I wasn't sure whether the question was directed to me, in the first place. I only answered some of your decent parts of the message, assuming it was an open call.
U still did not answer my question.- i mean people who have a ton of criticism but no constructive alternatives to offer.
Are you talking about me or you here? I have alternatives to offer and for your information, I have presented and discussed them in serious conferences and meetings, we still do. If you take a minute and think, you are a person who criticises a lot, but where did you offer any constructive solution? I thought you are here only to take mick out of your opponents as you feel. I only criticise terrorism, that has no solution apart from giving up.
You are asking a question, but you are offering an answer as well, so what is there for me to answer?
So i ask once again, 'DO You THINK THE JOB NORWAYS HAS IS EASY?' The job norway has undertaken is something no one else would touch with a 10 foot pole. Just look at how almost every politician in SL is begging india to 'poke its hands into SL', but they are refusing.
Just because you appear to be interested in my explicit view, here it is. It's a hard job in deed. They have been dealing with governments all along but dealing with a terrorist group who do not abide by international laws must be horrendous to think about. I am sure Eric Sol had discussed it with his wife, kids and relatives before taking over.
Anyway, it is not something that anybody else would take up. In Indonesia, Arthasarathi is doing an excellently honest job on his own. In Northern Ireland/UK; the countries like the US, Canada and the individuals involved have done the most honourable job one could expect. The mediators' honesty means those problems are almost over. It is hard to get the government and the LTTE on similar terms. But the government invited Norway; LTTE accepted it means,
that's a victory on peace fronts, so the efforts must be made to hold onto Norway. But Norway do not have to be lenient on LTTE, they can always be fair and hard on either party. Any foreigners' natural inclination is to be sympathetic to the voluntary group who claim to have been discriminated than a government. That is exactly what the Norway's up to now, if they have to be effective enough and if they are serious about a lasting solution, they have to drop that 'any foreigner' badge and be an impartial broker. When they act suspiciously, they, having accepted the mediator role, have to be responsible and answer criticism.
Getting India involved is a different issue. While Norway's at it, India will be cautious in getting involved. But they offered more than one could expect when they had to in 1987. They will be cautious but consider it, if the ground is open again.
Whenever, Norway makes a ruling, it hurts one party or the other.
It doesn't happen as you say. If the Norway is acting within the terms of the CFA, they always can justify themselves. If they rule overseeing the CFA, they will have to listen to songs.
Just a few weeks ago the LTTE blasted Norway for ruling that the LTTE had no rights at sea.
So what? That is what the CFA says and it should stand. There are co-chairs who keep an eye on the process, the US and India are specially interested, the Norway has to explain what they did and what stands to all those who are interested. They don't have to be scared. That might be the only time they criticised LTTE. LTTE is clever in intimidating those who stand against them. If the facilitators are going to be intimidated by their threat, then they would find hard to deliver an honourable job. They have to declare their position.
Having said that, they have criticised government and it's forces with no substance to prove over and over again. That is playing to LTTE's tune, which is unacceptable.
Theirs is a thankless job. They have gained absolutely NOTHING and will gain NOTHING with their involvement in Srilanka. We have no oil and our economy is in a mess.
It is a rewarding job if executed properly. The mediation have been happening all over the world in conflicts. The mediation is not supporting one party, as you seem to have misunderstood, but bringing two parties together. Hardly any brokers in any conflict go after post-settlement profits. If you are trying to analogue this with the involvement of the US in Iraq, no it's not a mediation as such. It's taking law into your hands. They are not making any attempt to bring any two parties to a settlement, but making it possible for one party to gain power at the expense of the other. Mediation is what the US does in Israel-Palastine issue. Now they don't support Hamas. But that's a different issue.
Yes, peace always helps, but it has to be permanent. All three parties have to be absolutely determined to see off a lasting peace.
...Geneva as the principal cause for the deteriorating security situation in the country.' This is 150% correct. if im wrong please explain.
Yes here's one explanation. The LTTE has no right to the sea as the Norwegians themselves proclaimed. But they keep expanding their capabilities. They keep killing innocents and constructing airbases, regardless of what happened at Geneva. Geneva is just an excuse to justify their ruthless acts. These are gross violations of the CFA. So the honesty has to be transparent, otherwise, you only can keep blaming each other. Yes, on government's side, it's wrong but it's only a simple issue, the core issue is the honesty of the LTTE. If that is evident that will solve a lot of the problem. Unfortunately the honesty is not in LTTE's vocabulary. When they go on peace rounds, they bring weapons-catalogues with them, that shows how committed they are.
Karuna group is a huge problem to them, they make all attempts to get them disbanded without losing their own ground. They use this as the single most important point to leave the peace table. The second round of talks showed how enthusiastic they are towards peace.
I feel the government should have offered to withdraw the karuna faction to areas like Polonnaruwa and Anuradapura, instead of disarming them, in the interest of peace.
Now I am baffled..anyway..I don't think you meant this, or expected any reply from me.
U keep saying, 'it is not so easy to ask Norway to leave'. can you please explain to us why???? What is so difficult about it? After that we can talk about the pros and cons of Having Norway here.
I am not sure why you keep asking this question. Like I said before, sending Norway away will mean the end of the CFA. If that is what you want, I'll stop talking about it. Regardless of its weaknesses, the CFA is the only thread on which we could have any hope right now.
What CFA???? Is there a CFA to Cancel???? As far as i can see the CFA is dead and gone. The LTTE 'cancelled' it a few months ago. All Norway is trying to do revive it. As of this moment there is NO CFA. SO i dont understand this 'difficulty' you talk about sending Norway home.
I am not sure how serious you are here. I haven't heard the LTTE declaring a unilateral phasing out of the CFA. If ever that happened, we would not have to chase Norway, away, but they will go.
A Man who has been in Politicis for over 35 years and yet has no CLUE what to do. I believe this type of frustration should be felt by everyone, not just me.
That is why I said I understand your frustration. I know he doesn?t satisfy all your political ambitions, but it is the same with any other politician. The most matured politician we ever had was JRJ who also had his weak points. I know there were many who were frustrated with him in the end.
Edited By - Jillball - 18 Jun 2006 09:43:26 GMT