At a school that houses virtually no natives of Sri Lanka, a collection of approximately 100 students, professors and others gathered yesterday to hear a Sri Lankan diplomat, parliament member and a professor discuss the civil war that is currently plaguing the nation.
The diplomat was Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United States Bernard Goonetilleke, the parliamentarian was Sri Lankan Parliament Member Gajendrakumar Gangaser Ponnambalam, and the professor was Fletcher School Professor of International Politics Eileen F. Babbitt.
The panel took place in Cabot Auditorium yesterday just after 3 p.m., and it focused on the conflict between the militant Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and the Sri Lankan government.
Sri Lanka has suffered an ongoing conflict since 1983 between the government, which is mostly composed of the majority Sinhalese ethnic group, and the LTTE, which claims to represent the minority Tamil ethnic group and aims to create an independent Tamil Eelam state in the island's northeast region.
In 2002, the government and LTTE negotiated a ceasefire under Norwegian supervision, but that peace is becoming increasingly strained as attacks on the island have increased.
The panel was certainly balanced: As an ambassador, Goonetilleke represented a government point of view. Ponnambalam, in contrast, is a Tamil MP and the son of Gajen Ponnambalam, a prominent Tamil politician who was murdered six years ago in a controversy which has yet to be solved.
Fletcher Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy Adil Najam moderated the panel and introduced each speaker.
He said that as a boy growing up in Southeast Asia, he had high hopes that Sri Lanka would be able to reach peace after other nations in the region had not.
"People like me grew up looking at Sri Lanka as the case that would buck the trend," Najam said. He continues to hope that peace can be reached in the region.
Najam then gave the floor to Goonetilleke, who introduced himself before reading directly from an address he had prepared for the occasion.
Gooenetilleke began by discussing varying definitions of the word "terrorist," and commenting on how the Sri Lankan Government justifies the fact that it negotiates with a terrorist group.
"Often terrorist groups argue that resorting to such acts of terror is permissible in their quest for self-determination," he read. "Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks ... there appears to have developed an unwritten convention that governments must not negotiate with terrorists."
He explained that the Sri Lankan government went against this norm by signing the ceasefire with the LTTE in February, 2002.
This decision was the result of "the consistent belief of successive Sri Lankan governments that there was a need to address the real and legitimate grievances of the Tamil people," he read. In addition, the government realized that "resorting to military means was not a feasible option."
Goonetilleke also discussed the challenges facing the Sri Lankan government in negotiating with militant minority groups. These challenges include the danger that the militant group will use peace negotiations as a ploy while planning future violence and the potential lack of commitment to a permanent political compromise on the part of the militant group.
After Goonetilleke concluded, Ponnambalam began his speech, which was consistent with the perspective of the LTTE.
He focused on the past inability of the Sri Lankan government to transform its political structure to become more amenable to effective peace negotiations.
Ponnambalam believes that such a transformation should consist of power sharing within the government, and that it could only happen under external military pressure.
"The only time the Sri Lankan state seriously took on ... the process of devolution - not even power sharing - was when ... there was a danger of India ... invading Sri Lanka," Ponnambalam said.
He concluded that the international community should show the Sri Lankan government that it needs to become more receptive to negotiations with the LTEE, a group whose 50-year struggle for self-determination "has the sanction of international law."
Babbit followed the Sri Lankan dignitaries, delivering a shorter speech. She began by explaining her relevance to the panel.
"I am not an expert on Sri Lanka," she said. "[But] I have done work in many other parts of the world that I believe have similar elements."
Such globally common elements, she explained, include the existence of protracted civil wars between majority and minority populations, the presence of factional groups on each side, and the belief held by each side that its adversary does not truly want to negotiate.
"Each of these groups feels victimized," she said. "Each side blames the other for not living up to its responsibilities because of past or current agreements."
Usually, according to Babbit, the majority seeks to maintain existing national boundaries, while the minority seeks self-determination.
The "presence of a third party ... is key," she said. Otherwise, there is "no sense that either can extend their hand to the other with a degree of optimism."
She thinks that Norway, which is currently facilitating negotiations between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government, is potentially an effective facilitator because of its neutrality, sufficient resources, and credibility.
Babbit ended her talk by recommending that instead of debating who is right or wrong in the Sri Lankan conflict, those involved should examine "how the [negotiating] process going forward might be constructed."
An audience question and answer session followed the panel. Najam encouraged the audience to focus its questions on ways to "enlarge the ... probability ... of processes that can lead us toward resolution."
The event was sponsored by eight offices and student organizations including the Provost's Office and the Tufts Center for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies.
"My congratulations to all the students who have done a tremendous amount of work in putting this together," Najam said.
