|
|
"To us
all towns are one, all men our kin. |
| Home | Whats New | Trans State Nation | One World | Unfolding Consciousness | Comments | Search |
|
|
"To us
all towns are one, all men our kin. |
| Home | Whats New | Trans State Nation | One World | Unfolding Consciousness | Comments | Search |
Home > Struggle for Tamil Eelam > Conflict Resolution - Sri Lanka - Tamil Eelam: Getting to Yes > British Refugee Council on the Bi Partisan Approach
British Refugee Council
on the Bi Partisan Approach
June 2000
| "The ruling People’s Alliance (PA) and the main opposition United National Party (UNP) continued talks in June on constitutional reform, said to be aimed at achieving peace. But it is now clear that the two parties are engaged in the dangerous 50 year-old political game that has cost the lives of over 60,000 people..." |
[See also:
Bi-Partisanship - the Second Big Lie
- Statement by the Action Group of Tamils, 20 February 1999]
"One of the essential elements that must be kept in mind in understanding the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict is that, since 1958 at least, every time Tamil politicians negotiated some sort of power-sharing deal with a Sinhalese government - regardless of which party was in power - the opposition Sinhalese party always claimed that the party in power had negotiated away too much. In almost every case - sometimes within days - the party in power backed down on the agreement." - (Professor Marshall Singer, at US Congress Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Hearing on Sri Lanka November 14,1995) ‘‘Whilst Sri Lanka talks peace it continues with its military efforts. If we look at the past we can see why. Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism has been institutionalised in Sri Lanka and today it has become more powerful than the politicians themselves. Indeed even if some Sinhala politicians seek to settle the conflict, Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism will seek to prevent such a settlement. This is the political reality that those who are aware of the Sri Lankan situation are well aware of. This Sinhala chauvinism which was nurtured by Sinhala politicians for their electoral advantage, has grown into a Frankenstein monster which now has the power to destroy and make politicians. This we understand very well.’’ (Sathasivam Krishnakumar, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in an interview with Melbourne Community Radio CR3, September, 1991) |
The British Refugee Council Sri Lanka Monitor Briefing, June 2000:
"The ruling People’s Alliance (PA) and the main opposition United National Party (UNP) continued talks in June on constitutional reform, said to be aimed at achieving peace. But it is now clear that the two parties are engaged in the dangerous 50 year-old political game that has cost the lives of over 60,000 people.
According to reports, the two parties reached agreement on several issues, the PA going back on assurances to the Tamil political parties in order to satisfy UNP demands. Some observers say the new agreement is inimical to devolution of power and the promotion of human rights. Others believe that PA has agreed to many of the UNP demands, because President Chandrika is keen to adopt the new constitution, which will also contain interim provisions enabling her to continue as President for another six years, with the extensive powers that she currently enjoys, before the final abolition of the executive presidency.
The government proposals provide that a regional statute would become law when signed by the speaker of the regional council. The UNP wants the regional governor to be vested with the power to reject regional statutes, as in the case of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. (The governor would be an appointee of the central government). In 1991, the regional governor under the 13th Amendment, rejected a statute by the North-East Provincial Council to acquire the bus transport authority.
| "Defending the devolution package, (President Kumaratunga) said in no way would it erode the supremacy of (the central) Parliament... The President said that since Policy Planning was a subject for the centre, the central government had a hold in every subject a region handled... the President said, even if a Regional Council opposes, the centre has the power to go ahead and allocate land for its purposes. The President also moved to allay fears of a North-East merger saying that the government did not have any idea of merging the North with the East." (Sinhala owned Sri Lanka Sunday Times reported on 20 August 1995) |
The government proposals also envisage national policy only in some areas such as finance and defence. But the UNP wants national policies for all areas, including those that are listed as regional subjects. The UNP has also opposed the inclusion of social, economic and cultural rights in the ‘Fundamental Rights’ chapter of the proposed constitution. Special rights for children, right to safe conditions of work, freedom from forced labour and other social rights will be included under ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ and will not be enforceable.
An interim council in the north-east is also proposed, before a referendum in the Eastern Province to decide whether it would remain merged with the Northern Province. The interim council will be appointed by the President based on the ethnic ratio in the north-east. The Tamil political parties are adamant that the two provinces must remain permanently merged for the purpose of devolution and oppose a referendum in the east. They say that large-scale displacement of the Tamil population and government-led Sinhalese settlements in the eastern province will have a major impact on the outcome of the referendum.
The Tamil parties also insist that control over land in the region must remain with the regional council. The Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) told Norwegian peace negotiator Erik Solheim in Colombo in late June that any proposed solution without the consultation of the LTTE is unacceptable.
In an interview to London-based Tamil Guardian on 29 June, LTTE’s political advisor Anton Balasingham again rejected government proposals, alleging that they have been further watered down leaving only a ‘skeleton’. Mr Balasingham says the proposals fail to address the ‘key demands or the national aspirations of the Tamil people as articulated in the cardinal principles of the Thimpu declaration’..."
