Watch out too – your propensity for straight talking persons with simple answers and solutions to complex problems, epitomised by Bush and his limited vocabulary and in the simplistic worldviews espoused publicly by some of politicians in Sri Lanka, are the bane of conflict transformation. Yours is no intrusion, but my answers remains the same – the responses you seek are in my writing which is publicly available.

It is also strange to carry on a conversation with an anonymous moniker such as yours on my personal beliefs beyond that which I’ve publicly expressed, and I encourage you to get in touch with me personally if you wish to continue this discussion any further.

Best,

Sanjana

Do YOU see war as necessary in the context that it would be to reach a certain point in the balance of power where a more moderate government (present or future) approach could hope to engage an LTTE made to embrace a more moderate/accommodative approach itself due to weakened relative military power and/or decreased territory and population being under its influence? This war would not be to reach a final military victory, but the point identified above. This is also in the context of the ideology of the current LTTE leadership and the current dynamics which do not allow for a moderate approach by any government (UNP/SLFP/National) to succeed which you seem to have agreed to above.

This is just out of curiosity to identify if ‘peaceniks’ would relent to the hawks when faced with a substantiated dead-end.

I don’t see war as necessary. Or not. That it is present, and isn’t going to go away just because we want it to, is a peacebuilder’s central challenge. We can of course issue media statements on how bad war is, but the public imagination may be captivated by rhetoric that posits it as a just war, necessary and vital to the preservation of democracy and to rid ourselves of terrorism. Here we encounter the notions of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and increasingly jus post bellum – why a war is deemed necessary, what is acceptable in war, and what happens after the war is won. I see dialogue on these issues as absolutely vital to ensure that war does not become over time, as it so often does, an excuse for undemocratic practices (and macro-economic mismanagement) and contributes to the development of an intolerant, illiberal, stentorian regime with little or no patience for those who articulate a worldview different to that which they hold true.

As for a war against the LTTE, the question you ask can never be answered. More accurately, those who say yes will always hypothesize over what never was, and those who say no will point to the military victories to date and say that there is simply no way we can “talk” to the LTTE without debilitating them on the battle ground.

War may be inevitable, but in a Sri Lankan context, it will never bring about an transformation of the political and social fabric necessary to address the reasons why the LTTE arose in the first instance. War is not going to write a new constitutional order, and a victor’s justice imposed upon a deracinated, traumatised population coupled with a continuation of majoritarian democracy I fear is not going to bring about justice and lasting peace. As I have noted in my columns, there is a significant difference between defeating the LTTE military, and addressing the Tamil national question politically.

To paraphrase Niebuhr, though man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.

You say,
“The LTTE is constructed and seen by the South as a pariah, a threat that needs to be culled.”

Ok, but how do you see them?
_______________________________________________________________________
Also,
you have observed that
““…those who promote a larger discourse on conflict transformation do so not necessarily from a foundation of pacifism. War may be deemed necessary and inevitable, and those of us in civil society can only do so much to influence the mercurial machinations of those in power. Accordingly, if a war is deemed necessary, then for better or worse, civil society must grapple with the unpleasant reality generated by its existence and escalation.”

Are you one who sees war as necessary to achieve certain goals (e.g. till a certain point in the balance of power or a leadership change is affected in the LTTE) in the context of current LTTE strategies? Do you see these goals being achieved without resort to war?

And what a star-studded cast: sittingnut (whose name should never have been divulged), JustMal (recently having achieved academic respectability via Michael Roberts no less) and others returning in full-throated form…fantastic!

Well played, chaps. Keep it up.

“Do you believe the LTTE, under its current leadership, is genuinely committed to a political solution?”

No, but apart from Kadirgamar’s trenchant critique, there was no real set of alternatives to take the ISGA by its horns and lock in the LTTE to a process of dialogue that could have chipped away at its maximalist position and achieved some level of compromise. That it wasn’t even attempted is regrettable.

