'The conflict in Sri Lanka: challenges and opportunities'

The following are excerpts of a speech made by Export Development and International Trade Minister, Prof. G. L. Peiris at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), London, recently.

"I would like to emphasize that the Government of Sri Lanka does not believe in a military solution to the problem. We believe in a negotiated political resolution of the conflict. But there are several comments that I have to make to present to you a realistic picture of the evolving situation in Sri Lanka.

"There is a great deal of misunderstanding, and many issues need to be clarified. My purpose is to present to you a bird's eye view of the situation in Sri Lanka and the complexity of the challenges that we are facing.

"The question is sometimes put to us: "Why don't you put a stop to the military action at once and why don't you agree to an immediate ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities?" There are certain realities that one needs to bear in mind in that connection.

"With regard to a ceasefire the question of confidence or bona fides is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, during the period when the ceasefire was agreed upon between the two parties and was supposed to be in force, some of the events that occurred were not such as to inspire a great deal of confidence.

The world has seen reports from the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission and, according to those reports, there have been very large numbers of deliberate and serious violations of the ceasefire agreement by the Liberation of Tigers of Tamil Eelam - several thousands of documented instances, as compared with a couple of hundred infringements of a relatively trivial kind by the armed forces of Sri Lanka.

It is now known that there were large quantities of arms that found their way into the country during that period, including aircraft parts and other material that is being used by the LTTE.

The opportunity that presented itself during the ceasefire agreement was, therefore, misused in a manner that was gravely prejudicial to the security of the State and the safety of the public. That is a matter of empirical experience.

That is the memory that is fresh in the minds of the public, and that reality has to be taken into account. I do not for a moment suggest that this is a reason for not thinking of a cessation of hostilities in an appropriate way, but it is an element that has to be recognized as a constraining and inhibiting factor.

"I began by telling you that the Government of Sri Lanka is committed to a negotiated political settlement. But the idea is not simply to put on the table a set of proposals. There is considerable pressure on the Government of Sri Lanka to do this and to do it fast. The challenge, however, is not merely to do something for the sake of doing it, but to do something that is going to be constructive or productive.

"One has to remember that many attempts have been made at different times in the past to formulate a set of political proposals. They have been made by different governments, with varying political convictions and values, in good faith. They are characterized by many discrepant features. But the one thing that they all have in common is that they all failed. It is therefore absolutely crucial to look back upon that experience and to ask ourselves why it is that all these attempts, substantial and well meaning as they were, consistently proved futile. There was a very comprehensive formulation of a set of political proposals that was embodied in the draft Constitution Bill which I presented to Parliament as Minister of Constitutional Affairs on the 3rd of August 2000. The centrepiece of the draft was a set of elaborate proposals for power sharing within the country. It did not succeed. Nor did any other attempt succeed.

"There are many reasons for that. But the fundamental reason, in my view, was a clear incompatibility between what was being attempted at the higher echelons of Government, on the one hand, and the sentiments or feelings of ordinary people, on the other. They did not come together; there was no convergence. On the contrary, there was a disconnect. If history is not to repeat itself, if this time round it is to be a more worthwhile experience, then it is absolutely necessary to ensure that the ground is prepared painstakingly for the implementation of the proposals that are formulated. Implementation is the key to success, and that is what the country needs. You have to ensure that what you are proposing is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. If results on the ground are the governing objective, as they ought to be, there cannot be an imposition which runs counter to the thoughts, feelings and expectations of the public. That is where the attempts in the past went wrong.

"How do you achieve this in a highly polarized political culture? It is certainly a formidable challenge to arrive at an adequate consensus. The instrument or modality that is chosen by the Government to try to work towards a consensus is the all party mechanism which enables conflicting points of views to be articulated and for a search to be made for a consensus that would hopefully emerge from the deliberations that are now taking place in the All Party Conference, assisted as it is by a group of experts who are making a valuable contribution to the process.

"I think it is also necessary to learn from the mistakes of the past. The purpose is not to impute blame but, in a spirit of self criticism, to do all we can to ensure that some of the errors of judgments that were probably made in the past are not repeated. If one assesses in that respect the structural framework of the Sri Lankan peace process, particularly during the time when we were engaged in direct discussion with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, I think there are certain anomalies which can be clearly identified in retrospect.

"To my mind there are at least three such deficiencies: One is that there was insufficient correlation between the political dimension of the process and the economic aspect of it. If a peace process is to be meaningful in the eyes of the vast mass of the people of the country, they must be genuinely convinced that the peace dividend is such that it makes a tangible difference to their lives. The peace dividend must serve to make their lives richer, better and more meaningful. If not, the peace process assumes the quality of something that is distant or esoteric and not really part of everyday experience.

"In that connection I want to emphasize to you that the current situation in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka provides us with a unique opportunity. After more than a decade the writ of the Government has begun to run in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. This has been a watershed event because the Eastern Province, as a whole, has been brought under the control of the legitimate Government of Sri Lanka.

"This is not an occasion for exultation, but rather it has to be seen as a window of opportunity to be seized with eagerness and to be exploited to the full. We now have the opportunity to be engaged in a variety of development programmes, with regard to tourism, with regard to fisheries, in the field of agriculture, and more particularly in respect of the small and medium enterprise sector. The Government of Sri Lanka is making a substantial investment in the development of infrastructure in the Eastern Province of the Island. It is our view that there must be a particular focus on roads and highways, because that has to do with accessibility and ensuring that the fruits of development percolate down to the grassroots level. That opportunity is now available.

"The second issue has to be to do with the role of the international community. One is sometimes asked whether there is really a role for the international community in the current Sri Lankan peace process. My answer is, emphatically, "Yes, there is a role and it is a very important role". That is the rationale underpinning the concept of the Co-Chairs. The Government of Sri Lanka took action to establish this mechanism consisting of 4 Co-Chairs - The United States, The European Union, Japan and Norway.

That involvement of the international community was regarded by the Government of Sri Lanka as a positive value and an input that we need. However, there was at the time a certain perception that the peace process was excessively donor driven. This does not mean that there is no room for a contribution by the international community. Not at all, but it is the people of Sri Lanka that must, in the final analysis, make decisions for themselves and for the destiny of their country. The international community must play a supportive role, there is no question about it. But there must not be a nagging doubt, some kind of lingering suspicion in the minds of the public, that decisions are not made within the shores of Sri Lanka and that the donors are in the driving seat. That is a matter of nuance and perception which needs to be addressed.

"There was agreement between the two major parties that the Royal Norwegian Government should be invited. But other countries, as well, were encouraged to make an input into the process. For example, at the time I was leading the delegation representing the Government of Sri Lanka in six rounds of talks with the Tamil Tigers we visited London, we met Prime Minister Tony Blair and we asked for assistance in two specific areas. One had to do with the restructuring of the Police Force in the Eastern Province. We thought that the experience of Northern Ireland, particularly in converting the Royal Ulster Constabulary into the Northern Ireland Police Force, was of special value. Secondly, we told Prime Minister Tony Blair that we would appreciate assistance from Britain with regard to the structures underpinning devolution of power in Scotland and Wales. And Prime Minister Blair put us in touch with Lord Falconer, at that time Lord Chancellor of Britain, and several discussions were held with regard to the legal basis of these arrangements. Other Governments, including those of India, the United States, Australia, Canada and Switzerland made contributions of value in areas within the ambit of their own expertise.

"Within appropriate limits, this cannot but be an enriching experience, subject to a crucial safeguard. This is the realization that, although there is no need to reinvent the wheel, useful solutions evolved elsewhere cannot be mechanically applied, but must always be adapted with resilience and creativity to suit the circumstances of the situation in Sri Lanka.

"This brings me to a few final thoughts. One of these relates to the situation in the Eastern Province. The window of opportunity exists not merely from the perspective of development, but also, quite crucially, from the point of view of the revival of the democratic process. It is the intention of the Government of Sri Lanka to hold elections in respect of several local bodies in that part of the country before the end of the year. Some of these elections could not be held in the recent past because of the turbulence in those areas and the LTTE?s presence there. That situation has come to an end and we are now in a position to hold these elections.

"One is asked questions about armed groups. Of course, if you are going to hold these elections, everyone must have the opportunity to participate in the elections. You would probably have heard of Mr. Anandasangaree, a respected Tamil leader who, not long ago, secured a very large number of votes in the Northern part of the country. He happens to be in London at present. People of that kind are not permitted by the LTTE to operate in the political arena. Therefore, when one talks of disarming political groups or other groups, it is also necessary to insist that the LTTE should refrain from intimidation and give all groups, including other Tamil political parties, the opportunity of contesting these elections in a suitable atmosphere.

"These are some of the thoughts I would like to share with you. I would like to conclude on this note. I think we are at a critical juncture, we need the understanding of the international community. There must not be judgemental postures. The human rights discourse must not be used as a lever to weaken the structures of a democratic government. It is necessary, when one is talking of human rights and humanitarian values which are undoubtedly of the greatest importance, to focus as well, on security and the protection of the public. What we need, above all, is the understanding of the international community with regard to the predicament of a democratic government grappling with terrorism.

"We must remember at all times the constraints and inhibitions that apply to a democratic government which is operating within the rule of law. These limitations do not apply, in any shape or form, to the initiatives of a terrorist movement. This fundamental contrast is what we need to understand, and particularly where trade is concerned, it is a great mistake to withhold from a democratic government in these circumstances, concessions, facilities and access it should have to make it possible for employment to be generated and economic benefits to be enjoyed by a large section of the people, particularly, in the rural areas of Sri Lanka. This is so, especially because a certain threshold of economic wellbeing is absolutely essential for the implementation of a viable political solution."