‘Nothing to sweep under carpet’ - Part III:

SL not ducking posers put by world

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

The invitation to Navanetham Pillay was not the result of the Resolution; it had nothing whatever to do with the Resolution. We had invited her in writing before that. She accepted the invitation in principle and said that, in her view, to get the maximum benefit out of the visit, she should visit our country after the Report of the LLRC is available. She has now written to us saying she would be happy to come but she wishes to send a technical officer, a member of her staff, to this country to prepare the ground for her visit.

It often happens. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, senior officials of the United Nations system, dignitaries of foreign governments often send somebody in advance to prepare the ground for a high level visit. We have, therefore, said we would be happy to receive that officer, Hanny Megally, and to place at his disposal all the resources and facilities he wants to go anywhere he wishes. We do not want to restrict him or curtail his movements in anyway. He can go wheresoever he pleases and see for himself whatever he is interested in.

When I was in Washington - I never ducked anything - I went and addressed the major think tanks in Washington, the Woodrow Wilson Centre for Scholars, I addressed the Heritage Foundation. It was not a tea party. Some very probing, questions were put to me. I had no hesitation in answering. The US government told me, “You present your case not only to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, but present your case to Members of the Senate, to Members of the House, engage with them, respond to the questions that they ask you and that is the way to get your message across”.

We did that. Then, at the end of some of these presentations, we were told, “You have done good things but you are not getting sufficient credit for them and that is because there is inadequate information available in the public domain. Therefore share more information with the world”.

Unfair criticism

That is why it is very much in the national interest of Sri Lanka to ask the Commissioner for Human Rights to come to this country. We do not want to shut her off. We do not want to exclude her. We encourage her to come because we have nothing to fear and there is nothing which we wish to sweep under the carpet; absolutely nothing. Everything is available for scrutiny and inspection.

Again, there is another unfair criticism. I do not think that is malicious or deliberate. It is simply because the facts are not known. Some people have asked, “Why do you not protest strongly about three countries being selected for the preliminary review?” The Universal Periodic Review is in the first week of November. The three countries, India, Spain and Benin are the rapporteurs.

They are no more than rapporteurs. They are not judges. The responsibility is not cast on them to come to conclusions about Sri Lanka.

Challenges and opportunities

Now, it is not that Navanetham Pillay or anybody in her office or the Human Rights Council selected those three countries. Nobody did that. That is not the procedure at all. It is a lottery. You draw lots. So, it is entirely a coincidence. It is in the lap of the Gods. It so happened that those three countries were chosen. Nobody did it deliberately. We are not unhappy.

We have confidence in ourselves to present our case fair and square to these countries or for that matter to any other countries and to vindicate the record on the ground, to explain what we have done and to elicit the kinds of responses that are contained in the Report of the Right Honourable Lord Naseby, the ten Members of the British Parliament and all the other dignitaries who have had the opportunity of visiting this island and seeing for themselves the evolving situation in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka.

There is also misinformation about South Africa. Of course, we are prepared to work with anybody, look at any experiences in any part of the world.

But you must have the creativity of mind, to adapt those solutions to suit our circumstances. I want to say categorically on the Floor of this House that this South African Delegation led by Hon. Ebrahim Ebrahim, Deputy Minister for International Co-operation of the Republic of South Africa and Roelf Meyer, who was Minister for Constitutional Affairs in the Cabinet of former President Nelson Mandela; not one word did they speak about mediation or facilitation.

They never suggested it; we never accepted it and mediation or facilitation did not form any part of the discussion that they had with the government of Sri Lanka.

They were here to exchange ideas about challenges and opportunities in South Africa and in Sri Lanka. South Africa, which has very substantial influence in international fora, is a partner with us. But, it was certainly not the case that there was even the remotest thought of using their services in any form of mediation or facilitation. That is completely incorrect.

Hon. Sampanthan referred to some instances where the government’s statements are not entirely in line with the proposals of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. I wish to tell my Hon. Friend that nowhere in the world has a Commission report been implemented mechanically in that way. The source of authority is the appointing authority and, in this case, the President of Sri Lanka. Of course, in some matters, the government’s thinking will differ. But, the political responsibility is that of the government. Of course, it should be like that. It cannot be any different.

That responsibility cannot be vested in the Members of the Commission and we make no apology for situations in which the government has a different point of view. There is nothing to be ashamed of, there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

There is much that I would like to say but because of the constraints of time, I will confine myself to a few matters. I want to sharply and categorically contradict Hon. Sampanthan when he spoke of starvation and lack of drugs resulting in the loss of life in the Northern Province. That is simply not true.

There were foreign ambassadors. Indeed, Robert Blake was a Member of the CCHA. They are personally aware. The UN records bear that out. In fact, the quantities of food that were sent to the Northern Province were in excess of the actual requirement. So, that is a total distortion and is easily shown to be incorrect.

To be continued