Sunday Sep 22, 2024
Sunday Sep 22, 2024
Wednesday, 26 March 2014 00:01 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Dharisha Bastians
Q: There has been open hostility towards Britain from sections of the Sri Lankan Government, especially since Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit here last November. Where do relations stand between Colombo and London?
A: Overall ties actually have been very strong. We’ve got the overall historic relationship, but there are bits of the modern relationship which also continue to do very well. Commercially we’ve got over 100 European companies operating successfully in Sri Lanka – big companies, HSBC, Standard Chartered, GSK, Unilever doing good business here. And UK companies continue to win contracts.
The educational relationship remains very strong. We’ve got about 6,000 students from Sri Lanka at any time studying in the UK. We have 27 UK universities offering access to their courses via local education providers in Sri Lanka. And of course we have the University of Central Lancashire looking to establish the first UK overseas direct campus in South Asia here in Sri Lanka.
The British Council continues to have a huge amount of British qualifications and the British Council Library in Colombo and Kandy has the highest membership of any British Council library worldwide. And I find that in my day-to-day engagement with the Government, we continue to have constructive discussions. But it’s absolutely right, at the moment the political relationship is going through a bumpy period in the run-up to Geneva.
When he was here for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) the British Prime Minister made clear we welcome the end of the conflict in this country. We recognise and welcome the economic growth that has taken place and the progress that has been made on re-housing Internally Displaced Persons and helping people return to productive livelihoods. We recognise the promise and potential of Sri Lanka.
But he also said that in order for that potential to be fully realised, we thought that certain issues had to be addressed. And those areas focused on accountability for alleged violations by both sides during the war, questions that are being asked that won’t go away. He asked for implementation of the Government’s own LLRC report, it has clear recommendations in this area. And he called for reconciliation between the communities and a political settlement. So those are the areas on which our Prime Minister spoke of very clearly and those are the areas of concern that remain, together with current human rights situation as well.
Q: The Sri Lanka resolution at the UNHRC sets up an international inquiry mechanism in spite of the Government’s claims that it has only had five years since the war ended to put its house in order. Is that not a viable argument?
A: What we have said is that we hope the Government will set up its own credible, transparent independent domestic process to address past violations, but in the absence of that, we will call for an international investigation. That is also what Navi Pillay recommended. Now not all of the problems can be resolved overnight. We do recognise that.
But I think within five years, the Government could have made an effective start by establishing that procedure and for example, taking action on those very clear cases identified in the Government’s own LLRC report. It’s the absence of that happening, the absence of substantive results in those areas of accountability that we believe now the time has come for the international community to act. We also have two UN resolutions in the past two years calling for action in these areas. It’s in the absence of the Government acting that we now move to the international process.
The draft resolution which UK is co-sponsoring calls for the High Commissioner on Human Rights together with Special Rapporteurs and Special Procedures in Geneva to carry out an investigation into allegations of violations by both sides.
Q: What makes the Sri Lankan situation stand out so strongly at the UNHRC in comparison with other countries in the world where violations as bad or worse are taking place?
A: Sri Lanka is by no means the only country being addressed at the Human Rights Council. There will also be resolutions on North Korea, on Syria and on Iran. Also on Burma, but we hope we can have a consensual resolution on Burma because the Burmese Government is working constructively with the Human Rights Council to address issues of concern.
Why Sri Lanka? I think there are serious questions that need to be addressed and investigated. There are questions that won’t go away about what happened during the conflict. Until those questions are answered, we don’t think we will get the long-term peace and stability which we would all want in Sri Lanka.
Q: What is Britain’s interest in Sri Lanka’s accountability issue? Is the UK being guided in its engagement on Sri Lanka exclusively on the basis of its compulsions from domestic constituencies, in which the Tamil Diaspora figures significantly?
A: As regards to UK interest, obviously we have strong historical links with Sri Lanka. And we care about Sri Lanka as a fellow member of the Commonwealth. It is perfectly proper and legitimate for us to look to Sri Lanka to abide by Commonwealth values set up in the Commonwealth Charter to which all Commonwealth member states have voluntarily signed up. As we said at the time, we will especially look to Sri Lanka as the host of CHOGM and the incoming Chair in Office, to particularly show it is going to abide by those Commonwealth values.
As regards to the diaspora in the UK, we have a diaspora made up of Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims and different religious and ethnic backgrounds and we speak to all of them. Our ministers meet a spectrum across the board, groups that are critical of the Sri Lankan Government and groups which are supportive of the Sri Lankan Government. We also regularly meet with the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London. But having considered those different positions, we then make our own decisions.
Q: Like with the Myanmar resolution, is there still room for Sri Lanka to make a move towards achieving a consensual resolution at the UNHRC?
A: We would welcome it, if it were possible to reach common ground. As our ministers have made clear, if Sri Lanka were to establish a credible, substantive domestic process – we would welcome it and we would support such a process. We believe that the High Commissioner’s report is an accurate assessment of the overall situation. Obviously it has some difficult messages for the Sri Lankan Government. But if the Government were willing to engage constructively with the High Commissioner’s office going forward – for example to invite the Working Group on Disappearances to come to Sri Lanka and engage constructively with them, we may be able to get some common ground in these areas. But the statements made by the Sri Lankan Government in response to Navi Pillay’s report I am afraid doesn’t suggest that we are at a stage where we can move forward on a consensual process. But I would like to think it might be possible in the future.
Q: Britain has been stringent in its calls for an international investigation. From the UK standpoint, does the scope of the present investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner suffice?
A: Yes it does. What we made clear in advance was that in the absence of a domestic procedure, we want an international investigation. Operative Paragraph 8 of the draft resolution provides for an international office – namely the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and international special rapporteurs to carry out the investigation. Of course there are some who would have liked the resolution to go further than it does. But we believe that the resolution in accordance with the High Commissioner’s recommendations and can provide the confidence that the international community would require from the resolution.
Q: The OHCHR investigation will probably involve a fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka, and the Government is not compelled to grant access to the UN mission. Where do you go from there?
A: We would hope that the Government would work constructively with the high Commissioner in this area. We welcome the fact that the Government invited the High Commissioner to come and visit last August. We hope that in response to the resolution the Government would support and accept the investigation by the High Commissioner. Should the Government not choose to do so, then it would be up to the High Commissioner to determine how to proceed, seeking the best sources that are available in determining the facts and carrying out that investigation.
Q: You speak of domestic processes to address accountability, but doesn’t Britain have outstanding accountability issues of its own? The Chilcot report in particular, has been bandied about frequently by the Sri Lankan Government.
A: The British Army is bound both by domestic law and by international law, reflected in the Geneva Convention and so on. I must also bow to the British Army in terms of the role they play in the UK and overseas. But if one of our soldiers acts in breach of domestic law or acts in breach of international conventions, then he must be held to account for those breaches. And in fact just before the turn of the year, one of our soldiers was tried and convicted for murder for an action that soldier carried out in Afghanistan. It was right and proper that that soldier was held to account for his actions. We believe that actually increases confidence in our army, rather than decrease it. So I don’t think it is a double standard. We believe members of our armed forces should be held to account when they breach laws. As should individuals on both sides in Sri Lanka; LTTE atrocities as well as any allegations of atrocities on the army side, must be properly investigated. The difference is that we have a domestic procedure. You only get into calls for an international investigation in the absence of a domestic procedure.
As regards the Chilcot inquiry, I think that by any measure, that has been a testing credible process looking into the facts. We have had senior British Government figures including our former Prime Minister being subjected to close questioning by the Chilcot Inquiry. I haven’t seen any similar procedure operating in Sri Lanka. There is a delay in the publication of the Chilcot Report, but if you look on the Chilcot Report website, you will see that there is no criticism by them of the British Government for the delays that have occurred.
Q: The Government claims moves by the UK and other Western countries at the UNHRC against Sri Lanka, amount to interference and is a conspiracy to produce regime change here. How do you answer those charges?
A: Sri Lanka is indeed a country of great potential. It has got the highest literacy rate in South Asia. Post conflict, there is an opportunity for more economic growth. We don’t want Sri Lanka to fail. The objective of the UK and other countries especially concerned is not to produce failure in Sri Lanka. It is not to punish Sri Lanka. It is not to produce regime change in Sri Lanka. Rather, we have that objective in the long term peace and stability in the country, and that is why the British Government cares.
