Protection in Peril: Counterterrorism Discourse and International Engagement in Sri Lanka in 2009

Abstract

There is often tension between counterterrorism and human rights compliance. This particularly applies to international engagement aimed at the protection of fundamental human rights in armed conflicts. This article traces international diplomacy and disputed issues regarding norms of protection in Sri Lanka in 2009. It shows how the Sri Lankan government's three-pronged discourse of counterterrorism, humanitarian protection and non-alignment undercut most international efforts to rein in the government's indiscriminate shelling of densely populated areas. Sri Lanka's strategy benefited from broadbased support among most United Nations member states for the government's framing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a terrorist movement. After signalling approval for a military approach to the war, international actors failed to follow up with clear standards for compliance with international humanitarian law. Subsequently, a few other countries fighting insurgencies expressed their readiness to emulate Sri Lanka's strategy of "defeating terrorism". In this way, international and domestic counterterrorism discourses continue to undermine international protection efforts.

The patterns of Chinese authoritarian patronage and implications for foreign policy: Lessons from Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Cambodia

“…Identity politics is divisive because it is based on judgments which are not for discussion and that therefore either generate or perpetuate intrastate ethnic and religious cleavages and divisions. The claims that Rohingya are not an indigenous ethnic group (Cheesman, 2017) or that Sri Lankan Tamils or Sri Lankan Muslims are terrorists (Kurtz et al, 2016) draw on identity politics: framings of radical otherness are taken for granted and there is no room for mutual understanding or dialogue. Identity politics means that no one questions the absurd, expressed in exclusivist language policies, religious intrusion in state affairs and discriminatory education policies.…”

“…Third, Rajapaksa obtained diplomatic support from China to rebrand the ethnic conflict into a terrorism narrative and to shield alleged war criminals from international prosecution. Rajapaksa reframed the longstanding ethnic internal conflict and pledged to suppress separatism to protect the undivided, unitary structure of the state (Kurtz et al, 2016). One of his first steps in that direction had been the reintroduction of the Terrorism Prevention Act in 2006.…”

Riding with the Devils: China’s Role in the Cambodian and Sri Lankan Conflicts

“…In an additional joint statement after the end of the civil war in May 2013, 'China and Sri Lanka vowed to jointly crack down on the three forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism, as well as transnational crimes and drug trafficking' (Chinese Embassy in Sri Lanka, 2013). The reframing of the long-standing ethnically dominated internal conflict into a counter-terrorism operation had begun in 2005 with the election of the hardliner Rajapaksa who pledged to suppress separatism and protect the undivided, unitary structure of the state (Kurtz, 2016). One of his first steps in that direction was the reintroduction of the Terrorism Prevention Act in 2006.…”

“…In a UN speech from 2010, Rajapaksa said for example: 'It is in these circumstances that we were compelled to mount a humanitarian operation with the blessings of many international friends, to neutralise acts of terrorism and restore peace and security' (Rajapaksa, 2010). The narratives of humanitarian war and counter-terrorism gave the impression that, under special circumstances, indiscriminate state violence and disproportionate use of force could be justified (Kurtz, 2016). Next, China believed that arms and human rights were unrelated.…”

“…Even the term ‘war crimes’ has been controversial. Western states have preferred to call for investigations into war crimes or crimes against humanity rather than genocide, but their insight came late as Kurtz stresses: ‘Only in the final months of the war and during the after-math of the war did Western states dominant engagement shift to issues of accountability and protection of civilians’ (Kurtz, 2016, p. 110). For President Sirisena, even the allegations of war crimes go too far, and he has qualified what happened during the conflict as ‘human rights violations’ (Jazeera, 2016).…”