Q: While the government celebrated one year of the ceasefire agreement, the LTTE led hartals in the North and the East saying that the MoU should be fully implemented. Why is the disparity in this coin of peace?

What the LTTE does on the ground is one thing; what it says for public consumption is another. The real problem is which agenda of the LTTE is the true one. Nobody is sure because it is very difficult to read the LTTE’s mind. It has always been difficult over the years and remains difficult. There is a mismatch between what is happening on the ground and the public statements that are made on international platforms. The hartals are a good example of that. It was in a sense sad to see a great deal of celebration in the South on the ceasefire, and hartals in the North. The fact that they did occur shows that the government and the LTTE do not see the picture in the same way. The government is being more optimistic than the facts warrant. It wants to see only the rosy side of the picture.

Q: Why do you think the government is keeping silent when the LTTE is blatantly violating the ceasefire agreement and the MoU?

This is because the government is handling the LTTE in a very gingerly fashion for fear of upsetting them, for fear that they might get up from the table and go away. I think the government is overdoing this. It need not go that far. The government has very strong cards in its hands. It has the post September situation, it has the proscriptions, it has diaspora and donor fatigue, war weariness on all sides, encouraging statements being made by the donor community. I think the government should use these cards much more forcefully than they are doing at the moment. I don’t think the LTTE can lightly get up from the table and go away. If the government is fearful of that I think it is an exaggerated fear because it suits the LTTE very much better to proceed as they are proceeding now, strengthening themselves on the ground, using the ceasefire to the maximum, getting from the government as much as they can, aiming to get as much money as possible for rehabilitation purposes and so on. They would like to go on like that. The government should not be frightened of being stern with the LTTE from time to time.

Q: Do you mean to say that the government is discussing from a position of weakness rather than a position of strength?

That is how it occurs to me. On the military side there is a stalemate but as I said these cards the government has gives them a certain moral authority and it should not be afraid of exerting it. I don’t think over solicitous concern for the LTTE is going to pay dividends. I am not saying that the government should adopt a hostile or a threatening posture. Let us be perfectly honest. Negotiations are a kind of poker game. Parties are sitting at a table trying to extract the best possible deal for themselves. The LTTE is doing that. The government must see it like that and do likewise. The government must not adopt the attitude that we must give to the LTTE everything it wants in order to keep them happy, in order to prevent them from going back to war. It is not the right approach. The government must be realistic. Knowing that the LTTE wants to extract the best possible deal for themselves the government must be alert to that fact and it must not accept a deal which would damage the long term interest of the country as a whole.

Q: You led the campaign to ban the LTTE in a number of countries and your efforts to block funding to the LTTE internationally were somewhat successful. There seems to be an informal move to get the ban lifted beginning with Canada. How do you assess the situation now?

I think the LTTE definitely wants to have all the bans lifted. It is very important to them to get themselves legitimized and to use the good offices of the government of Sri Lanka to help them in that process. They have set their sights on getting de-proscribed in the UK, on getting off the list of foreign terrorist organisations in the US and in all the other countries as soon as possible. If they achieve that goal their funding would be restored and they would once again enjoy a free flow of funds. Funding is very important to them; obviously arms are purchased from the funds they collect from abroad. Foreign currency is important to them to buy arms.

Q: Professor Peiris says that the critics of the peace process are saying that the government has given legitimacy to the LTTE without the LTTE laying down a single weapon. How do you see the situation?

Yes, that is what the critics are saying, and they are right.

Q: Are not confidence building measures necessary? Certainly in the initial stages of the ceasefire it was necessary to adopt certain measures that would build confidence and restore normalcy. This government has done for more than was necessary and gone very far down the road to please the LTTE including agreeing to a ceasefire agreement which is gravely unbalanced. The armed services have been put to serious disadvantage. There is no doubt about that. I don’t think this government can be expected to do more in terms of confidence building. So the question is how long are we going to carry on with confidence building measures? The simple question is this: after 20 years of conflict has the LTTE still not decided whether it wants to live with the rest of the country under a suitable constitutional arrangement? If they are still not decided on that, then it means they are putting the rest of the country on probation. What they are saying is: "you satisfy us that we can live with you; we are not going to do anything special to satisfy you that you can live with us. The ball is in your court. So you do all the confidence building; we do not need to do any confidence building on our part." I don’t see that the LTTE is doing much to build confidence in the rest of the population of Sri Lanka. Surely, confidence building must be a two way process. What have they done? They have agreed to a ceasefire. They probably see that as a favour they have granted to the rest of the country. A ceasefire is very good. But the LTTE is also making good use of the ceasefire. Under cover of the ceasefire, they are strengthening themselves on the ground, building up their armed forces, recruiting children. Their Navy is very active. They are smuggling arms; there is no doubt about that. They have banks, law courts, an administration, a taxation system. They are allowing no space for other political parties to function. They do not tolerate any form of dissent. Their refusal to allow the Jaffna Library to be opened is the most recent example of their high-handed attitude. All this is going on while the ceasefire is in force. It is time now for the LTTE to show seriousness of purpose in resolving the problem finally. That cannot be done unless they agree to talk about important substantive issues, mainly the structure of the state, the question of merger and de-merger, the Muslim question, human rights, parliamentary democracy, the toleration of dissent, the requirements of a plural society and the de-commissioning of arms. All these issues are vital. It is foolish to believe that you can tackle this problem finally without talking about decommissioning of arms. Nobody is saying that they must decommission immediately. What people are saying is that you must put decommissioning on the agenda. The Good Friday agreement in Ireland, had decommissioning on the agenda from day one and still the problem is not resolved. So if you keep on putting off the day when you are going to tackle the question of de-commissioning you are going to create a very difficult situation in the country. For how many years will the LTTE continue to retain and expand its standing army and standing navy ?

I understand there is some evidence that they are creating a rudimentary air force. If the Palali air base ever falls into their hands it is certain that they will build an air force. It would be very dangerous and very foolish not to bring these questions up. You can tackle them in a reasonable way. But they cannot be put off any longer.

Q: You have been critical of the role played by the Norwegian government in the recent past. However the Norwegian led SLMM have come in for a lot of praise by the Sri Lankans for their impartiality. How do you see this role?

The Norwegian role has been patchy. We engaged them in 1998 purely to facilitate talks between the government and the LTTE. Certainly mediation was completely out. Now we find the Norwegians playing a huge role. Doubts have occurred from time to time whether the Norwegians are tilting towards the LTTE. The Norwegians seem not to be totally impartial. Their agreement to act as consignees for radio equipment to the LTTE was a case in point. A sovereign government should never have agreed to help our government in that way, which is obviously contrary to our law. That has given cause for concern. On the other hand, there have been occasions where they have been impartial. For instance, their reaction to the LTTE’s demand for the dismantling of high security zones. The monitors came out very strongly against such a demand. They said that the balance of forces must not be disturbed during a ceasefire.

Q: The government has allowed the LTTE to move about freely in government controlled areas but if any of the security forces members go to areas under the control of the LTTE they are taken in to custody. How do you see this double standard?

This is the imbalance of the ceasefire agreement. The ceasefire agreement is very much to the advantage of the LTTE. What happened was that the Army was asked to relocate from various strategic points. The Army is now at a considerable disadvantage. The LTTE made a very arrogant demand for dismantling the high security zones under the guise of resettling the displaced persons there. General Fonseka submitted a report pointing out the problems that will arise with regard to the dismantling of the HSZ. The LTTE is determined to extract the maximum advantage from the situation. For instance, the right of other political parties in the North to conduct their political activities were guaranteed by the ceasefire agreement, but they are not being allowed to do so. That shows that the LTTE does not tolerate dissent. Then you take the Jaffna library opening. What a high-handed act. They did not want anybody else to get any kind of credit for it at all although they showed no interest in the reconstruction work. In fact, reconstruction work started and went very far under the previous government. The TULF’s request to open the library before their term in the Municipal Council was up was perfectly legitimate. The TULF is a democratic party elected to Parliament.

Q: Minister G. L. Peiris has asked the anti peace groups to give alternatives. What do you think the alternatives are? Are there any at all?

If it were said that the alternative is going to war, I would say categorically no. War in self-defense yes. If the LTTE attacks the government, certainly the government must retaliate. But, I don’t envisage a situation where the government will go to war. The solution has to be on the lines of a negotiated settlement. That is what the PA has always been saying. The question is what kind of agreement are we going to get? The question is really the price tag. What is the cost of peace going to be? Are we going to have an unbalanced peace, a patchwork type of peace, which is peace for the sake of peace? No war does not mean peace. Peace means that there has to be a solution forged, hammered out to the satisfaction of all the people of the country. The LTTE cannot be allowed to have its own way. The government must not put itself in a position where it is more concerned with what the LTTE gets than what the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims get. That is a wrong approach. The government must fight hard to get a settlement which satisfies everybody. There must be justice and fair play otherwise you wont have a durable settlement. You will create more problems than you are trying to solve and you will be storing up problems for the future. So when the government talks about alternatives, what we say is that you must negotiate for a hardheaded peace. A practical peace. When the government has not yet come out with any solution there is no use asking others for alternatives.

Q: Why do the Tamils hate you so much? Many say that you have betrayed their cause?

Those who say so believe in a separate state in this country. They will see me as a person who is against the separation of this country. I do not believe that the ethnic communities in our country should have "causes". I believe fundamentally that there should be a united Sri Lanka, which must be a multi-ethnic, multi religious society. I am totally against any divisions, exclusive homelands for some. I am for a solution which allows all Sri Lankans to move freely in this country.

Even the Prime Minister has said that there is no such thing as a homeland. He has said that the 25,000 square miles of Sri Lanka are everybody’s homeland. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that some Tamils accuse me of betraying their cause. I regard myself as a Sri Lankan. I do not consider myself a Tamil first and then a Sri Lankan. It has been the competing claims of exaggerated ethnicity that have caused so much trouble for all of us.

Q: Reports say that Prabakaran’s son has been issued with a national identity card and a passport. Don’t you think it is a good sign and an acceptance of one Sri Lanka? Also there are reports that he is planning to send his son abroad for education.

Clearly he is using the state of Sri Lanka as a convenience. His son needs a passport for which he needs a national identity card and, therefore, he needs a State. He can get a forged passport but it would be better to get a legal one from a solicitous and obliging government. While he is fighting the State, and talking of separation and so on, when it comes to practical considerations like how to get his son out of the country those considerations do not matter. What matters is getting a Sri Lankan passport. I don’t think that we should overdo the euphoria that he is accepting the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. He will do so when it suits him. Mr. Prabhakaran can afford to send his son abroad. There are millions of parents who can’t afford that huge luxury because education in the West is very expensive. As for the child soldiers, there is one law for those poor children, another for Mr. Prabhakaran’s son.

Q: In your opinion is India really with Sri Lanka now or just watching the developments from far?

It depends on what you mean by being "with Sri Lanka". India stands clearly for a negotiated solution to our problem, which accommodates the aspirations of all our communities, consistent with the territorial integrity unity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. They have been consistent about that stand for several years. At one time they were talking more about the rights of the Tamil people. But that has changed. I don’t think they are happy about what is happening in the North and the East today. What they would do about it remains to be seen. But there cannot be any constitutional arrangement here which India cannot live with. In the final analysis India is the only country that counts as far as a solution to Sri Lanka’s problem is concerned. It is the only country which has a legitimate and permanent stake in the destiny of Sri Lanka. The other countries will come and go. The solution ultimately has to be worked out by the people of our country, and India will always have a legitimate interest and concern in what happens here. We must never lose sight of the geo-political realities of Sri Lanka’s location in the South Asian region.

Q: How do you see the role played by the West and the wisdom of the government relying on the West so much?

I think the government should not give the impression that it is totally committed to a western approach to the solution to our problem. A degree of international support is certainly important in our efforts to resolve our problem. Fighting global terrorism requires a global effort. So the government is right to enlist as much international support as it can, but it would be unwise for the government to rely too much on Western countries because ultimately they have no stake here. They are not going to be here, permanently. Some day Norway and all the others will have to go away. They will have to disengage. The solution that is worked out must fundamentally be acceptable to all the people of Sri Lanka. There is no substitute for that. The government is foolish to say that the problem has to be resolved between the present government and the LTTE. Every Sri Lankan is, and must be, involved in the solution if it is to be durable. Nobody, no other party, no other country can be allowed to impose a solution on us, or engineer one, which is not totally acceptable to us. We are the final arbiters of our destiny. As I say India is the only other country which has a legitimate, and a lasting, stake in the future of Sri Lanka.

Q: Is your party and the President fully supportive of the peace process? If not what is your alternative? Would you also talk to the LTTE to find a solution acceptable to both sides.

The concept of the peace process is obviously something which we support. President Kumaratunga started it. The peace process means the process of getting the LTTE involved in negotiations. That process must go on. Today we have reached a stage where it is not the process that is so important. The process is going on. The big question is what is the end result, what is the future shape of the country going to be. The opposition reserves the right to comment, and make observations, on and raise the necessary questions and criticisms regarding the direction of the peace process. We are certainly in favour of the process. But there can be no blank cheque in regard to the ultimate result. In a Parliamentary system of government the opposition must ask the hard questions. It is very short-sighted for anyone to say that asking questions is obstructing the "peace process".

Why do you think the LTTE does not trust the Opposition?

If this supposition is correct it would be because the LTTE feels that they are getting a very good deal from the present government and probably will not get the same kind of deal from the Opposition. The Opposition is certainly much more alert to the totality of the interests of the country in the long term.

Q: Would there be war again then with all this distrust and so on?

I don’t see that happening immediately. But the LTTE cannot be allowed to dictate terms to the rest of the country by saying we will deal only with one party and not with the other party. That is totally unacceptable. It would be a mark of their malafides if they say we will only deal with one party and we will go to war, as Balasingham has said, if the Opposition comes to office. That would be totally inconsistent with their expressed wish to forge a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be forged with one party. One of the flaws in the present peace process is that the UNF government is dealing with the LTTE to the exclusion of everybody else. It is not healthy. If the LTTE takes that approach, well then they must go to war. But I am convinced that if they really want a permanent peace, which is by no means self-evident, they will deal with whoever is in office in the South.