The recognition of independence for Kosovo raises serious questions of international law as well as sensitive diplomatic difficulties.

The United States and many European Union countries accept that Kosovo should no longer be formally part of Serbia.

They will recognise a limited form of independence for Kosovo, as recommended in a report drawn up for the UN by the former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari.

The EU is sending a major law and order mission to Kosovo, made up of 1,800 police and justice officials, including judges, in effect taking over from the current UN presence.

Serbia itself, supported strongly by Russia, rejects independence for Kosovo. Serbia and Russia argue that there is no UN Security Council approval for the move and that the parties should continue negotiating until an agreement is reached.

Serbia offered Kosovo autonomy but not independence.

So what are the legal arguments for and against recognition?

The arguments for

After the war over Kosovo in 1999, the UN Security Council took control. In resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999, it ordered the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (as it then was) to withdraw all its forces from Kosovo and hand Kosovo over to the UN.

The problem is that although the resolution called for a "political solution to the Kosovo crisis", it did not specify what that solution should be.

And there has not been any further Security Council resolution mandating independence for Kosovo.

Many Western governments argue that because 1244 does refer to general principles that G8 foreign ministers had agreed in advance of the resolution, these should be used as the basis for the acceptance of independence now.

These principles include the deployment in Kosovo of "international civil and security presences" and "facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status".

EU legal opinion

The European Union has drawn up, as it is required to do by EU procedures, a document to justify its own mission to Kosovo and the arguments deployed are the same as the ones used to justify recognition.

The document basically argues that independence for Kosovo is within the spirit of 1244, if not strictly within the letter.

The 1244 resolution also envisaged a final status process and did not constrain or pre-determine its outcome.

"Acting to implement the final status outcome in such a situation is more compatible with the intentions of 1244 than continuing to work to block any outcome in a situation where everyone agrees that the status quo is unsustainable," it says.

The document adds that this approach "will enable, rather than frustrate, the conclusion of the final status process envisaged in resolution 1244".

And it gives approval to international recognition: "Generally, once a entity has emerged as a state in the sense of international law, a political decision can be taken to recognise it."

Nato troops under the Kosovo Force (K-For) continue to be mandated by 1244, the opinion holds.

As for the legality of the EU mission, the argument is that there is nothing to stop the EU from taking over from the UN, as 1244 simply refers to "international civil and security presences". In addition, it suggests that Kosovo could invite the EU to undertake this role.

The document interprets references in the 1244 preamble to Kosovo being part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to the "territorial integrity" of Yugoslavia as being non-binding.

The arguments against

The counter-argument by Serbia and Russia is simpler. It is that Serbia, the sovereign state, has not agreed to independence for Kosovo, that there is no Security Council resolution authorising the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia and that therefore its independence is illegal.

Some European Union members - Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania - agree, though they have not blocked the EU mission.

Serbia and Russia also say that 1244 itself gives no authority for independence. They point to article 10 of 1244 which authorises "substantial autonomy with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" for Kosovo, meaning, in their view, that 1244 blocks independence.

And they argue that 1244 talks about international organisations being deployed in Kosovo "under United Nations auspices", which an EU mission would lack.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had this to say on 12 February, in a translation by the RIA Novosti news agency in Moscow: "We are speaking here about the subversion of all the foundations of international law, about the subversion of those principles which, at huge effort, and at the cost of Europe's pain, sacrifice and bloodletting have been earned and laid down as a basis of its existence.

"We are speaking about a subversion of those principles on which the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe rests, those [principles] laid down in the fundamental documents of the UN."

The main principle he refers to is that borders should be changed only by agreement.

In Russia and Serbia's view, since there is no agreement, there should be no recognition.


Paul Reynolds is the BBC News website World affairs correspondent. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Kosovo's declaration of independence on Sunday and the ensuing international recognition from many powerful states is a powerful shot in the arm to peoples resisting and seeking independence from tyrannical regimes everywhere. Whilst every situation and every circumstance is unique, there are important lessons from the Kosovan march to independence for liberation struggles everywhere. These include the oft denied but evident brittleness of 'sovereignty' and the necessity amongst those struggling for freedom for unity, clarity of purpose and indomitable resilience against their oppressors' worst excesses. All of these played a part in the Kosovars' final victory on Sunday.

Whilst it has often been brandished by repressive states as a way of denying the demands for self-determination that inevitably follow their tyrannical rule and also of forestalling international efforts to restrain them, the notion of 'sovereignty' is in practice so brittle that one respected international relations scholar aptly calls it 'Organized Hypocrisy'. Others argue that at no time since the modern 'sovereign state' emerged (amid the Peace of Westphalia in 1648) has sovereignty been practiced as an inviolable principle of international affairs. Indeed, as one of our columnists points out this week, the most vehement defenders of sovereignty this week- Serbia and Russia - have also been threatening to recognize other demands for independence (Abkhazia in Georgia and Republic of Srpska in Bosnia- Herzegovina) and thereby violate the very 'principle' on which their outrage is based.

The swift recognition of Kosovo's independence by the United States and several European powers stems from the existence of other important, sometimes contradictory, 'principles' besides sovereignty; including those of self-determination, humanitarian intervention (lately in the form of the 'responsibility to protect') and perhaps the most oft cited one: as the US bluntly put it, Kosovo's "independence is the only viable option to promote stability in the region." The point here is that in the international politics arena, which is governed by competing interests (including those that masquerade as 'values'), no 'principle' is truly inviolable. In other words, international politics is about contesting and defending power-distributions, not principles.
As such, the recent history of the Kosovan struggle ought to be examined by those engaged in struggles for national liberation and statehood elsewhere. Not because the Kosovan example comprises, as Serbia protests, a 'tool-kit for separatists' - it does not - but because it amply demonstrates the dynamics and vagaries of international politics. For example, that the past few years of deliberation and discussion on the former Serbian province's political future have taken place whilst it was under international trusteeship has served to obscure the crucial role of the Kosovan Liberation Army (KLA) in the freedom struggle. The past few years have also obscured the initial (and vehement) hostility from powerful states, especially the United States, to both the Kosovan demand for independence and, especially, the KLA.

Indeed, whilst Kosovo's Albanians have been protesting against Serbian repression for decades, even when the international community was striving to bring peace to the rest of the Balkans in the mid-nineties, these demands were dismissed. Kosovars were excluded, for example, from the landmark Dayton Agreement in 1995. As the scholar Steven Burg notes: "for many Kosovar Alba-nians, the message from Dayton was clear: force was the only means by which to secure group interests … and the escalation from the use of force was the only way to internationalise [their] conflict." Within months the KLA had emerged to wage an armed struggle against Serbian rule. It was sharp escalation in violence and the vicious repression that Serbia unleashed on the Kosovan people that finally led to NATO intervention.

What is particularly interesting is the West's response to the Kosovan demands. Whilst taking these more seriously after the KLA's emergence, the West still insisted initially that Kosovars negotiate with Slobodan Milosevic's racist regime for autonomy within Serbia: the US, for example, called for "dialogue between the government of Yugoslavia and the responsible democratic Kosovar Albanian leadership". As for the KLA and its armed struggle, the US representative Robert Gelbard had a clear response: "we condemn the unacceptable violence by terrorist groups in Kosovo, particularly the KLA". He also said: "it is the strong and firm policy of the United States to fully oppose terrorist actions and all terrorist organizations."

The problem was that whilst the international community backed the 'moderate', 'democratic' leadership of Ibrahim Rugova (and called on it to also condemn the KLA's 'terrorism'), the people of Kosovo rallied instead to the fighters. That the present elected Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci, is a former leader of the KLA reveals what Kosovars thought of international condemnation of their liberation struggle as terrorism and of accusations by countries such as Germany - one of the other states to swiftly recognise Kosovan independence this week - that the KLA was trafficking drugs. Indeed, so great was the popular swing behind the militants that Rugova's party, the LDK, splintered. Evenutally, it was the US itself which was insisting the KLA, must also represent the Kosovars alongside the LDK in negotiations with Serbia.
Once Kosovo became an international protectorate and the people could freely articulate their views, they chose not Serbian rule, but self-rule. And once it also became clear that this was the view of the overwhelmingly majority of Kosovars, the liberal members of the international community were compelled to shift their position. As British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said this week: "if we'd tried to sit on that aspiration, if we'd tried to deny it, I think we'd have far more instability and danger."

Despite oft-repeated commitments to human rights, democracy and just peace, the international community has supported the Sri Lankan state, despite its repression of the Tamils, for decades. Although the Tamils explicitly and overwhelmingly declared their demand for independence from the Sinhalese in 1977, the international community continues to tell us to negotiate with our oppressors for autonomy and devolution. The international community is well aware that anything short of independence - including the once much-vaunted, now ignored, federal solution - is vulnerable to arbitrary retraction by the Sinhala leadershipat any point in the future. Thus international condemnation of Tamil 'terrorism' and veneration of Tamil 'moderates' is, as we know full well, more to do with shattering Tamil unity and assisting the Sri Lankan state to isolate and destroy the LTTE, than with achieving a just peace.

The international community will not take on the Sri Lankan state on behalf of liberal principles. However, neither will it defend the odious regimes in Colombo indefinitely. As the case of Kosovo demonstrates, the principle of 'state sovereignty' cannot be sustained once the world is convinced that not only will the vast majority of Tamils, when given a chance, seek independence from Sinhala rule; but, especially, that they will not abandon their political goals or their struggle irrespective of the brutality visited upon them. Unity, clarity of purpose and indomitable resilience; this is how the third birth of a state in the 21st century became impossible to prevent.

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia this Sunday. In his four hour long valedictory media conference, outgoing Rus-sian President Vladimir Putin has denounced the move as "illegal and immoral". Serbia and Russia have called for an emergency me-eting of the UN Security Council. Russia, China, India and South Africa are among the countries which have opposed Kosovo's declaration of independence.

The open secession of Kosovo and its recognition by powerful Western states takes place not-withstanding UN Resolution 1244 of 1999 which recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia. As the Russian Federation's charismatic Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (who stunned me by a burst of fluent Sinhala upon introduction) warned in his Gunnar Myrdal Le-cture in Geneva a few days back, the recognition of Kosovo's independence runs contrary to the very basis of international law and is fraught with consequences for Europe and other parts of the world.

The Russian position has consistently been that any solution should be agreed upon in negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo. This was abandoned as impossible by Marti Ahtissari, who recommended de facto independence for Kosovo. Incidentally he was brought to Sri Lanka as a possible negotiator or facilitator by the Et-hnic Affairs Advisor of President Kumaratunga, but luckily for Sri Lanka was objected to by Lak-shman Kadirgamar and, it must be admitted, the JVP.

There were options other than secession for Kosovo. One was for the fullest autonomy within Serbia. The other was the carving out of the Serbian majority portion of Kosovo and its annexation with Serbia. However, all options were aborted by the obduracy of the Kosovo leadership, which insists on independence.

It must be noted that the current leader of Kosovo is a former leader of the separatist army whi-ch practiced terrorism, the Koso-vo Liberation Army (KLA). The majority of people of Kosovo had become accustomed to the idea of independence during the several years of administration by a UN High Commissioner (later nominated as an IIGEP member for Sri Lanka by the EU).

The hardening of the position of Kosovo was also due to open pledges of recognition of independence by several key Western powers.

Of course the breakaway of Kosovo merely completes the unraveling of the former Yugosla-via. There were many reasons for this: the abandonment by majority Serbian ultra-nationalists, in the new context of electoral competition, of the enlightened compact forged by the unorthodox Communist Joseph Broz Tito, a founder leader of the Non-Align-ed Movement (and friend of Sri Lanka); the exacerbation of ethnic tensions by the adoption of an IMF package; the rollback by Serb nationalism of Kosovo's autonomous status as a province; recognition by certain Western European states of the breakaway Yugoslav republics setting off a centrifugal chain reaction; the excessive brutality against civilians of the Serbian army and Serb militia in the breakaway repub-lics; the partiality of the Western media which focused only on Serb excesses but not those committed by anti-Serb forces.

In the final instance however, the secession of Kosovo is traceable to a single mistake: the decision by President Milosevic to fo-llow the advice of President Yelt-sin (who had already been lobbied by the US), and withdraw the Yugoslav army from Kosovo, not-withstanding the fact that in its heavily camouflaged and dug-in positions, it had withstood US/ NATO bombing and was well positioned to inflict, with its tradition and training in partisan warfare, unacceptable casualties on any invading ground forces.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro re-veals that at this crucial moment he had written to Milosevic and urged him, in the final words of his missive, to "Resist! Resist! Resist!", but the Belgrade leadership failed to do so. In short, the impending independence of Ko-sovo is the result of the failure of political will on the part of the ex-Yugoslav leadership.

Instead of resisting, the Yugo-slav army withdrew and was repl-aced by an international presence on the ground in Kosovo. After a period of tutelage, Kosovo was encouraged with a nod and a wink, to secede completely.

These then are the lessons for Sri Lanka: never withdraw the armed forces from any part of our territory in which they are challenged, and never permit a foreign presence on our soil. After 450 years of colonial presence, and especially after the experience of the Kandyan Convention, we Sri Lankan should have these lessons engraved in our historical memory and our collective identity. The Western imperialists who failed to capture our island milita-rily were able to take control of it only because we double crossed our leader, trusted the West, sign-ed an agreement and allowed foreign presence into our heartland.

The Western war against Yugoslavia was waged not by the Bush administration but by a liberal one. It was waged under the doctrine of liberal internationalism, and humanitarian interventi-onism. These doctrines were updated to "preventive humanitarian interventionism" in the case of the invasion of Iraq.

Today, the buzzword is the "Responsibility to Protect", and I refer not to the UN World Leaders summit of 2005 which requires the endorsement of the Security Council, but the original 1998 version of the Canadian government sponsored International Co-mmission on State Sovereignty, which had a far more elastic interpretation! The co-chairman of that Commission was former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans (whom Lakshman Kadirgamar was determined, should not play a role in Lanka's peace process despite his offers to do so in 1995).

We may find a newer version arising with UK Foreign Secre-tary David Miliband's Aung San Suu Kyi lecture delivered at Oxford University a few days back. In it, he says that notwithstanding some mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the West must not forget, and must take up once again, its moral imperative to expand democracy throughout the world (including, interestingly enough in "established democracies").

He identifies and rejects three objections to that project: the "Asian values" school which in its 1993 variant of a statement by 34 countries, recognizes democracy but resist the imposition of western values as neo-colonial; the Realpolitik school which stresses "interests" rather than values and morality; and even the pragmatic school which points out that democracy is the product of internal historical processes. Foreign Secretary Miliband makes several pointedly critical references to China, (which he will be visiting shortly) in his speech on the need of the West to extend democracy worldwide.

The patterns of world politics appear kaleidoscopic, with coalitions forming over one issue, only to break up over another. At first glance this would make long term alliances or affiliations almost impossible. However, certain iss-ues are revelatory of underlying dynamics which are of a defining character. Kosovo is certainly one such issue.

The Kosovo crisis sheds light on a dynamic in world politics which is of central importance to Sri Lanka. This is the matter of state sovereignty. As a country which is grappling with a challenge to its territorial integrity and unity, all tendencies towards the break-up of established states are against the basic interests of Sri Lanka.

The issue of Kosovo not only illustrates the phenomenon of secessionism. It reveals a more fundamental contradiction within world politics, namely that betw-een state sovereignty on the one hand and those tendencies which act to undermine states. Such tendencies are twofold: secessionism from within and hegemonism from without. The tendency towa-rds hegemonism manifests itself most starkly in the phenomenon of interventionism.

Kosovo and earlier Chechnya disprove the identification that some make between Western int-erventionism and particular religions. While it is true that on a global scale, the West perceives itself as besieged by and struggling against what it calls Islamist terrorism or Islamic radicalism/ extremism (some hard-line ideologues even talk of Islamo-fascism) attention must be drawn to the fact that Serbs are Christian, while Kosovo Albanians are Islamic.

The Chechen separatists, so-me of whom were headquartered in the West, were also Islamic, while Russia is mainly Christian. Western interventionism is not tied to any particular ethnic or religious group. The name of the game seems the old one of divide and rule, and whichever group or struggle weakens the target state appears to be the one that is afforded patronage.

All tendencies in world politics which weaken, fragment and de-stabilize states, undermining their sovereignty and making them vulnerable to hegemony and intervention, are inimical to Sri Lanka. All tendencies which strengthen and defend state sovereignty, unity and territorial integ-rity, are friendly and helpful towards Sri Lanka.

By extension, all state and non-state actors which work tow-ards the weakening of state sovereignty in the non metropolitan areas of the world, i.e. the global South and East, cannot be regarded as the strategic friends, allies and partners of Sri Lanka. All state and non-state actors which support, defend and work towards the preservation and strengthening of the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integ-rity of states, are objectively the friends, allies and partners of Sri Lanka

Amidst firework displays, stre-et parties and concerts around the capital and much of the country, the Republic of Kosovo was born on February 17, 2008.

The long-awaited 'Unilateral' Declaration of Independence was made in concert with the United States and leading members of the European Union.

The events leading up to Kosovo's UDI and its aftermath will undoubtedly be a source of hope for peoples around the world committed to the liberation of their homelands from oppression and tyranny.

Over the last six months, for obvious reasons, Russia has ado-pted a 'no precedent' approach, defending the territorial integrity of its ally Serbia.

Russia's leaders are committed to their own notion of sovereignty - one as selective as the US's, but with a different perspective.

This was first exhibited by Moscow's anger at Chechnya's refusal to sign up to the Russian Federation, thus leading to the first and second Chechen wars and destabilization of the entire Caucasus region.
Whilst sovereignty is key to statehood, it is not an automatically isolationist property.

Throughout the history of the modern state, countries have, to some degree or other, pooled their sovereignty for mutual gain, be it in the form of economic or cultural cooperation or state integration/ merger as with the union between Scotland and England 1600's; German Unification in 1871; Italy's during the 1840s-1870 and, of course, the European Union itself in the past few decades.

Thus, it is disingenuous to argue that the mere emergence of new independent states would be destabilizing; newly independent states are no more likely to create international instability than existing states.

Rather, there is an argument that, in order to ensure their long-term futures, states, including new ones, are more likely to join the world's proliferating 'soverei-gnty pooling' organizations, thus actually increasing international cooperation - just as several post-Soviet Eastern European states have willingly joined the EU.

The separation of Kosovo and Serbia arguably provides a period in which both can overcome their differences, address the issues that led to the conflict and build new cordial relations, whilst at the same time retaining genuine ownership of their own futures, as well as sharing a joint one in which both sides have a degree of control.

In contrast, Moscow fears this 'break up' of Serbia will give fresh impetus to several independence movements along its own border from North Ossetia, Abkhazia and Chechnya.

Though both the South Osse-tia and Abkhazian movements are pro-Moscow, Russian politicians have raised the possibility of recognizing these entities as states (along with Transdniesta ; a break away region of Moldova where there is a large Russian troop presence), only as a threatened response against the US and EU for recognizing Kosovo.

Ultimately, Russia fears that as a consequence of all such declarations, Moscow's power and influence in the world will be eroded.

This is why Russia has sullenly promised to veto Kosovo's application to the United Nations.
During the past years of talks over Kosovo's future, leading members of the international co-mmunity came to the realization that independence is inevitable given the failure of the negotiation process to voluntarily retain the loyalty of the Albanian-majority province within the Serbian federation.

Therefore, most European States have recognized the newly independent state, as they have with all the Balkan states which sought independence since the 1990s.

At the same time, the international community continues to dictate the ability of less powerful states to govern or to gain access to all the institutions and powers that ought to come with international recognition.
A classic example of this is the continuing international stewardship of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the EU's provision of 2000 judicial, police and other law enforcement 'advisors' to Kosovo.
Sovereignty is therefore never absolute.

Since December the US and EU have been dragging Kosovo's independence, hoping to buy time to persuade Russia to their point of view.

Whilst vehemently insisting on the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, Serbia's response to Kosovan independence is to threaten to recognize the independence of the Republic of Srpska (a constituent member of the Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Whilst warning of instability in the region and elsewhere, it is Serbia itself which is also threatening an economic blockade of Kosovo and reduced diplomatic cooperation with states that recognize Kosovo.
That there is discord over Kosovo amongst the world's states is not in doubt.

The emerging tensions bet-ween Russia and the West will be exacerbated by the Kosovan UDI.
Even within the EU, there are deep divisions, with Spain, Ro-mania, Greek Cyprus, Greece and Slovakia joining with Russia in stating fears other independence movements will be encouraged.

As a result of these fears, there is a concerted international atte-mpt to define Kosovo as a 'special case', a one-off in international affairs.

This, however, does not alter the basic premise of a people's right to self-determination.

Nor, indeed, does it preclude the creation of future 'special cases' (i.e. transitions to independence under international stewardship) based either on model of Kosovo or Bosnia-Hercegovina or more traditional ascent to independence like Eritrea.

Furthermore, the traditional arguments about 'sovereignty' fail to account for the very real legacy of Europe colonialism for what is disparagingly now described as the 'third world'.

It is rarely acknowledged that the 'internal' conflicts in these regions stem to a great part from the arbitrary delineation of international borders during the post WW2 rush to 'de-colonise.'

Some argue that the 'special case' status of Kosovo is justified because it is the final stage of the break up of Yugoslavia, an artificial construct.

But this line of thinking could be applied to any number of post-colonial developing states on the basis their splitting into cohesive sub-entities is the simply a continuation of the process of decolonization, of dismantling the artificial constructs of the European empires.

The irony is that, amid a 'globalising world', demands for self-rule and independence stem not from isolationist tendencies, but a desperation to escape state repression.

Especially given the drive to sovereignty pooling in today's 'globalised' world, the most effective response to present and future independence demands is to make the status quo of a united state more appealing by ensuring equitable power-sharing.

Rather than pouring billions into stamping out popular armed challenges to the 'sovereign' state, the international community should look at the other end of the 'problem' and forcibly compel repressive states to end their persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, accept demands for internal power-sharing and simply govern better.

Imagine a country whose greatest asset truly is its people. A country in which over a third of its citizens speak fluently one or more of English, French, German, Spanish, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Creole, Zulu and many more, in addition to speaking the worlds oldest living classical language, Tamil.

A country with one of the highest literacy rates in the world, which has for decades exported professionals – doctors, teachers, scientists, engineers, accountants, computer programmers - as far a-field as Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, much of Africa.

A country which is secular, but where learning is held to be sacred. You already know this country: this is Eelam.

Imagine a country whose unpolluted seas are a clear turquoise blue, lined with white sandy beaches, still unspoilt, whose skies take on the azure hues of the Indian sub continent, whose shore is lined with coconut palms, and tens of varieties of mango, guava and jack fruit. Imagine a country of rice fields and banana groves, chilli plants and hibiscus flowers, brimming with the lushness of the tropics, which even in places which are not naturally green has been made so by the industriousness of its people, its network of traditional water wells and irrigation channels.

You remember this country. It is Eelam.

Imagine a country, where unlike in all its neighbours, one cannot bribe one’s way past the traffic police or for that matter any government official. Where jobs are awarded on merit and not patronage. Where, unlike its neighbours, there is no sex tourism or porn industry. Where organised crime is not allowed to flourish.

Imagine a country with a written history of over 2000 years. Which predates the existence of the United States of America by over a thousand years. A country whose treatise on ethics, the Kural, declared circa 30 BC that “all men who live are alike at birth. Diverse actions define their distinction”, well before the American constitution came along to tell us that “all men are created equal”.

A country whose citizens’ attitude to unjust government is defined by that other phrase from the Kural: “more malicious than a professional murderer is a leader who rules his people with injustice and oppression”; a country, whose concept of justice and common law predates the arrival of the Romans in Britain.

A maritime, island society situated in the midst of strategic sea routes, which has assimilated and learnt from the waves of passing colonial powers – the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British and yes, even the Sinhalese. In short a country, which while nourished by the past can look confidently to a global future.

A global people. On a trip to the Vanni during the ceasefire, it was common to see, in a single guest-house, visiting Diaspora children playing together who spoke between them almost all the languages of Europe.

Although there are only a few hundred thousand Tamils in the UK, over one in fifty of every doctor in Britain’s National Health Service is Tamil. Across Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa, you find today that the Tamil community produces several times as many highly skilled professionals on a per capita basis than the national average.

You know the exceptional educational standards, the literacy levels achieved in the Tamil homelands before the Sinhalese sought to crush us by war. You know the economic standards that were achieved then and are possible in the future. You have seen the blueprints for the development of Eelam, the plans for the industries which will be developed, the respect for the environment embedded in these plans, the role of the knowledge industries, the eagerly awaited return of the Diaspora.

But the governments of Sri Lanka and their allies in the international order tell us something entirely different.

They give us instead their abhorrent and twisted version of the vision. They tell us that the East is liberated even as its people languish in endless refugee camps. They tell us Jaffna is liberated even while its citizens are crushed by an occupying army.

Recently, one “Sri Lanka expert” from a leading Bristish think tank and advisor to the British government, told a conference that the aspirations of the Tamil people were being met during the ceasefire because the A9 had been opened up and starvation warded off temporarily from Jaffna.

They tell us it is illegal and unconstitutional to talk of secession. Then they tell us it would be a bad example for neighbouring India. They say that it might not be good for global security, whatever that means in the killing fields of the Northeast. When all else fails, they wheel out the post 9-11 “T” word. They tell us we are extremists if we dare to speak of Eelam.

They tell us that the moderate Tamils of Sri Lanka have no wish to live in Eelam, but prefer instead their current conditions of Sinhala repression and hopelessness. They conveniently forget that through fifties, sixties and seventies, generations of ‘moderate’ Tamils had already agitated and in 1977 even voted for independence – before the Tamil youth took up arms.

They tell us our hopes for Eelam are all false. Or unachievable. Or too costly.

They conjure up, as junior British foreign minister Kim Howells, did in last month’s British Parliamentary debate, a nightmarish rerun of the partition of India and Pakistan, forgetting how much of the responsibility for the failure of that partition must be laid at the door of the arrogant British civil servants who drew up the implementation for it.

It is time to tell the world, that they may not tell the Tamil nation what they want. They may not tell the Tamil people what our dreams and aspirations should be. They may not tell the Tamil people what to think.

It is time to tell them, that it is the Tamil people - not the policy makers in the capitals o the world – who decide how we give shape to our future, how we give life to our aspirations and how we ensure the survival of our nation.

It is simply time to tell them what we want. If they anticipate partition is difficult, it is time for them to take the steps now to plan a successful transition.

Because it is now time for the Tamil people to cash in their cheque, their promissory note of the right to self-rule at the bank of international justice.

Because we can. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

So make sure you spell out for them our dream in all its glory. And tell them, as the Vaddokodai resolution urged us to three decades ago; we will not flinch till the sovereign state of Tamil Eelam is established.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi wrote to the central government February 10 urging it to negotiate with neighbouring Sri Lanka on behalf of Indian fishermen.

Drawing the union government's attention to the 'indiscriminate' firing by the Sri Lankan Navy that killed an Indian fisherman the day before, the chief minister asked the government 'to take up the matter with the Sri Lankan government,' a press statement said.

A fisherman from Pudokottai district of Tamil Nadu was killed when allegedly fired upon by the Sri Lankan Navy while fishing in the waters off the Dhanushkodi coast. Two fishermen survived the firing.

The state government has sanctioned Rs.100,000 as compensation to families of each of the fisherman killed.

At least 150 Indian fishermen have been killed in incidents of firing by the Sri Lankan Navy since the 1980s and nearly 300 have been injured.

Last year, the chief minister sought central intervention to protect Tamil Nadu's fishermen at least three times.

Sri Lanka is supposed to have mined the waters on its side of the international maritime border to prevent Indian fishermen from fishing in Lankan waters and to prevent refugees from northern Sri Lanka from crossing the Palk Strait.

Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan Navy further complicated the issue by claiming that the LTTE had attacked its patrol craft from an Indian boat.

The boat was sunk with rocket-propelled grenade fire, near the maritime boundary with India, military officials told Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The attack reportedly claimed the lives of six sailors.

Though Sri Lanka has, in the past, expressed unhappiness over maritime violations by Indian fishermen, this is the first time it has complained to Indian authorities that an Indian trawler was used by the LTTE against its craft.

Considering the seriousness of the allegation, the Tamil Nadu Government, which acted swiftly to verify the claim, and several security agencies conducted high-level enquiries with the fishermen of Rameswaram, Jegadhapattinam, Pudukottai and Nagapattinam.

Though officials were convinced that no fisherman was involved in the shooting incident, the allegation has caused uneasiness among Indian fishermen, who fear this charge will be used to pose further threat to their livelihood and lives.

The Indian fishermen fear the Sri Lankan navy may take extreme measures if they found them in their territorial waters, particularly near Talaimannar, reported The Hindu.

Following reports of planting of mines in the waters off Neduntheevu, a traditional fishing ground as claimed by Rameswaram fishermen, they switched operations to between Talaimannar and Rameswaram.

“We are facing a crisis of livelihood. The topography of the sea, nature, unending conflict in Sri Lanka, almost nil catch in Indian waters off Rameswaram, environment, circumstances and others are against the fishermen. We don’t know who - governments of Sri Lanka, India, Tamil Nadu or LTTE – is to be blamed for the crisis,” says U. Arulandandam, Tamil Nadu’s representative of the Alliance for the Release of Innocent Fishermen (ARIF).

The fishermen hoped that the governments and other stakeholders would come forward to solve the problem, he said.

The Indian central government last Saturday gave a clean chit to the Dravida Munnetta Kazhakam (DMK) regime in Tamil Nadu, saying it had done “better than others” in curbing security threats to the nation and there was no LTTE infiltration in the state.

On a visit to Ramanathapuram district, about 650 km south of Chennai, central Minister of State for Home Sri Prakash Jaiswal said, “The state government has done better than other states in dealing with national security and terrorism.”

He added Tamil Nadu's performance was “satisfactory” on the law and order front.

When compared to the “previous regime” of opposition leader J. Jayalalitha of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetta Kazhakam (AIADMK), “the situation under the DMK rule is very good”, he said adding there was no major terror activities in the state.

Jayalalitha, had earlier urged the centre to take action against Karunanidhi for his "support" to the LTTE.

A resolution adopted at the party's General Council said that Karunanidhi, after coming back to power, not only remained silent over LTTE supporters, but also went a step ahead and eulogized the death of S P Thamilchelvan, LTTE's former political head. It labelled Karunanidhi's elegy "an act of treason" and alleged that it would pave way for secessionism.

The resolution condemned the Indian Government for not initiating any action against Karunanidhi.

The General Council of the AIADMK also alleged that Tamil Nadu had become a haven for "extremists" and "terrorist forces".

Quizzed on the rise in activities of the Liberation Tigers in the state - as alleged by both the AIADMK and the state Congress - Jaiswal said the AIADMK leader was indulging in ”false propaganda” against the DMK regime.

Questioned about the Congress walkout from the assembly over the DMK's alleged support to the LTTE, even though the party is a DMK ally, Jaiswal said the Congress legislators were protesting the lack of opportunity to speak in the assembly.

Asked about central Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's appeal to the M. Karunanidhi government “not to allow LTTE activities in the state”, Jaiswal said he was “not aware of any LTTE infiltration” into Tamil Nadu.

Tamil leaders of Sri Lanka have rejected the island nation government’s devolution package aimed at ending the 25-year-old ethnic conflict saying the move was ‘a joke played on Tamils’.

The All Party Representation Committee (APRC), formed by the Mahinda Rajapakse government to counter LTTE’s struggle for separate homeland for Tamils in Sri Lanka, had submitted its report to the government last month.

The committee, consisting of 14 political parties, in its report had recommended implementation of the proposals for devolution contained in the 1987 India-Sri Lanka agreement, which were incorporated in the 13th amendment of the 1978 Sri Lankan constitution.

“Such recommendations were the ones that were rejected by the Tamils during early stages. The subsequent attempts were centered on the feasibility of enhancing the powers further,” Sri Lankan Community Development Minister P Chandrasekaran told PTI.

“Talking about the 13th amendment at the present stage will mean a hasty retreat from the point of resolution of the ethnic conflict,” he said.

Echoing his views, Lankan MP M K Sivajilingam of the pro-LTTE Tamil National Alliance (TNA), said the Sri Lankan government’s move to devolve powers to region is a “joke played by them (Lankan government) on minority Tamils” who have “not been able to lead a peaceful life in their own nation”.

“Tamil Eelam is the only solution for the conflict,” he said.

Sivajilingam said these were the proposals, which had been rejected by Tamil leaders way back in 1956 and “Tamils can in no way accept this move” by a government, which “does not solve even the basic problems of its own citizens”.

Chandrasekaran said India should facilitate the peace process between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE.

“Norway, which has been in the process of facilitating peace, has been marginalised or sidelined. Our position in this regard is that India has all the qualifications to supersede Norway in facilitating the process,” he said.

The APRC in its report had recommended immediate conduct of elections in the Eastern province and urged the government to establish an interim council in the northern province to enable the people to enjoy the fruits of devolution as ‘free and fair polls’ was not possible there in the near future.

“The proposals cannot be accepted. It is an injustice rendered to the Tamils by the government. Why should there be different kind of arrangements for North and East,” asked Sivajilingam.

He wanted India to recognise the “Eelam liberation struggle” and help Lankan Tamils achieve their “long-cherished dream of Tamil as a nation and Tamil home land”.

“If a separate Tamil nation is formed, it will be in the best interests of India. So, we urge the Indian government to recognise our demands. We can’t ask help from anyone other than India,” he said.

The TNA leader also urged India to help in improving the social, economic and educational conditions of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

On claims that eliminating LTTE chief V Prabhakaran will solve the ethnic crisis, Sivajilingam said “No one can ever touch Prabhakaran. It is a dream of the Sri Lankan government, which will always remain as a dream. It exactly shows their childish behaviour”.

However, Chandrasekaran said such a move would be detrimental to the future well being of the Tamils.

Asked if Tamils would benefit from the devolution package, the minister said “without the concurrence of Tamil political parties, particularly the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, no such endeavours will succeed. It is the reality”.

On Rajapakse’s recent statement that a solution to the conflict through military means was not possible, Sivajilingam said “this shows the double standards of the Sri Lankan government. When they feel that a military solution is not possible why did they call off the ceasefire agreement signed in 2002?”

“The Rajapakse government is least interested in taking care of Tamils and the only choice for us is to fight against them,” he said.

Sivajilingam said the LTTE alone had the power to fight for the cause of Tamils and there is no alternative.

However, Chandrasekaran said the “universal remedy” for all evils is negotiations and the only alternative to LTTE’s endeavours is dialogue.

Sporting red T-shirts, with an Eelam map Australian Tamil youth from Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne gathered on February 12 in the Australian capital, Canberra, to voice support for the Tamil struggle and to highlight the worsening humanitarian situation in the northeast of Sri Lanka.

The 200 fans arrived wearing red "Voice of Tamils" T-shirts bearing the slogan "Where is the Humanity", and set up a party outside the gates with drummers, dancers and whistles before play.

They were attending a cricket match at Manuka Oval between Sri Lanka and India as part of the tri0nations tournament being played during the Australian cricketing season.

The youth were mainly Tamils of Sri Lankan origin and settled in Australia. Yahoo.com quoted Adrian Francis from this group as saying "It's more of a campaign than a protest.”

"We are doing this because we believe that Tamils in Sri Lanka are discriminated against and poorly treated. They are subjected to injustice in every possible walk of life and this has to change.”

Ground officials, claiming to be acting on behalf of Cricket Australia, would not let in two members of the group. The group was also advised not to fly Tamil flags.

Student Vekram Sambasivam said the Tamil sympathisers had come from Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, although they weren't necessarily supporting their home country.

"How can I when they do what they do to my people?" Sambasivam said.

"We came here to get some attention for our cause, but the guards explained that it was Cricket Australia's policy not to politicise the game with banners."

Francis, who said his parents were victims of this injustice, claimed this was the first public exhibition of their disgruntlement.

"We don't want to resort to hostilities. This is a peaceful way to draw attention. We chose to turn up for this cricket match because we felt this will help us draw attention."

According to Francis and a few of his fellow red shirts, this campaign will be seen in other places of Australia on course of this tri-series in future.

"Definitely in Sydney and Melbourne, where we have a sizeable presence. You can see how serious we are about this, we came all the way from Sydney," said someone identifying himself as Jayan. It's difficult to speculate how far reaching their effort will be or whether they have chosen the right platform to voice their displeasure.

But if drawing attention was their main objective, they did succeed in that endeavour. Not clear how enjoyable it was for the Sri Lankan team, they enjoyed the support nonetheless, as did many others.

Separately, the Canadian Tamil students from York University used Tamileelam flag as the rallying symbol as they exhibited prize winning entries in the cultural shows during the "multicultural week" event in York.

During the week-long event in York University, the Tamil Students’ Organization was selected as the best group.

"The goals of our group is to bring together the Tamil student community not only in York, but across all higher institutions in Canada, and to expose the student community to the cultural aspects that define our roots," key spokesperson for the group said.

More than 10,000 students and 60 different Student Organizations participated in the week-long event.

As a raging civil war killed thousands in the country's northeast, Sri Lankans in Colombo and other southern cities shopped, held picnics and cheered their children at soccer matches.

Now a recent wave of bombings has brought the devastation of the civil war to the heart of the capital, and many are scared to leave their homes. The bombings blamed on the Tamil Tigers have ripped through passenger buses and a department store and killed half a high school baseball team in a packed train station.

Normally overflowing buses travel half empty, parents whisk their children home after school and the government has appealed for tens of thousands of volunteers for a new civilian security force aimed at preventing more attacks.

"A bomb could go off at anytime," said Colombo resident Dilhar Gunasekara. "Everyone is scared."

The LTTE, listed as a terror group by the United States and the European Union, have been fighting since 1983 for an independent homeland for minority Tamils in the north and east. For years, they were discriminated against by governments dominated by the Sinhalese majority.

The fighting, which has killed an estimated 70,000 people in this island nation in the Indian Ocean, largely ended after a 2002 cease-fire deal. But new violence erupted two years ago. In July, the government said it had driven the Tigers from the east and turned its attention to the LTTE heartland in the north.

Although there was scattered violence in the south in recent years, much of it was far from Colombo and its approximately 800,000 residents, or targeted government and military leaders. Many residents of Colombo shrugged off the violence.

But that complacency was shattered Nov. 28 when a powerful bomb hidden in a package killed at least 17 people at a suburban department store. A string of attacks followed, culminating in the bombing of two buses in other towns and a suicide blast in Colombo's main train station in the days around the nation's 60th Independence Day on Feb. 4.

LTTE spokesman Rasiah Ilanthirayan did not answer repeated calls seeking comment. The group routinely denies responsibility for such attacks and accuses the government of targeting civilians in Tiger-held territory.

Since the beginning of the year, 90 civilians have been killed and nearly 300 wounded in government-held territory, according to the military. Of those, 19 have been killed and 122 wounded in Colombo and its suburbs.

"When I leave home, I'm just not certain I'll make it back," said 34-year-old Bastian Bosco David, a small business owner, as he waited for a bus to Puttalam, about 75 miles north of Colombo.

Security forces have put up signs around Colombo calling for residents to report anything suspicious. Police have fenced off outdoor bus stations and begun searching passengers' bags as they enter.

Bus companies have instructed drivers to look under their vehicles and to ban bags from overhead racks to make it more difficult for an attacker to plant a bomb, said Gemunu Wijeratne, head of the private bus owners' association.

"All possible measures are being taken now," said Cabinet minister Keheliya Rambukwella.

Education officials, who cancelled school for nearly a week after the most recent attacks, have banned public functions, held security briefings for students and debated whether to cancel popular cricket tournaments against rival schools or hold them without fans, said K.A.D. Punyadasa, principal of the Isipathana school. Parents have been recruited to search students' bags and patrol the school grounds.

Harold Pattikkara Bandarage used to let his 14-year-old son take the bus home from school. With the new violence though, he rearranged his work schedule at a Colombo university and now picks his son up every afternoon on his motorcycle during his lunch break, he said.

Bartenders and restaurateurs say business has plunged as people choose to stay home rather than brave public places. Bus owners say they have lost half their passengers and cannot find replacements for drivers who are quitting.

Rambukwella called the attacks a desperate move by an organisation facing battlefield defeat to rally the Tamil community by sparking new ethnic violence in the capital. Top government officials have promised to crush the Tigers by the end of this year.

Gunasekara, the Colombo resident, said she did not care whether the government signed a peace deal with the LTTE or defeated them on the battlefield.

"Somehow or other the fighting and violence has got to come to an end," she said.

The decision of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to select Razeen Mohamed Imam as a national list member of the Sri Lanka parliament on February 8 has been received with wide appreciation from different sections of the Tamil-speaking people, including the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. Mr. Razeen Mohamed, 60, is a lawyer from Jaffna and has been a member of the Ilankai Thamizh Arasuk Kadchi (the Federal Party started by the late S.J.V Chelvanayakam) for more than 30 years. He was also earlier a member of the Jaffna Municipal Council, elected on a Federal Party ticket.

There was a time when Muslims, especially the Muslims of North and East, were an integral part of the Tamil politics and political parties, forging a common Tamil identity.

On the last occasion when free and fair elections took place in the pre-war North and East of Sri Lanka in 1977, and when the people of this region categorically and overwhelmingly franchised self determination of Tamils based on the Vaddukkoaddai declaration of Tamil United Liberation Front, Muslims of the region were a part and party to it.

The spontaneous participation, contribution and sacrifices of the Muslim youth for a common Tamil cause, as members of various Tamil militant groups in the 70s and 80s are very well known.

Misinterpretation of Tamil nationalism by sections of militancy and Tamil speaking people, conspiracy of the successive governments of Sri Lanka and inability to resolve certain ground situations especially in the East, contributed to the alienation of Muslims and culminated in the eviction of them, numbering between 15 and 20 thousand from Jaffna and other northern districts in 1990.

The regrets signaled from the side of the LTTE and the statement made by Rauff Hakeem, the leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, that “LTTE leader V. Pirapaharan has agreed to invite all displaced Muslims to return to their own places in the North and East”, after his meeting with the latter in 2002, are a consolation.

According to reports Mr. Razeen Mohamed has expressed his determination to work for the resettlement of the displaced Muslims back in their homes in Jaffna.

The ball is now in the court of the Sri Lanka government, which not only controls Jaffna but has also converted the Muslim quarters of Jaffna into one of the High Security Zones for the exclusive use of its occupying Army. In this case the Army is sitting on a general interim order of the Sri Lanka judiciary, favouring resettlement of willing people in the High Security Zones.

Tamil is traditionally the mother tongue of the vast majority of the Muslims in Sri Lanka other than the Malays. Their origins in Sri Lanka are parallel and are closely linked to the Tamil Muslims of the Coromandal Coast and of the Malabar Coast, which was part of the ancient Tamil country at the time of the advent of Islam.

In fact, Islam reached this part of South Asia as early as in the times of the Prophet. One of the earliest mosques according to tradition was built at Thiru-vagnchaik-ka’lam, the capital Vagnchi of the Cheras, and was patronized by Chearamaan Perumaa’l, a king and saint of the Tamil-Chaiva traditions.

Unlike most of the identities, the Tamil identity is not pivotal of ethnicity, religion or geography. Based on a classical language, the primary focus of Tamil identity, as seen from the times of its inception reflected in the Changkam literature, is Tamil language (Thamzh koo’rum nal ulaku — Tamil 'speaking' world).

Among all the South Asian languages, being classical as well as modern, only Tamil has the rare distinction of serving the medium for all the major religions of the world – Buddhism, Jainism, Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical schools of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and even Atheism. Tamil language and identity became enriched in the process.

Identity is an issue of complexity. A person or a community may cherish more than one identity at a time. Which one of the criteria for identity is to be primarily focused may differ from time to time.

Those who think that the Tamil identity of Sri Lanka is primarily linked only to the Chaiva / Hindu identity do not see the fact that for the priestly echelons of their religion, Brahmin identity comes first and Tamil is only a secondary identity. This doesn’t belittle the reverent acceptance of Tamil Brahmins or contributions and commitment of them to the Tamil cause and identity.

When we witness the elite of Jaffna, who became the Ceylonese of Malaysia and Singapore, forsaking the use of Tamil language even inside their homes within three generations of migration, the Aiyangkaar Brahmins, for whom Aiyangkaar is the primary identity, have preserved the use of Tamil and contributed to it for eight hundred years, wherever they have migrated ever since their persecution from the Tamil country by the Chola empire.

If for the Muslims of Sri Lanka Islam is the primary identity, it should be accepted with respect. The universality and secular parameters of Tamil identity are such that the stand of Muslims is in no way needs to be a contradiction for them and others to forge a wider identity of Tamil speaking people.

The author identified four dominant themes that seriously impact on the sustainability of resettlement in the Batticaloa district. These are:
1. Lack of consultation and clarity
2. Lack of Preparedness and Planning
3. Restriction of Access and Mobility
4. Protection Concerns of the Displaced and Resettled Communities
Having looked at the first three themes in the first part of this article (published in the last issue), the author now turns to the fourth theme.

4. Protection Concerns of the Displaced and Resettled Communities
The climate is clearly one of fear and uncertainty. The general view held by communities and agencies is that the constantly changing politico-military dynamics of the East (with the split in the TMVP and Pillayan seizing control), has created an atmosphere of tense unpredictability. The Government, it appears, is keen to get political legitimacy for the paramilitary group.

Tension is rife as the number of clashes within the TMVP is increasing. There is de facto control of the district by key TMVP commanders with shifting loyalties and uneasy relationship with the military and police at the ground level. After the latest intra-faction truce and according to their internal structure it appears that Pillayan now directly controls the areas between Arayampathy and Chenkaladi including the Batticaloa town while other commanders like Sinnathambi, Veera, Riyaseelan, Mangalan master and others control their own patches of territory in the district. There is a palpable fear among communities and space for civil administration, human rights and humanitarian work is alarmingly shrinking.

This is obviously evident in Batticaloa. On the day of the ‘public’ meeting held by the TMVP (10th of December 2007) groups of civilians – including the displaced – were rounded up by armed cadres and forced to attend the meeting (which was a joint exercise by both Pillayan’s faction and Karuna’s commanders).

At approximately 8:20 a.m. around ten/twelve armed cadres were seen herding people into CTB buses in Alankulam on the Colombo-Batticaloa Road within sight of the police and army who stood by. This was repeated during the course of the day throughout Batticaloa – people were taken from Kovils, resettled villages and even bus stations. 12 bus-loads of people – including the recently resettled were taken from Vaharai and 7 buses taken from the Badulla Road area (Batticaloa West).

A meeting was held the day before in Pankudaveli (Batticaloa West) where the TMVP ordered that one member from each family must attend the public meeting. There are frequent reports of abduction and extortion by TMVP cadres. The construction industry in the district is one of the prime extortionary target and even the Government schemes like the world-bank funded housing program seems not to have been spared.

Normalcy and durable and sustainable resettlement cannot happen as long as the Government turns a blind eye to the climate of fear, insecurity and terror created by the different TMVP factions of what was the Karuna Group. They carry arms in public, have offices where they summon, inquire and detain civilians as they wish. They have forcibly taken over private property and set up offices across the district and have even begun setting up more fortified establishments by the main road as in Maavadivaembu. They engage in joint cordon and search operations with the security forces (though this is more prevalent in the Ampara district than in the Batticaloa district) all in broad daylight and in complete cooperation of the Government forces.

Given the overwhelming physical evidence in the district, bland denials may not absolve the Government of complicity. The Government must be held accountable for the violations of the TMVP/Karuna/Pillayan group who are roaming freely with arms and are engaged in serious violations including abductions, intimidation and extortion.

The situation is worsened by the increasing tension between the Muslims and the Tamils within the District (in Arayampathi, Eravur and Valaichenai in particular). Rumours that Pillayan is supporting Muslim armed groups in order to win favour is rife and the security situation is deteriorating with the recent abductions of Muslims – including recently that of businessman Hassanar-Hayathu Mohamed from Eravur.

The general sentiment is that the tension amongst the two communities will worsen before it gets better, particularly given the impending elections. It is widely felt that in this dimension the situation is much worse in Amparai than in Batticaloa. The impending elections will only help bring these destructive trends to the forefront as ‘democratic politics’ in the ‘liberated’ land.

Before the split within the TMVP, families faced a clearly defined enemy, though with a loose command and control structure. Now, with many commanders vying for control, families face the dilemma of whom to suspect or even to turn to. Before the split, the TMVP acted as a sort of ‘buffer’ between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan military. Now, even the agencies are unsure of whom to contact and communicate with when faced with complaints of abductions and harassment.

This also means that because of the presence of various factions and increasing confusion, responsibility can be easily shifted. So it is of little surprise that despite the publicised resettlement plans of the government, the culture of impunity and sense of lawlessness is widespread throughout the district. The security situation some people opined is worse for the communities now than before when you had predictable sources of threat with predictable reactions in predictable geography. Space for public gathering and advocacy is severely limited and fear, mistrust and insecurity is widespread and worsening rapidly.

‘Protection’ is an essential component of any resettlement intervention – most of the community members rank this as one of their top concerns. There is reluctance on the part of the government to accept a role for agencies in this sector in the same way as in shelter, water and sanitation and livelihood. Hence it has been very difficult to include this as a separate section in the resettlement plans.

Agencies, primarily with protection mandate have not been provided access. It was an uphill struggle, agencies reported, to get protection elements incorporated into the Government’s resettlement plans – ‘it was taken to the CCHA but don’t know what happened thereafter’. Given the extent of violations reported from the resettled area it is absolutely essential to ensure that ‘Protection’ gets headline attention as a separate sector in its own right.

The CCHA was necessitated because every issue in the areas had a security angle and a mechanism to include key decision makers from the security establishment was considered a good idea. But it appears as if the accommodation has gone to the extent to render the mechanism ineffective for immediate problem solving for operational purposes. The CCHA’s credibility as a useful body for solving protection concern is under threat.

The following in brief are some of the ‘Protection’ concerns that were repeatedly mentioned in the district.

• Abductions and forced recruitment
Abductions and disappearances are still occurring – and are on the increase by TMVP, both Pillayan and Karuna groups. As Pillayan seized control of the TMVP ‘at least 25’ abductions within and around the district were recorded although Pillayan did release a number of the underage cadres. For November, there have been a total of nine cases of recruitment and re-recruitment alone.

There have also been a number of complaints of forced recruitment and re-recruitment committed by the various commanders within the district. However, it must also be noted that most incidences of abductions and disappearances go unreported – there is a real fear of retribution if families complain to agencies. In the absence of any action taken by the military or the police who stands by as this continuous to occur, there is hardly anyone to whom the people could go to.

• Harassment and intimidation
Reports on harassment of IDP camps by the TMVP continue. The IDP camps in Palacholai and Savukaddy have been repeatedly harassed by armed groups at night – the former having a TMVP camp within close proximity to it. The displaced have been told not to go out after 7:00 p.m. at night – a clear indication that intimidation continues to play a significant role in the TMVP’s modus operandi. In November, one IDP was shot in Savukkady – a camp that has been repeatedly harassed by TMVP since as early as February.

• Harassment and intimidation of humanitarian workers
The overall climate for humanitarian work is gradually deteriorating. The morale of the staff is down given the number of killings and abductions in general of humanitarian workers island-wide. It is also sad to note that the malicious attacks on UNICEF etc at the national level and the lukewarm response of the agency is affecting the confidence levels of the staff in several humanitarian agencies in the ground. It has a ripple effect on the community who consider these organisations as having some clout to intervene on their behalf. Given the way the humanitarian community is responding to attacks – both physical and in the media – their credibility and relevance is taking a severe beating.

The security of national staff is a serious concern – even those handing out shelter material have been subject to threats. A driver from an agency was severely beaten up by personnel (who flashed ID badges) for overtaking their vehicle in early December. There have also been incidences of the STF stopping agency vehicles and asking for lifts. Intimidation of staff is a regular occurrence with unnecessary checking of vehicles and overly-stringent checking procedures at checkpoints.

• Looting
Looting of shelter material in the camp coincides with the mass returns. Most of the shelter material is re-used in the return areas and the continuous looting hampers agencies’ work. 6000 roof sheeting of UNHCR’s have been stolen to date and despite repeated complaints to the police, they fail to take any action. The GA had confirmed that security for the camps will be provided before and during the resettlements but to date, no police have been sent to the area. In all, 6700 roofing sheets which could have built 490 shelters for returnees have been stolen.

The inaction of the Police demonstrates the sense of lawlessness that permeates throughout the district. They know that looting coincides with returns but do not man the camps at nights. It is clear that the government needs the help of agencies working on the ground to execute an efficient and timely response – but this must be a symbiotic relationship. The government mechanisms must help and cooperate with agencies in order to implement an effective humanitarian response. This is clearly not happening in Batticaloa.

• Militarization of Return Areas
In Vaharai, the active presence of the military, the CID and the police in addition to TMVP cadres who are now occupying the Kadiraveli base formerly of LTTE, is sustaining fear and a militarised climate. Regular checks in the villages are made by all three groups – often asking the same questions and checking the same things. It is clearly uncoordinated and confusion is commonplace. Regular visits made by armed personnel is clearly intimidating and a harassment to communities trying to achieve some semblance of normalcy in their lives. Round-ups are on the increase throughout the district.

In Vaharai, the military maintains that they have identified who the LTTE supporters are and have proceeded to round up these suspects – including women, and photograph them with special IDs. These photographs are then circulated and the suspects are immediately called when any suspicion arises. The procedures of military and police differ from one another causing more confusion.

In Batticaloa West, after each return, there is an intense period of searches and round-ups – and in some incidences, the military have been accompanied by the TMVP. Once the entire return ‘process’ has finished, the newly resettled are often subjected to nightly checks by the military. Suspicions of LTTE connections is widespread (in Karadiyanaru and Pankudaveli for example) and the ‘culprits’ are arrested. Once released after interrogation, many are unwilling to go back to the village fearing further harassment. There is a gradual tick of ‘incidents’ allegedly by LTTE infiltrators in the area which threatens to take the situation in a downward spiral.

There have also been incidences of military harassment. For example, in Karadiyanaru, on the 11th of December, a father was beaten up when defending his daughter who was questioned about her and her husband’s previous ties with the LTTE. In Vavunatheevu and Paddippalai, there have been complaints of harassment of women returnees by the military. A number of women are left alone in their shelters as men go elsewhere to look for work.

Visitors staying overnight in both West Batticaloa and Vaharai are told to register themselves with the Police – or else face ‘severe consequences’. This includes construction workers and masons. An ordinary casual labourer looking to eke out a living through daily labour has to get a recommendation from the Grama Sevaka of his village endorsed by the Divisional Secretary of his division and can work only in projects of agencies that have been approved by the Government Agent and cleared by the Divisional Secretary.

In case of house construction the beneficiary family has to take the mason to the police and register him with them attesting to the fact that he is working on their house. For an agency building houses through 8-10 teams of masons with about 40 workers this can mean a logistical night mare. Frequent delays of construction work and permanent housing is now commonplace due to the tedious paperwork.

• Mine Clearance
Communities have been resettled in areas where demining has not yet been completed. Vavunatheevu for example has not been completely cleared, yet families have returned to the area. Surrounding agricultural land has not been demined and farmers are restricted from cultivating their lands. This problem is also common in Vaharai where resettled villages have been cleared but reportedly not its surrounding jungles – making fishing, gathering firewood, bees honey and other means of livelihood virtually impossible.

Since March, over a 100 UXOs have been found by communities – including in resettled areas. Villages in Kopaveli and Marapalaam have discovered UXOs and claymores – both newly resettled areas. There is a general atmosphere of confusion as agencies are given mixed information as to which areas are cleared and which are contaminated. According to the Batticaloa DS some areas have not been cleared and so, access is restricted – yet according to FSD and MAG, these areas have been de-mined.

Delays in clearing areas and delays in procedures to obtain landmine clearance certificates have now become a regular excuse for restricting movement and access to both civilians and humanitarian actors. While the real threat exists in some areas, in some areas people believe it is being used as an excuse to restrict mobility. Either way it is incumbent on the Government to clarify.

• Echilampatthu
Although not in the district, a protection situation in Echilampatthu must be highlighted. On the 3rd of December 17 people from the newly resettled villages were arrested on suspicion. 4 individuals were killed in 3 days (between the 3rd and the 5th of December) by unknown groups and 2 people severely beaten. The 60-odd (and increasing) resettled families fled the area and came back to Vaaharai. But due to some reason they are yet to be registered as IDPs by the authorities. Until then, they will not receive any government assistance and are subject to frequent checks and round ups. Many have again returned to Echilampatthu out of harassment and for fear of being arrested. While in Colombo it is clearly stated that registering as IDPs is not a problem, the reality in the ground was different.

Hundreds of journalists marched Thursday in Sri Lanka's capital to protest harassment and suppression of the media.

The march was organized by members of the Movement Against Media Suppression, who say media personnel have been killed, abducted and jailed by government-backed paramilitary groups.

The group says 14 journalists and media workers have been killed in Sri Lanka in the past two years, while eight have been abducted and four others imprisoned.

It says licenses for some radio stations have been revoked by the government.

The movement is asking for a law to ensure freedom of information and editorial liberty at state newspapers, radio and television, reported the Associated Press.

Labor unions and some political parties that are members of the Movement Against Media Suppression also participated in Thursday's protest. The movement is a coalition of several media rights and civil society groups.

The group says attacks on the media increased after a cease-fire between the government and Tamil Tiger rebels collapsed. The government officially withdrew from the Norway-brokered truce last month, but it had largely been ignored by both sides for the past two years.

Separately, Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) criticised the pressure reporters face in Sri Lanka in its annual report issued last Wednesday.

“The government and the military have intensified the war against the Tamil Tigers and President Mahinda Rajapakse has sworn to stamp out the rebellion, at the price of appalling human rights violations if necessary,” RSF said.

“Both the Sinhala and English-language press came under even greater pressure from the authorities in 2007. On their side, the Tamil Tigers allow no dissident voices in the areas they control," the RSF report noted.

"Some ministers behave like gang leaders," the report further described the deteriorating state of governance in Sri Lanka.

"Security forces supported by militia have sown terror in Tamil areas, carrying out many extra-judicial executions, kidnappings and threats. Despite international condemnation, the government has used the fight against terrorism to justify this “dirty war”. The Tamil press has been badly affected by this strategy that is aimed at dissuading the Tamil population from supporting the LTTE," the report further said.

Describing the situation prevailing in Jaffna, the RSF report said: "The northern Jaffna Peninsula, where Tamils are in the majority and which the army directly administers, has become a nightmare for journalists, human rights activists and civilians in general. A wave of murders, kidnappings, threats and censorship has made it one of the most dangerous places in the world for the press."

On press freedom and safety of journalists, the report pointed out that Sri Lanka holds the record for the greatest number of disappearances reported to the UN.

"Among them are two Jaffna journalists: Subramaniam Ramachandran, a journalist on Thinakural, who has not been seen since February after being arrested by the army; and Vadivel Nimalarajah, a sub editor on Uthayan, who was abducted from the street, after spending the night working at his office."

"The information ministry decided on 25 October to suspend the licences of five radio stations - Sun FM, Gold FM, Hiru FM, Shaa FM and Surayan FM - belonging to the privately-owned Asia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) group for putting out a news item that turned out to be wrong," the report said.

Unless Sri Lanka’s hardline government abandons its militarist path, the EU should impose sanctions, Germany said this week, adding that an EU-Troika will travel to Sri Lanka in early March to assess the situation.

In an interview with the Tages Speigel newspaper published on February 9, German Economic Cooperation and Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul also said Germany had frozen new development cooperation projects with Sri Lanka and, because of the deteriorating security situation, was withdrawing half their development personnel from the island as well as closing the German Development Bank there.

The English translation of extracts of the Tages Speigel interview with Minister Wieczorek-Zeul published in The Morning Leader newspaper on February 13 follow:

Q: In January the Government of Sri Lanka has withdrawn from the Ceasefire Agreement. What can Europe and the world do?

A: The international community must influence both parties to the conflict to seek a political solution and withdraw from the war which brings only suffering to the people. In the beginning of March an EU-Troika will travel to Sri Lanka. If the Sri Lankan government continues to insist on a military option, I will demand that the EU should withdraw the General System of Preference (GSP) offered to Sri Lanka. This concession enables Sri Lanka to export its goods and products to the EU at reduced or exempted tax and duty levies. This step will really bring economic pressure on the GoSL. For Sri Lanka a preference system plus is in place until the end of 2008 which, however, requires good governance.

If the EU continues to accept the present situation the plus is meaningless. The biggest portion of Sri Lanka's exports consists of textile exports. Only garment product exports to the EU markets are valued at US$ 1-2 billion annually. The other part is exported to the United States. It is also important to consult with the US which has also taken up a very critical position towards Sri Lanka in the past weeks.

Q: And development cooperation?

A: For the past two years we have not concluded any new agreements on cooperation as projects cannot be implemented due to the security situation. We are only engaged in completing what we have started earlier. We could make new agreements over _38 million, but we shall not do so at this point.

Q: How should the United Nations act?

A: It would be encouraging if the UN Security Council takes up this issue. However, it seems that it is difficult at the moment for the UN Security Council to act. However, what the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon can do without a formal decision of the Security Council is to send a special envoy to Sri Lanka.

After the departure of the Norwegian monitors who were in place since the Ceasefire Agreement of 2002 there is nobody to document human rights violations. The war is now again in full swing.

Q: Why has Sri Lanka failed to achieve peace after the tsunami of 2004 as it has happened in the Aceh Province of Indonesia?

A: After the tsunami I had greater hopes of Sri Lanka achieving peace than in Indonesia. There were so many initiatives from people from around the world. But it turned out to be different. The reconstruction in Aceh is successful and there is a responsible government set up even in the province of Aceh.

In the north and the east of Sri Lanka where many Tamils live we practically cannot further undertake development projects. I presume both parties to the conflict believe they can solve the conflict which continues from 1983 by military means. However, this is unrealistic. It will result only in more deaths numbering thousands.

Since 1983 more than 75,000 lives have been lost in the fighting between the government and the LTTE. The LTTE considers itself as a freedom movement but the EU banned the LTTE as a terrorist organisation almost two years ago. It is such a beautiful country and its people are very motivated. I feel a genuine responsibility for the people of this country. If the violence increases the international community has a responsibility to act.

Q: Should tourists travel to Sri Lanka?

A: It is up to the Federal Foreign Office of Germany to issue travel recommendations. However, we are withdrawing half of the personnel working in development cooperation and we will close the office of the German Development Bank (Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau), because the security situation is very critical.