The EU Joint Motion for a Resolution of 17 May – A Critical Study

1. The Joint Motion mentions twice the figure of 60,000 deaths since 1983. This figure is unconfirmed. Nobody knows its origin. It has mainly been passed on from one journalist to another. It is a typical journalist statement that seems irrevocable. The LTTE has declared 17,948 dead fighters, and it is said that there have been 20,000 dead soldiers on the government side. That leaves about 23,000 dead civilians. Are those Tamil or Sinhalese civilians? Where did these figures originate in the first place? What about the 10,000 dead of the JVP members in 1971 and the 60,000 dead JVP members in the years 1988 – 1990? Should they be forgotten?

2. The Joint Motion claims that in December 2002 the LTTE had agreed to a federal solution with the government. This is not true. The LTTE had agreed to an interim conflict solution, not to a final solution. The word federal does not even appear in this interim presentation. The core expression is autonomy (as a transitory state to independence). However, the new President Rajapakse has rejected this interim solution. He returned to the concept of a unitary state. This is how the peace process was undermined. The LTTE reacted upon that, but this has been suppressed in the Joint Motion.

3. Paragraph C lists the LTTE’s deeds. The LTTE may have had motives to kill the general lieutenant and the foreign minister, but up until now no proof has been delivered. It is therefore inappropriate to declare the LTTE guilty before evidence has been provided. The LTTE did not have a motive regarding Joseph Pararajasingham. After his death, the LTTE honoured him with the title mamanitan, “Great Person”. This whole paragraph ought to be removed from the Joint Motion. It contains only rumours and defamation.

In paragraph C, the Joint Motion accuses the LTTE of deliberately undermining the ceasefire agreement by the action on 13 January 2006. That is bad argumentation which should be alien to the EU. One should not accuse, one should provide proof. In any case, in a document that has huge consequences for the LTTE, one should also hear the LTTE’s side. The same applies to what happened on 11 May, that is mentioned in paragraphs D and 4. The LTTE commented thereon, but this was hushed up in the Joint Motion. These cover-ups indicate a bias. This is about complex questions of international law, which have been simplified and incorrectly represented in the Joint Motion.

4. The Joint Motion claims in paragraphs G and J that the LTTE had withdrawn from a second round of talks in Geneva during 19 – 21 April. That is correct, but the reasons why are withheld, which gives the impression that the LTTE was unwilling to participate in peace talks. The LTTE has clearly stated its position, but this has also been hushed up. It was about the delegation’s safety which the government and the SLMM did not want to guarantee. This is not at all about unwillingness to participate.

5. In paragraph 9, the Joint Motion condemns the repression which is clearly aimed at the press in the Tamil language, whilst not naming the oppressors. Since the document aims at banning the LTTE, one gets the impression that the LTTE had repressed the Tamil press, including Sivaram. This is however absurd, since Sivaram, who was known as pro-LTTE, was also called a “Great Person” by the LTTE.

6. In paragraph 11, the government is called upon to pursue human rights abuses. However, since in many cases the government is the perpetrator, completely different demands need to be put forward. To have the murder investigate himself makes no sense and scorns the victims.

7. In paragraph 18 the President of Sri Lanka is praised, he who has done everything to stop the peace process by returning to conflict-causing ethno-nationalistic ideas.

Summary

The Joint Motion is not only written in a careless way, but it is also biased and evil, because it insinuates motives. It refuses to recognise the fact that the state of Sri Lanka is a party in conflict. It has been written without considering the consequences for the LTTE and the peace process. The EU seems to be a willing instrument of the USA which had called for the ban. The EU becomes a warmonger and promotes aggressive ethnic nationalism in Sri Lanka. What is however particularly painful is that the LTTE is forced into a corner, the personal contact to the LTTE recedes and through this the possibility to positively influence them. The Joint Motion is not worthy of the EU.