Location of peace talks

The government is said to be considering Madhu as the location of preliminary talks with the LTTE. There is little ground for the LTTE to object to this location as Madhu is under its control. Anton Balasingham wants a location closer to the Wanni so that he can be in touch with the LTTE during negotiations. This is the reason the LTTE cited when it requested the Indian government to host the talks. No other venue could have been more convenient to the chief negotiator of the LTTE, Balasingham than Madhu for this purpose. Madhu is in the Wanni itself.

The LTTE’s efforts to involve India as host and observer in talks so as to gain legitimacy there having come a cropper, there is no reason why it should not agree to the government’s suggestion.

As for talks it is not so much the venue that matters most. It is rather the substance of talks and the timeframe within which to evolve a solution. In the past, we have had talks in different locations. They have been held abroad (Thimpu), in Colombo and in Jaffna (then under LTTE control). All such talks were in vain because of the LTTE’s intransigence. That the LTTE’s real intent in having talks is far from making peace is too obvious to merit elaboration. It is biding time and trying to avoid more bans being slapped on it overseas.

Wherever talks are held, those who advocate a negotiated settlement will have to keep the Tigers tethered to the negotiating table. As the Tigers are marking time, it is essential that a timeframe be worked out and talks begin before long. The longer talks drag on, the less the chances for peace.

On all previous occasions, we have seen this happen. There is no point in having long-drawn talks on rehabilitation and reconstruction or allied matters. Initial discussions of modalities need not take inordinately a long time. The Norwegians have been in touch with the LTTE long enough to know what it has in mind by way of talks. It need not take so long for them to know what the government wants either.

There is also no need for the Norwegians to meet Balasingham over and over again in London. Such visits only make a mockery of the stand of the Blair government on global terrorism. Of these meetings between Balasingham and the Norwegians in London notwithstanding the ban, the question that is being asked here is whether it is only terrorism involving Islam that the West will crack down on.

The futility, if not danger, of talking peace with terrorists without a timeframe and a proper focus on main issues with a view to finding a solution, could be seen from Colombia’s experience. President Andres Pastrana thought enough is enough about a week ago having had talks for three years with the 17,000-member strong Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). He asked them to leave the demilitarised zone. The FARC had walked away from talks.

Pastrana attributed the collapse of talks to the FARC ‘continuing to place obstacles in the way of the peace process, making it impossible to go forward.’(This is exactly what the LTTE too is doing by pressing for deproscription etc.)

Thus, were shattered the hopes of Pastrana, who had staked his presidency on solving his country’s 37-year old conflict. He had sought to make peace with terrorists against warnings by the US, which made no bones of its aversion to his talks with FARC, which was thriving on cocaine trade. The US granted $ 1.1 billion about two years ago to Pastrana to combat the FARC-led narcotic trade in Colombia. (But the US wants Sri Lanka to talk peace with the LTTE, whose main source of income, according to the US State Department, is narcotics trade and gun running.)

Wherever talks are held, be it Madhu, Colombo or abroad, their success will depend on the ability of the Western world, where the LTTE’s war is being funded, to force the LTTE to give up terrorism as well as Eelam and be amenable to a negotiated settlement.

Your comments to the Editor