      |
|
|
|
Indo-Lanka Free Trade Agreement
By Kalyananda Godage
The text of the Free Trade agreement is now with us and one cannot understand what need there was for all the drama that was associated with it. Perhaps the 'experts' will in the days ahead subject it to professional scrutiny and advise us about it.Meanwhile, the first question that arises is, was the indecent hurry to conclude this agreement?
The answer to this may perhaps lie in the fact that India has hitherto had a very protective trade regime and the WTO now require us all, including India to move towards a 'Free Trade Regime'. It would be quite logical for India to prepare for such circumstances and move towards such a situation, but somehow this whole exercise has suddenly become suspect in the eyes of many. They question as to whether there is much more to it than meets the eye. This is more than unfortunate.
To dispel doubts it is incumbent on Dr Lal Jayawardena in particular who is said to have fathered the Agreement with Mother India, which Agreement was delivered by President Kumaratunge and Prime Minister Vajpayee, to explain matters.
What for example was India's political agenda in rushing us on this Agreement. Perhaps the politics or the considerations behind such an Agreement may not have been of interest to the pure Economist. Let us not be churlish and pre judge the issue or look upon the gift horse [the Agreement is said to be 'extremely favourable' to Sri Lanka] as a Trojan Horse or count its teeth. But it is indeed important to examine the significance of its timing, the objectives of the Indians in coming up with this surprise initiative and what we stand to gain or loose from it and the possible political fall-out of the Agreement.
To be fair by the Indians, this initiative could very well be a part of the foreign policy of the BJP, which was enunciated recently. A policy statement from the BJP was long overdue and it is certainly a welcome relief to find that it is essentially a continuation of the enlightened Foreign Policy of Shri Gujral. The Policy has been described as being essentially 'Pragmatic'. The new Foreign Minister has not only given assurances of 'non interference' and 'good neighbourliness' towards India's smaller neighbours but has also stated that it is not based on ideology (the Age of Ideology is of course behind us now)but reality--directed essentially at 'problem solving'. The Minister has stated that India would give precedence to 'Economic Diplomacy' in its relations with the rest of the world. Viewed in this context, one can understand the Indian initiative and we should welcome it.
But in facing up to 'reality' we must also accept that there is a measure of suspicion in the minds of many about Indian intentions, particularly after its last involvement in the internal affairs of this country. There is a perception that India entertains extra-territorial ambitions. Statements that India's security interests takes precedence over those of her neighbours, who are required to fall in line or else suffer the consequences, has not helped to dispel suspicions even with regard to the most innocent of actions. This perception is unfortunate but it does matter.
Suspicion in this instance is caused by the fact that this Agreement appeared to have been conceived in secrecy,( when there was absolutely no need for such) and not negotiated in an acceptable manner according to many, it is being said that there was one round of negotiations--interestingly Minister Kadirgamar stated, referring to this meeting in Delhi and answering Mr ACS Hameed MP, on why there was no Foreign Ministry representation in the Delegation, 'It was just a meeting of officials.They went there to have preliminary discussions about the so called fast track Agreement. That was not a mission that called for a very heavy delegation on our side'{Hansard Vol:121-No 9}
The Minister may perhaps have been misinformed for, this according to those who participated, has indeed been the most important round of negotiations-further negotiations were required only regarding what had been placed 'within square brackets', (according to the same reliable sources). The second round had been held before the meetings of the Sri Lanka-India Joint Commission. The issue here is whether the matter under consideration received the minutest examination by the most competent, in the national interest. It is also been stated that the Trade Ministry, the Industries Ministry and the Finance Ministry were virtually side-lined and the Chambers not consulted. That it was a 'buddy business' with our position papers being made available to the other side.
Another matter being discussed relates to the role of the Foreign Ministry in this exercise. The Foreign Ministry has been the coordinating Ministry and it has, from 1990/1, been responsible for the management of the muti-faceted relationship with India. In that capacity the Minister is co-chair of the Joint Commission. The speculation is whether the Ministry got its latest recruit, Dr Lal Jayawardena, High Commissioner Designate to London, to do its 'dirty work' while the Ministry stayed in the background. If this is true, then it is a sound tactic, for then the Ministry would not be seen to be 'pro India'.
Such reports and also reports of serious differences between senior officials, give the whole affair a sinister complexion and credible explanations are needed in the national interest.
The Agreement no doubt is in the right direction, towards global liberalization of Trade, as is required by the WTO Agreement, which fixed a period of ten years for the journey towards that end. Under this Agreement, it is said that India would liberalize in three years and we in eight. This would no doubt prepare us for the situation we would have to face not only when the global liberalization comes into effect, but equally importantly for the situation when the protection presently available to us under the Multi-Fibre Agreement is no longer available.
The SAPTA, which is a preferential Trade Agreement and the SAFTA which is a Free Trade Agreement are both in the same direction, but politicians fixed unrealistic dates for the establishment of a Free Trade Area, we are yet many, many years away from a situation where we can pull down all the defences and 'let the robber barons in'. (I personally feel that even the deadlines fixed by the WTO would have to be revised). However that may be, there is no question that we should tread verily for the pitfalls are many. This Agreement, together with other steps the Government needs to take in the light of its international obligations, will directly affect the lives of millions of people in this country, it would lead to a restructuring of the economy and of Industry in this country. In the circumstances the Government must explain this Agreement to the people and disabuse their minds of any fears they may with regard to it.
As for the Agreement itself, I wish to set out its essence as put down in a demi-official document:
A) Elimination of Tariffs
By India
1) Zero duty on around 1000 items upon entering into force of the Agreement--the list is to be finalized within 60 days of signing of the Agreement.
2) 50% margin of preference upon coming into force of this Agreement on all items, except for those on the negative list.
3) Tariffs to be brought down to zero over a periood of three years.
4) Concessions on Textile items restricted to 25%. Four Chapters under the Textile sector retained in the negative list, (Chapters 50,57,61 and 62)
By Sri Lanka
1) Zero duty on about 300 items upon entering into force of the Agreement.. 2) 50% margin of preference for about 600 items upon coming into force of the Agreement. The preference to be deepened to 100% within three years
3) For the remaining items, except for those on the negative list preferences to be deepened to 100% within eight years.
B) Negative Lists
A - Sri Lankan and Indian 'Negative List' shall constitute Annexure D to the Agreement. The Indian 'Negative List' is expected to comprise of roughly 400 items including garments, petro-chemicals, alcoholic spirits and coconut oil. The 'Negative Lists' and the lists of items on which both sides would extend tariff concessions up front are to be finalized within 60 days from the date of the signing of the Agreement.
Items in the Negative List shall not be subject to tariff concessions
C) Rules of origin
Domestic value addition requirement has been kept at 35% .If the raw material inputs are sourced from each other's country,this is reduced to 25% within the overall limit of 35%. The criterion of 'substantial transformation' has been provided for in the Rules.
A more realistic assessment of the Agreement itself would be possible only after the Lists referred to above are released.
Meanwhile, according to the above terms, India would permit Sri Lanka to export one thousand items/products, yet to be listed, without duty provided the value added in Sri Lanka is 35% or with a 25% local value addition, if the goods have a 10% Indian input. Though the list would comprise of an impressive thousand products I doubt our ability to even utilize 10% of it in the immediate future, but then the door is now open to us to export if we could produce at competitive prices.
Let us examine or identify what we export to India today. The list is extremely small. The items are, Arecanut, Tea, Pepper, Cloves (value Rs 13 Mn) Nutmeg, Glycerine, Petroleum Product, Essential oils, Natural Rubber, Waste and scrap paper, articles of iron and steel, copper waste and scrap, Zinc waste and scrap, Natural gums, synthetic filament yarn of nylon, (along with some very small items there are less than 20 products (2% of 1000 products) with a total value of Rs 2.5Billion) whereas we import from India over 30 products, not raw material to the value of Rs:33 Billion. The surplus in India's favour is an astronomical Rs 30 Billion. Let us hope that the Agreement will help to increase our exports but my fear is that it would be the other way around. This would be politically disastrous for both countries.
Even without a Free Trade Agreement the Indian presence and visibility in our economy is quite high. The Agreement which affords a glorious opportunity to the Indian private sector could see exports to Sri Lanka not double but treble. Our 'Private Sector' will take time to organize itself to avail themselves of the huge Indian market. Meanwhile the Trade gap is bound to increase (with the implementation of the Agreement) and would bring with it once again charges such 'Indeeya Aakramanaya', a closest translation would be, 'an Indian takeover' ---it would be alleged that a new form of imperialism is emerging- Indian economic imperialism.
Though memories are short in this country we could possibly not forget the slogans and the demonstrations of '88 and '89,nor the despicable act of the Naval Rating Rohana Sila. That anger in this country can be easily whipped up once again by mischievous elements who have their own agenda, despite the best efforts of the Government and the Minister. The Indian High Commission has also made a significant contribution towards improving relations . The present High Commissioner, in the short time that he has been here and his immediate predecessor, have done a tremendous job in repairing the damage and restoring, in their own way, the relationship between our countries. It would indeed be a pity if, as it is so aptly stated in Sinhala--Vadninna guya devale oluwata kadaa wetu na (I went to the Temple to worship but its roof crashed on to my head!)
The Agreement is yet another bridge and a very important one at that, between our countries. It is a precious relationship, too precious to be left exclusively to Sri Lankan Indophiles , with very little political experience to craft or manage.
(The writer was a former Sri Lankan Ambassador and former Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
How Bandaranaike taught Oxford the Bandaranaike Method
From D. B. Dhanapala's book 'Among Those Present'
Many years ago, I described Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Ban-daranaike as a man with a future behind him.It was a time when in that Mecca of mediocrities called the State Council of Ceylon, he stood out as an infidel, with cleverness as his creed and smartness as the manner of his mind.
He had what is called 'background'. That in itself was not anything unique. Many of those in the State Council could with an engaging gesture, point in a leisurely way towards some kind of estimable association, family prestige and good education. But Bandaranaike combined 'background' with brilliance, a familiar name with unfamiliar talent.
He certainly was one of the three best speakers we had then in Ceylon. Never at a loss for a word with a fluency and a diction that even Radhakrishnan might envy, he would reel off one perfect period after another with an astounding ease that baffled slow witted men like me.
When he rose of an evening especially immediately after one of our fathers of repetition, his speeches shone like burnished gold in the sunlight.
For a moment or two, he would play, with velvet-pawed syllables with his opponent-he might even throw him the sop of a left-handed compliment.
Then he seemed to roll up his sleeves and get down to business. He hurled choice epithets at the subject. He stabbed the foe with jewelled phrases, made on the spur of the moment-but made to hurt all the same.
He would pat a favourite-or better perhaps, himself-on the back. And then he rode away in a storm of oratory, all spontaneity and splendour with the distant thud of his galloping prose resounding in our ears.
It was neither lightning nor thunder, nor was it an earthquake. It was just the member for Veyangoda.
But his speeches were not faultless. He had the heavy habit of talking in italics-at the top of his voice. And he underlined almost every other word of the italics with an absolutely unnecessary emphasis. The effect of stressing too much was not stressing anything at all!
With this distressing disease of underlining his megaphone voice, he combined an irritating appreciation of himself at every turn of phrase and paranthesis. Maybe, he paused for just a moment; looked around for applause; then finding not enough forthcoming, remedied the defect himself by giving a little chuckle of appreciation, something between the clucking of a hen after laying and the laugh of a juggler after doing some celebrated trick.
He talked in jewelled prose, well enunciated. But the magic was entirely in the fine phrasing; the appeal in the strong epithet.
He knew how to say it. If only he had known then what to say!
