When does facilitation begin and end?

The Norwegian representative to the Sri Lankan conflict, Mr. Eric Solheim, in the role of a facilitator, arrived in Colombo yesterday presumably to continue with his efforts to find a solution to the conflict. He was reported to have been in India last week for 'consultations' with the Indian government and perhaps also with 'interested Indian parties' to the Sri Lankan conflict.

The recent 'advice' proffered to Sri Lanka on our problem by donor western nations at the Development Forum that was held in Paris two weeks ago and consultations of Mr. Solheim with the Indians reveal the extent to which this conflict has been internationalised despite strong resistance by successive Sri Lankan governments. But the homilies delivered to Sri Lanka in Paris and the so-called facilitator visiting New Delhi and perhaps even Chennai demonstrate that Sri Lanka is losing the grip on the situation. In the eighties, Sri Lanka strongly resisted attempts by India to regionalise and internationalise the conflict but was beaten down by Indian military aggression. Having said 'no' to foreign mediators but having accepted a facilitator, President Kumaratunga and Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar should be particularly alert on the extent to which other nations are claiming a stake on this issue.

In the adjoining article on this page, a correspondent comments on an interview granted by the Norwegian representative to an Indian media organisation and the subsequent clarification issued by Deputy Foreign Minister of Norway through the Norwegian Embassy in Colombo. The correspondent clearly points out that the liberties taken by the Norwegians disqualify them from playing the role of a facilitator.

'Facilitator' and 'Mediator' are not terms which Sri Lankans are familiar with and now it is time that the meaning of these terms be very clearly spelt out in the interests of Sri Lanka. When the government of President Kumaratunga said they were prepared to accept a 'facilitator' did it mean a representative of a nation that would initiate the talks and bow out thereafter or go further such as in preparing the agenda? Or does it mean that the facilitator will continue to be involved in the process to the end by becoming a mediator? These are vital issues to be resolved at this stage.

The recent unilateral declaration of a cease-fire by the terrorists also needs elucidation. Was Norway, whom the LTTE appears to have much confidence in, informed of it? Certainly, the Sri Lankan government was surprised and said that this proposal had not come through the facilitator. This raises the question whether Norway was informed but did not convey it to the Sri Lanka government. Whether Norway was informed of it or not, the LTTE did score on the propaganda front by springing this proposal on the government.

To the na•ve and even the politically sophisticated, a cease-fire, prima facie is something to be welcomed heartily. A cease-fire is generally considered a harbinger to peace. A cease-fire, however is a complicated issue that has to be worked out by diplomats and professional soldiers over a period of time. This is certainly the case if a cease- fire is to become effective in Sri Lanka's Northern and Eastern Provinces. The instant support extended to the cease-fire by Colombo's well-funded NGOs was only to be expected. They do sing to the tunes of their masters' voices. But what is surprising is that even some western nations and a South Asian nation too had backed the instant cease- fire proposal. There is speculation in diplomatic circles that this cease-fire proposal is likely to surface this week, probably with the backing of our facilitator.

Whether this proposal surfaces or not President Kumaratunga as the leader of the sovereign state has to take into consideration the long term interests of the nation. She cannot barter away the gains made by the armed services at great cost and thousands of lives. This is something that Johnnies-come-lately into the Sri Lankan conflict may not be able to understand.

Norwegians, who considered themselves as able peacemakers of our times, have enough of lessons to learn from, particularly from Palestine where their much-touted peace now lies in shambles. Ten years ago, the Palestinians accepted an unequal peace after the Soviet Union, the superpower that supported them, crumbled. But when it came to the Palestinians or the Israelis surrendering what they considered of fundamental importance to them, it was the end of the flawed peace process.

The pressure will be on the government now to get the peace process under the aegis of the Norwegians going. The first thing that should be cleared up is the role of the facilitator and when that role ends or whether it is going to end.

Your comments to the Editor