LTTE sticking to its guns

If Norway's special envoy to Sri Lanka Erik Solheim was hoping to make headway with the LTTE on two crucial issues, he would have gone back on Friday a disappointed man. Despite a four hour-long discussion with the group's political wing leader S.P. Thamilselvam, Mr. Solheim had failed to get any of the assurances he had sought, namely getting compliance with the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM)'s ruling that the camp set up by the LTTE in the Trincomalee district be closed down and assassination of political rivals stopped.

At a joint press briefing after their meeting in Kilinochchi on Wednesday, Mr. Thamilchelvam reiterated the LTTE's position." We have not effected any change on our decision on the camp issue," he said adding the "earlier decision still stands." However, Mr.Solheim did not agree the matter was a closed issue. He said his decision would be made known after his discussions with the SLMM. The SLMM has been caught in a dilemma with its strong stance against the LTTE setting up a camp at Manirasakulam in Trincomalee with repeated requests for the camp to be closed down, falling on deaf ears. With the continuing LTTE defiance against the SLMM ruling, the Scandanavian monitoring group has said it could not make a further decision on the issue and would refer it to Mr. Solheim. The killing of Tamil political rivals as well as Muslim civilians by the LTTE is also continuing unabated and Mr. Solheim's visit had done little to stop the killing spree. Maybe the LTTE was trying to drive the point home that it had no intention of taking orders from anyone when it decided to assassinate an active EPDP member in Batticaloa, just two kilometres away from where Mr.Solheim was meeting with Muslim community elders in Kathankudy.

The victim was thirty two year old Arasaratnam Radheeshwaran who was riding a motorcycle when he was ambushed and shot dead in the heart of the Batticaloa town in broad daylight. All this happened in a week when the government was expressing optimism at an early resumption of the stalled peace talks. Government spokesman G.L.Peiris told reporters on Thursday that the Government was confident the "there would be a resumption of direct talks no later than the end of September." However one wonders if it is too soon to be optimistic given the fact that the LTTE has sought at least another three weeks before it can send a response to the Government's interim administration proposals. Mr. Thamilchelvam will be consulting with several legal experts between August 21 and 27 in Paris where the proposals are likely to undergo a final analysis. Despite hopes for early talks, Prof.Peiris also lamented that public confidence in the peace process itself was eroding given the continued killings and the ceasefire violations.

" There is no doubt there is a negative impact. That is obvious. This is what we wanted the Norwegian facilitators to convey to the LTTE. Nothing must be done that will erode or disturb public confidence in any manner, " he said. It was a deviation from the usual confidence he expresses of public support for the government's efforts in bringing about a settlement to the ethnic issue. It is this all-important public confidence that Mr. Solheim was also hoping to restore when he made the visit to Sri Lanka after a lapse of nearly three months. Mr. Solheim's itinerary included a meeting with Mr. Thamilchelvam and the LTTE's Batticaloa and Ampara military wing leader Ramesh. He also met with the SLMM representative in Batticaloa, Muslim community leaders as well as members of the NGO consortium. The NGO's main grouse was that the Tamils were losing confidence in the SLMM as it had failed to find solutions to the problems of the displaced members of the community in the Eastern province. They were critical that steps were not been taken to re-settle people in the areas occupied by military camps.

Batticaloa was not the only area caught up in the tense situation. Things took a turn for the worse in Trincomalee as well with the killing of two Muslims in the Uppuveli area that was soon followed by the tit-for-tat killing of a Tamil youth in Mutur. This happened a few hours after Mr. Solheim returned to Colombo after meeting with the LTTE's political wing leader. The tense situation prompted the imposition of a police curfew and the Army was deployed in vital areas to prevent any possible clashes similar to what took place in April. The tension has been further heightened with reports of the emergence of a new Muslim group known as the 'Osama' group who is said to be collecting arms. The two Muslim youth killed on Wednesday night were reportedly drawn into a trap by the LTTE that weapons were available in a particular village and they were on their way to purchase them when they were shot dead. They were carrying with them Rs. 80,000 allegedly to purchase weapons.

Minister Rauf Hakeem was among those who attended the funeral on Thursday in Mutur.

The revenge killings in the area have been continuing, the previous one being a Muslim who reportedly had close links with the Police whose killing was followed by the killing of a Tamil youth. The human rights group Amnesty International (AI) this week raised the issue about the killings, condemning them. If any public confidence is to be restored and sustained in the peace process, it is unlikely to happen if there is no end to the violence. With the SLMM also looking more and more like a lame duck given its inability to get the LTTE to comply with one of its rulings and the Government's overly optimistic views also gradually subsiding, Mr.Solheim's visit also seems to have made little progress to get things back on track.

The world order after Iraq

Ever since he was created man has been at war, either to defend himself and his territory against aggression, often by neighbours, or to aggrandize himself by acquiring the territory of others, be they neighbours or not. In this connection, the Greek, Roman, Persian, Portuguese, Dutch, French and British empires come to mind. Over the years the concept of neighbourhood has changed. Today, we are constantly reminded, in the jargon of globalisation, that the whole planet is a village, a neighbourhood. After the second world war, two hegemons straddled the world. It was not a village then. Each had the wealth to produce, and the will to use, weapons of awesome power and range to promote and defend an ideology or to deal with a perceived threat to their security, even if it arose halfway across the globe. Before the demise of the Soviet Union every nook and corner of the earth had become a potential point of confrontation between the two hegemons. The maintenance of global order, at least in the minimal sense of foreclosing the option of all out war, was achieved only by the balance of nuclear terror. Today, the situation is different. Only one hegemon survives and that one has acquired the unprecedented, even the undreamt of, capacity to destroy, or dominate militarily at least for a while, any part of the world, however far away it may be from home, without running any risk of apocalyptic nuclear retaliation. Even before Iraq the world had become unbalanced in military terms, although the full extent of that imbalance did not become clear until the invasion of Iraq occurred.

Simultaneously with the concentration of such fearsome power in the hands of one nation State, new concepts of war have emerged which seek to justify, in certain circumstances, armed intervention in the affairs of another sovereign State. I refer to the concept of the humanitarian war to prevent or punish genocide, ethnic cleansing and other heinous crimes, and the war to effect a regime change in order to liberate an oppressed people from dictatorship and install a democratic form of government. If such a war is waged with the approval of the Security Council, there would be no problem as to its legality. If, however, it were to be launched by a State that possesses the capacity to do so unilaterally or in alliance with other like-minded States, grave questions would arise as to its legality, moral validity and practicality. The war against Iraq brings these questions to the fore. Ancillary questions arise concerning the real, as opposed to the stated, motive for the war; the credibility of the principal protagonists in making their case for war; the impact of the war on relations with other States; the limits of technological superiority in achieving a just and durable peace after the war; the possible militarisation of the world as a backlash to the military dominance of one State; and the role of civil society in influencing decisions regarding war and peace.

All over the world, in countries big and small, rich and poor, a sense of unease, bewilderment and fear is firmly anchored in the minds of the millions in cities everywhere who, having no sympathy whatsoever for Saddam Hussein, nevertheless marched against the use of force in Iraq. Ordinary people ask ordinary questions: what exactly was the problem ? was it really necessary to use massive force to resolve it ? has the problem, in fact, been resolved ? will what happened there happen again somewhere else ? who is next, why and where ? The invasion of Iraq is seen by many as a cataclysmic event that has seriously disturbed international relations. The ripples have spread far and wide. A vision of the world order after Iraq must necessarily, at this point of time, be based to a large extent on conjecture; and conjecture as to the future, to have any reasonable prospect of validity, must be based on an understanding of the events that led to the invasion. An evaluation of those events inescapably involves judgmental decisions.

I wish at this stage to make some observations about America which I believe would command wide acceptance. The people of the United States of America have countless friends and admirers all over the world. We the people of South Asia must remember that our interactions with the American people have always been friendly. They and their governments harboured no colonial designs against us. They did not stand in the way of our own drive for independence.

The society they have built for themselves is a magnet to which others elsewhere are irresistibly drawn. America has throughout its history provided a home for the oppressed in search of refuge. It has been a land of hope and opportunity for those who yearn for a chance of leading a better life, in a country where talent is accommodated and encouraged to flourish, where hard work brings rewards. We must not forget that America has been generous. It has spearheaded astounding progress in every avenue of human endeavour. Her friends would wish to see America remain a strong, confident and benevolent champion of democracy. That is why so many are so disturbed that the image of a fair and just America has been shattered by the events in Iraq.

Notwithstanding those events the community of democratic States must always remain in dialogue with American governments and the people of America, so that America will never be allowed to feel abandoned, isolated and lonely. When we differ from American policy our criticisms should be tempered with understanding. A giant should not be left friendless, bereft of honest counsel, lest it be tempted to use its enormous strength in irrational and harmful ways. Here, India whose relationship with the United States has entered a new phase of warmth and co-operation, has a vital role to play in keeping in touch with America at every level. Hundreds of thousands of South Asians now live and work in America. They profit from, but also contribute greatly to the wealth and prosperity of, that great country. Visceral links have been established between the North American continent and our own sub-continent.

And in the struggle against terrorism, Mr. Chairman, which America must perforce lead, the democratic community must stand together; otherwise, each democratic State will be in danger of falling separately. I sought to express this thought in the following words in a speech at Warsaw in June 2000 at a Ministerial Conference on the theme "Towards a Community of Democracies". Forgive me for quoting from that speech. This is what I said : (quote) "A democracy standing alone cannot possibly survive a sustained terrorist onslaught because democracy is vulnerable, it is fundamentally constrained, limited by the demands of democratic practice and tradition. A democracy even at a time of war has to remember the rule of law, the freedom of the press and all those requisites of a practicing democracy. How then do we fight, how then do we survive ? My plea is a very simple one. Please do not forget that unless the democracies of the world stand together and fight together and always come to the aid of a member in peril, democracy will not survive. A challenge to democracy anywhere in the world is a challenge to democracy everywhere. The great liberal democracies must wake up to the fact that it is their duty to come to the aid of a democracy in peril in practical ways, with moral support yes, words and declarations, but also by a demonstration of political will that sends a message to the terrorists of the world that their days are numbered, that there will be no succour, no solace, no safe haven, no place to hide, nowhere to run for the terrorists of the world when all of us, the democratic States, stand together and fight together." (unquote).

We must not forget that the trauma of September 11 is still fresh in the minds of the American people. They had never before been called upon to face terror in their own homeland, the kind of terror that overshadows our daily lives in South Asia. For them it was a new experience that has coloured their view of the world and brought to them a sense of insecurity that they never experienced before. Being of a trusting nature, safely ensconced in fortress America, the American people for the first time in their history have become distrustful and apprehensive of foreigners in their midst, their famously open society now circumscribed by security concerns. In judging the foreign policy motivations of an American government we must be mindful of the fact that America is a deeply wounded society after September 11. That is why, no doubt, a majority of the people of America, not altogether surprisingly, have supported the war against Iraq. We must, therefore, be mindful of the context and the national mood in which important governmental decisions came to be made relating to Iraq.

I am approaching the end of this lecture and I will attempt now to set out some conclusions in the light of what has gone before. An objective analysis of the events that preceded the invasion of Iraq leads me to some conclusions : That, in the absence of a specific authorization of war by the Security Council the unilateral resort to force by the United States, the United Kingdom and some other States was illegal. That since the case for war on both sides of the Atlantic was heavily based on the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, the non-discovery of such weapons up to date deprives the case of its alleged moral justification. The argument that there is a moral right which could be exercised by any State or combination of States, without the sanction of the Security Council, to oust or destroy a tyrannical ruler cannot be entertained because it has dangerous implications for arbitrary action based on subjective criteria. Serious damage has undoubtedly been done to the standing of the United Nations as a result of the unilateral resort to force by a group of countries. The weakening of the United Nations, especially the Security Council, creates uncertainty and has a destabilizing effect on the world order.

The flawed procedure adopted for the preparation of crucial intelligence dossiers has created controversy within the two governments concerned and raises disturbing questions regarding their credibility. When the credibility of major powers falls into question it has a destabilizing effect on the world order. The impact of the war on the Islamic countries is problematic. An increase in terrorist activity as a response to the war cannot be ruled out. The most serious immediate development is the transformation of the Shiites, who are supposed to be most hostile to Saddam Hussein, into a resistance movement that employs suicide operations as weapons against the coalition.

Probe on reasons for Armed Forces
desertions

By Shanika Udawatte
The military has embarked on a programme to ascertain the reasons for Army officers and soldiers to desert their ranks during the ceasefire agreement between the government and the LTTE.

The Defence Review Committee (DRC) set up by the Defence Ministry has requested Army authorities to forward the reasons for officers and soldiers to desert their posts during the ceasefire in order to analyse the situation and identify appropriate remedies for the problem, DRC Chairman and former Army Commander Lt.Gen. Denis Perera told The Sunday Times.

A senior military official from the Army's Directorate of Personal Administration told The Sunday Times that necessary action has been taken to reply to the DRC with Army authorities currently in the process of identifying the causes.

During the past two weeks many officers at different levels in the Army have been engaged in preparing documents containing the reasons for desertion by officers and other ranks.

They have pointed out that desertion is directly linked with the morale of soldiers going down.

They have pointed out that the delay in effecting promotions in the Army due to the severe cadre excess has contributed very much to the lowering of morale.

They point out that officers who are due to be promoted to the next rank have to serve several more years without being promoted because the senior ranks are full.

They have drawn attention to various difficulties that officers have to undergo due to the lack of proper transport facilities.

They have elaborated on the issue by stating that in the case of sea transportation officers have to travel with other ranks on the same deck in naval vessels and that the situation is even worse where Company Commanders who are in charge of over 150 soldiers have to use the same mode of public transport as those under their command once they are flown either to Ratmalana or Trincomalee.

It is also pointed out that in some instances even Army officers suffering permanent battle casualties do not get a vehicle to go to the military hospital for their regular therapy.

Instances where officers have to spend money out of their own pocket for official purposes, and the fact that facilities provided to junior officers in the Army, in comparison with those provided by the other two services to their officers, are much less, have been highlighted.

They have also mentioned the hardships faced by officers with professional qualifications serving in regiments like the Engineering Service Regiment (ESR) or certain units of the Signals Brigade such as the Electronic Data Processing Unit (EDPU).

It has been stated that these officers who have joined the Army as direct officers to ranks such as Lieutenant / Captain forgoing higher perks offered in the private sector, are at certain times not paid the due respect they deserve for their professionalism and have to serve for very long periods in the same ranks without promotion.

In addition to the problems faced by officers, hardships which the other ranks have to undergo in their day-to-day duties are detailed.

According to these reports troops are being transported on certain occasions in cargo vessels which do not have a proper shelter or even the required toilet facilities for the number being transported. Since these journeys last for many several hours the troops are very much demoralised after such a journey. Having to spend many days in the transit camps before reaching the required destination is also mentioned as a hardship troops have to go through regularly.

Certain unjust actions taking place in respect of other ranks where some are treated differently due to the personal connections they have with influential people from within the services is highlighted and these are said to lead to the demoralisation of conscientious soldiers.

The reports have drawn attention to the inferior quality of rations / food and lodging facilities provided to junior other ranks in various situations and state that the lack of adequate standards in such basic requirements leads to the erosion of their mental status.

The reports show that the desertions during the ceasefire is around 4000 and that it is much higher than the average desertion figures when compared with similar time spans when hostilities were on.

They also draw attention to the Army's recruitment drive which is to take place during this month, and suggest that more funds be allocated for the welfare of soldiers if the intention is to attract new recruits. They also expect that the military pay hike currently in the process of being implemented will be an added incentive.

They add that the new recruits may get demoralised when they join the Army and start serving after the initial training period if the facilities promised in the recruitment propaganda do not really exist.

The other main proposals made by these reports include the implementation of an effective and efficient promotional scheme for all ranks, the implementation of a fair mechanism by which the problems of officers as well as other ranks are looked into regularly and appropriate solutions provided and the allocation of more funds to Commanding Officers of Regiments in order to upgrade facilities and basic requirements.

They also propose that sending professionally qualified officers for training programs in the relevant fields in order to keep them competent with the latest technology and conducting various other career development courses for officers as well as other ranks should be done.

They point out that in the developed countries the armed forces are among the highest paid and most professionalized institutions with good facilities and state that if the standards of the Sri Lankan forces are upgraded the Government will be able to utilize this manpower and its expertise effectively in national development policies in times of peace.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster