|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 5 December 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Prabhakaran's speech : Mixed reactions by Jayantha Sri Nissanka, M. P. Muttiah, Deepal Warnakulasuriya and Ananth Palakidnar LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran in his annual address to the Tamil people commemorating the death of thousands for the cause of Tamil Eelam has over the years reiterated his commitment to carry on the struggle to achieve what Prabhakaran has set his sights on.
In a bid to consolidate himself he targets his support base with the clarion call to continue the struggle. Prof. Bellanwila Wimalaratana Nayaka Thera said that a responsible government would not accept his demands to resume talks based on the Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) proposals. He said that the only foundation should be `the resumption of talks' and the LTTE proposals could be discussed there. "If the government agrees to resume peace negotiations on the LTTE's demand, it will be accepting Eelam in a way. However, the LTTE leader's statement just cannot be neglected and the government has to work seriously with the fullest corporation of all parties. Opposition parties too have a great responsibility to come to a consensus with the government for the sake of the country's future". Batty Weerakoon, Attorney-at-Law said that there was no surprise in Prabhakaran's speech as the politicians in the South did not have an agreement or consensus on how to solve the country's major problem. He said that at least right now, politicians in the South should be more concerned about the problem in the North and East as the LTTE Leader's struggle was nothing but terrorism. "As Prabhakaran says, they had not benefitted from the cease-fire agreement. If you just keep away the Tigers, you cannot enchant the ordinary Tamils. Today, the JVP within the government says something different to what the PA says," he said. He urged the government to gather all the political parties together and to address the issue with a realistic understanding of the problem. Professor K. Sivathamby, Visiting Lecturer, Colombo University said that the speech reflected the state of mind of the Tamil people. He also said that much uncertainty prevailed in the North and East. Nothing had been done to alleviate the present situation either politically or economically. Ketheesh Loganathan, Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives, said that the tone of Prabhakaran's speech was subdued, but the message was strong. On the positive side, he had indicated that he was open to proposals and suggestions from the government on the ISGA proposal. Although several LTTE spokespersons mentioned about that, this was the first time Prabhakaran himself stated this. Loganathan further added, the second feature of the LTTE leader's speech was the lack of consensus in the South. In that sense, Prabhakaran had failed to recognise the reality that a multi-party democracy exists in the South. Differences of opinion were inevitable, but as far as the constituent members of the government is concerned, they have clearly indicated they were prepared to enter into negotiations with the LTTE on the national question, Loganathan added. E. Thambiah, National Organiser of the New Democratic Party, said that some proposals on the Interim Self-Governing Authority might not be acceptable to the Government. But it was necessary to have talks and thrash out the realities. An interim authority is an essential component to establish peace, democracy and normalcy in the North-East. This authority was nothing new as this had been introduced in Kosovo and other war-torn areas. President Kumaratunga had said that she was prepared to talk and that should be started as early as possible. Thambiah said that any movement would naturally go back to its previous position if no solution was found. The LTTE leader reflected the present mood of the people and it was an immediate call for peace, said the NDP National Organiser. P.P. Devaraj, a former State Minister, Hindu and Tamil Affairs, said the present situation called for immediate talks. The correlation of political forces in the South makes it difficult to begin talks immediately. However, the government should be flexible. The LTTE leader's speech pointed out that they were suspicious about the resumption of peace talks. He said he did not think they would re-start the war, but follow a new strategy of mass struggle such as non-cooperation, civil disobedience etc. But Devaraj said differences should be sorted out at the negotiations and compromise could be possible if they sit down at the table. R. M. Krishnaswamy, President of the Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Congress said that many political changes had taken place since Prabhakaran's speech last year. His present speech had reflected the present thinking of the LTTE leadership. What was important at this stage was to begin talks on some interim arrangements so that reconstruction and rehabilitation could be speeded up. President Kumaratunga was the first Sinhala leader to accept that Tamils had problems and she was able to take this message to the majority community. Krishnaswamy hoped that President Kumaratunga would certainly take the peace process forward and a solution could be reached during her tern of office. Champika Ranawaka, Secretary of the Jathika Hela Urumaya described Mahaweerar Day message as a diplomatic threat by the LTTE leader. But Ranawaka said that the Government should not fear such threats but prepare strategies for counter measures. Kingsley Rodrigo, Executive Director of PAFFREL, said that LTTE leader Prabhakaran had to deliver such a statement for his own survival. He was saying this even in his past speeches. Rodrigo said that Prabhakaran had faced practical problems for his survival after the September 11 attack. They find it difficult to operate their accounts in other countries. He also fears that the Government is helping Karuna against his organisation. Therefore, there is nothing to panic that the LTTE will go for a war soon, he added. Dayan Jayatilake, Lecturer of Political Science, Colombo University said The Mahaweerar Day speech contained several aims and objectives, most important was to prepare for an aggressive war. Because he clearly said "we are at the borderline". Jayatilake noted "We must take Prabhakaran's threat of war very seriously but does not mean surrender to the ISGA proposals. Instead we must be willing to negotiate the ISGA on the basis of the Oslo Formula of United Federal Sri Lanka". He said "We must also invoke the 1987 Indo- Lanka accord. The current New Delhi Government contains individuals and political parties who were responsible for the accord. If we invoked this accord we may be able to secure it." Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Head of Department of Political Science and Public Policy at the Colombo University said that the speech was a fairly serious political analysis of the present position in the North and East. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
