Transcripts
Transcript of Ambassador Robert Blake’s interview with Hard Talk in the Daily Mirror
The President last week threatened the LTTE with a ban against the organization if they didn’t free civilians. How does the US see this development?
We’ve always believed that it was going to be difficult to defeat the LTTE. At some point the government will have to hold talks to persuade the LTTE to lay down arms because it will be impossible to defeat them completely by military means alone. A total ban on the LTTE would make this difficult. Whether the government negotiates or not is another matter - that’s up to them to decide. They clearly don’t plan to at this time. At some point it’s important that government talks to a representative sample of non-LTTE Tamils to work out a solution. Once you achieve that support you can isolate the LTTE.
You have continued to raise US concerns towards the need for an improvement in human rights to help end the conflict and achieve national reconciliation. What has been the response of the government of late?
I would say that there have been improvements in some areas and deterioration in others. The situation in Colombo has improved quite significantly. When I arrived here first there was a high number of abductions and disappearances in Colombo, and those have come down significantly. By contrast, however, the situation in the East and Vavuniya has deteriorated quite significantly and there is a high number of extra judicial killings and abductions there. Those have offset some of the improvements in Colombo and therefore the overall situation remains quite serious. The reason we make this point is not only because the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is important to us but also because the goal of this country is to achieve reconciliation between communities, and this is something we’re working on in the East. Improving the human rights situation is an important part of that reconciliation and peace.
Many in Sri Lanka including political parties argue either that there is no need for a political solution in Sri Lanka or that such a solution can await the end of the conflict. Are you concerned that the policy of the Sri Lankan government is very different to this, and concentrating more on a military solution?
The point I am trying to make is that it is going to be difficult to win a military solution. Unless there is a political solution on the table the incentives will be there for people to continue to support the LTTE both inside and outside of the country. If the government were to undertake a political solution now that the Tamil and Muslim people would find credible that would help undercut help for the LTTE and hasten their end and thereby help the government
The government believes these concerns are covered under the APRC process although many believe it to be an attempt to hoodwink the international community.
I think that the APRC process has been stalled. For about a year they’ve been saying that they’re 90% of the way to achieving consensus. I think that that is a significant achievement. But I don’t think they are any closer to making that final 10%. In any solution that 10% is the hardest to achieve so I just hope that our friends in the government and all political parties will work together to achieve that final consensus.
Are you concerned that some Tamil political parties are not part of the process?
Originally, when the APRC was set up, it was done to achieve a so-called southern consensus. Now, as the war has evolved and the LTTE has been weakened significantly, there is less and less talk of negotiating with the LTTE and therefore the role of Tamil parties becomes extremely important. At some point they will have to be brought into the process, all of them, because they, more than the LTTE perhaps, represent the views of the Tamil community. I also think the views of the Tamil Diaspora will have to be brought in as well as they continue to fund the LTTE, so some way must be found to take in to account their views as well.
There is a criticism among the Tamil community especially coming from the TNA that the government is fast confusing them with the LTTE and they are being treated as terrorists. Are you concerned about such criticisms?
I wouldn’t go as far as the TNA does in equating that but I would say that the Tamils have disproportionately suffered from the human rights abuses that have occurred and therefore it is important for the government to take that into account. If their goal is truly to achieve reconciliation then they must find a way to reduce those abuses and reach out to the Tamil people and assure them that they have a future of respect and dignity within a united Sri Lanka.
How do you view certain concerns expressed by the minority groups against what they term a policy of alienation by the government especially in the East?
I do think that there is an issue in that regard. One thing that has been seen during the past couple of months is that as the military has made more progress against the LTTE you see a degree of intolerance towards the minority communities. You see comments from senior figures that essentially the minorities should be happy with the rights accorded to them. And there is less and less a focus on a process of consultation so that their rights are assured and they are happy. I think this is a mistake. They should be brought into the process and their needs should be addressed in a very significant way so that they will feel like a part of the country and their rights are ensured. They should have a say over important aspects of their lives in the areas where they predominate.
The government maintains the East is a success story of administration despite reports of abductions and the presence of an armed group. How do you see the East as a possible solution to the problem?
I think you have to look at it on a long term basis. If you compare the situation now from 3 yrs ago, there is no question there have been improvements. The government has made significant investments in the East to improve infrastructure and those are all very important accomplishments. But now the challenge is to put everyone back to work so that the East can be a template for how the North might be managed in the future. The key ingredient in that development is the security of people through reducing the level of violence. I have been very pleased to see recent announcements from the government that they have reached agreement with the Chief Minister, Karuna and the Defence Secretary on demobilizing child soldiers and demobilizing other parts of the TMVP which I think is very important. Once you reduce the role of the paramilitaries and the government has full responsibility for security it is a very important step to give confidence to the people that it’s safe for them to invest there. A lot of people are still very reluctant to invest because of this high level of violence.
The international community which has in past expressed concern over the intensifying military exercises by the government seems to have toned down their concerns. Is this a sign that the SL government is fighting right or that international concern is moving away due to more crucial issues elsewhere?
I think there has been good dialogue between the international community and the government but at the same time there isn’t enough good information about the situation in the North, so you get very conflicting reports about the true status of the civilians. You get some very dire reports from the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and other reports that everything is fine. My own sense is that the government has made significant effort to get sufficient food to people but more is needed to provide shelter. There’s also a need for the UN to undertake a needs assessment of the situation.
Do you think the government made the right decision in removing NGOs from the conflict zones given that some of these organizations played a significant role there?
The government’s case was that it wasn’t safe there due to intense fighting. The NGOs did play an important role and did help to provide many emergency services. I don’t think its useful to speculate if it would’ve been better if the NGO’s had remained there. What’s important is to ensure that the UN and ICRC maintain continued access.
What are your primary concerns with regard to the Parliamentary Select Committee on NGOs, and the growing dissention between the government and NGOs?
They’ve submitted quite a lengthy interim report and I find it to be very selective, one-sided and unbalanced. The vast majority of NGOs that I know are doing very important work. They are benefiting all of the communities and I think the PSC has had a very negative impact on the public view of the work they do. I think it’s a real shame. Most of our assistance for example is channeled through NGOs vetted by us and we’re confident they are not cooperating with the LTTE. There is an idea that these NGOs are undermining the sovereignty of the State. That is simply not true. They all operate with the express consent of the government. There’s a special group within the government that regulates their conduct and approves their operations. The allegations made in this report are not true. But people are afraid to speak up and stand up to some of these people making these allegations. If the NGOs were to withdraw you’ll have a lot of critical services lost and then they’ll understand what has been done. I’ve encouraged all international NGOs to publicize the good work they’ve been doing.
Is there threat of the funding patterns of government’s like yours in the future due to this situation?
It’s difficult to say. But it’s more that the NGOs might get frustrated with the difficulties in operating here and pull out. I think that is the objective of some of these people writing these reports. The victims of such a pullout will be the people benefiting from their work. They could have an impact because a lot of our assistance goes through international NGOs. To the extent that their operations are limited or circumscribed we might have to circumscribe our activities as well. So there could be an impact, yes.
Countries that fight a strong war against terror like the US have occasionally been criticized in countries like Sri Lanka against what is termed double standards in dealing with terrorism here. Is this a fair criticism?
I don’t think it’s a fair criticism. If you go to our blog where there is a lot of public comment on my speeches, one of the common criticisms is that somehow we haven’t been consistent with respect to Sri Lanka compared to Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not true. In both of those countries the first thing we did was to work with the new governments to formulate new constitutions to ensure that there was broad-based support for that. This is the rationale for our support for the APRC too.
I think the criticism is that when the US was threatened you did not speak of negotiating with anyone. The push was simply to crush whoever was threatening your country, whereas in countries like Sri Lanka the opposite would be seen to have happened.
It’s a little hazardous to make comparisons between countries. The point is that your country has been fighting for 25 yrs without a resolution and somehow the war has to end. Undoubtedly the government has made progress, but can the government finish the LTTE off now? There are a lot of questions on that. There are many who say that it’s going to be difficult as long as there isn’t a political solution. We’ve made every effort to stop illegal funding. We’ve banned TRO and worked with the Central Bank to stop such monies coming in.