by Jehan Perera
(August 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Colombo took on the appearance of a city under siege during the week of the SAARC Summit. Roads were deserted and schools were closed to ensure security for the visiting Heads of States from the seven South Asian countries. But the recently concluded Summit was a personal success for President Mahinda Rajapaksa whose government ensured that the events went without any major hitch. The President appeared comfortable in his role as host. The challenge would be to make the legacy of this 15th Summit a positive one. It would be a pity if it becomes just another meeting on which a lot of money was spent but makes no difference to the lives of billion plus people living in the region.
The thrust of President Rajapaksa’s welcome speech to the SAARC delegates took up the issue of terrorism that troubles the entire region. The President and his government have been insistent that Sri Lanka faces a problem of terrorism as its dominant feature. Government spokespersons have routinely denied that there is an ethnic conflict in the country. They have sought to bolster their contention by pointing to the peaceful and amicable coexistence of a multi ethnic and multi religious population in Colombo and elsewhere. If the SAARC leadership had the time and inclination to tour Colombo, which was spruced up for the occasion, they would have seen as much.
In his opening speech to SAARC, President Rajapaksa urged greater cooperation and collective action amongst the member states in combating the terrorism that has disrupted social peace and the prospects for more rapid economic development in the region. There was no controversy in this speech, as about every one of the other SAARC countries also faces serious challenges, which they prefer to describe as being terrorist in nature. Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said that terrorism was the biggest threat to the region’s stability and progress. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani agreed with the Sri Lankan President’s call for collective action to rid the region of the scourge of terrorism.
But the reality is that behind many of the episodes of terror and human rights violations are ethnic and religious grievances that cannot be resolved by solely relying on police and military actions. This is the case in places as diverse as the north and east of Sri Lanka, the north east of India and the eastern hills of Bangladesh where the conflicts due to competing nationalisms date back to the independence era. The love of one’s nation is so potent a mobilizing force that it makes its members willing to fight in the face of overwhelming force. Indeed, “Competing Nationalisms” was the title of a book edited by one of Sri Lanka’s most distinguished intellectuals, Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam, whose life was taken by an LTTE suicide bomber nine years ago.
Glossing over
The final declaration of the SAARC Summit had the condemnation of all forms of terrorist violence and that the participating states had agreed to cooperate, especially through the exchange of information on terrorism and organized crime. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the SAARC leaders made any effort to grapple with the human rights violations and internal displacement that result from their efforts to combat ethnic and religious-based insurrections. Every one of the SAARC countries, with the sole exception of the Maldive Islands which is religiously and ethnically homogeneous, has major problems of competing nationalisms. Sri Lanka’s problem is probably the worst, as it has pitted the biggest ethnic minority in a struggle against a state that is controlled by the largest ethnic community.
In an eloquent speech to the SAARC delegates, President Rajapaksa referred to Sri Lanka as providing a model for the eradication of terrorism. He bolstered his arguments by giving the example of Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, where he said that democracy had been restored and elections had been held. The President’s formula for restoring democracy is to first militarily defeat the LTTE, even though the human and material cost to the Tamil people of the area, and even those outside, is very high. In the case of the eastern victory, tens of thousands of people were displaced and hundreds of others were killed, some by collateral damage and others by targeted killings. The elections that followed could hardly be called free and fair and were strongly criticized by independent election observers.
Clearly a military victory, and peace on the government’s own terms, will be politically advantageous to the government, in relation to its ethnic majority electorate. On the other hand, the question is whether such an imposed solution will be sustainable and bring about conditions of peaceful coexistence in the longer term. Although the government has secured the east, and even held provincial elections, the absence of a peace settlement with the LTTE means that this part of the country remains vulnerable to LTTE infiltration and hit and run attacks. There is a limit to the degree of normalcy and economic development that can be achieved in these circumstances.
The record of wars and conflicts involving competing ethnic nationalisms in the modern era is not an encouraging one of military success. South Asia itself is a laboratory of continuing ethnic and religious conflict to which there is no military solution. As chairman of SAARC for the coming year or more, President Rajapaksa has an opportunity to make a positive contribution to both conflict resolution and rights in the region. This would also answer those critics, who have pointed to the very large expenditures on the SAARC Summit on this occasion and question what benefit has Sri Lanka or the region derived from this meeting.
SAARC Mechanism
As the country facing the worst internal war in the region, with accompanying human rights violations, Sri Lanka has had to face repeated calls from the international community and human rights groups, to come up with a human rights mechanism that ensures accountability. This is due to the large number of human rights violations that are being reported, including abductions and disappearances and targeted killings that take place with impunity even within so-called high security zones established by the government. There have been proposals that the government should permit the UN to set up an international human rights monitoring mechanism with a field presence in Sri Lanka.
At the same time there have been strong objections within Sri Lanka to any form of international human rights monitoring as infringing on the country’s sovereignty, and also bringing in members of the international community who may be having vested interests of their own, which are detrimental to Sri Lanka’s national interests. However, these objections are likely to be less convincing in the case of SAARC members, who will be more likely to be sensitive to the social and cultural contexts in which they will be operating. Also as they are more in tune with the region’s social and cultural contexts, they are less likely to be duped or taken in by dishonesty of the parties to the conflicts they are monitoring.
The problem with relying entirely on purely internal, or national, human rights and judicial mechanisms, as the Sri Lankan government currently insists, is that ethnic and religious polarization within society often leads to bias. Those of one community find it difficult to see, or refuse to see, the injustices that other communities in their country complain about. This is due to the powerful impact of ethnic nationalism on people’s consciousness. On the other hand, these same persons are likely to see the injustices in other societies remarkably well and without bias to any side.
This may account for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to meet with the newly elected Chief Minister of the Eastern Province, which President Rajapaksa had given as an example of restoration of democracy.
As a former human rights defender, President Rajapaksa needs to consider building on the goodwill he has generated by hosting the 15th SAARC Summit, and urge the other Heads of States to establish a SAARC Human Rights Commission or equivalent body with a mandate to advise the member states on human rights, and to which aggrieved parties can address their complaints. In the case of ethnic and religious conflicts, aggrieved communities within a country often feel that they cannot get justice from their own national systems, and this tends to spur them to revolt even more. An approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism that include both cooperation on military actions and human rights violations stands a better chance of success than a reliance on military and police actions alone.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
(August 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Colombo took on the appearance of a city under siege during the week of the SAARC Summit. Roads were deserted and schools were closed to ensure security for the visiting Heads of States from the seven South Asian countries. But the recently concluded Summit was a personal success for President Mahinda Rajapaksa whose government ensured that the events went without any major hitch. The President appeared comfortable in his role as host. The challenge would be to make the legacy of this 15th Summit a positive one. It would be a pity if it becomes just another meeting on which a lot of money was spent but makes no difference to the lives of billion plus people living in the region.
The thrust of President Rajapaksa’s welcome speech to the SAARC delegates took up the issue of terrorism that troubles the entire region. The President and his government have been insistent that Sri Lanka faces a problem of terrorism as its dominant feature. Government spokespersons have routinely denied that there is an ethnic conflict in the country. They have sought to bolster their contention by pointing to the peaceful and amicable coexistence of a multi ethnic and multi religious population in Colombo and elsewhere. If the SAARC leadership had the time and inclination to tour Colombo, which was spruced up for the occasion, they would have seen as much.
In his opening speech to SAARC, President Rajapaksa urged greater cooperation and collective action amongst the member states in combating the terrorism that has disrupted social peace and the prospects for more rapid economic development in the region. There was no controversy in this speech, as about every one of the other SAARC countries also faces serious challenges, which they prefer to describe as being terrorist in nature. Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said that terrorism was the biggest threat to the region’s stability and progress. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani agreed with the Sri Lankan President’s call for collective action to rid the region of the scourge of terrorism.
But the reality is that behind many of the episodes of terror and human rights violations are ethnic and religious grievances that cannot be resolved by solely relying on police and military actions. This is the case in places as diverse as the north and east of Sri Lanka, the north east of India and the eastern hills of Bangladesh where the conflicts due to competing nationalisms date back to the independence era. The love of one’s nation is so potent a mobilizing force that it makes its members willing to fight in the face of overwhelming force. Indeed, “Competing Nationalisms” was the title of a book edited by one of Sri Lanka’s most distinguished intellectuals, Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam, whose life was taken by an LTTE suicide bomber nine years ago.
Glossing over
The final declaration of the SAARC Summit had the condemnation of all forms of terrorist violence and that the participating states had agreed to cooperate, especially through the exchange of information on terrorism and organized crime. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the SAARC leaders made any effort to grapple with the human rights violations and internal displacement that result from their efforts to combat ethnic and religious-based insurrections. Every one of the SAARC countries, with the sole exception of the Maldive Islands which is religiously and ethnically homogeneous, has major problems of competing nationalisms. Sri Lanka’s problem is probably the worst, as it has pitted the biggest ethnic minority in a struggle against a state that is controlled by the largest ethnic community.
In an eloquent speech to the SAARC delegates, President Rajapaksa referred to Sri Lanka as providing a model for the eradication of terrorism. He bolstered his arguments by giving the example of Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, where he said that democracy had been restored and elections had been held. The President’s formula for restoring democracy is to first militarily defeat the LTTE, even though the human and material cost to the Tamil people of the area, and even those outside, is very high. In the case of the eastern victory, tens of thousands of people were displaced and hundreds of others were killed, some by collateral damage and others by targeted killings. The elections that followed could hardly be called free and fair and were strongly criticized by independent election observers.
Clearly a military victory, and peace on the government’s own terms, will be politically advantageous to the government, in relation to its ethnic majority electorate. On the other hand, the question is whether such an imposed solution will be sustainable and bring about conditions of peaceful coexistence in the longer term. Although the government has secured the east, and even held provincial elections, the absence of a peace settlement with the LTTE means that this part of the country remains vulnerable to LTTE infiltration and hit and run attacks. There is a limit to the degree of normalcy and economic development that can be achieved in these circumstances.
The record of wars and conflicts involving competing ethnic nationalisms in the modern era is not an encouraging one of military success. South Asia itself is a laboratory of continuing ethnic and religious conflict to which there is no military solution. As chairman of SAARC for the coming year or more, President Rajapaksa has an opportunity to make a positive contribution to both conflict resolution and rights in the region. This would also answer those critics, who have pointed to the very large expenditures on the SAARC Summit on this occasion and question what benefit has Sri Lanka or the region derived from this meeting.
SAARC Mechanism
As the country facing the worst internal war in the region, with accompanying human rights violations, Sri Lanka has had to face repeated calls from the international community and human rights groups, to come up with a human rights mechanism that ensures accountability. This is due to the large number of human rights violations that are being reported, including abductions and disappearances and targeted killings that take place with impunity even within so-called high security zones established by the government. There have been proposals that the government should permit the UN to set up an international human rights monitoring mechanism with a field presence in Sri Lanka.
At the same time there have been strong objections within Sri Lanka to any form of international human rights monitoring as infringing on the country’s sovereignty, and also bringing in members of the international community who may be having vested interests of their own, which are detrimental to Sri Lanka’s national interests. However, these objections are likely to be less convincing in the case of SAARC members, who will be more likely to be sensitive to the social and cultural contexts in which they will be operating. Also as they are more in tune with the region’s social and cultural contexts, they are less likely to be duped or taken in by dishonesty of the parties to the conflicts they are monitoring.
The problem with relying entirely on purely internal, or national, human rights and judicial mechanisms, as the Sri Lankan government currently insists, is that ethnic and religious polarization within society often leads to bias. Those of one community find it difficult to see, or refuse to see, the injustices that other communities in their country complain about. This is due to the powerful impact of ethnic nationalism on people’s consciousness. On the other hand, these same persons are likely to see the injustices in other societies remarkably well and without bias to any side.
This may account for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to meet with the newly elected Chief Minister of the Eastern Province, which President Rajapaksa had given as an example of restoration of democracy.
As a former human rights defender, President Rajapaksa needs to consider building on the goodwill he has generated by hosting the 15th SAARC Summit, and urge the other Heads of States to establish a SAARC Human Rights Commission or equivalent body with a mandate to advise the member states on human rights, and to which aggrieved parties can address their complaints. In the case of ethnic and religious conflicts, aggrieved communities within a country often feel that they cannot get justice from their own national systems, and this tends to spur them to revolt even more. An approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism that include both cooperation on military actions and human rights violations stands a better chance of success than a reliance on military and police actions alone.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
 Colombo took on the appearance of a city under siege during the week of the SAARC ...){kind=link}
Post a Comment