Defending Sri Lanka: Response to Michael Colin Cooke
Repost This Article
Image taken from ‘Interrogating a public intellectual: Noted bloggers and youth activists engage Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka‘, published on Groundviews
The phrase ‘a man for all seasons’ being a compliment -which is clearly not the writer’s intent- I find Mr Michael Colin Cooke’s sense of irony rather leaden (read A Man for all political Seasons: Dr Dayan Jayatilleka). No matter. I have two options in responding. One is to enter a slugfest of quotations and ideological polemic, for which I simply do not have the time, and nor I suspect, do most readers. The other route is to address the substance, with a view to advancing clarity and political discussion.
MCC accuses me of “idealisation of the current government of Sri Lanka”. That’s plain silly, and he would find it impossible to back it up with a single quotation or example, while none of those he has furnished amount to anything remotely approaching idealisation.
I do defend the Sri Lankan state, its elected leadership and its elected government, in that order, but selectively and hardly uncritically. I have never urged anything but a policy of qualified and critical support, of ‘unity and struggle’ towards these entities.
It should strike Mr Cooke that the 90% approval rating that Mahinda Rajapaksa enjoys, going by the last Gallup poll, is not an indication of “idealisation” of either his leadership or the role and functioning of his government.
Mr Cooke should also examine the possibility that one may support and defend because the object of that support is a bulwark or counterweight against a far greater threat or threats. Still more clearly, one extends support because the object of that support is the only or best available alternative against a greater, more insidious danger. It is a matter of the hierarchy of contradictions; of judging which one is primary and which is secondary in a given stage or phase of history, or a given conjuncture.
At the time he was elected to office and until the successful completion of the war, Mahinda Rajapaksa was far more solution than problem, and was by no means the main danger to the interests of Sri Lanka, its peoples and the anti-imperialist cause as a whole. Though the case is less clear and more complex in the post-war period, this remains so, perhaps to a far lesser extent, as long as (a) Diaspora and Tamil Nadu based pro-Tiger secessionism and external hegemonic interventionism remain a threat and (b) Ranil Wickremasinghe and his UNP remain the only real alternative in terms of the electoral endgame. (Whatever upheavals and however radical, the endgame in Sri Lankan politics at the centre, is always electoral). Were both or indeed either condition to be absent, the entire analysis would be subject to change.
Now, is this my convenient reconstruction or is it the structure of real choices that prevailed when I supported Mahinda Rajapaksa? Let us turn to a scholar whose perspective is almost totally at variance with my own. In a recent Routledge publication, Bradford University’s David Lewis reassesses the war and the diplomatic battle from a perspective that is sharply hostile to the final war and the Rajapaksa administration. (See David Lewis, 2010: The failure of a liberal peace: Sri Lanka’s counterinsurgency in global perspective, Conflict, Security & Development, 10:5, 647-671) Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Co-operation and Security in the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Lewis headed the International Crisis Group’s Sri Lanka programme in 2006-7.
“…From 2005 onwards the new government led by President Rajapaksa rejected all of the explicit or implicit premises that were associated with the conflict resolution mechanisms of the peace process: that the government and LTTE had parity; that there was no privileged status for the sovereign state; that changes to territorial integrity—either through federalism or forms of confederation—were possible avenues towards conflict resolution; and that only external mediation and oversight could enable a settlement to be achieved”. (p 652)
The choice was clear: either these ‘premises’ or their rejection. I criticised and rejected them from the outset, as did the majority of Sri Lankan people later. My support for Mahinda Rajapaksa as presidential candidate and president was because he stood opposed to or was the only candidate critical of these premises, while the other candidate was their co-architect and agent. I continue that basic support for Mahinda Rajapaksa today, although in a far more nuanced manner, because those who stand against him (except for those forces to the left of him) are those who supported these ‘premises’ or did not oppose them, and who wish to punish him and Sri Lanka’s military for rejecting those premises. That basic support will continue as long as those conditions exist and preponderate.
David Lewis sets out Rajapaksa’s response: “Rajapakse rejected any notion that the LTTE was an equal partner in negotiations; he refused to acknowledge its claim to be the ‘sole representative of the Tamil people’, and instead labelled it as ‘the demonic forces of terror’. The state was declared ‘indivisible’ and no concessions either in territory or political power would be ceded to the LTTE; instead Rajapakse aimed for a ‘single country unified under a single standard’. Finally, external mediation would no longer be required…” (Ibid)
I not only supported and defended this response; I had been advocating it for years. My stand did not derive from any variant of Sinhala nationalism. If it did, it should have been limited to the Sinhalese and not proved capable of obtaining broad support including from progressive and anti-imperialist global forces.
Again, David Lewis coming as he does from a contrary standpoint, provides objective confirmation of the global stakes.
“…This shift—if it develops more broadly—will be the result primarily of a reassertion of sovereignty norms against the liberal norms and conflict resolution practices which have made up the international peace-building agenda of the past two decades…The various elements of this approach to peace-building, which was institutionalised in a range of interventions from Bosnia to East Timor, came to be labelled (primarily by its critics) as the ‘liberal peace’, a set of policies and programmes that often prescribed liberal political and economic policies in conflict-affected areas as part of a broader international effort to bring an end to civil conflict…” (p649)
“This shift in approaches to conflict resolution was also encouraged by a change in attitudes and norms related to state sovereignty. In the Cold War period sovereign states had a special status, and governments held a privileged position in any conflict resolution process, relegating opposition movements to the subordinate position of “rebels”’. The maintenance of existing state structures and their territorial integrity took precedence over claims of self-determination and movements for secession. Only in specific circumstances, such as that of an anti-colonial liberation movement, could ‘rebel groups’ claim a special status that conferred international legitimacy. In other circumstances, such as the Biafra conflict in Nigeria, or Katanga in the Congo, international support was primarily provided to the central government; the norms of sovereignty became increasingly embedded. In the early 1990s, the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia and the growth of supranational organisations, such as the EU, helped to undermine sovereignty norms, assisted also by the growth of non-governmental organisations and the ‘Third Wave’ democratisation processes…Nicholas Wheeler and others have argued that a new norm of ‘humanitarian intervention’, with obvious implications for sovereignty norms, began to gain ground in the UN in the 1990s.
These changes in norms related to sovereignty had a significant impact on the way governments dealt with armed rebellion and civil wars. In these new approaches to resolving conflict, states and non-state actors were often given effective parity in peace negotiations, and secession or significant levels of autonomy were considered a possible avenue for conflict resolution. The inviolability of state sovereignty came under attack, fuelled by a new privileging of democratic values and universal understandings of human rights, which gave new status to groups claiming to be the victims of state repression. The emergence of new states such as Kosovo and East Timor were the logical, if controversial, outcome of these new approaches…” (Ibid p 650-1)
“The Sri Lankan peace process included many of the elements and approaches that had become familiar during the 1990s. The peace process was heavily internationalised…” (p 651)
What Michael Colin Cooke cannot understand, but David Lewis does, is what this meant from the point of view of contemporary global dynamics. I might disclose with some modest degree of satisfaction, that the latter devotes considerable attention to the battles in the UN HRC, their embedding in the world context and their implications, citing me (in GV!) a few times:
“However, it was not merely this direct bilateral financial and strategic support that assisted Sri Lanka nor the military hardware that it could access from China and from other countries such as Pakistan or Ukraine. Sri Lanka also ably took advantage of shifts in the international geopolitical balance to promote and benefit from changes in the understanding of international norms …related to international responses to internal conflicts.Two normative areas were of particular relevance: those norms that reinforce or undermine particular understandings of state sovereignty; and those norms that propose limitations on the use of force in internal conflicts or advocate peaceful resolution rather than the use of force. In both areas, key influencing states in international forums (such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, Indonesia and South Africa) have tended to support a reversion to pre-1991 norms, supporting maximalist understandings of state sovereignty and resisting norms that constrain particular ways in which force is used inside state borders.
Many of the battles over conflict-related norms between Sri Lanka and Europe took place in UN institutions, primarily the Human Rights Council (HRC), of which Sri Lanka was a member until 2008…it was Sri Lanka which generally had the best of these diplomatic battles. On 27May 2009 a HRC resolution congratulated Sri Lanka on defeating the LTTE… Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa were notable supporters of the Sri Lankan resolution…During the conflict China and Russia—backed by some other states, such as Vietnam and Libya—made it clear that they would block any efforts to place the Sri Lankan crisis formally on the Security Council agenda. Under pressure from the UK and France, in particular, Security Council members finally agreed a compromise statement in May 2009, expressing ‘grave concern over the worsening humanitarian crisis in north-east Sri Lanka’, although this too was produced without a formal discussion in the Security Council chamber. Similarly, a move to produce an investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka came directly from the office of the Secretary-General, and did not require a Security Council vote, much to the displeasure of Russia.
These successful alliance-building efforts by Sri Lanka in the HRC and the Security Council reflect broader trends…
There is also evidence of growing resistance to other controversial conflict-related norms, such as the Responsibility to Protect concept. Although most major powers, including China and India, formally adopted the concept in 2005, they have resisted its application in a number of conflict environments, and there have been attempts to dilute its application and scope…” (ibid pp. 658-9)
“…Although this process of contestation reflects shifting power relations, and the increasing influence of China, Russia and other ‘Rising Powers’, it does not mean that small states are simply the passive recipients of norms created and contested by others. In fact, Sri Lankan diplomats have been active norm entrepreneurs in their own right, making significant efforts to develop alternative norms of conflict management, linking for example Chechnya and Sri Lanka in a discourse of state-centric peace enforcement. They have played a leading role in UN forums such as the UN HRC, where Sri Lankan delegates have helped ensure that the HRC has become an arena, not so much for the promotion of the liberal norms around which it was designed, but as a space in which such norms are contested, rejected or adapted in unexpected ways.
….As a member of the UN HRC Sri Lanka has played an important role in asserting new, adapted norms opposing both secession and autonomy as possible elements in peacebuilding—trends that are convergent with views expressed by China, Russia and India…The Sri Lankan conflict may be seen as the beginning of a new international consensus about conflict management, in which sovereignty and non-interference norms are reasserted, backed not only by Russia and China but also by democratic states such as Brazil.
If the international normative environment begins to fracture further as non-liberal states gain greater influence over international governance structures, there may be a break-down in common understandings of normative approaches to conflict resolution, reflecting the potentially sharp differences between liberal norms and the influential alternative approaches that …describe as ‘Eastphalia’.” (pp. 658-661)
What was at stake in the Sri Lankan conflict and what continues to some degree (with the raucous calls for an ‘international inquiry’) to be at stake, is conformity or resistance to the post Cold War global order. David Lewis, a supporter of that order, understands this. Michael Colin Cooke’s reliance on Noel Malcolm’s nonsensical narrative about Yugoslavia and Kosovo clearly reveals that he does not. Here is what Fidel Castro had to say just months ago, in the aftermath of the Libya intervention, about Kosovo:
“…NATO assumed this global repressive role as soon as the USSR, which had served as the U.S. pretext for its creation, disappeared. Its criminal purpose became obvious in Serbia, a country of Slavic origin, whose people heroically struggled against the Nazis during World War II. In March of 1999, when the countries of this nefarious organization, in its efforts to break up Yugoslavia after the death of Josip Broz Tito, sent in troops to support the Kosovar secessionists, they met with strong resistance on the part of the country´s experienced forces which remained intact. The Yankee administration, advised by the right-wing Spanish government of José María Aznar, attacked Serbian television stations, bridges over the Danube River and Belgrade, the capital of the country. The embassy of the People’s Republic of China was destroyed by Yankee bombs and several functionaries died. This could not have been any mistake, as those responsible alleged. A great number of Serbian patriots lost their lives. President Slobodan Miloševic, overwhelmed by the power of the aggressors and the disappearance of the USSR, submitted to NATO demands and allowed the presence of troops from this alliance within Kosovo, under United Nations command, which finally led to his political defeat and subsequent prosecution by the less than impartial court of The Hague. He died under mysterious circumstances in prison. Had the Serbian leader resisted a few more days, NATO would have faced a serious crisis which was about to erupt.” (Reflections of Fidel Castro: NATO’s Genocidal Role, Oct 23/24, 2011)
Deriving from Fidel’s re-emphasis in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, on national independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity against attempts at ‘dismembering’ ( his term) countries, this was precisely my understanding of Kosovo and its implications for Sri Lanka, which David Lewis correctly notes that I linked and deployed in my discourse in Geneva. Michael Colin Cooke’s failure to comprehend the turning point that was Kosovo is symptomatic of his larger failure to comprehend — especially from the perspective of the South– imperialism, hegemonism and the struggle for global equilibrium today. He also fails to understand why every government or state born of a revolutionary or liberation struggle, as well as governments led by those with a revolutionary project or provenance, ranging from Cuba to Vietnam, from Brazil to China, from Uruguay to Angola, from Venezuela to Laos, from Ecuador to Ethiopia, from Venezuela to Mozambique, defend and support Sri Lanka in the terms, for the reasons of principle, and to the extent that I do (“idealization of the current government” having nothing whatsoever to do with it). Debating Marxism with such a man is a waste of time.
In the face of Western pressure towards the end of the war, Mahinda Rajapaksa did what Fidel thought Milosevic should have but did not. Sri Lanka did not blink. Any project worthy of support (especially by progressives) that seeks to supplant or supersede Mahinda Rajapaksa must defend the gains made by him in matters of national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity. It must support what is correct in what he has done and is doing, while being critical of what he should do but is not, and what he shouldn’t but is. So long as there is real pressure and threat from outside, the Sri Lankan people will not opt for anyone who is perceived as a weaker leader than Mahinda on these issues. The Sri Lankan people will only turn to a leadership or project that is more enlightened, pluralist and progressive; that can defend and consolidate his gains using ‘smart power’ while rectifying his errors– never someone who is perceived as a weaker defender of national independence, state sovereignty and the ‘general will’ of the people.
Dr Jayatilleka notes “Fidel’s re-emphasis in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, on national independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity against attempts at ‘dismembering’ ( his term) countries, this was precisely my understanding of Kosovo and its implications for Sri Lanka”.
I’m a big fan of Fidel and Cuba, but perpetually disappointed by their failure to support so many genuine national liberation and ethnic minority struggles for justice around the world. I don’t know why they are so frequently bad at this; perhaps they are viewing the world through a Latin American prism.
In South America, a movement for separatism – say, in the rich East of Bolivia, or the oil-rich west of Venezuela – is generally a ploy by US backed right wingers. But then, Latin America had its own bourgeois revolutions long ago, and constituted relatively stable independent, coherent nation-states (with only indigenous minorities missing out).
Much of Asia and Africa, and even parts of Eastern Europe like Kosovo perhaps, have suffered decades and centuries of imperial divide-and-rule politics and in many cases their nation states were formed in subjugation to colonialism and imperialism, on its terms, not against them as seems to have occurred in Latin America.
In Lanka, there was hardly any liberation struggle of any kind: the domestic (domesticated) elite simply had power handed to them as the British left.
Is Fidel right or wrong? He’s not the pope. I think it’s dangerous to ignore ethnic minorities’ appeals for just treatment, even if we do fear they may fall into imperialism’s hands. What is inconceivable that the current Lankan govenrment is a serious threat to imperialism: numerous world powers are funding, arming and courting them.
“I’m a big fan of Fidel and Cuba, but perpetually disappointed by their failure to support so many genuine national liberation and ethnic minority struggles for justice around the world.”
Well it could’ve been worse; they could’ve supported a fake national liberation and ethnic minority struggle for justice, such as the LTTE.
Ben, sure, Fidel isn’t the Pope, but it isn’t just the Cubans, its the Vietnamese, Chinese, Venezuelans, Ecuadorans, Uruguayans, Brazilians, Ethiopians, Angolans, Mozambicans et al who supported Sri Lanka on this one.
Have they all got their Marxism/leftism wrong, while you and Michael Colin Cooke have it right?
Ummm… but the CPI(Maoist) have pledged their unwavering support to the Tamil Eelam Liberation struggle. Are they ‘non-Marxists’ then?
What do the marxists say about what has been going on in the last 32 months, leave alone the previos six decades? 100 or even more countries may say Sri lankan govt is right. Who cares? Successive Sri Lankan governments have been lying at the UN and the Commonwealth for the last 63 yrs or so. Foreign Ministers have been flying to various countries to lie. Sri Lankan Ambassadors and UN representatives have been lying. As most countries are human rights violators they listen to such lies.
What is true is what is said by conscientious Sinhalese (eg submissions to LLRC) beside the people who have been victims.
People have no roofs over their heads but the President goes and lays foundation for a stadium days before the election. What do the marxists say to that? When the East is in floods last year the occupation army arranges Thaipongal for the President in Jaffna.
