Condemning Assassination and Continuing Appeasement
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
The assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar has brought in its wake a series of
statements by world leaders. They denounce it very correctly as a terrible act of
terrorism. They also want the perpetrators to be caught and brought to justice.
The average Sri Lankan who reads all these statements will no doubt feel that the end of
the road is in sight for what is termed a peace process between the Government of Sri
Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
There is no doubt in the minds of most Sri Lankans about who the perpetrators of this
heinous act of terrorism were. Simple logic indicates that the peace process cannot
continue if true justice is meted out to the perpetrators.
But what puzzles them is the doublespeak of the so called international community. They
all insist that the peace process should continue. In hackneyed phrases repeated ad
nauseam they say indirectly that the greatest tribute to Lakshman Kadirgamars memory
is to continue talking to his killers.
Let us look at some of these pronouncements-
"Together, we must honour his memory by re-directing ourselves to peace and ensuring
that the ceasefire remains in force," - US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - " this tragedy will not weaken the commitment of the
people of Sri Lanka to achieve a durable peace in the country."
"The killing puts the peace process in Sri Lanka to a serious test. It is now of great
importance that both parties to the conflict do their utmost to fully fulfil their obligations
according to the ceasefire agreement," - Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Peterssen
The Indian government statement "We have every confidence that the government and
friendly people of Sri Lanka will rise to the challenge and defeat the forces which seek to
undermine Sri Lanka's unity and political stability."
"Japan has been actively supporting the peace process in Sri Lanka and has respected
Foreign Minister Kadirgamar as one of the key persons promoting the process. I strongly
hope for a calm response by all parties at this moment so that the move towards the
peace process is not hindered," - Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said - "This heinous act of terrorism must
not be allowed to derail efforts to bring peace to Sri Lanka."
European Union Commissioner Ms. Benita Ferrero-Waldner - "We must all honour the
passing of Foreign Minister Kadirgamar by continuing his work for peace and maintaining
the CFA."
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy - "France believes that more than ever
the respect of the CFA and the continuation of the peace process are necessary."
Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew insisted that Kadirgamar assassination
should not be allowed to derail the peace process. Pettigrew declared that perpetrators
should be brought to justice.
There is nothing wrong with these sentiments at face value. After all a joint peace
process should not be jettisoned or allowed to be jeopardised by the killing of the foreign
minister of one party. Usually such killings are the handiwork of a third party aiming to
disrupt the process. So the parties involved in the process should not allow a killing to
affect it. The only effective answer to the killers is to continue with the process and make
it a success.
But in the case of the Kadirgamar assassination there is a crucial difference. The killing
was not the work of a third party or outside force. It was perpetrated by one of the
parties involved. It was not done during a time of war but during the course of a peace
process. This is an assassination committed by one of the negotiating partners engaged
in a peace process after having signed a ceasefire agreement that expressly forbids
such acts. In short it is a blatant violation of the ceasefire and a terrible betrayal.
If such an experience had been encountered by any of these countries now profferring
advice their response would have been different. Had Condoleezza Rice, Jack Straw,
Pierre Pettigrew, Natwar Singh, Jan Peterssen, Nobutaka Machimura, Alexander Downer
or Philippe Douste- Blazy been killed in a hypothetical situation under similiar
circumstances there would have been hell to pay. But since this is Colombo the "advice"
is different.
Insisting that the peace process should continue after the killing would have been correct
if the act had been committed by an outside force or third party. It is entirely
inappropriate when one of the parties involved has acted in bad faith. Asking the affected
party to continue the process after an assassination is nothing but appeasement.
The doublespeak is indeed laughable when "continuing the peace process " is coupled
with "bringing perpetrators of the terrorist crime to justice". If the perpetrators of this
crime are really brought to justice then there can be no genuine peace process.
Bringing the perpetrators to justice does not mean that only the assassin or assassins
and the support network in Colombo should be apprehended and punished while the
real masterminds who planned and ordered the assassination go unpunished.
There is a saying in Tamil " Eithavan irukka ambai Novanen?" (Why blame the arrow
instead of the archer).
When Rajiv Gandhi was killed in Sriperumbhudoor on May 21st 1991 there was a huge
outcry. Investigations revealed that the LTTE was responsible. When charge sheets were
compiled and indictments filed there were three categories of accused persons.
At the primary level were those actively involved in the act and directly involved in the
execution like Dhanu and one - eyed Sivarasan. Most of them were dead before the
case came to trial.
At the secondary level were those who had helped the killers and complicit in the
assassination indirectly. 26 such persons were charged and sentenced to death initially.
The appeal reduced sentences for most except four . One woman Nalini's sentence was
commuted to life on humanitarian grounds.
At the tertiary level were the conspirators who had planned and ordered the killing. They
were the LTTE leader Pirapakaran, Intelligence chief Pottu Amman and womans brigade
commander Ahila. They were in Sri Lanka beyond the reach of Indian justice. India
however did not let them off. Their names were separated from the original indictment
and declared as proclaimed offenders. They are now wanted by Interpol as proclaimed
offenders absconding justice. New Delhi routinely raises the matter with Colombo.
It is clear therefore that in operations like this the conspiring "brains" rather than the
committing "brawns" bear more responsibility. India has clearly demonstrated this.
In the case of the Kadirgamar assassination too the real conspirators should be brought
to justice. If he had been killed by a suicide bomber then how would justice have been
done? The Indian example should be followed. The footsoldiers are not the only guilty
party. Those really culpable are the "generals". The command and control structure of
the organization that ordered the killing should be brought to justice. But what is
happening here is that Colombo is being asked to talk to the perpetrators as well as
arrest them.
If these "advising" countries are indeed serious then they should realise that what they
are saying is contradictory. When one party to the process has committed the crime only
one of two results is possible. If the real perpetrators are to be punished the process
cannot continue. If the process is to continue then the real perpetrators cannot be
punished. Insisting that both should happen simultaneously is asking for the impossible.
This is international doublespeak at its worst.
Spare us then Ladies and Gentlemen of the international community of this pontificating
hypocrisy at this time of grief!
This grief however cannot give way to blind rage. What would the LTTE like to happen?
What effective response is possible?This is what the Liberal Party has to say -
"Given the magnitude of the tragedy that has befallen the Sri Lankan state, it is vital that
our leaders react with wisdom and justice, but also with a firmness that makes clear that
there are limits to indulgence. Clearly the Ceasefire Agreement is no longer seen as
binding by the LTTE, and equally clearly the Norwegian monitors are incapable of
understanding or standing by their obligations. However, abrogating it is perhaps what
the LTTE wants the government to do.
"Rather, the government should proceed within a legalistic framework, perhaps in the
manner in which the United States proceeded in 2001, after the tragedy that befell them.
Firstly they ensured, not only that the world at large understood the enormity of what had
been done, but that it was prepared to act on this understanding. Secondly, they issued
an ultimatum that was universally recognized as just, that the administration responsible
for the terrorist outrage should surrender those who had planned it."
What the Country needs now is not a jettisoning but an urgent review of the ceasefire..
The LTTE and security forces must be made to honour it fully. It must also be accepted
that the greater part of the blame lies with the LTTE. The international community instead
of parroting the "peace process" squawk must find ways and means of disciplining the
LTTE.
After all the sound and fury surrounding Kadirgamars murder subsides Sri Lankans will
find two questions facing them.
Is the peace process to continue at the expense of true justice being meted out? is one.
Is Justice to be done (if possible) at the expense of the peace process ? is the other.
Sri Lanka cannot have it both ways.
A very difficult choice indeed!
Meanwhile let us hope that the collective wisdom of the international community would
show us a way through which the peace process would progress constructively while true
justice is meted out to "all" those involved in the Kadirgamar assassination.
[MinorMatters-MorningLeader]