THE END OF THE ROAD
It is clear that the UNF-LTTE honeymoon is over. The marriage will break down if when the UNF decides that it cannot continue to be dominated by the LTTE all the time. However, it is not a case of "kapuwa kapothi" situation as the Norwegian broker, by this time, would have collected enough "evidence" to show that the UNF government is responsible for the "separation". The UNF that was led along the garden path by the Norwegians and the others is still to wake up from the deep slumber and realise that it has become the laughing stock of the non "international community". How many people, how many times warned the UNF that the outcome of any dealings with the LTTE would be detrimental to the country. But the UNP, the main component of the UNF, being the direct agent western anti national forces, did not listen to them. They were happy being dictated by the Norwegians and the others.
The so-called ceasefire was announced towards the end of the last year unilaterally by the LTTE according to some plan, most probably in connivance with the former head of the Red Barna in Sri Lanka that settled up country Tamils in Vavunia. The question as to why the PA government headed by Ms. Kumaratunga agreed to the appointment of this person as the ambassador of the Christian Royal Norwegian government could be answered only by saying that our so-called leaders are not ours but those selected by the westerners for us. The unilateral ceasefire attempted to show that the tigers led by Prabhakaran, are of a peace loving variety and that they could be easily handled like cats. After the UNF government came into power Norway that had been sidelined by the previous government came to the forefront waving their national flag that has the cross as the only symbol. The infamous MOU saw the light of the day soon, but from the beginning it was obvious that Norway was taking the UNF for a ride. In fact, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe was taken to Vavuniya from Colmbo ostensibly to sign the "historic" agreement with the fascist murderer Prabhakaran. However, Mr. Prabhakaran as the government media used to call him did not turn up and it turned out to be a wedding without the bride (or the brideroom). We do not know what explanation the "kapuwa" gave to Mr. Wickremesinghe, but as we all know the "kapuwas" have innumerable excuses to fit into any situation.
The MOU was claimed to be "The Ceasefire Agreement" in the recent history, and an unofficial media censorship was imposed, especially in the Sinhala press. I myself found it difficult to get my articles in Sinhala published but I needed no "Sinhala Voltaire" to come up to fight on behalf on me and others. The Sinhala people and the south Asians even during the time of Buddha had enjoyed freedom of expression as exemplified by the discussions, debates that had taken place during that time as well as later in this part of the world. Those days people listened to the others' views and if they were convinced of the validity of the opponent's views they converted to the views of the others. It is different today, as the westerners are in general not prepared to be "convinced" by the others. They will go home and try to come up with arguments without being convinced by the opponents. A good example is the famous debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein on the "reality" in Quantum Physics. Einstein lost the argument but refused to believe that "God plays dice", the way he expressed his dislike for the interpretation given by Bohr on the measurements in Quantum Physics. However, though Bohr won, about seventy years after the debate, recently, a flaw in Bohr's argument has been detected. This does not mean that Einstein was correct but only that Bohr had "cooked up" some argument to defend his interpretation. Einstein was consistent in his logic (on "reality", now termed "local reality" to distinguish it from other "realities") but unfortunately for him his logic was not consistent with observations. It has to be emphasised that logic itself is a creation of the man depending on and applicable only to certain situations. Bohr's logic though fallacious "explained" the observations they were discussing! In the west even today people in general do not change their views on their own, and as the Nobel prize winning western Physicist Max Planck has said in (western) Physics new theories are accepted not because the (western) Physicists believe in them but because the older generation dies and a new generation of (western) Physicts take over. Planck knew what he was talking about as he himself had had difficulties with the others over his concept of "quanta". Buddha was not crucified for propagating an "anathma" doctrine in an "athmic" Baharat though the Brahmins attempted to obstruct Buddha in many other ways. Buddha was able not only to defeat Saccakas and others in debate but make them his deciples. Killing an opponent simply because he or she did not agree with one's views is probably a European tradition and Europe needed a Voltaire to come up with his famous staement on the defense of the opponent and the right of expression. (In general it could be said that Europe needed the ideas of modernity in order to "civilise" them. However, having become "civilised" they thought that the other people in the other continents also had to be "civilised" not by conviction, as it is not in their tradition, but by force. Why not rewrite the history of Europe from an Eastern point of view? Instead we write our histories also from the western point of view. Isn't it time to change the frame of reference.). There was no need for Voltaires in this part of the world. The censorships are also in the western tradition and even after Voltaire it is not easy to get something that goes against the mainstream ideas published in the west. However, the censorship on my articles and others died a natural death as there was a demand for articles against the MOU.
