Prospects for 'Humanitarian Intervention' in Sri Lanka
Many Sri Lankans,
particularly the 'patriots' are so fixated in defeating the LTTE that they tend
to minimize the possibility that the real defeat of Sri Lanka may come from the
so-called 'Humanitarian Intervention' of the International Community (IC for
short) which in reality is from America which is the self-appointed leader of
the IC. The effect of the global 'War on Terror' is only now being felt with the
LTTE gradually starved of the funds from the Tamil Diaspora that it has come to
rely on. The fact that the LTTE is still a going concern is due to the
incompetence of the political and military authorities in SL who have failed to
capitalize on the favourable international conjecture to liquidate the LTTE.
While international events have reduced the capacity of the LTTE to continue as
a military force it has also given a lever to the IC (and America) to destroy
Sri Lanka's territorial integrity and bring about the creation of a 'Tamil
homeland'. This is by the IC playing the Human Rights (HR) card and imposing
sanctions on Sri Lanka. The Hela politicians confronted with an economic crisis
will succumb to the pressure of the IC and give in to their demand for
devolution. So we may have the ironical situation that where the Tigers failed
the IC may actually succeed in creating a situation in SL which is similar to
what the LTTE had been fighting for. This possibility is the substance of the
argument of Tisaranee Gunasekara in the article (reprodued below).
However there is the usual fallacious reasoning of this writer which has to be
exposed.
Tisaranee says that the
"US has no moral right to preach human rights to others" yet at the same time
calls this "an irrelevant truth". Far from being irrelevant it is the most
important argument that SL has to counter the HR card played by the IC. By any
comparison the HR violations of the principals of the IC in their own War on
Terror far exceed whatever HR violations that may have occurred in SL's own war
on terror. Moreover HR violations occur not only on the side of those fighting
terrorism but even to a greater extent by the actions of the terrorists
themselves. What needs to be done initially is to blunt the HR argument of the
IC. Unfortunately the incompetence of the GOSL in diplomatic and foreign
relations matters has made this almost impossible. The LTTE realized that there
was no one who could succeed Lakshman Kadirgarmar as Foreign Minister,
that is why they assassinated him. This has been vindicated by the succession of
foreign affairs blunders done by GOSL since the killing of Kadirgamar.
There is no end in the
number of Hela peaceniks who argue that GOSL should give some kind of devolution
to the Tamils. Both MahindaR and RanilW are agreed on this, any differences
relating to such matters as the unit and the scope of this devolution. But it is
the very principle of devolution (or 'power sharing' the term preferred by
MahindaR) that is at fault. Once the principle is granted any caveat relating to
limitation of the extent of devolution can easily be overcome. Tissaranee argues
that capitulation to the IC demand is necessary because "we need American money,
weapons and military technology". This argument can be contested, but what is
relevant here is that Tisaranee and Helas who think like her are prepared to
concede the seed of Eelaam, oblivious of the fact that in the fullness of time
this seed will grow to an irremovable tree. Recently MahindaR appointed Dayan
Jayatilleke , the alleged partner of Tisaranee and a like-minded thinker, to
a high diplomatic position. Little has been heard of what he has accomplished in
this important position, no doubt with all the perks. But this very appointment
shows that the GOSL of MahindaR is steadily capitulating to the peacenik lobby.
Tisaranee too points out
that the Tigers are using the IC doctrine of "HR Intervention" for its own ends.
This doctrine has already been used in many places; Kosovo and East Timor have
been cited. Whether it would be applied to Sri Lanka is still debated. Perhaps
it may never be because SL is not worth it (with no worthwhile resources that
will attract the IC), and the Tamils cannot be relied on even by the IC. The
MahindaR regime is so weak that the same result could be achieved by using NGOs
and Hela traitors. But the mere threat of HR intervention is sufficient to
frighten the MahindaR regime. Look at the fuss made at resettling displaced
Tamils and Muslims, when Sinhalas chased away by the Tamil terrorists are still
languishing in camps. But anyone can see through this facade of pandering to
Tamils. That is why the IC will not give any credit to whatever the MahindaR
regime will do in this regard to Tamils. The MR regime is simply wasting its
time.
