Right to live in peace
While the Second World War was raging on, various attempts were made for the establishment of an international peace organisation. The London Declaration (June 1941), The Atlantic Charter (August 1941), Moscow Declaration (October 1943), Teheran Conference (December 1943), Yalta Conference (February 1945), and finally, the San Francisco Conference.
San Francisco Conference on June 25, 1945, managed to form the United Nations Organisation and 51 nations got together and began to discuss on the UNO Charter. And, four months later, the UNO came into official existence.
By that time, two world wars had claimed nearly 100 million lives across the globe. All countries who came together to create the UNO system promised that the organisation was formed “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” By adopting these words as the lynchpin of the U.N. Charter, the member states imagined that long-term peace was possible.
But it was not so. Modern history shows us that their dreams didn’t come through. The adoption of the Charter and the U.N. system did not put an end to wars. Indeed, the resort to military force has become the default method of resolving international disputes.
Charter
Now, 73 years later, it is not too late to rekindle what the original drafters of the Charter dreamed. That requires instilling in the public imagination that national and international peace is possible. And every citizen, in which country he or she lives, has a basic human right to live in peace.
Internationally, peace requires that all countries refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, settle their disputes through continued negotiations, and create conditions necessary to eliminate the causes of conflict.
Nationally, peace requires moving beyond the rhetoric and to make concerted efforts toward achieving enduring peace among their various communities. The citizens and their representatives are expected to explore all the avenues that build, sustain and consolidate peaceful co-existence.
However, both internationally and nationally, right to peace has not been a reality. In the case international wars and disputes, one major reason was that UNO - the only international forum for peacekeeping has failed to live by its stated principles. It continued to serve largely as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.
In the case of national disputes like civil wars, the major reason in most countries was the politicisation of ethnic and religious harmony. As a result, the leaders haven’t understood that societal conflicts are existential threats to a country’s national survival leading to horrific consequences of the loss of peace.
Discrimination
One year ago, in September 2017, UN Resident Coordinator in Colombo, Una McCauley said, “In Sri Lanka, the war is over. Yet many still face discrimination and hate. We still have the opportunity to work together for lasting peace. So much needs to be done to ensure that everyone can participate equally in shaping the way forward for the country. It also means that we must respect each other’s religion, race, culture, values and political beliefs. We need to accept and work with each other’s differences if we are to make any meaningful progress. As long as discrimination, intolerance and inequality are encouraged or ignored, then our efforts are in vain.”
She is right. In any country, the minorities, whether religious or linguistic, expect protection and understanding of the majority. The majority has an ethical responsibility to bring hope to them.
Genuine peace
Likewise, if the Government is keen to bring genuine ethnic peace to Sri Lanka, it must identify the roots of our racial problems and strive, with imagination and determination, to check conflicts in their early stages. Better still, prevent them. It must act in a timely, decisive and courageous manner, knowing that prevention engages the attention only when it fails. Peace and normality do not make the news. But a simple ethnic conflict will make headline news.
Peace, development and democracy form an interactive triangle. They are mutually reinforcing. Without democracy, there is no sustainable development or vice versa. However, without peace, there wouldn’t be democracy or development. We have experienced the theory ourselves during the civil war period.
It is not the peace of silence, of men and women who by choice or constraint remain silent. It is the peace of freedom – and therefore of just laws – of equality and solidarity, in which all citizens live together and share. That is the real peace.
Key goals
Winning genuine peace in a deeply divided society like Sri Lanka is daunting. It is because any peace-seeking effort has to deal with the forces attached to the conflict. To be successful, both parties should have willingness for accommodation and compromise.
Maybe, Tamil Tigers were militarily demolished but the aspirations they shared with the people still have a greater political influence. The political goal of Tamil nationalism may tilt between “political autonomy within a united Sri Lanka” to “federal solution based on the inalienable right to self-determination of the Tamil people.”
On the other hand, the key goal of the Sinhala nationalism is to consolidate unitary state structure. In between the Tamils and the Sinhalese are the Muslims who form their identity based on their faith. Muslim political elites would seek political accommodation that would not radically challenge the aspirations of the Sinhalese.
There is a belief among our political analysts that a good democratic system will liberate masses from the burden of ethnic and religious discrimination. But Sri Lankan experiences suggest that even in a democracy, due to highly complex electoral system and the politicians’ desire to win power at any cost, had helped increase religious and ethnic tensions and hostility among different groups.
Also, Sri Lanka’s experience suggests that the opening-up of political freedom has created destructive religious and ethnic forces that are able to manipulate sensitive emotions for political gain. This has paved the way for social instability in a number of instances.
Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war was not about ethnic, linguistic, and religious differences. The ethnic and religious antagonisms fuelled it, the political miscalculations precipitated it, and the mistrust created between the two communities by the politicians led it to a serious conflict which permeated in to ruthless war.
Sustainable peace
If the rubble of war is to be converted into a sustainable peace, a new constitution is needed that incorporates guarantees of equality, justice, dignity, and pluralism for all. We cannot avoid addressing the core aspirations of Tamil people. We need to think new forms of representation, if necessary, by modifying the composition of parliament.
Neelan Tiruchelvam, who was a leading Sri Lankan constitutional thinker and member of parliament said that one of the major problems with Sri Lanka since 1948, is the definition of the state. Sinhala majoritarian have always assumed a unitary entity. But something other than a unitary state matches the truly plural nature of the contemporary nation.
Jayadeva Uyangoda says, “What is needed, is a futuristic political vision of an ethnically heterogenous political association called the state.” That vision needs to be shared by Sinhala, Tamils, and Muslims, but, he cautions, sharing political power is the “most resisted” approach in Sri Lankan politics.
TNA leader R. Sampanthan puts it across more clearly: He says, “Our expectation for a solution to the ethnic problem is based on a political structure outside that of a unitary government, in a united Sri Lanka in which Tamil people have all the powers of government needed to live with self-respect and self-sufficiency. We believe that only within such a structure of government can the Tamil people truly enjoy the right to internal self-determination that is their inalienable right. We are prepared to offer our cooperation and service to those committed to the achievement of such a solution.”
Eventually a compromise has to come. But it would not be soft. Any solution acceptable to Tamil nationalists will almost certainly be unacceptable to Sinhala nationalists and vice versa. However, if Sri Lanka aspires to have a peaceful co-existence for a long-term economic and social development, both Sinhala and Tamil leaders must sit together and work out a solution. “Compromise” is the keyword for best solution and the resulting sustainable peace.
