Sri Lanka : the Quest for Peace

Address by Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama at the Royal Institution for International Relations (RIIR) Brussels on September 03, 2007

CHALLENGE OF TERROR: Since independence in 1948, the 60th anniversary of which will be celebrated next year, Sri Lanka was regarded as a model by many countries in the region.

Universal adult franchise had been introduced in 1931, and despite intermittent challenges, the country remained a functioning democracy, with governments changing and power transferring at regular intervals.

The system of free education and an effective public health system introduced in the 1940s resulted in Sri Lanka continuing to record impressive indicators in the fields of education, health and quality of life. Sri Lanka was also the first country in South Asia to introduce economic liberalisation policies as far back as 1977, long before others in the region made this transition.

This capacity to forge ahead has been a hallmark of Sri Lankan society, and despite having faced two insurrections in the South and a continuing problem of terrorism in the North, not to mention the damage caused following the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, Sri Lanka has not only shown resilience but also held steadfast to its values.

Sri Lanka being a party to conventions relating to human rights, labour standard, environment as well as governance, made us eligible to benefit from the GSP+scheme introduced by the European Union, which has resulted in the EU emerging as Sri Lanka’s number one export market in 2006, and accounting for 33.7 per cent of total exports of Sri Lanka.

Notwithstanding the difficulties we face, our socio-economic indicators remain impressive. We maintained a growth rate of 7.4 per cent in GDP terms in 2006. Foreign direct investment in 2006 amounted to US$ 640 million, while exports increased by 8.4 per cent to US$ 6.883 billion These figures too are expected to rise in the current year.

Following an increase in per capita income, Sri Lanka is now categorised as a middle income status country. In fact, you would be glad to know that Sri Lanka is well on the way to achieving or surpassing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

For instance, Sri Lanka ranks No 38 in the human poverty index, with only 5.6 per cent of the population living on less than $1 a day. Net primary school enrolment in 2004 was 97 per cent. Our infant mortality rate was 12 per 100 live births and under 5 year mortality rate was 14 per 1000 live births in 2004.

These positive economic developments need to be assessed against the severe difficulties that Sri Lanka had to face due to the tsunami in December 2004, which caused loss of over 35,000 lives, displacing almost 500,000 persons.

It caused extensive damage to physical property and infrastructure facilities, destroying the livelihood of a large number of people engaged in fisheries, tourism and other industries.

We have been able to successfully recover and restore the livelihood of people to a great extent, by constructing new houses, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure facilities, within a short period of two years.

We are appreciative of the support of the international community, particularly the EU in our efforts for post-tsunami relief and reconstruction.

Belgium was among the first countries to offer assistance in Sri Lanka’s hour of need. This effort was led by HRH Princess Astrid and the Belgian Government by sending emergency assistance for our relief efforts.

We are pleased to let you know that considerable progress has been achieved in our post-tsunami efforts. 52 per cent of the houses have been reconstructed and 73 per cent of tsunami IDPs have been re-housed in permanent dwellings and most have had their livelihoods restored.

You may be also be surprised to learn that 54 per cent of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka live in the South alongside other communities.

The Government of President Rajapaksa is a coalition with 13 democratic political parties, and almost a quarter of those in the Council of Ministers belong to the Tamil, Muslim and other minority communities.

The Challenge posed by the LTTE

Sri Lanka’s continued achievements seem all the more significant in the context of a country confronted by, what terrorism expert and Chief Scientist at the Centre for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College, Dr Magnus Ranstorp has described as, “[LTTE is] probably the most sophisticated terrorist organisation in the world.”

The atrocities committed by the LTTE such as the killing of Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India and President Ranasinghe Premadasa of Sri Lanka by employing suicide bombers, and two generations of Tamil leadership including A. Amirthalingam, Neelan Thiruchelvam, Lakshman Kadirgamar, and Keetheswaran Loganathan, many whom I am sure some of you might even count among your friends, are well known.

LTTE’s links to other terrorist organisations such as ULFA, the Afghan Mujihideen. the PKK, the Maoists Abu Sayaf, MNLF and to Al-Qaida, have surfaced only more recently.

The LTTE’s contribution to ‘copy cat’ terrorism through its suicide bomb technology, acts of maritime terrorism, and now nascent air strike capability, has rightfully alarmed the intelligence communities across the world because given its global network of offices, operatives and vessels, the possibility that the LTTE could offer its services as mercenaries to other groups, should not be discounted.

However, the full magnitude of the danger posed by the LTTE, which is proscribed throughout the European Union, in India, the US, UK and Canada and has restrictions placed on it in Australia, is most vividly detailed in the September 2007 issue of the leading London based intelligence magazine Jane’s Intelligence Review.

A special report by John Solomon and B.C.Tan titled “Feeding the Tiger - how Sri Lankan insurgents fund their way”, makes several important revelations to the world, about the operatives, their modus operandi, and the current level of threat posed by the LTTE, both to the territorial integrity and security of Sri Lanka, and to the security of the international community.

“The Tamil Tiger’ financial and procurement structure is well organised and strategically positioned around the globe. Unlike the decentralised jihadist movement, the LTTE is a centralised, hierarchical organisation commanded and controlled by its founding leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran”.

- “Irrespective of the correlation between the LTTE’s financial situation and the longevity that has cost more than 60,000 lives, the activities of the LTTE abroad- including extortion, narcotics trafficking and credit card fraud- have a negative impact on the countries and societies that host its presence”.

- “The Tamil Tigers generate an estimated USD200 to 300 million per year”, and “after accounting for its estimated USD8 million per year of costs within LTTE-administered Sri Lanka, the profit margin of its operating budget would likely be the envy of any multinational corporation.”

You would agree that the implication of these comments is that the international community should take tough action against the LTTE and its global terror network as to it would amount to be an act of enlightened self interest by members of the international community, if they are to take serious and determined action to eradicate terrorism.

International action

I am glad to see that the need for international cooperation in fighting global terrorism is finally being recognised.

The Jane’s Intelligence Review, which I just quoted, documents that in countries who had for long proscribed the LTTE are now beginning to take unprecedented action against LTTE agents and front organisations particularly over the past year.

These countries include in the US, Canada, France, UK, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, Kenya and India.

Interestingly, in its conclusion the Jane’s articles opines that “if the Western law enforcement crackdown on LTTE financial and procurement continues, the group’s ability to fight may be weakened in the medium term, degrading its ability to withstand the Sri Lankan government’s offensives and further undermining its combat capabilities”. This in the view of the author, “may lead to increased pressure to sue for peace...”

Over the past two decades, the plea of successive governments of Sri Lanka has been precisely that.

Had some sections of the international community taken pre-emptive action to ensure that the LTTE did not grow to be the monster it presently is - directly, through its front organisations, using the hapless Tamil expatriate populations estimated to be over a million, we might have been able to avoid the brutal killings and destruction. to a significant degree.

Nevertheless, Sri Lanka is deeply appreciative of the international community, and in this instance I wish to particularly commend the members of the EU countries, for their proscription of the LTTE, to prevent arms procurement, fund raising and money laundering.

This courageous decision has thwarted the LTTE’s use of EU territories as “safe havens” for terrorists in the guise of refugees. My humble plea is that at least in the future when alarm bells ring they be recognized and responded to promptly and terrorism not be condoned for whatever reason.

Sri Lanka’s approach

For our part, it is the firm conviction of the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa that the present conflict in Sri Lanka cannot be solved through military means. The government is fully committed to finding a lasting negotiated political settlement to the conflict.

Upon assumption of office in November 2005, President Manhinda Rajapaksa in his very first address offered to meet the LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, face to face.

Consistent with his belief that building a ‘southern consensus’ among the political parties in the south was pivotal to arriving at any negotiated political settlement, the President also convened the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) in January 2006.

Since then the APRC has gone through a painstaking process aimed at developing a set of proposals to resolve the present conflict that would have broad acceptability.

The APRC is now reaching the final stages of its deliberations. Our Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wicremanayake, together with the party leaders participating in the APRC, are at present finalizing the proposals and President Rajapaksa is on record stating that he would accept whatever the consensus that emerges from the APRC.

I trust you are aware, that parallel, within two months after assuming office, the President Rajapaksa revived the process of negotiations with the LTTE that had broken down since April 2003, and participated in talks with the LTTE arranged through the Norwegian facilitators on three occasions.

Having been a member of the delegation of these talks, I can say with authority that the LTTE did not show the slightest inclination to resolve anything, but were merely intent on extending the opportunity opened to them since the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement in February 2002 to re-arm, re-group and to try to restore its badly tarnished image in the West, which in the post 9/11 context saw the LTTE for what they were - terrorists.

The LTTE’s position is nothing new, since 1985, when the Government of Sri Lanka held its first negotiations with groups dominated by the LTTE, successive Sri Lankan administrations have engaged in talks in 1987, 1989, 1994, and 2002.

The LTTE has exploited those periods to bolster its armed capability and single handedly torpedoed the efforts at peace and walked away from the negotiating table.

Despite all these efforts at peace less than two weeks after the President’s assumption of office, the LTTE unleashed a brutal killing spree against the Security Forces installations and personnel- including a failed attacked by a LTTE female suicide bomber on the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, and the assassination of his third in command Major Gen. Parami Kulatunga, and attacks against civilians.

The government desisted from taking any significant retaliatory action despite these provocations, However, in July 2006 when it became clear that the LTTE was intent on disrupting civilian life in the Eastern Province, through cutting off the water supply to a large area, and subsequently targeting the vital naval port of Trincomalee, the government was compelled to clear the LTTE from the Eastern province.

The objective of our effort over the past year in militarily engaging the LTTE in the Eastern Province, was to convince the group that it cannot expect to achieve a military victory and that a solution to the conflict needs to be found at the negotiating table.

Today, the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, which was until recently terrorised by the LTTE, has been rid of this menace.

The Security Forces and other agencies of the Government of Sri Lanka have worked hard to secure the area, to restore normalcy and to settle persons, who had been temporarily displaced from their homes.

I am sure those of you, who are familiar with the difficulties faced in carrying out military as well as ‘hearts and mind’ operations in areas dominated by terrorists, would better appreciate the magnitude of the challenge, which has been successfully completed by the Sri Lankan Security Forces and the Police.

Having done so, today, with assistance from the international community, the UN system as well as international and local NGOs, the Government of Sri Lanka has embarked on a programme to bring about sustainable development in the area and to hold elections at the earliest.

It is our hope that this exercise will serve as a model in post conflict development and I urge the cooperation of those, who in their capacities can help make this process a success.

Distortion of the ground situation

Notwithstanding what should rightly be considered a success story in defeating terrorism and a model in post-conflict restoration and reconciliation, Sri Lankans are saddened by the misperceptions, and more so the deliberately distorted aspersions cast upon the Government of Sri Lanka, for they do not reflect the reality of the ground situation, in a country that is endeavouring to rid itself of the menace of terrorism.

This by no means suggests that there are no issues of concern relating to human rights, displacement of persons affected by the conflict.

However, I am indeed appalled at the steady stream of deliberately circulated disinformation, which is deeply disappointing and discouraging to those of us engaged in trying to end what many have been content to claim as an intractable problem. I would like to avail of this opportunity to share with you some of these concerns, in the true spirit of transparency.

a). Those of you who regularly follow the events in Sri Lanka will no doubt be aware that the unfortunate case of the killing of 17 ACF aid workers in Muttur in August 2006 is still un resolved.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) rushed to an erroneous conclusion and issued a public report (commonly referred to as the Birnbaum Report) alleging that there was evidence of tampering productions submitted to the court.

This cast aspersions on the integrity of the investigations conducted by the Sri Lankan authorities, distorting a tentative suggestion made by Dr. Malcolm Dodd, an Australian forensic pathologist, who was associated with the Sri Lankan Forensic Pathologist in the post mortem examinations of the victims of this crime.

Only a fortnight ago, the same Australian forensic pathologist not only confirmed that his previous suggestion was erroneous but confessed that he never thought that the projectile in issue had been substituted.

We are perplexed by the silence of the ICJ following this position taken by Dr. Dodd and for failing to correct their previous erroneous conclusion. Some of the evidence now emerging in this case will surprise many.

b). Similarly it has been claimed by some that the Commission of Inquiry (COI) appointed by the President to investigate and inquire into 15 serious cases of human rights violations in November 2006, the work of which is being observed by an International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP), a unique arrangement by a country faced with alleged violations of human rights, is dragging its feet.

What these critics seem to forget or ignore, is that the speed with which the COI has acted by becoming operational in six months, and already progressing on the first case (the ACF case) is remarkable, considering the lengthy delays encountered by other reputed international tribunals such as the Yugoslavia Tribunal which took 18 months to start its work while the Cambodia Tribunal is yet to commence its work after two years and millions of dollars of UN funding.

To be continued