The motley crew still want to talk peace

By Kumbakarna

As on every previous occasion, this is supposed to be the solution to the terrorist problem. Not that the people clamouring for these 'peace talks' call it a terrorist problem, but let us leave that aside for the moment. Let us instead evaluate the results of the previous rounds of these so-called 'peace talks.'

In 1981, the country had its first experience with 'peace talks' and 'devolution of power'. Amidst much celebration of a "peaceful solution to the ethnic problem", District Development Councils were set up. Beginning with violence unleashed by the terrorists during the election campaign for these DDCs, the armed conflict began in earnest after this 'agreement'. It should have been obvious even at that early stage, to anyone with any intelligence, that terrorism could not be eradicated through 'agreements', but intelligence is not something that has ever been much in evidence within the national polity. 

In 1985, a ceasefire was declared to coincide with the Sinhala and Hindu New Year. The government announced that the armed conflict was over, and that permanent peace would be achieved through "talks' with the 'Tamil groups' in the Bhutanese capital of Thimphu. While the army sat inside their camps observing the ceasefire, the terrorists laid landmines outside. 

The 'talks' ended with the slaughter of 141 Buddhist devotees at the Sri Maha Bodhi on May 14, 1985. By the end of that year, the entire Jaffna peninsula was taken over by the terrorists. That is what the "Thimphu talks', achieved. It required the 'Riviresa' operation, ten years later, to undo this damage. 

In 1987 as well, a ceasefire was declared during the Sinhala and Hindu New Year. The terrorists made use of this to slaughter 127 Sinhala bus travellers on April 17, at Kitulutuwa near Habarana. On April 21, they slaughtered a further 114 at the Pettah bus stand. The President, at the time promised to wipe out terrorism. 

Far from wiping out terrorism, what he actually did was to enter into the 'Indo-Lanka Accord'. On the night of July 27 he addressed the nation on television. That was a Wednesday. By the following Monday, he said, the terrorists would hand in their weapons under the terms of the 'Accord'. We are still waiting for that Monday. 

It was not only the UNP government at the time which hailed this 'Accord' as the 'dawn of peace." The motley collection of leftwing ideologists, NGO parasites, foreign diplomats and some religious leaders, peddling 'peace with the Tigers' even today, all sang 'peace' songs. 

What happened of course was that the Indian army had to launch 'Operation Pavan' to recover the weapons which the terrorists were supposed to hand in. They lost 1187 men before they gave up and went home. The terrorists wiped out whole villages of Sinhala people in the north and east, while the opposition to the Indo-Lanka Accord claimed 66,000 lives in the south. This is known as "third-party mediation."

Next, we had the era of "consultation, compromise and consensus." 

From the beginning of the armed campaign by the terrorists, up to June 1989, the number of security forces personnel killed by them was 1269. During just three years following the Premadasa government's 'peace talks' with the terrorists, more than double that number, i.e. 2667, were killed. Apart from Jaffna, every army camp from Pooneryn to Vavuniya was withdrawn or wiped out. 

This is what that round of 'peace talks' achieved. In the end, the terrorist representative-Mahendrarajah who was involved in "consultation, compromise and consensus" with the Premadasa government and Premadasa himself, were killed by the LTTE. 

In 1994 it was the turn of the PA government with their "peace and prosperity." Bishop Kenneth Fernando went north to 'negotiate' with the terrorists on behalf of the government. During these 'negotiations' and the accompanying 'cessation of hostilities.' which began in November 1994, the terrorists brought in three shiploads of armaments which included anti-aircraft missiles. The April 1995 Sinhala and Hindu New Year period echoed with the usual "peace is at hand".garbage, and the terrorists attacked the Trincomalee port on April 17. 

In the entire period of terrorist activity before those 'peace talks', the number of security forces personnel killed was 3647. In just four years from then until the end of 1998, the number killed was 8208. It is quite easy to understand why the terrorists and their supporters are so fond of "peace talks." 

And so, today we are being told again that we must have more 'peace talks.' After all, the terrorists have lost Jaffna, and they want it back. Towards this end, the usual propaganda bandwagon has been rolled out. The war must be stopped, we are told. And it is the same motley crew who is telling us. 

It was amusing to read an account of one of them published in The Sunday Times of February 28. It was of Dr Tissa Vitharana. In it he describes S.L. Gunasekera and Prof. Nalin de Silva as 'extremists.' So these two gentlemen, who only work within the democratic framework of the country by making their views known through the media, are 'extremists'. And those who butcher pilgrims in their places of worship have committed only "what you call acts of terrorism." Yes, we certainly call those acts of terrorism. What does Dr Vitharana call them? 

inside the glass house:

Some smoke in the UN 

In New York city, smoking is banned in all public buildings, except two: Philip Morris, one of the world's largest tobacco companies, and the UN headquarters. An attempt to ban smoking inside the UN building was thwarted by diplomats who successfully fought to protect their "sovereign right"— to smoke themselves to death.

The political hypocrisy of delegates advocating the cause of public health and cleaner environment was evident at a recent meeting when the chairman of the committee seated on a podium was only visible through smoke rings emerging from the front rows.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, the new head of the World Health Organisation (WHO), says one of her priorities would be to formulate a new international convention against smoking. The Geneva-based UN agency, she said, is working on the world's first multilateral treaty focusing specifically on a public health issue: tobacco control. 

A former Prime Minister of Norway, Brundtland is set to battle one of the world's strongest political lobbies— the tobacco industry. The proposed Framework Convention on Tobacco Control comes in the wake of several new UN treaties— dealing with terrorism, climate change, landmines, desertification, and children's rights— adopted by the General Assembly. When the anti-smoking convention is finalised, it would go before the 191-member World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body, for approval. 

Unlike delegates at UN headquarters, the WHO Assembly called for such a convention two years ago, Brundtland said. The proposed new treaty may call on governments to impose heavy taxes on tobacco, prohibitions on all direct and indirect tobacco advertising, a ban on promotional activities aimed at children and ground rules to ensure that individual countries were protected from the impact of multinational tobacco companies. 

In 1997, total sales of the US tobacco industry alone amounted to a staggering $48 billion dollars. But the industry, which is vigorously defending an average American's right to smoke in a free country, has been fighting a losing battle against scores of lawsuits brought by individuals whose family members have died of lung cancer. 

Brundtland said there are many countries which now have national laws against tobacco consumption. But there are no major restrictions on the sale of tobacco products to developing nations. Asked if the Malboro Man, the riveting symbol of the US 

cigarette industry, has moved to the Third World, Brundtland said: 

''Absolutely, and nobody stops him being there in most cases.'' 

WHO has argued that multinationals were shifting their focus to Third World nations, which would account for 70 percent of all tobacco-related deaths worldwide. In China, smoking already was blamed for 75,000 deaths annually— and this is expected to rise to three million by the time today's young smokers reached middle age. 

WHO's anti-smoking initiative had strong support from the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) which has called for global curbs on tobacco. "With the tobacco industry increasingly under siege in industrialised countries, there is no more promising market for new smokers than the predominantly young populations of the world's developing nations," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said. Bellamy said that according to current estimates 300 million children and teenagers would be killed through smoking, if current trends continued. 

Derek Yach, head of WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative, told a delegation of the International Tobacco Growers Association last week that WHO was not against tobacco farmers. "But as the world's premier health agency, WHO is committed to addressing the tobacco epidemic," he added. Yach said that tobacco was a killer and tobacco growers must separate their concern for their own livelihood from the public health impact of tobacco which could kill up to 10 million annually by the late 2020s. 

"WHO cannot simply stand by and count the dead," says Richard Peto, a scientific advisor to the UN agency.

FTA: India already doing well - Special To The Sunday Times

By Vaijayanthi Prakash

An agreement may well be reached on the negative lists as the two sides have the political will to do so, and officials of the two sides, are working overtime to find common ground. But the pact, like the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, might touch off a political storm after signing, and become, soon enough, a dead letter if the public are not told about what is going on, consulted and taken into confidence even at this last stage. 

This is primarily a political and public relations exercise which has to be conducted widely and persuasively but without hype and fanfare. A clarifying statement from the Indian Prime Minister, for example would go a long way in clearing the decks, setting the record straight, and assuaging Sri Lankan feelings. 

From the Indian point of view, the fact is that India is already doing well in Sri Lanka without the FTA and has no great stakes in pushing it. 

The 1998 figures are not yet available, but in 1997, Indian exports to Sri Lanka totalled $ 560 million while its imports from Sri Lanka were a mere $ 42.7 million. Indians dominate the two wheeler and three wheeler markets. The FTA, the Indians say, is meant to throw open the enormous Indian market to the Sri Lankans, a market, which is at the island's very doorstep. It is upto the Sri Lankans to check out the ways and means of utilising the opportunities thrown open by the pact, they argue. 

Yes, the Indians would not allow the free import of tea, rubber, coconut, and garments, and this hurts the Sri Lankans, as these items constitute 70% of the Lankan items traded in the international market. But there are other items which the Sri Lankans could export to India, if not now, later, when the necessary capabilities are developed. 

There could be joint ventures with buy back arrangements, or joint ventures for export to a third country. The two countries could well band together to jointly market their teas in third countries, since they cannot export tea to each other. 

These things cannot be written into the FTA, as they are outside its scope. Sri Lanka cannot be a non-manufacturing country, depending only on the export of tea, some agricultural raw materials, and labour, for long. The FTA with India could well hasten the industrialisation of the island, the Indians say. 

The FTA has enough safeguards against dumping of cheap and below par Indian goods. Colombo could at any time, point out specific instances to New Delhi and if no amends were made, Colombo would be perfectly within its rights to take off the items concerned from the zero duty list. The Sri Lankan negative list is a huge one. Sources say that, as on date, the Sri Lankan list exceeds 1200, three times the size of the Indian list which is now 400 plus. The inclusion of many industrial items, including iron and steel and cars, especially cars, has surprised the Indians. 

They wonder why cars should be included when Sri Lanka manufactures no cars. Perhaps the importers of Japanese cars get a good margin. 

But the Sri Lankans feel that it is premature for Sri Lanka to open itself to free trade with India, especially if tea, rubber, coconuts and garments are in the Indian negative list. The Sri Lankan rubber industry is now in the dumps and needs revival badly. Tea had been fetching good prices globally, but the collapse of the Russian market, which accounted for over 30% of the world market for Sri Lankan tea, had hurt the industry.

Sri Lankans were eagerly looking for an opening in India and New Delhi had said that tea would be allowed in. But come protests from Kerala and Tamil Nadu ( and even West Bengal), New Delhi backtracked, on rubber as well as tea. Sri Lankans would like India to accept some quota of tea or garments and officially encourage joint ventures through incentives. But then, these cannot be written into an FTA. 

Mr. Patrick Amarasinghe, President of the National Chamber of Exports Organisations and immediate past President of the Federation of the Chambers of Commerce in Sri Lanka said that it was good that the Indian government was bowing to the Indian lobbies. The Sri Lankan government should do the same he said. 

According Mr. Amarasinghe, no FTA would be a healthy in the absence of a level playing field. He said that Sri Lanka was unable to compete with India in many respects. 

The Indians had the advantage of mass production, their labour was cheaper and the country had raw materials, he said. The interest rates were also lower. 

Sri Lanka had the additional disadvantage of having too many holidays, he said. "We have to set our house in order first, before we plunge into some thing like the FTA with India," Mr. Amarasinghe suggested. 

Asked why Sri Lankans were not shouting from housetops about the Japanese flooding the car market or the Western MNCs selling drugs at high prices, he said that Indians could flood the market with shoddy and cheap goods. And the local traders, given the right sort of incentives, would push these rather than good quality but costlier non-Indian or local goods. He says that this is already happening. Mr. Amarasinghe does not believe that the FTA would force Sri Lanka to industrialise. 

Return to News/Comments Contents