| News |
||||||
|
Right of reply Nevertheless, Mr. Abeynayake raises another issue which concerns me more deeply. Mr. Abeynayake argues that ICES Colombo and those close to Neelan have been morally ambiguous about the manner of his death and by enthusiastically supporting a peace process that gives such prominence to the LTTE are being disloyal to his memory. Nalin Swaris made a similar argument in The Island Newspaper, writing about the "Peace train" that now operates from Colombo to Vavuniya. In making the above allegations both Mr. Swaris and Mr. Abeynayake seem to argue that the legitimate response of those closest to Neelan to the peace process should be to oppose negotiations with the LTTE, be lukewarm on the peace initiative and perhaps even support a military solution. To adopt such a perspective would be to do violence to Neelan's lifework and to subvert some of his most cherished values. In many ways it is extremely ironic that Neelan of all people is being used by those who have always been opposed to the peace process to bash peace activists and peace activism. Neelan was killed because of this strong belief in peace and non violence which seemed traitorous to the LTTE. Neelan was always in the forefront of any peace initiative and any peace campaign. He was a great believer that peace was a transformative process involving all levels of society. Much of the spade work for the current process was done by him and those closest to him through years of dialogue, discussion and persuasion. We at the ICES Colombo have no doubt that he would have led the way in dynamically supporting the current peace process. Our response today is only made inadequate by his loss. This is not to say that we at the ICES or those close to him have forgotten the way he died. However these issues of justice and accountability cannot be dealt with through more violence, more death and more military action. Instead, we have to work toward strengthening the peace efforts by ensuring a Truth and Reconciliation process whereby these issues of loss and accountability on all sides of the conflict can be dealt with in a consistent, systematic and non-partisan manner. We have to ensure that the peace process is not only an agreement between combatants but an occasion that helps transform Sri Lankan society so that we collectively deal with important political and moral issues. In this regard ICES, in collaboration with the Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust, has invited Alex Boraine, the Vice Chairman of The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deliver the address on July 29,, Neelan's death anniversary. We hope that this will help begin a dialogue among Sri Lankans of all political persuasions about the need for such a process and the contours that such a process should take in the Sri Lankan context. Rajpal Abeynayake writes: There are two issues that are raised by Ms. Radhika Coomsraswamy. The first is about the Business Line interview. Though she says she never said "I have already suggested an interim council with LTTE dominance in the North,'' this is exactly how Business Line quotes her. I have quoted her verbatim and accurately from her Business Line interview, and whatever she says now, this was exactly how Business Line quoted her. The relevant quote is available for anyone interested in seeing it at Website http://www.blonnet.com/bline/2002/02/05/stories/2002020500360900.htm'' I have sent Ms Coomarswamy the reference for the Business Line article; it is upto her to clarify her position with the Business Line (a Hindu publication) if she feels she has been misquoted there, and there is nothing I could about that. As for the other issue, one does not know where she figured out that "Mr Abeynayake seems to argue that the legitimate response to those closest to Neelan to the peace process should be to oppose negotiations with the LTTE, be lukewarm on the peace initiative and perhaps even support a military solution.'' Anybody even taking a cursory glance at my column of 2.6.2002 - and anybody following my argument in the logical sense that it should be followed - would see that I have suggested nothing anywhere even remotely near to this, in my column. What I have said is that there is a moral ambiguity between the ICES condemnation of the Neelan killing, and the "call to isolate and defeat the LTTE'' and Ms Coomarawamy's call for an "interim council dominated by the Tigers in the North.'' How can an organization that should be "defeated and isolated'', be asked to "dominate'' the North, and how can such a call be made with any sense of moral rectitude? "It is extremely ironic that Neelan of all people is being used by those who have opposed the peace process to bash peace activists and peace activism'', she states elsewhere in her response. This is typical of peace activists who think they wear a special halo around them while the rest of the world is all comprised of the dark forces of evil. I have never been opposed to peace. Several times, I was accused of supporting the "peace process'' in my columns at the time the UNF's peace initiative began. Again, Ms. Coomrawamy did not have the courtesy to peruse my earlier articles, as a person of her supposed integrity and standing should have, before rushing to comment. Neither me, nor anyone at the Sunday Times needs any special homilies to be edified about Neelan's commitment to peace. Indeed, my previous article makes it clear that Neelan was killed precisely because of this commitment. What's nauseating is when people in organizations which have called for the "LTTE to be isolated and defeated'' because of its "dangerous and violent fanaticism' now seem to want to apotheosize the LTTE and call for "LTTE dominance.'' The issue is not peace here at all- the issue is whether the LTTE should be given a carte blanche to do whatever it pleases in the North, by being given granted a position of "dominance'' (.. her word not mine.) Obviously, the LTTE cannot be given such dominance, and this would be clear not from what I say, but from the way that the ICES itself characterizes the LTTE. Even very sober commentators such as Kishali Pinto Jayewardene ( by no means a hawk or an ultra nationalist) have commented on the peace process and observed that given the backdrop of human rights violations by the LTEE, "there can be assuredly no right to self determination based on coercion.'' ("Forcing a right to self determination'' - Sunday Times, 21.4.2002). So what is this
hypocrisy on the part of Ms Coomarasamy? As I have said in the original
piece that she takes issue with, can any amount of sophisticated
pap hide the casuistry and sophistry of the specious arguments that
she adduces to defend her hypocrisy? Besides, if she was so concerned
about her being misquoted in Business Line, as she says she was,
she should have denied the particular quote in February when it
appeared. It appears now that when her blatant posturing and double
standards are exposed - she takes the only option available to her
- which is to go on denial. Well, really, these peaceniks! |
||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
