Category: Featured Headlines

Sri Lanka President Ranil Wickremesinghe has reiterated his call for immediate bipartisan consensus on a permanent solution to the island nation’s decades-long ethnic problem, inviting opposition lawmakers for a round of talks after December 11.

Speaking in parliament on Wednesday November 23, Wickremesinghe once again invited all parties representing the parliament to discuss a lasting solution to the grievances of the country’s Tamil minority, most of whom reside in the formerly war-ravaged northern and eastern provinces of the island.

“There is nothing new to talk about. [We just have to] decide what is relevant. I think we can do it by next year. My aim is to do it by the 75th anniversary of independence. If you can’t do that, you may not have that [sp] Sri Lanka by 2048,” said Wickremesinghe.

Wickremesinghe had previously invited all Tamil political parties to a discussion on issues faced by the Tamil community with a view to resolving them with no foreign intervention by February 04 next year when Sri Lanka celebrates 75 years of independence from the British.

On November 10, Wickremesinghe asked parties that represent the Tamil community in parliament help “resolve these issues amicably without outside interference”.

The privately owned The Sunday Times reported on November 06 that a ministerial team was to be appointed to draw up the “broad outlines of what such a project should encompass”. This would later form the basis of discussions with all stakeholders, the English weekly reported.

Speaking in parliament on Wednesday, Wickremeisnghe asked Tamil National Alliance (TNA) legislator M A Sumanthiran if he is willing to come on board. He posed the same question to chief opposition whip and main opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) MP Lakshman Kiriella and MP Mano Gansean whose Democratic People’s Front (DPF) is part of an SJB-led alliance.

SJB and opposition leader Sajith Premadasa was absent at the time, and a party member was heard saying “We’ll ask our leader and get back to you”.

Kiriella responded that Wickremesinghe knew very well that Kirella had long supported devolution of power. The real question, he said, was whether Wickremesinghe’s new backers in the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) would ever support meaningful devolution.

“We know what the SLPP really feels in their heart of hearts. They are opposed to devolution,” said Kiriella, challenging SLPP leader and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to state his position on record.

Kiriella said it was the Kandyan Sinhalese who had first proposed devolution in the 1930s. One of the Kandyan leaders at the time, he said, was an ancestor of the incumbent president.

Said Wickremesinghe: “Will you ask your leader and tell us this evening, then?”

MP Ganesan said: “The SJB alliance is agreeable to devolution of power. That is why we’re here. We wouldn’t be, otherwise.”

Responding to Wickremesinghe, MP Sumanthiran said: “If you call for a meeting of all parties as soon as we conclude the budget session, we can finish it before December 31.”

Wickremesinghe agreed and said a meeting will be called in the week following December 11.

Kiriella, however, noted that when ousted former President Gotabaya Rajapakasa had invited the SJB for talks on a proposed new constitution, he had sent a missive to the party that they shouldn’t join if they wished to protect the 13th amendment to the constitution.

President Wickremesinghe assured Kirella that he would in fact protect the 13th amendment, which came in the wake of the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord and saw the creation of the provincial councils.

“You’re one person. Are the others here in agreement? Are the MPs? We know very well about the honourable president. He was our leader for 20 years,” said Kiriella.

Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, too, has historically opposed devolution, the MP said.

In a lighter vein, he quipped: “The prime minister said this morning that he’s also an American now. Maybe it’s the influence of the president. We applaud that.”

SLPP MP Gevindu Kumaratunga who now sits in the opposition cautioned that they can only support a proposal that will honour Sri Lanka’s unitary character.

“If you’re asking for a consensus within a unitary Sri Lanka, we’ll agree. Outside of that, I don’t think a majority of people will agree. There is a ground reality here. Our soldiers laid down their lives to protect the unitary state,” said Kumaratunga.

President Wickremesinghe pressed on, asking the House at large to agree to a meeting to discuss proposals.

“We have to build confidence with the Tamil community. But we also have to build confidence with those people in the Sinhalese community who have reasonable concerns as to where it will lead,” he said.

The president also said that Muslim youth who were arrested in connection with the 2019 Easter bombings against whom there is no evidence will also be released soon as discussed at the latest security council meeting.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe says that he will not allow another ‘Aragalaya’ protest movement to be created in the country to attempt to overthrow the government.

Addressing the Parliament today, during the third reading debate on the 2023 Budget, the President said that he will deploy the military and impose emergency laws if the need arises to deal with such a situation.

“What happened on May 09 and July 04? Some of our temples were threatened and burned. The Maha Sangha of the Malwatu and Asgiri temples were threatened and warned not to speak. Our Sangha was afraid and did not speak. Then how can Article 09 of the Constitution be protected? We are bound by the Constitution to protect Buddhism. Who was behind these? Our young monks were used for this. They went and asked the Mahanayake Theros to step down and hand over leadership to them.”

“Hindu priests were also threatened. The same goes for Muslims. The Catholic Bishops also said that they are against violence. Then who were the religious leaders that were with these people? We do not want to lead this country to Dinh Diem rule.”

“I will not allow any Dinh Diem or those around him. Now they say they are going to start the struggle again,” he said.

Wickremesinghe said the SJB, JVP and TNA are holding their public meetings and gatherings without any hindrances and that as long as they obtain permission from the police any amount of protest can be held on the streets.

“Anyone can hold meetings, the JVP had meetings. The TNA is holding meetings in the North.
Anyone can hold protests or meetings legitimately. You can shout as much as you want and call me a dictator. I don’t mind. However, I must say one thing. Get your permit to protest before you take to the streets. Don’t obstruct vehicular movement and get onto a side of the road and protest. That’s all I am asking.”

“Yet, if anyone thinks that they can engage in another struggle without obtaining a license, stop it. I have instructed the police. If anyone tries to stage a protest to topple the government, I will not allow it. I will impose emergency law and deploy the military. There is no room for Dinh Diems in this country.”

“Who will go with Kumar Gunaratnam now? If he is accepted, then no one can speak against Basil Rajapaksa. People will not stand with them just because they shout every day. Let’s see which media created these forces. Let’s see which media asked people to set fire to certain places.”

“I intend to appoint a commission to investigate this incident,” the President said.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe while addressing Parliament on 10 November 2022 invited all Tamil MPs for a discussion on issues facing the Tamil people and about development plans for the North and East. Jaffna district MP and ITAK spokesperson, M.A. Sumanthiran responded positively by telling a morning newspaper that the TNA would cooperate. “We will fully cooperate. The resolution of the Tamil national question will be our main focus,” said Sumanthiran. Later Sumanthiran reiterated this viewpoint in the presence of President Ranil Wickremesinghe at a meeting held on 19 November on the occasion of the ceremonial opening of the Presidential Secretariat Northern Province Co-ordination Sub-Office in Vavuniya.

As is well-known the Tamil National Alliance is the premier political configuration representing the Sri Lankan Tamils of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The TNA comprises the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) and the People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). The TNA contesting under the ITAK symbol oh house won 10 seats – including one national list MP – in the 2020 Parliamentary elections. The 10 MPs are from the electoral districts of Jaffna (3), Wanni (3), Batticaloa (2), Trincomalee (1) and Amparai (1). The party-wise breakdown is ITAK – 6, TELO – 3 and PLOTE – 1.

In a bid to present a common Tamil position in potential discussions with President Wickremesinghe the TNA issued an invitation last week to likeminded Tamil nationalist parties to meet at TNA leader Rajavarothayam Sampanthan’s Colombo residence and formulate a common approach seeking a political solution ‘within a federal set up in the North-East’. The meeting did not take place as planned last week. Subsequently it has been rescheduled for Friday 25 November at Sampanthan’s residence in Colombo.

Apart from the three constituents of the TNA namely the ITAK, TELO and PLOTE, invitations have been sent to the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF), the Thamil Makkal Theseeyak Koottani (TMTK), Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and Thamil Theseeyak Katchi (TTK). The TNPF has two MPs in Parliament while the TMTK has one MP.

Given the inter-party rivalry among Tamil parties in general and the intra-party friction within Tamil parties in particular, it is unclear at present as to whether all invited parties will attend the meeting or consensus would be reached. However regardless of inter and intra-party differences the bottom line is that all Sri Lankan Tamil nationalist parties are firmly supportive of a power sharing arrangement based upon federal principles or the federal idea.

It is against this backdrop therefore that this column – with the aid of previous writings – focuses on the concept of federalism or the federal idea within both a national and international context. It is well-known that the words Federalism or Federal became dirty words in the Sri Lankan political milieu in the past. Sinhala hard-line opinion viewed federalism as a euphemism for secessionism or a stepping stone to a Separate State. Thus Federalism became the “F-word” in Sri Lankan politics. It is indeed a tragedy that the concept of federalism or the federal idea was so crudely and cruelly dismissed without any consideration of its merits or plus points.

