Sri Lanka brimming with promise

Sri Lanka is profiled in the latest issue of the French independent review La Lettre Diplomatique (The Diplomatic Letter): 'Sri Lanka, Future Hub of the Indian Ocean Rim? ’

La Lettre Diplomatique was founded in 1988. The review carries interviews of key actors in the world of diplomacy and international relations. Its articles present the insights and prognoses of experts who keep close watch on the fast-changing geopolitical and strategic landscape, and carefully analyze the stakes of globalization.

Also featured in the current edition are reports on Russia, Tanzania, El Salvador and Kosovo.

The report on Sri Lanka carries an interview of Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka on questions of reconciliation, autonomy, development plan in conflict areas, economic growth and maritime security.

Ms. Nirmala Samaratunga, President of the Sri Lanka-France Business Council and Hervé Mascarau, Cultural Counsellor of the French Embassy in Sri Lanka, also participated in the report. They respectively introduced the country’s socio-economic realities and prospects and the cultural ties between Sri Lanka and France.

The full interview:

Two years after the end of a three decades conflict, the lifting of the emergency rule in late August 2011 confirmed the beginning of a new era for Sri Lanka. With the recent discovery of gas fields off its coast, its future looks bright. Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, the ambassador of Sri Lanka to France, tells us about the opportunities of this renewal for the country’s development and the assets of its strategic positioning at the heart of the Indian Ocean rim.

The Diplomatic Letter: Mr. Ambassador, on August 26, 2011 the Sri Lankan government announced it was lifting the state of emergency, nearly three decades after the start of the conflict with the LTTE separatists. Could you talk to us about the new era of development and stability dawning for your country?

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka: First of all, thank you very much for this opportunity. Despite the fact we’ve always had democratically elected governments, my generation grew up under the state of emergency. In fact, it was adopted before the beginning of the secessionist war. It lasted 1,000 days under the liberal centre-right government in 1965-1970, when there were many militant strikes and student unrest. Then, in response to the youth armed uprising in 1971, the centre-left administration of Ms. Sirimavo Bandaranaike declared a very long emergency that lasted almost six years.

In that sense, the lifting of the state of emergency is a very important landmark for Sri Lanka, which goes beyond war and peace and has to do with a much larger achievement, because it is older than the war. It means a normalization of the country. But I have to be very candid with you: legislation has been introduced, limited to one year, to be able to retain the hardcore terrorist suspects who have been captured during combat, and who are about one thousand.

In terms of development, I think it must be remembered that even in the worst stages of the war - with suicide bombs blasting in the capital city, almost two or three a month - still Sri Lanka had a surprisingly resilient economy, as manifested in the growth rates. At its lowest, they were at about 5 percent. And now they will go up much higher. An economy which was so resilient during the war has a lot of potential in peace. And it’s already showing that potential. But, I must agree that a lot remains to be done, particularly in terms of spreading development, spatially between regions and socially between classes.

T.D.L.: After his re-election on January 26, 2010 President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed a 'Reconciliation and Lessons Learnt Commission.' What do you hope to see come out of the Commission’s work? How do you respond to the criticism, emanating mainly from the United States and the European Union, over human rights violations during the military operations against the LTTE?

Dr. D.J.: The Reconciliation and Lessons Learnt Commission’s Report has been released in mid-November. I must say that it has held open and public hearings everywhere in the country, including in the former war zones. Of course, it is not possible to listen to everybody who wants to address the Commission, but even war widows of Tiger fighters have testified. Some of these testimonies were quite critical of the Armed Forces. All of this process has been transparent and reported in the newspapers.

When I look around the world, I am not seeing many examples of a country having this kind of Commission just two years after it won a major victory over a terrorist movement. If I may give an example, remember the notorious incident called Bloody Sunday, which took place in the city of Londonderry in Northern Ireland, in 1972. Many civilians were killed, and it was not in the middle of a battle or between two armies. But it took 38 years to produce a report. So I think that we are not doing too badly, and I could even say better than many. It is true that many injuries took place in battle zones, but it has to be understood that we had a conflict that lasted 30 years.

About the criticism, allow me to underscore in the first place that there has been no criticism issued by the United Nations, neither by the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, or the UN Human Rights Council, to which I was Sri Lanka's Ambassador at the time of the war.

In fact, this very critical report was issued by an advisory panel composed of three experts nominated by the UN Secretary General. It was mandated to advise on norms and standards of accountability in relation to the last stages of Sri Lanka’s armed conflict. Instead of limiting itself to what it was appointed to do, this panel came up with a very large report, which is what I called a virtual investigation without ever visiting Sri Lanka. Therefore, we do not consider it a UN report. Our relationship with the UN remains very good. Besides, we have issued an exhaustive contrary report and made a documentary on this criticism.

As for the criticism from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, I would say that they are all our friends. Like all democracies, we have to face the same kind of problems. What are the options, facing a terrorist organisation that takes one million hostages? What about the issue of civilian casualties? Drone strikes and the issue of Guantanamo are also problematic. We should discuss our differences as facts. If fingers are pointed at Sri Lanka, then we should do the same, but we have not done so.

Sri Lanka has probably committed errors. Unfortunately, they are part of a war to unify the country within its internationally recognized and legitimate national boundaries. It has not occupied or annexed anybody. We wish that many of the countries that criticize us would follow the example of France, which has always been very sensitive to the sensibilities of former colonial societies.

T.D.L.: Could you share your thoughts with our readers on the Tamil demand for greater autonomy?

Dr. D.J.: The LTTE’s armed struggle was waged under the slogan of 'an independent Tamil state'. It was a secessionist project. But not all the Tamil opinion was or is secessionist. I would agree with you that the majority of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and overseas seeks a greater degree of autonomy.

In principle, the Sri Lankan state has no problem with that. No Sri Lankan government has said that we shall not discuss degrees of autonomy, or has even prohibited discussion of federalism. But of course public opinion in Sri Lanka, as in France or in the United Kingdom, is not for federalism. The majority according to public opinion polls does want greater autonomy for the provinces within a strong central state. This appears to be also a particular aspect of Sri Lanka’s political culture. Thus, what we can discuss is if there are feasible solutions and a certain degree of power devolution or power sharing.

It is necessary to stress that the Sri Lankan constitution has already a very strong provision for autonomy for the provinces. It is known as the 13th amendment, which was the fruit of the accord signed between Sri Lanka and the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1987. According to this agreement, Indian peacekeeping forces were dispatched in Sri Lanka. There was a very passionate public opinion in the North and the South against them.

But nobody in the South waged war against the peacekeeping forces. Instead, it was waged by the Tigers, though the peacekeeping forces were there to enforce the Indo-Sri Lankan accord which guaranteed autonomy for the North and the East of the country.

In a way, that was the best chance for the Tigers, but they chose to go to war against these peacekeeping forces and a few years later they assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. This year is the 20th anniversary of that assassination.

The 13th amendment to the constitution could not really be activated because of the presence of the Tigers in those areas and because of the opposition to political autonomy. I was myself the Minister of Planning and Youth of the Provincial Council of the Northeast in 1998. I can testify that it could not function because the Tigers were fighting against the Provincial Council.

Today, two years after the war, the discussion is about the reactivation of this Council. But from the perspective of the majority of the country’s population, there are some question marks concerning the degree of moderation of the leading parliamentary party of the Tamil of the North, The Tamil National Alliance (TNA). It has not yet stated that it accepts this 13th amendment to the constitution as even the baseline of discussion. Furthermore, it has not yet criticized the LTTE’s actions.

I think that we have chosen to guarantee the strength of Sri Lanka’s democracy. Soon after such a long war, elections were held twice in the Northeast. The TNA emerged as a local pre-eminent party at the Parliamentary Elections, and then at the Municipal Elections recently held. But it is also true that its degree of popularity is no way as high as the degree of popularity of the governing party in the rest of the country.

If you look at Europe and Spain, for instance, you would remember that a similar parliamentary party - the Basque nationalist Herri Batasuna - was banned. I will not comment on if that was right or wrong, it is the decision of the Spanish nation, but we have not done that with the TNA. It is not even considered. I think it shows the degree of democratic flexibility of Sri Lanka, which actually has given the TNA an opportunity of competing and not trying to influence the outcome of the elections, despite the very strong presence of the army in those areas.

But it also means that the TNA now has to be more realistic and has to understand that the only realistic way of moving forward is to opt for the reactivation of the Northern Provincial Council and the 13th amendment to the constitution. At this moment of history, there is no possibility of going beyond this option.

The only other option, constitutionally acceptable, would be to organise a referendum involving the entire country. And the result of it would be the impossibility of moving to a federal model. After 30 years of war, there is certainly extremism on both sides. But there has to be a give and take and a dialogue.

This dialogue initiated with the TNA has been paused, because the TNA was not satisfied with the government’s response and it gave an ultimatum. The government just ignored it and proposed instead a Parliamentary Select Committee, including representatives of all the parties, even the TNA, to discuss a solution within a period of six months.