Only a phased peace process will work - Uyangoda

[TamilNet, Monday, 28 August 2006, 06:10 GMT]
A lasting solution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic question can only emerge out of a protracted peace process with interim agreements, rather than a quest for an up-front final solution, one of the country’s leading political scientists argued this week. "Protracted ethnic conflict always requires a protracted peace process. The peace process should [aim] for an interim settlement rather than a big-bang solution. We may have to go through a series of interim managements," said Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda, Head of Department of Political Science and Public Policy, University of Colombo.

Prof. Uyangoda, who is also Founder-Director of the Centre for Policy Research and Analysis (CPA), made his comments in an extensive interview with Rediff.com last week.

Prof. Uyangoda argues that attitudes in Sri Lanka are not conducive to reaching agreement on a final settlement early on in a peace process.

"A final solution of Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict requires reconstitution of the post-colonial unitary State.

"[But] the Sinhalese political class is not yet ready for the radical reconstitution of the State power structure. Even after 25 years of conflict the Sinhalese political class have not come to that stage yet.

"Sri Lanka's complexity is something like this: you have a majority ruling class which is not yet ready to work out the settlement that would give equality to the ethnic minority of Sri Lanka.

"Second, they do not, they cannot, acknowledge and accommodate the minimalist position presented by even the non-LTTE Tamil groups.

"Any workable solution will require recognition that Tamils are a distinct community and the North and East will require what we may call asymmetrical autonomy.

"And that is not yet recognized in Sri Lanka."

"The LTTE's vision of political settlement, even an internal political settlement, would be one that would be defined within the framework of extensive regional autonomy that would go far beyond the existing 1978 Constitution."

"But the present government wants to work this out within the 1978 Constitution.

"The existing Constitution defines the Sri Lankan state as a unitary state, while the LTTE's vision of a solution is far beyond even the conventional notion of federalism.

"The point here is that the LTTE is for maximalist regional autonomy and the government of Sri Lanka is for minimalist degree of regional autonomy. There is a vast gap between the visions of the two sides.

"[Even]the most advanced Sinhalese politicians would say that when provincial powers are given to the Northern region (where the Tamils are in a majority) and the Eastern region (where Muslims and Tamils are dominating), they should have equal powers as the rest of the areas in the country."

"But that idea won't work. And the Sinhalese have not even agreed to those equal powers."

Prof. Uyangoda, a strong advocate of the Norwegian facilitated peace process from its outset in 2002 under the then UNP government, has sometimes been criticised as being insufficiently critical of that initiative.

But he argues flaws are inevitable in any peace process and there has to be a starting point.

"Protracted ethnic conflict always requires a protracted peace process. That's why perhaps, initially, one has to have an incomplete and imperfect peace process. Some may call it negative peace.

"We need a credible ceasefire agreement to begin with.

"[Just like the present government,] even the previous government which started this negotiation [process] in 2002 didn't have a clear political agenda or a roadmap of the outcome of negotiations with the LTTE.

"The present government has come into power in the wake of the collapse of the 2002 peace process. The challenge before [it] is to initiate the new peace process.

"[But] I don't think the present Sri Lankan government is in a position to take any of the fresh new set of political initiatives which are necessary to reinvigorate or reconstitute the peace process.”

Prof. Uyangoda says there considerable mutual mistrust.

"The Sinhalese want political guarantees, while the Tamils and LTTE believe that no agreement will be fully implemented by the Sinhalese political class. They quote past experiences.

"The argument forwarded by the LTTE is that until the terms of full and final settlement is fully and comprehensively implemented, there is no guarantee that the State run by the Sinhalese ruling class would honour the terms of agreement.

"The LTTE thinks that political guarantee given within Sri Lanka won't work, it has to come from outside. That political and security guarantee can't come from US, Japan or France but from South Asia.

"In the case of the Mozambique peace agreement the guarantee came from the South African region."

Prof. Uyangoda said the LTTE’s strategy is “unique” as there are no comparable examples to its concept of a solution – which, he argues, is ultimately envisioned within a single state in Sri Lanka.

"The LTTE knows that a separate state in South Asia is not feasible. They know it very well. The LTTE is quite shrewd in understanding regional and global geo-politics."

"Eventually, the LTTE wants a political strategy to work for a Tamil regional sub-state. They are driving at a regional subnational [entity] in Sri Lanka which they can call Tamil Eelam, but it may not be a separate state."

"The Sinhalese will find it extremely difficult to accept this [idea]."

Prof. Uyangoda’s analysis challenged suggestions that a shift in the balance of forces would facilitate a new peace process.

"The LTTE today is no longer what it was in 1987 or 1990. My own understanding of the LTTE is that it is seriously interested and committed to what one may describe as the nation-building and state-building."

"The LTTE is not going to allow the Sri Lankan State any regional or global military alliance to destroy what they consider as achievements of the Tamil liberation struggle."