A single voice is hardly the choir they seek

By Neville de Silva

President Rajapaksa’s Independence Day address to the nation had elements that have unfortunately not received the media and public attention as some of his other thoughts dealing specifically with the national question. Understandably so, since it is the dominant issue before the country and what kind of solution should be evolved in the coming months (or years) to that question will determine to a large extent what the future holds for Sri Lanka and its people.

While the president’s speech was being distilled and digested in the days that followed, British foreign secretary David Miliband made a statement that would have had a deep resonance in a wide swathe of the Sri Lankan people. Obviously disturbed by the killings that occurred in Sri Lanka in recent days in which innocent people have been the victims of mindless violence, Miliband said: “The end of the formal 2002 cease-fire agreement does not remove the obligation of all parties to the conflict to protect civilian life……..I urge all in Sri Lanka to take steps to safeguard the civilian population and find ways to reduce the violence.” What Miliband did not say is what those “steps” are or should be. Where does one draw the line between what could be considered justifiable and what might be deemed excessive and morally and perhaps legally illegitimate or repugnant.

Democratic states faced with armed militancy are required to work within the framework of values and practices based on the rule of law while no such constraints hinder the other side. Here in the UK there is currently a debate on whether information obtained from wire- taps, emails etc should be admissible in court as evidence. While many MPs across party lines believe this should be permitted in the light of threats of extremist groups preparing to unleash violence in this country and blow up innocents as they did two years ago and failed to repeat two weeks later, the security services are not in favour of it.

The reason officials adduce is that if such evidence is presented in open court (or even in camera) the methods used by the security services to obtain such evidence, their modus operandi, would become known and counter measures would be taken by plotters and conspirators to protect themselves. There has also been an ongoing debate here about the length of time suspects should be held in detention to enable investigators to sift evidence and prefer charges, if any. On this issue the debate is reversed with the security services calling for a long period than the current 28 days and many MPs and human rights activists arguing against any extension.

It is against this background that one would wish David Miliband was a little more specific and had some advice for Sri Lanka. Obviously he did not want to because that would be to enter unchartered waters, for this foreign secretary who has not been in the seat long enough and probably does not know much about the Sri Lankan situation. The foreign office minister dealing with the subject is of course Kim Howells who has spoken several times on the issue in the Commons and has also visited the country.

So Miliband is most likely making a statement that has been put to him. All the same, it is worthwhile noting something else he said in the same statement. “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 polarized by their differences. A sustainable solution to Sri Lanka’s conflict can only emerge through a just political process involving all communities.” At the heart of the search for a solution through negotiation is the difficulty of restarting the peace process which collapsed and has remained ‘non est factum’ since the LTTE pulled out of the talks despite any efforts the Norwegian facilitators might have made to bring them to the table.

The problem then is two fold. Firstly, both sides have to sit down to talk. Secondly the negotiations should attract more than the two principal protagonists to the conflict for, as David Miliband rightly said, it must involve “all communities.” The western countries, especially the four so-called Co- chairs that keep urging the government to start negotiations, have not indicated how a reluctant- some would say intractable-protagonist to the conflict could be cajoled or pressurized to return to the negotiating table.

It is easy for those who have been telling the world what to do for decades on end to proffer advice. It is more difficult for them to say how it could be done because their own attempts at bringing ‘peace’ in various parts of the world have failed ignominiously. The latest appears to be in Afghanistan where even the coalition partners seem unable to agree on what to do and how to do it. Has peace returned to Iraq, one might well ask, or are more people dying now through violence than in Saddam’s time? The difficulty of getting the talks started and the inability of those who pressurize the government but cannot get the LTTE back on track remains the critical issue. The withdrawal from the CFA has provided a new reason to keep away.

In this regard it is useful to recall some of the remarks made by the controversial former British High Commission Dominick Chilcott, now ensconced in Bush country, at the Dudley Senanayake Memorial Lecture delivered before the CFA was abandoned. Chilcott said: “In the present circumstances I see little prospect of the LTTE responding to anything from the government that did not offer them separation. It would be nice to be proved wrong on that but I don’t expect to be.” He went on to say: “I have serious doubts as to whether the LTTE leadership would be sincere about reaching a negotiated settlement that reinforces democratic values within a united Sri Lanka. They have never accepted that anyone else should be able to speak for the Tamil people, a fundamentally anti-democratic position. But unless and until they embrace democratic non-violent methods, they will exclude themselves from any future peace process.” This, one might not be wrong in assuming, is not only Chilcott’s considered opinion but those of some his Colombo-based colleagues as well as those in their respective capitals.

If so, how is the government-this or any other- expected to present proposals short of separation that would be acceptable to the LTTE? How do those who advocate far-reaching proposals on devolution as a solution to the conflict expect to see the much-vaunted democracy and political pluralism they speak so intently about, established in the north in the face of their own considered opinions about the Tigers? Failing or not persistently raising these questions, we have by default allowed them to pass- by without pressing our foreign friends for answers. When it is done now and then, we hear only a deafening silence or some unintelligible murmurings.

In his Independence Day address President Rajapaksa asked a pertinent question. Having referred to the multi-ethnic character of those who fought (or should we say canvassed?) for our independence including those such as Ponnambalam Ramanathan, he asked where they would be had the LTTE been around then. The implication was clear enough. Would they have met the same fate as the leaders of other Tamil political groups-recognised political parties as well as militant organisations- who were eliminated to clear the ground for the emergence of the LTTE as the dominant Tamil group? While an assessment of President Rajapaksa’s thoughts that day on self-reliance and Sri Lanka’s future must await another occasion, it would be worthwhile to canvass the opinions of the foreign advocates-both state and non state- of negotiated settlement on how they would bring the LTTE to peace talks that must include (as both Miliband and Chilcott insist) representatives of “all communities” is the only way to achieve a durable solution.

Once the answers are forthcoming it would be possible to look at this problem afresh. Until then, Sri Lanka’s foreign ‘benefactors’ should stop pressurizing the government to form a choir of one.