April 7, 2013, 9:23 pm


External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris said that the TNA’s actions were inimical to the ongoing national reconciliation process. Addressing members of the Colombo-based diplomatic community last week, Prof. Peiris said he was in Parliament when the result of the Geneva voting became known and a Member of Parliament, of the Tamil National Alliance, interrupted and gave the results stating that he had some excellent news. That had provoked, predictably, a very strong reaction from the other side over the sense of gloating. Minister Peiris questioned whether this kind of development was helpful from the point of view of reviving and sustaining this essential dialogue.

Referring to the adoption of the Geneva Resolution, Minister Peiris noted that it was time for some candid introspection about the effect of the Resolution, how it would possibly help the process that is in motion. Noting that while there was no fundamental divergence with regard to the aims and objectives, he questioned the methods used and whether they were conducive to the accomplishment of the objectives or whether some course correction was necessary. He drew attention, without rancour or emotion, to the fallout from the Resolution which had extended beyond the shores of Sri Lanka, to neighbouring India and questioned whether this was helpful in moving forward with implementing the recommendations of the LLRC, for which it was necessary to work together in partnership and harmony.

He stressed that in fact, the opposite had happened and the Resolution had become a catalyst for discord, dissension and even violence. He outlined the events in India and repercussions in other areas, such as sporting and cultural activities and the divisions created. He noted that although they were not intended consequences, they were predictable and foreseeable and it was evident that the resolution would trigger certain developments. He questioned whether this was constructive and helpful for a country that was emerging from the shadow of a painful conflict which spanned 30 years, when the country was doing its best to accelerate economic and social development.

Observing that it was said that the idea of the Resolution was to encourage and persuade Sri Lanka into more rapid action, Minister Peiris observed that human beings respond to criticism if there is the conviction that the criticism is just. He questioned whether anyone could expect Sri Lanka to believe that the criticism was just. He said that the mover of the resolution had categorically stated that it was not a condemnatory resolution, but a procedural resolution that would be balanced and recognise what Sri Lanka had achieved as well as drawing attention to what remains to be done. The Minister noted that he was therefore astonished to see the first draft of the resolution that was presented in Geneva which did not include one word of acknowledgement of anything positive that Sri Lanka had done, contrary to the assurances given to Sri Lanka. He added that it was the minimum expectation if one was talking of justice and fair play.

He noted that those references were belatedly included as a result of many countries observing that they were at a loss to understand the one sided nature of the Resolution and expressing these views to the mover of the Resolution. He added that in subsequent drafts, there was a paragraph that was included as a result of the intervention of many countries. Minister Peiris pointed out that this raised a serious question about objectivity and asked whether focusing solely and exclusively on the negative aspects, when many positive results had been achieved on the ground, corresponded to anyone’s conception of objectivity, justice and fair play, a question which the Government of Sri Lanka was entitled to ask.

Minister Peiris questioned whether, when looking at the global landscape today and situations in different parts of the world, it could honestly be said that Sri Lanka is the most troubling situation on this planet, that requires the persistent and urgent attention of the world community. He pointed out that Sri Lanka is on the Agenda of the Human Rights Council every six months and questioned whether the situation in the country is such as to warrant this kind of recurring sharp attention. He added that the effect of the resolution is such that at the 24th Session of the HRC in September this year the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights is required by the terms of the resolution to present what the resolution describes as the oral update. H.E. Navi Pillai has to present in September 2013 an oral update and then again in terms of the resolution she is required at the 25th session in March 2014 to present a comprehensive report which will be followed by a discussion.

Minister Peiris questioned whether this was an appropriate response, referring to objectivity and proportionality both of which are essential elements. This raises the fundamental question whether this initiative is really predicted on moral or ethical issues, adding that if that were the case, then surely there must be consistency and uniformity of treatment of like situations on a global scale. He quoted Aristotle who said many years ago, articulating the wisdom of antiquity that ‘like situations call for like treatment and like responses’. He noted that otherwise treatment becomes arbitrary and capricious, and this erodes the foundation of morality and ethics.

He also referred to the geographical dimension of the Resolution, noting that the list of sponsors were 80% to 85% from Europe and North America. There was also a similar pattern in the voting.

Minister Peiris noted that there were sections that did not want the internal process to succeed. They were trying to find exit strategies and excuses for not coming in and wanted the domestic process to fail, so that they could tell the international community that the process was doomed to failure and that there was no alternative to pressure from the international community to bring about a viable settlement within Sri Lanka.

The Minister added that the real damage is that the local process is being marginalized. While clarifying that he was not implying that this was the intention of the movers of the Resolution, it was the consequence, and there was a denigration of the local process as secondary and unimportant, with the focus shifting sharply to the international arena.

He referred to the incidents involving the two Buddhist Priests who were attacked in Chennai, expressing appreciation of the comments of Shri Salman Khurshid, his counterpart in the Government of India who took a very forthright position on this. A Member of the TNA had condemned it, and denounced it in the strongest possible terms. Thereafter Suren Surendiran of the Global Tamil Forum made a statement which whitewashed the incident. A member of the TNA travelling with Mr. Surendiran from London to South Africa had also made a statement previously that they were responsible for getting the State Department to formulate this resolution. The Minister stressed that it is not believed that the State Department is controlled by a political party in this country but those assertions were made last year. There is a situation where the so-called Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam, which purports to be a government in exile, is calling for international investigations. So we have representatives of other organizations outside the shores of Sri Lanka travelling to other capitals with members of the TNA. He drew attention to the optics of the situation and questioned how this would impact on the domestic situation and the capability of the government of Sri Lanka to revive this delicate process and to keep it moving forward in the face of such deliberately provocative behaviour. He inquired whether the task of the government would be made easier or more difficult, adding that the answer to that question was obvious.

With regard to investigations, Minister Peiris noted that the resolution brings in that concept by means of a reference to the report of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights which called for an international investigation in respect of Sri Lanka just seven days after the war ended in May 2009. He questioned the evidence on the basis of which she had done so. Since then, she had persistently repeated this call at regular intervals.

The Minister added that the position was that she accepted the invitation of the Government to visit Sri Lanka. He elaborated that when he wrote to her 11 months before the last resolution in March 2012, she responded in writing that she would be happy to come and would like the report of the LLRC to be out. This was agreed to, as her visit would be more productive after the LLRC Report was out in the public domain. She also mentioned that she would like her visit to be preceded by a visit of a technical team from her office headed by Hanny Megally. This visit took place, after which she wrote expressing appreciation for the facilities and resources that we had placed at the disposal of Hanny Megally and his team. Minister Peiris added that the actions of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights must not be dependent on extraneous factors and questioned why the goal post is being constantly shifted. He added that the call for international investigations was not based on evidence, or anything credible or substantial. He stressed that the report of the so-called Panel of Experts, which is also brought in by incorporation into the resolution, itself says that no statement in it must be taken as proved fact. He noted that there are horrendous descriptions of things that are supposed to have happened and then there is an explicit and emphatic disclaimer. However, this document has found its way into the resolution, the overall effect of which is to bring about turbulence not only in Sri Lanka, but in other countries as well.

Minister Peiris stressed that Sri Lanka was our country where we were born, where we live, and where we eventually will lay down our bones and nobody is more interested in the wellbeing of this country than we are. The country has a Government which has been elected by its people and on every occasion the people have been consulted, they have returned that Government with larger and larger majorities. It is a country where elections are being held every few months and several Provincial Elections will take place this year. He noted that the LLRC is our own document and we will implement it because we believe that it is a good thing to do, not because of being compelled to do so, but through an inner sense of conviction and resolve to do the best we can for the people of this nation. The pace of implementation, priorities and timing are political judgments for the Government of the country.


island.lk