 |
 . |
- Peace and mediation — the fine print
- Fooled again by the Tamils
- L E G A L W A T C H
Equal Opportunity: The unaddressed issues- China — fifty years of triumph and disaster
- The Week that Was
Minister Jeyaraj in a fix- American confronts American at Eppawela
- Self-determination and human rights of the sri lankan nation
Peace and mediation — the fine print
Foxwatch
Hardly a day has passed in recent weeks without shrill cries from the unholy alliance of terrorists, bishops, NGOs, professors, tycoons, package-pushers and the increasingly strident LTTE agents in Colombo demanding "immediate" talks with the LTTE and/or implementation of the new Constitution alias package and/or the "immediate" third party mediation to solve the ethnic problem/stop the war/reach a settlement.
Underlying these pleas to self-destruct is the drumbeat of covert support for the LTTE from its foreign patrons, fans and dupes. Chief among them are the Brits, resolutely turning a blind eye to LTTE fund-raising and shoot-outs in the UK and busily promoting the new Constitution which they know would dismember Sri Lanka. Even the UN, emasculated by NATO, has ventured to emit impertinent squeaks. And a queue of would-be mediators - Brits, Aussies, South Africans, Norwegians and other sympathisers of the LTTE - hover hopefully in the wings, ready to administer the coup de grace.
Mischief’s Afoot
The LTTE’s superb propaganda and misinformation networks have done their work well. They could well think, like Mark Antony: "Now let it work: mischief, thou art afoot. Take thou what course thou will. " Peace calls have been made before, but never have they built up to such a crescendo as in the past few weeks. Time, therefore, to expose again the dangers of peace talks, the Eelam Constitution, and foreign mediators.
Peace Talks — The Fine Print
Talking peace sounds eminently reasonable in theory. But look first at the fine print before succumbing to the hype. Preconditions have been laid down by Prabakaran in his Heroes’ Day message of November 27, 1998.
Prabakaran’s message, while stating that the LTTE were not stipulating any preconditions, proceeded to lay down the following preconditions:
• A cease-fire.
• The withdrawal of the forces from the northern and eastern provinces.
• The lifting of "economic blockades" - which translates into
• permitting the inflow of materials required for LTTE terrorism; and
• the lifting of restrictions on fishing, thereby easing the smuggling of arms from South India
The LTTE, though, rejected "any preconditions for political dialogue." To paraphrase, the LTTE will neither lay down arms nor renounce its objective of Eelam nor make any compromise whatever in exchange for the prospect of talks on the new Constitution alias package.
In short, the LTTE will not budge an inch from their objective of Eelam, nor will they disarm. But the armed forces are required to cease fire and withdraw, and the government is required to remove all impediments to the re-arming of the LTTE. Only then would peace talks take place, by the grace of the LTTE.
Are the peace talks lobby aware of these stipulations that lie behind the LTTE, and other terrorist groups’ calls for peace talks? It so, are they urging that talks proceed regardless? If they are, why do they not, in the interest of transparency, spell these conditions out to the public along with their calls for peace talks? If they are not aware of these conditions, would they be willing to retire awhile and do their homework?
All This and Thimpu Too
This is not all. There is the little matter of the Thimpu principles. The LTTE and the ostensibly moderate Tamil groups have repeatedly put forward principles, originally proposed at Thimpu in 1985 and rejected, which should govern a settlement, these being
• recognition of the Tamils as a nation
• recognition of a defined area in the north-east as the traditional homeland of the Tamils
• recognition of the right of the Tamils to "self-determination
• recognition of citizenship.
Consider these "principles." Recognise the Tamils as a nation? How can the nation of Sri Lanka recognise another nation within its borders? Recognise defined traditional homelands of the Tamils? When the whole of Sri Lanka is the traditional homeland of all its citizens, Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, Burgher? Recognise the right of the Tamils to self-determination and acquiesce in the break-up of Sri Lanka? Recognise citizenship? of what nation?
Obviously the Thimpu principles are nonsensical within the framework of a sovereign Sri Lanka Equally obviously, what the principles amount to is:
• Recognition of a Tamil nation.
• Recognition of the northern and eastern provinces as the territory of the "Tamil nation"
• Agreement to this "Tamil Nation" declaring itself independent at any time it pleases.
To accept these principles is to accept Tamil Eelam. Are the peace talks lobby aware of the Thimpu principles, and that even "moderate" Tamils expect any settlement to be governed by them? If so, why do they not educate the public on their implications?
The Real Peace Package
Combining Prabakaran’s Heroes Day conditions and the Thimpu principles, peace talks would involve:
• Recognition by the government that there is a Tamil nation, whose territory would consist of the northern and eastern provinces.
• Agreement by the government that this Tamil nation could declare independence at anytime.
• A cease-fire.
• The withdrawal of the forces from the northern and eastern provinces.
• The removal of restrictions on the supply of materials to the northern and eastern provinces.
• The removal of restrictions on fishing, which would speed up the flow of arms to the LITE from South India
These preconditions are clearly designed to achieve by trickery what the LTTE have failed to achieve through terrorism. They would undo all the sacrifices of the past decade to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and integrity of Sri Lanka, and surrender one third of Sri Lanka‘s area and 6O% of its coastline on a platter to Prabakaran. What concessions would the LTTE make in return? NONE. They never have.
This, evidently, is the real peace package. And what would be left to mediate about? The match would be over before the first ball if bowled!
The Constitutional Changes
Which brings us to the other lethal "peace package." We still don’t seem to have grasped the reasons why the new Constitution spells the death of Sri Lanka
In a nutshell, the proposed Constitution will legalise a massive transfer of power from the centre to several Regional Councils, of which two — the Northern and Eastern — will be merged. The transfer of power is so enormous that the Centre would be rendered impotent and unable to maintain the integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. The new Constitution would provide Regions with the institutions and the legal basis of statehood - legislatures, executives, judiciary, certain powers of taxation, exclusive power over law and order, their own police forces, and ownership of state land. Regional laws on 64 devolved subjects would even override central government law. This is not devolution - it is ABDICATION of power.
Invitation to UDI
Since the two Regions to be merged constitute the alleged homeland that is Prabakaran’s objective, the vesting of so much power, combined with the Thimpu precondition of self-determination, is a virtual invitation to Prabakaran to declare an independent state of Tamil Eelam. This is hardly surprising, considering that the new Constitution’s genesis was a TULF letter of December 1, 1985 to Rajiv Gandhi outlining similar changes. No wonder the LTTE, AGOTIC, the National Alliance for Peace and other fellow-travellers are so frantic to stampede the government into rushing the Constitution through
There can be little doubt that the peacemaking businessmen, who have taken it upon themselves to venture into an area where their ignorance is of epic proportions, have neither read nor understood the new Constitution.
Mediation
And so to foreign mediation. (We can hopefully dismiss the antics of domestic tycoons as comic relief). The shift from domestic debate towards high-powered foreign pontificating is of the utmost significance. Seamlessly, the devolution campaign has shifted to a new rarefied level where the powerful arguments against (which have never been answered) are being deftly side-stepped with the package-pushers seeking the assistance of known supporters of devolution among major countries. We have here a sleight-of-hand akin to the "graduation" from Tamil grievances (unspecified) to Tamil aspirations (unlimited).
Outflanking Parliament and People
But the big issue seems to have been totally missed. The law requires the new Constitution to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Parliament and a simple majority at a referendum. Until those momentous votes are taken, the devolution proposals remain proposals which can be approved or rejected, and not the holy writ they are made out to be. To thrust mediators into the scene, before Parliament and the populace vote on this momentous issue, would therefore deprive Parliament and people of the right to examine and decide on their own Constitution, and instead confront them with a fait accomplit. Foreign mediators, politicians prepared to bend over backwards to appease, NGOs, and ruthless terrorists would be hijacking functions which only Parliament and the people are empowered to decide. The call for foreign mediation in order to foist a lethal Constitution upon the country, by-passing Parliament and people, is therefore a serious affront to national sovereignty.
The outflanking of Parliament and people will be felt even more starkly if, God forbid, the tycoons assume, or are assigned, a major role. Are we the people of Sri Lanka willing to entrust our future, and the future of generations to come, to a group of businessmen?
Demeaning Spectacle
The eagerness for foreign mediation deserves closer scrutiny. The mediators and their countries will have their own agenda - whether it is to ensure the break-up of Sri Lanka, to establish a western bridgehead for recolonisation, to win a Nobel Prize, whatever. The interest of Sri Lanka, or fair play, will be at the bottom of the basket. For example, we can dismiss as arrant humbug the statement of ex-junior Minister Fox that Britain offered its services because "Britain is a close friend of Sri Lanka." The Fox episode, incidentally, drew this scathing comment in "The Hindu" (reproduced in "The Island" of 9th April 1997) which referred to "..what in any other country would have been regarded as the demeaning spectacle of a foreigner, and quite a junior foreigner at that, interceding with the President and the Leader of the opposition to establish a framework for pondering over a wholly domestic, wholly internal issue.." Mediation will not be the magic panacea. It will merely enable an LTTE-primed mediator to further complicate the imbroglio.
Appeasement Motif
Demeaning spectacles, unfortunately, have been rife - the doctrine of "peace at any price;" the kite-flying about handing over the north and the east to Prabakaran for 5 to 10 years; peace caravans; and undermining army recruitment When Britain faced invasion by a rampart Germany in 1940, Churchill said, "..we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone... we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.." Our leaders, by contrast, constantly bemoan the cost of the conflict and call for peace.
What passes for peacemaking is in reality appeasement and cowardice. It is also folly of a high order, because appeasement only encourages terrorists to step up their atrocities in the knowledge that more violence will lead to more concessions. Mrs. Thatcher put it crisply when, during her visit here to open the Victoria dam, she was asked for her views on the terrorist problem. Her seven-word reply: "Terrorism must never be seen to win." Excellent advice, which we have ignored to our cost. Right now in particular, the peace-at any-price frenzy is a prime example of encouraging terrorism.
Two American Presidents have spoken memorably on appeasement and national honour:
"No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Fireside Chat, Dec. 29, 1940 -
"A really great people, proud and high-spirited, would face all the disasters of war rather than purchase that base prosperity which is bought at the price of national honour."
- Theodore Roosevelt, Speech, Harvard University, Feb. 23, 1907
It is time to abandon appeasement, and get on with the task of eliminating terrorism, whatever the cost may be.
by Charles Sanders
De Telegraaf, 8 March 1997
"The arrival of all these Tamils at Schiphol is a slap in the face to all tax-paying Dutch nationals. When is this going to stop?"
On Friday the Chamber of Law Unity is going to make a decision on whether or not Sri Lanka is safe enough in order to send Tamils back, who fled to the Netherlands. This is a hot item ever since the arrival of 173 Tamils with Turkmenistan Airlines last month, and then the applications for asylum of yet another group of Tamils last week, who arrived at Schiphol via Bulgaria.
Last Saturday our journalist reported about the North of Sri Lanka, which according to the Tamil refugees is still "very unsafe". The report showed that Tamils are not being prosecuted in their own country at all. Today, this newspaper has a report by Jan Schultze Kool who was stationed in Amsterdam-Harbour and at Schiphol as brigade commander of the Royal Police Force for years, and who was involved with processing of thousands of applications for asylum by Tamils: "After 1984 we were also fooled by economic refugees. When is The Hague going to interfere, the silent majority of the population is fed up."
Jan Schultze Kool is glad that he finally has a chance to speak his mind without having to watch his words. Until l990 he was one of the highest ranking officials of the Royal Police Force, with key positions at Schiphol and in the Amsterdam harbour.
Last week, the limit had been reached as far as the retired captain of the Royal Police Force was concerned, when he read the article in this news paper about the actual living situation of Tamil civilians in sunny Sri Lanka in the Indian ocean.
In his house of Hoofdorp, with a thick Tamil file in front of him, Schultze Kool said indignantly: "I have had a career of 39 years with Royal Police Force and I have always been in favour of admitting genuine asylum seekers. That means people who flee to our country because of political, racial or religious prosecution in their own country. This is the reason why I am so angry about this new inflow of Tamils who can live in Sri Lanka without being prosecuted. Even the famous Dutch tolerance comes to an end because of this situation. With all the dramatic consequences for genuine asylum seekers!".
Friends and acquaintances ask the retired official of the Royal Police Force almost daily about the Tamil affair which has been keeping the Netherlands busy for weeks. "People know that I was brigade commander and in charge of a team which handled the cases of the first Tamil invasion in the ‘80s" Schultze Kool explains.
With the knowledge and experience he has gathered in that time still in the back of his mind, the 65 year old is getting more and more desperate about the developments of the last few weeks. "We, and then I am referring to the politicians in The Hague, will never learn it" Schultze Kool says. "Even in 1985 the large majority of the Tamils who came here had economic motives. I can prove that with hard evidence which no organization of interest or lawyers of refugees can deny!"
File
From his files - numerous copies of police reports, messages, notes and letters - he takes a telex which the Foreign Police Amsterdam sent to the CRI and the posts at the border. The telex is about an arrest on 20 April 1985, when the exodus of the Tamils had reached its climax with sometimes more than 100 applications for asylum at the same time in Amsterdam alone.
"A German had been arrested in Amsterdam, who was under suspicion of transporting Tamils from Germany to the Netherlands" Schultze tells us. "The Tamils who were in his company told us that they had got into the car of this Hans Jurgen Win Willech, but the car in which they were travelling was registered under the name Mohammed Nawaz M. This seemed to be organized human smuggling. The Tamils stated that had got off the car just in front of the Dutch-German border, and following instructions of the driver they had entered our country through the edge of the woods and without identity controls. Behind the regular border control posts the driver picked his load of Tamils up again..."
This is one of the many examples which convinced Schultze Kool during that time that Tamils were not people who really had to be afraid for their lives in Sri Lanka. The retired official of the Royal Police Force was in Colombo himself, the capital of the former British colony, and concluded at the time that life without threats was possible for groups of the population popular vacation-island.
In Colombo, Sri Lanka, Peter Meijer, the Dutch director of the refugee organization of the UNHCR said: " People who are not refugees can come back. This is also shown by the Swiss deportation project of all the hundreds of Tamils which have been deported by Switzerland during the last years and who the UNHCR, among others, looked after, not one has had serious problems with the authorities. Of course there is a war going on here, and if you are stuck right in the middle by coincidence, you are not safe. But there is definitely no strict, systematical prosecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka. I do realize that many lawyers and help organizations in the Netherlands do not like to hear this".
Power
Former high official of the Royal Police Force Schultze Kool: "One is getting the impression that a small but very strong lobby has more power than the large majority of Dutch people with common sense. Why is almost all of Europe sending the Tamils back, except for the Netherlands? Why do even the Tamils in Sri Lanka say that it is safe there and why does Secretary of State Schmitz refuse to believe it?"
Together with his wife he has travelled through all of Europe after his retirement. They attach the caravan to the car and stay away from home for months. And they are no longer worried about all the problems Schultze Kool had to deal with during his work. The fact that the Netherlands is still Land of Leisure No. 1 for economic refugees in the world and therefore has a magnetic attraction, is frustrating for Schultze Kool even after his retirement.
"It is very sad" the 65-year old explains. "Because it undermines the tolerance of our entire community on long term. I can already see it now. People are no longer accepting this, they are fed up. First you find another high bill from the tax department in your mail box, and on the same day you read in the papers that a group of 173 Tamils, after having used a clever trick to get into the country, are allowed to stay here for a year at the expense of millions of guilders of community money. And a little later you hear that most of these people have disappeared. What are we talking about here, why does everybody see this, except the aliens judges and the politicians?"
In the years during which Schultze Kool processed the cases of the in-flowing Tamils, he wrote several reports on cases of these refugees who are even described as "rich gold diggers" in Sri Lanka. The Royal Police Force, together with other institutions, urged to terminate the regulation which provided a payment of one thousand Guilders net per month for each Tamil.
"This was a bizarre situation" Schultze Kool tells us, "which had an incredibly attracting effect. I was working as brigade commander in the Amsterdam harbour and Ijmuiden, when the Head of the Foreign Police in Amsterdam asked us for assistance with this entire Tamil lunatic asylum. There were days on which l09 Tamils a day were registered at the office on Oosterlijke Handelskade. They were questioned briefly, photographed, had a medical exam, were told that they had to report every week... and received a gray card from the social service with which they could get 1000 Guilders!" This regulation resulted in so-called "1000 Guilder trips" to Amsterdam by Tamils, who often already had a refugee status in other European countries.
Asylum-country
Again digging in his files, he adds: "One man was arrested on a train to Germany. The man still had the thousand Guilders in his pocket, and he was on his way to another asylum-country, where he had a job as a cleaner where he had to work at 18:00 hrs in the same evening. We had to deal with this type of crazy situations... Others came to the Netherlands for a vacation. And when they wanted to go home, they were provided with an expensive ticket for a regular flight to Colombo... just in order to try the same thing again a couple of months later."
Even then the police and the Royal Police Force was facing Tamils who don’t know anything, not how they travelled, who they travelled with, how they had lost their passports...
"The only thing they could say is that they were threatened in their own country and they were safe in the Netherlands." Schultze Kool adds: "We never saw at least 60% of them again after the first interview. They never showed up for the second, more detailed interview weeks later. And just like today nobody knew what happened to them. Nothing has changed over the years."
The effect of the ‘1000-Guilder-regulation’ was clearly shown when it was replaced by the ‘bed- bath-bread-regulation’. Only three days after the announcement that Tamils and other refugees would only receive 25 Guilders pocket money per week from now on, it became very quiet in the registration centres.
Former brigade commander Schultze Kool: "From one day to the next the Tamils moved away. On Monday there were still 109 of them, on Wednesday only 12 and on Thursday only 3. This was proof to me and my men that something was really wrong."
And he fears that this is the case now as well. According to him the Netherlands is still the entrance to heaven for Tamils who are looking for welfare and wealth. With Eastern Europe as stop-over, just like in the ‘80s, Schultze Kool: "Then the Tamils were arriving in Eastern Europe at Tempelhof Airport in East Berlin, and went on by car from there. Now they are coming with East European airlines like Turkmenistan Airlines and Balkan Airways via cities like Sofia. This is very frustrating for the officers of the Royal Police Force at the gates of the airport. They are doing what they can, but they are restricted to all sorts of rules."
According to the former high official there is one barrier which could easily be put up against economic refugees: "Airlines and shipping companies with destination the Netherlands should be obliged to pay for the return trip of this type of refugees, even after investigations and long procedures. And just like the Americans are doing, they should have to pay a fine of 2000 Dollars for every refugee who is not admitted to the country. You want to bet that Balkan Airways and Turkmenistan Airlines will never again bring undesired visitors!"
Ruling
The Chamber of Law Unity, which determined earlier this week that North-Somalians can go back to their own country, will rule on Sri Lanka on Friday, and decide whether Tamils can be sent back. Many are looking forward anxiously to this ruling, Jan Schultze Kool as well.
"Why didn’t they send a really independent commission to Sri Lanka much sooner? Why is it possible for the ‘Telegraaf to reach the North of Sri Lanka and observe the situation there, and it is not possible for our own government? I really wonder what is going to happen on Friday. If the judge rules that Sri Lanka still is NOT safe, we can just sit and wait for the next Tamil flight to Schiphol. This kind of news spreads like a fire among economic refugees. I hope that the judge will rule sensibly. Because by allowing this to continue, the large silent majority in the Netherlands is being discriminated."
Foreign High official of Royal Police Force Jan Schultze Kool, closely Involved in Invasion of Refugees from Sri Lanka
Equal Opportunity: The unaddressed issuesby Nayana
The Government’s proposed Equal Opportunity Bill was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament of the seventh of this month but not tabled. This means that the Government may be having second thoughts about it, at least in its present form. However it also means that the time period for any challenge to the constitutionality of the Bill has started to run.
In terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution, any citizen or group of citizens seeking to challenge a Bill in the Supreme Court must do so by a petition filed within one week of the Bill being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament.
This time limit is operative even if the Bill is not proceeded with for months or even years. This is precisely what happened with the Government’s controversial amendment to the Voluntary Social Service organizations (Registration and Supervision) Act which increased the scope for governmental intervention in the NGO sector and was vehemently criticized by those groups.
The Bill was placed on the Order Paper in September 1995 but not proceeded with for nearly two and a half years, apparently due to protests. However, it reappeared on the Order Paper from time to time and was suddenly put there for 3 March 1998 when the main opposition party had announced a boycott of Parliament. It was taken up and passed in a single day.
About ten days later five petitioners sought to challenge the Bill, and one of their arguments for a waiver of the time limit was that after the Bill had been placed on the order :Paper the relevant Minister "gave an assurance to the petitioner and others who opposed the Bill that it would not be passed in Parliament". Neither this argument nor another to the effect that the Bill had lapsed due to passage of time was accepted by the Court.
The Government’s decision not to table the Equal Opportunity Bill last week may have been prompted by a genuine desire to give a further hearing to opponents of the legislation, especially since there is opposition even from some of its allies. Nevertheless any citizen who believes any part of the Bill to be unconstitutional, as opposed to merely undesirable, would be advised to keep in mind the strict requirements of Article 121(1).
Last week this column summarized the provisions of the Bill. Today we shall consider what the Bill might have been expected to contain but does not. The first omission is any definition of what constitutes equal opportunity. According to a spokesperson for the Law and Society Trust, the organization which is avowedly the moving force behind the Bill, this omission was deliberate as the concept of equality of opportunity is "easy to understand but difficult to define".
Ironically this spokesperson, writing in the State media, went on to offer a definition, namely: "That similarly placed individuals should not be discriminated on the basis of ascriptive status such as gender, ethnicity, religious or political opinion, language, caste, age or disability, but disadvantageously placed individuals due to their ascriptive status may benefit from positive discrimination to reduce dissimilarity of opportunity."
This particular definition would not, however, have saved the Bill from controversy since the equality provisions of the Constitution only allow for positive discrimination in the case of women, children and the disabled.
However, as any trained draftsman would know, one cannot legislate round a concept without defining that concept, but limitations of definition can be overcome by the simple device of prefacing one’s definition with the word "includes........." rather than "means........."
This failure to think out a definition of equality of opportunity has led to one of the fundamental contradictions of the Bill, namely that the first part is clearly designed to protect individuals from discrimination, whereas the latter part, with its emphasis on affirmative action and reference to "improving diversity in the workplace" would seem to suggest some recognition of group rights.
Ironically, while failing to offer any definition of equality of opportunity, the Bill is specific as to the grounds of discrimination that will not be permitted, namely "ethnicity, gender, religious or political opinion, language, caste, age or disability". This closed definition rules out consideration of any other form of unreasonable or arbitrary discrimination - an area which has seen interesting development in fundamental rights cases under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
To take a tragic example of such discrimination: Concerned persons dealing with sexually abused children have reported a number of cases where school principals have refused to admit or re-admit such children into their schools, and the trauma of finding another place of education, sometimes far away, has been added to the suffering of the innocent children. However, equal opportunity legislation is apparently not for them.
In our society there is also an area of chronic inequality of opportunity as between rural youth educated in the vernacular and urban youth possessing knowledge of English. This was highlighted in the report of the Presidential Commission on the Causes of Youth Unrest, but gets no mention in the Equal Opportunity Bill, despite the fact that the present Justice Minister was a member of that Commission when Vice Chancellor of Colombo University.
To quote the Commission’s own words: "A large number of youth, especially those who come from the rural areas, expressed their anger against continuing domination by English speaking, westernized elites living in Colombo. This sense of anger is best described by the term "kaduwa" or sword, a sense that the English speaker always has the class power in our society to "cut down" the Sinhala and Tamil speaking majority. There is need to ensure equality of treatment with regard to the official languages as well as equal access to English."
Ironically, under the provisions of the Equal opportunity Act, an employer will be required to ensure ethnic diversity in his workplace but will not be required to interview job applicants in a language they can understand.
Another area where knowledge of practical realities is conspicuously lacking is the provision for the disabled. There is in fact no special provision for this unique category of persons except for a perfunctory inclusion of their name in the equality and antidiscrimination clauses.
The problem of the disabled is one that requires distinctive considerations. Yet the exception provided in the Bill for an employer to escape its requirements if he can demonstrate that the "essential nature of the employment" requires that it be performed by a person without a disability could be used to shut out the disabled altogether.
Catering for the disabled involves not simply an absence of discrimination but a requirement to provide special facilities such as ramps for wheelchairs and special methods of communication for the visually handicapped and the hearing impaired.
All this calls into question the competence of the framers of the Bill to attempt such a task, or else the real nature of their agenda. It likewise calls into question the wisdom of the Government in relying on one particular non-governmental or organization to draft a piece of legislation of national importance. That same NGO was delegated the task of coordinating the discussions on the Bill, which meant that it was the project proponent who in effect organized the evaluation of the project.
It must be said that the minister concerned has paid the price for this folly, by having to watch the Bill to which he has publicly committed himself not only being the cause of street demonstrations but also being given the cold shoulder by some of his Cabinet colleagues. This embarrassment might be avoided in the future if projects proposed by any interest group are subjected to a rigorous evaluation by some truly independent experts.
China — fifty years of triumph and disaster
By Dr. Stanley Kalpage
At the founding of the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC), on 1 October 1949, Mao Tse-tung had declared: "Today begins a new era in Chinese history. We, the 475 million people of China have stood up". For the people of China who heard him on that historic day, these words conveyed the hope that, after centuries of dynastic rule and foreign domination, there was a new awakening. Subservience to the West was over and a united nation could once more move towards regaining its glorious past.
In the early years, everyone, even the patriotic capitalists, felt that they had a role in building the New China Party and non-party members alike joined enthusiastically in the monumental task of nation building. In keeping with the spirit of national unity, the three vice-presidents of the Republic were non-communists, including most notably Soong Quigling, the widow of Sun Yat-sen, founder of the First Republic of China. This was a period when all Chinese did "stand tall together".
Great Leap Forward
But this feeling of national harmony did not last long. In December 1949, Mao visited the Soviet Union to negotiate the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship defining a close relationship with communist Russia. These ties remained cordial through the mid-1950s, and until February 1956. It was probably when Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, in 1956, scathingly denounced the late Joseph Stalin and his policies that Mao became disillusioned about his communist ally. Mao was stunned that Stalin should have been reviled and from then on relations with the Soviet Union took a nose-dive.
Rejecting the Soviet model of development, Mao called the Russians "revisionists" who wanted a return to capitalism. He decided to strike out on his own path of social engineering through the Great Leap Forward (1958-1960). This misguided bid for instant industrialisation led to mass starvation. Scarcities of consumer goods and strict controls burdened and impoverished the people. Widespread famine followed.
Cultural Revolution
Following the disaster of the Great Leap Forward, came the tragedy of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), when Mao unleashed armies of naive Red Guards against "capitalist roaders" in the party. Prominent activists during these anxious years were military chief Lin Biao and the "Gang of Four" led by Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing.
Rampaging Red Guards, armed with the little red book of Mao Thought, hounded out and humiliated senior leaders, intellectuals, scholars and scientists Liu Shaoqi, Mao’s No. 2 was hounded to death and Deng Xioping was branded a "capitalist roader" and banished to do hard labour.
Thaw in Sino-US relations
In the decade of the seventies, China’s fortunes changed abruptly in December 1970, after a visit with Chairman Mao, the American journalist Edgar Snow, a "friend of China", took back with him a message to the American people. Mao desired a thaw in the icy Sino-American relationship. He told Snow: "The Americans are a great people. But to resolve issues in Sino-US relations, we must be able to talk to their leaders".
In July 1971, Henry Kissinger made a secret visit to China and in September of that year, the Peoples’ Republic of China replaced Taiwan in the United Nations. Ping-pong diplomacy followed, with exchanges of table tennis terms. President Richard Nixon travelled to Beijing for his famous visit with Mao Tse-tung and Zhou EnLai, and signed the Shanghai Joint Communique declaring that "there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China".
Economic reforms
After Mao’s death in 1976, Hua Guofeng became Chairman and, in July 1977, Mao’s close comrade and, later, purged colleague, Deng Xiaoping, was named Vice-Premier. Deng launched a programme of economic development which brought about a burgeoning economy, albeit under strict political control. Free market reforms and communist political control have together resulted in prosperity, a feat unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Deng’s genius, together with determination and daring, enabled him to accomplish this tremendous feat in the last two decades of his life.
That was the difference between Mao and Deng, two outstanding leaders during the past fifty years. In 1961, under Mao’s disastrous agricultural policies, China had faced a nation-wide famine which claimed the lives of millions of peasants. Adopting a different approach, Deng supported a policy of giving more responsibility to the farmers. "I don’t care if it is a white cat or a black cat," he said. "It is a good cat so long as it catches mice". Such was the pragmatism that Deng practised after he became China’s paramount ruler in 1978.
Development was rapid and the economy grew in leaps and bounds. Special economic zones, momentous economic reforms, including the lifting of government price subsidies, and relaxing party control over private enterprise, were some of the "capitalist" measures that Deng adopted.
Tiananmen Square, 4 June 1989
In pursuing his objectives, Deng was determined, even ruthless, and crushed dissent whenever he felt that these would divert attention from economic development. In 1980 he strangled an early outpouring of dissent that became known as the Democracy Wall movement. He had earlier tolerated the "big-character posters" pasted on Democracy Wall, since they attacked the same radical Maoist left wing concepts that he himself was dismantling. But when there was an attempt to seize power, he crushed the dissent.
Again, in 1986, he suppressed the protests by thousands of students who took to the streets demanding that the party stop stage-managing elections and allow a real choice. But it was on 4 June 1989 that Deng displayed a cold brutality near Tiananmen Square when he unleashed the army to suppress the swarms of students, intellectuals and even workers who were protesting against communist repression. In the crackdown, hundreds died and thousands were jailed as "seditious counter-revolutionaries".
Deng later told US president, George Bush. "There are so many people (in China) and each has his own viewpoint. If there is a demonstration by this one today, and that one tomorrow, there’d be a demonstration every day, 365 days a year. In that case, economic construction would be entirely out of the question".
Jiang Zemin
Deng’s successor, President Jiang Jemin (71), also holds the posts of Secretary General of the Communist Party of China, Chairman of the Central Military Commission and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. To further consolidate his power, he has made changes in the army’s top brass and streamlined the 2.9 million-strong People’s Liberation Army.
Jiang Zemin has never served in the army — a qualification regarded as essential by Mao Tse-tung, who once said: "power comes from the barrel of the gun". Jiang has no revolutionary credentials to his credit and did not participate in the legendary Long March. Despite this, after the personnel changes effected in the Central Military Commission (CMC), Jiang Zemin has felt more comfortable in this important body. After all, the Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) is the ultimate arbiter of power in China.
When looking back at the revolution which took place 50 years ago, the Chinese people could well feel proud that their nation is united and is standing up firm and upright in the world, as Mao promised five decades ago.
Even so, there would be some in China who would rather forget the unbridled political campaigns, the economic fantasies which brought famine and disaster, and the vicious purges which caused havoc from time to time.
Most Chinese will, however, heap praise on Deng Xiaoping’s economic opening of two decades ago which brought more prosperity and control over their personal lives. Some of the older revolutionaries, who recall the idealism of the young revolutionaries, who were uncorrupted and respected would marvel at the growth of wealth but lament the widespread corruption of officials and growing economic disparities.
Sparkling pageant at Tiananmen Square
On 4 June 1999, a massive show of achievement and power took place during the 50th anniversary celebrations at Tiananmen Square. The display of military might and the tableaux, depicting economic achievements, under the policy of reforms and liberalisation, and various facets of life in the provinces, were strikingly displayed.
There were only two portraits at the venue of the ceremony — one of the founder of the First Republic in 1912, Sun Yat-sen, and the other of the architect of the Second Republic — the People’s Republic, Mao Tse-tung. The portrait of Deng Ziaoping, responsible for the bold economic initiatives, was conspicuous by its absence — because of his own wish that he be treated as an ordinary person.
In his address on 1 October 1999, president Jiang Zemin dealt with domestic and foreign policy matters. He said: "Practice has fully proved that socialism is the only way to save and develop China. It has also proved that building socialism with Chinese characteristics is a broad road to economic prosperity and all-round social progress in China".
Promising to continue the policy of "peaceful reunification of one country and two systems", he sounded a confident note: "(We will) ultimately accomplish the national reunification of Taiwan with the mainland, following the successful return of Hong Kong and Macao", He added. The complete reunification of the motherland and the maintenance of its security are the very foundation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation".
The Week that Was
Minister Jeyaraj in a fixby Shan Wijetunga
The Equal Opportunity Bill expected to be presented in Parliament last Thursday was not presented.
One hour before the expected presentation of this Bill in parliament students of Ananda and Nalanda Colleges held demonstrations against it.
Minister M. H. M. Ashraff had wanted the acting Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Dilan Perera, to postpone the Bill as he had several amendments.
The President had stated that any amendment could be made even after the Bill is introduced in the parliament but Minister Wickremanayake wanted the amendments discussed earlier to present the Bill in parliament with the consent of all concerned.
As the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris, was away in Canada it was decided to discuss all the amendments with the Ministry of Justice officials before taking suitable action.
Acting Minister Dilan Perera then discussed the amendments with his Ministry officials later the Secretary to the Ministry informed Ratnasiri Wickramanayake not to introduce the Bill in parliament.
The Secretary also contacted Prof. Peiris in Canada and informed him of the postponement of the Bill and the reasons for it and Minister had agreed.
Meanwhile Minister Ashraff who had summoned the politbureau of the SLMC last Thursday to consider his party’s continuing support to the government was absent and the meeting did not take place.
Jeyaraj Fernandopulle
Political circles last week were concerned about the President’s charge sheet to Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle who government party members say is one of the party stalwarts who defends the government against its harsh critics.
Minister Jeyaraj is alleged to have criticised Presidential Media Consultant, Sanath Gunatilake, Secretary to the Defence Ministry, Chandrananda de Silva and Dayani de Silva of the Bank of Ceylon.
Minister Jeyaraj had not replied the charge sheet against him. Instead he had stated to newspapers that he continue to maintain his criticism against the officials concerned. Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle a key government speaker in parliament on many Bills was absent during the debate and voting on the emergency law extension Bill last Thursday.
Despite Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle not replying the charge sheet against him the President has not taken any action against him so far.
The UNP parliamentary group met last Monday at the parliamentary complex presided by the party leader, Ranil Wickremasinghe and discussed the media law reform proposals.
The Attorney-General had informed parliament that the proposal could not be discussed as two cases were pending in courts related to the criminal defamation law one of the subjects in the media law reforms proposals.
Party leader stated the parliamentary committee agreed to take up this proposal for discussion on Friday and that no outsider could override this decision of the parliamentary committee.
Also that he would meet the speaker to discuss this point the next day.
Member Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said "Sir, though you are speaking of media freedom, your freedom of speech was destroyed inside the train" a reference to Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe’s Ruhunu Kumari train ride answering, questions of commuters when a group troubled him with irrelevant questions.
Member Abeywardena continued "I have the names of the group who came to embarrass the leader in the train. This gang was organised by a person who received a licence for a wine stores at Matara and also included some who contested provincial elections as well as some Samurdhi Animators."
Mr. Abeywardena then exhibited a list to the members and stated the questions asked from the leader were prepared by a leading People’s Alliance Matara politician.
Regarding allegations by newspapers against member Dinesh Dodangoda the leader stated he had appointed a three member committee led by Mr. Karu Jayasuriya for the approval of the working committee to inquire into the allegations.
Soma Thero
The UNP Working Committee met at its headquarters, "Srikotha" presided by party leader, Ranil Wickremasinghe.
After discussing re-organisation of the party to face any possible elections in the near future and the allegations against Dinesh Dodangoda and the action taken to investigate the charges Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe asked member P. Dayaratne "Did Soma Thero in a TNL discussion recently state that the UNP should support this government for another year for it to be in power?
Member Dayaratne replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Wickremasinghe then said: "Why should the thero talk politics. I allowed member Dayaratna to attend this discussion because Minister Ashraff and Soma Thero were to attend the second round of their debate. But the Ven. Thero instead of speaking about Deeghavapi is engaging in talking politics".He further stated "All the people in the country want us to topple the government. But the Ven. Thero wants us to support the government for another one year. But I have no intention of propping this government."
Then member A. H. M. Azwer stated that there were unrest within the Muslim community due to these discussions in the television by Ven. Soma Thero.
"Rathu Ira" live telecast
The "Rathu Ira" live telecast by Swarnawahini channel last Tuesday at 9.00 p.m. was due to discuss the difficulties of the farmers of Suriyawewa, Hambantota.
The invitees to this programme were Mahaweli Development Minister, Maithripala Sirisena, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Chamal Rajapakse, National Organiser, Ruhunu Rata Bhikshu Peramuna, Ven. Omare Kassapa thero, Director General of Mahaweli Authority and a few farmers from Suriyawewa.
When Ven. Omare Kassapa thero sat down for the live telecast discussion Minister Sirisena objected on the grounds that he was only prepared to discuss the problems with the representatives of farmer organisations. Though the Ven. Thero said that it was he who gave the leadership to farmer organisations in the area, Minister Sirisena refused to discuss farmer problems with the thero.
The minister alleged that the Ven. thero was aligned to the JVP.
The Minister thereafter left the sets despite attempts by Deputy Minister, Chamal Rajapaksa to revive the telecast.
Finally the Ven. Thero volunteered to leave the sets stating that he was leaving in the interests of the poor farmers.
Talks with the President
A few backbenchers of the government party had been invited for a discussion with the President on Friday. Those backbenchers who were not invited made their requests to the President through those backbenchers who were invited for the discussion.
Last week’s report in this column that Deputy Foreign Minister Lakshman Kiriella was present at a dinner hosted by the American Ambassador where Gen. Anuruddha Ratwatte and Mr. Anura Bandaranaike settled their long drawn differences was not correct.
Mr. Kiriella said that he was not present on this occasion. "Some people say that I have some look alikes in politics," he chuckled. "But I wish the press is accurate when they report this kind of thing". Sorry our mistake.
American confronts American at Eppawela
By Rohan Wijesingha
In the history of Sri Lanka, few foreigners have visited her shores without exploitation in mind, were it for conquest, for spices, for precious stones, or as now, for cheap labour, cheap land, and cheap holidays.
The names of the old Colonial ‘heroes’, those who mastered their roles of domination, are well recorded and are still remembered by the names of roads, institutions, and natural places of beauty. However, not so well honoured are the handful of expatriates who empathised with the local people, identified with their hardships, and fought against their own Governments for the rights of the majority.
Much has been written about Bracegirdle in the last few weeks. Largely forgotten by many, his death has sparked memory, and he has justly received all the praise and respect he deserved.
At about the same time, another Englishman, Herbert Reginald Freeman (1864-1945), was making a connection in a different way with the people of this land. A Government Agent, who served in office all over the Country, while at Anuradhapura, was elected in a free vote by the people of the North Central Province to represent them on the State Legislative Council in 1935. This was not once, but twice - in two elections!
Freeman was a popular man who had the reputation of working for the people. He never canvassed as the other candidates did, but merely sat on culverts and spoke to anyone who would listen in fluent Sinhala. He never returned to England, but died a much-respected man in his adopted home.
In the same mould Professor Jonathan Walters, an American, though lacking any aspiration to be in Government, is a person of the Freeman mould. Chair of the Department of Religion at Whitman College (USA), he is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Sri Lankan Studies. Having studied Pali, Sinhala and Sanskrit at Peradeniya University between 1983 and 1985, he speaks Sinhala fluently, and when in Sri Lanka, has adapted well to his adopted home, a "purana game" near Eppawela.
He was first taken to his "gama" by a batchmate at Peradeniya in 1984. Of it he says, "I was instantaneously enchanted with both the environment and the people. I realised that this ‘purana game’ represented the purest Sri Lankan tradition I had (or have) encountered in my travels and studies É I live as one of the villagers in every sense (eat the same food, wear the same clothes, bathe in the tank, roam in the jungles, work in the fields, help out in the home, visit and transport the ill, etc.) and feel a bond with the people that goes beyond ethnography. I have been visiting this village/Eppawela Town for 15 years É I find the indigenous life-style very beautiful and pleasant É Eppawela is my favourite place on the planet."
Over these past fifteen years, Professor Walters has developed research projects on indigenous medicine - Sinhala beheth/deshiya vedakama/gurukama. He works with the local Vedamahattayas studying their practices and helping them make their medicines. Living in the home of his former batchmate, he also engages in a lot of charity work - paying for medicines and education, among other things.
"One of the things that has really impressed me over the years is the villagers’ ingrained love for the land and the environment. All the villagers know every jungle path and old tree; every large rock is named. Everyone recognizes the weeds growing beside jungle paths and even major roads as medicinal ingredients (aushada), and makes every effort to avoid stepping on them. When a Vedamahattaya must cut a plant to make a medicine he literally worships it, asks for its forgiveness and help in curing the patient, and chants healing mantras while pulling it up. The natural landscape is recognized and treated as a precious garden, filled as it is with delicious wild fruits, honey, beautiful flowers, reeds for weaving mats and baskets, old wood for cooking, and so forth. Though the wild elephants who roam these jungles pose serious threats to their health and well-being, the villagers recognize that they also have a right to exist there - even to the point of sacrificing precious water for them to drink.
Threatened
It has not always been as idyllic as it sounds. These ancient villages and their way of life are now under siege by emissaries of alleged progress. As Professor Walters puts it, "I have long worried for the future of the villagers, who increasingly are caught up in cash crises created by so-called ‘development’. They are greatly disadvantaged vis-a-vis their urban counterparts. For many years I have been helping them to petition the Government for access to Mahaweli water, which would help them survive better."
However, the controversial proposal by Freeport McMoran to develop the existing production of phosphate at Eppawela has paled all of their other problems into insignificance. Under the guise of one of its pseudonym companies, IMC Agrico and Japan’s Tomen Corporation, this mining conglomerate has been granted approval, without an Environmental Impact Assessment, to strip-mine the rich phosphate deposits at Eppawela. This is despite the recommendations of renowned scientists and environmentalists on the disastrous consequences of such mining.
According to the National Science Foundation Committee Report on Eppawela Phosphate, commissioned by the Honourable Minister for Science and Technology, economically, also, the proposal from Freeport McMoran has little advantage to National interest. Herring and Fantel of the US Geological Survey and the US Bureau of Mines have shown that the world’s known reserves of phosphate will be depleted in 50 years. According to the proposal, Freeport McMoran intend to exhaust the reserves of Rock Phosphate at Eppawela in 30 years!
Out of proportion
Even more significantly, the current import price of Rock Phosphate is about $75 per ton. It will cost Freeport McMoran a mere $5 to produce this same quantity of Rock Phosphate. Not only is the country going to lose its future deposits of a very valuable resource, but will have to spend a vast amount of money in buying it back as essential fertilizer. Only IMC, and their minions, will rake considerable profit from this.
If the present rate of extraction of Rock Phosphate by Lanka Phosphate continues, purely for national use, especially in the manufacture of fertilizer for tea, rubber and coconut, the present reserves should last at least 200 years!
Of the proposal, Professor Walters says, "since the emergence of this plot to mine phosphate (it) has been my central pre-occupation, for I fear that the entire village - indeed the entire region - will be destroyed by the project, in the short term due to environmental and cultural pollution associated with the mining itself and the construction of the factories and in the long term because this village will become part of the strip mine itself. The loss is inestimable, and indeed for me, unthinkable - thousands of people, 2000 year old archaeological ruins, elephants, and other wildlife, tanks and jungle. Villagers mourn the loss of a single tree or pond; how could anyone bear the destruction of this entire region?"
Of his many academic qualifications and election to positions of responsibility, Professors Walters’ election by the people of Eppawela as International Representative on the Committee for the Protection of Eppawela Phosphate is of special meaning to him. " Compassion for the people of Eppawela is my primary motivation. I truly think of those people as though they were my own parents, brothers and sisters, children. Moreover I want to see ‘my’ village and the civilisation of which it is part survive longer than 30 years, for the sake of future generations of villagers, and of the world at large, and of myself É As a scholar of religion who specializes in an anti-materialist creed like Buddhism, I also feel intense loathing for the greed which is fuelling IMC’s interest in Eppawela - companies like this make me ashamed to be an American, and I feel a duty as a conscientious American to speak out against the atrocities they wreak on the rest of the world."
Not interested
Professor Walters tried to discuss the Eppawela proposals with the American Ambassador in Colombo but was informed that this was a matter between the Sri Lanka Government and IMC. Allegations against IMC and Freeport-McMoran for their appalling record of environmental and human rights violations, especially in Indonesia, has been well documented in both the local and international press.
Inspiration
Professors Walters is just one of thousands who are against the further exploitation of Eppawela. The Committee for the Protection of Eppawela Phosphate is co-ordinated by the Rev. Mahamannakadawata Piyarathana, and upwards of 5000 villagers have already marched in protest on numerous occasions. "I have also become very devoted to Rev. Piyarathana and out of that devotion want to do all I can to help him in his efforts. In my view he is the epitome of what a religious leader should be, sacrificing everything for the good of the people and environment.
I have not met any villagers who support this project. They know exactly what it will mean for their lives and the lives of their descendants, and affirm that even if IMC tried to bribe them with millions of rupees they will not sell. It is likened to selling their own mothers - what price would be sufficient for that? Even the current employees at Lanka Phosphate, who in the short run would benefit from the deal, are opposed - but as Government employees they are afraid to speak out too loudly.
The other villagers, though, talk about this all the time, morning to night É There is enormous support for the monks É I would say that he is not creating the opposition, rather he is co-ordinating it. The opposition is much deeper than rabble rousing. It comes from deep in the hearts of the villagers, who love their lands and would rather die than leave É (The Rev. Piyarathana) is a villager himself who shares all these feelings; he has even planted an impressive medicinal garden at his temple even if the Government allows these international eco-demons to come, he is willing to sacrifice his life and I have absolutely no doubt that thousands of villagers are willing to do so as well."
Contradiction
Professor Walters is disappointed that despite the enormity of the damage that is being proposed to this historic and fertile region, that more environmentalists and human right activists, especially from Colombo, are not opposing this scandalous deal. The Honourable Minister for Science and Technology has long been a fierce opponent of this deal. The Honourable Minister for Cultural Affairs, too, has expressed his opposition in the past. In addition, the Honourable Minister for Industrial Development, in a newspaper headline of 10 August 1999 while commenting on another matter, claimed that "It is not that I love Industry less, but I love the environment more!"
With such notable opposition to proposed environmental destruction from within its cabinet, and the detailed reports from erudite scientists against the deal, it is astonishing that the Government continues to pursue negotiations with IMC for the destruction of Eppawela.
Not surprisingly, allegations of bribery and corruption abound especially as such a large discrepancy exists between the cost per ton to IMC of $5 when compared to the market price of $75!
Her Excellency, The President, has recently taken upon herself the task of investigating such allegations. Perhaps now, with the powers at her disposal, the truth of this could be investigated, and this treacherous development shelved for the greater good of the Nation.
In the meantime, Professor Walters, now back in America, carries on the fight for and with his fellow villagers, under the leadership of Rev. Piyarathana. Addressing him in kinship terms, the villagers believe that his heart felt association is the result of having lived in the village during many previous lives.
"My hope is that I will be able to retire there in old age, and to be reborn there in the next life!"
Self-determination and human rights of the sri lankan nation
by Neville Ladduwahetty
The present structure of the Sri Lankan government wherein the sovereignty of the population is divided between the Central Government and the Provincial Councils was imposed through the intervention of India. India’s action caused the Sri Lankan population to forfeit its freedom to choose its preferred form of government. To deny a whole population the opportunity to freely choose its form of government and thereby assert its right of self-determination is considered by the international community to be a violation of its fundamental freedom and human rights.
The Sri Lankan Tamils who are a sub-group of the Sri Lankan population presume that they have a legal claim to the right of self-determination. This presumption led them initially to demand the creation of a federal state for themselves, which was later expanded to a demand for a separate state. However, the international community, including India, does not consider that minorities and sub-groups of population such as, for instance, the Sri Lankan Tamils, have a legal claim to the right of self-determination.
As a compromise solution, India intervened on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamils and imposed a political formula in the form of the present structure of government in the hope that it would satisfy the Sri Lankan Tamil political expectations. However, not only were the Sri Lankan Tamils dissatisfied with these political arrangements, but also, the fundamental freedom and human rights of the rest of the Sri Lankan nation were violated by India’s aggressive intervention.
Ever since, the Sri Lankan nation has been governed by successive political regimes under a form of government that has not been of its choosing. This article advocates that the Sri Lankan nation must, therefore, claim its due right of self-determination by demanding that the opportunity be given to freely choose its preferred form of government, and in turn, it is the duty and obligation of any responsible government to grant the opportunity for the Sri Lankan nation to make its choices freely.
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION
The right of self-determination can be exercised only in an environment of freedom from external influence or domination. To be free to exercise the right of self-determination countries like Sri Lanka first had to decolonize. Antonio Cassese in his book that is based on Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures in Cambridge, titled "Self-Determination of Peoples - A Legal Reappraisal" (1995), refers to freedom from colonial rule or foreign domination as "external self-determination". According to him "Article 1(2) (of the UN Charter) was eventually perceived and relied upon as a legal entitlement to decolonization ... this was the first time that an international legal rule proclaimed self-determination qua the right of a whole population to democratic rule" (pp.65, 66).
Having secured freedom from external domination the whole population is free to choose the forms and structures of government that would best serve it. It is unlikely that there would be unanimity in regard to these choices. However, since the final choice would naturally be determined democratically, the choice of the majority would prevail. These internal arrangements are described by Mr. Cassese as "internal self-determination". Internal self-determination according to Mr. Cassese "... means the right to authentic self-government, that is, the right for a people really and freely to choose its own political and economic regime" (Ibid, p. 101).
The choice in respect of the nature and form of the political and economic regime, if made democratically, would be the decision of a majority. Any opposing minority would then have to abide by the decision of the majority and work out arrangements that address their concerns within the framework of the majority’s decision. If the dissenting minority had the right of internal self- determination as well, and evolved a political and economic regime that would be separate to that determined by the majority, there would be several political and economic regimes within the same country. Since this would lead to the Balkanization of countries the international community does not accept that dissenting minorities have the right of internal self-determination.
These views were documented by a group of individuals with no official status made up of academics, politicians, trade-union leaders, and representatives of national liberation movements. They met in Algiers in 1976 and were responsible for the document known as "The Algiers Declaration on the Rights of Peoples".
The essence of this Declaration is that for internal self-determination to be satisfied the whole population must freely and democratically choose its preferred form and structure of government. They must democratically elect a government that is representative of the whole population, and it is the duty of the elected representatives to ensure that they reflect the will of the People at all times. Moreover, The Algiers Declaration maintains that if the freedom to make these choices freely are denied, the right of internal self-determination along with the fundamental freedoms and human rights are violated (Ibid, p. 298).
Therefore, the right of both external and internal self-determination is an entitlement that should be enjoyed ONLY by the whole population of a country, and not by segments within it.
MINORITIES AND INTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION
The international community does not recognize that minorities are entitled to the right of self- determination. John Chipman in an article titled "Managing the Politics of Parochialism" states "... neither in the instruments of the United Nations, nor in customary international law as a whole, does there exist any legal right to independence, by means of the right of self-determination for any noncolonial people or for a minority within an existing state" ("Ethnic Conflict and International Security", ed.. Michael E. Brown, 1995, p. 242).
Citing additional evidence to emphasize the limits of internal self-determination, Mr. Cassese states "The legal position ... summarized by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Namibia ... (is that) if the population of a colonial territory is divided up into various ethnic groups or nations, they are not at liberty to choose by themselves their external status. This is because the principle of territorial integrity should here play an over-riding role" (Ibid, P. 72).
In 1975, 35 States constituting the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) adopted a declaration known as the Helsinki Declaration. This document affirmed that "... the peoples referred to in the Helsinki Final Act are the whole population of each signatory State..." and "... by contrast, no right to self-determination is granted to any minority or ethnic group... furthemnore,, no right to secession is recognized..." (Ibid, p. 287).
The attitudes of the international community reflected above have caused minorities at the periphery to portray themselves as being dominated by and under the influence of majorities at the center, resulting in claims of internal colonialism. These claims are made in order to justify the right of external self-determination. This argument was presented by the Sri Lankan Tamils at the International Conference on Tamil Nationhood and the Search for Peace in Sri Lanka held in Ottawa in May 1999.
Internal colonialism is based on the theory that the processes of economic development controlled by the center is the cause for the relative underdevelopment of the periphery. The overlapping of ethnic distinctions with regional disparities adds intensity to the issue. While these circumstances may exist in certain countries such as the Celtic fringe in UK, the reverse was true in the case of the Sri Lankan Tamils. The fact that they were a disproportionately privileged minority was first recorded by the Soulbury Commission in 1945, and later accepted by most international authorities.
The Soulbury Commission stated unequivocally that the processes at work in Sri Lanka were attempts to redress decades of neglect and injustice perpetrated on the larger Sri Lankan nation most of whom were Sinhalese, and that these processes were not in any way attempts to discriminate against the minority Tamils. The adjustments that had to be made by the privileged Sinhalese and Tamils must be seen as corrections for purposes of social justice that were long overdue. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Tamils have no justification to claim external self determination on the grounds of internal colonialism.
For one ethnic group to claim the right of self-determination in a heterogeneous society is also unjustified.. For instance, the Basque nationalist parties are urging the Basque guerrillas
(E.T.A.) to abandon violence and "begin a process of dialogue and negotiation... though still insisting on self-determination..." (The New York Times, August 15, 1999). Recognition of the right of self-determination only for the Basques would give them an exclusive right that other ethnic groups of Spain do not enjoy, and is therefore unacceptable. If such a right is recognized, other ethnic groups also should be granted similar rights. If every ethnic group in heterogeneous countries are granted the right of self-determination it would most certainly destroy the "territorial integrity and political unity" of all states. Therefore, the right of self-determination for minorities is an unacceptable proposition whether it is for the Basques or the Sri Lankan Tamils.
VIOLATION OF SRI LANKA’S RIGHT OF INTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION
It was growing recognition given by the international community to the right of external self-determination that enabled Sri Lanka to emerge from a British colony to be a free and sovereign state in 1948. This freedom enabled Sri Lanka to choose a central form of government fashioned on the Westminster model, and to democratically elect a central Parliament that represented the whole population. By doing so, the Sri Lankan nation defined its internal political self-determination.
This form and structure of government prevailed until 1987 when the present form of government was imposed through the intervention of India on behalf of the Sri Lankan Tamils. This action is a direct violation of The Algiers Declaration on the Rights of Peoples because the preamble to the declaration states: "... new forms of imperialism evolve to press and exploit the peoples of the world... through direct or indirect intervention, through multinational enterprises, through manipulation of corrupt local politicians...".
The new form of Indian imperialism in effect divided Sri Lanka on ethnic lines. The imposed political divisions were conterminous with ethnic boundaries, and would politicize communal divisions for perpetuity. Even the Donoughmore Commission recognized that communal representation introduced by the British as an " ... experiment has not given the desired results, but has had, if anything, the opposite effect. The representatives of the various communities do not trust one another, and communal representation has not helped to develop an uniting bond or link" (Donoughmore Commission Report, p. 91). In this background the Provincial Council form of government would heighten ethnic tensions, and would inevitably lead to separation.
The elected representatives of Sri Lanka took upon themselves to approve the Indian proposals. This approval caused the powers of the central government to be diluted without a mandate from the Sri Lankan nation. Since they drastically modified the mandate given by the Sri Lankan nation, these representatives became the instruments that violated the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Sri Lankan nation. As long as the Sri Lankan nation is denied the opportunity to make its choices freely as to how they are to be governed,, their right of internal self-determination would continue to be denied.
The current form of government was brokered by India in the hope that it would meet the political goals of the Sri Lankan Tamils. The Sri Lankan Tamils for their part claim that this form and structure of government do not go far enough to satisfy them. In addition, the LTTE has rejected the proposals in their entirety. Therefore, as matters stand, the Provincial Council form of government not only fails to meet the political expectations of the Sri Lankan Tamil minority, but also is an imposition on the majority of the Sri Lankan nation.
For the majority of Sri Lanka’s population to be governed under a system of government that does not reflect their political self-determination is a serious violation of human rights. Therefore, it is the duty of the Sri Lankan nation to demand that they be given the opportunity to freely choose the system under which they are to governed, a right recognized by the international community. By not doing so, they continue to be governed under an imposed system of government.
POLITICAL AUTONOMY NOT AN OPTION
Since the recognition of the right of self-determination for minorities is not an acceptable option, regional autonomy for minorities is being advocated by the international community as a universal solution that fits all circumstances. Any solution that ignores factors such as the historical, social, and cultural backgrounds of minorities, including the level of their advancement and their distribution within the state would not prove to be durable. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the circumstances of each case before arriving at a solution.
Another significant drawback of regional autonomy is that territorial divisions isolate and "freeze" minorities both culturally and politically. Minorities such as indigenous peoples who do not wish to assimilate and who wish to retain their traditional way of life may wish to remain territorially exclusive but not separate. However, in the case of advanced minorities, while regional autonomy would maintain their cultural distinctiveness, their material well-being could be seriously affected by political arrangements that exclude them due to their territorial isolation thus causing them to seek the option of separation. Therefore, while minorities may wish to retain cultural distinctiveness through regional autonomy, their material well-being would best be served by political integration. Regional autonomy would then be limited only to their cultural needs.
Regional autonomy, or in the extreme, separation as a political alternative for advanced minorities arises from their inability to enrich their lives under existing political systems. The very nature of the form and structure of the government can limit opportunities for them to influence the outcomes that affect their well-being. For instance, the Westminster model of government that prevailed in Sri Lanka until 1987, prevented the Opposition, which often included Tamils, from participating in the governing processes, because of the peculiarities of that model. If, on the other hand, all members of Parliament were assigned to a system of Committees as in colonial Sri Lanka or in the US today, every member would be involved in the processes of governance.
Sri Lankan Tamils are not seeking autonomy or separation because of cultural vulnerability. It is their perception that autonomy or separation would give them greater opportunities to advance their material well-being. However, since no more half of them would benefit from the perceived advantages of autonomy, this solution does not address the well-being of the group as a whole. Alternatively, a political arrangement that enables them greater participation at the center would offer them more opportunities to influence the decision that affect them collectively. Regional autonomy would only be appropriate for dealing with cultural issues.
In Hurst Hannum’s opinion: "Éthere will be no peace in Sri Lanka until the Tamil community recognizes that it is, in fact, a minority - and a rather small one at that. No more than one-half of the Tamil population is included in the merged northern and eastern provinces, although Tamil influence has long been disproportionate to mere population size. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka will inevitably be dominated by the Sinhalese, Buddhist culture of 75% of its population; so long as this does not imply discrimination against or denigration of Tamil culture and traditions. That is a reality that cannot be reversed by law or constitutional innovation.’ (Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination, 1990, revised 1996, p307-308)
CONCLUSIONS
As far as the Sri Lankan Tamils are concerned the choices are between autonomy and independence. As far as successive governments have been concerned the debate has entered only on the degree of autonomy to the regions. The fundamental flaw in the debate is that the options considered assume that the Sri Lankan nation has accepted the present form of government. Moreover, this assumption fails to recognize that the imposition of a form of government without the free consent of the governed violates the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Sri Lankan nation.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government..." (Article 20 . 3). Since the present form of government has been endorsed by the elected representatives, and successive political regimes have governed Sri Lanka under this system without seeking an endorsement by the whole population, the entire process has violated this basic stipulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, it is the duty of the Sri Lankan government to grant the Sri Lankan nation the opportunity to make fundamental choices as to the form under which they are to be governed. For instance, the Sri Lankan nation must by right, have the opportunity to choose between a central government and a government where some of the central government powers are devolved to regions. Any political arrangements that are negotiated thereafter would then be based on these fundamental choices expressed. Successive political regimes have acted and are acting on the assumption that the Sri Lankan nation has made the choice between these two very basic options. This assumption is incorrect.
The Sri Lankan nation must take the initiative to demand that the government provides them the opportunity to choose freely between these two basic forms of government. In addition, they should take the initiative to alert the Human Rights Agencies that their fundamental freedoms and human rights are being violated by their being denied the opportunity to freely define their internal political self-determination.
Concepts of self-determination and human rights may appear incongruous in the midst of terrorist assassinations. However irrelevant they may be, it cannot be overlooked that these very same concepts that were stated by the Sri Lankan Tamils at Thimpu have enabled them to change the form of government in Sri Lanka with the assistance of India. As a concept, self-determination is a right that can be claimed ONLY by the whole population. Not to seek the opportunity to enforce this right would be to forfeit this right.
The international community is often concerned with the rights of minorities and the violations of their human rights. Seldom are such violations perpetrated on majorities. Sri Lanka is one of these rare instances. It is a grave injustice for the Sri Lankan nation to be governed under a system that was engineered for the benefit of the small Sri Lankan Tamil minority without any regard or "respect for the legitimate interests of the community as a whole" (The Algiers Declaration). Every norm and standard of justice calls for these injustices to be rectified. It is time that attention was paid to the violations of the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the larger Sri Lankan nation.
| NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS |
SPORTS | ADS |