The British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Dominick Chilcott, said Monday that President Mahinda Rajapakse must make an offer acceptable to moderate Tamils because the LTTE would not accept a negotiated solution within a united Sri Lanka.
Mr. Chilcott accepted, however, that the President had to be able to “sell the solution” to the majority Sinhalese. The international community has no plans to intervene in Sri Lanka to exercise the responsibility to protect, he further said.
Mr. Chilcott was speaking at the Dudley Senanayake Memorial Lecture, his final public appearance before his posting as number two in the British mission in Washington early next year.
He said Sri Lanka’s conflict had “made waves in UK” such as the arrival of more asylum seekers and law and order problems, including Tamil gangs and extortion by the LTTE.
“I don’t believe the aim of the government’s devolution offer should be to put something on the table that will engage the attention of the LTTE,” he said.
“We shall continue to take steps against the LTTE in the UK, to prevent public demonstrations of support for the LTTE and to disrupt fund-raising.”
“We shall continue to fund our modest peace-building strategy projects in cooperation with the Sri Lankan authorities to help address the underlying causes of the conflict,” he said.
“We shall work with our partners in the international community to maintain our constructive engagement with Sri Lanka, despite all the frustrations.”
Below are extracts from Mr. Chilcott’s speech in Colombo:
Internal events in Sri Lanka affect Britain. The conflict here makes waves in the UK. For example, as the conflict worsens, we get more asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. It becomes more difficult to manage the movement of people between our countries. More Sri Lankans try to get into the UK illegally. The numbers of those overstaying their visa also increases.
We suffer other law and order problems associated with the conflict in Sri Lanka. LTTE fundraisers extort money from Tamil business people. There are Tamil gangs fighting one another on the streets of London. British politicians, particularly those in constituencies with large South Asian populations, become concerned about human rights violations, the creation of new refugees and the overall suffering of the people caught up in the conflict. They debate the issues in Parliament and demand action from the British government. South Asian affairs have become very much part of British political life.
So for those reasons, as well as others, Britain has a direct interest in the end of the conflict here and the establishment of a fair and lasting peace.
But how Sri Lanka’s conflict affects Britain is only one example of how humanity is becoming more inter-related and more inter-dependent.
Last month, Britain’s new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, identified six new global forces, unique to our generation, which showed humankind’s growing interdependence. These six forces were: violence and instability in fragile states; the spread of terrorism and the risk that terrorists could acquire destructive weapons; global flows of capital and global sourcing of goods and services; climate change; global pandemics such as Avian flu; and world-wide migration.
In case any reassurance is needed, let me say immediately that the international community has no plans to intervene in Sri Lanka to exercise the responsibility to protect. The government here is quite capable of carrying out that responsibility for itself.
We should see fewer attempts to demonise UN agencies, NGOs and their staff on the basis of wholly unsubstantiated allegations. For example, the government should make clear it does not support the JVP’s campaign against UNICEF.
Similarly there should be no further equating support for human rights and the rule of law with support for the LTTE.
This is a particularly ironic position, in any case, as the LTTE show no understanding of human rights norms and they rule by fear and terror. Being critical of the government’s record on human rights does not mean you support the LTTE. For the record, let me say again, the British government, which outlawed the LTTE in 2001, unreservedly condemns the LTTE’s terrorist activities.
If this calmer and more rational atmosphere is achieved, it should be possible for the parliamentary committee, the APRC, to produce its final report on devolution.
In the end, of course, what matters is what the President is prepared to endorse. After all, he has got to sell any new arrangements to the South. And, just as importantly, for the proposal to be credible, he has to ensure that it appeals to moderate Tamil opinion.
I say moderate Tamil opinion because I don’t believe the aim of the government’s devolution offer should be to put something on the table that will engage the attention of the LTTE.
Prabhakaran, the LTTE leader, dismissed the idea of negotiations with the government in his 2006 Heroes’ Day speech when he said the LTTE was "not prepared to place (its) trust in the impossible and walk along the same old futile path".
In the present circumstances, I see little prospect of the LTTE responding to anything from the government that did not offer them separation. It would be nice to be proved wrong on that but I don’t expect to be.
I have serious doubts as to whether the LTTE leadership would be sincere about reaching a negotiated settlement that reinforces democratic values within a united Sri Lanka. They have never accepted that anyone else should be able to speak for the Tamil people, a fundamentally anti-democratic position.
But unless and until they embrace democratic, non-violent methods, they will exclude themselves from any future peace process.
This year, Prabhakaran’s Heroes’ Day speech was critical of the international community for not putting more pressure on the government over its share of responsibility for the suffering of the Tamil people in the conflict.
It is not a baseless charge.
But Prabhakaran conveniently ignored the international community’s wish to see movement from the LTTE on the key issues of democratisation and the pursuit of political goals through non-violent means.
Let me be clear. I am not saying that the political aspiration for Eelam is illegitimate, any more than I would argue that the Scottish National Party’s goal of an independent Scotland is illegitimate. Similarly, I see nothing illegitimate in some crackpot demanding that Yorkshire or some other English county should become an independent state.
What is crucial, however, is what methods are used by the SNP or the LTTE to achieve their goals. And the LTTE’s methods are simply unacceptable.
It follows from the fact that I believe the government offer on devolution should be addressed to moderate Tamils that I don’t believe that a future peace process should be based on talks exclusively between the government and the LTTE.
Obviously, such bilateral talks are probably necessary to arrange a cease-fire. But the political process needs to be more inclusive and also more demanding of the participants.
The government has the right to take steps to defend itself against the threat posed by the LTTE. It is not realistic to expect that an organisation like the LTTE could co-exist peacefully alongside or within a democratic society. That situation is inherently unstable. The LTTE has to change its ways.
If there has to be a fight, and given the LTTE’s attitude to democracy and peace negotiations it is hard to see how one is avoidable, then it should be fought in a manner that minimises the suffering of civilians.
I cannot tell whether the government armed forces are capable of defeating the LTTE on the battlefield. But Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and plenty of other conflicts tell us that winning the peace is more difficult than winning the war.
Without resolving the underlying issues, even if the LTTE are badly beaten in the Wanni, the conflict will continue in a different guise. The social and political issues, which caused the alienation of so many Tamils in the first place, cannot be left unresolved if there is to be a lasting peace.
The British government would like to continue to help the Sri Lankan government find the way forward to peace and development.
We shall continue to take steps against the LTTE in the UK, to prevent public demonstrations of support for the LTTE and to disrupt fund-raising.
We shall encourage the government to come forward with a suitable proposal on devolution and to that end share our experience of devolution in Britain with people here.
We shall promote the safeguarding of human rights and the rule of law as key elements to finding a solution, not as problems to be by-passed.
We shall continue to fund our modest peace-building strategy projects in cooperation with the Sri Lankan authorities to help address the underlying causes of the conflict.
We shall work with our partners in the international community to maintain our constructive engagement with Sri Lanka, despite all the frustrations. It is important that the EU and the Commonwealth should have sensible policies towards Sri Lanka.
Mr. Chilcott accepted, however, that the President had to be able to “sell the solution” to the majority Sinhalese. The international community has no plans to intervene in Sri Lanka to exercise the responsibility to protect, he further said.
Mr. Chilcott was speaking at the Dudley Senanayake Memorial Lecture, his final public appearance before his posting as number two in the British mission in Washington early next year.
He said Sri Lanka’s conflict had “made waves in UK” such as the arrival of more asylum seekers and law and order problems, including Tamil gangs and extortion by the LTTE.
“I don’t believe the aim of the government’s devolution offer should be to put something on the table that will engage the attention of the LTTE,” he said.
“We shall continue to take steps against the LTTE in the UK, to prevent public demonstrations of support for the LTTE and to disrupt fund-raising.”
“We shall continue to fund our modest peace-building strategy projects in cooperation with the Sri Lankan authorities to help address the underlying causes of the conflict,” he said.
“We shall work with our partners in the international community to maintain our constructive engagement with Sri Lanka, despite all the frustrations.”
Below are extracts from Mr. Chilcott’s speech in Colombo:
Internal events in Sri Lanka affect Britain. The conflict here makes waves in the UK. For example, as the conflict worsens, we get more asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. It becomes more difficult to manage the movement of people between our countries. More Sri Lankans try to get into the UK illegally. The numbers of those overstaying their visa also increases.
We suffer other law and order problems associated with the conflict in Sri Lanka. LTTE fundraisers extort money from Tamil business people. There are Tamil gangs fighting one another on the streets of London. British politicians, particularly those in constituencies with large South Asian populations, become concerned about human rights violations, the creation of new refugees and the overall suffering of the people caught up in the conflict. They debate the issues in Parliament and demand action from the British government. South Asian affairs have become very much part of British political life.
So for those reasons, as well as others, Britain has a direct interest in the end of the conflict here and the establishment of a fair and lasting peace.
But how Sri Lanka’s conflict affects Britain is only one example of how humanity is becoming more inter-related and more inter-dependent.
Last month, Britain’s new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, identified six new global forces, unique to our generation, which showed humankind’s growing interdependence. These six forces were: violence and instability in fragile states; the spread of terrorism and the risk that terrorists could acquire destructive weapons; global flows of capital and global sourcing of goods and services; climate change; global pandemics such as Avian flu; and world-wide migration.
In case any reassurance is needed, let me say immediately that the international community has no plans to intervene in Sri Lanka to exercise the responsibility to protect. The government here is quite capable of carrying out that responsibility for itself.
We should see fewer attempts to demonise UN agencies, NGOs and their staff on the basis of wholly unsubstantiated allegations. For example, the government should make clear it does not support the JVP’s campaign against UNICEF.
Similarly there should be no further equating support for human rights and the rule of law with support for the LTTE.
This is a particularly ironic position, in any case, as the LTTE show no understanding of human rights norms and they rule by fear and terror. Being critical of the government’s record on human rights does not mean you support the LTTE. For the record, let me say again, the British government, which outlawed the LTTE in 2001, unreservedly condemns the LTTE’s terrorist activities.
If this calmer and more rational atmosphere is achieved, it should be possible for the parliamentary committee, the APRC, to produce its final report on devolution.
In the end, of course, what matters is what the President is prepared to endorse. After all, he has got to sell any new arrangements to the South. And, just as importantly, for the proposal to be credible, he has to ensure that it appeals to moderate Tamil opinion.
I say moderate Tamil opinion because I don’t believe the aim of the government’s devolution offer should be to put something on the table that will engage the attention of the LTTE.
Prabhakaran, the LTTE leader, dismissed the idea of negotiations with the government in his 2006 Heroes’ Day speech when he said the LTTE was "not prepared to place (its) trust in the impossible and walk along the same old futile path".
In the present circumstances, I see little prospect of the LTTE responding to anything from the government that did not offer them separation. It would be nice to be proved wrong on that but I don’t expect to be.
I have serious doubts as to whether the LTTE leadership would be sincere about reaching a negotiated settlement that reinforces democratic values within a united Sri Lanka. They have never accepted that anyone else should be able to speak for the Tamil people, a fundamentally anti-democratic position.
But unless and until they embrace democratic, non-violent methods, they will exclude themselves from any future peace process.
This year, Prabhakaran’s Heroes’ Day speech was critical of the international community for not putting more pressure on the government over its share of responsibility for the suffering of the Tamil people in the conflict.
It is not a baseless charge.
But Prabhakaran conveniently ignored the international community’s wish to see movement from the LTTE on the key issues of democratisation and the pursuit of political goals through non-violent means.
Let me be clear. I am not saying that the political aspiration for Eelam is illegitimate, any more than I would argue that the Scottish National Party’s goal of an independent Scotland is illegitimate. Similarly, I see nothing illegitimate in some crackpot demanding that Yorkshire or some other English county should become an independent state.
What is crucial, however, is what methods are used by the SNP or the LTTE to achieve their goals. And the LTTE’s methods are simply unacceptable.
It follows from the fact that I believe the government offer on devolution should be addressed to moderate Tamils that I don’t believe that a future peace process should be based on talks exclusively between the government and the LTTE.
Obviously, such bilateral talks are probably necessary to arrange a cease-fire. But the political process needs to be more inclusive and also more demanding of the participants.
The government has the right to take steps to defend itself against the threat posed by the LTTE. It is not realistic to expect that an organisation like the LTTE could co-exist peacefully alongside or within a democratic society. That situation is inherently unstable. The LTTE has to change its ways.
If there has to be a fight, and given the LTTE’s attitude to democracy and peace negotiations it is hard to see how one is avoidable, then it should be fought in a manner that minimises the suffering of civilians.
I cannot tell whether the government armed forces are capable of defeating the LTTE on the battlefield. But Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and plenty of other conflicts tell us that winning the peace is more difficult than winning the war.
Without resolving the underlying issues, even if the LTTE are badly beaten in the Wanni, the conflict will continue in a different guise. The social and political issues, which caused the alienation of so many Tamils in the first place, cannot be left unresolved if there is to be a lasting peace.
The British government would like to continue to help the Sri Lankan government find the way forward to peace and development.
We shall continue to take steps against the LTTE in the UK, to prevent public demonstrations of support for the LTTE and to disrupt fund-raising.
We shall encourage the government to come forward with a suitable proposal on devolution and to that end share our experience of devolution in Britain with people here.
We shall promote the safeguarding of human rights and the rule of law as key elements to finding a solution, not as problems to be by-passed.
We shall continue to fund our modest peace-building strategy projects in cooperation with the Sri Lankan authorities to help address the underlying causes of the conflict.
We shall work with our partners in the international community to maintain our constructive engagement with Sri Lanka, despite all the frustrations. It is important that the EU and the Commonwealth should have sensible policies towards Sri Lanka.
