Treat LTTE overture warily

LTTE leader Pirapaharan (the Tamilised version of Prabhakaran) has called for third party mediated peace talks in a message to mark the day on which dead LTTE cadres are commemorated.

Every peace loving citizen can’t but be happy that this offer has come from the LTTE which to date has remained intransigent and bent on a separate state.

Peace must be given a chance. And the government has to consider this offer carefully and try its best to respond positively. For nothing will benefit the country more than a negotiated settlement of the conflict which has bled the nation white. The protraction of the war has meant very little more than prolonging the suffering of the people and economic devastation.

But knowing the LTTE for what it is, the government should be wary of hasty decisions. It is naive for the government to plunge itself into talks with a terrorist outfit it has been fighting for nearly fifteen years without carefully weighing the pros and cons of the offer and examining the real motives of the LTTE. Attempts to bring about peace at any cost often paradoxically result in, as we are experiencing at present, a protracted war at tremendous cost. That is, there is no need for jubilation simply because Prabhakaran has made overtures to the government. After all he is the kind of person who will wreck a peace process but sleep none the worse for it. This we have seen in the past not once or twice but thrice.

His call for third party mediation will not sit well with the government in that it has in mind only third party facilitation vis a vis mediation. That several countries have offered to act as only facilitators is proof that the world has come to terms with the fact that the conflict is essentially an internal problem of Sri Lanka. Prabhakaran’s insistence that a mediator be brought in smacks of an effort to internationalise the conflict much to the detriment of Sri Lanka’s interests. Mediation, of course, has gained currency with intellectuals and the local peace lobby and they will cite the pact between Israel and Palestine as an example for fructification of third party mediation.

The US by virtue of its control over Israel for reasons known to the entire world had enough leverage to bring the warring parties together. Has even this much publicised peace move backed by the most powerful state in the world yielded desired results? If so why has Arafat threatened to declare an independent state early next year?

Similarly India was the self-appointed mediator in talks between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE in the late 1980s. But what did we achieve from this mediation? Nothing at all! India has come to terms with reality and accepted that Sri Lanka’s crisis is nothing but an internal problem of hers.

The LTTE has also rejected the government’s devolution package, lock stock and barrel. The maximum that the government can offer by way of a negotiated settlement is this package and the LTTE is certainly setting a higher goal for the government. The package has already run into hot water and is considered in the south as a ‘total sell-out.’

The LTTE expressed its willingness sometime back to settle for a solution based on the so-called Thimpu principles. But if analysed carefully, such a solution will obviously be coterminous with Eelam .

Prabhakaran wants a climate of peace and goodwill created to hold peace talks. That is the LTTE doesn’t want the talks circumscribed to enable peace talks proper from the word go. In 1994 the government made the blunder of being dragged into long drawn negotiations with the LTTE on relatively frivolous matters without addressing the real issues. And it was a costly blunder. During the talks the LTTE regrouped, smuggled in arms, stored food, consolidated its power in the east and took a flying start by scuttling the peace process in April, 1995. The government was caught wrong-footed.

Prabhakaran in his statement also speaks of Sinhala state administration, occupied Tamil land and the like and refers to growing entrenchment of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism and militarism in Sri Lankan politics as stumbling blocks for a negotiated political settlement. But what about Tamil chauvinism and militarism and its own intransigence and terrorism? He has chosen to be silent on these. These words however cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. They manifest the LTTE’s real line of thinking according to which the only solution is a land free from Sinhala Buddhists and ‘occupation by a Sinhala army.’ That is, it wants nothing short of Eelam.

The LTTE is going through hard times in the West. The US has proscribed it and days are numbered for it in the great wen with new anti terrorist laws being formulated in the European Union. South Africa too has officially denied it permission to shift its so-called international secretariat there. And his offer could be a tactical ploy to regain sympathy of the West by projecting itself as an organisation amenable to negotiations and turning tables on the government, which he says is being provided with economic, diplomatic and military assistance by foreign countries.

These are some aspects that the government has to give serious thought to before committing itself to anything with regard to the LTTE’s offer. It is also safe and wise for it to consult the main Opposition party, the mainstream Tamil political parties and Muslim political parties and opinion-makers before making whatever decision in this regard.