British Parliament’s Debate on Sri Lanka
Letting the cat out of the bag
Part II

by Bandu de Silva
Former Ambassador to Iran

UN Monitoring Mission

One could see how the Labour M.P. Andrew Lobe (Edmonton) who did not even fully hear what the Minister of State said, (he arrived late), taking cover behind others, suggesting that the solution may be to set up a U.N. Monitoring Mission. Wasn’t the orchestration clear enough despite the State Minister’s attempt to give a veneer of impartial assessment of the problem in Sri Lanka. The State Minister referred to LTTE’s record of terrorism in general terms; but in contrast, went to name the para-militaries, especially, Karuna, more specifically, for the `appalling record’ accusing him of extra-judicial killings, abductions, intimidation against displaced civilians and child abductions. His observations were made even more emphatic after the Conservative member, Geoffrey Clifton Brown (Costworld) raised the question about Karuna. He asked whether the people like Karuna will be brought to justice. Looking at this part of the debate, one may ask:`Why only Karuna’? Why no mention of the LTTE leadership which is even wanted by the Interpol?

The State Minister’s response to the question of a U.N. Monitoring Mission was an open one. He said there was one already and the best thing was to make that work. (Probably, he thought of the Eminent Persons Group to monitor H/R.). His observation that `high level engagement was an essential part of our effort’ is significant. Though he glossed over it, the issue of a U.N. Monitoring Mission is an important one. The Sri Lankan issue is now being presented as a human rights and humanitarian concern. One who is familiar with international action can see how such ideas keep on snowballing to become all composite full scale intervention leading to Security Council sanctions and UN armed intervention. That seems to be the ultimate objective. Getting a foothold is important in the first place. An orchestrated H/R and humanitarian issue would be good enough for a start. From the State Minister’s response, it is also clear that he was responding to the views of the Tamil Diaspora in U.K.

Lifting Proscription of LTTE

Following the debate carefully, one can see that there was much emphasis to pressurize the government to lift the proscription on the LTTE, the need to `remove a one sided approach’ and provide for a `balanced approach’. The point was met by the State Minister who said that the government was ready to talk to the LTTE in Sri Lanka and was doing so; but he said that the ban will continue until LTTE renounce violence ``in deed and word.". Emphasising the point he said ``I am very much averse to recognising the legitimacy of …of such suicide bombers, murderers, and rapists." That closed the lid but the total effect of the debate is not without its repercussions. The State Minister said, if he thought it necessary he would speak to the Home Secretary (regarding the ban).

The suggestion that the situation in Sri Lanka was "more serious" but has received "less international attention" than other issues like the situation in Darfur (Sudan) (where sanctions have been imposed on the supply of arms by Security Council Resolution) and another asking if Britain which is chairing the Security Council would take any initiative, are ominous signs and point to the direction that the authors of the parliamentary debate are aiming at.

All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils (APPG)

The formation of the APPG for Tamils and its proposal to hold a `Summit’ in London of between GOSL, the LTTE, and the Norwegians has drawn criticism as more ominous manifestation, not so much because its prime mover, Keith Vaz is a discredited individual who `faded into the sunset’ after other inquests about his conduct,– he has been exposed in connection with the alleged involvement with the Hinduja family, a financial supporter of the Labour Party and other matters – and is seen as using this platform for a political comeback. -may seem irrelevant, but because it should give an idea of people behind the `holier than thou’ attitude and is a one-sided approach. It completely overlooks the other major parties to the conflict. Its partisan nature thereby remains exposed.

The question is also raised how the LTTE which is a proscribed group under the laws of E.U and U.K and on whose members travel restrictions apply, could participate in such a proposed `Summit" unless both lift the ban. The objective appears to be, to get the ban lifted in the first place, which Keith Vaz had been advocating already during the debate saying it is an obstacle to negotiations.

The hopes of Keith Vaz and his Labour associates of getting the ban removed may seem to have been nipped in the bud by the Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howell who said that the ban will continue until LTTE renounce violence ``in deed and word," but its eroding effect on the govt’s position cannot be missed. The State Minister said he would speak to the Home Secretary if he saw the need. That cannot be taken as simple way of getting over the pressure, notwithstanding the State Minister emphasising the point that ``I am very much averse to recognising the legitimacy of …of such suicide bombers, murderers, and rapists." That is in defence of the Govt’s ban on the LTTE The rhetoric does not mean that the issue is out of lime light.

Northern Ireland Model

Harking back to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) reached on Northern Ireland, which came up for discussion, which the British govt. was offering to Sri Lankan parties as a model to emulate, it has been pointed out that that agreement was reached between all parties to the conflict, not just between a selected few as APPG proposes in the case of Sri Lanka, i.e. GOSL, the LTTE, and the Norwegian facilitator. It has to be emphasized that the British government never negotiated with the IRA but with the Sin Fein and other recognized political parties, though the State Minister referred to `unofficial’ contacts.. The GFA called for the IRA to decommission weapons before the final settlement is reached. IRA did surrender weapons under verification and renounced violence. Why were these important elements

relating to the GFA greement allowed to take a back seat during the debate on Sri Lanka one may ask?

That means other Tamil voices and the Muslims and the Sinhalese who all have stakes figured during the debate but not to the extent of the emphasis given to the LTTE as a party to the issue including its solution.

Damn Squib

The British parliamentary debate, shorn of its pretensions of `genuine concern ‘ for Sri Lanka which the State Minister downwards spoke of, is a damn squib despite all the sounds it made. It is quite clear, the way it proceeded, and what resulted from it, that it was partly meant to serve British politics to please the Tamil Diaspora which is important in the local govt. hustling and also clear the stables for exposed politicians to effect a comeback more than any genuine interest in the Sri Lankan question; and partly, to appease the LTTE despite all the claims of `fair play.’

I have seen harsh comments by others who asked if the British parliament was going back to colonial days when it discussed issues involving her previous colonies. Taking up that point, one may ask what the British thought if other countries world over debated the British contribution to destabilizing Iraq and placing that country in the predicament it is facing today. I myself saw the human rights tragedy in Iraq following the first Western war in that country from across the border, the influx of refugees and their suffering coming over snow capped mountains with bare feet, hungry and emaciated. That alone left hundreds of thousands of children and women dieing of hunger and undernourishment which has been documented in UN records. In that process, the Western occupiers even captured two ships of tea on the way to Iraqi ports as if that was going to intensify the war effort of Iraq! That showed the extent of deprivation of the Iraqi people even of an essential beverage. I was personally concerned as Ihad myself contributed to the successful negotiation of that tea deal with Iraq here in Colombo.

As if that was not enough, the West started another war imposing even more hardships for the people of that country in the guise of searching for WMDs which were never found, even destroying the political organization of that state, whatever it was, and ending it up in political shambles.

Shouldn’t that shameful saga in which human rights violation of a people took place with impunity what the British Parliament should be discussing almost on a day to day basis rather than another country’s affair, as much as other Parliaments may discuss it, as Mr. Chilcot says. How could the human right and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, which the High Commissioner says, is a matter of concern to the British govt. It would have been of greater relevance to Britain where its leadership has taken the country for a ride and condemned young Britons to die in the killing fields of Baghdad and other cities? Do the British think like President George Bush that violation of human rights of people of a Muslim country is permissible on grounds of what they claim to be the ``civilisational" gap? To put it in Prof. Nalin de Silva’s words, is it only the `Judaic Christian culture of Christian modernity’ which has the right to the "civilisational" claim?

One can understand the paternal (or maternal?) interest the British parliament as `mother of parliaments in the Commonwealth’ is showing in Sri Lanka This is not to suggest that Sri Lanka, considering especially, that here is a country which has been known for her tolerance and provided refuge to many people from India and Sind, and where modern democratic traditions have held more than in many other former colonies, does not interest the British people. Those complimentary remarks during the debate were really touching! One must grant that Britain in contrast to France, has avoided playing the role of direct physical intervention in her former colonies which the latter has been doing even with dispatch of troops at the slightest manifestation of trouble. She has been sensitive enough to the sentiments of her former colonies so much so that even in a country like Fiiji, she avoided interference despite gross violations of the Constitution. While one may extend gratitude to British parliamentarians for a `genuine concern’ for Sri Lanka based on historical ties, if not on Britain’s more recently acquired interest in human rights and humanitarian considerations, not to speak of her now wanting to play the role of policeman in their implementation, it has to be pointed out, however, that the circumstances of the present debate on Sri Lanka has nothing to suggest that altruistic motives were behind it but pure domestic electoral considerations and personal fortunes of individuals and downright one- sided attitude especially on the part of the Labour Party. Reading between lines, the whole affair looks like a conspiracy on the part of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parliamentarians and the Diaspora to save the LTTE which has been militarily hard-pressed recently. It was only the Conservatives who introduced a seeming balance to the debate.

Every country has something to protect and Sri Lanka has her sovereignty upholding which has given this country the historical identity for the geographical concept of Sinhale or Tun Sinhale. (Michael Roberts). The British who took away that sovereignty once are trying to take it away again, Nalin de Silva says.