|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 18 January 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Defence remains with the party of negotiation by Lucien Rajakarunanayake The "Sunday Observer" of January 11, 2004 carried the views of politicians and political analysts on the current state of the MoU, following the Prime Minister calling on the President to take over the task of handling the peace process by introducing suitable amendments to the Ceasefire Agreement of February 2002 and renegotiating the MoU he signed with the LTTE. The overall view as summarized in this report was a warning that instead of meddling with the MoU, all efforts must be taken to prevent the collapse of the ceasefire. It also pointed out the need for the President and Prime Minister to cooperate in a constructive manner to bring a political settlement to the ethnic crisis as early as possible. Among those who made observations Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Professor of Political Science, University of Colombo, said: "Both the President and the Prime Minister should work out a mutually acceptable framework together. Unilateralism will not work. Bilateralism is the only option at this crucial juncture". This is an objective judgment not tainted by partisan politics, unlike some of the other observations made. Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), says the Prime Minister's statement "should be seen in the context of the cohabitation power struggle and as an attempt by the Prime Minister to seize the initiative and put the President on the defensive". It would have been more helpful if there were some examples of attempts at cohabitation by the Prime Minister, particularly with regard to the peace process, before he took this step. He also says "the challenge, therefore, is either to return the ministries or [for the President] to take full responsibility for the peace process, at the same time linking up with the JVP to seize full governmental power". He does not explain how of the ministries taken over by the President, the Defence Ministry could be returned, without an amendment to the Constitution which would possibly need both a two-thirds majority in Parliament, and a national referendum. In substance what he has said stands hollow, while he noticeably throws in the latest bogey of an alliance with the JVP. Dr. Jehan Perera, Media Director, National Peace Council, referring to the Prime Minister's insistence on getting back the Ministry of Defence, before he can re-start negotiations states: "Since the peace process is intimately related to issues of national security, it is reasonable to believe that peace talks cannot take place unless the powers over defence are vested with the party that is negotiating." His observation that the powers over defence should be vested with the "party that is negotiating" is indeed significant. The mention of the "party" that is carrying on the negotiations having powers or control over defence is something that has been said by many persons in relation to the present issue. But rarely, if ever, has it been explained what this "party" refers to. In fairness to Dr. Jehan Perera, his reference to "party" does not appear to be as narrow as others consider it. However, the question that arises is why this constant reference to a party that is negotiating. Is it because of the reality that the negotiations are in fact between the delegates of the UNF and the LTTE, keeping out the Executive arm of Government, held by the President who leads the PA? Was not the MoU signed between two parties, the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) and the LTTE? Is it not correct that the MoU refers to the GOSL and the LTTE as the two parties to the agreement? Why then this particular mention of the party to negotiations needing to have all powers over defence? How is it that when the President who is the Head of State and Government continues to hold the portfolio of Defence, that the Government delegation, all of who are members of the Cabinet over which she presides, lacks any control over defence for purposes of negotiation? It is necessary to state here that from the time of the President's take over of these three ministries there has been no reported violation of the Ceasefire Agreement. This makes it clear that the President holding these portfolios has in no way endangered the peace process, in which negotiations between the Government and the LTTE were unilaterally suspended by the LTTE in April 2002. With regard to the statement by the Prime Minister that the MoU was signed with the LTTE, on the basis that the Government has the full authority to pursue such action as required by it, but that basis was destroyed due to the recent actions by the President, namely the takeover of the three portfolios, it would be useful if the Prime Minister clarifies how the President's actions in any way interfered with the basis of the MoU. Is it stated anywhere in the MoU, signed in such haste, without even proper consultation with the President, that its operation was dependent on a nominee of the Prime Minister having control over any or all of the subjects of Defence, Interior and Mass Communications? It is important to remind those who keep mentioning the need for the "party that is negotiating to have control over defence", that there is only one government in Sri Lanka. It is the Government of which President Chandrika Kumaratunga as Executive President is the Head of State, Head of Government, Head of the Executive, Presides at Cabinet Meetings and is the Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe is Prime Minister of this same Government, and it is on that basis that he signed the MoU with the LTTE. He signed the agreement on behalf of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, knowing full well the limited powers of the Prime Minister under the Constitution, although he may command a majority in Parliament. Very importantly, whether it is done with transparency and/or cohabitation or not, that is the party carrying on the negotiations with the LTTE, and that party does not lack any control over matters of defence. We are well aware that the terms of the MoU, were shown to the President who is the Executive President, as a fait accompli, only hours before it was to be signed by the Prime Minister and the LTTE leader, and as such the President was not a signatory to it. Soon after it was signed, the President made her own observations regarding several shortcomings in the MoU, which the Prime Minister and his parliamentary party completely disregarded. They did not think of making any amendments at that time. However, as events unfolded with the passage of time, most of the shortcomings the President pointed out and the dangers of some of the clauses she drew attention to, have now become real and accepted as such by those who have seen this agreement in operation. As Dr. Jehan Perera obviously sees it, for her part, in order to facilitate the Prime Minister's task, the President has offered to hand over whatever powers as may be needed under the subjects of Defence and Interior Security, and other proposals for consensus as would be necessary to resume talks with the LTTE, and proceed with an honest search for peace. There is no valid reason as to why this cannot be done by the Prime Minister, being consistent with the Constitution under which the Portfolio of Defence requires to be held by the Executive President and none other, as amply clarified by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. It is necessary to understand that adherence to the terms and requirements of the Constitution of the land is not in anyway a matter of power politics as made out by many, and that it is important for the Prime Minister too to realize the importance of functioning within the framework of the prevailing Constitution, until such time as it is possible to agree on terms to amend it, to achieve a genuine and lasting peace that is all embracing. It is in achieving such an understanding that cohabitation becomes important. It is this very aspect to which the UNF Government and the Prime Minister has paid scant regard to. The reality as it appears to many who view this "crisis" with greater detachment and more objectively, is that having seen the proposals of the LTTE for the Interim Self Government Authority for the North & East, the Prime Minister is seeking to abandon his responsibility to take the peace process forward, as he is unable to deliver on what the LTTE demands. It is significant that the UNF has still to state, not in great detail, but even in point form, what aspects of the ISGA proposals it is in disagreement with the LTTE. Admittedly, the delay in resuming negotiations now that the ISGA proposals are on the table cannot be in the overall best interests of the country. The LTTE which says it will maintain its commitment to the Ceasefire Agreement has also sent out signals that if the Tamil people begin to feel betrayed by the Government, then it may be compelled to take appropriate action. What that action is does not need much elaboration, and such betrayal is what the UNF and Prime Minister are doing. As much as this government headed by President Kumaratunga remains committed to maintain the Ceasefire, it could move towards the extremes of flexibility for consensus. Equally, it should be firmly opposed to any extra-constitutional arrangements amounting to a violation of the Constitution, to satisfy the so far unexplained need for any portfolios now held by the President to be held by any other. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
