Connect with us

Midweek Review

Over a decade after triumph over LTTE, Lanka still troubled by Western agenda



Prof. G.L. Peiris with colleague, Dinesh Gunawardena at the Foreign Ministry on the day he succeeded the latter (pic courtesy FM)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

A reference was made as regards the role played by Japanese Special Envoy Yasushi Akashi in the Norway-led peace process during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s premiership (2001-2003) when Japanese Ambassador in Colombo Akira Sugiyama paid a courtesy call on Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris on August 20.

Having won the Dec 2001 violence- marred parliamentary election, UNP leader Wickremesinghe swiftly signed the one-sided Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Feb 2002, obviously prepared by the Norwegians. Even the country’s Commander-in-Chief the then President Chandrika Kumaratunga was unaware of any of the CFA terms till it was signed. The UNP leader was in such a hurry he didn’t even bother to properly consult the military before the finalisation of the CFA. Wickremesinghe and the late Velupillai Prabhakaran signed the CFA, separately.

Don’t forget the UNPer finalised the so-called peace initiative, launched by Norway, in consultation with the then President Chandrika Kumaratunga. The late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, too, had been involved in that initiative.

What really matters is why former Co-Chairs, having pathetically failed in their high profile project, are now pursuing an agenda targeting Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). What did Sri Lanka do wrong to end up at the UNHRC agenda? Didn’t the US declare UNHRC a cesspit of political bias in June 2018? The then US Ambassador there Nikki Haley declared: “For too long the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abuses and a cesspool of political bias.” By whatever standards, the US is one of the worst serious human rights violators with a murderous record both in and outside the US.

Prof. Peiris, who had served as the Foreign Minister during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term (2010-2015) received the foreign affairs portfolio again during the recent Cabinet reshuffle.

Prof. Peiris succeeded Rohitha Bogollagama, who switched allegiance to Kumaratunga in Nov 2004, having entered Parliament on the UNP ticket. Bogollagama, who successfully handled foreign affairs during Eelam War IV, failed to retain his seat at the 2010 general election from the Colombo District with some of the other UPFA candidates openly ganging up against him on election platforms. He contested Colombo as SLFP Organiser for Kotte, having first entered Parliament in 2000, 2001 (general election due to dissolution caused by a dozen PA MPs switching sides) and finally 2004 from Kurunegala on the UNP ticket. ‘The day Mangala issued a warning to P’karan’ in last Wednesday’s online edition of The Island dealt with how Bogollagama received the foreign affairs portfolio in Feb 2007 in the wake of the unceremonious removal of the late Samaraweera over differences with the Rajapaksas. They differed sharply on the conduct of the military strategy though that was certainly not the only contentious issue. Prof. Peiris was also in the same Cabinet.

Prof. Peiris back at FM

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has now brought back the one time top law academic to the Foreign Ministry at the expense of Dinesh Gunawardena, who received the Education Portfolio amidst the simmering controversy over teachers’ salary issue. Switching of portfolios took place on Aug. 16 at the Presidential Secretariat. The President’s Media Division (PMD) refrained from releasing pictures of ministers taking oaths before the President. There hadn’t been a previous instance of the PMD not releasing pictures/video footage.

A Foreign Ministry statement quoted Prof. Peiris as having told Ambassador Sugiyama of what he called valuable contribution made by Akashi, now 90, in the peace negotiations and reference was also made to the Japanese role in the post-war reconciliation process and human rights issues. Foreign Secretary Admiral Prof. Jayanath Colombage was also associated with Foreign Minister Peiris at the meeting.

It is a supreme irony that the US that dropped the world’s first two atomic bombs on two highly populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan to surrender when it was already virtually on its knees unable to stop the carpet bombing by the US Air Force of the country is now an ally of Washington ready to support whatever the Americans would bid it to do.

Having finished off the LTTE in May 2009, Sri Lanka has been struggling to explain the conduct of its armed forces for having crushed ‘the most ruthless terrorist organisation’ (termed by the American Federal Bureau of Investigation) in conventional battles against the wishes of the self-appointed international community that has committed far worse crimes in an array of countries.

It would be pertinent to mention that during the Wickremesinghe premiership Prof. Peiris served as Sri Lanka’s top negotiator in the Norway-facilitated talks with the LTTE. Japan enjoyed a special status in the Oslo-led peace process that collapsed in April 2003 in the wake of the LTTE quitting the negotiating table. After the assassination of Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in August 2005 and the abortive bid to assassinate the then Army Commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka in late April 2006, fighting erupted in the North and East in August. Had the LTTE succeeded in eliminating the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Dec 2006, the war could have taken a different turn.

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion in May 2009. But over a decade after the eradication of terrorism, Sri Lanka remains on politically motivated Geneva agenda with the issue coming up again later this month.

The UNHRC in March this year adopted a new resolution on Sri Lanka. The Resolution 46/1, adopted on March 23, 2021, paved the way for a powerful new accountability process to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence of international crimes committed in Sri Lanka for use in future prosecutions.The so-called Core Group comprising the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia that submitted the resolution received the backing of an overwhelming majority of the 47-member UNHRC. Altogether 22 Human Rights Council members voted for the resolution at the behest of the powerful US/UK, while 11 voted against, and 14 abstained. In spite of the longstanding close relationship between Japan and Sri Lanka, the former abstained. Japan had no alternative but to conveniently abstain as it couldn’t decide on its own on the politically sensitive matter. Japan followed the US vis-a-vis Sri Lanka at the UNHRC though the solitary Super Power quit the organisation. South Korea went a step further by voting for the resolution as Seoul couldn’t ignore US dictate.

Sri Lanka should realise the Comprehensive Partnership the two countries entered into in Oct 2015 (PM Shinzo Abe and Ranil Wickremesinghe signed the agreement in Tokyo) less than a week after the yahapalana administration betrayed the military in Geneva on Oct 1, 2015 didn’t matter as Quad member Japan is politically, economically and security-wise bonded with the US. Remember, how Abe reflected on U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit in 2016 to Hiroshima. The Japanese leader asserted: “The two enemies that fought immensely 71 years ago are now bonded by the heart.”

The ongoing confrontation between China and Quad comprising the US, Japan, India and Australia has brought Sri Lanka under further pressure due to the US-led alliance taking an extremely hostile stand as regards China-Sri Lanka relationship.

Prof. Peiris and Basil Rajapaksa, who received the Finance Portfolio a couple of weeks before the mini-Cabinet reshuffle met Colombo-based envoys representing major powers. Sri Lanka, now embroiled in a severe balance of payments crisis, needs the backing of the international community and the understanding of international lending agencies, particularly the IMF. The current crisis should be examined, sensibly, against the backdrop of the economic turmoil caused by the raging Covid-19 epidemic as it caused the total collapse of the vibrant tourism industry and nose dived remittances from our expatriate workers, both of which raked in billions of dollars annually to the country. However, the SLPP government and the Opposition shouldn’t forget the country could have faced the global pandemic much better if not for the ruination of the economy caused by unbridled waste, corruption, irregularities and negligence since independence by all counts. Those who represent the SLPP and the SJB in the current parliament cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for the present state of the national economy. Energy Minister and attorney-at-law Udaya Gammanpila should be commended for publicly warning the government of dire consequences unless remedial measures were taken. The warning was given on June 13 in the wake of SLPP demanding Gammanpila’s resignation over the sharp increase in fuel prices announced on June 11. In spite of SLPP’s vow to bring down the price of fuel once Basil Rajapaksa received the finance portfolio the ruling party quietly suppressed the issue.

Thalpahewa clarifies

Foreign Ministry faces a daunting task in countering external challenges. Before dealing with current challenges let me mention career diplomat Chanaka Thalpahewa’s response to ‘India’s Vietnam moment, US pullout and Afghan dilemma with strapline UNP’s call to terminate diplomatic relations with Taliban questionable’ carried in August 25, 2021 online edition. Thalpahewa, who recently returned to the Foreign Ministry having served UN Habitat as head of the agency for Sri Lanka and the Maldives emphasized the pivotal importance of keeping in mind the origins of terrorism here. “There cannot be an ambiguity as regards the origins of Tamil terrorism here,” the author of Ashgate publication ‘Peaceful Intervention in Intra-State Conflicts: Norwegian Involvement in the Sri Lanka Peace Process’ Thalpahewa said. Having headed the Sri Lankan mission in London at the time of President Sirisena’s visit in early 2015 pointed out the declaration made by retired Vice Admiral G.M. Hiranandani regarding the Indian role in terrorism in Sri Lanka. VA Hiranandani authored a trilogy on the official history of the Indian Navy namely: Transition to Triumph (covering the period 1965 to 1975), Transition to Eminence (1976 to 1990), and Transition to Guardianship that covered the last decade of the twentieth century. The book that dealt with the 1976 to 1990 period confirmed the establishment of terrorist training camps in South India in 1981, two years before the first major LTTE attack on the Army in the Jaffna peninsula. The outspoken Foreign Service officer agreed with the writer’s assertion that India created an environment conducive for direct intervention here. Thalpahewa’s well researched book is a must read for those interested in knowing the truth as Sri Lanka is yet to set the record straight.

Today nuclear power India is part of the overall US strategy and like Japan is ready to counter the growing Chinese influence in the region. Here too it is an irony that the West that more or less treated India like a leper not too long ago and even attempted to break it up by lighting separatist fires across the great ancient country, from the 70’s now has become a lap dog of the US instead of holding her head high as the world’s second largest economic power before long, while Washington is self-relegating herself as a has been due to her profligacy and sheer arrogance.

Sri Lanka has been caught up in the battle between the US-led Quad and China for superiority and certainly a victim of circumstances due to its strategic positioning. The bone of contention is the increasing Chinese presence in Sri Lanka with Colombo International Container Terminals Ltd., (CICT), joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), 99-year lease on the Hambantota port and the Colombo Port City being strategic investments.

Challenges faced by GR administration

Having succeeded Dinesh Gunawardena on Aug 16, Prof. Peiris received top envoys of India (skipped UK sponsored Geneva vote on Sri Lanka accountability resolution), China (voted against), US, EU, Russia (voted against), Japan (skipped), Pakistan (voted against), South Korea (voted for), Kuwait, Germany (voted for), the Netherlands (voted for), Australia, Turkey, Qatar, Norway, Vatican, Libya, UN and Italy (voted for). Unfortunately, Sri Lanka never managed to set the record straight as regards the accountability issue. Successive governments since the successful conclusion of the war in May 2009 squandered opportunities to vigorously present our case. The SLPP, too, has so far failed pathetically.

In the absence of a cohesive effort on Sri Lanka’s part, India stepped up pressure on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC with a strong reference to 13th Amendment to the Constitution forced down our throat during the Indian Army deployment in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern province following the infamous ‘parippu drop’.

The UN and so-called Sri Lanka Core Group, in consultation with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), one-time the LTTE’s sidekick worked overtime to harass Sri Lanka at Geneva. Successive governments, including the SLPP conveniently failed so far at least to officially inform the unbreakable relationship between the LTTE and the TNA until the very end. The TNA, having backed war-winning Army Commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election continues a despicable accountability agenda at the UNHRC. Of the five Sri Lanka Co-Group, three, namely the UK, Germany and Canada are major powers. The UK and Germany voted for the anti-Sri Lanka resolution whereas Canada backed it. Core Group bared its intentions when it raised the arrest of 2019 Easter Sunday carnage suspect Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah and retired Director, CID Shani Abeysekera at the UNHRC. The Foreign Ministry must examine the whole picture without being distracted by various events.

The UK is home to an influential segment of the Tamil Diaspora as well as former members of the LTTE, including Adele Balasingham, a high profile terrorist who may have been even aware of the May 1991 assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Having repeatedly refused to help establish the truth by making available wartime UK diplomatic dispatches fromthe UK HC in Colombo, the UK continues to fool Sri Lanka by maintaining proscription of the LTTE in terms of the UK Terrorism Act No. 7 of 2000. The British action is meant to deceive Sri Lanka. The British ban is nothing but propaganda. Actually, the UK never restricted LTTE activity and throughout the war stood by Prabhakaran’s conventional fighting cadre. Sri Lanka Core Group members, the UK and France (voted for anti-Sri Lanka resolution) with the backing of the UN and the US made a last ditch bid in April 2009 to throw a lifeline to the LTTE. Had they succeeded, the current inoculation drive against the raging Covid-19 epidemic would have to be carried out in consultation with the LTTE. Hope, the people haven’t forgotten how the LTTE and Western powers exploited the post-tsunami situation to set up P-TOMS (Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure) to share power with the LTTE.

Among the dignitaries, Prof. Peiris recently met included UN Resident Coordinator Hanaa Singer who has been absolutely pursuing a hostile agenda here. Having taken over the mission in Sept 2018, Singer quite clearly played politics here. She revealed her hand clearly on a number of occasions. Singer intervened on behalf of those demanding their right to bury Covid-19 victims. She went to the extent of writing to Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa over the cremation of COVID-19 victims’ bodies. Sri Lanka never properly challenged the UN mechanism used to collect information and the use of unverified data to move the 2015 accountability resolution. This Viceroy type behaviour of the UN big wigs here has been going on for far too long.

It was only the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, who had the guts to tell the UN where to get off when an arrogant Norwegian who was posted here as the Resident Representative at around the beginning of the present millennium unilaterally decided to convert the UN compound in Colombo into a Tamil refugee camp soon after some serious military debacles in the North. It was obviously a premeditated attempt to create a problem situation here without there being any violence against Tamils anywhere in the South!

Those in power should be particularly ashamed for failing to challenge the confidentiality clause inserted by the UN that prevents the examination of UN (judicial or otherwise) data till 2031. We must be the only country prevented from seeing who our accusers are. All those countries voted for the resolution and abstained at the March 2021 session are involved in the plot against Sri Lanka though some did so reluctantly at the behest of the US.

In the wake of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s triumph at the 2019 presidential election, Switzerland Embassy in Colombo with the support of political elements here staged an abduction of embassy employee Garnier Bannister Francis (formerly Siriyalatha Perera). Their project failed when President Rajapaksa thwarted the Swiss bid to evacuate Francis along with her family. The Swiss also provided political asylum to Inspector Nishantha de Silva of the CID and his family just before the trumped up abduction drama. Perhaps Prof. Peiris should take up these matters with the Swiss Ambassador when the latter pays a courtesy call on him.

Sri Lanka needs to tackle contentious issues. The country whoever is at the helm cannot turn a blind eye to contentious trumped up issues. The continuing failure on the part of the government to address the core issue raised by Lord Naseby pertaining to the veracity of the main allegation that 40,000 Tamils perished on the Vanni east front is quite baffling. Thanks to Lord Naseby’s revelation in Oct 2017 regardless of the continuing humiliation at Geneva, the world knows how the UK suppressed authentic diplomatic cables that cleared Sri Lanka of war crimes. Lord Naseby fought a near three-year legal battle to secure a section of the cables. The UK’s efforts to suppress such information are understandable as whoever in power, voters of Sri Lankan Tamil origin there cannot be antagonized. But Sri Lanka’s failure to present her case properly is much worse. The UPFA/SLPP failure on the human rights front is perhaps far worse than the UNP’s betrayal of armed forces at the UNHRC in 2015.

Sri Lanka’s disgraceful letdown should be examined against the US Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s bombshell revelation in June 2011 that Sri Lanka military didn’t perpetrate war crimes. Perhaps, the Foreign Ministry should revisit the accountability issue again against the backdrop of the NATO pullout from Afghanistan last month that reminded us of Indian withdrawal from Sri Lanka in 1990.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Govt. in dilemma over anti-terrorism law:



Tamil speaking people protest in Batticaloa on Feb 23, 2019 against the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) and the proposed CTA (Counter Terrorism Act). They demanded the abolition of anti-terrorism laws.

No letup in Int’l, civil society pressure

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Under any circumstances, post-war Sri Lanka cannot ignore international concerns as regards the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (No 48 of 79).

A section of the international community wants Sri Lanka to amend the PTA without further delay. The civil society organisation, One-Text Initiative (OTI) has pointed out repealing the PTA is a necessity underscored by the European Union and the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as well as by Western-funded civil rights organisations and international agencies. It would be pertinent to mention that the OTI came into being in 2003 in the wake of the Norway arranged Ceasefire Agreement (CFA). The CFA, too, made reference to the PTA. The following is the relevant section 2.12: The parties agree that search operations and arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act shall not take place. Arrests shall be conducted under due process of law in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the public should know the PTA had been an issue for the LTTE, too.

Following the 5th Meeting of the European Union – Sri Lanka Working Group on Good Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights on Sept. 29, 2021, they issued a comprehensive statement.

Let me reproduce the relevant section verbatim: “Sri Lanka provided an update on the action in process to review the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and reiterated its commitment to bring it in line with international norms and standards within a time bound process. The EU and Sri Lanka agreed to take stock of the progress in this regard by the next meeting of the EU-Sri Lanka Joint Commission in early 2022. The need to uphold international norms and standards of human rights while countering terrorism and violent extremism was also underlined.”

OTI last Monday (25) arranged a discussion on the PTA and its impact with the participation of lawyer Chrishmal Warnasuriya, Dr Paikiasothy Sarawanamuttu, UK-based Amal Abeywardene and the writer. Harindra B Dassanayake moderated the two-hour discussion. All agreed with Dr. Sarawanamuttu’s call for a moratorium of the PTA until the government and those engaged in discussions on the future of the security law reached a consensus. The civil society guru also suggested until consensus could be reached on the issue at hand, the Attorney General should be authorised to facilitate bail to those held under the PTA. That proposal, too, should be seriously considered. OTI raised specific issues relating to the PTA. Why does the reforming/ repealing of PTA matter? , What is the situation now, and what is likely to happen? Are there options for Sri Lanka, and with what consequences? What hinders change? And what paths and steps are recommended? The OTI initiative should be appreciated.

Western powers are eternally interested in accountability issues and related matters here. However, there is no such enthusiasm to correct far worse continuing wrongs in places like Egypt, Israel or for that matter the continuing genocide in Yemen, thanks to Saudi Arabia and UAE or against international drug rings freely operating from capitalist citadels, like Dubai!

Since the end of the war in May 2009, the GoSL (Government of Sri Lanka) has been under tremendous pressure to either abolish the PTA or amend it in line with laws in place in other parts of the world. Do we need anti-terrorism laws? Do they serve any purpose or strengthen Sri Lanka’s response to terrorist challenge? Sri Lanka should have examined how PTA facilitated the country’s overall response to terrorism.

Unfortunately, successive governments conveniently failed to do so just to appease the West fearing a greater orchestrated outcry against the country, thereby contributed to some international efforts to discredit the Sri Lankan military as well as the law enforcement apparatus.

The country experienced two terrorist campaigns in the South in 1971 and 1987-1990 and the 30-year-old war spearheaded by the LTTE. Sri Lanka defeated all three attempts through military means. The country had no option but to deal militarily with terrorism and conventional military challenge, regardless of opposition. Some sections of the international community oppose the PTA. But no one talks about draconian anti-terror laws in place for example in the USA or the UK since 9/11 and thereafter.

They always boast about a rules-based order followed by the international community. What is this international community? It is nothing but a self-appointed handful of countries in the West that earlier plundered much of the world at their will.

Interestingly, almost all those countries demanding abolition or amendments to the PTA provide refuge to those who should have been dealt with in terms of anti-terrorism laws. Those countries swiftly accept accusations that the PTA is used widely and indiscriminately at the expense of public freedom and also against political opponents.

Focus on PTA cases

Let me briefly refer to four recent cases that had attracted international attention due to some of those involved being arrested in terms of the PTA, as well as accusations relating to Sri Lankans seeking political refuge overseas: (i) Arrest of Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah in April 2020 over his alleged involvement in the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage (ii) the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) statement on the arrest and the subsequent release of All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) leader and MP representing the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) Rishad Bathiudeen. The MP was also taken into custody in terms of the PTA over the Easter Sunday attacks blamed on National Thowheed Jamaat. It would be pertinent to mention that the IPU represents altogether nearly 180 Parliaments all over the world (iii) New Zealand police killing Ahamed Adhil Mohamed Samsudeen, 31, who had secured political asylum therein in Dec 2013 on the basis of him being under threat in Sri Lanka. No less a person than New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has admitted how the man from Kattankudy, who knifed several persons in an Auckland shopping mall received inspiration from ISIS (iv) New Zealand granting political asylum to a Sri Lankan wanted in connection with the Easter Sunday attacks. The suspect also wanted under the PTA received New Zealand protection soon after the mayhem in the shopping mall.

Hizbullah’s arrest was also taken up by the UK-led Sri Lanka Core Group at the UNHRC as well as by HRC Michelle Bachelet. In spite of Hizbullah personally knowing two of the Easter bombers and their father, Mohammad Yusuf Ibrahim, he should be considered innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

Hizbullah knew them as he had represented the wealthy family in court and his right as a lawyer to represent anyone should never be questioned whatever the accusations directed at his clients. The UN, foreign government and the civil society, too, should have the right to represent the interests of anyone regardless of the accusations. In the absence of own legal representation or the inability to procure legal services, suspects, whatever the accusations directed at them, reserved the right to obtain legal support from the Attorney General’s Department.

Similarly, the State, in this case the Sri Lanka State shouldn’t give up its right to take security measures deemed necessary to protect the public. The government cannot forfeit its right to defend the public against acts of terrorism. However, every effort should be made to address concerns of the UN and the EU as regards the PTA.

Most importantly, the government should respond to concerns raised by the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and all other political parties representing the Tamil speaking people as well as the civil society such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA).

The incumbent government in June this year appointed a high powered committee chaired by Defence Secretary Gen. Kamal Gunaratne to examine the PTA. The Committee has been asked to recommend whether to suitably amend the current law or introduce new counter-terrorism law.

Prez wants PTA examined

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to examine the Counter Terrorism Act (CAT) prepared on the instruction of former Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe should be appreciated. Gen. Gunaratne’s committee received specific instructions to study the CAT. The government should be ashamed of its failure to undertake a comprehensive study on the PTA before foreign powers intervened. Having examined the CAT, the writer is quite convinced it addressed concerns of all.

Prepared by the previous government in consultations with the British, French, EU et al, the CAT can be the basis for proposed new law or facilitate required amendments to the existing PTA.

Sri Lanka should seek a guarantee as regards comprehensive cooperation from Western governments to address threats posed by terrorism. They cannot ignore such a request on the basis of their domestic laws. A lot depends on international cooperation to fight terrorism. Western powers no longer can deny their response to terrorism elsewhere, in a way, promoted terrorism on their soil. How many Sri Lankan terrorists received political asylum in those countries, particularly in the UK, Canada and Germany? Sri Lanka cannot forget the fact that Western powers at least do not share information regarding missing persons. How many thousands of those categorised as missing or disappeared Lankans live overseas under different names.

The recent assassination of ruling party British lawmaker David Amess, 69, is a case in point. The police arrested 25-year-old Ali Harbi Ali, British passport holder of Somali origin over the stabbing in a church east of London. Hope the British investigate the circumstances under which the assassin received British nationality. Having declared the MP’s killing an act of terrorism, the British should conduct a no holds barred investigation. The British media reported the suspect has been detained in terms of additional powers under anti-terrorism laws.

In June 2016, another terrorist, who believed in white power, assassinated 41-year-old Jo Cox. She was shot thrice and then stabbed 15 times. The British cannot turn a blind eye to the growing threat posed by terrorism. Perhaps, law enforcement authorities require wider powers to deal with new threats.

Incidents in New Zealand, Norway, France, Germany and other countries must influence governments to take sufficient measures to ensure public protection. The civil society as well as international organisations, such as IPU, too, should be accountable for campaigns they do. They should be mindful of their actions.

The IPU’s right to be concerned over MP Bathiudeen’s detention should be respected. There shouldn’t be any issue over IPU’s response to the Sri Lankan politician’s arrest. Let the IPU closely examine MP Bathiudeen’s case. Perhaps, the IPU should make its position public on the assassination of Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar and clandestine meeting the Norwegian government had with the LTTE’s British advisor Anton Balasingham in the UK to discuss ways and means of managing the fallout.

Those who want Sri Lanka to adhere to international standards in the formulation of anti-terrorism laws should be reminded how Commonwealth heavyweight India destabilised Sri Lanka. The transformation of Sri Lanka’s ceremonial armed forces to one of the best fighting forces in the world should be studied against the backdrop of Indian intervention. Sri Lanka needed the PTA as part of the overall measures against terrorism. Can anyone honestly declare that clandestine LTTE operations in Colombo and its suburbs could have been thwarted without the PTA.? Sri Lanka had no option but to fight back. The PTA had been part of the overall defence. The PTA should be discussed taking into account high profile terrorist operations in the South that resulted in political assassinations. Perhaps, the PTA hadn’t been enough to neutralise the LTTE. They succeeded in assassinating President Ranasinghe Premadasa on May Day 1993, made an abortive bid to assassinate Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga at the final PA rally ahead of the 1999 presidential election, blew up over 50 people, including UNP presidential candidate Gamini Dissanayake in late Oct 1994, suicide attack on the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa in April 2006 and Oct 2009, respectively. All those responsible for the above-mentioned terrorist attacks came to the South as innocent civilians until the moment they transformed themselves into human bombs.

Those who demand that the government treat terrorist suspects with respect did nothing when the LTTE blasted civilians outside the war zone while mingling with ordinary people. Interestingly, years before the ISIS influenced terrorists, the LTTE inspired Norway’s worst ever terrorist attack. The far–right Norwegian terrorist who massacred 77 people, including dozens of children, is on record as having explained how LTTE terrorism directed at Muslims inspired him.

International interventions

The EU’s strong push against Sri Lanka’s current anti-terrorism law should be examined taking into consideration its demand to do away with the death penalty.

The EU-Sri Lanka joint statement issued following the Sept. 21, 2021 meeting also dealt with the death penalty, even though the death penalty had not been carried out in the country since the mid-’70s. The relevant section is as follows: “The EU reiterated its opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances. Welcoming the continued moratorium, the EU encouraged Sri Lanka to take steps towards the formal abolition of capital punishment.”

How is it that the EU is so concerned about Sri Lanka’s dormant death penalty, but didn’t lift a finger to spare the life of Saddam Hussein or the cold blooded killing of Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi, both deaths instigated by the West?

The abolition of the PTA or enactment of new anti-terrorism law should be discussed with push for a new Constitution. The successful conclusion of the war over 12 years ago opened up a new front. The Geneva Human Rights Council got involved with the move to draft a new constitution here. Premier Wickremesinghe spearheaded that effort, too, the way he had handled unfinished project to introduce new anti-terrorism law. In fact, co-sponsorship of the 2015 Geneva resolution had been in line with the overall game plan that brought Maithripala Sirisena into power in January 2015. Following the August 2015 general election, Wickremesinghe enjoyed a commanding position in Parliament with which he could have had achieved major political objectives if not for the Treasury bond scams perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016. That is the undeniable truth.

Having lambasted the UNP, both in and outside Parliament, for planning to do away with the PTA at the behest of Western powers, the SLPP is working with the same lot to either amend or introduce new anti-terrorism laws.

The government seems incapable of at least presenting Sri Lanka’s case before the international community properly. Sri Lanka should discuss application of anti-terrorism laws during the deployment of the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force). Did the world care about what really happened in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern provinces during the IPKF deployment? Having destabilised Sri Lanka, India forced the then government to ‘accept’ the IPKF in terms of the Indo-Lanka accord signed on July 29, 1987.

Those who had been detained by the IPKF on suspicion were not handed over to Sri Lanka police for investigations. Therefore, the PTA didn’t matter. The IPKF hadn’t been accountable at all in respect of operations conducted here and those who want Sri Lanka hauled up before foreign judges over alleged war crimes /accountability issues are conveniently silent on the period India had been responsible for Northern and Eastern districts.

Easter Sunday carnage

If not for the Easter Sunday carnage, the UNHRC and the EU would have definitely demanded the abrogation of the PTA. The Western funded civil society, too, would have pushed for the same. Sri Lanka would have found it extremely difficult to justify the need for continuation of anti-terrorism laws. However, the Easter Sunday massacre proved that a country cannot take security for granted. Sri Lanka’s failure to deal with specific intelligence provided by India pertaining to impending terrorist attack, too, should be dealt in terms of the PTA.

Accusations that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) benefited at the presidential and parliamentary polls, respectively, as a result of the Easter attacks cannot be ignored. No less a person than Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith has repeatedly raised that issue against the backdrop of the incumbent government’s failure to implement recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) that inquired into the Easter attacks.

Interestingly, the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe used the Easter attacks to justify his government’s bid to replace the PTA with a new counter-terrorism law.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Modern view of the Island’s ancient past



Under the guidance and influence of Weliwita Sri Saranankara Thera, King Kirti Sri Raja Singha successfully invited Bhikkus from Siam, led by Upali Thera, to revive the higher ordination of Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka.

Ruminations – II

By Seneka Abeyratne

The Sinhalese refer to themselves as ‘Indo-Aryans’ and to the Tamils as ‘Dravidians’. Implied in this distinction is the notion, conditioned by the ideas of the chauvinists and populists, that ‘Aryan’ blood is somehow superior to ‘Dravidian’ blood. Most historians now agree that the terms ‘Indo-Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ refer to a family of ancient languages originating in North India and South India, respectively, and that they have nothing to do with race or its physical attributes, such as complexion, height, build and facial features. Indeed, in terms of physical appearance, it is often difficult to distinguish between a Sinhalese, a Tamil and a South Indian.

When it comes to facial features and complexion, there is as much variety among the Sinhalese as among the Tamils, suggesting that both groups are ethnically far more diverse than is commonly assumed. The same is probably true of the smaller ethnic groups, such as Moslems and Burghers. The traditional view of supposed racial and cultural uniqueness, based on facile one-dimensional theories of migration and pure descent, is no longer considered valid.

It is not implausible to argue that over time the Tamil community, which is mainly of South-Indian origin, absorbed ethnic groups from other parts of India who shared certain cultural affinities with the Tamils, such as religion, caste, food habits, and traditional customs and practices. This may explain why some Ceylon Tamils look more like northern, western or eastern Indians than southern Indians.

The Sinhalese likewise are ethnically diverse. While it may be true that the early settlers came from northwestern or northeastern India, later settlers likely came from other parts of India, including southern India. It is also possible that some synthesis occurred between early settlers and indigenous elements. Since it was common practice for ancient Sinhala kings and noblemen to marry into South Indian dynasties, we could assume that Sri Lanka and South India had close cultural and political ties from a very early age.

Even Vijaya, the purported founder of the Sinhala race, is believed to have married a princess from Madurai. Many of the Sinhala-speaking people in the Vanni region, north of Anuradhapura, are probably descendants of the Vanniyars, who are reputed to have migrated to the island from southern India. The periods 1056-1236 and 1473-1815 correspond to the Polonnaruwa and Kandyan kingdoms, respectively. During the former, there was a significant infusion of Pandyan blood into Sinhala royalty and during the latter, a similar infusion from Madurai.

The last line of kings to rule Kandy was the Tamil-speaking Madurai Nayaks, a Telugu dynasty. Given that Madurai is situated in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, it is difficult to imagine there was no commingling of Sinhalese and Tamil blood during this time. The Cheras, who came during the Portuguese period, injected a large dose of South-Indian blood into the southern littoral of Sri Lanka. The ethnic links between the Sinhalese and the South Indians are probably far more extensive than is commonly assumed.

Though the subcontinent figures prominently in Sri Lanka’s ethnic equation as per the periodic influx of settlers to the island from various parts of India during the Late Protohistoric to Early Historic Period (600 BCE-300 CE), we should not ignore the fact that the Sri Lankan gene is extremely diverse. There is evidence to suggest that in ancient times, people from Malaya and Indonesia migrated as far as Madagascar and the East African coast. It is therefore plausible to argue that while crossing the Indian Ocean, some of the boats carrying these people would have landed on our shores. Similar migrations would have occurred even in historic times. One has only to note the distinct Malay-Indonesian features of many a Sri Lankan to realise there must have been a continual migration of Southeast Asians to the island during historic and prehistoric times.

Melting Pot

A keen observer strolling through Kandy town, having noticed that some Kandyans resemble Malays or Javanese while others resemble Thais or Burmese, may arrive at the conclusion that Sri Lanka is and has always been a melting pot of different cultures. Some Kandyans also resemble the Burghers in respect of complexion and features. Hence one wonders how much ‘white’ blood seeped into the Sri Lankan gene pool during the four and a half centuries of western colonial rule.

It is a curious phenomenon that, despite its proximity to India, the island has more in common with Southeast Asia than with India in respect of climate and vegetation, as well as certain cultural practices. Duriyan, rambutan and mangosteens are found in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka but not elsewhere in South Asia. The food habits of Sri Lanka also demonstrate a strong Southeast Asian influence. Sri Lankans cook curries in coconut milk like the Malays and Indonesians and use lemongrass for flavouring certain dishes, as do the Thais. There is also a similarity in the peasant dress of Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia, especially in respect of females. The Malayo-Polynesian outrigger fishing boat (catamaran) is found in Sri Lanka but nowhere else in South Asia.

The only country practising Theravada Buddhism in South Asia is Sri Lanka but in Southeast Asia, there are many, such as Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos. The Buddhist factor figures prominently in the strong cultural and diplomatic ties that have existed between Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia for centuries.

From 1581 to 1591, Kandy was ruled by the Sitawaka king, Rajasinha I, who had converted to Hinduism. During this period Buddhism almost perished in the Kandyan kingdom due to the machinations of the Buddhist-turned-Hindu monarch. From 1591 to 1604 Kandy was ruled by Vimaladharmasuriya I, also known as Konappu Bandara, who succeeded in ousting Rajasinha I and reviving Buddhism with the assistance of ordained Burmese monks.

For the next hundred years or so, the Kandyan monarchs continued to protect and foster the religion. After the reign of Vimaladharmasuriya II ended (1687 to 1707), Buddhism again went into serious decline but was revived by Kirti Sri Rajasinha, who ruled from 1747 to 1782. This time it was a Thai monk named Upali Thera who came to the rescue. The Theravada monastic order known as Siam Nikaya was founded by him in Kandy in 1753 with the full support of the king. The other two main Theravada monastic orders in the island are the Ramanna Nikaya (Payagala) and the Amarapura Nikaya (Balapitiya). Both were founded by Sri Lankan bhikkhus who had been ordained in Myanmar.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

These games are dangerous



By Usvatte-aratchi

The games that the President, his government and the leader of the Opposition play are fraught with grave danger to the wellbeing of our people and to opportunities to change, grow and the preserve this society. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, as a presidential candidate held out the prospect of a land in prosperity – saubhagyaye dekma. His advisors in viyath maga, in their wisdom, saw that as a clear path to victory against a hopelessly divided government in office, poorly led and with no viable plan of action. Neither the SLPP nor the SJB wanted to inform the public of the parlous state of the economy and very bleak prospects for another two years or more. True, that is not the kind of story that a winning party would carry to the electorate. However, there was ample ammunition against the incumbent government on other accounts to knock it down with a feather. The SLPP made a serious error in not revealing the black picture and making the government 2015-2019 completely responsible for the dire situation in the country and in not pointing out the difficulties they would experience in bringing prosperity to the people, all thanks to the ineptitude of the yahapalanaya government. Instead, they were cock-a-hoop that they had ample resources and claimed that the alleged impending scarcity of resources was a fig leaf to cover the incompetence of the yahapalanaya government, so badly bared. They did not use the first opportunity in the new parliament to make a statement on the state of the economy and the deprivations that the public may suffer when policies were adopted to bring back stability. Instead, the SLPP government went on in jubilant fashion until a few weeks ago, when both Minister Bandula Gunawardena and Minister Udaya Gammanpila talked openly about the economic and financial difficulties the government faced.

Gotabaya and the SLPP avoided that trope perhaps because there was the strong possibility that SJB would have come back with the dark history of the creation of a debt problem. The spate of infrastructure projects from roads in the Hambantota district to the column by the Beira was financed mainly with loans from China, some of which jumped out of a Pandora’s Box, as it were.

It is hard to believe that planners in China were so naïve as to erroneously estimate the flow of income from the roads in Hambantota from the column near the Beira and from the Nelum Pokuna theatre in Colombo and believe that they must remain white elephants a decade after the investment began. They are likely to remain so for quite some time with the public obliged to pay back the loans. President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his supporters often said that daily a 100 ships passed our shores and we were failing to collect revenue from them because there was no port in Hambantota. More than hundred ships pass by Hambantota now and we have failed to collect revenue from them. One asset has already been leased back to the lender. The Covid epidemic only aggravated the situation which was ab initio bad, and to argue that the Chinese did not foresee this scenario is to insult their manifest ingenuity.

Consequently, the factors that motivated the investment must be sought elsewhere. The full suite of politicians and public officers that advised Mahinda Rajapaksa government to design and approve those projects and their financing are again fully in charge of economic and financial policy with the advantage of a Minister of Finance, who is as short of relevant experience as his sibling the President of state craft. Everyone, beware: the Greeks are coming with gifts.

The leader of the SJB goes around the country, promising the public that when he forms a government, he will give all sorts of benefits (sahanaya) to the public. This is pie in the sky and a poisonous pie at that. There will be no resources to play those games, for at least five years from now and that not without a heavy load of good luck. Take a lesson from present day Greece. The Opposition, as well as the government, for once, must tell the public the truth about the economic situation. (Everyone, especially ministers of government, had better learn that all and any benefits (sahanaya) that a government can give the public must come out of the income of some section of the taxpayers. Governments in this country do not earn more than three percent of their revenue; the rest is from taxes. (Many here confuse themselves and mislead the public by calling government revenue (labeem) with government income (aadayama). Income is what an enterprise earns from revenue after it meets all its expenses. Government income is what it earns by way of interest, profits and dividends. When a government borrows to give you sahanaya, it is asking yet unborn generations to pay for your benefits now. How fair is that? A politician announced on 17 October, in parliament, “We (pointing to himself) will compensate farmers for any crop losses consequent upon the implementation of the new fertiliser policy’. He, in fact, was announcing that his government would be taxing the public more to compensate farmers for crop losses resulting their unwise policies of his government. Nobody would pay to replace its lost output to the nation.

In the crudest form, our society, over the years, more conspicuously in the years 2005 to 2014, used substantially more resources than it earned. (June Robinson remarked in 1958 that we consumed the fruits before the tree had grown.) The way to do that is to borrow from anyone who is willing to lend. It is no different from a man who spends well beyond his earnings and borrows, even from a money lender, no matter the terms of the loans. A time comes when the lenders say, ‘It is time to pay up chum, and if you do not have cash, I will accept your wife’s jewellery and even the furniture and the house you live in’. This society, through its incompetent and corrupt agent, government, can default payment and become a pariah in capital markets or plead with the people that there is an alternative route to credibility. That route requires this society to cut resources use, undergo austerity.

Many made a bogeyman of the IMF presenting a programme of austerity with assistance to support the balance of payments. What we now live in is austerity, with no balance of payments support. The Minister of Finance promises us an austerity budget. There is already a freeze on completing projects. Many employees clamour for and are on strike seeking wage increases. Prices of essential commodities are rising daily. Prices of most commodities, except labour, have risen and will keep on rising. That is another way of imposing austerity. When your daily wage would buy only two cans of dried milk powder today compared to three last month for the same wage, austerity is imposed on you. (There was once the case of Argentina, where employees asked for their wages to be paid in the morning rather than at the end of the day. They bought cigarettes with their wages in the morning and sold them at a higher price in the evening to buy provisions for the home.)

What you go through now is what an austerity programme the IMF would have put you through. Besides, that programme would have been better articulated and more openly discussed. In our circumstances, budgetary support would have been inevitable. And they would have set up a structure to reschedule debt repayment. The IMF is not the only institution that can function in that manner. Any agency that enjoys international credibility and offers balance of payments support and budgetary support can perform those functions. Our government itself can do it except that it lacks the will to do so and does not enjoy international credibility. There is no escape from the requirement that our society must save (refrain from using all that it produces) and with those savings repay international debt. Leaders of neither the government nor the Opposition can hide those compulsions from the public and yet claim legitimacy. What they do now is far too dangerous a game to play.

Continue Reading