Peiris-samarasinghe differ
President reprimands GL, two ministers take contradictory positions to make a bad situation worse
It was 6 p.m. on Wednesday February 22 when President Mahinda Rajapaksa greeted his cabinet ministers turning up at "Temple Trees". That was first for a meeting together with electoral and district level representatives of the United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA). Thereafter, he was to chair the weekly cabinet meeting.
The telephone operator hurriedly put through a call to him. It was External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris. He was calling from Geneva. The time in the Swiss city was 1.30 p.m. With the government's, albeit the Sri Lankan nation's, attention focused on the UN Human Rights Council, there was concern as Rajapaksa pressed the telephone receiver hard in his ears. What he heard was news that he least expected. Peiris complained that his ministerial colleague, Mahinda Samarasinghe was not 'co-operating' with him. He alleged that Samarasinghe, who is the President's Special Envoy for Human Rights did not share any documents and was functioning 'independently.'
At least four cabinet ministers who were around could not help but listen to the conversation in Sinhala. An angry Rajapaksa sternly made clear to Peiris he could not intervene in the matter. He said, as Minister of External Affairs, it was Peiris' responsibility to ensure there was rapport with his colleague Samarasinghe, and to stop whining. The latter's role was special envoy. In that capacity, he had to interact with the Permanent Representatives from different countries assigned to Geneva, delegation leaders and other diplomats at the Human Rights Council. Peiris was in overall charge as the Minister of External Affairs. In that position, it was incumbent on his part to ensure he maintained good relations, not only with delegations of foreign countries but with his own.
Rajapaksa did not stop at that. He was even angrier that both, bickering and in-fighting in Geneva among officials in the Sri Lanka delegation were at a high. He asked about the wisdom of having Kshenuka Seneviratne, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, in the entourage to Geneva. She had reportedly had differences with Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative at the UN in Geneva. Whilst Seneviratne was perceived as close to Minister Peiris, Kunanayakam, a human rights activist turned former UN employee who retired on medical grounds, was close to Minister Samarasinghe. With strong words of advice and wisdom not to pursue different agendas but only that of the country, the call ended abruptly.
Besides the ministers, seated listening to the conversation was Rohita Bogollagama, former Minister of External Affairs and Peiris' immediate predecessor. He was defeated at the January 2010 parliamentary elections which he contested from the Colombo District. With uncertainty over Duminda Silva, now undergoing treatment after the October 8 Kolonnawa shooting incident returning to Parliament, what separates Bogollagama from becoming an MP is Silva's inability to remain a functioning parliamentarian and Chandana Kathriarachchi who secured more preferential votes than Bogollagama. A former Deputy Minister, Kathriarachchi pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful assembly near the Nampamunuwa murder site. He was sentenced to five months rigorous imprisonment suspended for ten years by the Colombo High Court. The Attorney General earlier withdrew two charges including committing grievous injury and causing murder that had been filed against this former UPFA parliamentarian and three others after they pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful assembly. In the event Silva has to give up his seat, whether Kathriarachchi is qualified in view of the conviction, remains a legal question. These developments have made Bogollagama an MP in waiting.
It seemed that any misdemeanour or past sins by Bogollagama when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs were forgiven. Rajapaksa had sighed a sense of relief when he was defeated at the time, but now turned to him and recalled the importance of engagement when it came to diplomacy, an aspect Bogollagama was particularly good at despite other shortcomings. He recalled an instance where Bogollagama had accompanied him to a world event. When heads of state had entered a stately hall for a banquet, together with their Foreign Ministers, Bogollagama had a surprise for him. No sooner the dinner had ended, he had brought along influential US Senator John Kerry to be introduced to him. "Mr. President. Your Foreign Minister has briefed me about your country," he had remarked after shaking Rajapaksa's hand. "That is what we need," said Rajapaksa. There is very little doubt in those words of wisdom today as Sri Lanka defends itself in Geneva.
In fact, that is precisely what Peiris should have done when the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton invited him to visit Washington "on a convenient date in March" for talks on the issues she raised, analysts feel. She had said "the visit would also provide a valuable opportunity for you to meet with think-tanks and our Congress to brief them on the government's intentions and action plan. Your presentation of a meaningful action and credible action plan in Washington would contribute to our dialogue on these issues and help shape our thinking about how best to encourage and support progress going forward." The Sunday Times learnt that President Rajapaksa was in favour of Peiris visiting the US and engaging Secretary Clinton.
The External Affairs Minister, however, decided he would go in April though it is not clear whether Washington is ready to receive him at a date and time of his own choice. In any event, the UNHRC sessions would have ended by April. Instead, Peiris began another African safari from Geneva. That took him to Uganda and he will arrive in Botswana today. As reported last week, Botswana is one of the African countries that are expected to vote in favour of the proposed US backed anti-sri Lanka resolution. Whilst in Uganda, an official statement quoted Peiris as saying, "External intervention at this time is singularly unhelpful and will indeed inflict grave damage on a sensitive internal process which is moving forward…" He made these remarks on February 28 at a series of meetings with leaders of the Ugandan Government. Peiris had meetings with Uganda's Vice President Edward Sekandi, Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi and Foreign Minister Oryem Okello, the statement said.
It is no secret that in the conduct of diplomacy, such actions like ignoring an invitation and going for relatively lesser engagements involving others are taken serious note of. In this instance, such scant regard is for a request made by the Secretary of State of the world's most powerful nation, the United States. If that stance was the result of an acknowledged government policy, right or wrong, one would praise Peiris, the little David, for standing up to a Goliath, the US. However, other events were to prove there was no such stated policy. It was his making.
Before his departure, Peiris, who as Minister of External Affairs, is responsible for the conduct of Sri Lanka's foreign policy made some strong remarks to the local media covering the UNHRC in Geneva. Speaking to one, he said that the Us-backed resolution should be deferred till October. This is until Sri Lanka's turn for the Universal Periodic Review where the HRC scrutinises human rights records of member countries comes up. "The government would then have ample time to implement the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)," he declared. The fundamental question that arises in a situation like this is to whom should Sri Lanka make a request to defer such a resolution? One need not be a hardnosed diplomat to come up with the answer. It is obviously to the backer of the resolution. In this case, the US. In not engaging Secretary Clinton, has he not lost this opportunity? Ironically, Sri Lanka's External Affairs Minister, who spoke so confidently about defeating the resolution when he was in Colombo, was backtracking in Geneva. In essence, he now wants a postponement of the issue.
Speaking to another local media outlet, Peiris, when "asked whether the Sri Lankan delegation now in Geneva would reach an agreement with the US regarding the stronglyworded resolution," replied that the government's position was "not negotiable." In other words, leave alone engaging Sri Lanka's perceived adversaries, the man who directs the country's foreign policy says that the issues raised are "not negotiable." Even if he did not say this as a direct response to Secretary Clinton's letter inviting him to Washington, an extension of his argument clearly means an engagement is not necessary since matters at issue are "not negotiable." Is this the official policy of the government of Sri Lanka?
It became clear it was not, when President's special envoy and Sri Lanka delegation leader Mahinda Samarasinghe made a statement to the HRC on Tuesday. It also became clear Sri Lankan ministers were taking contradictory positions on vital issues concerning the country. In this instance, it was over such important issues concerning the country's future before the UN Human Rights Council. Here are edited excerpts from Minister Samarasinghe's speech which highlight the relevant issues:
"In my statement to the Council last September, I urged that the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission must be given the time and space to complete its mandate. We continued to brief the international community in Geneva of the interim recommendations made by the LLRC and the measures taken by the Inter-agency Advisory Committee on their implementation. As you know the Commission has now delivered on its mandate and submitted its report, including a series of recommendations, to the President of Sri Lanka……..
"In our view, the Report contains a detailed and perceptive analysis of past errors, including those that led to the failure of the peace process, and several recommendations for the future……….
"The LLRC Report, on the other hand, places before us material of the basis on which the Commissioners arrived at their conclusions, which are substantive and verifiable. The Commission has dealt with and made recommendations on a whole gamut of issues including aspects of accountability -something which several of our partners and interlocutors have failed to acknowledge; the resettlement of IDPS; the rehabilitation and re-integration of ex-combatants, the detention of suspects; bringing an end to the possession of unauthorized weapons; the deployment of security forces; land issues; issues with regard to restitution; implementation of the language policy; socioeconomic and livelihood development; administrative issues; and on the need to arrive at a national consensus with regard to fulfilling the legitimate aspirations of all commu- nities living in Sri Lanka.
"I am happy to observe that advances have been made with regard to many of the recommendations in the Report. The Government will continue to address these issues in a systematic and thorough manner. Some of the areas in which gains have been made include the resettlement of IDPS; demining; rehabilitation of ex-combatants; implementation of the language policy; the recruitment of Tamil speaking police officers; the removal of the military from facilitation of civil administration in the north making available land previously used for security purposes for resettlement/return; and carrying out a comprehensive census in the Northern and the Eastern Provinces. There are also other recommendations in the Report which need to be comprehensively addressed. "The material placed before the Commission points to several specific episodes which, in its view, warrant further investigation. The Government is committed to a mechanism for gathering and assessing factual evidence relating to the episodes indicated, buttressed by a strong investigative arm. The findings thus arrived at will form the basis of a decision on whether criminal proceedings can be instituted. The material yielded by this investigation will be placed before the Attorney-general for a decision in respect of instituting criminal proceedings, where warranted. The Attorney General is currently studying the recommendations in the report with regard to allegations of violations of International Humanitarian Law. Military Courts of Inquiry in keeping with international practice have commenced investigations into specific incidents identified by the LLRC.
"The mandate of the Court of Inquiry is to investigate, inter alia, civilian casualties and the Channel 4 video footages; including whether any deliberate and intentional attacks were made by the Army on civilians, with a view to causing them harm or damage, or on any hospitals or no-fire zones. If so, the persons responsible for any such activity and to make recommendations with regard to the measures that should be taken with regard to such persons.
"In respect of the controversial Channel 4 footage, the Court of Inquiry has been specifically mandated to ascertain whether any member of the armed forces was involved in the events depicted, authentic or otherwise and to recommend the measures to be taken. A similar Court of Inquiry has been convened by the Sri Lanka Navy to inquire into relevant allegations…….. As you can observe, Sri Lanka has taken clear and definite steps towards implementation of the recommendations of the domestic process, barely two months after the report was made public. We have evolved a mechanism to look into accountability issues raised in the LLRC report, both in the form of civil and military structures………..
"In the light of this commitment by Sri Lanka, there is no justification or urgency whatsoever in floating a resolution calling for the implementation of the LLRC'S recommendations and engagement with the High Commissioner, when this has already been effectively undertaken by the Government. What we now need from the international community is objectivity in assessing Sri Lanka's efforts. More than anything we need to ensure that the process is allowed to advance unimpeded……….……
"In light of Sri Lanka's demonstrated commitment to an internal reconciliation process, including the implementation of the range of recommendations of the LLRC by the adoption of a road map for implementation as I outlined earlier, its continued engagement with the Member States of the Council and its participation in dialogue with treaty bodies and through modalities such as the UPR, the persistent request for engagement within the formal processes of the Council by some states can only be viewed with misgivings….."
Firstly, there is a contradiction in what External Affairs Minister Peiris has told the local media and the somewhat hardline position he is taking on the proposed US resolution and what President's special envoy minister Samarasinghe has told the Human Rights Council in Geneva. If Peiris wants time to implement the LLRC recommendations and says that matters relating