What would any decent person say to:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers46/paper4558.html:
Sri Lanka: Indian Delegates go Home Empty Handed, Kumar David, 15 June 2011: ‘’The umpteenth Indian delegation (Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, National Security Advisor Shiva Shankar Menon and Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar) came to Colombo and duly went back empty handed and funny as a comic strip! President Rajapakse handed them a flat ‘Nyet’ and for once in a lifetime he spoke the truth. “If I make any devolutionary concessions to the Tamils, 13A Plus, Minus, Divided or Subtracted, it will be curtains for me.” The government’s parliamentary group met the evening before the esteemed visitors arrived and decided; ‘’Let’s tell them the truth straight from the shoulder and upfront; let’s tell them. if we do it we are dead meat”
What would any decent person would say to:
President’s lies are beaten by Dayan’s lies.
Just as UN needs reform Sri Lanka also needs reform.
Prof Priyan Dias addresses LLRC, 07 October 2011:
Mr. S.B. Dissanayake who is a current senior member of the Government was accusing the Government of being hand-in-glove with Karuna faction with regard to abductions. Karuna faction was funded – there were lot of speculation that this was done through the abduction of various Tamil persons mostly in Colombo, many of them businessmen and the demand for ransoms. In fact there was one newspaper that in fact carried a name of a bank into which account this money had to be paid. Also if you look at the government’s response – when I am talking about government I am talking about ourselves, as a society, our societal response shall we say – I am not trying to point fingers at a particular government or anything like that. I am talking about the response of our society. The response was very minimal.
I think there was a one-man Commission appointed to look into this. We are not sure what happened to that. I think there was an Air Force officer who was arrested, one Gajanayake, but
no one knows what has happened to him. So there seemed to be a certain dragging of heels regarding this. I know Prof. Aluwihare once wrote a letter saying that Karuna’s cadres should be conscripted into the regular Army. So there was a feeling that there was a collusion then between the government forces and the Karuna faction. There was a feeling that their check points were close to the government check points and various things like that. All this adds up to the idea that the government also was tacitly or otherwise helping the Karuna faction. Therefore if the Karuna faction was irritating the LTTE and the LTTE was breaking the ceasefire then of course we would say that it was the Karuna faction who was responsible for the fact that the ceasefire was violated. Then indirectly we can say that the government was helping the Karuna faction. We are part of the government, and then we are in fact responsible for that as a society, as a body politic.
if we look backwards what I am trying to say is that conventionally we are told that the LTTE is sort of the demon, the group that is responsible for all the ills, not only of the South, but also for the ills of the Tamil people in the North and the East, which by and large I agree. However, what I am trying to say is there is other blame that has to be placed in various other parts of our society and it is a recognition of that blame, recognition of that guilt that will result in a better society for our future. I say that on the basis of the Youth Commission Report of 1990 that took place after another youth uprising, a military uprising.
No one is asking now whether it is “we” who are responsible for the LTTE uprising. Well, I don’t feel that very much myself. But I think as a society we need to have that sense of guilt, have that sense of blame that we are responsible for this happening and it is only out of that sense of guilt that we can move forward. So I suggest to the Commissioners perhaps in your deliberations, in your reports, that you report that this is part of the way forward.’’
ACCOUNTABILITY, SOVEREIGNTY & UNIVERSAL VALUES
(Excerpt from address to the International Law Students Association comprising students from the Master of International Law and the Master of International Economic Law, Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne University.)
DR. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA
I look at the issue of accountability primarily as a political scientist and from a comparative politics point of view. And I am struck by the fact that what I consider to be an exemplary progressive democracy, Brazil, headed by Dilma Rousseff, who was herself an guerrilla and a political prisoner, tortured by the military junta, has only now, some weeks ago, instituted a commission of inquiry into the conduct of the military junta from 1964 to 1988. In Argentina, we have known for a long time the notorious torturer and executioner, the so-called Angel of Death, the naval captain Astiz. Astiz has been sentenced only now for the crimes that he has committed from 1976 to 1979. I could go on. When I look at Bangladesh, there is a commission of inquiry into the atrocities committed in 1971, four decades ago. And there are many societies which have moved from conflict to post-conflict society, from authoritarianism to democracies, which have deliberately chosen not to open up the issue of accountability until a new generation and a new mentality has been formed. And this, I wish to point out, concern deeply unpopular military regimes, military juntas which actually tortured some of the leaders of today, like Mujica in Uruguay, a former Tupamaro urban guerrilla leader who was for two years in solitary confinement in a disused well.
In Sri Lanka by contrast you have a widely popular army; popular because it put an end to thirty years of suicide bombers. I really do not think that any democratically elected government is going to risk being the first in the world to open up the military to an international inquiry on a war’s last stage or successful conclusion, considered by most of the citizenry to be liberation. I do believe that accountability is important; I do not feel bound to ‘Asian values’ and ‘home grown’ solutions and so on. But I also do believe that universality works through the particular. And that particular, in Asia, in the global South, means the particularities of every society –and I am not talking about culture- but the stage of political development which includes the need not to jeopardize stability and democracy because democracy is always fragile. I believe that every society, as part of its sovereign right, decides on when it will confront certain issues of collective trauma and how, and Sri Lanka is no different from these other societies. I do not believe it will be the first to stand in line and say, “it is alright, let’s not talk about Agent Orange, let’s talk about Sri Lanka”.
Does Sri Lanka subscribe to universality of values? Yes but I will be honest enough to say that there is a problem. Formally the Sri Lankan State does so, because we have signed up to so many conventions and we have been an active part of the UN system. But there is an ideological struggle going on, as in every society. Societies have this tendency to turn inwards or outwards. There are those who would say that universal values are just a disguise for the West and that you need to give primacy to your own national or local values.
The most important thing however, is that we are human beings. Therefore, deriving from the universality of the human condition, there are universal values which, in the final analysis, must be regarded the highest of values. But we must be realistic enough to understand that there is unevenness. In the theoretical sense, we have to be aware of two major errors. While one error is of local values placed higher than universal values, there is another error. That error is to think that universality manifests itself unmediated. And this is not true because the universal manifests itself and can only manifest itself through the particular. So we have to understand that universality itself develops unevenly.
Someday if the United Nations itself is made more democratic and more representative with more power to the General Assembly and more representation at the Security Council then perhaps this would be easier to resolve. The debate usually polarizes between those who say that national sovereignty and no individual rights and those who say yes to national sovereignty and that individual rights are obsolete. However, if you go back to the original Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 you would remember that article 3 says that “All sovereignty flows from the nation”. So there you have almost a perfect synthesis and equilibrium of the rights of the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation. And we have lost that, theoretically and in practice. I think the mediatory term here, which is missing, is the intervention of Rousseau, the whole idea of popular sovereignty. All of this needs working out, the nation, the national sovereignty, popular sovereignty and the rights of the citizen. Is popular sovereignty possible without national sovereignty? Can a citizenry exist without its constitution as a nation?
That does not mean that the citizenry can be suppressed under this notion of national sovereignty. But there is such a thing as the sovereignty of the State. Where does it stop? What are the boundaries of State sovereignty? Regis Debray made a very interesting intervention “in praise of borders”, but of borders as bridges, not walls. So we have to reassess the importance of national sovereignty because too often national sovereignty has been brushed aside as part of a unipolar, hegemonistic and interventionist project, which is also a reality in international politics.
I ask you to bear in mind that while we have many voices from Asian friends, gently urging us and nudging us in the direction of ethnic reconciliation through reform– and I see this not as a negative factor– on the issue of sovereignty and on the related issue of an international inquiry into the conduct of the war there are no pressures at all, from any part of Asia. I think Dr. Henry Kissinger was correct when, in his last book, the excellent book on China, he makes the point which has been picked up since by others that though Westphalian sovereignty is no longer a touch stone in Europe, you have an almost classically Westphalian notion of sovereignty in Asia — I would say in Eurasia from Russia onwards, and among the BRICS as well as in the global South as a whole. That is also a reality that you have to deal with.
As we can see in the Arab Spring, I do not think that this new Westphalian notion can prevail if it were to ignore popular sovereignty. It will not be possible for States and regimes to brush everything under the carpet of national sovereignty, but national sovereignty cannot be completely dismissed or thrown away, and it certainly will not happen in Asia for quite some time to come. Right now Asia is not some backward old traditional place. It is probably one of the two most interesting places in the world today, left-leaning Latin America being the other. Asia is a cutting edge of modernity now and we witness what is termed an alternative Asian modernity.
I know it is not fashionable or politically correct to talk about Carl Schmitt. His best known essay was of course The Concept of the Political, in which he makes the major point on the friend-enemy distinction as defining the domain of the political. In all frankness my own attitude is what is known as ‘left-Schmittian’ – the TELOS group, scholars like Chantal Mouffe and others have reassessed Schmitt from a radical or progressive point of view and I tend to go along with quite a lot of that. Go check out the debate between Schmitt and Hans Kelsen on the realities of international politics versus international law. You will find it at least provocative. He cuts through a lot of the romanticization of international law and does as a jurist, albeit with a very lucid polemical style, in a spirit that is very contemporary. You do not have to accept it but his counterview has to be taken a little seriously because there are, apart from international law, other realities as well.
@ Dr.Dayarn
I don’t care about Agent Orange. But we need ‘Accountability’ for the murders of Lasantha and countless other journalists including thousands of White Van disappearances including that of Pradeep Ekanaligoda not forgetting the thousands of civilian deaths in the No Fire Zone.
‘National Sovereignty’ as in the case of Sri Lanka is an euphemism for ‘Family Dictatorship.’Regular elections does not make a country a democracy, if the elections are flawed. All dictatorships start in the same way: with promises of a radiant future (Mahinda Chinthana, Wonder of Asia ect)but what the people get is misery, fear, gags and blood and frequent dissaperances.And they usually all end alike: the dictator is eventually killed, like Gaddafi, is judged like Mubarak, or flees like Ben Ali. There is, however, a rare type of dictatorship that is harder to predict – the ones that dismantle themselves: Spain after Franco, Chile after Pinochet, Poland after Jaruzelski.
So which way do you think the ‘SOVEREIGN STATE OF UNIVERSAL VALUES’ (aka Sri Lanka)which is governed by the Rajapaksa Family will go one day? The Gaddafi way? The Mubarak way or the Ben Ali way?
PresiDunce, I’ve been converted to David Blacker’s counsel (see his comment in the discussion of MCC’s critique) on my strivings for ‘intelligent conversation’ with you
)
”Someday if the United Nations itself is made more democratic and more representative with more power to the General Assembly and more representation at the Security Council”:
1.”We need to rectify this bad governance. We have already missed several opportunities in the past. We need to have State reform; we need to have rule of law established; we need to ensure non discrimination amongst our citizens; we need to have devolution of power and a tolerance of dissent and a strengthening of democratic institutions’’ – J. Dhanapala told LLRC on 25 August 2010
2.”This has been so since independence when discrimination on the basis of ethnic identity began to grow. If the grievances of Sri Lankan Tamils are not reconciled within Sri Lanka and are done merely to keep Chennai and New Delhi off our backs, we will only have ourselves to blame” – J.Goonaratne told LLRC on 15 September
3.”Sri Lanka’s experience in devolution under the 13th Amendment has suffered from inadequacies in design as well as in practice especially from a lack of coherence and commitment in moving from centralized to devolved governance” – Asoka Gunawardene told LLRC, 25 August 2010
4.”There are some essential prerequisites: 1. A Constitution which shields all citizens from abuse of power and authority and guarantees them against any denial or erosion of their rights; 2. Freedom of information and complete transparency of government. ….’’ – Judge Weeramantry told LLRC November 2010
5. Ethnic Violence, Development and Human Rights, Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Consultation – Utrecht, 1-3 February 1985:‘’Although there are many long-standing ethnic conflicts, and special focus on the relation between ethnic conflict and human rights has been long overdue, these two consultations were prompted by the continuously aggravating ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. …. This failure of intergovernmental organizations, based on the reticence of its membership, to look into the question of ethnic conflict early in the process, and to play a protective role, is very much at the heart of the problem. It has to be investigated how the United Nations could play a more preventive role, e.g. by giving ethnic minorities more recognized formal standing in United Nations organs and proceedings, by creating better opportunities for minorities to call on the United Nations, or by giving the United Nations an arbitration role in emerging conflicts. …. there is an immediate need for the creation of an independent group which would have the function of making clear and making widely known the present serious condition of the Tamil people and their genuine demands. It is important that such a group should maintain its independence from the Tamil groups who are presently shouldering this burden and attempting to fulfil this function alone.”
A. ”the stage of political development which includes the need not to jeopardize stability and democracy”:
There is a very effective attempt to jeopardize stability/democracy through education/textbooks in Sri Lanka:
1.http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/1190
Friday Forum deeply concerned about leadership training outside university system, 10 June 2011:
‘’…. The curriculum of the training programme obtained by the Friday Forum after some effort reveals extremely problematic aspects….. On the whole the curriculum seems to discourage tolerance for viewpoint difference, and sensitivities for the pluralism and diversity of our country.”
2.http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5680782-182/story.csp
Why education matters for global security, Irina Bokova(Director General, UNESCO) 1 March 2011: ‘’Education must rise on the agenda of peace building. We know the wrong type of education can fuel conflict. The use of education systems to foster hatred has contributed to the underlying causes of conflicts, from Rwanda to Sri Lanka, but also in Guatemala and Sudan.’’
3.A school honouring ex-soldiers in Vesak(the most important Buddhist festival in Sri Lanka) with student dancers in combat dress depicting guns and Vesak cards with roses on guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGhMIgnwZuA
The Changing face of Wesak in Colombo and Militarizing Sri Lanka, 15 May 2009
4.http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1121703274255/1439264-1126807073059/Paper_Final.pdf
Respect for Diversity in Educational Publication – The Sri Lankan Experience, Ariya Wickrema and Peter Colenso, 2003:
‘’It is necessary to trace briefly the historical links between the development of the education system and the development of an ethnic -based politics, leading to armed conflict. …. Divisions were exacerbated by successive government policies discriminating against the Tamil minorities. ….
Divisive ethnic politics and loss of confidence in non-violent and democratic politics fuelled the desire for autonomous, separatist solutions through the 1970s ….
The Government dominates the educational publications sector in Sri Lanka through its provision of free textbooks to all students from grade 1 to 11 …. Tamils not involved in writing the textbooks – Textbooks written in Sinhala, and then translated into Tamil …. full of spelling, grammatical and factual errors ….
distortion of history …. the textbooks encourage children to develop “apartheid attitudes” …..
Tamils are portrayed as “aggressors”; forces of the Tamil kings are “mercenaries’ , whereas forces of the Sinhala kings are “soldiers” ….
War is shown as patriotic while peace is portrayed as cowardice.’’
4.The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children – Kenneth D Bush and Diana Saltarelli(2000) – published by Innocenti Research Centre, UNICEF:
”Ethnic intolerance makes it appearance in the classroom in many ways…… Textbooks have often been shown to contain negative ethnic stereotypes….. A review of the textbooks used in the segregated schools of Sri Lanka in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, found Sinhalese textbooks scattered with images of Tamils as the historical enemies of the Sinhalese, while celebrating ethnic heroes who had vanquished Tamils in ethnic wars. Ignoring historical fact, these textbooks tended to portray Sinhalese Buddhists as the only true Sri Lankans, with Tamils, Muslims and Christians as non- indigenous and extraneous to Sri Lankan history. This version of national history according to one commentator, has been deeply divisive in the context of the wider state.”
5. 5. Reggie Siriwardene, a well-respected Sinhalese writer, in a well-documented analysis of the effects of school textbooks on ethnic relations in Sri Lanka(1984):
“Millions of school children are taught, in the name of social studies, through text-books published by the state, the myths of divergent racial origins which will help to divide the Sinhalese and Tamils for more generations to come… What this lesson does is to evoke the child’s memories of being frightened by his parents with threats of the mysterious and fearful `billo’ to identify these bogeymen as Tamil agents, and thus to enlist the deep-seated irrational fears of early childhood for the purpose of creating apprehension and hatred of Tamils.”
6. In the 1950s and 1960s Tamil and Sinhalese scholars vehemently protested this but the Education Department that produces the textbooks dismissed their concern.
B.”In Sri Lanka by contrast you have a widely popular army”:
Nearly 99% Sinhalese army – mostly from rural poor, drenched in the hatred-mongering textbooks, minimally diluted by interaction with somewhat globalised urban natives and people from other parts of the world.
contd
Dayan
If peace and prosperity of the country is in your head and heart, you’ll make use of your position at UNESCO for a process to check the textbooks of a country mired in a 64-yr conflict.
C. ”when it will confront certain issues of collective trauma and how”:
What you can learn from people with good heart and therefore good head and which you cannot necessarily from gaining mutiple degrees is:
Chapter5: Ethnic Co-operation in Sri Lanka by Norman T.Uphoff in Carrots, Sticks and Ethnic Conflict(Ed MJ Esman and RJ Herring 2003):
”1987 -
The farmer who objected to this generosity was persuaded to support the plan after a young farmer, Narangoda, took him by bicycle down the long and bumpy canal road to see what conditions were like at the end. The dissenting individual came back quite moved by what he had seen, reporting that the tail-end farmers did not have enough water even for drinking and bathing, let alone for growing a crop of rice. The Gonagolla farmers tried to save donate two and even three days’ of their five days water allotment once they became more conscious of how the drought was affecting othersothers down stream. ….. Several Sinhalese farmer groups told me that they had an informal understanding with Tamil communities downstream: if the tigers were making a raid upstream, Tamils would try to warn Sinhalese communities so that they could try to protect themselves; if the Sri Lankan army was moving downstream, Sinhalese would try to warn the Tamil communities so that they would try to get out of the way…. When I met with Sinhalese farmers in Gonagolla and asked whether the Tamil engineer living among them was safe, Narangoda, the local leader said: ”Yes, I regard him as my brother and if someone comes to get him, they will have to get me first”
There have been many examples like Narangoda, but they are not posted to Paris to lie on behalf of an oppressive government. The President’s video and your speech complement each other.
The government doesn’t have to employ a PR company: your ”work” in Paris is more than enough for the government to postpone resolution of the conflict(short-term gains for the Rajapkases and long-term loss for the country)
“So we have to reassess the importance of national sovereignty because too often national sovereignty has been brushed aside as part of a unipolar, hegemonistic and interventionist project, which is also a reality in international politics.”
Yes. Sovereignty of which nation thought?
“So we have to reassess the importance of national sovereignty because too often national sovereignty has been brushed aside as part of a unipolar, hegemonistic and interventionist project, which is also a reality in international politics.”
Yes. Sovereignty of which nation though?
‘Which nation’? You mean which nations? Panama, Haiti, ex-Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya…
Dayan… Uh oh… but this guy here is talking about the sovereignty of a different nation – one that you dont even recognize – and it seems he is a Marxist too!
http://tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=34803
Do convey his message to you chums in Cuba the next time you talk to them eh?
On my reading of Dr Dayan’s response to Michael, I see that his analysis can be reduced to the following three points –
That the international intervention model has become passe.
That the BRIC countries are bulwark against western imperialism and are the custodians of anti imperialism and strong defenders of State sovereignty.
That he played a proud role in scuttling the proposal to investigate Sri Lanka for human rights violations at the UN forum.
India, China and Russia are not, in any stretch of the imagination, anti imperialist. They are CAPITALIST regimes jostling for shares in the global market place and access to global resources. Their pursuit of market share and resources will continue to brutalise minority groups and the poor (talk to the Kashmiris and tribals in India).
I respect Dr’s right to hold his view. My gripe is that he expropriates left wing icons in his analysis. But I suppose we have to learn to live with this.
Hey Mr Suriyakumaran,
You forgot Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Vietnam, Ecuador, Uruguay, Angola, Mozambique, Laos, Cambodia…in fact there isn’t a left-led or oriented regime in the world that has not supported Sri Lanka against ‘international humanitarian interventionism’ in 2009 and an ‘international inquiry’ today. Nor have any of them supported a call for federalism. They do not support anything beyond India’s stand of devolution within SL’s state framework based on 13A.
So I haven’t ‘expropriated’ any left wing icons. I have merely drawn attention to them.
My stand is theirs, and those are the self-imposed parameters of my position.
I have not expressed any support on any measures of domestic governance and policy, have dissented on devolution, and publicly expressed opposition to some (‘A Perfect Blunder’, Feb 15, 2010).
I find the title “Defending Sri Lanka” a little perplexing and somewhat over the top. What exactly is this “real pressure and threat from outside” that Dr Jayatilleka refers to? And how does it justify the continued repression of a hapless minority (especially now that the LTTE have been defeated)? Sri Lankian history from 1971 to 1983 to 2009 has given us thousands of senseless deaths. Rather than esoteric debates about theoretical marxism, post conflict resolution models, and who is supporting whom at the UN, to justify the status quo, surely it is time to acknowledge, as Michael Colin Cooke has pointed out, that recognition, tolerance and compromise offers hope for a solution that could break the cycle of violence. It is a pity that Dr Jayatilleka has failed to address the application of such values.
The only thing that can be worse than an intolerant,chauvinist-patriotic DJ would be a tolerant, pluralist DJ. I prefer him as he is now. Atleast that lets us know what the Sri Lankan nation really thinks about the Tamils.
Moreno, you write that that “recognition, tolerance and compromise offers hope for a solution that could break the cycle of violence. It is a pity that Dr Jayatilleka has failed to address the application of such values.”
How can you say that when I have solidly defended the LLRC report and its proposals, whereas Sinhala chauvinists have come out openly opposing these?
And anyway, even Gordon Weiss notes in his book that I am a firm supporter of devolution through the implementation of the 13th amendment…
”In Sri Lanka by contrast you have a widely popular army; popular because it put an end to thirty years of suicide bombers”. You forgot to tell this was preceded by 30yrs of a series of anti-Tamil riots?
Degrees don’t necessarily make people straight.
Even small children know that if one is hit he will hit back.
Nobody asked you why they turned out to be suicide bombers? Nobody told you nobody is born a bad person and only the circumstances make one a bad person? You don’t need to know psychology, sociology or any degree. Many living species including man are born with intrinsic give-and-take?
I don’t think any in the audience was too unintelligent to accept what you said. Some simply brush illogic aside as there are too many illogic people among us.
There are people without degrees but with logic and decent humanity:
Degrees don’t necessarily make people good or logical.
They talk about last 30 years not the 30 yrs after indepedance.
1948 – The Citizenship Act disenfranchising Indian Tamil Plantation workers was passed in Parliament. One million 3rd generation plantation workers had been living in the island for over 115 years. They were brought to the island by the British from South India to work in Tea and Rubber plantations in the hill country. 100,000 plantation Tamils were victimised. (Violation of UDHR article – 21)
Sinhala colonisation – As a result of many years of State planned Sinhala colonisation since 1948 in the Tamil homeland (North and East), the Sinhala governments and its destructive agents plundered and robbed 50% of the ancestral lands of the Tamils in the North East of Sri Lanka. (Violation of UDHR articles – 17)
1956 – The “Sinhala Only” Act was passed in the Sri Lankan Parliament. This Act made Tamils second class citizens in the island. Tamils staged peaceful protests in Colombo and Gal Oya. 150 Tamils were burnt or hacked to death; 20 Women were raped; 3000 were made refugees and their properties were looted by Sinhala mobs. (Violation of UDHR article – 2, 3, 5, 12, 17 )
1957 – the “Banda Chelva” pact and in 1965 the “Dudley-Chelva” pact. These agreements were based on a quasi-federal system devolving certain powers to the Tamils in the North East province. These were the first of several agreements and pacts signed between Tamil leaders and Sinhala leaders to resolve the political turmoil in the country, that were unilaterally abrogated by Sri Lanka.
1958 – Anti Tamil riots in Sinhala areas. Massacre of Tamils, looting of their properties, setting fire to their houses. 25,000 Tamils were made refugees; 500 Tamils were burnt or hacked to death; 200 Women were raped and Tamil properties were looted or destroyed by Sinhala mobs. (Violation of UDHR articles – 2, 3, 5, 12, 17)
1961 – Tamil non-violent (Satyagraha) civil disobedience campaign in the North and East was disrupted by the security forces, protesters were beaten and arrested. (Violation of UDHR articles – 5, 9, 20)
1964 – The Pact (Srima-Shastri) to evacuate Tamil plantation workers of Indian origin was signed. They were living in the island for over 131 years. 650,000 Plantation Tamils became stateless persons. (Violation of UDHR articles – 4, 15, 23)
1972 – Equal education opportunities for Tamil students were denied. Standardisation on University admission was introduced. (Violation of UDHR article – 26)
1974 – The Fourth International Tamil research Conference held on 10/01/1974 in Jaffna was disrupted by the Sri Lankan Police. 9 Tamils were brutally killed. (Violation of UDHR articles – 2, 3, 20, 27)
1977 – In July, Tamil United Liberation Front-TULF, contested and won overwhelmingly at the Parliamentary election giving them a mandate to exercise the “Right to Self-determination” and establish Tamil Eelam in the North East. In 1983 August 8, Sri Lankan government enacts the 6th amendment to the constitution and rejected the right to self-determination of the Tamil people, the mandate voted by the Tamils in 1977 general election. (Violation of UDHR articles – 8, 10, 21)
1979 July – Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was introduced in Sri Lanka. This Act gives a free hand to the Security forces to arrest, detain, torture, rape, kill and dispose bodies with impunity. Arrested people could be detained for three months without being produced in courts. (Violations of UDHR articles – 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
1981 – The Jaffna Public Library containing 95,000 volumes was completely destroyed in a fire set by a group of Police officers who went on a rampage in the Jaffna city on May 31, 1981. 95, 000 volumes of unrecoverable-invaluable books were burnt. (Violations of UDHR articles – 2, 21, 24, 27)
1983 – Since independence in 1948, more than 35 years of peaceful non-violent struggle by the Tamils protesting against Sinhala oppression, were suppressed by violent means by the Sri Lankan security forces, inflicting loss of many lives and much material damage to the Tamils. (Violations of UDHR articles – 3, 4, 5,9,13,20)
1983 – The Government masterminded anti-Tamil riots in July 83. More than 6,000 Tamils were killed by the Sinhalese in the South. Tamil houses and businesses were looted and destroyed. Tamils living in the South were sent in ships to the North and East by the government.
250,000 Tamils were made refugees; 2,500 Tamils were burnt or hacked to death; 500 Women were raped; 53 Tamil political prisoners were brutally murdered in the maximum security Welikada prison on 25-27th July. Sinhala extremist groups and thugs, ruined the socio-economic and the political rights of the Tamil people. Anti-Tamil riots also in 1956, 1958, 1977, and 1981. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26)
1984 – To date Tamils living in the North-East were arrested, tortured and killed. Women were raped, many disappeared. Tamil properties were looted or destroyed by the Sri Lankan security forces. Air Force bombers dropping Cluster bombs in residential areas and near IDPs camps causing severe loss and damage to Tamil people and their property.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the Emergency Regulations (ER) adopted by the government are helped the security forces to carry out all sorts of human rights violations with impunity. (UDHR was completely violated)
1990 – To date Economic embargo in Tamil areas. Food, medicine, electricity and other important items are denied to the Tamils. (Violations of UDHR articles – 22, 25, 26)
1995 – On 15th November, the NGO Forum took place at Bentota Beach Hotel, in Bentota, in the South of Sri Lanka. Both foreign and local NGO representatives participated in this forum and this forum meeting was disrupted by anti-NGO demonstrators. The organisers of the NGO forum decided to shift the venue to the capital, Colombo. On 16th November, the NGO Forum re-convened in the morning at a conference hall in Ratmalana, police officers arrived to “request” the Forum to suspend its proceedings, claiming that the meeting was illegal! The meeting was dissolved and all attendees dispersed. (Violations of UDHR articles – 8, 13, 18, 19, 20)
1997 – On 25th September, 38 NGOs serving in several parts of Batticaloa district, were ordered by Government of Sri Lanka to cease all their humanitarian operations. This immediately followed a government order banning NGOs from assisting people in the areas of Batticaloa. (Violations of UDHR articles – 8, 13, 18, 19, 20)
1998 – the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances stated that, “Sri Lanka had the second highest number of disappearances in the world, ranking next to Iraq”.
Also Sri Lanka was the only country that the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had visited several times. So far no proper remedies had been found for these disappearances. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3,4,5,7,9,10,11)
2005 – with the aim of ensuring equal distribution of Tsunami aid to the worst affected North East, an agreement known as the Post Tsunami Operational Management Structure – PTOMS was signed between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. This was unilaterally abrogated by the government of Sri Lanka under the pretext of a Supreme Court judgement. (Violation of UDHR articles – 16, 25)
At this time, over 85,000 Tamil people had been killed or “disappeared”; more than 12,500 Tamil women raped and killed; more than 2500 buildings of Tamils’ religious places of worship (Churches and Temples) destroyed in aerial bombings and artillery shelling and billions of rupees worth of material damage had been caused to the Tamils by the Sri Lankan government.
As a result of well planned ethnic cleansing by the Sinhala State, nearly 500,000 Tamil people were internally displaced and more than 500,000 Tamils’ have sought political asylum in Europe and other countries. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3, 16, 16,17)
2005 – 7th January, the UN Secretary General made a humanitarian visit to Sri Lanka to see the Tsunami affected areas. When Kofi Annan requested to visit the North East, the areas in the island most affected by the tsunami, the Sri Lankan authorities deliberately prevented him from making a humanitarian visit there.
(Violation of UDHR articles – 13,25 & a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, Chapter XV Article 100.
2006 – Sri Lankan citizens cannot seek remedy from the UN Human Rights Committee – Even though Sri Lanka is signatory to the ICCPR, on 15 September 2006, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that Sri Lankan citizens cannot seek remedy from the UN Human Rights Committee regarding human rights violations. It declared that the accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1997 does not bind Sri Lanka and has no legal effect within the island. – Decision of the Supreme Court 15 September 2006 – SC Spl (LA) No 182/99. (Violation of UDHR articles – 8, 10,19)
2006 – Sri Lanka’s Air Force bombed a gathering of schoolgirls at Vallipunam on August 14, 2006, killing 56 schools girls and wounding 210 others. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3, 10,12,13,20,26)
2006 – The India and Sri Lanka accord was signed in 1987 under the guise of settling the Tamil ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Under this accord the merger of North Eastern province took place on 8 Sep.1988. But, after exactly 18 years, The Supreme Court delivered its political judgement on 16 October 2006, stating that the merger of these two provinces was invalid. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3,5,9,10,13,21)
2007 – Sri Lanka was ranked third most dangerous place for the media in the world, with many journalists having been killed. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3,5,6,7,10,13,18,19)
2008 – Sri Lanka withdrew from the Ceasefire Agreement-CFA between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE that was signed in February 2002. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3,5,9,10,13,)
2008 – According to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, presently Sri Lanka rank as the country with the highest number of disappearances. The fate of 656 Tamils who ‘disappeared’ in 1996 was not yet known but Tamils continued to ‘disappear’ in North East. Many Tamil journalists, academics, parliamentarians, human rights activists, children and others in the North East were killed. (Violation of UDHR articles – 3,4,5,7,9,10,11)
2008 – IIGEP quit Sri Lanka – President Rajapaksa had invited the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons – IIGEP to observe and ensure the transparency of investigations held by the Commission of Inquiries on the complaints of abductions, disappearances and other serious violations of human rights arising since 1st August 2005. Also, the IIGEP was to ensure that those inquiries were conducted in accordance with basic international norms and standards. On 22 April 2008, the IIGEP, quit Sri Lanka, citing government unwillingness to implement its recommendations to bring the probe up to international standards, lack of financial stability, government interference and slow process. (Violation of UDHR articles – 8,10)
2009 – Sri Lanka government and their security forces committed War crimes and Genocide against the Tamil people. This has been well recorded by all international human rights organisations and the United Nations. Furthermore these serious violations have been documented and screened by the TV Channel 4, UK. (Violation of UDHR and other international conventions)
2010 – The UN Secretary-General’s appointed panel submitted a report on War Crimes in Sri Lanka on 12 April 2001. This was subsequently transferred to the UN High commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the Human Rights Council on 13 September 2011. However no action was taken.
Persistent violations of the UDHR and other international conventions continue unabated despite increasing international pressure on Sri Lanka.
Euphemism for ”NO human rights” is ”Asian modernity”, ”sovereignty of state” and ”culture of the South”
Ethnic Conflict and Economic Development – A POLICY ORIENTED ANALYSIS, John Richardson(1996) “Democracy alone cannot ensure ethnic harmony. Instead, it may allow freer expression of ethnic antagonisms and legalised persecution of minorities. In Sri Lanka, both S.W.R.D. and Sirimavo Bandaranaike won democratic elections by appealing to Buddhist-Sinhalese nationalist sentiments and denigrating the ethnic Tamils. Slobodan Milosevic, the former Communist Party Chief of Serbia and General Franjo Tudjman of Croatia won their presidencies by appealing to the most divisive aspects of Serbian and Croatian nationalism”.
”particularities of every society”
1.”Each and every Government which held office from 1948 till the present bear culpability for the failure to achieve good governance, national unity and a framework of peace, stability and economic development in which all ethnic, religious and other groups could live in security and equality. Our inability to manage our own internal affairs has led to foreign intervention but more seriously has led to the taking of arms by a desperate group of our citizens. we need to rectify this bad governance” – J.Dhanapala to LLRC, 25 August 2010
2.”Now I must tell you of a very, very sad, bad and dangerous situation. We have in our prisons over 2000 young Tamil men. Some of them have been taken on suspicion. Just picked up and taken. In detention without charges for years, Sir, for years” – K.Godage to LLRC, 15 September 2010
3.”Dozens of Tamil youth were imprisoned under Emergency for years, for the crime of hoisting black flags against the promulgation of the ’72 Constitution” – Dayan Jayatilleka, Allergy to analysis and historical amnesia in Sri Lanka, 17 October 2010
”particularities of every society”:
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120122/Columns/political.html
Govt.’s double speak on 13 plus
Krishna makes one claim, Peiris another, President yet another; confusion confounded
UPFA allies JHU and NFF oppose extra powers while TNA also goes here and there
”democratically elected government is going to risk ….”:
1. 2005 and January 2010 manifestos speak of reducing the power of Executive Presidency. September 2010 saw the enactment of the eighteenth amendment with much more concentration of power in the Presidency
2. Till the war was over(May 2009), 13A+ was promised and in June 2011 the President said: ”If I grant 13 + or – or multiplied or divided, It’ll be curtains for me”
”buying” opposition MPP with newly created ministries and the ”ministers” enjoy material power only and the political power remains with the Rajapakses
3.killers are protected from the police, reports are not published, murders are not investigated, dissenters are whitevanned, ….
4. THE DUAL REALITY OF THE PRESENT TIME, NPC, 11 April 2011: ‘’ An inter-religious delegation from Colombo that recently visited the north was given military escort when they traveled into the interior. This would have dissuaded the war displaced people from being too open in their expression of dissatisfaction for fear of displeasing the military officers who wield great control over their lives. When the delegation met with their religious counterparts in Jaffna, they were able to hear a frank and critical expression of views. Specific issues raised included the militarization of governance in the north. The following night some men had gone to the residence of one of the outspoken clergymen, called him out and flung cow dung and other excreta at him. They had also thrown chillie powder at the face of one of his assistants and assaulted him when he had gone to find out what was happening. The assailants had dropped a mobile telephone with phone numbers on it that would assist in finding out their identity. Although this valuable piece of evidence had been given to the police, no action has been taken so far. The message that freedom of expression has its limits in the north was very clearly made’’
If not for the LTTE, the Tamils would have got their Eelam long time ago.
I would also like to see Dayan’s take on what Noam Chomsky and Edward Norman had to say about the “”massacre”" in Srebrenica. What implications does their expose have on what may have happened in Sri Lanka?
Defending Sri Lanka? You are defending the Rajapakses. Not Sri Lanka.
You may look at what defending Sri Lanka means here:
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=26549
Hey Nathan, if you are talking about Jose Maria Sison, he is an unsuccessful Maoist ultra-leftist, in decades-long exile from his country. Nope, the Cubans won’t bother to read him. Few in the Philippinesw do
)
Dayan,
Thank you for letting me know that the political and ideological founder of one of the longest running insurgencies in the region(incidentally, one to which the same global CI tactics that the US and its dummmy Norway used to politically and militarily disarm the LTTE during the CFA was deployed) is an irrelevant ‘ultraleftist’.
btw, all the ‘left’ states you have given as examples are at the best relics of socialism. Can you point out one, just one, contemporary MarxistLeninist movement waging an armed struggle against imperialism supporting the Sri Lankan state’s victory?
Dr. DJ,
You support MR because he stood against west for unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and did not recognize LTTE as an equal partner as Ranil did. Am I correct?
I have a very simple question. Is the importance of preserving unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka of universal value? Or is it important from the point of view of Sinhalese alone? What about the Tamils? Do they also value of preserving those as at any cost as Sinhalese do?
Therefore, it is my view that if somebody says that he supports MR for whatever reason he is a supporter of the Sinhala nationalist agenda. No body can take both stands, supporting MR and not being a Sinhala Nationalist.
Whatever Dr. DJ claims him to be he is a pure and simple Sinhala Nationalist supporting MR’s corrupt regime to suppress legitimate Tamil aspirations.
Of course, the demand, whether it is national or international, for war crime inquiry is against the current Sinhala majority ideology. The Tamils support it because it works for their political goal which is self-governannce.
Therefore, those who are against the ‘war crime inquiry’ is against the Tamil political aspirations and for the Sinhala Nationalist goal, which is Sinhala majority rule over an unitary state.
PitastharaPuthraya,
You ask “I have a very simple question. Is the importance of preserving unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka of universal value?”
Your question is specific but it’s Universality is apparent enough if it’s rephrased as a general question thus.
Is the importance of preserving unity and territorial integrity of a Country of universal value?
As you say it is a simple question.
I believe the answer is also a simple yes.
Do you have any other answer?
You wrote “…..legitimate Tamil aspirations”
Do they over ride legitimate Sinhalese aspirations and legitimate Moor aspirations and legitimate aspirations of the other minorities?
Why is it that Tamil Aspirations are more legitimate than the aspirations of the rest of the Lankan population?
You wrote “The Tamils support it because it works for their political goal which is self-governannce.”
Quite a revealing statement.
Would they be selling there Mother to gain Power?
You wrote “Of course, the demand, whether it is national or international, for war crime inquiry is against the current Sinhala majority ideology. ”
Do you see support for it by the Sri Lanka Moors?
What about the upcountry Tamils are a majority of them calling for an International inquiry?
What about the Burgher and Malay populations of Lanka, are they calling for an International inquiry?
So who are these people that are clamouring for an International Inquiry?
Sri Lankan Nationals?
LTTE proxies?
You wrote “Therefore, those who are against the ‘war crime inquiry’ is against the Tamil political aspirations and for the Sinhala Nationalist goal, which is Sinhala majority rule over an unitary state.”
Any Sri Lankan would be against your so called “Tamil Aspirations” if they trample Aspirations of Other Sri Lankans.
Are they encroaching on Aspirations of other Lankans?
Is what you label as Tamil Aspirations, in reality, Lanka Tamil (or Jaffna Tamil) Nationalism?
Any Democracy is ruled by majority opinion. This does not mean the will of the majority community to suppress the minority. Every Lankan Govt had powerful Ministries headed by members of the Minority.
What is needed is the will to share Sri Lanka’s resources equally.
Unfortunately the “Tamil Aspirations” run counter to equality.
“I do defend the sri lankan state,its elected leadership,its elected government………………..”
Elected governmets can transform into dictaterships.
Even Hitler was elected:-
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
What happens afterwards is what matters.
Hey, Pitasthara Puthraya, you really must learn not to bowl full tosses, and with a soft ball too. You ask “I have a very simple question. Is the importance of preserving unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka of universal value? Or is it important from the point of view of Sinhalese alone?”
The preservation of the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of any state, is a matter of principle, enshrined in the founding declartion of the UN in 1945. It has been modified and contested since the 1990s to be sure, but is a widely accepted principle, at the heart of which is the concept of sovereignty. This is why Henry Kissinger and Slovenian President (and political scietist) Danilo Turk have recently observed that Asia subscribes to the classic Westphalian doctrine.
So, for all those in the international community who support Sri Lanka, it is not a question of MR or the Sinhalese, but whether or not MR stands for and defends this principle.
India certainly does, while having 70 million Tamils within it.
Dr DJ,
To my knowledge Westphalian docrtine is not ‘God’s word’. As you know, its principles being formed in the 17th century Europe, are being criticized as not being acceptable to the current state of international affairs. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that prerservation of territorial integrity is important because otherwise it would violate Westphalian doctrine.
I do not have to remind you that it is the same UN with its enshrined principle of preservation of unity etc of states in its foundation charter, which has instrumental or supportive of creating in the states or dividing the states such as Sudan, Kosovo, Palestine, Czechoslavakia, East Timor, Korea, Taiwan etc. This is because this ‘sacred’ principles are not at all absolute as there are many countries in the world which have not completed the task of nation building. Sri Lanka is one of them.
Do you think that Sri Lanaka has been able to proclaim that it is a ‘nation’ inhabited by Sri Lankans? Or are we still in the process of making a Sri Lankan nation? In that case, if Sri Lanka still finds ways to unite its people and form a coherent entitity of a state, are these principles so scrosanct? I do not see a point in uphelding Unity, sovereignty and Terrritorial integrity with such a cost to human lives when there are other ways to solve this problem.
Why are you against separatism in Sri Lanka? Is it because it violates the doctrine of Westphalia or UN foundation charter? Or is because it is against the Sinhala Political Ideology? I do not thinkt that you are a person who would agree to something because it violates some Westerna ideology or because UN says so?
Why do not you accept that the preservation of unity, soverignty and territorial integrity is promoted only by the Sinhalese? The Tamils do not see point of that as they have been excluded from governance by the Sinhala majority State since independence.
Forget about Westphalia, UN charter on Unity and Sovereignty and other UN charters . You can not use these internationally accepted principles whenever you want and discard them when they do not suit your agenda.Only a Sinhala nationalist can support MR’s agenda of preservation of Unity and etc of Sri Lanka and exclusion of Tamils. If one claims that he is not a Sinhala Nationalist but still support MR he should be doing that for some thing else.
