|
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
SRI LANKA - TAMIL EELAM
International Seminar:
Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka
Zurich, Switzerland 7 - 9 April 2006
Organized by
the Centre for Just Peace and
Democracy (CJPD)
in collaboration with the Berghof Foundation, Sri Lanka
Opening of Seminar on 7 April 2006 at Zurich, Switzerland:
Dr. Robert Nopers, Director,
Berghof
Foundation, Sri Lanka and
Mr. Coomaran Tarcisius, Director,
Centre for Just Peace and
Democracy
From the Preface
to
Centre for Just Peace & Democracy - Envisioning New
Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka, 2006
The seminar titled
�Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka� was held in
Switzerland- Zurich on the 7th, 8th and 9th of
April 2006. It was jointly organized by the Centre for Just Peace and
Democracy (CJPD) and the Berghof Foundation for Conflict studies, Sri Lanka
Office.
The seminar was
governed by the confidentiality rule, known as �Chatham
House Rules�,
which prohibits the attribution of statements to particular
speakers. This publication brings together the papers
submitted by the participants together with seminar
background materials. The participants were given the
opportunity to revise their papers based on the feedback
they received at the seminar.
The seminar brought
together a wide range of scholars, academics and peace
activists from all communities in Sri Lanka, intellectuals
from the Tamil diaspora and Sri Lanka expatriate community
and conflict transformation experts from the international
community, with a view to exploring fresh approaches towards
finding a sustainable solution to the ethno-political
conflict in Sri Lanka. A list of the participants appears as
an annex.
The participants
were selected through a process of joint discussion between
the organizers and they participated in their individual
capacity and not as official representatives of any
political party, organization or institution. Against
a conflictual background which can at best be described as
politically polarized culture with high levels of mutual
mistrust, the organizers hoped to create an atmosphere of
mutual respect, understanding and to create a common
attitude towards problem analysis and generating creative
options.
The seminar was
organized at the track-2 level with a vision to revitalize a
genuine discourse between influentials and policy makers
across the conflict divide. As such, after a long period of
silence, the event can be seen as an exploratory first step
towards communication between actors at the track 2 level.
The CJPD is an
organization formed by a team of diaspora Tamil
intellectuals and international experts in the field of
conflict resolution. The Center is committed to formulate
alternate approaches to conflict resolution that will
inspire the continuation of negotiations towards a just
solution.
The Berghof
Foundation for Conflict Studies, Sri Lanka Office, which was
established in 2001 in Sri Lanka is mandated to enhance and
support capacities for constructive conflict transformation.
The overall mission is to support the Sri Lankan peace
process at the Track 1.5 and 2 level through providing
capacity building, reviewing, dialoguing and problem-solving
opportunities for all principal stakeholders, through
collaboration with partner organizations.
The goals of the
seminar were to
- create space
for dialogue for contact and mutual understanding
- generate a set
of papers on crucial topics pertaining to the peace
process in Sri Lanka and make them available to all the
stakeholders to the conflict.
- to explore
common ground with respect to effective ways of taking
the process forward
Representatives from
both organizations served in the function of either as chair
or co-chair throughout the seminar.
The seminar was
based on three assumptions.
1. The protracted
nature of the Sri Lankan conflict and the peace process does
not only require a political breakthrough but also an
intellectual breakthrough. In this context, John Paul
Lederach uses the term �simplify� and �complexify� to
explain the necessity of using both categories to analyze
complex conflict constellations and deep-rooted conflicts.
2. Reflection and
research are important instruments in conflict
transformation to inspire innovative thinking and design
future trajectories. Neither quick-fix solutions nor
concepts developed in an intellectual ivory tower are useful
in breaking the dead-lock. Possible solutions must be
home-grown and correspond to the ground reality.
3. While accepting
the diversity of opinions and different perspectives on the
conflict, history has to be acknowledged. Diverse
opinions and interpretations are paradigmatic of deep-rooted
and asymmetric conflicts.
In light of these
assumptions, seven issue areas were identified for analysis
before moving towards a more comprehensive understanding of
the way forward.
1. Causes of conflict and factors
leading to the ceasefire agreement (CFA)
�
The three basic insights in
Conflict Transformation practice and theory are
o
Address the root causes of
conflict
o
Do not indulge in the
hierarchy of assigning blame on each other as to who did
what to whom.
o
Acknowledge that in
asymmetric conflict, the recognition of the past is crucial
for moving forward.
�
It is also crucial to
understand the factors leading to CFA and evaluate if they
are still valid.
2. Analysis of the CFA and its
implementation
�
This being the focal point
of Geneva talks in February 2006 and its follow-up, it is
essential now more than ever before.
�
Has there been a change in
the balance of power since 2001? (If it is no longer valid,
then, what are the factors that may create equality?)
3. Politics of aid: SIHRN, Tsunami
response, P-TOMS
The basic assumption of the peace process
in 2002/2003 was that the �politics of normalization� can
build a bridge between the CFA and the core political
issues. This however, has completely failed to take place,
even in the case of the Tsunami response.
4. Internal dynamics of the peace
process
One of the basic insights in the
assessment of peace efforts in Sri Lanka has been the policy
of �ethnic outbidding and out-maneuvering� used on the
southern polity. Right now, there is a realignment of
ethno-nationalistic forces. These in turn, have an impact on
the dynamics within the Tamil and Muslim polity. Hence, to
make progress, these internal dynamics and reinforcing
tendencies, need to be addressed.
5. Process Analysis of the Peace Process
Beyond internal dynamics, the other key
factor would be the lack of interaction between the parties;
the relationship between the GoSL and the LTTE
6. Strategies of the negotiating parties � net
impact for the people
Two main topics were highlighted in this
session: The factors that led to the lack of a tangible
peace dividend for the people and the broader strategies
pursued by the negotiating parties to maximize their BATNA
(Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)
7. International frame
The �international� component of the
peace process is of significant importance, especially given
the discourse that the peace process is being
�over-internationalized�. With the creation of an
�international safety net�, the international community is
perceived to be another stakeholder to the conflict in Sri
Lanka. Moreover, the international component encompasses the
involvement of Norway as the facilitator, the role of the
co-chairs, the regional factors and the ensuing politics of
sanctions and incentives.
The final eighth
session was concerned with �Re-envisioning Sri Lanka�.
The Seminar examined the lessons learned and explored
the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead. Among the
matters discussed was the question whether a resolution of
the conflict may be secured by
a. an unitary constitution with extensive
devolution; or
b. a federal constitution with a thick framework of power
sharing; or
c. a confederation of states; or
d. an association of states on the lines of the European
Union
The Seminar
recognized the historical nature of the Ceasefire Agreement
concluded between Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam in February 2002 and the international
recognition accorded to the Ceasefire Agreement.
The Seminar was
mindful that legal frameworks directed to resolve the
conflict will need to accord with the political reality on
the ground and take into account the national identities of
the peoples in the island, their aspirations as peoples and
more importantly their fears and concerns.
While the seminar
offered a rare opportunity for contact across the conflict
divide and for dialogue between the communities, in the
weeks preceding the seminar, relations between the GoSL,
LTTE and the civilians in the NorthEast of the island had
undergone a serious worsening. Following the postponement of
the second round of peace talks in Geneva, the prospects for
a negotiated settlement of this enduring conflict seemed to
be bleak.
The Seminar was
directed to encourage interaction and mutual understanding
rather than consensus building and recognised the dangers of
overestimating the importance of dialogue and communication
in dealing with conflicts. The ultimate concerns
of most disputes are tangible conflicts of interest, and
structural factors. The Seminar was mindful that dialogues
must therefore be placed in the context of the overall
dynamics of conflict and conflict settlement.
Drawing on the
experience from other conflict contexts, frozen negotiation
processes create the risk of a cycle of escalation in which
hostile acts feed into further distrust, hardening
antagonistic positions and thereby generating further
frustration that leads to further hostility.
To break this cycle a concerted effort of all the
stakeholders is needed. A political break-through invariably
needs an intellectual break-through.
This seminar may be seen as a genuine
contribution and a modest beginning towards achieving this
goal. More genuine efforts of this nature may be needed to
help develop workable formulas, innovative concepts and
out-of the box thinking.
|
