Mr.Asbjorn Eide's
oral intervention on 6 August, at the 50th sessions
of the Sub-Commission merits careful consideration.
Mr.Eide is one of 26 experts serving on
the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. He has
also taken an active interest in the conflict in the
island for more than 15 years.
In 1984, (at the Second
Consultation on Ethnic Violence, Development and Human
Rights in Utrecht, Netherlands, sponsored amongst
others by the United Nations University) Mr. Eide was
the Rapporteur of a working group, chaired by Rodolfo
Stavenhagen, to examine a comparative research
programme directed to understanding ethnic conflict and
its impact on development and human rights. That
Consultation in Utrecht was the precursor to the
establishment of International Alert, with an Emergency
Committee on Sri Lanka to address the resolution of the
conflict in the island.
Mr.Eide begins by
declaring:
"The Commission and
ECOSOC has consistently mandated us, since 1968, to
bring to the attention of the Commission any
situation which the Sub-Commission has reasonable
cause to believe reveals a consistent pattern of gross violations of human
rights in accordance with paragraph 6 of the
Commission resolution (XXIII). This is what we are
examining under this agenda item.... Our role should
not be to point fingers based on superficial review
of selective facts, but to contribute to a deeper
process of investigation with a view to make a
constructive contribution towards the realisation of
human rights for those who live in that particularly
society."
It is wholly appropriate that
Mr.Eide should give expression to these views in the
historic year of the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court, with its
proclaimed goal of 'Peace and Justice' and his views
will, ofcourse, find a ready acceptance amongst the
Tamil people to whom human
rights and humanitarian law have acquired an
existential significance during the past several
decades. As the International Federation of Tamils
has pointed
out, the building blocks for peace are the building blocks
of justice. Mr.Eide's comments
at the UN Sub Commission on 6 August, may be usefully
evaluated by examining the extent to which his remarks
secure justice and further the peace process in the
island of Sri Lanka.
Mr.Eide is at pains
to establish his non partisan credentials - and
perhaps, rightly so. He says:
"(There are those)
here long enough to remember that I, in 1983, was the
first to criticise the government of Sri Lanka for
its lack of effective measures to investigate
the
authors of the massacres against Tamils in the summer
of 1983, including the killing of
political prisoners in the Welikade prison. I
know also that many in Sri Lanka subsequently
regretted that they did not listen to the suggestions
we then made, which were to take prompt actions to
restore law and order, to punish those responsible,
and to involve the International Committee of the Red
Cross."
That which Mr.Eide
fails to point out is that it was not so much
that the Sri Lanka government did not 'listen' to the
calls for 'effective measures to investigate' the
massacres, but that the Sri Lanka government
dishonoured the pledges it had given after 'listening'.
Sri Lanka Ambassador, Mr.Tissa Jayakody, did promise
the Sub Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities at Geneva on 22 August
1983:
"The Sri Lankan authorities....would leave no
stone unturned to bring to justice all those
responsible for killings, violence and acts of
destruction, no matter who they were and regardless
of their status, ideology or political alignments.
There would be no exceptions."
Furthermore, in its Note Verbale dated 30 January
1984, distributed to the delegates to the 40th Sessions
of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
February 1984, the Sri Lanka government continued to
reiterate (and buy time):
"The events of July 1983 were caused by a minority
of lawless elements in particular circumstances. The
guilty have been or are being
punished and the Government has initiated a
complex and sensitive political process to deal with
the fundamental issues which led to the events of
July 1983. In this context, the constructive approach
of the international community is to desist from any
action or comment on the situation in Sri Lanka."
The Sri Lanka government's
culpability lies not simply in its failure to
investigate the 1983 massacres, nor for that matter,
its failure to honour the pledges that it had given in
international fora, but in its actual involvement in
the genocide. Cabinet Minister S. Thondaman (who
continued to serve in the Sri Lanka government)
remarked in an interview in the Illustrated Weekly of
India on 18 December 1983:
''We all know who these people are. I am not
naming them right now... How can any action be taken
against them? They are important people. They are
part of this government, just as I am. Behind all
this are our own people... We all know them.''
Mr. Eide will not be unaware that seventy years
after the massacre of around one million Armenians in
1915 (on the orders of the Turkish government), the
Permanent Peoples Tribunal held a special hearing in
Paris in 1985. The Tribunal's jury included three Nobel
Prize winners -Sean Macbride, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and
Professor George Wald. The Tribunal found that the
charge of genocide that the Armenian people brought
against the Turkish authorities was established and
declared:
'' The fundamental rights of this (Armenian)
people are of direct concern to the international
community, which is entitled and duty bound to ensure
that these rights are respected, particularly when
they are openly denied by one of its member
states.''
In the Sri Lanka case, many Tamils may take the view
that a fair minded examination of the facts presented
in Genocide'83,
should have led an independent expert, such as Mr.Eide,
to conclude that, at the lowest, a prima facie case
exists to warrant an indictment for genocide against
the Sri Lanka authorities and that a lapse of 15 years
should not prevent the guilty from being brought to
justice.
But, Mr.Eide appears content to gloss over the
happenings of Genocide'83 with the remark
'that many in Sri Lanka subsequently
regretted that they did not listen to the suggestions
we then made'. His comments ignore the feelings
of hundreds of thousands of Tamils who suffered during
Black July 1983, (and millions of other Tamils who have
shared in the agony and the pain of their brothers and
sisters) and will be seen by many as an attempt draw a
line under the heinous crimes that were committed
against the Tamil people 15 years ago.
Mr.Eide reinforces his approach by adding " but very
much has changed since 1983" suggesting that Sinhala
Sri Lanka has now mended its ways. He then launches
an unbridled attack on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam whose leadership, according to him, "has
developed an almost paranoid garrison mentality".
Mr.Eide's comments, coming as they do from an
'independent expert', raises several questions.
For one thing, when speaking of the period
subsequent to 1983, Mr.Eide makes no reference to Sri
Lanka's continuing record of extra judicial
killings, rape, torture, 'disappearances',
Amnesty's 1990
campaign against Sri Lanka's state terror, and
the
food and medicine blockade. He leads his listeners
to infer that the only significant change since 1983,
was the emergence of the 'extremely militant'
LTTE.
It cannot be that Mr.Eide as an 'expert' was unaware
of Sri Lanka's horrendous human rights
record - a record which lead
53 non governmental organisations to declare at the UN
Commission for Human Rights in March this year:
"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, extra judicial 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."
The question must be asked: why then has Mr.Eide not
referred to these gross and systematic violations of
international law by Sri Lanka? Did Mr.Eide find it
embarrassing to raise these questions about Sri Lanka
because a nominee of the Sri Lankan government is also
an expert member of the UN Sub-Commission and a
colleague?
Mr.Eide states that the Sub Commission's efforts
under Agenda Item 2 is only a part of a larger
endeavour and that 'most important' is the dialogue, at
all levels including 'a dialogue between ourselves as experts
representing different cultures and traditions but
united in our common concern for human rights'. Is the
nominee from Sri Lanka on the UN Sub-Commission a
participant in 'dialogues' concerning Sri Lanka's
violations of human rights and humanitarian
law?
Mr.Eide's near abusive tone about the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam, appears to echo some of the
statements made by Sri Lanka's present political
leadership. As an independent expert, Mr.Eide should,
perhaps, have reflected on the views expressed by
India's ex
Foreign Secretary Dixit (who is no friend of the
LTTE):
"The LTTE's emergence as the most dominant and
effective politico-military force representing Tamil
interests was due to the following factors:
First, the character and personality of its leader
V Prabhakaran who is disciplined, austere and
passionately committed to the cause of Sri Lankan
Tamils's liberation. Whatever he may be criticised
for, it cannot be denied that the man has an inner
fire and dedication and he is endowed with natural
military abilities, both strategic and tactical. He
has also proved that he is a keen observer of the
nature of competitive and critical politics. He has
proved his abilities in judging political events and
his adroitness in responding to them.
Secondly, he has created a highly disciplined, and
dedicated cadres, a manifestation of which is
inherent in what is called the 'cyanide cult.' Each
regular member of the LTTE carries a cyanide pill and
is pledged to committing suicide rather than being
captured by the enemy.
The third factor is the cult and creed of honesty
in the disbursement and utilisation of resources.
Despite long years spent in struggle, the LTTE cadres
were known for their simple living, lack of any
tendency to exploit the people and their operational
preparedness.
The fourth factor has been the LTTE's ability to
upgrade its political and military capacities
including technological inputs despite the
constraints imposed on it by Sri Lankan forces and
later by India.
The fifth factor is a totally amoral and deadly
violent approach in dealing with those the LTTE
considers as enemies.
The sixth factor is Prabhakaran's success in
gathering around him senior advisers with diverse
political, administrative and technological
capacities, which contributed to effective training
of his cadres, optimum utilisation of the military
equipment which he had, and the structuring of an
efficient command and control system."
Mr.Eide prefers to make a blanket accusation against
the LTTE:
"That movement (the LTTE) or particularly its
leadership respects no human rights. It engages in
the most heinous crimes, using female, male and
possibly even child suicide bombers to create havoc
and fear. Its killing is directed not only at Sinhala
enemies, including civilians, and their religious
temples, but also against its Tamil opponents
including the courageous Tamil woman who was until
recently the Mayor of Jaffna until assassinated by
the Tigers. Many Tamils, including those who are
struggling for a devolution of power and greater
influence for the Tamils, live under constant threat
of assassination by the LTTE.... What baffles me is
that there are still international non governmental
organisations who lend their support to this
movement. They are then not supporting the Tamil
cause but an utterly undemocratic movement unable to
contemplate peace in any form"
Here, let it be said that it is not the case that
the LTTE have not, on occasions, violated the
humanitarian laws of armed conflict. Admittedly, an
armed resistance movement is not a carte blanche to
kill. But it would have been more appropriate for
Mr.Eide, as an expert, to have sifted fact from
propaganda and addressed the separate categories of
alleged violations of humanitarian law by the LTTE.
Truth is often the first casualty in a war and Sri
Lanka's continued media
censorship is proof enough of that. One instance of
Sri Lanka's disinformation campaign was proven in 1990.
More recently, the Voice of
America reported on 28 November 1995:
"The Sri Lankan Government is waging a
propaganda war to complement its military
offensive.... truth has become one of the war's
victims. Media observers say Sri Lankan television
has begun resorting to disinformation in its
reporting on the war against Tamil Tiger
guerrillas...
....The military press office on Saturday
issued a statement that the Tamil Tigers had used gas
on troops, implying it was a chemical weapons attack.
Only later did military sources admit the gas in
question had been tear gas. The
government continues to ban
reporters from the northern war zone. The state
information department hands out video and still
photographs produced by the Sri Lankan army.
Information is provided by fax. The
government is also forbidding reporters to visit
camps where hundreds of thousands of civilians have
fled to escape the fighting.
Sri Lanka media are subject to military
censorship. The local cable operator even blacks out
stories about Sri Lanka that appear on foreign
television channels."
Again, as an expert, Mr.Eide may have addressed the
harsh reality that as wars have become more and more
'total', it has become increasingly difficult to
separate the contributions of 'civilians', the 'para
military', and the 'military' to the war effort and the
distinction between combatants and non combatants has
been observed, more often than not, in the breach.
The German blitz on London and the night time Allied
bombings of Bremen during the Second World War exposed
some of the hypocrisy behind the stated concerns about
'humanising' armed conflicts. And, as Hiroshima and
Nagasaki showed, it is military necessity that in
the end, prevails over humanitarian considerations. The
stated justification for the use of the atomic bomb was
that it prevented the huge casualties that US military
forces would have suffered if a sea borne invasion of
the Japanese mainland was launched - not to put too
fine a point on the matter, the projected casualties of
US combatants (i.e.US armed forces) were balanced
against the clearly foreseen casualties of Japanese non
combatant civilians.
At the recently concluded Rome deliberations on the
International Criminal Court, India's attempt to
include the use of nuclear weapons as a crime
against humanity failed. The nuclear bomb is the
ultimate weapon of terror - it makes no distinction
between combatants and non combatants and it is
intended to terrorise and intimidate the enemy into
submission. The user justifies the use of the nuclear
bomb by relying on the ends that the user seeks to
achieve - freedom and justice. The justice of the ends
seems to influence the 'morality' of the means
employed to achieve those ends. Means and ends appear
to be inseparable in more ways than one.
Again, Mr. Eide makes no reference to Sri Lanka's
refusal to even admit to the existence of an 'armed
conflict' in the island. Significantly, Sri Lanka has
also abstained from voting for the recent Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court which made
provision for individuals and governments to be
punished for crimes against humanity, serious
violations of the humanitarian law of conflict and
genocide.
In regard to the allegation that the LTTE has
attacked Sinhala 'civilian
settlers' on the boundaries of Tamil Eelam, there may
be a need to consider that which the LTTE declared in
an open letter to
the Sinhala people in September 1991:
"The Sinhala people should know
that the so called state aided
'colonisation schemes' within Tamil areas having
nothing to do with solving landlessness among the
Sinhala poor. The real aim of the Sri Lankan
government is to use Sinhala settlers sometimes as a
buffer, and sometimes as a cutting edge, in its war
of aggression against the Tamil nation.
The additional longer term purpose
of these 'colonisation schemes' is to change the
demography of the Tamil homeland and in this way,
make the Tamils a manageable minority in their own
land.The Sri Lanka government has systematically
armed these settlers - some of them ex-convicts - and
often uses them to attack Tamil villagers in the
surrounding areas.
Such actions, together with the
brutality of
the operations of the regular Sri Lankan army,
have led our fighters to engage these armed settlers,
with consequences which, sometimes,
have been admittedly unfortunate and counter
productive to our cause. ..
We appeal to the Sinhala poor not
to become pawns in the 'colonisation schemes' which
have been carefully designed by Sinhala chauvinistic
forces to sow the seeds of discord and create
everlasting enmity between the Tamil people and the
Sinhala people."
Mr.Eide is critical of the actions taken by the LTTE
against 'Tamil opponents' and he lauds the 'courageous
Tamil woman who was until recently the Mayor of
Jaffna'. During the second world war, there were some
Norwegians who accepted office under German rule and
collaborated with the German army of occupation - the
most notorious was, of course, Quisling. These agents
of the alien ruler, on the one hand, dispensed favours
to sections of the populace and on the other hand,
helped to identify and eliminate those who resisted
alien rule. Some may have regarded Quisling as being
'courageous', but the vast majority of Norwegians
condemned Quisling as a traitor who put at risk the
lives of those who were struggling to rid their land of
an alien occupying army.
Again, Mr. Eide, as an expert on the Sri Lanka
situation, will not be be unaware that the Sinhala
authorities have recruited, from time to time, Tamils
to act as informers and identify those who continue to
resist alien Sinhala rule. These Tamil informers wear hoods with
slits for them to see through and shake or nod their
head, as suspected Tamil supporters of the armed
resistance are paraded before them - and they have come
to be known amongst the Tamil people as 'thalayattis'
('head shakers').
Having said that, it is equally true, that in the
absence of an established judicial system, a guerrilla
movement will need to take care to ensure that any
action against a 'traitor' does in fact accord with
the principles of natural justice - however difficult
that such an approach may sometimes appear to be for
those on the ground, engaged as they are in a daily
battle for survival against an enemy with a great
reservoir of material resources. The responses of the
LTTE to the activities of some Tamil elements who are
co-operating with the alien Sinhala ruler, suggest that
it is mindful, on the one hand, of the dangers posed by
informers, and on the other hand, of the difficulties
of responding to such dangers, within the framework of
a guerrilla movement without a stable judicial system.
But, that is not to say that the LTTE has always
succeeded in its efforts to address these issues.
These are matters which Mr.Eide, as an independent
'expert', may have usefully commented upon. But
Mr.Eide's failure to adopt a balanced approach is
startling - as startling, perhaps, as his bafflement
that international non governmental organisations
still support the LTTE and the Tamil cause.
Mr.Eide goes on to say:
"In 1994, a new President was elected in Sri
Lanka, and the government has presented a
package of devolution which goes as far as any government can possibly
go. There is no doubt in my mind that the
President is genuine, and that many or probably most
Tamils would be happy if the package could be
accepted. But the LTTE does not want it to
happen."
Once again several questions arise. Was Mr.Eide
unaware that the main Sinhala opposition party, the UNP
has not accepted the 'devolution package' and that
President Kumaratunga knows
that the 'devolution package' cannot be passed into
law without UNP support? Again, Mr.Eide cannot be
unaware of President Chandrika Kumaratunga's own
assessment of the extent of the devolution contemplated
by the package:
"Defending the devolution package, (President
Kumaratunga) said in no way would
it erode the supremacy of (the central)
parliament... The President said that since
Policy Planning was a subject for the centre, the
central government had a hold in every subject a
region handled... the President said, even if a
Regional Council opposes, the centre has the power to
go ahead and allocate land for its purposes. The
President also moved to allay fears of a North-East
merger saying that the government did not have any
idea of merging the North with the East." (Sinhala
owned Sri Lanka Sunday Times reported on 20 August
1995)
Given all this, many Tamils will be baffled by
Mr.Eide's conclusion that the devolution package 'goes
as far as any government can possibly go'. Surely, as
an expert, Mr.Eide will know that countries such as
Switzerland, and the United States have established
structures that go much further than the so called
'devolution package' of President Chandrika
Kumaratunga. But, if that which he intended to say was
that the devolution package 'goes as far as any
Sinhala government can
possibly go', then is it not the case that Mr.Eide has
chosen to make a political assessment of that which
President Kumaratunga can do without herself losing
power, instead of fulfilling his functions as an
expert and calling upon the parties to the conflict to
do that which is fair and just according to
international norms?
Mr.Eide may have 'no doubt' in his mind that the
Sri Lanka President is 'genuine' but hundreds of
thousands of Tamils who have undergone
torture and aerial bombardment at the hands of
those who obeyed the commands of the Sri Lanka
President, may have their own views about the
President's 'genuine' desire to recognise the existence
of the Tamil people, as a people with a homeland.
Additionally, many Tamils may feel that Mr. Eide's
pronouncement on President Kumaratunga, falls outside
the boundaries of his 'expertise' (and therefore, his
jurisdiction) as an expert member of the UN
Sub-Commission.
Again, Mr.Eide may have his reasons for expressing
the view that 'that many or probably most Tamils would
be happy if the (devolution) package could be
accepted'. However, on the last occasion that a
relatively free general election was held in the Tamil
homeland (and that was in 1977) the Tamil people
overwhelmingly supported
the election manifesto of the Tamil United
Liberation Front (TULF) which declared in unequivocal
terms:
"... the TULF seeks in the General Election the
mandate of the Tamil nation to establish an
independent, sovereign, secular, socialist State of
Tamil Eelam that includes all the geographically
contiguous areas that have been the traditional
homeland of the Tamil-speaking people in the country.
The Tamil nation must take the decision to establish
its sovereignty in its homeland on the basis of its
right to self- determination. The only way to
announce this decision to the Sinhalese Government
and to the world is to vote for the TULF.
"The Tamil-speaking representatives who get
elected through these votes while being members of
the National State Assembly of Ceylon, will also form
themselves into the National Assembly of Tamil Eelam
which will draft a constitution for the state of
Tamil Eelam and establish the independence of Tamil
Eelam by bringing that constitution into operation
either by peaceful means or by direct action
or struggle."
Five years later, in 1983, Tamil
Members of Parliament who were elected on this
manifesto were ousted from their seats by the Sixth
Amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution which the
International Commission of Jurists later declared to
be a violation of Article 25 of the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights - a Convention
which Sri Lanka had ratified.
"...The key to its (the 6th Amendment's) effect is
paragraph (1) which runs as follows:- 'No person
shall directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri
Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage
or advocate the establishment of a separate State
within the territory of Sri Lanka'. Anyone who
contravenes that provision becomes liable to the
imposition of civic disability for upto 7 years, the
forfeiture of his movable and immovable property...
the loss of his passport... the right to engage in
any trade or profession. In addition if he is a
Member of Parliament, he loses his seat.
The freedom to express political opinions, to seek
to persuade others of their merits, to seek to have
them represented in Parliament, and thereafter seek
Parliament to give effect to them, are all
fundamental to democracy itself. These are precisely
the freedoms which Article 25 (of the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights) recognises
and guarantees - and in respect of advocacy for the
establishment of an independent Tamil State in Sri
Lanka, those which the 6th Amendment is designed to
outlaw.
It therefore appears to me plain that this
enactment constitutes a clear violation by Sri Lanka
of its obligations in international law under the
Covenant...(Paul Sieghart: Sri Lanka-A Mounting
Tragedy of Errors - Report of a Mission to Sri Lanka
in January 1984 on behalf of the International
Commission of Jurists and its British Section,
Justice, March 1984)
The 6th Amendment continues in effect today and
outlaws the expression of any opinion in favour of an
independent Tamil Eelam. Additionally the Sinhala
army's determination to impose its will on the Tamil
people is exposed by reports of mass
graves in Jaffna. Many independent experts and
international non governmental organisations may
conclude that Mr.Eide's assessment of 'Tamil opinion'
on President Kumaratunga's 'devolution package' is
fundamentally flawed and that if a free referendum is
held in the Tamil homeland today, support for an
independent Tamil Eelam will be even more pronounced
than it was in 1977.
Mr.Eide's approach becomes self evident in his final
comments on the Sri Lanka situation:
"At present, the LTTE is battling for the minds
and the money of the expatriate Tamil community. In
order to continue its fruitless and endless war, the
Tigers depend on this external financial support from
which to purchase weapons and other means. The
international community, the international NGOs and
governments should now seek to convince the Tamil
communities in their respective countries that the
way to achieve Tamil human rights is through an
accommodation based on equality for all in the island
of Sri Lanka, full respect for the cultures of the
Sinhala, Tamils, Muslims and others, and a devolution
of power which makes it possible through peaceful
democratic means to ensure conditions for the
survival and reproduction of the Tamil culture."
This is the same agenda that the government of Sri
Lanka has also set itself - that is to persuade NGOs
and governments to 'convince' (or pressure) Tamil
expatriates to withdraw support for the LTTE. Mr.Eide
speaks of "an accommodation based on equality for all
in the island of Sri Lanka" and "a devolution of power
which makes it possible, through peaceful democratic
means to ensure conditions for the survival and
reproduction of the Tamil culture".
However, the
struggle for Tamil Eelam is not about devolution.
Neither is it simply about 'ensuring conditions for the
survival and reproduction of Tamil culture'. Culture,
economics and land have fused
in a political identity which is the Tamil Eelam
nation. It is this Tamil Eelam nation that is
today struggling for freedom from alien Sinhala rule.
Mr.Eide may want to ask himself a simple question:
Q. Why is it that in Sri Lanka, for five
long decades since 'independence', we have always had
a Sinhala Buddhist as the executive head of
government?
A. Because, a Sinhala Buddhist nation
masquerading as a multi ethnic Sri Lankan nation,
will always have a Sinhala
Buddhist as executive head of government.
The ethnic divide is also a political divide.
Peoples speaking different languages, tracing their
roots to different origins, and living in relatively
well defined and separate geographical areas, do not
easily 'melt'. And in any event, a 'third world'
economy will not provide a large enough 'pot' for the
'melting' to take place. Given this political reality,
to continue to speak of 'an
accommodation based on equality for all' within
the confines a single Sri Lankan state is to display
the foolishness of the naive or the trickery of the
knave.
The formula of a 'multi ethnic plural society'
cherished by some experts to whom self determination
and secession are anathema, seeks to preserve in the
island of Sri Lanka, the artificial
territorial boundaries imposed (and later bequeathed)
by the erstwhile British ruler. It seeks to
perpetuate the colonial legacy and encourage the
continuing attempt to replace British colonial rule
with permanent Sinhala colonial rule. It fails to
address the simple question as to why it is that in Sri
Lanka, for five long decades since 'independence', we
have always had a Sinhala
Buddhist as the executive head of
government.
The words of John Stuart Mill in 1872 bear
repetition yet again:
"Free institutions are next to
impossible in a country made up of different
nationalities. An altogether different set of leaders
have the confidence of one part of the country and of
another. ... Above all, the grand
and only effectual security in the last resort
against the despotism of the government is in that
case wanting: the sympathy of the army with the
people. Soldiers to whose feelings half or
three fourths of the subjects of the same government
are foreigners, will have no more scruple in mowing
them down, and no more reason to ask the reason why,
than they would have in doing the same thing against
declared enemies.(John Stuart Mill:
Considerations on Representative Government. London
1872)
This is not to say that two independent peoples may not sit together
as equals and structure a polity where the two peoples
may associate with each other in equality and in
freedom. And to say that, is not to expose a 'garrison
mentality' but to assert the unfolding political
reality of the fourth
world. Mr.Eide may want to reject that reality -
and, of course, he is entitled to his view.
But the truth is that the struggle for Tamil Eelam
is not unique. The years after the end of the second
world war in 1945, saw the break down of colonial
empires which had held sway for two centuries and more.
But the colonial rulers also left behind them
artificial territorial boundaries - boundaries which
had everything to do with securing their hold over the
territories that they had conquered and which had
little to do with securing the national identities of
the peoples on whom they had imposed their rule.
Undoubtedly, a time will come when the separate
national identities of all the peoples of the world,
will be transcended by a greater unity. But today,
those (including perhaps, Mr.Eide) who deny the
national identity of the people of Tamil Eelam, are
rarely prepared to give up their own. The people of
Tamil Eelam cannot live in a world which has not yet
arrived - though they can certainly work towards it.
A true transnationalism will come only from
nationalisms that have flowered and matured - it will
not come by the suppression of one nation by another.
To work for the flowering of the Tamil Eelam nation is
to bring forward the emergence of a true
transnationalism. A true transnationalism will emerge
only from a free association
of nations. Mr.Eide may want to pay heed to the words
of Velupillai
Pirabaharan (rather than dismiss the LTTE
leadership as suffering from an 'almost paranoid
garrison mentality'):
"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."
Mr. Eide's stature as an expert will be enhanced,
if he begins to address the genuine interests that
each of the parties to the conflict in the island of
Sri Lanka, seeks to protect. As a first step towards
reconciliation, Mr.Eide may want to recognise the
existence of a separate Sinhala national identity and a
separate Tamil national identity; and then seek
win-win answers to the conflict rather than join Sri
Lanka in the somewhat futile task of separating the
Tamil people from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
Here, he may want to pay heed to the words of
Lieutenant General S.C. Sardesh Pande, IPKF
Divisional Commander, Jaffna in his book 'Assignment
Jaffna':
"I have a high regard for the LTTE for its
discipline, dedication, determination, motivation and
technical expertise... I was left with the impression
that the LTTE was the expression of popular Tamil
sentiment and could not be destroyed, so long as that
sentiment remained."
Mr.Eide may believe that the approach he has chosen
to adopt is that which he would call a 'constructive contribution towards the realisation
of human rights for those who live' in the
island of Sri Lanka, but it should not surprise him to
find that many international non governmental
organisations (and millions of Tamils living in many
lands) will have their own views about that which he is
seeking to do.
