Archives

Peace process: Questions of structure

The latest question that has cropped up in relation to the peace process concerns its structure. Should we discuss the core issues first or should we discuss interim measures and go on to core issues later on?

The SLFP as well as the President is of the view that core issues should be discussed first. The Government seems to think otherwise. Its approach is a step by step one where the interim issues would be taken first.

The LTTE has been more specific. It has raised preliminary issues like de-proscription and the interim administration in the North and East. In its opinion, normalcy has to be restored in the North and East before the core issues could be addressed.

Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Vidar Helgesen has recently said that talks should take a long-term view. If the interim solution has no significance whatsoever for the end solution, it will be artificial, he said.

These are issues that merit serious attention.

An early consensus on these issues would facilitate the peace process and increase the chances of its ultimate success.

There is also the question "What are core issues?"

Different parties may consider different problems to be the core issues. The LTTE has so far not spelt them out except for publicizing their principled stand on the homeland, self-determination and Tamil rights.

The question of identifying the core issues has to be settled at the talks itself. Naturally, they will come up when the agenda for the talks has to be worked out. These may be more than what the combatants on both sides contemplate.

For example, there is already a question about human rights, which has been brought up by local and international NGOs as well as by certain political parties. All these core issues have to be identified and addressed to within the parameters of the substantial talks.

There is no consensus in the South on key issues like the nature of the state, the extent and nature (should it be asymmetric or symmetric?) of devolution, law and order and land alienation.

The lack of such a consensus may be one reason for the Government to opt for a peace process comprising several phases, each leading to a higher stage.

That is also a strategy that could prevent the atmosphere being emotively charged. It would also give the people a chance to see peace dividends while the parties to the conflict could go on reinforcing the confidence building mechanisms.

As the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister has pointed out there should an organic link between the different phases of the process and the final solution. One more factor that needs attention is the duration of the talks. Is it practical or advisable to call for one big round of talks within a specified time frame? In our opinion, it would be na‹ve to rush the talks to a final conclusion.

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