Pursuit for peace must be realistic
By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
Another phase in the peace effort in Sri Lanka has emerged with the current
campaign for the Presidential election on November 17, 2005. But the confusion
over the contrasting ways the two main contenders hope to secure durable peace
has cast doubts on the feasibility of realising the national objective. Moreover, the
wrangling over unitary and federal systems and the doubts whether a federal
system can ensure a united Sri Lanka dispelling the fear of separation are also
contributing to the uncertainty. In order to take a sensible path to peace, it is
important to recognize the true nature of the bloody conflict in Sri Lanka that has
destroyed about 65,000 lives. Many victims were young fighters and non-
combatants caught in the aerial and suicide bombings. Although after the
assassination of former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, no high profile
politician has been murdered, political killings have not ceased in the East and North
despite the directive of the international community to stop this abhorrent practice.
The assailants’ leaders only know what kind of peace they hope to achieve.
This writer in his previous articles have emphasized the distinction between - (I) the
ethnic problem that originated with the adoption of the ‘Sinhala Only’ language
policy in 1956, fuelled in later years by other discriminatory policies in education,
employment and development; and (II) the subsequent armed conflict between the
LTTE and the State. It is true the latter has its origin in the ethnic problem but as
stated by one former Tamil politician, the issue for which the LTTE is fighting is not
just the discriminatory practices that drove the Tamils to the status of second class
citizens in their motherland but the creation of a separate state where the hegemony
of the Sinhalese will not prevail.
The LTTE has taken an extreme view that it is imperative to deprive Colombo any
right to control the land in the North-East claimed as the ‘Tamil homeland’.
Liberating the land is the main aim of LTTE’s struggle, regardless of the number of
Tamil lives sacrificed in the process. The cynics cite the statement made at the
media conference in April 2002 in Kilinochchi by the LTTE leader V. Prabhakaran
that the authorization given way back for anyone to kill him if he settles for anything
less than Eelam still stands. Such is the commitment to the much desired goal. The
pursuit for peace to succeed must take note of both the past developments that led
to the present crisis as well as the present realities. A practical method of ending the
conflict will also lay the foundation for building durable peace. It is abundantly clear
from the events that have occurred since the February 2002 ceasefire that
permanent peace has been sought by the parties to the conflict on their own terms,
which have little in common.
2005 Election manifesto
The leader of the Opposition and UNP Presidential candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe
launched his election manifesto on 27 September. It has two sections. The first has
three themes - end to hunger and war on high cost of living; jobs for abilities; and
defeat separatism. It is the third theme that is of interest here. Regarding the latter
the manifesto states:
* We will bring about a permanent resolution to the ethnic problem through a
political solution based on a United Sri Lanka.
* A consensus reached between the UNP and the UPFA on the ethnic problem, the
agreement arrived at between the Government and the LTTE and the Oslo and
Tokyo declaration, which guarantees the unity, democratic character and territorial
Integrity of Sri Lanka, has created the framework of a solution acceptable to all
communities of the country.
* Guaranteeing the security and protection of the Eastern province, while
guaranteeing Muslim representation in the peace talks, we will also ensure that at
all, times, the views of the Muslim community are taken into consideration.
* I request from the people of Sri Lanka a mandate to reach a permanent political
solution within this framework. I also request from the people a mandate to discuss
and reach a consensus with the SLFP to proceed as above.
* We will create a separate Ministry for the war displaced people in the North and
the East.
In the second section under “Problems in the East”, the manifesto states:
* We will establish a mechanism that will ensure the peace and security of all people
living in the Eastern province.
* A Muslim delegation shall be included in the peace talks and views of the Muslim
population will be ascertained at all times.
* We will speed up the post tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation of the East
under the to-be appointed competent authority.
* We will improve the standard of the Eastern University.
* A road network linking the proposed Wellawaya airport and the Batticaloa district
shall be built. We will also build a road linking Kandy with Kalmunai.
* We will establish free trade zones in the Eastern province to provide employment
to the people of the area.
Although the stated proposals to tackle the problems in the East are intended to win
the Muslim votes, these challenge LTTE’s claim to a ‘Tamil homeland’ in the merged
North-East. Peace and security are needed not only to the people in the East but
also to the rest of the population. However, the problem in the East is severe
because of the fighting between the LTTE and the breakaway Karuna group (Tamil
National Force) and the hunting and killing of members of other Tamil groups and
Tamil militants, who collaborate with the security forces. The diverse ethnic
composition in the East with Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese each numbering roughly
a third of the total population is also a crucial factor contributing to the current
volatile situation there. The tension will not just fade away with the establishment of
some ad hoc mechanism for ensuring peace and security. A permanent political
arrangement is needed to safeguard the rights of all communities as well as their
safety and security.
The manifesto does not explicitly mention that the UNP leader favours a federal
solution but this is implied in the reference to the framework of a solution acceptable
to all communities of the country found in the Oslo and Tokyo declarations, which
guarantees the unity, democratic character and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.
Another significant step mentioned in the manifesto is the “request from the people
of Sri Lanka a mandate to reach a permanent political solution within this framework”
and also “a mandate to discuss and reach a consensus with the SLFP to proceed
as above”. There is no reference to the resumption of the peace talks, the UNF
government under his headship had with the LTTE before the latter pulled out in
April 2003 after six rounds dissatisfied with the ‘progress’ made. The LTTE
submitted its own ISGA proposals 7 months later as the sole basis for resuming the
talks. These were rejected by the Sinhalese and Muslim parties as well as by India.
Some considered the ISGA as a subtle move towards the creation of separate state.
UNP Presidential candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe on September 29 invited
President Chandrika Kumaratunga to build further upon the UNP and SLFP's
platform of consensus towards the peace process. In a letter to the President with
the headline ‘Proposals for Peace in Sri Lanka’, the UNP leader said, “I have
absolutely no doubt that despite our differences and disagreements, you believe, as
I do, that the only way a just peace can be established is through a meaningful
devolution of power. There has been unanimity between the UNP, the SLFP, the
LTTE and the international community that devolution should be on the basis of a
federal framework which will enable the power sharing between the Centre and the
Region. The Oslo Communiqué has spelt out such a framework for a united Sri
Lanka, and [was] found acceptable by all the parties mentioned.”
Here the emphasis is on devolution of power within a federal framework, which was
what the President mooted in 1995, 1997 and 2000. The UNP leader then
obstructed her moves and tore the draft constitution presented in August 2000.
This contained drastically watered down version of the 1995 devolution proposals.
One cannot forget the contribution of Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam to the 1995 devolution
package, which was even acknowledged by Anton Balasingham, the LTTE
ideologue as significant, long after the Tamil intellectual and internationally
renowned constitutional expert was assassinated for collaborating with the
Sinhalese leaders to find a political settlement to the conflict in undivided Sri Lanka.
The LTTE’s willingness to consider a federal solution in Oslo turned out to be
illusive when the LTTE’s chief negotiator following its rejection by his leader
announced there was no such joint agreement between the LTTE and the
Government.
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse who is the SLFP Presidential candidate has not
released his election manifesto. The agreements he has entered with the Sinhala
nationalist parties JVP and JHU are at odds with the declared position on the ethnic
issue of President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who is the leader of the SLFP. The
agreements with the JVP and JHU insist on retaining the unitary structure of the
State besides taking a hard line against the LTTE and rejection of the P-TOMS
agreement. At the SLFP central Committee meeting held on September 30,
President Chandrika Kumaratunga wanted the SLFP manifesto for the November 17
Presidential election to focus on a federal solution. The Sunday Times of October 2
reported that a nine-member Committee headed by Premier Rajapakse was
appointed by the central committee to "co-ordinate with all parties supporting him at
the upcoming presidential elections and carry out its campaign". This committee will
also draw up the party's manifesto for the November 17 Presidential elections.
According to press reports, Prime Minister Rajapakse has no intention of changing
the commitment he had made earlier. He has also not mentioned about devolution
of powers within the unitary system.
It is well known that the JVP is against devolution and advocates decentralization of
power to the periphery. In hindsight, LTTE’s rejection of the Provincial Council
system introduced under the thirteenth Constitutional Amendment has been
sensible as seen from the very limited powers devolved to the provinces. Devolution
under a unitary system is not the solution to the vexed problem. It is completely
unrealistic to expect the LTTE to come to the negotiating table on the terms
announced by the Prime Minister. His statements that he, himself, would have direct
talks with the LTTE supreme leader V. Prabharakan to settle all the problems of the
conflict cannot be taken seriously.
It remains to be seen how the diverse views of government members on political
solution to the ethnic problem will be reconciled in the manifesto, especially when
the JVP is deeply involved in mobilizing support for the SLFP candidate Mahinda
Rajapakse at next month’s election. The leading campaigners and spokesmen for
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse are frontline JVP and JHU members Wimal
Weerawansa (JVP propaganda secretary) and Udaya Gammanpila. According to
some observers their role has made the Prime Minister appear more as the JVP-JHU
Presidential candidate than of the SLFP. The partnership with the JVP and the JHU
cannot attract many votes of both the ethnic and religious minorities. Both the CWC
and the SLMC have declared their support to Ranil Wickremesinghe. It is uncertain
whether this alienation will be more than offset by the swing expected from the
Sinhala-Buddhist voters. The situation prevailing now is very different to that which
enabled the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike to become the first SLFP Prime Minister,
who successfully mustered the votes of the Sinhalese on the ‘Sinhala Only’ cry.
There was no war and the country did not face any threat of destruction and
separation then. People are desperate for peace and better living conditions denied
by the prolonged violent disturbances and misallocation and mismanagement of
resources.
If the Prime Minister’s manifesto insists on retaining the unitary structure which is
admitted even by many Sinhalese to have perpetuated the majority-minority division
in multi-ethnic Sri Lanka, it will be a big blow to all yearning for just peace. Prime
Minister Mahinda Rajapakse has repeatedly said in his campaign meetings that he
will secure unity and ‘honourable’ peace, if he is elected as the next President. It is
unthinkable how he can secure these without drastic changes to the present unitary
constitution. The familiar parochial politics aimed at winning votes that has kept the
country in turmoil with little progress has not gone away. Its destructive effects in the
longer term to national progress, peace and prosperity were ignored by the power
seekers. Sri Lanka has been driven to the present pathetic state by short-sighted
political leaders. Sri Lanka is now on the verge of being branded globally as a failed
state.
The two prominent Presidential candidates have claimed they have a political
solution to the ethnic problem. Even the very uneducated person knows any viable
solution requires changes to the present constitution. Major changes require two-
third majority in the Parliament and the consent of the people secured through a
country-wide referendum. These requirements can be met only if the political
leaders take a joint enlightened view on national issues and co-operate
wholeheartedly. They have also got to convince their supporters the imperative to
accept the formula agreed by them. These tasks will be difficult, if negative ideas
are given to the voters in the Presidential contest. If the campaign proceeds along
their stated stands, namely federal and unitary system, the chances of amending
the Constitution are indeed bleak regardless of the outcome of the election. There
are also other major issues such as the current Executive Presidential and electoral
systems that need to be settled before drafting the amendments. Unlike in 1994,
there is no assurance from any candidate to abolish the Executive Presidency. The
JVP was then vehemently pressing for the abolition. Among the 19 conditions
placed by the CWC for extending support to Ranil Wickremesinghe, one is the
retention of the Executive Presidency and the present electoral system.
If the constitutional reform process gets stuck for whatever reason, the LTTE will
certainly cite the inability to change the Constitution as a compelling case to
secede. It is apparent from the conditions placed by the relevant parties for
supporting either of the two main candidates that they are mainly concerned about
their respective communal interests. To them peace should not be at the expense of
sacrificing their separate interests. This is the consequence of the failure to forge a
common national identity, which is another reason to abandon the unitary system.
Because of the absence of shared Lankan identity among different ethnic groups,
the national issues are being viewed from diverse communal perspectives.
From New York
President Chandrika Kumaratunga in her address to the Asia Society in New York
on September 14 on the topic ‘For Larger Freedom: Pursuit of Peace in Sri Lanka’
said:
“We need to transform the State so it is more inclusive - equally reflecting the
concerns of all communities. My view and the view of overwhelming sections of Sri
Lankan society is that this will involve transforming the State from a unitary one to
one that is plural and federal in nature. … While a transformation of the Sri Lankan
State from a unitary to a federal one may help include the Tamil community and the
Muslim community, it alone will not bring lasting peace. To achieve peace we also
need to deal with the second equally important, but neglected challenge -
transforming the LTTE from a dictatorial and ruthless militant group that regularly
engages in the use of terror, to a political force that engages with the State and
does not resort to violence to make its arguments heard. This process needs to be
analyzed and addressed in a conscious and systematic manner together with the
LTTE. And just as the LTTE has a stake in the transformation of the Sri Lankan
State, all Sri Lankan have a stake in the transformation of the LTTE. The challenge
of dealing with these dual transformations will not be easy for any single political
party in Sri Lanka, however powerful. It requires a broad consensus and joint action
between the major political parties and groups in the country.”
The distinction between the ethnic problem and the conflict between the heavily
armed LTTE and the State mentioned at the very beginning is also implicit in
President’s speech. The fact that transformation of the State from a unitary to a
federal one requires a broad consensus and joint effort of the major political parties
and groups has been recognized. This transformation must take precedence over
the second, namely transforming the LTTE from “a dictatorial and ruthless militant
group” to a political force that engages with the State and “does not resort to
violence to make its arguments heard”. Sadly before the violent uprising, non-
violent methods failed to influence the governments in granting the legitimate rights
of the Tamils. The thinking of those wielding power then was the powerless Tamils
could be subdued by aggression. Paradoxically even the moderate Tamils will admit
that if not for the violent confrontation against the State, the oppression and
intimidation would have continued unabatedly and the Tamils would have lost the
might to claim their due rights. Unfortunately, the aim of the armed struggle turned
out later to be different from what was believed then. The need for transformation
on two areas has arisen as a result of this development.
Addressing the UN General Assembly on September 16, President Chandrika
Kumaratunga said:
“More than 10 years ago, my Government launched a bold policy of a negotiated
settlement in place of conflict, and a federal solution as against a separate State.
With the support of a broad multi-ethnic coalition of parties I proceeded to talk with
the rebel armed group the LTTE about ending the conflict, and discuss with all the
parties in parliament about a new more inclusive, political Constitution that would
share power with all communities. This policy shift laid the groundwork for a new
approach to fighting terrorism and the peace process in my country that
simultaneously addressed Security, Development and Human Rights.” There is a
catch-22 situation with regard to “a new more inclusive political Constitution” as the
present Constitution itself is an impediment to major change. Besides the stipulated
conditions, it is preventing the emergence of a strong government. In 1972 and
1978 when the last two constitutions were introduced, the governments elected
under the first-past-the-post electoral system had the required two-third majority.
No government elected under the multifarious proportional representation system
set in the present Constitution had been able to muster the two-third majority. Given
the traditional partisan politics in which national interest is eclipsed by power-
centered politics, consensus between the government and opposition on national
issues has so far evaded.
In her UN speech, she mentioned the difficulty her government faced in seeking a
negotiated settlement with an outfit like the LTTE. It must be noted here both sides
were not keen to discuss the core issues and the talks could hardly be called
negotiations. She said: “The challenge we face in Sri Lanka is not unique.
Vulnerable democracies which have undertaken bold, political initiative to address
the root causes of terrorism and seek political solutions by engaging ruthless armed
groups, find themselves in a genuine dilemma as to how to develop a credible and
acceptable approach to such negotiations.” The way to tackle this problem is to
create conditions which make the main aim of the rebels appear unreasonable and
unnecessary to both the resident Tamil people and the international community. Not
only the failure to change the present Constitution but also the non-implementation
of existing provisions and adopted legislations have prevented the creation of
helpful conditions.
The co-chairs of the Tokyo Donor Conference (the United States, the European
Union, Japan and Norway) met in New York on September 19 to discus the current
situation in Sri Lanka, following the assassination of Sri Lankan Foreign Minister
Lakshman Kadirgamar. The statement issued after the meeting said, “the peace
process between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) is facing its most serious challenge since the Ceasefire Agreement
came into force in February 2002. The Ceasefire Agreement remains the essential
anchor of the peace process and is put at grave risk by the continuing violence.
Effective implementation of the agreement is the responsibility of the Government of
Sri Lanka and the LTTE.” The joint statement also commended “the Government of
Sri Lanka for its restraint following the assassination of Foreign Minister Kadirgamar
and for its willingness to discuss the Ceasefire Agreement with the LTTE” and “are
disappointed that the LTTE has not agreed to the proposed venue for talks with the
Government of Sri Lanka about implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement”. The
Co-Chairs called on “the LTTE to take immediate public steps to demonstrate its
commitment to the peace process and its willingness to change — while urging that
both parties to work out a federal solution within a united Sri Lanka”.
