Sri Lankan Situation: Concerns of the International Community

The ethnic war in Sri Lanka is officially over. Yet, the concerns of the international community persist on three broad issues: rehabilitation and resettlement, human rights violations and lasting political settlement to the ethnic issue.

Rehabilitation and resettlement of about 300,000 conflict displaced is the immediate concern. Presently, the living conditions of the IDPs are not up to the mark, although they are improving. The camps are overcrowded. There are dangers of flooding due to the upcoming monsoons. According to Lynn Pascoe, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, who has recently visited Sri Lanka, “… the United Nations is very concerned about the lack of freedom of movement for the IDPs (internally displaced persons), and in particular the closed nature of the camps. People are not free to come and go and they are understandably upset.” International humanitarian organisations also opine that holding the civilians in camps is an illegal form of collective punishment. However, the Sri Lankan government maintains that it “cannot release the civilians until it finishes screening them for potential rebel fighters, and until land mines are cleared from their villages in the north.”

The Sri Lanka government has claimed that since the formal end of ethnic war, “14,500 displaced have been cleared to live with their relatives and more than 31,000 have been united with their families.” But, people on the ground dispute this claim and contend that in the name of “uniting with families” the displaced are in fact moved to other IDP camps or detention centres. The process of screening for LTTE personnel inside camps has also dragged on longer than expected. The pace of resettlement is also considered not satisfactory although the government gave itself a deadline of “180 days” of which 90 days have expired.

The second major concern is about persisting human rights violations. Island-wide emergency-measures continue to be in force despite formal end of war and decimation of the LTTE. The government however justifies that “Emergency powers were needed to ward off fighters from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) who could still present a threat.” Restrictions on the media continue. Surprisingly, after the war, the government has revived the Sri Lankan Press Council Act of 1973 to give broad powers to the Press Council to prosecute for contempt and sentence journalists to extended periods in prison and to prohibit the publication of certain kinds of content by the media.  In addition, disappearances and harassments of aid workers and rights activists are not uncommon.

The third and most important concern is about the long-term political settlement to the ethnic issue. The international community understands  that the political package that was promised long back is in cold storage. There are no signs of revival. The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) appointed in 2006 to “fashion creative options that satisfy minimum expectations as well as provide a comprehensive approach to the resolution of the national question” is yet to come up with a set of recommendations for addressing the underlying grievances of the minorities. Unfortunately, President Rajapakse has of late declared that there are “no more minorities” in Sri Lanka but only “traitors and patriots”. Such an unaccommodating mindset is not conducive to a lasting solution of the ethnic question.

Similar concerns expressed by the international community, especially Western countries, is being criticised by the government, as “double standards” and “hypocrisy”.  The government cannot argue that everything is an “internal issue”, while at the same time requesting for trade concessions, international aid and flow of tourists. In the interest of the country’s development, all the above concerns of the international community should be addressed. The Sri Lankan government also should make efforts to win back the international media, which it antagonised during the war. Such an exercise is crucial in informing the international community of ground realities in the island. Some of the progresses made so far should be highlighted: local elections in Jaffna and Vavuniya, participation of Tamil National Alliance (TNA) in these elections (they won the Vavuniya Urban Council elections), rehabilitation of ex-child soldiers of the LTTE and the ongoing resettlement process and above all the de-mining process. Instead of being defensive, the government can frankly accept the shortfalls and try rectifying them in due course. It should be acknowledged that most of the concerns of the international community are genuine and if given heed to will go a long way in benefitting the island state.

At the same time, the international community also should not push Colombo too far. If the trade concessions like GSP+ are denied, livelihood of more than a million Sri Lankans will be affected. In the long run, Sri Lanka’s apparel industry, known for its quality, will suffer. Sri Lanka should be convinced that there is “no torch carrying” for the LTTE in the international community and whatever concerns are raised from time-to-time are in the interest of the island state.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).