It was perhaps the merit in what is called the federal idea which prompted former US president Bill Clinton to observe, “Maybe the federal idea isn’t such a bad idea after all.” This was in 1999 when he was the most powerful man on earth. It was at the end of the conference on federalism at Mont Tremblant in Quebec that Clinton made this remark. Incidentally former Sri Lankan cabinet minister G.L. Peiris also addressed this path-breaking conclave organised by the Forum of Federations based in Ottawa.

What is the federal idea?

What then is this federal idea? It is in one sense a concept that embodies various related things like federalism, federal systems, federations and federalist, etc. This is a world where the word “federal” has become almost the “F-word” in politics. Different countries and different entities for different reasons frown on this “F-word”. Therefore “federal idea” has become an indirect reference to this F-word. If a “rose by any other name would smell as sweet” then the word “federalism” too can be sanitised and discussed as the “federal idea”.

Let me quote Canada’s representative at the UN Bob Rae on this. The former Ontario NDP premier, ex-MP and Interim leader of the Liberal party is also a past president of the forum of federations located in Ottawa. In his foreword to the “Handbook of Federal Countries” published by the forum, Rae has this to say – “There has been a profound resurgence in interest in the federal idea in the last decade. I choose the phrase “federal idea” because the “ism” in federalism has a way of limiting debate and understanding”.

“In Spain the central government doesn’t like to use the “federal” word as it seems to indicate erosion of sovereign authority. Ironically Catalonians in Spain also frown on this because in their perception “federalism is not enough to articulate the unique Catalonian identity and right of self-government. In South Africa the earlier “apartheid” regime set up some federal structures to contain and diffuse pan-African yearning for freedom. So federalism became a dirty word to the blacks. When the African national congress attained power with its vision of “one South Africa” the ANC did not want to describe the new Constitution as “federalist”.

Sri Lankans are well aware of what Rae meant. In Lanka’s deeply polarised society federalism is certainly the “F-word” and worse. There is marked reluctance and trepidation on the part of many to espouse federalism openly. This is sad but quite understandable in a situation where “federalism” is seen as a conspiracy to break up the nation.

While many Sri Lankans look upon federalism with suspicion, the rest of the world is in ferment over the federal idea.

There was a time when federalism was seen as the ideal remedy for many of the world’s political maladies. It was perceived as the universal device to achieve unity in diversity. Experience has shown that this is not necessarily true in all situations. At the same time federal arrangements have certainly helped wield cohesiveness in many cases.

40% of the world’s population

Twenty-five countries today have federal or quasi-federal structures. These range from the sole superpower USA to tiny St. Kitts and Nevis; from Canada in the North to Micronesia in the South; from India in the East to Switzerland in the West. The population of these countries together amounts to more than 40% of the world’s total humanity. In addition there are some countries that are not federal but have special administrative arrangements amounting to de-facto quasi-federalism.

Let us proceed alphabetically. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the federated states of Micronesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Venezuela are Federal countries. While most are explicitly federal a few like Spain are not, but in actuality are federal in all but name. Incidentally, President Ranil Wickremesinghe in his Sita Jayawardena memorial oration decades ago, spoke of Austria as a potential model for Sri Lanka power sharing.

Though federally none of these countries share exactly the same system. Each country has different administrative arrangements and internal structures. They also vary greatly in size. Russia has republics and many types of regions within; India has states and union territories; Switzerland has cantons while Germany and Austria have landers. Belgium has three regions and three cultural communities while Spain has autonomous regions; the USA has states, confederacies, local home rule territories, unincorporated territories and native American domestic dependent nations while Canada has provinces, territories and aboriginal organisations. Venezuela has states, territories, federal dependencies, federal districts and many islands.

Apart from federal and quasi-federal states there are also countries having de-centralised unions with federal features. The United Kingdom comprising England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and five self-governing islands is the best known example of this kind. Italy with 15 ordinary and five autonomous regions is another; Netherlands has 11 provinces and one associated state; Japan has 47 prefectures; Fiji Islands is a consolidation of two ethnic communities; Colombia has 23 departments, four inter-dependencies and three commissaries. Ukraine has 24 oblasts, two metropolitan areas and the autonomous republic of Crimea; The People’s Republic of China has 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, four municipalities, and the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao.

Federacies and associative states

Another phenomenon is that of countries with federacies and associative states. Bhutan is an associative state of India. Cook Islands is a self-governing associative state of New Zealand. Netherlands Antilles, San Marino, Liechenstein, Monaco are associative states of Netherlands, Italy. Switzerland and France respectively. Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas are federacies of the USA. Madeira and Azores Islands are Portuguese federates. Likewise Greenland and Faroe Islands are Danish federates. Britain has the federates of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Aaland Islands are a Federacy of Finland.

It could be seen therefore that the federal idea is not restricted to categorical federal or quasi-federal states alone. The federal idea is a free spirit permeating the body politic of many states. There is no “mono-principle” here. Each country has fashioned its own unique arrangement to suit its needs. Apart from the administrative convenience and the imperative to provide citizens with the best form of government these countries have also taken into account diversity of peoples, regional variety and imbalances, historic and geographic necessity, etc. as criteria to evolve systems of governance. There has been no rigorous dogma, stifling aspirations of constituent peoples.

Comparing federal systems

The federal idea has assumed a new importance and related vigour in recent times. There are a number of reasons for this. Ronald Watts of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at the Queens University in Kingston, Canada is the author of “Comparing federal systems.” An excerpt from it explains this global trend, “Modern developments in transportation, social communications, technology, and industrial organisation have produced pressures at one and the same time for larger political organisations and for smaller ones. The pressure for larger political units has been generated by the goals shared by most Western and non-Western societies today; a desire for progress, a rising standard of living, social justice and influence in the world arena and by a growing awareness of worldwide inter-dependence in an era whose advanced technology makes both mass destruction and mass-construction possible.”

“The desire for smaller self-governing political units has risen from the desire to make governments more responsive to the individual citizen and to give expression to primary group attachments-linguistic and cultural ties, religious connections, historical traditions and social practices-which provide the distinctive basis for a community’s sense of identity and yearning for self-determination. Given these dual pressures, more and more peoples have come to see some form of federalism, combining a shared government for specified common purposes with autonomous action by constituent units of government for purposes related to maintaining their regional distinctiveness as allowing the closest institutional approximation to the multi-national reality of the contemporary world.”

Ronald Watts sums up the essence of the federal idea. On the one hand there is the tendency to form larger entities including supra-national bodies like the European Union. On the other, there is the need to accommodate different intra-national aspirations of an ethnic nature. So Belgium reverts to federalism to satisfy the Flemish and the Walloons while Brussels is the seat of the EU parliament. The Union Jack flag may have the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, St. David and St. Patrick but merry England cannot hold the United Kingdom together without devolving power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Sri Lankan ethnic conflict has its genesis in colonialism. Modern Ceylon as Sri Lanka was known then is a British creation. The island was unified administratively but the people were divided politically through representation on communal lines. What was “united” to exploit was “divided” to govern. In the absence of adequate and equitable forms of power-sharing the island is wracked with post-Independence conflict within pre-Independence boundaries.

Reactive Tamil nationalism

Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism has been primarily reactive in nature. The Tamils thought of themselves as being on par with the Sinhala people as co-founders of the modern nation of Ceylon. Universal franchise and territorial representation reduced them to a principal minority. The Tamils still thought of themselves as belonging to the island in its entirety. So they wanted balanced representation and then adopted responsive cooperation as political strategies.

When these failed came the federal demand. Tamil self-perception now confined itself as a regional minority. Even here the political leaders were prepared to compromise far short of federalism and opted for alternatives like regional councils, district councils, etc. Finally came the desperate cry for separation and resultant armed struggle. The Indo-Lanka accord of 1987 resulted in the 13th Constitutional Amendment which enabled the creation of Provincial Councils. Federalism if adopted at the appropriate time may have prevented the bloodshed and carnage that ensued after the ethnic conflict escalated.

The proponents of federalism argue that adopting it will strengthen unity and territorial integrity. Switzerland, India, Malaysia, Belgium, Germany, Spain, etc. are cited as examples. But it cannot be denied that federalism has failed to prevent secession too. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are well-known examples. The Malaysia-Singapore and Pakistan-Bangladesh splits of the past as well as modern break-ups of Czech-Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro are also lessons. In Canada, separatism flourished in Quebec despite federalism. Britain devolved power to Scotland and Wales but secessionism seems to have gained ground there. Nigerian federalism did not prevent the Biafran civil war.

Nuances to take into account

There are however many nuances to take into account when analysing the countries in question. At one end of the spectrum are Belgium and Spain willingly opting for federalism as a solution to curb separatist tendencies. Yet Belgium and Spain continue to have issues. In Canada the equation is changing with the separatist Parti Quebecois announcing that no referendum to facilitate secessionist “sovereignty” will be held in the near future. The main Quebec parties are now for greater autonomy and powers within a united Canada.

Recent amendments in Germany have strengthened federalism. India through its cooperative federalism model became more and more federal in practice. But the emphasis on centralisation and the “mono model” by the BJP government is troubling. This tendency is visible in Australia and USA where increasing “centralised” authority is slowly eroding the concept of pure federalism.

Federalism therefore provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs.

Dynamic and constantly evolving

Sri Lanka too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. The federal idea is dynamic and constantly evolving. What we in Sri Lanka need to do is to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Let us also not forget the prophetic words of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1926 when he stated, “A thousand and one objections could be raised against the (federal) system, but when the objections are dissipated, I am convinced that some form of Federal Government will be the only solution.”

In the words of Bob Rae

In spite of the heat generated in Sri Lanka by this ‘F-word’ there is no denying that the Federal idea is catching on in a world of ferment. The Federal idea is impacting greatly on a world changing fast. In the words of Bob Rae, “The resurgence of the federal idea has at its core many different causes. The vitality of the values of democracy, the revolutions in the politics of identity and human rights, the twin collapse of apartheid and bureaucratic communism, the impact of the technological revolution, the economic changes we associate with the word globalisation, all these have made their contributions.”

“This renewal is not at all confined to countries that have a federalist tradition. Countries have long had to struggle with the simple truth that geography is rarely synonymous with automatic homogeneity. Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issues facing the world order today.”

“Wars after 1945 have been as much within countries as between them, with disastrous consequences for peace and security. It is no longer soldiers dying in millions but civilians. From Rwanda to Cambodia, from the Balkans to East Timor the battleground was within countries that are unable to resolve the conflicts of what Michael Ignatieff has called, ‘blood and belonging’.

“It is in this context that the federal idea is re-emerging. Indeed, issues of federal governance are at the centre of active political and legal discussions in every part of the globe, particularly in areas where conflict resolution is a critical necessity. National sovereignty is not dead and the age of the nation-state is not over. But the notion that these are exclusive or all defining is clearly outmoded. Governance practices within countries are inevitably subject to the scrutiny of world political and economic opinion, and most important, to the rule of law itself.”

“The collapse of the one party state, the demands of identity, the urge to local empowerment, the insistence on greater openness and transparency in government, and the recognition that in a smaller and much more interdependent world sovereignty is no longer an absolute, has brought the federal idea to the fore again.”

This then is what the federal idea is all about!

(The writer can be reached at dbsjeyaraj@yahoo.com.)

Sri Lanka President Ranil Wickremesinghe promised not to dissolve the parliament and hold a snap poll until the island nation’s economic crisis is resolved and bring change the youth-protesters wants amid opposition criticism over the government dragging elections.

Wickremesinghe, who became the president in July in an unexpected way, can dissolve the parliament after February next year.

The country’s Election Commission has said it could hold the local government polls after February 20, but Wickremesinghe’s government has appointed a three-member committee to look into delimitation which is changing the boundaries of electorates.

Political analysts say a snap poll next year could lead to a hung parliament and reverse proposed reforms necessary to go with a $2.9 billion International Monetary Fund loan needed to move away from the current unprecedented economic crisis.

“I will not be dissolving the Parliament. The economy is in a massive problem and once that is resolved we can go for election,” Wickremesinghe told the parliament.

Sources close to President Ranil Wickremesinghe said that he is likely to hold presidential elections first before any other polls. The government has to go for local government polls by March next year, but the government has appointed a new commission to look into electorate boundaries, a move seen by opposition as a delaying tactics.

Sri Lanka had mass protests against economic mismanagement by then government led by former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Later, the youth led protests, ousted Rajapaksa and his government in July after the country defaulted sovereign debt following a currency collapse, heavy money printing, and wrong economic policies.

The youth-led protesters started the agitation against high cost of living, shortage of essentials, and food shortage under ex-President Rajapaksa.

President Wickremesinghe has invited youth interested in politics to join the government as a pledge to anti-government protestors who demanded more youth representation in the Parliament and government.

“I have asked for the names of the youth who are interested in entering politics. I would like the five names before the end of December and they must be appointed by January because we are here to make a change,” he said.

“Whenever I go for gatherings it’s the same old faces and there is nothing new, no new ones. Youth want a change and after we achieve that then we will go for an election,” said Wickremesinghe.

Sri Lanka’s opposition parties and many protestors who led the ousting of Rajapaksa are now demanding both the local government and parliamentary polls citing that the present government has no mandate to be in power as its failed economic policies have forced the people to oust them.

Sri Lanka briefed the European Parliament on discussions to establish a suitable Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) model.

A multi-party delegation from the Parliament of Sri Lanka and the Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia in the European Parliament (DSAS) conducted a productive virtual dialogue, the Foreign Ministry said today.

The respective delegations to the meeting were led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka M.U.M. Ali Sabry and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and Chair of DSAS Nicola Procaccini. The virtual meeting was the first such dialogue to take place between the two Parliaments since the last in-person meeting in November 2017 in Colombo.

Highlighting the importance of the Sri Lanka-EU partnership, Foreign Minister Sabry welcomed the EU’s steadfast support to Sri Lanka in the process of socio-economic recovery, including in the provision of humanitarian assistance. Appreciating the support and solidarity extended by members of the Paris Club, the Foreign Minister apprised the MEPs of the current economic situation, negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), debt restructuring and discussions with creditors.

The Minister also briefed the MEPs on recent developments in Sri Lanka including the 21st Amendment to the Constitution; anti-corruption measures; discussions on a suitable Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) model; the process of repeal and replacement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) with appropriate counter-terrorism legislation in accordance with international norms and standards; the release of PTA detainees; and overall progress in reconciliation and human rights.

The EU Co-chair Nicola Procaccini welcomed progress in EU – Sri Lanka bilateral relations with reference to the multi-faceted thematic cooperation existing under the Joint Commission process, and support under the EU’s Multi-annual Indicative Programme (MIP). The EU assured of its continued support to Sri Lanka, and referred to the benefits accrued to Sri Lanka through the EU GSP Plus regime, as well as the country’s compliance process. The EU being Sri Lanka’s second largest export market, the Foreign Minister expressed the Government’s deep appreciation of the GSP Plus concessions which provide duty free access for Sri Lanka’s exports to the EU market.

The discussion also focused on the EU’s wider engagement with Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean; cooperation related to climate action; and the disproportionate impact of the global pandemic and rising energy, fertilizer and food prices on developing country economies.

The MPs from Sri Lanka in their respective interventions welcomed the various aspects of Sri Lanka’s cooperation with the EU. They highlighted the importance of the EU GSP Plus facility for Sri Lanka, especially in the current socio-economic context. An MP representing the Women’s Caucus in Parliament pointed to the contribution of GSP Plus in the empowerment of women at grass-roots level, and the employment opportunities provided to women in the apparel and other sectors. The contribution of the EU countries to Sri Lanka’s foreign direct investment and tourism were also appreciated.

The EU Co-chair welcomed the varying interventions by the cross-party MPs from Sri Lanka, as well as the frank exchange of views. The two sides reiterated their shared commitment to further strengthen cooperation between the Sri Lanka and EU Parliaments.

Nineteen (19) MPs representing the Government and the Opposition parties of Sri Lanka, i.e., the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), including the State Minister of Foreign Affairs Tharaka Balasuriya, participated in the virtual meeting. Interventions by MEPs included that of MEP Maximilian Krah representing the Committee on International Trade (INTA) in the European Parliament. The Head of South Asia Division of the European External Action Service (EEAS) also spoke.

The Ambassadors of Sri Lanka to the EU and of the EU to Sri Lanka, Secretary General of the Sri Lanka Parliament, and senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Commerce of Sri Lanka were also associated with the meeting.

An international force is behind Sri Lanka’s economy and this force is still active, Former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa told Parliament today.

Speaking during the second reading debate in the House, the local agents of these forces are still active.

“It was them who sponsored protests that are taking place in the nation. Their action affects the tourism sector which has begun to recover now,” the former PM said.

“Some are questioning the defence allocation. I would like to tell them that a country’s defence is more important than anything else. We will not allow the nation’s security to be at stake,” he added.

“The budget 2023 is a giant leap to stabilize the economy though it does not fulfil aspirations of some sectors. The emphasis made on the youth in the budget is welcome. Loss making state enterprises should be restructured. However we are of the view that profit making enterprises should be safeguarded. We are against selling off national assets to the foreign forces,” he also said.

“One has to remember that the Yahapalana government had gone for borrowings which the country cannot resist. We have not neglected social welfare even during difficult time. We have managed our finances and ensured social welfare in the past. We shall do the same in the future as well,” he stressed.