A NATO role in failed Norwegian peace bid and costly propaganda projects

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 116

March 22, 2016, 4:58 pm 

Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) and School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, launched Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka, 1997-2009 in Nov. 2011. The team comprised Gunnar Sorbo, Prof. Jonathan Goodhand, Bart Klem, Ada Elisabeth Nissen, Hilde Selbervik. The Norad-funded report asserted that India strongly backed Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE though New Delhi worked closely with Norway and Peace Co-Chairs namely US, EU, Japan and Norway. The report also highlighted crucial US and Indian intelligence making a significant contribution to the war effort, as well as China and India throwing their weight behind Sri Lanka, simultaneously. The report revealed wrong assessments made by Norway in respect of crucial matters, such as the capabilities of the Sri Lankan military. Unfortunately, the previous government didn’t even bother to peruse the best foreign evaluation of the 2001-2009 period.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Successive Norwegian governments spent lavishly in support of their peace efforts in various countries, including Sri Lanka.

The Norwegians believed decision making process, as well as the public opinion in any conflict-affected country, could be influenced through well-funded propaganda projects.

Sri Lanka experienced a series of such projects during the conflict, particularly in the wake of the Feb. 2002 Ceasefire Agreement (CFA).

The failure of costly propaganda projects, also, immensely contributed to the collapse of the Norwegian project in Sri Lanka. An ambitious Norwegian peace initiative suffered an irreparable setback due to their inaccurate assessment of the ground situation. Norway operated on the premise that the Sri Lankan government lacked the wherewithal to defeat the LTTE militarily (Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) page 63.

Those who had been receiving Norwegian funding, in addition large sums of money made available by various other countries, and international NGOs, turned a blind eye to what was happening on the ground. They painted a rosy picture in spite of the LTTE causing mayhem.

The then UNP-led United National Front (UNF) suppressed the media in a bid to prevent the reportage of the actual ground situation. The government directed Army Headquarters not to issue daily situation reports. Subsequently, the government explored the possibility of issuing situation reports through the Norway-funded Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP). The project was meant to cover up LTTE activities inimical to the peace initiative (Incidents continue in east but no situation report-The Island of April 5, 2002). The LTTE prohibited the distribution of Thinamurasu, a newspaper published by the rival Eelam People’s Democratic Party as it flexed its muscles (LTTE bans EPDP’s Thinamurasu-The Island of April 5, 2002). The Norwegians failed to take tangible measures to discourage the LTTE from causing trouble. Then, much to the dismay of the military the government also closed down Wanni Sevaya, a special Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) managed radio station situated in Vavuniya that catered to the military (Wanni Sevaya closed down-The Island of April 7, 2002). The government ignored requests made by the military to restore the special SLBC service (Military wants Wanni Sevaya restored-The Island of April 19, 2002).

On the one hand Norwegian-funded NGOs engaged in a propaganda blitz in support of the CFA and on the other hand the government suppressed reportage of incidents which it considered could undermined the peace process.

The degree of Norwegian funding came to light over two years after the conclusion of the conflict, in May 2009. Unfortunately, successive governments, including President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s war-winning administration, lacked the foresight to closely examine foreign-funded projects.

Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) discussed the contentious issue of Oslo funding in support of various peace initiatives. Norway released its evaluation in September 2011. It would be pertinent to study the funding factor in the wake of the recent launch of Mark Salter’s To end a civil war: Norway’s peace engagement in Sri Lanka in Colombo. Salter’s response (http://www.island.lk/index.php? page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=142225) to The Island report ‘Failed Norwegian peace bid in SL: Different perspectives, glaring omissions’ (http://www.island.lk/index.php? page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=141647) in March 9 edition on the book launch at the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICEC) was carried in the March 19 edition of The Island.

When Norway called for tenders from prospective persons/organizations to examine her wartime role in Sri Lanka, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry revealed that of about NOK 2.5 bn development aid made available during the 1997-2009 period, NOK 100mn had been allocated for projects in support of the peace process. The recipients of Norwegian funding included the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), comprising five Nordic countries, as well as Peace Secretariats of the government, as well as the LTTE.

Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) dealt with the issue of funding in a chapter titled Norwegian Peace Diplomacy. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim: "The policy of engagement includes development policy, humanitarian aid, peace and reconciliation efforts and international work to promote human rights and democracy. This is significant, not only because of the steady increasing share of Norwegian aid, provided in politically challenging contexts, but also because humanitarian and other aid funds have been used in a targeted and flexible fashion, often quite lavishly, to support peace diplomacy."

Having squandered Norwegian taxpayers’ money here, Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) acknowledged the futility of the exercise. "During the peace process aid was simultaneously used by donors as a vehicle to promote peace and economic liberalization, in the belief that the two were mutually reinforcing. However, in practice, the pursuit of such policies in tandem proved inimical to peace. Aid had very limited leverage and it proved impossible to short circuit complex political processes through the provision of economic incentives,"(page 137)

The authors of Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) discussed pro-peace projects undertaken by various members of the civil society on behalf of Norway and several other countries (page 89). The National Peace Council (NPC), the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES) and the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) had been key players in the Oslo-led projects. The report credited Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, UK, Switzerland and the US for setting up what the report called dedicated programmes and activities to shore up the Norwegian effort. The Berghof Foundation and the Foundation for Co-Existence played pivotal roles in the overall campaign. They had been tasked with having dialogue with relevant parties, peace advocacy as well as conflict early warning systems. The report revealed the role played by one-time darling of the Norwegians, Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe, in a failed attempt to secure the support of the Sinhalese. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim: "The funding for the Foundation for Co-Existence and the National Anti-War Front, both led by Kumar Rupesinghe, constituted a deliberate attempt by Norway to support an individual and wider organization that could engage with Sinhala politics and society." The report also dealt with projects undertaken by One-Text initiative, the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies (CHA), Facilitating Local Initiatives for Conflict Transformation (FLICT), UNDP and USAID. However, such projects had failed to achieve desired results in spite of foreign donors lavishly spending millions of USD here.

The Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) identified Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe as the largest recipient of Norwegian finding during 2001-2004 period (page 113). Colombo-based NGO community had received a staggering NOK 210 mn (approximately USD 28mn) during this period. However, the report named Kumar Rupesinghe as the largest recipient of Norwegian funding during the 2004-2008 period to the tune of NOK 35 mn (USD 6 mn).

Rupesinghe earned the wrath of Norway for switching his allegiance to the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the onset of eelam war IV after having received Norwegian funds. Although, the report identified all major NGOs benefited by Norwegian grants, the report conveniently refrained from naming individuals. Among those named recipients are Milinda Moragoda Institute, Sarvodaya, Sewalanka, the Sareeram Sri Lanka National Foundation, Hambantota District Chamber of Commerce CPA, the Forum of Federations and the People’s Peace Front. Milinda Moragoda Institute received Norwegian funding for de-mining operations to facilitate resettlement of the displaced. Moragoda’s initiative brought relief to war-weary communities. Norway should be commended for funding mine clearing operations carried out by Indian firms, Horizon and Sarvatra.

Norway also provided funds to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) affiliated to the LTTE. The TRO funding was in addition to funds received by the LTTE Peace Secretariat. The Norwegian peace team obviously believed that the LTTE’s support could be secured by providing large cash grants. Norway had no way of examining how various recipients spent monies received. Other donors, too, experienced the same problem.

Over six years, after the conclusion of the war, Sri Lanka is still unaware of the total amount of funds received by various NGOs during the war. Parliament was recently informed of the unavailability of records pertaining to funds received by various NGOs. Minister of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official Languages, Mano Ganesan, recently revealed that the National Secretariat for NGOs hadn’t received the required information for 2000-2010 period.

The Minister was responding to a query raised by UPFA Matara District MP Dallas Alahapperuma.

The former Minister sought details as regards funds received by NGOs since 2000.

Minister Ganeshan said: "Records pertaining to funds received by NGOs since 2000 haven’t been submitted. Only the records from the year 2011 to 2013 are available."

The NGOs received Rs. 13.9 bn (Rs 13,926,619,942) in 2011, Rs. 11. 4 bn (Rs.11,488,308,761) in 2012 and Rs. 10.8 bn (Rs.10,840,293,929) in 2013.

The Minister said that there were 1,065 NGOs and 381 International Non Governmental Organizations (INGOs) registered in the Sri Lanka as of Jan. 1, 2015.

The role played by Norway in installing a FM radio station, in LTTE-held Kilinochchi, in late 2002, or early 2003, highlighted Oslo bending backwards to appease LTTE terrorists. Bradman Weerakoon revealed in an article titled Initiating and Sustaining the Peace Process: Origins and Challenges Norwegians with the knowledge of the then government using diplomatic privilege to import radio equipment, including FM transmitter, back-up transmitter and FM antenna, on behalf of the LTTE. Having imported the equipment, the Norwegians had handed them over to the SCOPP for onward transfer to the LTTE. Subsequent to the transfer of equipment, the SCOPP became liable to the payment of duty to the tune of Rs 3 mn. The SCOPP utilized funds made available by Norway to pay the duty. Weerakoon placed the annual Norwegian grant received by SCOPP at Rs 12 mn. Interestingly, Weerakoon’s essay was included in Negotiating Peace in Sri Lanka: Efforts, Failures and Lessons (Volume II) edited by Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe. Dr. Rupesinghe’s effort had been funded by the Norwegian government, Foreign Ministry and the Berghof Foundation. The NGO guru launched the book in February 2006 amidst rapidly deteriorating situation. At the height of eelam war, Oslo suspended financial support to Dr Kumar Rupesinghe over serious differences with him. An irate Rupesinghe made an abortive bid to move the District Court of Colombo against Norway with the support of the then President Rajapaksa though he lacked the External Affairs Ministry support.

Plaintiff Dr. Rupesinghe accused Norway of violating a tripartite agreement involving his Foundation for Co-Existence, Norway and the UK. Rupesinghe alleged Norway owed him funds to the of millions of rupees.

The then Norwegian Ambassador Tore Hattrem had signed the agreement on behalf of Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tom Owen–Edmunds, Head of Political and Development Section of the British High Commission, on behalf of British High Commission in Colombo and Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe, on behalf of the Foundation for Co-Existence.

Under the agreement, the Foundation for Co-Existence was to implement projects in support of the peace process with funds received from Norway and the UK. The agreement was finalized at the height of the war on the Vanni front. There hasn’t been any previous case similar to the legal dispute involving a local NGO and its foreign partners.

Interestingly, Norway was to fund the project to the tune of 75 percent with the remaining funding from the UK.

Having made some payments, in accordance with the agreement, Norway suspended further payments, in early, May 2009, just weeks ahead of the conclusion of the conflict. However, the UK met its full commitment in keeping with the agreement.

Although various interested parties portrayed Norway as a lightweight facilitator spearheading the peace process in Sri Lanka, it had the backing of the world’s solitary superpower, the US, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009) confirmed the US readiness to deploy landing vessels to evacuate LTTE cadres, trapped on the Vanni east front, to Trincomalee. The US naval deployment was in support of the Norwegian effort to work out a four-point plan to arrange an organized LTTE surrender. (page 66). The report also revealed Norwegian envoy Hanssen-Bauer urging EU to apply pressure on Sri Lanka in October, 2008 against the backdrop of some EU member states calling for suspension of preferential trade agreement with Sri Lanka (GSP plus) (page 66). Tremendous pressure was brought on Sri Lanka as the army surrounded Kilinochchi. However, Western powers couldn’t derail the offensive until the LTTE was brought to heel in May 2009. Finally, the EU withdrew suspended GSP plus in February 2010. The lightweight facilitator obviously had the wherewithal to take punitive action. Furious Western powers, during 2009, made an abortive attempt to block the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from rescuing the Rajapaksa administration with USD 2.6 stand-by-arrangement. Western powers sought to plunge Sri Lanka to financial turmoil in the post-war period.

The much touted assertion that NATO member Norway is a lightweight facilitator does not hold water.

Recently, an expert on Norwegian initiative here sought an explanation when the writer referred to the Norwegians involving NATO in their project here. Obviously, the expert hadn’t perused Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009). According to the report, as the five-nation Nordic Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) had received intelligence from NATO, it didn’t require intelligence provided by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) (page 100). It would be pertinent to examine the level of NATO support to the Norwegian-led mission. Obviously both the Sri Lankan military as well as the LTTE had been under NATO scrutiny. The report quoted the Head of the SLMM as having said that the mission could never fully trust Indian intelligence as they reached the Nordic mission only through informal channels. The HOM said: "They were not giving it to us to be nice. We would always ask ourselves: why do they want us to know this? Intelligence provided by NATO only confirmed what they already knew."

NATO intelligence would have had a significant impact on the decision making process. Norway’s participation in the US led bombing of Libya, several years ago, highlighted her military capability amidst peace efforts in various parts of the world.

Fonseka zero in on ‘white flag’ killings, clears Army of war crimes up to second week of May, 2009

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 115

March 15, 2016, 6:47 pm 

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Parliament was told last Thursday that the proposed war crimes investigation should focus on fighting on the Vanni east front during the third week of May, 2009.

The declaration was made by no less a person than Field Marshal Fonseka, leader of the Democratic Party (DP). Sri Lanka’s most successful Army Chief was delivering his inaugural speech in parliament after having been accommodated on the UNP National List last month.

The tough talking strategist also called for foreign participation in the proposed judicial inquiry. The Field Marshal declared his readiness to face the forthcoming investigation.

Having strongly denied accusations against his army in respect of operations conducted in the Eastern and Northern theaters of war (August 2006-May second week 2009), Field Marshal Fonseka alleged that the ongoing controversy surrounds certain incidents, including ‘white flag’ killings which allegedly took place while he was overseas during the third week of May 2009. The Sinha Regiment veteran called for a fresh investigation into the ‘white flag’ killings, a reference to alleged execution of surrendering LTTE cadres as well as their families by troops of the celebrated 58 Division.

Field Marshal Fonseka castigated the Rajapaksas for causing mayhem during his absence. In addition to accusations in respect of alleged atrocities committed during the third week of May, 2009, the war hero accused Basil Rajapaksa of facilitating Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory at the Nov. 2005 presidential polls by influencing an LTTE instigated polls boycott. The war hero alleged that Basil Rajapaksa had paid $ 2 mn to the LTTE to secure its support. The LTTE deprived UNP candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe of an anticipated northern Tamil block vote, thereby paving the way for Rajapaksa’s victory. Former Minister Basil Rajapaksa told The Island that there was absolutely no basis for Field Marshal Fonseka’s allegation that he transferred $ 2 mn to the LTTE in the run-up to the presidential polls.

However, none of those who had accused Mahinda Rajapaksa of winning the presidential poll, with LTTE’s help, dared to explain why Prabhakaran resumed landmine attacks, less than two weeks after Rajapaksa took oaths. They had been also silent on the role played by the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) in the alleged conspiracy to ensure Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory at the expense of Ranil Wickremesinghe. A case in point is former BBC correspondent Mark Salter’s "To end a civil war: Norway’s peace engagement in Sri Lanka", recently launched in Colombo. Salter never bothered to verify the TNA’s role in sordid operations of the LTTE though he interviewed scores of people in various parts of the world. A shocking omission, indeed.

The LTTE made an abortive bid to assassinate Fonseka, on the afternoon of April 25, 2006, at army headquarters. An attempt on the life of the then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was made on the morning of Dec 1, 2006.

The combined security forces offensive, launched in September, 2006, continued until the war was brought to a successful conclusion on the morning of May 19, 2009. Now that Field Marshal Fonseka, in his former capacity as the Commander of the Army, had taken responsibility for all ground operations, except the events during the last week of the offensive, the focus of the proposed investigation should be on that period. Field Marshal Fonseka cleared the army of human rights violations during the nearly three-year campaign, except the final week. Interestingly, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, had been away in Jordan during the last week of the offensive though he returned on May 17, 2007, two days before the Army finished off the LTTE, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon. The then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena had functioned as the Acting Defence Minister during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brief absence.

Field Marshal Fonseka also called for thorough investigations into several assassinations, including that of The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga on January 8, 2009.

Field Marshal Fonseka’s assertion that battlefield atrocities could have taken place, only during his absence, should be examined against the backdrop of accusation as regards systematic annihilation of the Tamil community in the Vanni during the eelam war IV. Field Marshal Fonseka had dealt a devastating blow to ongoing efforts to portray Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE as a campaign against the Tamil community.

Field Marshal Fonseka’s onslaught certainly undermined those hell-bent on hauling Sri Lanka’s previous political and military leadership before a hybrid war crimes investigation mechanism over charges of systematic crimes against Tamil speaking people over a period of three years. The Maxwell Paranagama Commission, too, strongly recommended international technical expertise as well as observers in case the government of Sri Lanka decided against having foreign judges. The Paranagama Commission, appointed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, received the blessings of President Maithripala Sirisena. The writer, too, is of the firm belief that international participation in the proposed process should be acceptable to the leaders of the previous administration. It would be pertinent to keep in mind that the report on the Second Mandate of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry Into Complaints of Abductions and Disappearances received the backing of an international expert team, led by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC. Therefore, no one should find fault with Field Marshal Fonseka for throwing his weight behind the move.

Those who cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism will definitely find the former Chief of Defence Staff’s stand an obstacle to their efforts on the human rights front. Although, no final decision has been reached on the proposed judicial mechanism, Field Marshal Fonseka will be among those certainly to be summoned before the court. The Sinha Regiment veteran will defend the army during the entire eelam war, except the third week of May, 2009.

Field Marshal Fonseka contradicted the REPORT OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL’S PANEL OF EXPERTS (POE) ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN SRI LANKA in respect of all three allegations, namely indiscriminate use of artillery fire directed at civilians, artillery assaults on hospitals and other humanitarian locations and, finally, denial of humanitarian assistance to the Vanni population.

The POE estimated the number of civilian deaths caused by the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka’s Army at over 40,000. The report, dated March 31, 2011, accused the Army of indiscriminate, as well as, deliberate targeting of civilians on the Vanni east front and then subjecting them to untold hardships following the end of the offensive. Let me reproduce the relevant section from the report verbatim: "In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths (POE Report 137 paragraph)

Having accused the Army of massacring over 40,000 civilians on the basis of information provided by 2,300 persons (POE Report 17 paragraph), the three-member inquiry team declared that accusations cannot be verified for a period of 20 years (until March 31, 2031) and even then a declassification review is required.

Six months later the release of the POE report, the Amnesty International in a special report titled ‘WHEN WILL THEY GET JUSTICE? FAILURES OF SRI LANKA’S LEARNT AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION’ estimated the number of civilians killed, due to military action, at 10,000. London headquartered Amnesty International based its much touted report on eyewitnesses, as well as, local and international aid workers.

The previous government never bothered to examine the vast discrepancy in figures quoted by the POE and Amnesty International in respect of civilian deaths though The Island repeatedly highlighted the matter. The External Affairs Ministry struggled in the wake of the international onslaught. Both POE and Amnesty International conveniently refrained from asserting the period the killings took place. They propagated that killings took place during the final phase of the offensive.

There cannot be a better person than Field Marshal Fonseka to respond to the POE as well as Amnesty International. In fact, international participation in the proposed judicial process should pave the way for members of the POE comprising, Marduk Darusman (Chairman), Stevan R. Ratner and Yasmin Sooka, and the author of Amnesty International, to be cross examined as regards allegations made by them.

