The govt. decision to abrogate the Ceasefire agreement and its implications
By Jeevan Thiyagarajah
The Information released last night of a reported cabinet decision to annul /withdraw from the Ceasefire agreement was one which causes profound sadness. It is well known that the ceasefire did bring dividends. The dividends when written in August 2003 included:
Physical security improved greatly since hostilities have ceased, and thousands of deaths, injuries and casualties were averted;
Access to movement of goods and services greatly improved for all communities and all people living in Sri Lanka;
Economic activity rejuvenated particularly in the country as a whole. Lifting of the economic embargo made it possible for a greater variety of products and services accessible to the people in th North and East;
Humanitarian agencies gained increased access to vulnerable populations, and relief and rehabilitation activities expanded substantially;
Out of the approximately 800,000 registered Internally Displaced Persons, over 300,000 persons returned to their homes and started to re-establish their livelihoods and resumed normal living.
Sri Lanka received financial support from the international community to an unprecedented magnitude in Sri Lanka’s history. In fact it was approximately one and a half the annual average of the past (e.g. $ 750 million to $ 1.3 million)
The GoSL and LTTE established mechanisms like SLMM where the ceasefire in all its elements was to be reviewed.
In June of 2002 the GoSL through a cabinet decision approved the Framework for Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation in which there was express mention of avoidance of embargoes and similar restrictions which would otherwise negate access for services, goods and people, other than what was deemed to be of material value to wage war.
The GoSL under Presidents Kumaratunge and Rajapaksa have had direct transactions with the LTTE. These transactions were in the context of giving effect to the CFA as well as to induce recovery activities.
The relationship had its ebbs and flows. Indeed it would be the case in any recovery from war and conflict. As was famously said once, the conflict was only frozen. The danger of melting was ever present. Melt it has.
What is at stake? The dividends referred to earlier will in addition to what was achieved since 2005 dissipate at a much faster and larger pace while the toll in terms of lives lost would mount. The toll has to be seen in an all country perspective since independence. We are a country which has seen three armed uprisings. Twice in the South and a continuous theatre of conflict primarily in the North and East.
A now slain MP once remarked in Parliament, that we have spent over 50% of our post independence period under Emergency Rule of one form or another. We clearly have problems and our existence has not been normal. We are beset with a variety of tensions and conflicts.
In this context the list of issues that need to be resolved are vast and varied and they have lingered for long. It has compelled forced migration, destruction, death, discrimination and persecution and continuously divided the nation. In the name of staying united as the Government wishes to or seek emancipation as the adversary has stubbornly insisted on, we have continuously contributed to achieve the contrary of what we declared to be our sincere desire.
A ceasefire on the one hand, will help focus on underdevelopment and building of a consensus on key areas of national policy. This has been long overdue and now seems to be more illusive than it ever was. The pictures of the daughter of the most recently slain MP, which may not have been appropriate to highlight in the manner it has been in the first instance, is symbolic of so many men, women and children who have been reduced to weeping at sudden terrifying losses.
The agony and helplessness of their existence and trauma brought about by their experiences is not only their own. It applies to all of us. As an organization which is pro life, works for the enhancement of the existence of persons in vulnerable situations in whichever part of the country, we cannot agree with the continuance of war as a solution by anyone. In doing so we recognize that wars will be shorter than the eventual peace we achieve.
By the same token those who acted in violation of accepted universal norms in the preservation and protection of people of whatever hue will in the current universal context be held to account for their actions.
13 comments January 3rd, 2008