|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 22 August 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial |  |
| News Business Features Security
|
Please forward your comments to the
Editor, Sunday Observer. E-mail: [email protected] Snail mail : Sunday Observer, 35, D.R.Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone : 94 11 2429239 / 2331181 Fax : 94 11 2429230 War, peace and the ISGA The long stalemate in the peace process has strengthened the extremist and belligerent elements on both sides of the ethnic divide. While some in the North speak of sending home the soldiers there in coffins, some in the South call for the abrogation of the Ceasefire Agreement. Two factors have delayed a breakthrough in the peace front. One is the open division within the government ranks vis-…-vis future negotiations. The other is the internal split in the ranks of the LTTE that has now developed into a violent conflict with each side gunning for blood on the other side. To make matters worse, the two major parties in the South are in no mood to place country before party and arrive at a consensus. Last week we saw new slogans and new interpretations given by opponents of the ISGA and the Ceasefire Agreement. The JVP openly called the ceasefire a betrayal and pressed for an end to sham peace. "We want an honourable peace", it said. Similarly the National Bhikku Front called for discussions on a final solution abandoning any discussion on the ISGA. They also speak of peace. It is in this context that the following lines from Bertolt Brecht's War Primer resonate in our ears: "Those at the top say: Peace and war Yes, it is like wind and storm. We hope it is not wind before storm. From the rhetoric that pours from political platforms, it is clear that our politicians have failed to grasp realities. The JVP and many more consider the Ceasefire Agreement an act of betrayal by Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNF. They even blame the international community for forcing it on us. But what is the reality behind that agreement? The ceasefire is the outcome of the military stalemate that developed towards the latter half of 2001. The Sri Lankan military was pushed back from a vast area in the Jaffna peninsula and was precariously holding ground in the city but the LTTE was also incapable of capturing Jaffna despite a series of military successes. It is this military stalemate that led to the political d‚tente in the form of the Ceasefire Agreement. The Agreement precludes any change in the military balance between the two parties. It is ridiculous to call the ceasefire a sham. While the extent of Ranil Wickremesinghe's betrayal is a moot point, the positive gains of the ceasefire cannot be challenged. They include the millions saved on war expenses, the saving of lives and property and many more tangible results in the economic field. It is also true that the ceasefire was neither faultless nor foolproof. However, it has held so far despite numerous instances of violations. Those who crave for its abrogation seem to live in a fool's paradise that consequences of such abrogation could be manageable. The reality is that mutual suspicion and mistrust on both sides are so great that not even an interim agreement could be negotiated. In such a situation, how could anyone expect the two parties to hammer out a final agreement? Those who call for a final agreement without an interim arrangement are also making the same blunder made by those who call for an interim arrangement unrelated to or developing into a final agreement. There is also much talk about a mandate of the people against the ISGA. There was no popular mandate for or against the ISGA. On the other hand, there was a mandate for a negotiated settlement. There was also no mandate to abrogate the Ceasefire Agreement. As we maintained earlier, the Government is ethically bound to discuss the ISGA proposals put forward by the LTTE. Equally, the LTTE is ethically bound to discuss any Government proposals for an interim administration. Agreeing to discuss any proposal does not mean agreement with the proposal. There cannot be any predetermined agreement when negotiating. An agreement can only be an outcome of negotiations. Israeli wall in occupied Palestine Israel continues to violate international law and United Nations Resolutions. It is building a wall in occupied Palestine, including in and around East Jerusalam. This amounts to 'de facto' annexation of occupied Palestine lands. It impedes the exercise of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. It restricts the freedom of movement and the right to work of the Palestinians. It affects their health, education and right to life. Israel continues to defy the ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel terminates the breaches of international law and stop construction of the wall. Together with world public opinion we call upon the Israeli authorities to respect international law and stop construction of the wall, vacate occupied lands of the Palestinian and Arab peoples and arrive at a negotiated settlement based on the Road Map agreed upon earlier. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
