lines

TRICKLE UP

-- Anika

 

Pretending Peace, or the Obvious Part of the Possible [1]

 

 

First Person: Look at this piece, and in Circles, of all places! Is no public forum free of this hysteria? Why do these "arguments" invariably degenerate into cheap attacks and populist rhetoric? They rely on the fact that we never descend to their level. We're involved in a difficult, fragile, risky endeavour in trying to salvage the peace process here. It's easy for them to be dismissive of the whole thing, but that's a luxury some of us can't afford. These spoilers are coming out of the wash hardly different from the war-mongers they claim to abhor.

Second Person: True. And very real issues are at stake here, not personalities. For instance, if we don’t ensure that gender issues are foregrounded, mainstreamed into the process at the very beginning, then there's no point complaining later. This is an opportunity, however flawed, and I've no patience with those holier-than-thou types who are probably envious anyway that they were not invited to the table.

Besides, the ordinary people of all ethnic groups are so much in favour of this current process. Why, at those meetings we had in Vavuniya and Polonnaruwa, the people were overwhelming in their support.

Third Person: Sure, in Puttalam too. But wanting peace, and buying into this particular process are two different things, no?

First Person: There is no other way you will get peace, but this one. You see, no one is saying that the process is ideal. We agonise so much over our role, but it is clearly irresponsible to throw stones from outside. [cellphone rings] Hi! That's OK. No, No, I haven’t forgotten, but I have the British High Commissioner's cocktail at 6.00, and I can’t get out of that. Let's make it late. I'll meet you at the Wadiya at 8.00, then, but bring the proposal with you.

Sorry, what was I saying …. Ah, yes. Nobody seems to understand the tightrope that we have to walk here. Ours is a principled intervention, a provisional and critical support of the negotiation process, not a blind acceptance of it, and we're not in this for any personal gain, god knows!

Second Person: I don't think that you should get defensive about this. None of these issues are black and white, I am convinced that it is a mistake to even engage with this sort of attack. We have more important things to do, and you will never be able to convince them anyway.

What about Saturday's roundtable? Have GL and Milinda confirmed? And the other side as well? We need a balance, of course.

First Person: Sure, but it's impossible to get a firm commitment from anybody. I hope that there's no disruptive element, though. Which reminds me I must recheck the invitees' list. The funders and foreign missions have been very supportive, when we were under threat, and the least we can do is invite them. What about the human rights angle? You think UTHR should be represented?

Second Person: Nonsense! They don’t go anywhere. Besides, they should drop that name, it's so misleading, even immoral. They shouldn't hide behind this label after so many years. See how exposed we are. It's a mistake to live in real or imagined fear, that weakens and isolates them. All the Sinhala racist groups are using their reports, and it is so one-sided, so puritanical that it serves no practical purpose in this peace process.

Third Person: One sided, surely not?

First Person: Yes, one-sided in the sense that they only see violations, violence and also they are virulently anti-LTTE. They are antagonising everyone.

Third Person: [A little uncomfortable] But, surely, you acknowledge that they are performing an important function?

First Person: [Equally uncomfortable, but for different reasons] Yes, but not everyone has the luxury of working the way they do. We have to forge a wider audience, engage with greater diversity.

Third Person: [Changes subject, brightly] The human rights group statement was good, and yet, I hear, so difficult to get people to agree even on that.

Second Person: Shouldn’t there have been some reference to violations on the ground in order to underscore the fact that Ian Martin’s task is all the more important because all is not currently well?

First Person: That would have been impossible, given the circumstances. Besides, this is a statement of principle. I don’t think it should be muddied with details that may become controversial. As it is, no one can take official offence, though I'm sure it has upset both sides considerably. You know how it is: just because some of us have helped in technical areas, they think that our allegiance is guaranteed.

Second Person: Sanctimonious hypocrites, these spoilers. These people are merely presenting alibis for Sinhala (and Tamil) nationalism. Imagine who's shedding crocodile tears on behalf of the Tamil civilians now! Where were they when the war was raging and we were in the trenches in Colombo, fighting for peace and accountability?

First Person: Exactly. And to play up this as an issue right now would be to play into the chauvinists' hands. It would destroy the entire peace process.

Second Person: Quite. One needs to be pragmatic. Dealing with the LTTE is not easy at the best of times. If we antagonize them they'll just revert to type, and the country cannot afford that at this stage. How easy it is to be dismissive of them, but it serves no purpose.

First Person: Our role is to be watchdogs on the peace process, to ensure that it stays on track. This means that our dealings must necessarily be with the two major parties to the negotiation. Others may choose to work in other areas of the process. But for the pressure we have exerted many of the victories gained in so short a time would never have materialized.

Second Person: Exactly. The ordinary people are so much better off now, and I think that the communities in the North and East must work out their own response on human rights violations. We have dictated their agenda from the South for too long.

Third Person: [Hesitantly] But is this consistent with what we've been saying about other similar concerns, or at other times, or in relation to government atrocities?

Second Person: There you go again! How easy it is for you to raise these issues and disappear to New York or London, or wherever it is you hang out. What alternative do you offer? A few closed-door conferences and some sexy work among marginal groups. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Third Person: Not everyone can live in Sri Lanka right now. There has to be something that can be done from outside as well. You're the one being purist now. Working at the policy and advocacy levels for constitutional reform, towards a reconciliation process that learns from international experience cannot be dismissed lightly. Also, there's the longer-term work to be done with marginal communities and non-hegemonic histories.

Second Person: Of course. I was only kidding! There's a lot of longer-term study and grassroots discussion that is absolutely necessary, but finding good people for the job is so difficult. The few people who are both able and committed are up to their necks in work. Even translators are so scarce, and good ones who understand the issues are only a handful.

Third Person: Touche!  That's what I can't understand about some of them. It's not as if they are saying anything new or radical. The arguments are ones we have used before, ones with which we grapple even now. The sheer arrogance that allows them to impose their tired old agenda on us, and then pat themselves on the back that they are the first to think like this!  It's the intensity that they demand that's most galling. Why can't they live and let live, like the rest of us? You and I disagree about many issues, even on the conflict, but still we can discuss this rationally over a drink, even have a good time, without compromising what we believe. I guess their modus operandi is to generate a kind of endemic discomfort or unease, and I'm sure there's more than one pop-psych explanation for this! What gives them the right to question everyone, anyway? Their approach is just as flawed, and easier to maintain.

But to come back to the issue about broad-basing awareness on core issues. What about building capacity at the district level? I'm sure we can get a project going which could fund this. Our mutual friends in these areas can manage this quite easily.

First Person: I agree, but all this killing of political opponents and taxation/extortion business is making our job difficult. The LTTE is its own worst enemy, they just need to lie low for a while, but that's precisely what they refuse to do.

Second Person: You shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I've heard from very reliable sources that they had nothing to do with some of the killings in the East. Even the SLMM hasn't established a definite connection. Everyone is getting in on the act, it looks like. And, surely, the whole point is that there must be complete parity of status if the negotiations are to work.

First Person: Parity and balance are a must. Besides, there needs to be some understanding of the fact that the LTTE is in transition. It'll make a few mistakes, and we can't appear to be condoning these, but see the reporting of child conscription has reduced. Peace has its own momentum, and the LTTE realizes more than anyone else that there's no going back now.

Second Person: Parity and the issue of avoiding loss of face that comes with it. How can we expect the LTTE who have come so far to play second fiddle to the military?

First Person: But what of the argument that the peace process should be more inclusive, and not be limited to the LTTE and Government? Isn't that also simply pious and not practical at this stage? Everyone knows that this is an excruciatingly slow process. We have to be patient, we have to be practical. The immediate challenge is to bring the LTTE back to the negotiating table, whatever it takes. The ceasefire has held thus far, as GL said no one [of us] has died. The situation is so complex, let's take this a month at a time.

 

Fourth Person: Sure. Given the direction of the LTTE's transition thus far, a few more months at the current attrition rate, and there won't be any more problem about this sole representative business, either. What might complicate matters is that a new sole representative may emerge as the Government in the South. Yet, there's no real incompatibility in principle. Similar methods, different outcomes: it's a question of degree really, and attention to detail.

 

 


[1] Widely known as PPOPP by the cognoscenti, and clearly distinguished from POP [Poorest of the Poor] and PAP [Politics as the Art of the Possible], among others.


HOME

 

May 2003

Dialogue

lines off the web

Reviews

In Solidarity