Thursday 8 October 2009

Does Free Trade retard or advance the development in poor countries

Free trade and globalisation have become one of the debated issues or topics with reference to development especially that of poor countries. This essay takes into account free trade and the development of poor countries. It analyses some of the arguments in favour of and against free trade to conclude whether it helps to advance or retard the development of poor countries. It also gives some facts about the gap between rich and poor countries.
Globalisation according to Kaviraj (2004:140) refers to “the process of intensifying interdependence and emergence of networks of regular transaction between and across the borders of economies and states throughout the world”. Globalisation in this sense is the integration of states in terms of economy, politics, finance and others. Globalisation in this essay is considered with reference to trade and politics.
Free trade is the trade between two or more countries without any restrictions imposed by the governments or other regulators; thus the free movement of goods and services across national frontiers (O’Brien and Williams, 2007:139; Vander Weyer, 2005:24). It leads to the liberalisation of the markets of countries through the removal of tariffs, quotas and other form of barriers to allow the free flow of products beyond national frontiers.
The disparity between rich and poor countries today is very pathetic and there is the need to reduce this disparity. According to the World Bank (2000:232-33), the Gross National Income of poor countries was between US$500 and US$800 inclusive while that of the developed countries ranged from US$23,000 to US$34,260. Also, 2.1 billion people in poor countries live on less than US$2 and 880 million on less than US$1 a day (ibid, 2008:1) but this is different in developed countries like US and UK where most people can afford the basic necessities of life. Free trade is considered as one of the tools for development in poor countries (Bhagwati, 2004).
According to WTO (2002a; cited in Mackintosh, 2004:46 ), “The economic case for an open trading system based upon multilaterally agreed rules is simple enough, and rests largely upon commercial common sense… According to the principle of comparative advantage, countries A and B still stand to benefit from trading with each other even if A is better than B at making everything”.
The theoretical catalyst driving free trade has been the Comparative Advantage developed by David Ricardo in the 19th century. According to this theory countries engaged in free trade tend to benefit based on specialisation on production of the products they produce at the least cost. He, Bhagwati (2004) and other liberal political economist see free trade as a positive-sum and not a zero-sum outcome. Some of the benefits of free trade include increase in export and import as a result of the reduction in or removal of tariffs, increase in competition from abroad to the domestic market which will increase efficiency and cut cost thereby preventing domestic monopolies from charging high prices. It also brings about investment due to the importation of goods from other countries and this brings about revenue into the economy. In poorer countries, the only provider of public and merit goods like health care is the government which is the main political unit in a country. The government can translate this improvement in revenue into investment in these merit goods raising the level and access to healthcare, raising social standards. For countries to benefit from free trade there should therefore be rules and regulations governing how trade should be conducted. This is what the WTO claims to do;
“The world Trade Organisation (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters and importers conduct their business”. (WTO, 2002b; cited in Mackintosh, 2004: 69).
Majority of WTO’s members are from these poor countries according to the Doha Ministerial Declaration of 2001, which emphasizes how important the development of these poor countries is at the heart of the organisation. It seeks to ensure that these poor countries benefit from trade globalisation and secure a fair share of growth (WTO, 2001: para. 2 & 3). Poor countries remain poorer and this is due to the difficulties the governments of these countries face in exporting their products to the developed world. As Bhattacharjea ( 2004: 14-17) argues the promises of benefits to governments of poor countries by WTO for joining the organisation remain illusory due to the loopholes in the rules that govern it.
The World Bank (2008) prescribes the concentration of government efforts in the agricultural sector, which is a key area for development in poor or developing countries. The governments of these poor states whose economy are mostly agriculturally based will be able to developed properly if they have equal access to the markets of the developed countries by exporting their agricultural goods which they possess comparative advantage. However, negotiations with reference to agricultural trade liberalisation have mostly ended up with no agreement but disappointments on the side of these poor countries. Agriculture trade liberalisation was a pivotal among the former countries during the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference but no positive outcome was reached as the conference ended without their concern being addressed. As argued by O’Brien and Williams (2007:161) “The failure to make significant progress on the talks reflects both the continued weakness of developing countries and the veto power possessed by the EU and the United States in trade negotiations”.
Liberia had a GDP share of 76.9% in agriculture as at 2006 (O’Brien and Williams, 2007: 162) and if she is unable to have access to the markets of the rich countries, how would she develop based on its comparative advantage? As argued by Chang (2008:75) the “West” “tends to disproportionately protect products that poor countries exports, especially garments and textiles”.
Free trade retards the development of poor countries since they lack the necessary technological know-how and skills to compete with the developed world. Poor countries may be endowed with lot of natural resources and to benefit from them there is the need to add much value to these goods. Adding value to these resources promote them from their raw state to finished or semi-finished goods which will attract more capital than when they are exported in their natural states. Governments of poor countries judging from factor endowment theory may have a lot of land enriched with lot of natural resources and as a result should engage in the exportation of these natural resources where they have comparative advantage. Poor countries based on their level in terms of industrial and technological development are not equipped to enable them compete with the developed countries to benefit from free trade. Free trade like any other competition, favours the rich over the poor and the strong over the weak (Shaikh, 2005:43). This is due to the advancement and industrialised nature of the rich countries. For poor countries to enjoy the economies of scale in free trade, they should not be exposed to fierce competitive international market in their early stage of development but be allowed to develop their industries and technology. As argued by Chang (2008:66), ‘they need time to improve their capabilities by mastering advanced technologies and building effective organizations’.
Even the developed countries like UK, US and China were protective during the early stages of their development. They protected their manufacturing industries and other products that they had comparative advantage from external competition till they were well developed to compete with the external market.
According to Chang (2002:2), “the developed countries did not get where they are now through the policies and the institutions that they recommend to developing countries today. Most of them actively used ‘bad’ trade and industrial policies, such as infant industry protection and export subsidies – practices that these days are frowned upon, if not actively banned, by the WTO (World Trade Organisation)”
Liberia’s 76.9% GDP in agriculture would benefit Liberia if raw materials from this sector are transformed into finished products by industries in the country to be exported to gain more profit than they will gain in their raw state. This can be achieved when factories are shielded from fierce competition for sometime as was done in the case of the UK and the US.
Ivory Coast suffered massively from free trade when she clinched to it at its development stage in 1986 where her chemical, textile, shoe and automobile industries virtually collapsed due to the 40% tariff cuts. Unemployment rate in Zimbabwe in 1990 also increased from 10% to 20% as a result of trade liberalisation (Chang, 2008: 62).
In concluding, it can be argued from the above that free trade can help to advance poor countries development but not in their early stages of growth where they should be shielded from fierce competition. They should be left to compete when they are strong enough and at this stage also the rich should open up to them so that they can benefit from the benefits of free trade.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Bhattacharjea, A. (2004) ‘Playing by the Rules? Developing Countries in the World Trade Regime’, in Bromley, S., Mackintosh, M., Brown, W., and Wuyts, M. (ed.) A world of Whose Making? Making the International: Economic Interdependence and Political Order. London: Pluto Press, pp. 11-31

