‘LLRC rebutting Prophets of Doom’
Statement by Ravinatha
Aryasinha, Ambassador of Sri Lanka to
Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU at the ‘Sri Lanka Briefing’ convened by
the ‘Friends of Sri Lanka’ group of the European Parliament held on
January 25, 2012 at the European Parliament
At the outset, I wish to thank Geoffrey and the ‘Friends of Sri
Lanka’ for this timely initiative of convening this ‘Sri Lanka
Briefing’. I particularly value this opportunity of engaging with you,
as most of the MEPs who have spoken in this forum have had the benefit
of visiting Sri Lanka over the past year and have experienced firsthand
the change that is underway in Sri Lanka. I am also aware that many
others in this room - officials of the European Parliament, the EEAS,
the European Commission - from ECHO, DEVCO, TRADE, as well as from the
Belgian government, have similarly travelled to Sri Lanka in recent
times and/or have followed developments in my country over an even
longer period of time.
Ambassador
Ravinatha Aryasinha |
Valuable recommendations
As a result, the government of Sri Lanka takes your assessments made
here as informed views, and whatever concerns you express, with respect,
as we are embark on the process of operationalizing the valuable
recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).
At the outset, in discussing the LLRC report, it must not be
forgotten that this Commission carried out their duties against the
backdrop of much skepticism, with the eminence and independence of its
members questioned in some quarters, and as the chair of the South Asia
Delegation of the European Parliament Jean Lambert was to remind me last
week in Strasbourg, some even doubted whether this report would ever see
the light of day.
In such context, the forthrightness of the Report produced, and the
decision of the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa to release
this 325 page report and its 375 pages of annextures in full, is a
fitting reply to their critics.
Besides the Sri Lanka specific matters which is its main focus, its
assessments on a host of generic issues – relating to the effectiveness
of ceasefire agreements, No Fire Zones and application of International
Humanitarian Law in dealing with terrorists, the nexus between internal
conflict and expatriate communities, the role of International
Organizations(IOs) and Non Governmental Oraganizations (NGOs), and
modalities to ensure good governance and national integration, will
provide insights to a much wider audience of practitioners and students
of both international and domestic politics.
The second observation I wish to make is that, having heard your
reaction to the LLRC report, I find considerable convergence in the
issue areas, as well as the emphasis, laid in the LLRC report, and those
emphasized here by the MEPs, as well as contained in the reports that
have been produced following their visits to Sri Lanka - the South Asia
Delegation in February 2011, the chair of the ‘Friends of Sri Lanka’
group’s visit in November 2011 and the views shared with me by the S&D
delegation which visited Sri Lanka only a month a ago.
This is true,
- on matters pertaining to the IDPs and their resettlement,
- on ex-LTTE combatants and their re-integration,
- on bringing about a total end to the possession of unauthorized
weapons,
- on deployment of the security forces,
- on land issues,
- on the cluster of issues with regard to restitution,
- on the implementation of a trilingual policy,
- on the achievement of a national consensus in respect of
constitutional changes to fulfill minority aspirations,
- and on the need to eschew adversarial politics and have consensual
decision making on national issues.
Not only have detailed recommendations been made pertaining to each
of these areas in the LLRC report, it is significant that all these
issues have been acknowledged by the government, whose initial response
to the report was made clear in the statement made by Nimal Siripala de
Silva, Leader of the House, when he tabled the LLRC report in Parliament
on December 16, 2011.
Humanitarian Law issues
LLRC sittings: strengthening the reconciliation process. File
photo |
The suggestion made in some quarters, that the LLRC report does not
address accountability issues in the last phase of the conflict is
without basis. What those who make this charge seem to expose, is simply
that the authors of the LLRC report have not come to the conclusions
those elements who obsessively wish to see Sri Lanka being put in the
dock, had wanted.
On the contrary, the LLRC report offers us detailed observations and
recommendations on International Humanitarian Law issues relating to the
final phase of the conflict.
It clearly accepts the position that protection of civilian life was
a key factor in the formulation of policy for carrying out military
operations and that the deliberate targeting of civilians formed no part
of this policy.
The Report notes that military operations were conducted
professionally, but if there is evidence of transgression by
individuals, this of course should be examined.
On the basis of evidence placed before them, the Commission also
points to several specific episodes which, in their view, warrant
further investigation. These episodes are referred to in the Report, in
a variety of settings.
As the Leader of the House Nimal Siripala de Silva was to observe in
tabling the LLRC report in Parliament, “It is a matter of the greatest
importance to the government to have the truth relating to each of these
matters established in a manner that puts controversy to rest for all
time. The government has asserted clearly on many occasions that, if
reliable evidence is available in respect of any contravention of the
law, the law of the land will be set in motion. The Report now sets out
some specific situations where examination of the circumstances from
this perspective is appropriate. The government is firmly of opinion
that these situations require through investigation in the first
instance, and punitive action in terms of the law if wrong doing is
established. In these circumstances the proper course of action is to
set up a mechanism for gathering and assessing factual evidence relating
to the episodes indicated, buttressed by a strong investigative arm. The
findings arrived at in this process will form the basis of a decision
whether criminal proceedings can be instituted. The material yielded by
this investigation will be placed before the Attorney-General for a
decision in respect of institution of criminal proceedings, where
warranted”.
Conflict affected areas
The Leader of the House was also to note that “the government, of its
own accord, has already carried out a series of measures including a
comprehensive census in the Northern Province, which will enable firm
and verifiable conclusions to be arrived at on issues involving
accountability, without any element of conjecture or speculation”.
As to the emphasis laid by speakers who preceded me, of the
importance of effectively implementing the recommendations of the LLRC,
I can assure you that one month since the report was made public, the
government of Sri Lanka is working on its operationalizational aspects
in earnest. Sound prioritization no doubt is an essential aspect of a
practical strategy for implementation of these recommendations, where it
is important to distinguish between measures addressing humanitarian
needs as a matter of urgency, and longer term initiatives.
To those who have doubts about the sincerity of purpose the
government of Sri Lanka brings to this task of implementation, I can
only refer them back to the government’s performance in recent years on
several matters, where the ‘prophets of doom’ mis-judged both Sri
Lanka’s will and capacity.
There are those who said the government was not interested in
de-mining and that the conflict affected areas will remain unused
forever.
- The fact is that at present de-mining of the conflict affected
areas have been carried out at a pace that is comparable with the best
efforts anywhere in the world. We have at present de-mined 1,412 sqr.
kms out of 2,046 sqr. Kms., which amounts to 69 percent of the area that
was contaminated with LTTE landmines. While we gratefully acknowledge
the role played by international partners including the EU and NGOs
which helped in this task, I must emphasize that around 80 percent of
the successful demining operations were carried out by the Sri Lanka
Army.
Ex-LTTE combatants
Similarly, some likened the Sri Lankan IDP welfare centres to
‘concentration camps’ and said the IDPs would be ‘incarcerated’ there
indefinitely.
The fact is that as we speak only 6,647 of the 290,000 original IDPs
remain in the welfare centres - some due to compulsion as their areas
are yet to be de-mined, and the rest by choice, as they seem more
comfortable as they are for the moment.
Some also questioned the government’s intent regards the 11,600 ex-LTTE
combatants who surrendered or were identified from among those leaving
the conflict areas claiming that their lives were in danger.
- The fact is that today only 750 of them remain in the government
rehabilitation centres, while the rest, including 595 LTTE child
combatants, have been rehabilitated and reintegrated with their
families.
Therefore, my appeal is not to make pre-judgments regards the
implementation of the LLRC report as well.
Whatever the contents of the LLRC report, it is clear that it will
not satisfy some whose minds are fixed on vilifying Sri Lanka and
nothing will change their opinion.
Those who continue to insist on an independent international
investigation, disregard the comprehensiveness of the LLRC report and
its equally detailed annexures, which following over 1,000 oral
submissions and 5,000 written submissions, transparently place before us
clear evidence as to the basis on which the Commissioner’s arrived at
their conclusion.
These remain both substantive and verifiable. It bears no comparison
to the Darusman report compiled by the panel appointed by the UN
Secretary General to advise him - which presents a sequence of events in
the form of a narrative while not vouching for the accuracy of the
information, which depended on sources which are shrouded in secrecy,
and where the evidence and the identity of the witnesses cannot be
disclosed for 20 years due to a confidentiality clause in the report.
Peace and reconciliation
We must not forget that the prime objective of the appointment of the
LLRC was to ensure reconciliation and moving forward in a spirit of
inclusivity. However, it is clear that while the average Sri Lankan -
whether Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burger, yearns for this goal, there
unfortunately are some, particularly the rump elements of the LTTE
living abroad and their sympathizers, as well as political forces within
Sri Lanka influenced or dependent on them, who would prefer to see Sri
Lanka locked in the past.
It is they who today are the greatest obstacle to sustained peace and
reconciliation in Sri Lanka. It is in such context, that I urge you to
ponder as to who speaks for the Sri Lanka Tamil community? Whether it is
the self-seeking vociferous minority living in greener pastures overseas
who continue to advocate mono-ethnic separatism in Sri Lanka while
espousing the ideology of the LTTE, using its resources and being
manipulated by its surviving military leaders; or whether it is the
Tamil community living in the North and the East and other parts of Sri
Lanka who together with the enlightened sections of the Sri Lankan Tamil
expatriates, are keen to rebuild their own future and that of their
children in a peaceful Sri Lanka, in the spirit of reconciliation,
advocated by the LLRC report. The answer would seem obvious to all those
present here.
Finally, I hope that all those who wish Sri Lanka well, would view
the LLRC report as a catalyst and continue to engage with Sri Lanka in a
constructive manner, giving the government the time and space needed to
carry out what has been recommended by the LLRC. |