Erickassonfire
17 oktober 2006, 13:35
On September 12, 2006 the BBC announced: "Norwegian Minister for
International Development Erik Solheim told BBC Sandeshaya that both
parties informed the facilitators of their willingness to come back to
the table without any conditions."
Later (September 15, 2006) the BBC announced that "the Tamil Tigers
have imposed 'conditions' for the proposed talks between them and the
Sri Lanka government." It added: "Rasiah Ilanthirayan demanded that the
government withdraw from the areas captured recently, including the
strategically important Sampur."
"We will not come back to talks if the government fails to implement
the demarcation lines according to the CFA" he told BBC sinahala.com.
After Sampoor the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) too was quite explicit
and persistent in stating that they would lay down conditions before
talks could begin again. This was predictable because the GoSL had
burnt its fingers on previous occasions by running to talks each time
the LTTE says that they are ready for talks and returning empty handed
like the procession of Co-chairs and other international emissaries
returning empty handed from Vanni.
So how on earth did Erik Solheim come to the conclusion that there were
no pre-conditions for talks? Neither the GoSL nor the LTTE were lying
on this aspect. Nor was there any need to prevaricate considering the
risks of going to talks without pre-conditions. Certainly, one apparent
reason for this fictitious statement is Solheim's eagerness to make an
impression on the international stage. His deflated self-confidence
after so many failures, no doubt, needed a booster to make him feel
good and also to look good as if he is the Super Man who got another
break-through. But the peace process is not about making Solheim feel
good, or look good.
This is all about saving lives of the war-weary people of Sri Lanka.
Solheim has failed in the past. His monumental failure has been in the
Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) which he engineered. Solheim has failed again
in his latest move to be smarter than what he really is.
But the more questionable agenda is his behind-the-scene attempts (1)
to pull the chestnuts out for the Tigers who are licking their wounds
in Killinochchi and (2) to pull wool over the eyes of Sri Lankans and
the actors involved in the peace process. The only way the Tigers could
save the day is by pretending to be peace-lovers with an unquenchable
thirst to negotiate. They discover the virtues of negotiations and
peace only when they are beaten.
Not surprisingly, after Sampoor the Tigers have turned into non-violent
Gandhians overnight. This is the other face of the Tigers. They are
either Pol Potist executioners breathing hellfire and thunder when the
going is good for them or goody-goody Gandhians when the chips are
down. Now that they are in the mood to show the Gandhian face what will
Solheim do when the Tigers come out snarling with their original Pol
Potist face next time?
Solheim has a lot to answer for misleading the Co-chairs, the world and
the Sri Lankan public in declaring that both parties had agreed to
talks without any pre-conditions. When there is no evidence to back up
his claim how can Solheim be accepted as a reliable facilitator to
interpret and report the true facts of the unfolding events - a prime
necessity for the Co-chairs and the other actors to arrive at informed
decisions that could help all concerned to work out a durable peace. No
peace can last on lies or ill-informed interpretations, or distorted
information manufactured by the facilitators sitting in the middle,
attempting to play the role God.
Is it surprising that he has lost the confidence of the Sri Lankan
political circles and the public at large? Each time he loses and faces
the flak from Sri Lankan political he runs to the Co-chairs to make
them chant the same old mantra of having" full confidence in the
Norwegian facilitators". He may be having the full confidence of the
Co-chairs but shouldn't he first win some confidence from the people
who are affected directly by his incompetence and partisan role? And,
above all, isn't the incompetence and the partisan role of Solheim one
of the primary causes for the failure of the Sri Lankan peace process?
When it comes to analyzing the realities of Sri Lankan he seems to be
suffering from dyspraxia -- a neurological condition where the brain
cannot process the known facts. Who else would want to equate the
democratically elected state of Sri Lanka with an unelected fascist
outfit with a penchant for killing Tamils and whoever else crosses its
path? Isn't the implicit objective behind Solheim's move to equate a
banned terrorist outfit wanted by Interpol, India and Sri Lanka with
that of an internationally recognized state to give the edge to the
LTTE? Isn't Solheim aiming to confer a status to the LTTE which the
entire international community has refused to grant?
Besides, where has his endeavors to give parity of status to the LTTE
and his partisan role taken him? All his maneuvers have gone round in
circles and brought him to square one because the LTTE would either
sabotage the agreements (example: CFA) or walk out on flimsy excuses.
The last time this occurred was in June when the LTTE walked out even
before the talks began in Geneva 2. It was trumpeted by Solheim as a
big break-through under impossible circumstances but like everyone who
relied on the LTTE he ended with an egg on his face.
His failures stem mainly from his misguided notion of treating both as
"equal partners" which has no legal, political or pragmatic validity.
This elevation of both parties to the status of "equal partners" plays
a major role in Norwegian thinking and strategy.
But, as revealed in the unfolding events, this is a strategy that has
emboldened the LTTE to go in the opposite direction of peace.It has
neither kept the LTTE in the peace process nor advanced the peace
process. On the contrary, it has made them believe that Eelam is the
next step after the parity of status granted by Solheim.
Past experiences also confirm that Solheim's strategy will not take
anybody anywhere. Having painted himself into a corner from which he
cannot get out Solheim has no way out but to stay where he is, giving
the edge to the LTTE, because that is the only way he can win the
favour of the LTTE to remain as a player in the peace process. If he
withdraws from this ill-fated "strategy" he knows that he will be
thrown out like the Truce Monitors from the EU.
The sole responsibility for getting stuck in this rut lies with
Solheim. It was Balasingham, his buddy, who was clawing every inch of
the way to gain parity of status, whether in making opening speeches,
or in laying down conditions for negotiations.
Balasingham's line of
"you-have-your-prime-minister-and-we-have-our-own" announced at the
one-and-only Killinochchi press conference is Holy Scripture for
Solheim. He operated on the premise that he could win the favour of
Balasingham by according him that equal status. In letting Balasingham
gain the upper hand Solheim over-estimated the LTTE negotiator's power
to swing things the Norwegian way. It was fatal mistake. Each time he
favoured Balasingham he neither won anything substantial from either
the LTTE or the GoSL.
Balasingham tricked Solheim into believing that he could be made use of
for Solheim's purposes though he never deviated from Prabhakaran's
agenda. Solheim, in short, was led up the garden path. This flawed
strategy is one of the main reasons why Solheim and Bauer are doomed to
fail. They came as problem-solvers. Now they stand naked as a
conspicuous part of the problem.
Besides, his decision to give parity of status to a banned terrorist
group in Sri Lanka would have some justification if his government
gives the same consideration to all other banned terrorist groups. But
what parity of status has Solheim and his side-kick Jon Hanssen Bauer
given to Osama Bin Laden's Al Quaida fighting the Norwegian forces
stationed in Afghanistan? Do the Norwegians confer them equality of
status or do they shoot them down like dogs if they step out of line?
Three Muslim civilians were shot in Afghanistan by Norwegian soldiers
because they were demonstrating outside their camp.
Which member of the Co-chairs demanded an international commission to
inquire into the killing of non-combatant Afghans by the Norwegians?
Contradictory evidence like this has undermined the public confidence
in Solheim's role. He pretends to blame both sides in the hope of being
seen as a neutral player but he has failed, time and again, to convince
the GoSL and the Sri Lankans for the simple
reason that his nakedness can be seen beneath the fig leaf each time
puffs of Vanni winds lifts it up.
The Sri Lankan public refuses to believe in the neutrality of Solheim
because his moves and counter-moves have consistently given the edge to
the LTTE. His manipulations to con Ranil Wickremesinghe into signing
the CFA by promising an "international safety
net" gave the edge to the LTTE. Norwegian state patronage given to the
banned LTTE agents on Norwegian soil, in violation of international
law, gives the edge to the LTTE. Each time he knocks hard on the head
of the GoSL and gently slaps the wrists of the Tamil Tigers as a sign
of his neutrality Solheim gives the edge to the LTTE.
The financing of LTTE agents and LTTE institutions from the time Red
Banna began its operations in Sri Lanka in the early eighties has given
the edge to the LTTE. When the local head of Red Banna came back as
Norway's ambassador to Sri Lanka it was to give the edge to the LTTE.
When in Geneva 1, Solheim stunned the GoSL team by ruling in favour of
Balasingham he was giving the edge to the LTTE. In Geneva 1 when
Solheim was pressuring the GoSL to let his boozing buddy, Anton
Balasingham, make the opening speech he was giving he edge to the LTTE.
The lovey-dovey relationship that went on between "Bala and Erik" on
stage and off stage gave the edge to the LTTE. When Vidar Helgessen
pressured G. L. Peiris to address "Bala" as "Your Excellency" it gave
the edge to the LTTE.
The list goes on. When Jon Hanssen Bauer, the failed successor to his
failed predecessor, Erik Solheim told Norwegian radio that they
consider both sides as "equal partners" he was giving the edge to the
LTTE.
