Lanka has to run the gauntlet in Geneva

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 310

February 25, 2020, 8:34 pm

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The late Mano Tittawella, in his capacity as the Secretary General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM), instructed Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative (PR) in Geneva, A. L. A. Azeez, to accept resolution 40/1 on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL).

Tittawella recently passed away in Melbourne, Australia.

His ashes were flown to Colombo from Australia, early this week and it was kept at the ‘Respect’ funeral parlour at Borella.

 Top career diplomat Azeez, who was asked to return soon after the temporary change of government in November last year, did as he was told. Azeez had no option but to go ahead with the yahapalana project. The move was meant to extend the time allocated for Sri Lanka to implement 30/1 resolution, co-sponsored by us, by two more years. GoSL received time till March 2021 to fulfill commitments.

If the previous govt didn’t rob the Central Bank, perhaps Geneva commitments, including the new Constitution could have been enacted.

Azeez succeeded Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha in April 2018. Aryasinha, who served the Geneva mission for five years, accepted Resolution 30/1, on Oct 1, 2015 at the behest of the yahapalana government.

It would be pertinent to examine the setting up of SCRM to liaise between the GoSL and its Geneva mission as well as other bodies such as the ‘peace-building board’ and ONUR (Office for National Unity and Reconciliation) involved with the Geneva process. Twice (two terms 1994-1999 and 1999 to 2005) President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga headed ONUR

The UNP-UPFA yahapalana coalition established the SCRM under the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Office, in keeping with a Cabinet decision, dated December 18, 2015. In terms of the cabinet decision, the Secretary General of SCRM reports directly to Premier Wickremesinghe. The outfit received capacity building assistance from the UN.

Tittawella issues instructions to Azeez

Tittawella issued instructions to Ambassador Azeez as regards the government’s decision in respect of Resolution 40/1, led by the UK, in the absence of the US. The UK took over the Sri Lanka project, in Geneva, in the wake of the US quitting the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Obviously, the yahapalana government established the SCRM to bypass the Foreign Ministry. The UK received the leadership after the US quit the Geneva body, in June 2018, after accusing it of being ‘a cesspool of political bias.’

 Instead of taking it up with Premier Wickremesinghe, President Maithripala Sirisena lambasted Azeez. Some Joint Opposition UPFA lawmakers, including National Freedom Front (NFF) leader, Wimal Weerawansa, flayed Tittawella for having given instructions to Ambassador Azeez.

Tittawella has held several key positions in the state sector such as Chairman of the People’s Bank, Director General of Public Enterprises Reform Commission (PERC), Senior Director General of President Chnadrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s Office, from August 2003 to November 2005, and was also a Senior Presidential Adviser on Economic Affairs.

President Sirisena accused Azeez of having betrayed the country and its armed forces. The President and those who censured Azeez never bothered to inquire into the role played by the SCRM, a special body created with Cabinet approval, tasked to carry out specific instructions received from the Prime Minister’s Office in respect of the Geneva process. Wickremesinghe personally handled the Geneva project. There is no basis for accusations that instructions were issued to Ambassador Azeez clandestinely. Cabinet appointed SCRM following proper procedures and all relevant parties were aware of the government decision to seek two more years to fulfill the Oct 01, 2015 Resolution 30/1.

The October 01, 2015 resolution had been endorsed by Ambassador Azeez’s predecessor Ravinatha Aryasinha. Azeez took over the Geneva mission in April 2018. Aryasinha signed the March 2017 resolution, too, which gave Sri Lanka two more years to fulfill its Geneva commitments.

The Foreign Ministry has been under Mangala Samaraweera (January 2015 to May 2017), Ravi Karunanayake (May 2017 to August 2017), Tilak Marapana, PC (Aug 2017 to Oct 2018), Dr. Sarath Amunugama (Oct 2018-Dec 2018) and again under Minister Marapana. Dinesh Gunawardena received the portfolio with the ministry being renamed Foreign Relations.

Dinesh submits cabinet proposal

Cabinet of ministers, at a meeting chaired by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on Feb 19, 2020, decided to withdraw from co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1 of March 2019.

Thanks to Foreign Relations Ministry, an English translation of Decision No 19 of the Cabinet Decisions, taken on 19.02.2020 is now in the public domain.

Nalaka Kaluwewa, Director General of Government Information, as well as the Public Diplomacy Division, circulated the following:UNHRC Resolution 30/1 ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.’ The Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by the Minister of Foreign Relations on the GOSL’s approach on the above during the upcoming 43rd Session of the Human Rights Council and on the diplomatic initiatives necessary to realise this strategy

I. To announce Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw from co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1 of March 2019 on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’, which also incorporates and builds on preceding Resolutions 30/1 of October 2015 and 34/1 of March 2017.

II. To continue to work with the UN and its agencies, including the regular human rights mandates/bodies and mechanisms and seek as required, capacity building and technical assistance, in keeping with domestic priorities and policies.

III. To declare the Government’s commitment to achieve sustainable peace through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process, including through the appropriate adaptation of existing mechanisms, in line with the Government’s policy framework. This would comprise the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry (COI) headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court, to review the reports of previous Sri Lankan COIs which investigated alleged violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), to assess the status of implementation of their recommendations and to propose deliverable measures to implement them keeping in line with the new Government’s policy.

IV. To through due democratic and legal processes, address other outstanding concerns and to introduce institutional reforms where necessary, in a manner consistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations including the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (SDGs). Demonstrate in good faith the policies rooted in the Government’s commitment to the people by advancing individual and collective rights and protections under the law, ensuring justice and reconciliation and addressing the concerns of vulnerable sections of society.

V. To announce the intention of the GoSL to work towards the closure of the Resolution, in cooperation with the members of the UN.

 The UNHRC consists of 47 countries, divided into five zones. In spite of the GoSL’s decision to withdraw co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1, the process cannot be brought to an end without the backing of member states, as acknowledged by the Foreign Relations Minister’s proposal. Now that the GoSL has declared its intention to work towards the closure of the Resolution, it will have to furnish all available information to dispute the very basis of the 2015 resolution. That’ll be a daunting task given the US, UK et al’s determination to undermine Sri Lanka for political as well as strategic reasons.  

The recent US move against Army Commander and Acting Chief of Defence Staff Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva over alleged war crimes underscored the real challenge faced by the country.

Having announced the GoSL’s intention to withdraw from co-sponsorship of the 40/1 Resolution, Foreign Relations Minister Gunawardena is now in Geneva along with Foreign Secretary Aryasinha to achieve the key objective of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government.

Peace-building Board

The incumbent government should make an effort to understand the system that had been in place to implement the Geneva resolution. The late Tittawella’s outfit had been part of what was called Peace Building Board and comprised both Sri Lankan and high level Colombo-based officials. Among foreign participants were the late UN Resident Representative in Colombo Una McCauley, the EU head of delegation Tung-Lai Margue and Juan Fernandez, senior human rights advisor, UN Resident Coordinator’s Office. Tittawella and McCauley functioned as Co-Chairs. The outfit included two civil society representatives, Mirak Raheem and Brito Fernando.

