2006 is the year: Sri Lanka, LTTE and the oil alliance

In this year, the IV Eelam War broke out. After the attempt of the Peace Talks from 2001 to 2005, both parties strove to resume hostilities. Many reasons have been added for the failure of the peace process. For the LTTE and especially its leader, Prabhakaran, the agreement was to far away from full independence. Of course that target was impossible to reach through negotiations, therefore only the military way was open for that purpose. On the other side the Sri Lankan government had promised even too much in the eyes of its more nationalistic constituency. Therefore in 2006 everybody was keen to start again the war.

Erik Solheim and Velupillai Prabhakaran
Photo nation.lk

The biggest loser was Norway. The Nordic country in fact dedicated a lot of efforts to find a deal. If you consider that from 2001 TGS-Nopec, a company specialized in seismic survey for oil exploration, was showing enthusiastic reports about the possibility to find petroleum reserves, you may guess that the government in Oslo had some undisclosed interests. If you add that the special envoy, Mr Erik Solheim, just on the brink of the Peace Talks ending was nominated Minister for International Development¹, with specific interest in the oil sector, for the Norwegian initiative “Oil for development”,Norad², (see Solheim’s activity in Ghana³, Sudan⁴, Angola⁵).

 But Norway is not the only country in the world searching for opportunities in the oil sector. China and India in the same period were involved in a tough race to secure contracts for natural resources

Union Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar with the President of China National Petroleum Corporation, Chen Geng in Beijing on January 13.

around the world. The competition was so strong, that their bidding war was driving prices up everywhere. Thus the two Asian giants decided to form an alliance. “The agreement aimed at preventing the two nations competition for oil assets pushing up prices, symbolises their increasingly assertive role in global energy politics” (source: Financial Time).⁶

 One of the first country to test this alliance, was precisely Sri Lanka. President Rajapaksa, soon after he received information about the possible presence of oil in the Mannar Basin, decided to get rid of Norway and offered India and China one block each ⁷⁸.

We are far from saying that the Peace Talks were interrupted for the oil discovery; we are also not affirming that the IV Eelam War was oil-driven and that the India and China support of Sri Lanka was motivated purely by the natural resource deal.

We can see a series of coincidences and we argue that oil played a role in Sri Lanka, maybe only a secondary one, but not completely marginal. Norway is our first indicator; the Nordic country didn’t though it could provide more transparency on its conduct, but had clearly a vested interest in the peace process in relation to the oil reserve. China and India had additional reasons to back

Anti-lankan protest led by politician and activist Vaiko in Tamil Nadu.
Photo onlanka.com

Colombo, but it was a clever and opportune gift from Rajapaksa to offer natural resources in exchange of their help. In particular it could have represent the convincing point for New Delhi, to intervene without hesitation. India has oil operations on its side of the Strait, and the idea of leaving oil reserve in the hands of the LTTE or China alone could have been the decisive argument to make move. The energy sector is more vital and strategic for India that any other alliance of convenience between China and Sri Lanka.

If you think that oil doesn’t play any role in conflicts around the globe, then you can ignore our thesis. On the other hand, if you assume that natural resources are too important in contemporary geopolitical scenarios, and so are always involved, maybe to different extent, you may be tempted to spend more time on this hypothesis.

 

 

1http://www.regjeringen.no/en/the-government/previous-governments/the-structure-of-the-registry/governments/modern-times/governments-since-1945/jens-stoltenbergs-second-government.html?id=449424

2 http://www.norad.no/en/about-norad

3http://www.dailyguideghana.com/?p=14300

4http://www.norway-sudan.org/News_and_events/Development-Cooperation/Minister-Erik-Solheim-leaves-office-/

5http://www.chathamhouse.org/media/comment/view/179785

6http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/25b30866-83a4-11da-9017-0000779e2340.html#axzz2GKs3EEjO

7http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-12-21/international-business/27952014_1_exploration-blocks-oil-and-gas-cauvery-basin

8http://www.sundaytimes.lk/090920/FinancialTimes/ft08.html

International community and an independent Tamil Eelam

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, premier of TGTE, the Tamil government in exile

The premier of the Tamil government in exile, Mr. Visuvanathan Rudrakuman, wrote in his greetings for new year about his aspirations for 2013¹. My impression is that the Tamil people has never been so far away from independence. He disagrees and I suppose he’s so desperate that needs to show some ungrounded optimism.

He states that an independent Tamil Eelam is compatible with the interests of international states, Sri Lanka included. It is not my intention to dismiss light-heartedly his thoughts, but it is important to understand if he’s talking seriously, if he believes genuinely in what he says. In this case, the Tamil leadership is lost.

At present, it is interest of nobody an independent Tamil Eelam and if you don’t get this, you are doomed to perpetuate the same mistake on and on.

Black Tigers, the LTTE battalion for suicidal operations.

The LTTE was outlaw organization; right or wrong, everybody decided to labelled so. We can discuss about rehabilitation of its memory or why it was sanctioned. But reality states that it was considered a criminal outfit. If you don’t want to spend time in understanding this, you’ll always find everybody on the other side. It is worthy remember that in 2009 China, India, USA and the rest of the European states were against the LTTE. Right or wrong, that was the situation.

Mr. Visuvanathan Rudrakuman says that it is interest of India to support independence. Now, even if you a politician, you should pay more attention to your optimism. It is very well known that India strongly opposes any secession in the region. Its own unity is at stake and New Delhi will never back any centrifugal movement. Separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh could look so remote as secession of Tamil Nadu, but it is clear that the Indian unity is fragile. For this reason, they will never let the Tamils go in Sri Lanka. Further on, they have no particular reason of friendship with the Tamils: the narrative that they are brethren stands as long as you are Tamil. The rest of the India doesn’t feel any particular closeness with them than with Sinhalese. India is a multi-ethnic country. Sinhalese are originary from Orissa. In the eyes of New Delhi Sinhalese and Tamils are equally distant from their heart. I repeat: for India there is not a single reason to support independence in Sri Lanka.

The USA are engaged in a tough struggle of power with China. Sri Lanka is dividing its attention between New Delhi and Beijing. Clearly the USA will back any Indian resolution with regards of Sri Lanka, because on the other hand they would help China. India is firmly against independence. Would the USA pursue a strategy that is reinforcing Beijing? So on which grounds it is in American interests to support the secession of Tamil Eelam?

The UK, in recent meetings (Queen’s jubilee, the Olympics), welcomed president Rajapaksa as a respectable head of state. It is recurrent the theme of “British economic interests” in Sri Lanka.

France recently approved the killing of a former LTTE leader (Parithi) on its soil.

Norway support of the LTTE cause was mainly oil driven. With the defeat of the Tigers, their edgei in the deal disappeared; they don’t have any other interest in the Tamil nationalism. So what is exactly the European interest in the Tamil Eelam secession?

Celebration in Sri Lanka for the end of the War.
Courtesy JDS

Finally, where is the convenience of the Sinhalese ? Tamil oppression dates back since independence. In 2009 they finally managed to crash the armed struggle. The TGTE forgets that. You need to rebuild a negotiating position and the Tamil one is weak now.

The war crimes and atrocities are not an excuse. Justice must be brought with or without Tamil Eelam.

If you put on the table the genocide as a compensation for the defeat, you are badly wrong. The Sinhalese don’t have any reason to accept this deal. They won.

 

1http://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/two-state-solution-eminently-compatible-with-interests-of-tamil-and-sinhala-people/

The Trajectory of Norwegian peace-building:Sri Lanka, LTTE and the job experience of Mr. Solheim

LTTE chief negotiator S. P. Tamilselvan,Sri Lanka Government chief representative Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva and Norway’s International Development Minister Erik Solheim.
Photo/AsianTribune

In 2001 Norway brokered a truce between the Sri Lankan government and the separatist army of LTTE. The mission of the Nordic country is to negotiate with the parties. In an interview with BBC, the Norwegian envoy Mr Solheim justified the efforts of his country out of pure compassion: “Security policy for the 21^st century: if you want a peaceful Norway, you need a peaceful world.” A a safer place for our children.¹

Praiseworthy.

It is our evil nature to investigate the good deeds and we discover a coincidence: the very same year a Norwegian company, TGS-Nopec started seismic survey in the Mannar Basin in search of oil. From 2001 to 2006, the company amassed very promising data. The press release are nothing less than enthusiastic.

LTTE’s leader Prabhakaran with Norway’s envoy Mr Solheim.
Photo/Tamilnet

We don’t want to draw unnecessary conclusions. In scientific thinking you need to be very careful of two facts happening in the same time. Imposing causality or correlation could be in the eyes of the beholder. We see a strong effort by Norway to support the independence claim of a group of rebels. It is important to distinguish between LTTE and Tamil nationalism. The legitimacy of Tamil independence is not the subject. The debate concerns the fairness of giving such support to an organization that committed many heinous crimes. The Sri Lankan state is equally responsible of atrocities, with aggravating circumstances of being a governmental entity. The point is that Norway made a bold decision.

At the same time it is important to recall that Norway is a powerhouse in offshore drilling, with a first class expertise in the field. The Mannar Basin in Sri Lanka presents matchable conditions.

The peace process run in parallel with the oil exploration. And when the peace talks collapsed, so did the survey campaign.

Erik Solheim with workers of the oil sector

Erik Solheim, the man sent by Norway to negotiate the peace, was first a special envoy. In 2005 he was promoted Minister for International Development, with responsibility of leading the Oil for Development program, Norad². In this job he visited Ghana³ Sudan⁴, Angola⁵ with the clear purpose of consulting, advising, lobbying the oil sector for Norway. The Norwegian model of development is one of the most advanced, ethical and sustainable, so they are giving recommendations from a fair perspective. Yet, they are advising also on their own interest, to promote the Norwegian oil industry. This is the game of a governmental organization and it is neither good, nor bad. If your actions will cause harm, it will be negative. Positive otherwise.

Anti-Norway protest in Colombo.
Photo AP

The only anomaly in this series is the role of Sri Lanka: the Norwegian envoy is clearly working with an agenda driven by oil. But in Sri Lanka they allegedly acted as mere neutral observers with a only humanitarian purpose. I’m sure that Norway is advocating transparency and good practices in all the countries it is visiting in its oil for development programme. Therefore I’m sure that they welcome this insight about this activity,they forget to mention. An accidental omission. I consider this quite important for two reasons. First: was the role of Norway dispassionate? Were they working to bring peace amongst Sinhalese and Tamils or their priority was to get their hands on the oil? Their strategy to support the Tamil separatism was for the good of the Tamils or just to have a privileged partnership with a newly created state, which owned everything to them?

The second is that oil is a factor in Sri Lanka. Maybe it is only a secondary one. Yet nobody is discussing it. In the case of Norway, oil probably played a big part. Then it is our duty to investigate more about the connection of oil in the Mannar Basin with the IV Eelam War. Follow us and remember: you heard here for the first time.

1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-nkX22BQ20

2http://www.norad.no/en/about-norad

3http://www.dailyguideghana.com/?p=14300

4http://www.norway-sudan.org/News_and_events/Development-Cooperation/Minister-Erik-Solheim-leaves-office-/

5http://www.chathamhouse.org/media/comment/view/179785

Oil, Tigers and Sri Lanka: what everybody knew but never said

Oil presence in Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka there is oil. And it was an old and very well known fact. Petroleum exploration began in the ’60’s and after that especially the Soviets undertook several geological surveys from 1972 to 1975. After that a Canadian company acquired seismic data in 1984.

Then the war broke out, leaving everything dormant(source: the Minister of Petroleum Resource Development Secretariat, PRDS)¹.

In fact the areas interested are offshore the coast controlled by the LTTE; moreover the separatist group had an extraordinary navy force, agile, well-trained, with perfect knowledge of the surroundings. The so called Sea Tigers were a crucial element of the strategic survival: the supply line was coming through the sea; thus for the LTTE was a priority to maintain a capable navy, which indeed was able to face up the Sri Lankan one.

In the ’80s technology and low prices made it uninteresting to search for oil. But in the 2000s, technology improved immensely in the field, countries like Brazil or Norway became expert in working in such conditions. The thirst for natural resources driven by China sparked a global race to exploit even secondary fields. And price went up.

Seismic survey

Norway’s interest in particular focused on Sri Lanka; in fact they developed an expertise for those geological conditions. So it was nothing but natural that a Norwegian company begun to work in Sri Lanka. TGS-Nopec started started seismic survey in the Mannar Basin (source: PRDS²). In December 2001, the company delineated a “major, unexplored Jurassi-Creataceous continental rift basin. Large structures, thick turbidite sequences and numerous direct hydrocarbon indicators have encouraged TGS-Nopec and CPC to now propose to the industry a major Phase II program” (source: TGS Nopec press release)³.

From 2002 to 2005 the company continued to acquired data about the potential of the Mannar Basin(source: PRDS) ⁴.

Column and cartoon about the breach of contract with TGS-Nopec from Lankanewspaper

From the enthusiasm expressed in public we can argue that the company felt of being close to a major discovery. But suddenly on the 3^rd of March, 2006, President Rajapakse spread the voice he wanted to stop the collaboration with TGS Nopec⁵. This produced a very odd case: the government of Sri Lanka had given concession rights to the company, but it rushed so badly, that it was in breach of the contract. At the time many didn’t understand why Sri Lanka should pay to re-acquire rights on its own land⁶.

Opinions about the breach of contract with TGS-Nopec.
From http://www.nation.lk

It should have been the other way round. Instead the government of Sri Lanka agreed to pay 10.5 USD in compensation ⁷. In the 2001 agreement, TGS Nopec had the right to sell to third parties its data. Sri Lanka wanted to rescind the contract and accepted to pay the termination fee. It seemed like a very odd behavior, given the information available in public at the time. You can assume that Colombo was crazy in terminating a collaboration with a long-standing partner if they weren’t sure. Or you can assume that confidential information was more convincing that the public one. Later on oil was actually found. So either Sri Lanka had gambled and won. Or they knew it for sure since then. These events happened in 2006. If you have some interest in the Sri Lankan civil war, this year should ring a bell.

More to come, stay tuned.

1http://www.prds-srilanka.com/exploration/origins.faces

2http://www.prds-srilanka.com/exploration/origins.faces

3http://www.tgsnopec.com/Subpage.aspx?id=2404

4http://www.prds-srilanka.com/exploration/origins.faces

5http://www.island.lk/2006/04/19/opinion6.html

6http://sundaytimes.lk/061008/FinancialTimes/ft16.0.html

7http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=883096206

Natural resources and peace-building: Norway and Myanmar

Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi met US foreign secretary HIllary Clinton.
Courtesy Reuters/Cameron

In the last two years Myanmar embarked on a series of reforms that promise to bring democracy and to open up the country. The Burmese people are in desperate need of involvement from the international community, but it is very likely that the first who will come in Myanmar will be the usual suspects. The country is blessed with natural resources, from oil to gems, not to mention its strategic position. In fact China already built port facilities for what the US called “the String of Pearls”. So it is very important to monitor the way investors are coming in Myanmar. In this article¹ , civil society groups express their concern for the pace of development, too fast, with no attention for the humanitarian cost. Norway in particular is leading the way in funding peace-building in community affected area. The head of the Norwegian mission, Mr Petrie declared:

 

Charles Petrie, Head of MPSI in Myanmar.
Courtesy: UN Photo / JC McIlwaine

“The real concern [of activists and civil society groups] is the fact that the political process hasn’t started or has not been developed sufficiently far enough… On the part of government officials, there does seem to be a commitment to dialogue, but I think that some of the groups want a clearer idea of how that is going to proceed,”

According to Petrie, MPSI’s aim is to provide immediate support for the tentative ceasefires through humantiarian relief as well as building trust between the government and ethnic minority communities through development projects. MPSI is funding projects in Rakhine, Chin, Shan and Mon states.²

Petrie criticized severely the government in 2007 and was expelled. His words are an important warning. And everybody should listen, including Norway. Indeed as recently as a couple of weeks ago, Norwegian prime minister Stoltenberg, vowed to strength cooperation about energy, hydropower, oil and gas, fishery and communication³. This angle of the news came from the Chinese agency Xinhua. Other sources are of course highlighting the Norwegian effort in building peace and easing the tension amongst minorities.⁴

Norway’s Prime Minister Stoltenberg visits Burma’s President Thein Sein.
Courtesy Myanmar Government

The lesson is that Norway is coming to Myanmar with a real concern for human rights and a real interest in the country’s natural resources. It is a good way to bring attention for the humanitarian aspect when dealing with economic development. You can call it best practices. Yet the Norwegian endeavour is far from being dispassionate. And we must remember this. Very often the West criticized action of other countries, in primis China, but they rarely debate the fact that we are talking of a competition, that the race for natural resources must be win. And one of your tool can be the humanitarian groups, but it is crucial to recognize that is a tool, for the real purpose of economic exploitation.

Petrie led the internal report on the UN action in Sri Lanka.
Courtesy: Sky News

Otherwise the objectivity of the debate becomes very questionable. It is worth to mention that Petrie issued a very critical internal report against the UN agency in Sri Lanka during the end of the civil war in 2009. The UN intervention in Sri Lanka was a massive failure, missing the very purpose of its presence, namely protecting civilians. So it is more than welcomed the internal review of such misconduct. Yet, the fact that Petrie was appointed to lead the committee raised some question about conflict of interests⁵. Especially if you consider the past involvement of Norway in the Sri Lankan peace process. If you advocate for the principles, then be careful to follow your own preaching.

1http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,IRIN,,,50a226c82,0.html

2http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,IRIN,,,50a226c82,0.html

3http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-11/04/c_131950031.htm

4http://asiancorrespondent.com/91583/norwegian-pm-pledges-upholding-peacemaking-process-of-burma/

5http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/16599