INTERVIEWS

"I am so much for peace" - Ronnie

Veteran politician Ronnie de Mel last week resigned from the PA to join hands with Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe. His cross over though 'shocking' to President Chandrika Kumaratunga was not anything new in his life. Having completed nearly 37 years in politics, Ronnie feels 'cross overs' are a person's democratic right and justifies it by saying his cross overs have always been for the benefit of either the party he crossed over to or the country. "I have never personally benefited from crossing over," he said. He also says the mixed economic policy the new alliance has planned to introduce and the manner in which the alliance plans to handle the ethnic issue have all convinced him that Sri Lanka would return to war, queues, scarcities and suffering like in the 1970s under the United Front government led by the SLFP. "This is why I decided to change," he told The Sunday Leader in an interview.

Following are excepts;

By Wilson Gnanadass

Q: You have once again opted to work with the UNP. What were the causes for your resignation from the PA?

A: The causes for my resignation from the PA were not in any way due to personal reasons. They were due to deep-seated political reasons and fundamental political questions affecting the future of Sri Lanka and its very existence. My wife Mallika who was a member of parliament till its recent dissolution and I have had excellent personal relations with her Excellency Chandrika Kumaratunga.

We have had and still retain a deep personal affection and regard for her, which will never diminish due to any political reason. In fact very recently she promised to place my name among the first few in the national list and also to give me an important ministry if she came to power. She also excused my wife Mallika from contesting the election this time due to ill health despite the fact that she had already included her name in her list of candidates. So there are no personal reasons at all for this decision. There are fundamental deep-seated political causes for our decision, causes which affect the very future of Sri Lanka.

Q: What are these fundamental deep-seated political causes you are referring to?

A: These are two fold. One is political and the other is economic policies affecting our country and people. As you know during my entire parliamentary career of 37 years from 1967, when I first entered parliament up to date, I have been foremost in the fight for peace in our country and for justice and fairplay to all racial and religious groups living in this land, particularly the Tamils and the Muslims. I staked my entire political career and even went into temporary political exile from this country fighting for peace in 1987 at a time when even some of the leaders of my own party strongly opposed me and even vilified me, and when my houses were destroyed, my factories were burnt and my life was in jeopardy.

I have unwaveringly fought for peace because I felt that without peace this country could never go forward. In fact, Sri Lanka missed the bus in 1983 when the ethnic war started. Otherwise with the economic policies being followed from 1977 Sri Lanka should have gone ahead of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Korea and several other countries in Asia by this time. This is not my own opinion, but this was confirmed to me by no less a person than the Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yu in a conversation I had with him in 1978 when we had just started the free economy in this country. Therefore, anything which jeopardises the peace process in this country which has commenced under the leadership of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is something I will be firmly against.

I have great fears that if the UPFA comes to power with its present approach to the Tamil problem there is every likelihood of this peace process being jeopardised and full fledged war starting again in Sri Lanka. The two constituent parties of the UPFA that is the SLFP and the JVP have completely contradictory policies with regard to the peace process. While the SLFP pays lip service to some form of devolution of power to settle this problem, the JVP is firmly committed only to decentralisation of power.

Now decentralisation of power is something which has been totally rejected by the Tamil people since 1983. Under these circumstances the present peace process will be completely jeopardised if the UPFA were to come to power. I for my part cannot under any circumstance be a party to such a tragedy even if I am going to get an important ministry in such a government.

Q: What are the economic policies that has compelled you to quit the PA?

A: Apart from the political reason, which I outlined above, there is also an economic reason, which prevents me from going along with the UPFA. As you know it was I under the leadership of President J. R. Jayewardene who introduced the free economy into this country in 1977, after nearly 21 years of a closed, almost semi Marxist economy in this land which took our country back in every way. I continued the same policies for 11 years as finance minister planning and controlling the entire economy of this country and putting it on the correct path. There are many deep-seated contradictions in the economic and financial policies of the UPFA as outlined in the various manifestos and documents, which they have published from time to time. I have grave doubts that we will go back to a closed economy of shortages, scarcity and queues causing untold hardship and suffering to the people as we witnessed from 1970 to 1977, under the then United Front government.

Q: The new alliance talks of a mixed economy. Under this economic policy do you think they could approach donor agencies like the World Bank, International Monetory Fund (IMF) and Asian Development Bank (ADB)?

A: The United Front government from 1970 to 1977 subscribed totally to the concept of a mixed economy and we had shortages, scarcity and queues and untold suffering for the people of this country. That government hardly got any aid from the IMF, World Bank, ADB or the donor community. We only obtained a little assistance from countries like China and the old Soviet Union which did not amount to much.

For example we obtained a few things like the Bandaranaike International Conference Hall. Hardly anything substantial for the development of the country. As you know the last PA government had an on sometimes off sometimes relationship with the IMF and the World Bank. They had an extended fund facility with the IMF which could not be completed. They were trying their best to obtain a poverty reduction and growth facility from the IMF but they failed. That was at a time when the PA was giving some sort of lip service to a free economy while following policies which were a mass of contradictions.

If they now go for a full fledged mixed economy as in 1970 to '77 they will find it extremely difficult if not impossible to enter into any agreement with the IMF, World Bank and the ADB. As you know without such an agreement with the IMF any aid consortium meeting or development forum will be more than useless as no donor country worth its name will come to the assistance of any country which has no agreement with the IMF. An agreement with the IMF serves as a certificate of sound financial management for any country. And without such an agreement Sri Lanka will never be able to go forward to develop its economy. A mixed economy will sound the death knell virtually of all foreign aid and foreign assistance in Sri Lanka.

Q: Under such an economic policy do you think foreign investors would be interested in investing in Sri Lanka?

A: In my opinion a similar fate will befall foreign investments. The first thing a foreign investor or a foreign bank worth its name inquires about a country is whether it has an endorsement of sound financial management by the IMF. If such an endorsement is not forthcoming no foreign investor worth its name is likely to come to Sri Lanka except fly-by-nights who some times go to countries to make a quick fast buck and then clear out. No long term investment will come in such circumstances.

Q: The alliance also says the existing MoU signed between the UNF government and the LTTE cannot be accepted as a basis to renegotiate talks with the Tigers and that it should be firstly amended. But the LTTE is steadfast in its views that the MoU should be the basis for any future negotiations. How do you see this contradiction?

A: As a practical man and a practical politician I know that there are always two parties to any agreement or any MoU. Unless you get the agreement of both parties to any agreement or any MoU, Unless you get the agreement of both parties to any agreement or any MoU it is quite clear to me that negotiations cannot go forward. If negotiations cannot go forward on a mutually agreed basis then it is inevitable that the peace process will collapse.

Q: Do you justify the action taken by President Kumaratunga to dissolve parliament?

A: According to our present constitution, which as you know has several glaring defects, the President clearly has the right to dissolve parliament after one year. But it is the accepted practice and accepted constitutional norm in all recognised parliamentary democracies that a government is not dissolved as long as it has a clear majority in parliament and until its term of office runs out or until it loses a vote of confidence or vote on the budget or unless the Prime Minister requests a dissolution for some special reason. A constitutional or legal right as you know does not amount to a moral right in all circumstances. If this right which is there in our constitution is exercised in a perverse way by a President then we can have dissolution after one year every time after an election.

Q: The PA also cites corruption of the UNF government as one of the reasons for the dissolution . Do you agree?

A: I agree that there has been a great deal of corruption at various levels not only in the last two years but also in the last 10 years since about 1989 or 1990. Our greatest failings in Sri Lankan politics since 1989 has been that no action whatsoever has been taken to curb corruption and to punish the wrong doers. When parties are in opposition they talk of massive corruption in the government. They even name ministers. They move votes of no confidence against them. And then when they come to power they quietly forget about those allegations and go out of their way to sweep them under the carpet. Despite all our talk over the last 10 years we have not even been able to to set up an effective, independent bribery commission or anti corruption commission call it what you will. For instance, in France even today various powerful cabinet ministers of previous governments and even of the present government are being arraigned before the courts of law and suitably punished with large fines and even imprisonment and expulsion from public life. But nothing of that sort happens here in our country.

Q: You have crossed over twice from the UNP government. Some say it is for your own benefit while others say it is for the betterment of the political parties. What have you got to say?

A: I would give you a complete answer. I first crossed over from the SLFP to the UNP in 1974. When I crossed over the SLFP had a clear two thirds majority in parliament and the UNP had only 17 MPs. There was not a hope in hell at that time that the UNP would come back to power. It would have been much better for me if I had remained with the SLFP with its two third majority than join the UNP with 17. In 1988 I resigned from the Finance and Planning Ministry which was a very powerful ministry then, encompassing more than five ministries today and went over from a party which had a 5/6 majority in parliament to join the SLFP which had only seven MPs in parliament then. If I was thinking of myself I should have continued as finance minister in the UNP government.

On this occasion I have been clearly promised to have my name placed among the first few in the national list and I have also been promised an important ministry by the President. This has been confirmed in writing by her  in a letter which she wrote to me on February 22, which has been given wide publicity in the mass media. I have joined Ranil Wickremesinghe at a time when they are fighting a very difficult battle with the UPFA. Even the various gallop polls state that the UPFA has a slight advantage today. If I was thinking of myself only I could easily have remained in the UPFA without any trouble. Therefore on every occasion I crossed over from a stronger party to a weaker one as I have shown you. I have never depended on politics for my existence. In fact I resigned from the then Ceylon Civil Service giving up even my pension to enter politics and even then joined a party which was in opposition.

I contested for the first time from the opposition in 1967 against the then very powerful Dudly Senanayake UNP government which had a very comfortable majority in parliament to last its full term and which did last its full term. I have always done what I considered best in the interest of the country, its economy and peace in our land. I am not a strong believer in the party system as it exists in this country which is an aberration of a true democratic parliamentary party system. I am never prepared to sacrifice for party what was meant for the country and the welfare of the people of the country to mean the country and the welfare of the people of the country is supreme, not any party.

