China makes headway as Lanka walks tightrope

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 177

August 1, 2017, 8:48 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) on July 22, 2017, took delivery of an Advanced Offshore Patrol Vessel (AOPV) built by the Government of India owned Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL).

On the invitation of Navy Chief Vice Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne, President Maithripala Sirisena will commission the vessel as SLNS Sayurala (P 623) today (August 2) at the Eastern Container Terminal, Colombo harbour. It’ll be the first occasion a President participates in such a ceremony, in wartime or peacetime Sri Lanka. The AOPV is fitted for 76 mm main weapon though the SLN is exploring the possibility of mounting MBRL with stabilized platform developed by Research and Development. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will be among the invitees.

A second AOPV is being built, for SLN, by the same enterprise. SLN will take delivery of the second vessel next year.

The first brand new ship, ever acquired by Sri Lanka, at a cost of over USD 66 mn, arrived at the Colombo harbor, on Friday (July 28), amidst political turmoil over the finalisation of a deal with China, on the Hambantota port, and the proposed Sri Lanka-India deal, on the Trincomalee oil tank farm, as well as several other projects. Sri Lanka and China signed the agreement on July 29, in spite of President Maithripala Sirisena suggesting the signing should be delayed, at least by few days, pending consensus on the agreement.

Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe has compared the Hambantota deal (with China Merchant Port) with South Asia Gateway Terminals (SAGT) and the Colombo International Container Terminals (CICT), though trade unions, opposed to the Hambantota project, think otherwise. India is widely believed to be interested in the East Container Terminal, still under construction, in accordance with the overall Colombo port expansion project.

During the previous Rajapaksa administration, India sought US help to ascertain the status of Chinese involvement in the Hambantota port project, even before actual construction commenced in January 2008. It would be important to mention that at the time China pledged funds for the project the armed forces had been struggling on the Vanni front. The India-US talks, on the Hambantota port, came to light when WikiLeaks released classified US diplomatic cable, dated April 26, 2007, originating from New Delhi, based on views expressed by the then Joint Secretary, at the External Affairs Ministry, Mohan Kumar.

Against the backdrop of simmering controversy over Chinese and Indian projects here, it would be pertinent to examine an unprecedented post-war bilateral agreement between Sri Lanka and India for the building of two AOPVs, at the GSL, located on the west coast of India.

Sri Lanka and India finalized the agreement on February 17, 2014, several years after the conclusion of the war. The then Navy Chief Vice Admiral Jayanath Colombage told the writer that AOPVs were offered through a credit line and they certainly met Sri Lanka’s requirement for offshore patrolling capacity. According to Colombage, they are slightly bigger than Sri Lanka’s largest OPV, also acquired from India years ago.

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa had received an assurance from former Indian National Security Advisor, M. K. Narayan (January 2005-January 2010), in respect of their readiness to sell two OPVs during the administration of Manmohan Singh. However, the actual signing of the agreement had taken place on February 17, 2014, during the tenure of Narayan’s successor, Shivshankar Menon (January 2010-May 2014). But, Menon’s successor, incumbent Ajit Doval, on behalf of India, demanded from Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to cancel the USD 1.4 bn Chinese flagship project - Colombo Port City. 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."

Menon on Rajapaksa brothers

The war-winning Rajapaksa government had been under heavy Indian pressure to acquire Sri Lanka’s defence ‘needs’, including training and intelligence from India - though years ago New Delhi worked overtime to deprive successive Sri Lankan governments of the wherewithal to fight the LTTE. India seriously feared former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s relationship with China. India believed the war-winning president pursued foreign policy strategy severely inimical to its interests, though wartime Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa responded positively to India’s concerns.

Former Indian National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon (January 2010-May 2014), in his memoirs, titled ‘Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy,’ alleged that the Rajapaksas in May 2014, had violated repeated assurances given in respect that there wouldn’t be a permanent Chinese military presence in Sri Lanka and the country would look to India for most of its military training and intelligence needs. "At no stage was exclusivity sought or promised. And, realistically speaking, it would be unreasonable to expect exclusivity," Menon, who had been India’s High Commissioner, in Colombo, years ago, revealed.

Interestingly, the production of the first AOPV had commenced on May 15, 2014, soon after Narendra Modi swept into power in the April 7 - May 12, 2014, general election held on a staggered basis. The keel of the vessel had been laid on September 10, 2014, and was ceremonially launched on June 10, 2016.

Sri Lanka and India reached an agreement on AOPVs in spite of the latter throwing its weight behind US-led efforts to haul Sri Lanka before a hybrid war crimes court. Sri Lanka had no option but to accept the Indian offer to build two AOPVs, similar to those currently in service with the Indian Coast Guard. In fact, the then Defence Secretary Rajapaksa had signed the agreement on behalf of Sri Lanka and it was part of the overall project meant to enhance Sri Lanka -India relationship.

With the acquisition of AOPV, the SLN now has four vessels, of similar type, namely SLNS Sayura (Sukanya class P 620), SLNS Samudura (formerly of the US Coast Guard P 621), SLNS Sagara (Vikram class P622) and the latest addition SLNS Sayurala (P 623). All three OPVs had been involved in successful daredevil operations on the high seas to hunt down LTTE floating arsenals during 2007. In addition to the above mentioned vessels, locally built SLNS Jayasagara is also categorized as an OPV, though being comparatively smaller than other OPVs in service. The LTTE sank the other Jayasagara class vessel, SLNS Sagarawardena, on the night of September 19, 1994, off Mannar, during an unofficial truce between the Kumaratunga administration and the LTTE.

An ambitious SLN project

Sri Lanka Navy’s Maritime Strategy 2025 comprehensively dealt with the country’s requirement, in respect of offshore patrolling capacity, to ensure protection of seas coming under its purview, and a range of other issues. Prepared and developed during the current Navy Chief Vice Admiral Wijegunaratne’s tenure, the document asserted Sri Lanka’s requirement for 20 ships (OPVs and other types) by 2025, a daunting task. The proposed 20 vessel navy included eight currently in services. The eight included four OPVs (SLNS Sayura, SLNS Samudura, SLNS Sagara and SLNS Jayasagara) two Fast Missile Vessels (SLNS Suranimala and SLNS Nandimitra) and two Fast Patrol Boats received from Australia. The remaining 12 expected to be acquired over the next couple of years comprises four OPVs, including the AOPV commissioned today, two Fast Missile Vessels, two Frigates, two Fast Patrol Boats and two Corvettes.

It would be interesting to know how Sri Lanka intended to acquire 12 more ships, of different categories, over a period of eight years. Would SLN look for only Indian built ships or examine the possibility of acquiring vessels from different suppliers. Speculation is rife that Sri Lanka may get an opportunity to secure two more vessels from the US. The possibility of Sri Lanka receiving Japanese, Russia, Chinese vessels in addition to another one from India cannot be ruled out.

Had Sri Lanka built up the required naval capability, and adopted a result oriented strategy at a much earlier phase of the conflict, the LTTE wouldn’t have survived so long.

In fact, the SLN document acknowledged how its failure to take tangible measures, at a much earlier stage, after having recognized the LTTE threat, resulted in the three decades long war.

Twice president Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga is on record as having told The Jane’s Fighting Ships that the war wouldn’t have lasted so long if the SLN succeeded in blocking LTTE supplies. However, over eight years after the conclusion of the war, Sri Lanka’s defence as well as foreign policy needs, should be examined with the US-India-Japan combine seeking stronger ties with Sri Lanka against the backdrop of growing Chinese presence here.

The growing US-India-Japan maritime cooperation, and their common stand on the South China Sea situation, will certainly have a bearing on Sri Lanka. In June, this year, Sri Lankan military personnel received training in two Dornier aircraft, belonging to the Indian Navy. The training exercises were carried out in the West and Southwest Coast of the Sri Lankan Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from 19th to 22nd June. US-India military cooperation today is undoubtedly at its zenith with Modi - once refused entry into the US over his alleged role in the massacre of about 1,000 Muslims in Hindu riots in 2002. The US, in 2005, turned down a request for a US visa by Modi, the leader of India’s nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) and then chief minister of Gujarat. Modi was not welcome. In a complete turnaround by US, Modi was subsequently feted at the White House by Obama during a two-day official visit to Washington. He also addressed a joint session of Congress - a sign of high favour.

Chinese projects seem to be on track much to the disappointment of India and Western powers.

Recent finalisation of the agreement on Hambantota port meant that the change of government, in January 2015, hadn’t thwarted Beijing’s project in Sri Lanka.

Although, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration had suspended the China-funded USD 1.4 bn Colombo Port City project, immediately after the January 2015 presidential polls, intense Chinese pressure compelled Colombo to eat humble pie. The project resumed in January 2016.

The mega project commenced in September of 2014 with the participation of Chinese president Xi Jinping on the invitation of the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The Chinese leader’s presence underscored just how important the project is to China.

The Port City agreement had been initially signed between Sri Lanka and China Communications Construction Company, in Nov 2013.

Now, China has secured agreement on the Hambantota port on a 99-year lease thereby seriously undermining the efforts of those who had been seeking to restrain China.

Last November, China invited former President Rajapaksa for talks in a bid to prevent the Joint Opposition from spearheading protests against the Hambantota project. Having accompanied the former President, ex-External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris explained that the Rajapaksa-led JO wouldn’t oppose the project if China and Sri Lanka stick to the original plan worked out during the previous administration.

US on Indian role

A few weeks after President Rajapaksa’s ouster, the then US president Barack Obama revealed existence of a common US-India stand on Sri Lanka. Obama’s statement should be studied against the backdrop of US interference in the Sri Lankan presidential polls. The US intervention, in the run up to the January 2010 presidential polls was meant to help the then retired General Sarath Fonseka to beat President Rajapaksa. Thanks to Wiki Leaks, the entire world know how US brought pressure on the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi-led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to throw its weight behind General Fonseka, in spite of the outfit accusing his forces of killing over 40,000 Tamil civilians. The US also put pressure on the SLMC to join a coalition, comprising the UNP, JVP, TNA. The US plan proved unsuccessful in 2010. However, a similar strategy succeeded in January 2015.

Today, the US media is preoccupied with Russian intervention in last presidential polls.

Addressing a distinguished gathering at the Siri Fort Auditorium, New Delhi, on 27 January 2015, Obama declared India could play a "positive" role in the region, from Burma to Sri Lanka, reiterating "that with power comes responsibility. Obviously, Obama had conveniently forgotten how India sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka, in the ‘80s, in accordance with its overall foreign policy response to Cold War era US threat, as well as domestic political reasons. Today, India and the US are best of friends, with India developing an extremely close relationship with Israel, as well as Japan.

US President Obama said there was a new hope for democracy in Sri Lanka. Obama wouldn’t have anticipated the administration, which the US and India helped to install, in Colombo, would be so unpopular it put off local government polls by over two years and is now exploring ways and means of postponing Sabaragamuwa, Eastern and North Central Provincial Councils polls.

Let me reproduce verbatim the relevant section released by the US State Department: "I believe that if we’re going to be true global partners, then our two nations must do more around the world together. So, to ensure international security and peace, multilateral institutions created in the 20th century have to be updated for the 21st. And that’s why I support a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member. (Applause.) Of course, as I’ve said before, with power comes responsibility. In this region, India can play a positive role in helping countries forge a better future, from Burma to Sri Lanka, where today there’s new hope for democracy. With your experience in elections, you can help other countries with theirs. With your expertise in science and medicine, India can do more around the world to fight disease and develop new vaccines, and help us end the moral outrage of even a single child dying from a preventable disease. Together, we can stand up against human trafficking and work to end the scourge of modern day slavery. (Applause.)"

India always opposed Chinese role in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka experienced severe difficulties due to Indian policy. During Kumaratunga’s presidency, India thwarted a bid to secure state-of-the-art Chinese radar to counter possible threat posed by ‘Air Tigers.’ Rajapaksa brothers, Mahinda and Gotabhaya, acquired Chinese 3 D radar only after ‘Air Tigers’ mounted attacks at the height of eelam War IV.

India also opposed Sri Lanka setting up a China-managed Aircraft Overhaul Wing at the China Bay SLAF base, Trincomalee, years ago. Subsequently, the SLAF established the facility at the Katunayake air base where the Chinese were engaged in overhauling jets and trainer aircraft.

Importance of ACSA

Whether Sri Lanka likes it or not and regardless who held power, the government cannot ignore US concerns and sustain relationship. Remember, Sri Lanka and the United States, in May 2007, signed the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA), valid for 10 years, to facilitate transfer and exchange of logistics supplies, support and re-fuelling services.

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the then American Ambassador to Sri Lanka Robert Blake signed the agreement. The pact paved the way for interoperability.

A statement by the U.S. embassy said the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) would allow the U.S. and Sri Lanka to transfer and exchange logistics supplies, support, and re-fuelling services during peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations and joint exercises.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government recently declared its intention to extend the agreement. The writer feels Sri Lanka should extend ACSA in spite of some parties opposing it. Recently, JO MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara claimed that those who had been opposed to ACSA received an assurance from President Rajapaksa soon after the signing of the agreement that the agreement is irrelevant. MP Nanayakkara flayed the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government’s decision to extend ACSA, which the writer believes is certainly a move in the right direction. The US giving leadership to anti-Sri Lanka Geneva Resolution30/1 adopted on Oct 1, 2015 shouldn’t have bearing on US-Sri Lanka relations. But, Sri Lanka’s policy shouldn’t be at the expense of any other country, particularly China, an all-weather friend like Pakistan.

A visit undertaken by the US Pacific Fleet transport ship USNS Fall River, in early March, this year, underscored the pivotal importance of Sri Lanka adopting a sensible policy towards foreign powers. The vessel participated in Pacific Partnership goodwill mission to Hambantota, and its environs, from March 6 to 18. Military and civil personnel from Japan, Australia and Sri Lanka held joint exercises through the 12-day mission.

Since the conclusion of the war, in May 2009, Western powers had been working overtime to undermine the Rajapaksa administration. India, too, felt that President Rajapaksa pursued China friendly policy. No less a person than Shivshankar Menon has alleged that the former President was the direct beneficiary of Chinese money - a very serious accusation which the former president, or his advisors, should have responded to immediately. They haven’t done so yet. Menon said in his memoirs: "I found that as the Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya, had a clear view of Sri Lanka’s interests, one that was compatible with ours. Immediately after the war, he reassured Indian troika about the nature of Sri Lanka’s defence relationship with China, and helped Indian companies reenter the reconstruction of Colombo. Security was Gotabhaya’s 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 (emphasis mine)

Lanka’s PTA vis-a-vis Australian anti-terrorism laws

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 176

July 25, 2017, 8:39 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

In the wake of UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, QC, lambasting Sri Lanka over the delay in repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has sought Australian intervention to pressure Sri Lanka over a spate of issues, including the immediate abolition of long-standing anti-terrorism legislation.

TNA leader R. Sampanthan and Jaffna District MP M.A. Sumanthiran made representations to Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at the residence of Australian High Commissioner Bryce Hutchesson, in Colombo.

A TNA statement issued, soon after the conclusion of 45-minute meeting, quoted Trincomalee district MP Sampanthan as having told Bishop that the inordinate delay in repealing of PTA, in spite of Sri Lanka’s commitment to the International community, remained a major concern. The TNA said that it had received an assurance from Julie Bishop that she would take up issues raised by the TNA when she met Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Since its introduction, in 1979, the PTA had been extensively used by successive governments against the Tamil terrorist groups as well as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and much to the discomfort of the TNA, more arrests were made under the same law since the change of government, in January, 2015. Among those who had been arrested were former members of the defeated LTTE allegedly planning to assassinate MP Sumanthiran. Sumanthiran himself confirmed to the writer that the alleged attempt made on his life, by former LTTE cadres, was at the behest of Diaspora elements.

It would be interesting to know whether the Australian HC had briefed Bishop as regards the alleged attempt on the TNA lawmaker’s life and the four-party grouping’s long-standing partnership with the LTTE. In fact, the TNA had been formed, in late 2001, by the LTTE to advance its macabre eelam project and the outfit faithfully served terror master Prabhakaran until the very end.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, on May 19, 2009.

The recent spate of incidents, in the Jaffna peninsula, culminating with the killing of a police officer, near Nallur temple, over the last week end, close on the heels of the attack, on Coast Guard personnel, at Vallipuram, should be studied against the backdrop of efforts to abolish anti-terrorism legislation.

Interestingly, Australia felt the requirement to appoint a defence advisor only after the change of government, in January, 2015. Australia refrained from appointing a defence adviser during the war or immediately after in spite of some extremely corrupt elements in the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) organizing large scale human smuggling operation.

Those who had been preoccupied with the abolition of the PTA never bothered to examine why Sri Lanka required such a law.

There cannot be absolutely no dispute as regards the TNA’s sordid relationship with the LTTE. The European Union Election Observation Mission, in mid 2004, had alleged the TNA secured the lion’s share of parliamentary seats, in the northern and eastern electoral districts, at the April 2004 parliamentary polls, thanks to the LTTE stuffing ballot boxes on its behalf. The writer had, on numerous occasions, highlighted the murderous TNA-LTTE project over the years.

Sri Lanka lacked the foresight to brief major powers regarding the LTTE and its allies. The TNA that had declared the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil community, in late 2001, and threw its political weight behind eelam war IV (Aug 2006-May 2009), today complained about the delay in the UNP-SLFP coalition addressing Tamils’ grievances. Sampanthan-Sumanthiran duo took up the following issues with Bishop: (A) Repealing of PTA (the statement issued by the TNA didn’t make any reference to new anti-terrorism legislation in place of the PTA) (B) Releasing of political prisoners (the TNA and some of those well paid NGOs refer to hardcore terrorists in custody as political prisoners) (C) Missing persons (vast majority of those who had been categorised as missing live overseas, including Australia. Some may have perished on their way to Australia in boats) and releasing civilian lands (in spite of releasing of significant portion of land held by the military), the TNA continues its campaign. President Maithripala Sirisena has publicly alleged that some northern politicians, an obvious reference to the TNA, had thwarted attempts to settle the internally displaced elsewhere. But, at the behest of the TNA, the displaced continued to insist their original places of living in a bid to force security forces to quit strategically important areas)

The previous government should be held responsible for Sri Lanka’s failure to expose the TNA. In spite of repeated warnings that its failure would one day allow the TNA to undermine Sri Lanka, the previous government did nothing. It wrongly asserted that a consensus could be reached with the likes of Sampanthan. Obviously, the former administration never anticipated the Sampanthan-Sumanthiran duo to pursue an agenda severely inimical to the country.

The ruling UNP-SLFP leadership seems blind to the fact that the TNA, now, pursued its strategy as the main opposition party in parliament, a position bestowed on the party by the coalition partners. The TNA has brazenly exploited the coalition partners to advance its strategy. In addition to the above mention matters, the TNA sought Australian backing for its efforts to bring in a new Constitution. Subsequently, the TNA raised the same issues with Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffery Feltman at a meeting held at the UN compound.

Sri Lanka shouldn’t be blind to the fact that Australian’s position as regards Sri Lanka, is almost the same as that of the UN. Australia takes a different view in respect of the refugees and work closely with successive Sri Lankan governments to keep would-be asylum seekers out of Australia.

Australia-Lanka role in

‘extraordinary rendition’

Against the backdrop of Australia, also, speaking on behalf of the TNA, it would be pertinent to examine anti-terrorist laws adopted by the US ally in the wake of the devastating 9/11 attacks on the US. Australian measures are compatible with US anti-terrorism strategies. Interestingly, both Sri Lanka and Australia had been involved in the CIA’s ‘extraordinary rendition’ (mass scale operation to abduct, transfer and interrogate terrorist suspects outside US territory). The Open Society Foundation, in early 2013, listed Australia and Sri Lanka among 54 countries which facilitated the operation. The culprits included the leaders of the following countries spanning the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe."

Let me mention the Australian anti-terrorism laws in place, since March 2002, meant primarily to meet security threats posed by the Muslims. Australia has gradually intensified counter-terrorism measures over the years, finally leading to a major role for the Australian army in case of an emergency. Australia announced new measures a few days before Bishop arrived in Sri Lanka. The new measures will allow the army to determine its response in case of a terrorist attack without being guided by police. There cannot be any dispute whatsoever as regards Australia’s right to take anti-terrorism measures. Unfortunately, Australia seems blind, or not concerned, about post-war threats faced by Sri Lanka. Australia, as well as all those who had been demanding the abolition of the PTA, were reluctant to recognise the danger posed by well over 10,000 former LTTE cadres freed since the conclusion of the conflict.

Australian media quoted Premier Turnbull as having told those based at the Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney: "Our enemies are agile and innovative. We have to stay ahead of them. We have to ensure that every resource we have – legislative, military, police, intelligence, security – is always at the highest standard and able to be brought to bear to keep Australians safe."

Having praised the UK police response to the recent London Bridge attack, in which two Australians were killed, Turnbull said: "It is vitally important that frontline police have their skills improved to be able – and the training to be able – to deal with these incidents on the spot. The police will remain the first responders but the changes will allow them to work more closely with the army."

In fact, the latest measures will allow the army to operate on its own without being restrained by police.

Post 9/11 Australian

anti-terrorism laws

March 2002: Australia passed anti-terror legislation in the wake of 9/11 attacks. The bills included the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill of 2002. It amended the Criminal Code

June 2002: Parliament accepted the majority of anti- terrorism bills.

On 23 October 2002: Australia endorsed the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Bill 2002. The bill was meant to ‘enable the speedier proscription of terrorist organisations.’

According to the Code, it is an offence to even "recklessly" provide support or funds to a "terrorist organisation" with a maximum prison sentence of up to 15 years.

March 2003: The ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 that had been withdrawn in Dec 2002, was reintroduced with amendments, and passed in June 2003. ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) is given the ability to "coercively question and detain a non-suspect citizen" under a ‘Special Powers Regime.’ ASIO is currently headed by a military veteran, Duncan Lewis, whose appointments command of the Special Air Services Regiment. Before joining the public services, Lewis had commanded troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Director General, ASIO, Lewis is answerable to the Attorney General.

December 2003: Further powers are granted to ASIO through the ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2003 enhancing its ability to question and detain individuals in order to gather intelligence regarding a "terrorism offence".

June 2004: The Anti-Terrorism Act 2004 introduced several controversial amendments to the existing laws, including the Criminal Code, "to strengthen the counter-terrorism legislation relating to membership of terrorist organisations and the offence of receiving training from a terrorist organisation."

August 2004: The Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 3) 2004 gave ASIO powers to "demand the surrender of Australian and foreign passports in certain circumstances."

November 2004: The Surveillance Devices Act 2004 empowered police officers "to use listening devices, optical surveillance devices, tracking devices and data surveillance devices" and allowed police to "exercise the necessary powers to install, maintain and retrieve surveillance devices without a warrant in some circumstances."

September 2005: Australia declared several measures to strengthen existing laws. The measures included the introduction of control orders, preventative detention and new stop, question and search powers.

December 2005: Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 allowed up to 12 months of control orders and 14 days of preventative detention for terror suspects. It also allowed the banning of organisations for "inciting" terrorism and creates offences related to "urging hostility towards various groups."

May 2006: Telecommunications Amendment Act 2006 introduced number of laws related to interception of telecommunications, including interception of communications of a person known to communicate with a "person of interest".

June 2006: The sunset (expiration) clause of the "Special Powers Regime" introduced in 2003 to afford wide-ranging powers to ASIO is extended 10 more years to 2016.

February 2010: Australia released the Counter-Terrorism White Paper.

November 2010: Australia adopted the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 to further tighten anti-terror laws. Police are given extensive search and seize powers enabling them to enter premises without warrant in emergency situations related to terrorism offences.

October 2014: In the wake of heightened anti-terrorism alert, Australia adopted the first of three "tranches" of new laws, National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. The laws granted unprecedented powers to ASIO–immunity from prosecution, powers to impersonate, use of force in executing a warrant, no warrant necessary in using surveillance devices, and the explicit allowance to add, modify and deleting files from computers.

Australia adopted the second set of new laws in October making it easier to prosecute Australian citizens engaged in "terrorist activities" or "hostile activity" overseas. Some major changes introduced in expanding the definition of terrorism, the new offence of ‘advocating terrorism’, to suspend a person’s passport for 14 days, criminalising travel to a designated area, etc. It also allowed the canceling of welfare payments for persons involved in terrorism and collection of biometrics at customs.

Australia adopted the third set of laws, The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 in Dec 2014. Amongst the changes: expanding the grounds upon which a control order can be requested and issued and the reduction of information required to be provided to the Attorney-General when seeking consent to request an interim control order.

March 2015: Australia adopted the fourth set of laws, Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015. Under these, telecommunication companies were required to retain phone and internet usage data of customers for two years and allow security agencies to access the records.

June 2015: The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 is introduced on 24th June "to provide explicit powers for the cessation of Australian citizenship in specified circumstances where a dual citizen engages in terrorism-related conduct." The bill explains that "Australian citizenship involves a commitment to this country, its people and its democratic rights and privileges". The minister will also declare those organisations that are opposed to Australia or Australia’s values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties.

Dec 2016: Australia passed unprecedented counter-terrorism measures that allowed convicted terrorists to be kept in jail even after the expiry of their sentences if Australia felt they posed a risk. Australia adopted new measures in response to a series of terrorist attacks since Sept 2014 in Australia and various parts of friendly countries. The legislation allowed Attorney-General to apply for an extension of a sentence of 12 months before it expired, though the original proposal was to apply six months before the date of expiry of a particular sentence.

Australia ignored criticism of the Greens and Liberal Democrats to go ahead with tough security measures.

Australia shouldn’t forget that terrorism, so far experienced by her, couldn’t be compared with horrors suffered by Sri Lanka, thanks to Indian intervention here in the early 80s. The LTTE caused massive destruction over the years until the previous government eradicated what Western powers, civil society and a section of the media considered indestructible. Australian anti-terrorism laws should be compared with the PTA as well as other anti-terrorism legislation adopted by Western powers, including Russia and India. Recent statement made by Emmerson, at the conclusion of his five-day visit here, was meant to humiliate Sri Lanka over its anti-terrorism laws. Emmerson is among those who had been demanding that Sri Lanka replace PTA with laws compatible with international laws. Perhaps, Sri Lanka should explore the possibility of adopting anti-terrorism measures on the basis of slew of Australian anti-terrorism legislation introduced since March 2002. The Australian laws are in line with general anti-terrorism measures adopted by those aligned with the US but in some cases even tougher than laws in place in other parts of the world.

Sri Lanka can never be complacent and ignore possible future threats. The country paid a huge price for failing to bring the war to an end much earlier. Had Sri Lanka launched sustained military campaign earlier, the LTTE could have been defeated years before the Nanthikadal battle. Perhaps, the Attorney General’s department should immediately initiate a project to study anti-terrorism laws in place in other countries (NATO countries, Australia and India) compare them with our PTA. The war-winning previous government never made an attempt to examine various anti-terrorism laws thereby jeopardised Sri Lanka’s security. It can never absolve itself of responsibility for not properly defending Sri Lanka.

Lanka sledgehammered by UN

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 175

July 18, 2017, 8:35 pm 

Ben Emmerson responds to the media at UN compound in Colombo on the afternoon of July 14, 2017.UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative Una McCauley looks on.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Ben Emmerson, QC, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, while countering terrorism, is fully cognizant of Sri Lanka’s long and complex history of ethnic tensions and the tremendous security challenges this has generated. For almost 26 years, Sri Lanka dealt with violent acts of terrorism, committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), including suicide bombings and political assassinations, which culminated in a prolonged armed conflict that came to an end only in 2009.

UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner Britisher Emmerson succeeded the first Special Rapporteur (Aug.1 2005 – July 31, 2011), Finish national, Martin Scheinin, on Aug 1, 2011.

At the conclusion of a visit to Sri Lanka, Emmerson flayed the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government for not implementing the Geneva Resolution 30/1 adopted on Oct 1, 2015. Addressing the media, at the UN compound, in Colombo, last Friday, Emmerson declared that the Counter Terrorism Act proposed in place of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, (PTA), could become the cornerstone of a new order in Sri Lanka.

Having pointed out that the PTA had been enacted in 1979 as an emergency measure, Emmerson alleged that it was used against the Tamil community. "Since the authorities use this legislation disproportionately against members of the Tamil community, it is this community that has borne the brunt of the State’s well-oiled torture apparatus", he said.

The lengthy statement, readout by Emmerson, conveniently made no reference to the origin of the conflict, 26 years ago. Had the UN intervened, on behalf of Sri Lanka, in early 80s, despicable Indian destabilization project here could have been thwarted. Those who had bitterly complained about the security apparatus never bothered to examine the daunting challenges faced by Sri Lanka during the conflict. India, too, struggled to cope up with security challenges during the deployment of its Army in the Northern and Eastern Provinces in Sri Lanka (July 1987-March 1990).

The UN can never absolve itself of the responsibility for allowing India to destabilize its neighbour. The UN turned a blind eye as India forced Sri Lanka to accept deployment of its Army in two provinces in July ‘87, for an indefinite period, after having destabilized Sri Lanka to such an extent the government couldn’t cope up with the situation. However, the Indian project meant to establish federal administrative structure, in the two provinces, went awry due to the LTTE’s intransigence. Those who had been sent to guarantee the eelam project ended up fighting its own creation.

Although there had been some excesses, on the part of law enforcement authorities, as well as the armed forces, during the conflict, it would be pertinent to mention that the PTA was utilized against the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in late 80s. Although it hadn’t been state policy, some law enforcement personnel, and armed forces, resorted to torture and extra judicial measures.

Emmerson dealt with the PTA on the basis of it had been exclusively used against the Tamil community. In fact, the police and the armed forces, in spite of being overwhelmingly comprised Sinhalese Buddhists, mercilessly crushed the JVP, though the Marxist group, consisted of almost 100 per cent Sinhalese Buddhists.

Emmerson was the former senior counsel for the Independent Inquiry into child abuse in the UK, headed by Prof. Alexis Jay. Emmerson quit the Independent Inquiry late last year following an allegation of sexual assault in a lift against him. However, Emmerson was fully cleared by his law chambers, Matrix, following an independent inquiry into the allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Emmerson should examine allegations directed against the Indian Army by the Tamil community here. India never acknowledged atrocities committed by its Army here, or accepted responsibility for training thousands of terrorists. Some of those Indian trained terrorists, belonging to the PLOTE, mounted a sea borne raid on the Maldives, in early Nov 1988. They almost succeeded in assassinating the then Maldivian President Abdul Gayoom. Western powers overlooked the regional security crisis created by India. Interestingly, the PLOTE is now a constituent member of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) led Tamil National Alliance (TNA), represented in parliament.

Those who hadn’t been familiar with clandestine operations, undertaken by the LTTE, would find it difficult to comprehend counter measures that were required to neutralize enemy threat.

Having had access to current, as well as former PTA detainees, Emmerson accused Sri Lanka of practicing what he called extremely brutal methods of torture. On the basis of what he had heard, Emmerson, in his media briefing, referred to beatings with sticks, the use of stress positions, suffocation of detainees by using plastic bags drenched in kerosene, pulling out fingernails, the use of various forms of water torture, suspension of people for several hours by their thumbs, the insertion of needless beneath the finger nails as well as mutilation of genitals. Emmerson declared that these allegations had been backed by independent medical evidence. Emmerson’s unsubstantiated allegations reminded me of one-time US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton alleging Sri Lankan Army had raped Tamil women as a tactic. Subsequently, release of some emails, sent and received by Clinton, during 2009, revealed the circumstances under which uncorroborated accusations had been directed at the Sri Lankan government at a time Western powers were trying to take the shine off the country’s triumph over terrorism.

The emails, released by the US State Department, disclosed the issuing of a clarification without actually retracting baseless claim made by Clinton that rape had been used as a tactic of war in Bosnia, Burma, and Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. The statement was made on Sept. 30, 2009, at the UN Security Council. That was a calculated move to appease those who had been calling for an international inquiry into the Vanni offensive, at Sri Lanka’s expense.

Self-infliction by proxy

Against the backdrop of Emmerson’s obvious faith in what he had been told by PTA detainees, during his stay here, let me examine a high profile case involving a Tamil seeking political asylum in the UK.

British judges ruled, in April, this year, a Sri Lankan asylum seeker allowed himself to be tortured, with hot iron rods, to support his bid to stay in the UK.

The Sri Lankan Tamil claimed five scars on his back were evidence of how he was badly treated by security authorities in Sri Lanka.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Sri Lankan probably consented to the torture as part of a ruse called ‘self-infliction by proxy’ or SIBP.

The court asserted that a ‘cooperative and clandestine’ doctor might have put the asylum seeker under general anesthetic while the heated iron rods were placed on him.

In a 22,000-word appeal ruling, one of UK’s most senior judges, Lord Justice Sales, questioned why the 35-year-old man had not experienced any significant infection as a result of the burning.

The judge said an earlier immigration tribunal which threw out the man’s asylum claim was justified in highlighting the ‘highly unusual’ type of scarring as a ‘central implausibility’ in his account.

The UK court also raised doubts about his relationship with the LTTE and his alleged detention and escape from the country.

The Sri Lankan had arrived in the UK on a fake passport after the conclusion of the war, in May 2009 before seeking asylum. The Sri Lankan is alleged to have racked up enormous legal bills at taxpayers’ expense in his desperate bid to avoid deportation.

Sri Lankan claimed that he was detained in the aftermath of LTTE attack on Colombo airport in 2007 over possible links to the organization.

His alleged torture occurred in August 2009, where it was claimed he ‘felt intense pain from the first burn’ before falling unconscious while receiving other burns. In support of his torture claim, he produced a medical report from a professor that backed the theory.

The man also claimed he would face ‘a real risk of persecution’ if deported because authorities would regard him as having been ‘actively involved’ with the LTTE.

Dismissing the Sri Lankan’s appeal, Lord Justice Sales said the earlier tribunal hearing – which rejected the asylum seeker’s claims – had ‘conscientiously balanced the probabilities of infliction of the scarring by SIBP and by torture’.

The SIBP was the ‘only real possibility’ that could not be discounted, the court ruled.

In a majority decision, Lord Justice Sales and another senior judge, Lord Justice Patten, rejected the challenge by the claimant, identified only by the initials KV.

Those wanting to humiliate Sri Lanka had accepted all sorts of allegations directed at security authorities without bothering at least to verify them. British politicians had shamelessly sought the backing of UK voters, of Sri Lankan origin, at general elections. Presence of all major political parties at the inauguration of the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) in the House of Commons in February 2010 is proof of this.

The GTF was launched on Feb 24, 2010 with the participation of the then British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and Liberal Democrats Shadow Foreign Secretary, Ed Davey, as well as delegates from 14 countries. The formation took place in the wake of a failed joint UK-French bid to throw a lifeline to the LTTE. They made a desperate effort as Sri Lankan troops were closing in on the LTTE-held area on the Vanni east.

Terrorists take refuge overseas

Sri Lanka successfully brought the war to a successful conclusion, in May, 2009, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon. Since the conclusion of the war, thousands of those who had fought for the LTTE had entered other countries, illegally. In addition to them, a substantial number of Sri Lankan Tamils, who had escaped forced conscription, as well as those who weren’t in Sri Lanka, during the war, sought asylum in the West on the false pretext of being persecuted by Sri Lanka. Asylum seekers had accused Sri Lanka of torturing them. Interestingly, Western powers hadn’t been really bothered about those receiving asylum, on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, being guilty of human rights violations, including torture, during the war here. The LTTE had operated ‘prisons’ in the Northern and Eastern Provinces during the conflict where they held Tamil speaking people opposed to them, members of rival Tamil terrorist groups, dissident members of the LTTE, and captured and surrendered police and armed forces personnel. They had been organized to such an extent, the London headquartered Amnesty International was given an opportunity to examine some of their facilities in the Northern Province years ago. The Amnesty International recommended legal status to the LTTE against the backdrop of the grouping having ‘courts.’

The LTTE had subjected those who revolted against the group, or suspected of working against it, to torture before execution. The likes of Emmerson pursuing an agenda against Sri Lanka will never accept transformation of Sri Lanka. They cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over the ruthless LTTE terrorists whose capabilities even stunned one of the largest armies in the world in late 80s. Having trained the LTTE in India, India experienced its fighting capabilities as LTTE units killed well over 1,000 Indian officers and men and caused injuries to 3,000.

Sooka reveals terrorists living in UK, Norway...

An expensive survey conducted by the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), affiliated to the Foundation of Human Rights, in South Africa, last year, revealed how LTTE cadres, including those who had been with Shanmugalingam Sivashankar alias Pottu Amman’s dreaded intelligence service, secured citizenship in European countries, including the UK.

The releasing of the survey titled ‘Forgotten Sri Lanka’s exiled victims’ coincided with the commencement of the 32 sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The report inadvertently revealed the existence of clandestine networks, facilitating Sri Lankans of Tamil origin, including former members of the LTTE, reaching Europe, through illegal means.

The report dealt with information acquired from 75 Tamils, living in the UK, France, Switzerland and Norway. Almost all of them had fled Sri Lanka after the conclusion of the war, in May, 2009. The vast majority of interviews had been conducted in London. However, an ITJP bid to include some of those ex-LTTE cadres, based in Germany, in the project, had gone awry. The report claimed that the targeted group declined to participate, in protest against the role of the international community in supporting the transitional justice process in Sri Lanka.

Surprisingly, ITJP didn’t bother about those who had taken refuge in India during the conflict and post-conflict period.

A group of human rights experts, international prosecutors, investigators and transitional justice experts, who had previously served the United Nations (UN) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), produced the report under the guidance of Yasmin Sooka, one of the three persons on UNSG Ban Ki-moon’s panel of experts. Sooka teamed up with Marzuki Darusman and Steven R. Ratner to produce Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.

On the basis of the interviews conducted, with the help of Sri Lankan Tamil interpreters, who had either worked for the UN or other International NGOs, in the Vanni, during eelam war IV, the report estimated that 72 per cent of the 75 interviewed had served various LTTE units. The report named those combat and support units as Radha, Sothiya, Imran Pandiyan and Malathy regiments as well as the Intelligence Wing. The non-combat units included the LTTE Media Unit, the TV station, the Political Wing, the Peace Secretariat, the International Secretariat, the Medical Wing, the Transport Unit, the Computer section and the Education Section.

Those who had been interviewed, but not members of the LTTE, were either at school or university, or were in some cases housewives, photographers, teachers, accountants, office administrators, farmers, businessmen, or fishermen, during the conflict. Eighty per cent of the interviewed had survived the last phase of the war on the Vanni east front.

Sooka’s team claimed having unhindered access to those who had fled Sri Lanka during the eelam war and post-war period as well as the largest collection of witness testimony and other evidence, outside Sri Lanka, pertaining to the final phase of the conflict and post-war torture and sexual violence. (The claim as regards having the largest collection of witness testimony and other evidence outside Sri Lanka should be closely examined against the backdrop of UNSG Panel of Experts declaration that it received 4,000 submissions from 2,300 persons. Interestingly, Sooka also served the Panel of Experts which released its report on March 31, 2011).

Sooka appreciated the support extended by wartime BBC correspondent in Sri Lanka, Frances Harrison, to the ITJP project. Declaring that the project couldn’t have been brought to a successful conclusion without Frances’ support, Sooka referred to the role played by lawyers in facilitating interviews with those who had clandestinely left Sri Lanka. (Obviously, they had repeated to Sooka’s team what they told their lawyers engaged in the lucrative business of obtaining asylum for aliens.)

Thanks to Sooka, the OMP, and those wanting to know the truth, now have an opportunity to verify the situation in the wartime Vanni with the help of former UN and INGO workers living overseas. In fact, no other INGO had so far claimed to have access to former UN and INGO workers who had experienced war and were lucky to survive the final assault on the Vanni east front. They can help establish the circumstances under which the LTTE forced the population in the Vanni west to cross the Kandy-Jaffna A9 road and move towards the Vanni east coast. The LTTE imposed severe restrictions to prevent civilians fleeing the war zone to secure refuge in army-held areas. The LTTE went to the extent of detaining UN workers responsible for helping some civilians to escape.

But most importantly, former LTTE cadres, now living overseas, should be subject to scrutiny by the UN.

Did they secure citizenship in European or Scandinavian countries on the basis of false claims? Had they been really in northern Sri Lanka during the war or lived in the South and sought to exploit the situation at the expense of Sri Lanka’s impugned notoriety?

Perhaps, premier contemporary French director Jacques Audiard’s Dheepan that secured the Palme d’Or in Cannes in 2015 is evidence how blatant lies had enabled Sri Lankan Tamils to secure citizenship. Dheepan dealt with a Tamil terrorist trying to make a new life in France with a fake family. The bogus family succeeded in France. Dheepan is the story of thousands of former terrorists and fake terrorists.

Sri Lanka, obviously paying a very heavy price for not properly countering propaganda. The war-winning previous Rajapaksa government cannot absolve itself of failure to defend Sri Lanka. Instead of countering lies, the former government played politics with the issue until it was too late.

Changing security landscape

 

Jaffna peninsula:

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 174

July 11, 2017, 8:40 pm 

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Prisons Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs Minister, D.M. Swaminathan, recently expressed gratitude to yahapalana leaders, President Maithripala Sirisena, Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, and the current military leadership for releasing 54 acres of land, along the coastal belt, in the Thaididi grama niladari area, including the Myladdi fisheries harbour, adjoining the strategic Palaly cantonment

Myladdi harbour is second only to the Mirissa fisheries harbour, in terms of its size, and the Navy-maintains a crucial presence there as it is required for the overall security of the Jaffna peninsula.

The navy constructed a new pier, at Myliddy, in Dec-Jan 2007, following Basil Rajapaksa’s intervention. The then Navy Chief, Vice Admiral Wasanha Karannagoda, sought an additional pier to enhance their capability to bring in supplies required by Tamil civilians in the Jaffna peninsula. Deprived of overland Main Supply Route (MSR), to the Jaffna peninsula, both the armed forces and civilians received supplies from sea. The SLAF, too, played a tremendous role, in spite of having to operate in ‘missile environment.’

UNP National List MP Swaminathan hadn’t been present at the land handing over ceremony, held on July 3, hence issuance of brief press release, three days later, underscoring his role in regaining the land.

Jaffna Security Forces Commander, Maj. Gen. Darshana Hettiarrachchi, handed over documents regarding the release of land to the District Secretary for Jaffna, Nagalingam Vedanayaham.

Maj. Gen. Hettiarrachchi of the Engineers and a former Commissioner Gen of Rehabilitation (Feb 2012 to July 2013) succeeded Maj. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, in April this year. Senanayake, last week, received the coveted appointment as the 22 Commander of the Army, after having held the post of Chief of Staff for a brief period.

The releasing of land enabled 187 families, who had been living in refuge camps, or with relatives, to return to their original places of living.

In April this year, the Army released 35 acres of land, in Urani, including Urani fisheries harbour that had been under Jaffna Security Forces headquarters.

Swaminathan concluded his brief statement, issued on July 6, 2017, declaring that he had received an assurance from the ‘security sector’ to release more lands by the end of this year.

In Colombo, newly appointed Lt. Gen. Senanayake explained his efforts to promote post war national reconciliation, in the Jaffna peninsula, during his post-war stay there.

Commenting on Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran’s repeated calls for the military to vacate the Jaffna peninsula, the Army Chief emphasized that the country shouldn’t be unduly worried about such statements. "The deployment of troops is the prerogative of the armed forces, depending on requirement. There is absolutely no point in taking up armed forces deployment on the political platform."

Lt. Gen. Senanayake said the land held by the military would be released following proper assessment. Calling Wigneswaran a good friend of his, the former Jaffna Commander explained various measures taken by the military to strengthen post-war reconciliation process.

"We are ready for any eventuality", the new Army Commander said.

Against the backdrop of giving up Myladdi land, adjoining Palaly cantonment, and Swaminathan expecting further reduction of military presence in former war zones, it would be pertinent to examine the circumstances leading to releasing of land. The vast majority of the people are glad Lt. Gen. Senanayake is ready for any eventuality.

TNA heavyweight, MP M.A. Sumanthiran, was among those present at the Myladdi land release. Jaffna District MP Sumanthiran was also given an opportunity to address the gathering. Army headquarters posted pictures of Sumanthiran with other invitees, including Maj. Gen. Hettiarrachchi, on its website, army.lk.

"We welcome release of Myliddy fishery harbour; it is of symbolic significance," Sumanthiran said in TNA’s Twitter account.

"The rest of the land must also be released, as per the promise of the Sri Lankan government," Sumanthiran has further said.

Had the LTTE secured an understanding, with the previous government, with the intervention of Western powers, in 2009, perhaps attorney-at-law Sumanthiran wouldn’t have been able to enter parliament through the TNA National List, in April 2010. Having gained influence among the parliamentary groups, as well as the electorate, within a few years, Sumanthiran successfully contested the Jaffna District at the August 2015 parliamentary polls. Had the LTTE survived, Prabhakaran would have had the ultimate say in who contested elections, at any level, or entered parliament through the National List.

Let me stress that the eradication of the LTTE in May 2009, freed the TNA from LTTE control and paved the way for the grouping to take decisions on its own. The LTTE formed the TNA, in late 2001, to facilitate its overall eelam project. In line with its overall strategy, the TNA had to recognize the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people. The LTTE received that recognition until a soldier shot Prabhakaran through his head on the morning of May 19, 2009 on the banks of Nanthikadal. That brought relief to the entire nation and paved the way for post-war national reconciliation process.

Unfortunately, none of those, who had been preaching importance of reconciliation, are willing to accept the fact that peace wouldn’t have been a reality as long as Prabhakaran lived, here or abroad. No less a person than President Maithripala Sirisena acknowledged that a negotiated settlement would never have been possible with Prabhakaran. President Sirisena said so in response to a query posed by the writer at a meeting between the president and a group of journalists.

Had the LTTE survived the Vanni onslaught, releasing of military-held civilian land wouldn’t have been a possibility. The bottom line is that as long as the LTTE maintained sizable combat presence in the Vanni, the army couldn’t have given up the Jaffna land taken over the years in defence of its strategic bases.

Jaffna land release

The combined armed forces brought the Jaffna peninsula under government control, in early 1996. But, the LTTE had again gained the upper hand, in the northern theater of operations, by 2002. The LTTE inflicted devastating battlefield defeats on the army at Mullaitivu (July 1996) and Kilinochchi-Elephant Pass (1998-2000) and Muhamalai (2001) thereby deprived the Army of an opportunity to strike back. The LTTE had been so strong, on the northern front (Kilaly-Muhamalai-Nagarkovil sector) Jaffna Divisions, that even the elite 53 Division couldn’t move southwards, across Elephant Pass, until the then Brigadier Shavendra Silva’s celebrated 58 Division cleared the area, northwards of Paranthan, during eelam war IV. The military brought the war to an end in May 2009. Then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa authorized the releasing of Jaffna land several months after the restoration of peace. The armed forces could begin gradually giving up areas as the defeated LTTE lacked the strength to launch a sustained hit and run attack campaign.

In the Jaffna district, three Divisions held nearly 15,400 acres of land at the time Prabhakaran was killed, with the 52 Division holding nearly 11,000 acres. The 51 and 55 held the rest. In addition to the areas held by the three Divisions, the Palaly cantonment comprised about 11,600 acres and since the conclusion of the conflict, nearly 8,300 acres had been released. Over eight years after the restoration of peace, 14,000 acres, out of 15,400 acres, that had been held by the 51, 52 and 55 Divisions, were released gradually.

According to the latest statistics available, the land, in acres, held by the Army, in the Jaffna district, has been reduced to 4,700 acres from nearly 27,000, in 2009. With the gradual releasing of land, the number of displaced families, too, has come down to 770 from 2,300 in 2009. The number of welfare centers has come down to 29 from 64 in 2009.

In addition to 4,700 acres held by the Army (three Divisions plus Palaly cantonment), the Air Force and the Navy occupied nearly 1,000 acres and 580 acres, respectively.

The much anticipated process, to release Army-held land, coming within the Palaly cantonment, commenced in late Oct 2010. The Army released 370 acres of land in the first phase. It was followed by the release of nearly 1960 acres, in late Nov 2010.

The previous government released land on a staggered basis leading to gradual decreasing of military presence in the Jaffna peninsula. Parallel to the giving up of land, in the Jaffna peninsula, the Army reduced the number of battalions deployed there.

In addition to the 51,52 and 55 Divisions, deployed in the Jaffna peninsula, the elite 53 Division, too, had been positioned there until 55 and 53 joined the Vanni offensive, in early January, 2009.

Expansion of Myliddy harbour

Myliddy played a significant role in the previous government’s overall strategy meant to defend the Jaffna peninsula. The ground situation in Jaffna changed with a massive LTTE attack, on Muhamalai, in Aug 2006, which resulted in the closure of the MSR. Uncertainty gripped the north as the government and the military struggled to ensure sea and air supplies to the Jaffna peninsula under extremely difficult conditions. For want of a larger transport fleet, the Air Force couldn’t sustain supply operation on its own. The government faced the daunting task of maintaining supplies to the military, police as well as the entire civilian population. Those who had been shedding crocodile tears, for the Tamil community, didn’t utter a word to discourage the LTTE from depriving Jaffna of required supplies. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and wartime Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa had the courage to face the LTTE challenge. In response to the LTTE threat, the Navy, on the instructions of Vice Admiral Karannagoda, constructed a new pier at Myliddy within 45 days, to facilitate movement of cargo. While the Navy had been busy constructing pier, LTTE suicide squads attacked civilian cargo ship MV Liverpool unloading essential supplies at the Point Pedro harbour. The attack on Liverpool disrupted the Point Pedro harbour. The availability of Myliddy to bring in cargo eased pressure on the government and the military. The armed forces ensured the supplies needed by civilians. Western powers, in spite of having direct contacts with the LTTE, refused to demand an end to LTTE operations meant to disrupt civilian food supplies. The ICRC declined to accompany civilian food supply lines for want of security guarantee from the LTTE. The LTTE was never allowed to succeed in its effort to starve the people of Jaffna. Sadly, the UNP refrained from at least commenting on the situation at that time.

Unfortunately, the government pathetically failed to remind the country how Myliddy harbour was used for the benefit of the Jaffna community. Had Myliddy harbour being situated outside Palaly cantonment area at that time, the government would have faced a major problem. Thanks to Myliddy being situated in the military held area, the then government could swiftly use it.

Since the end of the war, Western powers and the UN (on behalf of Western powers) had been putting pressure on Sri Lanka to reduce the military presence in the northern province, particularly the Jaffna peninsula. The Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) had repeatedly requested Sri Lanka to sharply decrease military presence there. India, too, had taken up the issue, on several occasions.

Those who had been pushing for a military-free environment, in the Northern Province, are keen to ensure police powers to the Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran in accordance with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution forced on Sri Lanka 30 years ago. The same crowd succeeded in forcing Sri Lanka to do away with her annual armed forces’ victory day parade in 2015. Appalachian government meekly gave into Western demands though only Canada officially requested for the permanent cancellation of the event. Shame on spineless politicians.

Those who had bent backwards to appease elements who couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s victory over terrorism caused irreparable damage to national security. Yahapalana leaders hadn’t countered ongoing efforts to weaken the military through devious means. A section of the media, as well as the so called civil society, too, had contributed to this despicable project. Unfortunately, the Joint Opposition, in spite of being dubbed as the real opposition, both in and outside parliament, has pathetically failed to initiate an effective campaign. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for not properly defending the country in Geneva. Instead of countering specific allegations, the Rajapaksa administration played politics with the issue. The former President also authorized a controversial project that resulted in millions of US dollars squandered on international PR firms. The project meant to improve Sri Lanka’s image overseas, particularly in the US achieved nothing. Sri Lankan ended up having to face the Geneva Resolution in Oct 2015.

Having won the war, the previous government couldn’t justify its actions. A pathetic situation, indeed.

It would be necessary to inquire into an internationally backed project to compel Sri Lanka to do away with High Security Zones (HSZ) in Jaffna in 2002-2003. Had that happened, the outcome of eelam war IV would have been different. Thanks to the then Jaffna Commander Sarath Fonseka, the UNP couldn’t do it.

2002-2003 controversy over Jaffna HSZ

In accordance with the CFA, arranged by the Norway, the then government made an attempt to at least partially do away with HSZs. The project went awry due to Fonseka, publicly opposing the plan.

Sri Lanka sought the advice of one-time Indian Army Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar, to advice the Sri Lankan military, on security matters, as regards the Jaffna HSZs. Subsequently, Sri Lanka obtained advice from retired Vice Chief-of-Naval-Staff, Vice Admiral P. J. Jacob.

Sri Lanka initially engaged Nambiar, who commanded the UN troops, in what was previously Yugoslavia, to review the Jaffna HSZs. His report on HSZs was released in mid 4 January, 2003. It was his second report on the HSZs as the LTTE rejected his first report which basically endorsed the views of Fonseka.

Fonseka declared a set of tough per-conditions for the military to give up Jaffna HSZs. The war veteran emphasized that giving up of HSZs should be directly linked to a series of measures to prevent the LTTE from taking advantage of the situation.

Fonseka earned the wrath of the then government, as well as all those who had been backing the Norwegian initiative, regardless of its security consequences. Had the then government had its way, the LTTE could have destabilized the Palaly-Kankesanthurai sector (Palaly cantonment). Large scale destabilization/sabotage operations could have undermined both air and sea supply routes, and that would have affected the government position in the entire peninsula. Had that happened, Jaffna would have been vulnerable for a massive assault and the ground situation, altered to such an extent, that the LTTE would taken the upper hand in the Jaffna peninsula.

Fonseka went to the extent of releasing his controversial proposals as regards the Jaffna HSZs in a bid to pressure the UNP leadership to drop its plan. Fonseka imposed tough conditions to prevent the LTTE from taking advantage of proposed resettlement of civilians in areas demarcated as HSZs. The Sinha Regiment veteran also involved the Norwegian-led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) in proposed counter measures. Fonseka proposed additional powers and fresh mandate to the SLMM to pave the way for the five-nation grouping to play a pivotal role in an effective de-escalation plan.

Fonseka highlighted the danger in doing away with Jaffna HSZs without taking adequate precautions. Fonseka’s stand should be examined in the backdrop of extremely poor ground situation in the Northern Province at that time. Having suffered a humiliating defeat, at Elephant Pass, in April, 2000, the army held a forward defence line, extending from Kilali on one side to Nargarkovil on the Vadamaratchchy east coast via Eluththumaduval and Muhamalai. The LTTE retained strong forces capable of breaching defended positions. In that background, doing away with HSZs, in the Jaffna peninsula, to facilitate the Norwegian led peace process, could have caused catastrophe unless counter measures were taken, in accordance with Fonseka’s plan. Perhaps, no other army officer, at that time, had the guts to publicly oppose controversial plan to do away with HSZs much to the embarrassment of the then political leadership.

Key points identified by Fonseka

*Withdrawal of LTTE weapons as well as decommissioning of artillery pieces and long range mortars, positioned against military in the Jaffna peninsula. This was to be done with the assistance of the SLMM.

*Measures to prevent resettlement of LTTE cadres, their families and sympathizers close to military camps.

*Possibility of the LTTE having military hardware, including missiles within areas categorized as HSZs.

*Threat posed by suicide cadres operating in HSZs.

*Use of information provided by civilians in HSZs to direct accurate artillery and mortar fire at specific targets.

*Under any circumstances, LTTE will not be allowed to engage in politics (Under the CFA, the LTTE was allowed to enter government-held areas in both Northern and Eastern districts to engage in political activity. The LTTE used that opportunity to organist hit squads to eliminate those individuals whom it considered a threat to the organization).

*Strict controls on movement of those allowed to return to HSZs with certain areas declared out of bounds for returnees, under any circumstances.

*Regular checks on people, at both entry and exit points, at HSZs.

*The need to retain buffer zones within the HSZs to meet any eventuality.

*Prohibition of resettlement of civilians at places that could be used to threaten ship movements, to and from Kankesanthurai, and aircraft operating to and from the Palaly air base.

*Under cover LTTE units exploiting the presence of civilians to mount attacks on the military.

What armed forces won through blood, sweat and tears, the politicos might surrender on a platter