Sri Lanka is Not a Failed State Yet, But...
by Ameen Izzadeen, Khaleej Times Online, May 16, 2006
|
It defines a "failed state" as one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force.
All these factors highlighted in this definition exist in one form or another in Sri Lanka. If not for the effects of the 2002 ceasefire, the country’s position would not have been much different from that of Sudan or any other first ten countries on the list. |
SRI Lanka must count itself lucky not to be branded as a "failed state" in the 2006 index prepared by the Washington-based Fund for Peace and the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine.
It ranks number 25 on the list, with Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast and Iraq occupying the first four places. Sri Lanka has been included in the "in-danger" category while the first 20 nations on the list have been grouped together into a "critical" category. If the list had been prepared after the latest escalation of violence and the deterioration in the law and order situation in the country, there is little doubt that we would have been bunched together with "critical" states.
The index was prepared, taking into consideration a dozen social, economic and political indicators with the aim of promoting greater stability worldwide and giving countries early warnings to steer them away from being branded as failed states. It defines a "failed state" as one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force.
All these factors highlighted in this definition exist in one form or another in Sri Lanka. If not for the effects of the 2002 ceasefire, the country’s position would not have been much different from that of Sudan or any other first ten countries on the list.
It does not require great expertise to predict the shame awaiting Sri Lanka on the next year’s list, given the deteriorating security situation today, unless, of course, the situation improves.
Since the report was released on May 2, Sri Lanka’s performance has been dismal in terms of some major indicators, which directly correlate with the conflict in the country while there is also little improvement in terms of the rest. Even in the category of "failure to manage the mounting demographic pressure", Sri Lanka, in spite of a 1.7 percent population growth rate which is as good as that of any developed nation, has scored eight out of ten, compared to three by Norway, the last country on the failed-states list.
The spiralling violence we are witnessing today has not led to yet another refugee crisis, although hundreds of Sinhalese living closer to Tamil areas and thousands of Tamils families in areas vulnerable to the attacks of the security forces have fled their villages in the recent past. But if the security situation deteriorates further, the country’s refugee problem — with more than 300,000 being internally displaced due to the conflict and a similar number still languishing in temporary shelters due to the December 2004 tsunami — is likely to worsen and Sri Lanka will figure high in the next year’s failed-states index.
The legacy of vengeance has also raised its ugly head once again with tit-for-tat attacks being the order of the day. The 2006 index has placed Sri Lanka eighth in this category — three places ahead of Israel, a state which has gained notoriety for its disproportionate tit-for-tat attacks and brutal suppression of the Palestinian struggle for freedom against colonialism and occupation. On Saturday alone some 17 people were gunned down in Sri Lanka’s north-east in vengeance-seeking attacks. When the Fund for Peace researchers prepare the 2007 report, Sri Lanka is likely to score more negative marks in this category as well unless the security situation improves.
The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazines should be commended for their excellent effort in grading countries on their failures. Their report drives every state with some semblance of self-respect to take steps to improve its image, for no country wishes to be branded as a failed state. For instance, Pakistan was furious for being included on the top 10 failed states list this year.
Information Minister Mohammed Ali Durrani rubbished the report as the "joke of the year" and called it factually incorrect, but the humiliation is likely to force the government to make improvements at least in some areas and minimise its bad points.
However, the peace loving people will also appreciate if the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy include more indicators when they prepare their next survey. For instance, a country’s willingness to respect international law, intervening in the affairs of other countries against UN mandate, perpetuating illegal occupation, failing to resolve disputes through dialogue and browbeating or bribing poor and weak countries to achieve political or economic agendas.
If these indicators had also gone into the making of the 2006 list, Israel and some of the so-called liberal democracies in the West would have been, at least, among the top 20.
Ameen Izzadeen is a Sri Lankan journalist based in Colombo
|
Home