Jaffna District Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parliamentarian, K. Sivanesan, was killed in a Claymore attack on his vehicle carried out by a Deep Penetration Unit of the Sri Lanka Army lying in ambush along the A9 highway in Tamil Tiger controlled Vanni.

His driver was also killed in the attack in which the DPU soldiers exploded four Claymore mines in a row, Tamileelam Police officials said.

Mr. Sivanesan's driver, Periyannan Maheswararajah, 27, a father of one, from Cheddiku'lam, Vavuniyaa, was killed on the spot.

The MP succumbed to his injuries while being rushed to Maangkulam hospital. He leaves behind his wife and four children, 2 sons and 2 daughters.

An 11-year-old boy from Kugnchukku'lam, Arulnaathan Lujithnathan, cycling on the road was also injured.

Mr. Sivanesan, born on 21 January, 1957, was General Manager of Northern Region Palm Development CO-OP society's Uni-Cluster, between 1996 and 2004, before being elected to Sri Lanka Parliament.

The only country to condemn the assassination was peace facilitator Norway.

Mr. Sivanesan had been part of a TNA delegation that visited Oslo last December to protest the Sri Lankan government’s persecution of the Tamil people.

In London a group of Parliamentarians from all of Britain’s main political parties Tuesday condemned the assassination and urged their government to rein in Sri Lanka’s hardline regime.

The Liberation Tigers conferred their highest civilian award on Mr. Sivanesan, the title of Maamanithar.

The leader of the Liberation Tigers, Velupillai Pirapaharan, paid his respects to the slain on Saturday. Senior LTTE leaders, including Intelligence Chief Poddu Ammaan, Political Head B. Nadesan and the Head of Financial Division Thamizheanthi accompanied Mr. Pirapaharan and also garlanded the casket.

Remembering Mr. Sivanesan's longstanding contribution to eradicating poverty in the Tamil areas through co-operative efforts, the Head of the LTTE Political Wing, Mr. B Nadesan, said the MP had always lived alongside the people.

“When people are displaced, he was also displaced; when civilians were getting bombed by the Sri Lankan military, he was there to help them.”

“He believed in empowering people through the cooperative structures at the grassroots. He believed wholeheartedly in the liberation of the Tamil homeland.”

“Although he never trusted that the parliamentary politics in the South would lead to the liberation of the Tamils, but worked to expose the failings of the system itself. When Tamils were deprived of political voice, he visited foreign countries to convey the plight of his people and served as the people's voice," Nadesan said.

Mr. Sivanesan is the latest of several outspoken Tamil parliamentarians murdered by Sri Lankan commandos or Army-backed paramilitaries.

Speaking in Oslo last December, he told reporters: “we are being looked upon in the Sri Lankan parliament as if we were representing a people of another country.”

Extracts of the official TNA statement follow:

"Mr. Sivanesan was elected to parliament from Jaffna district in 2004 general elections. He had shifted his family from Karaveddi, Jaffna to Mallaavi due to the closure of the A9 highway. He also faced threat to his life and him while residing in Karaveddi.

"Sivanesan participated in the debate in parliament on March 5 and voted against the motion extending the state of emergency for another month. Later, he left for Mallaavi where his family has been residing in his vehicle. He met his death on his way to Mallaavi. He had miraculously escaped a claymore explosion during the middle of last year in the same site targeting his vehicle.

"It is believed that the claymore attack targeting Mr. Sivanesan had been carried out by the Deep Penetration Unit of the Sri Lanka Army. Such attacks had been carried earlier in Vanni by the Deep Penetration Unit of the SLA.

"The TNA points out at this juncture that its parliamentarians Joseph Pararajasingham in Batticaloa, N.Raviraj in Colombo, former parliamentarians Chandra Nehru (Ampaa'rai), Sivamaharasa (Jaffna) and a candidate, Vigneswaran (Trincomalee) and several heads of local authorities in the North and East had also been killed in a planned way.

"The TNA stresses at this juncture that no force could stop Tamils voicing and fighting for the freedom of their community by killing its democratically elected representatives and subjecting them to intimidation and death threats.

"Mr. Sivanesan worked hard for the emancipation of the Tamil people, against social injustice and for the development of co-operative movement. He won the hearts of Tamils by his unwavering stand on the freedom struggle by his deed and speech. He dedicated himself from the young age for the liberation of his people.

"The death of Mr.Sivanesan is an irreparable loss to the Tamil community. His sacrifice would not go unrewarded. It would contribute to the liberation of the Tamil nation.

"We expresses our deepest condolences to his wife and children and the supporters."

Velupillai Pirapaharan, the leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam (LTTE) posthumously conferred the title of Maamanithar (Great human being), the highest national civilian honour of the LTTE, to K. Sivanesan.

The text of the LTTE statement announcing the decision follows:

“A great human being who deeply loved the Tamil people and the Tamil nation was destroyed by the Sinhala State. This planned, brutal assassination is the latest cruelty in the ongoing ethnic genocide of the Tamils. This vicious killing in the Vanni land is another illustration of the Sinhala State terrorism.

“Mr. Kiddinan Sivanesan is a unique individual who functioned selflessly, honestly, and with courage. He is simple, courteous and loving. He is a sincere politician who possessed high ideals. He labored tirelessly for the advancement and welfare of the workers.

“Freedom of the Tamils and the liberation of the Tamil homeland are his life goals. He yearned for a free and honorable life for the Tamil people in their land without the torments that have afflicted them. He longed to see free Tamil Eelam. To achieve these goals he accepted our movement, its political aim, the struggle we have launched and served dedicatedly.

“He took up the responsibility of representing the people of Jaffna and roamed the world seeking justice for the Tamils. He raised awareness among our people and gathered their support. He exposed the atrocities of the Sinhala state and it's occupying military to the world. He was courageous even in the midst of repeated harassments and threats of the Sinhala military. His service for the liberation of Tamil Eelam through his hard work and exemplary skills are immeasurable.

“Honoring Mr. Kiddinan Sivanesan's love for the freedom and his people, I am proud to posthumously award him the supreme title of "Mamanithar". Death never destroys the great souls who lived their life for truth. They will live for ever in nation's soul as heroes of our history.

“The yearning of the Tigers is the homeland of Tamil Eelam”

The euphoria in the Sri Lankan government and military over the prospects of a quick victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is beginning to fade.

While the security forces regularly report the killing of LTTE members, little progress appears to have been made in seizing the LTTE’s major northern strongholds in the Kilinochchi and Mullaithivu districts.

Open warfare erupted in July 2006 when President Mahinda Rajapakse ordered the army to capture the LTTE-held area of Mavilaru in open breach of the 2002 ceasefire agreement.

In the space of a year, the military quickly overran the remaining LTTE bases in the East and turned its attention to the LTTE’s northern territory. Last July, the Rajapakse government celebrated the victory in the East with jingoistic speeches and a parade through the capital of Colombo.

In January, Rajapakse finally dropped the pretence of adhering to the ceasefire. The decision to pull out of the truce was accompanied by a series of statements declaring that the LTTE would be defeated militarily by the end of the year.

On December 30, Army Commander, Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka, bragged to the Sunday Observer that “the LTTE could not prevent losing their remaining 3,000 cadres and there is no assurance that the LTTE Leader V. Prabhakaran would survive for the next six months”.

Fonseka, who is expected to retire in December, told foreign journalists on January 11 that he would not hand the war to next army chief. Government leaders enthusiastically repeated the statement, even declaring that Prabhakaran would be captured and sent to India for trial over the murder of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a LTTE suicide bomber.

A month later, however, the military high command is not so confident. On February 10, Fonseka explained in Irida Lakbima that he was not committed to a deadline for winning the war.

“They [the LTTE] are an organised force with a lot of experience... I don’t conduct the war looking at deadlines and timeframes.” Expressing a degree of frustration, he added: “Can a war that has been going on for more than 25 years be completed by March? But, what I say is—give us a chance.”

On February 23, military spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara echoed the army commander’s comments. As reported by Agence France Presse, he declared that the military was “winning the war...but we have never said that we will finish them off. We have never set deadlines.”

Military operations in the North were always going to be more difficult than in the East, where the LTTE had been seriously weakened by a devastating split in its ranks in 2004.

The course of the war is difficult to follow in detail. The only sources of information are the security forces and the LTTE, which both distort reports to suit their own propaganda.

The army allows no correspondents into the war zones. The Colombo media functions under the threat of censorship and physical violence. Anyone publishing negative reports on the military is quickly branded a traitor.

The military’s basic strategy appears to be one of attrition—the use of superior firepower, including air strikes and artillery bombardments, to sow panic among the population, wear down the LTTE’s defences and kill its fighters. The high command is only too well aware of the failure of previous broad scale offensives.

In 2000, the LTTE inflicted a devastating series of defeats on the army, capturing its key strategic base at Elephant Pass, in a sharp counteroffensive against an overextended military operation.

In the North, the military is seeking to slowly advance on the LTTE strongholds from all sides—from Mannar in the west, Vavuniya in the south, Welioya in the east and Muhamalai in the north. While there have been numerous reports of small victories and LTTE casualties—all undoubtedly exaggerated—the military has failed to gain a great deal of ground.

The Mannar operations started last July. The army captured the fishing village of Silavathurai last year and has since seized several other areas but the gains remain small. The main aim in present operations is to secure the Madhu area then Viduthalaithivu. The area is crucial to the LTTE’s main supply routes from the neighbouring southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

Recent fighting has taken place around the Madhu church area, including Admapan and Pandivirichchan, in preparation for a push on Viduthalaithivu. The Sunday Times reported last weekend that the military had announced the capture of the Pandivirichchaan area. The pro-LTTE Tamilnet reported the recapture of the area on the evening of the same day.

On Sunday, the LTTE claimed to have repelled the military’s advance from Palaikushi. This week, the defence ministry claimed the army had penetrated deeper into LTTE-held area in Mannar. Whatever the true figures and territory gained or lost, the fighting is obviously heavy.

On the Welioya front, the results are similarly inconclusive. The military reported that it gained control of some areas previously in “no-man’s land” under the ceasefire arrangements.

The aerial bombardment of LTTE-held areas continues unabated.

Another sign of the military’s difficulties is its turn to India for assistance. General Fonseka undertook a six-day tour to India last week “to further strengthen the military ties”.

He met India’s defence minister, A.K. Anthony, as well as top military and civilian officials in a bid to obtain weapons and light aircraft. However, Fonseka is unlikely to get all that he wants from India, which to date has provided limited assistance and training. While wanting to prevent an LTTE victory, New Delhi is concerned that the ongoing war will inflame opposition in Tamil Nadu.

The Sri Lankan military is under pressure from Rajapakse to deliver a quick victory. His government, an unstable coalition of 13 parties, confronts growing popular discontent over the economic impact of the war, which is helping to fuel inflation and undermine living standards.

Rajapakse needs success stories to boost his chauvinist appeals and to dispel fears in ruling circles of an inconclusive and protracted war that will inevitably fuel an economic and political crisis.

Speaking on Sunday at a rally in Ratnapura organised by his Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Rajapakse declared that the government would carry out “liberation operations” against the LTTE until “every inch of land is captured and the last terrorist is completely destroyed”. He insisted it was the “bounden duty” of people to support the war.

The government is not conducting a war for “liberation” or against “terrorism” but to maintain the economic and political dominance of the country’s Sinhala Buddhist elite

For six decades, Colombo governments have whipped up communal politics to divide working people and prop up their rule. Rajapakse’s decision to plunge the country back to war was bound up with his government’s inability to deal with growing unrest over declining living standards.

The return to war has only compounded the economic burdens on working people. The military has purchased new weapons and boosted its strength to 150,000, recruiting 34,000 last year. Another 15,000 are to be recruited this year.

Along with rising oil prices, military expenditure is a major factor fuelling inflation. The annualised inflation rate hit 24 percent in February. Rajapakse has responded to any opposition, including strikes and protests, by demonising critics as “pro-LTTE”.

These social and political tensions will inevitably sharpen if the military operations against the LTTE slow, or if the army suffers reverses. That accounts for the shrill tone of Rajapakse’s speech at Ratnapura—it is a sign of growing desperation.

“They started beating Thiyagarajah. They took his T-shirt off and stuffed it into his mouth. The neighbors came out to help, but they pushed them away. His wife was crying and shouting, and they hit her with a gun butt. She was nine months pregnant. They were accusing Thiyagarajah of having bombs in the house, and forced him to dig the ground around the house. They searched the house, turning everything upside down, but didn’t find anything. They beat him so badly that he couldn’t walk – they had to carry him away. They took him away on a motorcycle.”
– A relative of 25-year-old Thiyagarajah Saran, “disappeared” on the night of February 20, 2007, from East Puttur, Jaffna

“The villagers told me they saw Pathinather and Anton being interrogated by the military. The military held them at gunpoint. Then the military put them into the Powell [vehicle], and also loaded their bicycles into their vehicle. The villagers could not see much because the army ordered them to disperse, and now they are too afraid to talk to anybody about what they saw.”
– A relative of 21-year-old Anton Prabananth, “disappeared” on February 17, 2007 together with 24-year-old Pathinather Prasanna, from Jaffna

“When we got to the [Kodikamam] army camp, I saw my nephew’s bicycle parked there. It was parked near the camp, in the military-controlled area. When we asked the soldiers, they denied arresting them, and when I said we had seen the bike, they got very angry, and started yelling, ‘Who told you to go and look there?! We’ll shoot you if you ever approach this place again!’ We asked the GS [local civilian official] and the police to get the bike back, but they couldn’t. Eventually, the commander in the camp returned the bike to us. He said that the people who had arrested our men were no longer there, so we should just take the bike and go.”
– A relative of 26-year-old Thavaruban Kanapathipillai, “disappeared” on August 16, 2006, together with 30-year-old Shangar Santhivarseharam from Kachai, Jaffna

“Two people came to our door, in uniforms. They were armed. Another man was dressed in an army T-shirt and jeans. I asked where they were taking my husband. The person in civilian clothes showed me a pistol. I asked where they were taking him again and he showed the pistol again, and then they took him out. I ran after them, and they had two vans, white and blue.”
– Wife of 21-year-old Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, “disappeared” on August 23, 2006, from Colombo

The Sri Lankan government is responsible for widespread abductions and “disappearances” that are a national crisis, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Human Rights Watch urged the government to reveal the whereabouts of the “disappeared,” immediately end the practice, and hold the perpetrators accountable.

Since major fighting between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) resumed in 2006, Sri Lankan security forces and pro-government armed groups have “disappeared” or abducted hundreds of individuals, many of whom are feared dead.

The 241-page report, “Recurring Nightmare: State Responsibility for ‘Disappearances’ and Abductions in Sri Lanka,” documents 99 of the several hundred cases reported, and examines the Sri Lankan government’s response, which to date has been grossly inadequate. According to the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, in 2006 and 2007 Sri Lanka recorded the highest number of new cases of “disappearances” in the world.

“President Mahinda Rajapaksa, once a rights advocate, has now led his government to become one of the world’s worst perpetrators of enforced disappearances,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The end of the ceasefire means this crisis will continue until the government starts taking serious measures.”

Under international law, a state commits an enforced disappearance when it takes a person into custody and denies holding them or disclosing their whereabouts. “Disappeared” persons are commonly subjected to torture or extrajudicial execution, and cause family members continued suffering. An enforced disappearance is a continuing rights violation – it is ongoing until the fate or whereabouts of the person becomes known.

The vast majority of cases documented by Human Rights Watch indicate the involvement of government security forces – army, navy, or police. In some cases, relatives of the “disappeared” identified specific military units that had detained their relatives and army camps where they had been taken. In other cases, they described uniformed policemen, especially members of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), taking their relatives into custody before they “disappeared.”

Vairamuththu Varatharasan, a 40-year-old truck driver and father of five, was abducted from his home in Colombo on January 7, 2007, and has not been seen since. His wife told Human Rights Watch:

“A group of about 20 men – some in police uniforms, some in civilian clothes surrounded the house. One policeman came inside and asked for our identity card. I went into one of the rooms to get the identity card. By the time I came out of the room, my husband was not there; neither was the policeman. I ran out and spotted a van parked in a dark place on the road. I ran to the road, but by the time I got there, the van started and left.”

