Improving transparency, Sri Lanka’s human rights track record, and securing an International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement are focus areas for the Government to improve Sri Lanka’s international recognition, says Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Sabry, PC.
According to Sabry, who will be leaving for the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva next week with Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Sri Lanka has made progress on addressing concerns related to the much-criticised 1978 Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), with draft legislation almost ready to be put to the Cabinet of Ministers. He blamed the political instability in Sri Lanka over the past six months for the slow progress in addressing issues related to missing persons and reparations.
Minister Sabry further noted that the Government was not aware of a new resolution on Sri Lanka to be moved at the upcoming UNHRC sessions in Geneva, but said a new resolution may be introduced if the current one was not rolled forward.
In an interview with The Sunday Morning, the Foreign Minister also highlighted the need to review Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and ensure the national diplomatic apparatus is staffed by trained and competent persons as the nation moves towards a recovery phase.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Sri Lanka is trying to rebuild its credibility in the international arena. What are the key areas the Government is working on to improve Sri Lanka’s international recognition?
Firstly, we need to engage with the international community positively and work to win their confidence in order to quickly reach an IMF agreement. We have already reached the first step of a Staff-Level Agreement (SLA). That is important, because it is central to everything else that we need to gain. It is needed before we move to restore the confidence of others or encourage investors to rethink about Sri Lanka.
Secondly, we also need to improve the transparency of Sri Lanka’s workings. Thirdly, there is the matter of improving the human rights record.
The Geneva human rights sessions are around the corner; has there been tangible progress since last year? On counter terrorism laws, the Government recently spoke about a National Security Act (NSA) – is this a new process?
There is; we told them that we will continue to engage with them. Some important achievements are that we have appointed a committee to look into the cases of people who have been held for a long time under the PTA. The PTA has been amended since then [last sessions] and bail provisions have been granted, so the number of cases and individuals held in custody has come down.
Secondly, we are in the process of establishing the Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) or similar legislation, in line with international best practices. I don’t know what he [spokesman] was talking about. However, what we are looking at is replacing the PTA with an Act that will have a better balance between national security and human rights. It is difficult to give a timeline about the process, but we are in the process of presenting the draft legislation to the Cabinet.
There are reports of moves for a fresh resolution on Sri Lanka at the Geneva sessions; do you have any information on such moves?
No, we are not aware of such a move, practically, because resolution 46/1 is coming up for review. So, unless we agree on that, or there is a roll-over of 46/1, there cannot be a new resolution.
Recently, local law enforcement agencies used the PTA to detain several protesters; isn’t this a misuse of the legislation?
We are open to the opinions and suggestions of people. However, the investigators are of the opinion that there are matters that need to be looked into and allegations that need to be dealt under the PTA and fall within its preview. So I think they have already gone before the courts on the charges and the courts will decide if these cases, these allegations of terrorism, are plausible or not. That is part of the legal process.
Has Sri Lanka made any progress in the other human rights-related areas, such as the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), reparations, and war crime allegations, since the last sessions in Geneva?
I think we have made some progress on the issue of missing persons over the last year but unfortunately, nothing happened over the last six to seven months, since March, due to the situation in the country. We couldn’t show much progress, but we should still work towards that.
The IMF has clearly signalled that Sri Lanka needs to engage China on debt restructuring. A recent report in the press quotes Chinese diplomatic sources stating that ‘the ball is in Sri Lanka’s court’. Has Sri Lanka begun a discussion on debt restructuring with China and how is it progressing?
On the matter of debt restructuring, I think we were concentrating on reaching an SLA with the IMF. Now that we have gained a certain amount of certainty (following the SLA with the IMF), we will begin engaging with all bilateral creditors, particularly China, India, and Japan.
Sri Lanka has sought assistance from Japan to coordinate with its creditors, including China, on debt restructuring. How and when will this process take place? Who will be involved from Sri Lanka?
I think that is a question the Finance Minister and the Finance Ministry are better placed to answer.
A team from the IMF was in Sri Lanka last week to hold staff-level talks with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) and other Government officials, reaching a four-year $ 2.9 billion SLA. How confident are you that Sri Lanka will meet the structural reforms agreed on and address corruption vulnerabilities?
Yes, I think we need to do those. We have no choice; we need to follow up on those conditions. Otherwise, I don’t think we will get those facilities [conditional $ 2.9 billion]. If we don’t do it, we risk losing credibility again.
The recent visit of the Chinese Yuan Wang 5 vessel caused much controversy in the country and in the international sphere. Do you think the incident was properly managed by Sri Lanka and has the controversy strained Indo-Lanka or Sino-Lanka relations?
It was a very difficult situation for us. This difficult issue came at a crucial juncture; Sri Lanka was undergoing tremendous turmoil. When some concerns were raised, we looked into it and consulted all parties. Having consulted all the parties, we tried to manage it as much as possible.
Naturally, there will be some concerns from all sides in matters such as these. However I think, given the complexity and the risks that it entailed, we did manage it well. That’s what I feel.
In a recent interview with the Economist, President Ranil Wickremesinghe stated that ‘we see India as the net security provider in the area and then all other countries can also be present as long as it doesn’t lead to rising tensions or increase the rivalry between states’. Does this indicate a change in Sri Lankan foreign policy, a sign of a closer orbit on security matters with India?
Regional security is paramount for Sri Lanka as an island nation. To ensure regional security, there should be consultation and coordination with the biggest player in the region. It is in that context that the President would have said so. Our aim is to have peace in the region.
The entire Indian Ocean should be a region of peace and Sri Lanka should ensure a good economic climate for trade and safety of maritime routes of communication. Adversity or enmity with anyone should not be promoted in the Indian Ocean.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, given Sri Lanka’s vulnerability due to the economic crisis and the dynamic nature of geopolitics, do you think a review of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is due?
Yes, I think so. Even otherwise, I think we need to review the foreign policy after discussing the pros and cons of such changes, and proceed with changes that benefit Sri Lanka’s national interest. The Ministry is planning to review the foreign policy as soon as possible.
Managing international relations during a crisis requires competent and capable professionals in charge of our diplomatic missions overseas. What action, if any, will you take to depoliticise the Foreign Ministry and the Foreign Service and allow career diplomats to return to the helm of diplomatic relations?
Yes, in terms of numbers, we need to review the deployment of our best personnel. We need to look at that carefully. The backbone of the Foreign Ministry and diplomacy should be the Foreign Service. The Foreign Service has been recruited and trained for that task. Wherever possible, we will try to give Foreign Service officers the maximum priority and make use of them.
We have not recruited to the Foreign Service for the past five years. We need to move quickly to get the next team coming in, otherwise we may have problems filling the ranks of first, second, and third secretaries and senior diplomats at our missions. We are working towards that. Hopefully, it will be done soon; it needs to be done in consultation with the President’s Office. We are making every effort to do it soon.
