Chagie: I’m designated as a ‘war criminal’

Saliyapura farewell:

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 236

September 18, 2018, 8:46 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

"Gajaba was engraved in golden letters of the annals of the history of the Sri Lanka Army, if not in the history of Sri Lanka … and I’m certain it will never to be reversed by any.

"So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of the history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal."

In a few lines, Major General Chagie Gallage (retired) delivered a devastating attack on all those who had shirked their responsibility for countering lies propagated by interested parties until sections of the Army were categorised criminal. Gallage’s was a case in point. The Gajaba veteran retired on Aug 31, 2018.

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

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

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

The Australian High Commission responded to The Island revelation.

The following is the second The Island report on the Gallage issue:

Chagie’s visa application under consideration-AHC

Application submitted

in Sept. 2016

The Australian High Commission yesterday (March 23, 2017) said that no final decision had been taken in respect of Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage’s visa application.

Veteran Gajaba Regiment officer is Director General of Infantry.

The Australian High Commission was responding to The Island query whether any other Sri Lankan military officer had been denied visa over unsubstantiated war crimes allegations.

A spokesperson for the HC said that Maj. Gen. Gallage’s application ‘remains under assessment.’

Asked whether current Australian stance on alleged war crimes/accountability issues remained until the outcome of the proposed UN supervised investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity, the spokesperson said that the HC wouldn’t comment further on this or any other visa matter relating to Sri Lankan military officers.

Commenting on the latest Geneva Resolution on Sri Lanka, the spokesperson said: "The Australian Government is pleased to have joined the Sri Lankan Government and others this week in co-sponsoring UN Human Rights Commission resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. Australia recognizes the progress made so far by Sri Lanka in these areas, but recognizes also the need for more work to implement Sri Lanka’s commitments on transitional justice."

However, well informed sources told The Island that Maj. Gen. Gallage’s applied for the visa last September to visit his brother from Dec. 2016 to January 2017. Sources said that Gallage’s brother, an Australian citizen of Sri Lankan origin, had visited Colombo especially to make representations to the Australian HC. Following that meeting the Australian department of Immigration and Border Protection issued a report titled ‘Potential Controversial Visitor’ citing war crimes and crimes against humanity as reason for denying Gallage a visa.

Australians found fault with the Maj. Gen. for commanding the 59 Division on the Vanni east front.

An ungrateful nation

Australia never allowed Gallage to visit his brother. In spite of him retiring from the Army, the Australian ban would remain. An ungrateful Sri Lanka never bothered to make representations on behalf of an officer who risked his life for his motherland on countless occasions as a frontline infantry officer. Gallage earned the appreciation of officers and men alike and for Australia to condemn an officer of his caliber merely on the basis of him having commanded a division after the conclusion of the war is nothing but an affront.

War time Special Forces Commander Major General Nirmal Dharmaratne in a superb piece on Gallage, published in The Island, called the brother officer a ‘meticulous man’. For Australia, Gallage was nothing but a potential controversial visitor. The Foreign Ministry turned a blind eye to Gallage’s plight. The Gallage issue was largely ignored by the media. Australian insult never received the coverage it deserved. Our parliamentarians were too busy to take up the issue. Parliament shirked its responsibility. The failure on the part of parliament to address accountability issues finally led to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government co-sponsoring damning Geneva Resolution in Oct 2015 directed at the previous political leadership and the military. Gallage is among those denied visas and humiliated by a section of the international community on the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations. War-winning Army Chief, the then Gen. Sarath Fonseka, too, was denied US visa on more than one occasion. Although, President Maithripala Sirisena in September last year assured the military that his government would take up this issue, the Commander-in-Chief’s promise never materialized. The assurance was given at a meeting with the Army at the Military Hospital, Narahenpita.

In his address, President Sirisena referred to some Western powers refusing to issue visas to both retired and serving officers on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. President Sirisena emphasized the pivotal importance of rectifying the situation. The Commander-in-Chief called for tangible measures to change Western governments’ decision.

President Sirisena’s message was transmitted live to Security Forces Headquarters, Divisions and other formations where approximately 30,000 officers and men received it. It would be pertinent to ask weather Defence Secretary Kapila Waidyaratne and Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake who had been present at the time the assurance was given followed up on the matter.

Obviously, President Sirisena was reacting to recent reports pertaining to Western powers refusing to issue visas to both retired and serving officers. Although President Sirisena refrained from mentioning names, war-winning Army Chief, the then Gen. Sarath Fonseka, is among those who had been affected.

Field Marshal Fonseka, last September, alleged that he had been denied a visa to attend the UNGA 2017 because of unresolved war crime allegations against the Army. Sri Lanka’s most successful Army Commander, who is now Minister of Regional Development, said he was due to travel to New York but he was the only one in the Sri Lankan delegation not issued a visa by the US. Fonseka said he could not accompany President Sirisena to the UNGA.

Fonseka however in response to a query by the writer at a media briefing admitted that the cabinet never discussed ways and means to counter war crimes allegations. Fonseka cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for not taking up the matter as he was the Commander of the victorious army.

President Sirisena declaration at a meeting with editors and senior print and electronic media representatives last Friday (Sept 14) that he would explore ways and means of lessening the impact of Oct 2015 Geneva Resolution on the military underscored the failure on the part of his administration to properly counter war crimes accusations. The treacherous Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government refrained from exploiting disclosed wartime British High Commission dispatches to counter such lies. President Sirisena’s decision to take up the issue at the UNGA next week should be examined against the backdrop of his government shocking refusal to act on British dispatches revealed in Oct last year.

Chagie’s Saliyapura talk

Battlefield inspiration, Gallage began his farewell speech by recalling the spearheading role played by the late Maj. Gen. Wijaya Wimalaratne in the shaping of the celebrated Gajaba Regiment in the ‘80s. Gallage declared Wimalaratne as the greatest infantryman in the Army. Then Gallage commented on Maj Gen Shavendra Silva, Colonel of the Gajaba regiment and the Adjutant General of the Army for organizing the event. Gallage said: "I’m certainly fortunate that, by desire or intent, my dear friend Shavendra, has turned this day to be celebrated alongside the week or month, that I shed my boots and beret… and graduate into the University of Civil Corp."

Had Gallage not been forced to leave the battlefield in late Aug 2007 due to medical emergency, he could have earned the commendation for giving leadership to the Task Force 1/subsequently upgraded to 58 Division. Gallage returned in early Oct same year. Shavendra Silva commanded the celebrated formation that killed the most number of terrorists, recovered the most number of weapons and brought the large parts of western and eastern Vanni under government control.

Gallage then went on to thank officers and men of the Gajaba Regiment calling battalion commanders and their men the most treasured.

"Dear Ladies & gentlemen,… Here, I’m closing my three decades of uniformed service for the country and the nation; happily and gracefully having my head and spine vertically without hanging onto the shoulders of any Tom Dick and Harry."

Having referred to the second JVP insurrection (1987-1990) and LTTE terrorism (1976-2009) and him joining the army as a second lieutenant, Gallage acknowledged the sufferings and challenges experienced by the institution until the war was brought to a successful conclusion.