Tittawella’s outfit handled substantial foreign funds. At the fourth meeting of the peace-building board, held on Dec 14, 2016, at the Foreign Ministry, UN Chief here, at that time, McCauley discussed disbursement of USD 7 mn. The SCRM also received substantial EU funding. At the same meeting, held at the Foreign Ministry, EU head of delegation Tung-Lai Margue is on record as having mentioned the allocation of Euro 8.1 mn to provide technical assistance to Tittawella’s outfit.

Having strongly objected to the draft resolution, on Sri Lanka, at the first informal session called by the ‘Core Group,’ on Sept 21, 2015, Ambassador Aryasinha accepted the accountability resolution on Oct 01, 2015. Among those who had been present on that occasion were US Ambassador in Geneva Ambassador Harper and US Ambassador in Colombo Atul Keshap. Ambassador Aryasinha opposed the draft. One-time journalist Aryasinha asserted that heavy emphasis on what he called criminal justice aspects made the resolution imbalanced.

In a 13-point statement, issued immediately after the informal session in Geneva, Aryasinha, explained as to why it shouldn’t be adopted under any circumstances. Aryasinha emphasized the pivotal importance of the resolution taking into consideration constitutional and institutional difficulties in implementing its recommendations as well as political realities. The Geneva body ignored Sri Lanka’s concerns. Aryasinha dealt expertly with the crisis, caused by Geneva approach, in his eighth paragraph. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim: "In this context, my delegation is of the view that a lengthy resolution of the nature of the current draft before us which contains 24 preambular paras and 26 operative paras, which is repetitive, judgmental and prescriptive is not in keeping with the spirit of the process of reconciliation and reform that is underway in my country under the National Unity Government. Neither is it helpful in adopting a collaborative approach to reaching consensus, Many paragraphs in the current draft are in fact counterproductive to the reconciliation efforts of the government and have the tendency to polarize communities, vitiate the atmosphere on the ground that is being carefully nurtured towards reconciliation, and peace building and restrict the space required for consultations. There is a real danger that the current approach will leave room for negative interpretation, thus, only helping ‘spoilers’ in this process."

Isn’t it ironic that Aryasinha, having served as the Foreign Secretary during the latter part of the yahapalana administration, being given critically important assignment in Geneva.

Aryasinha back in Geneva

Ahead of the 43rd Geneva session, Aryasinha briefed the President of the UNHRC Ambassador Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger, as regards the GoSL decision to withdraw its co-sponsorship of Resolution 40/1 of March 2019 on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’, which also incorporates and builds on preceding Resolutions 30/1 of October 2015, and 34/1 of March 2017. Briefing took place on Feb 21.

Aryasinha also informed Ambassador Tichy-Fisslberger that Minister Gunawardena would formally inform the Council Members on the GoSL’s decision when he would address the High Level Segment of the Council, on Wednesday, Feb 26.

Minister Gunawardena, who will also respond to the Oral Update on Sri Lanka by the High Commissioner, on 27 February, is scheduled to meet the High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, during his stay in Geneva.

The UNHRC head was also informed by the Foreign Secretary that on the eve of the decision being taken by the Cabinet, the Ambassadors of the ‘core group’ that had moved the resolution, who were resident in Colombo (the UK, Germany and Canada), had also been briefed by Minister Gunawardena.

The GoSL included one-time Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe in Dinesh Gunawardena’s delegation.

In June 2016, TNA heavyweight M.A. Sumanthiran revealed in Washington the existence of a tripartite agreement among the GoSL, the US and his party to establish hybrid accountability mechanism. The declaration was made at the ‘Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka’

On behalf of the TNA, lawmaker Sumanthiran claimed to have reached a tripartite consensus in respect of foreign judges, defence attorneys, investigators, etc., in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism to probe war crimes. According to the Jaffna District MP, the agreement had been reached before Sri Lanka co-sponsored the Geneva resolution, in Oct 2015. The presence of the then Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington, Prasad Kariyawasam, at the Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka revealed the Foreign Ministry’s complicity in the project. Let us hope Foreign Relations Minister Gunawardena, on behalf of the GoSL, would refer to relevant developments in his Geneva speech.

Sri Lanka never bothered to critically examine all available information, nor present them in Geneva. A proper assessment would have certainly exposed the discrepancy in accusations directed at the war-winning Sri Lankan military.

Pivotal issues

Let me list key developments since the successful conclusion of the war in May 2009:

(1) March 2011 UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) alleged that Sri Lankan military killed 40,000 on the Vanni front.

(2) In June 2011, US Defence Advisor in Colombo, Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, disputed accusations pertaining to battle-field executions following an agreement between the government and the LTTE.

(3) In Sept 2011, London headquartered Amnesty International placed the number of civilian deaths at 10,000.

(4) In Sept 2011, the UK parliament was told 100,000 persons, including 60,000 LTTE combatants, were killed in 2009. For some strange reason, Sri Lanka never bothered at least to point out the discrepancy in various figures quoted by interested parties, hell bent on hauling Sri Lanka before the international war crimes court.

(5) Sri Lanka’s failure to highlight/point out discrepancy in the number of deaths is very surprising, against the backdrop of the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) contradicting the PoE assertion that 40,000 civilians perished in the offensive. The UNCT, on the basis of information secured from those based in wartime Vanni, placed the number of dead at 7,721 and wounded at 18,479. Sri Lanka owed an explanation as to why this was not taken up with those who accused Sri Lanka of massacring innocent people.

 (6) Interestingly, the March 2011 PoE report, that alleged Sri Lanka of killing 40,000, revealed the existence of UNCT report yet to be released over a decade after the end of the war. For want of a cohesive strategy, Sri Lanka never really brought up issues that should have been dealt with. A case in point is the UN ruling that prevented examination/verification of accusations for a period of 20 years, since the March 31, 2011, releasing of the PoE report. The bottom line is that on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations, collected under mysterious circumstances, the UN engaged in a process that finally led to the treacherous UNP-SLFP combine backing the Oct 2015 Geneva resolution.

 (7) Sri Lanka co-sponsored the Geneva resolution, just over a week, after finding fault with it. The then Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, who objected to the draft resolution, was instructed to endorse it. Aryasinha did. In spite of President Sirisena repeatedly dissociating his government from the Geneva resolution, he conveniently refrained from taking remedial measures. The Geneva resolution stands today unchanged.

 (8) In June 2016, Geneva referred to a new constitution making process in Sri Lanka. Geneva represented the interests of the Western powers. In the same month, lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, in the presence of then Sri Lanka Ambassador to Washington, Prasad Kariyawasam, revealed the existence of a tripartite agreement on the accountability mechanisms. In other words, he declared the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government acceptance of foreign judges and other foreign personnel. With Kariyawasam on his side, Sumanthiran declared that foreign judges being allowed in domestic war crimes courts was in line with the Constitution.

 (9) The House of Lords was told, in Oct 2017, there was no basis for the PoE claim of 40,000 deaths in the Vanni. Recently, Lord Naseby reiterated in the House of Lords that there were only 6,000 deaths. Of them, one fourth were LTTE combatants. (Once Lord Naseby referred to 7,000 to 8,000 deaths) It would be pertinent to mention Lord Naseby based his statement on wartime British High Commission dispatches from Colombo. Sri Lanka is yet to take up Lord Naseby’s disclosure with the UN. Farhan Aziz Haq, Deputy Spokesperson for UNSG António Guterres, said that decisions regarding actions taken by the UNHRC were solely in the hands of the members of the Human Rights Council. Haq said it would be up to the member states of the Human Rights Council to decide whether to revisit Sri Lanka’s case. The UNHRC comprises 47 countries divided into five zones.

