Full support for peace process- Kadir
By Faraza Farook![](st11.jpg)
Q: You and President Kumaratunga have said that the PA will support
the UNF Government in the peace process. What is the PA's role?
A: The new Government is continuing the peace process that we
began some years ago. Therefore, we are clearly committed to the peace
process. We will support it as best as possible. The role of the PA has
not yet been clearly defined. We too would like to bring the war to an
end on the basis of a negotiated political settlement which is satisfactory
to the entire country.
Q:Would this support extend to the proposed interim administration
in the North and East?
A: We do not yet know in detail what the Government has in mind.
At the moment, as far as I can see, the question is how to get the peace
process going, how to bring the LTTE to the table and related logistical
matters. So we will have to reserve our opinion on the substantive issues
until such time as they are clearly identified, and then we will have to
formulate our positions.
Q: Have you had any talks with the UNF Government on re-starting
the peace process, on the matters you mentioned?
A: The current position is that the Prime Minister has had broad
discussions with the President with regard to the peace process. He has
invited me to help in restarting the peace process. The President is very
willing that I should assist the Prime Minister as best as I can. It is
still early days. I will make whatever input is required. One must remember
that the PA Government has gone down this road before. We have learnt some
lessons and we have drawn some conclusions. There is a great deal we can
say to the Government, and the Prime Minister's approach is to ask for
assistance of that nature.
Q: As regards participation in the dialogue with the Norwegians,
what is your role in that process?
A: I have been involved in this process very closely for many
years with the Norwegians. Let me say a few words on that. It was during
our time that the Norwegians were brought on board as facilitators. First,
for about a year and a half, I was engaged in discreet discussions with
the Norwegians. Then the President formally announced that the Norwegians
had been invited to act as facilitators. That was on 28th December 1999
during her interview with the BBC in London where she was recovering from
the eye injury that she sustained in the bomb attack on her. Thereafter,
the Norwegian involvement has been public knowledge. Through most of the
year 2000, the peace process had come to a halt because the LTTE was waging
its military campaign to overrun the Wanni which took it to the gates of
Jaffna in May 2000. And there was the distraction of the election campaign
of October 2000. Last year I worked very closely with the Norwegians on
a proposed agreement for humanitarian relief in the Wanni and no sabotage
and assassinations in the South.
The experience gained in that exercise will be made available to the
new Government. The Prime Minister has requested the Norwegian Government
to keep in touch with President Kumaratunga's nominee, who is myself, and
to keep me informed about ongoing developments in the peace process, in
the same way that the PA Government had requested the Norwegian Government
to keep the present Prime Minister informed of developments when he was
Leader of the Opposition. Against that background when the Norwegian Government
delegation came to Colombo, they paid a call on me, a separate call, and
when they called on the President I was also present. That is the process
of continuity on which we are presently concentrating.
Q: What went wrong then with your Government's initiative in resuming
peace talks with the LTTE?
A: When the President was elected to her first term in 1994,
she started talks with the LTTE very quickly, as you know. There was in
fact a mutually agreed cessation of hostilities for about six or seven
months. Even foreign monitors were brought down-one each from Canada, Netherlands
and Norway. But they were unable to function. Those talks were mainly exploratory
in nature. The idea was to create a climate conducive to the holding of
substantive discussions. The President's principal objective in starting
talks with the LTTE was to get to grips with the substantive issues. But
when the President raised those questions in her letters to the LTTE leader,
and asked the LTTE to enter into discussions on those issues, it became
evident that they were not ready or were unwilling to discuss matters of
substance. The talks broke down. The LTTE bombed two ships in the Trincomalee
harbour on 19th April 1995 and the war was resumed. Jaffna was retaken.
Thereafter we made attempts to draft a new Constitution. That took a long
time and did not reach fruition. The year 2000 was one of hardly any progress
on the peace front for the reasons I have given earlier.
From the beginning of last year the process picked up quite intensively
after Mr. Prabhakaran met the Norwegians on 1st November 2000 and after
his speech of 27th November, 2000 when he twice said that he would enter
into talks without preconditions. Then he declared a unilateral ceasefire
which we were not able to respond to because we agreed with the Norwegian
view, based on their global experience, that in our situation even a small
step taken mutually is better than a unilateral step which takes the other
side by surprise.
But in fact there was an unofficial ceasefire in the first quarter of
last year. In that quarter a lot of work was done on the humanitarian measures/
no sabotage memorandum of understanding or agreement. What went wrong,
in my opinion, was that the LTTE raised a demand which had hitherto not
been raised. That was the demand for de-proscription. With that the proposed
memorandum or agreement which was very close to conclusion last April could
not be concluded.
Q: You were ready but they were unwilling to commence peace talks.
What is the reason for them now to agree? Will they say no again? What
do you think?
A: It appears that the post-September 11 change in the global
security situation may have some bearing on the LTTE's thinking. They may
feel that the international climate is no longer conducive to the prolongation
of the war.
Q: The armed forces have been unable to win the battle against the
LTTE. A lot of blame is pinned on political interference, the lack of commitments
from the Commander-in-Chief and massive corruption in the armed forces
from top to bottom. Your comments on this?
A: On the question of political interference I must say that
is not a fair comment at all because the Commander-in-Chief took all major
decisions regarding the conduct of the war in close consultation with the
National Security Council. The Commander-in-Chief chairs the National Security
Council and all the Service Commanders were members of the Council. So
was I. I must say that the conduct of the war was very much in the hands
of the Service Commanders. On the question of corruption, I do not have
any evidence. I cannot give you facts and figures. As a lawyer I am by
disposition hesitant to make judgements without evidence. But I agree that
there is a widely held perception, and President Kumaratunga herself has
often said so, that corruption is rampant in the armed forces. If that
be so it is a most regrettable state of affairs.
Q: What was done about it at that time? I mean, if she was aware
of it or had notice about it.?
A: I think nothing, really, was done about it. Action should
have been taken. The PA Government failed to do so. The people have delivered
their verdict on the PA Government. Corruption is the scourge of our country.
It is a plague on our country. The ramifications of corruption run deep
in our society. I do not know what we can do about it. If the new Government
can summon up the political will and courage to launch, and sustain to
conviction, a few spectacular prosecutions against high level offenders,
it would have a salutary deterrent effect that might help to haul us out
of the mire into which we have fallen. If the new Government also fails
to do so, I dread to contemplate the future of the country.
Q: Prabhakaran has blamed you by name as being responsible for branding
them world wide as a terrorist organisation. They must be hating you.
A: I noticed that Mr. Prabhakaran's speech last November contained
a complaint against the international community for having branded his
organisation as a terrorist organisation whereas he claims that it is a
national liberation movement. He refers to President Kumaratunga and me,
but he uses the words "particularly Mr. Kadirgamar". I think this is an
over reaction because I should not be given such a high degree of "credit"
for the state of affairs of which he complains. What has happened in recent
times is that there has been a general movement internationally against
terrorism, against terrorist acts. Two important UN Conventions were adopted
in 1998 and 1999 and national laws on terrorism have been enacted in some
western countries. A single person could not have produced the state of
affairs of which Mr. Prabhakaran complains. That is definitely an over
statement. But I certainly argued the case for our country in public forums.
That was my duty, and I did my duty. As to whether he hates me or not,
I suppose he probably does! I understand from competent analysts of his
speeches that when he makes a hostile reference to a person by name, it
is akin to the pronouncement of a death sentence. So be it.
Q: He is showing all that hatred towards you - do you see it that
way?
A: So it would appear. He sees me as having been in the forefront
of the campaign of which he complains. That, of course, is a very serious
matter for my own security.
Q: Some people here want you to return your vehicles and have your
security withdrawn. The Foreign Ministry wants you to return your cars
and even your furniture. What is the position regarding that?
A: The position is that the Prime Minister himself has expressly
directed, without any solicitation on my part, that I am to remain in occupation
of the official residence which I occupied as a Minister and that all my
security arrangements are to remain intact. When I was a Minister my security
arrangements were complex. In order to carry out effective security measures,
especially on the road, a fair number of vehicles were required for the
purpose of working out strategies to thwart suicide bombers.
I do not think I should say more than that. The lives of the brave soldiers
who share my risks should not be needlessly put in jeopardy. The Prime
Minister understands this.
He understands the severity of the threat to my life. I want to say
that these vehicles are not for my pleasure or fun. I am not allowed more
than three or four outings a week.
Over the last seven years I have attended only one wedding and two funerals,
and no private social functions at all. Even my public functions are severely
curtailed. In some quarters, this situation appears either not to be understood
or deliberately ignored. But from the large number of messages I have received
from members of the public, many unknown to me, expressing concern for
my safety I can see that the public at large seems to understand the situation.
Q: So basically, you will not be returning the vehicles ?
A: On my own initiative, soon after I ceased to hold office,
I returned to the Foreign Ministry a number of vehicles which the security
personnel decided could be dispersed with. There is now a "basic irreducible
minimum" according to the security personnel. These vehicles cannot be
returned because they are an indispensable part of the security arrangements
which the Prime Minister clearly wishes should not be disturbed.
Q: Are you optimistic about the success of the peace process?
A: I am optimistic that the peace process will start, that the
LTTE will commence talks. I hope very much that the cessation of hostilities
which is not yet mutually agreed - it is a situation where both parties
have separately declared a cessation of hostilities will be the subject
of a formal agreement including monitoring by foreign monitors. Then my
hope is that the agreement will continue without a break down. The longer
it continues the better will be the prospects for an irreversible process
of negotiation. But on the major substantive issues, I am not sure what
the outcome will be.
Some distance down the road the country will have to face up to the
big questions about the structure of the State, the merger of the North
and the East, the place of the armed services in these areas, and many
other questions on which strong views are held by different segments of
our society.
That is why I say that if the cessation of hostilities holds then we
could reach a state of affairs where some of these problems might become
easier to resolve. One final word, the Government must be alert, circumspect
and sensitive to public concerns about security. Going too far too soon
has its dangers. |