A humanitarian tragedy in the making

By Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu

As the march of the forces into the Wanni progresses, the key issue remains as always, the plight of the civilians. Currently, in the middle of September, there is the serious danger of a major humanitarian crisis, potentially involving anywhere between 200,000 to 300,000 civilians. Something has to be done about this and fast. The imperative of defeating terrorism should not be at the cost of civilian lives and welfare and as a consequence, sustain conflict beyond the point at which military victory is heralded.

Pull out order

The government has asked the UN and other humanitarian agencies to pull out of the Wanni – personnel, vehicles, equipment and all. The ostensible reasons given pertain to security and the argument that another Muttur massacre must be averted at all costs.
The UN and other agencies have complied and will continue to do so even though civilians in the Wanni have demonstrated against this and implored them not to leave. As far as the UN is concerned the pull out constitutes not an "evacuation" but, a "relocation" to Vavuniya.
As the government repeatedly reminds the UN – it is here on the invitation of the government. Furthermore, it is the established practice and indeed norm, that member states provide for and are responsible for the security of the UN presence in their territory.
The established norms, conventions and practices of international relations notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask in light of the demonstrations by the civilian population, as to whether there are other and more compelling norms and conventions which should govern the relationship between the UN and the host country and member state.

At the government’s bidding

Is it the case that the UN is here on the invitation of the government and therefore willy, nilly does the government’s bidding even in the face of a major humanitarian crisis – the kind of catastrophe the UN was set up to avert? There appears to be no better example of the comprehensively state centric nature of the UN than this one – unless of course it is timidity, pure and simple.
Two clear messages come out of this situation. The first is that the civilians in their despair still find some security in a UN and international humanitarian agency presence. Caught between two callous protagonists – one who wants them out of the Wanni and the other who wants them in – the civilians look to international bodies and agencies for what the state, of which they are citizens, should be providing them – security.
The second is that whatever the government may say in its defence regarding civilian protection, it is manifestly apparent that the civilians are not going to move into Vavuniya as the government would like them to. And the reasons for this are many – the LTTE keeps them in through force and intimidation; they are loathe to leave family members who have been recruited to the LTTE; some indeed are staunch Tamil nationalists.

Dreaded prospect

For many though, as this columnist was told in Vavuniya by humanitarian workers who had come out of the Wanni, the prospect of languishing in a welfare camp in Vavuniya is dreaded more than having to endure the trials and tribulations of the Wanni. The reports of abduction in these camps, of poor facilities and a general perception – founded on fact in certain cases – that the welfare camps are better characterized as "detention centres" were cited as the reasons for this.
What this means is that, as the Defence Secretary no less opined, the regime has many miles to go in earning the trust of the civilian population in the Wanni, and of the Tamil population in particular.
Vilified to a ludicrous extent as the conceptual underpinning of an international conspiracy to subvert the sovereignty of this country, the idea of the Responsibility to Protect as integral to that of sovereignty in the 21st century, must be on the agenda of public discourse here and abroad in respect of the present situation in the country.

Collateral damage

Who is there to care and provide for these Sri Lankans? Are they to be treated as mere "collateral" damage in the drive to consolidate the majoritarian status quo one the one hand and to protect a fanatical secessionist outfit on the other? The state may control more territory by the day, but it is not winning hearts and minds in anywhere near similar measure, as indeed it must.
And as the reports cited above indicate, it has to act fast in respect of human rights violations and erase beyond a shadow of doubt any perception that the people trapped in the Wanni may have, with regard to any form of "collective punishment" if they were to move out into Vavuniya.
The challenge confronting the Rajapakse regime as far as its current war strategy is concerned is about what to do in the event the people do not move out of the Wanni. The rest of the country has been led to believe and there is great expectation on this score, that victory is both imminent and certain.

Siege tactics

On the ground in the Wanni, this will result in heavy civilian casualties. Desisting from military action such as bombing that would result in heavy civilian casualties, and yet not letting up on moving onto Kilinochchi and the rest of the Wanni, could result in the use of siege tactics to force the population out.
In the face of all of this, is it not possible for religious leaders of all faiths and business leaders of all hues – two groups that have leverage – to bring their collective clout to augment the appeals of other sections of civil society to ensure that the disaster and humanitarian tragedy feared, will be avoided?
At the present moment, it is only some religious groups and the suspect "foreign funded" NGOs that are focusing on this issue. The rest of the merciful and compassionate, dynamic and energetic are silent. Are they too waiting for victory at whatever cost?
Victory in the Wanni must not sustain protracted conflict. Were this to be the case, it would be no victory at all.