Evidence of meeting #10 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lanka.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
President, Association of Sri Lankan Graduates of Canada (ASGC)
In addition to that, definitely, yes, because they don't want to kill Tigers here; they want to eliminate entire Tamil communities. That is what they've decided.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
This was my question. If Senator Kerry has travelled there, would it be helpful if we had one of our ministers travel there to send a message to the government directly?
4:20 p.m.
President, Association of Sri Lankan Graduates of Canada (ASGC)
Yes, that would be very nice.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is directed to Ms. Johnson.
I do have a growing Sri Lankan community in my riding, so I have met with people from both sides, obviously, to hear the concerns. My concern right now is more about the humanitarian aid that's getting in there. You talked about the number of hospitals that are being reconstructed and the number of clinics.
What's the availability of medical staff? I have no idea what kind of people movement is going on there. I'm wondering if you can just apprise us of what the medical needs are in terms of personnel and tell us specifically what kinds of medical supplies you're short of in the area.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, International Operations, Canadian Red Cross
I actually don't have the details of the state of the medical professional capacity in Sri Lanka. I know that the international Red Cross have medical staff as part of our international team in the country, and I know we are providing medical supplies to the clinics and so on.
We're not appealing for medical assistance from Canada or for medical personnel from Canada. We actually have a reasonably robust system for sourcing both materials and people. What we need now is in fact greater access. Our greatest concern is that we're not able to regularly deliver the medical supplies we have to the clinic that is attending to the war-wounded on the front line, so we're appealing for more access. We have the supplies in Sri Lanka, and we have a supply chain that provides the appropriate medical supplies.
For instance, I heard the news that today we were able to provide the first consignment of medicines to the hospital in the conflict area for the first time in two weeks. More than 50 essential medical items, including vaccines for children, were delivered to the hospital. The senior health official in the region said they were very happy to receive the supplies, which would help them run the hospital for a couple of more weeks, but despite their repeated requests, we have not been able to deliver the anesthetic equipment or the blood bags required for surgery. This is not because we did not want to deliver them. This is because they would not have been allowed through.
So our concern is the access for humanitarian organizations to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people affected by this conflict, as per international humanitarian laws.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Do we know if these hospitals are fully staffed? Do we have that information? What I'm asking is whether they can make use of the supplies. Do they have the medical personnel there to deliver the service?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, International Operations, Canadian Red Cross
My understanding is that this very rudimentary makeshift clinic--it's not a full hospital we're speaking about--is the only place that is actually in the area, trying to provide medical assistance to people affected by the conflict. There is a medical team there able to function, and they would appreciate having more supplies with which they could actually do their job.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Ms. Brown.
I'm just going to take one very quick question from Mr. Patry. He tried to get in earlier.
Go ahead, Mr. Patry.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you.
My question is for Mr. Arulnamby.
Recently the Government of Sri Lanka requested a loan from the IMF. It's quite an important loan. Do you think that all these loans from an international institution like the International Monetary Fund should be conditional on, at a minimum, the lifting of the embargo on medicine, food, and essential items?
4:25 p.m.
President, Association of Sri Lankan Graduates of Canada (ASGC)
No, I don't think so. It's very good and advisable at this time for any government to help Sri Lanka. If there are preconditions, such as lifting the embargo and accepting a ceasefire, then you can decide, but if you give assistance now, it's not going to reach the people. It's going to reach in different ways.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Committee Member, Association of Sri Lankan Graduates of Canada (ASGC)
I think it's important. They have applied for $1.9 billion of IMF loans. So we, as Canada, can immediately go to the IMF and say, “Okay, even if we are passing that loan, here are the preconditions that the Sri Lankan government must meet.” Hand in hand with that, if someone goes--such as the Hon. Paul Dewar, who suggested that somebody from here go--and if some of those actions are taken, maybe they'll start listening then. If there are these conditions, they'll start listening. Of course that's what we would love to have the Canadian government do for us.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
President, Association of Sri Lankan Graduates of Canada (ASGC)
That is a good one. If they did that, at least, we would approve.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much to our guests. The hour went far too quickly, but we appreciate you coming in and briefing us on the situation there, and also the Red Cross and the good work they do.
We will suspend for one minute, and then we will invite our next guests on the same topic to take their seats.
4:33 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Committee, in our second hour we're going to continue on the same subject, examining some of the recent events that have taken place in Sri Lanka.
Testifying before us we have, from Saint Paul University, Kenneth Bush, assistant professor of the conflict studies program; and from Carleton University, Elliot Tepper, distinguished senior fellow and senior research fellow from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Centre for Security and Defence Studies.
Gentlemen, you were here, and I noted you watched the previous witnesses. We provide time for witnesses to give a short opening statement, and then we move quickly into the different rounds of questioning.
Mr. Tepper, I will begin with you. Welcome to the foreign affairs committee.
March 23rd, 2009 / 4:33 p.m.
Dr. Elliot Tepper Distinguished Senior Fellow and Senior Research Fellow, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Carleton University
Thank you.
I wish to acknowledge that it's a great honour to be invited to address this committee. At the outset I have to make it clear I'm speaking today in my personal capacity as a professor. My comments should in no way be seen as reflecting the policy or views of the various organizations with which I'm affiliated--it's the usual disclaimer--especially as I'm a member of the board of directors of Rights and Democracy and president of the Canadian Friends of Sri Lanka. So I'm just me today.
It may be useful to spend a few moments providing a broad perspective on how we arrived at the current situation. Then I'd like to spend the remainder of the time speculating on constructive ways to address the situation we're in.
I will provide some information on the political and historical context—one of the previous witnesses gave you some background on this, but I have my own take on it. Two specific points from the long history of Sri Lanka might help clarify how we got to be where we are today.
I know there are members present with great knowledge of Sri Lanka. I'd like to provide an interpretation of the political and historical context from a very broad sweep of South Asia's political experience. It may be helpful to summarize two important dimensions in the struggle in Sri Lanka today.
The first is what I call a double minority complex. The small, beautiful island--and some of you have had the pleasure of being there--has only 20 million inhabitants but is divided into numerous communities. As you know, the majority Sinhalese population forms about 74%. It is predominantly, but not exclusively, Buddhist, while the Sri Lankan Tamil population is approximately 12% and predominantly Hindu. There are another 7% who are called Indian Tamils and who were brought in later just to work on the tea plantations.
This division between Buddhist and Hindu, Tamil and Sinhalese, is central to what we understand about the conflict. Both populations have been on the island since antiquity. The Sinhalese population, a majority on the island, strongly centre their identity as a Sinhalese people on Buddhism, and you just heard some of that a moment ago. They perceive themselves as a minority in the broader South Asian region. They are Sinhalese in a Tamil sea, because just across the Palk Strait, the very narrow strait separating Sri Lanka from India, lies the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It's now approaching 70 million Tamils. So the Sinhalese population sees that and feels it. On the other hand, the Tamil population of Sri Lanka rightly sees itself as a small minority within the island; therefore, both of these communities can be described as having something of a minority complex. They see the need to defend themselves as communities, and they behave accordingly. I think a lot of that perception of threat can explain the underlying causes of the current situation.
The second dimension of history, which I will draw your attention to briefly, is what I call the delayed anti-colonial struggle. Sri Lanka sailed very calmly to its independence in 1948 without any of the mass anti-colonial movements and the nationalism that we saw associated with, for example, India or other colonial situations around the world.
However, there was turbulence simmering below that calm surface. During the prolonged British era the two major communities, either by British colonial intent of divide and rule or perhaps for convenience, reacted quite differently to British rule. The talented minority community took very quickly to English education and to all the avenues opened up within the colonial apparatus by the presence of the British. This was, of course, resented by the Sinhalese majority.
Years after independence, in 1956, a politician broke away from the ruling party, from the long-governing, what could be called a “gentlemen's” party. That was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, whose name you heard a few moments ago. He formed his own party and stormed to power under the banner of Buddhist nationalism and Sinhala language superiority.
After that came all of those measures that you've heard a little about. The government imposed numerous measures to favour the majority at the expense of what it saw as an overpowered minority. So it thought it was taking actions redressing a colonial experience.
In keeping with the double minority complex, each of the communities has produced leaders to defend its interests. Today we see the long-term results of this political history—a defensive movement by the Tamil population to overcome discrimination, a movement that has shifted from being a moderate and constitutional one to a violent separatist and terrorist one under the leadership of the LTTE.
On the other side, the Government of Sri Lanka has responded in the name of all communities to preserve the unity of the island. It has responded in ways that have led to criticism, criticism that one finds throughout the world when a government is engaged in asymmetrical warfare.
You are all familiar with the results of the long civil war, the failed peace talks, the numerous deaths leading up to the present military endgame, and the humanitarian catastrophe, which you've already heard about today, particularly from the Red Cross.
The issue before us is what can be done? What role can Canada play, if any, in the current political and humanitarian situation?
Everyone agrees there should be a ceasefire, immediate humanitarian relief for the affected civilian population, and a return by the belligerents to the bargaining table. The goal is to hammer out an equitable, binding political solution based on some sort of power-sharing formula. However, there are severe obstacles to achieving this global consensus. They centre broadly around that double minority complex I've referred to—that mutual sense of discrimination of the major communities—and they centre more narrowly and specifically around personalities, tactics, and interests within Sri Lanka and abroad.
Because our time is short, I would like to move directly to some assumptions, and then to some suggestions for the near-term and the long-term future of Sri Lanka.
The short-term assumptions are these.
