<!--break-->
Lanka Solidarity Statement
U.S. Policy on Sri Lanka: The Effectiveness of Principled Engagement
Lanka Solidarity, a network of activists and scholars based in North America, works to engage Sri Lankan and diasporic communities in critical dialogue about reconciliation, democracy, and a just peace in Sri Lanka.
Introduction
Lanka Solidarity welcomes the United States' ongoing engagement in Sri Lanka, as that country continues its transition into what we hope will be a period of real reconciliation and political change.
Two staff members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations recently produced a report with recommendations regarding American foreign policy on Sri Lanka. Media coverage of this report has suggested that the U.S. might shift its policy to focus on its own geopolitical interests to the exclusion of its humanitarian and human rights commitments. Lanka Solidarity believes such a shift would be premature and would hinder the U.S.'s effective engagement with Sri Lanka.
As such, we are glad to note that this is only one of a number of ways in which the U.S. government has chosen to study and engage Sri Lanka. In particular, we welcome the reassurances of the U.S. State Department that human rights concerns remain central to U.S. policy. We also support the 2010 Appropriations bill call for a follow-up to the first State Department report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, as well as the suspension of military assistance until certain conditions are met.
Further, we reiterate that when the U.S. has taken a principled stand on human rights and humanitarian concerns, and applied appropriate pressure to the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL), this pressure has led to substantial progress in protecting human rights, improving humanitarian conditions, and promoting stability in Sri Lanka and the region.
This moment in Sri Lanka's history presents an opportunity to support real political change and reconciliation. However, we suggest that constructive engagement can take a different shape than that recommended by the report:
Geopolitical interests and strategy in Sri Lanka
As Sri Lanka's largest trade partner and a major donor, the U.S. holds significant leverage in Sri Lanka, and there is little likelihood of "losing" this relationship. Throughout the war, the U.S. has maintained balanced support for civil society and economic development among all Sri Lankan ethnic groups. It is not alone among international donors in encouraging more transparency and accountability from the GoSL, as recent statements from the E.U. and the U.K. demonstrate, and the GoSL is far from "politically and economically isolated."
The GoSL is capitalizing on the idea that the U.S. could "lose" Sri Lanka to push the American government toward a softer position on humanitarian and human rights concerns. The U.S. approach should not sacrifice human rights commitments for narrow geostrategic interests. This may actually strengthen a hard-line government already leveraging relationships with China and Iran to gain a stronger regional presence.
To provide assistance to the military and infrastructure of the country without any type of accountability would violate basic principles of U.S. foreign policy. Other governments watching the American response to Sri Lanka will note this change: If the U.S. is prepared to signal to the world that a realignment with nations such as Iran and China will lead to a more conciliatory approach from the U.S., this constitutes a striking geopolitical shift that should be carefully evaluated. Should an emboldened GoSL continue on a path of militarization, this will be to the detriment of democratic and economic development in a post-war era.
Treatment of IDPs and conditions of internment camps. The IDPs are not a short-term concern, but rather a long-term challenge for the future of Sri Lanka.
The plight of internally displaced persons (IDPs) should not be mischaracterized as a "short-term humanitarian situation." Resolving the challenges faced by IDPs will take time and sustained participation from all levels of civil society, the GoSL, and the international community. We urge the U.S. to approach the IDP situation with a historically sensitive perspective that considers the intricacies involved in resettlement, as well as the ongoing need to protect IDPs' rights.
Lanka Solidarity urges the U.S. to acknowledge the existence of multiple displaced and landless communities throughout the history of post-independence Sri Lanka. Many Tamils driven from their homes earlier in the war—those from other areas in the North and East, such as Sampur, Vakarai, and Trincomalee—have yet to be resettled. In 1990, the Tamil Tigers evicted Muslims living in the Northern Province from their homes; members of this community still live in IDP camps such as those in Puttalam. Lastly, Up-Country Tamil plantation workers, disenfranchised and displaced from their homes in the 1970s and 1980s, still do not have housing or land rights. Lanka Solidarity urges the U.S. to look critically at land tenure and the rights of the displaced in relation to the government’s stated goals of economic development and national security. By considering land rights as they apply to all inhabitants of Sri Lanka, the U.S. can better address the concerns of the displaced as part of the process of political reconciliation.
Careful attention must be paid to the needs of the women and children, who have been disproportionately affected by the conflict. Women in the IDP camps are particularly vulnerable to violence and sexual abuse; those who have been released need continuing support, especially as many of them will return to head households and care for surviving family members. Children displaced and traumatized by war have had their studies repeatedly interrupted. As they return home, they must find the infrastructure to reclaim their lives and educations. Addressing the physical and emotional well-being of these populations is crucial to the future economic and political health of the nation.
Impunity and accountability
The last quarter century of armed conflict saw grave human rights violations by the GoSL, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and other armed actors. No one has been brought to justice. The resulting climate is a major impediment to reconciliation, good governance, and a just peace. The U.S. should call for mechanisms of accountability to address ongoing impunity, as well as to redress impunity for human rights violations committed over the course of the conflict.
Of immediate concern are the estimated 11-12, 000 individuals detained for suspected links with the LTTE, who have had no access to legal safeguards or due process. The risk of grave abuses, including torture, is very real, particularly in light of Sri Lanka's history of extrajudicial detentions. Moreover, there is compelling evidence that war crimes and other serious breaches of international law were committed in the final months of the conflict, as detailed by the State Department's report on war crimes. In addition to following up on that report, the U.S. should call for international investigations into these allegations. Any such investigation must be internationally supervised to ensure independence and impartiality. Finally, the U.S. can support good governance reforms within Sri Lanka and help build independent domestic institutions—such as the National Human Rights Commission—that will counter the prevailing culture of impunity.
