Sri Lanka - Articles

How different is the present peace process from earlier ones?

External compulsions made the difference. The pressures range from war fatigue, economic crisis, international resentment, change in the government at Colombo, strong urge of the people for peace and so on. This externally induced peace process is expected to end on a positive note.

Are there any positive outcomes in the first round of talks held at Thailand?

 Yes. Eight major outcomes can be identified:

1. LTTE’s declaration that it wants genuine self-government and not a separate homeland.

2.  Resolution by both parties to address the full range of issues pertaining to a lasting political settlement of the ethnic conflict by a step-by-step approach.

3. Decision to uphold the Ceasefire Agreement and expand the range of confidence-building measures and strengthen the Monitoring Mission (SLMM).

4. Identification of two immediate priorities: (a) stepping up humanitarian mine action, and (b) accelerating the resettlement and rehabilitation of internally displaced persons. 

5.  To establish promptly a Joint Committee to deal with the issues relating to High Security Zones with the aim of enabling the return of displaced persons to their areas of origin, thereby facilitating the restoration of normalcy. 

6. To set-up a Joint Task Force for Humanitarian and Reconstruction Activities and address the difficult humanitarian situation in the north and east. 

7. Appeal to the donor community to provide immediate funding for humanitarian priorities and enhance public confidence in the peace process and thus contribute to further progress in the quest for peace in Sri Lanka. 

8. Commitment to continue further negotiations in three rounds on October 31-November 3, 2002, December 2-5, 2002 and January 6-9, 2003 to discuss substantive issues.

What are the reasons for the LTTE to give up separatism?

Regaining legitimacy from the international community and clearing its terrorist stigma, especially after 9/11, are the basic motives impelling the Tigers. International fund receipts are crucial for the survival of the LTTE.

What does the LTTE mean by “autonomy and self-government”?

This could mean federal, confederal or regional autonomy according with the three Thimpu principles of ‘homeland’, ‘nationality’ and ‘self-determination’. ‘Homeland’ “does not mean a separate state but the recognition of a particular territory in the North-East where the majority of Tamils live as a Territorial Linguistic Unit”. ‘Nationality’ connotes that, “the Tamils are a nation of people and not a minority in a plural society”; it is “recognition of distinct language, culture, history and economic life of the Tamils”. ‘Self-determination’ means “the accommodation of an oppressed people within a state system by recognizing their grievances and offering them substantial autonomy, other wise known as ‘internal self determination’”. But “if the oppression continues” the option of separation has been kept open as a “last resort”.

What is the position of the other minorities like Muslims and Plantation Tamils?

While the Muslims were represented by SLMC leader, Rauf Hakeem, there were none representing the Plantation Tamils. Muslims have been endorsed as an important partner for lasting peace and articulating the especial problems of the Muslim IDPs. It was decided to hold bilateral negotiations between Muslims and the LTTE in Wanni shortly to minimize the problems that might arise at the next round. The problems pertaining to Plantation Tamils were not addressed at this stage.

What is the real position of President Chandrika Kumaratunga? Would she allow the peace process to reach its logical conclusion?

The President’s stand has thus far been ‘cautious optimism with utmost skepticism’. Basically, she is a strong supporter of peace for which she has worked for decades, but as an opposition party leader she is compelled to pursue plebiscitary politics. This is a dangerous trend which requires change, given the fact that a solution to the ethnic conflict has been elusive due to the recalcitrance of the opposition parties since independence.

What is India’s stand on the peace process? Is there any role for it?

Though India is not a participant, it is being kept informed of each and every step in the peace process. Being a strong votary of a peaceful and negotiated settlement to the ethnic issue, New Delhi welcomed the successful outcome of the first round. But it has expressed doubts whether the LTTE’s latest stand represents a fundamental shift or is only a tactical manoeuvre. As for India’s role, as a major hurdle for the talks was removed with its assurance of not seeking extradition of the LTTE supremo for the present. India has also expressed its “abiding interest” in the reconstruction programme considered to be a stepping stone for further negotiations.

There is general skepticism on the sustainability of the peace process. How far is that valid?  

The peace-skeptics must acknowledge the uniqueness of the present peace process in the changed international environment. The ‘step-by-step’ approach is very promising. Contentious ‘core’ issues which possess the potential for wrecking the process are reserved for future discussion. Presently, both the parties share common interests in addressing ‘developmental issues’. The confidence generated by the success of the first round was evident from the fixing of dates for three more rounds of talks.

How long will it take to reach a permanent agreement?  

It was acknowledged that the final settlement might take “several years”. But what is most important is the sustaining of the process.