|
United States & the struggle for Tamil Eelam
The US Stand on Sri Lanka's Conflict
E. Ashley Wills,
United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka
on 7 March 2001 at the Jaffna Public Library, Tamil Eelam
We live in a dangerous world in which there is a profusion
of different systems and a diffusion of power. It is a world of conflicts
among nations and within nations; a world where values collide; and a world
in which the United States and a few other nations possess frightening
destructive power, yet often find it impossible to order events.
Corporations and NGO's vie with sovereign governments for influence as never
before.
In this globalizing world, we are all subject to
radical shifts in
technology and communication, to bewildering
movements of refugees,
currencies and markets.
|
Comment:
Movements of
Refugees:
"Globalisation permits money and goods to move around the
world unimpeded, yet criminalises the other indispensable
element of production, labour, when it seeks to move to where it
can command a decent livelihood." Jeremy Seabrook in the
New Internationalist, January/February 1999)
Currencies
& Markets: "More than $1.5 trillion changes hands daily
on global currency markets. The annual global trade in
merchandise and services was $6.5 billion in 1998, the
equivalent of just 4.3 days on foreign exchange (forex) markets.
Actual foreign exchange reserves in the hands of all governments
in the same year totaled $1.6 trillion or just over a day's
trading on forex markets. An estimated 95% of all forex deals
are short term speculation; more than 80% are completed
in less than a week and 40% in less than two days..." (New
Internationalist, January-February 2000)
|
We are also subject to fervent nationalisms, ethnic
supremacists and old fashioned haters; any
nation or group can now make its anger known, if not at conference
tables, then by means of assassination, bombing or hostage taking.
|
Comment: 'Any
nation can make its anger known': "...rather than accept
the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle,
Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as
many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted. A
Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled "A Soldier
of Conscience" (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground
war the general was only worried about "How long the world would
stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out
of Iraq without saying, 'Wait a minute - enough is enough.' He
[Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job." (Joyce
Chediac in her report to the Commission on US War
Crimes, 11 May 1991) |
And it is a world so dizzying that far too many seek the
comforting symmetry of neat slogans and one dimensional ideologies, fitting
facts to theory as in the story of the Procrustean bed. In such a world,
American ideals and interests are plainly at risk.
|
Comment:
'American
Ideals and Interests' - "..Since World War I, the United
Kingdom, France, and the United States have dominated the
Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region and its oil resources. This
has been accomplished by military conquest and coercion,
economic control and exploitation, and through surrogate
governments and their military forces. Thus, from 1953 to 1979
in the post World War II era, control over the region was
exercised primarily through U.S. influence and control over the
Gulf sheikdoms of Saudi Arabia and through the Shah of Iran.
From 1953 to 1979 the Shah of Iran acted as a Pentagon/CIA
surrogate to police the region. After the fall of the Shah and
the seizure of U.S. Embassy hostages in Teheran, the U.S.
provided military aid and assistance to Iraq, as did the USSR,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and most of the Emirates, in its war with
Iran. U.S. policy during that tragic eight year war, 1980 -
1988, is probably best summed up by the phrase, "we hope they
kill each other."
Throughout the seventy-five year period from
Britain's invasion of Iraq early in World War I to the
destruction of Iraq in 1991 by U.S. air power, the
United States and the United Kingdom demonstrated no
concern for democratic values, human rights, social justice, or
political and cultural integrity in the region, nor for
stopping military aggression there. The U.S. supported the Shah
of Iran for 25 years, selling him more than $20 billion of
advanced military equipment between 1972 and 1978 alone.
Throughout this period the Shah and his brutal secret police
called SAVAK had one of the worst human rights records in the
world. Then in the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in its
wrongful aggression against Iran, ignoring Iraq's own poor human
rights record. When the Iraqi government
nationalized the Iraqi Petroleum Company in 1972, the Nixon
Administration embarked on a campaign to destabilize the Iraqi
government. It was in the 1970s that the U.S. first armed and
then abandoned the Kurdish people, costing tens of thousands of
Kurdish lives...
The U.S. with close oil and other economic
ties to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has fully supported both
governments despite the total absence of democratic
institutions, their pervasive human rights violations and the
infliction of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments such
as stoning to death for adultery and amputation of a hand for
property offenses.
The U.S., sometimes alone among nations,
supported Israel when it defied scores of UN resolutions
concerning Palestinian rights...." (background
paper presented at Commission of Inquiry into US War Crimes,
1991)
|
And yet one encounters a desire by some Americans to turn
away from complex problems and retire to the vastnesses of our coasts, to a
fortress America. They have begun to look warily at the morning newspaper
headlines, almost as if they were expecting a sudden blow. They sense a
terrible looming just over the horizon of the news; they are pleading for
surcease and disengagement.
And yet where is it safe to hide?
|
Comment:
And yet where is
it safe to hide? "....The population of the world by the end
of this century will have grown to some 6 billion people....
moreover most of the increase will be concentrated in the poorer
parts of the world, with 85% of the world's population by the
end of this century living in Africa, Latin America and the
poorer parts of Asia.... the problems confronting Washington in
assuring US national security will become increasingly
complex..." (Zbigniew
Brzezinski - Power and Principle, published by Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1983)
|
Odysseus could return from his wanderings to Ithaca, but the
modern world does not permit such refuge. Americans, like all other peoples,
yes, including the people of Jaffna, are hostage to the interconnectedness
of things.
The United States and South Asia are closely connected,
despite the geographic distance that separates us. Family ties are strong;
almost two million Americans are of South Asian descent.
Trade between us is
growing; we are already South Asia's, and Sri Lanka's, biggest export
market.
|
Comment
Trade
between us is growing: "Between
1995 and 1999, the total value of the world's known - legal
- international trade in armaments was $111 billion. The top 7
exporters of major conventional weapons, 1995-99, were US,
Russia, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands and China. The top four
arms exporting countries accounted for three quarters of the
total - the US alone for almost half.. Selling armaments
to insecure and ugly regimes .. is particularly
lucrative...Between 1984 and 1995 alone the 'developing world'
bought 15,000 tanks, 34,000 artillery pieces, 27,000 armoured
vehicles, 1000 warships, 4,200 combat aircraft and 48,000
missiles... " (New
Internationalist, December 2000) |
And ideas link us, including the idea of human rights. This
latter idea arises often when US policy makers regard South Asia. This
region has several
flourishing democracies
and yet these democracies are being tested and torn by conflict, in
particular ethnic conflict.
|
Comment
Flourishing
democracy: "...The progressive destruction of the
political process in Sri Lanka has led to both domestic and
international tolerance of an enormous amount of violence by the
government (regardless of party affiliation) against its
citizens. Increasingly, it seems that the government of Sri
Lanka is accountable to no one - not its citizens, and not its
foreign counterparts who rubber-stamped the recent parliamentary
elections. In Sri Lanka's current political climate, power
seems to be determined by the number of thugs a given politician
has at his/her disposal..." (Sri
Lanka's Elections 2000: Fear and Intimidation Rule the Day - An
Observer's Report - Laura Gross)
|
The United States a nation
committed to equality, the rule of law and human rights wants to be
helpful in resolving these conflicts.
|
Comment
US - a nation committed to the rule of law:
"The United States does not accept the concept of jurisdiction
in the (Rome International Criminal Court) Statute and its
application over non-States parties. It voted against the
Statute. Any attempt to elaborate a definition of the
crime of aggression must take into account the fact that most of
the time it was not an individual act, instead wars of
aggression existed. The Statute must also recognize the
role of the Security Council in determining that aggression has
been committed. No State party can derogate from the power
of the Security Council under the United Nations Charter, which
has the responsibility for the maintenance of international
peace and security. The United States will not support
resolution "e" in the final act. Including crimes of
terrorism and drug crimes under the Court will not help the
fight against those crimes. The problem is not one of
prosecution but of investigation, and the Court will not be well
equipped to do that." (Explanation given by US for
voting against the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which was
signed by 120 states on 17 July 1998.
|
But we must be careful about how we do so. We know the
limits of our power and wisdom. We do not believe that the planet comprises
the United States and countries
aspiring to be the United States.
|
Aspiring
to be the United States:
"..There are 250,000 licensed firearms dealers
in the US - 20 times the number of McDonald's restaurants in the
country..."
(New
Internationalist, December 2000)
"Worldwide, there were about 23 million
uniformed soldiers in 1995. The more insecure a state feels, the
larger its 'security' forces tend to be. On this score Israel is
in a league of its own. But the US, France, Britain and
Australia are next in line. In some countries private security
forces are similar in size to, if not larger than, their police
or armed forces. Aotearo/NZ suggests what a more self confident
state might really require."
|
|
People in Uniform (in
thousands, selected countries) Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI) website, quoted in (New
Internationalist, December 2000) |
| Country |
Police - Public* |
Police - Private** |
Military*** |
Police & Military per 1000
citizens |
| Israel |
15 |
40 |
185 |
41 |
| US |
600 |
1,500 |
1,620 |
14 |
| France |
110 |
96 |
504 |
12 |
| Britain |
190 |
250 |
233 |
11 |
| Australia |
47 |
90 |
58 |
11 |
| South Africa |
146 |
180 |
100 |
10 |
| Aotearoa/NZ |
?? |
5 |
47 |
4 |
| *late 1980s and 1990
**late 1980s ***high end of range estimates |
|
In devising policy toward this region of ancient cultures,
we know that a rounded historical perspective and due regard for South Asian
attitudes are needed.
And so is humility! As an American diplomat who has lived five years in
India and about six months here in Sri Lanka, I appreciate the need for
humility in approaching South Asia. Sometimes, frankly, it seems to me that
this region produces more history than it can consume. So complex are the
various religious, ethnic and political relationships in South Asia that I
often think one needs a degree in higher math to make sense of it all!
Forgive me for whining for a moment. One of the afflictions of being a
superpower is that in most cases the actual leverage the United States can
bring to bear is perpetually overestimated. Nowhere is this truer than in
Sri Lanka.
|
Comment "Actual
leverage the United States can bring to bear is perpetually
overestimated"....(Sri Lanka President J.R.Jayewardene)
sought and received help from Pakistan and Israel to suppress
Tamil agitation between 1977 and 1983. He also signed agreements
with the USA offering the "Voice of America" broadcasting
facilities on the west central coast of Sri Lanka around Chilaw.
Though apparently declared a broadcasting facility, the
Government of India had definite information that it would also
be a base for electronic intelligence operations. Jayewardene
also gave the contract for the repair and restoration of what is
known as the "Trincomalee Oil Tank Farms"to a consortium of
companies led by Americans...
Jyotindra Nath Dixit (currently
India's National Security Adviser) in
*Assignment Colombo,
1998/2002
|
Many of the letters I have received from concerned Americans
regarding Sri Lanka are permeated with the notion that, if only we wanted
to, we could right all the wrongs in Sri Lanka, a country half a world away
from us. Some write to me in tones that suggest I am the Governor of the
51st state. Their underlying assumption seems to be that American power must
match the level of their personal concern. The problem, of course, is that
it doesn't and never will. The only puzzling aspect of this is that this
kind of thinking prevails among those who are often the first to bemoan
American interventionism elsewhere.
Another aspect of these letters is their frequent use of simple
syllogisms. One kind of letter argues thusly: the US has declared war
against terrorism worldwide; Sri Lanka is being attacked by terrorists, the
LTTE; therefore the United States should declare war against the LTTE.
Another kind takes this tack: the United States opposes discrimination;
Tamils are discriminated against in Sri Lanka; therefore the United States
should support the creation of Tamil Eelam.
If arguments acquired cogency from vehemence, then these cases would be
made. But the cases are not compelling because the logic breaks down even if
the emotion is understandable. Of course we acknowledge that terrorism is an
ugly feature of Sri Lankan life, and of course
we are aware of the deprivations
visited on Sri Lanka's people, notably the people of Jaffna, and the
northeast, by this conflict.
|
Comment
It used to be said that ambassadors were
honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. Today, we live
in somewhat more sophisticated times and ambassadors are
perhaps, required only to be economical with truth. Many Tamils
will find it comforting that Ambassador Willis is aware of the
'deprivations visited on Sri Lanka's people, notably the people
of Jaffna, and the northeast,
by this conflict.' But it may have been helpful if
Ambassador Willis had also pointed out that the record shows
that it
was the deprivations visited on the Tamil people
and the
trail of broken pacts and evasive proposals, that in fact
and in truth led to the conflict. |
To be fair, I must also point out that
this ugly war has affected tens of
thousands of Sinhala families too.
|
Comment
"Whose
war is it anyway...In the last few months there has been
mass desertions from the Sri Lankan army. Estimates vary from
10,000 to 20,000, all from the ranks. The majority are from poor
peasant families of the south, the Sinhala-Buddhist heartland...
Economic considerations... compel young (Sinhala) men to join up
as jobs are scarce in the villages. A soldier serving in a
forward area for less than a year can bring back as much as Sri
Lankan Rs 50,000 when he comes home for a break. Young men often
look upon it as a one-time risk to earn enough for a small
business back in the village, the most popular being buying a
two-wheeled tractor with a trailer to be used as a taxi to
transport villagers. Often a soldier never returns to his unit
after his business is established..."Times
of India Report, May 2000 |
The point is we do not see solutions in
simplifications of Sri
Lanka's complexity.
Comment
Simple question:
" It is perhaps, an appropriate occasion to ask a simple
question:
Q. Why is it that in Sri
Lanka, for five long decades since 'independence', we have
always had a Sinhala Buddhist as the executive head of
government?
A. Because, a Sinhala
Buddhist nation masquerading as the Sri Lankan nation, will
always have a Sinhala Buddhist as executive head of
government... Behind the masquerade lies the political
reality - and it is this political reality that will need to
be addressed, if the conflict in the island is to end...
...Sinhala Sri Lanka
President D.B.Wijetunga put the matter in his own forthright
fashion when speaking at Anuradhapura, the old Sinhala
capital on 2 February 1994: "Our children should be able to
claim that this country is the Sinhalese land (Sinhala
Deshaya). There are no races according to Buddhism, but
every country has a majority race. However much I try I
can't become the Prime Minister of England. Neither can I be
the leader of Japan, India or even Tamil Nadu. They have
their majority races." (Sinhala owned Sri Lanka Island,
3 February 1994)
There are those who may want to dismiss
President Wijetunga's remarks as simply the pre election
chauvinism of a Sinhala political leader, bent on garnering
votes. But that is to miss the point. During the past 50
years and more, ethnic identity has
in fact
determined the way in which both the Sinhala people and the
Tamil people have exercised their political right of
universal franchise. In this period, no Tamil has ever been
elected to a predominantly Sinhala electorate and no
Sinhalese has ever been elected to a predominantly Tamil
electorate - apart, that is, from multi member
constituencies.
The political reality is that the practice of
'democracy' within the confines of an unitary state has led
to rule by a permanent Sinhala majority. A Tamil 'however
much he may try' cannot become the executive head of
government in Sri Lanka... "
(Nadesan
Satyendra in A Simple Question, May 1998)
|
Another kind of letter I have received asks the provocative
question: what right does the United States have to preach when, within its
own borders, ethnic tensions abound. Isn't this hypocrisy?
It is a
fair question and one worthy of elaboration. Hypocrisy has long been a
preoccupation of puritannical America, as novels from The Scarlet Letter to
Catcher in the Rye make clear. Does the United States, facing unresolved
racial tensions of its own, lack the moral standing to address ethnic
conflicts around the world?
Although this is a tempting argument, it is flawed. In most areas of
moral endeavour, the United States doesn't usually demand perfection as a
precondition for doing good. American history is full of public figures and
plain citizens whose personal weaknesses did not prevent them from
contributing to our nation's progress. Americans, and I think most
reasonable people around the world, recognize that although physicians may
be careless of their own health, or builders may themselves live in poorly
maintained homes, or preachers may occasionally indulge in a fit of temper,
these people can still help others.
To demand perfection is to hold the
charitable impulse hostage to personal traits. Nations, like people, can
confront others even when their own houses are not fully in order.
|
Comment
Charitable impulse hostage to
personal traits - We agree with Ambassador Willis that 'to
demand perfection is to hold the charitable impulse hostage to
personal traits'. And we also agree with him that
'nations, like people, can confront others even when
their own houses are not fully in order'. But, nations, like
people, will be listened to only when they are seen to walk
their talk. There may be a need for Ambassador Willis to
attend to the words of
Blaine Lee on The Power Principle : Influence With Honor
"...When you get on the platform, the first thing anyone wants
to know is why they should listen to you... .How much congruence
is there between your behaviour and your words? That's what
credibility is all about... Have you actually done what you
are inviting others to do? Have you been there, in the
trenches, where they live and breathe struggle? Are you doing so
now, under the same circumstances and in the same situations in
which they must act? Have you earned the right to be
listened to? Why should they believe you?... Trust comes when
others perceive the match between your words and your actions...
It is always the life of the leader that gives credibility to
the vision.... 'Walking your talk' is so obvious, it is
common sense. But what is commonsense is seldom common
practice... In critical situations, when you should speak up to
stand for something, the words you don't speak may out
weigh all the words you have ever deliberately spoken...
....The central weakness in
Ambassador Wills' address to the Tamil people in Jaffna springs
from the stance that he adopted - the stance of a neutral
and disinterested observer concerned to speak simply as a friend
of the Tamil people (and the Sinhala people). His credibility
may have been less in issue, if he had taken the Tamil people
into his confidence and admitted to the strategic interests that
the US has in the region and also openly related those interests
to the view that he expressed that an independent Tamil Eelam
was an unattainable vision. That which he did not say, was
perhaps as significant as that which he did say..."
|
The United States has many blemishes. But the trend lines
are still positive. The United States is a melting pot where cultures
mingle. It is a country where most people are literate and potable water
flows from nearly every tap. And it is still a country to cite the saddest
test that Cubans, Haitians and
refugees of every sort are literally dying to enter.
|
Comment :
Here, Ambassador Wills may want to address a
question which may have been in the minds of his audience in
Jaffna on 7 March 2001. Why it is that though 'Cubans, Haitians
and refugees of every sort are
literally dying to enter', the United States, a
country committed to human rights, and
living in the age of globalisation refuses them permission
to enter?
"..Today, I am 70 years old,
having spent 17 years in the evening of my life searching for
some country in "this globalising world" to take me in. You say
you have lived in Romania, South Africa, the West Indies,
Yugoslavia, Belgium, India; in good comfort I believe. I have
been to as many countries as you have - even more - but as a
refugee, a wanderer, cut off from my family, looking for
safety..."
(S.Sivanayagam's
Open Letter to Ambassador Willis, 11 March 2001) |
What is our moral obligation? To preserve America and extend
its example in particular its example of tolerance, equality and individual
freedom as far as possible. Can we do so without tending our own ethnic
garden? No. If America loses its
melting pot mentality, it loses
one of its core strengths. But can it do so without helping resolve global
conflicts? No again.
|
Comment:
Melting Pot Mentality: The 'American
Indians' did not 'melt'. By and large, they were liquidated, so
that the new settlers may have a large enough economic pot to
'melt' in - with ofcourse, English as the sole official
language. Those who survived were confined in 'settlements'
to prevent 'melting'. And, the Black Americans, continue
to struggle in the 'melting pot'. It will be futile to believe
that in the island of Sri Lanka and in the Indian sub
continent, peoples speaking different languages, tracing their
roots to different origins, and living in relatively well
defined and separate geographical areas, will somehow
'melt'. And in any case, a 'third world' economy will not
provide a large enough 'pot' for the 'melting' to take place.
Many will be forgiven if they see the 'melting pot
mentality' as a soothing metaphor to describe an
assimilative process. |
Cemeteries at home and abroad are filled with Americans who
died
fighting against militarism,
imperialism, totalitarian ideologies of the left and right, and ethnic
cleansing.
|
Comment:
'Fighting
against
militarism, imperialism' - ".. General Westmoreland
defined (the objective of the Vietnam war) in these terms in
October 1966: ‘We are making war in Vietnam to show that
guerrilla warfare does not pay.’ To show whom? The
Vietnamese? That would be very surprising. Is it necessary to
spend so many human lives and so much money to convince a nation
of poor peasants struggling thousands of miles from San
Francisco? And, above all, what need was there to attack, to
provoke to battle and then crush it so as to show the
uselessness of the fight, when the interests of the
large companies are so negligible? Westmoreland’s phrase ..
needs to be completed. It is to the others that they want
to prove that guerrilla warfare does not pay: all the
exploited and oppressed nations who may be tempted to free
themselves..., first of all against their own pseudo-governments
and the compradores supported by a national army, then against
the ‘Special Forces’ of the United States and finally against
the GIs... In other words, this war is primarily a warning for
three, and perhaps four, continents. After all, Greece is also a
peasant nation and a dictatorship has just been established
there. It is best to warn: submission or complete liquidation.
So, this exemplary genocide is a warning to all humanity. It is
with this warning that six per cent of mankind hope, without too
much expense, to control the remaining ninety-four per cent..."
(Jean
Paul Sartre's Statement 'On Genocide' at the Second Session of
the Bertrand Russell International War Crimes Tribunal on
Vietnam, held in Denmark in November 1967) |
If the United States loses its willingness to engage
internationally, its generous impulse, it loses its soul.
Balance, that great principle of moral
reasoning, is what it's all about.
|
Comment:
Balance, that great principle of moral reasoning, is what
it's all about.
"... Maybe some people in the State Department are so
used to lying that they still manage to believe that they only
want the best for Vietnam. But, after the most recent
declarations of their spokesmen, one can presume that there are
fewer of these innocents...The proof lies in the United States
government’s refusal to ratify the
Geneva Convention on genocide. ... the present leaders
consider themselves unshackled in Vietnam today thanks to their
predecessors who had wanted to respect the anti-Negro racialism
of the South. In any case, ever since 1965, the racialism of the
Yankee soldiers from Saigon to the 17th parallel has increased. The
young Americans torture without repugnance, shooting at
unarmed women for the pleasure of completing a hat-trick: they
kick the wounded Vietnamese in the testicles; they cut off the
ears of the dead for trophies.
The officers are worst: a general was boasting in front of a
Frenchman who testified at the Tribunal of hunting the VC from
his helicopter and shooting them down in the rice fields. They
were, of course, not NLF fighters, who know how to protect
themselves, but peasants working in their rice fields. In
these confused American minds the Viet Cong and the Vietnamese
tend to become more and more indistinguishable. A common saying
is ‘The only good Vietnamese is a dead one’, or, what comes to
the same thing, ‘Every dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong.’ These
soldiers are so muddled that they consider as ‘subversive’
violence the feeble protests that their own violence has
provoked. Here, in the shadowy and robot-like souls of the
soldiers, we find the truth about the war in Vietnam: it matches
all of Hitler’s declarations. He killed the Jews because they
were Jews. The armed forces of the United States torture and
kill men, women and children in Vietnam because they
are Vietnamese...."(Jean
Paul Sartre's Statement 'On Genocide' at the Second Session of
the Bertrand Russell International War Crimes Tribunal on
Vietnam, held in Denmark in November 1967)
|
What does our moral reasoning tell us about Sri Lanka, and
how does this translate into policy? Our approach to Sri Lanka proceeds from
the following official US opinions:
o this war must end, the sooner the better;
o we reject
the idea that there is a military solution to this conflict and favour a
negotiated outcome (all that is needed is the political will to negotiate;
o we are also convinced that in these negotiations neither side need be the
loser, both can win);
o the opportunity cost of the war in economic
terms, and the human cost in deaths, injuries, displaced persons and
dysfunctional families, are staggering and no longer tolerable;
o that
is why we, India, the EU, Japan and many other nations support the noble
effort of the Norwegians to facilitate direct talks between the Sri Lankan
Government and the LTTE;
o
we reject the idea of an
independent Tamil state carved out of Sri Lankan territory;
|
Comment " Is
secession wrong, and if not,
who may legitimately secede?... Ethical systems often
assume a static society: ethical principles are supposed to be
valid for thousands of years. In the ethics of secession, I fear
the reverse is also true: if you apply the standard principles,
then the world will stay the same for thousands of years. That
is plainly wrong..."
Paul Treanor on the Ethics of Secession
"Increasingly, the
Fourth World is
emerging as a new force in international politics because in the
common defense of their nations, many indigenous peoples do not
accept being mere subjects of international law and state
sovereignty and trusteeship bureaucracies. Instead, they are
organizing and exerting their own participation and policies as
sovereign peoples and nations."
Bernard Q. Nietschmann, Department of Geography, University of
California, Berkeley, 1985
" 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..."
Joint Statement by Fifteen Non Governmental Organisations at
UN Commission on Human Rights, February 1993 |
o
we regard the LTTE as a terrorist organisation and do not believe it is
the sole representative of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka;
o we also are
for Tamil rights; the Tamil people must be treated equally, respectfully and
with dignity
within a democratic Sri Lankan
state whose exact political form should be determined by the people of
this country;
|
Comment
"...The practice of
democracy
within the confines of a single state has resulted in rule
by a permanent Sinhala majority...In the ultimate
analysis, the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam is about
democracy. If democracy means the rule of the people, by
the people, for the people then it must follow, as night follows
day, that no one people may rule another. The right of self
determination provides the framework within which democracy may
flower.. Democracy and the
right to self determination go hand in hand - one cannot
exist without the other. The struggle of the people of Tamil
Eelam is about their democratic right to rule themselves..."
(The
Charge is Genocide - the Struggle is for Freedom, July 1998)
|
o we do
not believe Sri Lanka, or any part of it, is the special preserve of any one
ethnic group;
|
Comment "Two
different nations, from a very ancient period, have divided
between them the possession of the Island: the Sinhalese
inhabiting the interior in its Southern and western parts from
the river Wallouwe to Chilaw, and the Malabars (Tamils) who
possess the Northern and Eastern Districts. These two nations
differ entirely in their religion, language and manners." -
Sir Hugh Cleghorn, British Colonial Secretary, June 1879
|
indeed, we regard Sri Lanka as a
multi ethnic,
multi religious, multilingual, multi cultural state;
o and although we are convinced that the solution to this
conflict can and must be negotiated by Sri Lankans, we stand ready to assist
in ways the principal parties find appropriate.
These then are the essential views of the US Government
regarding Sri Lanka's conflict. Please take them for what they are worth.
This is your country, your future and you, Sri Lankans, must decide in which
direction to go. But as a friend of longstanding, the United States offers
these views for your consideration.
Within these broad official US parameters, there are of course many
nuances. One of these regards our view of the LTTE. The French have a
wonderful word, lucidity whose metaphorical meaning is the ability to face
facts. One of the facts we must face is that although we regard the LTTE as
a terrorist organisation and do not believe it is the sole representative of
the Tamil people, we accept that the leaders of the Tigers will be involved
in the negotiations. This is because of the LTTE's military standing.
Let me also say a word about the wish for separation. Sri Lanka's ethnic
conflict in a sense is a planetary drama. As Salman Rushdie has written,
cultures collide constantly in the modem world, crisscrossing at high
velocity; one moment we are in a village with a charming sense of
remoteness; in the next, we turn on TV and are connected instantly to a
global village. In this confusion, it is entirely understandable that some
people want to retreat into a community where everyone believes the same
thing. But as I said at the outset, such a retreat was possible for
Odysseus. It is not possible, or even desirable now.
My father used to say that we find comfort from those who
agree with us growth from those who don't. Diversity, having to cope with
differences, tolerating the points of view of others, and accepting that all
of us have multiple identities ethnic, racial, religious, linguistic,
sexual, professional and, yes, geographical this is the normal state
globally, including here in Sri Lanka.
In the years before the American Civil War, "abolitionists"
wanted slavery abolished. But that could not be done immediately, so some of
them favoured abolishing the American nation lest they be sullied by further
association with the slave states. That would not have helped the slaves,
but helping slaves was not their primary concern. A sense of purity right
mindedness was.
Those in Sri Lanka who advocate separation of the state long
for ethnic purity, a genetic and geographical impossibility. Worse than
that, it is an atavism, a denial of the harmonizing, connecting forces at
work in the modern world.
These ethnic hygienists, or
separatists, are about the past, not the future
or at least not a future that we should wish for our children.
|
Comment
Separatists are about the past: "The
world's trends
point overwhelmingly towards political independence and self
rule on the one hand, and the formation of economic alliances on
the other... Indeed it could be argued that separate states are
necessary if democracy is to flourish... Minority languages all
over Western Europe are achieving a new status as people hold
more tightly to their heritage as ballast to the creation of a
larger, more economically homogeneous Europe... As the
importance of nation-state recedes, more of them are being
created... The more democracy, the greater the number of
countries in the world... The United Nations was founded with 51
countries in 1945. By 1960 there were 100 UN countries and by
the year 1984... 159. (by 1993 the total number was 184)..."
John Naisbit, author of Mega Trends, in the Global Paradox, 1994
Ethnic Hygienists -
"...
we are
not chauvinists. Neither are we racists.
The togetherness of the Tamil people is not the expression of an
exaggerated nationalism.
..We know that in the end, national freedom can only be secured
by a voluntary pooling of sovereignties, in a regional, and
ultimately in a world context. ... we recognize that our future
lies with the peoples of the Indian region and the path of a
greater and a larger Indian union is the direction of that
future. It is a union that will reflect the compelling and
inevitable need for a common market and a common defense and
will be rooted in the common heritage that we share with our
brothers and sisters of not only Tamil Nadu but also of
India...." (Tamil
Eelam, Kurds & Bhutan, July 1985)
|
As I reflect upon the prospects for peace in Sri Lanka, I
must say that I regard the coming months hopefully. I have lived in several
ethnically diverse nations and regions Romania, South Africa, the West
Indies, Yugoslavia, Belgium, India, and, of course, the United States and I
am struck not by the hopelessness of Sri Lanka's dilemma but by how
tractable and soluble it is. The differences believe it or not, are not all
that great. Sri Lanka's various ethnic groups have lived together on this
lovely island, mainly peacefully, for many centuries. All that is needed is
to find a mutually satisfactory,
contemporary political system
to accommodate the island's diversity.
|
Comment:
Contemporary
political system..: "The clash between the ever-increasing
clamour of claims to nationhood and aspirations to sovereignty,
on the one hand. and the persistence, indeed consolidation, of
visions of a monolithic, unitarian, and indivisible statehood,
on the other, certainly represents one of the most striking
contradictions, and one of the most fundamental moral and
ideological conflicts, of our times...
