|
November 21, 2010
Opinion » Interview
Sri Lanka is now one country, my aim is to see whole nation gets
all benefits: President Rajapaksa
N. Ram
MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA: 'Everybody must agree to the solution — this
is not my personal solution! It must be a solution of the
people, a solution from the grassroots level — not imported, not
imposed by force — it must come from them. This is the solution
we want.'
- Photo: N.Ram
‘I
have a political solution in mind, it must be acceptable to
political parties and the people'; TNA's giving up separate
state demand is ‘a very good development'; Tamil people ‘want a
new leadership to be built up'; elections to Northern Provincial
Council ‘by next year'; a priority is to ‘win the hearts and
minds' of the Tamil people.
During
his first term, Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa,
underestimated by his political opponents and the outside world,
achieved overwhelming political dominance after his
politico-military strategy eliminated the LTTE as a military
force and he went on to score two big electoral victories. As he
embarks on a second presidential term, which began on November
19, he reflects on the tasks and challenges ahead in an
interview given to N. Ram at Temple Trees in Colombo.
This is Part I of the one-hour interview:
Mr.
President, you made a huge score in the first innings. As you
begin your second innings, there are heightened expectations
from many constituencies within Sri Lanka and outside. How do
you react to these?
As for
what I achieved in the first term, I have brought peace to this
country. Eliminated terrorism and brought peace. Now my aim is
to develop the country. After that, the priorities are the
people whom we have to win over — the hearts and minds of the
people. Now Sri Lanka is one country; it's not divided. So what
we want is to see that the whole nation gets all the benefits,
not only one area, not only one community. To develop the
economy so that all the people benefit.
Earlier you spoke about the three Ds, Development,
Democratisation, and Devolution. Has that changed?
No.
Development is important. Without development and peace, we
can't have democracy. Democracy is very important because we are
a democratic country. And then devolution: we have said we must
know the minds of the people. Politicians have their own
theories but people, the new generation, have different views.
What we want is reconfirmation of what they want. Definitely we
are going to have this. To have peace, we need all this.
How do
you find the response of the people of Sri Lanka when you go to
the rural areas? You won two big elections, the presidential
election and the parliamentary elections.
When I
go to villages and talk to the people, they are warm and
friendly. I feel it.
You
have no worthwhile opposition, politically speaking. Of course
there are opposition forces. General [Sarath] Fonseka came into
the picture and there are others. But after the elimination of
the LTTE and after the electoral victories, I don't see any
leader in South Asia who is so well placed, so dominant
politically as you are. How do you react to this? Do you
sometimes feel complacent?
I must
thank the people. In our democracy, people have trusted me to
deliver. They know I have delivered peace to them. Now they need
development and peace again. That is what the people expect from
us. Now, with a two-thirds majority in Parliament, after a
victory by 1.8 million — all this gives strength to me and to my
party. What the people wish to have, we have to deliver.
On the
Tamil question, the first challenge after the elimination of the
LTTE was looking after 300,000 people who were in the camps. Now
most of them have been sent back to their areas and I believe
the number in the camps has come down to 18,000.
Of
this 17,000 or 18,000, many of them are not in the camps; they
go to the villages and come back. But at least 10,000 of them
are from areas that have to be de-mined; we can't send them
there yet. But by December, we expect to send back everyone
other than the people who wish to stay there [in the camps].
Are
you satisfied with the resources that have come internally and
externally to help this process?
I'm
satisfied. Because all our friends helped us. Otherwise, we
wouldn't have been able to achieve this.
Now,
there are heightened expectations about the political solution,
the 13th Amendment-plus, that has been promised. The impression
is that there is drift here.
As you
would understand, we can discuss this only now — with all the
political parties. After the elections, we have had discussions
and they will continue. The solution that I have in mind might
not be good enough for them; they might not accept it. Not only
the political parties, the people must accept it. They want a
new leadership to be built up. After we send them back to their
villages, they have all these expectations and hopes. We must
find out from them too. I have already had discussions with our
political leaders who are in the government and who are in the
opposition.
Do you
have in mind a clear political solution, even if you have not
revealed the specifics?
Yes,
but I will first find out their views. We want to appoint a
committee, from both sides and discuss all these.
Do you
find the opposition reasonably cooperative, at least the main
opposition, the UNP?
[Laughs].
The problem is they have to survive. The Opposition has lost all
their slogans, now they have to find new slogans. It's good in a
way. But the Opposition must also remember this. They must
oppose us within the country; it is their democratic duty. They
must also realise that when we go out of the country, we all
represent Sri Lanka. The fight is here, in Sri Lanka, but not
when they go out. They must always respect the country.
This
is a principle you have followed throughout in your political
career, when you were in the Opposition also?
