Foreign Policy Blogs

Aid and a Quest for Change in Sri Lanka

Tamil protest against government tactics, 2006

Tamil protest against government tactics, 2006

The IMF approved a $2.6 billion dollar loan for Sri Lanka over the objections five states who wanted human rights and policy conditions attached to the loan. As reported earlier on this blog, there are concerns about possible violation of humanitarian law committed by the government towards the end of the 26 year conflict, as well as concerns about the current treatment of Tamil minorities being held en masse in government “welfare villages” that many human rights advocates argue are little more than prisons.  The exact conditions within the camps are unknown though, as the Sri Lanka government refuses to allow aid workers or international journalists to visit them.

Both within Sri Lanka and internationally, there is strong support for the end of the longstanding conflict.  But because Sri Lanka ended the conflict through a military victory, it also means that they are no closer to addresses the roots of the conflict.  The government’s tactics of using overwhelming brute force, disregarding civilian casualties, and silencing critics of their actions – whether with prison sentences, assault, or murder – was successful in beating the seemingly unbeatable Tamil Tigers.  But such tactics also leave a long uphill climb for the country in terms of reconciliation.  Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa embraced Sinhalese nationalism to gain support for the war, which killed 6,500 government troops in the last three years; once such lines have been drawn, they are often much harder to erase.  But this position does little for the non-Sinhalese populations in the north and east, and without radical changes to current government policies also does little for the effective reconciliation of the small island nation after nearly three decades of war.

It is in this context that the IMF decided to approve the multibillion dollar loan for Sri Lanka.  Loans from IMF are not subjected to a vote by its members, but instead are approved by consensus.  States that object can abstain from approvals, which is rare.  When there is significant opposition to a loan program, including abstentions, the IMF usually will not approve the loan.

However in this case, despite abstentions from the US, Britain, and France, the IMF approved the loan.  One argument for this could be that without the aid, Sri Lanka could not hope to foster change and better living conditions for displaced Tamils, so withholding the money for human rights reasons would not bring about better human rights conditions.  However, I suspect that the real reason has to do with the changing geopolitics of aid.  The growth of China as a global power, and a global power with money, means that states with poor human rights records can receive aid from China without the same human rights and democratic conditions that are often attached to Western and international aid, including loans from the IMF.  This has already emerged as an issue with Cambodia, where the government is increasingly quashing freedom of expression and general civil liberties without fear of losing major aid from China.  Approving the loan for Sri Lanka, even with the current background of questionable government policies, keeps the international community involved and presumably still able to influence future policies.  While this may be a gamble, it may also be the only real option left for the IMF.

Several human rights groups are criticizing the loan, saying it rewards bad behavior.  Whether that is true will be determined by the Sri Lankan government over the next few months.  The ball is now in their court, so to speak, and it is up to the government on whether this piece of goodwill from the international community will be used to rebuild a country for all Sri Lankans, or whether Rajapaksa will continue with more of the same.

 

Author

Kimberly J. Curtis

Kimberly Curtis has a Master's degree in International Affairs and a Juris Doctor from American University in Washington, DC. She is a co-founder of The Women's Empowerment Institute of Cameroon and has worked for human rights organizations in Rwanda and the United States. You can follow her on Twitter at @curtiskj

Areas of Focus: Transitional justice; Women's rights; Africa