Minister Peiris meets the new External Affairs Minister of India

 ( November 02, 2012, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Minister of External Affairs G. L. Peiris who is in New Delhi for the 12th Meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) that is currently chaired by India, met the Minister of External Affairs of India, Salman Khurshid, on 2 November. This was the first meeting between the two ministers since Minister Khurshid’s appointment as the External Affairs Minister of India.

The ministers used the opportunity to discuss briefly, key issues of importance to the two countries and agreed that the 8th Session of the India-Sri Lanka Joint Commission chaired by the Ministers of External Affairs would be convened in New Delhi in January 2013. The Joint Commission between the two countries is a structured mechanism that discusses all areas of bilateral relevance for cooperation between India and Sri Lanka including trade, services and investment, development cooperation, science and technology, and culture and education. The last meeting of the Joint Commission was held in Colombo in November 2010.

Read More

G. L. Peiris and his sermon in the UNGA

 | by S. V. Kirubaharan

( October 13, 2012, Paris, Sri Lanka Guardian) Last month, the 67th session of the UN General Assembly - UNGA commenced under the Presidency of Mr. Vuk Jeremic, (ex- Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia), the youngest ever UNGA president – 37 years old.

Any Presidency of UN bodies rotates annually among the five regional groups - Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin American & Caribbean and Western Europe & other States. On that basis, the 67^th session was Eastern Europe’s turn. Serbia and Lithuania posed their candidates and Serbia was elected.

Before the birth of Serbia, Mr. Vuk Jeremic was in the public service of Yugoslavia as an Advisor to the Minister of Telecommunications.

Sri Lanka has been a member State since 14 December 1955. In 1976, Sri Lanka’s representative Mr Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe held the Presidency of the GA, on behalf of the Asian group.

Voting in the UNGA

Each UN member state has one vote in the UNGA. Whenever votes are counted, member states can vote ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Abstain’. A two-third majority is required in the election of members to the Security Council. All other voting can be decided by a simple majority. Nowadays, UN bodies take special efforts to achieve consensus rather than deciding by formal voting.

It is to be noted, a Member State with arrears in payment of its dues to the UN for two preceding years can lose its voting right. However, an exception is allowed, if the Member State can show that conditions beyond its control contributed to this inability to pay - article 19 of the UN Charter.

Presently five member states are in arrears of payment as of September 2012. They are: Central African Republic, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome & Principe and Somalia.

6 main Committees in the UNGA

There are six main Committees in the GA. They are – (1) First Committee (Disarmament and International); (2) Second Committee (Economic and Financial); (3) Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural); (4) Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) deals with political subjects not dealt by the First Committee; (5) Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) and (6) Sixth Committee (Legal).

There are also two other Committees within the GA. They are (1) Credentials Committee and (2) the General Committee.

The Credentials Committee examines the credentials of representatives of UN member states and reports its findings to the General Assembly. The General Committee meets each session to review the progress of the General Assembly and its committees. They make recommendations.

Now let me consider the general debate of the 67^th session of UN General Assembly held between 25 September and 1 October 2012.

Mr. Vuk Jeremic President of the GA said the following in his opening speech:

“Lack of clarity or selective enforcement, on the other hand, can quickly erode the basis for trust. This can easily lead to a situation in which nothing more than lip service is paid to the principles, and the rules lose virtually all meaning.

“Such a scenario is clearly not in the interest of this Organization. We must take decisive action to prevent it from ever coming to pass. I strongly believe that essential to such efforts is reinforcing respect for the equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity of UN Member States.

In taking up this critical issue, let us not forget that peace is not merely the absence of war. It also necessitates the reconciliation of those who are at odds. Only by so doing can we ever produce what a great New York philanthropist called, more than a century ago, “the enthronement of lasting peace a victory without tears.” (Excerpts)

http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/67/statements/statements/September/gd25092012.shtml

Everyone is aware that Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008 and many UN member states have recognised Kosovo. However Kosovo has still not made its application to become a member state in the UN. But the Republic of Kosovo is a member country of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund – IMF.

67th session and Sri Lanka

On 1 October 2012, Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs (SL MoEA) Prof G.L. Perris gave his sermon at the 67^th session. His full speech had already been published in various media.

SL MoEA’s sermon in the UNGA contained many lies, exaggeration and hypocrisy. Unfortunately civil society has no opportunity to challenge his statement in the GA. Therefore it is our duty to highlight the shortcomings in Prof Peiris’ statement and bring the same to the attention of the international community.

I can go from the 1^st paragraph to the last one, but here I like to give preference only to certain issues which may mislead the international community.

SL MoEA said, “In the conduct of international relations, Sri Lanka, a founding member of the NAM, firmly upholds the tenets of peaceful co-existence, mutual respect for each others’ sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and equality and mutual benefit. Sri Lanka believes that in the settlement of international disputes, action must be based on the fundamental principle of sovereign equality of states, a principle firmly enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The noticeable recent tendency to selectively and arbitrarily intervene in the internal affairs of states flies in the face of this principle and dilutes the confidence so carefully nurtured in the UN system”. 

In the Sri Lankan context, any political statement that the government makes about “internal affairs” is null and void. Look back at the speeches made from J. R. Jayewardene onwards. When India and other counties make objective and critical statements on the situation in Sri Lanka, in line with the UN system that promotes and protects human rights, Sri Lanka simply dodges the issues by saying the issues are “internal affairs”. When the same countries make favourable statements about Sri Lanka – they use those extensively for propaganda and the “internal” issue will not rise. That is calculated selectivity.

Therefore SL MoEA’s statement to the GA, objecting when states “arbitrarily intervene in the internal affairs of states” obviously indicates that India and a few other countries are pressurising Sri Lanka to make positive steps on the ethnic conflict and to put forward a plan for a political settlement. In fact, Prof Peiris was sent to the GA to speak strongly against other countries “interfering” in Sri Lanka’s “internal” matters. This is routine. Sri Lanka did the same in the 80s.

An Italian proverb says, ““Fool someone once, shame on you; fool him/her twice, shame on them as well” I do not think Sri Lanka, especially Rajapaksa’s regime can fool the international community again and again.

SL MoEA introduces a new phenomenon implying that there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’approach. In other words international norms and standards can be ignored at a whim. Professor, then what about terrorism? You, your President and each Sri Lanka government repeatedly and systematically took advantage of 09/11, in a ‘one size fits all’ approach and did everything possible, benefitting the maximum from the international community and Sonia Gandhi of India.

Today India is paying its price for ignoring regionalism and blindly supporting your government. You extend no thanks to the international community and India in return, preferring to announce in the GA that, “Three years ago, our Government ended the terrorist challenge largely through its own efforts.” Let India delve into its archives and realize its mistakes.

SL MoEA talks about GDP growth rate between 2009 and 2011, especially referring to the Northern Province. According to his speech, Sri Lanka must be one of the most self-sufficient and prosperous countries.

Well and good. Will he ask his President, sorry his Defence Secretary, whether he will allow independent Economists to go through the figures that you quoted in the UNGA to see whether Sri Lanka GDP’s growth figures between 2009 and 2011 are genuine?

Also you said that “To improve basic living standards, 4% of GDP has been distributed to qualifying households for providing education, health services, food subsidies, food stamps and subsidized credit”. This is pure exaggeration.

Whoever is interested in these matters should go through the local news papers. It cannot be denied that there are very few independent newspapers. But even the pro-government media is critical of the economic situation and lack of funds or absence of funds for education, heath, etc.

Professor don't you read the local news papers? Why are concerns of the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations – FUTA growing so strong? Why are you fooling the World by telling unrealistic stories?

It is interesting to note that Prof Peiris says that, “Cellular phone penetration is over 100%.............”I do not think anyone can deny this figure. In every abduction and killing of anti-government activists, many new cellular phones are used and at the end of those operations, cellur phones are dumped into rivers or into the sea. So there is no doubt that Cellular phone penetration is over 100%!

SL MoEA says, “Women, being literate, also encourage their children to focus on education and aspire to higher goals”.

This is another exaggeration. Professor, why can’t you tell the world how many women have been widowed by your government, not only in the North and East, but also in the South? How many children are still waiting to see the return of their loved ones - father, mother, and their kith and kin? It is disappointing to note that none of these affairs were mentioned by the SL MoEA in GA.

What he says about children may indeed be applicable, but only to the children of privileged families and dictatorial leaders like Rajapaksa, Mervyn Silva, Keheliya Rambukwella and others.

Who is the 1^st Elected Woman Prime Minister?

SL MoEA said in the GA that, “I note with pride that Sri Lanka produced the first elected woman Prime Minister in the world in 1960”.

In fact, this claim has long existed without being properly analysed. I will be brief.

First of all, Prof Peiris’s claim that “Sri Lanka produced the first ELECTED woman Prime Minister in Sri Lanka in 1960” is not true.  It is surprising to note that a person, who travels around the World to lecture about the Mahinda chinthanayai (Mahinda’s thought), Sri Lankan style of democracy and good governanance, doesn’t know the simple fact that Mrs. Bandaranaike was not elected first woman Prime Minister in the World! This honour goes to Indira Gandhi of India - not to Srimavo Bandaranaike!

I seriously doubt whether President Rajapaksa who is hostile to the Bandaranayake family is twisting or manipulating things in order for Mrs Bandaranayake to lose the honour that she was the 1^st Woman Prime Minister in the world”.

Hope SL MoEA will agree with me that still there are rumours, unanswered questions and doubts about the assassination of S.W.R.D. Bandaranayake, who was the husband of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

According to the Supreme Court verdict in May 1961, Buddhist Monk Somarama Thero shot dead S.W.R.D Bandaranaike and this Buddhist monk and two others – another Buddhist MonkBuddharakkita Thero and Piyasena Jayawardena were sentenced to death.

It is to be noted that the Buddhist Monk Somarama Thero converted himself to Christianity before he was hanged on 6 July 1962.

Weeping widow

Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike reached the position of Prime Minister through the upper house of Parliament, the Senate. Then Senator M. P. de Zoysa stepped down, making way for Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike to be appointed as a Senator and she became Prime Minister on 21 July 1960. This is the history. We cannot allow Prof. Peiris to spread lies and exaggerations about realities in Sri Lanka. Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was known among the politicians as the “weeping widow”, using her emotion tactically to gain others support.

It is a pity that the Professor still plays the same music that was played during the war. Which country on earth other than Sri Lanka’s club mates  - China, Cuba, Iran and Pakistan, will believe what he says about “…..redressing the grievances affected by the internal conflict. This initiative has been regrettably delayed by some opposition parties failing to nominate their representatives.” 

The truth is, professor, that for your smokescreen international propaganda and hollow pledges you need the Tamil National Alliance - TNA to participate in the Select Committee. This would help your government access all pending loans and other financial benefits held by various countries and institutions.

Select Committee is a hoax

If it is a genuine call for the TNA to take part in the Parliamentary Select Committee, your government should set an agenda – a road map, indicating the period of talks/negotiations, time frame for reaching a final solution, etc. Sri Lanka is using the term ‘Parliamentary Select Committee’ to mislead and misinform the international community. It is another elaborate hoax.

Within the last 65 years, on how many occasions have the Tamils been taken for a ride on ‘political solutions’ by various governments? How many peace pacts, accords and agreements on cession of hostilities were signed by various Tamils leaders with the Sri Lankan government? If one analyses those, it is so obvious that all those pacts and accords were used by the Sri Lankan government for their own benefit rather than settling the ethnic conflict.

If Prof Peiris goes through all the speeches that he, his President and his colleagues made regarding the political solution during the war and after the war, he can easily see for himself how the original positions changed. This is all simply to buy time until they fulfill the governments’ sponsored Colonisation, Buddhisation, Sinhalasisation and Militarisation of the North and East.

Tell the World frankly, professor, whether President Rajapaksa believes in the ‘Mahavamsa’? If so, when the Mahavamsa says the Island belongs to the ‘Sinhala Buddhist’ only, how can he agree with a political solution to the Tamils or equal rights to the Tamils?

(SL MoEA) says, “Sri Lanka continues to resolutely support all multilateral efforts to enhance peace and security, and eliminate all forms of terrorism.  In our collective quest to eradicate terrorism, the selective application of principles and double standards must be avoided. Terrorism from wherever it emerges must be resolutely counteracted.”

Weeping Foreign Minister

In your speech you stated: “The illicit transportation of migrants to greener pastures overseas by criminal networks requires our collective attention. The pull factors as well as the push factors of this criminal enterprise must be examined.” was received.

In fact Prof Peiris should direct his concerns about ‘transportation of migrants to greener pastures’to Rajapaksa’s family, and speak with them rather than in the GA. He should make some effort to meet the President’s son Namal Rajapaksa. In fact, it is Rajapaksa’s government encouraging the Tamils to escape from Sri Lanka. President Rajapaksa’s son Namal Rajapaksa was accused of being behind human trafficking rings which operate from the North in Mullaithevu. It was in the press that he arranged ships for Tamils to escape from Sri Lanka to seek asylum in Australia. It was alleged that those shippings were supported by the Sri Lanka military governor of the North, several Ministers of the cabinet and the Sri Lanka Navy. Is this part of evacuation of Tamils from Sri Lanka to implement the Mahavamsa’s theory?

The professor was weeping about the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. He underscored the importance of; “… the restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Sri Lanka fully supports the implementation of all relevant UN Resolutions on Palestine that would pave the way for the achievement of Statehood for the Palestinian people and bring lasting peace to the region.”  

Professor this is a fine example of double standards. You have your own problem at home. Without finding any solution to it, you say you support the Palestinians. Whenever someone talks about the ethnic issues in Sri Lanka, you and your government say that it is an ‘internal’ problem.

In his speech in the General Assembly, Prof. Peiris says, “Sri Lanka unreservedly condemns the defamation of all religions and religious leaders. While the right to free speech is fundamental to our value system, that right should not be abused to hurt the feelings of the faithful whether they are Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews or followers of other faiths. All available mechanisms must be employed to prevent the defamation of all religions and the exploitation of religious symbols for commercial purposes.”

Well, where did all those available mechanisms disappear in Sri Lanka when there were problems with Muslims in Anuratharapura, Dambula and other places? When the Christian churches were destroyed by Buddhist monks. Not forgetting forced Buddhisation in the North and East.

In conclusion, I must agree with him at least on one point. Like Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1960s, Prof Peiris is a “Weeping Foreign Minister”, using his emotion tactically to gain others’ support.

Rather than weeping in international forums, a representative of a failed state with a horrendous human rights record should be able to tell the truth, expound on realities and put their own house in order. That would be a better way forward. (End)

Read More

Our accomplishments are quite remarkable

| by G. L. Peiris

Address to the General Debate of the 67^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Minister of External Affairs, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

( October 2, 2012, New York City, Sri Lanka Guardian) On behalf of the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, I congratulate Your Excellency, on your election as the President of the 67^th Session of the UN General Assembly. Your proven skills and charming personality leave no room for doubt, that under your able leadership we will achieve our goals for this session.

Sri Lanka is also pleased to endorse the theme proposed by you for this year’s high-level debate “Adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations by peaceful means in the multilateral global governance system” - a most appropriate theme in these trying times.

The United Nations has provided the premier forum for 67 years for the resolution of international disputes and the negotiation of landmark global goals.  In fact, many conflicting aspirations of Member States have been reconciled through the intervention of the United Nations or through the auspices of this august body and its agencies.  Some disputes, unfortunately, have taken time to resolve, or remain unresolved, but overall, the results have contributed to longevity of this institution. The United Nations provides an extensive range of options for resolving international disputes and achieving common goals. It is a forum for negotiations, it provides mediation options and good offices, and it is where principled solutions are found. The International Court of Justice provides the major judicial mechanism for the resolution of inter-state disputes.

In the conduct of international relations, Sri Lanka, a founding member of the NAM,  firmly upholds the tenets of peaceful co-existence, mutual respect for each others’ sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and equality and mutual benefit. Sri Lanka believes that in the settlement of international disputes, action must be based on the fundamental principle of sovereign  equality of states, a principle firmly enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The noticeable recent tendency to selectively and arbitrarily intervene in the internal affairs of states flies in the face of this principle and dilutes the confidence so carefully nurtured in the UN system. 

The global financial crisis has posed a major challenge to the entire international community.  It  originated in the financial hubs of the world and created serious existential challenges worldwide, in particular, to developing countries. The cavalier attitudes of the financial markets in developed countries, operating without proper regulation, have resulted in the disruption of millions of lives and the social fabric of many societies. The number enduring extreme poverty has been augmented by millions. Full recovery from this crisis remains an uncertainty, as unemployment and debt remain at unsustainably high levels, complicated further by the devaluation of reserve currencies. The cumulative impact of this financial meltdown in developed countries has deeply impacted on the efforts of these countries to achieve transformational socio-economic change and has also impeded progress in realising the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). 

In this context, it is of the greatest importance to ensure that any strategies  employed to achieve recovery, do not impose unjustifiable burdens on developing countries, as they strive to achieve better living conditions for their people. A recovery without uplifting the developing countries simultaneously will be unsustainable. It is paradoxical that it is the same countries where the financial crisis originated, which now seek to provide policy prescriptions to others.   While the end result is still in the realm of uncertainty,  global discussions continue and the voices of developing countries are an important element in this. Concerns expressed at these negotiations and consultations must be reflected in any new policy guidelines adopted.  There cannot be a “one size fits all” approach. The views of all and the experiences of the successful, especially the newly emerging economies, must be taken into account.

It is noted that many countries of the South have weathered the financial storm successfully. The lessons learnt from the previous crises have served them well and precautionary measures to minimize the negative impacts of the current crisis have been taken. These experiences must also be an important element in the eventual solutions developed. Sri Lanka’s economy, which has been carefully managed during this period,  is one of the Asian economies which has recorded impressive gains.  A growth rate of 8.2% was achieved in 2011. Since the end of the conflict in 2009, the areas                                                                                                                                                                                                              formerly controlled by the terrorists, the Northern Province, recorded a 27% GDP growth in 2011. The exponential boom in agriculture and fisheries has contributed substantially to this result.

A significant aspect of the process of addressing the financial crises, must be a restructuring of the global financial architecture. It is important to note that global financial power has shifted over recent times from the industrialized North to the power houses of the South. It is imperative that the global financial institutions reflect these tectonic changes in the international arena. They must now be reflected in the global structures, including the UN, its agencies and other multilateral institutions. The UN can play an important role  towards achieving this end.

We are at a significant juncture in human history when climate change looms as the greatest challenge to the very existence of humanity. The future of our children is at stake. Carbon Dioxide emission levels, historically caused largely by a small number of industrialized countries, have impacted adversely on the climate and have given rise to  global warming and climate change. It may be too late already. Recurrent droughts, uneven rain, glacier melt, receding polar ice, sea level rise, unusual weather patterns, all seem to suggest a global environment in crisis. A substantial majority of scientists  agree. Many developing countries, including my own, are still struggling to regain lost opportunities and improve the livelihood of their people while staring global warming in the face. Our carbon footprint also remains negligible.  It is imperative that the developed world deliver on its solemn undertakings to assist developing countries, as we seek the common goal of arresting climate change caused by human induced causes.    

The North - South divide, ideological differences and resource gaps remain a hindrance to global equity and the advancement of humankind. There are vulnerable countries which are struggling to develop their national infrastructures despite being handicapped by inadequate natural resources, limited access to technology and a lack of opportunities to engage in international markets. Our common challenge, and, here the UN must play a central role, is to identify how we can formulate practical common policies to achieve our social goals, reduce poverty and maintain gender equity while protecting the environment for future generations. The countries of the North have a major role to play here.

 The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development- Rio+20, held in June this year demonstrated the efficacy of the UN processes. It resulted in a global compromise, including the acknowledgement of the “common but differentiated” principle, and inspired hopes of securing policy approaches to address the multifaceted and, sometimes conflicting, developmental concerns in the context of environmental sustainability. While the end result may not satisfy the lofty expectations of all countries, including my own, it has provided a solid foundation for us to persevere to achieve higher goals through a global negotiation process. The advancement of these policies and approaches is expected to further contribute to creating a sustainable world for both present and future generations.

The potential of the green economy will be less attractive if we do not clearly understand its long-term consequences at a national level on sustainable economic strategies. The transition to a green economy must not generate negative externalities that would retard economic growth, perpetuate societal inequity and poverty. Assistance to developing countries under North-South Development co-operation mechanisms must take into account global initiatives to mitigate the adverse consequences of too rigid an application of green economic principles. The efforts of developing countries themselves in this regard must be recognized and further facilitated. My own country has successfully conserved a significant percentage of its forest cover, almost 22% of the land area, with the goal of increasing it to 35% by 2020.  The use of CFCs has been eliminated. We have also successfully ensured that a herd of over 7,000 elephants still remain in the wild despite the hunger for land by an expanding population. Our carbon foot print is a meagre 0.6 tons per head.  Simultaneously, we will achieve the goal of energy for all in 2012 while realizing a 20% saving through efficiency measures.

  Sustainable Development Goals should not only have clear links to the MDGs, but must also reflect emerging global development challenges. Mutually agreed elevated SDG benchmarks would further stimulate development partnerships especially in the form of South-South co-operation. However, such partnerships must complement rather than be an alternative, to North-South development co-operation.

As Member States of the UN, we must respect the principles patiently negotiated by the international community: the equality of rights, the equal sovereignty of all States, and the right to development, as underlined in the Rio+20 outcome document. The interests of the developing world must be protected. Hence, no constraining  conditions should be applied to development models or approaches adopted by Member States which could prevent the achievement of sustainable development while eradicating poverty.

The middle-income countries are the main driving force for strengthening our global economy. Sri Lanka’s balanced socio-economic policy strategies propelled us to middle-income status a few years ago. As we have repeatedly emphasized, the entry of

countries to middle-income status does not by itself provide a resolution to the issue of poverty and other developmental challenges.

The success in achieving sustainable development worldwide depends on the sustainable development measures of individual countries. Some specific challenges require close attention and appropriate  assistance within the framework of international cooperation. In this regard, the responsibility of middle-income countries to receive effective international assistance should be re-enforced by the UN system and other development cooperation mechanisms.

I wish to mention that Sri Lanka employs a unique development strategy that empowers citizens, with special attention to social development needs. It has continued to achieve transformational change in the lives of its people by effectively mobilizing available resources and through the delivery of sustainable and citizen-centered programmes. Sri Lanka has emphasized synergistic interactions between healthcare and education, public infrastructure development, including improved water and sanitation, and  transport and communication, especially under an integrated regional development approach.  We enjoy a 98% literacy rate with the score for girls being higher. Our ICT literacy rate is following a path of exponential growth. Cellular phone penetration is over 100%. 85% of the population has access to potable water. We believe that the investments, which brought these results, are essential if  states are to build a healthy, literate, productive and entrepreneurial human resource base. The success of this strategy is reflected in Sri Lanka's high-ranking in the human development index.

