.

p
The obstacles to lasting peace: What can Norway do?

by a Special Correspondent
The year 2000 has been declared by the United Nations as "The Year for the Culture of Peace." In Sri Lanka too, the political leaders have been reiterating their commitments to peace regularly. The President has predicted that this year will see the dawn of peace in Sri Lanka. But peace remains a mere hope for the millions who need it desperately for living without the fear of experiencing the losses, the hardships and harassments they had undergone over the past 16 years.

After the country has been torn apart by all kinds of factionalism, mistrust and organised violence invited by various leaders to serve their own narrow aims, the nature and strength of the forces obstructing peace have been overlooked by individuals and groups as well as foreign governments sincerely interested in ending the protracted violent conflict.

The pursuit of peace is not at the top of the agenda of all the powerful parties and the rebel group - the LTTE. Each group when declaring its commitment to peace, assumes that it would somehow be on its terms that will humiliate its chief opponent. In this imbroglio, the government has two adversaries. Its critics might say that this is government’s own making. The tactics of the adversaries within the democratic mainstream are naturally different from the militants who are outside it.

In this backdrop, the present initiative of Norway in merely bringing to the negotiating table the parties to the conflict must be examined in relation to the many obstacles to lasting peace. These had scuttled previous attempts to settle the conflict through dialogue even before any discussion on the core issues started. The present initiative is destined to fail unless the key obstacles are somehow removed.

The principal and side actors

In the long-standing dispute in Sri Lanka there are three parties - the party in power, the main party in the opposition and the dominant Tamil party. Until 1983, they were the SLFP, the UNP and the Federal Party/Tamil United Liberation Front. The role of the Tamil Party since then has been seized by the LTTE, which has no democratic credential. Nevertheless, it is accepted as the group that holds the key to peace from the Tamil side.

There are the ultra-nationalists among the Sinhalese, who operate outside Parliament claiming to be the protectors of the Sinhala race and the Buddhist religion. Until recently, the most conspicuous of them was a section of the Buddhist clergy. But now lay persons with academic distinctions in various fields have formed their own organisations and are playing the same role.

Among the Tamils there have been no comparable groups until recently, when in the aftermath of the 1983 anti-Tamil riots many migrated to the Western countries. Among them are the most ardent supporters of the LTTE. But there is an important difference in that they cannot influence the LTTE leader one way or the other, although they provide financial support and perform propaganda work for the movement. Since the LTTE operates outside the democratic mainstream, it has no compulsion to be concerned about Tamil votes.

Bipartisan Consensus

Whatever the original intention of the chief architect and the backers of the present constitution might have been, the fact is that it has allowed the ruling power to be misused for narrow and short-term gains. To some power is a source for self-esteem, prestige, wealth and enjoyment. The greed for power has not only induced the egocentric leaders to use various objectionable methods to seek it but also to ensure that the power can be used in the way they want. The weaknesses in the 1978 Constitution provide for this manoeuverability.

There is widespread opinion that the 1978 Constitution must be changed, if the country is to advance; according to some to prevent it from being driven to complete anarchy and cultural and economic bankruptcy. The approach and proposals to constitutional reform are in varying degrees influenced by narrow interests of the political parties and of their leaders. The process itself has continued for too long for this reason and it was also used as a medium for continuing the contest between the two main political parties.

The inter-connected subject of devolution and power-sharing is only one constitutional matter but nevertheless an important one that needs to be addressed from a national perspective. The prospects for a bipartisan consensus on this subject appeared promising when the President and the UNP leader agreed to cooperate as detailed in the 1997 agreement which was brokered by Dr. Liam Fox, the former Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in UK. But this did not serve the intended purpose as the leaders continued to act outside the meaning of the agreement.

A comprehensive and lasting political solution to the ethnic problem requires a new constitution for the country, that meets the legitimate aspirations of all ethnic groups. It has to provide safeguards against the kinds of discrimination and the fears that led to the present crisis. The fear of subjugation of minorities by the majority group must be removed for ever by appropriate constitutional safeguards and power-sharing arrangements.

The need to introduce all the necessary changes to the constitution within a composite structure has also meant the provisions relating to devolution and minority rights must be considered with all others. This has been exploited by the opposition to obstruct the finalisation of the draft citing different reasons at various times. The abolition of the Executive Presidency has now become more contentious than before.

The UNP leader following the crossover of five members to the government, promised to give the party’s support to pass the government’s constitution bill which, inter alia, contained the devolution proposals not acceptable to the UNP. Nevertheless, the hope raised for a joint effort was short lived. It became a conditional support and subsequently with unhelpful letters exchanged by the two leaders in which extraneous matters were raised and accusations made, the situation turned out to be as bad as it was before the visit of the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Knut Vollebaek on 16th February. This visit gave a renewed hope that the stalemate in finding a political solution would be broken.

Since the time UNP offered its support, the conditions for support have been shifting regularly and according to the letter sent to the President at the end of February, it wants changes to the constitution made ‘only after a working solution acceptable to all sections’ has been reached. This means that the confidence building measures including the de-escalation of the war as specified in the UNP manifesto of the last presidential election must take place first. The latter is what the LTTE also wants as a condition for the talks. Government’s approach has been to reach a southern consensus before talking with the LTTE.

The animosity that hindered a consensus on the constitutional proposals submitted to the Parliamentary Select Committee by the government and opposition parties has not abated even after the UNP leader extended his party’s support (regardless of whether it is tactical or real) for passing the government’s constitution bill in Parliament. The letters exchanged recently by them quite clearly expose their inability to put aside their antagonistic feelings.

The beneficiary of this southern conflict is the LTTE and the losers the people of all races - Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. The conditions for the talks laid down by the LTTE have not always been within the realm of the possible and the one relating to prior consensus of the two main political parties on the solution to the Tamil problem is on the assumption that it will not materialise. Actually, the two parties by their acts of omission and commission have sustained the reasons that the LTTE has consistently advanced for the armed struggle. Its goal is based largely on ideology but the reasons to justify the goal have to be found from real events. These have not been difficult to find in the irresponsible way the political leaders made public pronouncements and exercised power.

LTTE’s Role in the Confusion

Knut Vollebaek having talked in London with the senior representative of the LTTE, who is also widely regarded as its theoretician/spokesman has noted the organisation’s willingness to start direct talks with the government and for Norway to help in starting the discussions. The willingness to talk and willingness to negotiate for a political solution are two different matters.

LTTE has so far shown little interest in the proposals of either the PA or the UNP for constitutional reform because on the basic premise that the Sinhala polity will never agree to a political solution that recognises the existence of two separate nations in Sri Lanka. In their view, since the two-nation concept is contained in the so called Thimpu principles, the latter should be the base for a negotiated settlement. If the Thimpu principles were intended to abort the talks at that time, then at least the one that recognises the "two nations concept" will serve the same purpose now too.

The misleading positions of the LTTE since the end of November, 1999 (Heroes Day) have compounded the confusion created by the animosity and confrontation between the President and the opposition leader. LTTE’s initial position was that "no talks were possible while fighting was on". The leader had scorned the suggestion to have talks in a foreign country because "all talks had to be done openly with the full knowledge of the people."

After the separate meetings the LTTE representative, the opposition Leader and the President had in February with the Norwegian Foreign Minister, there was no mention from any side about conditions for the talks. But after the second meeting the LTTE representative had with the Minister in an undisclosed European city, conditions for the talks emerged in the open. LTTE is now demanding the "de-escalation of the conflict" that "involves a pragmatic programme of normalisation, cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of all troops from the North and East and removal of all restrictions and embargoes on the social and economic life of the people."

Earlier the LTTE representative was reported (Times of India 21st February) to have said that LTTE would talk to the Government though it did not believe President Chandrika Kumaratunga was sincere, but simply to prove to the Western world that the leader was prepared for a negotiated political settlement democrats with no selfish political ambitions are beyond any doubt but yet these traits do not count much in our cut-throat competitive politics. Even the influential leaders of the business community could not bring about a common understanding between the Government and the UNP for resolving the national issue.

Why a Third Party?

Some have questioned the involvement of a foreign third party in the peace process, which at the moment is limited to only facilitating the commencement of direct talks between the Government and the LTTE, assuming that the latter is keen on a negotiated political settlement. This is a valid question.

If lasting peace is the supreme goal of all the parties, there is no need for an intermediary, they will on their own volition agree to discuss the problems and find acceptable solutions through cooperation and compromise. This willingness apparently does not exist and the reason given by many is the lack of trust between the leaders, who have acquired power democratically or otherwise. From the preceding analysis, it must be clear that this is neither the dominant nor the only reason.

It should be noted that a foreign third party was needed even to bring about an understanding between the Government and the opposition leaders. Sri Lanka has been seeking and obtaining continually foreign assistance in many areas, including the monitoring of elections where the people exercise their sovereign right. The need for foreign assistance in conducting elections has arisen in recent years because the opposition parties do not trust the party in power. This was the case even when the present opposition party was in charge. When we obtain financial assistance from international organisations and even foreign governments it is not always without explicit or implicit conditions. We have to forego our freedom to decide on national policies as these have to be consistent with the prescriptions of the IMF and the IBRD.

When we ourselves cannot solve the national problems, there is no choice but to seek the help of others unless of course we are willing to face the dire consequences that result from their progression. There comes a point in protracted violent conflicts when the immense losses and destruction are too much for the people to endure. With the exception of the few who may be benefiting from the present crisis, the vast majority of the people in Sri Lanka have reached this point some time ago. They have no qualms about getting help from a neutral third party for finding a just solution to the national problem.

Conclusion

In this complicated scenario, it is pertinent to ask - what can Norway do? I is obvious that it alone and that too confined to a mere facilitation role can do very little to help in reaching a political settlement. The first meeting expected to take place in Oslo with Norway’s facilitation has been postponed. This might not have surprised those familiar with the divergent forces that are obstructing peace. The reason given for the postponement can only satisfy the three sides but not the informed public.

It is clear without pushing the two main political parties towards "consensual politics" on national issues, the prospects for lasting peace will remain bleak for a considerable time. The other political parties are now trying to persuade the opposition leader and his team to talk with the government and try to reach a consensus on the proposals for reforming the constitution. Without a consensus at least on the main framework that shows the power- sharing aspects of a possible political arrangement which also meets the aspirations of all ethnic groups, asking the LTTE to negotiate will not serve much purpose.

Lord Naseby, the Joint Chairman of the British-Sri Lanka Parliamentary group in a speech he delivered in the House of Lords following the attempt to assassinate President Chandrika Kumaratunga urged the international community to put pressure on the LTTE to renounce violence and hold talks with the Sri Lanka government. He also wanted Her Majesty’s Government to play an active role in the international community to get the process of finding a political solution moving.

Later speaking at this year’s Independence Day function of the Sri Lanka-UK society held at the Hilton Hotel, Colombo he said that "the big powers be they the Western countries or Australia or the USA or South Africa each are slowly but surely tightening the screw on the LTTE activities". Lord Naseby’s statement focuses mainly on the actors on one side who are operating from foreign countries. The principal actors must be made to realise that there is no future in continuing their separate strategies and all have a bright future only by re-establishing peaceful conditions vital for higher investment and economic growth, rebuilding the war-torn areas and promoting the development of all regions.

Foreign assistance is needed to weaken the forces that are obstructing peace and development. Without lasting peace, the full benefit of foreign aid provided to fund development projects and programmes cannot be secured. Sadly Sri Lanka needs outside help, which has to be in a concerted form that cannot be construed as "direct intervention in the internal affairs". The fact that the diplomatic community in Colombo is constantly briefed by the government and the opposition leader on "internal political matters" is an admission that friendly governments can help to defuse the political crisis in Sri Lanka. The country needs their help in a concerted form to emerge fast from the present mess and to move forward to regain her position in the world as a modern cosmopolitan nation.

LEGAL WATCH
Election laws made for a different society

by Nayana
There appears to be a widespread acknowledgement that the manner in which electoral process is conducted is unsatisfactory.

Some political circles advocate changes to the present proportional representation system with its District-wide electorates and party lists. Their main arguments are that the upsurge in election violence is fuelled by the intense competition for the preference vote, and that the large geographical area covered by each electorate reduces the sense of accountability of the candidates.

However, there are others who argue that the "manape" controversy is merely a red herring to distract from the real issue which is abuse of political power by Govemments in office which have subverted the public service institutions that are responsible for conducting an election. Proponents of this view argue that a change of voting system will be of little value unless mechanisms are first put in place to safeguard the independence of the public service including the police and ensure that State resources and personnel are not used for party political purposes.

There is doubtless some merit in both these arguments. The question is whether those who presently have the power to make changes are serious about doing so. The failure to implement even the simplest of reforms despite recommendations from a variety of sources including the Commissioner of Elections himself, is a serious indictment on the democratic credentials of the Government in power.

In so saying one is fully conscious of the abuses committed by previous regimes during the 1980s, some of which were highlighted in last week’s columm. However the sins of its predecessors are not a valid defence for a regime now enjoying its second term of presidency.

Ever since the 1972 Constitution took away the independence of the Public Service Commission, the politicization of the public service has been a creeping cancer which now pervades our system. However, while a constitutional change would be necessary to restore the de jure independence of the Commission, it needs only political restraint to restore its de fac to independence in the meantime.

Unfortunately one has only to peruse the records of recent fundamental rights judgments involving police officers and Samurdi officers in particular, to see the extent to which the politician of today sees the public servant as his party’s servant instead.

It is important to remember, in this context, that the Senior Presiding Officers and their subordinates who supervise the actual conduct of the poll islandwide are not officers of the Election Commissioner’s Department, who may enjoy some protection under the constitutional provisions safeguarding the Commissioner’s independence. Sheer necessity of numbers requires that they be drawn from all over the public service.

After the election they have to return to their substantive departmental posts where they will be dependent on the goodwill of the Minister concerned for the furtherance of their careers. What will be the fate of an SPO who just told his Minister’s henchmen that they must not stuff the ballot box?

Thus a culture of political interference in the public service casts a shadow over the working of the electoral process, irrespective of whether or not there is direct interference with officers when they are performing their election duties. That shadow is ever present these days, with post election witch-hunts being announced against public servants who are alleged to have ‘sabotaged’ the Government’s work.

The arming of politicians which took place in the late 198Os, ostensibly to meet the threat from anti-State forces such as the "DJV/JVP" put the final nail in the coffin of the public service. From then on, naked intimidation could be added to the more subtle pressures that are exerted on public servants. Although the subversive threat evaporated more than ten years ago with the deaths of most of their leaders, no serious attempt has been made to reduce the number of firearms in circulation among politicians and their bodyguards.

Once again, this is not a matter that requires a constitutional amendment. It is purely a matter of having the political will to give the right directions to the police to seize excess firearms. (It has not been seriously argued that politicians of the level of provincial and local councillors need these arms to protect themselves from the LTTE.)

A repeated request made by election monitoring groups is to make the production of the National Identity Card or some other appropriate identity document compulsory in order to vote. This would go a long way to reducing the level of impersonation. Today, all a would be voter needs in order to entitle him to a ballot paper is to produce his poll card.

This printed card with no photograph or other proof of identity beyond a voter’s name, could have been pilfered at any number of points during its journey from the printer via the postal service to the voter’s house. Instances of theft of polling cards have been reported at many elections. Yet neither the Government nor the opposition has shown any enthusiasm for the NIC.

Dedicated and competent policing is an essential requirement for the conduct of a free and fair election. At last December’s presidential election, international observers reported seeing voters being bused to polling stations and given poll cards. They said that they saw those persons enter the polling station to vote, come out, remove the voter’s ink from their fingers, receive another card and re-enter the polling station.

If all this could be seen by the observers, it is quite inconceivable that it was not seen by the police who are supposed to be stationed in the vicinity of the polling stations, in addition to sending out mobile patrols. Their failure to stop such flagrant violations calls into question the IGP’s repeated protestations that the police will act without fear or favour.

In 1988, with growing unrest in all parts of the country, a new Section 46A was added in identical terms to the Presidential and Provincial Council election laws, with a corresponding Section 48A to the Parliamentary Elections Act. It empowered the Commissioner in certain specified circumstances to cancel the poll in any particular polling station and, if the result of the election would thereby be affected, to order a re-poll. The grounds on which he was authorized to do so were as follows:

(a) where it was not possible to commence the poll at the scheduled time; or

(b) where the poll had commenced on time but it was not possible to continue polling until the scheduled closing time; or

(c) where any of the ballot boxes assigned to that polling station could not be delivered to the Returning Officer.

Following the notorious Wayamba Provincial Council electian in January 1999, Commissioner of Elections Dayananda Dissanayake recommended an amendment to Section 46A so as to add the following further grounds on which the poll at a polling station could be cancelled and a re-poll ordered if necessary:

(d) if it was not possible to conduct the poll due to any reasons beyond the control of the Presiding Officer,

(e) if one or more polling agents were chased out during the poll,

(f) non-arrival of the polling party at the polling station due to obstruction along the way,

(g) if any disturbance at the polling station made it impossible to take the poll,

(h) if any stuffing of ballot papers was forcibly done by any unauthorized person.

This was a very simple but important amendment, because the ordering of a re-poll is the only real sanction that can operate against those who commit the wrongful acts outlined above. Without this sanction, as pointed out by the Centre for Policy Alternatives in a recent paper on election laws put up for discussion, the only penalty that can be imposed by the Elections Commissioner is to remove any ballot papers that are obviously stuffed.

Such a remedy does not take into account the intimidatory effect which forcible ballot stuffing can have on genuine voters and leaves untouched the other questions such as the chasing away of polling agents which can in turn facilitate other malpractices like impersonation.

Last but not least, it does not deal with the demoralization of election officials, polling agents and the general public which occurs when they know that blatant acts of terror and malpractice will go unpunished.

However, despite this recommendation coming from the Commissioner himself, the Government allowed six more Provincial Council elections and a Presidential election to be held without any attempt to address this issue. The Opposition too, apparently enamoured by its idea of an independent Elections Commission as a solution to all problems, has not pressed for this very simple amendment to Section 46A.

Apart from the Elections (Special Provisions) Act No. 35 of 1988 which introduced Section 46A referred to above, our current election laws suffer from two disabilities. Firstly, despite the introduction of proportional representation, they are modelled on the old Parliamentary Elections Order-in-Council which was drafted to handle an entirely different voting system. Secondly, they are based on the assumption of a peaceful society with a politically neutral public service to run the election.

A complete re-thinking of our legal and administrative approach is therefore necessary if the law is not to become peripheral to the electoral process.

Pinochet returns to Chile

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
For more than a quarter of a century General Augusto Pinochet was a powerful figure in Chile. On 11 September 1973, he overthrew Chile’s democratically elected Marxist president Salvador Allende, who had appointed Pinochet as commander-in-chief of the army only 19 days earlier. For nearly 17 years, president Pinochet ruled as a dictator until 11 March 1990 when he stepped down as president but remained as commander of the army. Seven years later in 1997, at age 81, he retired and was made a senator for life under the constitution he himself had drafted.

Illness, arrest and public controversy swirled around the retired dictator in the past few years. In October 1998 he flew to Britain for medical treatment and was operated for a herniated disc in a London hospital. While on his hospital bed he was arrested on a Spanish warrant for gross human rights abuses during his period of power in Chile.

Pinochet’s alleged crimes

While Pinochet was under house arrest in London, anti-Pinochet activists in Chile protested against his possible release. Some 643 former political prisoners in Chile filed a lawsuit against Pinochet, accusing the former military leader of torture. This was the 59th lawsuit submitted in Chile against the once powerful dictator.

The text of the lawsuit accused the former military leader of responsibility for cruel, inhuman and degrading crimes which, it argues, cannot be covered by any amnesty laws. Pinochet has been accused of more than 2000 deaths and thousands of tortures. After filing the lawsuit at the headquarters of Chile’s judiciary, several hundred former prisoners held a demonstration against General Pinochet’s possible return to Chile on health grounds.

