Archives

Joint problem solving in Thailand needs bipartisan support

by Jehan Perera

The outcome of the first round of peace talks between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was more successful than anticipated. There was a meeting of minds of the parties that went beyond setting up dates and the agenda for future talks. The positive interaction between chief government negotiator Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris and his LTTE counterpart Dr. Anton Balasingham at the closing media conference could not have been a better example of joint problem solving.

At the media conference there was not the slightest indication that either Prof. Peiris or Dr. Balasingham was seeking to get the better of the other or put the other on the spot. On the contrary, Dr. Balasingham had words of great appreciation to the Government for sending men of calibre and understanding with whom it was possible to negotiate with. Prof. Peiris explained the government's position with brilliance and aplomb. It was one of his finest hours.

The best form of negotiation is where the two parties approach it in the spirit of problem solving. They sit together to solve a problem. The success of this initial round of peace talks could not however have been simply due to the good rapport between the two sets of negotiators. There would have been a considerable amount of ground work done in the informal talks that are known to have been taking place over the past nine months of ceasefire in the LTTE-controlled Wanni, in Colombo, and in London between Government and LTTE members.

Among matters on which agreement was reached was the setting up of a joint committee to deal with the problem of high security zones and the resettlement of displaced people. Another important matter on which the two parties came up with a creative agreement was to set up a mechanism by which official government funds and international aid flows could be made accessible to the LTTE.

A potentially contentious issue that the two parties agreed to postpone presenting was an interim administration for the northern and eastern provinces claimed by the LTTE as the Tamil homeland. This claim is opposed by Sinhalese majority opinion.

At these initial talks there were important matters on which the LTTE and Government showed their willingness to compromise. The LTTE did not push for the immediate establishment of an interim administration. Instead it was satisfied with the establishment of a "Joint Task Force" in which it would be a partner with the Government in rehabilitating the north and east. This task force in all likelihood will be a half way house for time being, until the people see that having such a partnership with the LTTE is not harming their lives or the country.

Second, the LTTE made a major concession on the vexed issue of a separate state. The genuine fear of Tamil separatism is what gives strength to Sinhalese nationalism. Dr. Balasingham clearly said that homelands and self determination only meant regional autonomy and substantial self government in the Sri Lankan context. They did not mean a separate state.

The Government's acknowledgement that the LTTE would be its partner in the administration and economic reconstruction of the northern and eastern provinces was the Government's return offer to the LTTE. The media conference was an early demonstration of the efficacy of this partnership, with Minister Peiris and Dr. Balasingham both helping each other out of the probing questions by the journalists.

A long list of problems stretch before the two negotiating teams. Many problems seem to have been untouched at these first peace talks. The issue of a human rights framework found no mention in the communique issued at the media conference. It is important to guarantee human rights standards and humanitarian norms from the very beginning of a peace process.

This would increase the likelihood that people are able to enjoy the fruits of peace in their full measure in the future. It is also unfortunate that there was no mention of a role for civil society in the ongoing peace process. But clearly the peace process needs to be founded on social acceptance as much as on political will.

Sustaining the peace process will also require a knowledge-base that independent think-tanks have the capacity to generate. Civil society organisations have a crucial role to play in both generating a knowledge-base of possible options for conflict resolution and in disseminating information among the general population. Thereby they would be promoting social acceptance of the need for a changed social and political order. Much of the groundwork for the present peace process was laid in the peace education campaigns carried out by civic groups over the past two decades when the Government and LTTE were at war with each other.

Research done on the resolution of ethnic conflicts through negotiations by scholars such as the head of Colombo University's political science department, Dr Jayadeva Uyangoda, reveals that Sri Lanka satisfies most of the conditions for a lasting political settlement.

These include the existence of a democratic government, a conflict that has lasted a long time and the assistance of a third party. But another key condition for lasting success is to obtain bipartisan political support for regional autonomy to the war torn region.

At the Thailand talks a major breakthrough was the LTTE's announcement that it was prepared to accept regional autonomy within a united Sri Lanka as a solution to the ethnic conflict. For the Government to be able to offer such regional autonomy, an amendment of the constitution involving the opposition would be necessary. Any amendment of the constitution requires the concurrence of the opposition to generate a 2/3 majority in Parliament.

Not only scholarly research, but also Sri Lanka's own constitution make a bipartisan consensus on regional autonomy an essential part of a stable, permanent solution. The scenario that needs to be guarded against is one in which the competitive pressures of party politics do not lead to a delay or reversal of the peace process.

To its credit, the PA opposition has so far not acted as a real spoiler of the peace process. While it has expressed concern over aspects of the peace process it has not made any concerted effort to sabotage it. So far in its concrete behaviour the PA has behaved as a responsible opposition. The President has positively welcomed the LTTE's announcement in Thailand that it will be satisfied with regional autonomy.

Further, the PA has even requested the Government to make its representative a part of the peace talks in Thailand. While the Government nominated a representative to have talks with the PA about this, the meeting did not take place before the first round of peace talks in Thailand.

There is a basic problem with getting a joint session of talks between the Government, PA and LTTE to be successful.

The Government favours a two-stage approach, which the LTTE also shares. The first stage is to de-escalate the war and ensure normalcy for civilian life. The second stage is to address the substantive political issues under conducive conditions of a ceasefire.

On the other hand, the PA's approach has been to first obtain agreement on the core political issues and bring about conditions of normalcy within the framework of that agreement.

Due to the difference between the Government and PA approaches it makes sense that the two should not attempt to negotiate together with the LTTE. If the PA had been present at the Thailand talks as an insider, the smooth progress of those talks would have been unlikely. The chances for confrontation and mistrust would have been high.

However, the PA's request to be a part of the peace process needs to be respected by the Government. Not only did the PA initiate the present peace process when it formed the government. It is also the government-in-waiting. The PA's request to be a part of the peace process does not mean that it has to be in the same room as the Government and LTTE when they engage in their next round of Track 1 official talks.

But it could mean that another semi-official way is found for members of the PA opposition to meet regularly with the LTTE and enter into a better understanding with them as an integral part of the peace process.

Sustaining peace cannot be shouldered by the conflicting parties and politicians only. The general public need to be brought into the picture. The peace education campaigns carried out by civic groups over the past two decades laid the groundwork for peace when successive governments and the LTTE were at war with each other.

The peace process needs to be founded on social acceptance as well as on political will. There cannot be peace making at the elite level when there is unresolved grievance at the community level.[back]

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager