Wartime secret negotiations between UN mission in Colombo and LTTE

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 105

January 6, 2016, 8:06 am 

President Maithripala Sirisena shares a light moment with Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R. Sampanthan at an event at the UN compound, Colombo in late Oct. 2014 to commemorate the UN’s 70th anniversary. Jaffna District MP M.A.Sumanthiran and UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Sri Lanka, Subinay Nandy look on.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Had the UN acted swiftly, and decisively, Sri Lanka wouldn’t have had to experience terrorism for nearly three decades. In actual fact, the UN, and its agencies, deprived successive Sri Lankan governments of much needed support during her battle against terrorism.

Last week, The Island examined the failures on the part of the UN, against the backdrop of a commemorative event, held at Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission, in New York, to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the then Ceylon’s entry in to the United Nations, where the gathering was reminded of sometimes strained relations between Sri Lanka and the global body, with special emphasis on the situation during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency.

Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in New York Dr. Amrith Rohan Perera, PC, told the gathering: "As in other relationships, the relationship between Sri Lanka and the United Nations has, at times, undergone stresses and strains. This was particularly so during the conflict, and in its immediate aftermath."

Sri Lanka was among over a dozen countries admitted to the UN, on Dec 14, 1955.

UN policies contributed to spread of terrorism in Sri Lanka. Having immensely contributed to a catastrophic situation here, by neglecting its responsibilities, for over two decades, the UN made its biggest blunder at the onset of Sri Lanka launching the Vanni offensive, in early, 2007. Instead of taking tangible measures to thwart the LTTE from preventing Tamil-speaking people taking refuge in areas under government control, the UN facilitated the terrorist project. The Colombo-based UN mission secretly communicated with the LTTE in a bid to secure the release of Tamil employees, of the UN, accused of helping civilians to flee the war zone.

The UN mission, in Colombo, conveniently failed to immediately bring the Vanni situation to the notice of the then government. The mission negotiated with the LTTE, clandestinely. The UN, in New York, too, wasn’t briefed of the crisis. The UN mission in Colombo never explained its decision not to bring the detention of two UN workers immediately to the notice of the government.

Having failed to secure their release, in spite of secret negotiations, for perhaps over a month, the UN brought the situation to the then government’s attention in April 2007 (LTTE detains UN workers-The Island, April 20). The UN mission in Colombo never responded to The Island revelation. The four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) comprising the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, TELO, PLOTE and EPRLF, too, remained silent. In fact, none of those, who had been demanding accountability on the part of the then administration for causing civilian deaths during the final phase of the offensive, ever bothered, at least, to issue a statement calling for the release of UN workers and an immediate end to restrictions imposed on the movement of people. The Norwegian-led five-nation Scandinavian truce monitoring mission, as well as Co-Chairs to Sri Lanka’s Peace Process, refrained from commenting on the incident.

The UN and LTTE, in May, 1998, agreed that free movement/resettlement of civilians should be respected. (The UN-LTTE agreement was dealt comprehensively last week.).

The UN, and a section of the Colombo-based diplomatic community, had desperately tried to settle the issue without involving the government. Prominent Diaspora activists, particularly those with the influential British Tamil Forum (BTF), remained mum. The Colombo-based UN bigwigs kept the seizure under wraps believing the LTTE would eventually release them (‘UN had talks with Tigers on the sly’ with strap line UN workers in LTTE custody-The Island, April 23, 2007).

The UN policy eventually led to the LTTE forcing the vast majority of the Vanni population to retreat, along with its fighting cadre, across the Kandy-Jaffna A9 road, towards the Mullaitivu coast, where Velupillai Prabhakaran made his final stand, in May, 2009. The retreat began in early 2007.

The then Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, strongly condemned the UN’s approach towards terrorism. The war veteran alleged that Western powers, Diaspora activists as well as an influential section of the media, which champion human rights, remained silent. Both print and electronic media, including Colombo-based international news agencies ignored the UN-LTTE dispute. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa revealed the abduction of UN workers took centre-stage at a meeting of the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance held at the Defence Ministry in April 2007. Chaired by the then Human Rights Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe, the CCHA met bi-weekly to discuss the situation in operational areas. The consultative apex body first met on Oct 14, 2006. Among those who had been present at the CCHA discussion, on the plight of UN workers, was the then US Ambassador in Colombo, Robert O. Blake. The LTTE resented UN workers interfering with its strategy. The UN was told in no uncertain terms that anyone challenging its authority would have to face the consequences.(Lanka urges UN not to shield Tigers with strap line UN workers in LTTE custody-The Island, April 25, 2007).

In late April, 2007, the UN admitted that its Colombo mission had withheld information pertaining to the detention of UN workers. When the issue was raised at the daily press briefing, at the UN, on April 25, 2007, UNSG Ban Ki-moon’s spokesperson, Michele Montas, acknowledged that its mission in Colombo hadn’t informed New York of the incident. Without referring to exclusive The Island reportage of the incident, Montas said: "We don’t have any confirmation of those newspaper reports. We have heard them. As soon as we have a confirmation, we’ll get something for you on that. I’m checking with the UN presence there (in Sri Lanka." Montas stressed that the Colombo mission hadn’t confirmed the newspaper reports. "I don’t know. We don’t have any confirmation. They have not confirmed those reports. I heard them through the press also." Two days before the UN briefing, the then government strongly condemned the UN’s approach towards the abduction of UN workers (UN HQ admits Colombo office kept it in the dark with strap line The Island expose of UN employees abducted by LTTE-The Island, April 28, 2007).

Now that the Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government had co-sponsored a resolution in Geneva paving the way for a comprehensive judicial investigation into alleged atrocities committed during the eelam war IV (Aug. 2006-May 2009), the culpability on the part of the UN, too, should be investigated. Had the UN and other members of the CCHA took tangible measures in the wake of the abduction of UN workers, the LTTE could have been discouraged from carrying out their dastardly project to use the Vanni population as human shields. The LTTE needed the population to ensure conscription of fighting cadres as well as use them as a tool to protect their military assets/positions.

It would be important to keep in mind the circumstances under which the LTTE moved to block those living in Vanni from seeking refuge in the government-held area. By February, the military had taken the upper hand in the Eastern theater of operations. Major LTTE bastions had been under heavy pressure in the Eastern Province while the Army was preparing to open up a new front west of the Kandy-Jaffna road. The LTTE realized that there could be an exodus of people from the Vanni in case stringent measures weren’t taken. Having lost the Jaffna peninsula, in early 1996, and its Eastern cadre in total disarray, due to split in the organization, caused by one-time field commander Karuna Amman, the LTTE couldn’t under any circumstances deprived itself of the population. The LTTE needed fresh fighting cadre. The top leadership obviously feared an exodus of civilians could have affected the morale of fighting cadre. The then Army Chief Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka was on the verge of opening up what was later called the Central front where the newly raised 57 Division fought. The Division was tasked with the liberation of Kilinochchi, a task it achieved on January 1, 2009, jointly with the celebrated Task Force I (later named 58 Division).

Perhaps, it would be pertinent to examine the detention of UN employee, secret negotiations between the UN and the LTTE meant to secure their release, and correspondence between the UN mission in Colombo and its headquarters in New York. Although the then UNSG’s spokesperson Montas promised to reveal its stand on the issue, it never materialized.

Let me mention the countries/ organizations and their representatives informed in late April 2007 of the February 2007 abduction of UN workers by the LTTE, namely US (US Ambassador Robert O. Blake, European Union (Head of Delegation Julian Wilson), Representative of the President to the Council of the European Union (Ambassador to Germany Juergen Weerth and UK High Commissioner Dominic Chilcott), Japan (Ambassador Kiyoshi Araki), UN (Frederick Lyons and Neil Bhune), UNHCR (Amin Awad), UNICF (Ms Joanna Van Gerpen and Philippe Duamelle), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Valentin Gatzinski and Ms Zola Dowell), WHO (Dr. Agostino Borra), WFP (Taft-Dick, Mohamed Saaheenn and Adhnan Khan), Food and Agriculture Organization (Marc Bellemans), ILO (Ms Tine Staermose), UN department of Safety and Security (Security Advisor Chris du Toit), European Community Humanitarian Office (David Verboom), ICRC (Toon Vandenhove and Paul Castella). In addition to foreign representatives in the CCHA, the apex body included two representatives of the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, namely Executive Director Jeevan Thiagarajah and Deputy Executive Firzan Hashim.

As CCHA had met on 28 occasions (first meet on Sept. 14, 2006 and the final one on May 11, 2009), its minutes can facilitate ongoing efforts to establish the ground situation in the Vanni region during the war. Mahinda Samarasinghe, who had chaired CCHA can as a member of the new administration speak on the deliberations at CCHA meetings, including detention of UN workers.

The minutes of CCHA deliberations are available with those who had been tasked for that particular assignment.

Although the previous government lashed out at Western powers and occasionally criticized the UN as well as the NGO community, for want of an effective strategy, it never conducted a thorough investigation into their activities. CCHA minutes should be made available to the proposed war crimes court. Although the government and the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) are yet to announce the composition of the war crimes court, the government should endeavor to produce all relevant information before the investigative mechanism.

The UN still retained vital documentary evidence which can be used to counter accusations that the Sri Lankan military had killed over 40,000 civilians during the final phase of the government offensive. In fact, the Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka in March 2011 repeated widespread accusations as regards the death of 40,000 civilians. The panel asserted: "In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths."

However, those who had been demanding accountability on the part Sri Lanka over the deaths of 40,000 deaths during the last phase, are yet to specify the period the killings took place.

Interestingly, UNSG Ban Ki-moon’s panel rejected a comprehensive study conducted by his own mission in Sri Lanka with the support of the ICRC as well as NGOs based in the war zone during August 2008 to May 13, 2009 period. In spite of it being the only such study which placed the number of deaths at 7,721 including those of the LTTE during that period, Western powers, too, rejected the report. The previous government never raised the issue publicly at Geneva. Instead of countering propaganda with solid information, the previous government engaged in wasteful and futile projects such as employing expensive PR firms. Such image building exercises certainly didn’t help Sri Lanka. Those still loyal to former President and Kurunegala District MP Mahinda Rajapaksa are yet to review their previous strategies. They seemed to be still thinking that the proposed war crimes court can be averted and in case the present government accepted foreign judges the issue exploited to its advantage. A rethinking of their strategies is necessary.

Against the backdrop of Sri Lanka and UN celebrating the 60th anniversary of the then Ceylon’s entry in to the United Nations, a genuine reexamination of ties will help both parties. Those genuinely interested in knowing the truth, pertaining to the number of persons, both civilians and the LTTE dead, should reveal the still classified UN report which placed the number of wounded during Aug. 2008 to May 13, 2009 at 18,479. Those who contributed to the report can be summoned by the proposed court. Those who had declared that the UN report cannot be accepted because the figures pertaining to the number of dead and wounded were, too, low, readily acknowledged unsubstantiated accusations propagated by persons whose identities remained confidential until 2031 in accordance with UN requirement. The UN confidentiality clause relating to nameless witnesses remains in force with Sri Lanka officially taking it up with the global body. Sri Lanka needs to request the UN to review its confidentiality clause and present the UN report on the Vanni war to the proposed court. Those who had been opposed to the Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government should pressure the new administration to take up relevant issues with the UN, instead of playing politics with accountability concerns. Having caused irreparable damage to Sri Lanka’s cause due to foolish handling of the accountability issue, decision makers of the previous government should at least now rectify their mistakes.

A forgotten UN - LTTE accord during CBK's presidency

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 104

December 30, 2015, 8:05 am 

Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative (PR) to the UN, Dr. Rohan Perera, PC, in conversation with Hungarian PR, Katalin Bogyay (Left) and UNSG Ban Ki-moon’s Special Advisor on Myanmar, Vijay Nambiar (Right), formerly of the Indian Foreign Service.
By Shamindra Ferdinando

A commemorative, event held at Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission, in New York, on Dec 14, to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the then Ceylon’s entry into the United Nations, was reminded of sometimes strained relations between Sri Lanka and the global body with special emphasis on the situation, during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency.

Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative, in New York, Dr. Amrith Rohan Perera, PC told the gathering: "As in other relationships, the relationship between Sri Lanka and the United Nations has, at times, undergone stresses and strains. This was particularly so during the conflict and in its immediate aftermath."

Sri Lanka was among over a dozen countries admitted to the UN, on Dec 14, 1955.

Dr. Perera, who had served the Foreign Ministry for over 30 years, initially as assistant Legal Advisor and, thereafter, as a legal advisor, expressed the belief Sri Lanka could restore its relationship with the UN in the wake of the change of government in Sri Lanka. Let me reproduce verbatim what Dr. Perera said before discussing the UN role, during the conflict. Dr. Perera said: "With the assumption of office of the new administration, however, Sri Lanka is committed, once again, to building bridges and engaging positively with all Member States and the United Nation. We are committed to the ideal of decency and mutual respect in dealing among nations, to the protection and promotion of human rights and preserving the dignity of all people, irrespective of race, gender, colour or creed."

Later in the day, Ambassador Perera joined a luncheon, jointly hosted by the Permanent Representatives of 16 countries, including the then Ceylon, in honour of UNSG Ban Ki-moon. Among those present, on the occasion, was UNSG’s Special Advisor on Myanmar Vijay Nambiar. Formerly of the Indian foreign service, Vijay had served in Pakistan and China as New Delhi’s top diplomat and was involved in Sri Lanka during his UN career. Vijay’s brother, retired Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar, too, had been involved in Sri Lanka during the Norwegian-arranged negotiations meant to end terrorism in Sri Lanka.

Report of the UNSG’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka made two major recommendations to the UN. Having accused both the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE of atrocities, during eelam war IV, the report, released on March 31, 2011, recommended that the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) review a resolution on Sri Lanka, adopted at a Special Session, in May 2009. Obviously, the UN panel felt the May 2009 resolution is an impediment as it favoured Sri Lanka. The panelists, namely Marzuki Darusman, Steven R. Ratner and Yasmin Sooka also recommended a comprehensive review of UN operations during the war and post-war Sri Lanka. The panel asserted that such a study could help the UN system in the implementation of humanitarian and protection mandates.

Even over six years, after the conclusion of the war and with the eradication of the terrorist leadership, the UN nor Sri Lanka, hadn’t examined the role of the UN, or various UN agencies, active here, during the war.

War-Winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa never felt the requirement to undertake a thorough investigation. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) lacked the required mandate to conduct a proper investigation though the previous government depicted it as the panacea for post-war issues. Dr. Amrith Rohan Perera, too, had been a member of the LLRC, along with respected career diplomat, H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, the present Governor of the Northern Province. For want of a better mechanism, to comprehensively investigate the 30-year war, the previous government ended up being portrayed as the one to cause deterioration of relations with Western powers, as well as the UN.

The External Affairs Ministry failed badly to address contentious issues. Had it being not for China and Pakistan, the situation, at successive Geneva sessions, would have been far worse. Instead of taking remedial measures on its own, the idiotic previous government hired expensive foreign PR firms, at the taxpayers’, expense to win over the US. Although a section of the media, including the writer, raised the issue during the Rajapaksa regime, the administration continued with the operation, until the very end.

