Sri Lanka and the Commonwealth

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes my case for me, and I agree with him. Suspension from the Commonwealth is an important step, and the Commonwealth is an important organisation. It is hugely respected by its members and those outside it. Such a move would be a stepping stone, but an important one. An important organisation consisting of a group of countries that work together would be saying, "We will not tolerate this in our midst. This is not acceptable." Sri Lanka would be told that it must desist from such activity, stop genocidal warfare and sue for peace. That would be an appropriate thing for the Commonwealth to do. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My case is that suspension would be an important step but it cannot be the only measure because, of itself, it might not bring the results that we need. That is why the UN is so important and why we need to move the debate on to this issue. Even if it does not go to the Security Council at this time—although I think that it possibly should—we should be having the debate. We have been wary of moving towards such a debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the UN seems to have been cowed and we all seem to be wary of raising the issue with the UN, but does that not show that this is a testing time for the UN and that it needs to take up the issue? The Sri Lankan Government have attempted to reject a special representative appointed by our Prime Minister, on the ground that they were not consulted—as if they are consulted on the ministerial appointments or any other appointments that the Prime Minister makes. It is an outrageous argument. We have seen them do that, and the UN needs to take steps. Whatever the UN may be, it can do more than it is currently doing, and I want our Government to push it to do just that. The Sri Lankan Government have accepted that there is no political solution; they have said as much themselves. So, if there is no political solution, what are they doing perpetrating—pushing forward—the war? I do not deny that the Tamil Tigers have also committed atrocities, and none of us present would defend them, but, they are asking for a ceasefire and it is for the Sri Lankan Government to respond. If they do not do so now, and they say that there is no political solution, why are they prosecuting the war? What is the purpose? Why are journalists not allowed into the Vanni region? Why are aid agencies, which are so badly needed, not allowed in? If the Sri Lankan Government have nothing to hide, why do they not allow in those who need to go there to assist people and let the eyes of the world see what is happening? Why is that not happening now? The Sri Lankan Government cannot complain if we condemn them and assume that the situation is worse than they say it is, if they will not let people see for themselves. We have four immediate goals. We want Sri Lanka suspended from the Commonwealth for the reasons that I have given; a ceasefire; a UN monitoring mission to be given unfettered access to the country; and a resumption of peace negotiations. Those things must happen now. Finally, aid agencies must be allowed in to help those people on whose behalf we stand here today and raise our voices—the people who are innocent and suffering, the people of the future. There is no military solution to the situation, but if there is no political solution, there will be no end to it.