Archives

Deproscription of LTTE: US would use its own yardstick

In an exclusive interview given to a spacial correspondent of the 'Daily News' US Ambassador to Sri Lanka. Ashley Wills provided a candid view of his country on the vexing question of international terrorism in general and on the demand to the Sri Lanka government for deproscription of the LTTE in particular.

The political negotiations brokered by Norway suffered a severe set back last year when the LTTE unexpectedly sprang a surprise on Oslo by refusing to sit down for talks with the Government prior to lifting the proscription. It will be recalled that the proscription was a knee jerk response by the PA Government following the LTTE attack on the 'Temple of the Tooth'. That demand effectively halted the negotiations on its tracks despite the fact that by that time Norway had negotiated text of a memorandum of understanding leading to political negotiations.

Since the unilateral declaration of cessation of hostilities last December by the LTTE, the issue of de-proscription has once again come to the fore and Sri Lankans are eagerly waiting to see the reaction of the Government.

The dilemma faced by Government is whether a decision taken at a predetermined time to de-proscribe the LTTE would have a ripple effect on those countries that have taken local action to ban the LTTE as a foreign terrorist organization. The Government should justifiably be concerned as in such an even the LTTE would put its well oiled propaganda machine in to high gear and demand the foreign governments that have already banned the organization to follow the example set by Sri Lanka.

Responding to a "hypothetical" question raised as to whether de-proscription of the organization would affect the US-position. Ambassador Wills said: "If the Sri Lanka Government decided to de-proscribe the LTTE...that would be its sovereign decision. In the right circumstances, the US will understand why that decision was taken." Further elaborating on the issue, the US Ambassador said. "That would be an internal Sri Lankan matter and it would not affect the decision of my government". He added, "We did not put the LTTE on the list of terrorist organizations because Sri Lanka asked us to do so. We did that based on our own analysis of the tigers".

Speaking on the reverse process, in which the US would decide to take the LTTE off the list of foreign terrorist organizations, Ambassador Wills commented. "We would consider many factors. We would arrive at the decision on the basis of our own assessment of the situation". Ambassador Wills stressed the fact that "if the Sri Lanka Government felt it necessary to lift the ban on the Tigers that would be noticed by my country, but it will not determine our action. Our action will be based on the analysis of facts".

It is, therefore, clear that the US would use its own yardstick to determine whether the LTTE could be removed from the list and if so, when such a step could be taken.

Answering to a question how other countries such as India, Canada, the UK Australia etc, could respond to a decision taken by Sri Lanka, Ambassador Wills said. "I honestly don't know. It is not for me to speak on behalf of those governments. I have hardly enough time speaking on behalf of my Government".

Since early 1990s the US has been focusing on what they term as foreign terrorist organizations operating from its soil. It was not until 1997 the LTTE was included in the list. Their status has been renewed twice since then. Foreign terrorist organisations get on to the list by demonstrating a consistent willingness to pursue political, religious or ideological ends by engaging in attacks against civilians. Or they can get on to the list by attacking military targets in which they knowingly and deliberately kill or injure innocent civilians. If a terrorist organisation attacks military targets knowing that innocent civilians will also get hurt in that process, that action too would qualify as a terrorist attack. According to Ambassador Wills an organization can get out of the list by "a public renunciation of terrorism or public renunciation of violence altogether". When questioned whether a mere declaration would be sufficient or a considerable period after such a declaration would be necessary to determine that the organization concerned had indeed turned the corner. Ambassador Wills was quite categorical. He said. "A statement would be helpful, but we would wait fora period of time, quite a decent interval during which they would monitor to see whether words would be matched by deeds". However, there was no indication of the length of time required, following such a declaration, to lift the ban.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager