Tamils - a Trans State Nation..

"To us all towns are one, all men our kin.
Life's good comes not from others' gift, nor ill
Man's pains and pains' relief are from within.
Thus have we seen in visions of the wise !."
-
Tamil Poem in Purananuru, circa 500 B.C

Home Whats New Trans State Nation One World Unfolding Consciousness Comments Search
Home > Truth is a Pathless Land > Selected Writings by Nadesan Satyendra >


Selected Writings by Nadesan Satyendra
- நடேசன் சத்தியேந்திரா

Sinhala Sri Lanka's Genocide of Eelam Tamils
- a Crime Against Humanity...

29 January 2009

[see also Sinhala Sri Lanka's War Crimes: Genocide & State Terrorism
and Nadesan Satyendra on The Politics of Humanitarian Intervention, 24 February 2009]

"...the international community will wait till Tamil resistance is sufficiently weakened or annihilated before it attempts to intervene 'on humanitarian grounds' and in seeming response to 'world wide Tamil appeals'. Meanwhile the IC will even welcome such world wide appeals by Tamils as that will pave the way (and establish useful contact points amongst the Tamil diaspora) for IC's eventual intervention with 'development aid' with the mantra of not conflict resolution but 'conflict transformation'. Give them cake when they ask for freedom from alien Sinhala rule. A conquered people should be grateful for whatever they can get - though there may not be not enough cake to go round. The Tamil people are being taught the truth of something which Subhas Chandra Bose said many years ago - Freedom is not given, it is taken... And said all that, perhaps it is right that I should end with something that I said in Zurich some two years ago at the International Seminar: Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka -" The conflict in the island of Sri Lanka can be simply stated. The LTTE struggles for the creation of an independent Tamil Eelam. Sri Lanka seeks to secure its existing territorial boundaries. Stated in this way, the conflict may appear to be insoluble. Something will have to give. Squaring the circle may seem impossible... (However).. I believe that it is possible to move towards a resolution of the conflict on a win-win basis. I am reminded of a statement by a UK foreign minister some years ago that 'Sovereignty is not virginity.' Independence? Yes. But all countries in this world are dependent on one another. After three hundred years of wars and two world wars, the countries in Europe have moved towards an European Union. There are different ways in which peoples may associate with one another in equality and in freedom - and here there is every thing to talk about. And not much is gained by straight jacketing the discussions on the basis of known ideas and conceptual models..." "



The question is being asked by some: why is the international community which was willing to arm Sri Lanka and to ban the LTTE, unwilling and/or unable to prevent the genocide of Eelam Tamils? Suffering is a great teacher and the Tamil people are being taught that for the governments of the so called IC, human rights and humanitarian law are but useful instruments to advance their political and strategic interests.

Whilst the goal of securing peace through justice is loudly proclaimed by the international actors, real politick leads them to deny the justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom from alien Sinhala rule - justice which presumably led the US State of Massachusetts to urge the US President in 1981 '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.'

Today, the harsh reality is that on the one hand international actors are concerned to use the opportunity of the conflict in the island to advance each of their own strategic interests - and on the other hand, Sri Lanka seeks to use the political space created by the geo strategic triangle of US-India-China in the Indian Ocean region, to buy the support of all three for the continued rule of the people of Tamil Eelam by a permanent Sinhala majority within the confines of one state. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was disarmingly frank in the Indian Parliament in October 2008. He said -

"We have a very comprehensive relationship with Sri Lanka. In our anxiety to protect the (Tamil) 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." We won't stop military cooperation with Lanka says Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee. October 2008

The words of Taraki some 3 years ago will also come to mind to many Tamils -

"A CIA regional analyst in Washington said in July 2001: "containing the LTTE while stepping up pressure on the civilian population under its control by stepping up 'terror' bombing might create conditions for unseating Prabhararan". " US Strategic Interests in Sri Lanka, Taraki, 30 July 2005

The record shows that Sinhala Sri Lanka seeks to engage 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.

It will not be a matter for surprise if the US has found Sri Lanka's attempt to engage in a 'balance of power' exercise of its own somewhat irritating - and has cautioned Sri Lanka privately that Sri Lanka was not a super power and should not try to behave like one. And threats of court actions against President Rajapaksa led by personnel in US based think tanks will help to pressure President Rajapaksa to fall in line with US strategic interests in the Indian Ocean region. When that is achieved, the threats of court action will also die a natural death. Alternatively if President Rajapakse's internal left of centre political constituency makes him unable to openly play ball with the US, then other more acceptable Sinhala leaders will be promoted to continue the rule of the Tamil people but not before the Rajapaksa coterie has been allowed to accomplish their genocidal task.

President Rajapaksa and those in power in Sri Lanka are ofcourse not unaware of these machinations. Hence the murder of Lasantha Wikremaratne, the suppression of the media and all those forces who may be used by the IC to promote an alternative Sinhala leadership to continue to rule the Tamil people after the genocidal deed is done and Tamil resistance annihilated. After all, Sri Lanka's sixty year record of ethnic cleansing of Tamils shows that Sinhala chauvinism and its assimilative agenda is not the special preserve of President Rajapaksa alone.

And so the international community will wait till Tamil resistance is sufficiently weakened or annihilated before it attempts to intervene 'on humanitarian grounds' and in seeming response to 'world wide Tamil appeals'. Meanwhile the IC will even welcome such world wide appeals by Tamils as that will pave the way (and establish useful contact points amongst the Tamil diaspora) for IC's eventual intervention with 'development aid' with the mantra of not conflict resolution but 'conflict transformation'. Give them cake when they ask for freedom from alien Sinhala rule. A conquered people should be grateful for whatever they can get - though there may not be not enough cake to go round.

It was after all not so long ago in February 2008 that the International Crisis Group (headed byLord Patten of Barnes Co-Chair, Crisis Group Former European Commissioner for External Relations Former Governor of Hong Kong Former UK Cabinet Minister Chancellor of Oxford and Newcastle Universities; Ambassador Thomas R Pickering Co-Chair, Crisis Group Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador and Nigeria Vice Chairman of Hills & Company and Gareth Evans President & CEO Former Foreign Minister of Australia) reported -

"So long as there is widespread support for separatism and militancy in the diaspora, peace in Sri Lanka will be hard to come by... Stronger political and legal pressure should be applied to the LTTE outside Sri Lanka...Western governments' policies on Sri Lanka should consciously include attempts to open up political space within their Tamil communities for non-Tiger political voices. Those governments with significant Tamil populations should engage representative civil society groups directly, ... (whilst) actively guarding against any intimidation of anti-Tiger Tamil groups... The Tigers should also be required to take some real steps towards transformation before being accepted as a negotiation partner. Such moves, however, may well require new leaders (of the LTTE). Peace supporters should consider setting a deadline for renunciation of a separate state, after which they would actively pursue prosecutions of current LTTE leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.... Countries should develop step-by-step benchmarks for progress towards revoking the terrorist designation - in part to encourage Prabhakaran's removal..."

It was in response to the approach spelt out by the International Crisis Group that I wrote in "Who is lobbying whom" in February 2008 -

"...It was not that the gross violations of human rights by the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Suharto and Marcos were not known to the West (and their legislators) - they pretended to be unaware at that time or else advised a 'quiet diplomatic approach'.

And the flip side of this pretence is that individual legislators often respond to lobbying efforts by Tamils by a 'reverse' lobbying exercise. They say for instance that the problem of securing peace in the island of Sri Lanka is because of the 'intransigence' of the LTTE. Those Tamils who lobby are advised that they should 'persuade' the LTTE to 'compromise' and be more reasonable - and give up violence and give up on the demand for an independent Tamil Eelam.

Given that the LTTE is banned in the US as well as in Europe, and that Tamils (mostly professionals) seek to act within the law, the 'moderate' Tamil 'lobbyist' then persuades himself that the 'anuku murai', 'the diplomatic way' is to distance himself from 'terrorists' and 'intransigence'. The words of Frantz Fannon in The Wretched of the Earth in relation to Kenya and the Mau Mau come to mind -

"..the leader of the ('moderate') nationalist party... loudly proclaims that he has nothing to do with these Mau-Mau, these terrorists, these throat slitters. At best, he shuts himself off in a no-man's-land between the terrorists and the settlers and willingly offers his services as go-between; that is to say, that as the settlers cannot discuss terms with these Mau-Mau, he himself will be quite willing to begin negotiations. Thus it is that the rear-guard of the national struggle... find themselves somersaulted into the vanguard of negotiations and compromise - precisely because that party has taken very good care never to break contact with colonialism..."

And so the rear-guard of the national liberation struggle persuade themselves that they are in the vanguard of 'negotiations and compromise'. The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist offers his services as a go between. He persuades himself that the way forward is to distance himself not only from those labelled as 'terrorists', but also distance himself from the 'ends' that the Eelam Tamil resistance movement seeks to achieve. He is persuaded to gloss over the political reality that the demand for an independent Tamil Eelam did not originate from the Tamil Eelam armed resistance movement - and that the demand originated in the declaration of the Gandhian (yes, Gandhian) Tamil leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam in 1975.

"Throughout the ages the Sinhalese and Tamils in the country lived as distinct sovereign people till they were brought under foreign domination... 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 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist is then taken down the slippery slope of 'federalism', 'devolution', 'decentralisation', the comic opera of the 13th Amendment, and so on without knowing how to stop - or where to go. He rationalises his approach by speaking of the pressing need to end the suffering of his kith and kin in the Tamil homeland and speaks of the urgent need for 'peace'. He chooses to forget that the conqueror is always a lover of peace.

"The would be conqueror is always a lover of peace, for he would like to enter and occupy our country unopposed. It is in order to prevent him from doing this that we must be willing to engage in war and be prepared for it." Clausewitz quoted in Philosophers of Peace and War, edited by Professor Gallie

The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist persuades himself that the 'international community' is actually engaged in the business of dispensing 'justice' and 'equality'. And the 'international community' concerned to further its own strategic interests actively encourages (and it now appears, is intent on creating the political space for) such Tamil 'lobbying'. The question here is: who is lobbying whom? ..."

The Tamil people are being taught the truth of something which Subhas Chandra Bose said many years ago - Freedom is not given, it is taken. Stephen Covey was right when he declared: 'Borrowing strength builds weakness. It builds weakness in the borrower because it reinforces dependence on external factors to get things done. It builds weakness in the person forced to acquiesce, stunting the development of independent reasoning, growth and internal discipline. And finally it builds weakness in the relationship. Fear replaces cooperation, and both people involved become more arbitrary and defensive... ' 'Thongura' power is no power. It builds weakness, stunts independent growth and replaces cooperation with fear.

And those who may be seduced by 'thongura power' will find the words of Sri Aurobindo helpful -

"Our appeal, the appeal of every high souled and self respecting nation, ought not to be to the British sense of justice, but to our own reviving sense of manhood, to our own sincere fellow feeling - so far as it can be called sincere - with the silent suffering people of India. I am sure that eventually the nobler part of us will prevail, - that when we no longer obey the dictates of a veiled self interest, but return to the profession of a large and genuine patriotism, when we cease to hanker after the soiled crumbs which England may cast to us from her table, then it will be to that sense of manhood, to that sincere fellow feeling that we shall finally and forcibly appeal."

And to those Tamils who ask in despair: what shall we do - the answer must be that what each one us can do is limited only by what each one of is prepared to put on line. And it will be presumptuous for any one Tamil to tell another Tamil what he should or should not do. But to those who believe that the answer lies in lobbying, may I repeat something which I wrote in "Who is lobbying whom" in February 2008 -

"...It is not that each of one us should not tirelessly, fearlessly and openly lobby against the genocidal onslaught launched by Sri Lanka on the people of Tamil Eelam. We must. But at the same time, we must equally tirelessly, fearlessly and openly espouse the lawfulness and justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom from alien Sinhala rule. It is not either or - it is both. The charge is genocide - but the struggle is for freedom.

We must tirelessly, fearlessly and openly point out to those who speak to us about a creating a multi ethnic Sri Lanka that the conflict continues not because of the LTTE but because a Sinhala Buddhist nation seeks to masquerade as a 'multi ethnic' 'Sri Lankan civic nation', with a Sinhala Lion Flag, with as yet unrepealed Sinhala Only Act, with Buddhism as the State religion, and with an occupying Sinhala army in the Tamil homeland - a Sinhala army of occupation which was first sent to the Tamil homeland in 1961, long years before the demand for an indedependent Tamil Eelam in 1975.

We need to ask those whom we lobby to respond to our concern that in the same way as in the 1980s, when India sought to use Sri Lanka's violations of the human rights of Tamils to move Colombo away from the West, today both the West and India are seeking to use Sri Lanka's violations of the human rights of Tamils to move Sri Lanka away from too great linkage with China - and when that is secured, we will be offered 'comic opera' reforms such as the 13th Amendment and Provincial Councils, with a Provincial Governor appointed by a Sinhala Sri Lanka President who will exercise executive power in respect of provincial matters.

We need to ask those whom we lobby some simple questions which may help to focus their minds (as well as ours). Let us say:

"Yes, let us forget a separate state. Let us forget the Gandhian leader, S.J.V.Chelvanayagam's independence declaration of 1975. Let us forget the Vaddukoddai Resolution of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) of 1976. Let us forget the TULF Manifesto for independence which received the overwhelming support of the people of Tamil Eelam in 1977. Let us forget S.J.V.Chelvanayagam. Let us forget the LTTE. Let us forget Velupillai Pirabakaran.

Indeed, let us go further. Let us forget federalism. Let us forget devolution - yes, even devolution.

Let us also forget decades of murder, torture and rape which led Paul Sieghart Q.C. to conclude in 1984 that "communal riots in which Tamils are killed, maimed, robbed and rendered homeless are no longer isolated episodes; they are beginning to become a pernicious habit."

Let us forget 1956, 1958, 1961, 1974, 1977 and 1983. Yes, even 1983.

Let us forget decades of broken pacts and dishonoured agreements entered into by the dominant Sinhala majority with the Tamil political leadership.

Yes, by all means, let us forget the past. Let us live in the present and look to the future. Let us explore dispassionately the 'disinterested' advice of the 'international community' that the answer to the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka lies in a multi ethnic secular Sri Lanka.

Let us then ask: Will this unitary (yes, unitary) 'multi ethnic secular state' renounce the Sinhala flag as its 'national' flag and adopt a tricolor as its national flag? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' repeal the Sinhala Only Act and declare explicitly and without subterfuge that Sinhalese and Tamil shall have parity throughout the island? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' repeal the Constitutional recognition given to Buddhism? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' agree to renounce its Sinhala name which it gave itself unilaterally in 1972? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' stop changing the demography of the land by state sponsored Sinhala colonisation? If not, why not?

Let us then ask -

If the Sinhala political leadership cannot, even today, (yes, even today) remotely consider doing any or all of this, would the 'disinterested' international community please tell us why that is so? What is it in the Sinhala political consciousness that prevents it agreeing to a truly unitary (yes, unitary) 'multi ethnic secular state'? And given the existential reality of that Sinhala political consciousness what does the mantra of a 'multi ethnic plural soceity' actually mean - despite its meditative ring?

Let us ask those whom we lobby -

Would you deny that Sinhala ethno nationalism is a nationalism that dare not speak its name?

Would you deny the reality that in the island of Sri Lanka a Sinhala Buddhist ethno nation seeks to masquerade as a 'multi ethnic civic Sri Lankan nation' so that it may further its assimilative agenda?

Would you deny the political reality of the homogeneous Pan Sinhala Ministry of 1936 - yes, in 1936 under British rule when separation was not even a remote threat, and devolution was not on the table?

Would you deny that the record shows that during the past sixty years and more, the intent and goal of all Sinhala governments (without exception) has been to secure the island as a Sinhala Buddhist Deepa ?

Buddhist MonkWould you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism existed long before Tamil demands for devolution or federalism or an independent state - and that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism has its roots in the Mahawamsa and in Duttugemenu and that it has continued to assert its hegemony with increasing ferocity?

Would you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism did not arise as a response to the Tamil demand for federalism or an independent state?

Would you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism is not the creation of S.J.V.Chelvanayagam or Velupillai Pirabakaran?

Would you deny that in fact and in truth, it is the other way around?

Would you deny that it this political reality which prevents the Sinhala political leadership even today, (yes, even today) from agreeing to a truly unitary 'multi ethnic secular state' without a Sinhala Lion Flag, without the Sinhala Only Act, without Buddhism as the State religion, and without the Sinhala 'Sri Lanka' name

Would you deny that it this political reality of the existence of two nations in the island of Sri Lanka (one which dares not speak its name, and the other which does) that any meaningful conflict resolution process will need to address?

Would you deny that Velupillai Pirabakaran was right when he declared many years ago -

"We are not chauvinists. Neither are we lovers of violence enchanted with war. We do not regard the Sinhala people as our opponents or as our enemies. We recognise the Sinhala nation. We accord a place of dignity for the culture and heritage of the Sinhala people. We have no desire to interfere in any way with the national life of the Sinhala people or with their freedom and independence. We, the Tamil people, desire to live in our own historic homeland as an independent nation, in peace, in freedom and with dignity."

Would you admit that to deny all this is to display the simple mindedness of the naive or the trickery of the knave."

We are a reasonable people and we will listen to reason. But let us say to those whom we lobby (and who may be lobbying us) that thousands upon thousands of Tamils, young and old, men and women, and children as well, have died and suffered so that we, their brothers and sisters, may stand up and declare openly and fearlessly that we will not be browbeaten by those who would deny us reason.

We need to say openly and fearlessly to those whom we lobby that former US Ambassador Jeffrey Lumsted was disingenuous when he declared some months ago in a paper on the 'United States Role in Sri Lanka Peace Process 2002-2006' -

"..With the end of the Cold War, U.S. interest in Sri Lanka waned... Political-military interests are not high, and the U.S. has no interest in military bases in Sri Lanka."

We need to openly and fearlessly point out that US Ambassador Jeffrey Lumsted failed to mention that with the end of the old cold war a new cold war has started and that he failed to address the issues raised by United States Lt.Col. Christopher J. Pehrson in 'String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral'

"Militarily, the United States must bear the cost of maintaining superior military power to guarantee security and serve as a hedge against a possible future China threat. In the "String of Pearls" region, U.S. efforts should be aimed at broadening and deepening American influence in ways that have wide appeal among the various regional states."

We need to openly express our concern that Sri Lanka is intent on using the political space created by the uneasy balance of power in the Indian ocean region to further its genocidal onslaught on the people of Tamil Eelam and to terrorise them to submit to permanent rule by an alien Sinhala majority within the confines of a single state.

Again, it is true that individual Congressmen, Senators and Parliamentarians may not have the same understanding that those at the highest levels of their Governments may have - and indeed they may not be privy to all the information and strategic reasoning on which their own government may choose to act. It is also true that individual legislators may be impelled by immediate considerations of securing votes in an election and that therefore they may be influenced by the presence of a significant number of Tamil voters in their electorate.

Said that, the responses by individual legislators will also be limited by that which they may perceive to be the strategic interests of the country to which they belong. It is usual for the US State Department,the Canadian External Affairs Ministry and the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office to provide a briefing note to individual legislators explaining the stand taken by their governments on important foreign policy issues. "

In Tamil Eelam today, though the charge is genocide, the struggle is for freedom. And the words of Ernest Renan in 1882 remain true one hundred years later -

"...Where national memories are concerned, griefs are of more value than triumphs, for they impose duties, and require a common effort. A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future..."

And said all that, perhaps it is right that I should end with something that I said in Zurich some two years ago at the International Seminar: Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka -

"Ayubowan. Vannakam.

The couple of words that I spoke in Sinhalese and in Tamil reflect in a small way the divide across which we meet here in Zurich. Language is not only a matter of semantics. It also has something to do with our feelings and the way in which we segment the world in which we live. And often something may be lost in the translation.