Field Marshal Fonseka will find a still classified UN document mentioned in the POE report extremely useful in his defence of the Army though he’ll not intervene on behalf of those who had been allegedly involved in atrocities, if any, during the third week of May, 2009. The UN report, which dealt with the period from August 2008 to May 13, 2009, placed the number of deaths in the Vanni at 7,721. The UN didn’t differentiate between civilians and those perished while fighting for the LTTE. The report placed the number of wounded at 18,479. The project carried out on the instructions from the UN in New York, is widely believed to be the most accurate, due it being prepared with information obtained from local and foreign NGOs, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), clergy as well as health authorities, based in the Vanni, during the war. Perhaps, the Yahapalana government should request the UN to release the report without further delay. In fact, the UN report prepared, without the previous government’s knowledge, proves that the Army never engaged in mass scale slaughter as alleged by various interested parties. The UN report dealt with the situation, in both the Vanni west and east, for a period of ten months, whereas the POE and Amnesty International placed the number of civilian deaths at over 40,000 and 10,000, respectively. The two organizations didn’t estimate the number of deaths among LTTE cadres. Interestingly, none of those who propagate the number of civilian deaths during eelam war IV are silent on losses suffered by the LTTE. But of the 7,721 deaths estimated by the UN at least over a half are believed to be members of the LTTE. The Army lost over 5,000 officers and men during operations on the Vanni front (March 2007-May 19, 2009).

Now that Field Marshal Fonseka has, in no uncertain terms, denied systematic battle-field atrocities committed by his troops up to second week of May 2009, he cannot ignore unsubstantiated accusation made by British Labour Party MP Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) during a debate on ‘Human Rights in the Indian Sub-continent’ in the House of Commons, on Sept. 2011.

Alleging that Sri Lanka’s civil war had been one of the regions most dreadful conflicts of recent times, MP McDonagh alleged that in its last five months alone (January 1-May 19, 2009) 100,000 people were killed, 40,000 of them civilians. The MP reiterated that war crimes took place.

Members representing the two largest parties at Westminster – Labour and the Conservatives – called for justice for all people in Sri Lanka and the establishment of an independent, credible and thorough investigation into the allegations of war crimes committed by the Government and the LTTE during the final phase of the fighting.

The previous government didn’t even take up the issue with the British. When The Island inquired from the British High Commission in Colombo regarding the claim, the writer was asked to contact MP McDonagh. She didn’t respond to the writer’s emails. An attempt to reach her through the UK headquartered Global Tamil Forum (GTF), too, failed.

The British is the only one so far to specify the final phase of the Sri Lankan offensive as the period between January 1-May 19, 2009.

The British should be requested to provide evidence before the proposed war crimes inquiry. Field Marshal Fonseka’s declaration, in parliament, strongly countered the findings of a high profile inquiry conducted by Ms Sandra Beidas. The Beidas report presented to Geneva, last September, alleged that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law and international crimes were committed by all parties during the period under investigation. Indeed, if established before a court of law, many of these allegations would amount, depending on the circumstances, to war crimes and/or crimes against humanity".

There couldn’t be any ambiguity as regards the killing of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran on the morning of May 19, 2009 by then the then Army Chief Lt. Gen. Fonseka was back in the country following less than a week long visit to Beijing. During last Thursday’s speech, in Parliament, Field Marshal Fonseka ridiculed the then President Rajapaksa for declaring victory over the LTTE on May 19 soon after returning from Jordan. Fonseka resumed operational command immediately after returning from Beijing.

Field Marshal Fonseka has thrown his weight behind the call to thoroughly investigate the ‘white flag’ killings, as fighting on the Vanni east front drew to a close. The POE, as well as the Maxwell Paranagama Commission, and many other organizations, commented on white flag killings, therefore Sri Lanka cannot side-step the issue. However, a statement made by a US embassy staffer in June 2011, regarding ‘white flag’ killings, should also be inquired into. US Defence Attache in Colombo, Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith, is on record as having denied surrender of LTTE personnel and their families as alleged in the ‘white flags’ killings case. The State Department responded to the writer’s exclusive report that dealt with the US embassy staffer’s statement on the front-page of The Island. Instead of denying he report, the State Department asserted that the officer was not speaking on behalf of the US. The Defence Attache was at the inaugural defence seminar organized by the Army in Colombo. Lt. Colonel Smith was responding to questions retired IPKF officer Maj. General Ashok Mehtha posed to Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva whose troops were accused of ‘white flag’ killings.

Lt. Colonel Smith: "Hello, may I say something to a couple of questions raised. I’ve been the defence attache here at the US Embassy, since June, 2008. Regarding the various versions of events that came out in the final hours and days of the conflict – from what I was privileged to hear and to see, the offers to surrender that I am aware of, seemed to come from the mouthpieces of the LTTE – Nadesan, KP – people who weren’t and never had really demonstrated any control over the leadership or the combat power of the LTTE. So their offers were a bit suspect anyway, and they tended to vary in content hour by hour, day by day. I think we need to examine the credibility of those offers before we leap to conclusions that such offers were in fact real.

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

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

Lt. Colonel Smith can shed light on the actual situation. The proposed judicial inquiry can call for his evidence. As the US Defence Attache, the former officer must have had access to entire gamut of intelligence obtained from various sources. Most importantly, he was making the statement over two years after the conclusion of the war.

Failed Norwegian peace bid in SL: Different perspectives, glaring omissions

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 114

March 8, 2016, 7:03 pm 

(L-R) Dr. Jehan Perera, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu and Mark Salter (pic by Jude Denzil Pathiraja)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Former BBC journalist and analyst, Mark Salter, recently declared in Colombo that a meeting of Co-Chairs of Sri Lankan donors - the US, EU, Japan and Norway - in Washington, on April 14, 2003 led to the collapse of the Norway-led peace initiative.

Salter categorized the Washington confab as the primary reason for the failure of the peace process. He was addressing a gathering at the International Center for Ethnic Studies (ICES) at Kynsey Terrace, Colombo, at the launch of To End a Civil War: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka.

According to Salter, the Washington meet deprived the LTTE of equal treatment, hence it undermined the entire peace process. The LTTE was left out of the Washington meet due to it being on the US list of proscribed organizations.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), the National Peace Council (NPC) and the ICES backed Slater’s project.

Salter described the rejection of the LTTE’s ISGA (International Self-Governing Authority) proposal as well as failure to implement P-TOMS (Post Tsunami Operational Management Structure) as lost opportunities. The writer emphasized that the LTTE unveiled the ISGA proposal on Nov 1, 2003 in response to a longstanding government request. The then government and the LTTE reached an agreement on P-TOMS, on June 24, 2005. However, the JVP successfully moved the Supreme Court against P-TOMS. The Supreme Court issued its ruling on July 15, 2005.

Salter asserted that Sri Lanka failed to realize the importance of the LTTE agreeing to work with the government of Sri Lanka in accordance with P-TOMS.

Salter recalled the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s assassination, close on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling on P-TOMS. The 73-year-old National List MP was sniped at his residence, at No 36, Bullers Lane.

Executive Director of the NPC, Dr. Jehan Perera, who had been a panelist at Salter’s book launch in a statement issued immediately after the Kadirgamar’s assassination on behalf primarily Norway funded NGO declared the killing was tragic but inevitable.

Interestingly, LTTE ideologue, Anton Balasingham, too, blamed the exclusion of the group from the Washington meet as the main reason for its decision to quit the negotiating table, on April 21, 2003. In a hard hitting letter, dated April 21, 2003, addressed to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Balasingham explained their decision. Balasingham, a former employee of the British High Commission, and a British national, also pointed out the failure on the part of the government to fully implement the CFA.

Recollecting the circumstances under which the UNP sabotaged President Kumaratunga’s proposal for a new constituent assembly, in August 2000, Salter asserted that the Norwegian initiative suffered due to the absence of bi-partisan political support.

Obviously, Salter didn’t find fault with the LTTE for the collapse of the Norwegian effort. The writer is on record as having said that he undertook to examine the Norwegian role, in Sri Lanka, on the request of Norwegian Vidar Helgesen, a key player in Oslo’s Sri Lanka team. The request that had been made in 2012 was backed by Erik Solheim, who spearheaded the effort. Helgesen had been the Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during the Norwegian initiative in Sri Lanka. Consequent to the collapse of the much publicized Oslo project, Helgesen received the appointment as Secretary-General of International IDEA, a Stockholm-based inter-governmental organization. Salter, too, had been there at that time as a Senior Programme Officer responsible for a reconciliation programme. Salter’s responsibilities included Sri Lanka. Although, Salter had quit the Institute, in 2010, to go freelance, Helgesen remained there until his return to government following the Conservative-led coalition’s victory in the 2014 elections.

It would be pertinent to mention that Salter’s services had been sought in the wake of Norway launching Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009). Most probably, some of those who had been engaged in the high profile Sri Lanka project weren’t satisfied with the official version, launched in September, 2011. Chr. Michelsen Institute and School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, jointly put out the report. The team responsible for the official version comprised Gunnar Sørbø, Jonathan Goodhand, Bart Klem, Ada Elisabeth Nissen and Hilde Selbervik.

There is absolutely no basis for Salter’s assertion that the Norwegian arranged CFA had been very much similar to the text of the agreement between President Kumaratunga and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, finalized on January 5, 1995. The government and the LTTE exchanged what was called the formal declaration of cession of hostilities through the LTTE on January 6, 1995. The 1995 agreement had been a mere declaration of cessation of hostlities to be supervised jointly by special five member committees, comprising government and LTTE representatives (two each) under the leadership of foreigners. The CFA of February 2002 recognized a specific area in the temporarily-merged Northern and Eastern regions under LTTE control while paving the way for the group to operate in areas under military control in the guise of being engaged in political work. The CFA also compelled the government to disarm Tamil groups opposed to the LTTE. The move helped the LTTE to further consolidate its power.

The CBK-Prabhakaran agreement and the CFA should be examined against the backdrop of the ground situation during January, 1995, and February 2002. The LTTE held the Jaffna peninsula though the military maintained isolated bases at Elephant Pass and Palaly-Kankesanthurai sector. The LTTE felt that an agreement on cessation of hostilities would facilitate its efforts to dislodge the military from Pooneryn to pave the way for easy access to and from the Jaffna peninsula through the Jaffna lagoon. In other words, the LTTE strategy had been especially meant to overcome a crippling military - imposed embargo on the Jaffna peninsula. By the time Norway finalized the CFA, in February 2002, the LTTE had been driven out of Jaffna and was entrenched in the Vanni region with substantial presence in the Eastern Province.

Dr. Perera essentially praised the Norwegian effort. Perera, formerly of Sarvodaya, didn’t offer anything contrary to what Salter said.

However, panelist Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka disagreed with Salter in respect of the three main contributory factors for the collapse of the Norwegian initiative, leading to the eelam war IV, in August 2006.

Having said that Salter’s book indispensable, Sri Lanka’s former Permanent Representative in Geneva discussed failures and shortcomings that caused irreparable damage to the Oslo project. Dr. Jayatilleka stressed that the author shed light not only on the past but present and possible future as well. Declaring that he didn’t repeat the opinion of those who lauded the Norwegian bid or condemned them, the veteran analyst said that his was nothing but a critique not neo-liberal or neo-conservative. Dr. Jayatilleke expressed the opinion that the Norwegian failure here could have been avoided had they been cautious in their approach. The outspoken former ambassador warned the Norwegians unless they recognized failures here similar strategies could be repeated in other parts of the world and even here, in post-war situation, much to the disappointment of those who genuinely value reconciliation.

Dr. Jayatilleke asserted that Norway’s failure to seek Indian expertise as the primary reason for their failure to sustain the peace initiative. Describing the Norwegian project as conceptually ill founded, Dr. Jayatilleka asserted that had the Norwegians adopted an efficient strategy, in consultation with New Delhi, the situation today would have been different even if war erupted. Norway could have avoided dismal failure had they examined India’s efforts to settle Sri Lanka’s national issue.

Dr. Jayatilleke explained India’s efforts with the focus on New Delhi bending backwards to appease the LTTE. "Tigers were treated very well by the Indians. Those who lived through that, such as myself, remember the first interim administration in which Velupillai Prabhakaran’s LTTE was given seven out of the 12 seats, including the chairmanship. And they walked out of the deal."

India’s decision to airlift Prabhakaran, in 1986, for talks in Bangalore underscored the absurdity of the situation.

Asserting that the Norwegian strategy, or model, meant to bring talks between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE had been a total failure, Dr. Jayatilleka blamed Norway for not consulting Hardeep Singh Puri who had been attached to the Indian High Commission, in Colombo, in early 80s. Dr. Jayatilleka said that Puri, who later functioned as India’s Permanent Representatives in New York could have facilitated the Norwegian project. Puri had been in direct contact with Prabhakaran in the run-up to the finalization of the Indo-Lanka Accord of July 29, 1987. "Nobody bothered to talk to him. Indians were kept in the loop but nobody asked them. The most sensible voices, I read in this book, are the voices of the Indians."

Salter’s book conveniently ignored India’s despicable role in sponsoring terrorism here. Unfortunately, the expert panel at the ICES launch refrained from at least referring to Indian military intervention here. Puri’s expertise in dealing with Prabhakaran here should be examined against the backdrop of him calling for an investigation, in April, 2013, into alleged atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan military during the final phase of the Vanni offensive. Puri called for an investigation into what he called specific allegations of war crimes during the last 100 days of military operations. Puri also alleged that the Ramprakash wanted to do away with the Provincial Council system. Having funded half a dozen terrorist groups, India finally established Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to protect the then EPRLF provincial administration installed through fraudulent means. The formation of the TNA took place as India commenced gradual withdrawal of troops from Sri Lanka in late 1989.

Puri’s call for war crimes investigation in April 2013 prompted the then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to castigate the Indian who had dealt with the man responsible for the assassination of one-time Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (Gotabhaya reminds former Indian UN rep of his role in Colombo during 80 - The Island of April 11, 2013). Had the then Indian government acted with responsibility, Sri Lanka wouldn’t have experienced a 30-year war, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa asserted. People of all communities would have been still suffering horrors of war, if not for the eradication of terrorism in May 2009, following a three-year combined security forces campaign, the Defence Secretary said, noting that India could never absolve itself of the responsibility for creating terrorism here, though some of those directly involved in subverting Sri Lanka were blaming the Rajapaksa administration for the plight of Tamil speaking people here.

War veteran Rajapaksa reminded Puri of Indian trained Sri Lankan terrorists making an attempt to seize power in the Maldives in early November 1988. India could never absolve itself of destabilizing a friendly country, Rajapaksa declared.

Norway wouldn’t have had to depend on Puri or his wife Lakshmi, who was also stationed in Colombo at that time to realize the LTTE was not interested in a negotiated settlement. India paid a very heavy price for sponsoring terrorist groups in Sri Lanka. The Indian projected nearly cost the then Maldivian President his life. Successive Sri Lankan governments, including the war winning Rajapaksa administration pathetically failed to examine the national problem. Many interested in ethnic issue had read J. N. Dixit’s Assignment Colombo. But I believe Dixit’s memoirs titled Makers of Indian’s Foreign Policy: Raja Ram Mohun Roy to Yashwant Sinha explained New Delhi’s intervention here. Let me quote Dixit verbatim: "India’s involvement in Sri Lanka, in my assessment, was unavoidable not only due to the possible ramifications of the Sri Lankan government’s oppressive and discriminating policies against its Tamil citizens but also in terms of India’s national concerns due to the Sri Lankan government’s evolving security connections with the US, Pakistan and Israel."(page 144).

Today, Israel is one of India’s major armaments suppliers and India-US relations achieved unprecedented high. Sri Lanka is facing a hybrid war crimes investigation thanks to US and its allies hell-bent on teaching the war winning Rajapaksas a lesson.

"It would be relevant to analyze India’s motivations and actions vis-a-vis Sri Lanka in the larger perspective of the international and regional strategic environment obtaining between 1980 and 1984."(page 144).

The international community, well-funded NGOs and various civil society organizations didn’t take notice of Dixit’s opinion. Dixit blamed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for New Delhi’s decision to intervene here. Dixit said: "Indira Gandhi redefined the ideology of nonalignment more preciously in terms of the interests of developing countries. The two foreign policy decisions on which she could be faulted are: her ambiguous response to the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan and her giving active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants. Whatever the criticism about these decisions, it cannot be denied that she took them on the basis of her assessments about India’s national interests. Her logic was that she could not openly alienate the former Soviet Union when India was so dependent on that country for defense supplies and technologies. Similarly, she could not afford the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils. These aspirations were legitimate in the context of nearly fifty years of Sinhalese discrimination against Sri Lankan Tamils."(page 147)

Dr. Jayatilleka blamed the Norwegians for not having consultations with Puri. Salter, however, assured that the Norwegians, during their project here, closely worked with India and promised to establish the actual situation in respect of Norway-Puri contacts during his forthcoming visit to New Delhi for the book launch.

Referring to Chapter 8 of To End a Civil War: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka, the writer queried Salter whether he spoke to TNA leader R. Sampanthan or any other TNA representative in respect of allegations that the then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa had bribed the LTTE to prevent Northerners from exercising their franchise at November, 2005 presidential poll. Salter admitted that he hadn’t been able to speak with TNA leaders in this regard. The writer pointed out that Sampanthan as the person who had announced the LTTE directive on November 9, 2005 to boycott the election should know whether Rajapaksa bribed the LTTE. Perhaps, Salter should talk to the TNA, at least now, to establish the truth. Culpability of the TNA in this matter cannot be ignored.

Did the LTTE help Rajapaksa to win believing he could be overwhelmed on the battlefield? If not for the polls boycott, UNP candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe would have certainly emerged the winner.

Salter’s failure to interview TNA leaders is astonishing. If Dr. Jayatilleke felt that Norwegians could have understood the LTTE on the basis of information provided by Puri, anyone examining the events leading to eelam war IV and post-war situation should talk to the TNA. Several years before the outbreak of the final war, the TNA declared the LTTE as the sole reprsentative of the Tamil speaking people and worked closely with the group until the very end. Their relationship had been strong with the TNA parliamentary group receiving direct instructions from Kilinochchi until the military cornered the LTTE on the Vanni east front.

Eelam war: turning point

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 113

March 1, 2016, 6:48 pm 

Sept. 2010, New York: The then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his son, Namal and UNP MP Sri Ranga with the then Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Int’l Development Minister Erik Solheim meet on the sidelines of the UNGA sessions. External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris looks on. The Norwegians earned the wrath of a section of the Tamil Diaspora over the unexpected meeting.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

One-time BBC journalist, researcher and analyst, Mark Salter, will launch TO END A CIVIL WAR: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka, at the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES), Colombo, tomorrow (March 3).

The latest book, by a foreign author, will primarily deal with Norwegian peace initiatives during the tenure of the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga/PM Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Salter has dealt substantially with the contentious issue of an alleged deal between the then Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the LTTE, in the run-up to the Nov. 17, 2005 presidential election to ensure Rajapaksa’s victory by depriving UNP leader Wickremesinghe of the anticipated Northern Province Tamil vote.

Mahinda Rajapaksa polled 4,887,152 (50.29%), whereas Ranil Wickremesinghe obtained 4,706,366 (48.43%).

TO END A CIVIL WAR: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka contained controversial comments on the deal by Norwegian peace facilitate, Erik Solheim, wartime Norwegian Ambassador, Tore Hattrem, as well as Arne Fjortoft, another Norwegian whom Slater quoted as having said: "Definitely. The man who handed over the money told me so directly, when asked "Did they (the Rajapaksas) bribe the LTTE to boycott the election?"

Salter pointed out the writer’s failure to examine the alleged deal between the Rajapaksas and the LTTE, in a piece titled, ‘Norway failed in SL for want of broader int’l involvement-Solheim’, in the Feb. 10 issue of The Island. Salter asserted that had there been really a deal, it would fundamentally impacted on many issues, including the electoral means by which the then Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa secured the presidency, hence this piece.

Salter made available a copy of chapter 8, titled ‘Assassinations and Elections’, which examined the alleged deal, involving Mahinda Rajapaksa (the then PM and Kurunegala District MP), Basil Rajapaksa (a key player in PM Rajapaksa’s campaign team), Mangala Samaraweera (PM Rajapaksa’s campaign manager and Foreign Minister), Lalith Weeratunga (the then Secretary to PM Rajapaksa), Dr. P.B. Jayasundera (the Finance Secretary), Tiran Alles (close associate of Samaraweera, the late Sripathi Sooriyaarachchi, Emil Kanthan whom Slater described as a prominent businessman and LTTE intelligence officer.