First, a military solution, with a territorial dimension attached, may soon succeed. This is just a fancy way of saying that the endgame may be approaching in regard to the territorial holding of power by the Tigers. If the Tigers are removed from their last enclave, there will likely be some repercussions and opportunities.
We know that the humanitarian situation may become worse in the immediate future, but then again, after that, it may improve. Members are familiar with the stories of Tamil Tigers forcing civilian populations to retreat with them, as they yield territory, and then constraining them from fleeing to safety. The government forces are accused of shelling civilians, even in the safe zones provided for them.
In the near term, a humanitarian ceasefire or military victory will offer opportunities for immediate short-term humanitarian relief. Canada and other states have already pledged to be in position to assist when this happens. This will be gratifying if it happens, but it should not be seen as the end of the story.
The second assumption is this. Seizing the final LTTE territorial enclave will not end violence in Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers are among the most resilient and resourceful terrorist organizations on earth. Among other things, they invented suicide bombings—and IEDs have become an export product, unfortunately; they badly bloodied a substantial Indian military force; and they fought the Government of Sri Lanka to a standstill repeatedly, at least up until the LTTE split in 2004. Reportedly they are much better organized among diaspora populations abroad than any other similar organization. The likelihood is that Sri Lanka will see a return to asymmetrical warfare, with deadly results.
The third assumption is this. A political solution is unlikely under the charismatic LTTE leadership of Velupillai Prabhakaran. The highly respected International Crisis Group recently noted that, “The Tiger leadership, which has become as much a cult as a rational guerrilla force, will be highly averse to surrender.” Regrettably there's never been any tangible evidence that the leadership will accept anything short of total independence. It appears that only the departure of the charismatic Mr. Prabhakaran from operational control of the Tigers would change that situation.
Finally, the fourth assumption is that it is essential for policy purposes to make a clear demarcation between support for the Tamil people and support for the organization that purports to speak for them. The tendency to blur that distinction, perhaps deliberately encouraged, is a hindrance to effective policy clarity.
Moving from these assumptions, the following recommendations seem worth tabling for the members' consideration. They range from the most immediate to longer-term considerations. They deal with humanitarian, political, and developmental approaches. As well, these suggestions are offered keeping in mind that today's focus on Sri Lanka is part of a broader review by this committee of the conduct of Canadian foreign relations.
4:45 p.m.
Distinguished Senior Fellow and Senior Research Fellow, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Carleton University
Surely.
4:45 p.m.
Distinguished Senior Fellow and Senior Research Fellow, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Carleton University
I just have three quick suggestions. Am I running over time? I'm sorry.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Distinguished Senior Fellow and Senior Research Fellow, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Carleton University
I'm sorry. I thought I had it timed better, but again, I was cautioned to speak slowly for the translators. I was doing so. I'll speed up.
My apologies to the translators and to the members.
The first suggestion is humanitarian. This has already been touched on by the member. It is support for the Government of Sri Lanka at the IMF, but conditionally, in that I have a different set of conditions than those just mentioned. Canada does have the means now to apply leverage from the government on Sri Lanka for the humanitarian ceasefire. This aid to the government is needed imminently. This can be both the carrot and the stick.
As I've suggested, support could be accompanied by efforts to support the Tamil people, demarcating it from the support for the Tamil Tigers. I think this is an opportunity for Canada. Much of the package that's been requested is for reconstruction assistance in the north. We can do so demonstrably on the grounds that funds are for neither party in the dispute, but for the Tamil population. It would complement the special $3 million aid package and the earlier tsunami package already committed to by Canada.
At this point, I would conclude on this. Sri Lanka can be a case study of the healing role of humanitarian support in transitional or post-conflict situations.
The second recommendation is on the political side. Canadian regional and multilateral support is needed for transitional politics. Do we have plans for long-term political transformation in Sri Lanka after the humanitarian crisis? Clearly, the longer-term solution resonates from our prior engagement, with which one member has been very prominently engaged, for power-sharing and accommodation. But we can't achieve those conditions for implementation alone. It's going to take the global community working together on various aspects to create the conditions by which an international effort can lead to a role for accommodation and power sharing. I think Canada perhaps can play a leadership role in an international effort.
Finally, on the development side, I'm suggesting that equitable redevelopment may be possible here. That would conceive of this as an all-of-government program approach, an alternative approach to what we're currently undertaking. Generally speaking, we can use Sri Lanka as an example of an alternative approach, a program approach, because there are unresolved conflicts and questions of equality and dignity in Sri Lanka.
If we wish to become a significant force in situations of post-conflict transitions, we have an opportunity before us. We need an integrated package in order to respond appropriately. There's a saying right now that we should not “waste a crisis”. States such as Sri Lanka and Pakistan offer Canada opportunities to evolve effective packages as a player in the evolving global environment. This crisis is an opportunity to conceive and implement a Sri Lankan program.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative