Ilankai Tamil Sangam28th Year on the Web Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in the USA |
|||
Home Archives |
The British House of Commons Debate on Sri Lankaby a Special Reporter, May 18, 2007
The lengthy Debate on Sri Lanka in the British House of Commons on 2 May 2007 was a unique one devoted to the internal conflict on the island, the ongoing escalating violence and the impact of that violence in light of the breakdown of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) of 2002. The debate was occasioned on a motion signed by no less than 60 MPs with their expressions of concern in respect of human rights violations that have gripped the island for over a year now, hand-in-hand with a renewal of hostilities between the government and the LTTE. The individual contributions made by the Honourable Ministers and MPs ( see http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansard/cm070502/indexes/cx70502.html) are quite insightful as regards the depth and breadth of how each of them saw the conflict unfold. They are cognisant of the disastrous consequences for people, most of all for Tamils and the country at large. However, one common theme that runs through all the speeches pertains to the dire need for a cessation of all forms of violence, extra-judicial killings, abductions, human rights violations, outright hostilities and a return to the CFA and the Peace Process in pursuit of a durable peace for all the people and communities. This common theme is reflected in the unanimous passage of the motion by all political parties across the House. It seemed they were all echoing what John Lennon sang way back in 1969, which still rings true and clear, not only in respect to Sri Lanka but in all countries in conflict. Among the other highlights of the Debate, the following are worth mentioning, namely:
Questions arise as to what impelled this Debate at this particular time when the conflict has been a protracted one, in fact for over decades. What was clearly palpable was the resurgence of killings, violence, abductions, open conflict and the mass displacement of Tamil people in the east as a result of the failure of the last round of Geneva Talks in February 2006. As expressed by many MPs and the concerned Minister for Foreign Affairs, their concerns have been based primarily on representations made to them by Tamils in Britain regarding the untold suffering faced by their kith and kin back in Sri Lanka. Some 200,000 Tamils live in the UK as a result of the exodus from 1983 to the present time to flee violence and HR violations. Besides, the Debate also seemed based on Britain's historic ties with the country and its people from colonial times and by its concern within the EU as part of the international community's effort which backed the Peace Process of 2002, which has been reduced to tatters. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recognised the clear need to address the underlying causes of conflict. Reference was made by an MP that if Sinhala nationalism needs to be satiated, consequent Tamil nationalism too had to be satisfied in the pursuit of a mutually acceptable political formula in putting right injustices and autonomy arrangements within a democratic process. Reference to 'terrorism' and proscription of the LTTE under the Terrorism Act of 2000 was also made notably by a few MPs and by both Ministers (of Foreign Affairs and International Aid). At the same time, reference was also made to the possibility of LTTE proscription being under review under the Act should the party concerned wish to appeal against such a ban to the Home Secretary, as had been successfully done in one case to date. Caution was expressed by an MP who articulated that the label 'terrorist' polluted a proper debate by reference to policy in a country when different standards are applied to a government where, as another MP pointed out, one ought to expect proper standards. Thus, while several MPs and both Ministers referred to widespread HR violations by both parties and to the prevailing culture of impunity, they were quite careful to apply denigrating terms discriminatingly only to the LTTE! Which begs the question whether the UK is having second thoughts about the proscription in order to support Norway in restoration of an effective Ceasefire Agreement on the ground and to try and move the Peace Process forward? |
||
|