The Mandate and Duties of the Peace Secretariat - 7th March 2008
The Peace Secretariat is amused at recent attempts to denigrate its role, through releases attributed to a range of sources. With regard to the ICES issue where wild allegations were made in one newspaper, and were then repeated by a letter in another that purported to comment on a release by the Free Media Movement, the Peace Secretariat has made clear what occurred through the publication of the statement it made to the CID. This was after police complaints had been registered, both by those fighting financial impropriety at ICES and by Dr Rama Mani, alleging harassment, which she obviously wanted investigated.
More serious are the suggestions that the Peace Secretariat is going beyond its mandate, along with comparisons with the activities of the Peace Secretariat in the past. Such comparisons ignore the fact that institutions need to change with the times. The role of the Peace Secretariat in preparing for negotiations went by the board in 2003, and was only briefly renewed in 2006. The mandate of the Secretariat to pursue peace remains however and this must be exercised in accordance with the principles and policies of His Excellency the President, to whom, along with the people of Sri Lanka whom he represents, the Secretariat is responsible.
A key to peace is ensuring the confidence of all Sri Lankans in the ongoing process. Much of what the Peace Secretariat has tried to do in this regard may be seen in its latest newsletter, which is also available on its website [1], by clicking on the picture at the top right. Our work in promoting economic development, national integration, sports exchanges and so on is featured there, as are explications of the political strategies currently being pursued by the government.
Sadly however, given the desperate attempts of so many forces to destroy confidence in the peace process, and the government’s pluralistic policies, it has also proved important for the Peace Secretariat to defend current policies. Given the excellent staff that has been built up over the years at the Secretariat, it has a longer institutional memory of a wider range of issues than many institutions and this leads to its services being required by many other official bodies. It therefore has access to much information, which it processes on behalf of others. Because of the range and expertise of its staff, it also has an intellectual and analytical capacity that is unusual in so small an institution.
Hence perhaps the regular requests of the Ministry for Disaster Management and Human Rights for the services of the Secretariat at meetings of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. A resolution against Sri Lanka had been placed on the table the previous year, and this was presented by some as a threat that it would not be possible to nullify. Due to the strenuous efforts of the Permanent Representative in Geneva, Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, and Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, that resolution lapsed and no further resolution was brought, though initially a few countries had threatened one. The signal contribution of the Ambassador in avoiding this, and enhancing the respect in which Sri Lanka is held, at least in Geneva, has been constantly highlighted by representatives from countries of very different sorts.
All this has been achieved however whilst ensuring advancement of the common interest of all Sri Lankans, namely ensuring adherence to human rights whilst pursuing the struggle against terrorism. Whilst Sri Lankan representatives from various institutions have proved invaluable in producing information and speaking in particular areas, the Peace Secretariat has also had to contribute to this work in view of its overarching interest in a range of issues.
Thus the Secretariat has, as part of its general mandate too, had to monitor political interventions internationally. Accordingly, before the mission to Geneva, it drew the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the use made by LTTE propaganda elements of some remarks by the British Minister for Asia, Africa and the United Nations. The Foreign Ministry accordingly instructed our High Commissioner in London to query these. Her report proved invaluable in discussions with the Minister in Geneva, and contributed to a very cordial discussion, in spite of his earlier critical public remarks which Minister Samarasinghe had responded to comprehensively.
The Peace Secretariat meanwhile has drawn the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Department of External Resources, to inappropriate funding of organizations that engage in protracted and unsubstantiated criticism of the government. Whilst criticism based on concrete evidence is always welcome, denigration for the sake of denigration or worse, is inappropriate, and it certainly should not be funded by foreign taxpayers. Concerted action to prevent this is essential, and the Peace Secretariat will not be diverted from this task by special interests that exercise unwarranted influence in blocking transparency and accountability.
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process