Connect with us

Midweek Review

Foreign policy quagmire

Published

on

Chinese scientific survey and research vessel HAI YANG 24 HAO at the Colombo harbour

During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Dushni Weerakoon questioned the sustainability of Sri Lanka’s non-aligned foreign policy, as it weakened the country’s position in trade negotiations. The expert assertion was certainly not restricted to trade negotiations. Having signed ACSA (Access and Cross Servicing-Agreement) with the US, in August 2017, it would be ridiculous to still talk of non-aligned policy. The fact remains the US also sought o finalize SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) in addition to MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact. Sri Lanka first signed ACSA in early 2007 during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first term. In the wake of ACSA, the US provided crucial intelligence that helped the Navy to hunt down floating LTTE arsenals on the high seas and accelerate their collapse.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

A scientific survey and research vessel, manned by the Chinese Navy, arrived at the Colombo port on 10 August. HAI YANG 24 HAO was here for a replenishment assignment. Commanded by Commander Jin Xin, the 129 m long vessel, crewed by 138 officers and men, departed Colombo on 12 August. The visit didn’t create controversy the way when Chinese surveillance vessel Yuan Wang 5 visited Hambantota in August last year close on the heels of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster.

HAI YANG 24 HAO was the first Chinese Navy vessel here since President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s two-day visit to New Delhi, the first since Parliament elected him in July last year to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term won at the November 2019 presidential election. The next presidential poll is a year away.

The growing Indian concerns over what they call Chinese ‘activity’ here is a huge challenge that has to be dealt with at the highest level. But bankrupt Sri Lanka dependent on the new Extended Fund Facility (EFF) secured with the support of India and the US faced the daunting task of convincing India that Colombo’s relationship with China didn’t pose any threat to their interests. As regards Chinese naval visits, the US, too, has expressed concerns on behalf of its Quad partner. Quad consists of the US, Australia, Japan and India.

Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies recently launched ‘LKI Foreign Policy Forum’ , a fresh initiative for a free and frank discussion on foreign policy matters, as well as related issues. The inaugural session at the LKI Lighthouse Auditorium, on 09 August, featured former Foreign Secretary H. M. G. S. Palihakkara, Executive Director Institute of Policy Studies, Director International Relations, KDU Dr. Harinda Vidanage, Executive Director Policy Studies Dr. Dushni Weerakoon and Executive Director, National Peace Council Dr. Jehan Perera. None of them need any introduction. They dealt with the topic ‘the changing global dynamics: implications for Sri Lanka.’ The Chinese vessel arrived in Colombo the following day.

The launch of ‘LKI Foreign Policy Forum coincided with the 18th death anniversary of former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, which fell on 12 August 2023. The LTTE assassinated Kadirgamar at his Buller’s Road residence. LK was 73 years old at the time he was felled by a sniper. How an LTTE sniper fired several gunshots at LK from the window of a bathroom located on the top floor of a house on Buller’s Lane is still a mystery. The person who resided in that house, the late Lakshman Thalayasingham, denied any knowledge of LTTE operatives being there when the law enforcement authorities rushed in soon after the assassination. Those responsible for LK’s security never explained how the surrounding houses of the man, high on the LTTE’s hit list, were never properly checked.

Ravinatha Aryasinha, career diplomat recently appointed Executive Director of LKI, moderated the inaugural programme which attracted a section of the Colombo-based diplomatic community. At the onset of the discussion, the one-time Foreign Secretary, who served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Washington (Dec. 2020-Sept. 2021) before retirement, briefly explained the current global and regional status, taking into consideration the ongoing war in Ukraine where Russia is battling US-backed forces. The UK and Germany, among other NATO allies, have thrown their full weight behind American-led efforts to bring the Russians to their knees, using the Ukrainian forces as the battering ram.

Russian Ambassador in Colombo Levan S. Dzhagaryan, who took up the post here four months after President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster, was seated on the front row of the audience.

The conflict in Ukraine has sharply divided the world, with Japan campaigning against Russia. Japan has taken up the issue at hand with Sri Lanka, though it knows Colombo is not in a position to take sides. Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa who was here in the last week of July, took up Russian actions with Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, on 29 July. Their discussions also covered the situation in East Africa.

Pushing Sri Lanka to back their ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ (FOIP), Yoshimasa, towards the end of his discussion with Sabry, emphasized the importance of what is called the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) meant to facilitate grain exports from Ukraine, through the Black Sea, to various parts of the world.

Yoshimasa blamed Russian termination of the initiative, alleging that move ran counter to the international community’s efforts in addressing food insecurity.

Contrary to Western expectations and that of Japan and Australia, India has quite clearly indicated that it wouldn’t back resolutions moved against Russia at the UN. Sri Lanka abstained at the UN vote on Russia. China and Pakistan, too, abstained. But the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government is under heavy pressure to back the Western position. Foreign media reports suggest that the US forced Pakistan to remove their PM Imran Khan over the latter’s refusal to condemn Russia.. Therefore, MP Wimal Weerawansa’s accusations, regarding US and Indian involvement in the change of government here, last year, shouldn’t be dismissed as mere rhetoric.

The writer is of the view that whatever the domestic politics here, and external pressure, Sri Lanka shouldn’t back a UN resolution against Russia. Perhaps LKI, in consultation with all relevant parties, should thoroughly examine this issue, also taking into consideration Asia’s position, in general, and advise the government, accordingly, as an independent think tank, especially against unfair moves by India to smother our independence and sovereignty that we have jealously guarded throughout history, without being a threat to it.

We wonder how those who are still blindly pursuing an Eelam dream and have done every possible thing to wreck this country in the pursuit of that, now feel with India clearly calling the shots everywhere.

Indo-Lanka relations

From left: Dr. Dushni Weerakoon, Dr. Harinda Vidanage, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, Dr. Jehan Perera and Ambassador H.M.G.S. Palihakkara

During the brief question and answer session, civil society activist Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, the Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), called for closer alignment with India. The former board member of the LKI explained why bankrupt Sri Lanka should align herself with India as it struggled to navigate through the developing crisis. Reference was also made to continuing Indian and Chinese roles here and how flagship Chinese project, the Port City, could attract Indian investments. The academic reminded what could have happened if not for India’s swift intervention to meet Sri Lanka’s basic needs, in 2022. Against the backdrop of continuing economic-political-social crisis in Sri Lanka, the Modi administration, seeking a third consecutive term, has paid considerable attention to the developments here. Obviously, their primary objective is to enhance India’s influence here and outdo the Chinese who secured the Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease, and also sustained the flagship Port City project.

The entry of Chinese oil giant Sinopec recently to the Sri Lanka market underscored how they sustained their operations, regardless of the change of government in July 2022. In fact, China appeared to have subtly exploited the crisis, and the political setup here, to secure the best possible terms for their entry as the third player in the retail oil market. Until their entry, the CPC and Lanka IOC shared the market, with the latter gradually expanding its influence at Trincomalee where the strategically located British built oil tank farm is situated. Similarly, the Chinese consolidated the strategic Hambantota Port with subsequent investments.

Sri Lanka needs to take both Chinese and Indian investments here into consideration as the Asian giants sought to further enhance and consolidate their position here. During Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President, the then CEB Chairman M.M.C. Ferdinando caused quite a controversy when he explained how President Gotabaya intervened on behalf of the Adani Group. The declaration, though subsequently denied, cannot be simply dismissed as the close relationship between controversial tycoon Gautam Adani and Indian Premier Narendra Modi, now seeking a third consecutive term, is well established. Gautam Adani had an opportunity to meet President Wickremesinghe during the latter’s two-day July visit to New Delhi where an assurance was given that Adani renewable power projects at Mannar and Pooneryn would be completed in January 2025.

During Wickremesinghe’s visit, an agreement was reached on cooperation on further renewable energy projects and development of Trincomalee as an energy hub. A permit clearing the joint venture between the Ceylon Electricity Board and India’s NTPC for a solar park in the eastern town of Sampur, in the Trincomalee district, too, was also issued in line with overall understanding.

Since the end of the war in May 2009 India has gradually stepped up interest in Sri Lanka. India wants Sri Lanka to fully implement the 13th Amendment to its Constitution. New Delhi has the US backing for the project that some concerned here say would lead to a federal state.

In the wake of Narendra Modi’s election, as Premier, in May 2014, India steadily increased investments here during his two terms and further expansion is likely in his third term. Indian parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 2024.

Following President Wickremesinghe’s visit to New Delhi where he had one-on-one with Premier Modi, the two countries announced an agreement on development of ports and logistics infrastructure in Colombo, Kankesthurai (KKS) and Trincomalee and launch ferry services between Nagapattinam in India and KKS, Rameswaram and Talaimannar and other mutually agreed places, welcoming resumption of flights between Chennai and Palaly, agreed to explore the possibility of expanding air connectivity to Colombo (BIA or Ratmalana) as well as Trincomalee and Batticaloa, development of infrastructure at Palaly.

In addition, enhanced cooperation on the development of the renewable energy sector here, establishment of a high capacity power grid interconnection between India and Sri Lanka to enable bidirectional electricity trade between Sri Lanka and other regional countries, including the BBIN countries, implementation of understanding reached on Sampur Solar power project and LNG infrastructure, development of Trincomalee oil tank farms in line with overall project focused on the eastern port city. As part of this project launch construction of a multi-product petroleum pipeline from South India to Sri Lanka, exploration and production of hydrocarbons in Sri Lanka’s offshore basins with an aim to develop Sri Lanka’s upstream petroleum sector, divestment of state owned enterprises (Indian investments in those selected sectors), fresh discussion on Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA), designation of INR as currency for trade settlements between the two countries and the agreement to operationalise UPI based digital payments, use of India’s Digital Public Infrastructure to meet Sri Lanka’s requirements and, finally, establishment of land connectivity between the two countries.

Let me reproduce the relevant section as released in a joint communique, titled ‘Promoting Connectivity,

Catalyzing Prosperity: India-Sri Lanka Economic Partnership Vision’ issued following talks between Premier Modi and President Wickremesinghe. “To establish land connectivity between Sri Lanka and India for developing land access to the ports of Trincomalee and Colombo, propelling economic growth and prosperity in both Sri Lanka and India, and further consolidating millennia old relationship between the two countries. A feasibility study for such connectivity will be conducted at an early date.”

Those agreements have consolidated Indo-Lanka relationship, regardless of serious concerns in some sections that Sri Lanka’s independence is at stake. The powers that be must realize that Sri Lanka shouldn’t promote a particular relationship at its own expense as well as other powers interested in developing further ties.

There cannot be a better example than the cancellation of tenders awarded to China to execute hybrid renewable energy systems in Delft, Nagadeepa and Analativu, off the Jaffna coast. Having awarded the tenders in January 2021, the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government cancelled those following Indian protests.

India never knew of those projects funded by the ADB until the CEB made the announcement in January 2021.

The Chinese project was going to be carried out with an ADB loan. India offered alternative arrangements to implement the same. In spite of the Rajapaksas making a desperate effort to save the Chinese project, India finally compelled the cancellation of the project about a year after the awarding of tenders. When Sri Lanka pointed out that the ADB funded project couldn’t be cancelled unilaterally, New Delhi is believed to have intervened with the ADB.

However, Premier Modi’s criticism of the late Premier Indira Gandhi over handing over of Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka in 1974 is a grim reminder how fresh issues could be raised ahead of elections. India parliamentary polls are scueduled for next year.

Accountability issues and origins of

terrorism here

Now that there is no question about post-war Indo-Sri Lanka relationship, it would be pertinent to ask how Sri Lanka addressed accountability issues in line with overall measures meant for reconciliation. Of the four panelists, Dr. Jehan Perera emphasized the responsibility on the part of all concerned to ensure those responsible for human rights violations at all levels be dealt with regardless of their standing in society. The peace icon who had been engaged in the peace process over a period of time stressed that the country couldn’t move forward unless accountability issues were addressed, based on the 2015 Geneva Resolution, co-sponsored by the then Yahapalana government. While pressing Sri Lanka on accountability issues, Dr. Perera ironically and with no shame went out of his way to praise the human rights record of US-led powers, regardless of death and destruction caused all over the world in the name of democracy. The civil society activist also didn’t comment on the origins of terrorism here. Obviously, Dr. Perera forgot he was at the LK commemoration and the fact that the much respected leader was killed by an organization, established by India.

Those demanding accountability on the part of Sri Lanka should explain how they proposed to deal with India for (1) launching a terrorist campaign in the early ’80s. In addition to the losses caused to the Sri Lanka military, fighting among rival northern groups claimed the lives of hundreds if not thousands (2) killings blamed on the Indian military during its deployment here, July 1987-March 1990 period (3) killing carried out by Tamil National Alliance, formed by India, in the wake of Sri Lanka’s request for complete withdrawal of its military and (4) Indian trained PLOTE raid on the Maldives in November 1988, if succeeded, could have caused regional instability.

They should also explain in what way the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), now represented in Parliament, could be dealt with. Having recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people in 2001, Trincomalee District MP R. Sampanthan’s outfit under any circumstances couldn’t absolve itself of the complicity for the catastrophic devastation caused by the LTTE, especially to innocent people everywhere. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government must realize that post-war reconciliation couldn’t be achieved through the South Africa-type Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) examining the Eelam War IV (Aug. 2006-May 2009).

The TNA collaborated with the LTTE to the hilt until the very end. Their relationship was built on 2004 ‘agreement’ that helped the TNA to secure 21 seats in the Northern and Eastern districts at the 2004 general election with the LTTE stuffing ballot boxes on their behalf. The blatant LTTE partnership with the TNA attracted the attention of the European Union Election Observation Mission. The EU mission, in its report, pointed out how the TNA won the lion’s share of the seats in the then temporarily merged North and East with direct LTTE support. Except The Island no other print media and electronic media bothered to report this. The Election Department did nothing.

The Parliament, too, conveniently turned a blind eye to the issue. In the following year, the LTTE set the stage for the final war by ordering the Tamil electorate to boycott the presidential poll. The TNA issued the ‘directive’ on behalf of the LTTE. Again, the Election Department and Parliament did nothing. How could a political party, represented in Parliament, ask the entire northern population to boycott the national election to facilitate the terrorist strategy?

Five years later, the same TNA backed war-winning Army Commander, retired General Sarath Fonseka, after having accused him and his Army of genocide, when he emerged as the common candidate at the presidential election. Fonseka lost badly by over 1.8 mn votes though he handsomely won all electorates in the Northern and Eastern provinces where his Army, over a period of three years, eradicated the LTTE completely.

LKI can certainly examine the entire gamut of issues, including the circumstances leading to the 2015 Geneva Resolution, co-sponsored by the Yahapalana administration. Sri Lanka backed the US led move, regardless of serious concerns expressed by the then Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the incumbent Executive Director of LKI. The Island covered the Geneva issue extensively hence no need to repeat how the then government acted recklessly in that regard and the subsequent declaration made by TNA heavyweight M.A. Sumanthiran in Washington (2016) pertaining to a tripartite agreement involving the US, GoSL and TNA on hybrid war crimes mechanism.

A thorough examination of events and developments is necessary as accountability issues are used to influence the leadership on post-war reconciliation. Sri Lanka struggling with a mountain of debt, both local and foreign, seems to be easy prey for those interested parties.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

Published

on

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent combative ‘Head-to-Head’ interview with British-American Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera has opened a can of worms. As to why Hasan raised the Batalanda Presidential Commission report, during a 49-minute interview conducted at the London’s Conway Hall, with a clearly pro LTTE audience, remains a mystery. This must be yet another notorious way to show how even-handed they are as in the case of its coverage of Russia, China, Palestine or Ukraine for their gullible viewers.

Recorded in February and aired in March 2025, the interview is definitely the most controversial the UNP leader, who is also an Attorney-at-Law, ever faced during his political career; always used to getting kid glove treatment, especially after taking over the party in 1994.

The continuing public discourse on Batalanda should provoke a wider discussion on Sri Lanka’s response to separatist Tamil terrorism, since the cold blooded murder of Jaffna SLFP Mayor Alfred Duriappah, which signalled the beginning of the LTTE terror campaign that ended in May 2009 with the crushing military defeat of the Tigers on the banks of the Nathikadal lagoon, as well as two southern insurgencies in 1971 and 1987-1990.

As Nandana Gunatilleke (one time JVP General Secretary and ex-MP), Dr. Wasantha Bandara (ex-JVPer and close associate of the slain JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera), Indrananda de Silva (ex-JVPer, incumbent Central Committee member of Frontline Socialist Party [FSP] and ex-military photographer) and Uvindu Wijeweera (Rohana Wijeweera’s son and leader of Dewana Parapura) agreed during the recent Hiru ‘Balaya’ discussion, conducted by Madushan de Silva, the Batalanda operation was in line with the overall counter-terrorist/insurgency strategy of the then government.

The issues at hand cannot be discussed at all without taking into consideration the JVP terrorism that, at one-time, almost overwhelmed the UNP’s unbroken rule, since 1977, carried out while openly brushing aside most of the universally accepted genuine parliamentary norms. The country’s second Republican constitution, promulgated by the UNP regime with a 5/6 majority in Parliament, in 1978, had been amended no less than 13 times by the time they were finally ousted in 1995. This was mainly to facilitate their continuous rule. Unfortunately, all stakeholders have sought to take advantage of Batalanda, thereby preventing a proper dialogue. Quite surprisingly, none of the guests, nor the interviewer, bothered, at least, to make a reference to the JVP bid on President J.R. Jayewardene’s life in Parliament on the morning of July 18, 1987. At the time, JVPer Ajith Kumara, working in the House as a minor employee, hurled two hand grenades towards JRJ, with the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa seated next to JRJ. While one government MP lost his life, several others suffered injuries, including then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, whose spleen had to be removed.

At one point, Gunatilleke declared that they assassinated UNP MP for Tangalle Jinadasa Weerasinghe on July 3, 1987, in response to the government killing well over 100 people, in Colombo, protesting against the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. The parliamentarian was killed near the Barawakumbuka-Welangahawela bridge on the Colombo-Rathnapura-Embilipitiya Road. The UNPer was killed on his way home after having declined Premier Premadasa’s offer to make an SLAF chopper available for him to reach home safely.

Against the backdrop of MP Weerasinghe’s assassination and the grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group that claimed the life of Keethi Abeywickrema (MP for Deniyaya), the government had no option but to respond likewise. The operation, established at the Batalanda Housing scheme of the State Fertiliser Corporation, constituted part of the counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the UNP.

Those who called Batalanda complex Batalanda torture camp/ wadakagaraya conveniently forgot during the second JVP inspired insurgency, the military had to utilize many public buildings, including schools, as makeshift accommodation for troops. Of course the UNP established Batalanda under different circumstances with the then Industries Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe providing political authority. Batalanda had been an exclusive police operation though the Army had access to it whenever a requirement arose.

Those who had been suddenly withdrawn from the Northern and Eastern Provinces, to meet the rapidly evolving security threat in the South, required accommodation. FSP CC member Indrananada de Silva had received unhindered access to Batalanda in his capacity as a military photographer and the rest is history.

As to why Indrananda de Silva switched his allegiance to the FSP should be examined, taking into consideration his previous role as a trusted military photographer, formerly a Lance Corporal of the Military Police. An influential section of the JVP, led by Kumar Gunaratnam, formed the FSP in April 2012 though it didn’t receive the much anticipated public support. Both Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke, who aligned himself with the UNP, found fault with the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) over its handling of the Batalanada issue.

Paramilitary operations

Paramilitary operations had been an integral part of the overall counter-insurgency campaign, directed at the JVP responsible for approximately 6,600 killings. Among those death squads were PRRA primarily drawn from the SLMP (Sri Lanka Mahajana Party) and SRRA (the socialist Revolutionary Red Army). PRRA had close links with the Independent Student Union (ISU) whose leader Daya Pathirana was slain by the JVP. The vast majority of people do not remember that Daya Pathirana, who led the ISU during the turbulent 1985-1986 period, was killed mid-Dec. 1989. The second insurgency hadn’t started at that time though the JVP propagated the lie that they took up arms against the UNP government following the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord on July 29, 1987.

In addition to PRRA and SRRA, the government made use of paramilitary groups, namely Kalu balallu, Ukkusso, Rajaliyo, Kaha balallu, Kola koti, Rathu Makaru, Mapila, Gonussa, Nee, Keshara Sinhayo, Le-mappillu and Kalu koti.

The UNP also involved some elements of Indian trained Tamil groups (not of the LTTE) in paramilitary operations. Such operations, that had been backed by respective Cabinet Ministers, were supervised by local law enforcement authorities. Paramilitary operations had been in line with psychological warfare that was meant to cause fear among the JVP, as well as the general population. Military operations that had been combined with paramilitary actions received the blessings of the political leadership at the highest level. In the case of Batalanda (1988-1990) President J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa knew of its existence.

Even after the eradication of the top JVP leadership, by Nov. 1989, police, military and paramilitary operations continued unabated. Former JVPers appearing on ‘Balaya’ agreed that counter-insurgency operations were actually brought to an end only after D.B. Wijetunga succeeded President Ranasinghe Premadasa after the latter’s assassination on May Day 1993.

After the LTTE resumed war in June 1990, just a couple of months after the withdrawal of the Indian Army (July 1987-March1990), the UNP authorized paramilitary operations in the northern and eastern areas. Members of TELO, PLOTE, EPRLF as well as EPDP were made part of the overall government security strategy. They operated in large groups. Some paramilitary units were deployed in the Jaffna islands as well. And these groups were represented in Parliament. They enjoyed privileged status not only in the northern and eastern regions but Colombo as well. The government allowed them to carry weapons in the city and its suburbs.

These groups operated armed units in Colombo. The writer had the opportunity to visit EPDP and PLOTE safe houses in Colombo and its suburbs soon after they reached an understanding with President Ranasinghe Premadasa. Overnight at the behest of President Premadasa, the Election Department granted these Tamil groups political recognition. In other words, armed groups were made political parties. The Premadasa government accepted their right to carry weapons while being represented in Parliament.

It would be pertinent to mention that thousands of Tamil paramilitary personnel served the government during that period. There had been many confrontations between them and the LTTE over the years and the latter sought to eliminate key paramilitary personnel. Let me remind you of the circumstances, the EPRLF’s number 02 Thambirajah Subathiran alias Robert was sniped to death in June 2003. Robert was engaged in routine morning exercises on the top floor of the two-storeyed EPRLF office, on the hospital road, Jaffna, when an LTTE sniper took him out from the nearby Vembadi Girls’ high school. The operation of the Norway managed Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) made no difference as the LTTE removed Robert who led the party here in the absence of leader Varatharaja Perumal, the first and the only Chief Minister of the North-Eastern Province.

In terms of the CFA that had been signed by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, in Feb. 2002, the government agreed to disarm all paramilitary personnel. Many wouldn’t remember now that during Premadasa’s honeymoon with the LTTE, the Army facilitated the LTTE onslaught on paramilitary groups in selected areas.

Muthaliff’s role

During the ‘Balaya’ discussion, the contentious issue of who shot JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera came up. Nandana Gunatilleke, who contested the 1999 Dec. presidential election. as the JVP candidate, pointing to an article carried in the party organ that dealt with Wijeweera’s assassination said that he wrongly named Gaffoor as one of the persons who shot their leader whereas the actual shooter was Muthaliff. The headline named Thoradeniya and Gaffoor as the perpetrators.

Declaring that he personally wrote that article on the basis of information provided by Indrananda de Silva, Gunatilleke named Asoka Thoradeniya and Tuan Nizam Muthaliff of the Army as the perpetrators of the crime. Thoradeniya served as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in the Maldives during the Yahapalana administration, while Muthaliff was killed by the LTTE in Colombo in late May 2005. The shooting took place at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. Muthaliff was on his way from Manning town, Narahenpita, to the Kotelawala Defence University.

The programme was told that the JVP had over the years developed close relationship with Thoradeniya while Indrananda de Silva accused Dr. Wasantha Bandara of duplicity regarding Muthaliff. How could you recognize Muthaliff, slain by the LTTE, as a war hero as he was actually one of the persons who shot Rohana Wijeweera, the latter asked.

At the time of his assassination, Muthaliff served as the Commanding Officer, 1 st Regiment Sri Lanka Military Intelligence Corps. The then parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa was among those who paid last respects to Maj. Muthaliff.

At the time of Rohana Wijeweera’s arrest, Muthaliff served as Lieutenant while Thoradeniya was a Major. Indrananda de Silva strongly stressed that atrocities perpetrated by the police and military in the South or in the northern and eastern regions must be dealt with regardless of whom they were conducting operations against. The former JVPer recalled the Army massacre in the east in retaliation for the landmine blast that claimed the lives of Northern Commander Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa and a group of senior officers, including Brigadier Wijaya Wimalaratne, in early Aug. 1990 in Kayts.

Dr. Wasantha Bandara warned of the Western powers taking advantage of what he called false narrative to push for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It would be pertinent to mention that the LTTE also used the underworld as well as some corrupt Army personnel in planning high profile assassinations. Investigations into the assassination of Muthaliff, as well as Maj. Gen. Parami Kulatunga, killed in a suicide attack at Pannipitiya, in June 2006, revealed the direct involvement of military personnel with the LTTE.

Indrananda de Silva disclosed that soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake won the presidential election last September, the FSP, in writing, requested the JVP leader to inquire into killings during that period, including that of Rohana Wijeweera. The FSPer alleged that President Dissanayake refrained from even acknowledging their letter. Indrananda de Silva emphasized that Al Jazeera never disclosed anything new as regards Batalanda as he exposed the truth years ago. The former JVPer ridiculed the ruling party tabling the Batalanda Commission report in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s Al Jazeera interview whereas the matter was in the public domain for quite some time.

Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke exchanged words over the latter’s declaration that the JVP, too, was subjected to investigation for violence unleashed during the 1987-1990 period. While the FSPer repeatedly declared that those who carried out directives issued by the party were arrested and in some cases killed, Nandana Gunatilleke took up the position that the party should be held accountable for crimes perpetrated during that period.

The interviewer posed Nandana Gunatilleke the question whether he was betraying his former comrades after joining the UNP. Nandana Gunatilleke shot back that he joined the UNP in 2015 whereas the JVP joined UNP as far back as 2009 to promote retired Army Chef Sarath Fonseka’s presidential ambition even though he wiped out the JVP presence in Trincomalee region during the second insurgency.

JVP’s accountability

Nandana Gunatilleke is adamant that the party should accept responsibility for the killings carried out at that time. The former JVPer declared that Vijaya Kumaratunga (Feb. 16, 1988), first Vice Chancellor of the Colombo University (March 08, 1989) Dr. Stanley Wijesundera, Ven. Kotikawatte Saddhatissa thera (Aug. 03, 1988) and Chairperson of the State Pharmaceutical Corporation Gladys Jayewardene (Sept. 12, 1989) were among those assassinated by the JVP. SPC Chairperson was killed for importing medicine from India, the former Marxist aligned with the UNP said, while actor-turned-politician Kumaratunga’s assassination was attributed to his dealings with President J.R. Jayewardene.

According to Nandana Gunatilleke, except for a few killings such as General Secretaries of the UNP Harsha Abeywickrema (Dec 23, 1987) and Nandalal Fernando (May 20, 1988), the vast majority of others were ordinary people like grama sevakas killed on mere accusation of being informants. The deaths were ordered on the basis of hearsay, Nandana Gunatilleke said, much to the embarrassment of others who represented the interest of the JVP at that time.

One quite extraordinary moment during the ‘Balaya’ programme was when Nandana Gunatilleke revealed their (JVP’s) direct contact with the Indian High Commission at a time the JVP publicly took an extremely anti-Indian stance. In fact, the JVP propagated a strong anti-Indian line during the insurgency. Turning towards Dr. Wasantha Bandara, Gunatilleke disclosed that both of them had been part of the dialogue with the Indian High Commission.

It reminds me of the late Somawansa Amarasinghe’s first public address delivered at a JVP rally in late Nov. 2001 after returning home from 12 years of self-imposed exile. Of the top JVP leadership, Somawansa Amarasinghe, who had been married to a close relative of powerful UNP Minister Sirisena Cooray, was the only one to survive combined police/military/paramilitary operations.

Amarasinghe didn’t mince his words when he declared at a Kalutara rally that his life was saved by Indian Premier V.P. Singh. Soft spoken Amarasinghe profusely thanked India for saving his life. Unfortunately, those who discuss issues at hand conveniently forget crucial information in the public domain. Such lapses can be both deliberate and due to negligence.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Independent Monitor

Published

on

You may think sloth comes very easy,

To your kingly monitor of the shrinking marsh,

As he lies basking smugly in the morn sun,

But he is organized and alert all the while,

As he awaits his prey with patience infinite,

Free of malice, a professional of a kind,

His cumbrous body not slowing his sprite….

But note, he’s no conspirator spitting guile,

And doesn’t turn nasty unless crossed,

Nor by vengeful plans is he constantly dogged,

Unlike those animals of a more rational kind,

Whose ways have left behind a state so sorry.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Rajiva on Batalanda controversy, govt.’s failure in Geneva and other matters

Published

on

Wickremesinghe responds to Hasan during the controversial interview recorded in London

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head-to-Head’ series has caused controversy, both in and outside Parliament, over the role played by Wickremesinghe in the counter-insurgency campaign in the late’80s.

The National People’s Power (NPP) seeking to exploit the developing story to its advantage has ended up with egg on its face as the ruling party couldn’t disassociate from the violent past of the JVP. The debate on the damning Presidential Commission report on Batalanda, on April 10, will remind the country of the atrocities perpetrated not only by the UNP, but as well as by the JVP.

The Island sought the views of former outspoken parliamentarian and one-time head of the Government Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha on a range of issues, with the focus on Batalanda and the failure on the part of the war-winning country to counter unsubstantiated war crimes accusations.

Q:

The former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera exposed the pathetic failure on the part of Sri Lanka to address war crimes accusations and accountability issues. In the face of aggressive interviewer Mehdi Hasan on ‘Head-to-Head,’ Wickremesinghe struggled pathetically to counter unsubstantiated accusations. Six-time Premier Wickremesinghe who also served as President (July 2022-Sept. 2024) seemed incapable of defending the war-winning armed forces. However, the situation wouldn’t have deteriorated to such an extent if President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave resolute political leadership during that war, ensured a proper defence of our armed forces in its aftermath as well-choreographed LTTE supporters were well in place, with Western backing, to distort and tarnish that victory completely. As wartime Secretary General of the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (since June 2007 till the successful conclusion of the war) and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (since Jun 2008) what do you think of Wickremesinghe’s performance?

A:

It made him look very foolish, but this is not surprising since he has no proper answers for most of the questions put to him. Least surprising was his performance with regard to the forces, since for years he was part of the assault forces on the successful Army, and expecting him to defend them is like asking a fox to stand guard on chickens.

Q:

In spite of trying to overwhelm Wickremesinghe before a definitely pro-LTTE audience at London’s Conway Hall, Hasan further exposed the hatchet job he was doing by never referring to the fact that the UNP leader, in his capacity as the Yahapalana Premier, co-sponsored the treacherous Geneva Resolution in Oc., 2015, against one’s own victorious armed forces. Hasan, Wickremesinghe and three panelists, namely Frances Harrison, former BBC-Sri Lanka correspondent, Director of International Truth and Justice Project and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War,’ Dr. Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of PEARL (People for Equality and Relief in Lanka) and former UK and EU MP and Wickremesinghe’s presidential envoy, Niranjan Joseph de Silva Deva Aditya, never even once referred to India’s accountability during the programme recorded in late February but released in March. As a UPFA MP (2010-2015) in addition to have served as Peace Secretariat Chief and Secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, could we discuss the issues at hand leaving India out?

A:

I would not call the interview a hatchet job since Hasan was basically concerned about Wickremesinghe’s woeful record with regard to human rights. In raising his despicable conduct under Jayewardene, Hasan clearly saw continuity, and Wickremesinghe laid himself open to this in that he nailed his colours to the Rajapaksa mast in order to become President, thus making it impossible for him to revert to his previous stance. Sadly, given how incompetent both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa were about defending the forces, one cannot expect foreigners to distinguish between them.

Q:

You are one of the many UPFA MPs who backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo perpetrated the despicable act of backing the Geneva Resolution against our armed forces and they should be held responsible for that. Having thrown your weight behind the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term, did you feel betrayed by the Geneva Resolution? And if so, what should have the Yahapalana administration done?

A:

By 2014, given the total failure of the Rajapaksas to deal firmly with critiques of our forces, resolutions against us had started and were getting stronger every year. Mahinda Rajapaksa laid us open by sacking Dayan Jayatilleke who had built up a large majority to support our victory against the Tigers, and appointed someone who intrigued with the Americans. He failed to fulfil his commitments with regard to reforms and reconciliation, and allowed for wholesale plundering, so that I have no regrets about working against him at the 2015 election. But I did not expect Wickremesinghe and his cohorts to plunder, too, and ignore the Sirisena manifesto, which is why I parted company with the Yahapalanaya administration, within a couple of months.

I had expected a Sirisena administration to pursue some of the policies associated with the SLFP, but he was a fool and his mentor Chandrika was concerned only with revenge on the Rajapaksas. You cannot talk about betrayal when there was no faith in the first place. But I also blame the Rajapaksas for messing up the August election by attacking Sirisena and driving him further into Ranil’s arms, so that he was a pawn in his hands.

Q:

Have you advised President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government how to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations propagated by various interested parties, particularly the UN, on the basis of the Panel of Experts (PoE) report released in March 2011? Did the government accept your suggestions/recommendations?

A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I kept trying, but Mahinda was not interested at all, and had no idea about how to conduct international relations. Sadly, his Foreign Minister was hanging around behind Namal, and proved incapable of independent thought, in his anxiety to gain further promotion. And given that I was about the only person the international community, that was not prejudiced, took seriously – I refer to the ICRC and the Japanese with whom I continued to work, and, indeed, the Americans, until the Ambassador was bullied by her doctrinaire political affairs officer into active undermining of the Rajapaksas – there was much jealousy, so I was shut out from any influence.

But even the admirable effort, headed by Godfrey Gunatilleke, was not properly used. Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to me more concerned with providing joy rides for people rather than serious counter measures, and representation in Geneva turned into a joke, with him even undermining Tamara Kunanayagam, who, when he supported her, scored a significant victory against the Americans, in September 2011. The Ambassador, who had been intriguing with her predecessor, then told her they would get us in March, and with a little help from their friends here, they succeeded.

Q:

As the writer pointed out in his comment on Wickremesinghe’s controversial Al Jazeera interview, the former Commander-in-Chief failed to mention critically important matters that could have countered Hasan’ s line of questioning meant to humiliate Sri Lanka?

A:

How could you have expected that, since his primary concern has always been himself, not the country, let alone the armed forces?

Q:

Do you agree that Western powers and an influential section of the international media cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism?

