Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Foreign Minister Tyronne Fernando, says the United National Front (UNF) government has 'enough' patience to continue the process without hastily entering into any confrontation with the LTTE. "It is not our style to fight. We believe in peace and until the end we will go on that path of peace," he said.

The Oxford educated barrister who has carved out an important niche for him in the country's politics says Sri Lanka could have overtaken some of the other countries in the South Asian region in the spheres of economic growth if not for the bloody war. Fernando, author of several books, strongly believes the government and the LTTE would return to the negotiating table soon.

Following are excerpts of the interview with him:

Q: What is the position of the government with regard to the peace process?

A: The government was elected in December 2001 on the plank of bringing about peace in the country through a negotiated settlement with the LTTE. So we are totally committed to peace and a peaceful solution of the crisis. We are not hopeful of a military solution, which was the response of the PA government when the LTTE offered them a ceasefire in the year 2000.

Soon after our election in 2001 the LTTE declared a unilateral ceasefire and we were quick to grasp the outstretched hands and negotiated with the help of the Norwegians a ceasefire agreement, which has by and large held for one and a half years. Peace is essential to the economic development of the country. Peace divided is already seen by the fact that the negative growth, which we inherited, has risen to over five per cent growth. In addition another peace dividend is the tremendous international support and assistance we have received. I want to remind you that a record 4 1/2 billion US dollars has been pledged in Tokyo recently by 51 donor countries.

Q: There seems to be an impasse following the LTTE's refusal to talk with the government. How serious do you think this is going to be?

A: It is serious if this continues for a long time. The ceasefire is still holding but for a durable peace the talks must restart. The whole spirit of the talks has been that they were unconditional except for the understanding that a solution would be within a framework of a united Sri Lanka. There were for instance no demands by us that the LTTE should lay down arms. The LTTE on the other hand was not asking us to withdraw the army from the north. What has unfortunately happened now is that the LTTE are saying they will comeback for talks only if certain conditions are fulfilled such as for instance the grant of an interim council for the north and east to their liking. This is not in the spirit of what was started. All these issues should be discussed by resuming the talks.

Q: Mistrust seems to be the key factor in dividing both the Sinhala and Tamil communities. What plans are made by the UNF government to iron this out?

A: We have been extremely patient in handling the LTTE. We resumed humanitarian assistance to the north and east even before the ceasefire agreement. By opening up the A9 highway we have encouraged interaction between the two communities. In Colombo itself all the barriers and checkpoints have been removed. For the first time government has openly pledged itself to building up a Sri Lankan identity. The differences in race and religion would of course remain but what we have stressed is that like for example in Singapore, we must build up the Sri Lankan nation. A good example is the appointment of a Tamil as the Inspector General of Police.

Q: The country has been in conflict for the past 20 years. But after the UNF government came to power the war was stopped with peace taking control. During this period of peace the country rose from the ashes. But the present impasse seems to be opening ways for war. Would there be another war with the LTTE?

A: I do not think so. Both sides are war weary. The LTTE themselves have said that despite their temporary suspension of talks they do not hope to go to war. Both sides have tasted the fruits of peace and there is tremendous international pressure on both sides to seek a durable peace. I can firmly assure that the government will not do anything towards recommencing a war.

Q: Your predecessor Lakshman Kadirgamar went to the extent of convincing foreign governments to ban the LTTE. After assuming power the UNF government lifted the ban that was imposed on the LTTE but did not bother to convince the foreign governments to follow suit for the sake of achieving peace. Why?

A: In fact it was a major step for us to lift the ban despite opposition from sections of the communities in the South. The lifting of the ban by the foreign countries is entirely a matter for them. The US for example has said that they will lift the ban when the LTTE renounces violence. Sooner the LTTE comes to a peaceful settlement of the problem within a united Sri Lanka the sooner will their ban be lifted abroad.

Q: Do you think Kadirgamar was correct in convincing the other governments to ban LTTE?

A: In fact, long before Mr. Kadirgamar the UNP government had in the early 90s, moved in this regard. That is after the break up of the talks with President Premadasa. In the context of Mr. Kadirgamar's time he continued this as well.

And certainly all these efforts contributed to bringing international pressure on the LTTE to come to the negotiating table. What is important is that when they were trying to come to the negotiated table we did not respond in a military manner as was done in the year 2000. But in a manner that led to a ceasefire agreement and the subsequent talks.

Q: India continues to maintain its tough stand on the LTTE after it allegedly killed Rajiv Gandhi. How do you, in your capacity as the foreign minister intent handling this situation?

A: Remember that before we began negotiations with the LTTE one of the first things we did was for the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and myself to visit India in December 2001 and consult the Indian Prime Minister as well as Sonia Gandhi. The

Indians realise that without talking to the LTTe there can be no peaceful solution. Remember that apart from the murder of Rajiv Gandhi, our own Courts, in connection with the Central Bank bombing have sentenced Prabhakaran for 200 years of jail term.

The whole purpose in talking to armed militants to bring about a peaceful solution will be negated if their past activities are constantly allowed to cloud the negotiations. This sort of negotiations has taken place in many parts of the world. I think about 20 countries are negotiating with armed militants in the world. How we deal with people who have been convicted for such activities will have to be part of the overall settlement. We will jump such hurdles when we come to them.

Q: India also refused to let Anton Balasingham travel via Madras when he wanted to visit Sri Lanka at the initial stage of the peace process. Now does it mean India will block attempts to find a solution to Sri Lanka?

A: I do not think so. We had kept India fully briefed about the progress of the peace process. Whatever the situation that was in the 80s, it is now in India's interest to see that peace is established in Sri Lanka.

Of course, we understand the Indian government is under various pressures. Say for example Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu.

Q: How do you view the socio-economic problems Sri Lanka had to face as a result of the bloody war?

A: The most important social problem I can see is that a generation has grown up who have seen nothing but war and mistrust between the communities. The economic problems growing from this is that people are not getting ahead to improving their living standards by using all the incentives that have been given by the government. Gradually this situation is changing. For example the carpenters whom I represent in the Moratuwa electorate are now travelling on the A9 road and doing business in Jaffna as their fathers have done 25 years ago. So with such interaction the mistrust will gradually go away. The war mentality of this generation will be gradually erased. The feeling that we have been condemned by the whole world as a place of violence will recede with the increase of foreign investment and tourism.

Q: In Sri Lanka the executive and the legislative power holders are from rival political parties. Do you think this is healthy to a country, which has so many problems and also would there be a problem in both these powers coming to a common understanding to find a lasting solution in Sri Lanka?

A: In this situation there are problems as well as opportunities. The problems are of course that there is no automatic consensus between a President and Prime Minister from different parties. The opportunity is that if such a consensus is built up than in the Sri Lankan context the large section of the South would be united in seeking a solution.

A solution to this ethnic crisis will have to be passed by two thirds in parliament and an approval through a referendum from the people. So it is vital that a majority of the southern parties are united on this issue. Indeed, if they are not so united the LTTE will see no point in talking about a solution, which might be defeated at a referendum in the South.

Q: We gather you might contest the post of Secretary General of the United Nations at the next election in the UN. But if you are unsuccessful in bringing peace in Sri Lanka how can you bring peace to the world?

A: It will be Asia's turn to fill the post of Secretary General for UN in the year 2006. As a small democratic country with a long history I have said that we will be available to be considered. However, I agree with you that only if we become a peaceful country should we be considered for this post.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager