Peacemaking in Europe the cartoon continent

The Rajpal Abeynayake column

Of all the locations that can be found in Europe to have peace talks in Geneva is no doubt the best bet, because as somebody from that city joked from within sight of one of its famous lakes, "we in Switzerland must be happy that we have joined the United Nations." This was in answer to the question "why hasn't Switzerland joined the European Union?"

Having the talks in Geneva, makes it somewhat palatable that we have to negotiate in Europe at all. Why go to Europe when all its leaders do these days is badmouth the leaders of the progressive free world states such as Venezuela? Tony Blair suggested recently that Hugo Chavez the Venezuelan leader should seek global political legitimacy. This from Tony "I will support Bush no matter what" Blair.

Europe's press does the same sort of thing, and the Danish newspaper controversy over cartoons of the prophet, shows that there is more insensitivity from Europe's institutions towards people of other races now more that ever.

Its probably a reaction to the idea that third world rabble have dared to question the commonly held beliefs of globalization.

One such belief is that the Europeans and the Americans have a sense of entitlement.

But this is gone with the advent of the Islamic rear guard. This rear guard is not in the form of terrorism. But it is violent and very assertive, and though the violence itself can be counter productive, it has questioned the Westerners sense of entitlement.

To this world, we foray this week, in search of peace.

This is like diving into a cauldron of boiling stew in search of a cool place, except that we are searching for peace in Geneva, a city in which there is some successful pretence at least that things there are different from the rest of Europe's deviant behavior.

With the physical contours of Switzerland as a venue there should not be any problem. Balasingham is more at home there than he is in Killinochchi probably as he is surrounded by a more cosmopolitan crowd of Tamils the kind which he wouldn't find in any part of the Wanni. For Sri Lankan advisors such as Kohona, Geneva is a great place for negotiations because they live there in Geneva and have lived there almost all their lives.

But the psychology of talking in Europe we hope was half as easy as the physical aspect of hunkering down there to hammer out a deal with rebels from one's own country.

European arrogance may not be directed towards Sri Lanka like a laser beam with the same intensity that it is directed towards the Muslims for instance, but that is only because Sri Lanka is not caught up in the clash of civilizations the same way that Muslims are.

But if we do fight back against the Europeans from this country, we are struck down. How else did we come to be negotiating in a European capital?

There is no point taking the old debate about the ban on the LTTE and recycling it like yesterday's leftover dinner.

But it's the sequence of events that is more important.

When Mahinda Rajapakse was elected President, save for the United States, other Western powers bought onto the Western media invention of Rajapakse as a Sinhala chauvinist. In the inner psyche of the typical European leader, Prabhakaran's image was being turned from being that of a terrorist to that of a man who had to deal with a new menacing Sinhala presence.

The Europeans were about to go to Killinochchi to prove that point in the form of an aid group cheer squad, but the JVP managed to put the skids on that development.

That was the hard reality that led us on the road to Geneva.

Its of no earthly use griping about the antecedents to these talks now, but being aware of reality puts us in the picture and that's important when peace as a game has to be played according to the European regime of conflict resolution.

Essentially, the modern way of conflict resolution is to sidle up to the Europeans and let them handle it for you, as it it's a game of outsourcing, such as the outsourcing of cumbersome data handling by some highly developed nations to remote locations such as Bangalore.

Peacemaking was outsourced to the Norwegians by the sole superpower the Americans when the American handmaiden Israel wanted to make peace with the enemy. Sri Lanka has outsourced peacemaking to the Norwegians, but in having the talks in Geneva we've done the outsourcing to the maximum, making it clear that no peacemaking can be done out of the framework of European conflict resolution handbooks.

Taking in Geneva will be with this straitjacket on - but having taken for granted that there is no peacemaking in today's world without the Europeans, the Sri Lankan peace team will have to maneuver for a sanguine outcome.

This is like hoping that something good will come out if you have to drive a car with one hand. It can be done, but not without considerable practice.

To get this practice the Sri Lankan peace team mugged out of the conflict resolution handbooks that came their way from Europe via Harvard professors. That's why it seems ludicrous to ask "why get Harvard professors to coach our folks" when the game is being played on rules that belong to the Harvard professors in the first place.

Getting indigenous experts alone to coach the peace team will be like asking the Elle coach to train the national cricketers.

Making peace in Geneva will be within these confines, but its the next best thing to making peace in Norway for the simple reason that at least in some sense Geneva is a less active participant in the design of Europeans to leave their handprint in all kinds of peacemaking.

Geneva may be only a venue anyway, its true, but at least getting away from Norway takes this peacemaking effort somewhat off the centre of gravity of the hegemonic European peacemaking culture.
