Conditioning of Sri Lanka
Statement in response to the European
Commission letter of June 17 to the External Affairs Minister
The Sri Lankan Government received a letter dated June 17, 2010 from
the European Commission (EC) stating that the GSP+ preferences could be
extended for a limited additional period, subject to a clear commitment
by Sri Lanka to fulfill all of 15 conditions spelt out in a list
attached to the letter. The letter and its list were considered by the
Cabinet at their meeting on June 23. It is the Government view is that
the position taken up by the Commission, involves the imposition of a
series of conditions, the cumulative effect of which is clearly
inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.
Acted in best interest
|
GSP+ holding the country to ransom. File photo |
The Government wishes to emphasize that it has, always acted on this
issue in the best interest of the country, as well as of the
longstanding partnership between Sri Lanka and Europe. When in October
2008 the European Commission decided to launch its “investigation”, Sri
Lanka was facing the unprecedented turbulence of a severe terrorist
onslaught. Given this situation it was inopportune for Sri Lanka to
participate in such a process.
The Government also pointed out that, despite the severe constraints
being then encountered, there were nevertheless several other processes
of engagement both between Sri Lanka and the European institutions and
with the UN system, which could be drawn upon to clear up any matters of
doubt.
Moreover, the propriety of the “investigation” due to its per se
discriminatory nature, was difficult to perceive.
However, with the “investigation” coming to a conclusion and the EC
asking for comments on its report of October 2009, the Government
provided a comprehensive response. Thereafter, on February 15, 2010, the
EC announced its decision to withdraw the GSP+ trade benefits from Sri
Lanka, with the decision taking place six months later with effect from
August 15, 2010.
In the press release conveying this decision, the European Commission
Directorate General for Trade stated : “The EU remains open to a full
dialogue with the Sri Lankan Government, above all to encourage it to
take the steps towards an effective implementation of GSP+ relevant
Human Rights Conventions”. The release added: “Once sufficient progress
has been made, the Commission will propose to EU Member States that the
decision taken today be reversed and GSP+ benefits restored”.
The Government immediately responded to the offer of dialogue by
reaffirming that “Sri Lanka will therefore continue her engagement with
the EU in the upcoming six months”. The Government also added that, for
the engagement to be purposeful, “the setting of unattainable targets
and the shifting of goal posts” should be avoided. The Government
followed up by on its pledge of engagement by sending delegations which
included the Attorney-General, the Finance and Planning Ministry
Secretary, the Justice Ministry Secretary and the External Affairs
Ministry Secretary for two rounds of talks in Brussels in March and in
May this year.
|
List of Actions |
| 1. Reduction
of the number of derogations to the ICCPR.
2. Take steps of ensure that the
key objective of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, namely
to provide for independent and impartial appointments to key
public positions, is fully safeguarded, including through a
Constitutional Council which adequately reflects the interests
of all political, ethnic and religious groups and minorities
within Sri Lankan society.
3. Repeal of the remaining part
of the 2005 Emergency Regulations, notable those Regulations
concerning detention without trial, restrictions on freedom of
movement, ouster of jurisdiction and immunity, and repeal of the
2006 Emergency Regulations (Gazette No. 1474/5/2006). If GoSL
considers it is essential to retain certain provisions which are
compatible with the ICCPR or UNCAT, such as provisions
concerning possession of weapons, such provisions should be
transferred to the Criminal Code.
4. Repeal of those sections of
the Prevention of Terrorism Act which are incompatible with the
ICCPR (in particular, section 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 26) or
amendment so as to make them clearly compatible with the ICCPR.
5. Repeal of the ouster clause
in section 8 and the immunity clause in section 9 of the Public
Security Ordinance or amendment so as to make them clearly
compatible with the ICCPR.
6. Adoption of the planned
amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for
the right of a suspect to see a lawyer immediately following his
arrest.
7. Legislative steps to allow
individuals to submit complaints to the UN Human Rights
Committee under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and to
the UN Committee against Torture under Article 22.
8. Steps to implement
outstanding opinions of the UN Human Rights Committee in
individual cases.
9. Extension of an invitation to
the following UN Special Procedures who have requested to visit
Sri Lanka (UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom
of Expression, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges
and Lawyers).
10. Responses to a significant
number of the individual cases currently pending before the UN
Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.
11. Publication of the complete
final report of the 2008 Commission of Enquiry.
12. Publication or making
available to family members a list of the former LTTE combatants
currently held in detention as well as all other persons
detained under the Emergency Regulations. Decisive steps to
bring to an end the detention of any persons held under the
Emergency Regulations either by releasing them or by bringing
them to trial.
13. Granting of access to all
places of detention for monitoring purposes to an independent
humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee
of the Red Cross.
14. Adoption of the National
Human Rights Action Plan by Parliament and its prompt
implementation.
15. Take steps to ensure
journalists can exercise their professional duties without
harassment. |
The Sri Lanka delegation pointed out that the end of the
extraordinary situation of terror faced by Sri Lanka for almost three
decades, has enabled the authorities to scale down and roll back the
laws and regulations specifically enacted to deal with the contingencies
of that period.
Appointing a commission
In the discussion in May, the delegation illustrated the actions
taken by the Government towards this end by pointing out the very
significant scaling down by Parliament on May 6, 2010 of the Emergency
Regulations and of the establishment of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission. The other such examples were the rapid and
sustainable reintegration of the internally displaced back to their
places of livelihood, the successful and conclusive end to the issue of
child soldiers recruited by the LTTE and the counselling and vocational
guidance given to former LTTE cadres who had surrendered, with releases
already of nearly 3,600.
The delegation also responded comprehensively to a host of issues
raised with regard to the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, the Evidence
Ordinance, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Public Security
Ordinance, the Judicature Act, the independence of the judiciary and of
legal practitioners and the proposed National Human Rights Action Plan.
The delegation called upon the European Union (EU) and its Member States
to give appropriate consideration to the manifold challenges pertaining
to the development process faced by Sri Lanka and invited the EU to
extend its partnership, in keeping with the longstanding tradition of
friendly ties.
Unacceptably intrusive
The letter from the European Commission states : “We positively
acknowledge the steps which the Sri Lankan Government taken to address
the concerns raised in the European Commission report of October 19,
2009”. Notwithstanding this acknowledgement the conditions attached to
the letter dated June 17 and addressed to the External Affairs Minister
jointly by the High Representative, Vice President of the European
Commission and by the Member of the European Commission, are so
unacceptably intrusive as to require the public to be appraised of their
implications of acceptance of these conditions.
The condition number two relates to the 17th Amendment to the
Constitution. The wording leave no discretion for the Government or the
people of Sri Lanka, to decide on this issue of vital national
importance. One possible result of such a mechanism might be the
perpetuation of the fragmentation that terrorism sought to inflict,
through encouraging mindsets based on perceived ethnic, religious and
political divergences, instead of the more positive approach of all
perceiving themselves as equal members of a wider Sri Lanka family. In
any event, the Commission’s demands with regard to the 17th Amendment
clearly represent an unacceptable intervention in the internal affairs
of the country.
The third condition would, inter alia, result in those LTTE cadres
who are now undergoing counselling and vocational training, having to be
abruptly released without logistical support. This inevitably would have
the impact of eliminating the opportunity for them to acquire civilian
skills, whilst creating a conducive climate for those wanting to
rekindle the embers of separatist terror.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is referred to in item four of
the list, was adopted on the basis of existent provisions already in
force in several democratic nations, including those of Western Europe.
It is observed that similar provisions adopted by certain developed
nations, are far more stringent. Sri Lanka, too, might need to
contemplate measures of a similar import, having regard to endeavours
such as the formation of the so called “Provisional Transnational
Government of Tamil Eelam”. Decisions relating to the need for vigilance
in this regard are matters for the elected Government and not for any
external agency.
The request for repeal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Public Security
Ordinance as per item 5, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of
the intent of the two sections.
Courtesy: External Affairs Ministry
To be continued |
