State-hood and survival: Tamils, Palestinians and self-determination

 Do Sri Lankan Tamil demands for a separate State or even ‘Eelam’ have the same status and legality within the international system as a Palestinian State?

Ultimately, the relative strengths and legitimacy of Palestinian claims to State-hood vs. Tamil claims to State-hood are based on the balance between the right to self-determination of one group vs. the right to maintain the existing territorial integrity of the other group. An interesting point to note is that in this thought experiment, the Northern Tamils are more analogous to the Jews than to the Palestinians. If this sounds counterintuitive, it is because comparisons of the two projects for State-hood are tenuous, as are attempts to make the rationale for one, a precedent for the other

At the time of writing, there are reports of credible threats targeting Israeli establishments in Arugam Bay, travel advisories have already been issued by the UK, US, Australia and others. Sri Lanka is depending on a strong tourism season that starts proper in December, ‘the season’; forex flows and economic activity, are vital for the economy and debt-sustainability. 

The drama on the east coast has created a social media storm over perceived Israeli commercial colonisation of parts of the east and south coastline through enterprises that many suggest operate illegally and use foreign payment systems to bypass regulation and taxation. There were also many comparisons and parallels drawn to the conflict in the Middle East and Israel’s role in it, and how many perceive Israel to be a colonial project of sorts. 

It has also generated some debate and discussion about comparisons between the Palestinian struggle for a separate state and the Sri Lankan Tamil fight for self-determination and state-hood. 

Do Sri Lankan Tamil demands for a separate State or even ‘Eelam’ have the same status and legality within the international system as a Palestinian State? To clarify the premise, the Sri Lankan Tamil right to self-determination is quite well established. Notwithstanding the legal validity of every person or peoples to seek that right, it is necessary to submit that the right to self-determination is innate, intrinsic and necessary for human emancipation while also acknowledging that true emancipation requires societal development and advancement as well as free, rational thought.

 This article discusses the comparisons between Sri Lankan Tamil claims to a separate state versus Palestinian claims to State-hood, not necessarily the relative strengths and weaknesses of either claim but a comparison of the two from a conceptual perspective. Indeed this article will proceed under the assumption that the Sri Lankan Tamil population not only qualifies for the right to self-determination but also for greater autonomy in traditional areas.

The right to or principle of, self-determination of an identifiable group is foundational to international law and is built upon an understanding of freedom and autonomy and the philosophical underpinnings of ‘popular sovereignty’ introduced during the Enlightenment period by thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rosseau. Locke considered the concept of the ‘self’ and developed the idea of ‘natural rights’ and ‘freedom’ while Rosseau introduced the concept of the ‘General Will’; that people or groups should be able to determine their own political and social order. Immanuel Kant discussed the “formula of autonomy” with freedom and self-determination central to his moral theory: the “principle of each human will as a will that is legislating universally through all of its maxims”.

The end of World War II and the formation of the United Nations and its Charter formalised self-determination as a legal concept. In a post-colonial context, the 1960 UN Assembly’s ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’ made self-determination central to the process of decolonisation. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights codified the right to self-determination as a universal principle in international law that applies equally to all peoples and not just those that were previously colonised. Thus, self-determination is also applicable in a context of oppressed minority groups seeking autonomy.  

A 1947 paper published by Carl J. Friedrich, German scholar of totalitarianism; notes that the UN Charter owes much to Kantian concepts of international peace through a cooperation between States, based on a maxim for justice alongside a commitment to upholding human rights and fulfilling obligations to preserving freedoms. 

Secession and self-determination

The scholarly debate relating to Sri Lankan Tamil claims to self-determination under a separate state is certainly interesting and contains diverse opinions. It is important to note that the scholarship considers the criteria for secession as much as it does the right to self-determination within a unitary state.  

This is essentially a discussion of the tension between the Right to Self-Determination of the Tamil People under a separate state vs. the Sri Lankan people’s right to maintain their existing national boundaries and territorial integrity and whether there are parallels that might be drawn to the Palestinian fight for self-determination in Israel or the region called the Levant. 

We have to start by acknowledging the existence of numerous groups of peoples across the world that have been unable to achieve statehood despite ethnic, religious and cultural homogeneity in significant numbers with some level of geographic concentration: the 30 to 40 million Kurds, at least half of whom reside in Turkey, the 8 million Catalonians in Spain; the Palestinians that number at least 12 million. 

Therefore, though these groups have a right to self-determination, they also exist within nations that already have national boundaries and clearly demarcated territory. I will not go into the status of each group under international law or the intricacies of how a group can claim the right to self-determination with State-hood. This is an interesting facet of the overall conversation but is tangential to the exploration of comparisons between the Palestinian right to State-hood and the Tamil struggle for ‘Eelam’. 

As mentioned prior, the right to a Separate State goes beyond self-determination and requires specific conditions to be met. International law tends to favour the principle of territorial integrity as it applies to nations that already exist within pre-defined borders. However, claims to State-hood for a specific group become stronger if the existing State, in this case the Sri Lankan Government, is unable or unwilling to protect minority civil and political rights as well as guarantee political representation and prevent systemic discrimination and social or economic marginalisation. 

Lines in the sand

In the case of Israel, part of the rationale used by Zionists was that Palestine (what is referred to as Judea and Samaria) was a “land without a people for a people without a land”. This claim has since been dispelled not least through the writings of many that visited the area in the 19th century; Mark Twain for one, in 1867, who described encounters with Arabs, Jews and other groups. Laurence Oliphant, a Christian Zionist, provided descriptions of Arab villages, tribes and a local economy in Mandatory British Palestine. British Diplomat Gertrude Bell, a central figure in drawing the ‘lines in the sand’ of the Middle East which led to the creation of numerous Arab States, also wrote several accounts of the Palestinian Arabs in that region. 

Mandatory Palestine was demarcated by the League of Nations in 1922. However before there could be an official Palestinian state, the UN passed a resolution in 1947 to create the State of Israel, the so-called Partition Resolution (181). 

The basis was that the Jewish people have historic links to the area and the land going back millennia and also based on Biblical narratives (The Land of Israel), which do not have any standing in the modern context of territorial boundaries and nation states.

While Jewish communities might have lived continuously for centuries in various parts of the region, such a sparsely populated grouping would be hard pressed to achieve State-hood unless it was established through the international system with the support of colonial powers, which is precisely what happened.  

Those that landed in this area of the Levant during the waves of Jewish immigration are now conflated with historical Jewish heritage in Judea and Samaria. Further, a Jewish State was irresistible in the context of the post-World War 2 period and had strong support in the annals of power and across the political spectrum. 

In fact some of the strongest support for the creation of the State of Israel came from the left. Leon Trotsky, though later a critic of Zionism, was an early supporter of the Jewish people, acknowledging the challenges faced throughout history. Bertrand Russell was largely sympathetic to calls for a Jewish State. Hannah Arendt was another that initially supported the formation of Israel but like Russell, would later turn critical of the Jewish State, its nationalist tendencies and treatment of Palestinians. 

The claim of the Israeli State being ‘settlor-colonial’ is controversial but carries some weight considering Jewish mass migration to the Levant and the violent expulsion and displacement of Palestinian people. The creation of an ethno-homogeneous State, Democratic or not, in such a violent manner and the continued expansion of that State into areas clearly demarcated as foreign territory, remain significant issues for international law and its systems and institutions. 

Yet the State of Israel now exists and has every right to exist whether or not one agrees with the process of its birth or conception. Even if we agree that Nation States are not always the best reflection of a grouping of people, it still holds significant value and attraction for a very significant number in that geographic area, while also having a UN approved legal mandate for a Palestinian State.  

The potential partition of the State of Israel has powerful resistance and naturally so but the Palestinians possess that all important legal mandate which has existed for many decades.  

Nation states or colonial projects

While the international system did create the State of Israel, it also made provisions for a State of Palestine. In the case of Sri Lanka, there is no such legal provision for a State for the Northern Tamils let alone an ‘Eelam’ of the proportions presented by the LTTE. In Sri Lanka, people of various ethnic backgrounds have had a continuous presence across the country with longstanding concentrations in specific areas or regions of the country. 

It is also true that many of these concentrations have changed and shifted over time due to organic internal immigration, fleeing violent conflict and imminent danger or forced expulsion due to the threat of violence.

However, like with Israel, history has formed a Sri Lankan State that has a unique homogeneous, cultural and linguistic grouping that is a significant majority on the island, unlike in Israel, where the Jews were never a majority in a large enough area of the region.

In terms of the formation of the Sri Lankan State, the same principles apply, Sri Lankans have developed a sense of identity related to the current Nation State and its territorial boundaries. Any shifting, changing or reduction of this territory is likely to encounter that same resistance. There is good literature that discusses how territorial integrity is essential and intrinsically linked, to notions of national identity, especially post-colonial national identity.

Sri Lankan Tamil claims to State-hood require an organic internal movement that encompasses a large enough section of the Sri Lankan population within the existing state, acquiescing to some dilution of existing territory or it needs the international system to provide relief through a pressure-group or lobby, along with major players within that system, the same as with Israel. Does this risk making ‘Eelam’ a colonial project of sorts?

It is a kink of history that in the lead up to and during the immediate post-colonial era, the Sri Lankan leadership, through the Ceylon National Congress (CNC), was more interested in autonomy from British colonial rule than in creating ethno-homogeneous States for the various ethnic groups in Ceylon at that time. The CNC included Tamil leaders such as Ponnambalam Arunachalam and Ponnambalam Ramanathan as part of a struggle for a common, ‘Ceylonese’ national identity. The CNC’s shared nationalist goals and belief in multi-ethnic unity and co-existence thus prioritised the anti-colonial struggle. The focus internally was on ensuring equal political representation and protections for minorities living on the island. 

 Ultimately, the relative strengths and legitimacy of Palestinian claims to State-hood vs. Tamil claims to State-hood are based on the balance between the right to self-determination of one group vs. the right to maintain the existing territorial integrity of the other group. An interesting point to note is that in this thought experiment, the Northern Tamils are more analogous to the Jews than to the Palestinians. If this sounds counterintuitive, it is because comparisons of the two projects for State-hood are tenuous, as are attempts to make the rationale for one, a precedent for the other.

(The writer has 15 years of experience in the financial and corporate sectors after completing a Degree in Accounting and Finance at the University of Kent (UK). He also holds a Masters in International Relations from the University of Colombo. He is a media presenter, resource-person, a political commentator and Foreign Affairs Analyst. He is member of the Working Committee of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB). He can be reached at [email protected].)