CHALLENGING PERSPECTIVES OF SRI LANKA’S
JOURNEY TOWARD CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Sri Lanka Embassy holds public discussion
on “Sri Lanka: Beyond the Ceasefire Agreement”
Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke addresses the audience
At a time when the world is focused on Sri Lanka’s
attempts at conflict resolution and peace building, it is fitting
that the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington DC decided to initiate
a thought-provoking discussion on the subject, in the political
heart of the nation, on Capitol Hill, on Friday January 25, 2008.
Titled, “Sri Lanka: Beyond the Ceasefire
Agreement,” the discussion was a stimulating presentation
of perspectives by Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke, who spoke
on The Ceasefire Agreement, the Peace Process and
the International Community, by Dr Stanley Samarasinghe,
who spoke on The Way to Realistically resolve Sri
Lanka’s conflict, and by Ambassador Ashley
Wills, former U.S. Ambassador in Sri Lanka, who spoke nostalgically
of his sojourn in Sri Lanka and his observations and comments
of a conflict in a country he finds “heartbreakingly beautiful.”
He was also the moderator of the event.
Ambassador Goonetilleke, who took the podium
first, addressed a widely represented audience, from officials
of the administration, to Congressional staffers, to media, NGOs
and think tanks. He had the riveted attention of the audience
for the many pertinent observations and arguments he made, while
placing Sri Lanka’s case before them.
Said the Ambassador, “The international
community needs to be cognizant that democracies cannot take extra-constitutional
measures, and, political solutions to conflicts require discussion,
debate and compromise before consensus is reached.”
Keeping in mind an impatient international community
which generally appears to favor cut-and-dried solutions, and
referring to the devolution proposals of the All Party Representatives
(APRC), handed over to President Rajapaksa a few days ago, he
said, “Complex arrangements for devolution and power sharing,
that also involve constitutional changes and consultation of the
people, are inevitably, an incremental process. It is necessary
to remind the international community, that this is only a beginning
of an evolving process, which requires its fullest and continuing
support.”
Ambassador Ashley Wills addresses the audience
From a vantage point of having been personally
involved in the peace process when the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA)
was signed, Ambassador Goonetilleke was able to present a convincing
argument.
Having explained the background of LTTE intransigence,
Ambassador asked, “Against this backdrop, the question we
ask from those who urge the government to seek a negotiated settlement
is, are they asking us to negotiate with the LTTE once again?
If the LTTE demand for a separate state is non-negotiable, what
exactly are we going to negotiate with them? There are more questions.
How can a democratically elected government hand over a part of
its sovereign territory to an undemocratic entity like the LTTE,
which engages in terrorism? What is the fate of the Muslim and
Sinhala people, living in the areas claimed by the LTTE, as the
traditional homeland of the Tamils?’
He followed it by another pertinent question.
“…we have to ask, who would guarantee that this time
around, the LTTE will not walk away from the negotiating table.
Some may even ask, if the players were different, for example,
would the US negotiate with a terrorist group, which has used
suicide bombers to assassinate one president, nearly killed another
president, and assassinated several secretaries, including the
Secretary of State?”
Referring to the parallels being created by promoters
of Tiger interests in the U.S., Ambassador said, “There
are certain individuals, who try to draw parallels between the
LTTE demands with the American demand for independence from Britain.
However, in my view, the more appropriate comparison is to describe
the LTTE to the secessionist Confederates, who tried to break
away from the Union. As President Abraham Lincoln said in his
First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861, “Plainly, the
central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." Likewise,
“Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove
our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable
wall between them.” The Sri Lanka government too, being
a representative entity like the Union, finds secession wholly
unacceptable, and seeks friendship of all its citizens, and genuine
peace, as President Lincoln did, where all citizens in the country
can co-exist as equals in harmony, as they did for many centuries.”
Ambassador also made very pertinent comments
about the failure of the CFA, and the reasons it failed, and,
in the light of that, the futility of international concern that
the abrogation of the ceasefire would lead to more violence. As
he said,“…sane thinking would indicate that it was
not the abrogation of the CFA that would lead to increased violence,
but it was the ever increasing violence and grave provocations
that led the government to abrogate the CFA.”
Dr. Stanley Samarasinghe addresses the audience
Dr. Stanley Samarasinghe, a member of the faculty
of the Payson Center for International Development at Tulane University,
New Orleans, and Executive Director of the Sri Lankan think tank,
International Centre for Ethnic Studies, who took the podium after
Ambassador Goonetilleke, focused on the theme of realistically
solving Sri Lanka’s conflict. He began his presentation
by introducing himself as an academic and was keen to emphasize
that his views were independent and scholarly, and he was not
being partial to any views, but was merely presently facts as
he saw them.
Dr. Samarasinghe first focused on the viability
of a separate state for Tamils, when more than half of Sri Lanka’s
Tamil population lives outside the north and the east, which is
being claimed as “a traditional Tamil homeland.” It
bonded very well with Ambassador Goonetilleke’s argument
earlier that the whole concept of “Tamil Eelam” is
“fictitious” at best,“for there was never, at
any time in Sri Lanka’s history, “a traditional Tamil
homeland,” as the Vadukkodai Resolution of 1976 declared,
based on an erroneous claim by the first British colonial Secretary
Hugh Cleghorn.” Dr. Samarasinghe said that he feared what
would be the fate of the Tamils living in the south, and referred
to the partitioning of India and Pakistan in 1947.
Dr. Samarasinghe’s presentation was credible
and full of common sense, as he dwelt on resource constraints
in carrying out a war. He said that before the CFA, Sri Lanka
spent 20% of GDP on the war. After the CFA, the expenditure on
war decreased to 13% of GDP. With an escalation of the conflict,
the war budget in 2008 has increased to $1.7 billion, he said.
Thus, a substantial percentage of total GDP is being spent on
the war, which Sri Lanka should be spending on developing the
lives of the people. Dr. Samarasinghe’s explanation of the
opportunity cost of the war was much appreciated by the audience,
and was voiced by Ambassador Ashley Wills at the end of the presentation.
Dr. Samarasinghe also dwelt on the intrinsic
resilience of the Sri Lanka economy, whether there is a war or
not, and the nexus between the war and some sectors of the economy,
which are boosted by the existence of a war. He said in a survey
conducted recently, they found that it was the poorest of the
poor that joined the army, and, salaries being a substantial cost
of war, various sectors of the economy receive a boost through
war. Thus, when the Opposition grouses over the cost of war, it
is not totally correct, because the poorer sections of society
may actually achieve a higher standard of living than previously
because of increased revenue.
Dr. Samarasinghe also spoke of the complexity
of political system in Sri Lanka, and how one needs to understand
its dynamics, in order to be able to understand the way to go.
He said that the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), which
presented devolution proposals to the President a few days ago,
“may not be totally representative of the Sri Lankan polity,”
because of the absence of the UNP, the JVP and the TNA, but it
is yet important because it denotes a good start to a potential
end of the conflict, provided there is serious attempt at implementation.
He said that the centre needs to provide adequate funds to provincial
councils to effectively carry out their functions, otherwise the
system cannot work. He illustrated the point with an example of
how in1988, schools in the country were divided into provincial
and central schools. Before long, the provincial schools could
not function for lack of funds. Following the repeated demands
of parents, the provincial schools were once more categorized
as central schools, the reason being that provincial schools could
not function effectively without adequate funds. He repeated the
need to empower local authorities with the necessary resources,
if devolution is to take root effectively.
The question and answer session that followed Dr Samarasinghe’s
presentation, was a reflection of the diverse perspectives in
the U.S. of the Sri Lanka situation.
Full
Text of Ambassador's speech
Embassy of Sri Lanka
Washington DC
USA
25 January 2008
|