|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 26 September 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 Regressive demands The JHU has put forward four demands - end diplomatic relations with Norway, de-merge the Eastern and Northern provinces, reject ISGA proposals and prepare the armed forces to meet an LTTE attack. Except for the last the other three are regressive. As far as the fourth demand is concerned the Army spokesmen have said that they are prepared to meet any eventuality. No demand could be treated in isolation from the sum totality of objective and subjective factors that define the given moment in history. Consider the demand to end diplomatic relations with Norway. Sri Lanka - Norway relations have been developing cordially ever since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries. These relations have helped us in many ways. Norway was invited to be a facilitator in the peace process by the Government of Sri Lanka. It was President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga that sent the invitation on behalf of the government. The failure to proceed in the peace front is more our folly than any ineptness or partiality of the Norwegians. Even if they have been inept and partial, it does not warrant the termination of diplomatic relations. Countries break off diplomatic relations in conditions of war or in serious instances, when there is a breach of sovereignty of one by the other. It would not only be foolish but also suicidal for the government even to contemplate taking such a severe step. The international community would take serious note of such a move. It would land us in isolation. In the present context when we need the friendship of all nations who but a naive fool could recommend such a move? Should the North and East be de-merged? They are not merged. It is only a temporary merger subject to a referendum. There is nothing to de-merge. This was an obligation under the Indo-Lanka Pact of 1987. We have to first abrogate the pact before the government could by administrative action change the status quo. What does this envisage, if not straining relations with India? In the solution of the National Question we cannot go back. One could do so at grave risk of intensifying the conflict. The Government has already agreed to seek a federal structure in which the Sri Lankan Tamils could enjoy internal self-determination. The JHU proposal is certainly regressive. It is going back even further from the 13th Amendment. A responsible government cannot reject the ISGA proposals offhand. Even if it disagrees with them it is committed to discuss them. It is the first time the LTTE came out with a set of proposals. On earlier occasions what they put forward were principles. Negotiations mean compromises. One should enter negotiations in a spirit of give and take. This is true for both the government and the LTTE. To reject ISGA offhand is to take an intransigent position. Intransigence is the worst enemy in resolving conflicts, especially protracted and violent conflicts like ours. What the country needs is an early resumption of negotiations. The JHU and their allies like the National Patriotic(?) Movement are actually blocking the path to the negotiating table. UN reform At the current session of the United Nations General Assembly more and more world leaders voiced their concern about the growing need for reforming the United Nations. The fact that the world body has not seen substantial reform in its entire lifespan of 59 years is necessarily a matter of concern. As a result its leadership or the Security Council has become somewhat anachronistic. The latter is no more representative of the geo-political situation of the present age. We believe the UN should be made democratic by allowing a wider representation in the Security Council. There is a growing consensus to include India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and an African country as permanent members in the Security Council. There is also the need to do away with the totally undemocratic veto power enjoyed by the permanent members. This allows any permanent member to veto decisions even if all other members of the Security Council agree to them. We have seen several such decisions in the recent past. Of late, the United Nations has become a rubber stamp for approving unilateral decisions taken by world powers, especially the United States. Times, the UN was helpless as it happened in the case of Iraq when the US and its allies unilaterally declared war. The contemporary world is full of conflicts both within and between nations. In this context no single nation could take the responsibility of ensuring peace and tranquility. It should be a concerted effort by all nations. It is the United Nations that is best suited to the task. Besides there are global issues like preservation of the environment for which the synergy of all nations is required. The global war on poverty is yet another phenomenon that needs a united approach. In the context of the rapid globalization process that is unfolding resulting in the shrinking of borders between countries, it is only a world body like the UN which could provide a safety net for the poor and the marginalized sections of the people the world over. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security | Produced by Lake House |
