Ethics of ‘Post-War’ Reconstruction: Resistance to 'War by Other Means'
17 OCTOBER 2012 BY JUDE LAL FERNANDO
The US-led
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israeli invasion of Palestine
were met with a division of opinion throughout the world. Such division
could be observed in the UN Security Council regarding the case of
Syria too. However, no such division existed, particularly in the final
phase (2007-2009), of the Sri Lankan government’s war against the de
facto state of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – in spite of
massive demonstrations, marches and fasts organised by Tamils all over
the world. Countries that are antagonistic vis-a-vis one another on
crucial political issues on the international arena (USA/China,
Britain/Russia, Israel/Iran, India/Pakistan, etc.) were united in their
support for the Sri Lankan government’s military answer to the nearly
six decades long nationalist conflict. The UN agencies that did not
leave Gaza during Israeli invasion acted differently in the last phase
of war on the Tamil de facto state and left the region at the request of
the Sri Lankan government. It was only after the end of the war in May
of 2009 that an ex-UN officer admitted that there have been at least
40,000 Tamils killed in the last phase of the war, but this has not been
formerly stated.
This shows that the UN was aware of the fact that one of its member
states (that of Sri Lanka) was committing a mass atrocity. The position
of the UN then, reflects the political stand of the above mentioned
powers. The reason for these international actors’ difference of
positions/actions concerning the first set of contexts and Sri Lanka
lies in the specific character of the Sri Lankan state. Two states, or a
political arrangement that dismantles the colonially forged unitary
character of the Sri Lankan state would clash with the geopolitical
interests of the major powers in the world, mainly US and UK led
governments (interested in expanding their military empires into South
Asia), and who have been competitively followed by China, Russia, Iran
and others (with the China-led extension of an economic empire).
The ethics of international relations concerning the island of Lanka
have been constructed on the basis of the need to protect the unitary
character of the state against the Tamil national movement and its de
facto state. The latter state emerged as a result of Tamil national
resistance to over six decades spanning oppression by the
Sinhala-dominated Sri Lankan state. The ethic of international relations
that justified and legitimised the military victory of the Sri Lankan
government against the LTTE – the main architects of the Tamil de facto
state – highly informs the ethic of internationally aided ‘post-war’
reconstruction efforts of the Sri Lankan government. These efforts are
geared towards consolidating the unitary state structure through heavy
militarisation of the Tamil region accompanied by a process of cultural,
economic and administrative re-structuring through Sinhala settlements,
acquisition of land for military and local/ multinational business
purposes and gerrymandering of constituencies that radically alters the
demographic composition of the Tamil region.1
This ethic is in direct conflict with an ethic based on the right of
oppressed peoples to resist domination. Therefore, the Sri Lankan
context is neither a post-war condition (as in the case of Vietnam after
the withdrawal of American troops) nor a post-conflict condition (as in
the case of Northern Ireland and South Africa after formal peace
agreements have been reached), but a condition where war continues to be
waged against the Tamil national movement by other means.
