Reflections on the Colombo Workshop

The workshop discussions in Colombo on 25–28 February 2004 offered a valuable opportunity to learn about the national reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. Of particular interest was information on the developments that have occurred since the ceasefire agreement was signed by the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in February 2001. The situation in Burma is more complicated due to the lack of democratic space and freedom needed to resolve the conflict. While there may be some limiting factors in Sri Lanka, there are also a number of elements that are conducive to conflict resolution, including the regular holding of fair and open elections and the presence of a strong civil society. Above all, there exists a readiness on both sides, Tamil and Sinhalese, to engage in dialogue.

In the case of Burma, three main actors need to play a crucial role in any form of lasting national reconciliation:

• the ruling military regime, which lacks legitimacy and is a primary offender in the human rights sphere;
• the National League for Democracy, which has legitimacy following its election victory 14 years ago, but has no real political clout; and
• the minority ethnic nationalities, which have been struggling for decades, often violently, for self-determination.

Religion is also important when considering national reconciliation in Sri Lanka. This is also the case in Burma, where religion is an important part of life. In Burma, while the Buddhists are in the majority, there are substantial numbers of Christians, Hindus and Muslims, plus many other smaller religions. Religious leaders in Burma have played an active role throughout the country’s history and they continue to be influential.

In Burma, some ethnic organizations have concluded ceasefire agreements with the regime, but a concrete political settlement has never been reached. Based on past experience and on what we have learnt from the situation in Sri Lanka, the likelihood of the ceasefire turning into a definite political resolution appears extremely unlikely. I believe that a multi-level approach is needed if reconciliation processes in both countries are to be successful; ‘home-grown reconciliation’ is essential. For such processes to succeed, though, they must also enjoy the active support of the international community and neighbouring states.

During the discussion on 28 February, Burmese delegates gave three presentations on the ‘background history of Burma’, ‘conflicts and challenges in Burma’ and the ‘current situation’. The meeting was able to generate interest in Burma among the participants, with many asking in what direction Burma is heading.

Soe Myint
Editor-in-Chief, Mizzima News