidarity at this especially critical time.

One stated reason for the donor departure is that Sri Lanka has graduated to being a middle-income country by international standards, and that there are countries that are more desperately in need of their support. But how can the internationals give up on those who have been partners when they later have not come out of their problems? The decision to withdraw is doubly unfortunate in that the end of the current phase of intense fighting will demand more rather than less humanitarian and reconciliation work. The present high level of fighting, casualties and costs will necessarily require the Western governments to stand by to assist the people.

In the war, the advantage currently appears to be with the government. There is a possibility of the military engagement transforming from full-scale conventional warfare to guerrilla warfare. Soon, there will be a need to rehabilitate and resettle the civilian population, and to make fresh efforts to conclude the conflict with a political solution. At this time, virtually the entirety of the political society is supportive of the military campaign, and is mostly silent about a political solution. The forces of ethnic nationalism are dominant, leaving little space for those who articulate the need for a non-military solution. In such a situation, there is a need for the international community to be present in Sri Lanka, and to keep voicing the need for a non-military solution – one that upholds human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities, and supports those who are doing so.

Loading content, please wait...
Himal Southasian
www.himalmag.com