The challenge of ‘winning the peace’

By Lynn Ockersz

(August 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The relative silence in some Lankan circles, which not so long ago championed the cause of ethnic peace, gives rise to the impression that all discourse on the National Question is considered inappropriate, superfluous and unnecessary, in these post-LTTE times. The implicit assumption in this silence, among particularly one-time local peace activist quarters, seems to be that the ‘Lankan conflict’ has ceased to exist with the elimination of the LTTE.

The pronouncement which has today become a truism in conflict resolution thinking is that a violent, intra-state, identity-based conflict cannot be resolved in its entirety through the adoption by the state party concerned, of only military means. An effort by states to resolve conflicts of this kind, needs to visualize a political component too to the total solution and it is usually the implementation of a political project by the relevant state that meets the legitimate aspirations of the rebelling sections, which helps in solidifying peace and stability within a country. Indonesia’s successful efforts at bringing peace to its once rebellious Aceh province, is one of Asia’s most recent examples of a peace which was won by political means. It is encouraging news that some local state personnel are now looking to Aceh for inspiration to solidify peace in Sri Lanka. May they learn quickly and insightfully, is this writer’s hope.

Unlike in times past, we do not find present day government leaders speaking at length on political solutions to our conflict. Right now, they seem to be engrossed more with the task of winning elections and since the majority community constitutes their main vote base, they apparently consider it inappropriate to speak forthrightly about political solutions, which would need to envisage power-sharing among communities, to prove effective. This is on account of the fact that among those espousing hegemonic control of the Lankan state by the majority community, power sharing is anathema.

Hopefully, once the elections are done with, there would be a frank espousal of the need for a political solution by the current political leadership of Sri Lanka. For, as long as the causes of our conflict, such as the lack of equality in all its dimensions among our communities, go unaddressed, there is unlikely to be a stable peace in this country.

By saying this, the implication is not made that there were wholly sincere efforts at building a peace culture in this country, for instance, during the Chandrika years. Those years saw the gradual entrenchment in Sri Lanka of what came to be derisively referred to as a ‘peace industry’ and numerous were the parties who made a princely living off the ballooning, money-gobbling enterprise of bringing peace to Sri Lanka.

The fact that peace efforts in the past thus suffered disfigurement in the hands of some parasitic elements, does not in any way argue against the need for a sustainable and dynamic peace movement in this country. The prime issues in the conflict are remaining unresolved to date and as long as this is so, the need for a vibrant peace movement would remain. The question is, who among Sri Lanka’s civil society in particular, would provide the leadership and directional power for a movement of this kind.

Fortunately, not all sections of the state are oblivious to the need to build a durable peace which would be sensitive to the legitimate needs of our communities. There is Disaster Management and Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, for instance, who, while addressing a forum recently in Colombo, on the subject of peace-building said, among other things: ’Thus it appears that what is necessary is to internalize the core values of peace if we are to achieve the societal goal of "winning the peace". To do this, we must be committed to demonstrating benevolence through tolerance and accommodation of our fellows, confidence and trust in one another and justice predicated on the principles of equity and equality.’ Earlier, quoting India’s late Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the minister said: ‘Peace is not merely the absence of war. It is also a state of mind. Lasting peace can come only to peaceful people.’

With sentiments of this kind we are back with a discourse which unambiguously spells out the essential building blocks of a peace culture to which all cultures and communities of this country could relate. The challenge before government leaders is to popularize concepts of this nature and to build a national consensus around them.

But would the political leaders of this land measure- up to this challenge? This is the troubling issue and past experience with our politicians teaches us that they are long on talk but very short on action. It is also not inappropriate to ask: What has become of the APRC’s final proposals? Are we to believe that nothing substantive has come out of the APRC’s prolonged deliberations after all?

Although women and men of goodwill would incline to the view that the above fears are unfounded, the track record of governments to date points to a fundamental insincerity in them to take the message of peace, in the terms broached in this article, to the people. Which major political figure from Southern Sri Lanka, has, for instance, taken the case for ethnic equality in all its dimensions, to the ‘court of public opinion’?

Not even when a peace process was believed to have been fully and vibrantly operative from 2002 to 2004, was the message of peace, in the sense of equality and fraternity among communities, taken to the totality of the Lankan public by the rulers of the land. There seemed to have been a marked reluctance by the government of those times to openly and unambiguously broach the factors that contribute to a wholesome peace. Apparently, the government was stifled by a species of inner paralysis. It, evidently, feared that an open discussion of peace issues would have earned for it the wrath of chauvinists in both South and North.

However, the government of the day sat down to ‘peace talks’ with the LTTE in luxury resorts abroad, in an effort to manage and contain the armed conflict. The government made the cardinal error of equating the totality of the Tamil people with the LTTE. If on the other hand, it raised the awareness of the people everywhere in the land on a just peace, it could have made some progress in alienating the North-East public from the LTTE. Containing the LTTE’s influence over the Tamil people would have, then, proved easier.

The consistent reluctance of governments down the decades to openly and plainly broach the cardinal questions relating to peace, with the Lankan public, only confirms the cynical view in some quarters that governments intentionally keep ethnic tensions alive with the aim of converting them to short term political gain.

Could Sri Lanka look forward to the emergence of leaders of the stature of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela and Fred de Klerk, who could shake hands warmly over ethnic and cultural divides, and work towards democratic accommodation and national unity? A ready ‘yes’ to this poser is not possible right now, but suffice it to know that these remarkable men constitute our standard of political greatness.

-Sri Lanka Guardian