When Bauer and Erik blame the EU ban for the failure of their efforts
to bring about peace they are exonerating the LTTE of their
unacceptable violence and giving the edge to the LTTE. When Solheim
blames the GoSL for not taming the Karuna Group (a group that was with
the LTTE when Solheim got both parties to sign the CFA) he is giving
the edge to the LTTE.
To all appearances they are just two failed interventionists who are
looking for scapegoats and the best way out for them is to blame the
EU, the Sri Lankan government, para-militaries, etc., repeating the
same line as that of the LTTE. The intended impact of
repeating the LTTE line is to give the edge to their partners in crime
in the Vanni.
This circus of performing clowns from Norway and Killinochchi has gone
on so long that the people are refusing to buy any more tickets for the
"Erik and Bala" show. From the beginning the Norwegians got the NGO
claque to clap for them by buying each clap with Norwegian kroner. A
common sight at this circus will be Jehan Perera, A. T. Ariyaratne,
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Rohan Edrisinghe, Kumar Rupesinghe - the
usual jokers applauding the clowns from Oslo and Killinochchi. But
Norwegian money talks. Norwegian even got Jehan Perera to talk against
at the World Alliance for Peace in Sri Lanka (WAPS) conference held in
Oslo.
Just to appease his Norwegian paymasters Jen Perera told Norwegian
media that it was a meeting of "extremists". The WAPS conference was
addressed by leading authorities on Sri Lankan terrorism like Prof.
Peter Chalk of Rand Corporation think-tank, Paul Harris, the
correspondent of Daily Telegraph who was thrown out by Ranil
Wickremesinghe for exposing his sell-out to the LTTE, Stewart Bell, of
the Canadian Nation and author of Snow Tigers, sociologist Dr. Susantha
Goonetilleke, Prof. Asoka Bandarage, Professor of
Women's Studies, Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts, USA, leading
Tamil dissidents from Europe, etc. When Jehan Perera, one of the main
recipients of Norwegian kroner, is asked to name the "extremists" he
grins sheepishly.
Judging by the available evidence, the upshot of the roles of Solheim
and his NGO mob in Colombo has been to worse the situation, despite
their claim to be experts in conflict resolution. The LTTE continues to
drag on, turning on and turning off peace talks to suit
its military and political agendas without any end in sight.
Solheim and his NGO gang will also go along with this
on-again-off-again tactics of the LTTE blaming, of course, the GoSL at
practically every turn. Their objective is to twist the arm of the
GoSL, with international pressure, to open the door for the talks over
and over again by offering concessions to the LTTE.
But at the end of the day when talks fail they jointly blame the GoSL
for not giving into everything that the LTTE demands. In short, their
reluctance to draw the line and say enough is enough has encouraged the
LTTE to rely on Solheim to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.
Solheim, therefore, cannot escape his share of the responsibility for
the intransigent behavior of the LTTE.
Besides, Solheim has to take the greater share of the blame for the
simple reason that he has stepped out of the parameters of his role as
a "facilitator". This job description is critical. It means that he is
not an "arbitrator" dictating the terms and conditions of the process
and its final outcome. Nor is he a "mediator" sitting in the middle
with certain discretionary powers to direct the exercise in a preferred
direction. He is merely a "facilitator" to bring both parties together
after consultation with both parties. But he alternates between an
"arbitrator" and "mediator", with his one-sided rulings that gives the
edge to the LTTE. It is when he fails that he takes cover behind the
claim of being a mere "facilitator" dependent helplessly on both
parties. This is true to some extent but what is critical is his sneaky
way of putting his weight behind the LTTE whenever there is an opening
for him to intervene. This interventionist role, going only one-way,
has cropped up frequently, leading eventually to land the peace process
to where it is now: disaster.
The Norwegians are very much like the Tamil Tigers: they opt to play
the role of the underdog when they are down. When they have the power
they ride roughshod over anybody crossing their path. The Norwegians do
not hesitate to claim glory and kudos when they produce bits and pieces
of paper like the Ceasefire Agreement. Then they parade as the greatest
experts on peace-making on earth. When the CFA -- the worthless paper
which has not served any stake holder except the Vanni arachchis -- was
shot down in flames by Solheim's political allies in the LTTE he blames
the GoSL for not accommodating the escalating demands of the LTTE.
The CFA was drafted primarily as a tool for the LTTE to consolidate its
position -- mainly control of territory - based on Erik-Bala notion
of two "equal partners" sharing power in the same mountain.
But this false assumption ignored the Chinese wisdom which is
encapsulated in the maxim that there can't be two tigers in the same
mountain. It gave maximum freedom and power for the LTTE to run amok,
violating all known cannons of international humanitarian laws. There
were hardly any restraints on LTTE movements but restraints were placed
on the Sri Lankan forces. There was no clause inserted for the LTTE to
disarm -- the primary condition laid down in peace deals from Ireland
to Aceh - but Ranil Wicremesinghe signed (See Clause 1.2 (a) of CFA.)
to disarm the deep penetration force (LRRP) and he implemented it to
the letter when his hounds raided the Athurigiriya safe house. CFA is
the prime example where Solheim diddled Ranil Wickremesinghe and handed
over power to Velupillai Prabhakaran. But what has he got out of CFA
except a bad name as a failure?
And what has Wickremesinghe got out of CFA except a kick in the pants?
When I met Solheim in Oslo he was complaining bitterly about the
failure of the GoSL to disarm the "para-militaries" (meaning Tamil
armed groups opposed to Prabhakaran). It was another example of his
manoeuvres to weaken the Sri Lankan government and strengthen the hands
of the LTTE militarily, territorially and internationally. The taped
phone conversation between the Norwegian Ambassador, Westborg and the
LTTE and Bradman Weerakoon and the LTTE reveal the extent to which they
were willing to go along with the LTTE -- in the name of peace, of
course!
Solheim's idea of making peace is to intervene, through international
pressure, to protect and to appease the LTTE. When he failed to do so
with the EU he lashed out against them. His technique of "facilitating"
runs through a very simple pattern: each time he finds it difficult to
change the intransigent stance of the LTTE he picks his next easiest
option of blaming the GoSL for not giving into LTTE demands. Of course,
helping the LTTE to win their demands is also another way of helping
himself to be in the peace process playing his usual interventionist
role. It is apparent that without the concessions made by the GoSL both
Solheim and Bauer would have been out of a job long time ago.
Consider also the Norwegian responsibility of appointing the Truce
Monitors as laid down in the CFA. Norway picked the Truce Monitors who
were flown in to the conflict zone with excellent credentials of their
trained skills to turn their necks the other way when the LTTE went on
the rampage, violating the CFA 95% of the time. When the LTTE sank a
Chinese ship in the Palk Strait the Truce Monitors even saw "Third
(ghost) Party" operating in that neck of the woods! Ulf Henriccson also
saw the Sri Lankan Army killing the aid workers in Sampoor when the
LTTE was still in control of it! While the Norwegians were treating the
LTTE as "equal partners" of the sovereign state of Sri Lanka the former
head of the Truce Monitors, Hagrup Haukland, elevated the "Pol Potist
regime" (New York Times) as "freedom fighters".
Is it surprising that the Solheim-led peace process has ended in the
hell hole in which it is now? Neither in handling the negotiations nor
in handling has the monitoring of the truce had Solheim, the chief
overseer, succeeded. He has blundered all the way from Oslo to Colombo.
Solheim's claim to fame apart from bed-hopping, according to his
biography, is the Ceasefire Agreement.
The CFA which was supposed to be Solheim's masterpiece is in tatters.
With each failure at the talks his excuses for passing the buck to
others are wearing thin. His duty as the man-in-the-middle was to be
more pragmatic and less partisan. Solheim is now making a desperate bid
to cast off the guilt on his shoulders by blaming it on others. In
addition to blaming the GoSL, para-militaries, EU, and anti-LTTE
political circles the Solheim-Bauer duo has listed the Sri Lankan media
too as carping and irritating critics.
If, however, he had paused to take a critical look at his own failures
he might come round to think twice about his transparently partisan
role. Neither Solheim nor Bauer has paused to analyse why their loud
protests of being neutral players have failed to win a solid vote bank
in Sri Lanka, except, of course, the NGOs and the LTTE. In fact, the
political alignment of this duo behind the Norwegians alone stands out
as a confirmation of the old adage of birds of a feather flocking
together. Which terrorist group will not line up behind Norway if they
too are elevated to the rank of a state, or exonerated as "freedom
fighters"?
Solheim and Bauer have demonstrated a queer sense of neutrality and
balance when they equate the Tamil Tigers to the Sri Lankan state.
>From what text book of conflict resolution they picked up this
counter-productive and self-defeating formula is yet to be revealed.
The flow-on impact of this assumption has had a negative impact on the
peace process. The distance traveled by the Norwegian down their
interventionist road is littered with corpses of the war-weary people.
