federalidea.com

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam

The November 2005 Presidential election could be termed as a turning point in the effort to seek a political solution to the protracted ethnic problem that escalated since 1983 into a gory war destroying about 70,000 lives and displacing tens of thousands of families from their habitats. Paradoxically, both the Sinhala nationalist party Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the separatist rebel group the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) were responsible for the outcome of the last Presidential election. The changes in government and governance that occurred since then have exposed the intrinsic problems in politics and with politicians. The way President Mahinda Rajapaksa fragmented the major opposition parties and brought together minor parties as diverse as the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and the LSSP-CP leftist parties is very striking. But the power struggle which has been the bane of politics, ever since the SLFP and UNP emerged as the main rivals continues unabatedly. Politics which has throughout been influenced mostly by parochial rather than national interest has bared fully its ugly face.

Sinhala nationalism also got energized after the Presidential election. Tamil nationalism survives on Sinhala nationalism. Sinhala nationalists have not realized it is the two incompatible concepts that pose a threat to unity and territorial integrity of the nation, which is multi ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural with diverse demographic features across the different provinces. On the other hand, the concept that the entire island is exclusively a Sinhala nation in which the ethnic minorities are auxiliary groups who depend on the generosity of the ethnic majority Sinhalese is the base for disunity and unrest. It is this notion inbuilt in the unitary system which in effect established the Sinhala majority rule that led to its subsequent rejection by the ethnic minority Tamils.

The present government which initially tried to win international support by convincing it will be ‘fair and just’ according to the rule of law in bringing to justice the criminals and its commitment to pluralism, multi-party democracy and settling political problems via all-party consultation process has now turned against the very countries it tried to placate earlier. The reason for this shift is that the earlier spontaneous moves turned out later to be counterproductive from the standpoint of implementing the political agenda in the ‘Mahinda Chinthanaya’. The JVP backed the President during the election campaign on the understanding that this would be implemented fully. Although the party did not join the coalition government, it had been extending support largely because of the military campaign to liberate the North and East from LTTE ‘terrorism’. The Rajapaksa regime was also keen on maintaining this bond with the JVP. The success achieved in the East has been an impetus to proceed confidently with the military campaign in the North. The government has a huge stake in its success, notwithstanding the enormous funds spent and the losses incurred.

During his recent visit to the UK along with few APRC members to study the different power sharing and devolution systems in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the APRC Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana told BBC Sandeshaya that President Rajapaksa was forced to take military action by the Tamil Tigers themselves. He also said, President Rajapaksa “honestly tried his best” to negotiate with the LTTE but the rebels launched “provocative attacks”. In fact both were wrong moves, not really intended to end the lingering conflict early and the suffering of the people. Regarding the President’s then
readiness to talk directly with the LTTE leader, dialogue with him was not a serious proposition, when he had rejected even the December 2002 Oslo understanding to explore a federal solution. The President was venturing to talk while clinging on to his election ‘Chinthanaya’ which he needed badly for strengthening and sustaining the support given by Sinhala nationalist parties in the November 2005 election.

Subsequent events have shown that right from the start it has been a game of scoring points to impress all, particularly the foreign governments that have been pressing for a permanent political settlement to the lingering conflict. The Sunday Observer April 20 reported that the APRC chairman opined -”the North Ireland settlement is a good example for all political parties in Sri Lanka in dealing with our own crisis”. There are two important factors here that need reminding. First the main parties to the conflict in Northern Ireland had realized that by continuing it, the suffering of the people will be pointlessly prolonged as no military solution was possible. Second, there was a powerful third party involvement that brought about the Good Friday Agreement. Both are lacking in Sri Lankan case. The situation that prevailed there was such both the Unionists and the Republicans had to trust each other for the sake of the much needed peace.

Real situation in Sri Lanka

The conflict that is now called ‘war against LTTE terrorism’ is helping to conceal the dismal situation in Sri Lanka that has serious financial and economic consequences harmful to the wellbeing of the whole country. Even the current day-to-day problems faced by the masses because of the skyrocketing prices of essential commodities and the collapse of law and order are being ignored. With regard to the complaints about enforced disappearances of civilians, the official response is they have gone abroad seeking asylum! However, the cost of protecting Ministers, parliamentarians and top officials in the administration is siphoning off considerable public funds that could be utilized for meeting some urgent needs of the poor people. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) has identified eleven countries as hunger’s global hotspots. Sri Lanka along with Afghanistan, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Iraq, Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe are heading towards a “food emergency”. There is little concern amongst politicians wielding power for the country’s present dismal state but there is plenty of rhetoric aimed at distorting the real situation.

[Wholesale traders in Colombo put up their shutters April 23 afternoon claiming they had no rice stocks to sell-pic courtesy: Gamini Munasinghe-island.lk]

An article in the Daily Mirror April 18 titled ‘Claims of marked progress’ has exposed the attempt to downplay the impact of the steep rise in prices that have escalated the cost of living, affecting very badly those relying mainly on nominal fixed incomes for their daily needs Although the figures in the annual report of the Central Bank, 2007 show a rate of inflation as high as 28 percent, Governor of the Bank has been emphasizing the concept of ‘core inflation’ that excludes food and energy prices. According to this concept the piece increase is only 7 percent for the year. It is the cost of food,
energy and other essentials that swallows bulk of the income of the working class and pensioners. ‘Core inflation’ is a measure of ‘demand induced inflation’ over which alone monetary policy has any control Changes in the cost of living are also due to other reasons outside the influence of the country’s monetary policy. (For more R. M. B. Senanayake’s article- ‘Core inflation’ measurement and its uses’ -’The Island’ April 23) John Plender in Financial Times April 23 has said to focus mainly on core inflation rates is potentially dangerous.

The country’s financial situation is precarious. According to the latest Central Bank Annual Report, revenue shortfall in 2007 was Rs. 35 billion while recurrent expenditure exceeded the original estimate by Rs. 26 billion, which widened the gap between revenue and recurrent expenditure last year by Rs. 61 billion. The government had to borrow internationally at high interest rates. Interest payment last year was Rs. 13.5 billion more than the estimated amount and will remain high if the traditional donors do not help. At the June 2003Tokyo Donor Conference on Reconstruction and Development, the donors pledged US$ 4.5 billion for a 4-year period from 2003 to 2006 but because of the lack of progress in the peace process Sri Lanka was unable to benefit optimally. Since then public investment in Sri Lanka has been lower than the required amount. The peace process collapsed mainly because of LTTE’s intransigence, despite the support of the donors for a political settlement based on the 2002 Oslo understanding. Another opportunity was missed!

Very little thought is being given to the causes for the relatively high GDP growth rate and whether this type of income growth is sustainable without sufficient investment and output growth of the productive sectors. A sizeable part of the growth now is related to the war and employment in public service that is exceedingly overstaffed and unproductive. This is largely due to political patronage, which has become an intrinsic part of the system. In this regard, the following observation in the CB report is relevant. “The recruitment to the public sector on an ad hoc basis and the availability of non-performance based benefits in the public sector not only discourage unemployed youth from joining the private sector, but also encourage those already engaged in the private sector to join the public sector.” Moreover, “the expansion of the public sector has reached such proportions that today more than half the country’s tax revenues is allocated to meet the payment of salaries and pensions of state employees.” Can this pattern be a sound base for sustainable growth and development?

The April 20 Sunday Times Economic Analysis column has also stated: “The fact is that the government itself is responsible for the inflationary conditions owing to its high spending, the losses generated by public corporations that are run inefficiently, the large fiscal deficits and defence expenditure. It is now quite clear that the government is little concerned with putting its own house in order perhaps due to a lack of understanding of economic issues. This situation portends serious social tensions and political unrest as the hardships are borne by the people in a context when they see so much of conspicuous wasteful expenditure. Statistical contentions, boasts of growth rates, calculations of core inflation and other methods to
deceive the people will not succeed”.

The rating agency S&P in the latest report (April 16) said Sri Lanka’s present credit rating B+ is at risk because of the worsening Government debt composition. To quote LBO: “The rising share of external debt, estimated at about 49 percent of total, and within that, the proportion of more expensive and shorter maturity commercial funds, is gradually eroding what has so far been a relatively favorable debt profile.” And “further signs of fiscal slippage, either through expenditure pressures or lower revenues, or a more adverse shift in government borrowing patterns, would lead to a rating downgrade.” Sri Lanka is among six other countries – Hungary, Pakistan, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine and the Dominican Republic – which were either on negative outlook or credit watch.

The United States Congress is expected to endorse shortly a legislative proposal urging for the cancellation of debts owed by some of the world’s poorest countries. But some nations including Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Laos have been singled out due to their human rights situation and other ‘financial management standard’ issues. Sri Lanka’s debt to the United States alone amounts to mammoth Rs. 53 billion while the total foreign debt is much higher at Rs. 1.3 trillion according to the Central Bank 2007 Annual Report. Sri Lanka falls under the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Heavily Indebted
Poor Country (HIPC) programme but according to reports, “the island does not meet the Jubilee Act standards in human rights and financial management standards”. Alan Beattie in April 23 issue of ‘Financial Times’ has reported that accusations of human rights abuses by Sri Lanka’s government are “jeopardizing a special EU ethical trade deal that has helped its garment industry survive competition from China”. The report also quoted Sri Lankan International Trade Minister G. L. Peiris, “Imposing tariffs of 10 per cent would make a lot of these factories unviable”. In Sri Lanka’s case it is not only the poor human rights record but also other factors that stand in the way for debt relief and other concessions. Not only the US and the EU but also other foreign donors are upset now. Sri Lanka is seeking development
assistance from Iran and China.

‘No safety, No escape’

The hapless people particularly those in the conflict zone have been affected in various ways. The ‘Watchlist’ mission in a detailed 60-page report called: ‘No safety, No Escape, Children and the Escalating armed Conflict in Sri Lanka’ launched in New York April 14 at the UN headquarters tells only a part of the tragedy. Nevertheless it is useful to understand the real situation. It states: “Gross human rights violations committed by Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) forces, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and armed breakaway groups, like the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP)/Karuna
faction, have created a climate of constant fear and insecurity throughout the country. Both the GoSL and the LTTE have restricted or denied the delivery of vital humanitarian aid to the Jaffna peninsula and the Vanni area in the North, certain areas in the East and GoSL-declared high security zones. Adding to considerable bureaucratic barriers, humanitarian and human rights workers have been increasingly harassed, threatened and even killed while carrying out their lifesaving work. Additionally, restrictions on the movement of civilians have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis by preventing
civilians from escaping into safety or seeking assistance. Perpetrators commit violations against children and other civilians with impunity”.

On the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) the report states: “Between April 2006 and April 2007, the resumption of violent conflict displaced more than 300,000 people within Sri Lanka and forced more than 20,000 to seek safety in India. Approximately half a million Sri Lankans had been displaced prior to April 2006. Children comprise approximately 39 percent of the displaced population. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) suffer as a result of poor sanitary conditions and strained health facilities, as well as insufficient food supplies in host communities and IDP camps. The lack of security in and around the camps has exposed children to abduction, recruitment and sexual violence. Some IDP camps have become direct targets of military attacks”. The report has also drawn attention to the plight of Sri Lankan refugees in and outside the temporary camps in Tamil Nadu, south India. (For more visit www.watchlist.org)

Internal weaknesses bared

The inherent weaknesses in the governing system have now been exposed to the world. Last week the eleven-member International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) from India, France, Indonesia, the United States, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Canada, Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, abandoned their mission to oversee the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to investigate and inquire into some 15 serious violations of Human Rights, because they felt their presence did not serve any useful purpose. The departing international experts in their final report blamed the government for the absence of will to inquire into gross violations of rights and lack of absolute respect for the international norms of justice. They also mentioned specifically, conflict of interest in the proceedings of the CoI; lack of effective victim and witness protection; lack of transparency and timeliness in the proceedings; lack of full co-operation by State bodies; and lack of financial independence of the Commission of Inquiry that have hindered progress. The Attorney General’s Department has been severely criticised and its representation in the CoI objected on the grounds of conflict of interest. The Attorney General himself in a 17-page report has rejected the criticisms saying these are not well-founded. A lot of effort is being made to extricate from the damaging allegations made by the IIGEP.

The Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission in a statement AHRC-STM-097-2008 issued on April 17, 2008 was also highly critical of the role of the AG Department. It said, “AG backs government – government backs the AG and no one is backing the rule of law” and the Department in the present situation is “playing a falsifier’s role and developing shrewd techniques to defeat justice.” The very next day April 18 the AHRC in another statement said, “Sri Lanka is a nation without a political will”. This in the opinion of this writer is the main reason for the lack of progress in solving national problems; the balanced development of all regions; and national unity. There has been no lack of will to gain political mileage from various factors that keep the society divided. The governing system itself is structured to serve the interests of those in power. The AHRC has in conclusion stated pointedly: “When the constitution of a country itself provides for a political system based on an executive president who does not need to demonstrate any political will, that nation is fated to be without determination to resolve any of its major problems. It is this experience that makes even the words, ‘political will’ meaningless”. So is the word ‘patriotism’ which is the refuge for the extremists, who want to strengthen Sinhala hegemony.

The Paris based Action Contre la Faim or Action against Hunger whose 17 aid workers were targeted and brutally killed in Muthur August 2006 said on April 18 it had decided to withdraw from Sri Lanka consequent to the IIGEP quitting its mandate to oversee the proceedings of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. It considered the presence of the IIGEP as an essential condition for the credibility in the investigations into the killing of 17 of its staff in August 2006 and now doubted whether the CoI would respect international norms and standards. It said the Muthur slaughter could not be considered only as “collateral damage” as the team had been specifically and deliberately targeted and their death had been carried out in execution style with gun shots to their head. ACF alleged: “Everything was consciously and brutally planned. The victims were kneeling, unarmed and defenceless. The culprits of this massacre are the ones who were carrying the arms. We can assert that this massacre is a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions.”

Nordic truce monitors (SLMM) had earlier blamed the massacre on state security forces. But the government denied responsibility and accused ACF of being responsible for the massacre of their own local staff through “negligence” and “irresponsibility” In August 2007, particularly in the context of the gruesome execution-style slayings of the 17 ACF aid workers in Muthur, U.N. humanitarian relief chief John Holmes said, “Sri Lanka was one of the most dangerous places in the world for aid workers.” The government responded by calling Holmes “a terrorist”! The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) in its latest report said there was evidence to implicate the military in this incident and blamed the government for not taking prompt action
on the killings of 5 Tamil students earlier in Trincomalee. These too are alleged to have been committed by security officers and this lapse was an impetus to those responsible for the Muthur massacre. The UTHR(J) report has been praised by international human rights organizations as bold effort in conducting thorough investigative work. In response to this report, Action Against Hunger (ACF) called for an international inquiry into the killings. The government rejected this proposal, saying it would infringe on its sovereignty. Apparently, ACF now wants to seek justice from the world court. India: To be or not to be?

Following the two-day conference on ‘Peace and Reconciliation in South Asia’ held in Oslo on April 10 and 11, the eve of the Sinhala and Tamil Hindu New Year organised by the Art of Living Foundation of Indian spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a proposal to seek settlement to the lingering conflict in Sri Lanka through India’s mediation has emerged. There seem to be increasing realization amongst those fed up with the cycle of war, ‘peace talks’ and war that only India can play a decisive role in realizing a political settlement that cannot be rejected easily, unless the concerned party irresponsibly wants to ignore the consequences (past experience in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force cannot be ignored) and gamble with the future of the society.

One Cabinet minister (Tamil from the upcountry), one moderate opposition MP, Buddhist monks (one residing in Jaffna) and officials including the Secretary-General of the Peace Secretariat from Sri Lanka also participated in the meeting. The most high profile Tamil representative was Vaiko, the MDMK leader from India. Norway’s special envoy to Sri Lanka, Jon Hanssen-Bauer, and members of the European Parliament were other participants. After the meeting the guru told IANS – “the Oslo conference went off very well, though there were heated arguments and accusations, no one walked out! There was a strong commitment for peace and understanding.”

He also told IANS that he enjoys the trust of both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers. He does not need any invitation to act to try ending one of the world’s longest running armed conflicts. “If someone’s house is burning, you don’t expect an invitation from them! A sensitive person will simply jump in”. Since the world is one family he added: “I think it is quite normal for anyone with a sense of belongingness to just act”. Since the Art of Living Foundation has ‘no ulterior motives other than to bring peace to one and all’ no one can object to a role of helping to end the Sri Lankan conflict.

The guru opined: “‘I have always dreamed the impossible and it has become possible. If conflicts could be resolved in Kosovo, in Ireland, in Baku (where Art of Living played an important role) and if Mahatma Gandhi could bring freedom to India, (the ability to end) the conflict in Sri Lanka through dialogue should not be dismissed. I don’t mind going to the end of the world if it helps to bring peace and lessen the suffering of the people.”

In a subsequent interview the guru explained: “In the larger interest of the humanity, people will have to come closer and resolve this issue amicably with a spirit of give and take, before more lives are lost. Everyone knows about the causes of the conflict. Lack of vision, short sightedness, and vote bank politics are at the very root of the issue”. On Norway’s proposal that India should play a decisive role in bringing peace to the war-torn island, he replied: “India is one of the major regional powers and being socially, culturally and spiritually linked to Sri Lanka, she cannot shy away from this. Not
only Norway but other countries too are of the opinion that India should play a vital role”.

Since early 2005, the spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has been actively engaged in efforts to bring peace in Sri Lanka, holding talks with the government, parliamentarians and the LTTE. There is not the slightest doubt, “religious and spiritual leaders can play a big role in conflict resolution” but unfortunately the power hungry Sri Lankan political leaders have two separate stances towards religion and politics. They all faithfully visit the Buddhist prelates of the Malwatte and Asgiriya chapters in Kandy and seek their blessings for their political work that has often been an affront to Buddhist principles. This is not different to that of the armed rebels who devoutly pray and then go and kill unarmed civilians. How religion serves politicians in Sri Lanka is also seen in Daily Mirror editorial April 22, 2008. This was after the JVP renegades led by Wimal Weerawansa visited Dalada Maligawa in Kandy. “Political renegades in this country are often seen seeking refuge in religion. Weerawansa who has all along claimed to be a Marxist has now apparently become a fervent devotee of religion. What all these political gimmicks that are enacted in the political arena prove is the pathetic standard to
which our political leaders have descended”. It is very unfortunate the influential Buddhist prelates have not persuaded the Sri Lankan political leaders to follow the approach that spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is now advocating. Had this been done, politics in general would have been more useful devoid of the features that have obstructed unity, peace and steady progress in social, economic and political fields since independence.

On his return from Oslo, the MDMK general secretary Vaiko met Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in New Delhi April 17 and requested the government to mount diplomatic pressure on the Sri Lankan government to stop its military offensive and initiate peace talks for a workable solution to meet the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils.

‘The Hindu’ reported April 18 that Vaiko had explained to Dr. Singh the outcome of the Oslo conference and that “the situation in Sri Lanka was becoming grave day by day, endangering the life and security of Tamils. Innocent Tamils were being killed by the military. He explained the plight and misery of Tamils living in jungles without food and medicine”. According to Indian Foreign Ministry sources (Daily Mirror April22) – “No decision has been reached although the leaders are discussing it (India’s proactive role). However, India has always helped Sri Lanka and will continue to offer its assistance as and when the Sri Lankan Government requires it.”

The Tamil Nadu State Assembly passed unanimously a resolution April 23 urging New Delhi to intervene “with a humanitarian attitude based on the gesture shown by Sonia Gandhi in granting pardon to Nalini Murugan, one of the accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and the recent meeting her daughter Priyanka had with Nalini in the Vellore prison” . Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, the government’s defence spokesman reacting to the resolution told reporters April 25 that Sri Lanka understands the political compulsions in neighbouring India but “the Indian government stands supportive of our campaign to eliminate terrorism.” Earlier (Daily Mirror April 16) the Minister told: “We do not need to offer any special invitation to India. The
moment we get our friends involved in the Sri Lankan conflict, it turns out to be volatile as the LTTE does not want peace in this country.” Minister Rambukwella added “India has always been involved in the Sri Lankan conflict by offering its assistance to the Sri Lankan government when required and as such there was no need to invite them for any direct involvement.” Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan Government is trying to gain peace militarily or to put it more aptly political mileage, regardless of the present (daily killings are in double figures) and future costs to the nation. It remains to be seen
how India will respond to the latest plea, especially in the light of the new developments.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]