Ambassador Perera, during his Dec 14 address, also referred to Sri Lanka’s close engagement with Peace Building Support Office of the UN. Although, the Foreign Ministry, as well as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission, in New York, released Ambassador Perera’s statement, it didn’t receive the coverage it deserved in the Sri Lankan press. The Ambassador asserted that Sri Lanka could receive financial assistance from the UN Peace Building Fund. "We are looking forward for closer engagement in this area, and for wider support, including from Peace Building Commission Member States."

The undeniable truth is that Sri Lanka, or the UN, couldn’t have even contemplated a role for the Peace Building Support Office, if the LTTE leadership survived the war. The LTTE, as well as all those who had blindly backed its strategy, including the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), never seriously believed in a negotiated settlement. Those who had faith in the LTTE prowess believed eelam could be achieved through conventional military means. In fact, they believed, as late as Dec. 2008, the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) could be encircled and annihilated on the Vanni east front. Their assessment was that such a devastating debacle could result in the collapse of the fighting divisions. They envisaged a situation similar to that of the Vanni debacle, in the run-up to the Dec. 1999 presidential polls. In the wake of impressive battlefield gains in the Vanni, the LTTE almost succeeded in assassinating the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga at her final propaganda rally, in Colombo. Having crushed the SLA in Vanni, the LTTE inflicted the gravest single defeat on the SLA, in April, 2002. Nothing could have humiliated the SLA as bad as the decision to abandon the strategic Elephant Pass base, headquarters to the 54 Division.

The UN did nothing to help Sri Lanka, during the 1999-2000 crisis. The Kumaratunga government faced defeat in Jaffna. Did UN, any Western country, or India, offer military assistance to Sri Lanka? Did they at least put pressure on LTTE offices, particularly the London-based LTTE Secretariat, to call off the offensive. In fact, the LTTE announced the seizure of Elephant Pass from what it called its London-based International Secretariat. Knowing the SLA was on the brink of being defeated, in the Jaffna peninsula, once and for all, the international media gathered in Colombo. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Sri Lankans had conveniently forgotten the crisis the country faced during those years. The UN system pathetically failed in Sri Lanka. It wouldn’t be unfair to assert that the UN abandoned Sri Lanka in the early 80s, thereby leaving India to terrorize the small neighbour to her heart’s content. The UN ignored Sri Lanka’s plight as the then government struggled to counter Indian trained terrorist groups. The UN turned a blind eye to India providing weapons training to Sri Lankan terrorists, on her soil, as well as millions of rupees worth arms, ammunition and equipment. The global body took no notice of some Indian trained terrorist groups securing the support of armed Palestinian faction.

No less a person than former Indian Foreign Secretary, J.N. Dixit, in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy: Raja Ram Mohun Roy to Yashwant Sinha’, launched, in 2004, admitted the destabilization project undertaken under Indira Gandhi’s leadership.

Having caused terrorism in Sri Lanka, India thwarted Sri Lanka’s attempt to eradicate the LTTE, in 1987. Had India allowed Sri Lanka to bring ‘Operation Liberation’ to a successful conclusion during 1987, thousands of lives, including those of Indian servicemen, could have been saved. Instead, India had her way here while the UN looked the other way. The UN inaction caused massive destruction in Sri Lanka. India, too, paid a heavy price for its despicable terrorism project. Even after the high profile LTTE assassination of one-time Indian PM and Congress leader, Rajiv Gandhi, in May 1991, the UN didn’t resort to tough measures to curb the LTTE. In fact, the UN didn’t even take notice of the growing danger posed by the LTTE and the possibility of others following the strategies of Sri Lankan terrorists.

A thorough appraisal of the UN system, and the conduct of those who had been in charge of the UN mission, since the early 80s, is necessary to identify a string of failures on their part over the past three decades.

It would be interesting to examine the UN response to Indian-trained Sri Lankan terrorists making an attempt to assassinate Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom during the first week of Nov. 1988. Sea borne terrorists, belonging to the People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) stormed Male, at the behest of Colombo-based Maldivian businessman, Abdullah Luthufi. The international community ignored the fact that those who had been involved in the raid were members of the PLOTE, fully sponsored by India. Instead of being criticized, New Delhi received glowing international approval for intervening in Male to thwart the PLOTE operation. The then US President, Ronald Reagan, strongly endorsed Indian action, calling it "a valuable contribution to regional stability". The then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, according to the Wikipedia, reportedly commented, ‘"Thank God for India: President Gayoom’s government has been saved".

Today, the PLOTE is a constituent member of the Tamil National Alliance which recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people.

There had never been an attempt to examine the failures on the part of the UN to stop India from exporting terrorism in the case of Sri Lanka and spreading of terrorism. Obviously, the UN never felt the need to take tangible measures to eradicate terrorism in Sri Lanka. Instead, the UN thrived on Sri Lanka’s misery. The UN, or its agencies, active here, never wanted to take punitive action against the LTTE even after its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran violated an agreement meant to stop the use of children in combat operations. Had the UN taken meaningful measures to ensure the implementation of the agreement, the war wouldn’t have lasted so long. The agreement involved the LTTE and the UN. There had never been a similar agreement during the conflict here. Interestingly, none of those demanding accountability, on the part of the government of Sri Lanka, never even bothered to push for the implementation of the unprecedented agreement, finalized by the then UNSG Kofi Atta Annan’s Special Representative, Olara Otunnu, in early May, 1998 (UN, LTTE to discuss modalities with strap line Pledge to stop using children in combat-The Island, May 11, 1998). Otunnu visited the Vanni, with the blessings of the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, to discuss the arrangement with British citizen, of Sri Lankan origin, Anton Balasingham, and Thamilselvam. At the conclusion of Otunnu’s week long visit, the UN mission, in Colombo, proudly declared that political advisor Balasingham, and Political Wing leader, Thamilselvam, had, on behalf of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, assured an immediate stop to using children in combat operations. A jubilant Otunnu declared, in Vavuniya, that the LTTE had agreed for the setting up of a mechanism to monitor commitments made to the UN. (Tigers agree to end use of children below 18 in combat-The Island, May 9, 1998) Having succeeded Boutros Boutros Ghali, in 1997, Annan intervened in Sri Lanka though his predecessor did absolutely nothing to end bloodshed in Sri Lanka. However, at the time of the disastrous Indian intervention here, Pérez de Cuéllar had been at the helm at the UN. Unfortunately, Annan failed to implement the agreement. Foreign Minister Kadirgamar quite rightly urged the LTTE to adhere to the agreement. A skeptical Kadirgamar told the writer that it was the UN’s responsibility to ensure the implementation of the agreement. Kadirgamar asserted that it was nothing but propaganda as the LTTE couldn’t sustain its war effort without fresh cadres joining depleted fighting formations (Transform commitments into action, Government urges LTTE-The Island, May 9, 1998). Otunnu had been the first foreign official to hold talks with the LTTE, with Sri Lanka’s blessings, since the Gandhi assassination, in May, 1991. Perhaps, the LTTE used the UN to boost its image in the wake of the US designating the group, in the previous year, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Salient points of the UN-LTTE agreement

=The LTTE promised to immediately stop deployment of children, under 18 years of age. The group also promised to end the recruitment of children, below the age of 17 years.

=The LTTE assured not to interfere with those war displaced families wanting to return to areas under government control. In addition, the LTTE promised to allow Muslims, driven out by them, in late 1990, to return to their villages. (The LTTE at gunpoint ordered the entire Muslim population to vacate the Northern Province in late Oct/Nov 1990).

=The UN also received an assurance from the LTTE that it wouldn’t interfere with the distribution of relief supplies among the war affected population, particularly those living in areas under its control.

=The LTTE pledged to adhere with the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The group promised to take measures to educate its fighting cadres, as well as other units as regards the Convention.

=The LTTE assured that it would review its military strategies as regards operations directed at civilians and other non-military targets.

The UN never acknowledged its failure to ensure the implementation of any of the commitments made by the LTTE. In fact, the LTTE continued to violate promises made to the UN until the military eradicated the conventional fighting capability of the group, in May, 2009. The LTTE lasted for 11 more years after having taken the UN for a ride. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to launch a thorough study on the war.

With the government expected to finalize a judicial mechanism, to investigate atrocities committed by both parties to the conflict, before March 2015, it would be pertinent to examine the events leading to Indian intervention here, in the early 80s, deployment of the Indian Army, in July, 1987, India-LTTE war (Oct 1987-Nov 1989), assassination of Gandhi (May 1991), UN-LTTE agreement (May 1998), Norwegian Ceasefire Agreement (Feb 2002), three-year military campaign against the LTTE (Aug 2006 to May 2009) and post-war handling of the disarmed LTTE fighting cadre.

The relationship between the LTTE and Tamil political parties, particularly the murderous pact between the LTTE-TNA, should be investigated. Similarly, the alleged LTTE-UPFA agreement leading to the LTTE engineering Ranil Wickremesinghe’s defeat at the Nov. 2005 presidential poll, too, should be probed.

In spite of bringing the war to a successful conclusion, the previous government lacked foresight to conduct a proper evaluation of the events. The previous government could have used Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKIIRSS) for the country’s benefit. It could have launched a proper study on the conflict. LKIIRSS neglected its duty. The then External Affairs Ministry, and the war winning Army, never made an attempt, at least to simply gather/record events in a systematic way. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa couldn’t absolve himself of responsibility for failing to conduct a comprehensive post-war study. The former President deceived himself by propagating the LLRC as panacea for all Sri Lanka’s problems. The war-winning President paid a huge price for not taking tangible measures to counter the massive propaganda campaign, directed at Sri Lanka, soon after he brought the war to an end.

New year: War Crimes probe, labour disputes to the fore

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 103

December 22, 2015, 6:46 pm 

Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera announced last September at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council that he would consult all stakeholders on setting up of the accountability mechanism by end February, 2016. The resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka also called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to give the Council a verbal report on progress at the June, 2016 session.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government faces numerous challenges, next year, though it retains a commanding majority, in parliament, as reflected by the passage of budget 2016 last Saturday. The coalition will face the daunting task of managing the deteriorating national economy as well as a range of other issues, including the proposed war crimes probe, undoubtedly a sensitive political issue. Just five months after the last parliamentary polls, the Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe alliance is struggling to come to terms with ground realities with some sections of the alliance pulling in different directions. With post-war Sri Lanka at crossroads, one of the most politically sensitive years in Sri Lanka’s contemporary history draws to a close paving the way for 2016. The signs are that it’ll be a year of turmoil.

Had the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa taken heed of sound advice, given by General Secretary of the Communist Party, D.E.W. Gunasekera, not to call a early presidential election, he could have averted a disaster. Messrs Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Prof. Tissa Vitharana joined the CP leader in warning Rajapaksa of dire consequences unless he addressed contentious issues, immediately. The warning was given in the wake of the SLFP-led UPFA’s lackluster performance at the crucial Uva Provincial Council election on Sept. 20, 2014. As D.E.W. Gunasekera told the writer, after having met Rajapaksa, at Temple Trees, the Uva result should have prompted Rajapaksa to rethink strategy. Unfortunately, the former President hadn’t been interested in the left party leaders’ advice. Instead, the war-winning President went along with the then Economic Affairs Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s strategy.

The Rajapaksa project was meant to further consolidate their hold in the wake of the passage of the 18th Amendment, in early September, 2010, to the Constitution, as well as impeachment of the then Chief Justice, Mrs Shirani Bandaranayake, in January, 2013. The first woman to head the country’s judiciary, the 43rd CJ Bandaranayake was dismissed, disregarding rulings from the Supreme Court that the process was illegal and threatened judicial independence. The then National List MP Gunasekera had the guts to turn down Rajapaksa’s request to vote in favour of impeaching the CJ. Another National List MP Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha did the same.

Having thrown his full weight behind both, the 18th Amendment, which cleared the way for Rajapaksa to seek a third term, and the subsequent anti-Bandaranayake move, Maithripala Sirisena switched his allegiance to the UNP. In spite of a massive propaganda campaign, conducted by the previous government, Maithripala Sirisena convincingly defeated Rajapaksa at the January 8 presidential polls.

President Maithripala Sirisena thwarted Rajapaksa’s bid to return as the Prime Minister of an SLFP-led UPFA administration at the expense of proposed constitutional reforms. The President went to the extent of publicly stating why the electorate should reject Rajapaksa. Having thwarted Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena entered into an unprecedented partnership with UNP leader Wickremesinghe to steer the country. The Rajapaksa Camp hadn’t been able to overwhelm the ruling coalition, though at the on set of the Maithripala Sirisena’s 100-day programme, the former President seemed to have the strength to stage a come back. The Opposition or the Abayarama parshavaya, as it is widely called, is struggling to sustain its campaign.

The coalition shamelessly abused the 19th Amendment to its advantage. Those in power today exploited the much touted law to freely appoint Ministers, Deputy Ministers, as well as State Ministers, contrary to the basic principles of the Yahapalana government. They, in fact, used the 19th Amendment to justify a large cabinet on the pretext of having a National Government. Under any circumstances, the present arrangement cannot be considered as a National Government. The government faces a plethora of contentious issues with the post-budget crisis and the proposed war crimes inquiry being the main issues. Failure to address them, sensibly, can cause political instability and uncertainty. Fallout can plunge the country into unprecedented turmoil and reverse the ongoing process meant to bring in a brand new Constitution as envisaged by the Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration.

Having defeated Rajapaksa, at the January polls, the Yahapalana rulers caused a debilitating setback to the longstanding China-Sri Lanka relationship by suspending the $ 1.4 bn Chinese-funded Colombo Port City project early this year. Some foolish politicians, and officials of the ruling coalition, made offensive statements. They simply forgot that the Chinese sustained Sri Lanka’s war effort. Following a series of deliberations, the government recently gave the Chinese the go ahead for their flagship project. Strangely, the war winning UPFA, too, last month, condemned the Jewish State, another country whose support paved the way for Sri Lanka’s ultimate triumph over the LTTE, in May, six years ago.

The year old government need to follow a sound foreign policy, without being branded as any particular country’s ally. Whatever the disputes the Rajapaksas had with the US, after the conclusion of the war, the superpower backed Sri Lanka’s war effort. The US made it possible for Sri Lanka to finish off the LTTE in less than three years. That is the truth. But, unfortunately, the previous government bungled in its approach towards the US.

Of the challenges faced by the one-year-old administration, nothing can be as difficult as implementing the Geneva resolution, adopted on Sept. 30, 2015. The government will have to soon announce its decision on the proposed mechanism to inquire into accountability issues during the war. Among those who had been closely involved with the Geneva process, leading to the Sept. 30 resolution, is UK-based Global Tamil Forum (GTF) spokesperson, Suren Surendiran, whom the writer first met in March, 2012, during UNHRC sessions in Geneva. Subsequently, the writer met Surendiran and GTF President, Rev. Father S.J. Emmanuel, in March, in London, where they stressed the importance of bringing the post-war national reconciliation process to a successful conclusion. The GTF delegation was in London to meet the Sri Lankan government delegation visiting the UK, on the invitation of Prime Minister David Cameron.

With high level deliberations taking place, regarding the proposed war crimes inquiry, Surendiran responded to several questions pertinent to the issue at hand. The GTF official reacted from Reykjavik in Iceland.

Q: Is there a deadline for setting up of a war crimes court?

A: Yes, there is as far as I know. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera announced a last September at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council that he would consult all stakeholders on setting up of the accountability mechanism by end February, 2016. The resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka also called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to give the Council a verbal report on its progress at the June, 2016 session.

Q: Will you (GTF) appear before it?

The GTF will fully co-operate with the UNHRC resolution. However, it is the victims and their statements, along with the witnesses, including the various military, government and other civil service personnel, remaining LTTE members, photographic, video and other evidence that will be key to be examined by this special court. Remember over 290,000 people came out of the war zone at the end of the fight. Most are still living. All of them were direct witnesses.

Crimes committed post end of the war in May 2009, has even more victims and witnesses.

Q: Do you (GTF as well as other organisations which represent the interests of Tamil people living in SL and overseas) want 100 per cent implementation of the Geneva resolution approved on Sept. 30?

A: Beyond whether the GTF and other organizations want full implementation of the resolution, it is Government of Sri Lanka’s responsibility and by co-sponsoring the resolution, it’s her commitment to the UN and wider international community, to implement the resolution in full. It is the humanity’s obligation to the tens of thousands of victims to ensure justice is served, after all which is what the resolution is trying to achieve.

Remember there are victims of crime from all communities in Sri Lanka, including the military who had thousands disappeared during the war.

Q: What GTF’s relationship with the TNA?

A: We are two separate entities. GTF has a friendly, healthy and cordial working relationship with the TNA which includes the elected representatives of our people in Sri Lanka.

Q: TNA refused to field ex-LTTE cadres on its Aug. 17 parliamentary polls nomination lists. Did TNA consult GTF before the decision was made?

A: Of course, not! Like I said in my earlier answer, TNA and GTF are two separate entities. We have separate decision making bodies.

Q: The Paranagama Commission proposed international technical assistance and observer status for countries, thereby ruled out international judges, including Commonwealth judges. What is your position?

A: GTF fully supports the resolution, passed by the UNHRC, in September, 2015, which, incidentally, was also co-sponsored by the Government of Sri Lanka. The resolution calls for international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other international specialists to be included in the accountability mechanism.

Q: Former President CBK recently declared that the proposed war crimes probe would focus on the top chain of command of the SL military. She asserted that those who ordered atrocities should be held accountable instead of targeting those who carried out orders. Please comment on CBK’s statement.

A: I believe that is a widely shared notion.

Q: Can you compare Sierra Leone war crimes probe and the proposed investigation in SL.

A: I am not a war crimes expert, however from what I know I realize that in Sri Lanka, during and after the war, many, and various crimes, were committed by both sides breaching numerous local and international laws.

Q: Finally, who backed GTF’s struggle which led to the Sept 30 Geneva resolution and the role played by foreign and local media.

A: GTF is an umbrella body representing various country organizations. To create awareness of the plight of Tamil people in Sri Lanka and to resolve their issues we proactively engage international and local media, other governments from countries where a large number of Tamil people live, international human rights and other organizations.

Q: Did you receive local (Sri Lanka) media coverage and backing to propagate your stand before Jan 8 revolution?

A: Yes, we did but it was strictly limited to a very few English print media including The Island. There was never a possibility of GTF being interviewed in the State media outlets like The Daily News or the Rupavahini. There were never any opportunity given to us by any Sinhala media outlets, be it print, voice and visual. Any coverage of GTF or any Tamil Diaspora news on these state media were either false propaganda or at best manipulated heavily to portray a negative image of GTF.

However, since 8 January 2015, the space for freedom of expression in Sri Lanka has changed dramatically. Even state media outlets, like the Rupavahini and Daily News, report on GTF and have given space and coverage for us to air our views. They also reflected accurately.

Q: And on the international scene, what GTF’s stand on the UK joining US, European bombing campaign targeting Syria?

A: GTF is a Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora organization that only concerns itself with issues related to Tamils in Sri Lanka. GTF is absolutely committed to a non-violent agenda and it seeks a lasting peace in Sri Lanka, based on justice, reconciliation and a negotiated political settlement.

Obviously, the GTF as well as other Diaspora organizations, expect the full implementation of the Geneva resolution. The resolution called for Commonwealth and other international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other international specialists to be included in the accountability mechanism.

Retired High Court judge, Maxwell Paranagama, on behalf of the Presidential Commission that investigated disappearances and accountability issues, proposed international observers as well as foreign technical assistance to the domestic war crimes probe. The proposal had the backing of a group of international experts which assisted Paranagama in accordance with the Second Mandate of the Commission.

Unfortunately, the government is yet to initiate discussions with the previous political leadership as regards war crimes investigation mechanism. Those now in power seem to be blind to the pivotal importance in consulting the previous leadership, both political and military. The previous government, too, cannot absolve itself of the responsibility in failing to properly respond to war crimes accusations. Had there been a proper examination of accusations, the anti-Sri Lanka project, during the previous government, wouldn’t have succeeded. The Rajapaksa Camp obviously still cannot comprehend mistakes made during the previous administration in the run-up to January 8 presidential poll. In spite of the contentious issue of the war crimes probe being high on the Maithripala-Wickremesinghe government’s priorities, the administration is likely to be distracted by trade union disputes. Although the government managed to avert a recent strike by giving in to a spate of workers demands, trouble is brewing in both state and private sectors with the powerful GMOA as well as the Ceylon Bank Employees Union (CBEU) preparing for a struggle in the new year. The reversal of a range of revenue proposals, due to pressure from the SLFP, will certainly place the national economy in a difficult situation hence the need to focus on the forthcoming crisis.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe himself told parliament of the country having to face dire consequences of ISIS caused crisis in the Middle East as well as Europe. The Premier went to the extent of asserting the need for his government to seek IMF assistance to overcome the impending crisis.

Sri Lanka’s role in CIA’s ‘extraordinary rendition’

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 102

December 15, 2015, 12:00 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

In a statement issued on Dec. 10 to commemorate the Human Rights Day, Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, proudly declared: "Sri Lanka’s commemorations will not only be symbolic – it will also be substantive. So, I am very pleased to announce that Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, will today, this morning in New York, in fact, will be signing the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances."

In a hard hitting statement, Minister Samaraweera said that during the last decade or so, in Sri Lanka, human rights, were always spoken as an alien concept. The universal values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, were made out to be alien concepts or western values, as the previous government called it, and they used to say it’s western values and infringing on our country’s sovereignty. Although, the previous Rajapaksa administration cannot absolve itself of some of its actions, since the end of the war, in May, 2009, it took tangible measures to eradicate terrorism. Sri Lanka resorted to desperate measures. The world’s solitary superpower, and its allies, did the same at the expense of accountability in the wake of the al-Qaeda challenge.

Devastating al-Qaeda suicide attacks, on four US landmarks, on the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 2011, prompted the then Bush administration to launch the War on Terror campaign. In accordance with its overall military objectives, the US adopted extraordinary offensive security measures against al-Qaeda. The strategy included extraordinary rendition. The clandestine project was meant to facilitate the transfer of terrorist suspects, arrested in various parts of the world, by the US, or at the behest of the US, to countries where they could be interrogated without any restrictions. Invariably, suspects were subjected to torture. Over 50 countries joined the project, coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The exclusive club, included Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government not only facilitated the transfer of al Qaeda suspects but arrested a person wanted by the US, hiding here and handed him over to the CIA, at the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) in Aug. 2003. Could Sri Lanka be faulted for cooperating with the US and its allies battling al-Qaeda? Would the US have tolerated Sri Lanka’s refusal to assist the extraordinary rendition project against the backdrop of its support to successive Sri Lankan governments to fight the LTTE?

The Extraordinary al-Qaeda challenge forced the US to adopt unprecedented tactics. Nineteen al-Qaeda operatives crashed three seized passenger planes into the north and south towers of the World Trade Centre, New York, and Defence Department headquarters, aka, Pentagon. The fourth suicide attack went awry due to some passengers making an abortive attempt to overwhelm al-Qaeda operatives in control of the aircraft.

The New York - based Open Society Foundations, in a special report that dealt with the extraordinary rendition project, revealed Sri Lanka allowed the US to use its airspace and BIA. The NGO alleged that Sri Lanka had never inquired into its role in the US project.

Those who had been demanding Sri Lanka to explain its conduct, during the war against the LTTE, are silent on her role in the US project. The US wouldn’t have contemplated such a project if not for the al-Qaeda challenge. Sri Lanka should never be ashamed of cooperating with the US or extending support in case of future emergency. Unprecedented challenges require bold responses, regardless of consequences.

Let me reproduce the entire list of countries which had been involved in the worldwide abduction project. Among them are some of the leading human rights champions, demanding Sri Lanka be hauled up before a hybrid war crimes court. The extraordinary rendition had been just one part of the massive war, launched by the US and its allies, against Taliban, in Afghanistan. The following countries participated in the extraordinary rendition programme: Afghanistan, Albania (current member of the UNHRC), Algeria (current member of the UNHRC), Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany (current member of the UNHRC), Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan (current member of the UNHRC), Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa (current member of the UNHRC), Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom (current member of the UNHRC), Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. Among those countries involved in the extraordinary rendition project were European Union members. The EU and the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council turned a blind eye to what was going on, though the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, called for a comprehensive investigation into the US project. In a statement issued to mark the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Nils Muižnieks said:"By allowing unlawful detentions and interrogation techniques amounting to torture, the US response caused further suffering and violated human rights law."

He added that governments hadn’t establish the truth or "ensure accountability for their complicity in the unlawful program of ‘extraordinary renditions’ – involving abduction, detention and ill-treatment of suspected terrorists – carried out by the CIA, in Europe, between 2002 and 2006." The bottom line is that European human rights champions had no misgivings in joining the US project.

Open Society Foundation in its report (page 109); "...at least one flight operated by Richmor Aviation (a company that operated flights for the CIA’s extraordinary rendition programme) landed in Sri Lanka in 2003. The documents show that between August 12 and 15, 2003, a Richmor flight, registered as N85VM, took off from Washington, D.C., and stopped in Bangkok before making another stop at Sri Lanka’s Bandaranaike International Airport, in Colombo, and then flying on to Kabul, Dubai, and Shannon airport in Ireland. That flight coincided in time with the capture of Riduan Isamuddin (Hambali) in Bangkok in 2003. Isamuddin spent the next three years, in secret CIA prisons, before ultimately being transferred as a "high value detainee" to Guantanamo Bay, in September, 2006, where he remains detained. There have been no known judicial cases, or investigations, in Sri Lanka, relating to its participation in CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations."

The US had no qualms about securing the expertise of those who had been widely accused of gross human rights violations. Iran, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia worked closely with the US. The CIA project underscored the US readiness to secure the assistance of those it publicly despised for its benefits. The enhanced interrogation methods, used on al-Qaeda, had been compared with those employed by Nazi Germany. Journalist, Ben Norton, in Dec. last year, in a report titled, ‘The anti-imperialist nations of Iran, Syria and Libya, participated in CIA torture programme, pointed out that whistle-blower, John Kiriakou, had been the only person to receive punishment for the CIA torture project. Kiriakou had been the first to confirm the existence of the clandestine operation, in 2007. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison for the worst crime of all: telling the truth.

The US cannot be faulted for securing the support of all countries for the implementation of a project which it considered necessary for its security. The US killed the mastermind of the humiliating al-Qaeda raid, Osama bin Laden, carried out on May 2, 2011. Although the US proudly declared that its special forces had hunted Osama, hiding in Pakistan, on its own, some asserted that Islamabad facilitated the raid. The US, or Pakistan, will never confirm what really happened, on May 2, 2011 or the circumstances leading to the raid. Whatever the circumstances, the US raid proved that a wanted terrorist could be taken out anywhere (with or without the cooperation of the government in control of the country giving refuge to him or her).

Against the backdrop of the National Unity Government questioning the conduct of the military, during eelam war IV (Aug 2006-May 2009), it would be pertinent to examine a statement made by wartime US Ambassador in Sri Lanka, Robert O Blake, during a visit to Colombo, close on the heels of Osama killing (Blake unaware of UN raising accountability issues over Osama killing, with strap line, Denies U attempt at regime change in SL-The Island May 5, 2011)

Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Blake, told the media, at the US Embassy, in Colombo, on May 4, 2011, that al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, had been a ‘lawful target’ and the government of the United States of America stood by its actions.

However, he said as he had been travelling in Sri Lanka over the last few days, he wasn’t aware of specific allegations levelled against the US over the Osama killing. "Let me tell you, that Osama bin Laden was the leader of an armed group that was engaged in armed conflict against the government of the United States. He was, therefore, a lawful target. We certainly stand by our actions," Blake said.

Osama’s killing was an important step in America’s fight against international terrorism, he said.

The Assistant Secretary was responding to a query by the writer at the press briefing held at the USIS, whether his country’s battle against international terrorism was likely to be undermined by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, and groups, such as the International Crisis Group, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, raising accountability issues on the grounds that bin Laden was unarmed at the time he was shot.

Pillay has urged the White House to make public the "precise facts surrounding Osama’s killing’ to ensure the operation adhered to international law.

The statement was made in the wake of President Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney, acknowledging Osama hadn’t been armed at the time he was shot in his head and chest by the raiding party.

Responding to another query, Assistant Secretary Blake said that for want of a domestic mechanism to investigate issues of accountability, international mechanisms could become appropriate in case the state concerned was unable to meet its obligations (Blake was referring to Sri Lanka. Of course, he didn’t see anything wrong in Sri Lanka’s role in extraordinary rendition)

Blake served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. mission, in New Delhi, from 2003 – 2006, before moving here as Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. At the conclusion of the war, in May 2009, he received the appointment as Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs.

Assistant Secretary Blake said that he had had the opportunity to meet Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and External Affairs Minister G. L. Peiris. Blake arrived in Colombo, on Monday (May 2), within 24 hours after heli-borne elite US team stormed Osama’s hideout outside Islamabad.

Blake said that he accepted congratulations of the Government of Sri Lanka on the killing of bin Laden.

The US resorted to unprecedented security measures in accordance with its overall security plan to meet the al-Qaeda challenge. The US went all out to apprehend those wanted for terrorism. The then US President, George W. Bush, personally intervened, in 2003, to have the wanted foreign al-Qaeda suspect extradited from Sri Lanka to an unknown destination. The then UNP-led UNP administration operated on the so-called need-to-know basis. Having received a request from the US for immediate cooperation to track down one of those high on the CIA’s wanted list, the government launched a countrywide hunt, quickly leading to the arrest of the fugitive taking refuge in the Puttalam police division. The arrest had been made by a special Criminal Investigation Department (CID) squad.

The Defence Ministry confirmed the arrest of the fugitive and handing him over to the CIA in Colombo. A senior New Delhi-based US official had arrived in Colombo, immediately after the arrest was made, to take charge of the suspect.

Later, a special private flight, hired by the CIA, had landed at the Bandaranaike International Airport to move the suspect to a secret interrogation facility. Sri Lanka never bothered at least to record a statement from the suspect.

When the then government explained the difficulty in handing over a non-Sri Lankan to the CIA in violation of the international law, the US Embassy had promptly issued a travel document identifying the suspect as a US national to facilitate the transfer.

Those involved in the operation had sedated the suspect before moving him to the special aircraft under guard. Airport authorities, too, were kept in the dark as regards the prisoner transfer.

During that time, Sri Lanka and the US agreed on non-surrender of ‘criminals’ to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Israel, Pakistan, Kuwait and Afghanistan were some of the countries which reached bi-lateral agreements with the US.

Under the agreement, the US and Sri Lanka will not surrender, or extradite people, including security forces and politicians of either party, present in the territory of the other, to the ICC, without the consent of the country concerned.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa joined the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) in early 2007 to facilitate US military operations. The highpoint of US-Sri Lanka cooperation was the Sri Lanka Navy receiving intelligence to hunt down four LTTE ships in two separate confrontations in 2008. Both agreements remain in force.

No country should be criticized for adopting security measures which a particular government deemed is necessary for the protection of its citizens. Having experienced devastating ISIS attacks in Paris, France resorted to unprecedented security measures. France never realized the requirement for tangible security measures meant to face the threat of terrorism, until ISIS humiliated the French on their soil. The terror on French soil prompted the 28-country European Union to take unprecedented measures to tackle the growing domestic security threat posed by groups like the Islamic State. 

France, for the first time, activated a special law that required its European neighbours to help them by all means possible, in light of "armed aggression" within its borders. But, the EU never took the threat posed by the LTTE to the Sri Lankan state though the EU proscribed the LTTE during Mrs. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President.

Post-January revolution issues: Israeli factor

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 101

December 8, 2015, 12:00 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

July 10, 2015: President Maithripala Sirisena receiving a briefing from the famed Katunayake-based No 10 squadron comprising Israeli-built Kfirs. President Maithripala Sirisena standing near a Kfir multi purpose jet fighter. No. 10 squadron, comprising 10 aircraft, carried out about 1,400 sorties during eelam war IV. Altogether, Israeli, Ukranian and Chinese jets carried out 2,700 sorties during eelam war IV.

Cease diplomatic ties with Jewish State
- Israeli General’s son declares in Colombo

Mike Peled, formerly of the Israeli military, recently declared, in Colombo, that developing countries should boycott the Jewish state. Peled, son of General Matti Peled, urged developing countries to cease diplomatic relations with his country until the government of Israel met legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. Peled was here on the invitation of Sri Lanka-Palestine Solidarity Committee to deliver a lecture to mark the United Nations Day for International Solidarity with the Palestinian people. Addressing a gathering, at the Sports Ministry auditorium, at Race Course, on Dec 4, Peled pushed for sanctions against Israel. Among those present were Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, former Minister Imthiaz Bakeer Marker and Palestine ambassador in Colombo Zuhair Mohammed Hamdallah. Although the right of the peace activist and author of The General’s Son to propagate his opinion should never be disputed, Sri Lanka need to decide her foreign policy on the basis of her own requirements. It would be a mistake to adopt a course of action that could distance the country from those who stood by a beleaguered Sri Lanka during three decades of turmoil caused by separatist terrorism.

An SLFP delegation met Pakistan High Commissioner, in Colombo Maj Gen (R) Syed Shakeel Hussain, at the latter’s office, in Colombo, on Nov. 25. The delegation assured the Pakistan envoy of the SLFP’s strong opposition to a proposed move to establish an Israeli diplomatic mission in Colombo. The delegation stressed that it was a matter of deep regret, and disappointment, for the SLFP, against the backdrop of twice President Mahinda Rajapaksa backing for the creation of a State of Palestine. The delegation was led by former External Affairs Minister, Prof. G.L. Peiris, and included UPFA MP Udaya Gammanpila, and former Minister, A.H.M. Azwer. Praising Muslim Arab countries for backing the previous government, the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and elsewhere, the delegation expressed strong opposition to having an Israel diplomatic mission in Colombo. Of course, the delegation was making representations, on behalf of those UPFA members, still loyal to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The delegation also raised the failure, on the part of the Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, to represent the interests of the Muslims here during a recent visit undertaken by US Permanent Representative to the UN, Ms Samantha Power. The Rajapaksa loyalists’ move reflected a sharp split in the SLFP vis a vis Sri Lanka’s foreign policy with President and SLFP leader Maithripala Sirisena declaring in no uncertain terms his commitment to a robust relationship with Western powers. President Maithripala Sirisena is on record as having said that the January 8 revolution enabled the restoration of Sri Lanka’s ruptured relations with Western powers.

Now that the Rajapaksa Camp had played politics with a critical foreign policy issue it would be pertinent to examine Sri Lanka’s relationship with the Jewish state in the backdrop of rapidly growing India-Israel ties. A meeting between Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, last week, on the sidelines (during the international climate summit, near Paris), highlighted their relationship. The Israeli media quoted Netanyahu as having told Modi: "We have the best of relations, and they can be made even better. Modi responded: "I am happy that often we can talk easily on telephone, we can discuss everything." Modi is also planning to visit Tel Aviv in the wake of Indian President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit last October. It would be pertinent to mention that the Indian leader skipped meaningless Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), in Malta, which was held immediately prior to the Paris summit.

Israel also established formal diplomatic ties with China, in 1992. The two countries are now in the process of working out a free trade agreement. Decades long Israel-Japan diplomatic ties, too, are further growing with the latter asserting that Tokyo’s relationship with the Arab world shouldn’t be at the expense of the Jewish state. Unfortunately, a section of the SLFP, in spite of knowing Israeli support to Sri Lanka’s triumph over LTTE terrorism, had declared opposition to having an Israeli diplomatic mission here.

Israeli ambassador in New Delhi concurrently functions as their ambassador in Colombo. Sri Lanka re-established, in May, 2000, with the setting up of a diplomatic mission in Tel Aviv, in October.

The then President Ranasinghe Premadasa closed down the Israeli Interests Section on April 20, 1990, much to the delight of the Muslim community here. The President’s illogical move was meant to silence the then SLFP leadership, which had been clamoring for the closure of the Israeli Interest Section, since President Premadasa’s predecessor, JRJ invited the Israelis to Colombo, in accordance with a tripartite agreement involving the US, Israel and Sri Lanka. The agreement also envisaged the establishment of Voice of America (VOA) station at Iranawila, much to the apprehension of India.

Premadasa acted in the wake of claims that Israel provided training to Tamil terrorists in Israel. The President exploited the situation to accomplish a domestic political requirement.

The then US administration of Ronald Reagan was instrumental in setting up the Israeli Interest Section, here, in response to the growing threat posed by Indian - sponsored terrorist groups. Having declined to provide direct US military assistance as it didn’t want to annoy India, President Reagan instead facilitated a working relationship between Israel and Sri Lanka for the latter to receive both weapons and expertise. The setting up of the Israeli Interest Section, in Colombo, took place in the wake of several high level visits by US officials, including Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger on Oct 1, 1983. Weinberger’s visit was followed by US General Vernon Walters, President Reagan’s special envoy.

Regardless of Premadasa’s absurd move, Sri Lankan military continued to received arms, ammunition and equipment from Israel with the country making some significant acquisitions during the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure. Kumaratunga acquired Kfir multi purpose combat aircraft as well as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The SLAF’s famed Katunayake-based No 10 squadron of Kfirs served Sri Lanka 15 years with a stupendous feat during eelam war IV (Aug 2006-May 2009).

No less person than former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in an interview with the writer, in 2013, discussed how the Pakistani and Israeli instructors had conducted simultaneous training projects at Saliyapura, Anuradhapura and Maduru Oya, respectively. While the Pakistanis had trained Non Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and junior leaders, whereas the Israeli conducted live firing exercises for those who had been second-in-command of fighting battalions, as well as Captains. Among those who had undergone training, under Israelis, were Sarath Fonseka and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, at that time, with the first battalion of the Sinha Regiment (1SR). Pakistan had never made an issue out of Sri Lanka’s relationship with Israel in spite of some politicians exploiting it for personal gain.

Rajapaksa said: "Unstinted support from Pakistan as well as Israel to train the fighting forces should be examined against that background. In fact, the Pakistani and Israeli training projects were responsible for the success of Operation Liberation conducted in May-June 1987. Foreign expertise gave us confidence at a crucial time during the conflict. Had the SLA failed to obtain foreign training, we would have experienced a major crisis."

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa acknowledged that the SLA could never have successfully faced the threat of terrorism on its own. It would be pertinent to mention that Sri Lanka was the first country in the region targeted by a group of terrorists, sponsored by neighbouring regional power, India."

Pakistan threw its full weight behind successive governments until the LTTE was brought to its knees, on the banks of the Nanthikadal Lagoon, in May, 2009.

Sri Lanka earned the wrath of New Delhi for securing Israeli support during 80s though the situation changed in the wake of India and Israel establishing full diplomatic ties, in 1992. India has emerged the largest importer of Israeli armaments with the relationship between the two countries reaching an extraordinary status. The recent test firing of jointly developed next generation Barak long-range surface-air-missile system, from an Israeli warship, underscored the strategic relationship between Israel and India. In spite of having the third largest Muslim population, India is pursuing an extremely friendly policy towards Israel whereas some political groups here engage in silly games at the expense of national interest.

Sri Lanka could never have achieved victory over the LTTE without Israeli armaments. In addition to Kfirs and UAVs, acquired in 1996, the Jewish State provided Fast Attack Craft (FACs), a pair of Fast Missile Vessels (FMVs) anti-missile systems mounted on helicopter gunships as well as a range of other items. The writer had the opportunity to meet New Delhi-based Israeli ambassadors, concurrently functioning as Tel Aviv’s representatives for Colombo, during their periodic visits here to meet government representatives. Unfortunately, the SLFP had conveniently forgotten the Israeli support to pursue political agenda which in the long run would be inimical to the country as well as the SLFP.

Sri Lanka should take a cue from India and China seeking stronger ties with Israel though the latter often disagree with Israel at the UNHRC. Russia, too, maintains full diplomatic ties with Israel.

Kumaratunga’s government sought full diplomatic ties with Israel in the immediate aftermath of the crushing defeat suffered by the Army at Elephant Pass, in April, 2000. Jolted by the stunning battle-field defeat, undoubtedly the worst single debacle during the war, the PA administration appealed for a Israeli diplomatic mission. Much to Sri Lanka’s relief, Israel responded positively. Full diplomatic relations were established the following month. Interestingly, Shiv Shanker Menon, who had been India’s first ambassador to Israel, following the setting up of diplomatic ties, in 1992, was New Delhi’s High Commissioner here, in 2000. Kumaratunga sought Israeli ties in the wake of India declining to intervene in Jaffna to save nearly 40,000 security forces and police personnel. If not for the timely deployment of multi-barrel rocket launchers from Pakistan and Czechoslovakia in support of the besieged Army in the Jaffna peninsula, the LTTE would have finished off them.

The then Army top brass made a pathetic effort to call the loss of strategic Elephant Pass base as a tactical withdrawal. Had it being the case, the Kumaratunga administration wouldn’t have sought diplomatic ties with Israel in such haste. Having evicted the Army from Kilinochchi and Paranthan, the LTTE routed the 54 Division headquartered at Elephant Pass. The 54 Division commanded by Maj. Gen.K.B. Egodawela became the first and the only fighting Division to suffer the ignominy of defeat during the war.

The war took a turn for the worse with the Elephant Pass defeat. By then the LTTE had regained the entire area in the Vanni lost to the Army, since May, 1997, and was threatening to overwhelm the Jaffna peninsula. Resumption of diplomatic ties had been a key initiative of the PA in the wake of the LTTE threat.

Over six years, after the conclusion of the war, Israeli aircraft, ships and FACs remain in service. If the Opposition is really concerned about post-war stability, it shouldn’t hurt the feelings of those countries which backed Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE. Sri Lanka needs continuous Israeli cooperation unless the government intends to do away with Israeli arms, ammunition and equipment. Those playing politics with Israeli issue, here, should not forget that even Muslim states, including Egypt and Algeria, had obtained Israeli equipment.

The Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government should go ahead with its plans, regardless the Rajapaksa camp’s opposition. In fact, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa visited Israel during the second week of January last year. He was accompanied by the then first lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa. They were in the Jewish state for their visit to three Middle East countries. Rajapaksa was the first Sri Lankan head of state to visit Israel since its inception. Among the government delegation was the then External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris.

The Sri Lankan delegation included, Monitoring MP of the Ministry of External Affairs Sajin de Vass Gunawardena, Parliamentarian Roshan Ranasinghe, Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunga and Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Israel, Sarath Wijesinghe.

The Israeli side consisted of Premier Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli National Security Advisor Yossi Cohen, Chief of National Information Directorate Liran Dan, Israel’s Non-Resident Ambassador to Sri Lanka in New Delhi Alon Ushpiz and Ambassador of Israel to the United States Ron Dermer. The presence of Dermer was significant against the backdrop of US going all out for a regime change in Sri Lanka. Rajapaksa visit to Israel took place two months before the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a US resolution meant to conduct an external investigation into accountability issues during the war. Israel could have intervened on behalf of Sri Lanka. When the writer inquired at that time from a member of the delegation the outcome of Rajapaksa’s visit as well as the inclusion of Israel ambassador to the US in the delegation, he asserted that it shouldn’t be discussed. The writer was told media discourse could be inimical to Sri Lanka’s interest. At the conclusion of the talks, they said that in the area of agriculture, Israel agreed to provide technological assistance, including support to expand the scope of utilizing the drip irrigation system in Sri Lanka. (Israel is known for the drip irrigation technology that it invented for the agricultural sector to cope with the water crisis in the region) Another water-related technology that was discussed was desalination, a process through which potable water is produced from sea water.

Information technology and employment were other areas identified for strengthening cooperation between the two countries. At that there had been approximately 7,000 Sri Lankans working in Israel as caregivers. The two leaders agreed to work towards increasing employment in this sector as well as seasonal employment in agriculture. Israel pointed out that Israeli farmers were quite satisfied with quality of Sri Lankan employees working in the country.

Before the conclusion of the meeting, President Rajapaksa also thanked Israel for the tsunami assistance it provided.

Israel made financial donations and provided relief goods, food and clothing, field kitchens and a mobile medicine clinic for the Sri Lankan tsunami survivors.

The bottom line is that the Israeli assistance in the wake of tsunami didn’t amount to much. But, the war couldn’t have been brought to a successful conclusion without Israeli armaments and expertise. In fact, the LTTE could have succeeded in dividing the country on ethnic lines years if the US stopped Israeli support.