Sri Lankans must thank for JVP and ex-Chief Jutice for saving us from PTOMS
by Dayan Jayatilleka
The Lessons Learnt process is turning into quite an exercise in public pedagogy and performance, though it could be better. I rather liked Prof Rajiva Wijesinha’s ‘all round the wicket’ batting -- interspersed with episodes of whistle blowing (if one may mix one’s sporting metaphors) -- but then again I would, wouldn’t I? The mini-debate between LLRC chairman and former Attorney General CR de Silva and Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala was rather a superfluity
Mr de Silva held that the Tamil people wanted equal status and equality of opportunity, not constitutional reform, while Mr Dhanapala seemed to demur, defending the need for an enlightened framework of basic law. They were both correct. Equality of citizenship and opportunity, while a guiding goal, needs Constitutional guarantee and expression, while any Constitution should be informed by the spirit of such equality while enshrining it as an explicit principle and aim.
The LLRC dropped the ball with Ambassador Dhanapala, failing to inquire into the post tsunami mechanism he negotiated with the LTTE. That exercise in ‘civilised diplomatic negotiation’ by an senior professional of great experience resulted in a mechanism that was so heavily laden in favour of the Tigers that it was hit by a ‘double whammy’: its main operational tier was frozen by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court and the United States refused to contribute a dollar in post tsunami assistance to it because US laws prevented funds being transferred to a terrorist-dominated structure such as the PTOMS was.
The PTOMS had a three tier structure. The apex body had three members; one from the legitimate government of Sri Lanka, one from the terrorist separatist LTTE and one from the Muslim community. In other words, the Sri Lankan state and the Tigers were placed on an equal footing: GG Ponnabalam’s ‘fifty-fifty’ with bells and whistles on, or rather, RPGs and Claymores. The story got worse. The key operational tier was the second tier, and there the LTTE had been conceded a larger number of representatives than the Government and the Muslims (5:3:2). The least objectionable third tier had representatives of the Govt, the LTTE and NGOs. The PTOMS was to be headquartered in Kilinochchi, the Tiger ‘capital’; the ‘heart of darkness’. This Tiger dominated structure was accorded the right to do ‘post tsunami rehabilitation work’ in the coastal areas hit by the tsunami, which mean it would have been utilised by the LTTE to rebuild its Sea Tiger network ( hit by the tsunami) and seed coastal areas under Sri Lankan military control, with clandestine Tiger cells.
Sri Lanka must thank the JVP and ex-Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva for saving us from the PTOMS and its consequences, though the final thanks go to the Lankan voters who opted for Mahinda Rajapakse over the Ranil-CBK combine.
Now for some good news: it was great relief to read an extensive statement by a senior Cabinet Minister of the Sri Lankan government which contained a lucid revaluation of the war and a clear, correct policy framework for the post war future. Unsurprisingly this came from Prof GL Pieris, and suitably enough, it was at a respected think tank (dating from the days of Mao and Zhou en Lai) in Beijing, strategically Sri Lanka’s most reliable friend over the long duration. Having listened to Prof Pieris address audiences from Colombo in 1990 through to Geneva during my stint, I am fairly sure he spoke ex tempore, being one of the few Sri Lankan speakers capable of doing so with easy success at any forum. The current Secretary General of SAARC, Dr Sheel Sharma, PhD in Advanced Physics, buoyed my morale when he admiringly observed this about our new Foreign Minister over lunch in Singapore after a talk/discussion at the Institute where I am based.
Prof Pieris accurately recreates the international and policy backdrop:
“...It is, therefore, worth pausing to reflect for a moment on how this became possible, because the gloomy prophesy that we heard all too often from the international community, was that it was simply not possible to prevail against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the battle field.
We were told, no doubt with good intentions, by countries which had a whole reservoir of military expertise, that terrorism could not be defeated militarily. The experience of Sri Lanka demonstrates the contrary, so the question is, how was it possible for a small country with very limited resources, with a small Army, Navy and Air Force to succeed, where other larger countries with far more substantial resources at their command, failed? What is the explanation of this remarkable phenomenon?”
He then makes a fundamental point which holds true for all imperial or expeditionary ventures at counter-terrorism. Neither counter-insurgency nor counter-terrorism can be successfully or sustainably exported.
“One of the most important lessons is that, if you are to succeed in an endeavour of this kind, the effort has to be made by the country itself. There is no way that you can call in the armies of another country.
However well meaning and well disposed that other country may be, it simply does not work on the ground because, directly you have the armies of another country fighting with a terrorist group within your own shores, what inevitably happens is that the population of your country tends to rally round, in support of the terrorist group against a foreign army that is seen as an invading force. Consequently, the first lesson is that, it is your own military that has to be entrusted with the responsibility of overcoming terrorism, of course with assistance from your friends.”
Having correctly cautioned that “the explanation of what occurred in Sri Lanka is multi-faceted. There is no single cause that you can attribute to what was accomplished in Sri Lanka” he rightly observes that “There were many components, many factors which contributed to this overall result. One was determined and resolute political leadership...”
Perhaps most relevant of all is his exposition of state policy for post war Sri Lanka, the first enunciation of its kind, doubly important because it was in Beijing, which gives the lie to the comforting insular myth that a political resolution is solely a concern of the West, Tamil Nadu and societies with a Tamil Diaspora (South Africa, Malaysia, Mauritius), and that the East, especially China, is immune from such interests and considerations. In the programmatic hub of his presentation, Prof Pieris says:
“...there is a lacuna which has been created by the physical elimination of the elected Tamil leadership.
The problem is, as you address substantive issues connected with the devolution of power or power sharing, whom do you engage with? Who are the legitimate interlocutors on the other side, especially at the grass-roots level?
President Rajapaksa does not believe for a one moment that a military victory, by itself, will provide us with a durable and lasting solution. I would say a military victory is a necessary condition, but it is by no means a sufficient condition.
There must be other requirements to be satisfied. In other words, a military solution has to be supplemented by political initiatives. That means that you must put in place arrangements for redistribution of power, empowerment of minority communities, all of which would require vigorous consultation with minority groups.
...we held free and fair elections which have enabled the Tamil community to elect representatives of their choice, to negotiate with the government in power.
... It is not possible mechanically to transplant into your own environment solutions which had worked well elsewhere, because no two situations are identical. You have to adapt successful solutions elsewhere, to suit the combination of circumstances in your own country. There is no size that fits everybody.
There is no universal prescription for problems of this kind...A particular solution that is suitable for your own country is determined by many factors such as one's own history and culture, the social and economic institutions in one's own country, the cultural mindset of people, their practices, customs, beliefs and value systems. The nuances of the local situation are of critical importance in determining the nature of the solution that is suited for one's own country.”
In the concluding part of his presentation, Prof Pieris demonstrates a sure grasp of ‘the key link’ (to dip into the lexicon of the Communist Party of China).
“In the post conflict stage, it is vital to move the country rapidly towards reunification and emphasis on a national identity. If you take South Asia, one of the basic policy dilemmas of South Asia is to answer a fundamental question. How do you reconcile ethnic and cultural pluralism with the concept of mature nationhood? This is a problem that not only Sri Lanka but every nation in South Asia has had to consider in earnest. To put it simply, what are the economic and social structures that you need to create in order to enable people speaking different languages, professing different religions, coming from different cultural backgrounds to feel at home, in one country, without any sense of exclusion? That is very important.”
This then, is at last, language the world can understand and relate to. It is precisely what the entire international community, including our staunch friend China, wants to hear. It is what our friends need to be reassured of, so that they can continue to support and defend us in all forums. It is what the world is waiting for us not just to say, but to do. The day we accomplish this task, the international siege will be no longer sustainable. This is the path that leads to sustainable peace.
11 Comments
Let us hope that the sentiments expressed by GLP find resonance in the ruling family and echelons of power. Otherwise we will be saddled with a family dictatorship with no space for even the majority opposition leave alone minorities. We are currently brewing the deathknell for democracy in Sri Lanka.
Look like this guy going mad, tamil bashing in his blood. hope he will get help from a good tamil doctor.
"Sri Lankans must thank for JVP and ex-Chief Jutice for saving us from PTOMS" --- Dayan
It says all and also a lesson for you, Dayan ... Once JVP/ECJ were champions of Sri Lanka ... But, they gave it all up for cheap political milage ... They even went to defeat the most crucial budget (2008) in parliment and if succeded, it was the end of war against LTTE. Srilankans are lucky in their ability to understand the politicians and sent JVP to a dust bin at last election. Yes, you also had done a great service at UN against LTTE. But your love of 13th without thinking the attitude and the hidden agendas of LTTE rumpus had done a immence damage to your reputation .. There are two kinds of people ... One is for full elimination of LTTE but never think about the difficulties of SL in future. You belongs to that group ... Other are for full elimination of LTTE and also think about the future of SL not only for now but also for next few decades. Your ideas regarding 'tamil problem' is very suitable for a 'Gamarala'. Gamaralas are very simplistic with good qualities but not able to withstand the cunning methods employed by his enemies. In your case, it is not the lack of brain power but it is the idealistic/unwavering/emotional attachement to the 'federalism' in Sri Lanka. Grow up, Dayan .... Look at tamil diospora - given a cent of chance they would go for full eeeelaaam ... Can you remember your favourite moderate Rajan Hoole once said. He said first choice is Ealam and you went a great lengths to cover it up by writing a article. They would never give up their 'eeelaaam' unless they were forced to ... That is where the true leaders shine but you/unp/jvp/ponseka go down ...
dear Prof DJ and other Professors and Phd holders who resides in and out of Srilanka and hold dual nationalities or resident status,
As I percieve you as Tamil bashers and also have observed all of you as learned people like to quote many leaders from other countiries in your work but slectively leave out internationalist like Rajaratnam, I pose you a question for all of you. Why can not you all compare and contrast Singapore and Srilanka and write some articles to educate your Sinhalese leaders and their supporters based on the speech/ statement by current Singapore PM in his annual national day rally speech :
http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2010/8/29/national-day-rally-speech-part-
""PM Lee says that besides education, we have to instill the Singapore Spirit into future generations as well.
The Singapore Spirit is based on 'shared values like multi-racialism, meritocracy and respect for every talent', says PM Lee. It is a shared loyalty and commitment to Singapore.
PM Lee recites statement written by the late S. Rajaratnam, who drafted the National Pledge: 'Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice.'
Compare and Contrast my way :
( A)
Srilanka's Indepndnence day Started on 4th Feb 1948.
Singapore's National day started on 9th August 1965.
(B)
In Srilanka, Sinhala Ownership of the Island based on Ancestory started to bud from 1956 based on one man one vote system,and changing the constitution using 2/3 rd majority under the guise of Democracy. Tamils resisted and fought for parity of status through federalism by peaceful means through elected reps. Tamils were sent back to North eastern provinces after the riots
In Singapore, leaders who represented the people wanted to be part of Malaysia and wanted Malaysian Malaysia for all.
( C)
In Srilanka, further constitutional changes based on one man one vote system and consolidation of the ownership by the majoritarian race by taking away the special provision to protect the minorities. Yet Sinhalese youths rebel because the governments failed to address the economic and socio political issues. Later Elected Tamil leaders were banned from the parliament. Government backed programs to weaken the economic status of the Tamils. Tamil bashing and nation destruction continues.Sole ownership of the Island by the majority continues with venom.
In Singapore, Singapore was allowed to go on its own by speration. Singapore leders starts fresh and started to govern with own new constitution based on the experiences/ lessons they learnt from parliamentary democratic countries like Malaysia, Srilnaka, India and other countries. Nation building Starts with strong resolve to establish an egalitarian society.
( D)
In Srilanka, state terror continues in undemocratic ways and tamil youth reacts and for 30 over years of war. Country continue to regress because of the majoritarian parties and their leaders.
In Singapore, leaders set high standards for politics and continue with good governance based on the constituiton and strive on with socio economic progress and nation building.
PS :
It is sad learned professors like DJ and Rohan Gunaratne who defends MR regime and advocates imposed solution on Tamils by Tamil Bashing will never work in the long term, unless both of you change openely.Sinhalese leaders have been imposing Srilankan Identity on Tamil and other minorities through majoritiarian political power since 1948 and recently through war and conquering the people and occupying their lands and denying ancestry for them.
"Sri Lankans must thank for JVP and ex-Chief Jutice for saving us from PTOMS"
At Last you said something good about JVP. Also, You thanked Sri Lankan voters for bringing MR to power but you did forget to give credit to JVP's role in that election. If not JVP, MR would have lost that election. If not JVP (some contribution of Hela urumaya too), MR still would have been talking with Praba. That's the truth which no body can erase from history just like General Fonseka lead the Armed forces to the victory ot the war.
Dear P Subasi,
You obviously have a problem in comprehending the English language, or else you would clearly see that what I have always stood for is no less or more than what Prof GL Pieris has said as Foreign Minister in his Beijing speech. Re-read what I've quoted. Do you see the word 'devolution'? And 'power sharing'?
Rajan Hoole said his first choice was Eelam? I wrote an article covering it up? Please quote and cite references. I suspect you may have even got the wrong Hoole.
"how was it possible for a small country with very limited resources, with a small Army, Navy and Air Force to succeed, where other larger countries with far more substantial resources at their command, failed? What is the explanation of this remarkable phenomenon?”
Dayan, I wonder whether you have killed rats at home? Then the above phenomenon would not be an awe.
If it's a small house or a room with two people living in it, its easier to kill the few rats ...but, if you have a very large house and many people living it's going to be an ardent task; it will be even more difficult if there are large number of terraced houses like in Colombo, .......why? I will try to explain the phenomena
The rats will migrate from room to room, or house to house. They will be in large numbers, reproducing faster than we can eliminate. Hope this will solve your mystery
Dear P.Subasi
Ref :given a cent of chance they would go for full eeeelaaam
Yes, you are absolutly right We are waiting for for full schele war for Thamil Eelam soon ?
Eelara started before Jesus time ( lost to Dutugamu),
Yes VP tried 33 years lost MR.
We are waiting for another Natinal leader to lead us .......
""how was it possible for a small country with very limited resources, with a small Army, Navy and Air Force to succeed, where other larger countries with far more substantial resources at their command, failed? What is the explanation of this remarkable phenomenon?”"
So you claim that the war was won by the "small armed forcess" of SL.
The whole world knows that the war could not have been won without the support of powerful rogue countries China, Russia, Pakoistan India etc..
Dear Dayan,
Thank you for the comment you made for my one ... You asked me for references and here it is ....
**********************************
This is a talk given by Prof. Rajan Hooles in Canada 2008 and only a small fraction is reproduced here ..
http://chitrangi.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/what-is-the-future-of-sri-lanka-prof-rajan-hoole/
What is the future of Sri Lanka? -Prof. Rajan Hoole.
August 31, 2008
There are lesser reasons why Eelam is not possible. I need not enumerate or go into them here. The point I wish to make is what was taught to me in my Economics course as an undergraduate – the Theorem of the Second Best. We were taught this theorem by Tilak Ratnakara of the LSE. By the way, his economics made good sense but not his anti federal diversions during his lectures. This theorem states that where the best is not attainable, spend your finances and energies usefully by working for the second best. To explain in simple terms, a poor homeless man from Sri Lanka may think that a palace in Beverly Hills is the best. It is an impossible dream. If the poor man waits until he has saved enough to build that palace, he would still be working for that at the end of his life without a roof over his head. But if he dreams of what can be achieved, say a simple decent house in Sri Lanka, and works towards that, there is much better hope that he can achieve it and it is likely that he will spend the last years of his life in that house in some comfort. In this context of the achievable, a decent house in Sri Lanka becomes the best. For this reason alone I am all for a negotiated federal set-up. Then there are other reasons too that would make what is the second best to the Eelamist really the best:
...........................................................................
This is what DJ wrote in the article "Defense and Devolution" on Saturday, 23 August 2008 mentioning above speech.
"In a recent, widely reported speech in Canada, Prof Ratnajeevan Hoole, whose scholarly credentials I greatly respect, has made an incomplete identification of the choices facing the Tamil people. He lists separation, federalism and assimilation. Having obliquely indicated a preference for the first option, he rules it out as unfeasible. He concludes with a robust call for federalism through international involvement. Prof Hoole unwittingly gives comfort to those Sinhala extremists who argue that Tamil moderates are closet Eelamists who prefer Tamil Eelam if it were feasible, would settle for federalism only because separation is not an option at the moment and would stretch federalism to the point of separation if given half a chance." ....
..................................................................................
My comment ---
Instead of criticising Hoole for his ideas, he blamed "Sinhala extremists" for correctly understanding the mind of Prof. Hoole...... Even when the learned professor explicitly say that the best solution is eelam, Dayan does not want to hear it ... Dayan gives a spin to the Hoole's idea with the word "unwittingly" .... So, Dayan covers up that learned professor Hoole's idea (first option is EELAM) was 'unintentional' ... Nice try DJ ... But, you are exposed in helping to cover up separatist's intentions.
Pat,
MR Would have won that election with or without the JVP campaining for him.The SLFP had a very strong candidate for Hambantota in that election but MR honoured his word on the seat allocation to his coalition partners and offered it to the JVP.The JVPs performance at the last Election particularly in their SO CALLED strongholds should be an eye opener to their hierachy and if they dont see the writing on the wall now and change gear they will be History.The JVP Candidates can never attract personal votes due to their extremist views which have not changed since inception but let themselves down joing the UNP Led coalition.
Your claim that MR would still be talking to Praba if not for the JVP is not correct given JVPs record on the Northern issue which has been more opportunist and inconsistent.Infact most of their political Philosophy is contradictory unlike the OLD LEFT.