Diaspora

Taxonomy Color
red
  • Interests, not values

    A chorus of international voices have in the past few days decried the heightened violence gripping Sri Lanka’s Northeast. Calls for restraint and new talks on stabilising the fraying February 2002 ceasefire have come from key states and the international monitors overseeing the truce, amongst others. Nevertheless, the violence is continuing. There have been numerous attacks on Sri Lankan security forces and the Liberation Tigers. Military reprisals against civilians, tacitly encouraged by the government in Colombo, have also escalated. Dozens of people have disappeared after being taken into military custody. An estimated four thousand families have fled Jaffna for the LTTE-held Vanni. Thousands of people in Trincomalee have also moved – or are being blocked by the military from moving – into LTTE-controlled parts of the district. It is amid this climate of fear and despair that Norwegian Special Envoy Erik Solheim will return to Sri Lanka next week in yet another attempt to broker talks on the ceasefire. It remains to be seen whether Sri Lanka will agree to hold talks in Oslo or continue to prioritise its insistence that LTTE officials be excluded from Europe over stopping the slide to war.

    The Tamil community, now under widespread and sustained harassment by the security forces, is as anxious for peace as any of the observers. But by peace we mean a genuine return to normalcy – not just the doldrums that the peace process was drifting in a few short weeks ago. In other words, we want the long overdue implementation of the normalcy clauses of the February 2002 ceasefire: the disarming of the Army-backed paramilitaries, the withdrawal of Sri Lankan security forces from our homes, schools, places of worship and other public places, the lifting of the restrictions on fishing and farming, and so on. This is not some radical new concept – the Tamil community has been asked for this repeatedly for four years now, to no avail.

    Amid the international community’s expressions of concern and disapproval, one stands out in the Tamil perspective: that of US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Mr. Jeffrey Lunstead. Speaking to the American Chamber of Commerce in Sri Lanka last week, Mr. Lunstead lambasted the LTTE. Amid what is a spiral of violence and counter violence, he singled out the LTTE for blame. As thousands of Tamils fled military reprisals he congratulated the Colombo government ‘for its restraint.’ Holding the LTTE responsible for the wider failures of the peace process, Mr. Lunstead even blamed it for the lack of ‘investment and industry’ in the Northeast. We wonder whether the US has - even once in the past four years - encouraged the members of Mr. Lunstead’s audience in the American Chamber of Commerce to invest in the Tamil territories.We do know, however, that in all that time, the LTTE has been striving to mobilise the Tamil Diaspora to this end. We do not recall Mr. Lunstead protesting last year when the PTOMS joint mechanism for sharing international aid with the Tamil areas was abrogated by the Colombo government – though we do recall the US refusing to put funds through it when it was finally signed.

    The Tigers must, Mr. Lunstead said, repeating a standard US maxim, ‘renounce terrorism in word and deed.’ Then, he suggested, probably less reassuringly than he intended, there ‘might be’ a role for the LTTE - in Sri Lanka’s development. But curiously enough, his government’s attitude towards the Colombo government does not seem contingent on its behaviour. There has been, for example, no mention of human rights of late - even when ‘disappearances’ and assaults of civilians are reported from the North. Or when five students were summarily executed in Trincomalee. Or when almost a thousand Tamils were arrested enmasse in Colombo. Most importantly, amid widely expressed fears of a renewed war, Mr. Lunstead last week assured the Sinhala nationalist government of his government’s military support in the event of war.

    The Tamils have repeatedly argued that international support for Sri Lanka’s military emboldens the Sinhala nationalists and buttresses Colombo’s intransigence in the peace process. Little wonder then that the JVP and JHU are this week again urging a military solution to the Tamil question. The United States is one of the four Co-Chairs overseeing the peace process. Mr. Lunstead’s comments have thus not only damaged the Co-Chairs credibility as even-handed advocates of a solution amongst Sri Lanka’s communities, but changed the dynamic between the two protagonists at a crucial and sensitive time. As many amongst us are pointing out, the Tamils are receiving a lesson in realpolitik: interests matter more rather values. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Solheim’s visit will end Sri Lanka’s slide towards the abyss. But in the meantime, the Tamils must brace for difficult times ahead. Ambassador Lunstead has said the US ‘wants the cost of war to be high’ and, as the unreconstructed devastation across our homeland testifies, Sri Lanka will, with US support, ensure that.
  • Oppression, resistance and war
    She also spoke frankly to Tamil Guardian about the politics of gender empowerment in Tamil society and the role of the diaspora in the Tamil struggle.

    Military violence against women

    “Women are a voiceless people, so the Army can do anything. Women don’t even like to be alone in their houses, it’s not safe for them. But women are also scared to leave their houses because of the Army. So they are idle, imprisoned in their own homes and even there they are fearful. The Army can come quickly and quietly into their homes, do whatever they want, and get away without ever being punished.”

    “Women have been comparatively more affected by living under the Army’s rule, so they are turning to the Tamil Tigers more. Rape and sexual assault is pervasive under military occupation, so women are more compelled to take arms and protect themselves.”

    A change in social norm

    “Our culture says that women cannot do everything men can, so men must take care of the women. Thus women have to get permission to go to work, to leave the house, to do anything. All sisters are scared of their brothers, afraid of their father and mother, very afraid of all these people who have control over them. As children, they don’t realize this is wrong, they just think it is the way of life. But now that there are women fighters, people are realizing women should be equal.”

    “In old Tamil literature, women were very soft and passive. They were shown as helplessly dependent upon others. When people have been brought up in this culture, they don’t think women can use big vehicles and big weapons. In our culture, women aren’t even allowed to enter the sea for fear of ‘tainting’ the water – only men can do the fishing. But now women fight in these seas as Sea Tigers. Women also used to not be allowed to enter paddy fields traditionally, but now there are women everywhere. Women used to not even be taken to cemeteries to mourn the death of loved ones, but now women are in charge of martyr’s homes. Now female cadres even drive huge buses. No one would have imagined it.”

    “The movement has shown that women can and should be equal. Before women’s liberation simply talked about these vague qualities but never had any proof that women were equal. The movement proved everything. Women have now become recognized for their talents and capabilities. People’s opinions are changing, and families give higher respect to women. They have realized society must also become equal.”

    “Initially male cadres didn’t believe women could fight as well as men can. They challenged women to lift bigger bombs and so forth, and only after seeing the strength of women did male fighters respect them. There are still people saying women are not equal to men, because they grew up believing that all their lives. You can’t suddenly change that, it takes time.”

    Cultural resistance

    “Civilians don’t accept gender equality very easily. The Tiger leadership says to wear pants and act equally to men, but the culture is very strict. University boys may make comments. They have been brought up to think women are not equal, so people must change mentally. But since women have been fighting alongside men within the Tigers, people are beginning to realize they are equal.”

    “Originally, the Tigers did not want to let women join because our cultural norms were so disempowering to women. They were accepted only for first aid work. But these women kept going to the Tiger leadership and demanding they too be allowed to fight. The Tiger leadership realized the passion and capabilities of Tamil women, and so the Birds of Freedom, the female fighters, were born.”

    Theatre therapy

    “There are such serious stresses upon women: so many have been sexually assaulted or raped. Some children have seen their mothers raped in front of them. Or women’s husbands have been killed by the Army. There are so many problems for women under occupied rule. So our theatre group did workshops where we would have meditations and sing songs. People would get very emotional, describing difficult feelings. This brought in their stresses from the outside, and people showed such strong feelings it would break even windows. We had a theatre temple and would discuss women’s problems and how they could improve their lives. This helped build self-confidence, and make women more active on issues they face.”

    “Now looking at Tamil Resurgence Events such as Pongu Tamil, women are more active than men. After women were attempted to be raped in Jaffna, there were more women agitating at the next day’s demonstration, demanding justice. This shows Tamil women have become more empowered.”

    Deteriorating security

    “The Army and police do nothing to stop this violence or the crime. They don’t care about the well-being of Tamil people, so can be paid bribes to do nothing. There are problems with smaller gangs, stealing from people and houses. The Army supports this because they too profit. Before the Tigers had political officers in Jaffna, and everyone was safer then. The Tigers brought law and order to the area, and people knew there would be actual consequences if they did not obey the laws.”

    The compulsion for Tamil self-rule

    “We wanted to try as much as we could to resolve these issues peacefully. Our people understand this. But even after the tsunami, we tried for months to create a structure so aid could come to Tamil areas, but this utterly failed. It was needed for immediate rehabilitation, but it took seven months. Even the international community had to put great pressure on the government, otherwise former president Chandrika Kumaratunga would have dragged it out. But even after signing they didn’t implement it. Our people understand this well. This wasn’t political at all, this aid was needed solely for humanitarian work. But the Sinhala people did not want to give any help to the Tamils, and our people understand this.”

    “So rehabilitation work is going much slower in Tamil areas than in Sinhala areas. Non-governmental organizations which came first promised to do great work and didn’t; even some other NGOs that wanted to help were limited by the government, who made NGOs register extensively. Some NGOs would only give boats or nets to a family, and this would be useless because fishermen need both boats and nets to work. Only the Tamils Rehabilitation Organization really helped people. NGOs said they must definitely give money to the Northeast, but nothing happened. They easily got money from the international community, but this was a waste. Nothing changed. Tamils are still suffering.”

    Militarised peninsula

    “Because of the demarcation of areas as High Security Zones, people can’t visit their own homes. It has been more than 20 years that people have had to leave their houses, and are now living in relatives’ homes, in small small huts. In one room the mother, father and children must live, and this has been very difficult for our people. This is where cultural deterioration happened, where the father may drink too much liquor and start quarrelling with the family. So students would not be able to study in peace. If the parents died, these children would not even be able to find their own houses or land. The government gives one or two houses back, but there are so many thousands still waiting. They just return a few homes for propaganda, but don’t really accomplish anything.”

    Lagging behind

    “There is now more development in Kilinochchi than Jaffna. In Jaffna we need permission from the government to build and conduct projects, but in Kilinochchi there are no such restrictions. There people can build as they want, and there is even a medical college being built. This is great because we have such a shortage of doctors, since ours go abroad to work and so people are desperate for medical help. But now there are Tiger doctors who do mobile work in Jaffna. We’d love to create a medical college like that in Vanni, but the government will not allow us to even open a college. The government truck used to come daily to take the trash in Jaffna, but now the government doesn’t send these trucks. So there is lots of rubbish in the streets. We tell people to keep this in the house, but many people don’t have room in their small small houses and so they have to dump this in the streets.”

    “Our model is Kilinochchi, there is no trash there. There are no children who are abandoned with no one to take care of them. The movement teaches people even if they are poor and have nothing to offer in return. There are places for mothers and fathers who are elderly and alone. There will be these welfare supports all throughout Eelam. Our model will be Kilinochchi. But only after we get a country can we achieve these greater things.”

    Anger, frustration and war

    “People are ready to return to war. They want to fight against the Army and the years of oppression they’ve lived under. People know if the war begins, the Army will come and indiscriminately shoot civilians, so civilians are volunteering for short trainings to learn to defend themselves. At the Jaffna border, the Tigers give training and people go on large buses from Army-occupied areas and tell the Army when they return that they have just been trained. They are not afraid. Tsunami-affected people in Vadamarachy have gone for training, and when they fish and the Army asks them to show their Identification Cards, some refuse in anger, saying they’ve been trained by the Tigers and won’t show their IC. The people are very angry at the Army and their careless treatment of Tamils and their rights. People are ready for the war, with modernized equipment and stronger will. We believe victory will come to us quickly, it will not be a long war. If the situation continues like this, with this covert war on Tamils throughout the Northeast, our fighters may lose their spirits. So we cannot wait for long.”

    “Everyone wants to liberate our lands, but many people are working for their families with little time to actively work for this. Other people don’t participate because they know the government will harass those who support the Tamil cause. But everyone comes for Pongu Tamil and demonstrations like this to show they too are enthusiastic for the liberation of Tamils.”

    “It will be like our last victory at Elephant Pass, where the Army fled so fast to try to go to the Sinhala areas. They were so pitiable, they had no idea where they were and went it all different directions. Many fled from Vavuniya, so now buses are checked at the Army’s checkpoint to make sure no Army soldiers are deserting.”

    Reaching out to the Diaspora

    “We need the help of foreign Tamils. There is such a big scarcity of skills, to build homes and so forth, because for 20 years we couldn’t build anything because the cement wasn’t allowed to come to Tamil areas. So the younger generation does not know these technical skills. People from abroad can come and help train people so we can better develop and progress.”

    “The desire of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka is very clear, from Pongu Tamil and all the resurgence events throughout the Northeast. But in the media this is lost: Reuters said only 40,000 people participated but in actuality 150,000 people attended. The media does not accurately reflect the aspirations of the Tamil people. So anti-propaganda work must be done. This too is like a war, just not by weapons.”

    “Even after the election, when Tamil people decided not to participate, the media tells similar lies. People decided to boycott because they saw nothing could be gained by voting, but the media said it was simply because they were afraid of the Tigers that they didn’t vote. But this was an election for Sinhala people to select their leader; we already have our leader.”

    “The diaspora must tell the world the truth of Tamils. They must explain what it is truly like there, and what people truly want. From now we will not be going through the Sri Lankan government to contact the international community. Now we will only take our state, and ask the international community to recognize us. We have everything already established for our state structure, the political, economic, legal, education, human rights organizations. The Tigers have established a strong welfare state. Even in Jaffna, when people have problems they don’t go to the police they’d rather go to the LTTE. So we are asking the international community to recognize us as a state. This is the work of foreign Tamils.”
  • Complicit silence and moral censure
    Like that of many of his predecessors, the government of Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse has made fresh representations to the international community that his government seeks a negotiated solution to the island’s ethnic conflict whilst, simultaneously, branding its potential partners in peace, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as ‘ruthless terrorists’ whose activities in should be banned in foreign countries. Despite the obvious contradiction in Colombo’s stances toward the LTTE, the publicly adopted positions of foreign actors suggest that they accept Sri Lanka’s case at face value.

    The position adopted by Sri Lanka’s foreign minister this week echoes assertions by former holders of his post (during both times of peace and war) to their counterparts in the international community. Although not all leading states involved in Sri Lanka have readily adopted the anti-LTTE measures demanded by Sri Lanka, their policies have clearly been moulded within Colombo’s framework. The argument goes thus: Sri Lanka is a ‘vibrant’ democracy - perhaps with a few flaws, but those can be addressed in a more peaceful context - but the ‘fanatical’ LTTE is a violent group that places its own interests above those of the people it claims to represent and, as a result, has to be deterred, using any tools available, from plunging the island (back) into war.

    Limiting the discussion to this simplistic dichotomy seems the only way for various foreign actors to understand the island’s conflict and draw up their policies with regards to Sri Lanka. The international tools deployed include providing substantial aid to the state’s civil and military structures, proscribing the LTTE and blunting the organization’s political project. The objective has been to deter the LTTE (the hardline protoganist), from challenging the state and, simultaneously, to bolster the latter against the former. Tamil criticism of such international attitudes has largely turned on the fact that such policies have failed to successfully encourage the Sri Lankan state to offer a reasonable political solution for the ethnic question and, more regrettably, to roll back the persecution and marginalisation the Tamils suffer under the Sinhala-dominated state.

    The bona fides of the new Sri Lankan administration leave a lot to be desired. Having come to power on a Sinhala nationalist wave, the ruling coalition is led by a President whose strong Sinhala Buddhist credentials earned him the support of stridently hard line southern parties. The government’s contradictory signals - calling its future negotiating counterparts ruthless terrorists whilst simultaneously urging peace talks - could be attributed to political naivety or a need to balance different constituencies.

    However, Colombo’s unleashing of military violence against Jaffna’s resients is less forgivable and more revealing of the state’s mindset. Within two months of Rajapakse’s election, the Sri Lankan military, lead by hard-line commanders he has newly installed, have revived a regime of extra-judicial killings, rape, and arbitrary arrests. The state of fear that Sri Lanka was notorious for prior to the ceasefire of 2002 has returned in just weeks.

    Last week the military placed restrictions on the movement of journalists (and the week before that before that on NGO workers) in and out of the Northeast, an ominous step that revives memories of blackouts by past governments of the wholesale atrocities. Perhaps the most appalling signal of the new government’s mindset came, however, from comments by Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweewa to US Secreteray os State Condoleeza Rice. He told her that his government ‘would be unable to prevent’ communal violence against Tamils should the international community fail to intervene to force the LTTE to talks. The thinly veiled threat referred, as Tamils know full well, to the 1983 state-sponsored pogrom against them.

    The justification for the increase in state violence and persecution is the need to confront increasing attacks on Sri Lankan military personnel by Tamil armed groups - which Colombo insists are fronts for the LTTE. The international community has duly commended the Sri Lankan state for its restraint in the face of attacks by these groups. Unfortunately, the international community has also refused to criticize Colombo’s escalating repression against the Tamil civilian population, seeming to endorse it. (Notably, when it comes to restraint, there was little encouragement for LTTE when the organization faced similar and in some cases far more serious provocations by the Sri Lankan military, including the sinking of two ships and the assassinations of prominent regional leaders.)

    Even the assassination of elected Tamil politicians sympathetic to the LTTE by Army-backed paramilitaries – the most recent murder was of Joseph Pararajasingham shot dead whilst attending Christmas Mass – has not drawn a murmur of international protest. The failure by the international community – especially the European Union, which reacted so vehemently to the killing of Foreign Lakshman Kadirgamar - to condemn the murder of a Tamil MP has seriously undermined the moral basis on which international demands are routinely asserted. The international silence accompanying the Sri Lankan armed forces’ ongoing efforts to put down Tamil discontent with ruthless violence - including disappearances and summary executions - is a disturbing sign of things to come: the silence that accompanied Sri Lanka’s blockade on food and medicine into Tamil areas during the earlier round of conflict is by no means forgotten.

    Crucially, for the peace process, and the credibility of its international underwriters, the failure of the Sri Lankan state to adhere to key agreements already reached have also been readily forgiven. Amongst these are the Ceasefire Agreement itself, which stipulates that the state must allow the 800,000 displaced Tamils (nearly a quarter of the Tamil population) to return to their occupied homes. The joint committees set up between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE during the four years with the aim of rehabilitating the Northeast failed due to government lethargy. Yet there was no international criticism. The final cooperative venture between the state and the LTTE was, of course, the failed Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structures (P-TOMS), designed to provide much needed humanitarian assistance to the region worst hit by the natural disaster last year. The declaration by Sri Lanka’s supreme court that the P-TOMS was unconstitutional put paid to that venture. Again, hardly an international protest.

    It cannot have escaped the international community that the Sri Lankan state has absolved its responsibilities for those living outside the areas it controls, as evidenced by the sabotaging of the P-TOMS structure and its earlier efforts to appropriate and divert international aid. By contrast, the LTTE has demonstrated via its civil structures, redevelopment work and humanitarian efforts – especially in the face of the tsunami (and repeated floods) - that it has adopted the role of the state large parts of the Northeast.

    The conventional state/non-state logic is thus not applicable in Sri Lanka, due to the reversal of role between the two primary domestic actors. Hence, concerns that were traditionally considered when contemplating the spectrum of action against the state has to apply to the non-state actor as well. Sri Lanka has asked the United States to shut down the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) for example. Acceding to the request will immediately impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of Tamils who rely on the organization.

    The belligerent state, whose delusional assertion of sovereignty have included unilateral efforts to dislodge Norway, the facilitator in the peace process and whose government is too dependent on extreme right-wing elements to take any constructive steps toward a substantive peace. By contrast, the LTTE has made notable concessions and reached a number of agreements aimed at returning stability and normalcy to the war-torn regions - the latest of which was the ill-fated P-TOMS. The state has chosen to ignore the plight of an entire ethnic community, whilst the non-state actor has built an infrastructure to maintain law and order and provide social services and humanitarian assistance to those living within the areas it controls.

    Over the past two decades the international community has no doubt had to re-evaluate its understanding of the ethnic problem on the island, assisted by academic institutions, which have sought to fit the complex conflict to a model which could explain its observable dynamics. Over a decade ago the conventional wisdom and the line promoted by Colombo, were largely that the LTTE was a fanatical, fringe organization that did not enjoy widespread support amongst the Tamil community and the solution to a peaceful Sri Lanka was the military elimination of the entity, and certain reforms of the state that would placate Tamil grievances. More recent policies suggest that though the international community accepts that the Tamil community have genuine grievances (for which some feel federalism is the necessary solution), it still feels that the LTTE - despite its popular support - is a hardline organization whose end objectives are not aligned to a peaceful solution.

    But the fundamental aspect of the Tamil community’s relationship with the LTTE that the international community has failed to appreciate is that the movement is still the only entity on the island that is still pursuing Tamil interests, both humanitarian and political. Despite four years of peace, the Sri Lankan state has failed to deliver on a single signed agreement, and a quarter of the Tamil population remain displaced from their homes. Amid the impasse on aid, the Sinhala parts of Sri Lanka grow stronger whilst the Tamil parts remain destitute. A situation in which the Northeast remains trapped in an economic stalemate whilst the South prospers economically suits the hawkish Sinhala. Wittingly or otherwise the international community has played a crucial part in this dynamic over the past four years.

    It is in this abject humanitarian environment that Sri Lanka’s foreign ministry is pressuring the members of the European Union to proscribe the LTTE as a terrorist organization. Should the EU buckle under the weight of Sri Lankan diplomatic pressure it would further undermine the bloc’s standing as an impartial actor in the island’s ethnic conflict.

    Under these circumstances, an EU proscription – and its associated moral condemnation - will do little to improve the Europe’s strategic leverage on the island’s deteriorating situation. To date the LTTE has been banned in four major countries where there is a substantial Tamil Diaspora. The organization has continued to thrive despite the proscriptions. However, the states that banned the LTTE have been unable to fully engage in the peace process with both key protagonists. Should the EU follow suit it too will be restricted to working the hawkish new administration of President Rajapkase and third party dialogue via the Norwegian facilitators.

    Most importantly, it will also reinforce Tamil perceptions that realpolitik and not moral imperatives drive policy decisions in foreign capitals and thus re-emphasize the need for self-help and self-reliance in all matters, including security.
  • Basics of making peace
    In the past two weeks, many families in Sri Lankan government-controlled areas have begun fleeing to Tamil Tiger-controlled regions - with good reason: casualties are mounting rapidly amid retaliatory violence by the increasingly hard-pressed Sinhala-dominated military against local civilians. Jaffna has grown increasingly anxious and volatile as ‘disappearances’ again become routine, women are sexually assaulted, and civilians are mercilessly beaten or shot.

    Law and order in Jaffna has almost completely degenerated in recent weeks. The government machinery – save the military occupation – has essentially shut down in Jaffna. Even foreign non-governmental organizations are now not free from attack (six de-mining workers from HALO Trust and the Danish De-mining Group have been abducted in Army-controlled areas this week). Little wonder families are fleeing from military persecution to the Tiger’s de facto administrative capital of Kilinochchi, several miles south along the A9. Almost two thousand families have decamped, according to aid workers there.

    The University of Jaffna has remarkably reopened, even after its protests against military excesses were violently put down by the Army, whose troops even forcibly entered the campus and assaulted students and professors alike. However, those people remaining in Jaffna are facing more violence from the military amid a further degradation of ceasefire. With attacks on soldiers and retaliatory attacks on civilians rising, the idea of a ceasefire has grown laughable to Jaffna residents. Little wonder that violent protests are easily provoked and many civilians areas are turning to thinly disguised LTTE fronts for protection.

    The international community meanwhile continues to call for the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to go back to the negotiating table. The upcoming visit of Eric Solheim, Norway’s former Special Envoy to Sri Lanka and now Oslo’s International Aid minister, is undoubtedly to foster this end.

    However, simply returning to peace talks is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a much more systematic problem. The dynamic in the Northeast has changed greatly since the 2002/3 talks and the landmark Ceasefire Agreement before that. The trust that emerged between the government of the time and the LTTE has eroded slowly but surely amid a series of pernicious actions by Sri Lanka’s leaders. Today both sides are much farther from achieving a consensus on most peace related matters than ever before – except times of open conflict.

    But the unqualified international insistence on new talks reveals a fundamental divergence between the interests of the international community and those of the Tamil community. This is not an ideological problem, but a practical one. The former does not have to live near High Security Zones (or in displaced camps as a consequence of the HSZs), suffer harassment on the way home from school, fear arbitrary arrest or summary execution on a daily basis. Thus, whilst international representatives chant the mantra of talks being the only way forward, the Tamil community is more concerned with clear and ever present safety fears.

    Since President Mahinda Rajapakse was elected on the hardline anti-peace platform, it is unlikely either he or his Sinhala nationalist political allies would uphold, let alone consolidate, earlier progress in the peace process. Any talks would thus begin further behind than where they stalled and stall again even sooner than before. Under such conditions, what does it mean to rush for peace talks?

    Instead of blindly demanding the resumption of talks, the international community should first demand the full implementation of the ceasefire, in particular the restoration of normalcy. This would greatly diminish the ongoing violence in Jaffna by actively demilitarizing the peninsula. Sri Lankan troops would finally leave the homes of local residents. Women would not fear sexual assault; youth need not fear arrest or disappearance. The media, NGOs and local civil society can function freely.

    The ‘shadow war’ has been ongoing for at least two years now, bringing the risk of sudden death or worse to every Tamil street and home in the Army-controlled parts of the Northeast. The government must be compelled to disarm paramilitary groups to regain the trust of the Tamil people, let alone the LTTE, in the peace process. Sri Lankan troops are understandably on edge now due to escalating violence by Tigers or Tiger-backed groups. But for a considerable time, the Tamil Resurgence rallies have seen swelling attendance, reflecting long-simmering anger at military occupation and daily harassment. Now that anger is being channeled into undisguised support for the Tigers.

    This weak start – demilitarization - is all that can be asked for. In any other country, it might be reasonable to demand the government investigate and punish military/paramilitary attacks on civilians. But in Sri Lanka, justice has been replaced by a plethora of forgotten committees and commissions. The culture of impunity that is allowing and exacerbating attacks on Tamils must be convincingly eliminated for people to believe that anything other than the threat of LTTE realiation can deter military excess. Only this week the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) decried the six-year delay in prosecuting the soldiers responsible for the murders of those buried in the mass graves in Chemmani. AHRC condemned the attorney general’s office itself, stating: “delays in court trials as well as due process amount to a clear betrayal of justice.”

    Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said recently his government is “still willing to walk that extra mile for peace.” But any meaningful steps towards peace must start by demilitarization. That means ending the shadow war and the harassment of civilians. These steps are not bargaining chips for the negotiation table; they are fundamental steps of building confidence. They are the basic steps of peace itself.
  • Claymores and compellence
    The unprecedented violence that has gripped Sri Lanka’s Northeast lately has alarmed observers of the island’s protracted conflict and sparked fears of a return to all out war. Apart from the continuing cycle of targeted killings in the shadow war between the Liberation Tigers and Sri Lankan military intelligence, there are two new aspects to the violence. One is the violent public protests in Jaffna against Sri Lankan security forces (and the latter’s heavy handed responses). The other, and for many, the most alarming, is the series of devastating claymore attacks which have killed over sixty soldiers and sailors since mid December.

    Despite the LTTE’s formal denials, for many it is the only actor capable of carrying out such lethal attacks – a point underscored by the destruction last Friday of a Sri Lanka Navy gunboat in which another dozen sailors were killed. Moreover, these attacks are taking amid a general campaign of harassment gun and grenade attacks against military positions and patrols, particularly in Jaffna.

    The sudden and unpredicted escalation in the violence last month and, in particular, the heavy casualties have convinced many observers that a full-blown war is only a short time away. The escalation, many also feel, is part of a general buildup towards such an eventuality that the LTTE is pursuing – the Tigers are, it is argued, attempting to goad the Sri Lankan military into a truce-shattering retaliation. Perhaps. But a closer look at the dynamics of the Sri Lanka’s peace process lends weight to another view: the LTTE is driving the new government of President Mahinda Rajapakse not to war, but to the table.

    To begin with, compared to the attacks which characterized past LTTE guerrilla campaigns, the recent attacks are neither as sustained nor, for that matter, as lethal as they could quite easily be. Whilst undoubtedly raising the strain on the military, the recent attacks are not yet inflicting unbearable casualties nor seriously disrupting military operations in the localities where they are taking place. A cursory study of the campaign the LTTE unleashed in the eastern province (of which the Special Task Force suffered the brunt) in the wake of its retreat from Jaffna in 1995 reveals its true capability for guerilla warfare. And that was ten years ago.

    However, alongside the degrading security situation in the Northeast, a number of crucial, albeit begrudging, policy changes in Colombo over the past few weeks suggest a slow drift towards, not away, from talks. Of course, both the government and the LTTE both regularly assert their commitment to negotiations. But in the latter part of 2005, President Rajapakse came to be seen - for a variety of valid reasons - as a hardliner opposed to compromise and a negotiated peace - so much so his very election to office, assisted to a great degree by a controversial Tamil boycott, plunged many peace advocates into despair. But now, despite his tough positioning before the polls, President Rajapakse is being steadily impelled down the path to negotiations with the LTTE.

    Amongst the most clear-cut positions on the peace process that Mr. Rajapakse and his Sinhala nationalist allies, the JVP and the JHU, adopted before the November 17 polls were: (1) a rejection of Norway as peace broker (2) an immediate redrafting of the February 2002 ceasefire agreement (CFA) and (3) a restriction of future talks to Sri Lankan soil – a long-overdue reassertion of sovereignty, in their view.

    Mr. Rajapakse’s manifesto was unequivocal: “The [ceasefire] agreement had been reached without the consensus of the people of the country. Attempts were made to forcibly put this agreement on the public.” As a consequence, Mr. Rajapakse said, “I will readjust the CFA in a manner that terrorist activities have no place. I will take remedial action after reviewing the CFA monitoring process.”

    As for peace talks, he declared: “I will give the LTTE a specific time frame and a specific agenda [for talks].” That agenda moreover, could comprise, “Ending separatism, Disarming, Entering the democratic process [and] Final solution and its implementation.”

    As for international involvement: “[The crisis] has spread throughout the country, without being confined to the north and east. It has spread over the region and even internationally. The interference of outsiders has complicated the issue.” Criticising his opposition, Mr. Rajapakse added, more pointedly: “I believe that the intervention of foreign countries into our problems have been unnecessarily created [by the UNP].” Briefing reporters at the manifesto launch, Mr. Rajapakse’s chief election campaigner – and now Foreign Minister – Mangala Samaraweera declared: “The role of Norwegian facilitation and the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) will be reviewed immediately. They are not actually doing what they should be doing and we will review it.”

    Indeed, in his key speeches soon after winning the November 17 polls, Mr. Rajapakse pointedly ignored Norway’s offer – issued within hours of his victory being announced - to resume peace brokering. Instead, he made it clear that he preferred India to take over - and, essentially, coerce the LTTE to the table on Colombo’s terms. But even as Delhi - for a number of domestic and international reasons - deftly avoided becoming mired once again in Sri Lanka’s quagmire, events on the ground took a turn for the worse.

    Whilst the violent protests – and the numerous gun and grenade attacks - that erupted in Jaffna in late November startled many observers, the two claymore attacks of December 4th and 6th - each of which killed at least six soldiers and wounded many more - sent shockwaves through Mr. Rajapakse’s government. On December 7th, Colombo issued a statement: “President Rajapakse [has] invited the Royal Norwegian Government to continue its role as facilitator to the Peace Process in Sri Lanka.” Furthermore, the statement said, he had met with the four Co-chairs - US, UK (EU Presidency) Japan and Norway - “to brief them on his on-going consultations and preparatory work for the continuation of the peace process.”

    Amidst the uproar over the blasts themselves, many missed the significance of not one, but two u-turns that Mr. Rajapakse had made – on Norway, in particular, and international involvement in general. But there was more to come.

    The vexed issue of the venue promptly surfaced – just as it had three months earlier amid international pressure (renewed in the wake of the assassination of Foreign Lakshman Kadirgamar )for talks on stabilizing the CFA. The problem was quite simple: Sri Lankan did not want talks outside the island, the LTTE did. This, moreover, was because an international venue, Colombo argued, would accord the LTTE undue recognition and legitimacy. Instead the government – of outgoing President Chandrika Kumaratunga, in which Rajapakse was Premier - suggested no man's land. Rejecting this on security grounds, the LTTE insisted on talks either in Kilinochchi, which it controlled, or in Norway - “a neutral venue and one of few countries where we are not banned.” The government rejected both. Oslo’s rather desperate ‘compromise’ suggestion of Colombo airport as a venue was rejected by the LTTE. Amid disagreement over the venue, Norwegian peace efforts promptly foundered anew.

    However, a few days after the first two claymores exploded (as well as a couple of near misses and the discovery of more unexploded mines), there was another u-turn in Colombo. On December 11, Japanese Special Peace Envoy, Yasushi Akashi, who was visiting the island declared - out of the blue- that President Rajapakse’s government was prepared to hold talks “outside Sri Lanka.” Japan, he added, was placing an offer to host the negotiations on the table. The LTTE - for reasons many observers feel are linked to a threatened European Union ban - has again said it wants talks to be held in Oslo and the wrangling continues. But amid the imbroglio, the significance of yet another retreat by Mr. Rajapakse and the Sinhala hardliners was lost.

    There is also, in contrast to pre-poll tub-thumping, a noticeable prudence in Colombo. Despite undisguised anger and customary rhetoric, the government is demonstrably wary of further escalations. This week a claymore tore through another military vehicle, killing ten more sailors. But in contrast to the dismissive, even contemptuous attitude laid out in his manifesto, Mr. Rajapakse is shying away from excessive vitriol. Indeed, as government spokesman Nimal Siripala de Silva told reporters Thursday, “the president has asked the armed forces not to provoke the LTTE and to abide by the cease-fire agreement.”

    Colombo’s reversals on key positions are arguably impelled by the sharp rise in violence over the past few weeks. No doubt Delhi’s pointed refusal to get involved in Sri Lanka’s peace process – and the Co-chairs repeated insistence even now that talks must be held with the LTTE are factors, but then these are not newly adopted positions. For students of international politics, however, the dynamic at play in Sri Lanka could be captured by the notion of coercive diplomacy (or compellence as it is sometimes referred to): the use of threats or limited force to persuade an opponent to call off or undo an undesirable course of action.

    It began on November 27 with an explicit statement by LTTE Vellupillai Pirapaharan. “The new government should come forward soon with a reasonable political framework that will satisfy the political aspirations of the Tamil people,” he said. “If the new government rejects our urgent appeal, opts for a hard-line position and adopts delaying tactics, we will, next year, in solidarity with our people, intensify our struggle for self-determination, our struggle for national liberation to establish self-government in our own homeland.”

    Notably, although the LTTE leader criticized Colombo’s rejection of the interim self-governing authority (ISGA) and the Post-Tsunami Operations and Management Structure (P-TOMS), he did not demand their revival, insisting instead on ‘a reasonable political framework that will satisfy the political aspirations of the Tamil people.’ President Rajapakse – who even earned a compliment as ‘a realist, committed to pragmatic politics’ – thus has been offered a very wide door to walk through.

    But, from the LTTE's perspective, the President has an immediate responsibility before that – to end Colombo’s ongoing support for anti-LTTE paramilitaries and their shadow war against the Tigers. As Mr. Pirapaharan made clear, “disarming the Tamil paramilitary groups is an obligation of the state under terms of the Ceasefire Agreement.”

    Theorising the practice of Coercive Diplomacy in 'Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Problems of Our Time', academics Gordon Craig and Alexander George list the three essential components of an ultimatum as: “a specific, clear demand, a time limit for compliance, and a threat of punishment for non-compliance which is both credible and sufficiently potent to impress upon the opponent that compliance is preferable.” All three elements can clearly be seen in the LTTE leader’s Heroes Day speech.

    But for coercive diplomacy to work, Craig and George argue, the coercer must create in the opponent’s mind: “a sense of urgency for compliance with its demand; a belief that the coercer is more highly motivated to achieve its stated demand than the opponent is to oppose it, and a fear of unacceptable escalation if the demand is not accepted.” It can be confidently argued that the intermittent, but devastating claymore attacks of the past six weeks are arguably doing just that.

    Coercive diplomacy must be distinguished from pure coercion, Craig and George point out: the former “seeks to persuade the opponent to cease his aggression, rather than bludgeon him into stopping.” The combination of threats and exemplary uses of force are intended to persuade the opponent to back down - rather than stopping it with brute force. Coercive diplomacy thus calls for “just enough force to demonstrate one’s resolve and the credibility of one’s determination to use more force is necessary.” It also demands “one gives the opponent an opportunity to [comply] before escalating.”

    The intermittent, yet persistent attacks on Sri Lankan security forces can be seen as fitting such a pattern, rather than one of an inexorable and deliberate build up to a major confrontation with Sri Lanka’s military. For almost two years, the LTTE has been engaged in an escalating shadow war against Army-backed paramilitaries which international ceasefire monitors say has killed hundreds of people - LTTE cadres, paramilitaries, intelligence officers and civilians. The escalation of the past few weeks can thus be understood as a shift by the LTTE from using sheer force to deter Colombo to using a phased series of compelling pressures instead.

    That Colombo must end its support for the paramilitary groups is not, in itself, a new demand. But there undoubtedly is, now, a sense of urgency that has galvanized the major actors in the peace process. Following this logic, the trajectory of Sri Lanka’s violence can be judged from the likelihood or not of whether President Rajapakse’s government will heed the advice of the Co-Chairs, who last September declaring they “deplore the activities of paramilitary groups, which fuel the cycle of violence and unrest,” demanded Colombo “disarm or relocate these groups from the north and east.”
  • War clouds and ground realities
    LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran, a ruthless master strategist, has once again set a cat among the pigeons by issuing a virtual ultimatum to the Sri Lankan government in his much-awaited annual birthday speech on November 27.

    He warned newly elected president Mahinda Rajapakse that in case the latter did not come forward with a reasonable set of proposals to end the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, the LTTE and the Tamil people would revert to armed struggle to achieve self-determination.

    The immediate reaction of Colombo was to dispatch new foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera to New Delhi seeking advice and support.

    It is indeed ironical that after conspiring with LTTE to force a humiliating withdrawal of the Indian army from Sri Lanka in 1990, Colombo now seeks New Delhi’s intervention and wants it to play a decisive role as the regional superpower to bring about a durable settlement.

    It is even more ironical that after having played a hyper interventionist role in Sri Lanka, India now refuses to get involved and has maintained a low profile. India has been described as a reluctant hegemon, unwilling to intervene, yet very sensitive to a proactive role by any foreign country in Sri Lanka.

    The bloody conflict between the LTTE and the Indian Peace Keeping Force as well as the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi snapped all channels of communication between India and the LTTE. These events have also hamstrung India’s policy in dealing with the Sri Lankan crisis.

    Frustrated and fed-up with the bloody conflict between Sri Lankan forces and the LTTE in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the Indian army in 1990, the Sri Lankans voted decisively for Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in 1995 as she had fought these elections on a peace platform.

    Though a scion of the Bandaranaike family, she then presented the most liberal face of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP). Kumaratunga immediately began negotiations with the LTTE. Deep mistrust dogged the negotiations leading to resumption of conflict.

    Kumaratunga and the Sri Lankan armed forces felt if they could defeat the LTTE militarily, durable peace could be achieved, but this was reduced to a shambles in the face of LTTE’s prowess in conventional warfare and terrorist tactics.

    It was not surprising, therefore, that in 2001, it was the turn of the UNP, led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, to win the parliamentary elections defeating Kumaratunga’s SLFP, promising a negotiated settlement with the LTTE. What cannot be won at the battlefield cannot be obtained at the negotiating table.

    Talks between Colombo and the LTTE facilitated by Norway could never make real progress because of the widely different perception of Colombo and the LTTE of what should constitute an equitable settlement. As Kumaratunga continued to remain the president, it was now her turn to play the spoilsport.

    She exploited the latent fears of the Sinhala community, aligned with the extremist Sinhala parties like the JVP, and sabotaged the nascent peace process by dismissing Ranil’s government in 2004. Rajapakse used the same tactics to win the recently held presidential elections.

    His pronouncement on peace talks, therefore, will hardly carry credibility with the LTTE. What surprised everyone was LTTE’s call to Tamils to boycott the presidential elections. This ruined the chances of Ranil who was perceived as a dove.

    There are four lakh Tamil voters in the LTTE-controlled areas of the northern and eastern provinces and had they been allowed to vote, Ranil undoubtedly would have won. Was this mindless cussedness or deliberate strategy of the LTTE? It appears LTTE reckoned that Ranil, despite his best intentions, would not be in a position to deliver.

    It would be more purposeful to negotiate with Rajapakse who may be in a better position to rein in the Sinhala chauvinist elements. It is not surprising therefore that within days of the victory of Rajapakse, Prabhakaran has demanded proposals for a settlement of the ethnic crisis.

    He has also threatened to resume the armed conflict to achieve self-determination, national liberation and establishment of self-government in Tamil ‘homeland’.

    Implicit in the statement is that the LTTE may settle for less then ‘self-determination’ and ‘national liberation’ for the Tamil homeland in case a settlement is achieved through dialogue.

    In view of ground realities, the Sri Lankan government, India and the international community would do well to work for a negotiated settlement based on a federal structure allowing substantive devolution of powers to the Tamils.

    These may have to be much beyond those envisaged in the Indian Constitution. The LTTE will only settle for a somewhat more loose federation. India will have to overcome its anathema for the LTTE and accept the primacy of LTTE in Tamil polity.

    Resumption of conflict would be disastrous for Sri Lanka and for vital Indian interests. Colombo would be pushed into the waiting arms of Pakistan and China. It will be to these countries that Colombo would look to for the supply of vital military hardware to take on the LTTE, as India would be hamstrung by the sentiments in Tamil Nadu.

    J K Sinha, the writer of this Times of India editorial, published on Dec 15, 2005, is former special secretary of India''s intelligence wing, RAW.
  • Helgesen heads Swedish democracy IGO
    Vidar Helegesen, the former Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister who led his government’s facilitation mission in talks between the Liberation Tigers and the Sri Lankan government is now heading a Swedish intergovernmental organisation.

    Mr. Helgesen left the Foreign Ministry after the change in government in Oslo in September 2005. He has taken up a post as the new secretary-general of the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

    Mr. Helgesen served as Norway’s deputy minister of foreign affairs from October 2001 until October 2005. His portfolio included human rights and democracy, refugee issues, peace and reconciliation processes, and UN policy matters, IDEA pointed out in a statement announcing his appointment.

    “We are very pleased to appoint Mr. Helgesen as our new secretary-general,” said IDEA Board Chairperson Lena Hjelm-Wallén.

    “He will provide the leadership and vision necessary to reach IDEA’s aims, which are to promote and advance sustainable democracy worldwide and contribute to an increased effectiveness of democracy building”.

    Mr. Helgesen lead Norwegian facilitatory efforts in Sri Lanka, chairing six rounds of talks between the LTTE and Colombo from September 2002 to March 2003.

    Helgesen is the third IDEA secretary-general to lead the Institute, currently comprised of some 50 employees representing 26 nationalities. He will assume his responsibilities at IDEA’s Strömsborg headquarters on 17 January 2006.

    Founded in 1995 as an initiative of the Swedish Parliament, IDEA is an intergovernmental organization with a mandate to promote sustainable democracy worldwide. It has 23 member states from six continents, and four international NGOs as associate members.

    IDEA’s field offices are located in Costa Rica, Peru, Mexico, Indonesia, Ghana, South Africa and Armenia.

    The IGO says it “works with both new and long-established democracies to help develop and strengthen the institutions and culture of democracy,” focussing on three thematic areas: “democracy building and conflict management; electoral processes; and political parties, with gender as a cross-cutting topic.”

    In all three areas, the Institute says it seeks “to contribute to improved design and effectiveness of key democratic institutions, and to contribute to strengthened democratic processes.”

    In the past 10 years, IDEA has produced more than 100 publications in 10 languages for democracy practitioners.


    Mr. Helgesen (c) pictured at a press conference in September 2002 with Sri Lanka's Chief Negotiator, Prof. G. L. Peiris (l) and LTTE Chief negotiator, Mr. Anton Balasingham.
  • New Zealand urged to probe MP’s ‘execution’
    A commemoration of the first year anniversary of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster organised by COTANZ ( Consortium of Tamil Associations of New Zealand) also became a memorial meeting for Mr Joseph Pararajasingham, a Tamil MP who was assassinated during midnight Christmas Mass in Batticoloa.

    The event was held at Alexandra Park in Auckland and attended by Chris Carter, Minister of Ethnic Affairs, and Keith Locke MP.

    A memorial monument for tsunami victims and a portrait of Mr Parrajasingam were placed on the stage where those attending paid their respects.

    Mr. Carter and Mr Locke paid flower tributes to the memorial monument and portrait of Mr Pararajasingham and addressed the meeting.

    Both spoke of their meeting with Mr Pararajasingham in May this year when he visited to New Zealand. They described him as a warm and gentle man and his assassination is a serious blow the already faltering peace process.

    The Aceh People Forum representative, Mr Zulfikar, also spoke.

    Representatives from various Tamil organizations including Tamil Studies and Human Rights Trust, Auckland Arts and Literature Circle, Tamil Senior Citizens, Tamil Community Education, Tamil Medical Doctors Association and Tamil Cultural Group also spoke at the meeting.

    Messages from Wellington Tamil Society and COTANZ Wellington branch were read out at the event presided by Mr Mervyn Consitine.

    A statement released at the end of the meeting said:

    “Expatriates Tamils from Sri Lanka living in New Zealand condemn the perpetrators who murdered a leading Tamil politician, Mr Pararajasingham in a church on Christmas Eve in Sri Lanka.

    “Mr Pararajasingham, a Member of Parliament, was a long standing champion of human rights and an influential legislator. He recently visited Auckland with his wife (who was also shot and in a serious condition) and addressed a large gathering of expatriate Tamils. He emphasized that peace in Sri Lanka can only be achieved through a peace process and not by violence. Mr Pararajasingham further reiterated that State sponsored terrorism must stop and instead protection to all people must be effectively provided by the State.

    The Sri Lankan Government must examine why their own armed personnel, who were providing Mr Pararajasingham with protection, failed to prevent this tragedy.

    “The COTANZ (Consortium of Tamil Organizations Association of New Zealand) appeal to the Government of New Zealand to condemn the killing and to also use their good office to rally with other nations around the world to investigate this brutal murder and to bring peace in Sri Lanka through meaningful negotiations and not by use of arms.”

    Separately, the Indonesia Human Rights Committee said it was “deeply shocked to learn of the execution of Mr. Pararajasingham.”

    “We found him to be a warm and extremely able man with an intimate knowledge of human rights issues in Sri Lanka and internationally. He was deeply committed to the task of achieving equal rights and justice for the Tamil people,” the IHRC said.

    “We believe that in Sri Lanka as in Indonesia there are vested interests who do not support peace and that there are paramilitary groups who work in close co-ordination with sections of the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka,” the group said.

    “We appeal to the New Zealand Government to make representations to the Government of Sri Lanka and to call for an urgent investigation into the death of Mr Pararajasingham so that those responsible can be brought to account. We also recommend that the Government initiate a fact finding mission to Sri Lanka of local and international human rights experts to assess the situation.”
  • Response of a disgruntled Tamil
    The Jaffna man is neither uneducated nor needs to be educated by others about his rights and privileges. Expecting him to cast his vote to a party, which has done the maximum possible damage to the Tamil community, was irrational and illogical. Expecting him to cast his vote to a leader who has brought the war to an end and taken a step forward by signing a cease-fire, was rational, but where that leader had gone wrong was when he thought that the Jaffna people had no choice but to vote him in order to prevent another war. Many people in Jaffna had taken a decision, well before the LTTE announced its ‘non interest’ in the polls, that they should not vote to any candidate. It was further fortified by the LTTE’s backing. The Jaffna man was not a stupid to cast his vote in gratitude to a leader for the mere reason that the particular leader stopped the war. He had realized that particular leader’s inability to mobilize or change the mindset in the South to deliver a reasonable political solution to the Tamil people.

    There is one opinion doing the rounds in the South now that the Jaffna people had betrayed the UNP. UNP had to sign the cease-fire agreement to prevent the division of the country and for economic revival. The UNP leader did not sign the CFA for the love he had for the Tamil people, but he had no option but to stop the war immediately in order to prevent further destabilization of the country. Now with the CFA in force for three long years, there had been some revival of the economy and the people in the South had totally forgotten the effect of war. The people in the South, who voted UNP to power in 2001, had already betrayed the UNP in 2004 by bringing that government down. They were given another chance in 2005, but they had decided to betray the man who brought the war to an end and stopped the arrival of coffins in dozens to the villages in the South. Hence, it was not a betrayal by the Tamils, but by the Sinhalese, who had forgotten the effect of the bloody war, in which they were losing heavily.

    It should be noted that Tamils played no role in electing Mr Wickremesinghe the Prime Minister in 2001. Hence they took the right decision this year to boycott the election so that the world could sense the support for a federal solution in the South.

    I still remember the speech by former Prime Minister R Premadasa made at the Union College grounds in Jaffna in 1981, when he said: “we should snap the sword from the enemy’s hand and cut his head with his own sword”. The Jaffna man is no fool to place his confidence in a leader from the South, leaving aside the Tamil leadership in the North East, let it be a democratic leadership or a dictatorship or even a terrorist leadership. There is a saying in Tamil, “arasanai nambi purushanai kaividaathe”, which means, “do not abandon your husband, placing your reliance in the king”.

    Tamils have passed the stage of looking for concessions from the South. Now they have reached a higher platform of negotiating on their aspirations. They are not going to be hoodwinked by those who thought that by giving carrots they can win the support of the people in the North. The people will, of course, accept the carrots, but will not abandon their husbands for the sake of the kings.

    I challenge any author to list down the reasons as to why the Tamil people should have participated in the elections and more specifically, as to why they should have voted the UNP. I am prepared to counter them in a rational manner.

    Failure to understand the psyche of the Jaffna man and continuing to write columns as if you are the newly found saviors of the people of Jaffna, is not going to help in any way towards bringing inter-territorial harmony. Try to read the minds of the people, who have been affected by a bloody war waged by their own governments, for over three decades. Try to bring out their stories in the newspapers and let the people in the South know what their ‘Heroes’ had been doing in Jaffna during the times of war, like dropping human shit from the skies over the heads of the Tamil people. Let the leaders, who had been in the governments that waged those wars, come out and tender their apology to the Tamil people in public on their own behalf and on behalf of their parties. When that process starts, we can expect some reciprocation from the Jaffna man.

    (Edited)
  • Flying start to ETA’s cricket tournament
    If there is one thing that most people will agree about in Victoria, it is that summer means fantastic warm weather and great cricket. It is that time of the year again, when aspiring young cricketers try and organise themselves into competitive teams to battle it out for weeks on end to win the coveted ETA Cricket Tournament Cup.

    The ETA Cricket Tournament is the annual softball competition organised by the Eelam Tamil Association of Victoria (ETA). It is a community based competition, open to all ages essentially promoting the importance of creating a cohesive Tamil community in Victoria and giving people the opportunity to play sport competitively whilst engaging in a social community environment.

    The competition has been running for many years now and current players can testify that the games are great for testing their cricketing abilities, promoting a healthy lifestyle and also creating lasting friendships.

    According to this year’s tournament coordinator, Sivas Sivaskanthan, the players’ response to the tournament was very positive.

    “We had 18 teams wanting to register for this season, but unfortunately due to venue capacity constraints we could only accommodate 14. Current indications from the ETA Tournament Committee are that next year we could see the competition expanding over 2 venues.”

    He regretted that although advertisements for the tournament were carried extensively in the Tamil media, the message did not reach some of the teams.

    “We had one team who claimed to have tried asking Tamil shops where to register and failed to get the right information. By the time they did, the deadline had passed. We hope next year they would check for information from either the Tamil fortnightly newspaper Elamurasu or the English fortnightly Tamil Guardian. Radios such as 3ZZZ and 3CR would also be a good source.”

    The first round of the season began on the 4th of December 2005, amid great expectations from each team that this was going to be their year of glory. The competitiveness showed even before the first ball was bowled, with last year’s winners Colombo Hindu ‘A’ receiving close scrutiny from the other teams at the pre-season captain’s meeting held at the Vermont South Community Center.

    Asked if his team was feeling the pressure this year, S. Pratheeban, Colombo Hindu A’s manager replied, “This is nothing new to us. It only wants us to win this season more than ever. Winning is the only language we know.”

    The first Sunday of the games saw the teams settling into the tournament, with both batsman and bowlers trying to find their way around the soft yellow ball. The day of play exposed the ball’s ability to lift with wind, even with good strong strokes, and saw many a good batsman get caught out to the outfielders.

    The second round, on the 11th of December, became more competitive with the teams settling in and the players getting used to the conditions at the Hislop ovals. There were a few great players out on the field, in particular Thiruparan Navarathnaraja who scored a century playing for Tamils Eleven, against Victorian Panthers and Sanger Mahalingam again from Tamils Eleven ripping though the Panthers batting line up with 6 wickets.

    However, the game of the day went to the match between Melbourne United and Colombo Hindu A. In what was a closely fought match, Melbourne United gained the initial advantage by pinning down Colombo Hindu A to 60 runs within 22 overs, requiring the later to need 50 runs in 8 overs to win the game.

    With the intense battle taking pace on the pitch, Melbourne Uniteds’ management spotted an infringement on the field where two of Colombo Hindu A’s players failed to comply with the rules of the tournament by not wearing white shirts fully visible to the public. A compliant was swiftly filed resulting in a one-point deduction to Colombo Hindu A if they were to win.

    Annoyed by the penalty and fired up by the complaint, Colombo Hindu fought back vigorously slowly clawing their way to the target score.

    With the game so tightly poised it seemed inevitable that there would be some close calls for the umpire. Needless to say, it came in the dying minutes of the game with Melbourne United strongly appealing for the lbw of Colombo Hindu A’s Hinas Shaffaz. The umpire, Mohamed Jameel, declined the appeal. Colombo Hindu A, in the end, went on to win the game. The spectators on the pavilion called this the best game to date in this year’s tournament.

    The third round of matches, played on the 18th of December showcased excellent cricketing talent with the Westside Cricket Club scoring the highest ever innings in the tournament, a massive 402 runs against Victorian Panthers, with Pratheep Thangavadivel being the star player scoring 147 runs off 50 balls. The match was thrilling to watch as batsmen from the Westside Cricket Club were constantly hitting the ball over the boundary for sixes.

    These initial weeks of the competition have displayed some of the best cricket the tournament has had to offer and all teams and spectators are now anticipating what will ensue in the following weeks of the ETA Cricket Tournament.

    The results of the matches played on 4th of December 2005 were, Westsiders def Arun Box Hill, Colombo Hindu ‘A’ def Victorian Panthers, Melbourne United def Tamils Eleven, Dravidar def Dravidar ‘A’, Colombo Hindu ‘B’ def Ilamthendral, and Swinburne def Colombo Hindu ‘B’.

    The results for matches played on 11th of December 2005 were, MCA def Dravidar ‘A’, Illamthendral def Colombo Hindu, Swinburne def Colombo Hindu ‘B’ by walk over, Hard Hitters def Arun Box Hill, Colombo Hindu ‘A’ def Melbourne United, and Tamils Eleven def Victorian Panthers.

    The results for matches played on 18th of December 2005 were, Melbourne United def Hard Hitters, Westsiders def Victorian Panthers, Colombo Hindu ‘A’ def Arun Box Hill, MCA def Colombo Hindu , Dravidar def Colombo Hindu ‘B’ and Dravidar ‘A’ def Illamthendral.
  • Allies in a changing world
    United States and India have grown extraordinarily close in the year that is about to leave us. The reigning superpower and the rising Asian giant have taken unprecedented strides over the past several months to bridge the half a century wide gulf. Last week’s Indo-US talks in Washington, aimed at strategic defence cooperation that includes sharing of nuclear technology, have taken this growing proximity to another level.

    It was the Narasimha Rao government that turned around India’s traditional foreign policy in 1990s ending decades of indifferent relations with Washington. Again, it was under Rao that India reversed its anti-Israel policy establishing diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. The BJP-led NDA government stepped up the process of normalisation with the US. But the high point in India-US relationship came earlier this year with the meeting of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush with US recognising India as a ‘responsible nuclear state.’

    But what is forcing US and India into each other’s arms? While democracy is often and rightly cited as the binding factor, it is not the only reason that is attracting the two countries to each other. The world of realpolitik is not always ruled by ideals such as democracy. More often than not, it is common interests, rather than common values, that dictate the world of international relations. And India-US ties are no exception.

    India needs the superpower’s support as it seeks to play a greater role on the world stage in accordance with its size, power and numbers. After all, it is the world’s largest and successful democracy; it is expected to outgrow China soon in terms of population. Within a couple of decades, India is likely to emerge as one of the world’s four largest economies along with US, China and Japan. In defence terms, it has one of the largest and powerful armies on the earth. Besides, it is one of the few nuclear powers in addition to Pakistan, Israel and the Big Five of UN Security Council, of course.

    US requires to engage India in its own geopolitical interests in Asia and the Middle East. For one, it needs India’s cooperation to contain and counterbalance the other emerging superpower, China. Although the red dragon has betrayed no ambitions for global hegemony so far and is largely focused on building its economic muscle, you never know when a pacifist power may develop a weakness for imperial grandeur. The US ties with the traditional ally, Pakistan, remain as strong as ever. In fact, they have only strengthened after 9/11. Pakistan remains America’s trusted friend in an uncertain neighbourhood. But Washington is looking for more allies, and reassurances, in a changed world. It’s thanks to this trump card that Washington was recently able to checkmate Iran in IAEA. After all, there are no permanent friends or enemies in the world of international relations, only permanent interests.

    Editorial published 27 December 2005
  • UN unhappy with post-tsunami efforts
    Even after one year since the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami wreaked havoc in about ten coastal countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people and leaving behind a trail of destruction, a large number of survivors still live in miserable conditions, waiting to be rehabilitated, a UN report has said.

    Women are increasingly vulnerable to physical and sexual violence, according to Mr Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing of the UN Commission on Human Rights, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s Representative on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), Walter Kälin.

    “We are concerned that a year later, reconstruction efforts are plagued by serious delays and have not been awarded the priority they so urgently warrant,” they said in their report.

    “On this, the one-year anniversary of the Asian tsunami, we strongly encourage the international community to intensify its efforts to assist the governments of India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Thailand and Somalia to rebuild the lives, livelihoods and homes of those affected by the Tsunami, in fulfilment of their obligations under international human rights law,” they said.

    The experts cited as examples poor living conditions that fail to meet international human rights standards, lack of attention to high numbers of IDPs, lack of access to basic services like water, sanitation and healthcare, inequities in aid distribution and failure to involve affected communities in aid distribution and reconstruction.

    The statement said that although international attention seemed to be waning rapidly, post-Tsunami challenges continued to have an enormous impact on affected communities, family structures and social relations. This was particularly so in case of women and vulnerable groups like children.

    The experts said the presence of military forces in some camps where Tsunami survivors are living, as well as the lack of privacy in temporary shelters, raised serious concerns regarding women’s physical safety, and has increased their vulnerability to physical and sexual violence, illustrating once again the close nexus between violence against women and the lack of adequate housing.

    “Reports of domestic violence have been widespread, as the inadequate nature of housing design and settlement layout have only served to exacerbate already tense relations in the home due to the stressful nature of life post-Tsunami,” it said.

    Noting that the phenomenon of so-called ‘tsunami marriages’ among under-age girls was common in some areas, especially in southern India and Sri Lanka, they said it was essential that relief and rehabilitation efforts were carried out in a gender-sensitive manner and take into account the special needs and concerns of women.

    Efforts must also be made to uphold the rights of children, they also said. Special guarantees should be put in place for orphaned children to enable them to receive entitlements to land and compensation instead of merely absorbing them into existing family units exercising temporary guardianship.

    The experts recommended urgent steps like increased accountability of public and private aid providers towards the people they are trying to assist, a more pro-active role in reconstruction efforts by governments, mechanisms ensuring transparency in disbursal of funds and concerted efforts to ensure that political interests do not threaten rehabilitation work, especially in conflict-ravaged areas.
  • Remembering the tsunami
    Mourners from across the world wept, prayed and observed moments of silence along ravaged Indian Ocean coastlines on Monday to remember those killed by one of nature''s deadliest disasters.

    A year after the Indian Ocean tsunami, a huge recovery operation has brought hope to hundreds of thousands of survivors. But the sorrow, pain and trauma remain strong -- along with fears that monster waves could come again.

    "We think about the lost lives, lost property and lost jobs," said Kanagalingan Janenthra, 19, in Sri Lanka''s eastern town of Batticaloa. "We are in fear. Some of us think it might come again."

    About 230,000 people were killed or disappeared in 13 Indian Ocean countries, nearly three quarters of them in Indonesia''s Aceh province on the northern tip of Sumatra, according to tallies made by individual countries.

    Survivors, friends and relatives joined national leaders and foreign dignitaries for memorials in the worst affected countries of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.

    In Aceh, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono set off a siren at 8:16 a.m. to begin a minute of silence.

    "It was under the same blue sky exactly a year ago that Mother Earth unleashed the most destructive power among us," Yudhoyono said in a flattened suburb of the capital Banda Aceh.

    A 9.15 magnitude earthquake, which lasted eight minutes, set off waves 10 metres (33 feet) high that smashed into shorelines as far away as East Africa, sweeping holidaymakers off beaches and erasing entire towns and villages.

    A year later, four out of five of the two million people displaced are still living in tents, temporary shelters or piled in with family and friends across the region.

    After a much criticised slow start to reconstruction, officials and aid groups say a big chunk of the $13.6 billion in pledged donations -- the most generously funded humanitarian effort in history -- will be deployed for projects next year.

    The toll has been difficult to pin down because countries are still trying to update figures. Some people still hope their children will be found.

    Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra laid a foundation stone for a memorial at Khao Lak, a beach resort in southern Thailand where many foreigners died.

    Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse oversaw two minutes'' silence and placed a floral wreath at the foot of a cresting wave-shaped memorial for the 35,000 who died in the tsunami.

    On the east coast, hardest hit by the disaster, friends and relatives clustered around candles while hundreds of people gathered in Colombo''s central Independence Square for their own candle-lit vigil.

    In India''s Nagapattinam district, where the tsunami took half of India''s 12,405 known dead, fishermen stayed away from the sea to pray for the departed.

    In the Andaman and Nicobar islands, home to some of the world''s most primitive tribes, groups of people walked from village to village observing silence in memory of those killed and lit candles in their hamlets.

    Indonesia tested a tsunami warning system for the first time on Monday, sounding warning sirens on a beach in the West Sumatra town of Padang. Officials urged residents to run along organised evacuation routes.

    Experts say many lives could have been saved if a tsunami early warning system, similar to that in the Pacific, had been in place.
  • Scores killed as violence, protests escalate
    Violence escalated in Sri Lanka’s Northeast this week with several attacks on security forces and clashes between the military and the Liberation Tigers amid protests by Jaffna residents and students against continuing military occupation.

    The civil administration in Jaffna district came to a halt Monday following call by the NorthEast Government Services Workers Consortium for government workers to shun work to protest against Sri Lanka Army (SLA) attacks against civilians and workers. Only the Government Agent (the most senior civil servant in the district), K Ganesh, reported to work.

    In the two most deadly incidents in the past week, eleven soldiers were killed in a claymore attack Tuesday near Point Pedro in the Jaffna peninsula and last Friday thirteen sailors were killed in another mine attack against their bus in Mannar. Claymore mines also narrowly missed other military vehicles in Batticaloa and Jaffna.

    In the past four weeks, 28 SLA soldiers and 14 Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) personnel have been killed in various attacks while scores more have been wounded in almost daily attacks on checkpoints, bunkers and foot patrols.

    A leading Tamil parliamentarian, Joseph Pararajasingham, was shot dead by suspected Army-backed paramilitaries whilst attending Mass on Christmas Day. His wife was seriously wounded and seven other people were injured in the hail of bullets.

    Eleven soldiers were killed and six wounded in a claymore mine ambush on a SLA convoy near the Regional Bus Depot, 1 km south of Point Pedro town on Jaffna-Point Pedro road. Three civilians were wounded when troops fired indiscriminately.

    Five people shot dead in Jaffna by troops and alleged to be members of the LTTE were later said to be civilians. A woman amongst the victims had a pair of jeans dragged over the skirt she was wearing to lend the appearance of a combatant, reports said.

    Also Tuesday unidentified armed men entered a garage of the demining agency, the Halo Trust, located at the junction of Nallur Cross Street and Navalar Road, and drove away two vehicles after tying up the guards.

    On Monday a senior paramilitary cadre, Mr. Veerappan Thripupathy, 52, alias Thiruppathy Master of the PLOTE, group who was shot and seriously wounded by an unidentified gunman, succumbed to his injuries at Vavuniya hospital.

    Last week, SLN personnel incensed by the claymore attack on a bus which killed thirteen colleagues assaulted refugee settlements Friday. Those who fled the violence returned later to find some houses burnt, one with its occupants inside.

    Three houses and a shop were burnt and almost all the houses were found looted in the Victoria Hundred Houses resettlement in Pesalai. The remains of burnt bodies including a four-year-old boy’s were found inside a house by people who fled the attack Friday evening in which 30 people were injured.

    Thirteen sailors were killed and more than fifteen were wounded when a claymore mine destroyed their bus in Pesalai 15 km northwest of Mannar Friday afternoon.

    The day before a clash between the Navy and the Sea Tigers had left three sailors dead. Both sides blamed the other for launching an attack.

    Amid this escalating violence, public and student protests against security forces in Jaffna triggered a violent reaction from troops who last week assaulted staff and students of Jaffna University before entering the venerated academic institution’s grounds firing indiscriminately.

    The discovery of the body of a Tamil woman who had been raped and murdered by suspected SLN personnel triggered protests weekend before last which spread to other parts of the peninsula.

    Save-the-Children has closed its offices in Jaffna after two employees were attacked by SLA troops. Several people have been treated in Jaffna hospital after being assaulted by military personnel or wounded by indiscriminate retaliatory fire.

    Over the weekend, representatives of the Co-Chairs of Sri Lanka’s donor community (the US, EU, Japan and Norway) met with the LTTE’s Political Head, Mr. S. P. Tamilselvan to urge a cessation to the violence and call for talks on stabilising the rapidly unravelling February 2002 ceasefire.
  • Army-backed paramilitaries target TNA MPs
    Army-backed paramilitaries this week began targeting parliamentarians from Sri Lanka’s largest Tamil party, killing a prominent eastern MP and warning others to quit or face the same fate.

    Joseph Pararajasingham, a stalwart of the Tamil National Alliance, which swept the Northeast in last year’s parliamentary elections, was killed when gunmen opened fire at him and his wife, Sugunam, whilst they were attending Christmas mass in Batticaloa.

    The 71 year old legislator had just received Holy Communion and was returning to his pew in St. Mary''s co-cathedral church in Batticaloa town at 1am Sunday when he was shot in the chest.

    Eight other people were also wounded by the hail of bullets, including a Catholic nun, and were admitted to the main hospital in Batticaloa. Mrs. Pararajasingham was seriously wounded, but is said to be out of danger now.

    The Liberation Tigers have condemned the murder of the MP, well known for his strident criticism of human rights abuses by Sri Lanka’s armed forces, and blamed Army-backed paramilitaries.

    The LTTE says Sri Lankan military intelligence is deploying five paramilitary groups in a concerted campaign of violence against its members and supporters in the eastern province.

    The Sri Lankan government has however accused the LTTE of carrying out the killing in a bid to detract attention from ongoing violence in the north. In a statement it also condemned the killing.

    Condemning the killing as ‘despicable and dastardly,’ the TNA pointed out that “while the road leading to the church was manned by the armed forces, police personnel were [also] on duty outside the church [which is] within Government-controlled territory.”

    “The meaningful continuance of the peace process has been long disturbed by certain Tamil paramilitary groups functioning in close collaboration with sections of the Armed Forces, particularly the Military Intelligence Wing. The assassination of Mr. Pararajasingham is clearly attributable to this ongoing clandestine relationship,” the TNA said.

    “We call upon the Government to immediately take necessary corrective action by dismantling all such clandestine relationships, which would be the only way to infuse any confidence in the peace process,” the TNA said.

    A hitherto unknown paramilitary group, the “Sennan Brigade” of Eastern Soil has claimed responsibility for Mr. Pararajasingham’s killing and warned other TNA MPs from the east to resign or die.

    But many believe the Sennan Brigade is a thinly veiled front for the Karuna Group, named after a Tiger commander in the east who defected to the SLA in April 2004 following the collapse of his six-week rebellion against the LTTE leadership.

    Since Karuna’s defection, several LTTE cadres and supporters, paramilitaries and security forces personnel have been killed in violence that has come to be characterized as a ‘shadow war.’

    “The death punishment was meted out by us to Joseph Pararajasingham for his treachery to our Eastern people and its soil as well as his facilitation for the annihilation of Eastern people by causing a war in collaboration with the Tigers,” the Daily Mirror newspaper quoted the group as saying.

    The group also issued a public warning to TNA MPs Jeyanandamoorthy, Ariyenthiran, Sambanthan, Thurairetnasingham, Kanagasabai, Pathmanathan and Thangeswari to resign from “without engaging in betrayal against the Eastern people.”

    “If not, if they partake any role with the collaboration of the Tigers in strategy to annihilate our people, death punishment would be executed by us very soon, it warned, adding the death sentence awaits those who collaborate with the Tigers.

    Pararajasingham is the second prominent member of the TNA to be killed by paramilitaries. Mr. Ariyanayagam Chandra Nehru, a former MP for the Amparai district was killed when paramilitaries ambushed and massacred a team from the LTTE’s political wing travelling through Army-controlled territory in February this year.

    Mr. Nehru was travelling with Mr. E. Kousalyan, the LTTE political wing leader for Batticaloa-Amparai and his team when gunmen stopped their van and shot dead the occupants.

    The LTTE has conferred the titled Maamanithar (Great Humanbeing) on Mr. Pararajasingham in recognition of his services to the Tamil people. The movement accorded the same honour to Mr. Nehru.
Subscribe to Diaspora