International curbs on national postures: National sovereignty on a short leash

by Kumar David

International pressure always constrains what nation states can do, sometimes for the better and sometimes regrettably. The IMF-Washington axis has forced neo-liberal economics down the throat of willing (read JR) or unwilling third world regimes; the economic collapse of Argentina, courtesy IMF meddling, is an execrable recent example.

In a 'globalised' and economically interdependent world there are no absolutes, not even mighty states like the US and China are wholly free agents. Two centuries before Marx exhorted, "Workers of the world unite", John Donne intoned in his Meditations: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main".

When nations are foolhardy enough to land themselves with decades of ethnic strife and interminable civil wars, that is to say when sovereignty itself becomes the contested issue, the outside world could well be the final arbiter.

Big brother India

If we think in millennial terms the history of Sri Lanka, from earliest times (people, language and religion), to the rise and fall of the British Raj, has been a footnote, albeit an interesting one, in the voyage of that large and populous subcontinent. More recent was the hard reality of training and arming Tamil militants, and in 1987, over-flights in unequivocal defiance of formal sovereignty.

Balasingham recants the "monumental blunder", Rajapaksa pleads for "India to play a bigger role", Norway consults before issuing its edicts and the US treads carefully round Indian toes on regional issues.

Forget about the morality, you may like it, you may not, but India will have a preponderant influence in determining the outcome of the ethnic imbroglio in our blighted island. In the long run not the Tamil Nadu factor but larger concerns and regional geopolitics will motivate its stance.

This rules out Thamil Eelam, but eventually two-unit federalism, by whatever name and style, will assuages the lacerations of our tortured ethnic body politic. Pettifoggers may fret that only 20km of seawater separates Jaffna from South India, but the subcontinent isn't going anywhere prior to the next tectonic plate shift.

So do all roads lead to Oslo next month? The truth is that for a variety of strategic and economic reasons neither GoSL nor the LTTE are currently in a position to say boo to the international goose. The international actors, therefore, must not relent in their determination to get negotiations started no matter how much the belligerents wail and whimper.

India and the Co-Chairs must also sketch some minimalist outline for the final formula - politely and with the usual pretence that it is the locals who thought it all up. Neither the Sinhalese nor Tamil political leaders have shown a modicum of aptitude or intelligence to do anything constructive for 50 years, so they need classes in Nation Building -101. Thankfully, both India and the US have done some legwork already.

The Co-Chairs statement includes the remark "The Co-Chairs urge the parties to resume negotiations and show real political commitment to achieve a political solution based on the previous six rounds of negotiation".

The previous rounds include the Oslo Communique and the agreement to explore federalism - so much for GoSL sovereignty and Tiger self-determination.

Not yet checkmate

The Brussels statement did not hesitate to rebuke thus: "Both parties must stop further violations of fundamental principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. The Co-Chairs condemn the numerous violations, such as the disappearance and feared killings of large number of Muslims in Mutur, the murder of 17 aid workers from the French NGO Action Contre la Faim, the claymore attack on a civilian bus in June and the bombing of the school in Mullaitivu in August.

The Co-Chairs are particularly concerned that even major cases of human rights' abuses are not successfully investigated or prosecuted. As in any modern state, the culture of impunity must stop". GoSL and the LTTE have to bear it all with a constipated grin.

All this apart, however, the new bottom line is the de-merger of the North and East. At the time of writing the Supreme Court has still to express its views, but given its recent stance on ethnic issues it will come as no surprise if it upholds the JVP-JHU reading of the Constitution.

The Co-Chairs on the other hand were quite unabashed about interfering with national sovereignty when they declared: "There should be no change to the specific arrangements for the north and east which could endanger the achievement of peace.

The legitimate interests and aspirations of all communities, including the Tamil, Muslims and Sinhala communities must be accommodated as part of a political settlement". So should it come to pass that the Court and the Co-Chairs are in conflict it will be interesting to see where the buck stops.

After all we have just been told that our commitment to international human rights covenants is the figment of a fertile imagination - even Bush couldn't get away with that one.

Finally, it is clear that GoSL has gained the military upper hand for several weeks on land and sea and its control of the air remains uncontested. Is it then willing to negotiate only because of international pressure or does it appreciate that military advantages are only ephemeral and fluctuate wildly over time? Or is this only a feint to stall international pressure till the monsoon, when it would be strategically appropriate to slow down? A bit of everything is probably the right answer, but let us wait and see.

China is a great and ancient civilisation where nothing changed for centuries, understandably then, an ancient curse goes: 'May you live in interesting times'. John Donne put it like this, "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". The next few months could be quite interesting; we know not whether the bell will toll.