War Termination in Sri Lanka
This article has a central aim of explaining the catastrophic loss of civilian life in the last five months of the civil war in Sri Lanka. The article proposes that both the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the LTTE are culpable for civilian deaths; the LTTE in an effort to stave off defeat so it might be able to re-constitute itself at a later time, and the GoSL in a determination not to allow the LTTE as an organization to survive the conflict. The article also argues that a preliminary explanation for the origins of the Sri Lankan civil war can be found in the GoSL program of transferring members of the Sinhalese population into the Northern and Eastern provinces of the country, regions held by the Tamil population to be their homeland territory. Key words : Population; Tamil; Sinhalese insurgency; Civilian; Territory
Sri Lanka in 1986: A Nation at the Crossroads
As the year 1986 drew to a close, Sri Lanka found itself no closer to solving the Tamil separatist crisis. Fighting for a separate nation in Sri Lanka's Northern and Eastern provinces are several Tamil militant groups, led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Tamil Eelam is the name militant groups propose for the new state). The Colombo government, to be sure, is attempting to negotiate a settlement with Tamil political representatives (and with assistance from New Delhi). Yet intractable issues still separate the two parties and a settlement remains elusive. What became starkly apparent in 1986 was the enormous cost this conflict is exacting from Sri Lanka, a country that is ill-prepared to pay the price, ranking as it does among the world's 20 poorest nations. The war has cast a chill on diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka's nearest neighbor, India. Defense expenditures and sharply reduced tourist arrivals are derailing a promising program of economic development. Most distressing of all, however, is that the Colombo government's draconian security measures are posing a threat to one of Asia's most praiseworthy traditions of democracy and civil liberties. As President J. R. Jayewardene himself warned in 1986, "It is very difficult to safeguard against terrorism while guaranteeing the freedom of the individual. It may not be long before we compromise the very beliefs on which democracy is built."' Political developments within Sri Lanka have led many to speculate whether the day of compromise has already arrived.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.