Controversial Darusman Report fundamentally flawed - G L

Statement by External Affairs Minister Prof G L Peiris in Parliament on Tuesday April 03, 2011

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence in permitting me to make a Statement on behalf of the Government on the Report of the Panel appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the relationship between Sri Lanka and the United Nations system.

May I begin, Sir, by pointing out that this is not a Report of the United Nations. To call it a UN document or a UN Panel is a basic misnomer. This is only a private initiative on the part of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General has selected three persons in whom he has confidence and he has asked these persons to advise him on certain matters: International best practice, comparative experience and process-related issues. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has repeatedly emphasized that this is only an Advisory Panel - it has no investigative power; it is not a fact-finding body. This Panel has now submitted its Report to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations. It does not have any formal nexus with the UN or any UN body. I would like to make that point with emphasis at the very outset, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to say that this Report has been carefully studied by us and we find ourselves unfortunately not able to agree with the Report with regard to any of the matters discussed in it. I will explain to this august Assembly very briefly what the reasons are, why we cannot accept this Report.

Damages reconciliation process

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this Report does the gravest possible almost irreparable damage to the very delicate reconciliation process that the Government has put in motion. It is our intention to put behind us, the pain and the anguish of the past. The wounds are now healing. We do not want to exacerbate tensions. Unfortunately the Report accentuates the dividing lines between the Sinhala and the Tamil communities. It revisits certain incidents in a spirit of rancor and acrimony. It does not help the healing process. This is a time of rapprochement. Regrettably, the Report sets about its task in a manner that is detrimental to this sensitive reconciliation process that is now under way in our country with the dawn of a stable peace.

It was also pointed out that the process followed by the Panel is fundamentally flawed. In as many as five places in the Report, they state categorically that they have not embarked on any investigation nor do they have the authority to investigate. Having insisted on that, they then come to the conclusion that there are credible allegations against the Government of Sri Lanka. How can you come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that there are credible allegations without investigating? How have they investigated? In a grossly unfair manner, in a manner that does violence to basic norms of procedural fairness and basic justice, they tell us that they have spoken to people that they consider trustworthy. There have been consultations within the UN system. Some of the people who made these representations have asked that the representations be treated with utmost confidence. The Panel then tells us that they consulted the office of Legal Affairs in the United Nations system and they have now decided to characterize almost all the representations, which they received as strictly confidential, with the result that nobody in the world can have access to this material for a period of 20 long years.

They are saying they have found credible allegations on the basis of material which is shut away from the scrutiny of the human eye. We do not know who has made these representations. We do not know what the content of these representations is. But, they are using this material. There is an impenetrable wall for 20 years.

Nobody on this Panel can have any information about the sources, the nature and the impact of whatever it was. We do not know what it was that was said to the Panel. I have yet to come across, Mr. Speaker, any process which has so flagrantly and cynically violated the basic norms of rudimentary justice.

Report is prejudiced

It is also abundantly clear that the report is prejudiced from beginning to end. The Panel describes the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as the most disciplined and nationalist Tamil organization. The very first sentence in the report is, I quote:

“The war in Sri Lanka ended tragically, amidst controversy”,

When I quoted that sentence to a foreign dignitary that person asked me, “Tragically for whom?” Certainly not for the people of Sri Lanka. The Panel is of the opinion that the war ended tragically. It is because the wrong side won the war? Why did the war end tragically? Is that a dispassionate, objective a fair appraisal of the situation?

I do not intend to burden the House. But, the report is replete with examples of palpable bias and prejudice. The report is also flawed in the sense that the Panel travels far, far beyond its mandate. it has been set up to advise the Secretary-General of the United Nations. But, it proceeds to provide gratuitous advice to the Government of Sri Lanka on a wide range of matters, which pertain exclusively to domestic policy. The Panel has taken the liberty to comment on our court system, the role of the Attorney -General, public order and constitutional issues, when none of these matters fall within the ambit of the mandate that the Secretary-General has given to the Panel.

Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize something else. The Report was submitted to the Secretary-General. I spoke to the Secretary-General by telephone last Sunday from Oman. We had a very cordial conversation. Now, the Report was submitted to the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General in due course published the Report. At the time of publication, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary-General made a very important statement. He said, “This Report has been submitted to me. I am not proposing at this time any further action in the absence of any request by the Government of Sri Lanka and in the absence of any authority conferred upon me by the Member States of the United Nations through the proper organs of the UN system”, by which he means principally, the Security Council. So, that is a public statement by the Secretary General. He has said that very clearly, “Sri Lanka has not approached me”. And, there the matter rests. That was the clearly articulated position of the Secretary-General at the time he brought the report into the public domain.

Panel and UN are distinct

As far as the Government of Sri Lanka is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we make a very fundamental distinction between the Panel and the United Nations. We are Members of the United Nations. We take very seriously our rights, our responsibilities and our duties to the UN system.

We are a member of the world community; far be it from us to entertain any thought of living in isolation in the contemporary world. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, work with the UN system; we will share information with them; we will communicate with them; that is our duty and that is very much in the interest of the people of Sri Lanka. For that reason, I will write to the Secretary-General giving him some information that he requires at this moment. We are communicating with the Secretary-General of the UN system. In my communication, on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka with His Excellency the Secretary-General of the UN system, I will indicate what we have done up to now since the cessation of hostilities; what do we propose to do in the future; what is the trajectory that we envision. In that regard, I would like to emphasize to this House that the accomplishments of His Excellency the President and the Government of Sri Lanka during the last few months go far beyond the national situation.

We have done things; we have achieved things which have brought about stability and tranquillity in the entire South Asian region. It is not only this country, important as it is. As an example, Sir, I would like to refer to the security of sea lanes. I do not have to emphasize that very often in contemporary world history, at the end of such a conflict, there is a period of deep turbulence, of disorder and it takes a long time measured normally not in years but in decades to come back to anything approximating to normalcy.

Take the situation in Cambodia. After the cessation of hostilities, the proliferation of small arms and the destabilization that came about as a result of that for a very long period. But, we were able to ensure that problems of that kind did not arise and in particular, I would stress the security of sea lanes in this region. Two weeks ago, there was an international Conference that was held in Dubai to consider very acute problems connected with piracy in the Gulf of Aden and in large areas of the Arabian Sea. Sri Lanka was represented at that Conference. But, ferocious as the LTTE was, it was described by no less than the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States as the most ruthless terrorist organization that the world has known. Notwithstanding that reality, the Government of Sri Lanka was able to handle this enormously-complex situation in order to ensure the security of sea lanes and the inviolability of transnational commerce in the Indian Ocean close to the shores of Sri Lanka and in the Bay of Bengal.

Success regarding refugees

We have also achieved very considerable success with regard to matters connected with refugees. Had there been an influx of refugees into other countries, particularly to South India there would have been consequences of very considerable magnitude.

When I represented Sri Lanka and addressed the Plenary Sessions at the last Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore in June last year, the then Minister of Defence of Australia, Senator John Faulkner complimented Sri Lanka on the manner in which we had dealt with problems connected with refugees.

The House is aware that there was an election in Canada yesterday and the results will be known today. In the last government, the Minister in charge of Immigration, Mr. Jason Kenny referred to the need to tighten very significantly Canada’s laws relating to immigration.

The Foreign Minister of Thailand discussed with me at length in Bangkok, problems arising from ships originating in the southern part of Thailand, in Songkhla and proceeding across the Pacific to the shores of Canada. We discussed these matters. He suggested that I should come back to Sri Lanka and summon the representatives of the countries in question.

I summoned the representatives of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Canada and Australia and we had a very fruitful discussion, which led to some tangible consequences. So, in all these areas, we have achieved a lot. I must also mention that we have done everything that we can and we have achieved considerable success in preventing collaboration among terrorist groups. The House is aware that terrorist groups do not act in isolation; they act in concert, but we saw to it that problems of that kind with Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and so on did not arise. So, these are matters that the United Nation system should be made aware of.

Then, as far as developments within Sri Lanka are concerned, I will inform the Secretary-General in considerable detail what we have accomplished up to now within the remarkably brief span of less than two years. Mr. Speaker, it is a very touching human story.

Rehabilitation ongoing

Look at these children wielding arms, child soldiers. Today, we have rehabilitated them. They have been exposed to programmes of vocational education. One hundred and forty of them have been successful at the GCE (Advanced Level) Examination. As a former Vice-Chancellor of one of the largest universities in Sri Lanka, I am proud that two of them are today receiving education in the medical faculties of universities within our country’s tertiary education system.

Reviving North economy

We have revived the economy of the North. Sir, one single bank has lent as a large sum as Rs. 13,000 million for entrepreneurial activity in the Northern Province.

This means, generation of employment and the resuscitation of the economy. All of this has happened within so short a period. Almost 500 Tamil-speaking Police officers have already been recruited in the Northern Province and it is the intention of the Secretary of Defence to continue this with accelerated vigour in the weeks and months to come. As far as Internally Displaced Persons are concerned we started with the figure of 297,000 and it is now down to less than 10,000 and even that number keep going to their homes, coming back and they are not permanently resident in the camps. There were 11,500 ex-combatants initially and as I said, we have, rehabilitated them, all but the hard-core against whom judicially receivable evidence is available.

HSZs shrinking

Mr. Speaker, the high security zones are shrinking. Victoria Road in Jaffna has been opened. The Government will relax some of the Emergency Regulations now in operation, not in response to external pressure, but in a spirit of spontaneity because the national interest requires this. As the need for these regulations become less and less, we will scale them down not abolish them overnight - that is not a practical policy - but we will roll them back progressively.

Then, we have also taken away restrictions on fishing. That was a regrettable necessity at that time to protect Sri Lanka’s shores and in particular, our naval personnel. But, fishing is now revived as a means of livelihood in the North and we are receiving requests from companies in Thailand, Japan and Malaysia to come here for fish processing - filleting. that has become a major area of interest for that region.

Dialogue with political parties

We are engaged in a dialogue with political parties representing the minority communities. We have had five rounds of talks so far. The next round will be held on the 12th of May 2011. Mr. Speaker, we are now moving into the substantive stage. We have discussed conceptual issues. We have discussed our broad approach and now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty. So, we expect that tangible results will emerge from that process and it is being handled in a very methodical and systematic way.

These are the matters that I will bring to the notice of the Secretary-General as to what has been achieved so far. What about the way forward? We will also have to tell the Secretary-General what we plan to do in the near future. I will tell the Secretary-General that we have to await the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

When I was in London last month, I had discussions with the British Government. I told them, “But, surely you cannot prejudge the Commission’s Report. You must await its outcome; you must await the report and study in objectively and dispassionately”. I was told that there can be no conceivable argument on a report before the report has seen the light of day? You must wait for the report, study it, give your mind to it and do so honestly and in a spirit of sincerity. How can you argue about that? But, here we have, Mr. Speaker, the bizarre situation of this Commission being rubbished in the most preposterous way before it has submitted its report. The United Nations system is founded upon the premise that countries must be encouraged to deal with their own problems in keeping with their cultural traditions and values. We have every confidence that the LLRC will make a contribution of lasting value in this regard and that expectations is amply justified by the work that they have done so far.

They submitted their interim recommendations within two months and the Government, in a prompt response, appointed the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee headed by the Attorney-General and consisting of the Secretaries of seven Ministries centrally involved in the implementation process. So, I will tell the Secretary-General that the LLRC is continuing its work and its report is expected shortly. We must await that report. How can you pre-empt it? How can you prejudge it? If at all, there must be a benevolent presumption. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State of the United States had a meeting with me in May, last year. Actually, not at the meeting with me but when both of us addressed the media together she said - these are her words, not my words - “The Sri Lankan Commission holds promise”. this was said by the Secretary of State of the United States. It holds promise. Then how can the LLRC be dismissed in this cavalier fashion? We think that that is wholly indefensible.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I must say a word about some of the criticisms that have been made. We have been told that there has been some form of recognition of the Panel. That is certainly not correct. When the Attorney-General and the then Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs went to New York, they went for a specific and limited purpose.

There was no meeting separately with the Panel. they went and met the Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon. That is the usual procedure to discuss matters of detail. They followed up with a meeting with his Deputy the Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr. Lynn Pascoe. It was at that meeting with Mr. Lynn Pascoe in his office that the three members of the Panel joined.

The purpose of that discussion was to make the UN system aware of the work that was being done by the LLRC. They had to know. It was in our interest to let them know. Had we not done so, the criticism would have been, “How do you expect them to know if you do not tell them?” And, then they would have had every justification for not referring to it, for not recognizing it because they have not been informed of the work of the LLRC. So, they had to be informed. Had we not informed, the people who are criticizing us now will make the more cogent criticism. Why did you not tell them? If only you had told them, they would have taken this into account.” So, you are remiss, you are at fault, in not bringing this to their notice. There is no question of implied recognition. In the Report itself, the Panel says that they would have liked to come to Sri Lanka. they say that it is not essential for their work but it would have been helpful.

They would have liked to come but they were not able to come because the Government of Sri Lanka did not permit them to come under those circumstances. So, they themselves admit that Sri Lanka did not recognize the Panel. We never did so at any time. The Government of Sri Lanka is engaging in a very vigorous campaign abroad to present our point of view, to raise our voice, before the international community.

Discussions with counterparts

I will be travelling to India on the 16th of this month for meetings with representatives of Government of India. A few days later, on he 24th of this month, I will travel to Beijing for similar meetings. In India, I will meet my counterpart, the Hon. Shri S.M. Krishna and in Beijing I will meet the Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China. On the 26th and the 27th together with several of my Ministerial Colleagues, I will be travelling to Indonesia for the Meeting of Non Aligned countries in Bali.

That will be a very useful opportunity for us to interact with the Foreign Ministers of these countries most of whom would be gathered there. Last week I visited the Sultanate of Oman for discussions with the Foreign Minister of that country.

I found a very favourable response. The Sultanate of Oman is a Member of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the views that we expressed will be made known to the Gulf Cooperation Council. So, we have here a very energetic campaign to bring Sri Lanka’s point of view with regard to this matter to the attention of the world.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House that this is one of the matters that need to be dealt with in an atmosphere as far removed from partisan political controversy as possible.

Of course, we can disagree about matters within the country, the thrust and parry of party politics is an essential feature of the representative democratic system. But, every now and then, one comes across matters which would have to be dealt with from a different perspective and at a different level. Here, we have issues which go to the very heart of national well-being.

It is not a question of the interest of one political party pitted against another political party, and we, for our part as a Government, Mr. Speaker, have every confidence that the rich traditions of this country, the whole reservoir of experience that we have accumulated over the decades put us in a very strong position to deal with this challenge with courage and fortitude and I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that members of this august Assembly, irrespective of political affiliation, will join hands with us in dealing with this situation in the interest of Sri Lanka as a whole.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.