A post-poll query on Prez Gotabaya’s nationality

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 318

May 26, 2020, 8:40 pm

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, flanked by his brother Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa and his predecessor Maithripala Sirisena. Field Marshal Fonseka spurned an invitation from President Rajapaksa to attend the event. Had the former Army Chief attended, he would have probably stood between Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda and Marshal of Air Force (pic courtesy President’s Media)

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Former Galle District UPFA lawmaker Manusha Nanayakkara, on May 12, questioned whether Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapaksa contested the last presidential election as a US citizen, in Nov 2019. Nanayakkara raised the issue four days after the releasing of the latest US Federal Registry that included President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in the listing of individuals who had renounced their U.S. citizenship.

Even up to now no one else raised the contentious issue. Nanayakkara, who contested the last parliamentary polls, in August 2015, on the UPFA ticket, is one of those SLFP defectors, who opted to switch allegiance to the comparatively stronger breakaway UNP faction, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB). Former Kalutara District SLFPer Kumara Welgama is another.

Had former Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne not been in custody, over  the controversial media briefing, held a week before the last presidential briefing, he, too, would have definitely targeted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the trumped up citizenship issue. Dr. Senaratne is in custody over wild accusations he directed at Gotabaya Rajapaksa, pertaining to the purported abductions of people, and disposal of their bodies in a crocodile infested Moneragala tank,  and also the transport of 7000 tonnes of gold, belonging to the LTTE, to Colombo, during the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration.

Dr. Senaratne is contesting the Kalutara district, on the SJB ticket. Dr. Senaratne’s son, Chathura, also a SJB nominee, is in the fray, from the Gampaha district.

Ex-lawmaker and one-time TV news presenter Nanayakkara, publicly sought an explanation whether wartime Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had held US citizenship,  at the time he contested the presidential poll. The political turncoat questioned as to why President Gotabaya Rajapaksa hadn’t been dealt with in terms of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, whereas fellow Galle district MP, Geetha Kumarasinghe, was deprived of her seat for being a dual citizen, at the time she contested the last parliamentary polls.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted soon after the  January 2015 presidential poll, denied those who held foreign, or dual citizenships, an opportunity to contest presidential or parliamentary polls.

Former MP Nanayakkara is contesting the Galle District, at the 2020 parliamentary polls, on the SJB ticket.

The inclusion of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in the latest US Federal Registry, didn’t receive much media attention as the country is in turmoil, as a result of the coronavirus caused epidemic. Actually, both the print and electronic media conveniently forgot the matter, though some carried the initial report on the releasing of the US Federal Registry.

A simmering political crisis, over the failure on the part of the Election Commission (EC) to conduct the parliamentary polls, too, may have denied the sufficient discussion on a critically important matter. The state media largely refrained from taking up the citizenship issue.

It would be pertinent to mention that the 19th Amendment, introduced with the overwhelming support of all political parties, represented in parliament at that time, was primarily meant to dilute executive presidential powers. Except one-time Navy Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, who represented the UPFA in parliament for one term, all his colleagues, in the dissolved parliament, voted for the 19th Amendment. The UPFA acted on the instructions given by the President, and incumbent SLFP leader, Maithripala Sirisena, who canvassed their support inside parliament as it was taken up by the House.

Civil society move against

SLPP recalled

The Opposing camp made a desperate bid to deprive Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) candidate the opportunity to contest the 2019 presidential poll. Civil society activists, Gamini Viyangoda and Prof. Chandragupta Thenuwara, moved the Court of Appeal, just ahead of Oct 07, 2019 nominations for the crucial polls. They petitioned the Court of Appeal, arguing that. Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s new passport and National Identity Card had been issued unlawfully. They moved court after complaining to the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The Court of Appeal set up a three-judge panel to hear the case, on October 2 and 3. The SLPP feared the Court ruling, on October 7- the last day for presidential aspirants to file nominations - could ruin Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s chances of contesting. On behalf of the deeply concerned SLPP leadership, the then lawmaker Chamal Rajapaksa, elder brother of the presidential aspirant, paid a deposit to contest the polls, from the Sri Lanka Nidahas Podujana Sanvidanaya.

The civil society’s right to move court against the SLPP nominee, in terms of the 19th Amendment, cannot be challenged under any circumstances. Both Viyangoda and Prof. Thenuwara threw their weight behind the successful high profile project, in the run-up to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the 2015 presidential poll. The civil society, opposed to the Rajapaksas, went all out against them at both the 2015 and 2019 presidential polls. Their successful 2015 operation paved the way for longstanding SLFP General  Secretary, Maithripala Sirisena, to join opposition forces and win the presidency.

Let me examine President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s recent declaration that he wouldn’t hesitate to quit those international organizations if they continued to unfairly target Sri Lanka. The following is the relevant section of the English translation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s speech at the National Ranaviru Day commemoration, on May 19th, 2020: 

"Pain of the war is not strange to me. Therefore, I will not allow any room for attempts to discredit and destroy the dignity of our war heroes who made countless sacrifices to bring peace to entire Sri Lanka. I assure you that under my administration, we will take every measure always to protect the dignity of our heroic forces. It is a national responsibility to ensure their rights.

In a situation where even leaders of powerful countries have emphatically stated that they would not allow any action against their war heroes, in a small country, like ours, where our war heroes have sacrificed so much, I will not allow anyone to exert undue pressure on them or harass them.

If any international body or organization continuously targets our country, and our war heroes, using baseless allegations, I will also not hesitate to withdraw Sri Lanka from such bodies or organizations."

Prez Sirisena’s role

As President Gotabaya Rajapaksa made the declaration, his predecessor and Polonnaruwa District SLPP candidate, at the 2020 parliamentary polls  stood next to him. Twice President Mahinda Rajapaksa was on his other side. If Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, also a SJB candidate at the 2020 parliamentary polls, accepted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s invitation, for the National Ranaviru Day commemoration, the first row, from left, would have comprised Marshal of Air Force Roshan Goonatileke, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, Prime Minster Mahinda Rajapaksa, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former President Maithripala Sirisena and Defence Secretary Maj. Gen. (retd) Kamal Gunaratne.

Field Marshal Fonseka spurned that historic moment. Both former President Sirisena and Fonseka cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for the despicable Western campaign against Sri Lanka, on the human rights front. Having brought Sirisena into power, at the January 2015 presidential polls, the UNP immediately formed the government, with less than 50 members in parliament. Then, the UNP betrayed the war-winning armed forces, at the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, by way of a resolution, co-sponsored by Colombo. In spite of being publicly critical of the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera for Geneva co-sponsorship of resolution 30/1  inimical to Sri Lanka, President Sirisena never took remedial measures. The Geneva betrayal took place between the Treasury bond scams, perpetrated by the UNP, in Feb 2015, and March 2016.

The war-winning Army Commander, having accused his own Army, ahead of the 2010 presidential poll, of battlefield executions, in the final phase of the offensive, in the third week of May, 2009, joined the treacherous UNP-SLFP coalition, in Feb 2016. Field Marshal Fonseka succeeded the late UNP National List MP M.K.D.S. Gunawardena.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa wouldn’t have had to complain, in respect of international organizations over continuing high profile human rights campaign against Sri Lanka, if not for the UNP political strategy. One-time LTTE proxy - the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) backed those fielded by the UNP at the presidential elections of 2010 (General Sarath

Fonseka), 2015 (Maithripala Sirisena) and 2019 (Sajith Premadasa) on the basis Sri Lanka would be hauled up before foreign judges. The US-backed project succeeded in 2015, though the 2010 operation failed.

The Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM), appointed following the Geneva betrayal, called for full participation of foreign judges and other personnel, including defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators, in transitional justice mechanism to address accountability issues.

The CTFRM released the controversial report on the eve of the third anniversary of President Maithripala Sirisena’s victory, over his predecessor Mahinda Rajapaksa. The well compiled dossier against the country backed calls for foreign participation in the judicial process. The CTFRM comprised Manouri Muttetuwegama, Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Gamini Viyangoda, Prof. Sitralega Maunaguru, Dr. Farzana Haniffa, Mirak Raheem, Prof. Gameela Samarasinghe, Visaka Dharmadasa, Shantha Abhimanasingham, PC, K.W. Janaranjana and Prof. Daya Somasundaram.

Disputable measures, ranging from the 19th Amendment to the propaganda campaign, directed not only at Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but manipulation of the UNP, dominated the period in the run-up to the presidential poll. Those who backed Maihripala Sirisena, at the 2015 presidential poll, threw their weight behind the then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya. The National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ)-led civil society grouping pushed UNP leader, and the then Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, to clear the way for Speaker Jayasuriya to contest the 2019 presidential election.

KJ vs GR

The move should be studied against the backdrop of the Speaker’s role in thwarting the high profile Sirisena-Rajapaksa bid, in Oct 2018, to oust the UNP administration. The Sirisena-Rajapaksa duo couldn’t sustain the operation  launched on Oct 26, 2018. Speaker Jayasuriya emerged stronger with overt and covert Western support, during his bruising battle with President Sirisena.

In addition to the NMSJ, Purawesi Balaya played an important role in the overall campaign.

Speaker Jayasuriya received the praise of a section of the international community for his strong stand against the Sirisena-Rajapaksa project. Jaysuriya was promoted as their presidential candidate, at the expense of their front runner, while efforts were also made to hinder Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Speaker Jayasuriya, on Sept. 06, 2019, accepted the NMSJ’s request to contest the presidential polls. Speaker Jayasuriya met NMSJ delegation, led by its leader Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, in parliament.

Subsequently, a group of academics claimed that a countrywide survey, conducted by a Peradeniya University team, revealed Speaker Jayasuriya was the strongest of the candidates likely to contest the 2019 presidential poll. On the basis of the opinion poll, the academics, led by former Peradeniya University Professor Sisira Pinnawela, placed Speaker Jayasuriya above Sajith Premadasa. The academics also claimed that Speaker Jayasuriya could easily defeat SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The NMSJ move divided the civil society.

Senior Fulbright Fellow and former faculty member of the Department of Sociology, at Peradeniya University, Dr. Sisira Pinnawela, said that his research contained a sample size of 1,675 voters, with the entire vote base divided into 10 geographical sub-groups. The Peradeniya team left Wickremesinghe out of candidates examined by the survey.

The Peradeniya team based their report on voters’ reaction to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya. The study, according to the report, was meant to test the popularity of the four candidates, though at that time presidential candidates hadn’t been named. Jayasuriya led in seven out of the 10 sub-groups, polled in Dr. Pinnawala’s research. Premadasa polled well in four out of 10 sub-groups.

