Push against PTA gathers momentum

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 408

Published

  2022/02/23

Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith signs a petition demanding the abolition of the PTA. TNA lawmaker Rasamanikkam looks on.

In terms of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) arranged by Norway in Feb 2002, Sri Lanka suspended the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe went ahead with the controversial move, though some sections of the armed forces, and the police, opposed the move. Let me reproduce the relevant section from the CFA: 2:12: The parties agree that search operations and arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act shall not take place. Arrests shall be conducted under the due process of law in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law.” The CFA failed to take concerns of the armed forces into consideration. Those who bent backwards to appease the LTTE neglected national security. The Yahapalana government sought to replace the PTA with a new antiterrorism act. Now, the HRCSL has gone further. It wants to do
away with the PTA. Well over a decade after the elimination of the LTTE, the threat of terrorism remains, though the enemy will never regain a conventional fighting capability. But those wielding
political power have to be cautious. Let us not grant something
the enemy couldn’t win militarily.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Political weekly ‘Anidda’, on its front-page (Feb 20, 2022 edition), carried a photograph of Archbishop of Colombo Rt. Rev. Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith signing a petition demanding the abolition of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Standing next to the Archbishop was Tamil National Alliance’s (TNA) Batticaloa district lawmaker Shanakiyan Rasamanikkam.

According to ‘Annida,’ the high profile signature campaign against the PTA has been spearheaded by the ‘Justice for All’ organisation.

The Archbishop signed the petition before the launch of ‘Thitha’ at the BMICH by Rev. Father Lal Pushpadeva Fernando on behalf of the Catholic Church. The editorial board comprised Maximus Linton Fernando, Dr. Sachitha Mendis and Ajith Mendis. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Sri Lanka assailed the current dispensation with the focus on Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam and the Attorney General’s Department over the handling of the 2019 Easter Sunday case.

Although absolutely no reference was made at the book launch pertaining to the acquittal and release of the then Secretary Ministry of Defence Hemasiri Fernando and IGP Pujith Jayasundera charged over the Easter Sunday carnage, to be fair by Rajaratnam, the public shouldn’t forget that the indictments were filed by former AG Dappula de Livera, PC. So will Hemasiri and Pujith go scot-free because of the bungling by the Attorney General’s Department?

The Church owed an explanation as regards its backing for the ‘Justice for All’ project meant to pressure the government to repeal the PTA. The project got underway opposite the Fort Railway station early last week with the participation of several political parties, including the TNA and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. Among those who signed the petition were TNA Jaffna district lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran, PC and SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem.

Can Sri Lanka do away with anti-terrorism laws? The Easter Sunday carnage, perpetrated by the National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) in April 2019, a decade after the eradication of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), underscored the importance of anti-terrorism laws. Sri Lanka cannot, under any circumstances, ignore the constant threats posed by various extremist /terrorist organisations. The devastating NTJ terror project underscored the responsibility on the part of the government to ensure an adequate legal cover for anti-terrorist operations. Unfortunately, political parties here seemed to have treated national security just as a another political issue. Western powers have exploited the political party system and the civil society setup here to advance their cause. The PTA has become an ideal issue for the Western powers to hammer this country, even though countries like the USA and the UK have some of the most draconian laws to fight terrorism. The Homeland Security Act introduced in the USA in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that claimed several thousand innocent lives, for example gave law enforcement there a virtual carte blanche to tackle the problem of terrorism. How is it that the US can still hold people without trial for years at a place like Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the UNHRC simply turns a blind eye to so many such grave violations committed by the Americans there and elsewhere? Then how is it that when the UK passed laws to give immunity to its soldiers who had committed war crimes in West Asia again UNHRC simply swept them under the carpet. Then what has the UNHRC done about the highly publicised war crimes committed by Australian troops also in West Asia? The UK heads Sri Lanka Core Group in Geneva.

The ongoing petition campaign undertaken by the ‘Justice for All’ project underscores the failure on the part of the government to recognize the growing threat posed by the Geneva project. No wonder people keep asking whether our Foreign Service officers, in general, are working for us or Western interests. Do any of them at least write a letter even to a local newspaper defending the country when it is unfairly hounded by the Western funded NGO mafia here, leave alone them taking any measures to counter UNHRC doing a hatchet job against the country on behalf of the West.

The stepped up campaign to get rid of the PTA should be examined against the backdrop of the Easter Sunday carnage and various political developments taking place. The Cardinal’s backing for the ‘Justice for All’ project should be examined, carefully. Why did the Cardinal endorse the petition knowing well the PTA is needed to neutralize threats posed by extremists/terrorists? In the wake of the Easter Sunday carnage, the then government used the PTA against the NTJ and other groups. It might be a case of him getting increasingly carried away by the public spotlight. But, the deterioration of once cordial relations between the government and the Catholic Church over the former’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) that inquired into the Easter Sunday carnage may have influenced the Cardinal. The government cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for the rift caused by an inordinate delay in implementing PCoI recommendations. Interested parties have exploited the situation.

Shocking TNA declaration

The TNA is the only political party to justify the Easter Sunday carnage. TNA spokesperson Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran did so at the first anniversary of ‘Annidda’ at the Jasmine Hall, a week after the Easter Sunday massacre.

The writer was among the media therein. The event took place amidst security concerns of fresh NTJ attacks. However, except The Island, all other print and electronic media conveniently refrained from reporting lawmaker Sumanthiran’s threat. It was nothing but a threat.

In that background, the Church backing for the repealing of the PTA is certainly questionable. Having recognized the LTTE in late 2001 as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people thereby encouraging the LTTE to declare war, the TNA is waging a different kind of war today.

Addressing the ‘Annidda’ anniversary, Sumanthiran alleged that the Easter Sunday carnage was caused by Sri Lanka’s failure to ensure certain basic values. The MP warned of dire consequences unless the government addressed the grievances of the minorities. At the onset of the programme, Annidda editor Attorney-at-Law K.W. Janaranjana requested speakers Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, the then Human Rights Commissioner Dr. Deepika Udagama, MP M.A. Sumanthiran PC, J.C. Weliamuna PC, and then Constitutional Council member Attorney-at-Law Javid Yusuf and filmmaker Asoka Handagama to take the Easter Sunday carnage into consideration. They dealt with the topic ‘Sri Lanka beyond 2020.’

Top law academic Dr. Udagama functioned as the Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) at that time. Among those who had been present on that occasion were the late Professor Carlo Fonseka, former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, then Minister Mano Ganesan, then MP. Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, then MP Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, one-time MP Lal Kantha and a large group of civil society activists, including Ven. Dambara Amila Thera, Gamini Viyangoda, Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, Saman Ratnapriya, Chandragupta Thenuwara and Sandya Ekneligoda.

The Archbishop of Colombo, however, strongly rejected MP Sumanthiran’s claim that the failure on the part of successive governments to address the grievances of minorities over the past several decades had led to the Easter Sunday carnage. The Archbishop was responding to the writer at a media briefing jointly called by the Catholic Church and the Buddhist clergy at the Bishop’s House, Borella. The Buddhist clergy was represented by the Most Ven. Ittapane Dhammalankara Nayaka Thera, of the Kotte Sri Kalayani Samagri Dharma Maha Sangha Sabha of Siyam Maha Nikaya.

When The Island sought Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith’s response to lawmaker Sumanthiran’s claim, the Catholic leader asserted that the situation had been wrongly interpreted. But, the Church has ended up backing a TNA-led project. The PCoI never bothered to secure an explanation from the TNA heavyweight Sumanthiran. Terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstances. There shouldn’t be any dispute over that. The ‘Justice for All’ project perhaps has no concern for those who had perished in the hands of terrorists.

HRCSL takes controversial stand

The HRCSL caused quite a controversy recently by calling for the repealing of the PTA. In a statement dated Feb 15, issued by its Chairperson Rohini Marasinghe, the HRCSL declared that terrorism should be dealt in terms of the Penal Code. The five-member outfit stressed the need for a new definition for terrorism.

The HRCSL asserted that terrorism should be investigated under the General Law of the country with necessary amendments. The announcement was made following consultations between the HRCSL and a section of the Colombo-based diplomatic community. The consultations seemed to be in line with the overall government policy in dealing with post-war accountability issues. Those who propagated the view that Sri Lanka didn’t require PTA should be asked to explain whether they can guarantee there wouldn’t be any further terrorist attacks. The NTJ struck a decade after the successful conclusion of the war against the LTTE. The NTJ succeeded in carrying out a near simultaneous coordinated suicide bombing campaign. The LTTE never managed to stage a similar mission though it targeted individuals (both political and military).

Acknowledging the importance of the HRCSL role in the post-war scenario, it would be necessary to point out that the outfit has taken a position contrary to that of the government. The HRCSL’s push for repealing of anti-terrorism law comes as the government seeks consensus with other political parties and the civil society as regards the amendments to it suggested by the government.

Extremely tough security laws are required to meet severe challenges. Countries threatened by terrorism (domestic and backed by external powers) have no option but to adopt laws which sometimes hinder and undermine civil liberties. The PTA that had been introduced in 1979, a couple of years after the crushing of the first JVP-led insurrection was required to meet the northern terrorist challenge (1983-2009) as well as the second JVP insurgency (1987-1990). The PTA was required again when the NTJ mounted suicide missions in Colombo, Katana and Batticaloa. Now, an influential section of the political setup, Western-funded civil society outfits, the Tamil Diaspora wanted to do away with the PTA. The HRCSL backing for the far reaching project appeared to have caught the government by surprise. Perhaps, the government hasn’t consulted the HRCSL as regards the amendments it proposed to the PTA.

Interestingly, the civil society is also sharply divided over the ongoing consultations between the government and a section of the civil society as regards post-war national reconciliation. The group that had been engaged in a dialogue with the government recently received an opportunity to have one of its members in the HRCSL. Venerable Kalupahana Piyarathana Thera is the civil society group nominee. The Ven. Thera succeeded prominent civil society activist Harsha Kumara Navaratne, who received appointment as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Canada.

The project to repeal the PTA seems to be gathering momentum. There is no point in denying the fact that successive governments, including the current dispensation, had used it for political expediency. Anti-terrorism law should never have been used against political opposition or to suppress those pursuing a different line. Instead of diluting the law, the political leadership shouldn’t exploit the PTA for political purposes.

Member of the nine-member team, tasked with drafting a new constitution, Manohara de Silva, PC declared that the HRCSL had absolutely no right to interfere in national security matters. The civil activist’s stand should receive the appreciation of people enjoying a country free of terror, notwithstanding the Easter Sunday carnage.

The senior lawyer said so when the writer sought his opinion on the HRCSL’s call for the abolition of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The outspoken lawyer said: “That’s not their business. If there is any clause which is against any UN convention on human rights, including the UN declaration of HR, the HRCSL can point them out. Enacting legislation is a sovereign right of the people of Sri Lanka. Not only that we have a right to enact legislation against terrorism, it is our duty to do so to free the world of terrorism,” he said.

Referring to the HRCSL call to include provisions against terrorism in the Penal Code, the PC emphasized that the outfit had been obviously influenced by those who couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over LTTE terrorism.

Tamil Nadu terror project

The TNA and the GTF recently issued a comprehensive statement on its expectations and objectives. The statement titled ‘Chief Minister Stalin is heralding a new era of pride and optimism among global Tamils’ dated Feb. 18 sought the guidance and support from India and Tamil Nadu. Having published the entire joint statement in the Feb 21, 2022 edition of The Island, it would be necessary to highlight the circumstances leading to the assassination of one-time Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, on the night of May 21, 1991.

Having praised CM Stalin’s father, the late TN Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi for his initiatives for the benefit of Sri Lankan Tamils, the TNA-GTF grouping stated: “We are also conscious that the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) support for the Tamil cause continued despite many challenges it faced in the Indian Union, including the dismissal of the DMK government in 1991 relating to the Tamil people’s problems in Sri Lanka.”

The alliance now seeking fresh impetus from India, has conveniently forgotten how Tamil Nadu, with the backing of the Indian government, destabilized Sri Lanka. The assassination of Gandhi by the LTTE, a group that had been trained, financed, armed and deployed against a smaller friendly country, took place a few months after India dismissed Karunanidhi’s government. India dismissed the TN administration on January 30, 1991. The LTTE blew up Gandhi on May 21, 1991. Did the LTTE decision to eliminate their one-time benefactor had been influenced by Karunanidhi’s dismissal? Had there been any consultations between DMK elements and the LTTE at any level as regards the Sriperumbudur assassination that shocked the world? Only thereafter the UK banished the Tiger International Secretariat from London. So the British too cuddled the terrorist outfit claiming that it had not violated UK laws. And they continue to do so through more subtle means. Can anyone imagine how London would have treated us if we had given the IRA an opportunity to even open an office in Colombo claiming they have not violated our laws?

The alliance’s reference to 1983 anti-Tamil riots and the late Karunanidhi’s role in support of the Tamil community here should be examined keeping in mind that it was no one but the current CM’s father who paved the way for the massive destruction in Sri Lanka. If not for Indian trained terrorists killing 13 soldiers at Thinnaveli, Jaffna, in July 1983, there would never have been a Nanthikadal situation. The TNA-GTF alliance has also forgotten how Indian trained terrorists killed Tamil lawmakers. They can ask lawmaker Dharmalingam Siddharathan (PLOTE) why he alleged TELO (another Indian trained terrorist group) of killing his father, V. Dharmalingham, ex-MP and M. Alalasunderam, ex-MP.

Dharmalingam Siddharathan has alleged that TELO assassinated them in early September 1985 at the behest of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). The TNA and the GTF should be reminded that Karunanidhi and decision-makers in New Delhi created an environment necessary for Indian military intervention. The project ended in disaster with India losing nearly 1,500 officers and soldiers as the LTTE turned its guns on the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed here under the Indo-Lanka Accord forced on the JRJ government by New Delhi, while nearly twice that number received injuries.

Sri Lanka should at least now set the record straight. Successive governments failed to do so in spite of a section of the international community taking advantage of accountability issues to abolish Sri Lanka unitary status. The abolition of the PTA should be considered with the failed bid to introduce a new Constitution during the yahapalana administration. That bid had the backing of the then Joint Opposition, now the largest group in Parliament with a near 2/3 majority. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) is its name.

BR’s NK weapons claim, displaying of LTTE image at Ind. Day galvanize media et al

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 407

Published

  2022/02/16

The controversial photograph that adorned a military float. Did they die in action on the battlefield or end up in the West as so many other combatants during and after the conflict?

By Shamindra Ferdinando

A section of the international media pounced on Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s declaration that Sri Lanka procured weapons from North Korea during the Eelam War IV (2006-2009). Sri Lanka’s ‘Independence Day’ parade, too, drew public attention after The Tamil Guardian, UK reported how a military float, carrying the war wounded, was decorated with a photograph of LTTE cadres. The Tamil Guardian revelation caused quite a controversy. The inclusion of that particular picture is nothing but a slip-up.

The war-winning Army shouldn’t be overly concerned over some sections of the media, both here and abroad, and other interested parties seeking to exploit a simple mistake.

Let us not give an opportunity to those who cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to gloat over a blunder.

The image in question is among a set of photographs released by the LTTE in early Sept. 2008 to the media. The pictures captured by an LTTE photographer on Sept 2, 2008 were of fighting at Vannearikku’lam, west of Kilinochchi. The Army suffered heavy losses in the Vannearikku’lam battle but the LTTE couldn’t prevent the fall of the village and the subsequent collapse of their much larger Nachchikudah defences.

The Tamil Guardian

, in Feb 05, 2022 revealed the mistake made by the Army in a report headlined ‘Saluting the LTTE? Sri Lankan military features LTTE commandos in Independence Day parade.’

Whoever had been tasked to choose the required photographs has been quite clearly careless as the combatant, carrying a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) launcher, wore a short sleeved shirt.

What really astonished the writer is in spite of the military float being there for several days, in the run-up to the Independence Day parade, no one recognised the pic of two LTTE’ers – the lead person wearing slippers carrying a RPG launcher, probably of Chinese origin, and the other person armed with a sniper weapon.

The Tamil Guardian

headline described the two men as LTTE commandos though the TamilNet report, headlined ‘Tigers locate 29 SLA bodies, 75 SLA killed, 100 wounded in Vanni’, posted online on Sept. 2, 2008, did not make any reference to LTTE commandos. There had been three other TamilNet reports, headlined ‘Fighting intensifies at Vannearikku’lam (Sept. 2, 2008), ‘LTTE confronts, recovers seven bodies (Sept. 2, 2008) and ‘Tigers seize a large number of SLA in Vanni clashes’ (Sept. 3, 2008). Those reports, too, didn’t make any reference to LTTE commandos. The reportage of the action along Nachchikudah-Vannearikku’lam-Akkarayan kulam line indicated that the LTTE believed the Army could have been overwhelmed.

In spite of fierce resistance, the LTTE couldn’t hold Vannearikku’lam. The collapse of LTTE defences at Vannearikku’lam and then Nachchikudah escalated overall deterioration of their conventional fighting capability on the Vanni west region. Now that The Tamil Guardian staff had earned the appreciation of the like-minded persons for highlighting the LTTE’s success at some of the confrontations at Vannearikku’lam, it would be pertinent to discuss the operations undertaken by the 58.2 Brigade to capture the village on Oct 20th, 2008. The 58.1 Brigade brought Nachchikudah under its control on Oct. 29, 2008. The two Brigades were assigned to the 58 Division.

Present Army Commander General Shavendra Silva, commanded the 58 Division (initially known as Task Force 1). The celebrated Division, having launched operations in Sept. 2007 under the command of the then Brigadier Chagi Gallage, played a significant role in the overall campaign, both west and east of the Jaffna-Kandy A9 road until the war was brought to a successful end. The Division engaged in some of the fiercest fighting for Vannearikku’lam and Nachchikudah. (Gallage was replaced by Shavendra Silva soon after the capturing of Silavathurai. The change took place after Gallage suffered a heart attack)

Battle for Vannearikku’lam

The LTTE had strong defences that included an earth bund that extended from Nachchikudah on the north-west coast to Akkarayan kulam via Vannearikku’lam. The LTTE defences comprised dense minefields and booby traps. Constructed in a zig zag line, the earth bund posed a huge challenge as those attacking the enemy positions were constant target of the artillery and mortars. The 58.2 troops fought several hundred defenders for several weeks. In spite of the 58.2 assigned the task, the 58.1 and 58.2 Brigades, too, were brought in to neutralise enemy positions. Still, the three Brigades couldn’t evict the defenders, who fought back, fiercely. In fact, they made several unsuccessful attempts to overrun the LTTE line.

Finally, the 9th battalion of the Gemunu Watch (9GW) made the breakthrough. After fierce confrontations, the 9 GW captured about 300 meters, west of Vannearikku’lam. During a period of five days, the LTTE made 18 abortive attempts, backed by heavy artillery and mortar fire, to overrun the positions held by 9 GW. Then, the troops of the 10 battalion of the Gajaba Regiment (10 GR) fought their way into the area west of the 300 meters seized by 9 GW and stabilised the newly captured area. The 10 GR achieved success five days after the breakthrough made by the 9 GW.

Demoralised defenders pulled back as troops of 11 SLLI (11 battalion of Sri Lanka Light Infantry), 6 GW and 12 GW overran the earth bund east of the Vannearikku’lam. For the first time during the Vanni offensive, the LTTE carried out gas attacks on 12 GW troops though it could not prevent the fall of Vannearikku’lam. Troops of 6 GW, 9 GW and 12 GW finally brought Vannearikku’lam under government control.

Why on earth did the Army peruse the social media for pictures from the conflict zone? Had the Army checked their own albums and video footage, they could have found plenty of action pictures from different theatres and major operations conducted over the years. Pictures of ‘Operation Liberation,’ ‘Riviresa’ Jayasikurui, ‘Balavegaya’et al could have been included. Instead, pictures were selected from the internet, obviously. There is no doubt in previous years, too, pictures were selected that way. Perhaps, one or two pictures of LTTE cadres had been displayed in previous years, too.

It would be pertinent, at least, to briefly discuss the battle for Nachchikudah that brought offensive action, directed at the earth bund, extending from the northwest coastal town to Akkarayan kulam via Vannearikku’lam, to a successful conclusion. Actually, the collapse of the LTTE defence line by the last week of Oct 2008 opened the remaining Vanni west region to the advancing Army. The 58.1 Brigade had been engaged in action for over two months against LTTE positions at Nachchikudah before entering the village on Oct 29, 2008. The 11 SLLI (11battalion, SLLI) played a crucial role in the operation. The 11 SLLI successfully attacked the earth bund from the direction of Mulankavil, in spite of heavy artillery, mortar, 12.7 mm and General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG).

LTTE loses Vanni west

The Vanni campaign reached a crucial point on June 30, 2008 (four months before the total collapsing of the Nachchikudah-Akkarayan kulam defence line via Vannearikku’lam) when the 58 Division linked up with the 57 Division southwest of Periyamadu. That created the largest ever battlefront on the western flank in the entire Eelam war. Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka tasked Maj. Gen. Jagath Dias’s 57 Division to liberate Kilinochchi whereas the 58 Division was to sweep the Vanni west. Having linked up, the 57 Division pursued its objective. The 58 Division advanced towards the northwestern coast. After a series of fierce confrontations, troops captured the strategically located Sea Tiger base at Vidathalthivu on July 16.

The fall of Vidathalthivu and Nachchikudah in mid-July and late Oct, 2008, respectively set the stage for the 58 Division to rapidly advance towards the Jaffna lagoon. The 57 and 58 Divisions launched in early March 2007 and early Sept 2007, respectively began making territorial gains in April 2008.

Task Force I (58 Division)

*  Adampan on May 9

*  Mullikkandal, Minnaniranchan and Marattikannaddi situated north of Adampan on June 24.

*  Mannar ‘Rice Bowl’, an area extending over 120 square kilometres on June 29 thereby bringing Alankulama, Andankulama, Alakaddiveli, Parappakandal, Parappukadatan, Papamoddai, Odupallam, Neduvarampu, Kannaputtukulama and Vannakulama.

*  On June 30 TF I links up with 57 Division southwest of Periyamadu creating the largest ever battlefront on the western flank in the entire Eelam war.

*  Vidathalthivu on the northwestern coast on July 16

*  Illuppaikkadavai on July 20.

*  Vellankulam on August 2.

*  Mulankavil and Pallavarayankaddu on August 12.

*  Maniyankulama on October 16.

*  Vannerikkulam on October 20.

*  Nochchimodai on October 28

*  Jeyapuram on October 29.

*  Nachchikuda on October 29

*  Kiranchi on November 10

*  Devil’s Point and Vallaipadu on November 13

*  Pooneryn regained on November 15

*  Paranthan regained on January 1 and 2, 2009 (almost simultaneously Elephant Pass and Kilinochchi north, too, were brought under control)

57 Division

*  Madhu church complex on April 24

*  Palampiddi on May 16

*  Mundumurippu on May 23

*  Periyamadhu on June 15

*  Naddankandal on July 11

*  Kalvilan on August 13

*  Thunukkai and Uilankulam on August 22

*  Mallavi on September 2

*  29 October troops dominate Akkarayankulam tank bund

*  Overrun Akkarayankulam built-up in Kilinochchi on November 5

*  Kokavil on December 1

*  Terumurikandy junction regained on Dec 10

*  Iranamadu junction liberated on January 01, 2009

*  Kilinochchi on January 2

North Korean weapons

Some sections of the international media exploited Basil Rajapaksa’s declaration of Sri Lanka acquiring North Korean weapons. Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris was compelled to deny media reports based on an interview given by the Finance Minister to Shyam Nuwan Ganewatte of Divaina. Perhaps, the SLPP founder and political strategist felt such a claim would have helped to justify the existence of unauthorised foreign exchange setups. There hadn’t been any issue with Ganewatte’s reporting, certainly an expert in financial matters. Those who had been waiting for an opportunity to discredit Sri Lanka, particularly ahead of the 49th sessions of Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), seized the opportunity.

Sri Lanka never bought weapons from North Korea during any phase of the war against Tamil terrorist groups (1983-2009) though several Fast Attack Craft (FACs) were brought from South Korea. There was no requirement to do so as major military powers, including China, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Israel, provided a range of arms, ammunition and equipment required by the Sri Lankan military. Other suppliers included Czechoslovakia and India. At the onset of the war, India strongly opposed weapons supply to Sri Lanka. However, India quietly gave up its opposition after its disastrous military mission in Sri Lanka (1987-1990) and the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur in May 1991.

The LTTE used funds raised in the West to procure weapons from various sources after India stopped supplying weapons. The LTTE even targeted the US. The US revealed attempts made by the LTTE to procure a range of weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, night vision devices and machine guns. Among those who had been arrested for the abortive bid to procure US weapons were several foreigners, including a retired Indonesian Marine Corps General. However, the LTTE succeeded in procuring Chinese weapons over a period of time. The weapons, the LTTE had acquired from China, were routed through North Korea over a period of time quiet successfully. The procurement of Chinese weapons, moved via North Korea, came to light after the Navy acting on information provided by the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI), intercepted LTTE floating arsenals on the high seas.

Western powers conveniently turned a blind eye to uninterrupted sea supply route though they knew that funds raised in their countries were used to procure weapons. The LTTE arsenal included a range of artillery and mortars of Chinese origin. They also had ZPU type dedicated anti-aircraft guns as well as heat seeking missiles. But, it would be necessary to stresses that China hadn’t been the only source and absolutely no official involvement. China acted swiftly and decisively after Sri Lanka brought the clandestine weapons route to their notice. China detained a shipload of weapons bound for the LTTE. The LTTE had used North Korea to transfer weapons on the basis of false end-user certificates. Acting on specific information provided by the DMI and satellite images provided by the US, subsequently, the Navy hunted down LTTE floating arsenals. The LTTE suffered a debilitating setback due to the disruption of the sea supply route. Interested parties have sought to exploit Minister Rajapaksa’s unsubstantiated claim to cause further trouble for Sri Lanka.

Current political crisis through the eyes of ex-Ambassador to Myanmar

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 406

Published

  2022/02/9

President addressing the nation on Feb.4, 2022

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Prof. Nalin de Silva has questioned the absence of a ‘mechanism’ to implement President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s strategies. The academic, in his regular piece in Sinhala posted online on Feb 5 discussed the limitations against the backdrop of President Rajapaksa’s address to the nation on Independence Day.

In another commentary, posted online the following day, Prof. de Silva explained that the Feb 5 article should be also examined along with views expressed on January 31 and Feb 2. Essentially, Prof. de Silva compared the system now in place with that of President Ranasinghe Premadasa (1989-1993). Prof. de Silva argued that Premadasa, in spite of securing the presidency without the backing of political elites, was able to take control of the mechanism required to implement his strategies whereas Rajapaksa so far couldn’t. Prof. de Silva declared that President Rajapaksa’s failure to have a system of his own is nothing but a tragedy.

It would be pertinent to mention that Prof. de Silva, in mid-September 2021, quit the ambassadorial position that he received, courtesy the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) administration. Having presented the Letter of Credence to Myanmar President Win Myint on 01 Sept. 2020 at the Presidential palace in Nay Pyi Taw, Prof. de Silva served for a year. The outspoken academic returned home after having received treatment for Covid-19 infection.

Declaring that he gave up the diplomatic posting as he found it difficult to continue there especially after being treated for Covid-19, Prof. de Silva emphasised that his resignation was not in any way connected with a wave of resignations at the time.

Since Prof. de Silva quit his Myanmar assignment, there had been so many resignations. Perhaps the most serious of them all is Dr. P.B. Jayasundera’s exit in mid-January 2022. Punchi Banda Wijesundera, or PBJ, resigned as Secretary to the President under controversial circumstances. The writer dealt with the issue and the troubles experienced by the Rajapaksa administration in ‘Can Dr. PBJ alone be blamed for the current crises?’ in last week’s Midweek column.

It would be pertinent to mention that Prof. de Silva, in March 2021, indicated his desire to resign in the wake of prolonged detention of a group of Sri Lankan fishers detained in Myanmar. Unfortunately, a section of the media quite pathetically failed to comprehend de Silva’s message.

By the time Prof. de Silva quit his ambassadorial post in Sept 2021, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had brought in Prof. G.L. Peiris, who is also the Chairman of the SLPP, as his Foreign Minister in place of Dinesh Gunawardena, leader of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP).

There had never been so many resignations during a two-year period of any previous administration. Prof. de Silva’s resignation should be examined against the backdrop of his role in promoting wartime Defence Secretary as the SLPP candidate at the 2019 presidential election. The academic had been one of the few who vigorously campaigned for Gotabaya Rajapaksa at a time the vast majority of those now holding positions weren’t so certain, whereas some objected to the Gajaba Regiment combat veteran’s entry into politics.

Another good speech

Prof. de Silva’s assessment of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Independence Day address to the nation deliberated on an issue that had considerably weakened the government. Declaring that the President had delivered another good speech that dealt with the rights as well as the responsibilities of individuals and the responsibility on the part of the members of Parliament to behave, Prof. de Silva questioned the absence of an efficient mechanism to ensure the implementation of the President’s objectives.

Assuring his readiness to give proper leadership, the President requested ministers, parliamentarians and other politicians to act in an exemplary manner at all times. “If you set this example to the people, then the majority of the people will follow you,” the President’s Media Division quoted Gotabaya Rajapaksa as having said.

Prof.de Silva said in the absence of a much required mechanism to implement the President’s vision, such good views expressed by the leader has been restricted to just speeches. The controversial academic, known to fight tooth and nail for what he believes in, emphasised that his stance shouldn’t be considered in any way as the President is not honest against the backdrop of a lack of proper strategy implementing mechanism.

While speculating whether the President had been deprived of a mechanism as someone else controlled it or perhaps no one was in control, Prof. de Silva said that he tended to accept the second reason though some believed otherwise.

Reiterating that today no one exercised the exclusive control over the existing mechanism, Prof. de Silva asserted that though Gotabaya Rajapaksa served as the executive President, he didn’t have the power in Parliament. Did the academic express the belief, that the 145-member strong SLPP parliamentary group operated totally outside the President’s purview? Obviously, the academic made this assessment taking into consideration as he pointed out that the President was not the leader of any political party. Prof. de Silva expressed the view that though the people elected Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the President, he lacked political support due to him not being engaged in politics among the public. The former university mathematics don asserted that much touted political programme ‘Gama Samaga Pilisandarak’ could not be a substitute for grassroots level campaign involving the President.

Prof. de Silva did not mince his words when he declared the country was in deepening turmoil due to those in authority pulling in different directions. Making reference to public servants operating outside the purview of political leadership, the academic pointed out the absence of a consensus between Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa and Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal, Agriculture Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage not having control over ministry officials , Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa’s inability to rein in the Buddha Sasana ministry and the latter promoting the Netherlands’ interests. The former Ambassador declared that turmoil was endemic and certainly not restricted to the ministries and institutions mentioned above.

Prof. de Silva asked whether the President should accept responsibility for the current situation. The academic wondered whether the President no longer enjoyed the powers he had as the Defence Secretary during the war.

Prof. de Silva’s incisive comments in the wake of the President’s Independence Day address to the nation are a must read. The academic dealt with past Presidents, leaving out Dingiri Banda Wijetunga, who served assassinated leader Ranasinghe Premadasa’s remaining term. Let me translate really a thought provoking paragraph exactly the way Prof. de Silva commented on the incumbent President and his predecessors sans Wijetunga, who served as the President from May 1993 to Nov 1994. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga succeeded him. Prof. de Silva said: “Is the President responsible for the current situation? The President seems to have been deprived of the powers he enjoyed as the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. Of all executive Presidents, JRJ abused powers badly. He postponed elections. He entered into the Indo-Lanka accord in spite of countrywide opposition. He obtained undated resignation letters from lawmakers. Only Premadasa hadn’t been scared of JRJ. Perhaps Gamini Dissanayake, too, hadn’t been intimidated by JRJ as GD felt he could be the President with Indian backing. Premadasa had the power to threaten JRJ at the latter’s Ward Place residence though he lacked the backing of political elites. How did Premadasa acquire such power?”

Prof. de Silva asserted that there hadn’t been a proper assessment or study of Premadasa. The academic propagated the hypothesis that both CBK and Ranil Wickremesinghe hadn’t been able to achieve what Premadasa did though both enjoyed Western backing in addition to their family support. Mahinda Rajapaksa accomplished some success though he couldn’t even come closer to Premadasa whereas Maithripala Sirisena failed to make any impression.

Prof. de Silva also dealt with the breaking up of the UNP, abortive bid to impeach Premadasa, formation of the Democratic United National Front (DUNF) by a dissident group led by ex-UNP powerful ministers Gamini Dissanayake and Lalith Athulathmudali and their subsequent assassinations, in separate incidents blamed on the LTTE and the failure on the part of Sajith Premadasa, in his capacity as the leader of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious father.

Comment on 13A

Even during his one year tenure as Sri Lanka’s top envoy in Myanmar, Prof. de Silva took a public stand on controversial issues. In January last year, just five months after taking over the Myanmar mission, Prof. Silva flayed India for its interference in Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs. In an open letter in Sinhala, also sent to The Island, Prof. de Silva questioned what he called Indian interventions in post-war Sri Lanka and a bid to exploit the Covid-19 pandemic.

The then Ambassador asked whether India offered Sri Lanka Covid-19 vaccine in return for the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in the late 80s at the behest of New Delhi though that piece of legislation is irrelevant today.

Referring to Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s visit to Colombo where he met President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, TNA delegation and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, the academic questioned the Indian strategy. At the conclusion of the meetings, Dr. Jaishankar declared: “It is in Sri Lanka’s own interest that the expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka are fulfilled. That applies equally to the commitments made by the Sri Lankan government on meaningful devolution, including the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Commenting on Sri Lanka’s efforts to procure Covid-19 vaccine, Jaishankar said, “We are now looking at post-Covid cooperation and I carry back with me Sri Lanka’s interest in accessing vaccines from India and I shared with the Foreign Minister, as Prime Minister Modi has said, India sees international cooperation in this area as its duty.”

Expressing serious concern over strong Indian presence in Colombo, ex-Ambassador de Silva queried whether the Indian External Affairs Ministry was situated in Colombo. The non-career diplomat also compared the effectiveness of the vaccine that could be obtained from India and serum available for those countries having the wherewithal to secure, store and implement the large scale vaccination campaign.

Ambassador de Silva, a vociferous supporter of ongoing local efforts to develop Sri Lankan remedy for Covid-19 epidemic, pointed out the failure on the part of the country as a whole to support domestic bids.

The strong patriot asked whether Dr. Jaishankar visited Colombo to inform the government of its readiness to provide vaccines and give priority to Sri Lanka. Pointing out that Sri Lanka would get some vaccines, though it lacked understanding of India’s requirement as it struggled to overcome Covid-19, Ambassador de Silva said that Sri Lanka should have sought an explanation from Dr. Jaishankar whether India didn’t have a local remedy.

Prof. de Silva launched a scathing attack over India’s call to further strengthen the Provincial Council system. The senior academic said: “Indian External Affairs Minister wants Sri Lanka to strengthen the Provincial Council system further. Why should we do that? The so-called Tamil problem had been solved. Even if the issue hadn’t been resolved, what right did India have to intervene in domestic issues? We have no issue in TNA leader R. Sampanthan, MP, and lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran taking up residence at India House, situated opposite the University of Colombo. India cannot be allowed to meddle here to appease the likes of Sampanthan and Sumanthiran.”

Asserting the irrelevance of the so-called Tamil problem in the wake of the eradication of the LTTE military capability in May 2009 on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, Ambassador de Silva said that the terrorist challenge could only have been neutralized through military means. In spite of those who had spearheaded the Jathika Hela Urumaya at its inception campaigning against the war effort, the military succeeded in eradicating the enemy’s conventional military capability for once and for all, the nationalist said.

Pointing out how Canada and the UK still facilitated those bent on dividing the country on ethnic lines by propagating a totally fabricated genocide that never happened; Ambassador de Silva alleged that the government hadn’t taken tangible measures to counter the enemy strategy.

Prof de Silva questioned how India expected Sri Lanka to fulfil what then President JR Jayewardene promised against the backdrop of New Delhi’s failure to disarm the LTTE in terms of the Indo-Lanka accord. Sri Lanka shouldn’t under any circumstances give into Indian demands as regards the 13th Amendment in return for a stock of Covid-19 vaccines, Ambassador de Silva said.

The former Mathematics don also discussed the continuing controversy over the alleged Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) among Sri Lanka, India and Japan in respect of the East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo harbour entered into by the yahapalana regime. The then Sri Lanka envoy in Myanmar urged the government to take the parliament and the public into confidence if it intended to finalise agreement on ECT

Following strong protests by port unions against giving ECT to India it was handed back to SLPA. Since then India’s Adani Group has secured the right to develop the West Container Terminal (WCT) of the Colombo Port. Adani has signed an agreement with the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and John Keells Holdings to develop the WCT. Valued at more than $700m, this build-operate-transfer (BOT) agreement is said to be the ‘largest’ foreign investment ever in Sri Lanka’s port sector. The agreement will remain valid for 35 years.

Sri Lanka finalised a dubious Yugadanavi deal soon after Prof. de Silva returned from Rangoon. The Yugadanavi deal has been challenged in the Supreme Court with three ministers taking the side of those who petitioned the SC against the Sept 17 agreement. The government has caused further controversy by entering into a fresh agreement with New Delhi in respect of the Trincomalee oil tank farm.

Academic de Silva, during his tenure in Rangoon also called for the abolition of the Provincial Councils. The declaration was made in the wake of some interested parties, including a section of the government pushing for PC polls. New Delhi has even raised the 13th Amendment at the UNHRC thereby underscored the pivotal importance of the high profile Gandhi era project from the 80s.

If the government is genuinely interested in achieving success at least during the remaining period as repeatedly assured by the SLPP as well as the President, let there be a reappraisal of the situation, proper assessment and tangible measures to address the issues at hand. The SLPP can begin by perusing Prof. de Silva’s analysis of the current political situation.