.

Analysing the "Peace" message

by ''Foxwatch"
The LTTE's periodical ''peace offers" and ''alternatives to Eelem" are invariably greeted with cries of ecstasy by the NGOs, the peaceniks, and eminent foreign patrons of the LTTE, many of them with hidden agenda,. True to form, they went into raptures about Prabakaran's annual heroes day message on November 27, 1998. With a heroic disregard for past experience and common sense, the cry went up to ''seize the opportunity".

This Pavlovian response would be amusing were it for the consequences of these recurring bouts of gullibility. Hard-won strategic bases and vast areas have been relinquished in the mindless search for peace, condemning thousands of brave servicemen to death and injury in trying to regain the lost ground when the LTTE finishes re-arming and renews the insurgency.

Utmost caution is therefore warranted. The ''proposal", and its context in the message, are therefore analysed below. The source of the extracts is the English translation issued by the LTTE International Secretariat in London.

The English extracts released by the LTTE run to about four pages, and consist of three opening paragraphs of, summary taking up about half a page, presumably by the LTTE in Jaffna or London, and fifteen paragraphs of extracts from the actual message, taking up the remaining three and a half pages. The whole release is entitled ''LTTE Leader on War and Peace in Sri Lanka."

The ''Proposal"
The core of the ''peace proposal" is the following section from Prabakaran's message:

''We have not closed the doors for peace. We are open to the civilised method of resolving conflicts through rational dialogue. Since the Sinhala leadership lacks the political will and sincerity to resolve the problem we favour third party mediation for political negotiations. But we are not prepared to accept any pre_conditions for political negotiations. We want the political negotiations to be held in an atmosphere of peace and normalcy, free from the conditions of war, military aggression and economic blockades. We are not stipulating any pre-conditions for peace talks. We are suggesting the creation of a climate of peace and goodwill to hold peace talks, a congenial environment in which our people must be free from the heavy burden of suffering imposed on them. We hold the view that political negotiations cannot be free, fair and just if the Government utilizes the military aggression on our soil and the restriction imposed on the economic life of our people as political pressures. We are prepared to engage in initial talks to discuss the removal of such pressures and to work out a basic framework for political negotiations."

The Reality
Let us see what this translates into;

1. ''We have not closed the doors for peace. We are open to the civilized method of resolving conflicts through rational dialogue." All is sweet reason at this stage.

2. ''Since the Sinhala leadership lacks the political will and sincerity to resolve the problem we favour third party mediation for political negotiations." The LTTE announces it is ready for third party mediation, simultaneously taking a pot shot at the ''Sinhala leadership." Looking closer, it is also a clear signal to the queue of eager and sympathetic mediators (the U.S., Britain, India, Norway, South Africa) to turn up the heat on the government.

3. ''We are not prepared to accept any pre-conditions for political dialogue." Here comes the first barricade. To paraphrase, the LTTE will neither lay down arms nor renounce its objective of Eelam nor make any compromise whatever in exchange for the prospect of talks on the new Constitution alias package.

4. ''We want the political negotiations to be held in an atmosphere of peace and normalcy, free from the conditions of war, military aggression and economic blockades." This innocent-sounding formulation is code for a cease-fire and withdrawal by the army, navy and air force, the lifting of restrictions on the inflow of materials required for LTTE terrorism, and the lifting of restrictions on fishing.

5. ''We are prepared to engage in initial talks to discuss the removal of such (military and economic) pressures and to work out a basic frame work for political negotiations." This innocent-sounding declaration embodies a distinction between the term initial talks, on the removal of so-called military and economic pressures (i.e., cease-fire and withdrawal by the forces, etc.) and the terms political negotiations, and peace talks, denoting substantive negotiations. Similarly, there appears to be a distinction between initial talks, which would be on ''a basic framework for political negotiations" and the actual substantive political negotiations. Evidently the military and economic decks have to be cleared, and constitutional niceties swept away, as preliminaries, before the LTTE will talk seriously.

Immediate Withdrawal
So much for the ''peace proposals" para. But one has to look further, at the message as a whole, not merely at one section. The coded phrases about ''military and economic pressures" are made explicit in the penultimate para:

6. ''Our people... cannot wait over an indefinite time until the peace talks resume and the ethnic conflict is discussed, resolved and the solution implemented. They want...the occupation army that torments them to withdraw and their urgent existential problems addressed immediately." Clearly the army has to withdraw, fishing has to be permitted, and unrestricted imports of goods permitted, before peace talks resume.

Uncle Sam
If there are any remaining doubts on the demand for troops withdrawal, or on the eagerness for foreign mediation, consider the clue from the LTTE's American stronghold of Boston. ''The Boston Globe" of 4th December, 1998 ran an editorial on Prabakaran's message. Extracts are reproduced below:

7. ''..Because Washington maintains warm relations with Sri Lankan government...' and since the Tiger leader Velupillai Prabhakaran called for third-party mediation in his offer of negotiations, the United States could play a crucial role in ending Sri Lanka's long nightmare.

The State department has been reluctant to become involved in the conflict because neither side had been willing to accept the premise of a negotiated solution.

Nevertheless, Tamil intermediaries are sending exploratory messages to the Tiger leadership asking about the chances for a cease-fire. If the Tigers want to shed their well deserved reputation as incorrigible terrorists, they will accept the idea of a cease-fire. In return, the Chandrika government should agree to withdraw its troops from the north east province. If these gestures of good will are made by the belligerents, the United States would do well to take on the role of third-party mediator in peace talks."

There is one dead giveaway in the text of the editorial. It refers to ''the Chandrika government", an unusually intimate phrase for a staid foreign newspaper to use instead of the formal ''the Sri Lankan/Kumaratunge government". But the term is freely used by the LTTE-Prabakaran's message refers to ''Chandrika's government" (twice), ''Chandrika's military project", ''Chandrika's political project", and plain ''Chandrika". The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau.

Ultimatum
To cap it all comes a threat, delivered in the closing para of the message:

8. Is Chandrika's Government prepared to take a bold step to deal with the immediate essential problems of our people and resume political negotiations in a congenial climate of peace and goodwill. If not, the possibility for peace and a peaceful negotiated political settlement to the ethnic conflict will become remote. We do not anticipate that the hawkish and racist attitude of Sinhala chauvinism will undergo fundamental transformation. If such change does not take place Sinhala chauvinism will bear the responsibility for creating the concrete historical conditions for the birth of independent Tamil state."

This elevates the withdrawal of the army, etc. to the crucial position in the entire exercise. The blame for failure is being assigned in advance, not to the unreasonable request but to the possible refusal to bow to such a request. Similarly, the responsibility for setting up Eelam is placed on ''Sinhala chauvinism", not on a megalomaniac obsession. All in all, this para sounds more like an ultimatum than the language of peace.

The Stark Truth
Speaking of language, the words and phrases used throughout the message leave no doubt about the goal of the LTTE. Consider this passionate extract from para 14 of the message:

9. ``We cannot allow the Sinhala aggressive army to occupy even an inch of our homeland nor will we permit Sinhala state administrative functions in the occupied Tamil lands. We are shedding blood and fighting a deadly struggle with the primary objective of liberating our motherland which is the very foundation of the national existence and economic life of our people. Therefore we cannot permit the foot print of the Sinhala aggressors to remain embedded on our sacred soil."

These blood-curdling words indicate how much credibility can be attached to any ''peace offers" by the LTTE.

In Perspective
To place the ''peace offer" in perspective, one must also consider its context in the message. It is tossed in as the thirteenth para of the fifteen-para text. The remainder of the message consists largely of violent verbal attacks on the ''Sinhala nation", and the repetition of key words and phrases-a well-known technique of brain-washing. Indeed, it is quite possible that the ''peace offer" was thrown in, tongue-in-cheek, a) for cosmetic purposes for the benefit of the more respectable of the LTTE's foreign donors, and to offset the war cries in the rest of the message; and b) as demands which though outrageous may well be agreed to by the infinitely gullible.

The key words and phrases are: Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism (6), militarism, racism (2), genocide (2), atrocities (2), state oppression (3), the Sinhala nation (4), two nations, the Tamil nation, the Tamil national question/issue (4), the Tamil ethnic conflict, Eelam Tamils, our Motherland (2), Tamil homeland (5). Interestingly, the usual ''Tamil nation" phrase has been down played and a new term ''national formation" has been introduced.

Summary
Time now to summarise what all this amounts to.

(a) The LTTE is ostensibly open to resolving the conflict through ''rational dialogue."

(b). The LTTE wants third party mediation for political negotiations. The favoured mediator seems to be the USA. A selected well-primed individual negotiator may well be waiting patiently in the wings.

(c). The LTTE will not accept any pre-conditions for political dialogue. This means the LTTE will neither lay down arms nor renounce its objective of Eelam nor make any compromise whatever.

(d). While saying ''We are not stipulating any conditions for peace talks", the LTTE in fact demands the most stringent conditions possible from the Government-the withdrawal of the army, and the lifting of restrictions on Sea Tiger movements under the guise of fishing and the inflow of dangerous materials.

(e). Moreover, the LTTE will not wait until peace resume. The army must first withdraw, unrestricted inflows of goods should be permitted and restrictions on fishing should be removed, immediately. There will be no political negotiations/peace talks until army withdrawal, etc.

(f). Preliminary talks, as opposed to substantive talks, will take place on ''a basic framework for political negotiations." Since the LTTE have already rejected the new Constitution alias package, they will obviously demand an undertaking that still more powers should be abdicated by the centre. With the proposed new Constitution already vesting excessive powers to Regions, the LTTE would be within a hair's breath of achieving Eelam by legislation if constitutional changes go any further.

(g). If army withdrawal, etc., do not take place, a peaceful negotiated political settlement is unlikely, and an independent Tamil state will be set up.

Disaster Scenario
If the government complete with the businessmen' bandwagon, falls headlong into this LTTE trap. the disaster which would follow is entirely predictable. A foreign mediator, well brainwashed by the LTTE, would preside over the proceedings. The LTTE would paint a lurid picture of the situation in the north and east, and press for ''a congenial atmosphere" for negotiations. Under pressure from the mediator, the army, navy, and air force would be withdrawn, etc. The LTTE would immediately move into Jaffna and all the areas, waters and airspace presently under Government control. Raw materials required to build bunkers, make bombs and land mines, and build airfields would become available from within Sri Lanka, and reinforcements of men and material would flood in from Tamil Nadu with the Sea Tigers in command of the seas. The LTTE would re-arm, re-group, and establish an iron grip over the proposed Eelam. In the process the LTTE would be equipped with all the bargaining counters for political negotiations, and the government would have been stripped of all the bargaining strength it currently has.

In plain words, the LTTE seeks to make a monkey of the government by nullifying its military efforts, recovering all the territory the army regained, depriving the government of all negotiating strength, bringing in a well-primed foreign mediator, and twisting the government's arm to provide the legal powers required to establish Eelam.

L E G A L W A T C H
Remembering the litigant

By Nayana
The Christmas season is one of those times of year when one is traditionally expected to remember the poor. For the purposes of this column, let us think of the poor litigants; not only those at the lower end of the financial scale but all those at the receiving end of a system which functions largely on their money as taxpayers and clients but often appears to treat them as its least important component.

In one sense litigation is a great leveller. There are no "private" law courts as there are private hospitals and schools where the rich can cushion themselves against the inadequacies of third world social infrastructure. Even the most affluent, when they come to court, must sweat it out in overcrowded court rooms, cheek by jowl with the poorest, and reduced to speaking only when spoken to.

We are not referring here to the politically glamorous writ applications and fundamental rights cases which receive widespread media coverage and which are usually argued by lawyers in the air-conditioned comfort of the Superior Courts Complex where the presence of the client may not even be required.

The daily grind of civil law takes place in District Courts scattered all over the island, where the contests are between neighbours; landlords and tenants; creditors and debtors; men and women whose marriages have broken down; and inheritors of undivided lands who seek to carve out some legally recognized space of their own.

As taxpayers, such persons are contributors to the upkeep of the court system including the judicial service. As clients, it is they who keep the lawyers in business. Therefore the legal profession, the judiciary and the State as administrator of the system could all be said to be under a duty to make the litigation process as efficient and comfortable as available resources will allow.

Unobtrusive reforms in the day to day legal process have in fact been one of the notable achievements of the present Government, although they have been overshadowed by some breath-taking fiascos in the more politically sensitive areas of the law.

Within the last four years the Justice Ministry can take credit for introducing measures to quicken the service of summons; avoid duplication of paperwork in applications to the Court of Appeal; reduce some of the common causes of delay in partition actions; streamline the mediation process; and modernize the law of evidence.

Moreover, such reforms have generally been the result of a consultative process between the administration and representatives of the judiciary and the legal profession, thus better ensuring cooperation in implementation.

Nevertheless, the process of seeking consensus should not be carried too far. It must be remembered that those who work within a system often have a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

Thus some of the more fundamental changes which have been canvassed from time to time are known to have been stalled due to resistance from the legal profession. The most notorious of these lies on the criminal side, namely the time-consuming "non-summary proceedings" in the Magistrate's Courts which precede trials on indictment.

Since the Attorney-General can always override the magisterial decision on whether or not to commit an accused to stand trial in the High Court, there seems little reason not to allow the Attorney-General's Department or some other prosecuting authority to determine the matter at the outset. This was the function of the "Director of Public Prosecutions" (DPP) under the 1974 Administration of Justice Law which did away with non-summary proceedings.

Fears that the A.G.'s Department or other similar authority may be subjected to political influence or pressure may be justified, but the remedy for that would lie in a restructuring of the appointment procedure and control system over such authorities, not in subjecting members of the public to prolonged and inconclusive legal proceedings.

Criminal lawyers are said to fear a loss of work. Apart from the question of whether this should be a justification for preserving a system that does not appear to be helping anyone else, the arithmetic of this argument is also doubtful since a drop in the volume of Magistrate's Court proceedings would be accompanied by a faster start to criminal trials in the High Court. Perhaps the level of skills required may be different, but all professions have to re-orient themselves from time to time to keep up with modern methods.

In civil cases one of the most unsatisfactory features is the absence of day to day hearings. The piecemeal hearing of trial cases, with only one day (and often only a part of a day) being allocated to a case during each legal term, prolongs trials unreasonably, with parties having to ensure the availability of their witnesses intermittently over long periods of time. Some observers may feel that this system also serves to lower the level of concentration which both lawyers and judges can bring to their cases, and negatives such factors as the impression created by a witness's demeanour, which will seldom be remembered by the time the trial ends unless the judge has chosen to make a note of it at the time.

Day to day hearings, with not more than two to three cases fixed for a day, would also obviate the need for postponing several dozen cases at a time whenever a judge is absent.

While these problems have yet to be addressed, constant complaints about the law's delays seem to have created pressure to dispose of cases without a full trial, which has led to some parties complaining of being rushed into "settlements" which involve a substantial compromise of their rights.

The very nature of a settlement between parties with conflicting claims does of course imply a measure of give and take. Accepting something less than one's full claim is the price parties have to pay in return for an end to the time and money they would have to spend on further litigation.

However there is a qualitative difference between an agreement entered into out of court which is subsequently entered as a settlement decree, and a settlement brokered by the judge during the course of hearings in court.

The former is usually entered into after careful negotiation with adequate time for parties to weigh up the consequences of their actions. Requests to set aside such settlements are rare. On the other hand, settlements worked out at short notice, within the confines of the court room, often with little opportunity for prior consultation, have not always had a happy ending, with some parties even going to the Appeal Court to have them set aside.

While judges will no doubt say, in good faith, that they never intended to force parties into a compromise, it is probably difficult for someone within the system to realize the intimidatory effect of a court of law on the minds of the uninitiated public and the fear that could be created, however innocently, that displeasing the judge will result in the loss of one's case.

In addition, differences in skill and experience between opposing lawyers, which can to some extent be mitigated when the judge has the opportunity of hearing direct evidence in the course of a trial, can become accentuated in the hot house atmosphere of a settlement negotiated under pressure.

It has become a common practice today for judges to make some endeavour to settle a case prior to commencing trial, and sometimes even in the middle of a trial. No doubt this is done with a view to saving the parties time and expense, but it must be handled with care if it is not to create as much dissatisfaction as law's delays.

It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied but justice in haste is no justice at all. The challenge facing lawyers, judges and administrators is to devise procedures which will speed up the resolution of legal disputes without compromising the quality of justice. Perhaps the right ideas will emerge if it is kept in mind that the first goal of the system must be to secure for the litigant that to which he is entitled, and the second, to do so with the least possible cost and delay.

Persian Gulf countries and sagging oil prices

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Oil prices are hovering at their lowest point in a decade. Oil producing countries have been hard hit by sagging oil prices, which are blamed on recession in Asia and warmer-than-usual winters. In November this year, the oil ministers of the Organisation of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC), meeting in Vienna, failed to agree on measures to halt a slide in world oil prices.

On 8 December, leaders of the smaller six-nation grouping - the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC - also met in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates and tried to head off a growing economic crisis. The GCC consists of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the Emirates, linked together in a federation aimed at economic and defence co-operation. For the first time, the December summit was attended by leaders outside the GCC, including UN secretary-general Kofi Annan and South African president Nelson Mandela.

Oil ministers of the GCC agreed to reduce production starting in March 1999 and to ask other producers in the OPEC to join them in the cuts. They also reportedly planned to ask Mexico, which is not an OPEC member, to reduce its oil production.

OPEC
All the GCC countries, except Oman and Bahrain, are also members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), whose members include Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Algeria, the UAE and Indonesia have called for an emergency meeting of the leaders of the 11-member OPEC countries when prices and production levels will be the centre of attention. OPEC's average price per barrel has slumped by about a third over the past year. The low prices, a consequence of OPEC's decision last winter to boost production, coincided with a slump in demand from economically weakened Asia, resulting in an oil glut.

OPEC's average price per barrel of crude oil in the third quarter of 1998 was $12.33, a substantial fall from the average price of $18.03 in the third quarter of 1997. Prices fell to a record low of $9.92 a barrel before the GCC meeting on 8 December. OPEC members produce a total of 26.9 million barrels a day.

Oil in the Persian Gulf region
The Persian Gulf countries hold the largest petroleum and natural gas reserves in the world. In fact, petroleum and natural gas are the principal, in many instances the sole, resource of the Gulf countries, contributing the bulk of their export earnings, government revenue and gross domestic product.

The Gulf oil-rich countries vary in size from Saudi Arabia (1.96m sq. km), more than one-fifth the size of the United States to Bahrian (620 sq. km) about three and a half times the size of Washington DC. Their per capita incomes are invariably more than US$ 9,000, with the United Arab emirates registering the highest per capita GDP of US$ 23,800.

Bahrain was the first Gulf state to discover oil in commercial quantities in June 1932, also the first to enjoy the benefits that came with the revenues - specifically, a marked improvement in the quality of education and health care.

The discovery of oil in Bahrain was important for two reasons. First, it was the initial discovery of oil on the Arab side of the Gulf and second, it more or less coincided with the collapse of the world pearl market caused by the Japanese with their manufacture of cultured pearls.

The oil reserves of Bahrain, which produces only a token quantity of oil, are quite small by Gulf standards. This has proved to be an advantage, however. Without the resources for a boom, Bahrain has moved more slowly and thoughtfully into the technological age. The necessity to diversify their economy, as well as their long history as a trading country, have proved fortuitous for Bahrain.

Oil reserves in Saudi Arabia
American geologists discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, but large-scale production did not begin until after World War II. Oil wealth has made possible rapid economic development in Saudi Arabia, beginning in earnest in the 1960s and accelerating spectacularly in the 1970, transforming the kingdom.

Saudi oil reserves are the largest in the world, and Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil producer and exporter. Oil accounts for more than 90% of the country's exports and nearly 75% of government revenues. Proven reserves are estimated at more than 260 billion barrels - about one quarter of world oil reserves.

A shortage of skilled Saudi workers at all levels remains the principal obstacle to economic diversification and development; about 3.5 million non-Saudis are employed in the economy. Large non-national populations are a feature of all the Gulf countries.

The birth and spread of Islam
Islam is the dominant religion in the Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, which in the century following Mohammed's death in 632 AD spread to much of the Mediterranean world. Islam obliges all Muslims to make the Haj or pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once during their lifetime if they are able to do so.

Saudi Arabia is highly conservative and adheres to a strict interpretation of Islamic religious law (Shari'a). Cultural presentations must conform to narrowly defined standards of ethics. Men and women are not permitted to attend public events together and are segregated in the work place.

Bahrain was one of the first territories outside mainland Arabia to accept Islam. And to do so peacefully. About the year 640 AD, the Prophet Mohammed sent a letter to the ruler of Bahrain inviting him to adopt Islam. He did so fairly soon thereafter and for another two centuries, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully together in Bahrain. Even today, Bahrain has a tiny community of indigenous Christians.

Bahrain had a staunchly Shiite Muslim community - because of Persian influences - and during the years after the adoption of Islam, it appears to have been well-governed and prosperous. It once again became an important port on the trade routes between Iraq and India. Bahrain changed hands often during the Middle Ages and was caught in various squabbles and disputes between petty Gulf sheikhs who seem to have been constantly fighting with one another.

US dominance over the Gulf Region
The United States has economic interests in the Gulf Region. During the Cold War the US ensured that the vitally important oil reserves in the Gulf countries would not get into Soviet hands. The US, still concerned about the possibility of countries like Iran and Iraq exerting influence over the Gulf countries, has maintained a military presence in the Gulf region. The breadth, depth and quality of US relations with the Gulf countries has increased dramatically as a result of the US-led coalition's campaign to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

Following Kuwait's independence in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the pretence that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. In 1963, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwait sovereignty and the boundary it agreed to in 1913 and 1932, in the "Agreed Minutes between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition, and Related Matters".

In August 1990, Iraq nevertheless invaded Kuwait, but was forced out seven months later by a United States-led UN coalition. Following liberation, the UN under Security Council Resolution 687, demarcated the Iraq-Kuwait boundary on the basis of the 192 and the 1963 agreements between the two states. Although the demarcation is final and reaffirmed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter by UNSCR 833, Iraq has refused to accept it and continues to make claims on Kuwait.

Saudi US relations
Saudi Arabia's unique role in the Arab and Islamic worlds and its strategic location make its friendship important to the United States. The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern about regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development. Close consultations between the US and Saudi Arabia have developed on international, economic and development issues such as the Middle East peace process and shared interests in the Gulf.

The continued availability of reliable sources of oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia, remains important to the prosperity of the United States as well as to Europe and Japan. Saudi Arabia is the leading source of imported oil for the United States, providing more than 20% of total US crude imports and 10% of US consumption.

Security in the Gulf region
In addition to economic ties, a long-standing security relationship continues to be important in US-Saudi relations. The US provides training and support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces.

During the Persian Gulf war there were instances of direct co-operation in the areas of cultural accommodation, command structure and combat. For example, the United States respected Saudi Arabia's Islamic culture by issuing general orders prohibiting the consumption of alcohol and setting guidelines for off-duty behaviour and attire. Saudi Arabia accommodated US culture and its military procedures by allowing US service women to serve in their varied roles throughout the kingdom - a large step for a patriarchal society.

In fact, all the countries in the GCC, have moved to upgrade their defences in response to the threat posed by the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars.

The week that was
A parliamentary coup

by Shan Wijetunga
Last Friday, when the votes of the Ministry of Livestock Development and Estate Infrastructure was taken up for debate, there was no reason to believe that it would develop into an exciting power game. However, there were moves afoot in the office of the Leader of the Opposition to move an amendment to the vote where Dharamadasa Banda, John Amaratunga, Tyronne Fernando, Mano Wijeyratne and W. J. M. Lokubandara played a leading role. While Amaratunga prepared the draft, the opposition was keeping a careful eye on the movement of MPs in and out of the House. At that time, there were only a handful of MPs of both sides within the chamber. UNP MPs in and around Colombo were summoned for an 'emergency meeting' with the party secretary for 6 p.m. that day. This step was taken to ensure sufficient strength of UNP MPs in parliament and to prevent any leak of the plans. By 6 p.m. the amendment was ready. It said that no alienation of estate land should take place without going the through cabinet tender procedure.

In the meantime government MPs who did not suspect anything unusual lulled into complacency by the small number of opposition MPs present, began to leave the chamber.

Unnoticed by them, the attack force was gathering in the Opposition Leader's office.... and minutes before the Minister got up to speak on behalf of the vote, they invaded the chamber en masse. Before the minister could get up Susil Moonesinghe stood up to announce that they are moving an amendment to the votes under Standing Order (24) (1).

The chair overruled the amendment, but John Amaratunga, Tyronne Fernando and Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku argued against the ruling. Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake asked Thondaman whether he is in agreement with the amendment. On being told 'no' that was conveyed to the House.

There was no other option but to ring the division bell and the government ranks were rather worried because they were aware that they were in a minority. At the voting, the amendments was passed with 34 in favour and 17 against. Therefore Mr. Thondaman's votes were defeated and UNP MPs left the chamber in a jolly mood.

The government was able to muster its 17 votes because the Tamil MPs inside the House voted against the amendment.

This development put the government side in a quandary. Therefore a meeting was held in the office of Minister Wickramanayke to find out ways and means of getting the needed finances for the ministry.

Minister Pathirana who was contacted by telephone pointed out to a similar situation during the time of the late President Premadasa. And they searched the various standing orders and books on parliamentary practice to get at a solution. Finally, they found that redress could be obtained under Standing Order 70 which provides for the submission of a supplementary vote. Accordingly, a supplementary vote will be presented January 7.

The ministers wanted to have another meeting but this could not be done as Prof. G. L. Peiris had to leave for Anuradhapura where he will donate a pair of elephant tusks confiscated by Thambuttegama Courts to the Ruvanveli Seya.

Speaker's party
According to tradition, the Speaker throws a party for parliamentarians at the end of the budget debate. However, only very few members are usually there because they want to go back to their electorate, after the strenuous budget debate. Despite that, a lot of money is spent catering for the party just in case attendance is high.

Therefore, some government backbenchers thought it would be better if this money was gifted for the welfare of soldiers at te front. The UNP too were very happy to back this sensible move especially after they found that as much as Rs. 680,000 was set aside for the bash. The sponsors of the proposal prepared a paper, got 58 signatures and met the speaker. Mr. Ratnayake was very happy to go along with the MPs and issued the necessary instructions.

Just like in the previous week, this week also saw a series of parties. One such event was the dinner given by Ranil's aide, Bodhi Ranasinghe to UNPers. Ravi Karunanayake who had stepped at the Holiday Inn had to take part in it. Another 'stray' was Eardley Perera who also went there by mistake. On seeing Eardley Ranil called him to his table and he too had to spend some time there.

Pradeepa
The secretary of the Mulberry Group T. B. Ekanayake planned a surprise party to felicitate Pradeepa, the wife of Mulberry stalwart Dulles Alahapperuma who had been selected as the best singer at the recent Sarsaviya festival at Janakala Kendraya but he didn't tell his wife.

Among the guests were Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Rohana Weerasinghe, Deepika Priyadarshini, Kularatne Ariyawansa, Saman Jayanatha and several others. The venue was lighted with coconut oil lamps and the whole atmosphere was soothing and elegant. After the introductions and the preamble came the music where Pradeepa as well as others played their roles. Vasudeva firmly refused to sing but he had to join when everybody burst into "Sadukin pelenawun...."

On Tuesday the Supper Club at the Oberoi was the venue of the annual dinner given by the Leader of the Opposition. Although all parties of the Opposition were represented at the dinner, the CWC was conspicuous by its absence. They had decided to boycott the dinner on account of the defeat of the votes of Minister Thondaman. A similar notable absentee was Douglas Devananda. R. Sambandan represented the TULF and among the leading UNP absentees were Ronnie de Mel, M. H. Mohamed, Wijepala Mendis, Festus Perera and Anura Bandaranaike.

Asoka Wadigamangawa attracted every body's attention in the absence of Gamini Jayawickrame Perera. Because of Parliamentary meetings the party started rather late and due to the absence of music the invites conversed in groups.

Elections to the NWP Provincial Council was the hot subject of the day. Ranil came armed with a pile of files and he signalled the MPs of the Kurunegala and Puttalam districts to stay behind. Progress of the election campaign was discussed and corrective actions suggested.

A parallel meeting, again on the same subject of NWP elections, was held at the residence of Minister S. B. Dissanayake. The proceedings were kept absolutely confidential.

UNP emergency meeting
On Monday morning, the Leader of the Opposition had summoned UNP members for an emergency meeting. Because of short notice, only about 40 members were present. It was called for the purpose of entrusting the election activities of the UNP to various members. The province had been divided into nine zones and nine UNPers were given the responsibility of each zone. They were instructed to tour the respective zones under their charge and make their observations and Ranil wanted the campaign to be in full swing from January 1. Detailed instructions regarding polling stations were also provided. Ranil was not in favour of the organisers visiting the zones with groups of supporters. "I do not want unnecessary problems. First you must make an individual assessment and the groups can go later" was his advice.

Election violence
The Mulberry Group got down to serious business on Wednesday morning. They wanted to build a common front representing all parties to prevent any violence at the forthcoming NWP elections. Dulles Alahapperuma and T. B. Ekanayake took the lead in this endeavour. The first step was the informal meeting with representatives of the UNP and SLMC. D. Alahapperuma explained the purpose of the meeting.

"Our three parties the UNP, PA and the JVP have had some hand in the violent politics of the South. No one can deny that. If one day an organisation for political violence is to be built, we three can compete to find out as to who took the leadership in violence.... We cannot say that the NWP elections are absolutely free of violence and corruption, but we cannot allow this violence to become a sub-culture and this is a good opportunity for us to eradicate this menace.

"Various persons will look at our effort with jaundiced eyes. They might say that the PA was caught in a UNP trap and vice versa but we must persist in our objective". Amal Senadhilankara explained.

He also explained the position inside the Parliament and said that unless this step is taken, our future will be in jeopardy.

Lakshman Yapa agreed with him and said "Good people do not want to take to politics because of the bad image attributed to politicians. When people attack politicians it affects politicians of all parties", he added. Senadhilankara added that he was hit by Lokuge, but he decided to forget the past and come forward to build the future.

A. M. Ratnayake's view was that this understanding should not be limited to the UNP elections but cover all aspects to ensure that no one is harassed inside Parliament as well. Samaraweera charged the JVP for what he considered as blaming other parties for violence. Nandasena Herat suggested that use of bad language inside Parliament should stop. And a further suggestion to appoint an observation committee to cover the forthcoming elections was also made by Asitha Perera.

The gathering dispersed with the promise of having another meeting on January 7.

Prabakaran's bluff

It is unconceivable in this day and age, how Prabakaran, with consumate ease, can, with an utterance not worthy of an April Fools' joke, manipulate the mass media to spread his dis-information panic the Defence Establishment and make the politicians bury their heads deeper in the sand.

His latest disclosure of forming an Air wing and dropping flowers over a grave site has produced, headlines such as LTTE, air strike power the truth is out, and the SLAF publishing through a poster, three aircraft supposed to be in his possession and talks of buying new air defences while the politicians in a panic want their security tightened further.

How ludicrous can we get?

What is really the truth if these three aircraft is all Prabakaran has for his air strike power?

The most amateurish aviation buff will know that these are fun areoplanes.

They can be bought for a pittance in kit form, assembled and flown from anybodys' backyard, with no governmental requirements.

Along with the Assembly manual comes a teach yourself to fly instruction book, hence no need to attend flying school as mentioned in the press article.

Other than the R 44 type helicopter, which is a circuits and bumps and straight and level approved aircraft, the other two do not even need of certificate of airworthyness because of their unreliability and limited payload, ceiling and endurance.

None of these areoplanes are areobatic, hence defenceless.

They make such a racket they are prohibited from flying over inhabited terrain.

Their operational speeds are laughable.

The chances of these aeroplanes being used to kill anybody other than the pilot, which has happened often, is negligible.

None of these aircraft can make a dead engine approach hence has no element of surprise, and not having a controlled glide angle cannot hit a football pitch with certainty.

The R 44 type helicopter is recommended not to take off and land on a gravel surface. Even a pebble striking the rear propoller will ground the machine, hence all you need to bring it down is a catapult shot.

The autogyro in the poster is a tricycle with an engine, pusher propeller and a rotating wing.

The pilot is so exposed he can be neutralised with ease with a single shot from a .22 magnum, as its speed and altitude is so limited and can be heard approaching from miles away.

The fixed wing aircraft in the poster is a glider with a lawn mower engine. Its cruising speed is laughable and it comes apart in the slightest turbulence. Its approach speed is so slow that there can be no element of surprise. It can land safely in only a no-wind condition. It's really a joke in aviation circles.

So much for Prabarkaran's air strike power which is only capable of dropping flowers over grave sites that too in no-wind conditions and not too many flowers.

Prabarkaran knows his air strike power that is why he did just that, to drop flowers, while his opponents went into a panic.

There is another side to this episode.

Could this be a move by arms dealers and commis karayas' of which Prabarkaran's cronies may be one, to sell unnecessary aeriel detection equipment to the Defence Establishment by making a mountain out of a molehill? When all that is needed is to listen with the naked ear, and be armed with a catapult or a rifle .22 or otherwise.

If you publish this letter. I am sure it will wipe the smile off Prabarkarans' face, and bring back some calm to the establishment.

T. Shelly Goonewardena
Oyamaduwa.

[The writer, now 72-years old, was the first Sri Lankan pilot to pass with a Commercial Pilot's Licence from the Air Academy. He later served as a pilot with Air Ceylon from 1950-55. He went to The UK in 1957 where he kept up his flying interest in the barnstorming tradition such as crop spraying, ferrying, gliding, hang gliding, charters, auto light flying, joy flying and glider towing all on light aircraft (single and twin). He was with the Peterborough Flying and Gliding Club and lived in Lancashire for 25 years.]

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |