The Hindu : A POSITIVE TURN IN SRI LANKA

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

A POSITIVE TURN IN SRI LANKA

SRI LANKA HAS had a government of co-habitation for nearly two years but so far it has been that only in name. President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have been openly hostile to each other while the parties they lead, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the United National Party, have been pitted in unrelenting confrontation. In recent weeks, this has paralysed governance, most importantly the Norway-facilitated peace process with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. So the announcement by the United National Front Government that it wants to give President Kumaratunga a larger role in the peace process and the declaration by the People's Alliance that the President is prepared to bury the past and work with the UNF are heartening. When Sri Lanka voted in the UNF in 2001, it did so fully aware that the President, whose term in office ends in 2005, belonged to the opposing party. Evidently, a large number of voters believed that forced co-habitation was the only chance for consensual governance. Now there is an opportunity for that electoral wish to come true.

However, there is nothing to celebrate yet. Sri Lanka has been at this pass before, most recently in August 2001 when President Kumaratunga's PA Government floated the idea of a "constructive agreement" with the Opposition on governance soon after losing its majority in Parliament. For a while it seemed as if the idea might become reality. Representatives of the PA and the UNP met to discuss power sharing but the exercise collapsed over disagreement on basic issues such as control of the Cabinet by an Opposition Prime Minister and which party had a claim on the office of Vice-President. As for the need for political consensus on the peace process, there exists from 1997 the British-brokered Liam Fox agreement. Under this pact, the PA and the UNP agreed that whichever was in power, it would not take decisions in any peace negotiations with the LTTE without consulting the other, and that the party in opposition would do nothing to undermine such peace negotiations. So it is now tempting to say: "Been there, seen that." Two aspects of the current effort at reconciliation suggest trouble. One is President Kumaratunga's deadline of December 15 for the rapprochement. It is not clear what better options she has after that date to avoid confrontation. The other is the differing terminology the two sides have been using — the PA wants a government of "national reconciliation" while the UNF wants a "national consensus" on important issues.

Still it would be cynical to dismiss the latest developments as tactical plays by Ms. Kumaratunga and Mr. Wickremesinghe to tide over their present difficulties as they search for other self-centred alternatives. Clearly, the reason they are now talking the language of cooperation is the immense pressure on them, both within the country and internationally, to find a way out of the present political impasse — and their shared commitment to a negotiated political settlement of the ethnic conflict. It is entirely possible that the two have reached that point called "hurting stalemate" and therefore will make a genuine attempt to develop a modus vivendi. But first, they must resist succumbing to the extremist sections of their parties that have a stake in confrontation. A coherent and firm response to the LTTE, which recently called for de facto separation from Sri Lanka as an "interim" solution to the conflict, should not become hostage to narrow rivalries between parties, not to mention personal animosity between leaders.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

MURASOLI MARAN, 1934-2003

A POSITIVE TURN IN SRI LANKA

For an ocean outlook

Judging the economy

Realism on the China border