After 26 bloody years, the war in Sri Lanka is over. The Tamil Tigers have been beaten, their ferocious leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran is dead and others have committed suicide. The government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa who vowed to destroy them and said that there could never be peace and prosperity unless they were defeated, has won. Sri Lankans, whether Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims, have every reason to celebrate; for the first time in a generation, they have the prospect of a bright future ahead of them. But it will be celebration tinged with doubts. Everyone on the island knows that, having won the victory, the government could easily squander the peace and, in doing so, trigger a new war.
Winston Churchill famously said: “In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity”. President Rajapaksa who has been so resolute in his objective of destroying the Tigers should take note of that. Sri Lanka’s future well-being depends on it - for while war may be over, the underlying problems that sparked the conflict in the first place and gave birth to the Tigers have yet to be tackled. They must. Otherwise, the conflict will re-erupt. It may not follow the same format - it almost certainly will not; the use of terror as a political weapon, in particular the suicide bomber, was Prabhakaran’s personal preference; he was vicious and bloodthirsty. His departure, however, will not mean that others will not take up arms to fight for the Tamils if the government in Colombo sits on its hands and refuses to address Tamil concerns.
Tamil autonomy would certainly ensure that the conflict never reignites, but it does not have to be autonomy that, in any event, Rajapaksa has always rejected and therefore is probably not going to be offered. Far more important, though, is addressing the inbuilt discrimination against the Tamils which prompted them to see autonomy as their only salvation. They need to feel that they are as much valued as the Sinhalese majority and have an equal stake in the country. That is the task facing Rajapaksa. If he can put an end to the institutional and constitutional discrimination against the Tamils, there will be lasting peace on the island - and no need for autonomy. The trouble is that the government he appointed in 2005 is an alliance with Sinhalese nationalists who have nothing but contempt for the Tamils and who are militantly opposed to any concessions to them. He may be able to ignore them after next year’s parliamentary elections, if recent provincial elections are anything to go by: In what was clearly public endorsement of his military campaign against the Tigers, his United People’s Freedom Alliance trounced the opposition. But Sri Lanka cannot wait till then to start trying to bridge its communal divide.
Meanwhile, there is a refugee crisis to be solved, not to mention the talk of war crimes committed by both sides in the final bloody act of the conflict.
Rajapaksa is going to have his hands full trying to deliver the peace and prosperity he said could only be achieved if the Tigers were defeated.
Israel must act now for peace
Excerpts from an editorial in yesterday’s Haaretz:
The eyes of Israel, the region and the world are turned to today’s planned meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the White House. Netanyahu, who has kept silent for the 50 days since assuming the premiership and preparing for his meeting with the American president, is due at long last to reveal his political plan.
It is likely to become clear within hours whether Israel will advance toward peace with the Palestinians, Syria and other Middle Eastern states, or whether Netanyahu intends instead to entrench himself behind recalcitrant positions in the hope that the Arab side will prove even more rigid and bear responsibility for a failure that will leave the conflict unresolved. Netanyahu and Obama are presumably not interested in a publicized confrontation. It was, therefore, implied in advance that the two sides would agree on certain tactical formulations, such as the establishment of joint teams to discuss subjects that are still under consideration — without explicitly referring to “the Annapolis process” bequeathed by George W. Bush.
An outcome of this kind shouldn’t satisfy those who advocate a swift process aimed at reaching a peace agreement between two states that respect each other’s sovereignty and borders. The end result must not be postponed until Washington and Tel Aviv finish shaping their policy and then come up with a compromise between the two plans. The millions of Israelis who are prepared to exchange territories for peace understand that Netanyahu cannot be exempt from taking action. All Obama’s advisers, as well as international figures involved in the process, such as Quartet envoy Tony Blair, have noted three milestones: Putting an end to settlement construction, including construction excused by “natural growth”; removing the illegal outposts; and refraining from demolishing homes in the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.
