Sri Lanka's objections to Kosovo's decision to claim independence from Serbia have been echoed by several other countries, including global giants Russia and China. One reason why Sri Lanka's opinion was put on terms of equality with those of the global giants was the sense of reality on which the Sri Lankan statement was grounded. The Sri Lankan statement came from a bitter experience of prolonged warfare and international intervention, and not from mere theoretical possibilities.

Sri Lanka has already experienced a unilateral declaration of independence. In 1992, the North East Provincial Council headed by Varatharaja Perumal declared independence. But no country took notice of this declaration as the Sri Lankan government dissolved the rebellious administration. On the other hand, about a month ago, the LTTE called on the UN and the international community to recognize the sovereignty of the Tamil nation. Although no such recognition was forthcoming, with a part of Sri Lankan territory still under rebel LTTE control, Sri Lanka is more vulnerable to a unilateral declaration of independence than most other countries.

Countries such as Russia and China, and also Spain and Indonesia, which joined the minority of countries that have objected to Kosovo's declaration of independence also face separatist problems. Spain is acutely sensitive to the demands of Basque and Catalan nationalists for a separate state. Cyprus is alarmed at any move that could imply that the breakaway Turkish Cypriot part of the island, which is not internationally recognized, could win diplomatic legitimacy. Chechan rebels in Russia, on the other hand, welcomed the declaration of independence by Kosovo and held out the hope of the same for themselves.

Oppressive solutions

The violence inflicted on the rebel populations within some of those countries has been worse than in Sri Lanka. The Russian campaign against separatism by Chechnya led to the literal flattening of its capital, Grozny. In China, the Tibetan problem continues to fester, with Lhasa being settled by ethnic Chinese, and the Dalai Lama remaining a symbol of resistance to the world. In both these countries, the central government has imposed its will without any compromise with the aspirations for autonomy of its separatist minorities.

Despite its relatively better track record of observing human rights and respecting minorities in general, Sri Lanka remains more vulnerable to a possible break up of the country than either Russia or China. Apart from the fact that the LTTE continues to be in control over a part of the country, another reason is that Sri Lanka is a relatively small and poor country with much less resources to fend off a separatist challenge to its sovereignty. By way of contrast, both Russia and China have huge militaries and economies that no country would wish to confront.

The lesson from Serbia is that a country that lacks both military and economic clout to put fear into the rest of the world, needs at least to retain international goodwill to escape being divided. Initially, Serbia had the advantage, as the Western countries led by the United States were not in favour of Kosovo becoming a separate state. In fact the United States was particularly opposed to the Kosovo Liberation Army which it had even banned as a terrorist organisation. But there were two important considerations the Serbian government failed to bear in mind.

Serbia failed to demonstrate progress with regard to the restoration of autonomy to Kosovo that the far sighted Yugoslav leader President Tito had formulated, but which was taken away following his death. Constitutional reforms in 1974 that gave education, health and housing to the autonomous regions and provinces had also given Kosovo self-government in many areas of social life including police and the judiciary. The Serbian government under President Milosevic tried to keep Kosovo by centralising political power in the aftermath of the break up of Yugoslavia, withdrawing the autonomy it had, and by stationing its military in Kosovo.

Second, during its struggle to keep Kosovo within its sovereign power, Serbia failed to convince the international community that the government was serious about protecting human rights in all circumstances, even in the midst of civil war. Instead there were repeated demonstrations of civilian massacres and ethnic cleansing. The war that the Serbian government declared against the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army turned into a nationalist campaign to chase off entire village communities and change the ethnic balance in parts of Kosovo.

Retaining support

At the present time the Sri Lankan government is giving its primary emphasis on using its military power to defeat the LTTE and to re-taking the territory under rebel control. The advance has been slower than anticipated and at heavy human and economic cost. Abductions and killings have terrorised the Tamil community. There has also been large scale displacement of people in the course of military operations. The premature departure of the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons who came to Sri Lanka to ensure that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Human Rights Violations would conduct their inquiry in accordance with international standards is a further blow to the government's human rights record.

The lesson from Serbia however is that gaining control over the ground is no guarantee of sovereignty. The more powerful Serbian army was able to go into Kosovo and retake territory, but when the cry of human rights abuses grew too much, the Western powers intervened to halt the progress of the Serb forces and eventually expelled them from Kosovo.

The recognition of Kosovo’s independence by many countries stems from the existence of other important principles of international law besides sovereignty; including those of self-determination, humanitarian intervention and the pragmatic one of ensuring stability in the region. This is the reason why the protection of human rights and the proposal of a just political solution need to be the two key elements in the government's strategy to protect the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, rather than a one dimensional assertion of sovereignty and reliance on military victory over the LTTE.

As stated by constitutional scholar Rohan Edrisinha in a recent interview with the Daily Mirror, "when a constitutional democracy has to combat terrorism or internal rebellion it has to do so subjected to certain civilized norms and restraints that have been placed on themselves by the virtue that they are an accountable, responsible state. It is not in line to say that we can resort to any mechanism to protect our territorial integrity. You have to even prosecute a war in accordance with certain basic humanitarian norms." If the government gets involved in a military option which results in ethnic cleansing or changing of the demographic balance, and if this is coupled with an absence of any serious attempt at a political solution then there is a danger that Sri Lanka could lose the moral goodwill that is needed to retain the support of the international community. In this context it is worth noting that the Sri Lankan government statement on Kosovo's unilateral declaration of Independence also included the observation that it was "particularly regrettable, since all efforts at reaching a negotiated political settlement on the future status of Kosovo, as envisaged by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have not been exhausted." In making this statement the government showed the path that needs to be followed if the international community's support for Sri Lanka's unity is to be assured. The theory must now be practiced.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed