Lanka warned of Extraterritorial jurisdiction

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 476

Published

  2023/06/28

Actually LKI owed public an explanation as to why it never addressed the accountability issue and related matters in spite of it being the toughest foreign affairs challenge faced in post-independence era. There is no harm in addressing a variety of issues of interest but the failure on the part of the LKI to examine this issue by initiating a wider discussion is inexcusable. This criticism also applies to the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU) as it continues to ignore this vital issue.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Three years after Sri Lanka formally withdrew from an accountability resolution moved against our own country, instigated by the West and the US in particular, the UN body has reiterated that Sri Lanka’s political and military leaderships are under investigation in ‘third states,’ therefore subjected to extraterritorial jurisdiction.

A treacherous Yahapalana government co-sponosred the US-led resolution at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.

UNHRC is certainly a club for the rich and powerful, who can kill millions of innocents and render millions more homeless in places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., by staging turmoil by way of rebellions, regime changes and invasions on false excuses and even commit outright war crimes, but getaway scot-free if you are a member of the self-appointed international community. But a country like little Sri Lanka has no such luck simply because we simply defied the above criminal international community and managed to defeat the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization, despite their underhand nourishment given to it by repeatedly claiming that our security forces were incapable of militarily defeating the LTTE.

UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif issued the unmistakable warning on 21 June at the 5th session of the HRC. The Jordanian (and her country is a well-known servile follower of the West) dealt with the 2015 US-Sri Lanka joint resolution on reconciliation, accountability and human rights.

Nashif declared that a special team assigned for Sri Lanka that had been established in their Geneva Office to continue to make progress pursuant to resolution 51/1. She stressed: “The team is in the process of providing concrete support to several jurisdictions that have ongoing criminal justice investigations. It is conducting proactive investigative work on key cases and collecting, consolidating and analyzing information and evidence from a variety of UN and other sources, which is preserved in a repository so as to be used for future accountability initiatives. Victims continue to be placed at the heart of this work, including through our active engagement with victim organizations and civil society more broadly.”

Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader Dinesh Gunawardena, who announced Sri Lanka’s withdrawal in March 2020 from the treacherous 2015 accountability resolution, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, is the Prime Minister today. Perhaps Premier Gunawardena should explain the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government’s response to the latest UN declaration.

The then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who gave the go ahead for the signing of the 2015 Geneva resolution, is the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces today. President Wickremesinghe, accompanied by First Lady Maithree, was in Europe when Geneva issued the warning. The delegation included National Security Advisor Sagala Ratnayake.

Maithripala Sirisena, under whose watch the co-sponsorship of Geneva resolution took place, is a lawmaker representing the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) while war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, represents the same party in Parliament. The war-winning Army commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka represents the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya. Unfortunately, none of them at least bothered to exercise their privileges as members of Parliament to counter unsubstantiated allegations.

Obviously with the full blessings of Washington, the Canadian Parliament, in May last year, passed a resolution claiming Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka, unchallenged. A year after the Canadian declaration, retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, MP, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, has suggested that Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, should move a resolution in Parliament to counter the Canadian move. In response to the writer’s query, the Foreign Ministry assured that the suggestion would be dealt with, in consultation with President Wickremesinghe.

In the absence of a cohesive mechanism to counter the Geneva project, the UN has exercised maximum pressure on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, successive inane governments have simply kicked the can down the road by quite conveniently failing to address war crimes accusations head on by simply exposing to the whole world the double standards of the UN body. By remaining silent those unfairly targeting us have only been given further opportunity to pursue high profile political project meant to introduce a new Constitution at the expense of Sri Lanka’s unitary status.

We as a country should get someone competent to take our case to the world full time, putting aside whatever our political differences.

Except for forthright lawmaker Gevindu Cumatatunga, no one in Parliament has ever declared that the proposed new Constitution should reflect Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism. The leader of civil society organization ‘Yuthukama’ strongly pushed the Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s administration to take the eradication of terrorism into consideration in post-war reconciliation process. Unfortunately, forced by circumstances, and Western intelligence services, and some of their key diplomats working in not so mysterious ways against it, day and night, the erratic GR administration didn’t heed such advice.

The latest Geneva declaration should be examined along with the Canadian declaration of genocide, though for a few days some tended to believe Ottawa was divided over its Sri Lanka stand. But, in response to a specific query as regards the genocide charge, the Canadian High Commission in Colombo reiterated their commitment to 18 May Tamil genocide remembrance day.

Role of LKI

One-time Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Aryasinha, on 19 June, 2023, received appointment as Executive Director, Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies. The appointment was made by Foreign Minister Ali Sabry in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Management of the institute. Other members of the board are Suganthie Kadirgamar, widow of the slain much-loved Minister, Rajan Asirwatham, a member of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s delegation for talks with the LTTE, Thusantha Wijemanna, one-time legal advisor to External Affairs Ministry, and Malinda Seneviratne, former CEO/Director, Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute.

Aryasinha retired in September 2021 having last served the country as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington. Before taking up that appointment in December 2020, Aryasinha served as Foreign Secretary for nearly two years during a turbulent period.

The appointment of Aryasinha took place at a time Geneva has taken an unmistakably dangerous course against us, with Nashif declaring relentless pursuit of Sri Lanka, now at the mercy of Western powers due to an unprecedented financial crisis, leading to IMF loan facility in March this year, entirely on its terms.

It would be pertinent to mention that it was Aryasinha who endorsed the Geneva resolution, in 2015, after some behind-the-scene arm twisting by the then shameless Yahapalana government. In spite of his strong opposition to the resolution, Aryasinha, in his capacity as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, had no option but to accept the resolution following instructions issued by the then Foreign Minister, the late Mangala Samaraweera. The then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe gave the go ahead for the US-led resolution. President Maithripala Sirisena, too, gave his tacit support in terms of the Yahapalana agreement.

Perhaps Aryasinha, now at the LKI’s helm, can pave the way for an in-depth examination of the entire gamut of issues – ranging from UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts’ investigation into the circumstances Sri Lanka brought the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a successful conclusion in May 2009, to the most recent declaration that universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction would be applied against Sri Lanka.

The incumbent government shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the UN backing for investigation and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators and support to the relevant accountability processes in third States, as well, as what it called fair application of targeted sanctions against credibly alleged perpetrators. The reference is very clear. Nada Al-Nashif obviously referred to sanctions imposed by the US and Canada, as well as other countries, including Australia, on the war-winning military. Among those who had been sanctioned were former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, Chief of Defence Staff General Shavendra Silva and Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage.

In fact, LKI owed the public an explanation as to why it never addressed the accountability issue and related matters in spite of it being the toughest foreign affairs challenge faced in post-independence era. There is no harm in addressing a variety of issues of interest but the failure on the part of the LKI to examine this issue by initiating a wider discussion is inexcusable. This criticism also applies to the Kotelawela Defence University (KDU) as it continues to ignore this vital issue.

Mannar mass graves

Sri Lanka never really exploited the exposure of the blatant UNHRC lie over Mannar mass graves to counter unsubstantiated lies propagated by interested parties. The Western propaganda project regarding Mannar mass graves at one point threatened to overwhelm Sri Lanka but the then Yahapalana government was determined to keep quiet about it.

The Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights obviously threw its weight behind those propagating lies. The UN became part of the lie. The Mannar mass graves was accommodated in the annual report of the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

The Commissioner went to the extent of referring to the Mannar mass grave site in her latest annual report (section 23) submitted to the UNHRC. The following is the relevant section: “On May 29, 2018, human skeletal remains were discovered at a construction site in Mannar (Northern Province), Excavations conducted in support of the Office on Missing Persons, revealed a mass grave from which more than 300 skeletons were discovered. It was the second mass grave found in Mannar following the discovery of a site in 2014. Given that other mass graves might be expected to be found in the future, systematic access to grave sites by the Office as an observer is crucial for it to fully discharge its mandate, particularly with regard to the investigation and identification of remains, it is imperative that the proposed reforms on the law relating to inquests, and relevant protocols to operationalize the law be adopted. The capacity of the forensic sector must also be strengthened, including in areas of forensic anthropology, forensic archaeology and genetics, and its coordination with the Office of Missing Persons must be ensured.”

What Bachelet never expected was the US report on Mannar mass graves to go against its strategy. A report by a reputed Miami-based laboratory on the Mannar mass grave samples cleared the Army of the responsibility for extra-judicial killings.

The remains of over 300 men, women and children were found, beginning early 2018, and resulted in high profile accusations of battlefield killings and extra-judicial execution of civilians. Although in terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord that was forced on then President JR Jayewardene by New Delhi, the Indian Army, too, had been deployed there during July 1987 to January 1990, but the know-all UNHRC bluntly pointed the finger at the Sri Lanka Army. During the Indian deployment, the Sri Lankan military was confined to barracks, not only in Mannar, but also the entire northern and eastern administrative districts.

The carbon testing report from the internationally recognized US laboratory concluded that the victims likely died up to 615 years ago — predating even the first European colonization of the country by the Portuguese. That was the end of the sensational Mannar mass grave accusation. But as expected the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that once served as the LTTE’s representative in Parliament, rejected the US report.

A TNA lawmaker, representing the Vanni region, called for a fresh testing in another lab in some other country. Our Vavuniya correspondent Dinasena Ratugamage quoted Mullaitivu District MP Nirmalanathan Sivamohan as having said:” This is not to say that we do not accept the reports sent by a lab in Florida, US, but given the importance of the Mannar grave site we need to get a second opinion.”

The MP insisted that the lab in Florida had not attempted to identify the victims and further tests were necessary to determine the identity of those in the graves.

A section of the local and foreign media spearheaded a high profile campaign on the basis of Mannar mass graves. Some Colombo-based diplomats, too, supported the project. The then German Ambassador in Colombo, Joern Rohde, visited the site on 27 November, 2018. The German envoy’s visit was followed by a British delegation on 11 December, 2018. The British visit took place close on the heels of the discovery of two pieces of human bones, bound by a cable, on 07 December, 2018. The recovery prompted some ‘experts’, as well as those engaged in excavating the mass grave, to speculate whether some of the people buried there had been tortured before being killed. Interests shown in the Mannar mass grave site by those countries, pushing for full implementation of the Geneva Resolution, unfortunately co-sponsored by the then servile government in Sri Lanka, in October, 2015, strengthened the campaign directed at the Army. A section of the Catholic clergy, too, facilitated the project meant to blame the Army over the Mannar mass grave.

During the propaganda campaign over the Mannar mass graves, the Foreign Ministry and Army Headquarters did absolutely nothing because the then government cooperated fully with the Geneva project. The Yahapalana government response to Mannar was in line with its handling of Lord Naseby’s revelations in October 2017. Even to date, Sri Lanka never made a genuine attempt to use the House of Lords member’s disclosure to our advantage.

On the basis of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) records obtained with the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, Lord Naseby challenged the very basis of the October 2015 Resolution. Sri Lanka refused to take advantage of the revelation that countered two major allegations (1) killing of 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front and (2) Sri Lanka political and military leaderships deliberately targeted the civilian community.

The British disclosure coupled with wartime US Defence Advisor Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith’s declaration in support of Sri Lanka, in June 2011, two years after the conclusion of the war, would help Sri Lanka to build a strong case.

The latest UN warning again highlights Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to set the record straight. Sri Lanka should place all available information before the international community even if they won’t accept our version.

How govt. ignored JD’s assertion

One of Sri Lanka’s celebrated career diplomats, the late Jayantha Dhanapala, discussed the issue of accountability when he addressed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), headed by one-time Attorney General, the late C. R. de Silva, on 25 August, 2010.

Dhanapala, in his submissions, said: “Now I think it is important for us to expand that concept to bring in the culpability of those members of the international community who have subscribed to the situation that has caused injury to the civilians of a nation. I talk about the way in which terrorist groups are given sanctuary; harboured; and supplied with arms and training by some countries with regard to their neighbours or with regard to other countries. We know that in our case this has happened, and I don’t want to name countries, but even countries which have allowed their financial procedures and systems to be abused in such a way that money can flow from their countries in order to buy arms and ammunition that cause deaths, maiming and destruction of property in Sri Lanka are to blame and there is therefore a responsibility to protect our civilians and the civilians of other nations from that kind of behaviour on the part of members of the international community. And I think this is something that will echo within many countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, where Sri Lanka has a much respected position and where I hope we will be able to raise this issue.”

Dhanapala also stressed on the accountability on the part of Western governments, which conveniently turned a blind eye to massive fundraising operations in their countries, in support of the LTTE operations. It is no secret that the LTTE would never have been able to emerge as a conventional fighting force without having the wherewithal abroad, mainly in the Western countries, to procure arms, ammunition and equipment. But, the government never acted on Dhanapala’s advice.

Instead the Mahinda Rajapaksa government squandered over USD 6 mn on a foolish US project in 2014 that didn’t help Sri Lanka at all. That project was meant to thwart the 2015 US resolution in Geneva. The rest is history.

Costly UNDP ‘lessons’ for Parliament

 SPECIAL REPORT : Part 475

 Published  2023/06/21

President Wickremesinghe meets UNDP head Kubota at the Presidential Secretariat on 16 June(Pic courtesy PMD)

Close on the heels of Colombo-based UNDP Resident Representative Azusa Kubota’s meet with Speaker Abeywardena, in the company of International expert on parliamentary development Kevin Deveaux, she held talks with President Ranil Wickremesinghe on Friday (16 June). The discussion centered on UNDP help to build capacity of the Parliamentary Oversight Committees and youth engagement in public policy. The President’s Office last week rejected a controversial report on the proposed privatization of national telecommunication provider Sri LankaTelecom (SLT) by the Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on National Security. The SOC report has placed the government in an embarrassing position. Instead of addressing the issues raised by SOC, chaired by retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, MP, the government has simply rejected it out of hand on the basis of former Public Security Minister Weerasekera’s failure to consult the relevant security authorities.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

UNDP Resident Representative in Colombo, Azusa Kubota, accompanied international expert on parliamentary development, Kevin Deveaux, to meet Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena at the Parliament on 14th June. They were joined by Policy Expert and Head of Governance, UNDP Colombo, Chandrika Karunaratne.

Japanese national Kubota took over the UNDP mission in Colombo in January this year in the wake of the forced removal of Gotabaya Rajapaksa who handsomely won the last presidential election in November 2019. She had been the UNDP’s Resident Representative in Bhutan from 2019 to 2022.

According to a brief statement issued by Parliament, Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapaksa, Deputy Chair of Committees Angajan Ramanathan, Secretary General of Parliament Kushani Rohanadeera, Assistant Secretary General Hansa Abeyratne and Speaker’s Foreign Affairs Coordinating Secretary Dr. Chamira Yapa Abeywardena were present on the occasion. Dr. Chamira Yapa Abeywardena is the Speaker’s son.

The trilingual media statement didn’t indicate as to why UNDP brought in the former Canadian lawmaker, a lawyer by profession here at a time Parliament is in deepening turmoil. There is no doubt the UNDP wants Deveaux to advise the Sri Lanka Parliament. Interestingly, the UNDP has engaged an ex-Canadian lawmaker for its high profile project here at a time controversy surrounds the Canadian Parliament passing a resolution, claiming Sri Lanka had committed genocide against its Tamils and a declaration of punitive sanctions against former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa over unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, especially during the last phase of the war to defeat “the world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit” the LTTE.

Did Parliament seek UNDP’s assistance or did the UN intervene on its own? The UN has had a murky past here, especially during the war years when it only posted Westerners. One such Resident Representative even went to the extent of wanting to declare its compound in Colombo a refugee camp for Tamils obviously to create a new problem for Sri Lanka. Luckily for us our then much loved Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, later assassinated by the LTTE, had the guts to tell the world body, obviously manipulated by the West, where to get off.

Bankrupt Sri Lanka is at a crossroads. With political parties unable to reach consensus on a tangible recovery plan over a year after outspoken Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe acknowledged Sri Lanka’s inability to meet her obligations, Parliament seems to be the mother of all problems.

Responding to The Island query in this regard, Kubota has sent us the following response: Kevin Deveaux is here in his capacity as an expert consultant. Deveaux is also a former UNDP parliamentary development advisor supporting all of our programmes in the world. The former Canadian lawmaker is here as part of the integrated economic governance mission which looks at our current Parliament development programme and advises on future activities. As you know, we have a longstanding programme with the Parliament. The meeting was a courtesy call to initiate the exercise.”

UNDP’s efforts should be appreciated. However, UNDP Colombo that had funded projects implemented by Parliament here cannot be unaware of the pathetic status of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary democracy. Further funding wouldn’t make any difference as long as those at the helm lacked political will to take remedial measures. Sri Lankan leadership, regardless of who exercised the power at any given time since 1977, seems hell-bent on pursuing corrupt practices, regardless of consequences. The accusations exchanged between the government and Opposition benches repeatedly prove that Parliament is the worst offender and directly responsible for the unprecedented economic crisis.

Parliament standards hit a new low late last month when first time entrant Ali Sabri Raheem of the Muslim National Alliance (MNA), was caught trying to smuggle in gold and smartphones worth Rs 74 mn and Rs 4.2 mn respectively, through the VIP channel of the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA). The arrest was made after he arrived from Dubai, his sixth visit to that destination since 01 March, this year! The following day, he coolly entered Parliament and exercised his vote in support of the Opposition when the government successfully moved a resolution against the then Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission Janaka Ratnayake.

Having declared the UNDP’s involvement with Parliament for over a decade at an orientation workshop for youth representatives of Sectoral Oversight Committees of Parliament, at Waters Edge, Battaramulla, on 13 June this year, Kubota must surely be ashamed of the developing situation. Speaker Abeywardena has declared that he didn’t have the power to deal with the errant MP who seems to have visited Dubai more than his electorate Puttalam since March, this year.

Addressing the event at Waters Edge, Kubota explained the UNDP’s role here to the gathering. The audience included President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who also serves as the Minister of Finance as well as Defence, Premier Dinesh Gunawardena, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa. Kubota stressed that the UNDP backed initiatives to strengthen Parliament. Such initiatives were meant to foster democracy and promote what Kubota called sustainable and inclusive development.

The President’s Office quoted Kubota as having said that UNDP’s global collaboration with parliaments around the world focused on strengthening all their core functions. “These functions include lawmaking, oversight, representation and budget scrutiny. While doing so, we hope to further enhance the inclusivity and representation of the people. We promote a greater oversight of transparent governance processes and to improve the effectiveness of its functioning. The current programme we have with the Parliament of Sri Lanka is one of such flagship partnerships in the Asia Pacific region.”

We would beg to ask how transparent is the UN about its own internal governance, especially inside the UNDP in particular when it picks heads to third world countries.

It would be pertinent to ask the Speaker’s Office about the total amount of UNDP funds spent on various projects meant to strengthen Parliament over the past decade. Obviously, as Kubota disclosed at the Waters Edge event, the UNDP had intervened in Parliament during the tail end of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term. Had the UNDP funded projects achieved desired results? Perhaps, the UNDP should at least confidentially assert the situation.

What ails Parliament?

Utterly corrupt, extravagant and incorrigible political party system has ruined Parliament. That is the ugly truth. The parliamentary system has deteriorated to such an extent the Parliament now appears to have developed an in-built system to protect those engaged in corruption at every level even though the judiciary from time to time delivered far reaching judgments.

There cannot be a better example than the Supreme Court judgment (SC [FR] 209/2007) on Attorney-at-Law Vasudeva Nanayakkara MP vs the then Finance Minister K.N. Choksy PC and 30 others in respect of the controversial sale of shares of Lanka Marine Services Ltd (LMSL), a wholly owned profit-making company of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). The three-judge bench comprising then Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, R.A.N.G. Amaratunga and D. J de S. Balapatabendi, on 21 July, 2008 reversed the sale of LMSL shares to blue chip company John Keells Holdings Limited. The apex court found fault with Dr. P.B. Jayasundera for working in collusion with Susantha Ratnayake the then Chairman of John Keells for the benefit of the conglomerate and ordered him to pay half a million rupees to the State. Click the line for the LMSL judgment (https://whistleblower.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/LMS_SC_Judgment.pdf)

By the time SC delivered this judgment Dr. P.B. Jayasundera who executed the deal during the UNP-led UNF government in his capacity as the Chairman of PERC (Public Enterprise Reforms Commission) served the President Mahinda Rajapaksa government as the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance. Petitioner Vasudeva Nanayakkara at the same time served as a member of the Cabinet. Dr. PBJ continued as the Finance Secretary till 2015 whereas Vasudeva Nanayakkara served as a Cabinet Minister. All forget that the Secretary to a particular ministry is the Chief Accounting Officer.

Unfortunately, our political party system conveniently forgot this judgment. Had political party leaders took notice of that judgment, they would have been accountable to Parliament. Unfortunately, the SLFP-led UPFA disregarded that judgment. In fact, the Rajapaksas brought back Dr. P.B. Jayasundera as the Secretary to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa following the November 2019 presidential election. Then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed Susantha Ratnayake as Chairman of BOI.

As the custodian of public funds, the Parliament should have acted on the LMSL judgment. The failure on the part of Parliament to go the whole hog should be examined, taking into consideration the fact that Vasudeva Nanayakkara couldn’t have moved the Supreme Court if not for the thorough inquiry conducted by the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) under the leadership of lawmaker Wijeyadasa Rajapakse. At the time Wijeyadasa Rajapakse investigated the LMSL deal, he hadn’t received the title of President’s Counsel.

Had there been a consensus among an honest group of MPs backed by the civil society, disclosures made by parliamentary watchdogs could have paved the way for lawsuits. Instead, political parties represented in Parliament seemed to have reached a general agreement that such disclosures wouldn’t end up in court cases. Strangely, the usual rabble-rousers, the plethora of Western funded NGOs, who scream bloody murder on issues of interest to their pay masters, were dead silent on issues like these

KJ’s USAID project

Secretary General, Parliament Kushani Rohanadeera addresses the meeting attended by Deveaux. Jaffna District SLFP MP and Deputy Chair of committees Angajan Ramanathan sits next to Rohanadeera (Pic courtesy Parliament)

The UNDP’s impact on Parliament cannot be discussed without taking into consideration an unprecedented agreement between the USAID and Parliament finalized in 2016.

In early March, 2016 USAID (United States Agency for International Development) sponsored a conference for members of the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) and the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and officials from the Finance Ministry and the Auditor General’s Department.

The conference was meant to help strengthen overall transparency, accountability and effectiveness of governance. At the time of the launch of the project, Karu Jayasuriya served as the Speaker with the UPFA’s Lasantha Alagiyawanna and JVP’s Sunil Handunnetti as Chairmen of COPA and COPE, respectively.

Unfortunately such projects didn’t make any difference. Recently Lasantha Alagiyawanna, who had been re-elected as the Chairman of COPA, declared that instructions issued by him in 2016 to revenue collecting authorities hadn’t been carried out even in 2023. Therefore, the public can safely assume that successive governments allowed the deterioration of public finance by turning a blind eye to rampant corruption at every level.

USAID projects here align with their much-touted free and open Indo-Pacific -in other words countering growing Chinese influence in the region.

In late Novenber 2016, USAID launched a Rs. 1.92 billion (USD 13 mn) three-year partnership with Parliament here to strengthen accountability and democratic governance in Sri Lanka. The US Embassy quoted USAID Mission Director Andrew Sisson at that time as having said: “This project broadens our support to the independent commissions, ministries, and provincial and local levels of government.”

Among those present were Chairs of the Sectoral Oversight Committees and Independent Commissions. Did the USAID and Parliament achieve intended targets? If those high profile projects were successful, Sri Lanka wouldn’t be in its current sorry state. Having to kneel before the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the 17th time, Sri Lanka is experiencing its worst post-independence crisis. Perhaps Parliament and USAID should disclose a comprehensive audit on the USD 13 mn project against the backdrop of its failure. The US Embassy is on record as having said that the project enhanced capacity building of the Sectoral Oversight Committees and staff, and improvement to the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

Karu Jayasuriya, now the Chairman of NMSJ (National Movement for Social Justice)l owed the country an explanation regarding the status of foreign-funded projects implemented during his tenure as the Speaker.

Impact of other projects

It would be pertinent to ask those at the helm of government leadership whether various foreign funded projects improved good governance and achieved their other objectives. Perusal of USAID overview of Sri Lanka pertaining to governance indicated the ongoing projects and funds made available [1] USD 19 mn social cohesion and reconciliation project implemented by Global Communities (July 2018-Dec, 2023) [2] Analysis of social cohesion and reconciliation implemented by US Institute of Peace at a cost of USD 700,000 (Aug, 2018-Feb, 2024) [3] USD 15 mn project implemented by Chemonics International Inc. to strengthen the justice sector, including the Justice Ministry and Office of Attorney General (Sept. 2021-Sept. 2026) [4] USD 17 mn project carried out by National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute and International Foundation for Electoral System in support of Parliament and other government institutions, including the Election Commission ( June 2020 – June 2024) [5] USD 14 mn worth project in support of civil society meant to achieve good governance reforms and strengthen accountability. Implemented by Management Systems International (Feb. 2018-Aug. 2024) [6] USD 7.9 mn scheme to strengthen media implemented by International Research and Exchanges Board Inc. (Aug. 2017-April 2023) [7] SAFE Foundation implemented programme at a cost of USD 3.9 mn aimed at combating human trafficking (Oct. 2021-Sept. 2026) [8] USD 1.6 mn project to enhance protection for those threatened by gender-based violence (Oct. 2021-Sept. 2026). Implementing agency Women-on-Need [9] USD 3.6 mn project for the benefit of plantation community implemented by Institute of Social Development (June 2022-June 2027) and [10] a staggering USD 19 mn project meant to strengthen the civil society unnamed private agencies (Sept. 2022-August 2027). Click the line for USAID statement: :https://www.usaid.gov/sri-lanka/democracy-human-rights-and-governance

Sri Lanka needs to keep track of foreign funding for various projects in line with overall national security objectives. There is no denying the fact these high profile projects haven’t achieved intended objectives those engaged in the NGO industry benefited immensely. The recipients of massive foreign funding during the war to secure a negotiated settlement ended up richer while the LTTE leadership perished on the Vanni east front thanks to the numerous sacrifices made by our security forces. A Norwegian government study released in 2011 disclosed the vast amounts provided to well over a dozen NGOs to facilitate a negotiated settlement with the LTTE leadership that was utterly confident of a convincing battlefield victory over the Army.

Foreign investments here, both in the public and private sectors have to be closely examined to ensure funds are not misused. In respect of EU and USAID funding, it would be pertinent to ask whether those who implemented those projects achieved desired goals. Any foreign funding should be investigated taking into consideration the 2016 revelation that the US funded the 2015 change of government here, having earlier failed to ensure General Sarath Fonseka’s victory at the 2010 presidential poll.

No less a person than the then US Secretary of State John Kerry revealed in 2016 that the State Department spent a staggering USD 585 mn ‘to restore democracy’ in Nigeria, Burma and Sri Lanka in 2014/2015. Who in the NGO and civil society network did receive US funds here? What were the projects utilized by the sponsors and did any political party or political party leaders receive funds?

 

Weerasekera’s report on SLT pits Executive against Legislature

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 474

Published

  2023/06/14

Having strongly opposed the privatization of Sri Lanka Telecom, the Sectoral Committee on National Security made the following recommendations:

(a) SLT is already partially privatised with international companies holding 44.98% of the stake and the government holding 49.5%. Further privatisation would expose the country’s critical communication infrastructure/sensitive information to private entities whose profit-oriented interests can compromise national security. Hence privatisation of Telecom is not recommended.

(b) Anyone/organisation who had been blacklisted/helped terrorists/extremists in any form should not be allowed to buy any share and have any control over our national assets.

(c) State can buy back the other large shareholder of Telecom as provided for in the agreement, divide the segments into sensitive and vulnerable, excess lands and buildings, critical infrastructure and the business. Whilst retaining the first segments affecting National Security, the state can divest the others holding a major share through Private Public Partnership ensuring critical infrastructure is protected and all government regulations are adhered to. This way the government can exit from doing business whilst making profit and ensuring National Security.

Sri Lanka Telecom shares fell 7.8 percent on Friday (09 June) during trades following the release of the SOC report.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

There hadn’t been a previous instance of a President having to publicly challenge a report put out by a Sectoral Oversight Committee or any other watchdog committee.

Several hours after the Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on National Security tabled a report on ‘The effects of the privatization of Sri Lanka Telecom on National Security’ in Parliament on Friday (09) the President’s Media Division (PMD) countered the controversial assessment.

The 11-member SOC, led by one-time Navy Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, included war-winning Army Commander the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, MP. The SOC comprised Sarath Weerasekara (SLPP), Chamal Rajapaksa (SLPP), Chandima Weerakkody (SLPP), Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (SJB), (Prof.) Channa Jayasumana (SLPP rebel group), Charles Nirmalanathan (Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi), Sampath Athukorala (SLPP), U.K. Sumith Udukumbura (SLPP), (Dr.) Major Pradeep Undugoda (SLPP), Major Sudarshana Denipitiya (SLPP) and Nimal Piyathissa (JNP)

Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi is the leading party in the TNA, one-time ally of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The UNP and JVP with just one and three members in Parliament, respectively, are not represented in this particular SOC.

The controversial SOC report, though some asserted caught President Ranil Wickremesinghe by surprise, the writer firmly believes the the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government knew what was coming. It would be pertinent to ask whether all members of this particular SOC fully read the report available in Sinhala, Tamil and English before the former Public Security Minister tabled it.

The then CBK administration partly privatized the SLT in 1994. Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation of Japan secured 35% of the SLT but those shares were bought by a Netherlands-based company, called Global Telecommunications Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of Malaysian Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd. As of today the Malaysian Company holds 44.98% of the stake and the Government holds 49.50%.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe wants to divest the remaining shares in line with his disputed strategy that the government quit business altogether. With a countrywide customer base of nine million, the income revenue of SLT in 2022 was Rs. 108 billion and the profit was Rs. 8.46 billion.

Acknowledging the SOC’s unprecedented warning over national security threat posed by total privatization of SLT and the factual content of the report, the PMD issued the following statement: “…the Government believes that it lacked a logical or scientific data analysis pertaining to the subject matter. To address this deficiency, it is necessary to examine the operation and regulation of information and communication technology service providers in Sri Lanka, analyze financial data related to the sector, understand Sri Lanka’s national ambitions in this field, assess the available capital capacity, and conduct a comprehensive study of global trends.

Furthermore, the Government has reassured that the policy decision taken will not compromise national security, contrary to what is indicated in the report.

Hence, the Government will take a final decision during an upcoming Cabinet meeting, considering this report along with recommendations from the information and communication sector.

Additionally, the President emphasizes that the current government’s policy is focused on providing opportunities to the private sector, distancing it from direct government involvement in business.”

Politics of privatization

MP Sarath Weerasekera received the leadership of the SOC on 08 March , this year. One-time Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa proposed Weerasekera while U. K. Sumith Udukumbura, also of the SLPP, seconded the naval veteran.

Having retired in 2006, Rear Admiral Weerasekera successfully contested the Digamadulla district on the then UPFA ticket at the 2010 parliamentary election. The decision to issue a report against privatization of SLT seems to be in line with MP Weerasekera’s patriotic zeal. He was the only UPFA lawmaker to vote against the 19th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in early 2015. In spite of the then President Maithripala Sirisena personally appealing to the rebel UPFA parliamentary group, Weerasekera declined to throw his weight behind what was touted as the panacea for constitutional problems.

Responding to The Island queries, MP Weerasekera explained that his committee highlighted the danger in the government losing control of the vital telecommunications sector. “The issue at hand cannot be discussed without taking into consideration political, economic and social developments that led to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s unceremonious exit last July,” the 71-year-old parliamentarian said.

MP Weerasekera said that he didn’t want to repeat the SOC report but the government couldn’t absolve itself of the responsibility for examining all aspects before fully privatizing the telecommunication sector.

Referring to the statement issued by the PMD, lawmaker Weerasekera said that the Cabinet of Ministers, headed by President Wickremesinghe, should be held responsible for whatever the consequences of the privatization.

President Wickremesinghe, who holds the finance portfolio, repeatedly declared his intention to privatize even the profit-making public enterprises as part of his economic revival strategy. However, the success of the UNP leader’s strategy entirely depends on the SLPP stand on privatization. Having elected Wickremesinghe as the eighth President at an unprecedented vote, the SLPP is deeply upset over the former’s failure, so far, to accommodate about 10 ‘pohottu’ members in the Cabinet. Can the SLPP back Wickremesinghe regardless of the blunt report on SLT, endorsed by its own party men, including rebel SLPPers?

However, the composition of the SOC seems irrational as seven out of 11 all barring three happened to be members of one political party.

Perhaps, 15 political parties represented in Parliament should state their stand on the proposed SLT privatization. Of those 15 political parties, nine are represented by one member each. UNP (National List MP Wajira Abeywardena) is among them.

There had never been such a controversial SOC report since the introduction of the system. The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairperson of Committees, the Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament; and Ministers of Cabinet appointed under Article 43(2) of the Constitution cannot serve on SOCs appointed in terms of Standing Orders 111. SOCs have the power to examine any Bill, any subsidiary legislation, including Regulation, Resolution, Treaty, Report or any other matter relating to subjects and functions within their jurisdiction. There cannot be more than 20 SOCs at any given time.

Yugadanavi fiasco

Now that PMD has declared the final decision on SLT privatization would be taken at the Cabinet, let me discuss the Yugadanavi deal that was challenged in the Supreme Court by three members of the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Cabinet.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of ministers moving the Supreme Court against a decision taken by the Cabinet of Ministers. Although the apex court dismissed petitions without giving reasons, disclosures made by petitioners, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Wimal Weerawansa and Attorney-at-Law Udaya Gammanpila bared the ugly truth. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any Sri Lankan government entering into such an agreement at midnight. The agreement signed on 17 Sept., 2021 at the behest of the then Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa is in the public domain.

The consideration of the petitions concluded on 23 February, 2022 before a five-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya and Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Priyantha Jayawardena, Vijith Malalgoda and L.T.B. Dehideniya.

The three daring ministers revealed that the government sold 40% of shares of West Coast Power Limited to New Fortress Energy of US without following proper procedures. They declared they never approved the deal. Unfortunately, the Dullas-Prof. G.L. Peiris-led group remained silent. Had they, too, raised the issue perhaps the Rajapaksa brothers could have reconsidered the decision. By the time the Dullas-Prof. Peiris group decided to oppose Ranil Wickremesinghe’s election as President, it was too late. The SLPP was in disarray. The party appeared to have accepted Wickremesinghe as its saviour, hence the decision to vote against Dullas Alahapperuma, who served the Rajapaksas diligently.

