GSP+ puts Europe in quandary too

The Channel 4 issue is not yet over, with the Government pursuing the options available to it with regard to the airing of this heavily doctored video aimed at discrediting the Sri Lankan Security Forces; giving material for those trying hard to bring charges against them for alleged “war crimes” in their fight against the most ruthless of terrorists.

By Lucien Rajakarunanayake

(October 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) As the pressure on Sri Lanka to give into pro-LTTE pressure in the post-conflict situation mounts, there are mixed signals coming that the apparent unity of the sections of the international community that have been clamouring for action against Sri Lanka, are not as strong as they have appeared to be.

News reports give more than a broad hint that the EU may be thinking of a passage out of a harsh and open confrontation with Sri Lanka over GSP+, while back channel discussions are on in Brussels and elsewhere, in view of the consequences to some key members of the EU too, by the removal of GSP+ from Sri Lanka.

The other issue on which pressure is being brought on Sri Lanka, which is the threat of action for alleged war crimes, has led Sri Lanka to bring out the whole matter of duplicity among western powers that are acting under the prodding of the pro-LTTE groups, functioning so freely in many States that have banned the LTTE as an international terrorist organization, or are taking action against support for terrorism even without such a ban.

It is the combined attack on Sri Lanka both on GSP+, settlement of IDPs and the alleged “war crimes” that prompted our ambassador in Brussels, Ravinatha Aryasinha to call for an end to stop playing politics with the IDP issue in Sri Lanka. Addressing a hearing on Sri Lanka by the Human Rights Sub Committee of the European Parliament, on October 1, Ambassador Aryasinha urged that the displaced persons in Sri Lanka be not used as a political tool, but instead called on those being critical, to step up and help the Government to overcome the difficulties faced in looking after and re-settling them. He said “these are our people, successive governments fed them, provided medicines, ensured education through the 30 years when the LTTE dominated their lives.

We will ensure that they get back to their homes in safety, not because anybody tells us to do so, but because we want them to do so”.

Refuting a suggestion that “demining has been used as a political tool to confine the IDPs to the camps”, and that they “would be held indefinitely”, the Aryasinha showed how the main population centres of the Northern Province with adjacent farm land that had been de-mined or ear marked for de-mining on a priority basis. The Government had imported the most sophisticated technology for this purpose; evidence of its commitment to re-settle the people as fast as possible.

The Ambassador said he was shocked at the suggestion made by one MEP that the IDPs should be “allowed to go and take the risk of landmines”, and remarked that the Government had not rescued them from being held as human shields by the LTTE, to have them knowingly risk their lives due to left over LTTE mines.

He also explained the actuality of the security concerns involving IDP release with it was well known that many LTTE cadres had come into the camps mingling with civilians, and the Government didn’t want them to go back and connect with hidden weapons and re-start terrorist acts.

The usual charges that humanitarian agencies are not allowed free access to the welfare centres were debunked by him stating that “54 International agencies, INGOs and NGOs currently engaged in humanitarian work in the welfare villages.,...within the last week alone two high level UN officials visited these areas,” he said.

He was very specific on the GSP issue too, emphasizing that the Government had not accepted the process of GSP+ investigation and a request for experts to visit Sri Lanka as a matter of principle, as it was felt inappropriate and unnecessary and the Government was not willing to compromise on its sovereignty. However the Government has continued to engage with the European Commission on the relevant human rights conventions - through meetings at senior officials’ level both in Brussels and Colombo, by providing material which showed Sri Lanka’s compliance with these conventions, refute unfounded allegations, and above all provided periodic reviews to UN bodies which monitor these conventions.

To the other common and frequently echoed charge about the alleged injustice caused to journalist Tissainayagam with his sentencing by the High Court of Colombo, Aryasinha had to remind critics that “while speakers gave the impression that Tissainayagam was convicted by the High Court for writing two articles which in the view of the prosecution had the effect of inciting communal disharmony, they forget the more serious charge proved, which was that he had accepted funds from the LTTE. He asked whether journalists in Europe accepting a cheque from Al Qaeda would be acceptable.

New thoughts on GSP

It was a little prior to this hearing by the Human Rights Sub Committee of the European Parliament that Reuters in Colombo moved a news item quoting diplomats that Sri Lanka is unlikely to lose the EU trade scheme (GSP +) yet.

Reuters must have been better informed than others of the level of progress that is being made when it reported:

“The European Union is likely to let Sri Lanka keep a trade concession crucial to its apparel industry, while recommending it be revoked if the country does not improve its human rights record, diplomats said on Tuesday. The European Commission by mid-October is due to decide whether to recommend the Indian Ocean island nation retain the Generalized System of Preferences Plus (GSP Plus) trade concession, which would then be voted upon by the EU Council.

“It is likely to be extended with a negative recommendation,” a diplomat briefed on the EU’s internal discussions told Reuters on condition of anonymity. “There would then be some targets for Sri Lanka to meet,” Reuters correspondent in Colombo Bryson Hull said.

It is now becoming evident that it is not only the position that Sri Lanka is taking that seems to be leading to new thinking of GSP + by the EU, but the concerns expressed by the powerful retail trade in their own countries about the cost to them and their own economies in the event of Sri Lanka being denied the GSP+ concession. Many important retailers in the UK and Europe have stated they will lose much if Sri Lankan garments produced for the leading department store labels are denied to their customers, which will lead to less business at a time of the credit crunch; and the concern that the consequent compulsion to import garments from alternate sources in Asia would lead to low quality goods, again seriously affecting consumer demand. Such a drop in consumer demand would necessarily lead to retailers having to lay off workers, at a time of increasing unemployment, the retailers state.

They also pose the important question about conditions of labour in the other exporting countries, whereas Sri Lanka has had an unblemished record in the standards of labour used the garments and other export sectors that may be affected by any EU decision that is not holistic in nature.

Earlier this week the Government gave substantial incentives and stimulus packages to exporters who performed well in the face of global credit crunch. While the support given to those who contribute to the economy is necessary, the Government did stress that these incentives were strongly related to the need to prevent any retrenchment by these industries that benefit not only from such packages but also from the many other benefits they have gained through the Government’s economic policies.

These include the steady exchange rate, which has given exporters a certainty of their earnings despite the many difficulties faced by the Government, as well as the new reductions in interest rates and the drop of inflation to minus one percent.

It is necessary that exporters stop public whining about the possible impact of the removal of GSP + on their industries, and go out to lobby import partners abroad on bringing their own pressure on the EU against penalizing Sri Lanka unfairly.

There are some exporters from Sri Lanka who are very close to business interests in Europe that are almost interlinked with their Governments.

It would be good to move such importers into action, instead of only asking for help from the Government to avert a crisis or overcome its affects if it does come.

Video authenticity

The Channel 4 issue is not yet over, with the Government pursuing the options available to it with regard to the airing of this heavily doctored video aimed at discrediting the Sri Lankan Security Forces; giving material for those trying hard to bring charges against them for alleged “war crimes” in their fight against the most ruthless of terrorists.

On the matter of video broadcasts, it is interesting to note that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has found that the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) breached the SBS Codes of Practice 2006 in broadcasts of the SBS radio program ‘Tamil Language Program’ on 26 October 2008 and 18 January 2009. Both programs dealt with aspects of the conflict between the Government and the LTTE.

ACMA has determined that the broadcast on October 26, 2008 included an interview with a critic of the Sri Lankan Government, where the requirement for balance in the SBS code was breached, as the interview included themes on which no other view was provided.

Of greater relevance to Channel 4, is the determination that: “The broadcast on January 18, 2009 included assertions about an atrocity allegedly committed by members of the Sri Lankan Army.

In this broadcast, the ACMA found that the requirement for accuracy of factual content was breached, as the authenticity of the source of the information (a video posted on a website) was contested and all reasonable effort had not been made to ensure the accuracy of the content derived from this source. (My emphasis)

Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, if the ACMA is satisfied that a complaint about the ABC or SBS is justified (which it is concerning these two broadcasts), the ACMA may recommend that the broadcaster take action to comply with the relevant code of practice and any other such action considered necessary.

-Sri Lanka Guardian