Archives

Speech made by Milinda Moragoda, Minister for Economic Reform, Science and Technology and Deputy Minister of Policy Development and Implementation on 30th January at the parliamentary debate on the Oslo Donor Conference.

In his book from 'Third World to First', Lee Kuan Yew writes about some of our political leaders. Of President Premadasa he relates, "I met him on several occasions in Singapore after he became President and tried to convince him that this conflict could not be solved by force of arms. A political solution was the only way, one considered fair by the Tamils and the rest of the world".

Just over a year ago we entered into what could be long and protracted peace negotiations with the LTTE. We recognised that after twenty years of war we could not win through military means. We had to find another solution and as described by Lee Kuan Yew we opted for a negotiated approach.

From the very start, as Kim Dae Jung, former President of the Republic of Korea said when he made his historic visit to North Korea, we entered this process with "a warm heart and a cool head". When I mentioned this to a foreign colleague of mine, he said: "add a deep breath to that as well." And so we should.

Anyone who believes that a twenty year war can be solved through a shallow approach of rhetoric or by military might has not understood the deep complexities of our problem. Unless we possess the genuine desire to build one nation and one people within an equal, fair and tolerant society and unless we are truly committed to strive towards a peaceful solution then we are bound to fail.

Nor can we afford to relax our guard for one moment. It was John F. Kennedy who said in his election address of 1960 that "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war". The same holds true for our armed forces.

Until we have built a lasting trust and cooled the hatred that twenty year of conflict have brought to both sides then we must be prepared for a return to war.

We also recognised that talking about a twenty year war only touched the surface of the issue. It has been more like fifty years of ill-conceived social engineering and amateurish political manipulation that has built such a wide divide and suspicion between our communities.

That divide had grown very wide by the sight of mainstream politicians using communal politics and political opportunism for their own purposes.

When a political party uses rhetoric to whip up dissent from one community within our society for the purpose of seeking political power then all of us must expect bitterness, hatred and division to follow.

Fifty years ago we were one of the strongest economies in the whole of Asia, today we are a pitiful nation at the bottom of the list. That is what political manipulation, communal politics, opportunism and greed by a few has done for us.

If anyone here believes that this is a recipe for the future then they should look carefully at our people. Respect for this Chamber and the politicians in it has dropped to an all time low.

Our people pay lip service to their politicians whilst their contempt has grown for the political culture built up over the past fifty years. We ignore the signs at our peril. Each government has taken the political initiative and tried to find lasting solutions. Meanwhile, successive oppositions have undercut and destroyed every initiative.

In other countries such issues would reach across the political divide and seek consensus. In virtually every other country in the world national politicians take a non partisan approach to questions of national security and conflict resolution. Not so here in Sri Lanka. Winning power at any price and holding onto it with no qualms has become more important to us than seeking to serve the people who elected us.

Perhaps the challenge for all of us in this debate is to lay out clearly and unambiguously what each of us would do if we were in office, rather than to seek to criticise. I wonder if anyone will take up the challenge. It is within this backdrop that we should look at the achievements of the last year. The distrust between different communities, the war fed atrocities; the hatred and the destruction of battle and the deeply divided polity are all issues that the new Government had to overcome.

We even had to overcome the whole question of whether to negotiate or continue the war. Our Prime Minister was clear on his approach, negotiation was the way forward. But even before the election he and the UNP were accused of secret deals with the LTTE. Time has shown that to have been a sham made up by political opponents who were frightened of his new approach. Any real observer of the war and its roots would have seen that such secret deals were not likely or practical. But as has happened so far in our recent history, the politicians sought to mislead the people.

The election was won and very soon after unilateral ceasefires were enacted. The Ceasefire Agreement was never going to be a perfect document. We were just at the start of a ceasefire in which both parties held deep distrust of the other and where every move was treated with the deepest suspicion.

There were many things we might have had in the agreement but at that stage getting the two parties to sign a document with demands and obligations placed upon both was a significant achievement. Whatever our detractors might say, the Norwegian facilitators should share the credit for what was a massive achievement. Yet even then there were detractors who wished to argue the commas and the full stops rather than looking at the overall substance of what was being achieved.

At that point we entered into a period of trust building. Indeed this first year of the ceasefire has been about repairing some of the bridges that had been destroyed through decades of political mistakes by all political parties. I remember the early days of the ceasefire where on both sides any failure to meet any aspect of the agreement was seen potentially as a ploy by the other side to manipulate or destroy the fragile truce.

Then we had to deal with the issue of de-proscription. There were many of our detractors who did not want us to negotiate with the LTTE and saw our position as legitimising their case.

But as the film maker, Robert Altman, once said "You don't change people's ideas through rhetoric but by altering their way of looking at things. You will only get rid of war when you get rid of the pageantry surrounding it."

Ultimately the man firing the bullets is the man you have to stop; either military or through negotiations. Talking to a surrogate may be helpful but can never replace the real thing. A piece of legislation that can easily be reversed in one direction can be reversed again if the needs must. But for us to be able to talk to the LTTE the de-proscription notice had to be placed.

That there were issues that arose along the way is easy for all of us to see. Each had to be handled delicately. Each one had to judged according to the degree of severity and the potential damage it might do to all of our people. Especially important in the early days of the ceasefire was to ensure that our armed forces were protected should an attack happen. Yet they handled the process with exemplary self-control and dignity.

Being on the frontline, having experienced the ferocity of the LTTE and having seen their comrades fall in battle, it must have been more difficult for them to understand what we were trying to do and to overcome their instinctive distrust more than most.

We are right to be especially proud of the manner in which the armed forces have conducted themselves since the ceasefire agreement.

Again the detractors would have the people believe that we have somehow betrayed the armed forces. I think the opposite. In the air-conditioned comfort of this Chamber it is difficult to imagine what it must have been like on the frontline.

A few of our members here have sacrificed loved ones to this brutal war. Many more families from all walks of life have paid dearly for this war whilst the rest of us have looked on. To those families we owe a debt of gratitude which can only ever partly be repaid by stopping the fighting and bringing prosperity to their lives.

To our soldiers, sailors, airmen and policemen and women we owe a similar debt which can only be repaid by providing an alternative which brings them above all peace, prosperity and happiness.

Our detractors can try to fan the flames of ethnic and religious hatred but I believe our armed forces know better.

Then our detractors would have us believe that the Prime Minister and the Government wish to divide our country. It may be easy for some to forget the past before the ceasefire. Before then if you were to go to the North and East you would have seen a country already divided. A country driven apart as sure as if a border between two countries was already drawn. I invite these detractors to spend some time along the boundary between the so called 'cleared' and the 'uncleared' areas and they will soon realise that what this Government and our Prime Minister are trying to do is to re-unite the country not divide it.

Our detractors love to believe that they are being sold out in every direction, for them the pain and the anguish is not complete unless they can prove that there is no-one left to trust.

So it is when they attack the international community. We must accept that it was the previous government that began the peace process. It was the President who initially invited the Norwegians to become facilitators.

With their record of helping in peace negotiations around the world and their reputation for a discrete and dignified approach to facilitation we were pleased to see them help the new government. In this context, we should not be ashamed or insecure to share the credit with the President and the opposition. Our Prime Minister has always been prepared to do this. Despite the Norwegians' no partisan approach and willingness to help, there are some in our community who seek to defile their name with every opportunity.

There have been times when we have had differences with the Norwegians. Similarly the LTTE have shown their displeasure at times. That both sides feel uncomfortable from time to time is a sign of true non-partisanship by the Norwegians.

Likewise the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission has had its ups and downs with both the Government and the LTTE. Criticism has often come from those who do not seek to inform themselves about the terms of reference under which the Norwegians and the monitoring mission works. One such case is the controversy over the LTTE radio station. That the LTTE could have obtained the equipment by other means if they had wished is carefully ignored by our detractors.

The fact that they already operated powerful clandestine radio and TV channels with international affiliates was also ignored.

That they chose to use official Sri Lankan channels, hardly a separatist's line, is ignored. Instead the detractors preferred to look at the minutiae rather than the substantive issues. The old saying that one can't see the wood for the trees is very apt in this case.

But the international support that the Prime Minister has built up over the past year has provided us with this golden opportunity to bring about peace.

Never before have we had the support of countries ranging from India, Japan, the European Union, Canada, Australia and the United States. Never before have we had so much goodwill which we are now in the process of translating into concrete economic assistance. Even East Asian countries like Thailand are playing their part in a most innovative manner.

The detractors seek refuge by asking which country is behind us. Then let me tell them.

They can seek no refuge there because every country is behind us; every single one. The support is unanimous. Especially because the international community sees Sri Lanka as a shining beacon of hope in an otherwise uncertain world.

The Oslo Donors Conference demonstrated exactly that. It was meant to send a political signal by the bi-lateral donors to the international donor community that Sri Lanka should be helped. The signal was sent loud and clear.

Many ask about India. The Government of Sri Lanka has always stated that India is the cornerstone of our foreign policy and a key plank in our economic policy. In future we hope Sri Lanka will become the gateway to South Asia through India in this modern world. It is in this context that under Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe we have a very special relationship with India.

So special that like old friends we undertstand each other well and do not always have to spell out every initiative or action for the other to understand. In fact, I would venture to state that under Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, we can afford to take India for granted as they can with us.

Some have viewed with suspicion the new relationship being built with the Japanese in recent times.

There is nothing new about our friendship with Japan. Besides our long standing friendship and common cultural ties, Japan is our major donor of foreign aid, granting between US $ 200-300 million in assistance.

Japan has now decided to become more engaged in Sri Lanka and we should all be happy and appreciative of this event.

In June we have the opportunity to build on the success of Oslo, when the bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors are brought together in Tokyo to see how Sri Lanka can be helped further. Japan in particular has a special interest in the economic reconstruction of Sri Lanka.

This important conference won't just deal with the rebuilding of the battle scarred North and East but will also seek to help the poverty stricken South. 
(To be continued)

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