Sovereignty of Our Country
is Non-negotiable- Sri Lanka Foreign Minister
Address by Hon. Mangala Samaraweera to the
Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament)
14 June 2006
Norwegian Foreign Ministry, Oslo
Hon. Chairman,
Hon. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament of Norway,
Ladies & Gentlemen,
It is indeed a privilege to be able to address the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs on my first visit to Norway as the Foreign Minister
of the Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Relations between Sri Lanka and Norway go all the way back to 1950
when diplomatic relations were first established. Norway has been a
major development partner of Sri Lanka for almost thirty years with
NORAD having a presence in Sri Lanka since 1977. There are at least
30 Norwegian companies who have invested in Sri Lanka in the areas of
information technology, fisheries and aquaculture, construction of seagoing
vessels and tourism.
However, it was in 1999, with the LTTE's campaign of violence becoming
protracted, that Norway, with its experience in peace and reconciliation,
was invited by the Government of Sri Lanka to function as the facilitator
for talks with the LTTE. This was a defining moment in bilateral relations
between our countries. With the assumption of this highly sensitive
role by Norway, bilateral relations reached a new dimension. Norway's
role in the Sri Lankan peace process became a prominent new element
in the hitherto economic and development oriented relationship between
the two countries.
Ladies & Gentlemen, let me take this opportunity to talk about
some challenges the peacemakers face in pursuing a negotiated settlement
in Sri Lanka. Just the same way a physician must correctly diagnose
the disease before finding a cure, the political realities of Sri Lanka's
ethnic problem along with its nuanced complexities also must be properly
understood if we are to reach a successful negotiated settlement which
would be the foundation of a durable peace in the island.
First and foremost, we must remember that Sri Lanka, which introduced
the universal adult franchise in 1931, is Asia's oldest democracy. Sri
Lanka has a dynamic and vibrant democracy with elections to the executive
presidency, parliament, provincial councils and local governments held
regularly where the transition of power has always been very smooth.
However, since the emergence of the LTTE as a powerful guerrilla organization
in the early eighties, Tamils living in the North and the East of Sri
Lanka have been gradually disenfranchised. Muslims living in the North
of Sri Lanka were not only disenfranchised but were also forcibly removed
from their homes in 1990 when the LTTE ethnically cleansed the entire
region. Today the democratic franchise enjoyed by Sinhalese, Tamil and
Muslims living elsewhere in Sri Lanka does not extend to these areas.
The right to dissent is no more and almost all democratic Tamil leaders
(over 70) have been liquidated by the LTTE since 1975. The few Tamil
leaders left today are living in exile or are under constant fear of
death.
Therefore, one of the primary objectives of the peace process should
be to re-democratize the North & East within an environment of political
pluralism.
However, the greatest barrier to establishing a pluralistic environment
is LTTE's claim to be the 'sole' representative of the Tamil people.
This is an insidious barrier to the democratization process of the North
& the East. No democratic society can accept the concept of a 'sole'
representative as the need to dissent is an integral part of the human
condition and the driving force of a democratic society. Democracy can
only recognize political entities which are tested through the franchise
at regular intervals. The LTTE has yet to commit itself, at least by
word, to the democratic process.
Those who genuinely wish to find a peaceful solution to this conflict
must also understand that the LTTE are not freedom fighters fighting
on behalf of an oppressed minority. They are a ruthless terrorist organization
that rules the Tamil people through fear and intimidation. It is in
the context of such a background we should understand why the majority
of the Tamils living in Sri Lanka choose to live outside the North &
East.
Despite the LTTE's claims of Sinhala racism and oppression, the 2001
census indicates that the majority of Tamil people (54%) live outside
the North & East in predominantly Sinhala areas. Many Tamils hold
top positions in government and private sectors. Intermarriage is common
between the two communities and many Tamils living in the South play
key roles in the economic development of our country.
Only the most economically depressed segments of the Tamil community
continue to live in the North and East. All those who can afford to
go abroad or join relatives in other parts of Sri Lanka do so to escape
from illegal taxes, punishment from kangaroo courts and to prevent their
children being forcibly recruited as child soldiers.
The LTTE are not freedom fighters and Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader
of the LTTE, is certainly no Nelson Mandela. He is a brutal guerilla
leader who has crushed all democratic voices of dissent within the Tamil
community, beginning with Alfred Duraiappah, the Mayor of Jaffna in
1976 to Lakshman Kadirgamar, Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister in 2005. He
has eliminated the brightest and the best of the Tamil political leadership.
The LTTE is a monolithic organization, submissive and servile to the
fancies of one man who calls himself 'sun god' and forces those living
in areas under his control to celebrate his birthday in November as
the 'great heroes' day.' Such behavior is the reason why many independent
Tamil people argue that Prabhakaran's true objectives are not synonymous
with the genuine aspirations of the Tamil people. The very fact that
LTTE has rejected and thwarted every attempt to find a solution to the
genuine grievances of the Tamil people, by successive governments since
1985 lends credence to this allegation.
•In 1987, the first attempt at devolving power to give the Tamil
people of the North & East, a real opportunity to share power with
the center was rejected by the LTTE. Not only was this proposal rejected
but the architects of this peace accord Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister
of India and Gamini Dissanayake, a senior minister were subsequently
assassinated by the LTTE.
•In 1993, President Ranasinghe Premadasa who negotiated directly
with the LTTE in Colombo was also killed by a suicide bomber.
•In 1997, President Kumaranatunge presented the first comprehensive
constitutional package the 'union of regions constitution' which was
hailed by many Tamils as one of the best constitutional drafts to address
the genuine grievances of the Tamil people was rejected by the LTTE.
Subsequently President Kumaranatunge narrowly escaped a suicide attack
and lost sight in one eye while Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvan, the chief architect
of this proposal was killed by a suicide bomber in Colombo.
•In 2000, yet another constitutional draft based on a federal model
within a united Sri Lanka (two years before the same ideas was encapsulated
in the Oslo accord) was presented to parliament personally by President
Kumaranatunge. This too was rejected by the LTTE.
•In 2002, LTTE walked out of the talks initiated by Prime Minister
Ranil Wickremesinghe calling it an utter waste of time. They subsequently
disassociated themselves with the Oslo accord as well.
When analyzing the conflict in Sri Lanka even the 'parity of status'
the LTTE insists on also must be understood in this context. Many participants
in the peace process have been talking about "parity of status"
between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. I want to make it
crystal clear that there can never be "parity of status" between
a legitimate, democratically elected Government and a group practicing
terror that has yet to renounce violence or show any willingness to
enter the democratic process. 'Parity of status' can only be useful
for logistical reasons and facilitating discussions when the Government
of Sri Lanka and the LTTE are sitting across a table. 'Balancing' the
irrational aspirations and actions of a violent terror group with the
genuine challenges faced by a democratically elected sovereign government
will only weaken the peace process. LTTE must be told in no uncertain
terms that violence doesn't pay and that the talking about the root
causes can never justify the horrors of terrorism.
Given the LTTE's commitment to unbridled violence, the people of Sri
Lanka are glad to have the unstinted support of the international community
as this small country of our seeks to protect itself from the menace
of terrorism. Very recently we had the European Union listing the LTTE
as a terrorist organization. It follows similar decisions taken by the
United States, India and Canada. Such action is very useful towards
convincing the LTTE that a peaceful solution lies not in the battlefield
but at the negotiating table.
Other than hardcore members, the Tamil Diaspora which provide the basic
funding for the LTTE do so out of fear and intimidation. Money is extorted
by threats to the safety and well being of the Diaspora and their relatives
living either in overseas or in Sri Lanka. As the Human Rights Watch
report of March 2006 stated, "ninety percent of people, even if
they don't support the LTTE, are scared. The killing doesn't just happen
back home in Sri Lanka. It happens in Paris, in Canada. They burned
the library; they broke the legs of DBS Jeyaraj. They tried to stop
the CTBC radio from organizing. A journalist was killed in Paris. The
threat is not only in Sri Lanka. It's everywhere, all over the world."
Ladies & Gentlemen, despite the intransigence of the LTTE, especially
that of their leader Prabhakaran, the Sri Lanka Government is prepared
to negotiate with them to find a long lasting peaceful solution to the
conflict. The end product that we all desire in this rather complex
process involving a multitude of players, is to see the transformation
of the LTTE from an entity practicing terror to one practicing democracy
and the transformation of the state structures in Sri Lanka To meet
the genuine aspirations of all its peoples.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa must be commended for his patience and
restraint since taking office 6 months ago. Despite severe provocations
by the LTTE and the escalation of violence, the President has reiterated
his commitment to a negotiated settlement. In his endeavors to find
a peaceful solution to the conflict, President Rajapaksa convened All
Party Conferences in order to establish a consensus amongst all political
parties to formulate a position for negotiations with the LTTE.
At the 5th All Party Conference held last week President Rajapaksa
requested the political parties representing the parliament to nominate
their representatives to the proposed committee to be set up to formulate
a framework of proposals for devolution of power. The President would,
in consultation with the parties, appoint an Advisory Board comprising
academics, intellectuals, experts in the field of law and constitutional
affairs, and related disciplines, to assist and work concurrently with
the All Party Conference. The envisaged solution would be a home grown
one that suits the needs of the country. This advisory group is prepared
to consider all options in relation to a final settlement within a decentralized
and or devolved framework. Only the sovereignty of our country remains
non-negotiable.
It is the intention of President Rajapaksa to go to the negotiating
table with a proposal agreed to by all parties in the south by consensus,
to be offered to the LTTE for further negotiation with them. The final
constitutional proposals for devolution of power should therefore entail
the participation and approval of all stakeholders, including the LTTE.
I would like to thank the Government of Norway for undertaking the
job of being the official facilitator of the peace process in Sri Lanka.
Norway had to deal with the LTTE, a non-state actor which is using terrorism
and violence to claim sovereign attributes on one hand, while maintaining
bilateral relations between Norway and Sri Lanka, two sovereign states
on the other. This complex task had to be carried out in the context
of a peace process that is highly externalized and publicly scrutinized.
Being a facilitator to a problem such as ours is assuredly a thankless
job and whatever criticisms of shortcomings made from time to time should
be understood in the spirit it is given. I wish to thank the Special
Envoy Hanson Bauer along with Minister Eric Solheim for their perseverance
and resilience. Although there are no short cuts in a process of this
nature, I am sure that the Royal Norwegian Government will continue
with us in the long and arduous road to peace. Similarly, we recognize
the challenging role of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission. Our expectation
is that they carry out their duty in an impartial manner. We expect
no more.
The final settlement, if it is to be accepted by the majority of our
people must be able to unite the fractured family that is Sri Lanka
today. It should provide harmony and dignity to all our peoples; it
must also ensure unity and non-division. Simply put, it must be a marriage
and not a divorce. As Henrik Ibsen wrote in his brilliant play 'the
Wild Duck,' it should be, "A marriage based on full confidence,
based on complete and unqualified frankness on both sides; they are
not keeping anything back; there's no deception underneath it all. If
I might so put it, it's an agreement for the mutual forgiveness of sin."
Thank you.
|