TO END A CIVIL WAR: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka certainly would be a good read. Its Colombo launch takes place amidst ongoing efforts to facilitate the return of Emil Kanthan to Sri Lanka in respect of some judicial matters. Salter has presented facts to greatly strengthen claims that there had been a conspiracy to thwart Wickremesinghe victory. Salter’s effort is so far certainly the best examination of how Rajapaksa won the presidency. Salter quoted Solheim as having said: "The reasons given (for the boycott) were vague, so it’s hard to judge. A lot of credible people felt there was a deal. I am still a little hesitant (to accept this), however. First Bala (singham) never indicated a deal to us. Secondly, whatever I think of Prabhakaran, he was not corrupt. The only reason could be (to get) money for purchasing weapons. He had no bank accounts abroad and was not leading the high life. Fore sure, (the Rajapaksa brothers) were capable of (bribing the LTTE). If that could bring them power they would have done it."

"The LTTE must have believed that there were advantageous with Mahinda as President: less experience, less contact abroad. But they did not understand that Ranil and Chandrika had liberal values while Mahinda was a very different character, with no moral compass...while Ranil, of course, was the banner carrier of the peace effort. And he would definitely have won the election if the LTTE had not boycotted it. So the boycott was a historic and astronomical blunder. And there was a real escalation of killings afterwords."

One-time Norwegian ambassador, Tore Hattrem, made some lucid remarks.

TO END A CIVIL WAR: Norway’s Peace Engagement in Sri Lanka is a must read for those interested in the Sri Lankan conflict which the military brought to a successful conclusion, in May, 2009.

Salter referred to Canada-based veteran political analyst, D.B.S. Jeyaraj, speculating on the possibility that the then LTTE Political Wing leader, S.P. Thamilselvan, had reached a deal with the Rajapaksas, through Emil Kanthan, without Prabhakaran’s knowledge. The reference to Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s role in the alleged deal which had been worked out soon after Mrs. Kumaratunga reluctantly accepted Rajapaksa’s candidature, in July/August 2005, cannot be ignored by those wanting a thorough inquiry into the Rajapaksa-LTTE project.

The book launch will take place at the ICES, on March 3, at 4.30 pm, under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), the ICES, and the National Peace Council (NPC). Among the panels will be NPC’s executive director, Jehan Perera, Sri Lanka’s former ambassador in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleka, and the author with CPA’s executive director, Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu as the moderator.

With Sri Lanka facing a war crimes probe, with the participation of foreign judges, and under heavy pressure to unveil the proposed mechanism, before June, 2016, it would be pertinent to examine the alleged deal that helped Premier Rajapaksa to defeat Wickremesinghe in a closely contested election. The LTTE decision to resume war, soon,after the Nov. 2005, presidential election, should be examined against the backdrop of the Rajapaksas offering the group an administrative set up, covering the then temporarily merged Northern and Eastern Provinces.

Salter launched his book in London, Oslo and Stockholm, in Oct, Nov, 2015, followed by Toronto, Ottawa, and Washington DC, in January. Tomorrow’s launch (in Colombo) is the first by a foreign author. Salter wouldn’t have been here if not for what is now widely dubbed as the January Revolution which brought down the curtain on the war- winning Rajapksa administration. The Colombo launch will be followed by similar events in Chennai and New Delhi, on March 8 and 9, respectively. The events in Chennai and New Delhi reminds the world of New Delhi’s despicable role in sponsoring terrorism in Sri Lanka.

The writer sincerely hope those panelists, invited for Salter’s book launch, in Chennai and New Delhi, take up India’s intervention in Sri Lanka, in the early 80s. Had it not for India setting up an unprecedented terrorism project here, Sri Lanka wouldn’t have been in predicament today.

Less than three years, after the conclusion of the war, Norway released a comprehensive report on her involvement in Sri Lanka. The report, titled Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian Peace Efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009), discussed the issue on the basis of approximately 120 interviews, conducted in various parts of the world. The Norwegian report, too, referred to the alleged deal between the Rajapaksas and the LTTE. Under a section, titled 19, November 2005: Rajapaksa’s presidential victory, the report declared that Premier Rajapaksa had made it clear that he was willing to resume negotiations with the LTTE but only on his terms. The report: Wickremesinghe, however, managed to secure the UNP block votes and makes overtures to the Muslim and Tamil electorates. Ironically, his defeat is determined in the Vanni. The LTTE decides to enforce a boycott among Tamil voters, thus tipping the balance to Rajapaksa, who wins with a margin of less than two per cent."

The Norwegian report, launched four years ahead of Salter’s book, speculated on various possibilities as regards the alleged deal which deprived Wickremesinghe of certain victory. Acknowledging that there had been no firm evidence on the LTTE’s motivation, the report asserted the likelihood of the LTTE reacting to Wickremesinghe’s ‘international peace trap’, the group wanting to elect a person having the influence over the southern electorate and lastly a financial or other arrangement to engineer Wickremesinghe’s defeat. The report revealed Solheim passing a message from President Rajapaksa to LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran less than two months after the presidential election. The report quoted Solheim as having said that President Rajapaksa wanted him to thank Prabhakaran, on his behalf, for facilitating his electoral victory.

Had there been a massive financial arrangement, as well as promise to introduce to administrative set up acceptable to the LTTE what prompted the LTTE to resume landmine attacks as early as the first week of December, just two weeks after the presidential election.

The LTTE stunned the President with a spate of mine attacks in the Northern Province before suicide cadres blasted an SLN Fast Attack Craft, off Trincomalee, in early January, 2006. In April, 2006, the LTTE almost succeeded in assassinating Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka inside Army Headquarters. In late June, 2006, the LTTE deprived civilians of water by closing down sluice gates of Mavilaru and, during second week of August, 2006, resumed eelam war IV with simultaneous attacks on the Jaffna front line as well as in the Eastern theater of operations. In early, December, 2006, the LTTE made an attempt on the thenceforth Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s life in Colombo.

Even if there had been a deal, once challenged, President Rajapaksa relentlessly waged war until Prabhakaran was brought down to its knees on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on the morning of May 19, 2009. The war lasted two years and ten months.

In spite of strong opposition from the JVP, the JHU and other nationalist elements who had backed his candidature at the presidential election, President Rajapaksa agreed to continue with Norwegian mediated talks. But, Norway couldn’t convince the LTTE to return to the negotiating table, though Sri Lankan delegations flew to Geneva twice, in February and October, 2006, to workout an arrangement with the LTTE. Those demanding accountability, on the part of the previous government, had convincingly forget that the LTTE quit the negotiating table in April 2003 to pave the way for President Kumaratunga to sabotage Wickremesinghe’s less than one and half years old government. Wickremesinghe went out of his way to reach an understanding with the LTTE though he never received any tangible support from those demanding accountability on the part of the previous government. Wickremesinghe lost the April 2004 parliamentary elections to pave the way for People’s Alliance government with Mahinda Rajapaksa as its Prime Minister. If not for the LTTE, the People’s Alliance wouldn’t have a chance to return to power so soon after having lost Dec 5, 2001 parliamentary polls.

Did the LTTE accept massive financial deal, courtesy the Rajapaksas, regardless of its decision to resume all out war soon after the Nov, 2005 presidential election? Authorities should investigate this aspect as well as Norwegian response to the alleged deal. Most importantly, it would be necessary to establish the time Norway as well as Sri Lanka Peace Co-Chairs, namely the US, EU and Japan, received information in this regard. Did well funded NGOs, based in Colombo, make representations to the LTTE on behalf of those Tamils deprived of an opportunity to exercise franchise? Did Catholic leaders such as Rev. Rayappu Joseph urged the LTTE not to interfere in the presidential election? Thanks to Wiki leaks, the world knows confidential US diplomatic cables, originating from its mission in Colombo, discussed the LTTE directive to boycott polls as well as other relevant matters on the basis of interviews with Wickremesinghe and Mangala Samaraweera.

The Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) can be tasked to inquire into the alleged deal. The FCID can secure international assistance, if required to pursue the case. With Deputy British High Commissioner, Laura Davies, recent declaration that the UK would work closely with the US, Australia and Switzerland to help the new administration to assist in investigations, the government shouldn’t hesitate to initiate a fresh inquiry.

Key factors

*President Kumaratunga during the fourth week of, Sept. 2005, requested Norwegian PM, Kjell Magne Bondvik, intervention to thwart the LTTE from interfering in the presidential election. The request was made on the sidelines of UNGA in New York. The revelation was made by the writer on the basis of information provided by Mrs. Kumaratunga’s delegation (Norway to facilitate presidential poll-The Island of Sept. 26, 2005). What made Mrs. Kumaratunga to seek Norwegian intervention to ensure a level playing field?

*TNA leader, R. Sampanthan told the writer, on the night of Nov. 15, 2005, that the decision taken on Nov. 9, 2005, at Kilinochchi, to boycott the election wouldn’t be changed under any circumstances. Speaking from Trincomalee, the veteran politician claimed that Tamil speaking people couldn’t achieve anything by supporting Rajapaksa or Wickremesinghe. Both Sampanthan and Batticaloa District MP Joseph Pararajasingham told the writer, on the same night, that Tamil speaking people weren’t at all interested in the Nov 17 poll. (TNA refuses to change polls boycott stance-The Island of Nov 16, 2005). The Kilinochchi announcement was made following a three-hour long discussion between the top LTTE leadership and 21 out of 22 TNA parliamentary group. Therefore, there cannot be any basis for claims that Thamilselvan was having secret deal with Rajapaksa without Prabhakaran’s knowledge.

The TNA factor hadn’t been taken into consideration for some strange reason. Opposition Leader Sampanthan can shed light on the alleged deal between the then sole representative of Tamil speaking people and the Rajapaksas. Was TNA aware of the LTTE receiving money from the Rajapaksas? Did Norway, Colombo based NGO fraternity or Election Secretariat raise boycott issue with him? Why not raise most relevant issue of TNA’s culpability with MP Sampanthan as well as Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi leader Mavai Senathiraja?

*A few days before the polls, TNA MP Sivajilingham told the state-owned ITN that persistent Opposition claims that a victory for then PM Rajapaksa would lead to an imminent outbreak of large scale hostilities was baseless. Sivajilingham, too, can explain his position as regard the alleged deal. Did he really believe Prabhakaran was bribed by those who finally brought his unexpected downfall?

*Of major NGO representatives, only Saravanamuttu dared to publicly condemned the LTTE move. He regretted that those living in the Northern and Eastern Provinces had been deprived of their right to exercise universal franchise. Saravanamuttu alleged that the CMEV had received information that the LTTE had prevented people from crossing the Muhamalai and Omanthai entry/exit points to cast their votes at cluster polling booths. (LTTE move gives PM edge over Ranil – The Island of Nov 18, 2005).

*Jehan Perera asserted that the LTTE may have backed Premier Rajapaksa as it would have been easier to negotiate with him once he was elected President. Perera said that the LTTE may have feared that Wickremesinghe would be able to bring international pressure on the group or may be the LTTE didn’t want the Northern and Eastern provinces to vote for a Sinhala candidate (LTTE move gives PM edge over Ranil––The Island of Nov 18, 2005).

*UNP Chairman, Malik Samarawickrema, alleged that the LTTE had deprived Wickremesinghe of a certain victory by preventing Tamil speaking people, living in areas under LTTE control, from exercising their franchise. Had there been an ali-koti givisuma (an agreement between Elephants (UNP) and Tigers) as alleged by the UPFA, the LTTE would never have caused Wickremesinghe’s downfall. Samarawickrema told the writer that Wickremesinghe expected approximately 450,000 votes from the Northern and Eastern Provinces. According to him, the UNP anticipated about 70 per cent of the total number of votes polled by LTTE proxy, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) at the April 2, 2004 parliamentary polls.(LTTE action belies ali-koti pact––The Island of Nov 21, 2005).

*At the first meeting of the decision making Working Committee (WC), following the Nov 17, 2005 poll, Milinda Moragoda was accused of prompting the LTTE decision. Moragoda, who had been a key member of Wickremesinghe’s negotiating team for talks with the LTTE consequent to the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) reached on Feb 23, 2002. A section of the WC alleged that Moragoda’s interpretation of the split caused by Karuna in March 2004, as a UNP achievement had irked Prabhakaran. (Hot air at Sirikotha over LTTE polls boycott order––The Island of Dec 1, 2005). But there was absolutely no basis for this assertion.

Wickremesinghe never commented publicly on the LTTE move, though he discussed the issue with US diplomats as revealed in Wiki leaks cables.

=Former UNP MP R. Yogarajan, too, revealed to the writer efforts made by him and CWC leader Arumugam Thondaman to persuade the LTTE not to sabotage Wickremesinghe’s victory. Yogarajan will be able to explain the circumstances under which the LTTE sabotaged the postal vote, thereby revealing its sordid operation. Let there be a thorough investigation to unravel the mystery. Did Western powers take any tangible measures to thwart the LTTE-TNA combination from helping Rajapaksa? Or perhaps, did they believe Rajapaksa would unwittingly create an environment conducive for the LTTE to resume an all out offensive and bring the government of Sri Lanka to its knees? That seems to have been the strategy since the LTTE was allowed to quit the negotiating table in April, 2003 to destabilize Wickremesinghe’s administration before its eventual parliamentary polls defeat in April in the following year.