SKEPTICS of intervention often argue that it is impossible to get engulfed in all wars, and that there are some cases where intervention is more warranted than others. Even so, a strong case for international intervention in the civil war in Sri Lanka between the government and the Tamil Tigers can be made. According to the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission, one person is abducted or killed every three hours. Even a U.S. human rights report released this month concluded quite glumly that the government's respect for human rights had declined during the past year.
A violation, however, does not automatically presume a need for intervention. What about state sovereignty? The question then arises: Is the situation so grave in Sri Lanka that human rights claims trump sovereignty? According to Professor Michael J. Smith's writings, the case for humanitarian intervention can be made if evidence shows "egregious violations of human rights, even if these violations occur entirely within the borders of a given state." Since the state's moral legitimacy is derived from protecting its citizens, a trampling of individual rights means that a state forfeits its legitimacy and thus, no outside power has the obligation to respect its sovereignty.
The Sri Lankan situation does qualify as "egregious" based on a cursory examination of brutal methods used by the government against Tamils. The police chief admitted last week that security personnel have been involved in kidnapping Tamil civilians for ransom, troops have been accused by a U.N. official of assisting factions in enlisting child solders, and government forces have even forced displaced people to either return to conflict zones or used them as human shields. While it is true that the government takes these actions alongside equally brutal human rights violations by the Tamil Tigers, this neither strengthens government claims to sovereignty nor weakens the case for intervention.
Even if one proves that outside intervention is necessary, it is not clear what form this will take. As Smith notes in his articles, intervention does not involve purely military means, but refers to a broad spectrum of choices from outside pressure to peacekeeping. In the case of Sri Lanka, we can rule out the latter because firstly, the country most affected by the conflict, India, is still licking its wounds from its failed 1987-1990 'peace mission' in Sri Lanka, and secondly, the security climate is so unstable that even NGOs have withdrawn from the nation.
What is more practical at this juncture is a combination of an international monitoring mission and outside pressure. As James Ross of the Daily Mirror envisions it, the monitoring mission would investigate violations of international human rights law by all sides, under the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. Its mandate would thus extend beyond violations that relate to the 2002 ceasefire agreement, which the current Sri Lankan Monitoring mission already does, and its actions would hopefully be more productive than the government's Commission of Inquiry which has failed to prosecute anyone. The appointment of a U.S. or U.N. special envoy (the former of which was even considered by 38 lawmakers of the Sri Lanka Congressional Caucus in the United States in a letter to President Bush) would send a clear message to both sides on how serious the international community is about resolving this.
If the Sri Lankan government continues to coddle illegitimate notions of sovereignty, then outside pressure must be considered through cutting military funding. This would not be a revolutionary suggestion, since most countries, including the United States, have clauses like the U.S. Leahy Law which prohibit aid to foreign military personnel engaged in human rights abuses. If this fails, economic sanctions akin to the effective measures enacted against South Africa that brought down apartheid should be considered.
For years, the international community has condemned the Tigers and cut off its funding, but has been unwilling to do the same to the Sri Lankan government, which commits equally heinous crimes. If the world wants to interrupt a cycle of violence that approaches genocide, it must show all parties in Sri Lanka that it is dedicated to a long term negotiated political settlement, and not un-enforced ceasefires that are nothing but pieces of paper. As of today, Sri Lankan government officials find the level of international commitment laughable.
Defense spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella, speaking on a recent U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meeting in Geneva, proudly stated that only 3 nations out of 39 countries -- Sweden, Switzerland and France -- made any mention of Sri Lanka's human rights record. If the international community continues to neglect its duty to intervene in Sri Lanka, the case may shortly evolve into what the Tamil Tiger statement on the 5th anniversary of the persistently-violated 2002 ceasefire cited as "Asia's Darfur."
Prashanth Parameswaran's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at pparameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
