Briefing by External Affairs Minister Prof G.L. Peiris for Members of the Diplomatic Community at the Ministry of External Affairs on April 2.
Minister Peiris noted that the purpose of the briefing was to share some thoughts with the diplomatic corps on current issues, attitudes to these issues and the perspective of the Government of Sri Lanka on the way forward with regard to each of these matters.
Geneva Resolution
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 this criticism is just.
He said that the mover of the resolution had categorically stated that this is not a condemnatory resolution, but a procedural resolution that would be balanced and recognize what Sri Lanka has 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 has done, contrary to the assurances given to Sri Lanka. He added that this was the minimum expectation if one is talking of justice and fair play.
He noted that these 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 fairplay, a question which the Government of Sri Lanka was entitled to ask.
Global landscape
Minister Peiris further 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 is an appropriate response, referring to objectivity and proportionality both of which are essential elements.
This raises the fundamental question whether this initiative is really predicated 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.
Minister Peiris further observed that he was in Parliament when the result of the 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. This 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.
He referred to the incidents involving the two Buddhist Priests who were attacked in Chennai, expressing appreciation of the comments of H.E. 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 Mr. 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.
LLRC Report
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.
CHOGM 2013
Speaking on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled to be held in Colombo in November 2013, Minister Peiris stated that Heads of Government decided at CHOGM 2009 in Trinidad and Tobago that CHOGM 2013 would be held in Sri Lanka. This decision was reaffirmed by Heads of Government at CHOGM 2011 in Perth, Western Australia, and this could not be changed or overturned.
He elaborated on the debate regarding the future of the Commonwealth, upholding its core values and the Report of the Eminent Persons Group which contained several recommendations on the premise that the Commonwealth must make itself relevant to contemporary circumstances and keep pace with the times. The EPG recommended the establishment of the office of Commonwealth Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law to breathe new vigour and vitality into the Commonwealth. This was discussed by Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government at CHOGM 2011 in Perth, Western Australia and with the exception of 4 or 5 countries, the rest rejected this recommendation, as this was not their conception of the Commonwealth.
The Minister observed that the Commonwealth is, above all, a celebration of diversity, a voluntary association of equals, proud of their heritage, culture and identity. He added that attempts to introduce into the Commonwealth executive mechanisms run counter to the values which underpin the Commonwealth. This was the rationale for rejecting, as unacceptably intrusive, the proposal relating to the establishment of the office of Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.
He added that at the Commonwealth Foreign Affairs Minister’s Meeting in New York in September 2012 on the sidelines of the UNGA, the monetary aspect of the recommendation was discussed, with the inquiry as to who would pay for the new post and whether Member States would be required to make a greater contribution.
The answer elicited was that the money would be found from the contribution of a few countries. Minister Peiris questioned the acceptability of having in any country some kind of monitor paid for by other countries.
The suggestion to reallocate money within projects which had been approved was rejected by 90% of the countries present as their priorities were on rural empowerment, gender equality, access to education, healthcare and similar matters.
On the expansion of the Mandate of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, Minister Peiris added that CMAG previously had a role only in the situation of an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government. It was agreed to expand the scope of CMAG to cover serious and persistent violations of Commonwealth values. He added that this does not mean that some countries can sit in judgment over other countries. There are rules of procedure, which must be compulsorily observed.
He also referred to the “Good Offices” role of the Commonwealth Secretary General which involves engagement with the country in question. He stressed that the Commonwealth is to assist people, not to threaten them and references made by some countries that membership of the Commonwealth is not permanent were not acceptable. He noted that whatever is done has to be consistent with the self-esteem and the dignity of these Member States.
He reiterated that the procedural rules make it very clear that the Secretary General must engage in earnest with the country in question and in the case of Sri Lanka, there is abundant evidence that this is ongoing. This was clear from the Departure Statement of H.E. Kamalesh Sharma issued out of Colombo on 14th February which states that there is “marked progress” made in this country during the six months intervening between his visit in September 2012 and the current visit in February 2013.
Minister Peiris referred to a letter received a few days ago from the Secretary General indicating that he wished to send another officer from his Office to work on some of the areas mutually agreed upon, which is evidence that the “Good Offices” role of the Secretary General is going forward purposefully. In accordance with CMAG’s own rules, there is absolutely no warrant for this country to be put on any agenda of CMAG and this position has been conveyed to the Commonwealth Secretariat and to Foreign Ministers with whom Minister Peiris has been in contact.
Minister Peiris observed that the Commonwealth has to adapt to changing circumstances to avoid becoming extinct. However, that does not mean that the character of the Commonwealth can be subverted to suit narrow political interests.
What is being sought by a very small group is to reinvent the Commonwealth, which far from imparting greater relevance to the Commonwealth, spelt the danger of disintegration because that is not the kind of organization that the vast majority of these 54 countries wish to belong to.
He added that Sri Lanka does not want the Commonwealth transformed and distorted because that is totally inimical to the fundamental character of the Commonwealth as we know it. Further Sri Lanka is making elaborate preparations for CHOGM.
We are legitimately proud of our tradition of hospitality and we are putting a great deal of energy and effort into the meeting of the Heads of Government as well as the Business Forum to which countries outside the Commonwealth and leading businessmen from different parts of the world are being invited, as well. He added that the People’s Forum will take place in Dambulla and the Youth Forum will be held in Hambantota.
Muslim interests in Sri Lanka
Commenting on matters relating to Muslim interests in Sri Lanka, Minister Peiris observed that the Government of Sri Lanka has made it very clear that law and order will be preserved at any cost and several people had been taken into custody.
He drew attention to the fact that the Muslims and the Sinhalese have lived in amity for centuries with no acrimony. Expressions of concern have been responded to in a suitable way and issues have been handled sensitively, with a very health dialogue taking place between the Buddhist Clergy and Muslim leaders.
Minister Peiris also expressed appreciation to the Muslim countries for the consistent support to Sri Lanka in 2012 and in 2013, highlighting that the Muslim countries stood solidly by Sri Lanka in spite of all the pressure that was brought to bear on them. He mentioned countries in the Gulf including Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates this year, Saudi Arabia in the previous year and also Muslim countries in West Africa including Mauritania as well as Pakistan and Indonesia in the Asian Continent. He reiterated gratitude for the support and understanding of the Muslim world, noting that the Government of Sri Lanka was firmly resolved to protect religious harmony - absolutely essential for the nation’s wellbeing ? and to take all necessary steps in this regard.
Source: Daily News (09th April 2013)
