MAINTAINS the pressures before the country are not difficult to be overcome and claims the government will only respond to concerns of governments and not individuals following closely with the retraction issued by theUS State Department on the claims made by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on the use of rape as a tactic of war by the Sri Lankan government recently.
Q: Despite admitting that it had no evidence of rape used as a weapon of war as claimed by Secretary Clinton, the State Department claims that the US government and international human rights groups over the years had detailed "numerous cases of rape and sexual violence in Sri Lanka, particularly acts committed against women held in detention by the government.’ How does the govt. respond to this allegation?
What we saw was the correction she made to the statement made at the Security Council, and that was very precise and targeted and our protest too was meant for that. When I called the US ambassador I highlighted the need for this correction to be made. The Ambassador had different views and she tried to explain so but we stood well in terms of facts. Statements must contain facts; more so when they’re concerned with countries unlike with individuals.
In the history of Sri Lanka’s conflict there has not been the use of rape as a tactic of war. And then she wanted to cite the State Department report on human rights and my recollection of that was that there was no such naming in those reports either and therefore wanted a retraction. I must appreciate the retraction came within 24 hours.
But again even in that statement certain extraneous factors have been brought in. I’ve been maintaining our protest on those wordings because what the government was interested in was a total retraction. These are again issues we can still respond to. We can respond to extra judicial killings, but we have to know what these instances are. If there are any other concerns of human rights violations everything is an incident relating to a violation. So we can only go by those violations. But what is to be welcome is the US’s engagement of Sri Lanka in terms of its democratic rights. I don’t therefore think that there are any other contentious areas.
Q: But what is the justification for making these claims if there is no basis for them?
This is why I say that we totally deny these claims. Because in the absence of any evidence cited all one can say is that we totally deny any space for such accusations. Beyond that the government of Sri Lanka is ready to respond to each one of these but whether we’re going to enter in to any such debate is a matter we like to leave because they have issued a retraction and have conceded that this was a wrong statement. On the other hand as and when they cite such instances of violations we are ready to meet them as and when they are directed.
Q: Where does all this leave the relations between Sri Lanka and the US? Is there any strain put on the relation by these actions of individuals?
Not at all. If you read the concluding paragraph of that letter, engagement in terms of a lasting solution to the conflict which the President has also spoken of. We couldn’t have spoken of such a thing and sustainable peace in the absence of power countering terrorism. Countering terrorism made the way for us to go forward in terms of addressing the political process. Whether it is the US, UK or any other country suggesting the prioritisation of that as a means of sustainable peace is something we will always welcome. We would take this in the right spirit. We are aware that these governments wouldn’t be suggesting these things if we hadn’t defeated terrorism. Such acceptance means that we have achieved the ability to take this process forward. We now have enough space to address these issues.
Q:The letter says that Washington remains concerned about extrajudicial killings, disappearances and detainee abuse in Sri Lanka and that Secretary Clinton ‘believes that Sri Lanka must focus to the future and move forward on the promotion of peace and the protection of human rights.’ Would you say this was not a priority with the government right now?
Isn’t it an advocacy of every one of us wanting to go forward? The APRC is trying to work out a formula for sustainable peace to be achieved through a political process. The TNA is now talking to the President in terms of reconciliation and greater empowerment. There are political parties being formed and getting new political identities in the North. All these are part of both a local and international common agenda to see that the political path is most vibrant. We have to be part of that. The path we have chosen is a mature one. Both US and SL are democracies; this has fashioned our countries for reconciliation. There’s no need to see this situation as a hiccup in the relations.
Q: There has been concern that there was a clear change in the position of certain individuals in the US administration as opposed to the policy of the State. Is this a concern for the government?
I think individuals bring their weight on the policy of an established administration like that of the US. They merely bring their view points in policy formulations. I would always like to see it as the widest possible exchange of view points as much as having a dialogue on an individual basis. President Obama was to bring about a change to their own thinking. We have to look at it as a means of an administration looking at certain issues differently.
Q: Are you at all concerned that the initial appreciation that was extended towards the victory over terror by the government may have taken a different path due to changes in Sri Lanka’s own policy in dealing with these issues? The same countries that approved of a military solution seem to be levelling serious charges of war crimes against the administration.
Now this instance we saw an allegation of using rape as a tactic of war but within 24 hours a retraction was issued and I’m sure that whatever grey area may occur allegation by them are not sustainable to prove a point. We’ll await any development in that area before making any comment on that without prejudging the situation. Let’s see what is going to appear by way of core material supporting such allegations. I’m sure we’ll be in a position easily to react in a meaningful manner to disprove such allegations.
Q: Why do you think there are individuals still pushing such charges forward despite even a UN resolution to the effect being defeated?
I don’t think we should be undermining the LTTE in terms of their networking capacity. That network still exists because we have not defeated it outside. When it comes to such networks, one way to defeat it is to go on the international propaganda schemes. All these schemes are developed to both attack and discredit governments. This is where such networks are able to substantiate these accusations against the government beyond the comprehension of the government by the use of groups like the Human Rights Watch etc. But as a government we need not react to every such superficial means to activate various organs of the international body. When there are governments involved we will react but not otherwise. We don’t have to prejudge and react.
Q: But isn’t there a danger in waiting to react to such allegations and go on the defence when the damage is already done?
But defend against what? Myths, lies? We can only defend against a position. It’s not a case of defending like what happened with the charges of rape. There’s no defending when there are only charges, but disprove them as we did. Speculation is something that can always come on a continuous process, but accusations come differently and we’re always ready to dislodge them.
Q: How does the government view the UK Development Minister Mike Foster’s claims that UK funding could not support people ‘simply being transferred from existing ‘closed’ camps to new closed camps’ and that UK would only fund life-saving emergency interventions in the existing ‘closed’ camps. He says that many IDPs have friends and relatives to whom they should be allowed to go to, as an interim measure.
He was here just a while ago and he expressed his concerns and I invited the UK to share with us the resources for resettlement. They are willing to assist in demining so we asked about resettlement including shelter as well. Approximately 47,000 people are ready to go back to the North but there is need for shelter. There is no issue of demining in Jaffna but there are no roofs above their heads. That is where the issue is. I have called for assistance in the most meaningful and productive manner in this regard. If they want to see efficient resettlement they have to help us with shelter. If we can get 47,000 out of the way the numbers in the camps will drop significantly.
With the numbers that are ready to go to Jaffna, Mannar and the East we are talking about 75000 people. This is exactly what we are trying to achieve. The moment that happens the balance 150,000 can be easily addressed. And this will ease the congestion in the camps. The camps are not confined or closed. They are open to the extent that people can go about. They just misinterpret some of the security measures we have to take. Can you ever take ever keep anything safe without some kind of protection? But don’t forget that all these places are administered by civilians. They are open to NGOs and aid agencies. It’s a very transparent arrangement.
Q: UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes says the United Nations was “extremely frustrated” with the lack of progress in various areas since the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka, particularly with regards to what has been happening to the internally displaced persons.
I think we have to go by what Lyn Pascoe said recently. I understand the word frustrating to mean that they’re expecting more rapid results. At the same time it has to be appreciated that the task undertaken by the government is an enormous one. The exodus that came has to be looked after and screened against LTTE infiltration and resettlement needs met. This is why everyone including Pascoe commented that the government has done well in terms of the camps. We all agree that nowhere in the world are IDP camps happy places. But the necessity for them to be confined to camps is beyond the control of the government. Who buried land mines and who took them as a human shelter and made them IDPs? It was the LTTE. There’s nothing hidden to the international community nor the IDPs.
Q: But what about the conditions of the camps? There has been much concern over this.
Conditions are improving. I won’t say we’re 100% satisfied. It is because we’re concerned that we’re appealing to the international community to assist us. India has responded very positively to this. These IDPs are not going to serve any agenda. The government is not concerned about keeping an IDP society.
Q: You are very confident that Sri Lanka will obtain the GSP Plus Trade concession in January next year as the political climate in the country has changed and maintain that Sri Lanka would comply with the various requirements of the EU but would not submit to the investigations urged by the EU. Is this a realistic approach given the bleak picture being painted by various elements against the country?
There were certain conditions that the European Commission was trying to place on Sri Lanka. They could’ve been addressed bilaterally. But here the EC tried to stretch it though Article 18 in the form of a more structured approach. Usually we have submitted to a more formal approach but when it came to the extension and the manner we had to approach was viewed by the government as an erosion of the good relations that previously existed. Now we had to weigh how we were going to approach it. You can’t have a dialogue and be part of an investigative process. Our answer was a clear no to an investigation for these reasons. We’re appealing to the EC to be more considerate towards Sri Lanka in its post conflict scenario. I’m confident that they will look at Sri Lanka in a positive manner. (Courtesy: Daily Mirror)
