SRI LANKA: RECOMMENDED CONFLICT RESPONSE MECHANISM

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 COLOMBO 001558

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR DCHA/OFDA ANTONIA FERRERA AND ROB THAYER,
DCHA/FFP, ANE/SA, SCA/INS AND PRM/ANE MELISSA PITOTTI;
BRUSSELS FOR USEU LERNER; ROME FOR FODAG; KATHMANDU FOR
OFDA WILLIAM BERGER; BANGKOK FOR OFDA TOM DOLAN; GENEVA FOR
UNOCHA AND IFRC NANCE KYLOH

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PTER
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: RECOMMENDED CONFLICT RESPONSE MECHANISM
FOR IDPS FACING HUMAN RIGHTS THREATS, POSSIBLE FORCED
REPATRIATION



1. Summary: During the last 20 years, Sri Lanka has been
home to significant populations of internally displaced
persons (IDPs),who have been especially vulnerable to
threats against their physical and psychological
wellbeing and livelihoods. Many of the 207,756 new
conflict IDPs in Sri Lanka are facing these same
vulnerabilities, especially lack of basic essential needs
for food, water and shelter, but also for information
about and protection of their human rights. Most
recently, incidents of involuntary repatriation of IDPs
has highlighted their vulnerabilities. In the context of
growing displacement and human rights abuses, an improved
mechanism for USG emergency assistance provision, namely
a rapid response umbrella grant mechanism, is proposed.
End summary.

HISTORIC VULNERABILITIES OF SRI LANKAN IDPS:
--------------


2. When the Cease Fire Agreement was signed in 2002,
after over 20 years of violence, UN agencies had
registered approximately 735,000 Internally Displaced
People (IDPs) throughout Sri Lanka. By 2006, this number
had dropped to around 317,000 since many had returned
home during the three-year cessation of hostilities. The
experience of these IDPs is instructive in understanding
the conditions current IDPs are facing and will continue
to face.


3. A short list of the protection and living concerns
that IDPs have faced during the last two decades in Sri
Lanka includes:--Unfulfilled requirements for basic
living needs such as food, water, and shelter;
--Compromised health due to poor living conditions and
limited or poor quality of health care;
--Loss of personal identification and documentation,
contributing to loss of legal status and civil rights;
--Disrupted or otherwise limited opportunities for
education of children;
--Increased social and physical risks against women due
to separation of families, lack of police protection in
welfare centers, and increased incidence of domestic
violence;
--Loss of livelihood opportunities due to displacement
from means of livelihood (tools, workplaces, seashore)
and presence in a new community as an outsider;
--Threats of forced recruitment of adults and youth by
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or its
breakaway Karuna faction;
--High rates of alcohol and substance abuse among the
unemployed male population;
--Sexual and gender-based violence and sexual
exploitation of vulnerable women and children; and
--Increased prevalence of psycho-social and psycho-
traumatic stress disorders.

CURRENT IDPS ACING SIMILAR VULNERABILITIES
--------------


4. From April to Septmber 2006, fighting on several
fronts in the North and East created a new wave of
population displacement. The UN High Commission for
Refugees (UNHCR) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL)
GIS & Statistics Unit's public report of September 12,
2006 indicates approximately 207,756 people were
displaced to locations within 11 administrative
districts. (Note: Some organizations have expressed
doubts about these figures, estimating that they may be
exaggerated by as much as 25%. End note.)


5. Concomitant with this displacement has been a
significant increase of human rights abuses, both against

COLOMBO 00001558 002 OF 004


IDPs and resident civilian populations. A major
international organization noted that the number of
incidents such as extrajudicial killings, beatings, and
disappearances during the months of January to August
2006 are more than double the total figures for 2005.
The most serious examples of these include a June 17
paramilitary unit attack with assault rifles and grenades
on civilians hiding in a church in Mannar, the August 4-5
attacks on civilians as they fled Muttur, the August 5
killings of 17 ACF aid workers in Muttur, the August 14
aerial bombardment of a children's institution in
Mullaitivu, the August 20 disappearance of a Catholic
priest in Jaffna, islands, attacks on civilians as they
fled Muttur, and the September 19 machete-inflicted
deaths of 11 Muslim workers in Ampara. Regarding these
events and others, many INGO and International
Organization (IO) representatives have expressed concerns
about a perceived attitude of impunity on the part of the
GSL and other parties to the conflict. They also assert
that no thorough investigations are taking place nor is
anyone being held accountable for abusive actions taken
in the field.


