Is this acceptable? – GL

“Is this acceptable” that a speaker is silenced in a country that enjoys the freedom of speech? asked the Minister of External Affairs Prof. GL Peiris addressing the Media in London.  

 

 

 

Speaking at a Media Briefing  at the Sri Lanka High Commission , London, to explain current political developments in Sri Lanka, and the situation  arising from the prevention of  President Mahinda Rajapaksa addressing the Oxford Union, which as due yesterday, Prof.,. Peiris said that two statements   by the Oxford Union showed an immense degree of pressure and threats being brought on the Union for the purpose.

 

 

He said this went against the core values of Oxford, which believed in the freedom of speech, the articulation of differing views, however disagreeable they may be, and the ability to counter in words the views of another, state one’s own position and challenge the views of a speaker. 

 

 

If one were to sum up this spirit of the Oxford Union it was best done by the words of Voltaire that “I disagree with every word you say, but shall defend unto death your right to say what you have to say...”  Two statements by the Oxford Union, its public statement on why it had to withdraw the invitation to President Rajapaksa to address the Union, and a personal letter to President Rajapaksa from the President of the Union showed the nature of the danger the Union and the community in Oxford was faced with in this situation

 

 

While the public statement referred to the sheer scale of expected protests, that they did not feel the talk can reasonably and safely go ahead as planned, the letter to President Rajapaksa presented this danger in more detail and in its true perspective.  It said that the “disruption and danger that residents and citizens and community. would face is by far too great to justify hosting the speech. This is to say nothing of our members who, similarly, could be directly placed in danger should he expected protests turn violent.”

 

 

It added that the “Thames Valley Police have strongly advised that they will most likely not be able to guarantee the security of the Union, its members, its neighbouring businesses, or your delegation. Quite simply the expected protests are likely to be on a scale that would have been unprecedented in Oxford, placing immense strain on the local police.”

 

He recalled how on the last occasion when President Rajapaksa addressed the Union two years ago, there had been a very lively exchange of views between the President and the members of the Union. In inviting President Rajapaksa again, the Union was ready to once again learn from him, his views on the future of the country. Regretting the inability to proceed with the arrangement, due to the threat posed by those opposed to this, the President of the Union had said he was sure President Rajapaksa would have shared a fascinating insight into the political climate in Sri Lanka and its international neighbours. The Professor noted that in delivering his speech as planned today, President Rajapaksa would have had the opportunity to defend his vision.

 

 

Prof. Peris who had himself obtained a doctorate from Oxford, and was a frequent visitor to  Oxford, said the threat that compelled the Union to cancel the talk by President Rajapaksa was  clearly a direct threat to the community, the businesses, offices, and pedestrians of Oxford, placing a whole community to ransom, to achieve the undemocratic aims of a small groups, the LTTE and its supporters, who were clearly opposed to free speech  and the values of democracy, in this land of  democracy.  He asked whether such intolerance of differing views could be allowed in a democracy, and warned of the dangers that such threats posed to the very fabric of democracy and British society. This is not an attack on Sri Lanka or President Rajapaksa but on the values of democracy in the UK, and was wholly incompatible with the British political system and the hallowed traditions of Oxford, he said.

 

 

Professor Peiris asked, “Is this acceptable” that a speaker is silenced in a country that enjoys the freedom of speech?

 

 

 

The Minister of External Affairs said the principle motive of President Rajapaksa’s decision to come to the UK was to transmit a very clear message about the government’s aims about the future of Sri Lanka.  Had he been able to speak at the Oxford Union, President Rajapaksa’s message would been one of reconciliation in this by Sri Lankans in all parts of the world, expressing the government’s wish to reach out to all Sri Lankans in the UK, irrespective of religion, race, political persuasion..

 

 

He would have used the opportunity in the UK to reach out to all Sri Lankans in the UK to join in the new task of nation building, in the renaissance of Sri Lanka after nearly thirty years of bloody conflict.

 

 

He called for the need to be objective in the appraisal of Sri Lanka referring to the ongoing resettlement of IDPs with the provision of economic opportunities and livelihood for all them. Resettlement was an exercise where the  future well being those being re-settled was addressed in all aspects, and was not a matter of statistics alone, although one could be proud of having reduced nearly 290,000 IDPs  to just over 10,000 within 15 months, 

 

 

The minister mentioned that the Government of Sri Lanka is currently undertaking a number of measures, including the revival of industry, agriculture and fisheries, as well as improvements in infrastructure, communications, transport, railways and irrigation in the conflict affected areas, and that there was a great opportunity for participation in this task of reconciliation and rebuilding.  The Government would pursue its policy of seeking to make all Sri Lankans, wherever they live, to participate in this, Action had already been taken to have talks with the political parties of all minorities towards achieving a political solution to issues faced by the Sri Lankan people. President Rajapaksa has held, and will continue to hold, talks with Tamil leaders to reach implementable political solutions.

 

 

 

On the issue of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, Professor Peiris said that it was important that the investigation is in harmony with local circumstances. He added that in less than 2 ½ months, the commission has received over 500 testimonies and an inter-agency committee (comprising 7 ministries) is preparing to implement the interim recommendations of the LLRC.

 

 

He stressed that was a “proper sequence” in which Sri Lanka was seeking consider to achieve true reconciliation:

1)   Humanitarian relief—the resettlement of IDPs

2)   Economic renaissance of the north and east

3)   Address the need to remove “the scars of the past”

 

“We must encourage people to get on with their lives” he said, adding that it was necessary to learn from the past, and to gather from the actual stakeholders their known ideas.

 

 

 

Responding to a question about the immediate plans of President Rajapaksa after the withdrawal of the Oxford Union invitation, Prof. Peiris said, President Rajapaksa met with Dr. Liam Fox yesterday; today he met with three members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament.  He is also expected to meet with Secretary General of the Commonwealth; the principle purpose of the visit was to address OU, but not the sole reason.

 

 

Q (Michael Aldridge, BBC): How do you see the relationship between the British Government and Sri Lanka in light of the OU cancellation?

A: The British Government was not involved in any way in the decision.  It was the Oxford Union that was forced into the cancellation of the programme facing threats, which it considered serious and advice of the local police.

 

 

Q (Michael Aldridge, BBC): Can you comment on the Wikileaks revelations, specifically Ambassador Butenis’ statement that civilian and military leaders were responsible for war crimes?

A: Communications between governments is confidential and must remain so.  Should any major concerns be raised or revealed, we will take up all necessary concerns through proper diplomatic channels. Misconceptions must be resolved by direct negotiations and discussion.

 

 

Q (Jonathan Miller, Channel 4): Why has the Government not allowed an independent investigation into the alleged war crimes? Why have members of the UN investigating team been barred from entering Sri Lanka?

 

 

A: We have put in place the necessary measures that are most appropriate for Sri Lanka

The LLRC has written to organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group inviting them to testify, in order for us to ascertain the truth.  On the issue of the latest footage released [by Channel 4] of alleged atrocities, Professor Peiris pointed out that the timing of the releases has been purposefully scheduled to coincide with key events, e.g. meeting regarding the GSP+ facility, his (the minister’s) meeting with UK Foreign Secretary Hague in October, and now on the eve of President Rajapaksa’s visit to the Oxford Union. It was always aimed at attacking Sri Lanka, but the material is not verified, authenticated and the sources not revealed. All of this can be placed before the LLRC. 

 

 

Q (Owen Bowcott, The Guardian): David Cameron has supported calls for an independent investigation, please comment. 

A: That is what we have in the LLRC. 

 

 

Q: (Owen Bowcott, The Guardian): I think he means international

A: No, he didn’t say that, he said independent and that is what we have. Do not put words into his mouth, to convey your own expectations. 

 

 

Q (Jessica Baldwin, Al Jazeera English): Putting the scars behind us, surely this means an international investigation everyone would buy into?

A: There isn’t one solution to all problems.  There are plenty examples of solutions to work as a home grown, home spun remedy.  We have looked at the examples of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and the Chilcott Committee in the UK on Iraq. We will draw from the best lessons from anywhere, but the solutions must be in keeping with our own traditions. The pressure for an international commission is almost colonial in nature.

 

 

Q (BBC Sinhala): You quoted from Voltaire…but international journalists have not been allowed to report in some areas of the country.  People have also been denied permission to put up posters.  Please comment.

A: In any country where there are problems, there are restrictions [cited example of the IRA leaders being taken off the British Media].  We cannot look to the past, we must propagate the message of reconciliation, and this is the President’s message.