|
united kingdom
& the Struggle for Tamil Eelam
UK Parliamentary Debate on Sri Lanka
together with a Prefatory Comment by
Nadesan Satyendra
[see also
1.
LTTE Yogi on the Current Political Situation -
Audio/Video Presentation and
2.Sanmugam
Sabesan - விளையாட்டு - அரசியல் - மொழி - நாட்டுப்பற்று!
]
2 May 2007
Prefatory Comment
by Nadesan Satyendra
The UK Parliamentary
Debate on Sri Lanka on 2 May 2007, signalled
openly the intention of the United
Kingdom to play a more direct role in the
conflict in the island of Sri Lanka.
The 'UK intervention' was
in the pipeline for several months - ever
since it became apparent that the
Norwegian initiative was failing to make
progress. Several factors contributed to the
Norwegian failure.
One was the election of
President Rajapakse in November 2005
together with his reliance, directly or
indirectly on the JVP. If Ranil
Wickremasinghe (the international
community's favoured son) had been elected,
the US backed Norwegian initiative would
have clearly continued. And the UK would
have been content to simply continue to back
that process - a peace process concerning
which Barry Gardiner, M.P. (Brent, North)
recalled
(in the Guardian of 2 January 2007),
that Ranil Wickremasinghe had 'boasted' to
him: 'They (the LTTE) want government? I'll
bog them down with government.'
Another factor which
perhaps put the final seal on the Norwegian
initiative was the
EU ban on the LTTE in May 2006. Despite
Norways effort to distance itself from the
ban by its declaration
that it will no longer align itself with
EU list of banned organisations, the LTTE
response in calling upon the Peace Monitors
from the EU to withdraw, effectively spelt
the end of the Monitoring mechanism. The
"good cop (Norway) and bad cop (US)"
routine had not proved effective and in the
end, Major General Ulf Henricsson, the
Head of Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM)
criticised the European Union for having
ignored a "seven-point memo" sent by the
SLMM before banning the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
In retrospect, many in the
EU may believe that the ban on the LTTE was
an error of judgment, in that it reduced the
leverage that the EU may have otherwise
enjoyed and in fact opened the door for a
UK-India-Commonwealth role with the EU
reduced to an 'observer role'. The
international community (read the
trilaterals - US, EU and Japan) left with
reduced ability to progress its
interests in the conflict in the island,
attempted to bring a
draft resolution on Sri Lanka
in the Human Rights Council in
August/September 2006. But no majority
was forthcoming - and reportedly the draft
resolution
was thwarted by India, China and many
member states belonging to the third world.
It is in this context that the
President Rajapakse meeting with Prime
Minister Tony Blair in late August 2006
may have to be understood.
UK Minister for the Middle
East, Dr. Kim Howells who opened the
debate on Sri Lanka
was right to point out -
"I want the House to
know that this debate ...is not, as some
propagandists and partisan elements have
claimed, a debate generated by any
faction of Sri Lankan politics or by any
lobbying organisations claiming to
represent any part of the large Sri
Lankan diaspora residing in Britain, pro
or anti-LTTE."
Indeed if anything, the
lobbying may have been the other way around.
Mr. Paul Murphy M.P. (Torfaen) (Lab)
in explaining some of the lessons
learned from the North Ireland peace process
pointed out that "one of the key reasons why
the Northern Ireland process was successful
was that the attitude of the Irish diaspora
changed towards what should happen in
Ireland." -
"One of the key
reasons why the Northern Ireland process
was successful was that the attitude of
the Irish diaspora�in Australia and
other countries to an extent, but most
importantly in the United States�changed
towards what should happen in Ireland.
Nowadays, almost everybody in the
USA�such as Irish-American politicians
and business people�has signed up to the
Good Friday agreement.
If we can get the Sri Lankan diaspora
across the world to have a similar frame
of mind�if they begin to think that
they can sign up to a process and then
help the people of Sri Lanka
economically and commercially�that will
be a considerable improvement."
Furthermore, in March
2007, Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Palitha
Kohona
in an interview reported by M.R. Narayan
Swamy, IANS
when asked how Britain could help, answered
-
'While every effort
had been made in the past to reach out
to the LTTE hierarchy, no effort had
been made to reach out to the lower
levels of LTTE support base.'
And in
response to a question by Mr. Edward Davey
M.P, Dr. Kim Howells, said:
"The hon. Gentleman is
not to know this, but we have had quite
a number of meetings with Tamil groups
from around the country. As well as
talking to the Sri Lankan Government, we
have met all kinds of representatives.
Let me assure him that this is a
completely balanced approach."
Given all this, the
Tamil diaspora (in the UK and elsewhere)
would have welcomed a more transparent
approach by the United Kingdom about the
strategic issues raised by the two
geopolitical triangles in the Indian Ocean
region: U.S.-India-China relations and
China-Pakistan-India relations, and the
extent to which that uneasy power balance
was of significance to the current
efforts made by the United Kingdom to secure
peace in the island of Sri Lanka.
[see for example -
1.
India's Project Seabird
and the Indian Ocean's Balance of Power
2.
US views Tamil Nadu
as 'gateway state' connected both
to the east and the west
3.
China moves into
India's back yard
4.
Another U.S.
base in the Indian Ocean? - Acquisition
and Cross-Servicing Agreement & the Indo
Sri Lanka Accord
5.
Sri Lanka�s Strategic Importance
6.China undertakes
construction of Hambantota Port
7.China's
Submarine Base in Maldives -
Gayoom Fears UK Coup and
7.Sri Lanka President
Mahinda Rajapakse leaves for China ]
It would have been helpful
if Dr. Kim Howells had explained the United
Kingdom's own strategic (and trade)
interests in the Indian Ocean Region and its
concern (if any) at the continued China ward
tilt by Sri Lanka, evidenced in part by
President Rajapakse's recent visit to
China
and the agreements sought with China on oil
exploration and the Hambantota port
development. It would have also been helpful
if the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for International Development, Mr.
Gareth Thomas
who spoke at the close of the debate had
expanded on the passing reference made by
Mr. Andrew Pelling
M.P. (Croydon, Central) (Con) when he
intervened in the debate to say - "..
We have a global strategic interest in Sri
Lanka. The Chinese are investing there, and
perhaps taking their own approach to the
balance of power in that part of south
Asia..."
The Tamil diaspora, are
ofcourse, not unaware that in the
1960s, for instance the
Shah of Iran (with US support)
intervened in the Kurds - Iraq conflict,
to pressure Iraq and no sooner Iran and Iraq
settled their differences, the Kurd
leader
Mulla Mustafa,
was told to pack up and go home - and
ended up (seeking and getting asylum) in the
US. Tamils are also aware that in the
1980s,
India intervened in the Tamil Eelam struggle
for freedom to exert pressure on Sri
Lanka and when Sri Lanka recognised India�s
geo political interests in the
Annexures
to the 1987 Indo Sri Lanka Accord,
India called upon the Tamils to accept
the
'comic opera' provincial councils with a
Sinhala appointed Governor. Many of the
Tamil 'liberation groups' who had depended
for their survival on Indian support, had
little option but to comply with India's
demand and did pack up and go - or to
use the current euphemism, "join the
political main stream". And the India
supported EPRLF leader Varadarajah
Perumal ended up (not unlike the Kurd
leader, Mulla Mustafa)
seeking and getting asylum, not ofcourse in
the US but in India. Tamils are also
aware that in the early 1950s, US and
Britain recruited and supported Albanian
rebels in a supposed bid to overthrow the
Albanian communist regime with the real
objective of sending a message to Stalin to
stay clear of Greece - and then backed out
when communist pressure on Greece was
relieved.
"..American and
British intelligence men who took part
in the conspiracy .... concede that the
Albanian exiles were not told the full
truth.... In battle it is sometimes
necessary to give up a platoon so as to
facilitate a battalion's withdrawal. If
'pawns' have to be 'sacrificed' in order
to deter an adversary from aggression,
then so be it, it must be done. And in
extreme cases, when vital interests are
truly at risk, the victims must be
deceived." (Nicholas
Bethell
in
The Great Betrayal</font></i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size=) Given these happenings,
Tamils would have felt reassured of the
United Kingdom's stand on the conflict in
the island of Sri Lanka, if Dr.
Howells had taken the opportunity afforded
by the debate, to make clear his view of
what should be the 'legitimate aspirations'
of the Tamil people - legitimate, that is,
in the light of international law and
standards. This was all the more relevant
because the thrust of the Parliamentary
debate was, after all, to call upon
all the parties to the conflict in the
island to conform to international law
and standards. It would have been helpful if
Dr. Howells had made clear whether his view
on what was a 'legitimate' was in accord
with the view expressed by the Gandhian
Tamil Eelam leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam
Q.C. in 1975 -
"We have for
the last 25 years made every effort to
secure our political rights on the basis
of equality with the Sinhalese in a
united Ceylon. It is a regrettable
fact that successive Sinhalese
governments have used the power that
flows from independence to deny us our fundamental
rights and reduce us to the position of
a subject people. These governments
have been able to do so only by using
against the Tamils the sovereignty
common to the Sinhalese and the Tamils.
I wish to announce to my people and to
the country that I consider the verdict
at this election as a mandate that the
Tamil Eelam
nation should exercise the sovereignty
already vested in the Tamil people and
become free."
And if the United
Kingdom took the view that the legitimate
aspirations of the Tamil people as expressed
by the Gandhian leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam
were not 'legitimate', it would have been
helpful to understand whether that United
Kingdom view was founded on international
law and standards or simply on the
exigencies of real politick. Here, it would
have also been helpful if Dr. Howells had
expressed his response to the view of Yelena
Bonner (widow of Andrei Sakharov) that "the
inviolability of a country's borders against
invasion from the outside must be clearly
separated from the right to statehood of any
people within a state's borders."
Be that as it all may,
given the continuing
murderous onslaught
by Sri Lanka on the people of Tamil
Eelam, and the suffering being endured by
their 'udan pirapukal' back in their
homeland, it will be understandable if
some Tamils in the diaspora (to whom the UK
intervention was partly addressed) feel that
their response to the UK Parliamentary
debate should be on the lines of the
teen age girl's response in
the pebble story. They may feel that
somethings are best left unsaid and that the
way forward is to avoid engaging the
international community on its own strategic
imperatives and the underlying rationale for
its actions. These Tamils may feel
that their way is the 'anuku murai' - the
diplomatic way, the effective way to
'approach' issues. They may feel that that
is the best way to obtain some succour for
their 'udan pirapukal' back in their
homeland at a time of great need. And they
may well be right.
But at the same time it
may be well to remember that the
international community is not without
sufficient 'skills' and resources to respond
to the Tamil 'anuku murai' with
their own 'anuku murai' (particularly, at
this time of great need) and advance their
own agenda. There may be, therefore, a
need to take care that the Tamil
people are not led to believe that all that
has to be done is to wake up the
international community to the facts and to
the justice of our cause and all will be
well. Or worse still, so confuse the Tamil
people that they accept the assessments of
the international community (as to what is a
'legitimate aspiration' and what is not) as
the assessments of a disinterested good
samaritan, concerned simply to secure peace,
justice and human rights for a distant
people in a far off island in the
Indian ocean. Such confusion, far from
paving the way forward to a just peace may
simply lead the Tamil diaspora up a garden
path to
comic opera reforms. After all, it is
not that we have not been there before.
Three years ago on 3 May 2003, Mamanithar
Dharmeretnam Sivaram
writing on the Folly of Eelam Punditry
warned -
"..Today it is clear
beyond all reasonable doubt that India
and the US-UK-Japan Bloc are trying to
influence and manage Sri Lanka's peace
process to promote and consolidate their
respective strategic and economic
interests...From 1983 to 86, it was
taboo among Tamils to
propagate the truth that India was
exploiting their cause to gain a
foothold in Sri Lanka. The few who dared
to speak about India's hegemonistic
designs were admonished not to be too
rash lest we provoke Delhi's ire and
cause a disruption in the weapons
handouts by the RAW....The price the
Tamil liberation movement as a whole had
to pay for not educating the people
about the truth of India's intentions
was high. At this juncture, even a
doddering dullard would find the deja vu
inescapable...The Tamil nation cannot
afford to make the same mistake again...
"
The Tamil nation cannot
afford to make the same mistake again.
Strategic interests do not disappear because
they are unstated. It was a British
Foreign Secretary,
Lord Palmerston (1784-1865) who remarked
famously 150 years ago "We have no
eternal allies and we have no perpetual
enemies. Our interests are eternal and
perpetual, and those interests it is our
duty to follow." These are words of wisdom
which are not irrelevant to the Tamil people
as well - and Tamils, whether in the
diaspora or elsewhere, will be right
to pay careful attention to the words of
Tamil Eelam leader Velupillai Pirabakaran
uttered some 14 years ago -
"...We are fully aware
that the world is not rotating on the
axis of human justice. Every country in
this world advances its own interests.
It is the economic and trade interests
that determine the order of the present
world, not the
moral law of justice
nor the rights of
people.
International relations and diplomacy
between countries are determined by such
interests...."
Velupillai Pirabaharan,
Maha Veera Naal Address - November
1993
All this is not to say
that the Tamil people should dismiss the
statements made in the UK Parliamentary
debate on Sri Lanka. They should not.
It is simply to say that they should
place these statements in the context of
the often unstated strategic interests of
those who are now concerned to play a more
overt interventionist role in the Tamil
Eelam struggle for freedom. It is only then
that the Tamil people will be able to secure
solid ground under their feet, stand
perpendicular and explore in a meaningful
way, with the international community
(including India),
the ways of getting to yes in the island of
Sri Lanka.
Here,
Dr. Kim
Howells remarks on the proscription of the
LTTE are noteworthy. He said
"We have repeatedly
urged the LTTE to move away from the
path of violence. In the absence of a
full renunciation of terrorism in deed
and word, there can be no question of
reconsidering its proscribed status."
It would have been helpful
if Dr.Howells had made clear whether the
LTTE should renounce 'violence' or
'terrorism' or whether he was using the two
words synonymously. Many in the Tamil
diaspora may feel that
we obfuscate when we conflate the two words
'terrorism' and 'violence'. The Cuban
revolution was violent but it was not
terrorism. The war against Hitler was
violent but it was not terrorism. The
question that may need to be addressed is
whether there are any circumstances in which
a people ruled by an alien people
may lawfully
resort to arms to resist that alien rule
and secure freedom. And if all resort to
violence to secure political ends is
not terrorism then, we may need
to address the question:
what is terrorism? And we
must avoid an Alice in Wonderland approach
to the definition of terrorism -
 "'When
I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a
rather scornful tone, 'it means just
what I choose it to mean, neither more
nor less'. 'The question is,' said
Alice, 'whether you can make words mean
so many different things'. 'The question
is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be
master - that's all'."
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carrol - Through the Looking
Glass, c.vi
It would have been helpful
if Dr.Howells had recognised the need to
address the issue raised in the
Final Report of UN Special Rapporteur
Kalliopi K. Koufa
on Terrorism and Human Rights in June
2004 - "The most problematic issue
relating to terrorism and armed conflict is
distinguishing terrorists from
lawful combatants"
- and openly accept the need for the United
Kingdom to review the proscription of the
LTTE so that UK domestic law may
accord with the European Convention on Human
Rights as well as international law and
standards concerning the right of a people
to take up arms to free themselves
from
oppressive alien rule.
Said that, both
the
Minister for the Middle East, Dr. Kim
Howells
and
the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
International Development, Mr. Gareth Thomas,
were right to give expression to the United
Kingdom's desire for "a
peaceful solution to the conflict"
in the island of Sri Lanka.
But,
peace, like everything else,
comes in different sizes and shapes. There
is the peace of the graveyard and the peace
of servile surrender. There is the peace of
appeasement and peace with honour. There is
also lasting peace - lasting because it is
just. But what does justice mean? An empty
platitude devoid of meaning? A meaningless
cliche meaning anything and everything? A
useful weapon in the politician's armoury of
rhetoric? High sounding morality which
serves to cloak the pursuit of mean
political advantage?
In the end, the question is
whether the Tamil people and the Sinhala
people sitting together as equals can agree
upon political structures which secure the
equality and freedom of each people and
which address not only the aspirations but
also the concerns, the fears, and the
apprehensions of each.
It is for the Tamil people
and the Sinhala people to be unafraid to
have a continuing, open and honest
conversation with each other and in this way
help mobilise a critical mass of people
committed to secure justice and democracy in
the island - a democracy where no one people
rule another.
Here, we need to avoid
perpetuating
the Singer error. Faced with
diametrically opposed positions, it is easy
to conclude that the only way out is to
explore the whole area in the
continuum between 'Independent Tamil Eelam'
at one end and 'Unitary Sri Lanka' at the
other end. This then is the path of district
councils, provincial councils, regional
councils, the unit of devolution, the extent
of devolution, federalism, and confederation
- a path which has ended in failure, time
and again.
We need to
think out of the box. And of those who
talk about federalism, we may want to ask
who is to federate with whom? It is a
question that may help to focus minds.
The struggle for Tamil Eelam
is not about 'very moderate devolution' or
'modest devolution' or 'significant
devolution'. It is not about devolving power
from the higher to the lower. It is not
about devolution. Period.
".. if the minority
group seeks to be self-governing, or to
secede from the larger state, increased
representation at the centre will not be
satisfactory. The problem in this case
is that the group does not identify with
the centre, or want to be part of that
political community...One conclusion
that can be drawn is that, in some
cases, secession/partition of the two
communities, where that option is
available, is the best outcome
overall. .."
Normative justifications
for liberal nationalism - Margaret
Moore, 2001
The struggle for Tamil Eelam
is about
freedom from alien Sinhala rule. It is
not about securing benevolent Sinhala rule.
At the same time,
the struggle for Tamil Eelam is also
about how two free peoples may
associate with each other in equality,
in freedom and in peace. And
not much is gained by straight jacketing
a negotiating process on the basis of
old ideas and conceptual models.
After three hundred years of
wars and two world wars, the countries in
Europe have moved towards an European Union
- a new conceptual model which had not
existed earlier but which addressed the
desire of the peoples of Europe to live in
equality, in freedom and in peace. It should
not be beyond the political will of the
Tamil people and the Sinhala people to
work out a legal framework for two
free and independent peoples to co-exist - a
legal framework where they may pool their
sovereignty in certain agreed areas, so that
they may co-exist in peace.
The demand
for an independent Tamil Eelam is not
negotiable. It is not negotiable because it
is the expression of the
settled will of the Tamil people,
consolidated
by struggle and suffering and fertilised
by thousands of Tamil lives - and above all,
because it is a will directed to create a
future where they and their children and
their children's children may live in
security, in freedom and with
thanmaanam. Yes,
we too, are a people - and a meaningful
negotiating process cannot begin without
understanding not only the Tamil mind but
also the Tamil heart.
The demand
for an independent Tamil Eelam is not
negotiable - but an independent Tamil Eelam
can and will negotiate. A meaningful
negotiating process will need to
telescope two stages - independence
and beyond independence. Yes, beyond
independence. It is only the independent who
may negotiate the terms on which they may
agree to be inter-dependent. And there is
much to negotiate about. And the Tamil
diaspora will have reason to remind
themselves again of the words of Velupillai
Pirabaharan which provided the theme for
the International Federation of Tamils
Conference "Towards a Just Peace" in London
in 1992, some 15 years ago:
"It is the Sri Lankan government which has failed to learn the
lessons from the emergence of the
struggles for self determination in several parts of the globe and the
innovative structural changes that have taken place."
Tamils who
today live
in many lands and
across distant seas know only too well,
from their own life experiences, that
sovereignty after all, is not virginity.
But
they also know that a 'civic
Sri Lankan nationalism' will not
come by the suppression of one nation by
another. They know that it will not
come by a dominant
Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalism
seeking to masquerade as a 'civic Sri
Lankan nation'. They know that those
who deny the national identity of the Tamil
people are not prepared to give up their
own. They know that to work for the
flowering of the Tamil nation is to
bring forward the emergence of a true trans
nationalism - and, eventually,
a one world.. And if the peoples in the
island of Sri Lanka are not persuaded
by all that has happened during the past
several decades, then conflict resolution
will continue to take the form of war -
directed to change minds and hearts. And
debates whether in the House of Commons or
elsewhere may not be of much avail.
From the Hansard, 2 May 2007
links and comments by
tamilnation.org
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells):
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I am pleased to have this opportunity today to debate the
current situation in Sri Lanka, and I am grateful to the right
hon. and hon. Members present for their interest in this
important issue. There has been mounting concern about the
continuing violence and tragic displacement of people from their
homes on that beautiful island.
I want the House to know that this debate is the result of
expressions of concern from right hon. and hon. Members. It is
not, as some propagandists and partisan elements have claimed, a
debate generated by any faction of Sri Lankan politics or by any
lobbying organisations claiming to represent any part of the
large Sri Lankan diaspora residing in Britain, pro or anti-LTTE.
comment by tamilnation.org
"...We are fully aware that the world
is not rotating on the axis of human justice. Every country
in this world advances its own interests. It is the economic
and trade interests that determine the order of the present
world, not the
moral law of justice
nor the rights of
people.
International relations and diplomacy between countries are
determined by such interests.
Therefore we cannot expect an immediate
recognition of the
moral legitimacy of our cause by the international
community..."
Velupillai Pirabaharan, Maha Veera Naal Address - 14 years
ago in November 1993
I participated in a debate on Sri Lanka a year ago, when I
expressed the hope that its Government and the LTTE�the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam�would fulfil the commitments
that they made
at talks in Geneva in February 2006, which were the first
talks for three years. The Government had pledged that
no armed group or person other than Government security forces
would carry arms or conduct operations. For its part, the
LTTE had pledged to ensure that there would be no acts of
violence against the security forces and the police.
Sadly, those commitments remain unfulfilled. We have over the
past year seen worsening violence.
Extra-judicial
killings, disappearances, intimidation and violence by
paramilitary groups are all too common.
comment by tamilnation.org
Extra judicial killings and disappearances have not (by any
means) been the special preserve of the so called Sri Lankan
para military groups. See for instance
1.
Massacre of 17 Aid Workers by Sri Lanka Army - President
Mahinda Rajapakse's War Crime 2.Pon
Ganeshamoorthy: a Tamil Nationalist, murdered by Sri Lanka
Intelligence Operatives 3.
Sri Lanka Navy murders Tamil civilians in Pesalai Church
3.
Sri Lanka soldiers massacre Tamil family of four in Vankalai
4.Baby
of four months, 4-year-old child, among nine Tamils
murdered by Sri Lanka Navy in Jaffna 5.
Sri Lanka army beats to death S. Thanabalasingham, a forty
year old farmer in Trincomalee 6.
Sri Lanka Army murders five Tamils in Trincomalee
and
many more
The violence has fuelled an atmosphere of extreme mistrust
and polarisation, which has fuelled further antagonism and
violence. Innocent civilians have borne the brunt. There are now
more than 100,000 displaced persons in the eastern district of
Batticaloa and hundreds more arrive every day.
There have been more than 700 cases of missing persons in the
Jaffna peninsular, and nearly 500 are still unresolved. There
have been more than 50 abductions in Colombo in the past year,
and nine media workers have lost their lives in recent months.
In the past few weeks, bus bombings have killed dozens of people
simply going about their daily business. These are despicable
terrorist acts
that are totally without justification.
The responsibility of the LTTE for violent acts over the
years is well documented. It is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism
Act 2000.
The EU listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation in May 2006.
We have repeatedly urged the LTTE to move away from the path of
violence. In the absence of a full renunciation of terrorism in
deed and word, there can be no question of reconsidering its
proscribed status.
LTTE involvement in
killings,
torture, detention
of civilians and
denial of freedom of speech is
a reality. The
LTTE does not tolerate any expression of opposition and its
continuing
recruitment of
child soldiers is a matter of great concern.
Comment
by tamilnation.org
"The key objective
of (the UK based) ARMY Magazine is to encourage teenage boys
and girls under the recruitment age of 16 to move from a
simple 'interest' in the Army to a position where they
actively consider a career...The judges felt that 'the
magazine is clearly on brand and appropriate; it has very
high production values and the back-up research results were
impressive.'"
Association of Publishers 2004 Award for
Most effective public sector title - Army Magazine,
British Army Recruiting Group - Haymarket Customer
Publishing
The ability of the LTTE to raise funds overseas helps to
sustain its ability to carry out violent acts and reduces the
incentive to move way from the path of violence. LTTE
fundraising activity in the United Kingdom encourages war, not
peace. It will not be tolerated, and I have recently met our
security authorities to discuss how we can counter the bullying,
threats and acts of fraud that are used regularly to extract
money from the Tamil population and others in the country.
The LTTE is not the only source of violence in Sri Lanka,
however. Civilians in Government-controlled areas regularly fall
victim to brutal attacks by paramilitary groups, often acting
with apparent immunity. Reports of the Government�s links with
the faction led by Karuna, a former LTTE commander, concern us a
great deal. We believe Karuna and his faction to be responsible
for extra-judicial killings, abductions, intimidation of
displaced persons and child recruitment. Karuna�s record is
appalling, and we will be watching very closely whether he acts
on his commitment to the United Nations to address the child
recruitment issue. We will want to see clear evidence that he
has delivered against his welcome promises. Karuna needs to go
further and cease all acts of violence and intimidation against
civilians.
There must be no question of the Government of Sri Lanka
allowing Karuna to perpetrate those crimes. If they are serious
in their desire to find paths to an inclusive, peaceful Sri
Lanka that embraces all its
peoples and cultures, they must disassociate themselves
completely from all acts of
abuse,
terrorism,
intimidation or torture,
no matter who commits them or what agency encourages them.
Mr.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con):
Is the Minister aware of the comment made by the FBI
assistant director in charge, who said �Karuna hasn�t merely
supported the LTTE cause, he has orchestrated support in the
US�? Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he answer
two questions? First, what international co-ordination is there
on intelligence to stop fundraising for the LTTE? Secondly, is
there similar co-ordination to ensure that people such as
Karuna, who have committed acts of terrorism, are brought to
justice?
Dr. Howells:
The hon. Gentleman is right: the list of crimes by this
faction is long. We have been exchanging intelligence with a
number of agencies in other countries. He will know that I
cannot go into detail about that matter, although I can say that
lately intelligence has indicated that there may be widespread
fraud scams in the country. We are not certain about that, but
they may be one of the sources of funding, at least part of
which finds its way back to the LTTE and acts of terrorism.
Achieving peace is not going to be an easy task, and of
course it is primarily for the Sri Lankan people to find a way
forward. However, the international community can help. The
Norwegians have had a central role in facilitating
the 2002 ceasefire agreement, and the British Government
applaud their efforts. It is obvious from recent events that the
ceasefire is in trouble,
if not shot to pieces.
If it is adhered to and underpinned by the right conditions,
however, it can still be a good base from which to launch a new
peace initiative. The Norwegians have worked tirelessly and in
difficult conditions to advance the cause of peace. As I said,
they have our support. We value our regular consultations with
them. The Norwegians tell us our commitment is valuable at this
time. We support the work of the co-chairs�the US, the EU, Japan
and Norway.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): Would I be
right in thinking that the Norwegian general who was based in
Sri Lanka advised the EU against declaring the LTTE a terrorist
organisation and said that that would lead to the breakdown of
the ceasefire?
Dr. Howells:
I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether that is true. I do not
know; this is the first that I have heard of it, if it is the
case. I will try to find out for him, and if I can find anything
constructive, I shall write to him.
What is Britain doing to help with the search for peace?
First and foremost, we are offering the benefit of our Northern
Ireland experience. Sri Lanka is not Northern Ireland. It has a
population of 20 million, which is more than 10 times that of
Northern Ireland, and it is five times larger in area, but we
think there are lessons from Northern Ireland that can be
applied in a Sri Lankan context. For example, we learned the
hard way that a focus on security can get us only so far. A
lasting peace can come only if
the
underlying causes of conflict are addressed.
In Sri Lanka, that means focusing on a credible framework for
a negotiated settlement. An all-party conference will shortly
present its findings on a constitutional way forward.
Comment
by tamilnation.org
"..the
so called 'new proposals' are in fact nothing new...As early as 1928, the
Donoughmore Commission recommended the establishment of Provincial Councils
on the ground that it was desirable that a large part of the administrative
work of the centre should come into the hands of persons resident in the
districts and thus more directly in contact with the needs of the area.
Twelve years later the Executive Committee of Local Administration chaired
by the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, considered the proposal of the
Donoughmore Commission and in 1940, the State Council (the legislature
approved the establishment of Provincial Councils. But nothing was in fact
done, though in 1947, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the late
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike again declared his support for the establishment of
Provincial Councils.
In 1955, the Choksy Commission recommended the
establishment of Regional Councils to take over the functions that were
exercised by the Kacheries and in May 1957, the government of the late
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike presented a draft of the proposed Bill for the
establishment of Regional Councils. Subsequently, in July 1957, the
Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact made provision for direct election to
Regional Councils and also provided that the subjects covered by Regional
Councils shall include agriculture, cooperatives, lands and land
development, colonisation and education. The Pact however did not survive
the opposition of sections of the Sinhala community which included the
United National Party.
In July 1963, the government of Mrs. Bandaranaike declared
that early consideration' would be given to the question of the
establishment of District Councils to replace the Kacheries and the
government appointed a Committee on District Councils and the report of this
Committee containing a draft of the proposed Bill to establish District
Councils but again nothing was in fact done.
In 1965, the government of the late Dudley Senanayake
declared that it would give 'earnest consideration' to the establishment of
District Councils and in 1968 a draft Bill approved by the Dudley Senanayake
Cabinet was presented as a White Paper and this Bill provided for the
establishment of District Councils. This time round, the opposition to the
Bill was spearheaded by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party which professed to
follow the policies of the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who himself had in
1940, 1947 and again in 1957, supported the establishment of
Provincial/Regional Councils. In view of the opposition the Dudley
Senanayake government withdrew the Bill that it had presented.
More than 50 years have passed since 1928 and we have
moved from Provincial Councils to Regional Councils and from Regional
Councils to District Councils and now from District Councils back to
District/Provincial Councils. We have had the 'early consideration' of Mrs.
Srimavo Bandaranaike and the 'earnest consideration' of the late Dudley
Senanayake.
There has been no shortage of Committees and Commissions, of reports and
recommendations but that which was lacking was the political will to
recognise the existence of the Tamil nation. And simultaneous with this
process of
broken pacts and dishonoured agreements, the Tamil people were subjected
to an ever widening and deepening
national oppression aimed at undermining the integrity of the Tamil
nation. "
Joint Response by Tamil Delegation to new Sri Lanka proposals, 17 August
1985
"...Beginning in the mid-1950s Sri Lanka's
politicians from the majority Sinhalese community resorted
to ethnic outbidding as a means to attain power and in doing
so
systematically marginalised the
country's minority Tamils...parties in power seek to
promote dubious conflict resolution only to be checkmated by
the respective opposition which typically claims that the
proposed solutions are bound to eventually dismember the
island"
Neil Devotta in From ethnic outbidding to
ethnic conflict: the institutional bases for Sri Lanka's
separatist war, 2005
I look forward to the publication of proposals for a
framework for peace that satisfies
the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans, and to a
constructive
response to such proposals from the Sri Lankan Government.
Comment
by tamilnation.org
Dr. Kim Howells is right "to
look forward to the
publication of proposals for a framework for peace that
satisfies
the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans". It would
have been helpful if he had also made clear that the two
peoples in the island, the Tamil people and the Sinhala
people speak different languages, trace their
beginnings to different origins and that the practise of
'democracy' within the confines of a single state has led to
permanent rule of one people by another.
It would have been helpful if Dr. Kim Howells had taken the
opportunity afforded by the debate on Sri Lanka to make
clear that the aspiration of the Tamil people to free
themselves from
permanent Sinhala rule was a
'legitimate aspiration' whilst the aspiration of the
Sinhala nation,
masquerading as a 'civic' Sri Lankan nation, to conquer
and rule the Tamil people within the confines of a single
state, is neither lawful nor 'legitimate'.
If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people,
for the people, then the principle of self determination
secures that no one people may rule another. The struggle
for Tamil Eelam is about the democratic right of the
people of Tamil Eelam to govern themselves in their homeland
- nothing less and nothing more. It is about freedom from alien Sinhala
rule. It is not about securing benevolent Sinhala
rule. It is about securing a legal framework where two
free peoples may associate with one another in equality,
in freedom and in peace.
Our
Northern Ireland experience told us that peace will not
happen until the parties to the conflict understand that nothing
can be gained by continuing violence. A military victory for one
side is very unlikely to produce a lasting political solution.
Our experience tells us that an emphasis on the military
inevitably means more war, rather than peace. A military victory
is rarely winnable in the long run.
Violence comes with too high a price. In Sri Lanka, we can
see that such an approach brings suffering to the people, as
human rights are eroded, the
humanitarian situation deteriorates,
a culture of impunity
develops among the killers, extortionists and torturers, and
mistrust between communities increases. That, in turn, damages
Sri Lanka�s image in the eyes of the world. We are doing all
we can to get that message across.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op):
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for
arriving too late to hear the start of his speech.
Unfortunately, the previous business ended rather suddenly and
the debate began before I could get here.
My hon. Friend mentioned human rights. There is considerable
concern in Sri Lanka and internationally about the human rights
situation at the present time. Several international
organisations have suggested that the only real solution is to
set up a UN-sponsored human rights monitoring commission. How
would the Government view such a body?
Dr. Howells:
That suggestion is well worth considering. I will come to the
question of a monitoring organisation in a minute. Of course, we
already have one, and perhaps the best thing is to make that
work rather than search for another one. However, it is
certainly something that we could discuss.
High-level engagement is an essential part of our efforts to
help with the search for peace in Sri Lanka. Last August, my
right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered to share our
experience of Northern Ireland with the Sri Lankan President,
and he retains a close interest in events in Sri Lanka. I was
particularly grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) visited Sri Lanka in November to convey his
invaluable experience as Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland. Accompanied by another expert in these matters from the
Northern Ireland Office, Mr. Chris McCabe, he met the President,
Ministers and members of civil society.
He also met representatives of the LTTE; the lessons of peace
can only work if conveyed to all parties to the conflict. We
remain ready to talk to the LTTE if such contacts can help the
cause of peace. The response in Sri Lanka to my right hon.
Friend�s visit was very positive. I know that the President
shares my wish that he and Mr. McCabe will pay a return visit to
the island, and I understand that preparations are already under
way for that.
I was pleased to visit Sri Lanka for a second time in
February this year. In my meetings with the President, the
Foreign Minister and the Defence Secretary, I underlined the
British Government�s wish to help in the search for peace. I
stressed that a military solution was not the way forward�a
message that I repeated to an MP from the Tamil National
Alliance.
The President told me that he thought
that our contact with the LTTE would be helpful.
I visited Ampara in the east of the island and was pleased to
meet representatives of local communities�not only Sinhalese and
Tamil but Muslims. It will be important to take into account the
views of the Muslim community in any final negotiated
settlement. I heard from UNICEF about the reality of child
abductions and the threats and intimidations suffered by other
non-governmental organisations in the east of the island.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Sri Lankan
Foreign Minister in London in March. She reiterated Britain�s
commitment to peace and our willingness to get involved in that
whole process. She spoke of the terrible humanitarian impact of
the conflict on the civilian population and the need for both
sides to do more to protect that population. She repeated the
message that there can be no military solution to conflict. The
Minister assured her that a credible framework for negotiated
settlement would issue very soon.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab):
I, too, apologise for arriving late, having been caught out
by the business moving so swiftly. I thank my hon. Friend for
his focus on these issues; whenever we have asked to meet to
discuss them, he has been ready to do so. One of the bars to a
proper solution to this problem is the ban that remains on the
LTTE. Has he had any further discussions with the Home Secretary
about whether the Government would be prepared to lift that ban,
so ensuring that all parties could be part of a discussion to
bring peace to the island?
Dr. Howells:
My right hon. Friend, through no fault of his own, missed
that part of my speech. If he will forgive me, I will not go
back over it but simply say that, for reasons that I tried to
explain a little earlier, I have not met my right hon. Friend
the Home Secretary to discuss this matter; if I thought that it
was a good idea I would certainly do so. As I said, my right
hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen met LTTE representatives in
the north of the island, and we are prepared to meet LTTE
representatives in Sri Lanka if it is considered that that will
help the peace process. I hope that that is clear enough.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab):
We are all apologising for lateness, but I was not as late as
the others. As we learned from Northern Ireland, individual
issues can build up to create a sense of grievance. That is the
case with regard to the proscription and non-recognition of the
LTTE. Although there can be informal dialogue, nothing can
substitute for more formal dialogue and recognition. Removing
the ban would undermine one of the elements of the sense of
grievance that contributes towards the conflict.
Dr. Howells:
I take my hon. Friend�s point, which is something that we
have to consider. However, I have to tell him that, of all
Members in this House, I am very much averse to recognising the
legitimacy, if I could put it like that, of suicide bombers,
murderers,
torturers and
rapists. I have been
there twice and I have heard these stories myself many times,
from NGOs and from Tamils
themselves, as well as from Sinhalese and the Sinhalese
Government. This has to be considered very carefully. As I tried
to explain earlier, there is no silver bullet that is going to
sort everything out. If we thought that that recognition would
take matters forward, we would certainly be prepared to consider
it very seriously�I give my hon. Friend that undertaking.
Mr. Edward
Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD):
I must add my apologies for lateness. The Minister clearly
wants to ensure that there is a balanced discussion about this
issue, and he is right because it is very serious. However,
could not he lay out a review process and explain how he might
talk to colleagues in this House and groups in this country, as
well as to the people he and his colleagues have met on their
visits to Sri Lanka, to determine the criteria? Some people in
communities throughout this country and around this House feel
that a one-sided approach is being taken and that a proper
review process might ensure that a truly balanced approach is
taken.
Dr.
Howells:
The hon. Gentleman is not to know this, but we have had quite
a number of meetings with Tamil groups from around the country.
As well as talking to the Sri Lankan Government, we have met all
kinds of representatives. Let me assure him that this is a
completely balanced approach.
Securing this debate is part of that process, and I hope that
he will contribute to it. Our approach seeks not to take sides
either with the Sinhalese Government or with the LTTE but to try
to use our good offices and our experience in Northern Ireland,
among other places, to try to find ways in which it might be
possible to help the Norwegians to make the ceasefire work, and
then to take that peace process forward, put the issues on the
table, and get everyone around the table to try to resolve the
issue.
Some 60,000 people have died in this war so far, and perhaps
1 million people have been displaced. It is a very serious
conflict by any standards in the world, and we are working very
hard to try to resolve it, but, believe me, there is no easy way
forward on this one�it will take a long time. This conflict has
been going on for a very long time. Before you took your seat in
the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker was telling
me that he remembers it kicking off when he was out there
in 1983�in fact,
it was the day after he left; I do not know whether he was to
blame. We complement our high-level engagement with more
practical assistance through a joint Department for
International Development, Ministry of Defence and Foreign and
Commonwealth Office peace-building strategy for Sri Lanka. The
focus includes people-to-people contacts between communities,
mechanisms to provide early warning of potential for conflict,
and development of civil society capacity to monitor conflict.
We are involved in all those processes. We believe that quiet
activity of that kind has an important role to play in these
difficult times. I know that many in the Sri Lankan diaspora
have been pleased to see Britain�s active involvement in Sri
Lanka. We believe the Sri Lankan diaspora in Britain to be
perhaps as much as 200,000 strong. It is important that we take
into account their views and insights as we try to formulate a
balanced policy on Sri Lanka.
Right hon. and hon. Members present will understand that
there is a wide range of views within the community on a way
forward for peace and the role of Britain in Sri Lanka. We try
to listen to all perspectives within the community, and we value
those opinions and insights.
Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con):
I congratulate the Minister on his balanced approach to a
sensitive and difficult subject. He has been subject to calls
during the debate to recognise the LTTE. Is not it difficult to
do that when, for example, the organisation assassinated the
Foreign Minister, who was an ethnic Tamil, in 2005? As long as
organisations practise such blatant violence and disruption of
civil society, it is difficult to give them the recognition that
they crave.
Dr. Howells:
The hon. Gentleman made that point well�I could not have made
it more vividly.
The Tamil community has been especially
concerned about deteriorating human rights in Sri Lanka. Its
concern is understandable�many of its members have first-hand
accounts of the difficulties that their friends and family face
daily. Earlier, I spoke about the abductions, disappearances,
intimidation and extra-judicial killings that have regrettably
become commonplace. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary
and I have made our position clear to the Government of Sri
Lanka. There has to be an end to the
culture of impunity.
Those responsible for human rights violations should be brought
to justice. We have welcomed the establishment of a
President�s commission and an eminent persons group to observe
the commission�s work. The British Government are funding the
participation of Sir Nigel Rodley, an internationally respected
professor of law, in that group. We shall continue to raise our
concerns with the Sri Lankan Government.
Comment
by tamilnation.org
Many Tamils will find Dr. Kim Howells
support for 'a President�s commission and an eminent persons
group to observe the commission�s work' follows the
line of
Amnesty's campaign for Sri Lanka to play by the rules -
so that 'just as cricket flourishes through respect for its
rules' armed conflict may also 'flourish'. The Tamil people
may be forgiven if they liken efforts such as these to that
of calling upon the fox (whether local or international) to
look after the 'right to life' of chickens in the chicken
pen. The suggestion that a nominee of the British government
which has banned one of the combatants in the armed conflict
as a terrorist organisation will somehow be seen to be
impartial may not appear credible to many. After all
it is not only that justice must be done but it must also be
patently seen to be done. After more than twenty years
of Presidential Commissions and Amnesty Reports, the
Tamil people may be forgiven if they feel that such efforts
have served only to demonstrate that the answer to the
consistent and systematic human
rights violations by the Sinhala dominated Sri Lanka
government will not be found in more Presidential
Commissions (and campaigns calling upon Sri Lanka to 'play
the game' refereed by so called 'international
impartial umpires' who will somehow disassociate
themselves from the strategic interests of the countries to
which they belong) but must be found in securing an
independent Tamil Eelam state where the people of Tamil
Eelam may live in security and in freedom from alien,
oppressive Sinhala rule.
Mr. Love:
Considerable concern and criticism have been expressed about
the Sri Lankan Government�s failure to support the commission in
its essential work, with which the international community is
involved through the eminent persons group. What action have the
British Government taken to ensure that the Sri Lankan
Government do everything that they can to help the commission in
its work?
Dr. Howells:
We have attempted, through all diplomatic channels, to
clarify for the Sri Lankan Government our determination that the
process should work. Sir Nigel Rodley is not somebody to mess
around with. He is a serious person, who will not take part in
the group if he believes that his investigations are being
impeded in any way. We have great confidence in him and in the
eminent persons group to see the matter through. We urge the Sri
Lankan Government to make their rhetoric on the need for a
proper investigative commission work on the ground. We shall
continue to urge them to do that and facilitate that work
wherever we can. Britain is a great friend of Sri Lanka
and the dire situation there is a matter of great concern to the
Government. We are determined to work with the Government of Sri
Lanka to bring peace. We are ready to talk to all parties to the
conflict if that can help with the search for a solution. I have
spoken of three things that need to happen to make peace
possible. First, the parties to the conflict must accept that a
military victory is neither possible nor a basis for a lasting
solution. Secondly, there has to be a credible framework for a
negotiated settlement�I hope that that can emerge from the work
of the all-party conference. Thirdly, there must be respect for
the human rights of all Sri Lankans and an end to the
culture of impunity.
Britain stands ready to help the Sri Lankans find a peaceful
solution to their conflict that will offer a bright future for
all their citizens. I hope that the House will agree that the
Government�s commitment to peace in Sri Lanka at this difficult
time has been genuine and that it will be sustained.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con):
I congratulate the Minister on his calm and balanced
introduction to the debate. We have had a good start to a debate
on a subject that evokes passions. It is important to debate it
in the House.
Sri Lanka is a beautiful island with a population of
approximately 19.5 million people and it has been my pleasure to
visit it. It is rightly a popular tourist destination�it has
more than 600 miles of beaches, with resorts on the west, south
and east coasts. It also contains deep jungle and mountain
slopes, where high quality Ceylon tea is grown.
Sri Lanka has an ancient and historic civilisation, some of
which I have explored through ruined cities and buildings such
as palaces, dagobars and Buddhist temples throughout the island.
I am conscious of the substantial archaeological interest in
various sites, including Anuradhapura, Mihintale, Polonnaruwa,
Sigirya, Dambulla and Kandy, where the glory of the island�s
past can be witnessed at first hand.
I have been welcomed by the friendly people of Sri Lanka when I
have visited. It is therefore especially sad, given its natural
richness, that the troubles and deep divisions persist on that
beautiful island. I note that the Minister visited in February.
As he said, the problems have been going on for far too long.
The dispute in Sri Lanka does not get as much international
attention as it deserves when compared with Darfur, Somalia or
Burma. That is a travesty, given the long-standing nature of the
conflict.
Its recent history began in 1975, when a Tamil, Vellupillai
Prabhakaran, began to form an extremist wing, which is now known
as the Tamil Tigers�the LTTE. The Foreign Office estimates that,
since that conflict began, nearly 70,000 people have been killed
and perhaps more than a million people have been displaced. It
is a major conflict in anybody�s terms. In recent times, the
conflict and death rates have escalated. In answer to a written
parliamentary question from me earlier this year, the Minister
said that there were 1,000 civilian deaths last year and 40 this
January alone. I also note that some 64,857 internally displaced
persons are in the process of being resettled. That is expected
to happen by the end of July.
The conflict has brought untold misery to many more throughout
the country who have been injured, displaced or lost loved ones.
The international community should make renewed efforts to
inject momentum into the peace process. As the Minister repeated
several times, a political solution, agreed by all the parties
involved in the dispute, is the only lasting answer to the
problem.
To begin to resolve the conflict, both sides must recognise that
that will not happen by military means. As the United Kingdom
Government discovered in Northern Ireland, there must be a
political solution. There will never be a military solution to
the Sri Lankan problem.
Given the deeply ingrained feelings of mistrust on both sides,
resolution is not an easy prospect, as the Minister said. Yet we
should not stop trying. It should be our purpose today to
discuss what we can do to facilitate the end of the violence in
that beautiful country.
There is almost daily violence between the armed forces of the
Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. On Friday, three Sri Lankan
navy personnel were killed by members of the LTTE in a gun
battle in Trincomalee on the east coast. On Thursday, Sri Lankan
army troops launched an attack on the rebel mortar position in
the north-west of the country, where clashes the previous day
left 23 combatants dead. The sad truth is that similar incidents
happen every day and will probably continue to happen unless
something is done to stop them.
As the Minister said, only five years ago, the position appeared
a great deal more positive, when the 2002 peace agreement
brokered by the Norwegian-led peace envoy was signed on 2
February. Both parties agreed to
�recognise the importance of bringing an end to hostilities and
improving the living conditions for all inhabitants affected by
the conflict... bringing an end to the hostilities is also
seen... as a means of establishing a positive atmosphere in
which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution
can be taken.�
Unfortunately, from that high water mark, it is clear that a
solution in Sri Lanka is in desperate need of a positive
atmosphere, demonstrated by the working of that peace accord.
I greatly welcome and appreciate the efforts of the former
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member
for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is present today. He visited the
country in November and met not only members of the Sri Lankan
Government but non-governmental organisations and senior members
of the LTTE. His wealth of knowledge of how the Northern Ireland
peace solution evolved should be invaluable to both sides of the
conflict. I welcome the friendly way in which he felt able to
discuss that matter with me. It has been a considerable help in
understanding the problems of Sri Lanka.
I believe that the example of Northern Ireland is particularly
pertinent when considering a solution in Sri Lanka. For a long
time, the IRA pursued a violent military campaign to try to
force the British Government to concede to its demands, yet it
finally realised that the British Government and the British
people would not buckle to its tactics. Thankfully, we have now
seen an end to the IRA�s campaign of violence. The LTTE and
others should take their lead from the IRA and involve
themselves in the political process. The simple reality is that
no Government can or should give in to the demands of those who
would kill and maim innocent civilians. The use of violence to
make one�s voice heard is unacceptable in a civilised society.
Independent reports of bombings, shootings, the recruitment of
child soldiers by the LTTE have resulted, as we heard today, in
the organisation becoming proscribed by the EU, the US,
Australia and India. The LTTE seeks to justify its actions
because it claims that it faces discrimination from the Sri
Lankan Government, while also claiming that it is denied the
right to an independent homeland. However, there is never
justification for a campaign of aggression on the scale that we
have seen.
Let me turn briefly to deal with the role that the Sri Lankan
Government could play in this conflict. The Government are
internationally recognised as the democratically elected
Administration of the country. Equally, it cannot be said that
the Sri Lankan Government have played no part in exacerbating
the conflict. I think that the Sri Lankan Government�s decision
to close the main A9 road to Jaffna and leave it closed for such
a long time was unhelpful and I know that many right hon. and
hon. Members, including myself, called on the Government to open
that road during the period that it was closed.
What makes the Sri Lankan Government�s decisions unacceptable is
that they have refused access to international aid agencies,
which bring much-needed humanitarian relief to the people of
that troubled north-east region. I know that the Minister met
the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka and doubtless made that point
to him. I also met him when he came here in early March and made
precisely that point.
Political representation for the Tamil minority in Sri Lankan
politics is another issue that needs serious consideration. If
Sri Lanka is to be capable of creating a long-term and peaceful
solution to its problems, engagement in an inclusive political
process is essential.
The Tamil community has claimed for a long time that it faced
discrimination by the Sinhalese establishment. It complains that
it has been and continues to be marginalised and stopped from
reaching positions of power. I believe that the Government of
Sri Lanka should take that very seriously and should make every
effort to rectify it and foster a lasting sense of understanding
between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil population that
will ultimately lead to peace. It must be made clear that the
Tamil people will be allowed to share power and that their
political involvement will be welcomed.
The best way for the Sri Lankan Government to defeat
insurrection is to offer the Tamil people a peaceful and
meaningful democratically accountable role in the Sri Lankan
Parliament. Those affected by the conflict must be desperate for
an alternative that will end violence, yet while no realistic
alternative exists, the LTTE will continue to gain support from
their populations. The Sri Lankan Government should seek to win
hearts and minds in order to cut off support to that base and
the extremists.
I welcome the actions of the Sri Lankan Government�s security
forces, including paramilitaries, but they must be careful that
they are not seen to be abusing human rights. In that respect, I
welcome the independent group of eminent persons, which the hon.
Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned, so ably chaired by the
respected Indian judge, Mr. Bhagwati, as well as Sir Nigel
Rodley and an EU representative. The work that this independent
acceptable group could do would be commendable.
The international community is rightly concerned that the Sri
Lankan Government have not necessarily addressed serious human
rights abuses, including torture, being perpetrated by the LTTE
against civilians. The Minister recognised today that the LTTE
is accused by UNICEF and others of having recruited more than
6,500 children for its armed campaign. That is quite
unacceptable. As the Minister told me in a written parliamentary
answer:
�Officials regularly make clear that the use of child soldiers
in Sri Lanka cannot be tolerated.��[ Official Report, 9 October
2006; Vol. 450, c. 453-4W.]
I was very pleased to hear him restate that again today.
Similarly, the LTTE continues to make allegations against the
Government. It recently accused them of killing 10 Indian
fishermen who had strayed into Sri Lankan territorial waters.
The Tamil Nadu state Government in India, however, confirmed
that the LTTE was responsible for killing the Indian fishermen.
Clearly, there is a certain amount of spinning and false
propaganda.
How is it funded? I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that
the weapons used by the LTTE have increased in sophistication.
Indeed, it recently acquired a light aircraft with a range of
600 miles in which it was able to carry out a series of air
strikes across the country, damaging an oil depot owned by Royal
Dutch Shell and the Indian Oil Corporation. The LTTE hit the
main airport in Colombo earlier this week and the flights of
three international airlines�Cathay Pacific, Singapore and
Emirates airlines�have been suspended. Evidence suggests that
some of air raids were assisted by Canadian-trained Tamil
engineers. With an economy that is heavily reliant on the
tourist industry, the aims of the LTTE are obvious. It seeks to
cripple the island�s economy with its acts, harming the entire
island�s economic well-being.
Where does LTTE funding come from? The US State Department�s
annual country terrorism report, published on Monday, suggests
that the LTTE finances itself from the Tamil diaspora based in
North America, Europe and Australia, as well as by imposing
�local taxes� on businesses operating in the areas of Sri Lanka
that it controls.
As I said in my intervention, a chief fund raiser of the LTTE,
Karunakaran Kandasamy, was arrested last week in the United
States under charges of raising funds to support terrorism and
fomenting terrorism in the United States. The assistant director
of the FBI said: �Karuna hasn�t merely supported the LTTE cause,
he has orchestrated support in the US.�
In a similar case yesterday,
the Australian federal police arrested two men under suspicion
of diverting funds intended to go to victims of the 2004 Boxing
day tsunami to the LTTE in order to buy arms.
In addition to those two cases, numerous others demonstrate that
the LTTE has a sophisticated and complex international
fundraising network. The Minister was right in his response to
some of his Back Benchers that we would need to be incredibly
careful about de-proscribing the LTTE as a terrorist
organisation. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate
will be able to tell the House what efforts the British
Government are making to work with the international community
to root out those who would raise money for the LTTE and other
terrorist groups.
Mr. Love:
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman�s speech, and
I accept the general thrust of his remarks. Will he confirm,
however, that the Opposition would welcome discussions with the
LTTE, and that they believe that it will be necessary to speak
to them if we are ever to reach a settlement in this conflict?
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that my
speech has made it crystal clear that there will have to be a
political process, and that, just as in Northern Ireland, that
will occasionally involve talking�perhaps covertly�to people to
whom one would not necessarily wish to talk. Without talking to
the other side, we can never understand where they are coming
from, how a solution might be reached, what areas of common
agreement there might be or what the differences are. We need to
work slowly on the differences until we reach a solution.
Peter Luff:
I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he
will be able to confirm that our deputy high commissioner in Sri
Lanka is to visit the headquarters of the LTTE tomorrow to have
precisely the kind of dialogue that my hon. Friend has
described.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I did
not know about that visit. Any such dialogue can only be
helpful.
Mr. Davey:
Further to the previous two points, it is also important to
stress that the
ceasefire
agreement that was reached a few years ago was signed up to
by the LTTE, who was very much engaged in talks with Prime
Minister Wickramasinghe. It is only the election of the
Rajapakse Government that has caused a big deterioration in the
relationships. The hon. Gentleman is making some valid points
about the shortcomings of the LTTE, but it was engaged in the
peace process with the previous Sri Lankan Government, and it is
important to put that firmly on record.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I have made it clear that I want to see an inclusive
political dialogue, and there can be a dialogue only between two
parties. That means that the Sri Lankan Government must also
become fully engaged in the process. As the Minister and I have
said repeatedly, there cannot be a military solution, so it is
in the interests of the Government and the people of Sri Lanka
that we promote this dialogue from all sides. Anything that the
international community can do to foster and facilitate that
will be a good thing. I do not want to get into the internal
politics of Sri Lanka�that is not our business�but I urge the
Sri Lankan Government fully to participate in the process.
Before I conclude, I want to consider
the role of the Indian Government, who have a
significant role to play in solving the problems in Sri Lanka.
It is clear that there is support for the cause of the LTTE
among the people in the nearest Indian province to Sri Lanka�Tamil Nadu. I asked the Minister what
representations he and the Foreign Office had made to the Indian
Government to determine how we might stop some of the funding.
I am sure that the House will join me in supporting the
reinvigoration of the peace process and the Norwegian-led Sri
Lankan monitoring mission�the so-called SLMN. We need to promote
peace through this means. I also congratulate the co-chairs whom
the Minister mentioned. However, a BBC news report on 30 March
said:
�There was always the suspicion that the Tamil Tigers and the
Sri Lankan Government turned up��
to the peace talks in Geneva�
�only because of international pressure and without any real
desire to talk peace...and a lack of progress seems to prove
this.�
I do not know whether that it true or not; that is the BBC�s
view. Suffice it to say that anything that the British
Government and the international community can do to encourage
the Norwegian-led peace process has to be a good thing.
There are some who say that Britain should take a stronger role.
However, I believe that the position of Britain as the former
colonial power opens us up to allegations of interfering in
independent territories. Similarly, the large number of members
of the Sri Lankan diaspora in this country makes if difficult
for us to take a bilateral role. Of course we should encourage
the Norwegian-led peace process and any UN peace process, and we
should welcome the all-party report that is about to be
presented in the Sri Lankan Government, but it would be wrong
for the British Government to take up a bilateral role.
To conclude, I have a number of questions, and I would be
grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for International
Development were able to answer them when he sums up. What
further ideas do the British Government have to resolve the
situation? How can the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission be
strengthened? In the Government�s view, does it have adequate
funding, resources and access to all sides in the debate? Do the
Government have any plans, during our chairmanship of the
Security Council, to raise the matter in the Security Council or
General Assembly? What direct representations has the Minister
or the Foreign Office made to the Indian Government, to whom I
have just referred, regarding the advancement of the peace
process or the funding to the LTTE from the main continent of
India?
As I asked the Minister, is intelligence between the EU, United
States, Australia and India being properly co-ordinated, and are
the Government satisfied that all the necessary channels of
communication are in place to do that? I want to ensure
particularly that those who commit atrocities, who are well
known, should be brought to trial, and that external funding to
purchase the increasingly sophisticated weaponry that I have
mentioned is halted, as it seems to me that it can only worsen
the terrorist insurrection.
Sri Lanka is a beautiful island�some have called it �the gem of
the Indian ocean��with a wonderful, friendly, hospitable people,
whose suffering as a result of this dispute is a monumental
tragedy. It is the responsibility of anyone who has interests in
the future prosperity and well-being of the people of Sri Lanka
to ensure that their actions do not facilitate further violence.
Above all, it is the duty of the international community to act
in a co-ordinated way to help to facilitate a much-needed peace
solution.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab):
The hon. Gentleman has justifiably spent much of his speech
criticising the LTTE and many of the outrages that it has
perpetrated. The human rights record across the island of Sri
Lanka is among the worst in the world. While he did say, in
concluding his remarks, that all parties must recognise their
responsibility, there was little in his speech that referred to
some of the mistakes, not to say excesses, of the Sri Lankan
Government, whose actions, over time, have produced a
disproportionate number of Tamil civilian casualties.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I welcome that intervention. Of course, we should be totally
even-handed. It is wrong for outside observers to criticise one
party without examining the actions of the other. Of course, the
Sri Lankan Government have committed faults, as I said, and the
armed forces and special forces of the Sri Lankan Government
have committed human rights abuses. The Sri Lankan Government
must be clear that those are properly investigated, and anyone
in a position of official power who has committed atrocities and
human rights abuses should be brought to book and prosecuted
too.
I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) will
not think that the Opposition have a one-sided view; we
certainly do not. Our sole objective in holding the Government
to account today is to try to bring the hostilities to an end
and return the island to its former status as a beautiful,
prosperous, happy and safe place with which we can do business,
with the diaspora in this country prospering too.
Mr.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the
hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for their kind
comments.
The interchange between the hon. Member for
Cotswold and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim
Dowd) touched on the issue of human rights, and that must be set
in the context of the 65,000 to 70,000 people who have perished
on that island in about 30 years. I will deal with the Northern
Ireland comparison later, but the two situations are uncannily
similar in terms of the proportionate number of people who have
died, been injured or been displaced: Northern Ireland has a
population of approximately 1.5 million, and some 3,500 people
died there.
When I visited the island in November I was struck, as my
hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for
Cotswold said, by what a beautiful island it was, and how
talented, courteous and decent the people, from whatever
background they came, were�certainly to me personally, in my
limited experience. Incidentally, I saw no examples of religious
intolerance on that island. Travelling late at night from the
airport to the capital city, we turned one corner and saw a
statute of St. Anthony of Padua, and turned another corner and
saw a Buddhist shrine. When I went to the north, I saw a
cathedral at the end of a street, and the sacred cows of the
Hindus walking in the same street. Of course, a substantial
minority of Muslims also play an active role in the country.
I was struck by the fact that all those to whom I talked,
whatever their background or experience, were very complimentary
about our own country. I felt that, in accordance with the deep
relationship between Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom and its
people�not least, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister,
the diaspora of 200,000 who live in our land�those on the island
were still very sympathetic to us, as a country and as British
people.
I want to say something about the small role that
I played back in November, and to share my experiences with the
House. The President of Sri Lanka had asked the Prime Minister
if we could send someone to share our experiences of peacemaking
in Northern Ireland with the Government and peoples of Sri
Lanka. The Prime Minister asked me to go, as a former Minister
of State and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, along with
Chris MacCabe, political director of the Northern Ireland
Office. My experience in Northern Ireland went back a dozen
years; his went back nearly four decades. His experience,
knowledge and expertise proved very important in our meetings.
During our visit I met the President, a number of Ministers and
civil servants, the peace secretariats, non-governmental
organisations, the armed forces, different political parties,
bodies set up by the Government to consider the country�s
constitutional future and a panel of experts, and I travelled to
the north of the island to talk at some length with the LTTE. In
all those encounters, I met nothing but courtesy and
friendliness. I also met representatives of the business
community in Columbia, who are very important to the country�s
future regeneration.
The message that I tried to get
across did not involve preaching to anyone, or telling the
people of Sri Lanka what to do. That would have been entirely
counterproductive. I think that the reason for the point we have
reached in Northern Ireland�over the whole 10-year period of the
peace process, and over the last few weeks in particular�is that
the people of Northern Ireland themselves created the peace
process and the peace settlement. Similarly, it is for the
people of Sri Lanka to complete their own peace and political
processes.
In many ways, I was in Sri Lanka to tell a
story�a success story, I am delighted to say, and I am sure we
are all delighted about it. I wanted to know whether people in
Sri Lanka, within or outside politics, could look to us and
Northern Ireland as an example in bringing peace to their
country. The first message that I hoped to convey to the people
and their representatives was one that had been given to them,
only weeks before I went to Sri Lanka, by Mr. Martin McGuinness,
Northern Ireland�s Deputy First Minister-elect and the chief
negotiator for Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland peace talks. He
had gone to Sri Lanka and said what my hon. Friend the Minister
has said: that no one can win the war in Sri Lanka, just as no
one could win the war in Northern Ireland.
It is possible
to continue such a war, of course. More people can die, more
people can be injured and more people can be displaced.
Ultimately, however, comes the realisation that a military
solution is not possible. I say that without reference to either
side: it applies across the board, like our tests on abuse of
human rights, torture, and all the other terrible things that
have happened in that country. I lay no blame on anyone. I
simply say that, at the end of the day, military action leads
nowhere.
How is it possible for those in Sri Lanka to
look to our peace process in Northern Ireland, beyond that
central message, and for peace to come to Sri Lanka? One answer
is that there must be absolute parity of esteem, the phrase that
we used in Northern Ireland. It means that all people must be
treated equally, regardless of their past or who they might be.
Every single idea or concept�some might be dotty, some good; it
matters not�must be put on the table. Such inclusiveness had to
apply not only to the constitutional settlement�that is being
worked on in detail in Sri Lanka�but also to the issues of
language, social and economic equality, human rights, freedom of
information and all the other things that divide people. Such
issues have divided people in Northern Ireland, and they do so
in Sri Lanka, and none of them should be excluded from
discussion.
Another lesson that can be learned is that
there must be an international dimension to any solution in Sri
Lanka. I pay tribute to our Norwegian friends, who have done a
tremendous job in Sri Lanka in holding things together as best
they can. They have often managed to engage in difficult
circumstances where almost everybody was against them because
they were in the middle. This House and the Government should
pay tribute to the work that the Norwegians do, and we should
also pay tribute to the co-chairs. When I was in Sri Lanka, I
met the ambassadors of the EU, Japan, India and the United
States, and our own high commissioner, who is doing a good job.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
On the Norwegians and the peace process, does the right hon.
Gentleman think that externalising the negotiations in Geneva is
the right way forward, or would it be helpful to have one or two
meetings in Sri Lanka itself? Does he have a view on that
Mr. Murphy:
I have a view, but I would not want to propose it to either
side in Sri Lanka as a solution to things. I suggest that the
Northern Ireland peace process was ultimately successful because
it was held in Northern Ireland. There was also international
chairmanship from three different countries. People were
constantly working on a peace process. Members will recall that
people were elected to be negotiators in Northern Ireland, and
that they were, in effect, locked up in Castle buildings in
Belfast for almost three years, and they were paid, and had
support, to do nothing but negotiate. It is important that there
is that constant working at a peace process�as is the fact that
in negotiations people inevitably come together. They have to
come together because they are physically together and they are
talking together.
That issue of talking is very
important. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)
touched on that. Even at the most desperate times over the last
30 years in this country, there were lines of communication
between those in Northern Ireland who were engaged in the strife
there and our Government. We should read the history books about
what happened over the past 30 years. At no time did the lines
of communication cease. That is missing in Sri Lanka. The
British Government and our allies should constantly press for
there always to be a proper line of communication. There is a
line of communication with the Norwegians, but another could be
set up.
In Sri Lanka, I met the people who had been
displaced in the eastern part of the island. That brought
dramatically home the appalling tragedy for ordinary human
beings of situations such as that in Sri Lanka. We are talking
in this nice Chamber this afternoon, but the reality is that
there are men, women and children who are constantly and
severely suffering because of the lack of peace, and the lack of
a proper peace process, such as there was in Northern Ireland.
There is an issue to do with the diaspora which is also
comparable to the Northern Ireland situation. We have talked
about what happened in our case. One of the key reasons why the
Northern Ireland process was successful was that the attitude of
the Irish diaspora�in Australia and other countries to an
extent, but most importantly in the United States�changed
towards what should happen in Ireland. Nowadays, almost
everybody in the USA�such as Irish-American politicians and
business people�has signed up to the Good Friday agreement. If
we can get the Sri Lankan diaspora across the world to have a
similar frame of mind�if they begin to think that they can sign
up to a process and then help the people of Sri Lanka
economically and commercially�that will be a considerable
improvement. However, that cannot happen unless there is a
proper ceasefire.
The other great lesson that people
across the world, and particularly in Sri Lanka, can take from
our experiences in Northern Ireland is that a ceasefire has to
be meaningful. Only when violence effectively ended in Northern
Ireland did we see success. Of course, sporadic violence
occurred, and to a certain extent it will continue to occur
among criminal elements in Northern Ireland, but when the
fighting stops and the ceasefire is effective, everything is
possible. To me, that is the first and most important thing that
should happen.
There is another, political issue. In the
past 30 years in this Chamber, there has been a bipartisan
approach and unanimity among all political parties on the
importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. That has
not happened in Sri Lanka, but we should applaud the fact that
it is beginning to happen. If the political parties do not adopt
a unified approach, the issue of peace will become a political
football, which is the last thing that should happen.
Mr. Love:
During his trip to Sri Lanka, my right hon. Friend will have
received delegations from the Muslim community and from Tamil
communities who are not part of the Tamil National Alliance, who
are concerned that their voices might not be recognised in the
dialogue between the LTTE and the Government on a solution to
the Sri Lankan problem. The experience in Northern Ireland shows
that all the different political tendencies ought to be
recognised in order to reach a solution. Does my right hon.
Friend view that as an important part of making progress in Sri
Lanka?
Mr. Murphy:
It is a vital part of the process. As part of the
peace-making negotiations in Northern Ireland, the tiniest of
the parties elected had exactly the same say in the process,
even though their votes did not necessarily carry the same
weight. The necessary will, trust and confidence also have to be
there. They can sometimes take many months�even years�to
develop, but will, trust, confidence, parity of esteem and the
equality of treatment of everybody, whatever their views might
be, are essential.
I hope to visit Sri Lanka in the not
too distant future and to take part in telling the story of our
peace process in Northern Ireland. I am reminded of something
that Lee Kuan Yew said, which some Members might also remember.
When he was building Singapore, he wanted his country to become
something like Ceylon, as it was then called. Now, of course, it
should be the aim of everybody in Sri Lanka to ensure that their
country becomes as prosperous, dignified and civilised a country
as any other in the world.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD):
I very much welcome this debate and the contributions of
the Minister and of the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr.
Murphy), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
given their experience in these matters. I apologise on
behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire,
Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who wanted to be here but
cannot. I am therefore happy to speak on behalf of my
colleagues, and to do so in the light of my interest in
these issues over many years, having had the privilege and
opportunity of visiting Sri Lanka a few years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr.
Davey) and other hon. Friends with London constituencies
represent, as I do, significant numbers of people from Sri
Lanka from all the different communities. Many colleagues in
the House are in the same position, so we have direct
day-to-day knowledge of the experiences of our Sri Lankan
constituents, who have lived out war and peace, death and
bereavement. Constituents of mine have lost sisters and
other direct family members.
This issue is very
important to the United Kingdom. Sri Lanka is connected to
us through huge links of history. It was not only a colony
with which we had a trading background; there have been very
positive relations following the Labour Government�s
granting of independence to Sri Lanka and the first former
colonies after the war. Sri Lanka then evolved into a
republic, and since then many commercial, travel, cultural
and sporting links have been established. My only
light-hearted comment on this issue is to commiserate with
Sri Lanka on not, in the end, pulling off victory in the
cricket world cup final in the West Indies.
Mr.
Love: At least they got to the final.
Simon Hughes:
Absolutely�says a Scot. Thank goodness the competition comes
around again once every four years.
I wish to start by
making two points, one from a constituency perspective and one
from the historical perspective. First, I became involved in Sri
Lankan issues because people came to see me about them. I knew
about the history of the issues from the books, but soon after I
was elected some Tamils came to see me. They wanted, as proud
people in national groups who do not have autonomy do, to have
the pride of running their own place.
The Minister of State has strong Welsh links, as I do, and
the Welsh are proud of their heritage. The Labour Government
have given Wales more independence and we will celebrate that in
the elections for the Welsh Assembly tomorrow. Further power
will be given to the Assembly and I hope that, one day, it will
become a Welsh Parliament. Colleagues from Scotland have
celebrated the fantastic devolution to Scotland of its own
Parliament and powers of decision making. The Tamils told me
that they wanted to make their own decisions, too, and that is a
laudable and honourable objective.
I was sympathetic to
the Tamils� case and, over the years, I have met them and talked
to people who have been sympathetic to all aspects of the
struggle, including the peaceful and the military, just as in
the past hon. Members have been sympathetic to people who took
peaceful and non-peaceful routes in South Africa to try to get
justice for their people. As people who are far more eminent
than any of us, such as Archbishop Tutu and President Mandela,
have said, one may never agree with people using violence, but
one can understand why they sometimes do. I understand why some
people decided that they had no recourse other than violence,
and I have met some people who had taken that view.
A few
years ago, I visited Anton Balasingham, the No. 2 in the LTTE
who had settled in this country. He died a few months ago and
his funeral was in north London. My hon. Friend the Member for
Kingston and Surbiton and I went to meet him because, as the
right hon. Member for Torfaen said, the way forward is through
dialogue with people on all sides.
I have been to the
high commission of Sri Lanka and I have met Ministers when they
have visited, and I have always tried to keep open the dialogue.
However, the view of the Sri Lankan Government and officialdom
has sometimes been that I must be a supporter of the Tamil
Tigers and take the terrorists� view. I have never taken the
terrorist view that taking arms and killing people is the
solution.
However, unless one recognises that the people who are in
that position have the same right to put their case and unless
they are engaged in the process�as Northern Ireland showed they
have to be�there will be no peace. It is no good going back over
the terrible history of Sri Lanka in the past 60 years, with the
assassinations of Prime Ministers, Presidents and Foreign
Ministers and people living by the bullet and suicide bombers.
That cannot be used now as a justification for not talking to
people, because that will mean that no progress will be made.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab):
The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I have often
attended Tamil events in Trafalgar square. Does he agree that
the non-recognition of the LTTE�s presence in Britain is not
helpful? We need to develop a dialogue, as my right hon. Friend
the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) outlined after his visit.
The declaration that the organisation is illegal has angered
many people and does not help to bring about a peace process.
That is not to say that those people approve of the violence,
but they do want dialogue.
Simon Hughes:
Speaking for myself, I share that view. I understand why
the organisation was proscribed, but I agree that it has
been more unhelpful than helpful. The proscription of
organisations gives people a further cause to take up arms.
I remember when Sinn Fein could not be heard to speak�its
representatives were banned by the Conservative Government.
Did that reduce support for Sinn Fein? Of course it did not.
Did it make it go quiet? No. In fact, it gained support.
Banning people makes them go underground. I am sure that the
UK and the EU as a whole would benefit from the unbanning of
the LTTE if that were to be part of a package of movement
towards peace on all sides.
Stephen Pound
(Ealing, North) (Lab):
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is going with his
argument, but the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member
for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about keeping communication
channels open reminded me that Conservative Home Secretaries
met representatives of the Provisional IRA, even when that
organisation was banned. Does he agree that face-to-face
contact and open lines of communication are more important
than headlines about banning organisations?
Simon Hughes:
I do agree. In Northern Ireland, the conversation was
sometimes carried on through intermediaries. History shows that
conflicts are resolved only by communication, often conducted by
people who used to hold high office and who are slightly freer
when they leave it. Those people may often not be well known
public figures.
In that context, I want to pay a
particular tribute to the Norwegian Government. London�s
Norwegian church is in my constituency, and I have had dealings
with the community over many years. The Norwegian Government
have been assiduous in offering their services in these matters,
and they have done great work. I hope that they and other
members of the international community will be given the
opportunity to do more in the future. In the past, it has often
been people outside Sri Lanka who have been able to facilitate
communication and bring people together.
I turn now to
the make-up of Sri Lanka, which is understood by everyone here,
but not by everyone outside. The Minister told us that the
island has a population of about 20 million, of whom about three
quarters are Sinhala. Of the rest, about 13 per cent. are Tamil
and about 5.5 per cent. are Muslim, with smaller groups making
up the total. However, it should be noted that people in the
various Sinhala, Tamil or other communities do not all share the
same opinion about matters.
Three languages�Sinhalese,
Tamil and English�are the most commonly spoken. Nearly two
thirds of people are Buddhist, but there are significant Hindi,
Muslim, Christian and other communities.
From the early
days of independence, Sinhala nationalism became the flavour of
the Sri Lankan Government, and Buddhism was given a particular
status. We in Britain must not be hypocritical about that, as
protestant Anglican Christianity has a similar status here. I
consider that to be unhelpful in our modern age, and believe
that no denomination or faith should have special status here.
The situation in Sri Lanka is certainly not helpful: if there is
to be progress, it must be accepted that all peoples, major
languages and faiths deserve equal recognition.
I hope
that the Sri Lankan Government understand that, although I know
that they, like Governments in India, often depend on
nationalist votes. However, if Sinhala nationalism can be
justified, so can Tamil nationalism. An accommodation between
the two sides needs to be reached.
Stephen Pound:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me
again, and I shall try not to trespass on his patience. He is
giving the House the history of what is a sad, tragic but
utterly beautiful island, yet many of my Tamil constituents tell
me that the first Governments after independence were made up of
people from all communities, representing all strands of opinion
in all parts of the island. The unity Government were destroyed
not by a Tamil national movement, but by the sort of movement
that he has described, which was not based in either the north
or the east of the island.
Simon Hughes:
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Sri Lanka became
independent in 1949, nearly 60 years ago. The
great consensus was broken in 1956, when
Solomon Bandaranaike was elected �on a wave of Sinhalese
nationalism�, in the words of the BBC. At that time, Sinhala was
made the island�s sole official language and other measures were
introduced to bolster Sinhalese-Buddhist feeling.
That is
how the problem started. After independence, the majority
Government said, �We are the bosses now, and no one else will
get a look in.� That Government represented two thirds of the
people, and a 70 per cent. religious majority. The votes that
were cast reflected that, as did the make-up of the Sri Lankan
Parliament. As the situation in Sri Lanka in 1956 did not
resemble the situation in Northern Ireland now, where there is a
guarantee of participation across the communities, the island�s
Government have been able to impose their will on minorities.
Only in 1976, 20 years later, was the LTTE formed in response.
Eventually, Tamils in the north and east, particularly in the
Jaffna peninsula and along the north-east coast, said, �We want
our place, too. You�ve given us enough stick for 20 years.�
Since then, the Tamils have given as good as they got.
All the independent monitoring shows that the fault lies on both
sides. I absolutely condemn suicide bombers, the use of child
soldiers and the terrible violence, but let us remember that it
started with the majority oppressing the minority. Unless there
is recognition of that fact�what Tutu, Mandela and others call
peace and reconciliation based on putting right injustices�there
will be no progress.
Jeremy Corbyn: If the hon.
Gentleman checks, I think he will find that the issue started
somewhat earlier, with
the treatment of the plantation Tamils in the
early 1950s, which should have been a sign of the problems
to come�the majority language and the legislation to which he
referred.
Simon Hughes:
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right. He and I are roughly the
same age and it was at about the time we were born that the
Indian Tamil workers were disfranchised and the problems
started, but the really heavy Government reaction came a few
years later and it was much later before the LTTE responded.
Bluntly, unless the Government of Sri Lanka, under whichever
President or Prime Minister, understand that without autonomy in
defined areas and self-government�there is a debate about how
that is defined, but the LTTE has said that it is willing to
look at options other than independence�there will be no
progress to a solution. It will not happen.
Obviously, the solution has to be negotiated locally, just as
negotiations on the concept of devolution of power to Northern
Ireland were needed before there could be a breakthrough. There
was rising nationalism in Scotland�less in Wales, although there
was military action even in Wales, with the Welsh Liberation
Army and little bomb blasts such as the one in Tryweryn. Apart
from Northern Ireland, which was a big thing, we experienced
only little things in this country, but they show that unless
there is recognition of the need for autonomy there cannot be
progress.
The Government of Sri Lanka must not run away
from the need to accept that there will have to be autonomy and
a democratic process. The people must be allowed to vote freely
and decide which parts of Sri Lanka should have self-government.
If Ukraine, which I respect greatly, can give self-government to
Crimea and life can go on, Sri Lanka must give self-government
to the Tamils, where they want it.
Of course, that does
not mean that all the people in Tamil areas will be Tamils, just
as in Northern Ireland communities are not confined to
particular areas; Tamils will live in Colombo, just as Sinhalese
will live on the east coast and in the north. There must be
access. The roads have to be open so that people can travel.
There must be no no-go areas. However, we have to make sure that
the Government of Sri Lanka understand that they will not make
progress unless they accept the principle of self-government.
Peter Luff:
What is the hon. Gentleman�s assessment of the LTTE�s
commitment to democracy? The apparent absence of that commitment
must be an inhibiting factor in ceding independence or autonomy
to the Tamils.
Simon Hughes:
I do not know the up-to-date position, I have not recently
had a conversation with the Tamil leaders. From the point of
view of the Sri Lankan Government, if I was seeking peace I
should be terribly frustrated. The ceasefire agreement was
broken and recent incidents are unacceptable. The lessons of
Northern Ireland are that we just have to keep on going. As the
hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) said, the helpful
things are the conversations and initiatives behind the scenes,
such as those taken by Norway, and, sometimes in the past, the
Indian Government or the British Government. The hon. Member for
Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was positive and proactive when he was a
Minister. I hope that the Commonwealth will do more and take
more responsibility.
It is not encouraging when there is
yet another suicide mission or bombing, but all the independent
objective advice shows that there have been faults and terrible
actions on both sides. Therefore, as the right hon. Member for
Torfaen so wisely said, it is no good going back over history
all the time. We have to move on.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what position he and his
party are adopting? Is he really saying to the Sri Lankan
Government that there ought to be an independent Tamil-led area
within Sri Lanka, or would it be part of a federated or
confederated process? What did he envisage when he made his
remarks?
Simon Hughes:
I can be very specific. Our view as a party�it is my view
also�is that the conflict will be brought to an end only by
direct negotiations between the Government and LTTE and by the
reaching of a political settlement that allows for a suitable
degree of autonomy for Tamil people within a peaceful and secure
Sri Lanka.
We have not argued for an independent Tamil Eelam. We have
argued for negotiations about autonomy between the Tamil
representatives and the Government. That autonomy will have to
be negotiated, because it has to be respected. It is absolutely
not for me, from here, to prescribe whether there should be a
federal state or a confederal state, but I am absolutely clear
that a unitary state with no proper devolution beyond what has
been offered so far will not work. Things have to go further.
Of course there is local government in Sri Lanka and there has
been devolution. There have been proposals on the table in the
past, but that is no good if the President says that there will
have to be a unitary state, in the old-fashioned sense of one
state with no subdivisions. Our view is that there should be a
suitable degree of autonomy within a peaceful, secure and stable
Sri Lanka. If later the Tamil people voted for independence in a
free election�unharassed and without any pressure�that would be
a separate issue and would raise other issues. The world would
have to accommodate that through proper international
recognition processes.
My party has supported both
Conservative and Labour Governments in their efforts to achieve
peace and it has supported the international peace processes.
The Liberal Democrats share the sense of urgency that has been
expressed. As was said, we now have an additional
responsibility, together with the international community, to
make further efforts to get the peace process back on track. We
can express a view here, but unless there is a formal process in
which people are engaged, there cannot be progress.
Mr. Love:
Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the process instituted by the
Government of Sri Lanka to draw on the views of all of the
political parties among the Sinhalese community to try to seek a
consensus, as the Government say, on a proper mechanism to
devolve power as part of a settlement?
Simon Hughes:
I do. There is lots of good practice. As we all know, lots
of countries in the world are having to think about how to
accept the devolution of power in different ways. The French and
the Spanish have done it. The Germans started it after the war.
The Canadians are another example. These are difficult, tense
issues, and there is lots of world experience. We have done it
in the United Kingdom. People�s national identity becomes more
important, so they want more power.
I have Tamil constituents, as do many of us in the House. My
next meeting with the high commissioner will take place next
week, with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
We both also have colleagues who are councillors in our
boroughs. He will speak about his.
I have a councillor colleague who is our deputy mayor in
Southwark. She is a Tamil and a Christian. She has supported the
battle for self-determination. She is not a terrorist. People
like that in this country, who have been supporters of the
struggle, often have a pretty hard time because of a very
ungenerous view�I am choosing pretty mild words�by the Sri
Lankan authorities.
I regularly get messages that people who take that view and
are active in politics in Britain will be charged, arrested or
locked up. I just say, �Look, if you think that people in this
country have broken the law, arrest and charge them, but you
can�t win the argument in this country by seeking to suppress
the voices of dissent.� People of all views in the Sinhala and
Tamil communities must be allowed to say their piece. Perhaps
that will not be popular with the Government of Sri Lanka. Many
of us are not popular with our Governments from time to time,
but, in a democracy, people are allowed to express dissident
opinions.
I hope that there will be a slightly more
balanced view in this country so that all people of peace and
good will, including the politicised ones who want justice and
have members of their families who have been killed, may see
peace come in their lifetime. Like others, I want to go back to
Sri Lanka and see a peaceful country in which all people can be
proud of their community, faith and background and in which the
terrible bloodcurdling litany of death and destruction over 20
years or more will have ended. I hope that Britain will always
step up to the plate, as the Minister has indicated we will, and
realise that we have a huge responsibility for our friends. In
that way, I hope that we will all have peace soon.
Mr.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab):
I have never visited Sri Lanka. My knowledge of the problems
in Sri Lanka stems from my experience as the MP for Tooting for
the past two years and as a councillor for Tooting ward between
1994 and 2006. There is a large Tamil diaspora in Tooting. In my
experience, the Tamil community has helped to regenerate Tooting
town centre and contributed to Tooting�s vibrancy. It has also
brought cultural enrichment to our community in Tooting and
Wandsworth.
Members of the community first came to the
area as asylum seekers. Many of them became refugees and went on
to become nationals. Most of them then became British citizens.
They are proud to be Tooting Tamils. Tooting has a vibrant and
well-used temple: the Sivayogam temple on Upper Tooting road.
The White Pigeon charity on Upper Tooting road does a great deal
of charitable work in Sri Lanka. The Tamil rehabilitation
organisation is on Garratt lane.
The South London Tamil welfare group, Wandsworth Tamil
welfare association and many other groups do a tremendous amount
of work not only in the community in Tooting, but in Sri Lanka.
In my contribution I will articulate the concerns that those
groups have raised with me. My experience of Sri Lanka comes
through the eyes of my constituents, many of whom come to my
surgeries to seek help and still have family members and loved
ones in Sri Lanka.
As hon. Members have said, over the
past four months, fighting has continued to rage between the Sri
Lankan armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam�the
LTTE. The 2002 ceasefire agreement that was signed by the
Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE now seems like years ago.
It is worth remembering that up to 2002, the civil war in Sri
Lanka had claimed the lives of at least 64,000 people, most of
whom were civilians. Men, women and children were
indiscriminately killed and seriously injured.
The Sri
Lanka monitoring mission made some progress. As the hon. Member
for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) commented,
Norway deserves tributes for the role that it has played, but
the US Government, the EU, Japan, the Indian Government and
ourselves have also played a big role.
Many of us have
used the BBC as our source of reference. It estimates that 4,000
more people, mainly Tamil civilians, have been killed in Sri
Lanka since late 2005, when violence began to escalate once
again, bringing the total number of people killed since the
outbreak of civil war to 68,000. I am grateful to my hon.
Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for
Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for reminding us of the history
of Sri Lanka and where any blame for the civil war should be
apportioned.
Hon. Members will be aware that although the
LTTE was a party to the 2002 ceasefire agreement, it was�and
still is�proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 in the UK. The
US and India have also proscribed the LTTE and declared it to be
a terrorist organisation. In mid-May 2006, the European
Parliament passed a resolution in support of declaring the LTTE
a terrorist organisation. On 29 May, it was confirmed that EU
Foreign Ministers had decided to list the LTTE as a terrorist
organisation. On 31 May, the EU announced in a statement that
sanctions against the LTTE were in force.
I accept that
in the UK it is open to the LTTE to challenge proscription using
the route set out in the Terrorism Act, and I understand that
when the Home Secretary recently met Tamil groups he made it
quite clear that any challenge would have to be made via that
route.
I take on board the serious points made by my hon. Friend the
Minister, and it is right that they should be addressed.
However, may I tell the Government and colleagues that there is
a perception among the Tamil diaspora of double standards? The
House of Commons Library note states, in the context of
violence:
�The main protagonists are the Sri Lankan
Government and the LTTE.�
There is a belief that only the
LTTE has been penalised. The Tamil diaspora cannot be confident
that the EU is an impartial broker, following its declaration
that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation, and there are fears
that that will seriously weaken the Sri Lanka monitoring
mission.
Colleagues will know from other debates in the
Chamber going back many years the arguments about one man�s
terrorist being another man�s freedom fighter. Concerns have
been raised by my constituents about a dirty tricks campaign
that is being waged against the Tamil diaspora in the UK. We
have all seen�and it has already been mentioned�the press
coverage on 21 April 2007, in which a representative of the Sri
Lankan embassy in London claimed that the LTTE was behind a scam
involving petrol station employees in the UK, in which credit
cards were cloned, PIN numbers recorded and money withdrawn and
allegedly used by the LTTE. On the other hand, Humberside police
say clearly and unequivocally:
�Our evidence does not
suggest that there is a definite link with Sri Lankan gangs.�
There is a perception in the communities of the Tamil diaspora
that allegations and aspersions can be made without their having
any recourse to try to clear their name. We should understand
their frustration, and colleagues have articulated the
snowballing of perceived unfairness, whether real or not,
leading to other forms of discomfort and actions that we all
condemn.
Dr. Howells:
We are not taken in by anybody�s spin or attempt to subvert
what we hope will be the even-handed treatment of all the
members of the Sri Lankan diaspora in this country, whether they
are Sinhalese, Muslim or Tamil. We are very well aware that all
sides are pretty adept at using propaganda to further their own
ends. We were not born yesterday, and we did not come in on a
pineapple boat from Sri Lanka. We know exactly what is going on
and we are watching it very carefully. We will make sure that we
are even-handed and that everyone receives fair treatment.
Mr. Khan:
I welcome my hon. Friend�s comments, which will be welcomed
and received in the spirit in which they were made. He and my
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International
Development are friends of Sri Lanka, and will not be taken in
by spin.
Stephen Pound:
My hon. Friend has made many important statements on the
Floor of the House, and the statement that he has just made is
so important that it needs to be underlined. My own Tamil
friends, neighbours and constituents have been agonisingly hurt
by the statement that there is some sort of terrorist funding
scam operating at petrol stations. It is crucial that my hon.
Friend put that lie to bed, and it is important, too, that we
recognise that many members of the Tamil community work
extremely hard in petrol stations. We should be grateful to them
for their hard work and their contribution to the economy, and
we should not seek to spin them into an atmosphere of blame.
Mr. Khan:
I am extremely grateful for that intervention from my friend
and hon. Friend. I deliberately made a point in my introduction
about the cultural enrichment that the Sri Lankan community has
brought to Tooting and London, as well as the regeneration to
which it has contributed. What impact do those press reports
have on community cohesion, if labels about the Tamil community
are so easily thrown around?
Colleagues have referred to
atrocities in Sri Lanka, and they are right that the blame rests
with all parties�there is no single party that can be completely
exonerated. However, we must not ignore the fact that impartial
international organisations objectively confirm the atrocities
that have been committed. The UN working group on disappearances
commented in December 2005 that
�of more than 12,278
cases of disappearances in Sri Lanka submitted to the
government, 5,708 remain unclarified and this is the highest
number of disappearances in the world next to the case of Iraq
with 16,517 disappearances.�
The problem of internally
displaced persons and refugees has been mentioned by many of my
colleagues. The Tamil-speaking population of Sri Lanka has, by
percentage, one of the highest rates of internally displaced
people in the world today. Most of them have been bombed out of
a number of locations. Most estimates show that more than one
third of the remaining Tamil-speaking population on the island
are displaced and living in makeshift camps and welfare centres.
In addition, many others have recently fled to India, which has
already had hundreds of thousands of refugees from past periods
of the conflict and from the tsunami.
