News
|
||||
The
Norwegians: To keep or not to keep The most significant feature about that debate is that while those (including the writer) who advocate the expulsion of the Norwegians from its facilitator on the basis that the Norwegians have been and are utterly partial to the LTTE, even those who advocate the retention of the Norwegians do not contend that they have been impartial. They advocate the retention of the Norwegians essentially on the premise that war would break out if the Norwegians are expelled; as well as on the premise that the so-called "International Community" favours the retention of the Norwegians, and that we would get no aid if we were to expel them. By the term "International Community" of course, they mean not the world at large, or even countries such as China, Russia, Vietnam and Burma, but only those rich or powerful foreigners who lend us money. Since even those who advocate the retention of the Norwegians tacitly accept the fact that Oslo is partial to the LTTE, the wealth of evidence about their partiality that has already been presented by several writers will not be repeated in this article. The aim of this article is only to expose the extreme partiality displayed by the Norwegians to the LTTE at the last round of talks in Geneva of which the writer has been informed by an impeccable eye-witness, and to address the twin premises on which the retention of the Norwegians is advocated. The Norwegians were initially to be `facilitators' whose role was to bring the Government and the LTTE together for `talks'. With the effluxion of time, however, they have assumed a much larger role and are now playing the de facto role of `Judges'. Now, it is the Norwegians who decide whether an accusation levelled by one party against the other is true or not; it is they who preside over the so-called ‘peace talks’, govern the conduct of those talks, and decide who should talk, how long a speaker should talk, and on what subject he should talk. While ‘impartiality’ may, perhaps be a desirable but not essential attribute of a mere ‘facilitator’, it is beyond question that it is the most important and vitally essential attribute that must be possessed by a ‘Judge’ or even a ‘Mediator’. Let us now turn to the misdeeds of the Norwegians in Geneva. Just before the commencement of the ‘talks’ the Norwegian ambassador discussed matters of procedure with each delegation separately. The Government delegation having been called in first, the ambassador informed them that the LTTE insisted on speaking first with their opening statement. The Government delegation objected to the LTTE's demand and informed him that they being the delegates of a sovereign state should have the right to commence and state their position, and that this was particularly so because there had been a change in Government. The glib and equally false response of the ambassador (who presumably thought that the Government delegation being a new delegation would be ignorant about what happened at previous rounds of talks) was to say that the practice had been for each delegation to take turns in making the opening statement, and that since the Government delegation had made the opening statement, at the last round of ‘talks’, the LTTE had the right to make the opening statement. Fortunately, our delegation had done their home-work, and pointed out that contrary to what the ambassador said, the LTTE had made the opening statement at the last round of talks and that it was now their turn. The ambassador was silent. After the Norwegians’ attempt at alleged deception on behalf of the LTTE failed, our delegation in a gesture of generosity to the LTTE agreed to a suggestion that Nimal Siripala de Silva would make a brief formal opening statement and allow the LTTE to make its opening statement first, after which they would make their substantive opening statement. More was to follow.There were only two issues discussed, namely, the issue of Karuna raised by the LTTE and the issue of ‘Child Recruitment’ raised by our delegation. While it must naturally be the party that raises an issue that must have the right to make the opening statement on that issue, Solheim who presided, presented the right to make the opening statement on both issues to the LTTE. It must be remembered here that the right to commence carries advantages — for the party commencing can take such time as it wishes and has the right of reply. The Norwegians in an unabashed show of partiality robbed our delegation of this advantage on the issue raised by them. When
the talks about ‘Child Recruitment’ came up, LTTE political
wing chief S. P. Thamilselvan had the temerity to contend that ‘Child
Recruitment’ was all the work of Karuna and that that was
why he was sacked from the LTTE !!! Solheim clearly acted as Balasingham's puppet, adjourning whenever Balasingham said that he was tired and turning a blind eye to the outrageous conduct of Balasingham on the several occasions on which he sought to intimidate or blackmail our delegation (which was genuinely anxious to proceed with the talks) into acting as he wanted them to act by threatening to ‘walk out’ whenever they said something that was not to his liking. The icing on the cake of Norwegians’ partiality displayed at Geneva was their entertaining the LTTE delegation at Oslo with ‘red carpet treatment’. What faith, one wonders', would a litigant have in a judge hearing his case if that judge entertained the other party to dinner at his home during an adjournment? What fair or productive outcome can one expect of these ‘talks’ when such unashamedly partial blackguards as the Norwegians function as the judge or mediator ? Let
u now address the two premises on which those who oppose the expulsion
of the Norwegians base their case for the retention of the Norwegians. This is nonsensical. The LTTE has not cared one whit for the Norwegians' presence or the CFA and committed as many breaches of the CFA as they rightly believed they could commit without bringing down retribution on themselves from the rich foreigners. If the presence of the Norwegians was a deterrent to the LTTE committing violations of the CFA, how is it that they kidnapped thousands of children, abducted and/or murdered Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese civilians including Sri Lanka's greatest (and perhaps only) `Statesman' of the present era, Lakshman Kadirigamar, and committed mass murders of our troops with claymore mines and suicide cadres, the Norwegian presence notwithstanding? What, in practical terms, has the presence of the Norwegians prevented the LTTE from doing? The answer is "NOTHING". Why then should they be retained? Will the rich foreigners stop giving us aid if we expel the Norwegians? Those rich foreigners themselves do not say so. We have ample evidence to demonstrate to the rich foreigners, the utter partiality of the Norwegians to the LTTE. Are those rich foreigners so perverted as to penalize us for doing what any fair minded person would realize we must do? Our main problem is that even on so vital a matter that affects our country's security, sovereignty and integrity, we are divided and do not speak with one voice. The power hungry politicians chortling with delight over President Mahinda Rajapaksa's inability to deliver on his election promise to evict the Norwegians, the ‘alms collecters’ who fatten themselves on the crumbs thrown to them by foreign-funded NGOs, and other acolytes of the LTTE will leave no stone unturned to prevent the eviction of the Norwegians. With such division among us, the Norwegians and the LTTE will thrive at the country's expense. However, at the end of the day, are the decisions of our Government to be determined by fears of whether we will or will not continue to get aid? Are we to agree to the division of the country or to a division in all but name by adopting a new Constitution which projects the purely cosmetic appearance of a single country while dividing our country into two for all practical purposes because of such fears or even the threats of such rich foreigners? Is the good of our country and its very existence to be the deciding factor in determining what we should or should not do; or is the determining factor to be fears whether justified or otherwise, of reprisals that might follow upon our making correct decisions? We cannot, we must not, become enslaved by such fears, or be the puppets of any rich foreigners. Mr. S.L. Gunasekera is a former Member of Parliament and headed the Sihala Urumaya, from which he later resigned |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
The
debate has raged in this country for quite some time about whether
the Norwegians should be retained in their role as (purported) facilitators
in the so called peace process or not. 
