بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Question:
On 19/5/2009 speaking on state television Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared victory against the Tamil Tigers. He said, "Our motherland has been completely liberated from separatist terrorism." The state television also broadcasted images of the Tamil Tiger leader's body after it was recovered from the battlefield. "A few hours ago, the body of terrorist leader (Velupillai) Prabhakaran, who ruined this country, was found on the battleground," army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka told state television. In his victory speech the President Rajapaksa was anxious to strike a reconciliatory tone with Tamil people. He said, "Our intention was to save the Tamil people from the cruel grip of the (rebels). We all must now live as equals in this free country."
What is the reality of the conflict in Sri Lanka? Is it a local or regional conflict or an international conflict? In who's favor was the result of this conflict? Is it possible to say that the conflict in the island has come to an end or not?
Answer:
To answer these questions we shall say:
1- The Sri Lankan conflict has often been portrayed as a protracted conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the militant movements of Sri Lankan's Tamil population. However, in reality the conflict is a classic Anglo-American struggle to control the strategic waterways of Sri Lanka and has been fought with the aid regional proxy powers such as India and Pakistan.
2- Sri Lanka's importance lies in its location. It is situated about 19 miles off the southern coast of India thus overlooking one of the most important sea routes between West Asia and South East Asia. It is separated from the Indian subcontinent at its narrowest point by 22 miles of sea called Palk Strait. America has for sometime desired to control the Palk Straits and to make it part of Pentagon's military foot print. This will spur America to dominate the Indian Ocean and cut off vital oil supplies from the Middle East and Africa to China, as well as to thwart China's naval expansion westward.
Immediately, after September 11 2001 attacks, the then US defence secretary Rumsfeld embarked on initiatives to bolster further the ties between Sri Lanka and the US. The control of Palk Straits would also hurt India's sea supply route to its eastern states and may necessitate traversing around Sri Lanka to reach these states thereby increasing the journey time and making it a very expensive alternative route. A reduction of influence of the Palk Straits would also hurt India's ambitions to become a regional naval power and limit its naval expansion plans eastwards. It is for these very reasons that China established military ties with the Sri Lankan government and supplied it with military equipment.
It is also important to note that a decline in Indian influence over the Palk Straits would also affect British interests in the region. For hundreds of years Britain has sought to dominate the Indian Ocean to keep open sea routes located in the region to supply goods to far Eastern markets. American hegemony over the Indian Ocean and the Palk straits would hurt both Britain and Europe. Hence the control of Sri Lanka is of immense importance to the US and will enable it to curb the threat of China and limit British and European influence in South East Asia and the Far East.
3- The roots of the conflict lie in the disenfranchised Tamil population that was brought over by the British from India's Tamil Nadu region to work on the coffee and tea plantations thereby transforming the island into a major tea producer. However, the majority Buddhist Sinhalese community disliked Britain's preferential treatment of the mainly-Hindu Tamils. The independence of Sri Lanka in 1948 only accentuated the bitterness between the two communities, as successive Sinhalese governments stalled on promises to grant the Tamils who resided in the North of the country greater political rights. Disappointed by these turn of events, Tamils lost faith in their political leaders as well as the Sri Lankan political process that blocked every attempt to accommodate them. During this period a number of militant groups sprung up. The most prominent of them was The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam commonly known as the LTTE or the Tamil Tigers, which was formed in 1976 and headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran. Its aim was to create an independent Tamil state named Tamil Eelam in the north and the east of the island. It was only in the 1980s that the LTTE grew in popularity, especially after the failed attempt in 1983 of Tamil legislators to push through reforms for their people.
