REMERGE THE NORTH EAST
The very foundation of future discussions to attempt solving the ethnic conflict would be knocked out unless the government takes immediate steps to re-merge the northeast and maintain the status quo, observes TNA Parliamentarian, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam.
The Jaffna District MP said that the government has been given sufficient time to give an acceptable response on what it intends doing to prevent further aggravation of the Tamil national question.
In an interview with The Sunday Leader he also hailed the merging consensus between the two main political parties as a positive sign, which could help to bring about a final solution and give the required stamp of actual legitimacy, if attempted in good faith.
Q: Is the TNA?s protest campaign in parliament against the de-merger of the northeast merely to record your protest once more against southern decisions? After all, it was a legal decision though with serious political implications.
A: The decision to merge the northeast was taken 18 years ago. It was merged through the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord, based on the sound principle of recognising the northeastern provinces, as the historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people. It is a decision four consecutive presidents have duly recognised.
If you look at the judgment of the Supreme Court, it seems to hold the view that the merger is invalid due to a technicality, which is the process, through which the merger was brought about. The Supreme Court has held this legally unacceptable. It has also suggested a correct way, in which the merger could have been brought about.
Our view is that the merger has to remain. The government will have to take immediate steps to validly constitute the northeast as one unit.
The entire basis of the peace process depends on it. If the government thinks it can avoid taking immediate steps to merge the northeast, we believe that the very bottom of the peace process would be knocked out by such thinking. And if this turns out to be so, the possibilities of finding a solution within one country would be non-existent. That is how serious the matter is, and hence our parliamentary protest.
We urge the government to take immediate action.
Q: You mentioned that the northeast has remained merged for the past 18 years and that it should remain as one unit. However, it was a temporary merger. Shouldn?t this process be completed properly by a re-merging and then a referendum as stipulated?
A: A referendum could be certainly held. If you look at the 13th Amendment and the Provincial Councils Act, under which the merger took place, it provides for a referendum provided that normalcy returns to the northeast. It is due to the sheer absence of normalcy that more than a million Tamil citizens from the northeast have been displaced, either internally or fled the country.
A referendum is to determine the future of the status of the northeast as a single unit. It should take place only after they all return. So that?s why it has been postponed.
We believe that till such time that there is clear agreement and a commitment made by the Sri Lankan state and till such time normalcy returns, the merger should remain as it is.
We have no problem in principle in holding a referendum, but it should be held under the proper conditions that reflect the actual public view. Till such time, the northeast must remain as one.
And right now, the de-merger itself has complicated issues. Naturally, the prevailing conditions are not what we envisage as being suitable for such a process.
Q: This week we saw the government openly criticising the TNA parliamentarians for repeatedly holding protests, and it was viewed as an attempt to sabotage sessions. Is the TNA?s actual wish to make parliament ungovernable?
A: Not at all. It is very unfair criticism. We have always given an opportunity for the government to respond adequately. If you look at the protests that took place in the previous sessions, it was a very quiet protest. It was a sathyagraha campaign. We did not even interrupt the proceedings of parliament. We made a statement before we launched it, but received only deafening silence. We were completely ignored.
Despite all that, we did not interrupt sessions in anyway. The point here is that the TNA is prepared to give the government an opportunity to respond. If the government does not respond, then the TNA will have to think of ways and means by which we can compel the government to come up with an adequate response.
Q: You have been having regular protest campaigns on a range of issues. You also claim you received no reply. How long do you intend protesting?
A: If the government, after being given an opportunity to respond adequately fails to do so, and if the government thinks that it can carry on business as usual, we beg to differ. We will ensure that we make the government understand that it is not business as usual and that they cannot carry on regardless as they did before.
That was the message we sent through this week?s protest. We have to have an assurance from the Government Chief Whip, Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle that they would respond on the matter of the merger. We are prepared to wait for it.
Q: How have the ground rules changed since the court determination? How would it affect the chances of resuming peace talks?
A: I would say that it would fairly dim the chances of discussions altogether.
As for talks per se, it is a matter for the LTTE to decide. Our point about the de-merger knocking the bottom off any possibility of finding a negotiated solution is on the political side. If talks do take place in October, it would focus on the Cease Fire Agreement (CFA), and bringing about stability to the truce before tackling political issues.
The point is, even when the LTTE comes to the table to discuss political issues, if the merger is not accepted, talks will have to fail. This is not an issue simply for the LTTE, but this is an issue that has been put forward by all the Tamil parties. I checked a website today, where a group identified with the Karuna Group, which is a paramilitary outfit, has condemned the Supreme Court judgment.
This is something that goes to the very root of the Tamil national question. And no viable solution can be found, unless the merger remains.
And of course, when you have the kind of things that have been happening in the recent past, when the government has been blatantly pursuing a military option on the political side, things like this happen, such as a de-merger on top of which the government fails to take necessary action, when the whole basis for talks certainly vanishes.
Our view is that quite apart from the fact that talks take place at the end of October, in reality, that the possibility of finding an ultimate negotiated solution to the Tamil question becomes non existent as long as the northeast remains de-merged.
Q: Do you also fear that there is a possibility of the de-merger being followed by further political action that could thwart the chances of meaningful discussions such as amending the CFA or seeking to replace Norway as facilitator?
A: Such possibilities are enormous. These are not mere thoughts that cross our minds, but actual fears. Sometimes we think that it is what is most likely to happen.
However, if that is the course of action the government intends taking, we are certain that the LTTE is prepared to adequately respond.
The Tamil people have learned it the hard way. When we were prepared to do things through negotiations, we were not treated with respect .We were cheated left, right and center.
Today if the government thinks that they can suppress and oppress and carry out a military option to what is essentially a political issue, then the Tamil people would naturally look to the LTTE. This is why the LTTE has so much of support among the Tamil people. The Tamil people believe it to be the only force able to respond adequately to whatever the government chooses to do. And I think that the events over the last week or so clearly demonstrates the same.
Q: Does this mean, maintaining the status quo is an absolute necessity for things to progress at all?
A: Absolutely. There should not be any changes if they are keen on a solution.
A re-merger should take place in the first place to revert to the status quo. I don?t think that an inch of progress would be possible without it. You cannot even take up serious political issues for discussion without a re-merger.
On the issue of the ceasefire, our position has always been that the ceasefire should be fully implemented. It would be foolish to even think that the existing ceasefire could be amended on a whim. The point is that there is an agreement, and whatever said and done, it has been followed by two consecutive governments and this is the third.
It is a document that has been accepted by the LTTE, a document which is fully supported by the international community. So, we believe that there should not be amendments. The idea should be to get both parties to commit themselves completely to implement it.
I think that is what Geneva 1 was all about. I am pretty confident that ultimately if you want a level of progress that could tackle political issues, Geneva 2 will have to reiterate the position of Geneva 1. Until and unless there is a full implementation of Geneva 1 commitments, we cannot envisage any progress at all.
Q: The UNP has made a suggestion that a bill should be introduced in parliament to correct the technical problem highlighted in the ruling and to give it legitimacy thereby also re-merging the northeast. Besides this, does the TNA have a proposal to overcome the problem?
A: No, that is the correct decision to make. If such a bill were presented in the house, there would be resounding support.
If the government brings the bill, then there would be not only the support of the UNP, but also of the 22 TNA members. They will have adequate numbers to pass it through parliament. We can?t see why the government should hesitate on this matter.
Q: There is an escalation of violence in the country. While you claim it is of the government?s making largely, many incidents bear the hallmarks of the LTTE. How confident are you in saying that the LTTE is committed to a dialogue process, particularly in the light of what happened in the past week or so. It also appears that the LTTE that claims to be the sole representatives of the Tamil people causes Tamil people to suffer hardships?
A: I think the point here is that, the initiation of violence very clearly stemmed from the government and its decision to launch military operations. I do not think that any reasonable person can deny, that the government was seeking military advantages and to capture more territory. That is the reality and the LTTE had to respond to the governments? military agenda.
But we feel that the LTTE is serious about peace. Look at how the LTTE behaved after Geneva 1, where they made commitments essentially to stop violence against the armed forces and police forces were stalled until April 7. That was when Vigneswaran was assassinated. It was since that day that the army and the police were deliberately targeted.
But before April 7, if you look at the incidents of violence that took place, the violence has been one sided. The incidents were the creation of the Sri Lanka armed forces and the paramilitary groups assisting them.
They have not only killed LTTE cadres, their own supporters and innocent Tamil civilians. It is all a matter of whether the government is willing to negotiate in good faith. This round of talks in Geneva at the end of the month offers an opportunity for the government to re-think its strategy since the last round of talks in Geneva. If they have learned some lessons and behave in a proper way, I see no reason for the LTTE not to reciprocate. I am certain that the LTTE would.
Q: According to LTTE?s Military Spokesman, Ilanthirayan, the battlefields have widened and military installations outside of the northeast were now being considered legitimate targets. It is now being interpreted as a clear declaration of war?
A: That was the military spokesman, but then there is the head of the Political Wing, S P Tamilselvan telling Japanese Special Envoy, Yasushi Akashi, that the LTTE is committed to a negotiated political solution. If we interpret these two positions, what it says is that if the government stops its military agenda, there won?t be LTTE perpetrated violence. What it means is that if the government negotiates in good faith, then the LTTE would reciprocate.
But if the government fails to do so, then the LTTE would have to stick to the military wing leader?s approach. In fact the ball is very much in the government?s court.
Q: Do you feel the PA-UNP talks would prove beneficial in solving the conflict? Tamilselvan has expressed his reservations about the success of such a union.
A: Our constant position had been that the two main political parties should stop making politics out of the Tamil national question. They must take a common stand on the ethnic question. That is the only way to have decisions implemented and complete a southern legal process and political process that could end strife. Only such can give the necessary stamp of approval.
We are closely watching them. The reason that they would get together is a key question. They should be able to spread out something realistic before the Tamils, to make the consensus that may emerge to be of any value.
There have been some positions that Tamil people have been voicing for a long time. Since Thimpu talks, the basis, on which this could be resolved had been stated clearly.
These are the recognition of Tamils as a distinct nation of people, the recognition of the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking people and their right to self-determination.
The implementation of these cardinal principles has been given a narrow interpretation in the south, in the past. The right to self-determination was seen as separation. Today people are more mature and knowledgeable about these concepts. These principles do not amount to separation. Of course, separation would satisfy these positions.
We believe that the south should come up with an adequate system to share power that is acceptable to us. It should address the ground realities. There is a de facto parallel state. We have no problems with these structures, as we don?t feel that those structures are running at cross-purposes with the idea of a negotiated solution. In fact, I believe those structures would enhance chances of genuine power sharing.
If these points can be borne in mind when both parties attempts to reach consensus, there could be some positive developments.
The Sinhala political leadership has failed us for over 50 years and used some of these factors to create an ethnic outbelief to appease the Sinhala majority without actually telling them the true state of affairs. It has to change. This is why a bipartisan approach is needed, to stop this ethnic outbelief. That will at least have the Sinhala leaders becoming a bit honest with their own people.
Q: It is well understood that the LTTE agreed to sign the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord due to India?s willingness to play a supervisory role. What role could India play in assisting the settlement of the conflict today?
A: India is complicated, and India has made it complicated for herself. We all know the Indian point of view, as to how they have burned their fingers and so on.
India has to accept that, chances of solving this problem would be greater, if they intervened or assisted in some form. They also have their own geopolitical interests in the whole question. I think as far as the Tamil position is in question, Dr. Anton Balasingham has very clearly stated that the LTTE and the Tamil people have always recognised the importance of India. However, India should decide for itself what role it wishes to play. Finally it is India?s decision.
ML, 28.10.2006