|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 22 June 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
MoU violated but... Peace process will not break down - Defence Minister by Hana Ibrahim
Contrary statements by the President, Navy and the LTTE via the Tamilnet, and reports that the Defence Minister had not been informed of the incident until well after the sinking of the vessel, have provided additional fuel to the speculations, with many wondering whether the incident was orchestrated to sabotage the peace process. The sinking of the LTTE vessel in Mullaitivu on June 14, has given rise to widespread speculation that the already struggling peace process might be further jeopardised and the country may even revert to war. Contrary statements by the President, Navy and the LTTE via the Tamilnet, and reports that the Defence Minister had not been informed of the incident until well after the sinking of the vessel, have provided additional fuel to the speculations, with many wondering whether the incident was orchestrated to sabotage the peace process. What exactly happened in the high seas off Mullaitivu? is the peace process in danger of being scuttled? Defence Minister Tilak Marapana, in a rare, late-night, no-holds barred interview at his residence, talks about the Mullaitivu incident, steps taken to prevent such incidents from recurring, his instruction to the forces, security in Colombo and how to get the peace talks back on track. Excerpts of the interview: Question: Speculation is rife that the LTTE may retaliate to the sinking of their vessel by junking the peace talks and resorting to war. As Defence Minister, what do you have to say about this? what were your instructions to the armed forces? Answer: As Defence Minister, even before the Mullaitivu incident, I have been working on the premise, that we should be prepared for a war at any time. As a responsible government, we have the responsibility to safeguard the public. Particularly since the LTTE has on several occasions backed out of peace talks without warning and re-started the war. It is rational to be cautious for such a situation can arise again. Hence I have instructed the forces to be prepared for war at any time. Since the incident in Mullaitivu, I have given special orders to the forces to be extra vigilant. Q: There is still a lot of confusion as to what exactly happened on Saturday 14 between the Navy and the LTTE. Could you explain what happened and what action the government has taken or will be taking? A: As we all know, the version given by the Sri Lanka Navy is opposite to what the LTTE is saying via the Tamilnet. Amidst this controversy, we have to verify which version is the truth and which version is false, before deciding on what to do next. We have given the responsibility of ascertaining this to the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission. The report is expected in about a week's time. The Monitors are in Trincomalee questioning those involved in the incident. We are waiting for that report. Until we get the report, I am not planning to initiation any investigations of our own. Q: Was the vessel a merchant ship as claimed by the LTTE or was it carrying weapons, as claimed by the Navy? A: We don't know what kind of vessel it was, either. But going by the totality of the circumstances as narrated by the Navy, there is reasonable suspicion that the vessel was carrying ammunition. And if their version is to be accepted, I see no difficulty in concluding that this is a vessel that was carrying arms and ammunition. Q: There have also been contradictory statements by the President's Office and the Navy. You had said that neither you nor the Navy Chief of staff had been aware of the sinking of the LTTE Vessel. What does all this portend for the peace process - do you think a conscious effort is being made to scuttle the peace process? A: The President had stated that the Navy sank the vessel and the Navy had said that they shot in self-defence as they were being fired at.... Whether the vessel caught fire because of the shooting or whether it was blown up by the LTTE, it is somewhat difficult to say. I was informed of this incident only at 7.00am. The incident happened at about 5.00 am. I don't want to comment on sabotage. But the Navy could have informed me when they first sighted the vessel which was at 3.15am. Q: If you had been informed in time, what action would you have recommended? A: If I had been informed... It would have been difficult to give instructions from here. But the procedure for situations like this is firmly established in the 'Rule of Engagement'. We have told them if there is a reasonable doubt about a suspicious vessel, to stop it and investigate it as per the rules of engagement. We expect them to follow it. Q: According to procedure, who should have been informed first? A: If someone is to inform the President, it should have been me. I won't take that as a serious lapse. The question here is not whether I was informed or not, but whether the Navy acted correctly. The main question is also who is correct.. the Navy or the LTTE. That needs to be verified. Q: How severe a blow is this incident to the peace process? A: This is a setback. If the Navy is correct - the LTTE has violated the MoU. And if the LTTE is correct, we have violated the MoU. Either way, the MoU has been violated and when the MoU is violated, the peace process does get affected. But this does not mean the peace process will break down. Q: The Mullaitivu incident, closely resembles the sinking of another LTTE vessel in March, that had the LTTE almost calling off the peace talks in Japan. What's being done to prevent such incidents from recurring? A: There are procedures in place. We want to suggest that there should be more monitors. There must be a monitor on all our vessels. This arrangement is there, but we want to somehow implement it. I feel that if there were monitors on board, it will be easier to monitor such incidents and when the LTTE knows this, the evidence will be unequivocal automatically. They can't say they were carrying oil or they were being fired at. The monitors can see all that. The Government has suggested this to the SLMM and requested for monitors for both big and small vessels. There are about 50 monitors at the moment. We will need at least 50 more monitors for the sea operations. Q: There are reports that the Tigers are continuing to build up their stock of weapons.... Your comments? A: It is reasonable to suppose that the LTTE will attempt to collect as much arms and ammunition as possible. We are also doing the same. We are recruiting and training our forces as usual, maintaining our weapons - but this doesn't mean it is being done with the intention of starting a war, but because we have reasonable doubts that if the peace process breaks down we will have to go back to war. We have to expect this. We also have to expect the LTTE will continue to bring in weapons. Using maximum efforts to stop them from doing so is our responsibility. Again, bringing in weapons doesn't mean the LTTE is doing this with the intention of going back to war. Q: What about reports of the presence of LTTE suicide cadres in Colombo? A: For a number of years before the peace process came into effect, we had emergency laws in force and a Prevention of Terrorism Act. There were cordon and search operations where 100s of people were rounded up and questioned. Despite this, there were suicide bombers in Colombo. President R. Premadasa was killed by a suicide bomber, and President Chandrika Kumaratunga was injured by one. When you consider this, you can't expect Colombo to be free of suicide bombers. There may be some. But the intelligence unit has identified some areas and are watching those places, collecting more and more information about the movements of the suspects. We are not trying to disturb them. We won't arrest the suspects, but their movements are being monitored. Q: Does this mean that road blocks and check points will be reinstalled? A: No road blocks. The checkpoints didn't serve much purpose. But we are looking at alternative security measures and constant surveillance. Q: The shifting of the HSZ still continues to be a bone of contention. What's being done about it? A: We are examining the Nambiar report and we will try to implement his recommendations. Q: The LTTE is talking about peace while continuing to kill off their political opponents. What does this mean in terms of the ceasefire agreement and again how does this portend for peace? A: It is because there is a situation like that that the general public is suspicious about the LTTE motives and the peace process. We have brought this to the attention of the LTTE at the peace talks and have pointed out that such incidents are obstacles to the peace process. But we need to take the peace process forward despite these obstacles. Q: The US has said that it would continue to hunt down the LTTE and force it to give up the use of violence as a political weapon.. Your comments. A: That's because America is hunting down terrorism. Not for the love of Sri Lanka. I don't expect America to help us fight the LTTE. We have to fight the LTTE. Q: The LTTE withdrew from peace talks demanding an interim administration. Your comments A: I don't know what kind of interim administration they are asking. The question of Interim Administration arose when they wanted to know the mechanism for spending the aid money. Their demand was that the LTTE be involved in the development process of the North East. It is a reasonable demand. But they haven't really told us what they want, what sort of an Interim Administration they want. They should have told us that they want some kind of structure which has legislative, judicial and executive powers. This indicates they want a structure to spend the funds. It is not something that can't be done. I suggest that they set up a corporation and give us the proposal as to what to do. We get an engineering estimate and give them the money. Q: What would your suggestions be to put the peace process back on track? A: I think the peace committee should send a couple of unofficial teams to exchange ideas, identify the block and flush it out. I don't think the Japanese ambassador or the Norwegian ambassador are the best people to talk with the LTTE. It must be someone connected to the government because the ultimate say is with the government. We should send an unofficial team, comprising either mid level parliamentarians or some one else.. I am expecting something like this to take place. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
