Why
should the LTTE talk?
Last month the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Ulster's LTTE, pulled out of
the talks that many had hoped would stabilise the ceasefire and bring a
lasting peace to a troubled territory.
But to those accustomed to ethnic and religious strife, the unravelling
of the much-touted peace seemed like traversing familiar ground.
The more thoughtful of our countrymen and women did not always share
the exuberance of the average Briton and sections of the media here that
peace had been won in Northern Ireland and all that remained was to seal
it with a kiss. As it is, the IRA seems to have provided a kiss of death
rather than the generally anticipated kiss of life. How many times have
Sri Lankans of every political and ethnic hue waited anxiously and hopefully
for what they thought was the beginning of peace and the return to civil
order as contending parties to our conflict sat down to talk? And how many
times have they lamented the turn of events which dashed their hopes of
the country returning to the days when people travelled from south to the
north and vice versa without having to seek official or quasi-official
sanction? At least three times, I would think, from the days of Thimpu.
And where are we today? At least in Northern Ireland the ceasefire that
began a couple of years ago still holds, generally speaking. Are the people
of Northern Ireland then better off than we are?
The answer must surely be yes. In our own conflict the guns have not
been silenced, the killing has not stopped. If war or armed conflict can
ever be described as civilised, then the IRA and its off-shoots such as
the "Real IRA" and "Continuity IRA", have shown a streak of civilised behaviour
by informing the authorities ahead of time when a bomb is due to go off
and where.
The most recent example was the bomb planted in the Northern Ireland
hotel which did go off without causing any casualties, simply because there
was time to evacuate the area. But such consideration has not been forthcoming
from the LTTE who have a dual interest- to cause maximum havoc and damage
irrespective of who suffer and to gain psychological advantages by driving
fear and uncertainty into the minds of the people.
By doing so, they also undermine the credibility of the government and
its agencies in public eyes. It makes people wonder at the ability of their
leaders to provide the security and the right to life that every citizen
is entitled to expect from his government.
By all standards then, the LTTE is a more formidable and certainly a
more ruthless adversary, than the IRA. Even then, those with more than
cursory acquaintance with ethnic and religious strife were advocating caution
when others who thought they were better equipped to judge, were expressing
optimism over developments in the Northern Ireland peace process.
However much some might insist that there is a fundamental difference
between the Sri Lankan conflict and Northern Ireland- that the first involves
only a single sovereign state- it seems to me it is this kind of casuistry
that will stop any possibility of negotiations in its tracks. Even more,
it shows the lack of knowledge on the part of a government that is insistent
it is even more determined today to open a dialogue with the LTTE.
It was true that until power was devolved to the Ulster assembly, the
Northern Ireland issue concerned two governments-Britain and the Irish
Republic. But with the devolution of power, the Irish Republic's constitution
was amended, dropping any claims it had made to the territory of Northern
Ireland and recognising British sovereignty. .
Today, therefore, legally and constitutionally, it is a matter than
concerns Britain alone, though, of course, the Irish Republic does have
an interest because of common borders and common interests arising from
this. Can we deny that India has no interests in the Sri Lankan conflict
merely because it is considered an internal matter of Sri Lanka? Surely
one reason for our interest in building bridges with India after the souring
of relations under President Premadasa, is because of this external dimension
to the conflict at home?
It seems that we are still insisting on drawing distinctions between
mediation and facilitation. If the most important problem right now is
to bring the LTTE to the negotiating table, then the sooner the government
worked toward that objective without advancing specious distinctions, the
sooner that aim is likely to be achieved. Moreover inviting somebody to
help and then constraining his ability to perform, sounds like the work
of diplomatic dilettantism.
Does anybody seriously believe that the LTTE would ever come to the
conference table for a direct dialogue with the government unless a third
party was very much involved as a mediator?
The opinion of those close to the LTTE here seems to suggest that to
engage in direct talks without a third party is a pipe dream that the LTTE
will not subscribe to. Remember the Sinn Fein, the political wing of the
IRA, entered the negotiations because of the tremendous pressure brought
to bear on it by external forces including the Clinton administration.
There is no such real pressure on the LTTE. And without any external
pressure, the mere words of Colombo are not going to move them into tears.
Even at this late stage, LTTE sympathisers say, Colombo should remember
that from the LTTE's standpoint it has already been deceived by the words
of the Kumaratunga administration. So why should it be pushed into negotiations
when it has not been militarily overpowered and when the other protagonist
is already circumscribing the role of a third party without which the LTTE
will not talk. |