 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
The UNP yesterday (JUne24) said it supported in principle the setting up of the P-TOMS
for the purpose of making urgently needed assistance available to tsunami affected
people in the North and East, but also pointed out some weaknesses and flaws in the
agreement.
UNP spokesman G.L. Peiris in a lengthy statement said, "It is of vital importance that
tsunami relief and rehabilitation must be given to all affected areas in the country and that
this benefit must be conferred on all citizens of Sri Lanka including those residents in parts
of the country at present dominated by the LTTE."
Since the greater proportion of the resources required for relief and rehabilitation is being
put at our disposal by the international community consisting of governments, as well as
the non-governmental sector, the requirement of accessing and mobilising donor funds is
crucial to achieve effectiveness in respect if the recovery programme throughout the
country.
The UNP recognises that success in this task, daunting in its proportions, is dependent on
substantial and continuous donor support. The foundation of this consists of the decision
made by the Donor Co-Chairs reflected in the Brussels Declaration of 25th January 2005
to "support the Government and the LTTE efforts to strengthen cooperation on assistance
for relief, rehabilitation and development in the tsunami affected areas of the North and
East."
It is abundantly clear from this sequence of events that the signing of the agreement was
postulated by the Donor Community as a necessary condition for the release of
assistance. Since Donor assistance is urgently required for the tsunami victims, who are
undergoing intense suffering, the UNP believes that it is of critical importance to ensure
that the prompt availability of this assistance is not jeopardized in any way. It is evident that
an attempt to renegotiate the provisions of the agreement will place that aid in jeopardy.
It has been the consistent position of the UNP that issues relating to structures for the
delivery of tsunami assistance must be sensitive to the peace process and must have the
effect of fortifying and reinforcing it. The UNP has been entirely consistent in its articulation
of the principles underpinning the political solution it envisages to the ethnic problem in Sri
Lanka. The principal elements of our approach to the peace process are contained in the
letter addressed by Leader of the UNP and Leader of the Opposition Ranil
Wickremesinghe to the President on oath dated October 2004. Our Party reiterated in that
letter that our unqualified support is available for the peace process within the parameters
set out in the Tokyo Declaration and the Oslo Communique, both of which acknowledge
the pivotal principle of a united Sri Lanka. This principle is of undiminished importance in
the context of the current agreement. The public will recall that, within two weeks of the
occurrence of the tsunami tragedy on 26th December 2004, the Working Committee of the
UNP adopted a resolution directed towards mobilising the while nation to deal effectively
with a disaster of unparalleled magnitude in our country's history.
The Working Committee's Resolution of 10th January 2005 proposed the establishment of
a mechanism which allowed ample scope for participation by the Government, political
parties, and representatives of ethnic communities, international organisations and broad
segments of civil society. The functions and responsibilities of the proposed mechanism
were conceived of in strikingly comprehensive terms. Among other salient functions, it was
envisaged that the mechanism to be established would review the Needs Assessment of
the Government and the Donor Agencies, formulate a programme and plan of action to
cater for the requirements of all affected people, set up a special fund to support those
who have lost family members, their homes and equipment and means of livelihood and
establish a Community Action Committee at local authority level as a focal point for
cooperation and unity.
The letter of 10th May 2005 from the UNP Leader to the President said the UNP would
have no objection to any arrangements which were to be made with regard to affected
people in the LTTE dominated areas, provided that the arrangements fell within the
framework of the Oslo Communique and the Tokyo Declaration founded upon the principle
of a united Sri Lanka. Our Party was mindful that the Tokyo Declaration, subscribed to by
52 nations and 21 international agencies participating in the Tokyo Conference held in
June 2003 reflected the broadest conceivable consensus between the international
community and the Government of Sri Lanka ever achieved in the history of Donor
assistance to our nation.
While reiterating the generally supportive thrust of our approach to the P-TOMS
agreement, we draw attention to several anomalous or incomplete provisions of the
agreement and we place on record our reservations with regard to these areas.
Our concerns relate to the following aspects of the Agreement:
A. Section 5 (c) dealing with the High Level Committee contains provision which governs
the composition of the High Level Committee. According to this provision, the High Level
Committee consist of the following members:
i. 1 nominated by the government
ii. 1 nominated by the LTTE
iii. 1 nominated by the Muslim parties.
Since no provision is made for representation of the Sinhala community, the implication
appears to be that the nominee by the Government will be a Sinhalese. The United
National Party has consistently adopted the self-evident position that the Government of
Sri Lanka represents all the people of Sri Lanka. The implication to the contrary contained
in provision 5(c) is unacceptable. A future UNP government will act in conformity with the
principle by which we have always abided in this regard.
B. It is unfortunate that the MOU referred to as the P-TOMS agreement was signed by the
Government without the participation of the representatives of the Muslim community in the
North and East. The substantial complaint derives from the absence of consultation with
these groups in respect of a whole range of issues pertaining to the structural framework
of the P-TOMS agreement.
There is a regrettable gap in respect of Muslim representation. When the peace process
was embarked on under the aegis of our Government in 2002, the UNP considered it
important to make appropriate arrangements to give effect to the principle of participation
by the representatives of the Muslims in the North and East.
C. It is our view that clear provision should be made for the representation of the Sinhala
community. As the document now stands, there is an obvious lacuna in this respect. Since
the Government of Sri Lanka is not obliged to nominate a member of the Sinhala
community to the High Level Committee, there could well be a situation in which the
Sinhala community goes unrepresented. We think that this is unacceptable.
D. There is an anomaly with regard to the composition of the Regional Committee
envisaged by section 6 of the document. Section 6 (c) makes it clear that the Chairperson
of the Regional Committee will be a Member of the LTTE, while the Deputy Chairpersons
are nominees of the Government and the Muslim parties. As in previous agreements,
provision should be made for representatives to be nominated by the Government of Sri
Lanka, but not to function as Deputy Chair. The latter provision entails an unacceptable
relegation of the status of the Government of Sri Lanka.
E. The territorial areas within which the P-TOMS agreement will be operative are
enveloped in some degree of doubt. This is attributable to the wording used in Section 2 of
the document entitled "Scope". Section 2 (b) declares that: "The Tsunami Disaster Zone
(the TDZ) shall be defined as an area affected by the Tsunami."
This is followed immediately by Section 2(c) with the provision that: “the TDZ shall
include all that tsunami affected land area of Sri Lanka which is adjacent to the sea, lying
within a limit of 2 kilometres landward from the mean low water line." This is an inclusive, as
distinguished from an exhaustive, definition. It would therefore seem that the TDZ could, in
keeping wit', the definition embedded in this document, extend beyond the limit of 2
kilometres. This requires clarification.
F. In our view, a material omission in the document consists of the absence of any
reference to the "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (also known as the Deng
principles) adumbrated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This forms
an essential part of the core principles applicable to the functions of the structures
established by the document, and the deletion of these principles therefore constitutes a
significant deficiency.
G. There is no scope accorded in the document to the principle of subsidiary which, in our
opinion, is critical for good governance.
The thinking of the UNP in respect of all aspects of delivery of tsunami relief and, indeed,
the ramifications of the larger peace process entails a sharp focus on the responsibilities
of local government authorities, operating as they do in close proximity to the needs and
aspirations of the people of the affected areas. The omission in this regard prevents grass-
roots participation in the making and implementing of decisions. This cannot but affect
adversely the practical functioning of the mechanism.
