federalidea.com

An Appeal by Civil Society Organisations and Concerned Citizens

We have come together as a group of concerned civil society organisations and citizens to express our firm solidarity with the people of the East in the immense challenge they face in the local government election to be held on March 10th 2008.

We consider the election an important milestone in the road map to peace democracy and the economic recovery of North and the East of the country. The election provides the political space and opportunity to enable the people to begin participating democratically in the peace process and protecting their human security. We urge the government, the political parties and the voting population to join in a concerted effort to make the election a successful and fully democratic election.

The conditions are propitious for such an effort. This election is being held in one District covering a voting population of only about 275,000 voters and 285 polling stations. This small size of the election enables the Government Authorities, the Police, the Election Commissioner and election monitoring organisations and political parties to concentrate their resources and efforts to ensure a free and fair election including the campaign and the voting.

We appeal to His Excellency the President to give the necessary directions to ensure a free and fair election as has been done in the past. The election would be watched and assessed by all Sri Lankans and the international community as evidence of the good faith of the Government and its intentions to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. It is a first stage in the democratic process and provincial elections recommended by the APRC. The Government, therefore, needs to make a credible demonstration of its capacity to control the forces of violence and dispel the fears that people have regarding the possible use of arms by some of the contesting parties and their suspicions of government’s complicity in such possible action.

The monitoring organisations which have been given the authority to station monitors in polling stations should mobilise the support of public spirited citizens from other parts of the country to conduct an intensive monitoring exercise. The civil society organisations should also invoke the authority of the Supreme Court as was done in the past to put in place the procedures and safeguards that protect the rights of candidates and voters and creates all the conditions essential for a fair and free election particularly in regard to the use of arms by contesting parties.

All political parties must approach the election as a test of Sri Lanka’s capacity as a society pledged to democratic rights and freedoms for all people and must effectively enforce the internal disciplines that will prevent violence . There are two examples of past efforts that should inspire us – the effort that was made by the people to protect their democratic rights in 1987-1989 in the midst of terror and violence and the manner in which the political parties were able to conduct a local government elections in the North in 1997 relatively free of violence.

We urge civil society to be specially active in Batticaloa during the period leading up to the elections. They should organise visits by teams of religious leaders and eminent persons who would be able to spread the message of peace and non-violence and instil the courage into the voters to affirm their democratic rights and their rejection of violence. The elections in the North in 1997 showed in no uncertain terms the strong disapproval with which voters viewed the armed groups who sought election – a lesson which the both the voters in the Batticaloa District and the parties contesting the forthcoming election need to take to heart and act accordingly.

We also appeal to the international community to give special attention to the Batticaloa Election. Although it is a local government which will not normally call for international monitors it is an election which is a crucial test of the country’s capacity to restore peace and democracy. It would therefore merit a small team of international monitors who could have a very positive impact in restraining violence and creating the environment for a free and fair election.

The government and political parties should prepare and announce a set of measures that they would be ready to take both for dealing with post election problems and conditions as well as to maximise the opportunities for participatory democracy at the local level. The Batticaloa election gives the government and parties the unique opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to devolution at the local government level and the principle of subsidiarity. Some of the initiatives taken in other parts of the country to strengthen local government such as the Citizen Charter initiative could be immediately extended to the Batticaloa District and the pledges made in the National Policy on Local Government fulfilled

By Vindya Amaranayake

After more than 60 sittings, over a period of 18 months, the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), recently, heaved out its proposals, supposedly, to put an end to the two decade long conflict.

When the much hyped about committee was first set up, it gave oxygen to a dying creature; the hope, that a conglomerate of all the political parties is capable of realising a solution to the long drawn out conflict. This was, sadly, not fulfilled.

What emerged after much deliberation was the proposal to implement the disputed 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which did not serve its purpose, during nearly two decades of its existence.

Flawed, inadequate Amendment

“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects,” Colombo University’s Law Faculty Senior Lecturer Rohan Edirisinha opined.

He explained that the Amendment does not give substantial devolution of powers to the provinces, and added that it has been very easy for the centre to take back the powers it has given to the provinces: “The central Parliament has, over the last 20 years, passed laws on provincial subjects and functions. That is why most Tamil politicians have deep reservations about the Amendment.”

Quoting a former Constitutional Affairs Minister, Edirisinha said, “As Prof. G.L Peiris, as a cabinet minister under President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, often said, “under the 13th Amendment, there was only a ‘veneer’ of devolution of power because, what was given with one hand, was taken back with the other.”

He also pointed out that there is no constitutional mechanism to ensure that the powers devolved to the provinces, would not be forcibly retracted by the central legislature: “Unlike in India, there is no state or provincial representation at the centre to act as a watchdog, to prevent Parliament’s encroachment into the provincial domain nor, is there an independent public service to limit central executive interference in the affairs of the province.”

This point is especially important, given the constitutional provision that the centre could take the powers of a provincial council (PC) and give it to an executive president.

Ink on paper

Taking these points into consideration, Edirisinha said that the full implementation of the 13th Amendment might not be enough in the present context. This is, especially, in a backdrop that the government, in its two-page document, has not promised the full implementation of the Amendment.

“The original idea of the APRC was to come out with a set of proposals that addressed the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. But, the document that finally emerged was a mere two-page document that talked about ’some relevant’ provisions. So, there is a big difference.”

The content of the APRC proposals was dissected and analysed by many, and concluded on the restrictions of the powers devolved to the provinces. Special attention was given to the limitations imposed with regard to police powers and the power over lands.

“The two-page document has, merely, a set of vague and almost unenforceable statements such as ‘the government shall endeavour to facilitate the smooth working of the PCs’-it is totally vague and very limited,” Edirisinha pointed out.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by Parliament on November 14, 1987, more than 20-years-ago. Yet, none of the successive governments that ruled the country since, were able to properly implement the provisions of the Amendment. Edirisinha is of the view that, this failure questions the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law in the country: “Constitutions that permit non implementation of its provisions and do not provide for an appropriate legal remedy in such situations, are flawed Constitutions.”

Highlighting the crisis of Constitutionalism within the country, he added that Constitutions cannot rely on political will or, the goodwill of the people in power, for success, and said that the basis of Constitutionalism is suspicion and scepticism of those who wield power: “This fundamental question, which underscores the crisis of constitutionalism in Sri Lanka, must be addressed.”

It is agreed among experts, that the APRC proposals are minus the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, for the mere reason that it aims to implement only ‘relevant’ provisions of the Amendment. There are many theories behind the curtailment of the devolution of power.

The cancer within

“Part of the explanation for the retrogressive nature of the APRC proposals is the extraordinary influence of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), on the Rajapaksa administration. The JVP has its cake and eats it too. Its members were elected on the UPFA ticket and it is clear that the JVP would not have gained such a large number of seats, but for such an alliance. Yet, it claims to be part of the opposition in Parliament,” Edirisinha opined.

However, he added that many of the older members of the UPFA, such as the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, Lanka Sama Samaja Party, Communist Party and Mahajana Eksath Peramuna have, by word and deed, indicated that a reasonable political solution, whether interim or longer term, must be 13th Amendment PLUS PLUS, if not federal in character.

Significantly, members of these political parties were instrumental in drafting the Constitution Bill of 2000 that went beyond the 13th Amendment.

“APRC proposals do not match the aspirations of the moderate Tamils. But, it does match the aspirations of Sinhala nationalist groups who refuse to accept that there is an ethnic problem,” Colombo University Head of Political Science Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda said.

Oblivious to reality

He pointed out that the outcome of the APRC indicates several important facts: The dominant sections of Sinhala political parties, who are in power now, do not recognise that Sri Lankan postcolonial state needs to be reformed, in order to address minority claims for political equality and regional autonomy.

The war agenda has taken precedence over political reform agenda: “When there is an intensification of the ethnic war, political reforms are extremely difficult,” Prof. Uyangoda said and added that there does not seem to be an early resolution of the ethnic conflict.

To devolve or by how much

He, however, said that the 13th Amendment to the Constitution does entail a certain degree of power devolution. Yet, pointed out that the problem with the Amendment is, basically, a political problem: “For some people, it gives too much power to the provinces-the Sinhala nationalists, for some others, too little-the Tamil nationalists. So, the 13th Amendment is caught up between these two irreconcilable positions. The task of the APRC was to find a common ground between the two positions.”

He opined that the APRC has failed to find a common ground and instead, has found a minimalist ground, which is not acceptable to even moderate Tamils who support the present government.

The year 2008 is referred to as the year of war. From the first day, the country has seen nothing but bloodshed and accelerated violence. Especially, after the abrogation of the Ceasefire Agreement, the county has been on an intensified war footing costing many civilian lives. It is in this backdrop that the APRC proposals have finally emerged. Hence, most experts are sceptical of the low key two-page APRC document.

APRC defers 13th Amendment

“This government seems to think that once the LTTE is militarily defeated, there is no need for power devolution. In this scheme of things, neither devolution nor, the 13th Amendment makes any sense, because there is no political will on the part of the government to properly implement the 13th Amendment,” Prof. Uyangoda explained.

Referring to this issue as a problem of perspective and political understanding, he said that the ideal type of power devolution is extensive regional autonomy: “Yet, there is no possibility of this ideal finding acceptance among the major political forces. Even the ideal type requires political consensus. This cannot remain at conceptual level. However, at the moment, there is no possibility of the outcome of this ideal type.”

There are three perspectives, when it comes to power devolution: Federalism, 13th Amendment+and maximum devolution within a unitary Constitution, which amounts to no devolution. Prof. Uyangoda emphasised that there is a severe clash between these three perspectives, at the moment. Without resolving this clash, it is not possible to work out a perspective that is acceptable to the majority of the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities.

“At the moment, we have all the ingredients in place for protracted war and violence,” he added. [courtesy: nation.lk]

by Austin Fernando

APRC proposals are to be implemented through a governor and Interim Advisory Council (IAC) for the Northern Provincial Council (NPC). Mark the words IAC, NPC and governor. Even as a non lawyer, I foresee legal barriers which have to be surmounted.

Let me explain some of them:

Firstly, there is no institution called IAC in the Constitution, but this could be overcome under 154L (1) (c), through consequential provisions.

Secondly, a PC is an institution constituted under Article 154A (2) of the 13th Amendment, which says that, “a PC shall be constituted upon the election of the members of such a Council.” There were no elections held after the de-merger and therefore, NPC is simply not legally constituted. If the first PC election is applied, it was under a merged north, east, which is legally and politically redundant now.

Thirdly, according to Article 154B (1), the governor’s appointment is constitutionally right and he can exercise executive power under Article 154C. Without a constituted PC, when “a one man show” (OMS) prevails, for it to be called “devolution” is a misnomer. This happened for 20-years in the north and east, which is bad enough, but that was at least after constituting a PC. Other PCs have an elected Council and a governor and therefore, this would be half baked devolution, as it had been for 20-years.

Therefore, appointing a constitutionally unmentioned IAC to a non existent NPC, to aid an OMS governor, is similar to giving an electricity connection from an unconnected main to a non-existing house! The unconstitutionality of the PC, and the potential manipulations through the governor, cannot be satisfactory devolution.

Indians have reportedly said that this could be a “good first step.” Surprisingly, the South Block bureaucracy and politicians in New Delhi have considered the non-existent PC and OMS governor, as adequate for devolution, probably to demand more.
Apart from these, another hurdle will be the appointment of the IAC.

The government derives authority to devolve power from the 13th Amendment. Article 154K requires failure to comply by a PC or a governor not carrying out directions, for the President to hold that the administration cannot be carried in accordance with the constitutional provisions. PC issue does not arise as a PC is not in existence. I do not think the governor has not carried out presidential directives, if any. Therefore, Article 154K may not be based for appointment of the IAC.

To implement under Article 154L, the President should receive a report from the governor. If he receives such report from a governor, it would be awkward, as the governor cannot be evaluated in such a short time. My personal knowledge is that he performs more actively than other governors. Therefore, the President will depend on being “otherwise” satisfied to make a Proclamation under Article 154L (1).

Such Proclamation is to assume “all or any functions of the administration of the Province and, all or any powers vested in or exercisable by the governor or, anybody or, authority in the Province” [Article 154L (1) (a)] (Note it is not that of the PC but of the Province.), and declare “the powers of the PC shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament”. [Article 154L (1) (b)]. When the President does so, while Article 154L (1) (a) states that he cannot assume the powers of the PC, (i.e. “other than the PC”) there will be legal conflict, as I understand, because we are discussing a non existing quantum. According to Article 154M (1), 154M (1) (a) and (1) (b), the powers that will be declared under Article 154L will belong to a PC and not merely to a Province. Is it not tantamount to conflict between Articles 154L (1) (a) and 154M (1), (1) (a) and (1) (b), because there is no constituted PC?

Anyway, if Parliament takes charge of NPC administration, thereafter, [Article 154L (1) (b)] it would mean centralising than power sharing or devolution. It will be conceptual and ideological checkmating.

[Austin Fernando]

Dr. Vigneswaran, in an article in The Nation, compared IAC appointment to Indian experiences. Accordingly, in India, the governor, not the president, appoints any committee of IAC’s nature. This too, when the constitutional machinery has failed, state government dismissed and legislative assembly dissolved. In the NPC situation, constitutional machinery had been forced to fail by constitutional strangulation. How can a non-existing PC (state government) be dismissed or a non-existing council (Assembly) dissolved, if Indian comparison is accepted?

The constitutional solution proposed by Dr. Vigneswaran is to merge the north and east. Would not the government be checkmated, if Indian legality is to be honoured by merging?

Assuming that the governor’s appointment is legally valid, irrespective of an OMS, he has to adhere to Article 154B (8) (d) in receiving advice. Accordingly, he shall exercise powers in accordance with the advice of the chief minister, so long as the Board of Ministers commands, in governor’s opinion, the support of the majority of the PC. There is no PC and hence, no Members or Board of Ministers. Are we constitutionally consistent in considering the IAC members aiding and advising the governor as equivalent to chief minister + PC ministers, when IAC members are not even elected PC members?

The IAC chairman cannot be the chief minister equivalent, as the latter’s appointment is specifically stated in the Constitution, Article 154F (4). In such an event, how could the governor accept any advice from a group of presidential appointees in the IAC, other than on the basis of political expediency, not mentioned in the Constitution?

The other legal loop-i.e. Article 154T-empowers the President “to take action or give such directions, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, as appears to him to be necessary or, expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Chapter or for administrative changes necessary therefore, or for the purpose of removing any difficulties.” The legal issue I highlight is that the APRC propositions fail due to quoted constitutional inconsistency on the constitution of the PC. Therefore, APRC recommendations implemented under Article 154T, could be challenged and be unproductive, other than for OMS governor’s actions.

I appreciate and endorse government’s interest to share power, if they are pure and genuine. However, I am unconvinced of the practicality, constitutionality and legality of the APRC proposals to impact devolution, because it contradicts the basic practices of devolution and partly fails constitutionally. Do not misunderstand me; I say so not to discredit the President whom I respect or, APRC or, Indians but, because I like to see honourable attempts to solve the national crisis and bring “honourable peace.”

As I lack legal knowledge, I look forward for courts or legal luminaries to do what is right. Finally, I say that, if weak formulation of APRC proposals was to deliberately delay through legal bouts, then, the APRC has fulfilled that need superbly! [courtesy: nation.lk]

By Kusal Perera

“Very few diplomats have written novels, so it was a pleasant surprise to find that an Indian diplomat, who is currently the official spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, has written an eminently readable novel on a low-key theme, We Weren’t Lovers Like That”. (The Hindu-2004 January 04) The Diplomat novelist is Navtej Sarna. Yet it wasn’t fiction when 04 years later this same Sarna said “The government of Sri Lanka has been good enough to share with us the interim steps recommended by the APRC for implementation of devolution provisions and official language provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution.” (DM-24th Jan, 2008) Here he made the statement as the Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesperson. He conveyed the message that the Indian government welcomed this first step towards devolution and India would “continue to work with Sri Lanka and its people to bring about a settlement of the issues in Sri Lanka”.

India first intervened in domestic politics of Sri Lanka during the second tenure of Madam Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister. Madam Gandhi wasn’t in any way happy about the JRJ regime. For JRJ, who was a contemporary of Jawaharlal Nehru, the daughter of Nehru probably was too much of a “podiyen” to take note of. That was not all. “Sri Lanka’s emerging security, economic and intelligence connections with Pakistan, Israel and the US were perceived by Mrs. Gandhi as a strategic challenge and threat.” writes the resolute Indian diplomat J.N. Dixit in his insightful book “Assignment Colombo”. He then affirms, “The first step that Mrs. Gandhi took was to give support to Sri Lankan Tamil parties and Tamil militant groups from 1980 onwards…..”(p/15) Trained and armed, the militants then moved to Tamil Nadu to pitch tents in their struggle for a separate Tamil state.

This Indian intervention was similar to the US intervention in putting together the Islamic armed groups in Afghanistan to form the Taliban guerrillas. It was the US government that funded and armed the Taliban against Soviet troops in Kabul. In both cases they have had very dire consequences. Just as much as the US should take responsibility for the mayhem that followed and continues in Afghanistan and lately in Pakistan, it is India that should take responsibility for this continued inhuman war in Sri Lanka and killing of its own Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at the hands of the LTTE.

If one goes back in history, while the democratic Tamil political movement in Sri Lanka was right in demanding their due share in a pluralistic Nation State that Ceylon should have established after independence, while it was wrong for the Sinhala political leadership to have usurped State power in marginalising all others, the possibility of Tamil armed groups taking total control of the Sri Lankan Tamil political movement would not have been this easy and brutal, without the military support of the Indian government. But then, in Tamil Nadu, the Indian Central government’s inability to control antagonistic Tamil Nadu politics compelled it to compromise in Tamil Nadu. This provided SL Tamil armed groups with the opportunity to develop links with Tamil Nadu power blocs and it is said the LTTE leadership went into a deal with Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran, which deal gave them better leverage to exercise more independence in establishing themselves in Tamil Nadu and also to accrue funds. Large funds were necessary to organise better training with armed groups in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.

The LTTE thus gained a competitive advantage over their birth rival the PLOTE, which argued politically that Indian patronage would not allow a Sri Lankan Tamil State under the leadership of militant groups, citing the experience of the Bangladeshi libertion struggle that saw the Indian army crushing the Mukthi Bhani and installing Sheik Mujibur Rahaman in power.

The PLOTE was immediately disabled by the Indian authorities for their political acumen and was never able to come back into big time politics there after. That decision by the Indian authorities removed the only militant group which accepted a compromise with the democratic forces in the Sinhala society, leaving the more extreme LTTE. All of it reflects the Indian ego that led to a fatal political mistake with serious ramifications on either side of the Palk Strait.

When Rajiv Gandhi moved into No.7, Race Course Road, the official residence of the Indian Prime Minister after his mother’s tragic death, he was heir to what his mother had helped create in and around Sri Lanka. The armed Tamil militants were no more obedient kids. Tamil Nadu politics too had more or less galvanised their campaigns with the Sri Lankan Tamil issue stitched firm into theirs and the Centre was trapped, wanting to keep Tamil Nadu pacified. JRJ was moving away from Indian political desires and anchoring himself with the USA, creating an imbalance against India on the geo-political situation. Undoing all this in India’s favour was an unending task by any standard.

It was a political game of compromise with every one. With Tamil Nadu politics. With the JRJ regime in Sri Lanka. And then with the armed Sri Lankan Tamil groups. Rajiv Gandhi probably tried his best most sincerely, but was ill advised as to the depth of complexity.

JRJ was neck deep in the ethnic conflict by the end of 1986 with All Party Talks and 02 rounds of Thimpu discussions under the auspices of India, delivering nothing. Athulathmudali, his National Security Minister was determined to take the fight into the heart of Jaffna. President JRJ’s Prime Minister Premadasa was against any Indian intervention.

With the LTTE claiming dominance, the first half of 1987 saw a brutal escalation of the armed conflict in Jaffna leading up to the (in)famous Vadamarachchi attack in June ‘87, that devastated the entire Tamil polity. Tamil Nadu was up against the Centre wanting a quick intervention against JRJ’s government. Perhaps this made Rajiv Gandhi to accelerate his programme and the Indian Experts to decide what’s best for India.

The outcome in the form of the Indo-SL Accord wasn’t the best for Sri Lanka and a mistake once again by India. India took all Tamil groups for granted and therefore was not consulted to draw up the contents of the Accord. The consensus reached by Sri Lankan Tamil parties and groups at Thimpu on their homeland, the right for self determination as a Nation and citizenship for all Tamils wasn’t given consideration although Rajiv Gandhi was quoted as saying the Accord “went well beyond anything that the Tamils had ever put forward” and it was “an agreement which for the first time looked at almost every single problem of the Tamils” and also “found answers to those problems”. No, doubt as perceived by Indian experts.

Now it would suffice to quote former Indian Foreign Secretary, A.P. Venkateshwaran, to understand what was to follow. ” … What concerns me is the sudden signing of the accord which seems to have too many loop holes … The Indian Government instead of resolving the question of devolving power to the Tamils had decided upon signing an agreement first and then resolving the devolution question…The manner in which the agreement was signed amounted to putting the cart before the horse … Why should the Sri Lankan Government implement devolution? They are not fools. No devolution will take place under the agreement. We will have to leave Sri Lanka in circumstances worse than we went in…” [Hindu of 13th August 1987] This was just 02 weeks after the IPKF landed in North-East of SL.

The sudden signing of the Accord, of concern to Venkateshwaran was no concern to the Indian hierarchy. Their concern was the changes in geo-political influence. These concerns of India were in fact built into the “Exchange Of Letters Between The Prime Minister Of India And The President Of Sri Lanka” that formed part of the Indo-SL Accord. And they defined keeping “outsiders” away from our geo-political boundaries, unless otherwise agreed upon by the two countries.

That achieved, the death of over 1,200 Indian soldiers in its war against the LTTE and the savage uprising in the South of SL led by the JVP, was peripheral.

As Venkateshwaran predicted the Provincial Councils that were constitutionally established became mere structures with token power. The North-East lingers on without an elected Council after the fiasco of hoisting the Indian groomed EPRLF as the N-E Provincial Council.

Unfortunately, the Accord was never positive. A savage protracted war, de-merging of the North-East that shatters the Thimpu basis on which all Tamil parties and groups accept any negotiations for a permanent solution should be held and the social disbelief in PCs as a feasible experiment in devolving power, are all negative political factors that filled the 20 years spent after the Accord with increased convolution.

Yet the Indian government has opted to ignore all of them once again in assuring its support for the full implementation of the failed 13th Amendment.

With what difference this time ? The Indo-SL Accord that includes the provision 2.16 (c) that agreed to afford Indian military assistance to implement the proposals as and when requested by the SL government and no. 06 of the Annexure will not be openly held valid. It’s only the 13th Amendment that established and gives powers to the PCs that will be supported by India once again.

Yet from reports available all military assistance including intelligence will be available for the SL government to continue with the war against the “LTTE terrorist”. India also extends financial co-operation to help sustain a wholly mismanaged Sri Lankan economy that was seeking Chinese support. That spells the Indian deal this time.

Again, the JHU is opposed to the full implementation of the 13th Amendment. Again, the JVP is ready for another extremist campaign against the 13th Amendment, although this time, they are represented in them.

President Rajapaksa says he does not believe in experimenting. Interim Advisory Councils, Police Powers for PCs, land alienation therefore would not be worth experimenting with. All these amended changes that leads to the present scenario nevertheless leaves one major question to be answered. Will history repeat itself, with India proved wrong yet another time and the SL government once again trying out a failed experiment?

by Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne

An avatar is haunting the country. It is the avatar of foreign military intervention. In the aftermath of the unilateral withdrawal of the Ceasefire Agreement by the Rajapaksa regime and the growing civilian massacres, destruction and absence of the rule of law, there can be little doubt that the Government’s intention of a military victory is bringing grief and suffering to huge numbers of civilians of all communities of the people of Sri Lanka. In order to get out of this barbaric situation the Government should halt air bombardments, artillery shelling on civilian settlements that negates any political solution based on self-determination, end hostilities and restore the Ceasefire. Only then will pressure bear on the LTTE to stop their attacks spread throughout the country.

Escalation of terror

The escalation of terror by the Government will only enhance counter-terror of the Tamil militants. Even the British Foreign Minister says, ‘I urge all in Sri Lanka to take steps to safeguard the civilian population and find ways to reduce violence. Violence can never provide an answer to Sri Lanka’s problems. People in Sri Lanka need to find space to realise their many similarities, rather than becoming further polarised by their differences. A sustainable solution to Sri Lanka’s conflict can only emerge through a just political process involving all communities.’ This is a point on which we Marxists can agree with a leader of global capitalism.

Since 1974, we have been campaigning for the recognition of Tamil nationality, autonomy for their homeland and the right of self-determination, as a basis for the resolution for the deteriorating conflict in Sri Lanka. As one of the leaders of the United Socialist Alliance I have participated in a large number of well attended public meetings and demonstrations, on the Tamil national question, amongst threats, intimidation, and severe hardship. I have also taken this campaign outside Sri Lanka with the help of my socialist friends and Fourth International of which I am a member. We have participated in many anti-war meetings and seminars in India, the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, South Africa and Honk Kong. No doubt the majority of this country supports peace and settlement, though it is spread in different directions. On the basis of this experience I believe that the Left in Sri Lanka has an important role to play at this moment.

Collective duty

The Left has a collective duty of solidarity towards subjugated people of oppressive regimes, and thus to defend the cause of the Tamil people and to demand justice and peace in their homeland. Perpetual uncertainty of natural life and absence of productive life are condemning hundreds of thousands of Tamils in their own homeland to refugees without shelter, with shortages of food, fuel, medical supplies and electricity with untold suffering to women and children. Whilst the Left campaigns for the just cause of the Tamil people, it must also campaign vehemently to end the untold suffering of the Sinhala and Muslim masses due to globalisation, inflation, economic mismanagement, corruption, despotism and cronyism. In addition, the Left should demand to end emergency regulations, to bring an end to attacks on media and media people, death squad killings, disappearances, illegal arrests and detentions. This the Left has done in the past and it will be doing so in the future as well. However in the absence of political negotiation and the reneging on every agreement, the growing number of internally displaced people, the economic embargo on the Jaffna peninsula and increasing death rates in addition to the war of oppression, the Mahinda regime is thrusting the only option of separation on the Tamil people.

Western intervention

A letter by B. Nadesan, LTTE political wing leader to the UN General Secretary requesting the UN to recognise the sovereignty of the Tamil nation, is the consequence of this situation. The JVP was a prominent actor in creating this situation and has been seeking western intervention to curb the Tamil liberation struggle. Recently it has started a campaign against Radhika and Rama Mani, claiming they were conspiring to erode the sovereignty of Sri Lanka by invoking R2P, the UN principle of Responsibility to Protect. Strangely enough, the same JVP vehemently supports the Sri Lankan involvement in the R2P intervention in Haiti. They do not see that as an imperialist project!

