Selected Texts from the 1994-5 Negotiations Process These pages reproduce excerpts from letters, exchanged between representatives of the Sri Lankan government the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) LTTE Political Head Office
Mr. K. Balapatabendi Dear Mr. Balapatabendi Thank you for your communication dated 10 February 1995. First of all, we wish to point out to you that the LTTE is genuinely and seriously concerned about the undue delay caused in the formation of the monitoring committees with the participation of the foreign delegates. We should emphasise that the LTTE is not in any way responsible for the delay in this matter. We hold the view that it is absolutely essential for the peace committees to function as early as possible to ensure the smooth implementation of the cessation of hostilities. In this context, we feel that it is the attitude and the approach of the government that has caused this delay. You may recall that during the last round of talks held in Jaffna on 14 January we have discussed the limitations of the agreement of the cessation of hostilities and called for clarifications and specifications of certain issues in relation to the modalities. We have also written to you on 15 January explaining our position on the mobility of the LTTE cadres in the eastern province and suggested to you that these issues can be discussed and agreed by both parties and a separate document with clarifications can be worked out as an annexure to the basic document i.e. the declaration of cessation of hostilities. We made this request with the single motive of facilitating the monitoring committees to carry out their functions effectively. You will appreciate that certain crucial issues such as the mobility of armed cadres, the movement on the coastal waters, fishing, etc. have to be discussed and agreed by the government and the LTTE since these matters are beyond the purview of the monitoring committees. Your negative and hostile response to our pragmatic suggestions and the deliberate delay on your part to resume the fourth round of talks to discuss these issues, have impeded the formation of the peace committees. Furthermore, undue delay was caused by the government to enable the foreign delegates to meet the LTTE leadership. You will certainly agree that it is proper protocol to facilitate the representatives of the foreign governments to meet the leadership of the parties involved in the conflict to ensure their neutral role and to acquaint themselves with the national problem. After much persuasion, you agreed to our request and we were able to meet the delegates in Jaffna last week. In our meeting with foreign delegates, we welcomed their participation and involvement in the monitoring committees and expressed our desire to activate the committees without delay. We explained to them that the declaration of cessation of hostilities is a very brief document which fails to provide adequate guidelines and mechanisms of modalities to several crucial issues which have to be further discussed and resolved by the parties in conflict. The foreign delegates, having had a private discussion among themselves, expressed a consensus view that the declaration is a very brief and inadequate document without proper guidelines to several issues. They suggested that the government and the LTTE should meet without delay to resolve the issues and work out a comprehensive document as an annexure to the agreement. It is only then, they said, the monitoring committees could function effectively. Brigadier Peiris, who was present at the meeting, endorsed the idea and said that he would convey the details to the government. He also said that the fourth round of talks could be arranged as soon as possible, maybe within a week to discuss these issues. The LTTE accepts the position of the foreign delegates and suggests that we should meet without delay and arrive at an agreement on problematic issues so that the monitoring committees could resume their functions. It is imperative that an adequate working mechanism on modalities is thrashed out by both parties before the commencement of the monitoring committees. We cannot agree with your suggestion that discussions on modalities and the functioning of the committees could proceed in parallel. We believe that this matter could have been resolved amicably in time if the government had continued discussions with the LTTE without causing undue delays. Therefore, we suggest an early meeting primarily aimed at resolving these issues and to allow the monitoring committees to resume work without further delays. We agree that our area leaders and the field commanders of the armed forces have met in Trincomalee and Batticaloa and worked out an interim arrangement to sort out immediate problems and disputes at local level for a short duration of time pending final decisions to be jointly made by the government and the LTTE leadership. While we agree that some local disputes can be resolved by area commanders on both sides, as stated in the declaration of cessation of hostilities, we wish to state that such temporary arrangements, worked out at peripheral level, cannot be considered as permanent solutions to overall issues pertaining to modalities of ceasefire, which have to be agreed upon at leadership level by both government and the LTTE. Therefore we insist that there are general issues requiring further discussion and clarification and an amicable settlement between both parties on such issues will help to ensure proper implementation of cessation of hostilities. We think that it would be more appropriate that these sensitive and serious issues can be discussed and amicably resolved through direct negotiation at the next round of talks. Thanking you, S. P. Tamilselvan Text as published in the Sunday Leader, Colombo, 19 May 1996
|