China doing a Myanmar in Sri Lanka?

China Doing a Myanmar in Sri Lanka?
by B. Raman
Is China doing a Myanmar in Sri Lanka by capitalising on the policy of President Mahinda Rajapaksa of diversifying Sri Lanka's geo-political options even while professing close friendship with India?
2. That seems to have been one of the concerns of the Government of India, which prompted a two-day visit to Sri Lanka by a team of senior advisers of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh consisting of Shri M. K. Narayanan, the National Security Adviser, Shri Shivsankar Menon, the Foreign Secretary, and Shri Vijay Singh, the Defence Secretary, on June 20 and 21, 2008, for talks with Mr. Rajapaksa and senior Sri Lankan officials and important Tamil leaders.
3. Officially, the visit was projected as a return visit to reciprocate a similar high-level visit to New Delhi in September last by a Sri Lankan delegation headed by Mr. Gothbaya Rajapaksa, the Defence Secretary, and as a preparatory visit before the forthcoming 15th summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) to be held at Colombo from July 27 to August 3, 2008.
4. Originally, the summit was to have been held at Kandy where the security-related problems would have been less than in Colombo. In March last, the Sri Lankan Government decided to have it in Colombo since, in its view, the infrastructure at Kandy would have been inadequate to host the summit. The shifting of the venue to Colombo has enhanced the security concerns of India.
5. Sri Lanka had successfully hosted the 6th SAARC summit at Colombo in 1991 and the 10th in 1998 and had provided effective security to the leaders of the participating countries. The 15th summit will be held at a time when a large number of the Sri Lankan security forces are engaged in an operation to re-capture the control of the Northern Province from the LTTE. Facing increasing pressure from the security forces, the LTTE has stepped up attacks with explosives on soft targets in areas in and around Colombo. Moreover, its bringing into action its planes for air strikes since March last year and the inability of the Sri Lankan security forces to identify where these planes are kept and wherefrom the air attacks are being launched and to intercept them have made the pre-summit security scenario in Colombo worrisome.
6. While the LTTE is unlikely to target the summit or its participants, the summit could provide it with an opportunity to create drama in order to prove its prowess and disprove the claims of the Government that the LTTE has been weakened beyond recovery. Will the Sri Lankan security forces be in a position to provide effective security to all the participants in general and to the Indian Prime Minister in particular? One of the purposes of the visit of the Indian team seems to have been to make an assessment in answer to this question.
7. Another purpose seems to have been to assess the implications to India of Mr. Rajapaksa's policy of bringing in other external state actors into Sri Lanka in order to give Sri Lanka a more geo-political wriggle room. In the past, India had to worry only about China, Pakistan and the US. Now, Mr. Rajapaksa has started courting Iran, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. Iran has started playing an important role in the oil refining sector and it is only a question of time before it starts demanding a role in the retail sale of oil, a sector in which the Indian Oil Corporation presently has a pre-eminent role. To counter the fears of the US and the Sunni Arab states over his flirting with Iran, he has also been trying to bring in Saudi Arabia in the oil sector. Malaysia emerged last year as the largest foreign investor in Sri Lanka. As a result of his moves, India is likely to find its political and economic influence in Sri Lanka gradually shrinking.
8. In view of India's improving relations with the US, it is not concerned as it would have been in the past over the increasing US activities in Sri Lanka and the increasing interest of the US Pacific Command in Sri Lanka. The US Navy is eyeing Colombo as a fall-back option in case the continuing use of the Karachi port for logistics and other purposes becomes difficult in view of the anti-US feelings in Pakistan. Presently, India is not highly concerned with the growing economic ties between Sri Lanka and Malaysia either. It can live with it.
9. What India is concerned is over the increasing activities of China and Pakistan, the entry of Iran and the expected entry of Saudi Arabia into Sri Lanka. While Pakistan's relations with Sri Lanka are largely focussed on military supplies and training, China's relations have greater strategic implications for India----covering military supplies and training, the construction of a modern port at Hambantota in the South and oil exploration in the Mannar area. The expected semi-permanent stationing of an increasing number of Chinese experts in these areas for carrying out these projects will add to the concerns of the Indian security bureaucracy.
10. The action of the Government of Myanmar in allowing the Chinese to have a semi-permanent presence in the Coco Islands brought the Chinese within monitoring distance of India's space establishments on the Eastern coast. The semi-permanent presence, which the Chinese are now getting in Sri Lanka, will bring them within monitoring distance of India's fast-breeder reactor complex at Kalpakam near Chennai, the Russian-aided Koodankulam nuclear power reactor complex in southern Tamil Nadu and India's space establishments in Kerala.
11. Reporting on the visit of the senior Indian officials to Colombo, the "Times of India" of June 23, 2008, quoted an unnamed senior Indian official in New Delhi as stating as follows: "The story of Myanmar is being repeated in Sri Lanka. China is already all over the island nation, with a flurry of arms deals, oil exploration and construction projects like the Hambantota port."
12. The "Times of India" also reported as follows: "Colombo has signed a US $ 37.6 million deal with the Beijing-based Poly Technologies for a wide variety of arms, ammunition, mortars and bombs. Sri Lanka is also getting some Chinese Jian-7 fighters, JY 11-3D air surveillance radars, armoured personnel carriers, T-56 assault rifles ( a copy of AK-47), machine guns and anti-aircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and missiles."
13. The work on the Hambantota port is progressing fast with typical Chinese efficiency. Sri Lankan sources assert that it will be only a commercial port and not a potential naval base. One has to wait and see.
14. The Hambantota port construction is estimated to cost US $ one billion to be lent by the Exim Bank of China. The entire project is expected to be completed in 15 years in four phases. The first phase of construction, which was started in October, 2007, is estimated to cost US $450 million. The entire project, inter alia, provides for the construction of a gas-fired power plant project, a ship repair unit, a container repair unit, an oil refinery and a bunkering terminal. The bunkering terminal, which is expected to be completed in 39 months, provides for the terminal to handle up to 500,000 metric tonnes (mt) of oil products a year.
15.The "Daily News" of Sri Lanka reported on June 19, 2008, as follows: ' A project proposal sent by the China Huanqiu Contracting and Engineering Corporation for building the bunkering facility and tank farm at the Hambantota harbour has been approved by the project committee and the cabinet-appointed negotiations committee. "The total value of the project would be $76.5 million and it would be completed by 2010.A set of fuel tanks, bunkering facilities, aviation fuel storage facilities and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage facilities will be built under the project at Hambantota, about 230 km south of Colombo. The media has also reported that although the Hambantota port was initially planned as a service and industrial port, it is expected to be developed as a trans-shipment port at a later stage to handle 20 million containers per year.
16. Neither India nor China has so far started oil/gas exploration work in the one block each in the Mannar area awarded to them by the Rajapaksa Government without bidding as a gesture of goodwill. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), which was offered the block allotted to India without bidding, said in September last that it was not interested in the assigned block, due to low prospectivity and the fact that Sri Lanka was asking for a big bonus in return for this gesture. The Sri Lankan Government said it would negotiate with the ONGC for a new oil block with greater prospectivity. It is not known whether the Chinese are satisfied with the block offered to them without bidding and, if so, when they would start the exploration.
17. Foreign oil companies have not so far been enthusiastic over the prospects of finding oil/gas in exploitable quantities in the Mannar area. Earlier this year, the Sri Lankan Government invited bids for three blocks. Of these, block No 1, which extends over an area of 3,338.10 square kilometers and is nearest to India, received bids from ONGC Videsh, Cairn India, and Niko Resources of Cyprus. ONGC Videsh is a subsidiary of the state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India.Cairn India, is 69 per cent owned by Cairn Energy of London, which has been active in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.Canada-based Niko Resources is active in Canada, India and Bangladesh. Block No. 2 received bids from both Cairn India and Niko Resources while Block 3, the largest being 4,126.51 sq. km in size, received a bid only from Niko. None of these blocks received any bid from China. The Sri Lankan Government announced on June 6, 2008, that after evaluation it has decided to accept the bid of Cairn India for block No. 1 and invited it to send its representatives to Colombo for negotiations. Fresh bids are to be invited for the other two blocks. The rules stipulate that for each block there should be a minimum of three bids before evaluation.
18. In response to an invitation issued by President Rajapaksa during his visit to Teheran in November, 2007. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad of Iran paid a two-day official visit to Sri Lanka on April 28 and 29, 2008.Since last year, Sri Lanka has been facing economic difficulties due to the drying-up of economic assistance from countries of the European Union (EU) such as Germany because of what they perceive as the indifferent attitude of the Rajapaksa Government to complaints regarding the violation of the human rights of the Tamils and its refusal to seek a political solution to the problem. Instead of succumbing to the EU pressure on the subject, the Rajapaksa Government turned for increased assistance to other countries such as China and Iran, which did not raise human rights issues as a condition for such assistance. Assistance from Iran was of crucial importance to Sri Lanka because of the Government's inability to pay for its increasingly costly oil imports. The Government of Ahmadinejad readily agreed to provide oil at concessional rates to Sri Lanka and to train a small team of officers of the Sri Lankan Army and intelligence in Iran. It also agreed to provide a low-interest loan to Sri Lanka to enable it to purchase defence-related equipment from China and Pakistan. In addition, it agreed to invest US $ 1.5 billion in energy-related projects in Sri Lanka. One of these projects is for the production of hydel power and the other to double the capacity of an existing oil refinery in Sri Lanka. Work on the construction of the hydel project started during Mr. Ahmadinejad's visit. Iranian engineers have already been preparing the project report for doubling the capacity of the refinery and for modifying it to enable it to refine in future Iranian crude to be supplied at concessional rates. The existing capacity is 50,000 barrels a day.
19. Mr. Abdul Hameed Mohamed Fowzie, Sri Lanka's Minister for Petroleum and Petroleum Resources Development, visited Riyadh in Saudi Arabia towards the end of March,2008. He announced at Riyadh on March 23, 2008, that Saudi Arabia had agreed to train Sri Lankans in the field of exploration and refining of oil in the island. He told the media at Riyadh: “We had fruitful discussions with my counterpart here and we are happy that the Kingdom has agreed to cooperate with Sri Lanka in areas of mutual interests in the field of oil supply, exploration and investments. We have plans to improve our refining capacity from 50,000 to 100,000 barrels a day and getting Saudi expertise for the proposed expansion will facilitate the successful implementation of the project. Sri Lanka needs a cracker to convert crude into diesel and petrol which would cost the government some $400 million. I have requested my counterpart to recommend that the OPEC Fund assist us in the purchase of this plant."
20. Sri Lanka presently gets 70 per cent of its oil from Iran, 10 per cent from Saudi Arabia and 20 per cent from Malaysia and other countries.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. )

Note no. 451 26-June-2008
SRI LANKA: Putting Indian Delegation's Visit in Perspective
Update No. 142
Col R Hariharan (Retd.)
The unpublicised two-day visit of a high power Indian delegation consisting of the National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon, and the Defence Secretary Vijaya Singh to Colombo a few days back has touched off a wide range of speculations among Sri Lankan politicians and media.
The local establishment initially tried to play down the visit as a routine one, mainly to discuss issues connected with the forthcoming 15th SAARC summit meeting to be held in Colombo. But the composition of the delegation led by the National Security Advisor with the top bureaucrats of external affairs and defence as members clearly showed that the visit was far from a routine one.
As expected the delegation had discussions with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the service chiefs, and senior members of bureaucracy. But more significantly the delegation also met Tamil political leaders across the spectrum that included Minister Douglas Devananda who also heads the Northern Advisory Council, the Ceylon Workers Congress leader Arumuga Thondaman, and the leader of the pro-LTTE Tamil National Alliance grouping R. Sampanthan.
Media Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardane later clarified that the Indian delegation did not instruct the government on conducting the war as alleged by the opposition Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). But he added, ""India did discuss the issues of restarting peace talks but India has always requested us to go back to peace talks. The President stated very clearly on Tuesday (June 24) that the LTTE should lay down arms before sitting down for peace talks. If they will do that the government is ready to approach them for a political solution." He further added that the Indian delegation wanted to discuss the ethnic conflict in view of the general elections to be held soon in India, as the Tamil conflict was an issue of Indian concern. It is a bit difficult to accept the minister's oversimplified reasoning that the whole Indian exercise was carried out as a political window dressing.
Three issues have been hardy perennials of India-Sri Lanka relations. These issues that invariably figure in any high level contact between the two countries are: strategic defence concerns, issues of international relations, and the problems of Sri Lanka Tamil minorities. Almost all other issues are in some way related to these three main strands. Nowadays issues like Indian assistance for development projects in Sri Lanka and furthering trade and commerce between the two nations have also gained prominence. But these issues are prioritized based upon the current developments in the regional and global environments.
Strategic issues of current interest include progress of Sri Lanka's war against the LTTE and its fall out, Sri Lanka's procurement of military armament from China and Pakistan, sourcing and transporting of LTTE supplies from Tamil Nadu, and problems of Indian fishermen fishing in Palk Straits.
The war in Sri Lanka is clearly going in favour of the security forces. As the war progresses further, it is going to be more difficult for the LTTE to regain its original status of 2002, the minimum requirement to retain its "credibility" as the sole spokesman of Sri Lanka Tamils. And that might not take place at all. This is clear from the strong statements emanating from Colombo which repeatedly speak of the LTTE laying down arms as the precondition for talking peace with them. And the LTTE does not appear to have come to terms with the reality of its rapidly declining military fortunes. Its political head Nadesan is still talking of "the balance of power and the parity of status" as very crucial for any meaningful peace negotiations. In any case, Sri Lanka is right now not very keen to talk, parity or no parity. And probably that was what they told the Indian delegation.
In these circumstances, if past experience is any guide, Tamil expatriates would probably look to India to bale the LTTE out one more time. And the LTTE despite all its posturing would not be averse to the idea. But it is unlikely India would be as 'benevolent' as in the past to get the LTTE out of the logjam for two reasons. The LTTE stand on Indian intervention is not clear if its recent statements are anything to go by. KV Balakumaran, political advisor to the LTTE chief Prabhakaran does not expect India to make "any healthy, fruitful contribution" to resolving Sri Lanka's conflict until it changes its mind on the LTTE struggle for the creation of an independent Tamil state. This a tall order for any nation, let alone India; in any case it goes against the very basis of India's Sri Lanka policy.
Apparently this issue was probably mooted when R Sampanthan met the Indian delegation. From his negative comments after the meeting, it can be safely surmised that the Indian response to him had shown no deviation from the earlier stand on the subject. This is evident from the bland Indian statement which was a replay of sentiments vocalized many times earlier: ending the war, and starting negotiations to devolve powers to Tamil minority. There was not one word on the need to restore a feeling of security and trust among the Tamil population or about the mounting civilian casualties of war. On the flip side there was not one word of condemnation of the LTTE's mindless violence against civilians either. Indian delegation also probably indicated India's desire for status quo on Sri Lanka to the Sri Lankan hosts also. Given this setting Indian policy would probably continue as before, unless there was an effort for a secret breakthrough of sorts. There was no such indication. So much for Indian "interference" in the war alleged by the JVP and elements of Sinhala right!
However, Indians are reported to have invited the TNA leader to Delhi for a visit and that could give a glimmer of hope to the TNA constituency. A visit could provide a fig leaf for the waning credibility of TNA as an effective parliamentary body. An op-ed column in the pro-LTTE TamilNet titled "Time for Tamil Nadu to Act" does not sound hopeful on India's interest in the Tamil issue. The LTTE probably does not have any expectations of progress in its favour as long as the Congress led coalition was in power. After lamenting "the repeated demonstration of the present Indian establishment of its inability or unwillingness to go beyond shadowy bureaucratic levels in dealing with the Sri Lankan crisis," the article appealed to the Tamil Nadu political parties to use the next elections to get a mandate from the people on what foreign policy should be pursued by India regarding the Tamil question in Sri Lanka. Such expectations are beyond the realms of possibility at present.
The delegation would have definitely taken up the question of Sri Lanka's arms procurement from China and Pakistan. This is a major issue that would probably figure in every meeting to underline India's concern lest India's silence is taken as consent by Sri Lanka. However, Sri Lanka has to have other options when India finds it politically and morally unable to comply with Sri Lanka's demands for arms supply. In the context of Sri Lanka war, India has two ways to satisfy the Sri Lankans: to supply non-lethal weapons (do they exist?) to Sri Lanka on attractive terms, and to reassure them about the measures taken to crack down on supplies for the LTTE smuggled from Indian shores. (This has already been gingered up.) Probably both these aspects were discussed by the Indian team. Sri Lankans would have definitely taken up their growing concern over the huge number of Indian fishing boats crossing the Sri Lankan waters, entering the war zone where even Sri Lankan boats are not allowed. Unless, both countries decide to resolve this vexing question once and for all by constituting a joint Palk Bay fishing authority to control and authorize fishing, the problem would be taken advantage of by the LTTE and smugglers much to the despair of genuine fishermen.
As regards the question of devolution of powers, Sri Lanka is on a stronger wicket with India than ever before after conducting the Eastern Provincial Council elections and installing Chandirakanthan alias Pillaiyan as the chief minister. The much delayed Sri Lankan action as visualized in the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord 1987 (despite the splitting of the northeast province into two) would be incomplete unless the EPC is empowered at least in terms of 13th amendment. This question would have definitely come up during the Indian delegation's meetings. It is significant that the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) is said to be thinking of forwarding its proposals for police, land, educational and financial powers for the provinces to the All Party Representatives' Committee (APRC).
As the Indian Prime Minister will be visiting Colombo for the SAARC meeting there could be political expectations in Tamil Nadu for some policy initiatives on Sri Lanka that would help the Tamil Nadu coalition partners in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. The support he enjoys in Tamil Nadu is crucial now as the coalition government passing through difficult times thanks to the differences over the Indo-US nuclear deal. The Prime Minister would like to probably tread carefully on the Sri Lanka Tamil issue lest it affects his support in Tamil Nadu. The visit of the delegation could be to get a real feel of the situation in Colombo before drawing up any such proposal for the Prime Minister. The delegation could also have sounded the Sri Lanka government on some of the vexing issues that could crop up while drafting such a proposal.
Of course, there are other issues of international relations. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is to attend the 15th SAARC conference in Colombo and some issues that come up could be exasperating for India. Satisfactory progress has not been made within SAARC on some of the useful initiatives because of India – Pakistan differences (i.e., South Asian Free Trade Area). Then there are issues of energy security with the price of petroleum galloping beyond $ 130 per barrel. India is meeting a large part of Sri Lanka's energy requirements. Recently, when the Indian oil giant, Lanka Indian Oil Corporation (LIOC), hiked up retail prices of diesel to Rs 130 per litre as against the price of Rs 110 by the state-owned Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) it caused a lot of heartburn to the Sri Lanka government. This would have required some reassurances from both sides to take the heat off the issue.
Considering the whole gamut of complex bilateral and multilateral issues involved, Indian government could not have done better than to send a delegation of seasoned Sri Lanka hands of Indian bureaucracy. But bureaucrats can only advise, actions require political will and that had been the bane of India's policy. If there is any fresh initiative from India, it should be out in the coming weeks as the SAARC foreign ministers meet bits the headlines. We will have to wait it out till then.
(Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90.He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies.

Stewart Sloan 27 June 2008
Journalists become the target of the Sri Lankan government
Top ministers in the administration of Sri Lankan President Rajapakse over recent months have personally been involved in a growing number of violent incidents against members of the press, including the use of thugs to attempt to beat them up, and issuing threats against any journalists who don’t see things the government’s way.
The most spectacular of these, and the most embarrassing for Rajapkse’s government, occurred last December when the government Labor Minister, Mervyn Silva, entered the offices of the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, the state-run news organization, and attempted to beat up the news director because Rupavahini had not telecast footage of a speech Silva had made at a function in Matara.
Silva entered the Rupavahini offices with a gang of thugs, one of whom was identified as a wanted criminal, and dragged the news director, TMG Chandrasekara, out from behind his desk. However, the attack backfired when members of the news organization’s staff saved Chandrasekara from real injury. The staff then grabbed Silva and his goons and locked them up after pouring red ink over their heads. It took a detachment of the Sri Lankan military to rescue Silva, but not until after the entire affair had been televised via the local news media. Rajapakse interceded himself, but despite the strong televised evidence against Silva and the thugs, he took no action against the minister.
Rajapakse convened a commission of inquiry that produced nothing. While police did arrest Silva’s goons, they were released on bail despite the fact that one of them was wanted on a non-bailable offence. Silva himself refused to attend a hearing at the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka that sought to investigate the matter.
While this was probably the most dramatic event with regard to press freedom, it was by no means the first, nor is it likely to be the last.
“The anti-media tactics we're seeing from the government are really unprecedented,”said Bob Dietz, Asia program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists. “With the resumption of the fighting with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Ministry of Defense is pulling out all stops to silence people who report critically on the war, or those who report on the corruption and inefficiencies within the defense ministry. We've long been accustomed to seeing Tamil journalists bear the brunt of the violence and harassment in Sri Lanka. Now it has spread to anyone who dares to report on matters the government doesn't want to see exposed."Sri Lanka, Dietz added, “has always been a place where those who attack journalists go uninvestigated and prosecuted. It is a bad place to be a journalist who wants to do a good job."
For example, in March of this year the Terrorist Investigation Division of the Sri Lankan police arrested a number of journalists attached to an organization called Outreach Sri Lanka. They were held incommunicado for several hours and while most have been released, the one remaining in custody has not been charged nor brought before a court of law. This is despite the fact that the emergency regulations under which he is being held have a time limit of 30 days. It is also believed that at least one journalist has been tortured while in custody. The attacks on journalists continue. Keith Noyahr, the deputy editor and defense analyst of the English-language weekly, The Nation, was kidnapped and severely beaten. It is strongly believed that it was only due to an outcry by the press that he was released. The police have commenced their investigations but no culprits have been identified, arrested or brought to book.
The attack on media freedom continued this month and it was with little surprise that the news came that the Ministry of Defense had issued a dire warning to members of the press not to produce anything that might be considered harmful to the interests of the government.
This continued a few days later when Hudson Samarasinghe, the chairman of the state-controlled Sri Lanka Broadcasting Cooperation publicly called for the death of a senior journalist, Poddala Jayantha, the general secretary of Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association. The tirade, broadcast over a breakfast program, went on to attack the BBC Sinhala Service when he said, "I tell the BBC: do not poke your fingers into our affairs. I am telling you decisively. Remember, this is the last warning; this is the last time I tell you."
Sri Lanka’s Free Media Movement, a collective enterprise of journalists and media personnel, charged Samarasinghe with using the program to “level vicious attacks to journalists, civil society leaders and trade unionists,” and added that “By appointing him to head a State media institution, the Rajapaksa administration demonstrates an utter disregard for media freedom. In attempting to even suggest that Hudson Samarasinghe has a right to say what he wants to, the Rajapaksa administration significantly aids the growth of hate speech and is directly culpable in violence directed against journalists.”
In early 2007, according to the Sri Lanka Working Journalist Association, the government instituted controversial anti-terror regulations and shortly after that arrested a journalist named Munusami Parameshwari, holding her in detention for four months. The day after she was arrested, according to the organization, three Sinhala newspapers carried headline stories stating that as a result of statements by a friend arrested with her, police were able to recover 10 kilos of high explosives and 10 claymore mines. It was later discovered that the story had been fabricated and planted, according to the organization. Several government ministers also went on record saying that Parameshwari was being held in custody because of her connection with terrorists. The charges were not true.
With Sri Lanka in the grip of one of the world's longest-running civil wars, every potential evil in the country is blamed on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who are fighting for an independent homeland in the north of the country. The Rajapakse regime's attitude is quite simple -- those who are not for us are against us. While this clearly includes members of the press, local and international journalists might rest more easily in the knowledge that Rajapakse has set up yet another of his commissions to deal with problems relating to the matter.
Apparently the commissioners will investigate complaints made by journalist and offer guidelines to media personnel on how to report on matters relating to the government and the internal conflict with the LTTE. The latter can be taken for granted. The commissioners are tasked with advising the media on what they can and cannot say, but whether they can identify, order the arrest of, and successfully prosecute anyone for the physical attacks or threats to journalists is another matter.
Stewart Sloan is a Hong Kong-based human rights activist.

Kumar R: war killed over 250,000 people
Friday, June 27,2008 COLOMBO: Though it is reported that the war in Sri Lanka had killed 80,000 people, recent estimates indicate that the number of persons who died due to the on going war is more than 250,000, Foundation for Co-Existence Chairman Kumar Rupesinghe said.Speaking at the launch of his nine publications, on Wednesday in Colombo, he said of the 32 civil wars, 16 were solved through discussions, eight are at discussion level and of the other eight; two had come to be at comprise stages, but Sri Lanka belongs to the category of deadly conflict.He said on average a conflict lasts for 30 years and Sri Lanka’s conflict is nearing 25 years but both parties cannot win the war.He also said a recent survey by the Foundation for Co-Existence has revealed that eight leading State institutions had no person to disseminate information in the Tamil language.Rupesinghe said that their survey at the Nuwara Eliya Hospital indicated that out 450 workers only three could communicate in the Tamil language.He said before going for discussions both sides have to respect human rights and human rights law. He believed an agreement on respecting humanitarian law is achievable.The collected works of Rupesinghe consisted of nine publications under the titles of ‘Waging Peace’, ‘Early Warning’, ‘Preventive Diplomacy’, ‘Development and Conflict’, ‘Conflict Resolution and Transformation Vols. 1 and II’, ‘Voice Vols. 1 and II’ and ‘Expressions of an Unequivocal Mind’. The origins of these writings date back to the author’s motivation as a young scholar and a resource person in the engagement of peace research and advocacy.

SL to borrow US $ 13 m from WB
June 26, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Sri Lanka is to borrow 13.8 million US dollars from the World Bank for the implementation of the Public Sector Capacity Building Project.

"LTTE must lay down arms, prior to negotiation" – President emphasises
Wednesday, 25 June 2008 President Mahinda Rajapaksa reiterated that the LTTE terrorists should lay down arms if they expect to negotiate with the Government for a political solution to the crisis.
"The Government would not hesitate to work with the LTTE if the Tigers were ready to lay down arms," President said. President made these remarks at a discussion held with the religious dignitaries at the President's House yesterday (24). The President assured that he was not at all prepared to compromise the security of the country and the safety of the people and was not ready to hand over the country to a terrorist organisation. The regilious dignitaries present at the meeting, while commending the efforts made by the Government to bring about a sustainable solution to the crisis in the country, requested him to include religious and political leaders too in the All Party Representative Committee (APRC). The religious dignitaries have informed the President that certain groups were propagating "baseless allegations locally and internationally against the government to distort the image of the country".

Indian trio’s mysterious tryst or twist
My dear Mahinda aiya,Ayubowan, vanakkam and assalamu alaikkum as the country continues to shake, rattle and roll with the increasing confusion of crisis within crisis and contradictions within contradictions.
The latest issue hit by this crisis of conflict within conflict was the sudden and largely secretive visit of India’s heavyweight delegation comprising the powerful National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Defence Secretary Vijaya Singh. Mr. Narayanan was the former head of India’s much feared Research and Analysis Wing and is known to be playing a key role in working out the geopolitical strategies for India to strengthen its defector role as the regional superpower.
The visit of the high level Indian delegation was unexpected and unannounced with reports indicating that even opposition UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe came to know about it only after the delegation arrived.
Officially little or nothing was announced about the purpose of the visit and the extensive talks held here. Spin doctors of state propaganda units suggested that the visit was a routine one connected with security arrangements for next month’s South Asian Summit which India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is scheduled to attend. The main opposition UNP and the now anti government fire brand JVP were among the parties which over the weekend demanded that the government should tell the truth about why the top level Indian delegation suddenly came here. What was discussed or what was demanded?
The JVP especially expressed concern it feared a repeat of June 1987 when the then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi came here while the country was clamped under a curfew and virtually forced Sri Lanka to sign the so-called Indo Lanka peace accord including the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution.
According to most observers and analysts the three top Indian officials came here mainly to reiterate India’s view that the regional superpower or big brother saw no military solution to the ethnic conflict. Reports say the Indian team was briefed by the all powerful Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the heads of the security forces.
The analysts believe the Indian team also expressed grave concern over the catastrophic situation facing the Tamil people and called on the government to act fast in working out a political solution including the extensive devolution of power within a united Sri Lanka. Last week Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama was reported to have said India should stop meddling in Sri lanka’s internal affairs. He later denied the reports but it is an open secret that ties between India and Sri Lanka are strained and New Delhi is set to take tough action in view of upcoming general election there. Tamil Nadu factor is known to be important for all parties in any Indian general election and Premier Singh like most politicians must be having one eye on the polls and the other on India’s regional geopolitical strategies as he works a policy towards Sri Lanka. India is also known to be concerned about Sri Lanka’s growing political, economic and military ties with China and Pakistan.
The coming days and weeks will reveal more of what happened or what was said at the talks between Sri Lankan leaders and the Indian delegation. Besides a meeting with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Indian officials met TNA leader R. Sampanthan and CWC leader S. Thondaman. Obliviously their talks with these two leaders did not focus on next month’s summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Corporation (SAARC).
If the Indian officials asked for or demanded an end to the escalation of the military offensive in the North, there was little or no sign of it over the weekend. Reports indicated that heavy fighting took place on Sunday and the casualty toll was high with Army Commander Sarath Fonseka himself visiting the troops in the Vanni again on Saturday. As usual different media and state organs are telling different stories and giving different interpretation to the visit of the Indian team and to the state of Indo Sri Lanka relations.
If the focus of the talks, as government spokesmen say was on next month’s SAARC summit, some reports asked whether India wanted a postponement or a change of venue because of the serious security situation and the bomb blasts in and around Colombo. Adding confusion to confusion, Indian media reports said the thrust of the talks was for India to supply more military equipment to Sri Lanka because New Delhi feared Sri Lanka might turn into something like the Myanmar Junta if it continued to receive military equipment on a large scale from China and Pakistan.
This 15th SAARC summit was originally scheduled to be held in the Maldives but that country had some difficulties in hosting the summit and Sri Lanka asked for the honour of hosting it with the added privilege of the President of Sri Lanka being also the Chairman of the grouping of eight nations.
The Sunday Times newspapers front page lead was on the government’s move to table a motion in parliament seeking a staggering Rs. 2.3 billion more to host the SAARC summit. Last week we commented on people being forced to eat polls at a time when the prices of ‘pol’ were soaring beyond coconut trees along with prices of almost every other item.Next month Provincial Council polls in the North Central and Sabaragamuwa provinces will cost hundreds of millions of rupees at a time when millions of people are struggling to find their daily bread. Going beyond what that infamous French queen baked herself in, the policy here appears to be to stuff ballot papers not only into ballot boxes but into the hungry bellies of people.
An email doing the international rounds speaks of how many million loaves of bread could be produced and how many millions could be fed on the money spent in hosting the SAARC summit here while the country is reportedly plunged into an economic breakdown.
Sadly and tragically, the people do not appear to be having a credible alternative. The main opposition UNP is plagued and paralyzed with division within division.
A committee appointed to probe a growing demand for a change in leadership was due to meet yesterday with front liners like Johnston Fernando and Lakshman Seneviratne joining the group of those seeking the removal of Ranil Wickremesinghe from the leadership.
They want Mr. Wickremesinghe to play a role similar to what Sonia Ghandhi is playing in the congress party with party chairman Rukman Senanayake being proposed as UNP leader.
The only plus point for the UNP appears to be the appointment of former Army Commander Janaka Perera as Chief Ministerial candidate for the North Central Province besides being the party’s defence spokesman.The JVP also, though being in a striking and fiery mood against the government, has been hit by further splits with the Anjaan Umma drama creating more problems to the party and dissident leader Wimal Weerawansa claiming he will reveal shocking secrets about party leaders in a book to be launched tomorrow.
Overall it appears that a neo colonial divide and rule policy of splitting parties and creating divisions within divisions is backfiring on its creators just as it did on an empire which boasted that the sun would never set on it but now finds itself largely as a lap dog of one of the most unpopular leaders of the United States.
Yours sincerely,
Koththa-malli

Time for Tamil Nadu to Act
[TamilNet, Tuesday, 24 June 2008, 20:04 GMT]
The negative approaches of the International Community towards the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka and towards the Tamil diaspora are allegedly more due to the Indian attitude than due to pressure from the Colombo government. How to expect the IC to back the masses facing genocide, when their brethren in India are not voicing for them? Voicing is not merely holding rallies and making speeches. They will not be counted in an international forum. What about the Tamil Nadu Assembly passing a resolution, upholding the right to self determination of the Eezham Tamils, and announcing a policy of supporting it, confining to the purview of the Indian constitution and laws, opines columnist Chivanadi.
Opiniion Columnist ChivanadiA group of Indian officials and intelligence big wigs, described as a high power delegation, has recently visited Sri Lanka. Many government and opposition politicians in Sri Lanka thought it necessary to visit them with their submissions. Given the circumstances the media gave much importance to the delegation which otherwise should have gone unnoticed.
What is the exact role being played by these gentlemen of the delegation in Sri Lankan and Tamil affairs, what was the real purpose of their visit and what actually transpired in the talks may not be known to us for the time being. But, that is not important.
What has to be borne in mind not only by the Tamils of Sri Lanka, India and the diaspora, but also by the Sinhalese is the repeated demonstration of the present Indian establishment of its inability or unwillingness to go beyond shadowy bureaucratic levels in dealing with the Sri Lankan crisis.
Perhaps the Indian establishment can’t help it, as its coalition structure and the nature of the ruling Congress Party do not permit the emergence of statesmen or visionary politicians to deal with the Indian outlook in a manner prestigious and magnificent to the size and gravity of India.
It now seems that as long as the Congress Party is in power in India, ideological or political approaches towards the struggle of Eezham Tamils and towards the plight of the island of Sri Lanka may not be expected. The BJP may be much better in this regard as there are parallel politicians and enough room for the role of politics in it.
The nature and structure of the Congress establishment is such that the political part of the government has become a dummy, especially when it comes to the question of Eezham Tamils.
Bureaucrats have been chosen and are assigned with a specific agenda, close to the heart of the establishment, in the pursuit of which they are not accountable to the people of India and need not be answerable even to the parliament. In a way it is a shadow military operation and a military option aiming at dismembering the Tamil National question as well as controlling the entire island.
Occasional sympathetic gestures and lip services about safeguarding Tamil rights in Sri Lanka coming from Indian politicians are not with any political farsightedness or with a principled programme, but are aimed at electoral politics inside India.
Unfortunately, the Tamil Nadu situation is not any better. Elections being around the corner, the formula of DMK - Congress alliance, united by mutual dynastic considerations on one hand, and the need for BJP to ally with Ms. Jayalalitha on the other hand, as the profiles stand now, may not bring in any break through in the Indian approach towards the suffering Tamils of Sri Lanka.
As had been pointed out in the earlier columns, if the Tamil Nadu political parties have any sympathy for their brethren in Sri Lanka, they have to use the next elections to get a mandate from the people of Tamil Nadu, demonstrating the political will that what foreign policy should be pursued by the Indian government regarding the Tamil question in Sri Lanka.
Neither the issues between the LTTE and the Indian establishment nor the formulas of political alliances should be a hindrance in Tamil Nadu political parties recognizing the Tamil National question in Sri Lanka.
The Tamil National question in Sri Lanka is a wider ideological issue of a people facing genocide and it involves the prestige of 70 million Tamils living all around the world.
The negligence and negative approaches shown by the International Community towards the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka and towards the Tamil diaspora are allegedly more due to the Indian attitude than due to pressure from the Colombo government. How to expect the IC to back the rights of the masses facing genocide in Sri Lanka, when their brethren in India are not voicing for them?
Voicing is not merely holding rallies and making speeches. They will not be counted in an international forum.
The Eezham struggle has now come to the stage of dealing with the International System. As a government, Colombo is in a better position to tilt the balance in its favour. The Tamils, even though a global community, don’t have a government of them to handle the situation. The Tamil Nadu state is the only legitimate body.
Of all the states in India, Tamil Nadu has a unique status having a global diaspora. It has special perspectives and responsibilities in this regard.
What about the Tamil Nadu Assembly passing a resolution, upholding the right to self determination of the Eezham Tamils, and announcing a policy of supporting it, confining to the purview of the Indian constitution and laws.
Like the Vaddukkoaddai declaration of 1976, overwhelmingly mandated by the Eezham Tamils for their self-determination, such a declaration from the Tamil Nadu assembly will provide legitimacy to Tamil National question in any international forum and is of immense help to safeguard Tamil rights in any negotiations.
There seem to be a hesitation in high profiled politicians in Tamil Nadu to openly proclaim the nationhood of the Eezham Tamils, either to please the Delhi establishment or due to fear of being identified as serving the LTTE agenda. There are also some who harp on the Indian modeled federal structure.
The Indian model will not work in Sri Lanka. Right from the beginnings of British supremacy, India had a federal structure such as Presidencies and then as Provinces. Each part of British India had parallel developments in capital accumulation and in the formation of political, social and cultural institutions. As a result, there are always social formations, having enough capital and vested with interests in their respective states in India. The multiplicity of the social formations is a healthy balance in the Indian model.
The British rule and the post-colonial developments in Sri Lanka were such that capital accumulation, whatever small, was only Colombo-centric. The regional economy, autonomy and capital accumulation enjoyed until the Dutch times by Tamil regions in Sri Lanka were lost under the British. For instance, the last occasion Jaffna saw an inward population movement was under the Dutch. It attracted large number of people from today’s Kerala and Tamil Nadu to settle in Jaffna due to its economy. From the times of the British, there was only an outward population movement, because there was no regional development there. The post independent phase has worsened the situation.
With such a background, any Indian modeled federal structure will still make the states depending heavily on the centre, which in the context of the unbalanced social formations in Sri Lanka, will not work.
This has already been witnessed by the failure of the provincial administrations created by the Indo- Sri Lanka Accord of 1987. At that time it was only the Tamils who asked for a homeland. But the accord created 8 units, Tamils getting one and the remaining 7 for Sinhala provinces that never asked for it. More than twenty years of experience show how the model could not make any headway, even in the Sinhala provinces.
The reality is that Sri Lanka today is deeply divided beyond reconciliation. Even anyone who harbour a desire to see a united Sri Lanka has to now think of first separating the warring parties than allowing the oppressors to achieve the 'unity' through genocide.
Engineering and abetting a genocidal war in Sri Lanka has to be stopped immediately.
Secession of the sufferers who are graduated as a nation is a time-tested international remedy.
Those who cast doubts on the viability of Eezham often talk of the practicality and mechanism of secession. They cite the case of the Muslims and Tamils living in the Sinhala areas.
A principled secession based on the right to self-determination is only a first step. Proper political thought, agenda and development in both sides of the island can sort out many practical problems and eventually may bring in reconciliation. The desired unity may come sooner than one expects. The case of Malaysia and Singapore and the successful model of ASEAN need to be cited here.
The security of India on its southern front rests on the prosperity and goodwill of the people across the Palk Strait.

India seeks refuge in Sri Lanka 6/23/2008 2:51:36 PM
Threatened by the expanding influence of China in its backyard, India has sought to bolster the sale of miltary hardware to Sri Lanka Threatened by the expanding influence of China in its backyard, India has sought to bolster the sale of miltary hardware to Sri Lanka. India is apparently concerned with the growing reliance of Sri Lanka on Pakistan and China for its military requirements.
Several aspects of China's military development have surprised US analysts, including the pace and scope of its strategic forces modernization. China's military expansion is already such as to alter regional military balances.
Long-term trends in China's strategic nuclear forces modernization, land- and sea-based access denial capabilities, and emerging precision-strike weapons have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.
China is also modernizing its long-range ballistic missile force by replacing older missiles with newer, more survivable ones. China is deploying a new road-mobile solid-propellant intercontinental range ballistic missile (ICBM), the DF-31, and an extended-range version called the DF-31A.
"Industrial espionage in foreign research and production facilities and illegal transfers of technology are used to gain desired capabilities. Where technology targets remain difficult to acquire, foreign investors are attracted to China via contracts that are often written to ensure Chinese oversight, with the eventual goal of displacing foreigners from the companies brought into China," noted the Indian Defense department.
Indiatimes

Sri Lankan opposition wants details of Indian delegation's visit Indo Asian News ServiceMon, Jun 23 01:02 PM
Colombo, June 23 (IANS) Sri Lanka's opposition parties have urged the ruling coalition to disclose the reasons behind the 'sudden visit' to Colombo by a high-powered Indian delegation led by National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, a media report said Monday.
The demand from the opposition parties has come as both the Indian and Sri Lankan governments remain tight-lipped on the visit, while implying that the officials came here for a routine consultative meeting ahead of the upcoming South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) summit in Colombo.
John Amaratunga, a leader of the main opposition United National Party (UNP), claimed there was a 'crucial aspect' to the two-day previously unannounced visit, pointing out that it had came at a time when the country was 'at crossroads in economic and war fronts', the Daily Mirror reported.
'Today, India is concerned about what is happening in Sri Lanka. The ongoing military campaign will have serious implications (for) Tamil Nadu (and) the Indian government. So we are eager to know the true position of the visit,' said Amaratunga.
The Indian delegation, which included foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon and defence secretary Vijay Singh, arrived here Friday. The team called on President Mahinda Rajapaksa Saturday and met other officials, including defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the army and navy commanders, separately.
Before returning to New Delhi Saturday evening, the delegation also held talks with R. Sampanthan, the parliamentary group leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which supports the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The team also met Minister of Social Services Douglas Devananda, who is the leader of the anti-LTTE Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP).
The Indians, however, did not meet UNP leader and former prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is reportedly facing an internal party crisis.
Meanwhile, the radical Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has claimed that the visit by the Indian delegation was 'similar to what happened during the Vadamaradchchi operation in 1987' and demanded the government divulge the details of all discussions held.
JVP's parliamentary group leader Anurakumara Dissanayake said India intervened to halt the Vadamaradchchi military operation against the LTTE in 1987 and later forced a peace accord on the Sri Lankan government.
'It is the responsibility of the government to disclose the details of the visit as conflicting reports have appeared in the media,' said Dissanayake.
======================================================
Deepening Political Crisis in Sri Lanka by R. Swaminathan
(Courtesy: The Indian Centre for South Asian Studies, Chennai)The theme of this seminar, "Deepening Political Crisis in Sri Lanka", may be an under-statement. The current situation in Sri Lanka is in reality more than just a political crisis. It is a military crisis (that has already caused nearly 70,000 deaths), a crisis of governance (with fairness and equity), a crisis of confidence between the different ethnic groups – all of which threaten the very existence a united and integrated Sri Lanka. What started as apparent linguistic chauvinism (and the reaction to it) has taken on most of the aspects of an ethnic civil war.
The India Factor
India, with its growing influence in international affairs, should reasonably be expected to make her overall national interest the primary and supreme consideration in formulating foreign and security policies. Domestic politics and partisan interests would continue to provide major inputs during the stage of consultations, but are unlikely to become reasons for casting doubts on the credibility of the evolved national foreign policy. It is not difficult to perceive that India’s long-term strategic and regional interests require a special relationship with Sri Lanka, going well beyond the immediate Tamil ethnic issue – considering the increasing interest of USA, China, Pakistan and Iran in Sri Lanka.
The regional political parties in Tamil Nadu often find it difficult to adopt moderate positions on Sri Lanka related issues, lest they surrender ground to the more radical amongst them. Even considering their present disproportionate influence in decision-making by the Central Government, I do not think that the mainstream politicians in Tamil Nadu would attempt to make the Central Government agree to intervene physically in the crisis in Sri Lanka; or that they would succeed if they made the attempt.
India and Sri Lanka are physically separated by a narrow strip of sea, but the peoples of the two countries are bound together by bonds of geographic proximity, historical ties, religious and cultural affinities and similarities etc. State level relations tend to fluctuate from time to time, influenced by domestic political compulsions, international situation, economic needs etc. Stable state level relations are possible only when they closely reflect the reality of people-to-people ties.
A major irritant in Indo-Sri Lankan relations relates to Kachchativu. The issue is really less about ownership and sovereignty over a small island than about fishing rights around it. Despite the Maritime Boundary Agreements, Indian fishermen have continued to fish in areas (including those in Sri Lankan territorial waters) where they have traditionally been carrying on their vocation. It is unfortunate that all the concerned entities seem to find it convenient to let the situation simmer and be available (whenever required) as a stick to beat the other entities with. The issue needs to be defused with a sense of urgency. The fishing communities on both sides of Palk Bay had jointly exploited (with hardly any outside intervention) the local marine resources for centuries. An effort needs to be made to restore to those communities the right and responsibility to work out friendly, cooperative and sustainable fishing in these waters that are the common heritage of India and Sri Lanka.
India cannot easily shrug off her moral responsibility to support the aspiration of the Tamils to be "equal" citizens of Sri Lanka. However, India has consistently been opposed to the carving out of a separate sovereign state of Tamil Eelam. Such an entity is unlikely to function as a classical "buffer state", but is more likely to have the potential of becoming a focus for pan-Tamil parochialism and nationalism. That this is not a hypothetical fear is shown by a recent appeal by LTTE political wing leader B Nadesan, made directly to the people of Tamil Nadu, "to rise in solidarity with our cause". He said that the "Tamils in Tamil Nadu should not remain silent spectators as we suffer. … Eelam Tamils could record Himalayan victories if they had an upsurge in Tamil Nadu in their support, as well as the backing of the estimated 80 million Tamils living in the world." If LTTE could make such an open call for the Tamils of Tamil Nadu to revolt against the Indian State and the elected governments in Tamil Nadu and at the Centre, when it is still on the defensive and is in need of support, what could one expect from it if and when it becomes the power-holder in the sovereign state of Tamil Eelam?
A week later (on 16 June 2008), in what could be termed a damage-control exercise, KV Balakumaran assured the Australian Tamil Broadcasting Corporation that the demand for Tamil Eelam is not against India’s interest. LTTE sought only ‘credible alternate proposals’ to resolve the 25-year-old ethnic conflict. "We believe firmly, our strong cultural ties to our brothers and sisters in India will help their policy makers to select a just and fair path towards our people. …. We will uphold Indian welfare as our own. There was a time when India looked after our welfare as her own. India will change its current policy towards us one day." He added, "We cannot wait for India’s change of mind to continue with our liberation. One fact should be clear; no one should doubt our friendship, and strong ties to India."
LTTE
LTTE was one of the many parallel Tamil movements that came up in protest against SLG’s decisions that were seen as being discriminatory against the Tamils. Over a period of time, mainly through the free use of the weapons of violence and assassination, LTTE has eliminated or marginalized most other Tamil movements. LTTE has arguably been the most effective champion of the Tamil cause, but its other face of a dreaded terrorist organization does not elicit the same extent of willing support from the Tamils. However, the reality of LTTE cannot be ignored when attempting any solution to the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka, though it may still be very difficult for India officially to deal with an LTTE led by those involved in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
LTTE’s alternating tirades against and appeals to the international community to rethink their approach of supporting the SLG, as well as the repeated appeals for support from Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, seem to display elements of frustration and desperation at the present situation. I feel that the stage has come when LTTE should undertake a serious exercise of introspection, taking into account all the realities, and decide whether or not to pursue the goal of an independent Eelam, through violent means.
Way Forward
When Mahinda Rajapakse won the Presidential election in November 2005, with the support of Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), it could be anticipated that his government would move away from Chandrika’s federal formula and towards an attempted military solution. Historical evidence shows that ethnic or ideological insurrections or revolutionary movements suffer from their own versions of revolutionary (battle) fatigue. Some time after the CFA stabilized to a certain extent, LTTE showed signs of having reached that critical stage. Though the LTTE was initially nudged back to the negotiating table at Geneva, the repeated provocative attacks by the Tigers on the security forces and the retaliatory attacks by SLG on Tamil areas led to a situation where the Cease-Fire Agreement (CFA) died and was formally revoked. The intensified military offensives by SLG have probably done more to re-motivate and re-invigorate the fighting cadres of LTTE than any exhortation by Pirabhakaran could have achieved. Though LTTE has repeatedly shown great resilience and capacity to rebound, it seems that its best days are behind it.
It would appear that the capabilities of the Sea Tigers have been severely crippled, at least for the present. Though advances on the ground have been claimed, aerial bombardment of one’s own territory (not under foreign occupation), with resultant casualties amongst innocent civilians, does not show SLG as being in total control of the situation. Some of the counter-attacks (particularly the recent claymore mine attacks on soft targets) by LTTE have highlighted the weaknesses of the government. It seems that the military offensives cannot be carried to their logical conclusion. I doubt the ability of the Sri Lankan Security Forces totally to eradicate the presence or influence of militant LTTE cadres from the areas presently controlled by them, much less from all of Sri Lanka. There will always be bitter remnants, which will continue to destabilize society.
The continued military offensive by SLG ignores the lessons of history. Any movement by an ethnic minority, essentially based on legitimate grievances of discrimination and perceived suppression, cannot be eradicated totally by military means alone. Military measures should be accompanied by sincere and sympathetic efforts to address the legitimate grievances and to minimize any discrimination by the state. Ideally, the solution should be totally indigenous and arrived at by consensus. Less ideally, it can be achieved with the help of mediators or intermediaries from outside. It should be realized that any solution imposed only by military force or majoritarian fiat would neither be effective nor durable.
On its part, the LTTE has clearly demonstrated that it is not prepared to work within the existing (or a slightly modified) system. Along with the LTTE, the legitimate and democratically elected SLG has done little to help in resolving the "Tamil problem". If anything, the Mahinda government has been equally responsible for escalating an intractable problem into one that is becoming near-impossible to solve. One suspects that there is an absence of any serious desire for a settlement.
It has been reported that the JVP is planning to mount a legal challenge (in the Supreme Court) to the dissolution of the North-Central and Sabaragamuva Provincial Councils. It seems to me that this would be an indirect challenge to ‘unitary’ Constitution that empowers the President to dissolve the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies.
It is unrealistic to expect any miracle cure to the deepening crisis. The existing crisis of confidence needs to be overcome and the first essential step would be to take measures to convince the majority of the Tamils that their legitimate grievances and aspirations would be attended to, without their having to resort to coercive actions. As a comprehensive agreement with the different Tamil protagonists seems unattainable, President Rajapakse and his party should display the courage and vision to take the initial steps unilaterally and hope that the rest of the Sinhala leaders and the Tamils would respond favorably to those gestures of reconciliation. Terminology like "unitary", "federal", "self-determination" etc. could be jettisoned as excess baggage and pragmatic efforts made – placing the overall interests of an integrated Sri Lankan State above those of individuals, parties etc. Any such package should give legal sanctity to Sri Lanka being a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual country. It should address all major grievances of all ethnic minorities and meet their minimum legitimate aspirations – particularly relating to equality of all citizens (under the law and in reality); inclusive economic development; and constitutionally sanctioned, significant participation in their own governance.
Such an action would strengthen and embolden the presently silent moderates amongst the Tamils. It may be noted in this context that V. Anandasangaree, President of TULF, issued a press release on 8 June 2008, inter alia reiterating that the SLG should come out with a reasonable proposal acceptable to the International Community, not out of fear of the LTTE , but to enable the International Community to step in and to tell the LTTE to stop all their brutal killings of innocent civilians. He described the present situation as one in which a group that claims to be waging a war against the Government for the liberation of the Tamils is fighting against another group of ultra-nationalists claiming to be great patriots trying to save the country from the former. Neither group realizes that a patriot is not one who merely loves his country but also its people as well. The ultra-nationalists should appreciate that the [moderate] Tamil Leadership openly opposes separation, defying the LTTE at grave risk to their lives. They have declared that they will be satisfied with a reasonable and an acceptable solution within a United Sri Lanka. Whatever be the solution that is arrived at should be the last and final one that will strongly unite all sections of the people of Sri Lanka to a common identity as Sri Lankans, to live in peace and amity, enjoying all rights equally with others. Could such views be supported by the Sinhala leadership of different hues and could they summon the necessary sagacity, maturity, tolerance and pragmatism to do so? Let us hope so.
(This note was prepared by R. Swaminathan, IPS (Retd), Former Special Secretary, DG (Security), Govt. of India and now Vice-President of the Chennai Centre of China Studies, Chennai, India, to form the basis of his valedictory address on 19 June 2008 at a two-day, bi-national seminar on "Deepening Political Crisis in Sri Lanka", organized by the Indian Centre for South Asian Studies, Chennai.)