Building mutual trust

HARDLY had the Government-LTTE talks in Geneva ended when attempts are being made in certain quarters to belittle the efforts of the Government delegation.

These elements insist that the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) stood in its original form despite the Government's intention to amend certain clauses in the CFA.

But as pointed out at yesterday's media briefing by team leader Nimal Siripala de Silva, the agreements reached and undertakings extracted from the LTTE virtually amounted to an amended CFA. But why make this an issue?

What is foremost is that a formula should be worked out to this intractable problem that has defied a solution as the chequered road from Thimpu to Geneva has shown.

In any event, as pointed out by the Government delegation the Ceasefire Agreement should not be bogged down in terminology at a time when the Government is exploring all avenues to resolve the decades-long ethnic crisis.

This is also a time of confidence building between the two parties and the task of the delegation is an unenviable one for the delicate balance they have to maintain throughout the process to ensure the talks proceed on an even keel. Therefore this is not the time for nit picking and splitting hairs over semantics.

It is not the occasion for debate on the current status of the CFA - whether it is an amended one or otherwise.

We say this because there is a big gloating in the Opposition camp that the Government was forced to accept the Ceasefire in its original form while totally ignoring the highly positive concessions garnered during the two day parley.

Wasn't the undertaking obtained from the LTTE to cease all types of hostilities and end the horrendous practise of child conscription a feather in the cap of the Government delegation?

No doubt, critics would point out that such undertakings had been given in the past as well by the LTTE only to go back on these pledges.

Still even the bitterest critic of the Government must concede that a start has to be made somewhere to end the four year long stalemate.

It is in this context that one should commend the statement made recently by Prof. G.L. Peiris, himself a former negotiator, that one should not be governed by phraseology or nomenclature in such matters.

The country has witnessed enough bloodletting to engage in the luxury of debate over trivia. As pointed out yesterday by team leader Nimal Siripala de Silva though consensus was not reached on all issues there was scope for mutual trust, which is the first step in any breakthrough towards dealing with the substantive issues.

Therefore word play should be avoided at all costs at this juncture when efforts are being made to get the talks moving at an elevated scale. The national problem is too important an issue to be the subject of polemics. The time when politicians played football with the ethnic issue should end.