The Hindu Business Line : End of ceasefire in Sri Lanka

While the abrogation of the ceasefire in Sri Lanka has raised fears internationally that the ethnic conflict will escalate, it is seen by Sri Lankan authorities as creating space for a more inclusive and sustainable peace process, one in which it clearly wants India to be more actively involved, says G. PARTHASARATHY.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Rohita Bollagama announced on January 4, 2008 that the Cabinet, presided over by the Prime Minister, had decided on January 2 to abrogate the ceasefire agreement between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE, signed by the former Prime Minister, Mr Ranil Wickremasinghe, and the LTTE Supremo, Velupillai Prabhakaran. Bollagama averred: “The abrogation of the 2002 ceasefire agreement, which was fundamentally flawed, actually created s pace for a more inclusive peace process, which will guarantee sustainable peace in the country”.

He said that Tamil groups other than the LTTE would be able to participate in the peace process. Mr Bollagama also said that as a result of the abrogation of the ceasefire, Norway, which was facilitating and monitoring the peace process, would have a different role, which has to be “redefined”.

The Sri Lankan Government has been unhappy about the Norwegian role in the peace process. There was a strong feeling that the Norwegians were more accommodating than necessary, in dealing with LTTE transgressions. Moreover, like other European countries, which are largely monolithic in racial and religious terms, Norway had little understanding, or appreciation of the imperatives of national unity in pluralistic Asian countries.

Mr Bollagama said that while his Government was still in favour of talks with the LTTE, the guiding factor would be the maintenance of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. “At all times, the Sri Lanka Government should run all parts of the island,” he asserted.

On the very day that the ceasefire agreement abrogation came into force on January 16, the LTTE struck, with a terrorist attack on innocent bus passengers in Southern Sri Lanka.

Not surprisingly, the abrogation of the ceasefire raised fears internationally that the ethnic conflict would escalate, as it became clear that the Government was determined to destroy the LTTE militarily — a task its army may find is easier planned than accomplished.

There is now a widespread consensus in Sri Lanka that, given its commitment to the Island’s unity and territorial integrity, India should play a more active role in building a climate for a political solution.

India has, thus far, taken a back-seat, because the negotiations included the LTTE, which is a proclaimed terrorist organisation, while other moderate Tamil groups have been excluded.

India’s role

Indian interests can, however, hardly be safeguarded if distant countries are peddling their own formulae in dealing with a problem so closely linked to Indian security interests.

By seeking to “redefine” the Norwegian role, so that “many countries” may get involved in the process, Mr Bollagama was clearly signalling that Sri Lanka welcomed a more active Indian role in the quest for peace in his country.

India will have to tailor its role and use its clout so that the Sri Lanka “Donors Conference,” comprising the US, the EU, Japan and the UK, can complement its efforts. India’s position on developments in Sri Lanka is similar to that of the international community. Influential countries including the US have declared the LTTE a terrorist organisation.

Many such countries as well as the UN Secretary-General have voiced concern about the termination of the ceasefire and called on the Sri Lankan Government to work for a political solution and eschew human rights violations against innocent Tamils. India’s role in ending the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka enjoys broad international support and understanding.

Responding to a query on the abrogation of the cease-fire in Sri Lanka, the External Affairs Minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, stated: “We have to see what impact it has. Of late, clashes between Sri Lankan forces and LTTE terrorists have increased. So far as terrorism is concerned, our position is that of zero tolerance (of terrorism). So, any country that takes action against terrorists is free to do so within its legal system”.

Mr Mukherjee added that India wanted Colombo to arrive at a solution to the ethnic issue. He said: “So far as solution to the problems of the ethnic minorities, including the Tamils is concerned, so that their legitimate aspirations are fulfilled within the Sri Lankan system, that part should not be lax and efforts must continue to arrive at a solution”.

The most crucial aspects of Mr Mukherjee’s comments are that India continues to regard the LTTE as a terrorist organisation and that a political settlement which meets the legitimate aspirations of the Tamils must be within the framework of the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

Partisan considerations

Sadly, past Sri Lankan efforts to forge a consensus for a political settlement have failed because partisan considerations have prevailed over long-term national interests.

It now seems clear that the All Parties Conference will recommend implementation of the proposals for devolution contained in the1987 Indo-Sri Lankan Agreement, which were incorporated in the Thirteenth Amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution in 1988.

Moreover, it would be essential for Sri Lanka to also legislatively implement the provisions of the “Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka Amendment Bill” of August 3, 2000 and effectively end human rights violations of innocent Tamils.

This Constitutional Amendment Bill was presented after extensive consultations by President Kumaratunga’s advisers G.L. Peiris and Neelan Tiruchelvan and was withdrawn because of domestic opposition. The implementation of this Bill, together with the 1988 Constitutional Amendment will largely address Tamil concerns and aspirations.

Credible package

Tamil will join Sinhala as an official language of the country, there will be a merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces, with a single Provincial Administration headed by a Chief Minister, enjoying powers akin to that of the Chief Minister of a State in India. The merger will remain in force till a referendum in the Eastern Districts is held to decide whether they want a separate Province.

At the conclusion of his visit to Sri Lanka on January 15, Japan’s Special Envoy, Yasushi Akashi, warned of the dangers of Sri Lanka seeking a military solution to the ethnic conflict. He urged the Sri Lankan Government to come up with a credible devolution package to be offered to the “relevant parties including the LTTE”.

Given the demands of the LTTE and Prabhakaran’s intrinsic belief in ruling a separate “Tamil Eelam” as a one-party State, the LTTE will inevitably reject any package which does not meet its demands.

New Delhi should quickly work out a strategy of encouraging the Sri Lankan Government, the opposition UNP, with whom it has maintained cordial relations and moderate Tamil groups, to pass the August 2000 Constitutional Amendment Bill.

An early visit to Sri Lanka, possibly during the 60th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s independence on February 8, by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, where such an agreement could be formalised, would enable India, acting together with the international community, to mount pressure, including tighter international sanctions, on the LTTE, to fall in line.

In all, 1,195 soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force laid down their lives to guarantee the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Their sacrifices would not have been in vain, if Dr Manmohan Singh uses the occasion of his visit to inaugurate a memorial that the Sri Lanka Government is building in Colombo to honour these soldiers.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)