Hard won peace must be preserved - Deputy Speaker

By Uditha Kumarasinghe

Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody said laws under the UN system have been drafted to intervene in disputes between countries. The Deputy Speaker in an interview with the Sunday Observer said that as far as he is aware, there is no provision to intervene in a situation where one party is a state and the other is a non-entity. Even in a court of law, the technicalities of the process have to be gone into by them first. The UN has to see whether proper systems are in place to intervene in a country such as Sri Lanka which has created history by eradicating terrorism.

The Deputy Speaker said in the case of Iraq, no action was taken against the US because the understanding was that the US forces were doing their best to provide relief to the Iraqi people who had been deprived of their rights. In such circumstances, I believe that action should be taken against the inhuman conduct of the LTTE terrorists not only during the last few days of the terrorist war but right throughout the last three decades.

Q: The Government has banned 16 organisations with terrorist links in the interest of national security. How would you explain this decision and its implications if any?

A: As Sri Lankans, I don’t think there is any need to rethink about it. This situation is something that we have achieved at great cost. It is the responsibility of the Government and the people of Sri Lanka to protect what we have achieved by eradicating terrorism for the betterment of our future generation. As the Government with our efficient intelligence services, we understand that there is a threat to national security due to the conduct of these organisations which have terrorist links. It is a must that such organisations should be banned and every possible step should be taken to reduce the damage caused by the operation of such organisations.

Q: The External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris has said that the Government will not cooperate with the UNHRC committee of inquiry. Could you explain the pros and cons of this decision to the country?

A: As a lay person and a politician representing the people, how I look at this scenario is that if you go back to the history of our country, this is a country which has a long civilisation. We faced several invasions during our history. Every time there was an invasion, we have done our level best to eradicate such menace from the country. Under any circumstances, international or otherwise, action has not been taken against the Sri Lankan Army which has taken steps to eradicate a menace against the country. If you go back to the second World War situation , no action was taken against allied forces. International action was only instituted against the Nazis because the understanding was that the allied forces got together to eradicate the problems created by the Nazis. So the Nazis were the terrorists and allied forces were similar to that of our security forces. It is the responsibility of the Government troops to safeguard the rights of the citizens of this country. In achieving that goal, the best the that the security forces should do has to be done.

In other situations such as in the case of Iraq, no action was taken against the US because the understanding was that the US forces were doing their best to provide relief to the Iraqi people who had been deprived of their rights. In such circumstances, I believe that action should be taken against the inhuman conduct of the LTTE terrorists not only during the last few days of the terrorist war but right throughout the last three decades. Technically I see another issue that the laws under UN system have been drafted to intervene in disputes between countries or state to state. As far as I know, there is no provision to intervene in a situation of this nature where one party is a state and the other is a non-entity. Even in a court of law, the technicalities of the process have to be gone into by them first. First of all, they have to see whether proper systems are in place to intervene in a country such as Sri Lanka which has created history by eradicating terrorism.

Q: The UNHRC investigation will retard the domestic reconciliation process and eventually damage racial harmony. Could you elaborate ?

A: Certainly. It is an important point. Sri Lanka must go for a home-grown solution. We also eradicated terrorism through a home-grown mechanism initiated under the leadership of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The system and cultural values are unique to Sri Lanka. There could be some similarities that we could share within the region, but not with most of the countries that are trying to push us into an international inquiry. Therefore trust is important. Mistrust is a challenge for reconciliation. Mutual understanding is important to bridge the gap and create trust between communities. The main community should not run off with the idea that the minority communities will mess them up and vice versa. When this type of mechanism is adopted with the use of international pressure, the trust that is strengthening between communities could be damaged so that would hamper our expectations of reconciliation.

Q: Governments in Argentina, Brazil and Chile are left-inclined and pursue socialist policies. How is it that these countries voted against Sri Lanka for the second time at the UNHRC?

A: One should understand that every country has its own agenda. The main responsibility and expectation of any country is to be first self strengthened and established. To achieve stability economically, socially and otherwise, they need the assistance of various countries from time to time. However much EU member countries are not in favour of our situation, we have to stand by the decisions taken by them as a union to protect our economic stability. The same theory also applies to other countries when they give priority for their survival.

Q: The JVP and Democratic Party speak of a “political comeback” after the recent Provincial Council elections. Does this mean that the people have begun to have second thoughts on voting in a future elections?

A: Not at all. The people of this country are intelligent. People who voted at these PC elections knew that these results would not bring any change in the incumbent Government under any circumstances. When we analyse the results, it shows that the majority of the people as a group have not expected any change of government. Had there been such a move for a change, all the forces against the Government would have got together. Had there been any opposition to overthrow the Government , the people would have flocked together around the main opposition. Here we don’t see such end results. The end result is people have expressed their opinion in a scattered manner. That was result of a weak opposition which is not unanimous and led in three different directions. It is a temporary signal for the Government to address some issues and how it should conduct itself.

Q: The opposition parties claim that the people have alerted the Government with the PC election results. How do you view this situation?

A: Certainly. As I told you earlier, though the people want the Government to be in power, at the same time they have given a signal without causing any damage to the Government to get back on track. It is up to us to rethink and correct our position wherever we have not been up to the people's expectations.

Q: What is happening to the No-confidence Motion initiated by the main opposition UNP few weeks back?

A: Actually that was only an election tactic to show their presence in the political field. Otherwise they have not come out with any substance on it. It is only to show that they are also present in the political arena.

Q: The lack of a quorum in Parliament is a recurring feature. What steps have been taken to rectify this development?

A: That is purely the responsibility of the Members. Party Leaders should be mindful in requesting members to be present in the Chamber when matters of national importance are discussed. This matter has been discussed at various forums and we believe Party Leaders of the respective parties will consider this matter seriously.

Q: Is there any move to resume the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings as this is a progressive measure, it could be streamlined and reopened to the public?

A: We are already taking steps to have the proceedings live. We need to upgrade our system. That is being attended to. Once it is done, the live telecast with a lack of about two to three hours will be made available to the public.

Q: It is a progressive measure to allow the public to watch parliamentary proceedings without red tape. What led the authorities to arrive at this decision?

A: It is mainly the vision and leadership of Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa who believes that Parliament has to be close to the public .

Q: How do you view the racial politics practised by the TNA which are against the Constitution and detrimental to national unity?

A: The TNA has been a proxy of the LTTE for a long time. They have been dancing to the whims and fancies of the LTTE. Even though the TNA wants to deviate from that line of thinking and enter mainstream politics, it is difficult for them to do so.

We hope their attempt will be successful in time to come by getting into the democratic process, so that they will also become a party that will be patriotic.