TNA and talks travails

Accuses Govt. of delaying evolution of a reasonable political solution and altering demographic composition of NE

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) asserts that the Government is delaying the evolution of a reasonable political solution, enabling it to complete its agenda of altering the demographic composition in northern and eastern areas.

TNA Leader and Parliamentarian R. Sampanthan believes that the Government is engaged in a process of rapidly changing the demographic composition of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, in order to stifle the democratic thinking and wishes of the Tamil people.

He emphasises that the Government must respect and respond to the democratic verdict of the Tamil people. He calls upon the Government to recommence bilateral talks and arrive at a reasonable measure of consensus in order to bring a permanent and honourable end to the conflict.

Following are excerpts from the interview:

Q: Why did you decide not to attend the UNCHR sessions in Geneva?

A: As a political party, we have official status at the UN Council Human Rights session in Geneva. We could have gone and participated as observers in the name of such human rights group and we could have got the opportunity of speaking for three minutes at some session. But we did not think that we should partake in such a rule.

We are not against Sri Lanka; we are not against the Sinhala people. We look upon the Sinhala people as our brothers. We do not want to be seen by the Sinhala people as acting against the interests of the country.

We are unhappy with several actions of the Government and its policies. But it is not something that we hold against the Sinhala people. We do not want that distinction blurred. So we thought it would be in the larger interest of everyone if we did not go to Geneva.

We did not go personally to Geneva but dealt with our grievances in a more appropriate way. Many of our friends and well-wishers also accept that our representation at Geneva would not be appropriate. Those were the circumstances under which we did not go to Geneva.

Q: Why do some accuse that this was not a unanimous decision of the TNA?

A: This impression was created by the media after the decision was made public on 27 February. Last week I summoned a Parliamentary group meeting and all the Parliamentary members of the TNA were present. They were aware of the decision before it was made.

However, to put things beyond own doubt, all our Members of Parliament were given the opportunity to fully and freely express their views. Their decisions were ratified unanimously at the meeting. That put an end to all the rumours created by some sections of the media.

Q: What are your views about the outcome of the UNHRC sessions in Geneva?

A: Very unfortunately, the Sri Lankan Government has been consistently delaying and avoiding the fulfilment of its obligations and commitments. We do not think that the continuous actions by the Sri Lankan Government are within the interests of the country as a whole and certainly not in the interests of the Tamil people.

The Sri Lankan Government has brought this situation upon itself, as a result of its fault in compiling with its domestic obligations and also in confirming to international conventions and treaties to which we subscribe. In such situations countries place themselves in positions they have to explain at international forums. We want the truth to come out in Geneva. We want a permanent and honourable end to this conflict that has been in Sri Lanka for a long time.

Q: What do you think about the bilateral talks between the TNA and the Government?

A: Talks were scheduled to take place on 17, 18 and 19 January. The Government did not come for the talks, stating that we have not given our names to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC).

Bilateral talks between the TNA and the Government commenced in January 2011. We submitted our proposals in writing in February 2011. At the request of the Government delegation, we placed comprehensive proposals in writing and there were talks in March 2011.

The Government committed itself to make its response available to our proposals early in order to commence a meaningful dialogue. When we met on 4 August 2011, five months had passed and seven meetings had taken place since this commitment made by the Government.

Even on 4 August, their response to our proposals was not available. I told the Government delegation that they were not committed to serious talks, that they were using the talks to create an impression both domestically and internationally that they were engaged in a serious process of reconciliation but that in fact nothing was happening at the negotiating table.

By continuing to attend the talks we were also aiding and abetting this Government to practice this deception, which we would not continue to do. We stated that no further date could be fixed until the Government delegation came up with its written response to our proposals. No further date was fixed on 6 August.

The President wanted to meet me and I met him on 2 September. We discussed the issue and the President agreed that bilateral talks would recommence and as an alternative, we would bring into the negotiating process the documents that had surfaced earlier; the proposals of the select committee under the chairmanship of Mangala Munasinghe, the Constitution proposals that were made public between 1994 and 2000 and the report of the Majority Panel Multi Ethnic Experts Committee appointed by the President in 2006.

A consensus was arrived at that at the bilateral talks would be placed before the Parliamentary Select Committee and that the talks would continue in this way. Accordingly the talks would commence on 16 September.

This agreement between me and the President was recorded in the minutes of the meeting of 16 September and was confirmed at the following meeting. This agreement was adopted by the delegations at the bilateral talks.

I wanted a measure of consensus at the bilateral talks before the Parliamentary Select Committee was convened, because there was agreement that the consensus of the bilateral talks would be taken before the Parliamentary Select Committee.

The Government wanted our names for the PSC and we were prepared to submit our names once the measure of consensus had been arrived at. Despite one year of talks, no consensus whatsoever had been arrived at, clearly indicating a lack of sincere commitment on the part of the Government to reach an acceptable political solution.

We were not taking the maximum of this position – we only wanted a reasonable, workable and durable political solution within the framework of a united and undivided Sri Lanka. The Government’s decision to pull out of the talks scheduled for January 2012 was, in the circumstances, unreasonable and irresponsible. We call upon the Government to recommence the bilateral talks and to arrive at a reasonable measure of consensus so that we can take this process forward.

Q: However, the Government has clearly stated that they will not recommence talks until TNA announce its PSC representatives. Your views?

A: Our difficulty is that when we submit the names, the Government will constitute and convene the PSC without any consensus being reached. I will not be able to attend the PSC proceedings in the absence of any consensus between us at the bilateral talks. The Government would then make out to the country and the world at large that the TNA is boycotting the talks at the PSC.

I do not want to place ourselves in a position where the blame can shifted towards us when the Government itself is solely to be blamed for not being able to come up with an agreement regard to any matter after one year of talks. This is the truth and both the Government delegation and the TNA delegation are clearly aware of this.

Q: Will there be a change in your position if the Government continues pressurising the TNA to submit PSC nominees?

A: At present our decision stands.

Q: So far what have you achieved through these bilateral talks?

A: So far we have achieved nothing. We have engaged in these talks in the belief that we will be able to work out a political solution. How can we achieve anything without engaging in the talks? We can’t come to a decision unless we engage in the talks.

In a situation when the war has come to an end and the Government does not have to deal with an extreme position of the Tamil side, we were prepared to play a moderate role. We were entrusted with the responsibilities by our people democratically to play that role and bring this conflict to an end. But the Government does not seem to be genuinely interested in availing itself of this opportunity.

Q: Why do you need separate land and Police powers? Why can’t you agree to share these powers?

A: Police and land powers are powers that are given to any devolved unit in any arrangement constitutionally for the sharing of power. Examination of several constitutions the world over will reflect this position.

Even the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagan Pact signed in 1957 contemplated the selection of allottees for State land in the Northern and Eastern Provinces being entrusted to regional councils. The security of the Tamil people even in the Northern and Eastern Provinces has been one of the gravest concerns.

If a regional body is to function effectively within its area of competence it is fundamental that that body must have adequate power over law and order within civil authority. This is the pattern of governance that prevails where there is shared power in all parts of the world. This is not something new.

Q: But the Government claims that the cry for separate land and Police powers is only by the TNA in order to gain political advantages and that people in north and east are pleased with the development that is taking place. Your views?

A: A government in a country is installed on basis of the democratic wishes of the people. It is utterly unreasonable and irresponsible for a Government which has been installed in power by the democratic wishes of the people to take up this position, because in our areas the Tamil people have democratically chosen us.

When we speak, we speak on their behalf and with their authority. We reflect their aspirations and their wishes. It is irresponsible on the part of the Government to say that it is the TNA that wants devolution of power and not the people.

The Government must respect the democratic verdict of the Tamil people. These verdicts have been consistently delivered in favour of the TNA and it precursors since 1956, for over 50 years. The Government must respond to the democratic verdict of the Tamil people.

Today the Government is engaged in a process of changing rapidly the demographic composition of the Northern and Eastern Provinces in order to stifle the democratic thinking and wishes of Tamil people. In fact it is our view that the Government is delaying the evolution of a reasonable political solution, enabling it to complete its agenda of altering a demographic composition.

TNA Leader and Parliamentarian R. Sampanthan

Q: Why do you expect these changes to take place immediately? It’s been only three years since the war has ended. The Government is engaged in a massive development process. Don’t you think that by pressurising the Government, you are trying to destabilise the development that is taking place in northern and eastern areas?

A: It has been three years since the war ended and the war lasted for 30 years. Why did the war start? What was the cause of the conflict? The Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact was signed in 1957; the Dudley Senanayake-Chelvanayagam Pact was signed in 1965.

Haven’t the Tamil people been waiting more than 60 years for an honourable political solution? During these 60 years have there not been serious demographic changes in the Eastern Province? Is the Government not engaged in making such demographic changes in Northern Province rapidly?

If power is not shared, if this conflict is not ended, would not the program of the Government to demographically alter the composition of the Northern and Eastern Provinces become a fake country?

The quality of life of our people in the north and the east has not changed in any way after the conclusion of the war. The armed forces’ inclusion in the lives of our people is very oppressive. Civilian administration in the Northern and Eastern Provinces is almost non-existent.

Why does the Government have two military officials as Governors of the Northern and Eastern Provinces? Why does the Government have a retired military official as the Government Agent of Trincomalee? Are these not pawns in the rapid pursuit of an agenda the Government has? Their current development activity will only result in the voice of the Tamil speaking people in the Northern and Eastern Provinces being silenced once and for all.

I hope the Government will realise that it must change its policies and become more honest and transparent. This Government must perform, it must deliver.

Q: Is there a rift in the TNA?

A: The Government is trying its best to bring about a rift in the TNA. One of our Members of Parliament was a Sinhalese from Ampara District. When he applied for nomination, there were people from that area who did not want to give him nominations because he was a Sinhalese. But we gave him nominations. He was elected with the largest number of preferential votes. But the Government stole him from us.

Is it fair for a Government to lift a member from a party like ours – from a party primarily fighting for the rights of Tamil people who gave nominations to a Sinhala person? Now the Government is trying to induce our other members to join the Government.

However, the Government will not succeed, because we are united for a certain cause in the interest of our people. Although the Government is spearing all kinds of canards and trying to divide us, they will not succeed. We will like to ask the Government to refrain from such ugly conduct.