Lord Naseby disappointed

* Lanka’s collective failure to use ‘Gash reports’ for its defence:

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 289

September 24, 2019, 8:28 pm

Lord Naseby gave the writer an opportunity to peruse copies of once classified British diplomatic dispatches ... (pic by Nirosha Soysa)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka recently lost a golden opportunity to honour British politician Lord Naseby whose untiring efforts helped Sri Lanka to counter politically-motivated unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, propagated by interested parties. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka lacked the required political will to exploit the Conservative Party politician’s revelations. Instead, the current dispensation struggled to cope up with Lord Naseby’s disclosure in the House of Lords, on Oct 12, 2017. The revelation disputed the very basis of a Geneva Resolution, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka on Oct 01, 2015.

The yahapalana government did its best to downplay Lord Naseby’s revelation. In fact, the government did nothing, though Foreign Minister Marapana made reference to Lord Naseby’s disclosure at the March 2019 Geneva sessions.

Lord Naseby, who was in Colombo on the invitation of the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA), for the inauguration of their two-day conference, should have been invited for the ceremonial conferment of the five-star Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force and the Admiral of the Fleet rank to Roshan Goonetileke and Wasantha Karannagoda, respectively, at an investiture ceremony, at the East Container Terminal (ECT) of the Colombo harbour on the morning of Sept. 19, 2019.

The recipient of Sri Lanka Rathna, the highest Sri Lanka honour bestowed on a foreigner, who fought the British system, on Sri Lanka’s behalf, to secure the much-sought-after confidential British documents (dispatches from the UK British military attaché in Colombo Lt Col. Anthony Gash) which exposed an elephantine lie.

The writer was among those invited by wartime Air Force Commander Air Marshal Goonetileke to attend the investiture ceremony held more than a decade after the successful conclusion of the war. Wouldn’t it have been much better if the Defence Ministry’s guest list also included wartime President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Chief of National Intelligence (CNI) Maj. Gen. Kapila Hendavitharana and Lord Naseby. Their absence, at such a significant military event, highlighted the continuing political turmoil, over a decade after the eradication of terrorism. The writer learns the SLPP presidential candidate received an invitation for the event at the ECT, though he couldn’t attend. Gotabaya Rajapaksa wasn’t in a position to accept the invitation due to the ongoing polls campaigning.

Interestingly, President Maithripala Sirisena, who conferred the Field Marshal title on war-winning Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, on March 2015, less than two months after the last presidential poll, conferred the five star rank on Fonseka’s colleagues, four years later. Now, President Sirisena and Fonseka, who failed an abortive bid, in 2010, to oust Mahinda Rajapaksa, are not on talking terms, though, as a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), probing the Easter Sunday attacks, Fonseka accompanied the lawmakers group to record the SLFP leader’s statement at the presidential secretariat.

The absence of cooperation, at the highest level, among President Sirisena and members of parliament, on ways and means to counter war crimes allegations, exposes the political bankruptcy of all concerned. Political parties, represented in parliament, should be ashamed of their pathetic failure to use Lord Naseby’s disclosure.

The yahapalana government much to the dismay of the vast majority of Sri Lankans terminated the annual victory day parade. The cancellation was meant to appease those who couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s victory over the LTTE.

In an exclusive interview with the writer, on Sept. 17 - two days before the conferment of five star rank to wartime Air and Navy chiefs - Lord Naseby dealt with a range of issues, with the focus on accountability.

Karannagoda and Goonetileke received top commands, on Sept 01, 2005, and June 12, 2006, respectively. Goonetileke and Karannagoda retired on July 14, 2009 and Feb 27, 2011, respectively. The latter also held the post of CDS for over a period of two years.

Lord Naseby also discussed his plans to launch his memoirs, titled Sri Lanka: Paradise Lost Paradise Regained - Recollections from 50 years of a unique friendship between a British Politician and the people of Sri Lanka, in the coming months.

UK upset over Shavendra’s appointment

It would be pertinent to reproduce the latest British statement, on Sri Lanka, made at the UNHRC, Geneva, just days before Lord Naseby’s arrival in Colombo. The UK’s International Ambassador for Human Rights, Rita French, said that the UK remained steadfast in its commitment to help Sri Lanka deliver peace, reconciliation and prosperity for all communities. Regrettably, the UK is hell-bent on pursuing war crimes allegations, regardless of Lord Naseby’s revelations that exposed the mega Western lie.

The following is the UK-led statement in Geneva: "This statement is on behalf of Canada, Germany North Macedonia, Montenegro, and the United Kingdom as members of the Human Rights Council core group on Sri Lanka.

"We thank the High Commissioner for her update and repeat our condolences to Sri Lanka for the appalling loss of life in April.

"It is four years since Sri Lanka took ownership of delivering wide ranging reforms to advance reconciliation, accountability and human rights through co-sponsorship of Council resolution 30/1. Sri Lanka repeated these commitments, most recently through HRC resolution 40/1, six months ago.

"The core group believes that the pledges made by Sri Lanka to its people are the essential ingredients for national healing, stability and prosperity. The core group remains steadfast in its commitment to supporting Sri Lanka’s future through the implementation of the resolution. Continued support for the process from the Government and people of Sri Lanka will be critical for these measures to succeed.

"There have been important developments since 2015 which demonstrate good intentions on the part of the Government and reflect the work of many committed individuals. Some key domestic institutions have been established. However, the pace of progress has remained slow in many areas, with bureaucratic constraints hampering delivery.

"In the most recent resolution, the Council encouraged Sri Lanka to set a clear time-line for action, through a national implementation strategy. We hope that Sri Lanka will put this in place as a matter of priority. Madame High Commissioner, we share the concern expressed in your statement of 19 August that the appointment of General Silva as Army Commander severely compromises Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote justice and accountability and undermines reconciliation efforts. The core group believes that it is vital for peace and prosperity that Sri Lanka builds confidence in its commitment to protecting political space and human rights.

"This Council has been seized with the situation in Sri Lanka over many years and has made an essential contribution towards addressing serious violations of the past. But this work remains incomplete, and requires our ongoing attention. It is vital that this Council and the international community continue to give the necessary attention and support to Sri Lanka as it continues on the path towards enduring peace and reconciliation."

Q&A with Lord Naseby

 The Island: Did you make available Gash reports to the government of Sri Lanka before the House of Lords disclosure on Oct 12, 2017?

Lord Naseby: Before I made the statement...

The Island: We understand the Gash reports were made available to former President Rajapaksa and President Sirisena

Lord Naseby: I did not make them available to former President Rajapaksa. I told him about Gash reports. But I made them available to the government of President Sirisena. I haven’t given the full copy to former President Rajapaksa.

Lord Naseby, following consultations with Amal Abeywardene, who had been all along involved in his project, in support of Sri Lanka, asserted that Gash reports were made available to Sri Lanka, before being presented in the House of Lords, on Oct 12, 2017.

Both the incumbent government and former President Rajapaksa’s camp owed an explanation as to why they refrained from taking tangible measures on the basis of Gash reports before Lord Naseby made his statement. They failed to act even after the disclosure was made in the House of Lords.

Abeywardene was also present at the interview conducted at the luxurious Cinnamon Lakeside, situated opposite the former Air Force headquarters. Cinnamon Lakeside had its own security, at its main entrance, and also at the entry point to the lobby since the Easter Sunday attacks on six targets in Batticaloa, Katuwapitiya (Negombo) and Colombo. Attackers left Cinnamon Lakeside out of its list of targets which included Shangri-La, Kingsbury and Cinnamon Grand. My wife, Dilhani, was on hand to record the interview - my second meeting with Lord Naseby. The British politician visited The Island editorial years ago for a briefing and discussion on the situation with Editor-in-Chief Prabath Sahabandu.

The Island: Can you explain the circumstances under which you obtained Gash reports from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Lord Naseby: I appealed against the decision to heavily redact the Gash dispatches. I went to courts. The judge, in summing up, said he had enormous sympathy for the cause...but he had to recognize...having been told by her Majesty’s government that the material that was redacted was sensitive in terms of UK relationship with friendly countries. The court had taken recognition of that fact but he said what is published in your domain your request you made it and it is there for you to use it as you fit. When I next came here, I bought one set of documents to deliver to the government.

Lord Naseby said former President Rajapaksa was told, during his 2017 visit to Colombo, as of how he secured Gash reports though the wartime leader wasn’t given a set of copies.

Why didn’t Sri Lanka take advantage of Gash reports? Can the deliberate failure on Sri Lanka’s part be compared with unprecedented negligence that led to the National Thowheed Jamaat (JMT) suicide bombing spree on April 21, 2019?

The Island: The war was brought to a successful conclusion, in May 2009. You could have sought the required information from the FCO before. Can you explain as to why you waited so long?

Lord Naseby: I never think about it….Ok..I should perhaps have known you could use the Freedom of Information Act to do this sort of thing. But I didn’t. And I went to the library with a colleague of mine of the House of Lords. I was told to go to the library and read the Act. I read the Act. Then I thought...maybe I can get Gash dispatches.

Amal Abeywardene interrupted to explain the circumstances under which Lord Naseby made his intervention on Sri Lanka’s behalf. According to Abeywardene, Lord Naseby had met the then British Premier David Cameron (Conservative Party), in early Nov 2013, before he left for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), in Colombo, in mid Nov 2013. The meeting had taken place in parliament at a time Cameron was being heavily influenced by the Tamil Diaspora. Cameron had seen Callum Macrae’s ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, produced by UK’s Channel 4. Cameron had been under intense pressure to boycott CHOGM 2013.Having decided to attend CHOGM, Cameron stressed the importance of addressing the accountability issue. Abeywardene recalled as to how Lord Naseby told Premier Cameron as to how lies were being propagated at Sri Lanka’s expense. Lord Naseby also challenged the UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) claim the last phase of the Sri Lankan offensive killed 40,000 civilians. Abeywardene recollected as to how Lord Naseby suggested to Premier Cameron to examine dispatches from Colombo-based British Defence Attaché. Lord Naseby had warned Cameron that if he was not willing to do so, he (Lord Naseby) might have to seek information in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Abeywardene: It was not a threat. The process of getting information from a government office is very tough.

Lord Naseby: We were not sure whether it was Defence or Foreign Office. We sought information from both and the Defence Department made it clear that this was a matter for the Foreign Office. They didn’t respond for at least two months, perhaps three, because they realized they were pretty sensitive stuff.

Lord Naseby sought information on Nov 06, 2014.

The Island: Why did the FCO delay the releasing of dispatches?

Lord Naseby: The FCO claimed that the releasing of such information infringed on their relationship with those countries which provided sensitive information. The FCO felt that would have undermined vital relationships.

The Island: Perhaps, the FCO realized that if those dispatches had been released unsubstantiated allegations against Sri Lanka could have been successfully countered.

Lord Naseby: You could well be right

The Island: The situation would have been different if the FCO released the dispatches promptly. That would have jeopardized their efforts to move a resolution in Geneva the following year.

In the wake of the change of government, in January 2015, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo proceeded with the US-led project. Sri Lanka co-sponsored Geneva Resolution on Oct 01, 2015.

Lord Naseby: Each time the FCO refused, there was a mechanism to appeal. The FCO probably believed when appeals were repeatedly turned down, I would go away. I didn’t. That didn’t happen.

The Island: If you managed to obtain Gash reports, would it have helped thwart Geneva Resolution? Don’t forget the one-time LTTE mouthpiece, the TNA, was brought into powerful political grouping, comprising the UNP-JVP-SLMC on the basis that the military killed 40,000 civilians. That unsubstantiated claim was the basis of that coalition. The same group backed wartime Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. Although Fonseka failed, Maithripala Sirisena succeeded five years later.

Lord Naseby: You are right. Had we managed to start earlier...But you must also not forget that we did not get anything out of the Foreign Office with ease. We had to appeal to the Information Commissioner. I had to make a separate submission to the Information Commissioner in this regard.

Lord Naseby has made representations to the Information Commissioner why he believed dispatches should be released on the basis of public interest. The Information Commissioner, according to Lord Naseby, accepted that assertion.

The Island: Have you been shocked by Sri Lanka’s collective failure to effectively use information provided by you in the defence of her armed forces? The recent UK-led statement, in Geneva, critical of the appointment of celebrated battlefield commander Shavendra Silva as the Commander of the Army is a case in point.

Lord Naseby: You had a census in the Northern Province before the releasing of Gash dispatches. That census collaborated the Gash reports to a fair degree.

The Island: In fact, there was another report prepared by the UN in Colombo during the Vanni offensive. That too sort of collaborated with the census and the Gash reports.

The Island: Are you really surprised Sri Lankan politicians, and the government failed to use the Gash reports?

Lord Naseby: Disappointed

The Island: When Sri Lanka turned a blind eye to your revelation, in the House of Lords, you directly wrote to the UNHRC. You sought re-examination of the resolution. What was their response? What happened?

Lord Naseby: Nothing. The UNHRC should have taken the detailed submissions made, seriously.

Lord Naseby said that he offered to appear before the UNHRC at his own expense to back his claim though Geneva turned a Nelsonian eye to his effort. The outspoken lawmaker said that he was hugely disappointed by UNHRC reaction.

The Island: How do you view the British stand on Sri Lanka, regardless of the disclosure of the Gash reports and their willingness to follow accusations, attributed to nameless people, whereas British DA’s reports were disregarded? Did UK political parties follow such a policy for domestic political reasons? (David Miliband’s exposure by Wiki Leaks pertaining to UK politics and war against the LTTE, in 2009 is a case in point).

Lord Naseby: The UK-led statement ascertains that genuine progress has been made. The assertion that the progress was slow is accurate.

Lord Naseby strongly criticized Sri Lanka’s failure to make available sufficient funds for OMP (Office of Missing Persons) for conducting its operations. The British politician said that he was deeply disappointed by the absence of required funds that deprived the OMP of the wherewithal to engage in investigations. Lord Naseby called for urgent remedial measures. He emphasized the pivotal role the OMP could play in clearing accusations directed at the country. Lord Naseby explained as to how Sri Lanka missed an opportunity to use OMP to its advantage for want of a cohesive strategy. Lord Naseby underscored the OMP’s failure to act on the Paranagama report as well as the ICRC findings due to different reasons. Lord Naseby expressed shock and disappointment at the way the government handled the key aspect in the accountability process.

Responding to a query, on the planned book launch, Lord Naseby said: "Paradise lost, paradise regained is a quote from Milton. The undertone here. Why I choose a quote from Milton. Milton, one of our greatest poets. He fought on the parliamentary side in our civil war in 1645." Lord Naseby explained the reasons that prompted him to choose that particular quote. Lord Naseby also discussed plans for the book launch, during the next Galle Literally festival in 2020 while acknowledging possible change of plans due to reasons beyond his control. Unicorn Publishing Group is the publisher.

Asked whether Geneva would be discussed in his memoirs, Lord Naseby said that he began with his arrival at the Ratmalana airport, way back in April 1963, and right up to a year ago though certain changes had to be made following the Easter Sunday carnage. Lord Naseby said the book comprised 19 Chapters and took over two years to complete. Lord Naseby reminiscences him receiving overseas flying training in US aircraft.

The Island: Did you launch the book project after the Gash episode?

Lord Naseby: I think that was probably the catalyst.

Responding to The Island query on his role as a young RAF/NATO pilot, an obviously delighted Lord Naseby recalled as to how he, after leaving school, in July 1955, joined the RAF in terms of the then mandatory two-year military service, against the backdrop of the US-Soviet cold war. Lord Naseby reminiscence how he sought to join the RAF after having undergone flying training, thanks to a visit to his father who was then serving the Punjab government. Lord Naseby talked lovingly of his time with his father, based in Lahore, at that time, during holidays, before returning to the UK to join the military.

Asked how he felt about the coverage received from the international media to his revelation, Lord Naseby admitted that it was insufficient though he asserted he could have achieved more if necessary staff were available to him.

The Island pointed out those sections of the international media, too, pursued their own agenda at Lord Naseby’s expense, thereby undermined Sri Lanka’s defence.

Sri Lanka can never repay Lord Naseby, whose intervention, on our behalf, exposed the extravagant and corrupt lot in the parliament. Thanks to Lord Naseby, the public is aware of the true nature of the Geneva project, based on false casualty figures and now its lost credibility.

At the conclusion of the interview, the writer asked Lord Naseby whether he believed the Geneva/accountability issue could be a major factor to decide the outcome of the Nov 16, 2019 presidential poll. A thoughtful Lord Naseby said it wouldn’t be an issue.

Civil society intervention underscores turmoil

Selection of UNP 2019 prez poll candidate

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 288

September 17, 2019, 9:02 pm

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya paying floral tribute at the statue of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha near the parliament recently (pics courtesy Speaker’s Office)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The National Movement of Social Justice (NMSJ)-led civil society grouping is of the view that UNP leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe should pave the way for Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to contest the 2019 presidential election.

 Having backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the January 2015 presidential election, the civil society grouping threw its weight behind Speaker Jayasuriya. The move should be examined against the backdrop of the Speaker’s role in thwarting the high profile Sirisena-Rajapaksa bid in Oct 2018 to oust the UNP. The Sirisena-Rajapaksa duo couldn’t sustain the operation launched on Oct 26, 2018.

Widely dubbed the Oct 2018 constitutional coup, the project collapsed in 52 days. Speaker Jayasuriya emerged stronger, following his bruising battle with President Sirisena.

 Had the constitutional coup succeeded, the 2019 presidential election would have been held under a very much different environment.

 In addition to the NMSJ, Purawesi Balaya played an important role in the counter-attack directed against President Sirisena. The civil society held President Sirisena responsible for the bid to change a government, elected for a five-year period, at the last parliamentary poll in August 2015. Speaker Jayasuriya also received the praise of a section of the international community for his strong stand against the Sirisena-Rajapaksa project.

Speaker Jayasuriya’s emergence as a political figure to be reckoned with seems to have given the civil society an opportunity to promote the UNPer as the National Democratic Front (NDF) presidential candidate. The civil society has ignored UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa’s bid to secure the NDF nomination. In spite of Premadasa launching a high profile campaign with three large rallies so far in Badulla, Matara and Kurunegala to pressure Premier Wickremesinghe, the civil society is of the opinion Speaker Jayasuriya stands a much better chance against Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

NMSJ pledges support to Karu J

 On September 06, 2019, the NMSJ delegation, led by its leader Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, requested Speaker Jayasuriya to contest the 2019 presidential poll. The Speaker’s Office confirmed the unprecedented meeting that took place in parliament. The Speaker accepted the challenge on the basis of all concerned reaching a consensus on his candidature. The UNPer was flanked by academic Wijesuriya and LSSP stalwart and one of the chief architects of the much derided 19th Amendment to the Constitution Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, a National List member of the UNP.

The Sinhala academic took over the NMSJ after the death of its founder Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha thera in Nov 2015.

The civil society move quite surprised some, including Premier Wickremesinghe’s camp. The civil society always worked closely with UNP leader Wickremesinghe, though there were some issues. However, the civil society decision made it quite clear that Wickremesinghe lost a key support base at a critical time of his lackluster political career.

The NMSJ-led grouping assured Speaker Jayasuriya that a person of his calibre is required to contest the next presidential election. Asserting that political and economic stability could be re-established by his election as the next president, the civil society grouping declared that he could secure the support of minorities, in addition to approximately three million floating voters. Underscoring the importance of experienced and sensible leadership, the civil society warned of fresh threat to democracy. The civil society also expressed serious concerns over the process of hasty decisions and as to how such decisions could undermine democracy.

The civil society described Speaker Jayasuriya as the person to lead the country, without pursuing corrupt political agendas and was the choice of the entire civil society grouping. Speaker Jayasuriya, while recollecting requests received from various parties, including religious leaders, for him to contest the presidential poll, ruled out him joining the power struggle.

The NMSJ followed its meeting, with Speaker Jayasuriya, by two widely covered media briefings, on Sept 10 and Sept 14, at its Rajagiriya Office, where a group of monks, affiliated to the group, declared its support for Speaker Jayasuriya, on Sept 10. The group included chief incumbent of Tantirimale Raja Maha Viharaya and chief prelate of the North Central Province Ven Tantirimale Chandrarathana. On Sept, 14, a group of academics declared that a countrywide survey conducted by a Peradeniya University team, revealed Speaker Jayasuriya was the strongest of the candidates likely to contest the 2019 presidential poll.  On the basis of the opinion poll, the academics, led by former Peradeniya University Professor Dr. Sisira Pinnawela, placed Speaker Jayasuriya above Sajith Premadasa. But, the most significant claim was that Speaker Jayasuriya can easily defeat SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

A survey claims Karu J

can beat Gotabaya

 Senior Fulbright Fellow and former faculty member of the Department of Sociology, at Peradeniya University, Dr. Sisira Pinnawala, said that his research contained a sample size of 1,675 voters, with the entire vote base divided into 10 geographical sub-groups.

Interestingly, UNP leader Wickremesinghe hasn’t been among the four candidates examined by voters. Dr. Pinnawela based his report on voters’ reaction to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya. The study, according to the report, was meant to test the popularity of the four candidates, though the UNP and NDF were yet to name its candidates. Although Prof. Pinnawela briefed the media, on Sept 10, it was available to the writer on August 19.

Jayasuriya led in seven out of the 10 sub-groups, polled in Dr. Pinnawala’s research.  Premadasa polled well in four out of 10 sub-groups.

The survey was conducted, using telephone interviews, with voters in Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, and Christian majority areas.

The survey was based on key assumptions: (a) that the SLFP will not field a candidate (b) that the UNP will not be divided over its candidate and back a single candidate, and (c) that the minority parties, and especially the Tamil National Alliance, will not field a candidate.

The survey, according to Dr. Pinnawela, proved that Sajith Premadasa cannot defeat Gotabaya Rajapaksa, under any circumstances, whereas Karu Jayasuriya can certainly defeat the wartime Defence Secretary. In a contest between Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Karu Jayasuriya, in 10 sub group areas, Karu Jayasuriya leads in seven sectors. In a contest between Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Sajith Premadasa, the latter leads in four areas though the percentage of voters the UNP Deputy Leader is likely to receive definitely much lower than Karu Jayasuriya. Dr. Pinnawela asserted that Sajith Premadasa is likely to lose to Gotabaya Rajapaksa as he didn’t get the attention received by Gotabaya Rajapaksa from professionals.

Dr. Pinnawela also declared that Karu Jayasuriya could attract the Sinhala Buddhist vote, thereby strongly challenging Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s perceived superiority among the Sinhala Buddhist vote. Many an eyebrow was raised over Dr. Pinnawela’s assertion that Karu Jayasuriya enjoyed, what he called Sinhala Buddhist image, than Prime Minister Wickremesinghe.

The survey suggested that JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake can cause similar damage to the UNP and SLPP candidates, even if the SLFP joined the SLPP, as all its voters are not likely to be exercised in support of the latter and finally Premadasa’s nomination can benefit the JVP leader.

A forgotten defeat

 Dr. Pinnawela’s findings are obviously contrary to the results of the last Local Government polls conducted in Feb 2018. The SLPP inflicted massive defeat on the UNP and the SLFP at that poll. The UNP ended up being the first political party to lose Local Government polls while being in power.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa always considered the possibility of Speaker Jayasuriya being his opponent. Gotabaya Rajapaksa discussed the possibility months before the SLPP, after much haggling, announced the war veteran as its candidate. Rajapaksa, on March 20, told a gathering at Gauthama Viharaya, Narahenpita, that Speaker Karu Jayasuriya was seeking to be UNP candidate, at the 2019 presidential election.

A smiling Rajapaksa, told Plantation Minister Navin Dissanayake, present on that occasion that the latter’s father-in-law was a presidential contender.

Rajapaksa said so in response to Navin Dissanayake, who, in his address called Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the future Opposition presidential candidate. Minister Dissanayake emphasized the pivotal importance of suitable persons given appropriate positions.

Navin Dissanayake recalled the assassination of his father, Gamini, in Oct 1994, at the age of 52, at a UNP rally at Thotalanga. Navin Dissanayake said that today (March 20) was his 77 birth anniversary.

Dissanayake said that Rajapaksa was much older than his father when coming forward as a presidential candidate.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa survived an LTTE suicide attack, on Dec 01, 2006, in Colombo. Had the LTTE succeeded in assassinating Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the then Army Chief Lt. Sarath Fonseka on April 25, 2006, Sri Lanka couldn’t have eliminated the LTTE.

Minister Dissanayake said that they didn’t know what the future held for them.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa thanked Dissanayake for introducing him as the future presidential candidate.

Speaker Jayasuriya has always been a key presidential contender since he scored heavily during the failed constitutional coup. Although, the Joint Opposition and the SLPP accused Speaker Jayasuriya of acting contrary to the Standing Orders, thereby jeopardized parliamentary proceedings, the UNPer attracted the attention of those who sought a change of UNP leadership though they were not ready to accept a Premadasa take-over.

At the onset of the battle for UNP presidential nomination, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka were in the running. In addition Health Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne too indicated an interest in contesting the 2019 presidential election. Minister Senaratne’s media unit quoted the General Secretary of Sihala Ravaya, Ven. Magalkande Sudantha as having told an event organized by Rajitha Senaratne foundation in Kalutara on July 21, 2019 that the time was ripe for a person from the Kalutara district to become the President. Ven. Sudantha stressed the need to fill what he called a national leadership vacuum. However, UNP leader Wickremesinghe and his Deputy Premadasa emerged the two major contenders, about three weeks ago, before the civil society made its well calculated move. Obviously, the NMSJ-led effort is meant to promote Speaker Jayasuriya at the expense of both Wickremesinghe and Premadasa. Some speculate in case Speaker Jayasuriya received presidential nomination, the JVP may quit the contest and declare its support for Speaker Jayasuriya. An authoritative civil society leader confirmed the possibility when the writer raised the possibility of the JVP leader quitting the contest.

Karu J’s politics

 Speaker Jayasuriya has never been accused of waste, corruption or irregularities though he cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for the rapid deterioration of parliament, since he received appointment as the Speaker, following the last parliamentary election, in August 2015. Speaker Jayasuriya certainly owed an explanation as to why the debate on the presidential bond scams was never held. Over the past decade, the parliament has deteriorated to such an extent that lawmaker Wijeyadasa Rajapakse PC, in response to a query raised by the writer recently, called the parliament the most corrupt institution in the country. In fact, Premier Wickremesinghe wouldn’t have been in such a nasty political mess if not for the treasury bond scams, perpetrated by Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran, in Feb 2015 and March 2016. The Bonds scams ruined the relationship between the UNP and President Sirisena. Unfortunately, the civil society largely remained silent on the issue. Had they responded swiftly and decisively, in the wake of the 2015 scam, the second could have been averted. But, the cocky top UNP leadership perpetrated the second scam seven months, after the last general election. The first scam was carried out during President Sirisena’s much touted 100-day programme.

It would be pertinent to mention that Karu Jayasuriya returned to the UNP in early Dec 2008, after having served President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s cabinet, along with several other senior UNPers. Jayasuriya’s group was called the UNP Democratic Group. The Jayasuriya-led group backed President Rajapaksa’s war effort, before Jayasuriya again switched allegiance to UNP leader Wickremesinghe. Those who joined the Rajapaksa government, three years before, did not come back with Jayasuriya. Why did Jayasuriya abandon the Rajapaksa administration as it was making rapid progress on the Vanni front?

At a media briefing, given by the then UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya, on Dec 10, 2008 at Sirikotha, the writer sought an explanation from him as to why he returned to the UNP at a time the Rajapaksa war effort was making significant progress. Flanked by UNP Leader Wickremesinghe and UNP Assistant Leader Rukman Senanayake, Jayasuriya contradicted the often repeated UNP assertions that the war effort suffered severe setbacks due to political interference. Jayasuriya didn’t mince his words when he declared the military was on the verge of defeating the LTTE. The Army brought the LTTE administrative capital on January 02, 2009 under government control. Jayasuriya declared that the war was coming to a rapid end (New UNP deputy leader says forces on the verge of finishing off Tigers with strap line...LTTE hold on Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu rapidly shrinking - The Island Dec 11, 2008).

Karu Jayasuriya’s return thwarted an attempt to force a secret vote to elect Deputy Leader and Assistant Leader at a time the UNP was in turmoil. Among those who vied for post of Deputy Leader were Sajith Premadasa, S.B. Dissanayake and Vajira Abeywardena (Karu’s re-appointment violated guidelines on top posts – The Island Dec 12, 2008).

UNP leader Wickremesinghe requested the remaining UNPers in the Rajapaksa government to come back. Jayasuriya assured that he was making an effort to bring back members of the UNP Democratic Group. Jayasuriya was among 17 lawmakers who defected to the Rajapaksa government. The UNP deputy leader failed in his efforts. The then UNP MP lawmaker Dayasiri Jayasekera opposed Jayasuriya et al being given top posts as they not only deserted the party but publicly vilified it. Today, MP Jayasekera is among the few lawmakers still loyal to President and SLFP leader Maithripala Sirisena.

In the wake of the NMSJ project, UNP leader Wickremesinghe met a group of civil society members at Temple Trees. The group led by Ven Dambara Amila met the UNP leader on Sunday (15). The beleaguered UNP leader stressed that the UNP required the backing of friendly parties to win the presidential poll. Therefore, those who expected to contest should submit their proposals as to how to win the election meant to ensure the abolition of the executive presidency and resolution of the national problem. Ven. Amila was quoted, by a source close to Premier Wickremesinghe, as having said that whoever won the election on behalf of the NDF, the leadership of the coalition and the next government should be under Wickremesinghe’s leadership. Health sector trade union activist Saman Ratnapriya was quoted as having said the proposed coalition should be built on a fresh move to abolish the executive presidency within a short span of time after the presidential poll. Among those present were Dr. Jehan Perera, Dr. Wickremabahu Karunaratne, Prof. Chandragupta Thenuwara, Sunil de Silva, Raja Uswetakeiyawa and Priyadarshani Ariyaratne.

Obviously, those who met Premier Wickremesinghe are not with the NMSJ-led project to declare Speaker Jayasuriya as the presidential candidate.

The following response was received from Dr. Perera when the writer sought a comment as regards the Temple Trees meeting: "Civil society members were invited by the Prime Minister for a discussion. As a civil society member I am happy to engage with political leaders with my colleagues so that we can put our point of view across to them.

"At the meeting, the civil society members recommended that power sharing, bribery and corruption, hate speech and economic justice should be priority areas in the UNPs party manifesto. I appreciated the PM’s speech in Jaffna where he committed to the devolution of power.

"The PM explained that the presidential candidate should be able to get the votes of other parties in addition to UNP votes. This corresponded to the civil society proposals."

Premier Wickremesinghe was explicit in his thinking as to how those seeking presidential nomination would be picked. The Sept 15 Temple Trees gathering was told that their candidate would be picked by the decision making Working Committee.

There had been another meeting with several prominent civil society members and Premier Wickremesinghe, also on the same day. The group included Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, Gamini Viyangoda, Lal Wijenayake and K.W. Janaranjana, editor of the political weekly Annidda.

Can the UNP continue to delay taking a decision on its candidate at the third presidential poll since the successful conclusion of the war against the LTTE?

Sajith Premadasa registered his protest recently by requesting party leader Wickremesinghe to name the presidential candidate without further delay.

Did Lord Naseby deserve country’s highest honour, Sri Lanka Ratna?

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 287

September 10, 2019, 8:44 pm

By Shamindra Ferdinando

At the time the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) conferred Sri Lanka Ratna, its highest national honour bestowed on foreigners for exceptional and outstanding service to the country, on Michael Wolfgang Laurence Morris (Rt. Hon. the Lord Naseby PC), in mid Nov 2005, who could have imagined the Britisher would defend the war-winning armed forces of the Commonwealth nation, over a decade later.

Lord Naseby would never have anticipated such an eventuality for obvious reasons. Having cleverly used the Oslo-led peace process, launched in Feb 2002, to consolidate its position in the Northern and Eastern regions, the LTTE enjoyed an overwhelming conventional military capability by Nov 2005. By then, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar had been assassinated and the LTTE was engaged in a rapid build-up on the northern front.

The LTTE assassinated Kadirgamar, in early August 2005, at his Colombo residence using a sniper.

Those who had been critical of Lord Naseby for taking up cudgels on behalf of Sri Lanka on the human rights front for several years, after the conclusion of the conflict, conveniently forgot at the time Sri Lanka bestowed its highest honour on him, the Eelam war IV was yet to begin.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion, in May 2009, following a two-year ten-month long relentless combined security forces campaign.

It would be pertinent to ask whether Sri Lanka had conferred Sri Lanka Ratna, a decade before Lord Naseby really deserved the honour?

Obviously, Sri Lanka Ratna was meant to recognize services rendered by Lord Naseby in the run-up to 2005. However, in the light of Lord Naseby’s robust defence of Sri Lanka, on the basis of once confidential British government records, Sri Lanka should examine the possibility of conferring a special honour on him. The current dispensation should realize that conferring of Sri Lanka Ratna in Nov 2005 had nothing to do with Lord Naseby’s vigorous defence of Sri Lankan armed forces at international forums.

The writer was quite surprised and felt that we have demeaned the country’s highest award for foreigners, when President Maithripala Sirisena, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, recently conferred Sri Lanka Ratna on one-time Japanese peace envoy Yasushi Akashi. The Japanese envoy had been involved in the Oslo-led peace process that almost led to the division of the country, on ethnic lines. Sri Lanka Peace Co-Chairs comprised the US, EU, Norway and Japan. The Co-Chairs pursued a policy, vis a vis the LTTE, that was severely inimical to Sri Lanka. Japan played a significant role in the controversial Norwegian initiative. Akashi’s efforts, as well as those of his Norwegian counterpart Erik Solheim, failed to convince the LTTE not to abandon negotiations.

The LTTE quit the negotiating process, in April 2003. It totally disregarded Norwegian and Japanese efforts to resume negotiations. Instead, they gradually stepped up pressure on the GoSL. Had the LTTE succeeded in assassinating Army Chief Sarath Fonseka (April, 2006) and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa (Dec, 2006) in the wake of Kadirgamar’s killing, in Aug 2005, it could have had gained the upper hand. Before conferring Sri Lanka Ratna on Akashi, Sri Lanka should have examined the Japanese role in the Norwegian deliberate actions to cover up for the Tigers.

The Norway-led Scandinavian truce monitoring mission played pandu with Sri Lanka’s national security. Japan never received the international recognition it sought by way of a significant role in the Norway-led process. In fact, the Norwegian, initiative, too, went awry, much to the disappointment of those who believed the LTTE could be influenced to toe the line.

If the GoSL asserted Akashi deserved Sri Lanka Ratna for his role in the failed peace process, there is absolutely no harm in bestowing a similar honour on the then Norwegian peace envoy Erik Solheim.

A fresh look at

Lord Naseby’s role

Lord Naseby will be soon back in Colombo to attend the inauguration of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA) on September 17 at Cinnamon Lakeside in Colombo. It’ll be his first since the stunning disclosure he made on Oct 12, 2017 in the House of Lords pertaining to war crimes which dealt a massive blow to those propagating lies. Lord Naseby stunned those lobbying to prosecute trumped up war crimes allegations against Sri Lanka. The OPA deserved the praise of all for inviting Lord Naseby for the forthcoming event. Lord Naseby’s visit is quite important as it takes place in the run-up to the presidential election, in late Nov-early Dec 2019.

Lord Naseby’s disclosure, made on the basis of wartime British High Commission dispatches from its mission in Colombo, disputed the main UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) allegation pertaining to 40,000 civilian deaths. The Vanni massacre is the main accusation among five allegations contained in the executive summary of the PoE report. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim (point number 137 in the report): "In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths."

The UNP-SLFP coalition ignored Lord Naseby’s disclosure though President Sirisena appreciated the British politician’s effort. The Foreign Ministry’s response to Lord Naseby was nothing but treacherous. The writer examined the role of the Foreign Ministry in three articles - ‘Sri Lanka at the mercy of a treacherous setup’ (23.01.2019) ‘A still valid tripartite agreement on foreign judges: Foreign Ministry’s role’ (30.01.2019), and ‘A war crimes dossier on ‘arguably the most important ground commander with the strap line Foreign Ministry debacle on Geneva Front (06.02.2019).

Having co-sponsored an accountability resolution in Oct 2015 against its own armed forces the UNP-SLFP coalition was determined not to do anything that may jeopardized its despicable operation. Lord Naseby’s revelation threatened to undermine the whole project meant to pave the way for a new Constitution on the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes accusations. TNA leader R. Sampanthan’s Office never responded to Lord Naseby’s disclosure though the writer repeatedly asked for an explanation. The Island first raised the issue in late 2017.

The Island submitted the following questions to TNA and the then Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan on Nov. 27, 2017 and repeatedly reminded his Office of the delay, on its part, to answer questions: Have you (TNA) studied Lord Naseby’s statement made in the House of Lords on Oct. 12, 2017? What is TNA’s position on Naseby’s claims?, Did the TNA leaders discuss Naseby’s claim among themselves? Did the TNA respond to MP Dinesh Gunawardena’s statements in parliament on Naseby’s statement? And did the TNA take up this issue with the UK High Commissioner, James Dauris?

2019 initiative in House of Lords

Although, the GoSL sat on UK dispatches, Lord Naseby continued his high profile struggle, much to the dismay of those who could not stomach the LTTE’s annihilation on the Vanni battlefield.

Wartime dispatches, authored by Col. Gash, were the most important documents available for Sri Lanka’s defence. Those dispatches are incontestable.

Lord Naseby told the House of Lords, on Feb. 05, 2019: "I have done a great deal of research. Nearly three years ago I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act and secured the publication of Colonel Gash’s dispatches to the United Kingdom. I have 40 pages of them here, some of which have been totally redacted, and I shall quote from one this evening. It is the dispatch of 16 February 2009 and concerns 400 IDPs being transferred from the fighting area to Trincomalee. Colonel Gash writes:"The operation was efficient and effective, but most importantly was carried out with compassion, respect and concern. I am entirely certain that this was genuine — my presence was not planned and was based on a sudden opportunity".

"There are many more references in the dispatches to the fact that it was never a policy of the Sri Lankan Government to kill civilians."

"I have one other reference that I think is useful. It comes from the University Teachers for Human Rights, which is essentially a Tamil organization. It says: "From what has happened we cannot say that the purpose of bombing or shelling by the government forces was to kill civilians … ground troops took care not to harm civilians".

There is a host of other references but I shall quote one more:"Soldiers who entered the No Fire Zone on 19th April 2009 and again on the 9th and 15th May acted with considerable credit when they reached … civilians. They took risks to protect civilians and helped … the elderly who could not walk. Those who escaped have readily acknowledged this".

On the basis of UK military dispatches from Colombo, in 2009 (January-May), Lord Naseby revealed the maximum number of Tamil civilians killed was about 6,000 and not 40,000, as alleged by the UN Panel of Experts, and that the Mahinda Rajapaksa government never deliberately targeted the civilian community. Of them, one fourth was LTTE cadres, the British dispatches asserted.

There were a couple of Geneva Resolutions against Sri Lanka. Lord Naseby directly blamed the UN Resolutions on the Tamil Diaspora, particularly those based in the UK, Canada and the USA et al. The Conservative veteran reminded the UK of its failure to take action whatsoever in respect of UK-based Adele Balasingham, the Australian born wife of British citizen Anton Stanislaus Balasingham, wartime ideologue of the LTTE. Balasingham passed away in the UK, in Dec 2006, at the onset of the war. Lord Naseby presented a spate of indisputable facts to underscore the responsibility on the part of the UK to bring closure to UN Resolutions – the first one moved in Oct 2015 primarily on the basis five major allegations - (a) Killing of civilians through widespread shelling (b) Shelling of hospitals and other humanitarian objects (c) Denial of humanitarian assistance (d) Human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict) and (e) Human Rights violations outside the conflict zone.

A treacherous coalition

The UNP-SLFP coalition accepted responsibility for accountability issues in accordance with its understanding with Western powers and the TNA. In spite of President Sirisena repeatedly denying knowledge of the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera agreeing to co-sponsor Geneva Resolution, absolutely no action was taken to reverse the process. Since Samaraweera lost the foreign ministry portfolio, Ravi Karunanayake (May 2017-Aug 2017), Tilak Marapana, PC (Aug 2017 to Oct 2018), Dr. Sarath Amunugama (Oct 2018-Dec 2018) and Tilak Marapana (regained the ministry in Dec 2018) remained in the Geneva process.

Soon after the change of government, in January 2015, the yahapalana grandees called off the annual combined security forces parade, initiated in 2009, to celebrate Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE. The then Canadian High Commissioner, in Colombo, Shelly Whiting, at the behest of those trying to appease Canadians of Sri Lankan origin, demanded, in writing, that the parade be cancelled forthwith. There had never been a similar situation in any part of the world. The Yahapalana government ignored the fact that the Tamil electorate in January 2010 overwhelmingly voted for Sarath Fonseka. Fonseka, in spite of being routed in the South, comfortably won all the Tamil-speaking majority electoral districts. The Tamil electorate didn’t simply vote for Fonseka just because the TNA threw its weight behind the war-winning Army Chief at the behest of the US. The vast majority of Tamils knew that successive governments, including the Rajapaksa administration, that eradicated the LTTE, never deliberately targeted the civilian community. Lord Naseby, on the basis of still confidential British cables cleared the wartime Sri Lanka government of false accusations. Unfortunately, the government intentionally allowed the accusations to gain ground. The Rajapaksa Camp never really made a genuine attempt to exploit Lord Naseby’s revelations. Lord Naseby’s disclosure could have been used efficiently to convince the Tamil community of the war-winning government’s intentions. The TNA cannot be faulted trying to suppress Lord Naseby’s disclosure. Having recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people, in 2001, the grouping steadfastly stood by the LTTE until the war was brought to an end. The TNA lost its credibility when it remained mum when the LTTE took refuge among over 300,000 civilians on the Vanni east front and used them as a human shield.

All other political parties failed in their responsibility and duty to safeguard the interests of the armed forces. For want of cohesive action plan and collective failure to properly defend the armed forces, the military continues to be at the receiving end. The US, EU, Canadian condemnation of new Army Chief Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva reminded the public as to how our thieving politicians failed the military.

If GoSL actually felt Lord Naseby merited Sri Lanka Ratna, way back in 2005, for promoting the country, both in and outside the UK parliament, the GoSL should now consider as to how Sri Lanka should recognize the British politician’s role. We as a nation are truly indebted to Lord Naseby. None of those in our current parliament (August 2015 to now) or the previous dispensation had the strength to defend the country as Lord Naseby did. Those who called themselves people’s representatives never made a thorough effort though some of them shamelessly exploited battlefield success for political gain. Now that Lord Naseby is returning to Colombo, for the OPA event, the GoSL should act immediately to recognize his feat. Had he not fiercely fought with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the help of Information Commissioner’s Office, Sri Lanka, today, would have been overwhelmed by bogus war crimes allegations. Lord Naseby’s move exposed the despicable British policy towards Sri Lanka. During Lord Naseby’s visit to Colombo after the end of the war, the writer had the opportunity to meet him, with Editor-in-Chief Prabath Sahabandu at the offices of Upali Newspapers Limited, the publishers of The Island. Lord Naseby’s knowledge on Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism amazed us. The majority of lawmakers here struggled to discuss war or post-conflict issues sensibly. Lord Naseby didn’t mince his words when he explained as to how British voters of Sri Lankan origin influenced the British policy making process. Thanks to Wiki Leaks we now know how the UK played politics with Sri Lanka. No less a person than the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is on record as having exposed the then Labour Government policy meant to appease the voter.

When Lord Naseby sought information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Nov 06, 2014, Sri Lanka was heading for presidential election two months later. The Lord Naseby’s query stunned the FCO. The following is the text of the complaint submitted to the FCO on 6 November 2014:

‘Details of the dispatches written by Colonel Anton Gash, the defence attaché of the British High Commission in Sri Lanka, to the UK Foreign Office during the period January 2009 to May 2009. These dispatches described his assessment of what he had seen during this period of the Sri Lankan civil war’.

The FCO informed Lord Naseby on January 05, 2015 that the sought information couldn’t be provided. The FCO move followed after it informed Lord Naseby on Dec 03, 2014 that it had the required information. Lord Naseby on January 14, 2015 requested that his request be reconsidered. The FCO reiterated its refusal on Feb 19, 2015.Lord Naseby on March 16, 2015 complained to the FCO that he was not satisfied with its response to his legitimate request.

The FCO on May 07, 2015 reiterated that it wouldn’t change its stand on Lord Naseby’s request.

While the Information Officer’s was inquiring into Lord Naseby’s complaint, the FCO on Dec 21, 2015 offered a section of the much sought information. The FCO was exposed. Obviously, the FCO underestimated Lord Naseby’s determination.

Lord Naseby complained that the FCO could be holding onto more documents that may help establish the truth. Subsequent, search led to the recovery of three more documents. They were disclosed on Feb 23, 2016.

The truth is the FCO never made a full disclosure as it quite rightly believed it would jeopardized the project to discredit the Sri Lankan military. Thanks to Lord Naseby, the Western propaganda campaign directed at Sri Lanka suffered irreparable damage.

Let me stress that failure to use Lord Naseby’s disclosure to defend Sri Lanka is as bad as the current dispensation turning a blind eye to specific Indian intelligence alert to thwart the Easter Sunday National Thowheed Jamaat suicide bombing campaign. The Attorney General recently declared that those responsible would face murder charges…..

A year after Naseby disclosures, the amiable politician on Oct 13, 2018, received the BRISLA (British Sri Lanka Association) award for being an Outstanding Friend to the British-Sri Lankan community from the then British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Ambassador to the Maldives, James Dauris.

The Grow Traffic Limited sponsored the award at the fourth edition of the BRISLA awards, at the Long Room, Lord’s Cricket Ground.

The inaugural BRISLA awards ceremony was held on Nov 15, 2015 at Grange St Paul’s Hotel in London. Sri Lanka cricket great Kumar Sangakkara was also among those honoured at the inaugural event.

Civil society warns of ‘thunderstorm’ …..

In the wake of Shavendra’s appointment:

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 286

September 3, 2019, 8:54 pm 

Geneva, March 2017: Dr. Jehan Perera (extreme right) seated with the Sri Lankan government delegation, headed by the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. President Sirisena replaced Samaraweera with Ravi Karunanayake, in May 2017, before the treasury bond scams forced the President to bring in Tilak Marapana, in place of Karunanayake, in Aug 2017. Dr. Sarath Amunugama held the Foreign Ministry portfolio during the constitutional coup in Oct-Dec 2018. President Counsel Marapana regained the Foreign Affairs portfolio, in Dec 2018. From left: Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, MP, Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Ravinatha Aryasinha, Mano Tittawela, ALA Azeez and Dr. Jehan Perera. FM spokesperson, Mahishini Colonne, and attorney-at-law Surein Fernando are seated behind (pic courtesy Foreign Ministry)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Apropos ‘A contentious military appointment in the run-up to the 2019 prez poll’, carried in the August 28th edition of The Island, the Executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC) Dr. Jehan Perera has sent the writer the following statement, headlined ‘ESSENTIAL TO DEAL WITH ALLEGATIONS OF WAR-TIME VIOLATIONS’: The elevation of General Shavendra Silva to the position of commander of the Sri Lanka Army has become a matter of national and international controversy. The Tamil National Alliance has protested against this decision as has the UN Human Rights High Commissioner and the diplomatic missions of the United States, Canada and the European Union.

The controversy swirling around this matter brings into focus the need for a process to bring the allegations of what happened in the last phase of the war to a rest. Until this is done, there will be a cloud hanging over the country internationally, which can suddenly manifest itself as a thunderstorm as this appointment has done.

The National Peace Council calls on the government to revive the process of dealing with the past in a manner that meets the concerns of the Tamil polity, the international community, and the victims of all communities who trusted the process and had hoped that an effective and impartial inquiry into the allegations would take place and bring a closure to the allegations in the interest of everyone concerned.

Until the question of the past is settled, the Tamil polity will remain separate from the rest of the country and this will be a festering sore in the body politic. The government has acknowledged these concerns and agreed to probe the truth of these matters and hold those found guilty accountable through UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 of 2015. This inquiry can and should include earlier phases of the war and not only the last phase."

 Last week’s piece was based on the ‘Get Real’ interview, anchored by Mahieash Johnney, on Derana 24X7 on August 26. Dr. Perera and the writer presented two diverse views on the appointment of Shavendra Silva as the Commander of the Army against the backdrop of a section of the international community, the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and a section of the civil society bashing President Sirisena’s move.

 Dr. Perera in a brief note dated August 28th, to the writer, said: "Having read your strongly written article today on the views I expressed at the TV discussion, I think this media release would clarify why I said what I said at the discussion with you."

The writer really appreciates Dr. Perera’s assertion that the proposed inquiry should include earlier phases of the war. Earlier phases of the war cannot be inquired into without examining India’s role in the destabilization of Sri Lanka in the early ‘80s. India undermined Sri Lanka’s security to such an extent then President JR Jayewardene was forced to accept the deployment of the Indian Army in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. India quit Sri Lanka, in March 1990, having caused massive destruction. India caused irreparable damage by helping the transformation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a lethal conventional fighting force, capable of taking on the Indian Army. India lost as many as 1,300 officers and men and double the number wounded in the North East battlefields.

Perhaps, the NPC should request the US-led coalition responsible for the UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 of 2015, as well as the current dispensation here, to take tangible measures to have India, too, investigated. The Sri Lanka war cannot be investigated leaving India out. Dr. Perera’s call for the expansion of the proposed accountability inquiry should be a matter examined by all political parties now gearing up for the crucial 2019 presidential election, followed by the parliamentary election.

 Having repeatedly pushed for war crimes probe, Dr. Perera accompanied the Sri Lanka delegation to the UN Human Rights Council, in March 2017. So, let there be a consensus on a wider investigation on the Sri Lanka conflict.

The war-winning Rajapaksa government and the current dispensation lacked the strength, at least to mention, at the UN Human Rights Council, India’s role in the Sri Lanka conflict.

Jaffna lawmakers assassinated

 India assassinated lawmakers, representing the Jaffna peninsula, during the first phase of the conflict (July 1983-March 1990). India remained silent in the wake of MP Dharmalingham Siddarthan’s accusation that India assassinated his father, V. Dharmalingham, and M. Alalasundaram, both parliamentarians of the TULF (Tamil United Liberation Front) on the morning of Sept. 03, 1985. Siddarthan is on record as having told this writer, way back in 1997, as to how TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization) gunmen abducted and assassinated the two lawmakers at the behest of premier Indian Intelligence Service (RAW).

At the time Siddarthan made the accusation, he represented the PLOTE (People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) in parliament. Today, Siddarthan represents the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) pursuing war crimes investigation in terms of the UN Human Rights Council resolution, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka.

Perhaps Dr. Perera on behalf of the NPC may agree with the writer that the proposed inquiry should include the high profile Nov 1988 raid on the Maldives carried out by Indian trained Sri Lankan terrorists. Their bid to assassinate the then Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom went awry.

No less a person than former Indian Foreign Secretary J.N. Dixit, in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy: Raja Ram Mohun to Yashwant Sinha’, in no uncertain terms blamed then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for the Indian intervention in Sri Lanka.

It would be pertinent to ask Dr. Perera as to how he proposed to proceed with the inquiry in terms of the 2015 resolution as testimonies of those who had accused Sri Lanka of war crimes cannot be verified till 2031.

In fact, the UNSG’s Panel of Experts (PoE) comprising Marzuki Darsuman (Indonesia), Yasmin Sooka (South Africa) and Steven Ratner (US) owed Sri Lanka an explanation as to how the PoE reached conclusion that 40,000 perished in the final phase simply on the basis of unverified accusations.

The writer raised the contentious issue of confidentially of the PoE’s records with Dr. Perera on the ‘Get Real’ programme. Dr. Perera refrained from responding to the writer’s remark.

Let me reproduce the relevant section: "In some instances, the Panel received written and oral material on the condition of an assurance of absolute confidentiality in the subsequent use of the information. The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) confirmed, through formal legal advice, that the provisions set out in the Secretary General’s Bulletin, on ‘information sensitivity, classification and handling’ (ST/SGB/2007/6), could be applied to its records. This Bulletin provides for classification of a document as ‘strictly confidential’ with correspondingly strict limits on any access for a period of 20 years, following which a declassification review may be undertaken that weighs the equities involved in retention or release. Moreover, OLA confirmed that, where necessary and appropriate for the Panel’s work, the Panel could give an undertaking of absolute confidentiality in the subsequent use. As a result, nearly all of the Panel’s substantive records will be classified as ‘strictly confidential’ with, in some cases, additional protections regarding future use."

Can this be considered fair under any circumstances? Can a country be faulted for murdering 40,000 of its own citizens without a proper investigation? The writer expects Dr. Perera on behalf of the NPC, to explain his stand on the controversial confidentially clause that dealt with the PoE’s records. Can proper investigation be held unless all accusations verified through a transparent process? Of course, the writer firmly believes participation of the international community is a must to ensure credibility of the process as stressed by a government appointed Consultation Task Force on reconciliation Mechanism (CTFRM). The outfit, in early January 2017, recommended the participation of foreign judges in war crimes courts to be established in accordance with 30/1 Geneva Resolution, adopted in Oct 2015. But, before that happens, the likes of Dr. Perera should help verify the original accusations directed at the war-winning Sri Lanka military.

The CTFRM, headed by Manouri Muttetuwegama, comprised Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Gamini Viyangoda, Visaka Dharmadasa, Shantha Abhimanasingham, PC, Prof Sitralega Maunaguru, K.W. Janaranjana, Prof. Daya Somasundaram, Dr. Farzana Haniffa, Prof. Gameela Samarasinghe and Mirak Raheem.

PoE vs Lord Naseby

 The writer raised Lord Naseby, on the basis of wartime British High Commission dispatches (January-May 2009), in Oct 2017, disputing the PoE claim of 40,000 civilian killings on the Vanni front with Dr. Perera. The academic refrained from commenting on Lord Naseby’s disclosure, undoubtedly the most significant revelations made by a foreign dignitary on the basis of official records that dealt with the Vanni offensive after treacherous current dispensation co-sponsored the resolution against its own armed forces.

The NPC and like-minded groups, as well as all those opposed to the appointment of Shavendra Silva as the Commander of the Army remained silent on the Naseby disclosure.

 Lord Naseby’s revalation not only disputed the UN claim but gave much credence to a confidential UN report that placed the total number of civilian and LTTE combatant deaths at 7,721 and 18,479 wounded during this period (PoE report section 134). Perhaps Dr. Perera should request the UN to release the report based on information received from the staff of the UN, NGOs deployed there, the ICRC, clergy et al. The difference between the preposterous PoE report released in March 2011 and the one available immediately at the end of the conflict was that the former entirely depended on still anonymous sources.

 Various interested parties played politics with war casualties. The media was no exception. A section of the media, and the Norway-led Scandinavian truce monitoring mission, called the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), deliberately deceived the public as regards the loss of lives. The Island exposed one such despicable attempt at the onset of the war in 2006. The Rajapaksa administration was too busy to inquire into media project. The war-winning Army never bothered to really examine the threat during the conflict or thereafter.

(The writer intends to soon discuss the futility in squandering precious public funds on Defense Seminar, an annual event inaugurated in June 2011.) Sri Lanka lacked a thorough plan to counter lies, propagated by a section of the civil society and various other elements hell-bent on undermining - first the war effort and then post-war reconciliation process.

The 2006 SLMM bid was meant to undermine the war effort. Having facilitated the LTTE build-up throughout the Ceasefire Agreement in operation since Feb 21, 2002, the SLMM blamed the heavy loss of civilian life on the resumption of war.

Kadirgamar assassination

‘tragic but inevitable’

The foreign-funded civil society ignored the circumstances leading to the war. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination of the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in August 2005, Dr. Perera on behalf of the NPC asserted that the killing was tragic but inevitable. Any other country would have abrogated the Ceasefire Agreement immediately and taken steps to liquidate the threat. Instead Sri Lanka reiterated its commitment to the Norway-led peace process.

Having assassinated Kadirgamar at his residence, the LTTE made an abortive bid to blast Army Chief Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka within the army headquarters. President Rajapaksa authorized limited retaliatory air strikes but reiterated his commitment to the Norway-led process.

Even after the LTTE confronted the Army at Mavil aru, President Rajapaksa remained committed to the peace process.

The then President finally declared all-out war in the aftermath of massive LTTE attack on the northern frontline.

Western powers exploited the situation. The SLMM issued a controversial statement to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Ceasefire Agreement, signed in 2002. The SLMM declared that nearly 4,000 people had been killed since Mahinda Rajapaksa won the presidency in Nov 2005, whereas 130 persons perished during the remaining period, covered by the CFA (Feb 2002-Nov 2005).

 The SLMM declared that it had arrived at a death toll of 4,000 on the basis of daily reports from truce monitors, based in the northern and eastern districts where every case, related to the conflict were recorded. The SLMM conveniently refrained from differentiating the number of civilian deaths.

By not making any reference to combatants, the truce monitoring mission implied the dead were civilians. 

(The mission was terminated on January 16, 2008, following the abrogation of the CFA by Sri Lanka, and the organization ceased to exist by the end of 2008, following an administrative termination in the Nordic countries).

Truce monitors lie

 As the writer felt that there couldn’t be any basis for the SLMM’s claim, a clarification was sought from its headquarters in Colombo, in early March 2007. After a series of telephone calls, the mission admitted that the dead included combatants and civilians. However, the mission refused to provide a breakdown of the number of persons killed during the 15-month period. The mission claimed that the revelation of such information wouldn’t be favourable to its role in Sri Lanka. However, the mission brought down the number of civilian deaths at 1,500 (Deaths due to the conflict: SLMM backs down on breakdown, with strap line Changes figure to 1,500 from 4,000 - ‘The Island’ March 12, 2007).

The SLMM statement was meant to draw attention to the fact that there was a sharp escalation of violence since November 5, 2005, following the election of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the fifth executive president of Sri Lanka.

The monitoring mission also refused to divulge its sources.

Both the local and international media gave wide coverage to the monitoring mission’s claim. But they never rectified the deliberate bid to deceive the public. The SLMM too, conveniently refrained from correcting its original statement for obvious reasons.

The government never sought a clarification from the monitoring mission, or the Norwegian peace facilitators.

The army headquarters however in response to a query by The Island, insisted that there had been only 694 civilian deaths during the November 2005 –March 2007 period. Army headquarters rejected truce monitors’ claim of 1500 civilian deaths during this period. But the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) accepted the controversial figures in spite of the Army contradicting the figures quoted by the SLMM. The military acknowledged that the government’s failure to challenge the truce monitors, over the false report, was damaging, especially in the backdrop of growing international scrutiny on upholding of human rights.

The Army, too, would have remained silent if The Island didn’t challenge the Nordic mission. The government never felt the need to challenge the SLMM.

Interestingly, other print and electronic media never bothered to take up this issue. Those who had reported the original SLMM statement ignored the issue, even after the disclosure of its agenda.

Who authorized that statement? Did the then head of the SLMM mission consult the Norwegian Ambassador in Colombo before issuing the statement? Had there been at least an attempt on the then government’s part to establish the motive for issuing exaggerated figures?

The SLMM spokesperson repeatedly declined to discuss where these 4,000 killings took place and why there was absolutely no reference to such large scale violence in previous statements issued by the monitoring mission. The spokesperson also refused to estimate the death toll due to direct military action, or crossfire, between the armed forces and the LTTE.

The then government squandered an excellent opportunity to expose the Nordic mission. In fact, the previous government never felt the requirement to systematically counter lies, propagated by the international community or a section of the media that had faith in the LTTE’s military prowess. It is nothing but strange that the Joint Opposition members of parliament, loyal to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, were still reluctant to examine the previous administration’s failure on the media front. They haven’t still realised that the previous government’s failure paved the way for Western powers and India to facilitate the regime change operation, in 2015 January. Almost a similar project went awry in January 2010 when war-winning Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of then Commander-in-Chief Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The largest recipient of Norwegian funding, the NPC, never commented on the SLMM statement issued on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Ceasefire Agreement. Sri Lanka should call for a comprehensive inquiry with full participation of foreign personnel, including judges. However, the blatant PoE lie that the Army massacred 40,000 based on still mysterious accusers, cannot be the basis of the inquiry. Instead, a fresh examination of facts, including Lord Naseby’s disclosure, still confidential UN report, US Defence Attaché Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s assertion, and ICRC reports along with the PoE dozier should pave the way for a thorough inquiry to ascertain the truth.

It wouldn’t be fair to categorize the Sri Lanka Army a criminal organization on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Accusing Sri Lanka of war crimes over the years has become a lucrative industry for many local and foreign organizations. For the amount of massive foreign funding received by them, they wouldn’t even hesitate to name even Shavendra Silva’s parents war criminals.  If the Army was called a criminal organization how would the civil society call the TNA which recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamils, way back in 2001 and continued to defend it to the hilt despite all its atrocities, till it was militarily defeated by the security forces. The LTTE remained the Tamils sole representative until the Army, at the end of a successful combined forces offensive, eliminated Prabhakaran on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on the morning of May 19, 2009.