Having said that, the few moments that we stood up last evening in memory of those who have died in the conflict in Sri Lanka brought us together in recognising and indeed, feeling the pain and suffering that this conflict has brought in its train - a pain and suffering that moves us to commit ourselves to contribute in whatever small way we can, to help bridge the divide that exists amongst the peoples who live in the island of Sri Lanka...

...we cannot understand each other with our minds alone. We are not desiccated calculating machines. To use a felicitous metaphor that some of you may have come across before, a metaphor used by Roger Fisher - to understand a beetle, it is not enough to think like a beetle - you must also begin to feel like one. You must begin to truly feel what it is like to be a beetle.

But the invitation to reach to our hearts is not an invitation to descend into sentimentality - a sentimentality which is transient and quickly evaporates with time. We need heart. But we need mind also. We need both mind and heart. It was Martin Luther King who said somewhere that we must combine a tough mind with a tender heart.

Here, I was touched by something that Peter Senge wrote a couple of years ago. I truly cannot put it better than in his own words. I will therefore read what he said.

"We are unable to talk productively about complex issues because we are unable to listen. ... Listening requires opening ourselves. Our typical patterns of listening in difficult situations are tactical, not relational. We listen for what we expect to hear. We sift through others' views for what we can use to make our own points. We measure success by how effective we have been in gaining advantage for our favored positions. Even when these motives are covered by a shield of politeness, it is rare for people with something at stake to truly to open their minds to discover the limitations in their own ways of seeing and acting.

Opening our minds ultimately means opening our hearts. The heart has come to be associated with muddled thinking and personal weakness, hardly the attributes of effective decision makers... (But) The path forward is about becoming more human, not just more clever. "

In the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka, too, the path forward is not about being clever. We can all be clever. But the path forward is to be become more human.

The conflict in the island of Sri Lanka can be simply stated.

The LTTE struggles for the creation of an independent Tamil Eelam. Sri Lanka seeks to secure its existing territorial boundaries.

Stated in this way, the conflict may appear to be insoluble. Something will have to give. Squaring the circle may seem impossible.

Some of you may have heard of the story about the two professors Ury and Fisher. It is a story. There were these two professors in a room. One wanted the windows open and the other wanted the windows closed. So there was this big dispute about open - and close. Ury insisting that the window be open and Fischer saying no, it must be closed. The conflict went on for sometime and Fisher eventually said let us sit and talk about this. The response he got was "What is there to be talked about - I want the window open, you want it closed. So what is there to talk about?' . And then Fisher asks, 'Yes, OK - but why is it you want the windows open?' So, behind your stated position what is your interest?. And Ury replied 'I want it open because I like the fresh air and the breeze and so on.' Ury then asked 'Yes, but, then why do you want it closed?' Fisher replied 'Because papers are flying around, I cannot control it.'

And then the two of them jointly started examining ways in which they could get a win-win solution so that Ury could have the fresh air and Fisher would not have his papers flying about. They discussed the idea of positioning the tables differently, then putting up screens and so on and so forth. But the point of the story was not so much about the end result - it was about the fact that the two parties to a conflict were able to jointly engage in a dialogue and the synergy that was created resulted in solutions which neither of them may have thought of on their own.

In the case of the conflict in Sri Lanka we may want to look behind the stated positions of the LTTE and Sri Lanka. We may want to look at the interests that the Tamil people and the Sinhala people want to secure. I believe that it is possible to move towards a resolution of the conflict on a win-win basis.

I am reminded of a statement by a UK foreign minister some years ago that 'Sovereignty is not virginity.' Independence? Yes. But all countries in this world are dependent on one another. After three hundred years of wars and two world wars, the countries in Europe have moved towards an European Union. There are different ways in which peoples may associate with one another in equality and in freedom - and here there is every thing to talk about. And not much is gained by straight jacketing the discussions on the basis of known ideas and conceptual models. I thank you." Opening Remarks by Nadesan Satyendra at International Seminar: Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka Organized by the Centre for Just Peace and Democracy (CJPD) in collaboration with the Berghof Foundation, Sri Lanka Zurich, Switzerland 7 - 9 April 2006

Mail Us Copyright 1998/2009 All Rights Reserved Home