No sooner had the first face-to-face talks in three years between the Liberation Tigers and the Sri Lankan state ended in Geneva, controversy erupted anew over what had been agreed at the table: was the February 2002 Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) amended – as the government wanted – or was it not – as the LTTE insisted?
The furore was triggered when H.L De Silva, a Sri Lankan government negotiator and an ideologue for the Sinhala far right, claimed that the CFA had in fact been amended during the Geneva talks. It had, it fact, not been touched, despite the strenuous efforts by the government delegation to force changes to the agreement against the LTTE resistance.
Moreover, Mr. De Silva’s comments – and those by other Sri Lankan negotiators alluding to the same - compelled a furious LTTE, which characterised as the claim “ridiculous and preposterous to register a strong protest with Colombo, warning the claim was “totally unacceptable to the LTTE.”
The LTTE formally expressed their deep displeasure to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse through the Norwegian facilitator.
Mr. Anton Balasingham, the LTTE’s chief negotiator and political ideologue, told the government Wednesday, “these attempts to distort and misinterpret the joint statement issued by the parties after the Geneva talks will damage mutual trust and seriously undermine the peace process.”
Mr. Balasingham was referring to a statement by Mr. De Silva the day before, Tuesday, that the Ceasefire Agreement could be considered amended because ‘fresh concerns were raised and agreed’ in Geneva.
His comment on Tuesday was a follow up by Mr. De Silva to an earlier statement he made the previous Sunday that the agreement had been amended, which Mr. Balasingham and the head of the LTTE’s political wing, Mr. S. P. Tamilselvan, had also dismissed.
“Mr Silva’s central theme is that the issues discussed and undertakings given by the parties in the joint statement are not specifically mentioned in the original document and therefore constitute an amendment of the earlier Agreement,” Mr. Balasingham said on Wednesday.
“This argument is untenable and seriously flawed since the undertakings given by the parties reflect and correspond to the cardinal issues of the CFA and fall within its conceptual framework. Even if the issues discussed transcend the confines of the text of the original truce, they cannot be construed as amendments,” he noted.
“For example, there were six joint statements issued after six sessions of talks between Ranil Wickremasinghe’s government and the LTTE … That doesn’t mean all the issues discussed and undertakings given by the parties amounted to amendments”, Mr. Balasingham explained.
“I am surprised that Mr H.L. De Silva has taken this international Agreement superficially, ignoring or failing to understand its implications. His thesis is illogical and incoherent, based on pure fantasy. This intervention by Mr Silva, we can only conclude, is politically motivated, aimed at placating the Sinhala hardliners, but certainly not a constructive engagement to promote peace”, Mr. Balasingham pointed out.
Mr. Balasingham was referring to a statement made by Mr. De Silva in the Daily Mirror newspaper last Tuesday, in which the government negotiator defended his comments against LTTE’s criticism that his interpretation of the joint communiqué was “bizarre and ridiculous.”
Mr. De Silva listed specific points he claimed underlined his earlier argument that the ceasefire agreement was amended.
Mr. De Silva argued, for example, that the parties had accepted additional responsibilities to those agreed in the CFA, and as such, the agreement in Geneva was an amendment.
“The right of the parties to take “all necessary measures” was more comprehensive in that it extended beyond acts of direct infringement by either party … An additional provision which is supplemental in character is an amendment, though the original text is not specifically altered,” he said.
Previously, addressing a news conference in Colombo on Sunday, Mr. De Silva had stressed that although the LTTE had objected to amendments, the joint statement signed by the two parties at the end of the two day talks meant the original ceasefire document had indeed been changed.
Mr. De Silva said the eight paragraph agreement contained certain issues not found in the 2002 ceasefire agreement and added that the new agreement would supplement the previous one signed between the United National Front government and the LTTE.
“This bizarre interpretation given by the President’s counsel, Mr H.L. De Silva is ridiculous and preposterous and totally unacceptable to the LTTE”, Mr. Balasingham responded to the claim made on Sunday.
“The joint statement clearly points out that the parties discussed issues related the Ceasefire Agreement, reaffirming their commitment to respect and uphold the truce. What was agreed by the parties and enunciated in the joint statement falls within the framework of the Ceasefire Agreement,” he told TamilNet when queried about the issue.
“During the engagement the government delegation raised several issues and concerns … [to] which we were compelled to respond, articulating our view. To argue such discourse entails a new intervention necessitating a supplementary amendment is absurd and illogical,” the LTTE’s theoretician pointed out.