6. Red Cross, UN, and INGO sources report that recent IDP
populations currently face several vulnerabilities:
insufficient access to food, water and shelter; lack of
adequate information on security conditions and locations
where aid may be available; continued exposure to
conflict (i.e., some IDPs especially those in Jaffna,
remain trapped in high security zones with ongoing
fighting and shelling); need for replacement
identification documents including National Identity
Cards; threats from recruitment activities of either or
both the LTTE and Karuna factions; and ongoing war-
related psychological trauma, especially for children.
(Note: Sources for this report include ICRC, UNHCR, Mercy
Corps, Christian Children's Fund, Catholic Relief
Services, United Methodist Committee on Relief, and World
Vision - all organizations that have been active and
operational during recent IDP relief activities. End
Note.)


7. One prevalent dynamic of the current population
displacement is an underlying difference in
vulnerabilities based on ethnic lines. In the northern
and eastern areas currently affected by conflict, there
are three predominant ethnic groups: Tamils, Tamil-
speaking Muslims, and Sinhalese. All of the INGOs
interviewed for this report expressed views that there
have been discernable differences in the aid response for
each ethnic community, unofficially broken down as
follows: The Government of Sri Lanka has provided aid to
displaced Sinhalese groups almost exclusively. Muslim
IDPs have been provided aid primarily through their own
network of local Muslim NGOs, with some INGO support.
Tamil IDPs have often been out of reach of Government or
INGO aid as many have been displaced into LTTE-controlled
areas, or have taken refuge with relatives in various
parts of the country. The INGOs seem to agree that Tamil
IDPs have the greatest vulnerabilities, as they are
subject to abduction and recruitment from LTTE and Karuna
forces, and they are subject to suspicion and reprisals
from the predominantly Sinhalese government forces.

COERCED REPATRIATION OF MUTTUR IDPS
--------------


8. In June approximately 40,000 IDPs fled to the Muttur
area south of Trincomalee area to take refuge in the area
around Kantale, where services for food, water and
shelter were quickly organized (reftel Colombo 01293).
INGOs and UN Agencies providing aid to the Kantale IDPs

COLOMBO 00001558 003 OF 004


reported that most people were unwilling to quickly
return out of fear of ongoing violence and lack of
assistance in Muttur. During the week of September 6-11,
the GSL very quickly organized a convoy of 60 buses to
transport IDPs from the Kantale camps back to Muttur. UN
and INGO accounts of this action indicate that most IDPs
were compelled if not forced to get on the buses and
return. The coercion to depart Kantale included both
physical intimidation from armed forces as well as the
official stoppage of essential NGO services such as food
and water distribution in the camps.


9. On September 13, UN and INGO agencies conducted a
joint needs assessment in Muttur town and surrounding
environs. Informal reporting from this assessment
indicated that the Muttur returnees are facing these
challenges: many homes were damaged or destroyed by
fighting and shelling and there are requirements for
emergency or transitional shelter; there is a threat of
unexploded ordinances and possibly landmines in civilian
residential areas; threats remain from the spillover of
ongoing conflict in neighboring areas of Sampur and
Maavilaru; agricultural crops have been damaged by troop
and animal movements; essential services such as water,
electricity, policing, and schools have not resumed; the
returnees and especially children are suffering from
psychological fears and traumas from fighting, shelling
and their recent displacement; Tamil returnees are
particularly vulnerable to possible retributive attacks
and most report not feeling safe about returning to live
in Muttur Town.


