|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Asia
: Sri
Lanka
LTTEs chief negotiator returns to a political minefield
in Sri Lanka
By Wije Dias
8 April 2002
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
Anton Balasingham, chief negotiator and theoretician
for the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), returned
to Sri Lanka late last month amid preparations for negotiations
brokered by Norway to end the countrys 19-year civil war.
He flew straight into the north of the island on March 25 aboard
a Twin Otter seaplane, especially organised by Norwegian officials
to bypass immigration procedures and landed in a small lake in
the LTTE-controlled Wanni region.
Since leaving the Wanni in 1998 because of a serious medical
condition, Balasingham has been in exile in London where he has
acted as the LTTEs chief political spokesman and negotiator.
His return to Sri Lanka, and the manner in which it was effected,
underscore the importance that the LTTE leadership, Norway, the
Sri Lankan government and the major powers attach to his presence.
All of them, each with the different interests, are counting on
Balasingham to play a major role in dealing with the opposition
that is expected to emerge within the countrys Tamil minority
to the terms of any settlement.
The LTTE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on February
22 for an open-ended ceasefire with the United National Front
(UNF) government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe as the
first step towards peace talks. In signing the MoU, the LTTE has
tacitly, though not explicitly, relinquished its longstanding
demand for an independent Tamil state of Eelam in the north and
east of the island. In the document, the LTTE accepts the right
of the Sri Lankan military to safeguard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.
As a result, the LTTE leadership is in a precarious position.
The major powers, in particular the US, have already indicated
that tough measures will be taken against the LTTE if it fails
to toe the line in the talks. At the same time, the LTTE leaders
are well aware that any settlement will not end the countrys
entrenched racial discrimination nor improve living standards
and therefore is likely to provoke protests in its own ranks as
well as among broader layers of Tamils.
The events since Balasinghams arrival only confirm a
degree of turmoil in the LTTE. Soon after meeting with the LTTEs
top leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, Balasingham met with Norwegian
officials to discuss the arrangements for negotiations. All are
agreed on Thailand as the venue, but the talks themselves are
to be delayed for a month until May. The postponement does not
appear to have come from the government side. In fact spokesman
G.L. Peris indicated that the government was prepared to lift
its official ban on the LTTE which was a major obstacle to the
start of talks.
Even before he arrived, Balasingham made the LTTEs orientation
perfectly clear. In early March he sprang to the defence of Prime
Minister Wickremesinghe, who came under fire from President Chandrika
Kumaratunga from the opposition Peoples Alliance (PA). Kumaratunga
wrote to the prime minister on March 1 offering him close
consultation and cooperation... [to] make this ceasefire work,
but at the same time criticising the terms of the ceasefire agreement
as incompatible with the sovereignty status of Sri Lanka.
Kumaratunga did not openly reject the MoU, which she knows
has the backing of major sections of big business in Colombo as
well as the major powers. But her letter contained a series of
references that were deliberately designed to appeal to Sinhala
extremist groups with whom she maintains close relations and who
are adamantly opposed to any peace talks. She compared the temporary
ceasefire line to the 50-year division of Kashmir and criticised
Norways role saying: This is the first time in the
history of post independence Sri Lanka that a foreign government
is being authorised to draw demarcation lines on the soil of Sri
Lanka.
Balasingham stepped into the debate to back Wickremesinghe,
declaring the following day: Her [Presidents] argument
that certain articles in the truce agreement have compromised
the islands sovereignty and national security is untenable
and fallacious. He said that the ceasefire document simply
reflected the actuality of the ground situation and
described the comparison with Kashmir as preposterous and
ridiculous.
Balasingham stopped short of declaring that the LTTE had abandoned
its demand for a separate state but his reply to Kumaratunga is
the firmest indication so far that the organisation is prepared
to formally do so. His willingness to shore up long-time political
opponent Wickremesinghe reveals the degree to which the LTTE is
desperate for a deal with but also for recognition from the US
and other major powers.
Days later on March 11, the US issued an official statement
on the peace talks insisting that Washington would only respond
positively to the LTTE if it chooses the path of peace,
ends its reliance on terrorism, [and] accepts that an independent
Eelam is both unattainable and unnecessary.
Balasingham was quick to praise the US for being seriously
concerned about the establishment of peace and stability in the
island and added that those LTTE members who are found
guilty of violating the ceasefire will be severely punished.
Under these conditions it is significant that the LTTE, for
the first time, has held several large rallies in towns adjoining
areas under its control, including Mannar, Vavuniya, Batticaloa
and Trincomalee. The demonstrations held under the banner of Pongu
Tamil (Tamil resurgence) mobilised a significant number of Tamils
under the slogans of the right of self determination for
Tamil Eelam and recognition for the LTTE as the sole
representative of Tamil people.
Far from indicating a shift in the LTTEs policy, however,
these rallies are designed to serve several interlinked purposes.
The first is to consolidate political support for the LTTE as
the sole representative of the Tamil people and thus
to preempt and intimidate any criticism or opposition. The second
is to strengthen its position at the bargaining table by trying
to convince Colombo and the major powers that it alone is capable
of imposing and implementing any settlement.
From its inception, the LTTE has sought support in the major
capitals for its demand for an independent Eelam. After two decades
of opportunist manoeuvring, the LTTE has found no backing in the
US or Europe for a separate Tamil state which is regarded as setting
a dangerous and destabilising precedent for the Indian subcontinent.
Moreover, since September 11, the LTTE has been threatened with
the prospect of being among the targets of the Bush administrations
global war on terrorism.
In his annual Heroes Day speech last November, LTTE leader
Velupillai Prabhakaran clearly signalled his capitulation to the
demands of the major powers. He pleaded that the LTTEs policy
was neither separatism nor terrorism. But far from
denouncing US aggression in Afghanistan, he offered the LTTEs
full support, declaring: We welcome the counter-terrorist
campaign of the international community to identify and punish
the real terrorists.
The exact terms of any settlement between the Colombo regime
and the LTTE are yet to be worked out. But it is clear in advance
that the aim of any agreement will be to satisfy the demands of
the major powers and international investors whose interests stand
in direct opposition to the aspirations of the working people,
both Tamil and Sinhalese, for basic democratic rights and decent
living standards.
See Also:
High-level US delegation issues
veiled threat to Sri Lankan separatists
[28 March 2002]
Sri Lankan government and LTTE
sign a tentative ceasefire agreement
[27 February 2002]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |