|
Sathyam
Commentary
'Recent Developments in
Sri Lanka' : US Senate Hearing
An Open Letter to Senator Kerry,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Nadesan Satyendra,
19 February 2009
"... the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee may want to examine whether
US strategic interests in an emerging multi lateral
world and in particular in the Indian Ocean region will
be advanced by preventing the emergence of new states
or whether, on the contrary, US strategic interests
will be furthered by recognising that self determination is
not a destabilising concept. Central governments
of existing states may have the power that flows from
the barrel of the gun, but a feeling or thought
such as democracy, the aspiration towards liberty, is
not without material force. . 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 - and herein lies its
enduring appeal. Steadfastly defending the
inviolability of territorial boundaries of existing
states, regardless of how and when they were determined
may not be the path to a stable world order. There is a
need 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. And it was for
these values that more than two hundred years ago, the
signatories of the US Declaration of
Independence suffered - and some paid the ultimate
price... It is for those same values
that tens of thousands of Tamils both young and old
have fought and given their lives. They have given
their lives so that their brothers and sisters may live
in freedom - freedom from rule by a permanent alien Sinhala
majority within the confines of a single state..
Said that, the struggle for Tamil Eelam is not about a
search for historical first causes - a search that will
end in the stone age and in a discussion about original
sin. Neither is the struggle for Tamil Eelam an
invitation to engage in the politics of the last
atrocity. Nor is the struggle for an independent Tamil
Eelam about what the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
may have done or may not have done - though I together
with millions of Tamils not only in Tamil Eelam but
also in many lands and across distant seas will bow our
heads in all humility and continue to recognise
Velupillai Pirabakaran and the LTTE (warts and all) as
the undying symbols of Tamil resistance to alien
Sinhala rule... the struggle for Tamil
Eelam is about the democratic right of the people of
Tamil Eelam to govern themselves in their homeland.
"
 Opening
Seek
first to understand, then to
be understood.
US Strategic
Interests in Sri Lanka
Uneasy
Balance of Power in the Indian Ocean
Region
US
Military Aid & Sri Lanka's Genocide
Sinhala Ethno
Nationalism
Political solution
directed to resolve the conflict on the ground must
address the political reality on the ground
- US Congressman Mario
Baggio 1980 - Massachusetts Resolution 1981 - 53 Non
Governmental Organisations, 1998 - US
Congressman Brad Sherman
True strategic
interests of US - A Principle Centered
Approach
Envisioning
New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka
Dear
Senator Kerry,
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee
which you Chair has scheduled
hearings on the 'Recent Developments in Sri Lanka' for
24 February at 2:30 p.m.
Given these 'recent developments
in Sri Lanka', which may be appropriately described
as Sri
Lanka's Genocide and President Rajapaksa's Horrific War
Crime, I feel impelled to address this communication
to you.
 Seek
first to understand, then to be
understood
I believe that Stephen Covey was
right
when he said
"If I were to summarise in one
sentence the single most important principle I have
learned in inter personal relations, it would be this:
'Seek first to understand, then to be understood.'..."
To make oneself understood,
one needs to first understand what it is that is
important to those whose understanding one seeks. I
believe that this is the first step to a genuine
conversation. I would
start therefore by trying to understand the interests
that the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is
concerned to secure.
I would imagine
that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is concerned
to secure the strategic interests of the United States
in the world. And it is of course right that it should be
so concerned. I am also mindful that human rights and
humanitarian laws are instruments which states often use
selectively so that they may intervene for political
reasons in the affairs of other states. None the
less, reason is not without force - not least, perhaps,
because liberal democracy has a need to nurture its
liberal foundation. If militant dissent is to be avoided,
conscious evolution becomes necessary.
