Liberal Perspectives on Eelam
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
Within the field of international relations, there are two time-honored schools of thought: liberalism and realism. Liberalism, which dominates the US foreign policy establishment and much of the post-Cold War era, is based on the understanding that various mechanisms and factors lead to a less competitive, less aggressive, more peaceful, and more cooperative world than those from the realist school. Liberals generally believe in several key theories that outline the overarching philosophy: namely, democratic peace theory, economic interdependence, and international institutionalism. While liberal philosophy certainly did not fulfill its promise during the genocide of Eelam and the War for Independence, there are several viable applications for this school of thought to the history and current situation of the nation.
Democratic peace theory, in essence, describes the relationship between democratic states as leading to more peaceful outcomes; famed professor Dr. John Mearsheimer has articulated the reason behind this as the increased level of trust and certainty that arises from democracies. While this theory has demonstrable merits and empirical data supporting it, it has been subjected to malfeasance by the US foreign-policy establishment and other entities in attempts to impose democracy on countries that have no interest in changing governance structures. Several invasions and interventions in recent history—including George Bush’s fiasco in Iraq—have proved that this is, at a minimum, a circumspect use of the theory. However, the US and Western insistence on promoting and spreading democracy to the rest of the world certainly plays in favor of Eelam. By recognizing that Eelam has sought to become a democratic country and was declared independent by the general election of 1977 that ratified the Vaddukoddai Resolution, the country is in a strong position to negotiate for its shared philosophical interests with major powers in the world. Additionally, the façade and distortion of democratic norms within the current state of Sri Lanka further this position.
In a similar manner, the theory of economic interdependence is commonly discussed in international relations as a mechanism that prevents conflict; when states have economic interests and trade relations with other countries, any attack would be contrary to those benefits that accrue. Mearsheimer has pointed out that economic interdependence is based on prosperity, while realism has survival as its central value. By articulating this, Mearsheimer has revealed that economic interdependence would not be the core rationale preventing war, but rather an important factor that affects the likelihood of war occurring. Arguably the most common application of this theory within international relations relates to the US and China. While some argue that security competition between the US and China is inevitable, as Mearsheimer does, others believe that the nature of shared economic prosperity would either eliminate or lessen the possibility. Regardless, both schools of thought emphasize the utility of allies, and alliances are bolstered through economic intercourse.
How does this relate to Eelam? During the conflict and even to this day, Eelam remains an impoverished, isolated, and underdeveloped country; furthermore, the strength of the diaspora during the conflict is not comparable to the current power that the global population now wields. By increasing economic intercourse within the homeland and utilizing the diaspora’s power to build stronger relationships within the countries where they reside, the likelihood of Eelam facing further conflict decreases and the chances of survival increase. Increased trade and economic interdependence will increase the strength of each alliance and potential alliance.
Lastly, the theory of international institutionalism posits that the existence of organizations like the United Nations, the International Courts, global nonprofits, and other institutions decreases the likelihood of conflict, leading to greater levels of peace worldwide. While there are many criticisms of international institutions—including the threat to national sovereignty that globalism poses—their ability to affect the likelihood of war is clear. In part, the threat of punishment for violating international laws and human rights has visibly increased since the introduction of international institutions like the United Nations in 1945, which formed after the atrocities of World War II and the Holocaust. Similarly, the depravity of these atrocities created a worldwide shift surrounding human rights and the rules of war.
As described by the brilliant Soviet dissident and author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “the Nuremberg Trials have to be regarded as one of the special achievements of the twentieth century: they killed the very idea of evil, though they killed very few of the people who had been infected with it.” Building upon Solzhenitsyn’s statement about the historic trials that punished the remaining Nazi leadership, Dr. Jordan Peterson adds, “The conclusion of those trials? There are some actions that are so intrinsically terrible that they run counter to the proper nature of human being. This is true essentially, cross-culturally—across time and place. These are evil actions. No excuses are available for engaging in them.” It was during these trials that the concept of ‘genocide’ was first utilized after being coined by the Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944. While international institutions are far from perfect in their implementation and oversight of protocols to prevent such crimes, the global recognition of the horrors and the creation of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide demonstrate their merit. The verdict reached by the World Court in finding the former Serb leaders guilty of genocide against the Bosnian people showcases that international institutions are capable of punishing grave violations of law and conscience.
Within Eelam, international institutions have both served as the greatest enemy and friend. Institutions like the United Nations allowed the mass slaughter of innocent civilians and the denial of fundamental rights to Tamils; however, the framework of these institutions has allowed for the recognition of crimes, the potential to punish the Government of Sri Lanka for these crimes, the potential to defend the actions and armed resistance with international laws, and the potential for an independent state to be formed based on the right to self-determination. While these entities cannot guarantee the survival and freedom of Eelam, their power cannot be underestimated in promoting a better future for the nation. By drawing upon this theory and the accompanying theories of the liberal school, the citizenry and its leaders will be best equipped to deal with the complex world of international politics.