|
|
 |
 |
|||
|
|
"The LTTE's record of terror is long and horrible. In the light of this record, the people of Sri Lanka will simply never be able to understand the failure on the part of the British government to proscribe the LTTE, now that it has the power to do so," Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar said in an interview last week with the 'Sunday Observer'. Following is a full text of the interview : Q. You have recently asked the British Government to proscribe the LTTE. What does proscription mean in the current context? A. In relation to an organization proscription means putting that organization beyond the protection of the law; rejecting or denouncing it as dangerous. Another popular equivalent of proscribing is banning. Q. Why didn't you ask for the proscription of the LTTE many years ago? Why now? A. We did, right from the beginning of our government in 1995. But at that time the British did not have a law that permitted proscription. Without such a law an organization cannot be proscribed. The United Kingdom now has a law, the Terrorism Act of 2000. It was enacted last July. It will come into force shortly. This law provides for proscription. Q. Under this law can the LTTE be proscribed and of so why? A. Most certainly, yes. Section 1 of the Act defines "terrorism". It means "the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action which involves serious violence against any person or property; endangers the life of any person; or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public". Further, "action" includes "action outside the United Kingdom", and a reference to the public includes "a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom". Finally, a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes "a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organization". Q. Do these definitions apply to the LTTE? A. It is very important to note that the UK Act does not limit terrorism to the use of action against civilians. Thus, the military campaign that the LTTE is waging in Sri Lanka" for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause "is terrorism. In other words, under the UK Act, it is not open to the LTTE to argue that is not guilty of terrorism because it is a national liberation organization engaged in a political or ideological struggle for a separate State, the liberation of the Tamil people, the fulfilment of their aspirations or whatever its cause may be. On the contrary, it is precisely that - the use of action, in pursuit of a cause, which involves forces against person or property - which the UK Act declares to be terrorism, and expressly forbids. Q. Recently the United Nations adopted two International Conventions on terrorism. How does the UK Act compare with those Conventions? A. The two Conventions are the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1997, and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1999. States such as Canada, France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Sri Lanka signed these Conventions on the very first day on which they were open for signature. The UK Act on terrorism is a comprehensive law. It faithfully reflects the provisions of the two Conventions. It is the first national law on terrorism to be enacted after the adoption of the two Conventions. This is very much to the credit of the British Government. Q. Could you mention some important features of these two Conventions? A. The first Convention focuses on the indiscriminate use of bombs and explosives targeting public buildings and facilities including public transportation systems. The principal obligation on States is either to extradite or prosecute terrorist offenders so that they do not enjoy safe haven in any part of the world. The Convention also provides for measures of mutual co-operation among States in preventing terrorist bombings, including fund raising for this purpose. The second Convention imposes obligations of a very specific nature on State parties with regard to monitoring and controlling financing activities. It requires banks and other financial institutions within States to adopt strict regulatory measures with a view to countering the problem of terrorist financing. It deals with the vital question of "front organizations" which are utilized by terrorist organizations for fund raising activities. Sri Lanka was one of the States seriously affected by terrorism that made representations to Western countries to curb the activities of "front organizations" which collect funds for arms purchases, thus supporting terrorist activities on the soil of another country. Both Conventions have explicitly ruled out the defence that criminal acts within their scope are justified by considerations of a political, ideological, racial, ethnic or other similar nature. Thus, the international community - and here I use that expression in the correct sense, namely, the General Assembly of the United Nations - has declared unequivocally that it will no longer tolerate the use of force in pursuit of a cause however morally worthy that cause may be. Q. If the LTTE is proscribed under the UK Act what activities would possibly be covered by the proscription? A. For many years the LTTE has had an office in the UK. It also has a cluster of affiliated or associated organizations. These front organizations have operated in the UK openly and freely in the absence of a law to prohibit or curb their activities. Under the new Act it will, in respect of a proscribed organization, be an offence for any person to belong to or profess to belong to it; to invite support for it; to further its activities; to address a meeting and encourage support for it; to address a meeting when he knows that the meeting is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to the proscribed organization; to wear an item of clothing or display an article which arouses reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organization; to invite another to provide, or himself provides or receives, money or other property for a proscribed organization and intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism; to enter into a funding arrangement if he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism; to engage in or become concerned in a money laundering arrangements in respect of terrorist property. All these are offences punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. The UK Act also casts a duty on every person to disclose information which may come to his attention in the course of a trade, profession, business or employment that another person has committed an offence relating to fund-raising or money laundering. This provision would apply to banks. Q. In a recent interview with a newspaper, the "Tamil Guardian published in London, Mr. Anton Balasingham said he had put to the British authorities four reasons why they should not proscribe the LTTE - first, that proscription will seriously undermine the current peace process since it will erode the status of British neutrality and prevent her from playing any significant role in resolving the conflict; secondly, a negative decision by Britain will seriously affect the interests of the aggrieved Tamil people of Sri Lanka whose political struggle is advanced and sustained by the LTTE which is the preponderant politico - military organization representing their interests; thirdly, Britain will seriously disappoint the global Tamil community of over 100 million people who morally and spiritually support the just cause of Eelam; fourthly, and most importantly, the LTTE is not an organization involved in 'international terrorism', "this characterization being nothing but a deluded phantasm of Mr. Kadirgamar's closed mind". What do you say to this line of reasoning? A. Let me take these reasons one by one. First, I do not see how the proscription of the LTTE under British law can undermine the current peace process which is being conducted by the Norwegians. On the contrary it should help to accelerate that process because it will strengthen the position of Sri Lankan Tamils who have renounced violence. It is they, who have pledged to follow the democratic path, who deserve the support of the entire international community rather than a terrorist organization which remains the only obstacle to peace in Sri Lanka. Moreover, a number of Irish organizations have already been proscribed under the UK law, and that has not in any way undermined the Anglo-Irish peace process. Not so long ago the LTTE spurned any suggestion that Britain might have some role to play in the Sri Lankan conflict. Now, are we to believe that the LTTE has suddenly begun to appreciate the "status of British neutrality" and genuinely apprehends that proscription will undermine the current peace process and prevent Britain from playing a significant role in resolving the conflict or is it not more likely that with the axe of proscription hanging over it the LTTE has discovered that an appeal to the vanity of the British government might help to secure a reprieve? The LTTE must remember that in dealing with a sovereign State the distribution of roles in a peace process to other sovereign States is not a matter of largesse for the LTTE. Secondly, this threadbare argument is all too familiar. As usual it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever; it is merely self-serving. As I have said earlier it is no defence at all under the UK law and the international Conventions that a terrorist act, as defined, was committed in pursuit of a worthy cause. Here one would have to define what the LTTE means by "interests" of the Tamil people. What "interests" does the LTTE uphold by killing dozens of democratic Tamil leaders, Tamil human rights activists, innocent Tamil civilians, including at times those who refuse to pay the LTTE money for their terrorist activities? Thirdly, in its anxiety to inflate its claim to widespread global support among the Tamil community the LTTE has almost doubled the population of Tamil Nadu. Again, this reason is a hackneyed, unsubstantiated assertion about moral and spiritual support for the just cause of Eelam, when the plain fact is that many hundreds of thousands of Tamils ran away from the LTTE in Jaffna itself, and many continue to escape from LTTE held areas even today. The fourth reason is the one that shows in what a blinkered world the LTTE lives. It is not Mr. Balasingham's opinion as to the meaning of international terrorism that matters. Unless he were single-handed to re-write the definition of terrorism, he must simply accept the fact, whether he likes it or not, that under the two Conventions and the UK Act itself the LTTE is clearly a terrorist organization. Q. Under the UK Act is there any discretion given to the authorities not to proscribe an organization if in all respects it is qualified for proscription? A. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs is the officer authorized to proscribe an organization. He may do so by adding an organization to Schedule 2 of the Act. That Schedule contains a list of 14 organizations, all connected with Ireland, which are already proscribed. They include the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Irish National Liberation Army, the Irish People's Liberation Organization, the Loyalist Volunteer Force etc. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organization "if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism". An organization is "concerned in terrorism" if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The LTTE clearly qualifies for proscription under all four headings. There is nothing in the UK Act which could save an organization from proscription if it is qualified for proscription. There is nothing in the Act which warrants non-proscription because some peace process might be going on or because some group of persons might be disappointed by the proscription of the organization to which they are devoted. Consider for a moment what would happen if the LTTE were not proscribed because a peace process has barely started. That process may go on for years; it may never reach fruition. In all that time the LTTE would, with impunity, be permitted to continue raising funds in the UK for terrorist activities in Sri Lanka although there is a UK law and international Conventions in force which are aimed precisely at outlawing and prohibiting the use of violence in pursuit of a cause whatever, and however worthy, that cause may be. Q. You said a moment ago that some Irish organizations have already been proscribed. Notwithstanding those proscriptions the British Government has been conducting negotiations with those Irish organizations. How do you reconcile this situation? A. I do not see anything irreconcilable about them. I would not presume to offer legal advice to another Government, but speaking as a lawyer, and not as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka, I would suggest, for what it is worth, that there is nothing in the Act which prohibits any person from speaking to any member of a proscribed organization, so long as that person does not support, encourage or participate in terrorist activities. The British Government is certainly not likely to do that if it speaks to Mr. Balasingham after the proscription of the LTTE. Q. But can Mr. Balasingham remain in the UK after the LTTE is proscribed? A. Whether he is to be prosecuted or not for any offence under the British Act, and whether he can stay in the UK or not, is entirely a matter for the decision of the British Government. Q. With your British legal background - as a UK barrister who practised before the Privy Council and as a Honorary Master of the Inner Temple - what would your reaction be if the British Government did not proscribe the LTTE? A. Well, I would, frankly, be astounded because it is so abundantly clear that the LTTE is a terrorist organization within the meaning of that expression in the UK Act. I cannot bring myself to believe that the British Government of the day which had, together with Sri Lanka and other countries, laboured hard to put in place legislative measures, both international and national, to combat international terrorism - the scourge of our times - will deliberately refrain from implementing its own law in order to protect one of the most ruthless terrorist organizations the world has seen to the detriment of another sovereign State on which that organization has inflicted grievous damage utilizing funds raised in the United Kingdom. Q. But what can the Government of Sri Lanka actually do if the British Government does not, for whatever reason, proscribe the LTTE? A. It would be a very sad day for Anglo-Sri Lanka relations. It would be an unfriendly act that would impose a considerable strain on our relations. The government and people of Sri Lanka will be bitterly disappointed. We can never forget that the LTTE assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India for which Mr. Prabhakaran, its leader, and others were convicted of murder by the Indian Courts and the LTTE was banned in India. The LTTE assassinated a President of Sri Lanka, a Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Gamini Dissanayake) and a Minister of the present government and attempted to assassinate President Kumaratunga, killing 26 persons in that act. It has assassinated a number of Members of Parliament and other politicians, including a 60 year old lady Mayoress of Jaffna and her successor; a well-known Tamil human rights activist, Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam; thousands of innocent civilians of all communities, women, children, monks. It bombed the most sacred Buddhist shrine in the world. It bombed the Central Bank and killed a large number of civilians for which the LTTE leader is presently on indictment in the High Court of Colombo. The LTTE's record of terror is long and horrible. In the light of this record the people of Sri Lanka will simply never be able to understand a failure on the part of the British Government to proscribe the LTTE, now that it has the power to do so. Q. Mr. Balasingham has made some sharp observations on what he calls the Government's "defunct constitutional proposals" and "the fundamental aspirations of the Tamil people" etc. Would you wish to make any comment? A. The Government's Constitutional proposals have been presented to Parliament after lengthy discussions with all political parties. They had the support of 12 of the 13 parties in Parliament, but could not be adopted because the Government was short of a few votes for a 2/3 majority. The Government is totally committed to a legal, constitutional and political solution of the Tamil people's problems. On the question of "aspirations" I have noted with much interest the way in which certain governments have recently stated their views. In Minister Peter Hain's recent statement welcoming, rather hastily, in my view, the LTTE's unilateral ceasefire, he went on to say: "I reiterate our support for a solution which upholds the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka whilst meeting the aspirations of all of the communities, including the Tamils". The US Ambassador in Sri Lanka recently said that the United States is against an Eelam State in the island for whatever reason, and that it wishes "to see the minorities live together with the majority community within a united Sri Lanka". In a press release from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs after my recent visit to India it was stated that "India supports the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and a negotiated political settlement of the conflict there for a lasting peace which would meet the aspirations of all elements of Sri Lankan society". The emphasis should, in my opinion, always be on the aspirations of all elements of our society. The LTTE may be concerned only with the interests of some sections of the Tamil people. There is a fair section of Tamils who do not agree with the LTTE's policies. The Government of Sri Lanka must take into account the interests of all the people who inhabit this land including all the Tamil people in working out a lasting solution to our problem.
|
|
Contact
Information: Send mail to