INTERVIEWS

‘Govt. should  act fast to stop political killings’

Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapakse threatens more agitational campaigns if the government led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe fails to immediately bring a “halt” to the political killings that have been taking place recently. He says if ignored right now, it might escalate to an unprecedented level. “Then it would be too late for anyone to tackle this menace,” he told The Sunday Leader in an interview. He said even the protest campaign that was organised in parliament was to express the opposition’s deep anger and anguish over the recent ‘chilling’ developments. Following are excepts;

By Wilson Gnanadass

Q: The main opposition has been agitating against the spate of killings that have taken place in the country. Has there been any success in this regard?

A: The  agitation would be successful only if the government takes corrective measures to curb the violence spree that has been released against leading political figures. This is not happening. The government is turning a blind eye to the present situation. But we will continue to agitate against these acts of terror which the government I feel is not doing anything about at the moment. Our aim is to open the eyes of the government to this type of brutal killings  of  our party men and others.

Q: Do you think the crime rate is unprecedented and if so what do you see as the cause for this?

A: Most certainly in the recent past the crime rate has become unprecedented. Take for example the brutal and tactical assassination of M. K. Ranjith within the high security zone and at the doorstep of the CID. Is this not unprecedented? If the police could not prevent murder taking place in  the HSZ at least they could have apprehended the assassins. But that did not happen. I see the reason for this as the government not recognising the fact that there is a spate of ‘sponsored’ violence taking place at the moment. It is an obvious fact that the situation would escalate to unprecedented levels especially because there are no corrective measures taken. This is why we are protesting.

Q: Do you think politicians are directly involved in these killings and if  anyone  of your members are found to be  involved in these acts of terror would you take action against them?

A: Most certainly. Action would be taken against anybody who is inciting violence. About politicians getting involved in these killings, I may not be able to answer it since currently investigations are being carried out by  police. It is up to them to say who is involved directly.

Q: Last Thursday the main opposition carried out an ugly protest against the government inside parliament with some MPs like Mangala Samaraweera and Dilan Perera behaving like hooligans.  Was this protest  carried out with your blessings?

A: Today we function in and out of parliament as a collective opposition. In collectivity there is unison.

Q: Though the PA members were conducting a mock funeral inside parliament, the JVP however was  seen maintaining a low profile. How do you view this when  both the JVP and SLFP are trying to tie up?

A: The JVP participated equally and collectively. In the democratic process one has the freedom to express their views to whatever extent they feel necessary. Remember once again we are a collective opposition. Also, at the moment, discussions are still on with regard to the JVP-SLFP alliance. There are some areas which need more deliberations and we are working on these.

Q: Reports indicate the proposed plan for both the JVP and SLFP to coalesce is facing a crisis situation. What is happening?

A: I do not think that the negotiations are facing a crisis situation. Where there are different views it takes longer to negotiate and come to a final agreement. On the aspect of practicality well, if we can agree to a common path in the best interest of our motherland it would be a very pragmatic and practical approach. But the discussions are going on between both parties and we assume something positive would happen.

Q: Some opposition members have said it is high time President Chandrika Kumaratunga brought under her control the Police Department. Are you aware of it?

A: I am really not aware of it. Some members may have said it. However in my view the President has the constitutional right  and authority to take over any ministry or institution at any given point of time for whatever reason for the good of the nation. I am not aware of any action of such. However let me reiterate the fact that a solution is required as soon as possible to the present crime situation in the country.

Q: In another two years President Kumaratunga will have to step down from her presidency. But yet the PA has not been able to identify a potential presidential candidate. Has the party given thought to it?

A: The party will address the question when the time comes. I have a feeling it is a little too premature to think about it.

Q: In the meantime you have been portrayed as the most suitable candidate for this post by a section of the opposition. If given the chance would you accept it?

A: No. It is not a question of accepting or rejecting. A section of the PA may think this way, but finally it is the party’s central committee that should decide upon this.

Q: Why do you think Anura Bandaranaike has already begun strengthening himself by appointing special committees for this post. Do you think he is suitable?

A: In any democratic political system or party there are aspirants for the leadership. This is the true nature of the democracy in our party. When the appropriate time comes the party membership would decide on this factor.

Q: Today is the party convention and what role would you play being one of the pioneer members of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)?

A: We all have an equal role to play in the party. I have for the last 35 years been with the SLFP and we have toiled to bring the party to its present position. Today what is of paramount imporatnce is to re-model the party and strengthen the grassroot level organisation in order to face the many challenges ahead. The most important factor here is to tune us towards finding solutions to the many problems faced by the polity of Sri Lanka. And I must emphasise here that our party is fully geared to face any such national problem. We did govern the country and showed our capability after we won in 1994. In fact it was our party that started the peace process for the first time in this country. Now it is only a matter of doing some extra work to further strengthen and streamline the party especially at the grassroot level.

Q: The main opposition claims that Sri Lanka cannot benefit by the substantial aid package received in Tokyo. Do you feel the same?

A: Before we talk about utilisation what we need to know are the conditions under which these monies have been pledged. As per our understanding there are conditions and or pre-requisites that has been imposed on the peace process, economic conditions such as privatisation of i.e. water, electricity, fisheries harbours etc. There is also the question of interest and repayment period. According to the information we have the annual interest payment amounts to somewhere in the region of US$ 220 million. Can the Sri Lankan economy sustain this? Unless the government has not effectively negotiated terms with the donor countries especially when considering the cost benefit analysis of the utilisation of such funds, wherein the benefit from numerous development projects would be more socially oriented than financially, Sri Lanka in time to come will be a heavily debt ridden country.

Q: The LTTE has demanded for a politico-administrative structure rejecting all other proposals put forward by the government. Do you think this is justifiable?

A: An interim council or an ‘administrative structure’ has been suggested to the LTTE both by the then PA government and the UNF presently. The difference being that the UNF in its endeavour is not clear in their approach. I would say that they are trying to ‘run with the rabbit and hunt with the hound.’  Let the government be transparent in their attempts at peace. Though the government says that they want a consultation process firstly with President Kumaratunga and all other parties, their actions do not portray this. Our stand is very clear. We have declared this through the package introduced in 2001. The President agreed to an interim administrative structure based on conditions.

GGGGGGbe justified when the ceasefire agreement itself was framed outside the constitution. He said if the ceasefire agreement that was drafted outside the constitution has paved the way for solid peace in the country, he cannot see any reason why the government cannot do the same thing to set up the interim administration and give the LTTE a legal body through which it could have a politico- administrative and decision making body to play a dominant role in the administration. "If there is a will there is a way. I also think the problem faced by the government from the executive is also preventing them from fulfilling the demands of the LTTE," he told The Sunday Leader in an interview.

Following are excerpts;

By Wilson Gnanadass

Q: There is a fear in the country that the present impasse, after the LTTE refused to participate in the donor conference, would lead to full-scale war in the country again. Are you of the same opinion?

A: As far as I am concerned the LTTE will not return to war. The LTTE is fully committed to a negotiated settlement and peace. There were several provocations following the ceasefire agreement, but the LTTE withstood everything for the sake of peace. Therefore the LTTE's commitment is very firm. And they will not revert back to war until and unless they are forced to return.

Q: Do you see any justification in the LTTE's continuous refusal to accept proposals put forward by Premier Wickremesinghe in regard to the interim administration?

A: There is sufficient reason for the LTTE to refuse what was offered by the Prime Minister, taking into consideration the past experience and the history of this country in regard to the ethnic issue. You see, the LTTE, which was fighting for a separate state and was in a formidable position in terms of war, unilaterally declared a ceasefire and also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the government because they felt the sufferings of the Tamil people had to be alleviated.

They are now firmly committed to a negotiated settlement. They have taken part in six rounds of talks. What was promised during the talks has not been implemented. So the LTTE has  real suspicion about the present proposal. They feel it is difficult to overcome red tape and bureaucracy through the setting up of the apex body. So they think any tangible implementation on the ground has to be through a structure, which will give the LTTE a politico-administrative and decision making body where they would be allowed to play a dominant role. Therefore the proposals submitted by the Prime Minister do not in any way answer the demands of the LTTE. That falls very short of their thinking.

Q: Many experts, including foreign diplomats say that peace cannot be achieved if the Tigers are so rigid. How do you view their statements?

A: It is wrong to say that the Tigers are rigid in their demands. As I explained earlier, first of all the sufferings of the Tamil people have to be removed. That can only be achieved by restructuring and relocating the displaced people and rehabilitating them. It also includes rehabilitating the war torn north east. In this respect they need a very formidable and a very strong set up to administer the region. Their demand  which  is  to  alleviate the suffering of the people, cannot be considered as something that is rigid.

Q: Does the TULF believe that the UNF government led by Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is genuine in handling the peace process?

A: As far as the TULF is concerned the party has faith in the Prime Minister in handling the peace process. But we still feel there is a rift between the executive and the legislature. How can the Prime Minster overcome this? There is no sign of cohabitation or support by the President. In fact it was President Kumaratunga who long before the UNF proposed, offered an interim administration also for 10 years. At the time she offered she never spoke about laying down of arms. Her offer was unconditional. But now we find the same President trying to say she will de-merge the north east.

The interim administration is not a new concept. Under the Indo-Lanka Agreement of 1987 an interim administrative structure was proposed and the LTTE was offered the majority portion of that council. Why is she at this juncture talking about not agreeing for an interim administration and the de-merger of the north east. This is a clear indication that she is  preparing  to scuttle the peace process, which would be in my view a disaster to the entire country. This is the most opportune time for the Sinhala polity to support the peace process because I don't think another opportunity will be there in the future.

Q: Why do you think the government is reluctant to give what the LTTE wants?

A: Well I think it is because of the non-cooperation of the executive that the government is unable to fulfil the demands of the LTTE. The government feels that any interim administrative structure should be within the parameters of the constitution. But what I would like to remind the government is this. When the ceasefire agreement was signed between the government and the LTTE there was no basis for it within the laws of Sri Lanka. It was an extra constitutional instrument on which the country's peace has withstood for more than 15 months and it has laid a solid foundation for peace. Why can't the government apply the same process in formulating an interim administrative structure outside the constitution like the ceasefire agreement?

 My personal opinion is that the Tamils are fully justified in asking for an extra constitutional interim mechanism to rebuild and rehabilitate the north east because they never accepted the constitution the Britishers left behind in 1948, the 1972 constitution and the 1978 constitution which concentrated the legislative, financial and judicial affairs of the island in the hands of the majority of the country. Therefore I think the LTTE's demand in asking for a interim administrative structure is reasonable and justifiable, where they could play a dominant role politically, administratively and financially.

Q: The general perception is that the LTTE would participate at tomorrow's donor conference. How do you see it? Do you think failure to participate would be disadvantageous to the LTTE?

A: The LTTE's leadership in the latest reply to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has clearly stated that if an assurance is given that a draft framework for an interim administrative structure along the lines proposed by the LTTE leadership is given by the Prime Minister they would resume negotiations. So the ball is now in the government's court.

Until today the Prime Minister has not responded to the request made by the LTTE leadership. Therefore one can be convinced that their participation in the Tokyo conference is not possible. To answer the other question, this donor conference is not only for the rebuilding of the war torn north east region. This conference is also a part of the annual aid consortium for the government.  If the donor countries are really interested in rebuilding, rehabilitating and restructuring the war ravaged north eastern region I don't think there is any reason for them to not dole out funds for this humanitarian aspect whether the LTTE participates or not. Participation of the LTTE should not be taken as a primary concern for the donors not to dole out money for the humanitarian projects facing the war torn areas in the north east.

Q: The TULF seems to be in troubled waters, with the LTTE demanding that its Leader, V. Anandasangaree should step down. What is the actual situation?

A: Nobody has asked the TULF leader  to step down. There are various conflicting reports to this effect in the media and the central committee will meet shortly to decide on this. I don't want to comment further.

Q: Many people are of the view that the TULF has lost its lustre and credibility owing to internal conflicts. As a senior member of the party, what steps are you taking to bring back the  lost glory?

A: In a democratic political party there will be differences of opinion within the party's rank and file. It does not mean that the party has lost its credibility or its grassroots support among the Tamil people. A process of dialogue and discussion will settle any controversy or disputes by the members of the central committee.

Q: While the TULF Leader Anandasangaree is fully opposed to the LTTE, the other members seem to act as the voice of the Tigers. What is your view?

A: I don't want to comment on it.