| Peace talks or peace?
Only an incorrigible optimist can hope that the scheduled ‘peace talks’ in Geneva will take off and even if it did, whether the subject for discussion would be peace. The run up to the talks, at the time of writing has been 64 violent deaths and these talks are more likely to be a war of words than peace. We have quite often, in these columns, pointed out that for peace to emerge from a state of violent conflict there has to be a determined effort to bring about peace and tremendous sacrifices are called for from both sides. What happened before the scheduled round of talks at Geneva has been that killings have been resorted to ostensibly as a show of force — attempts to demonstrate who wields greater power. The targeted audience are the four Co-Chairs and a global audience reached through the media. On the positive side there is nothing very much to show of the achievements at talks from Thimpu to talks in Jaffna and Colombo and the six rounds of talks abroad and the last Geneva meeting. There will be no peace through a negotiated settlement unless there is an overwhelming commitment to peace. A preliminary requirement for peace through negotiations is the cessation of violence before and during and after talks. That is why a ceasefire is called for. There has been a great deal of debating on the Cease Fire Agreement (CFA). But has there been a true ceasefire? People from both sides have been killed though not so great in numbers as when there were military conflicts. But people have died in large numbers. It is now called a ‘low intensity conflict.’ This is certainly not peace. It is a war, guerrilla war that has been going on for three years. There was some degree of satisfaction entertained by all sides: that only small numbers were killed but the killings go on. If there is to be peace, violence, particularly killings must cease immediately. Peace talks during the 20 years of ‘war’ have not been able to resolve one outstanding issue. The impression given by negotiators of both sides during the six rounds of talks between the Wickremesinghe government and the LTTE was that much had been achieved and even the basic formula for a solution, a federal solution, was agreed upon but the LTTE went back and came out with a totally different set of proposals. Unfortunately the facilitators, the Norwegians, who would have been well aware of the negotiations and the resolution reached, did not speak out when the talks collapsed. If a two day conference is to discuss and agree to a large extent on the subjects discussed, there obviously should be a great deal of preparation, particularly by both sides putting their heads together before the meeting. But has even an agenda been worked out? From the statements that have been made it could well turn out to be a slanging match with both parties accusing each other of not keeping to pledges made on the last occasion. Take or example the issue of disarming the ‘paramilitaries.’ The ‘paramilitaries’ are said to be a break-away group of the LTTE and to resolve this issue may be more difficult than resolving problems with the LTTE unless the LTTE expects the government forces to slaughter them. If the talks are to take place, a primary requirement would be to bring about a much more cordial relationship between the two warring sides. The mood of the government negotiators would certainly not be friendly and forgiving considering the number of service personnel that have been killed during the past week. Whether the LTTE resorted to such means in order to scuttle the talks for reasons of their own will be revealed in the position taken at the conference table. The stand taken by the LTTE, however obnoxious it may be to the government, has been consistent and inflexible. They were even prepared to call the talks off. However, the government after taking tough postures has caved in such as on the issue of providing transport for the LTTE from the east to thawing on other issues like choice of facilitator and amendment of the CFA. If the government was not prepared to provide transport to the LTTE like the UNP government did, it should have maintained its original stand. Having almost made the LTTE blackmail them with their threat to call off talks, to change their minds and give in, certainly does not augur well for the outcome of the next round of talks. MORNING LEADER,, 19.4.2006 |