However, when the US channels funds direct to non-state entities such as NGOs and INGOs there is in fact no assurance that funds would not reach the LTTE, because these non-state actors are known for their lack of transparency and accountability. NGOs and INGOS have the freedom to disburse funds to suit their agendas in total secrecy. These agencies thus could become handy vehicles for the US to extend its agenda. Under these circumstances, there is every possibility that a portion of the funds channeled by the US would fall into the hands of the LTTE.
According to media reports, the UK is also having second thoughts about channeling
funds to the donor trust fund. If the UK follows the US lead, two of the four donors (the other two being Japan and the EU) would not be contributing to the donor trust fund. Whatever the current attitudes of the US and UK may be, the fact that both these Governments pressured the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) to sign the P-TOMS cannot be denied. The reason for that pressure, according to the US Ambassador, was that P-TOMS is an “internal” arrangement for dealing with tsunami aid that should not be missed by the GOSL and the LTTE to work together as it could eventually lead to resuming peace negotiations.
On the face of it while the stated intentions seem sound, the bottom line is that the GOSL has been left high and dry because the GOSL in its naivety expected contributions from the four key donors to fill the coffers of the donor trust fund. Now that two of the four key players have backed out, the GOSL has to face the prospect of finding other funds to finance its reconstruction programme. In the meantime, to add salt to the wounds these Governments are arranging to finance aid projects through NGOs and INGOs knowing full well that there is no way to prevent a portion of the funds falling into the hands of the LTTE. The fact that this would contradict their own policies as far as their own constituencies are concerned does not seem to matter. Nor does it seem to matter that this violates provisions of Security Council Resolution 1373; a resolution adopted to contain global terrorism by calling on all member states of the UN to restrict funds reaching terrorist entities. Clearly, if NGO/INGO funds are used to restore the LTTE’s damaged military installations, the donors would be guilty of nurturing and fostering a terrorist entity in complete violation of laws to curb global terrorism. By not funding the P-TOMS and instead funding NGO and INGO administered projects the US is in a position to control funds released to the LTTE; a position that gives the US the leverage to use the LTTE, if it so chooses, in the pursuit of the US agenda while at the same time giving the LTTE opportunities for it to meet its own needs. These possibilities are in step with the latest suggestion by an ex-US Ambassador (the earlier one being a confederal model for Sri Lanka), that the US makes direct contact with the LTTE (The Island, July 11, 2005). This set up is a win-win for the US and the LTTE, but a total let down as far as the GOSL is concerned. Despite all warnings, GOSL negotiators have been too simple minded to see what was coming down the pike, and this has led to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty being compromised.
The strategy of nurturing terrorist outfits by global powers is a well-honed practice despite these very powers ending up as victims with time. India first nurtured the LTTE and has seen its own Prime Minister assassinated by the LTTE. The US nurtured the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and ultimately had to deal with them. Now it appears the International Community, ably helped by Norway, is pushing for arrangements that favour the LTTE. Only time will tell how and when they would be betrayed.
This certainly is not the first time nor would it be the last that members of the International Community have given Governments false hopes only to back out at the opportune time. This game plan has worked best when Governments are weak and vulnerable after decades of war, or worse still when capped by a natural disaster such as a tsunami. It is at such weak moments that Governments are most pliable and when sovereignty can be compromised to advantage. This is the state Sri Lanka is currently in.
Reputed global socioeconomics analyst/author Naomi Klein in an article to The Nation (May 2, 2005) addresses this state of affairs and says that shattered countries are attractive to INGOs such as the World Bank because countries “take orders well” particularly after cataclysmic events. Klein states: “…governments will usually do whatever it takes to get aid dollars – even if it means racking up huge debts and agreeing to sweeping policy reforms”. Continuing she adds “…many war-ravaged countries are in states of ‘limited sovereignty’. They are considered too unstable and unskilled to manage the aid money pouring in, so it is often put in a trust fund managed by the World Bank”.
The justification for the World Bank to be the custodian of P-TOMS was even better packaged in the case of Sri Lanka. A case was built up by first advancing the argument that Sri Lankan Governments are corrupt, although relatively speaking, other countries and agencies such as the UN are worse. This was backed up by the LTTE stating that it would not agree to an arrangement that would require them to recognize institutions of the GOSL, even though they depend on the GOSL Army for their security, and other government departments for supply of food, medicines, etc.. Since the UN is already under a cloud for allegations of corruption in Iraq, the World Bank became the next natural contender to manage the funds.
Whenever the World Bank gets involved in the exercise of doling out money, they extract a price, as has occurred in East Timor, Afghanistan, Haiti and some Latin American countries. According to Klein, the price usually comes in the form of policies that require Governments to privatize state run institutions, as has happened with the healthcare in Afghanistan, and a call for “..an increased role for the private sector in the water system, telecommunications, …and for direct(ing) the government to ‘withdraw’ from the electricity sector and leave it for foreign private investors.” Attempts of WB pressure to privatize these same sectors in Sri Lanka are being reported regularly in the Sri Lankan press.
Klein’s contention is that the West has realized that Disaster Management is lucrative business, and furthermore, that the vulnerability experienced following a Disaster provides opportunity to change “…the very social fabric of the nation”. She adds that the US State Department has set up an Office whose “…mandate is not to rebuild any old states…but to create ‘democratic and market oriented’ ones”. What is taking shape in Sri Lanka is not only restoration of damage in an improved form, but a rebuilding in their own image. The involvement of the donors and INGOs such as the World Bank must be seen in this light.
Despite professed concerns of a humanitarian nature, the sad tendency is to exploit even a tragedy to advantage. What is being done in Sri Lanka is in the same vein. Had the GOSL not been so naïve it would have realized that advantages would be sought at this moment of vulnerability and it would have been prepared. For instance, it could have accepted contributions from concerned citizens throughout the world who genuinely grieved at the loss experienced by their fellow men and women and refused the offers, however generous, from “concerned” Governments. By accepting the offers of these Governments Sri Lanka has compromised its sovereignty because of the commitments being extracted in return. The price of reconstruction is being paid for by the dignity of the nation. This cannot be translated into dollars.
Now that two of the four donors are not contributing to the P-TOMS, Sri Lanka should seize the opportunity to change course. That course should be to rely on its own strengths and resources to rebuild what has been lost, and to do so in the image of itsown determinations. The fact that one of the donors has backed out and another is likely to follow should be sufficient grounds to dispense with P-TOMS, and instead, for the GOSL to set up an inclusive body to apportion funds to the different districts on a reasoned and equitable basis and to use the existing structures at the district level to implement the programmes decided by that body.
If the LTTE refuses to participate it would be by their own seeking, but the fact that the GOSL is ready to address the needs of all the affected communities would be known to the world.
P-TOMS is the fifth of a series of agreements hatched in secrecy and rejected by the people, the first being the B-C Pact, followed by D-C Pact, the Indo-Lanka Accord, and the Cease Fire Agreement. These five efforts demonstrate both the failure of non-transparency in the making of pacts, as well as the disconnect between the people and elected governments.
What this nation hopes for is a Government with the courage to fashion an agenda based on self-reliance, calling on the strengths and resources of the entire nation in the rebuilding effort, with fairness to all as was demonstrated by the people in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami.
(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/15/opinion/2.asp)
