CONTENTS
OF THIS SECTION
Last updated
23/11/07 |
|
Tracking New Delhi's
Pursuit of its Strategic Interests... |
|
1.Narayan Swamy in Hindustan Times -
Western diplomats must boycott LTTE, says Colombo, 27 August 2005 |
|
2.
The Spin and Swing of
RAW Orchestra - Sachi Sri Kantha, 27 August 2005 |
|
3.P.K.Balachandran in Hindustan Times -
India
& Sri Lanka Opposition agree on Peace Process , 25
August 2005
" New Delhi is said to be unhappy with the
performance of the "co-chair" of the June 2003 Tokyo Aid
Lanka conference. The co-chair (US, EU,
Japan and Norway) have arrogated to themselves a role not
assigned to them. They style themselves as the
"international community" and strut about as the "co-chair
of the Sri Lankan peace process".
more |
| 4. Sachi Sri Kantha -
Pigs are Flying in
Batticaloa!, 28 July 2005 |
| 5.
யாழ்ப்பாணத்தில் 'றோ'வின் கண்கள்
-
New Delhi's RAW in Jaffna, 1 April 2005 |
| 6.
Tsunami & the "Killing" of Pirapaharan! - New
Delhi's RAW & the Media...
7 January 2005 |
| 7.Sachi Sri Kantha -
The RAW Factor in Col.Karuna's Revolt, 1 April 2004 |
| 8.
Jyotindra Nath Dixit,
Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka 1985 /89,
Foreign Secretary in 1991/94 and National
Security Adviser to the Prime Minister of India 2004/05 - in
1998 Seminar in Switzerland "...Tamil militancy
received (India's) support ...as a response to
(Sri Lanka's).. concrete and expanded military and
intelligence cooperation with the United States, Israel
and Pakistan. ...The assessment was that these presences
would pose a strategic threat to India and they would
encourage fissiparous movements in the southern states
of India. .. a process which could have found
encouragement from Pakistan and the US, given India's
experience regarding their policies in relation to
Kashmir and the Punjab.... Inter-state
relations are not governed by the logic of
morality. They were and they remain an
amoral phenomenon....." |
|
Norwegian Peace Initiative
India & Sri Lanka Opposition agree on Peace Process
says P.K.Balachandran in Hindustan Times
25 August 2005
"According to sources, the Indian
leaders expressed concern about the "over
internationalisation" of the Sri Lankan peace process.
... New Delhi is said to be unhappy with the performance
of the "co-chair" of the June 2003 Tokyo Aid Lanka
conference. The co-chair (US, EU, Japan and Norway) have
arrogated to themselves a role not assigned to them.
They style themselves as the "international community"
and strut about as the "co-chair of the Sri Lankan peace
process". India feels that they have been pampering the
LTTE a bit too much and have been ineffective..."
[See also
Western diplomats must boycott LTTE, says Colombo -
Narayan Swamy in Hindustan Times, 27 August 2005]
India and the United National Party (UNP),
Sri Lanka's main opposition group, have a common perspective
on the peace process in the island as well as Sri
Lanka-India relations.
The commonalities came out during the visit of the UNP
leader Ranil Wickremesinghe to New Delhi between August 16
and 18. He and his advisors met Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh, National
Security Advisor MK Narayanan and the Chairperson of the
ruling United Peoples' Alliance (UPA) Sonia Gandhi.
Both sides agreed that the peace process must be continued
and the ceasefire maintained. Both saw an urgent need to
address the immediate humanitarian and development needs of
the war-ravaged North Eastern Province (NEP), so as to pave
the way for the resumption of peace talks suspended since
April 2003.
India, which has an abiding interest in the maintenance of
the unity, integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka, and which
lends support to democracy and pluralism, was happy to hear
the UNP delegation saying that friendship with India was the
"cornerstone" of the party's foreign policy. India also
found the UNP's approach to its involvement in the peace
process as being reasonable and practical. As
Wickremesinghe's confidante, Milinda Moragoda, says: "India
should do what it is comfortable with."
Wickremesinghe found in Dr Singh a kindred soul, as both
believe in the importance of broad-based economic
development in countering militancy and separatism. Both
believe in creating a social, political and economic
environment in which militancy and separatism cannot thrive.
It was during Wickremesinghe's stewardship of the Sri Lankan
government as Prime Minister between December 2001 and April
2004, that for the first time in decades, a serious attempt
was made to develop the war-ravaged North East as a
foundation for lasting peace.
Under the peace process, Wickremesinghe had jointly
established with the LTTE, a sub-committee on the Immediate
Humanitarian and Rehabilitation Needs (SIHRN) of the North
East. This structure was to administer as many as 672 grass
roots level development projects worth about $75 million.
But unfortunately, the structure collapsed after a few
months, when the LTTE complained that it lacked teeth and
adequate autonomy, and boycotted its meetings, rendering it
defunct. Wickremesinghe, however, was unfazed.
Interestingly, though its boycott led to the collapse of
SIHRN, the LTTE has consistently stressed the need to
address the "urgent humanitarian needs" and the "existential
problems" of the Tamil people in the North East, to use the
phrases popularised by the outfit's chief negotiator, Anton
Balasingham.
The LTTE says that its proposal for an Interim Self
Governing Authority (ISGA) for the North Eastern Province,
made in October-November 2003, and its efforts to get the
Post-Tsunami Organisational Management Structure (P-TOMS) in
2005, rest on the desire to address the urgent humanitarian
needs of the long-suffering Tamil people.
According to sources, the Indian leaders expressed concern
about the "over internationalisation" of the Sri Lankan
peace process. The Indians (the present Congress-led
Government as well as the previous Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP)-led Government) have been of the view that any
solution to the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict will have to be a
"home grown" one, developed through direct negotiations
between the two parties, namely, the Sri Lankan Government
and the LTTE, and taking into account the basic tenets of
democracy, pluralism and human, fundamental and individual
rights.
New Delhi is said to be unhappy with the performance of the
"co-chair" of the June 2003 Tokyo Aid Lanka conference. The
co-chair (US, EU, Japan and Norway) have arrogated to
themselves a role not assigned to them. They style
themselves as the "international community" and strut about
as the "co-chair of the Sri Lankan peace process". India
feels that they have been pampering the LTTE a bit too much
and have been ineffective.
But having brought the international community into the
peace process, the UNP is committed to its presence in the
process. The "co-chair" are its creation also. However,
there is no doubt that the UNP will want the co-chair to be
firm with the LTTE in case it became intransigent and
crossed the limits. The UNP has now worked out a division of
labour between Norway, the official facilitator of the peace
process, and the co-chair. It wants Norway to be the
"facilitator" and the co-chair to be a "pressure group".
It is learnt that the UNP wanted India to be part of this
"pressure group". If India could not be part of the
co-chair, the co-chair might device a system or mechanism to
consult and co-opt India in its work, the UNP suggested. New
Delhi was apparently willing to examine this suggestion.
For its own reasons, the LTTE too is wary about the
international community. Earlier, it had sought the
international community's participation in the peace process
and is even now using it to the hilt to safeguard its
interest vis-à-vis the Sri Lankan state. But there is an
underlying fear that the international community may turn
out to be a millstone around its neck, an instrument to
force it to accept proposals antithetical to its political
interests and goals. This is why the LTTE boycotted the June
2003 Tokyo Aid Lanka conference, which laid down the basic
parameters of the Sri Lankan peace settlement.
When the Wickremesinghe Government put in place an
"International Safety Net", Anton Balasingham had said that
the peace process was "over internationalised" and that
Wickremesinghe was using the "International Safety Net" to
subjugate the LTTE and make it accept unacceptable
conditions.
India is very keen that there is a bi-partisan Sri Lankan
approach to the peace process. For long, there has been no
consensus between President Chandrika Kumaratunga's Sri
Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the UNP. They let each other
down at crucial moments and stymied attempts to resolve the
ethnic question. What the UNP did to the SLFP's
constitutional proposals in 2000, the SLFP did to the peace
process in 2002-2004.
The Indians urged Wickremesinghe to work with Kumaratunga as
she could play a key and useful role in the peace process.
India is of the view that Kumaratunga is genuinely
interested in establishing peace, democracy and ethnic
equity in Sri Lanka and that her past actions testify to
this.
UNP sources said that the party had proposals to co-opt
Kumaratunga and reward her for her cooperation. And
cooperation is already underway in some critical matters.
The UNP extended to Kumaratunga full support for her
proposal to establish P-TOMS, a Joint Mechanism involving
the government and the LTTE to do post-tsunami
reconstruction in the North East. More recently, after the
assassination of Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, the
UNP extended support to Kumaratunga for her bid to continue
with the peace process and maintain the ceasefire.
Of course, Wickremesinghe and Kumaratunga are at loggerheads
over the date for the next Presidential election. The former
wants it in November 2005, while the latter wants it in
November 2006. If elected President, Wickremesinghe plans to
dissolve Parliament, thereby removing the minority SLFP-led
government. But at the same time, the two have a vital
common interest in keeping the belligerently Sinhala
nationalist and ultra leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
(JVP) out of the corridors of power.
Kumaratunga had contacted Wickremesinghe and made proposals
for collaboration to keep the JVP at bay, but to no avail.
And yet, hopes of collaboration are alive. Political sources
say that a challenge from a new political quarter like the
JVP and the Buddhist monks'party, Jathika Hela Urumaya
(JHU), may eventually force the two parties to collaborate. |
|
|
