|
|
|
|
Broadest ever consensus on devolution
[Monday,
March 19, 2007 - 4.45GMT]
What is most important to note is that any consensus the All Party
Representative Committee (APRC) eventually reaches would possibly
be the broadest ever reached in the Sri Lanka's history of power
sharing, said
Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama addressing the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS), Washington on March 16, 07.
He was addressing the CSIS on "Moving Sri Lanka's Peace Process Forward;
Sri Lanka Government Policy and the role of the International
Community".
The Foreign Minister added that presenting of the proposals for
devolution by the APRC will effectively debunk theories expressed in
some quarters that
the Sri Lankan Government was seeking a military solution to the
conflict in Sri Lanka. It reconfirms the government's firm belief, that
the conflict in Sri Lanka cannot be solved through military means, and
that while the security forces must not shy away when the basic needs of
the people are interrupted or the territorial integrity of the country
is threatened, it is the responsibility of a representative government
to meet such challenges.
Minister Bogollagama said it was unfortunate that up to now the
misguided faith of both some Sri Lankan political leaders as well as
sections of the international community, of the transformational
capacity of the LTTE, has cost Sri Lanka dearly not only in loss of
assets and lives of civilians, but also at least two generations of
Tamil politicians and academics.
Here the text of the Foreign Minister's address to the CSIS.
I consider it particularly fitting that today we are engaging in this
dialogue as to how Sri Lanka's peace process could be moved forward and
how the international community could help to achieve that objective.
For, we are on the threshold of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP),
which constitutes the major partner of the ruling coalition, presenting
the government's proposals aimed at granting maximum devolution of
power, while maintaining the unity of Sri Lanka. These proposals will be
placed before the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), which has
been the vehicle through which Sri Lanka, under the leadership of
President Mahinda Rajapaksa, has sought to move the peace process
forward. This Committee
consists of representatives of the political parties represented in
parliament, including the main opposition United National Party, and a
number of Tamil and Muslim parties.
Over the past 13 months the APRC has gone through a painstaking process
with the aim of evolving a 'southern consensus' to devolve power. As a
result, very soon, after considering the views of all stakeholders, Sri
Lanka will place before the people a comprehensive political proposal,
for their approval. What is most important to note is that any consensus
the APRC eventually reaches would possibly be the broadest ever reached
in the Sri Lanka's history of power sharing.
Reflection of government commitment
The presentation of these proposals will effectively debunk theories
expressed in some quarters that the Sri Lankan Government was seeking a
military solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka. It reconfirms the
government's firm belief, that the conflict in Sri Lanka cannot be
solved through military means, and that while the security forces must
not shy away when the basic needs of the people are interrupted or the
territorial
integrity of the country is threatened, it is the responsibility of a
representative government to meet such challenges.
It is in similar vein that the current administration in Sri Lanka has
sought to overcome the temporary hardships being caused to sections of
the population currently displaced from those areas liberated from the
LTTE. The
Government has been careful to ensure that civilians would not get
caught in the cross fire. This was evident in its recent operation to
liberate Vaharai, where approximately 34, 000 civilians voted with their
feet, by
moving to the areas controlled by Sri Lankan forces, before the LTTE
were dislodged from Vaharai.
Together with the international community, through the Consultative
Committee on Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA), the government is making
every effort to restore normalcy in the conflict affected areas in the
shortest possible time frame. Ironically, it is apparent that redressing
the needs of the civilians in these areas has become a problem to the
LTTE, which as most
of you know well, led to their decision to target a group of Western
Ambassadors accredited to Sri Lanka, including the US Ambassador, who
were visiting Batticaloa on a humanitarian mission, as partners of the
CCHA process. In fact, the main purpose of that visit was to assess the
humanitarian relief requirements in Vaharai, in the Eastern Province,
which followed a successful similar needs assessment undertaken by the
CCHA in the Jaffna Peninsula.
In a meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the UN
Headquarters in New York earlier this week, I called on the
international community including the UN, to join in complementing the
Sri Lanka Government's
efforts in uplifting the economic standards of the people of the Eastern
Province. As I noted, the re-development of the Eastern province could
serve
as a model for post-conflict peace building and development.
In addition to ensuring that humanitarian assistance is provided to the
civilians, who have been displaced, the government has also taken
concrete measures to address concerns of alleged human rights
violations, showing its firm commitment to address human rights issues
as a parallel process.
The Commission of Inquiry constituted by President Rajapaksa to
investigate into alleged human rights violations and the eleven member
International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) appointed to
observe the functions of this Commission of Inquiry, which held its
first meeting in Colombo last month, are reflective of this commitment.
The appointment of the IIGEP is a unique arrangement by a country faced
with alleged violations of human rights and the Government has taken
this bold initiative, because it has nothing to hide and it is firmly
committed to ensure that such violations should not go unpunished. I
would like to emphasise that while it is making all efforts to address
concerns of alleged
human rights violations, the government will take preventive measures
and will remain responsible and accountable.
Pre-requisites
In moving towards a negotiated political settlement to the conflict, the
government's approach is guided by four broad principles. First, the
proposals are firmly rooted in democracy, justice, and equality. Second,
they are also responsive to the constitutional realities that any
democracy must respect, and therefore is framed in a manner that could
meet possible legal challenges that could arise. Third, they seek to
empower people, uphold pluralism and recognize the fact that there are
many voices within the Tamil community that are rational, devoid of
parochial interest and vested agendas. Fourth, above all, in contrast
with previous constitutional processes aimed at solving the conflict,
whatever consensus reached would not be intended to appease the LTTE or
to treat symptoms of a malaise, but to get at the root of the disease.
This is a healthy development, because we are well aware that the
history of political negotiations with the LTTE is replete with bitter
memories. I have personally experienced this having participated in the
last two rounds of negotiations with the LTTE in February and October
2006. The LTTE stands guilty of having single-handedly wrecked five
attempts of peace negotiations
in 1985, 1987, 1989/90, 1994/95 and in 2002/03. One could reasonably
come to the conclusion that the organisation has neither the will nor
the capacity
to negotiate a political settlement to the conflict and merely engages
in political rhetoric as a means of achieving their objectives of a
separate mono-ethnic state by resorting to force of arms.
Why should we expect to succeed this time?
Given the history of Sri Lanka's conflict resolution, the question could
be asked why the current exercise in constitution crafting is likely to
succeed this time, when so many similar previous exercises failed. I
would suggest that the present 'moment' constitutes a rare confluence of
favourable elements.
First, unlike on previous occasions when the LTTE could have claimed
that engaging in negotiations with southern leaders was futile, as they
were incapable of evolving a southern consensus, today it is hard to
deny the fact that President Rajapaksa has been able to muster the
broadest possible political coalition in recent Sri Lankan political
history and is well poised for achieving the Southern consensus to offer
maximum possible devolution without adversely affecting the unity and
territorial integrity of the country.
Second, the main opposition party, the United National Party led by
former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, during whose period the
ceasefire with the LTTE came in to being, is on record as having assured
support of his party for a meaningful political settlement.
Third, the recent military operations in the East have shattered the
aura of invincibility of the LTTE and have demonstrated to the LTTE very
clearly that a military victory is not possible and that if there is any
genuineness about their desire to serve the Tamils, the only way it
could be done is through negotiation.
Fourth, never before has the LTTE been so internationally isolated as it
stands today - proscribed in India, the U.S., the UK, the EU and Canada;
its
leader Prabhakaran and a number of top leaders being sentenced to death
for the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and
its agents arrested and taken to court by several countries including
the U.S., for engaging or seeking to perpetuate acts of international
terrorism. Unlike in some periods in history when the perpetration of
terrorism to meet political goals was condoned, today, there is zero
tolerance for its use under any circumstances.
What role could the international community play?
As the Sri Lankan polity moves towards bringing to a conclusion the
process of evolving a political settlement to the conflict in Sri Lanka,
a special responsibility is cast upon the international community to
play its role.
This is an opportunity Sri Lankans hope that the international community
would not miss, debating semantics and ignoring the reality. The mistake
made by some members of the international community in taking too long
to recognise that the Tigers were no 'freedom fighters' but a group of
ruthless terrorists, must not be repeated.
What then must the international community do?
