Sri Lankan Presidential election; the issue of High Security Zones

Sri Lanka has just emerged from a cathartic 30 year conflict and war with what has been described as the most ruthless and violent terrorist group in the world, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, the LTTE. This group began as a tiny outfit of ten or twenty hardcore terrorists and ended as a group that had become a mentor for other similar ruthless groups like the al Qaida and many other national and international terror groups.

The birth and growth of the LTTE is known and well documented elsewhere, there is no necessity to do so here. What is important to remember however is not what it was at the end, but what it was at the beginning, and how it grew to become the multi headed monster it did over two decades or so.

Some argue that it was an Ipso Facto creation of the State of Sri Lanka itself, the result of the inability of Sinhala politicians and their representatives to have recognized the legitimate grievances of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and found a way of addressing these by peaceful, democratic means when there was an opportunity to do so.

Others argue that the Tamil community, in particular their politicians, failed to recognize that the Sinhala community also had grievances as well as concerns about the Tamil community, and their demands, and the failure on the part of the Tamil community to bridge this gap between the aspirations of the two communities led to the Tamil community giving up democratic and peaceful means of finding a solution to their problems.

Whatever the accuracy of these points of view, they are now historical developments that needs to be considered in the past tense, although not forgotten, as the country needs to learn lessons from past mistakes. In saying this, it has to be emphasized that lessons have to learn by all communities and compromises have to be made by all communities, not just the Sinhala community as some seem to be advocating.

An honest appraisal of these grievances, and which of them require an administrative solution, and which require a political solution needs to come out of such an appraisal. It might well be that some of these grievances have already been addressed politically but not administratively, and therefore to keep alight a political flame where some issues are only administrative shortcomings, could be regarded as being dishonest. Similarly, to deny the existence of legitimate grievances of both communities could also be regarded as being dishonest.

Another point that may well be relevant is the practicality of looking for solutions for grievances without considering the context in which they should be considered. One example is the practicality for Tamils to pursue a Tamil homeland concept, for one reason, as it has failed, and the other, as the reasons for its failure are still there, and will continue to be there in the future. Another example is the failure on the part of some Sinhalese to recognize very fundamental cultural and identity differences between the two communities, and for them to hope that grievances could be addressed by trying to form a common identity.

Coming back to the LTTE, although the extreme form of Tamil agitation has been defeated, it could be argued by some, especially the extreme elements within the Tamil community that some of the reasons for the agitation still exists, and that unless an effort is made to address these, the spiral of agitation may result in the return of violence at a later stage.

The two main Presidential candidates need to heed this possibility, and the Sri Lankan State has to have measures in place to prevent any resurgence of such violence. The key to preventing such resurgence is to address political issues surrounding any outstanding grievances making sure they are done within a Sri Lankan context where all communities are able to accept the political solution.

This however is easier said than done, and it needs a vision and leadership at the highest level to draw all communities together towards a common purpose. It needs leadership that is unwavering and steadfast and it needs leadership that recognizes, supports and encourages team work. It needs leadership that demonstrates good judgment.

While a political approach is pursued to achieve a long lasting solution to the conflict with the Tamil community, the leadership of the country must ensure all its citizens are protected against any terrorism and violence resurfacing from extreme elements within the Tamil community. For this reason, the President of Sri Lanka cannot lose sight of the need to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent a stray suicide bomber from ruining all the good work done by the administration in defeating the LTTE and ushering in peace. One suicide bomber will be too many.

Besides this, Sri Lanka has to have a strategic plan to make sure extreme elements within the Tamil community are not allowed to raise their heads and develop into the monsters they became as the LTTE. Such a strategic plan will require the permanent deployment of Armed Forces in sensitive areas to function as rapid response teams in case any threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty arises from enemy within, and without.

This calls for a careful and well thought of approach to the review of High Security Zones in Sri Lanka. In the North and the East, the Jaffna peninsula and Trincomalee harbour surroundings in particular are of vital strategic interest to Sri Lanka to make sure the State is protected from enemy within and without.

Obviously these zones need a review and possible re demarcation so that communities living in those areas will see the results of the peace dividend. However, neither the incumbent President nor the main aspirant should politicize these key vital strategic interests for the sake of winning some votes and gaining an advantage that might well be temporary.

On the basis of the track record so far of the main aspirant Sarath Fonseka, who has shown extremely bad judgment, political immaturity, who does not believe in team work and who has condemned his own troops and his subordinates, his Commander and his immediate superior, the statement that he has made from a political platform in Jaffna about a review of the High Security Zone in the peninsula needs to be viewed with some concern.

It is not the review that is in question. President Rajapaksa is already on record saying there will be a review. So there is nothing new about the need for a review. The issue is who is saying it now and why.

Considering General Fonseka’s links to the USA and the West, as mentioned in Asian Tribune threads and elsewhere, and the desire of these countries to get a foothold in Sri Lanka once again, readers should judge Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka’s statements about a review of High Security Zones and the construction of an International Airport in Jaffna in context, and ask the question whether the promised review will be done to please Sri Lankans or outsiders.

- Asian Tribune -