Present deadlock stems largely from intransigent conduct of the LTTE - Kethesh Loganathan

DEADLOCK: In an interview with Daily News, the Deputy Secretary General of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process, (SCOPP) Kethesh Loganathan described the present situation as an escalation of violence and said the only way out of the present crisis was negotiations.

He was of the view that the present stalemate in the talks was largely due to the non compromising position of the LTTE.

He was also of the view that a comprehensive review of the existing Ceasefire Agreement was in order, but stressed that any revision to the Agreement should be done with the consent of both the Government and the LTTE.

He further added that any revisions to the Agreement should be decided by its impact on the peace process and what is needed to take the peace process forward

The interview:

Q: In your opinion is there a low intensity conflict in Sri Lanka at present?

A: Some analysts call it a low intensity conflict and some prefer to call it an "undeclared war". The fact is that there is violence. I would call it an escalation of violence, over a period of time.

Although we do have a Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) on paper and the two parties have not abrogated or walked away from it, clearly there is an escalation of violence; one would find that label of escalating violence, as disturbing as any other label.

Q: In such situation of escalating violence, how do you feel the peace process should evolve?

A: It is only through talks, that all these problems can be resolved. One cannot allow the situation to deteriorate further. Keeping away from negotiations and talks is not the answer. As a matter of urgency the level of violence should be brought down. With de-escalation one can go for immediate talks.

Q: But the parties seems to be far away from re-commencing talks immediately. Even with the Norwegian facilitations the Government and the LTTE seems to have achieved so little in that direction in the past few months, does it not?

A: Yes it is a complex situation. It is largely due to the intransigence and adventurism on the part of the LTTE. It began with the LTTE not going to Round II of Geneva Talks, on grounds which are not entirely convincing.

The LTTE then accepted Norway's invitation to go to Oslo for talks with a Sri Lankan Government delegation on technical matters, regarding the modalities of operations of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) operations as well as the security of the SLMM members.

LTTE having gone to Oslo, and the Government delegation too having gone there, the LTTE refused to sit across the table and refused to engage in direct talks with the government delegation.

The reasons given were flimsy and totally unconvincing. It is evident that the present deadlock stems largely from the intransigent conduct of the LTTE.

Q: Are you satisfied that the State has done its utmost to improve the peace prospect in the country?

A: As far as the Peace Secretariat is concerned all that needs to be done in creating the conditions for re-commencement of talks with the LTTE has been done. The LTTE may still have some reservations on certain matters.

For that we have the Norwegian facilitators to iron out any such differences. If there are any lapses on our part, we are open to rectify and remedy them.

Q: Recently there were suggestions by analysts that the Norwegian facilitation process should be supplemented by another international actor.

Are there any moves from the Government in that direction? Secondly there were some speculations in the media that India might make a re-entry into the Sri Lankan conflict and perhaps would offer itself to play the role of facilitator. Can you comment on that?

A: The present reality is that both India and the international community have expressed their confidence in Norway as the facilitator. Secondly the two parties - the Government and the LTTE -- did invite Norway as a facilitator.

As such it will require some fundamental redesigning of the peace process to bring in some other party as a facilitator. It is not very clear if there are any countries that would want to step in and play that role of facilitator.

We should not forget that parallel to Norwegian facilitation, the Donor Co-Chairs and India have been playing a supportive role. However, in the final analysis it is we, the people of this country, who have to make peace. No one else can do it for us.

Q: Apart from the bringing in a different facilitator do you think that the CFA is in need of some sort of revision? It appears from recent events that the CFA has reached its limits in holding back the conflict?

A: The objective of the Geneva talks, which stopped at Round I, was to look into issues relating to the full implementation of the CFA. It is clear that in the process of looking into the full implementation of the CFA, one also has to look closely at the agreement itself.

Therefore if it is necessary to revise the agreement, firstly it should be done by the mutual consent of the two parties; secondly it should be with the objective of addressing any flaws and deficiencies in the agreement to make it more effective. Ultimately it is for the two parties to decide if there are to be any revisions.

The Government went to Geneva Talks I, on the basis that the CFA had to be strengthened. It is also true that soon after the General Election there was a growing body of opinion that there should be a comprehensive review of the CFA.

I am personally of the opinion that there has to be a comprehensive review of the CFA, but that does not necessarily mean that it should immediately lead to the revision of the agreement. Ultimately any revisions to the Agreement should be decided by its impact on the peace process and what is needed to take the peace process forward.

Q: What are the essential functions of the Peace Secretariat in taking the peace process forward?

A: The essential functions of the Peace Secretariat are to provide logistical and research support to the policy makers and negotiators.

We are also the key State institution entrusted with the responsibility of liaising with the Norwegian facilitator and the SLMM. We are invariably also the first stop for many foreign delegations.

Our Peace Secretariat also liaises closely with all relevant Ministries and State Institutions whose functions have a bearing on the peace process, such as the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs, Ministry of Human Rights, and Ministries and Departments relating to national integration, rehabilitation and so on. We also liaise with the civil society in a collective effort to bring about a peaceful atmosphere in the local communities.

There were times when the Government's and the LTTE's Peace Secretariats had direct contacts. Unfortunately, the prevailing situation has made that difficult.

Recently an offer by our Secretary-General, Dr. Palitha Kohona to visit Kilinochchi for confidence-building talks with the LTTE's Peace Secretariat was turned down by the LTTE. That is unfortunate, but we will persist with these efforts.

Q: How effective has the Peace Secretariat been so far in its task?

A: It is difficult to judge and very difficult to assess the outcome of what one does, particularly when it comes to peace-making in the midst of escalating violence.

The peace process at the moment is going through difficult times. In that sense, several initiatives of the Peace Secretariat may not have been as fruitful as we would have wanted.

Ultimately the Peace Secretariat is only one component and one element in the peace process and cannot be the sole factor that determines the present and future trajectories of the peace process. To take a philosophical approach, we are responsible only for our actions and not for the outcome.
