|
Sathyam
Commentary
Envisioning the
'post-conflict' period in Sri Lanka
An Open Letter to Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton
Nadesan Satyendra,
6 April 2009
"Genocides do not
just happen.. Mao Tse-tung's famous dictum
that the guerrilla moves amongst the people as a fish
swims in the sea has brought with it the counter
guerrilla strategy of draining the sea.... You will recall that it was a
strategy which was spelt out with candour by US
supported Guatemala Gen. Efrain Rios Montt in the 1980s
- "The guerrilla is the fish. The people are the
sea. If you cannot catch the fish, you have to drain
the sea." .... It is
unfortunate that the US policy that you have
adumbrated in your letter labels the 'sea' in which the
guerrilla swims as a 'human shield' and appears
directed to help draining the sea by evacuating the
Tamil civilian population from their homeland in the
Vanni to camps - albeit supervised/overseen by the
international community so that the US and the
'international community' (presumably not including
China and/or Iran and/or even India) may secure their
own physical presence in the island, through
international NGOs and/or the United States Pacific
Command... I have tried to
understand the reasons for your denial of the justice
of the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for an
independent state - an independent state which may
associate on equal terms and in freedom with an
independent Sinhala Sri Lankan state. I am driven to
the conclusion that it is the dynamics of the balance
of power in the Indian Ocean region that leads you to
give your support to the continued existence of an
undivided Sri Lanka. It appears that you are
concerned that support for an independent Tamil Eelam
may lead to an increased Chinese/Iranian presence in
Sinhala Sri Lanka and in the Indian Ocean region. At
the sametime, you will recognise that a 'post genocide'
Sri Lanka will prove to be no different to Saddam
Hussien's Iraq which the US supported in Iraq's war
against Iran..."
Dear Madam Secretary of State,
Your letter of 23 March 2009 to
the Honorable Mary Jo Kilroy was of particular interest
because you mention that Congresswoman Kilroy's letter
had touched on 'many of the points that
State Department officials have raised in meetings with
Sri Lankan government officials in Washington, as well as
in Colombo, Geneva, and New York.'
I felt that a closer
examination of that which you have said may be
helpful.
You say that 'a
lasting peace in Sri Lanka will only be achieved through
political inclusion of all of
Sri Lanka's minority
communities'. You add that you 'continue to urge
the Sri Lankan government to devise a post-conflict political solution that will
demonstrate to Sri Lanka's Tamil population and the Tamil
Diaspora that the government is serious about
political inclusion.'
Here, three matters
arise.
One, is your reference
to Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka as one of 'Sri
Lanka's minority communities'.
The second is your reference to 'political inclusion'. And the third that
you envisage that the political solution, whatever it may
be, will be a 'post conflict'
one.
Let me examine each of
these three aspects of US policy in turn.
Minority
Community
Your view that the
Tamils who inhabit the north and East of the island of
Sri Lanka are simply a 'minority community' does not
accord with the political reality on the ground. You
will, ofcourse, be not unaware of the declaration
by the Gandhian leader of the Tamil United Liberation
Front, Mr.S.J.V.Chelvanayagam in 1975, on
winning a mandate for Tamil Eelam
-
"Throughout the ages the Sinhalese and Tamils in the
country lived as distinct sovereign people till they
were brought under foreign domination. It should be
remembered that the Tamils were in the vanguard of the
struggle for independence in the full confidence that
they also will regain their freedom. We have for the last 25 years made every
effort to secure our political rights on the basis of
equality with the Sinhalese in a united
Ceylon."
"It is a regrettable fact that successive Sinhalese
governments have used the power that flows from
independence to deny us our fundamental rights and reduce
us to the position of a subject people. These
governments have been able to do so only by using
against the Tamils the sovereignty common to the
Sinhalese and the Tamils."
"I wish to announce to my people and to the country
that I consider the verdict at this election as a
mandate that the Tamil Eelam nation should exercise the
sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and
become free."
The historical fact is that 'the Sinhalese and Tamils
in the country lived as distinct sovereign people till
they were brought under foreign domination' in 1833. And
the record proves that during the past 60 years and more,
the national identity of the Tamil people has been
consolidated by
oppressive rule by a permanent alien Sinhala majority
within the confines of a single state.
I urge you to recognise that the Tamils who inhabit the north and East of the island of Sri
Lanka are not simply
one of Sri Lanka's 'minority
communities' but that they constitute a nation of
people and that the conflict in the island concerns two
nations who speak different languages, who trace their
history to different origins and who live by and large in
different territories.
You may query: what after all is a nation? And I would respond that
a nation is a community of people, whose members
are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common
culture, a national consciousness -
"..A nation is a community of people, whose
members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a
common culture, a national consciousness... a nation
exists when a significant number of people in a
community consider themselves to form a nation, or
behave as if they formed one. It is not necessary that
the whole of the population should so feel, or so
behave, and it is not possible to lay down dogmatically
a minimum percentage of a population which must be so
affected. When a significant group holds this belief,
it possesses 'national consciousness'." - Hugh
Seton-Watson, Professor of Russian
History at the School of Slavonic and East European
Studies, University of
London: * Nations & States - Methuen,
London 1977
I urge you to accept the view expressed by 15 Non
Governmental Organisations 1 at
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Geneva on
8 February 1993 that 'the Tamil population in the
North and East of the island of Sri Lanka are a 'people'
with the right to freely choose their political status'
-
"A social group, which shares objective elements
such as a common language and which has acquired a
subjective consciousness of togetherness, by its life
within a relatively well defined territory, and its
struggle against alien domination, clearly constitutes
a 'people' with the right to self determination. Today,
there is an urgent need for the international community
to recognise that the Tamil population in the North and
East of the island of Sri Lanka are such a 'people'
with the right to freely choose their political
status."
I also urge you to recognise the force of reason in
that which 17 non governmental organisations2 told the UN Commission
on Human Rights at its 50th Sessions in February
1994:
''..The Tamil population in the North and East of the
island, who have lived from ancient times within
relatively well defined geographical boundaries in the
north and east of the island, share an ancient
heritage, a vibrant culture, and a living language
which traces its origins to more than 2500 years ago.
...Before the advent of the British ..., separate
kingdoms existed for the Tamil areas and for the
Sinhala areas in the island. The Tamil people and the
Sinhala people were brought within the confines of one
state for the first time by the British in 1833. After
the departure of the British in 1948, an alien Sinhala
people speaking a language different to that of the
Tamils and claiming a separate and distinct heritage
has persistently denied the rights and fundamental
freedoms of the Tamil people. ..
It is ...our view that the Secretary General should
consider invoking his good offices with the aim of
contributing to the establishment of peace in the
island of Sri Lanka through respect for the existence
of the Tamil homeland in the NorthEast of the island of
Sri Lanka and recognition for the right of the Tamil
people to freely determine their political
status.''
You may query: what does it matter whether the Tamil
population in the North and East of the island constitute
a nation? In what way does that impact on the political
resolution of the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka?
The relevance relates to your stated view of the need
for 'political inclusion' and 'credible power sharing'.
And it is to this matter of 'political inclusion' and
'credible power sharing' that I now turn.
Political Inclusion
The 'political inclusion' of the Tamils as a people
must begin by recognising their existence as such a
people.
'..The simplest statement that can be
made about a nation is that it is a body of people who
feel that they are a nation; and it may be that when
all the fine spun analysis is concluded, this will be
the ultimate statement as well..". - Rupert Emerson: From Empire to Nation - The
Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples,
1960
The 'political inclusion' of the Tamils as a people
must also begin by recognising the existence of their
homeland. And
the words of Sathasivam Krishnakumar in 1990 remain true
today -
''I was once asked by an Englishman connected with
the British Refugee Council: 'You say Tamil Eelam, but
where are the boundaries of this Tamil Eelam that you
talk about? Show me.' I was taken aback by the
directness of the question. I thought for a while,
searching for an appropriate response. Then I replied:
'Take a map of the island. Take a paint brush and paint
all the areas where Sri Lanka has bombed and
launched artillery attacks during these past several
years. When you have finished, the painted area
that you see - that is Tamil Eelam.''' Sathasivam
Krishnakumar, (Kittu) a founding member of the
LTTE, speaking in Zurich, on Maha Veerar Naal, in
November 1990
I urge you to recognise that the struggle for Tamil
Eelam is about the democratic right of the people of
Tamil Eelam to govern themselves in their homeland -
nothing less and
nothing more. Democracy and the right to self
determination go hand in hand. I urge you to recognise
that one cannot exist without the other. If democracy
means the rule of the people, by the people, for the
people, then the principle of self determination secures
that no one people may rule another. The ground reality
is that during the past 60 years and more, no Tamil has
ever been elected by a Sinhala majority electorate and no
Sinhalese has ever been elected by a Tamil majority
electorate. Rule by a permanent ethnic majority is the
dark side of the practise of
democracy within the confines of a single Sri Lankan
state.
I urge you to recognise the underlying
truth behind that which Professor Marshall Singer said in
1995 -
"...One of the essential elements that must be kept in mind in understanding the
Sri Lankan ethnic conflict is that, since 1958 at
least, every time Tamil politicians negotiated some
sort of power-sharing deal with a Sinhalese government
- regardless of which party was in power - the
opposition Sinhalese party always claimed that the
party in power had negotiated away too much. In almost
every case - sometimes within days - the party in power
backed down on the agreement..." - Professor Marshall Singer, at US
Congress Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Hearing on Sri
Lanka November 14,1995
I urge you to recognise the
underlying truth that in Sri Lanka a Sinhala ethno
nationalism has sought to masquerade as a Sri Lankan
'multi ethnic secular civic' nationalism albeit with a
Sinhala Lion flag, an unrepealed Sinhala
only Act, with Buddhism as the state religion and with a
Sinhala Sri Lanka name which it gave itself unilaterally in 1972.
"...In the Sinhala language, the words for nation,
race and people are practically synonymous, and a
multiethnic or multicommunal nation or
state is incomprehensible to the popular mind. The
emphasis on Sri
Lanka as the land of the Sinhala Buddhists carried
an emotional popular appeal, compared with which the
concept of a multiethnic polity was a meaningless
abstraction..." - Sinhala Historian K. M. de Silva
in Religion, Nationalism and the State, USF Monographs
in Religion and Public Policy, No.1 (Tampa, FLA:
University of South Florida 1986) at p31 quoted by
David Little in Religion and Self Determination in Self
Determination - International Perspectives, MacMillan
Press, 1996
"The central place of Buddhism in
the constitution of the Singhalese territorial relation
of a nation goes back to the Sinhalese histories of the
fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era, the
Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa. There one finds the myth
of the visit of the Buddha to Sri Lanka, during which
he freed the Island of its original supernatural and
evil inhabitants, the Yakkas. As a result the Buddha
had sanctified the entire
island transforming it into a Buddhist
territory. These histories thus asserted a territorial
relation between Sinhalese and Buddhism, the stability
of which was derived from a perceived order of the
universe, that is, the actions of the Buddha. The
reaffirmation of that relation may be observed to-day
in the shrines throughout the island at Mahiyangana,
where the supposed collarbone of the Buddha is kept, at
Mount Samantakuta, where the Buddha's supposed
fossilized footprint may be seen and the most important
one at Kandy, supposedly containing the relic of the
Buddha's tooth." - Stephen Grossly, Professor of
Philosophy and Religion, Clemson University on The
primordial, kinship and nationality". "When is the
Nation?" Edited by Atsuko Ichijo and Gordana Uzelac
Routledge (2005) p 68
I urge you to recognise that an
'inclusive political solution' must address the
political reality on the ground - and that is that 'a
multiethnic state is incomprehensible to the popular
(Sinhala) mind' and that the emphasis on Sri Lanka as
the land
of the Sinhala Buddhists carries an emotional
popular appeal, compared with which the concept of a
multiethnic polity is a meaningless abstraction. A
principle centred approach to the conflict in the island
of Sri Lanka will need to recognise that the 'problem in
nationally divided societies is that the different groups
have different political
identities, and, in cases where the identities are
mutually exclusive (not nested), these groups see
themselves as forming distinct political
communities.'
"...The problem in nationally divided
societies is that the different groups have different
political identities, and, in cases where the
identities are mutually exclusive (not nested), these
groups see themselves as forming distinct political
communities. In this situation, the options available
to represent these distinct identities are very
limited, because any solution at the state level is
inclined to be biased in favour of one kind of identity
over another. That is to say, if the minority group
seeks to be self-governing, or to secede from the
larger state, increased representation at the centre
will not be satisfactory. The problem in this case is
that the group does not identify with the centre, or
want to be part of that political
community...One conclusion that can
be drawn is that, in some cases, secession/partition of
the two communities, where that option is available, is
the best outcome overall. .." Professor
Margaret Moore in Normative
Justifications for Liberal Nationalism:Justice,
Democracy and National Identity in 2001
I urge you to recognise that peace will
not come in the island of Sri Lanka without recognising
the separate 'political identities' (and therefore the
separate 'national identities') of the Tamil people and
the Sinhala people who inhabit the island of Sri
Lanka.
Post
Conflict
Let me now turn to the
third matter - and that is what appears to be your
acceptance of the view held by President Rajapaksa's
genocidal regime that whatever may be the political
solution it should be a 'post conflict' one. Given the
genocidal onslaught launched on the Tamil people during
the past several months, I trust that you will agree that
'post conflict' in this context means 'post
genocide'.
Here I believe that it
is helpful to point out that genocides do not just
happen. Mao Tse-tung's famous dictum that the
guerrilla moves amongst the people as a fish swims in the
sea has brought with it the counter guerrilla strategy of
draining the sea.
 
l to r: Mao Tse-tung - Efrain Rios Montt
You will recall that it was a strategy
which was spelt out with remarkable candour by US
supported
Guatemala Gen. Efrain Rios Montt in the 1980s -
"The guerrilla is the fish. The people
are the sea. If you cannot catch the fish, you have to
drain the sea."
That Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, led some of
the worst atrocities against the indigenous Maya people
in Guatemala showed that for him, like Mao Tse Tung,
theory was a very practical thing.
"... In 1982, an Amnesty International
report estimated that over 10,000 indigenous
Guatemalans and peasant farmers were killed from March
to July of that year, and that 100,000 rural villagers
were forced to flee their homes. According to more
recent estimates, tens of thousands of non-combatants
were killed by the regime's death squads in the
subsequent eighteen months. Based on the number of
people killed per capita, Ríos Montt was probably
the most violent dictator in Latin America's recent
history, more so than even other notorious dictators
such as Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Argentina's Jorge
Rafael Videla, and Bolivia's Hugo Banzer. Given
Ríos Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the
United States, the Reagan administration continued to
support the general and his regime, paying a visit to
Guatemala City in December 1982. During a meeting with
Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared:
"President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal
integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to
improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to
promote social justice." "
Wikipedia on Gen. Efrain Rios Montt
President Rajapaksa has chosen to follow
in the footsteps of Guatemala Gen. Efrain Rios Montt .
The Tamil people will be thankful that you have not
followed in the footsteps of President Ronald Reagan and
described Sinhala Sri Lanka President Rajapaksa as 'a man
of great personal integrity and commitment' concerned to
'improve the quality of life for all Sri Lankans and to
promote social justice'. The Tamil people will also take
some re-assurance from the
words of President Clinton in March 1999 -
"For the United States, it is
important I state clearly that support for military
forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence
and widespread repression (in Guatemala) was wrong and
the United States must not repeat that mistake."
I urge that the US does not repeat the
same mistake. I urge you to attend to the words of
Benjamin Valentino, Paul Huth and Dylan Balch-Lindsay in
2004 -
"...Why do some wars result in the
intentional killing of large numbers of civilians?.. In
the statistical analysis of our data set of 147 wars,
we find strong evidence supporting our hypothesis that
mass killing is often a calculated military strategy
used by regimes attempting to defeat major guerrilla
insurgencies. Unlike conventional military forces,
guerrilla armies often rely directly on the local
civilian population for logistical support. Because
guerrilla forces are difficult to defeat directly,
governments facing major guerrilla insurgencies have
strong incentives to target the guerrillas' civilian
base of support. We find that mass killing is
significantly more likely during guerrilla wars than
during other kinds of wars. In addition, we find
that the likelihood of mass killing among guerrilla
conflicts is greatly increased when the guerrillas
receive high levels of active support from the local
population or when the insurgency poses a major
military threat to the regime"
"Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla
Warfare, International Organization (2004),
58:2:375-407 Cambridge University Press
The mass killings by
President Rajapaksa's armed forces is proof of the high
levels of active support that the LTTE has received from
the local population. Indeed, it will be fair to say that
if the LTTE did not enjoy that support, the Rajapaksa
regime would not have found the need to resort to
genocide to drain the sea. Unable to catch 'the
fish', the murderous President
Rajapksa regime (like the equally murderous regime of
Guatemala Gen. Efrain Rios Montt), has sought to drain
'the sea' by resort to genocide - and imprisoning those
it has failed to kill off in concentration camps called
welfare villages.
"...Without special permission from the Ministry of
Defence, you can't even visit Vavuniya, a town in the
north where civilians fleeing the conflict are being
brought and which has never been in rebel hands. The
army also told me I couldn't visit wounded civilians in
the eastern town of Trincomalee, "because that's the
way we want it. Simple answer." A visiting crew from Al
Jazeera complained about travelling around Sri Lanka
only to film soldiers putting their hands over the
camera lens. Eventually, the army invited about 50
frustrated reporters on a day trip to one of the
"welfare villages" where displaced Tamil civilians are
being settled outside Vavuniya. Although it's
surrounded by razor wire and soldiers prevent anyone
from entering or leaving, the army would have you
believe that no one is actually being detained. We were
told we could wander freely and speak to whomever we
liked. But soldiers wandered with us and some people
said they'd been instructed not to speak to the
foreigners." Media &
the Soldier - The Gospel According to Gotabhaya - Amos
Roberts, The Australian, 23 March 2009
But, the actions
of Muthukumar, Ravichandran, Thamil Venthan,
Sivaprakasam and Muruguthasan
suggest that as President Rajapaksa drains the sea, he is
also feeding the fire.
"draining the sea and feeding the fire..."
I am reminded of something which
Savyamurthy Thondaman who served as a Minister in
President Jayawardene's cabinet said in March 1992 -
''...If you mean defeating the LTTE, it
could in my opinion be equated to defeating every
single Tamil in the North-East. One thing is clear. You
cannot isolate the LTTE from the rest of the Tamil
people. Wiping out the LTTE means wiping out the
Tamils. Until there are Tamils there will be a LTTE
hard-core. Remember that the LTTE... is seeking to
express the
aspirations of the Tamil people..'' Savyamurthy
Thondaman in March 1992
You say in your letter that you have
'called on the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam to allow civilians freedom of movement and to
discuss modalities for ending hostilities.' You also say
that you have 'condemned the actions of the Tamil Tigers
who are reported to be holding civilians as human
shields, and to have shot at civilians leaving Tiger
areas of control'.
I note that you have
been cautious and referred to the actions of the LTTE as
having been 'reported.' Given the control of the media by
the President Rajapaksa regime and the disinformation campaign
carried out by his regime, you are right to be
cautious. Said that, calling the sea in which the
guerrilla swims as a 'human shield' is misleading as that
would suggest that the responsibility for the continuing
genocide somehow lies with the resistance
movement.
It is unfortunate that the US policy that
you have adumbrated in your letter, labels the 'sea' in
which the guerrilla swims as a 'human shield' and appears
directed to help draining the sea by evacuating the
Tamil civilian population from their homeland in the
Vanni to camps - albeit supervised/overseen by the
international community so that the US and the
'international community' (presumably not including China
and/or Iran and/or even India) may secure their own
physical presence in the island, through international
NGOs and/or the United States Pacific
Command. It is an approach that has led some Sinhala
writers to draw their own conclusions -
"..The West
wants a "humanitarian pause." Whenever anyone uses the word
"humanitarian", its like politicians kissing babies,
its time to get worried. The word "humanitarian" is
another word for "weapons of Mass destruction". .. The
present "Humanitarian" pause smacks of a Western
agenda, rather than the World coming running to help
the Tamils. It is an attempt by the West and India to
counter Chinese strategy in Sri Lanka and to safeguard
their strategic interests. The Western world have been
preoccupied with other issues and have been taken by
surprise by the speed and the momentum of the Sri
Lankan military advance. Suddenly, it has dawned on
them that the politico military landscape of Sri Lanka
has changed and is continuing to change rapidly. They
have suddenly woken up to the prospect that in Sri
Lanka, the exit of the Tiger, will result in 'enter the
Dragon'. The West is scrambling to press the pause
button. A humanitarian pause, of course." Exit the
Tiger, Enter the Dragon " Dushy Ranetunge 2 April 2009 in
Transcurrents
Given all the foregoing
I have tried to understand the reasons for your denial of
the justice of the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam
for an independent state - an independent state which may
associate on equal terms and in freedom with an
independent Sinhala Sri Lankan state. As I had pointed
out in an open letter to
Senator Kerry on 19 February 2009, it is not that the
US does not have an understanding of the issues in
relation to the conflict in the island of Sri
Lanka. You will recall the statement by US
Congressman Mario Baggio in
the US House of Representatives many years ago in May
1980 -
"To understand the problems that exist in Sri Lanka
- formerly known as Ceylon - it is essential that we
review its history. Located in South Asia, the island
of Sri Lanka has been composed of two distinct
populations for centuries - the Tamils and the
Sinhalese. They lived not as one, but as two
nations, with separate languages, religions,
cultures, and clearly demarcated geographic
territories...
My colleagues and I have introduced the following
resolution because we believe it is essential to
express the concern of the Congress about the army
occupation in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka: the denial
of basic rights, including freedom of expression,
freedom of religion, equal citizenship and educational
opportunities; and the freedom to exercise the right of political
self-determination."
You will also recall the resolution of US Massachusetts House of
Representatives in June 1981 calling for the
Restoration of the Separate Sovereign State of Tamil
Eelam -
".... Whereas, from ancient times two nations the
Sinhalese and the Tamils possessed distinct languages,
religions, cultures and clearly demarcated geographic
territories until the British who were
characteristically oblivious to the differences between
these two separate nations, imposed one rule for the
purpose of colonial administrative unification,
and
Whereas, as was to be expected in 1948 when the
British left the island and two unwilling nations were
consequently left under a unitary governmental
structure, the majority Sinhalese faction subverted
democratic principles to become the new masters of the
Tamil - speaking people, and...
Whereas, successive Sinhala governments have been
guilty of racism and acts of racial discrimination
against the Tamils in the fields of education,
employment, religion, politics, economic development
and trade, and
Whereas, from time to time violence is used it the
Sinhala governments, army and the police against the
Tamils without provocation as a political weapon in
order to obtain subservience and
Whereas, in 1972 the representatives of the Sinhala
and Tamil nation met together and peacefully overthrew
British sovereignty and thereby each nation
resuscitated, and reverted to, its own sovereignty,
and
Whereas, a new constitution, which reiterated
that foremost place should be accorded to the Buddhist
religion and the Sinhalese language. was unilaterally
adopted without the cooperation or consultation with
the majority of the Tamil representatives in
Parliament, and
Whereas, the Tamil nation of Eelam at the general
election of May 1977 gave a clear mandate for the restoration
and reconstitution of the separate sovereign state of
Tamil Eelam by winning 18 out of 19 Tamil seats in
Tamil Eelam, and
Whereas, the Tamil people were again not a party to
the constitution of 1978 which
replaced its predecessor of 1972, and
Whereas, the Tamil nation of Eelam opposed the two
constitutions as illegal impositions on them and their
territory and asserted their right of self
determination and sovereignty by non violent
agitations, and
Whereas, the Sinhala government of Sri Lanka has
occupied the territory of Tamil Eelam with its armed
forces and security services and are denying the
right of self-determination and
sovereignty of the Tamil nation
by the use of force on Tamil people, and
Whereas, the Tamil United Liberation Front which
received the mandate of the Tamil people at
the may 1977 general election for the separate
sovereign Tamil state is continuing the struggle for
freedom by non-violent ways preached and practised by
Mahatma Gandhi and by the late
leader of Tamil nation, S.J.V.
Chelvanayagam,
Resolved, that the Massachusetts House
of Representatives hereby urges the President and the
Congress of the United States to support the struggle
for freedom by the Tamil nation for the restoration and reconstitution
the separate sovereign state of Tamil Eelam and to
recognize publicly the right of self determination by
the Tamil people of Tamil Eelam, and be it further
resolved,
that copies of these resolutions be
forwarded to the President of the United States, to the
Presiding Officer of each branch of Congress, to the
members thereof from this Commonwealth, to the
Secretary of State, to the Director of the World Bank
and to the Secretary General of the United Nations."
Resolution of US Massachusetts House
of Representatives 18 June 1981
I urge you to accept that states have
lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created
them and that restrictions on self-determination threaten
not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its
legitimation in democracy -
"...Let us accept the fact that states
have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who
created them. The lifecycle of a state might last for
many generations, but hardly any Member State of the
United Nations has existed within its present borders
for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze
human evolution has in the past been a futile
undertaking and has probably brought about more
violence than if such a process had been controlled
peacefully...Restrictions on self-determination
threaten not only democracy itself but the state which
seeks its legitimation in democracy" Self Determination & the Future of
Democracy - Prince Hans-Adam II
of Liechtenstein, 2001
I trust that you will
not take it amiss if I urge you to revisit your
words in October 2007 -
"..I believe that terrorism is a tool
that has been utilized throughout history to achieve
certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others
territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic
objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all
terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much
better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the
raisons d'être of terrorists. I mean, what the
Tamil Tigers
are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or
the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected
by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms
of what is the philosophical or ideological
underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been
painting with such a broad brush, which has not been
particularly helpful in understanding what it is we
were up against when it comes to those who pursue
terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking... (US)
can have an approach that
tries to project power and authority in an appropriate
way that draws on all aspects of American power, that
inspires and attracts as much
as coerces."
A principle centered approach which will
'inspire and attract' will also need to draw a distinction between violence and
terrorism. The two words are not synonymous and much
confusion arises by conflating the two. All violence is
not terrorism and an US approach which liberates
political language will also help liberate peoples who
have taken up arms as a last resort in their struggle
for freedom from oppressive alien rule.
I urge you to accept that there is a
compelling need to attend to the conclusions of the UN
Special Rapporteur, Kalliopi K. Koufa in 2004 -
"The most problematic issue relating to terrorism and
armed conflict is distinguishing terrorists from lawful
combatants, both in terms of combatants in legitimate
struggles for self-determination and those involved in
civil wars or non-international armed conflicts. In the
former category, States that do not recognize a claim
to self-determination will claim that those using force
against the State's military forces are necessarily
terrorists. In the latter, States will also claim that
those fighting against the State are terrorists, and
that rather than a civil war, there is a situation of
"terrorism and counter-terrorism activity"....The
controversy over the exact meaning, content, extent and
beneficiaries of, as well as the means and methods
utilized to enforce the
right to self-determination has been the major
obstacle to the development of both a comprehensive
definition of terrorism and a comprehensive treaty on
terrorism. The ideological splits and differing
approaches preventing any broad consensus during the
period of decolonization still persist in today's
international relations. ...
...The Special Rapporteur has analysed the
distinction between armed conflict and terrorism, with
particular attention to conflicts to realize the right
to self-determination and civil wars. This is an issue
of great international controversy, in need of careful
review due to the "your freedom fighter is my
terrorist" problem and the increase in the rhetorical
use of the expression "war on terrorism", labelling
wars as terrorism, and combatants in wars as
terrorists, and it has an extremely undesirable effect
of nullifying application of and compliance with
humanitarian law in those situations, while at the same
time providing no positive results in combating actual
terrorism...." Terrorism and Human Rights Final Report of the
Special Rapporteur, Kalliopi K. Koufa, 25 June
2004
International
Frame
As I have said, I have
tried to understand the reasons for your denial of the
justice of the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for
an independent state - an independent state which may associate on equal
terms and in freedom with an independent Sinhala Sri
Lankan state.
I am driven to the
conclusion that it is the dynamics of the balance of power in
the Indian Ocean region that leads you to give your
support to the continued existence of an undivided Sri
Lanka.
It appears that the US
is concerned that support for an independent Tamil Eelam
may lead to an increased Chinese/Iranian presence in
Sinhala Sri Lanka and in the Indian Ocean
region. This is not dissimilar to the concern of
India in 1980s that support for an independent Tamil
Eelam may result in President Jayawardene turning more to
the US.
The record shows that
Sinhala Sri Lanka has exploited the balance of power
triangle (US - India - China) in the Indian Ocean region
by engaging in a 'balance of power' exercise of its own
by handing over parts of the island (and the surrounding
seas) to India, US and China. We have
India in the Trincomalee oil farm, at the same time
we have a
Chinese coal powered energy plant in Trincomalee; we
have a
Chinese project for the Hambantota port, at the same
time we have the attempted
naval exercises with the US from Hambantota (to
contain Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean); we have
the grant
of preferred licenses to India for exploration of oil in
the Mannar seas, at the same time we have a similar
grant to China and
a 'road show' for tenders from US and UK based
multinational corporations; meanwhile we have the
continued presence of the Voice of
America installations in the island and the ten
year Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA)
was signed by the United States and Sri Lanka on 5 March
2007.
Said all that, you will
ofcourse recognise that a 'post conflict', 'post
genocide' Sri Lanka will prove to be no different to
Saddam Hussien's Iraq which the US supported in Iraq's
war against Iran. I have no wish to sound patronising but
George Santayana's remark that 'those who do not learn
from history are condemned to relive it' continues to
remain true.
" ..Sri Lanka
President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday said that some
foreign and local elements' attempt to tarnish the
image of Sri Lanka by framing charges of 'war crimes' and
human rights violations against the country, would
never succeed. "That would never succeed as long as the
Sri Lankan government getting support from the people
of the country," the President said addressing some
4,000 former UNP supporters from the Kalutara District,
who joined the Sri Lanka Freedom Party yesterday at the
Temple Trees in Colombo. "I am ready to go to gallows
or the gas chamber for more than ten times to save the
motherland," the President said He also charged the
then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe for signing
the Ceasefire Agreement with the LTTE leader
Prabhakaran."