Yes. I
never went and tried to stop any aid or any benefits that we
got! We never went on to that. We said, ‘yes, there are human
rights violations,' because I was the one who first went to
Geneva and gave evidence in the Human Rights Commission. But we
never tried to pressurise the governments to withdraw aid and
benefits to the people of Sri Lanka.
It is
notable that the Tamil National Alliance, or the people who are
now the TNA, have for the first time said they would accept a
devolution package within the framework of a united Sri Lanka.
How do you see that?
It is
a good development. Because earlier they wanted a separate
state. It's a very good development. We can now start talking to
them.
You
expect a lot from them?
Not
only from the TNA but from all the Tamil parties. We need their
support and the [Tamil] people's support. This is very
important. They must realise that they can't get what Prabakaran
wanted — by using guns and all those weapons, by terrorism. They
can't terrorise the country that way. They must also realise
that what we refused to give Prabakaran, we won't give to
others. So they must be realistic — and fair, in this process.
They must know the feelings of the others too.
The
question is also about the sequencing: before you come to this
political agreement, the search for a political consensus on the
devolution package, why not hold elections in the Northern
Province? But even the TNA doesn't seem to be in a great hurry.
Yes,
because at this juncture we have to re-settle these people
first. They must be given their basic needs and provide for
their livelihoods.
But
they voted in the presidential and parliamentary elections even
though they were in the camps. Do you have to wait for them to
be completely re-settled now?
There
is also the need to register all of them [in the electoral
register]. We can't have elections now under the 1981 Census.
You know, in the Eastern Province, we had elections as soon as
we threw the LTTE out. But [in the North] I didn't want to have
elections when they were in camps, because the interpretation
would have been different. Now I want to have elections as soon
as possible to the Northern Provincial Council. We might be able
to do that by next year. People who want to criticise us will
always criticise us, for the low turnout and so on. But we can't
have elections under the 1981 Census!
Everybody speaks about the tremendous infrastructural
development in Sri Lanka, every part of Sri Lanka except the
areas where de-mining is yet to be completed. So you have a very
good thing going. Can't the political process be speeded up to
keep pace with this rapid development?
Unfortunately, the stakeholders were not available, some of
them. When we start that [political process], the Opposition
must cooperate. Everybody must agree to the solution — this is
not my personal solution! It must be a solution of the people, a
solution from the grassroots level — not imported, not imposed
by force — it must come from them. This is the solution we want.
Now they all want to be one country, one nation. I have been to
the North, our young MPs also have gone. We have spent billions
of rupees there. What we have spent on the Eastern Province and
on the North, we have not spent on the other Provinces. If you
compare that, we have invested massively in the North and the
East.
Because if the political agreement happens, there will be no
issue. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, the
LLRC, was set up to probe events from 2002 to the end of the war
and fix responsibility and make recommendations. We have the
successful South African model [the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission]. How do you assess the progress made in this?
I
would say, very good. They have already given us an interim set
of recommendations. I have given it to the officials to
implement. A committee has been appointed. The commission is not
meeting in Colombo only; they go to the North, they go to
villages. They go and meet the people; they don't wait till
people come to them, they go to the masses. The difference is
that. They have invited all international human rights groups to
come and give evidence. They have sent invitations to the United
Nations, so it can come and find out now. I think they are
working very well, though some of the interested parties have
their own views about the Commission.
You
have the U.N. effort, the advisory panel that the Secretary
General has set up despite opposition from the Sri Lankan
government, and the demands of the NGOs for more investigations
into alleged human rights violations. They don't seem to have
got anywhere.
I
understand the plight of the NGOs. They have to say something.
Whatever we do, finally we won't be able to change their views —
we might be able to change the views of a few of them but not
all of them. They must realise that if you talk about other
countries, conflicts are there, human rights issues are there.
You can see the difference. For example, when all the 300,000
came this side and we started building some villages and kept
them there, they said we were keeping them in ‘concentration
camps'! You went there at that time, you could see for yourself
whether they were concentration camps. When we re-settled them,
they said ‘no permanent houses.' Within six months, we have to
build permanent houses. But without de-mining, how can we go and
settle them? If we had settled them, they would have said we did
this purposely to kill these people. We have seen some of these
NGOs in Sri Lanka during election time. They went all out. One
NGO, Transparency International, its local chapter, spent [SL Rs]
109 million in 2009, and within one month, the election month,
January [2010], it spent [SL Rs] 69 million. A government
department won't be able to spend so much! This is what they did
– got involved in local politics. They want to change
governments, they want to change leaders. They don't worry about
the repercussions. Some of these NGOs are out; some of them are
working.
'The message to
my people is that I am concentrating on development work. I want
to make Sri Lanka a hub for the development of knowledge,
energy, commerce, naval transportation, and aviation. To achieve
that, our people must stay together, rally round the government
and achieve it — for the people. To the international community,
my message is they must understand our position. We defeated
terrorists, not freedom fighters. The whole world is facing this
problem. So they must realise what
we have achieved and help to develop the country, develop the
North-East. They must help us not to widen the gap between the
communities but to bring them closer.'
In this second
and concluding part of a one-hour interview given to N. Ram
at ‘Temple Trees' in Colombo,
Mahinda Rajapaksa,
Sri Lanka's President, responds to questions about his ambitious
initiative for a trilingual Sri Lanka, the role of the English
language, the contentious 18th constitutional amendment, the
jailing and conviction of General Sarath
Fonseka, the status and future of
11,000 hard-core LTTE cadres and supporters, and relations with
India.
You have taken a
special interest in language policy. You have announced a Ten
Year Presidential Initiative for a Trilingual Sri Lanka and
before that the initiative to promote English. This seems to
have been thought out over the long term. How do you see this
going?
Last year was the
Year of English and Information Technology. With that the people
started spoken English, they started learning English. So I
thought the best thing was that all Sinhalese must learn Tamil
now, the Tamils must learn Sinhala, and they must all learn
English and acquire knowledge, international knowledge. We
thought the best thing was to launch this three-language
initiative. We have set the target of 2020 and I think we can
achieve it. One issue is teachers; we have to train the
teachers. But we have to meet that challenge.
The coordinator
of this initiative, Sunimal
Fernando, told me about the findings of a socio-linguistic
survey in Sri Lanka; it showed a surprising amount of support,
even enthusiasm, among both Sinhalese and Tamils for learning
each other's language. This must have come as a surprise even to
you.
Yes but I have seen
some of this. Government servants get from [SL
Rs] 10,000 to [SL
Rs] 25,000, depending on the level
of competency, for learning a second language, Sinhalese
learning Tamil or Tamils learning Sinhala. We pay them; I don't
think any other country pays government servants like this. We
are serious about this.
In your address
in 2009 during the launch of the Year of English and IT, you
made an interesting statement. First about
Sinhala and Tamil, not merely as tools of communication but as
encapsulating values and worldviews. And English is to be
delivered purely as a “life skill” for its “utility value,” as
“a vital tool of communication with the outside world of
knowledge” and as a skill that is required for employment. Then
you go on to say something very interesting: “We will ensure
that there will be a complete break with the past where in our
country English was rolled out as a vehicle for creating
disaffection towards our national cultures, national ethos and
national identity.” So you make a qualitative distinction
between learning Sinhala and Tamil by people belonging to the
other community and English as a life skill — but breaking with
the past. So it was a real problem in Sri Lanka, the separation
of the English-knowing elite and the people?
Yes. Because
everybody thought that English was for the elite. And the elite
used it as a sword — in Sinhala it is “kaduva.”
The elite used knowledge of English as a
kaduva to cut down the others from the villages. This was
very prominent in high society, especially in Colombo; they
thought the people who didn't know English must be somebody to
be looked down upon. Now it has changed and we want to change
this attitude.
And if this
Trilingual Initiative really takes off and achieves its target,
it will really be a unique achievement. Very few countries would
have done anything like this.
Yes.
Can you tell us
about your thinking behind the removal, through a constitutional
amendment, of the two-term bar on holding presidential office?
There has been international comment on, and criticism of this
change.
The thing is I have
seen the second term of various leaders, not only in Sri Lanka
but also in many other countries. Because in
the first year [of the second term] you can work. Yes,
you make promises, you can work in
the first year. When it comes to the second year, from the
beginning the party is fighting within to find the next leader.
Government servants will be looking out to see who will be the
next leader and they will not work. And the President would be a
lame duck President from the second year [of the second term].
See what happened during the last term to [President]
Chandrika [Kumaratunga], what
happened to J.R. [Jayewardena], what
happened to others. I've seen that, so I'm not going to walk
into that trap! So I thought the best thing – whether you
contest or not, that is a different thing – would be to be free
from that [constraint]. Because during the second term of six
years that the people have given me because I have achieved
during the first term, I must have that freedom, without
conspiracies, without pulling you down among your people, among
the government servants especially.
The second term is
very important. To achieve development for the people — that was
the mandate they have given me. That's why I did that. It
doesn't mean … whether I'm going to contest a third term or
fourth term, it's not like that. Generally, this [two-term
limit] had made our leaders lame ducks during the second term.
You have told me
on more than one occasion that one of the problems with the
constitutional structure in Sri Lanka was that the President was
away from Parliament, and that you
had grown up in the parliamentary tradition and you wanted to
overcome or narrow that gap. Have you been able to do that?
Yes. Now it's
compulsory, after the 18th Amendment, for the President to go to
Parliament, at least once in three months.
This will solve
that problem?
I think so. Because
then when I have the right to go there, at least once in three
months, I can use it at any time when I think it is necessary or
useful. Even that they criticise,
saying I am trying to control Parliament! I don't want to do
that; that's why I said once in three months was enough. I don't
want to go and mess around with the parliamentary system. I want
to be there to feel the pulse of the people, to hear the
Opposition, to find out. I will give you an example. Recently,
when Ranil
Wickremasinghe, Leader of the Opposition, raised an issue
on casinos, that somebody had started a casino on government
land, I issued orders and found out it was a true story. I
immediately called Ranil and thanked
him for raising that. The Opposition's duty is to show us these
things and if I am there, in Parliament, I will be better
informed about these things. Where something wrong has happened,
we can always rectify it. It is very important that I should be
very close to Parliament.
The other issue
that is commented upon and criticised
is the jailing and conviction of your former Army Commander,
Sarath Fonseka.
Neither he nor any member of his family has asked for a
presidential pardon. Is it a political problem in Sri Lanka?
No, it's not a
political problem. The law is for all; everybody is equal before
the law. Whatever wrong things they have done, they have to face
it. People understand this. Some Opposition MPs, thinking they
can use this as a platform to gain political advantage, are
using his name. But I don't think it's a matter over which
people are excited. They are not interested.
Neither the UNP
nor even the JVP seems to have taken this up in a serious way.
No. When they want
to say something or do something, they bring this up.
One is the rule
of law and the President's role. But there is also a personal
side. He was your Army Commander, you knew him personally. How
do these two sides interact?
Yes, it's really
difficult. But whether you are the Army Commander or not, if you
do something wrong, you will have to face it. We never thought
he was a man like that, we didn't know. When he came forward as
a candidate, somebody informed and said his son-in-law was an
arms dealer. We never knew about this. He didn't admit it
either. He should have informed us. He sat as chairman of the
tender board; no Army Commander had done that earlier. We made a
man who was supposed to retire in a little while the Army
Commander. If I had known that his son-in-law was an arms
dealer, I would have warned him or tried to correct him.
There are, I'm
told, about 11,000 self-confessed LTTE cadres or supporters in
custody, hardcore elements and maybe some others. How do you
resolve this issue?
Some of them have
already been rehabilitated. Four thousand have already gone
home. We have released the children and the old people. Some of
them don't want to go; they are with us, for their own sake.
In your U.N.
address, you extended an open invitation to all Tamil expatriate
citizens of Sri Lanka who wished to come and join the
development of the country. Has there been a good response to
this?
Yes, there has been
a lot of response, including from those expatriates who want
dual citizenship. But there are also those who went away for
other reasons, but showing the conflict as the reason. Many Sri
Lankans have gone and settled down abroad and taken the
citizenship of other countries.
You have been in
close touch with Indian leaders. You have come to India; you
were the chief guest at the closing ceremony of the Commonwealth
Games; you have maintained continuous contact. Are you satisfied
with the level and quality of India's contribution to this
process, after the war ended?
Yes. Yes. Relations
have been excellent, after the war, and before the war ended. We
have been in close touch, the leaders of the two countries.
For example,
building 50,000 houses should take care of most of the housing
needs of the displaced people in the mainland
North. Then there is restoration of
the collapsed railway network in the North.
Palaly Airfield; KKS harbour;
road development projects; a power project in
Sampur in the East …
So all these projects have been given to India.
But still some of the papers are making a big fuss over our
projects and making comparisons with what we have given China.
Did the Indian
government, political leaders or officials, express concern over
this?
No, no. They are
much more mature. Because everything had
been offered to them first. The
airport, the port, Hambanthotta
harbour. Even
Sampur was offered four years ago.
We need development, rapid development. This will greatly help
the people of the North, the Tamils. People
who used to support the LTTE, those who made a big fuss over
these projects, including Professor [M.S.]
Swaminathan's blueprint for the development of
agriculture and fisheries in the North, should
realise this.
As you embark on
your second term, your new term, as President of Sri Lanka, what
is your message to your people and to the international
community? How should they respond to Sri Lanka's new situation?
The message to my
people is that I am concentrating on development work. I want to
make Sri Lanka a hub for the development of knowledge, energy,
commerce, naval transportation, and aviation. To achieve that,
our people must stay together, rally round the government and
achieve it — for the people. To the international community, my
message is they must understand our position. We defeated
terrorists, not freedom fighters. The whole world is facing this
problem. So they must realise what
we have achieved and help to develop the country, develop the
North-East. They must help us not to widen the gap between the
communities but to bring them closer. The past is past; you
don't dig into the wounds. We must think positively, not
negatively.
© The Hindu
|