NP Governor in Geneva controversy

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 264

April 2, 2019, 8:57 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Northern Province Governor Dr. Suren Raghavan last week caused a debilitating setback to Sri Lanka’s efforts to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations.

Having found fault with Human Rights Commissioner Michele Bachelet’s report on Sri Lanka, at a press conference given at the Northern Governor’s Battaramulla office, on the afternoon of March 25, Dr. Raghavan played a different tune on Friday, March 29.

Dr. Raghavan succumbs

to Bachelet

Dr. Raghavan issued the following statement, dated March 29, in response to Bachelet’s furious reaction to a statement attributed to him: "It has been brought to my attention that there has been some media reporting on the press interview I gave about my participation at the Geneva UNHRC session and a subsequent reaction from the OHCHR to the same. It is deeply regrettable and unfortunate that some portions of that interview – especially in the English media – had lost its original meaning and intention, either in language translation or for reasons unknown.

As written before I for one more time reiterate that the UNHRC, its Honourable High Commissioner and the entire staff were extremely helpful, professional and cordial. Our meetings were at the highest level of cooperation and goodwill. We all worked together and negotiated for the path of post-war recovery of peace and democracy in Sri Lanka.

"True we discussed our differences and the fundamental reasons for them; further how to overcome them collectively. However, all our exchanges were with full of bilateral respect. I regret if there has been any misquoting and misrepresentation. Madam Bachelet is an exemplary High Commissioner who displayed the highest order of diplomacy and skills which I valued so much."

Obviously, Dr. Raghavan was on the back-foot. Did Dr. Raghavan issue ‘clarification’ on his own or was told do so by political authority?

The writer regrets his failure to attend Dr. Raghavan’s briefing in spite of his media officer Vajira Kodituwakku repeatedly requesting for comprehensive coverage of the first press conference, called by him in Colombo, after receiving the appointment as the Northern Province Governor. President Maithripala Sirisena should be commended for naming Dr. Raghavan as his representative in the North. Dr. Raghavan is the first Tamil Governor in the restive province. Dr. Raghavan succeeded another political appointee, Reginald Cooray, on January 07, 2019.

HRC flays Northern Governor

Raghavan earned the wrath of Bachelet, a former Chilean President. Bachelet launched an unprecedented scathing attack on Dr. Raghavan over the Daily Mirror reportage of President Maithripala Sirisena’s nominee in Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana, PC, delegation. Although Dr. Raghavan refrained from mentioning a particular newspaper, Bachelet referred to the Daily Mirror report dated March 26, 2019.

Bachelet alleged the report ‘seriously misrepresents’ her discussion in respect of the UN Human Rights Office report on Sri Lanka with Marapana’s delegation..

The report quoted Dr. Raghavan as having said that Bachelet admitted that certain facts, incorporated in the UNHRC report against Sri Lanka, could not be condoned whatsoever." The report also said he claimed she had advised two of her senior officials, who attended the meeting, "to be more responsible and cautious hereafter."

"Neither of these claims are true," Bachelet said. "Either the newspaper misunderstood the Governor, or the Governor misunderstood – or misquoted – me." The High Commissioner said she stood fully behind the report and the oral statement she made when presenting it to the Human Rights Council, and that she believed it fairly and objectively reflected the situation in Sri Lanka.

"I am deeply disappointed by the spin that has been put on my discussion with the Sri Lankan Government delegation," she said, noting that other news outlets in Sri Lanka were also continuing to significantly misrepresent the Human Rights Council process in Geneva.

The High Commissioner said she and her Office remained committed to assisting the Government and people of Sri Lanka to implement the Human Rights Council’s resolutions 30/1 (2015) and 34/1 (2017). And, last week, the Human Rights Council, in another resolution (40/1), gave the Government two more years to deliver fully on the set of commitments it originally accepted, four years ago.

Bachelet said the Sri Lankan Government should now refocus its efforts on fulfilling its obligation to provide justice and accountability for the grave human rights violations and abuses that took place during the conflict that ended in 2009, and honour its commitments to establish the truth about what happened and to promote reconciliation.

Dr. Raghavan’s dilemma

Dr. Raghavan explained Sri Lanka’s position much better than any other politician when he addressed the media on March 25. Raghavan underscored the difficulty experienced by the government delegation to the 40th Geneva session as by then Sri Lanka accepted the latest resolution having appreciated Bachelet’s report on Sri Lanka. Dr. Raghavan pointed out that Bachelet had made available the report, one and half months before, to the government.

Secretary General of the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM) Mano Tittawella, on being sought a response as regards allegations he issued directive for co-sponsoring of the latest resolution without informing the head of state assured that due process was followed. SCRM set up through a cabinet paper in late 2015 comes under the purview of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Tittawella declined to discuss the matter further.

Dr. Raghavan’s March 25 statement endorsed Minister Marapana’s response to Bachelet at Geneva on March 20. However, Dr. Raghavan’s subsequent response to Bachelet’s hard-hitting condemnation of him raised many an eyebrow. Did the Northern Governor unwittingly contradict the stand taken by Marapana? Did Dr. Raghavan consult the President’s Office and the Foreign Ministry before responding to Bachelet?

Bachelet found fault with Dr. Raghavan though she remained mum so far on Marapana’s strong criticism of her report. In fact, there had never been such a devastating attack on a UN report since Sri Lanka faced Western censure over the conduct of its armed forces. Why did Bachelet refrain from commenting on Marapana whose criticism of her latest report was far worse than the statement attributed to Dr. Raghavan.

President Sirisena played down Marapana’s role by claiming that he (the President) changed the text of the statement. Addressing a gathering on March 27, President Sirisena claimed the original text was different to the one presented by Marapana.

Bachelet mum on

Marapana’s attack

In spite of Marapana pointing out serious shortcomings in the report, Bachelet choose to reiterate her commitment to the same after dismissing Dr. Raghavan’s concerns.

Marapana and his political masters certainly owed an explanation as to why issues raised in Geneva on March 20 were not taken up with the Geneva body when Bachelet made available her report to the government one and half months before the 40th sessions.

Dr. Raghavan questioned the rationale in not making representations on behalf of Sri Lanka when the government was given an opportunity.

In fact, the writer sought an explanation from President Sirisena as to why public money was being squandered on a three-member presidential delegation to Geneva against the backdrop of the government accepting the UK-led resolution after having fully endorsed Bachelet’s report. This issue was raised soon after President Sirisena announced the members of his delegation comprising Dr. Sarath Amunugama, MP, Mahinda Samarasinghe, MP, and Dr. Raghavan. The Northern Province Governor silently sat next to President Sirisena at the President’s House briefing.

In response to the writer’s query, President Sirisena, having declared foreign policy remained his responsibility, vowed to take punitive action against those pursuing strategies contrary to his wishes. Had they not been aware of Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador A.L.M. Azeez, endorsing the resolution? Did the President’s Office seek an explanation from the Foreign Ministry after The Island raised the issue? Although, the issue was raised at a meeting, attended by editors of both print and electronic media, the media largely ignored the contentious issue of Sri Lanka agreeing to the latest resolution even before the first formal discussion on the text. The media simply reported President Sirisena naming a three-man delegation. After the conclusion of the meeting, the writer had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Raghavan regarding matters pertaining to the accountability issue. The Northern Province Governor seemed definitely knowledgeable of ground realities and the daunting task in countering the propaganda project.

Six days after the President’s House briefing, President Sirisena and the UNP, on March 12, decided to field one team under Marapana’s leadership. Lawmaker Mahinda Samarasinghe quit the delegation. The Parliament was told of the decision on March 14.

Addressing the Geneva session, after Bachelet’s oral statement, Marapana faulted and challenged her report. Bachelet cannot ignore concerns raised by Sri Lanka. Having raised concerns in Geneva, the government cannot simply proceed with the accountability process disregarding its own interests.

Bachelet, in her response to Dr. Raghavan, declared she stood fully behind the report and the oral statement she made when presenting it to the Human Rights Council, and that she believed it fairly and objectively reflects the situation in Sri Lanka.

Dr. Raghavan should have used the opportunity to explain the necessity to examine issues raised by Marapana. Instead, Dr. Raghavan distanced himself from Marapana’s stand.

Finally Marapana uses Naseby disclosure

Marapana pointed out the sharp discrepancy in the number of civilians killed, on the Vanni east front, quoted by various ‘sources’ including the UN Panel of Experts’ (PoE) on March 31, 2011, and Lord Naseby in the House of Lords on March 12, 2017. PoE placed the number of killed at 40,000 on the basis of ‘credible sources’ whereas Lord Naseby estimated civilian deaths at 5,000. The Conservative member based his assessment on wartime military dispatches from the British High Commission. Lord Naseby named the then Resident Defence Adviser Lt. Col. Anton Gash as the author of the dispatches obtained from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) following a two-and-half-year battle with the ministry.

The British Lord secured dispatches in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, though they had been redacted.

Marapana owed an explanation as to why the Foreign Ministry never brought up Lord Naseby’s disclosure with the Geneva body before. For 18 months, the Foreign Ministry neglected Lord Naseby’s disclosure. In fact, Lord Naseby made the revelation over two months after Marapana received appointment as the Foreign Minister. One-time Attorney General Marapana succeeded UNP Assistant Leader Ravi Karunanayake, who lost the vital portfolio soon after the revelation that Perpetual Treasuries owner, Arjun Aloysius, paid the rent of the Karunanayake’s family’s penthouse. Marapana, himself lost the law and order portfolio in Nov 2015 in the wake of a section of the government criticizing him over his relationship with Avant Garde Maritime Services (AGMS).

The Foreign Ministry had ample opportunities to raise the issue with the Human Rights Commissioner, as well as with the British government. The Ministry never wanted to take it up because UNP bosses quite rightly realized Lord Naseby’s explosive disclosure could derail the Geneva process.

The Foreign Ministry could have used Lord Naseby’s disclosure for Sri Lanka’s benefit, but treachery won the day.

The writer received the following response from the Foreign Ministry on Oct 27, 2015, as regards Lord Naseby’s disclosure: "The Government of Sri Lanka remains committed to national processes aimed at realizing the vision of a reconciled, stable, peaceful and prosperous nation. Engaging in arguments and debates in the international domain over the number of civilians who may have died at a particular time in the country will not help resolve any issues, in a meaningful manner, locally, except a feel good factor for a few individuals who may think that they have won a debate or scored points over someone or the other."

Farhan Aziz Haq, Deputy Spokesperson for the then UNSG António Guterres, in Nov 2017, told The Island that the UNHRC could revisit Resolution 30/1 titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’

Haq 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 on the basis of representations made by a country. The UNHRC comprises 47 countries divided into five zones.

The UN spokesperson said so when The Island asked him whether there was a possibility of UN revisiting Geneva Resolution in the wake of Lord Naseby assertion during a debate that the maximum Vanni death toll was 7,000 to 8,000 not 40,000 as reported by PoE, and GoSL never targeted civilians deliberately.

The Island raised the issue with the UN in the wake of Sri Lanka parliament taking up the issue twice since Naseby’s Oct 12, 2017 bombshell statement in the House of Lords.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka decided not to exploit the situation. It would be pertinent to mention that at the time of Lord Naseby’s disclosure, the UNP-SLFP coalition had been in power though there were many disagreements between the partners. The yahapalana arrangement lasted till Oct 26, 2018. The coalition pursued a common strategy in respect of Geneva though President Sirisena publicly took a different stand.

About 10 months after Lord Naseby’s disclosure, the writer raised the inordinate delay on the part of the Foreign Ministry to take up British dispatches with the UNHRC. The issue was raised in terms of the Right to Information (RTI) Law enacted in early 2017.

Then Director General (Legal) of the Foreign Ministry C.A.H.M. Wijeratne said that the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) hadn’t dealt with UNSG Panel of Experts (PoE) allegations. "Allegations in the Secretary General’s PoE report, if at all, are for a local investigation process in Sri Lanka to examine."

Wijeratne said so in his capacity as the Foreign Ministry Information Officer, in response to the The Island query: "The House of Lords was told in Oct 2017 of the existence of wartime British High Commission dispatches (Jan-May 2009) from the Office of its Defense Attaché in Colombo which contradicted PoE allegation pertaining to deaths of 40,000 civilians. Would you be requesting members of UNHRC to re-examine allegations directed at the Government of Sri Lanka in the light of this fresh evidence?"

A treacherous act

The Foreign Ministry was determined not to use the British disclosure for the country’s benefit. Why did Marapana fault the Geneva process, on March 20, 2019, after having neglected scores of previous opportunities? Did President Sirisena force the UNP to challenge the latest Geneva report as he claimed on March 27. Perhaps, President Sirisena, too, owe an explanation as to why he refrained from taking action against those responsible for co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1, titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ on Oct 01, 2015 and then extended it in March 2017 for two more years by way of a second US-led resolution. Can anyone of those demanding action against Mano Tittawella and Ambassador Azeez explain what they have done, since Oct 2015, to protect Sri Lanka’s interests following the passage of the original resolution. Can they explain what they have done with Lord Naseby’s disclosure, since Oct 2017?

Bachelet should realize that Minister Marapana’s rebuttal is far more serious than Dr. Raghavan statement. In addition to raising Lord Naseby’s disclosure in defence of Sri Lanka, Marapana faulted Bachelet’s report over reference in respect of the Mannar mass graves and releasing of land previously held by the military in the war zone et al. Marapana criticized the seriously flawed report with the primary allegation against Sri Lanka (massacre of 40,000) challenged on the basis of authentic official dispatches of the current member of the Geneva body, Great Britain.

It would be interesting to see whether the UK would release the entire set of diplomatic dispatches to ascertain the truth. Lord Naseby after trying for over two years, since Nov 2014, was able to obtain only a section of the dispatches. They too were heavily censored for obvious reasons. Let me end this piece by reminding what current British High Commissioner James Dauris said when the issue was raised with him: "Lord Naseby was not speaking for the British Government when speaking recently in a debate in the House of Lords. As a Member of Parliament he is entitled to express his own views."

The BHC stated: "A point that has not been in dispute in all that has been written and said since Lord Naseby spoke is that many thousands of civilians died during the conflict. We continue to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to implement the commitments it gave and which are set out in UNHRC resolution 30/1 and reaffirmed in UNHRC resolution 34/1, including the undertaking to establish a truth-seeking commission. Resolution 30/1 emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to dealing with the past, incorporating the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures, including truth-seeking. The resolution affirms that the commitments given, if implemented fully and credibly, will help to achieve reconciliation. Achieving reconciliation is in the clear interests of every community in Sri Lanka."

The Geneva consensus should be examined taking into account the 2014 electoral arrangement involving the UNP, the TNA and the JVP – a project backed by Western powers and India. Such an examination will help the public ascertain why Sri Lanka co-sponsored the original resolution.

A TNA warning ahead of final vote on Budget 2019

...set up hybrid war crimes court or face int’l inquiry

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 263

March 26, 2019, 7:52 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Jaffna District lawmaker Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran, PC, last Friday (March 22) delivered in parliament his hardest speech in his decade-long parliamentary career.

Inuvil-born Sumanthiran warned the President Maithripala Sirisena-Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe led administration that Sri Lanka faced an exclusive international war crimes probe unless they fully implemented the Oct 01, 2015, Geneva Resolution which called for the setting up of a hybrid court.

Sumanthiran revealed that an agreement on foreign judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors and lawyers in a local judicial mechanism was cleared by the then Yahapalana Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, before Sri Lanka co-sponsored the resolution. According to Sumanthiran, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse had been with him, at a meeting in Geneva, when the agreement was reached.

Sumanthiran warned that the International Criminal Court (ICC) would be moved against Sri Lanka unless the government implemented what it promised in writing not once but thrice since 2015. The toughening of the TNA’s stand should be studied against the backdrop of former Northern Province Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran’s political challenge as well as weakening of its northern base at the Feb 2018 Local Government polls.

Top constitutional lawyer Manohara de Silva strongly challenged Sumanthiran’s assertion at a meeting chaired by SLPP presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa last Saturday (March 23) at Kotikawatte. Manohara declared there was no basis for Sumanthiran’s position on foreign judges.

No one should find fault with the TNA MP for speaking the truth. Sumanthiran is quite right in demanding what the UNP-SLFP yahapalana administration owed the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) led grouping. The TNA comprised, in addition to the ITAK, three former Indian backed terrorist groups, namely the PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam), TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization) and EPRLF (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Organization).

The TNA revealed the existence of a tripartite agreement involving the government, the US and the grouping in June 2016. Sumanthiran comprehensively dealt with the issue at hand in a statement he delivered on behalf of the party at a ‘Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka’ in Washington. In fact, the then Office of the Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan requested the writer to give coverage to Sumanthiran’s statement.

Sumanthiran made the statement in the presence of Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Washington Prasad Kariyawasam.

Wijeyadasa’s role revealed

The event was moderated by Sadhanand Dhume of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank. The Caucus is an initiative launched by the United States Congressmen Bill Johnson of Ohio and Danny Davis of Illinois, in November, 2013.

Attorney-at-law Sumanthiran stressed that the Oct 01, 2015, resolution was moved in Geneva, following an understanding that the participation of foreigners wouldn’t be contrary to Sri Lanka’s Constitution. Declaring that he had been personally involved in the negotiations, with the United States of America also participating in that particular process, Sumanthiran said: "There were some doubts created, as to whether the Constitution of Sri Lanka would allow for foreign nationals to function as judges and we went into that question, clarified it, and said yes they can".

Sumanthiran told the Congressional Caucus that the resolution, accepted in Geneva, had been negotiated and they settled for a hybrid model, though they originally asked for an international inquiry.

Now, Sumanthiran has revealed the role played by Wijeyadasa Rajapakse in the whole Geneva affair. Rajapakse owes an explanation to the public without delay.

He lost his ministerial portfolio, in August 2017 when the UNP compelled President Sirisena to remove Rajapakse following his strong criticism of the government’s controversial 99-year-old deal with China on the Hambantota port. Since then, Rajapakse backed President Sirisena on a number of issues, including simmering controversy over the Constitutional Council. An original member of the CC, Rajapakse represented the apex body at the time he gave nod to foreign judges in a domestic mechanism. Subsequently, Rajapakse quit the CC. Having previously been an SLFPer, Rajapakse switched his allegiance to the UNP, in 2007, following a dispute with the Rajapaksas.

The Global Tamil Forum (GTF) spokesperson, Suren Surendiran, told the writer, at the time that the agreement on the text of the resolution had been reached following negotiations among what he called Core Group of members at the UNHRC, the government of Sri Lanka and representatives of Tamils. The agreement on a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators, was certainly not negotiable, Surendiran emphasized.

In his lengthy presentation to the Congressional caucus, on June 14, 2016 Sumanthiran discussed a range of issues, including the role of the US and India in the resolution of the national issue.

Both MP Sumanthiran and Surendiran emphasized that they expected the full implementation of the UNHRC resolution. The TNA and the GTF work closely in respect of political and related matters. The writer had opportunities to meet Surendiran, in Geneva, during the previous administration and in March 2015 in London, soon after a top GTF delegation met President Sirisena and the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. Surendiran was accompanied by GTF President Rev Father Emmanuel and they were quite clear about the contentious issue of accountability.

Now, back to Sumanthiran’s presentation before the ‘Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka.’

In his brief remarks, Ambassador Kariyawasam provided an overview of the measures taken by Sri Lanka to promote its two-pronged policy of reconciliation and development since the January 2015 election of the current government and reiterated, in detail, measures taken by the government to vindicate its commitment to these processes and explained the several challenges that militate against government efforts.

Parliament neglects its

responsibilities

 Therefore political parties represented in parliament should not pretend that they hadn’t been aware of the controversial agreement. The TNA can never be accused of working out a secret agreement. The TNA, not only declared its position in Washington in the presence of Colombo’s top envoy there in June 2016, it fully briefed the electorate by issuing the entire statement. The public should appreciate the TNA handling of the issue as the grouping hadn’t tried to deceive anyone. Unfortunately, can the same be said about the then UNP-SLFP government and the Joint Opposition (JO) group in parliament?

Neither the government, nor the JO, ever raised Sumanthiran’s Washington statement in or out of parliament. Both the government and the JO were determined not to take it up.

The Sectoral Oversight Committee in parliament, never bothered to examine the post-war accountability process. Recently, the writer raised the failure on the part of the JO to take up the matter at least after Lord Naseby’s disclosure in the House of Lords on Oct 12, 2017. The highly respected British politician, on the basis of wartime British High Commission dispatches from Colombo, successfully countered the primary UN war crimes allegation as regards the massacre of 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front in the last phase of the war.

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

Since the releasing of the UNSG appointed Panel of Experts’ report in March 2011, Sri Lanka had been under tremendous pressure to be hauled up before an international war crimes probe regardless of strong opposition by the previous Rajapaksa administration. Western powers moved resolutions at the Geneva-based UNHRC thrice in 2012, 2013 and 2014. In the run-up to the 2015 presidential election, Western powers and India threw their weight behind a high profile project to bring the Rajapaksa rule to an end. The TNA played a pivotal role in the campaign to oust the Rajapaksas and was rewarded with an agreement on controversial accountability mechanism and other mechanisms. Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature received the crucial backing of the TNA in return for a comprehensive agreement on war crimes probe.

The Oct 2015 agreement, finalized in Geneva, in spite of strong opposition by the then Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, must be examined, keeping in mind consensus among the UNP-JVP and the TNA at the last presidential election. The government simply overruled Ambassador Aryasinha’s concerns and he was instructed to go ahead with the Oct. 2015 agreement.

The writer, on several occasions, raised this issue though those calling for war crimes probe never dared to discuss the TNA role at the 2005 Nov, 2010 January and 2015 January presidential polls. At the time of the 2005 presidential poll, the TNA functioned as the political arm of the LTTE. In fact since Oct 2001, the TNA had been part of the LTTE. Having declared the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamils, in late 2001, the grouping stood by the LTTE throughout the war until Prabhakaran was killed on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon.

Lawmaker Sumanthiran has reminded the parliament in no uncertain terms that the TNA expected Sri Lanka to meet its obligations in terms of the Oct 2015 Geneva Resolution. Sumanthiran pointed out that in resolution 40/1 that was adopted last Thursday (March 21), a time bound implementation has been brought in for the first time because the Sri Lankan government delayed the implementation of the promises made in the original resolution.

Sumanthiran entered parliament in April 2010 on the TNA National List. The attorney-at-law played quite an important role in his first term. Sumanthiran always represented the TNA in talks with its international partners and received the due respect as a skilled negotiator. He successfully contested the Jaffna electoral district at the August 2015 general election. The lawyer was among 14 members elected to parliament from the TNA. In addition to them, the TNA received two National List slots. Sumanthiran stunned Sri Lanka last Friday by declaring their intention to drag the country before the ICC.

Sumanthiran simply dismissed Foreign Minister Marapana’s statement in Geneva last Wednesday as being irrelevant and deceiving as far as the Geneva agreement was concerned. The TNA spokesman reminded parliament that the Geneva resolution should be fully implemented, in its original form, and there was absolutely no room for amendments. Recent declarations made by Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella in parliament as regards the Geneva resolution should be examined against the backdrop of Sumanthiran’s bombshell. Kiriella went to the extent of claiming that the latest Geneva resolution was favourable to Sri Lanka. Sumanthiran has proved him wrong.

It would be pertinent to ask the Foreign Ministry whether it has at least briefed the cabinet of ministers and the parliament with regard to the Geneva resolution and related matters. Since the January 2015 change of government, the foreign ministry portfolio was held by Mangala Samaraweera (January 2015 to May 2017), Ravi Karunanayake (May 2017 to August 2018), Tilak Marapana (August 2017 to Oct 2018), Dr. Sarath Amunugama (Oct 2018-Dec 2018) and again Marapana took over in Dec 2018.

TNA-UNP relationship

Obviously, the TNA plays its cards well. However, the ITAK-led grouping cannot take things for granted. The UNP and the TNA depend on each other. Can the TNA afford to abstain or vote against the final vote on Mangala Samaraweera’s budget 2019 on April 05, 2019? The TNA voted with the UNP on March 12, 2019, when the vote on the second reading of budget was taken. The TNA steadfastly stood by the UNP, both in and outside parliament during turbulent past four years. The TNA conveniently neglected its responsibilities throughout this period by not giving the leadership to the campaign against the treasury bond scams perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016. Sumanthiran, who heads the Committee on Public Finance, the highest parliamentary body overseeing the subject, had no qualms representing an interdicted Central Bank employee, Sangarapillai Pathumanapan, investigated by the CID in connection with the concluded Presidential Commission of Inquiry into alleged bond scams. The writer was present at the Bond Commission when Senior Additional Solicitor General (SASG) Dappula de Livera strongly objected to Sumanthiran appearing for Pathumanapan. MP Sumanthiran bluntly told the commission that it didn’t have a mandate to look into matters of ethical conduct of attorneys. The commission overruled SASG De Livera’s objections on the basis of Sumanthiran’s defence. This transpired in Nov 2017, over a month before the commission handed over its report to President Sirisena.

According to a CID report, obtained by ‘The Island’, there had been 703 viber calls, 61 telephone calls, two SMS and two WhatsApp messages between Pathhumanapan and Arjun Aloysius alone. Aloysius had used one device whereas Pathumanapan used four devices and among his contacts was Aloysius’ wife, Anjali, daughter of the then Governor Mahendran.

The TNA never pressed parliament for much delayed debate on treasury bond scam report. It voted against the No Confidence Motion (NCM) moved by the JO in April 2018 against Premier Wickremesinghe over his alleged complicity in the treasury bond scams and also the failure on his part to quell the Digana ethnic violence.

During the Oct-Dec 2018 constitutional coup, the TNA stood by the JVP. The TNA joined the UNP and the JVP in moving the Supreme Court against Nov 09, 2018 dissolution of parliament. Their joint operation succeeded in restoring the Wickremesinghe administration. Although, the TNA refused to join the government, it ensured continuity of the UNP administration. The TNA saved the government at the vote on the second reading of the budget on March 12, 2019. Can the TNA abandon the UNP at the final vote next week?

The TNA has no option but to ensure the continuity of the present government. The Sampanthan-Sumanthiran duo and their associates are not likely to disrupt the ongoing new constitution making process and further progress on Geneva by defeating the UNP. A defeat on a financial Bill will pave the way for early general election though the 19th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in late April 2015 prohibited the dissolution of parliament by the President until the parliament completed four and half years of its five year term.

It would be a failing on the writer’s part if Marapana response to his query as regards the accountability issue on the day he took over the Foreign Ministry is not discussed. Having quit the law and order portfolio in Nov 2015 over severe criticism of his defence of controversial international business enterprise Avant Garde Maritime Services (AGMS), Marapana returned to the cabinet as the Foreign Minister. Marapana succeeded UNP Assistant Leader Ravi Karunanayake, who had to leave the cabinet in the wake of shocking revelations in the Bond Commission as regards his relationship with Aloysius. The then Foreign Secretary Prasad Kariyawam stood by Marapana as the writer sought an explanation as regards the inclusion of foreign judges in a domestic mechanism. The minister was told of Sumanthiran’s Washington statement made in Kariyawasam’s presence. One time Attorney General declared that the 1978 Constitution wouldn’t permit inclusion of foreign judges in the proposed domestic Judicial Mechanism under any circumstances.

Now, President’s Counsel Sumanthiran, in parliament, has challenged the Foreign Minister’s stand. At the time of Sumanthiran’s bombshell, Marapana and Dr. Amunugama, the two lawmakers who represented Sri Lanka at the just concluded Geneva sessions were not in parliament.

The parliament should fully review the Geneva issue. The writer is of the view that foreign judges and other personnel could help Sri Lanka to finally settle the matter.  

It would be pertinent to mention that a Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM), headed by attorney-at-law Manori Muttetuwegama, in the first week of January 2017, recommended that the proposed judicial mechanism to try cases of war crimes have at least one foreign judge in every bench. But, the CTFRM made it a point to stress that the majority of the judges should be Sri Lankan.

The CTFRM made the announcement at the Information Department after handing over a copy of the report to former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. The CTFRM released the report on the eve of the third anniversary of President Maithripala Sirisena’s victory over his predecessor Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The CTFRM consisted of 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. Among the CTFRM members are some prominent civil society activists, including literally translator Gamini Viyangoda and attorney-at-law Janaranjana, key speakers at events organized by Purawesi Balaya, a leading civil society grouping.

Another leading civil society activist, attorney-at-law, J.C. Weliamuna declared that foreign participation in the proposed war crimes court, in Oct. 2015, in the wake of Sri Lanka co-sponsoring original Geneva resolution was a must.

Weliamuna said that Parliament would have to make the required amendments to pave the way for international participation in the process. However, MP Sumanthiran did not mention the requirement of amendments to allow foreign judges in his last Friday’s speech in parliament.

The Information Department organized the briefing by Weliamuna in collaboration with the state-run Rupavahini.

Then Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr Harsha de Silva was by the side of Weliamuna at the briefing.

Weliamuna insisted that Sri Lanka needed foreign expertise to meet the challenging task of inquiring into accountability issues. Post-war Sri Lanka required international expertise though some extremists sought to cause chaos. Quoting from a UN report that dealt with Sri Lanka, Weliamuna said that the local judiciary lacked the capacity to investigate system crimes.

Let there be foreign judges and other personnel in a local judicial mechanism subjected to all available information including Naseby’s disclosure in Oct 2017 and Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith is June 2011 assertion in Colombo be scrutinized along with the still confidential UN report on the Vanni which dealt with the situation there between Aug 2008 and May 13, 2009.

Australia follows up with big exercise in the wake of US setting up ‘logistical hub’

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 262

March 19, 2019, 9:19 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Nearly a decade after Sri Lanka brought the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a successful conclusion, Australia, a key member of the US-led ‘military alliance,’ has included Sri Lanka in a major Indian Ocean military exercise - the first of its kind involving the war-winning military.

Sri Lanka crushed the LTTE, in May 2009, following a nonstop two years and 10 months long combined security forces offensive, launched in Sept. 2006.

Australia will launch the exercise, involving seven countries, here, on Saturday (March 23). The exercise gets underway immediately after the conclusion of the Geneva Human Rights Council sessions where Sri Lanka received two more years to fulfill obligations it made in Oct 2015.

About 1,000 Australian personnel are expected to participate in the unprecedented exercise, covering Colombo and Trincomalee harbours, as well as the Chinese-funded Mattala airport.

The Australian deployment for the exercise, codenamed Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2019 (IPE-19), comprises several vessels, landing helicopter dock and flagship of the Australian Navy HMAS Canberra, Adelaide-class guided-missile frigate HMAS Newcastle, Anzac-class frigate HMAS Paramatta and Durance-class multi-product replenishment oiler HMAS Success.

Other countries involved in the exercise are India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore - currently engaged in exercises conducted by the US Pacific Command. IPE 19 is obviously part of the overall military-political initiatives to counter growing Chinese power.

The media was briefed last Friday (March 15) of the IPE 19, at the residence of Acting Australian High Commissioner in Colombo Jon Philp.

Ahead of the IPE 19, two Australian Navy, vessels which were here since March 11, moved to Trincomalee last Sunday (March 17) to locate an Australian warship sunk off Batticaloa during World War II. The vessels are expected to leave today (March 20).

Australia wouldn’t have dared even to contemplate military exercise in Sri Lankan waters a decade ago. The LTTE’s naval unit, called Sea Tigers, targeted all Sri Lankan ports, with a section of the Indian media claiming Sea Tiger ‘suicide packs’ were planning attacks on Sri Lankan ports. Western powers deprived Sri Lanka of much needed support though the US provided critical backing during Eelam War IV (2006-2009).

The Australian move should be examined against the backdrop of the US Navy announcement of the setting up of what it called logistic hub in Sri Lanka to secure support, supplies and services at sea and the ‘Comprehensive Partnership’ between Japan and Sri Lanka reached after the change of government in January 2015. The growing US-Japan-India cooperation, too, is a matter for serious consideration.

The US Navy announcement was made towards the end of the first week of December, 2018, though the US Navy first operated the air logistic hub in late August 2018.

Karannagoda at the helm

The Sri Lanka Navy played a significant role in the near three-yearlong combined security forces campaign that enabled the country to attract Western powers. Unfortunately, they had sought a relationship with Sri Lanka at the expense of China, an all-weather friend whose continuous military support helped the country to withstand the LTTE. Had the Navy failed in its efforts to destroy floating LTTE arsenals, on the high seas, during the 2006/2007 period, the war couldn’t have been brought to an end! Of the eight LTTE ships, loaded with a range of arms, ammunition and equipment, four were sent to the bottom of the seas, thanks to specific intelligence received by the then Navy Chief Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda (2005-2009) from the US. Karannagoda skillfully obtained, with the help of the then US Ambassador in Colombo, Robert Blake, the required information to enable the Navy to deploy its assets purposefully. Karannagoda terminated the long standing ‘Varuna Kirana’ operation, meant to intercept weapons-carrying LTTE approaching the Mulliativu-Chalai coast. Instead, the Navy successfully hunted down LTTE ships to eliminate the continuous sea supply routes - weapons transfers from ships to LTTE boats launched from the Northern Province as well as supplies moved, via Tamil Nadu.

A decade after the conclusion of the war, Karannagoda is under investigation for allegedly being part of a clandestine Navy unit responsible for the abduction and disappearance of 11 youth during the 2007/2008 period. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) questioned Karannagoda, on March 11 and 12, 2019, for hours following a directive issued by the Supreme Court, consequent to the former Navy Chief seeking the apex body’s intervention to prevent his arrest.

Karanngoda, through his lawyers, requested a national newspaper for space to contradict a news item published the day following the CID questioned him on March 11, 2019. In a letter, dated March 12, 2019, addressed to the Editor of the said newspaper, the lawyer for Karannagoda said: "I am instructed that you have published a news item in your Newspaper published yesterday, namely 12th March 2019, on front page, under the heading" Abduction and killing of 11 youth – Unit was under my command- Karannagoda "

I am instructed by my client to request from you as to who gave this information to the newspaper and/or who provided this information to the author of the news item. 

I am also instructed to inform you that by publishing this sort of news items you are interfering with the ongoing investigation. 

However, since you have published this, my client is compelled and thus I have been instructed to inform you that there was no questioning took place about this on 11th March at CID in the first place and therefore there was no occasion for my client to either admit or deny that there was such a unit under his command or under his direct supervision.

Therefore the information contained in the article is totally false. 

In the circumstances I am instructed to and I do hereby request you to publish a correction as stated in this letter stating that my client’s position that this news item is false and give the same prominence that was given to the article published yesterday.

Also let me know as to who provided this information to the newspaper and/or to the author of the article."

Karannagoda’s lawyer, under any circumstances, has no right to seek the identity of the person/persons who provided the information to the media though his right to clarify/contradict a matter ,on behalf of his client, cannot be challenged.

Karannagoda was again questioned by the CID yesterday (March 19).

Previous govt’s failure

The previous government owed an explanation as to why the disappearance case was not properly investigated, in spite of Karannagoda himself complaining to the police, way back in May 2009. Those who had repeatedly accused the UNP government and the CID of targeting Karannagoda should explain the failure on the part of the previous government to conclude the investigation. The previous government neglected its responsibilities until the disappearance case ended up in Geneva. As former Commander of the war-winning Army Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, MP, recently emphasized in parliament that the law of the land should apply to Karannagoda. Participating in the budget debate on March 8, 2019, the Sinha Regiment veteran said that though the government protected war heroes, criminals responsible for extra judicial killings should not be shielded. Fonseka said that if Karannagoda had been involved in wartime abductions he should be punished. No one can find fault with Fonseka for taking a principled stand that anyone responsible for crimes, if found guilty, should be punished.

However, many an eyebrow was raised when the much touted allegation that Vice Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne, in his capacity as the Commander of the Navy, helped a key suspect in the disappearances case, Lt. Commander Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi, to leave the country in a Fast Attack Craft (FAC). This allegation was proved wrong when the CID arrested Hettiarachchi in Colombo after his return from overseas. The suspect repeatedly called ‘Navy Sampath,’ in a deliberate bid to deceive the public, had left the country by air and returned the same way. The CID admitted in the Fort Magistrate court that there was no basis for its earlier claim that Hettiarachchi left the country in a FAC. Close on the heels of Karannagoda moving the Supreme Court; the CID arrested retired Lt. Commander Sampath Munasinghe, the real ‘Navy Sampath’ allegedly responsible for the disappearances. One-time Navy spokesman Commodore D.K.P. Dassanayake, too, had been arrested in connection with this case, often referred to by UN officials, diplomats as well as the civil society. Dassanayake is on bail. Wijegunaratne’s case, too, is pending.

Sumanthiran’s comments

It would be pertinent to mention that the original accusation, with regard to Wijegunaratne helping Hettiarachchi to escape, was made at a meeting attended by several ministers and several others, including President’s Counsel J.C. Weliamuna. No less a person that TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran referred to the apprehension of the real ‘Navy Sampath’ in conversations with the writer on two different occasions. Sumanthiran during the debate in the expenditure heads of the President, the Prime Minister, Independent Commissions and the apex courts on March 13, 2019, underscored the need for foreign judges to inquire into war crimes and related cases on the basis of Karannagoda moving the Supreme Court.

Sumanthiran said: "The point I am trying to make is that even in a case where the abducted persons were not members of the LTTE, had nothing to do with the war, even so, because the suspects were members of an armed force – the Sri Lanka Navy - who were running an extortion racket they could not arrest the Navy Commander. This was abduction and extortion of money for ransom and it was revealed that the Navy Commander at that time knew about it and himself made a complaint to the police – the first complaint was by him. And because he was a war-time Commander, the petition was taken up in the SC that he is a war hero and that he should not be arrested. I wish to ask, if a person had been a Commander of the Armed Forces during the war, does that give him immunity from arrest? I did not see that happening in the case of Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka."

The high profile role played by the Navy during the conflict shouldn’t be an excuse for atrocities to be committed. Let there be proper investigations into all incidents, not directly related to the conflict, as well as war crimes. It would be pertinent to mention a statement issued by a top Japanese official as regards Karannagoda soon after he received appointment as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Tokyo. The following is The Island report, dated July 13, 2011: 

UN Law Commission: Karannagoda praised, western media criticized for post-Fukushima ‘conduct’

A Japanese member of the UN Law Commission, Shinya Murase, has paid a glowing tribute to newly appointed Sri Lankan Ambassador to Japan Admiral (Rtd) Wasantha Karannagoda for taking over the diplomatic mission in spite of radiation fears caused by the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear facility, on March 11, 2011.

Addressing the International Law Commission recently, regarding ways and means to tackle natural disasters in the aftermath of the Fukushima tragedy, Murase said that expression of solidarity could be as equally precious as material and financial support. Although Admiral Karannagoda hadn’t been named, Murase left no doubt as to which country he was referring to.

Former Navy Commander Karannagoda succeeded career diplomat Esala Weerakoon. The government is under heavy Opposition fire for appointing retired and serving military officers as heads of missions as well as to lesser diplomatic positions. External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris strongly defended the government decision in this regard in a response to a query raised by the Chief Opposition Whip, John Amaratunga, in Parliament.

During his illustrious career, Admiral Karannagoda supervised the destruction of eight LTTE ships on the high seas during Eelam war IV causing the rapid collapse of the enemy’s firepower.

Karannagoda’s action brought honour to Sri Lanka before national cricketer Kumar Sangakkara took advantage of the annual Sir Colin Cowdrey lecture to praise Sri Lanka’s military victory over LTTE terrorism in May 2009. Government sources told The Island that such praise couldn’t have come at a better time as a section of the international community targets the country on the human rights front.

While emphasizing the importance of international cooperation to tackle natural disasters, Murase told the UN Law Commission: "Just to mention one example without naming the country, there was a new Ambassador from a small Island country in Asia who had been appointed to serve in Japan from March. When the earthquake hit Japan, he was advised that he could postpone his assignment until the situation in Japan normalized. However, he arrived in Tokyo on schedule, because he thought it important to show his and his country’s solidarity with the Japanese people. His country itself was hit by a devastating tsunami in 2004. His arrival in Tokyo coincided with the week in March when so many embassy staff members of other countries were fleeing the city for fear of radioactive contamination (which, incidentally, had been largely exaggerated in the Western media). The mass exodus of foreign diplomats and business people had left the feeling among the Japanese, that they had been abandoned."

Murase went onto say: "But this ambassador was different. Right after his arrival, he visited the evacuation centers in the affected area with his fellow countrymen, cooking and serving hot food that was much appreciated by the evacuees who had been living under freezing temperatures without heat. His government donated the victims a huge amount of money for this small country, as well as 3 million bags of tea produced in his country. Furthermore, he led some 15 military personnel from his country to clean-up the debris in the tsunami-stricken area. These actions went well beyond his basic diplomatic duties, but his efforts were immensely appreciated."

Murase said Japan had received assistance from 161 countries and 43 international organizations following the tragedy. "We received immense quantities of relief supplies, substantial monetary donations, and hands-on assistance of a great number of relief teams from a great many countries, regions, and organizations, for all of which we are truly grateful. The Japanese people will never forget that the world stood by us when we were most in need."

The Rajapaksa government turned a blind eye to Sangakkara’s defence of the Sri Lankan military in London at a time the UK was busy formulating plans to haul up Sri Lanka before an international war crimes tribunal. Sangakkara’s was the best possible defence by a world renowned Sri Lankan, not influenced by the corrupt political setup here.

The writer is grateful to Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Wijegunaratne for reminding him of the Murase’s statement at the International Law Commission.

COMEAST under fire

During the second year of the Ceasefire Agreement, signed in Feb 2002, Karannagoda received the wrath of the then UNP government for warning of a large scale LTTE built-up against the strategic Trincomalee Navy base. The then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar was accused of making up ‘stories’ on the basis of information provided by Karannagoda, the then COMEAST, the senior most security forces officer in the region. The military solidly backed Kadirgamar’s assertion. In spite of heavy political pressure, Navy headquarters strongly approved of Kadirgamar declaration that the LTTE posed a formidable threat to Trincomalee unless remedial measures were taken. The then Navy spokesman Captain Jayantha Perera (later Commander of the Navy) explained the circumstances how Kadirgamar reached the conclusion as regards the LTTE plans (Navy backs Kadir’s claims of LTTE Trinco threat-The Sunday Island, Sept 7, 2003).

A section of the state-owned media mercilessly targeted Karannagoda over his stand on Trincomalee. Karannagoda challenged a news programme aired on Sept. 05, 2003 asserting it was defamatory of him. The COMEAST described the coverage as distorted and politically motivated. The then government found fault with Karannagoda for taking a position that it felt undermined the Oslo-led peace process. In his letter of demand, Karannagoda underscored that he stood by the presentation made to Kadirgamar at the President’s House on Aug. 04, 2003. Karannagoda, the then No 03 of the Navy, counting 32 years of experience, emphasized that Kadirgamar was briefed on the basis of ‘all possible information and intelligence gathered by the Navy, Army and Air Force.’

The task of denying Karannagoda fell on the then top government spokesperson Prof. G.L. Peiris. Prof. Peiris denied Kadirgamar’s claim of a threat on Trincomalee while assuring the public of a contingency plan to meet a crisis in the East (COMET to sue on Trinco issue-The Sunday Island,  Sept. 14, 2003).

Anti-Sri Lanka project suffers setback as US report on ‘Mannar Sathosa mass grave site’ clears Army

SPECIAL REPORT : Part 261

March 12, 2019, 9:19 pm 

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights obviously believed the lies propagated by the interested parties. The Commissioner went to the extent of referring to the Mannar mass grave site in her latest annual report (section 23) submitted to the UNHRC. The following is the relevant section: "On May 29, 2018, human skeletal remains were discovered at a construction site in Mannar (Northern Province), Excavations conducted in support of the Office on Missing Persons, revealed a mass grave from which more than 300 skeletons were discovered. It was the second mass grave found in Mannar following the discovery of a site in 2014. Given that other mass graves might be expected to be found in the future, systematic access to grave sites by the Office as an observer is crucial for it to fully discharge its mandate, particularly with regard to the investigation and identification of remains, it is imperative that the proposed reforms on the law relating to inquests , and relevant protocols to operationalize the law be adopted. The capacity of the forensic sector must also be strengthened, including in areas of forensic anthropology, forensic archaeology and genetics, and its coordination with the Office of Missing Persons must be ensured." Geneva never expected the US report on Mannar mass graves to go against its strategy.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

A recent report by a reputed Miami-based laboratory, on the Mannar Sathosa mass grave samples, cleared, the war-winning Sri Lanka Army (SLA) of the responsibility for extra-judicial killings.

The remains of over 300 men, women and children were found, beginning early last year, at the site in the northern Mannar district, where terrorists fought the military during a 37-year war that ended in May 2009. In terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord, forced on then President JR Jayewardene, by New Delhi, the Indian Army, too, was deployed there during July 1987 to January 1990. During the Indian deployment, the Sri Lankan military was confined to barracks, not only in Mannar, but also the entire northern and eastern administrative districts.

The independent carbon testing report, from the internationally recognized US laboratory, concluded that the victims likely died up to 615 years ago — predating even the first European colonization of the country by the Portuguese.

Sri Lanka’s Office on Missing Persons (OMP) funded tests on the remains to determine whether the victims were killed during the conflict.

The LTTE and government forces held the Mannar district at different times during the conflict.

The mass grave, in the former war zone, was discovered by construction workers.

The US report, made available to the Mannar Magistrate court, undermined the ongoing project, undertaken by a section of the international community, to humiliate Sri Lanka. Among those really upset by the outcome of the US lab findings are members of the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA), one time LTTE representatives in parliament.

On behalf of the TNA, a lawmaker, representing the Vanni region, has called for a fresh testing in another lab in some other country. Our Vavuniya correspondent Dinasena Ratugamage quoted Mullaitivu District MP Nirmalanathan Sivamohan as having said:" This is not to say that we do not accept the reports sent by a lab in Florida, US, but given the importance of the Mannar grave site we need to get a second opinion."

The MP insisted that the lab in Florida had not attempted to identify the victims that and further tests, to determine the identity of those in the graves, should be done.

"A lot of people went missing in Mannar during the war. We need to expand the excavations at the mass grave site. We must do further tests to identify the victims. The TNA insists that the excavations and testing should go on."

The OMP, established in accordance with the Human Rights Resolution 30/1 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, declared, in late Dec 2018, its intention to fund the US tests.

Chairperson of OMP Saliya Pieris, PC, in late Dec 2018, explained the circumstances how his outfit got involved in the Mannar investigation with the focus on the process of selecting six bone samples for radio carbon dating.

The process of selecting samples was carried out at the excavation site, under the supervision of the Mannar Magistrate, T. Saravanaraja. The team carrying out the sample selection included representatives from the Consultant Judicial Medical Officers, the Post Graduate Institute of Archeology from the University of Kelaniya, the Police Scene of Crime Officers (SOCO) and crime investigation branch), and the Government Analysts Department.

OMP Commissioners Mirak Raheem and K. Venthan were present as observers. Lawyers representing families of the disappeared and a member from the Citizens’ Committee were also present as observers.

The OMP was established under the Office on Missing Persons (Establishment, Administration and Discharge of Functions) Act No 14 of 2016, and has a primary mandate to search for and trace missing persons. Under its investigative powers, the OMP has the authority to apply to a Magistrate’s Court to act as an observer at excavations and exhumations of suspected grave sites [Section 12(d)]. The Mannar Magistrate on 4th June 2018 accepted the OMP’s application to act as an observer and it has been observing the process of excavation since.

Prior to the sampling process, the OMP recommended guidelines for selecting and recording the samples. The OMP emphasized the need to ensure representatives of families of the disappeared and missing were present at the time of selecting samples to ensure accountability and transparency of the process. Further, the OMP recommended measures to secure the chain of custody of samples.

The OMP also funded excavation team beginning July 2018.

The TNA and all those seeking a second opinion must be reminded how the bone samples were selected. It would be pertinent to ask the OMP whether it accepted the TNA’s recommendation. Would those members of the international community, hell bent on hauling Sri Lanka up before a hybrid war crimes investigating mechanism, too, throw their weight behind the TNA.

Obviously, the TNA, a prime mover in the ongoing campaign against the SLA, expected the US lab report to facilitate its project in Geneva. Had the report referred to a period less than 40 years, the SLA would have been in serious trouble, especially against the backdrop of the Geneva sessions taking place. The 40th sessions commenced on Feb 25, 2019 and will continue till March 22, 2019. A report favourable to the TNA and its Western masters would have caused a catastrophe in the absence of a proper mechanism to counter those propagating lies.

