US reiterates concerns on Chinese projects in Sri Lanka

The United States has once again noted concerns on Chinese projects in Sri Lanka.

The US has in the past raised concerns over the Hambantota Port and the Colombo Port City, two major projects funded by China

The US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Alaina B. Teplitz said that US businesses like to compete in Sri Lanka.

“But the playing field has to be level. This is in terms of public procurement and government tenders. And also private sector opportunities. It needs to be an easy place to do business,” she said.

She said that the US believes partnerships must be open, transparent and mutually beneficial.

“If this is what Sri Lanka’s relationship with China embodies, we encourage it,” she said.

Teplitz questioned if Sri Lankans have a major stake in some partnerships involving the Chinese.

The Ambassador said that media reports have indicated concerns raised on some Chinese projects in Sri Lanka.

She said that the concerns includes the impact some projects have on the environment and on the limitations on Sri Lankan companies from competing for contracts.

“That doesn’t deliver the sustainable development that Sri Lankans deserve,” she said.

The Ambassador expressed these views during a round-table discussion with a group of journalists yesterday.

Lanka needs to commit to more than commissions

PREPARING for the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council cannot be easy for a government that was elected on a nationalist platform that was very critical of international intervention. When the government declared its intention to withdraw from Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of the October 2015 resolution no 30/1 last February, it may have been hoping that this would be the end of the matter. However, this is not to be. The UN human rights high commissioner’s report that will be taken up at the forthcoming UNHRC session in March contains a slate of proposals that are severely punitive in nature and will need to be mitigated. These include targeted economic sanctions, travel bans and even the involvement of the International Criminal Court.

Since UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon’s visit in May 2009 just a few days after the three decade long war came to its bloody termination, Sri Lanka has been a regular part of the UNHRC’s formal discussion and sometimes even taking the centre stage. Three resolutions were passed on Sri Lanka under acrimonious circumstances, with Sri Lanka winning the very first one, but losing the next two. As the country became internationally known for its opposition to revisiting the past, sanctions and hostile propaganda against it began to mount. It was only after the then Sri Lankan government in 2015 agreed to co-sponsor a fresh resolution did the clouds begin to dispel.

Clearly in preparation for the forthcoming UNHRC session in Geneva in March, the government has finally delivered on a promise it made a year ago at the same venue. In February 2020 foreign minister Dinesh Gunawardena sought to prepare the ground for Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from co-sponsorship of UN Human Rights Council resolution no 30/1 of 2015. His speech in Geneva highlighted two important issues. The first, and most important to Sri Lanka’s future, was that the government did not wish to break its relationships with the UN system and its mechanisms. He said, ‘Sri Lanka will continue to remain engaged with, and seek as required, the assistance of the UN and its agencies including the regular human rights mandates/bodies and mechanisms in capacity building and technical assistance, in keeping with domestic priorities and policies.’

Second, the foreign minister concluded his speech at the UNHRC session in Geneva saying ‘No one has the well-being of the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multicultural people of Sri Lanka closer to their heart, than the government of Sri Lanka. It is this motivation that guides our commitment and resolve to move towards comprehensive reconciliation and an era of stable peace and prosperity for our people.’ On that occasion the government pledged to set up a commission of inquiry to inquire into the findings of previous commissions of inquiry. The government’s action of appointing a sitting Supreme Court judge as the chairperson of a three member presidential commission of inquiry into the findings and recommendations of earlier commissions and official bodies can be seen as the start point of its response to the UNHRC.

Negative response

THE government’s setting up of a commission of inquiry has yet to find a positive response from the international and national human rights community and may not find it at all. The national legal commentator Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena has written that ‘the tasks encompassed within its mandate have already been performed by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (2011) under the term of this president’s brother, himself the country’s executive president at the time, Mahinda Rajapaksa.’ Amnesty International has stated that ‘Sri Lanka has a litany of such failed commission of inquiries that Amnesty International has extensively documented.’ It goes on to quote from the UN high commissioner for human rights that ‘Domestic processes have consistently failed to deliver accountability in the past and I am not convinced the appointment of yet another commission of inquiry will advance this agenda. As a result, victims remain denied justice and Sri Lankans from all communities have no guarantee that past patterns of human rights violations will not recur.’

It appears that the government intends its appointment of the commission of inquiry to meet the demand for accountability in regard to past human rights violations. Its mandate includes to ‘find out whether preceding commissions of inquiry and committees which have been appointed to investigate into human rights violations, have revealed any human rights violations, serious violations of the international humanitarian law and other such serious offences.’ In the past the government has not been prepared to accept that such violations took place in a way that is deserving of so much of international scrutiny. Time and again the point has been made in Sri Lanka that there are no clean wars fought anywhere in the world.

International organisations that stand for the principles of international human rights will be necessarily acting according to their mandates. These include seeking the intervention of international judicial mechanisms or seeking to promote hybrid international and national joint mechanisms within countries in which the legal structures have not been successful in ensuring justice. The latter was on the cards in regard to Resolution 30/1 from which the government withdrew its co-sponsorship. The previous government leaders who agreed to this resolution had to publicly deny any such intention in view of overwhelming political and public opposition to such a hybrid mechanism. The present government has made it clear that it will not accept international or hybrid mechanisms.

Sequential implementation

IN THE preamble to the establishment of the commission of inquiry the government has made some very constructive statements that open up the space for dialogue on issues of accountability, human rights and reconciliation. It states that ‘the policy of the government of Sri Lanka is to continue to work with the United Nations and its agencies to achieve accountability and human resource development for achieving sustainable peace and reconciliation, even though Sri Lanka withdrew from the co-sponsorship of the aforesaid resolutions’ and further goes on to say that ‘the government of Sri Lanka is committed to ensure that, other issues remain to be resolved through democratic and legal processes and to make institutional reforms where necessary to ensure justice and reconciliation.’

As the representative of a sovereign state, the government cannot be compelled to either accept international mechanisms or to prosecute those it does not wish to prosecute. At the same time its willingness to discuss the issues of accountability, justice and reconciliation as outlined in the preamble can be considered positively. The concept of transitional justice on which Resolution no 30/1 was built consists of the four pillars of truth, accountability, reparations and institutional reform. There is international debate on whether these four pillars should be implemented simultaneously or whether it is acceptable that they be implemented sequentially depending on the country context.

The government has already commenced the reparations process by establishing the Office for Reparations and to allocate a monthly sum of 6,000 Sri Lankan rupees to all those who have obtained Certificates of Absence (of their relatives) from the Office of Missing Persons. This process of compensation can be speeded up, widened and improved. It is also reported that the government is willing to consider the plight of suspected members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam who have been in detention without trial, and in some cases without even being indicted, for more than ten years. This contrasts with the release of those detained following the Easter Sunday bombings. The sooner action is taken the better.

With regard to institutional reform which is a part of transitional justice that underlay the UNHRC resolution that the government has withdrawn from, the constitutional reform process can address unresolved issues. A reduction in power to the presidentially appointed governors would facilitate more to be done for people by the provincial councils. Setting a date for the provincial council elections would be another confidence boosting measure. The government can also seek the assistance of the international community, and India in particular, to develop the war affected parts of the country on the lines of the Marshall Plan that the United States utilised to rebuild war-destroyed parts of Europe. Member countries of the UNHRC need to be convinced that the government’s actions will take forward the national reconciliation process to vote to close the chapter on UNHRC resolution 30/1 in March 2021.

Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka.
Source:newagebd.net

Fitch explains Sri Lanka bank ratings impact after scale recaliberation, sovereign downgrade

Fitch Ratings has released a Q & A explaining the recent rating changes in Sri Lanka companies and banks after the sovereign rating was downgraded to ‘CCC’, explaining in particular why bank ratings were lowered.

Domestic Bank Ratings Constrained by Sovereign’s Credit Profile

Following Fitch Ratings’ downgrade of Sri Lanka’s sovereign rating to ‘CCC’ from ‘B-‘ on 27 November 2020, the Sri Lankan National Rating scale was recalibrated to reflect changes in the relative creditworthiness among Sri Lankan issuers. The current relationship between international and national scale ratings is shown in the table on the left.

The recalibration of the Sri Lankan National Rating scale resulted in the revision of some ratings due to changes in relativities in the portfolio. After the recalibration, the highest national rating for domestic banks with ratings driven by their intrinsic credit profile is ‘AA-(lka)’. This is the highest point on the national scale that corresponds to an international scale rating of ‘CCC’.

We now have six banks rated at ‘AA-(lka)’: Bank of Ceylon (BOC), People’s Bank (Sri Lanka), Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC (CB), Hatton National Bank PLC (HNB), Sampath Bank PLC and Cargills Bank Limited. The National Ratings of other Sri Lankan banks rated below this level on the national scale were not affected by the recalibration.

Sri Lanka’s national scale ratings are denoted by the unique identifier ‘(lka)’. National scales are not comparable with Fitch’s international ratings scales or with other jurisdictions’ national rating scales.

The following are some recent questions from investors about the recalibration and impact on bank ratings in Sri Lanka:

What Was the Reason for the Recalibration of the National Ratings on Sri Lankan Banks?

Fitch recalibrates National Rating Correspondence Tables to limit rating movements in the national scale that result from systemic factors. For instance, a sovereign rating change could drive multiple international rating changes, which would affect a large number of issuers on the national scale if a reassessment of the rating relationship between international and national ratings is not undertaken.
The recalibration of Sri Lankan National Rating scale followed the downgrade of the sovereign to ‘CCC’ from ‘B-‘ in November 2020.

The sovereign rating may act as a key rating driver or constraint for the ratings of other local issuers and drive multiple international scale rating actions. For example, Fitch downgraded BOC’s Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) and Viability Rating to ‘CCC’ and ‘ccc’ respectively, after the downgrade of the sovereign IDR, and our assessment of the operating environment, which is a key rating driver for Sri Lankan banks.

Posted in Uncategorized

UN rights chief seeks sanctions against Sri Lanka generals – report

GENEVA: The UN human rights chief has called for an International Criminal Court investigation into Sri Lanka’s Tamil separatist conflict and sanctions on military officials accused of war crimes, according to a report obtained by AFP.

Michelle Bachelet accused Sri Lanka of reneging on promises to ensure justice for thousands of civilians killed in the final stages of the 37-year separatist war that ended a decade ago.

“Domestic initiatives for accountability and reconciliation have repeatedly failed to produce results, more deeply entrenching impunity, and exacerbating victims’ distrust in the system,” she said in the report obtained by AFP ahead of its official release.

The government of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has reversed some advances made under previous administrations in protecting human rights, the report said.

Surveillance of rights activists and dissidents has increased and a climate of self-censorship has emerged, it claimed.

Sri Lanka has not signed up to the ICC, and so it is outside its jurisdiction. But while another state cannot refer a non-signatory to the ICC, the UN can.

In her latest assessment, Bachelet recommended for the first time that the ICC look into Sri Lanka’s case, and said action should be taken against war criminals, including Tamil rebels, the AFP reported.

“Member states can actively pursue investigation and prosecution of international crimes committed by all parties in Sri Lanka before their own national courts,” she was qouted as saying.

The 17-page report also calls for possible targeted sanctions “such as asset freezes and travel bans against credibly alleged perpetrators” of rights violations.

Bachelet expressed concern at General Shavendra Silva’s elevation as army chief and General Kamal Gunaratne’s appointment as defence secretary, according to AFP.

Silva, who was a field commander at the height of the war, already faces a US travel ban.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last week said Sri Lanka would investigate some allegations.

He gave a commission of inquiry six months to look into previous inquiries into allegations of “human rights violations, serious violations of international humanitarian law”.

Bachelet called on member states to take action to preserve evidence from key cases such as the killing of 17 aid workers from a French charity in August 2006 and the 2009 assassination of newspaper editor Lasantha Wickrematunge.

The UN rights chief alleged several top police officers involved in high-profile cases had been penalised or arrested to stifle investigations.

She also criticised President Rajapaksa for granting a pardon in 2020 to an army officer convicted and jailed for killing eight Tamil civilians, including four children, in April 2000.

Source: AFP

US Envoy pushes for Indian stake in ECT

Amidst heated nationwide debates on the matter, US Ambassador Alaina B. Teplitz believes that India should have a stake in the Colombo Port’s East Container Terminal (ECT).

