Government regrets British Foreign Secretary’s statement

(April 07, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Government has regretted the statement of the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband in the House of Commons recently, expressing disappointment at the continued rejection of the appointment of the British Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Sri Lanka, Des Browne. Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama reiterated in Parliament today (07 April 2009), the Government’s position that the British Government had failed to adhere to the time honoured tradition in diplomatic practice of consultation and following the procedure in making the said appointment. The has been further vindicated by Mr. Browne’s participation in a conference in London recently, organized by a front of the LTTE terrorist group, at which it was resolved to establish a sovereign state of Tamil Eelam – the doctrine of the LTTE, proscribed by the UK – and his utterances in that forum.

The Foreign Minister, in a wide ranging and comprehensive statement to the Parliament, saluted the valiant military personnel for their success in clearing all areas in the Vanni from the subjugation of the LTTE, which all peace loving Sri Lankans would welcome as a signal of freedom. Today, the country is poised on the threshold of defeating terrorism and embarking on an era of lasting peace and security for all the people. The Minister further noted that when the history of Sri Lanka is recorded, “Mahinda Rajapaksa’s name will be written in golden letters as the ‘Great Unifier’ of our motherland Sri Lanka”.

Referring to the Ministerial statement issued earlier this month by the British Foreign Secretary that “the LTTE is a terrorist organization and that the Government of Sri Lanka has a need to root out the threat of terrorism”, however regretted that punitive action on the LTTE by the international community remains largely on paper, where a proscription, though in force, amounts to nothing in terms of its implementation. Elaborating further, the Minister said, “Fund raising by LTTE operatives continues unabated, public demonstrations have now graduated to the blatant use of the terrorist organisation’s name, insignia, cut outs of the leader etc., and are held in the proscribed territories with excuses of how legal action cannot be taken. I am only left to question the validity of a proscription. While some countries thankfully have been taking action against such activities, there are those who churn out excuses. For instance it would not be wrong to expect some uniformity of action in relation to the EU proscription being an integrated entity of member states. However, this has not been the case”.

Minister Bogollagama assured the House that no one is more concerned than the Government about the civilians trapped as human shields in the safe zone by the LTTE. He rejected the notion that the Government needs to be reminded by anyone of its responsibility towards its own citizens and emphasized that throughout the conflict the Government has followed a strict zero tolerance policy on civilian casualties, notwithstanding the LTTE’s modus operandi of using civilians as human shields.

He also categorically rebutted the British Foreign Secretary’s contention that the Government has denied access to the welfare villages; the visits of the UN Under Secretary General, Sir John Holmes, some Colombo based Heads of Diplomatic Missions, and EU delegation and most recently the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative on Human Rights for IDPs, Dr. Walter Kaelin have all visited these IDP centres and seen for themselves the factual situation. He also pointed out that the UN and the ICRC, together with 14 INGOs who have recommended by the UN are working in these welfare centres.

In conclusion, the Foreign Minister reiterated the Government’s commitment to pursue a sustainable solution to the conflict in terms of a Sri Lankan agenda.

The full text of the Statement is as follows:

Statement of Rohitha Bogollagama, M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs in Parliament on 07 April 2009
Hon. Speaker
Hon Members of Parliament

When the history of Sri Lanka is recorded, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s name will be written in golden letters as the Great Unifier of our beloved motherland Sri Lanka. He has achieved this commendable and historic feat that no other leader in our post-independence history has been able to do.

At the outset I join this august assembly in saluting our valiant military personnel in extricating all the areas in the Vanni from the subjugation of the LTTE, known to the world as a ruthless terrorist organization. I am certain that all peace loving Sri Lankans will welcome this as signal of freedom. This Group’s ruthlessness knows no bounds with its remaining cadres and leaders having holed themselves up in the 12 kilometre no-fire zone created as a safe area for the civilians, thus continuing to secure themselves by a human shield. As for our military, it has been an arduous trek, inching their way to avoid civilian casualties while losing their own, in their quest to gain control of the land and annihilate terrorism, to create a secure environment imperative for the establishment of democratic institutions required for the pursuit of a sustained political solution. Today with the military successes we are poised on the threshold of defeating terrorism and embarking on an era of lasting peace and security for all our people.

Hon. Members, this strategy for the creation of a safe and secure environment has been conducted at times with the demonstration of some understanding by the international community and at other times pitted against a war of rhetoric – the latter overriding the former at most times. It was indeed a welcome recognition by the British Government as contained in the Ministerial statement issued earlier this month by Foreign Secretary Miliband, that “the LTTE is a terrorist organization and that the Government of Sri Lanka has a need to root out the threat from terrorism”. An aspect of this position was echoed when the European Council in its Conclusions in February ’09 called “on the LTTE to lay down its arms and renounce terrorism and violence once and for all, end the inhuman use of child soldiers and forced recruitment, and participate in a political process to achieve a just and lasting solution”. Undoubtedly this call together with similar sentiments from other quarters of the international community have hitherto gone unheeded by the LTTE. This only demonstrates the LTTE’s apathy and the contempt it has for such positions from the international community.

Regrettably however punitive action on the LTTE by the international community remains largely on paper, where a proscription though in force, its implementation amounts to nothing. Fund raising by LTTE operatives continue unabated, public demonstrations have now graduated to the blatant use of the terrorist organisation’s name, insignia, cut outs of the leader etc., and are held in the proscribed territories with excuses of how legal action cannot be taken. I am only left to question the validity of a proscription. While some countries thankfully have been taking action against such activities, there are those who churn out excuses. For instance it would not be wrong to expect some uniformity of action in relation to the EU proscription being an integrated entity of member states. However, this has not been the case.

Hon. Members, instead we have for instance a situation of being censured by the British government in terms of “the actions of the LTTE not being an excuse for any failings on the part by the Sri Lankan Government to meet the higher standards naturally expected of democratic governments in a conflict”. I wish to assure the Hon. Members and through you the international community that no one is more concerned than the Government about the civilians trapped and used as human shields, in the safe zone. It is misplaced to be reminded of the responsibility towards our own citizens nor of our international commitments, as it has been the very basis of government strategy in having a secure environment. All this while, it has been the LTTE which continued to fire at civilians trying to escape from its clutches, shelling heavy artillery out of the “no fire zone”, exploding suicide bombs in welfare centers and targeting anti aircraft missiles at a helicopter evacuating civilians etc. Despite this 62,106 (2/4/09) civilians have entered welfare centres through safe corridors established by the Government. In addition, the Government has continued to evacuate the sick and injured, together with bystanders, by sea and air. The Sri Lanka government has throughout the conflict followed a zero tolerance policy on civilian collateral by observing extreme caution in the conflict area, cognizant of the LTTE’s modus operandi on the use of human shields.

Further, in keeping with the high standards expected from a democratic government, the Sri Lanka government has continuously ensured the humanitarian needs of the population from the very inception of this conflict. The WFP has confirmed adequate food supplies. For the year ending January ’09, 55,000 metric tonnes of food, relief items and medicine had been sent to the conflict zone. Since mid February up to the end of last month 2,465 Metric tonnes of food and essential items and a large stock of essential medical supplies including antibiotics and vaccines have been dispatched. As this House is aware, the LTTE regularly siphoned these supplies for their own use, thereby depriving the civilian casualties and subjecting purchases of same at black market prices.

Hon. Members, then we have the international chorus for an urgent humanitarian ceasefire. It is an unrealistic call on the government considering that over the past 30 years strategically the LTTE has been cleared of the areas which were under their domination. There have been repeated calls by H.E. the President, as recent as yesterday, for the LTTE to lay down arms. If heeded, won’t it construe an automatic ceasefire?. The international community should reach a crescendo in calling on the LTTE to lay down arms and allow the people to leave the safe zone, in the absence of which punitive measures would follow.

The constant outflow of civilians, against the machinations of the LTTE, only signals their confidence in the conditions outside the area of conflict. Therefore the advocacy for a humanitarian ceasefire is redundant.

Hon. Members, denial of access to the then uncleared areas and welfare villages has also been a bone of contention for the international community, which is also reflected in the recent British Foreign Secretary’s recent statement to the House of Commons. This position I totally reject. It may be recalled that the UN-Under Secretary General John Holmes, some Colombo based Heads of Missions including those representing the EU countries, EU delegation in Colombo, Brussels based officials from the EC and most recently Dr. Walter Kalin, UN Secretary General’s Special Representative on Human Rights for IDPs, all visited these centres. This is clear testimony to Sri Lanka carrying out its international commitments fully and transparently, which will continue. It is rather baffling that the denial of access having been included in the British statement considering that a Director of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office visited a welfare village in Vavuniya, last month. Also it may be noted that the UN and ICRC together with 14 INGOs including Care, Caritas, Save the Children have been working in these welfare centres. With regard to access to the then uncleared area, which Sir Holmes in an interview with BBC World Service described as “a pocket”, stated that the UN was “certainly not present in that pocket itself ….” and said that since it is a dangerous area, he was not sure whether the UN actually wished to go into that area. It is this very fact of the prevailing security situation in the conflict area, that access had been restricted into that region.

Hon. Members, the welfare centres housing the IDPs, were established over a short period of time. Nobody in government is claming that the conditions in these Centres in the North of Sri Lanka are perfect, but the best is being done in the circumstances. Many of the international visitors to the Centres have acknowledged that the Government of Sri Lanka is doing a difficult job creditably, and the shortcomings are being rectified. It is important to understand that we cannot get it right in one go. The UNHCR as the lead agency for IDPs has in a recent report welcomed the initiatives by the Government of Sri Lanka in keeping with its objective of providing maximum relief to ensure the wellbeing of the ID Ps without neglecting security. In this context, the development of establishing a visitor centre to enable contact with one-another, friends and relations is noteworthy.

The UNHCR has also welcomed the recent initiatives of the Government to begin the release of persons with special needs, where 371 have already been released, and begun re-unifying separated families inside IDP sites. 600 more elders have been approved to be sent to their families and 1108 persons have rejoined with their families who have been displaced in the different IDP sites. Telephone facilities have been established at the main sites and the UNHCR is continuing to work on a set of principles with the Government in enhancing the conditions further. One such is maintaining the civilian character of the IDP sites and the UNHCR report states that it is encouraged by the positive initiatives to this end at the Jaffna site. It was also satisfied with aid distributions so far. It is therefore clear that the Sri Lanka Government is firmly in the saddle in providing facilities to civilians to ameliorate their plight in trying conditions.

Hon. Members, it is rather disappointing that the British Foreign Secretary has sought to make the point to us that these welfare camps be temporary and the IDPs returned to their homes. It seems to be forgotten that when the security forces successfully liberated the Eastern Province, the Government was able to within 8 months settle 80% of the displaced in their original place of habitation. The Government has never suffered any illusion that the welfare centres are temporary. Resettling the displaced is a priority and would be done at the earliest when their safety could be ensured. While the Government would wish to replicate in the north its achievement of re-settling the displaced as in the east, it would pursue this noble objective in keeping with the situation on ground, which includes heavy mining of the Vanni area by the LTTE before its retreat. Time lines are generally pursued in order not to lose sight of the ultimate objective and in this case re-settlement of the IDPs is an imperative priority to the Government.

Hon. Members, steps taken militarily readily show tangible results, while on the political side it is that more difficult to measure progress. So there are howls of protest from the international arena that the Government is seeking a military solution – this is a misnomer. The APRC process which is aimed at finding a lasting settlement with the involvement of political parties has progressed steadily and it would not be long before the proposals are unveiled. H.E. President Rajapaksa for the fourth time invited the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which has representation from the Northern and Eastern provinces. Unfortunately as a group they rejected the invitation, through individual MPs of the TNA have at times differed. Having a solid partnership of the stakeholders from all political parties is imperative to evolve a lasting political settlement. The Government continues to seek the cooperation of all stakeholders some of whom pull away. The international community therefore during their contacts with the Sri Lankan polity could impress upon them the need for working together.

Hon. Members, I wish to take this opportunity to brief this House on Sri Lanka’s position with regard to the appointment of the British Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Sri Lanka, which seems to be regularly surfacing in British polity culminating in Foreign Secretary Miliband expressing disappointment at its continued rejection by the Government of Sri Lanka, “despite earlier assurances from H.E. the President that the Government would engage with the envoy”. The Hon. Members would recall that the Cabinet rejected this unilateral appointment as it contravened the basic principles governing international relations and the requirement for consultation and reciprocity. Neither proper procedure nor consultations had been undertaken by the British Government, prior to the said appointment, which are time honoured traditions in diplomatic practice. In this context, wider consultation on the appointment of a Special Envoy would have been expected, as at the very outset it had been made known that this initiative would be unhelpful for Sri Lanka in pursuing a sustainable solution to the conflict. In fact, having learnt of the impending announcement by the British Prime Minister I personally requested the British High Commissioner to seek its delay, in order to discuss and consult on the issue, which did not come to pass, resulting in a unilateral appointment. Since then, in deference to the traditional warm British Sri Lanka relations and to find a way around this impasse, I have continued to discuss the issue with Foreign Secretary Miliband and the Foreign & Commonwealth Minister Lord Brown. Sri Lanka welcomes constructive engagement with the international community and in this context I have proposed that Lord Brown undertakes a visit, as a follow up to his last in June 2007.

Hon. Members, it is however regrettable to note from the statement that while the British Government envisages to “continue to press the Sri Lankan Government to reconsider”, the position, in the meantime Des Browne, the Special Envoy “will engage with representatives of other countries, UN agencies, NGOs, Parliamentarians and community representatives with an interest in Sri Lanka”. This only concretizes the unilateral nature of this appointment and such engagement by Mr. Browne has precipitated further difficulties for the Sri Lanka Government. In fact his participation at a Conference in London recently where it was resolved to establish a sovereign state of Tamil Eelam – the doctrine of the LTTE, proscribed by the UK – and his utterances in that forum, justifies Sri Lanka’s stated position on that appointment.

Hon. Members, it was not so long ago that a European diplomat observed to me that currently the war is not on terrorism but propaganda and that the international community has fallen victim. His analysis is spot on, when delving through the utterances which fall off the lips of representatives of august assemblies abroad and statements churned out by international entities which are a litany of falsehoods, drafted on the propaganda material fed to them by LTTE operatives and espoused in the interest of domestic political compulsions. Such rhetoric lacks clarity and demonstrates no understanding of ground realities. In some instances it is regrettable that these measures have contributed to queer the pitch of longstanding bilateral relations.

Hon Members, some sections of the international community has tended to push an agenda with the Sri Lankan Government at their pace, rather than at a pace the Government could practically implement due to the conditions on ground. After all, a sustainable solution to the conflict has to be pursued in terms of a Sri Lankan agenda. The Government of Sri Lanka is the best placed to achieve this objective to which end the international community could play an important and constructive role. The Sri Lankan diaspora with their commitment to the country of birth and dedication to the wellbeing of their brothers and sisters could complement this endeavour. I reiterate my call made at the recently held ground breaking Diaspora Dialogue, to join hands with us in the historic and noble tasks of reconstruction and reconciliation.

-Sri Lanka Guardian