"These peace talks will not breakdown anytime soon"
"There are no certainties in life save for death and taxes - but there is a certainty here. These talks will not breakdown anytime soon.'' That is a quote taken from the Rajpal Abeynayake column which appeared inthis paper of September 2, 2002. Repeat : "There is a certainty here -- these talks will not breakdown anytime soon.'' This column predicted unequivocally that these talks will not go the way of others before it, and did so sans any hesitation and with total undiluted assuarance.

At this same time, other columns elsewhere were predicting that the talks will breakdown in December, nay in September. There were columnists saying that the peace will be in tatters come November of last year -- and those who said the peace will not last, each time they heard that the LTTE was involved in a major ceasefire violation. While these predictions of doom go on, it is important to point out that in my column at least, the consistent prediction has been that peace will last - - and that was how it was predicted from as far back as Prabhakaran's press conference in April 2002. So, when I bumped into the Minister of Lands Rajitha Senaratne over the weekend at a social occasion, it was not difficult for me to correct his misconception that "The Sunday Times is against the peace process.''

"You, Iqbal Athas, your Editor -- you have all been against the peace process,'' he says, with that ever charming grin not leaving his face for a moment. A column that consistently says the peace talks will not breakdown, when most everybody else says they will crash anytime soon -- can hardly be accused of being against the peace, never mind the 'peace process.''

These (above, 1st paragraph) prognostications that were made were based on the objective reality - - and not on any political agenda that sought to pick holes in the 'peace' for partisan reasons. For the same reasons, this columnist thinks that 'peace' is apart from the 'peace process''. Of course I am for peace. The Sunday Times, unless anybody seeks to correct me on this, is for peace.

But, who isn't for peace? 'Only the insane wouldn't want peace', was my rejoinder to a Sri Lanka First potentate, when that organization held a press conference before this 'peace process' had officially begun and the UNF government was elected. Now, if that doesn't clear the minds of those government heavyweights including Ministers and the Prime Minister who thinks that 'this lot is against peace'' what will? Not only has my column predicted constantly that this peace will not breakdown anytime soon ( this when any number of columnists ranging from so and so and so and so's so and so were predicting that the Tigers will go back to war tomorrow) , but it was also the correct prediction.

This space has sought to be faithful to the objective reality, which shows that it has a constructive worldview as opposed to a disruptive one - however smugly self congratulatory that may sound. But being for peace does not make somebody an idiot savant of the ''peace processes' which is probably what the confusion is all about. When people 'process'' the peace, they get fixated on the 'process' and may even forget what the peace was all about. This is why my column hails the 'peace' but is wary about the 'peace process.''

Now, this is where someone can turnaround and say it is 'hypocritical.'' How can one enjoy the peace, and hope for peace and hope for a lasting peace, forgetting the 'peace process' that delivered this condition of bliss and warlessness? But, anybody who points out that it is the 'peace process' that is responsible for the peace is right - but only half right.

Any amount of factors may be contributing to the peace now -- such as global conditions, war weariness etc., Officially , it is the 'peace process' that delivers the peace, and that's how the peace is trademarked -- under the style form and fashion of "peace process.'

But, it takes some practice, and a dispassionate mind to see the peace and the 'peace process'' apart. The objective reality is that the peace will stay - - no the Tigers will not kick the negotiating table. Not anytime soon definitely, not this year.
What happens next year, only other factors that weigh in on the equation will tell. The 'peace process' is but only one of these factors. This is why, this column, and perhaps some others, can applaud the peace while criticizing the peace process. But Ranil Wickremesinghe and Rajitha Senaratne seem to think this criticism is sufficient reason to conclude that The Sunday Times is against the peace.

Though I can't speak for the editorial prerogative of this newspaper, I can speak unequivocally for my column -- and this column has never been against the peace and will always be faithful to the objective reality in making fair comment. This is why the objective reality demands that the peace process be criticized, which is of course where many people place us at odds with the 'peace process.'' But there is no quarrel with that. The peace process is only one part of the whole objective of securing a lasting peace, it is only a mechanism and not a religion.

Those who have made the peace process a religion have forgotten the objective reality, which is that the peace depends on many factors, including those as far afield as global conditions and the leadership of the LTTE. It is only when all of these are weighed in, that the 'peace process' acquires any meaning. Instead of facing this objective reality, what we have is a lot of people telling us that 'those who criticize the peace process are against the peace.' At least some part of this misconception will hopefully be laid to rest as a result of the above explanation.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster