tw news-features

by Izeth Hussain

Fool and scoundrel guide the State
Peace is whore to Greed and hate.
Yvor Winters — Before Disaster

A defective peace process based on a defective CFA has led, just as practically everyone anticipated, to total war in all but name. In this situation it is to be expected that Norway, the Co-Chairs and others who have been trying to facilitate the peace process will experience a sense of exasperation and of fatigue. The corollary is to ask India, as the regional great power, to play the primary role rather than the non-regional players who really have no vital stake in the peace process. In addition Karunanidhi’s ascent to power is clearly pushing India to play that role.

In earlier articles, I have argued that India playing that role can lead to a solution of the ethnic problem, but equally it can lead to disaster as has happened in the past, and further that we should bear in mind the Cyprus parallel as a worst case hypothesis. In this article I will point to the relevance of some recent developments in relation to India’s new role. Thereafter I will argue that Sri Lanka’s legitimate interests can best be safeguarded by paying sufficient heed to the moral dimensions of the ethnic problem, instead of resorting to the kind of crude realpolitic that led to disaster in the past. I am postulating that moral power is now more important in international relations then ever before in the past.

The first development I want to point to is the unexpectedly poor showing of Jayantha Dhanapala in the race for the UN Secretary General’s post. For years he was fancied as the front-runner, but at the Security Council poll he ended up as the last of four candidates, with the South Korean being placed first, the Indian second, the Thai third, and the Sri Lankan last, even though he was possibly the best qualified.

Poor showing

This is not the first time that an eminently well qualified Sri Lankan has put up a poor showing in a contest for a prestigious international post. Part of the reason may be Sri Lanka’s poor international image, which seems to be much poorer than is warranted for reason that I cannot quite fathom. In this case, however, the Indian candidature seems to have been the decisive adverse factor. That candidature was announced at a very late stage, And quite unexpectedly because it is obviously incompatible with India’s aspiration to permanent membership of the Security Council. Understandably, it was surmised that the clandestine purpose was to sabotage Dhanapala‘s chances.

I am reminded of what happened at a time when our relations with India were at a nadir under the 1977 Government. It was thought that India was determined to sabotage all our chances for prestigious international posts and membership at executive levels in UN institutions. The intention, it was surmised, was to see that Sri Lanka was internationally regarded as a country of no account whatever in the affairs of the world. Much could be done against such a country, unlike say against Singapore, without provoking an international furore. Aggression against Sri Lanka could then be made to seem as really not much more than transgression, going beyond international norms and laws for understandable reasons. Having a Sri Lankan as UN Secretary General would not fit into that scheme.

The second relevant development was the visit of the State Department‘s Steve Mann as US special envoy. After the visit Mann returned directly to Washington, showing that the visit was exclusively to Sri Lanka and therefore had a special importance. Ostensibly the purpose of the visit was to call for an immediate cessation of the war particularly because its humanitarian fall-out was unacceptable. But that message was a commonplace one, hardly requiring the despatch of a special envoy. I suspect that the real purpose of the visit was to impress on the Government’s mind that there was a real danger of Indian intervention because of pressure from Tamil Nadu.

Air drop

I am reminded of what happened on the day of the air-drop in 1987. On that morning the then US Ambassador sought an immediate meeting with the then Foreign Minister to convey a very urgent message from his government. The message consisted of two parts, the first of which was that in turning away the Indian flotilla carrying food for the Jaffna residents the Government had missed an excellent opportunity of defusing a dangerous situation. The second part of the message was that in the course of that day the Indian Government would be doing something that would be very upsetting for Sri Lanka. The US plea was that the Sri Lanka Government should not over-react in any way as that would make the situation much more dangerous.

The first impression given by that message was that the CIA had got secret information about the forthcoming air-drop and was alerting us to possible dangers in a friendly way. Retrospectively it seemed to me that the US Government was really conveying a message from the Indian government. A direct warning from the Indian Government would have been unacceptable. A warning through a friendly intermediary was acceptable. I suspect that in this case also the US acted as a friendly intermediary.

The third relevant development was the attempted assassination of the outgoing Pakistan High Commissioner, clearly indicating that Pakistani involvement in our ethnic problem had gone much deeper than most members of our public had imagined. It appears that both the outgoing and the incoming Pakistan High Commissioners have been closely connected with the Defence and Security establishments of Pakistan.

Then came the startling article by B. Raman, the former head of India’s intelligence service, RAW. It is necessary to quote some details from that article to show why its contents were startling. Raman quoted supposedly reliable Tamil sources to claim that 12 to 15 members of the Pakistan armed forces were stationed in Colombo to guide the SL security forces in their counterinsurgency operations. He claimed further that Pakistan’s intelligence service had always coveted a strong presence in Sri Lanka for several reasons. It would provide a window on South India where many of India’s nuclear and space establishments are located, it could serve as a base to promote Jihad terrorism in South India, and it could act as a counter to India’s increasing presence in Afghanistan.

Members of the public like myself cannot say to what extent any of that might be true. But there has clearly been a shift in Pakistan’s policy towards Sri Lanka. Earlier the policy was to help Sri Lanka over its ethnic problems, if necessary rushing military aid in its hour of need as happened after the Elephant Pass debacle in 2000, without getting too directly involved. The evident reason for that restraint was that a deep involvement of Pakistan in the ethnic problem could cause problems with India, and should India choose to intervene military in Sri Lanka, Pakistan would not be in a position to counter that intervention. It was a policy that was encapsulated in a brief admonition of former president Zia-Ul Haq. According to an entirely reliable source, Zia used to advise us repeatedly against trying to solve the ethnic problem in opposition to India, and he used to add, “If you do, you will sink into a bottomless pit.” That policy of helping Sri Lanka without getting too directly or deeply involved has evidently changed.

Primordial duty

It is necessary to insist, before proceeding any further, on one point. It is that nothing, nothing whatever, should preclude Sri Lanka getting aid from Pakistan, or any other country of its choosing, in putting down an internal rebellion. The very raison d’etre of a State is that it holds a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence. Consequently the State has the right, or perhaps it might more appropriately be called a primordial duty, to put down a rebellion if necessary with the help of a friendly foreign power. This is not something that can possibly be denied us by India or any other member of the international community.

However, common sense dictates that in exercising rights and duties we should be mindful of possible consequences. We can learn from the developments that led to the horror of 1987. In 1979 the Soviet Union brought off a communist coup in Afghanistan, and later invaded that country. It became clear from archival material released after the collapse of the Soviet Union that it was motivated by genuine anxieties about the possible spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which was expected sooner or later to threaten the stability of the Soviet’s Central Asian Islamic republics. Soviet control of Afghanistan was thought off as a pre-emptive measure. But outside the pro-Soviet communist world it was seen as an expression of an expansionist drive.

However, India as the foremost non-communist ally of the Soviet Union backed its Afghanistan adventure, while Pakistan and the US opposed it. In that situation it should have been obvious that any South Asian country getting close to the US would be viewed by India as its actual or potential enemy. The then Sri Lankan Government exercised its sovereign right in getting closer and closer to the US, and had to face the consequences in 1987. Today it may make excellent sense to get closer to Pakistan, but we have to think about possible consequences.

There is a great deal more to be said about the Pakistan connection from a Muslim standpoint, of which I am intensely conscious as I am a Muslim. But all that would not be relevant to the purposes of this article. Here I am only concerned with the developments that are pushing India to play an overtly active role in the peace process.

II

Indira Gandhi: “A local newspaper article quoted Indira Gandhi as having stated that what matters in international relations are interests, not principles, apparently in connection with the 1971 intervention…”

I will now argue that Sri Lanka can best secure itself by paying sufficient heed to the moral dimensions of the ethnic problem. Sri Lanka’s military power is negligible compared to that of India, and no one is going to fight India on Sri Lanka’s behalf. SL’s economic power is also comparatively negligible. In this situation we really have no alternative to trying to use moral power as the weapon to secure our legitimate interests.

This makes sense because moral power counts today in international relations far more than ever before in human history. The reasons for this is that practically the entire world is going through a revolutionary process because of a mighty force, namely the mighty force of the aspirations of the peoples of the world to a better life. I will not go into details about this revolutionary process. Instead, I will point to just a few details to show the efficacy of moral power in the contemporary world.

The two super-powers of the last century had enough military power to blow up the entire globe several times over by using just a fraction of their nuclear arsenals. Yet the US could not impose its will on Vietnam, nor could the Soviet Union do so in Afghanistan. It is arguable, though not really convincingly, that each super-power was constrained by fear of a nuclear riposte by the other side. But the US as the sole super-power could not impose its will on Iraq after the Gulf War. Nor is it able to impose its will after its latest aggression against Iraq. In fact the US aggression has been strengthening the Shias……. in Iraq, so that the bizarre outcome is that the world’s sole super-power is serving as the auxiliary of its enemy, Iran.

A strange and unexpected development in recent years has been the emergence of Latin American governments that show contempt for the US and much sympathy for Castro‘s Cuba. Some years ago such contumacious behaviour in America’s imperial backyard would have been countered by the despatch of the US marines to install brutal right-wing dictatorships. The will to do so seems to have got seriously eroded. This unexpected development seems to coincide with a sudden and precipitous decline in the international reputation of the US. It tends to be viewed nowadays, rightly or wrongly, as the world‘s outstanding pariah power, together with its ugly racist underling, Israel.

We seem, in fact, to be witnessing the demise of the American empire, which was foreseen some years ago in a brilliant book by Emmanuel Todd, the French political scientist who acquired fame as a futurologist by accurately forecasting the demise of the Soviet Union. My point in referring to that book is to suggest that to expect the demise of the American empire is not just the expression of a visceral anti-Americanism. In any case, the moral to be drawn for the purposes of this article from the declining power of the US is clear enough. The US holds in its hands the highest concentration of military power in history. The moral power asserting itself in international relations is nullifying that military power. This is consistent with a strange image in a play by one of the great analysts of political power, Shakespeare, “Pity like naked new-born babe/ Strides the blast.”

What is immediately relevant to the present problem of Sri Lanka is the question whether India pays heed to moral power in its relations with its neighbours. It is of course a complex question that cannot be properly addressed in this article. I will therefore take the solitary case of the triumphant use of military power by India against a neighbour, namely the military intervention in East Pakistan in 1971.

Some weeks ago a local newspaper article quoted Indira Gandhi as having stated that what matters in international relations are interests, not principles, apparently in connection with the 1971 intervention. It would appear, then, that intervention was an exercise in realpolitic in which only the regional power interests of India counted and not at all the suffering and aspirations of the East Pakistanis. However, it may be possible to serve one‘s interests while at the same time paying heed to moral power, and that certainly applies to the way India broke up Pakistan.

First of all the Pakistan Government put itself in the wrong by nullifying the democratic election victory of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman because it could not accept the idea of the central power in Pakistan being exercised by a leader and party based in East Pakistan. General Yahya Khan took power and the rebellion that broke in East Pakistan was put down with increasing brutality over the ensuing months. The international community came to hold the view that the problem was one of internal colonialism, the East Pakistanis being the colonised. It was a wrong view, I believe, but it was held widely and solidly.

The interesting point is that India did not leap quickly at the opportunity of breaking up Pakistan. Instead it waited almost a year, during which time it made huge propaganda capital out of the difficulties caused for itself by the vast influx of refugees from East Pakistan. By the time India intervened, international opinion was solidly on the side of the rebels and India, a fact shown by the celerity with which the breakaway state of Bangladesh got international recognition. India secured its interests as a regional power, but only after paying full heed to the moral power manifest in the international community.

The reader might accept my argument that moral power counts in relations far more than ever before, and further that it did count when India broke up Pakistan. But it does not necessarily follow that it counts in India’s relations with Sri Lanka, a small and weak country generally regarded as militarily indefensible against India and of no great political importance for the rest of the world consequent to the decline in importance of naval power. Therefore India can act against Sri Lanka without any moral constraints whatever. According to fairly widespread Sri Lankan perceptions, that precisely is how India has been behaving towards Sri Lanka. I cannot in this article provide an alternative reading of Indo-SL relations. Instead I will make some observations on the developments leading up to the air-drop of 1987 to show that more was involved than realpolitik.

The underlying issue was that of using famine to end a rebellion The Indian Government’s position was that the Jaffna people had been reduced to eating just one meal a day, people were expected to start dying of hunger before long, and as soon as that happened there would be an uproar in Tamil Nadu and the Government in Delhi would be put in an extremely difficult position. India’s legitimate interests therefore required that the SL Government give up its alleged strategy, or the Indian Government would find itself compelled to take pre-emptive action.

The question that has to be asked is why the Sri Lankan Government was not regarded as having the right to put down a purely internal rebellion by any means of its choosing, including the use of famine. It has been regarded as legitimate in warfare right down the millennia. For instance, in the late ‘sixties the Biafran rebellion in Nigeria was put down by the threat of famine, without any adverse reactions from the international community whatever. In the case of Sri Lanka the Vadamarachchi operation, which could conceivably have led to a military solution, was abandoned because of objections from India, a flotilla was despatched by India, the air-drop took place, the IPKF came in, and the Peace Accords uniquely favourable to India were concluded. As President Jayewardene declared the rest of the International community had abandoned Sri Lanka.

It might seem at first sight that the difference between the two cases was that there was nothing comparable to the Indian factor on Nigeria’s border. The crucial difference therefore was the exercise of brutal realpolitik by India. However, a plausible case can be made out to show that a moral power was motivating India, not a brutal realpolitik, … by shifting the focus from India as a whole to Tamil Nadu. There is the inescapable fact of ethnic community across the Palk Straits. It means that what happens to the Tamils in Sri Lanka leads ineluctably to a fall-out among the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. In 1983 Tamil Nadu and the rest of the world saw the ethnic majority in Sri Lanka as having engaged in genocidal racism against the Tamil minority. An attempt to defeat the LTTE through famine would have been seen in the same terms in Tamil Nadu, and the resultant restiveness there could have become dangerous. It becomes arguable that India’s legitimate interests set up a moral responsibility requiring the Delhi Government to take pre-emptive action. That was certainly the reason why the international community as a whole showed an indulgent attitude towards India over that was done against Sri Lanka in 1987.

III

At the time there was clearly a conflict between two sets of legitimate interests, rights and duties. The Sri Lankan State clearly had the obligation to militarily defeat the LTTE rebellion if it was feasible, as otherwise it would not be fulfilling the first condition of a State which is to hold a monopoly of the means of violence, the violence at the disposal of the State alone being regarded as legitimate. On the other had the Indian State had the obligation, equally clearly, of countering any restiveness in an ethnic group that could lead to threats against the territorial integrity and political unity of India. If indeed there was such a conflict, the question that has to be asked is why the international community so distinctly favoured the Indian side in 1987.

I believe that the answer is that the Sri Lankan Government of the time had a very poor image in terms of internationally accepted standards of morality. This will become clear if we consider the reason for the contrasting international reactions to the use of famine as a strategy by the Nigerian and Sri Lankan Governments. Nigeria benefited from a decision of the Organisation of African Unity in the early sixties to regard the existing frontiers between black African states as sacrosanct, even though they were arbitrarily drawn for the convenience of the former colonial masters. Dismantling any of them might lead to the disintegration of the whole of black Africa, causing death and suffering on an epic scale Ending a separatist rebellion through famine was acceptable as a lesser horror.

Perhaps more important is the fact that the behaviour of the central Nigerian Government towards the Biafrans was not all that morally reprehensible. The discrimination did not seem to be of an intolerable order. It was more a problem of the Biafrans, who were educationally and in other ways more advanced than other Nigerian ethnic groups, believing that their further advance was retarded by their membership of a backward Nigeria. There was nothing like the genocidal racist fury witnessed in Sri Lanka in 1983. Furthermore, in striking contrast with Sri Lanka, the holders of power in the central Nigerian Government had always been willing to try out various mixes of federalism to accommodate the extraordinary ethnic mix of Nigeria.

In contrast, Sri Lankan governments were widely seen as having subjected the minorities to systematic discrimination over a long period. The 1977 Government, instead of taking the corrective action that had been expected, resorted to State terrorism which rose to a genocidal crescendo in 1983. that Government, like its predecssors and unlike the Nigerian ones, was allergic to federalism, and even to any significant measure of devolution. The 1981 District Development Councils elections were blatantly rigged, and thereafter those Councils were made inoperative. The Government lost its democratic legitimacy by its infamous Referendum of 1982, and became notorious for its arrogant abuse of power. I can attest from first-hand experience that its handling of foreign relations was appalling. That was among the major reasons why, as President Jayewardene himself acknowledged, Sri Lanka came to be abandoned by the entire international community in 1987, and he had no option but to turn to India. It was the result of the functioning of moral power in international relations.

The usual explanation for our isolation was that the world respected the military and economic power of India, which could for instance offer a huge market while Sri Lanka’s is a negligible one, and so on. Therefore, it was argued, India and its instrument against Sri Lanka, the LTTE, could get away with murder, domination and aggression being excused as no more than understandable transgression. The explanation, in other words, was in terms of realpolitik with no weight whatever being given to the factor of moral power.

That explanation becomes very questionable when we look at the changing international image of the LTTE. It was once very positive, but it has been transmogrifying into a negative one while the images of successive Sri Lankan Governments were improving. Why? One reason is that successive Sri Lankan Governments have been for more in earnest about a peaceful solution than the LTTE. The peace processes initiated by Premadasa and Kumaratunge were unilaterally broken by the LTTE, and Ranil Wickremasinghe who bent over backward to be accommodative to the LTTE, was rewarded with a hard emasculating kick on the groin. It has been become more and more evident that the primary reason why there has been no significant movement towards a peaceful solution is that the LTTE wants Eelam or at the least a confederacy, which would be Eelam in all but name.

Other factors working against the LTTE are its abortion of democracy in the North, while it has been entrenched in the south, its policy of assassinating anyone who might be useful in promoting a peaceful solution. It is not necessary to draw up a full charge-sheet against the LTTE. The reactions of the international community speak loud and clear. More and more countries are banning the LTTE, and in recent weeks its members are being interrogated and even jailed in the US, Canada, and Australia, which would have been barely conceivable some time ago. It is clearly seen less and less as a liberation organisation and more and more as a terrorist one. The reason for this transmogrification surely has nothing to do with the deployment of military or economic power. It has everything to do with moral power.

I will now conclude with a few brief observations on a subject that really require in-depth treatment, namely the relation of moral power to the present phase of the ethnic problem. One aspect of the new phase is that there are so many visits to Delhi by crucially important Sri Lankan personages that the impression is given that the centre of gravity of our politics has shifted to Delhi. It is not surprising that Anura Bandaranaike asked India to stop interfering in our internal affairs. The other aspect is of course the war.

Sri Lanka’s international image is today comparatively far better than it was at the nadir of 1987, but it is still unsatisfactory. However, the LTTE’s image has become much worse, so that on balance we should be far less vulnerable to India. Unfortunately there has been serious retrogression on the ethnic problem under the present Government. Its position makes it practically impossible to reach a peaceful solution. The consequences of this fact can again make us dangerously vulnerable to India.

A plus point for the Government is that the responsibility for the war certainly lies with the LTTE, and not the Government. The former has been endlessly provocative since the Presidential election, because it has wanted a war to militarily establish the case for Eelam. The Government‘s refusal to fight could have come to be interpreted as meaning that the Government was conceding the case for Eelam by default. Another plus point is the splendid performance of the armed forces up to now. However, the probable outcome of further fighting will be a stalemate. The LTTE will not be able to militarily establish the case for Eelam, while the Government will not be able to militarily defeat the rebellion in a definitive way.

That statement will clearly dictate a power-sharing arrangement, that is a solution on the basis of federalism. But the government is allergic to federalism and insists on a unitary constitution. I will not here go into the reasons why the Government’s position is an untenable one. I am concerned with a fact, the fact that the Co-Chairs and the international community clearly believe that there is no danger that federalism will lead to a breakup, and that it provides the best option for a peaceful solution. That is why they got the two sides to agree to explore the possibility of a federal solution. If the Government’s position does not lead to a peaceful or a military solution, its behaviour will be seen as thoroughly immoral as it will lead to the holding back of economic development and more death and suffering for the people, while the holders of power thoroughly enjoy themselves on the benefits of whatever economic development that there might be.

The Government can also be morally vulnerable if there is a failure to establish a southern consensus. If the two major parties cannot come together to end a destructive, and self-desructive, civil war it means that the requisite degree of cohesion is not there to build a worthwhile nation-state in Sri Lanka. The defining characteristic of the nation-state is a sense of unity far greater than has been possible under any other state system, which is why it has proved to be so dynamic a phenomenon over the last two centuries. If the majority ethnic group itself is so hopelessly divided, the international community can come to believe that there simply is no basis for a united multi-ethnic state in Sri Lanka. It might as well break up in that case.

Finally, there is the humanitarian aspect. There have been steep increases in the number of extra-judicial killings and disappearances, and for too many cases in which fingers are pointed plausibly at the Government. I will not go into details as they have been much publicised in the media. In such cases it is counter-productive for the Government to resort to arguments that cannot be taken seriously even at the school debating society level. Also counter-productive is the appointment of so-called independent investigatory commodities. The President must take quick action to stop the killings and disappearances because they more than any thing else can cause moral outrage in the international community, and obviously be used to stir up feelings in Tamil Nadu that can catalyse dangerous developments.

According to the Sunday Leader of September 10 the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies has reported that there is so severe a food shortage in Jaffna that people can die of starvation unless the situation is corrected with in the next two weeks. Memories are stirred, and I feel uneasy. So must many other Sri Lankans. [island.lk]

By Easwaran Rutnam in Serunuwera

In the midst of violence and terror, the innocent had only one cry; water. “All we ask for is water. Please give us water. We don’t want anything else. Our children are suffering and so are we. Please help us.” These are the cries of Serunuwera and its surrounding villages who were denied water for more that two weeks following the forceful closure of the Mawilaru sluice gates by the LTTE.

The LTTE in Trincomalee has refused to open the Mawilaru sluice gates citing a water crisis of its own by claiming that villages in rebel controlled areas of Echalampattu have been deprived of a water tank since 2002.

The closure has now led to what the government calls a “humanitarian operation” by the military to force open the anicut in an unprecedented offensive code named ‘operation watershed.’

But while both the government and the LTTE continue to fight over the rights of “their people” to decide who should be the first to get ‘water’, the people themselves are continuing to suffer with no respite in site.

In government controlled Serunuwera and some 15 other villages including Muslim and Tamil dominated areas in Muttur and Thopur more than 60,000 people and 30,000 acres of paddy is without water owing to the closure of the Mawilaru anicut.

Interestingly the immediate areas surrounding the anicut was initially under government control during the war but was termed as ‘uncleared areas’ just prior to the signing of the cease fire agreement.

To put it in the words of the chief prelate of the Serunuwera Raja Maha Vihara that move led to the “head of the anicut to remain in LTTE controlled areas and the body to flow into government controlled areas. The LTTE has now shot on the head. So, obviously the body is dying,” the Ven Saranakeerthi thera told the Daily Mirror. He said the government was solely responsible for the current water crisis.

The timing of the closure of the anicut by the LTTE two weeks ago hurt the farming community of Serunuwera as it came just as they were preparing to harvest their crop which is the main source of their income.

“We are farmers and the closure of the anicut is really hurting us. Our crops have all run dry and with no paddy to sell we might as well leave our villages and go somewhere else or die,” K.G. Navachandra said.

The paddy in most parts had visibly turned yellow, a sign that it was drying up with no water while in some areas the paddy had already turned brown with the scorching heat and lack of rain adding to the woes of the farmers.

An angry Mr. Navachandra said that if the Mawlirau anicut crisis was not resolved soon the Serunuwera people might even consider coming to Colombo to occupy state owned land until relief is provided.

“People in Colombo are living happily while we are suffering. We might have to come to Colombo and build our homes there if nothing is done very soon,” he said adding that the action by the LTTE had led to the suffering of Tamil farmers in government areas as well, the very people the rebels claim to represent.

The Serunuwera people not only depend on the water that runs through the anicut for their paddy but they also use it for drinking and bathing purposes as there is no other source of water supply for the area.

Villagers were seen last week bathing in the puddles of water remaining in the drying up canals while the same water was also being used for drinking purposes raising the threat of a serious health crisis.

Several village schools have been temporarily closed as there was no drinking water for the children and some already have developed rashes on their skins as a result of bathing and drinking contaminated water.

The Kallaru army camp which is also dependent on the water from Mawillaru is now as a temporary measure drawing water directly from the Mahawelli River to ensure the throats of the soldiers and home guards do not run dry.

The government has also taken measures to supply water to the villagers from bowsers but the supply is still inadequate to meet the needs of more than 60, 000 people whose patience had almost ran out last week.

In an attempt to take matters into their own hands the villagers led by Buddhist monks staged a protest in Serunuwera and later attempted to march their way into rebel controlled Mawilaru to force open the anicut.

However following the advice of the military the villagers decided to rethink their decision which if continued would have been disastrous with the surroundings of the anicut said to be heavily mined.

Alainair Mohomad from Thopur said some people were now hiring out water pumps to draw water from drying out wells and canals to feed at least parts of their paddy hoping that it will help fill their stomachs for at least a few more days.

The venerable Serunuwera Saranakeerthi thera, the chief priest of the Serunuwera Rajamaha Vihara Temple, said the move by the LTTE to close the anicut is the worst ceasefire violation since the agreement was signed in 2002.

The thera himself staged a hunger strike in protest of the closure of the anicut but later decided to call it off as it was only adding to the troubles faced by the Serunuwera people.

He was of the view that the whole crisis could have been resolved much earlier if the government had acted as soon as the anicut was closed and avoided the military action as the LTTE had initially shown signs of re-opening the sluice gates.

For the moment though the people of Serunuwera are in despair hoping and praying the water crisis will come to an end very soon as every minute that passes by, is further aggravating their suffering. [Courtesy: Daily Mirror]

*The LTTE must also show a desire to return to the table.
*This fear, that if one side wins the other loses, must be addressed.
*It’s possible for us to reach a consensus, where everybody’s rights are protected.
*It’s not enough to hear the official stances of political parties or, the SLMM and the international community.

Bishop of Colombo, Rev Duleep De Chickera was, earlier this week, in Jaffna, to look into the affected communities in the peninsula and the islands. He expresses his concerns for the people and the need for greater accountability and for the Government and the LTTE to move back to the negotiating table.

Q: You were in Jaffna three days back and visited the affected Kayts islands, where 12 civilians were killed. What are your concerns?

A: I am very concerned. Any killing or massacre of people must be condemned, must concern religious leaders. These situations add to the fear. There is a great deal of panic right now. The surviving members of the families live in fear because the intention of the killing is still very vague. In addition to that, the whole village has received an order that they should vacate the village. There is now, a fairly large-scale mobility of the people out of the island. Some of them have been housed on the peninsula and others are trying to make it through into the Wanni. This is really adding to the fear and intimidation and making the ground situation so much more complex. It’s a very, very worrying development. The impact of the massacre on the immediate members of the family and what it is doing to the life of these very poor and powerless community, is very sad.

Q: Are you satisfied with what is being done by the Government in this regard. They have promised an investigation into it.

A: I don’t know the details of the investigation. I only know that an investigation is being conducted. My only request is that it is done swiftly and be as impartial as possible. Those giving evidence are protected and the perpetrators brought to justice.

Q: You spoke of the need to protect those giving evidence. Is there fear among the people against giving evidence?

A: I am assuming that surviving members of the family, where there was indiscriminate killing of its members, obviously live in fear and there are anticipatory repercussions, if their evidence leads to the arrests of the perpetrators.

Q: How affected are the normal lives of the people in Jaffna itself?

A: Up to the time that I was there, the schools and offices were not functioning. Banks were only open for one hour. Transport was at a standstill. There were very few people on the streets and by early afternoon the streets were deserted. When I left on Monday, the A/L students were being permitted to sit the exam that started that day. I think it was a ‘hartal’ that was being called.

Q: Were their immediate needs such as consumer goods, being met?

A: I didn’t get the feeling that there was a shortage of food. However, people did speak of an inability to get petrol or diesel and I did see long queues for kerosene though.

Q: There are concerns of a serious human rights situation breaking out?

A: The individual cases have to be investigated and that is a process. What one notices is the fear and a sense of intimidation and of whom can be trusted. The fear to speak and take independent decisions and judgments, in itself can be a violation of a human rights situation. But beyond that, where a particular families’ or groups rights are violated, we must have a mechanism to investigate them.

Q: There have also been concerns regarding extra-judicial killings?

A: Yes, these are very worrying and the only way the Government can clear the forces is, if a speedy investigation is carried out and the findings made public. Till then, the finger can be pointed but I guess a person is innocent till proven guilty. That principle of law must be made available. Certainly, there have been indications that the security forces may have been involved in some of these killings. It helps, both the morale of the forces and the credibility of the Government, if the investigations are carried out quickly and the perpetrators brought to justice.

Q: How well would you say the Government was meeting the situation of the displaced that has built up in the North and the East?

A: I know that the GA and the AGA showed a lot of interest on this situation. They had made provisions for the displaced and they were coordinating even the movement of people from the island to the mainland. To that extent, the Government was fulfilling its obligations. But there is a point at which the people would like to exercise their freedom and might opt not to stay in a camp for the displaced. That seems to be a situation that even the Government cannot control.

Q: How do attacks at INGOs such as this week’s, affect this whole process, in your opinion?

A: That must be condemned by all peace loving people. I know some of the people in this organization and they do admirable work. They courageously stand for victims of violence and those vulnerable in threatening situations. The authorities must do everything to clear certain assumptions about who did it. The groups who are working for peace are seen as a threat by those with a different agenda.

Q: What are the prospects for peace in this backdrop? Do you see the talks starting again?

A: My hope is the real aspiration of the people of a wide cross section of the country. The ones who suffer directly and indirectly, all cherish this hope for a sustainable peace. And when a crisis becomes worse, the longing for peace becomes even more. But that longing is not enough. Different sections of society have a role to play. I think it is the responsibility of the government forces to view all Sri Lankans as their responsibility. I have often suggested a people-friendly approach towards security, where neither can or should, suffer. This doesn’t mean you relax or reduce security measures. The Government has a responsibility to keep pushing towards a return to the table. I think the time has come to address the core issues.

The fighting, the killing and the suspicion goes on at the ground level, but the Government must now say that it is ready to address devolution. At least state it in principle. The degree of devolution is something that the different sides will need a little time to work. The Government might want a Select Committee to deal with the degree of devolution it is prepared to and the LTTE must also be given the opportunity to think in terms of what kind of devolution they’ll be ready for. The LTTE must also show a desire to return to the table. Sometimes, trivialities get in the way. And both sets of leaders must rise above them.

Similarly, civil society has a role to play. We need a process of coordination that brings the good deeds of these groups together. Without pressure from the people, even leaders are helpless. Leaders take their cues from the people. This fear, that if one side wins, the other loses, must be addressed. I think it’s possible for us to reach a consensus, where everybody’s rights are protected, if handled professionally. It’s head and heart and a lot of courage and humility, that can make the difference.

Q: Do you see those qualities in President Rajapaksa, to address this issue?

A: I think every leader struggles with this. And I have confidence that if the people are able to express their views, the leadership will pick it up.

Q: You met the President yesterday, how did the discussions progress?

A: It was very rewarding. We discussed a number of important national issues. I hope the peace process will benefit.

Q: There are criticisms against certain elements within his government, for pushing him away from peace. How do you view this situation?

A: A lot of it comes out of historical prejudices and this has to be addressed. Why is it that some groups are considered extreme or, behave in an extreme way? That has to be addressed. There is a saying that the truth lies at the extreme which is still applicable. It’s in listening to the extremes and responding to their fears that I think is the way forward. You don’t have to ignore the people at the extremes. A peace process of a country must draw all groups of the country. If you isolate or ignore any groups, you are in trouble. The responsibility of leadership understands the timing for bringing these groups in. Parallel dialog is absolutely essential. The Muslims feel their issues are ignored. I am also very concerned about the independent Tamil voices. Either, they are being suppressed or, given the connotation of being pro LTTE or, informants of the government. That’s not the real picture. Our leaders must find a way of hearing them. It’s not enough to hear the official stances of political parties or, the SLMM and the international community.

Q: So, has this voice completely died down?

A: There was a time it was there but the culture of fear and intimidation is gradually suppressing that. We need to find a way to bring it back.

Q: There are criticisms against the CFA. How do you view these?

A: By and large, it brought a cessation of hostilities and for that we must be grateful. That is the pre-requisite for discussions. I believe, that, while there are hostilities, discussions can run parallel. That is the case today. So, we need not wait for an immediate cessation of killings, which we long for, we need not wait for that to stop, to begin the next round of talks. In fact, the next round of talks can have repercussions on the hostilities at ground level.

Q: How do you see the fears of a return to war?

A: Different segments of society have to read and understand what is happening. They have to be careful about stereotyping people and be mindful of the need in people for a sustainable peace. They are likely to define it differently but recognizing it is important. [Source: DailyMirror]

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi received Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse’s Special Envoy Arumugam Thondaman in Chennai on Thursday.

The Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) chief called on the veteran Indian Tamil leader and personally conveyed to him President Rajapakse’s felicitations on becoming the southern Indian state’s chief minister for the fifth time early this month.

Earlier, on the day the 83-year-old Karunanidhi was sworn in, Sri Lanka’s Deputy High Commissioner in Chennai Sumith Nakandala had delivered to him a special message of congratulations from the President.

Thondaman, who has known Karunanidhi for many years, had a one-to-one meeting with him. “Their meeting was positive. They had a cordial discussion on the current situation in Sri Lanka,” Sri Lankan High Commissioner to India Romesh Jayasinghe told The Island today.

Jayasinghe and Nakandala met Karunanidhi alongwith Thodaman after the one-to-one meeting. Earlier, they met Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary LK Tripathi separately and informed him about the Sri Lankan government’s just-taken decision to open two relief centers—one each in Trincomalee and Mannar districts—to provide assistance to Tamil families in distress.

Together with Tripathi, the diplomats briefed Karunanidhi about the Sri Lankan government’s efforts to provide help and physical security to affected Tamil families in a bid to discourage them from seeking refuge in Tamil Nadu.

Most of the nearly two thousand Sri Lankan Tamils who fled to neighbouring Tamil Nadu since January this year in the wake of violence are mostly from these two districts.

The Government Agents (GAs) of the two districts will run these relief centers with assistance from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). They are due to become operational any day now.

The CWC leader flew back to Colombo on Thursday night.

Incidentally, Karunanidhi’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and three other parties that are his allies in Tamil Nadu support Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government at the centre. Dr Singh respects him as a senior ally. As such, Karunanidhi wields considerable influence over the prime minister.

Political analysts here have welcomed President Rajapakse’s initiative and efforts to keep cordial relations with Karunanidhi. Dr Singh will naturally take Karunanidhi’s opinions into consideration on India’s policies towards Sri Lanka. [Source: Island]

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission will suspend all activity relating to naval monitoring with effect from May 14 th 2006 until further notice, it was announced yesterday.

SLMM chief Ulf Henricsson as well as its acting spokesperson Robert Nilffom told different sections of the media that naval monitoring had ceased and that it was only a temporary feature.

“Sea monitoring activities have temporary been stopped,”reported a website quoting Henricsson.The SLMM Chief, however, said suspension is temporary.

“We are adjusting ourselves and hope to come up with new safety regulations and some solutions hopefully by next week,” he said.

Nilffom told a newspaper that ” they were in the process of assessing the situation, particularly the risks involved and counter measures.” He emphasized that this would be temporary.

Consequent to this decision the Sri Lanka Navy’s Northern command was informed by the Jaffna based SLMM that it could not provide naval escort to the personnel carrier ship ” MV Pearl Cruise II” on its return to Trincomalee.

The navy had contacted the SLMM to finalise travel arrangements for the vessel to start out from Kankesanthurai with Scandinavian monitors aboard on its return journey to Trincomalee when they were informed of changed circumstances.

The ship with 710 security personnnel and one SLMM monitor on board was attacked by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on May 11th off the Vadamaratchy East coast in Jaffna peninsula. The ship after escaping to Indian waters had returned to KKS in the early hours of May 12th.

The SLMM decision to suspend sea monitoring was taken as a result of the earlier LTTE attack. The primary consideration it is learnt was the safety of SLMM members accompanying Sri Lankan naval ships.

The lives of two naval monitors were endangered due to the attack . One was Ilkka Haplina , head of the Trncomalee SLMM division who was on the “Pearl Cruise II”. The other was Lars Bleymann , deputy head of the SLMM Jaffna division who was on the “P 421″ Dvora fast attack craft providing security to the troop carrier.

Both vessels were flying the SLMM flag in addition to the Lankan flag to indicate that truce monitors were aboard. The SLMM was deeply troubled when the attack endangering the lives of monitors began.

Ms Helen Olafsdottir, spokesperson of the monitoring mission told media that they (SLMM) contacted the Kilinochchi-based LTTE leadership immediately after the Sea Tigers triggered the clash off the Mullaitivu coast.

“We urged them to cease the offensive and reminded them of the presence of Nordic naval monitors on board two vessels,” she said. “They asked us to get them out.”

Apart from the monitors’ safety the suspension of naval monitoring would also provide a respite for the SLMM to finalise certain decisions regarding the future.

Chief among them is the “problem” caused by the LTTE stance on naval monitoring. LTTE political commissar Suppiah Paramu Thamilselvan in a meeting with SLMM chief Ulf Henricsson on May 12th at Kilinochchi was critical of the monitors over this issue.

The LTTE objected strongly to the SLMM position that the tigers had no rights to the sea and urged the monitors to revise this stance. The SLMM chief was asked to provide the basis on which this decision was made. The tigers also said that they would be travelling in the waters adjacent to the lands under their control regardless of any position taken by the SLMM.

Thamilselvan also charged that the SLMM was adopting double standards. “While SLMM monitors were accompanying the navy on naval vessels they were not doing so with LTTE sea tiger vessels” he said. “If the SLMM was not prepared to get aboard tiger boats then they should not get aboard navy ships too” Thamilselvan pointed out.

He said that the navy ships had been allowed to go “free” on Msy 11th only because monitors were on them. Thamilselvan said that the navy was using the SLMM as human shields while travelling in North - Eastern seas.Leniency on this count would not be shown next time he warned.

The tiger political chief had written three letters earlier to the SLMM demanding that monitors should not accompany the navy aboard naval vessels. Urging that the SLMM abide by this demand in the future Thamilselvan said this was the “final warning” on the issue.

The SLMM chief told Thamilselvan that he would get back to him after discussing with Norwegian facilitators and representatives of the SLMM. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are the five member nations of the SLMM.

It is learnt that all member countries of the SLMM are worried about the safety of their nationals in the aftermath of the “pearl Cruise” incident. Two of them in particular were mooting a full withdrawal from the SLMM but have now agreed to abide by decisions to be finalised in due course.

It is learnt that consultations between the monitors and facilitators will be held in Colombo and Oslo about the SLMM’s future course. A set of regulations are to be formulated on the question of naval monitoring. These new rules and procedures will be submitted to the Government of Sri Lanka as well as the tigers for approval and commitment to adhere to them.

If such consent is not forthcoming naval monitoring will remain suspended while the SLMM reviews the whole question of monitoring.

Meanwhile the SLMM has indicated to sections of the media that they are notin agreement with the LTTE position on naval monitoring and related issues. The “diplomatic silence” by Henricsson in the meeting with Thamilselvan cannot be construed as “acceptance” of the LTTE viewpoint said diplomatic sources.

The SLMM also stands by its stern condemnation of the LTTE for the sea attack and holds the tigers responsible pointed out these sources. [transCurrents.com]

Related:

- SLMM Chief on urgent trip to meet LTTE in Kilinochchi

- SLMM Chief Henricsson gets “earful” from Thamilselvan

- Indian help sought to escort ‘Pearl Cruiser’ safely to KKS

Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com

By M.S.Shah Jahan

War is like a fire- if you do not put it out , it will burn itself out “ – The Art of War.

While Mr. Geneva II is slipped into the Bay of Geneva from the boat ‘S.L.Northeast’, here the much talked about or criticized Hon. CFA, the Minister in charge of enforcing peace in the country, is admitted into the intensive care unit of ill- equipped Kilinochchi Hospital. Not surgery, but God only could save him. We pray.

The ‘New Reds’ and the ‘Holy Men’ say, his abrogation is the mandate MR received on the 17th November 2005. But the ruling alliance says it is not the mandate they received on the 30th March 2006. What is a mandate ? A mandate is an authorization given to act to a representative of the people.

Well, an election is fought on various core issues and all the parties give limitless promises, especially on the cost of living. Even bread at Rs.3.50 was jarring on the ears of some but nothing happened. Fortunately this is not Calcutta. Otherwise all the ladies would have come onto the middle of the road to ‘ghero’ the traffic.

Can you remember, the political party that promised to bring rice from the moon, but ultimately it only gave policemen the additional job of arresting the people for eating rice on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If bread and rice were covered by a mandate,wasn’t the failure to do so, against the ‘mandate’ ? What punishment should have been meted out ?

Electoral victories can never be taken as affirmatives for a single cause. Therefore there is no validity in the argument that the ‘Chinthanaya’ is for war. Further, the Chinthanaya never said that it would increase the price of consumer goods. So why do the prices go up ? But what else can you do when the petrol price goes above $70 a barrel ? From whose father’s house you can bring money to run the country ? His party has no experience in robbing with masked faces banks at gun point .

But, what is a plebiscite? A plebiscite is a vote by which the people of an entire country express an opinion for or against - an yes or no, on a single issue or proposal. For example,‘ Should we ban the consumption of liquor ?. ‘Can the life of parliament be extended without an election?’ People could decide in whichever way they want to. You can call it the will of people, and it should be executed. Unfortunately today the character of a plebiscite is wrongly used for a mandate. It is like the difference between a pony and a horse.

Besides, Norway is not a decision- making field umpire, not even a third umpire, but a marriage broker whose task is to tie two together in nuptials. Therefore, the middle man has to do many gimmicksto turn around one party with opposite views . But a section of our people want Norway to be divorced for excessive or illicit courtship with the Tigers. At an angle the accusation would look right, but the argument is wrong. Who wants peace, the government or militants? When a sinner enters a church, naturally he draws attention.

After dismissing this broker, what are we to do? Do we have any other or, are there any other suitors for our girl? No, no one is there in sight. She is not only the most beautiful in town, but also she is frequently accused of insincerity. It is not one country Norway that we deal with, but also a team of donors who stands behind invincibly. We have an unpalatable situation with them too, but must bear it, because if there is no Norway, then there is no way for us for peace.

Analysts feel it is the spoils of Geneva I that caused the present impasse. First and foremost, agreeing to the mission impossible of disarming paramilitaries has turned out to be Lanka’s Waterloo. Legal interpretations and counter interpretations, have drifted the two parties instead of bringing them closer.

Big people should be magnanimous in words and deeds, not petty in attitudes and comments, to say like, ‘only one speaks English’, ‘he is of a lower caste,that of cutting and dressing hair and shaving and trimming beards’. Had they happened to deal with Losif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili , would they have remarked that his father was a cobbler and mother did laundry and house cleaning for Jews? He being a mighty Soviet leader, would have reacted in a different way. Napoleon was not a born French but he became the first French Emperor. His one time commanders also happened to serve under his orders. It is one’s present position that is counted.

The North at one time, produced the largest number of English educated people. That is why they could serve beyond Sri Lanka in various capacities. Eminent professionals who shine today in the ‘New World’ and ‘Down Under’ should think, whether they could have reached such heights if they had been taught in their mother tongue? Who took away English ? Why ? Because the Tamils were more proficient than the rest, in the Queen’s language.

Peace today looks illusive even though Norway is in the middle.

The way the situation is deteriorating in the Northeast makes people think that war is at their door .If our leaders decide that a military solution, not a tiger hunt, is the only answer to this problem, let us go ahead for a war with the LTTE within a time frame of two years or so. Because it would mean an end to the suffering of Tamil, Sinhala and Muslim people, within our period, rather than passing it to the next generation. But war and love are easy to start, hard to stop. The world has seen wars, not at the drop of a hat, but as the last resort after every thing else failed.

A war brings untold misery. A country in war will have to make a number of sacrifices. What kind of sacrifices will the people of this country undertake, as they have no war experience ?. The price of consumer goods will go up. The energy cost will escalate further and reach $100 a barrel before 2010, once Condoleezza Rice gets into the ring in Tehran to wrestle with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The treasury will be crunched and everything will be rationed except sunlight and air. Some workers will lose their jobs, others will will have salary cuts and also worklonger hours. Will they do it? Will the Comrades be able to convince the brigade?

Let me put a straight question to you. While China has only five days off, Sri Lanka tops the world with the highest number of holidays. What right or eligibility, has a Third World country like ours, to have a 5 day week ? In 1972 the price of crude oil was about $3.00 per barrel at Rs.10 a US$ but by the end of 1974 the price of oil had quadrupled to over $12.00.The Saturday half working day was scrapped by Madam Sirimao’s government to cushion the blow of ‘Oil Shoku’. Today the oil price is 6 times more. We did not give 6 more half day holidays but went on swimming against the tide with the sharks, and survived.

Recently in Japan when the government wanted to scrap Saturday as a working day, the labour unions refused to accept the holiday. Here should not we give up this Saturday off and work more days of the week ? How many of us are prepared to campaign for Saturday work without extra stipend ? Does shouting before Hilton Hotel only express one’s patriotism ? May I, through this column, ask the President to declare Saturday a full working day ?.

Further who is going to fight the war, the poor lads from villages ? What contribution will the people who opt for war offer?. How many recruits can they provide from their sources ? What war service will these leaders perform?

When Lalith Athulathmudali called for one we could see youngsters standing for a mile on the Galle Face Centre Road. Is not the situation different now ?

How about the affluent guys living or studying in the West ?

More than everything, else why can’t the groups clamouring for war introduce immediately a legislation for compulsory national service for a year or so for youths of 18 years old ? Which leader will offer his children first?

Besides, the provincial councils were created to give greater power to the Northeast only. When they do not have them, can one ask in what way are the PCs necessary for the others? Is not it too much of polity and waste of public funds?

Finally, like the Iranian Ambassador Gholamreza Ansari was quoted by Russian news agencies “One way to avert war is to be prepared for any war,” Let us too prepare for war, and avert war, as common people of the South and Northeast detest war, but love peace. [Source: Daily Mirror]