|
united kingdom
& the Struggle for Tamil Eelam
UK Parliamentary Debate on Sri Lanka
together with a Prefatory Comment by
Nadesan Satyendra
[see also
1.
LTTE Yogi on the Current Political Situation -
Audio/Video Presentation and
2.Sanmugam
Sabesan - விளையாட்டு - அரசியல் - மொழி -
நாட்டுப்பற்று!
]
2 May 2007
Prefatory
Comment by
Nadesan Satyendra
The UK Parliamentary Debate on Sri Lanka
on 2 May 2007, signalled openly the intention of the United Kingdom to
play a more direct role in the conflict in the
island of Sri Lanka.
The 'UK intervention'
was in the pipeline for several months - ever
since it became apparent that the
Norwegian initiative was failing to make
progress. Several factors contributed to the
Norwegian failure.
One was the election of
President Rajapakse in November 2005
together with his reliance, directly or
indirectly on the JVP. If Ranil
Wickremasinghe (the international
community's favoured son) had been elected,
the US backed Norwegian initiative would
have clearly continued. And the UK would
have been content to simply continue to back that process - a peace process concerning which
Barry Gardiner, M.P. (Brent, North) recalled
(in the Guardian of 2 January 2007),
that Ranil
Wickremasinghe had 'boasted' to him: 'They
(the LTTE) want government? I'll bog them
down with government.'
Another factor which
perhaps put the final seal on the Norwegian
initiative was the
EU ban on the LTTE in May 2006. Despite
Norways effort to distance itself from the
ban by its declaration
that it will no longer
align itself with EU list of banned organisations, the LTTE response in
calling upon the Peace Monitors from the EU
to withdraw, effectively spelt the end of
the Monitoring mechanism. The "good cop
(Norway) and bad cop (US)" routine had
not proved effective and in the end, Major General Ulf Henricsson, the Head of Sri Lanka
Monitoring Mission (SLMM)
criticised the European Union for having
ignored a "seven-point memo" sent by the SLMM
before banning the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
In retrospect, many in the
EU may believe that the ban on the LTTE was
an error of judgment, in that it reduced the
leverage that the EU may have otherwise
enjoyed and in fact opened the door for a
UK-India-Commonwealth role with the EU
reduced to an 'observer role'. The
international community (read the
trilaterals - US, EU and Japan) left with
reduced ability to progress its
interests in the conflict in the island,
attempted to bring a
draft resolution on Sri Lanka
in the Human Rights Council in
August/September 2006.
But no majority was forthcoming - and reportedly the draft
resolution
was thwarted by India, China and
many member states belonging to the third
world. It is in this context that the
President Rajapakse
meeting with Prime
Minister Tony Blair in late August 2006
may have to be understood.
UK Minister for the Middle
East, Dr. Kim Howells who opened the
debate on Sri Lanka
was right to point out -
"I want the House to know that
this debate ...is not, as some propagandists and
partisan elements have claimed, a debate generated by any
faction of Sri Lankan politics or by any lobbying organisations
claiming to represent any part of the large Sri Lankan diaspora
residing in Britain, pro or anti-LTTE."
Indeed if anything, the
lobbying may have been the other way around.
Mr. Paul Murphy M.P. (Torfaen) (Lab)
in explaining some of the lessons learned from
the North Ireland peace process pointed
out that "one of the key reasons why the
Northern Ireland process was successful was
that the attitude of the Irish diaspora
changed towards what should happen in
Ireland." -
"One of the key
reasons why the Northern Ireland process
was successful was that the attitude of
the Irish diaspora—in Australia and other countries to an
extent, but most importantly in the United States—changed
towards what should happen in Ireland. Nowadays, almost
everybody in the USA—such as Irish-American politicians and
business people—has signed up to the Good Friday agreement.
If
we can get the Sri Lankan diaspora across the world to have a
similar frame of mind—if they begin to
think that they can sign up to a process
and then help the people of Sri Lanka
economically and commercially—that will
be a considerable improvement."
Furthermore, in March 2007, Sri Lankan
Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona
in an interview
reported by M.R. Narayan Swamy, IANS
when asked how Britain could help, answered
-
'While every effort had been
made in the past to reach out to the LTTE hierarchy, no
effort had been made to reach out to the lower levels of
LTTE support base.'
And in
response to a question by Mr. Edward Davey
M.P, Dr. Kim Howells, said:
"The hon. Gentleman is not to know this, but we have
had quite a number of meetings with Tamil groups from around the
country. As well as talking to the Sri Lankan Government, we
have met all kinds of representatives. Let me assure him that
this is a completely balanced approach."
Given all this, the Tamil diaspora
(in the UK and elsewhere)
would have welcomed a more transparent
approach by the United Kingdom about the strategic issues raised by
the two geopolitical triangles in the Indian
Ocean region: U.S.-India-China relations and
China-Pakistan-India relations, and the extent
to which that uneasy power balance was of
significance to the current efforts made by
the United Kingdom to secure peace in the
island of Sri Lanka.
[see for example -
1.
India's Project Seabird
and the Indian Ocean's Balance of Power
2.
US views Tamil Nadu as
'gateway state' connected both to the east and the west
3.
China moves into India's back yard
4.
Another U.S. base in the Indian Ocean?
- Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement &
the Indo Sri Lanka Accord
5.
Sri Lanka’s
Strategic Importance
6.China
undertakes construction of Hambantota Port
7.China's Submarine Base in Maldives
- Gayoom Fears UK Coup and
7.Sri Lanka
President Mahinda Rajapakse leaves for China ]
It would have been
helpful if Dr. Kim Howells had
explained the United Kingdom's own
strategic (and trade) interests in the Indian Ocean Region
and its concern
(if any) at the
continued China ward tilt by Sri Lanka,
evidenced in part by
President Rajapakse's recent visit to China
and the agreements sought with China on oil exploration and
the Hambantota port development. It would
have also been helpful if the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International
Development, Mr. Gareth Thomas
who spoke at the close of the debate had
expanded on the passing reference made by
Mr. Andrew Pelling
M.P. (Croydon, Central) (Con)
when he intervened in the debate to
say -
".. We have a global strategic interest in
Sri Lanka. The Chinese are investing there, and perhaps taking
their own approach to the balance of power in that part of south
Asia..."
The Tamil diaspora, are ofcourse, not unaware
that in the 1960s, for instance the
Shah of Iran
(with US support)
intervened in the Kurds - Iraq conflict, to pressure Iraq and no sooner Iran and Iraq settled their
differences, the Kurd leader
Mulla Mustafa,
was told to pack up and go home - and ended up
(seeking and getting asylum) in the US.
Tamils are also aware that in the 1980s,
India
intervened in the Tamil
Eelam struggle for freedom to exert pressure on Sri Lanka and when Sri Lanka recognised India’s geo political interests in the
Annexures
to the 1987 Indo Sri Lanka Accord, India
called upon the Tamils to accept
the 'comic opera' provincial councils with a
Sinhala appointed Governor. Many of the
Tamil 'liberation groups' who had depended for
their survival on
Indian support, had little option but to comply
with India's demand and did pack up
and go - or to use the current euphemism,
"join the
political main stream". And the
India supported EPRLF leader
Varadarajah Perumal ended up (not unlike the
Kurd leader, Mulla
Mustafa) seeking and getting asylum, not ofcourse in the US but in India. Tamils are also aware that in the early 1950s, US and
Britain recruited and supported Albanian rebels
in a supposed bid to overthrow the Albanian communist regime
with the real objective of sending a message to
Stalin to stay clear of Greece - and then backed out
when communist pressure on Greece was relieved.
"..American and British
intelligence men who took part in the
conspiracy .... concede that the Albanian
exiles were not told the full truth.... In battle it is sometimes necessary to give up a platoon so as to
facilitate a battalion's withdrawal. If 'pawns' have to be
'sacrificed' in order to deter an adversary from aggression, then so be it, it must be
done. And in extreme cases, when vital interests are truly at risk, the victims
must be deceived." (Nicholas Bethell
in
The Great Betrayal
- Hodder and Stoughton,
1984, London)
Given these happenings, Tamils would have felt reassured of the United
Kingdom's stand on the conflict in
the island of Sri Lanka, if Dr.
Howells had taken the opportunity afforded by
the debate, to make clear his
view of what should be the 'legitimate aspirations' of the Tamil
people - legitimate, that is, in the light of international law and
standards. This was all the more
relevant because the thrust of the
Parliamentary debate was, after all,
to call upon all the parties to the conflict
in the island to conform to
international law and standards. It would have been helpful if
Dr. Howells had made clear whether his view
on what was a 'legitimate' was in accord with the view expressed by
the Gandhian Tamil
Eelam leader
S.J.V.Chelvanayagam Q.C. in 1975 -
"We have
for the last 25 years made every effort to secure our political rights on the basis of
equality with the Sinhalese in a united Ceylon. It is a regrettable fact that successive Sinhalese governments have used the
power that flows from independence to deny us our fundamental
rights and reduce us to the position of a subject people. These governments have been
able to do so only by using against the Tamils the sovereignty common to the Sinhalese and
the Tamils. I wish to announce to my people and to the country that I consider the verdict at
this election as a mandate that the
Tamil Eelam nation
should exercise the sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and become free."
And if the United
Kingdom took the view that the legitimate
aspirations of the Tamil people as expressed
by the Gandhian leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam
were not 'legitimate', it would have been
helpful to understand whether that United
Kingdom view was founded on international
law and standards or simply on the
exigencies of real politick. Here, it would have also been helpful if Dr. Howells had expressed his
response to
the view of Yelena
Bonner (widow of Andrei Sakharov) that "the
inviolability of a country's borders against
invasion from the outside must be clearly
separated from the right to statehood of any
people within a state's borders."
Be that as it all may, given the
continuing
murderous
onslaught by Sri Lanka on the
people of Tamil Eelam, and the suffering being
endured by their 'udan pirapukal' back in their
homeland, it will be understandable if
some Tamils in the diaspora (to whom the UK
intervention was partly addressed)
feel
that their response to the UK Parliamentary
debate should be on the lines of the
teen age
girl's response in the pebble story. They
may feel that somethings are best left
unsaid and that the way forward is to avoid
engaging the
international community on its own strategic
imperatives and the underlying rationale for
its actions. These Tamils may feel that
their way is the
'anuku murai' - the diplomatic way, the
effective way to 'approach'
issues. They may feel that that is the best way
to obtain some succour for their 'udan pirapukal'
back in their homeland at a time of great
need. And they may well be right.
But at the same time it
may be well to remember that the international community is
not without sufficient
'skills' and resources to respond to the Tamil 'anuku murai' with
their own 'anuku murai' (particularly, at
this time of great need) and advance their own agenda.
There may be, therefore, a need to take care that
the Tamil people are not led to believe that all that
has to be done is to wake up the
international community to the facts and to the justice of our cause and
all will be well. Or worse still, so confuse the Tamil people that they accept the assessments of
the international community (as to what is a
'legitimate aspiration' and what is not) as
the assessments of a
disinterested good samaritan, concerned simply
to secure peace, justice and human rights
for a distant people in a far off
island in the Indian ocean.
Such confusion, far from paving the way
forward to a just peace may simply lead the Tamil diaspora up a garden path
to
comic opera reforms. After all, it is
not that we have not
been there before. Three years
ago on 3 May 2003, Mamanithar Dharmeretnam Sivaram
writing
on the Folly of Eelam Punditry warned -
"..Today it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that India and the US-UK-Japan
Bloc are trying to influence and manage Sri Lanka's peace process to promote
and consolidate their respective strategic and economic interests...From 1983 to 86, it was taboo among Tamils to
propagate the truth that India
was exploiting their cause to gain a foothold in Sri Lanka. The few who
dared to speak about India's hegemonistic designs were admonished not to be
too rash lest we provoke Delhi's ire and cause a disruption in the weapons
handouts by the RAW....The price the Tamil liberation movement as a whole had to pay for not
educating the people about the truth of India's intentions was high.
At this juncture, even a doddering dullard would find the deja vu inescapable...The Tamil nation cannot afford to make the same mistake again...
"
The Tamil nation cannot
afford to make the same mistake again.
Strategic interests do not disappear because
they are unstated. It was a British
Foreign Secretary,
Lord Palmerston
(1784-1865) who remarked famously 150 years ago "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our
interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our
duty to follow." These are words of wisdom which are not
irrelevant to the Tamil people as well - and Tamils,
whether in the diaspora or elsewhere, will be right to pay
careful attention to the words of Tamil Eelam
leader Velupillai Pirabakaran uttered some 14 years ago
-
"...We are fully
aware that the world is not rotating on the axis
of human justice. Every country in this world
advances its own interests. It is the economic
and trade interests that determine the order of
the present world, not the
moral law of justice
nor the rights of people.
International relations and diplomacy between
countries are determined by such interests...."
Velupillai Pirabaharan, Maha Veera Naal Address
- November 1993
All this is not to say that
the Tamil people should
dismiss the statements made in the UK Parliamentary debate
on Sri Lanka.
They should not. It is simply to say
that they should place
these statements in the context of the
often unstated strategic interests of those who
are now concerned to play a more overt
interventionist role in the Tamil Eelam
struggle for freedom. It is only then that
the Tamil people will be able to secure solid ground
under their feet, stand perpendicular and
explore in a meaningful way, with the
international community (including India),
the ways of getting to yes in the island of
Sri Lanka.
Here,
Dr. Kim
Howells remarks on the proscription of the
LTTE are noteworthy. He said
"We have repeatedly
urged the LTTE to move away from the
path of violence. In the absence of a
full renunciation of terrorism in deed
and word, there can be no question of
reconsidering its proscribed status."
It would have been helpful if Dr.Howells had
made clear whether the LTTE should renounce 'violence' or
'terrorism' or whether he was using the two words
synonymously. Many in the Tamil diaspora may feel that
we
obfuscate when we conflate the two words
'terrorism' and 'violence'. The Cuban
revolution was violent but it was not
terrorism. The war against Hitler was
violent but it was not terrorism. The
question that may need to be addressed is
whether there are any circumstances in which a
people ruled by an alien people
may lawfully
resort to arms to resist that alien rule and
secure freedom. And if all resort to violence to secure political ends is
not terrorism then, we may need
to address the question:
what is terrorism? And
we must avoid an Alice in Wonderland
approach to the definition of terrorism -
 "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful
tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'. 'The question is,'
said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things'. 'The question is,'
said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all'."
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carrol -
Through the Looking Glass, c.vi
It would have been helpful if Dr.Howells
had recognised the need to address the issue
raised in the
Final Report of UN Special Rapporteur Kalliopi K. Koufa
on
Terrorism and Human Rights in June 2004
- "The most problematic issue relating to terrorism and armed conflict
is distinguishing terrorists from
lawful combatants"
- and openly accept the need for the
United Kingdom to review the
proscription of the LTTE so that UK domestic law
may accord with the European Convention on
Human Rights as well as international law
and standards concerning the right
of a people to take up arms to free
themselves from oppressive alien rule.
Said that, both
the Minister for the Middle East, Dr. Kim Howells
and
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International
Development, Mr. Gareth Thomas,
were right to give expression to the United
Kingdom's desire for "a
peaceful solution to the conflict"
in the island of Sri Lanka.
But,
peace, like everything else, comes in different sizes and shapes. There is the peace of
the graveyard and the peace of servile surrender. There is the peace of appeasement and
peace with honour. There is also lasting peace - lasting because it is just. But what does
justice mean? An empty platitude devoid of meaning? A meaningless cliche meaning anything
and everything? A useful weapon in the politician's armoury of rhetoric? High sounding
morality which serves to cloak the pursuit of mean political advantage?
In the end, the question is
whether the Tamil people and the Sinhala
people sitting together as equals can agree
upon political structures which secure the
equality and freedom of each people and
which address not only the aspirations but
also the concerns, the fears, and the
apprehensions of each.
It is for the Tamil people
and the Sinhala people to be unafraid to
have a continuing, open and honest
conversation with each other and in this way
help mobilise a critical mass of people
committed to secure justice and democracy in
the island - a democracy where no one people
rule another.
Here, we need to avoid perpetuating
the
Singer error. Faced with diametrically opposed positions, it is easy to conclude that the only way out is to explore the whole area
in the continuum between 'Independent Tamil Eelam' at one end and 'Unitary Sri
Lanka' at the other end. This then is the path of district councils, provincial councils, regional
councils, the unit of devolution, the extent of devolution, federalism, and confederation
- a path which has ended in failure, time and again.
We need to
think out
of the box. And of those who talk about
federalism, we may want to ask who is to
federate with whom? It is a question that
may help to focus minds.
