Sunday 26 February 2012
By Namini Wijedasa
By Namini Wijedasa
Talks between the Tamil National Alliance and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party on a possible power-sharing arrangement are deadlocked again. TNA parliamentarian R. Sampanthan said in an interview that he hoped the international community would “do the right thing” at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva where Sri Lanka will face a resolution next week. Excerpts from the interview:
What happened at your meeting with the president this week?
At the invitation of the president, I met him last evening (Wednesday) at 5 pm at Temple Trees. It was not a one-to-one meeting. Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva and president’s secretary, Lalith Weeratunga, were there. I was the only one who went on behalf of the TNA. Talks commenced about the present state of the bilateral talks and the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC). The president expressed a desire to have our names for the PSC. I told him this was a matter on which we had come to an understanding earlier, when I met him on September 2. Our bilateral talks had ceased on August 4 since the government did not come up with a response to our proposals (on power-sharing) despite seven meetings and five months having gone by. In September we agreed that the bilateral talks would continue and that consensus arrived at these talks on some of the more important issues could be taken before the PSC as a joint or government position. When the bilateral talks recommenced on September 16, this understanding was confirmed and recorded in the minutes. Our position has always been that bilateral talks must continue and that there must be a measure of consensus which must be taken before the PSC. Full Story>>>
At the invitation of the president, I met him last evening (Wednesday) at 5 pm at Temple Trees. It was not a one-to-one meeting. Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva and president’s secretary, Lalith Weeratunga, were there. I was the only one who went on behalf of the TNA. Talks commenced about the present state of the bilateral talks and the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC). The president expressed a desire to have our names for the PSC. I told him this was a matter on which we had come to an understanding earlier, when I met him on September 2. Our bilateral talks had ceased on August 4 since the government did not come up with a response to our proposals (on power-sharing) despite seven meetings and five months having gone by. In September we agreed that the bilateral talks would continue and that consensus arrived at these talks on some of the more important issues could be taken before the PSC as a joint or government position. When the bilateral talks recommenced on September 16, this understanding was confirmed and recorded in the minutes. Our position has always been that bilateral talks must continue and that there must be a measure of consensus which must be taken before the PSC. Full Story>>>