Most of the victims are ethnic Tamils, although Muslims and Sinhalese have also been targeted. In many cases, the security forces “disappeared” individuals because of their alleged affiliation with the LTTE. Clergy, educators, humanitarian aid workers, and journalists also were targeted – not only to remove them from the civil sphere, but also to warn others to avoid such activities.

Pro-government Tamil armed groups are also implicated in the abductions and “disappearances” – specifically the Karuna group and the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) – acting either independently or in conjunction with the security forces.

The number of abductions perpetrated by the LTTE is comparatively low since targeted killings, rather than abductions, appear to be the LTTE’s primary tactic. The LTTE has also been responsible for numerous other egregious abuses, including bombings against civilians, political assassinations, forced child recruitment, and the systematic repression of basic civil and political rights in areas under their control.

In the face of the crisis, the government of Sri Lanka has demonstrated an utter lack of resolve to investigate and prosecute those responsible. Not a single member of the security forces has been brought to justice for involvement in “disappearances” or abductions. Human Rights Watch said that Sri Lanka’s emergency laws, which grant the security forces sweeping powers to arbitrarily arrest and detain people without being held to account, have facilitated enforced disappearances.

“So long as soldiers and police can commit ‘disappearances’ with impunity, this horrific crime will continue,” said Pearson.

The Rajapaksa government has set up an array of special bodies tasked with monitoring and investigating “disappearances” and other human rights violations. None have yielded concrete results.

Human Rights Watch said this failure is unsurprising given that, at the highest levels, the Sri Lankan government continues to downplay the problem, denying the scale of the crisis and that its own security forces are involved.

“The government’s mechanisms to address ‘disappearances’ will remain impotent so long as the president and top officials fail to send a clear signal to the security forces that these abuses will not be tolerated,” said Pearson.

Sri Lanka’s key international partners and the UN bodies, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have raised serious concerns about the alarming number of “disappearances” and prevailing impunity. They have expressed growing support for the establishment of a UN human rights monitoring mission to investigate and report on abuses by government forces and the LTTE throughout the country.

Human Rights Watch deplored the Sri Lankan government’s opposition to an international monitoring mission, given that such initiatives have proven effective elsewhere in dealing with “disappearances.”

With sufficient mandate and resources, the monitoring mission could achieve what the government and various national mechanisms have failed to do: establish the location of detainees through unimpeded visits to the detention facilities; request information regarding specific cases from all sides to the conflict; assist national law enforcement agencies and human rights mechanisms in investigating the cases and communicating with the families; and maintain credible records of reported cases.

“The Sri Lankan government’s rejection of a UN monitoring mission reflects badly on its commitment to human rights,” said Pearson. “While the government dawdles, many Sri Lankans will continue to pay the price.”

Human Rights Watch called on the government of Sri Lanka to:

- Take immediate measures to end the practice of enforced disappearances, vigorously investigate all cases reported, and bring the perpetrators to account; and
- Cooperate with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish and deploy an international monitoring team to report on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict;

Human Rights Watch also called on Sri Lanka’s international partners, in particular India and Japan, to make further military and other non-humanitarian assistance to Sri Lanka contingent on government efforts to halt the practice of “disappearances,” and to end impunity, including its acceptance of an international monitoring mission.

Britain will be pressing Sri Lanka’s hardline government for greater access for senior UN officials and would join European allies in taking a stronger position against Colombo over human rights abuses.

In a meeting with Tamil Diaspora representatives at the British Foreign Office on February 25, Foreign Minister Lord Malloch-Brown said he would personally be attending the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva to press the point.

At the UN a few days later Lord Malloch-Brown strongly criticized the Colombo regime, saying “international concern had not made an impact [on it]”.

Saying Britain accepted Sri Lanka “facing considerable terrorist threat”, the minister told the UNHRC: “The international community condemned terrorism, but countering terrorism required respect for human rights.”

In response, Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe slammed Britain’s criticism, saying “it was difficult for some countries to let go of their colonial possessions.”

“Sri Lanka was proud of its records for combating terrorism, while minimizing harm to civilians,” Mr. Samarasinghe said, adding his country did not need to be told that countering terrorism required full respect for human rights.

“Sri Lanka was strengthening democracy and pluralism in a manner that had proved difficult in the past,” he asserted.

Speaking at a meeting with expatriate Tamils at the British Foreign Office on Feb 25, Lord Malloch-Brown said the government of President Rajapakse had “made political process secondary to military process.”

The British Tamil Forum (BTF), a Diaspora advocacy group which attended the meeting, quoted Lord Malloch-Brown as saying that there are two key issues with regards to Sri Lanka’s conduct: prosecution of war and failure to enter into serious negotiation, and human rights issues.

“I have told the [Sri Lankan] President, Foreign Minister and visiting delegation that we do not find the political process credible or serious. We feel that we really sought to push for a political negotiation as a way forward. There is no military solution to this problem,” Lord Malloch-Brown said.

“We are going to go on pushing hard to put the political negotiation back on track,” he said adding this will not be done from a bilateral position but by working closely with Europe, UN and the Commonwealth.

The UK will be demanding and pressing hard for wider access by Sir John Holmes, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, he said.

The UK will also demand that all recommendations made by Louise Arbour, Head of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Ms. Coomarasamy be implemented in full.

The purpose of the meeting called on Monday by the FCO was to engage with the Tamil Diaspora and understand their perspective to the conflict in Sri Lanka, the BTF statement said.

It was attended by Parliamentarians from Britain’s three major parties and members from the House of Lords heard views were made by different Diaspora representatives.

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Parliamentarian Gajan Ponnambalam was also present and spoke as part of the Tamil community.

Britain will support political solution with major devolution of power to the Tamil areas, Lord Malloch-Brown said, adding that Britain could not support independence for Tamils.

The BTF argued that UK and the rest of the international community “must explicitly make their support for Sri Lanka unity and territorial integrity conditional on the Tamil people collectively being satisfied with the state’s sharing of power and its governance.”

“Tamils safety and political future can only be guaranteed if the Sri Lankan state is restrained by international law,” the BTF told the meeting, adding that the international community must, on this basis, support the Tamils’ claim for independence, just as it had supported the Kosovars’.

“At independence in 1948 Sri Lankan State was entrusted with all minorities’ rights,” BTF spoksman Suren Surendiran told the meeting. “They have abused the trust against Tamils, human rights, free speech, pluralism and denounce the demand for statehood.”

He pointed out that in the 1977 elections, long before the armed conflict began, the overwhelming majority of Tamils voted for an Independent State as the only way to escape state repression.

TNA MP Ponnambalam noted that “even though I am an elected member of parliament I cannot espouse the wishes of the vast majority [of the Tamil] due to the 6th amendment of the Sri Lankan constitution [which outlaws advocacy of independence].”

Mr. Ponnambalam reiterated the position adopted by the TNA when it met Lord Malloch-Brown last summer, arguing that UK should make its development assistance conditional on human rights, progress in the political negotiations and implementation of the ceasefire agreement.

The UK should seriously consider trade and travel bans on Sri Lanka and the international community must take up the position that if the right to internal self determination of the Tamil people is denied any further, the right to external self determination of the Tamil people will have to be inevitably recognised, he said.

Whilst Lord Naseby, an advocate of the Sri Lankan government’s stance had denounced the BTF and its views, sources at the meeting said. However the organisation had been praised by Parliamentarians and the Foreign Minister had also welcomed their engagement with the British government.

“It is extremely important and absolutely correct for you as British citizens to organise and demand sympathy and support for your objectives from your local MPs. This is how the British democracy works,” Lord Malloch-Brown was quoted as telling the meeting.

“I wish the Sri Lankan democracy also worked that way. I want to register that point.”

Noting that “the British Tamils Forum has been labeled ‘terrorists’ and there had been some smear campaigns,” he observed: “I can draw parallel to my own experience. I have lived in the US for 21years. My wife is Irish American. We have been in the same position as you are. How do we support the change that we want in Northern Ireland while making sure that one doesn’t actually support violent acts against the British or the British Army?”

“There is always a case for freedom struggle and self determination,” the British Foreign Minister said.

In the past few weeks Sri Lanka has come in for considerable criticism for the widespread human rights abuses by its security forces. Human Rights Watch published a detailed attack on the campaign of 'disappearances' being conducted against the Tamils (mainly). The United States’ State Department published its 2007 Country report slamming the government of President Mahinda Rajapakse for a range of ongoing abuses. The international panel observing Sri Lanka's 'investigations' into a select handful of extra-judicial killings stormed off, protesting obstruction by the government.

However, as always, this cacophony isn't going to amount to much because there will almost certainly be precious little by way of action. Yes, some countries have 'cut' aid to Sri Lanka - meaning they've stopped aid for now. Firstly, these states do intend to resume their aid at some less embarrassing moment in future. Secondly, they know that the shortfall will be more than made up by Japan and the new donors such as China.

When the Serbian military attacked Kosovo in the late nineties and drove 230,000 Albanians from their homes, the international community howled 'ethnic cleansing' and launched military action to force it out of the province. Yet when the Sri Lankan military launched a similar onslaught in 2006 against the Tamils of the Eastern Province, displacing almost 300,000, there was only silence - save the denunciations of the Liberation Tigers. Indeed, as soon as the Sinhala military announced the 'liberation' of the East in mid-2007, the democracies of the West announced their readiness to support Rajapakse's 'War of Development'.

We raise these points for two reasons; firstly to put the present international criticism in perspective and, secondly, to point out the futility of expecting the international community to respond to our suffering. To begin with, the present pressure on Sri Lanka to abandon the military option and pursue a political solution has more to do with the fierce Tamil Tiger resistance the US-trained military is struggling to overcome in the northern battlefronts. Whilst there is precious little 'independent' information from the warzones, one point is becoming increasingly clear: the military is unable to take and keep much ground. The offensives in Jaffna, Mannar and Manal Aru are bogged down. This is why various international actors are now fretting.

The strident criticism of late therefore has more to do with Sri Lanka's defiance of international advice than any genuine concern for Tamil suffering. After all, how is the present different to the past two decades? Remember the 'Chemmani mass graves'? In 1996 alone the Kumaratunga regime presided over the 'disappearance' of at least 600 Tamils in Jaffna. Yet, has the international community, which now makes much of 'responsibility to protect', ever taken this up, even during the halcyon days of the peace process? When the Sri Lankan military displaced hundreds of thousands of Tamils during Kumaratunga's 'War for Peace', did the international community pressure the state to stop? When the Tamil towns of Kilinochchi, Paranthan, Mankulam and Chavacachch-eri were blasted into the ground, did any international actor protest, let alone act?

The Sri Lankan conflict is an 'international issue' when it comes to containing and destroying the LTTE but an 'internal matter' (i.e. for the Sinhala state) when it comes to establishing a just solution. For six decades, the international community has dealt with a fiction: Sri Lanka the liberal democracy under attack from a violent Tamil insurgency. Under this logic, the problem is the Tamils, not the state. It is the demand for independence that is the problem, not the structural (discrimination, exclusion, persecution) and physical violence (military offensives, embargos on food and medicine) that the Tamils are being subjected to by the state.

The point here is the futility of Tamils appealing to the international order on the basis of their 'reasonableness'. In short, the international community is not interested in our problems; there's money to be made and geopolitical interests to be pursued. Over the past two years, numerous Tamil actors have taken up the plight of their people with the international community, especially the Western states. Yet there has been no substantive effort to crack down on the Sri Lankan state. This is not to say such efforts should be abandoned.; indeed, in the spirit of hope with which these are taken up, they must be followed through to their end. Rather, it is to ask why is that in response to all this lobbying, instead of taking up the Tamils' demands with the Sri Lankan state, the international community instead continues to insist, as it always has done, that it is up to the state to offer us a solution?

Since the early seventies there has only been one issue at the core of the Tamil people’s politics: freedom from Sinhala domination and state repression. And the only reason Tamil MPs are in Sri Lanka’s Sinhala dominated parliament is to protest against this domination and repression.

And that is why they regularly die at the hands of state-backed assassins. That is also why the international community, which remains strong military and economic backers of the Sinhala state remain silent.

The European Union, for example, is Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner and continues to grant it favourable trade status. The United States has continued to provide military assistance to Sri Lanka which is considered part of the pro-US alliance dominating the waters of the Indian Ocean.

Meanwhile India’s aid contributions to Sri Lanka have also grown, to nearly $500 million this year: India is building a coal-fired power plant and Indian companies have been invited to build technology parks and invest in telecommunications.

In the pursuit of their geopolitical and commercial interests, the international community will readily sacrifice the interests of the Tamils.

Which is why the state-backed murders of so many Tamil nationalist parliamentarians draws silence or at best a condemnatory press note. There isn’t the slightest possibility of international action.

The assassination last week of yet another Tamil National Alliance MP by Sri Lanka Army commandos, serves to remind us, yet again, that there is no purpose appealing to the goodwill of the international community.

Incidentally, this was not the first time Mr Sivanesan had been targeted by the Sri Lankan government. And he is, of course, not the only parliamentarian who spoke out for his people to pay with his life.

Joseph Pararajasingham was shot dead in church at Christmas Mass in 2005 and his replacement candidate V. Vigneswaran was shot dead with days of being announced in 2006; in early 2005, former TNA MP and member of the North East Secretariat of Human Rights (NESOHR) Chandra Nehru was killed, in late 2006 TNA MP N. Raviraj was killed in the heart of Colombo.

Even before them, Kumar Ponnambalam, leader of the All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) – now a constituent of the TNA – was assassinated in 2000.

Quite apart from the MPs, so many Tamil party workers, candidates and supporters have been targeted and killed with impunity by the security forces or allied paramilitaries.

Then there are the abductions of and death threats to the relatives of MPs during crucial parliamentary votes, assaults on the parliamentarians and their staff and the numerous other abuses. In all these the hand of the state is barely disguised.

At present, almost all members of the TNA live under a standing death threat. And for only one reason: their party’s unswerving support for Tamil self-determination and freedom, in continuation of a now decades long long political tradition of upholding the democratic mandate of the Tamil people for the separate sovereign state of Eelam.

Because India, Japan and the Western democracies believe their economic and commercial interests will not be well served by a free Tamil Eelam, they maintain a stoic silence over the murders of pro-Eelam Tamil members of parliament.

The Tamil people should be under no illusion that the silence of the international community is tacit approval. Yes, occasionally there are condemnations and demands for ‘investigations’, or an ‘end to the climate of impunity’, etc.

These are all for show. To be precise they are show for us, the Tamils. That they give a damn, that they sympathise with us. A day later, it’s business as usual. And I mean business.

Since the island’s formal independence from Britain, every Tamil political party has protested the disastrous political structure that the Colonials left behind for us. There have been Tamil boycotts of Sri Lankan elections since as far back as the 1950s.

But perhaps the clearest mission statement was first made in 1975 by S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, leader of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). After winning by-elections in February that year, he said:

"I wish to announce to my people and to the country that I consider the verdict at this election as a mandate that the Tamil Eelam nation should exercise the sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and become free."

In the following general elections of 1977, the election manifesto of the main Tamil political party, the Tamil United Liberation Front began simply: “One Question: Freedom or Servitude?”

Whatever the international community’s analysts may assert, this has been the core political question for the Tamil electorate for the last thirty years. That is why they ever elect representatives – to deliver them from Sinhala domination.

The question for the Tamils is not which group of Sinhalese should rule over them, but that of their political freedom.

When western governments protested the Tamil boycott of the last presidential elections, they missed the point entirely, blinded as they were by the interests they had vested in the other Sinhala nationalist in the race, Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Sri Lanka’s elections ultimately have no relevance in themselves to the Tamil people because their elected representatives cannot, in any case, give voice to their aspirations as Chelvanayagam and the aptly named TULF could in the seventies.

The 1977 election manifesto of the main Tamil political party, the Tamil United Liberation Front had this to say in conclusion on the single question of freedom or servitude:

“[In] conclusion, The Tamil Nation is at a turning point in its history. The unity we have achieved has made the Sinhalese imperialists take a fresh look at the situation. In this background, as a first step towards the realisation of the freedom of the Nation, the unanimous verdict of the Tamil-speaking people is indispensable. Hence we appeal to you to set aside your passions for, or prejudices against, individual candidates, to forget differences of region, caste or religion and, with the one and the only determination of making the Tamil Nation master of its Destiny.

“VOTE For the Tamil United Liberation Front; For the emancipation of the Tamil Nation; For the Freedom of Tamil Eelam”

And how the Tamil people voted! The flocked to the TULF, delivering an endorsement of Tamil Eelam that echoes to this day.

And for that vote they paid in blood. Amid ensuing anti Tamil riots, The Times of London carried a statement by prominent British political figures warning: “a tragedy is taking place in Sri Lanka: the political conflict following upon the recent elections is turning into a racial massacre.”

The murder of Tamil democracy had begun.

Servitude or Freedom? The systematically organised and, hence, genocidal anti-Tamil pogrom of 1983 was the most determined attempt by the Sinhala leadership to intimidate the Tamil people into abandoning their goal of Eelam.

When that failed, just one month after the Black July pogrom, the government of President J.R. Jayawardene (the uncle, incidentally, of present UNP leader Ranil Wickremasinghe) enacted the Sixth Amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution; it made illegal by severe penalty even advocacy for an independent state.

The hapless TULF was forced to resign from Parliament rather than repudiate their election manifesto. As one report at the time put it:

“The 6th Amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution, compelled the TULF to forfeit its seats in Parliament - compelled, because a party which had won its seats by declaring that there was no alternative but 'to proclaim with the stamp of finality and fortitude that we alone shall rule over our land our forefathers ruled', could not have clung to its Parliamentary seats by taking an oath against the division of the country, without losing all credibility.”

But even this failed to silence the Tamils’ sentiments: the militants emerged to take the goal forward, not by the futile Parliamentary politics that had failed for four decades, but rather, to liberate the Tamil homeland and people by armed struggle.

As a reminder here, the demand for Eelam was not because the Tamils thought they were a jolly fine lot. Rather, it was because the Sinhalese and their leaders, through the state, threatened them politically, economically, demographically, and ultimately, physically.

And when the chance returned to electorally give vent to their sentiments, the Tamils demanded an end to Sinhala domination yet again: in 2001 and 2004, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) emerged to once again articulate the core principles of the Tamil people: nation, homeland, self-determination.

Lest there be any doubt as to what the Tamils voted enmasse for, here are the words of the TNA’s manifesto:

“Accepting LTTE's leadership as the national leadership of the Tamil Eelam Tamils and the Liberation Tigers as the sole and authentic representatives of the Tamil people, let us devote our full cooperation for the ideals of the Liberation Tigers' struggle with honesty and steadfastness

“Let us endeavor determinedly, collectively as one group, one nation, one country, transcending race and religious differences, under the leadership of the LTTE for a life of liberty, honor and justice for the Tamil people.

“We emphasize that if the Tamil nation's requests are continued to be rejected, rightful political solution denied and armed aggression and oppressive rule return, based on the doctrine of self-determination, it is an inevitable reality that Tamil sovereignty and independence will be established in the Tamil homeland.

“We implore our people to identify the selfish, opportunistic packs and gangs that operate in our midst as the enemies and as the tools of the majoritarian chauvinist Sinhala forces against the Tamil nation which seeks an honorable and peaceful life and reject them totally and completely in the upcoming elections.

“Let us work side by side with the LTTE, who are fighting for the protection and autonomous life of the Tamil speaking people, for the political initiatives under their leadership.

“We are sending a clarion call to the Tamil speaking people to unite under one flag and give overwhelming support to the TNA which is contesting (the elections) under the ILANKAI TAMIL ARASU KATCHI'S symbol of house, so as to emphasize the aims of the people of the Tamil Nation, to proclaim again the political resolve of our people, to strengthen further the Tamil nation and to win the political rights of the Tamil speaking people.”

And, temporarily freed under the Norwegian peace process, from the intimidation of the Sinhala state, once again the Tamil people voted in droves, delivering 22 TNA MPs to Parliament.

And for this resounding vote every representative of the TNA lives under a standing death threat from the Sinhala state.

What of the international community to whom the Tamil people endorsed these brave individuals to speak on their behalf?

Note how the leading members of the international community first refuse to speak to the militants (denouncing them as terrorists who are not worth listening to) and then also refuse to listen to those elected representatives who articulate our unpalatable demand of Eelam?

We and our freedom struggle is constantly lectured to. We are told our violent resistance will not do- though it is quite all right for the state to use violence against us!

They denounce the LTTE and our elected representatives who stand by are collective demand of Tamil Eelam as ‘extremists’.

Then they hail the Sri Lankan state – which has never punished a single person for political violence against the Tamils – as a ‘vibrant democracy’

At one stage they were telling us that denouncing the state was not the best way; apparently, to quote senior US official, Nicholas Burns, international actors would prefer to ‘have a chat among friends’ on the subject of human rights and law, rather than outright condemnation.

The Western Democracies, Britain included, tell us, laughably, that they support the unitary state of Sri Lanka because they support ‘democracy’.

Well supporting ‘democracy’ when it suits your political interests and ignoring the murder of elected Tamil leaders when it does not, is not quite democracy.

Accepting the result when the people vote in ways that are favourable to your commercial and political interests but rejecting or ignoring the outcome when they do not is not democracy either.

The Western democracies tell us, in an astonishing piece of circular logic that the Tamils do not have an acceptable leadership and this is an impediment to our political aspirations. In other words, the international community will ignore our chosen leaders for ones they prefer; ignore our political demands and instead seek to implement ones they prefer; ignore our stated grievances and take up the ones they think we ‘really’ have with the state.

Is it any wonder, this conflict has proven impossible to ‘resolve’?

By their acquiescent silence when Tamil MPs who articulate the Eelam demand are killed, these governments are cynical accomplices to murder.

By their continuing refusal to acknowledge the Tamil people’s standing mandate for the free state of Tamil Eelam, these governments are also cynical accomplices to the murder of democracy.

The Tamil people have a long history of participating in elections. But it is no wonder we have got nowhere. It is therefore time for us to recognise what the international community really means by ‘democracy’. Because the question we face as a nation under oppression is still the same: Freedom or Servitude?

FOR 25 years, the dirty little war on this island in the Indian Ocean has stretched its octopus arms across the world. The ethnic Tamil diaspora has provided vital funding for separatist rebels; remittances from Sri Lankan workers abroad have propped up the economy; the government has relied on foreign assistance to battle the insurgency.

Today, a shifting world order is bearing new fruits for Sri Lanka. Most notably, China’s quiet assertion in India’s backyard has put Sri Lanka’s government in a position not only to play China off against India, but also to ignore complaints from outside Asia about human rights violations in the war.

The timing is propitious. The government jettisoned a five-year cease-fire this year, and is now banking on a military victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In so doing, it has faced a barrage of criticism over human rights abuses and has lost defense aid from the United States and some other sources. And, in recent months, government officials have increasingly cozied up to countries that tend to say little to nothing on things like abductions and assaults on press freedom.

Sri Lanka’s foreign secretary, Palitha Kohona, put it plainly when he said that Sri Lanka’s “traditional donors,” namely, the United States, Canada and the European Union, had “receded into a very distant corner,” to be replaced by countries in the East. He gave three reasons:

The new donors are neighbors; they are rich; and they conduct themselves differently. “Asians don’t go around teaching each other how to behave,” he said. “There are ways we deal with each other — perhaps a quiet chat, but not wagging the finger.”

At the same time, according to Mr. Kohona, Chinese assistance has grown fivefold in the last year to nearly $1 billion, eclipsing Sri Lanka’s longtime biggest donor, Japan. The Chinese are building a highway, developing two power plants and putting up a new port in the hometown of the president of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Sri Lanka also buys a lot of weapons from China and China’s ally Pakistan.

Chinese diplomacy in South Asia, grounded as it is in a policy of “harmony” and deep pockets, is of obvious concern to India.

So are the sentiments of Tamils at home. Overt support from India for the Sri Lankan counterinsurgency program can be explosive among India’s Tamils. But coming down hard on the government here could push Sri Lanka deeper into China’s embrace.

“There is little choice,” said Ashok Kumar Mehta, a retired general who was a leader of an Indian peacekeeping force in Sri Lanka nearly 20 years ago. “India’s policy is virtually hands off.”

Mr. Kohona, the Sri Lankan foreign secretary, noted that India’s contributions had also grown, to nearly $500 million this year. India is building a coal-fired power plant and Indian companies have been invited to build technology parks and invest in telecommunications.

New Delhi, like Washington, has shut the tap on direct military support, but it can still help with crucial intelligence, particularly in intercepting weapons smuggled by sea.

The picture in Sri Lanka is emblematic of a major shift from 20 years ago, when India was the only power center in the region. Now come China’s artful moves in India’s backyard.

As C. Raja Mohan, an international relations professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, points out, China has started building a circle of road-and-port connections in India’s neighboring countries, and it has begun to eye a role in the Indian Ocean, as its thirst for natural resources makes it more important to secure the sea lanes.

That offers countries like Sri Lanka ample opportunities. “Now the smaller countries have increasingly turned to China to influence India’s strategic interests, and thus silence it on human rights issues,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch.

She cited Burma, where, in the 1990s, India pressed for democracy and watched the military junta sidle up to Beijing. “Now India is concerned about China’s role in Sri Lanka because of control over the Indian Ocean,” she said.

Iran is the latest entrant. Late last year came the promise of a whopping $1.6 billion line of credit, primarily to help Sri Lanka buy Iranian oil.

Washington still counts. Sri Lanka is sore at losing American military aid and development assistance. The United States has also irritated the government by pressing for United Nations human rights monitors after the visit last October of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour. She said at the end of her visit that “the weakness of the rule of law and prevalence of impunity is alarming.”

That infuriated the government. Sri Lanka’s mission in Geneva sent out acerbic opinion pieces published in Sri Lankan newspapers. One, an editorial in the pro-government newspaper, The Island, declared that “those U.N. knights in shining armor tilting at windmills in small countries should be told that the protection of human rights is next to impossible during a fiercely fought war.”

Still, criticism over human rights continues to dog Sri Lanka.

Last Thursday, a report by Human Rights Watch blamed the government for a pattern of disappearances. The same day, an international Group of Eminent Persons that the government had invited to monitor Sri Lankan investigations into human rights violations said it was leaving; it cited “a lack of political and institutional will.”

The attorney general’s office responded by saying that the government would reconstitute the panel with “an alternate group of eminent persons.”

But however free Sri Lanka feels to dismiss Western concerns about human rights these days, there are still long-range costs it may find itself confronting one day.

The real Achilles’ heel for the government is looming economic trouble, as its war chest expands and inflation reaches double digits.

And in that, the world matters. For its failure to ratify certain international conventions, Sri Lanka already risks losing trade preferences with the European Union at the end of this year. And, however much China has risen in importance, Europe remains this country’s largest trading partner.

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.

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.

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.