Thoughts from London

Where do we go from here, pray?
Chief negotiator, ideologue, theoretician (and perhaps theologian) Anton Balasingham was true to form. Writing this column before the Herr Doktor had delivered his annual homily to the faithful and not so faithful at the London Docklands two Saturdays ago on "Heroes Day", we expected the Goebbels of the LTTE to raise the pitch by a few decibels higher than his own leader (or should we say The Leader?)

He performed as anticipated. The answer to that lies in the diversity of the Tamil community in the UK. It seems more like the Tamil communities in the US and perhaps Australia, than the diaspora in continental Europe.

A part of the UK Tamil community consisting largely of professionals and those well established in their vocations came to the country before the vast influx began following the despicable attacks on the Tamil people in July 1983 that marked an alienation that may perhaps never be healed.

Many of those who came to the UK following those riots were generally less educated Tamils who either had a genuine cause to leave Sri Lanka or exploited international sympathy to get to the West for economic reasons.

Those who came to the UK pre-July 83, particularly those who migrated in the 1970s have little or no political affiliations. True they feel for their Tamil compatriots as any other ethnic group anywhere, pressured by circumstance and perceived discrimination, would feel.

But that does not make them supporters of the LTTE. There are many Tamils I know who had been members or supporters of other Tamil militant groups, many of which were decimated by the Tigers in their quest for supremacy.

There are also a substantial section of the Tamil community that comes from the Eastern Province, particularly Batticaloa, that has no special love for Prabhakaran's LTTE. This feeling, amounting at times to antipathy, pre-dates Karuna's defection from the ranks of the Tigers.

It resonates in the minds of the Eastern Province Tamils who feel they have generally been treated as second class members of their own community.

Though there are indeed very few from among the plantation Tamils, that part of the population has been looked down upon by all other Tamils. The Wanni leadership has a tight grip on the Tamil community in the North-and a less secure one on those in the East. That is easily proven by the fact that very few Tamils defied the LTTE edict not to contest the last general elections from any party other than the officially approved and sanitised Tamil National Alliance (TNA).

The situation in the UK is different. Though the LTTE has continued its fund raising and individual Tamils have been approached for donations-and direct debit from bank accounts too- and has been involved in crimes including murder, the Tigers have not been able to impose the same of kind intimidatory authority on the Tamils in the UK as they have been able to do at home.

Moreover the Metropolitan Police, concerned at the high level of crimes in the Tamil community, have set up a special desk to monitor and deal with this. Undoubtedly there is strong support for the LTTE particularly among the young refugee community and those who are not well established in the UK and depending on social benefit. It is the LTTE that made their UK journey possible.

Not everybody who attends the annual Heroes Day commemoration in London is a supporter of the Tigers. Many of them go because they do not want to be seen to have kept away. They do so for their own security and well being.

About two weeks before the commemoration meeting I asked a young Tamil friend whether he would attend. Yes, he said, adding that he will give a donation of 2000 Pounds. Then looking around and lowering his voice he said: "Why should I give my hard earned money to them."

I don't know whether he meant it or not. But the fact is that there are those who openly criticise the LTTE for what they call the misery they have brought down on the Tamil people.

At the same time there are those who romanticise the LTTE and its fighting outfits and even compare them with the Iraqi resistance. It is because the Tamil diaspora in the UK is not homogenous in its attitude towards the LTTE that Balasingham and the UK leaders have to strike a much tougher, more belligerent pose to try and keep the flock from straying and to exact donations.

Those who compare Balasingham's words- as reported in the Asian Tribune and reproduced locally- and Leader Prabhakaran's address will find some interesting differences.

Admittedly both appear to have quietly-and quite deliberately-dropped any reference to the Oslo Declaration (Document, Statement, Record, Accord?) of December 2002 that stated thus: "Responding to a proposal by the LTTE leadership the parties agreed to explore a solution based on the principles of internal self determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking peoples, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka."

Balasingham was one of the three signatories to it. On Heroes Day he is reported to have said that their demand for an Interim Self Governing Authority is "simply to win the confidence of the international community as they had already established a separate government" and that "there was no need for an interim administration as a pre-requisite for a separate government as they had already established one."

Balasingham had said that "everything had been prepared for the next war and the President should decide whether to have war or peace." So why insist on the ISGA as the starting point of any negotiations?

Is this, Balasingham trying to raise enthusiasm in the flock or has the LTTE taken the Sri Lanka Government and the international community for a vast ride?

It is the LTTE that pulled out of the peace talks. It is the LTTE that must respond but not by placing new obstacles on the path to a resumption of the process.

And what is the government's reaction. Read just two paragraphs of its response to Prabhakaran. "A call, couched in threatening language, from the LTTE now for a resumption of negotiations without conditions, while setting conditions iself by insisting unilaterally on a single agenda item is scarcely conducive to good faith negotiations."

It gets even better.
"It also remains firmly committed to the strict maintenance of the Ceasefire Agreement and condemns all violations and actions jeopardising the prevailing ceasefire and which caused fear and thereby tensions among the civilian population, leading to the undue rupture of the sensitive balance of ethnic groups presently maintained by the Government with the objective of safeguarding the ceasefire taking the peace process forward."

Phew!
Doesn't the government have anybody who could write two sentences in English without causing lock jaw? If ever they sit down to talk peace, whoever was responsible for this gobbledegook should be on the government delegation. That should drive the Tigers nuts, if nothing else will.

Back to Columns