MAKING MINDS MEET: The illusive Norwegian Gambit

To set a series of conditions before any serious peace-making efforts, Norway has exposed its imperfections in meeting-the-minds of the anxious parties in Sri Lanka. The government of Sri Lanka has good reason for their concerns, although they were careful not to show that in public. The Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store had the audacity to state that the process is must be owned by the parties, so they own the upside and the downside and said "we are facilitators to help toward the upside but we can only do as much as third parties themselves want” and that he has good reason for insisting on the conditions. But FM Store should realise that Sri Lanka have reservations about Norway and conditions for their participation too.

Along with millions of Sri Lankans, I am gravely troubled by the on-going conflict and the entry of Norwegians as pseudo peace brokers. While searching for answers on how and why we ended up with a dishonest broker and what perils awaits Sri Lankans, I came across some challenging approaches to conflict resolutions by the Conflict Research Consortium of University of Colorado that every Sri Lankan must get to know. Having measured what makes a successful peace-maker I consider it is a worthwhile reading for all those wish to understand what I call the “Illusive Norwegian Gambit”- the conspiracy to undermine the Sri Lankans by purposely lacking the fundamental peacemaking qualities to succeed. After reading this article the reader will be able to answer if their intention is malicious or plain stupidity.

In his interview Store insisted that "Norway comes to these kinds of situations with a toolbox that does not carry economic, political or any other dimension." But I challenge this view by pointing out that their ‘toolbox’ contains only a rusty ratchet, not an array of tools to fit various circumstances as any determined broker would bring along to succeed. Students of our conflict with the LTTE would find it ludicrous that he chose to claim it is the strength of their approach because they do not have a vested interest in the situation itself and that they can be a constructive and committed third party. I beg to differ – they are blatantly partisan towards the LTTE.

Though the role of a negotiator is testing and complex I strongly urge the Norwegians to read in earnest the best-known conflict resolution book, Getting to Yes (1981) by Roger Fisher and William Ury which encourages four fundamental principles of negotiation that we have NOT seen from the Norwegians: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests, not positions; 3) invent options for mutual gain; and 4) insist on objective criteria. “Principled Negotiation” is the name given to the interest-based approach to negotiation.

It suggests further that the negotiator should separate the people from the problem means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, and dealing with them independently. People problems, Fisher et al observe, tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. Perceptions are important because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality," that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficult to achieve. Norwegians via SLMM had only managed to isolate the warring parties over the last three years.

It would be pretty optimistic on the part of Norwegians wishing that Sri Lankans do not possess quality that bring fruitful outcome. I contend that only advance knowledge can outsmart or outfox the “Illusive Norwegian Gambit” and Fisher et al suggest that there are seven basic strategies to seriously to handle the problems of perception. We need to become smarter this way:

• First, try to see the situation from LTTE’s perspective. We do not have to agree with their perceptions of the situation. But it is important to understand what they think and feel, and why they think and feel as they do.
• Second, don't deduce LTTE’s intentions from our own fears. It is common to assume that LTTE plans to do just what we fear they will do. This sort of suspicious attitude makes it difficult to accurately perceive LTTE’s real intentions; whatever they do we will assume the worst.
• Third, avoid blaming LTTE for the problem. Blame, even if it is deserved, will only make LTTE defensive. Even worse, they may attack you in response. Blame is generally counterproductive.
• Fourth, discuss each other's perceptions. Explicit discussion of each side's perceptions will help both sides to better understand each other (see the first point). And discussion will help each side to avoid projecting their fears onto one another (see the third point). Also, such discussion may reveal shared perceptions. Acknowledging shared perceptions can strengthen the parties' relationship, and facilitate productive negotiations.
• Fifth, seek opportunities to act inconsistently with LTTE’s misperceptions. That is, try to disappoint LTTE’s worst beliefs and expectations about us. Just as it is important for us to have an accurate perception of our opponent, it is also important for them to have an accurate perception of us. Disappointing LTTE’s negative or inaccurate beliefs will help to change those beliefs.
• Sixth, give LTTE a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in the negotiation process. If LTTE does not feel involved in the negotiation process, then they are unlikely to feel involved in its outcome. Conversely, if they feel that the process is in part their process, then they are more likely to accept its conclusion as their conclusion.
• Seventh, make our proposals consistent with the principles and self-image of LTTE. All the parties to a negotiation need to be able to reconcile the agreement with their principles and self-image. That is, they need to feel the final agreement does not compromise their integrity. Proposals which are consistent with LTTE’s principles and which do not undermine their self-image are more likely to be accepted.

The Norwegians should know that people problems also often involve difficult emotions — fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with. Fisher et al suggest tactics for disentangling and defusing emotional problems in the negotiation process.

Fisher et al consider communication problems to be "people problems" as well. They list three types of communication problems. For over three years the Norwegians did nothing of this. First, they didn’t even know that the disputants of our conflict were not talking to each other. As often as we find out, their comments are formally addressed to the opponents, they are actually addressing to an outside audience. They are grandstanding to the world opinion. A second communication problem arises when parties are not listening to each other. Rather than listening attentively to the opponent, parties may instead be planning their own response, or listening to their own constituency. Finally, even when parties are listening and talking to each other, misunderstandings and misinterpretations may occur. Fisher et al suggest techniques for minimizing communication problems. From what have seen thus far, Norwegians have only mismanaged communications leading to mistrust of among the two antagonists.

Negotiating about “interests” means negotiating about things that people really want and need, not what they say that want or need. Often, these are not the same. People tend to take extreme positions that are designed to counter their opponents’ positions. If asked why they are taking that position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons--their true interests and needs--are actually compatible, not mutually exclusive. However, as we have seen from day-one the Norwegians were bias towards the LTTE, providing secret funds for their infamous “charitable” activities and communication equipment over the years, thereby undermining its credibility as an impartial peace broker. This is hardly the role the Norwegians had played so far, granting favours to the LTTE to build up their military.

Further, I have serious problems with the Norwegians’ totally lack ingenuity. They have not focused on common interests of the parties or even forcing the two disputing parties to fulfill a principle--invent options for mutual gain. This means Norwegians should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over the original positions which assume that for one side to win, the other side must lose. Do they have anything that resemble ‘options” in their toolbox?

One rule is to insist on objective criteria for decisions. While not always available, if some outside, objective criteria for fairness can be found, this can greatly simplify the negotiation process. For example, if union and management are struggling over a contract, they can look to see what other similar companies have agreed to use as an outside objective criteria. If people are negotiating over the price of a car or a house, they can look at what similar houses or cars have sold for. This gives both sides more guidance as to what is "fair," and makes it hard to oppose offers in this range. A seasoned peace broker would have this skill in the ‘toolbox’ to deal with under differing circumstances.

Now, this is my fundamental issue with the Norway’s role as a mediator, they have no prior peace making experience to relate to and move forward with the peace making effort without frustrating the parties on lack of progress.

Fisher et al advise negotiators (in this case Norwegians) to know what their alternatives are. If you don’t know what your alternatives to a negotiated agreement are, you might accept an agreement that is far worse than the one you might have gotten, or reject one that is far better than you might otherwise achieve.

I find that there are fundamental ingredients lacking with Norwegian as the peace facilitator to help make peace. As such, we must be pretty wary about the outcome due to inherent flaws with the Norwegians and to offset we must be mindful of what these are to strategise for all eventualities:

Third Party Not Effective or Credible
In the even the third-party mediator lacks the ability or credibility to work effectively with the parties, if parties do not trust the mediator's fairness, they ought to withdraw from the negotiations – We should reserve the right to dismiss Norway forthrightly without worrying about international opinion.

Utilize a Skilled, Credible Third Party
Sometimes a third party is not credible or reliable. They may have a conflict-of-interest and work for a solution that favours themselves and/or one side of the conflict more than the other, or they may not have the skills necessary to intervene successfully. By providing a third party who is skilled and credible, these problems can be surmounted, and often significant progress can be made where none was made before. – We MUST include India, UN or line-up a credible substitute peace broker if this is the case.

Poor Process or Structure
The procedures used can be so flawed that it cannot succeed, even when the potential for a win-win outcome exists - It is the sole responsibility of the Norwegians to come up with an effective structure that has the capacity to identifying ripe times for negotiation, soft & hard bargaining identifying and pursuing negotiable sub-Issues, negotiation loopbacks etc.

Failure to Understand an Opponent's Perspective
People often view conflicts from very different perspectives depending upon such things as cultural background, economic position, and religious beliefs. In order for the parties to communicate effectively, they need to understand (though not necessarily agree with) the perspectives of other parties to a conflict. (Remember what the Norwegian FM Store said “Norway comes to these kinds of situations with a toolbox that does not carry economic, political or any other dimension” – So why are they involved?

Failed Mediation
If mediation is tried and fails because of poor timing, poor process, or a poor mediator, disputants may be unwilling to try it again, even when conditions are better – Will this be the Norwegians asset when they assume this role or back off when things get tough?

Limits to Agreement: Better Alternatives
Opportunities for resolving disputes by voluntary agreement are limited by the parties' alternatives to that agreement. This is because disputants will usually not accept any agreement that is worse for them than the outcome which they think they can obtain in another way. For example, if a negotiated agreement requires compromises that they think they can avoid with a show of force, force will likely be used instead of negotiation. Sometimes, however, parties have unreasonable expectations of what they stand to achieve from negotiation or the continuation of the conflict. If they think they can win more by continuing the conflict than is possible in any circumstance, they may continue to pursue the conflict, even when it will actually do them more harm than good – This has been the classic strong arm strategy of LTTE, clearly not conducive for reaching peace. Question is whether the Norwegians possess the wisdom to negate such manoeuvring.

No Legitimate Party to Negotiate With
Sometimes one side wants to negotiate, but there is no legitimate representative of the other side to negotiate with. If an attempt is made to negotiate with someone who does not legitimately represent the opponent, the effort is likely to fail – The Government of Sri Lanka is legitimate, but why Norway is insisting that the LTTE is the sole representative of Tamils?

Wrong (or Missing) Parties at the Table
If negotiation or mediation is undertaken with the questionable parties at the negotiating table, the results will not be successful. Typical problems are that the people at the table do not really represent the constituencies or groups that they are supposed to represent, or they do not have decision-making authority, or even links to it. Another problem is that critical parties are missing from the table--either because they were not invited, or because they chose not to come. Either way, this is likely to cause problems later on when a decision is reached which does not represent the interests of all the concerned or affected groups - Why not bring in other Tamil parties to weaken LTTE?

Negotiate with Legitimate Representatives
Negotiation with illegitimate representatives seldom works. Parties involved in negotiation need to make sure that the people they are negotiating with really do represent the constituency they purport to represent. If they do not, it is essential to find out who does legitimately represent that group and negotiate with them. If a group has no legitimate representation of the people they claim to represent, there is no point in negotiating until that can be established – This is the million dollar question why are we dealing with LTTE?

Our negotiations must take place from a position of strength not only coming from the military superiority, but also from knowing the key fundamentals of winning the peace negotiations. Fisher et al do furnish us with some clues to deal with some critical ones. There will be no doubt that strong emotions will arise, we need remedies to overcome and seek ways on how best to advance our interests. Since emotions lie at the core of many difficult conflicts, they must be addressed and cannot be simply suppressed. We should be prepared for very strong emotions coming from the LTTE, they may find it difficult to calmly assess the situation and determine any course of action.

Interestingly, in Getting to Yes, Fisher et al argue that almost all disputes can be resolved with principled negotiation. They reject the notion that some conflicts are inherently win-lose or that positional bargaining is ever a superior approach. Other theorists, however, disagree--as do we. Principled negotiation is an excellent tool to use in many disputes, but they have found that it needs to be supplemented with other approaches in the case of intractable conflicts, such as geographical, cultural and ethnicity. It also is more attuned to U.S. and Western European cultures which emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful. Given this, I argue if Norway the right negotiator, who is clearly blind to the sentiments of Sri Lankans, instead does champion the Tamils’ cause as a legitimate mass extermination by a majority.

Whether Norway is intentionally leading us to believe that they are worthy peacemakers or an honest broker who is clueless about peacemaking only time will tell. However, they have calculatedly developed a clandestine relationship with the LTTE over the years and that cause me to conclude they have in mind an “Illusive Norwegian Gambit” to hoodwink Sri Lanka. Here, caution is the name of the game for the Government of Sri Lanka, being conscious throughout of what Norwegians are up to with LTTE is the science in winning the best deal for Sri Lanka. If the negotiations begin to go astray they must have graceful exit strategies as time is on their hands. It is the LTTE who are desperate for a deal to deliver a fantasy homeland to Tamils. God luck Sri Lanka.

Canada: Why My Terrorist Isn't Your Terrorist?

Tony Blair told the world in September at the UN that terrorism his country facing is a movement. He said further, “It has an ideology and it has a strategy. And the strategy is not just to kill. It is by terror to cause chaos and instability and to divide and confuse us, the enemy of this terrorism.” George Bush echoes the same sentiment by stating that the US has a solemn obligation to stop terrorism in its early stages, to defend our citizens against terrorism, to attack terrorist networks and deprive them of any safe haven, to promote an ideology of freedom and tolerance that will defeat the dark vision of the terrorists.

Both leaders defined what “terrorism” is to them and who fits that description –Al Queda to be precise. However, today their terrorists are freedom fighters or a bunch of good guys to others. However, not all terror groups that fit this very description are considered terrorists by many countries. Take for example, Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. They are leaps ahead of Al Queda in terrorism. The claim that “your terrorist isn’t my terrorist” puts a huge dent in any nations’ effort to go after their “terrorists.” The question is whose definition of a “terrorists” gets the universal acceptability and attention to destroy terrorism as Blair and Bush want.

Canadians who quiver and became horrified at the terror attacks in NY and London must be agreeing with Blair and Bush on their approach to dealing with terrorism head-on. Given all this it is an abomination that a vicious terror group like the Tamil Tigers are not viewed in Canada the same way the Sri Lankans do since Tamil Tigers are not a threat to Canadians. Therefore, they are not a proscribed group in Canada yet, but the Japanese terrorists - Aum Shinri Kyo are, but how are they a threat to Canadians, they don't operate in Canada the way Tamil Tigers do? My point is that if my terrorists (Tamil tigers) are not your terrorists, then why should I consider your terrorists – the Al Queda, my terrorists?

However, having experienced terrorism in Sri Lanka I maintain that anyone engaged in “terrorism,” no matter where, they are still "terrorists" and must be dealt with same the determination.

Canada please don’t choose your favourites!

If EU can impose restrictions on Tamil Tigers – why not in Canada?

Canada has a golden opportunity today to join the Western nations’ anti-terrorism league by imposing severe restrictions on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. In a statement the European Union condemned the continuing use of violence and terrorism by the LTTE which has very strong ties to the Tamil Canadian diaspora and continues to engage in fund raising activities for terrorism in another country – Sri Lanka.

The EU representing 25 nations added that it is actively considering the formal Listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. In the meantime, the EU has agreed that with immediate effect, delegations from the LTTE will no longer be received in any of the EU Member States until further notice. It will take additional national measures to check and curb illegal or undesirable activities including issues of funding and propaganda of the LTTE, its related organisations (like TRO) and known individual supporters. A stark contrast to what Canada has done to claim that they are with the EU and US in ending global terrorism.

Perhaps what caught the eye of the EU was the blatant continuing recruitment and retention of child soldier cadres by the LTTE and reminded LTTE that there can be no excuse whatsoever for this abhorrent practice to continue.

While all these have become so apparent to the EU to impel them to act, Canada continues to show brazen disregard for LTTE’s political and civilian murders, child-soldier recruitment, and intimidation and extortion within the Tamil Canadian community. Sadly in Canada, the LTTE’s has political patronage with the Liberal and the NDP because the strength of the voting power in Toronto, and for this reason alone are they saying to the world - never mind what you do we are fine with the LTTE atrocities.

If the EU is convinced why is Canada lagging, what is so special about our ability dissect further this terror group before making a similar decision? Didn’t we ban the Japanese terrorists Aum Shinri Kyo? The Liberal government may think they are hoodwinking the rest of the world in exchange for receiving tacit support from LTTE activist at election time, but Canada’s inaction is only casting grave doubts about our ability to lead any anti-terror measures.

So it seems only a new Canadian government that truly believes in anti-terrorism can provide the leadership to put an end to fundraising for terrorism in Canada and child-soldier recruitment in Sri Lanka.

Hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorned: Denied Nobel glory for CBK

While savouring President Rajapakse’s victory, I couldn’t help noticing certain news items popping up about the retiring President CBK. She had apparently snatched five bullet-proof vehicles, five Defender jeeps and plus more vehicles for her entourage. Wait there’s more, before leaving she hurriedly issued cheques to the tune of 200 million Rupees to various organizations and a cultural fund. And more, her new official residence will be the former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadiragamar’s official residence on Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7 and her new office is in the Ranaviru Seva Authority at Torrington Place. But wait, how can she live without staff? So she handpicked 49 for just that. If you thought all these are outrageous, this was in spite of receiving a gift - a half acre land from Sri Jayawardanepura to build a new residence, from her own cabinet for services rendered to the nation and in addition to the usual complement of security, accommodation and staff granted to retiring Presidents.

Flash! Enter our new President, he ordered the relevant banks to stop payment for the 200 million Rupee cheques. Hail our new President, magnificent action!

Question, was she ever aware that she was swindling the state? I say this is woman’s scorn – seeking vengeance for dispatching her to a marginal personality in our politics. But I suspect her vendetta began months ago when she saw her overzealous efforts to thrust a questionable Tsunami deal with the LTTE falter and maligning her attempts to flatter herself. The Nobel Peace prize was in her grasps, so she heard from the Norwegian trouble-shooter. When the Supreme Court blocked it she didn’t give up her dream of receiving such accolades and expected her successor Mahinda (supposing he wins the Presidency) to continue her vain efforts so she can claim the glory for herself along with Prabha. Perhaps it was like an aspiring actor dreaming about an Oscar!

Candidate Rajapakse figured he has no time for such childish fantasy, he saw far more serious issues that needed his attention should he get elected. He chose not to pay any attention to her demands that he carry out her ill-timed, ill-conceived scam with the terrorists.

Well, the scorn of this woman took a turn to the worse – she began global tours of goodbyes to fellow leaders at state expense, just when the Presidential election campaign began for Rajapakse. She ignored and stayed out as though she didn’t know that man at all. Perhaps she thought the world wasn’t noticing her gambit.

To aid her cause she brought her beloved brother Anura, who in 1994 campaigning against her remarked vividly about her anatomy to the electorate. Anura had other plans – to become Prime Minister as though it is succession to the throne after her. The Bandaranikes were seen openly critical of Rajapakse’s stance on the ethnic issue and seems pretty livid at him for not towing with CBK’s agenda. By the wayonly morons weren’t aware that they were conspiring with the opposition to defeat Rajapakse.

For President Rajapakse and all those who voted for him, it was a major relief when the final vote was counted – the victory was achieved despite CBK's best efforts to see Rajapakse defeated.

In 1994, I vouched and voted for her. I believed she was the ‘Joan of Arc’ that we desperately needed after the ravages of the UNP after eighteen years. I was misled and cheated by her gloated promises of nation building - I don’t think I was the only one felt that way. Fed-up, I left for Canada to begin a new life and now I get vote for Tories in January '06.

Reflecting on her achievements after twelve years, there is hardly anything that we can look back and say she was an awesome leader who made a difference to ordinary people. Fortunately I have the statistics to prove that the economy or the networth of the masses barely improved, many more died in the battlefield and then there was chaos in her governance - how could we miss that! People didn’t trust her any more, she was becoming a disillusioned tyrant like her mother was. Glad she is gone - alas, that's my thought but I hear now she wants Kadir's seat in the parliament to screw Rajapakse again, when will this end?

Please tell me if we need to define a new meaning for "woman's scorn"?

People, our best hope lies with Rajapakse to bring peace and should there be peace any time soon, I wonder if she plans to claim the Nobel Peace prize retroactively.

Dancing with Prabhakaran

On Saturday 26th November 2005 the LTTE leader (Prabhakaran) made the much awaited statement regarding the future of the ethnic conflict that has been embroiling for too long.

