tamilweek.com

By Sumanasiri Liyanage and Nimanthi Perera-Rajasingham

The main reason given by the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) for the closure of A9 at Muhamalai is that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) had in the last 6 months or so continuously used A9 passage to attack the forward defense line of the security forces of GoSL at Muhamalai. So, keeping A9 open would be a security threat, i.e, a threat to the state security. If all the other factors remained unchanged, this reasoning would undoubtedly legitimize the decision and actions of the GoSL to close A9 road. Do the other factors remain unchanged? Had the other factors changed, would it invalidate the justification given by the government? In focusing on these two questions, this article argues two things. First, as the situation in the Jaffna Peninsula after the closure of A9 has changed significantly, the GoSL reasoning for the closure of A9, namely ensuring the state security, no longer provides a strong case for its decision. In other words, the decision has affected adversely the human security situation of the Jaffna people. Our second argument stems from the first one. If the state is continuously trying to privilege the state security at the cost of human security, such a policy would eventually endanger the state security as well. So the action of the GoSL, we would argue, is short-sighted in the context of the on-going identity based conflict. Hence it is imperative to take necessary corrective measures.

Security studies in the last two decades have gone beyond its traditional boundaries that consider the state and state security as its main concern. In the context of intra-state conflict, the state is invariably placed in a state of dilemma in which the issue is how to strike a balance between contending demands of state security and human security. This is an important issue partly because the non-state actors are continuously trying to capitalize from the breakdown of human security as a result of the action of the state. People who suffer from humanitarian crises always interpret their sufferings in ethnic terms thus falling into the hands of non-state actors. The LTTE has shown in the past that it is quite proficient in capitalizing from any humanitarian crisis. It has even demonstrated that it could effectively create a humanitarian crisis in order to put the blame on the government. Forced displacement of the Tamil people in the Jaffna peninsula by the LTTE in the mid- 1990s was a one clear instance to prove this point. Highlighting this does not by any means minimize the inexcusable humanitarian crises created by the Sri Lankan government since 1983. On the contrary, our argument is that both parties, the GoSL and the LTTE, are concerned only with their security and the people in war-torn areas are not in their equation as an independent variable (see: “Water Turning into Fire: the Betrayal of People in the East by the State and the LTTE”. Daily Mirror, Tuesday, August 15, 2006).

Human Security

Nonetheless, a constitutionally elected government with international recognition has a huge responsibility in dealing with human security issues. The Commission for Human Security (2003) observes that the state, in the current context, ‘often fails to fulfill its security obligations –and at times has even become a source of threat to its own people’ (p. 2). This often happens when the state is under contestation by numerically small nations living in the territory of the state. It is in this context that the notion human security is of fundamental importance. What is meant by human security? “Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms- freedoms that are the essence of life. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity” (p. 4). In the last twenty years both the GoSL and the LTTE have violated human security of the people living in the Sri Lanka’s North and Eastern Provinces. Their freedom from want and freedom from fear have been continuously dismissed. During the CFA, the situation had improved as people were allowed to move freely, their economic opportunities had been expanded, the sense of insecurity was lessened.

The closure of A9 by the GoSL in August this year in response to the attacks by the LTTE on forward defense line in Muhamalai has isolated Jaffna Peninsula from the rest of the country and as a result, the human security situation has deteriorated badly. It has restricted the movement of people. As it resulted in an almost total breakdown of supplies, people in Jaffna have to undergo severe hardships as they are deprived of the basic necessities of life. Jaffna at the moment is experiencing a heavy shortage of food, medicine and other basic goods. The GoSL has miserably failed to ensure an adequate supply of goods in spite of its claim that basic goods in adequate quantities were sent to Jaffna. Since the A9 was closed, the supply has to be sent by sea. The infra-structure of the small harbors in Point Pedro and Kankasantural can accommodate only a few ships a day. So even if the government mechanism were effective (of course it is not), the quantities needed for Jaffna people cannot be sent because of the inadequacy of infra-structure. Reports indicate prices of basic items have skyrocketed. Families eat only one meal a day, in many a time that one meal consists of kanji. Children are starved. A constitutionally elected government cannot find excuses when human security of its own people (of course if it considers that people in Jaffna are its own people) is at stake. It is wrong to say that the GoSL has not anticipated a human disaster of that magnitude. There were many warnings in Mutur, Sampur and Seru Nuwara. We wrote: “The violence in Mavil Aru, Muttur and now Sampur is but a microcosm of what is to come in the next months if the military confrontation continues. This ‘limited war’ has given rise to enormous consequences in terms of displacement, deaths, injuries and trauma. War in a large scale, so desired by various factions, will only increase the numbers of civilian casualties in the future” (Daily Mirror, August 15, 2006). It is now timely to revisit the decision taken in August to close A9 in the light of the experience in the last 3 months. Four main factors have to be taken into account.
1. the severe shortage and the resultant sufferings of the civilian population in Jaffna peninsula;
2. the failure of the government to develop an alternative mechanism to ensure adequate supply of food, medicine and other essential items;
3. the inadequacy of infra-structure in Jaffna harbors and inefficiency of government distribution mechanism;
4. in spite of the closure of A9, killings, attacks on security forces, disappearances continue in Jaffna peninsula so that the security situation there has not improved.

The only “justification” that the GoSL can offer is that the closure of A9 has reduced the LTTE attacks on FDL at Muhamalai. Since many soldiers were killed at Muhamalai after the closure of A9, even that argument appears to be flimsy.

Short-Sightedness

In this context, the closure of the A9 will worsen the human security situation in Jaffna. Since the government has no policy alternative other than constant promises, half truths and absolute lies. As one Tamil economists has shown, the prices that the people in Jaffna paid even before the closure of the A9 exceeded the prices of the same commodities in Vavunia. And the difference was quite significant and cannot be attributed only for transport cost. It was a result of exorbitant taxes by the LTTE. However, with the closure of A9, the difference in the case of some commodities has increased almost quadrupled. Who to be blamed? The GoSL and its spokesperson are trying to pass the blame to the LTTE. Nevertheless, it is natural that the people in Jaffna would put the blame justifiably on the government. So we argue that even on the basis of very pragmatic reasoning, the closure of A9 makes the government more unpopular among Thamil people. Moreover, its international image will be adversely affected. So our conclusion is that the closure of A9 is politically harmful and costly and will lead to human disaster in Jaffna. Above all, this action is immoral.

sumane_l@yahoo.com