Ranil genuine but ban must go: LTTE

The LTTE has hailed the Ranil Wickremesinghe government as being "genuine and sincere" in its new initiative for a peaceful solution to the conflict-but is still insisting that the ban on the rebel group must be lifted before direct talks begin. Addressing a news conference at Mallavi in the Wanni district soon after the relaxation of the economic embargo, LTTE political wing leader S.P. Thamil Selvam said the dialogue had already begun through Oslo but face to face talks would begin only after normalcy was restored and that would mean accepting the LTTE as an equal partner rather than an illegitimate one. Excerpts :

Q: What makes you trust this government though not the previous one?

A. The mandate given to this government was a clear sign for peace. On that basis we believe this government will commit itself genuinely towards peace .

Q. Is the LTTE satisfied with the measures taken so far, in the peace process?

A. So far so good.

Q. Why should the government trust the LTTE now?

A. The PA govt. in the last few months resorted to propaganda that was anti-Tamil and pro war. A majority of the people rejected this and gave a clear peace mandate to the UNF.

Q.You have not answered my question? Let me repeat. Why should the government trust the LTTE now?

A. Former governments apparently believed the LTTE could be defeated militarily. But experience has taught them it is not possible. The UNF has apparently understood this and decided that talks are the only path to peace.

Q:What are you offering as confidence building measures?

A: One important step was our unilateral declaration of a ceasefire. It was a clear signal that we are ready for talks.

Q.Are you willing to drop the demand for a separate state or Eelam? 

A.We do not feel it prudent to commit ourselves on this question at this time. Our next move depends on what is offered.

Q. What is the difference you see between the peace efforts of the UNF and previous governments?

A. The present regime has apparently taken the right lessons from past failures. So have we.

Q. When could we expect face to face talks?

A. When normalcy is restored- that means when people on this part of the country have equal rights and are not treated as second class citizens.

Q.Any time frame?

A. That depends on the government. The ban on the LTTE has to be lifted then only will we be equal partners in the talks.

Q. Is this a precondition?

A. Let us not get bogged down in terminological exactitude's about pre-conditions or conditions or whatever. The basic factor remains that talks or inter-action is even now on in a sense through Oslo. Matters are being exchanged between the two parties of course through a intermediary. That means the process of dialogue has already begun. But talks proper would start only when we become legally eligible to take part. I mean the ban should be lifted.

Q. Does that mean until the ban is lifted there won't be direct talks?

A. A lifting of the ban is a must because it is not prudent for us to talk as an illegitimate party.

Q. Do you want a mediator or facilitator for the process.

A. For a start a facilitator would be okay. Later on we could perhaps have a mediator. 

Q: Then what would be the other measures to restore normalcy?

A: Sanctions, embargoes and whatever should be lifted.

Then the cessation of hostilities needs to become a permanent ceasefire.

Q: Would you support moves to re-open the A9 highway?

A. Readily.The government and the troops could start immediately and we would assist because it would allow free movement for our people and for goods especially agricultural produce. Normalcy would be complete when the highways are opened. We hope it would be done on an urgent basis.

Q: Many countries have listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation along with other groups.

Some analysts suggest the LTTE is going for peace talks here largely because of the international war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11. They believe the LTTE's fear is that it might be cornered and crushed internationally unless it comes to a settlement here. Is that the case? 

A. We were shocked when many countries put us on the terrorist lest along with others because we believe there is no substantial case for that.

That happened largely because of propaganda and misinformation against us and successful lobbying by the Sri Lankan government in the corridors of world power.

We are confident that one day we will be accepted as a liberation organisation fighting against a rogue state which practices state terrorism. 

I must assure you that September 11 had little to do with our decision to go for talks. We had expressed our desire for talks long before the September 11 attacks and the international war on terrorism. In every Heroes day speech out leader has called for talks.

Q: What would be the practical steps to bring about a permanent ceasefire?

A: We have made some proposals to the government through Oslo. But no proper response has been received so far.

Q.Could you spell it out more

A. Essentially we have asked that both sides refrain from offensives on the land, sea and air. Vital nittygrities cannot be spelt out now.

Q. What role does the LTTE see for India and do you want the talks to be held there.

A. India is our closest neighbour a powerful one and has a Tamil state in the country. Therefore we believe India needs to play a key role. 

Q. The Tamil National Alliance which won a majority of seats in the North at the last general elections proclaimed in its manifesto that the LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamil people. What role would the TNA have in the coming talks?

A. The TNA members represent the needs and aspirations of the Tamil people. So the TNA will have a role in the talks but I cannot define it now.

Q. Your chief negotiator Anton Balasingham is reported to be pushing for a South Indian venue but the Tamil Nadu government is reported to be objecting. 

A: A largely humanitarian matter is being confused with political aspects. Dr. Balasingham asked for Chennai, Trivendrum or Bangalore because they have modern medical facilities to treat him after his Kidney transplant. Another reason is proximity. It might be necessary to have a shuttle between the venue of the talks and the LTTE leadership in the Wanni. It was for medical and practical reasons that the South Indian venue was suggested and we think it is the best choice. But the proposed venue cannot be seen as a political matter. 

Q. Are you looking at India merely as a host or are you expecting other assistance for the talks?

A. India could be a partner who understands the struggles of the Tamil people here and has close links with the government. That could be the basis for India's role.

Q: What about India's ban on the LTTE. The Indian army and the LTTE were at war for some years. How do you relate now?

A: Similar ups and downs have taken place in Sri Lanka and in several other countries. 

There is a time for war and a time for peace. If we are enslaved by the past we cannot make much progress. While taking the right lessons, we need to forget the past and start again.

Q: Some analysts are accusing the LTTE of not being sincere in going for talks. They say that often when you get close to the actual talks you raise the bar and move the goal line. Now again some analysts see new demands like the lifting of the ban and a venue in India.

A. Based on the needs and aspirations of our people we gradually put forward new factors which are termed as demands preconditions and so on. So as the talks or the preparations go on then developments do take place. Similarly it has happened this time too. It is not an intended impediment. As explained earlier, Dr. Balasingham's presence in India would facilitate the talks. So these are matters that arise and we have to take action as and when they occur. Unfortunately these have been misconstrued as intended impediments.

Q. What next ?

A. We do not anticipate any impediments as both sides appear to be confident. The Government appears to be genuine and sincere in its attempt to find a peaceful solution. So at the moment we do not see any impediment impending. 

Q. Are you insisting on a role for India in the talks?

A. No.At the moment India has not even reached a stage where it could even be a facilitator. Even the proposal for India to be the venue for talks has not been acted upon. Therefore the question of India taking a direct role in the talks does not arise.

Q. How would you feel about the intervention of a security force or a peace keeping force sent by the United Nations.

A. The question is premature.