US Senate Report on Sri Lanka: 'U.S. Cannot Afford to Lose Sri Lanka due to its Strategic Importance'

Read the entire report

Daya Gamage - The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, a bipartisan endeavor, on Sri Lanka released December 07 was a thorough review of the failed U.S. policies and approach toward Sri Lanka in recent years and recommends that the U.S. needs to adopt a fresh approach to this South Asian nation declaring “the U.S. Government has invested relatively little in the economy or the security sector in Sri Lanka, instead focusing more on IDPs and civil society. As a result, Sri Lanka has grown politically and economically isolated from the West.”

The report shared by the Senate Committee chairman Democratic Party’s John F. Kerry and the committee’s ranking member Republican Richard G. Lugar further observes: “This strategic drift will have consequences for U.S. interests in the region. Along with our legitimate humanitarian and political concerns, U.S. policymakers have tended to underestimate Sri Lanka’s geostrategic importance for American interests. Sri Lanka is located at the nexus of crucial maritime trading routes in the Indian Ocean connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia.”

The United States during a decade or so which exerted pressure on successive Sri Lankan governments and intensified during the current Rajapaksa administration that the nation needs to totally focus on Tamil issues, predominantly Tamil provinces in the north and east, Tamil economic woes and grievances of the 12% Tamil ethnic minority has taken, in this Foreign Relations Committee evaluation, a realistic view most professionals have urged for several years in taking a novel approach saying “U.S. strategy should also invest in Sinhalese parts of the country, instead of just focusing aid on the Tamil-dominated North and East.”

The Kerry-Lugar Report shows how disturbed the United States is to the newly organized global alliance the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration pursued in creating a strategic environment conducive to defeating the Tamil Tigers.

In fact, the report acknowledges that the three Rajapaksa brothers were instrumental in adopting a strategy to defeat a ruthless terrorist group.

Indirectly admitting the shortsighted policies the United States has adopted towards Sri Lanka in recent years the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommends to the Obama administration to “Take a broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and U.S. geostrategic interests. Such an approach should be multidimensional so that U.S. policy is not driven solely by short-term humanitarian concerns but rather an integrated strategy that leverages political, economic, and security tools for more effective long-term reforms.”

Here are some of the excerpts of the Senate Report titled Sri Lanka: Recharting U.S.Stratergy After the War, authored by Senators Kerry, the Chairman of the Committee and Lugar, the Ranking Member of the Committee.

“The Government considers the bilateral relationship with Washington to be on a downward trajectory. Most U.S. criticisms of Sri Lankan actions at the end of the war and treatment of IDPs have fallen on deaf ears, with Sri Lankan authorities dismissing the U.S. posture as ‘‘no carrots and all sticks.’’ U.S. assistance to Sri Lanka, although delivered in grants and not loans, has attracted criticism from the Rajapaksa Government for its emphasis on political reform. This growing rift in U.S.-Sri Lanka relations can be seen in Colombo’s realignment toward non-Western countries, who offer an alternative model of development that places greater value on security over freedoms.

“Indeed, Sri Lanka’s geopolitical position has evolved considerably. As Western countries became increasingly critical of the Sri Lankan Government’s handling of the war and human rights record, the Rajapaksa leadership cultivated ties with such countries as Burma, China, Iran, and Libya. The Chinese have invested billions of dollars in Sri Lanka through military loans, infrastructure loans, and port development, with none of the strings attached by Western nations. While the United States shares with the Indians and the Chinese a common interest in securing maritime trade routes through the Indian Ocean, the U.S. Government has invested relatively little in the economy or the security sector in Sri Lanka, instead focusing more on IDPs and civil society. As a result, Sri Lanka has grown politically and economically isolated from the West.

“This strategic drift will have consequences for U.S. interests in the region. Along with our legitimate humanitarian and political concerns, U.S. policymakers have tended to underestimate Sri Lanka’s geostrategic importance for American interests. Sri Lanka is located at the nexus of crucial maritime trading routes in the Indian Ocean connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia. The United States, India, and China all share an interest in deterring terrorist activity and curbing piracy that could disrupt maritime trade. Security considerations extend beyond sealanes to the stability of India, the world’s largest democracy. Communal tensions in Sri Lanka have the potential to undermine stability in India, particularly in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, home to 60 million Tamils. All of these concerns should be part of our bilateral relationship.

“The United States cannot afford to ‘‘lose’’ Sri Lanka. This does not mean changing the relationship overnight or ignoring the real concerns about Sri Lanka’s political and humanitarian record. It does mean, however, considering a new approach that increases U.S. leverage vis-à-vis Sri Lanka by expanding the number of tools at our disposal. A more multifaceted U.S. strategy would capitalize on the economic, trade, and security aspects of the relationship. This approach in turn could catalyze much-needed political reforms that will ultimately help secure longer term U.S. strategic interests in the Indian Ocean. U.S. strategy should also invest in Sinhalese parts of the country, instead of just focusing aid on the Tamil-dominated North and East.

“The Obama administration is currently weighing a new strategy for relations with Sri Lanka. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has closely followed events on the ground this year, including a hearing in February and a staff trip to Sri Lanka in November. In an effort to stimulate a larger debate on U.S. policy toward Sri Lanka, the committee staff prepared this bipartisan report examining recent developments and proposing recommendations for U.S. policy towards Sri Lanka. The recommendations include a broader and more robust U.S. approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and U.S. geostrategic interests; continuation of de-mining efforts in the North; and promotion of people-to-people reconciliation programs throughout the country.

“Indeed, the end of Sri Lanka’s long-running separatist war opens up enormous opportunities to move the country forward on multiple fronts: political reform, economic renewal, and international re-engagement. For the country to make the transition from a postwar to a post-conflict environment, Sri Lankan leaders must be prepared to take difficult steps to bring the country together and resolve underlying political and socio-economic tensions that led to the conflict. While there have been some success stories such as reducing the number of child soldiers and rebuilding the East, it is not clear that the current leadership understands exactly how to shift from a mindset of conflict and suspicion to a peacetime approach. Moreover, the Government’s paranoia about criticism and the way some government officials equate criticism with support for the LTTE complicates efforts to move forward. Strikingly, the whole Rajapaksa Government strategy seems to be still driven by security concerns.

Strategic Interests In Sri Lanka

“Sri Lanka has been a friend and democratic partner of the United States since gaining independence in 1948 and has supported U.S. military operations overseas such as during the first Gulf War. Commercial contacts go back to 1787, when New England sailors first anchored in Sri Lanka’s harbors to engage in trade. Sri Lanka is strategically located at the nexus of maritime trading routes connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia. It is directly in the middle of the ‘‘Old World,’’ where an estimated half of the world’s container ships transit the Indian Ocean.

“American interests in the region include securing energy resources from the Persian Gulf and maintaining the free flow of trade in the Indian Ocean. These interests are also important to one of America’s strategic partners, Japan, who is almost totally dependent on energy supplies transiting the Indian Ocean. The three major threats in the Indian Ocean come from terrorism, interstate conflict, and piracy. There have been some reports of pirate activity in the atoll islands near Sri Lanka.

“Sri Lanka’s geopolitical position has changed in recent years. The United States has developed closer ties with India while Sri Lanka moved towards China. India has been very concerned with instability in Sri Lanka and has worked quietly behind the scenes to push for faster resettlement for Tamils. India directly suffered from the spillover from the Sri Lankan conflict in 1991 when a LTTE female suicide bomber assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi, reportedly in response to Ghandi’s decision to send an Indian Peace Keeping force to Sri Lanka in 1987.

Communal tensions in Sri Lanka have the ability to undermine stability in India, particularly in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, home to 60 million Hindu Tamils. India’s large Tamil population just across the Paulk Strait fuels fears among Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese community, who represent 80 percent of the Sri Lankan population and are concentrated in the lower two-thirds of the country, that they could be- come a minority under siege. While India has no apparent interest in stoking conflict in Sri Lanka, Indian officials are reportedly increasingly concerned about their strategic role in the Indian Ocean and China’s growing presence in Sri Lanka.

“Chinese activities in Sri Lanka are largely economic, focusing billions of dollars on military loans, infrastructure loans, and port development. While these are loans that will need to be repaid and do not contribute much towards the local economy, they come without any political strings, a fact which makes them attractive to the Sri Lankan Government. According to the Congressional Research Service, ‘‘Chinese activity in the region appears to be seeking friends like Sri Lanka to secure its sea lines of communication from the Straits of Hormuz and the western reaches of the Indian Ocean region to the Strait of Malacca to facilitate trade and secure China’s energy imports.’’

“For instance, in 2007, China reached a billion dollar deal with Sri Lanka to develop a deepwater port in the south at the sleepy fishing village of Hambantota. In 2008, China gave Sri Lanka nearly $1 billion in economic assistance according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2009, China was granted an exclusive investment zone in Mirigama, 34 miles from Colombo’s port. Even for those that dismiss China’s ‘‘string of pearls’’ strategy as overblown, there is concern about growing Chinese influence on the Sri Lankan Government. During the closing stages of the separatist war, for example, China blocked Western-led efforts to impose a truce through the United Nations Security Council and continued supplying arms to the Sri Lankan Government. Sri Lanka’s strategic importance to the United States, China, and India is viewed by some as a key piece in a larger geopolitical dynamic, what has been referred to as a new ‘‘Great Game.’’ While all three countries share an interest in securing maritime trade routes, the United States has invested relatively few economic and security resources in Sri Lanka, preferring to focus instead on the political environment. Sri Lanka’s geostrategic importance to American interests has been neglected as a result. The Sri Lankan Government says American attitudes and military restrictions led it to build relationships with China, Burma, Iran, and Libya.

The Minister of Science and Technology and All-Party Representative Committee Chairman Tissa Vitarana Minister told committee staff, ‘‘We have the United States to thank for pushing us closer to China.’’ According to Vitarana, President Rajapaksa was forced to reach out to other countries because the West refused to help Sri Lanka finish the war against the LTTE. These calculations— if left unchecked—threaten long-term U.S. strategic interests in the Indian Ocean.

Recommendations On Sri Lanka

The Obama administration should:

1. Take a broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and U.S. geostrategic interests. Such an approach should be multidimensional so that U.S. policy is not driven solely by short-term humanitarian concerns but rather an integrated strategy that leverages political, economic, and security tools for more effective long-term reforms.

2. Continue support de-mining efforts in the North. De-mining will be a major factor in successful resettlement of the North.

3. Engage the United Nations (World Food Programme and other agencies) and the Sri Lankan Government in developing a realistic resettlement strategy for 2010 that reassesses food and nonfood needs to support returnees’ efforts at reestablishing their livelihoods.

4. Promote people-to-people reconciliation programs to build bridges between the Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim communities. A people-to-people approach should be linked to political reforms and processes that support transitional justice. Funding for such programs is available on a competitive basis under section 7065 (‘‘Reconciliation
Programs’’) of Public Law 111–8, and additional funding will be included for such purposes in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010.

5. Expand U.S. assistance to include all areas of the country, particularly in the south and central areas so that Sinhalese and other groups also benefit from U.S. assistance programs and reap some ‘‘peace dividend.’’

6. Tighten visa restrictions and revoke U.S. citizenship for any persons who are shown to have committed war crimes in Sri Lanka, whether they acted on behalf of the LTTE or the Government of Sri Lanka.

7. Expand the USAID/Department of Justice police program and provide judicial advisors to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Justice in order to support critical police reforms and implementation of current law.

8. Publicly commit to reinstating Peace Corps operations in Sri Lanka as soon as the emergency regulations are removed. Peace Corps volunteers could focus on teaching English and information technology training.

The U.S. Congress should:

Authorize the U.S. military to resume training of Sri Lankan military officials to help ensure that human rights concerns are integrated into future operations and to help build critical relationships.

The international financial institutions should:

1. Encourage all international financial institutions to systematically factor in the role of conflict, as the World Bank does through its conflict filter for Sri Lanka, to ensure that IMF and development bank financing does not inadvertently exacerbate conflict. Specifically, World Bank staff should be commended on its development of a conflict filter for Sri Lanka, and the World Bank should expand its use in other countries.

2. Proactively review military spending as a component of its financial programs with conflict countries.

The Sri Lankan Government should:

1. Treat all internally displaced persons in accordance with Sri Lankan and international standards, including by guaranteeing their freedom of movement, providing access to war-torn areas and populations by humanitarian organizations and journalists, and accounting for persons detained in the conflict.

2. Recognize the importance of a free and fair press, for both its own democratic traditions and for sharing accurate information with the international community. In showing its commitment to freedom of the press, the Government should welcome back journalists that have fled the country; pardon those such as J.S. Tissainayagam who were indicted under emergency laws; cease prosecuting cases against journalists based on emergency law; and actively investigate threats, abuses and killings of journalists.

3. Take steps to repeal emergency laws that are no longer applicable now that the war is over. This will send a strong message that Sri Lanka is ready to transition to a post-conflict environment.

4. Share its plans for resettlement and reconstruction in the North with Sri Lankan civil society and international donors, who are well-positioned to support such efforts if there is greater transparency and accountability.

5. Commence a program of reconciliation between the diverse communities in Sri Lanka.

6. Engage in a dialogue on land tenure issues, since they affect resettlement in the North and East.

© Asian Tribune

Related Links:
U.S. May Lose Sri Lanka as Ally, Senate Report Says - Bloomberg
US-SRI LANKA: Senate Report Urges Warmer Ties - Inter Press Service
Uncle Sam regains wisdom? - The Island Editorial
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report: Dayan Jayatilleke - Daily Mirror

Read More

Summary only

U.S. envoy in Sri Lanka, Washington mulls change in ties

The U.S. diplomat responsible for south Asia landed in Sri Lanka on Tuesday after a U.S. Senate committee urged the United States not to "lose" its relationship with the strategically located island nation.

Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake is on a three-day visit to discuss political matters and reconciliation in Sri Lanka after the end of a 25-year war with the Tamil Tiger separatists in May.

Blake served as the U.S. ambassador in Colombo until his promotion in May, and he arrived as President Barack Obama's administration is reassessing its approach toward the island nation in the face of strong Indian and Chinese influence.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Monday issued a report that encourages the Obama administration to recalibrate its approach to post-war Sri Lanka to include more economic, political and security aid to protect U.S. interests.

"While humanitarian concerns remain important, U.S. policy cannot be dominated by a single agenda. It is not effective at delivering real reform, and it shortchanges U.S. geostrategic interests in the region," the report says.

After the war ended, the United States and other Western nations criticized President Mahinda Rajapaksa's administration for civilian casualties, attacks on the media, and restrictions on hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Tamil minority.

That infuriated the Sri Lankan government, which felt it should have been congratulated for defeating the Tamil Tigers, which the United States and more than 30 other countries listed as a terrorist group.

"The challenge for the United States will be to encourage Sri Lanka to embrace political reform without pushing the country toward Burma-like isolation," the report says.

Tellingly, Rajapaksa's first state visit after the end of the war was to Myanmar, the former Burma, and members of his government have publicly said they do not need U.S. help given the billions invested by China and India into the country.

"While the United States shares with the Indians and Chinese a common interest in securing maritime trade routes through the Indian Ocean, the U.S. government has invested relatively little in the economy or the security sector," the Senate report says.

The report says that all three countries are concerned about deterring terrorist activity and piracy in sea lanes.

It also warns that a failure to bring ethnic reconciliation between Sri Lanka's Sinhalese majority and Tamil minority could give rise to instability in India's Tamil Nadu state, home to 60 million Tamils.

"The United States cannot afford to 'lose' Sri Lanka. This does not mean changing the relationship overnight or ignoring real concerns about Sri Lanka's political and humanitarian record," it says.

Washington should increase its leverage by opening up military and economic aid, and increasing aid to the entire country instead of the conflict-afflicted areas in exchange for broader reforms by the government, the report says.

© Reuters

Read More

Summary only

India should increase presence in Indian Ocean Region: Experts

India should increase its presence in the Indian Ocean Region, through which most of its energy and trade supplies pass, in order to compete with China and not get worked up on the land border issue, feel experts.

The Indian Ocean Region (IOR), which straddles from Africa to Australia, is the region where India needs to yield influence as energy security is needed to sustain high growth rate, the analysts said at a seminar organised by the National Maritime Foundation.

Eighty percent of China's and 65 percent of India's oil is shipped through this region.

'The Indian Ocean Region is our theatre of competition with China and not the border. So we should not get excited about the Line of Actual Control, but should focus more on the IOR,' Nitin Pai, expert on strategic affairs and a fellow at the Takshashila Institution, said at the seminar.

Pai was referring to the recent media hype over reported Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de facto border between the two countries.

'The IOR is important because most of our energy and trade supplies flow through it and needs to be protected... We need to be ready to redeploy our forces to protect our strategic interests, especially asChina continues to play its strategic games,' Pai added.

The IOR, the third largest body of water in the world and with 33 littoral states, is strategically important as a large percentage of global trading ships pass through it.

China has been increasing its presence in the IOR by following what is popularly termed as the 'Strings of Pearl' strategy of encircling India by investing in assets and ports in Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Other experts said Indian influence in the region has dwindled over the years.

'India has allowed its influence generated post the 2004 tsunami to dilute due to its continued absence in Southeast Asia and the region,' said National Maritime Foundation's director Commodore (retd.) Uday C. Bhaskar.

When the tsunami struck in December 2004, in which India suffered over 15,000 deaths and vast destruction, the Indian Navy was quick to rush aid to the Maldives as well as the worst-hit Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

About 1,000 Indian relief personnel and five naval ships were sent to Trincomalee, Galle and Colombo ports in Sri Lanka, with medical teams and immediate relief material.

'China has emerged as a key economic partner for most Asian economies, including Japan and South Korea. It has overtaken India as an economic partner of South and Central Asian economies as well, and is well on its way to emerging as a major economic partner for African countries,' Sanjaya Baru, former media advisor to the prime minister, said.

'Force projection is of utmost importance. We are visible in East Africa due to our successful anti-piracy missions. We have to show our presence in theIndian Ocean Region by rethinking the way we deploy our forces,' Baru added.

© IANS

Read More

Summary only

Sri Lanka war crime allegations surface

By Sarah Dingle - Six months after the Sri Lankan Government won its war with the Tamil Tigers, allegations are surfacing of war crimes committed in the final months of the conflict.

Last month the US Department of Homeland Security tried to question the Sri Lankan presidential candidate and US citizen, General Sarath Fonseka, about possible war crimes.

But the Australian Government has made no such moves to question a prominent dual Sri Lankan-Australian citizen about his activities.

In the last days of the civil war, it is alleged two political leaders of the rebel Tamil Tiger fighters were killed as they tried to lay down their arms and surrender.

The men led about a dozen men and women under a white flag to waiting Sri Lankan army troops.

A Tamil eyewitness said the soldiers fired on them with machine guns. Everyone in the group was killed.

The incident is mentioned in a 2009 US State Department report to Congress, on possible violations of international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka, from January until the end of May this year.

The report says "the leaders, Nadesan and Puleedevan, spoke to international and domestic figures, who acted as intermediaries with the then foreign secretary, Dr Palitha Kohona, to negotiate a surrender. Nadesan requested a UN witness but was told he had the Sri Lankan President's guarantee of safety".

Dr Kohona is now Sri Lanka's ambassador to the United Nations. He is also an Australian citizen and, according to Hansard, a former senior official with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

When asked what his role was in arranging the surrender, he told the ABC he had "no role in arranging anything".

"Because I was in foreign ministry I had nothing to do with the defence ministry or the defence forces, and I don't think anything was arranged anyway," he said.

"I don't think anybody else was involved in such a surrender either.

"There was an attempt to wake me up in the middle of the night, and I told them that I was not the person to contact about those demands.

"There was a general query about surrendering and I told them that I was the wrong person, that I had nothing to do with surrendering and asked them to go and deal with the matter in the way it ought to be dealt with."

Three weeks after the shooting, Sri Lanka's army chief General Sarath Fonseka was reported as saying the military had to overlook traditional rules of war and kill Tamil Tiger rebels who had come under white flags to surrender.

Calls for an investigation

Don Rothwell, professor of international law at the Australian National University, says as a diplomat Dr Kohona has immunity from prosecution, but recently international law courts have begun to question this principle in the case of possible war crimes.

"There's nothing to suggest Dr Kohona was directly responsible for committing these alleged war crimes, though international law does recognise principles of what's called command responsibility, where if someone had direct command, whether it's legal or political, with respect to the commission of these types of offences," he said.

Mr Rothwell says in this case, there is enough material to launch a preliminary investigation.

"Dr Kohona is a dual Australian-Sri Lankan citizen. The fact that he is an Australian citizen automatically activates obligations for Australia to investigate this matter at the legal level, but the fact that he was a former high-profile official for the Australian Government representing Australia in international negotiations, I think perhaps places an even stronger responsibility on Australia to at least conduct the initial investigations into this matter," he said.

Mr Kohona says the allegations "first and foremost ... need to be substantiated [and] no country goes around investigating silly accusations based on innuendo and unsubstantiated facts".

Both the Federal Government and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) say they are aware of the US State Department's report.

The AFP says it has not received any referral to investigate Dr Kohona for alleged war crimes.

A spokesman for the Attorney-General's Department says investigation and prosecution by the country in which criminal conduct occurred is the most appropriate way to bring an alleged war criminal to justice.

© ABC News

Related Links:
Palitha Kohona deserves prosecution by Australia: Professor of Law - Tamilnet

Read More

Summary only

Reporters Without Borders calls for calm amid pre-electoral tension

The political parties and candidate’s participating in next month’s elections must make press freedom and the protection of journalists a priority, Reporters Without Borders said today, after a group of state TV journalists were roughed up while covering an opposition meeting during the weekend.

“These elections are crucial for the country’s future, but they will not be considered democratic if there is no press freedom,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The government and opposition must, as a matter of urgency, undertake to guarantee that all the media, regardless of their editorial line, will be free to go anywhere and interview whomever they want.

“The state-owned print media and TV stations must also provide balanced coverage, which is definitely not the case at the moment. By forcing the government media to campaign against the opposition, the president is putting journalists in danger, because they are being associated with him and his allies.

“The continuing ban on media visits to the north and the violence against state TV journalists at a meeting held by the opposition United National Party bode ill for the climate in which these elections will take place,” Reporters Without Borders warned.

Seven journalists working for state TV stations Rupavahini and ITN were slightly injured and their equipment was damaged when they were manhandled outside the location where the UNP had been holding a convention in Colombo on 5 December. UNP parliamentarian Ravi Karunanayake told Reporters Without Borders his party was not involved in the violence. At the same time, he confirmed that the journalists had not been invited to the meeting.

“As long as the state media continue to give a biased account of our activities, we will not invite them,” Karunanayake said. “We provided accreditation to about 100 journalists for this event and no one complained of any violence.” The opposition has even accused the government of orchestrating the incident for political purposes.

Reporters Without Borders added: “Opposition supporters may well be exasperated by the state media’s extremely biased coverage of political developments, but this kind of violence undermines their message.”

Media and information minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa called a news conference to express the government’s “anger” about the incident, which the police are investigating. His condemnation came just days after the government extended a ban on media visits to the north of the country, where tens of thousands of Tamil civilians have just been allowed to leave detention camps.

The three main Tamil dailies in Jaffna received threatening letters on 24 November accusing them of playing into the hands of the “terrorists.”

The Tamil journalist J.S. Tissainayagam must also be released before the elections, as there was no hard evidence to support his conviction and his detention therefore threatens the freedom of expression of all Tamil journalists.

© Reporters sans frontières

Read More

Summary only

The president and the general

BILASH RAI - The Sri Lankan military won the war against the Tamil Tigers over six months ago. But since that time, the island has been steadily losing the peace that the people – Muslim, Tamil and Sinhalese – so deserve. The main hurdle towards lasting peace has been the continuing war mentality and ultra-nationalism on the part of the Rajapakse regime – for this is what we have to call it. Those elements that had been the regime’s main strengths in fighting the war – the dangerous mix of militarisation and Sinhala Buddhist mobilisation – are now not only undermining peace, but also creating instability in the government hallways of Colombo.

In the single-minded pursuance of the war, President Mahinda Rajapakse and his brother, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya, with full support from the military, put together a broad and formidable coalition. This was made up of the ultra-nationalist Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and then its breakaway faction, sections of the left parties, as well as Tamil paramilitaries, including the breakaway faction of the LTTE. Yet just weeks after the last shot was fired, that coalition began to unravel, with increasing anti-government mobilisation by the JVP, criticism from sections of the JHU and, finally, the need felt by the president for a full overhaul of the armed-forces leadership.

The latest in these twists and turns has been the alienation and vocal opposition of the former army commander, General Sarath Fonseka, who is popularly credited with winning the war. Gen Fonseka, even more a militarist and Sinhala Buddhist nationalist than the president, is now expected to contest Rajapakse in the next elections. And with the opposition United National Party (UNP) backing the general’s candidature, there appears to be little hope of a credible or strong opposition.

Within weeks of the end of the war, the Rajapakses changed the entire high command of the armed forces, giving the top military brass different assignments, from secretaries of other ministries to ambassadorial appointments. Gen Fonseka’s control over the army was severely clipped, by ‘promoting’ him to a symbolic position as chief of defence staff. The general, in his recent resignation letter, claimed that it was widely understood that he was sidelined because various agencies misled the president regarding the possibility of a military coup.

The sidelining of Fonseka is not very surprising, given that the Rajapakses have been clear that they have no ‘friends’ – only their large clan. Brothers, cousins and nephews are thus being put into key political positions without any sense of embarrassment. Initially, they seemed certain that with the war victory they could entrench the family in power for the foreseeable future. Very quickly, however, that future began to seem uncertain, with the challenge posed by Fonseka.

Over the last three years, both Gen Fonseka and Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse have considerably politicised the military, by making Sinhala nationalist and anti-minority statements. Now, an open challenge between the general and the president could further deteriorate the situation. As Himal went to press, the president announced early presidential elections, almost two yers ahead of the end of his term. Analysts expect this to take place in late January 2010. The president wants to hold elections before he loses momentum from the war victory, but with Gen Fonseka running against him the Sinhala-nationalist vote stands likely to be split. Yet while the minorities’ vote could become significant, given that both Rajapakse and Fonseka are seen as Sinhala chauvinists it will be hard for the minority communities to choose.

Trumping militarism

With international pressure mounting, the 300,000 people interned in camps at the end of the war are finally being resettled. While close to 150,000 displaced individuals have apparently been allowed to return home (or elsewhere), and Basil Rajapakse announcing that all IDPs will finally have freedom of movement starting in December, their full access to humanitarian agencies in the north continue to be of concern. Moreover, it must be accepted that rehabilitation and development alone are not sufficient unless accompanied by demilitarisation and genuine political devolution.

Indeed, the regime’s lingering war mentality remains amply clear. The signals are not only in the exalted status accorded to the president’s brother as defence secretary; nor in the numerous checkpoints in Colombo, and continued militarisation of the internment camps for displaced peoples in the north and east of the country. Such indicators can also be seen in the regime’s ongoing flirtation with the Burmese junta, whose guest President Rajapakse saw fit to be soon after winning the war – a visit recently reciprocated by General Than Shwe himself. Just as the LTTE dug its own grave through a totally military mindset, the Rajapakse regime could now be weakening itself irrevocably. For the country and its people, a dangerous instability could ensue.

Emergency rule and the Prevention of Terrorism of Act continue to be the primary supports of authoritarianism and corruption, with parliamentarians lacking the fortitude to repeal them and thus take the Rajapakses head-on. As the Tamil minority suffocates in the north under the military jackboot, police brutality is on the rise in the south. Meanwhile, the media, which should have learned the dangers of authoritarianism over the decades of war, continue their irresponsible projection of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and opportunistic support of the government.

Job losses and increasing unemployment propelled by the global economic downturn are creating conditions for social unrest and disenchantment among labour, and the unemployed are already pushing many onto the streets. Alongside, Sri Lanka’s aggravated relations with the European Union are putting more jobs at risk. The political tightrope that President Rajapakse has been walking between the East and West – mobilising India, China, Pakistan and Iran to counter pressure from the EU and the US on human rights and conduct of the war – is looking increasingly difficult to manage, as allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka are presently under consideration by the US State Department and Congress. Incredibly, the president’s brothers – Gotabhaya as well as Basil, who is in charge of development – are both US citizens, and could thus become the subject of greater US pressure.

Yet on the ground, the challenge remains the same: the need for sane voices for peace and co-existence – democratic voices that can take up the decades-long grievances of the minorities, and the rising economic questions and inequalities that plague Sri Lanka’s post-war future. In the end, it is neither the moorings within Colombo’s militarised elite nor the megaphone diplomacy of the international actors that will change Sri Lanka’s future. To take a leaf from Sri Lanka’s three decades of war, the UNP’s authoritarian regime – first under J R Jayawardena and then Ranasinghe Premadasa – though seemingly entrenched, was dislodged after 17 years following the unleashing of democratic forces and peoples movements. Can peace and democracy trump authoritarianism, militarism and nationalism one more time and deliver peace?

© Himalmag.com

Read More

Summary only

11,000 Tamil 'fighters' held in secured Lankan camps: Report

Over 11,000 Tamil 'fighters', including children, were held by Sri Lanka without charge in highly secured "rehabilitation centres", despite claims by authorities it had lifted restrictions on the movement of all displaced persons, a news report has said.

According to The Times newspaper, more than 11,000 Tamil prisoners are being held without charge in closely guarded "rehabilitation centres", even as the government claimed it had released all Tamil civilians from detention centres last week. It said children are among 11,000 Tamil 'fighters' held in rehabilitation.

According to the report, the prisoners, whose exact number has been unknown due to the government placed restitutions, is allegedly a "combatant category" that includes former LTTE fighters. However, the definition of "Tamil Tiger" is unclear.

Apart from the hardcore LTTE cadres, many of those in the camps are thought to be Tamil youths, their family members and civil administrators, forcibly conscripted by the Tigers in the final stages of the war.

According to media reports, the parents of Velupillai Prabhakaran, the Tamil Tiger leader killed this year, are being held in the notorious "4th Floor" detention complex in Colombo. They are in their seventies and had long been alienated from their son by his terrorist activities.

Even as the government allowed nearly 1.30 lakh Tamil civilians housed in refugees camps in northern Sri Lanka to visit their relatives this week, there is concern over the fate of the 11,000 still being held, the report said.

The London-based daily pointed out reports suggesting a new round of arrests over the past few weeks among civilians on the verge of being released from camps.

"I've got between 30 and 40 cases in which families have been released here from the detention centres, only to have their menfolk taken away at the final moment to a so-called rehabilitation centre," Father V. Yogeswaran, director of the Centre for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, in Trincomalee, was quoted as saying.

"As for 'secret' detention camps? I wouldn't openly say that they exist for sure, but I tend to think they do. Some men have been taken away and never accounted for," he said.

Last week the government allowed nearly 1.30 lakh Tamil civilians housed in refugees camps in northern Sri Lanka to visit their relatives as authorities lifted restrictions on their movement.

Some 3 lakh Tamils were housed in the refugees camps after the final stage of the government's military operations that defeated the Tamil Tiger rebels in May. Risath Bathiyutheen, the Minister of Resettlement and Disaster Relief Services, told the media that there will be no restrictions imposed on the duration of their absence from the villages.

The government has declared that civilians will be free to leave the villages once they have given their personal details to the authorities concerned.

All civilians of the Vavuniya welfare village from Jaffna Peninsula and Eastern Province have already been resettled, an official statement said. The government has said all efforts would be made to resettle all displaced people by January 31.

© PTI

Related Links:
Rehab of Tamils in Lanka may take time: Krishna - Times of India

Read More

Summary only

China gets dragon’s share of post-war projects in Lanka

China has bagged the largest chunk of post-war development projects in Sri Lanka’s North and South with ongoing and projects concluded estimated at more than US$ 6.1 billion or about Rs 6,973 million.

Contrary to popular belief that funds for all these projects are outright grants, all the money is being obtained at commercial rates from China’s Exim Bank. This means the loans will have to be re-paid with interest by successive Governments in the years to come.

The costing for these projects, carried out by the Government to obtain funding, the Sunday Times learnt, has raised a serious issue. That is whether project costs have been heavily inflated far beyond the real value.

An example is the Chinese loan of US$ 245 million (about Rs 27.9 billion) for a 56-kilometre railway track from Pallai (located on the northern edge of mainland Sri Lanka) to Kankesanthurai in the Jaffna peninsula. The cost works out to more than US$ 4 million (about Rs 456 million) a kilometre.

This is in marked contrast to a 92-kilometre stretch of rail track from Omanthai (the last point in Wanni held by troops before the end of the separatist war) to Pallai at a cost of US$ 185 million (about Rs 21 billion). This works out to about US$ 2 million a kilometre. The US$ 185 million for this part of the northern railway track is a soft loan from the Government of India. A soft loan is one with a below market interest rate.

In the North, the construction of all adjunct roads has been given to four different Chinese companies in 13 different packages. This followed a Cabinet decision on October 6 this year.

S.B. Divaratne, Secretary to the Presidential Task Force for Resettlement Development and Security in the Northern Province, has directed the Road Development Authority (RDA) to “enter into contracts urgently with the Chinese contractors and begin construction work as soon as possible to complete the work within 30 months.”

This Task Force is headed by Senior Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapaksa. The four Chinese companies which will share a staggering Rs 94.3 billion are China National Aero Technology Import and Export Corporation, China Harbour, China Railway No 5 Engineering Group Co. Ltd. and Synohydro Corporation.

No Sri Lankan labour will be employed in any of their projects. That means no employment opportunities will be available to Sri Lankans in the majority of the development projects since the defeat of Tiger guerrillas. These projects will see the induction of more Chinese labour. This in effect means that a part of the Exim Bank loans returns to China for the use of their labour.

In all projects undertaken by Chinese companies, their own labour is utilised. On the basis of the Chinese gifted Performing Arts Society now under construction in Colombo, costing over US$ 200 million (about Rs 22.8 billion), around 1,000 labourers are deployed. On the basis of this, officials estimate that when the current projects involving US$ 5.1 billion (about Rs 5,000 million) reaches US $ 6.1 billion (over Rs 6973 million); the Chinese work force could reach 25,000.

Besides the Cabinet approved projects of October 6, other agreements have also been concluded with China. Then Treasury Secretary, Sumith Abeysinghe, on a visit to Beijing signed an agreement with the Exim Bank of China on August 7 this year. This was for a “Priority List for preferential buyers credit of the Exim Bank of China and totalled US$ 646.8 million (or about Rs 73.9 billion).

Here are some of the many projects:

South:

Phase II of Puttalam Coal Power Project

Hambantota Port Development Project – Phase II

Component (1) Hambantota AirportComponent (II) Hambantota Port Development

Matara-Kataragama Railway – Matara-Beliatta Section

Southern Expressway (Pinnaduwa-Matara Section

North:

Palaly-KKS Railway

Medawachchiya-Talaimannar railway line

Jaffna Inner Circular Highway and Jaffna City links

All adjunct roads in the north, Mannar and Puttalam.

The agreements also covered the purchase of, among other items, two MA 60 transport aircraft. This is at a cost of US $ 18 million (or about Rs 2 billion) each. This is said to be for use by Mihin Air which has already suffered colossal losses. The MA 60 or Modern Ark 60 is a turboprop powered aircraft; a close copy of Russian built Antonov An 26.

© The Sunday Times

Read More

Summary only

Politics Of Ethnic Deception: Will It Lead To Peace?

By Prof. A.R.M. Imtiyaz - The post-cold war political climate is vulnerable to identity-oriented tensions, caused by both primordial and constructed political strategies. These tensions, due to political need, create deadly militants. But they are the by-product of the socio-political moves, and often they win political legitimacy when political moderates disastrously fail to deliver. The question in ethnic politics is not how deadly these non-moderates are, but whether the central authority will deliver peace.

The end of the ethnic civil war between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and Sri Lanka’s Sinhala-dominated security forces had encouraged some to hope for peace and ethnic reconciliation between the Tamils and Sinhalese. The destruction of the Tamil resistance movement led by the LTTE was the primary reason for this glimmer of hope. In fact, war itself destroys the possibility for ethnic cooperation
Two questions need to be answered in order to understand the future of the island of Sri Lanka; are we winning peace and has Sri Lanka’s Sinhala political establishment the political will to seek a solution that meets the basic aspirations of the Tamils and other minorities in Sri Lanka?

A political solution needed to ease communal tensions

Sri Lanka needs to seek a political solution to the ethnic crisis. It seems global pressure is not strong enough to push the Sinhala political class to negotiate power-sharing democratic solutions with the Tamil nationalists. If the international community has any suspicions about the Tamil nationalist agenda, they should pressure the island’s Sinhala political class to conduct an internationally supervised referendum on the future of the Tamil nationalist agenda.

Any political attempts to ease ethnic tensions between the Tamils and Sinhalese should recognise the political aspirations of the Tamil nation. Such attempts should also recognise and appreciate the special problems of the Muslim communities living in the north and east. Both academic and political discussions aimed at seeking political solutions grimly deny these basic facts. Though post war Sri Lanka is at a cross-road it is not the end of the world as far as the island’s future is concerned. The Tamil nation’s non-moderate leaders were the result of post independence politics. Politics of violence was not their initial choice either. But the question is, are we trying to ease tensions?

Politics of deception

There is no sensible answer unfortunately since the politics of deception are being practiced in the name of peace and ethnic reconciliation. Examples are seen in recent gatherings of the minority leaders in Zurich. There are no clear political goals as far as the Tamil nation is concerned. There is no sign that these kind of gatherings have clear political commitments to seek non-unitary political solutions to the Tamil question. Nor were such meetings aimed at brokering human solutions to the ethnic conflict that unreasonably affected the Muslim communities of the north and east, partly due to the narrow politics of accommodation of their Colombo-centered leaders with the Sinhala nation.