In the first instance, the international community should once again
seek to prevail upon the LTTE to return to the negotiations and to
negotiate in good faith. It should be made clear to the LTTE that they
should respond in a time bound fashion with specific targets and not
seek to use such an opportunity to merely buy time or to score tactical
advantages. Above all they must join the democratic political
mainstream. After all there are several militant groups that have
successfully made this transition.
Whether the international community would succeed in convincing the LTTE
is hard to tell. The often stated concern is that the LTTE knows no
other means of conduct but arms struggle and its leader Velupillai
Prabhakaran would not dare seek to come out and live in the open. An
additional question gaining currency today is whether sustaining war is
more lucrative for the LTTE given their vast network of ships and
communications, illicit commercial pursuits such as arms and human
smuggling and money laundering, has taken
precedence over their stated political goal of achieving Eelam. The
international community must push the LTTE to make this choice, and make
it now.
If it is clear that the LTTE is unable or unwilling to make this
transition, the onus falls on the international community, including
numerous non-governmental organizations that have championed their
political cause, to agree that the Tigers cannot be de-clawed, and
expect to commit themselves to work with those Tamil democratic parties
to further the interests of the Tamil community, both within and outside
Sri Lanka.
In this context, a fact that has been ignored is that 54% of the Tamil
population in Sri Lanka lives in areas outside the Northern and the
Eastern provinces among Sinhalese and Muslim communities. It is also
forgotten that besides the LTTE, who have refused to change its ways,
there are both longstanding Tamil democrats such as V. Anandasangari as
well as former militants, who have embraced the democratic fold since
1987, such as Douglas Devananda and D. Sidharthan. No longer should
these alternate Tamil voices, who have entered the democratic mainstream
two decades ago and are willing to reach an honourable and durable
settlement, be sidelined within Sri Lanka or by the international
community.
It is unfortunate that up to now the misguided faith of both some Sri
Lankan political leaders as well as sections of the international
community of the transformational capacity of the LTTE, has cost Sri
Lanka dearly not only in loss of assets and lives of civilians, but also
at least two generations of Tamil politicians and academics. It is a
long list possibly starting with Alfred Duraiappah, which includes, to
name a few- A. Amirthalingam, V. Yogeswaran, Sam Thambimuttu, A.
Thangathurai, Sarojini Yogeswaran, Neelan Thiruchelvam, Lakshman
Kadirgamar, and Keetheswaran Loganathan. Many or at least some of these
persons, whom I am sure you know and some you might even count among
your friends, were honourable Tamil leaders, who were genuinely
conscious of the problems faced by the Tamils, and whose only fault was
their refusal to abandon the democratic path and yield to dictates of
the LTTE.
Similarly, outside Sri Lanka too there is a growing resistance
developing within the Tamil Diaspora, that questions the futility of the
destructive path down which the LTTE has led the Tamil people for over
three decades in a struggle for an elusive Eelam. In many western
capitals today, which host sizeable Tamil populations, there is a
growing resistance developing, which has manifested itself not only in
refusing to pay LTTE taxes and ransoms, but also who have also taken to
the streets to demonstrate against the LTTE and demand an alternate
means of redressing Tamil grievances.
Conclusion
Thus, when the world assesses whatever political settlement that
emanates from Sri Lanka in the coming weeks and months, they should bear
in mind that
it is not only the demands of the LTTE that have to be met, but those of
the totality of the Tamil population, among which there is a tremendous
yearning for peace, as among the rest of the Sri Lankan polity.
In this context a special effort should be made by the international
community to persuade the Tamil Diaspora, whose funding is the primary
source of sustenance of the LTTE, to support efforts being made by the
Sri
Lankan government to find a lasting solution to the conflict rather than
contributing to fuel the separatist war that has been the bane of Sri
Lanka for over 30 years and has caused misery and deaths for tens of
thousands in Sri Lanka.
My earnest wish is that all of you in this room, who love Sri Lanka,
understand the issues and want to see peace restored, rise to this
challenge.
Sri Lanka is on the threshold of a new dawn - your support will help
make it even more possible.
PRINT
THIS STORY

Contact Information: Send mail to
priu@presidentsoffice.lk with questions or comments about this web site.
Last Updated
Date: March 19, 2007 - 4.45 GMT |
|
|