|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 5 December 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
What the Mahaveer said on Mahaveer day Pirapaharan in the Tamil idiom and Prabhakaran in the English, the Leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, delivered his customary birthday greetings to the "Tamil Nation" as a part of his birthday celebrations for the year 2004. This was delivered on November 27. by a Special Correspondent
One of the distinguishing features between a dictator and a democrat is that while the former espouses myths and mythology to remain in power, the latter debunks both. It was seen from the methods used by Hitler and Mussolini how diligently and with careful design they used myths and mythology to create the notion of an Aryan race, so that they may each remain in power as its Leader - Fuhrer. Deceptive Pirapaharan's speech was both deceptive and manipulative. Deceptive, because while proposing talks upon a flexible basis, he urges "the Government of Sri Lanka to resume the peace negotiations without conditions, (and) based on - proposals for an Interim Self-Governing Authority". That makes it clear that the talks cannot be held other than upon the basis of the ISGA and that too must be held without any conditions being attached. Upon that basis, the LTTE has expressly mentioned that the GOSL's proposal of parallel discussions upon a permanent settlement is unacceptable, as that poses a condition. Prabhakaran complains that "the Government says that any form of interim administration should be an integral part of a permanent settlement. While we are demanding an interim administrative set-up, the Kumaratunga Government is insisting on talks for a permanent settlement to the ethnic conflict". The fact of the matter is that in Paragraph 23 of the ISGA, the LTTE has said that, "This agreement shall continue until a new Government for the North-East, pursuant to a permanent negotiated settlement is established. The parties will negotiate in good faith to reach such a settlement as early as possible." Nowhere in the ISGA it may be found stated that parallel talks for a permanent settlement cannot be pursued while negotiations on the ISGA are proceeding. In fact Prabhakaran on his 50th birthday had chosen deception to be one of his choices to be laid before the people. Manipulative He is also manipulative, because he now tells the GOSL and the people of Sri Lanka, that if he does not succeed in having his ISGA "institutionalized" he would have "no alternative other than to advance the freedom struggle of (his) nation". What this means is that he would have no alternative but to return to war. A direction in which he could "advance the freedom struggle" of his nation from the status of a "Ceasefire" that he has subscribed to and does exist today, was to cease his respect for the ceasefire agreement, and withdraw his support towards maintaining it. Such a step would place his nation and the rest of Sri Lanka upon a collision course, leading to a resumption of Eelam War III. If the GOSL does not give the LTTE the ISGA, he will give the people of Sri Lanka Eelam War III. It is important to recognize that Prabhakaran appears to have taken almost ten pages and seventeen paragraphs of print to present that stark conclusion. It is wrong, and indeed immoral, for negotiations, particularly for a solution that is to lead to a permanent peace between two communities of a single nation, as the majority of the people of Sri Lanka do believe, to be conducted with a barrel of a gun pointing at its heart. Ultimatums are given with a time line for achieving them. That is when one's interest is to reach the objective for which the ultimatum was given. In this case the object was the resumption of peace talks. But when an ultimatum is given without a time line, it becomes quite apparent that the purpose for which such an ultimatum was given was not meant to achieve that objective but to frustrate it. It now becomes quite clear that the LTTE is no longer interested in commencing peace talks but delaying them to suit some insidious plan they might be harbouring. The plan they have may appear to be as follows. In so delaying the peace talks, the LTTE leadership may plan that a time may arrive when the LTTE might place the blame squarely on the GOSL for the delay and take that action which they have declared - to "advance the freedom struggle of the Tamil nation". By such means, the LTTE may then hope to have adopted the ISGA without even a shot being fired. Then they might hope to apply the ISGA in whatever region of the North and East over which they might at that time be in control. Such an application of the ISGA, at that point will be in the very form in which the LTTE had presented the ISGA to the GOSL at the end of 2003. This would be tantamount to a consolidation of their power under the ISGA as a result of which they may then progressively move towards establishing a State of Eelam. That would be the result from causing long and protracted delays in commencing the peace talks. Delay peace talks It is in the interest of the LTTE to add one caveat after another, one pre-condition after another, to delay the commencement of the peace talks. This explains the absence of a time line to their ultimatum. However, the only determinable time line that the present ultimatum might establish is that which is given in Article 4.4 of the Ceasefire Agreement. Under that Article one requires a fourteen day notice that would suffice to abrogate the CFA, and then promptly, the LTTE may proceed to commence Eelam War III. By giving the GOSL an ultimatum without a time