|
|
 |
 |
|||
Q: The Norwegian negotiator Erik Solheim is quoted in the Norwegian Post today as having said the peace talks are likely to begin on the 15th of May. Some websites and a local radio also said the same thing. Your response? A: I can confirm that the peace process is still very much on track, that is to say the events of the end of April, namely; the ending of the LTTE's unilateral ceasefire and the battle around Pallai have not interfered with the discussions that were going on for many months on the question of how to arrange for the peace talks; the logistics and the various measures that are to be taken before the talks begin. The Norwegian facilitators are still very active in reaching the parties, namely the government and the LTTE; and that is why I say that the process is very much on track. The date, the fifteenth; I don't think you can pin down the commencement of the talks to a specific date like that, its only one week away. I think what the Norwegians mean is that before the fifteenth it is quite possible; I can't say more than that. On these occasions it is not really sensible to speak of precise dates and so on. It is possible that some understanding could be reached about the commencement of talks rather than the actual commencement of talks. Q: You refer to the Norwegians as facilitators. The LTTE came out with the demand not very long ago, to recognise them as mediators. How do you react to that? A: There is no question of them becoming mediators. And they (Norwegians) themselves have made it very clear that they have no intention to play the role of a mediator unless they are invited by both parties, and we have taken the view that there is a great deal that the Norwegians can do to facilitate, not only the commencement of the talks but the progress of the talks. But if by mediation it means giving to a third party judgemental powers, then the Sri Lankan Government has absolutely drawn the line with regard to that a long time ago, and that continues to be our position. Q: A facilitator would mean that both parties have to totally trust the third party, that has been achieved you think? A: I think so. But I cannot speak for the LTTE. But certainly as far as the Government is concerned, we are well satisfied with what the Norwegians have done over the last almost two and a half years. Q: There is also an area of contention about the memorandum of understanding and the agreement on humanitarian matters. Could you explain? A: Yes, the LTTE has not taken into account in their public statements the fact that, when you are dealing with a document there is a great deal of consultation that goes into the contents of that document. A draft may be produced by one of the parties and then, there is a lot of discussion on the draft. It goes up and down, suggestions are made, some are accepted by all concerned and others are not and it's a constantly evolving process until the draft is finalised, and adopted or signed or in some way treated as being definitive. Now, to say that as the LTTE has sometimes said in public that the Sri Lankan government has unilaterally altered something or the other is beside the mark. What actually happens is that when a draft is brought to us we make suggestions, the draft is sent back and they make suggestions, and that process goes on until finalisation takes place. The finalisation of the document which was at one time described as a memorandum of understanding, but which we wanted described at least partly as an agreement; because an agreement has more legal weight and effect than a mere memorandum of understanding and therefore as a mark of our bona fides we wanted a more definitive binding legal document, that process went on for a little while, and ultimately what we might decide to do is to call it something like an agreement in pursuance of a memorandum of understanding regarding humanitarian measures; catching up the two concepts one is the memorandum of understanding and then the higher concept that it is an agreement between the two parties. But all this is still in the process of gestation. Although we have gone very far on the contents of the document as you will see from a press release that will appear probably tomorrow in the media. Q: From your discussions with the Norwegian facilitators, do you find that the LTTE has perhaps dropped its demand for a separate state or fragmentation of the country. Has there been a softening on that score? A: I would say so definitely. No categorical statement to that effect has yet been made. And I do not think in a process like this, which has been very bitter, long and controversial you can expect reasonably, the LTTE to publicly abandon what has been for so long its cardinal demand. But the evidence is clear that they are contemplating in reality something less than a separate state. Q: Didn't the Sri Lankan Government seem like giving legitimacy to the LTTE's self-proclaimed cease-fire by starting an operation just the day after they chose to end it. A: I choose not to answer that. Q: Can the government hold talks with a proscribed organisation which the LTTE is ? A: In the case of the proscription there is nothing in the law which laid down the proscription here, which says that you can't talk to a person. That’s a bit of a misconception that the public may have. There is no prohibition against talking. This is why you find that all over the world in similar situations, comparable situations, talks have gone on between governments and proscribed organisations. Ireland is a very good example and there are many other examples as well. Q: If you were to take other recent examples of resolution of crises, they have resulted in fragmentation. For example, in East Timor, the Balkans and Czechoslovakia, it is fragmentation that has brought about some kind of settlement. But we are trying to do the opposite. Do you see it happening? A: Well what we are saying is that within the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country first, which means no fragmentation, it is possible and desirable, we say firstly it is desirable, and secondly it is possible, to have an arrangement. It must be a legal arrangement, we call it a constitutional arrangement. It has to be a guaranteed arrangement that the power is devolved in a certain way to the regions or there are agreements about demarcation of land and so on. It has to be an arrangement that is durable. That is why we keep on talking about a constitution because we have country, a republic, with a constitution. So if you are talking about the preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka, you are talking about a constitutional position. This is a republic already. So any republic can make its own arrangements for how it is to deal with certain problems. The absolutely vital concept is within the framework of territorial integrity and sovereignty. And we think unity can be achieved within that framework. This is what the whole world is saying with regard to our problem. If you look at all the statements made by countries, this is what they are saying; find a solution within the territorial integrity and sovereignty. Q: A negotiated peace would necessarily mean concessions from both sides. What is the government doing to prepare the vociferous but minority elements, which will possibly be against peace? A: There are elements, which are against peace at all. There are people who are now collecting signatures against peace talks. But can that be taken seriously? I don't think one must exaggerate the importance of that kind of thing. Because, the assessment that the leadership takes, and the assessment President Kumaratunga herself in particular has made of this situation, and I would say almost by definition, that because of her record, the fact that she has been elected twice, she knows what she is about on this. The question of what is the mood of the people what is that they really want, I don't think it can conceivably be said that the majority, even the bare majority of the people, are in favour of no talks and no negotiations, no settlement, war only. I don't think virtually anybody is in favour of that. So you build on that base. If that is the true psychological base, and the understanding of the people, then what are the people saying? The people are saying go ahead and work it out. You can’t expect the average man himself to propose a solution. How is he going to figure out the business about non-unitary states or devolution and all that. All that he is saying is I think, for god's sake get on with it and bring this wretched war to an end. In his own mind he will say let us have a fair and just solution to this problem. We don't know what it is; you people whom we have put there in parliament, go and find it. I think that is a very fair way of looking at it. That is exactly what the politicians ought to be responding to and that is exactly what the people ought to be saying and they are saying it. Now it's up to the politicians to respond to it properly. Q: Would the proposed constitution be the basis for possible negotiations with the LTTE? A: It's too early to say that. The LTTE has in the earlier phase, roundly denounced the constitution. But if the peace talks begin they will have to look at it. Looking at it does not mean accepting it. Q: Would the proposed talks be only between the government and the LTTE or would the main opposition party the UNP be also a part of it? A: It’s too early to say. But the President has gone on record more than once, saying that she welcomes the participation of the opposition. She has said that more than once. And the question of what shape it'll take, what form and so on, too early to decide that. Logistics to that extent have not been worked out yet, because its still premature, we have other bits of groundwork to do first. A: Is a cease-fire or a cessation of hostilities on the cards? That's what matters to people on the ground. A: The cessation of hostilities is under discussion. Our position has been that the cessation of hostilities and the cease-fire is not at all an important consideration, and Her Excellency has just repeated that. The more important thing is namely, we are offering something immensely bigger than ceasefires. What we are saying is that, come to the table and let us talk about peace in its totality, and not these steps to peace. The question of steps to peace has a bad history as far as we are concerned. Because the LTTE has often adopted in the past this sequential approach. First talk about normalcy and some measures to restore normalcy, then talk about ceasefires, and they never envisaged the possibility of talking about the core, the substance. In 1995 this is what we were doing. We don’t want to get into that situation again. So what we are saying is, you come to the table and we will then discuss everything from day one. We will discuss substantive issues, what are these problems and grievances of the people, what can we do about it and how to end the war, then we will discuss simultaneously, we can even share the time morning one thing and the afternoon something else, things like ceasefires, cessation of hostilities, problems of displaced persons and so on. What we are talking about is a comprehensive discussion once and for all that begins with all issues on the table, and ends with the end of the war and the achievement of a secure and lasting peace. Q: Has the government agreed to give any humanitarian assistance in return for the LTTE not targeting the South? A: When I was talking about documentaries and memorandums of understanding and agreements that’s what I had in mind. The parties with help of the Norwegians have been working on a document. Q: Has there been any unwritten understanding between the two parties during the recent past? A: No understanding, but you might say in point of fact, the LTTE seems to have desisted from attacks. Q: A grenade went off in Colombo the morning after the LTTE cease-fire ended. Some news reports connected the two. A: When a peace process develops like this after so many bitter years, a lot of these things will happen and some of them by bad luck. The main thing for everybody, all people of goodwill, is to look at these objectively and reasonably, and not to exaggerate these incidents. You have to assess in which direction the parties are moving. The bona fides is important. Nobody should really be deterred or disappointed. There will be many pitfalls on the road.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contact Information: Send mail to