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.

Calculated Politics of Duplicity                                                Read more...