14^th March 2002

 

JOINT STATEMENT FROM SRI LANKAN ORGANISATIONS IN AUSTRALIA ON THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MoU) SIGNED BY SRI LANKA GOVERNMENT WITH TAMIL TIGERS.

Surrendering Democracy and Rewarding Terrorism

The Memorandum of Capitulation (MoC)

 

Preamble

Whilst welcoming the positive aspects contained in the document, we strongly believe that the process followed in developing the MoU, the role played by the Norwegian Government and a number of clauses contained in the document compromise the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unitary status of the Hela nation Sri Lanka.

If the peace that is ushered is to be long lasting, it must meet expectations of all Sri Lankans irrespective of their ethnicity, religious background or political allegiance.  We believe that aspirations for peace could be best achieved by defeating terrorism: either through military means or by using a combination of military means and dialogue.  We do not subscribe to the UNF Governments position that the path to peace lies solely through negotiations whilst discounting all other options. The democratically elected Government of Sri Lanka should not consider itself duty bound to negotiate with the LTTE, a proscribed terrorist organisation.  The Governments primary responsibility is to govern the country for all its citizens. It should not consider itself to be a captive of an armed fascist despot such as Prabakaran and abandon its most vulnerable citizens who seek liberation and protection from brutal LTTE terror.  Spin-doctors from the Government and the NGO lobby will continue to promote the positive virtues of the MoU.  However, the majority of peace loving citizens of the land will never condone capitulation to terrorism.

Process Followed

We consider the process followed by the UNF Government in developing the MoU to be fundamentally flawed.  The lack of consultation and subsequent failure of the Government to obtain approval to the MoU by the constitutional head of the state, her excellency the President, has made the MoU a focus of disunity and given currency to the existence of a secret pact between the LTTE and the UNF Government to divide and rule Sri Lanka.

The Norwegian's Role

The elevation of Norway from its facilitator position to a mediator's role, with the entrusted right to demarcate areas held by the illegal combatants is considered treacherous and unacceptable as it interferes in key aspects associated with governing a sovereign Nation.  Norway's history of 'bias’ in favour of LTTE's illegal combatants disqualifies it from occupying the primary role in monitoring the truce.  Its attempts to broker peace in the Middle East through the Oslo Accord lies in tatters with the Israelis and the Palestinians facing escalating violence.  Instead of rectifying the mess that it created in the Middle East, the Norwegian Government has now set its eyes on Sri Lanka as a grinding stone to sharpen its negotiation and mediation skills blunted and scared by the middle eastern fiasco.

Democracy and Terror

Although the LTTE from time to time has illegally occupied parts of the North and the East of Sri Lanka, previous Sri Lankan Government’s never recognised the right of the LTTE to rule these areas. A number of clauses in the MoU refer to areas controlled by the LTTE and boundaries drawn up by Norway within 30 days of the 'D-Day', thus treating a terrorist organisation on equal footing with the democratically elected lawful government of a sovereign nation.  The equal status accorded to the LTTE throughout the MoU is considered unjustifiable and unnecessary as the LTTE is yet to compromise on any of its racist thesis, including its reprehensible demand for a separate state.

The Flawed MoU

The UNF Government's eagerness to usher in peace has compelled them to be over generous to the LTTE terrorists, compromising the sovereignty of the Nation. This is abundantly clear if one analyses some of clauses in the MoU released by the Government.  In particular:

ARTICLE 1: MODALITIES OF A CEASEFIRE

Military Operations: 

• CLAUSE 1.2: The MoU states that neither party should resort to carrying out criminal activities such as assassinations, abductions, destruction of property etc.  There was no need for the MoU to specifically list these as criminal activities as they are characterised as crimes under Sri Lanka’s criminal law, and thus applicable to all Sri Lankans including the LTTE.  The banning of child soldiers and the forced conscription of civilians should have been made more explicit as Sri Lanka is a signatory to the United Nation’s Resolution on Banning Child Soldiers.  Why has the Government gone soft on the LTTE?

• CLAUSE 1.3: The armed forces are expected to safeguard the sovereignty of the nation without engaging in offensive action against the LTTE.  There is no other threat (either internally or externally) to the sovereignty of the Nation except from the LTTE.  There is indisputable evidence to prove continued smuggling of arms by the LTTE whilst the ceasefire was in place. The recent capture of arms destined for the LTTE in Thailand is damning evidence of Prabakaran’s military strategy, especially as it came after the signing of the MoU by the UNF Government.  Although the Government continues to state that the ceasefire is only valid on ‘land’ and that the Navy has the right to intercept any shipment carrying illegal arms, the ambiguity will continue to favour the LTTE.

 Separation of Forces

• CLAUSE 1.6: The MoU refers to “Parties providing information to the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) to draw up demarcation lines to designate areas under their respective control”.  As discussed in detail before, this tantamount to asking the citizens of a foreign country to draw up boundaries within a sovereign nation.  Furthermore, where there is contention, Norway will draw the boundaries in favour of the LTTE as the Norwegians are accused of being heavily biased in favour of the LTTE. The establishment of ‘Lines of Control’ is similar to what currently exists in India (in Kashmir), a line of dispute and a catalyst for ongoing violence.

• CLAUSE 1.8: The disarming of members of other Tamil political parties such as EPDP, TELO, EPRLF etc. is the price that members of these political parties have to pay for embracing democracy and renouncing violence.  The arms carried by members of these parties are critical for protecting their lives.  The defence of islands such as Kaytes, Karaitivu and Delft in the Jaffna peninsula and the intelligence provided by the cadres of these groups have been invaluable to Sri Lanka’s military. Clause 1.8 in the MoU has neutralised this advantage in favour of the LTTE.  The MoU has achieved for the LTTE (without firing a single bullet) an outcome that they were unable to achieve for close to two decades ie. Disarming their opponents.  The stipulation that non-LTTE paramilitary personnel absorbed by the Armed Services should not serve in the North and the East is unacceptable, in that a terrorist group cannot and must not dictate conditions for deploying Sri Lankan defence personnel.  Furthermore, this clause is in direct conflict with frequent demands by the Tamil community for more Tamil-speaking servicemen in the North and East.

 Freedom of Movement 

• CLAUSE 1.13: The MoU states that unarmed LTTE carders are permitted to travel freely to areas dominated and controlled by the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) for so called ‘political purposes’.  This is unacceptable as the GOSL is unable to even conduct a census of its population or conduct free and fair elections in areas illegally occupied by the LTTE in the North and East of Sri Lanka.  There has to be reciprocal rights granted to GOSL to carry out their duties as the legally elected Government in Sri Lanka entrusted for providing services to its citizens irrespective of where they live or be subjugated to illegal rule.

Further more, this so called freedom of movement allows the LTTE to gather and transmit intelligence on Sri Lanka’s military as well as permit the hoarding of illegal weapons in safe houses for spreading mayhem and chaos when the LTTE considered it opportune to do so.  Under the guise of ‘political work’, they will continue to go on a recruitment drive, glorifying the attacks against the GOSL and continue to promote Tamil racism and the ethnic cleansing of the Sinhala people from the North and East of Sri Lanka.  Already, LTTE ‘cultural events’ in cleared areas have been used to incite Tamil racism and separation, possibly with the objective of generating a backlash in the rest of Sri Lanka. 

ARTICLE 2: MEASURES TO RESTORE NORMALCY

 Protecting Places of Worship 

• CLAUSE 2.2: The GOSL’s forces provide security to many places of worship, so that pilgrims can conduct their activities free from the fear of LTTE terror.  This is especially true for locations such as the Sri Maha Bodiya in Anuradhapura and the Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy.  There is also evidence to support LTTE using places of worship as cover for their attacks on the military, especially in the North and East of Sri Lanka.  The Government of Sri Lanka should have retained the right of providing protection to its people at places of worship so that they can practice their religion free from fear.

Occupying Public Buildings 

• CLAUSE 2.3:  The GOSL forces also occupy former schools and other public buildings so that they are capable of operating effectively whilst protecting the civilians from LTTE terror.  Vacating of these premises will be seen by the populus as ‘abandonment by Government’, leaving them with no other choice but to conform with illegal LTTE rule as the alternative would be to perish by voicing descent.

 Freedom of Transport 

• CLAUSES 2.6 to 2.10:The MoU details a number of roads that will be opened.  These roads have not been in use by civilians and GOSL forces as they were controlled by the LTTE. The GOSL should have insisted that the LTTE provide unrestricted access to all roads in the North and East of Sri Lanka.  These roads are essential for the Government to provide services to its citizens and hence, to rely on LTTE’s whims and fancies to decide on what’s appropriate and what is not is demeaning to a legitimately elected Government.

• CLAUSE 2.11: The easing of unrestricted fishing activities in the North and East will assist the transhipment of illegal weapons by the LTTE and make policing the coast almost an impossible task for the stretched Sri Lanka’s navy.

 Searching for Illegal Weapons 

• CLAUSE 2.12: The parties agree under the MoU not to conduct search operations for illegal weapons and arrest people under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.  This Clause contravenes Clause 1.3 and inhibits the ability of the armed forces to protect the sovereignty of the Nation.  The forces are prevented from searching for illegal weapons hoarded by the LTTE for future use against GOSL forces, the civilians and Government infrastructure. The Prevention of Terrorism Act allows the forces to carryout surprise searches often assuring them of success.  The bureaucracy associated with criminal procedures will forewarn the terrorists thus negating the effectiveness of capturing illegal bombs and weapons hoarded by the LTTE.

ARTICLE3: THE MONITORING MISSION 

Composition of the Monitoring Mission 

• CLAUSES.3.2&3.5:The monitoring mission is to be headed by the Norwegians consisting representatives from Scandinavian countries.  The majority of people in Sri Lanka distrusts the Norwegians and consider Scandinavian countries to be biased in favour of the LTTE.  Furthermore the track record of the Norwegians in monitoring ceasefires is poor, evident by the Oslo debacle negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians.  They have a tendency to put agreements in place heavily in favour of anti democratic forces and then abandoning the parties once disputes arise.

The monitoring of the ceasefire should be conducted by representatives from SARC countries such as India, and countries from the Asia Pacific region such as Australia, Malaysia and Thailand.  Representatives from these countries are familiar with Asian culture; operate effectively in tropical climates and are respected by a majority of people living in Sri Lanka as being unbiased.  The Norwegians and other LTTE friendly Scandinavian ‘monitors’ are considered by a majority of Sri Lankans to be biased as well as accused of propagating Lutheran evangelism by deceit.  

The Prisoners of Mullaitivue and Killinochchi 

• CLAUSE 3.7: The LTTE is free to rampage in the Mullaitivu and the Killinochchi areas free of any accountability or compliance with the MoU.  They will continue to train terrorists, manufacture deadly weapons, train suicide bombers and clandestinely transport civilians and child soldiers forcibly conscripted in ‘other’ areas to these areas for terrorist training. This is a travesty of justice and an affront to democracy, where the legally elected Government permits terrorist activities openly.

The GOSL must immediately request the Norwegians to include Mullaitivu and Killinochchi as areas under the purview of the monitoring mission and clauses under the MoU should apply to these districts as well with immediate effect. 

There are many other Clauses in the MoU that warrant detailed analysis and scrutiny.  The above analysis refers only to the most critical aspects associated with compromising the sovereignty of the Hela Nation, Sri Lanka.  Unless the UNF Government takes immediate steps to rectify the MoU developed by the Norwegians hand in glove with the LTTE, there will be ongoing unrest with people expressing their dissatisfaction and disgust.  The current MoU is considered by many to be heavily biased against the Government and the peace loving people of Sri Lanka.  With this in mind, we propose the following path to revise the MoU so that the Government will be in a position to usher in durable peace with dignity for all its citizens irrespective of ethnicity, religious background or political allegiance.  

The Way Forward 

We urge the Government to discard the current MoU in its present form and lay the groundwork to begin a fresh. To this effect, the Government should undertake a full revision of the MoU with the assistance of major parties in the parliament.  To achieve a quick resolution, the Government should establish a parliamentary subcommittee chaired by an eminent parliamentarian, universally respected for his diplomatic skills such as Mr Kadiragamar, the former Foreign Minister. The sub-committee should be entrusted with the charter to revise the MoU within a week paying special attention to those clauses contributing to undermining the sovereignty of our Nation.  As a bare minimum, the following facets must be central to a Government’s revised MoU: 

Once the MoU is ratified by the President and the parliamentary sub committee, the UNF government should urge the LTTE to assist implementing the agreement as the LTTE desperately needs to reciprocate numerous unilateral initiatives taken by the UNF Government to build trust and confidence.  If the LTTE continues to procrastinate, the UNF Government should use its goodwill amongst the international community to force the LTTE terrorists to negotiate with the democratically elected Government in Sri Lanka or face the wrath of the international community.

Future talks should be skilfully planned, meticulously executed and completed within a set time period.  Unless the LTTE assist in the confidence building process, future talks should be abandoned and the Government should pursue appropriate action on all fronts with renewed vigour, actively seeking the assistance of the ‘Global Alliance Against Terrorism’ to neutralise the LTTE terror and liberate the land in the North and East of Sri Lanka illegally occupied by LTTE terrorists. 

The people elected the UNF Government to 'Govern' the country for all its citizens, not 'Grovel' appeasing terrorists.  So we urge the Government to occupy its legitimate position at the helm of the Nation and take control of governing the country for all its patriotic citizens.

Signed by :

 Back to SPUR Latest News Page