Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Sabry, PC said, “We are realistic about our chances at the UNHRC vote on October 7 but whether we win or lose we cannot agree on something which is imposed on us from outside that will violate our Constitution.
The Minister who is in New York to attend the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly in a telephone interview told the Sunday Observer that irrespective of the results of the vote on the draft resolution, we will tell them the so-called evidence gathering mechanism on Sri Lanka is outside Sri Lanka’s legal framework and we cannot agree to it. “However, we are confident that some countries which understand the common ideals as to how the UNHRC should function will vote with us.
We are also realistic about our real chances of defeating the resolution, Minister Sabry said”. “Nevertheless, we will continue to engage with the international community and talk to the UNHRC, Core Group and our friends. We will try to come out with a mechanism within Sri Lanka whether there is a resolution or not which could be acceptable to all and try to provide solutions or a platform for a truth-seeking mechanism”.
Excerpts of the interview
Q: What were the sentiments expressed by the countries that supported Sri Lanka at the UNHRC?
A: Generally, the countries which supported us earlier are supporting us this time as well and the sentiment is that as far as Sri Lanka’s economic recovery is concerned, they all want to support Sri Lanka to recover quickly.
Q: For the first-time economic crimes have also been included in the UNHRC draft resolution on Sri Lanka. Was this outside the remit of the UNHRC and is that why you opposed it?
A: Yes. In our opinion it is beyond the mandate and the best practices of the UNHRC. We do have our domestic mechanism to find out and some of the people have already gone to the Supreme Court whether there was a crime or otherwise. All those things are to be put together in the UNHRC. In our opinion that is unacceptable and that is why we opposed it.
Q: Has Sri Lanka made any tangible progress with regard to the human rights situation in the country as demanded by the Core Group and other countries at the UNHRC?
A: Yes. I mean not because anyone demands it but we have done that very well. If you look at it after the battle against terrorism, 12, 194 LTTE cadres surrendered and all of them were rehabilitated and reintegrated.
Ninety-four percent of the lands which had been taken by the Army during that period had been released to the people. We all know there is not a single issue of disappearances during the past two to three years.
Unfortunately, what happened in Sri Lanka was an economic crisis which led to a social crisis and culminated in a political crisis. I think it is important that the international community understand that as well. It is also important that Sri Lanka should have social stability and security on the ground to recover.
In order to achieve that, we need to follow the law and order. The law needs to be used towards that end.
Sri Lanka by the Constitution had ensured the freedom of expression. So, everyone can protest as long as those protests are peaceful. Everyone can express their right as long as that is peaceful.
However, we cannot allow a few individuals with a hidden agenda who traditionally had not believed in democracy to hijack it. At the moment they are trying to do that. There is an obligation on the part of the State to protect the social order. So, I explained that to the international community.
Q: Although the Government has promised to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and introduce a National Security Act, people are still being detained under the PTA. How will this affect Sri Lanka’s standing at the UNHRC?
A: We have explained to them that actually the PTA had been amended in March. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Prof. G.L.Peiris and myself as the then Justice Minister, we got together and amended the PTA. Now detentions under the PTA can be challenged in courts as well as there are bail provisions.
We have already gone to the Cabinet to replace the PTA with a more balanced National Security Act. Those things will take place. But in the interim, if there is evidence of sabotage, conspiracy or subversive activities which in the opinion of the law enforcement authorities need to be investigated under the PTA, I don’t think it is for the Government to interfere in that mechanism.
But going forward we will and we should replace the PTA with a more balanced National Security law which will have a balance between the national security and the liberty of the citizens.
Q: What kind of support does Sri Lanka expect at the UNHRC vote on October 7?
A: We need to be realistic. Only 47 countries can vote for every member in the world. So, if you carefully look at those countries some of our friends are no longer there. The countries which voted with us on the last few occasions such as the Maldives, Bangladesh and Russia are not there and new people have come.
So, the Core Group when it comes to powerful countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Canada and so on, there is a little bit of clout. We are realistic about our chances. That is the instructions I have got and that is what the Cabinet has approved.
Irrespective of the results, we will tell them that we cannot agree on something which is imposed on us because the so-called evidence gathering mechanism against Sri Lanka is outside the Sri Lankan legal framework and we cannot agree on it. So, to that extent it will be against us. We are also realistic about our real chances of defeating the resolution.
Q: Is there a possibility of sanctions being imposed on Sri Lankan politicians and military officials at this UNHRC session?
A: No. That is out of the question. Basically, what they are asking us is to investigate that and provide some mechanism which we will anyway do anyway. We have no problem. Our issue is continuing with their evidence gathering mechanism and prosecution outside Sri Lanka which is not permitted in our courts. Our Constitution directly says any investigation or purported violations or offences committed in Sri Lanka should be investigated and prosecuted within Sri Lanka.
Q: Since there is a change of administration in Sri Lanka and a more prudent approach to human rights, could there be a sort of compromise or middle ground with the Core Group and other opponents of Sri Lanka at the UNHRC?
A: There is no middle ground in the sense but there are two choices for us: either we co-sponsor the resolution which has been brought against Sri Lanka or oppose it. So, we have had discussions for the past three months urging them not to go for a resolution but they have not agreed to that. So, that has compelled us to defend our position.
Nevertheless, we will continue to engage with the international community and talk to the UNHRC Core Group and our friends.
We will try to come out with a mechanism within Sri Lanka whether there is a resolution or not which could be acceptable to all and try to provide solutions or a platform for a truth-seeking mechanism. That is what we are planning.
Q: The de-proscription of several pro-LTTE organisations has been welcomed by the Diaspora groups and many Western countries. The President has also invited the Tamil Diaspora groups to invest in Sri Lanka. Will these steps help to project a more inclusive and positive image of Sri Lanka to the outside world?
A: Definitely. I think irrespective of what is happening at the UNHRC, we should reach out to the Sri Lankans outside and this is our problem. All Sri Lankans should unite together to build our country. We always accept that this is a multiethnic, multicultural and multi linguistic society.
Everyone has equal rights in terms of our Constitution. So, reaching out to them and talking to them is the way forward. We have to win them over. I think it is time that we all get together and develop our country.
Q: You told the UNHRC, the solutions to the internal issues in Sri Lanka will be found through a domestic mechanism and intervention of external parties in domestic matters of Sri Lanka will be rejected at the UNHRC sessions. Could you explain?
A: This is very clear. We have traditionally taken that view and that is the right view as well. Because any country won’t agree that their soldiers or the people who defended their country are being prosecuted outside their country.
I don’t think even the US will agree to that.
In our case, we don’t want a blanket cover. What we want is that it has to take place within the country and the Constitution. Our Constitution provides that the judicial process should be carried out independently by the Judicial Service Commission.
Who should be appointed and how the investigations should be carried out, all this is spelt in our law? So, we cannot agree on anything which seeks to violate that accepted norm. That is what we are saying. Let us do it in terms of the Sri Lankan law.