UN should not browbeat small nations - Minister Dullas

By Uditha KUMARASINGHE

Youth Affairs and Skills Development Minister Dullas Alahapperuma said India’s decision to vote in favour of the US resolution against Sri Lanka is due to the complexity of India’s internal political crisis and not because of any human rights issue or alleged war crime charges. The Minister in an interview with the Sunday Observer said that this is a serious mistake that India has made.

The one billion Indians could witness the phenomenon of White House over the Rashtrapati Bhavan for the first time since independence when India fell in line with America’s stand on the UNHRC vote.

The Minister said India is the ‘soul’ of Asia. If we go back to our history it shows that we are all Indians. It is a pride to be an Indian. We never disown it. India, the regional boss should ensure co-existence with countries around and share its ideals with them. I urged India to rectify its mistakes.

Minister Alahapperuma said being one of the founder-members of the UN, Sri Lanka is proud of its membership. We have confidence in the UN. We call upon the UN that it should not allow powerful nations to use ‘human rights’ as a weapon to browbeat small countries. The motive behind the US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka was also not based on human rights. We should deal diplomatcally with this issue and tell the reality to the world.

Double standards are maintained on human rights and war crimes. Any terrorist outfit which is not opposed to the West is not identified as terrorists. This applies to the LTTE as well. These are the shortcomings that we should point out.

Q: The UNP has alleged that the Government’s stand on the Geneva resolution has not been made clear so far. What is the position?

A: I think the UNP has made this reference due to lack of understanding. Sri Lanka is also a member state of the UN. The UN resolution should not be a puzzle to the Opposition or to anybody furthermore.

Q: What made the US to move the resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC?

A: There may be various reasons. Theories such as conflict resolution and conflict management adopted by the Western State mechanism led by the US over the past 20 years were buried at the Nandikadal lagoon on May 19, 2009. As a result, the Western State mechanism faced a severe crisis. At the final stage of the humanitarian operation against terrorists, these Western states made a joint request from the Government to allow the LTTE and its leadership to surrender under their intervention. We refused and these Western countries may be upset with the decision. I guess these Western States may have assured LTTE leader Prabhakaran that they will intervene to rescue them. I believe the West led by the US decided to move this resolution against Sri Lanka due to their geopolitical interest on the future of Asia.

If we look at the motive behind this US sponsored resolution, the powerful States make use of even India’s unstable political situation and gave a signal to the world “Don’t militarily defeat any terrorist organisation which is not oppose to the West. They told the world that if they attempt to do so, they will also have to be face the same consequences like Sri Lanka. According to the Western definition of terrorism, if that particular terrorist group is not go against the West, they don’t recognise them as terrorists. That is why the international community called the LTTE terrorists Sri Lankan rebels and described the terrorist problem in Sri Lanka as a conflict. They only use the word “terrorists” to Al Qaeda or Taliban. Through this resolution, they want to give message to countries fighting to defeat terrorism.

This is a UN resolution and not a US resolution. At present whatever ideological disagreement or criticism is made against US as they drafted and moved this resolution, we should not be ungrateful and forget the US assistance given to eliminate terrorism by banning the LTTE in the US.

Q: When the most other countries in the Asian region voted against the US resolution, why did Sri Lanka’s neighbour, India vote in favour?

A: India voted against Sri Lanka to show that these votes were collected not because of a human rights problem in Sri Lanka. India took this decision due to an internal political problem. The Indian Government had to surrender to the pressure exerted from South India. The letter sent by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to President Mahinda Rajapaksa a few days ago has reffered to India’s assistance given to Sri Lanka at the final stage of the war against terrorists. The South Indian film industry came onto the streets and requested the Indian Government to act against Sri Lanka.

On the other hand when all South Indian schools and courts were closed for one or two months and all major political parties threatened the Indian Central Government - extended its fullest support to the Government to eradicate LTTE terrorism. Therefore it’s not fair to say that India voted against Sri Lanka.

The Indian Government has become a minority Government in the Lok Sabha. The Indian Government is surving with the help of three major political parties and several independent groups. We have experience on coalition politics.

This is the key reason why India voted against Sri Lanka. This is a decision taken by India due to complexity of the internal political crisis and not because of any human rights issue or alleged war crime charges. However, this is a serious mistake made in Indian politics. The one billion Indians could witness the phenomenon of White House over the Rashtrapati Bhavan for the first time since independence when India fell in line with America’s stand on the UNHRC vote. India possesses experienced and prominent diplomats. India is the soul of South Asia. If we go back to history we are all Indians. It is a pride to be an Indian.

We never undermine that. The leadership role of the Asian region is under the purview of India. This leadership role does not come merely because of its size or the population. India should play the role of Leader. India, the regional boss is the big brother who should ensure co-existence with countries around and share its ideals with them. That is how leadership can be safeguarded. Therefore I make this opportunity to urge India to rectify its mistakes.

Q: Speculation is rife that the UN will appoint a committee and exert international pressure on Sri Lanka based on this resolution. Is there any possibility for such interference on Sri Lanka as we are a signatory to establish the UNHRC in 2006?

A: Being one of the founder member of the UN, Sri Lanka has pride over its membership. We have a confidence in the UN. We should tell the UN with that it should not allow powerful nations to use “human rights” as a weapon to browbeat small countries. If we take the US resolution against Sri Lanka, it is clearly evident that the motive behind this resolution was not human rights. Small states in the world should tell the UN not to allow powerful nations to use human rights as a neo-colonial instrument. Even today there is a double standard on human rights and war crimes. This applies to terrorism as well. Any terrorist group which is not opposed to the West is not recognised as terrorists. They applied this to the LTTE terrorists as well.

The armed groups who are against the West are only recognised as terrorists. Therefore there is no accepted definition within the UN on terrorism at present. These are the shortcomings that we should point out.

Q: When the humanitarian operation against the terrorists was over, there were indications that some Western countries would interfere in Sri Lanka’s domestic matters. Don’t you think that such a situation could have been prevented?

A: As requested by the LTTE during negotiations, if the Government agreed to go for a win-win situation which would bring victory to both sides, this kind of situation could have been prevented.

There are 12 European countries and six Latin American countries. Except India, these are the countries which requested the Government not to fight with the LTTE. These countries pressurised the Government to go for negotiations with the LTTE. They were of the view the LTTE cannot be defeated militarily. These are the countries which made undue pressure to Ranil Wickremesinghe to sign the ceasefire agreement and accept LTTE dominated areas. If the Government agreed, we would have prevented that situation.

Q: Can the international community challenge or interfere in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent country?

A: This is the problem. The late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar clearly explained how the world can use human rights as a new weapon. It is obvious the international pressure is mounted on any country which has faced internal problems. But Sri Lanka was not subjected to international pressure.

Each country subjected to pressure were split Yugoslavia and Timor are examples.

The interference by international forces is unfair. We can see the double standards maintained by the Western countries in international politics.

Q: The Opposition highlights that alleged human rights violations and other wrongdoings have paved the way for international forces to interfere in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs. How would you look this picture?

A: The UNP or any other party has no right to make such a comment. Because if this is a true statement, there are two incidents in our history where human rights were gravely violated. 1983 Black July is the first occasion which the innocent Tamil people were brutally killed and burnt by UNP thugs, but the international community did not make any interference regarding these brutal killings. After that people were killed and burnt on roads using tyres during the 1988-1989 terror period. During this period over 70,000 people were killed and over 10,000 were abducted. Was there any international interference regarding these grave human rights violations which happened during the regime of the then UNP Government?

Q: What is Opposition’s duty in the context of UNHRC’s decision?

A:The Oppositions in our country has not been able to identify the national agenda. I should honestly say when the SLFP was in the Opposition, it also suffered from this same disease. This has become a common phenomenon to Oppositions.

The Opposition always undermines the military operations launched to defeat terrorism. Could we unite in the wake of Tsunami which was the most serious natural catastrophe faced during our lifetime? Even during this catastrophe for how many hours did our main political parties act with unity. A very unpleasant political culture prevails in our country.

Therefore I am not surpirsed about this situation. When attempts are being made to move forward as a nation which is free from terrorism, we should not be surpirsed about the statements made by some Opposition politicians as they resorted to similar acts to undermine the military operations against terrorists as well.

The Opposition attempts to fish in trouble waters. In a national issue, the Opposition should not behave in such a manner. Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is a veteran politician who possesses vast political experience.

He has functioned as Prime Minister on two occasions. During the final week of the UNHRC, the statement made by Opposition Leader in front of Prabhakaran’s house that spring has not dawned in the North. There should be social dialogue on this statement and it should be discussed within the UNP as well.

Q: Now that the US resolution has been passed and wouldn’t it be advisable to deal with the situation prudently?

A: This is not a US resolution, it is a UN resolution now. We should diplomatically address this issue without resorting to ad hoc responses or reactions.

We have also made some mistakes in international politics. We should not resort to displeasure by making a division between the countries which voted in favour and against this resolution. We should be able to overcome such displeasure. Sri Lanka has a history of maintaining a balanced approach on international affairs. Distinguished personalities like Shirley Amarasinghe, Gamini Corea and Jayantha Dhanapala preserved the Sri Lankan identity and diplomacy in the UN. We have to maintain that supremacy which has been maintained in the past.

We have to face this challenge with Sri Lankan identity. It is our responsibility to create an environment conducive to Tamils as they speak the Tamil language. We should give the assurance to the Tamil community that they are also entitled to all freedom and rights enjoyed by the Sinhala speaking people.

If we look at history, it was the imperialists who destroyed the unity created among communities through their divide and rule policy. They were the people who created this Sinhala-Tamil division in Sri Lanka.

This Geneva resolution will also lead to create such disputes within the country. But when friendship and goodwill is built among the communities at the end of three decades of terrorism, once again a division was made.

Q: Is there any truth that the Government has decided to conduct a referendum to implement the LLRC recommendations?

A: The Government has categorically rejected this claim. There should not be a debate whether the LLRC recommendations are implemented fully or not. The international community and the Opposition which demand to implement the LLRC recommendations criticised the LLRC when it was appointed.

At that time the international community had the Darusman Report, not the LLRC report. Without making his speech in Parliament, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe tabled the copy of his speech in the English language on February 10. In that speech he had criticised the LLRC report. As a result of this speech, a problem arose within the UNP as well. Later Wickremesinghe issued a statement in Sinhala stating that there are good recommendations in the LLRC report. We should decide whether the LLRC recommendations should be implemented or not. The LLRC report has described the ceasefire agreement signed during the regime of former UNP Government as a conceptual mistake.

Q: The Opposition says most of the people don’t have a proper understanding of the LLRC report as it has not been published in Sinhala and Tamil. Your comments?

A: The LLRC report has been printed in Sinhala and now it is being translated into Tamil. At present an effective dialogue has been created within the country on the LLRC report. The final report of the LLRC was released in December last year.

Q: The LTTE lobby has triggered strong anti-Sri Lanka campaign backed by Channel-4, Darusman Report and other propaganda by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and so on. Why cannot our embassies abroad counter this disinformation campaign?

A: There maybe shortcomings in our embassies, but we can’t put the entire blame on them because this is a huge network. A lot of foreign states have sponsored this network. This has now become a major problem in their countries. Even this has affected to the election process in the US as well.

Q: Some time ago you divorced yourself from politics. What made you to comeback?

A: I quit politics and left the country thinking I will never enter politics. My desire to enter politics was not to gain privileges or sell my vehicle permit for my existence and use politics as a ladder to enter into the upper echelons of society.

When President Mahinda Rajapaksa was going to takeover the country’s leadership, at that decisive juncture, he personally requested me to enter politics. As a person who had closely associated with the President, I decided to fulfill my duty on behalf of my motherland and enter politics. I don’t see my re-entry into politics as a mistake.

I believe I fulfilled my duty on behalf of the country. Actually the division in Sri Lankan politics led me to quit politics. Otherwise I could have easily joined another political party and got perks as I received so many invitations. But I refused.

I entered politics with a vision and political ideology. As a journalist I entered politics when the country was at a decisive stage during the 1988-1989 terror period. As a journalist, I entered politics to find a solution to this crisis. Once again that kind of pressure was made by me and my conscience and the country’s Leader. This is what led me to re-join politics and work for the betterment of my motherland.