Untitled Document

Peace and the Peiris process
Editors and publishers attending the Commonwealth Press Union conference that concluded last week, were full of praise for Constitutional Affairs Minister and government chief negotiator G.L. Peiris.

His 45-minute or more address on the backdrop to the Sri Lanka conflict, the on-going peace process and the prospects for a lasting peace won sustained applause from an audience that is by nature critical, has learnt to be suspicious of politicians and is hard to please.

Almost every one of the delegates I spoke to subsequently had only praise for the minister for his lucid exposition without any reference to notes. This is, of course, not the first time that Mr. Peiris has done so and certainly it will not be the last. A few months ago I heard him speak at the Royal Commonwealth Society in London on the same subject and once again he surprised the audience with his cogent explanation of the peace process sans notes.

The former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Chief Anyaoku who presided that day made specific reference to Mr. Peiris' eloquence and his ability to speak almost ex tempore. It is this ability to speak clearly and precisely in the English language what bowls over foreign audiences. Coupled with that his ability to speak without rancour against the government's political opponents or his own critics, gives his addresses a tone of sincerity that goes down well with foreign audiences, even those that are as critical as a gathering of senior editors and publishers.

But veteran journalists know to distinguish spin when they see it particularly on home soil. It is not always possible to detect the spin if one is not entirely up to date with a subject that is basically foreign. Some journalists tend to smell something odd, though they may not be able to put their finger on it. But the smell is there and Minister Peiris' speech to the Commonwealth Press Union that day was not devoid of it.

The government's constant refrain since the peace process came under criticism from various quarters is to ask : what is the alternative to peace? The alternative to having peace is to have war or quasi war, in short, some low intensity conflict that erupts now and then with raids against government forces and killings as happened in the very early days of this conflict.

I doubt that anybody really advocates such an alternative to peace- not unless they were war-mongers by nature, arms merchants who recent governments surely know much about, bureaucrats who have made fortunes out of this conflict and politicians waiting in the wings to grab power if peace fails.

What is worrying is the government formulation of this alternative theory. By asking what is the alternative to peace, the government and Minister Peiris included, is attempting to lump together those who wish the war would continue for various reasons including personal avarice and critics of the peace process.

That is the heavy spin that is applied when posing the question about the alternative to peace. By doing so the government is characterising even those who raise questions about certain aspects of the peace process as opponents of peace. This is where the editors and publishers might have been misled. While quite rightly describing Minister Peiris' speech as clever and even remarkable some of our prominent visitors failed to see the skull beneath the skin largely because of the cosmetic work done on the skin through Minister Peiris' eloquence.

It is totally wrong and indeed tragic to describe those who have doubts about the sincerity of the LTTE given its past and some of the happenings since the MoU was signed, as opponents of peace. By such broad categorisation those in the government who pose the question so sharply are doing themselves wrong. Because by so doing the government is helping to widen the anti-peace process movement even more than it actually is today.

This is the danger of too much spin. When the approach should be to narrow down the anti-peace process movement to the real war mongers and merchants of death, the government is antagonising even those who are intrinsically for peace by its broad brush work. Apart from those who see war as the solution to the problem and believe that a successful war can be waged against the LTTE, others, on all sides of the barricades, are longing for peace.

So they support a political dialogue that can bring about the settlement which will take the country to the status quo ante when this country was a peaceful place and its people could travel across its length and breadth without being subject to harassment, intimidation and even death. So one needs to draw a distinction between those who oppose a political peace and those who question the peace process as it has unfolded in the past few months.

Surely the government- or those in it who are capable of serious thought must see the difference. If they do but insist on ignoring the distinction, the government is being disingenuous at its own expense. In short it is being far too clever by half. If, on the other hand, the government's policy makers are relying on the philosophy that those who are not with it are against it, then it may have to pay for its shortsightedness and political myopia.

Instead of trying to enlarge the peace constituency by appearing to be firm in negotiations and in dealing with the violations of the MoU and ceasefire by the LTTE, the government's softly, softly, approach only serves to embolden the LTTE into making extravagant demands and acting as though it already rules an independent state.

Add to this the politicians, officials and people with no legal status except their proximity to leading politicians who are bending over backwards to help the LTTE transgress laws that it has been breaking for decades without official sanction.
Such unnecessary and indeed unlawful assistance- like clearing some 25 packages brought into the country by LTTE negotiators without Customs inspection, smacks of bias or profit and must surely sicken those who have been committed to solving this conflict with dignity.

The government goes about saying that the international pressure brought to bear on the LTTE has left the Tigers with only one course to follow-that is to continue with the peace process. If this is the only guarantee the government has got, I'm afraid that it is hardly the warranty the people of this country would demand. If anybody in our diplomatic missions, especially in the western capitals make an effort to read the Tamil language newspapers published or distributed there, they would know what the LTTE leaders are telling the Tamil population in those capitals and what a laugh they are having at the expense of a government they see as naïve.

But many of these diplomatic missions hardly serve the needs of this country. The other day I received information from Sri Lankans in Sweden that the Sri Lankan ambassador to Stockholm read out Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's independence day speech only in Tamil. If so then he should surely be asked to explain why the principal language of this country was ignored.

But would such effrontery be questioned? Hardly likely when this particular ambassador is a party hanger-on who, some say, would probably sit with greater assurance in his native Kerala than in the intellectual environs of Uppsala University.
But then what does one do when our diplomatic missions have been turned into job placement centres and the principal qualification is the party colour one sports or the town one comes from. It is not only peace in Sri Lanka that is at stake. Who knows what will happen to world peace if the United Nations is converted by some tragic misfortune into a baila maduwa.

Back to Columns