EU, Sri Lanka and GSP+

Temporary suspension of GSP+: A Sri Lankan response:

Intervention by Sri Lankan Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU Ravinatha Aryasinha at an exchange of views on the “GSP+ scheme and Sri Lanka” at the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee on January 14

We are deeply conscious of the importance attached by the members of this Committee, that beneficiaries of the EU GSP+ scheme uphold the high standards laid down in the 27 International Conventions relating to labour rights, environmental safeguards, good governance and human rights.

While we appreciate the acknowledgement of our adherence to good labour practices including non-use of child labour and environmentally friendly and sustainable production, Sri Lanka takes very seriously all concerns expressed in relation to three of the 27 human rights related conventions under reference.

During a period of unprecedented turbulence in Sri Lanka’s contemporary history when the very existence of the State was at stake due to a severe terrorist onslaught, when in October 2008, the unusual vehicle of “investigation” was chosen to be used by the European Commission (EC) on Sri Lanka, we submitted to them that Sri Lanka will not participate in such a process as a matter of principle.

We felt it to be both inappropriate and unnecessary, given the numerous on-going processes of constructive engagement between both Sri Lanka and the European Institutions, as well as between Sri Lanka and the UN system.

We were conscious that there were some current GSP+ recipients who were not being subjected to similar “investigation” by the EC, against whom strictures had been passed by the relevant UN convention reporting bodies, whereas on Sri Lanka, there were none.

However, the charge being made that Sri Lanka was non-responsive to the concerns raised by the EC on effective implementation of the three conventions in question, is not accurate. While not submitting to the quasi-judicial process of “investigation”, in-keeping with the spirit of transparency and mutual respect that is appropriate to the historic and long standing relationship between Europe and Sri Lanka that spans more than 500 years, Sri Lanka continued to responsibly and diligently engage with the EC on the issues of concern through existing diplomatic channels - a fact acknowledged by the EC Report itself. In addition to the constant dialogue I maintain with all institutions of the EU including members of this Parliament, exchanges have been held on more than 10 occasions over the past 20 months in both Brussels and in Colombo, at ministerial, senior official and technical level.

As acknowledged by the EC, outside the process of “investigation”, Sri Lanka also made available to the EC material which showed Sri Lanka’s compliance with the relevant conventions, refuted unfounded allegations and provided previous clarifications given on issues.

Sri Lanka believed that in an objective process, these actions should have sufficiently clarified any concerns the EC had and helped it ascertain firsthand the situation on the ground. It should also have contributed towards sensitizing the European Institutions to the reality that while their “investigation” was carried out during a period of extraordinary stress in Sri Lanka, as reflected in the purported findings, over time, the situation on the ground had improved significantly, particularly with the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009 and the rapid onset of normality.

Upon the process of “investigation” coming to an end, its contents being made public on 19 October 2009 and Sri Lanka being asked for its comments on the content of the EC Report, on November 6, 2009 Sri Lanka provided a comprehensive response. Sri Lanka’s observations established the following:

a. The exceptional nature of the situation that Sri Lanka had to deal with during this period when the Government had to meet the challenging task of defeating LTTE terrorism;

b. The fact that whatever derogations that were necessary during the period under reference were undertaken in full conformity with the ICCPR and other internationally accepted jurisprudence and governance norms;

c. That the EC report made reference to issues that had already been resolved or were in the process of being resolved;

d. Explained why some other issues raised could not be resolved in the short term, given the need to deal with any remnant elements of the LTTE that may be found and those involved in terrorism in custody who had to be prosecuted following the assessment of evidence;

e. The measures adopted to safeguard human rights, while pointing out the further improvement of the situation with the end of LTTE terrorism and that with the rapid and progressive return to a situation of normality there being no room for allegations of “incidents” to be made;

f. That while publicly proclaiming “the war and other internal matters are not an issue” to the GSP+ decision, much of the decision making process has been in Sri Lanka’s view motivated and prejudiced as reflected in the statements made by prominent members of both the Commission, as well as EU member states;

g. That there had been a singular scrutiny of “values” and “benchmarks” in relation to Sri Lanka in a highly discriminatory manner, when compared to other beneficiary countries, clearly in violation of the letter and spirit of the Enabling Clause and other relevant practices of the WTO.

To be continued