A:

There was opposition to our victory from the start, but this was strengthened by the failure to move on reconciliation, creating the impression that the victory against the Tigers was seen by the government as a victory against Tamils. The failure of the Foreign Ministry to work with journalists was lamentable, and the few exceptions – for instance the admirable Vadivel Krishnamoorthy in Chennai or Sashikala Premawardhane in Canberra – received no support at all from the Ministry establishment.

Q:

A couple of months after the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared his intention to withdraw from the Geneva process. On behalf of Sri Lanka that announcement was made in Geneva by the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, who became the Premier during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. That declaration was meant to hoodwink the Sinhala community and didn’t alter the Geneva process and even today the project is continuing. As a person who had been closely involved in the overall government response to terrorism and related matters, how do you view the measures taken during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s short presidency to counter Geneva?

A:

What measures? I am reminded of the idiocy of the responses to the Darusman report by Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who went on ego trips and produced unreadable volumes trying to get credit for themselves as to issues of little interest to the world. They were planned in response to Darusman, but when I told Gotabaya that his effort was just a narrative of action, he said that responding to Darusman was not his intention. When I said that was necessary, he told me he had asked Chief-of-Staff Roshan Goonetilleke to do that, but Roshan said he had not been asked and had not been given any resources.

My own two short booklets which took the Darusman allegations to pieces were completely ignored by the Foreign Ministry.

Q:

Against the backdrop of the Geneva betrayal in 2015 that involved the late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, how do you view President Wickremesinghe’s response to the Geneva threat?

A: Wickremesinghe did not see Geneva as a threat at all. Who exactly is to blame for the hardening of the resolution, after our Ambassador’s efforts to moderate it, will require a straightforward narrative from the Ambassador, Ravinatha Ariyasinha, who felt badly let down by his superiors. Geneva should not be seen as a threat, since as we have seen follow through is minimal, but we should rather see it as an opportunity to put our own house in order.

Q:

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently questioned both the loyalty and professionalism of our armed forces credited with defeating Northern and Southern terrorism. There hadn’t been a previous occasion, a President or a Premier, under any circumstances, questioned the armed forces’ loyalty or professionalism. We cannot also forget the fact that President Dissanayake is the leader of the once proscribed JVP responsible for death and destruction during 1971 and 1987-1990 terror campaigns. Let us know of your opinion on President Dissanayake’s contentious comments on the armed forces?

A: I do not see them as contentious, I think what is seen as generalizations was critiques of elements in the forces. There have been problems, as we saw from the very different approach of Sarath Fonseka and Daya Ratnayake, with regard to civilian casualties, the latter having planned a campaign in the East which led to hardly any civilian deaths. But having monitored every day, while I headed the Peace Secretariat, all allegations, and obtained explanations of what happened from the forces, I could have proved that they were more disciplined than other forces in similar circumstances.

The violence of the JVP and the LTTE and other such groups was met with violence, but the forces observed some rules which I believe the police, much more ruthlessly politicized by Jayewardene, failed to do. The difference in behaviour between the squads led for instance by Gamini Hettiarachchi and Ronnie Goonesinghe makes this clear.

Q:

Mehdi Hasan also strenuously questioned Wickremesinghe on his role in the UNP’s counter-terror campaign during the 1987-1990 period. The British-American journalists of Indian origins attacked Wickremesinghe over the Batalanda Commission report that had dealt with extra-judicial operations carried out by police, acting on the political leadership given by Wickremesinghe. What is your position?

A:

Wickremesinghe’s use of thugs’ right through his political career is well known. I still recall my disappointment, having thought better of him, when a senior member of the UNP, who disapproved thoroughly of what Jayewardene had done to his party, told me that Wickremesinghe was not honest because he used thugs. In ‘My Fair Lady,’ the heroine talks about someone to whom gin was mother’s milk, and for Wickremesinghe violence is mother’s milk, as can be seen by the horrors he associated with.

The latest revelations about Deshabandu Tennakoon, whom he appointed IGP despite his record, makes clear his approval for extra-judicial operations.

Q:

Finally, will you explain how to counter war crimes accusations as well as allegations with regard to the counter-terror campaign in the’80s?

A:

I do not think it is possible to counter allegations about the counter-terror campaign of the eighties, since many of those allegations, starting with the Welikada Prison massacre, which Wickremesinghe’s father admitted to me the government had engendered, are quite accurate. And I should stress that the worst excesses, such as the torture and murder of Wijeyedasa Liyanaarachchi, happened under Jayewardene, since there is a tendency amongst the elite to blame Premadasa. He, to give him his due, was genuine about a ceasefire, which the JVP ignored, foolishly in my view though they may have had doubts about Ranjan Wijeratne’s bona fides.

With regard to war crimes accusations, I have shown how, in my ‘Hard Talk’ interview, which you failed to mention in describing Wickeremesinghe’s failure to respond coherently to Hasan. The speeches Dayan Jayatilleke and I made in Geneva make clear what needed and still needs to be done, but clear sighted arguments based on a moral perspective that is more focused than the meanderings, and the frequent hypocrisy, of critics will not now be easy for the country to furnish.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Trending