However, the LTTE quickly became infiltrated by British, Indian and US agents- leading to infighting and confrontation with other militant groups. In the 1980s Britain pushed India to support both LTTE and the Sri Lankan government in response to the growing American influence in Sri Lanka. Eventually, India under the pretext of preventing Tamils in India joining the Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka to create a separate homeland directly intervened in the conflict, especially when the Indian Congress ruling party realised that the Sri Lankan army was close to wiping out the LTTE. The intervention of India was continued in the form of a political face of it, and in the form of help to the Tigers from behind a curtain, On July 29, 1987, Indian involvement led to a peace accord signed between Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi Sri Lankan President Jayewardene. Under this accord, the Sri Lankan Government made a number of concessions to Tamil demands, including devolution of power to the provinces and the establishment of an Indian Peace Keeping Force in return for stopping support to Tamil insurgents.
4- Indian occupation of parts of Sri Lanka backfired and led to a humiliating withdrawal of Indian troops. America exploited the negative sentiments against India to cement its relations with the LTTE as well as the Sri Lankan government. But America gave preference to the latter. Thereafter, America's relations with the Sri Lankan government grew stronger and reached a new level of cooperation in the days after the attacks of September 11 2001. America now gave Sri Lankan government the green light to pursue the fight against LTTE as part of the global war on terrorism. In return America sought to establish strong military and economic ties with Sri Lanka. In June 2002, Washington held discussions Colombo on a far-reaching Access and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that would enable US warships and aircraft to use facilities in Sri Lanka. In July 2002, President Bush met with then-Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickremesinghe at the White House and pledged U.S. support for peace and economic development in Sri Lanka. The United States and Sri Lanka signed a new Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in 2002.An immediate casualty of this newfound relationship was Britain which found itself increasingly isolated for two primary reasons. First, the congress party in India had been replaced by the pro-American BJP, which was reluctant to adopt an aggressive policy towards Colombo. Second the Sri Lankan government was now under the influence of America. Thus Britain resorted to supporting the LTTE until its demise this year.
5- However, it was not until the election of President Mahinda Rajapaksa's in November 2005 that America finally got a Sri Lankan government in place that wholeheartedly supported the destruction of LTTE. In fact Rajapaksa's was elected based on his promise to defeat the LTTE. Rajapaksa formed pacts with the hardline Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna party and extremist Buddhist monks. America openly welcomed his re-election. "We remain committed to maintaining the historically close ties between our two countries," a press release from the US Department of State in Washington DC said. Adam Ereli, deputy spokesman for the US Department of State said: "The United States looks forward to working with President Rajapaksa as he confronts many significant and immediate challenges." America through Rajapaksa and his brother who is Chief of army staff embarked on a campaign to uproot LTTE. Sensing the change in Colombo Britain, India and Europe did their utmost to prevent Rajapaksa's government to wipe out the LTTE.
6- America provided Rajapaksa's military with vital equipment by instructing Pakistan to help Sri Lanka. In March 2006, Sri Lankan authorities had sought Multi-Barrel Rocket Launcher System (MBRLS) and other advanced weapons from Pakistan when Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa visited Pakistan. In May 2008 that Sri Lankan Army Chief Lt-Gen Fonseka came to Pakistan and finalised a deal as per which Pakistan sold 22 Al-Khalid tanks to Sri Lanka in a deal worth over US$100 million. General Fonseka also gave a shopping list of weaponry worth about US$65 million to the Pakistani military authorities. On Jan 19, 2009, in a meeting between Pakistani Defence Secretary Lt-Gen (retd) Syed Athar Ali and his visiting Lankan counterpart Gotabhaya Rajapakse in Rawalpindi, the two countries had agreed to enhance cooperation in military training, exercises and intelligence sharing regarding terrorism.
7- As the Sri Lankan army made vital battle field gains against the LTTE, Britain her proxy India and Europe sought reconciliation between Rajapaksa's government and the LTTE. Their aim was to protect LTTE from being destroyed. America would occasionally join Britain and Europe in encouraging Rajapaksa to support a ceasefire and engage in peace talks-but this was only lip service. Hence a familiar pattern emerged-Britain and India would voice concern for Tamil civilians caught up in the conflict and advocate reconciliation. In response Rajapaksa's would reject such overtures. In fact in the latter days of the conflict Britain, Europe and India repeatedly called for a ceasefire and encouraged worldwide demonstrations by mobilising the Tamil diaspora to protest against Rajapaksa government's killing of civilians. The Sri Lankan government ignored such please and through US assistance via Pakistan managed to crush the LTTE-a militant organization that controlled vast swath of land in the north, ran its own police force, boasted of its own navy and air force.
The defeat of the LTTE means that British and Indian influence in the North of the country has been marginalized and now gives America the opportunity to consolidate her stranglehold over Sri Lanka and establish a permanent military presence in the country. It also allows America to control the Palk Straits and wield her naval power in the Indian Ocean to counter the Chinese threat. Furthermore, America can use Sri Lanka to pressurise India -given that the congress party has returned to power for another 5 years-to follow its policies for the region. However, a lot depends on Rajapaksa's ability to repair relations with the Tamils and accommodate their political concerns. America has already voiced support for such an endeavour and has earmarked vital aid via the IMF to Rajapaksa's government to accomplish such a task. A stable Sri Lanka is vital for American interests, and given the history of the region, Britain and her surrogate India will be looking to re-establish themselves in Sri Lanka. The Anglo-American struggle may have subsided for now, but it is certainly not over.
28 Jumada al-thanni 1430
23/5/2009
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Fazly Azeez
said:
 |
Assalamu Alaikum. I would like to suggest a correction in the point about the roots of the conflict. The origin of the Tamil ethnicity in Sri Lanka goes back longer than the British times. The people that the British brought from South India to work in plantations settled in the central parts of the island and live there to date while the Tamils in the North have lived there for longer. Though there are many different accounts of the history, it goes back many centuries before the British. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
 |
Sri Lanka is facing a civil war of which neither proxy powers such as Pakistan and India, or the geo-political playmakers which are China, America, Britain, and France can be commended for. The Tamil militias are some of the most ruthless ever to emerge and the Sri Lankan army massacres it own citizens. There is nothing commendable here and there are no ‘good’ outcomes. Once again Mankind’s collective conscience is blunted. Bar some brave writers such as John Pilger, Arundhati Roy, and Naomi Klein. All the nations along with LTTE and Sri Lankan regime have a reprehensible share this latest bout of mass carnage British and American conflict of interests (and mutual opposition to China and Russia) are immensely tied up in South Asia. Britain established a presence or bases in Singapore, Mumbai, Gwadar, Southern Africa, Eastern Africa, Hong Kong, Aden, Mascarene Islands, and Kuwait. The U.S.A similarly seeks its ring of bases in the same strategic areas, and has military alliances with Singapore, Kuwait, and strong presence along the rim of the Indian Ocean. More thorough analysis can be found via: http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/ http://pilger.carlton.com/ ESSENTIAL HISTORY The Indian Ocean, its trade routes, lucrative items such as spices, coffee, and precious goods, excellent ports and harbours, is really the developing struggle for 500 years. These tie into the rise of great social movements, rise of Capital, mass inequality, and corporate wars. Also this is hardly given any attention. The Portuguese where the nation that broke into the monopoly Muslims had over trade from China, India, through to Indonesia, East Africa, and Arabia. The Spanish built their empire largely in the Americas (using native soldiers to conquer indigenous civilisations). The Portuguese great significance lie in being the first nation that realised despite its small size, it could control enormous territories much larger than previously imagined. This example would be pursued by the Netherlands, (with the first modern Capitalist economy), and in future provide a blueprint for England (then a tiny state alongside Scotland on the British Isles). The Spanish were the dominant power in Western Europe, having ousted the Muslims from Al-Andalusia and unifying the Iberian Peninsular under a Catholic Monarch. Spain and Portugal had grand ambition to divide the world up amongst themselves via the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Meanwhile the Catholic Pope sought the mysterious Prester John (Christian Patriarch of the East). The Mongols early promise came to nought, so this naval crusade in the dawning Age of Sail, had commercial and religious implications. It could potentially yield an advantage that Christendom could never have imagined previously. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
|
FRANCE – NETHERLANDS - ENGLAND France was the first European power that dared to challenge Spanish might. French, and later Dutch and English pirates would plunder Spanish and Portuguese loot from the profitable colonies. The Netherlands emerging from their bitter struggle of independence against Spain (also being Protestant) launched predatory attacks upon the commerce of Catholic Spain and Portugal. The Netherlands would develop the most extensive and elaborate trading network with its prized possession the trading ports of South East Asia. The Netherlands (leading nation in the 1700’s) developed ties with Japan, China, and supported Tsar Peter the Great in building his navy. Unlike the Catholics, the Dutch were patrons of science and learning. The English and French would join the Netherlands in eroding Spanish influence in Europe. However the English jealousy, viewing Dutch fortunes from its lucrative trade networks, drove England to find pretexts to start a war with the Netherlands. The Anglo-Dutch Wars were examples of ward over commerce. England sought to tax Dutch shipping via the English Channel and impose restrictions to throttle the Dutch commerce. The Anglo-Dutch Wars were really crude English attempts to destroy another nation’s ability to trade. In turn the English with support from a continental ally, (such as France) would chip away at the Spanish treasure fleets and island colonies. Spanish power declined during the 1700’s, and the English (unifying with Scotland to become Great Britain) would turn their attention to the French. France in turn built a massive colonial empire, claiming huge swathes of North America. Britain and Spain would turn against France during the Seven Years War (arguably the first global world war) and French territories were the prize. France would lose colonies in the Caribbean Sea; territory in India, and loss of territories in North America such as Quebec were a serious setback. Britain thwarted French ambitions to become the hegemonic continental power in place of Spain. Spain and the Netherlands however had become more vulnerable to the threat posed by the British Royal Navy. France lost its bid for World Empire, whilst Britain underwent the Industrial Revolution thanks to the triangular trade of brutal slavery, sugar, and manufactured goods. Spain became the close ally of France; in fact the French Navy effectively had to defend the overseas territories of the Netherlands and later Spain from the Royal Navy. Britain suffered setbacks in America due to the American Revolution, and Spain lost its massive colonial empire in the Americas following the Wars of Independence. Britain would reconsolidate its status following the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, and even Tsarist Russia began to have serious concern over British monopoly over the seas. India was divided and falling ever under the predatory advances of the East India Company. Britain was left as the unchallenged maritime power after the Battle of Trafalgar. Britain monopolised the trading posts around the rim of the Indian Ocean, and denied rival powers from mounting a challenge. France rebuilt another empire in Africa and Indo-China, whilst Europe and Russia remained somewhat limited against Britain’s monopoly over the seas and trade. Germany and Italy were still a patchwork of kingdoms, and the Netherlands held onto the Dutch East Indies and plundered this region as India was looted by England. Russia and the fledgling U.S.A were however outside British sphere of influence. The U.S.A, with is allies Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore containing China, and alliances with Ethiopia, U.A.E, and Kenya continues from where Portugal, and Britain ventured. If one wants to know history, know geography. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Khalid
said:
 |
The eradication of LTTE’s decades long insurgency is a good outcome for us as it was being supported by Indians. It must be noted that Pakistan played vital role in annihilation of this evil. Sri Lankan government has never created problem for its Muslim's citizens. Indian is playing very sinister game with its neighbors irrespective of their religious affiliations. Actually they are following the teachings of their spiritual and political father Khutilya Chankya who stresses on to keep your neighbor weaker so that it can’t be able to create problems. Pakistan has always been victim of Indian conspiracies since its very inception. The LTTE defeat in the hands of Sri Lankan forces is serious blow to Indian regional interests. We must not forget that India is an integral part of a global Anti-Khilafa alliance. Indian growing ties with Israel is posing serious threat to Pakistan and rest of the Muslim Ummah. So, I think Pakistan support to Sri Lankan Army to curb LTTE is a highly commendable step. I don't think that American and British have interests' clash in South Asia. Both are working to weaken and later on disintegrate Pakistan. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
fact
said:
 |
Chinese billions in Sri Lanka fund battle against Tamil Tigers Saturday, 02 May 2009 17:53 The Times Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent On the southern coast of Sri Lanka, ten miles from one of the world's busiest shipping routes, a vast construction site is engulfing the once sleepy fishing town of Hambantota. This poor community of 21,000 people is about as far as one can get on the island from the fighting between the army and the Tamil Tiger rebels on the northeastern coast. The sudden spurt of construction helps, however, to explain why the army is poised to defeat the Tigers and why Western governments are so powerless to negotiate a ceasefire to help civilians trapped on the front line. This is where China is building a $1 billion port that it plans to use as a refuelling and docking station for its navy, as it patrols the Indian Ocean and protects China's supplies of Saudi oil. Ever since Sri Lanka agreed to the plan, in March 2007, China has given it all the aid, arms and diplomatic support it needs to defeat the Tigers, without worrying about the West. Even India, Sri Lanka's long-time ally and the traditionally dominant power in South Asia, has found itself sidelined in the past two years - to its obvious irritation. "China is fishing in troubled waters," Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's Home Minister, warned last week. The Chinese say that Hambantota is a purely commercial venture, but many US and Indian military planners regard it as part of a "string of pearls" strategy under which China is also building or upgrading ports at Gwadar in Pakistan, Chittagong in Bangladesh and Sittwe in Burma. The strategy was outlined in a paper by Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher J. Pehrson, of the Pentagon's Air Staff, in 2006, and again in a report by the US Joint Forces Command in November. "For China, Hambantota is a commercial venture, but it's also an asset for future use in a very strategic location," Major-General (Retd) Dipankar Banerjee of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in Delhi said. The British Navy used the Sri Lankan port of Trincomalee as its main regional base until 1957 and still shares a naval base with the US on the nearby island of Diego Garcia. China has no immediate plans for a fully fledged naval base but wants a similar foothold in the Indian Ocean to protect its oil supplies from piracy or blockade by a foreign power, analysts say. Beijing sent three ships on an unprecedented anti-piracy mission to the Gulf of Aden in December, and in January a Chinese defence White Paper said that the navy was "developing capabilities of conducting co-operation in distant waters . . ." China has cultivated ties with Sri Lanka for decades and became its biggest arms supplier in the 1990s, when India and Western governments refused to sell weapons to Colombo for use in the civil war. Beijing appears to have increased arms sales significantly to Sri Lanka since 2007, when the US suspended military aid over human rights issues. Many of the arms have been bought through Lanka Logistics & Technologies, co-headed by Gotabhaya Rajapksa, the Defence Secretary, who is also the President's brother. In April 2007 Sri Lanka signed a classified $37.6 million (£25 million) deal to buy Chinese ammunition and ordnance for its army and navy, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. China gave Sri Lanka - apparently free of charge - six F7 jet fighters last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, after a daring raid by the Tigers' air wing destroyed ten military aircraft in 2007. One of the Chinese fighters shot down one of the Tigers' aircraft a year later. "China's arms sales have been the decisive factor in ending the military stalemate," Brahma Chellaney, of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, said. "There seems to have been a deal linked to Hambantota." Since 2007 China has encouraged Pakistan to sell weapons to Sri Lanka and to train Sri Lankan pilots to fly the Chinese fighters, according to Indian security sources. China has also provided crucial diplomatic support in the UN Security Council, blocking efforts to put Sri Lanka on the agenda. It has also boosted financial aid to Sri Lanka, even as Western countries have reduced their contributions. China's aid to Sri Lanka jumped from a few million dollars in 2005 to almost $1 billion last year, replacing Japan as the biggest foreign donor. By comparison, the United States gave $7.4 million last year, and Britain just £1.25 million. "That's why Sri Lanka has been so dismissive of international criticism," said B. Raman of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. "It knows it can rely on support from China." |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|