The holding of this seminar and your attendance here today is evidence of the unprecedented international support that the peoples of Sri Lanka are enjoying in their efforts to bring peace to their island.

At a time when the eyes of the world are set on the war in Iraq and the challenge of bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, it is particularly important that the international community demonstrates its sustained commitment to the Sri Lanka peace process and the two parties pursuing it, the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

I would like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, for your inviting to this seminar and for the support of your government to the Sri Lanka peace process and to my country’s modest role in assisting the parties in their efforts.

Having been asked to provide an update on the process, I would like to touch on the three major aspects of the negotiations: Security, Economy, and political issues.

Security

On the security front, for 16 months there has been a halt to military action, and for 14 months a formalised ceasefire agreement has been in place. In implementing the agreement the parties have been effectively assisted by the independent Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM).

The agreement has its weaknesses, implementation has its weaknesses, the monitoring mechanisms have their weaknesses. But the agreement contains what was realistically achievable at the time of signature. I think it is due to that realistic approach that the CFA has passed the most important test: by and large it is holding.

An expression of the realism of the CFA is the underlying principle of balance of forces. There are two armed forces and two naval forces. The ceasefire resulted from a realization that no one party was in a position to defeat the other on the battlefield. Precisely because of this the parties had the confidence to enter into a process seeking a peaceful settlement. In order for each party to maintain that level of confidence, it is important to maintain a balance of forces until such time arrives that the parties can establish a new security regime.

While the ceasefire has largely been a success, over the past couple of months we have seen regrettable incidents at sea involving the tragic loss of lives. Since the drafting of the agreement we have been aware that one of the weaknesses of the CFA is the lack of regulation of the situation at sea. The parties are now working together with the Norwegian government and the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission to establish procedures for conduct at sea. As part of this we are considering strengthening the monitoring mechanisms.

The absence of hostilities have resulted in major improvements in people’s lives. However, there are still security measures in place that are impediments to normalcy and that still inspire fear in the population. This is evidence that while peace is underway, it is not yet achieved.

Economy

While people’s security has improved dramatically, the humanitarian and economic situation is still difficult for many. With the absence of war came expectations of the speedy return to normal life. In the most war-affected areas of the north and east people’s lives have improved, but nothing close to what many had expected.

In the south of the island, there is also impatience. But there is also progress. Sri Lanka had a historically poor economic performance in 2001. The last year of war was the first year of negative economic growth since independence. Last year growth returned and as we have heard Minister Moragoda is leading an impressive and ambitious economic reform programme that creates trust with donors and leads more investors to seek business opportunities. Still, it takes time for the results to trickle down.

The parties have, rightly, concentrated on humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. Some have claimed that by focusing on the economy the parties are avoiding the key issues.

I would argue the opposite. Economic recovery is essential in order to be able to deal with the security and political issues. Only if the parties can convince their constituencies that peace has dividends, will they have the legitimacy and support needed for making progress on the security and political issues. A recent poll suggested that in the south of Sri Lanka, economy matters many times more to the population that the peace process. No government can ignore such a reality. In the north and east, the LTTE needs to produce better living conditions to demonstrate to its constituents the advantages of a political process.

The parties have acknowledged that the return of normal life will in turn reduce the risk of renewed war. The parties have established a Sub-Committee for Immediate Humanitarian and Rehabilitation Needs (SIHRN). This is the prime decision-making body for humanitarian and rehabilitation activities in the north and east, tasked by the parties with setting priorities and identifying projects. SIHRN is a body set up by both parties jointly, run by both parties jointly, and with a Secretariat staffed by both parties jointly. We should not lose sight of the significance of the parties taking responsibility together to address the main post-conflict challenges in the most war-torn areas of the island.

To assist the SIHRN, the North East Reconstruction Fund (NERF) has been established, with the World Bank as the custodian. Again, this is a joint undertaking between the parties for the purpose of rebuilding the shattered areas in the north and east.

Both in our capacity as facilitator of the peace process and as a donor government, the Norwegian Government strongly advocates the channelling of funds through NERF. It enhances ownership of the parties, it guarantees that priorities are met at local level, and it contributes to building administrative skills and capacities of the parties. Last Friday, the Norwegian government issued a first payment of about US$ 3 million to the NERF and we encourage others to follow.

Child soldiers

Political issues

While security and economy were immediate priorities for the parties, they are not escaping the key political issues so vital to reaching a settlement.

In Oslo last December, the parties reached agreement on the overall objective of a political settlement; that of internal autonomy within a united Sri Lanka, based on a federal structure. The parties agreed on a number of political issues which will have to be addressed in order to fulfil that objective.

They have started with the important issue of human rights protection and promotion. Since the outset of the talks it has been a key demand of national and international groups that human rights be put at the heart of the process. A Declaration on Human Rights in the peace process will hopefully be finalised at the next session of talks. This will be an evolving document. The point is to establish human rights mechanisms as part of the ongoing process, not awaiting a final settlement. Human Rights training and human rights monitoring are essential elements. While the parties want to establish a credible national mechanism for monitoring of human rights, international assistance and advice in this process will be critical.

The parties have also entered into discussions on the elements of a federal system. At the last session of talks they initiated deliberations on fiscal aspects of federalism. At the next session, the parties will seek to draw up a plan for the phasing of discussions on federalism.

This means the parties are well into the complex political issues. These are issues that cannot be resolved one by one but will require a comprehensive approach. In the end, both parties will have to assess the totality of a political solution. Shaping that totality will take time. Accordingly, one cannot expect significant achievements to come out of every single session of talks. Over the coming months I believe you will see negotiating sessions reaching few conclusions. This, however, will not necessarily mean there is no progress. To the contrary, it means that the parties have progressed into such substantive and complex issues that require several sessions to reach holistic conclusions. Basically, that is a good sign for the process.

A call for patience

There are many who call for a speedier process toward a final settlement. On this I want to make a few comments.

First, the parties engaged each other on the battlefield for two decades without reaching a settlement. They have now engaged each other at the negotiating table for 7 months and have made important progress. They should be allowed the time they need to reach a final settlement. Making peace is in many ways more difficult than waging war. War requires a single-minded determination, while negotiations require the ability to give and take. In war you appeal to your own constituency while often demonising the other side; through negotiations you need to realise that the other side has some legitimate claims to make. In war, your strategy and tactics are secret, while in negotiations you win the other side over by inviting openness and trust.

Hence I will claim that – contrary to what many think - peace is really at the sharp end of politics, not at the soft end.

The parties have made tough choices. They have even tougher choices ahead. They have displayed a high level of sophistication this far and will need to do so in the times ahead. Part of that sophistication is their insistence on a step-by-step process, in which confidence is built and commitments undertaken gradually.

This relates to my second point, which is the fact that the parties are implementing while negotiating. In many conflicts, we have seen deals made following sleepless days or weeks of talks, only to see them facing great difficulties in the implementation phase.

This process is difficult. Negotiations are long-winded, yes, but at the same time implementation of individual agreements is taking place. This enables the parties to constantly monitor the ground situation and take corrective action when needed. The constant national media coverage of the process contributes as well to a continuous reality-check for the parties.

Thirdly, there are two parties to this conflict and they have very different characteristics. A government with its administrative, legal and financial resources as well as political traditions on the one hand, a traditionally military organisation on the other. There is much talk these days about asymmetrical warfare, but here we are faced with asymmetrical peace talks. The LTTE is presently making great strides to transform itself into a political organisation. It has established a political affairs committee of 25 persons which is studying key issues like democratic systems, human rights, and federalism. They are undertaking international study visits, they hold political classes for LTTE cadres, and they are considering endorsing the holding of local government elections.

In many conflicts, we have seen how the transformation of guerrilla movements takes much time and effort. Moving from a system of military orders to a system of political consultations is challenging. Many fighters, while having suffered from war, still feel uncomfortable in the unfamiliar realities of civil life. Real transformation of such organisations requires more than a strategic shift at the top, it requires a change of mindset throughout. Again, peace is at the sharp end of politics.

For the LTTE, drawing on expertise from the Tamil diaspora is essential in this process. They are eager to engage Tamils that have lived in democratic countries for many years, and facilitating such contacts is an important contribution that the international community can make.

Conclusion

In our facilitation role, it has been important for my government to understand the dynamics that go with dealing with a government on the one hand and a non-state actor on the other. While very different in nature, they form the two parties to the peace process and when it comes to finding a political settlement to the conflict, the two are equally important.

In its efforts to support the peace process, the international community should give priority to engage constructively with the LTTE in the form of political dialogue, visits to the north and east and visits of LTTE members to other countries.

The determination of both parties to involve the international community in the process is an expression of their sincerity about bringing the conflict to an end. It means that the parties have actively chosen to expose themselves to the expectations of the international community. It should also mean that as donor governments we shoulder the responsibility of transforming our political support into funding for the priorities agreed by the parties.

The parties are demonstrating patience and persistence in the process. We, the international community, should too. We should expect progress, not miracles. And – we should prepare for problems along the way, but should also expect the parties to overcome problems by peaceful means.

We need to keep in mind that a peace process means that there is not yet peace. A peace process is in a way the extension of armed conflict by other means: the means of negotiations and heated rhetoric rather than the heat of the gun.

That choice of means in resolving the conflict is worthy of our fullest support.

Thank you.