Archive for December, 2007
By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
The narrow political aims of the parties competing for power and the divisive ways it is sought and exercised are responsible for the intractable problems confronting Sri Lanka. Not only the armed struggle of the LTTE for a separate Tamil state in the plural society but also the power struggle within the Sinhala polity is depriving peace and normality to the vast majority of the people who are not involved in either struggle. Both are connected and the divisions and unrest in the country that continue to thwart the much needed progress and prosperity must be seen in concert. The stark truth is politics in Sri Lanka has throughout been divisive focused on either capturing or consolidating power by whatever means regardless of the long-term consequences to the country. Since independence no effort was made to promote unity in diversity and build a common identity as Sri Lankan. On the contrary, the ethnic majority-minority division that grew following the conscious acts of commission and omission of the State became useful in national politics, especially to the chauvinists. The confrontational politics of the two main political parties too hindered joint effort towards resolving the national problems and balanced development of the entire country.
The ethnic factor influences major decisions as governments elected under the unitary system are conscious of the political significance of differentiating between majority and minority ethnic groups. This has also been the case in the development of the regions. Those regions inhabited mostly by the ethnic minorities were neglected for political reasons and not due to the lack of natural resource endowment. Instead of taking the non-violent protests of the Tamils seriously and deal with their grievances, the violence unleashed against them with the intent to quell the dissent forced the victimized Tamil youth to rise up violently against the Sinhala majority rule. The arrogance of the power wielders also grew with the increasing marginalization of ethnic minorities. The LTTE had an exclusive agenda that was nationally, regionally and internationally unrealistic. The matching arrogance of power gained in their case through the barrel of the gun and the intransigence of the leadership have cost the Tamil community dearly in many ways.
Politics of war
The ‘Eelam’ war was resumed hastily by the LTTE in early 2006. The leadership was confident this round would be the final decisive assault. The war is now pursued vigorously by the government as necessary to crush terrorism. The JVP, a strong supporter of the war against the Tamil Tigers is accusing the government of politicizing it for its own advantage, while they too hope to win popular support from their pro war stance. The LTTE leader’s disappointment with the international community in “being unhelpful in their involvement to resolve our problem” conveyed in his 2007 Heroes’ Day Address reveals what he expected from the losses and sufferings endured by the Tamil civilians since the resumption of the war in 2006.
There is some similarity in the tactics of the JVP to achieve their political aim. They also want to exploit the failures of both the SLFP and UNP governments and the hardships of the people for gaining power, According to December 24 LeN report, JVP is against any kind of political solution to the ethnic problem and will organize mass protest when the devolution proposals are announced. From the national standpoint, JVP’s condemnation of the widespread corruption in government, misuse of public funds at the expense of depriving welfare to the poor when the cost of living is terribly high (the country-wide inflation in October was 24.1 per cent) and the poor fiscal management are laudable. However, some doubts have arisen as to whether this is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the administration or a mere ruse to win the support of the masses. Their belief in militaristic approach to settle a political problem is worrying because the same could be tried again to achieve their political goal.
At present the war is being used as a means to consolidate political power. If not for the ongoing war, the Rajapaksa regime would have collapsed by now. Paradoxically, the LTTE has played a useful role not only by indirectly helping President Mahinda Rajapaksa to win the November 2005 Presidential election but also starting this war that has now turned out to be to his political advantage. According to a report in Sri Lanka Guardian December 27, “government has let loose a campaign of celebrations on its anticipated victory against the LTTE”. The pro-government campaigners have provocatively erected a small Buddha statue at the top of Lawrence road, Bampalapitiya adjoining the Wellawatte Pillayar temple. Some consider this act along with the banner campaign underway as a move to transform the war into Sinhala-Buddhist crusade to bolster further the Government’s hold on power.
Pseudo patriotism and pretense
Under the cover of patriotism and the pretense of their concern for public well-being, the powerful and power seeking politicians make hasty decisions ignoring the adverse consequences to the country in the near and longer terms. They also call themselves democrats, while undermining democratic institutions and principles. The manifestation of such inherent features of the country’s political culture is now more apparent than before from the near anarchic situation and the confusing statements of the political leaders and their spokespersons to shake off responsibility for some sensitive unlawful acts. The tainted meaning of ‘Patriotism’ was clearly evident from the naming of those who voted against the 2008 Budget as traitors because of the substantial funds allocated for the war against the terrorists, who are said to be threatening the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Government expected the parliamentarians to judge the budget solely on the allocation for defence.
It is increasingly clear that leaders with conflicting narrow aims and preoccupied with their own political interests cannot do much to end the destructive internal conflict and bring lasting peace to the island nation. Those who are unwilling to give up their political ambitions think peace can be imposed after weakening the armed and unarmed opponents. The ongoing military operations are aimed at achieving this immediate aim. This is in contrast to the thinking of enlightened leaders with no egoistic political ambitions. The suggestions of the ex-service commanders to the main party leaders to settle the protracted ethnic conflict and also the proposals for realizing real peace put forward by the religious leaders, who met in Jaffna recently are altruistic and devoid of narrow short-term interests. Peace achieved through such an approach will be just and durable.
Extraneous factors in 2008 Budget vote
The JVP voted against the budget at the second reading on 19 November but abstained during the vote at the third reading on14 December. The tactical move of this radical party saved the Rajapaksa government from defeat as some government MPs who had planned to cross over to the opposition changed their mind when they knew the 37 members who voted against the budget at the second reading were not going to oppose it this time. By voting against and then abstaining at the third reading, the JVP has claimed it defeated the SLFP and the UNP, the latter was hoping to bring down the SLFP-led government. Abduction and intimidation during the budget debate to save the government from defeat reflect the hideous way important decisions are made. The country’s political culture is such the political parties find it difficult to leave behind their narrow political interests and aims even during the budget debate.
The Daily Mirror editorial on December 15, the day after the vote on the third reading was taken commented on the sordid pattern of politics in Sri Lanka. It observed: “The conduct of our politicians today is inscrutable, to say the least. The ridiculous turn politics in this country has taken is clearly evident from the way the political parties and politicians take decisions regarding the budget. A budget, which is essentially a matter of the country’s finances, has completely been transformed into a political issue. The possible impact of the budget proposals on the people and the country’s economy was largely ignored. It was converted into an anvil on which the strengths of political parties are tested”. The editorial stated further, “..it is with amusement that people see the mockery of politicians fervently advocating the policies of a particular party and denouncing the policies of another, suddenly joining the condemned party and singing the praises of policies that were anathema to them earlier”. It is clear from the conduct of politicians and indeed their associates that narrow interests of parties take precedence over the interest of the populace and the country. This has been the case since national politics became a struggle for power between the two main parties, the UNP and the SLFP.
‘Liberation’ and ‘lasting peace’
The word ‘liberation’ has many political meanings in troubled Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers say their struggle is for liberating the oppressed Tamils from Sinhala hegemony. President Mahinda Rajapaksa says the war against the Tamil terrorists will liberate the trapped Tamils from their clutches. The JVP has embodied the words ‘Janatha’ (People) and ‘Vimukthi’ (Liberation) to stress it is a party of the people committed to liberating them from their deprivations and sufferings. The party has not explicitly stated whether the suffering Tamils and Muslims deprived of their legitimate rights and means of fulfilling their reasonable aspirations are also included in their ‘Janatha’ (People). Anyway, right now the suffering people want liberation from the menace of the war.
On Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s 90th Birthday felicitation function 16 December held at the Central Bank Auditorium in Colombo, President Mahinda Rajapaksa gave the assurance to the world-renowned Futurist and Science Visionary, “his Government will leave no stone unturned to realize one of his three birthday wishes, namely, his desire to see ‘lasting peace in Sri Lanka as soon as possible’. He only knows the ‘lasting peace’ he has in mind. There is no positive sign on the political front to eliminate the causes of the conflict that led to the emergence of the concept of two nations. The view, there is space in the Sinhala majority country for other ethnic minority groups to co-exist under democratic rule, meaning Sinhala majority rule, and that peace will prevail when some powers are devolved or rather decentralized after the LTTE is defeated militarily does not go far enough. It is the same basic structure with some external changes yet to be disclosed. The lack of progress in finalizing the promised devolution plan, there is considerable doubt about the real intention of the government.
Moreover, as stated at the beginning there are Sinhala nationalists, who will oppose any proposal for settling the Tamil question. This is the reason given by the separatists for refusing to consider any arrangement short of full autonomy. Anyway, without significant changes in the attitude of present political leaders in both government and opposition needed to install a new system suitable for meeting the needs and aspirations of all ethnic communities within one nation and not merely those of the political leaders as has been the case in the present constitution, which was designed to meet the political needs of the governing party and the ambitions of its founder, the peace of the graveyard is the one that is certain now
Opposition leader’s proposals
Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe presented his proposals for constitutional reforms to a group of academics and members of the Maha Sangha on December 20. He told them decisions are being made by the Executive bypassing the Parliament and this undemocratic and nationally damaging practice must stop. His proposals are intended to “block” the Executive from taking “unilateral decisions and distributing portfolios and appointing advisors at will” He said: “Ensuring the sovereignty of the people, guaranteeing human rights and a committee system to oversee different aspects of governance as well as the executive acts of the President were needed for a more democratic form of government”.
At present there are no checks and balances to restrain the executive power of the President. There should not be room for the Executive to cripple the work of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) set up by the Parliament. He also emphasized the need to limit the number of ministers in the Cabinet and create parliamentary committees to work with the ministers so that a more democratic decision making process is ensured. According to him, it is not necessary to change the entire Constitution as it “had a number of salutary provisions such as a President elected by the people”. Many ambitious leaders have also resisted their own conviction that the powerful office of the Executive should be abolished for personal reasons. It is clear his approach is primarily to deprive the incumbent President of his unconditional powers than to seek lasting peace, which requires a new political system suitable for ensuring unity in diversity. The present system helps to sustain divisive politics and social tension.
High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott’s speech
British High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott delivered the Dudley Senanayake memorial lecture in Colombo on 10 December 2007. Whether he, as a foreign diplomat, should have commented on the internal affairs of Sri Lanka is not the issue here. Indeed, he has in his lecture titled “the new diplomacy for the new century”, explained the reasons for speaking on matters concerning humanity. He said that “the practice or method of diplomacy is not set in stone. On the contrary, it is changing, and changing quickly”. He did not lecture in the way the Excellencies moving around in big cars with flags expecting VIP treatment in all places and at all times behaved in the past but as a concerned envoy of a concerned country who has witnessed the disturbing trends in the former British colony. He said there are several reasons for Britain’s direct interest in the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka and the establishment of a fair and lasting peace. An important fact overlooked by those still living in the past is in his statement: “But how Sri Lanka’s conflict affects Britain is only one example of how humanity is becoming more inter-related and more inter-dependent”.
The other reasons for his concern are evident from the following statement: “I don’t want to live in a world where fragile states or oppressive governments abuse human rights and get away with it. This is partly because I feel a natural empathy for my fellow human beings, wherever they may be. And partly because the world will be a safer place for me and those I love, if the rule of law obtains throughout and if criminals do not enjoy impunity. Those who argue for the inviolability of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country are swimming against the tide of history. In the last 50 years, states have voluntarily bound themselves together in a net of international treaties and conventions covering even the most sensitive internal issues, such as human rights”. The ‘human rights’ subject is not simply an internal matter. He explained: “it is the sense of human rights being a common interest in a global society is underpinned by international law. And if it is a mistake to view something as sensitive as human rights as a purely internal matter, there can be few subjects that from now on should be regarded as beyond the general interest and purview of our global society”.
He said candidly the truth and truth often hurts. The widely contested statement -”I am not saying that the political aspiration for Eelam is illegitimate…the LTTE’s methods are simply unacceptable” could have been worded differently considering the negative developments that led to the aspiration for Eelam. The High Commission in Colombo in a statement issued after the controversial matter was raised in the Sri Lankan Parliament and the High Commissioner was summoned to the Foreign Ministry said, “what he (Mr. Chilcott) meant was that political aspirations could be expressed through legitimate methods, just as much as the aspiration for independence for Yorkshire”. Be that as it may, the following comments and suggestions in his lecture are noteworthy and should be taken seriously by all wishing for a united prosperous Sri Lanka.
-In Sri Lanka, the contemporary picture of liberalism is pretty confused.
-Making predictions about the future is a mug’s game. There is always a surprise around the corner. Each week seems to be absolutely critical to the future of the country. And yet issues that seemed so important last week are quickly forgotten as people and politicians get caught up in this week’s crisis. But paradoxically, despite all the political fireworks and scandals and controversy and crises, little seems to change.
-The 17th amendment by Parliament in September 2001 aimed at depoliticising key public institutions by creating independent commissions to administer the Police, Judiciary, Public Service and Elections. Despite its limitations, the law was widely hailed at the time as a move towards a corrupt-free, merit-based system of public administration. But the fact that the 17th amendment has been inoperative, for some time now is a matter of regret and concern.
-Though the existence of a parliamentary committee to investigate corruption is satisfying, the fact that 22 of its 30 members are government ministers is worrying…the conflict of interest involved must undermine the credibility of such a committee. Nothing makes corruption spread faster than a sense of impunity. That’s why bodies like Parliament’s anti-corruption committee matter so much.
-Good governance matters. A relatively low-income country can increase significantly its per capita income in the long term, if it improves its rule of law, controls corruption and increases government effectiveness.
-Resurgence of the internal conflict polarizes the society. The earlier it is resolved for good, the better. The conflict causes too much direct suffering-to the combatants and to the civilians. And over time, it erodes the quality and standards of public life and undermines good governance, as well as holding back development and economic growth.
-There should be no further equating support for human rights and the rule of law with support for the LTTE. This is a particularly ironic position, in any case, as the LTTE show no understanding of human rights norms and they rule by fear and terror. Being critical of the government’s record on human rights does not mean you support the LTTE. The British government, which outlawed the LTTE in 2001, unreservedly condemns the LTTE’s terrorist activities.
-The government offer on devolution should be addressed to moderate Tamils. A future peace process should not be based on talks exclusively between the government and the LTTE. Obviously, such bilateral talks are probably necessary to arrange a cease-fire. But the political process needs to be more inclusive and also more demanding of the participants. There are serious doubts as to whether the LTTE leadership would be sincere about reaching a negotiated settlement that reinforces democratic values within a united Sri Lanka. They have never accepted that anyone else should be able to speak for the Tamil people, a fundamentally anti-democratic position.
-The international community’s focus will be on encouraging the government to come forward with an imaginative proposal on devolution that is capable of meeting the aspirations of moderate, democratic Tamils and Muslims. The government acknowledges that it cannot win by military means alone. The international community would like to see that acknowledgement backed up with a political vision of how Sri Lanka can be reunited and its different communities reconciled with each other.
-The government needs to think how to develop policy on the internal conflict in a bipartisan manner. It would not have been possible to bring peace to Northern Ireland had the government and opposition of the day, whichever parties they were, tried to score party political points on Northern Ireland. Unless there is a bipartisan approach in the south between the two main parties, peace efforts are very unlikely to succeed.
-Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and plenty of other conflicts tell us that winning the peace is more difficult than winning the war. Without resolving the underlying issues, even if the LTTE are badly beaten in the Wanni, the conflict will continue in a different guise. The social and political issues, which caused the alienation of so many Tamils in the first place, cannot be left unresolved if there is to be a lasting peace.
In conclusion
According to J.B. Muller, “politics as practiced in Sri Lanka is an ongoing farce, an absolute charade, a travesty of governance with institutionalized plunder built in to make its practitioners wealthy”. The current system is so inconsistent with the real needs of the people and unsuitable for ensuring lasting peace it should be replaced by a new system.
A piecemeal or ad hoc approach to the resolution of the national problems is not going to bring an end to the suffering and a sense of hopelessness prevailing among all communities, particularly the ethnic minorities. Real peace that results from unity, mutual trust, respect for human rights, social justice, good governance with built in mechanisms to deter corruption at all levels, strict enforcement of the rule of law with no impunity for offenders including those who abuse their powers and equal rights for all citizens cannot be achieved by mere promises or some deceptive ways. Concerted effort by selfless leaders committed to unity, peace and welfare of all communities is needed. Exclusive political approach to constitutional change will fail again as in 1972 and 1978. Any different approach must take into consideration human rights, the diverse demographic and regional characteristics of the State, the aspirations of the ethnic minority communities and the checks and balances needed to deter the abuse of power, corruption and other practices that undermine good governance, the rule of law and democracy.
Muller has conveyed poignantly the true feelings of like-minded persons. To quote: “The party system of politics that we have inherited is totally unsuitable for this country. It has not brought us democracy in the truest sense-only a caricature of it. We, the People, are actually and effectively powerless to the extent that we cannot even select the persons we would want to represent us in the supreme legislature! Even that has been hijacked by the so-called political parties whose leaders proceed to foist candidates of their choosing upon us-blackguards, thugs, morons and oddballs-who we are compelled to elect because of this wholly inappropriate system. Democracy, in essence, is the expression of the Peoples’ Will from grass-roots level UPWARDS and not from party-level downwards!….every sensible, decent, and law-abiding person will see the logic of our country wanting change from the present set-up to a new one. That new system should enshrine human rights as the fundamental basis of the new polity. In doing this, it has to go beyond pious pronouncements and to the nitty-gritty of institutionalizing equity in the recognition of the rights and duties of all citizens without any bias whatsoever….This is fundamental for ensuring PEACE in our time. It can and will end the war in our midst because it would take away the rationale for confrontation. That would destroy the LTTE far more effectively than bullets and bombs because the so-called ‘minorities’ would have all their grievances erased under the new system that would recognize no majority or any minorities but a co-equal and common and overarching citizenship, where all would be ‘Sri Lankans’.”
Even the few political leaders who have the insight to know what need to be done to lay the solid foundation for rapid development and sustainable high growth vital for prosperity and lasting peace seem to lack the skills and the means to convince the masses of the dire need for fundamental changes to the present conflict-ridden system. Peace will remain elusive unless persons not involved in party politics who are concerned about the future of the country in the new world described lucidly by the British High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott in his illuminating lecture stand up and press for the changes needed to bring peace and normality to the war-torn country. The ex-service commanders who have come forward to perform this noble task deserve the full support of the civil society. They too should enlist other concerned persons not involved in active politics or are under the influence of political leaders who are interested mainly in the contest for power. There is an urgent need for an apolitical broad-based pressure group.
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]
December 29th, 2007
by Melani Manel Perera
In an interview with AsiaNews, the OMI provincial superior in Sri Lanka, Fr S.M. Selvaratnam, recounts the dramatic situation of the Tamils in the northern part of the country: the widespread culture of war, the paralysis of education, the impossibility even of crossing the street without the permission of the army, the absence of an authority to guarantee the rights of citizens. The general misery compels the suicide of fathers of families who cannot pay for their children’s medicines.
A “cage”, a “narrow prison” where one can wait for hours just for the army’s permission to cross the street, where one can die of hunger if the authorities decide to block supply channles for “reasons of security”, and where a culture of violence and oppression is growing more fierce. This is Jaffna, a small peninsula to the north of Sri Lanka, a place where civil war has been underway for 24 years, and about which “the world knows nothing, since news does not spread from here even to the rest of the country”. Recounting the dramatic situation of Jaffna is the provincial superior of the Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate (OMI) in Sri Lanka, Fr S.M. Selvaratnam. AsiaNews interviewed him while he was visiting Colombo.
Father, can you review for us the living conditions of the population of Jaffna?
Next year will be the 25th year that this small piece of land has lived with an absurd war between the Tamil Tiger rebels and the government forces. It is too much; the people cannot endure it anymore: too many parents have lost their children, too many children are orphans, too many women widows, too many tears have been shed. Apart from the psychological factors, there are concrete difficulties with carrying on daily life and meeting its necessities. Food and medicine can arrive only by boat or by helicopter, because the land routes have been blocked for over a year. Everything is under the control of the military, so that when they decide to interrupt supplies, perhaps for reasons of “security”, the people die of hunger. But even when food is available the prices are so high, because of the costs of transportation, that many cannot afford to buy it. The only means of subsistence would be farming and fishing, but both of these have been halted: kerosene is impossible to find, and fisherman cannot go out to sea, because the navy maintains that this is too dangerous. One can grow a little rice, but only for domestic consumption.
It is also difficult to travel from Jaffna toward the south: the passenger ships do not guarantee regular service, while flights are reserved far in advance and cost too much (125 euro for Colombo).
The people live in terror, because – and I am not exaggerating – anyone can come into your home and kill you, or shoot you while you are out on the street. Every 10 metres there is a soldier with a pistol aimed at you. Just to cross the street you may have to wait three or four hours for permission from the military.
Does the average citizen have the opportunity to obtain justice?
There is no such possibility, because there is no reliable authority that can be approached. If one of my relatives is killed and I go to claim the body, I am required to state that the person was a member of the Tigers, which means that his killing was justified. The authorities maintain, a priori, that the Tamils of Jaffna are all members of the Tigers. But the government and the military do not know that many of us are opposed to the rebels and their actions. Moreover, there are so many groups involved in fighting in the area, that you never know who might be responsible for a homicide: the navy, the police, the army, the Tigers, or the so-called paramilitary groups. It could be said that here is no order, no law here. We know that recently a grand tribunal has been opened, but we ask ourselves why even the lawyers are afraid, and refuse to work.
Doesn’t anyone appeal to the security forces in the area?
It is very sad to admit this, but there is a real problem of communication. The Tamils of Jaffna are unable to speak with the Sri Lankan soldiers, who-for the most part uneducated young men from the villages – do not speak English or Tamil. Most of the military personnel have a very harsh attitude, but among them are also very humane, good persons who are likewise incapable of explaining the reason why we are at war.
This fact becomes even more dramatic if one considers that our daily life depends on the army: it can be said that one cannot move in Jaffna without a long string of permissions from the military authorities. And now they have introduced the so-called “military identity card”, which practically makes useless the national identity card that we all possess. The army issues this card only after the citizen has provided a photo of his family, a photo of himself, and all of the information requested, down to the smallest details. But if, in order to comply with regulations, a citizen must possess a military identification card, then one is no longer under a civil government, but under a military government.
What can the Church do to alleviate the sufferings of these people? Are there any elements within civil society in Jaffna, any spokesman for the needs of Tamils?
Very few people know anything about what is happening in Jaffna. There is no freedom of expression, and even the priests, who were once the only ones who dared to speak out against oppression, have been silenced. The disappearance of Fr Jim Brown more than a year ago intimidated and frightened them. So the voice of the inhabitants of Jaffna has been silenced, both within the peninsula and in the rest of the country and in the world.
What hope is there for a better future?
The people have no more hope. A culture of war has become rooted in Jaffna, and an entire generation has been born and raised amid the bombs. Education has been paralysed; young people are unable to go to school. The culture is destroyed. Economic difficulties destroy entire families. There are fathers who go to buy medicine for their sick children or wife, discover that it is too expensive, and don’t even return home, because in desperation they would rather kill themselves. No one trusts any of the politicians anymore: for Jaffna, it makes no difference who runs the government, they all behave in the same way. There is widespread pessimism; we have seen too many ambassadors and presidents come here from outside without changing anything.
December 28th, 2007
UN Expert Emphasizes sustainable and durable solutions for Sri Lanka’s Internally Displaced Persons:
“Sri Lanka, with the crucial support of the international community, has not only rehabilitated the majority of victims of the 2004 tsunami, but also made considerable efforts to assist those displaced since the escalation of hostilities in 2006. Indeed, the majority of the more than 220,000 persons who had to flee their homes in the Eastern Province between April 2006 and March 2007 have returned, been provided with transitional shelter, and are beginning to regain their former lives. While I appreciate what has been achieved, targeted measures in line with international human rights standards and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in the areas of security, livelihoods, and humanitarian access are essential if these returns are to be sustainable in both the near and long-term.” This is the key conclusion of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Walter Kalin, following an eight-day mission to the island.
Upon invitation of the Government of Sri Lanka, Mr. Kalin conducted his mission from 14 to 21 December. In addition to meeting with ministers, government officials, members of civil society and the international community in Colombo, the Representative visited areas in Puttalam, Vavuniya, Trincomalee and Batticaloa districts. The Representative regretted that he was unable to visit Kilinochchi to discuss humanitarian and protection concerns with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In the regions visited, he met with internally displaced persons (IDPs) and returnees, community and religious leaders, government agents and local security commanders, members of local and international non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies.
The Representative stressed the primary responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka for protecting and assisting IDPs, a responsibility that includes facilitating the conditions that enable durable solutions for the displaced. In this regard, he noted the complexity of the problem of internal displacement in Sri Lanka. In addition to recent conflict-induced displacement of the past 24 months, in Puttalam for example, northern Muslims have remained in displacement for 17 years. Situations of protracted displacement also exist in Vavuniya and Jaffna, and smaller numbers of tsunami IDPs remain in the Eastern Province. In addition, fresh displacement is occurring in Mannar and other parts of the North.
Despite the diversity of circumstances, Mr. Kalin identified several key issues affecting all of the IDP and returnee communities with whom he met. The predominant concern among IDPs is physical security. The Representative was struck by a pervasive sense of fear and uncertainty among those he spoke. Sources of insecurity are varied, but include the following: continued incursions and attacks by the LTTE; disappearances, abductions and looting; threats and attacks upon individuals by irregular and armed groups such as the Tamil Makkal Viduthalaip Puligal (TMVP), including infiltration of camps at night; incomplete or delayed mine-clearance; approaches used by security forces in response to security incidents, including roundups, methods to identify suspects, and detention of individuals without proper notification of family members of the reasons for and location of the individual’s detention; challenges of civilian police to respond adequately and in a timely manner to security incidents and threats against IDPs; and limitations on IDPs’ and returnees’ freedom of movement based on screening and documentation of their place of origin. While clearly acknowledging legitimate security concerns and the responsibility of the State to address these concerns, the Representative observed that whole communities felt under suspicion and at risk, often due to identification of their place of origin in formerly LTTE-controlled areas. When debriefing the Government, the Representative noted and strongly welcomed important confidence-building measures, such as efforts to recruit local and Tamil-speaking civilian police and the appointment of civil-military liaison officers. Furthermore, he noted the importance of restoring confidence between the different ethnic communities in return areas.
Access to livelihoods is a second major concern of IDPs and returnees. “At times there is a tension between the security imperative and the humanitarian imperative, and the key is in finding the optimal balance which allows people to live in both dignity and safety,” the Representative observed. Mr. Kalin found that significant restrictions remain, and he encouraged authorities to continue their efforts to restore full access to livelihoods. Some restrictions are imposed by the authorities, such as limitations on access to fields or fishing grounds. Others are related to insecurity, such as risk of attack or abduction from paddy fields and harassment at checkpoints. The Representative also noted that targeted programmes to enhance livelihood opportunities, such as the provision of seeds and tools, were not consistently coordinated at the time of return. Nor did he learn of any livelihood opportunities provided to IDPs remaining in camps in the East. He was particularly concerned about the precarious situation of widows and other female-headed households.
Mr. Kalin felt that increased information sharing and consultation by the Government with both the IDPs themselves and the international community and agencies would substantially contribute to reduce the prevailing sense of insecurity and facilitate reintegration in areas of return. For example, complete and timely communication on arrests and detention, as required by international human rights standards, can reduce feelings of fear and helplessness among IDPs and returnees. Clear communication well in advance of returns-about options, entitlements and the process of return-will allow IDPs to make voluntary and informed choices. At present, information about housing and land in high security zones and areas under exclusive control of the security forces, as well as compensation for their loss or limitation, is lacking. Yet relevant information is essential to enable IDPs to exercise control of their futures. Increased transparency-in the form of better communication and coordination in advance of returns between the Government and international agencies and humanitarian NGOs-would significantly improve the timeliness and adequacy of the humanitarian response to displacement.
The Representative further concluded that while many organizations enjoy full humanitarian access to areas of return, others do not. While again serious and legitimate security concerns may occasionally dictate temporary restrictions on access, such restrictions should be the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, when decisions on access are taken at the central level, these decisions are at times not communicated to officers on the ground, such that agencies continue to experience practical obstacles and cumbersome procedures in obtaining required clearance. The Representative noted that non-governmental organizations focusing on protection and human security, rather than providing material assistance, often face additional challenges. “Better access for agencies and NGOs working on protection would improve confidence among IDP populations because these agencies can identify and promptly facilitate the local resolution of individual concerns,” the Representative observed. At the same time, he expressed concerns about cases of threats, abductions and killings of humanitarian workers, searches of United Nations’ vehicles and staff, looting of humanitarian assets, and slow response by police authorities in some cases.
Concerning over 300,000 persons estimated to be living in internal displacement since the 1980s and 1990s, the Representative stressed that allowing the displaced to lead normal lives, with decent housing and full access to livelihoods and services on the one hand, and preservation of their right to opt for eventual return and their property rights on the other, are not mutually exclusive. He was encouraged by the recognition of many government officials that finding durable solutions for those in protracted situations, in particular the northern Muslims, must now become a priority for the Government and the international community.
Reflecting upon recent experience with displacement and returns in the East, the Representative urged all relevant actors to find peaceful solutions to spare the population from new displacement in other parts of the country and, in the absence of such solutions, to consider the following:
(1) that when displacement is unavoidable for the safety of civilians, safe exit routes be available to them, consistent with international humanitarian law;
(2) that both military and civil actors be prepared to receive the displaced in conditions of safety and dignity, and that contingency plans be in place; and
(3) that when conditions allow for return or relocation of the displaced, key international human rights standards as articulated in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement must be followed to ensure that the choice among solutions is truly voluntary and informed, is sustainable, and is carried out in safety and dignity.
Mr. Kalin expressed his appreciation for the Government’s cooperation and support in the conduct of his mission, noting the imperative of full respect of the principle that independent experts be able to consult in confidence with individuals, communities and civil society. The Representative particularly appreciated facilitation of the visit by the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights. He was encouraged by the willingness of government officials to acknowledge existing problems in the response to internal displacement and the protection of IDPs, as well as their readiness to take up his recommendations on key issues. In this regard, he underscored his desire to continue his cooperation with the Government, and particularly offered to assist with efforts to find durable solutions for those in protracted displacement.
“Finding sustainable solutions will not only allow IDPs and returnees to fully enjoy their human rights, but also crucially contribute to restoring stability in the country. Significant efforts in this area will be an important step towards durable peace in Sri Lanka,” the Representative suggested at the end of his visit. Consistent with the terms of his mandate, he will prepare a formal and public report, containing recommendations for all relevant actors, for submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Mr. Kalin was appointed to the post of Representative in 2004 at the recommendation of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In carrying out his mandate, he assesses, every year, the implementation of the human rights of internally displaced persons.
December 27th, 2007
By Dayan Jayatilleke
You can’t make the mistake of being weak. If you’re weak with security, you are defeated.”-Fidel Castro: My Life (2007: 321)
We are about to step into 2008, the 60th year of Sri Lanka’s Independence. It shows every sign of being a decisive year. Indeed it must be made so. Sixty years after independence is the right historical and psychological moment to resolve the major problem facing Sri Lanka. That is the reunification of this small island. Sri Lanka’s natural borders must be its political boundaries. Its armed forces must enjoy the sole monopoly of violence throughout its territory. Whatever its internal arrangements, the country must be one, single, indivisible political entity.
What does this mean in concrete terms? It means that the LTTE must be eliminated as a military challenge to Sri Lanka’s unity and territorial integrity. This in turn means that the Tigers must no longer be an armed force capable of rivalling Sri Lanka’s armed forces. The LTTE must no longer exist as a parallel army. This entails the destruction of the LTTE as a fighting force; the elimination of its leadership, its armed cadre and military assets. This would create the opportunity for the LTTE to convert itself into a democratic political formation, provided it accepts that any solution to Tamil political grievances and identity issues must be pursued peacefully and democratically within the parameters of a single, united Sri Lanka.
This objective is both imperative and feasible. It is imperative because any sustainable progress requires the elimination of the enemy armed force and its capacity for instant destabilisation. The varied futures envisaged for the country by leaders as diverse as Presidents Jayewardene, Premadasa and Kumaratunga were thwarted by one factor: Prabhakaran. Sri Lanka can move forward only if it eliminates the obstacle in its path. Its economy can grow in a sustainable manner only if military expenditure levels off and is progressively reduced, and more fundamentally, if the national market is reunified, which means the reunification of the national territory as a single space. After decades of armed conflict punctuated by ceasefires and internationally mediated negotiations, the elimination of Jonas Savimbi was the key to peace and prosperity in resource rich Angola.
The war can be won. We are at a rare moment in our country’s history in which we enjoy a favourable confluence of factors: a President (and Defence Secretary) with political will and determination; an experienced and respected military leadership; massive popular support; high military morale; increased recruitment; high performance on the part of all three armed services. Those who make the most facile parallels with the Bush administration, Iraq, Afghanistan and all points of geography and history would do well to ponder the statistical fact that after a quarter century of military conflict, the Sri Lankan people are not about to throw in the towel and bring the boys back home, for the simple reason that the boys are fighting precisely for their home, and therefore a massive 84 % percent of a huge 75% of the island’s people, a massive majority of the majority, support the President’s war effort. So too does a significant (under the circumstances) segment (20%) of the main Tamil minority. The war is now a People’s War.
That is also the secret of the Govt’s success in defeating the Budget conspiracy: no party or formation which bases itself at least in part, on a nationalist or patriotic appeal, can afford to be seen to topple the Government at the expense of the war effort and to the benefit of the LTTE. This is also why the Govt does not have to succumb to every slogan of the more extremist or radical nationalist forces but can negotiate if not from strength, certainly not from inferiority.
2008 must then be designated as our Year of Victory. Certainly the war cannot be won by solely military means, but let there be no illusions: a war can be won only by primarily military means. The main, central and decisive effort in the coming year must of necessity be military: in a war, the armed struggle is the main axis and ‘motor force of development’ of the historical process. All else is utopianism. However the war effort must be supported by politics and diplomacy.
Prabhakaran will attempt a replay of 1987, when he successfully leveraged the external factor (at the time, sub-regional, i.e. Tamil Nadu). Today it will be pressure from those countries which have a large, electorally significant Tamil Diaspora, which plays a role more like the notorious Miami mafia than the Jewish lobby. These Western states seem determined to prevent the military victory of the Sri Lankan state over the Tigers, and seem to prefer the survival/existence of the Tigers as a military entity. Sri Lanka cannot afford to be deterred by these pressures, and sacrifice its future. Any student of the Cold War would recognise the use of the instrument of Human Rights and so-called ‘dissident civil society’ by the West, to penetrate and undermine regimes and states. Sri Lanka cannot make the mistakes of Gorbachev (the latter years) and Yeltsin, be tranquilised, have its sovereignty penetrated, be weakened and dismantled as countries. Sri Lanka cannot be oblivious to the use of the slogan of “humanitarian crisis” to dismantle the former Yugoslavia. Today the West stands ready to ignore the UN resolution that reiterates that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, and to recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
The anti-Sri Lanka campaign will accelerate next year as Sri Lanka makes headway in the struggle to overcome the Tigers. The West, preceded by the Western-dominated media, will howl about a “humanitarian crisis”, and brandish the policy of R2P (’Responsibility to Protect’) at us as we close in on Prabhakaran’s bunker. However, in our case R2P is ultimately something of a paper tiger. It works in a context such as the former Yugoslavia, a country put together in the post-war years from the most diverse components (in bold, laudable experiment by Tito). Sri Lanka is not a failed or failing state. It is a continent too far for an imposed R2P to be sustained. It is located in Asia, has a distinct cultural identity and a decisive homogeneous majority, a consciousness of a continuous existence as a state entity, an educated and militant youth population. And no part of Sri Lanka hankers after EU membership!
The coming anti-Sri Lanka campaign must be blunted by three counter-thrusts.
We must rebuild our national defences by rejuvenating our National Human Rights Commission and/or creating new and credible institutions headed by internationally respected Sri Lankans. It must be recognised however, that human rights violations will drop off drastically when the war is over, when the enemy has been defeated-just as human rights violations in the South of Sri Lanka dropped off sharply when the JVP had been militarily defeated. The re-enfranchised Tamil people will swiftly recover their rights in a peaceful environment where the highly competitive politics of Sri Lanka’s proportional representation come into play.
We must devolve power to the North and East, swiftly and sustainably. This means, as a first step, reactivating the 13th amendment, as proposed by Douglas Devananda. The weight of the Indian state upon the Sri Lankan and the reluctant cooperation of a Government with a 5/6ths majority in parliament, could not secure in 1987, the “Indian Model” so beloved by certain Tamil moderates. The 13th amendment is as good as it gets, and any improvement will have to await a more favourable parliamentary balance of power, with a drastically altered mass consciousness. (Faced with the stark choice at a referendum of deleting the term “unitary” from the Constitution, I do not see the majority of Sri Lankans, voting “yes”). A realist solution would aim to protect the 13th amendment from further roll-back as was threatened earlier this year. Mr Devananada’s Tamil rivals may depict themselves as more pro-Indian than he, but it does not suit India’s interest to have a pro-Indian Tamil politician who is so unacceptable to the Sinhalese that he winds up in India, a la Vardarajahperumal! Devananda is a Tamil politician who is loyal to Sri Lanka and close to India; therefore able to act as a bridge. He is the only Tamil politician who will accept a solution within the existing Constitution, and is also the only Tamil politician trusted sufficiently by the Sinhala South, to be permitted to hold a significant measure of power in the strategically sensitive North. Like the 13th amendment, Mr Devananda is also as good as it gets. Reactivating the 13th amendment in the present day translates itself into an interim administration in the Northern Province and early Provincial elections in the East.
Our foreign relations must be consciously reoriented, and foreign policy must turn for inspiration to “Kadirgamar Chinthanaya”. Those Sri Lankans whose natural tendency is to ask “how high?” when the West says “jump”, as well as those whose knees knock at the thought of Western cutbacks, neither recall the history of Sri Lanka’s own foreign policy nor understand contemporary international relations. It was in the 1950s, in response to the Rubber-Rice Pact between China and Sri Lanka (under a UNP administration!) that US Congress passed the Hickenlooper Amendment cutting aid to our country-yet we did not waver, still less wilt. As for those who would counter that the Socialist camp existed at the time as an option, it is to be recalled that the “moment of uni-polar hegemony” has passed its zenith or is in crisis, and we live in the period of the Iraqi debacle, the revitalisation of Russia, the rise of China and tendencies towards multi-polarity. Under President Rajapakse, Sri Lanka has already embarked upon a diversification of its dependence. To avoid a tedious debate on foreign policy, for which I have no time, working as I am at one of Sri Lanka’s global FDLs here in Geneva, I would only remind the incorrigibly negativist and the defeatist that Sri Lanka’s finest foreign policy thinker the late Lakshman Kadirgamar had already, in the last stage of his tenure and life, publicly signalled the geopolitical/geo-strategic reorientation of Sri Lanka’s external relations. I advocate a return to that emergent thrust, within an overall Realist policy of power balancing, especially multi-polar power balancing.
Until this war is over and won, our foreign policy has to be the handmaiden of strategy, an overall strategy whose primary goal and objective must be the unification of the state through the military defeat and destruction of the secessionist-terrorist enemy, the LTTE. Foreign policy must be defence-driven, rather than the other way about. It cannot be oriented towards those states that have large Tamil lobbies and which instrumentalize human rights hypocritically to prevent our victory. It must be oriented towards precisely those states, blocs and tendencies which are uninfluenced by such lobbies, and are in favour of combating that which China refer to as “the Three Evils: Separatism, Terrorism and Extremism”.
In our 60th anniversary year Sri Lankans would do well to be inspired by the words of Fidel Castro, a product of another small island nation in the tropical sun. In his 700 plus page autobiography My Life (2007) Fidel Castro says “Those who don’t respond, those who don’t fight, those who don’t combat, those people are lost from the beginning, and in us, you’ll never find that kind of person.”
EDITORS NOTE: The writer is Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN in Geneva. We are not in agreement with all of the views expressed in this article. We are posting it at transCurrents in the belief and hope that it would stimulate an informed conversation.
December 24th, 2007
by Yenmozhi
“In the end anti black, anti female, and all forms of discrimination equivalent to the same thing- anti humanism”-Shirley Chisholm-American Politician, the first African-American to win a seat in the United States Congress
I like to share the daily experience of being a Tamil in Sri Lanka. The Tamils who are living in North and East of the country are subjected to various forms of discrimination. They feel utterly helpless due to fear. The civilians in these areas lead a horrible life beyond our imagination.
Tamils who are living in Colombo for decades are not exempted from discrimination by various walks of life; may it be security forces or fellow workers or neighbours.
Recently I drove to a five star hotel in Colombo to meet a foreign friend of mine. I was stopped at the main entrance of this particular hotel. The security guard who stopped me asked “where I was driving to?” I replied that I was going to see a friend of mine who is a guest of that hotel. Then he asked me for his room number. I told him his room number. As I approached the next entrance of the hotel, I was stopped again and asked the same question by the door man. I replied the same and moved on. I went and had a seat in the lobby of the hotel. As soon as I sat down, a lady waiter of the bar came and asked me “why I was waiting?”. Then I repeated my reply to her. I sent a text to my friend to inform that I was waiting in the lobby, and I continue to wait despite the spreading of suspicion. After few minutes another male waiter asked the same question, when I repeated the same reply, he said that I have been waiting there for long time. I wondered for a while and asked him whether there is any time restriction imposed to be in the lobby. He did not answer my question and he left the place. When I told about the incident to my friend, he was shocked and confused. He said that, “it is an absolute discrimination, which cannot be tolerated”.
I was dressed in pants and t-shirt; I was not dressed as a Tamil-wearing a saree or shalwar kameez and keeping a pottu on my forehead; but I was not dressed glamorously; I carried a back-pack. If I was dressed glamorously and lavishly I may have got a special treatment such as helping me to walk with my high heel shoe to the ball room.
Another day I was waiting for a local friend of mine in another five star hotel in Colombo. The manager of the hotel asked me in Sinhala “why was I waiting?”. I told him that, I was waiting for a friend of mine. Then after some time another security person of that particular hotel came and asked me the same question. The reply was the same. Later he brought another four males and kept asking the same question. They were rude in their language; and they were uncivilized in their looks. It made me annoyed and angry. I had no choice, except to complain the matter to the Chairman of the hotel.
Some of my Tamil friends who left the country twenty years ago have come to Sri Lanka recently on holiday. When I met them after two decades, they mentioned to me how the attitude has changed tremendously. They also mentioned to me that, they do not look Tamils because they are fair. Most of the Tamil Diaspora who visits Sri Lanka does not want to show their national identity cards, because it can cause problems. The birth place is mentioned in Sinhala and Tamil in the national identity cards of the Tamils, where the foreign passports have the birth place is in English. They feel comfortable to show their passports instead of identity cards wherever and whenever it’s needed.
It reminds me of few incidents taken place recently, where if a Tamil person is dark in complexion he or she is suspected of a LTTE cadre. They go through the mental torture of answering and repeating the same reply to various people, who question them with suspicion.
Another recent experience was at a well-known restaurant in the city of Colombo. When asked politely about the parking space. I was told that, there is no parking space available for that restaurant. Then I had to park the car at my own risk. But later on I witnessed the customers for the particular restaurant was provided with parking. When inquired he tried to give many unrelated answers.
The first question asked at the checkpoints now a days is “are you a Tamil?” If a Tamil is stopped, he or she gets a different treatment, such as where was he or she born?, and can he or she speak Sinhala? If he or she was born in North or East of the country, then they get completely different treatment.
Nobody can be astonished by such behaviours, because discrimination had been in existence for several decades in Sri Lanka. Discrimination led many Tamil men and women to take up arms in their teenage to fight for their rights and of the fellow Tamils.
I do not dare to loose my identity, which I am proud of. As Martin Luther King Junior says “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character”.
December 23rd, 2007
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
“After Nehru Who”?
This was the multi – crore question going around Indian political circles in the late fifties and early sixties of the last century.
Jawarhalal Nehru who was Indian Prime Minister since Independence from the British strode the political arena like a colossus!
It was unimaginable then to conceive of a time when Nehru would be no more.
It was even harder to think of a worthy successor to this giant among Indian leaders of that era.
And then on May 27th 1964 Nehru died at the age of 74.Gulzarilal Nanda became acting premier.
Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Kumarsamy Kamaraj was All India Congress President then.
Under his smooth leadership the Congress arrived at a consensus decision about the future PM.
The diminutive Lal Bahadoor Shastri was the Congress party’s answer then to the question “After Nehru who”?
Two years later Shastri died. Once again Gulzarilal Nanda was acting premier.
This time Morarji Desai staked a claim to be PM. But Kamaraj displaying great leadership qualities managed to ensure that Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi would become PM.
The question After Nehru who? was answered well.
The question of succession in a political organization or Country becomes a complicated issue when a larger than life leader has been at the helm of affairs for a long period.
Like the absence of trees under the Banyan tree’s broad canopy lesser leaders do not sprout when a great leader is dominant.
Even if there are other leaders they appear to be pygmies when compared to the political giant of a leader.People fear that a suitable successor of equal ability would not be found.
This kind of leadership crisis afflicts both democratic and non-democratic entities. Even despots and dictators are mortal. “Sceptre and crown come tumbling down” often.
In spite of exciting political drama, democratic parties and countries manage to resolve questions of succession clearly and without violence. If violence does occur it is more of an exception than the norm.
But things often get murky in non-democratic organizations. Unless there is a designated successor who is both powerful and acceptable to the power structure the succession stakes are bound to be bloodied.
A contributory factor to this state of affairs is due to the inherent characteristics of a totalian structure.
Potential successors are not encouraged or groomed. Very often they are purged or liquidated.
The leadership stakes in an authoritative entity are mired in intrigue and power struggles.
Fanatical followers refuse to countenance the fact that their leaders are not immortal and viciously attack those who dare state evident truths.
The question of succession is treated as a “prohibited” zone. It is regarded as “sacrilege” to even discuss such a possibility.
Many years ago a Tamil radio in Canada interviewed Pazhaniyappan Nedumaran , the pro-tiger Tamil Nadu politician.
One of the questions asked was “Who do you think will succeed Prabakharan”? Nedumaran refused to answer such a hypothetical question.
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) members and supporters in Canada were extremely critical of the radio for raising such a question. “How can you even think of such a thing”? they thundered.
An unhealthy personality cult has been built around LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabakharan. His sycophantic disciples describe him as the “Suriyadevan” (Sun God). Some call him a modern avatar of Lord Vishnu or Lord Muruga (Skanda)
A panegyric written by Tamil Nadu poet Arivumathy and sung by the exquisite singer Nithyashree Mahadevan begins thus “Engal Thalaivan Prabakharan, Antha Muruganukke Ivan Niharaanavan”. (Our leader is Prabakhara, He is equal to that Murugan).
However much LTTE supporters glorify Prabakharan the reality is that the tiger supremo like all men is not immortal. When the time comes he cannot evade the God of death “Yaman”.
Like his “bete noir” from the Eelam Peoples Democratic Party (EPDP) Douglas Devananda, the tiger supremo is a great survivor. He has often escaped death by the proverbial hair’s breadth.
On November 28th the Sri Lankan Air Force bombed one of his hide-out bunkers in the Jeyanthy Nagar area of Kilinohchi. Prabakharan sustained very minor injuries on his back, shoulder and arm.
Sixteen days later the LTTE released pictures of a uniformed Prabakharan garlanding a photograph of former tiger ideologue and political adviser Anton Stanislaus Balasingham. It was to commemorate Balasingham’s first death anniversary on Dec 14th.
The recent bombing incident raised several uncomfortable questions for the LTTE. What would have happened if the bombing was fatal? What would happen in a scenario where the LTTE leader is no more? After Praba who?
The stock response of most LTTE supporters is to emulate the Ostrich and bury their heads in the sand. They refuse to accept that such a situation is possible. It is a state of denial.
[A Sri Lankan youth walks past posters on a wall in the capital Colombo , 16 December 2007 announcing an exclusive in the English language newspaper Nation-AFP PHOTO/ Sanka VIDANAGAMA-Courtesy: Yahoo!News]
When this columnist broke the story about the bombing in “The Nation” newspaper the reaction of many LTTE stooges was hostile denial.
In a convoluted version of “killing the messenger” syndrome this columnist was the target of a vituperative, concerted attack.
LTTE elements may “feel good” after such attacks but the ground reality remains the same. Once again it has been proved that the LTTE leader is physically vulnerable.
The simple truth which tiger acolytes deny, gloss over or ignore is that Prabakharan like all human beings can die. It may not be due to an Air Force air strike or Deep penetration squad landmine, but he is certainly not a “Saahaa varam Petra Mahatma” (A great soul who will not die).
It could be from illness, accident or even snakebite. One of the certain things in life for all humankind is death.
But the LTTE and supporters seem unable or unwilling to accept this.
The LTTE and the LTTE’s armed struggle revolve around Prabakharan.
There is no designated leadership that would succeed him.
Complicating matters further is the fact that the LTTE has systematically destroyed the vast leadership potential within the Tamil community.
Apart from losses in war the LTTE has lost leaders like Nizam, Ramanan, Kaushalyan, Gangai Amaran, Shankar etc to landmines, sniping, ambushes and cold-blooded assassinations. LTTE political Commissar Tamilselvan was killed in an air raid. Several leaders have escaped death often.
The LTTE leader escaped serious injury on Nov 28th. He has had several narrow escapes in the past.
However hard it may be for the diemhard tiger supporter to stomach, the inconvenient truth is that, Prabakharan may not be so lucky next time.
In such an eventuality, who would succeed him in the LTTE? After Praba Who?
There is no easy or obvious answer because the tiger leader in recent times has carefully and deliberately avoided grooming such a successor or officially designating a “No 2″.
There has been a very good reason for this as far the LTTE “numero uno” is concerned. Delving into LTTE history briefly is necessary to undertand why.
When a few tiny groups and individuals came together and formed the LTTE on May 5th 1976 the tigers had a command structure of a five man council.
Both Umamaheswaran and Prabakharan were members of this council. Uma was also chairman of the council and LTTE while Praba was its military commander.
When the original LTTE split and Umamaheswaran formed the Peoples Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) the majority of tigers went with Uma.
A dejected Praba teamed up with the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) led by Thangathurai and Kuttimani for a while.
After the arrests of Kuttimani and Thangathurai the LTTE began functioning independently again. Prabakharan himself was In India for a long time.
In his absence a triumvirate comprising Seelan, Mahattaya and Ragu ran the movement on ground. But any statement or leaflet put out by the LTTE was attributed to “Ve. Pirapakaran ” the leader.
Prabakharan who was under house arrest in Madurai for the shoot-out with Umamaheswaran in Pondy Bazaar made a break and escaped to Sri Lanka in 1983. Thereafter he asserted his leadership of the LTTE on ground.
The 1983 July anti-Tamil pogrom saw the politico-military landscape change. Praba went over to Chennai (Madras then) and ran the LTTE from there. His cadres conducted guerrilla warfare in the North and East.
There were different regional commanders but Ravindran alias Pandithar , a childhood friend of Praba was in overall charge of both provinces.
Pandithar based in Jaffna was also both the military commander and political commissar for the district. He was the accredited LTTE “vice-captain”.
Pandithar was killed in Atchuvely in January 1985. Thereafter Praba did not appoint an overall N-E commander. Instead he maintained contact with each individual regional commander. They were all equals. There was no first among equals.
One reason for this was the LTTE leader’s caution. He did not want any single regional commander to become all powerful and pose a possible challenge to him in the future.
It was also easier to promote healthy competition among individual regional commanders. Besides all of them reported directly to him via wireless communication and took orders only from him.
Prabakharan returned to Sri Lanka in January 1987 and directed LTTE operations on ground.
It was in 1987 July that Prabakharan nominated a de-jure No 2. This was none other than Gopalaswamy Mahendrarajah alias Mahathaya who was until then the Wanni regional commander.
Prabakharan did so on the eve of his departure to India by air to meet Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi. Mahathaya’s elevation was an act of pre- caution.
The LTTE leader feared that something could happen to him in India. Therefore he wanted someone to run the LTTE if necessary.
After making him Mahathaya as Deputy-Leader Prabakharan also appointed Mahathaya as acting leader prior to his departure.
He gave instructions that everyone should obey Mahathaya and that the acting leader could countermand any order sent by Prabakharan himself from India.
This was because the LTTE leader suspected he may be detained by Indian authorities and could be forced to issue orders detrimental to the tigers.
Prabakharan returned from India but the Indo-Lanka agreement was signed. Praba took over leadership of the LTTE again but Mahathaya remained deputy – leader of the LTTE.
Later Mahathaya was also made President of the LTTE’s political party called Peoples Front of Tamil Eelam (PFLT)
At one point serious differences emerged between Praba and Mahathaya. A “cold war” was on.
The tiger leader asked his ex-Jaffna commander Sathasivampillai Krishnakumar alias Kittu to return home from abroad. Kittu however committed suicide when the ship in which he was travelling got surrounded by the Indian navy in international waters.
[Sathasivampillai Krishnakumar alias Kittu]
Had Kittu returned safely he would have been appointed deputy-leader and accredited as successor to Praba.
There was however further trouble in the LTTE paradise. Pottu Amman the LTTE intelligence chief “uncovered” details of an alleged conspiracy involving Mahathaya who had already fallen out of favour with Prabakharan.
Mahathaya was accused of conspiring with the Indian RAW (Reserach and Analysis wing) to kill Praba and take over the LTTE.
After prolonged incarceration Mahathaya was executed.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of this charge the LTTE supremo felt that anyone appointed officially as deputy-leader would be vulnerable to machinations by his enemies.
He also felt that designating an official successor could bring about many intra-LTTE problems. Praba also felt that such a nominee would be preyed upon by various intelligence agencies.
Still there was low-key speculation about possible deputy leader-successors.
The affection displayed by Prabakharan towards his ex-Political commissar Suppiah Paramu Thamilselvan gave rise to the theory that Selvan was being thought of as a likely successor.
But “Brigadier” Thamilselvan was killed in air strike on ovember 2nd last year.
Another favourite of Prabakharan and a potential successor was Vaithilingam Sornalingam alias “Col” Shankar. But he too was killed in a landmine explosion on Sep 26th 2001.
Against this backdrop succession stakes in the LTTE remains a tricky question.
Is there a mechanism within the LTTE that could ensure smooth succession?
The highest decision making body is a central committee comprising 32 persons. These include all regional commanders and heads of different divisions.
But Prabakharan calls the shots in this. Though a certain amount of discussion is possible there is no vote taking. Ultimately the central committee approves Praba’s diktat unanimously. The central committee is a virtual rubber stamp.
As such the central committee may be required to act independently for the first time only to select a successor. What an irony!
[V.Ilankumaran]
The most senior tiger in the hierarchy is a man whom many do not know of. It is “Baby” Subramaniam the head of the LTTE’s education division. He now has a de-sankritised nom de guerre “Ilankumaran”.
Ilankumaran hailing from Kankesanthurai is a founder member of the LTTE in 1976. He has remained steadfastly loyal to Prabakharan.
Despite his seniority Ilankumaran is not a fighting man. Until 1991 he spent most of his days in India. Ilankumaran known as “Baby Subramaniam” in India co-ordinated all propaganda and political activity for the LTTE in Tamil Nadu.
He cultivated a whole lot of Tamil Nadu politicians and promoted the tiger cause. It was he who established links with MG Ramachandran.
Under present circumstances this Tamil Nadu connection would be perceived more as a liability than an asset by hardcore tiger elements.
Ilankumaran was responsible for a revised educational curriculum for school children in LTTE controlled areas. Along with LTTE inland revenue chief Thamilendhi it was he who conducted the “pure Tamil drive ” in tiger dominated regions.
All Sanskritised names were Tamilised. Likewise English names were replaced by pure Tamil names. Bakery became “Vethuppagam” and Banks became “Vaippagam” etc.
In the harsh world of “power struggles” these accomplishments are of no use. Even if Ilankumaran is made leader or acting leader on account of his seniority, it is only a matter of time before he is de- throned or reduced to a puppet.
Also by nature and temperament the mild – mannered “Baby” is not likely to pursue power or hold on to it ruthlessly.
With the demise of Appiah Annai and the semi-retirement of Thevar annai and Basheer Kakka the only other senior from the pre-July 1983 days who is active in the LTTE in the Wanni is the dreaded Intelligence chief Pottu Amman.
Pottu joined the LTTE in 1982. He was a “helper” long before that.
All the other senior tiger commanders like Soosai, Bhanu, Sornam, Jeyam, Theepan, Balraj, Nadesan etc joined the LTTE after July 1983.
Apart from Pottu’s seniority there is also another factor that makes him a serious contender for the crown.
[Pottu Amman]
As Intelligence chief Pottu Amman wields enormous power now. His minions have infiltrated all sections of the LTTE.
This extra-ordinary power and influence makes Pottu Amman the favourite in LTTE succession stakes. Already Pottu Amman acts like a de-facto deputy leader. It would not be difficult to be de-jure leader after Prabakharan
He is regarded as a staunch Praba loyalist and acts as catspaw of the tiger supremo.
The only man who could have effectively challenged Pottu Amman for leadership was former Batticaloa-Amparai commander Vinayagamoorthy Muraleetharan alias Karuna Amman.
Both of them were blue-eyed boys of the big boss and there was simmering tension between them. But Pottu emerged victor in the battle of the Ammans. Karuna was ejected as “thurogi” or traitor.
In such a situation the succession stakes seem a virtual one – horse race.
Even if Pottu Amman takes over after Praba he would not dare step into his leader’s position formally.
When CN Annadurai split from the Dravida Kazhagham (DK) and formed the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham (DMK) in 1949 the party constitution did not provide for a “Thalaiver” or leader.
In an act of sentimentality, Annadurai said that the only leader he acknowledged was his mentor and DK chief E.. V. Ramaswamy Naicker popularly called “Periyar” or great man. Annadurai said that the DMK leadership would be vacant till Periyar himself filled it at some point in the future
Administrative power of the party was in the hands of the “Amaippu Seyalaalar ” or Organizing secretary. It was only in 1969 that Annadurai’s successor Muttuvel Karunanidhi got the DMK constitution amended and created the Party president post.
Likewise it would be practically impossible for anyone in the LTTE to even dream of instantly filling Prabakharan ’s place.
There would be inevitable resistance from cadres and strong supporters.
The transition can only be gradual.
It would be difficult for Pottu Amman or any would be successor to “fill” Prabakharan’s shoes automatically. There has to be an interim period before such an eventuality.
Two options are possible. One is for a leadership committee chaired by Ilankumaran to run affairs for some time. The other is for a cabal of senior tiger leaders to provide an informal collective leadership.
Pottu Amman will be the most powerful person calling the shots in either set up.
Arguably there could be an unexpected aspirant for the leadership stakes too. This “dark horse” could be a mare or colt from the family stables.
[Ms. Mathivathani Prapakharan, cutting the ribbon opening the new wing of the Elders Home, Dec 16, 2007-Photo: TamilNet]
Prabakharan’s wife Mathivathany is now being seen increasingly in public. She ceremonially opened an elders home recently.
Already her “influence” is visible in the overseas branches of the LTTE. Mathivathany is the daughter of Erambu Master in Pungudutheevu.
Plum positions in the LTTE overseas branches and institutions have been given to those of Pungudutheevu origin.
Their passport to success is Ms. Mathivathany Prabakharan.
The other possibility is Praba’s eldest son Charles Anthony who was named after Seelan . Charles Anthony alias Seelan died on July 15th 1983. The LTTE’s first infantry division is named after him.
Charles Anthony jr has reportedly obtained a pilot’s license and aeronautical training .He is involving himself with LTTE activity nowadays. , it is said.
“Vaarisu Arasiyal’ or dynastic politics is a common phenomenon in South Asia. It is widespread in both national and regional levels.
Can the so called first family of Tamil Eelam be immune to this common affliction?
Only time will tell!
If the family enters then even Pottu Amman may have to give in. He will however remain the power behind the throne.
A collective leadership under a nominal head from the family is also a possibility. Pottu will dominate such a set up too from behind the scenes.
The succession will ultimately be determined by the manner in which Prabakharan exits.
If Prabakharan himself can ensure who the successor would be then the transition will be smooth.
But this seems unlikely at the present juncture.
If the LTTE top guns are unable to agree on the successor there could be utter chaos. Intra-tiger conflict of an internecine nature could erupt.
The absence of a father figure like Balasingham would be keenly felt then.
Another factor to be noted is that outside agents could decide the LTTE’s fate. The dominant line of thought in some Countries is that a regime change is necessary in the LTTE.
If these countries are powerful enough to remove Prabakharan then it is they who will choose the successor. The successor will be a puppet on a string.
There is however a long term question. Will the LTTE be as effective without Prabakharan at the helm ?
The answer is “NO”!
The LTTE without Prabakharan is like the Ramayana without Lord Rama.
If Prabakharan is no more it would not be an immediate end of the LTTE. It would however be the beginning of the end for the LTTE.
Prabakharan himself is basically responsible for this situation. He has built up the movement around his dictatorial leadership and personality cult. He is projected as the all powerful Messiah who would lead the Tamils into the Promised land of Tamil Eelam.
He has made sure of the absence of a viable alternative.
Like Louis the 14th of France it is a case of “After Me The Deluge”.
If Prabakharan goes the LTTE too will go too. That’s the situation today.
The decline and fall of the LTTE would be inevitable. The deterioration would be drastically rapid.
The questions of succession after Prabakharan and the future of the LTTE without Prabakharan etc would all become unimportant because the tigers would fast become a non-entity if and when Prabakharan is no more.
However this does not mean that the Tamil national question would also cease after Prabakharan is no more and the LTTE becomes weak. If anyone thinks that the elimination of Prabakharan and extinction of the LTTE would autmotically result in the extinguishing of the ethnic problem it would be a colossal blunder.
Prabakharan and the LTTE did not create the Tamil problem. Sinhala chauvinist politicians s created the problem. Their’s was the original sin. Prabakharan and the LTTE were by – products of the problem created through majoritarian hegemony.
Prabakharan was only two years old when Sinhala was enthroned as the sole official language. He was four years old when the 1958 anti – Tamil violence was unleashed. The LTTE leader was only seven years old when the non – violent Satyagraha of the Federal Party was brutally suppressed by deploying the army and detaining Gandhiyan leaders without trial.
The causes leading to the armed struggle came long before the LTTE was born. The LTTE itself was a consequence of those causes. But what has happened is that Prabakharan and the LTTE have been unwilling to negotiate meaningfully and compromise. Their mode of struggle has altered the nature of the problem into different dimensions.
Consequrnces have overwhelmed the causes. Instead of being part of the solution the LTTE and its leader have become part of the problem. This does not mean that the LTTE and the LTTE alone is the sole problem. That is not so. The rise of organizations like the Hela Urumaya show that the problem will not go away if and when the LTTE is not there.
A durable solution to the Tamil National question can be evolved only on the basis of justice and equality. Grievances of the Tamils have to be redressed and their legitimate aspirations addresses. It is only then that the problem will go away.
Unless and until that is done the Tamil problem will not go away. As long as the Tamil problem remains unsolved virulent expressions of Tamil ultra- nationalism like Prabakharan and the LTTE will continue to manifest in different forms.
December 22nd, 2007
by Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai
“I have come to bring good news to the poor,
to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18)
As the bells toll around the globe, getting ready to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, a rare event of sharing experience in Jaffna was initiated by two individuals who visited Jaffna recently. “Christmas hopes from Jaffna” was initiated by Ruki Fernando and Angelica Chandrasekaran. It was held on December 21st 2007 at the Centre for Society and Religion in Maradana.
Experiences shared by the individuals at the event are compiled below:
Ruki Fernando:
“I attended a Hindu wedding while I was in Jaffna. Someone told me at the wedding that they are married; they will have children; and they have to worry about their children not getting killed, abducted or conscripted. The people of Jaffna are worried; they just want to lead a normal life”.
Angelica Chandresekaran:
“People of Jaffna do not need anything except peace. They have learnt to lead a life with what is available. But they want long-lasting peace”.
Reverend Father Tissa Balasuriya OMI:
“Many Sinhalese do not know that they are the cause for the idea of “Tamil Eelam” to be created. Bandaranaikes, Jeyawardenas and Chelvanayagams opposed each other’s proposal. Sinhalese are mislead; and they are the reason for the division of the country”.
Reverend Rohan Silva OMI:
“There are Sinhalese who care for the Tamil brethren. The presence of Sinhalese brethren in war torn Tamil areas is essential. Voice for peace is quiet. When we met the people in Jaffna they wanted the Sinhala Catholic priests to stay with them. They felt comfortable sharing their stories with us”.
Dr. Anita Nesiah:
“The streets go deserted after 3pm in the afternoon due to curfew. I was told that a cylinder of LP gas is sold for Rs. 5,000/= in Jaffna. People of Jaffna are frightened; they are helpless and voiceless”.
Sivanandini Doraiswamy:
“Civilians who surrender themselves to the Human Rights Commission due to life threats are kept in prison along with the accused. They get contracted to contagious disease like chicken-pox in prison cells”.
Later a drama was performed by women who have been victims of war. The drama depicted despair, displacement and difficulties in a conflict situation. Most of these women who performed were unborn babies, when the conflict began three decades ago.
Prayers were said for peace and justice; songs of ‘Happy Christmas (War Is Over)’ by John Lennon, ‘Fallen Leaves’ by John Denver and ‘I want to live’ were played. An exhibition of photographs and reports from Jaffna was also held. The event of attend by Catholic priests, nuns and concerned citizens of Sri Lanka.
The participants have decided to fast on Christmas eve in solidarity with the victims of war.
Photographs and reports of Jaffna are displayed
Drama performed by the victims of war
Participants at the event
Reverend Father Tissa Balasuriya OMI sharing his views
Glimpses of life in Jaffna
Newspaper advertisements which appeared in the Colombo based newspapers during the season were displayed to compare the contrast in Colombo and Jaffna
“I have carved you on the palm of my hand” ((Isaiah 49.16)
This structure is in the compound of Fatima Church in Maradana
Banner for peace in the compound of Fatima Church in Maradana put up by CARITAS and Seth Sarana
________________________
[HumanityAshore.com]
Email:dushi.pillai@gmail.com
December 22nd, 2007
by Rajan Philips
A few years ago, Hector Abhayavardhana delivered the Handy Perinpanayagam Memorial Lecture on the topic: “Tamil Nationalism and the Sinhalese”. Having earlier described the disenfranchisement of Tamil plantation workers as the original sin of Sri Lanka’s postcolonial disintegration, Hector, in the Perinpanayagam Lecture, regretted that the Sinhalese and Tamil leaders of that time did not try hard enough to resolve their political differences despite their social camaraderie as members of a common middle class. The times were also more congenial then, unlike now, and, worse, the Rajapakse brothers and the LTTE are not even talking to one another (which itself would require international translation!), except through gunfire.
It did not take long after the plantation workers were disenfranchised for S.J.V. Chelvanayakam to split with G.G. Ponnambalam, and for S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike to breakaway from the UNP. Both breaks were to have far reaching consequences for the national question. The split in Tamil politics meant that the two contenders would ratchet up Tamil demands in a bid to outdo each other in elections. Not infrequently, one of them would throw a wrench in the other’s initiatives with the government. The UNP and the SLFP, on the other hand, shed all pretensions to being ‘National Parties’ and became ‘communal parties’, competing with each other as to who will implement Sinhala Only faster and who will be less generous to the Tamils. The disenfranchisement also tilted the ethnic balance in parliament disproportionately in favour of the Sinhalese (from 69-31 in 1947 to 80-20 in 1960) and the UNP and the SLFP were able to alternate as governing parties without support from the minorities.
With the LTTE usurping political authority over the Tamil community, there is no room for electoral bidding contests in Tamil politics. In any event, there is nothing to outbid the ultimate demand of nationalism-a separate state for the nation. The demand for Eelam, though democratically legitimate, as pointed out by the departing British High Commissioner, has been illegitimized by the methods of the LTTE. While Eelam might have been a possibility in the Cold War period, it is now globally and regionally untenable.
On the Sinhalese, or the government, side, a broad constituency has emerged after 1994 supporting the resolution of the Tamil and Muslim questions through a constitutional change enabling territorial power sharing. The SLFP and the UNP under the leaderships of Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremasinghe agreed to as much even though they could not agree on working together. Although President Rajapakse has rolled back much of the advances made by Kumaratunga and Wickremasinghe since 1994, he has not been able to totally ignore calls for a political solution. Even his (Defense Secretary) brother speaks of a political solution following a military defeat of the LTTE. What is more, the unitary constitutional status quo is no less unviable than Eelam, and persisting with either of them only means prolonging the current war.
The presidential-parliamentary logjam
The question is why we have not been able to make any progress towards a political solution despite the bi-partisan agreement on its parameters. Prior to 1994, the lack of consensus between the UNP and the SLFP was the biggest roadblock to resolving the Tamil question. If there was consensus over a political solution, legislating it in parliament and implementing it through cabinet-government would have been straightforward. Why not now?
A major factor in this logjam is the presidential-parliamentary system and proportional representation. The combination has made progress towards a political solution extremely difficult, if not impossible, in a number of ways. The old first-past-the-post system of elections created the parliamentary tyranny of 1978 that led to the adoption of the present rigid constitution. The 1994 and 2001 elections under the proportional representation system respectively denied Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremasinghe the constitutional majorities, that they would have garnered under the first-past-the-post system, and which they could have used to make changes to the Constitution going beyond the Thirteenth Amendment. Put another way, the proportional representation frustrated parliament’s opportunities in 1994 and 2001 to reverse the majoritarian excesses of the 1978 Constitution.
On the other hand, the presidency, which was supposed to give weight to minority voters in the election of the President, was put on a war-footing almost from its inception-when President Jayewardene, one year into his inaugural term, placed Jaffna under Emergency Rule in 1979. There has been no let up since, and the presidential preoccupation with the war front has continued even after 1994, whether as war-for-peace under Kumaratunga, or, war-at-all-cost under the current regime. The preoccupation with war is also reflected in the titular insistence that the President is the Commander in Chief. It was not a coincidence that the longest period of ceasefire was achieved in 2002, under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s office, with Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister, without Presidential blessings. Not a day went by when Wickremasinghe was Prime Minister without Ms. Kumaratunga reminding herself and everyone who was listening, that she was the Commander in Chief!
Another aggrandizing aspect of the presidency is that as a political Prize, it is an all consuming, winner-take-all institution, unlike the Parliament of old where the Prime Minister was no more than the ‘first among equals (ministers)’ and was always counter–posed by his or her alternative-the Leader of the Opposition. In the current set up, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are ’some bodies’ turned into ‘nobodies’, while the President is everything and all of it at the expense of Parliament. This was the main reason why Kumaratunga and Wickremasinghe subordinated every other consideration to the purpose of being or becoming President, and would not cooperate with each other despite their independent agreement on the fundamentals of a political solution. President Kumaratunga even tried to go beyond her second term and wasted her time and government’s resources in a fruitless exercise.
With President Rajapakse, the overriding purpose is ensuring a second term victory and, until then, keeping his slender majority in parliament intact. He is proving himself to be adept at both, and is proving at every turn that Wickremasinghe is a serial loser. While Kumraratunga, in her better days, tried to run a parallel peace front, the Rajapakse regime does not even pretend to have one. The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) working on proposals for constitutional change is Colombo’s best known political orphan, and the Committee’s work only interests the President when he has foreign visitors. A powerful and expensive Presidential entourage independent of Parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers has emerged, and so long as those in the entourage are bent on waging war, with a lot of them materially benefiting from it, there is little time or chance for peace. They will also advise President Rajapakse, if he is in need of such advice, that keeping the war going is the best way to win the second term. But it is not even the second best option for Sri Lanka, if one were to look at the example of the second Bush term in the US.
Breaking the logjam
The political logjam and the resumption of hostilities have left Sri Lankan moderates desperately looking for international help to facilitate a ceasefire and the resumption of talks. The focus is now on the February visit of the Indian Prime Minister to celebrate Sri Lanka’s sixty years of independence. According to reports, New Delhi is insisting that Colombo should have a political package ready prior to the arrival of Manmohan Singh. If this is true, the APRC will now be driven to work overtime and come up with something in the next five weeks. Tissa Vitarana and his team may not need five weeks to produce a report, but the question is what recommendations will satisfy President Rajapakse and whether or not India will insist on seeing specific recommendations included in the report.
On the other hand, both Colombo and New Delhi may independently want to go through the appearance of promoting a political package without actually meaning to make any real progress in finalizing and implementing one. Significantly, India does not seem to have asked for, or suggested a ceasefire prior to the Indian PM’s visit. But that need not prevent the government from declaring a limited ceasefire to mark the occasion and send the message that the celebration of independence includes all Sri Lankans and not just those living outside the North and East. Not that the people in the North and East have anything to celebrate but even a limited stoppage of bombardment will be a huge relief to them.
No less significant would be the LTTE’s ‘reception’ to the visiting Indian PM. It could gain some mileage by unilaterally declaring a limited ceasefire and indicating a recommitment to the now forgotten but still significant Oslo Declaration that committed both the GOSL and the LTTE to exploring a federal solution within a united Sri Lanka. But the LTTE would be mindful of the fact that any show of conciliation on its part will be seen by Colombo as a sign of weakness and will be used by the ‘war professionals’ to keep pressing the war accelerator.
As I pointed out in my last article, no international effort will be credible or effective without a serious local partner or partners. For maximum leverage of such effort both the government and the LTTE should be willing to be mediated to explore a political solution, but this is unlikely in the immediate term. The task for the moderates is to keep the nucleus of a political solution, which is the APRC, alive and active. Dr. Tissa Vitarana, who has shown monumental patience and endurance on this task, should try to build a strong base of inter-party support in Parliament that will withstand the horse-trading crossovers that are now an unsavoury fact of parliamentary life, and even a future election.
For an inspirational model, he might want to look at the Italian Parliament of the 1970s and 1980s, which was in a similar presidential-parliamentary situation like ours today. Amidst the circus of elections and crossovers, a core group of thinking Italian politicians managed to keep the key portfolios in their hands thereby providing continuity and stability to the economy. Our current parliament is full of “queer animals” (puthuma sathu), as N.M. Perera famously described the government benches after the 1952 elections. But there are also serious minded parliamentarians belonging to all political parties, and they should form an inter-party core group to ensure the survival and continuity of the APRC proposals. Their immediate task is not to break the presidential-parliamentary logjam, but to protect the APRC efforts for a later time.
Related:
- Thamilchelvan and Tamil Politics-I
- Tamil Politics II-The roots of LTTE’s Militarism and Political Culture
- Tamil Politics III: Kinship, caste and the Diaspora in Tamil nationalism
December 22nd, 2007
BY Rt. Rev DULEEP DE CHICKERA
Colombo’s Angilican Bishop Rt. Revd. Duleep de Chickera said in a statement yesterday that something sinister was going on in Jaffna and that itappeared some authorities were trying to punish the Tamil People collectively for the misdeeds of the LTTE.
He further urged the Government to turn the current negative trends around and ensure the rights, safety and welfare of all Sri Lankan citizens of Jaffna.
The Bishop’s statement is as follows:
“The trials and tribulations that the people of Jaffna face have been further aggravated over the recent couple of months. Residents now receive threats over the telephone calling for the payment of large sums of money into certain Bank accounts. The callers’ numbers as well as the Bank
account numbers are known.
The Security Force Commanders must be commended for certain steps taken to reassure the people and also to probe these incidents. Some persons are believed to have been taken in for questioning as well and this too must be commended.
“It is possible that those responsible for these extortion demands are a mix of political para-military groups and anti social elements who exploit the climate of fear and intimidation that prevails in the Peninsula.
Given the evidence and the tight security controls in the Peninsula the Government of Sri Lanka can and must put an immediate stop to this harassment. If not, its continuation will further alienate the people of Jaffna, further spread lawlessness and further embarrass the Government of
Sri Lanka.
“Arbitrary extra judicial killings, almost on a daily basis, continue to paralyse Jaffna society. Responsible sources and groups have compiled statistics and reported consistently on these killings. It is hard to explain how these killings can occur, given the current security control the Sri Lankan security forces have in Jaffna. Something very sinister is clearly happening in the Peninsula.
“Local sources say that most persons killed this way have had some past or present connections with the LTTE or are suspected of having connections.
If this is the case, they must then be arrested and dealt with under the law. The Government of Sri Lanka should also consider offering an amnesty. Such an amnesty will bring better results if representatives of Jaffna’s civil society serve on an Amnesty Commission. Representatives of a group
of former Security Service Commanders who have organized themselves to work for peace could also serve on this Commission.
If planned with sensitivity and vision an amnesty will provide a much more civilised and just option to assassination or surrender to a Magistrate and ending up in the overcrowded Jaffna remand prison.
“A University Professor recently indicated that some forces in power seem to believe that Tamils must be punished collectively for the misdeeds of
the LTTE. In the name of God and our common humanity, such collective intimidation and punishment of the Tamils as an ethnic group must stop.
There comes a time when people and leaders are exhausted of violence and oppression and feel the urge to turn away from conflict and confrontation.
It has been a long overdue right of the people of Jaffna to be able to return to normalcy.
The Government of Sri Lanka must now turn the current negative trends around and ensure the rights, safety and welfare of all Sri Lankan citizens of Jaffna.
This is best done through the strengthening of civil governance, infrastructures, the development of trade, industry, farming and fishing; and public amenities and welfare measures such as education, health and transport. This can be done while security measures are still in place; but the threat to life and harassment and deprivation must stop.
May the God of order, dignity and freedom forgive us and nourish us.”
December 21st, 2007
by B.Raman
How vulnerable is LTTE’s Velupillai Prabhakaran to a decapitation air strike by Sri Lankan Air Force? How seriously should one take the claims from the latter? He has to be lucky every time. The SLAF has to be lucky only once.
The Sri Lankan Government claimed on December 19, 2007, that the head of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Velupillai Prabhakaran, was injured last month during an air strike by Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) jets.
The Defence Ministry has been quoted by the media as saying: “Intelligence sources confirmed that the LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran had sustained injuries in the air strikes carried out by four fighter aircraft of the Sri Lanka Air Force on a bunker complex in Jayanthinagar, Kilinochchi around 5.25 pm on November 26.Intelligence had confirmed that the bunker complex was frequented by Prabhakaran. Acting on reliable intelligence, the Air Force carried out a successful air strike targeting the leader of the LTTE, on November 26.Attack aircraft of the Air Force carried out another air strike on the same target on November 28.The Air Force confirms that the target was successfully destroyed amidst heavy LTTE ground to air fire towards the Sri Lanka Air Force aircraft. Subsequent to the attack, the Air Force monitored movements around the target.Though the Air Force believed that Prabhakaran had been hit in the attack, non-availability of ground information to confirm it at that time prevented the Government from releasing this information to the media.”
Earlier, the Nation newspaper of Colombo had reported on December 16,2007,that Prabhakaran sustained injuries during an air raid in rebel held areas of Kilinochchi on November 28, 2007. However, the LTTE had strongly denied it. “It is a lie. Nothing of that sort happened,” an LTTE spokesman was quoted as saying.
The Sri Lankan Defence Ministry has been disseminating a lot of disinformation through its statements and the web sites of the Government regarding its claimed successes against the LTTE. One has, therefore, to be careful in accepting its claim without independent corroboration.
However, this analysis is based on the presumption that the claim may be correct. For over a year now, the Sri Lankan Air Force has been trying for a decapitation air strike against Prabhakaran. Since the LTTE has killed many Sri Lankan leaders including former President Premadasa and former Foreign Minister Laxman Kadirgamar and had tried to kill Mrs.Chandrika Kumaratunge when she was the President, they have every right to personally target Prabhakaran and try to eliminate him. In fact, Mr. Gothbaya Rajapakse, their Defence Secretary, had openly stated that they were targeting Prabhakaran himself for an air strike.
The Americans too have been trying to kill Osama bin Laden, his No.2 Ayman Al Zawahiri and Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban, through air strikes. One of the air strikes in the Bajaur Agency of Pakistan, which killed a large number of civilians, was based on information that Zawahiri was in the area. The information proved to be wrong.
Even after six years of targeting them, the Americans have not succeeded. Reasons: Firstly, the high level of communication security of Al Qaeda. Secondly, the refusal of the tribals to betray them. Thirdly, Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not have the paraphernalia of a State. They do not have any permanent infrastructure. bin Laden, Zawahiri and Omar lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village. Nobody knows in which village they are or they will be at particular moment. Moreover, the Air Force does not like to bomb villages unless it has pin-point information.
In the case of Prabhakaran, things are different. One does not know about the quality of the LTTE’s communications security. He has the paraphernalia of a state because of his pretensions of running a shadow state. He considers it beneath his dignity to lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village and taking shelter there.
Even in the Wanni area, the circle of the safe areas available to him is getting smaller and smaller.
The two or three small planes, which he has procured for the so-called Tamil Eelam Air Force, have added to the intimidatory capability of the LTTE, but not to its defensive capability. They are unlikely to be in a position to protect him.
What can protect Prabhakaran from a successful decapitation strike by the Sri Lankan Air Force are good ground-based anti-aircraft defence capability and a capability to penetrate the bases of the Sri Lankan Air Force and destroy its attack aircraft on the ground. The LTTE’s ground-based anti-aircraft capability is very weak due to the difficulties faced by it in procuring new equipment from abroad. It was able to penetrate the SLAF base at Anuradhapura and destroy a number of surveillance and trainer planes. It has not been able to mount any operation to penetrate the bases in which the SLAF attack aircraft are kept.
A good system of bunkers on the ground can protect just as Sir Winston Churchill and other British leaders were protected against the Nazi Blitzkrieg during the Second World War. But the bunkers were not alone in protecting them. They were supplemented by an excellent anti-aircraft capability on the ground and the planes of the RAF, which countered the German air strikes in the air. Bunkers alone without a good cover of anti-aircraft guns and LTTE fighter planes in the air can protect for some time, but not for all time.
After an unsuccessful attempt to kill Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, the then British Prime Minister, in 1985 through an explosion in a Brighton Hotel in which she was staying, the Irish Republican Army, which had placed the bomb, was reported to have stated:” She has to be lucky every time. We have to be lucky only once.” [saag]
The reverse is true in the case of a decapitation air strike against a terrorist leader. He has to be lucky every time. The SLAF has to be lucky only once.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
December 20th, 2007
Previous Posts