| JVP
insists Norway must go
Vijitha Herath. |
Herath
explains policy towards India, China, Dalai Lama, the US and WTO
By Anthony David
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is widely seen as being the
"power behind the throne" in Sri Lanka's politics.
Having
played a major role to install President Mahinda Rajapakse in office,
the party has distanced itself from day-to-day running of the new
administration, but not entirely detached itself from what he does.
JVP
leaders declined Mr. Rajapakse’s invitation to join him on
his state visit to India this week, saying they had expressed their
views to him before he went, and they did not want to be a party
to talks between two state leaders.
In a wide-ranging interview, the JVP’s International Affairs
spokesman and former Culture and National Heritage Minister Vijitha
Herath says the party’s stance towards Norway as a facilitator
in the peace process has not changed though some see a softening.
Mr.
Herath also obliged by answering questions posed to him on domestic
issues, and frankly admits that the party's dealings with the new
government could be a key factor for its future. "Our agreement
was with Mr. Rajapakse," he says and makes it clear that it
is with Mr. Rajapakse and not with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
Excerpts
from the interview:
Q: During the presidential election campaign, the JVP questioned
the honesty of Norway as the facilitator in the peace process with
the LTTE. Your party accused the UNP of selling the country by getting
the Norwegians involved in the peace process; your party was in
the forefront of the National Movement Against Terrorism (NMAT)
protests against the Norwegians, asking them to 'get Out'. Your
members even burnt the Norwegian flag. What’s happening now?
A: Our stand and criticism of Norway’s role has not
changed. Before and after the signing of the ceasefire agreement,
our view is that Norway has been partial. In conducting the peace
process as well as providing financial and non-financial assistance,
we believe Norway has been partial towards the LTTE. Thus we believe
Norway’s involvement will only further complicate and not
resolve the problem. We believe Norway’s partiality has emboldened
the LTTE to carry out attacks freely. Therefore, we are of the same
opinion and position that we took before the Presidential election.
Norway is not suitable for the role.
Q:
But, has your party taken up the matter regarding Norway with the
Rajapakse government?
A: When Mr. Rajapakse was preparing to contest the presidential
election, we told him of our view that Norway had complicated the
peace process and the LTTE had become stronger. We told him to consider
our view and take a decision. After the election also we have taken
up the matter with the President several times.
Q:
His response?
A: Practically, Norway cannot be removed in 24 hours. We
do not expect that. But gradually, the wrong must be remedied and
Norway replaced. Even the President understands that.
Q:
But going by what has happened so far, doesn’t it seem that
the JVP has been changing its once 'Norway-Out' stance, and President
Rajapakse is doing what he likes or what he is forced to do regarding
the Norwegians? Is the JVP only just learning a thing or two about
Sri Lanka's actual clout in the international scene?
A: We are not changing our position, but we are trying
to convince the government.
Q:
But is it not a reality that Norway has been accepted and the JVP
has to change its position?
A: No. We have told the world that Norway has complicated
the peace process and must be removed. We still say that and believe
the government should work towards it.
Q:
But the President has officially told Norway to remain as facilitators.
That is contrary to your position. Isn’t it?
A: The President’s hope is that the LTTE should be
brought into talks and an alternative facilitator found. That’s
what is happening now.
Q: Who is the alternative?
A: We believe foreign intervention is not necessary because
it will only complicate the problem. The President is working on
an alternative – another country or a group of countries.
We hope an alternative could be found by next month or within the
next few weeks.
Q:
The JVP once apparently showed a preference for India. Do you feel
let down now?
A: We had not thought of India as the only alternative.
It could be India, another Asian country or a group. The President
is now consulting India. We believe Norway could be replaced by
India or another country. The consultation process is on.
Q:
So you insist your stand on Norway before and after the election
has not changed.
A: Yes. We have always asked that negotiations be resumed
immediately so that we could come to a consensus. The JVP has its
own positions but we are ready to be flexible so that a common position
could be reached.
Q:
What do you mean by a common position?
A: No comment now because a common position could be reached
only after discussions.
Q:
How do you explain the contradictory position regarding India? In
the early days, the party saw India as a regional villain with expansionist
objectives and in 1987 you opposed the Indo-Sri Lanka accord and
Indian intervention. But now you are calling for a direct Indian
role.
A: Politics changes. For instance, the US helped Iraq during
the war with Iran and now it has invaded Iraq. That’s how
strategies change. Our position earlier was what India did at that
time was wrong. Even today we are of the same opinion. Today world
politics has changed. Even the Sri Lankan situation has changed.
India’s too has changed.
Q:
Does this change of foreign policy towards India have anything to
do with your leader Somawansa Amarasinghe being helped out of the
country during the military crackdown against your party in 1989?
A: It was not the Indian government which helped. It was
a fishing boat he used to escape, and therefore the events are not
connected.
Q:
The JVP turned down an invitation to visit India with President
Rajapakse. The party is apparently distancing itself from the Rajapakse
foreign-policy and keeping its options open.
A: The visit to New Delhi was essentially a meeting between
two heads of governments. We are an opposition party backing the
government and therefore we saw no need for us to be at the New
Delhi summit?
Q:
Your party is close to the Chinese Communist Party. Did that have
a connection with your decision not to go to India?
A: No. China does not get involved in our politics. Before
the visit to India, we met the President and briefed him on our
party's position. The President is representing the country and
it will not be correct to bring out our party positions at these
meetings between state leaders. We believe that prior consultations
were sufficient.
Q:
Going back to the role of Norway in the peace process, the JVP has
said it expects Norway’s role will be restricted. Does it
mean that the JVP wants Norway to be restricted to the peace process
or to the ceasefire monitoring?
A: According to the 2002 ceasefire agreement, Norway is
the facilitator and is also empowered to appoint the head of the
Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM). Norway holds both these positions.
We believe it is wrong. We want the facilitator to be from one country
and the SLMM chief from another. We feel the co-chairs should intervene
now and act on such matters. The co-chairs need to go beyond just
issuing statements. They should take action to prevent the LTTE
from regrouping and collecting more funds. They must also help find
another facilitator.
Q: Your party has been critical of the US which is one of the co-chairs.
Now you want the co-chairs, including the US, to help.
A:
Our position is that the crisis has been complicated by the intervention
of foreign countries. If we can resolve the problem without the
assistance of any foreign country that would be the best. But practically
that is not possible because the process has already been started.
That’s why we want not mere words from the co-chairs but stern
action.
Q:
What do you mean by stern action?
A: The European Union has only imposed a travel ban on
LTTE members, but the LTTE still holds meetings in Britain. Even
those must be stopped. Those countries were instrumental in working
out the ceasefire agreement which is now being blatantly and regularly
violated. They must take stern action to stop that.
Q:
The JVP is insisting that talks with the LTTE must be held in an
Asian country and the government also shares that view. Why are
you insisting on an Asian country?
A: The matter should not be unnecessarily internationalized.
The fist preference for talks should be a venue in Sri Lanka. Otherwise,
an Asian country. The LTTE is insisting on Oslo, clearly because
it sees this as a fist step towards getting the travel ban in Europe
lifted. We should not fall for that trap.
Q:
Don’t you think that such a stance would give the wrong message
to the international community that the government is not flexible
for even a change of the venue.
A: The venue is not the problem. It is the outcome of the
discussions and the nature of the discussions that were the causes
for the failure. There was no time frame, there was no agenda. Our
position is that talks should start soon. But if the talks should
be held on some condtions that is not acceptable. Both parties should
come independently and start discussions. There shouldn’t
be any conditions.
Q:
So you mean there shouldn’t be any conditions before peace
talks begin?
A: There shouldn’t be any conditions from any side.
Soon as you place conditions you block your self. You should open
the discussions without any conditions. Therefore there shouldn’t
be any pre-conditions.
Q:
So there is no need for conditions such as the disarming of the
LTTE?
A: No, that’s not necessary.
Q:
You said that the previous talks flailed as they lacked a time frame
and an agenda. In the 'Mahinda Chintana' it was said that there
would be a specific agenda and a specific time frame, but the Cabinet
spokesman Nimal Siripala de Silva has said that the government is
willing to discuss "anything". Does your party see a change
of position?
A: That was to reach a consensus with the other parties.
Only after we start discussions with the LTTE should the time frame,
the mediator and the final solution be discussed.
Q:Before
the elections, you carried out a strong campaign that the people
should not fear there would be a return to war. But now it seems
that the war has already started with 46 security forces personnel
being killed in December. Pro-LTTE lobbies say that the 'south'
voted for war - and has now got it. What do you have to say about
this?
