Ulfa spurns Hazarika's mediation offer

<div class="section1"><div class="Normal">guwahati: the banned united liberation front of asom (ulfa) on monday made it clear that it would not sit for talks, even if there is meditation, unless the centre fulfilled its three preconditions. reacting to a mediation offer by assam''s most famous cultural personality bhupen hazarika, the ulfa - in the latest edition of its newsletter <span style="" font-style:="" italic="">freedom</span> - thanked the singer, but said: "however, the initiation of any possible dialogue for any peaceful resolution neither has any link with individual mediation nor is mediation itself a stumbling block to sit across the table." the newsletter, e-mailed to this correspondent, pointed out that there was no dearth of mediators.it claimed: "ulfa has been time and again expressing its view through public media and there is nothing special remained (sic) to send through mediator. the only wall being erected by the occupation india is its defiance of ignoring our pre-conditions." the preconditions, it may be mentioned, includes the holding of the talks in a third country, under the mediation of a united nations representative and the inclusion of the sovereignty of assam on the agenda of talks. it justified its demand for un mediation, saying that "india has left no room for us to believe its sincerity and so we can''t negotiate without the mediation of un that will only provide us the guarantee of abiding any possible agreed resolution by occupation india." according to the banned outfit, "no individual from assam is integrated, however noble he may be, with such a capacity to negotiate india against its insincerity." it pointed out: "otherwise, the so-called assam accord would not have to embrace such a pathetic destiny." ulfa also regretted that though it had engaged in "all-round development activities simultaneously with the routine work of our armed struggle" in the early nineties, the security forces had "slaughtered all these approaches initiated by ulfa." hence, it maintained that "development within occupation" is not sustainable, terming it as "an abstract idea of occupation india to curb our struggle that we can''t simply believe." </div> </div>