"This self-serving decision of President Mahinda Rajapakse has weakened us (Sri Lanka) both internationally and domestically; it benefits only the LTTE's aspirations for a separate state," the United National Party said in a statement.

"Friendly countries such as the US, Japan and India as well as the UN have voiced their strong disappointment and disapproval of the current situation. Many donor countries are of the same view," it said reacting to the decision to scrap CFA with effect from Jan 16.

The UNP said military assistance to Sri Lanka from the US, India and the UK "symbolised the international community's faith in the ceasefire agreement and their backing for the ongoing peace initiative".

"It is clear that not only have the blood-thirsty and war-mongering rulers of this country lost touch with reality but they do not have the capacity to learn from past experiences -- both internationally or locally," the UNP said.

The party sought to know how the President intended to conduct peace talks with the LTTE from "this weakened position".

"President Rajapakse should explain to the people of Sri Lanka why he was abandoned the framework for a negotiated settlement to the conflict in the country.

The full text of the UNP statement:

During the Presidential Election of 2005 Mahinda Rajapaksa pledged to abolish the Ceasefire Agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. Yet having understood the advantages of the CFA, by February 2006, President Rajapaksa had revised his position and the Government of Sri Lanka gave a written assurance at the talks with the LTTE in Geneva that they will uphold the CFA. This was why the UNP agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the SLFP in October 2006 to cooperate on a negotiated political settlement referred to in the CFA. The CFA was also upheld by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.

It is in this background that the GoSL last week informed the Norwegian Government of their sudden decision to abrogate the CFA. Up to now they have not provided a reason for this decision. The only conclusion that can be arrived at is that this was a politically expedient decision at the behest of the JVP and JHU to protect the government in parliament. It is clear then that they have worked for their own gain to rectify their precarious position in power and not for the advantage of the country.

The UNP government entered into the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE in 2002 at a critical time when we had suffered severe military setbacks, and the economy was in shambles. The LTTE had captured key military bases in the North and attacked vital economic targets such as the Katunayake Airport. The Colombo Port was not operational and the economy had recorded a negative growth. Under these circumstances, the main objective of the ceasefire was to find a negotiated settlement to the ongoing conflict and to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country.

The ceasefire was sincerely welcomed by all communities in the country as it signified fresh hope for the cessation of violence and a peaceful future. Sixty- seven countries and international organisations supported this agreement and committed themselves to its implementation. As a result of it the economy regained its momentum: the cost of living stabilised; the rupee held at Rs. 93 to a dollar; there was self-sufficiency in rice; there was an increase in investment resulting in the creation of new job opportunities; funds for development were made available from the US Millennium Challenge Account; and a further four and a half billion dollars were pledged for investment in Sri Lanka’s future at the Tokyo conference.

The international prohibition on the supply of military assistance to Sri Lanka was removed. USA, India and the UK provided us with military advice, training and arms. Increased intelligence was made available to us. Furthermore, a gift of a warship to Sri Lanka from the USA symbolised the international communities’ faith in the ceasefire agreement and their backing for the ongoing peace initiative. As the country became stronger with these measures, the LTTE agreed to explore alternatives to a separate state during the Oslo round of talks. Due to the environment created by the CFA, there was a strengthening of national unity. After years of mistrust, fragile bonds between the Sinhalese, Tamils and the Muslims of the North and South were re-established. The renewing of traffic between the North and the South led to the revival of old friendships and the establishment of new ties. The degree of normalcy created resulted in the return of migrant communities back to the country and the forging of a Sri Lankan identity that accounted for the differences of each ethnic group.

However, in April 2003, the extremists in the LTTE succeeded in getting the organisation to withdraw from the talks. Yet, due to the pressure exerted by the international community the LTTE agreed to return to the table. By July of that year ceasefire violations had been reduced to a minimum. But due to the sudden dissolution of Parliament in 2004, the UNP government could not proceed with the gains accrued on the peace front. Nonetheless, the international community stood firmly by the CFA as they understood it to be the only framework in place that bound together the government, and the LTTE and which held both parties accountable. It also provided a space for negotiations - despite its many violations.

On numerous occasions the LTTE admitted that as a result of the CFA they were caught in an international safety net. All previous ceasefire agreements between the LTTE and the GoSL resulted in the LTTE repudiating the agreements. The reason why they did not abrogate on the current ceasefire was because they realised that the international community would condemn them for not being interested in a negotiated settlement and subject them to various international pressures.

Now it is the Government of Sri Lanka that is liable for the abrogation of the CFA. And it is they who are being condemned by the international community for their racist and war-mongering policies. The country’s reputation as a democracy is gravely undermined. Friendly countries such as the US, Japan and India as well as the UN have voiced their strong disappointment and disapproval of the current situation. Many donor countries are of the same view. An added reason for this condemnation is that the government time and again misled the international community during the past few months by promising proposals for a credible political solution.

Today, Sri Lanka’s international credibility is in tatters. We will no longer get international support. Even those who advocated Sri Lanka’s cause in friendly countries will be compromised by this act. Donor assistance will be reduced, new investors will be scared to invest in a war zone. Military assistance will abate. With the abrogation of the ceasefire some countries will reclassify Sri Lanka as a country affected by civil war with severe consequences. The international setback for the nation will be so severe that it will be a strengthening of the LTTE. This is not all - the reality is even more disturbing. It is doubtful that those against the ceasefire realised that it had certain features which made it unlike other ceasefire agreements. In normal agreements, the combatants on both sides are placed on an equal footing. Under Article 1.3 of the current CFA, the right of the Sri Lankan armed forces to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka was accepted both by the GoSL and the LTTE. Thus in the talks based on the CFA, the LTTE acknowledged the special status of the Sri Lanka armed forces.
Both the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Media have stated that President Mahinda Rajapaksa is willing to commence talks with the LTTE without the CFA. In such an instance, we will be participating in future talks on an altered basis since the GoSL has renounced the special status ascribed to the SL armed forces under the CFA. It is highly doubtful under the circumstances that either the international community or the LTTE will now be willing to re-grant this special status to the SL armed forces. Thus similar to the situation in some of the states of the former Yugoslavia. New talks would have to be in a context where all armed forces will be on an equal footing. This is a serious situation created by the short-sightedness of the current government.

We have not gained any special internal advantage by abrogating the CFA. In fact, we have lost out in terms of military strategy on the special status granted to the armed forces. A common Sri Lankan identity that amalgamated all ethnic groups in the island which was strengthened as a result of the CFA is now damaged as the government has rejected a political solution acceptable to all communities.
This self-serving decision of President Mahinda Rajapaksa weakened us both internationally and domestically; it benefits only the LTTE’s aspirations for a separate state. It does not profit the people of Sri Lanka. It is clear that not only have the blood-thirsty and war-mongering rulers of this country lost touch with reality; but they do not have the capacity to learn from past experiences - both internationally or locally.
President Rajapaksa should explain to the people of Sri Lanka why he has abandoned the framework for a negotiated settlement to the conflict in the country. And why he has placed us at an economically and internationally disadvantageous position. Moreover, he should clarify how he hopes to conduct peace talks with the LTTE from this weakened position.

The UNP reiterates its position that while security measures are required to counter terrorism, long-lasting peace is possible only through a negotiated settlement, while the eradication of terrorism is possible only through democracy.

As Lord Buddha advocated, hatred does not end hatred. Furthermore, terrorism does not end terrorism. Even at this juncture, the only way forward is a political solution to the conflict that is acceptable to all communities.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed