‘...these countries are not PERSONALLY ANGRY WITH US’ – Part II:

Petrie: A dishonest piece of work

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

When the war was being fought, our foreign policy had one principal objective: to enable this country to rid itself of the scourge of terror. The Armed forces were the principal contributors but foreign policy also played its part. There were occasions in the recent history of Sri Lanka when the war was about to be won, victory was snatched from us by the intervention of foreign forces. That happened. That is a matter of contemporary history. But thanks to the skill and the finesse that was displayed in that regard by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he was able to handle those situations in such a way as to reassure the relevant powers and to prevent their intervention in the manner in which they had intervened in the past to make a decisive change with regard to the fortunes of the war at a critical moment. That was how foreign policy of Sri Lanka was structured at that time. Now we are in a different situation: the transition from a society in conflict to a society enjoying the fruits of stability and prosperity. Consequently, the imperatives of our foreign policy have to be fundamentally transformed.

I would ask the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, - I understand that he is the Principal Spokesman of the United National Party on Foreign Policy - if you were making this decision, what would you regard as the pivot of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy right now? What is the principal purpose which must be subserved by this Island’s foreign policy? I would say, undoubtedly, without any question whatsoever, it is economic diplomacy. Here is a country emerging from the shadow of an excruciatingly painful and sustained conflict. It is standing on its own feet.

Foreign Ambassadors including Ambassadors from Western countries have told me that wherever they go in the country, they see for themselves the mood of emancipation and confidence on the part of the people of this country. Foreign policy then must feed into that and administer an impetus, a fillip to economic and social development. Because of all the problems that we had during the last two hours I am not able to give you the details which I would like to give you. From a wide range of countries such as Japan, the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China, India, Kuwait, Qatar, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, as my distinguished Friend, the Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama would readily confirm, there are vast resources flowing into this country to support ambitious programmes connected with irrigation, housing, most of all highways and railroad systems, power and energy sector. All of these are coming alive. It is being nourished by resources that are coming to us from large swaths of the globe.

Constitutional issue

This does not happen fortuitously or coincidentally. It is happening because of a foreign policy that is appropriate to the needs of the time. The needs of today are quite different from the needs as they existed during the conflict. So, in the transformed situation, we have had to revamp our foreign policy in order to make our country the worthy recipient of these substantial material resources which we are today benefiting from.

The Hon. Lakshman Kiriella said that he wants me to reply instantly because he thought that I would run away from his question. I have no intention of doing it. Although it is not directly relevant to our foreign policy, since he asked me the question, I will reply very briefly to that. He asked me a question on a Constitutional issue which has already been dealt with quite extensively by the distinguished Speaker, the Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa as well as his predecessor the Hon. Anura Bandaranaike. But, my specific answer to his question is this. Whether this House accepts a ruling of the Supreme Court depends on a variety of considerations. In the particular context that he envisaged, I think, the governing provision is contained in Article 4 (c) of the Constitution, which basically says that judicial power is exercised by Parliament through courts and tribunals established by law in the generality of matters. That is the rule. But there is an exception and the exception is set out in this way. I quote:

“….except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.”

You have a legal background yourself. I would like you to consider particularly the phrase ‘Powers of Parliament’ where that is concerned, judicial power is exercised directly by this august Assembly, not obliquely or indirectly, through the courts. It is exercised directly by this Parliament and if any ruling by the court detracts from that or is inconsistent with that, then, in my respectful submission, that ruling is not binding on Parliament. As you said, the Constitutional instrument is supreme. Here is the Constitution and that is what the Constitution says. So, if any ruling by the court purports to derogate from the powers of Parliament as they are enshrined in Article 4 (c) and in respect of which direct exercise of judicial power is given to this body and to no other, then we are bound to uphold the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the Republic.

Petrie Report

That is my respectful answer to him. -(Interruption)- Please, I cannot get into a debate because I have to answer other questions also which relate to foreign policy.

I am genuinely sorry about the speech that was made by my friend, the Hon. R. Sampanthan, one of the longest serving Members of this House for whom I have great respect. And it is a matter for deep regret that he is not even present here to listen to what I have to say in answer to him. The Hon. R. Sampanthan found fault with my Ministry for criticizing the ‘Petrie Report.’ What else would any self-respecting nation do? That, I say, is a dishonest piece of work and I say that without fear of contradiction. It is a dishonest piece of work. It is not just mistaken but it is dishonest.

First of all, it was leaked and that is not the way we expect the United Nations system to work. We may be small; we may not be a very wealthy nation but we are also Members of the United Nations. We have been Members since 1952. We expect dignity and equality of treatment. That was very shoddy behaviour on the part of the authors of that report. They leaked it, and then they commented on their own leak. What did they do next? They redacted - That is the word used, ‘redacted’. That is, they blacked out portions of the report. That is, a report was prepared and then they decided to expunge from the report any paragraph which could entail any conceivable benefit to this country as a result of interpretation or construction. They blacked it out. So you have the report, you have the redacted portions and you have the expurgated version, which was arrived at in consequence of a thoroughly dishonest process and I do not mince my words about that.

What is said in that report? The Hon. R. Sampanthan quoted figures about food and medicine sent to the North. That is contradicted by Neil Buhne who is a Canadian and he was in charge of the United Nations operation in this country at that time. Contemporaneous reports prepared, not by the government of Sri Lanka but by the highest officials of the UN system in this country are in flat contradiction to what Petrie has to say. The Hon. R. Sampanthan expects me not to contradict that report and not to criticize that. Certainly, I have no intention of complying with his wishes in the matter.

Human Rights Council

Then, this is very sad. The Hon. R. Sampanthan said this. I was so appalled that I actually took it down. He is not talking about me personally or even the government. He is talking of this nation. This is what he said. I quote:

“You will sink more and more into the mire.”

Now, any kind of fiendish delight in that calamity to befall this nation is something to be deeply regretted; to be sad about; not to gloat over; not to be jubilant about. But as long as we are responsible for the affairs of this nation, we will do everything in our power to prevent that calamity from manifesting itself. I would like to tell the Hon. Sampanthan for whom I have genuine respect that this is really the wrong way to set about things.

I read a statement three days ago in the media made by an Hon. Member of Parliament of the Tamil National Alliance calling upon countries that are assisting Sri Lanka to suspend aid. “Stop aid”, so says the Member of the Tamil National Alliance.

Before the Human Rights Council Meeting that was held in March this year, there was a delegation of the Tamil National Alliance that visited Washington. They had some meetings with the Department of State and one of the Members of the TNA on his return to Sri Lanka made a statement to the media. Believe it or not, it really happened. He implied that the resolution that was moved against Sri Lanka was instigated by the TNA delegation. They spoke to the State Department and they persuaded the State Department to come up with that resolution against Sri Lanka.

Now, we have reports in the press that the Tamil National Alliance is proposing to visit Washington once more, and no doubt to work towards some further mischief when the Human Rights Council convenes in March this year.

I would like to ask, is this the way to sort out a problem? If the people of this country believe on reasonable grounds that if aid is stopped, resolutions are passed and problems arise with regard to trade and other relationships, all of this is manipulated, engineered and initiated by the Tamil National Alliance, does that help to bring about, an atmosphere which is conducive to resolving a problem, which this country, to its great detriment, has had to live with for a very long time? Who is obstructing a solution? I mean, you have to create circumstances that are conducive to forward movement with regard to so volatile a matter. Is the TNA really doing it or is it doing the exact opposite of that? It is a great pity that the Hon. R. Sampanthan, having delivered himself of all these condemnations and denunciations, does not even think it worthwhile to turn up here in the evening, as the Hon. Lakshman Kiriella has done, to listen to what the government has to say in reply to his arguments. I am conscious, Sir, of constrains with regard to time.

International law

The Hon. Sajith Premadasa raised some questions. The Hon. Sajith Premadasa is not somebody I would like to criticize. As an older person and as a person who has taught many people, I would like to say this. I do not think quotations in a speech are the main thing - to quote Adam Smith, Abraham Lincoln and so on. A man must construct his own speeches. You use quotations only to buttress what you say. Quotations can be got from a thesaurus and they are available in Penguins and Pelicans. I do not think that that is the hallmark of a great speech.

To be continued