10. At this point, currently no UN or INGO agencies are
operational or providing services in Muttur. Though this
will likely change soon, agencies express concerns about
anti-NGO sentiments and the security environment in the
wake of the killing of 17 local ACF workers and continued
fighting in neighboring areas. With Muttur, as in
general in the North and East, humanitarian agencies
continue to indicate that restricted access remains their
greatest challenge in responding to the needs of IDPs and
the recently returned population. These challenges are
greatest for agencies seeking to work in LTTE-controlled
areas, as well as for the Jaffna Peninsula which remains
isolated from land access, and is accessible by sea only
with special permission from each party to the conflict.

IDENTIFYING AN EFFECTIVE CONFLICT/IDP RESPONSE MECHANISM
-------------- --------------


11. The dramatic increase in incidents of population
displacement and localized episodes of human rights abuse
suggest the need for a robust response by the United
States Government. The episodic, geographically diverse,
and ethnically complicated nature of these incidents,
however, poses significant challenges to mounting an
effective and systematic humanitarian response. Many of
the agencies interviewed for this report were asked the
question, "How can the US be more effective in meeting
the needs of IDPs, returnees and at-risk civilian
populations?" With slight variations, almost all
agencies indicated the elements of what would be a
recommended effective response mechanism: capability for
rapid response to episodic conflict-related disruptions,
flexibility to quickly adjust programming within sector
areas or among geographic locations as required by
identified needs, and utilization of local field
knowledge, trust and access to IDPs and vulnerable
populations. In the words of one NGO representative,
there is a need for a mechanism that moves beyond "one
incident - one proposal."


COLOMBO 00001558 004 OF 004



12. Considering these recommendations, USAID Sri Lanka
envisions the development of an OFDA-funded conflict
emergency umbrella mechanism managed by a leading INGO.
This mechanism might be structured as follows: an INGO
with predominant relief and sub-grant capability,
experience with the Sri Lankan environment, and
established access in conflict areas would be selected
through an Annual Program Statement process. This INGO
would be awarded an estimated amount of 3-5 million USD
to establish a one-year umbrella response mechanism for
conflict response activities including needs assessments,
non-food-relief item distribution, emergency shelter,
water/sanitation, emergency primary health care,
protection activities, and psycho-social interventions.
The INGO grantee could respond on its own and also
support local NGOs to address service needs directly
through rapid in-country decision making. The INGO
grantee would liaise both with the OFDA Regional Advisor
and USAID Sri Lanka Mission Humanitarian Program Manager.

CONTINUING ADVOCACY WITH CONFLICT PARTIES
--------------


13. In addition to providing recommendations on enhancing
the US Government's response mechanisms, the interviewed
agencies expressed views that the United States and other
foreign missions and donor agencies continue advocacy
efforts to protect rights of civilians including IDPs, to
insist that armed forces make every effort to prevent or
limit civilian casualties, to insist the GOSL allow for
humanitarian corridors both for civilian populations to
escape conflict as well as for aid to reach the affected,
and that combatant parties respect the rights of IDPs to
make their own decisions on movement and return based on
their preferences and perceptions of their personal
safety.


14. Lastly, given reports indicating discrepancies and
variances in GSL assistance to communities according to
ethnicity, the INGOs recommend continued advocacy with
the GSL to provide aid and protection to all of its
citizens and victims of the conflict with impartiality
and regardless of ethnicity.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
--------------


15. USAID Sri Lanka requests USAID/OFDA to assess the
feasibility and funding capability to establish an
emergency conflict response mechanism as described above
in paragraph 11.


16. The Mission will continue to press the GSL on the
protection of the physical and human rights of civilians,
including conflict IDPs, on the impartial provision of
official assistance to all conflict-affected civilians in
Sri Lanka regardless of ethnicity, and on the
facilitation of humanitarian access and operational space
to UN, Red Cross, and INGO agencies to provide essential
humanitarian assistance to all populations in need.
BLAKE