Photo Source: The Hindu
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS)
Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
For any further information or to subscribe to GP alerts send an email to subachandran@nias.res.in
Conflict Weekly 11
Releasing a former soldier convicted of a war crime in Sri Lanka, Deepening of internal conflicts in Myanmar and the Taliban’s Deal is a smokescreen in Afghanistan
IPRI Team
|
IPRI Conflict Weekly, 01 April 2020, Vol.1, No. 11
D Suba Chandran, Aparupa Bhattacherjee, and Sukanya Bali
Sri Lanka: The President pardons a soldier convicted of war crimes
In the news
During the last week of March, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the President of Sri Lanka, used his constitutional powers to pardon a former soldier, who was a Staff Sergeant. The latter was convicted by the judiciary.
Though the pardoning power was his constitutional right, the President’s act of releasing a convict, who was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court has invited severe international criticisms. A press release from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said: “This was one of the rare human rights cases from the decades long conflict that had ever reached conviction. The Presidential pardon is an affront to victims and yet another example of the failure of Sri Lanka to fulfil its international human rights obligations to provide meaningful accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other gross violations of human rights. Victims of such violations and crimes have the right to a remedy.”
The Amnesty International, in a statement, said, “Where accountability is so rare for serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka, the government’s arbitrary decision to release Sergeant Rathnayaka sends an extremely worrying message.”
Issues at large
The primary issue is not about the power of the President to pardon a convict. In February 2020, President Rajapaksa used the same power to pardon more 500 prisoners, on the eve of Sri Lanka’s independence day. In 2019, the former President Sirisena used this power, to pardon a killer of a Swedish girl. Facing criticism for his act of releasing a single prisoner belonging to a wealthy family, President Sirisena, also released 260 plus prisoners, citing they were above 65 years old.
The issue at the core is the release of a former soldier, who was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka following a ten years old trial, for killing eight Tamils near Jaffna. The victims were internally displaced, who returned to check their property. The soldier, a former Sergeant, was amongst the five, who were accused of torturing, and murdering eight innocent civilians, including a five-year-old child. While the others were not found guilty, the Sergeant was; the Supreme Courted sentenced him to death in May 2019.
The primary fear both amongst the minority community in Sri Lanka and the rest of the international community is the larger message that the President is seen as sending, with his latest act. During his Presidential campaign, Gotabaya Rajapaksa referred to releasing the “war heroes” who were languishing in the jails on baseless charges. While a section thought it was a mere political campaign, his latest action is seen as giving shape to what he said.
Internally, the minority community is apprehensive about, what would he do further, when the society is yet to heal from the decades' long civil war. Externally, the international community is upset and angry with the Sri Lankan state not following up with war crimes during the last phase of the civil war.
In perspective
The Tamil minorities and the international community has been expecting the Sri Lankan state to investigate abuses during the last phases of the civil war. Human rights activists within Sri Lanka and the organizations outside the country has been pressurizing the State to do more. The President’s latest act sends a wrong signal to both.
While the minorities and the rest of the international community may find it unacceptable, perhaps, a section within Sri Lanka within the majority community has been looking forward to it. This would pose a more substantial threat to the future of political harmony in Sri Lanka.
In a conflict environment, perceptions are important. The State has to address the perceptions. Even if they are not true. And it should avoid sending wrong signals.
Myanmar: Economic dependence on China will deepen the internal conflicts
In the news
A new report titled, “Commerce and Conflict: Navigating Myanmar’s China Relationship,” published by the International Crisis Group (ICG) focusses on Myanmar’s economic dependence on China and its impact on the on-going conflicts within the country.
The report elaborates the recent strengthening of the Sino-Myanmar bonhomie due to Naypyitaw's strained relations with the West and the global South. Nevertheless, the Chinese investments and projects can embolden the armed actors, intensify the local grievances, and magnify the anti-China sentiment within Myanmar. The report intricately discusses the reasons and consequences of Myanmar’s China dependency. It also provides policy recommendations.
Issues at large
The Sino-Myanmar relationship has been seen as fraternal. In 2020, the Chinese President Xi Jingping visited Myanmar to enhance the relations. This was followed by multi-billion dollar Chinese investments in Myanmar under the Belt and Road Initiative, and, other private investments in several sectors from commercial property to agriculture. These investments have made China the largest foreign direct investor in Myanmar.
Apart from the economic relation, the robust nature of the diplomatic ties between the two is evident through the protective role played by China to save Myanmar from any UN-led investigations on the atrocities within Myanmar. The Chinese veto in the UN Security Council has restricted any adverse action against Myanmar.
Since 2017, Tatmadaw’s efforts to fight pro-Rohingya insurgent group has led to atrocities on the community, which has resulted in a mass exodus to neighbouring countries, especially Bangladesh. Myanmar’s claim of no intentional atrocities or crime against the Rohingyas has been vehemently criticised by the international communities to the extent that the West and the ‘global South’ have eschewed Myanmar. Myanmar has been taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by the Gambia for the same reason. Hence given this Chinese support, Myanmar has become increasingly dependent on it.
The report also asserts an interesting point. The deterioration of the Sino-Myanmar relation in phases, during bilateral history. The report also underlines on how China has been pressurizing for a long period to reassert its relationship with Myanmar. For example, the Chinese funding to the Communist Party of Burma in the 1970s and currently the funding and equation with the Northern Myanmar Armed groups. China has used investments and pressure as leverage against successive Myanmar governments.
In perspective
The report emphasises that even though the bilateral diplomatic relation is claimed to be good, the government in Myanmar has always been cautious. For example, Xi’s visit to Myanmar in January 2020 did not have many outcomes.
Second, the NLD led government is also wary of its over-dependence on China. There is an anti-China sentiment which is growing among the people in Myanmar; with the elections scheduled in November 2020, the NLD is cautious. The anti-Chinese sentiment has grown due to the lack of transparency, consultation and from a belief that none of the projects will benefit the country.
The report also highlights the fact that these Chinese investments have the capability to accelerate the conflict within Myanmar. The big projects like CMEC (China Myanmar Economic Corridor) pass through most of the states that are zones of conflict between different armed groups and the Tatmadaw. China has claimed the economic development will restore peace in these conflict-torn states. Nevertheless, the report disagrees and claims this approach to be naïve, as each conflict has its own history and context.
Not only the big project, but the private commercial ventures and investments in an agricultural crop such as banana and watermelon have also made its way in strengthening the militia and thereby propelling the anti-China sentiment among the people. This is unique to this report.
Afghanistan: Deal is a smokescreen for the Taliban, says an international report
In the news
On 31 March, in a series of Briefing Notes analysing the nascent peace process in Afghanistan, the International Crisis Group assessed two primary reasons for the Taliban's interest to come to the negotiating table. First, the Taliban’s interest in ending the war in the region and second, the Taliban’s regret for missing out on foreign aid to Afghanistan post-2001. The briefings question Taliban’s seriousness toward the US-Taliban peace deal which was signed after 19 months of negotiation on 29 February in Doha.
Issues at large
First, for the Taliban, the deal between the US and Taliban may be a smokescreen as the group still resist the Afghan security forces and showcase the agreement as a victory against the US forces in the region. Recently, the Taliban refused to negotiate with the 21-member team made by the Afghan government on intra-Afghan talks. The reaction has thus raised concern among many Afghans on the sincerity of the Taliban’s commitment.
Second, the Taliban lack a clear path to military victory. The report has argued that it is mere speculation that after the complete withdrawal of the US, the Taliban may launch a full-fledged military operation to take over Kabul. As the Taliban recognises that its opponents are better armed, negotiations over military conquest are more likely chosen by the group.
Some in the Taliban also believe that the growing seriousness of the US on withdrawing from Afghanistan is the right opportunity for them to achieve their goals and establish an ‘Islamic system' and claim victory. After the negotiation, foreign aid could be used by all factions, which may help in building intra-Afghan governances.
Third, the Taliban seem to have got everything it wanted. The US-Taliban talks indicate that the US approved of the Taliban’s sequence for negotiations. In turn, the Taliban followed the ‘America first strategy’, to conclude a deal before negotiating with the Afghan government. The deal gave what the Taliban have been demanding for long: the withdrawal of foreign troops. Additionally, the deal also gives the Taliban legitimacy in the international order. However, if it fails to express its interest in the intra-Afghan talks and continues with the attacks, the US may retract support and the Taliban may lose its newly held position.
In perspective
First, the absence of commitment by the Taliban has been vivid. Till now the Taliban has not violated any measures signed in the peace deal, but the continuous refusal to negotiate and attacks on the Afghan security forces raise doubt over the Taliban’s commitments in maintaining a peaceful negotiation. Both the Taliban and the Afghan government seem underprepared and lack the trust in bringing out a common ground to negotiate.
Second, the report concludes by weighing on the actions of the Taliban since the US-Taliban deal and charts out the possibility of fruitful intra-Afghan talks. Truly, there is an ambiguity surrounding, Taliban’s intention in the wake of continuous attacks in the region. However, little is lost, in making an attempt to test the Taliban’s potential to negotiate. It also suggests that the rapprochement with a common goal is vital to bring stability in the country.
Third, the central argument in the report solely revolves around the Taliban’s position but is less focused on how the Taliban will function in a power-sharing model within the existing structure, social norms, and institutions of Afghanistan.
Last, even if the Taliban leadership successfully negotiates with the Afghan government, the hardline factions in the Taliban may disagree and defect to other extremists’ groups.
Though the report highlights the need for patience in making the deal a success, with the rising attacks on Afghan security forces, it is likely the government will step back from the negotiations.
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmark |
Sneha Surendran
Wildfires in Europe: Another year of devastation
Padmashree Anandhan
Return of the Heatwaves
Indrani Talukdar
Ukraine War and the International Order
Himani Pant
Germany-Russia Relations: What Next?
Ramya Balasubramanian
Russia and Europe: Understanding Moscow’s strategies
Lakshmi Parimala
Hybrid Warfare in Ukraine
Padmashree Anandhan
The War in Ukraine: Four Issues to watch in 2023
Harini Madhusudan, Rishika Yada, Sneha Surendran, Prerana P, Sreeja JS and Padmashree Anandhan
Russia: Anatomy of Wagner Revolt, and its Fallouts
Rishika Yadav | Research Assistant, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
Serbia: Mass shootings, protests and instability
Rishika Yadav and Nityashree RB | Research Assistant and Research Intern, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
Turkey’s Elections: Unravelling the Political Spectacle of 2023
Padmashree Anandhan | Research Associate National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
Belgorod drone attacks: Who, What and Why?
Indrani Talukdar
Russia's Position in the Arctic: New challenges
Rishika Yadav
Turkey’s Election: Issues, Actors and Outcomes
Padmashree Anandhan
Pentagon document leak: Russia-Ukraine Conflict From a Tactical Lens
Indrani Talukdar
Belarus’s endgame in Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Padmashree Anandhan
Russia: Drone attacks escalate the Ukraine war
Padmashree Anandhan
The UK: Conservative party put to test as worker strikes continue
Harini Madhusudan, Rishma Banerjee, Padmashree Anandhan, Ashwin Immanuel Dhanabalan, and Avishka Ashok
What next for Russia, Ukraine, Europe, South Asia & India, and China
Padmashree Anandhan and Rishma Banerjee
UNGA 77: Who said what from Europe?
Rashmi Ramesh
Ice Melt in Alps in Europe: Three impacts
Rishma Banerjee
Tracing Europe's droughts
Padmashree Anandhan
Major causes behind Europe’s continuing heatwaves
Emmanuel Selva Royan
100 days of the Ukraine war: US Responses in the war
Padmashree Anandhan
100 days of the Ukraine war: What next for Europe?
Ashwin Immanuel Dhanabalan
100 days of the Ukraine war: More loss than gain for Russia
Angelin Archana | Assistant Professor, Women’s Christian College, Chennai
China's response to the Ukraine crisis: Shaped by its relationship with Russia and EU under the US Shadow
Shreya Upadhyay | Assistant Professor, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
Transatlantic Ties in the Wake of Ukraine-Russia War
Uma Purushothaman | Assistant Professor, Central University of Kerala, Kerala
Ukraine and beyond: The US Strategies towards Russia
Debangana Chatterjee | Assistant Professor, JAIN (Deemed-to-be University), Bangalore
Lessons from Ukraine War: Effectiveness of Sanctions
Himani Pant | Research Fellow, ICWA, Delhi
Ukraine and beyond: What next for Russia and Europe?
Sourina Bej
Elections in Sweden
Padmashree Anandhan
Italy's far-right wins 2022 elections
Padmashree Anandhan
Putin’s address in the Valdai Discussion: Six takeaways
Padmashree Anandhan
Queen Elizabeth: End of an era
Padmashree Anandhan
Russia and Eastern Economic Forum 2022: A sturdy Far East
Padmashree Anandhan
Who will be the next UK prime minister: Liss Truss v. Rishi Sunak
Padmashree Anandhan
France: Uber files leak, and Macron’s trouble
Emmanuel Selva Royan
Italy: Three factors about its current political instability
Padmashree Anandhan
What does Macron's victory mean for France and the EU
Rishma Banerjee
The rise of Marine Le Pen
Sourina Bej
Four challenges ahead for President Macron
Ashwin Immanuel Dhanabalan
Lecture report: Ukraine, Russia and Europe
Joeana Cera Matthews
Into History: Northern Ireland and Bloody Sunday, 50 years later
Padmashree Anandhan
Munich Security Report: Six takeaways
Joeana Cera Matthews
Europe and Africa: An elusive search for an equal partnership
Ashwin Immanuel Dhanabalan
Femicides in Europe: The case of France
Padmashree Anandhan
Post Brexit: Three challenges in Northern Ireland
Ashwin Immanuel Dhanabalan
Lithuania and China: Vilnius has become Beijing’s Achilles heel. Four reasons why
Angelin Archana
Russia in 2021: Expanding boundaries
Joeana Cera Matthews
In Europe, abortion rights are "a privilege." Four reasons why
Padmashree Anandhan
Mapping COVID-19 protests in Europe: Who and Why
Vaishnavi Iyer
France, Algeria, and the politics over an apology
Joeana Cera Matthews
NATO-Russia relationship: Looking beyond the suspensions and expulsions
Padmashree Anandhan
Facebook's Metaverse: Why it matters to Europe
Joeana Cera Matthews
Poland, EU and PolExit. It is complicated, for three reasons
Harini Madhusudhan
Europe's Energy Crisis and Gazprom
Chetna Vinay Bhora
Europe's Energy Crisis: It could get worse. Five reasons why
Sourina Bej
France: Paris Terror Trial
Harini Madhusudan
Belarus: Weaponization of the Migrant Crisis
Joeana Cera Matthews
From Crimea to Navalny: Putin's calibrated Europe strategy
Joeana Cera Matthews
Nord Stream-2: Why is the region unhappy about the pipeline?
Sarthak Jain
Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s geopolitical victory
Keerthana Rajesh Nambiar
The EU Summit 2021: Five Takeaways
Chetna Vinay Bhora