| SRI LANKA WATCH |
| Choice Facing Sri Lanka: Loose Confederation Or Break-Up
By: N.Parameswaran The President of Sri Lanka, Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse until now had repeatedly called for peace talks without setting an agenda or offering a realistic framework for a peaceful resolution of the long drawn out national problem of Sri Lanka. However, on the urgings of the Co-chairs (US, EU, Japan and Norway) and India, he has set up an Advisory Committee, drawn from Sinhala political parties and Sinhala constitutional lawyers. The task entrusted to it is to come up with a new constitutional arrangement which will provide the maximum devolution of power to the Tamils, but short of the division of the country into two states. The Opposition Sinhala United National Party (UNP) has since withdrawn from the Advisory Committee, thereby making it impossible to even arrive at a ‘southern consensus’ of the Sinhala people. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parliamentarians have been excluded from this body. The Hindustan Times commenting recently on this observed that this exercise would be futile sans the UNP and the TNA. The obvious reason why this exercise is doomed to failure from the beginning, however, lies in the non-recognition of the ground realities as to where national question sits at present. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) who are the authentic representatives of the Tamil people were so endorsed at the last parliamentary elections through the TNA, their proxies. The TNA which fought the elections on the policies of the LTTE was returned in 22 of the 24 seats in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of the country, the homeland of the Tamils. The popular Tamil vote was as high as 95%. In other words, the Tamil people in the North-East of the country have given a democratic endorsement of the policies of the LTTE as well as its leadership of the Tamils. Furthermore, as is well known, the LTTE today runs a de facto state of Tamil Eelam over 70%of the North-East. Independent observers have referred to it as a de facto state or quasi state with all the paraphernalia of governance. So much so that the LTTE in its last statement “The Oslo Communiqué’ re-affirmed its adherence of the Cease-fire Agreement and called for its full implementation on the basis of the de facto state of Tamil Eelam. The choice then to put it starkly is between a loose confederation of two states coming together or a break-up of the country into two separate states of Sri Lanka and Tamil Eelam. Either of the two options calls for new constitutional arrangements in any peaceful resolution of the ethnic conflict. Both underpin the acceptance of the three basic principles the LTTE and the Tamil people have consistently endorsed viz: (i) The Tamil people constitute a nation with their own language and culture (ii) The Tamil people have an inalienable right to a Tamil homeland in areas of their historical habitation and (iii) The Tamil people have the right of self-determination both in its internal and external aspects. The Boston Globe in its editorial of 28th June on Sri Lanka stated that a political solution is needed which “will have to include a new constitutional arrangement that frees the Tamils in the north-east from submission to the Sinhala dominated central government”. The Editor has hit the nail on its head for implicit in his words is an acceptance that the Tamils need to be liberated from Sinhala domination. There is ipso facto also the recognition that the Tamil struggle is a liberation movement which the LTTE has been waging for nearly 25 years. Interestingly, the Editor also goes on to refer to the useful outline of a solution offered by the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher when he said in Colombo recently that “though we regret the methods that the Tamil Tigers have used, there are legitimate issues raised by the Tamil community and they have a very legitimate desire, as anybody would, to control their own lives, to rule their own destinies and to govern themselves in their homeland in the areas, they have traditionally inhabited”. The editorial goes on to remark that this acknowledgement marks a welcome evolution in US policy. As may be observed, US policy now acknowledges on this basis that the Tamils are a distinct people; they have a right to control their lives and their destinies and they have a right to govern themselves in their own homeland which they have traditionally inhabited. Where it falls short of LTTE policy is the exclusion of the external right to self-determination or secession. US policy as well as that of its Co-chair partners, EU, Japan and Norway as indeed of India speaks only of a peaceful resolution of the conflict on the basis of a united Sri Lanka. India does not miss an opportunity to repeat mantra-like that it stands for the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. Yet, if there are to be meaningful negotiations without any pre-conditions on the basis of parity, the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE must be treated as equal partners and with respect. These concepts must also be interpreted to mean what they stand for in real politik. For instance, sovereignty today ultimately lies with the people, not the state or government which exercises it on their behalf. If the Tamils are a distinct people, a nation or nationality, they do necessarily have sovereign rights of their own. It is these sovereign rights which were taken away from them and needs to be restored so that they can exercise those rights to rule themselves and to shape their destinies. Again, how can the territorial integrity or unity of Sri Lanka be maintained when a Tamil homeland in areas of their traditional habitation has been accepted. For that matter, there is explicit recognition of this fact by India where reference is made to the areas of historical habitation’ by the Tamils in the Sri Lanka/India Peace Accord. As Indira Gandhi once observed in the Lok Sabha, “the Tamils have been in Sri Lanka as long as the Sinhalese, if not longer”. Sri Lankan history today accepts the fact based on historical evidence that the Dravidian people to whom belongs the megalithic culture were the original settlers in the island from pre-historic/proto-historic times. This was many centuries before Prince Vijaya, the founding father of the Sinhala race, set foot in the island in 543 BC, an account based on myth and invention without any historical basis. In a recent paper Mr. V.Rudrakumaran has convincingly argued against what the international community, particularly the Co-chairs and India have done in placing the negotiations within the confines of a united Sri Lanka. He has referred to current international practice in conflict resolution by citing the cases of Northern Ireland, South Sudan, and Montenegro etc where no such ‘parameter’ was set for the negotiations. In the case of Montenegro, the people voted in a referendum to secede from Serbia and become an independent country. In fact the EU facilitated the move towards a referendum. It may also be pertinent to point out that Montenegro has a population of only 650,000 people, much less than what Tamil Eelam will have. Even on this basis, the argument often trotted out by Sri Lanka that it is too small a country to be split does not hold water. As stated by the UN Secretary-General, another people to be given this choice of staying together or seceding are the people of Kosovo. It is understood that a conclave in Moldavia will also hold a referendum for its people on its right to secede. Recently, the Sinhala Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka stated that the majority of the people in Sri Lanka are against the division of the country. The majority he speaks about is obviously the Sinhala majority. What business has the Sinhala majority to decide the destiny of the Tamils? It is for Tamils to decide their destiny. Such being the current international practice in conflict resolution, any insistence by the international community that negotiations take place within the parameter of a united Sri Lanka would smack of double standards as pointed out by Rudrakumaran. What the international community and in particular the Co-chairs and India must realize is that the ground situation in Sri Lanka has gone beyond the confines of a united Sri Lanka. Rivers don’t flow backwards. As mentioned earlier, a de facto state of Tamil Eelam already exists. All the basic ingredients of a fully fledged state such as border control, customs, police, judiciary, tax system, planning and development etc are there. These not only exist but also function effectively and efficiently unlike in the failed Sinhala state of Sri Lanka. It is patently clear to independent observers of the island’s long running problem that a break-up of the country into two separate states - Sri Lanka and Tamil Eelam-is inevitable. Such an observation came from no other than the founder and elder statesman of Singapore, Mr.Lee Kuan Yew when he stated that ‘the country (Sri Lanka) can never be put together again”. This is also clear from the way the Sinhala state regards the Tamils and Tamil Eelam. As Mr. Lionel Murphy, the Australian MP, observed, the Sri Lankan Government by its actions have shown that it does not regard the Tamil people as part of its own population or citizens. For where in the world does one see a Government which wages war by land, sea and air on a section of its own people. It denies them aid, development and even humanitarian assistance. Its armed forces are an army of occupation and behave as one. There are massive abuses of human rights by the State’s forces resulting in extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture, rape, and detention of the Tamil people. Discrimination against the Tamils and violation of their rights are rampant and are indeed institutionalized in the armed forces, Sinhala political parties, and the state administration and even in the judiciary. The media is divided between the Sinhala and Tamil media. More than ever the two peoples are divided in their hearts and minds. Such is the ground reality. The international community can indeed speed the process of negotiations if it gets the Sri Lanka Government to fully implement the Cease-fire Agreement by getting the armed forces in the north-east to withdraw to their barracks and by disbanding the para-military forces. At the same time, they can suspend, if not remove, the ban on the LTTE as a terrorist organization. This way, it will treat both parties, the Sri Lanka Government and the LTTE, equally and with respect to negotiate on the basis of parity. TAMILCANADIAN, 18.7.2006 |