brand logo

Actions need to follow the words: Ambassador Denis Chaibi

31 Oct 2021

  • PTA reforms was a commitment in readmitting Sri Lanka to GSP+ in 2017
  • Sri Lanka has to show effective implementation of 27 international conventions
  • Democratic space for civil society to operate in country is rapidly shrinking
  • Nobody is of the opinion that GSP+ should be withdrawn from Sri Lanka
  • Concerns over questions voiced by media and experts about 20A impact
  • Lot of co-operation and funding has come from EU to Sri Lanka over the years
By Asiri Fernando  During the recent interactions between a visiting European Union (EU) mission and Sri Lankan authorities on reviewing the European Union’s (EU) Generalised Scheme of Preferences-Plus (GSP+) facility to Sri Lanka, everybody was of the opinion that it was very important for the country to retain the GSP+ facility, and there was a wide consensus on the matter, said EU Delegation to Sri Lanka Ambassador Denis Chaibi. In an interview with The Sunday Morning, Chaibi shared his views on EU-Sri Lanka relations, and the concerns Brussels has about extending the GSP+ trade concessions. Following are excerpts of the interview. What are the EU Parliament’s core concerns about Sri Lanka? The European Parliament passed a resolution on 10 June in which it expressed a number of concerns. It was mainly about human rights and individual freedoms, with a particular focus on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the shrinking space for civil society to operate. On the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the resolution expressed grave concern about what is perceived as arbitrary arrest and detention under the PTA, without due process and access to justice. The emphasis is on due process. In other words, for many arrested under the PTA, it would be useful to immediately give those detained a fair trial on valid charges and, if there are no charges, to look at the possibility of releasing them. The resolution also deplores the continuing discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities such as Muslims, Hindus, Tamils, and Christians. Are you satisfied with the engagement Sri Lanka provided for the recent EU GSP+ monitoring mission visit? I think that every member of the mission (five) from Brussels was very satisfied with the level of engagement from the Sri Lankan authorities. They had a meeting with the President, and a meeting with several ministers and a lot of stakeholders. So, at all levels, the mission had very good engagement with Sri Lanka, and they also appreciated the openness to discuss steps towards reform. What are the initial views of the GSP+ monitoring mission following the visit? There was feedback. I will mention three. Firstly, all interlocutors reiterated the importance of GSP+ for Sri Lankan exporters. Nobody was of the opinion that GSP+ should be withdrawn. They all thought that it was very important for Sri Lanka to retain it. There was a wide consensus on it. Secondly, the experts from Brussels clearly mentioned that Sri Lanka will have to show the effective implementation of the 27 international conventions they subscribed to, in order to gain GSP+. In other words, concrete steps are needed now to reassure EU institutions that Sri Lanka is on track with its commitments. Thirdly, again on the PTA, they made it clear that the reform of the PTA was a commitment in readmitting Sri Lanka to GSP+ in 2017. The Government has committed to review it and bring it in line with international standards. But at the same time, they need to show clear results, so that they can convince the European Parliament and the member states to keep GSP+. Now we need the actions to follow the words. The fifth meeting of the European Union-Sri Lanka Working Group on Good Governance, Rule of Law, and Human Rights was held last month. It is understood that Sri Lanka committed to reviewing the PTA and bringing it in line with international best practices in a time-bound process. How confident are you that Sri Lanka will meet the commitment by the next meeting of the EU-Sri Lanka Joint Commission next year? It is not about confidence. We are in a country that has a strong democratic tradition and therefore, we hope that these commitments expressed at the end of these meetings by ministers will be upheld. How is the EU supporting Sri Lankan efforts towards meeting international norms and standards of human rights while countering terrorism and violent extremism? Yes, we have partnered with Sri Lanka. There has been a lot of co-operation and funding that has come from the EU to Sri Lanka over the years. After the Easter Sunday attacks, we wanted to stand in solidarity with the country. So, we provided € 6 million for projects on counterterrorism and countering violent extremism. They are implemented by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Support is provided to raise awareness and for complying with international standards – for example, for preventing radicalisation in prisons; they also address prison management training prosecutors and defence lawyers. We help Sri Lanka in this issue. Obviously, this issue is a challenge that we all are confronted with. Europe has been facing it for a number of years. We know how hard it is. But we always want to uphold the rule of law, to ensure that the rights of all are protected. We want to see the rights of the victims protected; and those arrested, their rights should also be observed. It is not always easy, especially in Sri Lanka; the wounds of the Easter Sunday attacks are still open. So, now it is up to the Sri Lankan investigators to ensure that those responsible can be judged in a fair trial. So, what we are looking at is supporting the Sri Lankan authorities. But at the end of the day, for us Europeans, security and human rights go together. We don’t take it as a zero-sum game or a trade off. The more human rights you have, the more security you have in the long run. Because if people feel that their rights are respected, there will be less space and grounds for radicalisation. I know it is not always easy, especially when you have had a violent attack, as we have known in France and in Belgium. All countries face this threat. It was particularly cruel in Sri Lanka. But we have to keep the rule of law when investigating and prosecuting, because otherwise, it opens the door to abuse of legislation and that is extremely counterproductive. Does the presence of capital punishment pose a challenge to security and law enforcement co-operation between EU countries and Sri Lanka? We really welcome the fact that there is a moratorium on the death penalty, that it is not being implemented. Obviously, it (co-operation) would be easier if the law was changed and it would no longer be legally possible (to implement the death penalty). We have still managed to provide assistance despite the fact, mainly because there is a moratorium on. If Sri Lanka moves forward in suppressing this, it could have even more positive consequences. But there are other issues (that need addressing) for full-scale co-operation. The 20th Amendment (20A) to Sri Lanka’s Constitution had also been discussed at the above-mentioned meeting. Does the EU have any concerns about the 20A? We recognise that legal and democratic norms were followed in passing the 20th Amendment. So, we are not questioning the legality of 20A according to the Constitution of Sri Lanka. It is important to underline that. We have taken note of the numerous questions voiced by the media and experts about the impact of the 20A on the independence of the Judiciary and various commissions tasked with ensuring transparent governance. Many experts have voiced some concerns, and we have taken note of that. We are happy to discuss them with the Sri Lankan Government. We had a good discussion at the meeting of the Working Group on Human Rights and Governance. Has the EU addressed its concerns about the current democratic space in Sri Lanka with the Government? Yes, we discussed during the mission and at the Working Group meeting. The EU has been clear; the European Parliament resolution stated that the space in which civil society can operate in the country is rapidly shrinking. And the EU has also voted in favour of the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 46/1 and that resolution expressed concerns about the shrinking democratic space in Sri Lanka. So, we are consistent in our interpretation and our perception. It has been discussed with the Government, that explained that all the regular laws and rules have been applied. Our perception was a bit different, and we need to continue discussing it, and see how the situation can be improved. What can the EU do to help Sri Lanka combat hate speech and the spread of misinformation or disinformation? This is a global problem. Everywhere there are social networks, it seems that there is hate speech and misinformation. In the EU, it has come to a critical point and that’s why the EU introduced an action plan to combat it. We share this experience with the Sri Lankan authorities. Currently, we are supporting some projects dealing with media freedom and access to information focused on identifying hate speech and disinformation on social media. It is mainly about training people to get a better understanding of social networks dynamics and to also help them deliver an effective counter-narrative. We want to help the use of more evidence-based intervention and show more critical thinking, particularly amongst young people. Human rights and security go hand in hand. We have to make sure that fighting hate speech does not in the end restrict freedom of expression. We have to use the right tool and strike the right balance so that there is no arbitrary restriction. It is more about building critical thinking and providing counter-narratives instead of preventing people from expressing themselves. In the past, the EU has had concerns about illegal and unregulated fishing by Sri Lankan fishermen and if the local industry was adhering to international regulations. What is your assessment of those concerns in today’s context? Has the situation improved? Yes, there is a big connection between GSP+ and fisheries because it allows zero percent tariff on fish exports. So, fish can be exported at a much better rate and be more competitive in Europe, than if GSP+ was removed. Illegal fishing is a separate issue. It can trigger the interdiction of imports of fish from Sri Lanka, because the country may have carried out overfishing in the zones that are not under Sri Lankan jurisdiction. So, there are some concerns in Brussels currently about some reports of overfishing by Sri Lankan vessels. We are in consultations to try to find a way to improve the situation, because such acts, if continued, can have consequences for Sri Lanka. We are in close contact with the Fisheries Ministry and other members of the administration and hope to find a solution to help Sri Lanka meet its obligation in that sector. Sri Lanka has set a 70% target for renewable energy and the Government has extended the deadlines for a number of green energy tenders recently. Do you think there will be interest from companies based in the EU to invest in the Sri Lankan renewable sector? Firstly, I would like to commend the ambition of the Government. Seventy percent is indeed very ambitious, and it is the right signal. Sri Lanka is a country that has a lot of sun, wind, and even biomass. So, in terms of renewables, Sri Lanka is well positioned to meet such an ambitious target. However, the issue is that it will require a lot of funding and finance. We call it green finance. The situation of a country with a difficult Balance of Payments (status) and high public debt is obviously a hindrance for investors to come with debt backed by the state; with the credit rating not very positive. So, there may be some European companies which are very advanced in that sector. But from a financial point of view, we hope that the Government can get a better credit rating so that this kind of investment is facilitated in the future.


More News..