Quick witted
Not that there were no occasions when he did know to a point of cruelty, the right thing to utter. Hurt his vanity and he started to the quick. Give him a personal pinprick to see how quick he was on the uptake. Pat came the retort, crushing in vengeance, killing in venom.
He was the master of the retort discourteous, the apostle of the sharp invective in the country.
I remember once, Dr.S.A Wickramasinghe, the Communist leader, after attacking the Member of Veyangoda, pretend not to be interested when Bandara-naike's turn came for counter-attack. Some Member with the instinct of the sportsman, pointed out that Dr.Wickramasinghe was asleep.
With a sneer, the enraged member for Veyangoda turned to the interrupter and with high hauteur said "Let sleeping dogs lie".
On another occasion, Dr.N.M Perera, the Trotsky leader, during a Budget Debate, said that Bandaranaike could not help being merely the 'famous son of a famous father'.
The words of the merciless retort in reply was dipped in the poison of the Borgias when Bandaranaike alluded to his opponents as the 'obscure son of a still more obscure father'.
He went to Oxford in 1919 with wonderful ideas of heroic leadership of the most dazzling kind among the undergrads, coloured by recollections of "Tom Brown at Oxford".
Before going to Oxford, while wandering about Horagolla, he would compose his speeches for the union. On one occasion he was so engrossed in his peroration while riding, that in a moment of inspiration he dropped his reins in order to gesticulate-only to fall off his seat.
Later in life, it was the peroration that always matterd to him, even if it meant being thrown off his seat of sense.
While at Oxford, some Sinhalese friends had expressed surprise that Bandaranaike had not cultivated the Oxford manner.
"That is true" said Bandaranaike, "but I hope I have taught Oxford a lot of the Bandaranaike method".
The first year of Oxford, once the novelty of things had worn off, was a period of disappointment and frustration. The most humiliating disappointments were reserved for the social sphere.
He also realised that within the cold outer Oxford of mere routine, snob cliques and silly prejudice, there was a wonderful inner Oxford into which it was well worth travelling to win an entry.
But his conceit saved him from the fate of most Eastern students who often throw up the sponge. Al-though at the union he never seemed to be able to catch the eye of the president, he knew that he could make a better speech than most of those who were given preference, he knew that there were many members of the tennis team he could beat if only he were given the chance. He knew he could write better Greek prose than many of the scholars with their long, rustling gowns who looked so superciliously at the "darkie".
A well meaning young man seeing the rather pathetic and lonely state of many Eastern students, though he would alleviate their suffering by inviting some of them to tea one day, Bandaranaike also was asked.
"An Englishman is not fitted for this type of occasion" wrote the not too thankful guest. "He lacks that tact and bonhomie-which a Frenchman for ins-tance, possesses, and which are essential for the success of such a function......of easy con-versation, there was none....the whole thing was ghastly. I found myself gradually be-coming more and more angry with my fellow guests as well as our host. I saved myself doing something desperate by making a hasty excuse and running away".
While working off his anger by having a long walk, he paused to look at the typically English scene before him touched by the mellow lights of the evening sun. The river winded into the distance through soft meadows. Suddenly the solution of his problem flashed through his mind.
"Before I am their equal", he thought, " I must be their superior".
This audacious, paradox was Bandara-naike's golden key to the wonderful inner portals of Oxford.
"An Englishman is generous in recognising merit in others, it is more difficult to overcome the various barriers to his friendship. Once, however, his respect is obtained, it is easy to become his friend. And what a true and loyal friend he can be" exclaimed the man who found the golden key to English Friendship.
One November eve-ning, he tried many times to catch the eye of the president, Beverly Nichols, without success. In desperation he sent up a note asking whether he would be given a chance. Back came the note with the words: 'Print your name'. He sent his name in block letters. Later in the evening there was a nod from the chair and the speech was delivered.
A few days later, he found himself famous when the 'Isis' hailed the speech as the best of the evening.
When he returned to Ceylon in 1925, after being called to the Bar, his father had made all preparations for him to enter the Attorney General's Department if the 'young puppy' refused to become a Maha Mudliyar.
But the young man had been bitten by the political bug.
Later, when he became Prime Minister, Bandaranaike developed scholarly theories of present day international politics which he enunciated at international assemblies.
Bandaranaike was a sincere friend and great admirer of Nehru. These two had much in common. Their attitudes were the same. Their outlooks were very similar.
Six bullets from an assassin's weapon on the morning of September 25, 1959 laid him low.
If Bandaranaike seemed a man with a future behind him 25 years ago, he passed away as a Prime Minister with an epic past.
'Regardless of Frontiers': Article 19 in a world of sovereign states
This lecture by Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, is the twelfth in the Harold W. Andersen series on global media issues.
It was sponsored by the World Press Freedom Committee in association with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The lectures are intended to focus attention on international communication and press freedom issues.
The first of these annual lectures was delivered in 1987 by U.S. journalist Nicholas Daniloff, who, just after release from imprisonment by the KGB in the Soviet Union, spoke on media developments in the Soviet Union. In 1988, Andrew Neil, Editor of the (London) Sunday Times, spoke about 'Britain's Free Press: Does It Have One?' The speaker in 1989 was Stefan Bratkowski, President of the Polish Journalists Association. In 1990, exiled Chinese journalist Liu Binyan spoke on the role of news media in political change. In 1991, Vitaly Korotich, Chairman and former Editor of Ogonyok in Moscow, spoke on 'Putsch, Perestrolka, and the Press: Recipes for Changes.' In 1992, Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO, spoke on 'UNESCO and a Free Press.'
In 1993, Richard Steyn, Editor-in-Chief, The Star, Johannesburg, spoke on 'South Africa's Transition: Testing the Pieties'. 'In 1994, Daisy Li Yuet-wah, Vice Chairman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, spoke on 'Endangered Species: Press Freedom in Hong Kong.' In 1995, Lord McGregor of Durris spoke on 'Rights, Royals and Regulation: The British Experience.' In 1996, Alejandro Junco de la Vega, President and Publisher of E1 Norte and Reforma newspapers in Mexico spoke on 'Cyberspace and a Free Press.' In 1997, Sasa Mirkovic, Co-Founder and Director, Radio B92 Belgrade, Serbia, spoke on 'Fighting for a Free Press in Serbia.'
Established in 1950, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has long been a major supporter of organizations devoted to a free press, as well as of initiatives in other fields. Based in Miami, it is one of the nation's largest private foundations, with assets of more than $800 million.
As Secretary-General of the United Nations, an organization of member states represented by governments, I am bound by the Charter, by precedent, and by enlightened self-interest to weigh my words very, very carefully, to speak up and to speak out when no other voice will be heard, but also to respect the privilege and the duty of governments to defend their people's interests as they deem fit.
But what if some governments are not defending their people's true interests or have a view of those interests which the people don't share and do not endorse? What if governments are an impediment to the people's wishes instead of being the vehicle for their fulfilment? What if some of those peoples in whose name its Charter is issued see the United Nations not as an instrument for their aspirations, but as a haven for oppressive governments?
Then we must and we will speak out for democracy, for human rights, for rule of law, for the proposition that governments are the servants of the people and not the other way around.
Some may say that speaking out is not enough, that words will never effect change, but I say it is a beginning, and you always have to start somewhere.
It is a way for the United Nations to pay the peoples of the world a tribute of truth, a tribute without which we can never hope to retain their support or to improve their lives. That is why I have sought as Secretary-General of the United Nations to speak clearly and candidly on every issue from Kosovo to Rwanda to Iraq, from the universality of human rights to the need for Africa's leaders to take hold of their own destiny, and most recently, to the need for the global powers to understand the human and political implications of globalization in a time of crisis and contagion.
Only by speaking these truths can we ensure that ordinary men and women in every part of the world hear their United Nations speak in a voice that recognizes the realities they face day in and day out.
Now as you in this audience know well, there are those who will question the value of freedom of speech in their own societies, those who argue that it threatens stability and endangers progress, those who still consider freedom of speech as an imposition from abroad and not the indigenous expression of every people's demand for freedom.
What has always struck me about this argument is that it is never made by the people, but by governments, and I repeat by governments; never by the powerless but by the powerful; never by the voiceless, but by those whose voices are all that can be heard. Let us put this argument once and for all to the only test that matters, the choice of every people to know more or less, to be heard or to be silenced, to stand up or kneel down.
Friends, freedom of speech is a right to be fought for and not a blessing to be wished for, but it is more than that. It is a bridge of understanding and knowledge. It is the essential vehicle for that exchange of ideas between nations and cultures that is the condition for true understanding and lasting cooperation. That is why I believe we must look at the question of civilizations anew.
Civilizations have always been enriched and not weakened by the exchange of ideas and arts, the freer and more peaceable, the better. In the relation between nations, it is rather the lack of education and the dearth of knowledge which is a chief source of dispute and conflict, never the opposite.
Ignorance and prejudice are the handmaidens of propaganda, and in most modern conflicts, the men of war prey on the ignorance of the populace to instill fears and arouse hatreds. That was the case in Bosnia and in Rwanda, where murderous, even genocidal ideologies took root in the absence of truthful information and honest education. If only half the effort had gone into teaching these peoples what unites them rather than what divides them, unspeakable crimes could have been prevented.
This is not to say that ideas and interests do not clash. They do and always will, but one must never confuse the clash of ideas with the clash of civilizations. Clashes of ideas can and must be conducted peacefully and politically to the benefit of all.
Perhaps there is no greater need for such appreciation today than between the Islamic peoples and those of the West. Too often this question is discussed only through crude, invidious generalizations about the beliefs of one group or the behaviour of the other. Too often the rhetoric of resistance from one group or other is deemed representative of the view of millions.
What is ignored is the historic and ever-growing interaction between peoples. The ways in which individuals and states-regardless of religious affiliation-define, defend, and pursue their purpose and the propensity of states as well as individuals to form alliances and allegiances on other grounds than ethnic belonging or religious affiliation.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly last month, President Khatami of Iran proposed that the United Nations designate the year 2001 as a year of dialogue among civilizations and expressed eloquently the promise of a genuine dialogue among cultures and nations, and I quote what he said: 'Establishment and enhancement of civility, whether at national or international level, is contingent upon dialogue among societies and civilizations representing various views, inclinations and approaches.'
As you will no doubt recognize, these are brave words from a visionary leader whose own respect for truth and for tolerance against powerful domestic opposition led him to declare unequivocally at the United Nations that the government of Iran will do nothing to threaten the author of the Satanic Verses, Salmon Rushdie.
I refer to these words of President Khatami not only to highlight what I believe to be an important development in one country, but also to illustrate the growing understanding of the meaning and promise of dialogue and communication. Indeed, I believe that history should teach us that alongside global diversity of cultures, there exists one worldwide civilization of knowledge within which ideas and philosophies meet and develop peacefully and productively.
This is a civilization for which the United Nations labours every day in every part of the world. It is a civilization which recognizes that true progress is based on lasting peace and prosperity, the civilization within which clashes of ideas take place peacefully and productively. In fact, this morning somebody referred to this tendency as jaw, jaw, mouth, mouth, saying is better than war, war.
Friends, Socrates taught us that 'There is only one good, knowledge, and only one evil, ignorance.' By speaking up and speaking out, by promoting that vital exchange of ideas and information regardless of frontiers, we will have done our part to enhance our 'one good, knowledge,' and defeat our 'only one evil, ignorance.'
We will have done our part to make possible a global civilization that is defined by its tolerance of dissent, its celebration of cultural diversity, and its insistence on fundamental universal human rights-a civilization that is proud to protect Article 19.
