FAAE Committee Report

In testimony before the Committee, Jonathan Papoulidis of World Vision Canada stated that “Canada should support a durable peace process that addresses the root causes of the conflict, that works to empower communities and local governance, and that helps restore basic services and critical infrastructure.” [21] Several witnesses called for Canada to increase assistance, and others suggested that CIDA should streamline its procedures to allow smaller-scale initiatives to proceed quickly, or that it should match funds collected by Canadian Tamils and others for assistance.[22] CIDA officials told the Committee that its processes had already been “considerably simplified,” to enable the quick provision of assistance quickly through trusted Canadian and other humanitarian partners on the ground. When asked about the possibility of increased assistance, CIDA officials said that any decisions would require on-the-ground assessments of issues such as the capacity of the country to absorb further funding.[23]

Professor Kenneth Bush of St. Paul University agreed that Canada should contribute to both reconstruction and broader development in Sri Lanka, adding that data several years ago showed that years of high defence spending had skewed the economy of the island by making communities in the south dependent on remittances from soldiers deployed to the north.  While it is important to ensure that assistance reaches those who need it most, more important for the long-term is ensuring that “all development assistance that goes to Sri Lanka should be assessed for whether or not it contributes to bringing communities together or pushing them apart.”[24] Professor Alexandre Sévigny of McMaster University argued that the transfer of Canadian expertise in areas such as communications could be useful in “creating bridges between diverse communities” in countries such as Sri Lanka that have suffered internal ethnic conflict.[25]  Professor Elliot Tepper of Carleton University called for “equitable redevelopment”: 

Equitable redevelopment means that both the key parties to this dispute have to have a stake in it and have to be rewarded by it. It has to be seen to provide dignity and fairness on all sides. It also has to have—if I can put it this way—a clear Canadian content so that our approach is recognized as one of accommodation, inclusion, and power-sharing. I think there's great scope here for evolving out of this particular crisis an approach to doing Canadian foreign policy that would be distinctive and dynamic and effective. But it will take some work to put that package together.[26]

Recommendation 3

The Government of Canada should stand ready to increase Canadian assistance to Sri Lanka in collaboration with other partners, as on-the-ground assessments and capacity to absorb warrant, not only for relief purposes but also for development and reconstruction. In addition to ensuring that assistance reaches those who need it most, the government should pursue a whole-of-government strategy to ensure that Canadian assistance of all sorts encourages longer-term reconciliation among communities in Sri Lanka.

Engaging with the Government of Sri Lanka

In order to achieve both the short-term goal of addressing the immediate humanitarian crisis – through a pause in the fighting and adequate assistance to civilians – and the longer-term goals of reconstruction, development and reconciliation, the overarching challenge highlighted by the Committee’s hearings is the need for Canada and the rest of the international community to engage with the Government of Sri Lanka to secure its cooperation.  Elliot Tepper explained that part of the complexity of the situation in Sri Lanka is the presence of a “double minority complex,” whereby the Tamils rightly see themselves as a small minority on the island, while the majority Sinhalese population perceives itself as a minority in the broader South Asian region. Therefore, as he pointed out, “... both of these communities can be described as having something of a minority complex. They see the need to defend themselves as communities; they behave accordingly, and I think a lot of that perception of threat can explain the underlying causes of the current situation.”[27] The combination of this underlying perspective and the prospect of what the government sees as “victory” after 25 years of civil war have made it more certain of its direction and less open to what it sees as outside “interference.”

For example, Bruce Matthews, who was the Canadian representative on the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons, invited by the Sri Lankan government to observe and monitor the deliberation of a Presidential commission on human rights abuses, told the Committee that the group resigned after some 14 months of frustrating work in 2007-2008, “having concluded that its advice was not welcome and indeed was ignored by the state.” [28]

While Canada has a long history of relations with Sri Lanka, including through Canadian organizations such as the Forum of Federations which offered support and advice on governance concepts such as federalism, witnesses were clear that the current Sri Lankan leadership is unlikely to invite international actors to participate in such work again in the near future. Professor David Cameron of the University of Toronto, who visited Sri Lanka a number of times including with the Forum of Federations, emphasized that Canada and Canadians must “be realistic about their potential influence.” Speaking of the present Sri Lankan government, he said:

The Sri Lankan government is suspicious of foreign intervention and generally believes, I think, that much of what the international community has tried to do has, in fact, been unhelpful to the government and its central goals. Therefore the space for creative involvement post-conflict may be more limited than one would like.[29]

While the Committee recognizes this need for caution, it also agrees with the witnesses who argued that Canada and like-minded states must nevertheless try to engage the Sri Lankan government.  The Committee agrees with the Canadian government that a “new, meaningful and durable political solution that will address the legitimate aspirations of all the people of Sri Lanka” is needed. Ken Sunquist of DFAIT added that “The future of this beautiful country cannot be foreseen when the present situation is such a shambles, yet long-term efforts towards devolution of power to local areas will be necessary.”[30]

A hopeful point came from Robert Dietz of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Mr. Dietz strongly criticized the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate adequately a number of high-profile and well-organized murders of journalists. He noted:

Frankly, we’ve seen these attacks on the media coincide fairly closely with the increase in the government’s military activities in the north and taking on the LTTE. Once the government decided it was going to push for an all-out military victory and try to end this war once and for all, it was very clearly decided that they would no longer brook any kind of criticism on the home front from opposition papers or anyone else. [31]

Despite this, however, he still saw the potential for dialogue:

This is not a government filled with raving maniacs. This is not a government filled with hard-line ideologically driven people. I think a great number of people feel supportive of this war effort on which, internationally there are certainly mixed feelings. But I think within the government of Sri Lanka there are still people, individuals and ministries, which will hear these messages and which will deliver these up the line to the President and the rest of his family.

There are options of sanctions, there are options of isolation, there are options of financial pressure and I think those should be considered but I still see this as a group of people who have taken a very hard line but can still be spoken with. [32]

Canadian officials agreed, arguing that “There is a misapprehension. There are a number of moderate Tamils in the Government of Sri Lanka right now, so it’s not as though it’s a clean divide of people based on religious or ethnic groups. There are ministers and there are different people. We can find people to work with who want the best for the people of the country.” [33]

A critical point to emphasize with the Government of Sri Lanka and others is that support for the rights of the Tamil peoples who make up the majority of those currently in danger, as well as for longer-term political reconciliation in that country and the right of groups to defend their interests peacefully and democratically does not imply support for the LTTE. The LTTE is a terrorist organization that is banned in Canada and many other countries, and which has been fighting for over twenty five years to achieve a separate Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka through tactics that have included suicide bombings and the use of child soldiers.

As the International Crisis Group argued in early March,

The Sri Lankan government has a right under international law to respond to terrorist attacks and protect its territorial integrity. But destroying the Tigers at the cost of thousands of civilian lives is a prescription for deeper alienation of Tamils in Sri Lanka, radicalisation of Tamils around the world, and years of continued bloodshed. [34]

It added that “The international community has a responsibility to do all it can to preserve whatever chances there are for political dialogue leading to a lasting resolution of Sri Lanka’s conflict and for eventual reconciliation between communities.” [35]

While condemning violence by all parties, Yoga Arulnamby of the Association of Sri Lankan Graduates of Canada told the Committee that,

Whether the international community agrees or not, it is generally accepted among the majority of Tamils that the only group that was steadfast in defending Tamil rights, notwithstanding the violence, is the LTTE…Many Tamils consider the actions by LTTE ...justified because they feel that had the LTTE not existed, the Tamil population would have been wiped out or would have suffered more at the hands of the Sri Lankan armed forces.

More importantly, however, he added that “Both the LTTE and the various governments (of Sri Lanka) have to accept joint blame for this status quo. Violence has been committed by both parties, as documented by various organizations, and innocent Tamil people have been at the receiving end of all these brutalities.” [36] 

Although some Tamils may still view the LTTE as “freedom fighters,” it is impossible to truly gauge support for the group given its violence and other tactics towards moderate Tamils who may be more willing to pursue political accommodation.   In terms of the Sinhalese majority, Elliot Tepper argued in his testimony that:

the current mood …on the Sinhalese side may be in the triumphalist mode, but my feeling is this: everybody is sick and tired on all sides of this war. There’s a demand and a desire for peace. If proposals can be put forward that have…equitable components, all the leaders will be forced to come to some terms…[37]

Jonathan Papoulidis of World Vision Canada made a number of  recommendations on how to engage with the Government of Sri Lanka. He strongly urged the Canadian government to “engage at this critical moment to support the Sri Lankan government in proposing next steps for lasting peace and development.” In terms of coordinating international efforts, he recommended that Canada lead efforts to appoint a UN Special Envoy for the crisis, arguing that “The Sri Lankan government has identified the UN as the primary point of contact among international partners for the response. This opens up opportunities for direct advice giving and coordination.” [38]

He also recommended that:

... the immediate first step would be for a delegation, made up of parliamentarians from all parties and senior government officials as well as aid agencies and experts, to visit the country, ideally within the next three months. The delegation should take stock of the humanitarian situation and develop recommendations back to the government, including through this committee, on how to target support for peace, recovery, and longer-term development for the affected region.[39]

With regard to the broader question of how the international community can best make its voice heard by the Government of Sri Lanka, witnesses argued for the use of concerted economic and political pressure, with some suggesting that Canada advocate for the suspension of Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth. Others have pointed out that Sri Lanka has requested and will continue to need both immediate humanitarian and longer-term assistance, including assistance through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to deal with the impact of the global financial crisis. When asked about the possibility of withholding such assistance, however, Ken Sunquist of DFAIT responded that such actions would likely mean the loss of any future ability to influence behaviour, and would be at a cost to the people of Sri Lanka. He argued that while Canadians and others might be tempted to employ sanctions when dealing with the Government of Sri Lanka in the current context, using short-term incentives instead might be more effective in building long-term cooperation. [40]Critically, the international community needs to make every effort to convince the Government of Sri Lanka that restraint and openness to a political solution  is in its own best interest in the long-term.

Recommendation 4

The Government of Canada should call on the United Nations Security Council to seriously engage itself in the resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka, and to investigate the conduct of both parties during the conflict with respect to international law. The Government of Canada should also initiate a dialogue with the Government of Sri Lanka, in conjunction with the international community, aimed at laying the groundwork for a political reconciliation between the communities. If these efforts fail, the Government of Canada should consider financial and diplomatic sanctions, including, but not limited to, advocating for Sri Lanka’s suspension from the Commonwealth, as well as incentives.

Canada’s Sri Lankan Diaspora

Some 250,000 people of Sri Lankan origin – mainly Tamils -- call Canada their home today, many having fled their country of birth because of this very conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. The Committee heard from representatives both of Canada’s Tamil community and its Sinhalese community. In their testimony, they and other witnesses expressed their serious concerns about the current crisis and their views on the conflict’s history and evolution.

The Committee agrees with the views of many of the witnesses it heard, who argued that both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE bear significant responsibility for the current situation in Sri Lanka. The Committee also recognizes that the conflict in Sri Lanka has reached a critical point where the Sri Lankan government seems on the verge of eliminating the LTTE as a military force – although a number of witnesses argued that guerrilla warfare will likely continue for decades. 

It was clear from the testimony of members of the Canadian Tamil community that some Tamils in Canada are concerned that the Sri Lankan government will not stop at killing LTTE militants, but will use the current crisis to effectively obliterate the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. While this is strongly denied by the Sri Lankan government, the fact that Tamils around the world strongly share this fear underlines the depth of mistrust that must eventually be overcome if sustained peace is to be achieved.

The ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka has illustrated a reality of the globalized international system of which Canada is a part.  To some Canadians, Sri Lanka may seem like a far-away place with little direct or tangible relevance to Canada’s national interests.   To others, the course of the conflict in that country is a vital concern, which was demonstrated at every meeting of this Committee.  Canadian society in the twenty-first century is a multicultural mosaic whose strength is based on incorporating people from all over the world.  This reality brings with it significant implications for Canadian decision-makers, parliamentarians, and citizens.  What were once seen as domestic or “Canadian” concerns and interests can no longer be distinguished so easily from wider international events.  In other words, what is happening in Sri Lanka does matter, not only to Canadian foreign policy, both also to thousands of Canadians.  

As one example of a domestic implication of the conflict in Sri Lanka, there are serious concerns about the efforts of the LTTE in Canada and other countries to raise funds and gain influence.  The Committee was deeply disturbed by testimony and media reports claiming that some supporters of the LTTE practice intimidation and extortion among the large Tamil community within Canada.  While the financing of terrorist groups is illegal in Canada, ending practices such as intimidation and extortion is obviously a challenge. In April 2009, RCMP documents were released that alleged that a Canadian non-profit organization -- the World Tamil Movement of Ontario – had been under the direct control of the Tamil Tigers. The National Post reported that “the Canadian government placed the World Tamil Movement on its official list of terrorist entities last June, calling it a front for the Tamil Tigers and accusing it of using threats and intimidation to elicit donations from Canadians of Sri Lankan origin.” [41] Another recent article described Canadian government activities in this area as follows: “Last fall... a counterterrorism team disrupted ceremonies in Toronto celebrating the Tamil Tigers by discouraging owners of halls from renting to pro-Tiger groups, and by making themselves obvious in parking lots. The latter measure gave Tamil families who had been pressured to come an excuse to stay away.”[42]  While the Committee’s mandate does not extend to domestic law enforcement, it strongly urges the government to look again at how it –in cooperation with other jurisdictions --can best stop reported illegal activities in support of the LTTE by what members are convinced is a small minority within the Canadian Tamil community.

Sustaining International Attention and Efforts

Finally, whatever Canada and other countries do in response to the current crises in Sri Lanka, they must take to heart the warning of David Cameron who told Members:

...frankly, Sri Lanka is a very small country, a little island in the Indian Ocean. It's not the cockpit of conflict that the Middle East is, for example, so it's easy for it to recede from consciousness. So one of the tricks I think would be for this issue of Sri Lanka and the just treatment of the minorities there to remain in the consciousness of the international community.

That's going to be a challenge, but I think it's very important that those words be spoken and that pressure be imposed on them, even if, in the short run, it doesn't have a great deal of impact.[43] 

The Committee accepts this both as a call to keep the issue of Sri Lanka on the Canadian and international agenda, and to continue to act even when success does not seem certain. As Noor Nizam, a Tamil-speaking Muslim originally from Sri Lanka told members, “peace is not for us, it is for the next generation.”[44]