Can Talks end Separatist
Terrorism?
The answers to the above question seems to engage the article given
by veteran journalist HLD Mahindapala (despite the misleading title
he has given to his essay). This question must engage the attention
of all those who are interested in the question of LTTE terrorism
in the light of the outcome of the Geneva II talks. The following
are some comments of mine on this question and on HLD's article.
HLD starts by quoting two opinions on the Peace Process, one by Jonathan
Steele praising it and the other by Dr Subramanian Reddy opposing
it. He seems to agree with Dr Reddy, and this is certainly the correct
position to take. But it should be seen that Dr Reddy is opposing
the Peace Process because it is orchestrated by Norway. As the President
of the Janata Party he probably feels that SL is in the Indian region
of influence and he is keen on keeping out others like Norway or Pakistan
on whom SL has come to rely for the supply of arms. So Reddy's position
cannot be completely endorsed. Reddy says that the "Norwegians
have no clue about the real reason for the problem in Sri Lanka."
But he would not admit that a large part of the real reason is India
arming the terrorists and Rajiv Gandhi intervening on their behalf
when they were on the verge of annihilation.
A good deal of what HLD says about the inappropriateness of the Peace
Process to solve the problem, the role of NGOs, the duplicity of the
Peace Brigade, etc. is correct. So while I would agree with this part
of his analysis I think there are still points in his analysis to
which attention should be drawn.
HLD says that the CFA was "stitched together by Erik Solheim
and Ranil Wickremesinghe". This is true but it is past history.
He does not mention that today the CFA is upheld by Ranil Wickremesinghe
and Mahinda Rajapkse who have formally legitimized their co-operation
in a new MoU. So it is not so much the Eric-Ranil but the Ranil-Mahinda
alliance which legitimizes the CFA today. HLD is again correct in
saying that no Western country would have entered into such an agreement
but does not point out to the political bankruptcy of Government and
Opposition in SL in sticking this agreement. There is also an attempt
to shift the entire blame to Solheim (as shown clearly in the title
of his article). But Solheim could only operate with the agreement
of GoSL. Here again we see an attempt to absolve those really responsible
and to shift the entire blame to a scapegoat.
HLD also mentions that the problem with the A9 highway which figured
prominently in the collapse of the Geneva II talks. He quotes Devananda
in relation to this but Anandasangaree has put the problem in a better
perspective. The problem here is that a section of A9 has been given
over to the control of the LTTE who use it to extort money. According
to Sangaree the CFA did not authorize the levy of a toll on the A9,
but GoSL has allowed the LTTE to do so. Logically they should have
terminated the CFA when the LTTE began charging the toll, but GoSL
as usual failed in discharging its responsibilities in this matter.
The role of NGOs come in for a lot of valid criticism. The powerful
lobby of peaceniks, led mostly by Jesuhelas, are the greatest supporters
of the NGOs. HLD names them and gives examples of the deceit they
employ. But once again the failure lies in GoSL not regulating these
NGOs. In India, for instance, there is much tighter control of foreign
NGOs and of course they are not allowed in many Asian countries. In
Sri Lanka the Government welcome them with open arms even though they
exert themselves in backing the terrorists.
The basic error of HLD's analysis is that he does not identify who
is ultimately responsible for the situation in which the country if
placed in. Whether we identify the immediate cause as Norwegian or
NGO interference the fundamental cause is the dereliction of duty
by GOSL.
Like most commentators on the SL situation HLD does not say whether
the Peace Process is the way to go. He seems to imply that it is as
there is no alternative suggested. So HLD has not answer to the question
we posed at the beginning: Can Peace Talks end separatist terrorism?
Unless this question is answered categorically no amount of journalist
rubbish and commentary is of any use. In may case I have given my
solution. (see www.vgweb.org.acslu). Verh few others have. This is
the difference between sense and nonsense.