“Do you believe the LTTE would settle for anything less than a separate nation state?”

No, with Prabhakaran as its Leader. And as noted earlier, with the SLFP’s inability to articulate a political vision that leaves even those such as Anandasangaree abject, are you really surprised at their belligerence?

“If open to a political solution encompassing autonomy less than separation, why did the LTTE in effect cast the winning vote for Rajapakse by denying the people of the North their right to universal suffrage?”

Because of what was, possibly even more than Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, a monumental misjudgment of Mahinda Rajapaksa and just how detrimental he would be to them.

“So, if the LTTE cannot be ignored, and in the context of your answers to the questions i posed above, do see a beneficial role for the people of Sri Lanka in treating the LTTE as a partner in peace?”

The current strategy of the Government is to debilitate the LTTE militarily – so any talk of partners in peace, which was the precise terminology used to describe the UNF – LTTE relationship, is today moot. The LTTE is constructed and seen by the South as a pariah, a threat that needs to be culled. As I note in a recent article:

“Let us be clear – those who promote a larger discourse on conflict transformation do so not necessarily from a foundation of pacifism. War may be deemed necessary and inevitable, and those of us in civil society can only do so much to influence the mercurial machinations of those in power. Accordingly, if a war is deemed necessary, then for better or worse, civil society must grapple with the unpleasant reality generated by its existence and escalation. No amount of anti-war sentiment is going to resonate with a body politic and society deeply influenced by the Government’s overwhelming control of the far reaching State media, and outright terror tactics against private and alternative media. The actions of the President’s brother (the Defence Secretary) against the Editor the Daily Mirror, and the culture of impunity within which such actions are celebrated as those that seek to secure patriotism and troop morale, are indicative of the challenges civil society advocates of non-violent conflict transformation must face in Sri Lanka today. Accordingly, arguments that can stick better are on how a war against terrorism must be fought – that rules of engagement and human rights are inviolable whatever the situation the country faces, and that even though the Government may be willing to toss aside the CFA for national security, the human security of its citizens is even more vital.”

(http://www.groundviews.org/2007/05/08/an-infamous-proposal/)

Best,

Sanjana

In earlier comments you’ve dismissed the RSF as well as the FMM. You began first by an error in your own research – that no one spoke against actions to silence media during the UNF – LTTE peace process. They did, and the FMM statement is proof of it. Most recently, the FMM had this to say:

“As we have repeatedly noted in the past, the FMM is distressed to hear of repeated violations of media freedom by armed actors such as the Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelam (LTTE) and the Karuna Faction in the North and East of Sri Lanka, areas that for over 25 year have suffered the brunt of violent conflict and an almost total absence of plural, democratic dissent and its corollary, a free press.

Aside from serious and repeated allegations of gross violation of human rights in the North and East of Sri Lanka, the FMM is deeply concerned that the history of violence and the intolerance of diversity results in a context that is deadly for professional journalism. As noted by human rights activists, the LTTE is known to brutally suppress any dissent, and over the past year, has even gone to the extent of attempting to suppress criticism on its modus operandi by those living and writing in the diaspora and particularly in places such as Paris, London and Canada. These reports allege several instances of threats and intimidation against progressive Tamil nationalist voices. Other than guided tours, the LTTE though open to questions by journalists has consistently denied free, unhindered access to areas under its control. An iron grip on the media by these armed groups places journalists in the North and East in a Catch 22 situation – caught between the Sri Lankan military, the LTTE and the Karuna group, it is impossible to report accurately on any issue or situation on the ground without fear of violent reprisal from one or more of these actors. On this count, the FMM regretfully notes that statements in support of democracy by the Karuna group are discordant with their behaviour in the East. On several occasions, they have disrupted the work of journalists, intimidated newspaper establishments and distributors and even publicly burnt hundreds of copies of certain Tamil newspapers.”

(http://freemediasrilanka.org/index.php?action=con_news_full&id=567&section=news)

This is an expression from an organisation you abhor so much that captures fully, and better, that which you have repeatedly articulated on this blog. The formatting is horrendous on that page, but the report goes on to mention just how far media freedom has eroded in SL over the past year. The point you make about Maunasamy Parameshwaree is terribly accurate – in that State media coloured the entire incident to be one in which she was cast as someone who aided and abetted the LTTE, when nothing – nothing at all – was proven or even brought up to be subsequently disproved. The two sides you demarcate so boldly were not presented and what is more, government MP’s went on record stating their blind belief that Parameshwaree was herself a terrorist – long before any judicial process had even begun!

“On the other hand, I think it’s acceptable that a few innocents may suffer to protect everyone else, although this reality may sound unpalatable to some of us.”

Well said from the comfort of urban Australia mate. This is the statement of someone who has never had to suffer, and never will, the effects of protracted conflict and the trauma therein. Comfort zones of the diaspora often manifest themselves in the support of war and violence, and this is to be expected from those who have nothing to lose, and have lost nothing, from the continuing violence in Sri Lanka.

Best,

Sanjana

Do you believe the LTTE, under its current leadership, is genuinely committed to a political solution?

Do you believe the LTTE would settle for anything less than a separate nation state?

If open to a political solution encompassing autonomy less than separation, why did the LTTE in effect cast the winning vote for Rajapakse by denying the people of the North their right to universal suffrage?

I believe these are fundamental questions we all need to ask ourselves regardless of our views on what you have rightly referred to as the slippery slope of eroding democracy and the road to peace.

This is because effectively dealing with the LTTE is vital to reaching a just peace. LLet me explain why I say this. The reality is that they control wide swathes of land in the North of the island. It is ill-conceived to expect that the population living in these areas would suddenly overthrow, revolt against or reject LTTE administration in the event that an effective alternative voice/s for the Tamil people were to rise. Contributing to this conclusion, i feel cannot be escaped, is that the LTTE controls its territory undemocratically and also that much of the Tamil population in government controlled areas, be it rightly or wrongly and notwithstanding their condemnation of LTTE tactics, feel they owe the LTTE a debt of gratitude or loyalty for creating a situation today where they are free to enjoy certain rights and freedoms.

So, if the LTTE cannot be ignored, and in the context of your answers to the questions i posed above, do see a beneficial role for the people of Sri Lanka in treating the LTTE as a partner in peace?

Sittingnut, you say, the
ltte violates rights. they should be brought to justice. it is government’s duty to bring them to justice.

Considering that Sri Lanka is party to many international covenants, and bound by many norms of international law setting forth an international human rights regime,
and further considering that many arms of the State today are responsible for the violation of many of those norms, if you were to apply the same logic as you did above,
shouldn’t you also agree to international sanctions and diplomatic and political pressure imposed on Sri Lanka that would bring our government to justice or back into conformity to its international obligations?

Are you blindly patriotic, do you hold to double standards, or do you believe Sri Lanka can go it alone (not only in the context of this conflict, but also economically to begin with.)

Thank you for your quick response and pointing out my “errors”. Your sense of humour is duly noted.

Let me point out that FMM’s statement has no reference to the obvious culprit, ie: LTTE. In fact, by the way it’s worded, an outsider reading the statement would be inclined to believe that this is a Tamil language newspaper office burnt down by Sinhalese extremists. Was it because there was no conclusive proof? That doesn’t stop FMM from routinely accusing others solely on the basis of unsubsantiated heresy (eg: “abduction” of Akuna “journalists”). In fact, even Reporters Sans Frontières directly accused LTTE as being responsible for this crime in its annual report, so why not FMM? Was it because they didn’t want to rock the peace boat by naming and shaming the perpetrators. What happened to human rights not being a relative concept?

The fact remains that the peaceniks approved the way the UNP government turned a blind eye on LTTE’s atrocities in the name of peace, so how could they take a moral stand with regard to this government’s apparent indifference to Karuna’s crimes.