James Ottaway: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General for a very inspiring address. I also want to thank you for signing today as other Secretary-Generals have before you, the Charter for a Free Press, which was adopted in 1987 at a London conference on press censorship that was organized by the World Press Freedom Committee. Thank you, sir.
(The Charter for a Free Press is appended at the end of this booklet.)
Questions and Answers
James Ottaway: l would like to give you a chance to ask a few questions of the Secretary-General, but first I would like to recognize Marilyn Greene, the Executive Director of the World Press Freedom Committee, who got us all together.
We have a tradition of starting the Q&A session with the first question from Andy Andersen, whose name is on this lecture and who was Chairman of the World Press Freedom Committee for 15 years.
Harold Andersen: Mr. Secretary-General, I'm very pleased with the combination of our names that drew this crowd here today, and I'll work with you and if you need a good crowd for any future occasions, we'll partner again. Very seriously, I appreciated your gracious remarks in regard to my involvement in world press matters and your statement that you were glad that I was here today, probably not as glad as I am. I've reached that stage in life where, you know, it's been said, 'I'm just glad to be anywhere.'
This 12th annual lecture has brought, I think Dana Bullen would agree, our largest and most prestigious audience, and we thank you very much for that. You are a pretty articulate spokesman for our point of view, and we'd like you to come on the road with us more often. Your statement that freedom of speech and press is a right to be fought for is certainly true. We've been in that fight for some time, and we're just delighted to have you as such an articulate and visible spokesman and leader in that fight.
Now as to the tradition of the first question this thought has occurred to me. In the U.N.'s peace-keeping efforts, we have read, in Bosnia for example, of the role that some news or propaganda outlets, if you will, played there. To what extent in your missions, particularly in your peace-keeping missions, does what I would call irresponsible activity stir up passions. I don't know whether I dignify it by calling it journalism. How has that played? Has that been a complicating factor?
Kofi Annan: Let me say simply, absolutely. It has been a complicating factor. We've seen that in Bosnia. We saw that in Rwanda, and we are seeing that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where misinformation can hit radios and incite the population to turn on each other. The message we are trying to get out as peace-keepers is sometimes drowned by what the local press and the hit radios are saying.
In Bosnia for example, we suffered a great deal by our inability to communicate with the population through an international radio that we could have set up using the press, and so the media and the information was in the hands of the other side, the nationalists and those who've been responsible for the war. This is an aspect of our work that we need to do better. The information is crucial both in the region to get the people to understand what it is that we are there to do and to give them the correct information and to explain the facts, as well as internationally getting the people back home to understand what is going on so that they can support the peace-keepers. We've learned some lessons and hopefully we will do better in the future.
Terry Maguire: Mr. Secretary-General, my name is Terry Maguire. On Monday of this week, as you probably know, Pius Njawe, the publisher and editor of the Le Messenger in Cameroon walked out of prison after 10 months, thanks to the intervention of the World Press Freedom Committee and some number of people in this room. We're very pleased with that result.
In the spirit of communication and dialogue, I wonder if you might share with us any thoughts you have on what we could do as a group and individually to try to prevent that from happening again in a country such as Cameroon. What measures could we undertake that might improve the likelihood for the long term that this will not occur again?
Kofi Annan: I would encourage you to remain vigilant. I would encourage you to spotlight these cases. I would also encourage you to write about those governments that are doing it right, those governments that respect the freedom of the press, and are respectful to the journalists, particularly in the same region, and use that as an example to encourage other governments in the same region to do the right thing. There's nothing that dictators and autocrats fear more than light, and by constantly shedding light on it and spotlighting them, you will be amazed what can be done. In fact, in some situations I know that they have released people because they've become completely exasperated and irritated by the constant bombardment of letters and requests that you guys organize and others do, and I think you need to keep it up.
Doan Viet Hoat: I am Doan Viet Hoat. I just came out from prison about a month ago. I want to take this opportunity first to thank you for your personal concern about my case and many of other political prisoners in Vietnam. I want to have your advice on one of the problems that I think is very important in Vietnam now. As we all know, we don't have freedom of expression now in Vietnam. We have no right to publish a free press, and so I'm very impressed by your speech today. I want to have your advise what we have to do in the process of having free, peaceful freedom of expression. Thank you.
Kofi Annan: First of all, I think your own experience and your own example is an important one. I would also want to encourage us not to be downcast, or to lose hope. I think we are, those who preach and support freedom of press are doing much, much better than we realize. I think with modern technology, with faxes and Internet and all the communication technology, people who want to control and dictators who want to suppress the spread of information are going to have nightmares.
They are losing the battle already. In quite a few areas we have had revolutions that have been caused by fax, and network, and Internet. The government, they say, don't print anything, don't say anything on the radio. But they cannot control what is sent around electronically, and that is a tool that is going to help all of us in the future. I think these dictators are either going to have to give up, or they are simply going to go crazy trying to control something that they cannot. I don't think their citizens would be too unhappy. In your own situation and some of the others who have had to stand up against what they believe in, against the dictatorial government, don't think that others are not watching and noticing. You inspire others to do it, and I think with the help of organizations like this and outsiders and pressure from neighbouring governments that we will see some improvement. You are now part of us, you are setting an example with very free press, others not so free, but the good experiences and good practices and change will wear off. I hope someday your press will be freer than it is today.
Kenneth Best: Yes, my name is Ken Best, and I'd first like to thank Mr. Ottaway and Ms. Greene for the kind invitation to be part of this august assembly, and also to thank Mr. Ottaway for his kind words. Mr. Secretary-General, thank you too, for your inspiring and enlightening remarks. I have one question. It's been universally acknowledged that the lack of good governance is the underlying reason for the continuing under-development of Africa, and yet as we speak, repression, mismanagement, and corruption continue to plague many countries on the continent.
My question to you, sir, is, as an African, what do you think will do the trick to convince African leaders and their associates that it is in their best, their own best interest and of course in the interest of the people and the country to practice good governance so that the continent can take off and play its destined role in the contour of nations and humanity?
Kofi Annan: I think first of all, that is a task for African leaders and for Africans with the support and help of the international community. I think a lot of that is happening already. We have seen situations where the African people and the population have made it clear that they do not want to be ruled by unelected and undemocratic leaders. We saw in June last year a summit of the OAU, the African leaders, pressed by the people, taking a decision that they would no longer recognize any regime that comes into power by force, no coup d'etat would be accepted, and in fact earlier this year, the African governments were able to return a democratically elected government back to power.
We see a very positive change taking place in Nigeria and that would not have happened but for the anger and the anguish of the people. I hope the military has realized that the people would want to see them in barracks. They would want to see the military play its role in a democratic society, and I sense that some of the military leaders have sensed this and the transition to democratic and civilian rule is on in Nigeria, and I hope that it will be successful.
We on our side, at the international level, are working with African governments to strengthen the institutions. We are assisting them in elections. We are encouraging them to draw up the right legal frameworks. We are encouraging them to set up the right judicial system and police system to protect the rights and property of their citizens. We believe and we will encourage them that if they attempt these things and build a society on solid ground they won't cross back and their people will also fare better.
If they are able to do the kinds of things I'm talking about and create an enabling environment that will free their people and release their creative and entrepreneurial spirits, their societies will flourish, investments will follow, both domestic and international.
We sometimes think that you need a different set of conditions for international investment than you need for domestic investment. It is the same conditions you need, the same rule of law, the same stable society, the same requirement every businessman needs. They need to be able to assume that the conditions under which they're investing will remain stable, will be predictable for the next five or 10 years to get their money back, otherwise they will not invest whether they are domestic businessmen or international businessmen. I think we are making some progress in Africa. We do have a long way to go, but the people must also assert their own influence.
In Latin America today, all the governments are democratically elected. The soldiers are back in the barracks, and it was the people who sent them back to the barracks, and I think that same revolution and movement can take place in Africa, and we should get on with it.
Edith Ssempala: Yes, my name is Edith Ssempala, I'm the Ambassador of Uganda to United States.
Kofi Annan: We would accept you at the United Nations, too.
Edith Ssempala: Thank you. First of all, Mr. Secretary-General, let me congratulate you on your inspiring remarks but also on your leadership. My question or my concern is that as far as I'm concerned, and I think as far as all of us are concerned, is that evil is evil. It has no tribe. It has no colour. It has no religion, but very often you will find that there is a confusion. Terrorism is very often as baptized with Muslim fundamentalism or whatever and the conflicts very often in Africa are baptized in terms of tribe, and I think that really confuses the issues and makes it much more complicated. So my thinking, which I would like you to comment on, is that we ought to see a lot of vigour in terms of this separating evil from good so that evil can stand on its own and be identified for what it is. Otherwise, you know, when for instance there's an attack against fundamentalism like the strike against Sudan and Afghanistan, then the Muslims, because they feel probably it's their own, and I don't think it is their own, they get stranded as to how to react.
When you identify these Hutus and Tutsis then really, I think the press has to do something about that and has to take leadership. So what do you think that we all ought to do in order to make sure that we disengage these two so that it can be easier to fight evil? Thank you very much.
Kofi Annan: I think one of the first things we need to do is to try and educate the public. We should avoid generalization, and sometimes by generalizing, we give a very small group greater legitimacy and force and influence that they do not have. I can tell you that the terrorists in the midst of Islamic states worry the Islamic leaders and population as much as all of us.
I was in Tehran last December attending the summit of the Islamic conference. Almost everybody there was worried about terrorism and condemned terrorism, and I made the point there at that meeting, how can anyone kill in the name of Islam, when Islam itself means peace, and the name of its god is God the Merciful and the Compassionate? At the end of the meeting, they all voted to condemn terrorism and suggested that we try and organize a global conference to fight terrorism.
But sometimes by grouping everybody together and behaving as if all Muslims, all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists and are violent, first of all, you give the terrorists much more power and influence that they do not have. It also provokes the others who are not in that situation, so education is important. We need to identify who is doing what, who is responsible, and condemn them, and in fact, you'd be amazed, with the right information, you'd get the society at large within which these people live sometimes to support you.
We should be able to identify situations where wicked leaders are using this misinformation for their own personal purposes and do not care what happens to the people as long as they get power, and I think here the press has a role to play. It is something that I have referred to as preventive journalism. When we see some of these crises brewing, we should get in and stay with the story, not leave and come back when there's the bloodshed and leave when the blood stops spilling, but stay with it. Report, and talk and talk and write and write about that issue until policy makers and people with influence do something about it. Thank you.
James Ottaway: Thank you Mr. Secretary General for coming, for leading the U.N. in new and different ways. I hope you all realize this is a remarkable performance, a remarkable man who's spoken more bluntly about evil in the world and evil dictators than any Secretary-General that I can remember. We congratulate him and wish him good, good luck with his work in the days ahead. Thank you all for coming.
(Adopted at Voices of Freedom conference, London, January 18, 1987.)
A free press means a free people. To this end, the following principles, basic to an unfettered flow of news and information both within and across national borders, deserve the support of all those pledged to advance and protect democratic institutions.1. Censorship, direct or indirect, is unacceptable; thus laws and practices restricting the right of the news media freely to gather and distribute information must be abolished, and government authorities, national or local, must not interfere with the content of print or broadcast news, or restrict access to any news source.
2. Independent news media, both print and broadcast, must be allowed to emerge and operate freely in all countries.
3. There must be no discrimination by governments in their treatment, economic or otherwise, of the news media within a country. In those countries where government media also exist, the independent media must have the same free access as the official media have to all material and facilities necessary to their publishing or broadcasting operations.
4. States must not restrict access to newsprint, printing facilities and distribution systems, operation of news agencies, and availability of broadcast frequencies and facilities.
5. Legal, technical and tariff practices by communications authorities which inhibit the distribution of news and restrict the flow of information are condemned.
6. Government media must enjoy editorial independence and be open to a diversity of viewpoints. This should be affirmed in both law and practice.
7. There should be unrestricted access by the print and broadcast media within a country to outside news and information services, and the public should enjoy similar freedom to receive foreign publications and foreign broadcasts without interference.
8. National frontiers must be open to foreign journalists. Quotas must not apply, and applications for visas, press credentials and other documentation requisite for their work should be approved promptly. Foreign journalists should be allowed to travel freely within a country and have access to both official and unofficial news sources, and be allowed to import and export freely all necessary professional materials and equipment.
9. Restrictions on the free entry to the field of journalism or over its practice, through licensing or other certification procedures, must be eliminated.
10. Journalists, like all citizens, must be secure in their persons and be given full protection of law. Journalists working in war zones are recognized as civilians enjoying all rights and immunities accorded to other civilians.
Kofi A. Annan
Poly-Ethnic Sri Lanka and Tamil Separatism
(Continued from yesterday)
By Kamalika Pieris
They argue that the Anuradhapura capital was influenced by the importance of Mantai as a sort of international port of the times. After 7th century AD, trade exchanges took place in the ports situated in the Bay of Bengal on the opposite side of Sri Lanka. It is now argued that the shift to Polonnaruwa from Anuradhapura was made in view of its importance in the Bay of Bengal trade of the time. It is suggested that the South Indian invasions, particularly the Chola invasions of the 10th to 13th centuries, were motivated by commercial needs, the need to get access to the Bay of Bengal by cutting through Sri Lanka Sirima Kiribamune points out that the eastern province, adjacent to the Bay of Bengal, had been looked after by the Anuradhapura kings, well before that. Mahasen built the Minneri tank, Aggabodhi II built Kantale and Giritale tanks. Silakala (518-531) had been appointed provincial ruler before he became king. (Sirima Kiribamune. P 68)After the Chola kings left Sri Lanka, the Polonnaruwa kings continued o exploit the Bay of Bengal trade. The reign of King Parakramabahu I was the high point of Sri Lanka's participation as middlemen in the Bay of Bengal trade. However, from the 12th Century, China started its own overseas trade and soon Chinese vessels were straddling the seas with ease. This completely upset the existing trade arrangements. The intermediaries who traded with China got knocked out. At the same time, trading centres in the western coast of India, such as Gujerat and Malabar came up. Therefore kings like Parakramabahu also developed the western coast of the island. Large scale agricultural developments took place in the province of Dakkhinadesa, the western coast of Sri Lanka. This was because trade emporia were coming up on the western coast of India and Sri Lanka has losing its monopoly. (Kiribamune. p 72)
Kiribamune points out that after the capital shifted to Dambadeniya, increasing attention was paid to the cultivation of commercial crops such as coconut, jak and cotton. Rice production was not forgotten. The planting of coconut gardens and groves of jak trees were given great prominence. Saddharmaratnavaliya, a contemporary literary work stated that there was no wealth if one did not indulge in trade. A new class of landowners had also come into being during this time. Rulers also placed great reliance on trade for state income. Taxes were said to have been collected at nine ports. King Buvanekabahu I tried to have direct trade with the King of Egypt, indicating that Sri Lanka was then trying to develop trade with countries in the Arabian Sea. (Kiribamune p 74-75)
After the 13 century, the ports in the south became important, because ships were now doing direct runs from the west to the east, through the Indian Ocean. The trade route ran horizontally across the Indian Ocean, via the Maldives, from China and Southeast Asia to Madagascar and the east coast of Africa. The southern ports would have been well positioned to catch his acceleratted trade, which started about 11 century and went on till the 16th century. Thus a string of smaller ports situated in the south and southwest of Sri Lanka came into prominence.
These included Chilaw, Negombo, Panadura, Kalutara, Bentota, Beruwela, Gintota, Weligama, Galle, Ambalantota, Tissamaharama. (Tampoe. p 170,206). One of the most patronised in the 13 century was Beruwela. This was visited by Zeng Ho in six of his 7 voyages.
Sri Lanka has had a lengthy list of items which it has exported over the centuries. Here is a list. There were spices. Such as cloves, cardamom, pepper, nutmeg and of course, cinnamon. Precious stones, particularly our rubies and sapphires, which were greatly valued in the west. Various types of wood were exported. Fine, decorative, aromatic and construction woods (hardwood) such as sandalwood, camphor, satinwood, ironwood, mangrove and teak. Also ivory, tortoise shell, and later on steel as well. These were avidly in demand in the early centres of western civilization, such as Iran, Mesopotamia, Egypt the Levant, and Rome. In addition, aloe wood and medicinal herbs from Sri Lanka were prized by the Persians. They also liked our treacle. In the 13th century or so, we also exported coconuts.
In 12th and 13th centuries, the Muslim traders resident in Sri Lanka collected rice and indigo from Trincomalee, chaya root and palmyra from Jaffna. Chank shells, arecanut betel leaves. ebony, satin and calamander woods and sapan wood from Puttalam. Cinnamon and precious stones from Colombo. Coconut oil and coir from Beruwela and from Galle ivory and elephants. (Bandaranayake. p 184, 194-5)
Researchers have now discovered hinterland trading centres, associated with the rivers which had easy access to the sea. Positive results have emerged at Giribawa on the left bank of the Kala Oya, which flows to the sea at Uruvelapatana at Nariyagama, on the left bank of the Deduru Oya, flowing to the sea at Chilaw, at the village of Pilapitiya, on the right bank of the Kelani Ganga about seven kilometres from the ancient sea port of Wattala, at Diyagama, on the right bank of the Kalu Ganga which joins the sea at the ancient port of Kalatitha and at Ridiyagama on the left bank of the Walawe Ganga which flows to the sea at the ancient port of Gothapabbata. This research is presently in progress and is handled by the Archaeological Department and the French Mission of Archaeological Cooperation in Sri Lanka. These sites which are situated in the Wet Zone yielded archaeological material which can be dated with certainty back to the 3rd and 4th centuries BC. Osmund Bopearachchi suggests that these ports functioned during the Anuradhapura period, thus extending the Anuradhapura civilization right down to the southern coast of Sri Lanka. Researchers are of the view that there was considerable inland navigation along the numerous rivers of Sri Lanka, and that Sri Lanka had devised indigenous craft which could be used both on river and on sea. There is sufficient evidence to show that the port of Trincomalee was known early as 5th century AD to merchants. In other words, emerging research shows a much more expansive 'Sinhala Buddhist' civilisation, encompassing the harbours at the river mouths all along the western and eastern coastline of Sri Lanka. (For a preliminary account see Bopearachchi's introduction to D. P. M. Weerakkody's book titled 'Taprobane: ancient Sri Lanka as known to Greeks and Romans'. 1997)
Sri Lanka's unique position in the Indian Ocean, made it a centre of transit trade all through the early and medieval periods of world history. Its long coastline, with the numerous bays and achorages found on its north, south east, and western coasts, gave it a significant position in shipping and trade. Its bays had anhorages provided adequate facilities for ships, and this assisted its central position in the Indian Ocean along the maritime trade routes. These trade routes changed over time. At one time, the emphasis was on the Arabian Sea and the western coasts of India, At another time, the emphasis was on the Bay of Bengal trade. Last of all, the emphasis was on the southern part of the Indian Ocean, with ships running along the base of Sri Lanka. Whatever way the trade routes changed, Sri Lanka had ports located in that part of the coast, to accommodate these ships. This could be symbolised in Mantai (west coast of Sri Lanka) Trincomalee (east coast) and Galle ports.
In addition to shipping and entrepot trade, it is now established that Sri Lanka also had a thriving export trade of its own. This it appears was supported by inland waterways, which brought goods to the sea ports, via the major rivers.
One of the common misconceptions of those who support the Tamil separatist movement is that the Tamil segment of Sri Lanka succeeded in subjugating the 'Sinhala' segment, after 10th century AD. The Tamils, it is said, pushed the 'Sinhalese' away from Anuradhapura to Polonnaruwa, and thereafter, further and further downwards, to the South. The impression given is that the 'Sinhalese' retreated from the North to the South where they stayed eversince. This is not confirmed by historical research.
Historical research has indicated that the North of Sri Lanka was for a good period of time, a part of the Anuradhapura kingdom and later part of the Kandyan Kindom. While Mantai was its major trading port, Jambukola (Kankesanturai) was its port of embarkation for South India. There was Buddhism in the Jaffna Peninsula. It is now suggested that the Anuradhapura civilization extended as far down as the Ridiyagama settlement in the South, by the Walawe River. This means that the Anuradhapura civilization, known as a 'Sinhala-Buddhist' civilisation, covered the whole country, with the possible exception of the hill country in the centre.
Historians are now taking pains to point out that there were no mass migrations of 'Sinhala people' from Anuradhapura to the South. Mantai was in use upto the 11th century. Trincomalee has been under consideration from about 5th century. The western ports such as Colombo seem to have been in operation from about the 10th century. This seems to indicate that the Sri Lankan civilisation, termed 'Sinhala-Buddhist' has covered nearly the whole country, and was never eradicated from any part of it, except for the Jaffna Peninsula and its surrounding area which alone, came under Tamil-saivite influence. It is important to stress this fact, because we now see a new terminology coming into use. That of 'North, Sri Lanka' and 'South, Sri Lanka'. This terminology is used by those sympathetic to the Tanil separatist movement. It is coined to further strengthen the notion of the North of Sri Lanka as a distinct Tamil region. 'North, Sri Lanka' and 'South, Sri Lanka were a part of a centrally ruled, 'Sinhala-Buddhist' civilization, which recognised just one consecrated king. Terminology such as 'North, Sri Lanka' should not be permitted in use. Separatist movements should be corrected when they attempt to coin terminology which will further separatist claims.
Lastly it is necessary to point out that historians now suggest that one factor which contributed to the shifting of the capital from Anuradhapura to Polonnaruwa to the south-west was the changing pattern of external trade in the Indian Ocean.
Due to its continous activity in Indian Ocean trade, either as a supplier or as an entrepot centre, Sri Lanka has had relations with an enormous variety of countries and ethnic groups. These include the Romans, the Persians, the Chinese, the Arabs, South Indians Hindus and Jains. Sri Lanka's entrepot trade included ceramics and silk from China. Gold precious stones, spices fabrics from India, wines, fabrics, glass, ceramics and horses from Egypt and Persia. The Mantai excavations unearthed glass vessels from Persian Gulf, Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan, Carnelian from Gujerat, Basalt from the Deccan.
Therefore we can argue that Sri Lanka was engaged in a continous multi-ethnic experience at this time. It is necessary to stress this fact, Because the 'Sinhala-Buddhist' civilization of Sri Lanka is often presented as an insular, intolerant one. It is possible to argue that Sri Lanka's experience in terms of multi-ethncity is rare and unique.
Look at Sri Lanka's position in the world map. Pre-modern Maritime trade, from Europe to Japan has been centred round the Red Sea, Mediterranean Arabian Sea, and Indian Ocean. The Atlantic and the Pacific oceans don't figure much in the picture. Sri Lanka is positioned between Africa, Europe, India, China and the 'Far East'. Its exposure to foreign influences continued thereafter with European expansion into Asia. The Portugese came in searth of 'Christians and Spices'. The Dutch followed as their commercial power increased. Dutch occupation brought in the Malay and Burgher communities. The British needed Sri Lanka, for control of the seas. As a result, there came 450s years of continuous foreign rule from 1505-1948. Historians have pointed out that this too is unique. That very few countries have had such a long period of continuous foreign rule in the modern period.
 |