Some of those who had served President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Cabinet at the time Sri Lanka entered into the controversial Yugadanavi deal (a section of the media calls it New Fortress deal) are in the current Cabinet. Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena is among them.

The SOC Chairman said that he initiated the inquiry into the proposed sale of SLT on his own as he felt the urgent need to do. “No, the Parliament didn’t intervene in this matter.” The former minister said so when the writer asked him whether the Parliament directed him to examine the issue at hand. MP Weerasekera insisted that he had secured the consent of all before tabling the report.

Before tabling the report on SLT in Parliament, the SOC Chief took up the Canadian declaration of genocide in Sri Lanka and travel ban issued on military and political leaders over accountability issues. The former Navy Deputy Chief of Staff questioned the lapses on the part of successive governments in countering unsubstantiated war crimes accusations that led to the co-sponsorship of the Geneva Resolution by the then Yahapalana government in October 2015, a treacherous act, indeed.

MP Weerasekera stressed that the responsibility on the Foreign Ministry and of Parliament to counter the despicable Canadian move meant to please particularly Canadian voters of Sri Lankan Tamil origin, who are an important vote bank there. Yahapalana partners, the UNP and SLFP, also owed an explanation and public apology for the great betrayal of the war-winning armed forces, he said.

The SOC Chairman said that the move to sell the remaining government-owned shares should be closely examined against the backdrop of other external investments in key sectors, including harbours as well as the country’s bankrupt status.

Responsibilities of Cabinet, Parliament

Ministers exercise executive powers in Parliament. Therefore, they are not subject to the scrutiny of SOCs or watchdog committees. Secretaries to ministries in their capacity as Chief Accounting Officers of respective ministries are answerable to Parliament in all matters pertaining to finances. However, in a case of perceived national security threat as alleged by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, perhaps the entire Cabinet of Ministers should be held responsible.

The bottom line is can the Cabinet of Ministers go ahead with the sale of SLT without a proper re-evaluation of the SOC report that quite strongly advised against the privatization of the national telecommunications provider, on national security grounds.

The examination of the proposed sale of SLT has reminded all that other SOCs can engage in similar exercises in terms of Standing Orders 111. The statement issued by the PMD underscored President Wickremesinghe’s inclination to go ahead with the sale of SLT, regardless of the warning issued by Parliament. The SOC’s National Security assessment represents the considered view of the Parliament.

Therefore, it cannot be simply dismissed as an opinion of a hardline nationalist lawmaker. Even during the naval career of Weerasekera, there were occasions he resorted to actions not acceptable to political leadership in the interest of the country.

MP Weerasekera’s report should be carefully examined by the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament. The Cabinet of Ministers shouldn’t be simply a rubber seal. But there had been instances of the government even sidestepping the Cabinet in taking far reaching decisions. There cannot be a better example than the utterly disloyal act of co-sponsoring the Geneva resolution against one’s own country without parliamentary or Cabinet approval.

More recently the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government and the Opposition clashed over refusal of the government to take the Parliament into confidence in the run-up to the finalization of the agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Ex-Telecommunications’ DG responds to SOC report

Meanwhile, former Director General of Telecommunications Prof Rohan Samarajiva roundly dismissed SOC assertion. Declaring that there is absolutely no basis for SOC’s claim that privatization of SLT threatened the national security, Prof. Samarajiva said national security is important. But it has, for too long, been used as a cheap slogan to mask parochial interests, he said.

In response to The Island query, the outspoken civil society activist and one time Marxist, sent us the following statement: “It should be obvious that a country whose export industries are not competitive and whose government is bankrupt because it spends more than it brings in as revenue year after year will grievously compromise its security and leave itself open to external interference. If not for the reforms that were undertaken in the telecom sector from 1997 to 2003, our export industries would be hamstrung by expensive and poor-quality services. For example, one reason we had no BPO industry in 2003 was the SLT monopoly. Once it was ended the investments came in, jobs were created, and the export earnings realized. Removing the residual advantages enjoyed by SLT so that a more level playing field is created will allow all our export industries, not limited to the BPO industry, to be competitive. The state makes more from the taxes paid by the entire telecom sector than the below-par profit share currently remitted by SLT.

There is no evidence that complete managerial control by NTT, the minority owner of SLT, during the worst years of the war, compromised security. Under 100 percent state ownership and management, national security was compromised because those in charge had not invested in redundancy for the country’s then single international gateway on Lotus Road, a location that had been subject to repeated terrorist attacks. It was after partial privatization and under regulatory direction that this glaring omission was rectified.

National security is safeguarded by identifying specific threats and responding to them appropriately as above. If the problem is data, the solution is the setting in place of effective safeguards by law and regulatory oversight, not having an unqualified presidential sibling as Board Chairman, which was a demonstrated outcome of state ownership. Independently of who sits on the Board, it is possible to require that specific officers in sensitive positions be Sri Lankan citizens who have been subject to security screening. This need not be limited to SLT, but to all major operators.”