End conflict to engage in meaningful negotiations - Martin McGuinness

Following are excerpts of the interview Dayan Jayatilake had with Sinn Fein Chief Negotiator Martin McGuinness on Channel Eye.

Q: What is the Chief Negotiator of Sinn Fein doing on the front page of the Daily News greeted by the newly-elected President of Sri Lanka?

A: The newly-elected President of Sri Lanka was in Belfast last year when he was Prime Minister of Sri Lanka as part of a delegation who had come to learn about the Irish peace process. At that time he invited me to come to Sri Lanka and I said I would love to come there.

Just before Christmas I got an invitation from INPACT to come and share my experiences with the President, representatives of the TNA and other political parties in Colombo. It was great honour to be invited to share our experiences.

We do not have any delusions that we can solve the problems and difficulties which are here. But we feel empathy for the people of Sri Lanka.

Like the people here, we have suffered ourselves as a result of war over the course of many decades. We are in a very fortunate situation because there is a transformation in both the political and security situation in Ireland.

We have a successful peace process, one of the most successful peace processes in the world today. A lot of lives that would have been lost have been saved. So we were more than pleased to come here to share our experiences.

Q: Do you think it is quite unusual that a liberation movement which has not yet assumed state power to be travelling so far afield? I know just one such instance when Jerry Adams was in Cuba a while back and here you are in Colombo, Sri Lanka. How do you explain the success for Sinn Fein?

A: The fact that we have been a Government, the fact that we have concluded successful negotiations on the template as to how to move forward clearly gives us some experience in terms of conflict resolution.

I do think that the opportunity to come to Sri Lanka and share our experiences is something we feel duty-bound to do given that during the course of our peace process we were greatly assisted by South Africa for example.

The Chief Negotiator for the African National Congress and De Clerk's National Party, the United States, Canada and Finland greatly assisted us.

All of them contributed to the success of our peace process and whenever an invitation comes to us we feel duty-bound to come. We have not come here to outline our prescription of what needs to be done. We believe that the final decision has to be taken by the people of Sri Lanka themselves.

Q: On the one hand you seem to be saying that the internationalisation of the peace process by sharing experiences and getting assistance from others is no bad thing.

But you are also saying that Sri Lankans themselves have to work it out without interference. How do you balance these seemingly contradictory assertions?

A: They are not really contradictory because in my view, people who come from foriegn parts have to give whatever experiences they have to offer. The point to be made is that people need to have a vision of the future.

They need to have some sort of vision as to what a solution to the conflict can actually mean for them, like in South Africa.

It is the same in the Middle East, though with problems and difficulties. But people have a vision that there is going to be a Palestinian state and that the Palestinians will respect the right of the Israeli people to have their state.

In our case, we have a vision of the future which is that there will be all island governmental bodies, a wide range of human rights equality, and that at some stage these things will be implemented. That is our template for moving forward.

Sri Lanka is involved in that debate at the moment as to what is the best way to move forward and that should be decided by the stakeholders.

If there are many stakeholders the process should be an inclusive negotiating process because many people are suffering as a result of the conflict, and all sides have the responsibility to ensure that everyone is listened to.

Q: What about dissidents from the Tigers?

A: In our case what we have done is that we had elections with the negotiations. But those elections were constructed in such a fashion that we would ensure that everybody who got elected was a major or a minor player in the process and eventually when we got the negotiations up and running it would have to be a very inclusive process. Even small paramilitary groups are represented at the top.

We thought it was a valuable thing because it is very important to include everyone and not leave anyone to stand and say 'we were excluded'.

The only party that excluded itself from our negotiations was the Democratic Unions Party who were not prepared to sit in the negotiations. So I think that the decisions in Sri Lanka as to how to move forward have to be taken by the people. I cannot write a prescription.

Q: There is a debate now on devolution of power within a unitary state vs the federal or confederal form of power sharing. There are those who say that no devolution is really possible and there are others who feel that a unitary state should not devolve power.

But your experience in negotiating with the British Government seems to be that substantive devolution is indeed possible within a unitary framework. How do you think it could be relevant to the Sri Lankan situation?

A: Well, it is not my business to decide how Sri Lanka should share power in the future and I have not come here to interfere in the situation which lies before it. That is solely the responsibility of the people and the elected representatives of this island.

Where I come from have been involved in negotiations which have essentially meant that the British Government for the first time since the Government of Ireland Act (whereby the Queen claimed inspection over the North), has accepted that if the free people of the North of Ireland decide through a vote at some stage in the future, they will be duty-bound to legislate to bring about a united Ireland under the terms of an international agreement.

And the British House accepted that there should be a power sharing mechanism in the North which means that the Sinn Fein and other leaders who have qualified for positions in the government as a result of their performance in elections will sit in government like myself and Jerry Adams.

They will also set up a further government body on an all-island basis which would be a second government represented by other ministers in government sitting alongside all the ministers elected in Belfast.

Then I believe we have a pathway to a united Ireland and to bring that about by purely peaceful and democratic means.

In terms of the situation here, I do not claim that the situation here is absolutely similar to the situation in Ireland.

So I think the big decisions that have to be taken here as to the system of governance of the island of Sri Lanka have to be taken by the people of Sri Lanka. That will come about in the aftermath of a dialogue and meaningful negotiations.

If I am to deliver any message to Sri Lanka, the most important would be that there needs to be an end to conflict and there should be a meaningful process of negotiation to deal with the issues that lie at the heart of the conflict.

Q: Your visit comes in the backdrop of mounting attacks on the Sri Lanka armed forces by the LTTE and charges of human rights violations by the Sri Lankan Army. You said you met the President when he visited Ireland and had discussions.