Commenting on former Army Commanders, Gallage did not mince his words when he declared "...I have witnessed, the determined Commanders of this dignified force transformed what was described as "Exhausted and a Losing Army" into a ‘Wining and a Victorious Army’. Though, quite a few survived in a ‘NATO’ or no action, talk only techno."

"Nevertheless, our officers; Commanders at different level worked together, to develop the overwhelming capability of our Army,…Especially during the final phase of the conflict, that demonstrated such versatility and braveness all round.

Referring to the gigantic role played by the Gajaba Regiment and the Army as a whole, Gallage said: "However, it is best to leave aside one’s or individual’s own fairy tales."

Having referred to his contribution to the transformation of the army, Gallage named those who made that impossible task possible. "Men like… (Late) Maj Gen Vijaya Wimalarathne, (Late) Gen Denzil Kobbekaduwa, (Late) Maj Gen Janaka Perera, Col (rtd) Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Maj Gen Sathis Jayasundara, (Late) Maj Gen Gamini Gunasekara, Col (rtd) Nimal Rathnayake, Maj Gen (rtd) G.V. Chandrasiri, Maj Gen (rtd) Gamini Hettiarchchi, Brig (rtd) Nimal Jayasuriya, Lt Gen (rtd) Jagath Jayasuriya, Gen (rtd) Seewali Wanigasekara, Lt Gen (rtd) Mendaka Samarasinge, Maj Gen (rtd) Jagath Ramubukpotha, Lt Gen (rtd) Jagath Dias, Brig (rtd) Hiran Halangoda, Col (rtd) Jayavi Fernando, Maj Gen (rtd) Srinath Rajapakse, Brig (rtd) Bahar Morsath, Maj Gen (rtd) Lalith Daulagala, Brig (rtd) Roshan Silva, Late Col Shantha Wijesinghe, Maj Gen (rtd) Kamal Gunarathne, Maj Gen (rtd) Amal Karunasekara and,…Maj Gen (rtd) Udaya Perea (Who was my deputy Snr Subaltern; on whose foot prints he constantly trailed on)

Then,…Maj Gen (rtd) Jagath Alwis (Who inspired me to join the Army when he was gallivanting after schooling and just recruited to Marines; not in USA; but at CBO Dockyards to scrap rusted metal as a special apprentice)

And last, but not the least, Field Marshall Sarath Fonseka (Who led our forces as the Commander of the Army, to end the menace of merciless and brutal battle against terror) are to name a few; if I’m to recall. Add to the list, that countless other great officers and experts’ embarked on the task of making a Healthy Army Healthy Nation….

(Consultant Dr) Maj Gen Sanjewa Munsinghe, (who was my mentor in medics, made me fit and furious all times with endless counseling);

Together with (Consultant Dr) Brig Maurine Wijegunawardaene,

(Consultant Dr) Brig Nimalka Ariryarathne

(Consultant Dr) Col Roshan Monaragala…….And all those who guided my services may not be here today; But indeed, all of them provided me vision, direction, energy and agility to drive; by means of genuine guidance and supervision; made me rise up in ranks and appointments "for me to be what I was;….and what I’m" until this day.

Though not here in this dome; I’m so pleased to express my gratefulness to Maj Gen Ralph Nugera, Maj Gen Aruna Wanniarcichi, Maj Gen Athula Kodippily and Col Mahendra Fernando and their magnificent ladies; they were my esteemed assets, as my deputies, facilitators and shadows; And at times, referees; in trendy and challenging tenures in combat and otherwise. I honestly return salute to every one of them; and you officers; and not forgetting our comrades in sister services; Air Force and Navy for risking their lives, in support of our determinations to crack the nation from ‘War to Peace’. And my highest regards to Special Task Force led by DIG (rtd) Chandrsiri Ranawana and DIG Ruwaiz Lathiff; for their unstinted support and assistance beyond the call of duty."

Gallage said: My experiences over the last many years taught me great many things.

* In that for my flabbergast,...I happened to be the hook, the line, and the sinker, for most Commanders, in different capacities in different encounters, and fierce battles. These Commanders were frequently holding the fishing rod or shafts………

* Yet, I was at times in bottomless water looking for sharks or piranhas out at turbulent weathers

* I did my utmost in the guise of various designations’ to ensure no Commander let lose the rod or falling nose-down into the flood or to hell bends

* Given the fact; I never sought to be a cowboy with a top hat!.. I remained as a rancher in a nomad; uniting all arms and services in brotherhood, until we eradicated terrorism to the dust.

* Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the victorious battle few successive Commanders (may be one or two to my considerate) attempted to use me as a bait or a maggot for the hook, from side to side with their own ‘Manoeuvrist Approaches’ (For better understanding of audience; Manoeuvrist Approach is to apply strength against identified vulnerabilities, including predominantly indirect ways and means of targeting the intellectuals’ and moral component of opponents’ power or strength)

* May be for absolute panic of their merry making or for their eagerness to hold vital grounds and continue in Command,

* It is therefore, one may have experimented to practice ‘Mission Command with ABANS or any other similar janitorial service with their lunatic academic maestros and few Cosmetic Scavengers who accumulated better flying hours than being in mud boots.

* Possibly these stool pigeon squad at that time, would have been busy drafting ‘Most Modern Asymmetric Throat Slitting Doctrine’ obviously titled ‘The Dog eats Dog!

* The finest and the fittest element of National Power in contrast to Nations security, Special Operation Forces, Air Mobile Forces, Special Infantry Operatives …

* These Elite Strategic Tools of the Commander of the Army in particular were rest to the level of ‘set of rats in mouse holes in dirt’. They were used for playlets’ and dramas’ in the name of mammoth FTX’s… and for guarding beloved bureaucrat’s spouses and their kith and kin with Armies Assets for petty gains.

 * What matters were excitements and colour filled stage performances and entertainments or leisure, or to showcase participants from friendly foreign nations and sister services utilizing our elite men...

 * Dear Comrades, The most important thing in the world is trust; it can take years to earn, and matter of seconds to lose. Mark my words, these Gentle lambs twisted the laws of Army Acts’ and Regulations’; case by case, at one’s own Whims and Fancies, not in simple, but in capital.

* Once, one shed the boots and hangs the coat.. He or she should not be a burden to barracks…

* Those in retreat should not be allowed to poke into ‘the Standing Army of our motherland’ whether it is regular or volunteer!

* Those in the midst of no words or deeds; and acclaimed of Unwinnable War; until we were victorious, to stay aside! Give them the best respect… but none should demand or command the Army of today or tomorrow!

* Do not let anyone overpower your capability and capacity! We have come a long way; wounded, injured many times, we crawled and rolled over the carcasses of our own men… and those without eyes, ears or limbs. We carried them; they carried us, until several bled to death. We bury most in their adolescence underneath this soil. Respect those sons of the soil first; and then the rest.

Having discussed qualities of leadership and stewardship before naming the late Gen Denzil Kobbekaduwa and the late Maj Gen Wijaya Wimalarathne as men who demonstrated stewardship, Gallage extended his heartfelt gratitude to Army Chief Lt Gen Mahesh Senanayke and Madam Chandrika Senanayaka for being part of the team during difficult and complex times in combat.

