British Parliament’s Debate on Sri Lanka
Letting the cat out of the bag
Part I

By Bandu de Silva
Former Ambassador to Iran

Every Sri Lankan must read the record of recent debate in the British parliament on Sri Lanka very carefully. It is not only amazingly interesting but it also reveals frightening prospects that will have to be faced if effective safeguards were not provided to prevent devolution leading to separatism. This is a situation over which many people in this country have been drawing attention for some time.

The true nature of international intervention, whether it may happen tacitly or not, is now revealed by the important statement made by the Liberal Democratic representative of the British Parliament, Mr. Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey) who spoke in the recent debate in the Parliament. Speaking on his own behalf and several other M.Ps who were not present he said: "if later the Tamil people voted for independence in a free election –unharrased and without any pressure - that would raise other issues."….(then) the world (international community) would have to accommodate that through proper international recognition process."

He was replying G.C.Brown, Conservative ((Cotswold) who asked him to be more explicit on his vituperations about ``full autonomy" for the Tamils to manage their own affairs (in the North and the East), he was speaking about. He did not think of the Tamils who live outside the North and the East.

The significance of Mr. Hughes’ statement is that he was representing, as he admitted, the views of the Tamil Diaspora in his constituency and of others he was covering on this occasion. He did not hide whose concerns they were he was representing. He even referred to the Norwegians whose church was in his constituency. That is another angle to remember over this issue. The role of Norwegians was highly commended even by the Minister of State Middle East, Foreign & Commonwealth Office),Mr.Kim Howells. Mr. Hughes did not hide his obligations to the Tamil Diaspora in his constituency. He even named the Tamil Councillors in his Boroughs and a lady Mayor all of whom were Tamil.

What is important about Mr. Hughes’ statement besides its very revealing contents, is that the idea of future Tamil independence could have come from this very Tamil sources close to him and that he was only giving expression to this prospect. That it may or may not be the expectation of the international community, in this case, the policy of the British parliament, may not be important, but the sources from which he derived the idea, is very relevant to understand the background.

The nature of the recent well orchestrated debate, each speaker complementing the other or responding to the other in a tandem, in the course of which the idea was presented makes the statement doubly important.

Enter British High Commissioner

The British High Commissioner, Dominick Chilcott in his interview to The Nation (Sunday May 13th), has played down the significance of the whole Parliamentary debate as informal (routine),i.e., ``nothing new," but in the same strain he sees it as something ``great", the interest shown by the Parliament in Sri Lankan issues." In other words, he concedes that it was an important debate, whether it took place at adjournment time and that there was no formal voting on it, being immaterial. Having dismissed it routinely, he says, now there will be questions in Parliament and ``MPs will form themselves into groups and talk;" and during the debate ``one MP suggested the formation of an All Party Committee." So isn’t it very clear that the debate will have a catalytic effect and that was exactly what was intended. Its importance cannot be played down especially considering that an idea like the "Tamil people later wanting to vote for independence in a free election –unharassed and without any pressure - that would raise other issues."….(then) the world (international community) would have to accommodate that through proper international recognition process", emerged from this discussion.

Contrary to what the High Commissioner said, Keith Vaz, the Labour MP who played a key role in arranging and conducting the debate emphasized that it was the first time the House conducted such a debate (on Sri Lanka).

What would be the effect of such an idea being harboured (note the Tamil source from which the MP got the idea), on the dialogue in Sri Lanka? Isn’t it devastating?. But the High Commissioner says he was disappointed that certain people thought that the British parliament had no right to debate about the situation in Sri Lanka; and they thought that the debate was against the sovereignty of Sri Lanka; He gives us a lecture on the nature of the nation-state, the independence of each to discuss what each wants; including what goes on in another country is a concern for others.

No question. The Minister of State speaking at the opening of the debate did not put it so tersely. He was naturally far more diplomatic and sensitive to the feelings of Sri Lankans than the High Commissioner when he said: "Britain is a great friend of Sri Lanka and the dire situation there is a matter of great concern to the Government." There can also be a lot of background consideration to that - about Sri Lanka which had been an exemplary democracy among Britain’s (non-white) colonies.

Proceedings of the Debate

However, the debate could not be allowed to be a free for all. The govt. was in full control of it. The State Minister’s job was to set the tone and to see that it remained within the parameters drawn but there was enough room for the rank and file to manoeuvre it to satisfy the electoral needs. The Labour rank and file led by Keith Vaz, a former Goanese discredited after exposure of his links with the Hinduja family and other questionable deals, supported by John McDonnell, Andrew Love, Jim Dowed, Stephen Pound, and others made the right interventions to extract right answers not only from the Minister of State but also from Paul Merphy (Torafen) who knew more about the Irish settlement. They were seen trying, with good measure of success, to direct the debate in the direction they wanted it to proceed complementing one another.

Though the State Minister who stuck to the govt. policy line which proscribed the LTTE defended that action, but others succeed in drawing enough concessions from him. For example, on the issue of de-proscribing the LTTE in U.K. and in the E.U., which Keith Vaz and others were pressing for, the State Minister, despite his defending the ban, conceded that a dialogue with the LTTE was necessary, the dialogue had to be of a high order. He even conceded that the British govt. made contacts with the IRA despite the policy not to enter into dialogue with them, and that he was prepared to speak to the Home Secretary ( regarding the ban on the LTTE ) if he thought it necessary.

If this was a fully orchestrated exercise, as it seemed, its corroding effect on the govt’s policy has to be taken due note of. Here is a case where the British govt’s policy on terrorism is clashing with its electoral fortunes. In the final analysis, what would be the Labour govt’s choice? That Britain’s problem with the IRA is now settled, there is no longer any compulsion to proceed on the hard line as far as the domestic situation is concerned. The sermons about the failure of the military option and emphasis on the dialogue on the IRA issue, which the govt. itself was confirming, are important pointers to the direction that the British govt. may want to follow eventually in respect of Sri Lanka.

However, the abandonment of violence and surrender of arms having been two major considerations in the IRA issue, the British govt. is morally bound to adhere to these two principles, the least to abandonment of violence as a precondition for de-proscription. That is exactly what Minister of State did through his opening speech. The British govt. cannot fault with President Mahinda Rajapakse for telling U.S.Asst. Secretary of State, Richard Boucher that the LTTE should cease violence for the govt. to cease military operations.

The direction in which other Labour M.P.s were trying to persuade the govt. to follow were:

(a) for a greater role for the Commonwealth and more so, for the UN (a UN Monitoring Mission on

Human Rights);

(b) lifting of the proscription on the LTTE;

(c) to hold a Summit in London between the GOSL and the LTTE. This is the proposal coming from the ``All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils"

Contents of the Debate

But looking at the way the debate surfaced, its timing, and circumstances, isn’t the writing on the wall crystal clear judging from Mr. Hughes’ observations about future aspirations of the Tamil people to be independent and the obligations of the international community in such event, the call for de-proscription of the LTTE by others (Govt. ranks), for the appointment of a Commonwealth /UN Monitoring Mission (Lobe) and the formation of an All Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils, besides the one-sided approach by spokespersons are not situations over which people in Sri Lanka can remain undisturbed as the High Commissioner expects them to be.

On the question of future aspirations of Tamils to be independent and the international community’s obligations to recognize such independence, is exactly a problem that other communities and the GOSL are concerned about. By raising this prospect, Mr.Hughes has done an excellent service to expose the true aspirations of the Tamils he is in contact with, but at the same time one can see how the parliamentary debate has proved counterproductive by creating even more suspicions than that existed up to now.

It now confirms that the British parliament, wittingly, or unwittingly, is becoming a party trying to create not just a Quebecoise situation (the Canadian Constitution has certain safeguards like the agreement of other states) but one leading to a Bosnian situation through international intervention?

That is going beyond what India was expecting, if India’s outspoken position could be trusted. India herself already faces pressure from the States against over- centralization but has been able to resist that with her mighty power behind the centre including the armed forces. How she nipped such tendencies in the bud is already history, both under Premier Nehru and Indira Gandhi (Punjab and Kashmir under the latter). That background might give some credence to what India says.

Mr. Chilott might say that the debate was a free discussion and the views expressed other than by govt. spokespersons did not represent the British government’s views. True enough! However, he himself says there will be questions now (in Parliament), MPs will form into Committees etc. So, it is going to have a catalytic effect, as I said.

One need not be an expert political analyst to see that the debate in the British parliament followed certain trends as expected. The Labour govt. plunged into it, the Minister of State, Kim Howells opening the debate. It may seem there was no alternative as the debate, from all accounts, was very much a Labour Party move with the Liberal Democrats backing it to the hilt. It was also timed for the local government elections.

As Neville de Silva reporting from London pointed out, the debate took place the day before the elections to local govt. bodies in England and Parliaments of Scotland and Wales. The Labour Party’s support base had shown a sharp drop in recent opinion polls. As such, the situation had to be remedied before the elections. For this, the support of the Tamil Diaspora which normally voted Labour or Lib.Demos had to be garnered. If the Govt. did not take the initiative the opposition would have gained though the Conservative position on the LTTE was a hard one. The Labour rank and file and more particularly, the Lib Demos did not hide that they were representing the concerns of the Tamil Diaspora which forms an important segment of their respective constituencies. Generally, the Tamil vote has been for them. The parties had to reciprocate now on the eve of local elections.

Simon (Hughes (Lib Demos) even went to the extent of saying that he was representing the Tamil voice. He even named some of the Councillors in his Boroughs and a Mayoress who were Tamils!)