The GOSL and the LTTE have signed an MoU and entered into what is known as a peace process. The chief negotiator of the GOSL team Prof. G. L. Peiris used to call it a structured process.

Prof. Peiris, of course can give many different definitions and interpretations to words and phrases, but I have to depend on the dictionary for them. The best definitions of the words in my opinion are:

1. Process —A systematic series of actions directed to some end, i. a continuous action, operation or series of changes taking place in a definite manner. 2. Structure — Mode of building, construction or organisation; arrangement of parts, elements or constituents 3. Structured having and manifesting a clearly defined structured organisation (Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary).

Going by these definitions if the peace process was a "structured process" as claimed, the GOSL negotiators should have had a very clear (clearly defined) understanding of the problem, the purpose of the talks and known how to proceed. They should have listed the sub issues in order of importance and discussed the core issues first without picking the issues at random to please the LTTE which acted according to its own agenda.

The LTTE should not have been made to feel that the GOSL team had any fear about it withdrawing from talks if the latter refused to give in to all its demands. They should also have realised that with the backing of the international community especially after the attack on WTC on September 11th, GOSL was in a position of strength and that the LTTE would not have ever tried to scuttle the peace process for fear of reprisals. But they miserably failed to do that. They also should have insisted and ensured that the LTTE did nothing to increase their bargaining power in any manner whatsoever.

But unfortunately the GOSL negotiators had neither a clear understanding of the problem nor knew the purpose of the talks or how to proceed. They only wanted to praise the LTTE for holding onto the peace process and keep the people mesmerised with that asbandun.

They acted like the blind men who described the elephant and as seen from the results of the four sessions of talks they have given into all the demands of the LTTE allowing it to consolidate its positions by amassing arms, conscripting children as soldiers, building up financial resources through unauthorised taxes, putting in place all the infrastructure of a civil administration and creating the basic conditions for the division of the country and the establishment of the Eelam. The GOSL in the meantime agreed to obtain foreign loans for resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the North and the East the repayment of which will have to be borne solely by the people of the south once the Eelam is established because all the taxes in the area will be collected by the Eelam state.

Now at the end of the fourth session, the LTTE chief negotiator says that Black Tigers must remain as bargaining power and arms will be laid down only after reaching a final solution. This assertion speaks volumes about the sincerity of the terrorists. It is also widely, admitted that very little was achieved during the fourth session but Prof. Peiris says that the talks were very successful.

Our negotiators, wise as they are, had no agenda, no action plan and were thoroughly unprepared to meet the LTTE. It was an absolutely shoddy, haphazard job, only dancing to the tune of the LTTE.

It is now crystal clear to all right thinking people that it was the LTTE that stuck to a structured process not the GOSL team.
S. Abeywickrama
Nugegoda