* My Commander was once a Planner, once Spy, once a Detective; He never let any of our gun or barrel go empty, for us to contest in combat … Furthermore, his continued guidance and advice to me as the Commander Security Forces, Jaffna, was an immense vigor to me as an individual…. And lastly for being so concerned of my wellbeing; ever since he assumed the office as the 22nd Comander of the SL Army.

* And, for the officers’ abide by the ‘Unity is Strength’ or the officers of ‘Keterian family’; not to forget fact, that you were the ‘Flag Bearers’ of Infantry, in combat; and you should remain to be the ‘Flag Bearers’ during hard earned peace, by providing fullest strength to the vision of the Col of the Regt; Maj Gen Shvendra Silva; it is a Whole New Ball Game!. Whatever it may be, implementation is in your hands.

Fonseka’s shocking disclosure

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 235

September 11, 2018, 9:45 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka’s recent admission that the cabinet had never discussed Sri Lanka’s response to alleged war crimes allegations highlighted the culpability on the part of the National Unity Government for depriving the country of a proper defence.

Cabinet regularly meets on Tuesday morning with the participation of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

The Sinha Regiment veteran and war-winning Army Chief said so at a media briefing at his ministry at Rajagiriya in response to a query posed by the writer. Fonseka’s disclosure was quite a shock. Fonseka claimed that since he joined the cabinet the issue had never been discussed with him. Fonseka explained that security matters had been discussed with him before the change of government in January 2015. Referring to Sri Lanka’s response to war crimes accusations, Fonseka said not a word had been spoken with him about it.

Obviously, Fonseka, too, hadn’t taken up the issue for obvious reasons. Fonseka’s Army brought the war to a successful conclusion in May 2009.

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

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

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

Both Jayasekera and Samarasinghe acknowledged that cabinet of ministers had not discussed Sri Lanka’s defence nor examined the Geneva Resolution, respectively. The revelations made by Lord Naseby’s on the basis of wartime British High Commission dispatches (January-May 2009) exposed the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government deliberately depriving Sri Lanka a proper defence. Instead of utilizing Naseby disclosure in the House of Lords in mid Oct 2017, the government struggled to suppress UK dispatches. The following story was carried on Nov 16, 2017: War crimes: Cabinet spokesman provoked by query on govt. response to Naseby move

Cabinet spokesman and Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera yesterday (Nov 15, 2017) said that a statement made by Lord Naseby in the House of Lords would be used by the government appropriately at the right time, though the Cabinet was yet to discuss it.

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

The SLFPer said so when The Island asked him whether the Cabinet of Ministers had discussed Lord Naseby’s defence of the previous administration as well as the armed forces on Oct 12 pertaining to war crimes allegations before it was taken up in parliament on Nov 14.

The Island also sought their stand on President Maithripala Sirisena’s admission on Nov 9 that some retired and serving army officers had been refused visas by certain countries.

Having faulted The Island for raising a question on the same lines, the Minister alleged that his comments in respect of the Geneva issue two weeks back at the post-Cabinet media briefing hadn’t been properly reported by The Island. Jayasekera also said that The Island was there only to raise the Geneva issue.

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

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

Minister Jayasekera said they really appreciated Naseby’s defence and it was a victory for Sri Lanka."

The relevant section of the story carried on Aug 18, 2018: Cabinet never discussed 2009, 2015 Geneva Resolutions – MS

One-time presidential human rights envoy and the incumbent Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe on Thursday (Aug 16) acknowledged that Sri Lanka’s decision to co-sponsor the Geneva Resolution 30/1 in Oct 2015 hadn’t been discussed by the Cabinet of Ministers.

Vice President of the SLFP and party spokesman Samarasinghe said that the Foreign Ministry had handled the post-war process that led to the agreement on the Geneva Resolution. Samarasinghe asserted that there was no requirement to take it up at the Cabinet.

Samarasinghe said so when The Island asked him whether the Cabinet of Ministers had discussed the issue in the run up to the controversial decision to co-sponsor Geneva Resolution in Oct 2015 and acted on revelations that came from wartime British High Commission dispatches from Colombo that cleared Sri Lanka of killing 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front in the final phase of the war.

Samarasinghe acknowledged that Lord Naseby’s revelations made to the British House of Lords, too, hadn’t been discussed at the Cabinet.

Samarasinghe explained that the previous Rajapaksa government adopted a similar strategy in respect of the U.N. Human Rights Council resolution passed in May 2009 celebrating the battlefield defeat of the LTTE.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon in May 2009.

The then minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights Samarasinghe emphasized that the procedure leading to the resolution had been handled by the mission there in consultation with President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Defence Ministry.

Sri Lanka itself submitted the resolution stressing its sovereign right to act without outside interference, which received the approval of the Human Rights Council.

Samarasinghe said that neither the 2009 nor 2015 Resolutions had been discussed at the cabinet but following the second declaration President Maithripala Sirisena on several occasions categorically rejected foreign judges in a domestic judicial process.

President Rajapaksa headed the 2009 Cabinet while President Sirisena has chaired the Cabinet of the National Unity Government since January 2015.

Comparing the status of judiciary during the previous administration and post-2015, Samarasinghe said that the international community hadn’t pursued a hostile agenda following the change of government. Samarasinghe asserted that the international community realized the much improved judiciary and, therefore hardly put any pressure on the government to accept foreign judges.

Samarasinghe pointed out that the UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) comprising former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, US attorney-at-law Stevan Ratner and South African human rights activist Yasmin Zooka in March 2011 accused Sri Lanka of massacring 40,000 civilians.

Samarasinghe recalled his role during the previous administration in defending Sri Lanka against unsubstantiated war crimes allegations directed at the military.

In an obvious reference to a leaked US diplomatic cable from Geneva a few months after the end of the war, Samarasinghe said that the LTTE could have been defeated much earlier if the then government and the military hadn’t taken the civilian factor into consideration.

Samarasinghe discussed the possibility of some of those categorized here as dead and missing living overseas. The Minister expressed serious concern over the refusal on the part of Western governments to cooperate with Sri Lanka to identify genuine cases of missing persons. Samarasinghe said that further difficulties had been caused by those Sri Lankan receiving citizenship in Western countries taking new identities.

Samarasinghe said that he had urged Western governments to assist Sri Lanka’s efforts to ascertain the truth."

Can there be an explanation for a government refusing to clear itself of responsibility for war crimes in spite of receiving an opportunity to do so?

Sarath Weerasekera on the offensive

One-time Navy Chief-of-Staff Sarath Weerasekra flayed the government over Fonseka’s disclosure.

A recent reply received by the writer from the Foreign Ministry in response to queries raised in accordance with the Right to Information law revealed the ministry is certainly not keen on pursuing the Naseby disclosure. Mangala Samaraweera functioned as the Foreign Minister in the National Unity Government before being replaced by Ravi Karunanayake in May 2017. Karunanayake quit the ministry in Aug 2017 in the wake of the revelation of him and his family’s damning relationship with Arjuna Aloysius, owner of disgraced primary dealer, Perpetual Treasuries implicated in treasury bond scams perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016. Karunanayake’ resignation paved the way for one-time Attorney General and President’s Counsel Tilak Marapana. Unfortunately, Marapana and Defence Secretary Kapila Waidyaratne, a former Senior Additional Solicitor General in spite of their legal background steadfastly refrained from reviewing the situation.

Lanka having co-sponsored resolution against itself in Oct 2015, the Foreign Ministry seems hell bent on somehow keeping the Geneva project on track.

Weerasekera last week compared the UNP-led government handling of Geneva Resolution with the Feb 2002 signing of a Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) by then PM Ranil Wickremesinghe, at a public gathering at Godakawela, Ratnapura chaired by wartime Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Weerasekera, who had served as an UPFA lawmaker representing the Digamadulla electorate for one term said that the UNP never bothered to consult the Cabinet or parliament before entering into the Oslo-arranged agreement that recognized an area under the LTTE control.

Displaying The Island front-page reportage of Fonseka’s media briefing, Weerasekera said that the government owed an explanation as to why such a vital issue was never taken up for discussion. The CFA strengthened the LTTE politically, socially, economically and militarily at the expense of the Sri Lankan state. Under cover of the CFA, the UNP ruined the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) on the pretext of investigating an alleged bid to assassinate the then UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. In the wake of the change of government, the government vigorously pursued the DMI, Weerasekera explained, urging the public to be cautious of the UNP strategy.

Weerasekera said that the parliament hadn’t addressed the war crimes issue though it discussed every other issue. The parliament discussed the relevance of British High Commission dispatches several weeks after Lord Naseby’s disclosure in the House of Lords. Foreign Minister Marapana assured parliament that British High Commission dispatches would be used as an ace at the appropriate place at the right time. Marapana said: "We are not saying that we will not use Lord Naseby’s statement. We certainly will use it at the proper time and at appropriate forums. There may be a time when the UNHRC will ask us to conduct investigations into the allegations of war crimes. We will use this statement when such a time comes. Otherwise, our opponents will find counter arguments so we must use it as an ace."

The Foreign Minister was responding to a question raised by Joint Opposition Leader MP Dinesh Gunawardena, as to why Lord Naseby’s statement was not used especially at the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The UNPer asserted that the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council in Geneva wasn’t the forum to take up Lord Naseby’s disclosure.

So far, the UNP-led government hasn’t taken up the matter with Geneva. Since Marapana gave an assurance to parliament to Naseby disclosure as an ace in late Nov 2017, Human Rights Council has met twice in March and June though Sri Lanka conveniently failed to make any reference to Naseby. It would be pertinent to ask the Foreign Minister whether he intended to raise the issue in the course of the ongoing Geneva sessions. The SLFP has done absolutely nothing to influence the UNP-run Foreign Ministry to make representations on behalf of Sri Lanka.

Surprisingly, both the UNP and the SLFP so far haven’t requested Western powers to remove the threat to pusue alleged war crimes, though Lord Naseby on the basis of British High Commission dispatches from Colombo asserted that no one in the then Sri Lankan Government ever wanted to kill Tamil civilians. Lord Naseby said: "Furthermore, the UK must now get the UN and the UNHCR in Geneva to accept a civilian casualty level of 7,000 to 8,000, not 40,000. On top of that, the UK must recognize that this was a war against terrorism, so the rules of engagement are based on international humanitarian law, not the European Convention on Human Rights."

Lord Naseby explained how the British government desperately tried to prevent the disclosure of wartime dispatches from Colombo. The Conservative politician revealed step-by-step how he sought official intervention in terms of the freedom of information submission following UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office suppressing Colombo dispatches. Don’t forget even the released dispatches were severely censored but the very little revealed was sufficient to challenge the main UN allegation.

The yahapalana government is obviously concerned about the growing challenge to unsubstantiated the charge of 40,000 civilians massacred in 2009. In fact, this is the main accusation among five allegations contained in the executive summary of the panel’s report. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim (point number 137 in the report): "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 it 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."

Marapana declaration that Naseby’s disclosure would be used at the appropriate place should be examined against the backdrop of Sri Lanka having to fulfill its obligations by March 2019 in terms of of the Oct 2015 co-sponsored resolution. Once the obligations are met Nasebys’ disclosure is irrelevant. The former AG is allowing the Geneva agenda to progress unhindered, while the Joint Opposition struggles to cope up with political developments.

The JO never really raised the Naseby issue though it was taken up in parliament in the last week of Nov 2017 by way of an adjournment question. The JO never sought an explanation from Marapana as regards his pledge to parliament that Naseby’s disclosure would be used at the appropriate place and at the right time. The parliament Sectoral Oversight Committees on international relations and national security, cabinet as well as political parties represented in parliament haven’t taken up accountability issues. Parliament owes the public an explanation as to why people’s representatives have allowed war crimes accusations to overwhelm the country by steadfastly refusing to present genuine evidence to debunk those accusations. Fonseka’s disclosure must have stunned the public. Imagine a government neglecting its own defence and shamelessly colluding with those foreign powers out to hang war crimes tag on Sri Lanka. For want of parliament intervention as well as the collective responsibility of the cabinet, a few individuals have taken charge of the Geneva project. If not for treasury bond scams perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016, the UNP could have achieved much more progress and perhaps even managed to enact a new Constitution by now. The UNP never really recovered from the treasury bond scams that caused irreparable damage to its relationship with President Sirisena due to the latter launching devastating attacks on his partner in the run up to Feb 2018 Local Government poll. The Joint Opposition/Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna would never have achieved victory at the LG poll if not for both the UNP and the SLFP suffering due to treasury bond scams. They each suffered debilitating setback electorally, but the Geneva project seems still on track.

Lanka’s role in another ‘genocide report’ from ‘cesspool of political bias….’

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 234

September 4, 2018, 9:00 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Two days before the inauguration of BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) in Kathmandu, the United Nations called for the immediate resignation of Myanmar’s Commander-in-Chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, for what the global body called genocide in the north of Rakhine State.

 The UN also called for the prosecution of six top Myanmar military officers, including Hlaing, in an international court. BIMSTEC member immediately dismissed the allegations.

 The UN also blamed one-time darling of Western powers, Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s civilian leader, for the failure on her part to stand up for Rohingya minority.

The UN found that Suu Kyi had ‘not used her de facto position as head of government, nor her moral authority to stem or prevent the unfolding events’. However, the UN conveniently cleared Myanmar’s civilian leadership of responsibility/accountability in respect of military operations in Rakhine State.

The UN report, prepared by an international panel comprising Christopher Dominic Sidoti (Australia), Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia - head of fact-finding mission) and Radhika Coomaraswamy (Sri Lanka) was released in Geneva, Switzerland, on Aug 28, 2018.

 It would be pertinent to mention that Darusman hadn’t been in the original fact-finding mission, named by the President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Joaquín Alexander Maza Martelli (El Salvador) on May 30, 2017. Martelli was acting in accordance with a decision taken on March 24th, 2017, at its 34th session of the Human Rights Council. Geneva decided to urgently dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to "establish facts and circumstances of the alleged recent human rights violations by military and security forces, and abuses, in Myanmar, in particular in Rakhine State".

 However, the original fact-finding mission included an Indian national. The following is the text of the UN statement on the Indian’s appointment to the Myanmar’s mission: "Ms. Indira Jaising (India) is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, and former CEDAW member (2009-2012). She co-founded the Lawyers Collective in 1981, an NGO devoted to the defence of human rights and women’s rights. She was India’s first woman to be designated a Senior Advocate by the High Court of Bombay in 1986, and first female Additional Solicitor General of the country from 2009 until 2014. She drafted India’s first domestic violence act, allowing women to bring civil and criminal suits against attackers for the first time. She graduated in law with an LLB degree in 1964. Ms. Jaising holds a post graduate degree in law from the University of Bombay and received a fellowship from the Institute of Advanced Legal studies of the University of London in 1970. She has been a Visiting Scholar at Columbia University New York, and Bok Visiting International Professor at University of Pennsylvania (2015)."

Geneva replaced Jaising with Darusman, who headed the UN Panel of Experts (PoE) inquiry into accountability issues in Sri Lanka.

 Geneva indicated that Jaising was replaced amidst concerns of her perceived bias. Soon after her appointment, Jaising was quoted by broadcaster Al Jazeera as having said the Rohingyas’ situation in Myanmar "is especially deplorable because they face the risk of genocide". The UN found fault with Jaising statement. "If there’s any perceived bias...it undermines the credibility of the mission before it has started," said the U.N. official.

 But, at the conclusion of the investigation by the panel headed by Darusman, the team essentially alleged Myanmar was responsible for genocide.

 Perhaps, India felt uncomfortable in having Jaising as head of a panel that inquired into Myanmar, a member of BIMSTEC and key China ally. BIMSTEC consists of South Asian and Southeast Asian countries, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

War crimes, ‘genocide’ charges against Lanka, Myanmar

 Ports and Shipping Minister and SLFP spokesman Mahinda Samarasinghe explained the importance of the BIMSTEC to the media and President Sirisena receiving the leadership of the organization at its fourth summit in Kathmandu. Samarasinghe discussed varying responsibilities accepted by member states and the origins of the BIMSTEC. Samarasinghe took up BIMSTEC at regular SLFP briefings. However, Samarasinghe refrained from at least referring to the crisis caused by the damning UN report. Veteran politician, Samarasinghe, who had been wartime President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s human rights envoy and also responsible for dealing with Western powers in respect of relief measures during the war couldn’t have been unaware of the implications of the UN report. The Minister chose not to make any reference to the Myanmar issue. In the wake of President Sirisena receiving the BIMSTEC leadership, Sri Lanka cannot remain silent on the issue as it could come up at any forum.

The UN report, prepared by Marzuki Darusman, Christopher Dominic Sidoti and Radhika Coomaraswamy, a former UN Under Secretary General, as well as member of top Sri Lankan constitutional body, urged the UN Security Council to refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or create what they called an ad hoc international criminal court. The trio also recommended an immediate embargo on transfer of weapons to Myanmar and targeted individual sanctions against those responsible for violations.

 Myanmar denied access to the UN team. The report released in August 2018 confirmed that approximately 10,000 Rohingya had been killed in the 2017 crackdown and ‘large-scale gang rape’ of women took place. The international media quoted Darusman as having said: "The Rohingya are in a continuing situation of severe, systematic and institutionalized oppression from birth to death." The former Indonesian Attorney General was addressing the media on Monday, in Geneva, after the releasing of the report. "The scale, brutality and systematic nature of these violations indicate that rape and sexual violence are part of a deliberate strategy to intimidate, terrorize or punish a civilian population and are used as a tactic of war," Darusman, Sidoti and Coomaraswamy declared.

A similar three-member UN team blasted Sri Lanka, in March 2011. Darusman headed that team, too, and obviously received the appreciation of those Western powers to do another hatchet job. Obviously Darusman did it again. The Indonesian is certain to receive more such assignments. Darusman, teamed up with South African Yasmin Zooka and American Steven R. Ratner

 On the basis of unsubstantiated Darusman’s report, the current UNP-SLFP government, in October 2015, co-sponsored a resolution against the Sri Lankan military and the political leadership. Subsequently, the very basis of the Geneva Resolution was challenged in the House of Lords by Lord Naseby in Oct 2017. The incumbent government simply ignored evidence that could have been effectively used to call for a fresh review of accusations directed at Sri Lanka. In spite of repeatedly promising that Geneva no longer posed a threat to Sri Lanka, President Sirisena, the Commander-in-Chief of armed forces, did absolutely nothing so far to secure a fresh review. Instead, the UNP-led government is in the process of implementing the Geneva recommendations. In March 2017, Sri Lanka received two additional years to fulfill its obligations to the international community.

Lanka’s role in Myanmar probe

Deshamanya Radhika Coomaraswamy received praise for her role in Darusman’s UN team. Interestingly, Coomaraswamy, at the time of her latest UN assignment, also functioned as a member of Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Council chaired by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. The 10-member CC comprised the Speaker, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Leader of the Opposition R. Sampanthan, Presidential nominee Patali Champika Ranawaka, Parliament’s nominee Vijitha Herath, Opposition Leader’s nominee John Seneviratne, Prime Minister’s nominee (vacant) and three representing the civil society, A.T. Ariyaratne, Shibly Aziz and Radhika Coomaraswamy. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s original nominee Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa no longer served the CC.

 Coomaraswamy joined Darusman and Sidoti in March this year in Geneva where they presented an interim report on the situation in Myanmar. "The body of information and materials we are collecting is concrete and overwhelming," they said in their interim, oral report to the 37th Session of the UN Human Rights Council.

 "It points at human rights violations of the most serious kind, in all likelihood amounting to crimes under international law."

 According to international news agencies, the interim report was based on information gathered from a series of visits to Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand, where teams of investigators conducted over 600 in-depth interviews with alleged victims and witnesses of reported human rights violations and abuses. The teams have also collected and analyzed satellite imagery, photographs and video footage of events.

Did the UN team inquire into the circumstances leading to Myanmar military operations in Rakhine State?

 Rohingya terrorists attacked security posts in Rakhine on Aug 25, 2017, killing 12 Burmese security forces personnel. A group called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) claimed responsibility for the August 25 attacks. The group emerged in October 2016, when it carried out a series of attacks on police posts, killing nine police personnel. The group is on record as having said that its primary aim was to protect the Rohingya Muslim minority from state oppression in Myanmar.

 The government has declared ARSA a terrorist group whose leaders had received military training overseas. Myanmar’s trouble started in 2012.

 The international community should be worried about the situation in Myanmar. Sri Lanka suffered untold hardships due to Indian intervention in the ‘80s. Western powers turned a blind eye to Indian intervention leading to a war that claimed the lives of thousands by the time Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion in May 2009. Having neglected Sri Lanka’s crisis, Western powers responded through UN mechanism, led by Darusman. The UN set up its mechanism soon after Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE, about a decade ago. Darusman’s team achieved the UN objective with the help of the incumbent Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government. But thanks to revealing wartime British High Commission dispatches (Oct. 2017), Wiki leaks revelations (website launch 2006) and US military statement at the inaugural defence seminar (June, 2011) roundly contradicted Darusman findings. Now, we have another UN probe report, authored by Darusman with the contribution of an Australian and our own Radhika Coomaraswamy. The trio asserted that the Myanmar Army tactics have been ‘consistently and grossly disproportionate to actual security threats. They demanded the immediate resignation of Myanmar Army Chief. They said: "The crimes in Rakhine State and the manner in which they were perpetrated are similar in nature, gravity and scope to those that have allowed genocidal intent to be established in other contexts."