Again, whether
Tamil Eelam leader, Velupillai Pirabakaran was right when
he declared more than 15 years ago -
"We are fully aware that the world
is not rotating on the axis of human justice. Every country
in this world advances its own interests. Economic
and trade interests determine the order of the
present world, not the moral law of
justice nor the rights of people. International
relations and diplomacy between countries are
determined by such interests. Therefore we cannot
expect an immediate recognition of the moral legitimacy of our cause
by the international community... In reality, the
success of our struggle depends on us, not on the
world. Our success depends on our own efforts, on our
own strength, on our own determination." Velupillai Pirabakaran, 1993
is a matter that will continue to
engage more than 70 million Tamils living today in many
lands.
US Strategic
Interests in Sri Lanka
Said that, I would
imagine that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is
aware
- that the
Indian
Ocean region is of particular strategic
significance in the 21st century.
that -
"Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia. This
ocean is the key to the seven seas in the twenty-first
century, the destiny of the world will be decided in
these waters." US Rear
Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan quoted by Cdr. P K Ghosh in Maritime Security Challenges
in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, 18 January
2004
that -
"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 role of the Indian Ocean in
Facilitating Global Maritime Trade, Nazery Khalid,
June 2005
that -
"..China, which has been a net oil importer since 1993,
is the world's number two oil consumer after the U.S.
and has accounted for 40 percent of the world's crude
oil demand growth since 2000. .. in the presence of
sporadic power shortages, growing car ownership and air
travel across China and the importance of energy to
strategically important and growing industries such as
agriculture, construction, and steel and cement
manufacturing, pressure is going to mount on China to
access energy resources on the world stage. As a
result, energy security has become an area of vital
importance to China's stability and security. China is
stepping up efforts to secure sea lanes and transport
routes that are vital for oil shipments." Setting the Stage for a New Cold War:
China's Quest for Energy Security - PINR, 25
February 2005
that - "
The geopolitical strategy dubbed the "String of Pearls"
is arising as foreign oil becomes a center of gravity
critical to China's energy needs. China's rising
maritime power is encountering American maritime power
along the sea lines of communication (SLOCs) that
connect China to vital energy resources in the Middle
East and Africa. The "String of Pearls" describes the
manifestation of China's rising geopolitical influence
through efforts to increase access to ports and
airfields, develop special diplomatic relationships,
and modernize military forces that extend from the
South China Sea through the Strait of Malacca, across
the Indian Ocean, and on to the Arabian Gulf. .. Each
"pearl" in the "String of Pearls" is a nexus of Chinese
geopolitical influence or military presence. Hainan
Island, with recently upgraded military facilities, is
a "pearl." An upgraded airstrip on Woody Island,
located in the Paracel archipelago 300 nautical miles
east of Vietnam, is a "pearl." A container shipping
facility in Chittagong, Bangladesh, is a "pearl."
Construction of a deep water port in Sittwe, Myanmar,
is a "pearl," as is the construction of a navy base in
Gwadar, Pakistan. Port and airfield construction
projects, diplomatic ties, and force modernization form
the essence of China's "String of Pearls." The "pearls"
extend from the coast of mainland China through the
littorals of the South China Sea, the Strait of
Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the
littorals of the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. China is
building strategic relationships and developing a
capability to establish a forward presence along the
sea lines of communication (SLOCs) that connect China
to the Middle East. .. 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..." String of Pearls:Meeting the
Challenge of China's Rising Power Across the Asian
Littoral - Lt.Col. Christopher J. Pehrson, July,
2006
that - "..US Marines will conduct
exercises with the Sri Lanka Navy later this month,
deploying more than 1,000 personnel and support ships
for amphibious and counter-insurgency maneuvers with
the aim of 'containing' growing Chinese presence in the
region and to test its latest theories on 'littoral
battle' without putting American soldiers at
risk…" Indian
Marines to train Sri Lanka Navy - Rahul Bedi, 25
October 2006
that - ".. China is all set to drop anchor at India's
southern doorstep. An agreement has been finalized
between Sri Lanka and China under which the latter will
participate in the development of a port project at
Hambantota on the island's south coast. ...the
significance of Hambantota to China lies in its
proximity to India's south coast. The Indian
Ocean is a critical waterway for global trade and
commerce. Half the world's containerized freight, a
third of its bulk cargo and two-thirds of its oil
shipments travel through the Indian Ocean. It provides
major sea routes connecting Africa, the Middle East,
South Asia and East Asia with Europe and the Americas
and is home to several critical chokepoints such as the
Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of
Malacca...."China
moves into India's back yard -Sudha Ramachandran in
Asia Times, 13 March 2007
that -
"..At the ...meeting of the Indo-US
Defence Joint Working Group held in New Delhi (on 10
April 2007), China's 'growing naval expansion in the
Indian Ocean' was noted with concern. The meeting also
noted: ''China is rapidly increasing military and
maritime links with countries such as
Myanmar,
Bangladesh,
Sri Lanka,
Maldives,
Seychelles,
Mauritius and Madagascar…
The 200 years of the Anglo-Saxon presence in the region
has now been replaced by the US-China presence to
further and protect their interests. Isn't it time for
the 'owners' of the Indian Ocean to get together to
protect their own interests? "
The
Indian Ocean - Current Security Environment , Atul Dev
- Mauritius Times, 25 May 2007
that -
"If the world is showing an extraordinary interest in
the peace process in Sri Lanka; if
the western donor nations have given $3 billion for
post-tsunami reconstruction work in the island; and if
India wants to be kept informed about what is going on
constantly, it is because of Sri Lanka's strategic
importance... Sri Lanka has had strategic importance in
world history since the 17th century, attracting the
Portuguese, Dutch, French, the British, and the
Indians, in succession. Now, we may add a new entity,
"the international community", to the list of
interested parties... Trincomalee has immense
significance in this age of nuclear weaponry and
nuclear submarine-based missile systems also...Given
the depth of the harbour, nuclear submarines are able
to dive low within the inner harbour to effectively
avoid radar and sonar detection.." ' Strategic
Significance of Sri Lanka' - Ramesh Somasundaram of
Deakin University quoted by P.K. Balachandran in
Hindustan Times, 30 May 2005
that - "..The
ten year Acquisition and Cross-Servicing
Agreement (ACSA) signed by the United States and
Sri Lanka on March 5, 2007 which provides for among
other things logistics supplies and re-fuelling
facilities, has major ramifications for the region,
particularly India. For all the sophistry and spin by
the Americans, the ACSA is a military deal and, on the
face of it, is loaded in Washington's favour. For the
U.S., it is as good as acquiring a base in the Indian
Ocean and at little or no cost...
Just a few years ago, such an agreement
would have been inconceivable given the sensitivities
of India in view of the geographical proximity of Sri
Lanka. For example, the grant of permission by Colombo
to Voice of America to establish its transmitter in the
island and the leasing of oil tanks in Trincomalee port
to pro-American firms were major bones of contention
between India and Sri Lanka for decades. Both the
subjects were covered elaborately in the exchange of letters between Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka's President J.R.
Jayawardene as part of the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.
" Another U.S. base in the Indian Ocean? -
B. Muralidhar Reddy in the Hindu, 9 March
2007
that -
"The Indian ocean region had become the strategic
heartland of the 21st century, dislodging Europe and
North East Asia which adorned this position in the 20th
century.. the developments in the Indian Ocean region
were contributing to the advent of a less Western
centric and a more multi-polar world." Donald L. Berlin, Head of Security Studies,
Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies, Honolulu,
Hawaii, 13 December 2006
Given all of the
foregoing, the remarks of US Ambassador Lunstead (who is
scheduled to be a witness at your hearing) in his paper
on the United States Role in Sri Lanka Peace
Process 2002-2006, published in 2007 appear to be
somewhat disingenuous -
"..With the end of
the Cold War, U.S. interest in Sri Lanka waned. As
recently as 2000, the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) was planning for
significantly reduced development assistance levels.
The enhanced engagement that commenced in 2001 occurred
despite the absence of significant
U.S. strategic interests in Sri Lanka.
Political-military interests are not high, and the U.S.
has no interest in military bases in Sri Lanka.
From an economic and commercial standpoint, Sri Lanka
is unlikely to be a major U.S. trading partner in the
near future. There is not a large enough Sri
Lankan-origin community in the U.S. to have an impact
on U.S. domestic politics. "
Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead failed
to mention that with the end of the old cold war a
new cold war had started. The reluctance on the part
of US Ambassador Lunstead
to openly admit to US strategic
interests in Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean region may be
understandable. But such denials draws a veil over the
real issues that the US Senate
Foreign Relations Committee will need to look at if it is
intent on meaningfully examining 'Recent Developments in
Sri Lanka'. Not much is gained
by ignoring the elephant in the room. Recent developments
in Sri Lanka will acquire meaning only in the context of
the international frame
of the conflict in the island.
Uneasy
Balance of Power in the Indian Ocean
Region
It will be fair
to say that during the past several decades two conflicts
have raged in Sri Lanka. And the two have impacted on
each other. One conflict is that between the people of
Tamil Eelam and Sinhala Sri Lanka. The other is the
conflict that is reflected in the uneasy balance of power
in the Indian Ocean region.
"…the dynamics of the
region calls for a balance of power
approach rather than a straight alliance….
The rise of India as a major power, coupled with the
better-known - and frequently analyzed - Chinese rise,
is changing the structure of the world system. Not only
is U.S. 'unipolar' hegemony in the Indian Ocean facing
a challenge, but the strategic triad U.S.-Western
Europe-Japan, which has ruled the international
political economy for the past few decades, is now also
under question…We can expect the South Asian
region to be one of the system's key areas to be
watched in the next decade."
Adam Wolfe, Yevgeny Bendersky, Dr. Federico Bordonaro -
India's Project Seabird and Indian Ocean's Balance of
Power, PINR, 20 July 2005
Admittedly, the balance of power in the Indian Ocean
region is not static. It is dynamic. The frame is
multilateral and though asymmetric, not unipolar. The
interactions are nuanced - and calibrated. But the short
point is that today, neither the US nor India is
prepared to walk away and leave Sri Lanka entirely to the other - or for that matter
to China. Recently, Indian External Affairs Minister
Pranab Mukherjee disarmingly declared in the Indian
Parliament -
"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, 23 October
2008
Further, New Delhi's continued reference
to the comic opera reforms of the 13th Amendment as a way
of resolving the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka, is
simply its own way of getting Sri Lanka back on track to
the Indo
Sri Lanka Accord and the
Exchange of Letters that secured New Delhi's
strategic interests in its 'backyard'. As in 1987, so
also today - the comic
opera reforms of the 13th Amendment have little to do
with satisfying the aspirations of the people of Tamil
Eelam for freedom from alien Sinhala rule and everything
to do with New Delhi's concern to prevent its 'backyard'
becoming 'a playground of international players'.
US Military
Aid & Sri Lanka's Genocide
It is this uneasy balance of power
in the Indian Ocean region which perhaps led the
US administration under President Bush to arm and train
the Sinhala army as a way of securing US influence in the
Indian Ocean region - a Sinhala army commanded by US
Green Card holder Lt.General
Sarath Fonseka. In 2006, whilst the Norwegian Peace
Process was still in place, US Ambassador Lunstead
declared in Colombo -
"...Through our military training and assistance
programs, including efforts to help with
counterterrorism initiatives and block illegal
financial transactions, we are helping to shape the
ability of the Sri Lankan Government to protect its
people and defend its interests... If the LTTE chooses
to abandon peace, however, we want it to be clear, they
will face a stronger, more capable and more determined
Sri Lankan military. We want the cost of a return to
war to be high." United States
Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Jeffrey Lunstead: The Return
of the Ugly American? , 11 January 2006
When in January 2008, two years after US Ambassador
Lunstead had spoken, Sri Lanka (and not the LTTE) chose
to 'abandon peace' and
abrogated the Cease Fire Agreement the response of
the United States was muted.
One result of the approach adopted
by the US was that Sinhala Sri Lanka was encouraged to
blatantly disregard the Geneva
Conventions relating to armed conflict and engage in
a naked genocidal onslaught
on the people of Tamil Eelam.
Here it has to be said that the actions of President
Rajapaksa's regime are not without an internal logic of
its own. Jean Paul Sartre was right when he declared in
1967 that "against partisans backed by the entire
population, (occupying) colonial armies have only one way
of escaping from the harassment which demoralizes
them.... This is to eliminate the civilian population. As
it is the unity of a whole people that is containing the
conventional army, the only anti-guerrilla strategy
which will be effective is the destruction of that
people, in other words, the civilians, women and
children..."
The horrific war crimes
committed by President Rajapaksa and the Sinhala forces
under his command reflect the political reality that
it is the unity of the entire population of Tamil Eelam
in their struggle for freedom from alien Sinhala rule,
that has led the Sinhala regime to believe that the '
only anti-guerrilla strategy which will be effective is
the destruction of that people, in other words, the
civilians, women and children...' The Sinhala rulers
believe that they are clearing the 'swamp' but the
political reality that will confront them sooner rather
than later is that they have only created additional
ones. The self immolation of Muthukumar in Tamil Nadu and
Murukuthasan before the UN headquarters
in Geneva is proof enough of that.
Sri Lanka's
own balance of power exercise
Sri Lanka has sought to
use the political space created by the
geo strategic triangle of US-India-China in the Indian
Ocean region to secure the support of all three for its
genocidal attack on the people of Tamil Eelam - and to
impose permanent alien Sinhala rule on them.
The record shows that Sinhala Sri
Lanka has engaged in a 'balance of power' exercise of its
own by handing over parts of the island (and its
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 Hambatota (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 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 may help to pressure
President Rajapaksa to move away from an overly reliance
on a China/Pakistan/Iran axis. But President Rajapksa's
own responses to such pressure may be governed by the
internal left of centre political constituency on which
he depends for continuance in power. President
Rajapaksa's Sri Lanka is no exception to the rule that a
state's 'foreign policy is the external
manifestation of domestic institutions, ideologies and
other attributes of the polity'. Hence the murder of Lasantha Wikremaratne, the
suppression of the media and all those
forces who may be used to promote an alternative Sinhala
leadership which may eschew a 'balance of power' strategy
to a policy that is more committed to US strategic
interests in the Indian Ocean region.
Sinhala ethno
nationalism
But for the
people of Tamil Eelam, an alternative Sinhala leadership
will provide little comfort. 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. The words of Professor Marshall Singer in 1995
remain true -
"...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
Any meaningful
examination of recent developments in Sri Lanka must
address the question which Professor Singer raised more
than a decade ago. It is not enough to simply repeat
parrot wise as US Ambassador Blake did in Chennai in
October 2008-
"The greatest failure of the last
25 years has been the failure of the main Sinhalese
parties to reach agreement." Time for Colombo to
defeat LTTE with political solution: U.S. Ambassador
Blake, 24 October 2008
The question must be asked: why it is
that Sinhala political parties have failed to reach
agreement during all these many years. Are the Sinhalese
political parties stupid? Or are the Sinhala people who
put these parties in power so stupid that they do not see
that which Professor Marshall Singer and Ambassador Blake
have seen so clearly?
Senator S.Nadesan Q.C. said it all in the
aftermath of Genocide '58 -
"...Hon. Senators will
remember how one of the present Ministers of this
Government went round the countryside saying that the
U.N.P. Government had offered the Sinhalese man's mat
to Suppiah to lie on and allow Nalliah to pluck his eye
and Subramaniam to wring his neck. That is the type of
communal propaganda indulged in by members of the
M.E.P. and by their Ministers. We cannot forget
that...The Tamils are the pawns in a political game. It does not
matter to anybody how we suffer, how we feel, so long
as in this game one Sinhala party is the victor and the
other Sinhala party is the vanquished. .... if one
party said, "We will kill the Tamils", the other party
could go one better and say, "We will eat the Tamils."
In other words, it was a competition as to who would
hold down the Tamils most. And the party which was
going to hold down the Tamils most was going to have
the support of the Sinhalese masses... That is all.
That is why I ask you not to make us pawns in your
game..." - Senator
S.Nadesan during the course of the debate on the State
of Emergency in the Second Senate on June 4th,
1958
And this leads one to
the nub of the matter. The political reality in Sri Lanka
is that 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
And this Sinhala
Buddhist ethno nationalism is not about to transform
itself into a multi ethnic secular civic
nation and surrender its Sinhala Lion Flag,
repeal its 1956
Sinhala Only Act, give up the Sinhala Sri Lanka
name that it gave itself unilaterally in 1972 and
give up Buddhism as the
state religion. Indeed those who suggest that it
should may want to pay attention to the words of Bernard
Yack -
"...So-called civic nations like France,
Canada, and the United States may have become
relatively open societies that offer citizenship rights
to all peoples, but they did not start out that way. In
each case, they began with restricted core communities
-- be they white or Catholic or British or European --
and expanded outward. As a result, when we urge
nationalists, say in Bosnia or Kosovo, to follow our
example and found nations solely on the basis of shared
political principles, we are in fact urging them to do
something that we never did ourselves..." Bernard
Yack on the Myth of Civic Nationalism, July
2000
Political solution
directed to resolve the conflict on the ground must
address the political reality on the ground - US
Congressman Mario Baggio 1980 - Massachusetts Resolution
1981 - 53 Non Governmental Organisations, 1998 -
US Congressman Brad Sherman
And so, today those who rightly advocate a political solution in
preference to a military one will also need to recognise
that a political solution must address the political
reality on the ground and not the other way round. And it
is this that US
Congressman Mario Baggio seems to have recognised
when he declared 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."
It is this political reality on the
ground that the resolution of US Massachusetts House of
Representatives in June 1981 calling for the
Restoration of the Separate Sovereign State of Tamil
Eelam also acknowledged -
".... 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
It is this political reality on the ground that moved
53 Non Governmental Organisations to
declare in a Joint Statement to the UN Human Rights
Commission in April 1998 -
"We are gravely concerned by the continued Sri
Lanka-Tamil Eelam war and by the increasing genocidal
dimension of that war as evidenced by: (a) targeting of
the civilian population by the Sri Lankan forces; (b)
epidemic proportions of disappearances, torture,
extrajudicial killings, rape, arbitrary arrest and
indefinite detention of Tamil civilians; (c) a sweeping
embargo in the North and East of subsistence food and
essential medicine in contravention of humanitarian
law; (d) the existence of more than 850,000 displaced
persons living in appalling conditions at risk now of
starvation and death.
In his message to the Tamil people on National Heroes Day in November 1997,
LTTE leader Mr. Velupillai Pirabaharan stated that any
political solution should take into account the
following four points of the Thimpu Conference of 1985
to which all Tamil political parties agreed:
- Tamil people are a national entity and have
a distinct language, culture and customs;
- Tamil people have historically inhabited a
contiguous territory in the North-East of Sri Lanka
which is their homeland;
- The Tamil people have the right to decide
their political destiny based on the right to
self-determination of peoples;
- All Tamils, including the Plantation
Tamils, should enjoy full rights in the
island.
To contribute to resolution of the Sri
Lanka-Tamil Eelam War and to provide meaningful
international support to secure the aspirations of the
Tamil people we urge the Commission to adopt a
resolution that
- calls on the government of Sri Lanka to
withdraw all its armed forces from the Tamil
homeland;
- calls on both the government of Sri Lanka
and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to secure a
political solution that allows the Tamil people to
realise its right to self-determination and that
establishes full human rights to all the people of
Sri Lanka; and
- appoints a Special Rapporteur with a
mandate to investigate the situation and monitor a
peace process.
Written statement
[E/CN.4/1998/NGO/120, 21 April 1998]- signed by 1.
Franciscans International 2. Worldview International
Foundation 3. International Peace Bureau 4.
International Association Against Torture 5. Society
For Threatened People 6. International Work Group For
Indigenous Affairs 7. North-South XX1 8. African
Commission of Health and Human Rights Promotion 9.
International Indian Treaty Council 10. International
Organisation of Indigenous Resource - Development
Category 11. The Saami Council 12. Federation
Internationale des Journalistes Libres 13.
International Right to Life 14. International League
for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples 15.
International Education Development 16. World Society
of Victimology 17. Liberation 18. REDHRIC 19. World
Federation of Democratic Youth 20. Movement contre le
Racisme et pour Amitie des Peuples 21. FEDEFAM 22.
International Association of Democratic Lawyers 23.
AZADHO Association de Defense de Droits de l`Homme 24.
World Muslim Congress 25. World Federation of Trade
Unions 26. American Association of Jurists 27. Agence
des Cites Unies pour la Co-operation Nord-Sud 28.
Parliamentarians for Global Action 29. Asian Women`s
Human Rights Council 30. International Federation of
Human Rights Leagues 31. International Centre for Human
Rights and Democratic Development 32. International
Human Rights Association of American Minorities 33.
Change 34. Commission for the Defense of Human Rights
in Latin America 35. New Humanity 36. World Alliance of
Reformed Churches 37. Human Rights Internet 38. Felix
Varelar Centre 39. Centre for European Studies 40.
International Federation of Journalists 41. General
Arab Women Foundation 42. World Movement of Mothers 43.
International League for Human Rights 44. Movimento
Cubano per la Paz 45. International Human Rights Law
Group 46. Canadian Council of Churches 47. Pax Romana
48. World Confederation of Labour 49. International
Commission of Jurists 50. Arab Lawyers Union 51. World
Organisation Against Torture 52. International Org for
the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
53. Arab Organisation for Human Rights 54. Association
for World Education
And it was this political reality on the
ground that US Congressman Brad
Sherman also addressed in 2000 -
"....The United States has an
opportunity 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
True strategic
interests of US - A Principle Centered
Approach
Given all this, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee may want to examine whether US
strategic interests in an emerging multi lateral world
and in particular the Indian Ocean region will be
advanced by preventing the emergence of new states or
whether, on the contrary, US strategic interests will be
furthered by recognising (as US Congressman Mario
Baggio, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Resolution, and US Congressman Brad
Sherman did) that self determination is
not a destabilising concept.
It is sometimes said
that to accord international recognition to nations
within existing states will lead to instability in the
world order. The reasoning is not dissimilar to that
which was urged a hundred years ago against granting
universal franchise. It was said that to empower every
citizen with a vote was to threaten the stability of
existing state structures and the ruling establishment.
But the truth was that it was the refusal to grant
universal franchise which threatened
stability.
Central governments of existing states
may have the power that flows from the barrel of the gun,
but a feeling or
thought such as democracy, the aspiration towards
liberty, is not without material force. 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 - and herein lies its
enduring appeal.
"...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
Steadfastly defending the inviolability
of territorial boundaries of existing states, regardless
of how and when they were determined may not be the path
to a stable world order. '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
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. And it was for these values that more than two
hundred years ago, the signatories of the US Declaration of
Independence suffered - and some paid the ultimate
price -
"Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men
who signed the Declaration of Independence? The history
books never told you a lot of what happened in the
Revolutionary War. We didn't just fight the British. We
were British subjects at that time and we fought our
own government! Five signers were captured by the
British as traitors, and tortured before they
died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army,
another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought
and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary
War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their
fortunes, and their sacred honor."
The Fifty-Six Men who Signed the Declaration of
Independence
The struggle for an independent Tamil Eelam
is for the same values for which the signatories of the
US Declaration of Independence fought and suffered.
It is for those same values that tens of
thousands of Tamils both young and old have fought and
given their lives. They have fought and given their lives
so that their brothers and sisters may live in freedom -
freedom from rule by a permanent alien Sinhala
majority within the confines of a single state..
The conflict in the island of Sri
Lanka is not simply about the systematic violations of
human rights of the Tamil people, or about violations of
the humanitarian law of armed conflict - or for that
matter genocide. The conflict in the island is about the
refusal of the people of Tamil Eelam to submit to alien
Sinhala rule. In the ultimate analysis the
struggle for an independent Tamil Eelam is about the
democratic right of the people of Tamil Eelam to govern
themselves in their homeland.
"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." -
Velupilllai Pirabaharan,
Leader of Tamil Eelam
A principle centred approach to the
conflict in the island of Sri Lanka will recognise
something which Professor Margaret Moore said in Normative
Justifications for Liberal Nationalism:Justice, Democracy
and National Identity in 2001 -
"...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. .."
I would urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
to recognise the force of reason in that which 17 non governmental
organisations (consisting of International
Association of Educators for World Peace, International
Educational Development, International Indian Treaty
Council, Consejo Indico de Sud America, Comision de
Deeches Homonas de El Salavador, Commission for the
Defence of Human Rights in Central America, World Council
of Churches, International Movement against all Forms of
Discrimination and Racism,Action des Christians Pour
L'Abolition de la Torture,FIMARC, International Council
of Women, American Association of Jurists, Centre
Europe-Tiers Monde, Servieiv Pax Justica America Latina,
Pax Romana, International League for the Rights and
Liberation of Peoples, and World Christian Live
Community) told the UN Commission on Human Rights
at its 50th
Sessions in February 1994:
'' There is a need to recognise that the deep divisions
between the Sri Lanka government and the Tamil people
cannot be resolved by the use of force against Tamil
resistance. 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.''
Said that, the struggle for Tamil Eelam is not about a
search for historical first causes - a search that will
end in the stone age and in a discussion about original
sin. Neither is the struggle for Tamil Eelam an
invitation to engage in the politics of the last
atrocity. Nor is the struggle for an independent Tamil
Eelam about what the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam may
have done or may not have done - though I together with
millions of Tamils not only in Tamil Eelam but also
in many lands and across
distant seas will bow our heads in humility and
continue to recognise Velupillai Pirabakaran and the
LTTE (warts and all) as the undying symbols of Tamil
resistance to alien Sinhala rule.
Here it will be helpful to revisit
the words of Hilary Clinton 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 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. 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
Said that, the central moral problem is war and not
its methods. The words of Harry L. Stimson, US Secretary
of State 1929-1933 quoted, appropriately enough by
Hitler's Arms Minister, Albert Speer in Inside the Third Reich
merit our careful attention:
"...We must never forget, that under modern
conditions of life, science and technology, all war has
become greatly brutalized and that no one who joins in
it, even in self-defence, can
escape becoming also in a measure brutalized. Modern
war cannot be limited in its destructive method and the
inevitable debasement of all participants... we as well
as our enemies have contributed to the proof that the
central moral problem is war and not its
methods..."
The bottom line is that a conflict will
be resolved only if we honestly pay attention to the deep
felt differences which had given rise to the war in the
first instance - deep felt differences which had not
been amenable to peaceful resolution and which had led to
war.
Envisioning
New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka
I will end by saying something which
I said 3 years ago in 2006 in Zurich at the
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
"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 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 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.
Yours sincerely
Nadesan Satyendra
|
