‘... these countries are not personally angry with us’

Speech by Professor G.L. Peiris,
Minister of External Affairs,
in Parliament in the committee stage debate on the votes of his ministry

Mr. Chairman, we are drawing towards the close of a long day which was punctuated by considerable drama and a series of interruptions. It is with a sense of sadness, Sir, that I witnessed these developments because there were many serious points which were raised by Hon. Members who participated in this Discussion, and those are points that are worthy of a serious answer. But, the atmosphere which prevailed in this House during the latter part of the afternoon, I think, detracted substantially from the decorum of the House. However, thanks to your own skill, Sir, order has now been restored, and I would like to do my best to respond to the queries that were addressed to me and the observations that were made. I think this series of incidents is particularly unfortunate because of the nature of the subject that is being discussed today.

Much more than in any other aspect of public policy, a bipartisan approach is definitely required in respect of the formulation and the conduct of the country’s foreign relations. The thrust and parry of party politics is a fact of life. But, it is the duty of all of us to try to carve out a certain niche, within which a different approach is adopted and when we face the world to defend our motherland, we must have the foresight and maturity to forget our internal differences and to take a common stand on behalf of our country.

It is in that spirit that I appreciate the comment that was made by the Hon. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe who told us about an instance when, as an Opposition Member of Parliament, it fell to his lot to defend his country, and he did so with all the ability at his command.

Constructive contribution

I also appreciate the fact that the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, who made a very constructive contribution to this Discussion, is here now at this late hour to listen to my reply.

I am afraid that this cannot be said of many other Members who made vitriolic comments, sometimes very irresponsibly, but do not have the interest in the subject matter to be present when a reply is delivered to the very points they made. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella stated that we will have no problems with regard to our foreign policy if we do what is right. He was postulating, as the total solution to our problems, a certain commitment to ethical and moral positions. With all respect to the Hon. Member, I do not think that that is a realistic assessment of the situation.

Many of these issues arise from self-interest. The Hon. Harin Fernando talked about the diaspora. What does it mean? It is a fact of life. The groups that were close to the LTTE have, today, not changed their objective; they have only changed their methods. The fact of the matter, Sir, is that they are no longer able to use weapons, bombs and suicide squads, because the war is over thanks to the leadership of the President and the yeoman service that was rendered to this country by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. So, the war is over with the help of our Armed Forces. However, these groups are still continuing an economic onslaught on our country. The nature of the campaign is different. What they are trying to do is to dissuade tourists from visiting this country, to discourage foreign investment and to diminish volumes of international trade.

Principal challenge

It is an economic war against our country. I do not think the use of the word “war” is a misnomer there. That is the situation we are grappling with, and these are forces that cannot be dismissed in cavalier fashion.

They have the advantage of colossal pecuniary resources which they have accumulated over the decades. They have a very sophisticated media network, and that is what accounts for their influence in many countries.

I would like to tell the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella that there have been instances where it was evident. I will not name countries; I will not name individuals. There was an instance where a particular Member of Parliament was hounding out Sri Lanka relentlessly every month, asking questions and then, the person concerned lost his or her seat in the Legislature in question and within a matter of weeks, accepted paid employment in one of the organizations that are funded by these people.

That is the reality of the situation. It is also a fact that Members of Parliament in certain countries who speak up for Sri Lanka are threatened. There have been instances where they have received letters saying that they will not be given nomination next time, that everything possible would be done to prevent their parties from giving them nomination. Just four days ago, there was a vicious verbal attack on a Member of Parliament of another country who visited Sri Lanka to see for himself the development which has taken place in the Northern part of the island. So, that is what we are up against.

It is not a question of doing the right thing and then getting full marks for adopting a position that is moral and ethical. These are the mundane realities: the forces of money, power and manipulation. That is the principal challenge that Sri Lanka faces today at the international level.

I would like to tell the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella that this state of affairs results in two problems. One is the lack of a balanced view. These countries are not personally angry with us. They are responding to political pressures. Every government has a political base. The government of Sri Lanka has a political base. These other governments also have a political base, and when pressure is exerted on them by the constituencies on which they depend for continuing tenure of political power, naturally, they have to respond to those pressures. That is what is happening. In consequence of that, they are not able to arrive at a balanced view of the situation here. Sometimes, credit is given where credit is due very grudgingly and the negatives are emphasized.

De-mining operations

I would like to ask you, Hon. Member, to look at any post-conflict situation in the contemporary world.

How much has Sri Lanka achieved within such a short period of time? When we consider the magnitude and the complexity of the challenges and the brevity of the period within which we have accomplished so much in respect of the resettlement of internally-displaced persons, reintegration into society of ex-combatants, the completion of de-mining operations, all of this, is there any situation, be it Cambodia or former Yugoslavia where so much was accomplished within such a short period of time?

