The UNP and the Peace Process

The UNP came into power in 2001 on a platform of peace and end to the conflict. Subsequetly, they signed the CFA. Recently, as negotiations started falling apart between the present government and the LTTE, the UNP went as far as to ask the government to step down and let them take over so they can "bring peace."

In the middle of this week, the UNP, I guess in it's desperation to see peace in Sri Lanka, extended an olive branch to the government - drop the JHU and JVP, and the UNP will join the government in its peace efforts. The government invited the UNP leadership to talks.

Then yesterday, the UNP's feelings were hurt and angered by the President who had "lured" a UNP-er to the government ranks with a deputy ministership. Therefore, they (the UNP) were pulling out of the talks.

Is it just me, or is there a break down of logic here? The UNP wanted to join up with the government in its peace efforts TO ENSURE AN END TO KILLING AND BLOODSHED AND FIND A PEACEFUL SOLUTION. But all that goes out the window because the govt "lured" in one from the UNP ranks??

So does that mean that the first priority of the UNP is to make sure that those within their present ranks stay with them? Peace in the country plays second fiddle to this all-important priority?

I have heard the argument that the crux of the issue here is about trust - the govt went behind their back. Ok, I can see how that can make sense. But that still doesn't explain how an educated and intelligent lot (this is obviously a general assumption!) cannot see that there are two issues here - one, the peace process and two, building a trustworthy relationship with the govt.

If a UNP-er walked over to the other side, shouldn't the UNP be examining why one of theirs would do this? This is not the first UNP-er to cross over..hence isn't the root of the problem that UNP-ers feel they would be better off on the other side? Granted, there are a lot of people who would change political affiliations faster than their underwear at the promise of better positions. But isn't there also the question of earning loyalty? If the UNP leadership cannot earn the trust and loyalty of its members, how can it not expect frequent change overs?

And I STILL don't understand how a political party, who has claimed SO MANY times in the past, its enthusiasm to finding a peaceful solution to the conflict and has made pledges upon pledges to do what it can to help in this endeavour can throw it away on the basis of one man's decision to change political affilitations!