The pipe dream of Tiger statehood

If the LTTE thought of creating shockwaves by its letter to the UN Secretary General earlier this week making its case for recognition of the Tamil sovereignty it appears to have misread the situation facing the so-called liberators of the Sri Lankan Tamils today.

Sending the letter the day after the reported killing of 12 school children in the Madhu area, and using that incident as the peg to hang the request on, gave some justification to suspicions that this tragic incident may have been masterminded by the LTTE as a huge propaganda ploy in the face of the pressures it is now facing militarily in Sri Lanka, and with the overall body of international opinion.

That the LTTE would use the 60th anniversary of Independence for a propaganda stunt was always on the cards.

There were some who believed that they may try to grab the limelight on this day with the high drama of a huge act of terror or make a unilateral declaration of independence, proclaiming a state of Eelam, on historic Sri Lankan territory.

While another act of savagery to mar the public mood on this significant day and draw world attention to the prevailing crisis in Sri Lanka is still not ruled out, it appears the LTTE has moved to a softer option with regard to its putative state of Eelam.

Interestingly, on the same day as the current Head of the LTTE Political Wing, B. Nadesan, wrote to the UN Secretary General making what the pretenders to sole representation of the Tamils believed was the case for Tamil sovereignty, there was a piece in the Washington Times by a regular columnist Bruce Fein, who is a leading figure of the Lichfield Group, a private think-tank that provides one stop shopping for both governments and private businesses in developing policy and public advocacy strategies, fashioning implementation plans, and execution of the strategic plans; has close relations with several arms of the US Administration and the Houses of Congress as well as UN Organisations and the European Union, on matters ranging from private sector investment, Human Rights and Religious Freedom, constitutional affairs and legal codes.

This shows that although the LTTE’s appeal to the Secretary General Ban Ki Moon appeared to have been spurred by the killing of the school children at Madhu, it has been a well planned missive that has been a long time in the making, with prior consultation with this think-tank whose consultants move freely in the corridors of power at Washington.

Bruce Fien’s (or the Lichfield Group’s) article titled “Tamil statehood?” is a tendentious piece of writing, replete with many false statements about the actual state of events in Sri Lanka.

And a crude misrepresentation of contemporary history that is hardly expected from a prominent consultant, who is a Harvard scholar in law, was a close advisor to President Ronald Reagan and is known to lecture to foreign dignitaries visiting the US on matters of international affairs and Foreign Relations of the US.

In his article he has used his reported expertise on the US Constitution to make the case for Tamil statehood, by apparently drawing from the American Constitution.

He begins the piece of misinformation thus: “Applying the “self-evident” truths celebrated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States should recognise the right of Sri Lanka’s long oppressed Tamil people to independent statehood from the racial supremacist Sinhalese.”

And follows it with a series of misrepresentations and gross untruths about the situation in Sri Lanka, both present an past, that can only come from a person who has swallowed the calculating propaganda of the LTTE hook, line and sinker, unless he is singing for part of his supper, having been retrained by the LTTE and its friends in the Tamil Diaspora for the purpose.

One will no doubt see more of such experts and think-tanks taking up the case of the LTTE as its problems with the Security Forces in Sri Lanka and international, opinion increase.

Responding to the tune of his piper hiding in the Vanni, Bruce Fein states that “To deny the statehood right - sought by the Tamil people since 1976 - would mark one of the United States’ most ill-conceived hours. Double standards beget enmity or contempt, a steep price even for a superpower.”

And adds that: “To borrow from the Declaration, let facts be submitted to a candid world.” In the event what he presents as facts is a whole list of inaccuracies, but what is most interesting is that he devote most of his piece on the fortunes or otherwise of “Tamil Jayantha Gnanakone, whose story speaks for all Tamils.” This gives at least one clue as to how the Lichfield Group has been motivated to promote the cause of the LTTE.

Abraham Lincoln

Those who claim the authority of the American Declaration of Independence or the clauses of the US Constitution to promote the private agenda of secessionists is nothing new.

This matter was dealt with to good effect by Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington, the senior diplomat Bernard Goonetilleke, when he made an important address in Washington on January 25 on the developments that led to the abrogation of the CFA and the situation since then.

A key observation Ambassador Goonetilleke made was that: “There are certain individuals, who try to draw parallels between the LTTE demands with the American demand for independence from Britain. However, in my view, the more appropriate comparison is to describe the LTTE to the secessionist Confederates, who tried to break away from the Union.

As President Abraham Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861, ‘Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy.’ Likewise, ‘Physically speaking, we cannot separate.

We cannot remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them’, the Sri Lankan government too, being a representative entity like the Union, finds secession wholly unacceptable, and seeks friendship of all its citizens, and genuine peace, as President Lincoln did, where all citizens in the country can co-exist as equals in harmony, as they did for many centuries.”

In his address Ambassador Goonetilleke expressed the sincere appreciation of the Sri Lankan Government to the international community for the clear and strong position it had taken with regard to the LTTE and its terrorism, in its campaign to achieve its secessionist goal of Tamil statehood in Eelam. He said:

“The ban on the LTTE, first by India, the U.S., the U.K., followed by Canada and the 27 member EU, has helped dampen the Tigers’ increasing ability to raise funds for their war chest.

The U.S. ban on one of the LTTE front organisations, the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) in November 2007, was a significant blow to the Tiger fundraising capabilities.” Speaking further, he said; “The international community also needs to persuade the LTTE to return to the negotiating table, and to hang in there until a satisfactory compromise is reached.

Only such action will drive home the message that undemocratic methods of seizing power as the Tigers currently employ, are unacceptable to the civilised world.”

Giving a precise analysis of the events that led to the abrogation of the CFA with the LTTE, unlike the flawed and distorted history given by the US lobbyist Bruce Fein, Mr. Goonetilleke, referring to the continued demands on the government to seek a negotiated settlement with the LTTE, said: “Against this backdrop, the question we ask from those who urge the government to seek a negotiated settlement is, are they asking us to negotiate with the LTTE once again? If the LTTE demand for a separate state is non-negotiable, what exactly are we going to negotiate with them?

There are more questions. How can a democratically elected government hand over a part of its sovereign territory to an undemocratic entity like the LTTE, which engages in terrorism? What is the fate of the Muslim and Sinhala people, living in the areas claimed by the LTTE, as the traditional homeland of the Tamils?

“Finally, we have to ask, who would guarantee that this time around, the LTTE will not walk away from the negotiating table. Some may even ask, if the players were different, for example, would the US negotiate with a terrorist group, which has used suicide bombers to assassinate one president, nearly killed another president, and assassinated several secretaries, including the Secretary of State?”

Would that mean there are more ambassadors of Sri Lanka who can be as studied and forthright in responding to the propaganda of the LTTE, that is put out by think-tanks, lobbyists and other pressure groups, mainly in the West.

Shocks in India

It appears that the Sethusamudram Project to dredge the Adam’s Bridge area of the Palk Strait for a shipping canal is to be relegated to limbo by the Indian Government. One reason for this is the observation by the head of the Indian Coastguard that Sethusamudram would be a security risk for India.

No doubt the activities of the LTTE in both Sri Lankan and Indian waters would have had a considerable contribution to making this assessment.

The Indian Government has now decided to put the project on hold until archaeological excavations of Adam’s Bridge are completed, in view of the huge furore the project has caused with issues involving Hindu divinity, especially the reverence to Rama and Hanuman by a large proportion of the Hindus of India.

The problems that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi had over his support of the Sethusamudram Project may have been eased as a result of this decision, but he now has other problems with regard to his well-known soft-corner, if not open admiration, of the LTTE.

The public expressions of support for the LTTE by some of his political allies has now led to a motion in the Tamil Nadu State Assembly that led to strong criticism of the Chief Minister and the TN Administration of being soft on those who broke the law that prohibits expressions of support for banned organisations, the case in point being the LTTE.

The issue of support for the LTTE was obviously much more politically charged than Karunanidhi had expected when then Congress Party, a key ally of the ruling DMK, staged a walk-out from the Assembly in protest at the failure to act against those who spoke in public in support of the LTTE.

The Chief Minister was compelled to state that he will consult legal opinion and, if necessary, introduce special legislation to bring to book those who made a public show of support for banned organisations.

The very next day, after consultation with legal experts, Karunanidhi announced that there was no need for new law, but action would be taken under existing legislation against those who supported such organisations within Tamil Nadu.

Whatever Bruce Fein may say in the USA, closer to home in India, the issue of the LTTE’s terrorism, both past and present, is causing serious problems for it.

As observers of Indian affairs see it, with India moving towards an election next year, if not earlier, the desire of political parties to show that they have no links with the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi will grow even stronger, as well as the opposition to secessionist moves in Sri Lanka that can have their own reverberations in India.

The problems faced by Karunanidhi today must certainly impact the LTTE and its strategies, and it is unlikely that lobbyists such as Bruce Fein or any other US think-tanks will be able to sway opinion in favour of the terrorist organisation in a situation of upcoming elections for the US Presidency and the Indian Lok Sabha.