| Peace
in Sri Lanka?
 Author:
Luke Brown - 2002
Posted: 24 September
2002
Founded in the 1970s
and commencing their armed struggle for an independent Tamil state
in the north and east of Sri Lanka in 1983, against the Sri Lankan
government, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have wrought
havoc upon this small island off the coast of India, for the last
two decades. A brutal terrorist organisation, the Tamil
Tigers have conducted a campaign of suicide bombings, assassinations
and bombings, with a support and fundraising structure overseas.
The Tamils make up 3.2 million out of a total population of 19 million
(mostly Sinhalese and Buddhist). Now, in September 2002, there are
hopes for a permanent end to the conflict, thanks to promising developments
at peace talks under way in Thailand.
The first rounds of talks
ran from 16-18 September, brokered by Norwegian mediators, after
seven months of a joint ceasefire and seven years after their last
face-to-face talks. The good news to come out of the talks was that
reportedly the Tamil Tigers had dropped their demand for an independent
homeland. As reported in the London
Times , the Tigers' chief negotiator, Anton Balasingham, said:
"Our demand for a homeland is not a demand for a separate state.
If our demand for regional autonomy or self government is rejected,
our people would have no other option and separation would be the
last resort." For their part, the Sri Lanka government, through
G. L. Peiris, their chief negotiator, said: "Their aspirations
can be fulfilled within one country if we set about it in the proper
way. That is the spirit in which we propose to handle these discussions."
According to the New
York Times the meeting "produced an agreement to work together
on swapping prisoners of war and resettling some of the 1.6 million
people who have been displaced in one of Asia's longest-running
conflicts. A joint communique urged international donors to provide
immediate funds for relief work, particularly mine-clearing, as
the most urgent and important next step toward peace."
So far so good. The two
parties agreed to meet again later in the year to continue discussions.
But with an estimated 65,000 casualties having arisen from the decades
long conflict, how easy will it be for all concerned to just get
along?
According to the Colombo
Page the Sri Lankan Opposition leader "Mahinda Rajapakse
has focused on the need for the peace talks to be aimed mainly at
finding a lasting solution that would ensure the rights of all communities.
He said that honourable and permanent peace could only be achieved
by launching a broad dialogue on the final proposals. It would not
be of use now to express an opinion on the first round of talks
that has concluded in Thailand, he said. However, Mr. Rajapakse
said that the PA would study in detail the agreements reached at
the talks."
The Sri Lankan opinion editors, of course, haven't been so reluctant
to make their points. The
Daily News in their piece "Stepping-stones to normalcy"
highlighted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's address to the
UN General Assembly on 18 September. In it he said that his people
couldn't wait for peace in the future, they needed it today. The
war of the past two decades had had a devastating effect on the
economy and Sri Lanka's agrarian sector needed rebuilding without
delay. They went on:
"Sections of the
country's ruling elite and those living off the fat of the country
in somnolent, leisurely fashion could afford to wastefully split
hairs over constitutional niceties and "core issues",
but not the ordinary citizens of the land, most of whom wouldn't
know where their next meal would come from. For the majority of
the latter, normalcy and stability are of the foremost importance
and these conditions need to be established right now. This is the
reason why we need to jump-start the country's economy and increase
almost overnight the people's opportunities to better their material
conditions. This task cannot await a "final solution"
to the ethnic problem which would be pursued systematically at the
negotiating table but without the distracting drama some sections
expect it to display. But for the majority of the people, whose
livelihoods and occupations have been tragically disrupted by the
war, peace means, primarily, the freedom to pursue one's way of
life profitably, with the least interruptions."
The Island in "Climbing
the Peace Bandwagon" focused on the announcement by the Tigers
that they would not be seeking an independent state and were cautious:
"LTTE spokesman
Anton Balasingham's statement at the joint press conference in Bangkok
on Wednesday that his organisation will not be pressing for a separate
state and vague statements that the call for self determination
will not be tantamount to a call for separation, it is apparent,
has sent people of various assortments heading towards cloud nine.
The joy derived from the hopes of peace and attendant benefits can
be appreciated but it is essential that the nation has to be alert
and not be dreamy eyed about peace- a peace which all admit is still
very far away. Some will be genuinely carried away by this peace
euphoria while others from political hangers on to international
wheeler- dealers will all try to mount this Peace Process Bandwagon."
Getting carried away
in the quest for peace is dangerous because "there is the possibility
of being blackmailed into compromising on issues even involving
national interests. That has to be avoided in this slow step- by-
step approach to peace that has been proposed."
The Sunday Times
in "Ominous silence from the Wanni" were more blunt:
"Everything looked
taped out - the package parcelled, and now only to be ribboned.
The peace talks in Thailand looked anything but between a sovereign
Government and one of the world's deadliest terrorist organisations.
Now de-banned, and made respectable, the LTTE negotiators seemed
to have better cut suits as well.
There is natural euphoria in this country - pumped up no doubt by
sections of the mass media - that Anton Balasingham, the LTTE's
chief negotiator has announced that the LTTE has abandoned its demand
for a separate state.
Plainly, that is not the case - and one does not have to feel too
disappointed about it, because one would not expect the LTTE to
do so, as early as on day one, or round one of the talks.
Eelam is the LTTE's bargaining lever. Has been and will be. What
a discerning reader might well do is to read how the pro-LTTE media
has announced Balasingham's pronouncement. To quote;
"If our demands for regional autonomy and self-government is
rejected and if conditions of oppression continue, as a last resort,
our people have no option other than to fight for political independence
and statehood." (Tamilnet)
So clearly, let there be no illusions, the LTTE has not given up
their demand for a separate state, only shelved it for the time
being. Read to this must be the fact which the Colombo Government
has already conceded, the LTTE will remain armed. LTTE Recruitments,
Training and Re-arming is still in progress.
Straight away, though the LTTE has won respectability from the western
world with offers of financial assistance pouring in to develop
and reconstruct the war ravaged north and east.
Their pariah status now white-washed, the LTTE will embark on a
programme of re-building their shattered 'homeland'- and yet keeping
the option of independence and statehood very much intact."
The Daily Mirror in "Expedite
the peace process" was more positive. While they were scathing
of critics of the peace talks and their motives, their own biggest
concern was the time factor:
"What is unfathomable
in this situation, however, is the oft-repeated requirement for
a long duration of time to reach an agreement on a practical solution
to the problem. Premier Ranil Wickmremesinghe has said it might
take not months, but several years to reach a final solution. It
is, of course, understandable that the rehabilitation and reconstruction
of the war-ravaged areas have to be given priority and that the
accomplishment of the task requires both time and funds.
But what we wish to stress here is that any undue delay in finalising
a solution may further complicate matters, as it did during the
decades of intransigence and confrontation. A concerted effort should,
therefore, be made to expedite the process."
The
Tamil Guardian in "Breaking Ground" saw the talks
as historic and drew some positive conclusions for Tamils:
"Firstly, former
Sri Lankan governments' portrayal of the island's ethnic conflict
as merely a narrow phenomenon of terrorism devoid of genuine political
basis is no longer tenable. The strong and multifaceted international
involvement in the Sri Lankan peace process - along with the chorus
of approval this week from several governments across the globe
- underlines the elevation of the Tamil question to new standing
in international affairs. Secondly, the talks underline the recognition
- foremost by the present Sri Lankan government - of the Liberation
Tigers as the sole and authentic representatives of the Tamil people."
As well, "[a]nother
key success of the talks this week is the emergence of a new rhetoric
and approach by both sides: 'partnership in peace'. The establishment
of a Joint Committee, to oversee ceasefire related issues, and the
Joint Task Force, for humanitarian and reconstruction activities,
are a step forward from the tentative collaborative aspects inherent
in the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission. Whilst the tactical objective
of these joint structures is to de-escalate the conflict and accelerate
the restoration of normalcy, the willingness of both sides to engage
in such bi-partisan efforts reflects the growing trust between them.
Most importantly - and particularly in the wake of the Sri Lanka's
recent de-proscription of the LTTE - these associations also reflect
the deepening recognition of the Liberation Tigers as a credible
and important political formation. As such, the opponents of peace
in the Sinhala south can be expected to continue to decry the Norwegian
peace process and vociferously condemn these collaborative efforts."
The
Sunday Leader in "Thailand talks and the Tamil Eelam demand"
were scathing of the view that the Tigers had given up the goal
of independence:
"Chief among the
sunshine stories from Sattahip [Thailand] is the one about the Tigers
giving up the Tamil Eelam demand. Different organs have outlined
that aspect differently using terms like 'scaled down,' 'toned down,'
etc. The point however, is unmistakably clear. The LTTE apparently
is not keen on a separate state - Tamil Eelam - for which dream
thousands of youths laid down their lives and paid countless sacrifices.
It seems highly unlikely that a movement like the LTTE after waging
a relentless struggle for decades and establishing a position of
strength in the politico - military sphere is now prepared to jettison
its secessionist demand at this premature stage.
If the Tigers have really stated explicitly and unambiguously that
they are dropping their Tamil Eelam demand at this juncture, then
it goes against the grain of all what they have stood and fought
for in the past. Only the ignorant, naive and incompetent will believe,
let alone project the viewpoint that the LTTE has entered talks
after abandoning the Tamil Eelam demand particularly because of
the powerful politico-military position they are in right now. Thus,
if the Tigers have indeed stated that the Tamil Eelam demand has
been dropped, any serious student of politics can only arrive at
the inescapable conclusion that the LTTE is insincere in claiming
so.
In fairness to the LTTE, the simple truth is that the Tigers have
never stated that they have given up the Tamil Eelam demand. In
that context, it is indeed remarkable that much publicity is being
given to a non-existent stance of the Tigers. Various people have
commented publicly on this so-called "positional shift"
by the LTTE and the imaginary move is currently churning up a heated
controversy. The reality however, is that the Tigers have never
declared that the Tamil Eelam demand has been dropped. Moreover,
it is not necessary for them to drop the demand as a pre-condition
or prerequisite for entering talks. It is perfectly normal and even
logical for an organisation to enter talks of such a nature without
dropping the relevant demand."
What they saw as the
solution for the Tamils was "a settlement within a united but
not necessarily unitary Sri Lanka. If the essence of Tamil grievances
can be redressed and aspirations accommodated within a re-structured
state, then the Tamil Eelam demand may not be stressed upon. The
state should be re-invented. In the words of the late Professor
Alfred Jeyaratnam Wilson, "a settlement ensuring, 'separation
without secession' could be achieved." Such a solution is highly
imaginative and bold. What is envisaged here is an 'associative
structure' between the two 'solitudes.' Hoping for such a solution
within the next few years seems unrealistic. But temporary arrangements
could be made while negotiations go on."
It's going to be a long ride.
Links:
Anti-Tamil
Tigers site
Tamil
Tigers site
Author: Luke Brown
Email: editor@polosbastards.com
|