The Tamil diaspora
represents one third of the Tamils from Sri Lanka and now
numbers over 1 million persons. The camps for the IDPs are in
deplorable condition, owing to lack of food, water, sanitation,
medical care, schooling and adequate shelter. Some of the IDPs
are housed in schools, making the schools for those local
communities unusable. In a moving contribution, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the former Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland, mentioned the impact that
visiting the IDPs had had upon him.
In its report in
December 2005 the United Nations committee against torture
commented on the atrocities in Sri Lanka, and in March 2006 the
UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions submitted a
powerful report. Finally in relation to independent
corroboration, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights stated clearly and unequivocally in December 2006, in a
powerful report that I recommend to all colleagues:
�There is an urgent need for the international community to
monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as these are not
merely ceasefire violations, but grave breaches of international
human rights and humanitarian law . . . In the latest phase of
its ethnic conflict, now more than 20 years old, Sri Lanka has
witnessed a re-emergence of some of its most frightening ghosts:
disappearances, abductions and killings by unidentified gunmen.�
In Tooting, the White Pigeon charity, which does a
tremendous amount of invaluable work in Sri Lanka, tells me that
a few weeks ago White Pigeon�s prosthetic technical workshop was
bombed and destroyed by the air force in the Mullaitivu
district. The charity also tells me that the ongoing daily
bombing by the air force is adding many new physical
disabilities to the people with whom it works in the Tamil
communities.
I am told by the Tamil rehabilitation
organisation in Tooting that there are 160,000 people whom it is
helping who have no food and lack water and shelter. The hon.
Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about the A9 road,
which is a main road into the northern province that has been
blocked since August 2006. The blockage has prevented clothes,
medicine and food from getting to people in Jaffna.
The
UK and Sri Lanka have a special historical relationship. Until
1948, Sri Lanka was part of the British empire, and since 1948
and Sri Lanka�s independence, it has been part of the
Commonwealth. Sri Lanka also has a special relationship with the
Labour party. It was a Labour Government who gave Sri Lanka its
independence. We have a special role to play in helping Sri
Lanka in its current troubles. I call on my Government to use
our special relationship to persuade all the parties and
factions to recommit to the 2002 agreement.
I agree that
terrorism and violence, whether state-sponsored or not, can
never be the way to achieve a negotiated solution in Sri Lanka
or elsewhere. I am aware that the work that my right hon. Friend
the Member for Torfaen has done and will continue to do may lead
the way to progress being made. I am pleased that my hon. Friend
the Minister confirmed that any advice and help that we can
give, based on our experiences in Northern Ireland, will
continue.
The international players must square a circle,
as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon
Hughes) commented. Although they accept that extensive autonomy
for the north-east is the only realistic basis for a sustainable
peace, they do not wish to reward the LTTE for its actions over
the past few years. Once again, there are lessons that can be
learned not only from Northern Ireland, but perhaps from South
Africa. I am pleased that the Home Office has looked again at
how we treated asylum seekers, and I welcome the fact that Sri
Lanka has at last been taken off the white list of safe
countries. Its inclusion in the list was causing my constituents
and those of other hon. Members huge problems.
An early
return to negotiations is crucial. I ask our Government to
continue to use all the levers, public and private, at their
disposal to alleviate the suffering of all the Sri Lankan
people, so that peace and tranquillity can return to this
beautiful island once again.
Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con):
It is a great privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be called
to speak in this debate, which is on a very important subject.
It would be possible to take the Panglossian view that the
affairs of Sri Lanka have no impact on us and are a matter of
local concern for that country on which we can turn our backs,
but that would be not only immoral, but blinkered. I
therefore welcome this debate and I congratulate the Minister on
the tone in which he opened it. I was particularly moved by the
speech made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy),
whom I wish every success in his work. I was also impressed by
the tone struck by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr.
Clifton-Brown), who spoke for the Opposition.
What always
concerns me in such debates is where we should strike the
balance between what it is right and proper for the British
Parliament to say, and where matters must be left to local
populations to determine for themselves. I am thinking, for
example, of the parallel debate about Kashmir�a matter that I am
convinced must be left to the Pakistani and Indian Governments
to resolve for themselves, and on which it is wrong for us to
start prescribing solutions. I am nervous about some of what has
been said in this debate so far today. I am not even sure that
the Liberal Democrats are right to have gone as far as they have
done in prescribing a solution. The people of Sri Lanka must
have the opportunity to determine for themselves what they want
to happen.
In that context, I fully support the calls
that have been made for dialogue, which is clearly an important
part of the process, as we saw in Northern Ireland. This period
has, however, been an extraordinarily violent one in Sri Lanka�s
history. There have been some 4,000 dead since 2005 and 70,000
or so dead since the violence began in 1983. To put that in
context, leaving Iraq on one side, about 7,000 deaths a year
occur in the world because of terrorist-related activities. One
can see howbig an issue the violence is in international terms.
I intervened on the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to inquire about the LTTE�s commitment
to democracy. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I have
severe reservations about whether the LTTE is seriously
committed to a democratic process. Its leader is on the record
as wanting to establish a one-party independent Tamil state
without democratic elections. I see in the LTTE an organisation
that is led by a very dangerous individual whose techniques and
ruthlessness have caused great concern.
Although I share the views expressed by all hon. and right
hon. Members in saying that dialogue is important, I question
whether the LTTE is an organisation that is capable of holding
such dialogue. I hope that I am wrong; I would like to be so. In
an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I
pointed out that our deputy high commissioner in Sri Lanka will
tomorrow be engaging in dialogue with the political wing of the
LTTE.
I hope that that dialogue is profitable and constructive, but
I worry about what we are dealing with in the LTTE. It is a
sophisticated and well equipped organisation, uniquely so for a
terrorist organisation�and I regard it as a terrorist
organisation that can fight on land, on sea and in the air,
although it is wrong to describe it as having an air force; I
think that there is one light aircraft �[ Interruption. ] I am
told that there are five aircraft, but they have significantly
enhanced its fighting capabilities.
Unless the conflict
in Sri Lanka is dealt with, not only will it place an
intolerable burden on the people of that war-torn country, but
there will be a danger that the LTTE�s techniques will act as an
inspiration for other so-called freedom fighters elsewhere in
the world and other terrorist groups.
I am also nervous
about the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Cotswold about the role of the Indian Government in the dispute.
We have been very careful about involving India in this matter.
I have in my hands a map from the Tamil Nadu Liberation Front.
It is a map of greater Tamil Nadu, which of course takes into
its compass most of the southern states of India, as well as
north and east Sri Lanka. We remember what happened last time
India involved itself, in a military sense, in the affairs of
Sri Lanka�it led to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op):
The hon. Gentleman is aware, though, that there are 60
million Tamil people living in south India, and there are also
large numbers of refugees from Sri Lanka living in India. India
therefore has an involvement whether it wishes to or not,
because it has to take account of its neighbour.
Peter Luff:
Of course, that is a geopolitical point that one cannot argue
with. However, India has to play its cards with great care. It
will find it difficult, for similar reasons to those that often
make it difficult for Britain to intervene in post-colonial
situations. In a way, the dispute has its roots in the British
colonial handling of this troubled island.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
We all recognise that India�s involvement in this problem is
very sensitive, as well as what happened in the past when it
became involved militarily. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for
Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) pointed out, there is a big Tamil
population in Tamil Nadu, and there is a suspicion that a lot of
support of one kind or another, particularly financial, comes
from that state. if we are to try to defeat this terrorist
problem, it is important that the international community should
include the Indian Government in discussions and
intelligence-sharing.
Peter Luff:
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I sincerely hope that
that process is already happening.
Fundraising is an
important issue for the LTTE. Two Tamil fundraisers were
recently prosecuted in Australia, which is causing great
controversy in the Tamil community there. The purposes of their
fundraising activity must be properly established by due
judicial process in Australia. It is unhelpful to see people who
are, I am sure, perfectly honourable Tamil nationalists
attacking the Australian Government for daring to challenge
those people�s fundraising activities. When I think of the
recent protests in Paris and Zurich by Tamil communities in
France and Switzerland, I worry about the presumption that
anyone who dares to attack the LTTE is in some sense attacking
the Tamil people. I do not see that connection. Similarly, those
who dared to attack Sinn Fein were not attacking the Catholic
cause in Northern Ireland.
The fact is that violence is
always wrong morally, and also politically, because it never
produces the outcome that one seeks. When we attack the LTTE for
its violence, we are doing so for sound reasons. It is in the
Tamil people�s own interests that the LTTE abandon its violence.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey that the blame is far from being on one side. I have
here the Human Rights Watch report on human rights in Sri Lanka,
which graphically details the shortcomings of the LTTE and of
the Sri Lankan Government.
Keith Vaz:
But if an organisation remains proscribed and isolated, how
can it participate in a dialogue that could bring peace to Sri
Lanka?
Peter Luff:
That is a conundrum. I have to say that I support the
Government in allowing the organisation to remain proscribed. It
is difficult to see how an organisation that takes part in such
abhorrently violent activities�for example, it uses child
soldiers as part of its campaign of violence�can be anything
other than proscribed. The LTTE has an opportunity to
demonstrate a much greater understanding of the challenges that
that poses to Governments such as ours. I would welcome it were
the Government able to lift that restriction, but I do not see
how they can in the current environment.
Justine
Greening (Putney) (Con):
The key point is the trend in the escalation in violence. One
can make a comparison with the IRA and Sinn Fein, which became
far more formally linked in with the peace process in Ireland
after taking clear steps to show that they were withdrawing from
their previously violent past.
Peter Luff:
We are in a chicken-and-egg situation. I fully understand my
hon. Friend�s point. It is always difficult to decide who should
make the first move in a dialogue for peace.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
My intervention on the right hon. Member for Torfaen about
proscription was important. The Sri Lankan Government encouraged
him to talk to senior representatives of LTTE and the Tamil
community. If such peace negotiations can take place in Sri
Lanka, it is much easier. When organisations are not proscribed,
it is easier for a peace process to take place.
Peter Luff:
I note my hon. Friend�s comment, which speaks for itself.
I do not want Sri Lanka to become a political issue in the
United Kingdom through the presence of a significant diaspora.
That diaspora is here because of the violence. Its members have
been driven away from their island and are effectively refugees
from that dreadful violence. It is a wonderful community, which
does a huge amount for us. Estimates of its size vary between
150,000 and 200,000. Reference has been made to the work its
members offer on petrol station forecourts, but they do much
more than that. A phenomenally high proportion of the Tamil
community�some 2,500�work as doctors in the national health
service. They do a great deal for us and we should be grateful
to them.
Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Does
my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important messages
that we can send today is that there must be a ceasefire?
Innocent people who have not done anything to anyone are being
killed on a daily basis and that must stop now.
Peter Luff:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that both
sides take courageous steps to achieve the ceasefire that we all
crave. I have no axe to grind except that, when I hear of a
death in the name of politics, I am angry. I worry that today we
have heard criticism of the Sri Lankan Government for closing
roads to the north and east of the country, thus inhibiting
reconstruction after the dreadful tsunami. My reading of the
behaviour of the LTTE in those areas is that it, too, inhibits
reconstruction. It suits such a group to keep people in some
subjugation and blame others for their misfortune. That is a
familiar technique of tyrants through the ages. Although I
deplore any action by the Sri Lankan Government that makes
reconstruction more difficult, the LTTE inhibits the process,
and that may suit its political objectives.
I want to
emphasise my concern about human rights more broadly in Sri
Lanka. I referred to the Human Rights Watch document, which�as
far as I can see�sets out objectively and fairly the problems on
both sides. It is a powerful account. I note that the Archbishop
of Canterbury is visiting Sri Lanka next week. The Christian
community in that country suffers considerable persecution at
the hands of the Government.
The current edition of the
Foreign Office human rights report mentions Sri Lanka�s
anti-conversion laws and moves � to consolidate the position of
Buddhism by constitutional amendment and legislation that would
control �unethical conversion�, in part through criminal
sanctions. The bill, which appears to undermine the guarantees
of religious freedom enshrined in the Sri Lankan constitution
and to be inconsistent with Sri Lanka�s international human
rights obligations, is still being debated.�
Things may have moved on since the report was written. It
continues by saying that,
�there have been consistent and
credible reports of harassment, intimidation, destruction of
property and occasional violence against Christians over the
last three years... Sri Lankan authorities� lack of capacity to
protect Christians and members of other faiths, and their
failure to prosecute those responsible for inciting and
committing violent acts�
are highlighted. That is an especially worrying example of
human rights abuses in Sri Lanka that are firmly at the door of
the Sri Lankan Government. For even-handedness, we must
understand that there are problems on both sides.
We must
be careful about imposing�or being seen to or wishing to
impose�specific solutions to any internal conflict in a
sovereign state from these Benches in the United Kingdom.
However, we need to convey a clear message that terror begets
only terror, and violence begets violence. That is an iron rule
of politics and history. In a world hungry for peace, as we all
are now, it is my view that if the LTTE could bring itself to
renounce its terrorist activities and take the first brave steps
to peace, it would find that respectability would follow
remarkably quickly on the heels of such a brave and right
decision.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab):
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for
Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) because of his great interest in
sub-continent matters. It always interesting to hear what he has
to say about countries other than India, which he has a
particular interest in. I did not agree with everything in his
contribution and in my contribution I will explain where I
disagree. What is significant, however, is that for the first
time we are debating these issues in Parliament today.
Had it not been the eve of local elections in other parts of the
country�other than London�the Chamber would probably not have a
majority of London Members in their places. I realise that many
members of the Tamil community live within London and the M25
area, but they also live in other parts of the country�Leicester
being one where many members of the Tamil community have
settled.
I want to pay a special tribute to the Minister
for the Middle East. This date was originally chosen for a
discussion between him and more than 60 MPs who had shown an
interest in Sri Lankan issues, particularly in what is happening
to the Tamil community. I think that he was surprised at the
level of interest and he decided, of his own volition, to put to
the Leader of the House the view that there should be a debate
today. That has proved to be a much better way of dealing with
these matters�having an open debate involving as many MPs as
possible on the Floor of the House.
The Minister for the
Middle East is, in my view, a special and exceptional Foreign
Office Minister�not the usual type that we get. He is prepared�I
have seen him operate�to listen to views without necessarily
taking the Foreign Office line. On this issue, he has been
particularly concerned to listen to the views of hon. Members,
to understand them and to relate them to his own experience when
he visited Sri Lanka. I thank him for his special interest. His
remit is so large, as he has to look after at least a third of
the world�he would probably say the most interesting third of
the world. On the two issues where I have engaged with him�Yemen
and Sri Lanka�he has been very forthright and listened very
carefully to what I said. I thank him for his interest in what
is happening there.
I also pay tribute to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). In all my
discussions with members of the British Tamil community, I have
found that they are full of praise for the work that he has
done. As we heard today, he has not taken sides on the issues,
but has focused the British Government on a particular problem.
I am grateful�and I think that we are all grateful�for the fact
that he has brought to bear his vast experience of Northern
Ireland, which must have been just as complicated as the
situation in Sri Lanka.
Apart from his day job, which he
mentioned, he has allowed himself to go over to Sri Lanka in
order to be the eyes and ears of our Prime Minister and to
report back on these issues. I hope that we can formalise his
role. He may not want that, but I think that it would be a good
idea if the Government looked to formalise his role so that it
was no longer just on an ad hoc basis. He could be given formal
envoy status, which would allow him to play the role that we all
would like to see this Parliament get involved with.
On
Monday, we established the House�s first ever all-party Tamil
group. I was privileged to be elected chair of the group; the
hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)
was elected vice-chair; the hon. Member for Croydon, Central
(Mr. Pelling) was elected secretary; the hon. Member for
Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) was elected treasurer, as was the
hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), in his absence in
Scotland. That shows that it really is an all-party group,
because all parties are represented in this cause.
The
group was determined not to be just like any other all-party
group. We were determined to take the issue forward, and on that
basis we agreed three things. First, at the end of September a
delegation of all party members should visit Sri Lanka,
particularly areas under the control of the Tamil Tigers, to
engage in a dialogue in a positive and constructive way. We also
agreed to invite the chief negotiator for the Tamil Tigers to
visit the United Kingdom and to come to Parliament so that we
could hear his views on what is happening.
The third
thing that we agreed was to hold a summit meeting here in July
at which all the various parties could participate as a means of
exploring how to take the issue forward. Although we have not
had a debate of this kind in the House before, listening to the
experience of so many right hon. Members and hon. Members
reminds me that we have had many such discussions outside
Parliament. It really is time to make progress, rather than
simply discussing these issues from time to time as we do now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) pointed out
that we are also concerned with the Tamil community here, and
that that is what drives us. Many of us are interested in
foreign affairs, but what drives us as constituency MPs is our
constituents coming to see us in our surgeries, at public
meetings and at various projects in our constituencies to point
out the contribution that the British Tamil community has made.
When my hon. Friend mentioned the Tooting Tamils, I thought
that that made them sound so British that they could be a local
football club. They are as British as you and I, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and they make a full contribution to this country. They
contribute to the economy and to the national health service, as
the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed out. Almost 2,500
Tamils work in the NHS, not just as GPs and other doctors; one
of the leading pre-natal surgeons is based in a hospital in the
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting.
The British Tamils have become first-class contributors, and
they therefore deserve to have us debate these issues in the
House. For the reasons mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for
North Southwark and Bermondsey, they are constantly aware of
what is happening to their friends and relatives in Sri Lanka.
That is why they deserve to hear these issues discussed, and to
have them taken forward, rather than just discussed in the usual
parliamentary way.
I was present at a very useful meeting
that the British Tamil Forum had with our Home Secretary, who
reminded us of the phrase�I cannot remember who said it
originally, but I am sure that someone here will know��One man�s
terrorist is another man�s freedom fighter�. I am sure that it
was not the Home Secretary�s phrase; he was merely reminding us
of it. This was in the context of a discussion on how to lift
the ban. I firmly believe that the ban on the Tamil
Tigers�certainly as regards the way in which they operate in
this country�should be lifted as soon as possible.
The
proscription by the Government of various organisations in 2001
happened because of certain events that were occurring worldwide
at the time, and we reacted by imposing that ban on a number of
organisations, including a Sikh organisation that operated from
my constituency. I know that Governments sometimes have to react
in a knee-jerk manner, but six years have now passed and it is
time to reconsider the ban and to look at ways in which we can
help to ensure that the dialogue proceeds.
I know that that is different from what the hon. Member for
Mid-Worcestershire suggested, because he believes that we cannot
hold discussions with people unless they renounce violence.
As we have heard from colleagues on both sides of the House,
however, without such discussions we would never have reached
the stage at which we could look with mild amusement at a
photograph of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian
Paisley) and Martin McGuinness�with EU President Barroso in the
middle�sharing a joke.
Other right hon. and hon. Members who have had to sit through
debates on Northern Ireland, as have I, would never have
believed that possible even a few years ago. However, thanks to
the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and many
others, it has become possible. It is possible to move on, but
we cannot move on unless we have a dialogue, and we cannot have
a dialogue if we proscribe and ban the groups involved.
Susan Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many members of the
Tamil community who have absolutely no interest in terrorism and
who do not even consider themselves to be members of the LTTE
are inhibited from speaking out because they are afraid of being
tagged with the terrorist label? At a meeting that my hon.
Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I
attended recently, there had to be a police presence because
those people were so afraid that they would engender enmity from
the community by holding that meeting.
Keith Vaz:
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is wrong for such
people to be treated in that way and to feel that fear. Whoever
is spinning that fear�whether it be the Sri Lankan Government or
others�should stop. Participating in the British political
process is the right of every British citizen. Contrary to the
view that those people are here as asylum seekers or refugees�an
idea that has been mentioned�they are members of the settled
community. Clearly, some are asylum seekers or seeking refugee
status, but others are very well established here, and they
should feel able to be open about their involvement in political
meetings and the British political process. We need to make sure
that that happens.
It is therefore important that we take a lead, for the
reasons mentioned by other Members. We have a responsibility,
the historical ties with our country are profound and, as we
have heard, this country gave independence to Sri Lanka. We have
a special bond and relationship because of the large community
living here and because of our previous responsibilities. We
should seize the moment. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the
Member for Torfaen is going to Sri Lanka again, and I hope that
the Minister of State will also visit in the near future, as he
started a process that he ought to continue. If he does continue
that process, whenever he visits, that would be useful.
Dr. Howells:
To reassure my right hon. Friend, I can tell him that I will
shortly go back to Sri Lanka, and I hope to join my right hon.
Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) there, so that we can
take whatever measures are necessary to try to push the process
forward.
Keith Vaz:
I am delighted to hear that. When I met my hon. Friend, he
said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen was his
best friend in the House. Sri Lanka is a good place for best
friends to meet, and if they manage to move the process forward,
it will be good business for best friends to conduct.
Stephen Pound:
I make the point with considerable trepidation, but my right
hon. Friend referred to the British Government �giving�
independence to Sri Lanka. May I tell him that several of my
constituents who have heard me use that expression have said
that they would much prefer the wording to be that the British
Government �returned� independence to Sri Lanka? I make no
criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, whose record is
impeccable, but perhaps we should consider using that verbal
figuration on the Floor of the House.
Keith Vaz:
I am more than happy to be corrected by my hon. Friend, and
am happy to use that terminology in the House. If I lapse again,
I am sure that he will remind me.
Peter Luff: On
the subject of correction, may I correct myself? I was seeking
to convey to the House not that such people were refugees or
asylum seekers, but that they had been driven from Sri Lanka
against their will, often because of discrimination, persecution
or violence, and many of them would prefer to have lived their
entire lives in Sri Lanka, rather than being here.
On
another subject, is the right hon. Gentleman convinced�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. As the
hon. Gentleman knows, interventions are to be brief.
Keith Vaz:
The hon. Gentleman is allowed to make a correction, but not
another speech in the middle of mine.
We have heard the shocking statistics, and it is right that
we should repeat them again and again: 80,000 internally
displaced people; 900,000 children, 15 per cent. of the total
child population, living in conflict-affected areas, and more
than 300,000 directly affected by the conflict. The figures have
varied between different Members� speeches, but I have been
given the figure of 68,000 lives claimed by the war since 1983,
with 4,000 deaths since November 2005, and, according to the
United Nations, more than 300,000 civilians displaced by the
renewed fighting as of April 2007. We need to take account of
those shocking statistics if we are to make progress.
Yesterday the Sri Lankan President unveiled proposals to abolish
the executive presidency, adopt a bicameral parliamentary system
and ensure that both the police and the armed forces are more
multi-ethnic. That, however, does not deal with the basic
problems that have created the present difficulties. All ethic
groups should be treated equally, and they and their values
should be respected. I hope that those proposals signal a
change, but I do not think that the change will happen unless we
move it forward.
I mentioned the Tamil Tigers and the ban
that we imposed on them. I hope very much that the LTTE will be
able to challenge that ban. When we met the Home Secretary he
said that one challenge had been successful, so they are in new
territory, but they certainly have my support in their desire
for a lifting of the ban. We heard that the Minister would be
visiting Sri Lanka, and that is terrific.
Mr. Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con):
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of our role here. We
represent many members of the Tamil diaspora in our
constituencies: there is a large Tamil community in south
London, for instance. The right hon. Gentleman has also raised
the important issue of abuse of human rights, which has occurred
on all sides�and, indeed, within each side. But another reason
for debating this subject is our real interest in the success
and prosperity of Sri Lanka, and in sharing in the great growth
that has taken place in the south Asian economies. We have a
global strategic interest in Sri Lanka. The Chinese are
investing there, and perhaps taking their own approach to the
balance of power in that part of south Asia. The United Kingdom
therefore has a self-interest in Sri Lanka�s enjoyment of peace
and prosperity.
Keith Vaz:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is the new
secretary of the all-party parliamentary Tamil group. His points
are extremely valid.
The debate is to be wound up by the
Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon.
Friend the. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is
currently sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member
for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). Both their constituencies
contain large numbers of British Tamils.
When we consider
the issue of international aid, I want to know whether when we
give aid to Sri Lanka, as we should, the point is made to the
Sri Lankan Government that it is important for that aid to reach
the people whom it is intended to reach. While we support the
Government in the aid process, they have a responsibility to
ensure that a dialogue begins.
If we have achieved
anything this week in setting up the all-party group and
debating this issue on the Floor of the House, I hope that we
have created the climate and conditions for dialogue: dialogue
between Tamil groups, including the Tamil Tigers, and the Sri
Lankan Government; dialogue between Tamil groups and the
international community; and, indeed, dialogue between the
Foreign Office and the Home Office. I was very surprised to hear
from the Minister of State that he had not had a chance to meet
the Home Secretary to discuss these issues�through no fault of
his own, no doubt; I am sure that, given his Foreign Office
responsibilities, his diary is awful. But I hope that he will
meet the Home Secretary, because the issue affects both the
Foreign Office and the Home Office. I hope it will be recognised
that dialogue is the only way in which to bring peace to a
troubled but beautiful island.
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con):
It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow the right hon.
Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
I am very pleased
that the House has taken the opportunity to debate such an
important subject. With so many conflicts around the world, and
with our own armed forces engaged in so many places overseas, it
is sometimes easy to overlook the ongoing difficulties in
countries such as Sri Lanka. I compliment those on both Front
Benches for taking such a conciliatory tone in their speeches,
and concluding that there must be dialogue and a ceasefire.
Although the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is not
present at the moment, I want to say what a pleasure it was to
listen to such an authoritative contribution as his.
The
difficulties in Sri Lanka have arisen for a number of reasons,
not the least of them being the ethnic, cultural and religious
divisions between the Tamil and Singhalese communities. The
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE is fighting for an
independent homeland for the Tamil people.
Tension between the Tamil and Sinhalese people has existed
for many years, but a full-scale conflict has developed since
the early 1980s, with armed groups operating in the north-east
of the island, the area mainly populated by the Tamil minority.
As we have heard, in the past 20 years some 70,000 people have
been killed in the conflict and many more have been maimed and
injured; almost 1 million people have been displaced from their
homes. There remains the ever-present threat to many ordinary
citizens of kidnap and murder, both of which have been a
continuous feature of the conflict.
It is important to
remember that atrocities have been committed by both sides. When
in 1983 riots resulted in the death of 2,000 Tamils, it was
suggested by many that some of the blame lay with the Sri Lankan
authorities. On the other hand, the LTTE has long recognised
that fear and devastation can be caused by suicide bombers. It
has used that deadly tactic on many occasions, maiming and
killing hundreds of people�often innocent people.
However, despite all the terror one thing is clear: both
sides have demonstrated a capacity for peace. They did so when
both sides approached the Norwegians to negotiate a ceasefire in
February 2002. Unfortunately, that ceasefire now lies in tatters
and the resumption of hostilities on both sides has led to some
4,000 people being killed over the past two years. There have
been particularly worrying developments in the past few weeks;
there is a real danger that Sri Lanka might end up in a state of
civil war. Recent military pushes by the Sri Lankan army have
led to the recapture of much of the Tamil-occupied land in the
north and east of the island and, encouraged by its success, the
army might well be preparing for another major offensive.
It is noteworthy that on Monday 23 April The Irish News
reported:
�Sri Lankan Officials ordered Norway�s
Ambassador, who is trying to mediate a resumption of peace
negotiations, to cancel a trip to the Tamil Tiger rebels�
northern strongholds for security reasons.�
The report
went on to speculate that that was likely to mean that a major
military push by Government forces was imminent.
Many contributors to the debate have spoken of the ban on
the LTTE acting as a barrier to dialogue. Nevertheless, it is
encouraging that some of the main people involved in the peace
negotiations�the Norwegians�are engaged in dialogue with the
LTTE and the Government. We must take comfort and heart from
that.
Simon Hughes: One of the reasons the
Norwegians are still in such good standing is that Norway is not
part of the European Union so it is not collectively responsible
for the ban. Countries that have not taken the same view as the
EU and the United States are likely in some respects to be more
acceptable in the short term to assist in the process.
Mr. Vara:
I am grateful for that contribution. It could be said that we
have both angles covered, as the Norwegians are independent but
they are also co-sponsors who have the support and assistance of
the EU, the USA and Japan.
If the Sri Lankan army is
considering an extra push in the north-east of the island, that
is a worrying development as it will lead to further suffering
and loss of life. If the advances are resumed, it is likely that
the LTTE will wish to reply in kind, and it could be years
before there is a reduction in the violence.
Meanwhile
the LTTE has started making deadly air strikes on both
Government troops and the infrastructure of Colombo. There have
recently been strikes on an oil depot and on the main airport in
the capital city, timed to coincide with the cricket world cup
final. The Foreign Office website describes the situation in Sri
Lanka as �no peace no war�, but the brutal reality is that since
the 2002 ceasefire the conflict has resumed and is in danger of
escalating to a much greater scale. The ceasefire needs to be
rekindled and the international community must make every effort
to secure it.
Britain has a historical connection, of
course, with Sri Lanka, and we should do whatever we can to
bring peace to the island. I am mindful, however, that some
former colonies are wary of British involvement in their now
independent countries, which is why our involvement should be
handled with sensitivity, helping as is necessary and
appropriate. The Norwegians, operating with the support of the
USA, Japan and the European Union, successfully negotiated the
February 2002 ceasefire. They deserve our utmost praise and
respect, and we should offer them all the support that they need
and want from us. The ceasefire may have collapsed, but to the
Norwegians� credit they have continued to maintain good links
with both sides in the conflict, which may lead to further peace
proposals.
We should also use our position in the
international arena to encourage other countries to press both
sides for peace. Britain has considerable influence in the
United Nations by virtue of being a permanent member of the
Security Council. Although we might sometimes have disagreements
with our European Union counterparts, we still have influence in
the Union. Nor should we forget our many friends in the
Commonwealth, who should also be urged to press for peace.
India, too, has a major role to play in this conflict, not least
because of its proximity to Sri Lanka and its own large Tamil
population in Tamil Nadu. As India heads toward becoming a
21st-century superpower, it is important that it be included in
the peace negotiations because of its own vested interest and
its global and regional influence, which is increasing daily.
Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman might well be aware of
recent opinion polls in Sri Lanka suggesting that there is
greater trust in India�s performing the role of an international
good partner than in any other country in the world.
Mr. Vara:
For that reason�as well as for the reasons of India�s
proximity and of Tamil Nadu�it is important that India is
involved in any talks that take place. However, given that
Norway is leading the way and has been successful in the past,
it should continue in that vein, but with the support of any
country that has the trust and confidence of the Sri Lankan
people. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening the
House about that opinion poll.
We have successfully
brought peace to Northern Ireland, a community previously riven
by internal hatred and conflict. The bombs and bullets of just a
decade ago have been laid to rest. Republicans and Unionists may
not yet have forgiven and forgotten every single grudge and
grievance from those troubled times, but they have stopped
killing. We can share our experience of nurturing that peace
process with the Sri Lankan Government and with the LTTE. As I
said earlier, it was a pleasure to hear the right hon. Member
for Torfaen discuss that very issue.
However, before all
these things can happen, both sides in the conflict must take
action to stop the killing and mistrust. The LTTE must cease its
attacks and the use of child soldiers and suicide bombers.
There is also concern about overseas funding for the LTTE.
Reference has been made to the arrest in Australia of two people
suspected of seeking to divert funds raised for the tsunami
disaster on Boxing day 2004, for the purpose of purchasing
weapons for the LTTE. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could
give us an assurance that the funds that were sent from Britain
after the tsunami were subject to checks to ensure that they
were not diverted. I would also ask the Minister to comment, to
the extent that he has the information to do so, on the written
reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr.
Clifton-Brown) on 9 October 2006, which stated that some �7.5
million had been designated to be spent in Sri Lanka on
reconstruction after the tsunami, but only �4.5 million had been
spent. Has more money been spent and are there measures in place
to ensure that the funds are directed towards reconstruction and
not used for other purposes, such as assisting parties to the
conflict?
The Sri Lankan Government must also take
action. To start with, they could ensure equality for all their
people, as previous contributors to the debate have mentioned,
whether they be Tamil or Sinhalese. The Government should also
stop their roadblocks, especially on the A9 highway to Jaffna.
Only yesterday I was talking to someone from Sri Lanka who was
very concerned that his sister in Jaffna is not having even one
meal a day because of that roadblock, which is stopping
medicine, food and clothing reaching the people of Jaffna, many
of whom are innocent in the conflict.
Susan Kramer:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the Under-Secretary of
State for International Development will reply to the debate it
might be an opportunity for him to state that the British
Government, working with the various non-governmental
organisations in the area, are making forceful representations
to reopen the blockaded road? As the hon. Gentleman said, the
impact is devastating and is destroying communities that have
historically been well-to-do, but are now in absolute poverty
and dire crisis.
Mr. Vara:
I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution and she makes a
valid point. I hope that the Minister will be able to say what
the Government are doing to ensure that the misery and suffering
that the blockade is causing ceases. If we are to have a
ceasefire, we need dialogue, and that can happen only if the
misery and suffering abate.
The Sri Lankan Government
must also ensure that rogue elements in their army are not
acting independently against Tamils. Not only is that wrong and
a violation of the human rights treaties that the Government of
Sri Lanka signed up to, but it provokes and encourages the LTTE
to seek revenge. As has been proved time and again around the
world, not least in Northern Ireland, a cessation in violence
has to be a precursor to productive peace talks. A negotiated
settlement through peaceful means is the only way forward for
both parties if they wish to see their people prosper.
Sri Lanka as a country has enormous potential for the future.
The people involved in the conflict need to recognise that the
future of their country lies in investing in its future
prosperity and not in bombs and bullets. In the 21st century,
the world�s centre of gravity is moving from Europe and the
Atlantic to the south and the east. Sri Lanka needs to ensure
that by continuing its conflict, it does not miss out on the
opportunities that this century will bring for all the people in
that region.
Recent history has shown time and again that
most conflicts are eventually resolved by dialogue. The LTTE and
the Sri Lankan Government have a simple choice. They can either
continue the conflict, with many more people suffering and dying
on both sides, and decide to engage in dialogue at some future
point, or they can engage in productive talks now and prevent
the needless suffering and death that are the immediate
alternatives.
It really is time for both sides to engage
in dialogue, to have a ceasefire and to ensure that peace once
more reigns in that beautiful island. I thank the House for
listening.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab):
I bring to this debate no expertise, and I have not been
fortunate enough to have a holiday in Sri Lanka. However, I pay
tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East
(Keith Vaz), who has set up the all-party group, and I hope and
trust that I will be able to participate in it.
Like many
other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, a very
significant number of my constituents arrived in this country as
asylum seekers and refugees from Sri Lanka. They now belong to
the Tamil community that thrives in Lewisham, and in my
constituency of Lewisham, Deptford in particular. As others have
said, the families are settled British citizens, and they bring
a great sense of commerce and endeavour to our communities. They
not only run petrol stations but convenience shops, and play
various roles in the NHS and the IT industry. Members of the
Tamil community make an extremely valued contribution, and I
very much support their work. They also bring a sense of culture
to my area, which I especially enjoy. I should like to mention
Vani fine arts, where young children are taught to play the
sitar. It is the most wonderful experience to be at one of their
concerts.
However, the Tamil community has a great and
continuing sense of grievance, and members of it have made me
aware of that for the two decades that I have represented the
area in this House. In that time, I have seen blood-curdling
films of the terrible atrocities committed against Tamils in Sri
Lanka, and I have sometimes felt completely unable to suggest
any way out of that terrible conflict.
My feeling about
the situation in Sri Lanka was the same as that I felt about
Northern Ireland for many years. As a mere politician, I felt
that I could not propose a way forward, but the breakthrough
that came in 2002 was a great relief to the Tamils in this
country. Sri Lanka is a place of great diversity, and the news
that a peace process was under way was appreciated by people of
many faiths.
For quite a while, no political meetings
were held in my constituency to discuss the situation in Sri
Lanka. On looking back, and having read the excellent paper
produced by the Library, it is clear that Sri Lanka has a history of absolute discrimination,
with the minority being oppressed by the majority ever since
independence. That oppression is so deep-rooted that, as with
our experience with Northern Ireland, the beginning of a peace
process is not seen as likely to produce a result in a short
time. If the Sri Lankan Government had been more determined and
committed to the peace process, or if the LTTE had shown more
flexibility, it is possible that more success could have been
achieved.
I was therefore very distressed and alarmed
when last summer the Tamil community in my area asked for
another political meeting to discuss the appalling outbreaks of
violence that had taken place. I went to that meeting, and heard
about the many grievances that people had. I also heard the
horror stories about what people in Jaffna had suffered. There
was a lack of food and medicine in the city, and people who
previously had been entirely self-sufficient were now relying on
people from Britain to get to them the drugs, money and so on
that they needed. It is a matter of enormous concern to me, as
it is to all Members who have contributed today, that the
violence has continued to escalate and to add to the terrible
toll of previous decades.
It would appear that the
hardliners on both sides are now in the ascendancy. I have been
reading the catalogue of events that took place between January
and April. The army has made significant progress in the east.
Many towns and villages that were controlled by the LTTE are
apparently now under the administration of the Karuna faction,
which Human Rights Watch has alleged continues to recruit child
soldiers, like its erstwhile allies in the LTTE. Defence
expenditure, in a country that can hardly afford it, reportedly
rose by 30 per cent. in 2006. The LTTE�s capacity to retaliate
has not entirely diminished, either. In recent weeks, as we have
heard, it has shown that it has acquired some air capability by
launching two aircraft attacks.
I shall repeat what many
colleagues have said today. Recent estimates suggest that about
4,000 more people have been killed in Sri Lanka since late 2005,
bringing the total killed since the outbreak of the civil war to
68,000. In addition, many people have suffered injuries that
will affect the rest of their lives, and tens of thousands of
people have been displaced from their homes and are no longer
able to carry on a normal existence.
We are all grateful
for the Norwegian-led peace efforts and I pay tribute to them.
It is incredibly important that the Norwegians stay in Sri Lanka
and that they do not take sides. It is also important that both
sides in the conflict�the Government and the LTTE�have said that
they would be willing to return to negotiations, although in
truth we do not see that there is much prospect of that at the
moment. That is why we all encourage the efforts of the UK
Government, and particularly those of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy).
I want to ask Ministers
some questions that have been put to me by my constituents. I
asked one in a formal parliamentary question last year about aid
following the tsunami. In October, I received a detailed reply
from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for
International Development about the amount of aid and where and
on what it was to be disbursed. I hope that in his winding-up
speech he will tell us how that aid was distributed. As others
have said, it is critically important for us to know that the
aid was distributed fairly to the people most in need and that
aid destined for Tamil areas was not impeded by the Government
or the LTTE. I hope my hon. Friend can give us some assurance
about that.
A point made by one my constituents was that
we should not supply aid at all in the prevailing situation in
Sri Lanka. I disagree with that view, so I hope my hon. Friend
can tell the House why it is important that we continue to give
aid and that the aid is�we hope�used effectively.
Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend speaks with the great
authority of a constituency representative of many members of
the Sri Lankan community. Like her, I have had visits from
community representatives who have noted that Her Majesty�s
Government in fact withheld 50 per cent. of the aid agreed,
because the final delivery mechanism could not be guaranteed.
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and many representatives of
the community that we should withhold the entire aid package
until we can guarantee that it will reach the people for whom it
is intended and not subsidise those who may be oppressing them?
Joan Ruddock:
I take the points that my hon. Friend has raised very
seriously, because this is a real debate. I just remarked that I
did not agree with the proposition that aid should be stopped,
but in deciding which of us is making the right argument I will
be dependent on the Minister�s response at the end of the
debate. We need to know where the aid is going and how it is
being used to know whether we can justify continuing it. If we
cannot justify that, we need to think about what other
mechanisms exist. Could we use multilateral aid or other
institutions? Are there vehicles through which some assistance
could be given? I look forward to my hon. Friend�s contribution.
My next point is perhaps not for my hon. Friend, but for
those in government. I want to refer to another issue raised by
my constituents: export licences. Inquiries that I have made
reveal that �7 million-worth of arms were licensed for delivery
to Sri Lanka in the last quarter for which figures are
available. The licences were for, for example, armoured
all-wheel drive vehicles, components for heavy machine guns,
components for military distress signalling equipment, and many
other types of equipment, including military aircraft ground
equipment and communications equipment, and small arms
ammunition. All of that is military equipment that could
conceivably be used in the conflict. I know that our Government
have obeyed the rules�the EU and the national criteria by which
we agree export licences. There is no question of wrongdoing.
However, the issue has been raised by members of the Tamil
community and I ask the Minister to consider whether those
export licences and similar licences should continue when a live
conflict is clearly under way in the country.
Constituents have asked me to raise other points, both for our
Government and, in particular, for the Government of Sri Lanka.
Other Members have referred to the need to ensure that there is
effective human rights monitoring. We know that there is a
culture of impunity in the country, that the police do not
investigate, and that charges are dropped. It is critical that
the many disappearances are properly investigated and that the
extra-judicial killings, which everyone knows go on in Sri Lanka
and which are undertaken by both Government forces and funded
paramilitaries, are investigated.
Many people have spoken
today about the need to recognise the LTTE. There are people in
my community who believe that that is very important and that it
should be done. It is critical�whether or not it is
recognised�to enter into dialogue. That is one thing that is
constantly being demanded of our Government by my Tamil
community. People think that the Government should be more
proactive and should somehow try to engage more with all sides.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for the
Middle East tell us of the efforts that he is making in that
regard and give us the assurance that those efforts will
continue and apparently increase.
Another point that my
constituents have asked me to raise relates to the need for the
Sri Lankan Government to demonstrate their commitment to a peace
settlement by withdrawing to the 2002 ceasefire positions. There
is a need to support Amnesty International�s call to �play by
the rules�, to investigate the murders and abductions of
politicians, many of whom were sympathetic to the Tamil cause,
and to investigate extortion and the abduction of Tamil business
people by the paramilitaries and armed forces. The Sri Lankan
Government should not force civilians to settle in areas of
conflict as human shields against their will. The armed forces
should be vacated from people�s houses and compensation should
be paid for those people�s suffering. Those guilty of war crimes
should be brought to the International Court of Justice. My
constituents also make a plea to us and to the rest of the
European Community not to curb the peaceful and democratic
activities of Tamils living in the diaspora.
I have
particularly been asked to raise those points in today�s debate.
I have done so in tribute to members of my Tamil community, to
the contribution that they make in our society and to their
entirely justified search for justice and equality for the
people of their community in their home country, which is where
many of them would wish to be and where many of them have family
and friends. I know that all of us would want proper respect in
that country for all minorities and religions. We have learned
lessons with such pain in Northern Ireland, and we want to see
the same kind of positive result that we are about to enjoy in
these islands. I thank the Ministers for making this enormously
important debate possible. There has been unanimity in the House
on the fact that human rights are indivisible and apply to all
nations.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady
give way?
Joan Ruddock:
I was about to conclude my speech, but I shall willingly give
way.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: As the hon. Lady knows,
the presidential commission is investigating several of the
allegations that she has mentioned and is being observed by the
international group of eminent persons, to which I referred in
my speech. Does she support that process? Is it not essential
that the process is thorough and that it concludes as soon as
possible?
Joan Ruddock:
Of course I would be supportive of that process. There will
always be a range of views on how such investigations and
inquiries are best carried out. However, we have a mechanism in
place; let us see whether it can work and produce real
accountability and conclusions that the international community
can sign up to and support.
We should call on all sides
to resume the ceasefire. This might not be total war, but it is
in no way peace. The process must be restarted effectively.
Several hon. Members rose � Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan
Haselhurst):
Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I tell the
House that Back-Bench speeches have been averaging 16 minutes.
If the Minister is going to be given sufficient time to answer
the points raised in the debate, it would be helpful if that
average were brought down a little so that all the remaining
Members who are seeking to catch my eye may contribute to the
debate.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con):
I will certainly take note of your comments, Mr. Deputy
Speaker.
Like many Members who have spoken, I have
constituents with deep concerns, many of whom have come to my
surgery to express their worry about what is happening to many
of their relatives in Sri Lanka. Some of them are Tamils, but my
Ahmadiyya Muslim community has recently expressed concerns about
the Muslim community in Sri Lanka.
I agree with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff): it is easy for us to give our
views on what should happen in Sri Lanka. I intend to cite the
concerns that my constituents have expressed to me, although I
will perhaps fall short of saying what should be done, except by
noting that a diplomatic and non-violent solution will be needed
to find a long-term way out of the tragic situation in Sri
Lanka.
There is no doubt that Sri Lanka has suffered as a
country for a number of decades and that it continues to do so.
Some 3,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict since the
resumption of armed hostilities in 2006. As hon. Members have
said, 68,000 people have been killed since the start of the
conflict. There is no doubt that that has brought immense
personal hardship to many people who have been displaced across
the country�some 0.5 million in Sri Lanka have been displaced as
a result of the conflict. I want to refer in particular to the
tsunami, which added another 140,000 displaced people to the
total of 0.5 million. Many of us who were aware of the troubles
in Sri Lanka hoped that that tragedy on Boxing day 2004 would
bring the country together and provide a common humanitarian
cause so that people could set aside political differences and
focus on what was required for the good of the whole country. It
is unfortunate that, in retrospect, that did not happen, and I
am concerned about what that means for, dare I say, ordinary Sri
Lankans caught up in the conflict. Constituents who come to see
me are particularly concerned about falling literacy rates among
Sri Lankan children, whose education is constantly disrupted.
