SRI Lanka’s ethnic conflict appears stagnant, with a supportive international environment though. The international community with the United States, the European Union and India in the lead has been supporting Sri Lanka both economically and politically, especially with regard to seeking a just and mutually acceptable solution to the long protracted ethnic conflict. There are examples of other seemingly intractable conflicts suddenly going away. But these never went away on their own. There was a lot of work that was done, often behind the scenes by leaders who put the future before the past. Sri Lanka needs to take its opportunity sooner rather than later, which it can if its political and thought leaders choose wisely. An example to emulate would be Western Europe after the Second World War.

Before the end of the Second World War, the countries of Europe seemed to be permanently in conflict as their alliances shifted from one rival group to another. Europe had a hundred-year war between France and England. But the mass devastation of the Second World War and the formation of the European Union to help the battered European economies recover has meant that war in Western Europe has become unthinkable. Europe also produced world renowned thinkers on peace such as Johan Galtung who recently passed away and gave to the world the conceptual difference between positive peace and negative peace. There can be a similar phenomenon at work in Sri Lanka, too. After the three-decade war and more recently the economic collapse, the ethnic conflict is fading into the background outside of the theatre of war in the north and the east. But it is a negative peace, an absence of war rather than a celebration of peace with all communities feeling this country is their home and treats them as its children.

At a recent seminar for youth on living in a plural society, most of them had no idea that there had been an internal war in the country or the causes that had led to the war. This was not true, however, of the youth who came from the north and the east, but they, too, showed no great interest in engaging the topic. A more positive indication of this new phenomenon has been the government’s decision to downsize the military by reducing recruitments and without it leading to nationalist outrage. The focus of popular attention has become the economy, issues of corruption and abuse of power. Initiatives that present the possibility of a mutually acceptable solution to the ethnic conflict would tend to be seen in a benign way. It needs to be kept that way. The private member’s bill in the parliament to revoke the police powers granted under the 13th amendment goes counter to this.

Winning trust

THERE is growing recognition among community leaders belonging to all ethnicities and religions that greater efforts need to be made to support and give recognition to nation-building work. A recent event organised by the International Human Rights Global Mission, a locally led initiative, had the theme of empowering communities for a better tomorrow. The organising team with its chief advisor MHM Niyas invited speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to be chief guest. When he was unable to attend, the organisers showed a bipartisan spirit in inviting the SJB’s Tissa Attanayake to preside over the awards ceremony. The inclusive approach carried over to honouring a wide circle of social service personnel, including physically handicapped achievers and veterans in the field such as Dr Joe William who has rendered service in non-violent communication for the past three decades.

There are two recent initiatives to promote national reconciliation that have evoked protest but have potential for constructive problem solving if done in a more sensitive and consultative manner. The first is the gazetting of the Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Bill. Civic activists, especially those who represent the victim population in the north and the east, have been very critical of the draft law. In particular, they have focused on the a toxic larger environment in which there is disregard for the fate of the missing persons and their families who continue to suffer from neglect.

The general response to the new reconciliation mechanism has been largely one of lack of interest. The draft law is seen as merely setting up another mechanism to investigate what happened in the past. There is a lack of trust regarding the new mechanism in the victim population and in the civil society groups that speak up for them. The missing dimension would be for the government to negotiate with the representatives of the victim community who are to be found in both civil society and in the political parties that campaign for such causes. The requirement that the families of those who went missing need to make the applications on their behalf again can be cruel, given the many times they have already given evidence and the government had failed to process those applications.

In Europe after the Second World War, reconciliation came through work in many areas, but also after the Nuremberg trials. Those trials were possible because the side that was defeated was made accountable for its crimes which included genocide of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. In Sri Lanka,  those who are to be made accountable would mostly come from the side of the victors in the war which makes it an uphill task. This is a conundrum that requires a negotiated solution in which the representatives of the victim communities are empowered to sit at the negotiating table especially as this was an internal conflict.

Political solution

THE second initiative has been to promote reconciliation in the form of a diaspora-Buddhist monks dialogue that has formed the basis for the ‘Himalaya Declaration.’ This agreement has been rejected by some other sections of the Tamil diaspora questioning the representation and by some civil society groups that represent victims and their families in the field in Sri Lanka. However, it also represents one of a small number of agreements publicly reached between those deemed to be at the extremes in many cases in the past. But these pacts and accords failed to hold, though they had been signed by prime ministers and presidents. The core themes articulated by the Himalaya Declaration are general, rather than specific. But its willingness to reach an agreement is indicative of the potential for forward movement.

It is also noteworthy that the Buddhist monks who signed the declaration are those who have obtained senior positions within their own order. This has enabled them to be more forthcoming in discussing the Himalaya Declaration both with Buddhist clergy and also with the most senior monks in the hierarchy who have said that they are prepared to spend more time bringing ethnic and religious harmony in the country. One of the six points mentioned in the Himalaya Declaration calls for ‘Devolving power in a united and undivided country.’ These are practised in India and many other countries including those which are similarly multi ethnic and multi religious like Malaysia and Indonesia in our region.

The fundamental issue for the non-recurrence of war and conflict is to find a way in which the different ethnic or religious communities share the power to decide on the country’s future. For the victim community, accountability will be the priority interest. But for the Tamil people as a whole, the main root cause of their discontent is the powerlessness of the ethnic and religious minorities to defend their own rights, to decide for themselves and govern themselves. This points to the need for constitutional reform after elections. If constitutional reform with consultation and participation by the ethnic and religious minorities becomes a reality Sri Lanka will be on the road to relegate ethnic conflict to the past, as in Western Europe. If not, it can mean that the reconciliation process will take much longer, because of the lack of consensus on contentious issues articulated by political leaders, which was responsible for the emergence of the three decade long war in the 1980s.

Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka.