Attempts to discredit country at UNHRC sessions shot down:

Sri Lanka vows progress, stability

By Manjula FERNANDO

Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe speaking to the media for the first time after the UN Human Rights Council sessions which ended on June 17, explains how his team crushed premeditated attempts by certain INGOs to discredit Sri Lanka with footage of doctored images, possibly with a hidden agenda to drum up support to bring in a resolution against the country at the sessions.

The Minister said the viewing of the Channel 4 video was a side show sponsored by the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group and was not part of the agenda of the HRC sessions.

To counter their conspiracy, the Sri Lankan team had an open and a transparent interaction session where the concerns of the Governments, INGOs and diaspora members were satisfactorily addressed, he said.

He dismissed the proposition of Miliband and Kouchner that the UN Secretary General should implement the recommendations in the Darusman Report while defending the decision by Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN Dr. Palitha Kohona to endorse Moon's re-election bid.

"I think that was the smartest thing to do in the long term interests of both the UN and our commitment towards international issues."

Q: The UN Human Rights Council session this time proved to be extremely challenging for Sri Lanka. At the outset we saw the audience being invited to a free viewing of the controversial Channel 4 documentary, 'Killing Fields of Sri Lanka'. What was the objective of the organisers?

A: First of all I must say the showing of the video was not part of the council proceedings. It was actually a side event organised by the AI, HRW and some others. It was shown in a room in the UN but had nothing to do with the Council sessions. I don't think we should read anything more into this effort other than to say that it was an initiative launched by these international non-Governmental organisations to play out a very subjective agenda.

But having said that, it is very important for Sri Lanka to respond constructively to the material contained in this video. We have put forward our preliminary observations to the Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Killings and Summary Executions. In that we very clearly stated that our preliminary observations conclude this video is a fake. Our experts have identified numerous technical and scientific discrepancies to support this fact. This video is an attempt to impress upon the international community that there had been very serious HR violations during the time of the conflict.

But we are not stopping at this preliminary observations. We are continuing to examine this issue from the side of the Government. And we will keep the Special Rapporteur informed as and when we receive further results of these investigations.

We are very clearly committed to a constructive engagement with the Special Rapporteur on this issue. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission on its own had taken a decision to investigate the contents of this video and they have already summoned experts. That is an independent process. Their conclusions will be contained in the final report.

We have communicated to the Special Rapporteur that the four experts from his investigation are welcome to testify before the LLRC to submit their conclusions so that the LLRC could consider all the points and arrive at an objective conclusion.

We will also investigate as to whether there are legal remedies that can be used to ensure that this kind of fake videos are barred from being given further publicity. These attempts not only hurt Sri Lanka's reputation internationally but also harm the prospect of destabilising the good relations between different communities in Sri Lanka.

Q: Does that mean Sri Lanka is contemplating action against Channel 4 as well?

A: Our lawyers are studying all these aspects and we would have to ensure that all avenues are explored so that this kind of very negative propaganda is not played out in the future and that the international community should be briefed comprehensively on the commitment that we have shown to look into the whole episode and constructively engage with those who need to be engaged with.

Q: The Opposition in Parliament a few days ago raised the question as to why the Government decided to back the Secretary General Ban ki-Moon for a second term, even after he attempted to frame Sri Lanka for 'war crimes' through the Darusman report?

A: I fully endorse our permanent representative's sentiments that were expressed in New York which endorsed the re-election bid of the Secretary General.

I think that was the smartest thing to do in the long term interests of both the UN and our commitment towards international issues. As a Government we never had any issue with the Secretary General.

Of course in a democracy you have various political ideologies that are entertained by different groups but if we take the Government's position we have always had good relations with the UN and we intend further consolidating those good relations. As I said earlier the appointment of the panel was a prerogative exercise by the Secretary General to obtain advice and he's entitled to do that.

I would say, we have difficulties when such a report reaches the public domain and some members of the international community start welcoming this report disregarding the subjectiveness of it. They go even to the extent of dismissing the domestic mechanism that was put into place, preceding this panel. We have every right to question such a process.

But that does not mean that we have lost confidence in the office of the Secretary General.

I think it is very important that we continue to have a very constructive dialogue with the SG and keep him regularly briefed on the steps that are being taken by Sri Lanka in the post conflict scenario to move towards reconciliation and ensure that we get the understanding and support of the SG in the future.

Q: At the noon briefing yesterday (June 20) the UN Secretary General's spokesperson reiterated that any follow up action on Darusman Report needed national consent or a mandate from an international body. The UN General assembly is scheduled in September, would you foresee any attempts to secure this mandate by the section of the international community harping on this report?

A: I don't think we should anticipate such things. On the contrary what we should be doing is to continue to work very hard towards dealing with the issues within Sri Lanka and demonstrate to all our friends in the international community without exceptions that we are not stuck in one place but are moving forward. In June when I attended the HRC sessions, our team was very proactive in placing before the international community the progress that has been achieved.

When I go back in September I intend showing further progress. This is what everyone in the international community expects from Sri Lanka. If we can show progress I don't think anyone would be interested in putting us on the mat.

Q: How successful was Sri Lanka's event organised on the sidelines of UN Human Rights Council sessions to answer the concerns of international community with regard to issues such as the humanitarian operation and post conflict activities, etc.?

A: This was organised with the objective of sharing information on the progress that has been achieved and answering any questions or clarifications, by governments and Non-Governmental Organisations who show an interest in Sri Lanka. The Tamil diaspora from UK, Europe and Canada were also present. I gave them the floor when they wanted to pose questions. Representatives from AI and HRW and other non-governmental organisations were also present.

We gave all of them the maximum opportunity within our time constraints. We made a presentation on the national action plan and the humanitarian operation that took place during the conflict and the subsequent resettlement of IDPs. They were enlightened on the facilities that were provided in the relief camps.

We explained the procedure and progress of rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants and the massive economic development in North and East.We conducted the side event in a very transparent manner. This I guess sent a message to even our harshest critics that we are willing to engage with everyone. I have no doubt that this has been appreciated by a larger majority in the international arena. Of course there will always be the sceptics. I intend to reach out to them and demonstrate that we do not want to dismiss the points of view they express from time to time and that we are committed to achieving comprehensive reconciliation.

To assist me with the side event there was a good team of resource people. They were specialists in their respective areas. This demonstrated the excellent coordination with which we are willing to work to engage with the international community.

We had a team from Attorney General's Department headed by the AG, the Foreign Ministry led by our Ambassador in Geneva, Secretary to the Presidential Task Force on Resettlement, Security and, Development S.B. Divaratne, Health Ministry representatives, Government Analyst, senior officials from the defence establishments including the CID and the Terrorism Investigation Division. Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva who was the Health Minister during 2009 was a key member in the delegation.

When I go back in September I am confident that we will be able to show further progress and demonstrate that we should be given the time and space to do what is necessary.

Q: Former Foreign Ministers of Britain and France David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner have insisted that the UN Secretary General should act upon the Darusman Report in a letter published in the opinion column of New York Times on June 20 dismissing the explanation by the Secretary General that any follow-up action can be warranted only with national consent or a mandate from an international body. Your comments?

A: This panel was not appointed as a result of an inter-governmental decision taken in New York nor Geneva, or some other international forum of the UN.

We are not questioning the prerogative of the Secretary General to seek advice but when such a report, which is really to advice the Secretary General, is attempted to be brought from the back door to the international arena, especially to the attention of inter-governmental body, that sets a dangerous precedent.

There is galvanised support from the international community to resist such a move because of the very bad precedent such actions would result in. So we are confident that attempts by a few would definitely be rejected by the larger majority as we saw when we look at the sentiments expressed in Geneva by many delegations (at UNHRC sessions).

Moreover, whether some like it or not, there is a domestic process that inquires into similar issues. We would like to see this domestic process being given the space and time to fulfil its mandate. Until their final report is presented, this domestic process should not be prejudged. Once again there was growing support in Geneva for this point of view.

We are committed to achieve the objective of reconciliation as a nation emerging out of a 30 year conflict. We have made a commitment and we are working hard to reach this objective. We should be given the opportunity to finish what we started - to achieve comprehensive reconciliation.

We do not want the type of destabilisation that we experienced during this long drawn conflict which affected not only the lives of people but also the nation as a whole, in all political economic and social spheres. What we need the international community to do, is not to prejudge us but to give us space and time to finish this journey.

Q: A lot of human rights abuses take place elsewhere especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan due to US and NATO interventions, but why would certain individuals like Miliband and Kouchner try to isolate the Sri Lankan issue and undermine the victory against a ruthless terrorist organisation, and discredit attempts made at reconciliation?

A: I don't think we should spend our time really questioning as to why, even out of office, they seem to be so interested in commenting, in a very subjective manner, about the situation in Sri Lanka.

They may be free to express their points of view but these expressions should not damage the ongoing efforts to heal wounds after a long drawn bitter conflict in Sri Lanka.

We have commenced a journey towards dealing with issues that are necessary to be dealt with and overcome in our quest for comprehensive reconciliation.

I think we should focus on that task, rather than wasting our time replying to these kinds of subjective sentiments.

The best way of showing our commitment is by receiving the final report of the independent commission - LLRC, implementing their recommendations and proving to the world that we have not stopped our journey in defeating terrorism. And that we are also committed to winning the peace and ensuring that we would never have to face the kind of destabilisation we faced.