The opposition can never expect the no-confidence motion against the GLP to succeed because the government has an overwhelming majority in parliament.
(September 20, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even before the heat of the 18th amendment had dissipated, the opposition handed in a no-confidence motion against External Affairs Minister G.L.Peiris. Anybody could see that what Sri Lanka could expect from the western world in the aftermath of the war was nothing but brickbats. The president probably needed the tranquility of mind that if whoever was handling this area fails to convince the mob, then nobody else could have done it either; and he might as well forget the matter and get on with his other work – which is why GLP got the job.
The opposition can never expect the no-confidence motion against the GLP to succeed because the government has an overwhelming majority in parliament. The only reasonable expectation they can have in such a situation is to chip away at the targeted minister’s public standing by highlighting what he may have done wrong. The charges made against GLP in the no confidence motion can be summarized as follows:
1. Failure to prevent the UN Secretary General (UNSG) from appointing a panel of experts to advise him on human rights violations in Sri Lanka.
2. Making contradictory statements on this issue in an interview with Elizabeth Dickinson of Foreign Policy and to The Island.
3. That ‘shortcoming’ referred to by GL in his contradictory statement mentioned above has given the UN a loophole to intervene in Sri Lanka.
4. GL’s failure to muster support from friendly countries and especially the non-aligned nations to block Ban Ki-moon’s panel.
5. Overreacting to the threat to deny GSP to Sri Lanka and making contradictory statements with regard to that as well.
6. Overstaying his invitation during his visit to China recently.
If one starts from the bottom, this columnist has been told by foreign ministry sources that GLP did indeed stay two extra days in China, moving around with a delegation of Sri Lankan businessmen and that these two days was not at the expense of the host country and that all expenses relating to these two days was met by the Sri Lankan embassy in Beijing. There is basically nothing more to be said with regard to that.
As for the charge that GLP ‘overreacted’ to the threat to deny GSP to Sri Lanka, the charge does not specify exactly how GLP who was then the minister of export development ‘overreacted’ to the threat of denying GSP to Sri Lanka so no comment can be made about that.
The charges relating to the appointment of Ban Ki-moon’s panel of advisors however are more specific.
The charge is that GL failed to prevent Ban from appointing his panel. However if a body outside the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka is hell bent on doing something completely outside the established norms and which is not covered by any rule or standing order of the UN itself, there is nothing that the Sri Lankan foreign minister can do about it. Even the Russian foreign ministry put out a statement pointing out that no decision making body of the UN had sanctioned the UNSG’s action and that it was not sanctioned by any standing order or rule of the UN either. You can’t stop the UNSG in such circumstances any more than you can stop a suicide bomber operating alone. When an injustice like this is perpetrated against a country, the government and opposition of a country usually stands together in opposing it. But not in this country.
As for the contradictory statements GLP is supposed to have made to two different publications, Foreign Policy and The Island, that too does not really hold water. According to the no confidence motion what he had told The Island about Ban’s panel is that there is no justification ‘either legal or moral’ for the step he had taken. To Foreign Policy what he had said was as follows: "The president of Sri Lanka has appointed a commission consisting of eight very distinguished people who can examine the evidence to see whether a person or group of persons have been guilty of war crimes. What I told the secretary-general emphatically during my meeting with him, is to give it a chance. If there are problems that surface later, shortcomings, deficiencies, then we will come to the UN and say we would like assistance with the following. But don’t foist it on us. That will simply make the work of the commission more difficult, and within Sri Lanka there will be resentment because that attitude would be patronizing."
The no confidence motion tries to argue that the Sri Lankan commission does not include an accountability process for human rights violations and that this is a ‘shortcoming’ and that by GL telling Foreign Policy that he would come to the UN if there are ’ in the Sri Lankan internal process, he has kept the door open for UN intervention. There is no contradiction between what he told The Island or Foreign Policy because in both instances he has not accepted the UN’s panel and has spoken against it. He has not said that there are any shortcomings in the Sri Lankan process because any shortcomings, if any, will become visible only when the process is over. Saying that he will ask for the UN’s help if needed, does not amount to an invitation to intervene because such assistance had not yet been solicited.
As we pointed out earlier, all that the opposition can hope to gain from a no confidence motion against a minister in a government with a majority like this is to undermine the minister concerned in the eyes of the public. They are not going to achieve that aim by putting forward hair splitting arguments of such nature that the public will find it difficult to discern the point being driven. When public attention is the main motive behind an action, the issue at hand has to be simple and plainly discernible. In that respect, this no confidence motion is a failure and one that may boomerang by providing a forum to discuss RW and not GL.
Many in Ranil’s own camp will not defend him especially on foreign policy matters. Ranil’s ‘quisling’ attitude is one of the main reasons for the setbacks faced by the UNP in recent times. In a situation where RW is under siege within his own party, to invite an attack from the other side is a Quixotic exercise. GLP has already made an uncharacteristically combative rejoinder to the no confidence motion against him and hinted at what will be served up at the debate.
Post a Comment