Pledges to Tamils and the ‘Fonseka scare’

By Namini Wijedasa

Free movement of all persons without being impeded by security and police; areas of civilian activity to be free of weapons; security forces to be stationed only at strategic locations; restoration of fishing rights; no ‘kappang’ to be levied by anyone; and train services to the Jaffna Peninsula.
Fifty years after independence, Sri Lanka’s Tamil population is being wooed at a crucial election by a presidential candidate who is offering them some elementary liberties that should have been a given by now.
Sarath Fonseka’s litany of promises to the Tamil National Alliance, presented in a signed letter to R Sampanthan last week, provides insight into the failure of successive governments to ensure that some of the most basic civil rights are guaranteed to its citizens.
The ‘Programme of Immediate Relief Measures for War Affected Persons and Areas for Peace by the Common Opposition Presidential Candidate, Sarath Fonseka’ is divided into several categories. These are: restoration of civil administration and normalcy; prohibition of ‘para-military cadres’ and armed groups (self-styled ‘war lords’); resettlement and rehabilitation of internally displaced persons; land and agriculture; fisheries; trade and commerce; transport; special relief packages; persons in detention; and a lifting of the state of emergency.

Ludicrous

When considering some of the measures in this package, it seems ludicrous that the situation in Sri Lanka still permits a candidate to campaign politically on the premise of such rudimentary, non-political undertakings. It also begs the question why Sri Lanka’s leadership did not implement similar measures in the six months following the military defeat of the LTTE in May - or why the opposition did not draw attention to these issues before.
It is pledged, for instance, that police will be manned “as far as practicable” by officers who are conversant in Tamil. Despite repeated rhetoric throughout the past few decades that this measure will be implemented, no government - with all its resources and capacity - has still delivered satisfactorily on this exceedingly doable task.
Another pledge is the full restoration of all institutions of civil administration from the office of grama sevaka upwards, free from military, police and political interference. Could this not have been done before? Do we need a new president with a fresh mandate to achieve this task?
Security forces are to be stationed at strategic locations only, taking into consideration national security, states Fonseka. High security zones, he notes, will be dismantled in keeping with the relocation of security forces. This process of demilitarisation was not even discussed in the aftermath of the war. Instead, the government floundered about, alternately making statements about boosting troops requirements and about having defeated terrorism for good.
As for Fonseka, he is on record saying that the army must be increased to at least 400,000 troops. It remains a mystery where he would have positioned those troops had he got his wish. But take away the politics and it becomes clear that the process of limiting our troops to strategic locations and returning the management of civilians to civilians should have started some months ago.
The government got moving on high security zones in the north just last week with the resettlement of 509 families in the Jaffna peninsula. Parliamentarian Basil Rajapaksa has promised 20,000 families would be permitted to return to their homes within high security zones from January 10. Only those families whose lands are still occupied by the military will not benefit from this pre-electoral scheme.
Fonseka promises freedom of movement to all persons without being impeded by security and police. Again, this should ideally not be a political issue. It should be a given; part of a natural normalisation process that starts soon after the end of war. A candidate in a developed democracy should not be able to campaign on the basis that people will be allowed to move about freely — particularly when terrorism was defeated more than six months ago.
Meanwhile, the government has shown some progress on providing freedom of movement to its citizens. Starting late last year, it has lifted most checkpoints outside the north and east and made the major checkpoints - such as the one at Medawachchiya - more manoeuvrable.
And, evidently thanks to the election, it has also started with gusto to free up civilian life in the north. The Jaffna curfew was removed, the A9 is open 24-hours day and no travel authorisation is required from the ministry of defence. The camps for the displaced are also open.
Another Fonseka pledge is the prohibition of ‘paramilitary cadres’ and armed groups - a law and order issue that can be dealt with under existing legislation. He promises that areas of civilian activity will be free of weapons and that, except for the security forces and police, only persons with permits under the Firearms Ordinance, will be entitled to possess firearms. Stringent action will be taken against anyone taking illegal payments or ‘kappang’. How did the status quo in Sri Lanka deteriorate to such a level that such issues became negotiated components of somebody’s bid for election?

How about a poltical solution?

It is promised that all persons in detention against whom there is no evidence will be released within one month - as it rightly should have been done.
The state of emergency will be terminated, as should already have happened.
The TNA is also offered a speedy conclusion of de-mining; the return of displaced persons to their original homes with the provision of alternative accommodation if those homes were destroyed; social infrastructure for the resettled such as provision of essential foods, medical centres, schools and transport; restoration of private lands and buildings now occupied by security forces, police and government agencies to those lawfully entitled to them; relief packages for land cultivation and the full restoration of fishing rights; train services to Jaffna; and special relief packages for dependants of all persons who lost their lives during the war and those disabled due to war.
None of these are measures that a cabinet with more than 100 ministers could not have carried out. But it took an election - and an election scare in the form of Fonseka - to prick the government into taking some long overdue measures in the north. Had it spent less time campaigning for and conducting staggered provincial elections throughout the country, delegated national responsibilities beyond a limited circle of favoured persons, set aside the early presidential poll and focused on normalisation of civilian life after thirty years of war, Sarath Fonseka would have been deprived the chance of making trivial pledges in exchange for Tamil votes.
Fonseka has pointedly avoided undertakings on substantive issues such as a truth commission or a clear roadmap towards a political solution. Although the TNA last week announced its support for Fonseka’s election bid, the party did not explain in detail its reasons for backing him. Last week, Sampanthan said he was too busy to grant us an interview and refused to answer why they chose Fonseka over Rajapaksa.
Meanwhile, Mavai Senathiraja, another TNA stalwart, also turned down the offer of an interview and abruptly cut the line. It would appear that the two most senior members of the alliance don’t want to be held accountable for the Tamil National Alliance’s decision to back the devil over the deep blue sea.