In the wake of the Sri Lankan army's military defeat of the Tamil Tigers, President Rajapaksa has made statements promising a programme of sweeping democratic reform and development for the Tamil areas devastated by years of war. If the government holds to these pledges, a self-sustaining peace may yet take root in Sri Lanka. The conundrum faced by Britain, other governments, and international organisations is how to take seriously allegations of human rights abuses that are the inevitable outcome of decades of war then brought to an end by crushing military action, while balancing the demands of peacebuilding and moving forward with the political realities on the ground. Jeremy Page, writing in the Times, today called for sanctions against Sri Lanka and an end to favourable trading rights that give the country's industries an edge in reaching EU markets. Meanwhile, Tamil protesters in London continue to demand government condemnation and action against the Sri Lankan government.
Sanctions, however, are not the answer. They hardly ever work to punish or impede the people they are intended to, and often end up hurting the population the imposer of sanctions claims to champion. Sri Lanka's civil war, at least in the beginning, was rooted in a lack of opportunities for a young population with human development levels among the highest in the region at that time, not in some inevitable ethnic hatred. To impede employment chances for Tamil and Sinhala with sanctions in the name of human rights would help to recreate many of the conditions that sparked instability and violence in the first place. Working through the United Nations, in partnership with the Sri Lankan government, is a preferable route forward to address the myriad issues faced by countries emerging from conflict. Through such a process, grievances generated by the war can be exposed and addressed, and human rights abuses by all sides dealt with in ways sensitive to the demands of both justice and reconciliation. Now is not the time to disengage from relations with the Sri Lankan government or the UN, which Mr. Page maligns as feeble and ineffective, but to use such avenues to foster a just and lasting peace. Much depends on the willingness of the Sri Lankan government to engage in the process, especially if the UN's Peacebuilding Commission is to be put to effective use. Therefore, diplomatic pressure must be applied and potential human rights abuses must not be ignored. However, imposing sanctions and unilateral 'punishment', without utilising the actually effective and thoughtfully designed institutions and processes available, would not be a progressive or particularly effective way of helping to foster a self-sustaining peace in Sri Lanka.
Comments