Work was good last night, I was much more on top of things and made sure I ate this time! I'm getting on well with the student callers and also my fellow ambassadors and my bosses too. It's a really hectic job but I like it. I particularly like the jokey atmosphere we share there.
So I thought I'd post up an article I wrote on Sri Lanka for a writing competition. Now, I don't consider myself a writer as such, and certainly when you read this you will realise I have no natural flair for writing or anything like that. But I thought I'd enter this competition just to raise awareness of the situation in Sri Lanka, especially for the Tamil IDPs (internally displaced persons) in the camps over there. Don't judge the piece on its style or literary standards - rather just take in the information and the ideas presented. Ok, caveats over.
Benjamin Franklin House Literary Prize – Young Writers’ Award Entry
"They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
I read this quote and I thought immediately of Sri Lanka. I know that Benjamin Franklin intended these words for the Pennsylvania Assembly but it seems to me that they should be spoken to the Government of my mother country. While they hold my people hostage, seemingly endlessly with no ransom note and no explanation, I sit here, safe in British luxury, and wonder if I too have played a part in the loss of their liberty? And, by extension, my liberty?
Known as the pearl of the Indian Ocean, the island named as Ceylon by its British colonisers has had a beautiful and violent history. Paddy fields and tea plantations, crystal clear lagoons and travel brochure beaches, ancient temples and bustling street markets – all have acted as landscapes to warfare. Ceylon became Sri Lanka on the 4th February 1948, but the country’s new found liberty did not lead to safety for its citizens. The British had kept a lid on disagreements and divisions between the two main ethnic groups but in their absence these quickly escalated into a battle for power between the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The resulting decades of conflict claimed thousands of victims - Tamils, Sinhalese, and others.
The war reached a bitter and bloody climax earlier this year. Although the hostilities have been declared over by the Sri Lankan administration, thousands of internally displaced Tamil civilians remain in militarised “welfare camps” in the formerly controlled LTTE areas in the North of the country. The Government declares that it is necessary to keep these people under its control so that any remaining Tiger supporters can be weeded out. Further, the Government argues that it needs to make the LTTE areas “safe”. As such, the Government can justify withholding the freedom of the Tamil civilians, forbidding them from leaving the camps, claiming it might be dangerous for them to return to their villages, and arguing they might be dangerous to others, to the citizens of Sri Lanka that count. Conveniently forgetting that the Tamil people are citizens too.
For the Government of Sri Lanka, the establishment of safety, no matter how temporary or limited in its scope, is worth the sacrifice of the liberty of the Tamil people. But this utilitarian perspective is not a long-term solution to the problems between the people of this island. The removal of the freedom of the Tamil people is not conducive to the promotion of future safety and security for all people. Rather, the captivity and the oppression of the Tamil people will only fuel their desire for liberty and for justice.
The problem in Sri Lanka, as in many other countries, is that there are multiple groups competing for power and control. These groups each see their own goals as independent and exclusive to the goals of the others. As such each group believes that in order for them to achieve safety and liberty, it must be at the other group’s expense. This is what causes the tit-for-tat style behaviour by opposing groups, because they think of safety and liberty as resources, which are scarce and finite. Further, the treatment of safety and liberty as “either/or” options results in a blind-eye being turned to the possibility of maximising both. But for safety and liberty to prosper they must not be considered as goals independent of each other and exclusive to each group. Rather they must be considered as dual aims for everyone. A balance must be achieved – freedom and security go hand in hand so you cannot have one without the other. And you cannot give one to one with giving the same one to the other. Freedom and safety are not resources – they are basic human rights that are infinitely available if those in power choose it to be so.
In Sri Lanka the Government continues to treat Tamils and Sinhalese differently – giving freedom and security to one but not to the other. In Sri Lanka liberty and security come from the hands of those in charge, to distribute as they wish. By denying the Tamils their essential liberty, it is easy to see why the LTTE came into existence. No doubt the LTTE would agree with Benjamin Franklin – by giving up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, the Government of Sri Lanka has made a terrible compromise and thus deserves neither freedom nor safety.
Beyond Sri Lanka too, the treatment of the Tamil people has raised awareness and concern among the Tamil diaspora, who share this mindset. However whilst Franklin would most likely not support the strategies endorsed by the LTTE, the Government of Sri Lanka must surely be wary of the popular mentality of many young diaspora Tamils, who have become politically conscious and active as a result of the recent atrocities, and who agree with the notion that those who are willing to trade freedom for temporary safety are not worthy of either. The young Tamil diaspora have never had to fight for liberty or safety in the many different countries of their births, but by taking freedom and security for granted, they forget the suffering of their people. New generations of freedom-fighters will be born when this suffering through the suppression of liberty is realised. When the freedom of the Sri Lankan Tamils is considered our freedom too, we will fight.
The uncertainty and instability prevalent in Sri Lanka provide evidence of the difficulties in maintaining the temporary safety gleaned at the expense of liberty. But it is the loss of the independence of the Tamil people in the first place that has caused this island-wide insecurity, which in turn drives the Government’s desire for safety, no matter what the cost. Why this liberty was taken away is unclear but certainly its reinstatement is an essential step on the path towards peace. Further, the root causes of the issues between the groups need to be addressed rather than just the symptoms – only then can liberty and safety be fully achieved.
