Sri Lanka - Articles

The “international safety net” has been successful in keeping the peace process in Sri Lanka alive. There is “facilitation” by Norway; support from the United States; and a “supplementary” role for Japan in the peace process. Given Tokyo’s isolationist and cautious policy towards political conflicts, its keen and active interest in Sri Lanka is intriguing; however, when viewed in the context of “a new phase of Japanese diplomacy” and recent changes in its overall aid policy, this new-found interest is not surprising.

It was recently felt by Japan that it has a stake in the peace and stability of the world, especially in Asia. In May 2002, it formulated a new role for itself, what is called “consolidation of peace” or “peace building” in conflict areas which include Afghanistan, Indonesia, Philippines, and East Timor, apart from Sri Lanka. The reduction and elimination of tensions in these areas is vital for Japanese energy supplies from West Asia. Japanese investments in South and Southeast Asia have also been rising. Its desire to emerge as one of the leading political powers in the international arena using Yen power cannot be denied. That apart, Japanese public opinion has been skeptical of unscrutinised aid policies and has demanded that Japanese assistance be utilised, for the prevention of conflicts and the reduction of tensions in various trouble spots of the world.

Sri Lanka-Japan relations have traditionally been cordial. Japan continues to be the single largest donor contributing nearly 45 per cent of the total aid flow to Sri Lanka. Until recently, despite expressing its concern over the intractable ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, Japan left it to the warring parties to settle their dispute. However, on realising the importance of international pressure in bringing settlements to internal conflicts the world over, Japan came to the belief that the Sri Lankan dispute could also be settled with external support. It was also believed that that the Sri Lankan conflict has reached a stage when all concerned were tired of the violence and there was a strong internal and international desire for a peaceful settlement. The present UNF Government’s “unconventional” people-driven approach towards a peace settlement coincided with the emphasis on its humanitarian aspects by Japan. Tokyo strongly backed the Norwegian facilitation and went on to host a round of talks in March 2003 and the Donors’ Conference in June 2003. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of the war-ravaged northeast has been Japan’s concern. At the same time, it did not ignore the development needs of southern Sri Lanka. Yasushi Akashi, former Under Secretary of United Nations for Humanitarian Affairs, was appointed as special envoy by the Japanese government to oversee and advise on this front. In short, Japan’s role can be described as more than that of a donor but less than a participant in the political negotiations.

This “supplementary” role of Japan in its neighbourhood was seen with unease by India, which held that Japan was free to extend economic assistance, but should not form a fourth corner in the negotiating process (in addition to the Sri Lankan Government, the LTTE and Norway).. India did not want any external powers to use the Sri Lankan issue to enhance their own strategic interests and international role without understanding the intricacies of the problems involved. The competition for permanent membership of the Security Council between the two countries cannot be ignored as a factor for suspicion. However, recognizing Indian sensitivities, Tokyo has been providing New Delhi with periodic updates on the status of the peace process. Japan feels that India should abandon its “hands-off” policy on the Sri Lankan peace process and help the parties in reaching an agreement. Japan acknowledges that, apart from geographical proximity, India possesses deep insights on Sri Lankan affairs. This expertise must not be allowed to be wasted.

Currently there is a deadlock in the peace talks due to LTTE’s reservations on the progress of implementing agreements reached during the previous six rounds of talks. Japan, along with Norway, has been trying hard to break the impasse by linking the flow of funds with progress in the talks. But these efforts have not yielded any major breakthrough except that the LTTE has agreed to furnish its proposals “at the earliest”. Tokyo should understand that the Tigers will not budge under any economic threats. It could consider a conference of states interested and involved in the peace process to discuss ways and means to bring the LTTE back to the negotiating table.