What's Being Done On . . . Democracy NGO Participation in Formal Peace Negotiations?

Introduction General Resources Women's Organizations Resources Democratic Republic of Congo: A Short History of the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo Profile of La Ligue des Electeurs Liberia: A Short History of the Conflict in Liberia Profile of the Mano River Women's Peace Network Sri Lanka: A Short History of the Conflict in Sri Lanka An Interview with the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka Chechnya: A Short History of the Conflict in the Chechen Republic An Interview with the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society in Europe

An Interview with the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka
www.peace-srilanka.org

The National Peace Council of Sri Lanka (NPC) is a Colombo-based NGO established in 1995. Since then, the NPC has been working to implement a negotiated solution to the war in Sri Lanka, to create an inclusive movement for peace, and to build an environment hospitable to formal peace negotiations. NPC campaigned for the inclusion of civil society in the peace talks held in Geneva between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2006. In early 2006, NPC took a civil society group to Geneva that included ethnically diverse undergraduate students from the troubled northeast and southern regions of Sri Lanka. According to NPC, its presence in Geneva provided space for a non-partisan voice to emerge in media coverage and in the talks among civil society groups. NPC cites the lack of a bi-partisan approach among political groups, the mal-distribution of economic benefits, and the inadequate representation of civil society groups in negotiations as the main reasons for the stalemate in Sri Lankan peace negotiations. The NPC has requested that the government and LTTE provide space at future peace talks for civil society groups to be observers. It has also issued several media releases stating that civil society participation in peace processes is critical to their success.

We wish to thank Jehan Perera, Executive Director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, for his assistance in answering our questions.

Please tell us briefly about your organization, your work, and the concern about inadequate representation of civil society in Sri Lanka's formal peace negotiations.

NPC's endeavour is to educate the Sri Lankan people about the political roots of the ethnic conflict, and the need for a negotiated solution that incorporates political reform of the state. One reason for the failure of the peace talks between 2002 and 2003 was the limited role that civil society could play. We were not kept fully informed about the content of those talks and the problems that arose at them. Although we were able to meet with members of the negotiating teams separately, albeit infrequently, we could not play any real bridge-building role with them. The parties also showed little or no receptivity to the concerns of civil society. They seemed to have had their own plans and closed their minds to the concerns of civil society, whether they were critiques of human rights violations or the peace process itself.

What was the objective of sending a civil society group to Geneva in 2006 while peace talks between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE were being held?

We had three objectives in mind when we planned this visit. First, because Geneva is a center of international civil society activism, we thought that our presence during the talks would enable us to inform the international community about the issues at stake. We believe that international support is vital for the success of our peace process. We were also concerned that solving the conflict in Sri Lanka was not a high priority for the international community. Therefore, we needed to find every way we could to engage with it. We also coordinated a university student program in which a group of regionally and ethnically diverse students from throughout the country accompanied us to Geneva to gain support from the international community for their local peace-building activities, and to learn about the resources that are available to them through the international NGOs and agencies that operate on behalf of peace, justice, and human rights throughout the world.

Through sessions, discussions, roundtables, and workshops held with various members of the international community, at minimum, the stake that Sri Lankan civil society has in the peace process was conveyed to the international community. Due to our presence in Geneva, the international media was able to interview us as a group of people who were not affiliated with either the government or the LTTE. As a result, civil society's concerns were conveyed indirectly to the two parties before, during, and after the first round of Geneva talks. In statements and articles that were published in the national media before the talks, NPC expressed the people's strong rejection of violence and their desire for both sides to return to the negotiating table. During the talks, the delegation was able to obtain international media exposure through BBC Asia, and convey Sri Lankan civil society's reaction to the progress and outcomes of the talks to a wide audience. After the negotiations were concluded, the delegation continued to attempt to convince the international community and leaders of the significance of the peace process.

Second, we also hoped to build a bridge between the government and LTTE negotiating teams, but this was not possible. We could not meet with them in Geneva, although we had met some of the members of the two negotiating teams separately in Sri Lanka just prior to the Geneva talks.

Third, we intended to draw attention to the fact that civil society needed to be involved in the peace process, and create a precedent for its involvement. To this end, we met with the following members of the international community:

• Lutheran World Federation
• Graduate Institute of International Studies (security experts, former ambassadors, journalists)
• International Service for Human Rights
• UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights
• Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
• Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions
• Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion
• Independent Expert on Minority Rights
• Asia Desk
• Minority Rights Group International
• SwissPeace
• Service Civil International

The response from the international community was overwhelmingly positive. Though organizers on the Sri Lankan side had no prior personal contact with most of the facilitators and representatives of the international community with whom meetings were scheduled, these organizations were more than willing to contribute to the positive outcome of the program upon hearing about the possibility of a Sri Lankan civil society delegation coming to Geneva. International officials went out of their way, taking time out of their busy schedules, to meet with the delegation.

Civil society groups in some parts of the world, such as in Liberia and DRC in Africa, have played very important roles in peace talks that ended civil wars in their countries, and the value of the participation of civil society groups in such talks is beginning to become widely acknowledged. What is hindering such involvement in the Sri Lankan peace talks, and how can those hindrances be overcome?

Before civil society can even think of being involved in peace negotiations, the conflicting parties need to be willing to revive the peace process. At present, neither the government nor the LTTE appears to be committed to resolving the conflict through dialogue alone. Each side is trying to gain a position of strength over the other, both politically and militarily, and they view civil society as a hindrance to their military activities. They also seem to take the position that those who are not with them are against them. This means that nonpartisan civil society groups are seen as biased. The government, which is presently steered by a nationalist coalition, has branded NGOs and pro-peace civil groups as traitors and agents of foreign powers, and the LTTE has suppressed civil society in the areas it dominates.

If NPC and other civil society groups were to participate in the peace talks, how would they impact the discussions leading to a lasting peace in Sri Lanka?

There was much media exposure given to the delegation in Geneva before, during, and after the talks. Some of the media sources that either carried NPC statements or articles, or covered the delegation, include BBC Asia, BBC Sinhala, BBC Tamil, The Daily Mirror, The Daily News, TamilNet, SinhalaNet, The Weekend Standard, The Lanka, and SLBC. Coverage was given by all forms of media - television, radio, print and Internet. (See the Media section on our Web site for examples of coverage). Though the delegation received negative media attention as well as positive, the dialogue that is created through the media is invaluable in its ability to present civil society's voice, presence, and stake in the peace process. In addition, the NPC delegation was, at least to a small degree, able to keep the Sri Lankan leadership and the LTTE indirectly accountable through the media.

Limited access to the peace talks was granted to the delegation with accreditation to attend the opening and closing press conferences at the peace talks venue. Though more access to the talks or the ability to question the delegates would have been more beneficial, the delegations' presence at the press conferences itself was significant. First, it showed civil society's determination to become a partner in the peace process, and it triggered additional media coverage, as more journalists learned of the delegation's presence and activity in Geneva. Overall, the first round of talks resulted in a positive outcome: the Government and LTTE reaffirmed their commitment to the Ceasefire Agreement, and both sides agreed to cease incidents of violence and to meet again in April. Though it is impossible to tell how much pressure either side felt from civil society, it is safe to say that civil society in Sri Lanka and abroad played a role in bringing the sides back to the negotiating table and pushing them towards a positive outcome in the first round of talks.

If we had a place at future talks, we would insist that the interests of civilians be given priority. This would include the protection of human rights; ensuring that there are no more assassinations, abductions, or child recruitments; and that those who are displaced are immediately resettled, with maximum resources being devoted to those tasks. We would also attempt to identify the underlying motives of each party, and try to facilitate understanding between them. As people from the same society, we think we can understand emotions and psychological factors better than the foreign facilitators can, and so we can play a better bridge-building role.

Has NPC employed collaborative strategies with other Sri Lankan civil society groups to provide input into the peace talks? How might a concerted effort of Sri Lankan NGOs calling for civil society representation at the peace talks facilitate their involvement in the peace process?

Civil society groups have organized several forums for joint action. NPC has jointly issued several statements on matters of national interest along with other civil society groups. We have also jointly organized public forums, which have enabled us to address issues in a public manner. However, until both the government and LTTE decide that they are serious about making the effort to reengage with one another in a process of political dialogue, they will not heed our arguments and appeals.

To what extent have democratic values and principles, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, and government accountability and transparency, informed the peace talks in Sri Lanka? How could NPC and other civil society groups raise these principles if they were to participate in the talks?

The peace talks of 2002-2003 were characterized by top-down decision making by the government and LTTE, little or no consultation with other stakeholders, a narrow focus on sustaining the ceasefire at any price, and a disregard for human rights. The LTTE has exploited the fact that it was viewed as the representative of all Tamils at the talks by eliminating its Tamil opposition and forcibly collecting taxes from the people. In their desire to placate the LTTE and prevent it from going back to war, the government and Norwegian facilitators turned a blind eye to these abuses. It is widely accepted that one of the main weaknesses of the failed peace process of 2002-2003 was the lack of emphasis given to the protection of human rights by both the government and LTTE. Civil society groups also found fault with the Norwegian facilitators for not emphasizing this issue. If civil society were to participate in the peace process, it would have greater legitimacy than the Norwegians in raising these issues and proposing mechanisms to deal with them.

Thank you very much for your time and sharing your insights with us.