No apologies are needed for returning to an issue raised here some weeks ago because of its significance.It seems quite clear that the Rajapaksa administration will continue with its present military strategy aimed at crippling, if not crushing, the LTTE’s military machine. The collective mind of the government is set on this strategy as a necessary means to initiate a political dialogue leading to a solution to the most pressing national problem. No doubt the LTTE is more than aware of the government’s intentions to continue to pressure it militarily and reports even by impartial analysts indicate the Tigers are on the back foot.
In these circumstances the LTTE would resort to using whatever influence it can directly use with Western governments by activating sections of a vocal Tamil community abroad or by turning to international and western non-governmental organisations that have clout with their respective governments. It would not be surprising in the least if international, particularly western, political and diplomatic pressure is intensified in coming against the Sri Lanka government at various forums and occasions in the hope that the Rajapaksa administration would relent and change its present course.
Sri Lanka must not only be prepared to face a barrage of criticism but it must be in a position to respond to that criticism with positive arguments that validate its actions and awaken the world to Colombo’s case. As I said on a previous occasion this task rests largely with the country’s foreign policy establishment. Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama has made use of his frequent interactions with the international community and his participation at regional and global meetings to warn the world of the transnational nature of modern terrorism and the danger such organisations pose even to countries that might not today be confronted with terrorist problems. But he and his diplomatic establishment alone cannot undertake this task given that there is a great deal of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and deliberate distortion of Sri Lanka’s position by sections of the foreign media and by organisations with dubious antecedents.
Enlightening the world at large of some of the positive developments in Sri Lanka and explaining to those who persist in calling for political negotiations the past experience of successive governments that tried to do and failed, is a task that needs to be shouldered by others too. This is especially true of ministers whose portfolios allow them to interact with powerful sections of the global community. That in itself is not enough. They must be able to articulate Sri Lanka’s case in a convincing manner. Despite the fact that a recently-appointed ambassador seemed to knock the knowledge of the English language as not being that important, it is the only foreign language that most of our politicians and diplomats are conversant in and it is the lingua franca of political and diplomatic discourse today.
This is why many of us here in London were pleased to listen to Prof. G.L. Peiris articulating the positive aspects of the Sri Lankan government case so cogently during a visit to London last week.
While pressing ahead with his own ministerial interests concerning trade and export promotion, he took time off to speak to a wide cross-section of academics, diplomats, business people, students and others interested in Sri Lanka on lesser known or particularly not well comprehended aspects of the country’s central problem and more recent developments there.One aspect of public speaking that impresses audiences and enhances a speaker’s reputation is his ability to make the case without reference to a single note and to recall dates and events of the past with telling detail and do so with lucidity. Prof. Peiris has that ability and that he has won plaudits from eminent persons for this is sufficiently well known. It is not only this ability that often wins over audiences, but breadth and depth of knowledge, the ability to draw parallels with other developments in the world be they political or legal.
One interesting point he made in his talk at Chatham House is not often heard.
He said that a striking feature of today’s Sri Lanka is the political stability in the country, not seen for several years. As a manifestation of that he pointed to the recent provincial council elections in which the government won all the seats though there was a wide disparity economically, ethnically and in other ways between the regions in which the councils are located. In the absence of by-elections under our system these elections serve as referendums on the performance of the government and the government’s approach to the conflict with the LTTE has been vindicated.
Space restrictions do not allow a detailed account of the case Prof. Peiris made. But the following points should suffice to indicate the direction and substance of it.
Those who advocate political negotiations were reminded that though successive governments had talks with the LTTE they all failed. There were several reasons, a major one being that the LTTE was never serious about reaching a solution acceptable to all. The ceasefire agreement failed because of the disconnection between public aspirations and the government’s attempts at reaching a solution. There was a lack of confidence among the people because the LTTE was never prepared to decommission its weapons at any stage.
The LTTE claimed an exclusive right to represent the Tamil people thus leaving no political space for other Tamils parties and groups. It was a false claim not acceptable to the people. LTTE would not test its legitimacy and acceptance by the Tamil people by testing its popularity in democratic elections. All this led to the erosion of public confidence in the ceasefire and the LTTE’s genuineness to reach a political solution.
Since all attempts at negotiation have failed the government believes that it is necessary to diminish the LTTE’s military capability to bring about a social and economic “renaissance” as that it has started in the Eastern province. The first step towards achieving this was to rid the province of the LTTE stranglehold and then hold democratic elections which could be a precursor to such elections in the North. The tentative plan is to hold elections in the North as soon as circumstances permit.
The government’s approach therefore is to address all issues -- political, military, social equity etc -- simultaneously. He pointed out that despite the difficulties facing the government the economy has grown by 7% per year over the last three years. With regard to the GSP+ trade concession, Minister Peiris said it was not EU philanthropy that made the EU grant it to Sri Lanka, it was a legal requirement.
If now the EU wants to try and punish the Sri Lanka government for acting contrary to EU’s expectations on other issues, it is not the government that will suffer. It will be the people, workers in the garment industry, especially the thousands of women who are today the breadwinners for their families. In that sense it will be the EU that will be responsible for any social calamity that might follow. | 
E-mail