|
EUROPEAN UNION & THE TAMIL STRUGGLE
EU Contribution to the Peace Process in
Sri Lanka
Symposium in the European Parliament
Organised by the Tamil Centre for Human Rights
7 March 2006
The Paris based
Tamil Centre for Human
Rights organised a symposium on the EU Contribution to
the Peace Process in Sri Lanka in the European Parliament on
7 March 2006. The Symposium was chaired by a Member of the
European Parliament (MEP), Robert Evans of the Labour Party
from the U.K. Dr Brian Seneviratne from Australia, Mr
Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, lawyer and Tamil National
Alliance Member of Parliament of Sri Lanka for Jaffna and
Ms. Deirdre McConnell, the International Programme Director
of the TCHR spoke. The Panel also included Mr. Douglas Wickramasinghe, who represented a hardline Sinhala view
countering the pro-Tamil panelists.
Deirdre McConnell, Director –
International Programme,
Tamil Centre for Human Rights - TCHR
Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam MP, Lawyer
and Member of Sri Lankan Parliament
A Sinhala Perspective - Brian Senewiratne
 Ms. Deirdre McConnell, Director –
International Programme
Tamil Centre for Human Rights - TCHR
I have been been involved in Human Rights advocacy, since
the days of Anti-Apartheid campaigning. Many people,
world-wide, from diverse backgrounds worked together in that
cause for justice and human rights, in solidarity with the
oppressed. A racist regime that persecuted and vilified
those who opposed it, was eventually overcome.
It was after hearing about grave human rights violations in
Sri Lanka that I made fact-finding missions to the island.
In 1989 I was involved in highlighting the atrocities
committed against the JVP youth in the South of the island.
After that period I continued to work on the human rights
situation in the island, concerning the conflict in the
NorthEast.
During four extended visits I have covered many parts of the
island from Kankesanthurai (KKS) in the North to Galle on
the Southern tip, from Colombo to Up country, Kandy, to the
East, to Batticaloa and Trincomalee. I have had the
opportunity to meet and interview victims of human rights
violations, Human Rights Defenders and many members of civil
society.
The concern I bring to this august forum, is that whilst the
EU has shown support towards the peace process, there are
extremely important facts which do not appear to have been
taken into consideration, when the EU made its decision on
27th September last year. In fact
TCHR made an appeal
listing these facts. Due to time limitations it is not
possible to refer to all of them here.
The unequivocally corroborated evidence of
systematic human
rights violations; arbitrary arrests,
torture,
rape,
disappearances and extra-judicial killings of Tamils are
well-documented by the United Nations human rights
mechanisms of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the
Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,
Special Rapporteurs, Treaty body Committee meetings and so
on. To illustrate my point briefly, here are two examples.
Firstly, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, visited Sri
Lanka and stated in his report :
“Of particular concern are
the emergency regulations governing arrest and detention
procedures and those governing post-mortems and inquests
when deaths have occurred in custody or as a result of the
official action of the security forces. The regulations
still provide for indefinite preventive detention on
renewable, three monthly detention orders. Sri Lanka has
been under an almost continuous state of emergency since May
1983…. Official emergency measures override the safeguards
contained in the normal law and have granted sweeping powers
to the security forces. In addition, there have been
repeated allegations of intimidation of lawyers, relatives
and others attempting to take remedial action through the
courts". He stated that “This culture of impunity has led to
arbitrary killings and has contributed to the uncontrollable
spiralling of violence”. (Excerpts, CN.4/1998/68/Add.2 - 12
March 1998 para 73)
A second example is that the
UN Working Group on
Disappearances stated that,
"Sri Lanka had the second
highest number of disappearances in the world, ranking next
to Iraq". Sri Lanka was the only country that the UN Working
Group on Disappearances has visited three times. So far no
proper remedies have been found for these disappearances. It
is well known in human rights terminology that
“disappearance”, is actually equivalent to extra-judicial
killing.
As far as the political killings in Sri Lanka are concerned,
the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings and
international human rights organisations know that killings
in Sri Lanka where the government has been suspected of
involvement, have neither been properly investigated nor
have the culprits been brought to justice.
Indeed it really does seem very bizarre that there has been
no Resolution in either the UN Commission on Human Rights or
the Sub-Commission for nearly twenty years. This is due to
the heavy lobby conducted by the Sri Lankan state.
What happens to all the facts documented in the UN system?
They do not appear in the international media, due to this
heavy lobbying. For instance, take the
Sri Lankan media,
such as the English media in Colombo, all the newspapers
(except one, which also has reservations) do not publish
much on these facts and figures concerning the reality of
the conflict in Sri Lanka.
When we come to the news agencies based in Sri Lanka, and
look at the people responsible for them, the vast majority
of the international correspondents are Sinhalese. In other
words, the same as the journalists of the Colombo papers.
Therefore the international media coming from Colombo is not
independent, it is not unbiased.
Not that I am saying it is because they are Sinhalese the
media is biased, but it is a question of how the majority of
Sinhalese see the conflict in Sri Lanka – except a handful
of Sinhalese who analyse and see the root causes of the
conflict.
Many Sinhalese people see the situation in a racist manner.
We can see this, for example, in the statements by
Mr Mahinda Rajapakse the President, the JVP and the JHU who
insist that the “Unitary State” gives no chance for any
federalism or recognition of the right to Self-determination
of the Tamil people. When we look at the voting – all over
the island, except the NorthEast, Mahinda Rajapakse won more
votes than his opponent. One needs to look at the dynamic of
the Sinhala polity, regardless of the Tamil people’s
boycott. The Sinhalese voted for the racist view.
What I want to say here, is that the facts are not coming
out of the island because of government manipulation of the
international news agencies. There is, and has been for many
years, biased reporting by Sinhalese working for these
agencies. Also we should not miss the point that Sri Lankan
Embassies and High Commissions in foreign countries carry
out heavy lobbying, spending a huge sum of money on hiring
private organisations to do their propaganda work. So-called
independent international journalists, mentioned earlier,
working with international news agencies have been hired as
“communication experts” by the High Commissions themselves,
to work with “opinion makers” and spin stories.
So what is happening? International institutions are given
misinformation which is passed off as fact, lies dressed up
as truth and because of this state-sponsored propaganda, the
misinformation is taken up very well by anyone who has not
looked deeply into the real issues. So the Sinhalese
government uses its power as a recognised state to provide
only its version of events in official places where there is
no right of reply.
In addition, as a temporary solution, nowadays the Sri
Lankan government has sponsored a few Tamil groups in
foreign countries, to distribute the government’s facts and
figures. Actually, the real information is not given to the
international institutions by the government or government
sponsored groups.
With all this, certain groups, like
Tamil Centre for Human
Rights manage to distribute information into certain
international institutions and mechanisms of human rights
bodies. Even these officially published documents are not
taken up by the media, because of the effects of the lobby
of the Sri Lankan government.
This has been the case during the twenty years of the
conflict and also during the four years of the Ceasefire.
Certain things have changed but STILL the Sri Lankan
government lobby works effectively internationally.
I have been to the areas of the Tamil homeland. I know the
situation, I have seen and listened to the victims of rape,
torture and arbitrary arrest, the kith and kin of the
disappeared and extra-judicially killed. When we brought
these facts, wanting to give them to certain groups, we had
difficulty contacting them, getting appointments and giving
the information to governments and to international
institutions.
But for the Sri Lankan government which clearly wants to
hide the truth, it is easy as a recognised state to arrange
appointments, to meet with the most senior people in
international institutions. Then, during the appointment,
government representatives give exactly the opposite version
of the reality.
So this important aspect has to be taken very seriously by
all international politicians and diplomats, like yourselves
in the European Union and others.
A government perpetrating genocide on a people, does its
maximum to divert attention from the reality of the
situation and does everything in its power to prevent other
countries from intervening to stop the genocidal onslaught.
This is the dynamic we are dealing with.
It is tragic, to have to highlight the fact that Human
Rights Defenders who attended international forums to
explain the human rights situation in Sri Lanka are not
spared by the government of Sri Lanka. Prominent Lawyer
Mr.
Kumar Ponnambalam, veteran journalists
Mylvaganam
Nirmalarajan, Aiyathurai Nadesan,
Dharmaretnam Sivaram "Taraki",
Joseph Pararajasingham MP and many others have been brutally
assassinated. Until today none of these killings have been
properly investigated nor have the culprits been brought to
justice. They continue in service unpunished.
Mr. Kumar Ponnambalam participated in the UN Commission on
Human Rights in Geneva and EU forums in Brussels and
Strasbourg. Mr. Dharmaretnam Sivaram "Taraki" was briefing
the US state department and many other international forums.
Mr. Joseph Pararajasingham who had been to Australia, New
Zealand, US, Canada, Switzerland, Britain, France and many
other countries and met with several dignitaries is the
latest victim. He was shot dead during Christmas Eve
midnight mass in his home town two months ago.
The killing of Human Rights Defenders continues with
impunity in Sri Lanka.
When the human rights violations escalated in
genocidal
proportions in 1983, if the international community had
looked into the root cause of the problems, rather than
helping Sri Lanka militarily, today the island’s history
would have been very different. The international community
openly gave military equipment, training and advice to the
Sri Lanka government contributing in part to the causes of
today's violations in that island.
There is a chance now to respond in a different, more
positive way, building towards a future of peace with
justice. We urgently appeal that the
EU decision of 27
September be immediately reconsidered and overturned, in the
interests of peace and humanity. Thank you.
Gajendrakumar
Ponnambalam MP, Lawyer
and Member of Sri Lankan Parliament
- Tamil National Alliance (TNA)
* Article 1.8 of the
CFA entered into by the LTTE and the
GOSL mandates GOSL to dismantle all paramilitary forces,
this did not take place
* LTTE and the GOSL held talks in Geneva on the 22nd and
23rd of February this year, however, incidents targeting
Tamil civilians have continued
* The Tamil Nation is being consistently denied meaningful
access to Governance to pursue their political, economic,
social and cultural development
* To heap the LTTE with terrorist organizations is not only
unacceptable to the Tamil people but will also embolden an
intransigent and defaulting Sri Lankan State to continue to
deny the Tamil Nation its right to self-determination.
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter provides that one of the
purposes of the UN is “To develop friendly relations among
nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples”.
Article 55, concerning
Economic and Social Cooperation, instructs the UN to promote
higher standards of living, solutions to health and cultural
problems, and universal respect for human rights “with a
view to the creation of conditions of stability and
well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly
relations among nations based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
Subsequently the
1960 Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Article 2
states,
“All peoples have the right to self-determination;
by virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development”.
The Declaration also adopts a
functional definition of colonialism, speaking of
colonialism in “all its forms and manifestations”. Thus, it
does not limit itself by its express terms, to the
subjugation of non-European peoples by Europeans. Rather, it
undertakes a practical approach in which the emphasis is
upon the fact of subjugation by a racially or ethnically
distinct group, which need not be European. Clearly, as long
as peoples living within independent states continue to
suffer the same ills and consequences under their new rulers
that they suffered under traditional colonialism then the
principle of self-determination retains its applicability.
By 1966, the right of peoples to self-determination had made
its appearance in the two
International Covenants on Human
Rights as a free standing maxim, beyond the confines of
normative practices on decolonization. The provision in
Article 1 of both Covenants was significant because for the
first time, the right of self determination had been
formulated within a universal document concerning human
rights, which recognized the legal obligations of the state
parties to it.
Of crucial importance to understanding of the present status
of the right to self-determination outside of the
decolonization era is the
General Assembly’s 1970
Declaration on Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States. Paragraph 7 which deals with the maintenance of
territorial integrity, has been interpreted to recognize the
legitimacy of secession under certain circumstances.
The first part of paragraph 7 warns that nothing in the
foregoing text should be construed as authorizing or
encouraging the dismemberment or impairment of the
territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and
independent states. Paragraph 7, however, implies that not
all states will enjoy this inviolability of their
territorial integrity, but only those states “conducting
themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples as described above”. In a
telling final clause, paragraph 7 offers a partial
definition of the meaning of the compliance provision, by
stating “and thus possessed of a government representing the
whole people belonging to the territory without distinction
as to race, creed or color”.
The notion embodied in this final clause is clearly, that
the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the
governed and that consent cannot be forthcoming without the
enfranchisement of all segments of the population. By
placing the language at the end of the paragraph 7 in the
form of a saving clause, the Declaration affirmed the
concept of “consent of the governed”. Therefore, if a
government does not represent all of its peoples it is
illegitimate and thus in violation of the principle of
self-determination, and this illegitimate character serves
in turn to legitimate “action which would dismember or
impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or
political unity” of the sovereign and independent state.
So clearly, the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States clarified and reconciled the different approaches to
the right to self-determination, as espoused over the
preceding years in the various UN resolutions and
international instruments. It instilled the primacy of
seeking an improvement of the condition of individuals and
minority nations within multi-national states, by subjecting
those states to external international pressure. It clearly
inverted the movement to establish self-determination as a
human right along with others, such as the establishment of
a representative government, to be observed when acting in
compliance with the principle of self-determination. And
finally, it reinforced the right to self-determination by
brandishing a legitimization of secession where the coercive
force of international opinion was insufficient to moderate
a state’s internal policies.
It is also relevant to recall the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the case relating to the secession of
Quebec. The Court ruled, and I quote:
“The International Law right to self-determination only
generates at best a right to external self-determination, in
situations of:
1. former colonies,
2. where a people is oppressed as for example under foreign
military occupation, or
3. where a definable group is denied meaningful access to
Government to pursue their political, economic, social and
cultural development.
In all three situations the
people in question are entitle to a right to external
self-determination because they have been denied the
ability to exert internally their right to
self-determination”
The Court further ruled and I quote “that such exceptional
circumstances are manifestly inapplicable to Quebec under
existing conditions” unquote.
In the island of Sri Lanka however, unlike in Quebec, a
definable group, the Tamil Nation, is being consistently
subjected to the hegemony of the Sinhala Nation. The areas
of historic habitation of the Tamil speaking people is being
oppressed by the occupation of the Sri Lankan State’s armed
forces which is 99% Sinhala in composition. And the Tamil
Nation is being consistently denied meaningful access to
Governance to pursue their political, economic, social and
cultural development. This was the clear impact of all three
constitutions in Sri Lanka, which in the face of the demand
for power sharing arrangement as a form of satisfying the
Tamil Nation’s right to self-determination, entrenched the
unitary character of the Sri Lanka State.
The mandate obtained by the Tamil National Alliance (TNA)
has been yet another demonstration of the consistent Will of
the Tamil Nation to exercise its right to
self-determination. The expression of this Will
has been
loud and unambiguous over the last fifty years, and remains
today the bulwark of the legacy of the Tamil National
liberation struggle.
Whilst the Tamil People have repeatedly stated that we are
prepared to arrive at a negotiated solution that gives
expression to this legacy, and at the same time not divide
the country, the systematic undermining of this Will has
accentuated and aggravated the Tamil National question into
what it is today.
Sovereignty, vests with the Peoples of each state. By
extension, it is only when the Sovereign Will of all the
Peoples of a particular state finds expression in the
structure of the state, can it be said that the state
belongs to all its Peoples. The Sri Lankan state as it
exists today, only gives expression to the Sovereign Will of
the Sinhala People, and continues to undermine and reject
the Sovereign Will of the Tamil People. And as such, the
Sovereignty of the Tamil People does not vest in the Sri
Lankan state, and accordingly the Tamil People show no
loyalty to the Sri Lankan state. Loyalty is a sentiment, not
a law. It rests on love, not on restraint. The governance of
the Tamil Nation by the Sinhala Nation rests on restraint,
and not on love; and since it demands no love, it can evoke
no loyalty.
The contradictions between the Will of the Tamil People, and
the actions of successive governments, have continued for
quite long and surely cannot continue indefinitely. The
concept of Sovereignty being vested in the people, has no
meaning as far as the Tamil people are concerned, if their
Will as expressed at successive elections, does not give
them, an effective say in governance, in keeping with the
Will expressed. The Will of the Tamil people is that their
right to self-determination in their area of historical
habitation – the Northeast, be accorded due recognition, so
that they can pursue their political, economic, cultural and
social development in keeping with their own wish. The right
to self-determination has been consistently denied to the
Tamil people. Despite the clear expression of their Will at
successive elections they continue to be powerless in regard
to the management of their own affairs. Nothing can be more
humiliating to the Tamil psyche than the non-recognition of
their collective Will. This situation if continued will have
serious repercussions.
Whilst this be the sad reality faced by the Tamil People for
over fifty years, which led to the cry for the establishment
of a separate state in the area of historic habitation of
the Tamil speaking people in the Northeast of the island of
Sri Lanka. And despite this National Liberation struggle led
by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) reaching the
position of having won over physical control of nearly 70%
of the Tamil Homeland, even in this late hour the Tamil
Nation has demonstrated its desire to find a viable
alternative to a separate state by entering into a Ceasefire
Agreement with the Sri Lankan State just over four years
ago. The reaction of the Sinhala Nation has been to elect a
President as recently as November 2005
whose express policy
for which an overwhelming majority of the Sinhala people
have voted was to:
- Uphold the Unitary structure of the state;
- The rejection of concepts of power sharing, federalism and
self-determination;
- The refusal to recognize the areas of historical
habitation of the Tamil speaking people.
There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the cumulative
effect of these policies will be to shut the door on any
possibility of finding a negotiated solution to the Tamil
National question.
Not only has the last four years of the peace process
demonstrated a complete lack of will by the Sinhala Nation
to accept the Tamil Nation’s legitimate and just political
aspirations as recognized by International Law, but rather
has been systematically been undermining the collective will
of the Tamil people not only politically but militarily as
well.
Whilst
Article 1.8 of the CFA entered into by the LTTE and
the GOSL mandates GOSL to dismantle all paramilitary forces,
this did not take place. On the contrary, the Sri Lankan
Armed Forces have been protecting and promoting new
Paramilitary Forces. This has resulted in killings and grave
incidents that are seriously jeopardizing the CFA. These
incidents continue to date.
Furthermore, over the last few months, over 40 Tamil
civilians have been killed within the Jaffna district,
around 20 Tamil civilians have been killed in other
districts in the North-East, around 50 Tamil civilians have
disappeared or gone missing in the North-East, Tamil
civilians are being increasingly manhandled and assaulted in
the North-East, Tamil civilians in the North-East are being
threatened and intimidated, Tamil civilians are being
deprived of the opportunities to carry on their occupation
particularly farming and fishing and Tamil civilians due to
the above stated reasons have begun to flee to India and to
seek refuge in L.T.T.E controlled territory and Public
buildings in their respective districts.
In particular:-
(1)
Mr. Joseph Pararajasingham a senior Member of Parliament
of the TNA was gunned down within the premises of the St.
Mary’s Roman Catholic Church at Batticaloa in the early
hours of 25th of December 2005 on Christmas night while he
was at prayer. The road leading to the church was manned by
armed forces while police personnel were on duty outside the
church. This is in Government controlled territory. It is
clear that the assailants carried out the assassination with
the involvement of some section of the security forces.
Though the identity of at least one assailant is
ascertainable, no steps have been taken to apprehend anyone.
(2) Five innocent Tamil youth, all students engaged in
higher education
were deliberately shot and killed in cold
blood at Trincomalee by an identifiable group of the
security forces sent to Trincomalee around 7.45 pm on 2nd of
January 2006. This was in Government controlled territory.
On the evidence available, both direct and circumstantial,
the offenders can be identified and brought to justice. The
judicial inquest has ruled that these young men came by
their death as a result of gun shot injuries.
(3) On the night of the 16th January at Manipay, Jaffna
within Government controlled territory members of the
security forces and Tamil paramilitary groups functioning
together have shot
five members of a family, three of them
fatally, while the other two have been admitted to the
Jaffna General Hospital with grave injuries. This was an
unwarranted attack on a Tamil civilian family. The father
Mr. Bojan was the president of the Northern Region Scouts
Association.
(4) On the 23rd of December 2005 four Tamil civilians were
shot and killed and the bodies burnt in their house by
security forces at No: 44, Victoria Housing Scheme at Pesalai, in Mannar. The four persons belonged to one family,
father, mother, son and daughter. This was an unwarranted
attack by the security forces against the Tamil civilian
family, within Government controlled territory, The daughter
of the family was only four years old.
The above stated matters reveal that the Tamil civilian
population in the North-East is facing a grave and serious
situation.
Members of the Tamil civilian population have been
indiscriminately arrested in large numbers, many females in
their night clothes without any reasonable suspicion or
justifiable reason, purely on the ground of their ethnicity,
photographed in their night clothes and released after
questioning at various Police Stations. This is a blatant
violation of their fundamental human rights. This has
happened in the Colombo city. Tamils in the up country areas
have been similarly arrested.
The excessive presence of the Armed forces in Tamil civilian
inhabited areas in the North-East particularly in Jaffna and
in Trincomalee is most oppressive and humiliating to the
Tamil people. In Trincomalee this situation has continued
for more than the past eight months causing immense
inconvenience and discomfort to the Tamil civilian
population.
Even though the LTTE and the GOSL held talks in Geneva on
the 22nd and 23rd of February this year, however, incidents
targeting Tamil civilians have continued, with several
people having been killed, and several people having
disappeared. One being,
ten staff members belonging to the
Tamil Rehabilitation Organization being abducted by
paramilitary forces, just 100 meters from the Government
armed forces checkpoint in Welikanda, soon after registering
at the said checkpoint. Of the ten abducted, three workers
were subsequently released. The other seven continue to be
missing. There is no doubt that paramilitary forces and
sections of the armed forces are responsible for these
continuing incidents. The LTTE too continues to be targeted
by the paramilitary Forces working in collaboration with the
Government Armed Forces. As recently as last Saturday, two
LTTE cadres were killed when an LTTE sentry situated in Vavunativu in Batticaloa was attacked.
In this most uncertain backdrop, the international community
and the European union in particular has a very important
role to play. It is time for the world community to live up
to its obligations under International Law and recognize
that the over fifty year struggle of the Tamil Nation has
the sanction of International Law. That the Sri Lankan State
continues to be the defaulting party as far as finding a
solution to the conflict is concerned.
It is also time that
the International Community distinguishes a legitimate
National Liberation movement like the LTTE from
organizations like Al-Quaeda. To heap the LTTE with
terrorist organizations is not only unacceptable to the
Tamil people but will also embolden an intransigent and
defaulting Sri Lankan State to continue to deny the Tamil
Nation
its right to self-determination. Such a denial can
only result in one thing, and that is the serious escalation
of the conflict and nothing less.
A Sinhala Perspective - Brian Senewiratne
MA(Camb), MBBChir(Camb), MBBS Hons(Lond)
MD(Lond), FRCP(Lond), FRACP
Consultant Physician, Brisbane, Australia
When the
Tamil Centre for Human Rights (TCHR)
suggested that I come half way round the world from
Australia to Brussels to address you for 15 minutes, I
thought that they had taken leave of their senses. They
added that I should present a “Sinhala Perspective”. This
I’ll be glad to do but there is a problem. I am sure you
would have accessed the numerous papers published by me over
the past 20 years and realised that I do not subscribe to
the Sinhala ethno-religious chauvinism that has consumed my
ethnic group.
The first question is whether I am qualified to present a
“Sinhala Perspective” – even an unusual one. I must deal
with this because the Sinhala Government-controlled media
and Sinhala “patriots” have claimed that I am a “Tamil Tiger
Terrorist” – a comment made about this very meeting. Yes,
this meeting, organised by the TCHR which was officially
accredited to the UN World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
, whish took place in November 2005 in Tunisia. This was
supported by 191 members of the UN including Sri Lanka.
1. Am I a Tamil?
No I am not. I am a Sinhalese, in fact, the cousin of the
outgoing Sri Lankan President, Chandrika Kumaratunga whose
father, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was my father’s first cousin
(and my tennis partner!). This can easily be checked – most
simply by contacting the former President, which you have my
permission to do.
2. Am I a Tiger?
No I am not a Tiger (Tamil or otherwise). I am neither
pro-Tiger or anti-Tiger. I am, however, unashamedly ‘Pro-
the-Tamil-minority’, in their struggle to exist with
equality, dignity, safety and without discrimination in the
country of their birth. I have opposed the Sinhala
ethno-religious chauvinism of a succession of Sinhala
governments since Independence (and even prior to that) -
this destructive attempt to turn multiethnic, multilingual,
multireligious, multicultural Sri Lanka into a Sinhala
Buddhist Nation. If a Sinhala-Buddhist Nation is the
objective, then I can see no option to the establishment of
a separate Tamil Nation. The concept of Eelam, as a separate
Tamil State is called, is not a creation of the Tamils. It
has been forced on the Tamils by
Sinhala anti-Tamil
chauvinism. The concept of a separate Tamil State was
initially rejected by the Tamils when it was floated by
Tamil politicians in 1948 when the Ceylonese Government (as
it then was) disenfranchised and decitizenised a million
plantation Tamils in one of the worst acts of political
barbarism the world has known.
This opposition to Eelam by the Tamils weakened over the
next three decades as more and more blatantly anti-Tamil
discriminatory acts were heaped on the Tamils – in the
use
of their language (Tamil),
education (I was at that time a
Senior Don in the Kandy University), employment and job
opportunities. I must add to this list of anti-Tamil
discriminatory acts one which is not often mentioned. It is,
by far, the most important. This is the developmental
neglect of the Tamil areas at the hands of the Central
Government in Colombo, which has been, is, and always will
be, Sinhalese. It is this developmental neglect of the Tamil areas that
made it necessary for Tamils to come from the North (and
East) to the Sinhala South to compete, often successfully
(‘too successfully!’) with the Sinhalese for jobs in a
shrinking job market.
This is a situation that unscrupulous Sinhalese politicians
can, and did, exploit by discriminating against the Tamils.
It was (and still is) a despicable quest to play populist
politics rather than build a Sri Lankan Nation.
The British Colonial construct of 1833 of gluing together
three separate kingdoms (the Tamil Kingdom in the North, the
Kandyan Kingdom in the centre and the Kotte Kingdom in the
Sinhala South) – the Colebrooke-Cameron ‘reforms’. This is
getting unstuck because of poor quality Sinhala Governance
since Independence.
What the Tamils are asking for is not to
divide and destroy Sri Lanka but to dismantle a British
Colonial construct which has clearly failed (as similar
British colonial constructs have failed in Malaya, India and
numerous other countries). This will allow the Tamil areas
(and incidentally the Sinhalese areas) to develop and
survive. It is crucial to appreciate this since unless you
do so, you will not be able to make a positive contribution
to the peace process. I would draw your attention to the
fact that the Peace Process is necessary because of an
ethnic war that was inevitable because reasoned,
well-documented, well-presented pleas by Tamil politicians
backed by a succession of non-violent protests,
have failed.
Belief in absurdities (that
multi-ethnic, multi-religious
Sri Lanka will be a Sinhala Buddhist Nation) results in
atrocities (civil war).
3. Am I a Terrorist?
No I am not. I am a doctor of medicine, committed to saving
lives, not destroying life by terror or any other means. I
have dealt with this problem of ‘terrorism’ in several
publications, a couple have been distributed to you.
The
perception of ‘terrorism’ is often in the eye of the
beholder. If the beholder (an individual, population or
country) supports the goals of the rebels then those rebels
are ‘freedom fighters’, if they do not then they are
‘terrorists’.
Any government’s condemnation of terror is credible only if
it shows itself to be responsive to reasonable, closely
argued, persistent, non violent dissent. No Sinhala
government since Independence in 1948 has been responsive to
the reasonable demands of the Tamil minority. Tamil
non-violent resistance has been crushed with military might
of the Sinhala State. If that is the response that the
Tamils have had, then, by default, they have to turn to
violence. It is a sad fact, documented across the world,
that if one seeks to redress a public grievance (believe me,
the Tamil minority have had many grievances at the hands of
the ruling Sinhalese), violence is more effective that
non-violence. That is what has been happening in Sri Lanka.
Violence is highly destructive of lives, property, the
economy and the future of the country. In Sri Lanka, it has
physically decimated the Tamil areas and is (economically)
destroying the Sinhala South, indeed the whole Country. That
is why Peace talks have become necessary.
As to whether the LTTE are freedom fighters or terrorists is
discussed later in this article using criteria set out in
the Geneva Convention.
Why are we called “Tamil Tiger Terrorists”?
Why are we, irrespective or our ethnicity and even race, who
oppose Sinhala ethno-religious chauvinism called ‘Tamil
Tiger Terrorists’? How did I become a ‘Tamil Tiger
Terrorist?’ It was after the
near-genocidal massacre of
Tamil civilians in the Sinhala South in July 1983. Some
3,000 Tamil civilians were massacred by Sinhala hoodlums
with the active support of the then President J. R. Jayawardene’s anti Tamil ‘Mafia’ under the control of his
racists Ministers. I published a booklet ‘The 1983 Massacre.
Unanswered Questions’. The clear message was that to
massacre innocent Tamil civilians and terrorise them was
acceptable but to expose this to the outside world
constituted an act of terrorism! This booklet was followed
by another on Human Rights Violations in Sri Lanka,
published in the mid 1980s. This documented the serious
violations of human rights of the Tamil people and confirmed
me a ‘Tamil Tiger Terrorist’!
So is Adrian Wijemanne, a distinguished Sinhalese, now
spending his last days in Cambridge, England, who has
written extensively on the ethnic conflict. His carefully
argued papers which contains more sense than those published
by anyone, myself included, makes him a ‘Tamil Tiger
Terrorist’ – in fact, the leading one!
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a distinguished Indian Supreme
Court Judge, who has addressed many international meetings
with me to expose what is going on behind the censored doors
of Sri Lanka, was another ‘Tamil Tiger Terrorist’. When
accosted by a ‘Sinhala patriot’ in New York, his quiet
response to me was, “if the concealed information we are
releasing makes us ‘Tiger Terrorists’ it must certainly be
worth releasing”.
It is a pity that there is a developing concept that to be a
patriotic Sinhalese one has to support the concept of a
Sinhala Buddhist Nation. It is similar to the declaration of
President George Bush ‘that you either with us (him) or you
are with the terrorists’.
Sri Lanka has never had a responsible Press. The press has
always been partisan, more recently no more than a
propaganda arm of the government in power. This is why a
group such as the TCHR which is a UN accredited NGO on
Information has a crucial role to play in bringing to the
attention of the international community what the Sinhala
Government and pro-government media are trying to conceal or
destroy.
The fact that the propaganda put out by the Sri
Lankan (read Sinhala) Government is so biased and often
false, is something that the International community must
recognise. The Tamils do not have anything even remotely as
powerful as the well-funded, well-organised Sinhala
Government propaganda machine. With the advent of the
internet ( www.sangam.org ,
www.tamilcanadian.com ,
www.tamilnet.com ,
www.tamilnation.org ) this imbalance is
currently been addressed. Nonetheless, the power of the
government to influence other governments by distributing
anti-Tamil false propaganda is a serious problem.
The Peace Talks
I have dealt with the issues that have to be addressed in
these Talks in two publications ‘The Peace cannot abandoned’
written in 2002, when the Peace negotiated by the GoSL and
the LTTE stalled. This was a detailed analysis which
included and identified the saboteurs of peace and why they
were doing what they were.
I released another analysis ‘Talks, Talks and More Talks’
just before the Geneva talks in February 2006. In it I set
out the crucial issues that had to be addressed if the Talks
were to have any meaning.
The disappointing results of these talks were set out in yet
another publication ‘Peace Talks that have gone no where’.
In the next two weeks I will be releasing yet another ‘The
Agenda for more Talks’ which sets out yet again, the
critical issues that have to be addressed and implemented if
Peace is to be maintained in Sri Lanka.
The EU Contribution.
It is awkward for me to come to Brussels and say that the EU
has failed – but it has. This is not said lightly or with a
derogatory intention but in the hope that some of the damage
done might be reversed. It is not just the EU that has
failed, so have many Western countries with the exception of
some of the Nordic countries and Switzerland.
If these countries, in particular the US, India and Britain
(which was responsible for the Sri Lankan administrative
problems which resulted in discrimination against Tamils),
cannot make a positive contribution to Peace in Sri Lanka, I
would urge that they do not make a negative, indeed
destructive, contribution.
This is by:
1 Enhancing the military capabilities of a country which is
using this to fight it’s own people.
2 Trying to marginalise or to exclude one of the essential
parities to the negotiation – the LTTE.
1. Enhancing the military capabilities of the Sri Lankan
armed forces (nearly 100% Sinhalese) has been dealt with in
my ‘Talk, Talks, and More Talks’. This specifically targeted
the highly destructive ‘contribution’ made by the US. Other
countries (the UK, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Israel and
China to mention just a few) have made their own destructive
‘contribution’ often for their own economic or geo-political
gain.
2. Trying to marginalise the LTTE is serious, non productive
(in fact counter productive) and meaningless.
Peace talks without the LTTE is like trying clap with one
hand. Whether one loves them or hates them, their presence
and corporation in any peace deal is essential. Those who
Bellevue otherwise do not appreciate the ground realities in
Sri Lanka, especially in the Tamil areas.
Inappropriate comments in Colombo by a succession of US
Ambassadors and others from Washington who are just ‘passing
through’ and actions against the LTTE, have a disastrous
effect. It markedly strengthens the hand of the extreme
Sinhala chauvinists in Colombo to whom it is music. For
example’ after the recent visit of
Nicholas Burns, the US
Undersecretary for Political Affairs and a comment that the
US would take a hard line against the LTTE, Colombo was
plastered with anti-Tamil slogans and demands that the LTTE
be crushed however impossible this has turned out to be in
the last three decades. This in turn puts pressure on the
Sri Lankan Government to adopt an even more hardline
position in negotiations and talks with the LTTE. It is this
hardline stance that has prevented the GoSL from coming up
with any meaningful solution for power sharing with the
Tamils.
When, on 26th September, 2005, the EU Declaration stated
that the EU was, ‘actively considering formal listing of the
LTTE as a Terrorist organisation’ and in the meantime had
‘agreed that with immediate effect, delegates from the LTTE
will no longer be received in any EU Member States until
further notice’, I thought the EU was singing from the same
hymn sheet as the US and going down the same senseless path.
What the EU was doing was opting out of the Sri Lankan Peace
Process since it is not possible to host negotiations with a
banned ‘terrorist’ organisation, as the British will confirm
in their futile action in banning the IRA which then had to
be ‘de-banned’ to enable negotiations to occur.
It is of interest that Sri Lanka, the country most affected
by the LTTE, has banned and then ‘de-banned’ them! Yet,
other countries not affected by the LTTE continue to ban
them. It defies reason.
My hurriedly written piece ‘EU Credibility on the line’
which followed this incomprehensive Declaration is still
available on the net. The EU can obviously do what it likes
but to continue with this ban is not productive, indeed
could be counter-productive. If the EU and other countries
that have banned the LTTE have concerns about their human
rights record, it makes more sense to invite them and
express whatever concerns there are and a request made that
they address these concerns to the satisfaction of
internationally credible human rights organisations.
The EU Declaration condemns the LTTE of the ‘pursuit of
political goals by such totally unacceptable methods (the
reference was to the boycott of the Presidential elections
by the Tamils in the North) only serves to damage the LTTE’s
standing and credibility as a negotiating partner’. It is
amazing that the EU cannot see the contradiction in this. A
succession of Sinhala governments have been using
even more
‘unacceptable methods’ – violence, intimidation and indeed
terrorism against the Tamil civilian population in the North
in the ‘pursuit of political goals’ i.e., the acceptance of
a Sinhala Buddhist Nation.
The EU Declaration goes on to state ‘and that each Member
State will where necessary, take additional measures to
check and curb illegal or undesirable activities (including
issues of funds and propaganda) of the LTTE, its’ related
organisations and individual supporters’.
May I, with respect, ask the EU about the ‘illegal and
undesirable actives’ of the Sri Lankan Government? It is
illegal even by Sri Lanka’s own Constitution, which assures
protection of all ethnic groups. The Tamils are Sri Lankans
and to bomb and decimate the areas they live in, especially
the North, is a violation of the Constitution and is
therefore illegal. Here is the international community,
especially those who supply arms or finances which enable
the governments to free up funds for the purchase of these
weapons, enhancing this capability and becoming part of the
problem.
“Undesirable activities (including issues of funds and
propaganda…).” Western governments have markedly enhanced
these very same ‘undesirable activities’ by supplying
limitless funds and even expertise to the GoSL.. What is
worse, GoSL propaganda has been accepted without question,
despite the fact that it is blatantly false and
inflammatory. EU countries have knowledgeable embassies in
Colombo. They cannot be unaware of how false the government
propaganda is and the damage done by accepting it. It is not
damage done to the LTTE but to the Tamil people in the North
and East. I cannot over emphasise this.
As for blocking funds for the LTTE at an international
level, I must draw attention to the fact that it was the
exclusion of the LTTE from a donor conference in Washington
(because the LTTE is a banned ‘terrorist organisation’) that
resulted in them boycotting the crucial donor meeting in
Japan in 2002 and then
calling off all negotiations with the Ranil Wickramasinghe government with which it signed the
crucial 2002 Ceasefire Agreement.
Those who take these
decisions in the international arena do not realise the
fallout on negotiating a serious domestic problem in Sri
Lanka. If the LTTE could not visit Washington because they
were banned, it does not take a great deal of intelligence
to work out that another site where they were not banned
e.g., Switzerland, could have been where the donors met.
This would have kept the LTTE ‘in the loop’. It is important
to appreciate that international or other aid going to the
LTTE is not necessarily going into the purchase of weapons.
With the Sri Lankan Government opting out of looking after
the people of the vast Wanni area, it is the LTTE who have
to administer this area and look after it’s people and it is
simply not possible to do this without funds. It is not the
LTTE who will pay for this but the people of the area, 75%
of whom live below the poverty line.
As for banning fund raising for the LTTE at an individual
level it is very simplistic to think that it will work. One
could make it more difficult for the LTTE (or any other
organisation) to raise funds but to block it, check it or
even curb it is impossible. To believe that it is possible
is to live in a dream world far removed from reality.
There are hundreds of thousands of expatriate Tamils living
in some of the wealthiest countries in the world many
employed at a high level, who have families and extended
families in the North and East. They are aware that the
government has opted out of governing these people. They
will send money to anyone or any organisation prepared to
look after them.
What is even more important, which western countries have no
concept that there is a particular ‘Tamil mind-set’ that the
Tamil North and East is ‘home’. This is especially true for
Tamils of Jaffna who constitute the vast majority of those
who come to these countries. They may have lived outside for
decades, some of the younger ones never having been to
Jaffna, but the Jaffna peninsular remains ‘home’. Having
taught several hundred medical students from this area in
the seven years that I spent in Sri Lanka, I am very well
aware of this mind-set. It cannot be changed by a ban or
whatever, it will only enhance it.
Some are well aware of the suffering of their people who
have been subjected to violence and force by the Sinhala
army on the rampage trying to force the Tamil people into
subjugation. Some of the older expatriates have had personal
experience of this violence. They are well aware that the
Sinhala Government has no intention of resolving the
conflict by peaceful means.
Let alone settling the ethnic conflict in a manner that will
enable the Tamil areas to survive and develop,
the recent
Tsunami destruction and the glaring discrimination that the
people in this area suffered in terms of reconstruction and
rehabilitation. This blatant discrimination has convinced
them that the Sinhala Government is not interested in the
Tamil areas or the welfare of the Tamil people. They view
the rapidly expanding Sinhala anti -Tamil political rhetoric
and the demands that the Tamils be crushed into submission,
with added concern.
Whatever they think of the LTTE whether they love them or
hate them, it is blindlingly obvious that it is only the
LTTE that is prepared to challenge the anti-Tamil chauvinism
of the Sinhala Government. They see the LTTE as their sole
representatives. How the LTTE got to this position, whether
by murdering their opponents or not, is a separate issue.
But the reality is that they are there and unlikely to quit.
Expatriate Tamils may be divided in their support
(emotional, physical or financial) of the LTTE but are
realistic enough to appreciate that if the LTTE collapses,
the Tamil struggle for justice for the Tamil people will be
over. If the LTTE collapses (an unlikely scenario) or are
disarmed (an even more unlikely scenario), the Tamils will
not be at the Conference table but under it, as they have
been for the past fifty years, waiting for scraps to fall
from their Sinhala masters at the table.
With no other Tamil military group prepared to stand up
against the Sinhala Government, almost by default expatriate
Tamil support will go to the LTTE.
This was strikingly demonstrated after the 2002 Ceasefire
when expatriates flooded into the Wanni in the North run by
the LTTE, taking with them human and material resources’ to
say nothing of millions of dollars, to help in the
reconstruction of this area. This has been done without any
great fanfare but a
de facto separate Tamil State with it’s
own LTTE administration, police force, legal system, medical
delivery systems and army have been in operation for years
(and is expanding in a spectacular manner).
The US has declared on several occasions, more so recently,
that “a separate Tamil State is unacceptable to the US”.
Frankly, the Tamils did not ask the US for their opinion or
approval. It is their problem and they have decided, in the
1977 General Election, the last credible elections when they
gave
an overwhelming mandate to the Tamil MPs from the area
to establish a separate Tamil State. It is that which has
been established, albeit de facto, but nonetheless
functioning efficiently. This de facto state is functioning
far more efficiently than the incompetent, corrupt and
chaotic State in the south run by the GoSL I might add that
the mandate of the GoSL does not run in the vast Wanni area,
run by the LTTE. These are realities, which the
international community, including the EU, must appreciate.
To simply label the LTTE as terrorists is to distance
oneself from ground realities.
If the Western world wants to support a corrupt and
incompetent regime in the South that is their business. It
is certainly not the first time that this has been done,
e.g., Suharto, Marcos and even Saddam Hussein. However, I am
quite sure that the de facto separate state established at
the cost of much bloodshed, sweat and toil will not
disappear, nor will the LTTE.
Where does that leave Karuna, the renegade from the LTTE who
is challenging the parent organisation? In a recent
interview, Karuna spelt out where he stood. Here is what he
said, “We are (a) people’s movement and respect the wishes
of our people…they have entrusted us to defend them from the
LTTE”. So, on his own admission, his aim is to crush the
LTTE. I note that he sees no need to defend his people from
the anti-Tamil racism of the Sinhala Government. It is of
interest that in the run up to the presidential elections
Ranil Wickramesinghe’s party (who signed the Peace Pact with
the LTTE) boasted that it was they (UNP) who arranged for
Karuna to split from the LTTE!.
In that same interview, Karuna says that a ”lasting peace
can be achieved by consensus and inclusive politics”,
meaning the GoSL. Someone should whisper in his ear that
this is precisely what the elected Tamil leaders
have been
doing since 1956 (and even before), that numerous supposedly
‘inclusive’ or partially inclusive, pacts have been signed
between the GoSL of different political persuasions with the
Tamils and that not one of these Agreements or Pacts have
been implemented by the government. The Tamils have been
down the road that Mr. Karuna advocated, many times over.
Mr. Karuna goes on to conclude that, “the partnership
between Pirabakaran (the LTTE Leader) and Anton Balasingham
(the LTTE Ideologue and Chief Negotiator) is the cause of
all the evil that is preventing a resolution of the Tamil
conflict…” He is wrong. The cause of all the ‘evil’ is
Sinhala ethno-religious extremism which declares that Sri
Lanka will be a Sinhala Buddhist Nation, a decision even
enshrined in the Constitution since 1972.
It is not for me, a Sinhalese, to get involved in internal
Tamil squabbles but I doubt if the Tamil people, both in and
outside Sri Lanka, will buy this many-times-failed inclusive
politics in Sri Lanka.
A Solution
I have not come here to discuss solutions to the complex Sri
Lankan ethnic problem. There is a publication coming out in
the next few weeks ‘Self Determination for the Tamils’ in
which I have discussed the options. I will only briefly
summarise what I have written.
Before discussing solutions, it is important to appreciate
some basic facts in Sri Lanka and the failure of
international action.
1. Sri Lanka is a
Democracy in crisis
I have dealt with this extensively in my presentation in
London in 2001 which will be published in the not too
distant future ‘Abuse of Democracy in Sri Lanka’.
Here I will quote the Swedish Red Cross who put this
accurately in 1985 since when the situation has deteriorated
markedly.
“There was a general consensus that within Sri Lanka today
the situation has markedly deteriorated, the Tamils do not
have the protection of the rule of Law, that the Sri Lankan
Government presents itself as a Democracy in crisis and that
neither the Government nor it’s friends abroad appreciate
the serious inroads in democracy which have been made by
legislative, administrative and military measures which have
been taken. The extreme measures which are currently being
adopted by the Government inevitably provoke extreme
reactions on the other side. The normal life of the
population of the North (and now of the East, even more so)
has been seriously affected. The
continuing colonisation of
Tamil areas with Sinhalese settlers is exacerbating the
situation.’’
2. Internal Armed Conflict
In an armed conflict which takes place in the territory of a
“High Contracting Party” (the Sri Lankan Government in this
case) the test that is used to determine whether the
dissident armed forces is an “armed group” as opposed to a
“terrorist group” is set out in
Article 1 of Protocol
Additional II to the Geneva Convention of 1947. This states
that in an “armed conflict… which takes place in the
territory of a High Contracting Party… between it’s armed
forces and dissident armed forces or other organised groups
which, under responsible command, exercise such control over
a part of it’s territory as to enable them to carry out
sustained and concentrated military operations and to
implement this Protocol’.
In the armed conflict that has been occurring in Sri Lanka
since at least 1983, the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) has met these requirements.
i. Military operations
ii. organised command
iii. organisational capacity
iv. control over territory
They openly carry arms and distinguish them from the
civilian population and other requirements of combatant
forces recognised by international law.
Even the United Nations has recognised that conditions have
been met to invoke at least international armed conflict
rules – the
1987 United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Resolution. UN Human Rights Commission on Human Rights of
1987/61 dealt almost exclusively with humanitarian law
applied to the conflict in Sri Lanka.
If the LTTE has fulfilled the requirements of an Armed Group
(cf a Terrorist Group) then it is protected by the Geneva
Conventions and other humanitarian law groups in a civil war
situation.
3. The Failure of the International Community
The international community has failed to address:
1. The existence of an armed conflict.
There has been a failure to recognise the existence of an
armed conflict which meets at least international standards
for an internal armed conflict according to human rights law
and humanitarian law principles. Increasingly this armed
conflict is dismissed as an exercise in ‘terrorism’
especially after the New York bombing on 9/11. This is, of
course, welcomed by the GoSL which is capitalising on the
readily available funds and military hardware ‘to fight
terrorism’. In reality this is to fight it’s own civilian
Tamil people.
2. The gross violations of human rights.
There has been extensive violations of human rights,
especially of the civilian population in the Tamil North and
East by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, the LTTE, the recently
formed anti-LTTE paramilitaries armed and supported by the
Sri Lankan Armed Forces, and Sinhalese hoodlums, criminals
and gangsters supported by Sinhalese extremists and
politically active Buddhist monks. The most seriously
affected by these human rights violations are the Tamils in
the North and East almost all of it at the hands of the Sri
Lankan Armed Forces.
However, what has been presented at human rights forums and
elsewhere, are human rights violations committed by the
LTTE. Little is heard of human rights violations committed
by others, especially by the Armed Forces on the Tamil
civilian population.
This has seriously affected the lives and human rights of
thousands of Tamil civilians over a prolonged period. The
failure of the international community to address the
problem in an impartial, constant, appropriate and timely
fashion has made the situation of the Tamil people much
worse. The Tamil people have justifiably lost all confidence
that the Sinhala dominated government will ever protect
their rights. This has will and has, markedly increased
their support for a separate Tamil State, the administration
of which must be beyond the reach of the Sinhala government
in the South.
3 The right of Self Determination
The right of self-determination, the ability to determine a
people’s political status as well as their economic, social
and cultural development, is fundamental in protecting their
human rights. It is the first right to be identified in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights which are the two main human rights documents.
The UN special rapporteur Hector Gross Espiell
in his report
on the ‘Right of Self Determination’ states ’human rights
and fundamental freedoms can exist truly and fully when
self-determination also exists, such is the fundamental
importance of self-determination as a human rights and
pre-requisite for the enjoyment of all other rights and
freedoms.’
The right of self-determination was, in the post World War
II situation, originally applied to people not in control of
their traditional territory due to foreign or colonial
domination. The dominated people held the right to self
determination as long as the colonial power was present.
When the colonial power was removed, by force or peacefully,
the right of self-determination ceased to exist.
The right to self-determination also recognised that the
boundaries established by the colonial power were to be the
boundaries of the decolonised state. This is so even if, as
in the case of Sri Lanka, the colonial power had
artificially created a unitary state from territories
traditionally held by different ethnic groups, each
governing their territories independently of another group.
The underlying divisions among different ethnic groups
forced into a unitary state by the colonial power and
maintained up to Independence have lead to great strife and
separations or attempted separations, following the
departure of the colonial power. The obvious example among
many, was India which at Independence was divided into India
and Pakistan (East and West Pakistan). Later East Pakistan
severed itself from West Pakistan and became Bangladesh.
The division of Malaya about a year after independence into
Singapore and Malaysia is another example. It is of interest
that both these countries have developed strikingly after
separation and this spectacular development may not have
occurred had they not separated.
The situation in Sri Lanka has not been viewed as an
exercise in self-determination by most of the world’s
governments. This was because when the foreign power Britain
left in 1948, the unitary government was considered united
even though there were two major ethnic groups, the Tamils
and the Sinhalese,
each of which had separate kingdoms prior
to colonial rule and each of which met the international law
definition of ‘peoples’. Each had it’s own language,
ethnicity, religion and culture . Serious concerns had been
expressed by the Tamils of possible discrimination at the
hands of the Sinhalese. These were ignored by the departing
British who were more interested in leaving behind a
‘Britain-friendly’ Sinhala capitalist Government than
worrying about possible ethnic problems in the future.
According to this traditional view of self-determination
(which must be challenged) neither widespread systematic
violation of human rights of an ethnic group such as the
Tamils or an armed conflict at the level of civil war,
automatically invokes the right of self-determination.
However, the international community has no remedies for
improving the Tamil rights because of the power foreign
governments that have protected Sri Lanka diplomatically. It
is obvious that this old and outdated view of
self-determination is highly detrimental to human rights.
One way to evolve a law of self-determination so that it
protects the people in the situation that the Tamils find
themselves in, is to grant the right of self-determination
to ethnic groups subjected to severe discrimination at the
hands of the ruling government.
The right of self-determination is held by ‘’peoples’’ not
governments or individuals. This was reinforced by the
International Court of Justice in it’s opinion on the
situation in Western Sahara in which the Court stated that
‘the principle of self-determination (is) a right of
peoples’.
It is the word ‘peoples’ that has caused the greatest
difficulty in the interpretation of the right of
self-determination. Many governments choose (for their own
self preservation) to interpret ‘peoples’ as all the people
in the country. Therefore, a minority such as the Tamils who
are numerically less than the majority (Sinhalese) cannot
claim to be a separate ‘’peoples’’ this will have to change
if serious human rights abuse is to stop.
For much of the above interpretation of humanitarian law I
am acknowledge the support I have had from a long time
supporter of the Tamil people, an American lawyer, Karen
Parker whom I have known for a very long time. Some of which
I have stated above comes from an outstanding paper she
presented at the ‘International Conference on Tamil
Nationhood and Search for Peace in Sri Lanka’, in Ottawa,
Canada in 1999, at which I was privileged to be present.
There is also an excellent discussion on self-determination
by the British lawyer Geoffrey Robertson in his ‘Crimes
Against Humanity’.
Possible Solutions
There are at least three possible solutions to the ethnic
problem in Sri Lanka.
1. To continue as a unitary state which some devolution of
power to the Tamil areas.
2. A Federal or Confederal setup with two or more states.
3. Separation with the establishment of a separate Tamil
state and a separate Sinhala state.
1. The current unitary state with minimal changes
One ‘solution’ is to continue the status quo with some
devolution of power to the Tamil areas. This is what the
Sinhala extremists are prepared to agree to at the very
most, this will not work because it will not be acceptable
to the Tamils. There has been too much bloodshed and
suffering for this to be accepted by the Tamils in the North
and East.
2. A Federal setup
A Federal setup with two states has been discussed – a
Federal Tamil State in the North and the East and a Sinhala
State in the South. It is not the words that count but the
degree of devolution and power sharing that matters. As far
as I can see, the degree of power sharing that the Sinhala
Government is prepared to consider is minimal.
Because a Federal setup into two states will create so much
hostility in the South, I did suggest a five state
devolution of power such as exists in Australia with two
states in the Tamil North and East and three states in the
Sinhala South. This has not had any attention paid to it.
For any Federal setup to work there must be trust between
the federating partners. This certainly does not exist in
Sri Lanka today. While a federal setup may have worked two
or three decades ago, the amount of blood that has been shed
and the violation of agreements entered into with the
Sinhala Government is such that I doubt whether at this
point in time for any Federal setup will work.
Since the
2002 Ceasefire, a Federal solution has been
closely studied. The Federal States that have been studied
are Switzerland, Belgium and Canada, amongst others. It is
important to appreciate that in these countries, the
federations that exist is not between parties that have been
in armed conflict with each other. Therefore, the setup in
these countries are not applicable to Sri Lanka.
A country where there has been an armed conflict and which a
Federation of sorts is being tried is Bosnia-Herzegovina,
which is a former unitary state in which an attempt has been
made to secure peace between three warring parties – Serbs,
Muslims and Croats by recourse to a Federal form.
As the EU knows very well, this has been a very costly
exercise because it has involved having a Peace
Implementation Council, a ‘High Representative’ in the
country, and a Stabilising Force – SFOR – composed of troops
from USA, NATO and several European countries. It is not a
feasible proposition to have such an arrangement in Sri
Lanka.
3. Separation
As I have said, a de facto separate Tamil state already
exists. It is important to appreciate that whatever the Sri
Lankan government feels and whatever the pressure exerted on
it by Sinhala extremists, no country in the world has two
separate Armed Forces, separate Police forces, separate
legal systems etc., all of which exist and have existed for
years in the Wanni under the LTTE. This is the reality on
the ground.
To disarm the LTTE, let alone “crush” them is not a
possibility any more than it was to disarm the separate
armies in Bosnia-Herzegovina. India with the fourth largest
army in the world and a million soldiers in uniform was
unable to disarm or “crush” the LTTE in 1988. More than a
thousand Indian troops returned in body bags and the Indian
army had to return to India after this military (mis)adventure.
There is not the remotest chance that the Sri Lankan Armed
Forces will be able to do what India could not do. A series
of devastating defeats suffered by the Sri Lankan Armed
Forces with a massive loss of men and weapons is evidence of
this, if evidence is needed.
If the Armed Forces of the LTTE and the Armed Forces of the
Sri Lankan government are to exist in an undivided country,
then a “Peace Stabilising Force” as exists in
Bosnia-Herzegovina will have to be introduced. As I have
indicated, and the EU knows full well, it will be
prohibitively expensive and not sustainable.
The separation of Sri Lanka into two independent sovereign
states, each a member of the United Nations, and bound by
the UN Charter’s provisions will be a much more attractive
and practical proposition.
A Personal note:
I will end this on a personal note. In scores of addresses I
have given across the world in the past two decades, I have
referred to the Tamils as ‘‘my Tamil people in the North and
East’’ whose hard work, particularly in the clerical and
professional sectors has made Sri Lanka what it is, to the
Plantation Tamils as ‘‘my Tamil people in the Hills’’ who
through sweat, toil and near slave labour has put Sri Lanka
on the map, to the Muslims as ‘‘my Muslim people’’ who have
been by they dedication to petty trading supplied this much
needed service across the country and to the Sinhalese as
‘‘my Sinhala people in the South’’ who are such friendly
people, when not stirred up to racist anti-Tamil hatred and
brutality by irresponsible and mischievous Sinhala
politicians for their own selfish gains
Unfortunately this ‘inclusiveness’ has been lost because of
the damnable activities of a succession of Sinhala
extremists and political opportunists who confuse patriotism
with ethno-religious chauvinism and have sabotaged the
building of a nation.
As for the future, a united Sri Lanka is possible in the
years ahead but only after each area has developed – a
separate Tamil State in the North and East and a separate
Sinhala State in the South. When this has occurred, and when
mutual respect has been achieved, the formation of a
Confederation may be possible. Attempts to persist with a
British Colonial construct which has demonstrably failed is
to put Sri Lanka into a ‘’failed-state’’ basket.
In summary
1 The four year peace in Sri Lanka is about to come to an
end. If it does, it will be the ‘end’ of Sri Lanka – not
necessarily the physical end (it may well be for the North
and East) but certainly the economic end with the country
facing bankruptcy’ aid donors notwithstanding. It will then
become a ‘failed-state’.
2 There is a possibility that Sri Lanka could be saved. This
cannot be done by excluding or marginalising a key play –
the LTTE.
3 The EU has essentially opted out of making, or being able
to make, a meaningful contribution to the rescue of Sri
Lanka. It will continue to do so unless it changes some of
the decisions it has made. Throwing millions of euro into
the hands of a corrupt and incompetent government is not an
answer.
Much of what I have said sounds very negative. However, the
very fact that the EU has had this meeting and has enabled
those of us who are concerned with the future of Sri Lanka
to present our views is a step in the right direction. A two
hour meeting is not enough. Appropriate and sensible action
will have to be taken by the EU after consideration of the
ground realities.
|
