Historic times

Largely because there are so many unanswered questions on the 21 April attacks, it should be recognised that Sri Lanka is in a vulnerable position in the coming months and it is only the commitment and dedication of the defence forces, police and military which stand to prevent any fresh terrorist attack 

– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

By Dr. Sarala Fernando

Are we witnessing a time when history is being made involving the redrawing of territorial borders and securing of frontiers around the globe? 

In the United States, which was founded on open immigration, a wall is being built on the southern border; the Brexit referendum, while opening the way for the UK to leave the EU zone and establish control over its own borders, has stumbled on this same issue due to the EU insistence on the “Irish backstop”; Prime Minister Netanyanhu, if returned to power, is aiming for recognition of extended frontiers for Israel supported by President Trump’s recognition of the annexation of the Golan Heights and plans to incorporate a large chunk of the West Bank where Israeli settlements are considered illegitimate under international law; closer to home, the Modi Government has withdrawn the special constitutional status accorded since decades to Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in order to bring these border areas more firmly within Indian Central Government control. Historic changes or just coincidence? 

But they pose an immediate question in respect of Sri Lanka – whether it is wise to head in the opposite direction, throwing our borders open with new airports and visa free arrival to encourage tourism, ignoring ongoing security fears after the 21 April attacks?

From the US to India, the arguments justifying such major policy shifts have been based mainly on perceived security challenges from a variety of sources, uncontrolled immigration, cross-border terrorism, crime and under-development. 

In the unspoken background though there is rising populist nationalism and identity politics, from which charismatic leaders are drawing. 

Interestingly, in the UK the lack of such leadership seems to be a major cause of the confusion over Brexit. Some argue that these historic changes are due to the US under President Trump abandoning its global role in defence of liberal values. Others believe the globalisation momentum has been obstructed by increasing public calls to look inward and address rising inequalities within society which are perceived as the consequence of open market economics. 

However, since technology is proceeding at an even faster pace than the human mind could have imagined a decade ago (except if you were Arthur C. Clarke), the dilemma today is how these two levels, the politics and the technology, can be balanced. 

In all the cases quoted above of historic developments from the US to India, these are countries which pride themselves on being long-time democracies with respected institutions. This is why the challenges to the historic developments are coming in the parliaments and the judiciary in scenes of conflict rarely witnessed before as in the UK, US and India. 

There are safety valves in democratic states of unrivalled value as we see in the dilemma of the China-Hong Kong relationship now contested by popular mass demonstrations with nowhere to go. A common factor is also that national remedies appear the most likely recourse since there is less expectation of international action through the UN, the ICJ or HRC.

This time in history stands out because over and beyond the above fears is the great unknown – the impact of global climate change which has signalled its ability to wreak havoc by extreme weather events of unprecedented intensity, from heat-waves in France to hurricanes in the Caribbean which recently reduced parts of Abaco Island, a tourist paradise, to rubble. It is generally accepted that islands will be particularly affected by sea water rise for which countries in this region are already preparing, from the Maldives to Singapore and Indonesia. 

Are we doing enough to prepare in Sri Lanka given that the end of the year is approaching, which time seems to bring these extreme weather events to a climax in unpredictable ways?

The huge public controversy over the proposed agreements with the US, MCC, ACSA and SOFA have paved the way for broad understanding that there needs to be a better balance between economic and security considerations. 

While arrests are still being made in Sri Lanka in respect of the 21 April terror attacks, and new information emerging of possible connections with LTTE terrorism, opening new airports in conflict affected areas will pose worries for intelligence officers especially given the expressed desire of ISIS to seek to establish its own “land” in South Asia. 

Then there is the news of a provision to grant six months visa free entry on a reciprocal basis with the Maldives under new agreements to be signed shortly for purposes of tourism promotion. However it is well-known that the largest number of ISIS returning fighters in South Asia are from the Maldives, so now will they spread the contagion to Sri Lanka? 

Even powerful countries are refusing entry to their returning nationals who were fighters with ISIS while some are cynically sending them to third countries to stand trial there. Can Sri Lanka’s intelligence network, fractured by political interference, cope with these new threats?

Another cause for concern is whether those arrested in the aftermath of 21 April are being processed quickly for judicial action as otherwise conditions may be created for further radicalisation. In this background it was therefore good to hear the Foreign Secretary at the recent Annual Defence Seminar describing steps being taken to protect human rights while fighting terrorism, for example by providing those arrested with access to ICRC and referring their problems to the independent National Human Rights Commission.

Largely because there are so many unanswered questions on the 21 April attacks, it should be recognised that Sri Lanka is in a vulnerable position in the coming months and it is only the commitment and dedication of the defence forces, police and military which stand to prevent any fresh terrorist attack. Mechanisms put into place earlier to check LTTE financing and propagandising of terrorism may now have to be revived in the new security threat scenario.

However, it should be understood that Sri Lanka’s security is firstly in the hands of Sri Lankans and it is our responsibility to determine what assistance is required from outside and establish regular channels for intelligence sharing and cooperation covering the different levels, legal, diplomatic, police or military. Fortunately there is a well-respected Secretary of Defence in place now with deep experience in both military intelligence and diplomatic codes of conduct but he too must be constrained by the chaotic political situation within the Government.  This does not mean we cannot learn from the experience of others. Sri Lanka will need both domestic intelligence networks and foreign assistance cooperation to identify suspected foreign terrorists, and our Defence and Foreign Ministries will have to work together without delay. In the inevitable comparison between 9/11 and 21 April, both countries at the time of the attacks had suffered from institutional weakness in inter-agency cooperation and decision making. 

This has been rectified in the US after 9/11 through a central intelligence sharing mechanism and accelerated decision making process which has succeeded in preventing the recurrence of such mass attacks. 

The Sri Lanka security forces would by now have prepared an updated threat analysis invoking new speedy decision making structures and remedies but in the current political chaos probably nothing will be finalised before the elections due at the end of the year and thereafter.

The 21 April attacks have impacted the domestic political scenario preparing for a Presidential Election with at least one party/ alliance promising a stronger security posture. However raising the bogey of US-China conflict will not be helpful to future policy makers who are charged with maintaining friendship with all, which is our non-aligned heritage.