Govt opposes internationalization of national issues

Sandasen Marasinghe and Irangika Range

The government’s steadfast position is to categorically oppose any international initiatives which impinge on Sri Lanka’s national issues to ensure the non-internationalization of domestic issues, said Irrigation and Water Resources Management Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva in Parliament reading a statement sent by External Affairs Minister Prof G L Peiris.

The statement was sent by External Affairs Minister who is abroad, in response to a special statement made by DNA MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake under Standing Order 23(2) to draw the attention of Parliament on the post incidents after the resolution on Sri Lanka was passed at the 19th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The full statement by the External Affairs Minister is as follows:

“At the outset I wish to observe that the question submitted by Anura Dissanayake, Member of Parliament, on the Standing Order 28/2 has resulted from being completely misinformed.

“I would like to emphasize that the government has consistently sought to ensure the non-internationalization of domestic issues. It is our steadfast position in this regard which provided the basis for Sri Lanka to categorically oppose any international initiatives which impinged on our national issues.

There were a number of overtures made in seeking Sri Lanka co-operation with regard to the US initiated resolution at the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council. However, it was decided that in the interest of keeping the self-respect of the people of Sri Lanka, it was prudent even to lose by opposing rather than accepting punitive measure from a part of the international community on solely domestic matters. Considering the might of the opposition Sri Lanka was faced with in Geneva, it must be acknowledged that the final result demonstrated a complete division of the UNHRC and that too in a favourable manner to Sri Lanka, as it was by a mere one vote and thereby upheld the self esteem of the Sri Lankan people.

“MP Dissanayake may note that the communication to visit Washington was delivered to the Minister of External Affairs at the end of January 2012 and not as he said, following the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution which was in the third week of March 2012. We do not understand the basis of the MP’s observation that it was more an order than an invitation to visit Washington that was communicated to the minister. In this context, quote from the letter of the US Secretary of State where she says that -

“to help guide our thoughts on further action, I would like to invite you to Washington in March to discuss your plans to move ahead on reconciliation, accountability and Provincial Council elections in the North. The visit also would provide a favourable opportunity for you to meet with think tanks and our Congress to brief them......”

“It is therefore, evident that this wording construes an invitation rather than an order. “As the MP is aware, the government’s approach has been to ascertain observations of its constituent political parties. At the time the Minister visited Washington all the positions of the government political parties had not been received, while those received were being processed. Therefore, compiling a fully fledged document containing an Action Plan is a misnomer. It is total fiction to state that a secret document containing the Action Plan had been handed over to the US Secretary of State at our meeting on 18th May 2012.

This position is established by the very fact that the Spokesperson of the US Department of State Victoria Nuland in her briefing stated that “the Foreign Minister presented a very serious and comprehensive approach to the LLRC recommendations and the plans that the government has .......” I wish to emphasize her word ‘approach’. Therefore, at no point has even the US State Department Spokesperson stated that an Action Plan was presented. With regard to the approach on the implementation of the LLRC recommendations it was explained to the US Secretary of State that there are 135 main recommendations with sub areas totalling 285, which for the ease of processing for implementation would be designated under four categories, viz-a-viz:- Recommendations relating to national policy Recommendations pertaining to the final phase of the conflict Recommendations related to human rights and security issues Recommendations on resettlement, development and humanitarian issues.

“Further, it was explained that some recommendations would be implemented through the Parliamentary Select Committee and others by relevant institutions. It was also pointed out that the implementation would be directed out of the Presidential Secretariat under the purview of the Secretary to the President. It was further explained that the recommendations would be dealt with under short, medium and long terms and implemented in a structured manner through prioritization. These steps therefore are our approach to the implementation of the recommendations.

“The minister also briefed Secretary of State Clinton, as we normally do with other interested members of the international community, on the developments since he met her two years ago. This included the reintegration of ex-combatants, the resettlement of the remaining IDPs, the dismantling of the High Security Zones, status of demining, roll back of the Emergency Regulations, steps taken with regard to re-possession of land, local government elections in the North and the political process including the PSC.

“It is therefore, abundantly clear that there is no truth whatsoever in the observations made by the Member of Parliament in the context of the question under reference.”