The UN spokesperson said so when The Island asked him whether there was a possibility in the UN revisiting Geneva Resolution in the wake of Lord Naseby assertion that the Vanni death toll was maximum 7,000 to 8,000 not 40,000 as reported by UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) in March 2011 and that the GoSL never targeted civilians purposely.

The Island raised the issue with the UN in the wake of Sri Lanka Parliament taking up the issue twice since Lord Naseby’s Oct 12,2017 bombshell statement in the House of Lords.

Sri Lanka ignored the opportunity given by Haq as well. In fact, Sri Lanka also turned a blind eye to the UK efforts to suppress dispatches which cleared Sri Lanka. UNHRC member UK didn’t release dispatches until Lord Naseby sought the intervention of UK Information Commissioner in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000). Had the Foreign and Commonwealth Office released the required information, as requested in early Nov 2014, Western powers would have found it difficult to justify the Geneva Resolution. Western powers engineered the change of government, in January 2015, to ensure the passage of the Geneva resolution meant to facilitate the constitutional process, tailor made by the West. The final objective was to bring in the new Constitution. As pointed out by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera, who played a significant role in the overall resistance against the anti-Sri Lanka project, pointed out, in a letter to the writer, the threat remains. In fact, the threat is growing. The possibility of the Parliament being used to achieve separatist project cannot be ruled out.

(10) Sri Lankan leadership lacked insight to point out as to how the UN contributed to the Tiger despicable project of using of civilians as a human shield to halt the advance of security forces - March-May 2009. The LTTE, in early 2007, detained Tamil UN workers who had helped those who lived in areas under LTTE control to safely cross the Vanni frontline. Sri Lanka never took up this issue with the UN though the UN mission here was found to have deceived both the government and its New York headquarters. The PoE comprising Marzuki Darusman (Chairman), Stevan R. Ratner and Yasmin Zooka (South Africa) ended the report with the following recommendation: "The Secretary-General should conduct a comprehensive review of actions by the United Nations system during the war in Sri Lanka and the aftermath, regarding the implementation of its humanitarian and protection mandates."

Contradictory Pompeo statements and plight of an Army Chief

US-Lanka relations:

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 309

February 18, 2020, 8:53 pm

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo issued two contradictory statements, on Feb 04, 2020, and Feb 07, 2020, as regards Sri Lanka.

Congratulating Sri Lanka for celebrating her 72nd anniversary of Independence on Feb 04, Pompeo said the US looks forward to deepening ties with Sri Lanka. 

Three days later, Pompeo tweeted: "I am designating Shavendra Silva making him ineligible for entry into the US due to his involvement in extrajudicial killings during Sri Lanka’s Civil War." 

"The US will not waver in its pursuit of accountability for those who commit war crimes and violate human rights" Pompeo added. US sanctions also barred members of Shavendra Silva’s immediate family from entry into the US.

Wartime General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the celebrated 58 Division, Shavendra Silva, of the Gajaba Regiment, is also the Acting Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). The Army Chief was targeted in respect of command responsibility thereby indicating a threat on the entire wartime chain of command. It was a calculated move meant to intensify pressure on the new government in the run up to the Feb-March Geneva sessions and parliamentary polls in late April. The US move will also help one-time LTTE proxy, the Tamil National Alliance, to rally northern public support ahead of parliamentary polls.

The Foreign Relations Ministry requested the US to verify the authenticity of the sources of information and to review its decision. The Foreign Relations Ministry, too, without further delay, reviewed its strategies in this regard. Sri Lanka faced the risk of further action as long as unsubstantiated accusations remained unchallenged.

The US decision was based on the STILL UNVERIFIED Report of the former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Panel of Experts (PoE) on Accountability in Sri Lanka, released on March 31, 2011, based entirely on mystery accusers with an indefinite time bar on their identity. So what kind of justice can we expect from a UN body like the UNHRC? In addition to that dossier, authored by Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia), Steven R. Ratner (US) and Yasmin Sooka, (South Africa) there were other similar questionable reports that vilified Sri Lanka.

Discrepancy in UN, AI numbers

Having faulted the Army, on three major counts, the PoE accused Sri Lanka of massacring at least 40,000 civilians. Let me reproduce the relevant paragraph, bearing no 137, verbatim: "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 there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is 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."

London headquartered Amnesty International, in Sept 2011, contradicted the PoE allegation (March 31, 2011 released report) pertaining to the massacre of at least 40,000 Tamil civilians on the Vanni east front. Quoting eyewitnesses and aid workers among others, Amnesty International, in a special report, titled ‘When Will They Get Justice: Failure of Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission", estimated the number of civilian deaths at 10,000. In the first week of June 2011, the then US Defence Attaché in Colombo Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith, set the record straight at the inaugural defence seminar. The senior US military officer was responding to retired Maj. Gen. Ashok Metha of the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force). Some Tamils called it the Indian People Killing Force. The US statement was made in between the PoE report and the one issued by the AI.

US defends SLA

The writer was present on the occasion. Lt. Col. Smith said: ""Hello, may I say something to a couple of questions raised. I’ve been the defence attaché here, at the US Embassy, since June, 2008. Regarding the various versions of events that came out in the final hours, and days, of the conflict – from what I was privileged to hear and to see, the offers to surrender, that I am aware of, seemed to come from the mouthpieces of the LTTE – Nadesan, KP – people who weren’t and never had really demonstrated any control over the leadership, or the combat power of the LTTE.

"So their offers were a bit suspect, anyway, and they tended to vary in content, hour by hour, day by day. I think we need to examine the credibility of those offers before we leap to conclusions that such offers were, in fact, real.

"And I think the same is true for the version of events. It’s not so uncommon in combat operations, in the fog of war, as we all get our reports second, third and fourth hand from various commanders, at various levels, that the stories don’t seem to all quite match up.

"But I can say that the version presented here, so far in this, is what I heard as I was here during that time. And I think I better leave it at that before I get into trouble. "

Sri Lanka never bothered to examine discrepancy in various figures quoted by those hell-bent on hauling Sri Lanka up before international war crimes tribunal. 

In June 2011, the international media reported extremely important development in Bahrain. The media quoted the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem (Navi) Pillay as having said that the information it received about the human rights situation in Bahrain during the unrest was not true.

"Certain information which we received about the developments in Bahrain is untrue," the Bahrain News Agency quoted her.

This was quite contrary to the openly heavy-handed methods used by Bahraini security apparatus to crush dissent by their majority Shia population asking for their rights!

Pillay made the comment during her meeting with Bahrain’s Social Development Minister and acting Health Minister Dr. Fatima bint Mohammed Al Balooshi in Geneva.

Then there was Justice Richard Goldstone’s disputed report that dealt with the Gaza war (Dec 2008-January 2009). The US blocked the dossier, which exposed the horrors of the Israeli invasion, under controversial circumstances after Goldstone denounced his own report on ‘Operation Cast Lead’. The US declared Goldstone report deeply flawed. That was the end of it.

In June 2018, the US quit the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) calling it "a cesspool of political bias."

Lt. Colonel Smith’s statement, though being dismissed by the State Department, should be examined against the backdrop of significant US support to defeat the LTTE. In 2002, the US, following a comprehensive study on the Sri Lankan military, advised Sri Lanka to use cluster bombs. Years later, the US provided invaluable intelligence directly to wartime Navy Chief Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda to destroy the LTTE’s floating arsenal and enhanced the firepower of the Fast Attack Craft et al.

TNA’s contradictory stand on command responsibility

Sri Lanka never made a genuine effort to examine accountability issues, having co-sponsored a resolution, on Oct 01, 2015, at the expense of her armed forces. Even after the US quit the Geneva body, calling the UN outfit a cesspit of political bias, Sri Lanka pledged to fully cooperate with the process. 

The UK replaced the US as the major power, handling Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. By then, Sri Lanka had in her hands wartime documents provided by Lord Naseby to disprove PoE allegation pertaining to civilian deaths, though there were opportunities they were never utilised. The Foreign Ministry OWED the public an explanation as to why Lord Naseby’s disclosure, made in the House of Lords, in Oct 2017, on the basis of wartime British Defence Advisor Lt. Colonel Anthony Gash’s dispatches, wasn’t used on behalf of Sri Lanka. The British disclosure disputed the very basis of PoE accusation that Vanni killings were deliberate.

Sri Lanka is yet to officially use Lord Naseby’s disclosure to push for re-examination of still UNVERIFIED allegations. A thorough examination of all available information will certainly help those interested in post-war national reconciliation, in establishing the truth. 

The Maha Sangha, political parties and a section of the civil society, condemned the politically motivated US move. The four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) appreciated the US move. The TNA statement raised many an eyebrow as the same party campaigned for war-winning Army Commander, the then General Sarath Fonseka, at the 2010 January presidential poll. Contesting on the New Democratic Front (NDF) ticket (swan symbol) Fonseka comfortably won all the northern and eastern electoral districts, though he lost the election by a staggering 1.8 mn margin to Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The TNA never explained as to why it campaigned for Fonseka against the then Commander-in-Chief Mahinda Rajapaksa. TNA leader R. Sampanthan owed an explanation as to how his party embraced Fonseka and found fault with Shavendra Silva, one of the GoCs hand-picked by the Sinha Regiment veteran to command fighting formations on the Vanni front.

Lord Naseby’s disclosure, too, placed the TNA in an embarrassing position. In the absence of tangible measures by the government, Lord Naseby, as a member of the UK House of Lords, requested the Geneva body to repeal the Geneva resolution. 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: 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 TNA leaders discuss Naseby’s claim among themselves? Did TNA respond to MP Dinesh Gunawardena’s statements in parliament on Naseby’s statement? And Did TNA take up this issue with the UK High Commissioner James Dauris?

During the yahapalana administration, Australia denied visa to Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage on the basis of UNVERIFIED accusations. Australians found fault with him for taking over the command of the 59 Division also deployed on the Vanni east front, after the successful conclusion of the war, in May 2009. Only The Island took up Gallage’s case. The writer revealed Gallage’s predicament on March 23, 2017 edition of The Island in a front-page lead story headlined ‘Chagie denied Australian visa over ‘war crimes’ allegations with strap line Unsubstantiated UN claim cited as reason.’ The then treacherous government did absolutely nothing. 

In addition to Gallage, several other seniors, including Field Marshal Fonseka, was denied the US visa though the US arranged for the TNA backing for the war veteran at the 2010 presidential poll. The US involvement in the formation of the UNP-led alliance to field Fonseka was proved by leaked classified US Embassy documents.

Chagie’s dilemma

General Jagath Jayasuriya, too, was denied a US visa on more than one occasion. The US didn’t even bother to respond to Gen. Jayasuriya’s visa application. Western powers also influenced the UN adopting hostile attitude towards Sri Lankan peacekeepers deployed under its command at international trouble spots. In spite of efforts to suppress the truth, sections of the media reported how the UN undermined peacekeeping projects. Unfortunately, those in authority failed to take tangible measures. Due to the collective failure on the part of successive administrations, Sri Lanka never properly defended her armed forces in Geneva. 

The parliament never bothered to address accountability issues. Then President Maithripala Sirisena, in spite of promising the Army that he would look into the contentious issue of the military being denied visas, did absolutely nothing. President Sirisena gave the assurance in Nov 2017. The then Majors General Chagie Gallage and Shavendra Silva were among those present at the Army Hospital, Narahenpita, when the President gave the assurance.

For some strange reason, those in power refused to accept that Western powers pursued anti-Sri Lanka strategies on the basis of PoE report and due to their failure to take tangible measures. For want of a proper strategy, Chagie Gallage had to retire on August 31, 2018 as a war criminal. The Gajaba veteran hit back hard soon after his retirement. Gallage delivered his farewell speech at Gajaba home in Saliyapura, Anuradhapura. Gallage dealt with a range of issues, including war crimes on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the Gajaba Regiment. There had never been a previous instance of a senior officer having the courage to declare at a farewell banquet, him being categorized as a war criminal. It would be pertinent to examine why Gallage declared: "So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of the history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal.’

Chagie Gallage’s Saliyapura speech should have jolted the Army. But, unfortunately, the Army turned a blind eye to the officer’s plight. The crisis never received the coverage it really deserved. In fact, there had never been a concentrated media effort to seriously examine accountability issues. The incumbent government and other interested parties responded to the travel ban imposed on the Army Commander and his immediate family as if they were quite surprised by the US move. But, the US action was anticipated. Those in authority couldn’t have been unaware of the impending US action. Both the US and the Geneva body condemned Shavendra Silva’s appointment as the Commander of the Army in the third week of August 2019.

"I am deeply troubled by the appointment of Lieutenant-General Shavendra Silva as Commander of the Sri Lankan Army, despite the serious allegations of gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law against him and his troops during the war," U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, a former Chilean President, said in a statement on Monday, Aug 19, 2019.

"Silva’s promotion "severely compromises Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote justice and accountability", she said, adding that it also set back security sector reform.

We like to remind Bachelet that her own country is yet violating rights of her people in the most inhuman ways, even though the West and people like her merely gloss over such happenings.

The US expressed its disapproval of Silva’s appointment in a strongly-worded statement.

"The allegations of gross human rights violations against him, documented by the United Nations and other organizations, are serious and credible," the U.S. Embassy in Colombo said in a statement, on Aug 19, 2019.

"This appointment undermines Sri Lanka’s international reputation and its commitments to promote justice and accountability, especially at a time when the need for reconciliation and social unity is paramount."

For some strange reason, Sri Lanka continues to refrain from presenting its case properly before the international community. Sri Lanka continues to ignore Lord Naseby’s call to officially request a fresh examination of Geneva resolution/accusations on the basis of British wartime dispatches (January-May 2009) from its High Commission in Colombo. Much to the disappointment of the people, successive governments continues to neglect their responsibility with regard to accountability issue. There is at least no official reference at the Geneva body to the Indian military intervention in Sri Lanka in the ‘80s that led to the Nanthikadal battle, nearly 30 years later. Sri Lanka is repeatedly asked to explain the disappearance of even those who may have perished in the hands of the IPKF, killed during PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam) raid on the Maldives in early Nov 1988, killed in India during weapons training provided by India or operations conducted by India after the May 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. 

Sri Lanka had purposely desisted from presenting its case in Geneva properly. In fact, Sri Lanka’s, omissions and political strategies facilitated the Geneva project directed against the country. So much so, in June 2016, TNA heavyweight M.A. Sumanthiran declared in Washington, in the presence of the then Sri Lankan Ambassador there, Prasad Kariyawasam, foreign judges were acceptable to the government of Sri Lanka. Kariyawasam received appointment as Secretary to the Foreign Ministry in Aug 2017. Subsequently, he was named advisor to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. In the wake of revelation that the US paid his monthly salary, his appointment caused controversy though the parliament announced it would take the responsibility.

Addressing a gathering in Washington, Sumanthiran revealed the existence of a tripartite agreement among the governments of SL, US and the TNA to ensure accountability mechanism comprising both local and foreign judges. Lawmaker Sumanthiran’s Washington declaration made in June 2016 remains unchallenged both in and outside parliament.

Political stability stressed ahead of Geneva sessions

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 308

February 11, 2020, 7:52 pm

by Shamindra Ferdinando

International Cooperation State Minister Susil Premajayantha considers the 19th Amendment to the Constitution as posing quite a challenge to the incumbent government. The 19th Amendment, enacted in 2015, caused unprecedented political chaos and was nothing but an absolute hindrance to the implementation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s vision, attorney-at-law Premajayantha said, urging the electorate to be mindful of their responsibility at the forthcoming parliamentary polls.

State Minister Premajayantha, in an interview with The Island, on Monday, Feb 10, discussed a range of issues, including proposed bilateral agreements with the US, the Geneva process, deterioration of parliamentary standards, and the possible outcome of the parliamentary polls, expected to be held in late April 2020.

Having served as the General Secretary of the SLFP-led UPFA for 11 years, the veteran in coalition politics firmly believes they should contest the general election under the flower bud (pohottuwa) symbol of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), regardless of whatever the arrangements discussed and consensus reached in the run-up to the Nov 16, 2019 presidential poll.

There couldn’t be any issue over exploiting unprecedented success achieved by ‘pohottuwa’ at the Local Government polls, in early 2018, and the presidential poll, in Nov 2019.

Responding to another query, State Minister Premajayantha emphasized the importance in restoring political stability. Declaring they would quite comfortably secure a simply majority in parliament at the forthcoming poll, Premajayantha explained their efforts to build on the success achieved at the Local Government and presidential polls. A smiling Premajayantha said that if the SLPP-led coalition managed to retain 6.9 mn votes polled by Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the presidential also at the forthcoming general election, they could secure 126 seats. Therefore, the ultimate objective should be to push for a two-thirds majority required to do away with the 19th Amendment, or introduce necessary changes.

When The Island pointed out that there were some opposed to the SLPP move, the Colombo District lawmaker said that decision makers should be realistic. Can anyone justify a call to change the ‘flower bud’ symbol, having won two major elections, in 2018 and 2019? Premajanatha asked, urging all those concerned to examine ground realities.

Susil, too, favours pohottuwa

Premajayantha said: "I have been with the SLFP for a long time, and represented the party at different levels, - Local Government, Provincial Council and Parliament. Having successfully contested the Kotte Urban Council, in 1991, under the ‘hand’ symbol, I entered the Western Provincial Council, under the ‘Chair’ symbol. I Entered parliament, for the first time, in 2000, under the ‘betel leaf’ symbol, and in subsequent general elections, too, in 2004, 2010 and 2015, I contested under the betel leaf."

However, the current political situation required the grouping to review strategies at the crucial forthcoming general election, State Minister Premajayantha said, underscoring the pivotal importance in achieving overall objectives than addressing personal issues. "We are certainly not in a position to play politics with strategy. If we squander this opportunity, the country will have to pay a very heavy price," lawmaker Premajayantha said. "Don’t forget one of the key aims is to repeal the 19th Amendment or bring in changes. That depends on us securing a two-thirds majority in parliament," Premajayantha said.

According to him, there couldn’t be any dispute over the clear advantage in contesting on the SLPP ticket under ‘lotus bud’ symbol.

The veteran politician emphasized the pivotal importance in having stability in parliament as a section of the international community pressed the country over accountability issues. Lawmaker Premajayantha asserted that the yahapalana administration should not have co-sponsored a resolution in the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in respect of accountability issues. Pointing out that there couldn’t have been a previous instance of a country moving a resolution against her own war-winning armed forces, under any circumstances, lawmaker Premajayantha said Sri Lanka was continuously under pressure to adhere to the controversial resolution. When The Island pointed out that Premajayantha, in his capacity as a member of the yahapalana cabinet of ministers, couldn’t absolve himself of the responsibility for the Geneva resolution, State Minister Premajayantha emphasized the UNP acted on its own. In spite of the SLFP being part of the government and represented in the cabinet, co-sponsorship of the Geneva resolution hadn’t been discussed at the cabinet or in parliament.

Following the 2015 August parliamentary poll, President Maithripala Sirisena, in spite of the UNP perpetrating the first mega Treasury bond scam, in late Feb 2015, joined the UNP-led government.

Fonseka’s revelation

The SLFPer hadn’t been the first lawmaker to claim that Geneva wasn’t taken up at all at the yahapalana cabinet, or discussed in parliament. In fact, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka was the first to say so, in late 2018, in response to a query raised by the writer at a media briefing.

Lawmaker Fonseka’s admission that the cabinet had never discussed Sri Lanka’s response to alleged war crimes allegations highlighted the culpability on the part of the National Unity Government for deliberately denying the armed forces a proper defence.

The Sinha Regiment veteran’s disclosure was quite a shock. Fonseka claimed that since he joined the cabinet, in early 2016, the issue had never been discussed with him. Fonseka explained that security matters had been discussed with him before the change of government, in January 2015. Referring to Sri Lanka’s response to war crimes accusations, Fonseka said not a word had been spoken with him about it. Obviously, Fonseka, too, hadn’t taken up the issue for obvious reasons. Fonseka’s Army brought the war to a successful conclusion, in May 2009.

The UNP accommodated Fonseka in the cabinet, in late February 2016, following the demise of National List MP M.K.D.S Gunawardena. The UNP rescued Fonseka after his Democratic Party failed to secure a single seat at the August 2015 parliamentary poll. Fonseka received the Regional Development portfolio.

Can the government justify its failure to explore ways and means of countering war crimes allegations, especially against the backdrop of evidence contrary to the Geneva Resolution unanimously adopted in early October 2015?

It would be pertinent to examine two other statements made by Fonseka’s colleagues, in Nov 2017, (Dayasiri Jayasekera in his capacity as the Cabinet spokesperson) and Aug 2018 (Mahinda Samarasinghe in his capacity as the SLFP spokesperson).

Both Jayasekera and Samarasinghe acknowledged that the cabinet of ministers had not discussed Sri Lanka’s defence nor examined the Geneva Resolution. The revelations made by Lord Naseby on the basis of wartime British High Commission dispatches (January-May 2009), exposed the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government of deliberately depriving Sri Lanka a proper defence. Instead of utilizing Naseby’s disclosure, in the House of Lords, in mid Oct 2017, the government struggled to suppress the UK dispatches.

The yahapalana government didn’t want to talk about Geneva. The Island dealt with the governments’ reluctance even to discuss the Geneva issue (War crimes; Cabinet spokesman provoked by query on govt. response to Naseby move, The Island, Nov 16, 2017)

Cabinet spokesman and Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera is on record as having said that a statement made by Lord Naseby, in the House of Lords, would be used by the government appropriately at the right time, though the Cabinet was yet to discuss it. The then Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana gave a similar assurance about a week later though the UNP never intended to honour the promise.

An irate Jayasekera said that the government wouldn’t take up issues pursued by The Island the way the newspaper wanted. It had not been taken up by the Cabinet on the basis it wasn’t considered so grave a matter, the Minister declared. Minister Jayasekera initially asserted that Lord Naseby’s statement wasn’t directly relevant to the Geneva issue.

The writer rejected the Minister’s accusations and pointed out that the government’s opinion on Naseby’s statement was sought as the British Lord had said that a maximum of 7,000-8,000 died on the Vanni front and not 40,000, as alleged by a UN panel, and Sri Lanka never purposely targeted the civilian population. Lord Naseby also pointed out that from the 7,000-8,000, one-fourth were LTTE cadres.

Minister Gayantha Karunatilleke and Military Spokesman Maj. Gen. Roshan Seneviratne refrained from commenting on the issue.

Lanka wants Geneva to

revisit resolution

The Island sought International Cooperation Minister Premajayantha’s views on the recent meeting he, along with Cabinet Minister of Foreign Relations, Dinesh Gunawardena, had with the OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) team in Colombo. The team consisting of Ms Mona Rishmawi, Rory Mungoven, Francesca Marietta and Raghu Menon was here to discuss accountability issues. Lawmaker Premajayantha said that there was no requirement, on the part of the government to amend the Geneva resolution 30/1 under any circumstances as the incumbent administration never accepted it. "There is no point on seeking amendment to a resolution not acceptable to us," attorney-at-law Premajayantha said.

Declaring that the government would proceed on the basis of a new mandate received by Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the last presidential poll, lawmaker Premajayantha said the UNHRC should revisit the resolution. When The Island pointed out that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government was yet to reveal its official stand on the Geneva process, State Minister Premajayantha said that it would be revealed soon.

Lawmaker Premajayantha alleged that the UNP followed, what he called, a destructive foreign policy. Referring to the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) worked out by the UNP, in consultation with foreign powers, in Feb 2002, the SLFPer said that the UNP leadership had no sense of responsibility and simply acted in the interests of a few individuals. Lawmaker Premajayantha explained as to how the Geneva resolution jeopardized national security at every level. State Minister Premajayantha also dealt with the SLSFTA (Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement), finalized in January 2018, under the patronage of the then President Maithripala Sirisena, as well as the 99-year lease on the Hambantota port and proposed agreements on MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) and SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).

State Minister Premajayantha said that the previous government should have been mindful of various multilateral and bilateral agreements it was getting into.

Asked whether he was aware of President Maithripala Sirisena, in his capacity as the Defence Minister authorized the ACSA (Access and Cross Servicing Agreement) in early 2017, lawmaker Premajayantha claimed that he was not aware of the circumstances that particular agreement was entered into.

State Minister Premajayantha alleged that the UNP caused a crisis by delaying the Local Government and Provincial Councils polls. Pointing out that the UNP paid a huge price for delaying Local Government polls, leading to the debilitating defeat at the Feb 2018 polls. "The UNP feared to face the electorate. It adopted strategies to put off elections. Parliamentary process was manipulated to have the Provincial Council polls postponed. Today, all nine PCs are placed under Governors appointed by the President. The TNA, too, should take the responsibility for this unfortunate situation."

Failed bid to oust Premier RW

A section of the SLFP-backed Joint Opposition moved a no-faith motion against the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe in early April 2018? The UNP leader survived the move. President Maithripala Sirisena quit the government, in late Oct 2018, after having failed to convince Sajith Premadasa, Karu Jayasuriya and Ranjith Madduma Bandara et al to help oust Wickremesinghe. President Sirisena offered them the premiership in return for their support.

MP Premajayantha was among those who voted for the no-faith motion against Wickremesinghe. Subsequently, President Maithripala Sirisena sacked him from the post of Senior Vice President of the SLFP.

Against the backdrop of the SLPP and the SLFP faulting the 19th Amendment to the Constitution for the current political crisis, The Island asked MP Premajayantha as to why the SLFP voted for the 19th Amendment, in 2015. He said the party acted on the instructions received from the party leader President Maithripala Sirisena. MP Premajayantha was among those who voted for the 19th Amendment. Of the 225-member parliament, Digamadulla District MP Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera was the only lawmaker to vote against it in spite of being repeatedly asked to do so.

The 19th Amendment created two power centres in addition to the Office of the Executive President. If not for the Supreme Court intervention, the 19th Amendment would have caused far more damage, lawmaker Premajayantha said. The original draft was meant to strengthen the Office of the Prime Minister at the expense of the 1978 Constitution. Had the UNP succeeded, powers exercised by the President would have been diluted to such an extent, the Office of the President would have been irrelevant, the State Minister asserted.

State Minister Premajayantha said that the Supreme Court ruling, in Nov 2018, on President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to suspend parliament highlighted the crisis caused by the 19th Amendment. Referring to relevant sections in the Constitution, 33 (2) C and 70 (1), the attorney-at-law explained as to how those sections allowed, what he described as, contrary interpretations. The Supreme Court ruled that the President could not dissolve parliament. The SC move effectively thwarted President Sirisena’s bid to have general elections on January 05, 2020.

MP Premajayantha blamed the Constitutional Council, headed by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, for causing further turmoil. Describing the Constitutional Council as a creation of the 19th Amendment, lawmaker Premajayantha discussed how the outfit facilitated the Easter Sunday carnage by naming Pujith Jayasundera as the Inspector General of Police. Jayasundera remained suspended, MP Premajayantha said, pointing out that the 19th Amendment deprived the President the authority to sack Jayasundera.

Asked whether the appointment of disgraced Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran, too, had been cleared by the Constitutional Council, lawmaker Premajayantha said that President Maithripala Sirisena, in spite of serious reservations, made the decision, on a request by Premier Wickremesinghe.

Responding to another query, State Minister Premajayantha admitted that the political situation would have been very much different if the UNP did not perpetrate the 2015 Treasury bond scam. The MP acknowledged that a far bigger Treasury bond scam was perpetrated, in March 2016, even after the President saved the UNP by dissolving parliament on the eve of the presentation of the COPE, report on the first scam. MP Premajantha was a member of the COPE headed by Dew Gunasekera, General Secretary of the Communist Party.

State Minister Premajayantha alleged that imprudent fiscal management jeopardized the national economy, thereby placing a heavy burden on those struggling to make ends meet. Responding to another query, MP Premajayantha said that the SLFP, in spite of being in the government, had no say in decisions making process, pertaining to the economy. A powerful committee comprising a selected few, including Premier Wickremesinghe, Malik Samarawickrema and R. Paskaralingam, handled the economy at the expense of good governance practices, the State Minister alleged. President Sirisena, having realized the crisis caused by the outfit, belatedly acted, and set up a unit though it could not achieve the desired results, MP Premajayantha said.

Lawmaker Premajayantha discussed mismanagement of the national economy, coupled with mega corruption that plunged the country into an unprecedented crisis. Gotabaya Rajapaksa received a clear mandate from the people, at the last presidential poll, to charter a new course for the country. The new President, though not having parliamentary experience was taking tangible measures, and much needed remedial action to overcome the challenges, the State Minister said, acknowledging their responsibility in not allowing the Geneva issue to overwhelm the country. The State Minister said that Sri Lanka wouldn’t get another opportunity to reverse the Geneva process meant to introduce a new Constitution at the expense of the unitary status. Had we allowed the process to continue, Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism, in May 2009 would be in vain, State Minister Premajayantha said. At the conclusion of the interview, MP Premajayantha was asked whether he utilized government bungalows during his political career ‘never’ as a minister though during the tenure as the Chief Minister of the Western Province the facility was used for a period of three months during renovation of his own modest house, built with a loan taken during his days as an employee of the Bank of Ceylon.

A reminder how yahapalana govt. humiliated the war-winning military

As Sri Lanka celebrates 72nd Independence Day

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 307

February 4, 2020, 8:05 pm

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, flanked by Lt. Gen.Shavendra Silva and Vice Admiral Piyal de Silva, at the 72nd Independence Day celebrations, on Feb 4, 2020, at the Independence Square, touches his medals.(pic by Kamal Bogoda)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

In January, 2015, Sri Lanka gave up its right to celebrate the victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), undoubtedly the country’s greatest post-independence achievement.

Having defeated war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the January 08, 2015 presidential poll, the UNP-led coalition had no option but to appease those who had backed the change of government. The four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA), wartime mouthpiece of the LTTE, opposed the annual ‘Victory Day’ parade, inaugurated in May 2009.

Sections of the civil society, too, opposed the ‘Victory Parade.’ On behalf of all those who opposed the ‘Victory Parade,’ Canada demanded the cancellation of the annual event, scheduled to be held in Matara. The then Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, quite rightly dismissed the Canadian demand. The then Military Spokesman Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya explained as to why Sri Lanka couldn’t heed the Canadian demand. Wanigasooriya, current Security Forces Commander, Jaffna, quite clearly emphasized Sri Lanka’s right to go ahead with the scheduled parade, in Matara.

Last ‘Victory Day’ parade

On a Canadian High Commission request, The Island exclusively front-paged the then Canadian High Commissioner Shelly Whiting’s strongly worded letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government to cancel the combined security forces parade, or face the consequences.

The following is the text of Shelly’s statement, headlined ‘Canada to boycott Victory Day parade’ with strap line ‘such events won’t help post-war national reconciliation’:

"As in past years, heads of mission, resident in Sri Lanka, have recently received invitations to participate in this year’s Victory Parade, scheduled to be held, in Matara, on May 18. As Canadian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, part of my role includes celebrating the successes of the country, alongside the Sri Lankan people. However, I will not be attending the Victory Day Parade on May 18. Some commentators will no doubt rush to judge and erroneously conclude that I am doing so out of some misplaced nostalgia for the LTTE. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Let me be clear the LTTE was a scourge that brought untold suffering to this island nation and all its people.

"Prior to arriving in Sri Lanka, my previous assignment was in Afghanistan where I saw first-hand the terrorist tactics (use of suicide bombers, IEDs) that are sadly the LTTE’s legacy to the world. The LTTE and its supporters were ruthless and single-minded, and did not faithfully represent the political aspirations of the communities they purported to represent. Canada joined the world in welcoming the defeat of the LTTE, in 2009. In fact, the LTTE has been proscribed as a terrorist entity, in Canada, since 2006. To help stop the flow of funding to the LTTE, Canada further proscribed the World Tamil Movement (WTM) in 2008. Both of these organizations remain banned in Canada today.

"However, five years after the end of the conflict, the time has arrived for Sri Lanka to move past wartime discourse and to start working seriously towards reconciliation. It is time to mend relations between communities and to ensure that all Sri Lankans can live in dignity and free from discrimination, based on ethnic, religious or linguistic identities. Fathers and daughters, sons and mothers, all were victims, who were killed or never returned home at the end of the conflict. No community here – whether Sinhalese or Tamil, Muslim or Burgher – was spared during the conflict. In this vein, Canada has encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to retire its annual Victory Day Parade, which perpetuates roles of victors and vanquished within the country, for a day of remembrance for all those who suffered as a result of the conflict. Indeed, Sri Lanka’s own homegrown Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report recommends that a solemn day of remembrance for all victims of the war would be more conducive to sustaining peace here. Such a gesture would go a long way towards putting wartime posturing behind Sri Lanka.

"I will not be in Matara, but I will be thinking and remembering all those who lost their loved ones over the 30-year conflict."

First military parade since

prez poll

Sri Lanka celebrated her 72nd Independence Day yesterday, Tuesday, Feb 04, 2020, at the Independence Avenue, with a combined security forces parade. Over a decade after the conclusion of the conflict, the war-winning armed forces remained accused of killing over 40,000 Tamils on the Vanni east front. The Canadian boycott of the ‘Victory Day’ parade, in 2014, should be examined against the backdrop of high profile war crimes accusations directed at the Sri Lankan military.

Kfirs and MiG 27 squadrons, which played a crucial role in bringing the LTTE down to its knees, were not on fly-past.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government unceremoniously cancelled off the May 2015 ‘Victory Day’ parade. The cancellation was clearly part of the then government initiatives to appease those who could not stomach Sri Lanka’s victory over the LTTE. The government bent backwards to appease the lot, regardless of the consequences. President Sirisena, in his capacity as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the Minister of Defence, never really opposed the treacherous UNP strategies. President Sirisena cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for the situation created by the UNP. Actually, lawmaker Ranil Wickremesinghe and former President Sirisena certainly owed an explanation as to why their administration cancelled the ‘Victory Day’ parade. It would be pertinent to ask whether the then government at least discussed the decision to do away with the annual event at cabinet level or the parliamentary group. Did the National Security Council ever take up this issue?

The cancellation of the ‘Victory Day’ parade was nothing but a slur on those who perished and wounded in the battle against northern and southern terrorism. The Sri Lankan military can be quite proud of quelling both the northern and southern terror groups.

The cancellation of the event didn’t really upset the then Joint Opposition (those now in power). The JO remained largely silent about the despicable UNP decision. There had never been any concerted JO effort against the cancellation of the ‘Victory Day’ parade, during the 2015-2019 period. The termination of the largest combined forces event, in May, 2015, paved the way for the co-sponsorship of the accountability resolution at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council. The cancellation of the annual May event and the Geneva co-sponsorship should be examined against the backdrop of the TNA strategy. Having backed the LTTE, until the very end, in May 2009, the TNA, in consultation with the US, threw its weight behind the UNP-led campaign to oust Mahinda Rajapaksa. They made an abortive bid at the 2010 January 26 presidential election. Interestingly, the JVP, too, joined the UNP-led grouping. Having accused the war-winning Army of war crimes, they had no qualms in fielding its former commander Sarath Fonseka as the common candidate on the New Democratic Front (NDF) ticket. Fonseka suffered a humiliating defeat. The UNP-led grouping succeeded in ousting Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2015 January 08 presidential poll. The stage was set to implement their 100-day programme, before calling early general election. The government perpetrated the first Treasury Bond scam, on Feb 27, 2015, causing a major rift between President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe.

In March, 2015, Premier Wickremesinghe, on two occasions, questioned the validity of war crimes accusations. The UNP leader disputed even the primary accusation regarding the massacre of 40,000 on the Vanni east front, in 2009, though his government unceremoniously stopped the ‘Victory Day’ parade.

A treacherous coalition

Cancellation of the ‘Victory Day’ parade was followed by acceptance of high profile allegations as regards war crimes by way of accountability resolution at the Geneva body, in Oct 2015.

Western powers acted on those unsubstantiated allegations though the US and the TNA didn’t have an issue in backing General Fonseka, at the 2010 presidential election, having accused his army of killing civilians. It would be pertinent to reproduce what the then US Ambassador Patricia Butenis said in a classified cable of the war-winning Army Commander. Thanks to Wikileaks, this cable, dated January 15, 2010, authored by Butenis, is in public the domain. Headlined ‘SRI LANKA WAR-CRIMES ACCOUNTABILITY: THE TAMIL PERSPECTIVE’, Butenis said: "There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power. In Sri Lanka, this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka."

But, Butenis perception didn’t prevent her country advising the TNA to back Fonseka at the 2010 presidential poll.

Ranil quotes Kerry

In the run-up to the co-sponsorship of the Geneva resolution, the then US Secretary of State, John Kerry, visited Colombo. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government was keen to follow the US. The US and Sri Lanka political leaderships sought closer relationship/cooperation while the interests of the Sri Lankan military were disregarded. Following Kerry’s visit, Premier Wickremesinghe, in a brief note, addressed to the then Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Jagath Jayasuriya, emphasized the importance of some issues raised by the top US official during his two-day visit to Colombo.

In the note to Gen. Jayasuriya, copied to Army Commander Lt. Gen. Crishanthe De Silva, Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Jayantha Perera, and Airforce Commander, Air Marshal Kolitha Gunatilleke, Premier Wickremesinghe highlighted some points, discussed by Kerry, in a public lecture delivered at the Taj Samudra.

Premier Wickremesinghe quoted Kerry as having said: "None of us wants to live in a country where the military is stopping its own citizens at checkpoints. And Sri Lanka’s military has so much more to contribute, in defending this country, protecting vital sea lanes and taking part in UN peacekeeping missions all over the world. And, as your armed forces make that transition, we are going to be very eager to work with you and to work with them and to tender help."

In a sense, the missive, dated May, 7, 2015, is unprecedented, as no previous Premier/President had issued such a note to the military.

Having drawn the attention of the top brass, to Kerry’s views, Wickremesinghe stressed that the new administration’s stand, on the post-war role of the armed forces, was compatible with that of the US. The CDS, as well as the three service chiefs, were to ensure that the Premier’s message reached all levels of command, and control structure, including those deployed on the ground.

Was Commander-in-Chief and Defence Minister President Maithripala Sirisena aware of Premier Wickremesinghe’s massive? The UNP never explained as to why its stand on our armed forces’ post-war role should be compatible with that of the US. The Premier’s note should be studied against the backdrop of his government co-sponsoring the resolution in Geneva, meant to undermine the war-winning Army.

Western powers resorted to punitive action against senior military commanders in terms of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka was among those who had been humiliated by way of denial of visa. Fonseka, in spite of being considered by the US to be suitable to be the President, was repeatedly denied US visa. Veteran ground commander, Chagie Gallage, was another victim. Australia denied him visa over unsubstantiated war crimes accusations. The Gajaba Regiment veteran hit back hard, soon after his retirement.

Chagie’s case

"Gajaba was engraved in golden letters of the annals of the history of the Sri Lanka Army, if not in the history of Sri Lanka … and I’m certain it will never be reversed by any. So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of the history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal."

In a few lines, Gallage dealt a devastating attack on all those who had shirked their responsibility in defending the war-winning military. Their failure led to the sections of the Army being categorized criminal. Gallage’s was a case in point. The Gajaba veteran retired, on Aug 31, 2018, three years after yahapalana administration co-sponsored the Geneva resolution.

A week after retirement, Gallage delivered his farewell speech at the Gajaba home in Saliyapura, Anuradhapura. Gallage dealt with a range of issues on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the Gajaba Regiment. There had never been a previous instance of an officer having the courage to declare at a farewell banquet, that he had been categorized as a war criminal. It would be pertinent to examine why Gallage declared: "So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of the history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal.’

The writer revealed Gallage’s predicament in the March 23, 2017 edition in a front-page lead story headlined Chagie denied Australian visa over ‘war crimes’ allegations with strap line Unsubstantiated UN claim cited as reason.

Australia found fault with Gallage commanding the 59 Division, from May 7, 2009 to July 20, 2009.

The then treacherous government never intervened on behalf of those officers unfairly treated by Western powers. President Maithripala Sirisena, in spite of assuring the Army he would take tangible measures in this regard, did nothing to reverse the situation. Sri Lanka never took up this issue with Western powers. The Foreign Ministry refrained from taking it up. The head of a mission who served in a country that denied visa selected officers told the writer recently that he never received instructions from Colombo regarding to countering of war crimes accusations.

The Yahapalana administration ruined the reputation of Sri Lanka’s armed forces. The wartime acquisition of MiG 27 was relentlessly attacked until sections of the public really believed the aircraft didn’t help the war effort. The Katunayake-based No 12 squadron caused irreparable damage to the LTTE. The "Once proud No 12 MiG squadron is no more" can be accessed at http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=200462)

On the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes, the UN caused obstacles to Sri Lankan peacekeeping missions overseas. Finally, the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission was tasked to clear the peacekeepers bound for UN missions.

The US reaction to the appointment of Shavendra Silva, as the Commander of the Army last year underscored Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to counter the high profile political project meant to demoralize the military. Unfortunately, the political leadership lacked a strategy to counter the Western project. There had never been a determined effort so far to clear the military of bogus accusations. However, individual cases should be investigated thoroughly and wrongdoers punished. There cannot be any dispute over Sri Lanka’s responsibility in dealing with cases. Let me reproduce the statement issued by the US in the wake of Shavendra Silva’s appointment to highlight negligence on the part of Sri Lanka to address accountably charges. The strongly worded US statement, issued on August 19, 2019, questioned the appointment given to the General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the celebrated 58 Division. The US statement: "The allegations of gross human rights violations against him, documented by the United Nations and other organizations, are serious and credible. This appointment undermines Sri Lanka’s international reputation and its commitments to promote justice and accountability, especially at a time when the need for reconciliation and social unity is paramount."

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, too, expressed serious concerns about Shavendra Silva’s appointment. "I am deeply troubled by the appointment of Lieutenant-General Shavendra Silva as Commander of the Sri Lankan Army, despite the serious allegations of gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law against him and his troops during the war," Bachelet said. It would be pertinent to mention that Bachelet described Silva’s previous appointment as Army Chief of Staff as a ‘worrying development’ in her last report to the Human Rights Council, in March 2019. "The promotion of Lieutenant-General General Silva severely compromises Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote justice and accountability in the context of Human Rights Council resolution 30/1," Bachelet said. "It undermines reconciliation efforts, particularly in the eyes of victims and survivors who suffered greatly in the war. It also sets back security sector reform, and is likely to impact on Sri Lanka’s ability to continue contributing to UN peacekeeping efforts."

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government needs to undertake reappraisal of the entire gamut of issues before the forthcoming Geneva sessions. Sri Lanka is unlikely to get another opportunity to present its case in Geneva if the country squandered the available opportunity.