Font size: 
Still, the World Bank’s willingness to commit to a significant amount of developmental support to Sri Lanka over this three-year period suggests that the international community is reluctant to penalize the country, and the masses of its poor, on account of the human rights situation.
The World Bank decision will encourage the government to view its forthcoming application to renew the favorable tax concessions from the European Union in terms of the GSP+ facility – the generalized system of preference that grants duty-free access to the EU – with a greater measure of confidence.
Economists have pointed out that Sri Lanka’s exports to the EU, particularly in the apparel industry, are crucially dependent on the favorable import duty reductions that the GSP+ facility makes possible. In view of the fact that over 100,000 jobs are believed to be at stake, even the main opposition party has pledged to support the government’s efforts to enact and implement the necessary requirements to retain the facility.
Still, obtaining the GSP+ facility is likely to prove harder than obtaining economic assistance from the World Bank. The World Bank is first and foremost a bank, and its decision-making processes are primarily driven by economic motivation.
From an economic point of view, Sri Lanka is an attractive investment option, especially when compared with many other developing countries. It has an educated population, a comprehensive social welfare system, and a dense network of governmental institutions that operate in the remotest villages. Furthermore, responsible fiscal management by successive governments has ensured that Sri Lanka has never defaulted on its international financial commitments.
On the other hand, the GSP+ facility is only partly an economic contract. Countries that are entitled to receive its benefits need to demonstrate their commitment to international law and to practices of good governance consistent with upholding the rule of law. Accordingly, countries that seek to obtain the GSP+ facility need to show their adherence to 27 international agreements, which include the protection of human rights and labor rights. Reports submitted by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and the International Labor Office, influence the EU’s decisions in this regard.
Unfortunately the escalating war that the country is presently experiencing has made the fulfillment of these criteria problematic for the government. Any country that is fighting a war will sooner or later find that the war has taken center stage in the affairs of the country. The nature of violence, like that of fire, is to expand and spread. This means it is difficult to fight a limited war in which human rights are protected and rule of law prevails.
This is true of Sri Lanka’s war as well as all international wars. Even the United States, which seeks to ensure worldwide human rights compliance, stands accused on this count. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently permitted those incarcerated in U.S. prisons in the war against terror to file habeas corpus applications in regular civilian courts of law, rather than be restricted to military tribunals.
Similarly, the war against terrorism that the Sri Lankan government is fighting against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has led to serious human rights violations. The worst manifestation of these is the targeted killing of civilians by bombs placed on buses and trains and remote-controlled claymore mines in different parts of the country. There has also been a long list of political assassinations, abductions and intimidations that have targeted a range of actors, including in the media.
Addressing the inaugural convention of the breakaway faction of the ruling Sri Lankan Freedom Party, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga is reported to have said, “It is not right for a government which is fighting against terrorism to act like terrorists. It will not be successful. There should be alternatives to end terrorism. The only solution to terrorism and terror is freedom and democracy.”
Despite the problems with these government actions, the underlying strength of international support to Sri Lanka, which is one of the third world’s oldest democracies, remains intact. French Ambassador Michel Lummaux, who spoke on behalf of the EU on account of Slovenia, currently holding the presidency of the EU, has reconfirmed the EU’s commitment to Sri Lanka’s unity and democracy and opposition to a separate state. He also stated that the grievances of minority communities should be addressed within this contextual framework.
This political support of the EU, combined with the World Bank’s support for economic development, demonstrates the goodwill of the international community in facing the LTTE’s challenge. But to maximize this support, the government needs to adopt a more balanced approach to conflict resolution.
The Sri Lankan government needs to be more mindful of the need for it to balance the competing interests of liberty and security. This is precisely the position taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling that the U.S. government cannot deprive any person, even those arrested in the course of its war against terror, from knowing the charges against them. The U.S. Supreme Court said, “Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our legal system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.”
The majority in the Supreme Court took this decision despite a minority of judges opposing it on the grounds that the United States was at war with radical Islamists, and one judge saying the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Strict adherence to the rule of law, even in a time of war, is what makes a country democratic and not fascist.
--
(Dr. Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. ©Copyright Jehan Perera.)