The survey was based on key assumptions: (a) that the SLFP will not field a candidate (b) that the UNP will not be divided over its candidate and back a single candidate, and (c) that the minority parties, and especially the Tamil National Alliance, will not field a candidate.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa always considered the possibility of Speaker Jayasuriya being his opponent. Rajapaksa discussed the possibility months before the SLPP, after much haggling, announced the war veteran as its candidate. Rajapaksa, on March 20, told a gathering at Gauthama Viharaya, Narahenpita, that Speaker Karu Jayasuriya was seeking to be the UNP candidate, at the 2019 presidential election.

A smiling Rajapaksa, told Plantation Minister Navin Dissanayake, present on that occasion, that the latter’s father-in-law was a presidential contender. Rajapaksa said so in response to Navin Dissanayake, who, in his address, called Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the future Opposition presidential candidate. Minister Dissanayake emphasized the pivotal importance of suitable persons given appropriate positions.

Finally, the Speaker decided against even contesting the parliamentary polls. Jayasuriya turned down requests from both the UNP and its offshoot SJB to either contest or come on their respective National Lists.

At the onset of the battle for UNP presidential nomination, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, as well as Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka, had been in the running for the candidature. In addition, Health Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, too, indicated an interest in contesting the 2019 presidential election. Minister Senaratne’s media unit quoted the General Secretary of the Sihala Ravaya, Ven. Magalkande Sudantha, as having told an event; organized by Rajitha Senaratne Foundation, in Kalutara, on July 21, 2019, that the time was ripe for a person from the Kalutara district to become the President. All three, Fonseka (Gampaha), Ranawaka (Colombo) and Dr. Senaratne (Kalutara) have since opted to contest the 2020 parliamentary polls on Sajith Premadasa’s SJB.

However, an influential section, opposed to the Rajapaksa Camp, strongly felt that Jayasuriya should be Wickremesinghe’s successor as he was certain to receive Western backing. The role played by foreign powers at the 2010 and 2015 presidential polls raised many an eyebrow, though Sri Lanka lacked the strength, at least to take up the issue. The media and some sections of the civil society remained largely silent on continuing Western interference. In fact, recipients of foreign funding continued their campaign against Sri Lanka.

Actually, the UNP-SLFP coalition should accept responsibility for facilitating Western human rights campaign against Sri Lanka. The SLFP never opposed the UNP’s Geneva strategy, though, from time to time, its leaders declared that war heroes would be protected. After having facilitated the UNP dastardly project, during the 2015-Oct 2018 period, the SLFP is now contesting the 2020 parliamentary polls on the SLPP ticket. Politics certainly is a dirty game.

Jinping’s call to Gotabaya highlights post-corona foreign policy challenge

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 317

May 19, 2020, 9:39 pm

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion, on May 19, eleven years ago, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon. Victory was achieved, following a relentless nearly three-year-long campaign that crushed the conventional military capability of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which, the pundits had been claiming for years, as something not within the capability of the Sri Lankan security forces.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka’s triumph triggered an unprecedented political turmoil, in the wake of heavy foreign interference, by Western powers, seeking to deprive war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa a second term.

The Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) was brought into an unparalleled political alliance, consisting of the UNP, the JVP, the SLMC and the ACMC, to defeat President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The US compelled the TNA to join the UNP-led coalition, whereas war-winning Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka was picked as the Opposition candidate. Fonseka’s selection was meant to prevent the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa of exploiting the war victory to his advantage.

The overall US objective was to end China’s growing relationship with Sri Lanka by bringing the Rajapaksa reign to an end. Both the US-led Western powers, and India, felt President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s relationship with China undermined Western strategy, and Delhi’s dream of suzerainty over Colombo, therefore, they moved for tangible action.

They believed Sri Lanka’s direction should be changed, particularly against the backdrop of China funding the Hambantota port. China invested in the strategic Hambantota port, at the height of the war against the LTTE. Beijing stepped in with the required funding as the military was struggling on the Vanni front, with so-called foreign and local experts, possibly on certain payrolls, ad nauseam, asserting that the LTTE couldn’t be defeated. Dr. Rohan Gunaratne was one such expert. Bloomberg news agency, in a report dated March 22, 2007, quoted Gunaratne as having said that Sri Lanka’s war couldn’t be won by either side. A story, captioned ‘Sri Lanka, Tamil Tiger Rebels Fight a War That Can’t be Won,’ by Colombo-based Anusha Ondaatjie, quoted the Head of Terrorism Research at Singapore’s Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Gunaratna, as having asserted: "Continuing the current spate of violence is not going to bring about a different outcome, or change the status quo. Both parties have developed significant support to be able to recover from losses, but this type of warfare is protracted". Gunaratna declared: "What is needed is a negotiated settlement to the conflict".

Thanks to Wikileaks divulging confidential India, US discussion, as regards the Chinese presence, at Hambantota, came to be in the public domain. Foreign powers had been so desperate, they backed General Fonseka and, in spite of him being called a war criminal, by then US Ambassador in Colombo, Patricia Butenis. In a classified cable, originating from Colombo, in mid-January, 2010, Butenis categorized President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, General Sarath Fonseka and Basil Rajapaksa as war criminals. They were hell-bent on defeating the Rajapaksa administration, hence one of those categorized was chosen to challenge the then President.

It would be pertinent to mention that President Mahinda Rajapaksa called presidential polls well over a year ahead of schedule. Having won a six-year-term, at the Nov 2005 presidential poll, the President could have ruled till late 2011. Whatever the reasons that pushed him to seek early polls, President Mahinda Rajapaksa convincingly defeated General Fonseka, thus the controversial ‘regime change’ project, meant to end his relationship with China, came a cropper. Fonseka lost by a staggering 1.8 mn votes.

The former Chief of Defence Staff didn’t even have the right to exercise his franchise as he had not been included in the voter's list, for failure on his part to register.

First phase of H’tota port
commissioned

Less than a year after the 2010 presidential polls, Sri Lanka commissioned the first phase of the China-funded Hambantota port. Four years later, China launched its flagship Colombo Port City project.

The presence of President Xi Jinping, at the launch of the USD1.4 bn project, underscored the pivotal importance of the largest single Chinese investment. Concerned Western powers, and India, made a second attempt to bring President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s reign to an end. They succeeded in January 2015. However, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration, on its own, instigated their self-inflicted downfall. The Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in 2015 and 2016, caused unprecedented chaos. The betrayal of the armed forces, in Geneva, in Oct 2015, in between the Treasury bond scams, and, finally, the 2019 Easter Sunday massacre, facilitated wartime Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory at the last presidential poll, in Nov 2019.

The Geneva betrayal, executed at the behest of the US, ruined the UNP-SLFP administration.

Soon after the 2015 victory, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration suspended the Colombo Port City project. The move angered China. On top of that, the then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake caused another controversy by accusing China of exploiting Sri Lanka. China publicly lambasted Karunanayake, as Beijing-Colombo relations suffered, while the US stepped up its presence, with no less a person than Secretary of State John Kerry visiting Colombo, in May 2015. The visit, undertaken by the US Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, in August, of the following year, underlined Sri Lanka’s strategic importance.

Menon on Gotabaya

One-time India’s High Commissioner in Colombo, Shiv Shankar Menon, who held topmost diplomatic posts in China and the US, before being moved to New Delhi, as Foreign Secretary, and then as National Security Advisor, in his retirement wrote: Choices: Inside the making of foreign policy, launched in 2016, dealt with Sri Lanka-China relationship. Let me reproduce verbatim the relevant section from the Chapter on Sri Lanka, titled ‘Force works’:

"I found that as Defence Secretary, Gotabaya, had a clear view of Sri Lanka’s interests, one that was compatible with ours. Immediately after the war, he reassured the Indian troika (National Security Advisor M.K. Narayan, Defence Secretary Vijay Singh, and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon) about the nature of Sri Lanka’s defence relationship with China, and helped Indian companies re-enter the reconstruction of Colombo. Security was Gotabaya’s sole preoccupation, which made him sensitive to India’s concerns, while his brother Mahinda was much more compliant with Chinese demands, having built a political machine on Chinese money. The basic assurances that Gotabaya and, more reluctantly, Mahinda Rajapaksa gave us were that India’s security interests would be respected and that there would be no surprises in Sri Lanka’s relations with China. In detailed conversations, I was assured that there wouldn’t be permanent Chinese military presence, in Sri Lanka, and that Sri Lanka would look to India for most of its military training and intelligence needs. These assurances were respected, in practice, by the Sri Lankans, until May 2014. At no stage was exclusivity sought or promised. And, realistically speaking, it would be unreasonable to expect exclusivity".

What exactly Menon meant by assurances given by Sri Lanka to India were respected till May 2014? In other words, Menon alleged that President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government reneged on promises given to New Delhi. What did actually President Rajapaksa do, in May 2014, to earn the wrath of India.

Menon’s declaration that Sri Lanka is an aircraft carrier, parked 14 miles off the Indian coast, underscored New Delhi’s serious concerns, in respect of the country being too close to China. Concerns, expressed by Menon, reflected in Indian reaction in the immediate aftermath of an alleged Chinese nuclear submarine visit to Colombo. Subsequently, the UNP administration was reported to have turned down a Chinese request for a submarine visit to Colombo harbor.

At the time Menon launched Choices: Inside the making of foreign policy, Gotabaya Rajapaksa had initiated a high-profile public campaign to enter politics at the highest level against the backdrop of the 19th Amendment, depriving twice President Mahinda Rajapaksa an opportunity to contest again.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa emerged as the undisputable choice, as the Opposition candidate, amidst the rapid and unprecedented deterioration of parliamentary standards. In spite of not having experience in politics, at any level, Gotabaya Rajapaksa proved his mettle in battling the marauding coronavirus – an unprecedented global health crisis that wrecked powerful economies. Sri Lanka, too, suffered badly.

Fresh Chinese move

Recently, China sought to resume projects that had been suspended here, due to the coronavirus pandemic, as the world struggled to cope up with the health crisis. The Chinese move should be examined, taking into consideration Indian and the US strategies, in respect of Sri Lanka, particularly consensus on Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and $ 480 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant.

The Chinese Embassy, in Colombo, reported President XI Jinping’s telephone conversation with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on the night of May 13. The Chinese leader advocated the gradual resumption of, what the Chinese Embassy called, practical cooperation in various fields, advance major cooperation projects and promote global development strategy called ‘Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)’ launched by China, in 2013. Sri Lanka is among dozens of countries, accommodated in the BRI, that covered regions in East Asia to Europe.

China cannot be faulted for seeking to expand its political and economic influence. Chinese leader’s call to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa should be viewed in the context of overall Chinese strategy-cause for US President Donald Trump’s aggressive policy towards China.

Underscoring the importance of the resumption of bilateral projects, the Chinese leader told President Gotabaya Rajapaksa such efforts would strengthen Sri Lanka’s post-corona economic recovery.

According to May 13 dated, Chinese news agency Xinhua report, President Jinping, in his conversation with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, noted that under his strong leadership, Sri Lanka effectively curbed the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus epidemic. The Chinese leader reiterated their continued commitment to support Sri Lanka and provide as much assistance as its capacity permitted.

China recently provided USD 500 mn loan on a request made by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, on behalf of Sri Lanka.

China and Sri Lanka are strategic cooperation partners that enjoy sincere mutual help and an everlasting friendship, said Xi, adding that their friendly ties and mutual trust have withstood various tests and have been uplifted, once again, in the joint fight against the pandemic.

Xinhua quoted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa as having said that under Xi’s strong leadership, China had made significant achievements in its fight against COVID-19 and the Chinese people have demonstrated extraordinary wisdom and strength.

The Xinhua report: "Noting that Sri Lanka and China enjoy a long-running friendship with cooperation in various fields, advancing smoothly, he said China has, over the years, provided tremendous valuable support and help for his country’s economic and social development, for which the Sri Lankans are deeply grateful.

"The Sri Lankan President added that he appreciates the vision put forward by Xi of building a community, with a shared future for mankind, and agrees on supporting the WHO in playing a leading role in global anti-epidemic cooperation.

"Sri Lanka is willing to work with China to enhance exchanges, and cooperation, in such fields as economy, trade, tourism and infrastructure, and smoothly push forward the major Belt and Road cooperation projects, such as Colombo Port City, he said, adding that his country welcomes more investment from, and cooperation with, Chinese enterprises.

The Sri Lanka side, he added, stands ready to work with China to promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind."

Western, Indian reactions

Closer China-Sri Lanka relations will certainly upset those opposed to President Jinping’s strategies, in spite of Sri Lanka’s repeated assurance that its relationship with China posed no threat to any country. Such assurances are unlikely to reassure the US and India, especially against the backdrop of China seeking to consolidate its power, as the world grappled with coronavirus. President Trump’s accusations that coronavirus originated in China, though not confirmed by the US Intelligence apparatus, certainly didn’t help China’s cause. The latest Chinese move, in Sri Lanka, is certain to trigger serious concerns, in Washington, as well as New Delhi.

Having failed in its 2010 operation, the US undertook a costly operation to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the 2015 presidential polls. US Secretary of State John Kerry later revealed how funding, amounting to USD 585 mn, was made available for Myanmar, Nigeria and Sri Lanka ‘change of government’ operations. Sri Lanka never bothered to inquire into the US revelation, though the then lawmaker Shehan Semasinghe once raised the matter, in Parliament. The US and its allies sought enhanced relations with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s entry into a Comprehensive Partnership, with key US longstanding strategic ally, Japan, in early 2015, marked a significant development in bilateral relations. Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe finalized the agreement, during the latter’s four-day visit to Tokyo. The Comprehensive Partnership covered (i) Promotion of Investment and Trade, (ii) Cooperation on the National Development Plan in Sri Lanka, and (iii) National Reconciliation and Peace building. The Joint Declaration on Comprehensive Partnership between Japan and Sri Lanka quoted Japanese leader Abe as having commended Wickremesinghe for co-sponsoring the Geneva Resolution.

In the section, headlined ‘Political Consultations and Maritime Cooperation’ Japan and Sri Lanka reached consensus on higher level of defence cooperation. In late August 2018, Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera inspected Trincomalee and the Chinese managed Hambantota ports.

The Chinese are focused on ensuring projects, initiated and funded by them. The UNP-led administration, having suspended the Colombo Port City project, immediately after the 2015 presidential poll, allowed construction to resume over a year later. Two years later, the yahapalana lot ended up handing over the Hambantota port, to China, on a 99-year lease. Although the incumbent government felt that the Hambantota transaction needed a revisit, the idea was quietly dropped. Even during the UNP-SLFP coalition (2015-2019) China made an effort to influence a consensus between the government and the Rajapaksa Camp. Interestingly, the Chinese made an abortive bid to win over former President Rajapaksa’s support for its Hambantota project. Although, Rajapaksa, accompanied by one-time External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, visited Beijing, where they discussed the agreement, they failed to reach a consensus, with Rajapaksa declaring that he would extend his support, only if China and the yahapalana government followed the original agreement on Hambantota.

India pushed Sri Lanka really hard over its relationship with China. After the change of government, in 2015, Gotabaya Rajapaksa alleged that Indian National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, demanded the cancellation of the Colombo Port City project. In addition to that demand, which Rajapaksa said was very unfair, India wanted Sri Lanka to take over the 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 the SLPA. India requested all Chinese funded infrastructure projects be stopped and for Sri Lanka to have full control of the Hambantota port. Rajapaksa, quoted Doval as having told him: "Sri Lanka is a small country, you don’t need such development projects".

Obviously, Sri Lanka is under tremendous pressure and struggling to cope with various demands. During the previous administration, simmering controversy over an agreement on the operation and maintenance of the East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo south habour, revealed the daunting challenges Sri Lanka faced. Sharp differences between President Maithripala Sirisena and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, over the ECT project, contributed to the collapse of the yahapalana arrangement.

The yahapalana political crisis, over ECT, highlighted how foreign funded projects can be quite a dilemma for political leaders as they strived to balance demands of major powers, hell-bent on pursuing strategic objectives, at the expense of smaller economies.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Former Foreign Secy on China move

The tele conversation, calling for the resumption of Sino-SL cooperative projects, despite the COVID challenges, signifies two things - the importance China attaches to its relationship with Sri Lanka  and the resilience and commitment of China to press ahead with its strategic out-reach programmes, like the BRI,  undeterred by any adverse impacts the COVID-19 pandemic may have had on China's rise, H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, one-time Foreign Secretary, who held several key positions, including a top position at the UN, said. Palihakkara said so in response to The Island query.

The former Northern Province Governor said: "Sri Lanka, looking, as it is, to seek and receive substantial external inputs to its post-COVID economic recovery process, must seize this opportunity for that purpose while proceeding with necessary geopolitical prudence in keeping with the policy of strategic neutrality articulated by the President in his inauguration speech at Anuradhapura."

CJ 43 alleges calculated UNP attempt to sabotage her defence against arraignment

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 316

May 12, 2020, 10:52 pm

A smiling Shirani Bandaranayake greets a person. The late attorney-at-law Kandiah Neelakandan stands behind her.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

CJ 43 Shirani Bandaranayake, in her memoirs, Uththarithara: Dhoshabiyogaye Athulanthaya, questioned the conduct of the then Speaker, Chamal Rajapaksa, as regards the politically motivated high profile bid to impeach her, during the 2012-2013 period.

CJ 43 raised the boorish behaviour of UPFA representatives in the 11-member Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), headed by Anura Priyadarshana Yapa (SLPP Kurunegala District candidate at the forthcoming 2020 general election). Having faulted Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa for not responding to her letter, dated Dec 14, 2012, that dealt with the conduct of UPFA members, CJ 43 explained the circumstances leading to her lawyers, on Dec 19, 2012, moving the Court of Appeal, seeking redress on three major matters.

They requested the Court to reject a report, submitted by the UPFA group in the Parliamentary Select Committee. The PSC comprised Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Susil Premjayantha, Wimal Weerawansa, Dilan Perera, and Neomal Perera. The UNP was represented by John Amaratunga and Lakshman Kiriella, whereas Vijitha Herath and R. Sampanthan spoke on behalf of the JVP and the TNA, respectively.

The April 1, 2020 edition of The Island carried part I of the review on Uththarithara: Dhoshabiyogaye Athulanthaya. Disruption of printing and distribution of newspapers, as a result of the countrywide shutdown imposed to combat the COVID-19 outbreak, caused the delay in the publication of part II.

However, the most significant revelation, in Chapter 06, in her sensational memoirs, was nothing but CJ 43 questioning the intentions of the two UNPers, who conveniently missed the Court of Appeal proceedings. Was their move meant to give an advantage to the then administration? Did they act unilaterally in that regard? The UNP certainly owes an explanation as to why its representatives acted in a manner which CJ 43, in her memoirs, deemed were a calculated attempt to sabotage the legal recourse, adopted by her legal team.

Today, Kiriella is with UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa’s breakaway Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) , having switched allegiance, while John Amaratunga, heads the UNP National List. Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, too, is with SJB. Kiriella and Dr. Senaratne are in the fray, from the districts of Mahanuwara and Kalutara, respectively.

UNP MP Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, who spearheaded the BASL efforts against what the influential organization, at that time, considered an illegal move to impeach the CJ, is in the fray from the Colombo District. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse is contesting on the SLPP ticket. Having served the UNP parliamentary group from 2007 to 2020, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse switched his allegiance to the Rajapaksas, at the last presidential election.

Quit or face the consequences

The sixth episode dealt with CJ 43 coming under unbridled pressure to resign or face the consequences. Had that happened, the then executive President Mahinda Rajapaksa could have saved his image, especially against the backdrop of the Commonwealth condemnation of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary procedures (205-215)

Having claimed that she didn’t believe the government intended to impeach her, when first told of the move, in Oct 2012, CJ 43 contemptuously mentioned how lawmakers Arundika Fernando, Lasantha Alagiyawanna, Pavitra Wanniarachchi, Dr. Sudarshini Fernandopulle and Shantha Bandara, on behalf of the UPFA handed over the impeachment proposal, at the auspicious time of 10.12 am, on Nov 01, 2012, to Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa.

CJ 43 discussed what she could have done, in the face of the then ruling party initiating impeachment proceedings. She had the option to immediately send her retirement papers, reach a ‘deal’ with the political authority, or take on the authoritarian administration. She chose to fight back against the backdrop of heavy international criticism of Sri Lanka’s conduct, in respect of human rights (pages 106 -107).

The author discussed how top lawyers, Romesh de Silva and the late Kandiah Neelakandan (KN passed away on Feb 18, 2018), accepted the challenging task of defending her, both before the PSC, as well as in court, after Jayanta Mootatamby Swaminathan, the senior partner of possibly the oldest law firm in the country, Julius & Creasy, rejected her request as soon as it was made. CJ 43 refrained from dwelling on Swaminathan’s decision. Kandiah Neelakandan had been picked by Romesh de Silva, in the wake of Swaminathan’s rejection, in spite of Julius & Creasy personally knowing CJ 43, in addition to the well-known legal firm twice representing the Bandaranayakes. CJ 43 mentioned, with gratitude, both Romesh de Silva and Kandiah Neelakandan representing her without accepting fees. However, CJ 43’s claim that she had been unaware of how much a case cost in spite of being in the legal profession for over three decades (pages 108 to 111)is surprising.

The writer had an opportunity to accompany Kandiah Neelakandan, to Vavuniya, sometime after the conclusion of the war. The visit was arranged by the then Minister Milinda Moragoda to enable senior members of All Ceylon Hindu Congress (ACHC) meet detained LTTE cadres. When inquired about the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) throwing its weight behind General Sarath Fonseka, at the January 2010 General Election, after having accused his Army of war crimes, the top lawyer confided: "We chose to back the person who actually conducted the war at the expense of the one who gave political leadership."

Four years before the launch of Uththarithara: Dhoshabiyogaye Athulanthaya, CJ 43 addressed the Swarna Pusthaka awards ceremony, organized by the Sri Lanka Book Publishers Association. The UNP-led yahapalana administration was in place. The awards ceremony was held between the first and the second Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016. CJ 43’s presence, at the awards ceremony, had been her first public appearance, since her removal, in January 2013. Addressing the gathering, CJ 43 declared she received an invitation, from a book publisher known to her, on behalf of the said association, and she accepted the invitation with great reluctance. CJ 43 received the invitation from Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya, who played a significant role in the civil society campaign against the Rajapaksa government.

She took the opportunity to carry out a scathing attack on the then Rajapaksa administration, though no previous, or a later Chief Guest, made a political speech as such, at a Swarna Pushthaka event.

Swarna Pushthaka awards were inaugurated in 2007. Interestingly, the then serving CJ Sarath Nanda Silva, had attended the event as the Chief Guest. At the 2017 event, CJ Priyasath Dep delivered the keynote address as the Chief Guest. His speech wasn’t certainly controversial.

An insight into allegations

Thanks to Uththarithara: Dhoshabiyogaye Athulanthaya, readers gained an insight into 14 allegations, directed at CJ 43, in addition to her strong opposition to the inclusion of Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, and Wimal Weerawansa, in the PSC, headed by Anura Priyadarshana Yapa.

CJ 43 dealt with her leaving the Superior Court complex, on the morning of Nov 23, 2012 - on the day of her only child, son Shaveen’s 22nd birthday - to face the PSC, amidst a stepped-up campaign against her. The Chapter that discussed the despicable attempt to isolate CJ 43, before the PSC, by depriving her legal team, headed by Romesh de Silva, to accompany her, subsequent negotiations between the two parties and the proceedings therein, underscored how the then ruling party brazenly manipulated the parliamentary process (pages 151-197). Her decision to boycott the PSC proceedings, in consultations with her legal team, cannot be faulted, under any circumstances.

Such abuse of proceedings is certainly not an isolated incident, in our Parliament, dubbed the most corrupt institution in the country, by no less a person than one time Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakse.

In the touchy third chapter, CJ 43 discussed how the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa repeatedly sought a meeting with her to discuss developments, against the backdrop of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) initiating disciplinary action, in respect of complaints received as regards the conduct of a Colombo-based judge. The JSC, consisting of three Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice, launched disciplinary proceedings, on Sept 11, 2012. CJ 43 received a call from Lalith Weeratunga requesting her to meet President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The President wanted CJ 43 to be accompanied by other JSC members. On the following day, Weeratunga sent her a brief letter reiterating the request for an urgent meeting. CJ’s memoirs revealed the contents of the letters, exchanged between her and the Office of the President, a section of the media carrying out a politically motivated attack on the judiciary, anonymous letters critical of CJ’s conduct and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) initiating action against husband Pradeepa Kariyawasam (pages 78-87)

CJ 43 asserted that the court had been moved against her husband, Pradeepa Kariyawasam, as a last resort to secure an agreement with her. The author discussed as to how the government used the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to achieve its political goals. CJ 43 explained the indecent way the CIABOC moved against Kariyawasam.

The need to thoroughly examine the CIABOC’s role in the government project cannot be ignored, even years after the incident (Pages 92 and 93). In fact, independence enjoyed by so-called independent commissions should be scrutinized. The controversy over the conduct of the Election Commission, consisting of Mahinda Deshapriya (Chairman), Prof. Ratnajeevan Hoole and President’s Counsel Nalin Abeysekera, regarding its response to the COVID--19 threat, in the run-up to the 2020 parliamentary election.

Impartiality of police

CJ 43, in her memoirs, repeatedly questioned the impartiality of the police. Her assertion that the police cannot be trusted, and always cooperated with the political authority, at the expense of public interest, should have galvanized those interested in the rule of law. Did at least those at the helm of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka peruse CJ’s 43 memoirs? Impartiality of law enforcement authority had been questioned by no less a person than one-time CJ with vast experience in the local judiciary and, prior to that, as a law professor.

The police allowing unruly gathering, outside her official residence, on Baudhaloka Mawatha, a little distance away from the IGP’s official residence, in a high security zone, is nothing but a damning indictment on the entire police service. Perhaps, members of the current Independent Commissions should read Uththarithara: Dhoshabiyogaye Athulanthaya.

CJ 43 also dealt with how Sri Lankans deliberately propagated lies, not only within the country, but overseas, as well. The fear of the rumour mill compelling CJ 43 to shift some of her belongings, in late Dec 2012, and January 2013, from her office to her residence, at Lake Drive, highlighted the seriousness of the issue. CJ 43 felt removal of her belongings, amidst intense government pressure on her to quit, could have demoralized staff (page 233). The reader should take into account that CJ 43 finalized her book project as she was being actively considered as a possible candidate at the 2019 presidential poll, which was comfortably won by Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It would be pertinent to mention that in the run-up to the 2019 presidential poll how determined bids were made to disqualify Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the contest, now proven to be totally false. The threat was so acute that lawmaker Chamal Rajapaksa, on the advice of the SLPP, paid a deposit to qualify to contest the last presidential poll, on its behalf, in the event of the disqualification of his younger sibling.

CJ 43 lambasted the conduct of government members, in parliament and outside, underscoring her dilemma as she couldn’t defend herself against accusations, including the taking over of a five acre of land, belonging to the sister of Dr. Bandaranayake’s mother. Reference was made to the speech made by the then UPFA lawmaker, Thilanga Sumathipala, as a member of group of 117 seeking approval for a resolution to be handed over to the President, seeking the removal of CJ 43.

At the end, however, that resolution was quite ashamedly, and with utter disrespect for parliamentary proceedings, was used to remove the CJ from parliament, the reader was told.

CJ 43 quite fearlessly denied accusations directed at her, including the alleged land take over, at the expense of Navaratne, teacher on the staff of Nalanda College, sister of Shirani Bandaranayake’s mother. Sumathipala is also in the fray at the 2020 parliamentary polls on the SLPP ticket.

In the Chapter that dealt with the proceedings, leading to two-thirds of lawmakers voting against the CJ, with 49 for and 20 abstentions, the author dealt with how the government member Prof. G. L Peiris, her mentor, responded to the move against her in spite of knowing her for over 35 years. CJ 43 revealed how she struggled to cope up with Prof. Peiris role in the impeachment process, especially the speech the academic made in parliament, on January 10, 2013, the day before the vote, the result of which was a foregone conclusion. The author explained the circumstances she interacted with the academic who earned her respect (pages 230, 234). Prof. Peiris heads the National List of the SLPP, for the 2020 general election, submitted to the Election Commission.

A CJ sans security

In a country, where security provided to various persons, at taxpayers’ expense, is abused, CJ 43 revealed how she refrained from securing police protection, throughout her tenure, even after she and members of her family allegedly came under threat, in Nov 2012. In spite of the CJ being entitled to a group of five law enforcement personnel and a jeep, she moved on her own. In fact, she had driven alone, along the Kandy-Jaffna A9, to Jaffna peninsula, to open the new court complex there. Of course, that wouldn’t have been possible if President Mahinda Rajapaksa government failed to eradicate the LTTE, in May 2009.

CJ 43 also confirmed how those government servants rented their houses, within the Colombo city limits, and obtained government quarters. The accusation was made having faced possible forcible entry to CJ’s official bungalow, in the wake of her being removed. CJ 43 backed her argument that she couldn’t depend on law enforcement authorities, with accusation that the IGP, in spite of having official quarters, close to the CJ’s, did nothing when unruly crowds gathered outside her official residence, on the night of January 11, 2013.

CJ 43 revealed a last desperate bid, made by the then administration, to convince her to step down before parliament made its move. The offer, made known to her by her lawyers Romesh de Silva and Neelakandan, at the CJ’s official residence, though they knew she wouldn’t change her decision taken on Nov 01, 2012 not to succumb to political pressure. Since the battle erupted in Nov 2012, over 30 lawyers inquired from Bandaranayake whether she intended to quit on her own. Their interest to know what she was going to do should be examined with rumours that she sought time till April 2013 to quit.

CJ 43 dealt with the police delivering a letter signed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, dated January 12, 2013, informing of her removal on the basis of a request by parliament on the previous day (pages 244-245). CJ 43 included the Sinhala translation of her son Shaveen’s English Facebook post that expressed confidence in her strength to take on the Rajapaksa government. Shaveen Bandaranayake threw a challenge to the public whether they were ready to throw their weight behind his mother. That post ended up in parliament Hansard at a time perhaps CJ 43 never considered a high level political role, though she received attention as Opposition candidate in the run-up to the 2019 Nov presidential polls (pages 246 and 247).

CJ 43 revealed controversial developments in the wake of receiving a letter from President Rajapaksa. The deposed CJ explained how she refused to heed police request to get rid of the journalists, on Wijerama Mawatha, and also to leave the CJ’s bungalow, via a side entrance, on Baudhaloka Mawatha. Bandaranayake took the bold stand that she would leave through the main entrance and wouldn’t ask the media to leave as she didn’t invite them in the first place.

The description of CJ 43 leaving the official bungalow, in a car driven by Shaveen, seemed like a scene out of a movie, with law enforcement officer, identified as Ranagala, demanding they leave, unidentified motorcycle riders riding in a threatening manner and the unsavory scene outside (pages 254-257) their Lake Drive home.

CJ 43 appreciated how her son forced her Uththarithara: Dhoshabiyogaye Athulanthaya and helped her to finalize her memoirs. But, at the end, her reinstatement as CJ 43 on January 28, 2015, and retirement on the following day, is as controversial as her removal in January 2015. What the yahapalana leaders expected by that move is still not clear. The yahapalana lot made quite a number of controversial appointments, in January 2015. One is Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran as the Governor of the Central Bank. Bringing back Bandaranayake, as CJ, was nothing but a part of the yahapalana charade that was terminated, last November, with the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the President.