Sri Lanka - Articles

Every actor in the Island “wants peace” and all stakeholders of peace have asserted their “commitment” towards the peace process, now aged four years. Despite this, there has been a stalemated “no war, no peace” situation. What are the stumbling blocks? Are there any hopeful prospects? And where is the process heading?

Greatest Sadness of Greatest Numbers

The major stumbling block is the mindset. Though the major actors viz., the President, the JVP, the Opposition UNP and the LTTE are drumming their “commitment” to take the peace process forward, what is evident is their determination to stick by their maximalist positions. For the LTTE, the Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) proposals should be the basis to recommence talks with the Government. It is argued that an interim arrangement should be in place till such time that a final settlement is reached to meet the urgent needs of the people of the Northeast. The President is willing to discuss the ISGA proposals of the LTTE, but she wants the LTTE to also discuss the Government’s proposals when negotiations take place. To the JVP, the ISGA proposals are seeking too much for the LTTE; therefore, “some kind of devolution” for permanent settlement is enough, and there is no need for an interim set-up. JVP, in fact, has been bolstering support against the ISGA proposals abroad among the Sri Lankan expatriates. The UNP is non-committal, but “willing” to support the process. Their willingness, however, is not certain. Muslim parties are in disarray, busy in their factional disputes.

The second hurdle is the lack of a southern consensus on the ethnic issue. It is a well recognized fact that it is far easier to bring the LTTE to the negotiating table than to make the major political parties in the Island agree on an issue. The ethnic issue is usually exploited for electoral advantage, but electoral mileage has never been utilised for solving this issue. Both parties are not averse to opposing the same proposals in opposition they would support when in government. This lack of bi-partisanship has been cited by the LTTE to reveal “non-seriousness” of the Sinhala polity in settling the ethnic question.

The third obstacle is the ambiguity in the Government-Norway (the facilitators) relations. Though Chandrika was instrumental in bringing the Norwegians into the picture, she later started expressing her displeasure with the facilitators. She is very conscious that the Norwegians should not cross the bounds of ‘facilitation’ to ‘arbitration’/‘mediation’. It is felt that Oslo has been “presurising” the government to accept the LTTE’s position. The government is also not happy with the SLMM’s (Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission) handling of certain security issues. Violence in the East continues unabated, involving the LTTE and its rival factions. The ceasefire is a socio-political and military mockery.

Smallest Happiness of Smallest Numbers

Despite the obstacles cited above there is a silver lining. The ISGA can be the basis for talking by the LTTE, but it is ready to “accommodate changes”. The government could explore the extent of LTTE “flexibility”. The Norwegians may help in this exploration exercise. But, for this, the Government and its constituents should be clear about their stand on Norway’s facilitation. The effort invested by Oslo in the process has to be acknowledged by all the stakeholders in peace on the Island. From the long-term perspective of settling the issue, questioning Norway’s intentions does not auger well.

The fact that the ceasefire is on hold despite a stalemate in the talks indicates that there is a strong constituency for peace which none of the actors want to defy. The National Advisory Council on Peace and Reconciliation (NACPR) created by Chandrika to ensure the "openness and inclusiveness" of the peace process continues to be a non-starter. Instead of calling it a “ploy”, the TNA (Tail National Alliance) could join its deliberations and strengthen the body. The main Opposition UNP (United National Party) should consider attending the NACPR. It would be an important deliberative forum to keep the Government informed of public opinion and become a vital conduit of communication between the Government and the people.

The international community is determined to push the peace process forward. Due to this determination there is continuity in the process, despite changes in the Government in Colombo this year. The involvement of EU, US, Japan and India at the macro level and Norway at the micro level has made the process irreversible. Their continued pressure on the actors in the Island is vital.

There seems to be some preference displayed by all the actors, save the international community, to continue the present stalemate. But, too long an impasse could lead into a cul-de-sac.