Sri Lanka's War

James Traub, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and director of policy for the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, wrote an excellent article about the conflict in Sri Lanka (see below). Its a complicated conflict and he articulates the nuances well. One point he didn't raise, which I see as being essential to any discussion about Sri Lanka, is the growing religious persecution which is part of the bigger conflict taking place and will remain even after the current skirmishes are over.

Religious persecution has been a constant undercurrent in Sri Lanka, this combined with the current ethnic conflict has greatly curtailed the full functioning of civil society and has the potential to further destabilize the country. Thus far, the Sri Lankan government has, to their credit, taken care to protect the constitutional right to freedom of religious choice by not enacting proposed laws subjecting religious conversion to criminal scrutiny. However, various parties within the government and religious extremists outside the government are continueing to pressure lawmakers to pass several pieces of draconian legislation. For example, several months ago an anti-conversion bill was pushed by the Buddhist Commission on Unethical Conversions. The bill would declare Buddhism the State religion and require government approval for a Sri Lankan citizen to change his or her religion from Buddhism. The bill also contained draconian punishments for the concept of "alluring" one away from his or her religion, but the definition of "alluring" and "religion" are vague and unclear, leaving room for abuse. The bill didn't pass, but how long will the Parliment have the political will to stand against such ideas?

Religious diversity is a lynch-pin of a free "full functioning" civil society, as shown throughout the world. A great example in Sri Lanka is despite persecution (churches being burnt, threats are made to the personal well-being of pastors and their families, etc) the Christian Church in Sri Lanka, representing all ethnic communities, is making every effort to care for and meet the humanitarian needs of all religious and ethnic groups. The Sri Lankan government needs to guard itself against fanatical groups which are looking to undermine society and limit its citizen's fundamental freedoms.

At Risk in Sri Lanka's War
James Traub
April 22, 2009

At this moment, at least 60,000 civilians trapped in a tiny strip of land along the northern coast of Sri Lanka are being deployed as human shields by the insurgent force known as the Tamil Tigers -- while artillery shells fired by the Sri Lankan army land indiscriminately among rebels and noncombatants alike. The United Nations asserts that at least 4,500 civilians have been killed since January as the government has sought to decisively end a bloody rebellion that has lasted for a quarter-century. The army is said to be preparing a final assault that, according to U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes, could produce a "bloodbath." Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has spoken of "tens of thousands" of lives at risk. Yet the conflict has barely been reported, and the international community has barely stirred.

The fighting threatens to produce exactly the kind of cataclysm that states vowed to prevent when they adopted "the responsibility to protect" at the 2005 U.N. World Summit. This doctrine stipulates that states have a responsibility to protect peoples within their borders from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. When states are found to be "manifestly failing" to protect citizens from such mass violence, that responsibility shifts to the international community, acting through the United Nations. At the core of this norm is the obligation to act preventively rather than waiting until atrocities have occurred, as has happened too often...(read more)