“Neutralise the Tamil Diaspora”

President’s Counsel and United National Party Parliamentarian Wijedasa Rajapakse says neutralising the Tamil Diaspora will end the majority of the accusations and allegations made against the country by the international community and Non Government Organisations. He says that in order to have lasting peace in Sri Lanka, it is vital to neutralise the Tamil Diaspora and that it cannot be done by using force or with weapons.

Referring to the allegations in the UN report, Rajapakse says he fears people getting emotional and violent over the issue, which would ultimately lead to another catastrophe that would disturb peace the country is enjoying after almost three decades. Denying allegations that the reason behind his letter to the UN General Secretary was to join the Government once again, Rajapakse notes that it was his responsibility as the one and only President’s Counsel in Parliament to come forward when there is a dispute with regard to the stability or integrity of the country.

Following are excerpts from the interview:

Q: What do you have to say about the United Nations report on war crimes in Sri Lanka?

A: From the inception I have taken up a very clear stance. Even on the day General Secretary Ban Ki-moon announced he was going to appoint a committee in March last year, I expressed my opinion to the media and said that he had no authority to do so. I still stick to that. That is my stance.

I still haven’t seen the report. But through the media reports I have come to know that there are some analysis and allegations made against both the Sri Lankan Government forces and the LTTE. It is useless to make allegations or war crimes against the LTTE because those people are not in existence. However, we are concerned about the allegations made against the State.

I am not ready to look at this from a narrow scope. We cannot think the allegations were made against the President or the Government alone. These allegations are made against the entire country. In the event that there can be war crimes or anything under international law, we don’t know who will be charged. Even a soldier who was fighting against terrorism can be charged. This entire thing will have an adverse effect on the country.

Q: Do you think the Sri Lankan Government or the LTTE committed war crimes as the report claims?

A: The fact that the LTTE has committed war crimes is not a secret. Any ordinary person will agree that we do not need the opinion or investigations from the UN General Secretary to substantiate that the LTTE committed war crimes. How many buses were blasted? How many buildings were blasted? How many children were dragged forcibly into their forces? It is ridiculous to say that we are going to prove war charges against the LTTE. It was within common domain – within the knowledge of everybody that LTTE committed war crimes.

On the other hand, the Government is a legitimate force. When you say there were war crimes committed by the legitimate forces of a state, of course sovereignty is involved. We have delegated certain authorities to the United Nations, but that authority is defined in the United Nations charter.

Whether it is a big state or a smaller state, whether it is powerful or a poor state, we all have been recognised with an equal status. We know we will never get the status of the United States or that of a powerful country, but for the purpose of this charter it is recognised that we all are equal. Where sovereignty rights are concerned, we are equal and therefore they can act only within the purview of that charter.

According to the charter there are 193 countries at present and this specific preparation was to take Sri Lanka on the charge of war crimes to the international criminal courts. That International Criminal Court Convention was entered into in 2002. We call it the Rome Statute. Since we had the ongoing war at that time, the decision was taken by Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Prime Minister at that time, not to sign it. Therefore, we are not a member country of that convention.

Because we are not a member country, the basic qualification for the Security Council to conduct an investigation is that they need to get permission from Sri Lanka in writing first. We have not given such permission because we were fighting against the most brutal terrorist organisation. Therefore, they lack jurisdiction.

Secondly, I have even pointed out this in my letter; what actually has happened is that the Secretary General has arrogated the powers of the entire Security Council. What he has done was conduct some form of investigation through some so-called experts and now he has given the report to the Security Council. The correct legal principle is if the Security Council has taken a decision and give direction to the Secretary General, then he could have proceeded for this type of action.

Q: Are you saying that the report is not legally binding?

A: Yes. It is not legally binding. I have pointed out six reasons in my letter. When the UN General Secretary pronounced his opinion by saying that he has no authority, he has conceded the first two grounds; there is no signature to the Rome Convention and he has no authority without the resolution of the Security Council.

Q: Although you say that Sri Lanka does not come under the International Criminal Court (ICC) because we have not ratified the Rome Statute, some argue that by signing the Geneva Convention, we have agreed to be bound by the ICC. Your comments?

A: The Geneva Convention is for human rights. That is a separate issue. But still if the United Nations is to get involved, it has to be initiated through the Security Council. But there is one thing; the Secretary General has the power to bring to the attention of the Security Council that there certain problems have cropped up and therefore to pressurise them to take some action. Whether they have taken the initiatives or not, that is up to the Security Council.

Q: What kind of impact will this entire issue have on Sri Lanka?

A: In the event they – whether rightly or wrongly – proceed with the matter, there will certainly be problems we have to face. We will have some practical problems. Recently when the President went to United Kingdom, one party applied to United Kingdom High Courts to get a warrant against the President. Likewise, in some of the European countries and in the United States, there are domestic laws that even if someone comes from another country, if someone can substantially and prima-facie form an opinion that he is a person who has committed war crimes, then he can be arrested

Now, rightly or wrongly, when a report like this under the banner of the United Nations Secretary General is out, people can make use of it and sometimes ask for warrants even against people in Sri Lanka; may be the head of state, the secretary, former commanders of the Army or even soldiers. That threat will be there. In addition to that, if they have to go beyond the point where they have stopped it, all the decisions have to be taken by the Security Council. As it is there isn’t much danger since China and Russia has already expressed their support.

Q: United Nations Human Rights Chief Navi Pillai has in a statement accused the Sri Lankan Government of conducting a war under the guise of fighting terrorism and killing thousands of civilians. Your comments?

A: This is not a controversy that has come up all of a sudden. Navi Pillai, Vijaya Nambiar and John Holmes were in this controversy throughout. Even before they touched upon these issues, they started all allegations against Sri Lanka. Therefore we have no reservations for statements made by this kind of official. Any human rights organisation, even for the slightest thing, will say to prosecute. That is the attitude of these Non Governmental Organisations. But that is not the problem. We have to face the real problems with the existing rules and regulations under international law.

Q: What made you write this letter to the UN General Secretary?

A: There were several issues. Number one is that I worry about this problem. It is no secret that the majority of the people in this country are not that educated up to an extent where they can understand the political repercussions and political system in the world and so on.

Sometimes people get very emotional. We have experienced how people reacted to this report during the past three weeks. They have had various protests all around the country, burning effigies and engaging in various activities. Of course these are unwarranted, but this is how our people react. My fear is that if some action is taken from that end, if people get emotionally involved and violent, we don’t know where this will end.

We have had bitter experience over such situations. If that type of thing is repeated, we will never be able to think about a peaceful country during the lifetime of this generation. That is the biggest danger I am expecting. If such a massive catastrophe could take place during the period of a veteran politician such as J.R. Jayewardene, can’t it be repeated under any other ruler? I do not want to see that kind of bloodbath in Sri Lanka.

The other reason is that the basic principle in democracy is that when you engage in politics, you can have fractions, you can have parties; that is within the country. But when it comes to international politics, all should fight for the same country.

The third reason I was thinking – it was pricking my conscience – is the fact that I am a President’s Counsel and I am the one and only President’s Counsel at the moment in Parliament. We have taken a different type of oath. We have said that when there is an issue or dispute with regard to the stability of the country or the integrity of the country, if the Government requests it, we will come forward, appear in the litigation and advice the Government without charging a fee. It is our duty. Of course it says ‘with the request of the State,’ but I did it without a request.

Those are the three reasons why I wrote that letter and it is purely a legal letter. It is not a political letter. I have not incorporated my political views or ideologies or political opinion of the party I represent. It is purely a legal letter.

Q: What were you suggestions or recommendations?

A: In the letter I mainly wanted to point out the facts that I mentioned before. But I also expect that there are certain lapses and omissions; in short to say there is even nothing wrong in saying some blunders were committed by the side of the Government. This is a good opportunity for the Government to get some consensus, whatever the possible political parties. They should get together and form a policy to be adopted to fight against this issue.

At the same time when there is consensus on such crucial issues, we also will get some leverage, not for us to benefit for our personal use but for the people. If we can arrest the threat that we are facing, we can simultaneously give relief to the people by adopting strategies. But they can’t do it in an ad hoc way; the Foreign Service is in havoc as it is. It needs to be streamlined. They should employ correct people into the required places and they need to be people who can deal with the international community. We should also have intellects and expert thinking in terms of long-term, long-lasting peace.

Q: Do you think the Sri Lankan Government is handling this issue in the correct way?

A: My personal view is that it is not. That is why we have got entangled in this entire issue. But we have no option. Whatever happened, it has happened.

Q: How do you expect the Government to counter these allegations?

A: I expect the Government to have some consensus and fight as one country together. For that I cannot exclude the Tamils in the north and east. There must be some kind of concession to them. Their lifestyle has to be enhanced. They must have a feeling that they are not isolated and not discriminated against. All these pressures come through certain European countries and United States.

Those who are pressurising and behind these issues, mainly in European countries, have a big Tamil population; that is the Tamil Diaspora. If you want to have long-lasting peace in Sri Lanka and settle all these issues you have to neutralise the Tamil Diaspora. You can’t do it by force. You can’t do it with weapons. The only weapon we can make use to neutralise or defuse that force is the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

If there can be some kind of opinion or attitude which can be given to the world that Tamil people in Sri Lanka are living happily without any problems, then the Diaspora will be automatically defused. Then nobody will fund issues like this. Nobody will feel there is an organisation of that kind. The war is over, but the cause for the war is still causing aggravation. This Government is responsible for that. It has been two years since the war is over, but nothing positive has been done.

That is why, by predicting this situation even before the war was over, I said in Parliament that time should not be wasted with all party conferences. There are no mandates given to them. The Executive cannot bring the laws. The only place that can pass the laws is Parliament. I pointed out that the Parliament should appoint a select committee. The select committee should have representation of all communities, parties and religious groups. Then problems of all communities will be addressed. It can be discussed straight way and brought as a bill to Parliament.

The Executive must encourage Parliament to take decisions. As it is, Parliament is defused and defunct. That’s the problem. Parliament has surrendered all its powers to the Executive. Therefore, it has become a useless institution. Even if Parliament is closed down for another 10 years, no loss will be caused to anyone in Sri Lanka; it will be beneficial.

Q: Is this also the stance of the UNP?

A: No, this is my personal view. The party has so far not taken a decision. But the party issued a press release soon after this report was handed over to the Government. It pointed out that there are two faults; one is that the committee had no legal right to do it. Secondly, the Government is responsible for certain blunders that it has committed. That is the stance of the party. It has not taken a decision on the contents of the report yet. A committee was appointed and in due course they will make their recommendations. This is purely my personal involvement as a lawyer and as a citizen. I have categorically stated that in my letter.

Q: Did you inform the party or the leadership about your move?

A: Yes, I informed the Leader that I am going to write a letter and that it is not a version of the party. I clearly said that it is not a political letter and is purely a legal one. I kept him informed even before it was drafted. Simultaneously I delivered copies to the President, Opposition Leader and others.

Q: Some say that the actual reason behind your decision to support the Government at this critical point is to join the Government once again. Your comments?

A: This may be the tenth time I am facing that allegation. Whenever I meet the President, he talks to me in a friendly manner. In my politics I have no problems with individuals. I am fighting against some of the policies. I engage in principles-based politics. I don’t want to antagonise anyone or have malice against anybody. I know my system and conduct is disadvantageous to me. But it does not matter because my target is not to satisfy anyone in this world. I only want to satisfy my conscience.

If I want some portfolio, I am 100 per cent certain that even without taking this much of trouble, without challenging Ban Ki-moon, the President will accommodate me. He has told me many times not to waste my time in the Opposition. I know that if I want one, he will even give me a portfolio tonight. But that is not my target. In fact he called and thanked me. I told him that I did it as a duty without expecting anything in return. The President said he knows that.

We need to have a more civilised political culture in this country. All the problems are due to that. Too much of vituperative politics in the first place; secondly, there is no will on the part of who are responsible. It high time there is consensus among all political parties. And it is responsibility of the Government to initiate that.

Let me give one example. Even in my letter I have annexed a schedule about the agreements, pacts and accords we have had since 1948. The Constitution was amended and the 13th Amendment was brought in. There were two ceasefire agreements during Chandrika Kumaratunga’s tenure and Ranil Wickremesinghe’s tenure. But finally where are we going? We are going back at square one.

I saw on a website that during late S.J.V. Chelvanayagam’s memorial lecture delivered by TNA Parliamentarian T. Sumanthiran, he has suggested resorting to Chelvanayagam’s proposals. They still believe in solutions by Chelvanayagam proposed in 1948. But I do not know whether they are referring to the one that was 50-50.

Whatever it says, we know that there is no balance in the Chelvanaygam proposals. As far as fundamental rights are concerned, it is alright to have 50-50. But when you have to share power 50-50, that is something serious, especially when over 70 per cent are Sinhalese people.