On returning to Chile

Freed from 16 months of detention in Britain, Gen. Augusto Pinochet arrived home to a warm welcome from Chile’s military leaders as well as relatives and supporters, a day after the British government dropped extradition proceedings against him. The Chilean air force plane bringing General Pinochet back landed at the military section of Santiago’s international airport.

The welcoming ceremony was limited to family members, former cabinet ministers and conservative members of the Chilean congress. Protesters and others, including curious Chileans were kept away.

Chilean president-elect, Ricardo lagos, was embarrassed by the warm welcome accorded to Pinochet by the military top brass. He has harshly criticised the hero’s welcome staged by the armed forces for General Pinochet’s return to Chile - kindling a controversy that is testing president-elect Lagos’s relationship with the still-powerful military less than a week before he takes power.

The sight of General Pinochet being welcomed by top army commanders and a large phalanx of elite special forces wearing black berets and full combat gear disturbed many Chileans, The spectacle opened old worries about the military’s influence. A new debate commenced about whether the former, dictator would attend Lagos’s inauguration on 11 March as the first Socialist to govern Chile since Salvador Allende was overthrown in the 1973 military coup.

Chile divided over return

Chileans were divided on whether Pinochet should be tried in Spain for the atrocities he committed while in power in Chile. Nor do many believe that he would be tried in chile where to prosecute General Pinochet, Judge Guzman must first request that the Santiago Appeals Court lift the parliamentary immunity that accompanies his position as a senator for life.

While the military, family, friends and supporters greeted the general on his arrival at Santiago airport, human rights activists reacted with indignation at his apparent good health when he stepped out of his armchair, waved his walking stick over his head, saluted and waved to the crowd as the army band played his favourite marching tunes.

Chronology of events

The Pinochet drama has held the attention of the world ever since Spain demanded that the former Chilean dictator be extradited to Spain to face trial for human rights abuses. In October 1998, the British High Court said that Pinochet was protected by immunity and threw out Pinochet’s arrest. Spanish prosecutors immediately appealed to Britain’s House of Lords.

In November 1998, in a divided 3-2 ruling, a House of Lords panel overturned the High court decision and ruled Pinochet’s arrest can stand. Pinochet moved to a rented mansion in the south-west of London, where he remained under armed guard.

Meanwhile, in December 1998 Home Secretary Jack Straw gave British courts the authority to proceed with extradition. Matters became further complicated when the House of Lords set aside its own earlier decision after discovery that a judge who ruled against Pinochet had close ties with Amnesty International.

In March 1999, a second House of Lords panel upheld Pinochet’s arrest, but threw out 27 of the 30 charges in the Spanish warrant. Chile recalled her ambassador to Spain to express displeasure over Madrid’s refusal to go to arbitration.

In October 1999 Pinochet was excused from appearing at Bow Street Magistrate’s Court after doctors said he had suffered two strokes. But two days later Deputy Chief Magistrate Ronald Bartle ruled that Pinochet should be extradited.

At this point Chile formally asked Britain to release Pinochet because of his failing health. Spain said it would not contest a British decision to release Pinochet. Early in January 2000, doctors examined Pinochet and, on the basis of the doctor’s report, Jack Straw said he was inclined not to extradite Pinochet.

The Government of Belgium and six human rights groups went to court seeking release of the medical report. And the High Court ordered Britain to release medical reports to Belgium, Spain, France and Switzerland. When Jack Straw announced in the House of Commons that Pinochet was free to leave for Chile, Pinochet’s travails in Britain were over, but not the controversy around him.

Jack Straw’s decision

Moments after the Chilean air force plane carrying General Pinochet back to Chile was airborne, British Home Secretary, Jack Straw told the House of Commons that because of General Pinochet’s failing health, he was ending the complex legal and judicial case in which four European countries, - Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland - had been seeking the general’s extradition to Spain.

Jack Strew released the former dictator, ruling that he was not physically or mentally fit to stand trial in Spain on charges he committed gross human rights abuses during his 17-year rule. Although General Pinochet was allowed to leave Britain at short notice, the protracted case will be remembered and cited long after its undramatic end. Its most significant legacy is a fundamental change in international law that gives universal jurisdiction to the prosecution of crimes considered human rights atrocities.

As Jack Straw told parliament: "It has established beyond question the principle that those who commit human rights abuses in one country cannot assume they are safe elsewhere."

British public opinion divided

While Jack Straw was pondering on his decision, controversy raged in Britain. Pinochet was strongly supported by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher who recalled the assistance that Pinochet had given to Britain in her quarrel with Argentina. Pinochet’s defenders in the United States said that they could not understand why Pinochet was being condemned when he was the man who had prevented Chile from being another Cuba.

Others said that Jack Straw had no need to ask for medical tests. This was only a quick way out of the controversy. Straw did not have the stomach to stand up to the right-wing forces that demanded that Pinochet go free. They believed that this was the best chance that Britain had to get a dictator tried for his crimes and Tony Blair’s new Labour had blown it yet again.

Pinochet’s future

Chileans are still divided as to what should be done about their former leader, Some say that although they would like the former military leader to face trial at home, they do not believe that justice will be done in Chile. The 59 law suits against Pinochet are being handled by a Chilean judge, Juan Guzman, who has been collecting evidence over the past two years to decide whether Pinochet should stand trial. He has promised to announce a decision within the next two months.

Other observers say that a trial in Chile is unlikely. The 1978 ammesty law is still in force, and at present, Augusto Pinochet has parliamentary immunity as a life senator. Moreover he can also choose to have any case against him heard by a military tribunal, not a civilian court.

LTTE rampage as PA – UNP consensus is sought

By Deshavimala
It was the meeting of the millennium in the political scene last Thursday when the much awaited Chandrika-Ranil talks got underway at Temple Trees. The duo, after a series of exchange of letters, finally met on Thursday to start the much awaited dialogue on the ethnic issue facing the country.

Wickremesinghe held a series of discussions with his party seniors before leaving for Temple Trees that morning. He was accompanied by party Chairman Karu Jayasuriya, General Secretary Gamini Athukorale, constitutional expert K. N. Choksy and senior politician Ronnie De Mel.

Though both sides got together in their bid to get the LTTE to the conference table to find a negotiated settlement, the LTTE "welcomed" the PA-UNP effort in customary fashion by launching a surprise attack in Colombo late Friday evening. The votes on the Ministry of Defence and the motion to extend the state of emergency was the business in parliament on that day. The three service commanders, the Inspector General of Police and other high ranking officials in the armed forces and the Defence Ministry were present in Parliament as usual. Deputy Defence Minister, Gen. Anuruddha Ratwatte, always present in the House on these important days, is in and out of parliament on such days.

Police said a gang of Tigers in a vehicle was stopped at a check point leading to the parliament road when, a suicide cadre blasted himself. The others were reported to have gone on a shooting spree.

According to the police, nearly fifteen persons, including civilians and the police were reported killed at the time of writing this column. The troops were rushed to the area where the Tigers were. The battle lasted for over seventy minutes while the area was cordoned off to apprehend the Tiger cadres.

The scenario was similar to the one that occurred in Fort two years ago when fleeing Tigers entered Lake House and started firing from the building. Police said the LTTE may have targeted the Deputy Defence Minister, Ratwatte or the Service Commanders who were expected to take that route after the conclusion of parliament proceedings that evening.

Assistance of Norway

The PA government is doing everything they could to bring the LTTE to the conference table. They have sought the assistance of Norway for that purpose and the Norwegians are in contact with the LTTE advisor Anton Balasingham. Political analysts say that when the ground is being prepared for a peaceful settlement, genuine parties do not act in the manner the LTTE seem to act.

The LTTE has a past record of using peace talks to rebuild their resources to attack. Political analysts say that the government should act with more caution in dealing with the LTTE a second time following the latest attack.

This attack may be an indication that the LTTE does not welcome the unity being forged between the two main political parties to find a peaceful settlement. The conduct of the LTTE shows they are not genuinely interested in a dialogue to find a settlement to the problem. It forces any government in power to take the only option of strengthening the armed forces to crush the LTTE military while talking to the moderate Tamil parties to find a solution.

Traded accusations

The UNP delegation which went in a convoy of vehicles that morning briefly stopped at the Lipton Circus to speak to media men who were there. Wickremesinghe put down the shutter in his vehicle for a few words about his journey and waved to the people.

The UNP delegation was warmly welcomed by President Kumaratunga who first shook hands with the UNP leader. It was a happy meeting though they traded accusations during the past month. The President gave priority to the request of Wickremesinghe to draw up an agenda acceptable to both sides. Wickremesinghe welcomed this gesture saying it would be a good start for the process. De Mel suggested a series of guidelines which formed the basis for both parties to continue talks on a well defined process. The President responded favourably to de Mel’s suggestions while instructing her team to take note of all what de Mel said to make the talks viable.

UNP Chairman Karu Jayasuriya stressed that both parties should work with commitment to make the talks work with a common approach acceptable to other parties who are a part of the process. His remarks were well received by the PA team. The UNP leader referring to the talks between the government and the Norwegian Foreign Minister said that he too should be kept informed of developments.

The UNP used the occasion to make many important points that would ensure a continuing dialogue. The President used all her experience to ensure that the first round of talks were not fouled by the approach from the PA side. Both President Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe agreed to issue a joint statement on the progress of the first meeting. This was the first joint communique issued by the two parties who were at loggerheads most of the time during the past six years.

Wickremesinghe, however planned to meet the press even before the meeting that afternoon. Prior to leaving for Temple Trees he directed his officials at the Opposition Leader’s office to prepare for a press conference at 1 p.m. that day. The UNP leader having concluded the meeting at Temple Trees arrived at the Sravasti office to meet the press shortly after 1 p.m. Pressmen expected the UNP leader to disclose the outcome of his talks with the President. Taking everyone by surprise, the UNP leader announced that the meeting was summoned to brief the media on the arrival of William Hague, the Conservative Party leader in Britain. The press however were interested to know the outcome of the talks with the President and raised questions on that. Wickremesinghe shrewdly summarised the talks saying they were fruitful and added that he would not commit himself as it would derail the talks. The UNP leader said that both parties had agreed to issue a joint statement and that statement would follow that afternoon. Wickremesinghe in a lighter vein quipped, ’Both parties survived the meeting’.

Not Informed

While the PA is keen to have the Norwegians facilitate the resolution of the ethnic crisis, the UNP is keen to get the Conservative party involved. Although the Norwegian Foreign Minister and his deputy who were here met Wickremesinghe, the latter was not informed about the substance of the talks with the President. Wickremesinghe was unhappy over that as he only met the Norwegians as ‘messengers’ of the government.

When he met the President on Thursday Wickremesinghe urged her to tell him about Norway’s role. He firmly believes that the Liam Fox agreement reached two years ago obliges the government to keep the opposition informed.

The Conservative Party leader William Hague arrived in Colombo on Friday morning. He had a round of talks with the UNP leader before attending the UNP sponsored meeting held that morning at Hilton Hotel. Wickremesinghe apprised Hague about Friday’s meeting with President Kumaratunga and the positive response from her towards the proposals to draw up an agenda acceptable to both sides.

The UNP team which will go for round two of the talks next Thursday will keep many important moves in mind which the party advocate. Priority will be given to the most important factor-the abolition of the Executive Presidency.

Executive Presidency

The experienced Ronnie De Mel, a member of the UNP team on Thursday has been told by the leadership to handle that issue. De Mel has been advocating the abolition of the executive presidency over a period of time. On every occasion the parliamentary group and the Working Committee met, he has been agitating that the party should call for the end to that system of government. After many discussions, Wickremesinghe last week agreed with de Mel and also asked him to prepare a motion to that effect to be presented in Parliament for debate.

The government claimed that the UNP has put forward stale proposals and those were the ones that came before the Select Committee. The UNP too wants to discuss the PA proposals of October 1997. They agreed to those proposals but the PA has modified most of them. For example, the 1997 proposals enabled the abolition of the executive presidency but the current proposals provide for six more years under transitional provisions and an executive prime minister to boot.

The UNP is opposed to that concept and wants to see the presidential system scrapped with the Head of the government in parliament. The government has so far not made its position clear on what the UNP wants. Contradictory statements on the issue has been made by some ministers. The UNP will come for talks next Thursday with focus on the PA 1997 proposals. It will want the government to honour those proposals for which Wickremesinghe has agreed to give the two thirds majority in the House.

Another factor before the UNP is the argument on the nature of the Sri Lankan state. The UNP in the proposals sent to the government, did not touch on this sensitive issue. It left this area void to trap the PA. The PA has put forward the concept of a union of regions under a ‘united’ Sri Lanka. The UNP has already opposed this concept. But it had not said what it was going to do with regard to this vital issue.

Giving Priority

The UNP is keen on giving priority to the four independent commissions they want to cover elections, the judiciary, public service and police. With the general election drawing closer, the UNP wants these bodies set up to ensure free and fair elections. It is also agitating for an early abolition of the executive presidency because it feels that under the Westminster system of government it could come back to power. It is not in agreement for any move to retain the presidency during a transitional period.

Though the PA has time and again welcomed the proposal to set up independent Elections, Police, Public Service and Judicial Commissions it had not committed itself on these issues. When the UNP speaks in favour of those proposals, the PA has been saying those are timely but had never pledged to implement those proposals.

UNP parliamentarians who have experienced election violence and intimidation during the past elections have expressed fear to come forward again to face elections. They have stressed that the party should force the government to set up those commissions if they were to contest. Already the two sides are at each other over the conduct of the last presidential election. The UNP has filed a law suit and the PA has been asked to file answer.

Peace Moves

Though the two parties are at odds on many issues, Wickremesinghe does not want to show that he is trying to sabotage the peace moves of the government .He went for talks on Thursday to indicate that his party did not want to stifle the aim of the government to resolve the crisis.

Wickremesinghe himself will not be present at all meetings with the government. He has decided to rotate members of his team. At present it comprises Karu Jayasuriya, Gamini Athukorale, Choksy and de Mel. It is learnt that Chief Opposition Whip W. J. M. Lokubandara and Mahinda Samarasinghe have been named for the second team that would participate on Thursday. However, Wickremesinghe has indicated that new members would go in the company of de Mel and Choksy.

Choksy has been detailed to play the key role in the reforms the PA has presented to the judicial system. De Mel will play the lead role in many areas such finance, land and system of governance.

UNP Working Committee

The UNP Working Committee was summoned by Wickremesinghe last Monday to discuss the issue of the five rebels. They were asked to vote against the government at the debate on the emergency and the second reading of the budget. They absented themselves. The UNP and the government both did not set their votes at those two important events. Earlier, the rebels said they would vote with the government on the second reading of the budget when they came for their last UNP group meeting held at the parliamentary complex. Thereafter, the group meetings were shifted to ‘Siri Kotha’ and the rebels feared to come there saying their security was at risk.

At the outset Wickremesinghe told the Committee that the five rebels were going their way ignoring party discipline and the committee should discuss measures that should be taken against them. He recalled that the party has written to Messrs Nanda Mathew and Sarath Amunugama how they should conduct themselves if they wanted to remain in the party but had not complied with the orders of the chief whip of the party. He said that Nanda Mathew in particular has been arguing quoting several sections of the UNP constitution which had no relevance to the directive issued on him by the party.

Choksy was asked to explain the legal position. He recalled the judgement in the Lalith Athulathmudali-Gamini Dissanayake case and stated that the judgement on the five rebels did not bar the party from acting against them once again. Wickremesinghe instructed Atukorale to keep a record of the documents exchanged. M. H. Mohamed asked why the necessary documents were not presented in court last time. ‘We could have even produced copies of newspaper reports pertaining to the discussions’, Mohammed argued.

Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku said that several newspaper reports were filed and argued upon during the case. Both Choksy and Gamini Athukorale endorsed the view of Kodituwakku. Athukorale then raised allegations about the five rebels saying that they went against the party candidate at the presidential election by supporting the rival candidate. He then noted that rebels Mathew and Amunugama have defied party orders and were still enjoying cabinet portfolios while sitting with the government. ’They were even prepared to vote with the government at the second reading of the budget though they absented themselves at the last moment’. Athukorale alleged.

W. J. M. Lokubandara, the Chief Opposition Whip stood up to request that strict disciplinary action should be taken against all five who defied party discipline at the last presidential election by supporting the rival candidate. ‘Not only those five MPs but also the members in local bodies who committed that offence’, Lokubandara noted.

Paul Perera intervened to ask whether taking further action would benefit the party as parliament may be dissolved by that time to face another election. Ronnie de Mel nodded in favour of that question while adding that there was insufficient time to battle them before a court of law. The motion to try the rebels again was moved by Wickremesinghe and there was no opposition. The motion was carried with the committee deciding to take disciplinary action against the five for the second time.

Insufficiant Time

The rebels who got wind of the UNP’s decision to try them a second time met on Tuesday to discuss the issue during Parliament sittings. Dr. Amunugama told his colleagues that they had nothing to fear as they had valid reasons to tell court of how they are being discriminated by the party. The rebels who met did not take the UNP action seriously with Wijayapala Mendis saying’, ‘Ena vidihata muna demu’ (Let’s face things as they come).

The UNP is still to frame the charges against the rebels. Under the party constitution, they will have a period of seven to twenty one days to answer the charges. This would mean it would be mid April if they are charge sheeted this week. If the present parliament goes its full term, the UNP will have a chance to deal with them as three months would be available before dissolution.

According to Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, the life of the present parliament is likely to go the full term with the government intending to hold the next general election before October this year. Amunugama told this columnist that the UNP looked like a party led by the King of Hell who dictated terms to its members in the Working Committee whom he described as ‘stooges’ of the King. "We are not afraid, we will win a second time and show them how confident we are’, Amunugama said.

Wickremesinghe then focused his attention to the visit of British Conservative party leader, William Hague who was expected to arrive last Friday for the Democratic Union conference which was scheduled in Colombo yesterday. Wickremesinghe pointed out that the UNP would get its’ full membership of the International Democratic Union and added that the conference was being held in South Asia for the first time.

"Many member countries of this body had governed their nations for a long period though they are now in the opposition’ Wickremesinghe noted. Ronnie de Mel then sought a clarification to the fact that by taking membership of that body whether it would be an obstacle to obtain loans when the UNP was returned to power. He recalled how a similar motion was moved during the J. R. Jayewardene leadership but not given approval for many reasons.

Member countries

UNP Chairman Karu Jayasuriya intervened to reply de Mel. He said that the decision was taken after serious consideration and it would be no obstacle to obtain loans when the UNP returned to power. ’This is an organisation which valued democracy and that was why we decided to join it’, Jayasuriya stressed. De Mel and others then agreed to the suggestion made by Wickremesinghe to join the IDU.

The five rebels who are at the receiving end of the UNP once again absented themselves at the time of voting on the motion to extend the state of emergency on Friday in Parliament. Rebel Nanda Mathew who was seen in the chamber during the day was also not present during voting time. The rebels played the same game at the previous emergency debate though the UNP opposed the motion.

The UNP which opposed the motion to extend the emergency by a further month abstained from voting on the vote on the Ministry of Defence which was taken up the same day. So far the five rebels have absented themselves at times of voting on important issues in the House. Rebels Mathew and Amunugama yet continue to sit with the government while holding cabinet portfolios. The other three sit with the UNP but are absent at voting times. So far only Amunugama and Mathew have violated party discipline by sitting with the government while being members of the UNP. Their association with the PA government appears to be of no benefit to the PA as the two ministers are not in at the time of voting. The PA has lost their votes on the second reading of the budget and the emergency motion on two occasions while other cabinet ministers have been present to support the government.

S. B. Dissanayake episode

Minister S. B. Dissanayake unmoved by the objections raised by many quarters and the matter being examined by the Supreme Court over his reference about closing down parliament and asking judges to go home continued to repeated the statement in many places. Addressing a prize giving early this week he repeated the statement claiming that as a politician he had a right to say what he did. His speeches were carried in many newspapers. While this was being repeated by Dissanayake, the Supreme Court which received the affidavit of the "Sunday Times" Editor, Sinha Ratnatunga and the tape containing the reported speech of the minister appointed a three member bench to examine the issue. Following the report of Dissanayake’s second speech made to that effect at the prize giving, the Supreme Court ordered the Editors of ’Dinamina’ and the ’Lankadeepa’ also to file affidavits in court to affirm what Dissanayake has told.

Issued Statements

On Wednesday, ministers close to Dissanayake issued statements in favour of the minister saying that there was nothing wrong in what the minister had meant in his speech. Ministers Mangala Samaraweera, Mahinda Wijesekere and Deputy Minister Dilan Perera are known associates of Dissanayake and this group is identified as the inner circle of the PA close to the palace.

The stand taken by Dissanayake and his cabinet colleagues have embarrassed the Minister of Justice, Prof. G. L. Peiris. The opposition UNP in parliament which pursues the statement made by Dissanayake serious claiming it is a threat to democracy and the judiciary calls upon Minister Peiris time and again to divulge the stand of the government on the issue. Minister Peiris has been repeating saying that the government was committed to democracy and there were no moves to close down parliament and ask judges to go home.

Dissanayake has so far not denied this statement in Parliament nor accepted it. But he keeps on repeating it outside parliament. Though he claims that he has a right to say what he has as a politician elected by the people, the Supreme Court which is the guardian of the constitution is free to decide on the minister’s statement.

The opposition UNP is not prepared to let the issue die a natural death. They have prepared material to take on Dissanayake. Already a motion has been drafted to be debated in the House. They want parliament to act as Dissanayake has said that parliament would be closed down to achieve the goal of promulgating a new constitution if the necessity arose.

Eppawala: Issues from politics to governance

By D. G. B. de Silva
Former Sri Lankan Ambassador

To any one who makes a thorough scrutiny of the Minerals Investment Agreement (MIA) on Eppawala initialled in August 1997, these words may sound as if they were part of that scenario, but they are not. They are taken from another scenario — an interview by Prof. Jeffrey Winters of the Northwestern University, U.S.A., held on June 21, 1989, with Mohamed Saldi, a former Gabinet Minister of Suharto’s government. Saldi was reminiscing the events at the time Freeport McMoran came to Indonesia as the pioneer major investor. (Jeffrey Winters: "Power in Motion", Cornell University Press. (1988 p 75).

There are few parallels between the Indonesian situation when Freeport McMoran entered the investment scene there, and the proposal to mine and develop the phosphate resources at Eppawala nearly a quarter century later by the IMC-Chemicals and later by Freeport McMoran Resources Partners which is a subsidiary of IMC-Global. These are worth recalling in order to understand the situation with regard to MIA on Eppawala. The only difference, if at all, between the two situations is that the multinational conglomerates have become stronger, with mergers, change of faces, and are far better equipped to meet challenges on grounds of human right violations, other accusations and to meet adverse publicity and criticism. The concept of globalization accepted by developing countries has, in addition, introduced an ethical dimension to exploitation in the now uni-polar international economic order.

Mohamed Saldi is quoted again saying. "With Freeport which was the first generation of new investments in Indonesia, they were ready to invest even before we had an investment agreement....Having major players like Freeport blaze the investment trail is extremely important to others who want to invest but are afraid they will lose everything".

The remarks of Ali Budiarjo, who ran Freeport Indonesia for almost two decades quoted by Jeffrey Winters are also relevant. He stated:

"When Freeport approached us in 1966, it immediately became clear that no one had any idea of how to proceed. There was no foreign investment law. We were in a very awkward position because we had no legal basis on which to conclude the investment agreement... (Interview with Jeffrey Winters dated March 24, 1989, "Power in Motion" in 75).

World market situation

In 1992/93 when Freeport McMoran Resource Partners made an offer for the mining project in response to the UNP government’s second invitation, the world market situation was at its worst point, prices having plummeted owing to over supply and the global mining industry being in no mood to develop new phosphate deposits. It could not have been the advantageous moment to initiate action. Of the few proposals received only that of FMRP was accepted. The PA government which came to power in 1994 also readily accepted the proposal, but it was in late l995 when fertilizer prices recovered that FMRP began lobbying with the new government earnestly.

The government guarantee which was demanded earlier by the foreign Company under a proposal made in 1978 was dropped but several other terms advantageous to the new investor Company were incorporated. This is a situation that is to be expected when there are no rival companies. For no justifiable reason the investor’s capital commitment was increased from US$ 260 million to US$425 million which naturally sent up the equity position of the investor and kept the government’s equity low (10 percent) and without any role in management. A new term to export 3.6 millions metric tons of raw phosphate rock to meet the cash flow of the investor Company was also incorporated, the nett sales value of which is over 50 percent of the original capital investment. This was to meet the cash flow of the project Company during the first twelve years.

The environmental bond was fixed at an unbelievably low figure of US$500,000. An ‘Escrow’ account of 0.5 per cent of nett income to commence from the tenth year of commercial operation which was provided to meet environmental rehabilitation costs at the end of the project had such a low rate of build-up, that it could not be aiming at more than a superficial reclamation and not a wholesale environmental rehabilitation. It is even suspect as any financial expert or legal expert could advise - and the development has been well advised on this point — whether the Escrow account, based on nett income of the Company would ever be realized to a degree to meet the required costs of environmental rehabilitation.

Above all, the parent Companies — the investors - avoided being direct signatories to the project, becoming only shareholders in the "Project Company" set up, which would shoulder the responsibilities arising from the MIA. The shareholders could withdraw selling or disposing of their shares at advantageous times. International arbitration provided for in the MIA would be a costly process which the government could ill afford to engage in. These are only a few disadvantageous terms on the MIA one could spot at a glance. There are many others.

In contrast to Indonesia a quarter century earlier, the negotiations on above terms by the P.A. government has been conducted while the country was equipped with the legal framework for negotiations — an Investment Law, an Environmental Law, and Mining Laws. Our economists, bureaucrats, and other advisors who participated in the policy development process, through the provision of their technical inputs, seem to have been groping in the dark; or were simply lured by the prospects of securing the first major breakthrough in attracting mobile investment and technology, when these terms disadvantageous to the country were incorporated in the MIA.

Perhaps, they also acted on political direction. In the case of Indonesia, riddled with problems and ripe with corruption of a new type, it was understandable, as Ali Budiarjo claimed, but in Sri Lanka’s case with a different administrative tradition, submission to the multi-national sacrificing national interests for reasons of their possession of technology and capital alone was inexcusable. After all, the P.A. government had come to power in 1994 promising to weed out "crony capitalism" but it may have been a mere slogan. Realities are different. That is perfectly understandable.

Irreparable damage

To give the negotiations a veneer of responsibility and transparency Government spokesmen point out that a Committee comprising of eminent geologists, scientists, agricultural experts and others was appointed by the President and has made their recommendations; and a Cabinet Appointed Negotiating Committee (CANC) comprised of local and foreign specialists, has been involved in negotiations. The question is not over who adviced and who negotiated the deal. That does not answer the real issue which is, whether or not, these efforts resulted in guaranteeing the best terms to the country, specially in regard to financial and economic benefits.

To be acceptable such results should adequately compensate the great sacrifices Sri Lanka herself is making by way of bypassing the interests of the people including those of future generations, the irreparable damage to land which could also in its train lead to the spread of diseases and dislocation and unemployment among inhabitants, destroying the vegetation cover, and giving away also free of charge, the valuable timber resources and water in the area to the Company.

From the point of view of negotiations, are we, therefore, not in a worst situation than Indonesia was in the 1960s, considering that ours is a land not richly endowed as Indonesia is; and despite all the legal frame work and other infrastructure in our hand? Indonesia, unlike Sri Lanka, had strong teams of negotiators—Ministers, including Mohamed Saldi, as Chairman of the Planning Council, Ibunu Sowoto, head of the powerful pertamina, economists, planners and others’ yet it could not shake off individual interests as Sowoto displayed on financial and economic issues, and the corruption in the system.

The scenario in Sri Lanka in 1987 when Agrico-Chemicals made the first offer on Eppawala was not altogether different from that of Indonesia as far as the political situation was concerned. The concentration of executive power in President J. R Jayewardene, under the second Republican Constitution, following the period of economic chaos experienced during Mrs. Bandaranaike’s experimentation with the socialist economy was the starting point. The situation here though not so chaotic as in Indonesia had its similarities in the situation that General Suharto sidelined and ousted President Soekarno from power and in the way President Jayewardene sidelined Mrs. Bandaranaike but through the medium of the Presidential Commission, a mechanism which even the present government in power has found not without its purpose and usefulness. Economically wedded to a free market economy the country was gearing itself to receive foreign aid and foreign investment. For the latter purpose, investor-friendly legislation was enacted; trade union rights were interfered with: and a series of investment agreements were signed with individual countries.

Collective responsibility

The Executive Presidency system at times worked ignoring the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. The system has continued on track under President Premadasa and now under the P.A. government with even greater momentum. President Premadasa made the investor-orientation even more liberal to the extent of offering citizenship on a platter in order to attract specially the Hong Kong investors to in an effort to make capital out of an over-exaggerated panic situation over the prospects of the Hong Kong being restored to the People’s Republic of China. The result, however, was not the type of investment expected but a proliferation of Chinese restaurants, casions, massage parlours, including Chinese underworld gang wars fought here on our soil.

For Freeport McMoran conglomerate with its Indonesian experience in hand, a gold and copper mining project virtually turned into a proverbial ‘gold mine’, Sri Lanka may have been a less alluring prospect. An aspect that deserves consideration, however, is whether or not a word could have passed from the U.S. government as in Indonesia, to help Sri Lanka which was desperately looking for foreign investment and which had now turned the best advocate for the capitalist economic system in South Asia (If there is over emphasis on this point it must be understood against my background as a former senior diplomat under the J. R. Jayewardene government). As the leader of the opposition, J. R Jayewardene had been even prophetic over events that would take place in the Soviet Union. He saw the writing on the wall in Gorbechev’s "Perestroika" and used it in his election campaign of 1977 to attack the socialist order of Mrs. Bandaranaike. He had to be supported.

This is a direction in the inquiry one cannot help avoiding in the light of the Indonesian analogy. Former U.S. Under Secretary George W. Ball, a former diplomat advocating to his country’s investors to come to the assistance of Indonesia stated: "As a personal judgment based on some experience as a diplomat - I would regard the stability of Indonesia as a first - rate business risk". Reflecting a clear concern with the geopolitical implications of failing to stabilize the country’s economy, as Jeffrey Winters emphasized he said "I think we have a real obligation, given the strategic importance of Indonesia, to investigate with an open mind the possibilities of investment in that country and to undertake the investigating on a comprehensive and systematic basis" (Time Inc. 1967:34).

It would be entering into a long debate to ask whether or not the State Department had a stake in Sri Lanka-a strategic one as was the case in Indonesia—but that is a legitimate question to raise nonetheless, against what was taking place in the Indian ocean area until late 1980s with the background of Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Somaliya, Ethiopia, Yemen and even Oman and South Airica earlier, receiving much attention of both the West and the Soviet Union. Western concern for the security of the major sea lanes supplying vital oil resources for western industries, was not a matter that could have been easily dropped from their agenda. Conspicuously, India had a clear perception of U.S. interests in Sri Lanka. She saw the proposal to develop the oil tanks at Trincomalee by U.S. connected company as a move in the direction of establishing U.S. hegemony in that important and useful naval base and as a threat to her own security.

Earlier, India had given Sri Lanka a baby to hold-the Indian Occan Peace Zone proposal—over which Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government was preoccupied with but the J. R. Jayewardene government was less enthusiastic. The idea of developing the oil farms in Trincomalee which came up in greater earnest only after J. R. . Jayewardene’s government took office upset the Indians so much that eventually under the Letters exchanged along with the Indo- Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987, they brought Trincomalee under their wing making the farming to oil tanks to a party other than India, a closed chapter. Sri Lankan government’s hold on Trincomalee was further sealed for the future through the Indian insistence on the amalgamation of the Northern Province and the Eastern Province as a single unit of devolution.

Strategic importance

U.S. interest in Sri Lanka’s stability, if not in its strategic importance, was seen from the response at the annual Sri Lanka Aid Consortium meeting held in Paris in 1978, soon after the defeat of Mrs. Bandaranaike’s left coalition government and the emergence of a politically pro-west and economically capitalistic oriented government under Mr. J. R. Jayewardene of which I had a ringside view as a participant in nine meetings of the Aid Consortium held in Paris, which included the last two held under Mrs. Bandaranaike’s regime and the first three meetings held under the J. R Jayewardene regime.

While the foreign aid climate leaped both in quantum and quality, major mobile foreign capital investment was still shying away from Sri Lanka with only marginal industries, specially the garment industry accounting for an important segment with its attractive high employment generating features, having responded to the invitation. The situation has not changed.

Freeport McMoran Resource Partner’s (a subsidiary of IMC-Agrico by now) proposal to develop the phosphate resources could be considered the first major investment proposal received by the Sri Lankan government. Though the negotiations commenced with the UNP government under President Premadasa, much of the negotiations on the Eppawala project were concluded under the PA government which was even more enthusiastic than the previous regime in getting the foreign multinational conglomerate to Sri Lanka whatever the cost may be. Ali Budiarjo’s comments on the Indonesian experience is again very apt to our situation. He stated:

"The signing of the contract with Freeport was highly publicized. For the Indonesian government it meant that a big company had confidence in government. This was important so that others would follow.... It did happen, but only after a delay of a year. Other investors did not have the same courage as Freeport. They were careful. Especially politically, they wanted to be sure...." Power in Motion, P.757

This equally sums up the situation in Sri Lanka with regard to the McMoran MC Resource Partners/IMC Agrico proposal. Agrico-Chemicals asked for a government guarantee on Eppawala project in 1978. But in 1992 Freeport McMoran Resource Partners were willing to do away with the government guarantee. This was when the UNP was again in power under a President who would use all Executive Presidency powers to the maximum. When President Chandrika Kumaratunga gave assurance to foreign investors and demonstrated her government’s ‘bona fides’ through a wider and accelerated programme of privatization. And her commitment to the open economy, the multinationals were relieved and pursued their investment proposals with greater earnest. Additionally, the concept of globalization had now taken firm acceptance in Sri Lanka and our World Bank/IMF oriented economists and bureaucrats who advice the President are also the best exponents of the concept despite some of the warnings from our mature and older economists.

The advice the President has received from her immediate consultants and economists, does not disclose any ethical or cultural constraints, nor any regard for the concept of sustainable development which has been universally recommended for all countries, and to follow which the government is committed through international obligations. This is in contrast to the advice given by the Committee appointed by the President. These close advisors have been lured more by the prospects offered for access to higher technology mobile foreign capital to such an extent that the very "Introduction" (Preamble) to the MIA lays down this servile attitude by extolling the multinational to "near-sacred" status as found in the following terms, thereby instantly compromising the country’s own negotiating position.

Para (E)-"The Company has access to skills, information, knowledge, experience and proven technical and financial capability to undertake a program of exploitation, development, and marketing of the phosphate resources".

Right to use

All that is pleaded on behalf of the government is its single asset, i.e., possession of the raw material (phosphates). The Director of IMC Global, Mr. Garry L. Pigg himself confirms this when he down-grades Sri Lanka’s contribution in the following terms. "The only investment that Sri Lanka is making in this project is the right to use some of the rock resources". Sri Lanka’s posture here is that of the local beggar who comes to the door step and extols the virtues of the prospective benefactor, ("pin-eti hamuduruvane"), while he degrades his own position to the lowest possible level ("me pavkara gettarata"). No wonder the acceptance of such unequal terms when the country itself is making enormous sacrifices including the risk of environmental damage, the terms become disadvantageous to Sri Lanka. The advisors paint the picture that with Eppawala project other investments will follow and all the country’s economic woes would be settled. Is this true when one finds that the total revenue Sri Lanka would earn from rock sales and royalty is not more than U.S. $ of 200 million in 30 years, i.e. U.S. $ 7 million a year? (BOI figures). Mr. Pigg has given a higher estimate of U.S. $ 340 million as Sri Tanka’s total direct earnings including income tax, other levies and fees, i.e., around U.S.$ 11 million annually.

In relative terms that would be less than what a small donor country pledges annually to Sri Lanka at the Aid Consortium meeting in Paris. If so, is the sacrifice of country’s resources — phosphate and other minerals and metals in the Eppawala rock, with its enormous environmental risks and potential damage to ecosystem, agriculture and way of life of people worth the trouble?

Like in Indonesia the bureaucrats and even professionals who work for the government along with company spokesmen brand opponents of the mining project as impediments to development. So far, no accusation has been made calling them impediments to political order. That would be difficult at this stage since one of PA’s coalition partners, the LSSP is also opposed to the project.

One may recall that Ibunu Sutowo who led President Suharto of Indonesia to support his policies finally led Pertamina to bankruptcy and was sacked by the President. In Sri Lanka, by the time the long term consequences of the Eppawala project are felt in two three decade’s time neither the economists, nor the financial and other advisors would be there to answer, nor would the political leadership be there to do the sacking. One thing is clear. There will be on plaques at Kalawewa or Eppawala like the one which proudly acclaims the name of Loku Banda Ratwatte Rate Mahattaya, for his contribution to restore Kalawewa.

Minister of Science and Scientific Research, Batty Weerakoon has taken up an issue — objection to the proposed mineral investment deal. His observation that the matter has not been discussed or decided at Cabinet-level should be a pointer to a more powerful group having set up itself above the Cabinet level to influence decision taking on matters of major economic significance using the shield of the President. One is again reminded here of Ibunu Sutowo’s remarks:

"In those days I was more powerful than Ministers. They objected. But as long as I had the support of the President, they could not do anything". (Power in Motion, P85).

Have we reached a "no-return" situation with regard to Eppawala? The President was reported to have permitted one more final round of negotiations. That was some time back. Did she say there was no going back? It is for academicians to research when the contemporary history of this land is written. Minister Batty Weerakoon’s recent statement (reported in the Island dated January 3, 2000) issued in his capacity as General Secretary of the LSSP may contain a ray of hope. While making a scathing attack on the UNP for precipitating events that led to the injury on the President and on its authoritarian style, a (s) word that has two edges, he claimed the decision of the Executive Committee of the P.A. (made just prior to the Presidential elections 1999), not to proceed with the Eppawala proposal in response to democratic public opinion as a demonstration of the difference between the UNP and the PA governments. Only time will tell whether the Minister’s assessment is right and his defense of the P.A. on this issue was justified. But that may be too late!

Great sacrifices

One is blind to the great sacrifices the country is making and this enormous political and economic risks the leadership is taking by carrying out this mining activity not far away from the heart of the centre of the country’s old civilization, from where its cultural roots spread, and in an area covered with ancient initiation works, not just commonplace ones, but like the ancient Yodha Ela (Jaya Ganga) which is a masterpiece of the heritage of mankind with effects on the ecosystems, agriculture, land, and above all the way of life. These are immeasurable from the yardstick of economics.

They may also be unimportant to people who seek legitimacy and authority in the new found concepts of development; and to multinationals seeking to maximize their profits. (Note IMC — Global’s slogan in Anuual Report for 1998 that the Company would not rest with its double digit profits). For the people of Sri Lanka, steeped in a 2500 years old cultural tradition, and deeply attached to their land, these concerns are far more important than the annual rate of increase in G.D.P. or other such economic indicators. do they need their ancestral agricultural land (moon-scaped after mining devastation), landscaped into "beautiful parks, gardens and agricultural plots" with ponds and reservoirs storing rain water in the pits and gullies to supply water for municipal and irrigation purposes, providing also nesting places for birds, and a ready made place for retirement? This is a vista which Mr. Garry L. Pigg of IMC Global seems to be holding out when he speaks of what the former "moon-scaped" landscape of Central Florida after IMC’s mining operations there, has been converted into. Who will undertake to build this new paradise at Eppawala when IMC Agrico is long gone after the mining operation taking their "meagre" profits, as they seem to claim? It has been pointed out that even the provisions made through the Escrow account is totally inadequate to undertake any environmental rehabilitation work and there is no insurance cover either to take care of the situation. Will the Tourist Board take over the responsibility of turning the barren "moon-scaped" landscape to a tourist attraction?

The situation that arose in Iran Jaya in Indonesia and now in connection with Eppawala shows clearly, as Eng. Gatalino L. Corpus Jr. observed - (see article from Echoes reproduced in Daily News dated February 5, 2000). "When new mining areas are discovered political barriers must be removed so that international mining corporations can gain easy access to large areas of mineral lands and can be assured of continuity in their operations." I have dealt with this aspect in an earlier article (Sunday Island, February 27, 2000)

The above considerations should show that in relation to the local political scenario it was important that the government had the control of the Provincial Council of the North Central Province and the support base for the government meant at this level should not be allowed to erode. Much of the violence that took place twice at Eppawala and specially the violent opposition to democratic protest over the Eppawala project has to be understood in this context. That compounds the political framework for handing over Lanka Phosphate’s ‘mining licenses to the "Project Company".

In the light of proposals for further devolution of power to Provinces/Regions and specially with the prospects of the control over state land going to the Provinces/Region, either the Mining Agreement had to be concluded before the Constitutional reforms took place or the government should have the control and backing of the Provincial/Regional Council on the issue of land required for the mining project so that there would be no clash of interest. However, this assurance may not be forthcoming from a future Council of the "North-Eastern Province" in respect of the land required for the processing plants, railway spur and terminals as well as the dockyard, Trincomalee unless a "quid pro quo" could be arranged. Against this background one may even see a point in minorities for the control of land in the Provinces request of the Regions. Could the Central Government be trusted to act in the interest of the Province/Region as the Eppawala project demonstrates?

Political leadership

One has also to interpret the efforts made by the Chief Minister of the N.C.P. to ensure that the J.V.P. maintains a low profile on the Eppawala issue. According to Daily Mirror, Wednesday 6th, 1999 Chief Minister had reportedly requested the JVP to hold back its proposal for some time, the former promising that all-party talks would be held within three months with top officials including B.O.I. Chairman and the Industries Ministry Secretary being invited. Did it happens?

Who should be held responsible for the situation that has arisen? Is it the political leadership which is responsible for giving political guidelines? Or, are they bureaucrats, including economists and the professionals consulted who have the responsibility to give correct technical advice taking into account the country’s long term interest but who seem to be abdicating this social responsibility? If the last groups have not given such independent advice it has to be understood as a situation arising from considerations of security of the position they hold in the government or financial and other benefits that accrue to them. It is not surprising that there are bureaucrats, scientists and other professionals who even support such destructive and devastating programs as nuclear armament for the sake of security of employment and financial and other benefits. (For a detailed discussion of this issue see "Nuclear Weapons and Scientific Responsibility" published Dr. C. G. Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice).

A dimension, which is relevant to dealings of multinationals today in general which cannot be overlooked altogether, is their interference with good governance. The issue of bribery and corruption at international level is not a subject discussed anymore in private.

It has become a real challenge to good governance in many countries both developed and developing.

The London ‘Economist’ of January 16, 1999 in its discussion of the theme of governance and corruption, pointed out that it was not only regimes in developing countries like that of Suharto of Indonesia and earlier of Marcos in Philippines, which were guilty but also such respected organizations like the European Commission and 2002 Winter Olympics.

What is even more relevant to the point under discussion is the revelation by the ‘Economist’ that western based multinational companies are being required by western governments to work together to limit the amount of bribery they resort to. International financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are increasingly linking the aid they offer to poor countries to those countries willing to provide good "governance". Freeport McMoran Copper and Gold Inc, has been grilled in the Indonesian Parliament over the Company’s relationship with key Indonesian officials, says staff reporter Peter Waldman, who quotes the Asian Wall Street Journal of September 30, 1999 that detailed the business relationship between Freeport and several friends of the regime of former Indonesian President Suharto. The issues concern the renewal of the Company’s mining contract in 1991. Though the Company maintains that the "contract is fully legal and its behaviour then and now, comports to the highest ethical standards", members of the Parliament have demanded that it should be reopened for negotiation if corruption is found. The allegations center round the question why the Freeport sold 10 per cent shares to a private businessman and not to the state owned mining Company, and how the businessman sold back half of the stake to Freeport, reportedly carrying a profit about 500 per cent.

The civil society in Sri Lanka acting as custodian of the rights of people has a duty to ensure effective governance in its democratic polity, so that such situations as revealed by the "Economist" are avoided here in Sri Lanka. The government’s own responsibility in the matter would be vindicated only when there is hundred per cent transparency in financial dealings.

To Chandrika with love

by Kingsley Heendeniya
When President Premadasa was blasted on May Day, where had all the stooges gone? Why were he last seen, alone, waving a white cloth - and none of his usual cabinet colleagues and hangers nowhere to be seen? By contrast, you were blessed by friends, selfless, security personnel who sprang to shield and protect you, and whisk you to hospital - because they love you. The memory will haunt you. It was no miracle. The suicide girl was on the wrong side of the armoured car. But you are certainly lucky to have only a residual problem with one eye that will heal in time.

I listened to every word of your 3 1/2 hour broadcast. The public reception and understanding of its content and motives is mixed, even among the peasants and women who learnt a lot about the story of your life. I was at a party the day after and a hard core of UNP loyalists tore into me. They are more virulently against everything you represent and will watch every move you make to shake you down and the policies you have in mind. It is imperative to realize that you do not know all the answers. The critical factor is in the people around you and their fatal habit to tell you only what pleases you. Criticism is not constructive. If it is valid and destructive, so be it.

Socrates taught never to do wrong nor participate, even indirectly, in any wrongdoing. When president at a meeting, he refused to order an admiral to death without a trial though the people protested that they had a sovereign right to do as they please. When the Thirty Tyrants ruled Greece, yet he disobeyed. Democracy was restored. Socrates was then put to death. He refused a prison escape his followers arranged. This story destroys the myth that democracy is the end point of political thought and governance: of what use is democracy if it throws up third rate scum and criminals? I heard that 15% of the members of the Indian Parliament are convicted criminals. A wag said that the difference is that our fellows are not yet convicted! You have a problem in your second term - your brother has said only two ministers in your cabinet are not corrupt!

How many corrupt persons have you so far even arraigned? None. Your statement that you did not want to take revenge is not acceptable. Revenge is personal. There is no place for "revenge" when persons are guilty of crimes against the people. It is a duty to punish them by every legal and ethical means. I have been greatly disappointed by our tardiness. All your hysterical ranting of "17 years of rape" has been hollow rhetoric. Look at Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and India. How they have acted - swiftly, just as your mother would have done. I say this from personal experience of her decision-making abilities. When I closed the Kataragama Festival on account of cholera, for the first time in history, and there was an outburst of protest with allegations that I had asked a bribe from the traders, and Ernest Perera, then SP Matara personally protected me from being severely assaulted, and when I sent a report to your mother, Prime Minister, she immediately personally told me that she, will not interfere, without hesitating the political fall out of closing the festival. As Eisenhower said, this is the leadership that will make people want to work for you.

I have attended numerous meetings presided by President Premadasa and I have watched with utter helplessness how Heads of Departments made a monkey of the man. They never said "but" and went along with any cock and bull idea the great man proposed. Many times I was itching to stand up and tell him the facts but I could not financially afford to get sacked, so I retired exactly on my 55th birthday. I know that there are several hundreds better than I serving you, placed in the same position. Take the advice of Harry Truman who said "it is a disaster for the President of the United States of America to be surrounded by yes-men". President Nixon ignored it.

It appears that you have given important posts to "friends" who probably gave their old clothes for your children. For example. a physiologist who knows nothing of social sciences is an advisor. I disagreed with 95% of the actions of President Premadasa but he had rare commonsense. He once spoke of three rules for selecting a consultant: (a) have you walked a gravel road? (b) have you bathed in a river? (c) have you slept on a mat? Don’t you agree it is an excellent, down to earth, symbolic concept?

I predict you will lead this country for at least another 10 years. From now you should be firm and swift, by first putting your house in order. The old guys have had a good innings. May be some have made money with arrears! Take younger members around you. The people and your enemies are watching you, day and night.

Proposals of the Liberal Party for a new Constitution - 5

Appointments to Public Officers/Administrative Procedures

The following suggestions are not simply confined to constitutional changes. They deal also with other aspects of public policy and in particular the need to change the whole culture of public service in keeping with the requirements of modern society.

Unfortunately the Sri Lankan public service is still governed by colonial principles. This is not a criticism of that system — it was quite reasonable for a colonial power to entrench procedures that affirmed hierachichal domination; and in the first half of this century when communication and the retrieval of information were difficult it was understandable that elaborate procedures were prescribed.

What is appalling is that after more than fifty years of self government nothing has changed. The AR and FR (Administrative and Financial Regulations) laid down by the British still dominate our public servants. Claim forms designed a century ago are still in use — travel claims for instance, still have a space to enter the amount paid for ‘Hiring of a Horse’. Archaic tender procedures still operate, which, as a former Secretary to the Treasury put it, prevent him from ordering a stapler, but can be circumvented to enable millions to be spent without any precautions.

Underlying all this is the unwillingness to allow power and responsibility and accountability to go together. The absolute domination of those at the top has grown more pernicious as the scope of power expands with increasing centralization and better communications. The refusal to take decisions at lower levels, which are those the public has to deal with, has meant that the public service serves not the public but only politicians and their favoured bureaucrats.

What the following suggestions aim at is:

1) A structure that makes clear the broader responsibilities of public servants and in        particular that they are accountable not to a government in power but to the public       at large
2) A financial system that allows flexibility along with transparency and accountability
3) A procedure as to appointments that allows for targeted responses to requirements
4) The allocation of responsibility at all levels,with access to the public.

Not all the following belong in a Constitution, but they will be placed together for convenience.

The Executive — The Public Service etc

The Appointments Commission

1. There shall be an Appointments Commission which shall make appointments to the Public Service Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Land Commission and any other Government Commissions for which particular schemes of appointment are not specified in the Constitution. (i.e. the Devolution Commission will be appointed in a different way).

2. The Appointments Commission shall consist of the President, who will act as its Chairman, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Senate and three representatives of the Governors of Provinces chosen from amongst themselves by Single Transferable Vote.

3. The Appointments Commission shall make appointments to the Commissions under its purview by consensus. Where consensus has not been achieved, appointments shall be by the method of Single Transferable Vote.

The Public Service Commission

4. Appointments to senior positions in the Public Service shall be made by the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission shall consist of 3 members appointed by the Appointments Commission, who shall hold office for a fixed term of two years.

5. Appointments specified in a Schedule shall be subject to the approval of the House of Representatives and/or the Senate.

6. The Secretary to a Ministry shall be appointed by the relevant Minister subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission.

Procedures for members of the Public Service

7. All public servants shall be required to prepare work plans for each calendar year, subject to the approval of the officer to whom they report. Such plans shall in general be available to the public.

8. Public servants shall also prepare monthly reports incorporating targets achieved in the preceding month as well as projections for the coming month. Specificity with regard to time and resources shall be recorded as precisely as possible.

9. Officers responsible for public finances shall be allocated budgets over which they shall exercise control, subject to satisfactory accounting practice each calendar month.

10. Institutions may be required to establish monitoring committees that will oversee efficiency, expenditure etc prepare monthly reports that shall be available to the public.

11. Cadre positions shall be fixed at a minimum in public offices. Within a specified budget additional positions for particular duties may be filled on contract. Such positions may be reserved for members of the public service, though they may if sufficient cause be shown be advertised publicly. Apart from core allocations, the allocation of additional funds for such purposes within a particular institution shall be decided on the basis of monitoring committee reports.

12. Amongst efficiency measures that shall be implemented will be the requirement that all public queries be dealt with within a specified period.

Sustainable devolution

by Tisaranee Gunasekera
"In many cases decentralisation is not the result of any carefully designed sequence of reforms, but has occurred in a politically volatile environment in which the level of trust is low and policy makers respond unsystematically to emerging demands from below. Such weak policy frameworks can lead to serious economic problems including loss of macro economic control, regional disparities in service provision, and misallocation of resources as a result of local capture." (World Development Report 1997).

To a Third World country, devolution of power has very few socio-economic advantages to offer, if any. Therefore from a purely developmental perspective, further devolution in Sri Lanka is not only unnecessary; it is likely to be counterproductive as well.

The compulsions for greater devolution are therefore strictly political - i.e. as a way of finding a political solution to the ethnic problem. But here again a caveat is in order. Greater devolution may be necessary/helpful in finding a political solution to the ethnic problem; but it will be extremely counterproductive vis-a-vis civil peace/systemic stability. Therefore, though there are political compulsions to devolve power further, there are perhaps even stronger political compulsions not to do so!

The complete overhauling of the existing state structure envisaged in the proposed political package would take place in just such a context as the World Bank warns of: (At) "politically volatile environment in which the level of trust is low and policy makers respond unsystematically to emerging demands from below" (i.e. from the Tamil community and their political representatives in Colombo.). And as discussed above, the proposed political package contains several key provisions which can reasonably be expected to cause instability and unrest in the South, either at the stage of introduction or at the stage of implementation.

What then should be the basic parameters of a sustainable political settlement i.e. one that does not destabilise the South?

1) The nature of the state formation. As discussed above, transforming Sri Lanka from a unitary state to a federal one is not likely to bring about any developmental benefits. On the other hand, this transformation will create a great deal of confusion (bordering on chaos) administratively. This administrative instability will add more fuel to the economic instability; it will also retard/prevent remedial measures to the economic crisis. Another problem area will be the cost of setting up yet another layer of administration.

The possibility of a time gap between the implementation of the package and the ending of the war (even if the first leads to the second, as the proponents of the Package argue) should not be forgotten either. This may mean that for an unspecified time period the country will have to bear the costs of war plus the costs of federalisation. This financial burden will be a very heavy one even in a time of economic boom; in the context of a growing economic crisis it may be unaffordable. This, together with the perception on the part of the Sinhala majority of a privileged minority being appeased and pampered even further, may turn out to be extremely dangerous, politically and systemically. Therefore, in terms of systemic stability, any political solution must be conceived of and implemented within the parameters of the existing unitary state i.e. by using the mechanism of amending the concurrent list of the 13th Amendment.

2) The ownership of state land. Land is an emotive issue at any time; at a time of economic crisis it will have an added potency. The rationale for the provision on land is supposed to be the need to prevent state led/supported majoritarian attempts to arbitrarily change the ethnic ratio in the Eastern Province. This is an important consideration which cannot be ignored. However there are other, far more suitable and less damaging preventive measures that can be taken to achieve the same objective. The 13th Amendment contains certain provisions which seek to address this issue, by preventing organised attempts to change the demographic pattern of the province. Therefore, certain restrictions on human settlements exist even under the present constitution. If a sense of insecurity still remains, if the Tamil people need more guarantees, then the above mentioned provisions in the 13th Amendment on land use and settlement programmes can be strengthened further. Therefore, the aim of preventing arbitrary changes in the ethnic ratio in the East can be achieved without vesting all state land in the regions.

3) Regional financial autonomy. From a developmental perspective, granting financial autonomy to the regions is likely to be more damaging than helpful to the overall health of the economy and the well being of the people. This danger is greater in the context of the unfolding economic crisis. This provision is also likely to create the conditions which will intensify the perception of a privileged minority among the economically embattled majority community. Once the regional identities are established (with the setting up of the union of regions), if one or more regions develop at a faster rate than the others it will intensify the feeling of relative deprivation/marginalisation in the other regions. If ethnicity becomes a factor, then the issue will be further complicated. Therefore, it is far better to have a system whereby a certain percentage of all the development loans/ investment will be earmarked for the periphery, according to the social developmental needs of each region.

4) The concurrent list should not be abolished in its entirety. The government must be tasked with a greater role than the one that is envisaged in the Package in delivering these essential services to the people. Provisions which either cause the abdication of responsibility by the government or act as obstacles to the implementation of country wide social programmes by the government should be removed. Instead the government must remain responsible for the promotion of social development in the entire country; the role of provincial authorities should be entirely secondary. The government can set up a special social development fund to help the underdeveloped regions to improve their social indicators.

In a society as polarised as Sri Lanka, the founts of fundamentalism/fanaticism are many. An economic crisis will provide a fertile breeding ground for such extremities. As the Administrator of the USAID warned recently: "It is the masses of poor people today who constitute the greatest threat to global stability. These individuals, most of them ordinary, peace loving people in search of a better life for their children constitute a significant potential threat. Why? Whatever their personal motivation, these people are a threat to stable governments when they move from their homes to fragile rural areas or crowded cities. They are a threat when they come under the influence of ideologies, religious fanatics or demagogues" (Emphasis mine).

Instability and unrest in the South is an ever present danger. The Sri Lankan economy shows signs of moving towards a crisis. The harsh measures considered necessary in order to deal with such an economic crisis will give rise to wave of economic populism; if the devolution package is implemented, it can very well create a surge of anti minority chauvinism. The disastrous impact of the Indo-Sri Lanka Trade Pact on the living standards of a large segment of the populace (particularly the peasant sector) will be an added destabilising factor.

There is nothing like economic hardships to intensify that dangerous perception among the Sinhalese of privileged minorities. Economic populism and anti minority chauvinism make up a concoction which has brought this country to the brink of disaster in the past. It can happen again.

There will be those who argue it is imperative to reduce the galloping military expenditure by ending the war through a political settlement - precisely in order to avoid a full blown economic crisis. Whether the proposed political package (or yet another round of discussions - conditional/unconditional - with the LTTE) can end the war is a topic that is beyond the purview of this paper. What has to be emphasised is that any attempt to find a solution to the ethnic problem, if it destabilises the South, can cause far more damage to the economy (and endanger the system itself) than a continuation of the war.

Switzerland or India

In the Preface to Capital, Marx quotes from Horace’s Satire: "De te fabula narratur - it is of you that the story is told". The proponents of a federal structure in Sri Lanka use the example of federal, stable, prosperous, multi-ethnic and First World Switzerland to support their stand. However, greater devolution will not create a (First World) Switzerland in (Third World) Sri Lanka. The more appropriate example is the quasi-federal, multi ethnic, multi religious, caste ridden? violent and poor India - our giant neighbour. (India will be a particularly appropriate analogy because unlike the other Third World countries mentioned in this paper - Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Nigeria - it is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society). What is important is that despite the quasi federal structure India’s problems, be they ethnic/separatist, religious/communal, class and caste, remain as acute as ever. "India has had to bear the burden of a national agenda of unwanted social, ethnic, communal, caste antagonisms and divisive issues shaped by the 1970’s and 80’s" (N Ram Frontline) resulting in four problem areas: "Separatism/secessionism; Politically organised militant communalism; Social strife built around the caste system; Centre - state relations." (Ibid.)

Sri Lanka, despite its ongoing war is in a relatively better position than India - not only socio-economically but also politically. Of the four main (political) problems confronting India (as identified above) Sri Lanka is currently facing only one: separatism/secessionism. The other three issues are present only in an embryonic form. It would indeed be ironic if Sri Lanka, in an effort to solve this one problem, implements a ‘solution’ which may cause one or more of the other three issues to burst on to the surface, accompanied by a political problem that is not present in India: anti-systemic civil war.

Concluded

  | NEWS | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |