Connect with us

Midweek Review

Lanka caught up in Superpowers’ battle

Published

on

Japanese Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi in video conference with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on July 6 (pics courtesy Japanese Defence Ministry)

 

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Where do the political parties, represented in Parliament, stand on foreign policy? Caught between a deadly battle for supremacy between the West (US), backed by Japan, Australia, and India, and emerging power China, Sri Lanka is struggling to maintain a balance in foreign relations.

It must, however, be noted that South Korea has apparently refused to be part of the US-led Quad, ranged against China, for obvious reasons; we believe primarily being Seoul needs China’s help if it genuinely wants to reunite with North Koreas and other being economic. But whether it likes it or not, Seoul is part and parcel of whatever Washington strategy as it is virtually bonded to now solitary superpower since the Korean war of the early 1950s in which China fought the US and its allies to a stalemate.

South Korea recently also adopted a strongly critical position over Japanese announcement of plans to release toxic waste water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster to the Pacific Ocean, very much similar to warnings from Beijing over the issue.

Cash-strapped Colombo faces an extremely difficult situation against the backdrop of challenging economic challenges and political instability, caused by often opportunistic squabbling.

Both groups are determined to make Sri Lanka part of their overall strategic planning, in spite of the Western camp accusing the current Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government of being too close to China (Chinese Community Party). Sri Lanka’s relations with the US-led grouping cannot be examined without taking into consideration the enactment of the Colombo Port City Commission Bill, in May 2021 in spite of strong objections. Among those who opposed the Bill were the main Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the United National Party (UNP), and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL).

It is pertinent to mention that CHEC Port City Colombo (Pvt) Limited had been the principal sponsor of the National Law Conference 2020 at Jet Wing Blue, Negombo, where the controversial project was endorsed. But that didn’t discourage the BASL from moving the Supreme Court against the Colombo Port City Commission Bill. The funding made available by the Chinese government project to the BASL should be discussed along with United States Agency for International Development (USAID) sponsorship of the same event. Similarly the BASL, obviously, in its haste to secure financial support for mega events had no qualms in securing sponsorship for the 2016 Law Asia Conference from tainted primary dealer, Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL), over a year after the exposure of its direct involvement in the first Central Bank treasury bond scam, perpetrated on Feb. 27, 2015. By the time, BASL held the event, in five-star comforts; the PTL had already perpetrated the second Treasury bond scam, in March 2016.

Let me discuss Sri Lanka’s foreign policy dilemma leaving questionable BASL transactions for another day. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy challenges cannot be deliberated without taking into account India’s growing relationship with the US and its role in Quad, comprising the US, Japan, Australia and Delhi Vis-a-Vis China.

India will continue to pursue its two-pronged strategy here – (i) preserve the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that was forced on us by her to appease the Tamil community and (ii) be party to overall US strategy meant to meet the Chinese challenge. Facing China’s rapid military buildup and modernization of its armed forces, Japan, India, Australia and South Korea are compelled to play a larger role in their security alliances with Washington.

China’s Sri Lanka strategy suffered a severe setback in 2015 when Mahinda Rajapaksa failed in his bid to secure a third term. In spite of that, China managed to secure the Hambantota port, on a 99-year-lease.

The UNP installed President Maithripala Sirisena cooperated with Wickremesinghe to finalize the deal to give away on a 99-year lease the Hambantota port in 2017. China managed to wrangle through the Colombo Port City project after yahapalana rule at the onset caused quite a crisis by suspending the high profile venture.

Eventually, the then government gave in to pave the way for the Colombo Port City project. Whatever the rhetoric in and outside Parliament, both the UNP/SJB contributed to the legal authorization of the Colombo Port City project received in May this year.

 

Post-2015 Lanka-Japan relations

The change of government here, in 2015, paved the way for Japan to take its relationship with Sri Lanka to the next level. The recent conversation, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with Japanese Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi, should be viewed against the backdrop of the 2015 Japan-Sri Lanka Comprehensive Partnership. House of Representative member Kishi, of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), is a younger brother of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a grandson of former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi.

The then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe signed the Comprehensive Partnership agreement on Oct 6, 2015 in Tokyo. The 25-point declaration dealt with Japanese warships of its Maritime Self Defence Force (JMSDF) visiting Sri Lankan ports.

In terms of political consultations and maritime cooperation therein “Both leaders recognized the importance of cooperation and exchanges between the two defence establishments on maritime security…”.

Itsunori Onodera, also of the LDP, who served as the Defence Minister (Aug 2017-Oct 2018) visited the Trincomalee and Hambantota ports, in 2018. Before Kishi received the defence portfolio, in September, 2020, Takeshi Iwaya (Oct 2018-Sept 2019) and Taro Kono (Sept 2019-Sept 2020), both members of the LDP, held the key portfolio.

According to a Japanese Defence Ministry statement, issued on July 6, Defence Minister Kishi held a 30-minute teleconference, commencing 2.10 pm, with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The following is the text of the statement issued from Tokyo: “Both sides exchanged views on bilateral defence cooperation and exchanges and welcomed the steady progress being made in a broad range of areas, including naval cooperation and aerial cooperation. In this context, both sides welcomed the bilateral exercise “JA-LAN EX” which was successfully conducted in September 2020, Maritime Self-Defence Force vessel’s first participation in Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise hosted by Sri Lanka and the U.S., which took place last week, as well as the successful delivery of the online Air Rescue seminar in May 2021.Both sides confirmed that they will share knowledge and lessons learned from infectious disease control measures taken by the defence authorities. Furthermore, both sides concurred that Japan and Sri Lanka will further promote bilateral defence cooperation and exchanges based on the Memorandum on Defence Cooperation and Exchanges signed in 2019. Both sides also exchanged views on the recent regional security issues, including the East China Sea and the South China Sea. In this context, Minister Kishi expressed strong opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by coercion in the East and South China Seas. Both sides affirmed that they will send a clear message about the importance of free, open, and rules-based maritime order. Both sides also concurred in maintaining close communication between respective defence authorities and proactively promoting defence cooperation and exchanges to uphold and reinforce a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

 

Regional security issues

Japan is at loggerheads with China. Japanese Defence Ministry statement released by the Japanese Embassy in Colombo dealt with what the US ally called regional security issues, including the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The Japanese Embassy also issued statements in Sinhala and Tamil regarding the discussion which covered both bilateral issues and regional security issues. Why on earth does Tokyo wants Sri Lanka to underscore the importance of free, open Indo-Pacific and rules-based maritime order? China’s disputes with Japan other states over territorial sovereignty and resource claims in the East and South China Seas are matter of grave concern. Obviously, Japan raised complex security concerns with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa because Tokyo considered Sri Lanka-China relations inimical to the interests of those opposed to rapid Chinese strides. Simmering disputes centre on (i) overlapping maritime resource claims and sovereign control over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands northeast of Taiwan, and (ii) the complex web of disputes between China and several Southeast Asian countries (Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan) over many islands, atolls, reefs, and shoals in the South China Sea. In addition to those issues, there are a range of disputes over naval operations within China’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and ‘activities’ at other theatres. Japan and those who are concerned about Chinese military presence in other parts of the world, including Chinese investments in Sri Lanka conveniently forget significant US military presence in Japan, South Korea, Australia, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Guam, etc. (On the invitation of US State Department, the writer had an opportunity to visit US military facilities in South Korea, as well as Hawaii in the ‘90s) et al. One-time Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera, during a high profile visit to Hambantota, commented on the availability of the Hambantota port leased to China to all countries. Japanese NHK TV covering Onodera’s visit to Sri Lanka, the first by a Japanese Defence Minister, stated: “Top defence officials of Japan and Sri Lanka have confirmed that a Sri Lankan port leased to China should be open to all countries to ensure freedom of navigation. Minister Onodera said the Hambantota port, in southern Sri Lanka, is located on a crucial shipping route. State Minister for Defense Ruwan Wijewardene said his country will not permit China to use the port for military purposes.”

Obviously, Japan, India, South Korea and Australia pursue a common strategy Vis- a- Vis Sri Lanka regardless of political developments here. Can we forget how former President Maithripala Sirisena finalised Access and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) with the US in early August 2017? President Sirisena acknowledged the signing of ACSA at a meeting with senior representatives of print and electronic media at the President’s House in response to a query raised by the writer. The writer sought clarification from President Sirisena after he claimed he wouldn’t give into US pressure over ACSA, SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) and MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact under any circumstances. During Maithripala Sirisena’s tenure as the President, Sri Lanka engaged in a dialogue with the US over ACSA, MCC and SOFA. It would be pertinent to mention that Sri Lanka first entered into ACSA way back in March 2007 with the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa signing the agreement on behalf of Sri Lanka.

 

13 A

India is deeply concerned about Sri Lanka’s close relationship with China. India put pressure on the previous Rajapaksa government to halt major Chinese infrastructure projects. India also sought US intelligence on the Hambantota port, at the onset of the Hambantota port project during the early stages of the war. India’s concern over the growing Chinese presence in Sri Lanka is exploited by Western powers to their advantage. However, India, on a collision course with China needs the US backing, though Washington humiliated Modi before the world by a much publicized denial of a visa to him to visit US in 2005. The US found fault with Modi for violence directed at the Muslim community in 2002. The US alleged that Modi’s Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) carried out the massacre of over 1,000 Indian Muslims. As a member of Quad, the US now expects New Delhi to play a certain crucial role against Beijing. The US seems confident of India’s wherewithal to meet the Chinese challenge, alongside Western powers. The pressure being mounted on Sri Lanka is part of that strategy. However, India has a separate project going on in Sri Lanka. A project meant to preserve the gains New Delhi made here in 1980s by enactment of the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution. While battling the Chinese, India is busy, cleverly advancing its political project by working with lawmakers and other interested parties, including ex-members of the LTTE. Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Gopal Baglay and Deputy High Commissioner K. Vinod and Political Councillor Mrs Banu Prakash over the past several months reiterated India’s support for devolution on the basis of full implementation of the 13 A and the early conduct of Provincial Council polls.

One-time LTTE field commander and ex-lawmaker Karuna (Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan), ex-LTTE cadre lawmaker Pillayan (Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan) were among those invited by the Indian High Commission.

However, the recent meet Baglay, Vinod and Prakash had with lawmakers of Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) is far more interesting as the outfit is part of the main Opposition SJB. Four TPA members elected on the SJB ticket met the Indian delegation at India House on July 6. The discussion covered what the Indian High Commission declared as the significance of the Indian Housing and other community development projects implemented in the plantation region.

India cannot be faulted for adopting strategies meant to advance its clout here. Over the years, Sri Lankan political parties have paved the way for external interventions with some members of Parliament repeatedly seeking foreign interventions. Some Tamil political parties represented in Parliament, early this year, sought foreign intervention here in the run-up to the 46th Geneva session.

The TNA led grouping urged member states of Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights council and (1)other organs of the United Nations, including the UN Security Council, and the UN General Assembly take up Sri Lanka accountability issue and take suitable action by reference to the International Criminal Court and any other appropriate and effective international accountability mechanisms to inquire into the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity (ii) The President of the UNHRC refers matters on accountability in Sri Lanka back to the UN Secretary General for action as stated above (iii) Member States to mandate the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to continue to monitor Sri Lanka for ongoing violations and have an OHCHR field presence in country and (iv) Without detracting from that which has been stated in point 1 above, take steps to establish an evidence gathering mechanism similar to the International Independent Investigatory Mechanism (IIIM) in relation to Syria established as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly with a strict time frame of twelve months duration.

Those relentlessly pushing Sri Lanka on the human rights front on the basis of unsubstantiated war crimes accusations are opposed to Sri Lanka’s relationship with China. The UK, in its capacity as the leader of self-appointed Sri Lanka Core Group and Canada embroiled in controversy over the secret deaths of nearly 900 indigenous children, who were recently found buried in unmarked graves are spearheading the campaign against Sri Lanka. The UK and Canada never bothered to inquire into how they contributed to terrorism in Sri Lanka by giving a free hand to the LTTE to raise funds and operate in their countries.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka lacked backbone, at least to set the record straight. Sri Lanka’s failure to efficiently counter war crimes accusations has facilitated high profile external project to snare the country in Geneva. The TNA that served the LTTE’s macabre cause till it was militarily defeated on the banks of the Nandikadal lagoon in May 2009, received recognition as the saviour of the Tamil community at the end of the conflict. The incumbent government is obviously incapable of setting the record straight. British High Commissioner Sarah Hulton recently received a TNA parliamentary delegation to discuss Sri Lanka’s human rights record. Perhaps, HC Hulton should have inquired from TNA leader R. Sampanthan the circumstances (i) he recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil community at the expense of his party and all other Tamil lawmakers (ii) engineered UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s defeat at the 2005 presidential election and lastly (iii) backed General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election having accused his Army of massacring thousands of Tamil civilians.

As long as Sri Lanka fails to address domestic issues, including rapidly deteriorating national economy due to the pandemic, waste, corruption, irregularities and negligence, foreign powers will have an opportunity to intervene. Sri Lanka is a glaring example of system failure. A simple scrutiny of COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises), COPA (Committee on Public Accounts) and COPF (Committee on Public Finance) will reveal the pathetic situation. A weak economy opens the country for foreign interventions in various forms. Sri Lanka is certainly a case in point.



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