A Reply to ‘TE Proposals and Beyond’

by Wakeley Paul, Esq.; originally published December 10, 2003

The author begins his diatribe by condemning the initial LTTE proposals as “scathing, sarcastic and saddled with innuendo.” He goes on to say, “The Interim self governing authority is said to be sovereign in every sense of the word, placing it on a par with the government of Sri Lanka……..leaving no pride of place for the government of Sri Lanka from whom it intends to extract powers for the sustenance of the authority.” By this sweeping assertion, Mr. Prematilaka exhibits a classic misconception of the meaning of ‘Federalism.’ For his sake and the benefit his readers, let us explain the concept in simple terms, so that he and his readers can comprehend what ‘Federalism’ is all about.

Under a Federal Constitution, a region or regions are delegated exclusive legislative and executive powers within that region on specified subjects. All other subjects are excluded from such local control. The Central government has all other powers which it reserves to itself, which in turn are applicable to the nation as a whole. In Sri Lanka, at this moment, all legislative power is in the hands of Parliament, while Executive power is shared by the President and the Cabinet. In an effort to change this from a Unitary to a Federal Constitution, certain of those powers are relinquished to the regional authority, while the Central or Federal government retains total control of all other subjects. In addition to this, it also lays down broad national policies to be observed by all. How such overriding policies can be framed has to be the subject of further negotiation, so as not to violatr the Federal concept that some powers are shared, while others are not.

In this initial proposal, all the LTTE did, as the other party to the peace talks, is to highlight those areas in which they seek, in the words of the agreement, ‘Internal Self determination’ on specified subjects. Their merits and demerits are to be subject to discussion at the Peacetalks. These limited proposals and a host of other vexing problems have yet to be negotiated. This proposal did not, for instance, address such issues as the unpalatable anti-Tamil military presence in our midst; the unacceptable control of our harbors and airport; the control of the oceans beyond the territorial waters around us. The unaltered fact is that the Central government¹s presence continues to be resented and unwanted, like distasteful sentinels in our midst. This resented presence has not even been touched upon by this proposal. That presence has been recognized as an existing fact, which by implication has to be the subject of intense future negotiation.

Where and how does Mr. Prematilaka come to the conclusion that the presence of the Central government is deemed to be “oblivious,leaving no pride of place or authority for the government of Sri Lanka from which it intends to extract powers for the sustenance of the authority?” The proposal does not address in any way the massive central authority that yet resides in the Central government; nor does it address which of those powers should be shared according to the Oslo Accords. Mr. Prematilaka is oblivious to this host of realities when concluding that “The giver of power is compelled to go into oblivion and it is only the recipient of powers that becomes sovereign, creating two Sovereign separate states within the country.”

Ignorance may be bliss, but it is a sin to distort and disfigure the truth to incite a resort to war. That is exactly what he does by his pretentious effort to find a solution to the events of the day. In his series of cunning maneuvers, he is doing all that he can to scuttle the Peace Talks and return to nought.

Does Mr. Prematilaka recognize and treat this as an initial proposal subject to further negotiation? No, he wants us to go back to square one. How often do we have to keep doing this? How often do we avoid doing what has to done today without reverting time and again to square one? How long can we keep playing this game of postponing peace and reverting to where we began? How often can we expect to hear that recurring theme that the LTTE is using talks to rearm? If that is true, two thoughts come to mind. If the LTTE can rearm, is there anything that suggests that the government ain’t doing the same? Are they so holier than thou that they stick by their word and we don’t? If that is true every time we have talks, as alleged, why bother to talk? Ipso facto, the LTTE cannot be trusted, so why give them the opportunity to rearm? If the LTTE is rearming now, why give them the opportunity to rearm further while the talks are stalled. Is that why even now, there is a further postponement of the talks? Is it to allow the LTTE to keep rearming? How incedulous can every Sinhala government be to cling to this absurdity, as a ground for terminating talks? This is the kind of fatuous excuse by every government to avoid being accused of being the masters of the the sell-out by their opponents in Parliamnet. This has got to stop, but will it ever? How often and how long can successive Sinhala governments hope to live on such a false premise for scuttling peace talks?

This is exactly what Mr Prematilaka: suggests should happen again when he says “This will no doubt put back the peace process into square one and the possibility of the LTTE waging war against the government cannot be ruled out.”

Mr.Prematilaka keeps suggesting how to maneuover a series of possibilities by which the President could regain power as against the Prime Minister: strategms by which the present peace talks will not just be stalled, but terminated. As indicated in the previous paragraph, he said, “This will no doubt push back the peace progress into square one and the possibility of the LTTE waging war against the government cannot be ruled out.” What else does he expect the LTTE to do? Have a recurring faith in a peace process engineered by the President who opposes it in the first place? Have faith a peace process that is jeopardized by the inevitable process of each Sinhala party accusing the other of a sell-out to the Tamils? A sell-out of what? The right to equal opportunity denied to them by the Sinhala Only Constitution? The sell-out of a right to an alternative possibility of internal self determination to avoid discrimination? Is that a sell-out or a confession of guilt for past sins?

This is the type of chauvinistic thinking that generated the war in the first place. By adopting Mr. Prematilaka’s solutions to the problems ahead, we will, in his own words, ask the question, “How can the country be brought back to normalcy when the maintenance of peace, law and order and tranquility will be a bone of contention for years to come.” It certainly will be if the average Sinhalese finds Mr Prematilaka’s recommendations to be the correct path to a solution.

The far more sensible approach would be to pursue the peace negotiations with the Prime Minister and his Ministers returned to him. Otherwise, the LTTE can only view this as another example of a Sinhala desire to continue to dominate, oppress and suppress Tamil aspirations and hopes at any cost. Do we have a desire for ‘internal self determination?’ Based on the nation’s history of discrimination, of course we do! Do you want to jettison the past and face the future? Of course you should. Sadly, the extremist Sinhalese, like Mr Prematilaka and his small-minded cohorts, like the clergy, the Sinhala Uruyama, Mahagana Eksath Pramuna, Janatha Vipukthi Peramuna, PA, Bhumi Puthra Party and the so on, don’t. They both created the problem and continue to perpetuate it. They refuse to recognize their folly. The question is, can they?

WAKELEY PAUL
BARRISTER AT LAW, MIDDLE TEMPLE, LONDON
FORMER CROWN COUNSEL, CEYLON
PRESENTLY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, STATE OF NJ, USA
B.A. [CANTAB] LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND
M.A. [CANTAB]
LLM STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, CALIFORNIA