Govt has made good progress

But demonstratable progress needed to regain GSP+ says EU envoy:

by Manjula Fernando

Pic: Thushara Fernando

The Charge d'affaires of the EU, Paul Godfrey said the former Sri Lankan Government violated 15 UN human rights conventions but were now on track and observing a majority of them. In the light of this re-gaining the GSP plus tariff concession in the near future was a possibility, he said.

In an interview with the Sunday Observer last week, he said the demand for an international inquiry on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka had been shelved and aligning with the UN Human Rights High Commissioner (UNHRHC), was helping Sri Lanka to address outstanding issues to reinvigorate exports to the crucial European market.

"Sri Lanka is on-track, meeting the majority of concerns," the charge d'affaires said adding that the UNHRHC's recent comments in Geneva, was an indication of Sri Lanka's progress.

The EU was in the forefront demanding an international mechanism to probe accountability and war crimes allegations against Sri Lanka, stemming from the 26- year war with the LTTE.

'Excerpts...

Q: What is the EU's view on Sri Lanka's journey towards reconciliation and durable peace, this is tied to the renewal of GSP plus tariff concessions?

A: In broad terms, we support the UNHRHC's view. We are on the same lines. Excellent progress has been made during the past year or so. There is a long way to go. We need to see continued progress in reconciliation and human rights.

The GSP plus is a specific concession the EU offers, based on the implementation of 27 UN international conventions. Nine teen relate to human rights. It was withdrawn in 2010 because the previous government violated 15 of these conventions.

This government has made good progress. But there are some areas, where demonstrable progress was neeeded. We are working with the government to clear them.

Q: The government is anxious to regain the GSP plus concessions, the people are hopeful. What commitments are outstanding on the part of the SL government ?

A: Flouting 15 UN conventions led to this. Clear progress in all fifteen conventions must be seen. These relate to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Torture and the Child Rights Convention. These three conventions are the most important, where Sri Lanka had failed. We must be convinced that the progress is irreversible.

Tariff concessions

Q: You said Sri Lanka faltered in 15 areas. How many of them do they still need to work on?

A: We haven't made a formal assessment. Sri Lanka is on track, meeting the majority of concerns.

Q: Is there a timeframe when Sri Lanka will regain the tariff concessions. Will it be possible this year ?

A: Sri Lanka is free to make an application. It is condition- based and not time-based. If a re-assurance could be given in the coming week, then an application could be made. The average processing time between application and the concessions being granted is about eight to 10 months.The Philippines did it in eight months last year.

Progress will be evaluated throughout the application process. What the UNHRHC said when he gave his assessment in Geneva is an indication of Sri Lanka's progress.

Q: Which category of tariff concessions will Sri Lanka qualify to gain this time, if it fulfills EU conditions?

A:There are different categories of tariff concessions granted by the EU and GSP plus is a unique concession provided to a few countries.

You have to be a lower middle income country to qualify. Sri Lanka is a lower middle income country so it qualifies.

Q: Concessions will be effective for only three years?

A: It is reviewed on the country's status. When the country graduates to upper middle income category, then it will lose the concessions.

There is no imminent possibility of such a situation. It may happen by 2020 or 2025.

Q: Will the ban on Sri Lankan fisheries exports to the EU be lifted shortly?

A: The ban on fisheries exports is something that the Ministry of Fisheries in Sri Lanka and my colleagues in the fisheries department in Brussels are working on. My colleagues were pleased with the progress. There are one or two areas that have shortcomings. We hope the ban can be lifted in the coming months.

This is also a condition-based process rather than time-based.

Q: There were allegations against the EU that the withdrawal of the GSP plus concessions and the fishing exports ban imposed on Sri Lanka were aimed at punishing the former government and it was a political witch-hunt by a section of the international community. How would you respond to this allegation?

A: There is no political basis for any of the decisions. Both decisions were made on specific technical grounds. I already said the previous government violated 15 UN Conventions. The government was given ample opportunity to address the issues, but it did not show an interest in even engaging in dialogue.

We had no choice but to withdraw the GSP plus concession. It is not a step that we do often. This is an exception rather than the rule. It was the same with regard to the fishing ban.

We highlighted the concerns of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. But the government at the time showed no interest to engage with international bodies to address these concerns. If you don't play by international rules, then you have to face the repercussions.

Fish resources

Q: Is it correct to say an EU team will be here shortly to evaluate the progress by Sri Lanka to renew the GSP plus tariff concessions.

A: There was a team which came in January and made a provisional assessment. More progress needs to be made. The next meeting is in Brussels, where the Lankan government would set out the progress made. No specific date is set. It would be in the coming weeks.

Q: Sri Lanka has already banned foreign vessels from fishing in its territorial waters. It was one of the key concerns.

A: I think the specific concern was about having foreign vessels sailing with the Sri Lankan flag but not traceable electronically. There was no way to observe them. Foreign vessels, paid to Sri Lanka but exploited the fish resources which raised affected sustainability and livelihood of local fishermen.

Q: The EU is satisfied with the measures taken so far to address it?

A:That area has been satisfactorily fulfilled. The government has already made progress in electronic monitoring of vessels. These are important for sustainability of the sector among other things.

Q: Was there a concern that under the guise of fishing boats, spy vessels could be operating in Sri Lankan waters?

A: No. I haven't heard of that.

Q: The EU was pressing for an international mechanism to probe war crimes allegations against Sri Lanka. The UNHRHC, at the inauguration of the March sessions, however, did not renew his call for an international investigation. What is the EU's latest stance?

A: Our position is aligned with the High Commissioner's. Emphasis is on the credibility of the process. If it provides accountability for the crimes that are alleged and justice for victims, the people involved don't concern us. It's for Sri Lanka to judge whether or not it has sufficient expertise and objectivity to provide confidence to the victims and that the situation would be addressed.

Q: The FBI identified the LTTE as one of the most ruthless terrorist organisations in the world. Europe is facing a similar, if not a greater threat with ISIS. Fighting a terrorist organisation is more difficult than engaging in a conventional war. Do you think the international community disregarded this fact when calling for accountability and war crimes investigations on Sri Lanka?

A: Why do we consider people as terrorists? Because they operate outside the common value systems. What we need to combat terrorism is to stand up for fundamental values, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This means people who err most, whether they are involved in fights against terrorism or not, need to be held accountable for these actions, that strengthen our overall message against terrorism and shows a clear distinction between those who are terrorists and those in law enforcement.

There is no doubt the Sri Lankan army and police had to combat the terrorist threat posed by the LTTE, but it seems from allegations that there were certain actions outside the practice of good conduct that we expect from the Sri Lankan armed forces. If this is true, then those who acted in that manner should be held accountable.

There is no excuse for raping women, or executing those who surrendered. Those are the kinds of violations that we feel need to be addressed, by whichever judicial mechanism Sri Lanka considers appropriate. It's important that crimes committed by all sides, Sri Lankan armed forces, LTTE terrorists or paramilitary forces be addressed. It should not be a process specifically targeting the Sri Lankan armed forces.