What is extremely disquieting is that the strong body of the minority politicos are increasing their levels of trust in Sarath Fonseka, the former military General of Sri Lanka’s brutal war machine. The logic of their move is politically adolescent. These moderate politicos need to remember one simple fact that Fonseka is a strong representative of Sinhala hegemony and his behaviour and politics were and are compatible with the interests of Sinhala goals. Ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka are the direct product of such a narrow and exclusive mentality. But again, these Tamil and Muslim politicos are not angels, their simple aim is power and they will win that power at any cost and promise wonders in order to stay in power.

Such power politics can efficiently weaken democracy, and discourage the masses towards democracy. Political science literature on elite politics suggest that this sort of rip-offs cause uneasy political tensions among the masses and between the masses and elites. As such Tamil moderates need to move carefully.

As I argued in the article on Ethno-Political Conflict In Sri Lanka, Journal Of Third World Studies, Fall 2009), if there is resistance from the Sinhala political establishment to offer power sharing, the final option is partition. The demand for separation becomes strong when a power-sharing arrangement is not possible.

Some may fear that partition may further strengthen the ethnic hostilities between two nations, but even if it provokes a period of violence, it would offer the separated ethnic groups much needed stability and security in the near future.

In actual fact, the demand for separation would not be in vain if separation reduces ethnic fear and offers social and political security, as well as stability, to the different ethnic groups.

Separation can work

The separation of Pakistan from India, Eritrea from Ethiopia, Bangladesh from West Pakistan, and Greeks from Turks in Cyprus, all show that partition can be helpful, even if it is less that completely successful in terminating violence. The world recognises that if people do not want to co-habit in the same polity then, partition should not be automatically neglected as a solution. This might be one way to manage Tamils’ demands for political independence.

(The author teaches Ethnic Politics and Foreign Governments and Politics at the Department of Political Science, Temple University, USA.)

© The Sunday Leader

Read More

Summary only

U.S. Report on Sri Lanka Urges New Approach

By LYDIA POLGREEN - A report on Sri Lanka to be released next week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urges a less confrontational approach to that nation, citing strategic American interests in the region.

The report says that while the Sri Lankan government has been widely criticized for its handling of the war against the Tamil Tigers, who were fighting for a separate state for the ethnic Tamil minority in northern Sri Lanka, the government has also achieved a measure of progress in resettling the conflict’s displaced and rebuilding the war-shattered east of the country.

“With the end of the war, the United States needs to re-evaluate its relationship with Sri Lanka to reflect new political and economic realities,” says the report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “While humanitarian concerns remain important, U.S. policy toward Sri Lanka cannot be dominated by a single agenda. It is not effective at delivering real reform, and it shortchanges U.S. geostrategic interests in the region.”

The bipartisan report, which was endorsed by Senator John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the committee, as well as Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican, is being released as the Obama administration is preparing to announce its new policy on Sri Lanka. It also comes as questions persist about what Western countries can do to influence the government there.

Concerns about human rights and humanitarian aid for the people affected by the conflict have dominated the relationship between the United States and Sri Lanka over the past few years as the hard-line government in the capital, Colombo, pressed its military offensive against the Tigers.

The tough strategy of Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s president, and his two brothers, Gotabaya and Basil, helped defeat the insurgency in May after more than two decades of war. The rebel group used brutal tactics like the use of child soldiers and female suicide bombers. It was also responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, a former prime minister of India who was hoping to return to power, in 1991.

Government troops overran a narrow strip of beach where the leaders of the rebel group were pinned down, along with about 300,000 Tamil civilians. Human rights groups have pointed to evidence of an indiscriminate use of heavy weapons by government troops in areas crowded with civilians in the last weeks of fighting. The United Nations documented at least 7,000 civilian deaths in a tally that does not include the last, and probably bloodiest, weeks of fighting.

The government also faced pressure to release nearly 300,000 Tamils it had held in closed camps since the end of the war. Officials said the displaced people needed to be screened to weed out fighters, but conditions in the crowded camps deteriorated as the monsoon rains arrived. On Tuesday , the government said the displaced were free to leave, with some limitations.

Sri Lanka has resisted calls for an international investigation of its conduct of the war, and has dismissed the demands of the Western countries that have bankrolled much of its humanitarian aid effort as imperialism.

Sri Lankan government officials have repeatedly pointed to growing ties between their country and China as a sign that the West’s influence there is on the wane. Mr. Rajapaksa, who is running for re-election in January — and is staking his campaign on the war victory — has accused foreign aid organizations and Western countries of meddling in Sri Lanka’s affairs.

More broadly, government officials have expressed dismay at the barrage of criticism they received abroad after the defeat of the Tamil Tigers. Mr. Rajapaksa portrayed the conflict as part of a global fight against terrorism, and the victory over the Tigers as a model for anti-insurgency military campaigns elsewhere. Sri Lankan officials deny that large numbers of civilians were killed by government troops.

The United States and other Western countries abstained from a vote at the International Monetary Fund in July to lend $2.6 billion to Sri Lanka. The United States has also curbed military aid because of concerns about human rights abuses in the war against the Tamil Tigers.

But Sri Lanka is too important a country to be isolated from the West, the report argues.

“Sri Lanka is located at the nexus of crucial maritime trading routes in the Indian Ocean connecting Europe and the Middle East to China and the rest of Asia,” the report says. “The United States, India, and China all share an interest in deterring terrorist activity and curbing piracy that could disrupt maritime trade.”

© New York Times

Read More

Summary only