The other problem is a total lack of consistency or uniformity with regard to the standards that are applied. This degree of pressure that is exerted on this island is without parallel in any of these other situations. The international system would be worthy of respect, if there is objectivity with regard to these standards that are formulated and applied. But if there is a high degree of selectivity and subjectivism, then, it is a political agenda and not a moral and ethical agenda, as was vigorously contented for by the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella. That is the gravamen of my reply to my distinguished Friend on that particular score.

The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella also referred to the Petrie Report. The Petrie Report, I would like to tell him-

(The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella)

I did not refer to that.

(The Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris)

I am sorry, you did not refer to that. That was the Hon. Sampanthan. I will come to that.

On the question of ethical and moral criteria, that is the essence of my reply to you.

The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella asked a very legitimate question. He said the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is a Sri Lankan institution brought into being by His Excellency the President and asked why we are not implementing all its recommendations. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that that, again, is a total misconception. The political responsibility is not with the members of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission but with the appointing authority. The LLRC consists of men of great integrity and distinction. It is their allotted task to look at the evidence, to make an indepth analysis of it and to give of the benefit of their wisdom and expertise to the appointing authority, namely the President. But the decision as to the recommendations that are going to be acted upon is a political decision. It is not a decision that can possibly be made by the Members of the Commission. They are not elected; they are not responsible to the people of this country and they have no moral or legal capability to make final decisions in that regard. Consequently, Sir, it is not necessary for the government to make any apology or to be evasive in any manner whatsoever in stating with total clarity the position that the ultimate responsibility for determining what recommendations are going to be implemented rests solely and squarely with the government of this country. Of course, we are adopting and applying the vast majority of those recommendations. But to say that one hundred per cent of it must be done, it is axiomatic and it must necessarily happen, is to subscribe to a total misconception with regard to the nature of Commissions and responsibility with regard to the implementation of their recommendations.

Arab world

The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella was very sarcastic about our policy with regard to Africa. I make no apology for that. I would like to tell my Friend that there are 17 countries in West Africa, many of which are developing rapidly. The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella may not be aware that Sri Lanka is not represented in any one of those countries. That is a total lacuna. The Hon. Ruwan Wijayawardhana thinks that when we do anything about this situation we are spending colossal sums. This is not the case. I would like to tell him, a young Member of Parliament with promise, and I think it is necessary to respond accurately to what he had to say, what we are proposing to do with regard to West Africa is to start by establishing a Resident Mission in Abuja, Nigeria. The Nigerian High Commissioner, Hon. Wijayawardhana, is already in Colombo. He has met me.

He has come here before we have sent our High Commissioner to Abuja. What we want to do is to use Nigeria as a base to establish and consolidate our relationships with the whole of West Africa. Then, we already have a Mission in Pretoria, South Africa where Shehan Ratnavale is our High Commissioner. We are using that to ramify our relations in the rest of Southern Africa. As far as East Africa is concerned, we will use Nairobi, Kenya as our base. Just as, with regard to the Northern part of the African Continent we will use our Mission in Cairo, Egypt. So, it is not wasteful expenditure, it is not duplication of institutions unnecessarily, it is an effort to make the optimal use of limited resources which we invest in a timely and productive endeavour which is going to confer very substantial benefits on this country. It is not only Africa. As the Hon. Rauf Hakeem pointed out, we are establishing relations with 19 countries in Africa. We did not have relations with these countries. Then, we are establishing relations with 13 countries in Latin America and we are strengthening our relations with the Arab world. We have an excellent relationship with the Arab world.

Foreign relations

There was a very famous Foreign Minister of a certain country who said that his government does not have friends, it has only interests. President Mahinda Rajapaksa does not subscribe to that cynical conception of foreign relations. We value our friends and we stand by them through thick and thin. And it is a matter of immense and profound pride to us that when we had to face some of the trials and tribulations that confronted us in March, the Arab world stood solidly with us.

Then what about the CIS countries? President Rajapaksa returned recently from a visit to Kazakhstan which in terms of oil resources is only second to the Russian Federation in that part of the world. Their per capita income is US Dollars 12,500. They are high spenders and they are looking for exotic destinations to travel to. This is a whole new world that is opening up. To say that we must shut ourselves from all these countries is to delude ourselves. That is an attitude that smacks of snobbery. Snobbery is not the cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s foreign relations. I also want to say a word largely in response to the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella with regard to the foundations of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy at this time. I entirely agree with the Hon. Ravi Karunanayake, that is one of the few statements he made with which I am able to agree, that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. That is certainly the case. There is no bifurcation or dichotomy between the two.

To be continued