"The claim that the human rights of Tamils cannot be ensured under Colombo’s rule goes against the facts on the ground, considering the presence of more Sri Lankan Tamils in Colombo and the South than in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, with even lower numbers within the LTTE controlled areas. The IC appears to accept the claims of the LTTE at face value without question. Wresting control of territory from the LTTE is the most promising strategy to ensure the human rights not only of the Tamils but also of the other communities as well..."

In an article titled "Can Human Rights Monitoring Halt Abuses in Sri Lanka?" co-authors, Philip Alston and William Abresch advocate the need for an International Monitoring Mission that would expose and halt abuses, and by doing so protect the population and create the conditions for a sustainable peace. They also state that one of its authors reported to the General Assembly (UN Doc. A/61/311, September 5, 2006) that "the conflict between the Government and the LTTE is ultimately about a struggle for legitimacy, not territory" (The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summer, 2007, Vol 31:2, p. 30). To state that the conflict is about legitimacy and not territory reveals a misunderstanding as well as a misrepresentation of the facts. This is evident from a statement in the article itself that "One proponent of armed struggle by Tamils suggested that territory matters more than human rights" (Ibid, p.30).

It is clear that despite years of the International Community’s (IC) engagement with the Sri Lankan conflict they have failed to realize that the conflict is all about territory. The principle argument of the LTTE and the Tamil community is that their rights "cannot be ensured under Colombo’s rule" and that as long as this belief remains, every means would be exploited by them to gain territory in order to be free of Colombo’s rule. Consequently, Human Right (HR) abuses are the fallout from attempts to gain territory on the part of the LTTE, and for the purpose of securing territory on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL).

In this background, a Human Rights Monitoring Mission would only be monitoring HR abuses. However expansive their terms of reference as well as their competence are beyond current arrangements, such a Mission would in the end amount to an exercise in assigning blame with a greater degree of accuracy than has been done in the past. For instance, in the case of the 17 Aid workers of Action Contre la Faim cited in the referenced article, the SLMM ruled that the Security Forces were behind the Act, when in fact, later evidence revealed that since 7 of the 8 bullets were of a kind used by the LTTE, it was most likely that the LTTE and not the Security Forces who committed the act. Monitoring HR abuses thus becomes an exercise in documentation, with little or no action being possible against non-state actors such as the LTTE. The inability of the IC get the LTTE to desist from engaging child soldiers despite efforts over several years, is also testimony to its lack of influence.

The claim that the human rights of Tamils cannot be ensured under Colombo’s rule goes against the facts on the ground, considering the presence of more Sri Lankan Tamils in Colombo and the South than in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, with even lower numbers within the LTTE controlled areas. The IC appears to accept the claims of the LTTE at face value without question. Wresting control of territory from the LTTE is the most promising strategy to ensure the human rights not only of the Tamils but also of the other communities as well. This is evident in the case of the newly liberated Eastern Province. With the GOSL taking action to disarm the Karuna faction as was done with other paramilitaries under the CFA, as well as ensuring that they release child soldiers, if any, in their charge, the HR situation in the Eastern Province could be greatly improved. This would vindicate the steps taken by the GOSL to liberate the Eastern Province.

The developments in the Eastern Province and the presence of the majority of Sri Lankan Tamils in Colombo and the South demonstrate that human rights of the Tamils can indeed be ensured under Colombo’s rule. However, extending such assurances throughout the country requires the Tamil community to eschew a territorial approach to secure their perceived rights, and to pursue an approach that is inclusive and integrative so that "Colombo’s rule" is one where all communities are involved in the processes of governance. In this regard, advocacy for a federal solution by the IC that has at its core ethnically based territory, is an obstacle to the resolution of Sri Lanka’s national question. The IC should instead, use its influence with members of the Tamil diaspora to explore arrangements of power sharing at the Center, with decentralization to the Districts in the recognition that the pursuit of territory, militarily or otherwise, is a no-brainer. This would be a far more effective way for the IC to bring peace to Sri Lanka and to halt HR abuses.

The original concept of federalism with a combined Northern and Eastern Province as a federal unit is moribund. Instead, federalism under the present facts on the ground would result in 9 federal units if the unit is the Province and 25 federal units if it is the District. Whether the federal units are as large as in the US and India, or as small as in Switzerland, the stated attraction that federal units enable self rule does not work in practice because of the lack of financial resources to implement the grand schemes conceived. Consequently, federal units end up administering the policies developed by the Center.

This is increasingly the case in most federally constituted states. In the case of the much promoted "Indian model", for example, the National Policy on Education (NPE) is developed by the Center. The task of implementing the policies is the responsibility of the States with the Center monitoring the implementation of the policies. Under such a set up, the States become implementing agencies with the bulk of the funds provided by the Center, and allocated on criteria developed according to the priorities of the center, and not according to those of the States. If this is how federalism works in practice, what is its attraction for those seeking self rule?

In view of these ground realities, it would be more important to the future welfare of communities in any country to be part of the decision making processes that establish policy. This is particularly so in the case of countries undergoing conflict, because the genesis of such conflicts has been in the inability to be part of the policy determining processes that affect a particular community. Since arrangements at the Center where policy is determined have a greater impact on the lives of communities and groups than regional power, opportunities to participate at the Center and arrangements that facilitate such participation are in the end what matter most.

The present arrangements at the Center in Sri Lanka are such that political parties represented in Parliament are founded on ethnic lines in addition to ideological divisions, thus creating an unmanageable diversity. Since ruling parties are often coalitions of small ethnically based parties with one of the major parties, the SLFP or the UNP, there is hardly a likelihood of a non Sinhalese becoming a Prime Minister or a President. On the other hand, if as in the US and UK, the party structure is not ethnically based, and all groups whatever their divisions belong to one of the two parties (Republican & Democrat and Labour & Conservative), it becomes possible for members of minority groups to become Presidents and Prime Ministers. This could not happen in Sri Lanka under the present structure.

In the Westminster model that currently exists, Parliament functions with a ruling party governing the country while the Opposition waits in the wings to gain power. Consequently, the interests of a significant portion of the electorate are not expressed and when expressed it is in the form of "opposing" whatever the ruling party "proposes". On the other hand, if as in the United States, all members of Parliament are constituted into standing Committees to formulate and review Legislation and oversee Executive action, the entire Parliament would be involved in the legislative process and also overlook Executive action. This would serve the interests of the People far better than what prevails today.

The Committees could be divided to cover all the subject areas of the Cabinet. Each Committee could be assigned several ministries in view of the multiplicity of the current Cabinet. The composition of the Committees could follow current practices or based on an improved format. Such an arrangement would give opportunities for all elected representatives to participate in the processes of governance and for modifying prospective legislation in a way to mitigate negative effects on their interest groups. Safeguards should be built in to prevent majoritarian excesses as well as effects from the tyranny of minorities.

As long as the current electoral system prevails one has to expect the ruling party to be made up of coalitions with a plethora of small parties some of whom are not even elected. The cost of keeping this flock together is a vastly expanded Cabinet. This unfortunately is the reality. The only way to get out of this debacle is to have a Cabinet made up individuals outside the Parliament as is the practice in the United States. Such an arrangement would enable the size of the Cabinet to be contained free of coalition pressures. Since the Committees of the Parliament would have oversight powers over Executive action, and the actions of the Cabinet members would be subject to review by Parliament, it would provide the necessary checks and balances. This arrangement would make Executive action more transparent than it is today. Furthermore, the review process would deter corruption. The ability to create a Cabinet without the current constraints would enable the Executive Branch to be inclusive of interests and communities, thus fostering a national conscience.

Another critical structure should be a National Planning Council. If such a body is structured in a manner for major interest groups to participate in determining future development strategies as members of the Council with specialist sub-groups acting as Consultants, the country would be institutionalizing the whole development process without personalizing it. Thus the major interest groups would be active participants in the development of the country.