White Flag, Channel Four, GSP

Sri Lanka ready for any eventuality- Minister Samarasinghe

by Manjula Fernando

Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe

Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Observer, highlights the Government’s response to issues such as the white flag incident, Channel 4 video and the forthcoming HRC session in Geneva. Excerpts from the interview:

Q: You met Human Rights Commissioner Navinetham Pillay recently in Geneva? What was her response to your concerns?

A: We discussed several issues including the proposed National Action plan on Human Rights, white flag incident, channel four incident, Prof. Philip Alston’s statement and also the arrest of Sarath Fonseka.

The National action plan was something she unreservedly welcomed. We are planning on discussing the National Action plan further so that it will be more representative and then it will be presented to Cabinet for endorsement. Then we will proceed with the implementation.

The environment was very much pleasant than the previous occasion, may be because there has been quite a lot of positive developments taking place in Sri Lanka.

Q: But she has made some adverse comments on Sri Lanka subsequent to this meeting?

A: Yes, we saw a subsequent statement by her made at Dublin when attending an NGO Forum. I am in the process of replying to this. Some of the things she raised there were not raised with me. She has again referred to the HRC special session on Sri Lanka where we decisively won with nearly two thirds of member countries voting in favour of us where countries decided not to even consider the draft resolution as well as the amendments put forward by the Western bloc.

She has said it is disappointing that the Council has taken this decision. We believe the Commissioner has no right to question an inter-Governmental decision. The High Commissioner is supposed to be impartial and she can’t represent one regional bloc.

We will be reminding her she should respect the decisions of the HRC. Sri Lanka has done a good job of eliminating terrorism and now it’s a question of addressing the human rights. And they must help Sri Lanka rather than trying to prevent it from reaching this objective by drawing attention to various other things which cannot be supported by evidence.

Q: When will you be responding to Prof. Alston’s comments?

A: Yes we have decided to send a reply to Prof.Alston’s letter. We understand that he will be submitting his report on the Channel 4 incident and white flag incident during the June session. We are now in the process of studying his observations.

I will also be taking steps to address a communication to the President of the Council about the violation of procedure by Prof.Philip Alston. He rushed to New York to address a media conference in the midst of a Presidential election to give his own conclusions of what the experts he had commissioned had said. We were not given an opportunity to study the new information they may have come up with. There was no need for him to rush to a press conference like that unless he wanted to make an impact on the presidential election.

Therefore, we believe the code of conduct and clear guidelines which govern the conduct of Special Rapporteurs have not been observed in this case. I have been advised by our friends of other counties who are present in Geneva to address this to the President of the Council.

Q: Was the issue of his actions taken up before Mrs. Pillay?

A: Yes. She also highlighted a procedure available within the HRC to complain on matters such as this, to complain to the International Coordinating Committee. We are now studying the impartiality of the members of this committee. We need to go before a highly impartial body.

We don’t want to go before a Kangaroo court. I am not saying the ICC is a Kangaroo Court but we must study the composition and the procedure and then decide. But certainly the President of the Council is someone who represents everyone. So it is correct for us to use that option also because of the fact the mandate for Special Rapporteurs are given by the Council.

Q: What was her response over the retired Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s issue?

A: Not only Mrs. Pillay, we discussed this matter with about 30 Ambassadors in Geneva including the Ambassadors representing the West. The Attorney General briefed them. He said that no one is above the law. Any one who has violated the law can be dealt under the legal system of Sri Lanka. That person is also free to seek redress in the judiciary. The Ambassadors also informed us that this was what they too expected, that any action has to be within the legal framework of the country.

Our Constitution provides for people to seek redress in independent bodies if there has been a violation of their rights. We explained them that all our actions will be within the legal framework of Sri Lanka.

Q: What was discussed on the white flag allegations?

A: I pointed out that Sarath Fonseka has made number of contradictory statements on this so called white flag incident. While he was in uniform, at a ceremony at Dharmashoka College, Ambalangoda he said the white flags were a tactic deployed by the group to mount a surprise attack on the military.

That is why they had to attack them.Subsequently as the Presidential Candidate he told the Sunday Leader it was an order by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. When Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva denied such an order, they had to retract this statement. The writer of the interview later said she was approached by some opposition parties to claim that Sarath Fonseka did not make such a statement in her first interview.

We used the paper cuttings and other material to prove the inconsistency of his allegations. She was also briefed on the election process and the current developments in Sri Lanka. It is very rare to win an election with more than 1.8 million votes (57.8%). This is a major endorsement of the President’s programs by the people of the country. Even with all his popularity, President Obama received only 52 %.We explained her even if there were discrepancies, there was nothing significant to change the final result.

Q: Prof. Alston has said that retired Gen. Fonseka’s allegations as well as the Channel 4 issue will be taken up before forthcoming Human Rights Commission sessions?

A: Not during the forthcoming one. He is not expected to present a report in March. He is expected to raise it in June.

Before that we will be sending our observations. He is asking for an international inquiry. Our position is that we have our domestic process. The President has appointed a six member committee to deal with the issue of State Department report. Their mandate has been extended till April. On the Channel 4 incident we have our own advice from experts, including technical advice. They all still stand by what they have concluded earlier that this was a fake video.

Prof. Philip Alston’s own experts in their report also say there are things in the video which they cannot explain. For example the movement of a leg after a person was allegedly shot and killed.

The date of the film is mentioned as July whereas they claim it was recorded in January. The explanation is that the person who recorded it has tampered with the date so as to cover up his identity. These are childish to say the least. There are a lot of discrepancies, shortcomings in his experts’ conclusions.

Q: Do you expect a difficult situation for Sri Lanka at the forthcoming HRC sessions?

A: I don’t think anything special will happen but nevertheless we are ready. This is one of the reasons why I visited Geneva, so that our friends are informed of the real situation in the country, ahead of the sessions.

Q: Why do you say Retd. Gen. Fonseka has put the country in danger with his remarks?

A: We have successfully defeated attempts by some countries to put us on the map alleging there were massive HR violations during the final operation against the LTTE. After that resounding victory in Geneva, the international community began to understand our efforts.

Things were quiet for sometime until Fonseka’s newspaper interview. All that hard work was made futile by that.Now again we have to show that his statements are not worth anything.

Q: But he withdrew his statement?

A: But some may still think since he was the ex-Army Commander he was telling the truth and that he withdrew his statement due to political pressure.

My personal point is he made that statement to please the TNA. It was made during negotiations with the TNA. They could have said if you say something like this we will be able to market you better. I think I have enough reasons to come to that conclusion. Why did he subsequently withdraw it if it was the correct position ?

Later the constituent parties of his coalition must have explained that he had committed political suicide. In the event to get TNA support he alienated the South and the Forces. It was clearly portrayed in the postal vote. The President got a resounding 70%.

Q: Last week an arrest warrant was issued on Danuna Tillekeratne, the son-in-law of the ex-Army chief and his mother was arrested and a statement taken. Will these actions not badly reflect on our HR record?

A: When the law enforcing authorities get a tip off that there is foreign currency or undisclosed money in a Bank vault and then the CID obtains a search warrant from a duly established court of law, and opens the vault in the presence of the owner, representatives of the Bank and other relevant people and they find a huge amount of money, especially foreign currency, what do you expect the law enforcing authorities to do? They have to follow the law. There is a Banking Act in the country, an Inland Revenue Act and other laws which then come to play. No one is above the law.

Q: Is there a move to block the 3rd tranche of the IMF loan?

A: Nothing as such, we are going to get the full IMF loan. The problem is with the GSP+. We have got six more months to bargain. The National Action Plan on HR is now ready. Once this Action Plan is in the implementation stage we will be able to better improve our Human rights commitments.

We have asked for more time to resolve the issues in the areas of their concern. We cannot solve everything in just six months and moreover we will not compromise the country’s sovereignty. I believe when we make progress the EU will find it difficult not to extend the GSP facility to us. If they still don’t, then we will be compelled to assume the EU is working on a different agenda.

We have made contingency plans to secure jobs in the event of no GSP but if we succeed in getting this facility life will be much easier.