 TAMIL
EELAM:
RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION
Statement by International Educational Development
at United Nations Sub Commission
on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,
Geneva August 1990
"Can the international community impose on a people a forced marriage they
no longer want and in which they can clearly demonstrate they have been
abused? We conclude that in order for the human rights of the Tamil people
and others in a similar situation to be realised, the international
community must invoke the principle of self determination as it arises from
persistent non fulfilment of the rights of minorities who have been subsumed
into larger states."
"At what point does persistent discrimination and non fulfilment of the human
rights of a minority generate a right to self determination of that minority and
a loss of the right to self determination of that minority and a loss of the
right to govern the minority on the part of the majority government?...
This issue is perhaps best illustrated by the situation in Sri Lanka.
Prior to colonial rule, the island of Ceylon contained two separate states, one
Sinhalese and one Tamil - each with its territory, language, religion, culture
and racial origins. The colonial power, not the Tamil and Sinhala rulers,
established unitary rule.
The decolonisation process resulted in a continuation of a unitary state
rather than a return to the pre colonial status. This new unitary state has a
Sinhalese majority and a Tamil minority. The lands that had been part of former
Tamil governments were subsumed into the jurisdiction of the unitary government
heavily dominated by Sinhalese people. The Tamil people were no longer in charge
of their affairs in their traditional lands."
"Unfortunately, the succession of Sinhala majority governments have not
adequately attended to promotion and protection of the rights of the Tamil
people - now converted into a small minority. A systematic and insidious pattern
of discrimination and communal unrest developed rather early on in this forced
marriage with the predictable result of numerous periods of peaceful protests,
and when demands were not met, open hostilities.
As hostilities have increased, so have large scale violations of the rights
of the Tamil people, including arrests and detentions of thousands of Tamils.
The Tamils then came to be converted into a 'subversive' element according to
the Sinhala dominated government, which in turn has resulted in a more and more
militant position on the part of the Tamil population.
For the past 8 years, there has been a more or less continuous state of civil
war between the Sinhala dominated government and the Tamil population and its
militant factions. The conflict became internationalised for the one and half
years of the entry of the Indian Peace Keeping Force into combat."
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all persons, including
members of minority groups, have the right to the full realisation of their
human rights and to an international order in which their rights can be
realised.
The Sri Lanka situation has shown that for the past forty years, the
Sinhala controlled government has been unwilling and unable to promote and
protect the human rights of the Tamil population, and the Tamil population has
accordingly lost all confidence in any present or future willingness or ability
of the Sinhala majority to do so.
Are people in this situation required to settle for less than their full
rights. Can the international community impose on a people a forced marriage
they no longer want and in which they can clearly demonstrate they have been
abused?
We conclude that in order for the human rights of the Tamil people and
others in a similar situation to be realised, the international community must
invoke the principle of self determination as it arises from persistent non
fulfilment of the rights of minorities who have been subsumed into larger
states.
This solution is eminently just and sound, yet is not without some
boundaries. An obvious issue in invoking the principle of self determination as
a practical means of solving persistent conflicts involving minorities is (1)
how bad does the discrimination need to be to ripen to a right? and (2) how long
must the minority seek remedy through traditional democratic processes before a
majority government loses the right to govern the minority?
We consider that in the case of Sri Lanka, 40 years is clearly enough for any
group to wait for their human rights. But what about 3 years? 10 years? 15
years? How long a people are required to seek internal remedy may reflect the
kind of violations at issue - for instance, a people threatened by genocidal
acts may invoke the principle of self determination sooner than a people facing
severe and persistent discrimination in employment.
Regarding the 'democratic' process, we note that even given the best of
circumstances, a minority population such as the Tamil population would be
perpetually out numbered given the traditional one person one vote rule,
rendering domestic legislative remedy extremely unlikely if not futile. And, in
a distressing number of countries, the judiciary is unlikely to either rule or
be able to enforce a ruling ordering minority rights...'' |
