|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 12 October 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Will the talks survive a 'hard' LTTE stance? by Jehan Perera In their recent meetings with members of the international community, the LTTE has been reassuring them that their proposals regarding an interim administration will be reasonable. They have also pointed out that their counter proposals have been prepared in consultation with internationally based experts, including a former Attorney General of Sri Lanka. But there is a widespread belief that the LTTE will come up with an ambitious scheme for the re-making of the Sri Lankan State that might even threaten the stability of the peace process. There is usually little or no difficulty for parties in conflict to develop maximum positions. The problems begin when people are asked to scale down maximum demands in the course of negotiations with the other party. This is the point at which internal dissension arises even within the ranks of those who are long-time colleagues and comrades-in-arms. The proposals that emerged from the LTTE's internal discussion in Paris, and other places overseas on an interim administration for the North-East, which are presently being vetted in the Vanni are likely to be in the nature of a maximalist position which it will put before the Government in due course. Hard bargainers In a negotiating situation, those who are hard bargainers are often too insensitive to realise that their so-called success is at the cost of long-term relationship-building. They might get themselves a good bargain on one occasion. But the relationship between the negotiating parties becomes weakened and not even survive. Usually hard bargaining is most effective in a one-off negotiation, such as when bargaining on the street with a pavement hawker. However, when it comes to long-term negotiating relationships, those who engage in hard bargaining are likely to fail, whether it is the peace process or a personal dispute. Sustaining long-term relationships require a different type of negotiations in which the interests of each side are met in a fair and reasonable manner. What is needed is that the Government and LTTE negotiators engage in interest-based negotiations with one another. They should not try to defeat each other at the negotiating table but, rather seek to engage in joint problem-solving. In short, they need to sit together on the same side of the table to solve a common problem that has been ruining the country and its society. Therefore, the important question regarding the LTTE's imminent presentation of its proposals regarding an interim administration is not about the quantum of powers demanded in the LTTE document that finally emerges. The important question is whether the LTTE will insist that the government should accept its document right now as a pre-condition for restarting the peace talks. If continuing to work with the government in power is the objective of the LTTE, it will not make such a demand. What is more likely is that the LTTE will publicise its position, seek to rally long-term support among the Tamil people and international community for its position and then recommence peace talks aimed at implementing its proposals in a phased manner. Perception There is an incorrect perception shared by sections of the population as well as the international community that the suspension of peace talks since April has effectively stalled, if not reversed, some of the gains of the peace process. Some members of the international community recently even went on record to say that the international community might lose its interest in Sri Lanka if the peace process remained stagnant for much longer as they had other international priorities that could take precedence. At the Tokyo donor conference in June, the international community made its pledges of economic assistance, which were unprecedented in magnitude, conditional upon the satisfactory progress of the peace process. At the post-Tokyo donor meeting in Colombo last month, this same message was reiterated. The problem is that from about February this year, when the Government and LTTE negotiating teams met for the last time in Hakone, Japan, there has been no visible breakthrough in the peace process. Joint Government-LTTE mechanisms for utilising the aid provided also remain in abeyance. In the resolution of a protracted conflict, it may sometimes be necessary to have visible breakthroughs in order to keep morale high - both of the negotiators themselves and also the interested public. Virtually all rounds of the peace talks that commenced with the first one in Sattahip, Thailand, a year ago, had such moments of brightness. Whether it was the re-definition of the LTTE's concept of Tamil Eelam in Sattahip in September, the Oslo declaration on federalism in December, or the acceptance of a human rights framework in Hakone in January this year, every round of the peace talks brought with it news of a positive breakthrough that the international media could carry to all parts of the world. But it is also important that a distinction be drawn between visible breakthroughs at peace talks and the overall strengthening of the peace process that has taken place. There is a need to bear in mind that peace talks are, by and large, a matter between the Government and LTTE. But it is also important to bear in mind that the peace process is more than peace talks between the Government and LTTE. Difference The peace process includes the Government and LTTE; but also includes the other political forces in the country, not to mention the 18 million people who constitute the general population of the country. The peace process should not be limited or equated only to the presence or absence of peace talks. The difference between the peace process and peace talks can be seen most clearly in some of the events of these past five months. During this period there were no peace talks between the Government and LTTE. But a strong case can be made that the peace process did not get weakened during this period, where there was a hiatus in the peace talks, but instead got strengthened from an overall perspective. In the past five months, notwithstanding the suspension of peace talks there has also been a great deal of constructive and positive work that has been done, both by the LTTE itself and also other parties, to take the peace process forward. A most valuable contribution in this regard was the LTTE's deliberations in Paris and Dublin on an interim administrative framework to govern the North-East. The LTTE's decision to include the Tamil diaspora community, and include leading academics and former senior government officials in a broad-based effort to come up with a concrete proposal, has served to strengthen confidence in their commitment to a negotiated settlement. A further strengthening of the peace process has taken place with the increased interaction taking place between the LTTE and international organisations. An example would be the action plan drawn up by UNICEF that the LTTE has endorsed. According to the action plan, which is in the process of being implemented, the LTTE has agreed to an awareness programme on child rights to be carried out in the North-East within the next few months. The LTTE has also agreed to the publication by UNICEF of a monthly child situation report which would cover such areas as child recruitment and rehabilitation and child labour. The challenge for UNICEF would be to ensure, by non-confrontational and problem-solving methods, that the LTTE honours the terms of the action plan for a restoration of the lost rights of children in the North-East. The LTTE would also be aware that an agreement with an internationally recognised organisation like UNICEF has to be taken seriously if it is not to suffer serious erosion of credibility. In endorsing UNICEF's action plan, the LTTE has gone beyond the verbal assurances that they once gave to the UN's special envoy on child rights Olara Otunnu which they failed to honour. This shift of attitude on the part of the LTTE is evidence of how the peace process is continually being strengthened even in the absence of peace talks between the government and LTTE. President's contribution Yet another major contribution towards the strengthening of the peace process has been President Chandrika Kumaratunga's rejection of a political alliance with the JVP. This political alliance would certainly have strengthened the political opposition to the Government, both at the electoral and ideological levels. The President's decision to forego this political advantage was due, in large measure, to her refusal to agree to the JVP's demand that the new alliance should oppose the devolution of power as a solution to the ethnic conflict, and Norwegian facilitation in the present peace process. If the President had agreed to the JVP's terms, the peace process would undoubtedly have been seriously jeopardised. With the mass base of the PA behind it, the JVP would have organised mass events that would have had the potential of generating an open confrontation with the UNF Government. In turn, the perceptions of a Government on the defensive would have weakened the peace process. But due to the fact that the President publicly, and courageously, upheld her commitment to a negotiated political solution through the devolution of power and with Norwegian facilitation, she helped to consolidate public support for the present peace process and thereby served to strengthen it. There is a need to give adequate recognition to the President's actions that have contributed to the stability of the peace process. Civil society A final factor that has contributed to the strengthening of the peace process should also be noted. This is the ceaseless work being done by a multitude of civil society organisations to build bridges between the ethnic communities and to make them feel more comfortable about the political compromises necessary for a negotiated peace. So long as a return to war is kept at bay, the natural resilience of Sri Lankan society and its facility for multi-ethnic coexistence, so easily visible on the streets of any big city, whether Colombo or Jaffna, will ensure that the peace process grows from strength to strength. Therefore, when assessing the situation in the country, it is only fair and proper that the entirety of the peace process be evaluated rather than only aspects of it, such as the continuation of protests against it by sections of the political Opposition or by concerns about the presumed maximalist nature of the LTTE's interim proposals. Sri Lanka is one of the world's few success stories of conflict resolution. This is why so many foreign governments and international organisations are continuing to invest heavily in the peace process. Despite continuing incidents of political assassinations and child recruitment, and the LTTE's refusal to abide by a decision of the international monitors on the Kinniya camp, there is an increasing confidence of the people of the North-East that there will be no more return to war. Compared to what the situation was a mere two years ago, Sri Lanka today is a country that has been transformed, and the LTTE is an equal partner in that transformation. Without the LTTE's active cooperation, the civil war would not have stopped, and there would have been tens, and sometimes hundreds, dying every single day, not to mention the bombs going off in civilian places and the terror that accompanies such possibilities. The LTTE's interim administration proposals are likely to be in keeping with this general direction towards the consolidation of the peace process. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