As we have heard, there are many human rights problems, and
the Human Rights Watch briefing to which reference was made
earlier in the debate provides a great deal of evidence of an
increase in communal violence between different ethnic groups in
Sri Lanka, which is a matter of deep concern. The tsunami was a
particular tragedy for Sri Lanka, because there was a ceasefire
in 2002. Again, to make a comparison with Northern Ireland, I
believe that the economic prosperity that resulted from
political stability was one of the main reasons why people in
Northern Ireland were not prepared to go back to the conflict,
bombs and violence of the past. It is truly unfortunate that the
tsunami may well prevent that bedding-down or entrenching of the
economic development and benefits across Sri Lanka that might
have made people less quick to become involved in armed conflict
as a result of what they regarded as oppression.
I do not
think that there is a military solution to the problems in Sri
Lanka. Surely, what must happen is a return to the ceasefire and
discussion. That has proved to be the way forward in Northern
Ireland, which is close to many of our hearts, and it is almost
certainly the way forward in Sri Lanka. Democracy is surely the
route through which people across the country can air their
concerns, and it will enable Sri Lanka to recover in both
economic and humanitarian terms after the tsunami and its
effects. There is no doubt that that is the only route by
which Sri Lanka can take advantage of the massive opportunities
for economic growth in that part of the world. I can only hope
on behalf of my constituents, who have many relatives in Sri
Lanka�many of them do extremely valuable jobs in our community
but they would almost certainly like to be able to do them in
their original community in Sri Lanka with their own
families�that if our debate has done nothing else today, it has
highlighted our concerns as a neighbour on the planet as well as
our desire to work with Sri Lanka and all the groups there to
see an end to the situation and the violence that so many people
who live there face on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab):
I am extremely pleased that we have had this debate this
afternoon, as it is a long, long time since there was a debate
on Sri Lanka in the House. Like many other hon. Members who have
come to the Chamber to take part, I have a very significant
number of Tamil constituents who, over the years, have talked to
me about their concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka. Of
course, it is a long-standing problem, and in its present form,
the violence goes back over 20 years. The serious violence that
occurred in 1983 was one of the factors that led to many members
of the Tamil community coming to this country. There have been
periods of hope, and as a result of the good work of the
Norwegian Government there have been ceasefires. The ceasefire
that was put in place in 2002 with high hopes clearly has not
lasted and is in serious trouble.
I shall not labour the
points that have already been made�that the only way a solution
will be reached is through negotiation, and that that must
involve the LTTE. There is no question about that. A solution
will not be reached without negotiations that involve the LTTE.
That is true whether that organisation is recognised or banned
in the UK. Reference has been made to keeping lines of
communication open. I think it is not particularly helpful that
the LTTE is banned, although I am under no illusion about some
of the things that it has done and still does, such as the
involvement of child soldiers, about which we have heard. I have
met people and I know members of the Tamil community in the UK
who are here as refugees because of the LTTE. There are two
sides to the story.
Stephen Pound: Does my hon.
Friend share the frustration of many of my constituents that
there seems to be a belief that there is an equivalence between
the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE? People talk about two
sides of the argument. One is the state. The other is a small
group of people in the north and east of the island. There is no
equivalence. The two are not analogous.
Mr. Gerrard:
That is an important point, which I had intended to deal
with. Let me develop it now, as it has been raised. There is
talk of being even-handed and looking at both sides of the
question, but we are dealing on one side with a Government who
have signed up to international conventions�in relation to human
rights, for example. One should expect standards from a
Government which one does not necessarily expect from a
guerrilla organisation or an organisation described as a
terrorist organisation.
It is no excuse for a Government
to point to the activities of the LTTE and say, �Well, if the
LTTE behaves like this, we have to take action.� It is no excuse
at all for a Government to be involved in breaches of human
rights and point to the activities of the LTTE. Governments sign
up to international conventions about how they will behave, and
over the years there has been significant evidence that the Sri
Lankan Government have not always lived up to the conventions to
which they are signed up.
Mr. Davey: On that important point, speakers have
mentioned the analogy with Northern Ireland. In Northern
Ireland, in almost all respects, the British state did not
behave against the international conventions. If we press on the
Sri Lankan communities the Northern Ireland parallel, surely
that should speak volumes to the Sri Lankan Government. If they
behaved as the British Government behaved, abiding by the rules,
they would be more likely to succeed.
Mr. Gerrard:
That message is right. If we look back at the history of
Northern Ireland over the years, we could find some examples
where we did not behave according to conventions, but it did not
do us any good when that happened. That is the message that must
be put across.
I have been labelled an LTTE supporter in
the past, and been told that I was supporting terrorists. I am
well aware of things that the organisation has done that I do
not approve of. I am convinced, as I am sure are other hon.
Members, that money is being raised in this country which goes
to the LTTE. Whether or not the story about the petrol stations
is true, I am sure that I am not the only person who has heard
the stories of taxing, whereby people are more or less required
to contribute money. That happens, and let us not be under any
illusion or pretend that it does not.
The bottom line, however, is that there will be no settlement
and solution unless the LTTE is involved in developing them and
in the negotiations. The Tamil politicians in Sri Lanka, and the
Members of Parliament who are members of the Tamil National
Alliance, which I know is sometimes described as an LTTE proxy,
but comprises elected Members of Parliament, will say exactly
that�that the LTTE is the body that represents the view of the
majority of Tamils.
There has been long-standing evidence
of the disregard for human rights in Sri Lanka to which my hon.
Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) drew
attention, and the failure to live up to basic human rights
standards. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) quoted,
has made the same point.
The commission that has been established to look into
extra-judicial killings and disappearances is welcome, but
concerns have been expressed that there are shortcomings in the
national legal system that could hamper the commission�s
effectiveness. Previous commissions have made recommendations,
but they have not been put into effect. The commission should be
looking not only at individual responsibilities for acts that
may be regarded as crimes, but at the broader patterns and the
context in which such acts occur. It is no good merely looking
at the individual case if nothing then happens to change the
overall context.
The overall context at the moment is
extremely worrying. There is no question but that there has been
very serious deterioration in the situation over the past year
or so. Relief organisations are expressing concern, and the Red
Cross has recently told us that there are up to 120,000
displaced civilians in the Batticaloa district. Just in the past
week or two, more than 40,000 people have fled their homes in
that district.
We have heard the claims about restrictions on humanitarian
provision, as the A9 road has been closed, which is preventing
essential medicines and humanitarian aid from getting through.
Human Rights Watch and others have expressed concern that the
Sri Lankan authorities are using threats and intimidation to
compel civilians who fled recent fighting to return home when it
is far from safe for them to do so. Those are not the actions
that one would expect from a Government; one would not expect
anybody to be forced to return home when they feel it is unsafe
to do so.
As to what can be done, I understand perfectly
well that we as a Government are not in a position to dictate
solutions to the Governments of any other countries. The
solution will be achieved in the end through negotiation and
through the people of that country, the LTTE and its Government.
I was interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member
for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and the Minister had to say about the
initiatives that are being taken, in which we can export
experience. It is also perfectly legitimate for us to express
our opinions on the initiatives that are being suggested.
I have read the recent reports about the devolution proposals
unveiled by the Sri Lanka Freedom party. It seemed to me that
the proposals were highly unlikely to lead to a solution. In
fact, they will probably be regarded as a step backward, as they
implied devolution of power at a very local level, rather than
any significant devolution of power that would give any real
autonomy to a region or province.
The proposals seem a step backward in respect of some of the
suggestions made a few years ago, and it would not be helpful to
the peace process if they were pursued. It is not for me to say
what the detail of any solution should be, but it will not last
if it does not give a significant degree of autonomy to the
north and east provinces�the parts of the country with very
significant Tamil populations.
We must carry on with the
initiatives that the Minister talked about in his opening
remarks. We must offer our experience and support, but send a
clear and consistent message to both sides�the Government and
the LTTE�that there is not a military solution to this problem.
I am worried about the attitude of the Sri Lankan military, who
seem to think that they are on the way to crushing the LTTE and
that just another push will do it. If that is their mindset, I
am afraid that things will get far worse than they are now. That
is the important message that we have to send.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD):
I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for
Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said. It is absolutely crucial that we
send a message from this House that we are jointly resolved on
the need to put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government,
particularly as regards their growing view that there could be a
military solution to this problem. I hope that Members on both
sides of the House reject that idea.
Sri Lanka has often
appeared to me to be the forgotten tragedy in the world. We hear
a great deal about theatres of war such as Darfur and
Zimbabwe�of course, they are appalling�but Sri Lanka has been
going on, like a running sore, for many years. It has not
received the attention that it deserves from this House�that is
why I welcome this debate, which has been partly stimulated by
the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), and
congratulate the Government on holding it. This subject has also
been forgotten by the British media, and I hope that the BBC and
Fleet street will give it the coverage that it deserves.
Like other Members, I come to this debate as a constituency MP
having listened to my Tamil constituents� concerns over many
years. In engaging with them, we have the wonderful experience
of learning about the Tamil culture and seeing how Tamils
contribute so positively to British society. One of the
highlights of my year is going to Kingston�s Institute of Tamil
Culture and seeing the children play their instruments, dance,
sing and tell jokes in Tamil�I get them translated for me.
Sometimes it goes on for rather a long time, but it is always
very enjoyable.
When we engage with them properly and listens to their
concerns, we hear stories of tragedies. When I have spoken to
them at political meetings, I have always taken the view that we
should approach this on a human rights basis, with equality
across the communities. Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I
have been accused of being an LTTE sympathiser, but I reject
that utterly. I have always tried to take a balanced approach.
The idea that in this House and in this country we can suggest a
solution that we can somehow impose on people is clearly
nonsense.
When we talk to Tamil constituents and say that
we want to take a balanced, human rights approach, we cannot
help but feel their anger, frustration and pain, because they
have families who have been killed, they have seen killings
themselves, and they look at communities of theirs that have
been devastated by the violence. It is impossible, as a
constituency MP, not to listen to those stories, and not to
share their concern and anger.
Susan Kramer:
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the deep frustrations
in the Tamil community, rightly or wrongly�it may be an unfair
statement�is the feeling that because of the war on terror the
British Government and other European Governments do not have
the same energy and will to resolve their problem because,
first, they have higher priorities, and secondly, they are very
hesitant about being associated with conversations with anyone
who carries the label �terrorist� anywhere near their name?
Mr. Davey:
My hon. Friend makes the point clearly. To be fair to the
Government, and although I heard only the second half of the
Minister�s speech, for which I apologise again, I was pleased to
hear about the initiatives that he and his colleagues are
taking. I am sure that they have the support of hon. Members of
all parties. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for
Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), I urge him to go further and not
be put off by the label �terrorists�, which can pollute a proper
debate about the policy towards a country.
Most of the
Tamils to whom I speak do not support the LTTE. As the hon.
Member for Walthamstow said, many of them are fleeing violence
that the LTTE perpetrated against them, their families and
communities. The Tamil community is, of course, varied. Let us
be clear: some people support the LTTE, often reluctantly,
because they feel that it is the only organisation that can
voice their concerns and represent the Tamil community. Some
believe that they have no alternative. Let us be honest and say
that that is partly because the LTTE has stamped out some of the
alternative Tamil political organisations, again with acts of
terror. The LTTE has therefore almost created a monopoly.
Nevertheless, for many people, it represents a true voice of the
Tamil community�s demands. Those voices should be listened to
and their anger heard.
One must apply proper standards to
the Sri Lankan Government. I have read UN report after UN
report, Amnesty International report after Amnesty International
report, as well as reports from Human Rights Watch and the
International Bar Association, which show that the Sri Lankan
Government are not fulfilling the requirements of civil rights
and due process or their legal responsibilities. The emergency
regulations allow for the most incredible abuses of civil and
human rights, primarily against the Tamil population. We must
bear that in mind in the debate.
I want to make four quick points. First, let us consider the
suffering of the civilian population in the east and north.
People have commented on the A9 and its closure by the Sri
Lankan Government. That is critical. The lack of food and
medical supplies, especially in the Jaffna peninsula, causes
great hardship, and I cannot understand why the Sri Lankan
Government continue to set their face against international
pressure. I am told that that was a sticking point at the Geneva
peace talks, and that the Sri Lankan Government walked away from
them last autumn because of the demand to reopen the road. To me
that was a legitimate demand from the Tamil side, and I hope
that it will be realised. I refer hon. Members to early-day
motion 955 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, in which we
press for the A9 to be reopened for humanitarian reasons.
My second point is directed at the Sri Lankan authorities.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for North Southwark and
Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Richmond Park, I have been
challenged when I have raised such issues; I have also seen
colleagues challenged. Councillor Yogan Yoganathan on Kingston
council, a former mayor of the royal borough, has been labelled
an LTTE sympathiser and supporter simply because, like hon.
Members, he wanted to speak out about human rights abuses in Sri
Lanka.
I believe that the Sri Lankan authorities, possibly through
their representatives in this country, are trying to prevent
people from speaking out�to prevent freedom of speech. We must
convey a message that we will debate such issues in this
country, that that is our democratic right, and that the Sri
Lankan authorities should accept it and not try to intimidate
people who speak out by trying to label them LTTE sympathisers
or terrorists.
I hope that the Government will make the point that that is
unacceptable in their discussions with Sri Lankan
representatives in this country. I intend to do that when I meet
the Sri Lankan high commissioner, as I shall shortly.
My
third point relates to the Home Office, to which one or two
other hon. Members have referred. Let me tell hon. Members a
story from one of my advice surgeries a few months ago. I met a
gentleman who was claiming asylum�for the second time, as he had
failed the first time. He had been returned, re-arrested,
detained and tortured again. I learned from talking to his
lawyer that his case was not an isolated one. This country has
been sending back as failed asylum seekers a number of people
who went through that experience. Some managed to escape again
and tried to claim asylum again; others have disappeared; still
others have been killed.
I ask Ministers on the Treasury
Bench tonight to take the message back to the Home Office to be
particularly careful when considering asylum claims from Sri
Lankan citizens. These stories are simply unacceptable and we
must ensure that bona fide claims for asylum are considered with
real care, particularly given the deteriorating situation in Sri
Lanka.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that
merely the act of seeking asylum on the part of many people from
the Tamil community in Sri Lanka would render them liable to all
kinds of dangers if they were forcibly returned? In that sense,
would it not be better not to return people forcibly to Sri
Lanka?
Mr. Davey:
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This is a cleft stick
for the Government. False claims are false claims, but I have
seen too many cases where bona fide claims for asylum have been
rejected. Despite making the strongest possible representations,
people have been returned, sometimes never to be heard of again.
My final point relates to the ban. The right hon. Member for
Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) rightly suggested that it was
counter-productive. It may well be. I hope that the Minister can
develop the response that his colleague gave me when I asked
about the possibility of a process for reviewing the ban. Can
the Government be a little clearer about how they could involve
Members in looking at the issue again? They should do so, for
the following reason.
When the statutory instrument was
originally passed proscribing the LTTE, it was one of more than
20 organisations named in it. There was no single debate about
the LTTE, just one debate on the whole statutory instrument. We
did not have 20-odd separate votes after 20-odd separate
debates�just one. Of course those regulations included a number
of organisations that really needed to be proscribed, as the
whole House agreed, but I believe that there is a debate�a
legitimate debate�about whether the LTTE should be proscribed,
and it ought to be heard. The process that proscribed the LTTE
in the first place was inadequate. That, in itself, is an
argument in favour of a review at the very least.
Simon Hughes: Just so that my hon. Friend is clear, I am
sure he remembers that that was a point that we made at the
time, and beforehand; it is not a point that we have thought up
later. We said then that if a step as serious as banning
organisations is to be taken, there must be a process in this
place to look into the evidence for each case separately, one by
one. We have argued that consistently, and I hope that the
Government have at last come to understand it.
Mr. Davey:
I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
Sri Lanka has the
potential to be one of the powerhouses of Asia, and the world.
Just three decades ago, it was held up as a model society.
Professor Amartya Sen used to write in glowing terms that here
was�dare I say it?�a socialist economy and society that had
managed to reduce infant mortality, improve literacy and achieve
many other key indicators of human progress. Sri Lanka had done
a tremendous job. However, the strife that we have seen over the
last 30 years has, unfortunately, seen the society go backwards
and social progress reversed.
I am sure that those
achievements can be regained�but what it will take to do that is
peace. It will take Governments such as ours and the European
Union putting even more pressure than they have hitherto on both
parts of the island to come together. The biggest aid package
that we could ever give to the island would be to help it to
promote peace. It would no longer need our support or aid�it is
more than capable of becoming prosperous by itself, without a
pound of aid�if we helped it to restore peace. I am delighted to
see that a Minister from the Department for International
Development is to respond to the debate, and I hope that his
Department, working with the Foreign Office, can give Sri Lanka
that aid.
When the tsunami occurred, I hoped that it
would help to stimulate peace and reconciliation, because the
response to it was building on the ceasefire agreement that had
been working, particularly under Prime Minister Wickramasinghe.
Unfortunately, that did not happen. Some of the negative voices
from the old Kumaratunga regime, and subsequently from the
Rajapakse regime, had their way, and we have seen a
deterioration in the situation ever since.
When we were
considering how individual MPs and communities in this country
could help, one project that I was delighted to support was the
fish and ships scheme. Many fishermen had lost their boats, and
their livelihoods, as a result of the tsunami, but some British
people living in Sri Lanka got together with the fishermen and
the communities and said, �If we supply you with ships and get
you contracts with British supermarkets for your fish, that will
help to revive your economy.� And that has happened.
If
we help people in such ways, Sri Lanka can be a wonderful place
again. But there is a precondition: peace. Let us not wait
another five or 10 years before the House again debates this
issue and puts pressure on the Government to do more. Let us
keep coming back to the subject again and again, because the
cause of peace in Sri Lanka deserves our attention, and deserves
to be one of the key issues to which we pay attention.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op):
First, I should like to apologise for not being here for the
opening speeches. This debate started earlier than expected, and
I was chairing a Select Committee evidence session on Iran.
I am speaking in two capacities: as the MP representing a
constituency with a large Sri Lankan Tamil community and as the
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am in an unfortunate
position, in that the Committee is publishing a report on south
Asia on Friday, but it is embargoed so I cannot quote from it� [
Interruption. ] Yes, I am holding it in my hand. I can at least
refer to the evidence. The report examines the whole regional
context, but we have of course touched on the serious situation
in Sri Lanka.
Before I refer to the report, however, I
should like to place on record the fact that I agree with most
of the contributions that I have heard today, and certainly with
what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said
about the cultural contribution of the Tamil community. We have
a chariot festival in Ilford every year, and the community
contains temples and prosperous businesses. The area of my
constituency around Ley street has become a centre of the Tamil
community, enriching and enlivening the cultural life of the
borough of Redbridge.
Given the contribution that most Tamil people in the UK
make, it is tragic that many of them are suffering grievously
because of what is happening to their relatives and friends in
Sri Lanka. A letter was faxed to me two days ago in which one of
my constituents says:
�I am deeply grieved at the
deplorable state of affairs at the moment, especially the
disappearance of innocent civilians. A pathetic state of
affairs, indeed, for an agreement which once looked so
promising, but five years since it came into effect, the
Ceasefire Agreement is almost defunct.�
I could go on.
Other Members have reported many similar things. The sad thing
is that the hope for the co-operation that might have resulted
following the terrible tsunami, and the possibility of building
on the ceasefire agreement have clearly gone backwards. In the
past few months, we have all no doubt received from our
constituents pictures of the consequences of the air raids and
the bombing of civilian areas, and of people who have died in
many parts of Sri Lanka. At the same time, terrorist actions and
criminal activities are going on, and the population in many
areas is suffering grievously as a result.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am not asking my hon. Friend to
reveal anything in the report due out on Friday, but does he
agree that it is important to give all the support that we can
to the International Committee of the Red Cross in trying to
trace some of the missing people? Such anguish is caused to
families here whose loved ones have disappeared and are possibly
dead but who receive no news because of either the collapse of
communications in Sri Lanka or the refusal to divulge
information. International agencies are therefore required to
help out.
Mike Gapes:
I agree. We also need to support all the international
institutions, the UN processes that have been mentioned, the
attempts made by individual Governments, and the attempt of my
right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I
had the great pleasure of serving as Parliamentary Private
Secretary during the Northern Ireland peace negotiations when
the Labour Government were first elected. Nobody could be better
qualified to try to assist the process in Sri Lanka, but I wish
him luck, because the complexities of the politics in Sri Lanka
are even worse than those in Northern Ireland. Therefore, no
easy solution can be reached.
The violence has had an
enormous economic impact, as has been mentioned. Sri Lanka�s
growth and economic development has been held back, and its once
successful tourist industry has been harmed�it would be harmed
even more if the BBC were to give some coverage to the appalling
situation in Sri Lanka. Our media do not give the conflict in
Sri Lanka the coverage that some other conflicts receive. Some
of my constituents who demonstrated outside the House of Commons
a few months ago were enraged that the hundreds of people
complaining about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka
received no coverage whatever. It is interesting to ask why. The
reason might be the malign role of the LTTE and the image that
it gives the community. I am an advocate not of the LTTE, but of
my constituents and those who have suffered from the terrible
things going on in their country.
Reference has been made
to the number of people in refugee camps, the internally
displaced people and the refugees who have gone all over the
world in the Tamil diaspora. Human rights abuses have been
committed on both sides. Many people in Sri Lanka today have
suffered as a result of the recruitment of children into
terrorist organisations. From evidence given by Human Rights
Watch to our Committee and information from other sources, it
has become clear that the Karuna faction, which was previously
with the LTTE and has gone across to fight on behalf of the Sri
Lankan Government, has been recruiting children for its forces
and carrying out terrible crimes. The LTTE has also recruited
children, and the tactic has been used in the conflict for many
years. That is completely against all the international norms
and conventions, and we need to denounce that loudly and press
for the practice to end.
As has been mentioned, the
Norwegians have tried hard to get a political solution over the
years. But the situation today requires renewed international
efforts. Along with the efforts of our Ministers and my right
hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, I hope that the Government
of India will use whatever influence they have. We must bear in
mind the sensitivities, especially given that a Prime Minister
of India was assassinated as a result of involvement in the Sri
Lankan conflict. Politicians in India might therefore be a bit
wary of getting too involved. Nevertheless, if India aspires to
be a regional power and player, and certainly if it aspires to a
permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it has a role to play
in thinking more about how it might assist in achieving a
solution to the conflict on the island to its south.
Simon Hughes: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is
speaking, given that he chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. I
think I am right in saying that Sri Lanka does not feature in
the report that his Committee has just produced, which deals
with human rights matters around the world and covers what
happened last year. Will he take the issues we have raised back
to the Committee, and ensure that Sri Lanka is raised in next
year�s report?
Mike Gapes:
Our human rights report did not refer to every country in the
world. We tried to highlight a few instances in which we thought
the Government�s report was inadequate or required further
comment. As we were conducting an inquiry on south Asia and
would be publishing our report at about the same time, we felt
that duplication was unnecessary. However, when our report is
published on Friday it will contain comments about human rights
in Sri Lanka.
I am sure my Committee colleagues will
consider what we do in future human rights reports, but I cannot
commit my Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a
democratic Committee whose 14 members make collective decisions.
I hope we will examine the situation in Sri Lanka in the round
in the coming year.
I believe that this conflict deserves
much greater attention. I believe that there is a role for our
Government and for Parliament in trying to facilitate dialogue
and a political solution, but I also believe that tactics such
as blowing up buses, assassinating political leaders and bombing
villages cannot be excused, justified or apologised for, whoever
employs them. I therefore believe that members of the various
communities�the diaspora, and those in Sri Lanka�who are
concerned about these issues must try to find the best way of
returning to a political solution.
As other Members have
said, we must get back to politics. Only politics, dialogue and
negotiation will provide a solution. The slow, difficult
processes in which my right hon. Friend the Member for
Torfaen�and many other Members in all parts of the House�played
a part for the many years that it took to secure agreement in
Northern Ireland will be needed again in Sri Lanka. We must all
maintain international support for that approach, just as we
received support from the United States, the European Union and
the international community.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op):
I congratulate the Government on making time for the debate.
The fact is that Parliament has been rather remiss when it comes
to Sri Lanka, especially in view of the number of people who
have died and the fact that the conflict has been ongoing since
1983.
I pay tribute�as we all seem to be doing�to my hon.
Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and to the
Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who will
reply to the debate. Both played a prominent role in Sri Lankan
affairs before they became Ministers, and�as has already been
mentioned�both their constituencies contain significant Tamil
communities. I want to make a number of points in the limited
time available to me.
The first concerns the drift back to war that has been going
on for some time. Almost immediately after the ceasefire
agreement in 2002, despite six rounds of talks that seemed to be
very positive�the LTTE discussed prisoner exchanges and was
going to drop the idea of an independent state�by 2003 the LTTE
had pulled out, suggesting that it had been sidelined. That
resulted in a serious loss of momentum. It was nearly four years
before the next major effort was made to bring the two
communities together, and although they met in February 2006 and
agreed to meet again in April, that subsequent meeting never
took place. I pay tribute to Norway for its unsuccessful attempt
to bring the two communities together in Oslo in June that year.
There are many reasons for the failure of those efforts, but I
shall cite three that I consider particularly important. In
October 2003, there was an interim self-governing agreement.
Unfortunately, that split the Sinhalese community, and in
subsequent parliamentary elections the United National party,
which was more sympathetic than some others to finding
agreement, was defeated. A consequence of that defeat was that
the LTTE and the Tamil community began to wonder about the
limitations of the peace process in delivering genuine change
for them.
Secondly, 35,000 people were killed as a result
of the tsunami and Members know from debates in this House that
there was no direct aid to Tamil areas; it had to be filtered
through the Government. There was an agreement between the
Government and the LTTE: the post-tsunami operational management
system or PTOMS. However, that was challenged in the supreme
court, and consequently the aid was slow in getting through and
the Tamil community began to wonder whether its suffering caused
by the tsunami was being recognised.
The third reason was
the assassination of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadirgamar.
Although it is widely assumed that that was carried out by the
LTTE, no one has claimed responsibility. That has further
deepened the hostility between the communities.
The drift into war became a slide after April 2006. The new
Government of the Sri Lanka Freedom party came under pressure
from the more nationalist smaller parties to take a tougher
response to the negotiating process. The LTTE abandoned any
prospect that peace would be delivered, and returned to the low
intensity insurgency of some years before. There was also the
defection of the Karuna faction, which felt that it was not
being listened to within the LTTE, and the belief of many in the
military and the Sri Lankan Government that they could exploit
that split.
The consequence of all of that is that some believe that
there can be a military solution. We should make it clear�every
Member who has spoken has done so�that there is no military
solution. That is not only because the LTTE remains much
stronger than many people think, especially in the north of the
island, but because, as we have seen in recent weeks and months,
it still has the ability to disrupt Sri Lanka and to fight back
when necessary. Because we should not underestimate the LTTE, it
is crucial that the international community starts to bring the
two communities together.
We have talked a lot about
Norway and some Members have been critical, but Norway cannot
succeed alone. It needs the help of the international community.
That was clear from what happened to the Sri Lanka monitoring
mission. The LTTE said that it had to get out of its areas, and
it had to retreat back to Colombo and remove monitors who were
from European Union countries. The international community has a
role to play, and it must do more.
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Will
the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Love:
I apologise, but I shall not take interventions as I only
have two minutes. In recent months countries and organisations
such as Canada, the European Union and the United States have
taken tougher action in respect of the LTTE; Canada, for
example, has joined others in proscribing it. I do not want
to get into the arguments for and against taking such action,
but we should clearly state that we cannot defeat it militarily
and neither can we do so by banishing it from the political
system. It has to be possible to bring it in. There has to be a
political solution to the problem and that must include the
Tamil community�a solution cannot be achieved without it. That
requires critical and sustained international engagement.
My major plea is that the British Government must call on the
international community to do more. Some time ago, the
international donors talked about putting pressure on in terms
of international donations. Many countries give debt relief to
Sri Lanka. Are we asking whether that is getting through to all
the people in Sri Lanka to ease all of its problems? We need
answers to such questions.
I wanted to go into greater
detail than time allows on the human rights situation, which is
extremely bleak. There is an intensification of the dirty war
that mainly impacts on civilians in the north and east of the
country. Child recruitment continues on both sides, and there
have been more than 700 abductions and disappearances in recent
months. Emergency regulations have effectively been turned into
prevention of terrorism legislation that contains sweeping
powers and is not accountable to the political process. Of
course, the LTTE has gone further in rejecting the possibility
that the peace process can deliver for it.
So the reality
is that the situation has not been bleaker than this for many
years. The reality is also that only the international community
can make a real difference in bringing the two sides together. I
make the plea that I am sure everyone else is making. Although
the British Government may not play the main role, in many ways
they have a unique role because of our membership of the
Security Council, our historical role in Sri Lanka and our
membership of the EU. All those factors can be brought to bear
to ensure that we do the most important thing: bring the two
sides together, reintroduce the ceasefire agreement and get the
political process under way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International
Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas):
This has been a serious and considered debate that has
reflected the Government�s profound concern at the situation
facing the people of Sri Lanka. My hon. Friend the Minister for
the Middle East began the debate by setting out a range of steps
that we have taken. He deliberately chose to initiate this
debate precisely to allow Members to raise the issues that we
know many constituents are concerned about. He confirmed not
only that he has visited Sri Lanka, but that he is due to do so
again.
My hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for
Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who spoke for the Opposition. In a
wide-ranging speech, he made a series of points and asked a
number of questions, not the least of which concerned the role
of India and the potential of British discussions with the
Indian Government regarding the situation in Sri Lanka. I can
confirm that such discussions are ongoing, and that my hon.
Friend is due to visit India shortly to continue them in person.
I will come to the other questions that the hon. Gentleman asked
in due course.
We were then treated to the contribution
of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who
brought his considerable experience of Northern Ireland matters
to this debate. I welcome the fact that he has visited Sri
Lanka, and that his interest continues and he is willing to
travel again to that country to share the benefit of and reflect
on his experience. His forthcoming visit, timed as it will be to
coincide with the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for the
Middle East, who will bring the Government�s perspective to the
situation in Sri Lanka, will be particularly important. My right
hon. Friend made a particularly important point about the
Northern Ireland process. The lessons learned from Northern
Ireland have a particular read-across to the situation in Sri
Lanka. He referred to the importance of parity of esteem, as he
put it: the need to develop mutual respect across the divides
that haunt Sri Lanka.
My right hon. Friend was followed
by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon
Hughes), who touched on the concerns of many of his constituents
and made a series of wide-ranging points that I will come to in
due course. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for
Tooting (Mr. Khan), who, among the various points that he made,
was the first Member to highlight the wide-ranging contribution
of Sri Lankans to the cultural and economic life of our country,
and to many of our constituencies, towns and cities.
The
hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) made an
especially important point about the need for courage from the
leaders of the key groupings in Sri Lanka to offer leadership
towards a peace process, given the scale of the conflict and the
number of lives that have been lost. It is important that that
leadership is offered.
My right hon. Friend the Member
for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) brought his considerable
interest and involvement to the debate, and highlighted the need
to ensure that the aid that we offer to Sri Lanka is well
targeted. I will say more about that point later.
The
hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) gave
justified recognition to the considerable contribution of the
Norwegian Government. I pay particular tribute to the Norwegian
Minister, Erik Solheim, who has been diligent about maintaining
his country�s support for the peace process in Sri Lanka in a
difficult period. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the
considerable humanitarian needs in the country, and I shall
describe how my Department is trying to mitigate the scale of
that need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham,
Deptford (Joan Ruddock) also described the considerable role of
the Sri Lankan community in her constituency and rightly dwelt
on the scale of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka at present.
The hon. Members for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Kingston
and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and my hon. Friend the Member for
Edmonton (Mr. Love) also made heart-felt points about the
opportunity that the tsunami appeared to pose for bringing the
sides together. I visited Sri Lanka most recently in June 2005,
having also travelled to Aceh in Indonesia, where the tsunami
was indeed a catalyst for bringing all sides together. However,
by June 2005, it was beginning to become clear that the moment
had passed when the force and devastation of the tsunami could
have offered a route back into the peace process in Sri Lanka.
The conflict was already beginning to return to the state it was
in before 2002.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow
(Mr. Gerrard) rightly highlighted the concerns in his
constituency and across the UK about the level of human rights
abuse in Sri Lanka. In acknowledging the importance of the
presidential commission that has been established to look into
the issue, he rightly highlighted the need to go further and to
ensure that the recommendations of the commission are
implemented and deliver tangible improvements in the human
rights situation in that country.
My hon. Friend the
Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) brought to our debate his
considerable experience as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee. We look forward with interest to the publication of
his Committee�s report on Friday. He made the point that more
media attention could justifiably be paid to the conflict in Sri
Lanka. Perhaps the publication of the Committee�s report will
provide an opportunity for that greater media engagement.
In addition, some extremely astute and important interventions
were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North
(Stephen Pound), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), for
Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Hayes and Harlington
(John McDonnell), and by the hon. Members for Richmond Park
(Susan Kramer), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) and for
Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). I know that concern about
what is happening in Sri Lanka goes beyond those hon. Members
who have been able to attend today�s debate. I have received
representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Watford
(Claire Ward), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Brent, North
(Barry Gardiner), for Brent, South (Ms Butler), and for Croydon,
North (Malcolm Wicks). I also know that this debate will be
noted widely across the UK by people in the Sri Lankan Tamil,
Sinhalese and Muslim communities. I know from my own
constituency of the profound concern about the situation in Sri
Lanka.
I first had the privilege of visiting the country in October
2002, at a time of great hope in the peace process, when people
were very optimistic about what was happening. I travelled to
Jaffna, which must be one of the most beautifully sited cities
in the world, in the company of a Tamil friend from my
constituency, and I saw his tears at the scale of the
devastation in the city where he grew up and was educated. Since
then, and like many other hon. Members, I have heard about the
frustration that many people from our Tamil, Muslim and
Sinhalese communities feel about the situation in Sri Lanka.
That frustration has to do with the prospects for peace, the
worsening humanitarian situation and the impact that the
conflict is having on development, human rights and on the
recovery from the tsunami.
As my hon. Friend the Minister set out, the desire for peace and
progress has to come from inside Sri Lanka itself. Our Prime
Minister has made clear to President Rajapakse our willingness
to help, and I hope that the House will agree that my hon.
Friend�s visits to the country, the discussions held by my right
hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers with
visiting Ministers from Sri Lanka, and the engagement of my
right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen show the extent of our
commitment to help the people of Sri Lanka move forward.
However, I repeat that the peace process must begin in Sri Lanka
itself.
All Governments, and especially
democratically elected Governments, have the responsibility
for defending their countries
against terrorism. The Sri Lankan Government are no
exception, although they also face the
considerable challenge of delivering a peace settlement that
will meet the aspirations of all Sri Lanka�s different groups.
The last time that the House had the opportunity to reflect on
the situation in Sri Lanka as we have done today was in the
aftermath of the tsunami. At the time, there was considerable
concern about the scale of the displacement and loss of life
that had taken place. In today�s debate, we have heard about the
continued concern in the period since the tsunami, so I will set
out in some detail what my Department and the Government more
generally have been able to do in response.
Simon Hughes: Have the Sri Lankan Government given any
indication that they understand what the Labour Government, to
their credit, have understood in respect of Britain�that people
can be kept happy only if they are given
power and self-government? Has there been any recognition of
that in communications from the Sri Lankan Government since
Labour has been in office?
Mr. Thomas:
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, in a little while I
shall come on to deal with matters such as the fact that the
President has set up all-party talks about a possible settlement
offer.
I was talking about the effects of the tsunami. By the beginning
of 2006, almost all the children in the areas affected were
attending school. Not surprisingly, the situation has
deteriorated since then, and school attendance in the north and
east is now severely affected by the security situation.
Almost all families that were still in our camps now have access
to much sturdier transitional shelter. More than 70 per cent. of
families are back in their own homes, and more than 75 per cent.
of people have regained their livelihoods. Moreover, progress is
being made with the building of improved education and health
facilities. We had anticipated that this year major
infrastructure programmes would forge ahead and that the pace of
progress in building permanent housing would pick up. However,
Members will not be surprised to learn that the resurgence of
the conflict has had serious consequences for the reconstruction
effort and for development more generally, particularly in the
north and east of the country.
We committed aid of about �7 million immediately after the
tsunami struck. About �500,000 is outstanding. We set that money
aside to try to help to develop the capacity of the north-east
provincial council to lead the recovery process, but the money
is unspent because of the impact of renewed conflict. Other
money we gave is being well spent, as I saw on my visit to the
Ampara district in June 2005. I visited a Tamil rehabilitation
organisation camp where money we gave the Adventist development
and relief agency was helping to provide water tanks and
carriers for some of the 5,000 displaced families in the
district.
We contributed about �250,000 to World Vision UK to help fund
the distribution of food and basic shelter materials to more
than 120,000 people in Sri Lanka. We gave aid to help the Save
the Children Fund in the distribution of food, shelter,
household items and water purification material to about 100,000
families across Sri Lanka, including in the north and east. We
also helped to fund the UN operation in Sri Lanka. The UN led
the international response to assist the Government of Sri Lanka
and we helped to fund its capacity to do so.
Whatever the form of the final settlement to the ethnic conflict
that is scarring Sri Lanka, it must emerge through inclusive
negotiations between representatives of the different
communities, as Members have said. That will mean making
difficult compromises, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire
pointed out. Some people in Sri Lanka may prefer not to make
those compromises, believing that a military solution is a
better option. Bluntly, as has been said in all the
contributions, a military solution is not the better option.
Twenty-four years of fighting in Sri Lanka have shown that
neither side is capable of a total military victory. Even if a
military solution were possible, a settlement imposed following
a military victory would be a source of
considerable resentment and future conflict; it would not
have the makings of a genuinely sustainable peace.
The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked about
our conversations with the Sri Lankan Government. The all-party
committee initiated by President Rajapakse provides an
opportunity to reach a consensus, especially among southern
politicians, on what devolution might look like in the Sri
Lankan context. We welcome that initiative and hope that the
final proposal for devolution will be ambitious in its efforts
to accommodate the aspirations of all Sri Lankans.
Mr. Love: There are constant rumours that if consensus is
reached but negotiations do not take place the Sri Lankan
Government will go ahead without agreement. What would be our
Government�s reaction in that case?
Mr. Thomas:
I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if at this
stage I do not speculate on an unknown outcome. As I have said,
a solution in Sri Lanka will have to be reached through
negotiation and compromise, and I hope that that message is well
understood.
Many Members touched on the humanitarian situation, reflecting
on the impact of the conflict on the civilian population. Much
of the recent fighting has occurred in heavily populated areas
of the east. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced
over the past year. Recent reporting by UN agencies suggests
that malnutrition remains a real concern for many living in
internally displaced person camps. Those camps are not the
places of refuge that they should be from the killings and
political abductions that are scarring Sri Lanka.
In the north, the situation in Jaffna is particularly grim. It
is a city of 600,000 people and it remains cut off from the rest
of the country. We agree with the co-chairs of the peace
process�the EU, Norway, Japan and the United States�that there
should be
�immediate, permanent and unconditional opening of the sea and
road routes��
the A9 has been referred to�
�for humanitarian convoys of essential supplies.�
As the intensity of the fighting has increased, the space for
humanitarian agencies to operate in has become much more
constricted. Both the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE have
a responsibility to ensure that humanitarian agencies are able
to get full access to civilians in need of support. Crucially,
they should respect the neutrality of humanitarian agencies.
Seeing humanitarian agencies as legitimate targets for
vilification because they support peace may jeopardise the
security of their staff.
According to figures compiled by Reuters, Sri Lanka is one of
the most dangerous places in the world for humanitarian workers
to operate. In 2006, 23 were killed, 17 of them in a terrible
murder near Trincomalee in August. I am sure that the House will
join me in paying tribute to UN agencies, the International
Committee of the Red Cross and numerous non-governmental
organisations for the selfless work that they do in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Davey: I join the tribute that the Minister has paid
to United Nations agencies that are working on the island. He
talked about the need to open land routes, in particular, in an
area that is battered by conflict. Is not one possible solution
to ask the United Nations Security Council whether there could
be a peacekeeping force just for that route, to keep it open for
humanitarian aid? Is that one possible way forward?
Mr. Thomas:
I will come on to the question of the UN and the discussions
that we have been having through it. We have made it clear that
access is necessary by road and sea. I take this opportunity
again to urge the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka to
recognise that they have a responsibility to facilitate access
for humanitarian and development agencies. That is a
responsibility on the Government of Sri Lanka, but it is also
one that the LTTE must recognise.
I touched on what we as a Government have been able to do to
respond to the humanitarian needs. In September last year, we
contributed $1 million to the United Nations and the
International Committee of the Red Cross for their response to
the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Sri Lanka. An assessment
mission has recently returned again from Sri Lanka and we will
assess the recommendations in its summary report in the next few
weeks with a view to considering what else we can do to help
mitigate the impact.
Much has been said about human rights. As a number of hon.
Members have said, in areas under LTTE control, there is no
tolerance of dissent or of freedom of expression. The LTTE needs
to develop its role as a credible partner for peace.
It cannot continue to persecute Tamils just because they have
opposing views. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West
(Jim Dowd) made clear in one of his interventions early on,
there have been credible reports that members of the Government
security forces have been involved in extra-judicial killings
and there have been repeated allegations that some civilians
detained during large anti-terrorist operations have
disappeared. I know of concerns from my own constituency case
load, as well.
It appears that anti-LTTE paramilitary groups have also been
engaged in violence and intimidation. Despite promising to do
so, the Government of Sri Lanka have not succeeded in preventing
those armed groups from operating in Government-controlled
areas. There are allegations of collusion by the security
forces.
The four leading international players in the peace process�the
co-chairs�have made it clear that they believe that both parties
have failed to deliver on their responsibilities in that
respect, including on the commitments made at the Geneva meeting
in 2006. We share that view and the concern that has been raised
in the House about the serious restrictions that have been put
on freedom of expression,
with journalists and newspaper distribution agents being
intimidated and, in some cases, killed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I asked the hon. Gentleman several
questions during my speech, notably whether the UK Government
are taking any new initiatives to solve the peace process,
especially involving the United Nations. Will he say something
about that before he concludes?
Mr. Thomas:
I will indeed. However, first let me highlight the fact that
the Foreign Minister and two other
democratically elected Members of Parliament have been killed
in the past two years. Many ordinary people have been reported
as
disappeared or simply killed.
The hon. Member for Cotswold asked me about the UN, as did the
hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Last year, Louise Arbour,
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, felt that
the unfolding human rights situation was so serious that she
called on the international community to continue to monitor it.
She said that the events were not just ceasefire violations, but
grave breaches of international human rights and humanitarian
law. That is why we continue to seek a resolution at the
UN Human Rights Council. We want discussions to take place
there so that we can help to build a framework for peace and
increase confidence on all sides in Sri Lanka.
As I indicated, we welcome and support the establishment of the
international independent group of eminent persons, which will
monitor domestic investigations into human rights abuses.
However, the group, on its own, is not enough. The
investigations must be rigorous and fast. They must help to
ensure that more of the perpetrators of human rights abuses are
brought to justice.
I am sure that the House will agree that one of the most
abhorrent human rights abuses is the
continued recruitment of children to fight. Both the LTTE
and the Karuna faction have given undertakings that they will
stop the practice, but evidence, including that from UNICEF,
suggests that both organisations continue to force children to
fight.
The hon. Member for Cotswold asked whether the Sri Lanka
monitoring mission could be strengthened. We agree that it has
done an excellent job in often difficult circumstances. I hope
that the LTTE will once again co-operate with the mission and
allow monitors from EU member states to return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton asked about debt relief
and the UK�s decision to pay thus far only half the outstanding
debt relief tranche for 2006. We believe that that sent a clear
message to the Sri Lankan Government about our concerns.
The outstanding payment will be made only when consultations
have concluded with the Sri Lankan Government. Those
consultations will, in particular, involve discussions about the
human rights situation in Sri Lanka. When the high commissioner
met the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister last week, they discussed
debt relief and our concerns about human rights. The high
commissioner urged the Sri Lankan Government to respond to and
address our concerns. Further debt relief payments cannot be
made until that happens.
Many hon. Members asked what else the Government could do in
addition to the considerable efforts that we are already making.
Our top political and developmental priority in Sri Lanka is
supporting peace building. The Department works closely with our
colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the
Ministry of Defence and with those whom support the Prime
Minister. We combine our operations in the country, and we are
using funds from the global conflict prevention pool to support
a series of programmes that will help to bring the sides
together, slowly to try to create the conditions for a
sustainable peace.
Sri Lanka is a country of huge but unfulfilled potential. We
want a peaceful solution to the conflict. That solution must be
one with which all the people and communities in Sri Lanka feel
comfortable. It must enable the society to become more
prosperous and healthier. We will continue to be engaged in the
search for peace in Sri Lanka.
|
