Missing persons: How Ranil set the record straight in 2015

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 306

January 28, 2020, 8:36 pm

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa speaking with UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe at the India House on Monday evening, January 27, while outgoing Indian High Commissioner Taranjit Singh Sandhu looks on (Pic by Jude Denzil Pathiraja)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

A once UK-based friend of mine reacted to Midweek piece headlined ‘Alleged war crimes lame excuse to introduce new Constitution’ in the January 15 edition of The Island. Referring to a 10-point summary, at the end of the piece, the writer was reminded of a critically important aspect, not touched at all. The writer, in point form, dealt with issues that had to be critically examined by the incumbent government, ahead of the Feb-March sessions of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.

In an e-mail, addressed to the writer, the concerned party, now back in-land like no other,’ stressed: "We should not forget how the UN Panel of Experts (PoE) gathered data." The reference was to the ‘Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka,’ officially released on March 31, 2011.

Sri Lanka never really examined how the UN panel comprising Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia), Steven R Ratner (US) and Yasmin Sooka (South Africa) reached the controversial conclusion that 40,000 civilians perished in the final assault on the Vanni east front.

Having faulted the Army, on three major counts, the PoE accused Sri Lanka of massacring at least 40,000 civilians. Let me reproduce the paragraph, bearing no 137, verbatim:

"In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is 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 UN never revealed these so-called credible sources. Successive governments, including the war-winning Rajapaksa administration, conveniently refrained from raising the contentious issue of mysterious sources. The PoE (paragraph 17, 19 and 23) dealt with/revealed three crucial issues. As the public the response to PoE appeal hadn’t been satisfactory, the Dec 15, 2010 deadline was extended till Dec 31, 2010. The PoE received over 4,000 submissions, from 2,300 persons. The PoE admitted that as the submissions hadn’t been verified, they weren’t used as ‘direct sources’ and finally submissions would remain classified for a period of 20 years, from March 31, 2011.

The way the UN collected war crimes allegations, from hidden sources, in the absence of sufficient information, revealed its bias.

Gotabaya on missing persons

Against Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to address the post-war issues, even a decade after the successful conclusion of the war, it would be pertinent to discuss two issues (1) reportage of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s recent meeting with UN Resident Representative Hanaa Singer at the Presidential Secretariat, and (ii) former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe interview with South India’s Thanthi TV, in March 2015 as well as a statement by Wickremesinghe, at Rukmale Sri Dharmasoka Vijayaloka Maha Viharaya, on March 1, 2015. Both Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe dealt with the war dead/missing.

A section of the media declared wartime Defence Secretary Incumbent President, acknowledged for the first time that more than 23,000 people missing for a decade since the end of the conflict, were dead. The AFP, in a Colombo, datelined report ‘Sri Lanka President acknowledges thousands of war missing as dead’ discussed the outcome of the President’s meet with UN Resident Representative, Hanaa Singer.

Aljazeera reported President Gotabaya Rajapaksa statement under the following headline ‘President Rajapaksa says Sri Lanka to treat war missing as dead’

The BBC reported ‘Sri Lanka civil war: Rajapaksa says thousands missing are dead.’

However, the Presidential Secretariat subsequently stated that the statement, attributed to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had been taken out of context. The Presidential Secretariat emphasized that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa never acknowledged that more than 20,000 missing were dead. "President Gotabaya Rajapaksa did not make any such acknowledgement nor did he make a reference to a number as missing or dead", - the Presidential Secretariat said.

Two important statements

The 2015 presidential election brought an end to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s rule. His government was repeatedly accused of running secret detention facilities. Western powers, too, subscribed to these unsubstantiated allegations. In spite of change of the government, in 2015, accusations persisted. In the run-up to the 2015 Geneva sessions, Sri Lanka was accused of still operating secret detention facilities. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe chose to set the record straight, at a ceremony at Rukmale Sri Dharmaloka Vijayaloka Maha Viharaya on March 01, 2015, to felicitate the newly appointed Maha Nayaka Thera Ven. Ittapane Dharmalankara. Among those present was Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo.

Premier Wickremesinghe declared that as all those who had been taken into custody, during the war, and the post-conflict period, were being held in legally run facilities all detainees/prisoners could be accounted for. The UNP leader didn’t mince his words when he emphasized that those missing, but not listed among those in government custody, had either perished during the conflict or were living overseas (Prime Minister denies existence of secret detention camps with strap line Those not among prison population either perished during the war or living overseas, The Island March 04, 2015.’

Several days later, Premier Wickremesinghe challenged the much-touted UN claim of over 40,000 civilians killed on the Vanni east front. Wickremesinghe also stressed the urgent need to verify UN claims, as well as, various other accusations.

UNP leader Wickremesinghe said so in an exclusive interview with Thanthi TV in which he insisted that figures, quoted by the UN or other organizations, couldn’t be accepted without being verified. The March 6, 2015, interview couldn’t have been conducted at a better time, though Wickremesinghe did nothing subsequently to examine the Vanni death toll. Instead, Wickremesinghe gave the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera the go ahead to co-sponsor the accountability resolution, in Geneva, on Oct 01, 2015. The rest is history.

When the interviewer, S.A. Hariharan pointed out that the Tamil Diaspora had estimated the number of civilian deaths closer to 100,000; Wickremesinghe asserted that it wouldn’t even come up to 40,000.

Wickremesinghe pointed out that, in addition to the PoE report, there had been other official reports that dealt with accountability issues. The Premier emphasized the pivotal importance of verifying such accusations to establish the number of civilian deaths. The Premier said that some official reports placed the number of civilian deaths at 5,000.

The UNP leader has never called for the verification of the UN report before. But, unfortunately, Wickremesinghe didn’t take follow-up action. The then government refrained from using heavy ammunition provided by Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, to counter the PoE report.

For some strange reason, the Mahinda Rajapaksa  government refused to push for the re-examination/verification of the UN claim of over 40,000 killed. In fact, that administration never realized the need to counter specific allegations. It also ignored discrepancy in the number of civilians killed, as quoted by various interested parties.

Sri Lanka never bothered with the confidentiality clause of PoE report, which does not even give us, as the accused the basic right to either face the accusers or to cross examine them. Sri Lanka refrained from raising the issue during the Geneva sessions to date. Even after 20 years, the release of Sri Lanka records by the UN is subject to yet another mystery de-classification review. This is certainly not the way for a world body to behave. It only goes to show it has once again done a hatchet job against a weaker nation, like Sri Lanka, at the behest of the West.

So, no wonder, after the invasion of Iraq, on the trumped up excuse of going after Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, despite UN experts failing to find any there, after scouring the country, one of the first things that the rebels there did was to blow up the UN compound in Baghdad.

Premier Wickremesinghe didn’t mince his words when he repeatedly declared, during the exclusive interview with Thanthi TV, that all available information/allegations should be thoroughly and speedily inquired into to establish the truth. Wickremesinghe certainly owed an explanation as to why he didn’t take tangible action to have the UN claims verified.

Wickremesinghe performed magnificently when Thanthi TV’s Hariharan pressed him over Sri Lanka’s accountability, as well as related issues. The interviewer was somewhat taken aback when Wickremesinghe reminded him that Tamil, speaking people died in the hands of the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force). The LTTE and its followers called the IPKF ‘the people killing force’. Until then Hariharan was careful not to discuss India’s culpability for atrocities committed on Sri Lanka’s soil.

Premier Wickremesinghe’s remarks on the IPKF should be examined, taking into consideration what one-time Indian Foreign Secretary, J.N. Dixit’s admission in his memoirs, "Makers of India’s Foreign Policy", that India trained terrorists here and deployed them on a large scale destabilization project. Dixit faulted the then Indian Premier Indira Gandhi for setting up terrorist groups in the ‘80s. Dixit went on to say that launching a terrorist war in Sri Lanka was one of the two foreign policy blunders made by Mrs Gandhi, the other being India’s failure to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Obviously, the Indian destabilization project was meant to pave the way for direct military intervention here.

Premier Wickremesinghe reminded the interviewer that terrorists, particularly the LTTE, wiped out the Tamil political leadership. Lambasting Northern Province Chief Minister, retired Supreme Court judge, C.V. Wigneswaran, for calling for a wider UN probe of genocide of Tamil speaking people, since 1948, the Premier accused him of acting irresponsibly. Recollecting the circumstances under which Tamil terrorists annihilated the Jaffna political leadership, Premier Wickremesinghe told the interviewer, Wigneswaran wouldn’t have been taken from Colombo and made the Chief Minister of the Northern Province if not for the vacuum caused by a spate of political assassinations, by the LTTE. Wickremesinghe emphasized two critical points during the interview.

The UNP leader said that the then President Rajapaksa couldn’t have brought the war to a successful conclusion without India’s support. When the interviewer pointed out that India had categorically denied helping the Rajapaksa government to defeat the LTTE, a smiling Premier Wickremesinghe said: "amnesia is, you know, very common among politicians."

Alleging that LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran ensured Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory at the Nov. 2005, presidential poll, by depriving the northern electorate from voting for him (Wickremesinghe), the UNP leader asserted that had Prabhakaran allowed the electoral process to continue without interference, the Vanni deaths could have been avoided.

UNHRC and Swiss projects

Attorney-at-law Kalyananda Thiranagama recently compared the Geneva project with the fatal Swiss bid to implicate President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government in the abduction of Swiss Embassy local employee Garnier Banister Francis. Addressing the media, at the Rajagiriya Office of the Federation of National Organizations (FNO) recently, Thiranagama explained how the UN and Western powers stepped-up pressure on Sri Lanka through devious ways.

The Swiss almost succeeded in evacuating Francis in an air ambulance in the last week of Nov 2019 following high profile accusations of Francis being abducted at gunpoint and sexually abused in a Toyota Corolla car. Had that happened, Sri Lanka would have been placed in an extremely dicey situation against the backdrop of Inspector Nishantha Silva, of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), securing political asylum in Switzerland.

The names of one-time Observer editor Dharisha Bastians, who served the New York Times as its correspondent in Colombo, Lakna Paranamana of the Agence France Press and former Lake House Chairman Crishantha Cooray, a friend of the writer, transpired in the ongoing investigation/court proceedings into the Garnier affair. Bastians left the country in the wake of Garnier’s arrest and days after the New York Times posted misleading report on the Nov 25 abduction that never happened. Paranamana had been an Information Assistant of the US Embassy, in Colombo, for three and half years, before joining the AFP, in May 2019.

Unexpected disclosure of UNP lawmaker Ranjan Ramanayake’s audio and video clips also revealed clandestine link between the MP and fugitive Inspector Nishantha Silva. The fact that MP Ramanayake offered his smart phone to Wickremesinghe also to speak with the CID officer made matters worse.  Ramanayake also exposed another foreign correspondent Azzam Ameen of the BBC Sinhala service, whose leaked conversation led to him being discontinued by the BBC. The BBC faulted Ameen for advising the UNPer regarding political strategy to defeat Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Nov 2019 presidential election.

Did UN accept sample letters?

For want of sufficient number of complaints received by the UN Panel of Experts, those seeking to haul Sri Lanka up before an international war crimes court launched a special project to collect evidence. Remember, the original bid was to move an exclusive international court against Sri Lanka. They cajoled people to lodge complaints with the PoE. On Dec 08, 2010, seven days before the expiry of the first deadline to submit complaints, ‘Eelam View’ website appealed for more complaints with specific request that those not directly affected by the conflict or crimes against humanity perpetrated by Sri Lankan political leadership and the military case also submit. In a bid to facilitate the project undertaken by the PoE on behalf of the UN, ‘Eelam View’ posted 25 sample letters to be submitted to the three member panel. The UN extended the deadline to Dec 31, 2010 for want of Diaspora interests. UN confidentiality clause so far effectively prevented examination of evidence presented against Sri Lanka though on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations Geneva moved accountability resolution. Sri Lanka lacked spine at least to voice its concern at the UNHRC over the way Western powers in consultation with the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) handled the Sri Lanka war crimes issue. Click the line below to access sample letters.

(http://www.eelamview.com/2010/12/08/un-submission-sample-letters-7-days-left-have-you-made-your-submission/)

Nearly a decade after the PoE released its highly disputed report, Sri Lanka does not know as to how the UN reached the conclusion that 40,000 civilians perished on the Vanni east front. But, now we know 40,000 did not die there as alleged. Thanks to Wiki Leaks, we are aware the Army conducted the final assault cautiously at its own expense.

A cable dated July 15, 2009 signed by the then Geneva-based US Ambassador Clint Williamson cleared the Sri Lankan Army of crimes against humanity. The cable addressed to the US State Department was based on a confidential conversation Ambassador Williamson had with the then ICRC head of operations for South Asia, Jacque de Maio, on July 9, 2009. Ambassador Williamson wrote: "The Army was determined not to let the LTTE escape from its shrinking territory, even though this meant the civilians being kept hostage by the LTTE were at an increasing risk. So, de Maio said, while one could safely say that there were ‘serious, widespread violations of international humanitarian law,’ by the Sri Lankan forces, it didn’t amount to genocide. He could cite examples of where the army had stopped shelling when the ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet they chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths. He concluded however, by asserting that the GoSL failed to recognize its obligation to protect civilians, despite the approach leading to higher military casualties."

Sri Lanka never bothered at least to mention this in its defence in Geneva or any other forum. Perhaps, an internal investigation is required to ascertain whether politicians, officials and the military deliberately denied Sri Lanka proper defence to facilitate the Geneva project. Actually Geneva project is political. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Western powers exploited Geneva to push Sri Lanka to engage in constitutional reforms process meant to abolish the country’s unitary status.

Alleged war crimes lame excuse to introduce new constitution

Oct 2015 Geneva Resolution based on pack of lies

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 305

January 21, 2020, 12:00 pm

Colombo-based top UN official Hana Singer raised the contentious issue of wartime disappearances with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last Friday, January 17, when she met the latter at the Presidential Secretariat. President Rajapaksa explained as to how Tamil politicians hindered efforts to provide relief to those affected by the conflict (pic courtesy President’s Media)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Apropos Midweek piece ‘What will be Prez Gotabaya’s Geneva policy’ published in the January 15, 2020, edition of The Island, Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera has sent us the following comment, headlined ‘The President is duty bound.’ The following observations were made by the writer

(1)                    The JO never made a real effort to pressure the government over the Geneva issue. Instead, the JO helped the Geneva Project by joining the treacherous attempt to draft a new constitution to do away with Sri Lanka’s unitary status at the behest of the West and the Eelam lobby.

(2)                    However, the UNP cleverly used the Parliament to achieve its objectives. The UNP shrewdly involved all political parties, represented in Parliament, in a Constitution making process, as directed by Geneva against the country’s interest. The operation was meant to do away with the unitary status.

These observations take my mind back to the harsh comments I made regarding the first meeting summoned by the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to initiate a new Constitution, and to an incident that followed it.

When I saw the picture wherein the entire opposition with beaming faces rushed to participate at that meeting as requested by Ranil Wickremesinghe, I was so infuriated that I lashed out at them at a press conference. I remember quoting a verse from Budugunalankaraya – comparing their behaviour to that of the fish rushing to the bait. (gesu mas godurata pena yana masun vilasita)

A few days later, an emissary was sent to me by the opposition to convince me of the innocuousness of this act and to silence me, without raking up the issue. When I asked the emissary what made them behave in that way, the answer was, "if we did not go there, then we would not have known what was going on".

Those members of the opposition not only participated at that meeting but also joined the various committees, designed by Ranil Wickremesinghe. Was the intention to make Ranil Wickramasinghe do the dirty work and make him the scapegoat and wash their hands off?

I only hope that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is not guided by these members of the then opposition (now in government) and will act independently and get the UNHRC to revisit this issue at the forthcoming Geneva sessions, as suggested by Lord Naseby. The President is duty bound to do so, as he was elected by the vast majority of Sinhala Buddhists and others who are not separatists out to divide the country. This may be the last chance to do so and save the country."

Thanks to Treasury bond scams, allegedly perpetrated by the then UNP-led government, in Feb 2015 and March 2016, high profile project to replace the Constitution went awry. The first Treasury bond scam caused a serious rift between the then President Maithripala Sirisena and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe. In spite of that, President Sirisena dissolved Parliament, in late June 2015, to prevent tabling of COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) on the first Treasury bond scam. If that report was allowed in Parliament, the outcome of August 2015 parliamentary polls would have been different. President Sirisena ensured the UNP victory by declaring that in case of a UPFA victory, Mahinda Rajapaksa wouldn’t be named the Prime Minister, under any circumstances. Having won the parliamentary poll, the UNP brazenly perpetrated a far bigger second Treasury bond scam, in late March 2016. President Sirisena owed an explanation as to why he delayed setting up of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to probe the Treasury bond scams, till mid-January 2017.

In between the Treasury bond scams, the government, in Oct 2015, betrayed its own armed forces at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council by way of the controversial resolution ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.’ The resolution was nothing but a tool to create an environment necessary to bring in a new Constitution.

Geneva politics

As President Gotabaya Rajapaksa considered ways and means of tackling the Geneva issue, it would be necessary to examine the whole project carefully with the focus on the Oct 2015 resolution. The resolution was based on a pack of lies. Geneva intervened in a new constitution making process. Unsubstantiated war crimes allegations were used as an excuse to meddle in purely a domestic matter. It would be pertinent to mention that Western powers brought in a UNP- led coalition to power under Maithripala Sirisena’s leadership to ensure the right political climate to bring in a new Constitution. Having failed to oust Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the January 2010 presidential poll, Western powers succeeded in t January 2015. The treacherous project involved the UNP, JVP, SLMC and one-time Velupillai Prabhakaran’s proxy, the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA).

Sri Lanka never made a genuine effort to prove the basis for the Geneva resolution as being a sinister ploy and thereby allowed the continuation of a process meant to divide the country on ethnic lines. The 19th Amendment, enacted weeks after the first Treasury bond scam, was meant to facilitate the despicable process by diluting the executive powers of the President.

The JVP’s proposal to choose a President, by way of a vote in Parliament, if adopted, could have caused a catastrophe.

HR Chief on new Constitution

In June 2016, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, commented on the constitutional making process in his oral update to the rights body.

Al-Hussein said: "Significant momentum has been achieved in the process of constitutional reform. On 10 March 2016, Parliament adopted a resolution establishing a constitutional assembly to draft and approve a new constitution or amendments by the end of 2016, which would then be put to a referendum in 2017. The drafting process has benefited from an inclusive public consultation process overseen by a Public Representations Committee that received submissions and held district level consultations in the first quarter of 2016."

LSSP (majority group) stalwart attorney-at-law Lal Wijenayake headed the much advertised Public Representations Committee. Wijenayake, the then LSSP Secretary, played a significant role in the overall project, along with Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, PC (UNP National List).

The UNP cleverly involved all political parties, represented in Parliament, in the Geneva project to replace the much amended 1978 Constitution.

The then Joint Opposition (JO) never bothered to examine the UNP strategy. The JO joined the constitution making process, thereby gave credence to the operation. JO constituent, the National Freedom Front (NFF), quit the process in July 2017. NFF leader Wimal Weerawansa, and four other NFF MPs, elected on the UPFA ticket, namely Weerakumara Dissanayake, Jayantha Samaraweera, Udayashantha Gunasekera and Niroshan Premaratne, quit the Constituent Assembly (CA). Weerakumara Dissanayake, subsequently, switched his allegiance to the then President Maithripala Sirisena.

In spite of the NFF’s move and the Federation of National Organizations (FNO) demanding that the JO quit the disputed constitution making process without further delay, the group remained in the process. Dr. Amarasekera and Dr. Wasantha Bandara, on behalf of the FNO, repeatedly warned of dire consequences from the proposed new Constitution. President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva, too, on many occasions, highlighted the threat posed by the proposed new Constitution.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa launched Eliya in a bid to make the public aware of the danger posed by the new Constitution.

The Treasury bond scams dealt heavy blows to the UNP-led administration, thereby derailing the process. The UNP couldn’t proceed with the Geneva time table primarily due to its own failures. The Treasury bond scams considerably weakened the UNP. The debilitating setback, suffered at the Feb 2018 Local Government poll, finally led to the Oct 26, 2018 ‘constitutional coup.’ But, the Geneva process remained on track with the then government reassuring UK of its commitment to the Geneva process.

The UNP conveniently forgot about the high powered ‘ammunition’ provided by Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, by way of wartime dispatches from Colombo, to discredit the Geneva resolution.

On the basis of UK military dispatches, from Colombo, (January-May 2009), Lord Naseby, revealed the maximum number of Tamils killed was about 6,000 and not 40,000, as alleged by the UN Panel of Experts, and that the Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government never deliberately targeted the civilian community. Of those killed, during the final phase of fighting, one fourth was described as LTTE combatants.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government has an opportunity to seek re-examination of the Geneva resolution in the wake of Lord Naseby requesting the UK to withdraw the now discredited resolution.

Mangala reiterates commitment

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on Feb. 05, 2019, revealed Sri Lanka’s unwavering commitment to the Geneva Resolutions, in his response to Lord Naseby, during the House of Commons debate on UNHRC Resolutions - 30/1 in Oct. 2015 and 34/1 in March 2017.

Let me reproduce, verbatim, the section that dealt with Sri Lanka’s stand on Geneva. Declaring that the UK repeatedly urged Sri Lanka to go further and faster, Lord Ahmad, of Wimbledon, who is also a key member of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, founded in Punjab, said: "On 21 January, 2019, I met the Minister of Finance and Mass Media, Mangala Samaraweera, in London. He has been a strong supporter of Sri Lanka’s commitments to Resolution 30/1. It was a pleasant and constructive meeting, during which he took the opportunity to engage directly with representatives of the diaspora in the UK, including members of the Tamil community. My honourable friend, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, Mark Field, did the same when he met Foreign Minister Marapana and a number of other Sri Lankan Ministers and officials, in Colombo, last October. Last September, the UK led a statement on behalf of the core group at the 39th session of the Human Rights Council, urging Sri Lanka to prioritize and drive forward the implementation of its commitments."

The new government cannot afford not to undertake a full review of the Geneva process. Obviously, the Geneva resolution, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka ,is nothing but an excuse to proceed with the new constitution making process that would undermine the country’s sovereignty. The previous government established an elaborate set up to bring in a new Constitution. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe personally led the parliamentary process. Wickremesinghe could have brought the process to a successful conclusion if not for the massive damage the UNP caused itself by way of Treasury bond scams. The destabilization, caused by the UNP, undermined the constitution making process, undertaken by the party, though Western powers and the TNA remained confident that the Parliament could be somehow used to achieve their objective. However, the Treasury bond scams (Feb 2015 & March 2016), dispute over the co-sponsorship of the Geneva resolution (Oct 2015), appointment of Presidential Commission of Inquiry to probe Treasury bond scams (January 2017) and the debilitating Local Government polls defeat suffered by the UNP and the SLFP (Feb 2018) ruined yahapalana arrangement. Finally, President Sirisena sacked PM Wickremesinghe (Oct 2018), after having failed to get rid of him with the help of the UNP parliamentary group.

The Sinhala south overwhelmingly voted for Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the 2019 presidential poll. The north and east electorates rejected him. They voted for Sajith Premadasa who contested on the New Democratic Front (NDF) ticket. If not for the Tamil vote, Gotabaya Rajapaksa would have won the election by a far bigger margin than the 1.3 mn votes. The forthcoming Geneva session has given President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government an opportunity to place all available credible facts before Geneva, and the North-East Tamil electorate, to disprove the primary war crimes allegation 40,000 Tamil civilians being massacred as a result of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government deliberately targeting that community.

A high profile campaign is required to educate the public in the run up to the Geneva session and the parliamentary polls expected in the last week of April, or early May 2020.

Sri Lanka never bothered to critically examine all available information, nor present them in Geneva. A proper assessment would have certainly exposed the discrepancy in accusations directed at the war-winning Sri Lankan military.

Pivotal issues

Let me list key developments since the successful conclusion of the war in May 2009: (1) March 2011 UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) alleged that Sri Lankan military killed 40,000 on the Vanni front.

(2)In June 2011, US Defence Advisor in Colombo, Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, disputed accusations pertaining to battle-field executions following an agreement between the government and the LTTE.

(3)In Sept 2011, London headquartered Amnesty International placed the number of civilian deaths at 10,000.

(4) In Sept 2011, the UK parliament was told 100,000 persons including 60,000 LTTE combatants, were killed in 2009. For some strange reason, Sri Lanka never bothered at least to point out the discrepancy in various figures quoted by interested parties, hell bent on hauling Sri Lanka before the international war crimes court.

(5) Sri Lanka’s failure to highlight/point out discrepancy in the number of deaths is very surprising, against the backdrop of the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) contradicting PoE assertion 40,000 civilians perished in the offensive. The UNCT, on the basis of information secured from those based in wartime Vanni, placed the number of dead at 7,721 and wounded at 18,479. Sri Lanka owed an explanation as to why this was not taken up with those who accused Sri Lanka of massacring innocent people.

(6) Interestingly, the March 2011 PoE report, that alleged Sri Lanka of killing 40,000, revealed the existence of UNCT report yet to be released over a decade after the end of war. For want of a cohesive strategy, Sri Lanka never really brought up issues that should have been dealt with. A case in point is the UN ruling that prevented examination/verification of accusations for a period of 20 years, since the March 31, 2011, releasing of the PoE report. The bottom line is that on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations ,collected under mysterious circumstances, the UN engaged in a process that finally led to the treacherous UNP-SLFP combine backing the Oct 2015 Geneva resolution.

(7) Sri Lanka co-sponsored the Geneva resolution, just over a week, after finding fault with it. The then Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, who objected to the draft resolution, was instructed to endorse it. Aryasinha did.  In spite of President Sirisena repeatedly dissociating his government from the Geneva resolution, he conveniently refrained from taking remedial measures. The Geneva resolution stands today unchanged.

(8) In June 2016, Geneva referred to constitutional making process in Sri Lanka. Geneva represented the interests of the Western powers. In the same month, lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, in the presence of then Sri Lanka Ambassador to Washington, Prasad Kariyawasam, revealed the existence of a tripartite agreement on the accountability mechanisms. In other words, he declared the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government acceptance of foreign judges and other foreign personnel. With Kariyawasam on his side, Sumanthiran declared that foreign judges being allowed in domestic war crimes courts was in line with the Constitution.

(9) The House of Lords was told, in Oct 2017, there was no basis for the PoE claim of 40,000 deaths in the Vanni. Recently, Lord Naseby reiterated in the House of Lords there were only 6,000 deaths. Of them, one fourth were LTTE combatants. (Once Lord Naseby referred to 7,000 to 8,000 deaths) It would be pertinent to mention Lord Naseby based his statement on wartime British High Commission dispatches from Colombo. Sri Lanka is yet to take up Lord Naseby’s disclosure with the UN. Farhan Aziz Haq, Deputy Spokesperson for UNSG António Guterres, said that decisions regarding actions taken by the UNHRC were solely in the hands of the members of the Human Rights Council. Haq said it would be up to the member states of the Human Rights Council to decide whether to revisit Sri Lanka’s case. The UNHRC comprises 47 countries divided into five zones.

The UN spokesperson said so when The Island asked him whether there was a possibility in the UN revisiting Geneva Resolution in the wake of Lord Naseby assertion that the Vanni death toll was maximum 7,000 to 8,000 not 40,000 as reported by UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) in March 2011 andthat the GoSL never targeted civilians purposely.

The Island raised the issue with the UN in the wake of Sri Lanka Parliament taking up the issue twice since Lord Naseby’s Oct 12 bombshell statement in the House of Lords.

Sri Lanka ignored the opportunity given by Haq as well. In fact, Sri Lanka also turned a blind eye to the UK efforts to suppress dispatches which cleared Sri Lanka. UNHRC member UK didn’t release dispatches until Lord Naseby sought the intervention of UK Information Commissioner in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000).  Had the Foreign and Commonwealth Office released the required information, as requested in early Nov 2014, Western powers would have found it difficult to justify the Geneva Resolution. Western powers engineered the change of government in January 2015 to ensure the passage of the Geneva resolution meant to facilitate the constitutional process tailor made by the West. Final objective was to bring in the new Constitution. As pointed out by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera, who played a significant role in the overall resistance against the anti-Sri Lanka project, pointed out, in a letter to the writer, the threat remains. In fact, the threat is growing. The possibility of the Parliament being used to achieve separatist project cannot be ruled out.