Tisaranee speaks of the
"trap that the Tigers are setting" but urging the UN and the IC to use the
doctrine of "Humanitarian Intervention" to meddle in SL's domestic affairs. They
presumably want a UN intervention force to guarantee the frontiers of the de
facto Eelaam that they have in the North of the country. Not only Yugoslavia and
Timor, but also more recently the Sudan and Iraq has seen foreign intervention
ostensibly to rectify a purely a domestic problem. A similar situation is now
being orchestrated in Burma where the Buddhist monks had made the wrong decision
to engage in politics just as our own JHU monks have done. With the MahindaR
regime running out of international allies it is possible for LTTE proxies like
Norway and many other countries to build up a case for such intervention in Sri
Lanka. This is the new threat that SL faces if it is going to protect its
traditional unitary status.
According to the
Tisaranee there are already many instances that could justify humanitarian
intervention. She refers to "the killing of 5 students in Trinco and 17 aid
workers in Mutur" as "atrocities". Whatever the culpability of GOSL may be for
these actions they fall far short of "atrocities" as this term has been recently
used. She then speaks of GOSL attempts "to change the ethnic composition of the
East" when the reality is that GOSL still has no control on what is happening in
the East (even the principal government agent there was recently assassinated.
Ethnic cleansing has only been successfully carried out in SL by the Tamils.
Thus there is neither justification nor the possibility of foreign humanitarian
intervention in SL. Why then are peaceniks like Tisaranee raising this bogey? I
think they realize that this is sufficiently to frighten GOSL into making
devolution concessions to the Tamils.
The other argument of
Tisaranee that GOSL cannot defeat the LTTE without American aid is equally
incorrect. The LTTE has nothing intrinsically superior to that which is now at
the control of GOSL even without any American assistance. The LTTE does not have
a high tech military machine. What they have can be matched by GOSL forces. In
fact they are much inferior to what GOSL has. On the question of manpower it is
clear that the LTTE has great difficulty in this area and has to resort to child
enlistment. Everyone knows that a child soldier is inferior to a regular
soldier. Moreover the strength of the SL armed forces greatly exceed the cadres
said to be available to the LTTE. So the military defeat of the LTTE is a
feasibility even without American military assistance.
There is a great deal of
discussion about the Yugoslav situation but Tissaranee has missed the relevant
lesson for Sri Lanka. This is that Federalism based on ethnic differences is an
unstable formula and will lead to dismemberment. It is true that Yugoslavia
managed to hold together under Marshal Tito. This is an exceptional situation
largely the result of Tito's leadership in the fight against the Nazi
occupation, and his subsequent grip on the Federation. When his hand was removed
the Federation did not last long before imploding. In Sri Lanka there is no
leader like Tito and all our recent leaders have been noted for their
incompetence and corruption. A Federal system based on ethnic devolution does
not stand a chance to hold the nation together except for a short period.
The state will perish
where…. incomprehension makes decisions. Schiller (Demetrius)
The future is unknown. However some
potential dangers are foreseeable and therefore avoidable. The Leahy Amendment
which would stop US aid and ban the sale of American weapons and technology to
Sri Lanka is awaiting the approval of President Bush. Consequently the fact that
the issues raised in the Leahy Amendment were echoed by the US Undersecretary of
State Nicholas Burns and further reiterated by Ambassador Robert Blake cannot be
taken lightly.
The US has no moral right to preach
human rights to others. The country which invaded Sovereign Iraq, caused a war
which has claimed more than one million Iraqi lives, engages in abducting
foreign nationals suspected of 'terrorist activities' and runs illegal detention
centres in which torture is an officially sanctioned practice has no right to
preach to others about rule of law and safety of non-combatants. The
administration that lied and dissembled shamelessly to create war hysteria so
that special (oil) interests could be furthered under the guise of national
interests has no right to preach to others about morality and ethics. American
conduct in Iraq would be sufficient to keep a half-way independent international
war crimes tribunal busy for many years. But for us in Sri Lanka, at this point
of time, this is an irrelevant truth.
