‘SL has nothing to sweep under carpet’

External Affairs Minister Prof.G.L. Peiris replies to recent TNA adjournment motion in Parliament

Hon. Presiding Member, the Hon. R. Sampanthan spoke very emotionally. I would like to make two general observations on the tone and the content of his speech. The first is that it is a mistake to dwell exclusively on the past. Of course, the past is important. The present emerges from the past.

There is an intimate link between the two. But, to be captivated by the past and to be mired in events which have taken place in the past, in my view, is not a constructive approach to the search for solutions. I think well over 70 percent of the Hon. R. Sampanthan’s speech consisted of quotations, speeches made by people at different times and documents which were produced at some point in history. It was a comprehensive chronicle of historical events. I am not for a moment denigrating the value of such a historical record. It may contribute to our understanding of complex situations.

But, we do need to recognize that circumstances have changed drastically. It is a new situation that has arisen in this country since May 2009. We have to recognize that reality. Therefore, to keep talking about the past; to keep invoking quotations from the past is, I think, to restrict unwittingly one’s own capability to address issues in a manner that is conducive to the emergence of viable and practical solutions. I say that with genuine respect.

The second comment I have to make is this. There really needs to be a sense of objectivity. The Hon. R. Sampanthan used strong language. I am quoting some phrases that he used in his speech. Referring to the government’s Action Plan with regard to implementation of the LLRC Report, he said, “It is a cover-up, it is a concealment, it lacks credibility and legitimacy”. He said that the government’s plans represent no more than a generalized tentative plan that is not results-oriented. Is that the truth? Is everything as dark as that? The main thrust of the speech by the Hon. R. Sampanthan was an attempt at self-vindication and self-justification. The fault is all with other persons.

Post-conflict situations

It is an attempt to impute culpability to others and to set oneself up as somebody who has made no mistakes; no wrongs; lily-white and if anything has gone wrong, the blame has to be placed squarely at the door of the other party. I think that is a very facile, a very unrealistic reading of a very complicated sequence of events.

Now, I want to say, Mr. Presiding Member, on behalf of the government, that we are legitimately proud of our achievements during the last three years. I make no apology, either here or overseas, in saying that. You compare objectively the situation on the ground in Sri Lanka with other post-conflict situations in other parts of the world.

How long has it taken in those situations to reacquire some semblance of normalcy? It has always taken more than a decade. As against that, consider the extent to which things have changed in this country within the brief span of three years. Just this morning, I had occasion to give a very comprehensive briefing about contemporary events in this country to Yasushi Akashi, the Special Representative of the government of Japan for Peace-building, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction in Sri Lanka. I briefed him fully about what is happening at present.

Last month, with Lalith Weeratunga, Secretary to the President, I briefed Ambassadors and High Commissioners accredited to Sri Lanka about the same developments. And, again with Mr. Weeratunga, I met the local and international media and we presented a very objective, dispassionate appraisal of the accomplishments on the ground in Sri Lanka during the last 36 months. But, do not take into account what I say if you are insisting on assailing credibility and legitimacy.

British Parliament

The Hon. Sampanthan and some others are always fond of quoting foreign sources. Foreign sources are sacred. Local sources, by definition, are to be looked upon with suspicion. I do not think for a moment that that is a healthy attitude at all. But, even on that premise, let us consider a report which has been presented within the last few days to the British Parliament and to the British government. That assessment of the situation, does not come from the government of Sri Lanka, it comes from a Western figure, who is familiar with circumstances in Sri Lanka and whose integrity is beyond question.

Shortcomings and deficiencies

I refer to the Right Honourable Lord Naseby, who spent quite a long time in Sri Lanka, from March 24 to April 12, 2010. Now, here is a peer of the realm, a Member of the House of Lords.

Let us see what his own assessment is and let us compare it with the dark, gloomy, pessimistic and totally despondent view that was presented to this House and no doubt to the world by the Hon. Sampanthan. These are the words of Lord Naseby; these are not my words at all. Lord Naseby says, "There have been no bombings since May, 2010 and people of all ethnic groups travel the length and breadth of the country by day or night without fear". And we, as a government, are very proud of that achievement. I want to tell my Friend that in no uncertain terms.

The Right Honourable Lord Naseby goes on to say to his peers in the House of Lords and to the Parliament of the United Kingdom: "The investment in infrastructure is truly amazing, viewed either on the ground or from a helicopter.

The Southern Expressway with extensions underway; the national grid now at Kilinochchi but in a year it will reach Jaffna Town giving it reliable power. The railway in the Northern region is on its way to Mannar and then Jaffna. The water grid in the dry Northern region will, in due course, provide Jaffna District with clean safe water".

He then says, “These are very significant achievements mostly geared to Jaffna and the North”. I ask you in all fairness, black and white, the Hon. Sampanthan’s assessment and the assessment of a British peer.

That is not all. Look at some of the other things that he has to say about life in Jaffna. I, myself have gone to Jaffna and I know that a sea change has occurred. Nobody can deny that. What was life like in Jaffna three years ago and what is it like today. I think it is wrong; it is preposterous to deny that. By all means, criticize where criticism is legitimate.

The Hon. Sampanthan said, "When there are shortcomings, when there are deficiencies - he used those two words and said - we will criticize”. Of course, do criticize when there are shortcomings and deficiencies. But, have the generosity of heart, have the largeness of mind to recognize genuine achievements, to acknowledge the good things that happen and have the objectivity, whether there are elections or not, to give credit to the government of Sri Lanka when that government has delivered so handsomely and magnificently to your people, achievements which are being recognized all over the world and are being denied only by you.

Here are Lord Naseby’s comments on the situation in Jaffna. He says, “There is a buoyancy of attitude in Jaffna from all sides. Things are happening on the ground as life returns to normal”. That is what he has to say about life in Jaffna. Then, he goes on to say many other things which I want to emphasize in light of the very dismal picture which was painted by my Hon. Friend.

Colossal challenge

On the subject of resettlement of internally displaced people, Lord Naseby says, “Nearly 300,000 fled to the government and were housed in Menik Camp which I visited, met the people and officials. All that now remains to be done is demining of the final area of the war and then the last 6, 202 IDPs can go home and the camp can be closed".

Despite allegations to the contrary, ICRC's Head of Mission confirmed to me personally that they had access to the camp from day one and were full of praise - not condemnation, not denunciation, not abuse, but full of praise - at the way such a huge challenge has been handled.

I want to emphasize that. You know the quality and the degree of an achievement depends on the magnitude of the challenge. Now, here by any standard, was a colossal challenge. Very few countries have had to deal with a challenge on this scale. Consider how the government of Sri Lanka has responded to that challenge.

On Rehabilitation, the Right Honourable Lord Naseby says, “I had a good meeting with the Head of the Delegation, Mr. Giovannoni. He confirmed that there were no problems at Boossa High Security Prison or Menik Farm Refugee Camp”. Then Lord Naseby says, “I visited Boossa, saw around it, spoke to some of the inmates and inspected sleeping accommodation, washing facilities and toilets”. Lord Naseby has done that personally. He says, “I visited the Rehabilitation Unit at Vavuniya and could find no problem”.

He has found no problem. He says, “Indeed I was surprised to bump into two girls, who had been through the unit and were returning voluntarily to see friends”. So, that is the situation that Lord Naseby encountered. There really is an insurmountable difficulty about reconciling the thrust of these observations with the picture, which for his own reasons, the Hon. Sampanthan wants the world to accept. - (Interruption.)No, no it is not one person. That is a very unfair comment. About three weeks ago we had 10 Members of the British Parliament led by Mr. James Wharton.

Parliamentary delegations

What was their comment? What was the comment of Mr. Robert O. Blake, when he came back from the Northern Peninsula? When facts are presented which you do not like, to rubbish those facts, to denigrate them in that way, that is deplorable. If Lord Naseby had said something which you like, the whole world would have been told that and you would have blown it up as only you can. But, when the judgment goes the other way, you dismiss it.

This is not an isolated view. It has very much in common with the assessments by almost everybody who went to the North and came back with their own genuine impressions. We have had Parliamentary delegations, Sir, from the European Union, from Britain and from Germany. Shrimati Sushma Swaraj, the Leader of the Opposition in the Indian Parliament led a Delegation of Parliamentarians drawn from different political parties in India. What did they have to say? Did they say everything is dark and black, there is no redemption possible, there is no light at the end of the tunnel? Did any of them express such a view? That is the reality of this situation, Sir.

To be continued