You have met him again and had lengthy discussions and he has put his ministers in conference with you. What is the sense you have of President Rajapakse, especially regarding peace because he has been dubbed by certain sections of the Western media as a 'Sinhalese hardliner' and a 'hawk'?

A: First and foremost I think he is a very formidable politician. He has also shown himself as someone who is prepared to learn what has happened in other parts of the world. He has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and of human rights and equality for the people in South Africa.

I have formed an impression from speaking to him that this is someone who is prepared to look at all other processes that have taken place. The fact that he came to Ireland is an indication that he was on a journey of some description.

Since I came here I had many indepth discussions with both him and his Cabinet Ministers who were listening very carefully what we had to say. They were making an effort to absorb and learn from our experiences.

So I have tremendous hopes for the future, tremendous hope that this President is ready to make his place in history by being the President who brings in a solution to this conflict. I think there is a mighty responsibility on the leader of the LTTE to contribute to a process which makes life better for people, most of whom he loves.

So there is a huge responsibility on everyone and on this President and the LTTE leader, all the political parties to come together and resolve this situation as quickly as possible.

In 1975 there was a ceasefire in Ireland which only lasted a few weeks and there was another agreement in 1975 which lasted almost three years. It was after around 20 more years that IRA called a ceasefire in 1994.

I think it would be an unforgivable tragedy if the people of Sri Lanka had to wait another five, 10, 20 years for a political solution to this conflict. My message to people in Sri Lanka is that this is the time to do it because nothing is absolutely certain. At some stage in the future, there will have to be negotiations. So why not negotiate now.

Q: You have given an interview to Reuters in which you have said the Sri Lankan Army cannot militarily defeat the Tamil Tigers while the Tamil Tigers cannot militarily defeat the Sri Lankan Army. Sri Lankan leaders over many years have said that a military solution is not possible.

But it seems to me that the LTTE still assumes that victory is feasible. Why do you think that victory is not possible?

A: In our experience back in Ireland, during the course of the conflict very senior generals of the British army conceded, some even in public, that the British army can never militarily defeat the IRA, and among the public there was an acceptance that the IRA cannot force every last British soldier out of Northern Ireland.

Therefore, the war could have gone on forever. I believe that the duty of political leaders is to bring about a solution to injustice and inequality and conclude agreements which would save people's lives and bring prosperity to people.

What I said about the Sri Lankan Army and the Tamil Tigers was my view simply because there has been a conflict in these areas for quite sometime and people are prepared to fight. I think it becomes almost impossible at some stage for armies to let innocent people suffer.

By the same token, it appears to me that it is not in the interests of the Sri Lankan Government to have a situation develop whereby the island is partitioned. So there is a responsibility on everyone to move as speedily as possible to conclude a peace agreement.

Q: Coming back to the Irish situation you said that Sinn Fein is committed to a unitary state. Why are you for unitary, why not a federal specially because there is a Protestant minority?

It could be an argument as the Tamil ultra-nationalists argue here that a unitary state means discrimination against the minorities. Why are you for a united and unitary Ireland?

A: Because I believe that a unitary Ireland will not be discriminatory against the minorities, given the negotiations which emphasised on the recognition of the rights of minorities.

It is absolutely crucial that there is a huge responsibility on all Governments all over the world to protect the rights of minorities. All these issues have to be negotiated out in the future.

As a result of the Good Friday agreement concluded in Ireland we have a situation where if a majority of people in the North vote for it, Britain is duty-bound to bring about a united Ireland.

The question as to what kind of a united Ireland will undoubtedly be a matter for negotiation between ourselves and the Unions.

Q: As a co-leader of a liberation movement how do you see the global situation at this moment?

A: We have noted the progressive changes that have taken place in South America. There are periods of change in the international arena because people are demanding their rights at the grassroots. Apart from the war on Iraq, we think that more should have been done and more should be done to bridge the gap between the East and the West which is the most serious division in the world today.

The war in Iraq is something that pains us deeply. Before President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the decision to invade Iraq we told them it would be a huge mistake and made it clear that we were opposed to it.

So I think the world is in a very precarious position at the moment and I think there is a huge responsibility on people to reflect and address these issues. Especially the division between East and West needs to be closed as soon as possible.

Q: As somebody with a background of a liberation movement how do you regard the LTTE and its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran?

A: One of the leaders of the 1916 rising was a man called James Connely. Before being executed he was asked what he thought of the soldiers when they were about to shoot him. He said 'I admire all brave men'.

So we all have to recognise that when people make the case that they have been unjustly treated and are prepared to fight for it that they are brave people, just as there are brave people in the Sri Lankan Army.

What I feel is that we all have a responsibility, particularly the political leaders to bring about circumstances where young men and women of the Sri Lankan Army and Tamil Tigers do not lose their lives needlessly.

Q: What is your assessment of where we are in Sri Lanka today?

A: My assessment from being here and from listening to people is that people here are very worried about the future.

Sri Lanka was a place we talked about before coming here. But once you come here and get to know people you feel very empathetic and anxious to do more to try and bring about a solution to the conflict.

I think the situation is very dangerous and I think there is a huge responsibility on the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan Government to avoid that.

Q: What is the message you have given the Government of Sri Lanka and what is the message you are about to give the LTTE?

A: First I would like to say that there is no military victory for anyone. I do not know whether people accept that analysis but that is my analysis.

I believe that the vast majority of people in Sri Lanka might agree with what I have to say. It is a very simple and straight forward message: conclude a peace agreement as soon as possible because the big price is peace.