News

News

US Congressman makes case for LTTE
A United States Congressman has urged the US State Department to present a roadmap to guide the LTTE to get off the terrorist list.

Firing questions at Donald Camp, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Affairs, during the House of Representative Committee of International Relations hearing on Sri Lanka and Nepal, Bred Sherman, Democratic Party member from California, asked whether there was a difference between Al Qaeda or other rebel groups and George Washington if violence was a criterion to impose a ban on group or label it as a terrorist organisation.

We publish below Mr. Sherman’s questions and Mr. Camp’s answers while the box story carries excerpts from the opening statements from Committee chairman Leach and Mr. Camp.

March 15, 2006 -House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Holds Hearing on Unrest in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Brad Sherman: Thanks for holding these hearings.
I'm going to focus on Sri Lanka. I've urged the State Department to design a road map for the Tamil Tigers, so that they would know what steps they would need to take to get off the terrorist list.
The response has been, well, we don't do that, which basically means that we're not acting to encourage the Tamil Tigers to improve their behavior.
Perhaps deputy -- principal deputy assistant secretary -- you could outline here what actions do we want the Tamil Tigers to take or refrain from.

Donald Camp: Actually, I think it's fairly straightforward.
The LTTE was put on the terrorist list, because of their violent activities.
What they would need to do would be to basically renounce terrorism, renounce violence in...

Sherman: What is the difference between terrorism on the one hand, and waging a legitimate guerrilla struggle on the other? What is the difference between Al Qaeda and George Washington?

Camp: If I could...
Sherman: (inaudible) George Washington did use violence.
Camp: Last I checked, though, he did not blow up buildings with civilians. I mean, the LTTE has been famous for its attacks, its suicide bomb attacks on civilian targets.

Sherman: Well, obviously...
Camp: And that makes a real difference.

Sherman: Obviously, when you focus on civilian targets, that's terrorism, when that's the deliberate objective of your behavior.

Camp: And I also have to add that, as far as the United States government is concerned, I mean, the Sri Lankan government is a sovereign government that we recognize. We support that government and its territorial integrity.
So, the LTTE, to call them a legitimate organization...

Sherman: Wait a minute. Are you saying that if there was a country in Europe during our revolution that didn't recognize the independence of the United States, they would have had to view George Washington as a terrorist, simply because they didn't agree with his objectives?

Camp: I'm simply saying that we support the Sri Lankan government as a legitimate government of the country of Sri Lanka. We see the LTTE as a terrorist organization.

Sherman: And if they were to stop targeting civilians, what would be our policy?

Camp: If they were to clearly renounce terrorism and stop carrying out those attacks, then I think, once we were convinced that they are sincere, then we can look at their terrorist listing. But they have not given us any reason to be generous about their motives, let's put it that way, sir.

Sherman: Well, their motives, in the sense of what their political objectives are, were sufficient to enter into a peace process. Terrorism is not a matter of motives; it's a matter of tactics.

There are those who long for a universal caliphate, but they don't kill civilians to achieve it. We don't call them terrorists just because their stated objective is similar to that of Mr. bin Laden. Terrorism is a tactic; it's not an objective.
I have simply been -- well, I was frankly disturbed by that reaction. The LTTE has made a number of statements to renounce terrorism. And we have taken the IRA off the terrorist list. We took Fatah off the terrorist list, or the Palestinian Authority of the PLO -- whichever incarnation they had prior to losing control of the Palestinian Authority.

And I would hope that we would start telling these groups what we want from them, with the expectation that if they deliver, they will get off the terrorist list. And I do think, though, it's legitimate to take a look at their objectives, as well as their tactics, as one consideration.

I would think that seeking some degree of autonomy for northeast Sri Lanka is not a terrible objective.

Perhaps you -- where do you think we're headed in Sri Lanka? Are we headed for another round of war?

Camp: I guess I'm a little more optimistic now that they've returned to peace talks. It's been four years -- well, three years since the talks broke off. The fact that the two sides are talking again has to be a reason for optimism.
They've got a ways to go, but I think the government in Sri Lanka is committed to looking for a peaceful way out of this. And I think everyone is tired of 23 years of war.

Sherman: The government has taken substantial action to prevent aid from reaching the parts of the island that were most affected by the tsunami, namely the northeast, which generally supports the Tamil Tigers, the LTTE.
What has the United States done to make sure that aid that's supposed to go to individuals is not interrupted for political reasons?

Camp: I would -- I guess I would say that the government of Sri Lanka made efforts to in fact make sure that aid was not only equitably delivered, but it would seem to be equitably delivered. And their attempt to establish this mechanism, with which they reached agreement on the LTTE -- a fairly significant achievement that took quite awhile -- was thrown out in the courts. Therefore, they've had to find other mechanisms.

I think I would take issue with the idea that they have actively attempted to prevent tsunami assistance from reaching the northeast.

Sherman: I think a government is responsible for all three branches of its government. For example, Saddam Hussein is on trial, because his revolutionary courts decided to execute 152 people, 148 people.
And I would hate to think that we take the position that it's OK to disrupt tsunami relief as long as it's done by the judicial branch of the Colombo government, and not the executive branch of the Colombo government.

Countries are responsible for their own constitutions and their own -- and all three branches of the government. So, I would hope that we would do more to say it is not an acceptable excuse to say, people on the ground aren't getting the aid that the world has generously provided, because, oh, it's a different branch of your government. I yield back. And I'd point out to the chairman, who also serves with me on the Financial Services Committee, that I need to go there, and he may have to, as well.

Camp: Deeply committed to Lankan peace
James A Leach (chairman): On behalf of the subcommittee, I would like to extend a warm welcome to our distinguished administration witness, Don Camp, who is the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia affairs in the newly expanded Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

The subcommittee meets today to review recent developments in two important countries in South Asia, both of whom have been struggling to overcome bitter legacies of domestic unrest that threaten internal stability and economic prosperity in the societies. In Sri Lanka, despite relatively good economic fundamentals and a solid social welfare structure, the country has not taken off as another regional tiger, principally because it remains mired in a multi-decade long civil war. Prospects for a permanent resolution of the conflict appear dim at this moment. Fortunately, eleventh hour efforts by the Norwegian government to broker a new round of negotiations in Geneva late last month helped save the badly battered four-year-old cease-fire agreement from likely collapse.

From a congressional perspective, one has the sense that the assassination of the foreign minister in the summer of 2005, coupled with other politically motivated killings, dramatically eroded support for the current cease-fire agreement among many of the majority Sinhalese people in Sri Lanka. Likewise, one also has the impression that the failure of the government to reach an agreement with the Tamil separatists on a mechanism to provide post-tsunami relief to areas in the north and east of the country, as well as ongoing paramilitary operations against the insurgents, may have convinced the insurgent leadership that Colombo was unlikely to commit to a just and permanent peace.

In this troubling context, we underscore our concern for the people of both countries. We have a number of questions about the situation in Nepal and Sri Lanka and the implications of such for United States policy. We look forward to your testimony and the exchange of views to follow.

Well, Mr. Camp, let me welcome you. We note that today is the Ides of March. (laughter)
Camp: I'd like to read a short version of my statement for the record. First on Nepal. (Edited due to space constrains).
Let me turn now to Sri Lanka and its longstanding conflict and very fragile peace process.

The senseless assassination of Foreign Minister Kadirgamar last August and a very intense presidential campaign heightened tensions in Sri Lanka during the fall of 2005. Following President Mahinda Rajapaksa's election on November 17th, escalating violence took the lives of Tamil civilians and almost 100 Sri Lankan security personnel, and put the four-year cease-fire agreement between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE very much at risk.
As the attacks continued, President Rajapaksa came under pressure to respond. But to his credit, the government showed significant restraint in the face of these provocations and maintained the cease-fire.

Given that deteriorating situation on the ground, the United States, the E.U., Japan and Norway -- the so-called Co-Chairs of the Sri Lanka Donors Group -- met several times late last year and early this year to discuss possible solutions. The Co-Chairs sent strong messages to both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to end the violence and uphold the fragile cease-fire agreement. In this respect, Norway's vital role as facilitator of the peace process merits special attention.

Sri Lankan government and LTTE negotiators met in Geneva on February 22 and 23, the first time in over three years that the two sides had returned to the negotiating table. The negotiators achieved some significant outcomes that should give the peace process in Sri Lanka some new momentum.
First, they agreed to refrain from violence and to uphold the cease-fire agreement. The government specifically addressed the problem of armed groups, a very serious LTTE grievance, and committed to ensuring that no armed group or person other than government security forces will carry arms or conduct armed operations. The LTTE pledged to ensure there would be no acts of violence against the security forces.

Given the difficulty involved in even convening this meeting, we consider it a significant achievement that both sides agreed to meet again in Geneva, April 19 to 21.

Despite the long conflict, Sri Lanka is a fully-functioning, stable democracy with strong democratic institutions and traditions, including freedom of the press. Human rights violations in Sri Lanka are largely related to the ongoing domestic conflict.

Government security forces, LTTE cadres and other armed groups have all been accused of abuses. Sri Lankan police and security forces have been accused of torture and links to groups participating in armed attacks. The LTTE has engaged in a whole host of abuses -- politically motivating killings, disappearances, torture and much more. We are particularly concerned about ongoing LTTE recruitment of child soldiers, in spite of its pledge to end such activity.

Mr. Chairman, we're deeply committed to achieving peace and stability in Nepal and Sri Lanka. The president's remarks on Nepal following his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Singh highlight the level of importance to us of these issues.

We will continue to work in South Asia with our friends and allies, through international fora, such as the Co-Chairs Group in Sri Lanka, and through the outreach of our embassies in Kathmandu and Colombo, to help the Nepalese and Sri Lankan people overcome the considerable obstacles before them on their paths back to peace and prosperity.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Top

Back to News