Will Solheim let Prabhakaran Terrorist abduct his children

President Mahinda Rajapakse's government is struggling, without the
obligatory help from the Co-chairs and the "facilitator" Erik Solheim,
to put an end either to (1) the escalating violence of the LTTE or (2)
the increasing demands of the LTTE - both of which have undermined the
peace process and any prospects of holding talks in Geneva. Even a
blind man's dog can see that the LTTE exploits this twin-track tactics
to consolidate its intransigent and belligerent politics.

Emboldened by the lack of meaningful intervention by the Co-chairs and
Erik Solheim the LTTE thumbs its nose at the international community
contemptuously. The situation has deteriorated to the point where the
LTTE escalates violence even when their demands are granted. (Example:
Transport to their commanders). Knowing that they can get away with
violence they escalate demands backed by claymore mines.

As the situation deteriorates neither the Co-chairs nor Erik Solheim is
prepared to say: "Enough is enough!". In his latest interview to AFP,
Solheim has complained that he is frustrated with both sides for not
showing any flexibility. This statement stretches the truth beyond
sustainable limits. Presumably, the Royal Norwegian Foreign Ministry
has not told him that the Chief Peace Monitor, Ulf Henricsson and his
spokesperson, Helen Olafdottir had bluntly placed the blame on the LTTE
for escalating the violence and piling demand after demand without
compromising, blocking the road to Geneva.

In any event, is there any point in going to Geneva 2, which is bound
to head towards Geneva 3, 4, 5 and beyond in an endless chain without
substantial gains to justify the meetings? The peace talks -- if the
second round begins at all in Geneva -- will go round the same mulberry
bush with the LTTE increasing its demands and with Erik Solheim openly
taking the side of his friend Anton Balasingham. They are so
lovey-dovey that "Bala" addresses him as "Erik" even at the conference.
Whenever "Bala" feels like stopping the Government delegation from
presenting its case he yells at "Erik" saying: "Erik, please stop him"
and "Erik" obliges without a demur. This happened to Gomin Dayasiri,
the lawyer, presenting his formidable case demolishing the denials of
"Bala" on child abduction and torture.

Erik is a father of four children. What would he do if he was living
under a fascist regime that abducts children to fight wars for the
glory of the Fuhrer? Will he, like some Quisling, defend them in
international forums claiming that they are "freedom fighters"? Or will
he join the resistance of dissidents and put maximum pressure publicly
and privately to protect children? Are his obligations to a band of
unrepentant, incorrigible violators of human rights? Or are his moral,
political and legal obligations to the higher laws of humanity that are
enshrined to combat war crimes and crimes against humanity?

He is also a member of the Socialist Left Party which, incidentally, is
losing popularity in the opinion polls in Norway. He is a Cabinet
Minister of a society dominated by the Lutheran Church. Prime Ministers
(example: Kjell Bondevik, whom he served earlier) are lay preachers of
this Church. Where in the doctrines of Lutheranism or his socialism
does it say that he can blithely go along with those who have violated
every known canon of human decency? Is he accountable to the God of
Luther or to the Mammon in Vanni?

So far he has acted in the imperious manner of Viking raider armed with
a licence to be above the laws of his country, international laws and
the laws of common decency. But where has it taken him? The stark
reality is that his approach has failed to win the confidence of the
majority of the people affected by his unproductive management of the
peace process. His biggest boast is the Ceasefire Agreement. Where has
it landed the peace process - 70 killings since the first week of April
with more to come?

The most common accusation is that he has been a partisan "facilitator"
who bends over backwards to appease the LTTE. Of course, this charge
can be dismissed as coming from biased "Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists"
or "extremists". Therefore it is necessary to examine his role from the
declared principles of his Royal Norwegian government and objective
outsiders like the respected Indian national newspaper, The Hindu.

In its editorial dealing with the attempt of the LTTE to pbutt its
rebellious baby, "Karuna" to the Sri Lankan government, The Hindu
(April 5, 2006), said, without mincing its words: "That Norway and the
international ceasefire monitors parrot the LTTE's demand on this issue
(that Sri Lankan government should disarm Karuna) is deplorable........
The charge that the Government is in violation of the ceasefire by not
disarming Karuna is completely over the top." Faced with the mounting
criticism of his role, Solheim told AFP in Oslo that he can't pull
rabbits out of his hat to solve the Sri Lankan problem. No one expects
him to do that. But what the war-weary people of Sri Lanka would like
him to do is to stop talking through his hat and do an honest job of
work without manufacturing excuses for his buddies in the LTTE.

Besides, no one is asking him to do anything more than the declared
principles of his own Royal Norwegian government. Everyone will recall
that he came as a "facilitator" under the government of Kjell Bondevik.
Prime Minister Bondevik declared the underlying principles of Norway's
diverse roles as facilitator, peace-broker, peace-keeper, negotiator
etc., in his speech delivered at the Victoria University, Wellington,
New Zealand on March 14, 2005, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of
Norwegian independence from Sweden. In it he said: "After the end of
the cold war, the two main threats to international security are
proliferation of weapons of mbutt destruction and terrorism. No cause
can justify terrorism."

Is it too much to ask Solheim to adhere to the principles of his own
government? Bondevik also stated categorically that the Royal Norwegian
government abides strictly by the covenants of international law in
settling international disputes. So is it too much to point out to him
that his credibility that is at stake when he fails to honour the
principles of his own government and international law in handling the
Sri Lankan crisis? Perhaps, he thinks that the Ceasefire Agreement
brokered by him is above international law, eh? And that being a
"facilitator" gives him super powers to brush aside the force of
international law and his government's principles, eh?

He would, of course, claim that he has to act even-handedly. No one
expects him to do anything less than that. This claim would have
carried some validity if both sides acknowledged his impartiality. But
Solheim has come under fire from all parties except the LTTE. So can it
be that all the parties are wrong and only the LTTE is right? Or could
it be that he is right only to the LTTE? The fundamental flaw in the
peace process managed by him can be located in his taking the side of
only one party in a multi-party conflict. Satisfying the LTTE alone has
not and will not bring a solution because it leaves the other parties -
major (Sinhalese) and minor (Muslim) - out.

But there are obvious restraints on him to act impartially because the
LTTE, having made use of him so far, will not hesitate to throw him out
if he does not take their side. For him to retain his position he has
to go against all available evidence to cover up for the war crimes and
the crimes against humanity committed by the LTTE. Of course, Solheim
is not the first Norwegian to go along with crimes against humanity.

In Guatemala in 1977, Gen. Kjell Langerud Garcia, a Lutheran of
Norwegian descent, became president in one of the most fraudulent
elections in Guatemala. His record of human rights violations was so
appalling that the Carter Administration stopped all aid. It is not
surprising to find Solheim goose-stepping with Gen. Kjell Garcia in
marching to the drum beat of the LTTE.

No doubt, he has the task of winning the confidence of both sides. But
should that go as far as endangering the peace process and lives of
people who depend on his role? Was he selected to serve peace or to
serve one or the other side? He has to now justify that his way of
winning the confidence of the LTTE is going to pay him and the peace
process dividends in the future. Otherwise it should be apparent to him
that he is being taken for a ride by the LTTE.

His standard excuse is that he is the messenger stuck between two
difficult customers. But is he the helpless man that he pretends to be,
merely delivering messages from one side to the other? Contrary to this
Pontius Pilate pose, his actions prove that he has exercised
considerable powers to release the criminal Barabbas in the Vanni. Now
its time for him to consider whether he should serve the LTTE or peace?


Every plant that goes off and every increase in demand can be counted
as the result of his mollycoddling the LTTE. Each time he takes the
stage to pull a rabbit out of his hat a tiger leaps out. So isn't it
clear that he has run out of his tricks? The choice left for him is
simple: either he throws his hat out or throws himself out of the stage!