By Durand Appuhamy
Internal self-determination (ISD) came into our vocabulary via Wanni. Many have accepted it as a way out of the terrorist war in the north without any examination of what it really means in de facto political terms.

Long ago, comrade V. I. Lenin (in his Right of Nations to Self-determination) came to the "conclusion that self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies and the formation of an independent national state". He further emphasized that "it would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state". Any other interpretation of self-determination by various "spin doctors" would be mere meaningless semantics, and an attempt at deception of the people. As pointed out by many commentators in The Island, many a provision in the UN Charter does not admit the right to self determination by minorities that would fragment and bifurcate an already existing member state of the UN.

External self-determination is usually applied to a situation where a group of people who considering themselves to be a duly constituted nation had won their independence by military means. The LTTE has over the last twenty years sought external self-determination by fighting a terrorist war. It has failed. Why fight, if the same objective could be attained by deceiving our moronic Sinhala politicians by a mere substitution of words — INTERNAL to external?

If the whole of Canada were to decide at a Referendum to allow the State of Quebec to secede from the Canadian Federation, then it might also be termed an external self-determination. The same might be said if the whole of United Kingdom voted to allow Scotland to exist as a separate country. In this case external self-determination can be construed as the endowment of the right to exist as a separate nation to a minority by the majority of the citizens of the nation concerned prior to the countrywide Referendum. The LTTE knows such a situation has not arisen anywhere in the world, and is unlikely to happen in Sri Lanka. This, perhaps, is the reason for inventing ISD. So what does INTERNAL self-determination really means?

Mr. Balasingam did provide a sort of explanation. "By self-determination, we mean the right of our people to decide their own political destiny. It can also mean/apply to autonomy and self government. If autonomy and self-government is given to our people, then also we can say that internal self-determination is to some extent met. So self-determination entails autonomy and self- government. In the extreme case, in the last resort, it means secession" (April 10th Wanni News Conference).

On the face of it, as an independent eelam would be an extreme case, it appears that the LTTE, via Mr. Balasingam would be happy to settle for an autonomous state. It was probably on this basis that the British/Sri Lankan Euro MP, Mr. Nerj Deva recommended for consideration the current devolution of powers to Scotland. If the LTTE are genuine then there is scope for adoption of that model with suitable modifications. Nevertheless, there are certain facts about the British devolution that are conspicuously significant. There is only one Prime Minister in Britain. There is only one Royal Air force, one Royal Navy and one British army. The Scottish Police force is under the control of the Scottish Assembly Minister of Home Affairs. Yet the Police force itself owes allegiance to the Crown. It is politically accountable to the Scottish Assembly through the Minister and civilly accountable in the Courts of law. This is not the case with the LTTE police force; it owes allegiance to one man, it enforces the law promulgated by him, it is also a fighting force of eelam. It is not subject to any democratic control. It is not accountable to the citizens. Above all, in Britain, the Parliament at Westminster is the supreme body, the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people. Some local constitutional pundits might consider this to be obsolete, but the British did not think so. They deliberately did not create a Federal system, when devolved powers were given to Scotland. The current parliament has the power to undo everything the previous parliaments have done with a simple majority. If the LTTE are willing to accept devolution under these conditions, then it is possible that they have changed their minds on a separatist eelam. But have they?

Another important aspect of the Scottish Assembly is that democratic open and fair election is held to select the members. They represent various political parties. It is not a case of one man rule and one party election as in the case of LTTE in the northeast. The Scottish National Party is at the moment a minority in the Assembly. They have sworn to hold a Referendum for secession if and when they control the Assembly. This is another version of INTERNAL self-determination. It is my opinion that Mr. Balasingam is pursuing this easy path to Eelam.

In an interview to the Tamil Guardian (The island 6th June), Mr. Balasingam explained at length what was meant by core issues to the LTTE. There he changed his tunes from internal self-determination to "Tamil homeland and right to national self-determination". The Tamil homeland for him "was an objective existential reality grounded on the material history of Tamil speaking people who have lived and toiled for centuries in a district, contiguous territory of the northeast over which they have an inalienable right to ownership". He asserted the right to both internal and external aspects of self-determination. Again he reiterated the determination to realize eelam "by struggling for secession, political independence and statehood" if the LTTE is denied the conditions necessary in the forthcoming devolution package for it to attain eelam without such a struggle!! He is boldly telling us to provide the LTTE the political ambience, give it all the prerequisites and all the opportunities to one day declare eelam as a separate state. No eelam now, but do give us power over the territory we have specified as our homeland, and all other wherewithal that would constitute a separate state, and we shall, one day, declare it a separate country at our discretion!! How is it that our clever constitutionalists are so stupid not to see through this cunning strategy?

Mr. Balasingam delivered the knockout blow in crisp language too plain not to be understood even by our local political clowns. He said, "we do not think that Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe has the necessary political authority to deal with the core issues as perceived by the Tamils underlying the Tamil national question.

His theory of one nation, one country and one people is the very negation of the core demands of the Tamils for a homeland? national identity, and the right to self-determination". Is this not clear enough that what he wants is two nations, two governments, and two centres of sovereignty?? If the LTTE are unwilling to be part of one nation, one country and one people, then there is no possibility of devolving powers preserving the integrity of the nation and its national boundary. The deception underlying INTERNAL self-determination remains exposed by Mr. Balasingam himself. The business magnates and the clerics who crowd our TV programmes with "one Sri Lanka" slogans are surely braying at the wrong target population. They should turn their attention towards Mr. Balasingam and his LTTE cohorts. It is they who need to be converted to one nation, one country and one people.