POLITICS: Sri Lanka, Israel Must Share Power with Minorities – Professor

By Amantha Perera Reprint | | Print |

Amantha Perera

BERKELEY, United States, Feb 17 2004 (IPS) - Bloody conflicts in Israel and Sri Lanka could be brought to an end if the countries adopted new, federal constitutions allowing extensive and genuine power sharing, according to a prominent Israeli academic here.

”There should be equality of citizenship and autonomy to the minority,” said Oren Yiftachel, a Ben Gurion University geographer and U.S. Institute of Peace fellow who also teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Yiftachel spoke with IPS as Sri Lanka plunged into political uncertainty. President Chandrika Kumaratunga, a political rival of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, dissolved parliament on Feb. 7 and set new parliamentary elections for Apr. 2. In January, the party she heads entered into an alliance with the Marxist People’s Liberation Front, which opposes federalism.

Peace talks between the government of Wickremesinghe and the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have stalled since April 2003. Tiger leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has expressed willingness to agree on a federal set-up with extensive power sharing.

Yiftachel said he saw many similarities between the conflicts in the South Asian island state and in Israel. Both are influenced by history and religion and this was amplified following the end of British colonial rule in 1948. The situation of the Bedouin in Israel is similar to that of Tamils of Indian origin in Sri Lanka, he added.

He described both groups as ”a minority within a minority.”

Governments in both countries opted to settle the majority community in minority-dominated areas in an effort to change the ethnic balance. In Israel, these were the new Jewish settlements while in Sri Lanka majority Sinhalese were given land in villages bordering Tamil areas in the north-east.

After independence, Israeli and Sri Lankan politics were ideological but became increasingly ethnic beginning in the mid-1950s. The trend ultimately resulted in ”the tyranny of the majority,” on the one hand and terrorism, including suicide bombings, on the other hand, Yiftachel said.

Today, both conflicts are influenced by large diasporas spread across the world. And the economic consequences of the violence have been devastating: In 2001, the Sri Lankan and Israeli economies shrunk.

However, Yiftachel said he saw two major differences. First, the United States and India have played different roles in the conflicts. Despite Washington’s comparatively conspicuous role in the current phase of peace negotiations, its influence over Israel is limited. By contrast, New Delhi is a regional power with a stake in the Sri Lankan conflict so Colombo constantly must take stock of its neighbor to the north.

”I hope Israel learns that all the years of oppression (in Sri Lanka) have not led to anything. Nobody can win the war,” Yiftachel said. Minority communities’ sense of alienation will remain accentuated as long as power remains centralized, he added.

”There is a growing illegitimacy of the democratic system,” he said, adding that the minority communities in both countries were losing faith in elections.

While efforts to reach peaceful settlements have been stalled in both countries, the Tamil Tigers recently launched a campaign to get more funding for reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in areas under its control in northern Sri Lanka.

Despite a boycott by the Tigers, donors pledged 4.5 billion U.S. dollars to Sri Lanka at a conference in Tokyo in June 2003. Most of the funds, however, are tied to progress at the negotiations, from which the Tigers withdrew.

In November, Kumaratunga fired three ministers in Wickremasinghe’s cabinet including the defence minister and took over their portfolios, exacerbating political uncertainty.

The political head of the Tigers, S P Thamilchelvan told media before going on a seven-nation European tour that he would press for fund disbursement despite the political impasse in the South. ”Our people are losing faith in the peace process,” he said.

Some observers believe that despite the lack of success at the negotiations, the Tigers have been consolidating their power.

”The LTTE is making the maximum use of the situation,” said Rohan Gunaratna of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore. The power struggle between Kumaratunga and Wickremasinghe had diluted responsibility over peace negotiations, he added.

However, the chances of the Tigers obtaining portions of donor pledges on their own appeared slim even before Kumaratunga called snap elections. Sources with detailed knowledge of donor commitments said that loans must be repaid by the Colombo government and without its agreement no funds would be disbursed. More likely, funds will be slashed or temporarily withheld until the uncertainty clears.

The World Bank is scheduled to approve funds for 2004 in March and June and has said that funding would be based on the implementation of decisions made at the negotiations.

”The Bank team is currently reviewing the lending pipeline and there are likely to be some modifications because of the current impasse,” said a source at the lending agency.

Much is at stake. At the height of the peace talks, World Bank commitments to Sri Lanka increased more than threefold to 232.7 million dollars between 2002 and 2003, easing pressure on the economy.