.

Clamour for peace talks
Conspiracy against the Sinhala people

With the announcement by Velupillai Prabhakaran on 26th Nov. 1998 that he is ready for negotiations under third-party mediation, the clamour for 'peace talks' with the LTTE is rising again. Some MPs and Ministers of the PA Govt., leader of the UNP Ranil Wickremesinghe, so-called 'peace activists' of foreign-funded NGOs, Tamil racist political parties and organisations and other miscellaneous supporters of the LTTE have begun to echo Prabhakaran's voice. An Assistant Secretary of the UN, Jayantha Dhanapala, has already stated that the United Nations Organisation is ready to act as the third-party mediator if invited to do so. It is hardly a secret that the British Govt. is waiting to intervene in Sri Lanka. It is also clear that the ulterior motive of the so-called 'peace initiative of the business community' is to press the Govt. and the Opposition to negotiate with the LTTE. Therefore we issue this warning, that national and foreign forces are again trying their utmost to continue their conspiracy against the Sri Lankan nation and the Sinhala people.

While the clamour for 'peace talks' continues, the following questions remain unanswered. What are the topics for discussion with the LTTE? What will the LTTE gain from these discussions? Have the Sri Lankan people granted a mandate for negotiations with terrorists? Are the Govt., the Opposition, the NGO mafia, the Tamil racist parties, foreign organisations and the business community prepared to assume responsibility for the tragedy that will ensue when the LTTE, having re-built their strength, carries out its next attack?

Negotiations with LTTE terrorism is nothing new. From 1978, these have taken place from time to time. Up to the time District Development Councils were set up in 1981 as a so-called 'political solution', the victims of LTTE terrorism numbered 16 members of the armed forces and 18 civilians. Did terrorism end? Or did political gimmicks like that aggravate terrorism? The All-Party Conference took place in 1984. With India acting as a third party, the Thimphu talks took place in 1985. The demand for an independent state for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka was presented by the Tamil representatives and non-negotiable. There has been no change in this up to the present day. Thus we declare that the call for negotiations without pre-conditions is an attempt to hide the real objective of the LTTE from the people of this country.

What the Thimphu talks achieved was the loss to the Sri Lankan state of sovereignty over the Jaffna peninsula. Along with the confinement of the armed forces to a few camps. The results of this are evident even today.

In 1987, the Indo-Lanka accord was signed. What the politicians and NGO 'peaceniks' who display great enthusiasm even today for 'peace talks' loudly proclaimed then was that peace was at hand. 72,000 lives were sacrificed in the south for this 'peace' in the north. The forces that were responsible for this slaughter were enemies then, but are great friends now and talk about peace, human rights and freedom of the media.

Having learnt nothing from this and talking about 'consultation, consensus and compremise', the UNP again entered into negotiation with the LTTE in 1989. From 1972 to 1989, the LTTE had succeeded in killing 1237 members of the security forces. After these negotiations in 1989, the LTTE killed 2679 members of the security forces within two years.

The Wanni in addition to the Jaffna peninsula, came under the control of the LTTE. Even with the sacrifice of over 9000 lives of security forces personnel, the entirety of this land that fell into the hands of the LTTE has not been recovered. The spate of killing and destruction continues unabated.

Despite all this, the PA Govt. also entered into negotiations under the slogan 'peace and prosperity'. Up to then, those killed among the security forces numbered around 4000. After these negotiations, over 9000 have been killed. The explosives brought in by the LTTE during these 'peace talks' have been used for bomb attacks on the Central Bank, the World Trade Centre, Maradana junction and the Dalada Maligawa.

What should be obvious from this is that as a result of every round of 'peace talks', whether it is with or without a third party, the LTTE has gained in strength. Increasing numbers of security forces personnel have been killed. More death and destruction have been inflicted on the civil population. And not a single person has accepted responsibility for these political blunders.

We also warn the people not to be misled into believing that the LTTE will be satisfied with devolution of power, whether it is in the form of 'Regions' or 'States' or 'Federations'. The ultimate aim of the LTTE is to create a Tamil nation in South Asia, of which the conquest of the entirety of Sri Lanka is the first phase. The so-called 'peace talks' is another step in this direction.

Although traitorrous politicians and their supporting 'peaceniks' get their bribes from abroad for promoting 'peace talks', the security forces personnel and civilians can only expect more death and destruction. Negotiations with the LTTE is a betrayal of all those who have laid down their lives in the defence of the nation. It is a betrayal of all human values to negotiate with a band of murderers who have slaughtered women, children, the clergy and desecrated places of worship.

We call upon the people not to a allow these agents of the LTTE to betray the nation again with more 'peace talks', or to allow the intervention of foreign organisations in our country.

Aruna Batuvanthudawe
(on behalf of the National Movement Against Terrorism)

Exercising the people's power

by Dr. S. Narapalasingam
At the time of independence Ceylon was a stable and peaceful country. The nation was considered then by all its citizens regardless of their separate racial and religious identities as their cherished homeland. This unity did not last long and the pearl in the Indian Ocean began to lose its lustre.

After nearly quarter century of relative calm, tens of thousands of lives were lost and many more physically and emotionally hurt as a result of communal riots and revolts by youths in the south and the north. Many live now with uncertain future. For millions livelihood has become an ordeal. The fear of being killed, maimed, tormented, humiliated or displaced from their homes and villages haunts them.

Hope for better conditions appeared occasionally but this was like the mirage seen by the traveller looking for an oasis in the desert. With the exception of the few eccentrics, many people have belatedly realised the real reasons for the drift towards anarchy and the miserable situation they have been driven into.

The exploitation of the island's resources by foreigners for their benefit was the reason given for a long time for the average low living standard of the masses. The world economic order that favoured the Western industrial nations was also blamed for the island's economic ills.

Adversarial politics
The tragic plight of many Sri Lankans cannot be blamed now on the actions of foreigner powers wanting to destabilise the country. It is the result of the internal process started and sustained by greedy political leaders, who manipulated political power to serve their narrow interests. The degree of manipulation grew as the benefits they obtained from exercising people's power raised the greed of both the power holders and the power seekers.

This also induced the egocentric leaders to try to keep power within their clique by whatever means. Even some sincere leaders, who led the two main rival parties since independence had to compromise their good intentions in order to prevent the opponent seizing power.

Many politicians who sought the support of the people to exercise power on their behalf promising them that they would ease their suffering and secure a better future for them and their progenies really used the people's power to further their party's interests and/or obtain an affluent life-style for themselves.

When these were the principal objectives, democratic politics gave way to unprincipled competitive politics. With this formation, national interest was invariably identified with the interest of one of these two parties, depending on who was articulating it.

The reason for lethargy, inefficiency and corruption seen in many public institutions since the "reform" of the old civil service is obvious. Politicians were able to meddle in appointments, promotions and transfers and personal and party loyalties took preference over merit.

The intention was to use them for the benefit of the ruling party and their members. The continuation of this practice in public sector regardless of the party in power is also due to adversarial politics. This helped in implementing decisions considered helpful to the ruling party or damaging to the opposition. At the same time violation of normal rules and codes of conduct allowed corrupt politicians and officials to exploit the system for personal gains.

Another indicator that reflects the undemocratic way people's power has been usurped by greedy politicians is the interference in the sovereign right of the people to vote freely and select candidates of their choice to represent them in the national legislature and local bodies. Elections in Sri Lanka were free and fair for about three decades since independence.

The interference by the ruling party in the election process has been done both covertly and overtly. Violent and corrupt methods were resorted to by the very candidates whom the people wanted to act on their behalf in maintaining law and order in the entire country and enforce discipline, honesty and efficiency in public institutions.

The law and order situation deteriorated not merely because of the interference of politicians of the ruling party in the affairs of law enforcement authorities but additionally due to the links of politicians with the strong men of the underworld. The extent of the rivalry between the two main parties can be gauged from the admissions of some politicians that they needed the assistance of the criminals to protect themselves from their political enemies. This depicts the despicable state to which the once peaceful country has been driven into by irresponsible and selfish politicians.

However, the political divide has not been a barrier for the people's representatives to join in awarding themselves various monetary benefits including perks and pensions. They are entitled to retirement benefits for life after functioning as representatives of the people for five years.

The motive that drives many politicians to get elected by whatever means should be clear from all these. Given this zeal for position and power, national interest did not often influence decisions in the affairs of the State.

Indifference of informed citizens
The neglect of democratic principles is not the only misfortune that happened to the people after independence; capable citizens who could have apprised the masses of the dire consequences of the destructive political trends that were very conspicuous especially after two decades of independence remained indifferent. There were several reasons for this neglect. Initially, they expected the political leaders to learn from their past mistakes and contribute more honestly and responsibly to the nation building and development processes.

This did not materialise because of their overwhelming desire to weaken the competitor, which took away much of their time and effort. There was also the local culture of optimism that made people to believe in their leaders without doubting their motives. When politics became violent and vindictive, many intellectuals either remained silent or identified themselves with those wielding power in order to safeguard their own interests.

What should astonish the discerning people is the time and effort expended by politicians and some bigots in arguing trivial matters that are irrelevant to the unresolved issues, which have inflicted untold suffering on the masses, destroyed assets worth several billions and hold the prospect of making the country backward and in turmoil for the foreseeable future.

It is strange to note even educators trying to establish that only the descendants of the first settlers have supremacy over others in the country's legislative and administrative systems. The debate on which century before Christ Tamils first came to Lanka continues endlessly. In this debate, the fact that both the Sinhalese and Tamil races are not the original inhabitants is overlooked.

What would have been the result had a similar dispute prevailed in the United States or for that matter in other advanced countries? It is useful to know why this did not happen there. The majority of their citizens cannot be considered as intellectuals. But it is their tolerant attitude and their eagerness to condemn any rabble-rousing moves that have helped in maintaining unity and building a common national identity, without which these countries would not have been able to achieve their present status as high income countries.

Importantly, the political leaders also emerged with this same tolerant attitude and did not venture to corrupt the minds of the people. Once elected to office, the national leaders did not consider themselves as representatives of any particular racial or religious group but of all the people.

Development sacrificed
Sri Lanka was considered to be a paragon that the less developed countries in turmoil and poor human and social development record could emulate its path to peace and progress. Sri Lanka like other developing countries had low per capita income but with the achievements in education and health sectors, the conditions were favourable for developing the economy at rates much higher than those realised in the past. These would have raised the living standard of the people, which though higher in the 1950s than those in the neighbouring countries was low compared with the industrial countries.

The widespread view among the political and civic leaders during the colonial rule was that once the country gained independence, the quality of life of citizens regardless of their racial and territorial differences would improve dramatically. This hope appeared real to the people as well, because they believed they had acquired the power to build their own future. But soon, the struggle for power within the ruling class gained importance over matters that concern the welfare of the masses.

In order to placate the electorate, some hasty actions were taken often at the expense of foregoing long-term development and sustainable growth. In this business, the emphasis fell heavily on giving promises and assurances for which the rhetoric was used to the maximum. Excuses were found at critical times to explain why these could not be put into effect or failed to produce the expected results. The culture of excuses has become a fact of life, having spread to other areas. This has retarded learning, efficient performance of duties and prompt discharge of obligations.

Ethnic problem
Some academics have complained that the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka has not been defined and those seeking solutions are ignorant people! Even those who are now pressing to end the war through negotiations and restore peace have been branded as "traitors".

According to a recent article by an academic, non-nationals mean those citizens who support devolution! The refusal to accept the existence of the ethnic problem itself shows the extent of the divide that separates the Sinhalese and Tamil communities as if they live in two far away lands.

The discontent of the Tamils with the political system originated from their personal experiences in dealing with various establishments of the State on one hand and the unequal way the State treated them on the other. Citing various constitutional provisions and relevant statutes to establish that Tamils have the same rights as Sinhalese cannot convince those who are aware how ineffective these have been under successive governments due to weak implementation.

This weakness lies at the heart of the mistrust of the Tamils in the centralised political system. In fairness, the fact that the Tamil political parties had in the past manipulated this perceived mistrust in a hostile manner raising anti-Sinhala sentiments cannot be ignored. This was their strategy to win votes in the Tamil areas. This mistrust has also been exploited by the LTTE in its propaganda to justify the ongoing war and recruit Tamil youth to join its army.

Moves to end hostilities
The realisation of the dangers of continuing the hostile politics to country's stability and economic growth has compelled civic and business leaders to persuade all parties to end hostilities and help in settling the conflict peacefully. There is also some justification in the belief that the rivalry between the two main political parties has indirectly contributed to the continuance of the N-E war.

Although several peace organisations have been functioning separately without much effect, the formation of the apolitical National Alliance for Peace (NAP) in October is a significant move towards achieving lasting peace. This has come in the wake of the initiative taken by influential business leaders to facilitate all party consensus on national issues.

Chauvinistic forces as well as those with vested interest in sustaining the present hostilities will try to obstruct the efforts of the NAP. The attempt to disrupt its inaugural meeting held on 11th November at the Colombo Public Library auditorium reflects the difficulties that lie ahead in restoring peace and promoting national unity. The success of the efforts of the NAP depends crucially on the solidarity of all organisations committed to peace and national unity. "People's power" to be effective must include all strata of society, conspicuously the people at grass root level.

Politicians who have become accustomed to manipulating the people's power for narrow gains will not mend their ways unless they realise that the masses will no longer tolerate the divisive politics that has brought in much destruction and deprived them of a better life. Hence the NAP must be seen as a mass movement that has the support of the very people on whose votes the political parties bank on.

The peace crusaders are aware that "unity is strength". They have announced that NAP hopes to strengthen and reinforce the efforts that have already been initiated by religious, women's and other organisations including the Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Their efforts must succeed and only on these depend the future of the people and the country. Hopefully, NAP will also demonstrate the useful achievements that are possible in other critical fields, if there is unity.

Sudassanaya's alternative
Some concerned citizens have suggested an alternative to the country's multi-party political system. Their organisation, Sudassanaya, is canvassing for a "partyless" democratic system of government in which the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary will function independently. The principles on which their new Constitution will be structured are sound. The problem, however, lies in getting such a constitution legal through existing mechanism. It can be certain that the main political parties will put their differences aside and unite to obstruct it with all their might

In fact, the idea that the form of the country's constitution should be decided outside the realm of party politics is sound. The architects of the two republican constitutions were the political parties that were in power at the time of drafting. They in turn used their two-thirds majority in the legislature to prepare and adopt the constitutions consistent with their ambitions.

Inputs of independent experts were, therefore, worthless when the objectives and the formats had been predetermined. This was not the way the constitutions of stable democratic republics were drafted, which had stood the test of time. Unfortunately, this ideal approach and basic constitutional proposals have appeared 50 years late.

Pragmatic approach
Given these constraints, the pragmatic way will be to reform the multi-party system which conforms to the basic principles proposed by Sudassanaya. With the right checks and balances in the constitution, it may not be impossible - to make the political parties function democratically; safeguard the democratic rights of the people; prevent abuse of powers and human rights; prevent any individual or group from promoting ethnic and religious hatred and tension; preserve the unity of the country; and ensure public funds are utilized efficiently.

The executive committee system that existed before independence favoured consensual approach to decisions. With some modifications in accordance with present realities, it could be revived to overcome the present difficulties arising from rancorous politics.

Devolution actually strengthens democracy and is consistent with democratic principles. The case for devolution would not have arisen if not for the fact the centralised system of government neglected minority concerns. All the happenings since independence under majoritarian rule that emphasised the divisions in the Sri Lankan society have given rise to profound suspicion in the unitary system, particularly among the minority Tamils. This distrust cannot be dismissed as irrelevant now and can only be dispelled over time by confidence building measures.

The assumption that a partyless constitution will "ensure that disciplined, compassionate, upright and worthy citizens emerge as the nation's rulers!' is just wishful thinking. Such persons have emerged in other countries where multi-party political system has worked satisfactorily. The actual reason for this shortcoming lies elsewhere.

"Good politician"
President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic has maintained democracy and tolerance should govern his country's politics. These were the very same qualities for which he fought as a playwright and a founder member of Charter 77. Despite the strain the country faced while changing from a rigid communism to a market economy and his personal disappointment in the break-up of former Czechoslovakia, he has steadfastly adhered to these principles. He was forthright in his condemnation of political scandals and expected high moral standards from those exercising political power.

His vision, humanity, integrity and statesmanship helped the new Czech nation to emerge as a stable democracy in Eastern Europe. Oxford university awarded him a honorary degree on October 22, 1998. Mr. Havel articulated clearly the principles on which all political authority should rest in his speech at the ceremony. He said: "A good politician should be able to explain without seeking to seduce; he should humbly look for the truth of this world without claiming to be its professional owner; he should alert people to the good qualities in themselves, including a sense of the values and interests which transcend the personal, without giving himself an air of superiority and imposing anything on his fellow humans."

A good political system in a democratic country is one which is trusted by all the communities that make up the entire society. This is a prerequisite for stability peace and progress and indeed for the survival of democracy itself.

Society's role
If the society from which leaders emerge degenerates to the extent of losing its good values, the kind of politicians President Havel expects will be hard to find. The regression of social values and behaviour in Sri Lanka has been obscured by the concern over the ruinous effects of the ongoing war. Rise in violent crimes, violation of human rights, abuse of power, the widespread fall in moral standards and the neglect of human values are clear signs of the extent of the regression. Even the poor standard of debates and the unruly behaviour of some elected representatives in Parliament symbolise the emerging qualities of the new society. The evolving social environment is not conducive for democracy to flourish.

Although statistically Sri Lanka's high literacy rate is impressive, education has not helped to evolve a liberal society. Substantial economic growth is necessary for creating the favourable conditions for social harmony and democracy to take root. Conversely, social harmony is necessary for sustaining high growth. Civil society has the responsibility to ensure that these inter-connections are neither weakened by any group nor neglected by governments. Unless steps are taken early by concerned citizens of this generation to restore the good values of their communities, the prospect of a peaceful life for the coming generations is bleak.

People are the stockholders of the nation on whose behalf their chosen representatives act in the political establishment (includes the government and the opposition) and have the right to question their performances just as those owning shares in a corporate body exercise control over its managers. The failure of the society to perform this vital function was the main reason for the politicians to behave as if they were the owners of national assets and had the absolute power to rule as in an authoritarian regime.

The future of Sri Lanka as a peaceful and robust democratic country sustaining high economic growth depends not only on political parties acting responsibly but also on the continuous interest shown by broad based apolitical alliances like the NAP in promoting democracy, social justice, peace and development. Although certain reforms take time to yield the desired results, these must be initiated early to avoid getting into an irredeemable situation. Reform of the present education system must aim towards creating a tolerant society that can provide responsible leaders for meeting these and other challenges in the future. This will also ensure that the society aiming for lasting peace plays the role expected of it under democratic rule.

(The writer is a former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury)

Democracy in this Dharmadweepa

By Kusal Perera
Just a week ago, while travelling towards Tissa on the Hambantota-Kataragama main road, that's the furthest down South, we were stopped by a posse of uniformed and armed security personnel from the SL Airforce just before their Weerawila base. The first impression was that we were going to be subjected to a security check, those that we are quite familiar with. But it turned out to be a sale of raffle tickets under intimidating firearms and a very gullible smile by a petty officer, "in aid of the annual get together of children". At the bottom of the ticket it said "the dependents of those war heroes who died in action would also be provided with donations on that day". That was sort of a remark on second thoughts, to justify the selling of a raffle ticket. Any way, in a situation like that on our roads, what could one do? Refuse and drive away? Every vehicle that passed through their "mock barricade" on either direction, did pay for the tickets. So did I. But, I was provoked to tell them that was wrong to sell raffle tickets that way.

Then the following day, again in Tangalle, on the main road to Hambantota, another group of armed men, also in uniform and with arms, stopped me like they stopped every one else travelling on the road. This time too they were selling raffle tickets. When I showed them the ticket that was bought the previous day, pat came the reply, "Ah!... that's Airforce... We're Navy". It was too intimidating for one to comply with, for any one with any self respect. I was therefore compelled to ask the uniformed person who held a book of raffle tickets in front of my nose, "Yes, it could be... But at the next junction if the Army or the Police stop us, are we to buy tickets from them too?" The reply from the Navy person was very curt. "That you can decide then". It was just plain saying that I have to buy their ticket and then do what ever I wanted. I refused to buy and he refused to move. Sensing some "unwanted" confrontation, the poor driver bought a ticket and off we drove.

This was hardly a week before we celebrated the International Human Rights Day on 10th December, with very special attention given to those innocent men, women and children driven destitute from the war, up North. Many are their grievances and many more would be joining them with the extension of the war in to other areas and with time. Thus any attempt, even an attempt, at reaching a justifiable solution to end this war, to usher in peace, is most welcome and definitely worth supporting.

But there would remain a very serious question with few divisions that demands very tangible answers and one that has hitherto not received much attention. That is the question of how the society could be de-militarized or re-humanised and turned into a civil society proper. How the "mind-sets" of those who for decades now, have been enjoying the power of the uniform with a ready to fire rifle, could be changed, to adhere to and adopt to the civil acceptance and working of this society. How the politicians themselves could be taught to respect law and order with no political interference. How the underworld that often operates with political patronage and for black money, could be brought to an end under the law of the land. And how the people could be empowered to put their foot down firm and say "no" to any thing detrimental to society. This is more difficult than bringing the war to an end. For this requires a change of perceptions attitudes, social values and then a determination in the whole society.

The war is considered the main factor that degenerates human rights in society. Any war and every war, does brutalise the society. It brutalises not only the area in which the conflict rages, but all possible geographical areas of conflict and extends into social layers. This is exactly what the war up in the North had done to those living in the war torn areas in the North and the East and the innocent lives in the South. And the closing of the war would not bring sanity as a logical consequence to life in those areas as well as to those in the rest of the country. For erosion of democracy is quite complex and needs patient and far reaching interventions in its restoration.

We have during the past double decade lost the importance of public participation due to many factors than just the war. We started with the brutal suppression of the long standing trade unions with the 1980 July general strike. This period provided for the unofficial state patronage of lumpen groups used to smash anti government protests. It was a common practice for the ruling UNP to use thugs in an organised way to break up opposition rallies and protests and extended to suppress even the judiciary.

While most feel the free economy since 1978 gave way for individualism in society, that provided the base for this degeneration in society, what in effect took place is the politicisation of the state, including the administration from top to bottom. This was possible for two main reasons. One, those who offered themselves for and were selected, came from a poor and backward culture compared to those who adorned the administration before. Two, the dismantling of the civil society left no strength for any opposition.

This providing the backdrop, those who pretended to fight for the lost rights, for "patriotism", started using the same closed fists and knuckles, to force open people's participation. Any one and every organisation that did not toe the line of the JVP was savagely beaten up in the universities, at work places and in society, in the name of the "motherland". While the UNP government went hell bent to crush all opposition to them, the JVP took it as their right to punish and punish ruthlessly all those who did not toe their political line. The result was a total collapse of the society. A story that needs no detailing and retelling.

Meanwhile the war had its own evolution with the introduction of new technology in terms of modern military hardware at a very high cost. All this went unquestioned with the war projected holy and as a national need. This acceptance, allows for a very high profile security presence in the city and for all Members of Parliament and Provincial Councils. While this burns in to our national coffers in a big way, it has also created a highly motivated super-alien feeling among most politicians. With security men trailing them everywhere, they have through a decade or more, developed a culture that is intimidating. And often used in intimidating ways.

Along side all this, law enforcement became a trivial necessity, a need that could be satisfied at a cost and one that could be greased to suit any one with money. Money is hard to come, for all, in this free market economy, where social justice is not the criteria of development. Thus democracy is not for all who has no money. But, democracy was what was promised to all, with or with out money. Hence the question of human rights once again.

It is now argued that this PA government had ushered in democracy. That there is media freedom. There is freedom to protest and picket. Every aspect of democracy that was absent before. What most have forgotten is that it was during the Premadasa regime, the media started growing, or rather mushrooming. The electronic media had its plurality. And Mahinda Rajapaksa, the connoisseur of Human Rights went on his historic eighteen day "Pada Yathra" to Kataragama and launched the innovative "Jana Gosha" against the UNP government and for democracy. And after the Premadasa era, with President Wijetunge, there was a marked lull in every thing. The Opposition enjoyed the breathing space that was created. The state enjoyed the relaxing of political nailing.

Yet the oppressive knots that tied down human rights, remained to be loosened and removed. It was this that the people wanted the PA government to accomplish. It was precisely this the PA government has failed to accomplish. Just one aspect that could be considered easily for demilitarisation is the blanket security provided for all. There is need to keep the city under security. There is need to provide security to those who are susceptible to LTTE threats. But there is absolutely no necessities to provide all the Provincial Council Members with armed security. And for that matter not all Members of Parliament (MPs) need this security.

I for one would say, that those MPs who cannot go about without security should not be considered as MPs. This unwanted security for politicians has had its very bad patches. Politics and armed might should not be allowed to be together for long periods. The result is there is once again the fastening of political patronage of the underworld. There is once again the justification of using strong arm tactics in removing political dissent. There is now far worse boot licking in the administrative system than even during the UNP era. And there is once again a very amateurish attempt at slogging the media.

This very rightly raises the question "what next?" And may I suggest a platform for alternate political culture? Again the question is, "who would be the players?" Yes, these are questions that need answers and through very serious discussions, no doubt. May be this International Day for Human Rights suits best.

L E G A L W A T C H
Human Rights: Putting theory before practice

By Nayana
"I do not approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

So said Voltaire - or so we are told. Actually, according to scholars who have researched the subject, this memorable if somewhat exaggerated phrase is a subsequent biographer's enthusiastic dramatization of the master's general point of view.

What Voltaire actually said in his "Essay on Tolerance" was equally interesting and pithy: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."

Though dating from a previous century, both these quotations seem rather apt for the week that included Universal Human Rights Day, because they illustrate precisely what is lacking in public attitudes to human rights in our society at the present moment.

Awareness of human rights in the abstract is not lacking - lip service to it abounds. Successive governments have introduced or are seeking to introduce new and better fundamental rights chapters to our Constitution. School children are educated about human rights; so are soldiers and policemen. Human Rights Day gets a big splash in the media.

However, just consider what happened in the North-Western Province during the same week.

Freedom of speech and political opinion, freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to free and fair elections are all enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in our own Constitution.

Yet an observer of a Sri Lankan election campaign could not be blamed if he came to the conclusion that, far from "defending to the death" the right of our opponents to free speech, Sri Lankans are more likely to do to death anyone who voices a view they find disagreeable.

The 1997 local government elections - the most violent local elections on record in this country - were proof that the culture of election thuggery which was introduced on a large scale in the 1980s did not come to an end in 1994. A helpless electorate can only shudder in anticipation of the warfare that looks set to be waged in the name of democracy at the upcoming Provincial Council elections.

In one sense the problem about the globalization of human rights is that everybody is encouraged to think about it only in global i.e., abstract terms.

Hence governments sign all the right conventions and set up all the right national talkshops to promote them locally. Academics draft utopian fundamental rights chapters which may never see the light of Parliament because politicians have tied them up with their own agendas.

Meanwhile the fact that we have reached a stage where a candidate in a co-operative society election was recently shot dead hardly rates a mention, because we are in to global human rights.

To illustrate the gap between word and deed: Soon after it was elected this Government passed an Act of Parliament to give effect to the international Convention Against Torture and other forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, to which Sri Lanka had acceded in January 1994.

Yet although there have been a number of findings of police torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in fundamental rights cases, one is not aware of a single criminal prosecution to date. Even without an international convention, freedom from torture, etc. has been part of the 1978 Constitution, and officers found guilty of unlawful acts of violence against persons in their custody could be punished under the Penal Code.

Thus the most pressing issue for Sri Lankans is not what more international conventions to sign but how to make our own fundamental rights jurisdiction more effective in the face of successive governments which have paid nothing more than lip service to these rights.

Twenty years after the introduction of direct Supreme Court jurisdiction over fundamental rights, the types of situation in which that jurisdiction will be exercised has been considerably expanded, but the remedies for violation are still largely limited to a declaration, payment of compensation and, in the case of public employment, re-instatement.

The Court itself has observed that in the field of infringements by the police, financial penalties have had little or no deterrent effect against further violations.

The fact that, apart from paying compensation, successive governments have been able to ignore findings of fundamental rights violations against sitting MPs and Provincial Councillors as well as police officers and senior public servants, should be a matter of grave concern to anyone primarily concerned with the substance rather than the form of our human rights law.

Turning now to Voltaire's exhortation to "think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too": A basic requisite of being able to think for oneself is free access to information.

This too is both a universal human right and one that is now recognized under our Constitution. This was the principal reason why the Supreme Court held the Media Commission Bill to be unconstitutional in its entirety. By seeking to control the flow of information to viewers and listeners, the Bill was held to violate freedom of thought which is a non-derogable right under Article 10.

However, when it comes to freedom of thought as well as freedom of expression it is not only governments that have been at fault. Members of some non-governmental organizations that profess concern for human rights must also ask themselves whether they are prepared to support the human rights of those who think differently from themselves on national issues.

For instance, at a recent discussion on how to increase the presently very low rate of women representatives in the political arena, and where a comparison was being made with the Indian experience, a Sri Lankan woman speaker expressed the view that although there were a number of women members of the BJP in the Indian legislature, the women's movement should not make common cause with women from "fascistic" parties.

One does not know whom this Sri Lankan speaker had in contemplation as the local equivalent of the BJP, but the point is surely whether the promotion of one set of human rights for women i.e., the right to participate in the electoral process, is to be accompanied by a curtailment of another of their rights, namely, freedom of political opinion.

This unhealthy trend of intolerance even among non- governmental groups was also seen in recent demonstrations against lawyers appearing for the accused in cases of violence against women and children - demonstrations in which even some lawyers regrettably took part. The presumption of innocence and the right of an accused to legal representation are also universally recognized human rights.

It is easy to espouse human rights in the abstract, and not too difficult speak up for the human rights of those whose views we share. The real test of a society's commitment to human rights lies in how far it will uphold those rights even for those whose thoughts and actions it cannot agree with.

The week that was
Politicos gird loins for NWP polls

by Shan Wijetunga
Nominations for the North Western Provincial Council warmed up the political scene last week with the politicians girding themselves for a battle that both the PA and the UNP claim they would win.

On Thursday, the president met party organisers and the task of preparing PA candidate lists was given to ministers Dharmasiri Senanayake and D. M. Jayaratne and S. B. Nawinna, the PA's choice for chief minister. On Friday, when the PA leaders met at the Temple Trees, they had reasons to be happy as the SLMC had finally decided to throw its weight behind the government.

Although the selection of candidates by the SLMC was not difficult, the PA list was a problem. The first disappointment was for Jeyaraj Fernandopulle whose cousin's name had been deleted. He was upset and reacted by refusing to accept the position of party organiser for the Puttalam district.

Dayasiri Jayasekara, a popular figure in Panduwasnuwara and the co-ordinating officer of G. L. Peiris was also dropped. A last minute attempt to give him nomination was apparently rejected by him.

Throughout Sunday and Monday, amidst innumerable arguments the business of finalising the candidate list was carried out at Nawinna's house. In the meantime, Nawinna had to be present in the Parliament to hand over his resignation, before which he made his farewell speeches at the Ministry of Health and in Parliament.

UNP too face selection posers
Deciding on candidates was not plain sailing for the UNP too. After a few preliminary problems, the party leader left for Matara leaving the job to the Party Secretary Gamini Atukorale with whom he was in constant touch. A major problem came up about B. M. Wijenayake, a former Minister of Co-ops in the NWPC. He had been dropped on the ground of ill health. But Johnstone Fernando spoke in his favour and pointed out that ignoring Wijenayake could lead to the estrangement of many UNP supporters. Finally, the issue had to be referred to the party chief who also decided to leave him out. Asked whether Johnstone Fernando was prepared to take the responsibility for reversing the decision, he was silent. That decided the question. Another deletion was Jayatillake Illangakoone on whose behalf too Johnstone Fernando put up an unsuccessful fight.

On Saturday, Ranil took part in a public rally at Hakmana organised by Lakshman Yapa Abeygunawardane. It appeared to be a very successful event. The party stalwarts had dinner at Yapa's house and a notable event on this occasion was the meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and G. L. S. Galappaththi a former M.P. and a Sirisena Cooray supporter.

Heads or tails?
UNP leaders of the North Western province headed by Gamini Jayawickrame Perera were kept busy during on Saturday and Sunday finalising the candidate lists and they had been asked to be present on Monday at Sri Kotha to sign the papers. However, the lists could not be finalised even by Monday afternoon. The issue at stake was the nomination for whom the former Chief Minister Nimal Bandara wished to include three Muslim candidates. The names of Abu Thahir and M. Razeek had been proposed and the party secretary wished to toss a coin to decide the issue. But Razeek who did not agree with the suggestion, walked out of the meeting.

Meanwhile Gamini Jayawickrame Perera tendered his resignation as an MP after a farewell speech for which he had to ask for the time allocated for another MP. After the selection were completed, the UNP leaders attended a dinner thrown by Bodhi Ranasinghe a close associate of the Leader of the Opposition at the Hotel Holiday Inn.

Athula and Rosie host a cocktail party
While the selection were in progress, the Leader of the Opposition and his wife attended a cocktail party by Athula and Rosie Senanayake where several ministers, political personalities, cricketers and businessmen were present. The star attractions were Ranil and Minister Mangala Samaraweera. But there was no interaction between the two. However, the Leader of the Opposition talked with Nirupama Rajapakse and Samaraweera was seen in conversation with Sajith Premadasa and his fiancee. They were at the party long after the departure of the Leader of the Opposition.

On Tuesday afternoon, Jayantha Dhanapala, Chief of the UN's disarmament office came to Parliament with Sarath Amunugama. At the latter's invitation, Dhanapala met the Leader of the Opposition and subsequently lunched with the Norwegian Ambassador, Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku and Gamini Weerakoon, the Editor of the Island. Their discussions covered a range of subjects of current interest including the LTTE proposals and the delay in the government's response as well as elections. After lunch Dhanapala spent some time with the Leader of the Opposition.

Executive Committee
A meeting of the UNPs Executive Committee had been scheduled for six o clock at Sri Kotha. The first item on the agenda was the tussle between Mayor of Nuwara Eliya and three members. After a preliminary discussion, a committee comprising John Amaratunga, Ali Zahir, and a few others was named to look into the matter and bring about a settlement.

Next, Gamini Atukorale briefed the gathering on the proposed party conference due to be held at Kataragama on Dec. 19. Ronnie de Mel, Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku and W. J. M. Lokubandara were given the task of drafting the resolution to be moved at the conference. Percy Samaraweera and Dharmadasa Banda presented further details on the conference.

The North Western Province elections was taken up next. Asoka Wadigamangawa who rose to his feet first said that although it is an easy victory for the UNP, everybody's commitment is needed for the task. "We are well ahead in the battle, but the government will do everything in its power to prevent casting of our votes. To counter this, everybody's commitment and efforts are needed", he said.

He also stated that he had come to know of a plan to grab ballot papers from post offices before the poll. Although Gamini Jayawickrame Perera was not present, the former Chief Minister Nimal Bandara filled the gap. John Amaratunga reminded the group about the irregularities seen at the previous presidential and provincial elections. "Let us see. There is time for it" was the party leader's comment.

Wickremasinghe thanked Gamini Jayawickrame Perera and Wadigamangawa who had resigned their parliamentary seats to run at this election. Thanks also went to Nimal Bandara who had given his consent to the choice of Gamini Jayawickreme Perera for chief minister and to Manjula Bandara and his mother for accommodating new candidates.

Nimal Bandara complained that the government side broke the rules even before nomination by entering the Kachcheri in a horde whereas permission was granted only for three persons per candidate. They had also thrown out the JVP representatives, he alleged.

Last Minute Instructions
Before his departure Ranil Wickremasinghe summoned the NWPC candidates and gave them some advice. The main theme was the need to avoid confrontations. "Incidents such as the Nalanda Ellawala killing should never have happen. At all times keep off trouble. During the first few weeks we must work in such a way so as not to demoralise our supporters. People do not like violence. Therefore, if we work sensibly, it is not difficult to win their goodwill" he said. He also said that he did not like to see party supporters getting injured or sent to prison". Even if you get assaulted, do not retaliate. Use your head at all times" was his advice.

With a reference to the recent incidents at Puttalam, he said that they should not get trapped. That incident took place because they had gone in procession against the party directive.

After the meeting, the Leader of the Opposition went to Parlament and after taking part in the debate left for Thailand in the evening. Sirisena Cooray has also left for Thailand on Thursday. Since Wickremasinghe is expected to spend a few days there, these trips have become subject of speculation in parliamentary circles.

PA organisers in the news
The last cabinet meeting was a very long one with 104 items on the agenda, but the elections for the NWP held attention above all. This matter was taken up immediately after the cabinet meeting which went on till 9.30 p.m. Several Deputy Ministers in charge of election activities in the NWP had been summoned for the meeting.

After considering the report that had been prepared on the subject, the President carried out some minor adjustments according to which organisational activities of the Puttalam district was entrusted to D. M. Jayaratne, and Dharmasiri Senanayake was given Kurunegala and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle was put in charge of Kuliyapitiya.

Upon a request made by a minister to hand over Puttalam to Fernandopulle, the President said that this decision was taken because he did not want to accept it. Jeyaraj who was smarting under a nomination incident said that although earlier, he said he won't organise Puttalam, he would now keep out altogether.

There were further detailed arrangements as well. Propaganda work in the Kurunegala district will be under Mangala Samaraweera, Chilaw under Mahinda Rajapakse. Wennappuwa under C. V. Gooneratne, Puttalam under John Seneviratne and Wariyapola under Nimal Siripala de Silva. Similarly, Hiriyala, Mawathagama, Nattandiya, Anamaduwa and Dodangaslanda were placed under Lakshman Jayakody, D. P. Wickremesinghe, Mahinda Wijesekera, S. B. Dissanayake and Nandimithra Ekanayake respectively.

Yapahuwa was given to Reginald Cooray, Polgahawela to Athauda Seneviratna and another seat to Regie Ranatunga. The co-ordination between the organisers and the ministers and deputy ministers will be carried out by Maitripala Sirisena. A high powered committee with General Anuruddha Ratwatte, Richard Pathirana and Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, Dharmasiri Senanayake and D. M. jayaratne under the direction of the president was also named.

The president instructed the various organisers to go to their areas immediately after nominations and start work. She said that it will be an easy victory for them and requested everybody to work hard.

A busy time for G. L.
Last week was a busy time for Minister G. L. Peiris. the first step was the lunch of the Jana Udana project set up by the Colombo East organisation at D. S. Senanayake Vidyalaya on Saturday. It comrpised several services. A medical clinic, legal advice, distribution of spectacles and a mobile telecom service were among them.

There was provision for sports too with a marathon and a soft ball cricket match. The minister spent the whole day at the venue personally supervising the operation.

The project was launched with the objective of creating enthusiasm among the people and everyone praised the project which was very successful. People specially welcomed the medical elinic and the telecom service.

We referred earlier to a friend of Minister Indika Gunawardane. Even the President had referered to a schoolmate of the minister. Mr. Nihal Mendis, Chairman of the State Engineering Corporation had protested to the Minister on hearing about this reference. He had asked the minister whether the President referred to him. The Minister had replied in the negative.

SL slams politicians on both sides greedy for Tamil votes

Mr S. L. Gunasekera, Attorney-at-Law, made this speech at the recent launch of a new edition of Malinga Gunaratne's 'Towards a Sovereign State'.

Politicians of Sri Lanka are largely responsible for promoting Tamil separatism in the country. They have willingly sacrificed their principles, their friends and their families and even their country to get the votes of the Tamils.

This was stated by Mr. S. L. Gunasekera, lawyer, at the launch of the second edition of the book 'For a Sovereign State' by Malinga H. Guneratne.

Gunaratne is a planter by profession having his own estate at Ahangama. He is the author of 'The Plantation Raj' which is a book about the nationalisation of plantations. He is a former Additional General Manager of the Ministry of Mahaweli Development's Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau (CECB) and was onetime the Chairman of the Janatha Estate Development Board (JEDB) in the Nuwara Eliya region.

While being at the Ministry of Mahaweli Development he was taken into police detention with regard to the mass scale encroachment of state land belonging to System B of the Mahaweli falling within the Batticaloa District. The encroachers were farmers from the South. These encroachments took place in 1983-84. Several other Mahaweli staffers were also detained.

Viswalekha printers published the first edition of "For a Sovereign State" in 1988 and Mr. Guneratne says that the book gives the inside story of tragic territorial war during the years of 1983-1988.

Gunasekera, speaking at the launch of the new edition of 'For a Sovereign State' said that the book gives in detail the misdeeds of the politicians that created Sri Lanka's terrorist problem. "Their greed for power and their lack of principles made the politicians subservient of Tamil chauvinists and separatists. The politicians even now think that Tamil votes are the key to power. Terrorism welcomed these ideas of those in power."

"The book goes on to say that these power hungry politicians will betray anything in their quest for power," he said.

The rulers at that time had feet of clay and one wonders while reading the book whether the same substance existed in their brains as well, he said.

"Today we have a new set of leaders trying to commit the same betrayal for the same greed of power. The path to destruction has not changed, only the identities of those who are leading the way have changed," he said.

The book was one of the first publications pointing out the willingness of the Sinhala politicians to betray anything for the sake of Tamil votes, Mr. Gunasekera said.

He stated that all those who came into power in the recent past had repeated the same mistake over and over again. " When President D. B. Wijetunga was in power he stated that there was no ethnic problem in this country, only a terrorist problem, which was true. But he received a harsh response from the Tamil chauvinists and separatists who attacked him from every world capital and street corner.

"What Chandrika Kumaratunga and her colleagues who formed the present government did was joining these Tamil chauvinists and attacked Wijetunge for speaking the truth because they wanted the support of the Tamils to come into power. They were subservient to the Tamil separatism and terrorism," he said.

However he praised the President for her statement in an interview over South African television where she said that the Tamils who were not the original settlers of Sri Lanka and a minority community were asking for a separate state within Sri Lanka. "What she said was true," he said.

"This statement is backed by a paper by Dr. R. Karthigesu Indrapalan, himself a Tamil and the Professor of History at the University of Jaffna, on the Tamil settlements of Sri Lanka in 1969. According to this paper, the chronicles which tell the history of Sri Lanka bares no evidence of Tamils in Sri Lanka in the pre-Christian era or till the 2nd Century AD.

Dr. Indrapalan's paper says that "the general impression given was that the Tamils were foreign to Ceylon. From this and other evidence we can come to a conclusion that only by about the 10th Century AD that permanent settlements of Tamils began and they were focused to the northern part of Sri Lanka. So what the President said was undisputedly true," Gunesekera said.

He said that by saying what she did, she had set the record straight, because the LTTE were seeking to open up a base in South Africa. They were also seeking to compare themselves as the Negroes who were oppressed by the white minority. They were trying to compare the Sinhalese with the whites who were the latecomers to Africa, Gunesekera said.

He ridiculed the way the UNP reacted to the statement made by the President. He said that following the President's interview UNP leader Ranil Wickremasinghe rushed to make a statement that the President either withdraws her statement or resign. The General Secretary of UNP Gamini Atukorala also makes a similar treacherous statement. "The UNP and the PA are equally subservient to the Tamil separatists and the forces of Tamil chauvinism," he said.

"After the TULF the more they get battered the more they go behind the LTTE. The TULF increasingly want to have unconditional talks between the government and the Tigers. But the government says that they will only talk to the Tigers if they lay down their arms, which I think will never happen," he said.

"However, the moment the TULF makes this demand the UNP also demands from the government that there should be unconditional talks with the LTTE. We cannot see what they are hoping to gain from all this. The LTTE is a pack of criminals led by a convicted murderer."

If the government can talk to the LTTE then they should also talk to the drug Mafia and the underworld leaders in the city to make the cities safer, he said. "The UNP does not see this point. All they want is the support of the TULF to topple the government and come into power which is all what they are concerned about," he said.

He said that over the last two decades Sri Lankan citizens have been subjected to a vast array of separatist propaganda and the book 'For a Sovereign State' was one of the first publications to counter the separatist propaganda.

One of the themes, which runs through this book is that this war is not a war to win the rights of the Tamils but a war for territory. It is a war of conquest just like those of the foreigners who came and conquered Sri Lanka. The Tigers, though citizens of Sri Lanka, are doing exactly the same as those colonialists. They seek to deprive a third of the total territory of this country to the citizens in the South and make that part exclusive for the Tamils, he said.

"The meaning of 'exclusive homeland' is a homeland to which it is exclusive to the exclusion of others. The entire area north of Chilaw upto the Jaffna peninsula down to the banks of the Kumbukkan Oya is this exclusive homeland of the Tamils and the Tamils only. No other community shares that area which is preserved for a minority race which constitute about 12.5 p.c. of the entire population."

"The land of this country belongs to all and not a single community. It belongs to the Sinhalese, the Tamils, the Muslims and Burghers and every citizen has equal right to the land," he concluded.

An addendum to the JR-Amir relationship

by A. J. Wilson
Regretfully there were important items that escaped my memory in the piece I had published in The Sunday Island of 6 December 1998. I now take the opportunity of penning these additional lines:

JRJ was very very angry when Indian newspapers published speeches by Amir denouncing him, JRJ, as an "unreliable leader", not to be trusted. The President complained to me about these outbursts of Amir. How could he (Amir) ask me (JRJ) to negotiate with him when in the same breath he condemned him? It was clear to me that JRJ was being supplied with Indian newspaper cuttings as well as hearsay evidence by his minions abroad.

There were others in his cabinet who were anxious to undermine the harmony between the two men because I suspect that they were fearful that Amir might be brought into the cabinet only to exercise excessive influence in the decision making process. JRJ himself told me once that members of his parliamentary group fancied Amir as a member of the Cabinet but they did not like Sivasithamparam. He did not give me any reason but from the context, I gathered that Sivasithamparam's deep voice rang out like a church bell and government MPs did not like this style of oratory.

As further evidence of the lack of trust, Amir once told me that JRJ asked him to bring back his son who was allegedly involved in the Durayappah murder and that he was glad that he did not take him up (JRJ) on the offer for who knows what he would have done to his son in the event of a crisis.

There was extensive tapping of Amir's phone.

I was once shown the typed version of a conversation between Amir and Mrs. B. that it was partly concocted was pretty obvious to me. Amir according to the typescript addressed the lady as "Madam" when in one to one conversations he would out of deference not address her at all by name or appellation. The conversation in the script was Americanized. It began "Hi Madam, we have not met for a long time. We must get together to find out what this old fellow (JRJ) is up to". For one thing Amir never used Americanisms in his conversation.

For another he was more deferential to the lady. Then there was the case of a Tamil ASP from Jaffna who related to JRJ, the news of the assassination of the UNP MP for Vaddukoddai. Amir is reported to have told the ASP. "I told him (meaning the assassin) not to kill him." Yet for all this tale bearing, JRJ did not get seriously prejudiced either against the TULF MPs or for that matter Amirthaliagam. But JRJ did not doubt that Amir had links with the Tamil Tigers.

JRJ tried transparent strategies to lure the TULF "Fly" into his UNP "Parlour". For example he proposed to Amir that the TULF should join with all other political parties in the North and South in an islandwide campaign denouncing terrorism (he only referred to the Tigers as "terrorists" whereas most other Tamils views them as "Liberation Tigers"). Amir was quick to realise that the Tamil militants were his only lever against the mighty UNP and he therefore meant to keep this leverage. It is not that Amir was using the latter and encouraging violence. But he thought that they were an adequate threat to coerce JRJ.

Both Amir an his wife were keen to reach a settlement with the JRJ state (JRJ had come to the stage when he could well say "I am the state"). Amir's wife told me times without number that they were "praying for success" of my hapless mission. Amir echoed similar sentiments but not as often. Considering that Minister Cyril Mathew had lampooned Mrs. Amir with the foulest and most suggestive of sexual metaphors, there is every reason to admire husband and wife for their mountains of patience and to hope that the exercise will succeed. In the end Amir had to sell his DDCP Package to his party convention. In the atmosphere of bitter, bellicose and unashamedly emotional weeping of members Amir had to steer the general body into accepting DDCs. In the end he won, notwithstanding all the difficulties and obstacles he encountered.

Between 1978 and 1983, the DDC years, there was a state of non-belligerency between JRJ and Amir. JRJ had very little time for TULF MPs. There were occasions when I was called upon to press the President to veto the popular and much loved G.A. of Trincomalee district, Lionel Fernando. JRJ claimed that he tried his utmost to pressure Lionel Fernando and had failed. He therefore requested me to come to Braemar, his private residence and try my hand at pursuating Fernando. I failed. Fernando said that for family reasons, he was anxious to move to Colombo where he could give his children "a proper Colombo education". There were other reasons he gave me which I found difficult to answer. Amir and his MPs were doubtless unhappy that they could not even wield enough clout to stop the transfer of an official whom the Tamils of Trincomalee district wanted retained because of his fairmindedness in the pursuit of his official duties.

As things were not moving smoothly between the President and Amir, JRJ proposed that a high level committee be constituted comprising government MPs, ministers and TULF MPs which would deal with controversial problems. There was great hope that a super-committee such as this would take off. It would bring all disputes between the two rivals to a satisfactory conclusion. But this was not to be. The Committee was a dead duck from the word go. It hardly met.

I was present at its very last meeting before its total collapse and I was indeed surprised at the failure of the President to bring the meeting to order. The purpose of the "get together" was to give the finishing touches to the DDC legislation before the councils were actually launched. Among those present were Ministers Anandatissa de Alwis, Nissanka Wijeyeratne and the senior bureaucrat, Bradman Weerakoon, Secretary to the Prime Minister, R. Premadasa. JRJ was the presiding chairman, while the only TULF representative was Amir. The atmosphere was charged even before the meeting began and as it progressed, the president lost control of the proceedings and was unable to restore order.

The reason for the hot air was that a couple of Sinhalese policemen had been killed in Jaffna by Tamil militants. The President had cautioned me prior to the meeting. "I am surrounded by anti-Tamil ministers". But on this occasion hardly did the meeting commence when Anandatissa de Alwis verbally pounced on Amir and even Amir who normally would not let things past him was flummoxed. Then came a barrage from Wijeyertne. At one stage, I feared that Nissanka might leap through the air and come to rest on Amir's head! He had tucked up his vershti right up to his knees. As to set the icing on the cake, Weerakoon raised an objection of constitutional validity, something which I had always feared would be a constitutional loophole in the DDC legislation.

Weerakoon pointed out that constitutionally the DDC legislation was ultra virus the constitution because in the final instance it would firstly dilute and interfere with the sovereignty of the people and that it would secondly involve the sharing of power through delegation and devolution by a fully sovereign executive vested with omnipotent powers to the periphery. I was taken aback, in actual fact several steps backwards for I was aware that the Attorney-General because of doubts expressed had pronounced positively on the constitutional validity of the legislation.

Now in terms of Weerakoon's observations, the DDC law would have to be approved by the people at a referendum and a two-thirds majority of Parliament. The super-committee meeting had ended in disorder and as we were leaving the meeting, I whispered to President JRJ my usual negative comments. He did not seem disconcerted. Instead, he said, regardless of Weerakoon's objections he would go ahead with the implementation.

Then came the holocaust of July 1983 followed by a major insurrection. While the war progressed there were various attempts at negotiations. JRJ convened a Political People's Conference (PPC) and later an All Parties Conference (APC). Neither of these conferences achieved much success. These high powered talks had been brokered by India after the latter had imposed the Accord of July 1987.

A reluctant and resentful President had convened these conferences as delaying devices but in keeping with his side of the settlement, he proceeded to have his "constitutional advisor", Lalith Athulathmudali to frame a scheme under which Provincial Councils would be toothless institutions. Recent revelations indicate that it was the eminent President's Council, H. L. de Silva who had actually drafted the scheme for the distribution of powers.

This was an example of a government working at cross purposes. JRJ had confided to a mutual, common friend that his "cynical ploy" was to allow the TULF "fly" into the UNP "parlour", let them participate in the prevailing sea of corruption after which the TULF would themselves have a vested interest in retaining a system from which they were deriving great benefits.

During all this phase, I was in occasional telephonic communication with the President from Canada. His current bogeyman, was Amir who he told me was wanting "to slide in" without an election, as chief minister of the Northern Province provincial council. "I will not let him have it on a platter". "Let him face an election and obtain whatever he can".

The President was clearly barking up the wrong tree. This was no longer a question of providing Amir with the sweets of office for there was the far greater danger of his having to confront the LTTE insurrection led by Velupillai Prabhakaran. If only the gods could have told him what was in store for him instead of letting him play bowls like Sir Francis Drake while relaxedly awaiting the arrival of the Spanish Armada. In the end, the TULF and Amir jibed at the Provincial Councils' scheme and the whole exercise was rendered nugatory after being experimented with, for a short phase.

After the Kristallnacht of Black July 1983, Amir turned bitter against JRJ. Here was a man who had "lured" the TULF into the drawing up of various devolutionary schemes and in the end had screwed them with all the nails in the TULF coffin. Amir was so desperately angry that a month or so after Kristallnacht when I got in touch on the phone with him to suggest a meeting with JRJ (this was a proposal of Hameed), he asked me not to mention any time JRJ's name to him "for I don't like to even look at that old fellow's face, after all that he has done against us". I could well understand Amir's reaction.

Amir resided in Madras after all the post 1983 events.

He returned to Colombo and lived there during the last year of his life. After his tragic assassination correspondent asked JRJ for his views on Amir. JRJ replied: "What kind of people are these that they kill their own leaders?"

Taiwan - Nationalists win renewed mandate

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
In mid-term elections on 5 December, Taiwan’s Nationalist Party won a handsome victory, with the voters renewing its mandate to stand firm against China but not to provoke the communist giant. The Nationalists widened their majority in the legislature and won the Taipei mayoralty at the expense of a popular opposition incumbent.

The Nationalists won 123 out of 225 seats in the legislature for a 55 percent majority - up several percentage points from the outgoing chamber. The Democratic Progre-ssive Party (DDP) won only 70 seats, giving the Nationalists a very strong platform to push through legislation. In the outgoing chamber they had only a majority of one.

The Nationalist victory was most evident in the capital Taipei where Ma-Ying-jeou, a dashing Harvard graduate, unseated a charismatic mayor, Chen Shui-bian, who was widely expected to win. The outcome of the elections put the Nationalists in good stead to keep the presidency in the March 2000 elections after the retirement of Lee Teng-hui, who won Taiwan’s first direct presidential vote in 1996.

The election results would have caused some relief in Beijing - and possibly Washington and Tokyo too - by denying strong support to the Democratic

Progressive Party (DPP) with its avowed goal of final independence from China. Even though the US continues to help Taiwan militarily, President Bill Clinton during his June trip to China clearly stated that Washington regards Taiwan as a part of China. He also promised to oppose Taiwanese membership in such international organisations as the UN.

Historical Background
The Shanghai Communique of 1972, jointly issued by the US and the Chinese authorities in Beijing, is the basis for the present "One China" policy of the US administration. According to a 1985 Rand Corporation report written for US intelligence agencies, the then prime US negotiator, Henry Kissinger, is reported to have agreed to the text of the communique after a dinner of maotai and Peking duck. He reportedly exclaimed to his hosts: "After a dinner of maotai and Peking duck, I’ll sing anything."

Taiwanese generally deny that Taiwan was ever a part of mainland China. They say that the most comprehensive historical records on Taiwan go back some 350 years, to the period of the Dutch occupation, 1624-1662. The Dutch called the island "Ilha Formosa" (meaning "beautiful island"). When the Dutch East Indies Company arrived, they found only the aborigine population on the island, there were no signs of any administrative structure of the Chinese Imperial Government. Thus, at that time, says the Taiwanese, Taiwan was not "part of China."

The Dutch brought in Chinese labourers as migrant workers, for the sugar plantations and rice fields. They usually came for a few years (without family) and then returned to the mainland. Eventually, more settled and married aborigine wives. Thus a new race was born: the Taiwanese.

The Shanghai Communique
In the 1972 communique the US "acknowledged" the position of the People’ Republic of China that "there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China". The Taiwanese argue that the wording "acknowledge" means simply "taking note of" but not necessarily "agreeing with" the Chinese position.

In any case, Taiwan places little relevance on these communiques between the United States and China. Firstly, they view them simply as statements at the end of a meeting and that they were not ratified, either by the US Congress or by the international community, and thus do not have the weight of a Treaty. Secondly, most importantly, they were made without any involvement or representation of the people of Taiwan, and can thus not have any validity in determining the future of the island.

In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek lost the war on the mainland, and fled with the remnants of his Nationalist government and military forces to Taiwan. There he established the remainder of this regime and proclaimed Taipei to be China’s "provisional capital" and vowed to reconquer the Chinese mainland The Nationalist authorities on Taiwan called themselves the "Republic of China."

For the next four decades, the people of Taiwan lived under Martial Law, while the Nationalist government attempted to maintain the fantasy that they ruled all of China, and would some day "recover" the mainland. The Chinese mainlanders who came over with Chiang Kai-shek constituted only 15 percent of the population of the island, but were able to maintain themselves in a position of power over the 85 percent native Taiwanese through tight control of the political system, police, military, educational system and media.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty
The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 between the Allied Powers and Japan which formally ended World War II is important for Taiwan. While deciding that Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan, it did not determine who the beneficiary was. The Treaty merely concluded that "...the future status of Taiwan will be decided in accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

Article 1.2 of the Charter of the UN states that it is a purpose of the UN "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." Thus, the formal result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is that the people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination.

From 1952 to 1972, the Nationalists built up Taiwan economically, due largely to the hard work of the Taiwanese, and the sound infrastructure built up by the Japanese. Taiwan’s GNP growth rate has risen steadily from more than 9 percent in the 1960s, to 10.2 percent in the 1970s, and 8.2 percent in the 1990s. Today Taiwan is the third largest trading nation with the largest foreign exchange reserves of any country. It is a leader in high technology.

But on the diplomatic front, Taiwan has lost ground and, in 1971, its dream of representing all of China fell apart when Nixon and Kissinger made their "opening" to China. In 1971, Beijing also took over the Nationalist’s seat in the UN as "representative of China," and the Nationalist authorities were displaced. UN Resolution 2758 did not say anything about Taiwan’s status or Taiwan’s representation. It dealt only with the question who was representing China in the United Nations, not with the question of Taiwan’s status, which was and is a separate issue, to be dealt with as a follow up on the decisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951.

Towards independence and democracy
Taiwan was further hit badly when, in December 1978, the United States switched recognition from the Nationalist regime in Taipei to the Beijing regime. Within Taiwan, this gave impetus to the growth and evolution of the Taiwanese democratic opposition movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The democratic opposition began to question the Nationalist’s anachronistic claim to represent all of China, and began to work towards ending the 40 years’ old martial law. In September 1986, this movement culminated in the formation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which then grew into a full-fledged opposition party, now led by Chen Shui-bian, the charismatic mayor of Taipei, who was defeated in the 5 December election.

Martial Law, finally dropped in 1987, was replaced by a less-stringent Nati-onal Security Law. However, it wasn’t until 1991 that the Nationalist claim to rule all of China was dropped, and that ageing NationalistC Chinese legislators - elected on the mainland in 1947 - finally went into retirement. Since then the island has made major strides in the direction of a fully democratic political system.

Despite the differences, ties between China and Taiwan have improved. Today, more than 200,000 Taiwanese live in China. Taiwanese firms have invested more than $30 billion in 45,000 enterprises in China, and China is Taiwan’s biggest export market after the United States.

Even since the Nationalist Party eased its grip on dissent and allowed freer elections, the party of Chiang Kai-shek was seen to be on the decline. In 1983, when elections were more restricted, the Nationalists won 80% of the popular vote and 85% of legislature seats. In the 1995 legislature elections, the Nationalists won just 46% of the vote and 52% of the 164 seats. The DPP, which had only 21 seats nine years ago, won 54 in 1995.

The DPP benefited from a gradual but steady growth in pro-independence sentiment. One reason is that 85% of today’s population come from native Taiwanese families, and these islanders are less prone to look at China as a homeland. According to a government study, 38% of the island’s citizens identify themselves as Taiwanese - rather than Chinese or Taiwanese-Chinese - compared with 17% in 1992.

Other factors have boosted the independence cause. Among these: the spread of democracy in the decade since the end of martial law, under which it was illegal to advocate independence, and President Lee’s drive to expand Taiwan’s diplomatic standing. Gallup polls show that 32% of Taiwan residents back independence, compared with just 10% a decade ago. The number grows slightly each year.

At the 5 December elections, however, Taiwan’s voters have renewed their mandate to the Nationalist government which favours unification with the mainland, but only if China becomes a democracy and treats Taiwan as an equal in the negotiations - two conditions that currently would be impossible for Beijing to fulfil.

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