Throwing caution to the wind

ETHNIC CRISIS: The JVP's hurried exit from the All Party Conference in the wake of the Majority Report of the Experts' Committee on Constitutional Reform to solve the ethnic issue coming to light, reminds one of earlier developments of a similar type.

The closest is the walk out of the SLFP from the Mangala Moonesinghe All Party Round Table, just when it was presenting some useful proposals to solve the same crisis.

The right of the JVP to have its own views on the national issue and the ethnic crisis is conceded. Its concerns about how current political developments can affect its own constituency or vote base can be understood.

However, what has to be considered is whether any political party taking precipitate action that may lead to further difficulties in solving the long drawn out crisis in Sri Lanka is in the larger national interest.

We have seen similar situations taking place on far too many occasions, which raise the question whether Sri Lankans are capable, or have the political maturity, to find an adequate solution to this crisis.

There was the situation brought about the chauvinist forces led mainly by the UNP that compelled Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike to tear up the Bandaranaike - Chelvanayakam Pact in 1957.

This was followed by the combined action of the SLFP - LSSP - CP in 1965 that forced Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake to abrogate the Dudley - Chelvanayakam Pact.

We saw the opposition orchestrate against 13th Amendment and the Provincial Councils by the SLFP and JVP in 1987, which has caused no problems for these parties to enjoy the benefits of the Provincial Councils today.

"There was also the situation in August 2000 when the UNP that had agreed to most of the constitutional reforms proposed by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, following discussions with all political parties, backing out of them at the last moment, on an issue that could have easily been resolved in Parliament.

These and many other acts have enabled the LTTE to tell the world that there can be no hope of a Sinhala-led or majority Sinhala Government ever presenting any proposals to genuinely address the issues of nationality and power sharing that affect the Tamil people.

The propaganda of the LTTE and its fellow travellers based on this message had succeeded in the cause of Tamil separation and LTTE's violence gaining the sympathetic ear of the international community for many years.

For how long can we continue in this situation of whatever that is proposed as a solution being jettisoned due to pressure from a section of the majority?

The Majority Report of the Experts' Committee is clearly not the Government's policy. It is a report meant to be presented to the APC, which will make its recommendations to Government.

This is the same with the Minority Report, which addresses most of the issues the JVP and other parties that think alike, may be concerned about.

The more mature attitude to be taken is to study these two reports, as well as the other dissenting reports, and make any principled objections at the APC to any proposals that may emerge in the final report.

It is throwing caution to the wind in the midst of a major national crisis crying out for solution, with every soldier that is killed, every civilian that is killed or maimed, every LTTE cadre that is killed or driven to manipulated and indoctrinated suicide, and every dollar that is spent on destruction, for any political party to take precipitate action at this stage making it more difficult to satisfy the demand for an honourable and just peace, sought so much by the people.

Obstinate political stances that echo of extremism, even couched in nationalist slogans, cannot help is arriving a truly Sri Lankan model for the sharing of power.

As for so-called "irreconcilable differences" between the Majority Report and the Minority Report of the Experts' Committee, what is needed is an effort at seeing where these two views could meet in the interests of a larger unity, rather than go about pile driving round a single set of proposals to give it an unshakeable position, which is not in the interests of wider national consensus.

In this context it is best to quote Dayan Jayatilleke, on "How to reconcile the reports" in the Daily News of last Wednesday, December 13, 06.

"For exactly half a century we have had the same dynamics: (Sinhala) majoritarianism that was unwilling to go far enough in sharing power and a (Tamil) minoritarianism unwilling to settle for that which was feasible and thereby winding up pretty much with nothing. That vicious circle must not be allowed to run through the 21st century as it has through most of the 20th, blighting the lives and life chances of millions."

Referring to the bulk of proposals, other than the ISGA and P-TOMs and the 1995 and 97 proposals of President Kumaratunga, Jayatilleke says they were of a constructive sort, that if accepted at the time by the Sinhala and Tamil political leaders, would have either forestalled or snuffed out our present torrent of violent conflict and wasted resources (both human and material).

"These include the Bandaranaike - Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957; the Dudley - Chelvanayakam Pact of 1965 -66; Annexure C of 1986; the December 19, 1986 proposals of the Chidambaram mission, the Indo- Lanka Accord and the 13th Amendment of 1987 -88; the Mangala Moonesinghe formula (during the Premadasa period), and perhaps the most complete of all the August 2000 proposals of President Kumaratunga."

"Today's discussion documents emanating from the experts' panel belong in that same category of constructive, innovative, yet safe and pragmatic proposals", says Jayatilleke.

In the context of Sinhala nationalism, the altar on which most of the better proposals have been sacrificed, it is necessary to consider whether the Sri Lankan electorate is prepared to be always led by those not ready to consider current reality or the views of others, however, apparently unacceptable they may be.

The call for the JVP to return to the APC and continue deliberations for a genuine sharing of power are therefore timely. Hailing from the deep South in the 1930s, the Lion of Ruhuna, the late DM Rajapaksa, whose 110th birth anniversary was celebrated last Thursday, was very firm in his views on the necessity of unity among the Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) people to defeat the forces of imperialism, and the power of the feudal overlords and village headmen, that denied the people their freedom at that time.

That sense of national unity is needed today too, to overcome the mistrust we have of each other and defeat the forces of separatism and terror. That cannot be achieved by running away from issues, or misleading people into forming obstacles to progress on the major national issue of the day.

The absence of the Sri Lankan delegate at voting time on the resolution at the UN General Assembly condemning Israel for its atrocities against Palestinian citizens, is earning much critical comment today.

It is asked whether this is a sign of a deliberate departure from the accepted Foreign Policy of Sri Lanka, which has always been supportive of the Palestinian cause, even though having trade and other relations with Israel.

This is more important today, because the Head of State, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is one who has headed the Sri Lanka - Palestine Friendship Society for over 25 years, and has been and remains a firm supporter of the Palestinian people, in keeping with his own convictions, national policies and policies of the Non-Aligned Movement.

It is dangerous to throw caution to the wind in such matters of foreign policy, when Sri Lanka's principled position vis-...-vis the Arab nations can be questioned by the absence of its delegate at a crucial vote as that which took place at the UN General Assembly.

This occurred after the Arab States brought before the larger body of the General Assembly a motion condemning Israel regarding its treatment of the Palestinian people that had been vetoed by the US in the Security Council.

The United States surely understand that Sri Lanka has followed its independent and courageous policy with regard to Palestine for several decades, and that its leader today is one who is committed to this cause.

The absence of the Sri Lankan delegate at this vote, meant to strengthen international opinion against Israel and its Washington Godfather on this issue, requires both inquiry, and action to ensure that such wrong signals regarding the country's Foreign Policy are not sent out again.