Ceasefire and human rights
In war, human rights are frequently observed in the breach. Even human rights of civilians are infringed on a large scale.

That is why the Geneva Conventions have laid down rules of war for all combatants, including those involved in intra-state conflicts.

Of particular importance is the need to protect civilians and to save children from being dragged into combat.

The civilized world has also emphasized the need to protect cultural monuments and places of religious worship from ravages of war.

Of late, global concern for human rights has increased many-fold. There are even instances where the world community has over ridden state sovereignty when human rights were violated by member states.

With the silencing of guns human rights situation in the war zone has improved considerably. Yet news reports from the North and East continue to highlight human rights abuses, especially attempts at extortion and involuntary enrollment of children for military training.

The Ceasefire Agreement has provisions to ensure the termination of such practices. The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission headed by Norway should look into these complaints or grievances.

Provision also should be made for civilians or organizations representing them to approach the Monitors for redress.

Friendly countries such as the United States as well as local and international NGOs including the Amnesty International have drawn attention to the need to observe human rights during the ceasefire.

In particular, some of them have urged the LTTE to refrain from enlisting children for military training.

The LTTE has, however, denied the charge and said that children volunteer to join their organization. It is up to the LTTE as a party to the Agreement to see that its sincerity is not questioned by leaving room for such allegations to appear.

As we reported yesterday, the Ceasefire Agreement has passed D+30 without any hiccups. This augurs well.

Our Lead story today on Page One confirms Thailand as the venue for face-to-face talks between the two combatants.

We commend the commitment and sincerity of purpose shown by the principal antagonists and the Norwegian facilitators in bringing about this situation.

The Ceasefire Agreement has brought about a rapid change in the atmosphere in the North with peace hopes rising high with each passing day. However, much remains to be done, especially in the humanitarian front.

The next stage in the peace process, talks about talks is more complex. We urge both parties to take stock of the previous negotiations and learn from past mistakes. We hope the professional and business like approach shown so far will be maintained and improved upon.

Top

EDITORIAL, THE ISLAND

Talking about ‘Talks on Talks’
With ‘Talks on Talks’ scheduled to commence in Bangkok next month, the lessons learnt from past experiences about such peace talks with the terrorists should make the Sri Lanka government get down to serious preparations. Today, there is much emotion, sentimentality and euphoria in the air with flying visits to Jaffna by the notable and quotable but what is required is hard realism and astute diplomacy.

Even before the talks, the schedule for the talks has to be made very clear cut and the agenda, specific, with each step planned and agreed upon. Sri Lanka has been scorched even before the talks began for reasons not very clear.

Despite the much heralded Norwegian prowess as negotiators in international conflicts, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been dubbed by some as the Memorandum of Misunderstanding due to the procedure that was adopted for signing it. President Kumaratunga, the head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces who is constitutionally vested with powers to declare war and peace was presented with the document after the LTTE leader Prabhakaran had signed it and followed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe. President Kumaratunga justifiably refused to sign it on the grounds that she needed time. How did this situation, where the principal signatory was not given time to study the document, before she signed it arise? Did the Norwegians mess it up, were there Machiavellian undercurrents or was it a fait accompli by Prabhakaran?

Once bitten is twice shy. Thus, very experienced diplomats and lawyers in the negotiating team backed by equally competent and experienced advisors to the Sri Lankan government, from the very commencement will be of absolute necessity.

The LTTE has been trying very hard, even before the Ceasefire Agreement was signed to have the Sri Lankan government proscription of it as a terrorist organisation lifted. The reasons are fairly obvious because such a move will remove much of the international opprobrium that it has acquired as a terrorist organisation. Even though the countries that have banned it, becuase of security threats posed to them by the LTTE do not lift the proscription, the very fact that the affected country has deproscribed it could be used as a tremendous lever for deproscription.

The Sri Lankan government should keep in mind the pronouncements of American government spokesmen such as US Ambassador Ashley Wills and the European Union’s External Commissioner Chris Patten on how the LTTE can get off the list of internationally proscribed terrorists. Mr. Patten in a statement on the Sri Lankan conflict said: ‘The LTTE has been banned in several countries..... The international community’s focus is not a flash in the pan. Organisations identified as terroists will not be able to carry on as if nothing has happened............. the moment has come for the LTTE to transform itself into an active participant in the democratic process. It is not enough to call itself a liberation organisation. The LTTE must renounce all its activities and operations which led to it being declared a terrorist organisation. The Ceasefire Agreement provides an opportunity to make a start.’

We quoted Mr. Patten’s statement in our editorial comments on Tuesday and have repeated it in the hope of refreshing the memories of our political leaders whom Prabhakaran himself has said have very short memories. The message of western leaders and diplomats to the LTTE is clear: Give up terrorism if you don’t want to be categorised as terroists. That is what the Sri Lanka government’s response should be to the LTTE demand for deproscription. To deproscribe it at this stage will not only be tantamount to kicking into our own goal but it would also be one of the greatest anti-national acts to be committed against this nation in contemporary history. The nation has expended much energy and efforts for long years in the diplomatic field to get this organisation justly proscribed and to let them off the hook without them disavowing terrorism, will be a betrayal of the Sri Lankan nation.

The UNF government has staked much of its political capital in going into this peace process. But national interests should obviously outweigh political interests of the party. The LTTE should be dealt with fairly and squarely. It is not time yet for expression of laxity, display of conviviality and indulgence. For example Foreign Minister, Mr. Tyronne Fernando is quoted in an Island report yesterday saying in Jaffna: ‘I would like to pay a tribute to Velupillai Prabhakaran who has been our antagonist for many years and with whom we have been at war. We are now convinced that he is making a concerted effort towards achieving peace’.

This tribute, to say the very least, is far too premature. His violations of the Ceasefire Agreement, in many respects, do not convince us of his efforts to make peace. Has Prabhakaran or any of his terrorist colleagues expressed themselves in such complimentary terms about Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe? Prabakaran has to do very much more to atone for the 65,000 Sri Lankans—Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims who have perished because of his bestial terrorism, before such encomiums can be made.

Top

EDITORIAL, DAILY  MIRROR

Progressive era in sight
The people of this country, at long last, could look forward with confidence to an era of unity, peace and progress, ending a period of contentious, acrimonious and destructive politics. Although much has been said with almost unanimous agreement among political leaders and ordinary people, about the unsuitability of the present political system which spawned a destructive political culture in this country, no concrete measure was adopted to find a way out of it.

The discerning people of this country expected radical changes in the political pattern at the time the first Republican Constitution of 1972 was promulgated and also subsequently when the second Republican Constitution was drafted in 1978. But they were disappointed as the Westminster model persisted on both occasions. President J. R. Jayewardena, of course, made a substantial departure from the pattern by introducing the executive presidential system despite the opposition from those with hidebound attitudes who wanted the Westminster model that was transplanted lock, stock and barrel perpetuated here. But even this major deviation from the system was not radical enough to push the country in a new direction.

We, as a newspaper that persistently emphasized that it is only through a new political system that the much-desired consensual politics could be made a reality, heartily applaud the present move spearheaded by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to establish a new system of government providing for the utilisation of all available talents and resources for the country's progress. The executive committee system under the Donoughmore Constitution, no doubt, had its drawbacks and it may not fit into the present state of affairs, in its original form.

But its structural framework appears ideal to bring about the desired system that would enable the people's representatives to participate actively in both legislative and executive functions . In fact, the reasoning was sound when the Donoughmore Commission made its recommendations. With commendable foresight it stated, "In taking account of all these factors, it must be our aim not to slavishly follow the forms and practice of the British model which was not designed to meet conditions similar to those obtaining in Ceylon, but to devise a scheme in consonance with local circumstances, a scheme which will be concerned not to reflect an alien philosophy but to give free play to the peculiar genius of the Ceylonese themselves and above all, a scheme which may bring about a resolute handling of social and economic questions before, as in most Western lands, they have grown too complicated to remedy."

In hindsight, we could see the disastrous consequences the country suffered as a result of our flirtation with an incompatible alien system. We saw how our national problems became further complicated, how the country's progress was retarded and how the country reached the brink of disintegration. The present attempt therefore, constitutes a leap forward to free this country of the incubus that haunted it throughout the years of independence causing innumerable political, economic, social and moral problems in our society. It was this unsuitable framework that thwarted all efforts made in the past to promote consensual politics. It was as futile as attempts made to practice chastity in a nudist colony. As we have stressed all along, it is only through a fundamental change like the one contemplated now, that this country could hope to emerge from the dark era of political party rivalry and strife that we are living in today.

There is no doubt, therefore, that the present proposal will have the full approbation and support of all patriotic sections and individuals in this country. There is, of course, a need for clear thinking and deliberation on the actual form that the new system would take. The executive committee system has already been accepted by all parties as a suitable framework for regional administration and it was incorporated in the PA's draft constitution of August 2000.

This system may require modifications for adoption as a national administrative arrangement. As such, the best available constitution-making expertise should be solicited and utilised in this task of framing the new constitution. In any event, the assignment should be treated as a matter of utmost urgency by all parties concerned. We fervently hope the concrete proposals will see the light of day by May as promised. 

Top