CLASSIFIED | POLITICS | TERRORISM | OPINION | VIEWS

To negotiate with terrorists, is to accept terrorism as a legal means to claim rights. The Government should ask for a ruling from the International Court of Law.

By Charles Perera

The moot point is what we are going to negotiate with terrorists ? We should know what theTamil people want, not what the terrorists want. Therefore, there should be a plebiscite of the Tamil people.

Terrorism is against law. Therefore, those who are engages in terrorism and commit mass murder are punishable under criminal law. No negotiations are possible with criminals, or terrorists who have taken up arms to find solutions to their ideologies. It is the same as in the case of a murderer or for instance a kidnapper who has kidnapped a person and demands money threatening the life of the victim if the ransom is not paid. We give into them for the purpose of saving the life of the innocent victim. But, there is no legal binding to let them go scot free for their act.

The terrorists fall into the category of criminals, and to negotiate with them is to give into their pattern of behaviour, and accept terrorism as a legal right to political, social or economic claims. Further more the terrorists who have taken up arms to vindicate the right of the people must do so with the backing of the people, if they are to be considered freedom fighters. The support of the people for terrorism to win their rights is not assured if the terrorists assassinate and murder those who are opposed to the means they have adopted to vindicate the rights of the people.

Hence, if a government decides to negotiate with a terrorist group, it should first ask the terrorists to lay down their arms. If the government has taken defensive action to protect the innocent people, and those that are likely to be assassinated by the terrorists, cannot possibly stop their defensive action, to make possible negotiations, as it would be like opening the flood gates. The terrorists will over flow into the government areas and take control of them as the government has stopped defensive action.

Therefore, the continued demand by the International Community, that both parties should come to a negotiated settlement becomes an indirect means of accepting terrorism to win political rights. That may create a dangerous precedent. In the modern civilized world democracy has been recognised as a means to oppose government policies that affect certain groups, or communities of people. Therefore, to vindicate the rights of a section of people, democratic means have to be applied. This is an important matter on which the JVP may consult the International Court of Law for a ruling, if the Government fails to do so.

If a group of persons takes up arms to vindicate their rights, which is not a civilised democratic means, they should first be asked to lay down their arms to come to a negotiated settlement .

In the event a government is faced with a group of terrorist, who have taken uncivilised means of claiming their rights, the role of the International Community, is to ask them fall in line with the civilized democratic political means, instead of keep on asking the government to negotiate with the ruthless barbaric savages.

In a way, though the government may give into negotiations with the terrorists on humanitarian grounds, to save the innocent people being incessantly killed or subjected to suffering , it would be aiding and abetting terrorism. But, the moot point is what we are going to negotiate with terrorists ? We should know what the Tamil people want, not what the terrorists want. The Tamil people may not want what the terrorists are demanding. Therefore, there should be a period of time the terrorists should agree, for the government to consult the people through a plebiscite.

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER