Sri Lanka Tamil Crisis

Human rights activists protest again Sri Lanka government

2008-04-12T15:09:00.004+05:30

Followup

Several hundred human rights activists participated in a protest event "Get On The Bus (GOTB)" sponsored by Amnesty International, in New York Friday afternoon outside the Sri Lanka consulate in midtown, protesting against violence against media in Sri Lanka, attendees to the event said.

SRI LANKAN SUICIDE ATTACK CONDEMNED BY UN HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF

2008-04-12T14:07:00.003+05:30

New York,
Apr 11 2008 5:00PM
The United Nations’ top human rights official has deplored the suicide bombing last weekend at the start of a marathon in Sri Lanka that claimed the lives of at least 15 people, including a minister in the national Government.

Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued a statement yesterday in which she also extended her condolences to the families of the victims.

“Such violence shows a complete disregard for the right to life and security of Sri Lankans, and breaches the most fundamental principles of international law,” she said.

Last Sunday’s bombing killed Highways Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, the national athletics coach and a former top marathoner among others as they waited to see off runners in Weliweriya. It also injured dozens of athletes and onlookers.

Ms. Arbour said the attack is alleged to have been committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which has been fighting a decades-long civil conflict with the Government. The rebel group is also accused of other recent attacks, including the bombings of public transport and other public places.“

I remind the LTTE and other armed groups that attacks which directly or indiscriminately target civilians are crimes under international law. Violent attacks on people taking no active part in hostilities are strictly prohibited.”

The High Commissioner noted that the violence also undermined efforts to develop “a meaningful dialogue on improving the situation” of Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority

Sri Lanka: mounting civilian casualties as conflict persists

2008-04-10T10:59:00.002+05:30

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT

AI Index: ASA 37/017/2008 (Public)
Date: 09 April 2008

Sri Lanka: mounting civilian casualties as conflict persists

Amnesty International condemns the suicide bomb attack of 6 April 2008 in Gampaha district,
Weliveriya, near Colombo. The bomb blast killed at least 12 people, including Jeyaraj
Fernandopulle, a senior government minister, and injured over 90 people including children. The
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has been blamed for the bomb attack that targeted a local sports event. Amnesty International reiterates that attacks targeting civilians and indiscriminate attacks violate international humanitarian law which binds all sides to the conflict and constitute war crimes. All such attacks must cease immediately and unconditionally, and perpetrators must be brought to justice.

The organisation is alarmed that since the abrogation of the ceasefire agreement in Sri
Lanka on 16 January 2008,1 the conflict continues to involve the intentional targeting of civilians
and indiscriminate attacks. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
180 civilians died in the first six weeks of 2008, and nearly 270 more were injured in a series of
attacks on civilian buses, railway stations and individuals in Colombo, Dambulla, Kebhitigollewa,
Madhu, Okkampitiya and Welli Oya.2 The ICRC has expressed concern that “since the start of the year civilian casualties had gone up as the number of indiscriminate attacks had grown in the
north, east and south of the country.”3

Since 2006, the conflict in Sri Lanka between government forces, the LTTE and other
armed groups has escalated and has continued to be marked by widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.4 These have included unlawful killings; torture and other ill-treatment; recruitment of child soldiers; abductions and enforced disappearances.

There are reports of both sides bombing and shelling schools and hospitals5. Hundreds of civilians have been killed; hundreds others injured and more than 200,000 people have been displaced.

Abuses by the LTTE

The LTTE has attracted increasing criticism since the 1980s for its use of child soldiers, targeting
of civilians and indiscriminate attacks, including using suicide bombers. During the conflict the
LTTE has also endangered civilians by sheltering among them and by launching attacks from
civilian areas. Its members have also abducted and killed civilians.

1 With the abrogation of the CFA the mission responsible for monitoring its implementation, the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission (SLMM) has terminated.

2 ‘Sri Lanka: Civilian casualties reaching appalling levels’ Geneva, Colombo – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), News Release, 13 February 2008.

3 ‘Sri Lanka: Civilians bear the brunt of surge in violence’, ICRC statement, 8 February 2008.

4 AI Media Briefing, ‘Sri Lanka: urgent need for effective protection of civilians as conflict intensifies’, AI Index: ASA 37/009/2007; AI News Service No: 068, 5 April 2007.

5 Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Crisis, Asia Report N°135 – 14 June 2007, International Crisis Group.

Whilst armed opposition groups are not themselves parties to international treaties, they
are nevertheless bound to observe the provisions of Article 3 common to the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 which apply to internal (non-international) armed conflict such as the
situation in Sri Lanka, as well as customary international rules applicable to such conflicts.

More recently, the LTTE has been deliberately targeting civilians in an extended series of
attacks.6 It is a basic principle of international humanitarian law that persons fighting in armed
conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian
objects and military objectives. The "principle of distinction", as this rule is known, is one of the
cornerstones of international humanitarian law. It is a rule of customary international humanitarian law, binding on all parties to armed conflicts, whether international or non-international.

It is not unlawful to target combatants for attack, where legal means and methods are
used; however specific rules aim at protecting civilians and other non-combatants. They must not be the object of attack. Indiscriminate attacks, including attacks on military objectives that are expected to cause excessive loss of civilian lives or damage to civilian objects (the principle of
proportionality) are similarly prohibited, as is the use of civilians as "human shields".

Civilians caught in the crossfire; ongoing hostilities around Madhu Church

As suicide bombs kill and injure civilians in the south of Sri Lanka, ongoing offensives in the north
and east continue to affect families in conflict-affected areas. One continuing example is the
situation near Madhu Church in Mannar District in the north of Sri Lanka. Civilians living in the
vicinity have been caught up in hostilities between the government and the LTTE and normal life has been disrupted on several occasions during 2007 and during 2008. Part of the district is
under the control of the government and part under the control of the LTTE.

As a result of intensifying fighting, a historic statue of the Virgin Mary has been removed
for safety from the Madhu shrine.7 The LTTE is reported to have used communities around the
Church as ‘human shields’ and Amnesty International has in the past raised concerns about the
recruitment of children by the LTTE from families living in the locality. The government for its part in April 2008 reportedly shelled civilian areas around the Church in April 2008. The Bishop of Mannar, Rayappu Joseph has repeatedly appealed to both sides to respect the Madhu area as a no-conflict zone.

Under international humanitarian law, parties to armed conflicts, including noninternational
ones such as in Sri Lanka, must take special care to protect cultural property,
including buildings dedicated to religion, from damage (unless there is imperative military
necessity to do otherwise).

Civilians are in dire need of strengthened protection. The escalation of the conflict has
resulted in a spiral of civilian causalities. Both the government and the LTTE are believed
responsible for serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. All
parties must respect their international legal obligations and immediately stop all such violations,
and in particular indiscriminate attacks.

6 See, ‘Sri Lanka: Amnesty International condemns civilian killings’, 28 November 2007, AI Index: ASA 37/020/2007, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA37/020/2007/en/dom-
ASA370202007en.html and http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/sri-lanka-rightlife- civilians-disregarded-conflict-intensifies-20080204

7 ‘Madhu Matha moved to LTTE area’, 3 April 2008, BBC Sinhala,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2008/04/080403_madhushrine.shtml.

Recommendations To the LTTE and other armed groups

· To stop immediately any direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians, condemn all such
acts publicly and state that they would not be tolerated;

· To immediately suspend any persons suspected of participating in (including ordering)
violations of international law from any position or placement in which they may commit
additional violations;

· To ensure that their forces take special care to avoid damage to cultural property,
including buildings dedicated to religion.

To the Sri Lankan government

· To ensure that all security force personnel respect obligations under international human
rights humanitarian law

· To ensure that its armed forces take special care to avoid damage to cultural property,
including buildings dedicated to religion;

To allow the establishment of an independent, international human rights monitoring presence on the ground without delay.

Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi will not contest the Eastern Elections

2008-04-03T10:27:00.003+05:30

Statement issued By Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (I.T.A.K) Tamil National Alliance (T.N.A) regarding the Eastern Elections.

President Mahinda Rajapakse who was elected to office in November 2005 by a wafer thin majority with the support of the Jathika Hela Urumaya, (J.H.U) the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna, (M.E.P) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, (J.V.P) has adopted an ultra Sinhala nationalist role and every decision that he has made whether it be political military or humanitarian has had as it's objective the fostering of ultra Sinhala nationalism. He has projected himself too, as an ultra Sinhala nationalist leader.

