LLRC findings - strong foundation for reconciliation

Text of the keynote address delivered by External Affairs Minister Professor G. L. Peiris at the first national symposium on reconciliation

I hope that these proceedings will establish a strong foundation for a national initiative that the government is embarking upon. You are aware that, just three days ago, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) submitted its report to President Mahinda Rajapaksa. That report is now being studied carefully by the President, whose intention is to present that report to Parliament as early as possible. In any case, this will happen during the current session of Parliament.

The recommendations made in the report, which is a very extensive document, are being studied carefully, and the President, at the time of presentation of this document to Parliament will also ensure that Parliament is informed how the government proposes to deal with the major recommendations. This is very much an ongoing effort on the part of the government.

National trilingual policy

In the meantime, other steps are being taken already. For example, the Cabinet of Ministers at its meeting last evening made a series of decisions with regard to the National Trilingual policy, which the government is committed to. The year 2012 will be characterized as the year of trilingual unity. This is a programme to which the President is deeply committed. He has invited the former President of India, Dr. Abdul Kalam, to visit us in January to inaugurate this very timely initiative on the part of the government of Sri Lanka. My colleague Vasudeva Nanayakkara, who is here on this occasion, is aware that there is already very considerable discussion with Shri Kapil Sibal, India’s Human Resources Minister and we have also worked closely with the government of India with regard to many aspects of this programme which we believe to be beneficial for Sri Lanka in many respects at this time. All this work is currently being done.

International community

I would like to sound a note of caution in this regard. I do not think that it is at all necessary or appropriate to bring pressure to bear on the government. For example, statements calling on the government to take this step or that step, or within this time frame, measures of that kind are not useful, and we believe that they are counterproductive. The government is committed to presenting the report. It will be a public document.

I thought that it would be useful on this occasion for me to share some thoughts with you candidly. The topic that I have been asked to address you on is ‘Reconciliation and the International Community’. It is very much the desire of the government to work closely with the international community. Ours is not a policy of isolation. We want to join the international community and work with them. However, we would also like to point out that, in order to enable this to happen, there are certain attitudes on the part of the international community which would be helpful. At this moment, when we are venturing upon an initiative which has far reaching consequences for our country - and these are measures in which the international community is deeply interested - I thought that the most useful thing I could do on this occasion is to be entirely frank with you, to say we would like to work with the international community, and this is what we would expect of the international community in order to make this possible.

But, at the outset, in this same spirit of candour, which is not only useful but absolutely necessary, I think it is important that the international community listens to the government when we have something to say; when we say it in all honesty, we would expect to be listened to. That is not to say that we necessarily expect agreement or endorsement, but at the very least, the views that are expressed must be seriously reflected upon.

There was a disappointing event which occurred recently. At an important bilateral meeting which was held abroad, there was a frank discussion with the government in question. We noticed that the representative of that government had been fully briefed about the contents of the report which had been prepared by the Panel of Experts appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Naturally, on that occasion, we expected him to know, as well, that there have been responses to this: very detailed documents, on the military aspects, prepared by the Defence Ministry. There was also an equally informative document on the humanitarian aspects; comprehensive documents which had been submitted to the international community.

Constructive criticism

What we found amazing is that the representative of the government concerned was blissfully unaware of any of this. So we did say, “But all of this material was submitted to your representative in Colombo, and we expected this to be studied by your government.” But that was not the case. The meeting ended on a strange note. We decided to resubmit the whole of this documentation, which had been out there for a long time. It had not received any attention at all. In all candour, we find that disconcerting.

It would be quite a different matter, had there been an engagement – you had said this, we don’t agree with this, these are the issues that we have – that would have been entirely appropriate. But to have focused on one side and completely ignored what is being said on behalf of a sovereign government is not a helpful approach in dealing with issues which are as complex as this.

Again, very frankly, I would like to say, that there is some feeling, which is justified on the part of the government, that there has been a certain reluctance to give credit where credit is due. We welcome criticism; constructive criticism, that is made in good faith. But when good things are happening, it is nothing but fair that the world should give encouragement and recognition.

Illicit migration

Recently, in Perth and also in Addu city in the Maldives, we found there are many countries that commend us, not just in private conversation but in their public remarks, that the eradication of terrorism in this country has benefited not only Sri Lanka but the entire region: the security of sea lanes, the prevention of collaboration among armed terrorist groups in this region, with regard to all these matters, the control of illicit migration, which has caused problems of considerable magnitude, in countries far away from Sri Lanka. There was explicit acknowledgement on the part of high level representatives of a large number of countries in this region that the achievement of the President, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the government has rendered yeoman service not only to this island nation, but indeed to the entirety of the South Asian region.

It is surprising that some developments which are unequivocally positive have elicited rather strange responses. I am not referring to matters which are controversial, where there could be different points of view. Here is an example that I would like to give. About a month ago, a very heartening event took place in Colombo. President Rajapaksa presided over an event at which 1,800 ex-combatants were sent home to be re-united with their families; they went back to their villages; not empty-handed but fully-equipped to earn their way, and with their heads held high to resume their lives with dignity; they had been exposed to programmes of vocational training which ensured access to incomes and livelihoods. By any standard, it was a moving and inspiring ceremony. The President was joined by several representatives of the international community, ambassadors and high commissioners accredited to this country.

University system

Here was a group of young people who had been misguided, who had taken up arms, and espoused a culture of violence, which they were now renouncing. They were coming back into the mainstream. As a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Colombo, it was a moment of great pride to me, not just as a politician, but as somebody who had spent 26 years of his life teaching two generations of Sri Lankan students. Some of these youth are back in the university system, some are employed; others have gone abroad for employment. This is surely a refreshing development, judged by any criterion whatsoever.

However, it came in for some very harsh criticism. And even one of the High Commissioners who took part in this event was very aggressively criticised for associating herself with this ceremony. We find that very difficult to understand. Here is something that one would expect to be unequivocally welcome. But that was not the case. We find that disappointing.

I would especially like to say that Sri Lanka’s achievement has been recognised particularly with regard to illicit migration, in two consecutive years, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. In 2010, the then Minister for Defence of Australia, Senator John Faulkner, said that Australia has the deepest appreciation of what Sri Lanka had done to mitigate problems connected with illicit migration. The next year, 2011, Stephen Smith, who had succeeded Senator John Faulkner, expressed these same sentiments in equally emphatic terms.

When I was in Bali some weeks ago, the vessel known as Alicia was captured in Indonesian waters. That vessel was on its way to Canada. Ocean Lady and South Sea were two vessels which previously found their way into Canada. Canada’s Minister for Migration, Jason Kenny, said that there were too many loopholes in the Canadian law, and legislation was being contemplated to protect Canada against illicit migration. Sri Lanka really had done a great deal, spending time, money, energy, to deal with this problem, not solely for the benefit of our own country but for the benefit of a large number of countries that were going to be adversely affected by the prospect of illicit migration.

European Union

This leads me to the question of the diaspora. The government has a very clear perception on our dealings with the diaspora. It is by no means our intention to isolate them or to demonize them. We want to work with the diaspora. And there are sections within the diaspora that are perfectly agreeable to make a contribution that would enable the lives of people in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka to be better, richer and more meaningful.

At the same time, there is a segment of the diaspora that does not recognize the irreversibility of the military defeat of the LTTE; that is a fact. This is evident from current developments in Western Europe. For example, a court in Paris convicted 21 people, sent them to prison and disbanded an organization. In the Netherlands, there were six people who were recently sentenced. Some of these activities are continuing.

We would like people from abroad to come here to this country to see developments for themselves, this is what I said to a representative of the European Union, whom I had the pleasure of meeting last afternoon in the presence of the Ambassador. I said, by all means, come, travel, see for yourself. Don’t be guided by what you are told by propagandists, who are close to the LTTE organization or even the government. There is no substitute for first hand information.

Domestic law

We have had parliamentary delegations from Germany and Japan. And within the next 10 days we will be receiving here in Sri Lanka parliamentary delegations from the European Union and from Australia. We welcome them. And we want them to see for themselves the enormous progress which has been made with regard to all sectors of public policy within the brief period which has elapsed since the termination of the conflict in May 2009. We would like to work with the diaspora. But we would also like the governments concerned to adopt a certain approach to the diaspora, which will actively discourage the kinds of activities which are detrimental, not only to us, but also to the countries in question. I think that is very important.

Again I am being candid with you, I hope you will not misunderstand, but I think it will be useful for me to express some of these thoughts.

To be continued