---

Sri Lanka

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their statements. I shall try to respond to the many questions they have posed with the caveat used by the Foreign Secretary of the "fog of war". Frankly, much of the detail of this conflict, such as the number of casualties or whether war crimes have been committed, is very hard to establish at the moment. The international agencies, not having the degree of access that they might normally have in such a situation, are forced to make guesstimates and to acknowledge that on certain issues they do not have enough information on which to offer a judgment. On the number of civilians still trapped in the conflict zone, although the Government believe that the number may be as low as some thousands, and perhaps up to 6,000, the United Nations believes that the figure is more than 50,000 and has said so publicly. There is no agreement even on the size of the remaining civilian problem. Certainly the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart urged the maximum restraint on the Government of Sri Lanka and they have just announced that there would be an end to the use of heavy weapons. That issue came up in the two Foreign Secretaries’ meeting with the Sri Lankan defence minister, where it was observed that suspending the use of these weapons came as a surprise because people thought that they had already stopped using them. There is continued uncertainty about exactly the type of fighting that is going on. The Government insist that it is now in a last-phase operation and others allege that there is still very heavy fighting. On the access of aid convoys by road and by sea, the two Foreign Secretaries insisted to the Government that there was now plenty of aid, both food and medical supplies, in the country and that the key issue is access—the ability to deliver the aid. Not nearly enough food, medical supplies or indeed aid workers have been able to enter the area. I turn to whether British military assistance has been used in the conflict. As this conflict is not a new one, we have issued export licences for military equipment in a very limited and, I hope, judicious way. Although we have not investigated the matter, I very much hope that no such materiel has been used. On the 13 UN workers, I believe that they still have not been released from the camps. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether the Secretary of State and Foreign Secretary have yet spoken. As the Statement in the Commons was not that long ago, I am afraid the noble Baroness has caught me on that one. On the Commonwealth discussions, I have been leading those and have been in regular touch with the Commonwealth secretary-general who, at this moment, is trying to organise the next CMAG. At the previous one, Sri Lanka was raised under other business. He is determined that it should be raised. Sri Lanka itself is currently a member of CMAG, which is about the breakdown of democracy in terms of the Harare principles that it seeks to enforce. The case needs to be made about the grounds and terms on which this discussion can take place, but the Commonwealth secretary-general has been clear in condemning the conflict, appealing for a ceasefire, and stating that this matter is the business and concern of the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth has a role to play. On the issue of there being no military solutions, we confirm that there needs to be a political process of reconciliation. We also need to be clear that this conflict has reached a point where one side has won in all but final name. Therefore, the conclusion of the fighting needs to be organised around that fact of life on the battlefield. We need to get an orderly end to the conflict followed by a process of political reconciliation and a meeting of the legitimate need for a say in their own government for the Tamil people. Otherwise, one can only fear that this conflict will resume in different, equally viral and pernicious forms in both Sri Lanka and abroad at a later date. We have been very clear that, while these two processes may be separate, there must be an end to the fighting and then a process of political reconciliation to address the roots of the conflict. The UK special envoy will be visiting next week as part of a parliamentary delegation. He has already been very active both internationally and with the Tamil community here in the UK, so we hope he is going to play an important part in the next steps of this process. I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a clear UN duty to protect. It seems, in many ways, to meet the conditions of the responsibility to protect whereas the Government, because of the conflict, may not have properly met the need to protect their own civilian population. As always with a doctrine of international humanitarian law, the real issue is enforcement or implementation of that concept. The UN Secretary-General has been enormously active, as has his Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, in terms of seeking to secure entry to the conflict zones for a UN team to assess what is going on and, subsequently, to contribute to providing humanitarian assistance in that zone, arriving at a ceasefire, and improving the conditions and protection arrangements for civilians in the transit camps. The commitment that the UN Secretary-General thought he had for such a deployment has been challenged and delayed, so the UN is frustrated at not having more access at this time. It is seized with this and there have been urgent discussions in both New York and Colombo. As to the role of the IMF loan, the preparations for that are continuing. It is due to be considered by the IMF board in the middle of the month and at that time it will be important to arrive at a view on it. Obviously, we have been trying to ensure that the IMF financing of countries caught up in the global economic crisis is done in as urgent and felicitous a way as possible, but we cannot look at this in isolation from the broader conflict currently underway in the country.