Surprise, surprise what a telling statement it was! It showed a weaker-terror mastermind who bullied every know human in the island until he subjugated each one. Pundits were predicting a raging response to the peace overtures made by the newly elected popular nationalist President of Sri Lanka – labeled as a “hawk” by those who were disappointed by his win. Cries of war were broadcasted globally to undermine Presidents’ win by the conspiratorial media sympathetic to Tamils. All feared the worst and I for one wasn’t moved by any of those calculated exercises to derail any deserved justice to the majority of the population who were victims of terrorism long before US came to know about terrorism. From what I see from this vantage point Prabhakaran’s twilight zone is shrinking pretty fast.

There are several key factors for Prabhakaran’s descend. The most significant is the new view on global terrorism and the notoriety now assigned to the LTTE which lead to EU restrictions. The next is the depleted cadre numbers and the low moral among them to fight another war. They don’t have the stomach to fight a losing war. It is amusing to learn that today’s LTTE cadre is well represented by the child-soldiers who were conscripted and forced to wear the infamous “cyanide capsule.” But there are other killing reasons for Prabhakaran to pause and ponder, that’s the infighting within the much feared brutal regime he had created oppress threats from within and outside. Apart from the famous breakaway of the Karuna group of the Eastern command, there are reports of splits in the power base in London and whistle blowing in Australia that lead to the most recent arrests by Aussie counter terror police.

I am much delight by the turn of these events for the simple reason that there must be a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Since the inception of the insurrection the LTTE has stood fast on their determination eliminate any one who uttered any counter view to their claim on a homeland for Tamils in the North and East excluding over a million or so other Tamils in the rest of the island.

My praise goes to the newly elected visionary President Mahinda Rajapakse for his foresight. He is a mastermind who will eventually out-fox Prabhakaran at his own game of chess. Rajapakse is the representative of those who felt that Prabhakaran has committed gross rights violations in his power hungry adventure that has cost the lives of over 60,000 and counting. Rajapakse has indicated to all that he intend to move with direction and purpose, and I have no about he’ll deliver a lasting solution under his terms.

In the recent elections Prabhakaran ensured that Tamils in his enclave didn’t vote, disenfranchised nearly half a million or so Tamils on his orders. What does that tell us about the man? He doesn’t believe in democracy and has never allowed Tamils to choose a representative to settle this conflict – in fact over a twenty five year period he had systematically eliminated the entire Tamil leadership, thus leaving him as the only conspicuous one. What an irony for the Tamils, they gave in to his extortions and never chose him; he just walks brandishing a knife with a throat slitting expression. From what we have seen from his record no one can trust him to exercise civility. In short he is the monster that devil chose to enter this world.

No matter what deal he strikes with President Rajapakse I like to see if all Tamils agree that their envoy is Prabhakaran through consensus. It means calling for fresh polls in those areas affected by Prabhakaran’s decree. My concern is that Prabhakaran is not the person to head any authority that continues to brutalize Tamils. He has created a culture of violence and he shouldn’t be forgiven just because he wants peace now. Let there be free and fair polls to choose one.

Time for a new LTTE leadership

Diehard Sri Lankan Tamils living in western countries always miss out on vital facts when they submit arguments for a separate homeland by craftily ignoring the suffering of fellow Tamils in Sri Lanka under Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) now.

The ludicrous contention that Tamils are subject to violent acts was first introduced by equating those with the South African Apartheid and when that failed they moved on to equate to Serbian genocide and ethnic cleansing. The mass exodus of Tamils from Sri Lnka was well engineered by the LTTE while they also masterminded mass exodus of Sinhalese to the South from Tamil areas who chose not to seek refugee status in wealthy nations in the West unlike Tamils who did so for economic reasons.

Tamil diasporas belief that the leader of LTTE – Prabakarans’ promise to deliver their homeland “Eelam,” and LTTE's political hegemony are not, and will not be, synonymous. I would add further that the concept of Eelam pre-existed Prabakaran and the LTTE. The wonderful news to the rest of the world is that it will last much longer after the life of this organization and its leader - a stark reality for Tamil aspirations under Prabakaran. The losses incurred by the Tigers in the battle field - powerless to engage in fully-fledged conventional type warfare and despite the heavy investment in cadres, weaponry and international organizational effort, and now they are mostly depleted as the result of nature - Tsunami.

