Note no. 249	23. 12. 2004
SRI LANKA: Uneasy peace and Uncertain future: Update 71 by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan It is now going to be almost one year since the LTTE put forward its proposals for local administration in the North East in a document known as ISGA. While ISGA contains seeds of separation, we had suggested that the Sri Lankan Government should relent in renewing the talks rather than continuing with the stalemate. We had pointed out many times before that accepting to talk on ISGA proposals does not amount to accepting the proposals as such. In our earlier update 69 dated 1st October, 2004,we had pointed out that perhaps President Chandrika Kumaratunge is waiting for LTTE to weaken itself before beginning the talks. Her comments in a recent interview and her references to Prabakaran getting weakened by the Karuna affair and differences with his navy Commander Soosai strengthens our view. In one of our papers 426 of 15 March, 2002, while discussing the cease fire agreement, we had said that the LTTE looked at the cease fire as an end in itself. This was evident from various statements of their leaders and other representatives of the LTTE made then. Their approach then was that the cease-fire would pave the way for gradual de escalation and bring about normalization of civilian life in the north east while they maintain their military parity with the Sri Lankan Government. After the agreement they had promised the people in the north east that the agreement would result in an improvement of the living conditions of the people. The objective of the LTTE then and even now is to set up a regular provisional administration in the north east for resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction for as many years as possible before going for a final settlement. They are aware that the type of final solution they have in mind may not be possible for many years to come and that the rehabilitation of the Tamils cannot wait any longer. People will also not accept it. Hence the urgency to demand the discussion of the ISGA without waiting for the core issues. Now the people have begun to question the LTTE as to why even after over forty months, there has been no improvement in the living conditions. Comparatively speaking those living outside the northeast have had a better deal than those living inside and the peace dividend has not reached them. They may be afraid to ask the LTTE directly but the TNA parliamentarians who have been elected with LTTE backing are certainly facing the ire of the people. Some of the analysts from southern Sri Lanka believe that continuing the cease-fire while delaying the peace talks helps the Sri Lankan government. We suspect that this is perhaps the position of the government too. Their reasons go as follows. * A state of peace than a state of war is harmful for a well disciplined and combat experienced, cadre-based fighters like the LTTE. An easy life would in due course erode the tenacity and ideological commitment to the cause. There are reports that some of the families of the LTTE leaders are already enjoying the urban life and all that goes with it. * Prolonged peace would give rise to more Karunas and Soosais. Karuna’s exit may not have affected the LTTE militarily, but it has certainly lost politically in the east. In the case of Soosai, differences have been patched up but his exit would have had a dent in the invincibility of the naval units of the LTTE. ( One of the basic reasons for the LTTE to go for a cease fire was the military parity they had reached and they would go any length to maintain this parity. While the Sri Lankan government is very eager to reach a defence agreement with India, the LTTE is understandably concerned.) * Third and most important from their point of view is that, the people themselves would force the LTTE to relent and go for talks. * Lastly, the international pressure on LTTE would grow and not diminish and it has to come round some time or other. It is in this situation one has to study Prabakaran’s speech on Heroes’ day. He has described the current situation as one of "void, without war, without a stable peace, without the conditions of normalcy, without an interim or permanent solution to the ethnic conflict." He declared that none of the Sinhala political organisations is prepared to accept or declare their policy on the three Thimpu principles reiterated again- namely one. North Eastern region to be accepted as the historical homeland of the Tamil speaking people, two. That the Tamils constitute a distinct nationality and three. They are entitled to the right of self- determination, including the right to secede. His speech ended with a warning that if the Government of Sri Lanka adopts delaying tactics, perpetuating the suffering of the Tamils, they have no alternative than to advance the freedom struggle. One could see a sign of desperation in Prabakaran’s speech ( copy included as an Appendix I), but one cannot agree more with him when he said that it would be meaningful to talk about a permanent solution if the Sinhala political organisations have a clear and coherent policy, a proper insight and a consensus approach towards the Tamil national question. If not, according to him there is no meaning in engaging in talks about a permanent solution. The Norwegian facilitators appear to be having a tough time. Despite its failure to break the deadlock by the delegation led by the Foreign Minister of Norway, another visit, this time by Eric Solheim, the special representative took place in the second week of December is said to have had some success in at least maintaining the status quo. Solheim has already met the LTTE leaders at Killinochi and the Prime minister and the President at Colombo. Solheim’s visit to Killinochi was considered significant especially after Prabakaran’s Heroes Day speech which to some looked that the country was heading towards war. At least he was able to assure after discussing with both sides that both the government and the LTTE leaders would continue to honour the Cease fire agreement. Looking at the current situation and with the rigid stand taken by the opposing parties, Solheims’ assurance is itself a big achievement according to some! To us it looks that the Sri Lankan government is in no hurry to renew the peace talks so long as the cease-fire agreement is in place. President Chandrika’s insistence on having talks on the core issues along with the ISGA gives the impression that she is being forced to take up this position due to pressure from her allies the JVP. The joint statement of the Donor community represented by Japan, US and the Netherlands blaming the JVP for opposing the peace process was not in good taste and surely the President is in a position to convince the JVP to renew the talks. The letter of the JVP Secretary to the ambassadors of the three countries ( given as Appendix II) though strongly worded, showed that they are not against the talks though at one time they were against the cease-fire agreement itself. The current stale mate is not in the interest of peace. While discussing the ISGA, nothing prevents the Sri Lankan side to suggest alternative approaches in the course of the talks. Their failure to do so gives the impression that President Chandrika is more keen to implement her own agenda of holding an election or a referendum in the coming year to change the constitutional architecture for which she needs the full support of her allies! Appendix I: Prabakaran's statement on Heros Day. 27 November 2004 'Today we are faced with a critical and complex situation, unprecedented in the history of our liberation struggle. We are living in a political void, without war, without a stable peace, without the conditions of normalcy, without an interim or permanent solution to the ethnic conflict. Our liberation struggle will be seriously undermined if this political vacuum continues indefinitely. 'Three years have lapsed since we entered into a ceasefire agreement with the Government of Sri Lanka, after three decades of protracted armed struggle. You are fully aware that during this period of ceasefire we have been making every endeavour, with sincerity and commitment, to seek a negotiated settlement to the Tamil national question through peaceful means. In various capitals of foreign nations, with Norway as facilitators, we engaged in peace talks with the government. The six sessions of negotiations held over the duration of six months, turned out to be futile and meaningless. Sub-committees that were set up for the de-escalation of the conflict, for the restoration of normalcy, for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced and for the reconstruction of the war damaged infrastructure, became non-functional. In the meantime, the Sri Lanka government, having excluded our liberation organization, participated in the donor conference held in Washington, thereby undermining our status as equal partners in the peace process. It was in these objective conditions that our organization decided to express our displeasure and disappointment by temporarily suspending the talks. Our intention was not to terminate the talks and put an end to the peace process. During the period of suspension we urged the government of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe to formulate and submit a draft proposal for an interim administrative structure. We emphasized that the envisaged interim administrative mechanism should be invested with adequate authority to deal with the rehabilitation of the war affected people and to reconstruct the war devastated Tamil nation. 'We were not satisfied with the three successive draft proposals on an interim set-up submitted by Ranil’s government. The draft frameworks lacked adequate administrative authority and they were unacceptable to us. Ultimately, we decided to formulate our own set of proposals. We discussed with our people at different levels and consulted political experts, legal specialists and constitutional scholars in the Tamil Diapsora and finalized our proposals for an Interim Self-Governing Authority. This is an original and pragmatic framework embodying necessary structures and mechanisms to address the urgent existential problems of our people. The proposed framework is invested with substantial authority to effectively and expeditiously undertake all tasks of resettlement, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development in the Tamil homeland. We submitted this proposal to establish an Interim Self-Governing Authority to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government on the 1 November last year and also released it to the media for public debate. 'Some international governments welcomed our proposal, because it was the first time the Liberation Tigers had clearly and explicitly spelt out their political ideas in writing. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government did not reject our proposal for an Interim Self-Governing Authority to deal with the rehabilitation of the war affected people and to reconstruct the war devastated Tamil nation. His government viewed our proposals as different from their drafts, yet it agreed to resume peace talks on that basis, whereas the Sri Lankan Freedom Party outrightly condemned our interim administrative framework as the foundation for a separate Tamil state. As the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and as the President, Chandrika Kumaratunga went a step further by taking punitive action that plunged the southern polity into a crisis. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s regime was suddenly and seriously destabilised when President Kumaratunga took over three key Ministries, including Defence. Eventually, following the dissolution of Parliament by the President, Ranil’s government collapsed. 'The ethnic contradiction between the Sinhala and Tamil nations became acute as a consequence of the general elections held at the beginning of the year. The elections paved the way for the hegemonic dominance of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinistic forces in the southern political arena. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), an anti-Tamil political party steeped in a muddled ideology of racism, religious fanaticism and orthodox communism, won a substantial number of seats and became the third largest Sinhala political organisation. President Chandrika has embraced this racist political party as the most important ally and partner in her coalition government. This government is constituted by an unholy alliance of incompatible parties articulating antagonistic and mutually contradictory views and policies on the Tamil national question. 'While the verdict of the general election helped to reinforce Sinhala-Buddhist hegemonism in the Sinhala south, Tamil nationalism arose as a unified collective force in the northeastern Tamil homeland. The political ideals of our liberation organisation received the overwhelming support of the Tamil people. Our organisation received the popular endorsement as the sole representative of our people. Our proposals to establish an Interim Self-Governing Authority received a mandate from our people. The Tamil National Alliance gained a sweeping victory by winning twenty-two seats, thereby becoming the political voice and the democratic force representing our liberation organisation. As never before, this general election has polarized the Sinhala and Tamil ethnic formations into two distinct nations, as two separate peoples with divergent and mutually incompatible ideologies, consciousness and political goals. 'Though there was a change of government in southern Sri Lanka and chauvinistic forces were able to gain political power, we continued to observe ceasefire and wanted to promote the peace process. We informed the Freedom Alliance government of Chandrika Kumaratunga, through the Norwegian facilitators, that we were prepared to resume peace talks based on our proposal to set-up an Interim Self-Governing Authority. It was at that time confusion and policy differences emerged within the ruling coalition. 'Politically, the most powerful partner in the Alliance, the JVP, vehemently opposed granting political rights or devolution of power to the Tamil people. It has severely criticised the Norwegian government, which plays the role of facilitator. It has also outrightly rejected our proposal for an Interim Self-Governing Authority. The JVP has warned that it would break away from the ruling coalition if peace talks resumed on the basis of our proposal. The extremist, hard-line attitude of the JVP towards peace and ethnic reconciliation has become a major challenge to Chandrika Kumaratunga. 'The government of Kumaratunga is facing a multi-dimensional crisis. On one side, the international community is exerting pressure on the government to resolve the ethnic conflict through peaceful means. On the other, the donor countries continue to insist that granting of the pledged aid package is conditional upon progress in the peace talks. Furthermore, the economy of the country is sliding into an abyss. With these multiple problems, the government is compelled to engage the LTTE in peace negotiations. But the internal contradictions and the fundamental policy differences in the ruling alliance have become a stumbling block to the resumption of peace negotiations. There is no clear, coherent policy orientation, or a consensus approach within the political parties of the coalition government. Since she has aligned herself with political parties drenched in anti-Tamil racism, militarism and Sinhala-Buddhist hegemonism, the President cannot advance the peace process based on a coherent, consistent strategy and policy. This is the authentic political reality prevailing in southern Sri Lanka. This political reality of the lack of consensus is skilfully covered up and concealed to the international community. 'We submitted our proposals for an interim administration at the final stage of our negotiations with Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government. The leadership of the United National Party continues to insist that peace talks can be resumed based on our set of proposals, but the Kumaratunga government is imposing a condition for the resumption of talks. The government says that any form of interim administration should be an integral part of a permanent settlement. While we are demanding an interim administrative set-up, the Kumaratunga government is insisting on talks for a permanent settlement to the ethnic conflict. 'There are important reasons as to why we are insisting on the formation of an interim administrative set-up as early as possible. As a consequence of a brutal and protracted war our people are facing urgent existential needs and immense humanitarian problems. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Tamils continue to languish in refugee camps in appalling conditions. In the meantime, the donor governments have pledged a massive aid package for the relief and rehabilitation of the war affected people. Therefore, it is of critical necessity that an interim administrative mechanism should be instituted with adequate powers to undertake the task of providing relief and rehabilitation to the suffering Tamil population and to reconstruct the war devastated Tamil homeland. 'Though we have entered into a ceasefire agreement and observed peace for three years and participated in the peace talks for six months, our people have not yet received any peace dividends. The intolerable burden of the day-to-day life problems is suffocating our people. Our people are desperately anticipating relief and resolutions to their urgent existential problems. For these reasons we want the immediate resumption of peace talks, based on our proposal, so that an interim administrative authority can be established as early as possible to address the grievances of our people. If some elements of our proposals are deemed problematic or controversial, these issues can be resolved through discussions at the negotiating table. Once the interim administrative authority is institutionalised and becomes functional we are prepared to engage in negotiations for a permanent settlement to the ethnic problem. That is our position. Our position is reasonable. We are advocating this position in relation to the actuality of the concrete conditions prevailing in the Tamil homeland. Nevertheless, President Kumaratunga is inviting us for talks on a permanent solution, advancing a position that even an interim administrative set-up should be worked out within the contours of a final settlement. We can point out different reasons as to why she gives primacy to talks on a permanent solution. One reason could be her strategy to satisfy extremist racist elements, particularly to placate the JVP, who are deadly opposed to our proposal for an interim administration. The second reason could be to impress upon the international community that she is genuinely committed to resolving the Tamil national question. The third reason could be to prolong the peace negotiations indefinitely by opting to talk on a most intractable and complex issue. We can come up with several other reasons. Whatever the real reason, we can clearly and confidently say one thing; it is apparent from the inconsistent and contradictory statements made by President Kumaratunga that her government is not going to offer the Tamil people either an interim administration or a permanent solution. 'I do not wish to elaborate here the bitter historical experience of political negotiations we have engaged in with the Sinhala political leadership for more than fifty years to resolve the ethnic problem of the Tamil people. This is a political truth deeply buried in the collective psyche of the Tamil nation. Over a long period of time, we had talks on linguistic rights, on equal rights, on regional autonomy, on federal self-rule and entered into pacts and agreements, which were later torn apart and abrogated. Our liberation organisation is not prepared to walk the path of treachery and deception once again. 'The Sinhala political organizations and their leadership, which are deeply buried in the mud of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism, will never be able to comprehend the political aspirations of the people of Tamil Eelam. None of the major Sinhala political parties are prepared to recognize the fundamentals underlying the Tamil national question. None of the Sinhala political organizations is prepared to accept the northeastern region as the historical homeland of the Tamil-speaking people, that the Tamils constitute themselves as a distinct nationality and that they are entitled to the right to self-determination, including the right to secede. The southern political movements do not have the maturity and magnanimity or the political sagacity to understand and accept the fundamentals of the Tamil national question, nor do they possess a consensus or a collective vision on the Tamil issue. What we can observe in the southern political spectrum is division, disunity and mutually divergent, contradictory notions and policies. We are surprised to note that President Kumaratunga is showing concern and interest in resolving the ethnic conflict when political parties aligned to her coalition government are advocating incoherent and irrational policies and articulating brazen forms of racism. We wish to make an open request to all the political parties constituting the governing Freedom Alliance, as well as to the opposition United National Party, to declare publicly their official policy on the fundamentals of the Tamil national question, particularly on the core demands of the Tamil’s concerning homeland, nationality and the right to self-determination. 'It will be meaningful to talk about a permanent settlement if the Sinhala political organisations have a clear, coherent policy, a proper insight and a consensus approach towards the Tamil national question. If not, there is no meaning in engaging in talks about a permanent solution. There is division, discord, confusion and contradiction within the Sinhala political leadership on the Tamil issue. Having realized the truth that the Sinhala political leadership will not be able to offer a reasonable permanent solution to our people, we submitted an interim solution. We expressed our desire to resume negotiations, based on our proposals for an interim mechanism, to provide relief to our people’s urgent existential needs. But the government of Kumaratunga is deliberately impeding the peace efforts by insisting that talks should be about a permanent settlement. Having covered up the serious policy differences and internal contradictions behind the curtain of a loose political alliance, President Kumaratunga is accusing the Tamil Tigers of intransigence. We are confident that the international community will soon be able to see the real face of Chandrika, who is acting with a deceptive mask of peace. 'We cannot continue to be entrapped in a political vacuum without an interim solution or a permanent settlement, without a stable peace and without peace of mind. The Sinhala nation neither assimilates and integrates our people to live in co-existence nor does it allow our people to secede and lead a separate existence. We cannot continue to live in the darkness of political uncertainty, without freedom, without emancipation, without any prospects for the future. There are borderlines to patience and expectations. We have now reached the borderline. At this critical moment we wish to make an urgent appeal to the Sri Lanka government. We urge the government to resume the peace negotiations without conditions, based on our proposal for an Interim Self-Governing Authority. If the Government of Sri Lanka rejects our urgent appeal and adopts delaying tactics, perpetuating the suffering of our people, we have no alternative other than to advance the freedom struggle of our nation. We call upon the concerned international governments to understand our predicament and prevail upon the Sri Lanka government to resume peace talks based on our fair and reasonable stand.' Appendix II: The letter of the JVP Secretary to the ambassadors of the three countries H.E. Mr. Akio Suda , Ambassador of Japan H.E. Mrs. Susan Blankhart,  Ambassador of Netherlands representing the EU H.E. Mr.Jeffry Lunstead, Ambassador of the USA. Your Excellencies, Our attention has been drawn to the joint statement made by Your Excellencies on the 15th December 2004, on the Sri Lankan Peace process especially as that statement seems to blame our party for the stalling of the peace process. We are surprised at this grave misunderstanding about both our position as well as our role within the government. The facts are the following: Our party has the second largest parliamentary representation in the ruling alliance. (Our party however polled the largest number of popular votes in the alliance). The Alliance came into being wedded to democracy, the rule of law, and to a peaceful solution of the national question. It came about after an election which was called after continued violations of the Ceasefire Agreement by the LTTE as well as after the Government of Norway appeared to give the impression of gross bias. These sentiments were expressed not only by the JVP but also repeatedly by others. The two major constituents of the Alliance however have different views on the shape of the final solutions, just like the different contexts of Japan, the US and the EU have widely differing arrangements in achieving democracy in their multi-ethnic societies. This “agree-to-disagree” on solutions is a key element of our Alliance. These different visions will be ironed out once they are discussed during the peace talks. A solution will be finally submitted for approval by the people in a referendum. In extensive and extremely cordial discussions with the US, and Japanese Ambassadors, our position has been made clear. We are ever ready for peace talks but not on the basis of the LTTE’s ISGA., which as independent commentators have pointed out is a clear blue print for a separate state. We also pointed out the need for democracy and human rights in the North and East, where it is currently grossly lacking, the LTTE operating as a Fascist dictatorship, is completely at variance with the democratic reality and ideals of the US, Japan and the EU. Democracy is flourishing in your countries illustrated by strong variations in views and their expressions within parliament and on the street in the form of demonstrations. Not blindly following a single line is your strength. It is also the strength in those parts of Sri Lanka where democracy reigns that is in those areas not controlled by the LTTE. Our Alliance will continue to have healthy differences. The actual barriers to peace talks however come not from us, but from the latter-day Hitler holding forth in the Vanni. He has a single minded dream of a mono-ethnic separate state under his dictatorship. In this, the LTTE stand isolated from all other parties in the country, all of whom are wedded both to the sovereignty of this country and for democracy. We on the other hand will always keep the door open for discussion and dialog on the ethnic issue including in the free expression in elections and in the street. We of course have our doors fully open for discussions with Your Excellencies at anytime and any place that you wish to discuss – as indeed you have done on many occasions. Thank you, M. Tilvin Silva. The General Secretary, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna.  16th December 2004.
Back to the top Home  | Papers  | Notes  | Forum  | Search  | Feedback  | Links Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group  All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name  are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.