Sigh… Ok PP, why don’t you educate us why Abraham Lincoln in the early 1860s opposed southern separatism in the U.S.? Or why India opposed separatism in Punjab and still opposes a separate Kashmir state? Or why Spain opposes Basque separatism?
No need to drag in Westphalia or other theory, just kindly explain how Sri Lanka is unique to any of all these other cases. Thank you.
64 years of oppression isn’t enough for the evil Sinhalese governments and their evil supporters?
Kusum,
The Real Oppression Kusum, happened under the British, with the collusion of a minority amongst the Tamils who oppressed even other Tamils, the Sinhala majority, the Moors and the rest of the Lankan population for a few crumbs that were thrown at them by the oppressive British colonial masters. That Kusum, lasted for over a century.
This Tamil ruling class in Lanka that was created by the British, though a minority within a minority, was so powerful that they dominated many govt departments including Justice and oppressed even the majority of Tamils. They even dehumanised the majority of Tamils. Even going to the extent of denying them the right of religious worship. What rights did the ruling Vellala Tamils give the Batu Tamils? Not even water from their fresh water Wells.
The Sinhalese form 74% of the Lankan Population and in order for a minority of around 12% to form a govt the Tamils should be able to earn the trust of the Sinhalese, unless you are thinking of the Bullet instead of the Ballot.
Nevertheless, many important ministries have been headed by members of the minority communities in the past and the present. We have had Tamils as Heads of the Police Force, Army, Chief Justices, Solicitor Generals etc. Mr Lakshman Kadiragama former foreign Minister was an Internationally and locally respected Tamil of the recent past who earned the trust of the majority of Lankans.
The Tamil claim to 50% of Public Land resources and 60% of the Coast line for the exclusive benefit of a small minority of the lankan population would hardly earn the trust of the majority will it?
Wijayapala,
My argument is that if you uphold the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity (U,S &TI) of Sri Lanka you are a Sinhalese Nationalist because it represents the Sinhala political agenda. Therefore, Dr. Jayatillaka should be a Sinhala nationalist. Sinhala nationalism today can be defined as preserving U, S and TI of Sri Lanka while not giving any room for Tamil political aspirations.
The ruling class of any country does not want it to be downsized. The reason may vary from political, cultural, historical to economical. Don’t you think that Kashmir really belongs to Pakistan with its majority Muslims? If it had a Muslim Maharaja it would have gone Pakistan during partition. India does not like it to be independent due to obvious reasons. Do we know what the people in Kashmir really think of? However, the civilized way to do it is to have a referendum on independence isn’t it?
Look at how Westminster handle the problem of Scotland separatism. They urge the Scottish government to have the referendum sooner rather than later. They do not talk about U,S & TI of United Kngdom.
I am not for division of Sri Lanka. But all Sri Lankan should feel in the same way why it is important to preserve U,S&TI of Sri Lanka. Now it is felt only by Sinhalese.
PP,
“My argument is that if you uphold the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity (U,S &TI) of Sri Lanka you are a Sinhalese Nationalist because it represents the Sinhala political agenda.”
And you similarly believe that if you support the devolution you are a Tamil Nationalist because devolution represents the Tamil political agenda?
“I am not for division of Sri Lanka.”
So you are a Sinhala Nationalist? I cannot say that I am surprised!
“However, the civilized way to do it is to have a referendum on independence isn’t it?”
Is that how Abraham Lincoln should have resolved southern separatism in the US?
“They urge the Scottish government to have the referendum sooner rather than later.”
Duh, that is because Westminster already knows that the referendum would fail!
Pitasthara Puthraya, you are a sly chap aren’t you? This is what you have writte: “Dr. Jayatillaka should be a Sinhala nationalist. Sinhala nationalism today can be defined as preserving U, S and TI of Sri Lanka while not giving any room for Tamil political aspirations.”
Now, PP, what about those of us who stand for “preserving U, S and TI of Sri Lanka” while “giving some substantive room for Tamil political aspirations”? How would you define that stance?
My position has for a quarter century now, been coterminous with that held at the time by Vijaya Kumaratunga and from then till now by Delhi: provincial devolution “within the U, S, TI of Sri Lanka”.
Was Vijaya Kumaratunga a Sinhala nationalist?
Is SM Krishna a Sinhala nationalist?
What does that make you?
oops, PP, sorry, I got my artithmetic wrong. That should not read ‘for as quarter century’ but “for well over a quarter century, almost three decades now…”
Wijayapala,
Abraham Lincoln lived in the latter part of the 19th century. We are in the 21st century. We have come long way on the path of conflict resolution since the Lincoln’s time. And the American Civil War is not only about separatism but also about slavery. It is incomparable to the situation in Sri Lanka.
Being pro-devolution does not make any body a nationalist. If a Sinhalese or Tamil thinks only about the rights of their group exluding the others then they can be called nationalist in the narrowest sense.
The root of the problem is we still think as either Sinhalese or Tamils and not as Sri Lankans. I am against separatism not as a Sinhala but as a Sri Lankan. I think being together as equal partners is the best option for us to develop. I am pro-devolution as I feel it is the only solution to the present ethnic problem and morover I feel that it is the right thing to do. Being pro-devolutin may make one anti-Sinhala Nationalist but it would not make them anti-Sri Lankan.
I agree with you about Westminster’s urging to hold referendum. But why is it going to fail? Scottish people do not think that their rigts are anyway violated by Westminster parliament. When the day comes when the Tamils like Scottish think that being together is better than separation we would be able to say that we have solved the ethnic problem.
PP
“Abraham Lincoln lived in the latter part of the 19th century. We are in the 21st century. We have come long way on the path of conflict resolution since the Lincoln’s time. And the American Civil War is not only about separatism but also about slavery. It is incomparable to the situation in Sri Lanka.”
Sorry, but that is a rather weak argument. The US was only 80 years old when it had its civil war, whereas Sri Lanka was not even 40 years old as an independent state, and it is reasonable to conclude that newer states are more susceptible to civil strife than older ones.
Although southern separatism arose as a result of Abraham Lincoln’s anti-slavery position, Lincoln explicitly stated that he was fighting against separatism, not against slavery, when the war began. That is why he allowed slavery to continue in non-separatist states like Kentucky and Maryland, and even in the capital district itself, until the war was over. You really need to improve your knowledge of history, PP.
How should Sri Lanka have dealt with the LTTE, given the total failure of the “peace process?”
“Being pro-devolution does not make any body a nationalist.”
Then how does being anti-devolution make anybody a nationalist? Simply because you say so?
“Being pro-devolutin may make one anti-Sinhala Nationalist but it would not make them anti-Sri Lankan.”
But my point was that being pro-devolution makes one Tamil Nationalist, using your very own logic, given that the Tamils are the only community who want devolution. Presumably devolution will only benefit the Tamil community; if it helped the Sinhalese as well, then the Sinhalese would support it.
I thought GV readers would be interested – The Theoretical Sophistries And Political Sycophancy of H.E. Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka – http://colombotelegraph.com/2012/01/25/the-theoretical-sophistries-and-political-sycophancy-of-h-e-ambassador-dr-dayan-jayatilleka/
@Anpu
My thoughts after reading “The Theoretical Sophistries And Political Sycophancy of H.E. Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka” in the http://colombotelegraph.com were as follows.
One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter… just like the Rajapaksa state terrorism is equated by Dr.The Yarn as sovereignty of the State.
Lenin is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in Western democracies as “useful idiots.” Yet even Lenin might have been surprised at how far these useful idiots would carry their partisanship in later years including our own times.
Stalin’s man-made famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930s killed more millions of people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust and Mao’s man-made famine in China killed more millions than died in the USSR. Yet we not only hear little or nothing about either of these staggering catastrophes in the Communist world today, very little was said about them in the Western democracies while they were going on. Indeed, many useful idiots denied that there were famines in the Soviet Union or in Communist China.
The Rajapaksa regime too, has it’s share of “useful idiots” who only talk about the atrocities of the LTTE and not of the atrocities perpetrated by the SL armed forces under various governments. The most horrendous atrocities that took place during the last months of the war are being swept under the carpet by people like Dr.The Yarn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/07/100624_doc_useful_idiots_lenin.shtml
Hey, Anpu and Dunce, if you guys liked Comrade Rupesinghe in the Colombo Telegraph so much, I hope you’ll like my response too. It isn’t fair not to share that with the reader, is it? Happy reading and ‘bon weekend’.
FASCISM, SOVEREIGNTY AND THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TAMIL STRUGGLE
Posted by Colombo Telegraph, January 26, 2012
By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka