Debate on the civil war in Sri Lanka and the report of the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts

Interpellation from Member of the Storting Peter Skovholt Gitmark to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: “Atrocities were committed by both sides during the Sri Lankan civil war. The war ended with a military victory for the government forces two years ago. Now it is important to build peace and at the same time bring those who have committed violations of human rights to justice. The UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts presented their report on accountability in Sri Lanka on 31 March this year. How will Norway follow up the recommendations in the report?”

 

Check against delivery

 

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre’s main statement:

I would like to thank Mr Skovholt Gitmark for an important and relevant question on an issue that has been up for debate in this chamber earlier. First of all I will give a brief outline of Norwegian policy on Sri Lanka, and then I will describe Norway’s response to the panel of experts’ report and how we will follow up its recommendations.

Two years after the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) were defeated, the parties have still not been able to agree on a political solution that takes proper account of the minorities’ interests.

President Rajapaksa was re-elected last year, and his coalition government also won the parliamentary election. He has thus strengthened his mandate to govern Sri Lanka.

There are signs of positive development in the country now. The economy is improving, and day-to-day life is progressing towards normalisation for the majority of the population after decades of civil war.

The great majority of internally displaced persons have been released from the camps. The security situation is greatly improved, and there has been no military action and no terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka in the past two years.

The Government has started a political process with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which is the largest minority party in the opposition. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka still seems far from a political solution.

Norway has no particular role to play in Sri Lanka today, and I refer here to a debate we had on this topic following Eva Kristin Hansen’s interpellation on 18 March 2010.

As you know, for many years we facilitated a peace process between the authorities and the LTTE. When the parties decided to return to military action, we realised that the basis for our engagement was no longer there. The end of the war marked the end of a 10-year formal Norwegian engagement in the negotiation of a political solution.

The overall objective of Norwegian Sri Lanka policy is still to promote reconciliation and a political solution to the conflict. As a result of our longstanding engagement as facilitator and development actor, we know Sri Lanka well.

We emphasise the importance of close and constructive cooperation with the Sri Lankan authorities, and Norway and Sri Lanka agree that it is time relations between our countries were normalised. As Sri Lanka is defined as a middle-income country, and as Norway does not play any prominent role in the country, we have are reducing our development cooperation. Today, our engagement in this field focuses on reconstruction, reconciliation and economic development, but our activities will be gradually reduced over the coming years.

The final phase of the war continues to cast a shadow over Sri Lanka’s relations with the rest of the world. Norway supported the establishment of the UN panel of experts to advise the Secretary-General on questions relating to the final phase of the war. I am pleased that the content of this report has been made public. Both Sri Lanka and the international community are best served by a transparent and credible process.

The report makes a number of serious allegations of atrocities committed by both parties during the war that must be regarded as violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights.

The Sri Lankan authorities are accused of having killed civilians in bombardments of predominantly civilian areas. They are also accused of having bombed hospitals and other humanitarian institutions despite the fact that these were clearly marked. There are claims that they stopped humanitarian actors from sending in food and essential medicines to the civilian population. The authorities are also accused of violations of human rights outside the conflict zone in the form of persecution of journalists and members of the opposition.

The Tamil Tigers on the other hand are accused of having used civilians as a shield by preventing them from leaving the war zone. It is reported that civilians who tried to leave have been killed. LTTE is also accused of having positioned military equipment in the vicinity of civilians and of forced conscription. This also applies to children. There have also been claims of forced labour and civilian killings in suicide attacks outside the war zone.

The UN panel’s report concludes that these allegations are credible and that the Sri Lankan authorities have a duty to investigate them. This duty is set out in international law. Norway supports the panel’s recommendation that an independent investigation should be established.

A genuine and credible national investigation and prosecution of those responsible is important for a good reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. We have urged the country’s Government to meet their obligations under international law.

At the international level, it is the UN Security Council that is responsible for the follow-up of the report. This is important. We expect the members of the Security Council to shoulder their responsibility and implement the necessary measures to address the situation.

In his question, Mr Skovholt Gitmark emphasises that the time has come to build peace. I agree. Peacebuilding and reconciliation are at the core of Norway’s efforts vis-à-vis Sri Lanka. I am pleased that the UN report recommends concrete measures for building confidence and creating a foundation for lasting peace. It is positive that the authorities are implementing development measures in Tamil areas, and that they have started a political process with the party TNA.

However, the Sri Lankan Government must reveal the names of those they have in custody to the families concerned. The nearest of kin must also be informed of those who were killed during the final phase of the war and must receive death certificates. People with connections to the LTTE in the authorities’ custody must either be given a proper legal hearing or released. It is important that the country’s Government continues to make it possible for the internally displaced to return to their homes by reopening the zones that have been closed off for security reasons.

Let me sum up Norway’s position regarding the report, before I go into more detail on how Norway will follow up the recommendations.

The allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity on both sides are so serious that they must be investigated. Under international law, Sri Lanka is obliged to establish a credible and independent investigation. Responsibility at the international level rests with the Security Council. In addition, Sri Lanka must continue to carry out confidence-building measures and promote a rapid political solution.

With regard to Norway’s response, we have already raised the recommendations of the report with the Sri Lankan authorities and urged them to follow them up in a credible manner. This issue has been brought up at both political level and through our contact with relevant representatives of the authorities at operational level. We have said that the Sri Lankan Government must shoulder its responsibility and establish a credible investigation process.

Sri Lanka has established a reconciliation commission. However, so far this has not lived up to international standards, although it has created an arena for discussing important issues relating to the conflict.

In our dialogue with Sri Lanka, we underline that the national process must be credible. We have made it clear that the war crime issues will remain on the international agenda until the Sri Lankan Government has followed these up in a credible way. The efforts to reach a political solution must be given higher priority.

We have a good dialogue with like-minded countries, such as the US, the EU and the Nordic countries, on the follow up of the serious content of the UN report. Norway has also aligned itself with an EU declaration on the report.

Norway’s further efforts will follow two tracks: firstly we will maintain a close dialogue with Sri Lanka; and secondly – at the same time – we will continue our dialogue with like-minded countries. We can see that the pressure for an international investigation will increase if Sri Lanka fails to deliver a credible national process. If that should be the case, pressure should indeed be increased.

I would also like to mention the Tamil diaspora, members of which are living in various parts of the world, including Norway. This is a committed group that makes an important contribution to our country, and we are in contact with them regarding developments in Sri Lanka.

It is important that the Sri Lankan Government engages Tamil diaspora groups both in cooperation on development measures in Sri Lanka and in efforts to prevent radicalisation of diaspora communities.

Finally, moving on to a matter that has received a lot of attention in recent weeks following reports in the media that Tamil refugees have been granted residence in Norway, I have the following to say. I can confirm that Norway has received Tamils from Sri Lanka since the end of the war. We have considered each application on an individual basis in the light of our obligations under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Those who have been given residence have a need for protection and it is on this basis that they have been granted residence in our country.

This is line with Norwegian refugee policy and our humanitarian principles. However this is an issue on which Sri Lanka and Norway do not agree. We have since had a dialogue with the Sri Lankan authorities, in which we explained our point of view and took proper note of their views and criticisms.

I would like to conclude by assuring Mr Skovholt Gitmark that the follow-up of the UN report will be high up on the agenda when representatives of our two countries meet and when Norway presents its views in relevant international forums.

*****

 

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre’s response:
Mr Skovholt Gitmark spent considerable time in his main statement and in his last statement on rather extensive references to international documents and decisions, and it is worth looking at the essence here.

I would like to make the following reflection: a fundamental principle lies behind both the law and customary practice in this respect, and that is that the responsibility for carrying out an investigation lies with the state concerned. And, as Mr Skovholt Gitmark points out, and as we as a state must underline, that responsibility is absolute and must be borne.

And then we must be allowed to ask, on the basis of experience, how much we can expect. I will not go into the expectations regarding what is a clear responsibility on the part of the Sri Lankan authorities. But I do feel there is reason to say – in the light of the two years that have passed since the end of the war and the authorities’ general response to international requirements – that we have reason to keep a close eye on developments.

The same applies to other conflict areas, where we have seen a similar failure to take this responsibility seriously. In my view, this highlights the fact that, while we must hold the state responsible for carrying out an investigation, as we have done in various conflict situations, such as the Middle East, the international community must be ready to respond if this responsibility is not taken. I think it is generally easy to see a tendency in the international community to lose both the appetite for and the interest in following this up as time goes by if the situation “normalises” as it is called. This can be a rather unfortunate term at times as “normalisation” tends to mean that there is not much sign of the conflict on the surface, but the situation for those affected remains unchanged.

I would therefore like to conclude this short statement by responding to Mr Skovholt Gitmark’s reference to commitments, by underlining how important it is that the UN Secretary-General maintains focus on this matter. It is also important that the Security Council shoulders its responsibility. And it is important that the individual states in the international community do not slide into an easy but short-sighted response, forgetting about it all if – as some fear may be the case – the Sri Lankan authorities do not fulfil their obligations under international law.

*****

 

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre’s final statement:
I agree with Representative Myrli that on the whole the Storting has given a coherent message. If it is the case, as some maintain, that particular attention is paid to what we say in Norway, we must hope that our message today will also be noted. I am all for Norway’s message being taken seriously, but I should also emphasise that we should not – at least in respect to this case – exaggerate the importance of what we can achieve by means of what we say and what we agree on here.

It is important to bear this in mind, but then we must take part in a broader effort to try to make real progress and not become complacent here in our quiet corner of the world and imagine that we have all the answers. We must therefore follow two tracks, as I mentioned earlier: contact with the Sri Lankan authorities – speaking out clearly – for we know each other, we don’t need to soften the message; and contact with like-minded countries.

And I should perhaps mention the third track, which I think some of you referred to, namely close contact with Tamil diaspora groups in Norway. I agree with what has been said about these groups; they are well integrated and make an important contribution, and understandably are very frustrated over developments in Sri Lanka.

I take note of what Mr Skovholt Gitmark said about refugees coming to Norway, but I do not really have anything to add here either.

In connection with the budget, the Government recommends the annual quota of resettlement refugees who may be given protection in Norway. The current quota is 1 200. Most of these are selected on the basis of the High Commissioner’s recommendations. It is also true that the Foreign Service has, on certain occasions, helped Sri Lankans who wanted to leave Sri Lanka due to fear of persecution after the end of the war. It is the Directorate of Immigration that has decided these cases, sometimes following recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and subsequent instructions from the Ministry of Justice and the Police. It is right that we must maintain our longstanding practice of transparency around these issues, at the same time as we must be aware of their sensitivity, and make sure that people’s safety is not put at risk. This applies both to the people concerned and to their families.

Under the Public Administration Act, we have a duty of secrecy in individual immigration cases, and persons who do not receive protection in their own country have the right to leave their country. Norway has a long history of assisting people in danger. We will therefore follow this up in a responsible way.

I would like to thank you for the debate. It has been a useful review of these matters, and we will take note of your input in the further policy formation in this area.

*****

Click here for the other statements: www.stortinget.no (Norwegian only)