Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

by Kumar Rupesinghe

We are today witnessing a situation where the peace process is proceeding relatively well, particularly after the recent round of talks in Thailand. The outcome went even beyond the scope of the agenda set to be discussed as there was even discussion concerning a political committee to delve into some of the core issues. There is now a very serious effort to come to terms with even the core issues.

However, at the same time we must also look at the issues that are likely to come up in the future. There is still a long way to go but a sudden breakthrough could make a settlement happen soon. We are currently moving away from the first phase of the negotiations process which is the removal of direct violence, and confidence building measures.

We are now moving towards the second phase which is to discuss power-sharing arrangements for the future and the structural issues that will govern future relations between the peoples of Sri Lanka. We must, however, firstly understand the nature of the present conflict. I feel that it is not so much an ethnic conflict as a conflict arising from the issue of sharing power equitably by all communities.

This is because the manner in which the Sri Lankan State evolved has led to the assumption that it is a State by and for the majority community to the exclusion of the minority communities. This majoritarian hegemonism has led to reactions among the minorities who feel that they too should be given an equitable share of power. The equitable sharing of power by all communities is therefore the core issue or the essence of the negotiation process.

This would mean that not only the Tamil people share power at the centre and that their power be transferred to the North/East, but that also the Muslim and Sinhalese people in these areas too be given an equitable share of power. We must however not just think of minorities in the North East, but must also look into the question of minorities in the South, so that adequate mechanisms could be formulated for their participation and involvement as stakeholders in a new Sri Lanka.

What we are now moving towards is actually the creation of a new state where all communities can live in co-existence. The next question that arises is the nature of the state. It is a matter for regret that many Sri Lankans today are still tied to the 1978 Constitution which is an anachronism to the political situation today.

This is because it is a highly centralized system which has become dysfunctional to society as a whole. The system has resulted in an inequitable representation of minority interests even in their areas of influence such as for instance the relative under-development of the Northern and Eastern Provinces when compared to the other provinces due to the insufficient allocation of resources to these regions.

We should therefore take a fresh look at a system where power is shared both at the periphery and at the centre. For example, we could have two vice-presidents from the minority communities so that the partnership of all communities in the reconstruction of the country is realised. We could either look at models from other countries or else use our creative genius to ensure that a structure equally suitable to all communities is in place. This would basically be a process of transition where we would be changing the relations of power between communities and entities. During the recent round of talks in Thailand, there was talk of a federal solution as well as a confederation solution. In other words, there was a willingness to discuss models which would preserve the unity of the country and this we should realise is a very positive development. There are still certain political elements in the South who continue to maintain that if the negotiations fail, we should be prepared for war.

However at the same time we must bear in mind that returning to war is unthinkable to the vast majority of citizens of our country. I would therefore suggest that a paper be prepared on the best alternative to war, so that even if the negotiations break down, there would be institutional mechanisms in place that would prevent the parties from engaging in further hostilities. Such arrangements are in place, for instance, in Northern Ireland.

There is also the issue of reconciliation that has to be addressed. We must acknowledge that all communities have suffered as a result of the war. There has been State terrorism precipitated by the 1983 pogroms with indiscriminate bombings and gross human rights violations, as well as terrorism on the part of the Tamil militant movement which has likewise engaged in bombings, assassinations and the indiscriminate killings of civilians.

We cannot forget the past as it is something that has already happened, but we have to acknowledge the truth. Through that acknowledgement we should create a forum for truth and reconciliation. There exist many such truth and reconciliation commissions which have been established in post-conflict situations.

The best example is perhaps South Africa where President Nelson Mandela established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are similar truth and reconciliation commissions in Guatemala, El Salvador and Uganda. In fact, in most post-conflict situations we find that there has been as thinking about such commissions.

We must also seriously think of a general amnesty for all war crimes. A balance must, however, be struck between a general amnesty and immunity against crimes against humanity. Such a system could be prepared from international experiences as for instance the South African case where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was actually entrusted to look into the question of immunity and in cases where excesses have been committed to mete out legal punishment.

Conflicts

However, at the same time we must also consider the Sri Lankan context where both the State and the other party have been engaged in terrorism.

Another area on which we should focus attention in the immediate future is the prevention of civilian conflict arising out of ethnic tension. For instance, we find that in the recent past there has been a series of unfortunate incidents and provocations of ethnic groups against each other. Take for instance the Velachenai-Muttur incident and after that the Trincomalee problems where we witnessed a Sinhalese-Tamil conflict. Then, in Akkaraipattu there was a potential riot between Muslims and Tamils.

These and a series of smaller incidents clearly demonstrate that there are forces inimical to the peace process who seem to be manipulating events to create de-stabilization. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a comprehensive security system to prevent conflicts and civilian disorder. Such a system necessarily requires the co-ordination of the law-enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and a central focal point which could co-ordinate these activities. It should also involve the participation of civilian organisations like peace committees and NGOs. To complement this effort there has also to be a citizen-based, early warning, rapid-response system by civil society organisations.

Civil society must have information which would enable them to move before the conflict turns into a riot through mediation, reconciliation, consultation and a host of other mechanisms which are available today in the preventive diplomacy area. There also needs to be an ombudsman or political envoy reporting directly to the Prime Minister located in the Eastern Province who can actually address the grievances on the ground. The Sinhalese in Trincomalee for example claim that they have nobody to talk to about their grievances.

The Muslims likewise have their grievances. In such a situation, it is always better to have a permanent authority who could settle a problem whenever it happens to arise rather than to have MPs and ministers visiting the spot when the trouble starts.

Take for example, the recent events in Maligawatte where a dispute centred around a particular Madrasi school had been well known to the authorities during the past few months, but no action taken to diffuse the situation until it reached crisis proportions. I therefore suggest that this mechanism should not be restricted to the Eastern Province but also be extended to other areas where there exist large ethnic communities living together.

Another critical problem in the Eastern Province is the land question. This is a very important issue since all communities settled there somehow feel that their land has been taken away either by the State or by the other communities. There are a large number of refugees returning and when they return they find that their land is already occupied by somebody else. The Muslims for instance claim that large amounts of their lands have been appropriated by the LTTE. We therefore feel a strong need for a commission to be appointed to delve into the land question.

It is imperative that the problem be resolved on the ground as a confidence-building measure while the talks continue. At the recent talks in Thailand the LTTE acknowledged and promised that all lands appropriated by them would be returned in two months time. Work must begin now to register land claims and dispute-resolution mechanisms set in place so that this land transfer also promotes co-existence between the various communities.

Majority Finally, there is the question of the two thirds majority necessary for a smooth transition to a new political system. The LTTE has drawn attention to the weaknesses of the centre and that it may not be able to deliver the final solution. There is therefore a need to discuss power sharing not only at the periphery, but also at the centre. Once the negotiations process is successfully concluded there would arise the need for a two-thirds majority which would enable the creation of a new Constitution. We also require a profound change in our political culture. All political parties must seriously think about the way in which they act and behave.

There has to be a departure from the politics of competition to one of accommodation and reconciliation. Such a process should begin with the political parties in the South in order to achieve a Southern consensus. At the recent talks in Thailand, two critical issues, the interim administration and the joint task force were dropped. This measure would satisfy the critics within the PA and other parties and ensure their firm support in the future.

Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe who recently served as Secretary General of the London-based Conflict Resolution body, International Alert, has earned a reputation as an international peace mediator. After a short tenure as a lecturer in Sociology in the University of Colombo and some activism in the radical Left wing of the Sri Lanka FreedoM Party in the 1970s, Dr. Rupesinghe completed his doctoral studies in conflict and peace-making in Norway.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager