This is a hostile interview - Kumar Rupesinghe

Kumar Rupesinghe, who heads the Foundation for Co-existence, is an NGO peacemaker. He was interviewed by Rajpal Abeynayake this week, on war, peace and matters that concern Kumar Rupesinghe uniquely...

Q: The background to this interview is that you came into the controversial limelight. The debate you had with Wimal Weerawansa and that sort of thing.......

Answer: And before that Susantha Gunathilleke....

Q: .....Yes, I saw the second one with Wimal Weerawansa, and personally feel that there are issues that are not clarified in the minds of people. Certain matters do not seem to be clarified on some of the outstanding issues.

A: Oh yes,

Q: I am not asking you in a systematic way, and also not necessarily from that interview, but connected to certain events I will also bring up other issues. To begin at the beginning so to say, there is some puzzlement as to how genuine you are in resolving the Sri Lankan conflict. To be blunt about it the perspective of the people debated you -- plus some others -- is that you are in it for you own self aggrandizement and for your own mercenary benefit and your own gain in terms of prestige or what have you ......that you don't give two hoots about what is happening in the country.

So I feel, to begin at the beginning, the people might have an idea that this is true, because there was a long protracted period of war or conflict in this country. And of course as you know in 2002 with the ceasefire in this country there was an interregnum of peace or where outright hostilities came to a standstill. And then Mr. Kumar Rupasinghe appeared.

So there is a question that there was over 13 years of war -- or even more I have lost count -- but there so many years of war and where was Mr. Kumar Rupesinghe. And suddenly when there is peace and there is no threat to his life Mr. Kumar Rupesinghe appears. Doesn't this lend some credence to the view that your are not in it for the good of the country, or in a bid to stop further polarization....

A: First of all I left this country in 1982, when the ethnic conflict was simmering in this country and I was then a University lecturer, and when I went out of Sri Lanka basically to do my doctorate. Also there was at that time a personnel danger to my life in the '82 '83 period, '82 particularly. But that was not the main question, the main question was that I wanted to go for (studies)

Q: There is a danger right now, but .........

A: But the danger is still there. I was the one who exposed Cyril Mathew's list of people and making list of Tamil business houses, and those were things that were spoken publicly at that time. I had a Sinhala newspaper and a Tamil Newspaper at that time called Jana Vegam.

And we were willing to raise the issue of the resolution of the national question. But the main reason I went was that I wanted to study, why our country came to a situation of war. When I went abroad I was interviewed by the International Peace Research Institute, and from '83 onwards I studied, very strongly, human rights violations. At the Human Rights commission we were working with a whole group of Human Rights activists and the major element was studying how these conflicts come up, and comparative experience of ethnic conflicts of other countries. That is how I spent my first year and the Peace Research Institute where I must say that I was very privileged to have access to all this knowledge, and to write several books on conflict. And then I was invited by Arch Bishop Tutu and Martin Ennals, to come as secretary general as International Alert. But there again those seven years was one of the most important and exciting of my life, because I had the chance to be involved on a practical level in a conflict. And we were involved in about 15 countries conflict ; some we settled and in some we were successful and some were not successful. But what we did in that major organization was that we collected knowledge on internal civil wars. Now immediately after that I wanted to come back to my country, because I have never ever forgotten my country. I used to come here every year.......

Q: This was after the ceasefire

A: I used to come very often. I used to write. I used to come...even at that time I was very controversial because I called for a negotiated settlement ...a third party settlement ......

Q: I don't remember. I lived here and I don't remember you coming here

A: You don't remember?

Q: No, but from Norway you wrote articles.....

A: No, No, No, but I used to come here. I used to be interviewed by various newspapers...

