'US, a strong friend of Sri Lanka'

'We have always been a strong supporter of the Government, and we consider LTTE as a terrorist organisation, so we are doing what we can for the government through enforcement channels and military channels to defend itself in the war on terrorism', US Ambassador in Sri Lanka Robert O' Blake told Rupavahini in an interview telecast last Thursday. The interview was conducted by Bandula Jayasekara, Editor, Daily News.

Following is the transcript of the interview:

Q: Your country has been a true friend of Sri Lanka. You have always stood by the Government of Sri Lanka, and it was proven further at the recent Co-Chairs' conference by the statement made by Under Secretary Nicholas Burns.

Why do you think that unlike the United States (US), other countries cannot make a proper distinction between terrorists, freedom fighters and separatists?

A: Thank you for your question. First let me say that we do support the Government, and as Under Secretary Burns said during the Co-Chairs' press conference last week, the US is not neutral in this particular conflict. We have always been a strong supporter of the Government and we consider the LTTE as a terrorist organisation.

So we are doing what we can to help the Government through enforcement channels, through military channels to defend itself in the war on terrorism. As for other countries, I think I take a little bit of a disagreement with what you say.

I think most countries around the world are able to make a distinction between terrorist activities and the Government. If there was one thing I can say about the Co-Chairs statement, it is that we were unanimous in the statement which was put out to everybody.

Q: But when one goes through what Under Secretary Burns said, the US seems to be standing tall and very clear in being supportive of Sri Lanka. You can see a difference with the others.

A: Well, again I do not want to comment on the whole thing about other countries. But, I can say that there was unanimity within the Co-Chairs about the statement that was put out. But, you are right about the US being a strong supporter of the Government.

Q: After 9/11, President Bush pursued the terrorists. He went to Afghanistan, to Iraq in search of them, and he went to the root cause of terrorism. And after that we did not see any terrorist activities in the US. What we feel in Sri Lanka is that he was successful. What do you think we should do here in Sri Lanka? Instead of defending, shouldn't we pursue them, rather than defensive tactics?

A: I think that after more than 25 years of conflict here, the time has come for peace in Sri Lanka. The real solution for this conflict is a sustained negotiating process that hopefully leads to an agreement of some sort between the two parties.

We strongly believe that there cannot be a military solution to this particular conflict. You have tried that for a long time and it has not worked. So we strongly believe that the time has come for a peaceful negotiated settlement to your conflict.

Q: But, do you think that we could negotiate with the terrorists?

A: We do think you can negotiate with the terrorists. There have been many different exchanges in the past, in fact six rounds of negotiations in 2002/3. There have been many efforts, studies by non-Governmental people to look at solutions.

All of those particular studies are now available for the negotiators. So we think that there is a basis now for talks, and that really is going to be the answer to the spiralling violence we have seen in the last several months.

Q: But now the Government is sincere, the President is sincere. There is an agreement between the major parties and the President is also rallying round other parties.

After 50 years, you see the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) in agreement. But, there seems to be only one party, the LTTE, which is not willing to agree. How do you think the international community could pressurise the LTTE into real talks?

A: That is part of the reason why we are supporting the Government. We want to send a signal to the LTTE that they should also not pursue a military solution, and that the US strongly backs the Government. With that backing, we hope the LTTE will realise that they have to negotiate and stop the policies of terror they have been pursuing so long.

As you say, the SLFP-UNP agreement in our view provides a very strong basis to move forward, and we hope that it will be the basis for proposals which the Government can table in future peace talks, whenever that proposal is ready.

Q: Sometime ago, I asked this same question from Ambassador Chris Narroca at this same venue. You are the most powerful country in the world, and you pursue terrorists. But the LTTE does not even seem to be listening to the US. Statements are issued, but nothing seems to be happening. What sort of support could you give this country with your (US) leadership?

A: You are right. I think the solution is to try to persuade the LTTE both through diplomatic channels and through our own policies so that the noose is tightened around them. They should not be allowed to raise money or acquire arms overseas any more.

Certainly, the US has made every effort to tighten that noose. We were one of the first countries to designate the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. We have been active in trying to persuade other countries to do so.

We were very gratified that the European Union (EU) decided to do that by summer. We are also working through our law enforcement channels with many of our friends, to encourage many countries to stop allowing the flow of funds and arms to the LTTE.

You saw for example, the FBI announced the major sting operation in September in which we arrested a number of people who were conspiring to export arms and shoulder fire weapons to the LTTE.

Q: You have on many occasions gone on record expressing your concerns about the LTTE's air wing, the aircraft and the Sea Tigers. You have said it was the only terrorist organisation in the world which owns aircraft. Could you elaborate more on that?

A: Well, I have nothing more than what you have already said. I mean, it is quite an extraordinary thing that you have an organisation like the LTTE which is in many countries' terrorist organisations list, able to operate a navy and a very modest air force as well. That is something of great concern, and that is why we have pursued the policies we have.

Q: Does it not bring a much more serious threat to the region, not only to Sri Lanka?

A: I do not think so. I think the LTTE has been very careful about confining their operations to Sri Lanka because they are aware of the fact that if they should do so if they not want to antagonise particularly neighbours like India.

So they have been very careful and I think they have realised that one of the greatest strategical mistakes they made in their history was targeting Rajiv Gandhi.

Q: In your view, who are the real enemies of the States?

A: Terrorism is our number one challenge right now. As you rightly pointed out, since 9/11 we have really pursued a very strong policy against terrorism around the world, working with our alliance in various countries including Sri Lanka. That has been the focus of our efforts in the last few years.

Q: Has the Patriotic Act helped the US?

A: I think it has helped. I think it has helped to identify people who might be working against the US in some sort of terrorist faction.

But, at the same time, there has been a very strong realisation that there has to be a strong respect for civil liberties in America. I think there has been a good, healthy debate about that in the US, and the net result is that the US is safely placed and there have been no major terrorist attacks.

Q: Would you recommend a Patriotic Act for Sri Lanka?

A: Well, every country is different. I do not want to start to prescribe how to do things. I think the Government has a good sense of where the LTTE is. Civil liberties. frankly, are already under strain here. So, I wouldn't want to suggest other things that might further imperil them.

Q: How do you describe the current Sri Lanka-US relationship?

A: I think relations between our two countries are excellent. My duty as the Ambassador here is try to continue to improve those relations and to encourage people to people ties between our two countries as well.

I think one of the most important things I can do as Ambassador is to forge great links, for example between our educational institutions and NGOs in both countries.

A lot of those kinds of movements are taking place now in the world. One of the hallmarks of the India-America relationship is the very important role played by Indian Americans in the US, the so called 'non-resident' Indians, and the role they are playing in bridging ties between the two countries.

I very much hope I can do the same thing in Sri Lanka and encourage very successful Sri Lankan-Americans who are in America now to bring back some of their ideas and money to help to build this country.

I am proud to say that a lot of them are already doing quite a lot. They have been active during the tsunami and in other ways as well.

Q: What are your plans on cultural and people-people relations as the new Ambassador?

A: You know the US is an interesting country in the sese that unlike in many other countries, we do not have Government's sponsorship of the arts. We rely on the private sector to do that. If you go to the US, you will see that almost all the major cultural events are sponsored by the private sector. That is something that is good and very worthwhile.

So, the role of the Government is more as a catalyst to try to help identify sponsors and encourage the organisations for such things. We have a Jazz group that is here right now. Jazz has always been a wonderful export of the US.

It is something everybody recognises as truly American. They are travelling around here and are also going to Maldives. That is exactly the kind of program we are hoping to have.

Q: Are there any plans to increase the number of Information Centres which you presently have in Colombo and Kandy?

A: Yes. One of the things we would like to do more is in the way of English education. I have been talking to many Sri Lankans since I have been here.

Many of them lament the fact that 30-40 years ago, a great many more Sri Lankans spoke English, and it was taught in the school at that time, and since then the level of instruction has fallen off a little bit.

They regret that because they think that for a Sri Lankan to compete in the 21st century, it will be very important for young Sri Lankans to be taught English. If there is demand for that, I think we will be working with USAID and friends both in the Government and the private sectors to address that need.

Q: About trade relations, there was talk sometime ago of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Sri Lanka and the US. What are the developments on trade you are planning?

A: We are always ready to consider having FTAs with other countries. As you say, there was talk about it in 2003, and we are always prepared to discuss that.

At this point, the Government here has not been willing to go so far as we really need to pursue a FTA. When we do so, we always want to have 95 per cent of the goods and services covered under the Agreement.

At this point, I think the Government of Sri Lanka is not ready to open up its economy that much through such an agreement.

But, we are going to have talks later this month as a matter of fact. The Deputy US Trade Representative will be coming here to meet with the Minister of Trade to talk about ways to enhance trade between our countries.

Q: We see that the coast guards, the 'Couragers', which you gifted to Sri Lanka are being put to good use. Could you elaborate more on the military assistance provided by the US to Sri Lanka?

A: Well, I do not want to exaggerate that. We are doing what we can within our capabilities to help the Sri Lanka military. I think the Sri Lanka military has a lot of need in terms of being able to identify where the LTTE arm shipments in particular are coming from.

So we are looking at ways to help expand their capabilities to identify those shipments and hopefully interject them. We are doing a lot of training to help in all kinds of military activities.

All this is to help Sri Lanka defend itself. We have been very clear that our strong interest is in not seeing the military prosecute this war, but to send a signal of strength that will hopefully see the LTTE coming to the negotiating table.

Q: Taking from that, you said Sri Lanka should defend itself, whereas President Bush pursued the terrorists. The world is telling Sri Lanka to defend itself. Cannot we say that if we go to the root cause and pursue them, it would be much more effective?

A: I think it is dangerous to make comparisons between one country and the next. Every single country is different. In our case, the terrorists that we are pursuing are mostly stateless organisations like Al Queda that are not based in any single country.

They are just out to kill as many Americans as possible, and there is really no point in trying to negotiate with them because they do not have any political objective to speak of.

I think the LTTE, by contrast, though surely is pursuing terrorist objectives, has the ultimate political objective to establish some sort of framework where the rights of Tamils can be respected.

So we believe that there cannot be a military solution to this, and that there has to be a negotiated settlement where the aspirations of all Sri Lankans; Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims and others, can be respected.

Q: But still, there is an international dimension to the LTTE. For instance, you nabbed them in New York trying to get missiles. Two years ago, LTTE Sea Tiger leader told the BBC that they have terror organisations.

In this light, don't you think that the LTTE is a threat globally because they exchange views, knowledge etc.?

A: I do not know to what extent they operate globally. I am sure they try to derive lessons as best as they can from the experiences of other terrorist organisations around the world. But, I am not aware of them taking terrorist action in another country, other than the attack on Rajiv Gandhi which, in my view, was a fatal mistake committed by them.

But you are right, there is still a lot we need to be concerned about here. Our interest here is that Sri Lanka is a friendly democratic country in a region that is increasingly important to the US, and a region that is facing some challenges.

When you look at places like Pakistan, Bangladesh and other parts like Afghanistan, these are all countries that are facing challenges.

So, it is very important for us that there be democratic, multi-ethnic success stories in the region. Certainly India can be that, and we hope Sri Lanka can be that as well. Sri Lanka has the added importance to us of being in the major shipping links in the Indian Ocean.

So, an increasing proportion of world trade is going to come through Sri Lanka's waters and perhaps through Sri Lanka's ports as well. Certainly we have a great interest in seeing that Sri Lanka remains a stable and friendly country. Those are our main interest in this country.

Q: But Sri Lankans feel that the world could do much more to help this country. The LTTE is not the sole representative of the Tamils.

You have the more democratic TULF leader winning the UNESCO peace prize while this one group is pursuing terrorism. So the Sri Lankans feel that the international community is not doing to help Sri Lanka.

A: Well, I think the Government is doing what it can to talk with countries around the world where the LTTE might be doing its business. I would certainly credit the Government for that. We are doing whatever we can to work not only with Sri Lanka but with other friendly countries on this matter.

But, at the same time, the answer to this question is not purely a counter-terrorism or a military solution. There also has to be a parallel political strategy where the Government advances a power-sharing proposal of some sort.

We believe that the SLFP-UNP agreement is really the best opportunity to have come along in some time. We very much hope that this effort would succeed and form the basis for proposals that can be tabled at future negotiations.

Q: I think the world today has got a lot of lessons to learn from the US. Coming back to Under Secretary Nicholas Burns, he said in Sri Lanka some time ago that there is no moral equivalence between the Government and the LTTE.

It was a very clear message to the world. But still many countries refer to them as the 'two parties'. That was the first time this message came out very strongly from a very senior US diplomat. The problem arises when other countries try to put them in one basket giving them parity. What are your views on that?

A: I think we are clear in the sense that we recognise the LTTE as being responsible for the overwhelming preponderance of the ceasefire violations that have occurred here over the last two decades.

But we also feel that there has to be a negotiated solution to that, and that the best way to do that is to come up with a southern consensus, a power-sharing proposal that can be presented to the LTTE. We will just have to see how they go from there.

We very much hope that the LTTE will come off its position. It has sometimes been said they only want an independent country.

But, we believe that negotiations have to take place within an undivided state and that there has to be some sort of devolution to the Tamil areas that will meet the aspirations of the people of those areas.

Q: Should the Government present its proposals to the LTTE or the Tamil people?

A: Well, at this point, to my knowledge, the LTTE is the one that is representing the Tamil people in the negotiations. That has been the history of the negotiations to this date, beginning in 2002 and carried to 2003.

Q: But, a lot of Tamil people do not think so. There are other Tamil leaders like the TULF leader and the diaspora. They have had enough of the LTTE's atrocities.

A: Well, I do not want to second guess the Government about this. They are the ones who are in the negotiating position here and they will make the best judgement as to whom they are going to negotiate with.

Q: What do you think of the Muslim factor in the Sri Lankan conflict?

A: I think the Muslim factor is very important. I went out to Ampara recently and had a chat with the leaders of the areas including Mr. Rauff Hakeem whom I got to know quite well.

He and the others have impressed upon me the importance of the Muslim factor in this conflict. Certainly their needs and aspirations must also be considered in any settlement that takes place.

Q: Coming back to the areas of education, could you elaborate more on the plans of your Government and your Embassy here on Sri Lanka-US education co-operation.

A: Sure. I think education is probably the greatest challenge, other than terrorism, facing our country and almost any country. I would say that about Sri Lanka as well. I think Sri Lanka now has to prepare itself to compete in the 21st century.

You have made a lot of progress over your history. You have a very well diversified economy with services, manufacturing and other things. But you always have to be prepared for the next phase, and now manufacture is going to come under increasing strain as competition from China and India become more prevalent.

Even in the service sector, you will face competition from many other countries. So you must constantly be improving your own capabilities and the best way to do that is to up your education system.

I think one of the saddest things that I learnt here is that only about 15 per cent of the people who have finished their A/L and O/L actually have the opportunity to go to university. That is something which should change.

More people should have the opportunity to get higher education. I think there is a number of ways that it could be done. Certainly more people can go overseas to study including the US, where we already have around 2,600 Sri Lankans.

But we welcome many more. I think that there is a dearth of private universities here. I know that it is a controversial topic.

But private universities in my own country have been the secret and the foundation to our success. We have a free and very open system of higher education where people can pursue their interest. I think Sri Lankans deserve the same kinds of facilities and the same kinds of opportunities.

So, I will be working with my friends in the Government and also the academia to encourage more private universities and more flexible ways of allowing Sri Lankans to pursue their academic dreams.

Q: My final question - Why do you think baseball is not popular here? There were some attempts to popularise baseball in Sri Lanka. But so far this has failed.

A: I do not think base ball or anything else could ever possibly compete with cricket. I must say that I have become quite a cricket fan myself. I tried to promote a lot of American things, but I have given up on base ball.