FEATURES

“We are ready to sacrifice our lives to defeat the Norwegian peace talks”

The key role accorded the Sri Lanka's Marxist Janata Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) poses an obstacle to both the Norwegian peace initiative and the possibility of power sharing with the Tamils within Sri Lanka as a solution to the island's conflict, writes Sutha Nadarajah.

The newly formed alliance between Sri Lanka's ruling People's Alliance (PA) and the Marxist Janata Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has involved considerable concessions on the tottering government's part. Apart from drastic changes to the size of the cabinet and severe restrictions in future dealings with external funders, including the IMF, the most important development is the JVP's insistence that the Norwegian peace process be halted, along with the suspension of any talks of devolution of power to the Tamil areas.

Both are motivated by the Sinhala supremacist ideology that - mixed with traditional Stalinism - provides the JVP with considerable grass roots support in the rural south.

Conscious of the poor impression this causes internationally, the Sri Lankan government is awkwardly glossing over the matter, with both President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar insisting to the media that the Norwegian peace initiative, stalled for several months, is still viable and will be pursued. Bu amongst the semantic arguments being put forward by Kumaratunga and Kadirgamar, the government's Parliamentary weakness means it remains beholden to the JVP-which is implacably opposed to the peace moves.

Whilst the Kumaratunga has blown hot and cold over the Norwegian peace process - appealing to Norway to mediate as the Sri Lanka Army was being routed in the southern Jaffna peninsula early last year and then spurning Oslo's help amid the Sinhala supremacist rhetoric it spouted in the run up to the general elections in October 2000, the JVP has never wavered from its traditional opposition to both devolution and 'foreign interference' in Sri Lanka Indeed, the JVP's second armed uprising in 1988, which nearly bought the then United National Party (UNP) government to its knees, was driven mainly by the arrival of Indian troops on the island

The Norwegian initiative, whilst already underway covertly for a little time, was first made public on 17 February 2000 when visiting Norwegian Foreign Minister, Knut Vollebaek's announced that Norway was willing to accept the challenging task of initiating a dialogue between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers, aimed at resolving the ethnic problem.

The Sinhala nationalists reacted within 48 hours, condemning the "serious and unwarranted interference with the internal affairs of an independent nation by a foreign government." Articulating their central planks, a joint statement by the Sinhala far right organisations and parties said "The so called Tamil problem is entirely and exclusively an internal issue of Sri Lanka where no outside interference of any sort is called for…It is a treasonous terrorist problem" and demanding Oslo "withdraw your government from all official and unofficial mediations in this issue."

The JVP seized the lead, rallying the Sinhala far right. Mr.Tilvin Silva, the party's general secretary, declared that his party did not approve of Norway's role because the Oslo accord on the Palestine peace process was really partial to Israel. In interviews to the press, Mr. Silva accused the Sri Lankan government of hatching a conspiracy with the Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims.

He charged the public was being deliberately kept in the dark about these "secret" talks. A demonstration against Norwegian involvement followed on March 16 at the Lipton Circus near downtown Colombo. Whilst relatively small, it was clear the JVP, which can bring thousands on the street within days, was sending a signal to Sri Lankan government. Furthermore, amid raging battles in the Jaffna peninsula, the Norwegian peace initiative was in any case in the background.

The JVP's nationalist sentiments rose to the fore again following the Sri Lanka Army's greatest defeat in April 2000 when its largest base on the island fell to the Liberation Tigers, the Party's Secretary Weerawamsa said: "The defeat [at Elephant Pass] is a defeat for us all. We will not give an Eelam at any cost... We will not give fresh victories for them." In the subsequent run up to the general elections in October 2000, the JVP's anti-peace rhetoric was echoed with equal fervour by the People's Alliance government which declared the peace process was over, that "there would be no more talks" and virtually signalled the end of the Norwegian peace process.

However, despite its bravado and sporadic success on the battlefield, the Sri Lankan government continued the peace process, which was increasingly being linked to financial support. The Norwegian initiative suddenly took centre stage when Oslo's Special Envoy, Erik Solhiem announced a successful meeting with the LTTE leader Vellupillai Pirapaharan and said the movement was making a committed effort to resolve the conflict peacefully. The Sinhala supremacists were enraged. The JVP bitterly criticised the Oslo-LTTE meet and launched a public campaign to oppose what it called an "on going attempt by imperialist foreign forces to divide the country under the guise of finding a solution to the North East crisis."

"We are ready to sacrifice our lives to defeat the so-called peace talks brokered by the imperialistic Yankees and Britishers," General Secretary of the JVP Tilwin Silva said, reflecting suspicion of Britain and the United States - along with the JVP's traditional bete noire, India - which are both strongly supportive of the Oslo initiative. The movement was implacable. A senior JVP leader told reporters that his party had twice rejected invitations by the embassy of Norway in Colombo. "We want to tell Nor-way that they should not poke their nose into our affairs", he said.

The Norwegian envoy acknowledges the considerable obstacle the JVP poses to resolving the conflict. "We are ready to sit down and talk extensively with the JVP. The JVP is coming up as an important political force in Sri Lanka, represented in the parliament and with a lot of followers as shown on the 1st of May," he said in web-based Q&A session by the Lanka Academic newspaper earlier this year. "I have never met the JVP. Our ambassador in Colombo, Jon Westborg, however met the JVP last October [ - before the Vanni visit]."

JVP spokesperson, later Propaganda Secretary, Wimal Weerawansa told The Sunday Times that Norway's involvement in the country's ethnic issue will have adverse effects on the country. "The JVP does not believe that it is a good thing to get Norway involved in the problem. There have been many instances where Nor- way has supported the LTTE. It is Norway which allowed the LTTE to open an office there thus supporting their cause."

"We will not tolerate such interference from a European country. This is an internal problem and no third force need get involved" Weerawansa said. He added that Norway's involvement "will only strengthen the LTTE and pave the way for the Tigers to build a separate state."

At a mass rally against the peace process in Dec-ember 2000, the JVP leader said "This is not to frighten [President] Chandrika or [Opposition leader] Ranil who are trapped in imperialistic strategies. This is the first step of the JVP's next fight against the capitalist and imperialistic forces. We will walk from village to village and house to house canvassing people to stand against the ongoing false peace process by USA, UK and Norway."

The exiled leader of the JVP, Somawansa Amerasinghe sent a fax read out to the gathering, in which he exhorted the JVP to defeat the "plans of imperialistic USA and UK." The peace process was a foreign plot to strengthen the LTTE, which the JVP said was "one of the most dangerous terrorist organisations in the world using artillery and rocket launchers thanks to the peace talks."

"Each peace talk gave time for the terrorists to become more powerful and dangerous," Mr. Silva said. The JVP could mass people and win against "the division planned and advocated by the imperialists in the name of constitutional reform Norway is just the cat's paw used by the USA and UK to divide our country."

When the Liberation Tigers declared a month long unilateral ceasefire on December 24, 2000 "to facilitate the Norwegian initiative," and then extended it for another month, the JVP's agitations against Oslo escalated. The JVP's Propaganda Secretary, Wimal Weerawanse protested "[the LTTE] ceasefire is a mere artifice to win the sympathy and the confidence of the international community who are involved in the Northern crisis in Sri Lanka to meet their own ends. The ceasefire offers are a mere game plan of Prabhakaran to meet its goal of a separate state."

In the run up to the February implementation of Britain's new Terrorism legislature, the matter became a passionate cause for both Tamils and Sinhalese. While the former held public demonstrations begging London not to criminalize the LTTE, the latter held protests - led by the JVP - insisting the movement must be proscribed. When Britain complied, listing the LTTE in March 2001, the Sinhala supremacists lobby was overjoyed. The JVP claimed victory and vowed to step up efforts to end the Norwegian peace process and get Oslo to also proscribe the LTTE.

The JVP also called on Western governments to help defeat the LTTE militarily. "If the British government took this decision [to proscribe] 15 years ago the LTTE would not have been in a position to launch a separatist war. If it acted in that manner it would have been possible to prevent a disaster of such a magnitude," a JVP press release stated. Calling on Norway to ban the LTTE, it added: "The responsibility of the European Union is to help Sri Lanka defeat Tamil communalism and separatist ideology in Sri Lanka."

The Liberation Tigers extended their unilateral ceasefire twice more, and finally called it off in April, two days before the Sri Lanka Army unleashed a massive offensive in the southern Jaffna peninsula, to recapture Elephant Pass. Operation 'Agni Khiela' was a disaster, resulting in over 400 soldiers killed and two thousand wounded in 4 bloody days in which no progress was made.

Despite the evident inability of the SLA to defeat the LTTE, the JVP at its May Day rally this year was uncompromising on the peace process and on power sharing with the Tamils. "The PA is prepared to constitute territorial separation fitting the needs of imperialists. The mediation of Norway government, an imperialistic agent, is clearly a step that taken forward in this need which also is a hard blow on the unity of oppressed people," said the JVP in Sinhala. "This Red May Rally severely condemns these division oriented actions."

Fundamentally, the JVP's core beliefs preclude its acceptance of either power sharing or foreign involvement in Sri Lanka's conflict. Tilvin Silva articulated his party's position thus: "In Sri Lanka there is neither an ethnic problem nor ethnic warfare. There is no war between Sinhala and Tamils. Accordingly Norway and other foreign delegations together with Sri Lankan government are trying to find solutions to a problem which does not exist in Sri Lanka. It is an imaginary problem not the existing reality in Sri Lanka. Therefore all who come forward pretending in solving our national problem in Sri Lanka are parties to one plan made with one unique purpose [to divide the country]."

As the Marxist party flexes its Parliamentary 'kingmaker ability' and takes a crucial role in the governing of Sri Lanka, there is no indication of its softening or deviation from these hard-line positions.

Whilst President Kumaratunga and Foreign Minister Kadirgamar continue to insist that there is no change in Norway's now stalled peace initiative, the objective conditions of Colombo's political scene mean that the most committed opponents of Oslo's involvement and power sharing with the island's numerical minorities are in charge of the Sri Lanka's affairs.

UN racism conference ends in acrimonious tumult

The World Conference Against Racism ended last Saturday in Durban, South Africa as tumultuously as it began, with a declaration and plan of action that was immediately cited as groundbreaking and momentous, hurtful and disastrous, and everything in between, writes Dina Kraft for the Associated Press.

The eight-day United Nations meeting went into a ninth day when compromises on the two dominant issues - the Middle East conflict and the legacy of slavery - failed to materialize. Even when deals on both issues were struck Saturday morning, last minute attempts to add several thinly veiled references to Israel deadlocked the conference and sent diplomats scurrying. Only the imminent departure of the interpreters and some rough use of parliamentary procedure brought debate to an end and kept out the additional paragraphs.

When the final meeting was called, the president of the conference, South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, declared the documents adopted before any of the delegates had a chance to speak, sparking more anger, but no one walked out, prompting organizers to call the conference a success. "We have come a very long way. The language will resonate throughout the world," said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who organized the meeting.

At stake were two pledges: a declaration promising to fight racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; and a program of action spelling out how they should be fought. The documents are not legally binding, but countries will be monitored to see if they keep their promises.

The United States and Israel withdrew their delegations halfway through the conference when a Norwegian compromise on references to the Middle East was rejected. Although original references condemning the "racist practices" of Israel and Zionism - the movement to establish and maintain a Jewish state - were removed from the final declaration, a reference to "the plight of the Palestinians" remained.

In Washington, a State Department official said the U.S. government looked forward to examining the final text. "We appreciate the effort of other parties in the conference who thought to remove the offensive language. We're disappointed that the conference, which had an opportunity to address the issues of racism, was politicised. We're confident that our withdrawal was the correct measure and hope the decision had some effect on a better but still flawed result," the official Saturday said on condition of anonymity.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan conceded, "It is regrettable that the useful work of the conference was overshadowed on one or two highly emotional issues, especially in the Middle East. Many hurtful things were said ... which tended to inflame the atmosphere rather than to encourage rational and constructive discussion." But, he added in a statement from his office in New York, "to have left Durban without agreement would have given comfort to the worst elements in every society."

Immediately after the document's adoption, Canada and Australia disassociated themselves from the paragraphs on the Middle East. "We are not satisfied with this conference. Too much time has been spent on an issue which does not belong here," the head of the Canadian delegation, Paul Heinbecker, told the conference. "We want to condemn at this conference the attempts to delegitimize the state of Israel."

Speaking in Italy, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said he was pleased with the European Union and other countries for keeping any direct reference to Israel out of the final document. "What happened in Durban was a scandal," Peres said in an interview with Italian news agencies. "What occurred is that a majority of non-democratic countries tried to give democracy lessons to democratic countries. I think that if we hadn't left, nothing would have happened" to improve the text.

Muslim nations led by Iran, Iraq and the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference, were also un-happy with the final text, saying not enough attention was paid to Israel and the Palestinians. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa rejected a paragraph recognizing the Holocaust, saying that Europeans were responsible for the genocide and "are trying to spread their guilt around the world."

Robinson and African nations immediately praised the language referring to the legacy of slavery, citing it as the most historic outcome of the conference. But again, many nations thought it did not go far enough. "Africa had a rendezvous with history," said Amina Mohamed, the Kenyan mediator in the talks. "We have an agreement on a document that is far from satisfactory, is terribly imperfect, but that provides a basis to build on, and I think, for the first time, the dignity of the black man has been recognized."

Under the slavery deal, the conference acknowledged slavery and the slave trade as a crime against humanity and "should al-ways have been so." It also expressed an apology in the form of acknowledgment for the wrongs of slavery and colonialism and offered a package of economic assistance to Africa. It remained unclear what the new language would mean for European fears of potential lawsuits seeking reparations, though several European delegates said on condition of anonymity their fears had been addressed.

Despite efforts to expand the grounds of discrimination that should be illegal to include religion, language and sexual orientation, the conference recommended they be limited to the current definition of race, skin colour, descent and national or ethnic background.

The racism conference was the first time human and civil rights groups were allowed to participate in a U.N. conference, and many went away unhappy. Indigenous groups from the Americas joined Jewish groups in condemning the conference's outcome. Palestinian groups expressed disappointment with it as well. "We wanted clearer language in regard to Israeli practices and policies," said Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian representative to the United Nations who represented Arab countries at the conference.

U.S. human rights lawyer Chip Pitts linked the hardening of positions on the Middle East to the acrimonious atmosphere in Durban. "Lots of issues were neglected because of the politicised nature of the final document," Pitts said. "It was the reinforcement of the worst tendencies toward polarization."