Human rights being an absolute concept may be true in a perfect world, but Sri Lanka, in case you haven’t noticed, isn’t one of them. The reason Sri Lanka and other democratic governments have to engage in some degree of restrictions is not because they enjoy it – in fact it goes against the very principles they stand for – but because the consequences of not doing anything are far worse.

I realise you don’t like simplistic arguments, but just compare the situation of Kilinochchi and Colombo. LTTE does not allow any opposition, not in media, not in politics – absolutely nothing. It’s completely totalitarian. On the other hand, despite all the criticism, there is a great deal of freedom in Colombo. There are numerous newspapers that publish absolute rubbish against the government, yet nothing happens to them. MP Gajendran speaks in the parliament to congratulate the LTTE, and he could go home on a tax payer funded vehicle with government soldiers protecting him. This is the lesser evil.

I’m not saying that we should let the government get away with anything in the name of war and prevention of terrorism. They should only do the absolute minimum required. I don’t believe they should be held up to unrealistic standards that no one else in the world seem to follow. On the other hand, I think it’s acceptable that a few innocents may suffer to protect everyone else, although this reality may sound unpalatable to some of us. That’s the margin of error, and that’s the lesser evil.

I didn’t think the particularls of Parameshwari’s arrest was important to this discussion, but since you bring it up, let me remind you that she was not arrested because she was a journalist. According to her own statement to WSWS, the TID had tried to lure Susanthi Thambirajah (that Parameshwari had provided lodging for) to the Savoy cinema to arrest her, and it was only by chance that Parameshwari had tagged along. Susanthi was a suspected suicide bomber – she’s still in jail for terrorism charges – so the TID naturally took her companion into custody along with their primary suspect. They had no idea that this person was a journalist until much later. My point to SH was not this, but that the “average person” in the South has been presented with both viewpoints, ie: it was fair to arrest her because TID cannot allow a margin of error when it comes to terrorism, and also that she was an innocent journalist who had been arrested by the government to muzzle the freedom of media, and that the way I saw it, the average person has chosen to believe the former.

I only meant that Jehan Perera was your colleague in the broader sense – being brothers in arms of the peacenik community. Do excuse my unfamiliarity with its pecking order.

As someone noted in one of your earlier comments today (re one of your comments against Parameshwaree), you seem to be misinformed on the situation of human rights in SL. My answer is much the same as it was to Sittingnut – the information is public, and was most recently reaffirmed by Boucher’s visit to SL. If the weight of evidence to date does not even, at the very least, hint of the great stink that is this Government’s human rights record, then we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Jehan Perera is not one of my colleagues and as far as I know, does not frequent Groundviews. If he does, he may respond himself. CNN too I hope will follow suit.

“The offices of the dissident Tamil newspaper Navamani was set on fire in the heart of Colombo by the LTTE, but no one batted an eyelid.”

Like your statement on Parameshwaree earlier, this again is manifestly untrue – see FMM’s statement reproduced in the Sunday Observer (http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2002/12/08/new50.html).

Your central argument echoes that which is made by others too, in this and other fora – that the US, UK and basically all Western Govt’s blatantly violate Human Rights, and accordingly have no right to dictate terms to SL, and that the SL Govt. does not violate human rights to the same extent anyway. This is a simplistic argument, based on the erroneous assumption that HR is a relative concept based on the behaviour of governments as opposed to being judged against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related rights instruments of the UN that Sri Lanka has signed and ratified.

Furthermore, the issue is also about how we judge the lesser evil. How much of abuse are we willing to countenance? To even argue that human rights can be abused to any degree is to begin a descent down a slippery slope of eroding democracy. There is a realistic third way, and that is precisely what was squandered on May Day with the SLFP’s puerile proposals that even the likes of Anandasangaree rejected forthwith.

Cheers,

Sanjana