Will the tiger change its stripes?

Despite the offer for talks, Velupillai Prabhakaran's Heroes' Day speech is, at best, a bag of contradictions containing no hard evidence of any fundamental shift in the LTTE's position, reports NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN.

SO RARELY does the LTTE leader, Mr. Velupillai Prabhakaran, say anything, that his once-a-year Heroes' Day speeches are eagerly awaited, and, once delivered, become the subject of intense analysis. This year too, much hair will be split on the nuances of his utterances and this speech compared with those of previous years. Doubtless, bi-linguals will also compare the Tamil with the English versions put out by the LTTE's London office to see how much was lost in the translation.

But at the end of the day, one conclusion is inescapable. Despite the optimism generated by Mr. Prabhakaran's offer of ``unconditional talks'' this November 27, the speech is, at best, a bag of contradictory signals, containing no hard evidence of any shift in the LTTE's fundamental position that it stands for an independent Eelam.

Those who advocate talks with the LTTE said the Government in Colombo should grab Mr. Prabhakaran's offer. They pointed to the absence of a cry for Eelam in the speech, as well as to the fact that there was neither a demand for a ceasefire nor for a withdrawal of troops from the ``homeland'' as indication of a climb-down by the LTTE.

There is no denying that this year's Heroes' Day speech was not as aggressive as last year's, which came after a series of military victories. But Mr. Prabhakaran is clear that the offer of unconditional talks is dependent on the creation of an atmosphere of ``goodwill'' by the Government. Clarifying this, the LTTE leader said this would involve a ``de-escalation'' of the war, leading to a cessation of hostilities. In other words, a ceasefire, not immediately, but eventually. He also wants the Government to remove the economic blockades imposed in the Vanni, the LTTE-controlled northern mainland.

There is no direct demand for Eelam, but there is a lengthy reference to a ``just solution'' to Tamil aspirations based on the understanding that the Tamils were a ``national formation'' with a ``national consciousness'' with a ``historical homeland'' and a deep desire for guiding their own destiny through self- rule.

Shorn of the dressing, this sounds like a reformulated version of the Thimpu principles which have been rejected by Sri Lanka as concessions that could endanger its territorial integrity. Moreover, even the offer to talk seems grudging. ``We have doubts as to whether Chandrika's Government will do justice to the Tamils on the basis of understanding the fundamentals of the Tamil question,'' Mr. Prabhakaran declared.

Then why, asked the daily, Island, does he want to talk at all? The answer to that is provided by Mr. Prabhakaran himself, in the bitter allusion to the ``massive military assistance'' to Sri Lanka by the international community that forced him to ``delay the advance into Jaffna''. Taken with the pledge that he would ``liberate'' Jaffna ``whatever the challenges, regardless of the obstacles'', the conclusion is inevitable that the offer to talk seems tactical, not out of a change of heart, but due to a change in the circumstances of the LTTE.

Moreover, it could not have escaped the LTTE that the international community is tightening the screws on it. The group faces a possible ban in the U.K. when that country's new anti- terrorism laws take effect next April. The British junior Foreign Minister, Mr. Peter Hain, who was in Sri Lanka days before Mr. Prabhakaran made his speech, declined to predict if the LTTE would be on a list of organisations to ban from next year, but said it must give up its ``brutal violence'' and come forward for negotiations.

His call was reiterated by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Mr. Karl Inderfurth, who asked the LTTE to ``abandon terrorism'', and seek to achieve its political aims peacefully. The reaction to the speech by the international community has been guarded. Mr. Inderfurth, who was in Colombo then, said an initial reading showed ``signs of hope'' for the Norwegian-backed peace process in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan Government has not reacted yet. The President, Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga, with the memories of the 1995 failed peace talks fresh in her mind, has already made clear she does not intend to be rushed to the negotiating table naively.

Certainly, in the coming days, the pressure on the Government to respond to the LTTE offer will grow. However, as the Daily News cautioned: ``The Government should leave no stone unturned to bring peace to Sri Lanka, but it would do well to read between Prabhakaran's lines. Peace moves should be initiated with the utmost discretion.''

For, though it is quite certain the LTTE now wants to talk, it is far from clear what it wants to talk about and how it wants those talks to end.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Pluses and minuses
Next     : President without powers