In short, now that the LTTE has demonstrated its reduced military prowess exposed by the inability to deal with the breakaway Eastern commander Karuna and felt the limitation to terrorism, the LTTE has to present its own detailed political plan under a new leadership. Any further prevarication and the threat to resort to military action means that the LTTE will only further betray the Tamil people.

The loss of Jaffna to the Sri Lanka defence forces (SLA) in 1996, after many years of it functioning as their virtual 'capital' of the LTTE-controlled Eelam state, was a tremendous blow not just to Prabha, but to the Tamil people as a whole. It is a far greater disability for the Tigers than their loss of political legitimacy following the unilateral breaking of the 1995 ceasefire or the condemnation received from the EU recently.

No doubt LTTE's currently weakened position is due to their loss of Jaffna as its capital city and the thickly populated and agricultural intensive regions of the Jaffna Peninsula - the pride of Tamil culture. And it is very unlikely that it ever be in their hands again with the continuing military support coming to GOSL from India, China and the US. Military experts argue that by breaking the ceasefire and provoking SLA offensives - offensives that finally saw the LTTE driven out of the Jaffna heartland - the Prabakaran has betrayed the Tamil people's struggle for self-determination. Of course, this is not the only way that the LTTE has betrayed the cause for which they were the first to take up armed struggle.

Prabakaran’s vicious authoritarianism and hegemony have also decimated the political leadership of their ethnic community and has neutered the overall organizational strength of the multi-force and multi-party movement for Tamil self-determination. If these are not lessons to be learnt, then Tamils will never gain their dignity much less their homeland.

Sinhalese will listen to a new Tamil leadership - not to LTTE’s Prabakaran and his cronies.
To achieve either Eelam or confederated Tamil self-rule by civilian, political, institutional means Tamils must begin to question the leadership of Prabakaran just the same way one spirited Col. Karuna (Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharana) questioned the LTTE. It is time to change LTTE leadership.

The newly elected President Mahinda Rajapakse of Sri Lanka has a different direction to the path the LTTE wish to take Sri Lanka. Read my future blogs on new perspectives to the Tamil issue.

Tamil Overkill

Tamils must realise that not even Nostradamus couldn’t come up with a prophesy about a homeland called "Tamil Eelam. "

Let me educate the readers on certain facts coming from an island nation we call Sri Lanka, which some of you may know as Ceylon to remind you the golden colonial era for Tamil. I don’t know how much you know about the recent history over there, there were more Sinhalese killed than Tamils, by Sinhalese law enforcement agencies and Tamils terrorists.

During the leftist JVP insurrection (I) in 1971 scores of Sinhala youth (NOT Tamils mind you) were killed by the very forces you describe as the Sinhalese police and the military. As a kid I saw bodies floating in the Mahaveli river, just too many to count. Some estimates place this figure at 40,000 – they simply disappeared without a trace, names were wiped off registries. They were gone just like the nasty times in Chile during Gen Pinnoche. Then there was the JVP insurrection (II) from 1987~90 during Premadasa era, and more were tortured and senselessly killed by the very same Sinhalese police and the military. This time the toll was much higher, estimates put at least 60,000 killed and missing. I remember seeing plenty of charred bodies of Sinhalese in the suburbs of Colombo, just too gruesome to describe. In total, we can estimate the Sinhalese losses at 100,000 and now add to that another 35,000 as a result of Tamil terrorism since 1983. We have a grand total of 135,000 Sinhalese casualties in the last thirty years as victims of both Tamil terrorism and Sinhalese police and military! I wouldn’t put Tamil casualties more than 30,000 and that includes intragroup killings by Tamils thugs like the LTTE.

Therefore, the Tamils’ hideous declaration that Tamils were victim of systemic oppression in Sri Lanka is a falsehood and fortunately it is not destined to influence future conflicts around the world.

I would make the point that Sinhalese police and the military couldn’t give a hoot about who they confront, unfortunately they are dressed and armed to complete a mission.

Today we all have become victims of vicious violence in Sri Lanka by design and if we go by the casualty figures, the Sinhalese have every right to feel they are the “victimized and oppressed majority” in Sri Lanka. Their voices must be heard first, if not, given the level of hypocrisy and brutality unleashed by the LTTE and Eelamists, the Sinhalese do reserve the right to seek separation from Tamils –imagine what that would do to Tamil heritage in Sri Lanka.