They have nothing to take home except the pictures of the increasing
headstones in Prabhakaran's neatly kept graveyards.
International Development Erik Solheim told BBC Sandeshaya that both
parties informed the facilitators of their willingness to come back to
the table without any conditions."
Later (September 15, 2006) the BBC announced that "the Tamil Tigers
have imposed 'conditions' for the proposed talks between them and the
Sri Lanka government." It added: "Rasiah Ilanthirayan demanded that the
government withdraw from the areas captured recently, including the
strategically important Sampur."
"We will not come back to talks if the government fails to implement
the demarcation lines according to the CFA" he told BBC sinahala.com.
After Sampoor the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) too was quite explicit
and persistent in stating that they would lay down conditions before
talks could begin again. This was predictable because the GoSL had
burnt its fingers on previous occasions by running to talks each time
the LTTE says that they are ready for talks and returning empty handed
like the procession of Co-chairs and other international emissaries
returning empty handed from Vanni.
So how on earth did Erik Solheim come to the conclusion that there were
no pre-conditions for talks? Neither the GoSL nor the LTTE were lying
on this aspect. Nor was there any need to prevaricate considering the
risks of going to talks without pre-conditions. Certainly, one apparent
reason for this fictitious statement is Solheim's eagerness to make an
impression on the international stage. His deflated self-confidence
after so many failures, no doubt, needed a booster to make him feel
good and also to look good as if he is the Super Man who got another
break-through. But the peace process is not about making Solheim feel
good, or look good.
This is all about saving lives of the war-weary people of Sri Lanka.
Solheim has failed in the past. His monumental failure has been in the
Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) which he engineered. Solheim has failed again
in his latest move to be smarter than what he really is.
But the more questionable agenda is his behind-the-scene attempts (1)
to pull the chestnuts out for the Tigers who are licking their wounds
in Killinochchi and (2) to pull wool over the eyes of Sri Lankans and
the actors involved in the peace process. The only way the Tigers could
save the day is by pretending to be peace-lovers with an unquenchable
thirst to negotiate. They discover the virtues of negotiations and
peace only when they are beaten.
Not surprisingly, after Sampoor the Tigers have turned into non-violent
Gandhians overnight. This is the other face of the Tigers. They are
either Pol Potist executioners breathing hellfire and thunder when the
going is good for them or goody-goody Gandhians when the chips are
down. Now that they are in the mood to show the Gandhian face what will
Solheim do when the Tigers come out snarling with their original Pol
Potist face next time?
Solheim has a lot to answer for misleading the Co-chairs, the world and
the Sri Lankan public in declaring that both parties had agreed to
talks without any pre-conditions. When there is no evidence to back up
his claim how can Solheim be accepted as a reliable facilitator to
interpret and report the true facts of the unfolding events - a prime
necessity for the Co-chairs and the other actors to arrive at informed
decisions that could help all concerned to work out a durable peace. No
peace can last on lies or ill-informed interpretations, or distorted
information manufactured by the facilitators sitting in the middle,
attempting to play the role God.
Is it surprising that he has lost the confidence of the Sri Lankan
political circles and the public at large? Each time he loses and faces
the flak from Sri Lankan political he runs to the Co-chairs to make
them chant the same old mantra of having" full confidence in the
Norwegian facilitators". He may be having the full confidence of the
Co-chairs but shouldn't he first win some confidence from the people
who are affected directly by his incompetence and partisan role? And,
above all, isn't the incompetence and the partisan role of Solheim one
of the primary causes for the failure of the Sri Lankan peace process?
When it comes to analyzing the realities of Sri Lankan he seems to be
suffering from dyspraxia -- a neurological condition where the brain
cannot process the known facts. Who else would want to equate the
democratically elected state of Sri Lanka with an unelected fascist
outfit with a penchant for killing Tamils and whoever else crosses its
path? Isn't the implicit objective behind Solheim's move to equate a
banned terrorist outfit wanted by Interpol, India and Sri Lanka with
that of an internationally recognized state to give the edge to the
LTTE? Isn't Solheim aiming to confer a status to the LTTE which the
entire international community has refused to grant?
Besides, where has his endeavors to give parity of status to the LTTE
and his partisan role taken him? All his maneuvers have gone round in
circles and brought him to square one because the LTTE would either
sabotage the agreements (example: CFA) or walk out on flimsy excuses.
The last time this occurred was in June when the LTTE walked out even
before the talks began in Geneva 2. It was trumpeted by Solheim as a
big break-through under impossible circumstances but like everyone who
relied on the LTTE he ended with an egg on his face.
His failures stem mainly from his misguided notion of treating both as
"equal partners" which has no legal, political or pragmatic validity.
This elevation of both parties to the status of "equal partners" plays
a major role in Norwegian thinking and strategy.
But, as revealed in the unfolding events, this is a strategy that has
emboldened the LTTE to go in the opposite direction of peace.It has
neither kept the LTTE in the peace process nor advanced the peace
process. On the contrary, it has made them believe that Eelam is the
next step after the parity of status granted by Solheim.
Past experiences also confirm that Solheim's strategy will not take
anybody anywhere. Having painted himself into a corner from which he
cannot get out Solheim has no way out but to stay where he is, giving
the edge to the LTTE, because that is the only way he can win the
favour of the LTTE to remain as a player in the peace process. If he
withdraws from this ill-fated "strategy" he knows that he will be
thrown out like the Truce Monitors from the EU.
The sole responsibility for getting stuck in this rut lies with
Solheim. It was Balasingham, his buddy, who was clawing every inch of
the way to gain parity of status, whether in making opening speeches,
or in laying down conditions for negotiations.
Balasingham's line of
"you-have-your-prime-minister-and-we-have-our-own" announced at the
one-and-only Killinochchi press conference is Holy Scripture for
Solheim. He operated on the premise that he could win the favour of
Balasingham by according him that equal status. In letting Balasingham
gain the upper hand Solheim over-estimated the LTTE negotiator's power
to swing things the Norwegian way. It was fatal mistake. Each time he
favoured Balasingham he neither won anything substantial from either
the LTTE or the GoSL.
Balasingham tricked Solheim into believing that he could be made use of
for Solheim's purposes though he never deviated from Prabhakaran's
agenda. Solheim, in short, was led up the garden path. This flawed
strategy is one of the main reasons why Solheim and Bauer are doomed to
fail. They came as problem-solvers. Now they stand naked as a
conspicuous part of the problem.
Besides, his decision to give parity of status to a banned terrorist
group in Sri Lanka would have some justification if his government
gives the same consideration to all other banned terrorist groups. But
what parity of status has Solheim and his side-kick Jon Hanssen Bauer
given to Osama Bin Laden's Al Quaida fighting the Norwegian forces
stationed in Afghanistan? Do the Norwegians confer them equality of
status or do they shoot them down like dogs if they step out of line?
Three Muslim civilians were shot in Afghanistan by Norwegian soldiers
because they were demonstrating outside their camp.
Which member of the Co-chairs demanded an international commission to
inquire into the killing of non-combatant Afghans by the Norwegians?
Contradictory evidence like this has undermined the public confidence
in Solheim's role. He pretends to blame both sides in the hope of being
seen as a neutral player but he has failed, time and again, to convince
the GoSL and the Sri Lankans for the simple
reason that his nakedness can be seen beneath the fig leaf each time
puffs of Vanni winds lifts it up.
The Sri Lankan public refuses to believe in the neutrality of Solheim
because his moves and counter-moves have consistently given the edge to
the LTTE. His manipulations to con Ranil Wickremesinghe into signing
the CFA by promising an "international safety
net" gave the edge to the LTTE. Norwegian state patronage given to the
banned LTTE agents on Norwegian soil, in violation of international
law, gives the edge to the LTTE. Each time he knocks hard on the head
of the GoSL and gently slaps the wrists of the Tamil Tigers as a sign
of his neutrality Solheim gives the edge to the LTTE.
The financing of LTTE agents and LTTE institutions from the time Red
Banna began its operations in Sri Lanka in the early eighties has given
the edge to the LTTE. When the local head of Red Banna came back as
Norway's ambassador to Sri Lanka it was to give the edge to the LTTE.
When in Geneva 1, Solheim stunned the GoSL team by ruling in favour of
Balasingham he was giving the edge to the LTTE. In Geneva 1 when
Solheim was pressuring the GoSL to let his boozing buddy, Anton
Balasingham, make the opening speech he was giving he edge to the LTTE.
The lovey-dovey relationship that went on between "Bala and Erik" on
stage and off stage gave the edge to the LTTE. When Vidar Helgessen
pressured G. L. Peiris to address "Bala" as "Your Excellency" it gave
the edge to the LTTE.
The list goes on. When Jon Hanssen Bauer, the failed successor to his
failed predecessor, Erik Solheim told Norwegian radio that they
consider both sides as "equal partners" he was giving the edge to the
LTTE.
When Bauer and Erik blame the EU ban for the failure of their efforts
to bring about peace they are exonerating the LTTE of their
unacceptable violence and giving the edge to the LTTE. When Solheim
blames the GoSL for not taming the Karuna Group (a group that was with
the LTTE when Solheim got both parties to sign the CFA) he is giving
the edge to the LTTE.
To all appearances they are just two failed interventionists who are
looking for scapegoats and the best way out for them is to blame the
EU, the Sri Lankan government, para-militaries, etc., repeating the
same line as that of the LTTE. The intended impact of
repeating the LTTE line is to give the edge to their partners in crime
in the Vanni.
This circus of performing clowns from Norway and Killinochchi has gone
on so long that the people are refusing to buy any more tickets for the
"Erik and Bala" show. From the beginning the Norwegians got the NGO
claque to clap for them by buying each clap with Norwegian kroner. A
common sight at this circus will be Jehan Perera, A. T. Ariyaratne,
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Rohan Edrisinghe, Kumar Rupesinghe - the
usual jokers applauding the clowns from Oslo and Killinochchi. But
Norwegian money talks. Norwegian even got Jehan Perera to talk against
at the World Alliance for Peace in Sri Lanka (WAPS) conference held in
Oslo.
Just to appease his Norwegian paymasters Jen Perera told Norwegian
media that it was a meeting of "extremists". The WAPS conference was
addressed by leading authorities on Sri Lankan terrorism like Prof.
Peter Chalk of Rand Corporation think-tank, Paul Harris, the
correspondent of Daily Telegraph who was thrown out by Ranil
Wickremesinghe for exposing his sell-out to the LTTE, Stewart Bell, of
the Canadian Nation and author of Snow Tigers, sociologist Dr. Susantha
Goonetilleke, Prof. Asoka Bandarage, Professor of
Women's Studies, Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts, USA, leading
Tamil dissidents from Europe, etc. When Jehan Perera, one of the main
recipients of Norwegian kroner, is asked to name the "extremists" he
grins sheepishly.
Judging by the available evidence, the upshot of the roles of Solheim
and his NGO mob in Colombo has been to worse the situation, despite
their claim to be experts in conflict resolution. The LTTE continues to
drag on, turning on and turning off peace talks to suit
its military and political agendas without any end in sight.
Solheim and his NGO gang will also go along with this
on-again-off-again tactics of the LTTE blaming, of course, the GoSL at
practically every turn. Their objective is to twist the arm of the
GoSL, with international pressure, to open the door for the talks over
and over again by offering concessions to the LTTE.
But at the end of the day when talks fail they jointly blame the GoSL
for not giving into everything that the LTTE demands. In short, their
reluctance to draw the line and say enough is enough has encouraged the
LTTE to rely on Solheim to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.
Solheim, therefore, cannot escape his share of the responsibility for
the intransigent behavior of the LTTE.
Besides, Solheim has to take the greater share of the blame for the
simple reason that he has stepped out of the parameters of his role as
a "facilitator". This job description is critical. It means that he is
not an "arbitrator" dictating the terms and conditions of the process
and its final outcome. Nor is he a "mediator" sitting in the middle
with certain discretionary powers to direct the exercise in a preferred
direction. He is merely a "facilitator" to bring both parties together
after consultation with both parties. But he alternates between an
"arbitrator" and "mediator", with his one-sided rulings that gives the
edge to the LTTE. It is when he fails that he takes cover behind the
claim of being a mere "facilitator" dependent helplessly on both
parties. This is true to some extent but what is critical is his sneaky
way of putting his weight behind the LTTE whenever there is an opening
for him to intervene. This interventionist role, going only one-way,
has cropped up frequently, leading eventually to land the peace process
to where it is now: disaster.
The Norwegians are very much like the Tamil Tigers: they opt to play
the role of the underdog when they are down. When they have the power
they ride roughshod over anybody crossing their path. The Norwegians do
not hesitate to claim glory and kudos when they produce bits and pieces
of paper like the Ceasefire Agreement. Then they parade as the greatest
experts on peace-making on earth. When the CFA -- the worthless paper
which has not served any stake holder except the Vanni arachchis -- was
shot down in flames by Solheim's political allies in the LTTE he blames
the GoSL for not accommodating the escalating demands of the LTTE.
The CFA was drafted primarily as a tool for the LTTE to consolidate its
position -- mainly control of territory - based on Erik-Bala notion
of two "equal partners" sharing power in the same mountain.
But this false assumption ignored the Chinese wisdom which is
encapsulated in the maxim that there can't be two tigers in the same
mountain. It gave maximum freedom and power for the LTTE to run amok,
violating all known cannons of international humanitarian laws. There
were hardly any restraints on LTTE movements but restraints were placed
on the Sri Lankan forces. There was no clause inserted for the LTTE to
disarm -- the primary condition laid down in peace deals from Ireland
to Aceh - but Ranil Wicremesinghe signed (See Clause 1.2 (a) of CFA.)
to disarm the deep penetration force (LRRP) and he implemented it to
the letter when his hounds raided the Athurigiriya safe house. CFA is
the prime example where Solheim diddled Ranil Wickremesinghe and handed
over power to Velupillai Prabhakaran. But what has he got out of CFA
except a bad name as a failure?
And what has Wickremesinghe got out of CFA except a kick in the pants?
When I met Solheim in Oslo he was complaining bitterly about the
failure of the GoSL to disarm the "para-militaries" (meaning Tamil
armed groups opposed to Prabhakaran). It was another example of his
manoeuvres to weaken the Sri Lankan government and strengthen the hands
of the LTTE militarily, territorially and internationally. The taped
phone conversation between the Norwegian Ambassador, Westborg and the
LTTE and Bradman Weerakoon and the LTTE reveal the extent to which they
were willing to go along with the LTTE -- in the name of peace, of
course!
Solheim's idea of making peace is to intervene, through international
pressure, to protect and to appease the LTTE. When he failed to do so
with the EU he lashed out against them. His technique of "facilitating"
runs through a very simple pattern: each time he finds it difficult to
change the intransigent stance of the LTTE he picks his next easiest
option of blaming the GoSL for not giving into LTTE demands. Of course,
helping the LTTE to win their demands is also another way of helping
himself to be in the peace process playing his usual interventionist
role. It is apparent that without the concessions made by the GoSL both
Solheim and Bauer would have been out of a job long time ago.
Consider also the Norwegian responsibility of appointing the Truce
Monitors as laid down in the CFA. Norway picked the Truce Monitors who
were flown in to the conflict zone with excellent credentials of their
trained skills to turn their necks the other way when the LTTE went on
the rampage, violating the CFA 95% of the time. When the LTTE sank a
Chinese ship in the Palk Strait the Truce Monitors even saw "Third
(ghost) Party" operating in that neck of the woods! Ulf Henriccson also
saw the Sri Lankan Army killing the aid workers in Sampoor when the
LTTE was still in control of it! While the Norwegians were treating the
LTTE as "equal partners" of the sovereign state of Sri Lanka the former
head of the Truce Monitors, Hagrup Haukland, elevated the "Pol Potist
regime" (New York Times) as "freedom fighters".
Is it surprising that the Solheim-led peace process has ended in the
hell hole in which it is now? Neither in handling the negotiations nor
in handling has the monitoring of the truce had Solheim, the chief
overseer, succeeded. He has blundered all the way from Oslo to Colombo.
Solheim's claim to fame apart from bed-hopping, according to his
biography, is the Ceasefire Agreement.
The CFA which was supposed to be Solheim's masterpiece is in tatters.
With each failure at the talks his excuses for passing the buck to
others are wearing thin. His duty as the man-in-the-middle was to be
more pragmatic and less partisan. Solheim is now making a desperate bid
to cast off the guilt on his shoulders by blaming it on others. In
addition to blaming the GoSL, para-militaries, EU, and anti-LTTE
political circles the Solheim-Bauer duo has listed the Sri Lankan media
too as carping and irritating critics.
If, however, he had paused to take a critical look at his own failures
he might come round to think twice about his transparently partisan
role. Neither Solheim nor Bauer has paused to analyse why their loud
protests of being neutral players have failed to win a solid vote bank
in Sri Lanka, except, of course, the NGOs and the LTTE. In fact, the
political alignment of this duo behind the Norwegians alone stands out
as a confirmation of the old adage of birds of a feather flocking
together. Which terrorist group will not line up behind Norway if they
too are elevated to the rank of a state, or exonerated as "freedom
fighters"?
Solheim and Bauer have demonstrated a queer sense of neutrality and
balance when they equate the Tamil Tigers to the Sri Lankan state.
>From what text book of conflict resolution they picked up this
counter-productive and self-defeating formula is yet to be revealed.
The flow-on impact of this assumption has had a negative impact on the
peace process. The distance traveled by the Norwegian down their
interventionist road is littered with corpses of the war-weary people.
They have nothing to take home except the pictures of the increasing
headstones in Prabhakaran's neatly kept graveyards.