Sri Lanka's Civil War and China's Insane Energy Revolution - Former Deputy General United Nations

0:08 And the next day they were dead. Allegedly shot while they were walking towards the Sri Lankan army lines carrying a white flag. I mean, you've spent hundreds of hours with these people. How do you carry something like that? In the 1980s and '90s, he rose through Norwegian politics as a party leader, parliamentarian, and one of the most recognizable voices of the Scandinavian left. Then, in the early 2000s, as Norway's special envoy to Sri Lanka, he became the man in the middle of one of Asia's most brutal civil wars between the Sri Lankan government and the LTE, brokering a ceasefire that held on for years. He went on to lead the OECD's development assistance committee, shaping how the world's wealthiest nations spend their aid. Then came the

0:55 UN where he served as executive director of the UN environmental program, the world's highest environmental office. And today he's in Beijing as president of the Belt and Road Green Development Institute, pushing the largest infrastructure program in human history to go green, arguing that China's Belt and Road is the single biggest environmental decision of our era. This is Eric Solheim on from the island. Every nation comes to the conclusion that the sun is Sri Lankan, Vin is Sri Lankan University in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan for every drop of oil you replace with solar or wind energy. Well, Sri Lanka becomes more energy independent. China has spent the last 10 years becoming energy independent. I mean, every bus in China now is electric. Every scooter is electric. I mean, the

1:41 trucks are electric. 60% of all new cars are electric. Well, that brings drastically down the amount of the order you need to import and is fueled by sun which is Chinese. >> Eric Solheim, welcome to From the Island. So, >> it's my pleasure. Happy to be with you. >> Thank you. So, you found yourself through fate, I would say, in the middle of one of Asia's bloodiest civil wars in Sri Lanka. you've met uh the LTT leader PBakran over 10 times including all the infamous stakeholders um and you were mediating negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the LTT on behalf of Norway um you've also gone on to mediate in Sudan,

2:27 Myanmar, Burundi, Nepal etc. But from my understanding none of this was actually planned. You didn't um strategically get into this. So let's start there. How did you find yourself in this position? >> It's kind of very familiar because there as you said was absolutely no plan. First time I came to Sri Lanka, it was to write a book, not about Sri Lanka, but a book about Norwegian politics. But I was invited by a friend who happened to live in Colbo and he said, "Why don't you come down to Columbbo? It's beautiful here. The food is great. The sun is always shining. And by the way, you don't have your children there. And there is no Norwegian journalist trying to trying to follow you there. So you

3:12 can be complete silence and write your book." And I did that. But during that visit I also had the opportunity to meet a few Sri Lankan leaders. It was then or foreign minister Hamid who was at the time a very very stable war of Sri Lankan cortex who later was murdered by the Kura was at the time is now the UMP but at the time mayor of Colbo. So I met a few leaders and got some insights but I have absolutely zero plan or in any way being involve Sri Lanka. >> Very interesting. So you've formed connections with them by chance and because of the connections they wanted you to mediate.

3:59 >> We were then approached by the Tamil Tigers. They came to Oslo and asked Kenton Norway immediate in a future peace process was not peace process at the time. We can be immediate in a future peace process between the government and the Tamil Tigers. The time the big issue was how to get Anton the chief negotiator of the Tamil Tigers out of Sri Lanka for health treatment. So that was a kind of proxy for how to how to get into negotiations. the president at the time she had she she had proposed France as a mediator that was immediately the objective by the time of tigers because they said you speak French we don't so you will have an advantage because she has studied in in Paris back in the days so they

4:45 rejected France as not neutral since she had a connection to to I don't think that was a really good argument but that was what happened and then Norway was so far away so small cannot harm anyone so they decided Norwick could be the potential negotiator and that's what how probably how we got into it but probably if I had not been in Sri Lanka in the first place maybe the LTA would not have contacted us either >> right so they agreed to Norway being the chief mediator particularly because they had a relationship with you >> no not not with me but Norway of course also had their reputation from some other police processes in in the Middle East and again we were far away in India of course was important because India in

5:31 many many different ways we interacted with the peace process in Sri Lanka and they wanted someone who was acceptable to India. So for all these reasons they thought maybe Norway can be the country and in the beginning it was completely secret in Colo only two persons knew it was President Chandrea and then foreign minister Lman Kadigar not even the prime minister was informed of what we did >> and of course we cannot share it with anyone I can hard to share with my wife because it was so secret in Colbo you couldn't know was an ambassador's house was just beside the house of Ra Kama the foreign minister. So we just went through the fence into the into Kadar and they spoke

6:21 without getting any attent attention from the press or media. >> Okay. So I mean that's >> so later after after maybe two years Shandria then explained to the BBC our role and then it was all all in completely different. >> Okay but that's a very disorientating position to be in right you come here to write a book and suddenly you're asked to mediate one of the bloodiest civil wars in the region. What led you to saying yes to that? uh I think may more more important than anything the need for peace. Uh you know that when you embark upon something like this it may fail. Maybe it's more likely to fail than to succeed because many

7:06 peace posts are failing but I think it's a duty to try. I mean look now we have a war between Iran and the United States. uh I really thank Pakistan for being uh negotiate in that peace process and lead Oman with Turkey. China has played a role also but we should give all credit to them for China even if it's not successful we need more peace and the more wars we can find a sol peaceful solution rather than continue the war the better >> we'll definitely get into that because we have arguments about that all the time >> between so between ourselves so we like your opinion so could you take us through the very beginning so this started in 1998 the peace peace process,

7:52 right? Uh now it was approached by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTT simultaneously. Could you run us through that? What were those first conversations like and what were you actually walking into? Um you can start from the very beginning. >> The first very nostalgam the chief negotiator and the political adviser of the Tamil target really the one person who could advise Mr. background how to get him out of Sri Lanka because he was a diabetic. He could not function without diialysis or even uh kidney transplant. So he needed to be taken out of Sri Lanka and it just up and down for maybe one year how to do that. he didn't reach an agreement and ultimately delta smuggled him out in one

8:39 of their boats to to Thailand and from Thailand he went to the UK and then set up his office there and after that I normally met him in in in London that's how it started but then on that basis gradually it came into a much much broader peace process was also shift in politics in Sri Lanka in 2001 when Masinger became the prime minister so there were many many developments ments also military developments. I mean some single east believe that entity entered into the peace process because it was weak. It was exactly the opposite. This was the point in history was the absolute strongest. As you may recall, they destroyed more or less the bond airborne. They wiped out a huge number of aircraft there and crushed the Sri

9:26 Lankan economy. They overtook the elephant pass very close to overtaking the Jan peninsula just Pakistan and we in the last phase save the army in the in the in the peninsula so was very very strong at that time >> and then they entered into peace process then mikasi came in as the prime minister and that's how it was taken to a new level but the peace process was initiated by Shandiga then overtaken by and then of course later Shandiga came back as the key driver of the biz process. >> Okay. And I mean you mentioned Balis Singhham. Um you've said that if Balis Singhum had made the decisions at the end that the outcome would be very very different. Now if you take a personality like Basing and compare that to a

10:12 personality like Prabakaran. What are the key differences? Is there a clash? >> These two personalities were in in a way absolutely different. I mean had spent his entire life fighting military wars or conflicts, gerilla attacks in Sri Lanka and for some period in India. He started killing the mayor of Ja town in 1975. I think it was at the age of 20. He was a throughout military man with no formal education. Well, he was art for sure. He was a great great military leader. Uh but he was a military man who tended to see the solution to every problem as a military problem. If I don't like you, I kill you off. B signal was completely different.

10:59 Edward had was an intellectual had no knowledge of the world outside Sri Lanka. I understand American or Indian politics very very well. Understood the issues about related to constitution or federalism. all these had a profound understanding of all this had worked for some years also in the UK embassy in Colbo. So one was the elder statesman intellectual, one was the younger gorilla fighter. But in a way they needed each other. >> Prabakan definitely needed the advice, the wisdom of of Balosing, but of course Balosing to run the gorilla war on the Pbakan could run the war and did it also in a very vicious vicious way. So they

11:45 were like in my view like an old couple and they need each other. They had many conflicts but after every conflict they tended to come back to each other because of that they needed each other for the purpose they have set which go towards a either a separate state of tunnels in north northern Sri Lanka or at the very minimum a self-ruled entity within Sri Lanka. So what was the So the ceasefire agreement was signed in 2002 February of 2002. So that's a that's a 4-year piece that's four-year negotiating process to get to the ceasefire. Um what was that process like? So Ran Vikramma Singher you said as he entered kind of changed it and allowed this to happen. So what did he

12:30 do differently to ensure the ceasefire happened? Look here it may be when you know what happened later bit difficult to understand but at that time the peace process was enormously popular in Sri Lanka. I think 95% of all cameos as well as all Singaries supported the peace process. They were so tired of the war that seen the destruction as mentioned to the Bandai airport and after all the destruction they wanted peace and captured that moment with his two core people was GP was later foreign minister and Meinda Bagoda who sp many different roles in Sri Lankan politics. These were the two point men and ran um worked with

13:17 them on the LTD side and was always the key person. It may have been a mistake that Shan Victor was not involved in the peace process from the very from that point because as you may recall it was a separation in single politics between the two main parties as UNMP led by Hikas and Sri Lanka freedom party led by Shanda. They hated each other. They fought very strongly. Sometimes I felt that both of them hated each other more than they hated Bernak and >> the LTSD >> because they were competing for the same seats in the parliament and the same seats in government and the same same power in >> so but at the time it was a peace process between the led by and for the

14:05 first two years it was very successful there was no killings not exactly I'm aware not one or one Tamil was killed by either of the two sides. So that was very successful for some time but then graduate and doubled. >> Yeah. Um actually one one structural flaw I kind of found in the ceasefire agreement was that there was no arms control during this period and um correct me if I'm wrong but during the ceasefire the LTT did engage in eliminating u Tamil political opponents who um were advocating for an agreement and a long-term peaceful solution and they used that time to actually eliminate the

14:51 moderates within the LTT um in assassinations. Am I am I right in that? >> Uh I'm not aware that killed off the opponents in the period of the six fire, but for sure they did it all the time before and they did it later. That's one of the ugly sides of the of the LT. >> Any camel leader who could challenge PBA was basically killed off. I mean back in the 19 1980s there were many Tamil militant groups. I mean at that time there were maybe six or seven different Tamil groups and LT establish Brazil as the dominant group. Yes, it was the more more attractive to people because it was

15:36 more well organized fighting harder >> but also killing off the leaders of all the all the other groups some of them in in the broad. So you're right that did killed off all other leaders but not at the peak of the peace process because then there were strong forces to to reduce that kind of activities. >> Okay later they killed off another leader they killed off in before the peace process started was a Tamil spokes person in Kumbul. So yes, they didn't want they wanted to establish that he is the one and only spokes organization for the Tamils and had no other Tamil voices in the

16:21 politics. That was their view. >> Okay. But I mean Chel is right in that the ceasefire agreement didn't really have a provision for control of arms dealings and I believe that both sides the government as well as the LDT actually spent those two years uh equipping themselves with more weapons. So do you think if a provision had been included that process would have been more successful and would have held together better? This is a very good question and I cannot give a definite answer but look when the peace process started wanted the government to promise not to rearm >> uh but Ravikasu the government said no that that's not on the cards we cannot stop modernizing our armed forces by the

17:09 way if we stop modernizing our armed forces we can also bring our generals and the armed forces with us in the peace process because they want of course to modernize as every armed force in the world if the armed force of the United States or China could constantly modernize. So said we need to modernize our forces which means also buying new equipment. >> Then the LTP said well that will shift the balance of power during the peace process if you rearm. So we will also then bring in more weapons to keep the balance. That was the argument. However, of course, what really created the difficulty was that the only way ali could bring in arms was through ships. There no other way. And of course, ships meant

17:56 area where the Sri Lankan Navy was active and because Sri Lankan Navy wanted to stop these activities. So we had that created more and more difficulties to the in small fishing vessels or whatever it was trying to bring in weapons and they surround the navy. In the beginning they took the view that they would just look another way >> not creating any problem but over time it's not easy for a navy just to look another way when when you see someone smuggling weapons into your land. So that created a constant friction, a constant problem and most of the dangerous incidents during the peace process were at sea and caused by this issue that the Tigers were trying to

18:43 smuggle in weapons and the gun navy wanted to wanted to stop stop that. There were also some incidents at them but mainly at sea. None of these incidents at the peak of the peace process caused any people's life and there were no killings but there were alo tensions. We then brought in also um cease from monitoring mission called Sri Lanka monitoring mission who tried to there was a crisis tried to calm down and people stop avoid any sort of fighting or >> Okay. So if I'm getting the timeline right, just a few months after the CFA was signed, the Oslo declaration came about in March uh is it no December 2002. Um what what was the Oslo

19:30 declaration? What was in it? How did it come about? >> That was LT accepting a phrase which said that that that they would they would accept to explore federalism as solution. uh to the conflict. Look throughout this there were two different ways. I mean the Sri Lankan government said we need to urgently come to the core issues which is what will be the provisions for a Tamil homeland in northern Sri Lanka which will be in inside Sri Lanka but we had different powers and the artist said no first we need to resolve issues for our people they need to better have better food better clothing better houses we need to resolve economic and social issues first

20:16 and then come to this later that created a constant problem. Government didn't want no protective peace process while the LT wanted a protracted peace process. So the breakthrough also was that they said we will explore federalism as a solution and everyone at the time of course knew that federalism was the only possible negotiated outcome because a centralized state from Columbbo could only happen by a military victory from the for the government and a separate state can only happen by a military victory for the even that would have been very difficult because I don't think India would have accepted a separate separate talle state so it very very But federalism was to compromise. Federalism could take many many

21:01 different areas. I mean India's federal, Switzerland's federal, Germany is federal, Malaysia's federal so many federal models in the world and we try to explore different federal models. I have to say I think a main reason why the peace process ultimately failed was that yes peran accepted the I mean it was basing who made this formulation. I mean if you wanted I mean we had some back room deals with him myself and Balosing and he accepted his formulation of exploring federalism but I think he thought he could bring Pbak on on board later. Uh but Prabak never took part to accept federalism solution. uh he may

21:47 have understood that that would have to be the consequence of the peace process but I think he deep down always wanted a separate state and and struggle to accept federalism and that was one of the core reasons why the peace process ultimately failed. So having met Prabakaran many times, what can you tell us about his psyche? What was he why would he not accept federalism as a solution when it would have been the strategic thing to do for him? Did he believe out of hubris he would win militarily? >> I think for two main reasons he had a in my view kind of very narrow outlook of the world. He has spent nearly his entire life in northern Sri Lanka. Had

22:33 been very little to the south of Sri Lanka. He has still been a few years in India but in India focusing on Sri Lanka not on India. I didn't really understand India. I didn't understand the thinking in Delhi not the slightest clue of the thinking in say Washington which was the source superpower of the of the tire. So he struggled to understand both southern Sri Lanka and the singala mentality. M >> as well as India, the United States. So had a very narrow worldview and not I mean if you consider some of these most crazy mistakes he killed Raji Gandhi >> the prime minister of India who India been the main supporter of the tax before that if a rebel movement in

23:20 Mexico would you start killing the president of the United States of America or would you give it another thought before you embark upon something like that and this can in my view from is very narrow and very militaristic mindset meaning that every sol every every issue called for a military intervention. Balingham he was he got opening up the word Balisingham knew the word of Balingham and tell him you need to do this or that to understand the word better and to please the Americans or please the Indians or have some access to the hearts and minds of the singer uh all this but that was not the mindset of prab. I will add one thing one other factor which is I mean if you look around the world today look to Trump

24:07 every person who speaks to Trump is trying to please him and flattering him. If you if you see TV program from the government meetings in the United States they all tell the genie greatest gift from the United States in world history the best president ever. Unfortunately, that also was the atmosphere around Pakran. >> Interesting. >> Because he he at least after the war started, I don't think he ever met a single east person, >> right? >> Uh he he met some uh once a Muslim delegation. Uh he met a few foreigners and I was the foreign he met the most often. Uh and then he met Tamils and

24:52 most of the Tamils who came to Barbakran who came there to tell him you are the greatest king of the Tamils and the greatest leader that ever had they speaking to him very much as you see people do they speak to Trump in Washington. If this kind of flattening mindset can happen in the most powerful nation in the world in United States America because it could also happen in a small much much smaller entity in in northern Sri Lanka and when you get flapping all the time you may not be able to really reflect on the on the big big picture. So the narrow mindset and the flapping I think when the two at the end of the day which also at the end of the day did it and did he was killed his entire family was wiped out. So if had if had followed Balasing's much

25:39 more objective use his wisdom it would have been very different. >> You know it's very interesting that India has come up multiple times right at one point you said oh we also had to please India because they were one of the stakeholders in this larger discussion and we know now that India was secretly involved in this peace process at every step. Um, if I'm correct, you were meeting with raw officials at the New Delhi airport. Indian intelligence actually had a secret meeting with the LTE right before the ceasefire was signed. Yet the public uh position of India was that they were keeping an arms length. So I mean in the larger context of today's world, what does that reveal about the greater powers and how they operate in small

26:25 regional conflicts like ours? I mean that's covert diplomacy, right? How is our public, the Sri Lankan public supposed to be okay with that, with a different country having a say in what happens here >> secretly? >> Uh I take a very positive view of the Indian involvement in the peace process. They were always always supportive. They supported peace and they didn't see any military solution. So they should get get credit for that. Look at that time there were only two foreign powers which mattered in Sri Lanka. United States America the dominant power in the world the one one and only superpower and being the big regional neighbor. China didn't matter at that time. Now China matters a lot. I mean if you go to the

27:12 roads in Colbo built by China you see some of the ports were built by China. No China matters at that time and it didn't matter. It was all about India and the United States. Both invention and United supported the peace process. They didn't want the LT to succeed in carving out a separate state and they went against that but they wanted a peaceful settlement which can close down the conflict. So yes, it's true that India of course acted behind the scenes but they were constantly supporting the peace process and my views I mean I see many people in Sri Lanka who think India is behind everything in in in the world. I think Sri Lanka should get out of that mindset. I mean Sri Lanka has frankly

27:59 only one neighbor which only one neighbor. Yeah, I mean you can take a girlfriend on a boat from from Malar to India for the night and go to cinema and go back and go back and the same the same night. It's so close and they're so big in Sri Lanka has so much to benefit from a good relationship to India in economic terms because I I'm a foreigner but I think the long-term should be a bridge to India. If there's a bridge to India, you will and Chinese highspeed rail you can go from Columbbo to Chennai and three hours by high speed rail. So in that integration will help Sri Lanka economically. But that's of course my view. I know many Sri Lankans have a different different take. >> Yeah. No, I I think they completely agree that we need India as an ally. I

28:45 think most of our previous guests have also highlighted that especially geographically. I think there's much we can benefit from a very strong India Sri Lanka relationship. But just to go back to the wall, >> look, I mean, just to understand the difference. When I watch the two of you on these TVs, you can both be Indian. You could not be Chinese and no one can think you were Chinese. I mean, you look Indian because there's no I mean Indian and Chinese can look the same basically eat the same food. You have the same religion in the sense that Buddhism and Hinduism is so so closely related. Every single language is closely related to Hindi language. >> Yeah. >> Go on and go on and Sri Lankans and Indians are sisters and brothers in the way Sri Lankans can never be with say

29:31 Americans or Europeans or or Chinese. >> Yeah. But I mean when you were um balancing the stakeholders I mean India like you said has a very deeply complex history right of its own and also with Sri Lanka. Ross supported the Tamil Tigers in the 1980s but then when the LDT killed Rajiv Gandhi they completely changed their position. So by the time Novi got involved India's position was okay no breaking up of Sri Lanka no major western power getting sucked in keep us informed but not visible. So how did you balance those conflicting positions? No, I I during that time I went to Delhi maybe every six weeks or so to keep the Indians informed but also to get information from India. I look Indian

30:18 intelligence of course had much much better view on say the military situation in the island than I could ever had because that they had a huge number of connections. We have had satellite photos and others that was not so important at that time but they had a lot of information so I could get their their check on the situation and I informed about what happened between the LTP and the and the government because even didn't want to have any direct links to them to the tigers to what extent they were indirect but there would no kind of meeting between top Indian officials and Mr. the purple as far as I'm I'm aware of that they wanted to avoid that after the killing of the of Gonde go back to the 1980s and it's a very different story I

31:06 mean he was allowed to train in Tomadu so the other term Milton Gri was a financial support from NGR who was then the chief minister of Tomminadu and this back even started back in the days when Indira Gandhi was very irritative that's the tri of Sri Lanka because she felt that drive was too close to the Americans setting up American radio stations in Sri Lanka and many other things she didn't like. >> She had no idea to help the Tamil Tigers to win power in Sri Lanka. But >> she's sold the Tamil Tigers as a tour and the other Tamil militant groups to keep president in check. That's how it started. >> Interesting. >> That's how I see it. >> Interesting. Interesting. Because that is a question most Sri Lankans ask of

31:52 why India would have supported them in the first place and so they were hedging and trying to put leverage on Colbo using their DT at some point. >> Look there are two very interesting a pro processes there which both led to the killings of top Indian leader. One was Sri Lanka and the other were militants in Punjab. When Indira Gandhi started supporting the tunnel militants not to make a tunnel separate because India was adamantly against that but to create difficulties with m for Mr. drive so that he become a more pro- Indian less pro-American position in the early 1980s. Very similarly in Punjab uh the Congress party had a sik competitor and

32:40 to undermine the seek competitor in the Gandhi started to support the Sikh militants which ended up in the complete destruction of the golden temple of the silk armor. The sting process ended in seek extremist killing India herself and the national process ended with the entity killing Rajiv Gandhi her son. So this kind of playing with foreign or domestic conflict came back to the Ning Gandhi family in a very very violent manner. So if it's a it's a lesson learned is that big powers should be very very cautious in playing politics with other mil other conflicts

33:25 and that message should be sent to the United States at the moment until now the big power please uh be very cautious in what you involve yourself in >> we we will come to that actually about great powers and how they go around um but can you explain to me what Colonel Karuna's role is in this um the the the mainstream view is that his defection is what changed the tide uh in the war and led to victory for the Sri Lankan government. So who was he and what role did he play? >> Barona had a unique position in the at the time he was the one and only entity commander. was both the military and political commander in his district

34:10 which was bat kua or or the east and he was also I think the one and only top level commander originated from the east as different from Jaffla. So he had a very very strong position and he was part of the negotiating team. So I met him many many times in time and many other places. He was in a way very charismatic I would say he was very charismatic personality. He broke he is also accused of war crimes killing many Muslim policemen. I cannot go into whether or not or not or not that is true but that this accusation against him that he had been a very very brutal leader. uh then he broke Lakran in 2004

34:56 and I I agree that was a tipping point for everything because it drastically reduced the LTP's power in the east >> up to that point of course LTP had been strong both to the north and the east and from then onwards it was strong only in the north and it also provided over time the surrounding government with an unique source of knowledge and network in the terminal militant groups because prov Kona had been part of everything, knew everything, knew Provocan better than anyone or at least known. >> Yeah. >> So he was a unique source on knowledge for Sri Lankan intelligence and of course a number of the Karuna soldiers also became paramilitary groups killing off LT related or also on LT LT side. So

35:45 we had massive impact on on everything happening after that. Um I take it that you've met Kelner. >> Oh yeah, many times for sure. >> Interesting. Absolutely. >> So what >> as I said he he he was a kind of charismatic politician and of course he was never up for election in the LTP but he was a type of politician you would think you see say in the House of Representatives in the United States. I mean charismatic and looking for uh favors. So, so after his defection um the the consensus by even the great powers was that all right let's do this militarily because what did they give up on the

36:31 peace process because they thought there's no negotiating with pbakran anymore and even the defections caused that thinking >> not ultimately I think I mean there were many different things happening at the same time kuna's defection there was new elections Sri Lanka which shifted the power from toa and she was all through the president and now also her party got the power in the parliament. Uh LT gradually started considering going back to war. Peace negotiations stopped but at no at this point everyone forgot and hope that they would come back to the peace. Last chance for peace in my view that

37:18 was the tsunami that is in December 2004 where a tsunami 35,000 Sri Lankans died was a horrible tragedy for the land that it immediately had a very positive impact on the peace process because the delta military forces also help singles civilians army who they would know on del side. So there was a kind of moment on national reconciliation facing these enormous forces of nature and half year we were we were negotiating a relief mechanism which with help single south and the and the Muslim east and north but ultimately

38:04 this dragged on drive on broke down in bureaucracy and then it was basically shut down by by the Supreme Court that unsuccessful. I mean if Sri Lankan leaders had acted decisively in January, February 2005, I'm sure the abuse process at that time they have come back on track. What effects of that no one can know but please also recall that the election in Sri Lanka in December 2005 lost to Paka with something like 49.5 to 50.5. It was the closest fourth election ever. >> If Delta D had not stopped Kamos's voting, everyone knows that those tablets would have voted for. So he would have won the election. So it was a

38:50 very very close election uh with an outcome at the end of the day decided by Promocran uh which could have put everything everything on another trajectory. People tend to believe that everything is fixed in this term. Now we know the outcome but at that time it was not fixed. Somali could have given another outcome and the election could have given another outcome. What was the LTT's line of strategic thinking to make them boycott the elections and taking Mahindra's side when for them it would have been strategically beneficial to allow Ranil to come in and negotiate with him right what what was their thinking there was very opposed to this he s the issue allowing to vote with the with the New

39:35 York getting elected while the opposite I cannot tell I cannot be exactly sure but I think the reason in prabakran thinking was that viking at the time spoke a lot about the so-cal international safety net which was that southern Sri Lanka state could could negotiate with the LT with confidence because at the end of the day yes India United States and other and European Union other foreign powers would support them and give them the economic and political safety net which at the time minoxy did not have so I think person didn't want to be involved in this safety net and for that reason he

40:22 preferred Mahinda he may not have understood Mahinda's capacities look at the time Mahinda had been minister of fisheries minister of labor as maybe for short period prime minister no one could know that he would be such a strong war leader for a number of years. Uh so Prabhakan I think drastically underestimated Mahinda and he didn't want this safety net. That's my my view but because I haven't discussed this super program so I can be absolutely sure >> right okay I mean if you're okay with it actually like to deconstruct your code doctrine right on peace because again if I'm not mistaken in Jan 2026 you

41:08 actually did a interview with uh the guardian and you said that nearly always it's a peace process of some sort nearly always it's messy the test is not whether it's effect, it's whether it ends the killing. Now, I know you've taken multiple stances on various regional conflicts. I think in Afghanistan, you've publicly said that the Taliban rule is better than the endless war. In Gaza, you've said that Israel cannot kill all Palestines and that war will eventually end on negotiated terms. In Ukraine, you've said that Russia cannot achieve a stable total victory, but also that Ukraine cannot fully recover its 2014 borders, at least not through force. And in Sudan, you've said that a messy negotiated division is the most

41:54 realistic path. What does messy really mean? And I'd also love to kind of apply your doctrine to the most talked about conflict of today, which is the US Iran war. >> Uh this is an absolute excellent question and it's so important. Uh look, there are a few wars in human history which could only end with a total victory for one side. I mean a compromise with Adolf Hitler who wanted to kill all Jews and wanted to kill basically all Poles and Ukrainians and many Russians was very very it was impossible. So he needed to be defeated. I also think that the compromise in the American civil war which was about

42:40 slavery or not slavery was impossible because as Lincoln said the United States cannot continue half slave half free. So there's some such wars but nearly all of nearly all wars in history are of a different nature that you end up with a compromise which doesn't give a total victory to one side. They may give sometimes more to one side and than to the other but normally it's more more even and that compromise is very rarely to the satisfaction of everyone. >> In Sri Lanka there was absolutely no compromise which have been satisfying to everyone. A compromise would have had to been some sort of federalism with Perbakan and the LT in some sort of position in the north. Ltd would not have got a separate state which they

43:26 desired. So many Tamils would have been disappointed but also many singala would say this is too much power to the tunnels and we don't like some power position so it was a bit messy compromise and Muslims may also complain but still a little compromise which has saved the life of tens of thousands of people who are now dead. If you look to nearly all other wars you can find similar compromises. I mean there is no way Israel can kill all Palestinians. I mean I don't know how many there are six 7 million cannot kill them all. They will all be there. Well a compromise is needed and nor can the Palestinians wipe off the Jewish state and get all Jews out of the Middle East. And you can go go on and go on between

44:12 Iran and the United States. Well, as it stands now, Iran is in a much stronger position than they were a few months back. and they're much weaker military because so much of their military force has been destroyed but they show to the world that oh they just need a small mediumsiz drone program to keep the hormonal street uh closed in the nation the world can make a drone program Sri Lanka can also make a drone program in Sri Lanka with a nation of 22 million people could have closed and there's 90 million Iranians could have closed the hormon with a drone program Well, if you then you need a compromise. It should have to be some guarantees against nuclear weapons in Iran, but also some

44:58 guarantines against continuous American and Israeli attacks on Iran. That compromise again will not satisfy everyone. There will for sure been militant people in Iran who don't like it. There will be soal Iran folks in the United States or is there who don't like it. But it's much better than war and Afghanistan. Maybe the clearest of all examples who loves the Taliban. >> I don't and I'm sure you don't either. And they even keep young girls outside education. They will keep Iran. Sorry. They will keep Afghanistan in continuous poverty. Iran is now the poorest nation in Asia and and it will remain so if you keep all girls and women outside the workforce and you will remain very poor.

45:43 Uh but the United States could not defeat Taliban. They tried for 20 years with the most sophisticated military force in Denver. Still they couldn't do it. Well then maybe it's better to call close and find them and find them as a compromise and then hopefully over time working with Taliban and I'm sure they will be forced in Afghanistan also if we understand that this is wrong. There are indications that the the Taliban the different opinions within Taliban and then then they must come back to the to and M and remain in this craziness of suppression of women. >> Okay. Okay. And and when you do mediate,

46:29 I think something we've found out about you is that you've coined the term elephant theory. Uh again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the theory is that if you see an elephant, believe it's an elephant. Now, of course, in the context of our civil war, obviously both sides lie to you constantly about the killings that they were very much responsible for. As mediators, cuz I'm a mediator myself, how do you maintain your integrity when both parties are lying to your face? And how does that theory hold up when the elephant is a war crime? How do you how do you deal with that? >> Uh the elephant theory was that when you see an elephant,

47:14 >> please believe it's an elephant. If someone comes and tell you this is a giraffe or a or a zebra or something else, no, it's an elephant. You see an elephant, it's an elephant. uh in the peace proc was killed. Uh it was to me absolutely clear this was done by the LT >> but al was not us. It was done by some other forces to blame this on the alter. They basically say it was the government who did it to blame it on the author Jasum. It was at Tamil parliamentarian that was killed in the bicwa church on the on the Christmas day obviously by some paramilitary groups under the government maybe under kuna. It was obviously the government who did it

48:00 because it strong spokesman for Tamil but then the government was oh no it was not us. It was the altitude who did it to to blame us. both were cost not true and both two persons I knew very very well and I can go on with all these examples of course sometimes they were lying they were lying to us they didn't know that they were lying and they would know that we would know that they were lying when when when people from LT told us that no we had nothing to do with the killing of long because they knew that they could never convince us one second but still

48:46 they needed to keep up this uh >> the act this say this act exactly. So how how to handle that? I mean my way of handling it was look what would the victims of this war do. So these war are singerish mothers in Gaul and Malar who see their sons being killed up in the north and the Tamil women in the north seeing their sons and daughters or themselves being killed up there. They are the victims of this war. They have they have not caused this war but they're victims of this war. What would they want us to do? And also they always want us to continue to try to find a peaceful settlement. So that was kind of

49:32 gave us the energy to continue >> even when you met people who lied to you and you knew that they were lying. >> Okay. But I mean >> I had one had to say one very benefit to the LT and that was balling never lied to me. So he would tell me yes look kid this was done by the LT for this or that reason. Okay. >> So that that gave a great insight as to what what happened even if other entity official spokespersons in will tell us no this was not as it was this was the government. >> Sure. But I mean I don't know to me I don't think I could ever do what you do. Uh I think it's very it's very impressive because it's a lot to carry right and I think one of the most

50:19 personal parts about your story with Sri Lanka is that on Norwegian Independence Day actually in 2009 you received a call from LT's peace secretary chief and he said that he wanted to surrender with Nades and he asked for your help. Uh, if I'm right, you told me it was too late. And the next day they were dead. Allegedly shot while they were walking towards the Sri Lankan army lines carrying a white flag because they were given the assurance of a safe passage. I mean, you've spent hundreds of hours with these people. You know, their families. How do you carry something like that and and move on? Or do you not at all? No, I mean because it was very very

51:06 emotional when so many people you knew very well was killed on both sides. I mean also very very well. So both in the government side and the LT side people were killed and in brutal ways. In the case of the LT they were all at the end of the war also obvious war crimes. with the son of a bakan is was 12 years old. We have photos of him with singerly soldiers got sweets on the single soldiers and later he was bumped off. That's a war crime also. I mean there's no excuse for killing a 12 year old when it's taken into your custody. He cannot be blamed

51:52 for his father's misdeeds. Even if you hate permacron, you you protect his son. Uh and but what is a bit rare with the end of the war is that we don't know exactly what happened to the top leaders. We still do not know exactly what happened to Banana even or the top leaders whether they were killed in action whether they were taken into custo by the Sri Lankan army and then killed off we don't know what we do know is that they all dead but exactly what happened we do not know that is quite rare because if you look at other wars in the in the world normally uh you know my hope is that they look

52:38 for all these actions. There are witnesses. However, these witnesses will all be single. Uh there are no tambles who witness this which are still in alive. So the witnesses are single soldiers who must have been witnessing what happened to Prabakan because there are always people there. The generals but also privates or normal normal soldiers. But my hope is that at some point they will feel the duty to speak out to explain what happened. At this time it has been no incentive for anyone to speak out. You can be considered a traitor by other singles if you speak out. You may have been involved in something. So you will be called a war criminal by the time of diaspora. So there there's no incentive

53:25 for people to speak out. But if we can create a situation where people can feel confident to speak out, at least we can get to know what happened. And particularly for Tamils who don't know what happened to their loved ones, I think that will give some consolation. I mean, assume you're a Tamil woman, her husband disappear or her son disappeared during the end of the war because the chance that they are still alive is 0.0.1 and for sure they're dead. But you cannot be absolutely sure if anyone knock at your door at night. You may still think oh me can it be my husband's a miracle coming back. So getting the closure getting to know exactly what happened. I think we give consolation to

54:11 many people but only the singers who were witnessing this or sing military leaders coronals generals over there only they can clarify because only they can bear witness. But up to this point very few NA has come forward because there have been no incentive to do it. >> So you so you speak of the individual person and the human elements when you negotiate with people in power who are at war with each other in particular. Do you find that their sense of the world is very macro and that they have very little empathy for the human individual that they that they are affecting and impacting? Has that been your experience? How do you contend with that?

54:56 >> I think this is uh there's no one rule for this. I mean, you can find uh war leaders with this not the slightest empathy for those killed in the conflict. But you can also find historical leaders with a lot of empathy. One of my favorite politicians, Abraham Lincoln, led the most bloody war in American history. a lot of empathy uh for his soldiers and for also even from for the people in the south which was killed in the in this war and you can find war leaders with with that empathy and you can also find war leaders with the wisdom to shoot to stop uh look what happened with India on prime minister Mi with the so-called operation cinder >> in Pakistan or at least forces in Pakistan have caused a horrible

55:42 terrorist attack against India >> nearly 30 Hindus not Muslims but only Hindus be killed in that in that horrible attack and M responded yes with destroying some infrastructure in in Pakistan but then call it stop no endless war no forever war as the United States has has me so a short war then stop that wisdom uh war leaders should have and if they consider the enormous suffering of the people very often their own people they may do it better. But of course, very often war leaders are so far removed from the consequences of the war. They sometimes are sitting in the greatest or luxury at least very often

56:29 at least in safety and calling the murder of of people which they would never see. They would never meet the family. So that distance is unfortunate to driving many many wars. How do you deal with uh a leader like that when you're trying to mediate or negotiate? >> Again, again, you must then always look for where are the possibilities for ending this war because that's what the victims would want you to do. What where is the compromise which can satisfy that leader? What people tend to forget is that political leaders are normally trying to lead their nation or the group

57:15 or the ethnic group or whatever, but they also have a lot of concern for themselves. >> Uh some people say that we should end the war in uh Ukraine by bringing Putin to war crimes criminal court in >> H. People say that you should end the war between Israel and Gaza. We bring in Mr. Netanyahu to a war crimes court in HEG. I have a lot of sympathy for that. >> But why would Putin or Netanyah try to wind down the wars if the next step is that they will be brought to criminal court and spend the rest rest of their life in prison? You need to find a solution which not only is good for Russia or Israel but that also give something to Putin and Net otherwise

58:01 they will never call for war and exactly the same of course was the case in Sri Lanka again had the negotiated settlement over federal state at that time I think 90% of Sri Lankans would have accepted but it also needed to be be acceptable to keep in power the top leaders in Kumbbo and keeping power Mr. Pakan in some time of entity. >> Okay, just go for peace. >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's a fair view and I mean just to bring this segment about the Sri Lankan war and mediation so that we can move on to the other questions we have for you. I mean we've talked about Pakistan and I think in the very beginning you told us that you know Pakistan is doing a very commendable

58:47 thing by mediating or stepping up to mediate the US Iran war. Um but I mean if we take a look at how Norway inserted itself in AVO as uh advocate for peace and mediation. I mean Norway is a small state. Uh it has zero strategic interest in this region. Zero colonial history in South Asia. No stakes and that's necessary for a mediator. You have to be neutral and impartial. But Pakistan definitely has stakes in the US and Iran war. I mean there's so many that I could name. Is that ethical for them to do? How do you manage it when you have skin in the game? >> Because the mo most important factor the

59:32 reason why Norwegian strong Pakistan in this war is that they're acceptable to the main parties. >> Uh Pakistan has brought themselves they have a historical relatively close relationship to Iran. Iran just that particularly the chief of the army of Pakistan has created a very close personal relationship to Mr. Trump like it or not but this is very very useful uh my my Indian friends of course don't like it and hate it that Pakistan general is close to Mr. self and this has been very very helpful for this particular war because Pakistan without this relationship could never have certain itself but of course Pakistan cannot do it alone so that's why they relate to Saudi Arabia Turkey Oman they

1:00:18 have been very close to they have a very close relationship to China and China has also supported them throughout so for all these reasons Pakistan could do it even if they have lot more interest nowhere was acceptable to the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil tigers and very very importantly to India because we were far away and we were Christians not not Hindu not not Buddhist we didn't speak any of the languages we didn't even normally eat bas or or Kurdish fruit or some curries from from southern Sri Lanka uh so yeah we the exact fact that we were far away was the reason why we could be accepted >> could Sri Lanka >> India India was very very adamant they could not accept any major power uh I

1:01:05 mean of course not China or Japan or the United States but not even like France or the United Kingdom smaller powers they will accept none of this accept only a small nation which they at the end of the day they cannot harm their interest >> right >> and can Sri Lanka perhaps play that role in the future do you think we'd be good mediators for regional conflicts >> I think Sri Lanka has a lot to speak for itself one of them is that it's a nation there is no nation in the world that anything against Sri Lanka. Uh you are threatening no one. Uh no one has any issue in Sri Lanka or hate Sri Lanka have a a good uh good positive it was called image and these things matters. I mean if if you if you have a million dollars and I

1:01:51 ask you would you put it in a bank in in Switzerland or would you put in a bank in Nigeria? I mean you you immediately know the answer to this question and this is not the negative to my Nigerian friends but it just sits around banking a lot more than Nigeria. So image matters and has a positive good image and it all the fact that it has been through a war is a plus because it creates a certain amount of people with knowledge and understanding of conflict. >> So yes I think Sri Lanka could to could take on that. Uh the maybe the biggest caveat is that Sri Lanka has so strong domestic problems in the sense that it need to establish more economic growth, more better prosperity, more jobs for

1:02:37 young people that any leader when this AKD or whoever is a leader will tend to have a domestic focus because that's what really matters in Sri Lanka is to bring Sri Lanka onwards. Uh but that's the except for that negative kind of domestic focus. I mean Norway is so rich so we we could afford to focus on this but except for that I think Sri Lanka has a lot to to speak for itself. >> Yeah. You said that we don't have any external enemies but I'll just add that we are our own worst enemy. >> Yeah. >> So there's that we need a mediator for that against ourselves. Um >> yeah I mean you are you are acceptable to China to India to the United States to everyone if if there were a conflict where you were called upon and that

1:03:22 that's a big big asset. >> Fair enough. You've you've you've mentioned that when it comes to negotiations is there a very big difference between how western states mediate and negotiate compared to non-western states. You've mentioned that when western states negotiate or mediate they uh add ideological preconditions uh based off their own experiences and they try to impose that and that is a from what I've learned from SA that's a big no no when it comes to mediation. So um maybe could you speak about that? What do they get wrong? There is a big difference in the thinking in the United States and Europe on one side and in China and India on the other side and these may come

1:04:08 historically from the religion. Look Christianity is a missionary religion. My grandfather would have thought that all Sri Lankans would have been very very happy if they all become Christians because then they would be saved. They will not go to hell. They will all go to paradise. So all Sri Lankans would be so happy if we can just bring Christianity and the word of Jesus Christ to to to Sri Lanka. That was the world view of Europe for so long and we shift it not just from religion but into promoting democracy even with military means and promoting what we call western values which tend to be very empty. But we have this missionary instinct. India has nothing of that. I mean Hindu dharma is not a missionary religion. I mean India is very very proud to be a Hindu state.

1:04:54 Uh but they don't want any Christian or anyone else to to make China and China is not a confusion. So communism was a missionary thought in the in the past. They wanted to make an entire world communist. China is nothing of that. It's not a communist state. It's a confusion state and confusionist. That's a historical ideology of China but not with an aim of dominating the rest of the world. So I think this missionary fingerpointing uh attitude of the west versus the uh much less solving China and India in the 21st century. It's an enormous strength for China and India. when some Americans said that if if um China goes to state in Africa,

1:05:40 they will provide an if United State goes there, we provide a lecture and and no one wants that lecture. >> Right? Actually, one of our previous guests who NATO consultant told us that uh when China goes around the world, they look at what the people want and they give it to them. And when America goes around the world, they give us freedom when nobody's asked for it. No, it's very well said and this is also what what the United States gets wrong. I mean in Africa every nation now trade more with China except trade more with China than with the United States and the United States constantly see this as a zero sum game as a competition. But if the United States want to have more power in Africa, they must give an

1:06:27 offer. >> There's not one nation in Africa which is ideologically aligned with China. I mean Sri Lanka is not ideologically aligned with China. But if China offer to build ports or holes or rail roads I mean everyone will take that offer if the United States can give a better offer. everyone will take the offer from the United States or they will look into how can we get an offer both in China and the United States because we want to be friendly to both of them to basically every nation in the world but United States tend to have this very very narrow zero sum game at either level and then seeing that everyone want to get maximum I mean nearly all young people in the world will be very happy to study at Harvard or Yale but also at Singua or

1:07:15 Shang which are the top universities of China because they are now maybe even better than American universities but people want to be friendly to both China and the United States. It's Americans tend to not understand but the core issue which you also about I think is this missionary ideological fingerpointing lecturing attitude of the west while the much more softer attitude of both China and India. So um just right before we move on actually um you were the deputy secretary general at the UN um and the head of UNEP. So you you've been very critical of the UN and I'm also very critical of the UN. I think they're an absolutely useless organization to be honest with you. Um >> we disagree.

1:08:01 >> We disagree on that. Um so what what's your take on that? Do you feel like they do play an effective multilateral role or really what do they do? They have processes but do they have any mechanism for effective outcomes? I don't see that. >> If you can mediate between the two of you and I have a little sympathy for both I agree I agree with you that is in the biggest crisis in its history but also agree with you that UN is the the needed we cannot the world cannot do without the UN. We must have a global organization which brings everyone together and we have no better choice than the UN. But look UN is now not effective than the other major wars. No one there was no role for the UN in the

1:08:48 peacemaking between the United States and Iran. It was all Pakistan and a few other supporters. >> Exactly. >> But Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanar is completely removed. That is because the organization was kind of frozen in its early days. United Nations was formed by basically one man Frankton Deburert the then president of the United States and what he did at the time in the midst of the brutal war between against the Germans against the Japanese. He brought together the best group of Americans and they founded the World Bank National Monetary Fund which happens know very very well. >> Yep. Yep. Great. >> Too well. and the UN and at the time this was absolutely brilliant but it was frozen

1:09:35 there was no new development look India is not on the security council of the UN it's a nation of 1.5 billion people with now the the third largest economy in the world much much more powerful than any European nation but the United Kingdom is there >> right United Kingdom was so powerful in 1945 >> then India was a colony Sri Lanka by the way also was a caught on the end of the United Kingdom. Now it's just an island in Europe because the United Kingdom can continue in the security council India and Africa being outside. So the United Nation has not reformed itself and at the current it has the weakest leadership in the history of the United Nation is not fixible anywhere but all that can change. The new secretary general will be elected this year and

1:10:21 hopefully that person woman or man can put the United Nation back into a more important position. we needed help. >> So, are you optimistic about that? Because the way I see it, Eric, is that um the like you said, the United States essentially created the United Nations and the IMF and the World Bank, creating a rules-based order, but that was just a mechanism for a more sophisticated form of control really globally, wasn't it? Uh rather than taking the British formula of I'm going to go to a nation, put a gun to their head, and colonize

…