“Time and time again we have come across those who demonstrate sympathy to the causes that groups, such as the LTTE, claim to espouse and they conveniently overlook the most serious element in the modus operandum used to achieve their goals i.e. the indiscriminate deployment of terror. It is almost always the case that some of the so called grievances behind the terror do not represent contemporary reality. Sympathy associated with these alleged grievances very often results in virtually condoning or at least turning a blind eye to the brutality of terrorism.”____________________
by Dr. Palitha T.B. Kohona
(May 30 , Singapore , Sri Lanka Guardian) I am pleased to have this opportunity to address you and to share my thoughts on the challenges that Sri Lanka’s diplomacy faces today in its confrontation with terrorism.
One of the gravest challenges to Sri Lanka in her post-colonial history is the challenge of brutal terrorism – LTTE terrorism. It is a challenge to Sri Lanka’s very existence as country, its democratic way of life and its social fabric. In the last 30 years our people have paid a heavy price. Suicide bombers have mercilessly unleashed their lethal cargo on innocent civilians irrespective of their ethnicity or creed. Trains, buses and shopping centres have been drenched with the blood of women, children and other non-combatants. Our country’s political leadership has been targeted and moderates eliminated. Vast sums of money which could have been invested on development work for the benefit of all our people have had to be spent on defending our sovereignty, territorial integrity and our people. Our most important task today is convincing the international community to stay engaged as we strive to eradicate this scourge from our soil.
Unfortunately we have also been confronted by a very sophisticated propaganda machine which has succeeded many times in distracting attention from the terrorist nature of the LTTE, its fascist structure, its uncompromising goals and its absolute control over the Tamil people of the Vanni. This has been a continuing challenge to our diplomacy. Sri Lanka's real and perceived shortcomings get highlighted regularly and its many achievements remain marginalised. Respected NGOs have made it their cause to tar and feather Sri Lanka in public and eminent international personalities have grabbed the headlines with their rasping criticisms. Our economy is threatened with sanctions, trade concessions are placed on the line and political support is withdrawn – to the utter disbelief of a population regularly subjected to the thunder of suicide bombers and death and injury by showers of steel pellets. Our challenge is to address the causes of these attitudes, correct misconceptions, provide accurate information and rectify our shortcomings while continuously confronting the sophisticated propaganda machine of the LTTE and its sympathisers.
Time and time again we have come across those who demonstrate sympathy to the causes that groups, such as the LTTE, claim to espouse and they conveniently overlook the most serious element in the modus operandum used to achieve their goals i.e. the indiscriminate deployment of terror. It is almost always the case that some of the so called grievances behind the terror do not represent contemporary reality. Sympathy associated with these alleged grievances very often results in virtually condoning or at least turning a blind eye to the brutality of terrorism.
While the Sri Lankan State’s ability to act abroad is constrained for obvious reasons, it must deploy its diplomacy to contain the efforts of the LTTE. The lack of effective comprehensive action by other governments has, in many instances, strengthened the support base of the LTTE abroad and inspired them. Faced with the impact of anti-terror legislation, in some instances, they raise funds on the pretext of advancing charitable goals such as rehabilitating the victims of violence, violence that they themselves have perpetrated. While committing the most grievous violations of human rights, they then manage to garner support overseas pretending to be human rights activists and campaigners for justice by portraying themselves as champions of a minority being besieged by a draconian majority government. These terrorists exploit ceasefires to re-arm and re-group but when the ceasefire is rendered meaningless through their own actions and is abrogated they would call for a cessation of hostilities and elements of the international community, join the bandwagon supporting the demand for a ceasefire. When we as a government sat down to negotiate with the LTTE, as indeed we have done on many occasions, they have refused to discuss core political issues relating to their perceived grievances, made unreasonable demands for concessions which were impossible for a democratically elected government to deliver and which were favourable to their terrorist designs and when these demands were not met they walked out. Soon afterwards they stepped up violence and when the military undertook measures to counter this violence they claimed that the government was pursuing a military solution rather than a political one.
Ladies and Gentlemen, What I have summed up in outline is the duplicitous diplomacy of terrorists and their front organisations from Sri Lanka’s experience. Therefore as a state confronted with the challenge of terrorism in the contemporary world we have to contend not only with the terrorism on our streets but also with their skill and tact in deceiving the outside world that they are the champions of a besieged people.
Sri Lanka, as many of you are aware is one of Asia’s oldest functioning democracies. From 1931 we have enjoyed universal adult suffrage and since the time we gained independence from British rule in 1948, a system of Parliamentary democracy has firmly taken root. Currently elections are held, based on a system of proportional representation that is accommodative of our minorities. Our electoral tradition is sustained by a vibrant multi-party system. Largely free and fair elections have been held without interruption since independence and different political parties that have come to power in this period have striven to introduce political and economic policies that have demonstrated sensitivity to the aspirations of all our people. Reflecting the heterogeneous composition of our society – Sri Lanka has two official languages; Sinhala & Tamil with English serving as the link language. Chapter III of our Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice a religion of one’s choice among other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Fundamental rights are guaranteed under the constitution and have been widened considerably through the courts. We have also evolved from a largely centralised system of administration to one that has gradually devolved power to the provinces with a view to involving people in different parts of the country in governing their local areas. In 1987 a Provincial Council system was introduced through the 13th amendment to the constitution. Today on the recommendations of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) set up by the Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the powers devolved to provincial councils are being strengthened and the APRC is continuing to deliberate on the further devolution of power.
Of course, there have been periods in our post-colonial history where the confidence of minorities was eroded by the pursuance of certain pro majority policies. We have paid a heavy price for these acts. This post-colonial experience is common to many former colonies. What is important is that as a mature democracy we learned from these mistakes and have progressed towards making Sri Lanka a more pluralistic and caring democracy. There is a need to take cognisance of these developments.
Take for instance recent military operations carried out by the Sri Lankan security forces in the Eastern Province which have resulted in the east being cleared from the clutches of the LTTE. The eyes of the world must now open and see how the people who lived in these areas under LTTE control had for over a decade been treated like slaves; denied the free exercise of their franchise, their children conscripted as cannon fodder, subjected to cruel forms of taxation and denied their basic freedoms including, the freedom of movement. It was Thomas Hobbes who said that “tyranny and oligarchy are not the names of other forms of government”. The liberation of the east by the security forces has thus sought to restore to the people their fundamental rights and freedoms. Today the Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has launched a massive “re-awakening of the east programme” that seeks to rebuild houses, schools, public buildings, roads and bridges, create employment opportunities by encouraging investment in these areas to economically empower these people who had long suffered under LTTE tyranny and to help them, above all, to rebuild their lives and regain their lost livelihoods. The government held local and provincial elections in the Eastern Province in March & May this year thus enabling the people of this province to elect their leaders. We are encouraging foreign investors and the international non-governmental organisations to support the Government’s reconstruction and rehabilitation programme in the east. Unfortunately civilians in a small part of the northern province continue to live in terrible conditions under the clutches of the LTTE, but the Government to its credit has continued fulfilling its obligation to its citizens by providing food, healthcare and education facilities to these people under the control of terrorists and is determined to liberate them and to open up these areas of the country too to democracy and development.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there are those blind critics of the Government who continue to argue that the Government is pursuing a military solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka. This is far from the truth. As I said at the beginning of this address some in the international community have been gullible to this duplicitous diplomacy of the LTTE and continue to misread the government’s intentions in conducting military operations. They fail to realise that these military operations seek to create the space for political pluralism and democracy to flourish in areas now controlled by a fascist dictatorship. The Government remains firmly committed to a political solution to address the grievances of all communities and the APRC process I have referred to earlier is evidence of this. But this commitment does not imply appeasement of terror. Those in the international community who are advocating a cessation of hostilities, a ceasefire, have conveniently blinded themselves to our experience with ceasefires and previous rounds of negotiations. Let us be reminded of the reality. First of all with regard to a ceasefire, the question of confidence, bonafides, is of paramount importance. Unfortunately during the period following the ceasefire of February 2002, some of the events that occurred during that period were not such that they would inspire a great deal of confidence. The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission reports, and not the reports of the Government, show a very large number of methodical and deliberate violations of the ceasefire agreement by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Having more than three thousand documented instances of deliberate and grave violations of the ceasefire agreement as compared with a couple of hundred infringements by the armed forces of Sri Lanka. It is now known that large quantities of arms were smuggled into the country during that period, including aircraft and other material that are being used by the LTTE for violent confrontations with the security forces now. So the opportunity that presented itself during the ceasefire agreement to achieve a sustainable peace was misused in a manner that was gravely prejudicial to the security of the State and the safety of the public and that is a matter of empirical experience. So that is the memory that is fresh in the minds of the public. And that is the reality that needs to be taken into account. I do not for a moment suggest that it is the only reason for not thinking of a cessation of hostilities now but it is a serious inhibition. It is a constraint that needs to be recognized by those who advocate a cessation of hostilities. On the other hand with regard to a cessation of hostilities it has been the uniform experience of peace processes all over the world, take for instance the Northern Ireland situation, for a cessation of hostilities to be linked to the decommissioning of weapons. The Northern Ireland situation is a very clear and convincing example of that. You engage in political discussions to resolve a series of issues. Side by side there have to be viable arrangements for the decommissioning of weapons, for the laying down of arms under proper supervision. That element was conspicuously lacking in the Sri Lankan situation. There was a complete hiatus in that regard. That again is a factor which significantly eroded public confidence.
A ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities is by its very nature fragile if it stands by itself in a vacuum, if it is not linked to a process which enables substantive issues to be addressed. The Government had several rounds of talks with the LTTE. Then the physical talks between the two sides broke down. But the ceasefire agreement in theory continued. What is a ceasefire agreement? It is an agreement that the parties will refrain from violence in order to give themselves the opportunity of addressing the substantive issues in an atmosphere that is relatively free. So it is an opportunity to discuss the substantive issues and to come to a reasonable understanding. But if you have a ceasefire agreement and no prospect of the revival of any dialogue with regard to the substantive issues, then it is inevitable, as the Sri Lankan experience clearly demonstrates, that the ceasefire itself will breakdown sooner rather than later and that is precisely what happened. So if you are talking about a ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities in any meaningful or substantial sense then it is essential that there should be some agreement with regard to these substantive political issues or at least agreement between the sides with regard to a framework within which the substantive issues can be addressed within a reasonable time. Otherwise the ceasefire becomes a mirage and a myth that exists simply in a vacuum.
With regard to the political process itself successive governments have proposed several models for the devolution of power as a means of addressing the grievances, in particular of the Tamil and Muslim people in the north and the east. Many parliamentary select committees examined this issue in the past and extensive proposals for the devolution of power, involving the drafting of a new Constitution, were tabled. At present the All Party Representative Committee set up by the All Party Conference that was established only a month after President Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected to office has reached an advanced stage in its deliberations on constitutional proposals for the devolution of power. The majority of Tamil and Muslim political parties have favoured the proposals and agreed to discuss them with the Government but the LTTE has continued its campaign of violence and terror. Further, it has annihilated any alternative Tamil leadership which ventured to work with these proposals, the most recent victim being a senior Tamil minister in the Government. The LTTE itself has never presented any proposals except its demand for a separate state. They have continued to ignore that the demand for a separate state is not viable given the position of a majority of the peoples of Sri Lanka, thereby our government, the stated position of the Indian government as well as that of the international community. In spite of the LTTE being banned in the USA, UK, EU, Canada, India and other countries seeking to take the same action, the LTTE’s duplicitous diplomacy has been to portray itself as a liberation movement. Many in the international community have failed to recognise the LTTE as being almost an entirely militant organization with no political wing like the Sinn Fein of the IRA. They also forget that whenever the LTTE did enter into negotiations they did so due to pressure from either the international community or the need to regroup following military reversals.
Ladies and Gentlemen, a careful study of peace negotiations in the past with the LTTE establishes that two issues have dominated the agenda. One, the demand for concessions on the ground such as the withdrawal of armed forces, and access to strategic locations which though disguised as confidence building measures were really aimed at giving them an advantage for more aggressive armed strikes against the security forces. The other has been their demand for an interim administration to achieve what they have so far failed to achieve militarily namely establishing their absolute hegemony both politically and militarily over the entire north and the east. Many political analysts have viewed this demand for an interim administration without a peoples mandate as a step towards their goal of achieving a separate state and an option that totally ignores the will of the people. It may also be noted that though the LTTE has participated in negotiations with the government from Thimpu right down to Geneva in October 2006, they have clearly demonstrated a reluctance to engage in a meaningful discussion on core political issues.
This brings me to the point that we have oft repeated to the international community - you can’t clap with one hand. The Government may remain committed to the hilt but if the LTTE does not demonstrate a serious commitment to political dialogue and continues to unleash violence, raise funds overseas for arms procurement, engage in arms smuggling, conscript children and engage in suicide bombing of civilian targets and the Government’s political leadership – we are faced with a situation that requires serious reflection. The struggle with terrorism is not and can not be limited to one country. It is a challenge to which the entire international community has committed itself through thirteen multilateral conventions, Security Council decisions, General Assembly resolutions and actions of regional bodies. If terrorism succeeds in one place, it will lend heart to terrorist groups everywhere. Sri Lanka is faced with a terrorist group which engages in the random slaughter of innocents and is not interested in the subtleties of diplomacy or in compromise solutions to political questions. As Hannah Arendt argued in her book “terrorist have taken leave of politics”. They have embraced what she calls the “instrumentalities of violence rather than the complexities of generating political power, to struggle for doable social and political change”.
In our contemporary world, diplomacy is not only conducted between states. At various levels non-state actors including diaspora communities exercise various pressures on governments. Today with well over one and a half million Sri Lankans living abroad, there are attempts by sections of the diaspora to misrepresent the situation in Sri Lanka. This case is true of other diaspora communities as well and we have to be cognisant of this. Friendly governments must have no illusions that LTTE front organisations very often portray themselves as representatives of the Tamil community when in fact they are speaking from a very narrow perspective. The front organisations are well organised and funded and most visible so much so that they are thought to be ‘the representatives’ when in fact they are not. Following the proscription of the LTTE these front organisations have proliferated and are conducting a form of diplomacy in their own right.
We are reassured however that sections of the international community’s perception of the LTTE has changed in spite of the LTTE’s duplicitous diplomacy abroad. Ladies and Gentlemen, the challenge for us as a government, for the many Sri Lankan diaspora organisations abroad, is to engage with the international community with patience and to reason with them on the many misconceptions they harbour about Sri Lanka. Our diaspora communities have an enormously responsible role to play in this regard and they should not leave this task solely to the government. The many misconceptions cannot be corrected through megaphone diplomacy or outbursts of aggressive venom. After all Sri Lanka is a fully transparent and functioning democracy. Our diplomacy should be based on honesty, moderation and openness while being fully cognisant of national imperatives.
(Address by Dr. Palitha T.B. Kohona, Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka at the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore on today (30th May 2008)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment