Combating terrorism:

No time to dither

Bernard GOONATILLEKE

American audiences in general tend to identify Sri Lanka with two specific phenomena - the tsunami of December 2004 and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the LTTE, a terrorist group also known as the ‘Tigers.’

The war with the Tigers, in particular, has continued unabated for close upon thirty years, and no one could be faulted for being horrified at the violence, death and destruction unleashed upon Sri Lanka by the Tigers.

Some might even think that is all one can speak of Sri Lanka. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Compelling among the issues of importance to Sri Lanka, are the challenges posed by terrorism, a scourge that the international community faces today, with increasing severity.

Sri Lanka has borne the brunt of separatism in the guise of the Tigers, whose demand for a separate state, encompasses two of the nine provinces of the country situated in the North and the East, representing one third of the landmass of the island. There is something intrinsically wrong with this demand.

Demand

In the first instance, the claim is based on an erroneous minute left by a colonial secretary of Great Britain in 1799, which has no historical or other valid basis.

The demand becomes all the more unsustainable in the present context, due to the fact, that it is made supposedly on behalf of less than 12% of the population of Sri Lankan Tamils, the majority of who lives outside the two provinces.

Simply put, a demand for one third of the total landmass of the island, the extent of which is approximately 25,000 sq. miles, for approximately 12% of one ethnic group, more than 50% of whose population lives elsewhere in the country, is a case of bad math, which simply does not add up.

To make a complicated situation more complex, if the ethnic composition of the Eastern Province is separated from that of the Northern Province, the Muslims and the Sinhalese taken together, far exceed the percentage of the Tamils in the Eastern Province. The brutality of the ‘Tigers’ is without parallel.

In the course of some 30 years, Tigers have used suicide bombings and other modes of assassination to kill their opponents. Even if one were to agree that the ‘Tigers’’ political objective is justifiable, which certainly is not, there cannot be any justification for their resorting to acts of terrorism, targeting innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure.

One could well ask, why people living half a world away, like in the United States, or in Juneau, the capital city of Alaska, be concerned about what has been described by the media, as an “ethnic” conflict, in a far away island in the Indian Ocean ? To view Sri Lanka’s conflict in such a manner is to oversimplify a complex situation.

Living in a global village as we do today, we are all too aware that what happens on one side of the world, create waves not mere ripples on the other side of the world. Take for example, 9/11.

The plot was hatched in one location in Asia, the operatives came from several other continents, and the dastardly deed was carried out in the city of New York. What is more, the ripple effects of the attack on the Twin Towers were felt acutely in all parts of the world, leading, practically, to a global economic meltdown.

This begs the question, “What has the world done to address the situation in Sri Lanka?” During the early years of the conflict, Sri Lanka’s plea for help, a lone cry in the deep wilderness, was unheard by the world, until the ferocity of terrorism reached the Western hemisphere.

Undoubtedly, 9/11 was the catalyst, opening the eyes of the western world to the lethality of terrorism. However, in fairness to the United States, I need to say that it was the second country in the world, after India, which lost its former Prime Minister Gandhi to the Tiger assassins, to designate them as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

While the U.S. took that step in 1997, the UK took several more years to consider the merits of listing the ‘Tigers,’ which they eventually did, in 2001. Canada designated the LTTE as a FTO in April 2006 and the 27-member EU followed suit in May 2006.

In that sense, one can conclude that the vast majority of the Western democracies took decisive action against a malignant terrorist organization that has the capacity to destabilize, not only Sri Lanka, but also other countries in the region.

TRO

The LTTE is not merely an evil entity; it is the veritable hydra-headed beast of Greek mythology, with unbelievable resilience and resourcefulness. To meet any eventuality, the LTTE has in its armoury, many front organisations, depending on the location of the country.

For example, in the U.S., the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation or the TRO, over the years, siphoned off funds collected for charity, to fill the LTTE war chest, until the U.S. Department of Treasury proscribed it as an LTTE front organisation, in November 2007.

Substitute organisations wait in readiness to spring into action, if one front organization is unlucky enough to appear on the authorities’ radar screen. The case of the U.K. is one such example.

When the Charity Commissioner of the U.K. discovered that the TRO funds were being siphoned off for purposes other than charity, he introduced restrictions against the TRO. However, that did not dissuade the Tigers. They promptly established another charity, named ‘White Pigeon.”

The role played by the US is particularly noteworthy, for its consistency and dogged determination to eradicate the influence of FTOs in the U.S.

These actions, in perspective, indicate that, even though the focus of the US has always been dominated and driven by operatives of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist outfits, non-Islamic foreign terrorist organizations too have not escaped the scrutiny of the US.

Several months ago, in January 2008, the FBI described the LTTE as being “among the most dangerous and deadly extremists in the world,” more dangerous than al Qaeda or Hezbollah or even Hamas, having invented the suicide vest and the suicide jacket.

Over the years, the U.S. has taken a keen interest in Sri Lanka’s peace negotiations, and has consistently backed efforts to end the conflict in Sri Lanka.

In 2002 and 2003, since signing of the Ceasefire Agreement, then Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, was actively involved in trying to persuade the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government, to resolve the conflict through negotiations.

To further this objective, the US actively participated in the meeting held in Oslo, in November 2002, organised a mini conference of the peace process in Washington DC in April 2003, and took a lead role in the Sri Lanka Donor Conference in Tokyo, two months later.

U.S. support for a negotiated settlement in Sri Lanka, continued into the second administration of President Bush, with the former Under Secretary of State, Ambassador Nicholas Burns, visiting Colombo in January 2006, with a strong message of support, for the government and against LTTE terrorism.

When fighting resumed in early 2006, in the face of renewed provocative and unabated acts of terrorism by the Tigers, additional high-level visits by the U.S. administration to Sri Lanka, took place.

Human rights violations

As the fighting escalated amidst mounting allegations of human rights violations, Sri Lanka’s traditional friends have expressed concern, even though the government of Sri Lanka continues to make serious attempts to address these concerns through directives to the armed forces and the police, and through judicial action and institutional arrangements to bring offenders to justice.

The Government’s position is that if human rights violations have indeed taken place, they are not a reflection of government policy, but of unilateral action of individual members of the armed forces and the police, who are liable to be brought to justice where credible evidence is available.

The 2007 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Sri Lanka, released by the Department of State in March 2008, has caused considerable concern in Sri Lanka as the government felt that it had misrepresented the situation in the country.

It is widely accepted that in situations of war, violations of human rights do take place. While such violations cannot be totally eliminated, governments of such countries, particularly democracies, are expected to be responsible for ensuring that those who engage in such violations are brought to justice.

This is exactly what the government of Sri Lanka is doing, where credible evidence is available to pursue legal action.

Since concerns were raised, the Embassy has shared information on arrests and indictments against members of the armed forces and police, with specific details containing names, offences committed, including details of the court cases, with the US Congress, the administration, as well as with concerned human rights organizations.

I have to admit that legal processes in Sri Lanka are painfully slow, whether they are against human rights offenders, or pertaining to other civil or criminal cases. Shortcomings such as lack of facilities for DNA testing hamper effective conduct of investigations. We have requested international help to address those lacunas.

Whether it is a superpower like the US, or a small developing nation like Sri Lanka, when countries have to confront sophisticated terrorist organizations, which have no qualms in carrying out attacks, with deadly arsenals of weapons freely available in the underworld arms market, they inevitably come across situations other countries do not have to confront.

This situation also creates mutual dependence among threatened countries in terms of pooling resources to fight a faceless enemy.

While countries such as the US face rare situations such as the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, Sri Lanka is compelled to face terrorist attacks against its political leaders, civilian and economic centres every now and then, as it happened when a senior Government Minister was assassinated in a suicide attack in April, when he participated in a public sports event.

The capacity of vulnerable states like Sri Lanka, to withstand continuous terrorist onslaughts such as I mentioned, is limited. When nations are constantly compelled to face this kind of situation continuously, for decades, as in our case, the loss of lives and property, the constant fear of terrorist attacks and self-imposed constraints, damage the social fabric, and deeply affect intrinsic human values, draining out the compassion and kindness inherent in all of us.

fight terrorism

We have to remember that members of the Armed Forces and the police have undergone indescribable trauma because of the long drawn out armed conflict. This ground reality is not a justification for violation of human rights by individual members of the armed forces or the police, with impunity.

However, if stronger nations do not come to the assistance of weaker countries to fight terrorism, eventually, it will take a toll on democracy and good governance of the affected countries. This should not be allowed to happen.

In an era of instability, Sri Lanka has successfully maintained a relatively stable political environment, despite the long drawn out armed conflict. As one of South Asia’s oldest democracies, Sri Lanka has consistently supported democracy, and most importantly, the international struggle to contain terrorism.

Furthermore, Sri Lanka is a party to all the major United Nations Conventions relating to terrorism as well as human rights. Sri Lanka’s late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar who was assassinated by the Tigers, warned the international community, long before 9/11, about the threat posed by terrorism to the democratic way of life, not only in Sri Lanka, but across the globe, and tried to unite the world with a common definition of “terrorism,’ which, unfortunately, remains unresolved, even today.

The inability to agree on a common definition is rooted in the clich‚, “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” However, it must be emphasized that terrorism is not an option even for freedom fighters.

Reason for terrorism

There is yet another reason why terrorism continues to thrive worldwide. I am reminded of Minister Kadirgamar’s words when he addressed an audience at the London Royal Institute of International Affairs, on 15 April, 1998. I quote, “There are, as I have discerned, two basic approaches to terrorism adopted by states.

The first is what I call “a Nelsonian approach” - turning a blind eye! Many states which are not directly affected by acts of terrorism on their own soil, but who are aware that terrorist acts are committed on the territory of other states - but where there are links between the terrorists concerned in the other state and in your own state - adopt a policy of, “Well, what’s happening is happening somewhere else, those people are their terrorists, not our terrorists, thank heavens for that, we will wait and see.” Unquote

As events have shown, there is no room for complacence, and no time to dither. Dr. Martin Luther King often said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Similarly, every nation in the world needs to wake up to the fact that terrorism anywhere is a recipe for terrorism everywhere. The deliverance of countries ravaged by terrorism, like Sri Lanka, depends upon the global acceptance of this truism.

Based on a recent address delivered by Goonatileke, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the US, in Alaska, USA.