Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS).

Tsunami 2004
Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS).

To address the devastation caused by the tsunami crisis, the formal state apparatus of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Chandrika government of Sri Lanka jointly initiated the Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS).

The primary objective of P-TOMS was to ensure proper coordination of rescue and reconstruction activities in the tsunami-affected northern and eastern regions of Tamil Eelam, while also addressing concerns about maintaining focus on humanitarian efforts without allowing the natural disaster to be exploited as a means to weaken the armed struggle or undermine Tamil Eelam’s autonomy. Key Features of P-TOMS System:

1. Equitably distributing responsibilities between the formal state apparatus of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan government to oversee reconstruction efforts.

2. Establishing mechanisms to ensure transparency and alignment in funding distribution and project execution. 3. Prioritizing cautious and well-organized rescue operations in the North and East. Causes Behind the Collapse of P-TOMS

1. Political Resistance: The United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, along with the JVP and influential Buddhist groups, strongly resisted P-TOMS, perceiving it as an attempt to increase the power of the formal apparatus of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. This opposition, centered around fear of losing control, eventually contributed to a broader agenda aimed at rallying the Sinhalese populace and facilitating a more aggressive approach, culminating in further atrocities of genocide and war crimes against the Tamil population in Tamil Eelam.

2. Resistance from Sinhala Buddhist Nationalists: The P-TOMS agreement faced strong opposition from Sinhala Buddhist nationalist organizations, which caused serious tensions within the Sri Lankan government.

3. Disbelief: The disbelief stemmed from the Sinhala Buddhist nationalist forces within Sri Lanka’s government, who saw the weakened position of Tamil Eelam as an opportunity to annex it into Sri Lanka’s borders, rather than prioritizing the humanitarian needs of the affected Tamil population of Tamil Eelam. This lack of concern for the Tamil population’s welfare made the agreement fragile, as mistrust between the Eelam governance and the Sri Lankan government deepened, with Sinhalese communities increasingly fearing that the agreement would empower Tamil Eelam too much in this critical moment.

4. Legal Challenges: The JVP, alongside other nationalist forces, filed legal petitions against the P-TOMS agreement in the High Court of Sri Lanka. The court’s decision to grant an interim stay, thereby disabling the operation of the agreement, demonstrated the indifference within the Sinhalese population and government toward the Tamil people’s post-tsunami recovery. The political maneuvering at the legal level signaled that the priority was not on alleviating the suffering of Tamils but on safeguarding political and territorial control.

5. Regional and International Pressure: India, along with other international allies were more deeply concerned about the possibility of Tamil Eelam’s formal governance structures gaining too much legitimacy through the P-TOMS agreement. There was fear that if Tamil Eelam was able to demonstrate effective governance and focus on the welfare of its citizens, it could erode the global narrative that labeled it as a “terrorist organization.” These regional and international pressures prevented the proper functioning of the system, hindering Tamil Eelam’s ability to show the world its genuine commitment to the well-being of its people and its aspirations for self-determination.

6. Resumption of Civil War: The formal governance apparatus of Tamil Eelam faced insurmountable obstacles due to the political climate in Sri Lanka, where Sinhala nationalists pushed for the eradication of the “Tamil problem.” This prevented Tamil Eelam from demonstrating its potential as a functioning nation despite its readiness to manage the crisis within Ceylon Island. The failure of peace talks was not simply a breakdown in negotiations but a direct result of Sri Lanka’s steadfast refusal to recognize Tamil Eelam as a sovereign entity.

Without this recognition, the possibility of genuine peace was never on the table. With amounting external restrictions, alongside Sri Lanka’s desire to suppress any signs of autonomy, led to the collapse of the P-TOMS agreement and the full resumption of civil war. Massive Failure of P-TOMS Deal: Despite the urgent need for aid, the P-TOMS system failed to deliver support to the Tamil people in the North and East, with reconstruction efforts delayed and poorly implemented.

The breakdown of the agreement stemmed from political antagonisms and the Sinhala community’s opposition to any efforts that could empower Tamil self-determination. Rather than focusing on rebuilding lives after the tsunami, the Sri Lankan government used this crisis to further its agenda of eliminating the Tamil population, leading to the collapse of the P-TOMS initiative. In Conclusion: While the P-TOMS system was conceived to provide essential aid to the de facto nation of Tamil Eelam, the political, social, and legal obstacles it faced rendered the initiative a failure.

The Sri Lankan government’s refusal to acknowledge Tamil Eelam’s right to self-determination and the persistent opposition from Sinhala nationalist forces prevented the system from being implemented effectively. As a result, the intended aid never reached its full potential in supporting Tamil Eelam’s governance and its citizens’ needs.