“The LTTE was totally against any amendments or revision of the original Ceasefire Agreement. Our delegation even threatened to walk out of the peace talks if the Sri Lankan government attempted to bring any changes in the original document,” he pointed out.
The furore was triggered when H.L De Silva, a Sri Lankan government negotiator and an ideologue for the Sinhala far right, claimed that the CFA had in fact been amended during the Geneva talks. It had, it fact, not been touched, despite the strenuous efforts by the government delegation to force changes to the agreement against the LTTE resistance.
Moreover, Mr. De Silva’s comments – and those by other Sri Lankan negotiators alluding to the same - compelled a furious LTTE, which characterised as the claim “ridiculous and preposterous to register a strong protest with Colombo, warning the claim was “totally unacceptable to the LTTE.”
The LTTE formally expressed their deep displeasure to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse through the Norwegian facilitator.
Mr. Anton Balasingham, the LTTE’s chief negotiator and political ideologue, told the government Wednesday, “these attempts to distort and misinterpret the joint statement issued by the parties after the Geneva talks will damage mutual trust and seriously undermine the peace process.”
Mr. Balasingham was referring to a statement by Mr. De Silva the day before, Tuesday, that the Ceasefire Agreement could be considered amended because ‘fresh concerns were raised and agreed’ in Geneva.
His comment on Tuesday was a follow up by Mr. De Silva to an earlier statement he made the previous Sunday that the agreement had been amended, which Mr. Balasingham and the head of the LTTE’s political wing, Mr. S. P. Tamilselvan, had also dismissed.
“Mr Silva’s central theme is that the issues discussed and undertakings given by the parties in the joint statement are not specifically mentioned in the original document and therefore constitute an amendment of the earlier Agreement,” Mr. Balasingham said on Wednesday.
“This argument is untenable and seriously flawed since the undertakings given by the parties reflect and correspond to the cardinal issues of the CFA and fall within its conceptual framework. Even if the issues discussed transcend the confines of the text of the original truce, they cannot be construed as amendments,” he noted.
“For example, there were six joint statements issued after six sessions of talks between Ranil Wickremasinghe’s government and the LTTE … That doesn’t mean all the issues discussed and undertakings given by the parties amounted to amendments”, Mr. Balasingham explained.
“I am surprised that Mr H.L. De Silva has taken this international Agreement superficially, ignoring or failing to understand its implications. His thesis is illogical and incoherent, based on pure fantasy. This intervention by Mr Silva, we can only conclude, is politically motivated, aimed at placating the Sinhala hardliners, but certainly not a constructive engagement to promote peace”, Mr. Balasingham pointed out.
Mr. Balasingham was referring to a statement made by Mr. De Silva in the Daily Mirror newspaper last Tuesday, in which the government negotiator defended his comments against LTTE’s criticism that his interpretation of the joint communiqué was “bizarre and ridiculous.”
Mr. De Silva listed specific points he claimed underlined his earlier argument that the ceasefire agreement was amended.
Mr. De Silva argued, for example, that the parties had accepted additional responsibilities to those agreed in the CFA, and as such, the agreement in Geneva was an amendment.
“The right of the parties to take “all necessary measures” was more comprehensive in that it extended beyond acts of direct infringement by either party … An additional provision which is supplemental in character is an amendment, though the original text is not specifically altered,” he said.
Previously, addressing a news conference in Colombo on Sunday, Mr. De Silva had stressed that although the LTTE had objected to amendments, the joint statement signed by the two parties at the end of the two day talks meant the original ceasefire document had indeed been changed.
Mr. De Silva said the eight paragraph agreement contained certain issues not found in the 2002 ceasefire agreement and added that the new agreement would supplement the previous one signed between the United National Front government and the LTTE.
“This bizarre interpretation given by the President’s counsel, Mr H.L. De Silva is ridiculous and preposterous and totally unacceptable to the LTTE”, Mr. Balasingham responded to the claim made on Sunday.
“The joint statement clearly points out that the parties discussed issues related the Ceasefire Agreement, reaffirming their commitment to respect and uphold the truce. What was agreed by the parties and enunciated in the joint statement falls within the framework of the Ceasefire Agreement,” he told TamilNet when queried about the issue.
“During the engagement the government delegation raised several issues and concerns … [to] which we were compelled to respond, articulating our view. To argue such discourse entails a new intervention necessitating a supplementary amendment is absurd and illogical,” the LTTE’s theoretician pointed out.
“The LTTE was totally against any amendments or revision of the original Ceasefire Agreement. Our delegation even threatened to walk out of the peace talks if the Sri Lankan government attempted to bring any changes in the original document,” he pointed out.