The MOU was not a ceasefire agreement as claimed to be by the Norwegians, the LTTE, the government, the NGO's and other non national forces. It was the "solution" itself. The MOU was a betrayal and the Norwegians knew what they were doing. As mentioned in these columns the MOU demanded the withdrawal of the army under the pretext of releasing the school buildings and temples that the army was occupying at the time of the signing of the MOU. A ceasefire agreement would have made sure that the position of the army and the forward defence lines are not changed while the agreement was effective. However, in this case it was not to be so and the LTTE to this day tries to make maximum use of the MOU and get more and more benefits. What is worse is that, if the government does not withdraw the army in order to "release" the school buildings and "temples", the LTTE is in a position to say that the MOU was violated by the government. Norwegians and the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission would not be sympathetic to the government in such an eventuality and if the higher ups in the government were waiting for the LTTE to violate the MOU, so that they could get the support of the USA and the other western powers, they would find themselves to be in a very pathetic situation.
The LTTE that started by saying that there were no conditions attached went on making demands for the commencement of the so-called peace talks. Though no deproscription was mentioned the LTTE presented it up as one of the important pre requisites. The idea behind the MOU was twofold. Firstly the terrorist organisation wanted to gain recognition for the terrorists as an equivalent of the army, to equate LTTE with the government and finally for the LTTE to be recognised as a national liberating movement and secondly to gain maximum military gains and civilian control in the northern and the eastern provinces. They were not interested in so-called peace talks. The insistence on deproscription was not merely to come to the "negotiating table" as an equal partner. It was to gain recognition as a national liberation movement as well. The ministers of the government who argued that no harm would be done by deproscribing the LTTE before the talks as it is effectively deproscribed anyway were either pretending to be innocent babies (thoththa baba)working against the Sinhalathva. It is true that the government has now effectively deproscribed the LTTE in the northern and the eastern provinces. If a party is allowed to be actively engaged in politics officialy then for all purposes that party is not proscribed. The LTTE not only engages in politics but enjoys more privileges than any other party except perhaps the ruling party. The government servants including GAs participate in the openings of the LTTE party offices and they are not punished for such acts. Though it is allowed to engage in politics officially it is a terrorist organisation that knew only the politics of the gun. That was an unofficial kind of politics due to which the LTTE was banned. By deproscribing this terrorist outfit its politics of the gun is made official and it would make it to be recognised as a national liberation movement.
The LTTE that could not enter Jaffna has now entered the town without firing a shot. Sooner or later the LTTE with support from the Norwegians and the SLMM would claim that the government has violated the MOU and that would be the end of the so-called peace process. But before that the terrorists will try to gain as much as possible through the MOU. Already the LTTE is in Jaffna, taxing people, having their own police stations, banks etc., and the army has been withdrawn from certain camps. The A9 is not open to each and every person and people have to pay a tax to use that road in certain areas. On top of all these the LTTE is now demanding withdrawal of the army from Jaffna. The Tamil Guardian, the organ of the LTTE, published in London said: "The argument that the troops cannot return to Colombo is fallacious....... . .The four army divisions crammed in to Jaffna peninsula , for example were massed there for a major offensive operation in 1995. Unless the government is expecting to undertake another offensive in the peninsula soon there is little reason to continue to maintain these massive garrisons there." Thamilchelvan has blamed the army for the violation of the MOU. Having got the army to withdraw from certain camps through the MOU now the LTTE wants the army to withdraw from Jaffna altogether. They want Jaffna to be "demilitarised" forgetting that if not for the LTTE Jaffna would have been "demilitarised" long time ago. The terrorists question the need for the army to maintain certain camps while maintaing the terrorists and recruiting children. If the LTTE is genuinely for "peace" why maintain the terrorists without dissolving their camps.
The LTTE knows that the so-called talks are not on. They are interested in establishing an Eelam through an "interim administration". As we have explained an "interim administration" could be established if the final solution is known. Without knowing what the final solution is it is meaninghless to talk of an interim administration. However, the LTTE does not want to negotiate on the "final solution". It is because they know what the final solution is going to be. As far as the LTTE is concerned the final solution is an Eelam. They are prepared to consider a confederation instead of an Eelam as they know that an Eelam is one step away from a confederation. The anterim administration that the LTTE wants is only an instrument that would be used to establish a confederation and then an Eelam. The Tamil Guardian has blamed Mr. Ranil Wickremesinhe and the government, for not giving over the interim administration. It is the "interim administration" the LTTE has been agitating ever since the signing of the so-called agreement and they know that through negotiations over the "isues" they cannot gain much. The Tamil Guardian has also said that the negotiations are only in connection with the "interim administration" and that the "issues" should be not be taken up for didcussions. "In fact, they are not expected anytime soon as all actors now acknowledge," the Tamil Guardian has categorically stated on the so-called peace talks.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>