Demands for 'national selfdetermination' are in one sense,
therefore, also a struggle for a higher form of democracy....The
poetical and philosophical vision that is required today has
been eloquently articulated, ironically enough,
by radical Tamil nationalists ('chauvinists' and 'separatist
terrorists', according to the official wisdom)..." (Sumantra
Bose in
Reconceptualising State, Nation and Sovereignty)
"....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 ... 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 in his letter to the US Secretary of
State on 1 September 2000
"..The nation state, backed by the power that
flows from the barrel of a gun (and
the nuclear bomb) remains the central pillar of the world
order. Those who preach 'internationalism' to the Tamil people
are rarely prepared to give up their own national identity. It
is true that a time will come when the separate national
identities of the peoples of the world will be transcended by a
greater unity. To work for the flowering of the Tamil nation is
to bring forward the emergence of a true transnationalism. A
true transnationalism will come only from nationalisms that have
flowered and matured - it will not come by the suppression of
one nation by another..." (What
is the point of all this, June 1999)
|
In making this perhaps surprising assertion, I do not
minimize the difficulties. Among the Sinhala and the Tamils, there are
ethnic supremacists to be sure. Certain people in Colombo and Kandy have
told me Sri Lanka is for the Sinhala; in Trincomalee and Batticaloa and here
in Jaffna, I have heard that northeastern Sri Lanka is Tamil terrain. Such
views are extreme. They remind me of the man who regards the American flag
and only sees the colour red; he is not describing the American flag in all
its multi coloured glory. I am by no means an expert on your country, but it
seems to me obvious that Sri Lanka north, south, east and west is a diverse
nation.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe most Sri Lankans accept
that this is a complex nation and that they also believe its people can live
together peacefully. Serious thinking about how to get from here to there is
in order. Among other challenges, the Sri Lankan Government must find a way
to make the Tamils and other minorities feel welcome and secure in Sri Lanka
while assuring those who are worried about secession that the territorial
integrity of the state is inviolable.
In this part of Sri Lanka, meanwhile, I have heard some
people, who tell me they support democracy, express support for the LTTE, an
essentially military entity with an ugly past of killing those who disagree
with its leadership.
Can the LTTE be transformed into a democratic, political,
non violent organization? If it can, those who have seen it at its ugliest
and those who are opposed to its tactics, including the United States, will
be obligated to reconsider how they regard the LTTE. Certainly, we can even
today acknowledge that there are encouraging indications in the LTTE's
recent conduct. We hope that the LTTE will continue to refrain from
attacking civilian targets and respect the other basic rules of conflict.
If anyone in this audience has contact with the LTTE
leadership, please convey two messages from the U.S. Govemment:
A: if the LTTE is still fighting for Tamil Eelam, please
accept that that goal cannot be achieved; and,
B: if the LTTE really cares about the Tamil people and
about assuring their rights, giving up violence and negotiating are the
way to go.
A new world is developing in Sri Lanka, like a Polaroid
photograph, a vivid surreal awakening. The effect is contradictory: a sense
of sunlight and elegy at the same time, of glasnost and claustrophobia. The
reality of the last nearly 18 years conflict and hardship could be giving
way to something new, something more tranquil.
"All changed, changed utterly" in W.B. Yeats' smitten lines
about the Irish rebellion of Easter, 1916. Eighty five years later, the
Irish troubles proceed but there is hope. The eczema of violence in Ireland
fades and peace is at hand.
Perhaps the same is true in Sri Lanka. The heroes of the
coming months will be those who advocate tolerance, not violence, those who
see the need for compromise and moderation rather than those who wish to
push ahead toward unattainable visions of separation and exclusivity. As I
said at the beginning, we are all subject to the interconnectedness of
things in this modem world. This includes Sinhala, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers
and all other Sri Lankans, who have more in common with each other than the
extremists suggest.
|
Comment
'Interconnectedness of things
in this modem world' Separation is not exclusivity.
Sovereignty is not virginity. And it is mischievous to suggest
otherwise. Ofcourse, we are all 'subject to the interconnectedness of things
in this modem world'. But 'interconnectedness' does not mean the subservience of one people to permanent rule by
another alien people. 'Interconnectedness'' means agreeing the terms on which two independent peoples may
associate with one another in equality and in freedom. The
German defeat in the first World War coupled with the harsh
terms of the Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of Hitler. But
the German defeat in the Second World War, did not have the same
consequences, but led to the creation of the European Economic
Community and later the European Union, where a political
framework was created for the free association of independent
nations. The lessons of the First World War and the Treaty of
Versailles had been learnt by both the defeated and by the
victors. The question which faces the peoples of the Indian
region, including those in the island of Sri Lanka, is whether
they too have to go through the pain and suffering of
cataclysmic conflict before learning the lessons that Europe
learnt albeit after two world wars. The European Union was not
an 'unattainable vision'.
|
On the Great Seal of the United States you will find the
Latin phrase, "E Pluribus Unum," which means, of course, "Out of Many,
One."
Even more than two centuries ago, the founders of the United
States saw that our country would be diverse and we should reject efforts to
stress differences among its people. The idea was and is that diverse people
can come together and build one country, one nation. I think Sri Lanka can
do it, too.
The United States fervently hopes that you all can come
together again and live in peace. Pluralism and prosperity, as with other
diverse societies, will then keep you united. Thank you.
|