line, the LTTE has established to themselves a win-win situation through a process of manipulative chicanery. Prabhakaran deceitfully promises to negotiate a permanent settlement once the ISGA has been established. In this respect Prabhakaran says: "Once the interim administrative authority is institutionalized and becomes functional we are prepared to engage in negotiations for a permanent settlement. That is our position". But several paragraphs later the same Prabhakaran declares that "it will be meaningful to talk about a permanent settlement if the Sinhala political organizations have a clear, coherent policy, a proper insight and a consensus approach towards the Tamil national question. If not, there is no meaning in engaging in talks about a permanent solution. There is division, discord, confusion and contradiction within the Sinhala political leadership on the Tamil issue". ISGA for governance Prabhakaran then proceeds to make it clear that he does not intend to negotiate a permanent settlement but to use the ISGA, unilaterally, as the basis for his governance in the North and East. He puts that idea in this way: "Having realized the truth that the Sinhala political leadership will not be able to offer a reasonable permanent solution to our people, we submitted an interim solution". Here, he was referring to the ISGA as the interim solution which he had proposed. To make his line of action abundantly clear, Prabhakaran then proceeds to debunk any hope of talking with the GOSL of a permanent settlement. He accuses The President "of deliberately impeding the peace efforts by insisting that talks should be about a permanent settlement". It therefore appears that the program which the LTTE had structured was one that would institutionalize their ISGA and that they would ensure that any settlement beyond the ISGA would be a matter to be found in Cuckoo Land. The insidious nature of this approach defies comprehension. While compelling the GOSL to negotiate on the basis of the ISGA and with a promise to commence negotiations for a permanent settlement, the LTTE is using this scheme not to arrive at a final settlement, but to establish the ISGA unilaterally as their own final settlement. This is not opaque any more, it is transparent. ISGA negotiable Prabhakaran has stated and Sambanthan, the leader of the TNA in Parliament had repeated, during the course of his budget speech, on the November 30, that the ISGA was a negotiable document and the GOSL was free to negotiate it. Prabhakaran himself said in his speech, that "if some elements of our proposals are deemed problematic or controversial these issues can be resolved through discussions at the negotiating table". In the same paragraph, Prabhakaran ends on a rather negative note where he says "it is apparent from the inconsistence and contradictory statements made by President Kumaratunga that her Government is not going to offer the Tamil people either an interim or a permanent solution". Backdrop for talks With that as a backdrop for peace talks, which could inevitably include some animated discussions over the contents of the ISGA, the LTTE has set the stage for rejecting all contrary views, on the grounds that any views that the GOSL may express which are contrary would be reflective of an internalized scheme of President Kumaratunga to refrain from offering "the Tamil people either an interim or a permanent solution". If this last statement is the conclusion of his 12th paragraph, and certainly it is, it becomes an arid discourse to suggest that the ISGA is negotiable. Negotiability is indeed a relative term. What must be made available to be negotiable are the core-issues of any agreement. The way Prabhakaran had ended that vital paragraph does not support negotiations of the ISGA. Prabhakaran mounts a withering attack on the JVP, the voters of the South and the Government for unleashing "Sinhala Buddhists, hegemonistic" forces in the South, by holding the general elections on April 2nd. I could well understand this view of Prabhakaran. He knows not what elections are, and has in the ISGA proposals in paragraph 2 dealing with the composition of the ISGA declared that that the ISGA should be composed by nominated members where "the number of members will be determined to ensure an absolute majority of the LTTE appointees in the ISGA". All ISGA members are to be appointed and a contrived majority was to be made available for the LTTE. Diatribe about GOSL This kind of proposal in composing the first ISGA when examined against their diatribe about the GOSL holding elections in the South is nothing but laughable. Pluralistic elections, within a democratic framework, connotes that the method by which those who rule a nation assumes power must be by the same means as the one that takes them out of power. And that method without exception, in a democracy must be by the freely expressed will of the people. What the LTTE has proposed in the ISGA is the will of the LTTE, which means the will of its Leader, freely expressed. There is no room for an emergence of a plurality of ideas and views and of popular participation in the method proposed by the LTTE in their ISGA. Therefore it is quite understandable that Prabhakaran would lament for the fact that "the ethnic contradiction between the Sinhala and Tamil nations became acute as a consequence of the general elections, held at the beginning of the year. The elections paved the way for he hegemonic dominance of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinistic forces in the Southern political arena". But then, Prabhakaran must at least now realize, that these are the vicissitudes of democracy, where popular will and not the will of person who wields the power of the gun and the bullet matters. Prabhakaran's lament underscores the fact that, the LTTE is not an organization which is based on democratic principles, but is based on the leadership principle, where the Leader represents the group, and what the Leader says is the Law for that group. Fascist dictatorship This of course is the classic paradigm of a Fascist dictatorship, where there is a group that is identified by blood ties, which is seized by one person who claims to be its Leader. The Leader bonds with the group again by blood ties. The Leader and the group becomes a single continuum where what the Leader lays down as law becomes the law of the group. LTTE portrays this classic paradigm of a Fascist organization. The Leader of the group that forms the LTTE has decreed that the LTTE shall have "an absolute majority" and that that majority shall be obtained through a process of nomination and not by election. Therefore it is quite ridiculous and most facile for the LTTE to blame the GOSL for holding elections just because elections are antithetical to the LTTE mindset. Unless the LTTE goes through a real transformation from being a Fascist dictatorship, into a democratic pluralistic, political institution, there will be no hope for those who may be compelled to live under LTTE governance. Human Rights Human Rights then will be the rights allowed by the Leader. The GOSL must indeed recognize that they will be dealing with a Fascist political alliance than with a democratic pluralistic institution when peace talks do commence. History has recorded the lamentable incident when the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlaine obtained the signature of Adolf Hitler upon a peace agreement in Berlin, which stated there that would be "peace in our times". One might even wonder what reliance one could place on anything beyond what might fall within the wishes of the LTTE Leader, Prabhakaran. One could therefore rely on the ISGA, but not beyond that. This puts any permanent settlement, as it has been mentioned above, in the mythical land of the Cuckoos. It is sincerely hoped that GOSL will read the Mahaveer Day speech with great care and perspicacity and avoid falling into the many traps laid in ti. It is important to stress that the South is neither Buddhist hegemonistic nor anti-Tamil as Prabhakaran claims. It is correct to say that the South is anti-Prabhakaran and for all he stands. Anti-Sinhala It is now necessary to pointout the hegemonistic anti-Sinhala behaviour of the LTTE with great clarity. We must remember the ethnic cleansing which the LTTE has engaged in, in the past, in particular, against the Muslim population in the North and in the East. Prabhakaran's accusing finger against the Buddhist hegemonistic Sinhala South might be found tainted with Muslim blood. He must remind himself that there exist not one Sinhala or Muslim resident in the areas that he controls. We must also remind him that both the Tamils and Muslims do reside in the Sinhala areas in the South with amity and understanding, the two essential qualities that the LTTE may be found to be lacking. Prabhakaran speaks of the general elections that had "polarised the Sinhala and Tamil ethnic formations into two distinct nations, as two separate peoples with divergent mutually incompatible ideologies, consciousness and political goals." Prabhakaran seems to forget that the very foundation of his political philosophy is a philosophy based on Tamil hegemonism of a Tamil nation designed to control as area of territory which he claims to be exclusively the homelands of the Tamils. The exclusively itself should taste bad in his mouth when he speaks of Sinhala Buddhist hegemonism in the Sinhala South, forgetting the Tamil hegemonism which he had established in the territorial areas of Sri Lanka which he controls. Core-elements The LTTE has been careful to enumerate the non-negotiable three core-elements that apply to a permanent settlement. These were declared to be applicable only to a permanent settlement and not to any interim arrangement. These three core-elements are: (A) The recognition of the North and the East as being Tamil homelands - Para.15; (B) The recognition that the Tamils are a nation - Para 15; (C) That the Tamil nation has a right to self-determination including the right to secede (Paragraphs 14 & 15). Both (A) and (B) were found in the "Oslo Declaration" in which the LTTE had abandoned the right to secede. But (C) is a new element which makes hollow Prabhakaran's assertion that the LTTE has now abandoned Eelam. In his Mahaveer Day speech, there is an interesting reference that merits noting. He says: "None of the major Sinhala political parties are prepared to recognize the fundamentals underlying the Tamil national question." One may now ask what then Prabhakaran are these fundamentals. He answers: "None of the Sinhala political organizations is prepared to accept the Northeastern Region as the historical homeland of the Tamil-speaking people, that the Tamils constitute themselves as a distinct nationality and that they are entitled to the right of self determination, including the right to secede". This nails the lie which Prabhakaran has regularly peddled and his representative, Dr. Balasingham, has accepted, in the document now referred to as the Olso document, declaring the abandonment of secession. This makes the point that the ISGA is no more, no less, than a vehicle to be used for achieving Eelam, not by the force of Arms but by the passage of time. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