Sri  Lanka  has  achieved  many  of the MDGs and is on track to realise all of them by 2015, including the eradication of poverty. Eradicating  poverty  and  improving the  quality of  life of our people has been the  cornerstone of social development policies in Sri Lanka  over many decades. Sri  Lanka's  key policy document, “Mahinda Chintana – Vision for the Future”, has set specific  targets  to combat  poverty  within the  MDG  framework. A   range  of  projects   has   been  designed  for  the   eradication  of  poverty  by 2016.   Through  “Gama  Naguma” and  “Divi Naguma”   programmes  we have been addressing rural poverty eradication and ensuring food security. These programmes continue to promote the concept of self-employment, directing financial and technical assistance to youth and women in rural areas, including those who suffered from the terrorist conflict. The absolute poverty level in Sri Lanka declined to 7.6% in 2011 from 15.2% in 2005. The per capita income increased from US$ 1,062 in 2004 to US$ 2,836 in 2011. To improve basic living standards, 4% of the GDP has been distributed to qualifying households for providing education, health services, food subsidies, food stamps and subsidized credit.  Even during the height of the conflict, the Government of Sri Lanka maintained schools and hospitals in the conflict affected areas and food and medical supplies were sent to these areas despite crashing artillery shells and whizzing bullets.

The contribution of women in Sri Lanka’s successful realization of most of the  MDGs is significant. Women, being literate, also encourage their children to focus on education and aspire to higher goals. The traditional knowledge of mothers on maternal health, coupled with their educational background, has contributed significantly to reducing the child mortality rate to 8.9 per thousand and the maternal mortality rate to 39 per 100,000 live births. It is through the participation of women, that Sri Lanka has been recognized for its achievements in the WHO breastfeeding promotion and immunization programmes. I note with pride that Sri Lanka produced the first elected woman Prime Minister in the world in 1960.

Though it was a challenging task for Sri Lanka to balance resource mobilization while fighting a war against terrorism, our government has launched many progressive programmes, especially on poverty reduction and citizen empowerment.  We have made genuine efforts to ensure that the fruits of economic development are equally distributed and are accessible, especially to the most vulnerable sectors of society. We have ensured that social mobility is not confined to the privileged in the towns and cities of the country, but penetrates deep into the rural sector.

Three years ago, our Government ended the terrorist challenge largely through its own efforts. Sri Lanka is firmly committed to redressing the grievances of all parties affected by the internal conflict.  

After the release of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), an action plan to give effect to its recommendations expeditiously  has been adopted. A comprehensive National Action Plan for Human Rights with specific time lines has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.  The Government has also proposed a transparent and democratic process under a Parliamentary Select Committee to address post-conflict reconciliation issues.  This initiative has been regrettably delayed by some opposition parties failing to nominate their representatives. 

Sri Lanka exemplifies the challenges faced by a society emerging from the shadow of a sustained conflict which spanned three decades, and entering upon an era of peace and stability. The gradual diminution of these challenges and the brevity of the period which has elapsed since the end of the conflict, leave no room for doubt as to the degree of success achieved by the Government of Sri Lanka in respect of a wide range of issues relating to development and reconciliation. It is only about three years since the conflict ended.

Prioritization was a central feature of the government’s plan of action.  The progress on the ground during the last three years with regard to the resettlement of internally displaced persons, (all internally displaced persons have been resettled),  the re-integration into society of thousands of ex-combatants after exposure to programmes of livelihood skills training which equipped them to earn their living with dignity and independence, the rapid completion of the demining process, and the unprecedented focus on infrastructure development leading to very visible invigoration of the economy of the Island as a whole, and the Northern Province in particular, is quite apparent.

The experience of Sri Lanka demonstrates that, given the quality of dynamic leadership and unwavering commitment which His Excellency President Mahinda Rajapaksa provided, an effective political and military strategy and strong rapport with all sections of the public, it is possible to prevail against the most ruthless forces of terror.  No one has greater commitment to reconciliation in an all-inclusive spirit than the government. Unhelpful external pressures that support narrow partisan interests could easily derail the initiatives which have produced substantial results and peace on the ground, as we begin a new and exciting chapter in our country’s history.

Our accomplishments are quite remarkable, considering that many developing countries continue to struggle for equitable social development, together with economic advancement. We are always ready to share our experiences with other countries. What we have achieved is not only for us but for all of humanity.

In the international community’s quest to bring some semblance of equity in economic development across the continents,   we must maintain increased focus on Africa, especially through South- South cooperation. Sri Lanka is expanding its engagement vigorously with the region, especially in matters relating to trade, investment, tourism and technical assistance.

All our current endeavours should seek a stronger focus on children and  youth who are  the custodians of our future. Therefore, empowering them with marketable  skills, including  knowledge of new technologies and vocational training, would enable them to be independent contributors to our economy. Thus, a strong link between education and vocational training policies has created a conducive environment where our younger generation will drive the global development strategies.

We have continuously supported UNGA resolution 66/6 and the need to end the unjust economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. Unilateral sanctions of this nature, which harm ordinary people, should have no place in modern international intercourse.

Terrorism remains a scourge in the contemporary world, threatens our societies and impedes the socio-economic progress of our people.  As a country which has emerged from ruthless and brutal terrorism, Sri Lanka continues to resolutely support all multilateral efforts to enhance peace and security, and eliminate all forms of terrorism.  In our collective quest to eradicate terrorism, the selective application of principles and  double standards must be avoided. Terrorism from wherever it emerges, must be resolutely counteracted.

It is established that terrorism has developed close links with transnational organized crime  in the form of cybercrime and identity theft, environment related crime, maritime piracy, smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons and drugs. Maritime piracy has emerged as a major threat to international sea-lanes and has added an additional economic burden to global trade.  Sri Lanka, as a trading nation for centuries,  supports all multinational  efforts to counter this threat.  But it is to be remembered  that piracy originates on land and any solution to piracy must also address its causes on land.

The illicit transportation of migrants to greener pastures overseas by criminal networks requires our collective attention. The  pull factors as well as the push factors of this criminal enterprise must be examined.  Sri Lanka has now implemented a National Action Plan to counteract human smuggling and trafficking. Sri Lanka also continues to cooperate closely in this regard with our bilateral and multilateral partners. As a member of the Bali process, we are committed to cooperation in capacity building, the exchange of best practices and law enforcement cooperation. At the same time we believe the necessity to share information in good faith, acknowledging that a variety of national interests of member countries is essential to counter the sophisticated human smuggling rings.

One long-standing issue that weighs on the conscience of the international community and which needs our sustained collective attention, is the restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Sri Lanka fully supports the implementation of all relevant UN Resolutions on Palestine that would pave the way for the achievement of Statehood for the Palestinian people and bring lasting peace to the region. Sri Lanka fully supports Palestine in its efforts to achieve full membership in the United Nations.

Sri Lanka unreservedly condemns the defamation of all religions and religious leaders. While the right to free speech is fundamental to our value system, that right should not be abused to hurt the feelings of the faithful whether they are  Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews or followers of other faiths. All available mechanisms must be employed to prevent the defamation of all religions and the exploitation of religious symbols for commercial purposes.

In conclusion Mr. President, Sri Lanka is currently in the process of making arrangements to host the World Youth Conference in 2014.  The primary objective will be the strengthening of youth inclusion in national decision making processes in relation to the development and implementation of the post-2015 development agenda. I extend an open invitation to all fellow member States to join hands with us to make this global event a success.

Read More