Opinion - News Analysis   

The death of a ceasefire agreement

Rohini Hensman

THE CEASEFIRE Agreement (CFA) of 2002 is dead: it breathed its last when Lakshman Kadirgamar was assassinated. When members of one party to a ceasefire agreement (the LTTE) shoot dead a leading member of the other party (the Government of Sri Lanka), they are in effect killing the agreement. So let us not kid ourselves with empty rhetoric about the peace process. The fact is that the CFA was buried along with Kadirgamar.

However, this does not mean that war is inevitable. On the contrary, it offers us a great opportunity to avert war by putting in place a much stronger CFA. The assassination of Kadirgamar, which was only the latest in a string of hundreds of LTTE murders of independent-minded Tamils during the ceasefire, was a direct consequence of fatal flaws in the old CFA. In a revealing interview in early August, leader of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission Hagrup Haukland said: "One of the cornerstones of the ceasefire agreement is that the LTTE should have the possibility to do political work in the north and in the east and also have the freedom of movement of the cadres. If that cornerstone is removed, then it is in jeopardy." It was abundantly clear at least two years ago what the LTTE's `political work' and `freedom of movement' meant: a licence to kill Tamil critics and abduct Tamil children with impunity. Mr. Haukland's statement that this licence is a `cornerstone' of the CFA tacitly assured the LTTE that the SLMM supported its `right' to commit these crimes. That assurance, and the past performance of the SLMM, gave the LTTE the confidence that it could kill Kadirgamar (whom the Tigers had threatened with death several times in the past) without losing the backing of the Norwegian monitors.

Yet a ceasefire means nothing if it is not a commitment that the parties to it will refrain from killing each other, and there is no way Kadirgamar's assassination can be seen as anything other than the termination of the agreement. A new CFA must tie the peace process to water-tight guarantees of respect for human and democratic rights by all parties. If the Norwegian mediators wish to participate in the negotiations for such an agreement, they should make it clear that they do not support the `right' of LTTE death squads and press gangs to do their dirty work with impunity. If they feel the Sri Lankans are inferior beings who do not deserve human rights and democracy, let them go home and good riddance. Unless the LTTE signs such an agreement, its members should be barred from entering Colombo and other Government-controlled areas. The Government has been punished for its laissez-faire attitude to LTTE killings of Tamil civilians by the loss of one of its most distinguished members; now it should begin to protect its citizens from the LTTE's criminal activities.

Whether the Norwegians stay or go, we must call on the United Nations to provide independent human rights monitors. The past few years have shown quite conclusively that there is a conflict of interest involved in monitoring both the ceasefire and human rights. The SLMM and Norwegian Government have consistently ignored human rights violations in order to preserve what they call the peace process. Yet it should be obvious to any sane person that if the whole conflict started due to violation of the human and democratic rights of Tamils, it is absurd to think that it can be resolved by continuing to violate the rights of Tamils. Therefore it is crucially important to the peace process to have monitors whose only remit is to defend the human rights of all Sri Lankans. Their role will be especially important in the uncleared areas, where they must ensure that all child conscripts are released and put a stop to child conscription as well as killings of civilians — both of which are defined internationally as war crimes. And until they guarantee that the LTTE has stopped child conscription, the U.N. should impose on the LTTE the sanctions it threatened, especially an embargo on arms sales and financial contributions to the LTTE and its front organisations, and a ban on international travel of its members.

The new CFA must recognise that de facto, there are three parties to the conflict: the Government, the Prabakaran faction and the Karuna faction; indeed, most of the fighting during the ceasefire has been between the two latter parties. Thus a cessation of fighting necessitates a three-cornered ceasefire. However, even if the Prabakaran faction refuses to sign the agreement but the Government signs it with the Karuna faction, it will reduce the threat of war and human rights violations quite significantly, and is therefore a goal worth pursuing. It should also be clear that while the CFA concerns only the armed parties the peace process and negotiations for a new constitution are the concern of all citizens, who should therefore be encouraged to participate individually and collectively in arriving at a permanent political solution that addresses the genuine aspirations of the Tamil people as well as protecting the human and democratic rights of all citizens in all parts of the country. Unless the Government moves rapidly towards negotiations for a new CFA and a permanent political solution, it will be guilty — like the UNF Government, the Norwegian mediators and some Sinhalese liberals and NGOs — of selling out Tamils in order to buy an illusory peace for the Sinhalese.

By now it should be obvious even to the most naïve that the objective of the LTTE is not a homeland for Tamils. A homeland is a place where you need not fear violence, persecution or discrimination; the very idea that the LTTE is trying to achieve this is laughable. What it is trying to create, on the contrary, is a vast concentration camp for Tamils, where any Tamil with courage and integrity — like Lakshman Kadirgamar — can be incarcerated and tortured or killed. All those who promote the myth of the LTTE as the sole representative of Tamils in Sri Lanka are effectively accomplices in its drive to liquidate all critics. The alternative vision, promoted by Kadirgamar in a speech shortly before he was murdered, is that "The movement for democracy in certain districts of the North and East must begin to roll. If the Government of Norway is unable to plead this cause with the conviction and determination that it deserves, it should stand aside and yield to other parties who could carry the flag of democracy into areas where darkness presently prevails." If his death spurs on the realisation of this vision, then he would not have died in vain.

(Rohini Hensman is a writer and rights activist based in Sri Lanka and India.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Beyond self-denying tolerance
State-level labour laws for export zones
Should Putin have a third term in office?
The death of a ceasefire agreement
Coping with seeing atrocity
Two steps forward for India
Who is to blame for all the rubbish?
Khurana's suspension
Ban on naxals
Transfer controversy
Politics of quota
Employment guarantee
Bad journalism
"No intent to perpetuate status quo in Maldives"

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu