'I do not subscribe to the view that India and Norway have been silent and/or inactive. India has maintained a show of detachment mainly because of the adverse reactions any stand the Delhi government takes in relation to the Sri Lankan conflict could provoke in Tamil Nadu. As for Norway, they must surely have realised by now that their intervention in the Sri Lankan conflict is yet another of the several failures they have had during the past few decades in their attempts to play the role of global ‘peace maker’.'
Photo:Sri Lankan Army officers are distributing foods for Tamil children in Batticaloa, photo by ; Nuwan Jayatillake from BatticaloaBy: Nilantha Ilangamuwa with Prof. G. H. Peiris
01: Operations against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have successfully in the North after liberated LTTE’s stronghold in the East. What do you think current military approaching against the LTTE by the Government of Sri Lanka?
What you refer to as the “current military approach” is, I think, the only feasible strategy available to weaken the secessionist insurrection. It is the only modality available for disarming the Tigers which is a vitally necessary precondition to democratization of governance in the ‘northeast’ and facilitation of effective power-sharing among all segments of the Sri Lankan population. One should remember, that the current approach is not an exclusively military one, but that the doors for negotiation have always been kept open.
I also fully endorse the priority accorded by the government to the task of evicting the LTTE from the eastern lowlands of Sri Lanka. I believe that the task is not yet over (it is not easy to wipe out terrorism completely from any area where is has taken root), but that its more difficult aspects have been completed successfully by our security forces with the minimum of harm to civilian life. What I think should next be undertaken in the Eastern Province is that of establishing government control along the coast north of Trincomalee to as far north as possible and thus seal off the Vanni from the flow of arms across the Bay of Bengal.
02: However the opposition parties have been clamouring for action against the government even organising protest rallies against the Government. Could you explain to us how this situation influences the Government and people?
The main opposition to the government’s present approach to the ‘national question’ within the political mainstreams of the country comes from (a) the UNP leadership (b) the defectors from the government led by Mangala Samaraweera, (c) the TNA, (d) the ‘old left’ and (e) the Colombo-based NGO lobby.
First of all, it is necessary to clarify that the UNP and ‘Mangala’ campaign against the government emphasises the ‘cost of living’, ‘human rights’ and ‘corruption’ issues, and not the military advances that have been made in the east and the air attacks on military bases in the Vanni. Ranil did make an attempt to trivialise the eviction of the LTTE from Batticaloa-Ampara areas but made an idiot of himself in the process. If, of course, there is a large-scale terrorist attack in the ‘south’, Ranil, Mangala and their cronies will blame the government and try to persuade the people that it is the government policy that must be blamed for such attacks. I personally think that these are some of the least principled political leaders we have had, and they will (as they have always been) be ever ready to betray Sri Lanka for their personal gain while speaking piously of the “need to save innocent lives”.
The TNA protests are understandable because they are acting under the orders of the LTTE high-command. As for the ‘old left’, having been abandoned by the electorate, these leaders who have no followers attempt to remain in the political limelight as the champions of peace and defenders of human rights. Their ‘protests’ have some entertainment value to the TV channels that are owned by ‘big business’ interests. The NGO lobby earns tons of money and other benefits from their foreign patrons. There is reason to suspect that some of them are sustained by funds that originate in the LTTE and its ‘front organisations’
All in all, I do not think that there is any reason to change government policy at present in order to accommodate or win-over these critics.
03: Do you think if government of Sri Lanka under Rajapaksa administration could wipe the terrorism? Even if they can find a reasonable solution to the country‘s problem?
“Wiping out terrorism” is no easy task in a situation where a powerful terrorist organisation has established itself over several decades and has been sustained by powerful external forces. In the first place, acts of terrorism are not all that difficult to commit and are almost impossible to prevent completely through normal law enforcement. Secondly, for those engaged in terrorism, it is invariably a “way of life” without which they cannot live. This is why even in Britain, with all its wealth and military might, has not been able to “wipe out” IRA terrorism. This is why the almighty United States often becomes a victim of terrorist attacks. This is why, despite the highly successful anti-terrorist military campaigns in the Indian Punjab (1988-92 period), there are still occasional terrorist attacks in that part of India. So, what could be reasonably aimed at in Sri Lanka is to control of terrorism to a limit at which it cannot have a significant on living conditions of the country and its democratic governance.
The second part of your question does not make sense, because the “country’s problem” is terrorism, and a “reasonable solution” to that problem has, by definitional logic, eliminate terrorism.
04: Minister Jeyaraj Fenandofulle says John Holmes, United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator and Under Secretary General of Humanitarian Affairs as a Terrorist? It is true? Even could you explain how that is commenting an influence to International Community also their reaction to Sri Lanka?
There are several misconceptions in the formulation of this question. First, there is nothing called an “international community” if that phrase carries the connotation of the existence of a community of nations outside Sri Lanka that acts in unison and on the basis of mutual agreement in relation to the Sri Lankan conflict. Secondly, people like Holmes or Evans or Rock or Patten (or countless others who come here to pass judgement on us) are neither representatives of the world outside nor persons who posses a deep understanding of the conflict in this country. So, in an objective sense, their statements (whether good or bad) need not be taken by us seriously. Further, we cannot discount the possibility that the attitudes and notions of visitors like Holmes are strongly influenced by LTTE propagandists, that what they say and do have the effect of strengthening terrorism in this country, and that they are working deliberately towards the objective of forcing the government to agree to a “federal system” of government. Taking into consideration all these factors I am inclined to conclude that our response to people like Holmes should be that of letting them have their say without giving them undue prominence and publicity. Nothing is gained (though I think only little is lost) by our leaders falling into the trap of being provoked. No, I do not think that Holmes in a terrorist. But I do know of instances where Secretaries General and Under-Secretaries General of the United Nations have unwittingly aided and abetted terrorism in the trouble spots of the world.
05: India’s silence, also Norway’s indefinitely silence on Sri Lanka in this period. Also we can’t see strong intervention or sharing resources with the Country by anyone in the World. They are watching us. How you are identified this situation?
I do not subscribe to the view that India and Norway have been silent and/or inactive. India has maintained a show of detachment mainly because of the adverse reactions any stand the Delhi government takes in relation to the Sri Lankan conflict could provoke in Tamil Nadu. As for Norway, they must surely have realised by now that their intervention in the Sri Lankan conflict is yet another of the several failures they have had during the past few decades in their attempts to play the role of global ‘peace maker’. I am not convinced that the involvement of any foreign country in the Sri Lankan conflict has been (or, is being) guided by the prospect of having a stake in the alleged off-shore petroleum resources adjacent to our island.
Thanks very much shared your ideas with the ‘Lanka Guardian’!
G H Peiris , Professor Emeritus, University of Peradeniya. He is currently living at No. 16, Primrose Road, Kandy, Sri Lanka.
Post a Comment