Transcripts
Ambassador Blake's Interview with Sunday Observer
May 22, 2008
Question: As a very keen diplomat, are you satisfied with the support that the U.S. has offered so far to Sri Lanka, and what are the strategic areas where the U.S. and Sri Lanka should work closely?
Ambassador Blake: First, I am satisfied with the support that my government has given to Sri Lanka. The United States and Sri Lanka have been close friends for more than 50 years now. And the United States is a strong supporter of Sri Lanka’s fight against terrorism. We believe strongly that Sri Lanka, like all other countries, has an obligation to defend its citizens against terrorists, particularly the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and we have provided military, law enforcement and other kinds of support to help the government to defend itself.
At the same time we don’t believe that a purely military solution to this conflict is possible. We believe the right answer lies in the government coming up with a power-sharing proposal of some sort that will respond to the aspirations of the Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese people. So that is very broadly where we stand.
We also feel that, at this very important stage in the conflict, it is very important for the government to address human rights. Human rights are important not only because it is important to respect the rights of your own citizens, but also because it is important to give the Tamils who suffer disproportionately from human rights violations a sense that they will have a place of respect and a place of dignity as part of a future settlement. So improving the human rights performance is also an important aspect of our dialogue with our friends in the government.
Question: The U.S. supports developing countries. Sri Lanka has been burdened with LTTE terrorism. How best the U.S. could help support in curbing terrorism?
Ambassador Blake: Well, I think I have just answered that question. The United States was one of the first countries to declare the LTTE a foreign terrorist organization back in 1997. We have also helped to investigate and prosecute people in the United States who were trying to provide arms to the LTTE. So the FBI, for example, has conducted a sting operation that resulted in the arrests of many people, and those investigations are ongoing. We have also helped the Central Bank to try to improve its Financial Investigation Unit to help it track down money flows into the LTTE, and hopefully try to stop those money flows.
And then most importantly of all, we have worked with our friends in the military to try to help them to stop imports of LTTE arms into this country. We gave them a maritime surveillance system last year - a radar system - that will give the Sri Lanka Navy a much better picture of all of the shipping in its waters, and thereby give them the opportunity to interdict shipments of LTTE arms. And I must say that they have enjoyed considerable success in the last year in stopping many of these ships and sinking many of them.
Question: So are you satisfied at the outcome of this ban since 1997? How effective is the ban with regard to the propaganda activities in the U.S.?
Ambassador Blake: First of all, I would say that the ban is extremely effective in terms of implementing American law. People understand that we are very strict about enforcing American law, and that we will prosecute anyone who is believed to be illegally assisting the LTTE. We have done that, already, many times. But when you say “propaganda,” obviously, people can say whatever they want. We have freedom of speech in our country. So individual Tamils who were not represented in the LTTE certainly are free to speak their mind as long as they are not inciting violence or inciting terrorism in some way.
Question: Criticism mounted when the East was about to be liberated. Now the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government has created the right environment to give more power to the people whereby they can look after their own affairs. What is your comment on restoring democracy in the East?
Ambassador Blake: I think the President and the Government of Sri Lankan have made very important progress in the East over the last year. First, they have rid the LTTE from the East, expelled them militarily. That is a positive development. Secondly, they have restored government services in the East. They have reopened all schools and hospitals. Third, I think there is a greater sense of normalcy now in many cities in the East. People are out at night, people are going shopping, they are going to movies, and that is a big achievement after 20 years of instability in that part of the country.
With respect to the elections, we always support the principle of free elections and the importance of local inhabitants electing their own representatives to represent their views. In the case of the elections, there has been some controversy, as you know. Opposition parties have alleged that there were many irregularities, and that those irregularities may have unfairly tipped the balance in Ampara and Batticaloa districts. The United States is really not in a position to judge the veracity of those claims. We did not have our own observers on the ground. But we think it is important for the government and for the new Provincial Council to take those charges seriously and to look into them. I understand that there may be court cases that will be pursued in that regard.
But I think that in the long run, what will really be important is what the people of the East believe. If the people of the East believe that there was a largely a free and fair election and if they support the new council, then I think the international community should also be prepared to support that new council.
In terms of what happens after, I think that the new Chief Minister will have some very important challenges on his hands. I think the new Chief Minister will, first of all, have to ensure security, and in that regard if the Chief Minister is Mr. Pillayan, he has a very big challenge, because on one hand he is the chosen Chief Minister of the Eastern Province, but on the other hand he is still the head of the TMVP, which still has armed cadres in the East. So he has the difficult position of on the one hand enforcing state law through his position as Chief Minister, and on the other hand he is maintaining a fairly large number of armed cadres who, in my view, must be disarmed or something must be done with them, because they cannot be allowed to continue the illegal activities that they have been engaged in thus far. They would undermine the leadership of Mr. Pillaiyan, and they would undermine the transition that the TMVP is trying to make from being a paramilitary organization to being a political party. We support the idea of them of becoming a political party. But we think the transition must be complete, and they cannot continue to be both a paramilitary organization and a political party. I think the government agrees with that, but, nonetheless, that transition now has to be made.
Question: Other than the Chief Minister, he is also the Minister of Law and Order.
Ambassador Blake: Yes, he is certainly responsible for law and order. Then, beyond the challenge of security, I think that the new Chief Minister, in order to secure the support of the people of the East, will have to show that he is pursuing development and giving opportunities equally to all of the communities in the East – that is, to the Tamil communities, the Muslim communities and the Sinhalese communities – and that development is being pursued in an ethnically neutral way. I think in that way he can ensure that there will be harmony between the communities and stability in the East, which, ultimately, will lead to greater development and prosperity for the people of the East.
Question: Are there any programs for the development of the East by the U.S.?
Ambassador Blake: Yes, indeed. We have already engaged in quite a number of projects with the private sector, for example, to encourage vocational training. We have just announced a big project in Batticaloa to help develop the dairy industry, the milk industry. We also have a big project to help to grow various kinds of vegetables for export: Jalapino peppers, pineapples, gherkins – that is a public-private partnership with Hayleys. We believe strongly that we need to help the people of the East. We need to give them economic opportunities. We also believe that there is a very strong role for the private sector to play. So we have hope the government will put in place – the government both at the center and at the provincial level – will put in place the infrastructure and other incentives for the private sector to play a major role in re-building the East.
Question: Are there any plans to give more projects for the East?
Ambassador Blake: We have proposed more assistance, and that is being considered now by our government. I can’t really say more at this stage until we are able to announce something.
Question: What about U.S. military assistance to Sri Lanka?
Ambassador Blake: U.S. military assistance currently is suspended because of two different provisions in our law. The first has to do with child soldiers. The TMVP continues to maintain some child soldiers. According to UNICEF figures, they have approximately 100 or so child soldiers still in their control. And as a result of that, the law requires that we suspend military assistance to your government. However, the TMVP has already made two releases of child soldiers; they have released almost fifty people, which is a very good sign, something that we have welcomed publicly. And we hope that they will make more releases so that we will be able to lift that particular restriction. Beyond the restrictions on child soldiers there are also restrictions related to human rights and the concerns that the Administration and the members of Congress have about human rights problems in this country.
So we have been working with our friends in the government to try to address those concerns, and certainly we hope there will be improvement in the human rights situation that will enable us to resume military assistance to the government again to help defend itself against terrorism. But most of what we were providing is in the area of what we call air and maritime surveillance – that is, the means for the government to stop LTTE arms shipments coming into this country.
Question: What is your view about the ongoing military operations to liberate the Vanni, where people have so many difficulties and where the child conscription is still going on?
Ambassador Blake: Well, first of all, let me say that LTTE child conscription is of a far greater magnitude that what is being done by the TMVP. If I am not mistaken, the latest figures show that there are approximately 1600 child soldiers still in the hands of the LTTE. And so that is a very, very serious concern, and of course more than 15 times the number of child soldiers that are being held by the TMVP. We join UNICEF and other friends in urging the LTTE to release all of its child soldiers.
With respect to the ongoing military campaign, we do not believe, as I said earlier, that a military solution is going to be possible. Of course the government has to defend itself against the LTTE, but 25 years of experience here has shown that the LTTE is a rather formidable organization, and that it will be very difficult to defeat them militarily.
So the way, in our view, to reach a solution to the conflict is through a political solution that addresses the aspirations of the Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese people – and, again, gives the Tamils in the Vanni, but also the Tamils in the rest of the country, a sense of respect and dignity and a conviction that in the future they will be able to have an important say over matters that concern them, particularly in the areas where they predominate; for example, the North, where there is a very large concentration of Tamils.
They should be able to have a very high degree of self-governance within a united Sri Lanka. We believe that is really the way forward to try to achieve a more lasting, peaceful settlement to this conflict.
Question: You have said that the government can’t defeat the LTTE because it’s difficult to defeat them. But it was done in the East. So how do you see this difference?
Ambassador Blake: I think the East was a bit of a different situation. The LTTE was very spread out. The Vanni is more the heartland of the LTTE, that is where they are dug in, that is where they have been able to prepare for many years for the kinds of attacks that are now taking place. So I think that already experience has shown that the government is encountering quite a lot of difficulties, both moving the Forward Defense Line north, but also in terms of trying to attack from the Jaffna side. Again, I think it is going to be extremely difficult to defeat the LTTE
Question: Do you still believe that the Sri Lankan security forces cannot capture Prabhakaran?
Ambassador Blake: I don’t really know. You will have to ask the Sri Lankan security forces that question. I can tell you the United States has no love for Prabhakaran. He has been around for a long time. I think it is still going to be difficult for them to find him.
Question: He is a most wanted man by the Indian Government for killing Rajiv Gandhi. In which way could the U.S. help the government bring him before the law?
Ambassador Blake: I cannot really say. We are not involved in this military conflict, and we are not involved in any kinds of efforts to capture him. The best way to resolve this is not through guns but through peaceful means; to try to yet persuade the LTTE to lay down their arms and negotiate peacefully. We will just have to see.
Question: You have always advocated a credible political package to meet the aspirations of the Tamils. How do you see the APRC proposals to implement the 13th Amendment?
Ambassador Blake: Well, I think we need to distinguish. There are really two different things here. I think the President’s proposal to implement the 13th Amendment is a good idea, and I think that is a very good start and I certainly hope that that will take place. I think the East is a very good laboratory where that can take place. So I hope that the considerable powers within the 13th Amendment will be devolved to the Eastern Provincial Council to show that that can work.
But I think the government needs to go beyond the 13th Amendment. I do not think that implementing the 13th Amendment, by itself, will satisfy the aspirations of the Tamil people. Whether they develop a more significant power-sharing proposal through the APRC or though some other mechanism, it is really not for me to say. But I do believe that the APRC has made a lot of progress. Professor Vitharana has said on many occasions that 90 percent of their work has been done. I think that the APRC has been a useful mechanism to achieve a so called “southern consensus” about the way forward and what kind of power-sharing package should be considered. But if the government chooses some other mechanism, that would be fine too.
The most important thing is to come up with an idea, and I think that that idea would really be welcomed by the Tamil people, if there is a serious and credible proposal on the table. I think that it is important for the government to consult a wide range of Tamils. We are not calling necessarily for negotiations with the LTTE; that will be something that the government will have to decide. But there are many other Tamils who need to be consulted. It is important to recognize that more than half of the Tamils now live outside of the Vanni. They live in the South. There are a lot of Tamils who live overseas. I think that their interests need to be respected as well. People like Mr. Anandasangaree and many other elected Tamil representatives in the areas controlled by the government need to be brought into this, and the government should consult with them about what would be broadly acceptable to the Tamil community. I think that would be a very important first step.
Question: What kind of a solution do you have for this conflict?
Ambassador Blake: I do not really want to say that, because whatever I say, I will be accused of trying to dictate to the Sri Lankan people. We certainly have no interest in trying to dictate to the Sri Lankan people. It is up to the Sri Lankan people to decide what is best for them. But again, we hope there will be a consultative process that incorporates the views of the wide range of communities here so that something that responds to all of their aspirations can be found.
Question: What do you think that Sri Lanka is facing today - is it a war on terror or an ethnic problem? And what sort of a solution do you suggest to end the conflict, if it is an ethnic conflict?
Ambassador Blake: I think all of those are loaded terms. I have always been reluctant to say that there is an ethnic conflict in this country. There is a civil conflict that is going on, but I always remind people who are visiting from the United States that Tamils and Muslims and Sinhalese have lived peacefully for centuries together in the South and continue to live peacefully together. There is a very large percentage of Tamils that live in Colombo, for example. And they live perfectly peacefully with all of their Sinhalese and Muslim friends here. So there is not an ethnic conflict, per se, there is a civil conflict. And certainly the government needs to defend itself against terrorism. But I come back to what I said earlier: that the ultimate answer will be a political solution that responds to all of their aspirations and needs.
Question: It is clearly proven that the LTTE is not the sole representative of the Tamils. Do you think the LTTE’s political agenda is different from the Tamil people’s aspirations?
Ambassador Blake: I do, actually. I think that there are important differences here. From my discussions with Tamils that I know in the South, that is, in the areas controlled by the government, I would say that 90 or 95 percent of them support a solution within the framework of a united Sri Lanka. That is, they are not seeking an independent Tamil Eelam, which most people believe Prabhakaran is seeking. So I think it would be very useful if Prabhakaran would give up the idea of seeking an independent State and agree to negotiate within the framework of a united Sri Lanka. I think that would give him a lot more credibility and would help to respond to a lot of skepticism that one hears in the South that the LTTE will never negotiate in good faith with the government. I think the LTTE has a responsibility to respond to that skepticism and show that it, in fact, really is willing to negotiate in good faith. And that would then provide an opening, perhaps, for some talks.
Question: The U.S. and Sri Lanka are both engaged in a common fight: combating terrorism. But some critics say the U.S. has double standards when combating terrorism against the U.S. and dealing with the terrorism in countries like Sri Lanka. What is your comment?
Ambassador Blake: I really would not agree with that. I think we have a very consistent approach. Even in places like Iraq, where we are confronting a very big terrorist problem, we favor a political solution, and our counterinsurgency strategy is based on using a wide range of tools to combat terrorism. It is just not the military strategy, although there is certainly that component of that. It is also getting at the underlying grievances that have given rise to terrorism in those areas. I would say in Iraq that our counter-insurgency strategy is working, that the levels of killings and the levels of violence both against American forces and other Coalition forces, and also against ordinary Iraqis have come way down in the last year. So much so that it is not even an issue anymore in the American Presidential campaign. Iraq a year ago was a major domestic issue in my country, and now, because of the progress that the President’s plan and General Petreus’ plan in Iraq has made people have greater confidence that Iraq is on a much better track and that there is, in fact, hope for the future.
And that is, in fact, exactly the same policy that we are advocating here in Sri Lanka. I would not say that there are any double standards.
Question: In this situation what are the priorities of a country - combating terror to save lives or safeguarding human rights?
Ambassador Blake: Well, again, I do not think there is contradiction between the two. I think one has to do both. Clearly, one has to defend one’s country against terrorism. That is an extremely important priority. Any government’s most important priority is to defend its citizens. That is true in the United States, that is true in Sri Lanka and in every other country in the world. But I believe that it is possible to do that while also preserving human rights.
For example, one of the very difficult problems that the government faces is how to identify would–be suicide bombers; how to find those people before they carry out murderous acts. And I believe the way to do that, if there are suspected LTTE suicide bombers, is to arrest them, question them in a humane way, and if there are suspicions that they are involved, then put them through the judicial system. Arrest them, and if they are guilty, then put them in jail. But do not use extrajudicial killings and other kinds of things. Disappearances, abductions and extra judicial killings will undermine the long-term solution that any government will ultimately have to seek, and they will create long-term grievances. It is much better to use and rely on the rule of law to address terrorism.
That is what we have tried to do in my country. Certainly, we have our abuses in our country as well, but we also have a system to address those abuses. We have a press that is very open. It is the American press, remember, that exposed the terrible abuses that took place in Abu Gharib prison in Iraq. Those people were then put on trial and many of them have gone to jail. Several of them are serving life sentences because of the crimes they committed.
Accountability and the rule of law, I would say, are extremely important, and there is not a contradiction between fighting terrorism and preserving human rights.
Question: Do you think that Al-Qaeda and the LTTE are the same? How do you categorize the LTTE?
Ambassador Blake: I would not say they are the same at all. I do not think there is any link between them whatsoever. I do not want to get into the business of trying to compare terrorist organizations, because every terrorist organization is different. So it is important to address the LTTE in the Sri Lankan context and Al Qaeda in the Iraqi and other contexts. Trying to mix the two is not a very helpful analysis.
Question: But sometimes they are called terrorists, sometimes freedom fighters?
Ambassador Blake: No. In that respect I do not buy the freedom fighter argument. Certainly, any group is entitled to work for freedom and to work for its own interests, but they should do so in a peaceful manner. They should not use violence and they should not use terrorism. The same is true for the LTTE. We have consistently said that they must renounce terrorism and stop using violence to achieve their aims.
Question: Is Sri Lanka now eligible to receive funds under the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, which had de-listed Sri Lanka earlier because of human rights issues?
Ambassador Blake: No, they are not, at this point, eligible. As you correctly said, they have been de-listed for this year. At the end of this year, the Millennium Board will make another decision about whether to consider them again. So that is another reason to encourage our friends in the government to improve their record on human rights, because that would enable us to cooperate more not only on the military front, but in such areas as the Millennium Challenge Corporation. That is one of the reasons we push so hard on the human rights front.
Question: Do you think that Sri Lanka has violated UN Conventions when strengthening bilateral relations with Iran?
Ambassador Blake: I do not think so, not to my knowledge, but it is every government’s responsibility to be aware of those resolutions and abide by them. But to the best of my knowledge, they have not violated any UN resolutions.
Question: How do you see the recent visit of the Iranian President to Sri Lanka?
Ambassador Blake: Our concerns about Iran are well-known. President Bush and Secretary Rice and many other leaders have articulated our concern. And that is we are concerned, first, about their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. We acknowledge their right, just as any other country has the right, to develop civil nuclear energy for energy purposes. But we oppose efforts for them to acquire nuclear weapons. Similarly, we have expressed our deep concern about Iranian support for international terrorism, particularly in the Middle East, and their support for groups like Hizbollah. We have very, very strong and deep concerns about that. We always want all our friends to make those same points to Iran to encourage a change in their behavior. At the same time, I think we understand that Sri Lanka has development needs and we have no objection, for example, to Iran’s support for irrigation projects in the South, and things like that. That is perfectly understandable.
Question: You did meet the members of the Commission of Inquiry which probes into 15 cases of killings of aid workers and other alleged human rights cases?
Ambassador Blake: We did meet. We had a short meeting with them, and the purpose of the meeting, as Justice Udalagama has explained, was a purely technical matter. As you know the IIGEP – the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons – and their assistants have now left Sri Lanka. So the question arose as to how to continue the video conferencing of testimony of witnesses abroad. And since the IIGEP people were no longer here to help with that, the question arose as to whether the international community could continue to fund that video conferencing – fund the external cost, that is, the cost in these other countries of arranging this video conferencing, particularly for the two cases that are now ongoing – the Action Contre La Faim case and the Trinco 5 case involving the murder of several youths in Trinco. Since the United States and our other partners in IIEGP have been funding this process all along, the question was whether we would be willing to continue that funding to complete this phase of the video conferencing.
So that was the purpose of the meeting. We have no intention whatsoever of interfering in any way with the Commission of Inquiry. And we believe strongly in their independence. We also, likewise, are not in any way interfering with the work of the IIGEP, and we believe their work was very important.
I do not share the allegations that we are interfering in some way. We are not interfering. We are simply responding to a technical request for assistance, and are in no way getting involved in the actual conduct of the Commission of Inquiry.
Question: You were enquiring about logistical support?
Ambassador Blake: Exactly. And in that sense we are supporting the President’s own commission. The President, himself, is the one who set up this commission. The President has reiterated on many occasions his commitment to seeing this commission achieve its tasks. So, we are supporting the President in this regard. I do not think that anybody should be at all concerned about that particular meeting.
Question: My last question: If the U.S. President shifts from the Republicans to Democrats, what kind of change can Sri Lanka expect from Washington?
Ambassador Blake: Well, that is difficult to say because John McCain and whoever the Democratic nominee is – probably Barack Obama – are very, very different candidates. But I will say that the U.S. approach to Sri Lanka generally is a very bipartisan approach. That is, it does not really change from administration to administration because it is based largely on American interests. And our interests are in seeing an end to the terrible civil conflict that has been going on for so many years. We have talked already at length about that – and that position has really not changed from administration to administration. So even if it is Barack Obama or John McCain, I believe that on January 22 our foreign policy position on Sri Lanka will not change dramatically. Much of it will depend on what happens inside Sri Lanka itself, and then the Administration will have to make a determination from there. So, I would not jump to too many conclusions about what might or might not happen.
But I am sure that, either way, we will continue to have a strong and friendly relationship with Sri Lanka.