The right to self determination, (guaranteed by Article 1 of the 1966 Covenant), was declared to " apply only to people under alien and foreign domination and (that) these words do not apply to sovereign independent states or to a section of a people or nation." This summary dismissal of the right in the Sri Lankan context went on to maintain that "……..the principle of self determination cannot be construed as authorizing any action which would dismember or impair totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states."

That article under the Covenant cannot therefore be interpreted to connote the recognition of the dismemberment and fragmentation of States on ethnic and religious grounds. To justify their argument, the government used General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) on the Declaration of Principles of International Law and argued moreover that the contrary would be incompatible with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Nevertheless, it is of interest that even at that point of historical time, the contention that the 1966 Covenant limited the right to self determination to the colonial context, was not accepted by members of the Committee who rejected the view that the right may be irrelevant to a member state. Seven years later, the pendulum has swung full circle (as pendulums are wont to do even in the most extreme of situations) and we not only have LTTE leaders declaring unequivocally their claim to "internal" self determination but government leaders projecting a note of cautious happiness with this stance.

The problem is, of course, what exactly the LTTE means by "internal" self determination. Their deftly articulated position, as spelt out during the Kilinochchi press conference, was not precisely reassuring in this regard. Thus, "by self determination, we mean the right of our people to decide their own political destiny. If autonomy and self government is given to our people, then we can say that the right to self determination is, to some extent, met.

But if the Sri Lankan government rejects our demands for autonomy and self government and continues with repression, then as a last resort, we would opt for cessation. That also comes under self determination." What stricter moral high ground, indeed, can an embryonic nation take? And in what more graceful manner can we succumb to this claim? International law text writers have traditionally treated the issue of self determination with appropriate caution, given its perilously high degree of real politik in the modern world.

Initially the corner stone of the General Assembly's decolonisation policy of the 1960's and 1970's, the right had long been used to justify referendums being held to legitimise cession of territory from a state. While the 1966 Covenant acknowlegedly does not limit the right of self determination to the colonial context, extreme differences of opinion exist as to how far it could be applied and in what precise situations. Thus, some writers have argued that the right is a part of modern international law though others disagree, equating the principle as still applicable only to colonial or similar non-independent territory.

The examples of the United Nations General Assembly accepting that the Palestinians and the citizens of South Africa are a "peoples" with a right to self determination, are however instructive in this respect. The Sri Lankan situation has doubtless, an even more piquant twist to it. While the demonstrations of "Pongu Thamil" and the ostensible acceptance of the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil peoples all serve obviously to buttress the claim to self determination, the element of extreme coercion in the devising of this framework of self determination, "internal" or external, continues to be manifest.

The most recent example of the prevalent abductions and extortion of money by citizens in the North East, is of the eighty two year old notary public and Justice of the Peace, K.V. Sithamparapillai who had been abducted from Batticaloa town, (ludicrously enough immediately following the New Year) allegedly because he refused to give money to the LTTE. In a complaint lodged with the Monitoring Mission this week, his son who is based abroad, has pinpointed an ironic fact; his father had ignored previous requests from the LTTE to contribute to its coffers because he had been living in government held territory.

Consequent to the ceasefire however, the LTTE had started moving around freely and had opened an office in Batticaloa town. Its renewed demands to Mr Sithamparapillai to give money had resulted in further refusals and ultimately a police complaint. It was thereafter that Mr Sithamparapillai was abducted. His son has lodged a complaint with the Norwegian Monitoring Mission. The problem is however, that the Mission, set up after the ceasefire agreement, is obliged only to take immediate action on any complaint made by either party to the Mission, which would necessarily exclude complaints from affected citizens.

The same difficulty applies to the grievance of the management of "Thinamurasu", a pro EPDP newspaper which lodged a complaint about the banning of their paper in Batticaloa by the LTTE the week before. The newspaper fears an overall curtailment of their publications in the North East. While these are some of the more startling examples of recent rights violations by the LTTE, others abound. All of these acts, one should add, are in blatant violation of Article 2;1 of the February 22nd Ceasefire Agreement that the parties shall, "in accordance with international law, abstain from hostile acts against the civilian population, including such acts as torture, intimidation, abduction, extortion and harassment."

As we prepare for "talks on talks" in the weeks ahead, one truth must be made plain.
There can assuredly be no right to self determination based on coercion. Indeed, the latter not only defeats the former but makes it a downright mockery. Arguments that attempt to downplay the importance of the observance of minimum standards of human life and dignity among the people in the North East on the basis of a "gradual humanisation" or a "temporary situation" should be immediately rejected if only for the most simplistic reason that the temporary could very well become permanent with the same terrorised conditions.

What we need immediately is a supplementary agreement on human rights to the Ceasefire Agreement that sets up a body with a specific (and effective) monitoring mandate to receive complaints from citizens about human rights violations by either side. In its absence, we may well be consenting to a compromised peace with grave consequences for not only the North East but the entirety of this country.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster