Ceasing the Ceasefire in Sri Lanka
N Manoharan
Senior Fellow, IPCS
e-mai:
mano@ipcs.org
The
government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) has blinked first by officially abrogating the
Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) it signed with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) nearly six years ago with effect from 16 January 2008. The GOSL's unilateral
withdrawal from the CFA has not only increased chances of all out war, but has
also dwindled hopes of peace process in the Island. Why did the government withdrew
from the CFA at this juncture although it has been opposing the Agreement for
over two years? What are the implications?
The official reason given by the government was that its patience ran out.
President Rajapakse said "the final decision to abrogate it [the CFA] was
taken only after the LTTE showed it would continue to kill civilians to achieve
its goal through terrorism, enjoying the advantages
it had from the CFA". He openly declared that he was "consistently
opposed" to the Agreement. There are many other reasons, however.
First, the government believed that CFA stood as an obstacle for its ongoing
military thrust against the LTTE. Given the present gains to its security forces,
the government wishes to sustain it. Sri Lankan Army Chief had already declared
that "the LTTE will be wiped out by 2008." His calculation is it needs
to "kill 10 Tigers a day" to finish off 3000 odd LTTE cadres by this
year. Killing of some of the high-profile LTTE leaders like Tamilselvam by the
Sri Lankan Air Force has boosted the confidence of Sri Lankan military leadership.
Biggest ever defence
budget passed in December 2007 attest to this.
Second,
President Rajapakse has been under tremendous pressure from hard-line parties
like JVP and JHU ever since he signed MoUs with them during his bid for presidentship
in 2005. One of the conditions laid by the two parties for supporting Rajapakse
as President was abrogation of CFA. Rajapakse successfully evaded the promise
for nearly two years, but not any more when he needed JVP's support to pass
the budget last December. Rajapakse gave a firm deadline for CFA abrogation
in return for JVP's abstention from voting of budget at its final reading.
Third, the government felt that the international community might not care
much about formal termination of the CFA. Even if there was criticism, the government
was confident of handling it.
It
is true that the CFA has long been dead. However, its official abrogation has
pushed the process towards peace a few steps back. Statistics since 16 January
indicate mounting incidents of violence. An 'undeclared' war' that existed thus
far has now turned into a "fight to the finish".
Though relegated to paper over the past two years, the CFA acted as a check
on both the antagonists from escalating violence beyond a point. The presence
of ceasefire monitors in the island made a difference. According to the Sri
Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) that was tasked to monitor the CFA, "10000
lives may have been spared" due to the Agreement. The CFA at least kept
alive the hopes of a genuine peace process returning some day or the other.
Assuming there will be a military stalemate, both sides have to repeat the whole
tedious exercise
as they did in 2001-2002 to get back to the negotiating table. The abrogation
of the CFA has also dented the image of the GOSL. While the international community
understands the compulsions of Colombo, the basic and unanswered question is
that an abrogation of the CFA was not
the only remedy. Now the government's seriousness in finding a negotiated settlement
to the ethnic crisis is not being taken seriously. To disprove this point, GOSL
has hurriedly asked the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) to submit
a long-pending report. The substance of the report, however, is not promising.
Despite taking two full years, the Committee has suggested "full implementation
of 13th Amendment" of the Constitution made to give effect to the Indo-Sri
Lankan Accord of 1987. The process has come back to square one after 20 years,
despite there being numerous problems in implementing this archival solution.
On the one hand, hard-line groups like JVP and JHU will oppose this solution,
and on the other, the LTTE will not accept
what they had opposed in the past. Most importantly, the government does not
posses a clear road map on going ahead. The present move seems eyewash to conceal
its 'war for peace' programme.