Wet nurses, thoththa babas and innocents abroad

Malinda Seneviratne

NORWEGIAN FACILITATION: There is a certain asymmetry about the Joint Statement that came out of the first round of talks in Switzerland, a mismatch that is almost invariable when legitimate and elected entities such as governments negotiate with those whose claims to legitimacy essentially flow from the barrel of a gun.

Governments are signatories to international conventions, are members of the community of nations and therefore are not privileged, one might say, to renege on or rip to shreds agreements. Terrorists on the other hand confer upon themselves the do-as-we-please clause, depending of course on the cost-balance sheet, for there is always a price to pay.

Anton Balasingham gets away with murder, literally and metaphorically, because those who can make him pay the price (Norway, for example) choose instead to mollycoddle and reward him for terrorism while arm-twisting others who can extract the price (The Government of Sri Lanka, for example) to abide by agreements.

The fundamental mistake that the international community has made is to conflate terrorism and liberation struggle. They have for the most part refused to acknowledge that Balasingham's project is fundamentally at odds with securing the utopias associated with so-called Tamil aspirations, whether or not these can be justified on the basis of history or even present day political and demographic configurations.

Whereas the ideologies pertaining to Tamil nationalism can be called corrigible (even though they are not tenable for a number of reasons including historical justification), the dominant articulators of the attendant politics are patently incorrigible.

Britain, USA, Canada and India, by banning the LTTE while supporting negotiations between the Government and that organization, appear to be willing to recognize these distinctions, although none of these countries if they had to face anything like the LTTE would be likely to engage in negotiations. The member states of the European Union, for reasons best known to them, have been reluctant to entertain this distinction.

Perhaps they will eventually. Perhaps they might be forced to. I do not for a minute believe that Norway does not understand these things. They know, but they act as though they are thoththa babas. Indeed, they are unique, these thoththa babas, in that they also play the role of wet nurse to terrorism.

In February, in Celigny, Switzerland, the LTTE agreed not to attack the Security Forces. In Paragraphs 5 of the Joint Statement, the LTTE committed itself to taking all necessary measures to ensure that there will be no acts of violence against the Security Forces and police. They have done the exact opposite.

The LTTE has so far killed more than 50 persons of the Security Forces in the past two months. The Government's undertaking was far more complex. Ensuring that only security forces will carry arms is easier said than done.

As I have argued before, the Government only agreed to continue to do what governments are expected to do; maintain law and order. Disarming a group like Karuna's is not very different from disarming Balasingham. Three things have to be kept in mind in this regard.

First of all, no one can expect a government to open up another theatre of war and thereby bring upon untold suffering to relevant populations just to protect a (flawed) ceasefire agreement. Secondly, such a project takes a long time and even the basic groundwork cannot be completed in two months.

Finally, given the kind of attacks that government forces have to put up with, no government in its right mind would willingly help the enemy get rid of his biggest headache.

If Norway is serious about negotiations for peace then Eric Solheim or his proxy Jon Hanssen-Bauer ought to prevail on Balasingham to be amenable to accommodating the Karuna Group in talks or at the very least negotiating separate ceasefire agreements between Karuna and Balasingham and Karuna and the Government.

If Balasingham continues to turn his back on negotiations, then Solheim and Hanssen-Bauer can consider the Joint Statement as dead and go home to their respective families and friends.

Is the LTTE serious about the second round of talks in Switzerland? Their actions over the past few weeks clearly say 'no' to this question. Canada's ban has hurt. Balasingham knows also that the Tamil Diaspora is slowly but surely turning against him. His agents in Killinochchi cannot deal with Karuna the way they dealt with the EPRLF, PLOTE and TELO.

Mahinda Rajapaksa has consolidated on the gains in November and can be expected to strengthen himself further should he go for a general election. If pushed to it, he is most likely to fight and do so in a way that Chandrika did not and could not.

If Balasingham came to Celigny in February in a position of weakness he is unaccustomed to, this time he is several degrees weaker on all counts. Consequently he will not extract much. Having run out of options it is possible that he is not fighting because he wants to but because he has to.

The quibbling about transportation is perhaps his way of wrangling out an exit strategy. As my friend Rajpal Abeynayake correctly observes, if the LTTE doesn't mind being escorted by Security Forces over land, there is no logic in refusing to be escorted by the Navy via sea.

If Hanssen-Bauer can't impress upon Thamilselvam this logic then we can't be faulted for calling him the wet nurse who succeeded the mother-of-all wet nurses to terrorism, Eric Solheim. It also means that Norway is not serious about the second round of talks either.

Hanssen-Bauer knows about the Joint Statement. He knows that Paragraph 8 says that the LTTE and the Government agreed to hold a second round of talks from April 19-21, 2006. He is not in a position to postpone the date on behalf of the LTTE. If Balasingham is not ready, he is obliged as facilitator to have said, 'bad luck buddy, no can do'.

He is not mandated to make up for the LTTE's vulnerabilities just because he knows that the Government, which has to face elections, carry out development activities and manage an economy, can't very well say 'forget it Jon'.

It is silly for Puleedevan to say he can't come to Geneva because he couldn't hook up with his pals in the East to discuss strategy. This is the 21st Century, the age of communication, and Hanssen-Bauer is obliged to call Puleedevan's bluff, one would think. He did not.

There are no prizes for figuring out what Hanssen-Bauer would have done had the boot been on the other foot and the Government wanted a postponement. As things stand, the LTTE has reneged on Paragraph 8 of the Joint Statement with the full collusion of Norway.

There were other paragraphs in the Joint Statement. Paragraphs 6 states, The GOSL and the LTTE discussed all issues concerning the welfare of children in the North East, including the recruitment of children.' Whether this constitutes an amendment of the CFA or not is merely of academic interest.

What is important is the wording and therefore from now on 'recruitment of children' cannot be footnoted or edited out of negotiations. Norway, which insisted that the question of children cannot be taken up because it was not specifically mentioned in the CFA, slipped in Celigny, or more correctly, was made to slip.

Thoththa babas though they portray themselves to be, they can't ignore the fate suffered by the authentic item, the living, suffering children in the North and East whose present and future have been robbed by Balasingham.

There is still no word about whether or not the LTTE will proceed to Geneva. The way I see it the recent spate of attacks has been choreographed to afford Balasingham to continue to split hairs with the Government Delegation over the CFA. It is against Balasingham's interests to go beyond Square One.

The way I see it, the past four years have been about remaining on Square One because there at least the LTTE will enjoy some semblance of legitimacy whereas on the ground and internationally they have none. The way I see it, the costs are too high for those who are committed to democracy in Sri Lanka.

Meaningful talks requires that meaningful issues are dealt with sooner rather than later. As I have argued before, there cannot be peace without democracy and sooner or later everyone has to decide in which hotel they want to partake of democracy.

As things stand this requires a historical audit to investigate the 'traditional homeland' claim. Of course the people should not suffer while the auditors deliberate. This is why the Second Round (if it takes place) must seek ways of moving from Square One, and this means bringing in the issues of a) democracy, b) human rights and c) development, into the equation. This is the only way to proceed on to substantive issues.

If Hanssen-Bauer insists on talks floundering in Square One, then he is not only colluding with Balasingham but he needs a diaper change, to put it in thoththa baba language. The truth is that Balasingham will violate with impunity the CFA again and again.

The people have been patient and they will soon demand that national security cannot be compromised just because Balasingham needs nourishment by way of his many wet nurses.

If Hanssen-Bauer, unlike Eric Solheim, wants to grow up, there is still time. Norway can, if it so wishes, do the wet nurse thing, but there is a risk involved. If and when Balasingham scuttles the negotiations, there will be a fight between him and Norway for the title 'The Man with Egg on his Face'.

By that time there will be no argument that all bets are off and the fact that someone is sucking on a pacifier will not be enough to earn the tag 'Innocent' for the thoththa babas will have come to a point where their masks have replaced their faces forever.