Statement by International Educational Development

• under Agenda Item on the Right of Peoples to Self Determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation, 26 March, 1999

"....In the words of Justice Antonio Cassese ( of the Yugoslavia International War Crimes Tribunal Appeal Chambers):

"self-determination is the summa or synthesis of individual human rights, because a people really enjoys self-determination only when the rights and freedom of all individuals making up that people are fully respected. On a different level, the enjoyment of individual rights presupposes the realisation of (external) self-determination because if a people is oppressed, individuals cannot really be free to exercise their basic rights and freedoms. Thus, it is clear that the two principles supplement and strengthen each other, respect for one of them must perforce go hand in hand with compliance with the other".

A recent Canadian Supreme Court decision and the recent state practices have contributed to the crystallisation of the law of the right to self-determination. In the Canadian Supreme Court unequivocally stated in its opinion pertaining to the secession of Quebec that the right to an external form of self-determination exists in the non-colonial context. The Court also stated the following with respect to the recipient unit of the right to self-determination namely, the "people":

"It is clear that  "a people" may include only a portion of the population of an existing  state. The right to self-determination has developed largely as a human right, and is  generally used in documents that simultaneously contain references to "nation" and "state". The juxtaposition of these terms is indicative that the reference to „people" does not necessarily mean the entirety of a state’s population. To restrict the definition of the term to the population of the existing states would render the granting of a right to self-determination largely duplicative, given the parallel emphasis within the majority of the source documents on the need to protect the territorial integrity of existing states, and would frustrate its remedial purpose."

Not only the judicial decision, but also state practices has recently confirmed that an entity that is endowed with objective factors such as a distinct language, distinct culture and has a subjective feeling of oneness coupled with the relationship to land is a legitimate recipient of the right to self-determination. With respect to Kosova, which has been recognised as an integral part of Serbia, the contact groups with the blessing of NATO in their draft proposal have stated that after 3 years the will of the Kosovans will be ascertained. Even though the contact group has not thus far stated that the will of the people will be ascertained through referendum, they have nevertheless stated that the will of the Kosovans will be ascertained. Similarly, with respect to East Timor ( which has been explicitly considered as an integral part of Indonesia by Indonesia and Australia), both the Indonesians and Australians have recently stated that the will of the East Timorans will be ascertained through referendum after 3 years.

NATO’s demand that Yugoslavian troops should be withdrawn from Kosovo, is also consistent with the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations which states that states should not use force to deny self-determination to a people.

Mr. Chairman, in Sri Lanka the basic fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Tamil people have been violated with impunity for half a century by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government on an ideology of racial supremacy and exclusive possession and control of the island. All their attempts through peaceful and democratic means to co-exist as equals was met with armed repression. Having left with no alternative the Tamil people exercised their democratic right in 1977 for independence on the basis of the right to self-determination. The national liberation movement of the Tamil people arose as resistance to state oppression and to liberate the Tamil people towards freedom and independence.

Despite offers of third party help towards mediation, continuing intransigence of the   Sri Lankan State leaves no hope for early resolution of the conflict resulting in gross consistent and continuing violations of human rights, humanitarian tragedy and crimes against humanity. While the state hopes to realise its genocidal intent the international community and the UN system are failing the Tamil people.

Mr Chairman, at the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights fifty four NGOs in their joint written statement (E/CN.4/1998/NGO/120) brought to the attention of the Commission

"the increasing genocidal dimension of the war as evidenced by: a) targeting of the civilian population by the Sri Lankan forces; b) the epidemic proportions of disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, rape, arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention of Tamil civilians; c) a sweeping embargo in the north and east of subsistence food and essential medicine in contravention of humanitarian law; d) the existence of more than 850,000 displaced persons living in appalling conditions at risk of starvation and death."

They urged the Commission to adopt a resolution

"to call on the Government of Sri Lanka to withdraw all its armed forces from the Tamil homeland and to call on both the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to secure a political solution that allows the Tamil people to realise their right to self-determination."......

The Commission must adopt a resolution to that effect..."