The following advice of the Co-chairs is relevant. “The future of Sri Lanka lies in the
hands of the people of Sri Lanka. The forthcoming elections are a time of political
choice in Sri Lanka. It is natural that there will be vigorous debate on the best way
forward in the peace process. The Co-Chairs look to all parties to refrain from
violence and from statements and acts that could undermine progress toward the
peaceful resolution of the conflict after the elections.” Their view that “a peaceful
resolution of the conflict can only be achieved through a negotiated political
settlement that follows the principles agreed in Oslo in December 2002” is simplistic
seen in the light of President Kumaratunga’s speeches in New York. The Co-Chairs
may force the horse (tiger) to go to the pond but can they force it to drink the water?
It is uncertain whether this is tactical or due to the lack of understanding of the true
nature of the conflict in Sri Lanka.
Unitary or federal debate
There were some articles recently in national newspapers for and against
federalism. Misconception and prejudices of the authors were evident in their
arguments. Neither unitary nor federal structure guarantees that the country will be
united. Unity depends on how the adopted system operates. Peace will prevail
throughout the country only if the centre in a federal setup behaves reasonably as
in the countries where the system is serving effectively as a unifying mechanism
enabling them to be politically stable and prosperous.
The majority Sinhalese used the unitary system to wield authority over the minority
Tamils. The system was in effect a mechanism to divide the society. It failed to
promote the common national identity. Sri Lanka was united at the time of
independence and during the initial period after independence under a unitary
system. The Tamil people rejected federalism and opted to keep the unitary
structure in the 1948 Constitution. The problem started when the southern polity
manipulated it to serve mainly the majority Sinhalese ignoring the interests, needs
and aspirations of the minority Tamils. The Sinhalese majority rule entrenched by
manipulating the unitary system was the principal reason for the Tamils to lose faith.
Had there been a truly federal arrangement their political rights, dignity, safety and
security would not have been denied.
One columnist has said federalism is not a uniting mechanism but one in which is
couched the right to separate and secede. Even any move to address some of the
grievances of Tamils was resisted on the grounds that this would lead to separation.
After going through painful period with enormous losses and lost opportunities to
advance as other Asian countries, which were earlier trailing behind Sri Lanka (then
Ceylon) and now emerging as stable ‘high income’ countries, it is shocking some
continue to think along the same old line that has brought the country to the present
pathetic state. One can see the re-emergence of the old fear expressed by many
Sinhalese decades ago when federalism was proposed by S.J.V.Chelvanayagam,
Dr. E.M.V.Naganathan, C. Vanniasingham and other Tamil leaders of the bygone
era to tackle the problem of discrimination by the State against minority Tamils and
the resultant split in the society along ethnic origin. Dr. Naganathan used to stress
at various meetings that to federalize is to unite.
The entire world wants Sri Lanka to be a democratic federal state instead of two
separate states. Federalism is the mechanism in the present situation to safeguard
the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. Federalism is being
recommended as an alternative to separation. It is the unitary system that has
brought Sri Lanka to the threshold of separation. The stark truth is the widely
sought durable peace cannot be achieved either by retaining the unitary structure
or dividing the country into two separate Sinhala and Tamil states. The LTTE too
must take a pragmatic stand for negotiated settlement by accepting the federal
concept with adequate safeguards against intrusion of the center in regional
administration. The prospects for negotiated settlement will improve only when the
LTTE categorically accepts federalism with adequate safeguards against intrusion
of the center in regional administration as an alternative to independent Tamil
Eelam.
The apprehension of the opponents of federal system seems to be based on the
assumption that the North-East will permanently come under the control of “Tamil
terrorists, chauvinists and ethnic-cleansers”. Paradoxically, the Tamil nationalists
consider some of the past Sinhalese leaders who influenced or took decisions at the
national level as chauvinists and ethnic-cleansers. The state sponsored colonization
programmes that changed the ethnic composition of the Eastern Province following
the settlement of Sinhalese in some key areas have been cited as a form of ethnic
cleansing.
However, there is some justification in the conditions placed by some analysts for
the majority community to agree to a federal solution. The assurance that the LTTE
will give up their arms and claim for a state of Eelam is sought. Decommissioning
weapons is not easy and will require international guarantees for their safety.
Another condition mentioned is any signed agreement (if and when it happens) with
the LTTE accepting a federal solution must be accompanied by external guarantees
especially India that both sides will abide by the terms of the agreement. This too
confirms the mistrust that exists between the two sides. This is not surprising as
both have resorted to trickery and painful acts in the past several years. The real
choice now is not between unitary and federal system but between federalism and
separation. It is high time the peace seekers accept this reality.