“Obviously, with India being the beneficiary of Sri Lanka’s port facilities through all trans-shipment activities that take place, along with the unloading and shipments to smaller Indian ports, having an Indian company with a stake here, I would think, is essential to Sri Lanka’s maritime future,” she told reporters yesterday (26).

She expressed these views in response to a question posed during a virtual meeting held with a group of journalists.

Much controversy has arisen over the ECT with the trade unions attached to the Port opposing the Government’s decision to give a 49% stake of it to parties outside of Sri Lanka. The Indian company whose name has come up in connection with the matter is the Adani Group while the other country that is associated with the matter is Japan.

Ambassador Teplitz added that Sri Lanka should be looking for the best value in its economic arrangements and that in this regard, having private sector involvement was “very good”.

“Looking at the business arrangements, and finding something that is sustainable and beneficial and gives your key business partner a stake, is a no-brainer in terms of a deal for this country,” she added.

US and India enjoy a strong relationship, with the former viewing the latter as its greatest ally in Asia, and a counterforce to its main rival China’s dominance in the region, due to the similar populations of the two Asian giants and India’s economic potential. The relationship between US and India is expected to be strengthened further under new US President Joe Biden.

Posted in Uncategorized

Biden administration to maintain push on human rights issue in Sri Lanka

The Joe Biden administration in the United States will maintain the push on the human rights issue in Sri Lanka.

The US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Alaina B. Teplitz told reporters in Colombo today that it is too early to say if the US will rejoin the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva.

However, she asserted the US will continue to work with other countries to ensure there is real peace in Sri Lanka.

The Trump administration withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva accusing it of being biased.

The US Ambassador noted that there has been slow progress on the human rights issue by the former Government and the current Governemnt.

She also asserted that support for human rights should not be seen as an attempt to bully Sri Lanka.

Posted in Uncategorized

India strikes hard bargain in Sri Lanka for stake in Colombo port -NIKKEI Asia

BANGKOK — Sri Lanka’s hawkish President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has caved in to Indian pressure for a stake in the Port of Colombo, the busiest harbor in the strategically located South Asian island where China already has a foothold.

Rajapaksa’s retreat came on the heels of a visit earlier this month by Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar to India’s smaller southern neighbor, where he laid down unequivocal terms for Indian-backed development of a container jetty in the port. The Sri Lankan government has given the nod after taking into account “regional geopolitical concerns,” a statement from Rajapaksa’s office said after the talks.

Under the terms, the Eastern Container Terminal will be developed to ensure that the Sri Lankan government will have a 51% stake and the remaining 49% will be handed to Adani Group, an Indian business empire with investments in domestic and foreign megaprojects. The Indian conglomerate’s founder, Gautam Adani, is often said to have close ties to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

For the Colombo-based diplomatic community, the muscle that Jaishankar flexed over the port deal has left little room for doubt that New Delhi will “assert its regional weight” selectively. “India has sufficient strings to pull to remind the Sri Lankan government that its interests should be a priority over others,” a diplomatic source told Nikkei Asia. “The ECT has become a new strategic marker by which India-Sri Lankan ties will henceforth be measured.”

Foreign affairs observers in India reckon that its assertive role in Sri Lanka is part of a broader push back against the strategic ground it has lost to its Asian rival China in its own backyard, a trend that has unsettled New Delhi.

“India is a hegemon in South Asia and would not allow countries like China to exert influence,” said Pankaj Kumar Jha, professor of defense and strategic studies at the New Delhi-based O.P. Jindal Global University. “India feels that the accommodative stances toward the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal have ceded too much strategic space to China [resulting in] China building bases and at times stationing its naval vessels for longer time in those ports [of Sri Lanka and the Maldives].”

Such alarm is not misplaced in Sri Lanka. The Port of Colombo already has the Colombo International Container Terminal, a $500 million project built by the Chinese, in which it maintains an 85% stake, with the state-run Sri Lanka Ports Authority holding the remaining 15%. It was to this terminal, commissioned in 2013, that Chinese submarines made an unannounced call in 2014, exposing the then Sri Lankan government’s tilt toward China.

The pro-Western government that was elected soon after, in January 2015, sought to make amends by offering the development of the ECT to a “non-Chinese venture,” as a government official revealed to Nikkei at that time. It paved the way for a tri-partite deal between the Sri Lankans, Indians and Japanese to extend the deep-sea, half-built quay from its existing 600m to its full length of 1,350m.

But Indian patience was tested after an agreement that was finally signed in 2019 by the then government — including terms about financing the planned ECT through two concessionary loans from the Japanese, totaling $690 million for both phases — was nixed by the Rajapaksa government in a display of its ultra-nationalist fervor after its electoral triumph at the November 2019 presidential polls. That was the second multimillion-dollar Japanese funded infrastructure project that the Rajapaksa government unilaterally scrapped.

The concessions Rajapaksa made to India for the ECT come at a time when Sri Lanka has sounded increasingly desperate to seek New Delhi’s favors. The Rajapaksa government has been holding out a virtual begging bowl for a $2 billion financial lifeline — a $1 billion currency swap and $1 billion debt moratorium — from India to save it from sinking into a sea of foreign debt.

 

According to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the $88 billion economy has been burdened by $51.6 billion in foreign debt as of September 2020. The country’s bill to service this debt stands at $4 billion annually through 2024. The situation is growing worse due to shrinking foreign reserves, which dropped to $5.5 billion as of November 2020, down from the $7.6 billion held as of December 2019.

Consequently, the Sri Lankan leader’s image on this front runs counter to the one he has cultivated of a tough-talking ultranationalist who has been governing to champion the interests of the country’s Sinhala-Buddhist majority. The shift has already angered politically active Buddhist monks and ultra-nationalist trade unions, with some snipping at Rajapaksa’s concessions to India — foreshadowing the troubled waters he could find himself in over the port deal.

According to political observers, global trends will make it unlikely for Rajapaksa to stick to his guns and sound anti-Indian in the hope that the Chinese will bail his government out, as Beijing did before 2015 for the previous Rajapaksa regime, then headed by former President Mahinda Rajapakasa, Gotabaya’s elder brother. “The China card may backfire,” said Ram Manikkalingam, a visiting political science professor at the University of Amsterdam.

“There may be a domestic political price to pay as China is suffering adverse publicity due to what many consider predatory investments and loans, and an international price as Delhi openly aligns with the U.S., Japan and Australia,” Manikkalingam added.

India’s eye on the Port of Colombo raises its value as the most prized of Sri Lanka’s three main maritime assets. The harbors have consequently propelled the country into the heart of geopolitical conflict involving India, China, Japan and the U.S. in the latest version of the South Asian Great Game. Besides the Colombo harbor, where 70% of the transshipment cargo is linked to India, the island has another in the northeast, the Trincomalee harbor, which is the world’s second-deepest natural harbor.

The newest is in the south, the $1.2 billion Hambantota harbor. It was built with Chinese loans and subsequently handed over to a Chinese company to run on a 99-year lease as debt-strapped Sri Lanka sought dollars to settle its multimillion dollar international sovereign bonds. The harbor sits on the edge of one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, plied by over 60,000 vessels annually.

Posted in Uncategorized

Sri Lanka’s compulsory cremation of COVID-19 bodies cannot continue, say UN experts

UN human rights experts have urged the Sri Lankan Government to end its policy of forced cremation of the COVID-19 deceased, saying it ran contrary to the beliefs of Muslims and other minorities in the country, and could foment existing prejudices, intolerance and violence.

“The imposition of cremation as the only option for handling the bodies confirmed or suspected of COVID-19 amounts to a human rights violation. There has been no established medical or scientific evidence in Sri Lanka or other countries that burial of dead bodies leads to increased risk of spreading communicable diseases such as COVID-19,” said the experts.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that as of 21 January 2021, 274 COVID-19 related deaths have been reported in Sri Lanka, with a significant number of the deaths belonging to Muslim minorities. All of the bodies were cremated according to the fourth amendment of the Provisional Clinical Practice Guidelines on COVID-19 suspected and confirmed patients issued on 31 March 2020.

The decision to make cremation mandatory followed alleged expert advice, including by the chief epidemiologist who claimed that burials could contaminate ground drinking water. However, the World Health Organization has reiterated there is no evidence to suggest that cremation prevents the spread of the disease, while the College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka and the Sri Lanka Medical Association issued statements recently clarifying that there has been no proof that burial of COVID-19 dead bodies constitutes a public health hazard, the statement said.

“While we must be alert to the serious public health challenges posed by the pandemic, COVID-19 measures must respect and protect the dignity of the dead, their cultural and religious traditions or beliefs, and their families throughout,” the experts said.

“We deplore the implementation of such public health decisions based on discrimination, aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism amounting to persecution of Muslims and other minorities in the country,” added the experts. “Such hostility against the minorities exacerbates existing prejudices, intercommunal tensions, and religious intolerance, sowing fear and distrust while inciting further hatred and violence.

“We are equally concerned that such a policy deters the poor and the most vulnerable from accessing public healthcare over fears of discrimination,” the experts said, adding this would further negatively impact the public health measures to contain the pandemic.

Information received by the experts indicates that cremation often takes place immediately upon the notification of the test results without granting family members reasonable time or the opportunity to cross check or receive the final test results. There have been several cases of cremations based on erroneous information about COVID-19 test results, the experts said.

The experts noted that the President and Prime Minister had instructed the health authorities to explore options for burials in Sri Lanka. “However, we are concerned to learn that the recommendation to include both cremation and burial options for the disposal of bodies of COVID-19 victims by a panel of experts appointed by the State Minister for Primary Health Services, Pandemics and COVID Prevention was reportedly disregarded by the Government,” they said.

“We hope that the report of local burial options by the main committee referred to by the Health Minister will be available soon and that the authorities will stop pursuing a burial solution in a foreign country.

“We strongly urge the Government of Sri Lanka to stop the forced cremation of COVID-19 bodies, to take all necessary measures to combat disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization of the Muslims and other minorities as a vector of the pandemic; and to provide remedy and ensure accountability for cremations that were carried out by error.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Government will not fully comply with OHCHR report

The Government says it will not fully comply with the report on Sri Lanka by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Cabinet Spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella said that Sri Lanka is not prepared to take any steps which harm the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.

The Government is expected to formally submit its response to the report today.

Rambukwella told reporters at the post Cabinet press briefing today that Sri Lanka has a right to address the human rights issue in a manner that it deems fit.

The Minister said that Sri Lanka will not implement the UN Human Rights Council Resolution co-sponsored by the former Government as it is not in the best interest of the country.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet is to table a damning report on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next month.

A copy of the report has been sent to the Sri Lankan Government for its right of reply before it is made public.

Sri Lanka is on the agenda of the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council set to take place between 22 February – 19 March 2021.

During the session, Bachelet will submit a comprehensive report on Sri Lanka on the implementation of Council Resolution 30/1 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.

Bachelet will raise criticism over the failure of the Government (both current and former) to ensure its commitments to the Council were met on the human rights issue.

The current Government has already withdrawn from Resolution 30/1 and the subsequent Resolution 40/1, which were cosponsored by the UNP Government.

The Government was given time from 2015 to March this year through the two Resolutions, to show progress on the human rights issue.

However, the international community and human rights groups have accused the Government of failing to meet its commitments.

In September last year Bachelet had said she was troubled that the new Government was swiftly reneging on its commitments to the Human Rights Council since it withdrew its support for resolution 30/1.

She had encouraged the Council to give renewed attention to Sri Lanka, in view of the need to prevent threats to peace, reconciliation and sustainable development.

EU reiterates need for Sri Lanka to amend the Prevention of Terrorism Act

The European Union (EU) and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka held their 23rd meeting of the Joint Commission on 25 January 2021, via video conference. This was the first Joint Commission under the new leadership in both the European Union and Sri Lanka.

The EU and Sri Lanka agreed on the importance of enhancing trade ties and continuing to work closely together on human rights and reconciliation issues which were on the agenda of the meeting.

Sri Lanka thanked the EU for its contribution of €22 million grant to support the Sri Lankan government efforts to deal with the COVID 19 pandemic targeting the health, agriculture, and tourism sectors.

Sri Lanka and the EU concurred that the EU’s unilateral tariff preferences granted under the Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance (GSP+) have made a significant contribution to Sri Lanka’s economy. Exports from Sri Lanka to the EU have increased to reach €2.3 billion (Sri Lankan currency equivalent), thus making the EU Sri Lanka’s second-largest export market.

The Joint Commission acknowledged that there was potential for Sri Lanka to make even better use of the tariff concessions granted. In this regard, among other things, the EU also stressed that open and fair trade requires a level playing field, and expressed its strong concerns about Sri Lanka’s import restrictions imposed since April 2020, following COVID, which have a negative impact on European businesses.

The EU urged Sri Lanka to notify these measures to the World Trade Organisation. The EU and Sri Lanka committed to further enhance the regular EU-Sri Lanka Investor Dialogue to address impediments affecting trade and investment from the EU.

Sri Lanka reaffirmed the commitments made to effectively implement the 27 international Conventions covered by the GSP+ scheme on human and labour rights, environment and good governance.

In this context, the EU reiterated the need for Sri Lanka to amend the Prevention of Terrorism Act and bring it in line with international standards.

The Sri Lankan government confirmed its intent on revisiting the provisions of the PTA with a view to making the appropriate amendments.

The EU regrets Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from its co-sponsorship of the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1and subsequent resolutions that incorporated and built on it. Sri Lanka explained how it would advance national reconciliation and action taken in accordance with its Constitution and laws.

Sri Lanka announced the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged human rights violations. The EU reiterated the importance of fostering reconciliation, justice, accountability and peaceful coexistence among Sri Lanka’s diverse communities, and underlined the important role of the independent institutions established in recent years, notably the Office on Missing Persons, the Office for Reparations and the Human Rights Commission.

The EU stressed the value of a fully empowered and resilient civil society, in all its diversity for any democracy. The EU expressed its continued readiness to support Sri Lanka in these efforts.

Regarding the use of the death penalty, the EU welcomed Sri Lanka’s record on maintaining its moratorium on executions and encouraged it to legally abolish the death penalty. The EU also reiterated its opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances.

The Joint Commission was informed about the proceedings of the fourth EU-Sri Lanka Working Group on Development Cooperation held in Brussels on 28 October 2020. In addition to the support for Sri Lanka’s COVID-19 response, the Working Group appraised positively another three grants from the European Union worth €35.75 million, which will support Sri Lanka’s justice sector, help improve food safety, and strengthen efforts to mitigate climate change. Implementation is planned for 2021 and beyond. The EU and Sri Lanka committed to working together in the coming years on the preparation of possible new actions aiming at addressing green recovery, promotion of inclusive and peaceful society, and water management.

The European Union and Sri Lanka explored possibilities for future cooperation on climate change, in particular on the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It was agreed that recovery from the global COVID-19 crisis should be used as an opportunity to rebuild the economies in a sustainable manner. The EU welcomed Sri Lanka’s commitment to the implementation of the environmental and climate change conventions, notably the revision of the Nationally Determined Contributions, which will be submitted timely to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in February 2021. The EU also appreciated Sri Lanka’s positive approach towards a Global Agreement on Plastics and President Rajapaksa’s commitment to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 [through the Leader’s Pledge for Nature at the UN Summit for Biodiversity]. The EU stressed its recent actions to enhance its climate ambition, including climate neutrality by 2050 and the increased 2030 targets of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990. Sri Lanka confirmed its commitment to taking ambitious action to ensure a sustainable, low-carbon and climate resilient development. The EU and Sri Lanka agreed that the upcoming UN conferences – the UN Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UNFCCC and the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) will present vital opportunities for the international community to make ambitious, meaningful commitments.

The European Union and Sri Lanka took note of the ad-hoc Counter-Terrorism Dialogue, which took place in Colombo in July 2019 and reviewed on-going cooperation provided through an EU funded project with UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Interpol. The EU stressed the importance of applying international human rights standards in the fight against terrorism. Sri Lanka looks forward to continuing the Counter Terrorism Dialogue and Security Cooperation.

Issues related to mobility and migrationwere also on the agenda. Ways to enhance cooperation on higher education, with a particular reference to the Horizon 2020, the EU framework programme for research and innovation, were also addressed.

Cooperation in the framework of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and towards the common goals of preservation of healthy oceans, conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources was discussed.

The EU and Sri Lanka agreed on a series of actions for follow-up before the next Joint Commission meeting in Brussels in 2021.