Interview with Graham Allen MP for Nottingham North

Confluence: You led an all party Parliamentary delegation to Sri Lanka recently. Can you give us a broad brush picture of the current state of play in the peace process in that country as you observed it?

Graham Allen: We were pleased to see that most political parties are getting involved in the peace process and we did what little we could to tell everyone that they should participate by using our experience from Northern Ireland, where, however difficult it may be for those who have fought each other to know that the way forward is possible only when they all sit down together.

C : But given that the Government now in power has within it a substantial component - namely the Marxist JVP, who are opposed to the peace talks, - how do you reconcile this reality with the perceptions you have just articulated?

G.A: We don’t anticipate having the ability to overcome such problems.  It may be helpful for those in Sri Lanka to hear our perspective and that is all we offered.  These things, of course, must be resolved by the parties in Sri Lanka, where we would hope that however difficult it is, and we understand from our experience in Northern Ireland, how difficult it is, that all the parties participate in the peace process without which there can be no lasting peace, which I am sure everyone in Sri Lanka wants.

C: A stream of British politicians and parliamentarians of all persuasions have visited Sri Lanka from time to time since the conflict began, the most recent being your delegation.  Do you see an all party consensus emerging on how the Sri Lanka crisis should be resolved?

G.A: I think there is a very strong emotional attachment between Britain and Sri Lanka.  My visit was my second.  I went there as a young man to stay with a family of a friend whom I had played cricket with at a college in Sri Lanka, nearly thirty years ago.  Like many British people I fell in love with your beautiful country and always wanted to revisit, and it was immensely sad for me to read from the UK of the conflict taking place. So to return as a Member of Parliament and to make a tiny contribution in helping all parties come to the table for an effective peace process was very heartening and I was very glad I was able to make that very tiny contribution.  I don’t emphasise its significance at all, but have added one small voice to many others to help our friends from all persuasions and communities in Sri Lanka to realise that there are many, many people in Britain who wish them well and are willing to do whatever we can to facilitate an effective peace.

C: You mentioned Northern Ireland.  How relevant is this conflict to Sri Lanka?  Do you see any common factors or parallels that could help in reaching a solution?

GA: I think it is a matter for people in Sri Lanka to select what they may see as common factors.  But certainly our experience in Northern Ireland was, if you like, the mainstream political parties could eventually come together and talk.  But it was essential that those parties who had been connected with those who had used violence also came to the table.  In Northern Ireland it has taken many years.  It's been immensely difficult and it has taken immense personal capital from consecutive Prime Ministers to move the process along.  So if there are things from that experience that ring bells, as it were, or resonate with our friends in Sri Lanka and it helps to get people round the table so much the better.

C: Did you travel up north to meet LTTE representatives?

GA: This particular delegation did not. I think the previous one some two years ago did.  But we made the point of ensuring that we met a number of representatives of the Tamil community.  There were various parliamentarians from assorted parties who we did speak to.

C: What about the proscription on the LTTE which the Sri Lanka government has seen fit to remove, but Britain is persisting with given that the organisation has repeatedly stated that it is committed to the peace process and has no international agenda like for instance Al Quaeda or other fundamentalist groups have?

GA: Well obviously we weren’t speaking on behalf of the British Government.  We were an all party group of parliamentarians and our concern was to speak to fellow parliamentarians of all persuasions and that we did.  We urged everyone we met to try and involve themselves in the peace process in a meaningful way, despite their obvious reservations for understandable reasons. But as I repeat, unless we get everybody round the table there can be no forward movement.

C: But you could consider making a recommendation to the British government as a group of MPs who had visited Sri Lanka and seen for yourselves at first hand?

GA: No.  Our responsibility was entirely to fellow parliamentarians and although we didn’t meet other people of course, our efforts were directed towards parliamentarians of all parties and all communities to hope that they would take that very large step towards sitting down and discussing the peace process.

C: Here we see a peace process, whatever its deficiencies, unceremoniously interrupted by the President of the country when she dissolved Parliament.  The government that followed has within it a component that is virulently opposed to talks with the LTTE based on the ISGA proposals, though the Opposition which commands a near equal representation in Parliament is supportive of talks no matter the ISGA. The LTTE itself has said that it is not unwilling to negotiate the demand.  Obviously there is no overwhelming body of opinion in the country opposed to the commencement of the talks?

GA: I do not want to comment on the internal political disputes between parties.  They are evident in every country and it is not part of our remit to comment on that. But we were concerned to use our small efforts at persuasion to make sure that all those people sat round the table.

C: But at the end of the day what impact would you say you have had on this impasse we see in Sri Lanka?

GA: No, I don’t believe that anyone should expect a delegation of Members of Parliament to make an instant and fundamental impact upon difficulties that have been evident for many years.  But what we can do is to add our small voice to those in the international community who wish to see a strong united Sri Lanka resolve its problems and do so in a peaceful way.

C: There is a perception that the Oslo Declaration has opened the door to international players to intervene, each with its own agenda to the detriment of the balance of power relations between the two parties, particularly the non state actor.  Clearly intervention by international players needs to be sensitive to maintaining the status quo in power relations?

GA: I think this lies entirely in the hands of Sri Lanka and anyone from outside must not under any circumstances seek to dictate an agenda.  The role of outsiders is to help when requested and to make it clear to our friends in Sri Lanka that we are available to assist in the development of the peace process.  These things cannot happen because other people want them to happen. This can only happen because everyone in Sri Lanka wishes finally to put an end to the violence which has saddened so many of us outside in the international community.

C: Apartheid in South Africa drew sanctions from the international community that had a telling effect on that regime and led to its dismantling?

GA: No, what I think we need to do is to support our fellow Members of Parliament in an extremely difficult position where obviously they need to retain their appeal to their own electorates.  But clearly a statesman will be looking forward to a long term, peaceable future, and again, this was evident in Northern Ireland and it was possible to reconcile those two difficulties and to ensure that people can sit round the peace table together.  The result of that has been very positive in our country and we would wish nothing less for our friends in Sri Lanka.

C: It is said that few wars in fact are any longer decided on the battlefield – rather at the peace table. Britain as the Head of the Commonwealth can surely do more at this juncture?

GA:I think that whatever Sri Lanka requests of Britain should be met by Britain in terms of helping to facilitate the peace process, and certainly those all party parliamentarians who went to Sri Lanka were deeply impressed by the efforts going on to move the peace process forward.  We would stand ready to help any of those colleagues of all communities whom we met in Sri Lanka to make the process work.

Courtesy: Confluence, Volume 3 No.6, November/December 2004

Comments by readers on this interview:

1.) It is difficult to comment on your interview with Graham Allen because, try as hard as you did, he said diplomatic niceties and repeated 'harmless' assertions.  As I mentioned earlier, there are similarities and differences between the SL problem and the one in Northern Ireland.  I suppose it is pertinent that Tamilchelvam was in NI recently and met with Nobel Peace Laureate Hume. The outcome is reported in the latest Tamil Guardian. Hume said almost the same that Graham Allensaid: wishing all sides well, sit down, talk things over, and come to an amicable agreement!  At least this is definitely better than if MPs go from here and say things to upset the apple cart there. There is one point, however. It does not appear specifically if they met with the TNA.