The struggle for Tamil
Eelam is not about 'very moderate devolution' or 'modest
devolution' or 'significant devolution'. It is not about devolving power from
the higher to the lower. It is not about devolution. Period.
".. if the minority
group seeks to be self-governing, or to
secede from the larger state, increased
representation at the centre will not be
satisfactory. The problem in this case
is that the group does not identify with
the centre, or want to be part of that
political community...One conclusion
that can be drawn is that, in some
cases, secession/partition of the two
communities, where that option is
available, is the best outcome
overall. .."
Normative
justifications for liberal nationalism - Margaret Moore, 2001
The struggle for Tamil Eelam is about
freedom
from alien Sinhala rule. It is not about securing benevolent Sinhala rule.
At the same time, the struggle for Tamil
Eelam is also about how two free peoples may associate with each other in equality, in freedom
and in peace. And not much is
gained by straight jacketing a
negotiating process on the basis of
old ideas and conceptual models.
After
three hundred years of wars and two world
wars, the countries in Europe have moved
towards an European Union - a new conceptual
model which had not existed earlier but
which addressed the desire of the peoples of
Europe to live in equality, in freedom and
in peace. It should not be
beyond the political will of the Tamil
people and the Sinhala people to
work out a legal framework for two
free and independent peoples to co-exist - a
legal framework where they may pool their
sovereignty in certain agreed areas, so that
they may co-exist in peace.
The demand
for an independent Tamil Eelam is
not negotiable. It is not negotiable because
it is the expression of the
settled will of the Tamil people,
consolidated
by
struggle and suffering and fertilised by
thousands of Tamil lives - and above all, because it is
a will directed to
create a future where they and their
children and their children's children may
live in security, in freedom and with
thanmaanam. Yes,
we too, are a people - and a meaningful negotiating
process cannot begin without understanding
not only the Tamil mind but also the Tamil
heart.
The demand
for an independent Tamil Eelam is not
negotiable - but an independent Tamil
Eelam can and will negotiate. A meaningful
negotiating
process will need to telescope two
stages - independence and beyond independence. Yes,
beyond independence. It is only the independent who may negotiate the terms on
which they may agree to be inter-dependent. And there is
much to negotiate about. And the Tamil diaspora will have reason
to remind themselves again of the words of Velupillai Pirabaharan which provided the theme
for the International Federation
of Tamils Conference
"Towards a Just Peace" in London in 1992, some 15 years ago:
"It is the Sri Lankan government which has failed to learn the lessons
from the emergence of the
struggles for self
determination in several parts of the globe and the innovative structural
changes that have taken place."
Tamils who today
live
in
many lands and across distant seas know only too well, from
their own life experiences, that
sovereignty after all, is not virginity.
But
they also know that a 'civic Sri Lankan nationalism'
will not come by the suppression of one
nation by another. They know that it will
not come by a dominant
Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalism seeking to
masquerade as a 'civic Sri Lankan
nation'. They know that those who deny the national identity of the Tamil
people are not prepared to give up their
own. They know that
to work for the
flowering
of the Tamil nation is to bring forward the emergence of a true
trans nationalism - and, eventually, a one world.. And if the peoples in the island of Sri
Lanka are not persuaded by all that has happened during the past several
decades, then conflict resolution will
continue to take the form of war - directed
to change minds and hearts. And debates
whether in the House of Commons or elsewhere
may not be of much avail.
From the Hansard, 2 May 2007
links and comments by
tamilnation.org
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells):
I beg to
move, That this House do now adjourn.
I am pleased to have this opportunity today to debate the
current situation in Sri Lanka, and I am grateful to the right
hon. and hon. Members present for their interest in this
important issue. There has been mounting concern about the
continuing violence and tragic displacement of people from their
homes on that beautiful island.
I want the House to know that
this debate is the result of expressions of concern from right
hon. and hon. Members. It is not, as some propagandists and
partisan elements have claimed, a debate generated by any
faction of Sri Lankan politics or by any lobbying organisations
claiming to represent any part of the large Sri Lankan diaspora
residing in Britain, pro or anti-LTTE.
comment by tamilnation.org
"...We are fully
aware that the world is not rotating on the axis
of human justice. Every country in this world
advances its own interests. It is the economic
and trade interests that determine the order of
the present world, not the
moral law of justice
nor the rights of people.
International relations and diplomacy between
countries are determined by such interests.
Therefore we cannot expect an immediate
recognition of the
moral legitimacy of our cause by the
international community..."
Velupillai Pirabaharan, Maha Veera Naal Address
- 14 years ago in November 1993
I participated in a debate on Sri Lanka a year ago, when I
expressed the hope that its Government and the LTTE—the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—would fulfil the commitments
that they made
at talks in Geneva in February 2006, which were
the first talks for three years. The Government had pledged that
no armed group or person other than Government security forces
would carry arms or conduct operations. For its part, the LTTE
had pledged to ensure that there would be no acts of violence
against the security forces and the police.
Sadly, those commitments remain unfulfilled. We have over the
past year seen worsening violence.
Extra-judicial killings,
disappearances, intimidation and violence by paramilitary groups
are all too common.
comment by tamilnation.org
Extra
judicial killings and disappearances have not (by any means)
been the special preserve of the so called Sri Lankan para military groups. See for instance
1.
Massacre of
17 Aid Workers by Sri Lanka Army - President Mahinda
Rajapakse's War Crime 2.Pon
Ganeshamoorthy: a Tamil Nationalist, murdered by Sri Lanka Intelligence
Operatives 3.
Sri Lanka Navy murders
Tamil civilians in Pesalai Church 3.
Sri Lanka soldiers massacre Tamil family of four in Vankalai
4.Baby of
four months, 4-year-old child, among nine Tamils murdered by Sri Lanka
Navy in Jaffna 5.
Sri Lanka army beats to death
S. Thanabalasingham, a forty year old farmer in Trincomalee 6.
Sri
Lanka Army murders five Tamils in Trincomalee and
many
more
The violence has fuelled an atmosphere of
extreme mistrust and polarisation, which has fuelled further
antagonism and violence. Innocent civilians have borne the
brunt. There are now more than 100,000 displaced persons in the
eastern district of Batticaloa and hundreds more arrive every
day.
There have been more than 700 cases of missing persons in
the Jaffna peninsular, and nearly 500 are still unresolved.
There have been more than 50 abductions in Colombo in the past
year, and nine media workers have lost their lives in recent
months. In the past few weeks, bus bombings have killed dozens
of people simply going about their daily business. These are
despicable
terrorist acts that are totally without
justification.
The responsibility of the LTTE for violent acts over the years
is well documented. It is a proscribed organisation under the
Terrorism Act 2000. The EU listed the LTTE as a terrorist
organisation in May 2006. We have repeatedly urged the LTTE to
move away from the path of violence. In the absence of a full
renunciation of terrorism in deed and word, there can be no
question of reconsidering its proscribed status.
LTTE
involvement in
killings,
torture, detention of civilians and
denial of freedom of speech is
a reality. The LTTE does not
tolerate any expression of opposition and its continuing
recruitment of child soldiers is a matter of great concern.
Comment by tamilnation.org
"The key objective
of (the UK based) ARMY Magazine is to encourage teenage boys and girls under
the recruitment age of 16 to move from a simple 'interest'
in the Army to a position where they actively consider a
career...The judges felt that 'the magazine is clearly on
brand and appropriate; it has very high production values
and the back-up research results were impressive.'"
Association
of Publishers 2004 Award for Most effective public sector
title - Army Magazine, British Army
Recruiting Group - Haymarket Customer Publishing
The ability of the LTTE to raise funds overseas helps to sustain
its ability to carry out violent acts and reduces the incentive
to move way from the path of violence. LTTE fundraising activity
in the United Kingdom encourages war, not peace. It will not be
tolerated, and I have recently met our security authorities to
discuss how we can counter the bullying, threats and acts of
fraud that are used regularly to extract money from the Tamil
population and others in the country.
The LTTE is not the only source of violence in Sri Lanka,
however. Civilians in Government-controlled areas regularly fall
victim to brutal attacks by paramilitary groups, often acting
with apparent immunity. Reports of the Government’s links with
the faction led by Karuna, a former LTTE commander, concern us a
great deal. We believe Karuna and his faction to be responsible
for extra-judicial killings, abductions, intimidation of
displaced persons and child recruitment. Karuna’s record is
appalling, and we will be watching very closely whether he acts
on his commitment to the United Nations to address the child
recruitment issue. We will want to see clear evidence that he
has delivered against his welcome promises. Karuna needs to go
further and cease all acts of violence and intimidation against
civilians.
There must be no question of the Government of Sri Lanka
allowing Karuna to perpetrate those crimes. If they are serious
in their desire to find paths to an inclusive, peaceful Sri
Lanka that embraces all its peoples and cultures, they must
disassociate themselves completely from all acts of
abuse,
terrorism,
intimidation or torture, no matter who commits them
or what agency encourages them.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con):
Is the Minister
aware of the comment made by the FBI assistant director in
charge, who said
“Karuna hasn’t merely supported the LTTE cause, he has
orchestrated support in the US”?
Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he answer two
questions? First, what international co-ordination is there on
intelligence to stop fundraising for the LTTE? Secondly, is
there similar co-ordination to ensure that people such as
Karuna, who have committed acts of terrorism, are brought to
justice?
Dr. Howells:
The hon. Gentleman is right: the list of crimes by
this faction is long. We have been exchanging intelligence with
a number of agencies in other countries. He will know that I
cannot go into detail about that matter, although I can say that
lately intelligence has indicated that there may be widespread
fraud scams in the country. We are not certain about that, but
they may be one of the sources of funding, at least part of
which finds its way back to the LTTE and acts of terrorism.
Achieving peace is not going to be an easy task, and of course
it is primarily for the Sri Lankan people to find a way forward.
However, the international community can help. The Norwegians
have had a central role in facilitating
the 2002 ceasefire
agreement, and the British Government applaud their efforts. It
is obvious from recent events that the ceasefire is in trouble,
if not shot to pieces. If it is adhered to and underpinned by
the right conditions, however, it can still be a good base from
which to launch a new peace initiative. The Norwegians have
worked tirelessly and in difficult conditions to advance the
cause of peace. As I said, they have our support. We value our
regular consultations with them. The Norwegians tell us our
commitment is valuable at this time. We support the work of the
co-chairs—the US, the EU, Japan and Norway.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab):
Would I be right in
thinking that the Norwegian general who was based in Sri Lanka
advised the EU against declaring the LTTE a terrorist
organisation and said that that would lead to the breakdown of
the ceasefire?
Dr. Howells:
I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether that is true.
I do not know; this is the first that I have heard of it, if it
is the case. I will try to find out for him, and if I can find
anything constructive, I shall write to him.
What is Britain doing to help with the search for peace? First
and foremost, we are offering the benefit of our Northern
Ireland experience. Sri Lanka is not Northern Ireland. It has a
population of 20 million, which is more than 10 times that of
Northern Ireland, and it is five times larger in area, but we
think there are lessons from Northern Ireland that can be
applied in a Sri Lankan context. For example, we learned the
hard way that a focus on security can get us only so far. A
lasting peace can come only if
the underlying causes of conflict
are addressed.
In Sri Lanka, that means focusing on a credible
framework for a negotiated settlement. An all-party conference
will shortly present its findings on a constitutional way
forward.
Comment by tamilnation.org
"..the so called
'new proposals' are in fact nothing new...As early as 1928, the Donoughmore
Commission recommended the establishment of Provincial Councils on the
ground that it was desirable that a large part of the administrative work of
the centre should come into the hands of persons resident in the districts
and thus more directly in contact with the needs of the area. Twelve years
later the Executive Committee of Local Administration chaired by the late
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, considered the proposal
of the Donoughmore Commission and in 1940, the State Council (the legislature approved the
establishment of Provincial Councils. But nothing was in fact done, though in 1947, on the
floor of the House of Representatives, the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike again declared his
support for the establishment of Provincial Councils.
In 1955, the Choksy Commission recommended the establishment of Regional Councils to
take over the functions that were exercised by the Kacheries and in May 1957, the
government of the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike presented a draft of the proposed Bill for
the establishment of Regional Councils. Subsequently, in July 1957, the
Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact made provision for direct election to Regional Councils
and also provided that the subjects covered by Regional Councils shall include
agriculture, cooperatives, lands and land development, colonisation and education. The
Pact however did not survive the opposition of sections of the Sinhala community which
included the United National Party.
In July 1963, the government of Mrs. Bandaranaike declared that early consideration'
would be given to the question of the establishment of District Councils to replace the
Kacheries and the government appointed a Committee on District Councils and the report of
this Committee containing a draft of the proposed Bill to establish District Councils but
again nothing was in fact done.
In 1965, the government of the late Dudley Senanayake declared that it would give
'earnest consideration' to the establishment of District Councils and in 1968 a draft Bill
approved by the Dudley Senanayake Cabinet was presented as a White Paper and this Bill
provided for the establishment of District Councils. This time round, the opposition to
the Bill was spearheaded by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party which professed to follow the
policies of the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who himself had in 1940, 1947 and again in
1957, supported the establishment of Provincial/Regional Councils. In view of the
opposition the Dudley Senanayake government withdrew the Bill that it had presented.
More than 50 years have passed since 1928 and we have moved from Provincial Councils to
Regional Councils and from Regional Councils to District Councils and now from District
Councils back to District/Provincial Councils. We have had the 'early consideration' of
Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike and the 'earnest consideration' of the late Dudley Senanayake.
There has been no shortage of Committees and Commissions, of reports and recommendations
but that which was lacking was the political will to recognise the existence of the Tamil
nation. And simultaneous with this process of
broken pacts and dishonoured agreements, the
Tamil people were subjected to an ever widening and deepening national oppression aimed at
undermining the integrity of the Tamil nation. "
Joint
Response by Tamil Delegation to new Sri Lanka proposals, 17 August 1985
"...Beginning in the mid-1950s Sri Lanka's politicians from the majority
Sinhalese community resorted to
ethnic outbidding as a means to
attain power and in doing so
systematically marginalised the
country's minority Tamils...parties in power seek to promote
dubious conflict resolution only to be checkmated by the respective opposition
which typically claims that the proposed solutions are bound to eventually
dismember the island"
Neil Devotta
in From ethnic outbidding to ethnic conflict:
the institutional bases for Sri Lanka's separatist war, 2005
I look forward to the publication of proposals for a
framework for peace that satisfies
the legitimate aspirations of
all Sri Lankans, and to a
constructive response to such
proposals from the Sri Lankan Government.
Comment by tamilnation.org
Dr. Kim
Howells is right "to
look forward to the
publication of proposals for a framework for peace that
satisfies
the legitimate aspirations of
all Sri Lankans". It would have been helpful
if he had also made clear that the two peoples in the island,
the Tamil people and the Sinhala people speak
different languages, trace their beginnings to
different origins and that the practise of 'democracy'
within the confines of a single state has led to permanent
rule of one people by another.
It would have been helpful
if Dr. Kim Howells had taken the opportunity
afforded by the debate on Sri Lanka to make clear that the
aspiration of the Tamil people to free themselves from
permanent Sinhala rule was a
'legitimate aspiration' whilst
the aspiration of the
Sinhala nation, masquerading as a
'civic' Sri Lankan nation, to conquer and rule the Tamil people within
the confines of a single state, is neither lawful nor 'legitimate'.
If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people,
for the people, then the principle of self determination
secures that no one people may rule another. The struggle for
Tamil Eelam is about the democratic right of the people of Tamil Eelam to
govern themselves in their homeland - nothing less and nothing more. It is about freedom
from alien Sinhala rule.
It is not about securing benevolent Sinhala rule. It
is about securing a legal framework where two free
peoples may associate with one another in equality, in
freedom and in peace.
Our
Northern Ireland experience told us that peace will not
happen until the parties to the conflict understand that nothing
can be gained by continuing violence. A military victory for one
side is very unlikely to produce a lasting political solution.
Our experience tells us that an emphasis on the military
inevitably means more war, rather than peace. A military victory
is rarely winnable in the long run.
Violence comes with too high
a price. In Sri Lanka, we can see that such an approach brings
suffering to the people, as human rights are eroded, the
humanitarian situation deteriorates,
a culture of impunity
develops among the killers, extortionists and torturers, and
mistrust between communities increases. That, in turn, damages
Sri Lanka’s image in the eyes of the world. We are doing all we
can to get that message across.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op):
I thank my hon. Friend
for giving way, and I apologise for arriving too late to hear
the start of his speech. Unfortunately, the previous business
ended rather suddenly and the debate began before I could get
here.
My hon. Friend mentioned human rights. There is considerable
concern in Sri Lanka and internationally about the human rights
situation at the present time. Several international
organisations have suggested that the only real solution is to
set up a UN-sponsored human rights monitoring commission. How
would the Government view such a body?
Dr. Howells:
That suggestion is well worth considering. I will
come to the question of a monitoring organisation in a minute.
Of course, we already have one, and perhaps the best thing is to
make that work rather than search for another one. However, it
is certainly something that we could discuss.
High-level engagement is an essential part of our efforts to
help with the search for peace in Sri Lanka. Last August, my
right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered to share our
experience of Northern Ireland with the Sri Lankan President,
and he retains a close interest in events in Sri Lanka. I was
particularly grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) visited Sri Lanka in November to convey his
invaluable experience as Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland. Accompanied by another expert in these matters from the
Northern Ireland Office, Mr. Chris McCabe, he met the President,
Ministers and members of civil society.
He also met
representatives of the LTTE; the lessons of peace can only work
if conveyed to all parties to the conflict. We remain ready to
talk to the LTTE if such contacts can help the cause of peace.
The response in Sri Lanka to my right hon. Friend’s visit was
very positive. I know that the President shares my wish that he
and Mr. McCabe will pay a return visit to the island, and I
understand that preparations are already under way for that.
I was pleased to visit Sri Lanka for a second time in February
this year. In my meetings with the President, the Foreign
Minister and the Defence Secretary, I underlined the British
Government’s wish to help in the search for peace. I stressed
that a military solution was not the way forward—a message that
I repeated to an MP from the Tamil National Alliance.
The
President told me that he thought that our contact with the LTTE
would be helpful.
I visited Ampara in the east of the island and
was pleased to meet representatives of local communities—not
only Sinhalese and Tamil but Muslims. It will be important to
take into account the views of the Muslim community in any final
negotiated settlement. I heard from UNICEF about the reality of
child abductions and the threats and intimidations suffered by
other non-governmental organisations in the east of the island.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Sri Lankan
Foreign Minister in London in March. She reiterated Britain’s
commitment to peace and our willingness to get involved in that
whole process. She spoke of the terrible humanitarian impact of
the conflict on the civilian population and the need for both
sides to do more to protect that population. She repeated the
message that there can be no military solution to conflict. The
Minister assured her that a credible framework for negotiated
settlement would issue very soon.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab):
I, too, apologise for
arriving late, having been caught out by the business moving so
swiftly.
I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on these issues; whenever
we have asked to meet to discuss them, he has been ready to do
so. One of the bars to a proper solution to this problem is the
ban that remains on the LTTE. Has he had any further discussions
with the Home Secretary about whether the Government would be
prepared to lift that ban, so ensuring that all parties could be
part of a discussion to bring peace to the island?
Dr. Howells:
My right hon. Friend, through no fault of his own,
missed that part of my speech. If he will forgive me, I will not
go back over it but simply say that, for reasons that I tried to
explain a little earlier, I have not met my right hon. Friend
the Home Secretary to discuss this matter; if I thought that it
was a good idea I would certainly do so. As I said, my right
hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen met LTTE representatives in
the north of the island, and we are prepared to meet LTTE
representatives in Sri Lanka if it is considered that that will
help the peace process. I hope that that is clear enough.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab):
We are all
apologising for lateness, but I was not as late as the others.
As we learned from Northern Ireland, individual issues can build
up to create a sense of grievance. That is the case with regard
to the proscription and non-recognition of the LTTE. Although
there can be informal dialogue, nothing can substitute for more
formal dialogue and recognition. Removing the ban would
undermine one of the elements of the sense of grievance that
contributes towards the conflict.
Dr. Howells:
I take my hon. Friend’s point, which is something
that we have to consider. However, I have to tell him that, of
all Members in this House, I am very much averse to recognising
the legitimacy, if I could put it like that, of suicide bombers,
murderers,
torturers and
rapists. I have been there twice and I
have heard these stories myself many times,
from NGOs and from
Tamils themselves, as well as from Sinhalese and the Sinhalese
Government. This has to be considered very carefully. As I tried
to explain earlier, there is no silver bullet that is going to
sort everything out. If we thought that that recognition would
take matters forward, we would certainly be prepared to consider
it very seriously—I give my hon. Friend that undertaking.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD):
I must add my
apologies for lateness.
The Minister clearly wants to ensure that there is a balanced
discussion about this issue, and he is right because it is very
serious. However, could not he lay out a review process and
explain how he might talk to colleagues in this House and groups
in this country, as well as to the people he and his colleagues
have met on their visits to Sri Lanka, to determine the
criteria? Some people in communities throughout this country and
around this House feel that a one-sided approach is being taken
and that a proper review process might ensure that a truly
balanced approach is taken.
Dr. Howells:
The hon. Gentleman is not to know this, but we have
had quite a number of meetings with Tamil groups from around the
country. As well as talking to the Sri Lankan Government, we
have met all kinds of representatives. Let me assure him that
this is a completely balanced approach.
Securing this debate is
part of that process, and I hope that he will contribute to it.
Our approach seeks not to take sides either with the Sinhalese
Government or with the LTTE but to try to use our good offices
and our experience in Northern Ireland, among other places, to
try to find ways in which it might be possible to help the
Norwegians to make the ceasefire work, and then to take that
peace process forward, put the issues on the table, and get
everyone around the table to try to resolve the issue.
Some 60,000 people have died in this war so far, and perhaps 1
million people have been displaced. It is a very serious
conflict by any standards in the world, and we are working very
hard to try to resolve it, but, believe me, there is no easy way
forward on this one—it will take a long time. This conflict has
been going on for a very long time. Before you took your seat in
the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker was telling
me that he remembers it kicking off when he was out there
in
1983—in fact, it was the day after he left; I do not know
whether he was to blame. We complement our high-level engagement with more practical
assistance through a joint Department for International
Development, Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth
Office peace-building strategy for Sri Lanka. The focus includes
people-to-people contacts between communities, mechanisms to
provide early warning of potential for conflict, and development
of civil society capacity to monitor conflict. We are involved
in all those processes. We believe that quiet activity of that
kind has an important role to play in these difficult times. I know that many in the Sri Lankan diaspora have been pleased to
see Britain’s active involvement in Sri Lanka. We believe the
Sri Lankan diaspora in Britain to be perhaps as much as 200,000
strong. It is important that we take into account their views
and insights as we try to formulate a balanced policy on Sri
Lanka.
Right hon. and hon. Members present will understand that
there is a wide range of views within the community on a way
forward for peace and the role of Britain in Sri Lanka. We try
to listen to all perspectives within the community, and we value
those opinions and insights.
Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con):
I congratulate the
Minister on his balanced approach to a sensitive and difficult
subject. He has been subject to calls during the debate to
recognise the LTTE. Is not it difficult to do that when, for
example, the organisation assassinated the Foreign Minister, who
was an ethnic Tamil, in 2005? As long as organisations practise
such blatant violence and disruption of civil society, it is
difficult to give them the recognition that they crave.
Dr. Howells:
The hon. Gentleman made that point well—I could not
have made it more vividly.
The Tamil community has been especially concerned about
deteriorating human rights in Sri Lanka. Its concern is
understandable—many of its members have first-hand accounts of
the difficulties that their friends and family face daily.
Earlier, I spoke about the abductions, disappearances,
intimidation and extra-judicial killings that have regrettably
become commonplace. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary
and I have made our position clear to the Government of Sri
Lanka. There has to be an end to the
culture of impunity. Those
responsible for human rights violations should be brought to
justice. We have welcomed the establishment of a President’s commission
and an eminent persons group to observe the commission’s work.
The British Government are funding the participation of Sir
Nigel Rodley, an internationally respected professor of law, in
that group. We shall continue to raise our concerns with the Sri
Lankan Government.
Comment
by tamilnation.org
Many Tamils will find Dr. Kim Howells
support for 'a President’s commission and an eminent persons
group to observe the commission’s work' follows the
line of
Amnesty's campaign for Sri Lanka to play by the rules -
so that 'just as cricket flourishes through respect for its
rules' armed conflict may also 'flourish'. The Tamil people may be forgiven if they
liken efforts such as these to that of calling upon the fox (whether local or
international) to look after the 'right to life' of chickens
in the chicken pen. The suggestion that a nominee of the
British government which has banned one of the combatants in
the armed conflict as a terrorist organisation will somehow
be seen to be impartial may not appear credible to many. After all it is
not only that justice must be done but it must also be
patently seen to be done. After
more than twenty years of Presidential Commissions and Amnesty
Reports, the Tamil people may
be forgiven if they feel that such efforts have served only to demonstrate that the answer to
the
consistent and systematic human
rights violations by the Sinhala dominated Sri Lanka government will not be
found in
more Presidential Commissions (and campaigns calling upon Sri Lanka to 'play the game'
refereed by so called 'international impartial umpires' who
will somehow disassociate themselves from the strategic interests of the
countries to which they belong) but must be found in securing an
independent Tamil Eelam state where the people of Tamil Eelam may live in
security and in freedom from alien, oppressive Sinhala rule.
Mr. Love:
Considerable concern and criticism have been expressed
about the Sri Lankan Government’s failure to support the
commission in its essential work, with which the international
community is involved through the eminent persons group. What
action have the British Government taken to ensure that the Sri
Lankan Government do everything that they can to help the
commission in its work?
Dr. Howells:
We have attempted, through all diplomatic channels,
to clarify for the Sri Lankan Government our determination that
the process should work. Sir Nigel Rodley is not somebody to
mess around with. He is a serious person, who will not take part
in the group if he believes that his investigations are being
impeded in any way. We have great confidence in him and in the
eminent persons group to see the matter through. We urge the Sri
Lankan Government to make their rhetoric on the need for a
proper investigative commission work on the ground. We shall
continue to urge them to do that and facilitate that work
wherever we can. Britain is a great friend of Sri Lanka and the dire situation
there is a matter of great concern to the Government. We are
determined to work with the Government of Sri Lanka to bring
peace. We are ready to talk to all parties to the conflict if
that can help with the search for a solution. I have spoken of
three things that need to happen to make peace possible. First,
the parties to the conflict must accept that a military victory
is neither possible nor a basis for a lasting solution.
Secondly, there has to be a credible framework for a negotiated
settlement—I hope that that can emerge from the work of the
all-party conference. Thirdly, there must be respect for the
human rights of all Sri Lankans and an end to the
culture of
impunity.
Britain stands ready to help the Sri Lankans find a peaceful
solution to their conflict that will offer a bright future for
all their citizens. I hope that the House will agree that the
Government’s commitment to peace in Sri Lanka at this difficult
time has been genuine and that it will be sustained.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con):
I congratulate the Minister on his calm and balanced
introduction to the debate. We have had a good start to a debate
on a subject that evokes passions. It is important to debate it
in the House.
Sri Lanka is a beautiful island with a population of
approximately 19.5 million people and it has been my pleasure to
visit it. It is rightly a popular tourist destination—it has
more than 600 miles of beaches, with resorts on the west, south
and east coasts. It also contains deep jungle and mountain
slopes, where high quality Ceylon tea is grown.
Sri Lanka has an ancient and historic civilisation, some of
which I have explored through ruined cities and buildings such
as palaces, dagobars and Buddhist temples throughout the island.
I am conscious of the substantial archaeological interest in
various sites, including Anuradhapura, Mihintale, Polonnaruwa,
Sigirya, Dambulla and Kandy, where the glory of the island’s
past can be witnessed at first hand.
I have been welcomed by the friendly people of Sri Lanka when I
have visited. It is therefore especially sad, given its natural
richness, that the troubles and deep divisions persist on that
beautiful island. I note that the Minister visited in February.
As he said, the problems have been going on for far too long.
The dispute in Sri Lanka does not get as much international
attention as it deserves when compared with Darfur, Somalia or
Burma. That is a travesty, given the long-standing nature of the
conflict.
Its recent history began in 1975, when a Tamil, Vellupillai
Prabhakaran, began to form an extremist wing, which is now known
as the Tamil Tigers—the LTTE. The Foreign Office estimates that,
since that conflict began, nearly 70,000 people have been killed
and perhaps more than a million people have been displaced. It
is a major conflict in anybody’s terms. In recent times, the
conflict and death rates have escalated. In answer to a written
parliamentary question from me earlier this year, the Minister
said that there were 1,000 civilian deaths last year and 40 this
January alone. I also note that some 64,857 internally displaced
persons are in the process of being resettled. That is expected
to happen by the end of July.
The conflict has brought untold misery to many more throughout
the country who have been injured, displaced or lost loved ones.
The international community should make renewed efforts to
inject momentum into the peace process. As the Minister repeated
several times, a political solution, agreed by all the parties
involved in the dispute, is the only lasting answer to the
problem.
To begin to resolve the conflict, both sides must recognise that
that will not happen by military means. As the United Kingdom
Government discovered in Northern Ireland, there must be a
political solution. There will never be a military solution to
the Sri Lankan problem.
Given the deeply ingrained feelings of mistrust on both sides,
resolution is not an easy prospect, as the Minister said. Yet we
should not stop trying. It should be our purpose today to
discuss what we can do to facilitate the end of the violence in
that beautiful country.
There is almost daily violence between the armed forces of the
Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. On Friday, three Sri Lankan
navy personnel were killed by members of the LTTE in a gun
battle in Trincomalee on the east coast. On Thursday, Sri Lankan
army troops launched an attack on the rebel mortar position in
the north-west of the country, where clashes the previous day
left 23 combatants dead. The sad truth is that similar incidents
happen every day and will probably continue to happen unless
something is done to stop them.
As the Minister said, only five years ago, the position appeared
a great deal more positive, when the 2002 peace agreement
brokered by the Norwegian-led peace envoy was signed on 2
February. Both parties agreed to
“recognise the importance of bringing an end to hostilities and
improving the living conditions for all inhabitants affected by
the conflict... bringing an end to the hostilities is also
seen... as a means of establishing a positive atmosphere in
which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution
can be taken.”
Unfortunately, from that high water mark, it is clear that a
solution in Sri Lanka is in desperate need of a positive
atmosphere, demonstrated by the working of that peace accord.
I greatly welcome and appreciate the efforts of the former
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member
for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is present today. He visited the
country in November and met not only members of the Sri Lankan
Government but non-governmental organisations and senior members
of the LTTE. His wealth of knowledge of how the Northern Ireland
peace solution evolved should be invaluable to both sides of the
conflict. I welcome the friendly way in which he felt able to
discuss that matter with me. It has been a considerable help in
understanding the problems of Sri Lanka.
I believe that the example of Northern Ireland is particularly
pertinent when considering a solution in Sri Lanka. For a long
time, the IRA pursued a violent military campaign to try to
force the British Government to concede to its demands, yet it
finally realised that the British Government and the British
people would not buckle to its tactics. Thankfully, we have now
seen an end to the IRA’s campaign of violence. The LTTE and
others should take their lead from the IRA and involve
themselves in the political process. The simple reality is that
no Government can or should give in to the demands of those who
would kill and maim innocent civilians. The use of violence to
make one’s voice heard is unacceptable in a civilised society.
Independent reports of bombings, shootings, the recruitment of
child soldiers by the LTTE have resulted, as we heard today, in
the organisation becoming proscribed by the EU, the US,
Australia and India. The LTTE seeks to justify its actions
because it claims that it faces discrimination from the Sri
Lankan Government, while also claiming that it is denied the
right to an independent homeland. However, there is never
justification for a campaign of aggression on the scale that we
have seen.
Let me turn briefly to deal with the role that the Sri Lankan
Government could play in this conflict. The Government are
internationally recognised as the democratically elected
Administration of the country. Equally, it cannot be said that
the Sri Lankan Government have played no part in exacerbating
the conflict. I think that the Sri Lankan Government’s decision
to close the main A9 road to Jaffna and leave it closed for such
a long time was unhelpful and I know that many right hon. and
hon. Members, including myself, called on the Government to open
that road during the period that it was closed.
What makes the Sri Lankan Government’s decisions unacceptable is
that they have refused access to international aid agencies,
which bring much-needed humanitarian relief to the people of
that troubled north-east region. I know that the Minister met
the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka and doubtless made that point
to him. I also met him when he came here in early March and made
precisely that point.
Political representation for the Tamil minority in Sri Lankan
politics is another issue that needs serious consideration. If
Sri Lanka is to be capable of creating a long-term and peaceful
solution to its problems, engagement in an inclusive political
process is essential.
