Catastrophe that never occurred -Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

Our primary responsibility is to look in to the people’s well being,forgetting language, Socio-cultural, ethnic or religious. Our focus is on reconciliation and development. If we accomplish the goals set out for us by the President’s Vision for the Future, we will be able to overcome any challenge – be it in Geneva or elsewhere, Plantation Industries Minister and President’s Special Human Rights Envoy Mahinda Samarasinghe said. He said as far as foreign organizations go, the fund raising networks of the defeated LTTE are still active. So are the extensive propaganda set ups. The government understands that there are many reasons for anti Sri Lanka elements’ to move against Sri Lanka which could include further moves in the Human Rights Council in March 2013. In an interview with the Daily News he said that in Geneva, if the agenda is purely the promotion and protection of human rights, we will be able to answer any question as we have been doing based on our ongoing commitment to improvement in that sphere. However, if the agenda is one of pushing political interests using human rights as a lever or tool, we will expose those initiatives for what they are. We can deal with those issues as and when they arise.

Plantation Industries Minister and President’s Special Human Rights Envoy
Mahinda Samarasinghe

Nadira Gunatilleke Following are the excerpts:

Q: Sri Lanka recently presented UPR to the UNHRC and received a positive response. What was behind this success?

A: Sri Lanka has always made its position clear that its situation can be best judged through a review by its peers through dialogue and constructive engagement – something made possible by the UPR mechanism. I said as much in my statements to the Human Rights Council – in September last year and in March 2012. Our success is based on the fact that the documentation based on material and information we prepared and presented to the Council for the review clearly represented our gradual progress after the last review in 2008 and especially in the post-armed conflict phase after May 2009. We were able to demonstrate to our peers in the Council that we are on the right track towards comprehensive reconciliation, sustainable peace and prosperity for all. The promotion and protection of human rights is key to achievement of these goals. Of course being on the right track does not mean that we have reached our destination. We candidly accepted that we have challenges that remain to be overcome. However our brief was to assure the community of nations that we are making progress. We did that. The degree of success achieved is measurable by the many countries which acknowledged, accepted and appreciated the good work that has been done and our commitment to do better going forward.

Q: A majority of 24 countries which voted against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva in May have changed their stance. This is a positive sign. What next?

A: I would not go so far as to say those countries have changed their positions. Moreover, we must appreciate that, in March, they were faced with a Yes/No proposition; a zero-sum option , if you like. There was intense pressure brought to bear on some of them to vote against Sri Lanka. The UPR is different in terms of opportunity and scope for reasoned review and open engagement. Through this process, countries can analyze the positives and the negatives and the nuances of the situation.

Sri Lanka, like every post-conflict polity, has positives and weaknesses. What was interesting and notable is that many of these countries took note of the progress made. They acknowledged the progress made in de-mining, resettlement, restoration of livelihoods and policy level initiatives such as the National Human Rights Action Plan and the Action Plan for Implementation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations. These are positive steps that have been achieved. Therefore these countries were able to reflect the positive aspects of the Sri Lankan situation as well as highlighting their concerns. This is, to my mind, a much more constructive approach rather than bringing resolutions that are unifocal and highlight one aspect to the exclusion of all others. It is indeed ironic that the March Resolution was urging us to do what was already in process. A fact that we proved in May 2012 with a definite outcome in terms of the LLRC Task Force and by July when the Cabinet endorsed the LLRC Action Plan. We had also invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights almost a year earlier. In pursuance of that we facilitated a visit by a team of her officials in September this year. The March resolution was superfluous, ill-timed, misconceived and unwarranted in every respect. Many of the 24 countries that felt compelled to support that initiative, acknowledged Sri Lanka’s gains but also registered some issues on which they would like to see further progress. In the future we will continue to engage with these countries – as we will with all our peers – within and outside the Human Rights Council and reassure them that we are working on these matters of common concern.

Q: In a recent report, the UN stated that it failed to protect civilians in Sri Lanka. Please comment.