A: The LTTE withdrew from the talks before the UPFA came
into power. Even during the ceasefire, 63 security personnel were
killed. The war situation prevailed before this government came
into office. Now the situation is worse. But the violence has escalated
not because the government violated the agreement. Not because the
government did anything new or not because the President said he
was going back to war. But it is the LTTE that has stepped up the
violence. The LTTE has strengthened itself due to the shortcomings
in the ceasefire agreement. The LTTE is trying to return to the
previous negotiating system as done in the UNP period.
Q:
The JVP is taking a hardline stance towards dealing with the LTTE.
Other than for the rhetoric, what is the JVP doing to strengthen
the military in the event of a greater intensity in the northern
insurgency.
A: The LTTE’s attacks are intended to push us back
to the previous position. It wants to create a fear psychosis (environment)
and force the government to re-open talks in a favourable way to
it. What we want to tell the people is that the LTTE is trying to
draw the government into a trap. We should remain mindful of this.
Our point is that the government should not fall into this trap.
We should act with restraint. We should understand the strategy
of the LTTE and act accordingly.
Q:
What, briefly, is the JVP's policy on the outcome of the recent
WTO conference in Hong Kong.? Did you think the government safeguarded
the country's interests sufficiently, especially the protection
of her farmers on the subsidies issue?
A: The demonstrations held in Hong Kong elsewhere brought
pressure not to take any decisions which were seriously going against
the interests of countries like ours. Though we were not able to
get anything favourable from the WTO negotiations, at least the
adverse effects were less. This was different from what happened
during the previous UNP government when the Trade Minister surrendered
to WTO conditions. We briefed the Trade Minister before he left
for Hong Kong and we believed the damage was minimized.
Q:
By protesting over World Bank/IMF policies, your party has given
the impressions that anti-free market Marxists are influencing the
government’s economic policy, and very little foreign capital
is flowing here, while foreign capital is gushing into India and
China. Any comment?
A: Our position on the IMF and the World Bank has not changed.
They give us aid not because they love us. Our stance is that we
should get out of their grip. For this, national production should
be increased. One way is by trying to develop a national economy.
However we are not opposed to foreign investments. New technology
should come in and we should improve. But if the investors try to
impose adverse conditions we should be careful. What has been happening
is that when the investors come, Ministers have been used to taking
commissions. Even in Cuba foreign investors are coming in, despite
restrictions from the US, through indirect ways. Even in China foreign
investors are coming, but under strict conditions. Investors are
going there because they do not have to pay bribes. We want to create
a similar situation here.
Q:
The Dalai Lama lives in India, exiled from Chinese-occupied Tibet.
The Chinese Government has reportedly prevailed upon Sri Lanka from
issuing a visa for the venerated Buddhist leader to visit Kandy
and pay homage to the Sacred Tooth Relic. As a party that has good
relations with both these countries, and is in the forefront of
the Buddhist nationalist movement in Sri Lanka, will the party use
its good offices in enabling the Dalai Lama to visit Sri Lanka at
least this year when the 2550th Buddha Jayanthi celebrations take
place.
A: The US is trying to make use of the Dalai Lama to create
problems in China. We see a political role in his visit, though
wide publicity is given that he is on a religious mission. We believe
that since there is a political motive in his visit. we will not
make a special request.
Q:
The JVP has been saying that it has not taken cabinet portfolios
as it is not interested in power. But some argue that the JVP did
not want to take any responsibility in the cabinet as it does not
want to take any responsibility for shortcomings in the government.
The JVP continues to have its influence in the government. In other
words your party wants power without responsibility.
A: In 2004, we formed the government with the UPFA to continue
our journey. But it was because of the P-TOMS agreement and a series
of other problems with the then leadership that we had to leave.
Our present agreement was with Mr. Rajapakse. If we were to take
positions in the government our agreement should have been with
the SLFP. If that was the case there couldn’t be such a huge
cabinet as there is now. During the period we worked in the UPFA
government we shared responsibility. But now we do not see a proper
mechanism of governance.
Q:
Isn’t it true that the JVP, while supporting the government,
is also working towards contesting future elections on its own?
A:We are a political party. We should think of the future
of our party. We take decisions looking at the future of the government.
Not necessarily for elections. Our party’s qualities such
as discipline and policies need to be protected, and we need to
progress while preserving our identity. As a party we do not like
to see these harmed.
|
