Professor G.L.Peiris, minister of Export Development is in overall charge of the negotiations on behalf of the government, to have GSP+ privileges extended for a further period of three years. In this interview, he speaks to C.A.Chandraprema on the latest developments with regard to the investigation that the European Commission has launched to ascertain Sri Lanka’s eligibility for an extension of the facility.

A. It is necessary to have a clear perspective of this. Many people are not aware that systematic work on Sri Lanka’s application commenced a long time before the 31st of October which was the last day specified by the European Commission for the receipt of applications for the new cycle of GSP+ commencing 2009. We handed in our application on the 10th of October. But preparatory work had started about a year earlier. Towards the end of 2007, we brought four pieces of legislation to fill certain gaps in Sri Lanka’s laws with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). We had done a lot of work in that area in close consultation with the attorney general. I am saying this to refute the criticism that the government is indifferent to the question of getting GSP+ extended. It is on this basis of this new legislation that the supreme court was able to declare on a reference made by the president that the principles contained in the ICCPR, receive full expression in the domestic laws of Sri Lanka and that whoever is able to show that there has been an infringement of a right that is guaranteed in the ICCPR, has a remedy at the hands of the courts of Sri Lanka. So the government has focused on these issues and we have prepared our case very thoroughly. The application that we submitted on the 10th of October is complete and it shows that we have complied with the requirements specified by the European Commission for qualifying for an extension of GSP+. The present position is that the commission has decided to conduct an investigation of Sri Lanka. Our position is that this is wholly inappropriate for a foreign government to conduct an investigation of a sovereign state. An investigation is not the way to go about it and we have made it very clear to Brussels that we will not agree to subject our country to an investigation. This does not mean however that we are closing the door to dialogue – this is not the case at all. We have made an application and we are ready to enter into a dialogue with the European Commission into any matter that may arise from our application and our ambassador in Brussels has been given very clear instructions that he should continue to engage with officials of the commission on matters relevant to Sri Lanka’s application.

A. A couple of weeks ago, there was a development, with the European Commission having put Sri Lanka on the list of countries that have qualified for GSP+ for the moment. There is however an asterix against our name and a note to the effect that Sri Lanka is under investigation. Their investigation procedure is that they publish a notice in their journal which was published on the 18th of October and in terms of that notice there is an invitation to any person who has any information to offer on Sri Lanka, to make representations to the commission within a period of four months. So the four months will be until the 18th of February. Then the commission will have to evaluate the mass of material that has been received. So they will require a reasonable period of time - several months to sift through this material. The importance of their including Sri Lanka in the list of countries that qualify for GSP+ is that if at the end of the investigation, the decision is that Sri Lanka does not qualify, the commission still has to give six months notice of the withdrawal of GSP+. So we would like to inform the public that all this was possible because of the systematic work of the government. We are confident that in this process of engagement that we propose to continue with the commission, we will be able to clarify any doubts.

A. The commission has identified three areas, which are relevant to their investigation. One is the ICCPR. The second is the convention against torture and the third is the convention on the rights of the child. They have said that they would like to investigate the effective implementation in Sri Lanka of these conventions. We have presented a large volume of material together with our application. As far as the convention against torture is concerned, we have highly placed officials of the United Nations like Phillip Alston and Manfred Novak, who have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of systemic torture in Sri Lanka. That is the conclusion arrived at by the UN system itself. Then as far as the convention on the rights of the child are concerned, it has been accepted that we have made considerable progress with regard to issues connected with child soldiers. The government of Sri Lanka has been in close contact with UNICEF in particular, and with the UN system in general and there was never an allegation that the Sri Lankan armed forces were recruiting child soldiers. The allegation was that there were other groups that were using child soldiers, but there is documented evidence with regard to the very considerable progress that has been made in that area. So we are in a position to show that in the last few months, there has been substantial progress and that we have been consistently and conscientiously working towards objectives which are basically the same as what the commission is asking for. In a country like Sri Lanka which has to grapple with the scourge of terrorism, the context is of overriding importance. You can’t expect a perfect situation to be achieved overnight. One has to be pragmatic. And the criteria is whether we are moving in the right direction - the trends. As far as the trends are concerned, no objective observer of the situation would have any doubt that the trends are positive and beneficial. And we believe that we will have no difficulty in convincing the authorities in Brussels through the process of negotiation and that is what we are engaged in at present. We have every reason to be optimistic about the outcome and the developments which have taken place in the last couple of weeks, are very welcome from that point of view.

A. As far as the ILO is concerned, there is no issue at all because the ILO is satisfied that Sri Lanka has been fully compliant with regard to labour standards. Our companies have gone much further than legal requirements and it is conceded by everybody that Sri Lanka has an exemplary record in that respect. We have no sweatshops, no prison labour, no child labour and we have received the most emphatic plaudits from personalities who have international stature – for example, when Sir Stewart Rose, the present chairman of Marks and Spencer, came here about five months ago, he declared after visiting the Brandix factory in Seeduwa and the MAS Holdings factory in Tulhiriya, that these are some of the finest factories that he has seen in any part of the world and that he would have no hesitation in sending people from England to visit these factories to learn procedures that are being adopted here and that they are a source of inspiration even to companies in the UK. Then you refer to environmental standards. Now the world’s first platinum award for compliance with the most meticulous environmental standards went to Brandix and we are very proud of that. It was an achievement of such significance that at the last Export awards ceremony, the president invited the CEO of Brandix Mr Ashroff Omar to present to him as the head of state, the platinum award. They had used modern technology to reduce the consumption of electricity and water in their factories by 30% and 50% respectively. That is their concept of ‘lean and green’ factories which is significant because of the global interest in issues connected to global warming and climate change. On those issues, we score the highest possible marks. You asked me about the investigation. The problem is that the procedures are very vague. There are no rules that specify the nature and the purview of the investigation. So we have made it very clear that we are not in favour of investigators coming into this country. At the moment, there is some flexibility and both sides are engaging with each other in a sprit of candour. The European commission is fully entitled to raise issues because we have made a request for GSP+ and it is up to us to respond to those issues.

A. Yes, this is uncharted territory, which is why all these problems arise. Under the GSP+ rules, this is the first investigation of its kind. As you rightly said, El Salvador was different because there the question was whether a recent court judgment makes it impossible for ILO regulations to be adhered to. That was a decision arrived at by the supreme court of El Salvador on the right of collective bargaining and the freedom of association. It was not a general investigation of this kind. Even under the GSP rules which is different from the GSP+ rules, there were only two investigations Belarus and Myanmar. This is virgin territory and there are no precedents or established procedures.

A. We have no reason to be diffident or on the defensive. We are prepared to approach this in a spirit of transparency and frankness. On the point that you made about the distinction between the government and the people, that also is very relevant to this whole issue, because we have made it clear to the European commission that any attempt to take GSP+ away from the country, is going to impact most of all on the poorest sections of Sri Lanka’s population. About 65% of garment factories are situated in rural areas and many of those working in those garment factories are women who have become bread winners. Garment factories in this country are the principal instrument for uplifting social and economic conditions in the rural heartland of Sri Lanka and in breaking down the divide between the urban and the rural areas. It is a very powerful catalyst of social change. So these are the people who are going to take a hit if GSP+ is withdrawn. So that is not a consequence that the European commission is going to be happy with, given the conceptual underpinnings of their culture and their political convictions.