by M. Nadarajan; originally published December 8, 2003
It is a pity that the likes of Richard Armitage and Chris Patten, who should know better, should say that the LTTE proposals “far exceed the Oslo Accord and does not resemble any kind of known federalism.” This is downright intellectual dishonesty. On the question of whether they exceed the Oslo Accord, Mr. W. Paul has written an article posted on the Ilankai Tamil Sangam website (Sangam.org), and I have little to add to it. As regards whether they resemble any kind of federalism, both Armitage and Patten are learned persons and one comes from the US, which is a federal country, and the other from the UK, which does not have a written Constitution, but is governed under a federal set-up. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; each considered a country for various purposes, including sports, with each country having its own teams and flags. Each country has demarcated borders, a court system and a police force. Scotland, in fact, has its own currency, the Scottish Pound, and a Reserve Bank, which issues currency notes. It has a Parliament now, which legislates, and under a provision introduced a few years ago, if Scotland votes for independence, they have to be allowed to separate. At the last referendum Scots narrowly voted to stay in the union.
When one reads some of the comments one wonders if, in fact, those who have commented actually read the proposals. Some seem to have no idea of what sovereignty and territorial integrity are. When writing about federalism they write as if, under federalism, sovereignty and territorial integrity will be endangered. Under any kind of federalism or con-federalism there would be one united country and two or more states.
There are several kinds of federalism and con-federalism. There are those who write that federalism would eventually lead to separation. According to an interview given by Professor Ellis Katz, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and Fellow of the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University, USA, more than half the world’s population live in countries that have a federal constitution or a similar power-sharing mechanism. Is there a danger of separation in all those countries? Even in countries with a federal constitution, if the people of different communities are discriminated against or treated as second-class citizens or periodically beaten up, there will be a demand for separation. It happened in several countries in the last century. Separation can be achieved peacefully, as in the case of Czechoslovakia and Malaysia/ Singapore, or violently as has happened in several others. The surest way of guarding against separation is by ensuring that all citizens, particularly in a multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious country like Sri Lanka, are treated as equals in every respect with justice and dignity.
Prof. Katz’s interview on Federalism was published in the Sunday Times of Dec.4 and is a timely one. I commend it to anyone who is interested in the subject. He speaks of there being 25 models of federalism including asymmetric federalism, and a bi-cameral system at the center, depending on the needs of a given situation, and that a federal solution for Sri Lanka has to be evolved within Sri Lanka. We have a situation in Sri Lanka, where because we run for advice to different countries, they try to dictate what type of federalism we should have. We hear of people saying, “but India would not permit it.”
Prof. Katz mentions that federalism gives expression to people’s linguistic, religious and cultural traditions, while maintaining their links and loyalty to the small unit as well as the national government. He also mentions that the Constitution can have safeguards against separation. He points out that, in the Swiss model, cantons play an active role in foreign policy; in the US, states could have their own militia in addition to their own police forces, and some Northern states have signed special treaties with Canada; in Spain power-sharing is asymmetrical. He also mentioned that regions should have the economic autonomy to exploit certain natural resources.
As regards the Oslo Accord, the Norwegian Government’s statement issued at the end of the talks said, “the parties have agreed to explore a political solution founded on the principle of Internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking peoples, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka.” Mr.Balasingam, in confirming this, quoted Mr. Prabhaharan’s previous Heroes’ Day message “We are prepared to consider favorably a political framework that offers SUBSTANTIAL AUTONOMY AND SELF-GOVERNMENT IN OUR HOMELAND ON THE BASIS OF OUR RIGHT TO INTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION.”
It must be understood that the LTTE pursued a demand for a separate state following the mandate given by the Tamil people to their representatives. It has been a major concession on the LTTE’s part to agree to give up the demand for separation in exchange for meeting Tamil aspirations. The Interim Self-Government Authority (ISGA) proposals are for an interim period till a final settlement is arrived at. The Interim Administration is something that both the UNP and the SLFP proposed. In fact the SLFP proposed it for a ten-year period. The final agreement to be arrived at, based on which a new Constitution has to be formulated, would have to be agreed between the parties. Having talks does not mean accepting anything that is offered.
Some people have taken objection to LTTE representatives having the majority representation in the ISGA. But that was the proposal of the government, too. Others object to authority over land being given to the ISGA. Substantial state-aided colonization has changed the demography of the erstwhile Eastern Province and parts of the erstwhile Northern Province. People have been chased from their homes and lands and others settled there. Land has been used as a tool for Sinhalese hegemony over Tamils. As in the case of the Banda-Chelva pact and the Indo Sri Lanka Accord, land has to be a regional or State subject. In a recent speech, Lands Minister Rajitha Senaratna stated that powers over land should be given to the LTTE.
Others complain that Finance and Revenue have been proposed to be an ISGA subject. The IGSA has to perform the normal functions of a government and meet the necessary expenses. The proposals contain a realistic method of allocation by a Finance Commission. The past pathetic record of government’s utilization of international aid, of an average of little more than 14% per year, makes it imperative that such funds be given to the IGSA to manage with accountability and transparency. There is provision for an Auditor General and audit by internationally recognized auditors. The LTTE has lready won the confidence of the people by returning monies borrowed from them on the basis of a rotation.
Yet others feel that the subject of law and order should not be a state subject. As mentioned earlier, in the US that has a federal system, states maintain a court system, police force and militia. Besides, for more that ten years the LTTE has been having a legal system, courts and police force that function very efficiently and without corruption in the areas under their control. So much so that people living in government-controlled areas file actions in the LTTE courts, where expenses of litigation are low and cases decided much sooner than in government-controlled areas.
Yet others want the LTTE to disarm their army and navy, and complain about the maritime use of coastal areas of the Northeast province provided in the IGSA proposals. They must be daydreaming. Any question of disarming would only arise after a permanent settlement is arrived at, subject to maintaining a militia, a written agreement signed and underwritten by the UN or some international organization, and a new Constitution approved in Parliament. We Tamils have been deceived once too often and do not want to be deceived again. Maritime concessions over coastal areas have been conceded to autonomous entities in the case of the Aaland Islands by Finland and to Hong Kong by China.
The government, the PA, the local and international media, allege that the LTTE is recruiting more fighters and training them. The LTTE has not denied that, but certainly their fighting forces did not go up from 6,000 to 16,000 as alleged. This cannot be true. Does this mean that a mere 6,000 fighters defeated more than 120,000 members of the security forces and police? The government, too, has been recruiting, has increased the salaries of their forces, and is training them overseas and in Sri Lanka using foreign trainers. The LTTE is accused of having brought in six shipments (and two that were destroyed) of modern arms. They must be geniuses to have brought that many shipments despite surveillance of the seas by the Sri Lankan navy aided by the Indian navy, with the US too throwing in its weight occasionally. The government has been importing arms openly. The Memorandum of Understanding and Cease-fire were signed between the two parties on the basis of parity. The status quo ante should have been maintained. The budget allocation in the latest budget shows an increase for 2004 over 2003. Should not the LTTE be vigilant?
The government has also signed a defense agreement with India, has given India lease of the Oil tanks of Trincomallee, signed an agreement with the US allowing berthing facility for its ships and over-flight facilities for its aircraft. In addition, it has signed an agreement with China allowing fishing permission in the Northern waters and sold contracts for future production of ilmenite. It then boasts and threatens about its safety net. These acts after the signing of an MOU are mala fide in nature.
In any case, the government, and recently the President too, have found that the ISGA proposals could be a starting point for negotiations. Many international bodies and countries have found the proposals to be reasonable as a starting point for negotiations. Why are the other non-players throwing their tup- pence worth into the equation?
Some features in the proposals are not in the current Constitution of Sri Lanka and are worthy of being included in the proposed new Constitution. These are: –
1.The proposal that Muslims and Sinhalese (in addition to Tamils) will have representation in the ISGA.
2.Elections shall be conducted by an independent Election Commission, shall be free and fair, and under International observation.
3.Establishment of an independent Human Rights Commission.
4.No religion shall be given the foremost place.
5.Determination not to permit bribery and corruption.
6.No discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, national or regional origin.
7.Representation of all ethnic communities in District Committees.
8. Accounting and auditing will be in accordance with internationally accepted accounting and auditing standards. Donors permitted to appoint their own auditors to audit the expenditure of loans and grants.
9. President of the International Court of Justice to appoint the chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal, if there is disagreement.