http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/03/11/pol02.asp

International community shouldn't dictate terms - Rohitha Bogollagama
By Manjula Fernando
Former Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama in an interview
with the Sunday Observer underscores the importance of giving Sri Lanka time and
space to address accountability issues. He said ”What the United States is
asking for is something that Sri Lanka apparently has agreed to but when it
comes to a country’s agenda, that country must have its own agenda to be pursued
rather than being dictated or being pressurised to follow a multilateral agenda
that is coming out of a collective decision of an international body.“
The excerpts of the interview:
Q: In May 2009 soon after the end of the humanitarian operation a
resolution against Sri Lanka was brought in at the UNHRC. It was a bad time. How
did we managed to fend this off with a majority support?
A: At that time we were just after defeating terrorism. And the EU was
pushing for a resolution on similar lines. The strategy was to explain to the
world as to how we have got about in countering terrorism in a very transparent
manner, because we have never hidden our agenda in defeating terrorism. So when
we proposed a counter resolution, it had more favour and we were able to defeat
the resolution backed by the EU.
At that time I also had the support of the Organisation of Islamic Countries
(OIC) and a good section of the Asian block, along with some of the states in
the European block.
There was a good feeling and rapport prevailing in Geneva in support of Sri
Lanka. It was quite easy and our engagement with the world was well recognised.
The fact that Sri Lanka needed time to address that issues was recognised.
Though it was at the wrong time, we managed to succeed.
Q: A similar resolution has been brought in by the US barely three
years after the end of the conflict. Do you think Sri Lanka has been given
adequate time but has faltered in addressing accountability issues?
A: US is trying to submit that Sri Lanka has been given an undertaking
on the implementation of the LLRC recommendations. Now on the other hand Sri
Lanka’s position is that more time and space is needed for such implementation.
So on substance you see what the US is asking for is something that Sri Lanka
apparently has agreed to but in any manner when it comes to a country agenda,
that country must have its own agenda to be pursued rather than being dictated
or being pressurised in following a multilateral agenda that is coming out of a
collective decision of an international body.
That is something that we must avoid at all times. We must never submit Sri
Lanka for a wit of an international tribunal. In Geneva the US is seeking for an
international body to bring pressure on Sri Lanka to implement our own
recommendations that has come from an independent commission.
Right throughout, since defeating terrorism, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has
said we will have a domestic process.
And that will be in line with Sri Lanka’s interests. And in that respect we
expect the world to respect Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and integrity and back the
country to follow on its own agenda.
But here our own findings are being dictated on us. I don’t think it is the
right way to get about. Let our findings be implemented our way, because that is
what the country expects from a government.
This is a process that needs more space, more considerations and other
political issues and sensitivities to be addressed.
This is something that we must keep on addressing as a domestic process. And
we must try and avoid any international pressure on Sri Lanka on this particular
issue. We defeated terrorism. While we sought the cooperation of the
international community, we must also get them to acknowledge Sri Lanka’s
position, our own approach in that regard and the agenda that Sri Lanka is
pursuing. This is what they must encourage rather than trying to dictate.
Q: The resolution encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights to provide and Sri Lankan Government to accept advice and technical
assistance of implementing an Action Plan. How appropriate is this for Sri
Lanka?
A: That is far fetched. I think that’s gone beyond any limits of
reason. Our entire system in Sri Lanka is fairly well geared to meet all the
requirements of statehood in terms of rule of law, our own pursuits as a
democracy, successive Governments get elected at free and fair elections.
The International community has recognised democratic values of Sri Lanka and
our legal framework within which our legislative processes have been working on,
our capacity to bring in statutes and implementing, our rich political heritage
enjoyed over 100 years of franchise.
The parliament is a vibrant place where democracy is being protected and
promoted. Therefore, it is important that Sri Lanka be given its own space to
carry out the recommendations. We do not need any technical assistance here.
If we are to seek any technical assistant on a path that Sri Lanka is quite
familiar with and quite convinced that we could implement, that means we are
just opening the door once again for entry of unnecessary interests to Sri Lanka
- vested interests will encroach, once again the so-called INGOs will make their
way into Sri Lanka disguised different forms.
We had a great problem with INGOs when we were trying to defeat terrorism.
There were instances where the vehicles that were given to the INGOs were
finding their way into the hands of LTTE with armour plates, as protective
vehicles for the cadres to move about.
That is why we had to bring in certain limitations. Even the SLMM failed in
their task in monitoring the affairs during the time of their mandate. No
foreign presence can address Sri Lanka’s domestic issues. We are familiar with
the domestic conditions and it is we who can pursue those goals.
Q: Could this resolution be a disguise attempt to take different
action against Sri Lanka. After all, they proposed a resolution to provide
humanitarian aid to Libya but ended in sending military support to the rebels?
A: What is emerging in Sri Lanka is a post-conflict scenario, in Libya
it was a conflict scenario, that the international community, the West got
involved with and went to the extent of getting a UN resolution passed to back
an intervention and intrusion into Libya.
China and Russia who backed the intervention by the NATO forces by the UN
resolution are now backing out, without giving that extended support for a
resolution against Syria.
They fear a similar exercise may happen in the guise of humanitarian
assistance, probably an intrusion will be made much to the detriment of the
country’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity. These are things that could
be academically discussed and relevances may be drawn.
I do not want to see Sri Lanka becoming an international agenda on its
domestic issues. Once you get pegged into an international agenda which you are
being overseen and supervise, later on it will develop into various other levels
of international presence in domestic affairs of the country.
It is also an interference of domestic affairs of a country.
Even the international community gets led by certain interest groups at
times. Therefore, all of us should prevent that happening. That is why we need
good diplomacy and consistent engagement.
I think that is the way forward for all of us.
Q: Will the countries that backed Sri Lanka during the EU resolution
in 2009, be on our side this time as well?
A: We should not lose heart that the resolution is presented and
backed by the superpower of the world. At the same time, Sri Lanka must continue
to engage with the US, that is a need. Having said that, I expect all fair
thinking countries to support Sri Lanka, the pain we have suffered is known to
our friends. Sri Lanka in that context has no enemies but only friends.
Our economy has suffered, people have got killed and we are just trying to
raise our head. This is the time the world must encourage us to go forward. The
fair thinking countries should rally round, get their support and explain to the
US through engagement, the right way forward.
Q: The resolution falls short of calling for an investigation or a
mechanism to account for crimes against humanity of the LTTE. One of the key
leaders of the LTTE, Rudrakumaran is a practising lawyer in the US. He had
declared a transnational government of Eelam which calls for separatism in Sri
Lanka. Why can’t the US take action against such individuals?
A: The transnational government of the Tamil Eelam, is something that
was emerging immediately after the defeat of terrorism, they tried during my
time to host their first council sessions in Oslo. I had to call on the
Norwegian authorities and they responded favourably to my call and we were able
to drive them out.
Because Norway was supportive of Sri Lanka as a friendly country, we sought
their cooperation on this front saying once who were terrorists who still pursue
separatist agenda should not be allowed to use the soil of a friendly country to
host an event that is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.
Subsequently they tried a similar venue in South Africa. We reacted to that
again and we were able to drive them away from that also.
Similarly now is the time to block them and tell the world that these fronts
mean separatism in Sri Lanka, that once again an armed conflict can emerge
towards achieving those goals.
Still the funds of the LTTE are intact. Prabhakaran did not take the money
with him when he died.
We have to see that we pursue those sources where these funds are emanating.
We must pursue against front organisations of the LTTE and nip them at the bud,
this very moment and isolate them from the civilised world and the support they
command from countries like the US or other Western countries. Their presence
sometimes gives them a right to pursue their sinister goals. We must plan and
educate our friends not to support them.
Q: What is your view on the way how Sri Lanka reacted to the proposed
US resolution?
A: Sri Lanka was pushed against the wall. When Blake visited Sri Lanka
with Ms. Otero he announced that US was bringing in a resolution. At that time
Sri Lanka had to react by looking at alternative ways of countering the
situation. That is the startling development that puts Sri Lanka into a high
pitched reaction which I think could not have been avoided.
We tried to explain to member states in Geneva. We knew the LLRC report is
coming. The interim report was out. We have spoken to the world about the
interim report as well as the LLRC final report. Even before the LLRC report saw
the day of light.
Now thereby an expectation was given to the world, we are adopting a course
of action. I think we should keep on engaging the world by speaking to them.
On substance there is agreement between the world and Sri Lanka. It is our
report and the world is saying it is a good report. Hence no one can dispute too
much on the substance. The country where it needs to be implemented, there is a
course of action that they would like to pursue, and that is ‘ Sri Lanka needs
time and space’. We have to diplomatically work with the world to get that
arrangement.
Q: The LTTE is now re-grouping as human rights fronts. That is their
latest ‘face’ after the humiliating defeat in 2009. Don’t you think ‘a
resolution against Sri Lanka’ will be the break that they were waiting for so
long to destroy Sri Lanka in the international front?
A: The fact that a resolution is brought, there are two things we have
to look at, the resolution embodies only what ourselves has said. We are going
to implement the LLRC recommendations. They have not created the LLRC. Those are
our conclusions. The report is a domestic document.
The resolution has said implement our own recommendations, there is no LTTE
element coming into the picture there.
But when an international platform discusses Sri Lanka, particularly on its
engagement with the LTTE in the final phase of the war, this gives rise to
expectations of the LTTE front organisations to raise their heads once again in
mounting international pressure on Sri Lanka.
Q: The resolution speaks of the allegations against the Sri Lankan
government only. It says nothing about the reports of grave violations committed
by the LTTE?
A: The resolution is meant against the government. For them LTTE is
not in existence. But findings in the report and the Darusman report for that
matter has cited LTTE violations.
There are so many people who are victims of the LTTE. Their grievances should
be addressed. Grievances of Muslim IDPs driven out of their lands in the North,
the 300,000 IDPs rescued from the LTTE grip in Nandikadaal in a biggest hostage
rescue operation carried out in the whole world. They were not killed but
rescued and looked after by the military. Sri Lankans have suffered due to the
atrocities of the LTTE.
These are major issues which need to be addressed. We have to look at both
sides. Government must look into all these areas of reconciliation. Those issues
need to be addressed by the Government and the polity of Sri Lanka.
There is the UNP, TNA, and other parties in parliament. In US major issues
get discussed in the congress, In UK and India it is in the parliament.
Moreover, despite UN resolutions, there are people in the world who suffer
being unable to resolve their problems, for instance the Kashmir issue and
Israel and Palestine issue. Despite UN interventions the conflicts continue to
date.
But here in Sri Lanka it is only two years since the defeat of terrorism.
Should not Sri Lanka be given that time and space to work our systems to the
satisfaction of the people of Sri Lanka first and the international community
second?
Pic: Manjula Fernando