The Tamil community has claimed for a long time that it faced
discrimination by the Sinhalese establishment. It complains that
it has been and continues to be marginalised and stopped from
reaching positions of power. I believe that the Government of
Sri Lanka should take that very seriously and should make every
effort to rectify it and foster a lasting sense of understanding
between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil population that
will ultimately lead to peace. It must be made clear that the
Tamil people will be allowed to share power and that their
political involvement will be welcomed.
The best way for the Sri Lankan Government to defeat
insurrection is to offer the Tamil people a peaceful and
meaningful democratically accountable role in the Sri Lankan
Parliament. Those affected by the conflict must be desperate for
an alternative that will end violence, yet while no realistic
alternative exists, the LTTE will continue to gain support from
their populations. The Sri Lankan Government should seek to win
hearts and minds in order to cut off support to that base and
the extremists.
I welcome the actions of the Sri Lankan Government’s security
forces, including paramilitaries, but they must be careful that
they are not seen to be abusing human rights. In that respect, I
welcome the independent group of eminent persons, which the hon.
Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned, so ably chaired by the
respected Indian judge, Mr. Bhagwati, as well as Sir Nigel
Rodley and an EU representative. The work that this independent
acceptable group could do would be commendable.
The international community is rightly concerned that the Sri
Lankan Government have not necessarily addressed serious human
rights abuses, including torture, being perpetrated by the LTTE
against civilians. The Minister recognised today that the LTTE
is accused by UNICEF and others of having recruited more than
6,500 children for its armed campaign. That is quite
unacceptable. As the Minister told me in a written parliamentary
answer:
“Officials regularly make clear that the use of child soldiers
in Sri Lanka cannot be tolerated.”—[ Official Report, 9 October
2006; Vol. 450, c. 453-4W.]
I was very pleased to hear him restate that again today.
Similarly, the LTTE continues to make allegations against the
Government. It recently accused them of killing 10 Indian
fishermen who had strayed into Sri Lankan territorial waters.
The Tamil Nadu state Government in India, however, confirmed
that the LTTE was responsible for killing the Indian fishermen.
Clearly, there is a certain amount of spinning and false
propaganda.
How is it funded? I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that
the weapons used by the LTTE have increased in sophistication.
Indeed, it recently acquired a light aircraft with a range of
600 miles in which it was able to carry out a series of air
strikes across the country, damaging an oil depot owned by Royal
Dutch Shell and the Indian Oil Corporation. The LTTE hit the
main airport in Colombo earlier this week and the flights of
three international airlines—Cathay Pacific, Singapore and
Emirates airlines—have been suspended. Evidence suggests that
some of air raids were assisted by Canadian-trained Tamil
engineers. With an economy that is heavily reliant on the
tourist industry, the aims of the LTTE are obvious. It seeks to
cripple the island’s economy with its acts, harming the entire
island’s economic well-being.
Where does LTTE funding come from? The US State Department’s
annual country terrorism report, published on Monday, suggests
that the LTTE finances itself from the Tamil diaspora based in
North America, Europe and Australia, as well as by imposing
“local taxes” on businesses operating in the areas of Sri Lanka
that it controls.
As I said in my intervention, a chief fund raiser of the LTTE,
Karunakaran Kandasamy, was arrested last week in the United
States under charges of raising funds to support terrorism and
fomenting terrorism in the United States. The assistant director
of the FBI said:
“Karuna hasn’t merely supported the LTTE cause, he has
orchestrated support in the US.”
In a similar case yesterday, the Australian federal police
arrested two men under suspicion of diverting funds intended to
go to victims of the 2004 Boxing day tsunami to the LTTE in
order to buy arms.
In addition to those two cases, numerous others demonstrate that
the LTTE has a sophisticated and complex international
fundraising network. The Minister was right in his response to
some of his Back Benchers that we would need to be incredibly
careful about de-proscribing the LTTE as a terrorist
organisation. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate
will be able to tell the House what efforts the British
Government are making to work with the international community
to root out those who would raise money for the LTTE and other
terrorist groups.
Mr. Love:
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and
I accept the general thrust of his remarks. Will he confirm,
however, that the Opposition would welcome discussions with the
LTTE, and that they believe that it will be necessary to speak
to them if we are ever to reach a settlement in this conflict?
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that my
speech has made it crystal clear that there will have to be a
political process, and that, just as in Northern Ireland, that
will occasionally involve talking—perhaps covertly—to people to
whom one would not necessarily wish to talk. Without talking to
the other side, we can never understand where they are coming
from, how a solution might be reached, what areas of common
agreement there might be or what the differences are. We need to
work slowly on the differences until we reach a solution.
Peter Luff:
I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he
will be able to confirm that our deputy high commissioner in Sri
Lanka is to visit the headquarters of the LTTE tomorrow to have
precisely the kind of dialogue that my hon. Friend has
described.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I did
not know about that visit. Any such dialogue can only be
helpful.
Mr. Davey:
Further to the previous two points, it is also important to
stress that the
ceasefire agreement that was reached a few years
ago was signed up to by the LTTE, who was very much engaged in
talks with Prime Minister Wickramasinghe. It is only the
election of the Rajapakse Government that has caused a big
deterioration in the relationships. The hon. Gentleman is making
some valid points about the shortcomings of the LTTE, but it was
engaged in the peace process with the previous Sri Lankan
Government, and it is important to put that firmly on record.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I have made it clear that I want to see an inclusive
political dialogue, and there can be a dialogue only between two
parties. That means that the Sri Lankan Government must also
become fully engaged in the process. As the Minister and I have
said repeatedly, there cannot be a military solution, so it is
in the interests of the Government and the people of Sri Lanka
that we promote this dialogue from all sides. Anything that the
international community can do to foster and facilitate that
will be a good thing. I do not want to get into the internal
politics of Sri Lanka—that is not our business—but I urge the
Sri Lankan Government fully to participate in the process.
Before I conclude, I want to consider
the role of the Indian
Government, who have a significant role to play in solving the
problems in Sri Lanka. It is clear that there is support for the
cause of the LTTE among the people in the nearest Indian
province to Sri Lanka—Tamil Nadu. I asked the Minister what
representations he and the Foreign Office had made to the Indian
Government to determine how we might stop some of the funding.
I am sure that the House will join me in supporting the
reinvigoration of the peace process and the Norwegian-led Sri
Lankan monitoring mission—the so-called SLMN. We need to promote
peace through this means. I also congratulate the co-chairs whom
the Minister mentioned. However, a BBC news report on 30 March
said:
“There was always the suspicion that the Tamil Tigers and the
Sri Lankan Government turned up”—
to the peace talks in Geneva—
“only because of international pressure and without any real
desire to talk peace...and a lack of progress seems to prove
this.”
I do not know whether that it true or not; that is the BBC’s
view. Suffice it to say that anything that the British
Government and the international community can do to encourage
the Norwegian-led peace process has to be a good thing.
There are some who say that Britain should take a stronger role.
However, I believe that the position of Britain as the former
colonial power opens us up to allegations of interfering in
independent territories. Similarly, the large number of members
of the Sri Lankan diaspora in this country makes if difficult
for us to take a bilateral role. Of course we should encourage
the Norwegian-led peace process and any UN peace process, and we
should welcome the all-party report that is about to be
presented in the Sri Lankan Government, but it would be wrong
for the British Government to take up a bilateral role.
To conclude, I have a number of questions, and I would be
grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for International
Development were able to answer them when he sums up. What
further ideas do the British Government have to resolve the
situation? How can the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission be
strengthened? In the Government’s view, does it have adequate
funding, resources and access to all sides in the debate? Do the
Government have any plans, during our chairmanship of the
Security Council, to raise the matter in the Security Council or
General Assembly? What direct representations has the Minister
or the Foreign Office made to the Indian Government, to whom I
have just referred, regarding the advancement of the peace
process or the funding to the LTTE from the main continent of
India?
As I asked the Minister, is intelligence between the EU, United
States, Australia and India being properly co-ordinated, and are
the Government satisfied that all the necessary channels of
communication are in place to do that? I want to ensure
particularly that those who commit atrocities, who are well
known, should be brought to trial, and that external funding to
purchase the increasingly sophisticated weaponry that I have
mentioned is halted, as it seems to me that it can only worsen
the terrorist insurrection.
Sri Lanka is a beautiful island—some have called it “the gem of
the Indian ocean”—with a wonderful, friendly, hospitable people,
whose suffering as a result of this dispute is a monumental
tragedy. It is the responsibility of anyone who has interests in
the future prosperity and well-being of the people of Sri Lanka
to ensure that their actions do not facilitate further violence.
Above all, it is the duty of the international community to act
in a co-ordinated way to help to facilitate a much-needed peace
solution.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab):
The hon. Gentleman has justifiably spent much of his speech
criticising the LTTE and many of the outrages that it has
perpetrated. The human rights record across the island of Sri
Lanka is among the worst in the world. While he did say, in
concluding his remarks, that all parties must recognise their
responsibility, there was little in his speech that referred to
some of the mistakes, not to say excesses, of the Sri Lankan
Government, whose actions, over time, have produced a
disproportionate number of Tamil civilian casualties.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I welcome that intervention. Of course, we should be totally
even-handed. It is wrong for outside observers to criticise one
party without examining the actions of the other. Of course, the
Sri Lankan Government have committed faults, as I said, and the
armed forces and special forces of the Sri Lankan Government
have committed human rights abuses. The Sri Lankan Government
must be clear that those are properly investigated, and anyone
in a position of official power who has committed atrocities and
human rights abuses should be brought to book and prosecuted
too.
I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) will
not think that the Opposition have a one-sided view; we
certainly do not. Our sole objective in holding the Government
to account today is to try to bring the hostilities to an end
and return the island to its former status as a beautiful,
prosperous, happy and safe place with which we can do business,
with the diaspora in this country prospering too.
Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend
the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr.
Clifton-Brown) for their kind comments.
The interchange between the hon. Member for Cotswold and my hon.
Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) touched on the
issue of human rights, and that must be set in the context of
the 65,000 to 70,000 people who have perished on that island in
about 30 years. I will deal with the Northern Ireland comparison
later, but the two situations are uncannily similar in terms of
the proportionate number of people who have died, been injured
or been displaced: Northern Ireland has a population of
approximately 1.5 million, and some 3,500 people died there.
When I visited the island in November I was struck, as my hon.
Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Cotswold
said, by what a beautiful island it was, and how talented,
courteous and decent the people, from whatever background they
came, were—certainly to me personally, in my limited experience.
Incidentally, I saw no examples of religious intolerance on that
island. Travelling late at night from the airport to the capital
city, we turned one corner and saw a statute of St. Anthony of
Padua, and turned another corner and saw a Buddhist shrine. When
I went to the north, I saw a cathedral at the end of a street,
and the sacred cows of the Hindus walking in the same street. Of
course, a substantial minority of Muslims also play an active
role in the country.
I was struck by the fact that all those to whom I talked,
whatever their background or experience, were very complimentary
about our own country. I felt that, in accordance with the deep
relationship between Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom and its
people—not least, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister,
the diaspora of 200,000 who live in our land—those on the island
were still very sympathetic to us, as a country and as British
people.
I want to say something about the small role that I played back
in November, and to share my experiences with the House. The
President of Sri Lanka had asked the Prime Minister if we could
send someone to share our experiences of peacemaking in Northern
Ireland with the Government and peoples of Sri Lanka. The Prime
Minister asked me to go, as a former Minister of State and
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, along with Chris
MacCabe, political director of the Northern Ireland Office. My
experience in Northern Ireland went back a dozen years; his went
back nearly four decades. His experience, knowledge and
expertise proved very important in our meetings.
During our visit I met the President, a number of Ministers and
civil servants, the peace secretariats, non-governmental
organisations, the armed forces, different political parties,
bodies set up by the Government to consider the country’s
constitutional future and a panel of experts, and I travelled to
the north of the island to talk at some length with the LTTE. In
all those encounters, I met nothing but courtesy and
friendliness. I also met representatives of the business
community in Columbia, who are very important to the country’s
future regeneration.
The message that I tried to get across did not involve preaching
to anyone, or telling the people of Sri Lanka what to do. That
would have been entirely counterproductive. I think that the
reason for the point we have reached in Northern Ireland—over
the whole 10-year period of the peace process, and over the last
few weeks in particular—is that the people of Northern Ireland
themselves created the peace process and the peace settlement.
Similarly, it is for the people of Sri Lanka to complete their
own peace and political processes.
In many ways, I was in Sri Lanka to tell a story—a success
story, I am delighted to say, and I am sure we are all delighted
about it. I wanted to know whether people in Sri Lanka, within
or outside politics, could look to us and Northern Ireland as an
example in bringing peace to their country. The first message
that I hoped to convey to the people and their representatives
was one that had been given to them, only weeks before I went to
Sri Lanka, by Mr. Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland’s Deputy
First Minister-elect and the chief negotiator for Sinn Fein in
the Northern Ireland peace talks. He had gone to Sri Lanka and
said what my hon. Friend the Minister has said: that no one can
win the war in Sri Lanka, just as no one could win the war in
Northern Ireland.
It is possible to continue such a war, of course. More people
can die, more people can be injured and more people can be
displaced. Ultimately, however, comes the realisation that a
military solution is not possible. I say that without reference
to either side: it applies across the board, like our tests on
abuse of human rights, torture, and all the other terrible
things that have happened in that country. I lay no blame on
anyone. I simply say that, at the end of the day, military
action leads nowhere.
How is it possible for those in Sri Lanka to look to our peace
process in Northern Ireland, beyond that central message, and
for peace to come to Sri Lanka? One answer is that there must be
absolute parity of esteem, the phrase that we used in Northern
Ireland. It means that all people must be treated equally,
regardless of their past or who they might be. Every single idea
or concept—some might be dotty, some good; it matters not—must
be put on the table. Such inclusiveness had to apply not only to
the constitutional settlement—that is being worked on in detail
in Sri Lanka—but also to the issues of language, social and
economic equality, human rights, freedom of information and all
the other things that divide people. Such issues have divided
people in Northern Ireland, and they do so in Sri Lanka, and
none of them should be excluded from discussion.
Another lesson that can be learned is that there must be an
international dimension to any solution in Sri Lanka. I pay
tribute to our Norwegian friends, who have done a tremendous job
in Sri Lanka in holding things together as best they can. They
have often managed to engage in difficult circumstances where
almost everybody was against them because they were in the
middle. This House and the Government should pay tribute to the
work that the Norwegians do, and we should also pay tribute to
the co-chairs. When I was in Sri Lanka, I met the ambassadors of
the EU, Japan, India and the United States, and our own high
commissioner, who is doing a good job.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
On the Norwegians and the peace process, does the right hon.
Gentleman think that externalising the negotiations in Geneva is
the right way forward, or would it be helpful to have one or two
meetings in Sri Lanka itself? Does he have a view on that
Mr. Murphy:
I have a view, but I would not want to propose it to
either side in Sri Lanka as a solution to things. I suggest that
the Northern Ireland peace process was ultimately successful
because it was held in Northern Ireland. There was also
international chairmanship from three different countries.
People were constantly working on a peace process. Members will
recall that people were elected to be negotiators in Northern
Ireland, and that they were, in effect, locked up in Castle
buildings in Belfast for almost three years, and they were paid,
and had support, to do nothing but negotiate. It is important
that there is that constant working at a peace process—as is the
fact that in negotiations people inevitably come together. They
have to come together because they are physically together and
they are talking together.
That issue of talking is very important. My hon. Friend the
Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) touched on that. Even at the most
desperate times over the last 30 years in this country, there
were lines of communication between those in Northern Ireland
who were engaged in the strife there and our Government. We
should read the history books about what happened over the past
30 years. At no time did the lines of communication cease. That
is missing in Sri Lanka. The British Government and our allies
should constantly press for there always to be a proper line of
communication. There is a line of communication with the
Norwegians, but another could be set up.
In Sri Lanka, I met the people who had been displaced in the
eastern part of the island. That brought dramatically home the
appalling tragedy for ordinary human beings of situations such
as that in Sri Lanka. We are talking in this nice Chamber this
afternoon, but the reality is that there are men, women and
children who are constantly and severely suffering because of
the lack of peace, and the lack of a proper peace process, such
as there was in Northern Ireland.
There is an issue to do with the diaspora which is also
comparable to the Northern Ireland situation. We have talked
about what happened in our case. One of the key reasons why the
Northern Ireland process was successful was that the attitude of
the Irish diaspora—in Australia and other countries to an
extent, but most importantly in the United States—changed
towards what should happen in Ireland. Nowadays, almost
everybody in the USA—such as Irish-American politicians and
business people—has signed up to the Good Friday ag |