We need American money, weapons and
military technology. We can do with American training. We need American
cooperation to prevent the LTTE from gaining access to advanced weapons and
military technologies. And though the Americans have no moral right to preach to
others about human rights they have the sovereign right to give their money and
sell their weapons to whoever they please. No amount of rhetorical flourishes
and debating points can change that. Therefore we need to take seriously the
concerns expressed by Messers Burns and Blake; we need to prove to American and
international opinion that human rights violators on our side will not be
permitted to evade justice. Proof does not consist of lofty speeches, loftier
promises and a bewildering tangle of committees. Results are needed –
suspensions, arrests, prosecutions and punishments. If these are not forthcoming
President Bush may not veto the Leahy Amendment. And if America blacklists us,
it will mark the beginning of the end of Lankan legitimacy in the international
arena. Other countries will follow suit; the gap thus created cannot be filled
by perennial friends such as Russia, China and Pakistan.
That is the immediate danger. Even if
this is averted, it will be a case of danger deferred rather than eliminated. In
about 14 months there will be a new President in the US. If the current
political trends remain unchanged, that President is likely to be a Democrat -
and likely to be Hilary Clinton. Under a Democratic President – be it Ms.
Clinton, Barack Obama or any other – human rights and humanitarian intervention
would replace the war against terror as the main 'justification' of America's
imperial policy. Naturally this enhanced concern for human rights would have no
bearing on Israel; but it could make a world of difference for Sri Lanka.
The NATO's military intervention in the
former Yugoslavia was spearheaded by the last Democratic President of the US.
Protection of human rights was the watchword of that enterprise and saving
Kosovo-Albanians from ethnic cleansing by the Serb Army its justification. One
of the originators of the theory of humanitarian intervention – or rather its
modern version – Dr. Bernard Kouchner (currently France's Foreign Minister) said
of the NATO intervention in the Kosovo conflict: "We intervened within a
country's borders that are what's known as the right of intervention. Everyone
protested, but it worked" (interview with Red Cross, Red Crescent - 2001).
The Tigers in their letter to the UN
asks the international community "to provide appropriate opportunities to the
Tamil people to express their aspirations, as have been given to the people of
East Timor and Kosovo". East Timor and Kosovo were the experimentation grounds
for the theory of humanitarian intervention. As Kofi Anan, in his capacity as
the UN Secretary General, explained, "The tragedy of East Timor, coming so soon
after that of Kosovo, has focused attention once again on the need for timely
intervention by the international community when death and suffering are being
inflicted on large numbers of people, and when the state nominally in charge is
unable or unwilling to stop it" (The Economist – 8.9.1999). It was a clever
amalgam. The intervention in East Timor was beyond reproach; it was in reality
what it claimed to be – an intervention to prevent the Indonesian army from
committing genocide in East Timor which the Suharto regime invaded and occupied
in contravention of international law, when East Timor was about to be granted
independence by the Portuguese.
The Millennium +5 Outcome Document
agreed upon by the UN General Assembly on 15th September 2005 contains a section
on 'Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity' which comes close to the R2P theory and
will be used by a future Democratic administration in the US for selective
interventions in sovereign states:
"139. The
international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility
to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in
accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations
from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this
context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive
manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter,
including Chapter VII, on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant
regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and
national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" (emphasis
mine).
Such are the contours of the trap the
Tigers are setting for us. In order to justify 'humanitarian intervention' there
would have to be persistent human rights violations by the Lankan side, which go
unpunished. This is the road we are embarking upon with our continuous failure
to bring to justice perpetrators of atrocities such as the killing of 5 students
in Trinco and 17 aid workers in Mutur, our toleration of abductions,
extra-judicial killings and child conscription in areas under our control in the
North-East and our attempts to change the ethnic composition of the East. Our
present policy of denial, prevarication and empty promises would not avail us
indefinitely. It makes eminent sense to act before others act in our stead,
using our failure to act as their justification.
No two fates are identical. But there
is much we can learn from the avoidable mistakes of others. In 1389 Ottoman
Emperor Murad I defeated Prince Lazar of Serbia; the Battle of Kosovo Polje
ended the existence of independent Serbian kingdom. Almost 600 years later, in
1987, Slobodan Milasovich, then a minor Serb politician, visited Kosovo Polje
and assured the Serbs, "No one will beat you again".
Slobodan Milasovich did not want the
dissolution of Yugoslavia. He wanted its preservation, under Serb domination.
Mr. Milasovich tried to save Yugoslavia through Serb nationalism; it only
hastened the evil day of Yugoslavia's implosion into separate and warring
entities. As the Prime Minister of Serbia and later as the President of
Yugoslavia, Mr. Milasovich consciously undermined the elaborate system of checks
and balances put in place by Marshall Tito which successfully impeded
centrifugal tendencies by balancing diverse sub-national interests and checking
Serb domination. Mr. Milasovich's strident Serb nationalism and his
retrogressive policies scared the minorities and strengthened divisive
tendencies within the Republic.
The NATO used genocide and ethnic
cleansing as justification for its military intervention in the Kosovo conflict.
According to John Pilger the FBI did not find any mass grave in Kosovo. "In
November 1999, the Wall Street Journal published the results of its own
investigation, dismissing 'the mass grave obsession'. Instead of 'the huge
killing fields some investigators were led to expect ... the pattern is of
scattered killings [mostly] in areas where the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army
had been active'… One year later, the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body
effectively set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in
Kosovo's "mass graves" was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and
Serbs and Roma murdered by the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army" (New Statesman –
8.12.2004).
The next move of the Clinton
administration was to engineer the electoral defeat of Slobodan Milasovich. The
US spent more than $41 million to fund the 2000 'electoral revolution' which
ended the Milasovich rule: "US funded consultants ran tracking polls, trained
opposition activists, helped organise the parallel vote count. 5000 spray paint
cans for student activists and 2.5 million 'He's Finished' stickers which became
the catchphrase" (International Herald Tribunal – 13.12.2000). It was a classic
case of regime change through imperial intervention but wily Bill Clinton was
able to carry it out with finesse beyond the capacity of a blundering George
Bush. Slobodan Milasovich, obdurate and short-sighted, failed to understand that
his Serb supremacism and confrontationist attitude vis-à-vis the international
community were as playing right into the hands of those who wanted to destroy
Yugoslavia.
At Rambouillet the Serbs were willing
to grant considerable autonomy to Kosovo. But Rambouillet was a trap. It not
only proposed a degree of autonomy akin to de facto separation; a secret
Appendix gave NATO forces access to all of Yugoslavia. As Lord Gilbert, the
British Defence Minister of State said, "I think the terms put to Milasovich at
Rambouillet were absolutely intolerable. How could he possibly accept them? It
was quite deliberate" (Minutes of the British Inquiry in the Kosovo War). The
Serbs were damned whether they agreed to the proposal or not. The only avenue of
escape was on the Road to Rambouillet. If the Serbs conducted their war with
greater regard for human rights, if they tried to win over moderate
Kosovo-Albanians by granting them some autonomy – thereby marginalising the KLA
– Rambouillet could have been avoided.
Mr. Milasovich's comments on Kosovo
invoke a sense of déjàvu: "Kosovo is important to us emotionally… Geographically
the region is called Kosovo and Metohija... Metohija is a Greek word and it
means 'church property'…. So half of Kosmet is the land that belongs to the Serb
Orthodox Church. For every Serb, Kosovo is the heart of Serbia… Weber made a
list of 1800 churches in Kosmet of international heritage…. How can anyone say:
'let's take this part of Serbia and give it to the Albanians? Take the situation
of Texas. You have a huge Mexican population there. What would happen if they
were to say that they want to take a part of Texas and unite it with Mexico? …
It has nothing to do with democracy, with human rights. It has to do with
separatism and separatist movement which uses terrorism as means to an end. This
is why we had to respond to terrorism and stop it" (Interview with Washington
Post – 16.12.1998).
The lesson is obvious. If we fail to
deal decisively with human rights violations, if we delay a political solution
to the ethnic problem, we will be enhancing the possibility of eventual
international intervention. In that sense both the Sinhala supremacist Mahinda
Rajapakse and the pro-LTTE Ranil Wickremesinghe are part of the problem and
serious impediments to a solution grounded in a united Sri Lanka.