7 Jun 2000 : Column 47WH
proportionality in the election system, but the Government have a pro-Sri Lanka majority and want to preserve the unity of Sri Lanka. They have used the armed forces, in no uncertain terms, to do that. The Tamil community, some of them through the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, has grown and, at different dates, has been more or less effective in occupying territory and resisting Government intervention. In effect, it controls much of the northern part of Sri Lanka, especially the Jaffna peninsula--the area in which the Tamils are most concentrated. The result of that conflict is that both sides are so committed to their own resolution that it is clear that neither will win the conflict outright. The Government will not manage to suppress or eradicate the Tamil freedom fighters--they will not go away. Likewise, the Tamil Eelam Liberation Tigers are unlikely to able to take over and hold, without contradiction or challenge, the Tamil Eelam territory in the north and the east that they espouse. There has to be a way to mediate and accommodate them.

Sri Lankan politicians say that they want to try to achieve peace through their words, but often they act and speak in ways that undermine that exercise. However, I do not seek to cast aspersions on the good faith of politicians. I understand the huge historical baggage that exists and the huge pressure from the communities that people represent. I realise how difficult it must be for the President, for her mother, the former Prime Minister, as for previous Presidents, to deliver a peaceful solution. My first proposition to the Chamber--especially to the Government--is that we must do more to bring about discussion, negotiation and resolution of this conflict which has taken probably 60,000 lives. For reasons that I shall give, it is almost a forgotten civil war. However, it is a devastating, painful and absolutely awful conflict, with the most horrible casualties. It is the responsibility not only of Sri Lanka, but of the Commonwealth and the international community.

Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) reminded me that Kofi Annan had said that we must now be more concerned with the sovereignty of the individual in the world than with the sovereignty of the state. We must say to the Sri Lankan Government clearly, but in friendship and support, that the resolution of this conflict is not only for them; the rest of us have a duty and an interest, and should be involved. That is true not least because many people in the United Kingdom were born in Sri Lanka and have links with that country. According to the last census, about 40,000 permanent residents of the UK were born in Sri Lanka. That number is growing. Furthermore, many people from Sri Lanka seek asylum in this country and many are accepted--although I shall raise a point on that matter later in my speech. My London colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who are in the Chamber, have many Sri Lankans in their constituencies--as do I. Colleagues elsewhere in London and beyond regularly have dealings with Sri Lankan members of our community--both

7 Jun 2000 : Column 48WH
Tamil and Sinhalese. They contribute hugely in Britain--in business, medicine, the caring services, local authorities and so on. I pay tribute to that enormous contribution; we value it greatly. Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument that the international community should have an even greater involvement in the internal problems of Sri Lanka. What is his view of the recent calls from the European Parliament for the matter to be brought before the UN Security Council? Is that a helpful intervention? Will it make any contribution to the peace process? Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest. I have a specific proposal to make on that point, but I also note that colleagues in the House are increasingly lending support to a proposal made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that a UN peacekeeping force should be sent to Sri Lanka. It is not only the European Parliament, but colleagues in this House, across the party divides, who are asking for something to be done.

The direct answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I welcome the proposal that the UN should take a greater interest. I think that the UN would be ready to do so, were it not for the fact that the Sri Lankan Government have always made it clear that they would not welcome external intervention. That is why I make an alternative proposition. When my colleagues and I visited Sri Lanka, we were determined to explore the ways in which a peace process could be developed. Before I left, I talked to people who might be players--with the knowledge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Sri Lankan high commission and the Tamil community in London. Following those discussions, the Norwegians have offered--and been accepted--to lead the facilitation process. They see their role as being at the disposal of the Government and all other parties. They will talk to all parties, but they do not see themselves as the people who will come up with proposals and solutions. I understand that.

Given this position, will the Minister consider what initiatives it might be appropriate for him to take? Would he consider holding consultations with the Norwegian embassy? Could the Commonwealth meet--in some appropriate form--to decide whether to make representations to Sri Lanka? For evident reasons, it may be that the Commonwealth, rather than the UN, is the best mediating body. There are some additional reasons for that. India has a direct interest--as it always has had--although it is unlikely to want to make another military intervention because of its previous experience. Australia, New Zealand and the south Asian Commonwealth countries have commercial and other interests. Many Sri Lankans work and travel in Australia. There are many good reasons for Commonwealth interest. The highest proportion of Sri Lankans abroad live in Commonwealth countries--not only in the UK, but in Canada, for example. Will the Government think positively, within the context of the Commonwealth, about supporting the Norwegian initiative and about putting that matter

7 Jun 2000 : Column 49WH
higher on the agenda? Before the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and I were discussing the fact that we need to move from what seems to be almost a passive position to one that is more proactive. After nearly 20 years of civil war--and there is no point in beating about the bush, it is a civil war--we can no longer say that the matter is one on which only the Sri Lankan Government can set the ground rules. My assistant, Simon Hunt, Councillor Liyanage and I met various people in Sri Lanka. The enormity of the conflict was brought home further to us when, after our return, we learned that two of those people whom we met were later assassinated. One was killed in the very car in which we had travelled with him a few months before. Those people--from different perspectives--were trying to do something to bring about the peace process.

-Page 2-

Previous Page   Next Page

Back to Latest News

Copyright © LankaWeb 2000

Home News Business DhammaWeb Info & Services Classified Search