Militarization of society
It is against this backdrop of political uncertainty and the decay of fundamental institutions of democracy that Lanka Solidarity raises concerns about the ongoing militarization of post-war Sri Lanka. At the end of two and a half decades of war, Sri Lanka maintains a peak wartime budget of US $1.6 billion for defense, and is set to recruit tens of thousands more to the armed forces. (A November 2009 budget for the next four months allocated 20 percent for military spending. If this trend were to continue, it would represent a massive increase in military spending.) In this context, the recommendation to "authorize the U.S. military to resume training of Sri Lankan military officials" and references to "future operations" are especially troubling. The report gives not only tacit acceptance to the government of Sri Lanka's agenda of national security without reconciliation, and development without a political solution, but seeks to provide direct military assistance to the Sri Lankan Army.
Lanka Solidarity is encouraged by present de-mining efforts in the Northern Province. We suggest, however, that demilitarization and peace-building also entails the following: Disarmament and demobilization of paramilitary groups in the North and East, reduction of troops in active duty, an end to the recruitment of child soldiers, a plan to eliminate High Security Zones, educational opportunities for former military personnel, and a deep and active commitment to the political process. Rather than contribute military training, the U.S. should encourage the development of autonomous institutional mechanisms to create and implement a political solution.
Attacks on the media
We reiterate calls to hold perpetrators accountable for reprehensible attacks on the Sri Lankan media. While the government claims to be investigating attacks on journalists, we see no real progress toward addressing the prevailing culture of impunity and fear. This makes for a particularly precarious situation for a country that aims to uphold democracy. For Sri Lanka to thrive, this media corps must rebuild itself.
A significant number of Sri Lankan journalists have left either the profession or the country. Others have been subject to far worse. We note with great sadness the cases of Lasantha Wickramatunge and J. Tissanayagam; the former was slain in broad daylight in Colombo almost a year ago, and the latter recently spent his 100th day in prison under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Wickramatunge's death cannot be undone, but his killers can be found and prosecuted. And the release of Tissanayagam would signal to journalists that indeed, Sri Lanka welcomes coverage of the sort that promotes debate, and therefore a democratic and robust civil society.
A political solution and the upcoming elections
The present government has won the war, but will it create a democratic and just peace for its citizens? The Senate committee's report fails to address adequately the question of how the GoSL will implement its promised political solution.
In 2007, the President established a multi-party committee to suggest ways to devolve power to local authorities. But this was only a short-term solution, and it failed; the process was undermined, dismantled and its proposals dismissed by the same government. While the legal structures for this form of devolution already exist within the Sri Lankan constitution, implementation has proven an ongoing problem.
Sri Lankans who sought to negotiate within a democratic political process were assured that reforms would follow military victory. Even in victory, however, the present government has taken no concrete steps to outline a political solution, and remains unaccomodating to minority concerns. Serious doubts remain about the government's genuine commitment to power-sharing, with President Rajapakse noting to one New York Times reporter that "Federalism is out of the question."The U.S. has long pushed for devolution of power as a sustainable solution to Sri Lanka's conflict. But immediately following the Tigers' defeat, Rajapakse postponed all discussion of power-sharing until after the presidential election in January 2010.
Lanka Solidarity suggests that the "short-term" humanitarian crisis must be considered in any "long-term" political process. Several constituencies—including hundreds of thousands of displaced people in the war-affected North and East and in IDP camps throughout the country, Hill-Country Tamils, and refugees living temporarily in India—have been effectively disenfranchised. There have also been reports of violence and voter intimidation in recent provincial elections. According to the Ministry of Defence, an estimated 2 million people lack the national identity cards required to exercise their franchise. The government must make attempts to bring citizens into the political process, even if minimally, through voter registration and education, as well as election monitoring throughout the country.
Post-war Sri Lanka requires ambitious, broad-minded and decisive leadership on the question of minority rights and devolution of powers. The future of the country hangs in the balance.
Conclusion
The Government of Sri Lanka made the decision to release thousands of civilians from internment camps following coordinated pressure from international actors. This is a powerful sign of the effectiveness of the U.S.'s consistently principled and multilateral engagement in Sri Lanka.
If the U.S. has failed to recognize the GoSL's “progressive transition to democracy, ethnic reconciliation, disarmament and demobilization,” this is for good reason. Efforts at reconciliation among all communities, including Muslims and Up-Country Tamils, have been modest at best. The GoSL has done very little to actually strengthen democracy, and has instead become increasingly draconian in its policies toward journalists and Tamil civilians. If U.S. policy in Sri Lanka sacrifices social and political concerns for geostrategic interests, it could serve, in the long term, to justify authoritarianism. This would undermine the Obama administration’s stated commitment to upholding international humanitarian law.
Although the GoSL is attempting to leverage its political capital to push the U.S. into softening its position, there is little basis for a shift in policy. We should not underestimate the position of the U.S. as a vital economic partner for Sri Lanka. Even more importantly, we believe the U.S. retains its political importance in Sri Lanka, and remains a valued friend to all the peoples of Sri Lanka as they work towards a just and lasting peace.
The U.S. should work constructively with Sri Lanka to help resettle internally displaced persons, end impunity and attacks on the media, demilitarize and democratize society, and forge a permanent political solution. In all of its actions, the U.S. should support the reemergence of a robust civil society by working with local and grassroots organizations, many of which already have strong connections to international donors. The U.S. can be a valuable partner in Sri Lanka—and precedent shows that principled and historically contextualized engagement is an effective way of supporting Sri Lankan democracy and peace.
Add comment