SL firmly against moves to tarnish LLRC

Speech by Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Special Envoy, Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe at the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly meeting

It is my pleasure and privilege to address this Committee at a juncture when my country, Sri Lanka, stands on the brink of ushering in an era of peace, prosperity and progress based on equitable development and national healing. Many friends of Sri Lanka gaze appreciatively with wonder at the rapid gains made in the aftermath of the conflict which ended in May 2009. The successful conclusion of a humanitarian operation to free over 290,000 civilian hostages marked a watershed in the annals of Sri Lanka’s history.

Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

Sri Lanka had suffered nearly three decades of terrorist inflicted conflict. It had to contend with a foe that was implacable as it was ruthless. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), nurtured and maintained by an extensive criminal network of international operatives and supported by a dedicated cadre of expatriate supporters, was more than merely a domestic terrorist outfit.

It took on the proportions of a multifaceted transnational entity that many believed could not be overcome or defeated. Even in its last desperation, when it brutally herded people it claimed as its own and purported to exclusively represent, into smaller and smaller areas of land, using them as shields against the advancing Sri Lankan security forces, there were those who sought to accord it legitimacy and status ignoring its manifold outrages, excesses and casual disregard of civilians’ safety.

Armed conflict

The Sri Lankan government, however, was firm in its resolve. Unswervingly led by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, our forces, at the risk of substantial loss to their numbers, undertook to rescue as many civilians as they could. They were undoubtedly successful in this endeavour. Throughout the final phases of the armed conflict, from 2006 to 2009, we engaged with the United Nations (UN) and its agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other representatives of the community of nations and civil society - both in Sri Lanka and outside. We took pains on several occasions to explain our position, our gains and challenges we faced and our expectations for the future. We explained that our long-term goal was of a Sri Lankan people free of the fear of terrorism and united without consideration of creed, language, ethnic or cultural background or other grounds of division. That is the future President Rajapaksa envisioned. That future is unfolding today.

In today’s post conflict scenario, our commitment to engage remains the same. All our efforts are predicated upon a conception of guaranteeing the people’s right to a more peaceful tomorrow. As President Rajapaksa informed the General Assembly in September, “I am deeply mindful that the battle for peace is every bit as important and difficult as the struggle against terror. After the eradication of terrorism, my government has turned its undivided attention to building a new, the foundations of a unified and vibrant nation and drawing upon the inherent strengths of our country.” Massive public investment in roads, railways, telecommunications, bridges and harbours renew links with the rest of the country and are the basis for the resumption of normality.

Building new lives

Education and higher education, vocational training and development of livelihoods, fisheries and agricultural development, health and other services including administration, policing and a host of governmental functions are now being provided at a level never experienced before. Prior to all this, basic needs such as housing, water supply, sanitation and reestablishment of communities had to take place.

The people displaced by the conflict and the LTTE’s intransigence have voted with their feet. They are back; aided by the government’s programmes and are building new lives for themselves. Ninety-five percent of the displaced are now successfully returned with the balance awaiting the de-mining of their land. The local economy has shown vast potential with 22 percent rise in GDP in the North as against 8 percent nationally which shows the spirit of enterprise and renewal that pervades the now conflict-free areas.

This is not all. We have made steps to address the question of reconciliation which three decades of conflict has made an essential prerequisite for peace.

As early as May 2010, once the immediate concerns of caring for the displaced Sri Lankans, the ensuring of security and stability throughout the country, President Rajapaksa took steps to appoint some of Sri Lanka’s most respected professionals and public officials to a Commission that was based on an adaptation of best practice elsewhere. He appointed the ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’ (LLRC), endowed with a wide mandate and a solemn charge to recommend steps to ensure reconciliation, restitution for victims and non-repetition of the scourge of internal armed conflict. This independent Commission is due to make its report very shortly. It has made interim recommendations based on its findings and a cross-agency body of senior officials has already implemented these recommendations.

Human rights

This is the broad context within which Sri Lanka finds herself. I must now focus the attention of this Committee on an issue that is of immediate and special relevance to many member states. It is concerning the methods of work and practices of the premier intergovernmental institutional mechanism in the field of human rights - the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). In particular, the issue of transparency and fair dealing in relation to its support structure and ancillary offices, including its special procedures and mechanisms.

Early last month, Sri Lanka was faced with a unique situation in that a communication of the outcome of a private consultation on Sri Lanka, initiated by the Secretary-General, was communicated to the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the Council. With due respect to the Secretary-General and his unfettered discretion to advise himself on any matter concerning any Member State, the mode by which this document was communicated - without advice to the country concerned - gave rise to much concern - especially since a certain regional grouping was made aware of it by the High Commissioner even before it reached the President. Apart from the fact that no intergovernmental body requested or sanctioned the formation, functioning or reportage of the Secretary General’s Advisory Panel, the Panel’s report itself is irretrievably flawed. It was therefore, surprising to hear a while ago that the EU refers to this document, which is unsubstantiated and is an unverified narrative as a document establishing credible evidence of violations during the last stages of the conflict. I would urge the EU to go back and read the document because the authors of the document themselves say that they did not have any authority for investigations and that they did not do an investigation in arriving at the conclusions in the report.

LLRC’s deliberations

Here we had a situation where three individuals who sat in New York and received petitions from vested interests and then put them together in a narrative format so that it would be more readable and we are asked to take such a process seriously. This is a very dangerous precedent. Today it could be Sri Lanka tomorrow it could be another country in this Committee. This is why I talked about adhering to principles and this is why such documents should be resisted. The procedural anomaly that would result in such a document being placed before the Council in any form whatever was vigorously asserted by my delegation on the basis of well-founded principle. I am pleased to inform you that saner counsel prevailed and this document was not entertained preventing a very bad precedent being established.

We have also to view this move in the light of attempts to second-guess and call into question the work and forthcoming outcome of the LLRC’s deliberations. One country, supported by a like-minded group, launched a still-born initiative in Geneva to discuss the report of the LLRC during the 19th Session of the HRC in March 2012, mere months after it is due to be finalized. We were at pains to explain that Sri Lanka would be submitting itself to the Universal Periodic Review in October 2012 and that any and all questions could be discussed at that time. It would also give us a reasonable time to implement, or commence implementing, the recommendations of the LLRC.

While Sri Lanka is more than willing to openly engage with parties that are genuinely interested in discussing the truth and its eventual benefit to the Sri Lankan people, we firmly stated that we opposed all efforts to denigrate the LLRC process and its members - without any semblance of justification - even before the Commission has the opportunity to finalize its work, draft and submit its report to the government. This proposal for analysis and discussion of a domestic process at the international level, even before it has reached its natural conclusion, and the ramifications it may have for the future in other contexts, must be treated with extreme caution and dealt with appropriately.

However, we as a democratically elected, legitimate government of the people, are confident that we will overcome all challenges and usher in an era of peace for persons of all ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural backgrounds in an inclusive and cohesive move forward as one, united Sri Lankan people.