Q: But, you have not been involved (in the conflict) .... You have not stayed here,

A: That is acccepted. But I decided to come after my second term of office at International alert. What I am saying is that I have not forgotten the country. I was very deeply involved in the Sri Lankan conflict. We have collected about 20,000 documents about the conflict. We had done a lot of bibliographies on the conflict etc. After that I had the choice do what I wanted; to be a consultant abroad, or join another organization, but I decided with my family to come to Sri Lanka. So if there is any charge that I was in for the money, I had lots of opportunities ......it was not the money. My entire 25 years.....

Q: I never said that you were in or the money, maybe it had nothing to do with money, but there was a conflict and there was an ongoing war, and there was danger as a result, particularly for people who were involved. But during the time of danger for whatever reasons you were involved in the conflict, but in a remote way. But the moment the ceasefire came, you got involved. So were you worried about your personnel safety? There are lots of questions like that.

A: If it was a question of personnel safety I should leave immediately leave now. I will not do that.

Q: That's the thing. It might be wise to go now, or something like that, but of course the conflict is brewing but it is not all out hostilities as yet. But you know that there was an era when bombs were going off and that building next to us was completely wiped out.

A: Rajpal, it is a very cheap argument no? If I had gone abroad....

Q: It doesn't sound cheap to people, who were here, they have given their lives, they have sacrificed, and then somebody comes and tells them how to solve the problem.... When somebody decides to do that, it doesn't sound cheap to them (the people who were here).

A: For me I didn't go abroad to earn money either, I didn't go to fatten myself and get a fat job, I had been involved in what I am concerned with, which is human rights, to which I have been dedicated, warts and all. That has been my chosen subject,

Q: No, sure, but you were there 20 long years. You went in '82 and you came back in 2002. And at some point it would have occurred to you that this is my country. If it was seven years, a certain allowance could be made, to say that you went to do your own thing. But you had 20 years!

A: But I had decided that the first 10 years of my life was study, reading, writing getting knowledge. The next 8 years of my life I went into practical experiences. But immediately after that I came - its not 20 years its 18 years.

Q: You say you went in '82 and you came back in 2002.

A: I came in 2001, it was nineteen years. Anyway whatever it was, even when I was abroad I was working on Sri Lanka.

Q: Your working on Sri Lanka and you physically being here are two different things.

A: There all kinds of people who had come back.

Q: But you have come here, not after retirement, but soon after the ceasefire was signed.

A: But don't persist anymore, I have answered. Perhaps the anwer may have not served the purpose of these people who accuse me. But my answer is that I have that I have done what I can.

Q: That is your answer, and that is reasonable, but do you have an answer, to the other question which is that you escaped the grave dangers and you came back when the dangers subsided. You have any answer to that?

A: The test would be to see whether I leave the country again.

Q: The dangers might not exacerbate (.....to those levels before)

A: Come, come, come. I am now under severe threat, for my views. Do you know the amount of attacks that I have faced...sustained attacks.

Q: But these are verbal attacks and this is different from attacks threatening you from physical harm.

A: You remember that in the Thulawa program I said those who are pointing their fingers on unpatriotic people....in '88 '89 6,000 people were killed after sustained attacks on those who supported the Indo-Sri Lanka accord. My argument is that, once a war emerges there are people who were against those who are for peace.

Q: Anyway arising out that you have come here you have started some things and it is hardly a time to go back. If you go back now, you will be ridiculous. It will definately underline all those allegations that were made against you. Having said that, in the same vein you have come back, you have established a certain conflict resolution organisation. Coming from that background some people fairly or unfairly rightly or wrongly point their fingers at you and say, he is not the genuine article. But a lot of these arguments are also based on the assumption that there is pecuniary gain, or mercenary gain, this not an allegation made against you only, so it is not a personnel thing, but it is an allegation made against so many others. In that context, having regard to the fact that there was a perspective that you were not the genuine article, you were asked in a television interview why you do not bear your assets so to speak. To say how much you earn per month etc and what's the vehicle you use etc. This may sound to you again a cheap question, and you may say why should anybody bother 'how much I earn and what kind of car I use.' But if I may say so to pre-empt any such question, it is not fair to say that it is irrelevant, because the argument precisely is that your gaining from this. If you want to effectively meet this argument you have to say this my car, this how much I earn, etc, etc, and there should not be any problem in disclosing your assets, but you did not do it in that interview and you are probably not going to do it now.

A: All what I can tell you is that there will be a Select Committee in place, in parliament, and I will when asked disclose my assets. That I will do, because it is a public inquiry by a newly constituted Parliamentary Select Committee, where I will do that, but my position it that I am earning a expatriate salary not a local salary, which is based on my 25 years experience abroad. And we also pay our staff good salaries. But if a question comes up in a parliamentary Select Committee we will declare it.

Q: Why can't you declare it now

A: But I am saying that I am drawing an expatriate salary.

Q: But why are you choosing to declare it at that time.

A: Because of the very simple principal that we are accountable, to public bodies and the Select committee is a very important public body.

Q: Aren't you accountable to the people of this country.

A: I am accountable primarily to the donors who are funding me. I am accountable to the people who pay for the services we deliver.

Q: But aren't you accountable......

A: But now I have told you.

Q: But aren't you accountable to the people of this country who allege that you are subverting this country, that you are subverting its agenda, and that you are fostering terrorism, and these are very serious arguments. And there is a threat on your life due to these arguments. And you have to refute this threat on your life (but you are choosing not to)?.....

A: I am drawing an expatriate salary, not a local one.

Q: I heard that, but why can't you say it to the people. You say you are accountable to public bodies, but you are not accountable to the people? You don't consider yourself more accountable to the people? After all that program went on air because you think that this perspective against you is flawed. You were not having a private debate with Mr. Weerawansa, this was in a public.

A: The question of wages and salaries did not come up.

Q: Why not, why not. I seriously say that I will fish the tape out of ITN and show you, and even if you say it did not come up, it is coming up now, because I am asking you this question.

A: You must not press too much on this. I have told you that I am drawing an expatriate salary.

Q: You are entitled to say don't press me on it, and then I have no choice in the matter. But the basic thing is, I am putting it to you, can't you tell the people of this country and because you are in the public sphere, (I'm telling you) to clarify these things, clarify it now. If you don't choose to, then it is a different matter.

A: No, no, its not that I am choosing to. I have told you in the process of this interview that I am drawing an expatriate salary. Expatriate salary you can imagine it is not a local salary.

Q: Expatriate salary can mean anything.

A: No, no.

Q: Expatriate salary, can be anything from 3,200 Rpees to over 10 million rupees. There are expatriate salaries, and there are expatriate salaries. But people want to know how much of a expatriate salary you are getting. But it is not a personal question.

A: Okay so, but as I said, this a decision of the board I can only say that I am drawing an expatriate salary. And I can tell you also that if I was abroad I would have drawn three times that salary.

Q: Maybe but...

A: No, no, but now you are going on pressing. In fact I don't know whether I should (....and Mr. Rupesinghe makes as if to leave.....) because this is a very hostile interview. No, no, I am telling you.

Q: Come on, I am very sorry to say, I am really sorry to say, I have interviewed a lot of people, I have interviewed Ministers, I have interviewed Presidents, but (no one objected like this..)

A: But I have........

Q: But you said (let's have) a no holds barred interview, and ask anything you like and clarify all the isuses.....and now when I am asking you (...these questions) you are saying it is hostile?.

A: Okay we can have a hostile interview.

Q: Okay then, salary apart, it is you who said that there are perceptions that you are not the genuine article, that you subvert the state. So these are perceptions in the public domain, and you can't accuse me of being hostile.

A: Give me some examples of where I am subverting the state.

Q: These perceptions are there.

A: But what are the concrete examples of subverting the state.

Q: Of course when one subverts the state it can be subtle, so your are asking me for concrete examples but I can put it to you in a different way -- and of course you are at liberty to say that it is vague. As you are fond of saying you are playing a very critical role in a prominent NGO and this NGO and others like it have been accused of creating the conditions for the LTTE to couch their agenda in very legitimate terms. This (LTTE) is an organization which has been banned by the US the EU and Britain and it is not for nothing that this organization has been banned. It is a terrorist organization and your organization and others like it, and yours particularly, has been accused of legitimizing the role of the LTTE even by default, for instance (in) your refusal to call the LTTE a terrorist organization and lot of the literature that you come out with consistently legitimizes the broad kind of rationale that the LTTE offers to couch its kind of terrorism.

A: You have not given me anything specific except for some broad brush-strokes but subversion of the state is a very serious accusation. Now let me address this issue, the LTTE is a party to the conflict legally recognized by the Government and the international community. Even the state have been very clear that the LTTE is party with a negotiation process and that they have been given a legal basis, in international law. In that sense as conflict resolution organization we have to deal with both parties. It is a principal in negotiations that we deal with both the parties or communicate with both the parties. Now this does not mean that we have to legitimize the LTTE terrorist activities. Recently we issued a statement totally condemning the LTTE attack on the bus on previous occasions we have condemned the Claymore attacks that have been perpetrated by the Tamil Resurgent force and in some instance we have also criticized the child recruitment., but we are not a human rights organization to continue to do that. We have made our point clear. But at the same time, in our operational work that we have to do in the Eastern province, we come in day to day touch with the armed forces the LTTE and so many other organizations in terms of resolving conflict. And I think I told you that when it comes conflict between ethnic communities Tamils, Sinhala and Muslims, we have tried to mediate some successfully and some without success, that is what we do. And I can't see how this can amount to subversion, and how it can amount to legitimizing the LTTE. If the government of Sri Lanka bans the LTTE that is a different matter. If the government bans we have to reconsider for our operational purposes. But currently the government has no intention of banning the LTTE and we ask the LTTE to come for talks. That is the legitimate position of the government.

Q: Of course you say, you condemned the Kebethigollawa arttack. But of course, one could turn around and say, that it is very easy for the LTTE to carry out these attacks once organizations such as yours have created the conditions to legitimize these attacks.

A: That is too strong. Certainly it is not even acceptable for you to say that organizations such as us have created the conditions. How can that be. How?

Q: It is like this. Organizations such as yours don't call the LTTE terrorists.

A: No, no, that is not correct. It is not correct that is not true, I repeat you can quote me we have condemned all terrorist activities, of the LTTE and child recruitment and we condemned them because I come from a human rights background of 25 years and my track record is very clear both here and abroad, and I have nothing to do with any form of terrorism. We condemned it unilaterally. Even at international levels the board passed the resolution where I made a statement explaining our position condemning all forms of war, and it remains the same here. And if you ask me what we stand for in the North and the East, we stand for a democratic LTTE, and an LTTE which tolerates deissent of other political parties, respects human rights, and which resolves issues through negotiations.

Q: But talking about the past of this organization is very laudable. You say that this organization, the LTTE committed terrorist acts and you condemn them. But as things prevail, this organization continues to perpetrate terrorist act. So then would you go so far as to say that this organization is not only committing terrorist acts, but is terrorist. For instance Osama bin Laden's Al Quaida is called a terrorist organization.

A: I can say that the LTTE is an organization that has terrorist elements.

Q: I can see you have no problem is saying that!!

A: No no the government, the day the government decides to ban the LTTE, then we have to accept the governments ruling. At the moment a large number of NGOs work with the LTTE in the north east. They have to work with the LTTE in the delivery of relief and rehabilitation. And at the same time I repeat that they have engaged in barbaric terrorist acts.

Q: Terrorist acts! But is it a terrorist organization or not?

A: I have told you that the LTTE has to come into the democratic mainstream. And that with international pressure and with internal pressure they may turn from what it is today to being a democratic organization.

Q: I have two questions there. If it is an organization that commits terrorist acts and has been condemned and sanctioned buy the EU and the US etc for committing terrorist acts, then why is this desire - - this abundant desire - - to bring it back to the democratic mainstream without taking punitive action against its acts of terrorism?

A: No don't muddle with words, we condemn all terrorist activities, and today even India is of the opinion that the LLTTE must be brought into the democratic mainstream. This is not something that I have invented in my head,. Even the European Union and the United States have asked the LTTE to come into the democratic mainstream. This has been the explicit position of many of these countries and my own position is that in my 25 years of dealing with terrorist organizations in Africa, that most of these organizations have committed terrorist acts but at a particular point they took a decision to enter the democratic mainstream . Take the IRA,. It was engaged in lots of bombings and killings, in London etc but eventually because of international pressure they were brought into the democratic mainstream.

Q: I am very glad you brought up this word pressure. For instance the European union and the U.S have applied pressure on the LTTE, and how do they do that? They have said that these organization are terrorist. Which is something you are not saying. That's where you differ from them. You are unwilling to say that they are terrorist and willing only to say they 'commit terrorist acts'. They say they are terrorist. So they apply real pressure. They have not only applied pressure they have also by process of sanction applied pressure on them to come to heel. If they had a choice they would have probably gone behind them and seen that they lay down arms. But they can't get involved in that. Therefore they have applied express sanction on them. India has banned them the US has banned them and various others have banned them and they have frozen their assents and there is a complete ban on any LTTE connected activity in their countries and these are real sanctions which hopefully will force these orgnisaitons to come back into the democratic process. Where you differ is you are not even willing to call this organization terrorist in the first place\

A: No no I'm sorry but for the n'th time I am telling you that the LTTE has used brutal unacceptable terrorist actions but as long as the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE are in negotiations it is upto civil society to condemn those terrorist actions to prevail on the LTTE to join the democratic mainstream because another war in this country is not going to resolve the ethnic conflict.

Q: Mr Rupesinghe for the n'th time I am also telling you that of course you have codemend it I have ears, I have heard it... but for the n'th time I am telling you that you saying it has terrorist elements which is different form saying it is TERRORIST.

A: No no no no but I have been saying the LTTE has been engaged in barbaric, barbaric...

Q: YES. I heard it!

A: But as long as the government has not banned the LTTE we shall deal with it. That is a very simple thing and in consonance with all international opinion.

Q: I do not know whether you see the difference here. Even the government of Sri Lanka, the United States, they all say with India that the LTTE is a terrorist organization. They don't say that it is an organization that has ''committed terrorist acts.''

A: The governmental position is that they will continue to talk. They have condemned the terrorism of the LTTE - -which they should - but they continue to talk with the LTTE, that is the attempt.

Q: But the Sri Lankan government has no choice, we know that it can't ban the LTTE because of the talks.

A: But whatever it is, the European Union doesn't talk to the LTTE, the United States does not talk to the LTTE, India does not talk to the LTTE, but the government position is different. That I want to emphasize because we believe in discussion. We have to continue to deal with the LTTE while condemning all the terrorist acts.

Q: I do not see why that should preclude you from calling the LTTE a terrorist organization. The government calls the LTTE a terrorist organization and still talks to it. But you are not willing to go that distance and call the LTTE a terrorist organization for reason better known to you. You don't have to forget the peace process, in order to call them a terrorist organization.

A: I don't share your position on that. You can do whatever you want with this interview. I think I have been trying to be as fair as possible. You can push it as much as you want.

Q: This is an interview and I can press on certain issues.

A: You can't go on and on.

Q: `You are a man of experience, there is no reason for you to get upset.

A: You go on and on. The LTTE is still a party to the conflict, and we have to engage with the LTTE as it is.

Q: I see that you say that. But I also have the prerogative to keep pressing on the aspect of the question that you haven't addressed, which is that you don't call the LTTE a terrorist organization. Now of course it is very clear that it has terrorist elements, but for various reasons you are not willing to call it a terrorist organization. That's very clear,. So let's leave it at that.

A: Yes.

Q: Certain powers-that-be have said that you have attempted to pre-empt a war by saying that the military should prepare for war. This is to get to know your own view on that - - what is your own position on that.

A: This was a meeting at the Muslim Council, and I said at that meeting, being sharply critical of the LTTE, that the Naval commander Susai made an outrageous statement that they are going to be on the offensive and that they will engage in a multi pronged attack. I refereed to a web file where the Tamil resurgence force had stated that they will engage in activities after the A level exams. I also referred to what Tamilchelvam said in Oslo and on the basis of this I think I made a fair judgment that the LTTE is going for war. Prabhakaran also said at the Heroes day speech, that this year, they will go for hostilities. I also said the LTTE did not give the President even one months respite .I can't see why any one should take offence as many newspaper editors have written about the imminence of a war. I think the ordinary people of this country are also of that opinion. As far as I'm concerned I stand by what I said that the LTTE is preparing for war.

Q: The LTTE can say that they are going for war but why should Kumar Rupesinghe be over eager to say what the LTTE is saying.

A: As a scholar and an academic I have a right an opinion.

Q: No doubt.

A: I have repeatedly said in my newspaper articles that there is a threat of war .I have written over a hundred articles about the peace process and the possibility of a war.

Q: This brings us to an interesting conjuncture because you asked me about subversion, but the final pivot of your agenda is to say to the forces that 'you have to negotiate because you can't win this war.' This arouses rancour among the forces.

A: You are absolutely incorrect when you say the army took objection to my speech. A lot of them agreed with my speech.

Q: But the generality of your position is not liked by the forces.

A: Secondly I don't think the way to peace is through another war. I think the way to peace is through negotiations and talking, and that is the tradition I come from. I will continue to say so because I know the consequences of such a war to the country to the economy and for the civilians. It will be devastating. I am concerned about what will happen to civilians. Even some of our generals said that there should bee a political solution. I am also by the way condemning the extra judicial killings by armed groups and others which is also bringing discredit to the country. As you can see we have had strong strictures from the co chairs and from India and the human rights community.

Q: Strictures from me too.....(!)

A: We have to gain the moral high ground to win this war and since we are a democracy and not engaged in terror per se we have a moral obligation to be clean,. If you want to win a war don't involve civilians.

Q: I don't have any disagreement with that. However we are veering away from the basis of my question. In any country the forces have a prerogative to take on any threat to its territory, and that is what the United States is doing against Al Quaeda.

A: I'm sorry but not against the civilians.

Q: Of course that's obvious.

A: Please don't bring Al quiada and all these things here.

Q: I didn't bring Al Quaeda in the context that you are saying it. You are saying something else. You are jumping the gun. I am saying forces anywhere have a right to take on a terrorist threat, by orthodox means of course - not by unorthodox means. I never said 'by unorthodox means' - you are saying it. Governments have all the right to take on these terrorist organizations in a conventional way.

A: Absolutely.

Q: So coming to my question, there are organizations such as yours that preclude even this right from governments. For instance, one which is similar to yours during the one and a half year interregnum spoke to the armed forces to de-induct the forces. Somebody can say this is conflict resolution, but everyone had the feeling it was not a lasting peace. There are NGOS which expressly and not out of philanthropic motives tried to de induct the forces. If the forces were de inducted the state would have been sitting ducks now!

A: I will tell you.. it is very difficult I really cannot answer to another organization . As long as my origination is concerned we have not and will not interfere with the armed forces.

They have the legitimate task of defending the country, and therefore we respect that. My only point is about civilians; and secondly whether the armed forces like it or not I think the solution to this conflict is through a negotiated settlement and the sooner these settlements .... the sooner they put forward the proposal for a negotiated settlement with the backing of the international community, and with the strong support of India, I still think it is possible for us to reach a power sharing arrangement which can finally resolve this question.

Q: On that can I ask you, do you mean power sharing with the LTTE, or power sharing with the Tamil people.

A: I say based on the Indo Sri Lanka accord that any negotiated solution has to include the LTTE and other political parties. I am very glad that the Indian government has also now asked for a political solution.

And I don't think any of them are suggesting that it should be to bypass the LTTE. What the international community is insisting is to bring the LTTE to the democratic framework. I think that is the commitment of the international community, which is why they are pressing the government and the LTTE to come to talks. None of the countries in the international community will support war.

Q: Talking on the broad canvas,, the LTTE has taken many positions but at the moment are they responsive to that call to enter the democratic process.

A: I think there are more important issues which is to start Geneva 2 as soon as possible.

Q: But they (LTTE) went and came back.

A: That was Oslo. I am taking of Geneva.

Q: For Geneva 2 they did not turn up at all.

A: Geneva 2 was interrupted for a variety of logistical reasons. Which you and I know about. Military helicopters and a whole lot of things happened.

Q: Are those positions valid or not?

A: No no. There were logistical reasons.

Q: Are they valid or not (these reasons) - - answer the question please.

A: I was not privy to the discussions about all these technical things. There were issues that had to do with transport etc.

Q: But I am asking you don't you think these were excuses.

A: I have no idea. I'm not privy to the internal discussions that happened.

So I think Geneva 2 must happen - top priority. The issue of monitors must be address and number three, the government has to take concrete proposals to the LTTE for discussions. The ISGA was their starting point which was of course not acceptable. Now it is the Sri Lankan government which must come with proposals stating our stating point.

Q: So you are saying that the Sri Lankan government is preventing the talks from taking place.

A: No no I'm not saying that, it is the Indians that are saying that. It's the co-chairs that are saying that.

Q: But that's not what the LTTE is saying. In fact the LTTE did not want to talk about these core issues. LTTE wanted to talk of humanitarian issues.

A: Don't make a mistake about Geneva 1 and 2. Geneva 2 is on the humanitarian issues and the core discussions which is the formal negotiating process.

Q: In Oslo they wanted to talk about the monitors, so there are other outstanding issues. Anyway so much for internal issues. What about this whole aspect of funding of NGOs which brought some of the static against you.

A: We are looking forward to the Select committee proceedings,. We can answer those questions.

Q: No but why can't you answer on the principle behind it. When NGOs are funded by donors with vast sums of money, isn't it the donors agenda that is carried out. Leave the Select committee alone. When such large sums of money come in, these NGOs are not beholden to act in the interests of this country- they are beholden to act in the interests of others, the donors.

A: I don't agree. I think that NGOs have legally constituted boards and have accountability to their donors. They are audited on a quarterly basis. There cannot be fraud. These NGO procedures are very clearly laid out.

Q: There are a few things there though. Even within the audit, you can audit it until the cows come home..... But if you are getting millions upon millions upon millions, even within the audit the lure is for you to take the money and run. Take the money and do the wrong thing.

A: No no I don't accept that. Donors have very strict audit procedures now.

Q: I'm not talking about the audit. But when you get so much money, even if you are being honest- which I don't think a lot of NGOs are -- the proclivity is to go with the donors. And not with the agenda of the country.

A: No I don't agree with you. Both here and abroad the performance evaluation of the donors is becoming stricter and stricter as we go along.

Q: Performance evaluation? True, but that is the performance that the donors want, isn't it?

A: We have to provide activity reports and we have a series of tough evaluations. Donors want to foster peace and democracy and if the NGOs are committed to power sharing, a peaceful solution etc., that's what the donors are looking for.

Q: No but......(the question is interrupted).

A: I have to go now.

Q: Right, right ...no problem.