At this time of trial, the Left should stand in solidarity with the Tamil people, their right for liberation and with their legitimate elected parliament representatives, the Tamil National Alliance. It is the duty of the Left in this country to appeal to Left organisations, trade unions, socialist intellectuals and progressive media in India and the world over, to join us in our campaign to arrive at a united solution on the basis of the recognition of the Tamil homeland, their nationhood, autonomy and the right of self determination. If the Left fails at this juncture the vacuum will be filled by the global capitalist policemen. Rama Mani has admitted, ‘the R2P is for those who are desperate,’ and added, ‘The military corps of this country has a proud, strong tradition. There are countries that do not have that.’ So it is clear when and for what purpose they would come!

The Left especially should appeal to the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Socialist leaders, and the leaders of the Left Front of India, including the Indian Marxist Communist Party and the Indian Communist Party, to help us by joining our campaign, to expose the realities of the war in Sri Lanka and to support the cause of voluntary union of all communities.

by Dayan Jayatilleke

Kosovo is set to declare its independence from Serbia this Sunday. In his four hour long valedictory media conference, outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced the move as “illegal and immoral”. Serbia and Russia have called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Russia , China , India and South Africa are among the countries which have opposed Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

[Kosovars celebrated in central Pristina, Kosovo, on Saturday night ahead of the region’s declaration of independence from Serbia, expected to come on Sunday-Photo Courtesy of NYTimes.com]

The open secession of Kosovo and its imminent recognition by powerful Western states takes place notwithstanding UN Resolution 1244 of 1999 which recognises Kosovo as part of Serbia . As the Russian Federation ’s charismatic Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (who stunned me by a burst of fluent Sinhala upon introduction) warned in his Gunnar Myrdal Lecture in Geneva a few days back, the recognition of Kosovo’s independence runs contrary to the very basis of international law and is fraught with consequences for Europe and other parts of the world.

The Russian position has consistently been that any solution should be agreed upon in negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo. This was abandoned as impossible by Marti Ahtissari, who recommended de facto independence for Kosovo. Incidentally he was brought to Sri Lanka as a possible negotiator or facilitator by the Ethnic Affairs Advisor of President Kumaratunga, but luckily for Sri Lanka was objected to by Hon Lakshman Kadirgamar and, it must be admitted, the JVP.

There were options other than secession for Kosovo. One was for the fullest autonomy within Serbia . The other was the carving out of the Serbian majority portion of Kosovo and its annexation with Serbia . However, all options were aborted by the obduracy of the Kosovo leadership, which insists on independence. It must be noted that the current leader of Kosovo is a former leader of the separatist army which practised terrorism, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The majority of people of Kosovo had become accustomed to the idea of independence during the several years of administration by a UN High Commissioner (later nominated as an IIGEP member for Sri Lanka by the EU). The hardening of the position of Kosovo was also due to open pledges of recognition of independence by several key Western powers.

Of course the breakaway of Kosovo merely completes the unravelling of the former Yugoslavia . There were many reasons for this: the abandonment by majority Serbian ultra-nationalists, in the new context of electoral competition, of the enlightened compact forged by the unorthodox Communist Joseph Broz Tito, a founder leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (and friend of Sri Lanka); the exacerbation of ethnic tensions by the adoption of an IMF package; the rollback by Serb nationalism of Kosovo’s autonomous status as a province; recognition by certain Western European states of the breakaway Yugoslav republics setting off a centrifugal chain reaction; the excessive brutality against civilians of the Serbian army and Serb militia in the breakaway republics; the partiality of the Western media which focussed only on Serb excesses but not those committed by anti-Serb forces.

In the final instance however, the secession of Kosovo is traceable to a single mistake: the decision by President Milosevic to follow the advice of President Yeltsin (who had already been lobbied by the US), and withdraw the Yugoslav army from Kosovo, notwithstanding the fact that in its heavily camouflaged and dug-in positions, it had withstood US/NATO bombing and was well positioned to inflict, with its tradition and training in partisan warfare, unacceptable casualties on any invading ground forces. Cuban leader Fidel Castro reveals that at this crucial moment he had written to Milosevic and urged him, in the final words of his missive, to “Resist! Resist! Resist!”, but the Belgrade leadership failed to do so. In short, the impending independence of Kosovo is the result of the failure of political will on the part of the ex-Yugoslav leadership. Instead of resisting, the Yugoslav army withdrew and was replaced by an international presence on the ground in Kosovo. After a period of tutelage, Kosovo was encouraged with a nod and a wink, to secede completely.

These then are the lessons for Sri Lanka : never withdraw the armed forces from any part of our territory in which they are challenged, and never permit a foreign presence on our soil. After 450 years of colonial presence, and especially after the experience of the Kandyan Convention, we Sri Lankan should have these lessons engraved in our historical memory and our collective identity. The Western imperialists who failed to capture our island militarily were able to take control of it only because we double crossed our leader, trusted the West, signed an agreement and allowed the foreign presence into our heartland.

[The family of Valon Nuhiu, 9, had been squatting in a house belonging to Serbs who fled in 1999. They were evicted in Feb 2008-Photo Courtesy of NYTimes.com]

The Western war against Yugoslavia was waged not by the Bush administration but by a liberal one. It was waged under the doctrine of liberal internationalism, and humanitarian interventionism. These doctrines were updated to “preventive humanitarian interventionism” in the case of the invasion of Iraq . Today, the buzzword is the “Responsibility to Protect”, and I refer not to the UN World Leaders summit of 2005 which requires the endorsement of the Security Council, but the original 1998 version of the Canadian government sponsored International Commission on State Sovereignty, which had a far more elastic interpretation! The co-chairman of that Commission was former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans (whom Hon Lakshman Kadirgamar was determined, should not play a role in Lanka’s peace process despite his offers to do so in 1995).

We may find a newer version arising with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s Aung San Suu Kyi lecture delivered at Oxford University a few days back. In it, he says that notwithstanding some mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan , the West must not forget, and must take up once again, its moral imperative to expand democracy throughout the world (including, interestingly enough in “established democracies”). He identifies and rejects three objections to that project: the “Asian values” school which in its 1993 variant of a statement by 34 countries, recognises democracy but resist the imposition of western values as neo-colonial; the Realpolitik school which stresses “interests” rather than values and morality; and even the pragmatic school which points out that democracy is the product of internal historical processes. Foreign Secretary Miliband makes several pointedly critical references to China , (which he will be visiting shortly) in his speech on the need of the West to extend democracy worldwide.

The patterns of world politics appear kaleidoscopic, with coalitions forming over one issue, only to break up over another. At first glance this would make long term alliances or affiliations almost impossible. However, certain issues are revelatory of underlying dynamics which are of a defining character. Kosovo is certainly one such issue.

The Kosovo crisis sheds light on a dynamic in world politics which is of central importance to Sri Lanka . This is the matter of state sovereignty. As a country which is grappling with a challenge to its territorial integrity and unity, all tendencies towards the break-up of established states are against the basic interests of Sri Lanka .

The issue of Kosovo not only illustrates the phenomenon of secessionism. It reveals a more fundamental contradiction within world politics, namely that between state sovereignty on the one hand and those tendencies which act to undermine states. Such tendencies are twofold: secessionism from within and hegemonism from without. The tendency towards hegemonism manifests itself most starkly in the phenomenon of interventionism.

Kosovo and earlier Chechnya disprove the identification that some make between Western interventionism and particular religions. While it is true that on a global scale, the West perceives itself as besieged by and struggling against what it calls Islamist terrorism or Islamic radicalism/extremism (some hard-line ideologues even talk of Islamo-fascism) attention must be drawn to the fact that Serbs are Christian, while Kosovo Albanians are Islamic. The Chechen separatists, some of whom were headquartered in the West, were also Islamic, while Russia is mainly Christian. Western interventionism is not tied to any particular ethnic or religious group. The name of the game seems the old one of divide and rule, and whichever group or struggle weakens the target state appears to be the one that is afforded patronage.

[Two women walked past the ruins of a burnt-out house in the Serb enclave of Mitrovica, northern Kosovo. Most Serbs insist they will never accept an independent Kosovo and see it as the dismemberment of their homeland-NY Times.com Multimedia]

All tendencies in world politics which weaken, fragment and destabilise states, undermining their sovereignty and making them vulnerable to hegemony and intervention, are inimical to Sri Lanka . All tendencies which strengthen and defend state sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, are friendly and helpful towards Sri Lanka . By extension, all state and non-state actors which work towards the weakening of state sovereignty in the non metropolitan areas of the world, i.e. the global South and East, cannot be regarded as the strategic friends, allies and partners of Sri Lanka . All state and non–state actors which support, defend and work towards the preservation and strengthening of the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of states, are objectively the friends, allies and partners of Sri Lanka.