Q: What are your views about Buddhist monks participating in polls?

A: I do not wish to make any comment on this matter because I have been trained never to criticise any person in religious orders of any religion. I have never done so all my life and I never propose as a layman to criticise either Buddhist monks or Christian priests or any person of any standing in any religion.

Q: Do you think Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's administration had a better way of handling the peace process to ensure success in the future?

A: I am generally supportive of any peace process, whether conducted by Ranil Wickremesinghe, Chandrika Kumaratunga, J.R.Jayewardene or anybody else. There may be certain defects and shortcomings in the way the peace process has been handled by various leaders at various times. But since I am so much for peace I am prepared to support any peace process which has a chance of success even if there are certain shortcomings in the process from time to time. It is peace that is important not little snags on the way. I still hope Ranil Wickremsinghe's present peace process will end in enduring peace in Sri Lanka without breaking up the country in any way.

Gajan: CBK has damaged peace process irreversibly

General Secretary, All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC), Gajendran Ponnambalam sees no justification in President Kumaratunga dissolving parliament when the UNF government managed to muster the support of 130 members out of 225. He considers the action of President Kumaratunga as "totally undemocratic." He is also of the view that whatever political party that comes to power must accept the LTTE as the sole representatives of the Tamil people. "Otherwise I do not see any government making headway in finding a lasting solution to the ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka," he told The Sunday Leader in an interview.

Following are excerpts;

Q: With the breakdown of the peace process what has the TNA got to offer the Tamil people in the north east this time?

A: At the last elections our manifesto asked for a pledge from the Tamil people to create the conditions necessary from the Tamil perspective for the peace process to commence. This time the situation is different since we are two years into the peace process, which has come to a grinding halt due to the irresponsible, reckless and undemocratic steps taken by President Kumaratunga and due to the well known power struggle between the two major parties. For the last 50 years this power struggle has taken place at the expense of the Tamil people and their rights. Of those 50 years, over the last 20 years the island has seen a ruthless war. It is obvious that the southern polity has not learnt the lesson it ought to have. Therefore in this elections the TNA would be asking the Tamils of the north east to give a mandate to achieve our political aspirations, come what may.

Q: How do the Tamils of the north east justify President Kumaratunga's action to dissolve parliament?

A: They see it as totally undemocratic. The Tamil National Alliance sees no reason whatsoever for parliament to have been dissolved when the UNF government had managed to muster the support of 130 members out of 225, which is a clear majority. Clearly this act is against the will of parliament and a highhanded act by an executive to prevent the lawful function of the legislature, all because of the greed for power.

Q: To what extent do you think the dissolution has affected the peace process?

A: I think it has affected the peace process irreversibly. The President's steps in grabbing power commenced on November 4, 2003, which was only three days after the LTTE had just put forward its proposals for the establishment of an interim administration. The Tamils see the creation of an interim administration as a prerequisite to a final solution. Therefore from November 4, 2003 the process has come to a complete stop and since then no meaningful effort has been taken to restart the process which seriously raises the question of the sincerity with regard to finding a negotiated settlement.

Secondly, when it is widely acknowledged that some form of understanding or consensus will have to be reached by the southern polity, when one of the two major parties go into an alliance with the anti peace JVP, the prospects of a final solution being implemented becomes very slim.

Q: While the TNA in particular and the Tamils of north and east in general believe that the LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamil people, the SLFP/JVP alliance refuses to accept this position. What are your comments?

A: The view that the LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people of the north and east was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Tamils of the north east at the 2001 general election. And there is no doubt about that truth. If any government that comes into power ignores or disregards this position they will be blatantly acting contrary to Tamil wishes. I don't see how the Tamils can negotiate with any government that rejects this position whether it is the SLFP/JVP alliance or any other.

Q: There is a clear contradiction in what President Kumaratunga says and the LTTE says regarding this issue. However, President says she will hold talks with the LTTE if her party is elected to power. Do you think the President and the LTTE should come to a compromise on this position of claiming sole representation over Tamils, at some point if talks are to take place? Besides the new alliance also says it does not recognise the existing MoU and that it would be amended prior to talking with the LTTE?

A: The position of the Tamil people is that we are prepared to talk to any government that gets a clear mandate to find a negotiated settlement that is not counter to Tamil aspirations and wishes. Ceasefire agreement was signed with a previous government on this basis. We see no reason for there to be any change in either the ceasefire agreement or what has been agreed to thus far in the peace process. Every time a new government is formed the ceasefire agreement or other understandings cannot be changed at its whims and fancies. What is agreed to, is binding on all the parties that come to power.

Q: With the new alliance taking a clear policy that the existing MoU will have to be amended and also it cannot accept the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamils do you think the peace process could move forward?

A: If these are the positions that the future SLFP/JVP government takes, then I don't see how such a government can take the peace process forward. The positions the TNA and the Tamil people have taken regarding the MoU and the LTTE are fundamental positions that received overwhelming support at the 2001 general elections.