Archives

De-proscription of the LTTE

The LTTE has once again asked the government to de-proscribe it. Last year to, they did the same when a Memorandum of Understanding was about to be signed concerning negotiations.

Though the LTTE says, this is not a pre-condition for the talks, it is an issue that cannot be ignored. Further, it has a bearing on the development of the peace talks.

Already there is a gentle debate in the media about the pros and cons of de-proscribing the LTTE.

It is necessary to view the whole question dispassionately, non-emotively. One should also keep in mind the interests of the community at large, especially he crying need for peace.

First of all we have to understand the reasons behind the demand. The LTTE says de-proscription would give it legitimacy in the talks. Considering international experience in conflict resolution, it is necessary for the non-sate party to gain some legitimacy in order to participate in talks. This is to avoid power imbalance between the two parties.

A degree of legitimacy would provide the non-state parties to enter the negotiations with self-respect. In this sense, the LTTE request cannot be ignored.

On the other hand, there may be other reasons behind the LTTE demand for de-proscription. It may be to gain some advantage in their struggle against proscription in other countries like the USA and Britain.

However, thee countries are not likely to lift the ban on the LTTE just because of a de-proscription in Sri Lanka. They proscribed the LTTE for reasons of their own. Their ban is likely to remain as long as those reasons remain unchanged. We could also recall that India and the US banned the LTTE years before Sri Lanka did. Thus that ban was not simultaneous with or not dependent on a ban in Sri Lanka.

What is of paramount importance to us is how a de-proscription would affect the security of the state and its citizens and how it would affect prospects for peace at the moment. It is also necessary to view the impact of de-proscription on the international campaign against terrorism.

This means that a decision has to be taken on the matter after carefully weighing all pros and cons. It should be a deeply thought out decision, as the Prime Minister told the House.

Negotiation is a two-way process, a process of give and take. The issue of de-proscription could be sorted out if both sides agree to a policy of give and take. It cannot be a one-way process.

The people demand that both sides understand the imperative of peace and adopt a flexible stand. If both sides are genuine, it is worth taking risks for the sake of peace. If peace could be advanced, there is no risk that is too big to be avoided. 

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