No better opportunity to showcase Lanka's progress:

CHOGM 2013 will be a resounding success – Minister G.L. Peiris

By Manjula Fernando

External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Observer, said that despite ‘irresistible domestic political pressure’ on Member States, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka will be a resounding success.

He said assuming the Chair of the Commonwealth will not be an unnecessary burden as pessimists would believe, since Sri Lanka was not afraid of media spotlight and attention. “We are certainly happy to meet criticism on a rational plain.”

Prof. Peiris said, “ The Commonwealth cannot be created in the image of a handful of countries who insist on imposing their values on the rest. There cannot be any attempt to impose solutions on countries and any impression on excessive and external interference will be harmful to the future of the Association.”

The full interview:

Q:There was a recent comment by you that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo is going to be a colossal success and the pessimists are in for a great surprise. Could you elaborate on this comment?

A: In a variety of ways, that would be the position in terms of the numbers attending. But that is not the only criteria. The benefits to the country are many-fold. One is the opportunity for the people to see for themselves, the development that has taken place. Even critics of Sri Lanka who had the opportunity of travelling all over the country came back with a favorable impression. They told us that they had no idea about the development which had taken place and what they saw was very much at variance with the propaganda to which they had been exposed to.

This happened particularly during the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting here, which was very well organised by the Speaker of Parliament. Many people who went to the North, including those from some countries which were very critical of us, said they were very pleasantly surprised by the developments that they saw. Of course, there is more to be done which we readily agree. The problems which emanate from 30 years of terrorism cannot be resolved in four years.

When you consider the complexity of the challenges that the country was faced with and the period of time in which these problems had to be addressed, by any reasonable standard, the achievements are substantial.

Great opportunity

Here is an opportunity for the leaders and the other dignitaries to observe at first hand, with their own eyes, the development that has taken place. It is a very considerable advantage. Another benefit to Sri Lanka, which I say will belie the gloomy prophesies of pessimists, is the Business Forum. Up to now, as I speak to you today, 614 foreign participants; leaders of companies and leaders of banks, have registered for this event. There is tremendous interest in the Business Forum. We have formulated project proposals, which have attracted a great deal of interest, and the idea is to stimulate interest in Sri Lanka as a destination for investment, an international hub for shipping and aviation, for the knowledge-based industry and manufacturing. These proposals will result in very considerable investments to the country.

In these ways, we are going to benefit a great deal. Further, being the host country is a great honour to the country, because Sri Lanka assumes the leadership of the Commonwealth, consisting of 54 countries, for two years.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa becomes the Chair of the Commonwealth and that, naturally, gives us a greater and stronger voice in the world.

Q: But there is an assumption that assuming the leadership of the Commonwealth is an unnecessary burden on Sri Lanka for the enormous media attention and the pressure it will have on the country. Your comments?

A: I don't agree with that. One has to have a proper understanding of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not a judgmental forum. It is an association of equals. It is a voluntary association. Another important characteristic of the Commonwealth is that it is a celebration of diversity. There are different cultures, different approaches, and there are different ways of looking at problems and finding solutions to problems.

Therefore, in my view, there is no need at all to be afraid of media attention. We are certainly happy to meet criticism on a rational plain. However, some of what is happening is plainly bias. Some of the material put out during the last two to three days on Sri Lanka, none of it is new. People who have assembled them are trying to make out that they have done a lot of research and that they have come across new facts, which they want to bring to the attention of the world. That is far from the truth.

All this has been out in the public domain for more than a year and a half. But what is happening is that this material is pulled out time and again on the eve of some politically significant event.

It happened on the eve of the meeting in Brussels with regard to the GSP plus facility, to create prejudice against Sri Lanka. The same thing happened on the eve of my meeting with William Hague in London. The British papers published it a day before my meeting with him. The third time it happened was when President Mahinda Rajapaksa was in the UK to address the Oxford Union.

The same material, it had not even being rehashed, was pulled out on the eve of the meeting of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, then India and elsewhere.

It is an effort on the part of the people who have an agenda of their own to try to embarrass the country. There is nothing new in it. Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of the media attention. Media attention is good for us if it is objective. And we need to ensure that it is objective. Media attention is also going to be extremely good for us because it will show the progress we have made towards the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). In fact, we have exceeded the MDG targets, in terms of the outreach of technology (ICT) into our villages, equal opportunities in schools; the first 10 places in the highly competitive national exams do not come from the big schools in the cities. These are all matters that need to be highlighted. Media attention is good from that point of view.

Relevance of Commonwealth

Q: Some criticise that the Commonwealth is an irrelevant organisation with a colonial hangover in today’s world and that it is a talk shop with no tangible results to show. Several countries including most recently Gambia have left the organisation on these grounds. How can the Commonwealth assume a more dynamic role?

A: If it became that, certainly that criticism would be justified. But Sri Lanka, as the Chair of the Commonwealth, will certainly play a role. The Commonwealth must be seen by the people of all countries as an instrument that is of ‘practical value'.

It must be seen, not as an organisation which meets to discuss theoretical values or concepts, but as an instrument capable of formulating and implementing strategies and policies that will lead to the economic uplift of those countries: The improvement of living conditions, access to health for the rural population, nutrition for children and mothers, access to education and training.

The issues connected with the environment, now with the emphasis on the blue economy; the preservation of the oceanic resources, disaster management, global warming and gender issues - the Commonwealth must address these real issues.

I am not saying political issues are not important. They are. But they must not be allowed to crowd out burning social issues. Those are the matters of practical importance to the overwhelming majority of our people.

The Commonwealth must be seen to be playing a useful role with regard to the resolution of those issues. The Commonwealth cannot be created in the image of a handful of countries which insist on imposing their values on the rest. There cannot be any attempt to impose solutions on countries and any impression on excessive, external interference will be harmful to the future of the organisation.

These are matters we need to bear in mind in ensuring the Commonwealth is relevant and useful at the present time.

Q: The Commonwealth is about chartering a new path for friendly relations and global peace. Do you think veiled threats such as ‘tough talks’ with the host country or raising its human rights record portend a gloomy picture for this friendly gathering?

A: The Commonwealth has never been a forum for the discussion of bilateral issues. That is entirely contrary to the culture of the Commonwealth. We are of course happy to engage in a candid dialogue with anyone. We have nothing to hide and we have consistently engaged in direct discussions.

But, of course, the Commonwealth meeting cannot be converted into a discussion of specific country situations. Where would that end? Would it be the case that countries can go into the domestic issues of other Commonwealth countries? Is that healthy for the Commonwealth? Is that what the Commonwealth is all about?

The discussion has to be about the overarching themes which are of interest to the entire membership. And the overarching themes have been decided upon in consultation with the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure that they have pragmatic value and relevance.

The themes this year are economic development and social equity. That is the core of the discussion at the meeting of the Heads of Government, the Youth Forum in Hambantota, the People’s Forum in Hikkaduwa and the Business Forum in Colombo. The Commonwealth Summit cannot be converted into an investigation of country issues because that would be a very unhappy precedent and something that would put in peril the very future of the Commonwealth. It is totally at variance with the culture and traditions of the Commonwealth.

Access to media

Q: Nearly 1,000 journalists, including from Channel 4 (which produced No Fire Zone and other documentaries) will be in Sri Lanka for the Summit. The Government said it wished to show the world the positive developments it has gained after the end of terrorism. Can the Government be certain that the international publicity emanating from the summit will be positive as a whole?

A: Of course there will be people with agendas of their own. That is a fact of life. However, we are confident that the majority of media personnel who will come to the country will value the opportunity of making an objective assessment. We have, in recent months, had many visits by foreign journalists who took a dispassionate view of what they have seen.

That would not be true of everyone, naturally there will be exceptions. But that is not a reason for trying to cut off exposure. How many countries in post-conflict situations can claim legitimately the achievements of Sri Lanka, the resettlement of 296,000 displaced people, the reintegration of 13,000 ex-combatants who were exposed to programs of vocational training before being sent back to their villages, the enormously complex work that was connected with demining?

The economy of the North is currently growing at about three times the rate of the progress in the rest of the country. The entire economy has been reinvigorated from the colossal investment in infrastructure; highways, railroad systems, power and energy. Then, the holding of the Northern Provincial Council elections. In other post-conflict situations, these developments have taken much longer than four years.The reasonable observers who did not come with preconceived notions had given us credit for these tremendous achievements. That is what we need to showcase to the world. And there cannot be a better opportunity for it than the Commonwealth Summit.

Q: The latest accusation against Channel 4 is telecasting material degrading to the Royal Family. It has a history of making and telecasting documentaries that are timed at key international conferences that Sri Lanka is represented at high level such as the UN Human Rights Council sessions. The Government rejected these documentaries as based on unverified material. In this backdrop, what is the basis for granting visas to the Channel 4 crew to cover the CHOGM ?

A: The principles governing media access to CHOGM are uniform and have been developed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. Sri Lanka has said that we will abide by these criteria which are applicable to access by journalists.

It is true that some who have a reputation for sensationalism and who have behaved in a manner that is not entirely in keeping with proper journalistic ethics may gain access. However, access by journalists to CHOGM venues is governed by the criteria set by the Commonwealth Secretariat and we have acted in keeping with those principles.

Enormous pressure

Q: There is enormous pressure on the Indian Prime Minister to boycott the Commonwealth Heads Meeting in Sri Lanka. It is reported that India will make a final decision shortly. Is it important for Sri Lanka, the host country, to have the Indian Head of Government at the CHOGM ?

A: Well, as far as we are concerned, we would very much like to have India represented at the highest level.

India is our closest neighbour. It is also the most populous country by far in the Commonwealth. And we have cordially invited the Indian leadership to attend. However, the decision is for the Indian authorities to make, taking into regard all these circumstances. That is a matter for them. We await their decision and we would be very happy if they come.

Q: The calls on the Heads of State of India, Britain, Canada and Australia, in particular, to boycott the CHOGM in Sri Lanka had been very intense. Is there any particular reason for this?

A:The reason is very clear. I don't think there is any serious controversy surrounding it. The reason is due to the pressure emanating from the Diaspora. Many political personalities have found this pressure irresistible. It has to do with voting strength, the capability of some groups to tilt the scale in the closely fought elections. But it is not just a matter of counting heads for the purposes of elections. It has to do with resources and organisational strength which would be a valuable resource to politicians.In our view, it is wrong for countries to succumb to pressure of this kind in making decisions with regard to participation in a conference of this nature; we feel it is contrary to principles. Because Sri Lanka should not be made the stage on which these other issues are played out. What is necessary is objectivity and consistency of standards. When it becomes clear that uniform standards do not apply and there is a high degree of selectivity and that selectivity arises from political factors, then there is a problem.

Today, there is a growing recognition in many parts of the world that that is the reality of the situation.