Wider implications of EU travel ban
By Jehan Perera
When the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE signed the Ceasefire Agreement in
February 2002 they both accepted an international facilitative role in the resolution of
the country's long festering ethnic conflict.
They also gave a public commitment that thy would neither utilise violence in the
pursuit of political objectives nor violate human rights during the period of the
ceasefire.
However, the continuous resort to violence and to human rights abuses that eroded
the credibility of the peace process both locally and internationally made a mockery of
these promises.
The recent EU travel ban on the LTTE points to the need to keep strictly within the
framework of agreements reached and promises made, whether they be to UNICEF
with regard to the treatment of children or the P-TOMS agreement with regard to
tsunami relief. Civilians, children, politicians, Tamil informants, LTTE cadre and
security force personnel have been amongst the major victims of ceasefire and human
rights violations. It is in this context that the European Union has imposed its travel ban
on the LTTE.
The travel ban imposed on the LTTE by the EU has been met with satisfaction by
those who see the LTTE's violations of the Ceasefire Agreement as the primary
obstacle to the peace process. The assassination of Foreign Minister Lakshman
Kadirgamar ended the slender hopes that existed for the P-TOMS joint mechanism on
tsunami relief to be operationalised by the government and LTTE.
The EU statement specified that political assassinations and the recruitment of
children were abhorrent practices that merited the strongest of sanctions. The timing
of the EU action and the harsh EU condemnation of the Kadirgamar assassination
made it clear what had been the trigger.
The practice of impunity, where wrongdoings have been done with no fear of
consequence, has been one of the worst features of the ethnic conflict. There was a
time when civilians were routinely massacred in the course of the war, with little or no
punishment being meted out to the perpetrators. In more recent times such large scale
killings came to a stop. The efforts of international human rights organizations, such as
Amnesty International, which issued a set of 30 conditions to the government of
President Ranasinghe Premadasa, started a process of rethinking about how the war
could be fought.
What did not stop, however, were targeted assassinations of political figures and child
recruitment by the LTTE. Despite pledges made, such as in the Ceasefire Agreement
and to the UN's special representative on the rights of children, Olara Otunnu, these
abuses continued unabated. Repeated denunciations of these actions by civil society
organizations and the international community appeared to be falling on deaf ears. It is
in this context that the most recent EU statement has been different. For the first time
it has been backed with a significant sanction.
Big challenge
Although it is widely described as a travel ban on the LTTE, strictly speaking the EU
travel ban applies only to LTTE delegations that wish to be officially received by
government authorities in the 25 EU member states.
This suggests that LTTE members, such as Dr Anton Balasingham, will continue to be
able to reside in EU member states and even travel within them provided they do not
seek official engagements with the authorities in those countries.
However, in practice, it is possible that EU immigration officials, for instance, may take
a tougher position when known LTTE members seek to travel to their countries.The
EU statement also contains a further threat that a total ban on the LTTE is also
possible if the LTTE does not speedily change its methods of pursuing its objectives.
This is indeed an important juncture for the LTTE to reconsider its strategy as to how
to best consolidate its past achievements and to build on them. The use of violence,
as in the past, is no longer acceptable. The EU travel ban is a clear statement from a
section of the international community that has been traditionally sympathetic to the
Tamil cause, that violence is not acceptable in the consolidation or protection of gains
already made.
Giving up their violence will be a great challenge to the LTTE. It is violence that got the
LTTE to the point of virtual parity with the Sri Lankan government, where it politically
and militarily controls a part of the country.
The LTTE has also been able to lay claim to the undemocratic title of sole
representative of the Tamil people due to its willingness to ruthlessly eliminate Tamils
with a dissenting opinion who also seek to represent the Tamil people and their
political aspirations.
The initial response of the LTTE to the EU's travel ban has been to blame the Sri
Lankan government for misleading the international community. Reports from the
north east indicate that the LTTE is presently conducting a propaganda campaign to
highlight its indignation at the EU action against them, which they deem to be biased
and one-sided.
The LTTE has been pointing to the assassination of its own leaders, most notably its
eastern political leader, Kausalyan, who was ambushed in government-controlled
territory. But the LTTE has to recognize that there are certain asymmetries in affairs of
international politics that will not go away, but have to be coped with. In the eyes of
God, and in the eyes of those who love them, the life of one person is not more
important than the life of another.
However, the LTTE leadership in the Wanni needs to realize that the news of the
assassination of Sri Lanka's Oxford-educated Foreign Minister was splashed
worldwide by the international media, and not by the Sri Lankan government. I was in
India at that time, in Calcutta. Even though the state of West Bengal is very far from
Sri Lanka, the assassination grabbed the headlines of both the English and Bengali
language news services. I watched a documentary that traced the LTTE's political
assassinations with pictures of the victims way back from the 1970s. It is likely that
similar news media reports adverse to the LTTE were broadcast in other parts of the
world as well, creating the larger environment for the EU action.
Mutual lessons
By entering into an internationally facilitated peace process and by making various
commitments to international organisations, both the government and LTTE implicitly
undertook to abide by the expectations of the international community. What the EU
travel ban demonstrates is the international dimension of the Sri Lankan peace
process.
The benefits of this international role became evident in the Norwegian-facilitated
Ceasefire Agreement and in the substantial economic assistance pumped into the
country by international donors for reconstruction work in the north east.
But along with the benefits of an international role there have also come the
responsibilities. Neither the government nor the LTTE can afford to blithely make
promises that they subsequently do not keep. They both need to honour the
agreements they have made and the promises they have given if they are to continue
to receive the support of the international community. There are lessons to be learnt
from the EU travel ban, not only for the LTTE but also for the government.
Demonstrating respect for promises made and agreements reached by the
government and LTTE over the past 3 1/2 years would be at the core of a refashioned
strategy to achieve peace and fulfill the people's aspirations.
There are two areas in which the government needs to improve its own conduct. One
is with regard to the unstable situation in the east, which has made life more difficult
for the people living there. After the LTTE break up in the east in March 2004, there
has been a continuing undeclared war between the LTTE and its opponents, including
the breakaway group.
It is obvious that those who attack the LTTE base themselves in
government-controlled territory from which they launch their attacks. It is the
government's responsibility to ensure that these attacks are halted and neither side is
permitted to kill the other.
The second area in which the government needs to improve its conduct is with regard
to upholding agreements already made. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse's electoral
agreements with the JVP and JHU contain pledges to abolish the P-TOMS joint
mechanism on tsunami relief for the north east. Any unilateral abrogation of the
P-TOMS agreement, which was praised by the international community, is going to
severely undermine the Sri Lankan government's effort to obtain future international
support.
The Prime Minister has informed peace groups that he does not intend to unilaterally
abrogate the P-TOMS agreement, but would renegotiate it or develop something
better with the LTTE and other parties.
The Prime Minister's liberal attitude needs to be expressed publicly as well. It does not
require a leadership steeped in statecraft to realize that an agreement that the
government has signed, and which international community has supported, needs to
be seen through to a successful conclusion.
The new President to be elected on November 17 must be ready to take the peace
process forward with the full support of the international community.
[Courtesy: DailyMirror]