Midweek Review

How UNP dug its own grave

Published

4 years ago

2020/08/12

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The margin of the SLPP (Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna) victory, at the Aug 5, 2020 general election, stunned the ruling coalition. The best possible result the SLPP expected was around 130 seats, including National List slots. SLPP Chairman and its top National List nominee, Prof. G.L. Peiris, about aproximately 30 minutes after polling commenced, countrywide, told the writer they expected around 130 seats.

About two weeks earlier, the leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) and Attorney-at-law Udaya Gammanpila, too, privately acknowledged they could secure around 130 seats.

Experienced campaigner and turncoat, S.B. Dissanayake, also of the SLPP, placed the number of seats, anticipated, a little less than 130 seats. But, they all predicted a very comfortable victory for the SLPP, though two-thirds seemed quite unrealistic.

The Aug 5 result proved a two-thirds majority was achievable, under the Proportional Representation (PR) system, though so-called experts thought otherwise. However, the margin of victory surprised even the three-and-half-year old SLPP, as well as the tattered UNP, established over 70 years ago.

For the first time, in our political history, a party (that ruled the country on several occasions) ended up without a single elected lawmaker. The UNP managed to secure one National List seat. The JVP did much better than the UNP by securing three seats, including one National List slot, but it was a comedown when compared to its previous performance at the August 2015 general election.

General Secretary of the UNP, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, on Friday (7), blamed their worst defeat ever on their ‘own actions’ and those of others. The latter was definitely a reference to former UNP Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa causing a split.

It would be pertinent to examine what Kariyawasam meant by ‘own actions’ in his pathetic attempt to explain the debilitating setback the once proud party suffered. The EC decision not to count preference votes, received by candidates of political parties that didn’t receive seats, saved them from further humiliation. If not, the paltry number of votes received by Ranil Wickremesinghe, Assistant Leader Ravi Karunanayake, National Organizer Navin Dissanayake, as well as financier Daya Gamage, would have become public, adding to the humiliating defeat.

The emergence of the SLPP, at the expense of the SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party), should be studied, taking into consideration the deliberate wrongdoings, blunders, lapses, treachery and utterly irrational policies followed by the yahapalana administration, consisting of the UNP and a section of the SLFP-led UPFA.

Before we discuss why the voting public handed over such a massive mandate to the SLPP, it would be pertinent to mention that those who served the ruinous yahapalana coalition ended-up in four groups. The largest group formed (1) the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), (2) remained in permanently damaged UNP, (3) what was left of the SLFP and (4) those who returned to the Rajapaksa Camp, having served Maithripala Sirisena for some time.

Having publicly alleged that he would have ended up six feet under if Mahinda Rajapaksa had won the 2015 January presidential election, Maithripala Sirisena, too, returned to the Rajapaksa Camp to avoid being politically eliminated. If Sirisena’s SLFP contested the recently concluded general election, on its own, it, too, could have suffered the same fate that befell the UNP. The SLFP obviously avoided the disgraceful defeat by contesting under the flower bud symbol.

The SLFP, on its own, winning a seat in the Jaffna peninsula, is an exception. The SLFP contested the electoral districts of Jaffna and Kalutara. Final result of the Kalutara district reflected the ground situation, in 18 districts, where the SLPP recorded landslide victories. The SLFP polled 10,979 votes (1.57%), in the Kalutara district, and was placed 5th, whereas the SLPP obtained a staggering 448,699 votes (64.88%). The SLFP survived a political massacre by accepting the SLPP’s terms. The SLPP, quite rightly, dismissed the SLFP’s efforts to contest both the presidential and parliamentary polls, under a common symbol. Polonnaruwa district candidate Sirisena, in spite of being verbally abused and humiliated by fellow district SLPP candidate Roshan Ranasinghe, as well as Gampaha District SLPP leader Prasanna Ranatunga, polled the highest number of preferential votes from the Polonnaruwa District. Sirisena polled 111,137 preference votes, whereas Roshan Ranasinghe obtained 90,615. The SLFP, due to consensus with brazen SLPP, even at biased terms, has managed to save face.

‘Own actions’

The UNP suffered an irreparable setback, at the third parliamentary poll, since the conclusion of the war, in May 2009. The UNP’s loss, at the 2010 general election, was understandable. The then SLFP-led UPFA obtained 144 seats, including 17 National List slots, whereas the UNP secured 60. The UPFA taking the parliamentary election was a foregone conclusion in the wake of Mahinda Rajapaksa defeating General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 January presidential election. But, the UNP obtained a respectable 60-member group and, five years later, used it to spearhead a high profile project to bring down Mahinda Rajapaksa.

But, the UNP, at the general election just concluded, has been reduced to just 1 National List MP. The UNP General Secretary should explain what he really meant by ‘own actions’ contributing to its downfall. Let me examine what these ‘own actions’ were as the SLPP triumph transformed the political landscape.

The SLPP can easily secure two-thirds with the backing of the SLFP (one elected from Jaffna) and three other Tamil and Muslim parties. Perhaps, it would be much better to amend the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, in consultation with the SJB (54 MPs), TNA (10), Jathika Jana Balavegaya (JJB/3) and the UNP (1) than exploiting the overwhelming majority to its advantage.

Sri Lanka is in such a political-economic mess, the SLPP should act responsibly. The formidable political power shouldn’t pursue abusive policies against the backdrop of annihilation of the Opposition. It would be a grave mistake on its part to tinker with the Constitution for its benefit. Perhaps, a consensus can be reached soon, on an amendment, to allow the President to hold the Defence portfolio.

Treasury bond scams

Having ousted Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the 2015 January presidential poll, a cocky UNP leadership brought in Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran as the Governor of the Central Bank, in January 2015. Wickremesinghe simply ignored Sirisena’s concerns as regards the appointment. Under heavy pressure, Sirisena handed over Mahendran’s letter of appointment. The Singaporean moved into the Governor’s Office, on January 26, 2016. The then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake made the recommendation in this regard. The first Treasury bond scam was perpetrated just four weeks later.

Kariyawasam’s reference to ‘own actions’ without doubt include the 2015 Treasury bond scam and the second perpetrated 13 months later, after the 2015 general election. The government was so cocky, it not only once but twice perpetrated massive Treasury bond scams at the expense of the national economy. In spite of the then yahapalana partner, the SLFP, making a big noise about Treasury bond scams, Sirisena’s party solidly stood by the UNP. Sirisena went to the extent of dissolving parliament, on the night of June 26, 2015, to prevent the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) presenting its report on the first Treasury bond scam to parliament. Sirisena exposed himself by delaying the appointment of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) to probe the Treasury bond scams, till January 2017; over seven months after Dr. Indrajith Coomaraswamy succeeded the Singaporean.

The top UNP leadership caused the party downfall by its ‘own actions.’ The SLFP, too, contributed to the rapid deterioration of the yahapalana government by playing ball with the UNP. Having allowed the UNP to ruin the yahapalana arrangement, Sirisena resorted to a constitutional coup, in late Oct 2018, to take back control of the government. Sirisena failed miserably.

The new government now faced a huge challenge in bringing the Treasury bond scams case to a successful conclusion. Ranil Wickremesinghe and Ravi Karunanayake embroiled in Treasury bond cases are no longer lawmakers. Wickremesinghe and Karunanayake, having first entered parliament in 1977 and 1994 (National List), respectively, served as members of parliament successively until last week. Wickremesinghe and Karunanayake now face the bleak prospect of facing a long drawn out case.

Geneva betrayal

Between the February 2015 and March 2016 Treasury bond scams, the UNP betrayed the country, at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Sirisena did absolutely nothing but to publicly criticize the Geneva betrayal. The President, in spite of being the Commander-in-Chief and the Defence Minister, answerable to the people, stayed with the UNP decision. In a bid to deceive the public, the yahapalana lot replaced the then Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, who directed the then Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador, Ravinatha Aryasinha, to co-sponsor the controversial resolution, with Ravi Karunanayake, in May 2017. In spite of on and off public criticism, Sirisena, and those SLFPers who received ministerial portfolios, remained with the UNP. Karunanayake, embroiled in the Treasury bond scam controversy, continued with Samaraweera’s Geneva project. When Karunanayake was compelled to resign in the second week of August 2017, over shocking revelations before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, Wickremesinghe brought back Tilak Marapana to the cabinet. One-time Attorney General Marapana, PC, took over the Foreign Ministry. Marapana, too, faithfully continued with the Geneva project. The Geneva betrayal was part of the UNP’s agreement with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the US. Sumanthiran revealed the existence of a treacherous agreement, in June 2016, when he addressed a gathering in the US. Sumanthiran declared that he negotiated with the US and Sirisena’s government, on the Geneva resolution, and the inclusion of foreign judges in war crimes courts.

Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, gave Sri Lanka a golden opportunity to counter war crimes allegations. Based on secret dispatches from the UK High Commission, in Colombo, in 2009 (January to May), Lord Naseby successfully countered the primary allegation, regarding the massacre of 40,000 Tamil civilians on the Vanni east front. The UNP turned a blind eye to Lord Naseby’s revelations. Yahapalana partner, the SLFP, too, followed the same policy. When the writer inquired about how the government intended to use Lord Naseby’s revelations for Sri Lanka’s defence, at the post-cabinet media briefing, co-cabinet spokesman Dayasiri Jayasekera reacted angrily, though he quickly calmed down. An irate Jayasekera accused the writer of raising unnecessary issues with a view to causing problems. Jayasekera revealed that up to the time the question was posed to him, the cabinet hadn’t at least discussed the matter. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, as well as the SLFP spokesman Mahinda Sanarasinghe, at separate media briefings, in response to questions posed by the writer, admitted that the cabinet didn’t discuss the Geneva matter.

The Foreign Ministry’s thinking reflected the despicable UNP policy towards the armed forces. The initial Foreign Ministry response, to Lord Naseby’s Oct 2017 bid to save Sri Lanka, revealed its role in a high profile anti-Sri Lanka project. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement in response to a query posed by the writer to the then spokesperson. However, the Foreign Ministry cannot be faulted for following the instructions given by the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Minister, at that time.

The SLFP cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for the Geneva betrayal. Today, those SLFPers, who had fully cooperated with the UNP (2015 August –Oct 2018), are in parliament, on the SLPP ticket. They survived by contesting the Aug 5 parliamentary election on the SLPP ticket. If not, the SLFP, too, would have ended up with perhaps one National List MP, like its partner in ‘crime’ the UNP.

In the wake of the Geneva betrayal, several countries imposed travel restrictions on senior military commanders. Field Marshal Fonseka, Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage and Army Chief Shavendra Silva are among those who were slapped with travel bans.

Now, it would be the responsibility of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government to set the record straight. The UNP and the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi-led TNA, responsible for the Geneva betrayal, suffered serious setbacks at the general election. Having campaigned for 20 seats, the one-time LTTE mouth piece was reduced to 10 seats, including one National List slot. In the last parliament, the TNA had 16 lawmakers, including two National List slots. Obviously, the Tamil electorate snubbed the TNA by causing the ITAK leader Mavai Senathirajah’s defeat. The TNA, too, plunged into crisis with a section of the former LTTE proxy demanding that Senathirajah be appointed to parliament through the National List whereas the TNA, at the behest of Sampanthan, named Chairman of Ampara Navindaveli Pradeshiya Sabha Thawarasa Kalaiarasan as their National List member.

Prez-PM failure in 2019

The Treasury bond scams (February 2015 and March 2016) and the Geneva treachery (Oct 2015) was followed by the indefensible failure to thwart the April 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. In this case, too, both the UNP and Sirisena failed the country very badly. The revelations, made before the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), in 2019, and the on-going Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI), proved beyond doubt the culpability of both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe for the Easter Sunday carnage. In spite of knowing the imminent threat, posed by Thowheed Jamaat, Sirsena went on a pilgrimage to neighbouring India. Sirisena, wife, Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari, and other members of their family, offered prayers at the hill shrine of Lord Venkateswara. Sirisena took part in the ‘Suprabhatha’ ritual and offered prayers to the presiding deity of Lord Venkateswara. From there, the Sirisenas flew to Singapore. They were on holiday when Thowheed Jamaat carried out the near simultaneous attacks. Sirisena got caught lying to the PSC regarding the delay on his part in returning to Colombo in the aftermath of the attack. The PSC, in its report released to the public in Oct 2019, revealed how Sirisena shunned two earlier Sri Lankan flights to return in the early hours of the following day on a Singapore Airlines flight.

The SLPP will have to deal with media furore when the P CoI releases its report later this year. Sirisena, who held the Defence and Law and order portfolios at the time of the attack, in addition to being the Commander-in-Chief, cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for the unprecedented security failure.

H’tota deal and FTA with Singapore

Sirisena authorized the 99-year-lease on Hambantota port, in lieu of what Sri Lanka owed China, as well as the controversial Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (FTA) during his tainted presidency. On behalf of Sri Lanka, Sirisena’s nominee, Ports and Shipping Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe, signed the agreement with China. Sri Lanka and China finalized the Hambantota port deal, in late July 2017, and the FTA with Singapore, in January 2018. Malik Samarawickrema signed the agreement on Sri Lanka’s behalf. It was finalized after six rounds of talks. Both Sirisena and Samarasinghe re-entered parliament on the SLPP ticket. Samarasinghe even took SLPP membership in the run-up to the general election. Samarawickrema, who was accommodated on the UNP National List in the previous parliament, quit parliamentary politics.

The SLFP has conveniently forgotten that it held the post of Deputy Speaker in Parliament till May 25, 2018. Thilanga Sumathipala served as the Deputy Speaker and the Chairperson of Committees of parliament. Sumathipala was replaced by Ananda Kumarasiri, who later headed the PSC that probed the Easter Sunday carnage. The Supreme Court has been moved by seven parties, including the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA), against the FTA with Singapore. The SC last heard the case in the second week of July, 2020. It will be taken up again on Nov 03, 2020. A committee, appointed by the government after the last presidential election to review the FTA with Singapore, is yet to release its final report.

Having promised to review the Hambantota deal, the incumbent administration subsequently dropped the idea after China, in no uncertain terms, objected to that move. Those who represented the previous parliament and those who elected to new parliament should keep in mind there is no difference in the 99-year-lease on Hambantota port and the outright sale of such a valuable asset.

ACSA et al

Sri Lanka first entered ACSA (Access and Cross Servicing Agreement) in March 2007. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his capacity as the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, signed ACSA on Sri Lanka’s behalf for a period of 10 years. Sirisena, in his capacity as the President, authorized signing a far more comprehensive ACSA, in August 2017. Sirisena’s government also discussed SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with the US, in addition to finalizing the MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact.

When the writer raised the issue with Wickremesinghe at the final government media briefing, at Temple Trees, two weeks before the Nov 16, 2019 presidential election, the Premier, without hesitation, declared it would be signed. Now, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government will have to decide on the controversial agreement. The government is obviously in a dilemma. Having secured a near two-thirds majority, the SLPP cannot, under any circumstances, accept the agreement in its present form against the backdrop of Prof. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan’s damning report, in Sinhala, on it. Perhaps, copies should be made available to all members of the new parliament.

Sri Lanka shouldn’t accept SOFA, under any circumstances. Instead, Sri Lanka should guarantee that it wouldn’t engage in /allow foreign activity inimical to regional or world powers. The new government cannot be unaware how the majority community reacted to the UNP’s response to ACSA, SOFA and MCC. The SLPP campaign, against US agreements, gave Gotabaya Rajapaksa a tremendous boost at the presidential poll, as well as the recently concluded general election.

Paddy at Mattala airport

Having ousted Mahinda Rajapaksa, in January 2015, and then won the 2015 August general election, the UNP brazenly stored paddy at the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (MRIA). Wickremesinghe repeatedly called Sri Lanka’s second international airport a white elephant. Storing paddy at MRIA was nothing but political suicide. It was meant to humiliate the war-winning President and his administration.

Storing paddy at MAIA is as bad as betraying the war-winning armed forces in Geneva. Five years later, the majority community, through overwhelming votes at the presidential and parliamentary polls, sent the UNP home. Sajith Premadasa and his group survived by contesting under a different symbol. Whoever secures UNP’s solitary National List slot, one UNP lawmaker in parliament would be a grim reminder to those who destroyed the once great party.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

War crimes issue largely discarded from Prez poll platform

Published

4 days ago

2024/09/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

General (retd.) Gunaratne responds to a query from the audience at the launch of Rajali Sandeshaya (Pic courtesy MoD)

Sri Lanka needs to examine the Indian intervention here in the early 80s. The origins of terrorism here cannot be studied or properly presented unless a no holds barred inquiry is conducted into the Indian military misadventure here that cost it nearly 1,500 officers and men and double that number wounded between July 1987 and March 1990. The assassination of one-time Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi, in May 1991, just over a year after the Indian pullout from Sri Lanka, is a grim reminder of the New Delhi’s overreach gone very wrong, with terrible consequences. Those demanding accountability on Sri Lanka’s part in its war against the LTTE never asked for India’s culpability in launching a terrorist war here with a view to creating an environment for its direct intervention. That is the ugly truth. Or was it a case of the same West drawing India into a quagmire here by making her believe that if she does not look after Tamil interests here there could be growing repercussions in Tamil Nadu as the Western media continued to stir the pot with exaggerated accounts against Sri Lanka.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was among the guests, at the Nelum Pokuna theatre, recently. at the launch of Defence Secretary Maj. Gen. (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne’s ‘Rajali Sandeshaya,’ a poetic reflection of experiences from the times of Sinhala kings to the eradication of terrorism in May 2009, The author of the widely read ‘Ranamaga Osse Nanthikadal’ and Gajaba Regiment veteran also dealt with his battlefield experiences through his latest literary work declared as the longest kavya sandeshaya, written entirely in Sinhala verse (2579 poems).

During the fourth phase of the Eelam War IV (Aug 2006-May 2009), Maj. Gen. Gunaratne served as the General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the 53 Division that was stationed in the Jaffna peninsula at the time of the outbreak of the final phase of the war in 2006. Present Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Shavendra Silva, who was then the GoC of the celebrated Task Force 1/58 Division and later GoC of 57 Division that was tasked to regain Kilinochchi, were among the invitees.

Among the notable absentees were war-winning Army Commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, Marshal of the Air Force Roshan Goonatilleke and wartime Defence Secretary and former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, another pioneer combat veteran of the battle proven Gajaba Regiment, who has literally accused the military top brass of failing in their duty as Aragalaya mobs chased him and his government out of power with plenty of covert and overt foreign inputs in the form of funding, intelligence, outright diplomatic interference, etc.

Ven. Induragare Dhammarathana and Prof. Praneeth Abeysundara briefly discussed the importance of ‘Rajali Sandeshaya’ authored by Maj. Gen. Gunaratne who serves as the Secretary, Ministry of Defence since Nov 2019.

The event held on Sept. 06 coincided with the author’s 63rd birthday and was meant to be a glowing tribute to the sacrifices made during the conflict. During his brief remarks at the event, the author dealt with the final phase of the war. Without hesitation, the author contradicted the primary accusation directed at the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka’s Army that 40,000 Tamil civilians perished, while pointing out the successful reintegration of thousands of LTTE combatants, who surrendered, back into the society.

Against the backdrop of the Defence Secretary’s latest public denial, let us examine the status of the controversial UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 co-sponsored by the then Yahapalana government wanting to please the West and settle scores with the war-winning Rajapaksa administration, which achieved a dream victory against “the most ruthless terrorist force on earth”, on Oct 01, 2015. Without doubt some of the leaders, who led the Yahapalana lot, were the types who could not even say boo to Tigers. In terms of 30/1, Sri Lanka was humiliated as it was made to pledge before the entire world to undertake promotion of reconciliation, accountability and human rights as if we were under an Idi Amin when the war victory was achieved. Sri Lanka repeated these commitments in the 2017 and 2019 Resolutions.

Now that the Defence Secretary referred to a high profile claim of 40,000 civilian deaths, in a matter of weeks, in 2009, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant paragraph from the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE)…was more like a kangaroo court all out to fix the war-winning Army and the country…on Accountability in Sri Lanka, released on March 31, 2011.

The following is the relevant paragraph bearing number 137: “In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.”

The UN had no qualms in making this uncorroborated declaration that 40,000 civilians perished in just a matter of weeks on the Vanni east, while acknowledging that a proper survey conducted by UN Colombo, that dealt with the period from August 2008 to May 13, 2009, placed the number of dead at 7,721 and the wounded at 18,479. The PoE, in paragraphs 134 and 135, discussed how meticulously the UN-led project involved the ICRC and, what it called, ‘networks of observers operational in LTTE- controlled areas’, to gather information. The PoE report could have easily been the basis of Sri Lanka’s defence. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka leadership lacked post-war foresight to cleverly use the UN report to counter their obvious anti-Sri Lanka project. It begs us to think whether we have capable diplomats or diplo-muts to speak on our behalf. In other words, the UN contradicted its own report but President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government simply squandered an opportunity to expose the much propagated lie of 40,000 civilian deaths, despite ironically having an illustrious law professor serving as his Foreign Minister.

Fatal omission

Less than three months after the release of the PoE report, the US, unintentionally, contradicted the UN report, thereby presenting Sri Lanka with further opportunity to build its defence on the basis of the UN report and the US declaration that countered the very basis of the primary accusation.

The first sign that uncorroborated war crimes accusations can be successfully countered was seen at the first ever Colombo Defence Seminar, conducted in late May-June 2011 during Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya’s tenure as the Commander of the Army (July 2009-July 2013).

On the first day of the seminar, the then US Defence Advisor in Colombo, Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, questioned the very basis of war crimes allegations, including the execution of surrendered terrorists directed at the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva’s Division.

The US official was responding to a query posed by retired Major General Ashok K. Mehta, formerly of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed here (July 1987 to March 1990), to Major General Shavendra Silva. Silva was there in his capacity as Sri Lanka’s then No 02 at the UN. Smith’s voluntary and spontaneous revelation, made just weeks after the PoE, aka the Darusman report, embarrassed the US (Sri Lanka Defence Symposium: Now, US suspects credibility of LTTE surrender offer with strap line…dismisses K.P. Nadesan as ‘mouthpieces’ with no real authority – The Island, June 3, 2011)

The US State Department had no option but to declare in a face saving exercise that Smith hadn’t represented the US at the seminar. The political leadership and Army Headquarters never exploited the US official’s forthright statement.

In fact, Smith’s statement made six years before Lord Naseby’s disclosure, based on the then British Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Anthony Gash’s similar wartime dispatches, should have been the foundation of Sri Lanka’s defence.

It would be pertinent to examine why the first Rajapaksa administration never bothered to examine the US official’s statement. In fact, the Army never really pursued the matter during the tenure of Army Commanders – Daya Ratnayaka (Aug 2013-Feb 2015), Chrishantha de Silva (Feb-2015-June 2017) and Mahesh Senanayake (June 2017-August 2019).

The politically motivated US decision to slap a travel ban on the then Army Commander Lt. General Shavendra Silva in Feb 2020 should be examined against the backdrop of the criminal negligence on Sri Lanka’s part to counter lies propagated in spite of having powerful ammunition. The US ban on Gen. Silva and members of his family remain in force while shameless UNHRC, at the behest of the West, contemplates further action against us, even in foreign jurisdictions, while it literally turns a blind eye to continuing outright genocides elsewhere.

Actually a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) is necessary to ascertain the shocking lapses on the part of successive political and military leaderships that led to ‘Accountability Resolution 30/1’ in 2015 and the expansion of relentless and continuing Western campaign.

Lord Naseby made his disclosure during Mahesh Senanayake’s tenure as the Army Commander. But, the Army never examined/exploited Lt. Col. Smith’s statement and that of Lord Naseby as part of Sri Lanka’s overall defence in Geneva.

Impotent Sri Lanka political leadership conveniently failed to set the record straight at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka never bothered to officially mention in Geneva that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), that recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people, backed Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. The TNA delivered all predominantly Tamil speaking electoral districts, including Vanni, comprising Mannar, Mullaithivu and Vavuniya, to Fonseka, though he lost the contest by 1.8 mn votes as he was rejected by an overwhelming majority in the rest of the country.

Sri Lanka discards Naseby’s disclosure

Treacherous politicians, some sections of the media, and the diplomatic community, and the civil society, worked overtime to suppress Lord Naseby’s disclosure that threatened to undermine the devious Geneva project. The Geneva operation was meant to introduce a new Constitution that did away with Sri Lanka’s unitary status in the guise of addressing accountability issues.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration spearheaded the despicable project. The then Joint Opposition co-operated in that endeavour by being part of a parliamentary process to draft a new Constitution, spearheaded by the then Premier Wickremesinghe. President Sirisena remained an onlooker whereas his parliamentary group participated in the process. Wimal Weerawansa’s National Freedom Front (NFF) subsequently quit the process though his efforts to convince the Joint Opposition to do so failed.

Lord Naseby’s disclosure threatened to weaken the Yahapalana project. The Foreign Ministry, under Ravi Karunanayake (RK received the appointment in the wake of Samaraweera’s removal as FM in May 2017), ridiculed Lord Naseby’s statement.

Did the Sri Lanka High Commission in London bring Lord Naseby’s statement to the Foreign Ministry’s attention? For want of a Foreign Ministry response to Lord Naseby’s very important statement, even a week after it was made, the writer, on Oct 20, 2017, sought an explanation from the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry response really disappointed a vast majority of people, who expected the government to use the House of Lords disclosure to counter lies that had been propagated by various interested parties.

Instead of taking advantage of Lord Naseby’s statement, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mahishini Colonne declared: “The Government of Sri Lanka remains committed to the 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.”

The writer also raised Lord Naseby’s disclosure with the then four-party TNA, one-time mouthpiece of the LTTE, and the main Opposition in Parliament. The TNA refrained from responding to The Island queries submitted to then TNA leader R. Sampanthan.

In spite of over a dozen calls/SMS to Raghu Balachandran of Sampanthan’s Office, The Island never received the TNA’s response. You may want to know when the set of questions regarding TNA’s response to Lord Naseby’s disclosure was submitted to that party. The Island submitted the following questions to TNA and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan on Nov. 27, 2017 and repeatedly reminded the Opposition Leader’s Office of the delay on its part to respond: Have you (TNA) studied Lord Naseby’s statement made in the House of Lords on Oct. 12, 2017? What is TNA’s position on Naseby’s claims? Did TNA leaders discuss Naseby’s claim among themselves? Did TNA respond to MP Dinesh Gunawardena’s statements in Parliament on Naseby’s disclosure? And did TNA take up this issue with the UK High Commissioner James Dauris?

False declaration

In late Feb 2020, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government perpetrated a major propaganda exercise to deceive the public. On behalf the government, the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena declared at Geneva session that Sri Lanka withdrew from co-sponsorship of the UN Human Rights Council resolutions ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.’

This was nothing but a meaningless declaration meant to hoodwink the public. In spite of that declaration, Sri Lanka fully cooperated with the Geneva process but what is really baffling is why the government continues to hesitate to set the record straight.

Over 15 years after the successful conclusion of the war, Sri Lanka is yet to build a solid defence on the basis of official information available in the public domain.

Gajaba Regiment veteran Chagie Gallage, who retired in the rank of Maj. Gen. in late August 2018, in his farewell address delivered at the Saliyapura Regimental Centre, explained the pathetic failure on the part of utterly irresponsible and useless political leadership to defend the armed forces.

“Gajaba was engraved in golden letters in the annals of the history of the Sri Lanka Army, if not in the history of Sri Lanka … and I’m certain it will never be reversed by any. So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal.”

The writer revealed Gallage’s predicament on March 23, 2017 edition of The Island in a front-page lead story, headlined ‘Chagie denied Australian visa over ‘war crimes’ allegations’ with strapline ‘Unsubstantiated UN claim cited as reason’

War time Special Forces Commander Major General Nirmal Dharmaratne in a superb piece on Gallage, published in The Island, called the brother officer a ‘meticulous man’. For Australia, Gallage was nothing but a potential controversial visitor. The Foreign Ministry turned a blind eye to Gallage’s plight. The Gallage issue was largely ignored by the media. Australian insult never received the coverage it deserved.

Our parliamentarians were too busy to take up the issue. Parliament shirked its responsibility. The failure on the part of Parliament to address accountability issues finally led to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government co-sponsoring the damning Geneva Resolution in Oct 2015 directed at the previous political leadership and the military.

President Maithripala Sirisena, in spite of a plethora of promises, did nothing to address the issue. The author of ‘Rajali Sandeshaya’ Gen. Gunaratne, Gen. Jagath Dias and Field Marshal Fonseka are those targeted by the Western agenda.

For some strange reason, all political parties represented in Parliament appeared to have succumbed to Western pressure to accept war crimes accusations by conveniently ignoring the issue. The issue hadn’t been seriously addressed by the four major presidential contestants – namely independent candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe, SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, JJB leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake and SLPPer Namal Rajapaksa.

Their election manifestos, too, hadn’t dealt with this issue though usual phrases relating to post-war developments were used.

Presidential candidate Dilith Jayaweera of Sarvajana Balaya is solidly behind our war heroes, while assuring equality to all.

With Geneva declaring that whoever won the next presidential and parliamentary election should abide by the process now taking place, all major political parties should take a common stand on accountability issue.

Midweek Review

Still Undecided?

Published

4 days ago

2024/09/11

Rashi Nihara

If there are too many things to consider, the integrity of the individual and their commitment to get rid of corruption should be the number one criterion at this point. If one cannot decide, based on that, staying out of this election, and returning to the parliamentary elections to work with whoever comes to power for the sake of country may be the right thing to do. Let us not forget that the presidential election is not the end, a parliamentary opposition that is willing to work for the country but not for self-interest is the crucial element that has been missing in our culture.

by Geewananda Gunawardana

My grandfather was an ardent supporter of the UNP all his life. The reason? Its founder got independence for the country. In addition, if the communists, like NM and Colvin, came to power, they would confiscate everything we had and take children away from their families. My grandfather passed away 60 years ago. Today, the country’s sovereignty is not at risk, the civil war has ended, and, most importantly, the communist ideology has vastly changed all over the world. Yet, there are many voters who think and act the same way as my grandfather did 60 years ago, while some others cannot decide what to do at the upcoming election.

They cannot be blamed; there is an information gap and a surplus of misinformation. The single most threat that the country is facing is the perilous condition its economy is in. Despite the rosy picture some would like to paint, nothing has changed over the last decade to put the country on a recovery path. As one successful US President put it during his campaign, the slogan should be ‘It is the economy, stupid.’ There are other issues, but most of them are the result of the economy, or economic disparity, and we would not have the resources to fix them without restoring the economy first.

Now that the leading contenders for presidency have published their manifestos, and we know their political history very well, it should not be that difficult to decide who could get us started on the right path to recovery. Let us be clear, the goal should be to put us on the right path to economic development, lay the foundation. This mess has been in the making for 75 years, and not even a superhuman will be able to solve all our problems during the first six months, or during the entire term of their presidency. All they need to do, and we can expect them to do, is to put the economy on the right path. The recovery will take time, hard choices will have to be made but let us not be deceived by bogus election promises yet again.

If we pay attention to our past and current economic indicators or see what other countries, like ours, have done to succeed or to fail in such situations, it is not difficult to see what policies will work for our country. If a candidate is promising to continue in the same path, it is insanity to believe that it would magically work this time around. Let us not forget that we have been on this path for 75 years, led by the same group of people and their progeny, who have done very well for themselves.

The most crucial factor, besides policy, is the elimination of corruption. Sri Lanka corruption index has more than doubled during the last 20 years, and now it stands at 80%. That is a grave situation. Not only it is a massive burden on people, but it also keeps potential foreign investments from coming to the country. Without investments, there is no way to resurrect the broken economy. Corruption takes many forms; lack of transparency, accountability, and disregard for rules and regulations are also part of corruption. Elimination of corruption is the responsibility of all citizens as it continues to siphon billions that rightfully belong to the people. However, the leadership must come from the top. Therefore, preventing the corrupt and those who would protect the corrupt from sneaking back into power should be the highest priority. How can you entrust the future of a nation to someone who has no integrity?

Making promises is one thing, keeping them is another. As the saying goes, there are no free lunches. It is true that there must be some relief for those who suffer due to no fault of their own. But they should be in the form of temporary measures to get them back on their feet. Otherwise, anyone offering free anything unconditionally is either ignorant or a fraud not fit to lead.

The next crucial factor is to see who has the political will to implement what they promise. If one comes to power with the backing of the corrupt, even if their economic policies are sound, how can they work to eliminate corruption? Same goes for those who are supported by special interest groups. They will have to pander to their supporters’ interests at the expense of public welfare when they come to power. Haven’t we suffered enough under cronyism and nepotism? There are practices that can be done away without any additional costs to the government to alleviate the burden on the populous. Think of the current condition of the so-called free education and free healthcare. There are no reliable statistics, but one can guess that the public spends out of its pocket as much as the government does on education, for example. What a waste of resources. Corrective measures are unfavourable to some, but would the new leader have the courage and political will to stand against such special interests? Which candidate has a history of taking a stand in such situations?

There are no perfect economic models or governance systems that would always apply to all countries. Every country must carefully adopt what suits its own situation. There is a lot of misinformation circulating currently in this regard. Even the correct information can be presented selectively, in a biased manner, when the purveyor of news has an agenda. There is a lot of talk about the perils of the socialist system, but we rarely hear the evils of the capitalist system. The food insecurity rate in the United States in 2023 was 13.5%. That is about 47 million Americans, or more than 1 in 8, were unable to consistently get enough food for themselves or their families, while the country has the capacity to feed them. Similarly, the US spends the highest on healthcare per capita in the world, but ranked 21st in terms of quality, and only 90% of the population is covered compared to 100% in most developed countries. We must look at how the economies of so-called socialist countries, like China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, are doing today. They have recovered from much worse situations than we face. Is the socialist system still the same monster that my grandfather dreaded? We have two choices: continue with the same failed system with a predictable outcome or try something different and work collectively to give it the best chance possible.
Another factor to consider would be the fate of the executive presidency, which has been a curse on the whole country, not just the economy. Many parties have promised to abolish it ever since it was established 46 years ago, but have they done so when they had the opportunity? Who can we trust to keep that promise this time around?

If there are too many things to consider, the integrity of the individual and their commitment to get rid of corruption should be the number one criterion at this point. If one cannot decide based on that, staying out of this election, and returning to the parliamentary elections to work with whoever comes to power for the sake of country may be the right thing to do. Let us not forget that the presidential election is not the end, a parliamentary opposition that is willing to work for the country but not for self-interest is the crucial element that has been missing in our culture.

The US system may not be a posterchild for good governance, but it has the strongest economy today. The secret is that despite the bitter partition divide of the country, 70 percent of the bills passed in the current Congress were passed with bipartisan support. The fight for power can be ugly, but they work for the country when in power. We need to elect politicians who work for the country, and not for their descendants or henchmen. One more thing: is it an unbreakable rule that only the descendants of former politicians must be chosen for our leadership as we have done many times in the past 75 years? Are we a democracy or a monarchy? Is it that difficult to decide?