Japan is seriously considering taking ‘tangible measures’ against the Tamil Tigers, IANS reported this week, widely interpreted as a proscription of the LTTE by Tokyo.
But before that, Japan’s special envoy to Sri Lanka, Yasushi Akashi, will travel to the island to see if Colombo and the Tigers can return to the negotiating table, the Indian news agency said.
Akashi, 75, whose visit will take place in August, would very much like to meet the LTTE leader, Velupillai Pirapaharan, to know first hand what the latter’s thoughts are on the fractured peace process. Akashi could not meet the LTTE chief during his previous trip in May.
‘Yes, I would like to meet (Mr.) Pirapaharan,’ Akashi said in a 90-minute interview to IANS at his office in the heart of Tokyo. Describing the Tamil leader as a ‘man of conviction’ Akashi said: “Only he (Pirapaharan) can take the most difficult decisions.”
Asked about the likely meeting, Akashi said: ‘I would like to convey (to him) that the Japanese government is on the verge of some important decision as I have described to you.’
He added: ‘we are seriously considering tangible measures as some other governments have taken.”
He did not explain what the ‘important decision’ or ‘tangible measures’ would be, but it is widely interpreted as a proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation.
The European Union and Canada separately proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist group earlier this year.
“Before taking such a decision, I would like to make a trip to Sri Lanka to ascertain whether there is some hope for the parties to turn back from the abyss of a return to war and re-engage,” Akashi said.
Japan is one of the co-chairs to the peace process - along with Norway, the US and the European Union.
Japan was ‘deeply concerned and dismayed’ over Sri Lanka and wanted both the government and LTTE to pull back for the sake of the people, Akashi said.
While praising Norway for its achievement thus far, Akashi said Tokyo also wanted India to play a larger role to resurrect the peace process.
Akashi denied that the international donors conference Tokyo hosted in 2003 was meant to be a ‘peace trap’ for the Tamil Tigers. “Some kind of entrapment was far from our objective,” he said.
Asked by IANS what went wrong with the 2002 ceasefire that had showed so much promise, Akashi - speaking softly and choosing his words carefully - blamed it on the ‘deeply ingrained mutual distrust’ between the two sides for their inability to come to terms with one another despite decades of war.
Akashi also urged the LTTE to reverse its decision asking three of the five member countries of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), the Nordic body overseeing the truce, to quit the island. The LTTE’s complaint is that Denmark, Sweden and Finland can no more play a neutral role since they are part of the European Union that has outlawed the Tigers.
But Japan, he went on, had no intention of playing any supervisory role vis-a-vis the ceasefire without “a UN umbrella.”
As for the UN itself assuming a possible role in the Sri Lankan conflict, Akashi said that would depend on Colombo and the LTTE. Until then, such a question would be ‘entirely hypothetical’.
Sounding surprisingly hopeful despite the unending bloodshed, Akashi outlined a three-step approach to achieve peace in Sri Lanka.
Firstly, the 2002 ceasefire agreement would have to be strengthened ‘with a more credible SLMM’. And for that, ‘it will be very short sighted to weaken the (existing) SLMM’.
Secondly, a ‘comprehensive roadmap’ would have to be thought of to evolve a final solution ‘within a united or undivided Sri Lanka’, with necessary amendments to the country’s constitution, to usher in a new form of governance.
Thirdly, there will have to be ‘certain self rule’ in the LTTE controlled areas while taking steps ‘towards the final solution’.
The first suggestion, he insisted, would have to be acted upon immediately.
India and Japan, Akashi said, were on the same wavelength over Sri Lanka. He argued that the peace process would gain ‘added weight’ if New Delhi - which has had a long and torturous linkage with the ethnic conflict - associated itself more firmly with the co-chairs.
Echoing the growing international frustration vis-a-vis Sri Lanka, Akashi said: “I will not be honest if I said that I am totally satisfied. Yes, we have been disappointed with the pace of the peace process. Lately, we have been very unhappy with the most tragic acts of terrorism… Not all incidents can be attributed to the LTTE. But LTTE has committed more violations of the ceasefire than the government side.”
He also expressed dismay over ‘serious infractions on the government side’ and referred to the ‘acts of commissions or omissions by armed groups’ - a clear reference to the LTTE breakaway faction led by Karuna, the former Tiger regional commander whose men are believed to be in league with the Sri Lankan military.
‘While understanding why certain misgivings occur, I think both sides (Colombo and LTTE) have to overcome their doubts and see whether they themselves can rise up so that they can jointly improve the situation for a more peaceful and hopefully more prosperous common future.’
But before that, Japan’s special envoy to Sri Lanka, Yasushi Akashi, will travel to the island to see if Colombo and the Tigers can return to the negotiating table, the Indian news agency said.
Akashi, 75, whose visit will take place in August, would very much like to meet the LTTE leader, Velupillai Pirapaharan, to know first hand what the latter’s thoughts are on the fractured peace process. Akashi could not meet the LTTE chief during his previous trip in May.
‘Yes, I would like to meet (Mr.) Pirapaharan,’ Akashi said in a 90-minute interview to IANS at his office in the heart of Tokyo. Describing the Tamil leader as a ‘man of conviction’ Akashi said: “Only he (Pirapaharan) can take the most difficult decisions.”
Asked about the likely meeting, Akashi said: ‘I would like to convey (to him) that the Japanese government is on the verge of some important decision as I have described to you.’
He added: ‘we are seriously considering tangible measures as some other governments have taken.”
He did not explain what the ‘important decision’ or ‘tangible measures’ would be, but it is widely interpreted as a proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation.
The European Union and Canada separately proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist group earlier this year.
“Before taking such a decision, I would like to make a trip to Sri Lanka to ascertain whether there is some hope for the parties to turn back from the abyss of a return to war and re-engage,” Akashi said.
Japan is one of the co-chairs to the peace process - along with Norway, the US and the European Union.
Japan was ‘deeply concerned and dismayed’ over Sri Lanka and wanted both the government and LTTE to pull back for the sake of the people, Akashi said.
While praising Norway for its achievement thus far, Akashi said Tokyo also wanted India to play a larger role to resurrect the peace process.
Akashi denied that the international donors conference Tokyo hosted in 2003 was meant to be a ‘peace trap’ for the Tamil Tigers. “Some kind of entrapment was far from our objective,” he said.
Asked by IANS what went wrong with the 2002 ceasefire that had showed so much promise, Akashi - speaking softly and choosing his words carefully - blamed it on the ‘deeply ingrained mutual distrust’ between the two sides for their inability to come to terms with one another despite decades of war.
Akashi also urged the LTTE to reverse its decision asking three of the five member countries of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), the Nordic body overseeing the truce, to quit the island. The LTTE’s complaint is that Denmark, Sweden and Finland can no more play a neutral role since they are part of the European Union that has outlawed the Tigers.
But Japan, he went on, had no intention of playing any supervisory role vis-a-vis the ceasefire without “a UN umbrella.”
As for the UN itself assuming a possible role in the Sri Lankan conflict, Akashi said that would depend on Colombo and the LTTE. Until then, such a question would be ‘entirely hypothetical’.
Sounding surprisingly hopeful despite the unending bloodshed, Akashi outlined a three-step approach to achieve peace in Sri Lanka.
Firstly, the 2002 ceasefire agreement would have to be strengthened ‘with a more credible SLMM’. And for that, ‘it will be very short sighted to weaken the (existing) SLMM’.
Secondly, a ‘comprehensive roadmap’ would have to be thought of to evolve a final solution ‘within a united or undivided Sri Lanka’, with necessary amendments to the country’s constitution, to usher in a new form of governance.
Thirdly, there will have to be ‘certain self rule’ in the LTTE controlled areas while taking steps ‘towards the final solution’.
The first suggestion, he insisted, would have to be acted upon immediately.
India and Japan, Akashi said, were on the same wavelength over Sri Lanka. He argued that the peace process would gain ‘added weight’ if New Delhi - which has had a long and torturous linkage with the ethnic conflict - associated itself more firmly with the co-chairs.
Echoing the growing international frustration vis-a-vis Sri Lanka, Akashi said: “I will not be honest if I said that I am totally satisfied. Yes, we have been disappointed with the pace of the peace process. Lately, we have been very unhappy with the most tragic acts of terrorism… Not all incidents can be attributed to the LTTE. But LTTE has committed more violations of the ceasefire than the government side.”
He also expressed dismay over ‘serious infractions on the government side’ and referred to the ‘acts of commissions or omissions by armed groups’ - a clear reference to the LTTE breakaway faction led by Karuna, the former Tiger regional commander whose men are believed to be in league with the Sri Lankan military.
‘While understanding why certain misgivings occur, I think both sides (Colombo and LTTE) have to overcome their doubts and see whether they themselves can rise up so that they can jointly improve the situation for a more peaceful and hopefully more prosperous common future.’
