| Share |
1
14th December, 2011
[10.29 a.m.]
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Mr. Chairman. I am happy to partake in this Discussion on the Ministry of External Affairs.
A country’s external policy, Sir, must be in the national interest. I think that is fundamental. It is inevitable that a country’s external policies will be a reflection of its internal policies or its domestic policies in a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural and pluralistic society such as Sri Lanka is. If a country’s domestic policies are fundamentally flawed, it is inevitable that its foreign policy will be skewed, distorted and consequently based upon expediency rather than on a mature well thought out foreign policy. That would be, Sir, the theme of my speech today.
I wish to begin by examining Sri Lanka’s present status on the international scene. Never before has Sri Lanka been hounded as is happening today. Defending itself has become its main function. We have antagonized and unfortunately alienated, at least as of now, several liberal democracies who were once our close friends and who had much respect for us. This has happened because of the policies we follow domestically in relation to our own people, all Sri Lankans, whether they be Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims or any other. We advance two arguments to justify the policies we pursue. The first is that we are a sovereign nation. We have an absolute right to do whatever we wish within the territory of our state and no one can question us. The second is that the LTTE has been the villain, continues to be the villain and is solely responsible for all that has happened in Sri Lanka. All our trials and tribulations are attributable solely to the LTTE.
I will deal, Sir, with the second point first, pertaining to the LTTE. The criticism levelled against us by a wide section of the international community - not merely countries, but also by reputed international human rights organizations - is sought to be projected as inspired by the rump of the LTTE within the Tamil diaspora, and therefore unworthy of credence. It is conveniently forgotten that not very long ago, these international human rights organizations, the same organizations, Amnesty International, International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) - a domestic organization - were the most virulent critics of the LTTE and its violations of human rights and that such criticism enabled the Sri Lankan Government - the late Hon. Lakshman Kadirgamar, the then minister of foreign affairs - to have the LTTE banned, proscribed, in many countries the world over, the USA, India, the UK, Canada, Australia, the European
2
Union and other countries, crippling the LTTE’s activities in regard to fund raising, in regard to the purchase of arms. In fact several of these countries shared vital, extensive intelligence with the Sri Lankan Government in regard to the LTTE, particularly, India.
Some of these countries even helped Sri Lanka to fight the war against the LTTE and all of them played a significant role in the ultimate decimation of the LTTE. I do not think that Sri Lanka can, with any sense of responsibility, deny that reality. How on earth can it ever be believed that these very same countries and organizations are today being inspired by the rump of the LTTE within the Tamil diaspora as is claimed by the Sri Lankan Government? The truth is that for whatever reason, today many prominent LTTEers are working in collaboration with and in cahoots with the Sri Lankan Government. This is not something which you can deny. It is true that sections of the Tamil diaspora are active. But can it be believed that these countries and these reputed international organizations are thoughtlessly influenced by the Tamil diaspora? I must say that vast sections of the Tamil diaspora are quite responsible and want the problem in this country to be resolved through dialogue in a peaceful way. Of course there were two fundamental matters on which these countries and organizations were quite specific and in regard to which they continued to be engaged with the Sri Lankan Government. The first was that the Tamil civilians should be protected to the maximum extent possible when military operations were carried out against the LTTE. What would be meant by this is that the attack should not be reckless, should not be indiscriminate and should not be disproportionate given the fact that there were over 300,000 Tamil civilians in this conflict area. This is not to minimize the onerous military responsibilities the Sri Lankan Government undertook, but to emphasize that the rules of war had to be maintained nevertheless. And the second was that the core causes, the core issues of the conflict should be addressed in keeping with the legitimate aspirations of the minority peoples and that there should be a political solution which would be acceptable.
Now, I do not think, Mr. Chairman, adopting a xenophobic attitude, looking upon persons in the international community who express their concerns in regard to the issues I have just outlined as being harmful would do you any good.
The international community was not responsible for the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact being signed. The international community was not responsible for the Dudley-Chelvanayakam Pact being signed. Those were entered into by national leaders of great stature. But they were abrogated by you. It is because those Pacts were abrogated that you had to sign the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement subsequently. If you renege on the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement
3
which I think you are preparing to do - I hope not - there will await you some other Agreements which may cause you even more concern than what you say the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement is causing to you at present. Is it not a fact Mr. Chairman, that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is skewed, distorted and based upon expediency? Because in regard to the two issues that I have identified, as the concerns of the international community - on the first the Sri Lankan Government has defaulted and defaulted miserably and if I might say so, on the second dispute, though the LTTE is no longer an impediment and the maximum possible cooperation is being extended from the Tamil side to the Sri Lankan Government and though two and half years have lapsed since the conclusion of the war and though bilateral talks between a Sri Lankan Government delegation and a TNA delegation have taken place for almost one year, the Sri Lankan Government has not delivered in any tangible way. There has only been a process but no substance has been achieved as yet and that is not something about which anyone of us can be happy. I want to assure this House that as far as the TNA is concerned, our contribution will continue to be constructive.
Before I deal with the position taken up by the Sri Lankan Government on the question of sovereignty as a blanket cover for anything it does, I wish to deal with the question of human rights, violation of international human rights laws and international humanitarian laws which clearly is - currently the Achilles’ heel of the Government. I shall to do so, without going too much into the past. I would start with the period immediately prior to the commencement of the war to set things in proper perspective. I think I need to do this as this is the main reason for the Government’s continuing dilemma. I wish to quote what the former Secretary-General of the UN, His Excellency Kofi A. Annan has said in the Foreword to “A Compilation of the International Instruments on Human Rights,” issued by the United Nations recently.
This is what His Excellency Kofi A. Annan said, I quote:
“Human rights are the foundation of human existence and coexistence. They are universal, indivisible and interdependent.
And they lie at the heart of everything the United Nations aspires to achieve in its global mission of peace and development.”
He further said,
"Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly in 1948, Governments have discussed, negotiated and agreed upon many hundreds of fundamental principles and legal provisions designed to protect and promote an array of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights"
Sri Lanka is a signatory and has acceded to several international Covenants and Treaties and has undertaken legal obligations to respect and protect human rights. Sri Lanka is a party to all the Core Human Rights Treaties. Sri
4
Lanka has entered into these Human Rights Treaties on its own accord and is bound to satisfy the obligations these Treaties place upon Sri Lanka. It may well be said that Sri Lanka has willingly accepted international external scrutiny of the manner in which it conducts domestic affairs, as far as they relate to the subject matter of these treaties which it signed and acceded to.
I wish to refer, Sir, at this point to certain salient factors to demonstrate the true situation in regard to human rights in Sri Lanka.
A Commission of Inquiry was established in November 2006 to investigate sixteen serious identified violations of human rights. One pertained to the murder of five Tamil students in Trincomalee. Another pertained to the murder of 17 aid workers in Mutur all Tamil speaking; 16 Tamils and One Muslim. Yet another pertained to the killing of some Muslim youth in the Ampara District. And yet another pertained to the killing of Sinhala civilians in the course of an attack at Kebithigollewa in the Anuradhapura District.
An International Independent Group of Eminent Persons comprising of 11 eminent persons from different parts of the world, the Chairman of which was former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Bhagawathi was appointed to oversee the working of the Commission and to ensure that the Commission performed its functions pertaining to investigations into human rights violations in keeping with international norms and standards. After functioning for some time the I. I. G.E. P. decided to terminate its mandate. I will not go into all the reasons that they mentioned for wanting to terminate the mandate. It is a long list of reasons that they gave. I will refer from the public statement they made to their ultimate conclusion after they had outlined the several reasons for coming to the conclusion and this is what they stated. “This confirms the IIGEP's apprehension regarding the absence of political will and the institutional inability of Sri Lanka to conduct human rights inquires in accordance with international norms and standards”.
Having outlined several reasons that is the ultimate reason they gave for terminating their mandate.
I must also mention at this point of time that a Witness Protection Bill was brought to Parliament. The Second Reading had taken place but for some mysterious reason that Witness Protection Bill was abandoned.
When the IIGEP was functioning in Sri Lanka, I think the question had also been raised with them in regard to the need for the Government to take extreme measures pertaining to activities by armed groups and what the impact of such action could be on human rights.
5
In the course of the public statement the IIGEP made when they terminated their mandate and before their departure from this country, this is what they stated. I quote:
“All Members of the IIGEP are keenly aware of the security situation presently prevailing in Sri Lanka. The Government is faced with an insurgency in which the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) conduct their hostilities through ruthless methods, not sparing the civilian population. Sections of popular opinion suggest that human rights and respect for the rule of law should take second place to measures necessary to repel these hostilities. The IIEGP rejects this opinion. There is no conflict or incompatibility between the successful conduct of military and security operations on the one hand, and respect for the rights of citizens on the other. Indeed it should be emphasized that respect for human rights, and the conduct of military operations in strict accordance with international humanitarian law, are powerful weapons in the struggle against dissident forces and terrorism in that they help to earn the trust and support of the civilian population. Moreover, they are essential to morale and promote a culture of professionalism and self-respect within the police and armed forces.
To the extent that emergency conditions may require special state measures derogating from certain peacetime rights, these must be publicly announced, enacted in law, and justified in terms of necessity and proportionality. Summary executions, massacres, disappearances, wanton destruction of property, and forcible transfers of populations can never be justified. No efforts should be spared to uncover responsibility, including recognition of command responsibility, for such actions. The IIGEP has, however, found an absence of will on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka in the present Inquiry to investigate cases with vigour, where the conduct of its own forces has been called into question.”
Sir, you see this statement was made by the IIGEP before the final stages of the war, in 2008. But, the IIEGP has referred to the very acts which today constitute the violations of international humanitarian law amounting to war crimes, - the indiscriminate killing of people; the forcible transfer of populations; the destruction of property - and the IIGEP had expressed its opinion, its well-considered opinion in regard to what would happen if the war was conducted in a reckless, indiscriminate and disproportionate way.
The Commission of Inquiry did investigate the violations of human rights pertaining to five students and the 17 aid workers in Mutur. One of the features was that suddenly the evidence being recorded through teleconferencing was stopped by the Commission of Inquiry. There were witnesses who had gone abroad because they had no protection, they were not in the country, they were not able to testify and their evidence were being recorded through teleconferencing, but, suddenly that was stopped. The report of that Commission in regard to the inquiry they conducted if it was ever submitted was not made public. Everything came to an end in a mysterious way. - Not merely was the violation of Human Rights with impunity, a continuing phenomenon, - a domestic process commenced with much fanfare, even with a measure of international involvement died, I might say, was in fact killed. Would it be reasonable in these circumstances, in this background, to place any faith whatever in any domestic process? Can any reasonable human being be expected to place any faith in any domestic process in the context of what happened to this Commission of Inquiry which functioned under international supervision? Are these not the questions that the international community is raising? Are these not the questions being posed to the Sri Lankan Government on the basis of what is happening in Sri Lanka?
6
The two UN High Commissioners for Human Rights in recent times, - the first one was Madam Louise Arbour, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada and the present one is Madam Navaneetham Pillay, a retired judge of Supreme Court of South Africa - have consistently passed strictures on the Sri Lankan Government in regard to its coduct on Human Rights. Madam Louise Arbour came to Sri Lanka some years ago. She made a public statement to the effect that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka had become so deeply ingrained with the culture of impunity that strong measures were required to eradicate that culture of impunity and she wanted to set up a UN presence in Sri Lanka to monitor human rights. The Human Rights Commission by virtue of its miserable performance had been degraded to status B from status A and in the international body of Human Rights Commissions, it had only observer status.
But the request by Madam Louise Arbour that there be an International presence of the UN in Sri Lanka was rejected. If that had been accepted, all the troubles you are facing now may not have occurred, you may have been advised to avert them and you may have yet fought the LTTE successfully without committing all the human rights violations. Madam Navaneetham Pillai has passed several strictures with regard to Sri Lanka even at the time the war was being conducted - I will not quote here because of the lack of time - Frequently she has made statements in regard to the various violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law that was being committed by you while the war was being prosecuted. Can we honestly say that they were not justified in saying what they said? The war was fought and we know what happened during the war - I will not talk at great length about it. It was said to be a war without witnesses. Nobody wants to seek revenge. I want to make that perfectly clear, but the truth must be ascertained. It was a war without witnesses, that does not appear to be quite so now. There are questions being raised by the international community. (Interruption.] You had a duty to comply with the obligations that you had undertaken under International Treaties and Covenants which you had signed and which you had acceeded too. You have defaulted in complying with those obligations which you undertook to conform with. That is the problem that you are facing. You are unable to answer the queries for the simple reason that you have agreed to conform to your obligations and you have not, quite clearly, conformed to them. The UN Secretary General came to Sri Lanka some days after the war was over. There was a joint communiqué issued by His Excellency the President and the UN Secretary General. There was an Expert Panel appointed comprising of three persons of international repute one of them was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.
7
The other was a retired Attorney-General of Indonesia whom you had chosen to put on your International Independent Group of Eminent Persons. He was the second person appointed by the President to the IIGEP and the third was a reputed lawyer and also an advisor to the UN. They published a Report in April this year. They said that there were credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian laws and international human rights laws amounting to war crimes and that there was a need for both a domestic and an international investigation into that question. You paid no heed to their Report; you never engaged with them with regard to their Report; you never dealt with any matter in that Report. You merely attacked the personnel who constituted the Commission of Inquiry. There was a meaningless reaction on your part; there was no rational reaction on your part. I think, Sri Lanka’s interest- [Interruption.] Please, do not disturb me. I beg of you, please, sit down!- [Interruption.]
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
Hon. Azwer, please do not disturb.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Sir, my time should not be taken. I am running short of time.- [Interruption.]
ගරු අල්හාජ් ඒ.එච්.එම්. අස්වර් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு அல்ஹாஜ் ஏ.எச்.எம். அஸ்வர்)
(The Hon. Alhaj A.H.M. Azwer)
The soldiers were maimed. Hon. Sampanthan, you must be fair.
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
Hon. Member, please- [Interruption.]
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Sir, this time - [Interruption.]
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
Please, do not disturb.
8
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Sir, with great respect - [Interruption.] Sir, I will not let that time be taken from mine. It has to be taken from the Government side.
So, this is the position. I think a great harm - [Interruption.]
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
Hon. Azwer, you can reply him later.- [Interruption.]
ගරු ලලිත් දිසානායක මහතා (සසෞඛ්ය ියසය ්ය අමාතයතුමා
(மாண்புமிகு லலித் திசாநாயக்க - சுகாதார பிரதி அமமச்சர்)
(The Hon. Lalith Dissanayake - Deputy Minister of Health)
See, what had happened in Kebithigollewa. Innocent people were killed.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Sir, I think great harm has been done to Sri Lanka by the way in which the Sri Lankan Government dealt with the Report of the Expert Panel appointed by the UN Secretary-General. . - [Interruption.]
ගරු ලලිත් දිසානායක මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு லலித் திசாநாயக்க)
(The Hon. Lalith Dissanayake)
අපේ මිනිස්සු මැපෙන පකොට තමයි කවුරුවත් කථා කෙන්පන් නැත්පත්.[බාධා කිරීම්]
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
අහපෙන ඉඳලා උත්තෙ පෙන්න.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Now, we have the LLRC Report - Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report - submitted by the LLRC appointed by the Government of Sri Lanka.
9
It is the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report. The lessons must be learnt on the basis of the truth being ascertained. There can be reconciliation, there can be genuine reconciliation only if the truth is ascertained. I will not speak about the LLRC Report. I read in the newspapers that His Excellency the President will present the report in Parliament and he will make his own comments about that Report and explain that report to the country. I think in deference to His Excellency the President it is my duty not to speak about that report right now, though we have been observing all that has been going on, and above all we have our own opinions in regard to various aspects of that whole issue, and the whole process. I will not comment on it now. I will only say that whether it be lessons learnt or whether it be genuine reconciliation, the fundamental requirement is that the truth must be ascertained and lessons must be learnt and there can be genuine reconciliation only on the basis of the truth being ascertained.
Now, Sir, I move on to the question of sovereignty which I said I would deal with a little later. Sovereignty has been defined in our Constitution under Article 3. It states, “In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable.” It is in the people not in the Government and it is inalienable. It further states, “Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise.” If you do not observe fundamental rights and if you do not respect franchise and you do not accept the sovereignty vested in all the people and which is inalienable you yourself are eroding the sovereignty which you claim to preserve and protect. Sir, I will during the discussion of sovereignty and its implications like to read to you and to the House certain paragraphs from the Eighth Memorial Lecture on the death of the Hon. (Dr.) Neelan Tiruchelvam delivered by Mr. Gareth Evans, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia and subsequently the President of the International Crisis Group. Sir, this is what he said in the course of the lecture on the issue of sovereignty. It sates, I quote:
“|This leads directly into my subject tonight: the limits of state sovereignty and the proper role of the international community in responding to catastrophic human rights violations - genocide and other mass killing, large scale ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity - occurring within the boundaries of a single country. There is a widespread concern that involvement of countries in the affairs of others, and in particular the involvement of developed countries in the internal affairs of developing ones, has not always been principled or consistent in the past. It is an article of faith around a good deal of the global South that Article 2(7) of the UN Charter is to be read as an all-embracing prohibition when it says that “Nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.”
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
Hon. Sampanthan, you have taken 40 minutes now.
10
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
Sir, I have got 45 minutes because it was agreed that the balance five minutes will be given to me. .So, I will most respectfully ask you to give me that time. Sir, I will finish.
It goes on to say, I quote:
"It is understandable that sovereignty should be a very sensitive subject indeed with the many states who gained independence during the decolonization era - states in all cases proud of their new identity, in many cases conscious of their fragility, and generally inclined to see the non-intervention norm as one of their few defences against threats and pressures from more powerful international actors seeking to promote their own economic and political interests."
The point is - They went on saying like that. The matter was discussed. Then on question of the responsibility to protect, what is popularly called R2P, there were certain reports submitted: one by the Secretary General and one by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty called the ICISS and based on the reports the biggest conceptual contribution of the Commission was, that it identified matters that needed to be addressed.
Eventually, Sir, there was a resolution passed, with more than 150 members voting in its favour where R2P was adopted, the responsibility to protect, the right of the international community to intervene in situations when the local state itself has failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens was recognized. In other words, the first duty is on the part of the local state, the country concerned to protect its citizens.
සභාපතිතුමා
(தவிசாளர் அவர்கள்)
(The Chairman)
Hon. Member, now you have finished the second three minutes also.
ගරු ආර්. සම්පන්දන් මහතා
(மாண்புமிகு ஆர். சம்பந்தன்)
(The Hon. R. Sampanthan)
If that is not done then the duty is cast upon the international community, and the international community, must perform their obligations. That in fact, Sir, was the decision arrived at.
I will finish my reading. Now it is in the last paragraph Sir.
It further states, I quote:
"The short point, which cannot be repeated too often, is that R2P is not about protecting everybody from everything. It is about protecting men, women and children from large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity - either occurring now, or imminently feared likely to occur, or readily capable of so occurring if a situation deteriorates through want of effective preventive action." - [Interruption.]
11
I thank you Sir. But, we must, I think, Sir, in this House bring an end to this buffoonery. I can call it nothing but downright buffoonery when elderly people stand up in this Parliament and disturb people who are speaking and one who is on his feet. You should name such Members and you can remove them from the House.
| Share |
