Norway’s failed bid
Posted on November 20th, 2011
Bandu de Silva-Courtesy The IslandƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
I refer to your very forthright editorial comments on this issue in todayƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s issue of The Island (19th November 2011). I myself wanted to comment on what the Norwegian Report and Minister Eric Solheim said concerning India but put it off in order to confine first to deal with the alleged “Premadasa Contact” with the Norwegians which was published in The Island Nov 19. The Editorial is on the spot in saying that what Norway and Solheim say of India is not to be taken seriously. This, in a nutshell, is exactly what I wanted to say. Norway and Solheim knew very well that India did not want any outside parties to involve themselves in the Sri Lankan affair. India maintained a stoic silence when the Norwegian initiative commenced and the Norwegians/Solheim correctly read what that silence meant. So understanding what Indian sensitivities were in coming to meddle in what might be called IndiaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s back-yard problem which can have serious repercussions for India, they rushed to New Delhi not only initially to explain what their role was and many more times later to explain what was taking place.
Norway might have wished to get India to play a dominant role in the Norwegian sponsored move. That is, as what the Norwegian Report now says, so as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Norway would be seen to be part of a wider international allianceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ just as it did in buying ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”in Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s biggest donor (Japan) and trading partner (EU) as well as the global sea power (US)ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦..to provide them with some leverage ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦..[and] decrease its exposure as a solitary mediator.”However, the Norwegian report itself quotes (un named) Indian diplomatic source saying that “Norway gave the LTTE some legitimacy which we found very uncomfortable”. Another Indian source is quoted in the Report saying that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Indians never factored Norway as a serious presence. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ and were sceptical of what they could actually doƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.. India had very clear ideas about acceptable parameters for a settlement; it would not countenance anything beyond the 13th Amendment. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦Also the LTTE could not be part of the solution.”(The Island, 17th Nov,2011). As the Report observes, they [Indians] were respectful”. This might have been misunderstood as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”collusion. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢
To claim that India acceded to what was happening is preposterous. India knew that the LTTE was using the CFA to rebuild and bring in arms. That is not what India wanted to see. In the light of what the Norwegian Report itself says, SolheimƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s assertion about a positive role by India in the Norwegian led fiasco is another attempt to lessen NorwayƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s own exposure over the responsibility for the debacle.
Bandu de Silva
November 21st, 2011 at 5:41 am
From the report; involvement of RAW, the visible avatar of the indian intelligence service, the Third Eye, it is clear that India was the real force behind the peace initiative.
Solheim is a Socialist and internatiom=nal Socialists are puppetts of India when it comes to Indian affairs.
There are socialist churches in Norway that are members of the World Council of Churches, a major player behind the scene in similar issues.
India is a mjor buyer of Norvegian military equipment and technology, mainly communication and is in a position to influence Nordics. I am sure you remeber the Balfour affair.
November 22nd, 2011 at 8:13 am
Only those that have an ulterior motive would have come up with examples to intimate that India had colluded with Norway and/or Solheim to meddle in Sri Lanka affairs.
Indian government may have taken time to realize who Norway and Solheim represents and their aim. But no sooner India realised Norway and Solheim are puppets and it is the so-called International community or the gang of neo-colonialists are behind the whole game, it must have become suspecious of their moves and did not like it. The simple fact that India had not become a so-called co-chair of subsequent schematic ‘peace talks’ etc or offered psedo loans as it does aftermath of ‘war’ is a good enough proof for this.
Indian leaders have to be very patriotic if they are to reach the top. Though many a non Hindian had become Prime Ministers, no Tamil had ever reached there for Hindians were once bitten twice shy. PM Nehru had to enact 17A in 1963 to put a stop to Tamil nationalists drive to divide India. So, as far as India is concerned, Tamil leaders had a bad record. And that’s why Kamaraj, a Tamil could only be a king maker. But two fellow Dravidians (not Tamils), Deve Gowda and Narasimha Rao had become Prime Ministers for they were proven Indian nationalists.
So, it is obvious that no Indian leader would want Sri Lanka to grant devolution beyond 13A. One must be a fool to think otherwise. But Solheim and his puppeteers not just thought otherwise but did everything in their power to help LTTE reach Eelam by stages. LTTE didn’t have the patience for Solheim and the gang to finish their sting operation is a different matter.
India knew LTTE would settle for nothing but Eelam. It also knew real Eelam will have a domino effect to India and that would be the end of India. So, India wanted LTTE eradicated for good. The fact that India siding with China to safeguard Sri Lanka for war crime accusations against western gang is good enough proof to discard Solheim’s claim.
Leela