News Update - 20060224
*** Topics: Ceasefire provocations, results of peace talks, upcoming local elections, news roundup ***
** Ceasefire provocations:
Since the announcement of the Geneva peace talks one month ago, the Sri Lankan government has acted as if they are not obligated to stop their killings of Tamils ahead of peace talks, much less abide the ongoing ceasefire. The government launched assassination attempts leading up to the peace talks as well as committing two assassinations while the peace talks themselves were happening.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17184
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17243
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17259
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17271
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17273
Within the government's ruling coalition, the main party of the coalition is the SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party), to which the President, his cabinet, and the ministers on the negotiating team all belong. The other main party is the JVP, an outspokenly Sinhala Buddhist nationalist party that pretends to stick to its Communist origins. Although the JVP has recently been so extreme in its Sinhala Buddhism that it made the Western countries angry, the JVP is once again back to its anti-peace, anti-Norway rhetoric.
The SLFP also steps up its hardline rhetoric when its coalitio partner JVP does too, and the President has made statements just a few days before the Geneva talks rejecting the concept of a Tamil homeland and asserting a unitary state structure for SL. Due to what must have been privately applied pressure, the government successfully got the head of the monitoring mission changed from a Norwegian to a Swede. (This makes no real difference, except in the minds of Sinhalese since the government has created the impression among Sinhalese that Norwegians are biased towards the LTTE.) The rhetoric extends to the Sinhalese-dominated media, where well-known Western academics are denounced as "too pro-LTTE" for suggesting that an atmosphere of peace be created during negotiations.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17194
http://www.tamilcanadian.com/pageview.php?ID=3826&SID=526
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17254
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17270
The LTTE reacted sharply to the statements that rejected the concept of a Tamil homeland, one of the demand that the LTTE formulated for the 1985 Thimpu talks that still remains a precondition for any solution.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17199
The LTTE also rejected the rhetoric of the government as childish. Given that the government is in no position to defend its rhetoric through military actions, the government's statements promote its pro-war bias and are for political mileage only with the Sinhalese voters.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/SODA-6M377Z?OpenDocument
The LTTE political wing head, S. P. Thamilchelvan, clearly spelled out the LTTE's thinking on several issues in an interview with Time magazine.
http://www.tamilcanadian.com/pageview.php?ID=3826&SID=526
** Results of peace talks:
The peace talks in Geneva were held on Feb. 22-23. The first day, Feb. 22, 2006, is exactly the 4-year aniversary of the date on which the ceasefire agreement was signed. That fact went unstated by everyone, perhaps as a result of the pessimism on the future of the ceasefire. As predicted, the government, through its rhetoric, tried to shift attention away from the purpose of the talks -- its lack of the implementation of the ceasefire. Also, the government intentionally cancelled, and restricted the way the press covered the talks so as to reduce the negative attention to a minimum. The talks were held in a secluded location, the press was not allowed to cover the results of the first day's talks, and the press meeting before the start of the talks was in the form of opening statements.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17260
It is worth noting that the government explicity stated in its opening statement that the ceasefire is "contrary to the constitution". The implication of such a statement is that the government can treat the ceasefire as "optional" or selectively choose what should be implemented, since the whole thing is "unconstitutional" anyways. The statement's implications are too far-reaching for the government to have said it other than with full deliberateness.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17267
It was said that the majority of the government's complaints was regarding ceasefire violations and children's rights. While the government did not release any details on what it said to the LTTE, the LTTE released the statement given in response to those accusations.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17277
At the conclusion of the talks, a very uninformative joint statement was released. The LTTE successfully resisted the government's attempts to shift the attention away from the full implementation of the ceasefire. However, it is uncertain whether the government's instransigence showed fully in the media reports. The follow-up round of talks occurs in 2 months.
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17281
** Upcoming local elections:
The elections across the island for low-level political positions in the government will be held in March. Since the positions up for grabs are local council positions, there will be many positions available. It will also give a finer-grained picture on who in which region supports which political force to what extent. The JVP feels that its support has exceed that of its partner SFLP, and so it will contest the elections alone and not jointly with the SLFP.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP272357.htm
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=17196
** News roundup:
The BBC, like the AFP, AP, and Reuters news agencies, does not dig too deep to report the full truth behind the news. News agencies must deal with concers of audience numbers, which is why viewer feedback is important in large numbers. Also, news agencies will often not dare to reveal facts too offensive to its host country, no matter how true, for that would end its permission to stay in the country and continue reporting.
In this backdrop, the BBC's analysis of the talks glosses over the government's hawkish attitude.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4746068.stm
This article deals less with the politics and more with the effect that politics can have on the economy. For the reasons elaborated in this article, military warfare can devastate Sri Lanka to an effective defeat by devastating the economy, even if military no loss or gain is made. (As Taraki said, wars by occupying forces always are lost when it is no longer profitable to sustain the occupation. The American Revolutionary War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are all examples.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4716074.stm
A great summary of the ground situation around the time of the Geneva talks was written by an expatriate Sinhalese who supports Tamil rights. The points he makes in conclusion about the foolishness of the Sri Lankan government's hardline approach is quite interesting.
http://www.sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/02-24_Talks_Talks_More_Talks.php?uid=1543
Finally, the BBC reported a news item that was brave enough to include a proper mention of SL govt. intransigence regarding the peace process.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4724310.stm
Because this story is decently accurate, and is good for BBC's standards vis-a-vis the conflict, I urge anyone that can spare 1 minute of their time to positively reinforce this kind of coverage with a compliment at their website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4000500/4000545.stm