 Bhagwati, J. (2004) In Defense of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press

 Chang, H.-J. (2002) Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, London: Anthem Press

 (2008) Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

 Kaviraj. S (2004) ‘The Politics of Liberalization in India’, in Bromley, S., Mackintosh, M., Brown, W., and Wuyts, M. (ed.) A world of Whose Making? Making the International: Economic Interdependence and Political Order. London: Pluto Press, pp.131-171

 Mackintosh, M. (2004) ‘Gaining from Trade?’, in Bromley, S., Mackintosh, M., Brown, W., and Wuyts, M. (ed.) A world of Whose Making? Making the International: Economic Interdependence and Political Order. London: Pluto Press, pp. 33-71

 O’Brien, R. and Williams, M. (eds.) (2007) Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

 Shaikh, A. (2005) ‘The Economic Mythology of Neoliberalism’, in Saad-Filho, A. and Johnston, D. (ed.) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press, pp. 41-49

 Vander Weyer, M. (2005) ‘Can Free Trade Be Fair Trade?’ New Statesman (London, England: 1996), V. 134, pp. 22-25. WilsonWeb [Online]. Available at: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com (Accessed: 10 February 2009).

 World Bank (2000) World Development Indicators 2000. Washington D.C: World Bank [Online] Available at http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2000/index.htm (Accessed: 26 March 2009)

 (2008) World Development Report: Agriculture for Development. [Online]. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087-1192111580172/WDROver2008-ENG.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2009)

 World Trade Organisation (2001) Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration. [Online]. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.pdf (Accessed: 18 March 2009)

Impact of Trade Policies on Tanzania

This is a write up on the impact of trade policy on Tanzania which is part of a group case study on the country about the impact of trade, investment and debt policies. The findings of the study with reference to trade policies on the country were that the country has improved a lot in terms of development and reduction in poverty. Secondly, the current recession did not by pass the country as it has had a knock-on-effect on trade especially on textile and garment trade with the outside world. It reflects the argument that free trade enhances development but too much openness does not help developing economies.

Tanzania was formed through the 1964 merger between Tanganyika and Zanzibar both of which were colonies of Britain and had their independence in 1961 and 1963 respectively. The country‘s economy is highly dependent on the agriculture sector where eighty percent of the population depends and contributes about 50% to GDP and 70% of earnings from merchandise exports (Ngasongwa, 2003: 4; C.I.A, 2009; Levin and Ohlin, 2008). The researcher found out that most of the country’s export were and are still from the agriculture sector which includes cotton, tea, coffee, tobacco, cashew nuts and other processed and unprocessed agriculture products. Tanzania’s main trading and export partners as at 2007 are UAE 4.9%, Germany 6.5%, India - 9.7% and China - 10.3% (C.I.A, 2009).
Since independence in 1964, Tanzania has pursued a number of trade policies including the famous Arusha Declaration in 1967 by the first president Julius Nyerere (BBC, 2009), and the Structural Adjustment Programme in 1986. The “Policy of Confinement” was adopted in 1972 as one of the cornerstones for implementing the Arusha Declaration. This policy as the name suggests nationalised and protected Tanzania’s trade from the international market through direct government intervention in the form of administrative resource, price controls, import quotas, rationing and the use of permits. This policy by the beginning of the 1980s led to inefficient resource allocation and inability to mobilise adequate resources due to government intervention and controls. It resulted in lack of competition in the financial system and the collapse of the credit system due to the emergence of inefficient payment system. As a result of the nationalisation of foreign and domestic trade, investments and assets there was a decline in private sector activity and Foreign Direct Investment (Ngasongwa, 2003: 5-6).

Globalisation goes with free trade and a country which closes its market finds it difficult to develop since there is no market to compete with the domestic market which can result in cheap price of goods and services. Tanzania realised the need for an open market and embarked on market liberalisation with the initial trade policy in the form of informal trade liberalisation measures starting in 1984 and based on import liberalisation and liberalisation of exchange controls (ibid)
The latest trade policy of the country is the National Trade Policy (NTP), 2003 which forms part of Tanzania’s Vision 2025 agenda aimed at helping the country to become a middle income earner. The aim of the NTB as stated by the Minister of Trade is ‘to facilitate smooth integration into the Multilateral Trading System and roll back the gradual descent towards marginalisation. It is intended to ensure that liberalisation offers meaningful, identifiable and measurable benefits’ (Ngasongwa, 2003: i). The private sector is considered as important in the NTP as it is seen as the lead implementer, the economic agent responsible for the production of goods and services that will enable Tanzania to take its rightful place in the global market. For the country to benefit from free trade, as argued by Chang (2002; 2008), domestic market should be competitive to compete with the goods and services from the global market. Tanzania like any other developing country faces the problem of advance technology to process the many agricultural products to meet international standard to enjoy the economies of scales associated with them. The main challenge faced by Tanzania according to Ngasongwa (2003: 3) ‘is how to enhance the competiveness of the domestic firms and entrepreneurs’.
Tanzania has been progressing steadily towards political stability and strong economic trade growth. Successful macroeconomic stabilisation and the implementation of a broad range of structural reforms have resulted in steady acceleration in economic growth during the past decade. The impact of trade policies on Tanzania includes the following:

I. The country has been generating about 6% GDP growth on average since 2000 and sectoral growth rate has accelerated across the board during the past decades
II. Agriculture is still the most important sector with an average growth of 4.9% during the last five years.
III. Rapid expansion has also been seen in the mining and construction sectors from 10.9% between 1991-1995 to 15.7% between 2001-2006 for mining (Levin and Ohlin, 2008: 7)
IV. In 2008 an estimated $2.49 billion was realised from export trade (C.I. A, 2009). About half of this profit came from the agricultural exports or trade where most of the citizens obtain their “daily bread” and this may also mean an improvement in the living standard of people.
V. The NTP, 2003 also liberalised the Tanzanian domestic market opening it to investment and as a result creating employment since FDI’s are welcome to operate in the country due to the removal or reduction of government intervention and others (Levin and Ohlin, 2008).
Trade policies have had negative effect on the country as well, especially the NTB which has brought about greater liberalisation and this was greatly felt in the current recession. One of the affected areas includes the textile and garment manufacturing industries. Sunflag a textile manufacturing company has reduced the number of days and hours of workers and has even laid some off. There has been a fall in its recruitment since the volume of garment production has fallen by 30% due to the reluctance of buyers from US and Europe to buy (Young, 2009).
The country should not be too much open to the global market as this is one of its weakness caused by its inability to compete strongly with international competitors. As argued by Chang (2008:66), ‘they need time to improve their capabilities by mastering advanced technologies and building effective organizations’.
To end the researcher suggests Tanzania should concentrate not only on the agriculture sector but improve on its performance in other sectors of trade to benefit the country and not to limit it to just one sector.












BIBLIOGRAPHY
 British Broadcasting Corporation (2009) Country Profile: Tanzania. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1072330.stm (Accessed: 16 May 2009)

 Central Intelligence Academy (2009) Tanzania. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html (Accessed: 16 May 2009)

 Chang, H.-J. (2002) Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, London: Anthem Press

 (2008) Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

 Levin, J. and Ohlin, M. (2008) Trade Policies and Export Growth: Employment and Poverty Impact in Tanzania. Stockholm: SIDA Publication Inc.

 Ngasongwa, J.A (2003) National Trade Policy: Trade Policy for a Competitive Economy and Export-Led Growth. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Industry and Trade

 Young, R. (2009) Tanzania’s Textile Trade Unravels. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7935273.stm (Accessed: 16 April 2009)

The Conflict in North-Eastern Sri Lanka (Vanni)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is a briefing report on the on-going conflict in Sri Lanka, which has been going on for more than twenty-five years between the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE). The conflict has claimed thousands of lives and resulted in lot of civilian casualties which has led to the creation of Internally Displaced People (IDP’s). Both government and the LTTE have been accused of human rights violation since their continuous engagement has resulted in many atrocities meted on the innocent civilian population in the affected areas and regions. The LTTE is accused of using civilians as human shields and terrorist tactics in their controlled territories.
This report looks at the on-going conflict in the Vanni Region taking into account the root or background, nature and effects of the conflict. Much is reported on the violations of civilian rights which should be protected during internal armed conflict as enshrined in the 1949 Geneva Convention and its 1977 Additional Protocol especially common Article 3. The activities of the LTTE, described as terrorist acts and its use of terrorism are discussed in the briefing as well as the abuses carried out by the government forces in the enclave area. The Vanni Region where the government has declared “a no-fire zone o safe zone” comprises parts of the districts of Kilinochchi (to the north), Mullaitivu (east), Mannar (west) and Vavuniya (south).
The finding of the report is civilians have become targets for both government and LTTE attacks as even government declared “no fire zones” are subjected to frequent attacks. It makes recommendation that the situation pertaining in Sri Lanka should be seriously considered by the international community to prevent it from developing into genocide and also culprits should be brought to book to face the rigours of law. The UN Security Council should put much pressure on both the Tamil Tigers and the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) to observe a cease fire to bring an end to gruesome and enormous killings in the country.

INTRODUCTION

After almost 450 years of colonial rule by various western powers Sri Lanka gained independence from Britain in 1948 and its former name Ceylon was changed to the current name (Spence, 1990:1; ICG, 2008). The country has been a destination for many tourists and also seen as one of South Asia’s potentially prosperous societies but the country since 1983 has been rocked by the fierce conflict between the GoSL and the LTTE which is fighting for a self-ruled Tamil State in the northern and eastern part of the country. This briefing focus on the on-going conflict in the north-eastern part of the country especially in the Vanni Region where more than 200,000 civilians have been trapped in the fatal confrontation between the LTTE and the GoSL (HRW, 2009: 5; AI, 2009). The on-going conflict between the above parties brings to light a lot of issues that arises with reference to contemporary conflict, which this briefing brings to the attention of the reader. Issues such as refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDP’s), Terrorism which the rebel or militant group LTTE is accused of due to the nature of its activities which targets civilians. Efforts have been made to bring the two parties to ‘smoke the peace pipe’ through signing of ceasefire agreements but to no avail. The GoSL withdrawn from the last truce which was signed in 2002 on 16 January 2008 and fighting between the parties have intensified since late December 2008 and the beginning of 2009 (ICG, 2008: 2). The intensification of the fighting between the government forces and the LTTE has led to civilians trapped in the north-eastern part of the country and those trying to escape from this part controlled by the rebels (LTTE) are fired at killing them. They have been used as human shields by the LTTE and the government is also accused of indiscriminate shelling of densely populated civilian areas.
The information for the briefing were gathered from diverse sources including reports by various international organisations such as Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and International Crisis Group (ICG), news from the government site (PRIU), and academic book. This methodology adopted helped in getting a fair idea of the happenings in the conflict due to the refusal of the government to allow human rights organisation and the media access to the area making information gathering difficult. And also since it is an on-going conflict much have not been written on it and as such the need to use websites dedicated to conflict issues.

BACKGROUND TO THE CONFLICT

The Sri Lankan conflict is believed to have its root in the marginalisation of the 18% Tamils by the 74% Sinhala majority after independence. Laws discriminating against the 18% Tamil and the 6% Muslims were passed including the 1956 Act, which made Sinhala the official language and the 1972 Constitution, which also gave Buddhism a ‘foremost place’ in state (ICG, 2008; Spencer, 1990: 2). The discriminatory policies were made during the time and rule of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which was a coalition of a number of Sinhala-dominated parties led by the charismatic leader S.W.R.D Bandaranaike. This created a lot of resentment among the Tamils who taught it wise to fight for their rights as citizens leading to many confrontations between the GoSL and different Tamil organisations or groups which emerged.
Various Tamil groups have emerged in Sri Lanka since 1956 fighting for a separate state administered by the Tamils; thus groups that are focused on the secession of the minority Tamil have emerged and have used various means to fight the government. Some of these groups include the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), whose main policy was the separatism and the formation of a new state of ‘Eelam’ and became the official opposition party after the 1977 elections (ibid). From the mid 1970s strong militant Tamil groups sprang up and embarked on atrocious and fatal campaigns aimed at the independence of the Tamil minority and the most threatening among them was the LTTE. The LTTE firstly embarked on a policy of terrorist attacks that targeted the representatives of the Sinhala-dominated government. These terrorist attacks included the use of suicide bombing, massacres, disappearances and kidnapping (Spencer, 1990:2-3).
Nissan and Stirrat (1990: 39), believes that the conflict has its roots in the processes, which was set in motion during the colonial era. The processes included; the unification of the island under British rule, the foreword of a unitary bureaucratic structure and appurtenances of the modern state.

TERRORISM, VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE LTTE

The Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE) intensified its attacks in 1983 after thousands of Tamils were killed in the rioting in the Sinhala-dominated south. The death of the thousand Tamils was as result of the killings of the thirteen soldiers in the northern town of Jaffna by militant Tamil group (Spencer, 1990: 2; ICG, 2008). Since then their attacks on government representatives shifted to attacks on civilians in the form of suicide bombings, massacres, kidnapping, forced recruitment of children as child soldiers all aimed at achieving their goal of an independent Tamil state (ICG, 2008: 2). The current conflict between the GoSL forces and the rebel group has reviewed many violations of the Laws of war and the use of terrorist mechanisms by the group. Their claim of protecting the Tamil minorities in the country has led to many violations of civilian human rights; thus the protector of rights has turned out to be the violator of these rights. Since they started their war with the GoSL aimed at acquiring an independent Tamil State the group activities have witnessed some gruesome and traumatic human rights violations. The north-eastern part of the country is occupied by the minority Tamils and as such should be properly guarded and protected by the LTTE who claim to fight for the independence of the Tamils. If this is the case, why are they using civilians (fellow Tamils) as human shields in their fight with the government forces resulting in the death and injuries of civilians? The LTTE according to a statement by Ambassador Claude Heller, President of the UN Security Council is “a terrorist organization and should be condemned for its use of civilian as a human shield. The LTTE should immediately lay down arms and renounce its terror tactics” (PRIU, 2009). Human Shielding arises when combatants deliberately use civilians to protect their positions from attack which is a war crime or violation of the laws of war and this is exactly what the LTTE is doing.
The activities of the LTTE violate protocol II of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Convention. Part II of Protocol II which, is related to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflict talks about ‘humane treatment’. It is against the taking of hostages, collective punishment, acts of terrorism, and pillage. It also frowns on violence to life, health, and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as rape, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment (UNHCHR, 2002). Civilians who are not supposed to be held as hostages during internal armed conflicts or any other conflict have been trapped in the Vanni Region and held as hostages by the LTTE violating Article 4(2c) of Protocol II. They are not just held as hostages by the group but are also used as human shields against the missiles, shells or artilleries from the government forces. Those who manage to escape are shot at by the LTTE rebels and this put fear into those trapped in the region. This is one of the mechanisms used by terrorist groups and the LTTE seen as a terrorist organisation by the international community such as the UN and EU is capitalising on this mechanism terrifying and putting fear into these innocent civilians.
The Civilians under the effective control of the LTTE have been deliberately prevented from fleeing to “safe zones” and this unnecessarily and unlawfully places their lives at grave risk. The LTTE fleeing from the recent upsurge and incursions by government forces retreated with these trapped civilians prolonging the danger they face (HRW, 2005: 5; AI, 2009). They are not only prolonging the danger faced by these civilians but are also moving them further away from desperately needed humanitarian assistance. The areas under the control of the LTTE is shrinking due to these offensive operations by government forces and this increases the risk of high casualties in the event of an attack as well as placing greater strains on the living conditions of the civilians. This is because the trapped civilian population have been concentrated in these small LTTE contracted areas. According to the IDPs who arrived in Vavuniya on February 9, the LTTE used this tactics when they were retreating in the Suthanthirapam area. They tried to push back civilians to prevent them from fleeing to the government side by opening fire on them injuring 17. In another development LTTE cadres fired on civilians crossing the frontline in Moongkilaaru injuring and killing an unknown number of civilians (HRW, 2009: 6-7).
The group has also embarked on forced recruitment of children under fifteen as child soldiers despite the many pledges to the UN and others not to do so (ICG, 2008: ii) to fight against the government forces, which also violates Article 4(3c) of protocol II (UNHCHR, 2002). They have been using children under the age of 18 and untrained together with other civilians who are forced to join them also untrained to combat the GoSL forces. It has since September 2008 forced a lot of children and civilians with no prior military training and experience to battle or to carry out supportive functions on the frontline against government forces (HRW, 2009: 9). In so doing these guiltless children are exposed to many things which tend to have adverse effects on them. In their new engagement as soldiers they are trained to kill and use heavy weapons and this put them into some trauma since they come face to face with death. Some of the activities performed by those on the frontline include digging of bunkers, collection of weapons from killed LTTE cadres and GoSL forces (ibid). The UNICEF has expressed its gravest concern about this situation through a statement by Mr. Philippe Duamelle (UNICEF Sri Lanka Representative). “We have clear indications that the LTTE has intensified forcible recruitment of civilians and that children as young as 14 years old are now being targeted. These children are facing immediate danger and their lives are at great risk. Their recruitment is intolerable” (UNICEF, 2009).
Combatants tend to fight or carry on to battle when they are obsessed with “false optimism”; thus when they exaggerate their chances of winning crises and conflicts, or even whey they underestimate the cost of conflict (Van Evera, 1999: 5,14-17). This is the situation that the LTTE now find itself as it thought it could overpower GoSL forces but has turned to be an illusion and even have lost their administrative, centre to the GoSL forces (HRW, 2009: 2)

VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW BY GOVERNMENT

During internal armed conflicts governments are envisaged to protect civilians from the atrocities that may come as a result of the conflict. In the case of the on-going Sri Lankan conflict the government has ‘soiled his hands’ with some of the gruesome activities or crimes of conflicts. These violations include shelling of densely populated areas occupied by trapped civilians, bombardments, detention of civilians who manage to escape areas of hostility to government “safety zones” and attacks on declared government “safety zones” and hospitals (AI, 2009). Instead of finding ways and means of protecting civilians from human rights abuses as prescribed by international law regarding conflicts, the government is defending itself of not attacking civilians but LTTE. It also holds the view that all persons subjected to attacks from the GoSL forces are legitimate LTTE targets since they have refused to flee to the “safety zones” (HRW, 2009: 19-20; AI, 2009). But how can these civilians flee to these zones if they are trapped by the LTTE. Below details some of the violations carried out by the government on the civilians.

Attacks on Hospitals: Hospitals in and around the conflict zones have not been left out from attacks by government forces as they have been either partly or wholly destroyed by bombardments. Hospitals in LTTE controlled areas have come under attack increasing the plight of the conflict affected civilians who seek medical attention from these hospitals. Hospitals that are partly hurt by the conflict lack medical personnel, equipments and medical supplies and their situation is made worse by the overcrowded civilian seeking medical attention (HRW, 2009:16).
Like other civilian objects that may not be targeted during conflicts, Hospitals are uniquely protected by international humanitarian laws. They remain secured and protected during conflict unless they are used to commit hostile acts. Government deliberate attacks on hospitals are therefore a crime against the laws governing conflicts. According HRW (2009: 18), between 15 December 2008 and 10 February 2009 government shelling and bombardments on and around nine hospitals have resulted in 55 deaths and 165 injuries including medical staff with Puthukkudiyiruppu (PTK) being the worst hit. This does not even reflect the correct figures and would be more since some of the casualties were not recorded, which can be ascribe to government restriction on the flow of information as stated earlier.

Indiscriminate Attacks: The GoSL force has been accused by international organisations such as AI, HRW and ICG of indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Concerns have been raised about the kind of artilleries used in carrying out these attacks which violates the laws of war. (AI, 2009; HRW, 2009: 11-13; ICG, 2008: 18) The forces are using multi-barrel rocket launchers. These weapons are used in populated areas and this makes it use indiscriminate. This is because “Multi-barrel rocket launchers cannot be targeted with sufficient precision to be accurate against military targets, and their broad effect makes their use incompatible with the laws of war in areas where civilians or civilian objects … are located”(HRW, 2009: 12). These indiscriminate attacks have resulted in the amputation of hands and legs of civilians, deaths and creation of a turmoil environment. These indiscriminate attacks and shelling by the GoSL forces does not only affect the civilian populations but also aid workers since they do not have access to these areas to administer the needed help to the affected civilians. They are in dire need of food, medicines, blankets but the continual attacks and shelling prevent these aid agencies from going to these areas. This can lead to an increase in preventable deaths caused by injuries sustained from these attacks.

Attacks on Safe Zones: The “safe zones” which was declared by the government on 21st February 2009 have also come under government shelling and attacks. The “safe zone” which was unilaterally declared by the GoSL forces between the Udayarkattu junction and Manjal Palaam also serve as food distribution centre for Local government agents and international organisations. This place should be pardon in the government quest to cramp down on the LTTE but it has come under constant attacks living behind many civilian casualties. According to a report by TamilNet (2009), government shelling into the “safety zones” killed 71 civilians and injured 143 civilians. The pathetic aspect of this attack on the “safety zones” was the injury sustained by a one month baby. Attack on “safety zones” violates laws of conflict and as such the government forces are seriously violating these laws.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The conflict in the Vanni region has reviewed worse human rights abuses and violations of human rights which call for the massive involvement of the international community to safeguard the deteriorated situation. There has been a total disregard for the laws governing internal armed conflict by both the LTTE and the GoSL forces, who are using humans as shield and shelling densely populated civilian areas resulting in casualties. The briefing has been able to identify some of the violations that are been carried out which are all contrary to the laws of war and as such appropriate measures should be taken to bring the conflict to a halt so that civilians can enjoy their fundamental human rights. To conclude the following recommendations have been made for the government, LTTE and the international community.

Government

I. The government should do everything within its powers to protect civilians from the effects of the conflict by restricting its military attacks to international law governing internal armed conflicts.
II. The government should allow humanitarian organisations access to areas where civilians are in dire need of humanitarian assistance such as food, water, medicine and blankets.
III. It should embark on full investigation into the conflict to investigate all the human rights abuses, disappearances and killings by both LTTE and GoSL forces
IV. The government should seek for new ways of ending the conflict instead of using prohibited weapons which infringes on the rights and liberties of civilians.

LTTE

I. The LTTE should refrain from stopping and shooting civilians fleeing from their controlled zones.
II. A stop should be put on the false recruitment of civilians and the use of children as soldiers battling government forces.
III. Civilians should not be used as human shields in their fight with the GoSL forces.
IV. The LTTE should allow humanitarian workers access to their controlled zones.



BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amnesty International (2009) Civilian Casualties Continue to Mount In Sri Lanka. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/civilian-casualties-continue-mount-sri-lanka-20090424 (Accessed: 27 April 2009)

Human Rights Watch (2009) War on the Displaced: Sri Lanka Army and LTTE Abuses against Civilians in Vanni. New York: HRW Publications; February 2009

International Crisis Group (2008) Sri Lanka’s Return to War: Limiting the Damage. Brussels: Crisis Group Media. (Asia Report No 146)

Nissan, E. and Stirrat, R.L (1990) ‘The Generation of Communal Identities’, in Spencer, J. (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict. London: Routledge, pp

PRIU (2009) Lay Down Arms, Renounce Terror – UN to LTTE. Available at: http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200904/20090423lay_down_arms_renounce_terror.htm (Accessed: 23 April 2009)

TamilNet (2009) SLA Intensifies Attacks on Safe Zone, 71 Civilians Killed, 143 Wounded. Available at: http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=28950 (Accessed: 5 April 2009)

UNHCR (2002) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/94.htm (Accessed: 20 February 2009)

UNICEF (2009) Sri Lanka: More Children Victims of the Conflict, Says UNICEF. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_48044.html (Accessed: 23 February 2009)

Van Evera, S. (1999) Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press