Framing charges against Sri Lanka would never succeed,
says Sri Lanka President, 4 April
2009
Murderous regimes who
have acquired a propensity to murder will continue to
murder to stay in power. The murder of Sinhala editor
Lasantha Wikremaratne is a case in point.
Shift
Happens
Again, I am not
unmindful of the issues raised by Al Qaida, the US
presence in Afghanistan and the US need to secure the
support of Pakistan. Nor am I unmindful of the global
financial/economic crisis, its impact on US foreign
policy and your declared
view that your 'relationship with China will
be the most important bilateral relationship in the world
in this century'. I am also not unmindful that the US may
regard today's world as an 'unipolar world with a
multilateral perspective' whilst
others may regard today's world as an 'asymmetric
mutipolar world' and still others may see it as an
'emerging bi polar
world'.
For those who have lived through the
collapse of sterling as the world trading currency, the
depression of the 1930s, the rise of Germany and the
eventual carnage of World War II, there may be a sense of
deja vu - a compelling sense of familiarity. Shift happens.
"Look back over the past, with its
changing empires that rose and fell, and you can
foresee the future, too." - Marcus Aurelius
A.D.169
I recognise that today, the US is a debtor
country and that the role of the US dollar as a world
trading currency is under threat.
"....The global crisis of overproduction
is showing up the underlying weakness of the US real
economy, as a result of which US trade and budget
deficits are galloping. The euro now poses a credible
alternative to the status of the dollar as the global
reserve currency, threatening the US's crucial ability
to fund its deficits by soaking up the world's savings.
The US anticipates that the capture of Iraq, and
whatever else it has in store for the region, will
directly benefit its corporations (oil, arms,
engineering, financial) even as it shuts out the
corporations from other imperialist countries. Further,
it intends to prevent the bulk of petroleum trade being
conducted in euros, and thus maintain the dollar's
supremacy...." The Invasion
of Iraq: Oil & the Euro, Aspects of India's Economy
- December 2002
Way Forward
Given all this, there are two ways in
which the world may go in the aftermath of the current
global financial/economic crisis.
One will be the path that was trodden in
the 1930s, the jostling for narrow national advantage,
leading to world wide conflict when push comes to shove -
with China being cast in the role of Germany in the
1930s.
The other is for all of us to learn from
the lessons of the past and resolutely seek a principle
centred approach to the resolution of conflicts between
peoples and recognise the enduring wisdom of Charles
Chaplin in the Great Dictator -
"...I'm sorry, but I
don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I
don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to
help everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black men
- white. We all want to help one another. Human beings
are like that. We want to live by each other's
happiness - not by each other's misery. We don't want
to hate and despise one another. In this world there
is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and
can provide for everyone. The way of life can be
free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has
poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with
hate - has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our
knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and
unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More
than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness,
we need kindness and gentleness. Without these
qualities, life will be violent and all will be
lost...." Charles Chaplin in the concluding speech
in his film the Great Dictator - quoted in Charles Chaplin :
My Autobiography,1964
"
A principle centred approach will need to
pay more than lip service to that which the peoples of
the world proclaimed in the preamble to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 in
the aftermath of World War II -
"...Whereas it is essential, if man is
not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human
rights should be protected by the rule of law...
Whereas Member States have pledged
themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms.."
In this day and age, the approach spelt
out by India's External Affairs Minister, Pranab
Mukherjee in October 2008 is nothing short of neanderthal
and a regression to the politics of the old cold war
-
"We have a very comprehensive
relationship with Sri Lanka. In our anxiety to protect
the civilians, we should not forget the strategic
importance of this island to India's interests,...
especially in view of attempts by countries like
Pakistan and China to gain a strategic foothold in the
island nation...Colombo had been told that India would
"look after your security requirements, provided you do
not look around". "We cannot have a playground of
international players in our backyard." Indian
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee
The United States, India and China will
want to recognise that the Indian Ocean is
nobody's 'backyard'. Neither is it a playground. The
Indian Ocean is a major sea lane connecting Middle East,
East Asia and Africa with Europe and the Americas and for
any one country to claim hegemony is the path not to
peace but to confrontation and perpetual conflict.
"The Indian Ocean ...is a major sea lane
connecting Middle East, East Asia and Africa with
Europe and the Americas. Boasting rich living and
non-living resources, from marine life to oil and
natural gas, IO is economically crucial to Africa, Asia
and Australasia, the three continents bordering it, and
the world at large....The Indian Ocean is a critical
waterway for global trade and commerce. This strategic
expanse hosts heavy international maritime traffic that
includes half of the world's containerized cargo, one
third of its bulk cargo and two third of its oil
shipment. Its waters carry heavy traffic of petroleum
and petroleum products from the oilfields of the
Persian Gulf and Indonesia, and contain an estimated
40% of the world's offshore oil production...
The Ocean features four critically important access
waterways facilitating international maritime trade -
the Suez Canal in Egypt, Bab-el-Mandeb (bordering Djibouti and
Yemen), Straits of Hormuz (bordering Iran and
Oman), and Straits of Malacca (bordering
Indonesia and Malaysia). These "chokepoints" or narrow
channels are critical to world oil trade as huge
amounts of oil pass through them. " The role of the Indian Ocean in
Facilitating Global Maritime Trade, Nazery Khalid,
June 2005
A principle centered approach will also
want to recognise that, significantly, the day
before the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, on 9 December 1948, the
United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the
Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which declared,
inter alia
" The Contracting Parties, Having
considered the declaration made by the General Assembly
of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11
December 1946 that genocide is a crime under
international law, contrary to the spirit and
aims of the United Nations and condemned by the
civilized world; Recognizing that at all periods
of history genocide has inflicted great losses on
humanity; and Being convinced that, in order to
liberate mankind from such an odious scourge,
international co-operation is required; Hereby agree as
hereinafter provided.... The Contracting Parties
confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of
peace or in time of war, is a crime under international
law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish..."
Here I urge you to
give credence to your responsibility to protect by
strengthening the capacity of the people of Tamil Eelam
to resist the genocidal onslaught launched on them by
Sinhala Sri Lanka and to that end, remove the ban that
you have imposed on the LTTE - rather than await its annihilation
and await a 'post conflict' solution from President
Rajapakasa's regime. At the risk of repeating
myself may I say that 'post conflict' means 'post genocide'. And for President
Rajapaksa 'inclusive political solution' means that
which the Sinhala Buddhist ethno nation may offer
to a conquered people so that Sinhala Buddhist hegemony
may be secured in the island for the forseeable future
within the confines of a so called Sri Lankan 'civic
nation/state' with a Sinhala Sri Lanka name (which it gave itself
unilaterally in 1972), with a Sinhala lion flag, with
an unrepealed
Sinhala Only Act and with Buddhism
as the State religion.
I urge you to
accept that human rights activist Yelena Bonner (widow
of Andrei Sakharov) was right when she declared
"the inviolability of a country's
borders against invasion from the outside must be
clearly separated from the right to statehood of any
people within a state's borders."
I believe that the long term strategic
interests of the United States will not be furthered by
steadfastly defending the inviolability of territorial
boundaries of existing states, regardless of how and when
they were determined. That will not be the path to a
stable world order. Time will ofcourse, tell.
"....The political stability in-ground
is much more conducive to human rights and all those
aspirations that we hold sacred in the United States.
And I think that we've got to get away from this idea
that we need to support the central government
everywhere because it's always preferable to have a
unified state rather than different
ones.... we need to rethink the
customary support we give for unity, and blinding
ourselves to the oppression, to the misery that's
inflicted on minorities and creates civil warfare, if
you will, as in Sri Lanka, that will persist forever,
until there's finally an ability to create a separate
statehood that will be able to conduct its own affairs
in ways that satisfies its own domestic constituency
and is harmonious with its neighbours.... Remember the wisdom of Lord
Palmerston: nations don't have permanent friends and
enemies; they have permanent interests. And the
interests the United States regularly is in recognizing
these separatists-if you want to call them separatist
moments for statehood, really, because it furthers
political stability..." Bruce
Fein, founder of the American Freedom Agenda,
served in the US Justice Department under President
Reagan, adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise
Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage
Foundation, lecturer at the Brookings Institute, and
adjunct professor at George Washington University in
Kosovo: The global significance of independence, 24
February 2008
There is a need for the US to defend the
very real values that a people stand for and speak from
the heart to the hearts of those people. These are the
values which the Obama administration has pledged to
uphold. 'Values are the essential principles of life
without which life would be without meaning - things
would fall apart, and the centre cannot hold. They are
agents of social cohesion'.
"...Movements
for justice throughout the world and throughout history
always begin with and are sustained by a moral
statement, a value idea...Movements are sustained when
there are enough people whose imagination is captivated
by a vision that lifts them beyond wherever they may be
and which encourages them to have a better idea of
themselves and their history into what they might or
could become.. Values are the essential principles of
life without which life would be without meaning -
things would fall apart, and the centre cannot hold.
They are agents of social cohesion.... " N Barney
Pityana in Liberation, Civil Rights &
Democracy, The Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial
Lecture, 2004
I urge you to recognise that the United
States has an opportunity to make Sri Lanka a model and
help it to evolve, by negotiating, two autonomous democratic
political structures within a system acceptable to both
parties,
"....The United States has an
opportunity to make Sri Lanka a model and help it to
evolve, by negotiating, two autonomous democratic
political structures within a system acceptable to both
parties, where ethnic communities can coexist
peacefully on the Island. The US should be firm in its
message to the government and the opposition, that if
negotiations are not forthcoming immediately, they
should be prepared to conduct a referendum of the Tamil
people in Sri Lanka. This can be done with the
assistance of the United Nations similar to the
referendum in East Timor. Thus, in the absence of a
negotiated settlement, the Tamil people could determine
whether they want a confederation or a separate state as endorsed by the
Tamil people in the last democratic elections held
in 1977 in the north and east of Sri Lanka...." -
US
Congressman Brad Sherman, 1 September 2000
Yours sincerely,
Nadesan Satyendra
|
