federalidea.com

by Sumanasiri Liyanage

The All Party Representative Committee is supposed submit its report to the President on January 23. When the APRC together with the expert committee began its deliberations, many people including myself were optimistic and saw it as a ‘glimmer of hope’. However, glimmer of hope began to fade away with the submission of the SLFP proposals in response to Tissa Vitharana Report (TVR). The essence of the TVR is that Sri Lankan post-colonial state be restructured on the basis of the principles of shared and self rule so that it proposes devolution of power and the formation of the second chamber. In that sense, if translated into a simple equation, it is something like this: TVR = 2000 Draft + Senate.

I personally believed that it provided a basis for discussion with Tamil nationalists, both extreme and moderate. The SLFP proposals submitted in response to TVR were designed to inverse the entire power-sharing discourse that began in explicit terms in 1994. The extreme Sinhala nationalists asked Minister Tissa Vitharana to resign from the APRC chairmanship while the JVP asked to dissolve the APRC it self. Initially, the military operations were depicted as complementary and subordinated to the political process; but now especially in the last six months the relationship has been inversed. The APRC process has been made a supplementary/ complementary to the military engagement. So it is in this changed context, the APRC would submit its report on 23rd January and the report would at least distantly reflect these contextual features. Some still believe, in spite all the odds, the APRC will come out with a substantial power-sharing package for three reasons. First, the Western wing of international community puts continuously the pressure on the government over the violation of human rights and escalation of military engagements against the LTTE and calls for the immediate submission of the political package of the government. The demands made by the US are critical in this respect. Secondly, the Indian factor is also of importence although India’s Sri Lanka policy is in a dilemma. On the one hand, it cannot give military support to the Government of Sri Lanka because of Tamil pressure from Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, India is not happy about Sri Lanka’s dealing with Pakistan and China. However, for multiple reasons it cannot go back to Indira Gandhi’s policies vis-à-vis Sri Lanka. So India stresses that the GoSL should deal with Tamil nationalist demands by providing a reasonable power-sharing package. Thirdly, people tend to think so because of the confidence they placed on Minister Tissa Vitharana as the chairman of the APRC.

But in Sri Lanka, in the present conjuncture, politics operate in a different plane. There are some long term trends that are detrimental to a constitutional solution to the national problem. First, there has been revival of Sinhala nationalism with two political organizations, JVP and JHU, capitalizing on this revival. Since the Rajapaksa regime does not have the majority in the Parliament, it has to depend on the support of the JVP and JHU. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the UNP would support the new constitution bill or a substantial amendment as it seems to think that this would badly affect its power strategy. Thirdly, the extreme nationalism as represented by the LTTE may not agree for any compromise solution other than a separate Tamil Eelam. Fourthly, the war and campaign for peace provides substantial space for corruption. This greed factor has contributed immensely to the prolongation of armed conflict and it applied not only for GoSL and the LTTE, but for many other sectors too.

The APRC would submit its proposals, but there is no room for optimism. Let us look at possible scenarios.

* Scenario 1: The APRC will suggest that the 13th Amendment to the Constitution be fully implemented as the first step and it will continue its deliberation with possible study tours abroad for educating its members on varying solutions of power-sharing. Altough the full implementation of the 13th Amendment is a positive step, this proposal is a regressive one. Why? For two reasons. First, the full implementation of 13th Amendment today means something less than the 13th Amendment of 1987 because of the Supreme Court decision to de-merge Northern and Eastern provinces. Secondly, many powers initially devolved to the provincial councils have already been taken back by the centre government. Now the provincial councils have a lesser number of schools, hospitals, and many other institutions.
* Scenario 2: The majority of the APRC will come up with a set of proposals that are basically similar to, but watered-down version of TVR. The JHU and MEP will object to these proposals while the SLFP for strategic reason would not take up position. If this is the case, the President will find an excuse saying that there is no consensus, so that the proposals cannot be accepted.
* Scenario 3: Full implementation of the 13th Amendment plus constitutional amendment to make the governmental structure three-tier, adding local governments to the governmental structure. This would be acceptable to extreme Sinhala political parties within the APRC and without. This scenario has all the defects of the Scenario 1.

The only justification that can be given for the suggestion that the constitutional changes should be viewed as a gradual reform process so that it would be prudent to begin with the full implementation of the 13th amendment is that the full implementation of the 13th Amendment should associated at least with three main changes.

First, the Article 76 (1) should be amended as to limit the legislative powers of the Parliament only for the subjects in the reserved list. Secondly, 101 (2) and (3) in the constitutional bill of 2000 should be included in Chapter XII of the Constitution. Thirdly, a second chamber representing the Provinces should be set up. With these amendments, all the powers and institutions that was under the Provincial Councils in 1987 and subsequently was taken over by the line ministries should be handed over to the PCs.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has never had a strong constitutional reform .The late Charles Abeysekera tried to form such a movement, but his sudden demise made that effort unsuccessful. In this situation, the APRC would be another opportunity either lost, misdirected or failed.

I would like to make two requests if APRC comes up with either of the three scenarios. First, I make an appeal to Minister Tissa Vitharana, Minister DEW Gunasekera and Minister Ferial Ashroff to resign immediately from the government. Second, I appeal that these three ministers with other progressive forces nominate an independent non-party candidate for next presidential election with minimum program that include policies for just and inclusive governance.

Only with such radical surgery, can may be able to think about democratic, just, peaceful and humane Sri Lanka.

(This article which appeared in the “Daily Mirror” of Jan 22nd 2008 under the heading “What can we expect from the APRC?” is reproduced here with a new heading)

by Mano Ganesan

Mahinda Rajapakse, soon after he became president convened all political parties represented in the Parliament to a conference. It is called the All Party Conference (APC). His stated ‘mantra’ at the first meeting was to discuss and develop a set of new political proposals addressing what is referred as the ethnic problem or the Tamil problem. During the process, he even appointed a sub committee within APC under the chairmanship of Minister Tissa Vitharana, called All Party Representative Committee (APRC). This APRC was told to engage in continued sittings and prepare proposals and submit it to the apex APC for approval.

[Mano Ganesan MP]

Now Mahinda Rajapakse is telling 13th amendment is enough and asks the Tissa Vitharana’s APRC to submit proposals for the implementation of the 13th amendment. This constitutional amendment was made in 1987 as per the Indo-Lanka pact. Sri Lankan governments since then never implemented most part of this amendment or pact. Mahinda Rajapakse had been a vibrant opponent of this Indo-Lanka pact and 13th amendment from the beginning. But now he treats it as ‘god given’ with understandable reasons.

What should be noted here is that there not going to be any new set of proposals this time. This is because thanks to UNP, the 13th amendment is already law. What is pending is the implementation. Therefore by telling Tissa Vitharana to submit proposals to implement 13th amendment, Mahinda is actually changing rules of the APC and APRC.

This is closing one chapter and starting another new chapter. This is nothing but one of Mahinda’s usual ‘time buying’ tactic. He has unitarily canceled the CFA and ’slapped’ the international community and packed away the SLMM. There is no reason why he will not seek to change rules again in view of 13th amendment and it’s implementation.

If Tissa Vithrana committee is going to submit proposals for on ways to implement what is already law, it cannot anymore be considered as an APC or APRC and with all the song, dance, fanfare and international recognition attached to it. You do not need all that ‘loud talk’ to find ways for the implementation of what is already law. You can do it with a parliamentary select committee or a commission headed by a retired Judge. But since here there are certain ‘jobless’ politicians involved we can call it a parliamentary select committee. Therefore let it be assured that Mahinda Rajapakse has reduced All Party Conference to a Parliamentary Select Committee.

He should be asked on the first place why he created APC and APRC and went on for nearly two years. He needed time for his war agenda. He got it. But Mahinda has come to situation that he cannot anymore carry on without putting something out of APRC. Lately he has antagonized the western nations and the UN. He is now pushed towards India . He thinks by talking of 13th amendment he can keep India happy and also bring ’something’ out of APRC.

13th amendment did not work in the north and east. It was only an attempt. Tamils as a nationality did not accept it as a pack of proposals or later as law. It’s half-baked implementation is history now. It did not go anywhere near the aspirations of the Tamil nationality living in north and east. It may have given some hope for the Tamil and Muslim minorities living in the southern provinces. It also gave Sinhala people in the provinces some taste of devolution of power. But that’s all.

13th amendment came through Indo-Lanka pact in 1987. There had been many developments later. There were some better features in Chandrik’s year 2000 package and PToms proposals. It also does not reflect the sprit of ‘internal self-determination’, what was spoken during Ranil’s period. Also Indo-Lanka pact brought provincial councils with the amalgamation of north and east. These features are missing now. Therefore it is definitely going behind even in the Sinhala standards.

Therefore India cannot force Tamils to go back 20 years. India and international community should understand that Tamil struggle since 1940s do not deserve this shabby treatment. India has vengeance over LTTE. But it has to be sorted out at a different forum. It cannot be reflected on the Tamil ethnic issue. The very visible feature is that what proposed through 13th amendment are provincial ‘councils’. But what available in India are state ‘governments’.

My party Western Peoples Front (WPF) has a policy on the ethnic issue. We believe it is clear. We refer to the Tamils living in the north and east as Tamil nationality and Tamils living in the rest of the island as Tamil minority. All of us are definitely Tamils by ethnicity but these terminologies are necessary to understand the Tamil problem in Lanka. WPF is based in the south among Tamil minorities. The Tamil people of Indian origin as well those north-east Tamils who have taken shelter or residence in the south are represented by us. We do not run for elections in the north and east hence we do not have any mandate to represent the Tamil nationality living in the north and east. We only democratically support our north-east brethren on their just struggle from outside. It has another logical reason also. Unless and until the problem in north and east is resolved amicably the war will keep on reflecting on us in south in the form of human rights violations which threatens our ‘right to life’. In addition nobody in Lanka can live in peace. No socio-economical developments can take place. Soaring of inflation and down trodden trend of the growth rate are inevitable. So we want an end this war with an acceptable political solution.

We only air our view. But tomorrow the Tamil leadership in the north and east decides to settle down with 13th amendment or something, we will approve it.

(Mano Ganesan is Western Peoples Front leader and Colombo district MP. He is currently in Self – exile due to his security being drastically reduced. Legal recourse has been sought for restoration of security at earlier levels.)

by Dr.Vickramabahu Karunaratne

After going through series of elaborate and far reaching discussions on united state of regions, federalism, internal self determination etc., etc., we have come back to the 13 th amendment.

13th Amendment

This is nothing more than one step forward and ten steps back! True, it was a step forward 20 years ago, when not even parity of languages considered seriously. The 13th amendment and associated changes, at least nominally, introduced parity of languages, autonomy to the Tamil homeland, and abrogation of statelessness. Of course nothing substantial happened to resolve the Tamil national problem, but introduction of all these concepts into the constitution is a victory that one must not underestimate.

The roots of the 13th amendment go back to the All Party Conference called by the late President Jayewardene. It is an all party conference (APC) to which all registered, non proscribed parties were invited.

I participated as a member of the new Sama Samaja party delegation. There were very powerful political figures in the assembly. Dr Colvin, Peter Keunaman, Vijaya , Kumar Ponnambalam, Amirthalingum and TULF leaders, Ashrof, Thondaman Sr., and many others.
The government was represented by, in addition to the President, Gamini, Lalith, Hameed and others. At that time I got opportunities to participate in common seminars where Gamini and Lalith too attended.

Our Position

I found them to be sharp and witty with wisdom to listen carefully to opposite opinion. They were able to counter my arguments from their own position with clear analytic statements. At least, I was able to clarify and consolidate my own ideas by debating with them.
In the assembly Hameed came out as a brilliant star, always guiding the assembly to the point of discussion. In that assembly we fought for two things.

Firstly, if the APC is seeking a political solution to the Tamil national problem then devolution should be based on nationality. Hence the Tamil homeland should be identified.
Secondly, that any draft document prepared by the APC, should be first presented to the representatives of the Tamil speaking people, including the militant armed organizations, before taking any further action.

JR and MR

JR was willing to consider these suggestions seriously but he was tied down by the very forces he represented. It may not be an overstatement to say that in the history of Sri Lanka, JR will have a special place comparable to that of Bismarck of Germany.

This man, an arch reactionary that ruthlessly put us behind bars, threw us out of jobs and threatened with death for no reason except for blatant class interest, in 1986 turned round to compromise with the working-class forces to discuss seriously to resolve the Tamil national problem.

Until 85 my party was banned, we were in hiding to escape death, few months later I was seated face to face with JR, my class enemy, discussing the way out for the Tamil speaking people!

Today the present President MR , who never bothered even to participate in the in the APC of President JR, after twenty years has barged into the APRC of Minister Tissa, screaming that JRs 13th amendment is the golden solution to Tamil grievances.

May be he believes that his masters at Indra- prasasthi will be happy to hear that, and continue to help his military answer to the Tamil national problem.

Whether one applies the uthpatha-thithi-banga rule of Buddha or the negation of the negation rule of Hegel, the inevitable truth is that the 13 th amendment has become today the problem, and not the solution.

In the past when he was in the parliament, President MR was considered by many to be a friend of the proletariat. Within two years he has become an arch reactionary Sinhala chauvinist.

May be Mahinda wants to recreate the Ramayana to become a modern day Aryan Rama? He expects the Hanuman of Indra-prasasthi to help him to annihilate the Dravidian army of Prabha, to install a sub ruler for the Tamil province. May be Minister Douglas is the modern Vibishana in waiting! But the sad truth is that the dream of the trio Mahinda, Champika and Wimal is a bigger myth than Ramayana.

No nation can be subjugated in modern times unless the oppressed people themselves abandon the wish for freedom, liberty and self rule. Gandhi, the saint of Indian independence said that few decades ago.

The Tamils are fighting a bloody battle against a military solution and at the same time hunger, fear and anarchy are taking over the country. While this misery is going on JVP leaders are waiting till Mahinda compromises with those who are demanding a political solution.
That will be the opening for them, not to fight against the misery and destitution, but to make use of such condition to establish the dictatorship of the chauvinist grave diggers.

by Dr. A.R.M. Imtiyaz

“Why?” That was the question raised by many Sri Lankan watchers – and others — when they were stunned by the decision of the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration to terminate the February 2002 ceasefire agreement signed with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the major politico-military movement fighting to establish an ethnic Tamil state in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

The simple but yet question is what triggered the government to abrogate the ceasefire pact? One can offer a plethora of answers and explanations based on regular political incidents and formulas. This article, however, will attempt to give some theoretical explanations based on symbolic political agendas to understand the causes that led to the abrogation of the ceasefire agreement, which formally ended on January 16.

Theoretical explanations

A basic argument of the symbolic theory is that when people choose to act, they often think emotionally rather than rationally. This is particularly true in the tense political situation where leaders directly appeal to the masses’ emotions. The central argument of symbolic politics is that emotional symbols such as pro-war or anti-peace slogans, the flag, the national anthem, group history, the myth of motherland and fatherland can become tools in politics to sway the masses for the elite to win and hold power.

In politics, as anthropologist Zdzislaw Mach observed, symbols are important. They are used to influence the people, to appeal to values; to refer to ideas; to stir emotions and to stimulate action. When politicians or leaders of political movements mobilize people by means of emotions and symbols, the masses would likely react overwhelmingly and positively.

The logic behind mass support for the symbols is that masses develop their identity primarily on powerful symbols such as myth, heroic history, heroes, culture, religion and tradition. When elites, politicians or nationalist leaders, appeal to the masses with symbols – praising history, declaring war on their ethnic/religious enemies, blaming foreign countries for their domestic crisis, claiming to revive ancient leaders’ rule, referring to heroes, waving flags, making policies to offer state protection and official status to the language and religion of a particular group, kissing babies – masses’ reaction is likely positive. The logic of success is the employment of powerful symbols that directly appeal to identity.

The one major consequence of symbolic politics is that it can trigger vicious civil war against ethnic or religious groups if they predominate in a particular corner of the country’s territory. According to S.J. Kaufman, myths justify the hostility if groups dominate in a particular geographic area claiming it as homeland.

In Sri Lanka, for example, minority Tamils who claim they are discriminated against by the state and majority Sinhala politicians, predominantly living in the island’s North and East and have launched a violent campaign to establish a Tamil state called Tamil Eelam. Sinhala politicians, who exercise the mythical Sinhala history to arouse the majority Sinhalese’s ethnic feelings for electoral gains, even deny to Tamils any political autonomy based on a federal framework. The Sinhala political class’ emotionally burdened anti-Tamil mythical appeals provoke the Sinhala people’s anger against the Tamils and coax them to oppose any political solution that aims to go beyond the (British introduced) unitary state.

Symbolism behind the abrogation

The elite mobilization of ethnic emotions and symbols has been the major trend in the electoral politics in Sri Lanka since independence. Emotional linguistic nationalism and anti-minority rhetoric that generated fears in minority ethnic political groups become handy instruments of the main Sinhala political parties in the island to win the sympathy of the Sinhalese.

Mr. Rajapaksa, who hails from the Sinhala-dominated southern region, energetically and forcefully employed pro-Sinhala policies and rhetoric to manipulate the Sinhalese to win power on November 17, 2005. During the election campaign, Mr. Rajapaksa, with his charismatic style, vigorously attempted to show a picture to the rural Sinhalese, that he is a member of the oppressed Sinhala masses. To win southern Sinhalese sympathy, he appealed to the Sinhala masses with the symbols – praising history, declaring tough policies on the LTTE, promising to abrogate President Kumaratunga’s tsunami pact with the LTTE, and radically amend the Norwegian brokered ceasefire agreement, blaming the West, particularly Norway, for the country’s current peace crisis, waving flags, and kissing babies and school children. Most importantly, Rajapaksa struck deals with the Sinhala nationalist JVP and the JHU, both of which are strongly opposed to the LTTE and had demanded that Mr. Rajapaksa abolish the ceasefire agreement when he came to power.

[The ceremonial opening of the new session in parliament in Nov 2005: "Sri Lanka President's first policy statement calls for revision of ceasefire and transparent peace process-Courtesy of mahindarajapakse.com]

When politicians capture power through the channels of symbolic agendas, it is highly unlikely they can retract those emotional promises. Furthermore, any possible divorce from the symbolic agenda launched, could endanger the life of the relevant politician. For example, in Sri Lanka, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, a man who introduced institutionalized Sinhala chauvinism into Sri Lankan politics, found himself unable to control the emotions he had unleashed. In 1959, Bandaranaike was brutally assassinated by an extremist monk who thought Bandaranaike’s concessions to the Tamils deliberately debilitated the interests of the Sinhalese. Mr. Rajapaksa, who won on the “anti-federal” or anti-peace platform, carefully designed policies and made moves in order to win the support and confidence of Sinhalese constituencies and his Sinhala extremist political allies, particularly the JVP which holds 39 seats in parliament.

It is widely believed that pressure from the JVP played a significant role in persuading the Rajapaksa regime to terminate the ceasefire agreement. Mr. Rajapaksa, who came to power on pro-Sinhala agendas in 2005, has been facing considerable challenges to give out economic emancipation to the poor people who stomached his symbolic emotional election rhetoric.

Mr. Rajapaksa’s regime only has two choices: (A) seek a political solution to arrest the ethnic civil war, and (B) continuously play the symbolic ethnic card. It seems the regime has chosen the second option to manage popular Sinhala discontent and thus conceded to the JVP’s anti-peace agendas.

In fact, Mr. Rajapaksa’s decision to terminate the ceasefire agreement would likely justify LTTE propaganda. Ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka believe that the state and its institutions in Sri Lanka are pro-Sinhalese. Also, Tamils believe that they would not get any just solution to their problem from the Sinhala polity, because the Sinhala political establishment would never demonstrate any guts to seek a political solution beyond the century-old unitary state structure, which became the symbol of Sinhala identity in the island.

What the Rajapaksa regime’s behavior proves is that the more the political actors employ symbolic policies and slogans against the minorities to win political power, the harder it is for them to retract their symbolic promises. But Sri Lanka’s situation also portends devastating consequences: When symbolic policies target ethnic minorities because of their identity and culture, mobilization by the marginalized minorities against the state is very likely. Marginalized groups’ mobilization would be on the cards when they lose trust in both the state and its institutions.

It is also true that unremitting hostile symbolic policies and actions of the ruling and opposition political elites are more likely to push the marginalized groups to support the separate state demands of their politico-military movement. The LTTE’s struggle to establish an independent sovereign state in the Tamil dominated North and East exemplifies this scenario.

Symbolic agendas in Sri Lanka from the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim polity make the country vulnerable to the challenges posed by modernization and impede development. If Sri Lanka needs to embrace progress and development, politicians and leaders of the island need strictly to re-think their harmful and intransigent strategies to win their electoral ambitions.

If the hostile emotions and polices continue to dominate the politics of Sri Lanka, the time will not be too distant for scholars studying the consequences of hostile symbolic politics take Sri Lanka as a case study for their research.

(The author is a Sri Lankan political scientist who is currently affiliated as a visiting scholar to the Department of Political Science, Temple University, USA.)

Read this article in Tamil: ஒப்பந்த முறிவு குறித்த கோட்பாட்டியல் நோக்கு

by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) is facing a practical dilemma as D -day or January 23rd draws near!

The APRC chaired by Science and Technology minister Prof. Tissa Vitarana is in a quandary about what it’s future course of action should be in terms of presenting a final report on Constitutional reform to President Mahinda Rajapakse on Jan 23rd.

President Rajapakse last week changed the goalposts while the match was in progress when he asked the APRC to furninsh him with a comprehensive report on how the existing Provincial Councils system could be rejuvenated with enhanced devolution as provided under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.

When Rajapakse appointed the APRC in 2006 he had mandated it to present a comprehensive scheme of Constitutional reform. He also promised to abide by its report.

The President however changed the APRC’s direction when he announced on Jan 9th this year that the APRC should take up a fresh task.

He wanted the APRC to give urgent priority to compiling a report on how the existing Provincial Councils scheme could be revived and maximum possible devolution made feasible.

Rajapakse also submitted a 4 page document titled “A Political Proposal: The Way Forward” at the meeting held with party leaders and APRC representatives.

This document outlined the guiding principles under which the President wanted the APRC to compile its report.

Rajapakse also wanted the APRC to come up with proposals about how the defunct Provincial Councils in the North and East are to be revived and also how advisory bodies are to be set during the interim period.

These bodies in essence were to be interim administrations without being described as such.

The President wanted the APRC to put on hold their regular function and focus on the report on 13th amendment plus. He also wanted the APRC to present it as its “own” proposal.

Furthermore the President imposed a two – week deadline and wanted the APRC to present him with a full report on Jan 23rd.

The APRC had earlier planned to visit Britain on Jan 14th. The plan was to examine power – sharing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The trip was cancelled.

Rajapakse also indicated that he would begin implementing the report on rejuvenating Provincial Councils quickly and that all work on Constitutional reform should be shelved until implementation begins.

The APRC held a special meeting to discuss the issue on Jan 10th. While agreeing in principle to complete the fresh task set by the President APRC members found themselves sharply divided about how it should be done. Most members – quite naturally – were concerned about the APRC being undermined.

Unable to arrive at a firm decision the APRC decided to continue as usual on the one hand and also work on the 13th amendment report on the other. In short the APRC decided to adopt parallel courses of action for the time being.

It was also decided that at least three APRC meetings be held before the January 23rd deadline. The next meeting was to be on Jan 17th.

Meanwhile Prof . Tissa Vitarana underwent tremendous anxiety in contemplating upon his future course of action. It may be recalled that the veteran Sama Samaajist was in a similiar predicament when the APRC’s experts panel “delivered” in December 2006.

It was a fractured result with eleven of the seventeen experts submitting a “majority” report and four others endorsing a “minority” report. Two others presented a dissenting report each.

The majority report was hailed as the most progressive of its kind. It had the added advantage of multi – ethnic backing. Six Sinhala, Four Tamil and One Muslim signed it while the other three reports had only Sinhala signatories.

Rajapakse egged on by the Sinhala supremacists in his camp refused to accept the majority report though the International Community (IC) was strongly behind it.

Everything was at a standstill.

It was Prof. Vitarana who saved the day then by announcing that he would select the best of all four reports and compile his own report.

He then presented his own report as a working paper. He left out some of the contentious issues and forged a document that included a lot of the salient recommendations made in the “majority” report.

The past year saw the APRC using the Tissa Vitarana report as the basis of discussions. It was a case of fine – tuning the working paper. It was this manouevre by Vitarana that has kept the APRC going.

Now the Trotskyite cabinet minister decided to repeat what he did earlier. He decided to submit a draft of his own.

Obtaining assistance from Constitutional experts and also drawing on previous recommendations on similiar lines ,Prof. Vitarana evolved a document outlining proposals on how devolution content under the 13th amendment could be enhanced and how the Provincial councils could be rejuvenated.

The document also explored ways and means of reving the defunct Provincial Councils in the North and East including the setting up of advisory councils to handle administration in the interim period.

It may be recalled that during Chandrika Kumaratunga’s presidency plans were afoot to revive the North – East Provincial council and regulations about an interim administration were gazetted.

The idea was abandoned due to the insistence of Eelam Peoples Democratic Party (EPDP) leader Kathiravelu Devananda alias Douglas that he head the Interim Administration while being a cabinet minister.

Even when the 13th amendment was introduced in 1987 , devolution was perceived as an “evolving” concept. It was not very satisfactory devolution and it was expected that the substance of devolution would be enhanced as time went on.

In fact former President Junius Richard Jayewardena has in a document dated Nov 7th 1987 agreed to enhance devolution in certain aspects of the Provincial Councils scheme.

When the APRC met on the 17th a parallel track approach was patently visible. Work went on in respect of completing its original mandate. At the same time the APRC also addressed the 13th amendment plus issue.

When the meeting commenced the APRC delegates continued with the work in progress namely the finalization of a report on Constitutional reform. With the Jan 23rd deadline drawing near the APRC began identifying areas and items on which there was a broad consensus.

Matters were made easier by the recent decision to confine APRC proposals within the framework of a unitary state. Earlier there was much resistance within the APRC towards the imposition of a unitary state by President Rajapakse.

Recently the APRC showed “flexibility” by agreeing to explore power sharing within a unitary state framework. This was in deference to the President’s specific request that all devlolution had to be within a unitary state.

Rajapakse had placed this constraint on himself during the Presidential elections where he campaigned on his “Mahinda Chinthana ” (Mahindas vision) manifesto.

Since Mahinda had then explicitly stated his preference for the unitary state he was unable to go back on that concept the President had explained.

However he had said that he was supportive of maximum devolution within the unitary state framework.

It was on this basis which the APRC was functioning now.

Some of the parties represented at the APRC were not supportive of the unitary state . It is also the opinion of this columnist that true federalism or authentic quasi – federalism is not possible in a state designated clearly as unitary.

It would have been a satisfactory compromise to leave the nature or structure of the state explicitly undefined . If the state was neither unitary nor federal then some form of quasi – federal system could have been evolved.

This however has been ruled out firmly by the President. This meant that either those opposing a unitary state had to pull out or compromise.

There was also the possibility that the parties – though small – opposing a unitary state were in the majority at the APRC.

Practically, outvoting the unitary proponents at the APRC would have yielded nothing tangible because President Rajapakse would then have dissolved the APRC.

Besides there was also the reality of these parties being constituents of the Rajapakse Government. They could not defy the President and yet hope to remain in the cabinet.

It was against this backdrop that the APRC focussed on areas and items where there was agreement. With the element of intra – APRC hostility over the structure of the state concept removed, participants found it easier to forge consensus.

During this exercise participants dicovered the vast number of matters on which there was total agreement. Contrary to ill – informed comment in sections of the media that the APRC was bogged down in disagreement, the participants found that they had indeed progressed very far.

This does not mean that everything is humky – dory because there are some outstanding issues to be resolved. These are likely to be taken up at the next APRC meeting.

What is of significance here is that notwithstanding areas of disagreement the APRC has also achieved substantial success . It is a question of positive or negative emphasis. Is the glass half – full or half – empty?

After discussing and finalising some aspects of the proposed Constitutional reform package the APRC participants were given copies of the draft prepared by Prof. Vitarana. They were asked to examine it and propose any amendments, deletions or fresh suggestions.

The document was titled “Recommendations made by the APRC for the full implementation of the 13th amendment”. The document took its cue from the paper given by the President and was drafted within guidelines set out.

It basically explained the history and principles behind the 13th amendment and what it sought to achieve. The draft recommendations were to be discussed and approved with appropriate changes where deemed necessary.

The fundamental guiding principle was to explore ways and means of identifying existing bottlenecks and proposing suitable remedies. The important requirement was that all recommendations had to be implemented without recourse to Constitutional amendment.

The suggestions have to be legalised and implemented through simple majority in Parliament and executive decisions by the President and cabinet.

13th amendment plus is deemed necessary at present on the premise that a Constitutional amendment is not possible due to lack of a two – thirds majority. It is assumed that such a majority cannot be procured even though genuine efforts at achieving a bi – partisan consensus have not been made.

Another reason necessitating a Provincial Council renaissance is the fact that the people of the North and East have not tasted the fruits of devolution since 1990.

Ironically the Provincial Councils were primarily set up to address North – Eastern needs but the PC’s function in the seven Sinhala majority provinces but not the North or East.

With the discussions on a new Constitutional reforms package getting prolonged and the Government feeling that a two – thirds majority was impossible to secure at this stage, reviving the existing Provincial councils on a new basis seems to be the best option as far as the Government is concerned.

There is also a sense of urgency as the Eastern province “liberated” from tiger control last year is yet to acquire a proper , devolved administration. This could be politically counterproductive.

In Prof. Vitarana’s draft pride of place was given to the issue of clearly demarcating powers to be handled separately by the Central government and provincial governments as well as those designated as “concurrent” between both.

Though it was anticipated earlier that the concurrent list of powers should be eliminated totally it has been realised subsequently that such action is not possible.

While some powers can be clearly separated there are other powers requiring some element of concurrence due to practical considerations.

Among the 36 items coming under the concurrent list there are many that can be handled by the Province alone. In those instances an executive decision needs to be taken whereby those areas are “devolved” in practice to the Province.

In other areas enabling legislation has to be passed by simple majority in Parliament whereby the limits and functions of the central and provincial governments are clearly and unambiguously defined.

There are areas where the central government in practice has re – acquired powers given to the Province. These areas are mainly in the spheres of health, education, social services, rehabilitation, agriculture etc. Provisions have to be made whereby such powers and institutions are “returned” to the Provinces.

There is also the need to identify areas where under “principles of national policy” the Central government can overide the provincial administrations and set in some checks and balances

There are also areas where provisions set out under the 13th amendment have not been implemented. For example, no machinery exists at present to set up the Provincial Police service as envisaged under the 13th amendment.

Prof. Vitarana’s draft document also outlines the need for two five – member advisory councils to be set up for the North and East respectively. They will be virtual “interim administrations ” but will not be called so.

President Rajapakse is firmly opposed to the nomenclature “interim” as he believes the word has acquired negative connotations.

The interim administration concept has been given a bad name through the antics of the tigers and the EPDP in the past.

The APRC chairman after distributing copies of his document recommendations for implementing the 13th amendment requested participants to study it thoroughly and come up with comments at the next meeting

Two more meetings of the APRC are scheduled for Sunday Jan 20th and Monday Jan 21st. The report on recommendations for implementing the 13th amendment is likely to be finalised within these days.

If everything goes well the special report relating to the 13th amendment enhancement and implementation will be formally handed over to President Rajapakse on Jan 23rd as requested by him.

There are however difficulties about fulfilling the original mandate of the APRC. Despite vast areas of agreement there are problematic issues too.It is doubtful whether a final report can be formulated by the 23rd.

Since the emphasis will be on finalising the set of recommendations regarding 13th amendment implementation there will be very little time to focus on resolving areas of disagreement concerning the original mandate.

One option to meet the Jan 23rd deadline is for the APRC to compile different formulations and to “vote” on those. . Thereafter two or more reports could be prepared on the basis of support indicated by such voting.

The chances are that the SLFP, MEP, JHU will be on one side and the Tamil and Muslim parties will be on the other. The left parties may be neutral or adopt a different position.

This could result in a repetition of what transpired in the experts panel. There was a majority report, minority report and dissenting reports.

Given the fact that the Tamil and Muslim parties are in a majority within the APRC their report could become the majority report.

In “realpolitik” this would be of no consequence and be even detrimental to the quest for greater devolution.

In the experts panel the majority report had multi – ethnic endorsement. The strength of that report lay in the fact that Six Sinhala persons had signed it. It would not have carried weight if there was no multi – ethnic backing.

Likewise a “majority” report in the APRC would be of no significance if the signatories were all minority community parties. Also the minority parties are actually “small” and basically have only “ethnic” constituencies.

If a report is to be truly “majoritarian” it should have multi – ethnic approval and not from particular ethnicities alone.

The reality of the situation is that any report needs substantial Sinhala endorsement to gain acceptance.Minority parties may be the majority within the APRC but that does not make it a valid majority. It would be an artificial construct.

It must also be remembered that the APRC was convened to forge a Southern or Sinhala consensus. Any APRC report lacking adequate Sinhala approval will not be a Southern consensus.

Such ethnic polarisation within the APRC is not desirable either. If such a fracture on ethnic lines occurs, it is in practical terms the death – knell of the APRC.

There can be no forward movement thereafter. The APRC will be “dead as the Dodo” regardless of whether President Rajapakse dissolves it or not.

Despite its ups and downs and the hot air generated, the APRC still remains the only ray of light in a dark, gloomy scenario. The challenge is to stay the course and strive for a multi – ethnic, multi – party consensus. It would be unwise to precipitate an APRC downfall.

The prudent course would be to gain more time and work pragmatically towards a consensus. This requires time but President Rajapakse’s Jan 23td deadline is a definite constraint posing a difficult dilemma.

One possible solution would be for the APRC to prepare a progress report of sorts and submit it to the President. The vast progress in areas of agreement could be pinpointed. The President could be requested for some more time to finalise the APRC report.

It appears from a statement made by Tissa Vitarana to the “Daily Mirror” that the APRC would be presenting two reports to the President on Jan 23rd.

One would be the APRC report proper and the other on implementing the 13th amendment satisfactorily. The 13th amendment report draft is not likely to cause many problems as there is an “unofficial” consensus on implementing it.

The main APRC report however will certainly pose problems as work is incomplete . Unless the APRC makes a gigantic effort to resolve differences and arrive at a consensus the report is unlikely to be finalised by the 23rd. In that case the APRC can only present an interim or preliminary report outlining all areas of agreement and perhaps the options available to resolve outstanding issues.

What the APRC should be careful about is to prevent efforts by powerful elements to substitute the 13th amendment implementation report in place of the Constitutional Reform report. Both are different.

The 13th amendment plus report is aimed at removing obstacles and implementing the Provincial Councils scheme set up under the 13th amendment. It is a case of improving and enhancing what is already available but not implemented properly.

The Constitutional reform report by the APRC is the fundamental task for which it was convened. This report should not confine itself to the 13th amendment alone but recommend far reaching proposals affording maximum devolution. Basically it would be a “southern” consensus on power sharing.

Proposals for greater power sharing may entail Constitutional amendments or a new Constitution requiring two – thirds majority and ratification through referendum. This may not be possible at the present juncture.This however does not mean that such efforts should be abandoned, aborted or down sized.

It is imperative that the APRC come up with a report advocating power sharing to the maximum extent possible. This would instil the Tamils and Muslims with the hope that a just and honourable solution is possible. For practical reasons the 13th amendment could be implemented until a proper climate for greater Constitutional reform is created.

What the Tamils fear is that implementation of 13th amendment plus would be the “end” of all attempts at Constitutional reform and power sharing. Thus it is essential that the APRC refrain from constricting its mandate to the 13th amendment alone.

Besides the Constitutional reform package to be recommended by the APRC is not confined to Devolution alone. It is much more comprehensive and includes at present several proposals relating to electoral reform, public service, judicial service, second chamber, vice – presidency, modifying the presidency etc.

Thus attempts to substitute the 13th aqmendment report for Constitutional reform must be resisted. One should not replace the other. If one report advocates what should be desirable in the long term the other recommends what could be attainable in the short term. They are complementary and not contradictory.

The APRC also faces the danger of being jettisoned totally. The National Socialists masquerading as marxists have renewed demands to that effect. It remains to be seen whether these demands are “orchestrated” or whether they are independent.

Time is of the essence for the APRC.

Just as the APRC is hard – pressed for time so too is President Rajapakse. According to informed Indian sources, there is a very good reason for the President to insist on the Jan 23rd deadline.

[President Mahinda Rajapaksa, meeting India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, December 28th, 2005: Pic: Sudath Silva-mahindarajapakse.com]

Apparently the question of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attending the 60th independence day celebrations in Colombo remains a probability still.

New Delhi had told Colombo that things would be a lot easier for the Indian PM to makea bi- lateral visit if the Lankan Government could demonstrate substantive progress on power sharing before that.

According to Indian sources New Delhi is of the view that an Independence day “visit” could be arranged if positive announcements on power sharing and devolution are made by Feb 1st.

It is because of this :unofficial” Feb 1st deadline that Rajapakse has set a Jan 23rd deadline. Indian circles feel that Rajapakse needs some days to fine – tune the APRC recommendations and come out with it publicly by Feb 1st.

India has evinced great interest in the APRC and has provided President Rajapakse with some advisory input on how to effect maximum devolution under the 13th amendment.

Since the Sri Lankan President is very keen that the Indian Premier should mark his appearance on Feb 4th, he is pressing the APRC to deliver on or before Jan 23rd , opine Indian circles.

Government sources deny this. They say that the possibility of a Manmohan Singh visit though most welcome is not the criterion influencing President Rajapakse’s deadline.

The President is very keen on announcing the proposals to implement the 13th amendment before Independence day. He wants to reach out to the estranged people of the North and East before Independence day . Thereafter his message on the historic 60th anniversary of Independence would be statesmanlike , stretching out a hand to the minority communities.

All this however has increased the pressure on the APRC. With the Jan 23rd deadline approaching it is in a quandary about its future course of action. Will there be one or two reports?

Today (20th) and tomorrow (21st) will see the APRC in crucial deliberations. It is to be hoped that the APRC will find a way to resolve this practical dilemma even “time’s winged chariot draws near”.

Related: President Rajapakse wants “APRC River” to Flow Backwards

DBS Jeyaraj can be contacted on: djeyaraj@federalidea.com

Source: House of Commons Hansard
Date: January 17, 2008
Commenced: 4.57 pm

[British Parliament-file pic, by Viton]

Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting for today’s Adjournment debate my suggested subject of Government support for the peace process in Sri Lanka. I had previously applied for a debate on the subject, but it could not happen. Mr. Speaker has kindly acceded to my request to reinstate the debate today. Little did I know that the debate would be as timely as it has turned out; I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for understanding the appropriateness of this debate at this time.

It is sad-this year should have been one of great celebration for all the peoples of Sri Lanka. The 60th anniversary of the independence of Ceylon from the United Kingdom falls on 4 February. In normal circumstances, that would be an occasion for great celebration across that beautiful country. Furthermore, this year is the 30th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s change to an executive presidency. In the same year, under that constitution, Tamil was recognised, with English and Sinhala, as an official language. The country’s history suggests that there is much for celebration, but that is not how it has been in recent years.

Since I was elected to this place in 1983 there has been a state of emergency and a continuing difficulty that is most easily and sadly described as an effective civil war. It has continued month in, month out, and last year ended in sad circumstances-violence, attacks, deaths and a very dim prospect. Sadly, this year has begun equally badly in two senses. First, the Government, for reasons that I can understand but that are ultimately misguided, announced on 3 January that they were to terminate the ceasefire agreement that was entered into in 2002, and yesterday that ceasefire agreement ended. In parallel with that, over recent weeks there has been continuing violence, with attacks in the north and the south, the assassination of a Minister and of another Member of Parliament, and the killing of innocent people-people absolutely not part of the political process, including children-on bus journeys.

Let me make it absolutely clear that my view, like that, I imagine, of every single person in the House and elsewhere, is that violence is unacceptable, that killing other people in the pursuit of political ends is not the way forward, and that, as other places have learned-I welcome to his place the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who had direct experience of this in our country, in Northern Ireland-there must be an alternative route that says that violence is put aside and people talk to each other until they reach a solution.

So we have a dear Commonwealth country, with huge friendship between all its peoples and our people, now entering its 32nd year of unrest and civil war. Let me give just two or three sentences of background-shared knowledge among people here, but more for the record than for our debate. It is a country of about 20 million people, or thereabouts, three quarters of whom-approximately; I am not trying to be overly precise-are from a Sinhalese background and an eighth of whom, about 3 million people, are from a Tamil background, with other smaller groups. Two thirds of the population are Buddhist by faith adherence, about 15 per cent. are Hindu, about 7.5 per cent. are Muslim, and slightly less than that are Christians and people of other faiths. In this country, we have, best estimates tell us, about 200,000, or probably nearer to a quarter of a million, people from Sri Lanka, almost equally divided between Sinhalese people and Tamil people, contributing wonderfully to our nation in every respect, in business, in teaching, in medicine, in the professions, in culture, in sport-just a fantastic contribution.

I have no vested constituency interest in this issue. I have friends who are Sinhalese and Tamil, but I do not have a huge Sri Lankan population in my bit of London, although friends in other parts of London have significant Sri Lankan populations. I am not doing this because I have 10 per cent. of my electorate to address and want to deal with their concerns.

Back in the ’70s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was formed as a liberation struggle movement. We know, in general terms, what its history has been. It led to the fact that in 2001, in this Parliament, we proscribed it as an organisation in this country. In May 2005, the European Union took a similar view. As a result, one of the players-an organisation that is not going to go away, whatever the Government and other people may wish-is officially illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are familiar with that in this country, as we similarly banned the Irish Republican Army-the IRA-and placed restrictions on Sinn Fein in all those past days in Northern Ireland .

Just over two years ago, we had the latest political resolution when, in a very hotly contested presidential election, current President Rajapaksa was elected by a narrow majority of 50.3 per cent. to 48.3 per cent. over Ranil Wickremesinghe, with the two big coalition parties providing the two main candidates. This is a country where, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, people in high office have often had a very difficult time personally. One Prime Minister and one President have been assassinated, as have a Foreign Minister and many others. As in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, families who have been involved in politics have sadly been afflicted by killing and terrible personal experiences. No one would wish that on anyone. A coalition Government are in place, who reflect the view of the President, by and large. There is a majority who reflect his view.

In this House, we have sought, along with the Minister, who has always been extremely co-operative, and his fellow Ministers, to debate regularly how the Government and others in the UK can assist in the peace process. I pay tribute not only to the right hon. Member for Torfaen, but to people such as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and other colleagues who have taken a consistent interest and sought to facilitate progress. Some of my colleagues who cannot be here today were with me yesterday at a meeting, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for St. Ives (Andrew George ). The former has constituents from Sri Lanka , and the latter does not, but they have taken a concerned interest and want proper development, economic success and prosperity for Sri Lanka . The Minister made the Government’s position very clear at Foreign and Commonwealth questions last week. He called for the Sri Lankan Government to go down a different route to try to come to a peaceful and just conclusion. Sadly, that did not happen, and formally, as of yesterday, the ceasefire is at an end.

Last night, in the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall, there was a large gathering of the Tamil community. Colleagues from all three major parties met people to hear them express their concerns, which they did moderately but with great anxiety. I know that many of them have lost relatives; they have had family killed or injured. Many cannot get things through to their relatives, particularly if they are in the Jaffna peninsula in the north. At 4 o’clock today, a petition was presented to No. 10 expressing the concern of the Tamil community here that the ceasefire should be reinstated and that the peace process should continue.

During this period of catastrophe, according to the best figures available-Government figures that are not fundamentally disputed-70,000 people may have been killed and 1 million may have been displaced. On top of all that, as if it were not enough, the tsunami struck, and a further 30,000 or 40,000 people were killed on Boxing day just over three years ago; hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. This country desperately needs peace in order that it can have prosperity. I will not go through the litany of killing, but in the past two years probably 5,000 people have been killed-estimates vary-and that has continued, as I said, even in recent weeks.

I shall make a linked point before I come to my reflections and suggestions. I have been in touch with the Sri Lankan high commissioner here, and I am grateful for her considered response to my request for an accurate, up-to-date statement of the Sri Lankan position, to ensure that I was not misrepresenting it.

We have always had a good relationship, though a tense one, as we have debated the issues. According to independent reports, the economy is suffering as a consequence of what has happened there. There is growth in the economy, but the trade deficit has widened by 66 per cent. in a year, and exports have gone down. In November, imports went up, and stocks are going down. Probably some 1 million people are in poverty, mainly in areas affected most by the conflict. That situation will go on, and it is a worldwide phenomenon. On the BBC World Service this morning I heard someone reflect that it is always the case in the developing world that conflict absolutely and directly exacerbates poverty.

The Government and international bodies, such as Amnesty and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, have a similar view as to what has happened in the peace process. There is not really any international dispute.

The agreement that was reached in 2002 followed unilateral efforts to hold a ceasefire for a month and see how that went. The ceasefire has been piecemeal and inconsistent, and of course, as everybody knows, it has not been universally respected. However, in the middle of it, suggestions for proper devolution were made. Proposals for an autonomous Tamil province or part of the country were on the table. I do not mean proposals for local government but a new constitutional settlement, such as, in some ways, we have achieved here, and as has happened in many other parts of the world. Things went well, but then the past President intervened and sacked people from various Ministries and progress stalled.

People keep hoping, but their hopes are repeatedly dashed. After the tsunami, people hoped that it might, paradoxically, be an incentive to get together but that was not to be. It is troubling that there is a universal view that, despite countries such as ours linking their development assistance to the peace process-the Government agreed a strategy in 2002 that was rightly clear about that-human rights have been poor. That remains a general understanding. The Foreign Office website states:

“The Sri Lankan government has taken steps to improve its very poor human rights records of the 1980s and the 1990s.”

Yet records for recent years and months confirm that serious cause for concern remains.

Amnesty International’s 2007 report states that the United Nations special rapporteur reported in March on a visit made some months previously and on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The rapporteur said that freedom of expression, movement, association and participation were threatened, especially for Tamil and Muslim civilians.

In May, the president appointed new people to the human rights commission, which then no longer appeared to fulfil its constitutional requirements or the international requirements for independence. In September, the supreme court ruled that there was no legal basis for the UN Human Rights Committee to hear cases from Sri Lanka . That was regrettable. As the year went on, international human rights bodies raised concerns about the escalating human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. That has been on the agenda at the Security Council.

I do not say that those leading the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam do not share responsibility, as insurgents, for the situation. However, it is clear from reports that Sri Lankan Government responses have not been confined to those acting militarily. They have intervened in the lives of civilians and gone far beyond what is internationally recognised as acceptable. I understand the provocation when suicide bombing happens and ships get blown up, but Sri Lanka spends $1 billion on defence-money that should logically be spent on development.

Amnesty International says that last year, humanitarian aid agencies were unable to reach many of those at risk in the north and east. From August, aid supplies to the north were obstructed by the closure of the Jaffna peninsula road and a sea blockade by the LTTE.

Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that, with the motorway remaining closed and the ceasefire having ended, the humanitarian crisis can only get worse? The international community must do something about that urgently.

Simon Hughes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman spoke at the same meeting as me last night, although he was there before me. The community was grateful that he was there. The A9, the main road to Jaffna , is the only appropriate and established thoroughfare for a huge community on the peninsula in the north. It has been closed for a long time; it was reopened but is now closed again. Last night I heard at first hand people saying that they could not get medical supplies, food or money through to their families in that part of the country.

The Sri Lankan Government say that although the road is closed, supplies can be delivered by boat and so on, but that is clearly not the experience of people here who talk to us. I do not mean that those people are inventing or imagining that, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the road needs to be reopened. Whatever the decision about the ceasefire this month, I cannot believe that it is beyond the competence of the Government and the LTTE to agree that the road can opened and protected, so that people can go to their homes and supplies can reach people who live in the north.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Earlier the hon. Gentleman mentioned the tsunami and the aid that went to its victims. I am sure that he is aware that there is still huge anger about the distribution of that aid and a feeling among those in the Tamil community in the north and east that they were deprived of necessary aid. Does he not think that there is still some point in pursuing that as part of confidence building?

Simon Hughes: Yes I do. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development might be able to help us on that matter. There is now independent confirmation that large amounts of the aid given have not gone where they were intended to go. That is a tragedy, given the absolute destruction caused in those areas. It must be right for there to be further investigation, conducted independently of the Sri Lankan Government, into where that money has gone, and for us to seek to liberate it to rebuild those communities. The hon. Gentleman is right about that.

Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): I had the good fortune to go to Sri Lanka two years ago, specifically to see how aid money was being spent. Although I recognise all the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised-he is absolutely right-equally I recognise how difficult it was, in a war zone, to rebuild and replenish the badly damaged area in the north around Jaffna. I got the impression that a Sri Lankan Government body comprising a group of young people was working very hard indeed and achieving a sizeable success in replenishing some of those areas in the north. I understand the difficulties and concerns; none the less, I want to inject some balance and say that, judging by my investigations when I was there, the Sri Lankan Government seemed to be trying their very best under difficult circumstances.

Simon Hughes: I have not been back to Sri Lanka since the tsunami, so I cannot comment from experience on the ground, although I know that the Under-Secretary of State has been. I do not doubt that much work has been done by Sri Lankan Government agencies and international non-governmental organisations, but often—I do not know whether this was true of the Minister’s visit—Ministers from other countries, international agencies or parliamentarians cannot go where they would like to go, because the Sri Lankan Government say that it is unsafe. People therefore end up going where it is possible to see good things happening. I have no idea whether the hon. Member for Northampton , South (Mr. Binley) asked to go to Jaffna and the north, for example, and whether he was free to travel there-

Mr. Binley indicated assent.

Simon Hughes: He was. I am reassured by what he says; all I know is that there are internationally authenticated concerns that much of the money has not ended up where it should have ended up, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) intervened on me to say. I am not attributing personal blame, but if that is happening, it is no good.

I have two final points of concern. There are still huge numbers of unlawful killings-it is not me saying that, but Amnesty. Several hundred extra-judicial killings were reported last year, which, as Amnesty makes clear, were carried out by forces of the Government, the Karuna group-a splinter group of the LTTE that is reportedly co-operating with Government forces—the LTTE and other armed opposition groups. We are not talking about one-side-of-the coin activity. The situation is complex, with many involved in taking people out of what they see as a political battle.

Both sides are also still recruiting child soldiers. Apparently the LTTE recruited 1,500 or so child soldiers a year ago, while more than 100 were reportedly recruited in Government-controlled areas in the east by the Karuna group. A special adviser to the UN reported in November-two months ago-that Sri Lankan Government forces had been actively involved in forcibly recruiting children. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is even more worrying if anyone connected to the Government or Government forces is involved. The world is trying to stop conflict, and in particular it is trying to ensure that it does not start with youngsters being brought in, as they are the most vulnerable people.

There have been numerous detailed reports about torture in police custody and so on, but my final point on this report is that an international commission of inquiry was announced by the President in September to investigate abductions, disappearances and extra-judicial killings. In the end, however, it was changed to being a national investigation with an international observer group. There are real concerns about the independence of the information gathering and assessment involved.

I guess that that is why, at the end of the year, some pretty robust statements were made by independent bodies. The programme director of Amnesty International for the Asia Pacific region said this month:

“The withdrawal of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, in addition to the downgrading of the National Human Rights Commission by the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions which has brought its credibility into question, leaves a vacuum in independent investigation and monitoring of human rights abuses.”

Norway, the United States, Japan and the European Union have also made clear their unhappiness at what has happened in connection with the ending of the ceasefire. I am grateful that our Government have made their position clear in that regard. I am also grateful that Norway, which has played an absolutely central role throughout by seeking to be a peacekeeper, to arbitrate and to initiate, is still willing to do that. I had the privilege of meeting the man who had led that exercise when he was passing through London just before Christmas, and I want to thank him and his team, and the Norwegian Government, for continuing to offer their assistance in very difficult circumstances.

I want to reflect what the Sri Lankan Government have told me, to ensure so that I am not in any way misrepresenting it. They have a view that the position of the LTTE, and the more extreme Tamil position, is to create a mono-ethnic, mono-political separate state. Some hold that view, but in my opinion it can never be possible in this world to have mono-ethnic mono-political states. Look at the history of the Balkans; look at anywhere else. No state is going to be like that; it is not a sustainable option.

Many people hold a different view, which is that self-governance within a federal, or confederal, solution is a viable option. Countries flourish, blossom and grow under such systems. India and Pakistan are examples of such states, as are-nearer to home-many of the European Union countries. One has to try to reflect the different aspirations and views involved. The negotiations looked as though they were going down that road and becoming much more realistic. It is unlikely that the support of the Sri Lankan Government would be won by an argument for the secession of part of the country to become a separate Tamil nation state. That is not a credible option under the present constitutional settlement. It must be likely, however, that people could be persuaded by the argument for a new constitution that could confer autonomy for the Tamil people. Yes, there would have to be a referendum, and independent political decisions would have to be taken, but that must all be possible. Within such a self-governing part of Sri Lanka, there would of course have to be freedom for other people to have their human rights acknowledged, whatever their faith, background or interests.

The Sri Lankan Government responded to the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees by saying that they were awaiting the proposals of the all-party representatives’ committee that they set up a year ago. They are doing that, and I welcome it. They are due to report next week. That might be a branch that is worth clinging on to, in order to start climbing back on to a more secure part of the tree. I do not know what the report will say, or how credible it will be, but I recognise that it is clearly important. I hope that it will provide a positive and constructive way forward.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point there. My understanding is that the United Nations Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner would prefer to have an independent UN presence in Sri Lanka the whole time. There seems to have been a long period in which the Sri Lankan Government have employed delaying tactics to try to head that off. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we should still use our good offices at the UN to insist on an independent UN presence?

Simon Hughes: I absolutely do think that; it was going to be the last of my suggestions for the Government. The UN is absolutely clear that unless independent agencies can go where they want to in Sri Lanka , the Sri Lankan Government will not be believed by the international community. I appreciate that it can be difficult in times of war and hostility, but it is also about allowing independent relief organisations and independent reporting by valid and respectable press people. I am not talking about people with a partisan view, but respectable international journalists with credibility.

The Sri Lankan Government make a point-and it is not a good point-in their reply to the statement issued by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

“The Government wishes to take this opportunity to reiterate its intention to continue the existing dialogue with the UN High Commissioner, with the intention of obtaining assistance the government may require to strengthen domestic mechanisms including the National Human Rights Commission, so that its functions including the investigation and reporting of alleged Human Rights violations could be efficaciously discharged. The government remains committed to strengthen domestic mechanisms, and wishes to avail itself of this opportunity to restate its opposition to the proposal made by the UN High Commissioner to establish UN field presence in Sri Lanka for monitoring and reporting. The government is of the view”-

they come on to a very odd argument here-

“that the proposal has not been made applying objectively laid down transparent criteria adopted by the international community and does not reflect the actual ground situation. Furthermore, objective and accurate reasoning which would necessitate the implementation of such a mechanism has not been given by the UN High Commissioner. Thus the proposal is totally unacceptable to the Government of Sri Lanka.”

I have to say that without international adjudication and verification, the Sri Lankan Government will not be regarded as acceptable. I understand the arguments about sovereignty, but if they are trying to win credibility in the world after 30 years of civil war, the UN must be represented in the country and able to go about its business there. The Sri Lankan Government must change their view on that.

The statement to the UN High Commissioner ended by saying:

“The government wishes to state that, its decision to end the CFA would not be reversed and would be implemented as previously stated, in the best interest of the country and its people”,

concluding that,

“with the assistance of its security forces, the Government of Sri Lanka would take all necessary measures”.

However, the Sri Lankan Government apparently do not believe that a solution by force is the way forward. That being the case, I hope that they will recognise that they must find another way to have dialogue with the LTTE. Given that the co-chairs of the peace process are willing to help, and that the Government of Sri Lanka affirm that they are willing to help, given that the Government are saying that they want a negotiated solution and that a ceasefire agreement is not necessary for such a solution, given that this report is going to the President on 23 January, given that the Government say that they continue to value and uphold Norway’s role, and given that they acknowledge that we could assist through our good offices to get all the minority communities to negotiate, it seems to me that it all demands a context where there is no violence or aggression.

I know that we are about to change the high commissioner in Sri Lanka, and I know that there have been some difficulties about our representation, but I hope that the Minister will soon be able to tell us that, with the support of colleagues on all sides of the House and because of the seriousness of the situation, the Government will increase their efforts to ensure that all parties in Sri Lanka have some grounds for confidence. The Government must make it absolutely clear that to be critical of the Sri Lankan Government’s position is not a way of endorsing the activities of the LTTE, but a way of reflecting that until all stakeholders in the outcome are around the table and all parties have the ability to exercise some political power, there will be no justice-and without justice, we will not get the peace.

I hope that the Government will be robust in helping the Commonwealth and the United Nations to be engaged, which was the request of the community to which I spoke last night. We need to be robust in ensuring that the north is opened up again, and that the Government of Sri Lanka are in no doubt that the present position is unacceptable. Peace is more urgent now than ever.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey ( Simon Hughes ) on securing this important debate. As he said, it is very timely for all the worst reasons. Like him, I observed the deterioration at the end of last year and the beginning of this, and asked for a debate to be held this week. That is how important it is at this moment.

I think the best thing that those of us who are in the Chamber now can do is demonstrate our united support for our Minister, and for the work that he must do in trying to bring together the international community to tackle three immediate interlinked tasks: stemming the recent increase—again—in violence, returning people to talks about peace, and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it.

As I think Members will agree, the Minister already has a pretty good track record for demonstrating his commitment to peace in Sri Lanka . He has worked with great application and patience for longer than most in trying to bring about peace in the country. He was instrumental in securing our very full debate on this subject in May last year. I wish him the greatest success in the work that he will do in the coming days, and he has my full support.

I want to reiterate what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said about the many links that our country has with Sri Lanka , and the interest that all Members take in the subject as a result. There are all the historical and political issues mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but the crucial current issues that make us interested in the country involve the Sri Lankans in all our communities, whom he also mentioned. He is right: people from Sri Lanka have come to this country, enriched our lives, and reached positions of great influence. I think of engineers, lawyers and doctors in my constituency, and of friends of mine who came from Sri Lanka originally. I think, too, of the civic links that we have with Sri Lanka throughout the country.

Last autumn I sat down in a school in my constituency, Walton high school, and listened to students who told me about taking part in the world challenge in Sri Lanka last summer. Twenty students and teachers from the school joined students and staff from 13 other schools around the country, establishing links with Sri Lankan schools. It is at that people-to-people level that we in this country feel such great concern to learn of an eruption of greater violence, and the human tragedy and greater instability that it is creating in Sri Lankan society. I am sure that we all feel a determination that that should stop.

I know the Minister will agree that we are speaking of a country of great beauty, and a people of great talent. They have so much to offer the rest of the world and so much to gain for themselves if they can secure the political stability and get the democratic structure right, and if there can be tolerance between groups in their society. There is so much for them to gain, and there is so much being lost while the violence and disagreements that we are witnessing continue.

I wish my hon. Friend the Minister the greatest success in the important days that lie ahead.

5.33 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I am grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey ( Simon Hughes ), not only for securing this timely debate but for allowing me and others to intervene briefly.

We know from our debate last May that what we say in the House is scrutinised very carefully in the Sri Lankan Parliament. Indeed, an entire debate was held there on our debate in May. I believe that one or two unfortunate comments were made in the debate, and that the wrong impression was left after it; so I think that we must be very careful. We must recognise that there is a democratically elected Government in Sri Lanka . It is not perfect, but it is better than some of the alternatives.

It is on a note of sadness that we are here today at the time of a recent upswing in violence, as indeed was the case when we last debated the subject. Every death on either side increases the suspicion on both sides, and I call for all parties to exercise restraint.

Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that while we would, of course, wish there to be forbearance on both sides, it was the Sri Lankan Government who unilaterally abrogated the ceasefire agreement in January this year?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was coming on to that, and it is an important point, but we must be very temperate and careful in what we say in these debates.

The recent history of the LTTE-the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam-started in 1983–84. That was a time of considerable trouble in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that anybody then would have predicted that the Irish Government would give up article 3 of its constitution claiming sovereignty over the north, or that some of the principal leaders of both sides would be sitting in a democratically elected devolved Parliament in the Province of Northern Ireland with, as we hope, the peace process going forward. Therefore, while I take on board the remarks of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey about the black nature of Sri Lanka’s future, with good will on both sides it is not impossible that we could move to a peaceful solution. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on precisely the right button when he called for a confederate solution-a solution whereby there is a devolved Government of the Tamil areas with considerable autonomy, but under the sovereign Government of an elected Sri Lankan Parliament. I can envisage such a solution in times to come.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, North ( Barry Gardiner) that it was unfortunate that the Sri Lankan Government abrogated the peace agreement unilaterally, and I had a discussion with the high commissioner this morning in which I made that very point. The agreement might not have been perfect, but it did “recognise the importance of bringing an end to hostilities and improving the living conditions for all inhabitants affected by the conflict”, and it further agreed that “bringing an end to the hostilities is also seenas a means of establishing a positive atmosphere in which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution can be taken.”

I hope that all people of good will would agree that everybody should share that aspiration. I hope that the Sri Lankan Government and all the Tamil factions will be able to get together around a table and start negotiating because, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, there has to be a political solution. That was the one message from Northern Ireland : there could never be a military solution. There will never be a military solution to the Sri Lankan Government’s problems.

I was delighted to receive an assurance from the high commissioner this morning-she allowed me to say this in the debate-that her Government are absolutely committed to finding a political solution. I hope and believe that that is so, in which case the different sides must get around the table and talk.

It is unfortunate that the international monitoring commission has been withdrawn. The considerable efforts of the Norwegians are proving difficult not only because they cannot monitor a ceasefire that does not take place, but they cannot monitor the process either. I made the point to the high commissioner this morning that it is important that we get some form of international monitoring under United Nations auspices in the country, so that accusations and counter-accusations can be verified by a completely independent body or individual.

When I went to Nepal, there was a powerful United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative there; he was a Brit-a Scot-and he was widely respected by all sides and was able to act as an interlocutor where the Nepalese Government were unable to go. We should be looking for that sort of model for Sri Lanka .

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is sitting in his place, and I wish to pay great tribute to him. I hope that he is able to go back to Sri Lanka , because he was widely respected by all sides and was able to talk to all sides. He was also able, modestly and patiently, to give all sides the benefit of his experience, which is characteristic of him. I hope that he will be able to revisit that beautiful island shortly, and that his good offices will begin to help the peace process again.

Mention has been made of the All Party Representative Committee report due to be handed to President Rajapakse on 23 January. It will be interesting to see what the committee comes up with, whether it is independent and whether it will move things forward. I truly that it will, because all-party talks are the route we should take.

Both sides must recognise that in this type of dispute-the parties in Northern Ireland were in exactly the same position, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen knows only too well-people have to abandon the positions that they hold, although that might not be comfortable. The Tamil Tigers might have to recognise things and do things that they do not want to do. If there is to be a lasting peace process, it must be just that; both sides must recognise each other’s position and recognise that they cannot just adopt the status quo.

It is not the Government, the armed forces or the LTTE who suffer, but the innocent civilians who get caught up in all this. I made it clear it to the high commissioner that the bombing the other day of the base at Kilinochchi was not acceptable. Bombing one’s own people, even if one thinks that one is bombing an LTTE base, is unacceptable, because bombing cannot be that precise that it hits only one’s opponents.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): What was the high commissioner’s response when the hon. Gentleman raised that concern with her?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Some parts of my conversation should not necessarily be in the public domain. I am merely reporting to the House the points that I made to the high commissioner in the same manner as I am now, so that they can be heard in this House.

I call for restraint on all sides, because innocent civilians are the ones who suffer. We want this beautiful island to go forward as a democracy and as a full member of the Commonwealth. It has a wonderful future if peace can prevail. Its economy and tourism are fantastic; it has fantastic jungles, mountains and archaeological sites, all of which need to be generally open to the world. The island has a huge amount to contribute, and I believe that with good will peace could prevail.
5.42 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab): I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey ( Simon Hughes ), who ably opened this debate. We are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to speak briefly on an important issue.

When we last debated this issue, I recalled the visit I made to Sri Lanka just over a year ago. I was given absolute access to anywhere I wanted to go, including the LTTE-controlled parts of the island and the LTTE’s headquarters. I met its second in command, who has recently been killed. That brought it home to me how difficult and tragic the times now are in Sri Lanka . The assassinations of Ministers, Members of Parliament and innocent members of the public are all too redolent of what we experienced in our country over 20 or 30 years.

The answer is obviously a political one. All the hon. Members who have spoken mentioned the importance of a political solution. There is no military solution to this problem. The Sri Lankan Government have said that, and I am sure that everybody involved in the peace process in Sri Lanka would echo it. Most interestingly, from a Northern Ireland point of view, that was also Martin McGuinness’s message when he went to talk to people in Sri Lanka some time ago. As he is now Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland , he told both sides in Sri Lanka that there could not be a military solution and that the war simply could not be won by either side. That has to underpin everything that we do as a Government and a country to help in Sri Lanka . My hon. Friend the Minister would be the first to say that we have a special reason to intervene in this case. We were, after all, the colonial power for many years, and we are also in the same Commonwealth of nations .

It is not beyond the wit of the international community, in its different forms, to intervene in this terrible conflict, which, in some respects, appears to have been forgotten. The co-chairs of the peace process, the Norwegians, have played an excellent role, and we have played our part, too, but it strikes me that the international community must make a special effort to ensure that the ceasefire is restored.

I regret, like everybody else, the end of the ceasefire, even though it was not particularly effective. Nevertheless, it has to be replaced. It is certain that we would not have had peace in Northern Ireland without a proper ceasefire that was recognised by all sides. When a ceasefire is established in Sri Lanka , policed and monitored by the international community, we will be on the way to success. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some ideas about how to take forward the proposals.

Most importantly, people in Sri Lanka need hope. In a few months’ time, it will be the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. This time 10 years ago, when I was Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, there was a murder every night. Everybody in Northern Ireland thought that the process had collapsed and was dead. In a matter of months, because of the effort of the international community and everybody involved, we signed that historic agreement. I am sure that those lessons can be learned in Sri Lanka and that we will pay an important role in that.

We have an excellent new high commissioner in Colombo; I know that he will play an important role. The opportunity to discuss the subject that the collapse of today’s business has given us will be welcomed by all people who feel good will towards that beautiful country. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister concludes the debate, he will say that there is some possibility that the UK Government will intervene in this important matter.

Part II

Mr. Andrew Love ( Edmonton ) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey ( Simon Hughes ) on the measured and balanced speech with which he opened the debate. I was struck by the contrast between today’s debate, the tone of which has been rather consensual, and our last debate on the subject. I suspect that in the months since that debate we have learned a great deal more about the situation in Sri Lanka , and so members of all parties can come to similar conclusions on how we will try to make progress.

Without wishing to repeat what has been said, I think that we recognise that this is a long, drawn-out conflict. It started in the early 1980s and since then more than 70,000 people have died. However, today, more than at any point over the past five years, we face the prospect of a return to civil war. That is why the debate is apposite. It is important that we should concentrate and try to get the Government to do more to stop that decline to civil war.

I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered, but I want to mention three things. Human rights have been a primary concern. Anyone who reads the reports on the subject from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or any other body will be only too aware that there has been an explosion in the number of human rights violations. Perhaps that is understandable, as there has been a decline in relations between the different communities. Of course, the decision to withdraw from the ceasefire agreement has not helped.

The Sri Lankan Government say that they are committed to human rights and they have taken some measures to deliver that commitment; they have set up a commission of inquiry and begun investigations into 17 violation cases. As has been noted, they have also established an eminent persons group, one of whom is an eminent lawyer from this country, but there is still considerable disappointment at the lack of progress.

There are also concerns about how the investigations are being conducted. The backdrop is that so far there have been no prosecutions at all for human rights violations, and that has raised anxiety about whether the mechanism that has been adopted is likely to inspire trust-among people on the island of Sri Lanka and in the wider international community-that those guilty of human rights abuses are being brought to justice.

Louise Arbour is the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. Last year, the Sri Lankan Government agreed that she should visit the island, and her time there was very productive. We understand that Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights has a memorandum of understanding with the UN, but it is widely accepted internationally that that Government’s withdrawal from the ceasefire meant that the monitoring mission conducted by Norway and the Scandinavian countries could no longer be effective. That makes it even more urgent that we find a way to monitor human rights and collect the evidence that will bring violators to justice.

A representative from Sri Lanka’s Muslim community visited me last week to express the considerable concern that exists about what is happening to Muslims, especially in the east of Sri Lanka . In addition, the desperate worries felt by members of the Tamil diaspora in this country for their families and relatives in Sri Lanka have been expressed at meetings in this House over many months. The only way forward is to establish proper human rights monitoring in Sri Lanka , and it has been widely accepted around the Chamber today that the UN is the proper body to carry that out. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell the House what pressure he is exerting to secure the UN’s involvement in that respect. People in Sri Lanka and around the world need to be reassured that something is being done.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, especially as I have already made a speech in the debate, but he has made a point that needs clarifying. Last year’s visit to Sri Lanka by the UN’s Louise Arbour was welcome, but one visit is not the same as having a permanent UN representative stationed in the country. The UN representative in Nepal has been successful precisely because he is permanently on hand to deal with things when they go wrong.

Mr. Love: I accept that entirely. I did not intend to give the impression that I was asking for only the odd visit, as of course I believe that we need a permanent mission in Sri Lanka . The mission would need to be run independently through the UN, as that would give everyone the assurance that they seek.

The second matter about which I want to speak is the ceasefire agreement. Like other hon. Members, I was very saddened by the Sri Lankan Government’s decision to withdraw from it. Various reasons have been suggested for that withdrawal, and I have a degree of sympathy with some of them. For example, it has been claimed that the ceasefire had given the LTTE a chance to rearm, to conscript children and young people and to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

However, I was interested to read recently that new reasons were being given for the Sri Lankan Government’s withdrawal from the ceasefire, and one was that the agreement was seriously flawed. I think that everyone would accept that the document was not perfect, but the circumstances in which it was drawn up may have rendered that impossible. People were trying to make progress, and drawing up the ceasefire agreement was intended to be only the start of the process and to give momentum to it. We all understand that the reason why the ceasefire has not been as successful as we hoped is that that momentum was lost. In addition, the security forces were always understandably concerned about the layout. However, we have to ask why those issues are being raised now. That is the concern felt by this House and the international community.

One of the criticisms advanced to which I am slightly more sympathetic is that the ceasefire agreement was only with the LTTE. Representatives of the Muslim community come to me saying that they want to be involved in the peace process. Members of the Tamil community who are not sympathetic to the aspirations of the LTTE say that they want to be represented as well. The example of Northern Ireland shows that all the representatives who speak on behalf of sections of the community are needed if agreement is to be reached. I therefore have sympathy with that view.

Mr. Binley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there is another group of people who need to be represented and protected and whose lifestyles need to be massively improved. They are the 160,000 people who are the product of the series of wars, fighting actions and so on-the people of Puttalam, the forgotten people of Sri Lanka . I do not want them to be omitted from this debate or from the Minister’s work. Their situation is a scar on humanity generally. I hope that the Minister will remember those 160,000 people and that in his discussions with the Sri Lankan Government, he will include their plight and the hope that something can be done about it.

Mr. Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Again, I remind the House that the LTTE decided that it no longer wanted the Muslim community to be part of the polity that was created in the north of the island, and many members of that community became internally displaced as a result. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which reaffirm that we need to include democratic representatives of all parts of all the communities if we are to reach a solid, permanent and sustainable solution.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I listened carefully to his comments on the imperfections in the ceasefire agreement, but does he not agree that what any party to that agreement should have done in response to those imperfections is propose a better ceasefire agreement-a more inclusive one, if that would be better-not withdraw unilaterally from the extant agreement? To do the latter is a counsel of despair, not a counsel of hope.

Mr. Love: In my view, the ceasefire that has just been broken was the only game in town. I accept the criticisms that have been made. Even when it was signed, it was criticised by both sides-indeed, by all sides, both internationally and in Sri Lanka . However, having a ceasefire agreement can be the basis for progress. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said, it is only on the basis of a ceasefire that one can move forward. When there is no longer a ceasefire, the first priority must be to create one before seeking political progress.

Given the concern that has been expressed this evening about the decision to withdraw from the ceasefire agreement, I want to know what steps the UK Government have taken to press the Sri Lankan Government regarding their intentions. What political capital is there behind the prospect of further negotiations to re-establish, if not the same ceasefire agreement, then another to replace it?

On the peace process, to repeat what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the Government of Sri Lanka have reassured me that they are in favour of a negotiated solution. They point to the all-party conference, which a number of Members mentioned.

It being Six o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-[Ms Diana R. Johns on.]

Mr. Love: I thought for a second that I had hit the gong. I shall be brief in order to allow the Minister plenty of time to respond.

The all-party conference, which should produce its recommendations on 23 January, has been running for more than a year and a half. I must say as an interested outside observer that it has not always gone smoothly. Some of the recommendations from individual political parties are not likely to command support across the community, and I hope that the Sri Lanka Government will not feel bound by such recommendations. It is important that they take the initiative and do what they feel is most appropriate to bring the parties together and start dialogue on a ceasefire agreement again, in order to move towards peace.

Stephen Hammond ( Wimbledon ) (Con): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, although I came to listen and learn, not to make a contribution. Hon. Members have spoken several times about the lessons learned from Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke about hope, but trust is also key. Alongside the ceasefire, a decommissioning process will be needed. One of the key things that allowed us to move from military to political action in Northern Ireland was the outside intervention of de Chastelain, who brought trust to the decommissioning process. Such a process needs to be included in the all-party conference’s recommendations, so that the communities can begin to trust each other as well.

Mr. Love: I agree. One hopes that Norway and the international community can help to play that role. I hope that one of the urgent issues for discussion after the all-party conference reports will be exactly that-how to start building confidence among the different communities and how to get people to sit down to sign. A ceasefire can be signed only if there is some confidence in it and in the political process that will follow. We need to create that confidence. The international community has a big role to play in doing so.

Mention has been made of Norway’s role as facilitator continuing even when the monitoring mission ends. The international community also has a role in trying to start dialogue between sides, as has been said. That is critical. One of my biggest concerns is that there appears to be no dialogue, public or private, between the Tamil National Alliance, which is represented in Parliament, and the Government of Sri Lanka. That is of considerable concern. There also seems to be no dialogue with the Muslim community, which recently left the Government coalition. That is another worry. The international community has a role to play in trying to re-establish dialogue, whether private or public.

As part of the international community, what is the United Kingdom doing with other countries-including Japan, the United States and India, Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour-to start the dialogue that will lead to a ceasefire agreement and, hopefully, a peace process? As has been said, we have a unique role to play. We are the former colonial power and have large Tamil and Singhalese communities living in our country. The UK knows Sri Lanka probably better than any other country in the international community, and we as a Parliament need reassurance that the Government are doing everything that they can to resolve the bitter differences on that island.

6.05 pm

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): I shall be brief, as I can see the Minister champing at the bit, ready to reply to the debate. We want to hear what he has to say.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey ( Simon Hughes ) on securing the debate and on a consistent interest in Sri Lanka over many years. He and I have attended many wet weekends in Trafalgar square to discuss the plight of the people of Sri Lanka , and I congratulate him on that.

The history of Sri Lanka since 1983 and even back to 1958 has been one of almost unremitting tragedy. I was first elected to the House in 1983. The riots broke out at that time. Large numbers of Tamil asylum seekers came to the United Kingdom and to other European countries at that time. The loss of life goes on and on. There are generations of people who have never known anything but a state of war in their country-young people growing up who have never known anything other than bombardments and all the accompanying problems.

I echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). There is a massive peace dividend to be had, not just for the Tamil people but for the Sinhala people, the Muslim people and everybody else across the whole country. If a ceasefire can be renegotiated and put in place, followed by serious negotiations that can bring about a long-term and lasting settlement, everybody will be a lot better off. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, if a country the size of Sri Lanka, with all the problems that it has-and it also has huge opportunities-spends £1 billion a year on arms, plus all the expenditure made by all the other groups, that is money denied to development, education and housing.

Until the breakdown of community relations, Sri Lanka probably had the best record of education, health care, literacy levels and all the other indices that one would care to measure across the whole of Asia . It also had a sophisticated intellectual society and sophisticated political development and process. All that has imploded and collapsed, which is tragic to see.

There are serious problems of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka . They have been brought to the attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and to the UN Human Rights Council. I have been in Geneva when many such representations were made. Although I acknowledge the replies given by the Sri Lanka High Commission in the UK and the views of the Sri Lankan Government that they should conduct their own human rights process, the time has passed for that.

There must be a permanent-that is, for as long as necessary-independent UN representation in Sri Lanka that can go to all parts of the community, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen was able to do, and verify abuses of human rights wherever they occur and whoever has caused those abuses. There is no alternative solution as the start of a confidence-building process.

The Minister should give all the encouragement he can in support of the efforts of the Norwegian Government and others to get the ceasefire back in operation as quickly as possible. That must be followed quickly by serious peace negotiations with the LTTE and with every other group in the society as a whole. If there is merely a ceasefire and nothing changes other than a cessation of the worst kinds of violence, the factors that provoked and promoted the violence in the first place will still exist. A longer-term peace process must be promoted.

My final point is that made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. Historically, Sri Lanka has been occupied by colonial powers, latterly by Britain . The British record all over the world was often one of almost deliberately provoking conflict between different linguistic and different ethnic groups. There is a legacy of that in many former colonies around the world and its price tends to be the collapse of societies. However, it is possible for there to be a multilingual, multi-ethnic society on one island and degrees of autonomy within the national state framework. Such things are possible. If we do not achieve them, what is the future for Sri Lanka ? It is another 30 years of war, another 30 years of bombardment and another 30 years of damage to people’s lives.

I hope that the Minister can help with getting the ceasefire back on track. Above all, I hope that the Sri Lankan Government recognise that those of us who take up the cause of human rights and speak up for the cause of Tamil refugees are not anti-Sri Lanka-quite the opposite. We are pro-Sri Lanka, because we want peace and justice for all the people of that island.

6.10 pm

The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey ( Simon Hughes ) on securing this timely debate. I pay tribute to him for his work and interest over many years on behalf of all Sri Lankan people. Like him, I welcome the presence in the Chamber tonight of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides who are passionate about this subject. I am thinking especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has devoted considerable energy and courage to the peace process in Sri Lanka . The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow , West (Mr. Thomas) was here until a short while ago, and he has been using his great expertise and a lot of his time on the issue. I pay tribute to his work as well.

Let me begin by condemning unreservedly, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey did, yesterday’s terrorist attack on a bus in Uva province. It killed as many as 30 people and injured more than 60. It is the latest example of a deeply worrying cycle of violence that has brought misery to Sri Lankans from all communities. Like everyone in the House, I am sure, I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims. I want to express the Government’s condemnation and loathing of the continuing use of murder and terrorism as tactics in trying to further political aims.

We are fortunate tonight; what was likely to have been a half-hour Adjournment debate-I talked to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey about it-has turned into a full-blown debate longer than many scheduled debates in which I have been involved. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact of the Government of Sri Lanka’s decision to abrogate the ceasefire agreement. The end of an internationally brokered agreement is a matter of great regret and like the hon. Gentleman I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Norwegian facilitators and the Sri Lanka monitoring mission, often in extremely difficult circumstances. I applaud the continuing commitment of Norway and the other co-chairs-the US, the EU and Japan-to working for peace. Their task remains Herculean.

The hon. Gentleman asked me last week about what could be done to restart negotiations. We should not underestimate the serious obstacles to that on both sides. Following the end of the ceasefire agreement, the Sri Lankan Government appear determined to inflict a military defeat on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or the LTTE. In November, Prabhakaran, the LTTE leader, called on Tamils to rise up for the liberation of Tamil Eelam. There is little substance around which to base negotiations, but the international community must clearly continue to stay engaged, stop the violence and help Sri Lanka build a credible environment for a sustainable peace process.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend will pardon me for not giving way; I have an enormous amount of ground to cover.

Having chosen to end the ceasefire arrangement, the Sri Lankan Government have a clear responsibility to live up to their commitment to address the grievances of the Tamil people. In July 2006, the Government of Sri Lanka gave an all-party representative committee the job of drawing up a framework for settlement. The committee made a promising start in its interim report more than a year ago by advocating that the province should be the unit of devolution and that a second chamber would help ensure power sharing for the minorities at the centre.

We know from our own experience that the process of devolution is not easy, and it continues to be difficult, but the whole process regarding the committee’s business has not been easy. The committee has been bedevilled by those who oppose a peace process and have attempted to derail its work, and it has been hindered by a lack of consensus between the main parties. The Tamil National Alliance was not invited to participate-a big mistake, in my view. The committee is due to present its final recommendations in a little over a week. We think it important that those recommendations go beyond the current constitutional provisions to protect minority rights. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) for drawing the House’s attention to the fact that all minorities have to be protected and represented. We have called on the President urgently to take a bold and courageous lead from this foundation to set out a framework for a just solution within a united Sri Lanka that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. The international community will be watching carefully, and we do not want to see another false dawn.

I do not believe that those in the LTTE who advocate the use of murder and terrorism represent the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka and around the world. The LTTE must renounce terrorism and demonstrate a real commitment to democratic principles if it is to be regarded internationally as a legitimate political movement. There needs to be a full debate among the Tamils, free of intimidation and polarisation, on what an acceptable political settlement might look like for the Tamil people. The message that we have for the Government of Sri Lanka-that there can be no military solution to this appalling conflict-applies equally to the LTTE. Some Tamils argue that the military pursuit of self-determination is generated by a sense of despair that their grievances will never be addressed in a united Sri Lanka . It is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka allay those fears and give them hope. For Sri Lanka to find a way forward, we need to see signs of genuine good will from the Government to any proposals for devolution that might emerge and a readiness on the part of disillusioned Tamils to contemplate alternatives to self-determination. Without generating trust and confidence, that will not happen.

The withdrawal of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission can only add to deep concern about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka . As we have heard, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited Sri Lanka recently. She said that Sri Lanka had many of the elements needed for a strong national protection scheme. She was, however, alarmed at the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity for those abusing human rights. I have not heard the word “impunity” tonight, but it is a very important one. That sense of impunity on the part of gangsters, warlords and people who call themselves freedom fighters to murder, torture and kidnap, is something that no civilised country, or the international community, can put up with. She criticised the absence of credible systems of public accountability for the vast majority of these deplorable incidents and the general lack of confidence in the ability of existing Government institutions to safeguard against the most serious human rights abuses. Surely that must be the first duty of any Government in any sovereign state in the world.

The high commissioner stated that the current human rights protection gap was not solely a question of capacity. She stressed the need for independent gathering of information on credible allegations regarding human rights, not just in areas controlled by the Government but including areas controlled by the LTTE. She underlined her deep concern at LTTE violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including the recruitment of children, forced recruitment and abduction of adults, and political killings. We definitely support the calls for a much more effective UN human rights monitoring presence on the island, and I was glad to hear hon. Friends and hon. Members advocate that policy, because it is very important.

The human rights crisis in Sri Lanka is not a figment of the international community’s imagination, as some who vilify human rights defenders in Sri Lanka would have us believe. The crisis is real. The LTTE, the Karuna faction-the Tamileela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal-and the Government all share responsibility. There is an urgent need to address the culture of impunity that persists. The case for an expanded presence and mandate in Sri Lanka for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can only be stronger following the departure of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission.

The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey spoke of the understandable concerns of the Tamil community about the plight of Tamils in north Sri Lanka . Their inability to reach relatives on the north of the island, or even to communicate with them, should trouble us greatly. I can assure the House that we attach great importance to listening to all perspectives across the Sri Lankan diaspora about that and many other matters. Foreign Office officials meet diaspora groups on a regular basis. Tamil community groups have suggested, following the recent arrests of LTTE supporters in the UK , that they no longer feel free to express their opinion on the conflict and the plight of the Tamils. I will say this: the community is free to assemble in a legal, orderly manner to express its concerns; it did just that last July in Trafalgar square, and it has done so in recent days.

An open debate is needed within the Tamil community on what a just political solution might look like as an alternative to the target of breaking the sovereign state of Sri Lanka into two parts. I say that because we have witnessed terrible events in Pakistan during the past two weeks. Many of us recall not just the horrors of the separation of India and Pakistan that occurred in 1947-48, and the millions who died, but the terrible events when what was East Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh, broke away from Pakistan. Those can be terrible moments, and bring terrible conflicts. Millions can die, and we do not want to see that in Sri Lanka . There must be another way, and we have heard many suggestions in the debate of what might happen. The diaspora must be able to play a more constructive part in bringing peace to Sri Lanka .

I know that the hon. Gentleman particularly wants to focus on British assistance for a peace process in Sri Lanka , and he has kindly acknowledged the recent efforts of the Government in this regard. I visited Sri Lanka twice last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen also visited a year or so ago, and we sought to offer the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked what happens to the money that was placed in the hands of the Government in the aftermath of the tsunami. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development has visited the country, and he has maintained great vigilance in monitoring British aid to Sri Lanka for post-tsunami reconstruction and other humanitarian works. I made a point on my last visit of making sure that I got out to the east of the island to see some of that reconstruction work, bedevilled as it is by the ongoing conflict-there is no question about that.

A lasting peace can come only if the underlying causes of conflict are addressed, and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made that point time and time again. Peace will not happen until the parties to the conflict understand that nothing can be gained from continuing violence. Some in Sri Lanka did not welcome our involvement. We regret the fact that they did not understand, or chose not to, that our aim has been simply to do what we can to help the Sri Lankans find a way forward. We have no ulterior motives. We remain ready to help with the search for peace in Sri Lanka .

What can we do specifically at this difficult time? I have been asked that question a number of times tonight. We have to continue to work with international partners to make it clear that there cannot be a military solution, and to work for a cessation of hostilities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, a new ceasefire must be constructed as quickly as possible if we are to make progress.

We must press the Government of Sri Lanka to address the grievances of Tamils through a credible and sustainable political solution. We must urge the LTTE to change. We continue to make available the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience, press all concerned to safeguard human rights and humanitarian space and combat any notions of impunity for those guilty of abuses and murder.

We must encourage the diaspora to play a bigger role in the search for peace. We must try to learn the lessons of five years of the ceasefire agreement. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and others said that it was not perfect but a basis for peace and moving forward. We should learn lessons from that.

We must work quietly and patiently behind the scenes with all the communities and with civil society in Sri Lanka to sow the seeds of a future resolution of the conflict. Members of organisations-NGOs and others-must be confident that they will not be kidnapped or murdered as they go about their work. That is vital.

The end of the ceasefire agreement is confirmation that we have entered a dangerous new phase in Sri Lanka . The Government and the LTTE both appear to believe that they can achieve their aims through military means. We believe that they are wrong.

Barry Gardiner: Given the threat that my hon. Friend mentioned of the escalation of violence, will he hold discussions with hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence about cutting any military assistance to the Sri Lankan Government to try to ensure that such an escalation cannot happen?

Dr. Howells: I assure my hon. Friend that we would not supply anyone with arms or dual use material that we perceived to be valuable in any military conflict such as the one that we are considering. There may be instances of humanitarian equipment, for example, de-mining equipment, being needed. Laying mines is an atrocity and an abuse of human rights and we do everything that we can to try to help clear them.

The Sri Lankan Government, having ended the ceasefire, bear a heavy responsibility to deliver their commitment to produce a just political solution that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. That must happen soon.

The LTTE needs to embrace democratic principles, encourage an open debate on what a just political solution for the Tamils might resemble and commit to pursuing its aims through peaceful means. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, the use of terrorism and murder since 1983 has brought only misery and suffering to many innocent people in Sri Lanka. It continues to do so.

Britain remains ready to help. The international community has to stay engaged to help Sri Lanka find a way back to a sustainable peace process. Protection of human rights in Sri Lanka will remain a high priority for the international community with, we hope, a more prominent role for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sri Lanka . Moreover, it should be guaranteed the security required to undertake its work.

When President Rajapakse launched the APRC 18 months ago, he spoke of the need to take the necessary bold steps to put an end to dashed hopes and aspirations and lost opportunities. I hope that, this year, which marks the 60th anniversary of Sri Lankan independence, the president will take a bold lead to achieve just that. I remind him that the world is watching and waiting.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o’clock.