Int’l community interest in mass grave site

A section of local and foreign media spearheaded a high profile campaign, based on the Mannar Sathosa mass grave site. Some Colombo based diplomats, too, supported the project. German Ambassador in Colombo, Joern Rohde, visited the site on November 27, 2018. The German Ambassador’s visit was followed by a British delegation on Dec 11, 2018. The British visit took place close on the heels of the discovery of two pieces of human bones, bound by a cable, on Dec 7, 2018. The recovery prompted some ‘experts’, as well as those engaged in excavating the mass grave, speculate whether some of the people buried there had been tortured before being killed. Interests shown in the Mannar mass grave site by those countries, pushing for full implementation of the Geneva Resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka in Oct 2015, strengthened the campaign directed at the Army. A section of the Catholic clergy, too, facilitated the project meant to blame the Army over the Mannar mass grave.

It would be pertinent to mention that both the UK and Germany play a bigger role in the Geneva project in the wake of the US quitting the UN body over policy differences. The US discontinued its involvement with the Geneva body, in June last year, calling it a cesspool of political bias.

In spite of foreign envoys visiting Mannar, and wide media coverage it received, the Foreign Ministry was not bothered. The FM never called a meeting of Colombo-based envoys to explain the government’s response. The Island recently raised the failure on the part of the FM to address this issue. The Defence Ministry and Army Headquarters, too, did nothing so far as regards the Mannar findings. Had the US carbon testing report referred to a period less than 40 years, it would have become a major issue in Geneva and further strengthened the call for full implementation of the Oct 2015 Resolution. Thanks to the independent US report, Sri Lanka is now in a much better position to face the contemptible project. It would be interesting to see how the government used the US report to Sri Lanka’s advantage in Geneva. But the question is whether the government would do so against the backdrop of its treacherous refusal to bring Lord Naseby’s disclosure the in House of Commons, in Oct 2017, to the notice of the Geneva body. Lord Naseby, on the basis of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) records obtained with the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, challenged the very basis of the Oct 2015 Resolution. Sri Lanka refused to take advantage of the revelation that countered two major allegations (1) killing of 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front and (2) Sri Lanka political and military leaderships deliberately targeted the civilian community.

President Sirisena’s reaction

The US report couldn’t have come at a better time for the Army, struggling to cope up with the Geneva challenge. It certainly brought relief to the military, unable to properly counter lies, propagated by interested parties, nearly a decade after the successful conclusion of the war, with the crushing of the LTTE militarily. The failure on the part of President Sirisena to intervene on behalf of the armed forces against the backdrop of the UNP government’s reiterating its commitment to the Oct 2015 Resolution has made matters worse for the military. President Sirisena’s March 06, 2019 declaration was that he would dispatch a three member team comprising Dr. Sarath Amunugama, MP, Mahinda Samarasinghe, MP and Dr. Suren Raghavan, Governor of the Northern Province to explore ways and means to reaching a consensus with Geneva as regards the Oct 2015 Resolution. President Sirisena assured the media that his team would seek a way out for Lanka to deviate from the current course of action based on the Oct 2015 Resolution. The issue came at President Sirisena’s regular meeting with senior representatives of both print and electronic media at the President’s House. The writer sought an explanation from President Sirisena as to what he expected to achieve by sending a delegation in the wake of the UNP government already accepting the latest Resolution. Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez, signed the document on the instructions of the government even before the formal discussion on the UK prepared document. The writer also pointed out to the President the failure on the part of his government (The President is head of the cabinet) to use Lord Naseby’s Oct 2017 disclosure in Geneva.

Two days after President Sirisena’s meet with media representatives, Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne, flanked by Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, Air Marshal Kapila Jayampathy and Vice Admiral Piyal De Silva, asserted that responding to the Geneva allegations wasn’t their (the military) responsibility. Admiral Wijegunaratne said so when the writer pointed out to the top brass that the military had neglected their responsibility in this regard for 10 years. The Island raised the contentious issue of the military conveniently forgetting its responsibility at a special media briefing called by the Defence Ministry at the Media Centre for National Security (MCNS) to explain the role played by them in President Sirisena’s high profile battle against the lucrative narcotics trade.

Joint Opposition Leader in Parliament Dinesh Gunawardena, on behalf of the UPFA, raised the Geneva issue in parliament. But, by then, Azeez had already placed his signature on the latest resolution and the government is no longer in a position to change its stance.

UPFA MP Dayasiri Jayasekera, too, last Friday (March 08) raised the Geneva issue in parliament. Responding to Jayasekera, Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella assured parliament that the government had made it clear to the international community that Sri Lanka would not permit foreign judges to try war heroes or any other.

MP Jayasekara, claiming that the government had agreed to allow foreign judges by co-sponsoring the UNHRC resolution in 2015, questioned whether the administration was planning to co-sponsor another resolution in Geneva this year and whether its content had been revealed to the Cabinet or Parliament.

By the time, this question was posed to Minister Kiriella, as explained earlier, Ambassador Azeez’s signature had already been placed on the document. The writer brought this to the notice of MP Jayasekera last Monday (March 11).

Did Kiriella deliberately mislead the House when he claimed that the government was planning to get the consent of the international community to amend the Oct 2015 Resolution in favour of the country. Kiriella noted that discussions were going on with the international community in that regard. The minister stressed that the government had never agreed to permit international judges and the resolution only sought technical assistance from them.

But, a report presented to the 40th Geneva session, proved, beyond any doubt, that those who couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s victory over terrorism a decade ago, expected the full implementation of the Oct 2015 Resolution. There is no basis for Kiriella’s optimism that the original Resolution can be amended or President Sirisena’s belief that a consensus can be worked out with Western powers. Those responsible for foreign policy seem to have turned a blind eye to the situation there, much to the disappointment of the vast majority of people.

The report, titled ‘Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka’, by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that dealt with Sri Lanka from Oct 2015 to January 2019, told the government to ensure the full implementation of the agreed agenda. President Sirisena’s delegation cannot be expected to achieve anything in Geneva. Sri Lanka cannot be represented by two delegations in Geneva or any other forum. The UNP government has decided not to send a ministerial delegation to Geneva, thereby entrusted the task to Ambassador Azeez, a career diplomat who will carry out directives from Colombo. The Ambassador cannot disobey Colombo under any circumstances. Remember, Azeez’s predecessor, Ravinatha Aryasinha had no option but to accept the Oct 2015 Resolution at the behest of the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera about 10 days after he rejected the draft resolution at the first informal session with the Core Group led by the US. The UK dealt with Ambassador Azeez.

The latest report reflected the Western powers thinking as regards possible change of government in Colombo. Geneva realized that President Sirisena’s unprecedented intervention in Oct 2018 could have jeopardized the Western project meant to weaken the country by abolishing Sri Lanka’s unitary status. In a section headlined ‘Developments in Reconciliation and Accountability,’ the report dealt with the Oct 2018 constitutional coup. The report asserted that President Sirisena’s strategy implemented with the former President threatened to regress human rights, transitional justice, reconciliation agenda and mechanism agreed in the Oct 2015 Resolution.

Interestingly, the report alleged that due to constitutional coup (Oct 26, 2015 to Dec 15, 2018), the implementation of original Geneva Resolution endorsed again in March 2017 for a two-year period was further delayed and caused further problems.

If one goes by the latest Geneva report, Western powers are likely resist a change of government until the full implementation of the original Geneva Resolution.