A way to gain fuller international support

In this picture taken on July 1, 2006, a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) home guard walks down the main street of the rebel-held town of Kilinochchi. Sri Lankan troops have engaged Tamil Tiger forces on the outskirts of the northern rebel capital Kilinochchi, killing at least 13, the defence ministry said September 26, 2008. The government, which pulled out of a Norwegian-brokered ceasefire in January, wants to capture the town and deal what would be a major military and psychological blow to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rebels.

"From a peace building perspective the main failure of the Sri Lankan government has been its unwillingness to come up with a political solution to the ethnic conflict after the war. Unfortunately, many government members who speak on behalf of the government both in Sri Lanka and abroad tend to give the impression that the vanquishing of the LTTE on the military battlefield has solved the country’s main problem, and that is the end of the matter."

by Jehan Perera

(November 09, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka has won its war against terrorism. There has been no terrorist attack since the end of the war last year. It is now a safer and more peaceful country than most others in the world. This is reflected in its relatively high human development ranking as reflected in UN calculations, ahead of India, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. But a spectre haunts the country. It is the spectre of war crimes that could lead to criminal charges in international courts against the government leadership. There are reports that Tamil diaspora groups are planning legal challenges in their present countries of domicile against Sri Lankan leaders. The worst case scenario of an international arrest of government leaders is unlikely to materialize but the very possibility can act as a deterrent on the travel plans of government leaders.

The postponement of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s planned visit to the United Kingdom has generated media speculation on those lines. The international media has claimed that the President was forced to cancel his visit due to apprehension of getting embroiled in a legal case. However, the Sri Lankan government has taken the position that President Rajapaksa’s visit to the UK this week to address the prestigious Oxford Union was postponed due to pressure of work and will take place later in the year. The President’s swearing in ceremony for his second presidential term has been planned in a grand way for November 19. In addition the budget is to be debated and revised in the following week.

The basis for these media stories is the Universal Jurisdiction law in the UK that gives British courts the power to arrest those who are suspected of being involved in war crimes. Usually, members of foreign governments are deemed to have diplomatic immunity that prevents foreign courts from taking action against them. However, the UK law does not recognize such limitations of traditional diplomacy. This was how former President of Chile, and Senator-for-life, Augusto Pinochet was detained for many months in the UK. Most recently members of the Israeli government have been compelled to cancel their visits to the UK for fear of being presented with arrest warrants by British courts.


Divided Opinion

Sri Lanka’s leaders have reason to be aggrieved by the cloud that now hangs over them. The allegations of indiscriminate bombarding of civilian areas and of killing those who are surrendering are not limited to Sri Lanka as the Wikileaks revelations have demonstrated in regard to the US led war against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also no unanimity in the international community as to what is the best way to tackle the problems of terrorism. I recently attended an international conference organized by an Indian security think tank at which there was a clear division of opinion evident. It seemed that those who are from countries that have been troubled by terrorism were more willing to see the positive aspect of the Sri Lankan model of a no-holds barred campaign to defeat the rebel forces.

Today, the Sri Lankan approach that successfully eliminated the LTTE stands in contrast to that of Nepal. For the past four years there has been a ceasefire in that country that ended more than a decade of internal war that had led to large parts of rural Nepal being run by rebel Maoist forces. Initially the ceasefire was viewed as a great achievement in which the UN played a major role. The Maoists contested democratic elections and became the largest party in Parliament, though they did not become the majority. However, more recently a crisis has developed because of the inability of the parties in Parliament to agree on who should be the Prime Minister for the past six months. Last week the Nepali parliament failed for the 16th time to elect a Prime Minister. Until this elusive political consensus is reached, the country remains in limbo and is headed towards a financial crisis due to non-presentation of its annual budget.

In contrast to Nepal’s weak and divided government, Sri Lanka now has a powerful and centralized one. Nepal’s economy is growing slower than earlier anticipated, and 18 hour power cuts are anticipated in the months ahead due to lack of infrastructure growth. This contrasts with Sri Lanka’s economy which is registering high growth rates and accompanied by major infrastructure development projects. Nepal is subject to various foreign influences which are pulling the country in different directions, whereas Sri Lanka has successfully resisted outside pressures. Hardly anyone will deny that life is better in Sri Lanka today than it was last year, though there are many who will also say it can be even better if the government were to change some of its policies and attitudes instead of steamrolling its way ahead.


Common Agreement

Some government members who meet foreign delegations say that with the destruction of the LTTE’s military and political structures in the North and East there is no more ethnic problem. They make bold to say that the LTTE problem was a terrorist problem and now that they have been eliminated there is no more terrorism and no more problem. This leaves the world at large with the impression that the government is not serious about a political solution that will meet minority grievances. Moderates like External Affairs Minister, Prof. G L Peiris, who has recently described the government’s strategy as comprising five elements, including reviving the dialogue with Tamil political parties, are made peripheral by the ground reality which is different.

From a peace building perspective the main failure of the Sri Lankan government has been its unwillingness to come up with a political solution to the ethnic conflict after the war. Unfortunately, many government members who speak on behalf of the government both in Sri Lanka and abroad tend to give the impression that the vanquishing of the LTTE on the military battlefield has solved the country’s main problem, and that is the end of the matter. This view may dominate within Sri Lanka also, but it does not prevail outside of Sri Lanka. In a manner similar to Sri Lankans wishing that India will find a just solution to its Kashmir problem or Nepal will find a just solution to its Maoist problem, so does the international community without exception wish a just solution in Sri Lanka to its ethnic minority problem.

At the international conference I attended in New Delhi, both those who were admiring of Sri Lanka’s military defeat of the LTTE and those who were critical of its human rights violations, were united by a desire for a just political solution. Therefore fuller support from the international community requires that the government moves without delay to addressing the grievances and aspirations of the ethnic minorities. The Sri Lankan government needs to respond positively to this international consensus.

What has happened in the past and on the battlefields and off it has already happened, and there is little that can be done to change it. Although the Sri Lankan government boldly claims not to be bothered by the war crimes charges, it is likely that they are, and that the apprehension of being arrested abroad will affect the international movements of the government leadership. On the other hand, if the government moves actively in the direction of a political solution to the ethnic conflict, it can change and transform the way that the past is seen. The elimination of the LTTE in a brutal and costly war, if it becomes the door through which a political solution can be achieved, will cast a light where there is now darkness. Many foreign governments, even European ones, are themselves fighting terrorism either on their own soil or on the soil of other countries. They understand and know what wars against terrorism entail.