| News |
||||
|
LTTE
Courts and police stations are illegal and We are also
fortunate and indeed thankful that the government of Norway has
placed at our disposal the Monitoring team headed by General Trond
Furuhovde. Many a sensitive matter, which prudence dictates should
be settled not by brute force but by tactful negotiation, has been
sorted out with the assistance of this Monitoring Team. We are therefore
very appreciative of the service rendered by the Monitoring Team
and their local counterparts. They certainly have helped the Forces
to implement the Ceasefire Agreement. In this context,
we should understand that the LTTE is also an organization consisting
of diverse sections and a large number of cadres just as in the
case of any other organization. There is bound to be difference
of opinion and miscreants who are difficult to control. Therefore
every act which constitutes a violation of the Ceasefire Agreement
should be looked at separately, to determine whether such acts constitutes
an implementation of an undeclared policy or a hidden agenda of
the LTTE itself or committed at the whims and fancies of individuals
or miscreants. The danger to the continuance of the ceasefire agreement,
is in my opinion, are the violations which are directly attributable
to the hierarchy or the leadership of the LTTE. Mr. Speaker, much debate has gone on regarding the existence of structural institutions such as Police Stations and Court houses said to have been established and functioning in the North and East. This is certainly not a new phenomenon but I believe what is happening is that these 'ad hoc' bodies are now getting more and more sophisticated and institutionalized. This phenomena, I believe, should be examined from a historical point of view to be better appreciated and understood. If we go back
to the early nineties, it cannot be denied that such institutions,
may be in a more primitive form, did exist sparsely distributed
in the North and Eastern regions. Not only was there in existence,
such institutions as Police stations and Court Houses, but there
was widespread criminal, unlawful and other activity not sanctioned
by our laws, committed by the LTTE in much of these areas. Our efforts
to contain these unlawful activities were only partially successful.
When such activity was intermittent and few in number commencing
in the late 1970s, we used only the police to contain it. As these
illegal activities increased and became more aggressive we had to
use our Armed Forces also. Later on, through the Indo-Lanka Agreement,
we brought in the IPKF also and by this time the situation had developed
into a full blown war. What were we seeking to achieve through the
use of Armed Forces, IPKF and this intense fighting leading to a
war scenario? Were we not attempting to enforce our writ to its
fullest in the North & East? In the areas in which we succeeded
in gaining full control and establishing our writ, we were able
to make sure that law and order prevailed and there was no LTTE
activity. As we gained full control, and our writ was established,
had there been any form of LTTE institutions whether it be unconventional
police stations or Kangaroo courts, these establishments were wiped
out. So was the other unlawful and unconstitutional activity of
the LTTE. We did this by using force. Not by preaching to them or
negotiating with them. But we cannot deny the fact that everywhere
and everything was under our fullest control. In this way
by 1994 almost the entirety of the Eastern Province was cleared
and completely under the control of the government. During the presidency
of D.B. Wijetunga under the premiership of the present Prime Minister
almost the entirety of the eastern province was under our control.
The Court Houses and Police stations and other institutions manned
by LTTE in those areas no longer functioned. They were wiped out
by our Armed forces. Likewise by 1996, our forces cleared the Jaffna
peninsula and with this the LTTE establishments, which were functioning
in the peninsula, also disappeared. But such establishments and
activity did continue in some areas in the North and East. How did we achieve and manage to get rid of the LTTE establishments functioning in the East in 1994 and in the peninsula in 1996? It was by use of force through the Armed Forces -that is by waging war. Had we continued in the same unabated, that may have been one method by which we may have been able to rid the entire North and the East of such LTTE establishments and other LTTE activity not warranted by law and the whole of the North and East under our fullest control. Of course this would have cost thousands of lives and drained our economy to near bankruptcy. Different areas
in the north and the east were cleared of such activities from time
to time by using our armed forces - by war! But the truth is that
we were never able to clear, the entire north and east. In those
areas we cleared and was under our control we got rid of all the
LTTE establishments, but not so in other areas, such as the situation
when we declared the cease-fire. Why was the
cease-fire declared? Was it not to solve the problem by negotiation
instead of by the use of armed force? And isn't the existence of
such LTTE establishments and the unconstitutional and illegal activity
carried on by them in these areas, part of the problem? Instead
of attempting to solve the problem by force did we not opt to solve
this problem by negotiations? Are we to pretend not to know that
there were certain areas in the North and East that our forces could
not penetrate and that in those areas the LTTE was doing what they
pleased and how they pleased in total disregard of the laws of our
country? It was to find a solution to this problem that we embarked
on negotiations. So I say, have
patience. There are problems and these are the problems that we
must sort out through the talks. The peace talks are progressing
positively. With each round we are getting closer to a permanent
solution. But I must say this categorically. These LTTE establishments
wherever they are located, are unconstitutional and illegal. In
areas under the control of our armed forces, we will not allow any
such establishment to function or any illegal activity to be conducted.
We have demonstrated this when our STF camp at Kanchanakuda was
attacked and when there was a newspaper report that there was a
Court House opened in the Batticoloa district in an area controlled
by the Armed Forces. We sent the police and the forces to investigate
and dismantle it and the report proved to be false. As to activity
in the other areas, outside the control of the Armed Forces, we
are bound by the cease-fire agreement not to use force to stop such
activity. This we have to solve through the peace process by negotiating. Whilst the peace process is proceeding, we have taken steps to reorganize our armed forces. To train and equip them more functionally. A Defense Review Committee is functioning. Their mandate is to review the entire working of the armed forces. The committee is working through subcommittees and they are furnishing interim reports from time to time. The government is mindful of the need to have an efficient and well equipped Armed Force whether the peace process succeeds or fails. As I have persistently maintained, the ceasefire does not mean that we close shop and drop our guard. I believe we should be more vigilant than before. We will observe the ceasefire but do everything in our power to work towards maintaining an efficient armed force. We will train them and equip them to achieve greater efficiency. We are also
examining our procurement requirements. I do not wish to spell out
the details but our intention is to modernize and professionalise
our forces. Finally Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Secretary, the Additional secretaries and the staff of my ministry, the three service commanders and the Heads of other institutions within my Ministry for their co-operation and invaluable advice rendered to me personally and their dedication to further the objectives of my ministry.
According to
the statement of the Norwegian Government issued on 5th December
2002, "the parties agreed to explore a solution founded on
the principle of self-determination in areas of historical habitation
of the Tamil-speaking people, based on a federal structure within
a united Sri Lanka. In his Martyr's
day speech of 27th November 2002, which ended with the words "The
thirst of the Tigers is the Homeland of the Tamil Eelam", Mr
Prabakaran referred to a number of concepts such as the "basic
political right that the people are allowed to determine their own
political status and their social and economic way of life according
to their aspirations". He went on
to say; " We stand firm in the attachment to the right to self-determination.
The Tamil homeland, the Tamil nation, the rights of the Tamils to
self-determination - these are the fundamentals of our objectives.
We have been insisting on these issues from Thimpu to Thailand.
These are basic factors on which the ethnic dispute of the Tamil
people should be approached and solved." He also said;
"Our people form a national ethnic group with a separate homeland
of their own. As they possess their own identical ethnic feelings
among themselves, they have a national identity of their own. As
a separate community of people, our people have the right to self-determination.
Self-determination has two aspects - an inner aspect and an outer
aspect. The inner aspect prescribes the right to regional autonomy
of the people." Later he said,
"The Tamil people aspire to live in the traditional homeland
where they have been living without interference from outsiders." Mr. Prabakaran
also said: "They wish to rule themselves in their own homeland
with autonomy. This is the political aspiration of our people. The
real dimension of the meaning of self determination is contained
in this aspiration. Based on the concept of internal self determination,
if a solution with a guarantee of complete self-rule so that we
would rule ourselves, is put forward, we could consider it favourably. Then Mr. Prabakaran
added, "but if the right to internal self-determination is
denied to our people and regional autonomy is not guaranteed we
have no alternative but to secede and form our own rule." Therein
lies the threat. Mr.. Prabhakaran also said: "The Sinhala people
should not be an obstacle to the Tamil people in achieving their
aspirations of living in their own land under their own rule." A number of
questions arise from the sentiments expressed in Mr. Prabhakaran's
speech and the Oslo statement. These questions have to be asked,
and the people are entitled to receive answers from the UNF government
and the LTTE. What does "Political
Status " mean ? What indeed does "Self Determination mean?
What is "Complete Self rule ?" We have to ask, who are
these 'outsiders" that Mr. Prabhakaran referred to - are they
the Sinhala and Muslim people who have lived in the North and East
from time immemorial; are they the residents of the other parts
of Sri Lanka who are being told not to interfere in the Tamil homeland?
Is the homeland to be exclusive preserve for some, not open to all
the people of Sri Lanka? We would like
to remind the Prime Minister of his recent public statement when
he said that there is no such concept as a homeland in Sri Lanka;
that all 25000 square miles of territory that comprise Sri Lanka
are the homeland of all who live in the country. However, Mr. Prabhakaran's
speech is replete with emphatic reference to the "homeland".
The speech ends with the slogan; 'The thirst of the Tigers is the
Homeland of Tamil Eelam". In his London Arena speech of 30th
November, 2002, Mr. Balasingham also made ample reference to the
homeland; But in the Oslo statement we find the words self-determination,
"In areas of historical habitation of the Tamil -speaking peoples".
These words were taken from the Indo Sri Lanka Agreement of July
1987. Is there a difference between 'areas of historical habitation'
and the 'homeland'? It is well known that the government of India
will not accommodate the concept of a homeland. How, and why, did
this change in language occur between Mr. Prabhakaran's speech of
27th November, 2002 and the Oslo statement of 5th December 2002?
Where do we stand on this question? Is the LTTE asking for a homeland
or not? The people are entitled to know. Then again
if the objectives of the LTTE have not changed from Thimpu to Thailand
- and it is well known that these objectives were a separate "Tamil
Eelam" - what has changed at Oslo? The same words are used,
the objectives are the same - then what has changed; is it the means
of gaining those objectives? As Mr Balasingham said in his speech
at the London Arena in early December last year the Tigers will
retake the Peninsula either by war or by negotiation - and retake
for what purpose - to share it with the other people of Sri Lanka
or to keep it for themselves? There are so
many words and concepts being talked about these days. The people
are confused. It seems that the UNF Government and the LTTE are
about to embark on an exploration. Does the UNF Government know
where it is going? Does it know the destination? And when we reach
the destination what will we find - a so-called federal state with
a standing Army, a standing Navy, a permanent administration, an
independent judicial system, a tax structure a banking system -
what would this mean other than a separate State by a friendlier
name. The UNF Government
must now explain to the people what all these terms and concepts
mean. What kind of "Federalism" is being talked about?
The Oslo statement also refers to, but does not explain, "power
sharing between the centre and the region - as well as within the
centre', 'geographical region' what is the region , the North and
East combined into one unit? What about the rights of Muslims and
Sinhala people who live in that region? 'Human rights". Will
the LTTE accept the Fundamental Rights jurisdiction of the supreme
Court of Sri Lanka, or will they have their own Supreme Court and
Chief Justice? will they dismantle their presently installed judicial
system? There are many,
many necessary questions to be raised and answered concerning the
direction of the peace process. Only a few weeks ago in this House
the chief negotiator of the UNF government dismissed any possibility
of Opposition participation in decision making regarding the peace
process. We were informed that a solution would be brought to the
house and a 2/3rds majority sought ; only then will the opposition
have a chance of participating in the final solution. Thus, the Peoples'
Alliance is pleased to note from the Oslo statement that wisdom
has finally dawned on the two negotiating parties. In the concluding
paragraph it is said : 'The Government will, in order to arrive
at the broadest possible consensus, establish an appropriate mechanism
for consultation with all segments of opinion as part of the ongoing
peace process." This is what President Kumaratunga and the
Peoples' Alliance have been saying and doing for eight years. The
Oslo statement also says that ' the solution has to be acceptable
to all communities' This too is what President Kumaratunga and the
Peoples' Alliance have been saying all along. In conclusion,
the Peoples' Alliance will certainly support all genuine endeavours
to find a solution to the ethnic question that satisfies the aspirations
of all communities in Sri Lanka. But it will not accept a proposed
solution that does not take fully into account fundamental matters
concerning the territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of Sri
Lanka. It calls upon the Government to insist that talks regarding
the decommissioning of arms by the LTTE commence and proceed in
parallel with other negotiations and not be delayed until after
a final agreement is signed. The examples of Northern Ireland and
El Salvador should be heeded. We commend
for the consideration of the Parliament and the people of Sri Lanka
the concept of devolution of power to the regions presented by President
Kumaratunga to the people of Sri Lanka in the draft Constitutional
proposals of October 1997 and August 2000. These proposals set out
clear solutions, acceptable to all communities, for the resolution
of the core issues of the ethnic question. These drafts were formulated
after thorough discussions and agreement with all Parliamentary
representatives of the Tamil Muslim and Sinhala peoples. Only the
UNP withheld approval. The confusion that seems to reign at present
regarding the possible political and constitutional alternatives
to Ealam may be cleared if these proposals are closely studied. It is the duty of the Opposition - a duty owed to the people - to ask questions and demand answers. After these answer are known and analysed we will advise the people as to the correct course of action to be taken to safeguard the destiny of our country. |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