(10) Sri Lankan leadership lacked insight to point out as to how the UN contributed to the Tiger despicable project of using of civilians as a human shield to halt the advance of security forces - March-May 2009. The LTTE, in early 2007, detained Tamil UN workers who had helped those who lived in areas under LTTE control to safely cross the Vanni frontline. Sri Lanka never took up this issue with the UN though the UN mission here was found to have deceived both the government and its New York headquarters. The PoE comprising Marzuki Darusman (Chairman), Stevan R. Ratner and Yasmin Zooka ended the report with the following recommendation: "The Secretary-General should conduct a comprehensive review of actions by the United Nations system during the war in Sri Lanka and the aftermath, regarding the implementation of its humanitarian and protection mandates."

Culpability of the UN

The UN owed the world an explanation as to why it did nothing to prevent the massive scale use of human shields. Let me end this piece with leaked ICRC statement which cleared Sri Lanka of genocide charge.

The cable dated July 15, 2009 signed by the then Geneva-based US Ambassador Clint Williamson cleared the Army of crimes against humanity. The cable addressed to the US State Department was based on a confidential conversation Ambassador Williamson had with the then ICRC head of operations for South Asia, Jacque de Maio, on July 9, 2009. Ambassador Williamson wrote: "The army was determined not to let the LTTE escape from its shrinking territory, even though this meant the civilians being kept hostage by the LTTE were at an increasing risk. So, de Maio said, while one could safely say that there were ‘serious, widespread violations of international humanitarian law,’ by the Sri Lankan forces, it didn’t amount to genocide. He could cite examples of where the army had stopped shelling when the ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet it chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths. He concluded however, by asserting that the GoSL failed to recognize its obligation to protect civilians, despite the approach leading to higher military casualties."

A thorough review of all information available - from UK dispatches to Wiki Leaks - is necessary, at least now. The government can begin by examining the UNHRC project to blame Sri Lanka for the Mannar mass graves and the then Northern Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran’s accusations pertaining to poisoning of over 100 LTTE ex-combatants undergoing rehabilitation during the yahapalana administration.

What will be Prez Gotabaya’s Geneva policy?

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 304

January 14, 2020, 9:22 pm

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Lord Naseby recently spoke about Sri Lanka in the Queen’s Speech debate in the House of Lords. The Conservative member asserted that there was a huge opportunity for improvement if the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Commission) project against Sri Lanka was wound up.

Lord Naseby said: "…There are complaints about torture. I have seen the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) three times and asked it whether it has seen torture in Sri Lanka. Every time, the answer has been a clear ‘No’. It is fake news. Today, there is a shadow. That is the claim that the UN started with—of 40,000 killed.

"I have spent 10 years looking at the reports by Gash and the Tamil university teachers, at the census and at all the coverage I could find. The net result is about 6,000 people killed, of which a quarter is Tamil Tigers. Despite all this, we now find that the UNHCR has decided that it wants to try to get war crimes pinned on the Sri Lankan Army. Yet, the reports of Colonel Gash made it clear that the Army behaved admirably and looked after the civilians. If the SLA had wanted to knock them off, then over 295,000 people would not have been safely brought across the lines, would they? I believe that the time has come for the March, 2020 review, when it takes place, to be the wind-up time for that phase of life in Sri Lanka."

Colonel Anthony Gash served in Colombo as the British Defence Advisor during the Eelam War IV (August 2006-May 2009).

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka Parliament lacked interest in addressing the accountability issue though it posed a growing threat to its unitary status. In spite of the change of government, in Nov 2019, following the presidential poll, the Geneva threat remains. Now, it would be the responsibility of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government to explore ways and means of neutralizing the Geneva threat.

The current political turmoil, caused by UNP lawmaker Ranjan Ramanayake’s secret recordings of him making a mockery of the country’s judiciary and the entire legal process, including the police, shouldn’t be allowed to divert the government’s attention from the Geneva sessions. Having accused the UNP-led yahapalana government of betraying the country, in Geneva, by it backing the controversial resolution 30/1 against the country, adopted on Oct 01, 2015, the incumbent political leadership cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for not taking tangible measures to address the issue.

Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader Dinesh Gunawardena, MP, in his capacity as the then leader of the Joint Opposition parliamentary group, is one of the few lawmakers who discussed the Geneva issue, both in and outside Parliament. Lawmaker Gunawardena quite rightly recognized the opportunity, presented by Lord Naseby’s disclosure in the House of Lords, on Oct 12, 2017. The then JO Chief in Parliament underscored the pivotal importance in using Naseby’s revelation, based on wartime British High Commission dispatches from Colombo (January 1, 2009-May 2009).

Marapana’s assurance

It would be pertinent to remind the reader about the assurance given by Foreign Affairs Minister Tilak Marapana, in Parliament, on Nov 25, 2017. One-time Attorney General and President’s Counsel Marapana assured that Lord Naseby’s disclosure would be used as ‘an ace’ when the time came and at the right place.

Responding to lawmaker Gunawardena’s query as to why Lord Naseby’s statement hadn’t been used, especially at the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Minister Marapana said that the Government would use Lord Naseby’s statement at an appropriate forum.

Lawmaker 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."

MP Gunawardena alleged that the Foreign Ministry had not properly made use of Lord Naseby’s statement which categorically proved that the Lankan security forces did not massacre 40,000 civilians, on the Vanni front, during the final phase of the war, as alleged by a so-called panel of experts, appointed by then UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

MP Gunawardena said: "Although Lord Naseby proved that reports used by the UNHRC are erroneous, the Government’s representatives, like Dr. Harsha de Silva, had made a different statement in Geneva recently."

Minister Marapana told the House that he did not agree with MP Gunawardena’s allegations. The Minister said Dr Harsha de Silva did not make such a statement, as claimed by the MP.

"We are mindful of Lord Naseby’s statement and we really appreciate his efforts. He has done extensive research on it. The forum in Geneva, which Dr. Harsha de Silva attended, was not an appropriate forum to take it up."

The UNP never used Lord Naseby disclosure to defend Sri Lanka. The UNP discarded credible information provided by Lord Naseby. President’s Counsel Marapana who received the foreign affairs portfolio, in August 2017, followed his predecessors Mangala Samaraweera’s (January 2015-May 2017) and Ravi Karunanayake’s (May 2017-August 2017) policy in respect of war crimes.

Following the last presidential election, lawmaker Gunawardena received the Foreign Affairs Ministry. Under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s leadership, the government named the Foreign Affairs Ministry as Foreign Relations Ministry and placed it under Dinesh Gunwardena.

Minister Gunawardena has an opportunity to use Lord Naseby’s disclosure to save Sri Lanka. Having repeatedly demanded that the UNP properly defend the country, in Geneva, the veteran politician can now use Gash’s reports to thwart the Geneva project. The Foreign Relations Minister can certainly consult Lord Naseby in this regard. Gash reports contradicted the primary UN Panel of Experts’ allegation, blindly rubber stamped by the Geneva body. Lord Naseby obtained highly confidential Gash reports in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, though the UK government desperately tried to suppress them on the basis their disclosure would jeopardize UK-Sri Lanka relations. The UK’s claim was nothing but a blatant lie. It realized that the disclosure of Gash reports would have certainly undermined the move to adopt an accountability resolution in Geneva in the aftermath of the 2015 presidential election. If the UK promptly released Gash reports, when Lord Naseby sought them on Nov 06, 2014 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the very basis for the Geneva resolution would have been disputed.

UN claim

Having faulted the Sri Lanka Army, on three major counts, the PoE (Panel of Experts) accused Sri Lanka of massacring at least 40,000 civilians. Let me reproduce the paragraph, bearing no 137, verbatim: "In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is 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."

Lord Naseby on the basis of Gash reports, proved the UN claim wrong. Let me remind the reader that the FCO continues to withhold significant number of Gash dispatches in spite of Lord Naseby requesting for disclosure.

Sri Lanka never officially raised Gash dispatches with the UK or UNHRC. Would Foreign Relations Minister Gunawardena recommend Lord Naseby’s disclosure be taken up with the British and the UNHRC. In the wake of Lord Naseby’s statement, in the House of Lords, the writer raised the issue with Farhan Aziz Haq, Deputy Spokesperson for UNSG António Guterres. Haq told the writer that the Geneva-based UNHRC could revisit resolution 30/1 titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’

The US resolution, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, was adopted on Oct 1, 2015. Sri Lanka accepted the US-led resolution, days after Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ravinatha Aryasinha, rejected the draft at an informal session. Aryasinha is the current Secretary to the Foreign Relations Ministry. As the then Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Aryasinha was forced, by the then Yahapalana government, to endorse the Geneva resolution on behalf of Sri Lanka, though interested parties constantly blame the then Foreign Minister for signing it.

Haq said that decisions regarding actions taken by the UNHRC were solely in the hands of the members of the Human Rights Council. He added that it would be up to the member states of the Human Rights Council to decide whether to revisit Sri Lanka’s case. The UNHRC comprises 47 countries, divided into five zones.

The UN spokesperson said so when the writer asked him whether the UN could revisit Geneva Resolution in the wake of Lord Naseby’s revelation that the Vanni death toll was at most 7,000 to 8,000, and not 40,000 as claimed by the PoE, in March 2011, and that Sri Lanka never targeted civilians purposely.

"Decisions about the actions taken by the Human Rights Council are solely in the hands of the member of the Human Rights Council. It would be up to the member states of the Human Rights Council to decide whether to revisit this case", Haq said.

Would the new government request the UNHRC to revisit Sri Lanka’s case? Would Sri Lanka request British government’s help to establish the truth by releasing the entire set of Gash dispatches, including those heavily censored ones, in support of Sri Lanka’s call to revisit the case? The UK, a UNHRC member, owes Sri Lanka an explanation as to why the government withheld vital information pertaining to Sri Lanka while interested parties maligned and humiliated Sri Lanka with unsubstantiated war crimes allegations. This even led to our heroic senior military officers, and men, responsible for successfully leading the fight against the world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit, being treated like pariahs by Western countries, and the UN.

The UK had Gash dispatches since 2009 - six years before the UNHRC adopted accountability resolution. If not for Lord Naseby’s intervention, in Nov 2014, leading to the disclosure of a highly redacted section of Gash reports, in Oct 2017, in the House of Lords, the UK would never have released them. Lord Naseby’s move exposed the UK government quite badly. Lord Naseby’s passionate defence of Sri Lanka, both in and outside House of Lords, should be examined against the backdrop of the failure on the part of our own Parliament to reach a consensus on accountability issues.

Sri Lanka Parliament seems primarily interested in perks and privileges of its members. The Parliament never bothered to examine unsubstantiated war crimes accusations even after the House of Lords disclosure on Oct 12, 2017. It might be due to lack of high caliber people like the late Lakshman Kadiragamar, the late S.L. Gunasekera or the late Lalith Athulathmudali, in Parliament, any longer. In response to queries raised by the writer, at separate media briefings, during the previous administration, three ministers, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Dayasiri Jayasekera and Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka acknowledged that the cabinet never discussed the contentious issue. The Joint Opposition, too, failed in its responsibility. The JO never made a real effort to pressure the government over the Geneva issue. Instead, the JO helped the Geneva project by joining the treacherous attempt to draft a new constitution meant to do away with Sri Lanka’s unitary status at the behest of the West and the Eelam lobby.

Parliament’s responsibility

Sri Lanka Parliament should take up the Geneva issue. There cannot be any other matter more important than properly using Lord Naseby’s disclosure to save Sri Lanka from the Geneva trap. Unfortunately, Parliament is in turmoil, with UNP lawmaker Ranjan Ramanayake’s disgraceful conduct sending shockwaves through the establishment and the country at large. Although parliament disregarded Lord Naseby’s disclosure, thereby facilitating the ongoing Geneva project against the country, it responded swiftly and decisively in the wake of investigations into incidents involving three lawmakers, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and Ranjan Ramanayake.

Shan Wijetunga, Director, Department of Communication of Parliament, on January 09, announced representatives of the government and the Opposition met to discuss as to how the police could arrest a member of Parliament without harming his/her dignity and honour. Having discussed recent developments, the Parliament requested the Defence Ministry and Police Headquarters to formulate a set of guidelines to be followed in case the police wanted to arrest a member of Parliament.

Among those lawmakers who had been present, on Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s invitation, were Chamal Rajapaksa, Nimal Siripala, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Sajith Premadasa and Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Interestingly both Wickremesinghe and Premadasa figure in the controversy caused by UNPer Ramanayake.

Unfortunately, the Parliament never felt the requirement to call such a special meeting to discuss the UN war crimes accusations, soon after the release of the POE report, in March 2011. The Rajapaksa administration lacked a proper strategy to meet the Geneva challenge, though they did the virtual impossible by defeating the LTTE convincingly in the battlefield, when all the pundits, particularly in the West, said that our forces were incapable of defeating the Tigers.

The war-winning government handled the hard won peace quite badly. There cannot be any excuse for squandering millions of USD on US public relations firms, some of them now under a cloud, in a bid to farcically influence US policy on Sri Lanka. During the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, too, the Parliament had no role in respect of Geneva. The UNP-led coalition signed the Geneva resolution without consulting Parliament.

However, the UNP cleverly used the Parliament to achieve its objectives. The UNP shrewdly involved all political parties, represented in Parliament, in a constitution making process, as directed by Geneva against the country’s interest. The operation was meant to do away with the unitary status. The project could have even succeeded if not for the massive turmoil caused by the Treasury bond scams, perpetrated by Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) in Feb 2015 and March 2016, with the full backing of the UNP leadership.

Between the two Treasury bond scams, the then government betrayed the war-winning military in Geneva. The Geneva resolution set in motion a process that undermined the Sri Lankan State. The Parliament became a tool in the hands of those promoting separatism here, much to the dismay of the vast majority of people. The Parliament, as an institution, failed in its duty to protect the country’s Constitution. Instead those playing politics with the Constitution, at the expense of the country, were rewarded. The TNA, in 2016, declared that the party reached a tripartite agreement, involving the US and the yahapalana government, to include foreign judges in accountability mechanisms. On behalf of the TNA, its spokesman and Jaffna District MP M.A. Sumanthiran made the declaration in Washington. That statement, made in the presence of the then Sri Lankan Ambassador in Washington, career diplomat Prasad Kariyawasam, was never challenged. The Parliament never raised it.

Political parties represented in Parliament should examine the accountability on the part of the House in respect of the Geneva imbroglio, with a view to taking remedial measures. The government should be mindful of the challenges it faced as Western powers seek to manipulate the government. The crisis caused by the Swiss and cases involving lawmakers Patali Champika Ranawaka, Dr Rajitha Senaratne and Ranjan Ramanayake shouldn’t be allowed to divert attention from Geneva.

The new government’s Geneva policy will decide the country’s fate. It would be pertinent to mention that by the time the country goes to the next parliamentary, polls in late April or early May, 2020, the new government’s Geneva policy would be known to the public.

Questions remain over runaway CID officer’s fate

Swiss affair:

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 303

January 7, 2020, 8:47 pm

By Shamindra Ferdinando

United Nations Resident Coordinator and UNDP Representative, Una McCauley, 54, died on her way to the Bandaranaike International Airport, on Feb 24th, 2018. Cancer patient McCauley passed away in an ambulance taking her to the BIA where an air ambulance, hired by the UN, was waiting to move her to Europe.

The Foreign Ministry acted swiftly to clear the way for the UN to move McCauley, who had served here for six years - two years as UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative and as the UNICEF Representative in Sri Lanka.

The UN hired an air ambulance after her health deteriorated rapidly following regular treatment she received in Singapore in January 2018. At the time the UN-hired aircraft touched down at BIA, McCauley was receiving treatment at the Navaloka hospital.

There had never been a previous instance of the UN, or any other mission, hiring an air ambulance, to move a diplomat out of Colombo. A diplomatic mission hiring an air ambulance to evacuate a local employee is unthinkable.

An abortive bid made by Swiss Ambassador Hanspeter Mock to surreptitiously evacuate Garnier Banister Francis (allegedly abducted, threatened and molested by an unidentified gang on Nov 25, 2019) should be carefully reexamined. If not for the tough stand taken by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the Swiss would have pulled it off. Had the newly installed government succumbed to Western pressure, the Swiss project would never have been exposed.

Although the government was accused of abducting Garnier, to secure information regarding Inspector Nishantha Silva, who left Colombo for Switzerland on Nov 24, 2019, Bern conveniently refrained from referring to the CID officer. The Swiss diplomatic note dated Dec 30, 2019, handed over to Sri Lanka, following a series of consultations, conveniently left out the CID officer taking refuge there, though the first Swiss Embassy statement, dated Nov 29, 2019, referred to the policeman, who was whisked off at lightning speed. 

Both Switzerland and Sri Lanka owed an explanation as to why Nishantha Silva was dropped from the diplomatic note. Sri Lanka cannot be mum on this matter as the Swiss diplomatic note was also released through the Ministry of Foreign Relations.

Lanka never sought extradition of Nishantha Silva

Let me reproduce the statement, dated Nov 25, 2019: "On 25 November 2019, a serious security incident, involving a local employee of the Embassy of Switzerland in Colombo, occurred. The employee was detained against her will in the street, forced to get into a car, seriously threatened at length by unidentified men and forced in order to disclose Embassy-related information.

Several false pieces of information are circulating in the reporting of this incident. The Swiss Embassy in Colombo is issuing the following clarifications:

1. The Swiss Embassy immediately lodged a formal complaint and is fully cooperating with the Sri Lanka authorities in order to support police investigation and initiate an inquiry over the case, while duly considering the health condition of the victim and their relatives.

 2. Due to a deteriorating health condition, the victim is currently not in a state to testify.

3. It has been alleged that the Swiss government rejected a request for the extradition of an employee of the Sri Lankan Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and his family. No such request has been submitted (emphasis mine)

An examination of Swiss statement dated Nov 25, 2019 and diplomatic note on Dec 30, 2019 is necessary. But, it would be foolish, on our part, to expect politicians and officials to address these matters seriously. 

——————

Swiss diplomatic note conveniently leaves out fugitive cop

Switzerland, on Dec 30, 2019, said it hoped for a swift return to an environment conducive to resuming the positive co-operation between the two countries, after relations were marred over an alleged incident involving a local Embassy employee.

In a Diplomatic Note communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Relations by the Embassy of Switzerland in Sri Lanka, the Embassy said it regretted that these developments have led to the Sri Lankan authorities’ commitment to due process being called into question and reaffirmed that Switzerland, like Sri Lanka, is committed to upholding good governance and the rule of law.

"Switzerland and Sri Lanka have maintained excellent relations for decades and have engaged in substantial cooperation in a variety of fields, to the benefit of both countries and their populations. Both countries value these relations greatly," the Note said.

It added that in the last few weeks, this relationship was marred by misunderstandings surrounding an incident involving a local staff member of the Embassy, who was subsequently taken into custody by the Lankan authorities. "In this context, uncorroborated facts made it into the public domain, putting an unnecessary strain on the otherwise cordial relationship between the two countries. At no point during this time did Switzerland have the intention of tarnishing the image of the Government of Sri Lanka," it added.

"Recognizing that local staff is subject to local laws, the Embassy is convinced that both sides will remain attentive to the working conditions and the wellbeing of all staff of diplomatic missions. Switzerland recalls that it is the responsibility of any government to protect the diplomatic missions of other states on its territory," the Note added.

The Diplomatic Note added, "Attaching great importance to its relationship with Sri Lanka, committed to maintaining and to further strengthening these relations in a constructive manner, and convinced that both countries will together continue to build relations which are based on mutual respect, the Embassy of Switzerland in Colombo avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka the assurances of its highest consideration."

This Note was simultaneously released by the Embassy of Switzerland in Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Foreign Relations in Colombo.

Have they agreed not to take up the contentious matter of the fugitive CID official taking refuge in Switzerland any further?

In spite of strong condemnation of Swiss questioning Sri Lanka’s commitment to due process by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), various interested parties, including sections of the media, commended the way two countries handled the unprecedented diplomatic row.

The government went to the extent of alleging that some interested parties tried to undermine Sri Lanka – Switzerland relations. Having badly exposed its bias towards a friendly country, Switzerland certainly appeared to have safeguarded its interests.

Civil society group Yuthukama Sunday, January 05, 2019 urged both the UNP and the JVP to disclose their stand on the Swiss Embassy affair as both parties, without hesitation, accepted the Swiss accusations. Yuthukama Chief political analyst Gevindu Cumaratunga explained that the UNP and the JVP couldn’t remain silent in the wake of the Swiss allegations being proved baseless. The Swiss never really cooperated with the ongoing investigation, Cumaratunga pointed out.

Having requested permission to move Garnier and her family out of the country on the basis the former was in a really bad health condition, the Swiss denied the police access to her till Dec 08, 2019. The Swiss never explained as to how a person in such a bad medical condition survived without proper medical attention. Perhaps unknown to the government, the Swiss Embassy had an intensive care unit, within its premises.

A Norwegian denial

One-time Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Teheran, M.M. Zuhair responded to The Island reportage of Dec 17, 2019, arrest and the immediate releasing of a 31-year-old foreigner who carried a Norwegian passport in spite of claiming Iranian nationality. Zuhair, who had represented the UPFA in parliament during President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure, asserted that the detection of the foreigner off Silavathurai, should have been thoroughly investigated.

Norway declined to comment

on the arrest

Asked by The Island whether Norway inquired into the arresting of a Norwegian passport holder, as to why he identified himself as an Iranian and whether Sri Lanka got in touch with Norway in that regard, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Communications Advisor Guri Solberg sent us the following response: "Due to the Norwegian legislation of secrecy, the Foreign Service cannot comment on information it receives concerning Norwegian citizens abroad."

Ramin Nazery carrying a Norwegian passport bearing No 31268128 was apprehended off the once Sea Tigers dominated Silavathurai sea, under suspicious circumstances.

Zuhair said the foreigner owed an explanation as to why he lied as regards his nationality. Zuhair, while emphasizing the pivotal importance of strict border controls especially in the wake of Easter Sunday attacks, recalled a somewhat similar incident at the onset of the yahapalana administration in 2015. At a felicitation ceremony for the then State Defence Minister Ruwan Wijewardene on August 05, 2016, organized by the Forum for National Unity (FFNU), Zuhair discussed the detection of a foreigner trying to enter Sri Lanka on a forged passport.

Israeli on a forged Iranian

passport

Zuhair said: "In December, 2015 a 40-year-old Israeli arrived, at the BIA, on a fake Iranian passport. Why an Israeli on a fake Iranian, passport? That would be the relevant question anyone will raise! He also had an Israeli passport with his correct picture but with a different name, kept concealed in his baggage. Why did he come prepared to masquerade as an Iranian while in Sri Lanka unless he had some dangerous mission here and perhaps to leave on a different identity! He had arrived from Mumbai and was detected by the Immigration, at Katunayake, while attempting to enter Sri Lanka on the forged Iranian passport.

"The man had committed offences, falling under several limbs of Section 45 of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. He should have been produced before a Magistrate as the Immigration officials do in such cases. The offences carry a minimum sentence of one year to five years in prison and to fines in addition! The foreigner should have been questioned by the intelligence authorities and the CID unit of the police which works on a 24-hour 365 days a year operation at the airport. They ought to have elicited valuable information. The man was allowed to go back to Mumbai in the very next flight, without being dealt with for violating our laws!

"The troubling question that I wish to raise is, assuming the Israeli man had been cleared on arrival and if he had either himself or contracted for dollars a narcotic addict, to leave some explosive packages near some Temples here and left the Iranian passport close to the site of the planned explosions, similar to the 21 bombs planted by someone in Ahmedabad and similar to the explosives planted on 7 th July 2013, at the world renowned Mahabodhi Temple, in Buddha Gaya, in Bihar, North India, would that not be the beginning of anti-Muslim riots here? It is a serious possibility. It has happened elsewhere. It is happening around the world. It is not such a difficult task to those with access to dollars and to explosives. That is why we urge the authorities, all citizens, and particularly the Muslims, to be vigilant. Incidentally, the Explosives Act comes under the purview of the Defence Ministry. We need to be alert to all possibilities. We cannot afford to go home and forget our obligations by our country.

"I have taken a lot of your valuable time but do allow me to summarize the more essential points. Firstly the armed forces and the Police, to the extent the law permits, should comprehensively investigate all reports relating to allegations of terrorism, including those published in the media, quoting unidentified sources.

"Secondly, intelligence gathering must encompass not only possible ISIS or other terror infiltration but also cover foreign agents who may venture into the country for operations similar to the David Headleys and Ken Haywoods. Thirdly, identify dubious intelligence reports planted by vested interests, possibly the agents of the arms industry. Fourthly, enhance the need for the country, in general and the Muslims in particular to be vigilant for terror related activities, without needlessly exciting fears. Fifthly, Muslims to explore possible areas of cooperation with the authorities to strengthen terror-related intelligence gathering and investigations."

Zuhair said that he dealt with foreign agents, on Sri Lanka soil, years before the near simultaneous Easter Sunday bombings that caused devastating losses in terms of human lives, stability and economy.

Zuhair, in his August 2016, speech discussed how intelligence failures could result in catastrophes. The President’s Counsel stressed the responsibility of the State and the importance of the Muslim community exercising vigilance.

Easter Sunday attacks revealed as to how the previous UNP government ignored specific intelligence, made available by New Delhi, well in advance. The then State Defence Minister Wijewardene was among those summoned by Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which inquired into the suicide bombings. PSC member Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka rapped Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe for Wijewardene’s appointment as the State Defence Minister. The war-winning Army Chief questioned Wijewardene’s suitability as the State Minister for Defence.

Zuhair dealt with several cases to highlight the need for prudent thinking in intelligence matters. Among them were utterly wrong British intelligence assessment regarding Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, false reports pertaining to the Lashker e Taiba also known as LeT, having a "facilitation centere" in Sri Lanka, Jaffna-based LeT planning an attack in South India, and the need to be alert to threats posed by ISIS as well as foreign agents,

Zuhair, in his August 2016 speech discussed two cases reported from India to emphasize the need to be eternally vigilant. The President’s Counsel: "One is the deadly 2008 terror attack in Mumbai, centered around the Taj Hotel, also known as 26/11, India’s 9/11. The three day massacre left 160 dead, paralyzed for months business in India’s largest city, and rightfully earned world-wide condemnation. The man who confessed to the US authorities of planning the terror attack and scouting around the location was from Philadelphia, in the US. His name is David Coleman Headley, who grew up under his American mother, who had been married for a short time to and later divorced by the Pakistani father, said to be a poet and diplomat. David Coleman Headley is the man who planned the Taj Hotel terrorist assault, having made seven undetected visits to India for the purpose! He was prosecuted in the US Courts and convicted for his role in India’s three-day massacre and is now serving a 35-year prison sentence in the US.

"The only point that I wish to urge, by referring to the Mumbai massacre, is that we need to alert our border control for possible external deadly agents of terror, if we are to avoid possible mayhem within our country. Vigilance, irrespective of nationalities, ethnicities and faith, must be enhanced. The cooperation of all sections of our people must be sought. I am not saying, nor am I knowledgeable enough to say, that something is about to happen here. All I am saying is, it had happened in our region and can happen here. The compass for detection must be universal and not merely ethnic or religious oriented. We the Muslims of Sri Lanka must cooperate with the authorities by playing a more pro-active role.

The mechanism that needs to be established for such a role is a matter that the community should go into first and discuss with the authorities thereafter. The next case I wish to refer to is India’s 2008 Ahmedabad bombings, in which bombs had been planted in 21 locations in Ahmedabad in Gujarat. Several local TV channels said that they had received an email from a terror outfit called the "Indian Mujahideen" claiming responsibility for the blasts. What is relevant to us tonight is an Associated Press or AP report filed on 29 th July 2008, according to which, the email in which the "Indian Mujahideen" had claimed responsibility for the explosions, which were to occur shortly, had been sent from the computer of an American national named Ken Haywood operating from Bombay. As far as I know there was total silence, thereafter on Ken Haywood’s role in dispatching the advance terror threat. His email predicting terror in Ahmedabad that night turned out to be frighteningly true, with 56 dead and over 200 injured! We are left wondering who is speaking for whom and whether the US guy is the global voice for the Indian Mujahideen! Ken Haywood is reportedly living a free man somewhere in the USA! A very important case from the intelligence point of view but appears to have been mishandled!

We have seen similar claims purportedly from Al Qaeda, ISIS and other globally branded terror outfits appearing in the media, claiming responsibility for almost every act of terror, occurring in all corners of the globe! Co-incidentally we also hear reports predicting terror attacks, mostly quoting unnamed intelligence sources, as if some of them are acting hand in glove with terror outfits."

In spite of eradication of the LTTE, over a decade ago, Sri Lanka is certainly not out of the woods. Security threats persist as post-war Sri Lanka struggles to maintain strict neutrality in foreign relations.