A: This report arises out of and is mandated by the UNSG’s Panel of Experts’ Report which we believe is a personal initiative of the UN Secretary-General. The UN Secretary-General in his wisdom is free to commission and accept any review which is the outcome of his personal initiative to advise himself. This is, at first glance, a purely internal matter for the UNSG and the UN system. However, if there are misrepresentations of fact that have crept into this report, which impact adversely on the image of Sri Lanka, especially given that the UNSG has seen fit to make the report public, it is my view that these misrepresentations should be pointed out. Many of the controversial matters which are in the report have been repeatedly explained by the government of Sri Lanka,including in my recent statement during the UPR. The UN Resident Coordinator and Heads of Respective Agencies supplemented the efforts of government to provide humanitarian relief and assistance during the conflict and afterwards. The bulk of the responsibility was undertaken by the government, which is as it should be.

Our main interest – protection of non-combatant civilians – was common ground. We were committed to work together and maximize our resources for the benefit of conflict-affected people. Of course, we had our differences, but we evolved unique mechanisms to resolve those differences and did work together in the larger interest of preventing the so-called ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ that was predicted, by LTTE propagandists and their supporters, among others. That ‘catastrophe’ never came to pass during the conflict or in its aftermath.

I have personal experience through chairing the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA) which brought together government (at local and central levels), the UN system, INGOs and even key diplomatic representation which discussed and resolved many important issues. The final outcome is that nearly 300,000 persons, nearly 12,000 ex-combatants (among them 594 child combatants), were received, housed, fed, taken care of and have now been largely resettled. If this is not protection of civilians, I fail to understand what is meant by that term. Even the ex-combatants were processed through a legally mandated rehabilitation programme, reunited with their families and reintegrated into society.

Q: Sri Lanka is now looking forward to receiving full approval of the UNHRC in March 2013. Is there any possibility of bringing in another resolution against Sri Lanka at the same time by anti Sri Lankan elements?

A: I cannot speak for the motivations or machinations of the anti-Sri Lanka elements. We understand that there are many reasons for their moves against Sri Lanka which could include further moves in the Human Rights Council in March 2013. Our best efforts should be put into making real improvements on the ground. After all our primary responsibility is to all the people in Sri Lanka – whatever language they speak, whatever their socio-cultural, ethnic or religious background may be or wherever they live. Our focus is on reconciliation and development and, if we accomplish the goals set out for us by the President’s vision for the future, we will be able to withstand any challenge – be it in Geneva or elsewhere. In Geneva, if the agenda is purely the promotion and protection of human rights, we will be able to answer any question as we have been doing based on our ongoing commitment to improvement in that sphere. However, if the agenda is one of pushing political interests using human rights as a lever or tool, we will expose those initiatives for what they are. We can deal with those issues as and when they arise.

Q: According to recent media reports, Ban-Ki-moon may appoint another panel of experts to advise the world body on `Accountability Issues’ relating to possible human rights abuse in Sri Lanka. Please comment.

A: I have no information regarding any second panel. The UNSG’s conduct is not for me to comment on. However, I must stress that the LLRC has identified over 50 alleged incidents of violations of humanitarian law which are being gone into by a domestic inquiry. Many of the persons alleging violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were free to come before the LLRC and make any allegations and proffer any evidence they had. However, many of them failed to do so. Some notables among the international non-governmental organizations were invited to share their evidence but they refrained from placing this evidence before the LLRC but continue to speculate publicly on these issues. In my view, the LLRC provided the best opportunity to initiate an inquiry into any such allegation. Of course, the LLRC took basic steps to ensure the probity and integrity of the evidence it received. In contrast, the UNSG’s panel procured its ‘evidence’ through a blanket of anonymity for 20 years for those giving testimony. Hearsay, conjecture and repetition of Diaspora propaganda spouted by LTTE apologists and proxies is hardly credible evidence.

Q: The anti- Sri Lanka campaign launched by certain elements, including local and foreign organizations has not ended. They use human rights as their main tool. Is there any change in their behaviour when comparing the past and the present?

A: Civil society has a role to play in any mature democracy. However, they must be wary of external motivators who prompt them into engaging in activity which becomes overtly political. If they wish it is, of course, open to them to register political parties and pursue that line of popular political advocacy. However, if they want to straddle the two spheres but claim to belong to civil society exclusively, they are overreaching their expectations. Sri Lanka has a vigorous and dynamic political culture based on decades of multi-party democracy. Maybe some of these civil society activists do not want to involve themselves in the rough and tumble of active politics. They would prefer to traverse the cocktail circuit, do the embassy party round and produce a well-written report or two for a handsome payout. Funding is key to the existence of these organizations and, as long as they are transparent about their budgets and activity, we have no problem facilitating the space they need to function. We have no issue with genuine civil society advocates. I welcome civil society activism and engagement and have consulted and involved them whenever possible.

They are persons who play a vital role in advocating better governance. Human rights advocacy is a legitimate function of these organizations. If they bring specific cases to our notice instead of making sweeping generalizations, we will investigate and resolve any issues. As far as foreign organizations go, the fund raising networks of the defeated LTTE are still active. So are the extensive propaganda set ups. They are playing an increasingly important role in domestic politics in their host countries. Some of them do not wish to see a united Sri Lanka and a lasting peace and are blinded by the animosity they feel towards their homeland. Others cynically exploit the opportunity to make a living out of propagating hatred and advocating ill will towards Sri Lanka. We are stepping up our efforts to engage with these groups and to invite them to visit and see the reality for themselves. Overall, I see a lessening of individual activity but a refocusing of efforts to create a negative impact upon Sri Lanka. Lastly, there are the international NGOs who dabble in geopolitics, regime-change and the pursuit of a reshaped global order according to the dictates of their masters. They use every resource at their disposal to influence opinion at a global level. Their ‘interest’ in Sri Lanka has not waned. Our response to them has to be equally sophisticated and focused. Sri Lanka, therefore, has to address these challenges as a matter of priority, contemporaneously and comprehensively, given that these three interest groups have now formed internal linkages and mutually supporting relationships.

Q: Where we stand among the other countries (affected by various types of conflicts) when it comes to HR protection mechanism?

A: Human Rights protection has to evolve according to the structures of governance, the individual characteristics of the State; the geographical, ethnic, social and religious realities within the nation state - the paradigm which we all function within. It has to encompass the historical evolution of legal and administrative institutions if it is to be effective. In a conflict situation or a situation of social unrest, a country's human rights protection becomes more critical. In Sri Lanka we have several mechanisms for the protection of human rights; the Supreme Court at the apex and the courts system, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, subsidiary bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Petitions Committee, the National Police Commission, which also give forms of redress. Labour rights are protected under a special regime. Child rights are protected by another. The Penal Code safeguards everyone's right to safety and security of person and property. The media is another important facet in highlighting rights issues. Training in human rights provided by governmental and non-governmental sources are another aspect.

Protection of human rights, in short, is not a single institutional response. It is a network of legal and societal instrumentalities that have been created or have come into being over time to address, to redress and remedy violations and imminent violations of rights. It is impossible, therefore, to compare one country's human rights protection system against another.

A country's human rights mechanism is a reflection of the history and evolution of human rights protection and the governance system within that jurisdiction. Even when supranational regional mechanisms have been created, there are still conflicts between the collective mechanism and the individual state's point of view.

An individual State must have the liberty to decide upon its protection system subject to established international standards. Hence the best assessment is through participation in processes such as the UPR - which takes into account the safeguarding of human rights standards domestically, including participation in the international human rights treaty framework, interaction with special procedures of the UN human rights system as well as commitments and pledges of the State before the UN HRC.

That is the most objective assessment that has been evolved to date. It is a process that we fully engaged in and will continue to engage in the future.