So called efforts, to evolve a political solution to the national conflict, have been merely a charade, as has been clearly demonstrated with the proposal after eighteen months of deliberations, to implement provisions which have existed in the Sri Lankan Constitution for more than 19 years. What is proposed to be implemented is less than what the existing provisions provided for; a bifurcated North - East as opposed to the original merged North - East - with no police nor land powers, and even the original provisions vastly diluted by judicial interpretation.

The preponderantly Tamil linguistic contiguous Northern and Eastern Provinces were merged following the 1987 International treaty between India and Sri Lanka. The merged territory existed for eighteen years and was accepted by four successive Presidents of Sri Lanka. The J.V.P was able to obtain in a fundamental rights application, a judicial declaration, after a period of eighteen years, that there was a procedural flaw in effecting the merger. The historical Tamil inhabitants of the East who sought to intervene were denied the right to intervene and fully and effectively state their case. President Mahinda Rajapakse was offered the required support to legislatively remedy the alleged procedural flaw, and thereby uphold an international treaty, which had been upheld by all four of his predecessors. He was cautioned by the International Community that the existing territorial arrangement pertaining to the merged North - East was the corner stone of the peace process, and that it should not be disturbed. President Rajapakse chose to follow the ultra Sinhala nationalist path, and protect his image as an ultra Sinhala nationalist leader. He thereby denied the historical Tamil speaking inhabitants, the benefits of the Indo – Sri Lanka international treaty.

The Mahinda Rajapakse Government commenced intense Military attacks in the preponderantly Tamil linguistic contiguous North – East accompanied by severe aerial bombardment of and the firing of multi barrel rocket launchers into civilian populated villages. Though it was claimed that the Military attacks were aimed at the L.T.T.E, the victims were largely Tamil and also in some instances Muslim civilians. Very many hundreds of civilians were killed. Several hundreds of civilians were maimed and seriously injured. Civilian property inclusive of houses, plantations, crops, livestock, farming and fishing equipment, were destroyed. Over 500,000 Tamil Civilians have been displaced, rendered destitute and impoverished. Public buildings such as places of worship and school buildings have been destroyed. Meanwhile, extra judicial killings and enforced disappearances of individual Tamils, particularly in the North – East and also in other parts of the country, by sections of the Sri Lankan armed forces and para military groups collaborating with the Sri Lankan armed forces is a regular occurrence. This is done to terrorise the Tamils and compel them to flee the country.

The military attacks of the Rajapakse Government are continuing and the ultimate objective of the Rajapakse Government is to militarily subdue and subjugate the Tamil speaking civilian population. Not being willing nor able to evolve an acceptable political solution, the Rajapakse Government would attempt to impose on the Tamil Speaking people in the North East some worthless political arrangement.

Hurriedly holding an election in the bifurcated East is a diabolical step in this direction.

As a smokescreen for all its misdeeds against the Tamil People, the Rajapakse Government has entered into an alliance with a Tamil para military group the T.M.V.P, and is using the said group to achieve it's ulterior objectives.

The Rajapakse Government's clear aim is to rebut the legitimate political goals of the Tamil speaking people, for the right to substantial self rule based upon the principle of internal self determination in the areas that they have historically inhabited, and to reverse whatever progress has been made in that direction. It is also the objective of the Rajapakse Government to Sinhalasise the Eastern sector of the North Eastern region, in the guise of development, and to achieve this purpose, have declared certain parts of the Eastern sector as High Security Zones, Industrial Zones, Environmental Zones and so on. The Government which needs funds to fulfill this objective of Sinhalasising the Eastern sector needs a Tamil lackey as a front to raise funds for development.

The T.M.V.P which is at the mercy of the Rajapakse Government is prepared to follow the directives of the Rajapakse Government. The Rajapakse Government is also using the T.M.V.P to compel and coerce the Tamil people to vote for the T.M.V.P, which the Rajapakse Government would claim as support by the Tamil people for the policies of his Government. The Government expects the Tamil people who have suffered immensely by reason of the military attacks and who live in a military environment, to be submissive to the demands of the armed T.M.V.P. The T.M.V.P is a Para-military group well armed and with the license to punish the Tamil people defying their demands after the elections. The law enforcement machinery has never taken any action against the T.M.V.P despite their frequent transgressions of the law. Both the T.M.V.P and the Tamil people are aware of this.

No other Government since independence has inflicted such immense harm on the Tamil people as this Government has done in the past two years. The Tamil speaking people should not fall into the dangerous trap that is being laid to bring about their downfall in their areas of historical habitation. This is an election at which through the visible or invisible fire and muscle power of the T.M.V.P and Government armed forces, President Rajapakse hopes to implement his insidious political agenda.

The Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (I.T.A.K) after very careful consideration has taken the decision that it should not compromise on its fundamental political principles and be seen as being a participant in an electoral process the objective of which is diametrically opposed to such fundamental principles and a reversal of what the Tamil people have stood for, during more than the past half a century. For these reasons the I.T.A.K will not contest the Eastern Elections.

Mavai S.Senathirajah

General Secretary

Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi

R.Sampanthan
Parliamentary Group Leader
Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi ( Tamil National Alliance )

1,200 Activists Descend on NYC to Demand Protection of Journalists in Sri Lanka

2008-04-02T10:46:00.002+05:30

Human Rights Demonstrations Planned Outside NYC Offices of Governments of Sri Lanka

(New York) -- More than 1000 Amnesty International activists, primarily students, from more than 10 states will converge in New York City on April 11 for a series of demonstrations at foreign consulates and United Nations (UN) missions to protest human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. The demonstrations are part of the 13th annual "Get on the Bus" (GOTB), organized by Amnesty International USA Group 133, of Somerville, MA.

Activists will call for Sri Lankan government to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the 2006 murder of journalist Subramaniyam Sugirdharajan. At least 10 media workers have been killed in Sri Lanka since the beginning of 2006

Get on the Bus is the largest volunteer-organized Amnesty International event in the country. The first event, in 1996, had 30 people; this year's demonstrations are expected to be the largest ever. For more information about Get On The Bus, please see: http://www.gotb.org/

WHO: Amnesty International activists from across the Northeast

WHEN: Friday, April 11, 2008

WHAT: Speakers Panel: St. Bartholomew' s Church, 109 E. 50th St, 11:00am-12:45pm

Demonstrations at:The Sri Lankan Mission to the UN: 41st St and 3rd Ave, 4:25pm-5:00pmSide Action: Indian Consulate: 64th St and 5th Ave, 1:05pm-1:40pm

STOP killing the media and its journalists

2008-03-20T09:54:00.001+05:30

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the online petition: "STOP killing the media and its journalists"hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petitionservice, at: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/LNGV/

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you mightagree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and considersigning yourself.

Tamil journalists beaten in detention

2008-03-13T09:13:00.000+05:30

Reporters Without Borders is concerned about the fate of five Tamil journalists arrested by anti-terrorist police in Colombo in the past six days and urges the Sri Lankan authorities to explain why they are being held.

“The anti-terrorist police are accusing the journalists of receiving money from the Tamil Tiger rebels, but after investigating, we can confirm that the funds in question came from a German foundation and from Tamil exiles,” the press freedom organisation said. “We condemn the fact the some of these journalists were badly beaten during their first few days in detention, and that this was clearly done to extract confessions from them.”

The funds received by two of the journalists, V. Jasikaran and J.S. Tissanayagam, were to finance the Outreach (outreachlk.wordpress.com) website and to help Tamil students. An official with the German foundation FLICT told Reporters Without Borders that Tissanayagam, Outreach’s editor, received 12,000 euros in November as part of this initiative.

Several other sources told Reporters Without Borders that Jasikaran received money from members of the Tamil exile community in Germany to help students in the east of the island.

The owner of the E-Kwality printing works and a writer known for his Tamil nationalist stance, Jasikaran was arrested in Colombo on 6 March. His computer and printing equipment were seized, and his wife, a TV producer, was also detained.

Tissanayagam, who writes for the Sunday Times newspaper as well as editing Outreach, was arrested by anti-terrorist police on 7 March. Reporter Kithsiri Wijesinghe, photographer Gayan Lasantha Ranga and video director Udayanan were arrested later the same day.

Journalist S. Sivakumar, the spokesman of the Free Media Movement, was detained for a few hours on 8 March in connection with the same case. He has been ordered to present himself to the police again.

Journalists continue to be physically attacked in Sri Lanka

2008-03-08T18:50:00.002+05:30

Reporters Without Borders/Reporters sans frontières
Report: 4 March 2008SRI LANKA

Journalists continue to be physically attacked in connection with minister's use of force at state TV station in DecemberReporters Without Borders condemns two attacks on journalists on 27 February that seem to be linked to their coverage of a December incident in which labour minister Mervyn
Silva stormed into the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC), a state-owned television station, and assaulted its news director.

"Attacks and acts of intimidation against SLRC journalists for objecting to Silva's use of force is intolerable, " the press freedom organisation said. "How can one account for the fact that the authorities spend more time interrogating SLRC journalists than looking for those responsible for these attacks?"

Four men armed with knives tried to attack Priyal Ranjith Perera at his home in Pitakotte, south of Colombo, in the evening of 27 February, but were forced to flee when neighbours intervened. Perera was in charge of a TV crew that filmed the December incident at SLRC.

The same day, a group of men on motorcycles circled around the home of another journalist who has written about the incident, and who had previously received suspicious phone calls on 13 and 17 February.

Silva, a controversial minister known for his hostility towards journalists, burst into SLRC headquarters on 27 December and order the thugs accompanying him to beat the station's news director, T.M.G. Chandrasekara. Since then, journalists who helped force Silva to leave the building or who covered the incident have been targeted.

Silva's thugs are suspected of carrying out a knife attack on 25 January on SLRC journalist Lal Hemantha Mawalage, who was hospitalised with multiple wounds to the hands and body.

According to the Free Media Movement, a local organisation, around 20 SLRC journalists have been questioned since the December incident but no one has been arrested or questioned in connection with the attacks and threats against journalists.

ISSUES IN CONFLICT-SENSITIVE JOURNALISM

2008-03-04T11:05:00.001+05:30

by Dr. I. Arul Aram

When I was travelling to the conflict area of Sri Lanka a fellow passenger told me: "The media is supposed to make people knowledgeable. But in Sri Lanka, only if you are knowledgeable you can get something out of media coverage." His contention is that the media in Sri Lanka is very biased and it always plays a partisan role in the conflict, thus confusing its consumers.

The media can either propagate messages of intolerance and disinformation or serve as a tool for conflict resolution. For instance, in Rwanda the government-supported Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines used its popular entertainment and other programmes to demonise one group of people and created fear among the other group. At times of conflict, politicians with vested interests impart fears and prejudices, and journalists take the easy way out by supporting them in the name of national interest. And objectivity is lost sight of.

Conflict-sensitive journalism is a separate category of journalism. Of course, it is good journalism that practises professionalism and a commitment to truth. And it is much more than that. Truth has many facets. All stakeholders in an event should find a place in its news coverage. The journalist who is fair and accurate in reporting the facts is naturally on the side of peace. Mere reporting of facts has its weakness - it has no room for reflexivity. There are more facts than can be fitted into news reports; so inevitably some are left out.

It is the criterion by which this is done that reveals a journalist. Many journalists are not conscious of their personal biases. Such bias should not be allowed to stand in the way of objectivity in reporting. Privileged perspectives are camouflaged with "said to be", "thought to be", and "it being seen as". The journalist needs to give the sources unless it is 'off-the-record' information so that the audiences will be able to make informed choices. Conflict-sensitive journalism is not an effort to hide truth.

It goes a step ahead and uses judgment to put issues in a cultural and historical context that would help conflict resolution. Journalism should not play the negative role of instigating and accelerating conflict. It must help people to understand the 'other' and should not indulge in stereotyping. It should be sensitive to the factors that cause conflicts. It should pick up ideas for peaceful outcomes and solutions, whoever suggests them. In a conflict situation, journalism must go further and look forward to alternatives to armed conflict as a means of solving the problem. In the case of a violent incident, a conflict-sensitive journalist will examine not only the violence but also its underlying causes, and explore how such an incident can be avoided in future. In fact, if disputes are debated in the media it will help pave the way for a negotiated settlement. And journalism may serve as a constant process of seeking solutions.

Peace journalism versus war journalism

Conflict situations often get news coverage with a focus on visible (or direct) violence such as shooting, bombing and shelling. Unresolved conflict results in violent outcome. Where there is no violence and peace prevails, the media ignores them. The media is on the lookout for visible violence. But it hardly reports the process of the conflict which will help explain the causes of violence which, in turn, will help resolve the conflict. Discrimination against Islamic states by the West or subtly blaming the violence on Islam or overthrowing regimes in Islamic states may act as 'conflict drivers'.

Peace journalism will not focus only on visible violence just as what war journalism will do. It will also look into invisible violence - cultural violence and structural violence. Cultural violence includes instances such as burning of a national flag by a dissent group. Structural violence provides a system of relationships putting some section at a disadvantage - such as the plight of Palestinians in the Israel-Palestinian area. Unless the causes and background are explained, the media audience may be left confused to make an informed choice. For instance, a Glasgow University study on the Israeli-Palestine conflict coverage of BBC One and ITV News channels found that more of British viewers think that it is the Palestinians who are occupying the 'occupied territories'.

War journalism shows conflict as a tug-of-war, a zero sum game between two groups in which victory for one has to be a defeat for the other. It demonises one group and considers a military victory over that group as the only solution to the problem. The two wrong assumptions are: (i) the conflict involves only two groups but the fact is that more than two parties will be involved in the conflict; and (ii) there cannot be a negotiated settlement advantageous to all groups involved in the conflict. Example: coverage of the Kosovo crisis characterised as 'Serbs' versus 'Albanian Kosovars'.

Some of the questions that need to be addressed are:

1. What is wrong with the given explanation of a conflict situation? 2. What other sources may be included? 3. What other factors should be considered? 4. Whether the aspects of cultural and structural violence are discussed. 4. How to avoid complaints that the journalist is justifying violence in an effort to see the "other" side? 5. Whether a story takes a neo-conservative angle to a conflict.

-- Dr. I. Arul Aram is a Visiting Research Scholar in the London School of Economics. He is on a sabbatical leave from The Hindu since January 2006.

India's involvements of Sri Lanka peace process

2008-03-04T10:46:00.002+05:30

by: M. R. Narayan Swamy

Now that Sri Lanka has jettisoned the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the Tamil Tigers, one of India’s best kept secrets can be revealed: it was New Delhi that quietly authored the process that led to the Norway-brokered pact. The dominant thinking in India and Sri Lanka, and even elsewhere, is that New Delhi has been a distant watcher to the goings on in the war-hit island barring its interactions with Colombo and countries like Norway as part of a “hands off” policy sparked off by former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s 1991 assassination.

While it is true that India took a detached view of the ethnic conflict in the aftermath of Gandhi’s killing, things changed shortly after Atal Bihari Vajpayee took office in 1998 at the head of a non-Congress coalition.

By 1999, the Indian state had concluded after years of study that there could never be a military winner in Sri Lanka: neither the government nor the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) would reign supreme although at that stage the rebels appeared to hold an upper hand.

The Indian government then took the view that it was time for a major peace push in Sri Lanka.

Supervised by National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, the Indian establishment got into the act of ushering in peace in Sri Lanka, with just one rider: everything would be done away from media glare. Only a few would be in the know of what was being planned.

Then Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga was waging a “war for peace” against the LTTE that steadily lost steam as the Tigers hit back with a military precision that stunned the world.

The stalemate was a continuation of what had happened earlier. The Indian military intervention in 1987-90 had run aground; the fighting between 1990 and 1994, mostly during Ranasinghe Premadasa’s presidency, led to no decisive result; and the war during Kumaratunga’s presidency was going the same way.

The Indian establishment, however, felt that Kumaratunga was incapable of making peace. What Sri Lanka needed, so went the reading, was a leader who was ready to shake hands with the LTTE with a long-term vision to bring peace to the country.

It may have been a coincidence, but political convulsions quickly rocked Colombo, destabilising Kumaratunga’s government and sparking an election in 2000 and a second election the next year.

The Indian establishment felt there was a need to bring in an international player to facilitate peace in Sri Lanka, a party both Colombo and the LTTE could do business with as they appeared incapable of talking to one another.

Kumaratunga’s first choice was France, but this the LTTE rejected.

India by then had zeroed in on Norway. Norwegian diplomats began visiting New Delhi. No publicity was given to these brainstorming trips.

Norway was picked for mainly three reasons: it was physically far removed from South Asia; it had no territorial ambitions; and it had a proven record in peace building.Kumaratunga and the LTTE eventually settled on Norway as the peace facilitator. The war, however, continued to rage.

Norway’s chosen Special Envoy Erik Solheim travelled to Kilinochchi, the LTTE-controlled northern part of Sri Lanka, in November 2000 and met the group’s top leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, for the first time.

The next month, the LTTE offered a ceasefire and extended it, month by month, for four months. After that the Tigers again took the offensive.

In July 2001, the LTTE virtually overran Sri Lanka’s international airport at Katunayake, dealing a shattering blow from which Colombo never recovered.

The second of the two elections followed, and Ranil Wickremesinghe, the opposition leader, became prime minister in December 2001. Events galloped at a rapid pace, in both New Delhi and Colombo, but all under wraps.

Overseen by New Delhi, a truce document began to be drafted. Norway was deeply involved in the exercise, roping in some of its veteran diplomats.

Eventually, this translated into CFA. India also told Norwegian diplomats to let the LTTE know about the Indian involvement in the entire effort.

On Feb 21, 2002, LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran signed the CFA. Wickremesinghe put his signature a day later.

Since India never publicised its role in the developments, many Indians argued that New Delhi was letting Sri Lanka slip into Western hands!

By then, India had also mooted the idea of a Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), the first such international peace monitoring body outside the UN aegis. India wanted Nordic countries - Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland - to make up the SLMM to oversee the ceasefire.

The arrangement between India and Norway was that the latter would keep New Delhi informed about its peace diplomacy. At some point of time, irritations did crop up in this deal but these were quickly sorted out.

The CFA was a watershed in Sri Lanka’s blood-soaked history but within months things began to go wrong.

Norway came under attack from large sections in Sri Lanka. Solheim bore the brunt of the criticism, at times too personal, though he was only the best-known face of an international exercise that had India’s solid backing and he himself had no axe to grind.

In May 2004, Vajpayee gave way to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who headed a Congress-led coalition government. J.N. Dixit, a former Indian envoy to Colombo during the turbulent 1980s, was named the new national security advisor.

The nuts and bolts of India’s involvement in Sri Lanka’s peace process was till then known only to a few in New Delhi.

Dixit’s eyes opened up when Wickremesinghe, who by then had lost power, flew to New Delhi and gave a detailed briefing about India’s deep and covert role in the entire process.

It was the first time Dixit realised that India had for years pursued a pro-active policy towards Sri Lanka but quietly - in complete contrast to the public perception that New Delhi had lost interest in the ethnic conflict.

Dixit was to learn quickly that this was also the case vis-à-vis Nepal and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, Dixit died in office in 2005, and with him died many secrets.

India’s active participation in the later much-maligned peace process in Sri Lanka is as deep as was its role in the military training of Tamil militants two decades ago.

Official India denies that it ever trained Tamils in warfare. In the case of the peace process, even many in India are not fully aware of the story.

This was evident in some of the statements made in India when Colombo axed the CFA. This has also been evident in repeated statements from many quarters in Sri Lanka urging India to step in and throw out ‘imperialist’ Norway and the West!

In Norway, one diplomat recently made a public comment about India’s entanglement with the peace process without, however, spilling out any details.

Vidar Helgesen, who was assistant foreign minister of Norway during the inception of the peace process and is now secretary general of the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, said: “I may reasonably say that the Norwegian contribution in structuring the CFA … was, indeed, crucial. However, we could not have achieved any success without the active role played by India at every step of the negotiations. Nothing could be attempted without Indian support at every step, including the CFA.”

(IANS)

A new blog for Sri Lanka ethinic crisis

2007-07-17T14:51:00.000+05:30

Sri Lanka is a beautifully pearl of the Indian ocean but now it is boiling. I am a Sri Lankan Tamil journalist. This blog is benefits of the pod casting workshop done by Mr. S.Srineevasan at SRM university in India. In future this blog will discuss about Sri Lankan ethnic conflict in various views. Now the problem between Tamils and Sinhalese are going top of the hill, no changes to peace process. But the world and supreme power of the south Asia didn't care about the situation they concern their political and economical views only in Sri Lanka. Norway's peace process was already gone down meantime military moral is growing up. Every citization is feeling very bad about this situation. I have taken my first step to reveal every citizations of Sri Lankans veiws about the ethnic problem.