• Need to engage with SL expatriates of all ethnicities
• Unimpeded access given to UNHRC rapporteurs to visit SL
• Some domestic contributions were made towards the crisis
• Lack of knowledge, research, coordination, arrogance blamed
• Plan was to totally repeal PTA; first step was to amend the Act
• Govt. must speak with one voice, all issues must be considered
• Confident Japan will play a proactive role in debt restructuring

By Asiri Fernando The Government must speak with one voice and move to deliver on the promised domestic mechanism regarding human rights and reconciliation for Sri Lanka, Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said last week. According to the former Minister of Justice turned top diplomat, Sri Lanka cannot agree to external mechanisms advocated by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) due to its intrusive and unconstitutional nature. However, Sabry stressed that Sri Lanka would continue to work closely with all countries, including those in the Core Group that had pushed for the resolution, pointing out that Sri Lanka had diverse relationships with such nations. While conceding defeat at the UNHRC vote, the Minister argued that many countries were supportive of Sri Lanka, even though few voted against the resolution. He criticised ‘lobby groups’ for moving the goalposts for Sri Lanka, prolonging the issue.  In an interview with The Sunday Morning, Sabry argued that the categorisation of ‘economic crimes’ by the United Nations in relation to the economic crisis in Sri Lanka was problematic. Following are excerpts from the interview: Having presented Sri Lanka’s stance at the UNHRC, what is your view on the resolution? This is a longstanding resolution; it has come in various forms since 2009. The resolutions are brought in because they are brought in by the West, led by the UK and Canada. The reason behind that is that the diaspora continues to press for this.  On the other hand, the international community also wants Sri Lanka to continue to deliver on the domestic mechanisms and deliver on the promises made, so it is a two-way process. If we deliver, our standing will be better, if we don’t, we lose support. That’s the reality. Unfortunately, due to some of the obnoxious provisions, we cannot agree with it. Subject to that, we need to deliver on the domestic mechanisms promised. Now that the resolution has been adopted, what’s next for Sri Lanka? We will continue to engage on this matter. We need to engage with our overseas Sri Lankan communities of all ethnicities. Secondly, we need to continue to talk to all of the international community, including those who brought the resolution against us, because we have a diverse relationship with them in terms of trade, human rights, and shared values like democracy. Then, we need to show tangible progress on the domestic mechanisms. You had expressed concerns that some countries had ulterior motives behind supporting the resolution. What are they and how will Sri Lanka counter them? Basically, the immediate reason is the domestic pressure brought against them by overseas Sri Lankan communities. They also work as a team. Some of the concerns are shared by us; we also want to continue to improve human rights. We have allowed unimpeded access for their rapporteurs to come to Sri Lanka and they came twice this year. We are part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and have collaborated with them and the process wherever possible. However, when it comes to intrusiveness, when they tell us how we should do things, that is where our differences start to simmer. Particularly, when they tell us to do something like agree to an outside evidence-gathering mechanism, hybrid courts, and prosecute so-called allegations against our armed forces from outside the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka. To this we cannot agree, irrespective of the number of votes. We have to stand firm on that. We worked behind the curtain to avoid a resolution based on an agreed framework with the Core Group – it did not succeed. So, once the resolution is brought in, either you agree or don’t. If you agree, you agree to the outside mechanism, so we can’t allow that. We have lost the vote. This is a resolution brought by a powerful Core Group. There were nearly 30 Western countries supporting them. Despite that, they got just 20 votes out of 47, meaning that 27 countries, including those who abstained, are saying, ‘we have nothing to do with your external mechanism’. That is a message in itself.  When you look at the 20 countries which voted in favour, they are all Western allies, except Malawi, but Malawi is in the Core Group. In Asia, not a single country other than South Korea voted for it. South Korea, which commended Sri Lanka on our efforts, had to cater to its domestic compulsions – you know it is reliant on the West for its security. At the end of the day, it is about geopolitics. We have nothing against those who voted for the resolution. Thirty-eight countries spoke in favour of Sri Lanka, seven took a moderate stand. About seven countries, which comprised the Core Group and their allies, were critical of Sri Lanka. I think the overwhelming majority of the UN members are sympathetic to our situation and they may be feeling that we should have been given time and space to deliver.  Having said so, we also cannot be going there asking for extensions. This time [2022] is an exception, because of what happened in Sri Lanka during the last nine months. It is very difficult for anyone to show any tangible progress during that time. Amongst the Sri Lankan communities overseas, there is only a small group that has made this a political issue. The vast majority of others want to help Sri Lanka come out of this crisis and see the country move to a better situation.  There is a group of people who are politically established now, like during the war, and each time an election takes place they act as rabble-rousers. This is a lobby. As long as we have this problem with no solution, they are in a position to benefit from it. Therefore, we shouldn’t allow them to capitalise on and benefit from our lack of action. The only way out is for us to conduct ourselves better as a country. The Foreign Ministry is somewhat like the marketing department of the firm; I can only sell the product, so we need to prepare a good product in the country. At the UNHRC, the need to address ‘economic crimes’ was raised for the first time this year. How do you view this categorisation and will Sri Lanka move to hold anyone accountable for the current crisis? I think so, that is already happening. Some have already gone to the Supreme Court on this. Personally, I don’t agree with the term ‘economic crime,’ unless there is corruption. What happened in Sri Lanka is not unique. Some domestic contributions were made towards the crisis, nobody can deny that. However, if you look at the latest report by the World Bank, 54 countries are in danger of facing what Sri Lanka is going through. The Sri Lankan crisis had been hastened by wrong decisions. In my opinion, those wrong decisions were due to a combination of a lack of knowledge, lack of research, lack of coordination with those who have the knowledge within the current generation, and arrogance.  Arrogance is when you think you know all there is to know about something and that is how I see the problem. Crime implies that there was an intentional aspect. I doubt that anyone would intentionally create this situation. It is either from a lack of knowledge or a lack of being in touch with the ground realities, and above all from arrogance – not listening to those who have the knowledge. That was the problem. When things were going downhill, many said to go to the IMF and float the dollar. But they refused. The rating agencies continued to downgrade us, but the then Government became critical of those agencies, thereby shooting the messenger. In terms of a crime, if there was corruption and if someone had used taxpayer money, then we can pursue that. We need to revisit these decisions and find out who was responsible, so that we can formulate a clear mechanism to ensure we don’t repeat these mistakes in the future. To that effect, I think people have gone to the Supreme Court and are taking action. Regarding corruption, we definitely need to enforce the law. As for the expertise to ensure economic recovery, we are working with organisations like the IMF. What has Geneva [UNHRC] got to do with that? Nothing. We are consulting the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). I believe that there is a group of people who want to ensure that Sri Lanka is perpetually at the UNHRC. They want to keep moving the goalposts and keep Sri Lanka fixed at the UNHRC forever. Even if we deliver on human rights, they will bring in something else. If we let this continue, we will never find a way out of this. That is our concern. Any future government will be saddled with such allegations. No one wants to be stuck with this type of country-specific resolution, so we need to work towards getting out of this.   There is a small group of people shifting the goalposts. Each time we deliver, they come out with something new to do. Some of these people, who are in Sri Lanka, act for short-term political gain with no understanding of the gravity of the issue at a national level. Even if they were to come into power or whichever government that comes into power will be saddled with this, which is concerning.   Sri Lanka had announced a moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Why was this rolled back? What are your views on the concerns about the new rehabilitation bill? It was not a moratorium. What we were talking about was a de facto moratorium. We were planning to go for a total repeal of the PTA and the first step was to amend it. Bail provisions and provisions to visit suspects were given and an advisory panel was established, which solved many of the grievances. The next step is to repeal it. The Cabinet has already decided to repeal it and there is a committee led by the Justice Minister for this.   There were instances of misuse of the PTA by the Police in the past. One was the arrest of two suspects under the PTA for the 2018 killing of two policemen in Vavunathivu. Subsequently, it came to light that the suspects had no link to the crime which had been perpetrated by Zaharan and his group.  Another incident was when a grenade was found at Lanka Hospitals. The suspect who had been taken in under the PTA also had no link to the incident. Thereafter the previous President, to his credit, directed the IGP not to use the PTA unless it involved an actual terrorism-related incident. The IGP then issued a circular directing the Police to only use the PTA in instances when there was evidence of terrorism or subversive activity, anti-Government activities, and organised crime. It’s not for politicians to decide which act should be used. When a crime takes place, it is a matter for law enforcement to decide. Now the matter is before court. I think the rehabilitation bill is misunderstood. The whole idea of it is to carry out rehabilitation in a correct and smoother manner without going through a cumbersome legal process. After the war, 12,194 LTTE cadres surrendered. Imagine if all of them had been detained under the PTA and held; how long would the process have taken? They agreed on that mechanism and within two to three years almost every one of them was released back into society. I don’t think the international community, nor the local, so-called civil society give enough credit for the momentous task that was carried out. This is a similar mechanism. For example, it allows a drug addict to seek help quickly, without a cumbersome procedure. We all know how long the Sri Lankan court system takes to move on a case. If there are any gaps that may open the legislation to be abused, like the PTA, we can talk to civil society, get their views, make amendments, and introduce safeguards. We are doing this in good faith, but it has been misunderstood. In your opinion, did the demarcation of High-Security Zones (HSZs) under the Official Secrets Act, which was rolled back quickly, further damage the Government’s credibility? I think the Government should speak with one voice. The security establishment, the Justice Ministry, the President’s Office, and Foreign Ministry must take all issues into consideration when making decisions and work to resolve the issues without allowing anyone – locally or internationally – the opportunity to criticise Sri Lanka unduly. The citizens also need to give the Government some time to get Sri Lanka out of this crisis. Our tax revenue to GDP ratio is only 8%; how do we run a country on this, especially with universal free health and education? Our export revenue had dropped to 14%. We need a directional change.  These difficult decisions are being taken. I am glad a president who is competent in economic matters is looking at the larger picture and making these decisions. You can like or dislike him. Nevertheless, he understands what needs to be done. As Justice Minister, I was happily pushing through justice reforms and suddenly the funding stopped. The economy is the heart.   Why was there confusion regarding the President’s statement on Japan’s role in assisting bilateral debt restructuring negotiations? What role will Japan play? Will it co-chair a committee/summit on debt negotiations? Japan has said it has not made a decision yet.  We are very confident that Japan will play a proactive role in debt restructuring. We are currently in discussions with Japan in this regard. We don’t want to define it at this stage; we will leave it to Japan to decide. However, I can say that the discussions with the IMF, World Bank, Lazard, and Clifford Chance are going in the right direction, under the direct patronage of the President and the Ministry of Finance.   President Wickremesinghe stated that while low-level discussions with China on debt restructuring had begun, it would move faster after the Chinese Communist Party Convention. What will happen then? Yes, there has been an initial discussion about reaching out to China. I am sure we will make good progress when the main discussions begin.   The President has signalled that Sri Lanka is keen on implementing the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore. What is being done to enable this and what other trade agreements are we pursuing? Yes, we are very keen on implementing the Singapore FTA and entering into FTAs with other countries. The President’s Office is working closely with India and China on the bilateral FTA. We have recommenced FTA talks with China. We want to invite some of the Gulf states to explore FTAs with us.