NOTEBOOK OF A NOBODY
Does no one care for the civilians? by Shanie
The plight of the trapped civilians continues to worsen, despite denials by the contending parties. A few thousands have managed to limp away from the conflict zone and into government-controlled areas in the Vavunya district. The rest, some tens of thousands, continue to remain in the shrinking LTTE-controlled areas in and around Puthukudiyiruppu. There can be little doubt that, given a free choice, nearly all of them would opt to move into conflict-free area where their lives are not at risk. In the current context, it only means being placed by the Government in what are termed ‘welfare villages’ but which in reality are open prisons. Once placed inside, they cannot come out, not even to visit or move into the homes of friends or relatives.
While those in these camps continue to suffer trauma and indignity, the plight of those trapped in the LTTE held areas is infinitely worse. Their very lives are on the line. They lack adequate food and clean water and medical facilities are virtually non-existent. The LTTE contemptuously uses them as human shields with no concern for their welfare or safety. It is reported that the LTTE continues to conscript children in their last ditch do-or-die battles. While not all the stories attributed to the escaping civilians may have credibility, there seems to be pattern in some of the stories. When the LTTE cadres confront escaping families, their violence seems to be specifically targeted against families who refuse to allow their young children to be recruited into the ranks of the LTTE. But not all have the strength to confront the LTTE and many are compelled to succumb.
These civilians, nearly all of whom would prefer to lead violence-free lives and earn a livelihood to keep and support their families, are trapped between the two contending forces, neither of whom seem to consider the safety of the civilians as a priority. Civil society leaders and international humanitarian agencies have reacted with horror at the helplessness of these civilians. One can understand the apologists for the Government among the Sinhala nationalists and mandarins who, for different reasons, seek to justify the lack of respect for international humanitarian laws by the Government. One can also understand the apologists for the LTTE among the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora and the Tamil nationalists here and in South India who condone the LTTE’s abuse of civilians. One can even understand the apparent lack of concern among most Sri Lankans because most of them are kept in the dark about the uglier side of the war. But the recent veiled apology for the Government from an expatriate historian in Professor Michael Roberts was an unpardonable shocker.
Michael Roberts and humanitarianism
Professor Michael Roberts equates the British-French strategy of an economic blockade of Germany at the beginning of World War 2 with our own situation here in Sri Lanka. Apart from the inaccuracies about the blockade (which he covers up by referring to his ‘desultory knowledge’ and attributing his information to Professor Trevor Wilson but without any quotation marks), it a shocking for a historian to equate an inter-national war with a national insurgency. Surely, Roberts cannot be unaware of the difference between an insurgency such as we had by the JVP in the south and the LTTE in the north and an inter-national war or even a civil war such as in Spain in the 1930’s and in America in the 1860’s.
The British Government fought an IRA insurgency for many years. The Catholic areas in Northern Ireland, similar to the North and East here with the LTTE being the predominant force there, were virtually under the diktat of the IRA and many areas were no-go areas for the British Army. The Catholics, perhaps rightly, viewed some actions by the British Government as discriminatory. But there was no contemplation by the British Government at any stage that there should be any economic blockade of the Catholic areas. The British Government and her officials considered all, Catholics and Protestants, as equal citizens entitled to the same rights and to the equal protection of the law. It is astonishing that Roberts should think that the provision of Government facilities in areas under LTTE control was something extraordinary. Does he honestly believe that it would have been acceptable if the Government withdrew all its officials from these areas and imposed an economic blockade? No Government worth its name would have surrendered territory in this fashion to insurgents. And no responsible citizen, except a madcap chauvinist, would have supported such action.
But back to the Anglo-French blockade in 1940. As a historian, Roberts must know, despite his self-confessed desultory knowledge, that the Anglo-French use of the weapon of blockade collapsed when they attempted to extend the blockade in Scandinavian waters and the Germans responded by capturing Norway and Denmark to secure ore supplies. Roberts must also know the blockade had long been abandoned when the French signed an armistice with the Germans in June 1940. General de Gaulle left France before the armistice and it was the British who recognised him first as ‘the leader of the Free French.’
Roberts accuses the ‘do-gooders’ cloistered in Colombo or New York of a lack of comprehension of the pragmatics of war. Their political naiveté, he says, cannot be excused. Is Roberts of the view that the only realists are those ensconced among the academia of South Australia? And of course the Sinhala supremacists in Sri Lanka.
The future of the Internally Displaced
We must continue to re-express our concern for the helpless civilians who face danger and harassment from all sides. It is difficult to accept that the civilians who are now being herded into what are euphemistically referred to as ‘welfare villages’ are in only for a short stay. If they are going to be re-settled, as Government spokespersons have stated, in their original homes within three or four months, what then is the need for building schools, banks, post offices, etc in these villages? President Rajapakse must resist the temptation to acquiesce to majoritarian supremacist agendas and prevent these civilians from returning to their places of original habitat or to settle outsiders in those areas. Instead of ensuring peace, that would be a certain recipe for continuing conflict. If sustainable peace is to achieved, not only must these civilians be re-settled as quickly as possible, within weeks or months, but also a comprehensive political settlement must be put forward. The UNP is already on record stating that such a constitutional amendment would receive their support. (It cannot be forgotten that they reneged on their commitment to President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s proposals of 2000). But a UNP-SLFP consensus is vital and President Rajapakse would be wise to follow up on the UNP’s offer.
The ‘welfare villages’ must not turn into our version of the Guantanomo Bay detention centre. President Obamo has now made the decision to close this centre but while it existed it remained a blot on US democracy. Terrorist suspects were detained without any charges being brought forward against them. In a challenge brought forward by one of the suspects two years ago, the US Supreme Court in its judgment stated, ‘Even assuming (this suspect) is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law.’
Sir John Holmes, who was once called, in a fit of arrogant pique, a ‘terrorist’ by one of our cabinet ministers, is now back in the country at the invitation of the Government. We trust he will be able to visit the IDP camps and the ‘welfare villages’ and that the displaced persons will be able to talk freely to him through Holmes’ own interpreters. One also hopes that President Rajapakse will receive this senior UN diplomat’s (even critical) advice in a spirit of humility as behoves a responsible Government. In dealing with humanitarian issues and with international diplomats, it is always counter-productive to exhibit boorishness.
Ethnic Polarisation
While the Government is entitled to bask in the glory of its successful win in the recent two Provincial Council Elections, an analysis of the results shows that the Government has totally failed win the support of the minorities. In fact, the results show a polarisation between the ethnic majority and the minorities. The vast majority of the Sinhala voters have voted for the candidates of the UPFA. This is perhaps the result of the war rhetoric and the media hype about the rout of the LTTE. It is a moot point if this will continue to be such a strong factor once the euphoria dies down and economic issues begin to take precedence.
But the disturbing factor, not only for the Government but also for the country, is that the Government appears to have lost the Tamil and Muslim voter. The CWC (of Thondaman) and the UPF (of Chandrasekeran) are by far the two largest Tamil parties in the Central Province. They both contested under the UPFA banner. Yet between them, they had only three members elected while the opposition UNP had six Tamil members elected. Among the Muslims, there are eight already declared elected but not one of them is from the UPFA. This surely must be a cause for concern. The Government may win the war against the LTTE but it seems to be losing the peace. This ethnic polarisation is not at all good for the country and President Rajapakse has to change direction if he is to bring about real sustainable peace in the country.
www island.lk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment