LLRC findings – strong foundation for reconciliation

Continued from yesterday

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

We see in some countries, I have seen this with my own eyes, when I was travelling with the President: the flag of the LTTE, brandished with great pride, quite openly. Sri Lankan missions are sometimes attacked, and the attackers proudly brandish the LTTE flag. These events, of course, are directly contrary to the laws of the countries in question, which declare in explicit terms, it is not a matter of inference or implication, emblems, any insignia of a banned organization cannot be used, it is a criminal offence. But when one talks of impunity, is there no impunity in that situation? Nothing whatever is done. Then the people concerned are emboldened to do more and more, to interfere with the freedom of speech; preventing a point of view which they disagree with from being articulated. And there is consistent refusal to apply mandatory provisions of domestic law.

Monetary incentive

I would also want to say this; it is often said that what is involved is the upholding of certain values. Now we know for a fact that some of the questions which are asked in foreign legislatures by people who are committed to a very persistent course of action, are quite differently motivated. It is quite obvious what the motivation is; and where the inducements are coming from.

I will cite just one instance. In a certain legislature there was a person who was consistently asking questions, attacking the government of Sri Lanka. Then the Member of Parliament concerned lost the election. Within weeks, that person accepted office in one of the organizations that were responsible for promoting and organizing these interests. So, can it be maintained with any degree of plausibility that this is an objective and principled commitment? Is he or she asking these questions in order to promote certain values? The claim that there is no monetary incentive; there is no other extraneous incentive, is this credible at all? These are some of the constraints and inhibitions that we are facing at this moment. And I think it is my duty as we embark upon this very exciting adventure to draw attention to some of the problems that we encounter, and to point out and that there is an urgent need for a realistic and pragmatic solution to be found.

There is one more point I want to make. The LLRC is, by its very nature, a local mechanism. And I think there has to be respect for local mechanisms and institutions.

That is an established aspect of the international system. Countries are encouraged, there are specific resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, to evolve their own solutions to delicate and sensitive problems.

This is necessary in order to achieve sustainability. Sustainability is possible only if the solutions are in accordance with cultural traditions and aspirations of the society in question. This is important.

Foreign mediation

I would like to tell you about a very perceptive remark that was made by an important member of the South African delegation, who visited us a week ago. I refer to Roelf Meyer, who was Defence Minister in the government of President Fredrick de Klerk, that is the apartheid government, and then he was appointed Constitutional Affairs Minister by President Nelson Mandela. On a previous visit to Sri Lanka many years ago he made a remark to me which I referred to during his recent visit. Roelf Meyer said that during the South African conflict very serious thought was given to the question whether any formal mediation or facilitation would be useful.

South Africa had to make a decision. They decided they would dispense with foreign mediation or facilitation. And the reason was, that nobody has a greater interest in finding a sustainable solution than the people of South Africa themselves. They are the people who are going to live there, deal with these problems, eventually they lay down their bones in South Africa.

So they made a conscious and deliberate decision not to have mediation or facilitation from outside. This is crucial: respect for local procedures responsive to context, local mechanisms and approaches to the resolution of problems of this nature.

There also has to be recognition of the diversity of cultures. This was very clear at certain recent meetings in Perth, Western Australia, where there seemed to be a conflict of cultures, and that it is entirely understandable: because all these cultures have their own approach to societal obligations, how relationships within society should be organized, and restructured.

Pragmatic solution

About 10 days ago we had a meeting in Colombo of the World Muslim Congress. Every five years their executive committee has a meeting, and this time they chose to meet in Colombo. There was a good deal of discussion about the traditional wisdom contained in the Qu’ran and the Hadiths; and how this vast reservoir of insights and experience can be meaningfully applied to find solutions to problems that the contemporary world is grappling with.

About three or four days ago we had the former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran here, and I was invited to make a few remarks on that occasion. Reference was made to Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore. I think that one of the most moving expositions of the rights of women, an exposition that is entirely appropriate to the modern world, is contained in Rabindranath Tagore’s Chitrangada. In the Buddhist scriptures, the Singalowada Sutra, the Parinibbana Sutra, there is a great deal of material with regard to conflict, empowerment, and society. We have to make use of this entire body of knowledge.

I was talking about the diaspora, and our attitude towards the diaspora. However, at the end of the day it is the elected representative of the Tamil people in this country who are principally engaged with the government.

Yesterday, the government presented in Parliament the resolution for appointment of the Parliamentary Select Committee. And the next step would be for the Speaker, in consultation with Party leaders, to announce the names of the members constituting that committee; that will happen within the next few days. All of this is very much in motion.

When we deal with the international community, of course there will be disagreement with regard to many matters. But we feel that if the discourse is to be meaningful and productive, no relationship should be one dimensional. While we disagree on certain matters, I think the sensible course of action is to identify and expand areas of agreement, in respect of which useful things can be done for the benefit of all.

LLRC report

My final thought is this: We would ask for objective appraisal: without pre-judgement; without bias and prejudice. The report of the LLRC will be in the public domain very shortly. You are aware that, once the document is presented in Parliament, it becomes public property. And that will happen very shortly. But please evaluate it. Assess it dispassionately.

We had the bizarre situation in Geneva in September this year, where an attempt was made to put on the agenda of the Human Rights Council in March 2012, a document which did not exist at all: the LLRC report. An attempt was made to put formally on the agenda of the HRC a non-existent document. At that time the President and I were in New York. The resolution was drafted and it was sent to us in New York. Of course, we spoke to all the relevant countries. And almost everyone that we spoke to agreed that this was a total travesty of justice. If the report was out, if it was found deficient, you can always criticise it. That is why we are here. But to endeavour to put on the agenda of the HRC, a non-existent document, in other words to malign the document before it is out, that is neither more nor less than a demonstration of naked prejudice.

This is why it was obvious that there was no support for such a move, and at the end of the day the resolution was not presented. It was abandoned simply because of the lack of any basic support. I would suggest that the LLRC report should not be dealt with in that manner. Approach it with an open mind.

I assure members of the diplomatic community who are present here that the government of Sri Lanka will continually engage with you. We want to be enriched by the collective insight of the international community. There is no hesitation or reluctance on our part to engage with you. A kind of cross pollination, an exchange of views, could be extremely helpful. And we will do that.

But we would ask for objectivity, which has not always been there in the past. It would be extremely helpful if there is that spirit of objectivity which would facilitate and render more productive the conversation that we hope to engage in with the international community. These are thoughts that I want to express to you on this occasion. I hope I am not treading on anyone’s toes. But it would be useful to understand each other: because there is a firm resolve, on our part, to work with the international community. So I wanted to explain to you how we would like to strengthen the communications needed. And I would respectfully suggest that you try to understand our constraints and inhibitions to the maximum extent possible in order to make this collective endeavour as successful as possible.

I would like to conclude by paying a warm tribute to the memory of the late Minister Lakshman Kadiragamar who made the supreme sacrifice for the unity, for the territorial integrity of this country and it is entirely fitting that we remember him on this occasion as we press forward with an initiative that will bring enormous benefits for the future of our nation.

Concluded