Darusman targets Sri Lanka

 The Panel of Experts (PoE), headed by Darusman, in its executive summary alleged that tens of thousands lost their lives from January to May 2009, many of whom died anonymously in the carnage of the final few days on the Vanni east front. The panel categorized the following as the five main violations committed by President Rajapaksa’s government: (1) killing of civilians due to heavy shelling (2) systematic attacks on hospitals and other civilian targets (3) denial of food, medicine and other essential items to the Vanni population (4) violation of human rights of those who had survived the war, including LTTE cadres and (5) violations committed outside the war zone, including suppression of the media.

 The PoE endorsed ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, a documentary produced by the UK media outfit, Channel 4 News. The panel referred to ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’ on more than one instance, thereby giving credence to both Channel 4 News as well as its work.

 The PoE alleged the LTTE (1) using civilians as a human buffer between its cadres and the advancing army, (2) killing those attempting to flee the rapidly shrinking area under its control (3) deployment of military equipment in close proximity to civilians (4) deployment of children for combat operations (5) forced labour (6) launching suicide attacks on civilians fleeing the area under its control.

Those who had been in power as well as now in control never had a strategy to counter lies propagated by interested parties to justify external intervention. The present lot actually contributed to the UN project by co-sponsoring a resolution targeting Sri Lanka. Now, Sri Lanka continues to ignore evidence that could be used, efficiently to counter the primary allegation.

 Sri Lanka should realize that though it had rejected the Channel 4 News allegations, the UN panel accepted them, including the main accusation that as many as 40,000 civilians perished on the Vanni east front. In fact, this is the main accusation among five allegations contained in the executive summary of the panel’s report. Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim (point number 137 in the report): "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 it 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."

 The PoE panel has recommended that the identities of those who had provided information to the group shouldn’t be revealed for 20 years since the day of the release of the reports. Even after that, the release of such information is subject to declassification review.

 Sri Lanka failed at least to point out the discrepancy in various figures quoted by the UN panel and Channel 4 News (40,000 civilians), UK Labour Party MP Siobhan McDonagh (40,000 civilians and 60,000 LTTE cadres) and Amnesty International (10,000), all during 2011.

 Instead, the Rajapaksa government hired expensive foreign PR firms which did nothing to counter the lies. Tax payers’ money was squandered on foolish projects without undertaking a cohesive examination of all facts to pave the way for a robust defense. Sri Lanka never had a proper defence. For some strange reason, successive governments deprived the military of required defence. On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, the UN and some countries targeted selected military personnel. Military strategist Chagi Gallage, who retired on Aug. 31, 2018 following an illustrious career spanning over three decades was denied Australian visa over a year ago on the basis of UN lies. Australia found fault with Gallage for being in command of the 59 Division, from May 7, 2009 to July 20, 2009. In response to inquiries made by Gallage, the Australian High Commission has stated that troops under his command certainly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Spineless Sri Lanka political leadership remained silent. Although President Sirisena publicly discussed the issue of various countries denying visas on the assumption war crimes were committed, absolutely nothing was done to rectify the situation.

 The Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection has extensively cited Report of the OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) on Sri Lanka (OISL) to turn down Gallege’s visa. On the basis of OISL report, Geneva adopted Resolution 30/1 to pave the way for foreign judges in a domestic judicial mechanism.

 Australia also cited the UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) report on accountability issues released on March 31, 2011. POE accused Sri Lanka of massacring over 40,000 civilians and depriving the Vanni population of their basic needs. The combined security forces brought the war to a successful conclusion on May 19, 2009.

 In fact, the UN is still holding back a confidential report, prepared by its mission during the conflict, for obvious reasons. The UN as well as Western powers wanted the Rajapaksa rule brought  to an end over the wartime President’s close relationship with China. They realize that the release of the UN report which dealt with the situation on the Vanni front August 2008 to May 13, 2009 can jeopardize its strategy. Interestingly, the UN panel refused to accept the report prepared by those who risked their lives on the front while accepting unsubstantiated allegations made by interested parties. The UN report estimated the number of dead and wounded at 7,721 killed and 18,479 wounded, respectively. The UN report said that it couldn’t counter the number of dead and wounded only after May 13, 2009. The war ended six days later.

 Nearly a decade after the restoration of peace, Sri Lanka is still unable to cope up with false accusations. Unfortunately, having suffered in the hands of UN ‘experts’, Sri Lanka has contributed to the Myanmar report. Let me stress there had been many killings during the conflict. The Sri Lankan military can never absolve itself of the responsibility for killing of Tamil civilians during the war. There had been certainly some deliberate killings as well and rape of women. But, such incidents had never been authorized by the political or military leadership as part of the government policy. No less a person than former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got caught lying about rape being used as tactic of war in Sri Lanka. A blatant lie indeed. But, the same US had no qualms about using the United Nations Human Rights Council to undermine Sri Lanka in spite of calling UNHRC a "cesspool of political bias" that targets Israel in particular while ignoring atrocities in other countries.

NGO warning

The National Peace Council (NPC ) last week warned Sri Lanka could have suffered the fate of Myanmar if the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government did not change Sri Lanka’s approach. The following is the text of statement issued by Dr. Jehan Perera on behalf of the NCC: "A report issued recently by a UN fact finding mission into human rights violations in Myanmar has recommended that its most senior military commanders should be investigated and prosecuted for genocide in dealing with the Rohingya and other minority ethnic communities.  In response to the Myanmar government’s refusal to accept responsibility for what has happened, the UN mission called on the UN Security Council to refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court or for the creation of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal.  They also called for an arms embargo and targeted sanctions against individuals who appear to be more responsible.

 "Prior to the change of government in January 2015 Sri Lanka too was going down the road that Myanmar has taken of denying responsibility for what has happened in the past.  The National Peace Council notes that the international community’s pursuit of Myanmar on grounds of war crimes and human rights violations might have been the fate of Sri Lanka had it not co-sponsored the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council and taken charge of its reconciliation process in October 2015. 

 "The evolving situation in Myanmar suggests that the Sri Lankan government acted with prudence and foresight in agreeing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council in October 2015. Due to the changed approach of the government in regard to dealing with the past, and ensuring human rights, Sri Lanka is now on a positive path of national reconciliation.  We also note that the international community has given Sri Lanka the time and space to implement its commitments. 

 The National Peace Council calls on the government to implement the commitments given to the UN Human Rights Council without being deterred by allegations that it is betraying the country and its security forces as alleged by opposition and nationalist groups.  It is the implementation of those commitments that will ensure the healing that will unify Sri Lanka in heart and mind as well as in territory and obtain the greater support of the international community."

Lanka a theater for US-led coalition ‘battle’ against China

A Japanese warning...

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 233

August 28, 2018, 9:27 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera’s recently concluded visits to the China-run Hambantota port as well as the strategic Trincomalee port should be examined against the backdrop of growing US-Japan-India alliance meant to counter China.

Onodera arrived here following a two-day visit to New Delhi where two key US allies reiterated their commitment to further strengthen relations at all levels. Interestingly, as Onodera left New Delhi to begin his historic Sri Lanka visit, Chinese Defence Minister General Wei Fenghe arrived there for a critically important four-day visit.

The media raised Onodera’s impending visit to Sri Lanka immediately after the conclusion of talks with Indian leaders. Onodera’s briefing took place at the Taj Diplomatic Enclave. The media raised only one question as regards Japan-Sri Lanka relations.

Question: After this, you will travel to Sri Lanka and visit the Port of Hambantota. What is the purpose and significance of this visit by the Defense Minister of Japan to a port built and operated by China?

Minister: Actually, this will be the first time that the Defense Minister of Japan will be visiting Sri Lanka. Hence, as a defense minister, I think that it is very important to build a relationship with Sri Lanka, which is a particularly important location in the "free and open Indo-Pacific Strategy." In particular, since SDF (Self Defence Force) ships regularly enter the ports of Trincomalee and Hambantota, I would like to also to visit and inspect these locations as ports that SDF ships enter into.

 Having visited the Colombo, Trincomalee and Hambantota ports, Onodera declared that the Hambantota port, situated in the busy east-west shipping route, should be free of military activity. Obviously, Japan is seriously concerned about China exploiting its 99-year lease of the port secured under controversial circumstances. Having opposed the Chinese take-over of Hambantota during the previous Rajapaksa administration, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo had no option but to conclude an agreement with Beijing.

Onodera was certainly speaking on behalf of the strategic US-Japan-India alliance struggling to cope up with the growing Chinese influence, in spite of the change of the Rajapaksa government in January 2015.

 The strategic US-led alliance has adopted a common approach towards Sri Lanka vis-a-vis Colombo’s relationship with Beijing. Onodera’s unprecedented declaration that the Hambantota port shouldn’t be used for military activity surprised many. The Japanese defence chief wouldn’t have said so without specific consensus among members of the US-led coalition. India never made such a public declaration though New Delhi repeatedly urged Sri Lanka, over the years, to give up its relationship with China.

 Since the change of government, in January 2015, Japan enhanced defence sector cooperation with Sri Lanka, in accordance with the US-led overall strategy to hinder Chinese ‘operations’ here. Onodera’s visit followed the 3rd Sri Lanka–Japan Dialogue on Maritime Security, Safety and Oceanic Issues held in July at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colombo.

The Dialogue forms an important pillar of cooperation, envisaged in the Joint Declaration on Comprehensive Partnership between the two countries, concluded during the official visit of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to Japan in 2015.

Onodera’s visits to the Colombo, Trincomalee and Hambantota ports, as well as China taking Sri Lanka’s newest facility, dominated the media conference given by SLFP spokesman and Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe last week. Samarasinghe stoutly defended Japanese interest in maritime matters with the focus on Hambantota port. Samarasinghe didn’t find fault with Onodera for unanticipated declaration that Hambantota should be free of military activity. Samarasinghe explained that in spite of China having Hambantota on a 99-year-lease, warships visits would be regulated through the government.

China enhances its influence

 Those opposed to Sri Lanka’s relationship with China had conveniently forgotten that China invested in Hanbantota at a time the Rajapaksa government was certainly not sure whether it could sustain the combined security forces offensive until the war could be brought to a successful conclusion. The Chinese threw its weight behind the Hambantota project though Western powers and India objected. Whether Western powers like it or not, obviously, Sri Lanka figures in overall Chinese strategy.

 Thanks to Wiki leaks, we are aware of the discussion in New Delhi, on the Hambantota port, even before the construction of the inland port got underway, in January 2008. Sri Lanka and China inaugurated the port’s first stage in Nov 2010.

The following is the relevant section of the US diplomatic cable that dealt with the April 26, 2007, meeting the New Delhi–based US diplomat had with the then Joint Secretary, at the External Affairs Ministry Mohan Kumar. Having functioned as the Desk Officer in charge of the Maldives, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (1990-1992), Kumar received the appointment as Deputy High Commissioner, in Colombo, in late 2001.  Kumar had taken up the Hambantota port issue with the US official, in his capacity as head of the division that handled relations with Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Kumar has discussed stepped up Indian Navy patrols in the waters between India and Sri Lanka and expressed concern over Chinese involvement in the Hambantota port project. Kumar has also bitterly complained about Chinese taking advantage of the situation in Burma, at the expense of India.

The following is the section on the Hambantota port: "The situation in Sri Lanka is "bad, really bad – beyond bleak" in Kumar’s judgment. Characterizing the government and the LTTE as two sets of people with scant regard for the international community, Kumar was skeptical that political progress could be achieved anytime soon. He confirmed reports that the Indian Navy had stepped up patrols in the Palk Strait, and said that India and Sri Lanka were doing coordinated patrolling to prevent the smuggling of weapons from the Tamil Nadu coast. Kumar said it would be helpful to get the American assessment of the port being built in Hambantota, which he estimated China was willing to spend $500 million to help develop. He noted that China had increased its influence with President Rajapaksa, opining that Rajapaksa had a "soft spot" for China following his visit to Beijing on March 9." 

The US worked overtime to oust the Rajapaksas to break Sri Lanka’s relationship with China. Those who resented growing Chinese influence here appreciated the US initiative. The US project went awry, in 2010, with their choice, retired General Sarath Fonseka suffering a heavy defeat at the presidential poll. Having failed to oust Rajapaksa, in spite of ensuring that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) support to Fonseka, Western powers and their allies, including India, succeeded at the January 2015 presidential poll. However, they appeared to have failed to thwart major Chinese projects here.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government has been compelled to defend and praise Chinese projects after having flayed China in the run up to the presidential and general elections, in January and August, 2015, respectively.

Interestingly, the Chinese made an abortive bid to win over former President Rajapaksa’s support for its Hambantota project. Although Rajapaksa Accompanied by former External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris visited Beijing, where they discussed the impending agreement, they failed to reach consensus with Rajapaksa declaring that he would extend his support only if China and yahapalana government followed the original agreement on Hambantota. India repeatedly pressed Sri Lanka to halt the Chinese projects.

After the change of government, wartime Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa revealed how Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval pressed him to halt the major Chinese projects here. India wanted the USD 1.4 bn Chinese flagship project – Colombo Port City halted. India also demanded that Sri Lanka take over Colombo International Container Terminals Limited (CICT), a joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPH) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA). CMPH holds 85% of the partnership whilst the balance 15% is being held by SLPA. India wanted all major Chinese-funded infrastructure projects stopped and for Sri Lanka to have full control of the Hambantota port.

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa told the writer that Doval once told him: "Sri Lanka is a small country, you don’t need such development projects."

The bottom line is that in spite of the US-led efforts meant to jeopardize the Beijing project, China remains entrenched in Colombo over three years after the change of government. Although, Sri Lanka antagonized China by turning down at least one submarine visit, the China mission remains on track.

China-Mahinda relationship

 One-time Indian High Commissioner in Colombo (1997-2000) Shivshankar Menon in Oct, 2016 launched Choices: Inside the making of India’s foreign policy, signaled that New Delhi had reason to want a change of government in Sri Lanka due to the then President Rajapaksa going back on his pledge in respect of Sri Lanka-China relations.

Menon accused former President Rajapaksa of breaking his solemn pledge, in May 2014, five years after the successful conclusion of the conflict. Obviously, the former President had earned the wrath of India for following a path which New Delhi believed threatened its security interests. Menon assertion that Sri Lanka is an aircraft carrier parked 14 miles off the Indian coast clearly showed New Delhi’s serious concerns regarding Sri Lanka being too close to China.

Menon, who had been India’s National Security Advisor, from January, 2011, to May, 2014, refrained from revealing a specific incident/or incidents which revealed Sri Lanka’s duplicity in May 2014. The incumbent Ajit Doval succeeded Menon.

Having commented on the conduct of former President Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Menon accused Sri Lanka of reneging on bilateral understanding with India. Menon directly alleged that the former President received Chinese funds for his political campaigns, and projects. The veteran diplomat didn’t indicate when the war-winning President first received Chinese funding.

Let me report verbatim the relevant section from the Chapter on Sri Lanka, titled ‘Force works’: "I found that as Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya, had a clear view of Sri Lanka’s interests, one that was compatible with ours. Immediately after the war, he reassured the Indian troika (National Security Advisor M.K. Narayan, Defence Secretary Vijay Singh, and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon) about the nature of Sri Lanka’s defence relationship with China, and helped Indian companies re-enter the reconstruction of Colombo. Security was Gotabhaya’s sole preoccupation, which made him sensitive to India’s concerns, while his brother Mahinda was much more compliant with Chinese demands, having built a political machine on Chinese money. The basic assurances that Gotabhaya and, more reluctantly, Mahinda Rajapaksa gave us were that India’s security interests would be respected and that there would be no surprises in Sri Lanka’s relations with China. In detailed conversations I was assured that there would be no permanent Chinese military presence in Sri Lanka and that Sri Lanka would look to India for most of its military training and intelligence needs. These assurances were respected, in practice, by the Sri Lankans, until May 2014. At no stage exclusivity sought or promised. And, realistically speaking, it would be unreasonable to expect exclusivity."

China woos Prez Sirisena

 A recent New York Times reportage of the handing over of the Hambantota port by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government to the Chinese and the Rajapaksas reaction to the NYT captured media attention. The UNP took up the issue of China funding the Rajapaksa bid to secure a third term, in 2015, to the tune of USD 7.6 mn. In addition, the media reported the then SLFP strongman Economic Affairs Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s wife Pushpa securing Chinese funding way back in 2012. The UNP raised the Chinese funding issue in parliament. The Joint Opposition hit back by raising the US-funding political projects in 2015 to change governments in Myanmar, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry has revealed the utilization of US taxpayers’ money amounting to USD 585 mn to carry out those political projects. The amount spent in Sri Lanka remains confidential.

The Colombo International Container Terminals Limited (CICT) had no option but to accept that it made a donation of millions of rupees to a private fund linked to Rajapaksa family amid allegations that the Chinese funded the former President’s failed re-election bid.

The CICT acknowledged it paid nearly 20 million rupees to the Pushpa Rajapaksa Foundation as part of the company’s "corporate social responsibility."

Against a simmering row over Chinese funding of the Rajapaksa political campaign, President Sirisena, at the recent launch of the Moragahakanda-Kalu Ganga project revealed Chinese President Xi Jinping offering him Yuan 2 bn (Rs 48,000 mn or USD 300 mn) for a project of his choosing. The revelation was made in the presence of Chinese Ambassador Cheng Xueyuan and other members of the diplomatic community. The Island raised the issue at the SLFP briefing last week. SLFP spokesman Mahinda Samarasinghe responded that the Chinese funding can be utilized to improve the living standards of the people regardless of where they lived in. Samarasinghe acknowledged that perhaps it was the biggest such donation received by a foreign government. A smiling minister admitted that he hadn’t heard of a similar donation.

With the next presidential and parliamentary polls scheduled for 2019 and 2020, respectively, the utilization of mega Chinese funding can be crucial. Let me compare the funding made available by the UNP-led government to implement the ongoing Gamparaliya, enterprise Sri Lanka and related projects and the Chinese funding. State Finance and Media Media Minister Eran Wickremaratne last week explained how the government intended to spend Rs 8,000 mn for accelerated development projects over the next two years.  But, President Sirisena has a staggering Rs 48,000 mn at his command, courtesy China, for projects beneficial to the long suffering people.

The US-led combine and the Chinese had made available a range of specific concessions to Sri Lanka to enhance their influence. India funded a special village construction project in memory of yahapalana architect Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha on a request from Sri Lanka Parliament. The Rs 300 mn project is the first of its kind here whereas China funded about 150 lawmakers of current parliament visiting China in batches. China also provided computers to parliamentarians and lawmakers over a year ago.

China has faced opposition to a large scale post-war northern housing project promoted by UNP Minister D.M. Swaminathan. There is speculation that India may have influenced Tamil National Alliance (TNA) opposition to the project, now stuck at the Cabinet.

The TNA’s current role should be studied, having taken into consideration its deplorable past. The TNA is a combination of political parties (Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi and the Tamil United Liberation Front) and former India sponsored terrorist groups, TELO, PLOTE and EPRLF). The TULF subsequently quit the grouping ahead of the TNA throwing its weight behind war-winning Army Chief General Sarath Fonseka at the January 2010 presidential poll by joining the UNP-led coalition that included the JVP. The same coalition worked together for Maithripala Sirisena’s victory at the last presidential poll. On both occasions, that alliance, backed by the US, contested under the Swan symbol. The US, as part its overall strategy to weaken Chinese hold on Sri Lanka, is engaged in a costly project here.  As pointed out by the writer on many occasions, political alliances, political parties, NGOs, civil society as well as the media had benefited by US funding. The US and Sri Lanka owed taxpayers here and over there an explanation how USD 585 mn was spent in the run up to the last presidential polls in January 2015 as well as in Myanmar and Nigeria. Sri Lanka is also owed an explanation how USD 3.4 mn was spent here between presidential polls and parliamentary polls in January and February 2015.

Foreign powers influencing national polls and even national referendum are not isolated situations in global politics today. The last US presidential election, as well as the recently concluded US role in former Pakistani cricket great Imran’s Khan’s victory at the election, are example with Russia accused of facilitating Trump’s victory whereas the US is accused of throwing its weight behind Khan. Foreign powers will meddle in the forthcoming Sri Lanka national elections in a big way. Hope those struggling to cope up with Western and Indian interference remember, accountability issues are nothing but tools to undermine the Rajapaksas and the military and their MAIN concern China, now engaged in a trade war with the US. Sri Lanka is one of the theaters for US-led coalition’s strategic battle with China. That is the undeniable truth.