Archives

by Jehan Perera

Until the most recent round of peace talks, each previous round of direct peace talks between the Sri Lankan Government and LTTE had yielded a breakthrough of significant proportions.

The first round of peace talks in Thailand in September last year saw the LTTE publicly confirm its willingness to renounce a separate state of Tamil Eelam and the Government reciprocating by referring to the LTTE as its partner. At the second round of talks in October in Thailand this paradigm shift in relations was concretised by the setting up of three joint Government-LTTE committees to deal with economic, political and military affairs. The third round of peace talks in Oslo in December saw the LTTE and Government agree to federalism as the basis of a political solution ending years of uncertainty as to the framework of such a solution.

The decision taken at the recently concluded fourth session of peace talks by the Government and LTTE to postpone discussion about the dispute over the Sri Lankan military's High Security Zones was certainly not a breakthrough on the lines of the previous peace talks. But it was a pragmatic measure that enabled the parties at the peace talks to continue discussing other important matters without being stalled by this issue.

The step by step approach taken by the two parties to conflict resolution is a welcome reconfirmation that they are committed to resolving problems in a mutually accommodative manner within the framework of the peace process.

The LTTE had demanded that the High Security Zones should be speedily dismantled to enable displaced persons to return to their homes, while the Army responded with its own demand that the LTTE should disarm so that the security balance will be maintained.

As the issue of security zones, demilitarisation and decommissioning go to the very heart of the peace process a swift solution to the problem is unlikely at this time. A stage by stage problem-solving approach that has characterised the peace process so far would be more likely.

At the outset of the controversy over the High Security Zones, the international monitors of the SLMM pointed out that the present ceasefire and accompanying peace process was based on an acknowledgement of the existing balance of forces between the Government and LTTE. They discouraged any effort to alter this balance through demands for unilateral military concessions as being likely to destabilise the entire peace process. The SLMM was taken to task by the LTTE for their statement, thus showing the tightrope they are walking in making their very positive contribution to the peace process.

In the Sri Lankan context, the balance of forces and the security of each side have been seen as a basis on which the peace process has been moving forwards.

On the other hand, the resettlement of displaced persons is a humanitarian priority. The people must feel that they are obtaining the benefits of peace in order for them to support the peace process wholeheartedly.

The issues of resettlement, demilitarisation and demobilisation are sensitive ones that exist in peace processes wherever civil wars have ended. In Sri Lanka, these issues have come up at an early stage. This reflects the dynamism of the peace process and not its weakness.

Accommodation

According to the commentary of military experts it seems that the area taken over by the armed forces as High Security Zones is excessive. Even the Army has admitted as much by voluntarily offering to give up certain parts of the High Security Zones. It is likely that more such areas could be given up by the military at this time.

For its part the LTTE could also reassure the Sri Lankan military through concrete means that it is not seeking to disadvantage them to the maximum degree. The LTTE is believed to have plans to settle its martyrs families in the High Security Zones.

This will permit easier LTTE infiltration into areas which are in close proximity to the military camps. The Government and LTTE could take up these issues in a manner that satisfies the interests of both sides and allays their fears.

It is regrettable that the opposition has been looking at the issue of High Security Zones and many other matters connected to the peace process in a pessimistic manner.

This has been increasing the apprehensions of the people about the stability of the peace process. It would be more constructive if the opposition were to propose an alternative and practical approaches to resolve the conflicting interests at stake.

At its recent mass rally at Lipton Circus, the JVP frontally opposed the peace process as being a betrayal of the country and leading to its division. They opposed any governmental concession on the issue of the High Security Zones. The JVP's interest lies in a country in a chaotic situation in which the Government cannot rule and the economy is in the doldrums. The JVP can maximise its support if there is a return to war coupled with a collapse of the economy. Such a situation will tend to make the Government engage in more repressive measures to maintain control. A repressive and chaotic situation of this nature would be one that enables the JVP to overtake the PA as the active representative of the opposition.

A return to war and economic collapse will strengthen the hand of the JVP more than it will benefit the PA.

On the other hand, a stable Sri Lanka that has overcome its ethnic conflict is in the interests of the two main political parties, in addition to the people.

The recent announcement that PA stalwarts will be joining a joint Government-opposition team of parliamentarians and LTTE members to tour foreign countries to learn about the workings of the federal form of government is most welcome in this regard. For its part the Government needs to do more to make the PA, and in particular the President, an integral part of the peace process.

The present peace process taking place between the Government and LTTE has so far been, by and large, an exclusive one.

There has been little opportunity for other parties and civil society to either participate in, or contribute towards, the decisions being taken by the two main parties.

The decision at the peace talks to recognise the right of women to participate in the peace process by the formation of a women's committee charged with representing gender interests was a step in the right direction. However, the non-inclusion of other political parties and civil society from the ongoing peace process is continuing to give rise to resentment and suspicion.

Dilemma

In his recent address to the nation, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe acknowledged the past contribution of President Chandrika Kumaratunga to the peace process and said that the opposition has an important role to play in sustaining it.

The most recent public opinion polls on the peace process have shown that although the vast majority of people are solidly in favour of it their confidence in it is falling. It is going to be difficult to sustain public confidence and support in favour of the peace process at the same time as the major opposition party feels excluded from it.The highly polarised nature of the Sri Lankan polity means that most people see any political development through the eyes of the political party that they vote for. This point concerning the politicisation of society was poignantly brought out at a training of trainers programme on Minority Rights organised by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.

After listening to a series of lectures by the Chairman of the Commission Dr Godfrey Gunatilleke, member of the Commission Mrs Manouri Muttettuwegama and minority rights experts Dr Mario Gomes, Dr Deepika Udagama and Mr S Balakrishnan, one of the potential trainers from Galle referred to a dilemma of grassroots level peace work.

He said that people tended to support or oppose the peace process depending on whether they saw themselves as government or opposition supporters respectively.

He added that doing peace education work would make them akin to government supporters in the eyes of the people even if they were politically non-partisan.

But unless the people are educated about the peace process and kept abreast it will be difficult to obtain their whole hearted support for the compromises and mutual accommodations that are inherent in any peace process. Resolving this dilemma requires a bipartisan political approach.

An area in which the Government can solicit the PA's help would be in fashioning a mass educational campaign at the grassroots level.

During its period in government, the PA designed a variety of programmes, such as Sudu Nelum movement, Tavalama peace caravan and the National Integration Programme Unit, that disseminated information about the PA's devolution package to the people.

The PA also mobilised the services of university academics, civil society leaders, religious dignitaries and NGOs to be resource persons in these educational campaigns. By way of contrast, the present peace process is sorely lacking in any sort of mass education on the peace process.

Formal and informal mechanisms need to be developed to harness PA expertise to serve the overall peace process.

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