Connect with us

Midweek Review

War crimes:

Published

on

UN going the whole hog

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The newly formed Civil Society Platform (CSP) on Monday (13) dealt with entire range of accountability issues and the re-imposition of a state of emergency on the pretext of addressing food distribution. The media received the comprehensive statement endorsed by 30 organisations, and 36 individuals, soon after the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) declared its intention to go ahead with fresh investigation, as mandated at the 46th session.

The hard-hitting CSP statement should be examined against the backdrop of a dialogue between a new collective of civil society activists, grouped as Sri Lankan Collective for Consensus (SLCC). The civil society appears to be divided over their strategy in respect of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government. However, UN Rights Chief, Michelle Bachelet, one-time Chilean President, in her hard-hitting statement, at the onset of the 48th session, made reference to the meeting President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with SLCC on August 3. That is a quite a development. But, nothing has changed in Geneva and the war-winning country is on the UN agenda.

A recent statement, issued by the Executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC), Dr. Jehan Perera, on behalf of SLCC, dealt with several contentious issues.

The statement issued, subsequent to a meeting the group had with newly appointed Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, raised the following issues: the declaration of State of Emergency, Cabinet of Ministers giving the go ahead for the Legal Draftsman to prepare ‘NGO legislation,’ continuing harassment of NGOs, abolition/amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (reference was made to those who had served the LTTE and the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage suspects), implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, and holding of long-delayed Provincial Council polls, land issues in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, language issue, hate speech and misuse of the ICCPR Act, step-motherly treatment of Tamil-speaking people, by denying them participation at national events, and targeting of the Muslim community.

The above litany, however, sounds only too familiar and the chorus is the same. They have packaged themselves under the new name SLCC, but being backed by the West, have been pushing the same agenda for decades. The CSP is no different. No one ever bothered to ask for an explanation from the TNA for recognising the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people, in 2001, thereby paving the way for the Eelam War IV a couple of years later. Similarly, no one ever inquired into the clandestine relationship between UN Colombo and the LTTE. Geneva is also silent about the origins of Sri Lanka terrorism (Indian intervention).

As happened in Afghanistan, with the now infamous independent media of the West, which unquestioningly only pushed the narrative of the military industrial complex of mainly the US and the UK, for decades, have now suddenly metamorphosed into finally questioning what went wrong, only after all their lies about Afghanistan and elsewhere began to crumble overnight. Interestingly, they are pointing fingers at everyone else, except at themselves, for not having done the job as an objective media. Theirs has been, for quite some time, an embedded media that cheered on the military industrial complex and the Wall Street. May be there, too, it was all due to filthy lucre.

Prof. Peiris, who had served as the Foreign Minister during the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term (2010-2015), received the same ministry on Aug 16. The academic, who once headed the government delegation for Oslo-arranged talks with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), has assured the SLCC of the government’s readiness to work with the civil society.

The SLCC statement, headlined ‘Promise of a fresh approach for resolving national issues’, at the onset, insisted that the discussions the group so far had with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, Justice Minister Ali Sabry, Youth and Sports Minister Namal Rajapaksa, Regional Cooperation State Minister Tharaka Balasuriya and Foreign Secretary Admiral Jayanath Colombage failed to yield the desired results. So they still want the pound of flesh paid for by the West and nothing less?

Prof. Peiris seems confident that the government’s interaction with the civil society can be utilised in their dialogue with the international community, whereas the SLCC assured the new administration of its support to address concerns among the international community. However, their support would depend on the government’s readiness to address the issues raised by them.

In addition to Dr. Perera, who had represented Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in March 2018, on the invitation of the late Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, several other prominent civil society activists joined the discussion with the government. It would be pertinent to mention that the SLCC has quite justly accepted that it did not represent, what it called, the larger civil society and recognised themselves as a group of individuals, drawn from multiple sectors of society, religion, academia and non-governmental organisations, dedicated to a country established on the high sounding ‘ideals of pluralistic coexistence, human rights and justice’, but found nowhere in the world, especially not among the self-appointed good guys of the West. Just look at how they still treat their Blacks, especially by their famed law enforcers.

The SLCC comprises (1)Ven. Kalupahana Piyaratana Thera – Inter religious Alliance National Unity, Chairman, Human Development Edification Centre working for peace Reconciliation and Ecology for more than 25 years. Peace activist for more than two decades (2) Bishop Asiri Perera – Retired Bishop/President of Methodist Church (3) Rev. Fr. C.G. Jeyakumar – Parish Priest Ilavalai and Lecturer at the Jaffna Major Seminary, Human Rights Activist (4) Dr. Joe William – Founder member and Chairman of National Peace Council, Director, Centre for Communication Training and Convenor, Alliance for Justice (5) Prof. T. Jayasingam – Director NPC, former Vice Chancellor of Eastern University and former member, Public Service Commission of the Eastern Provincial Council (6) Prof. Kalinga Tudor Silva – Professor Emeritus Dept of Sociology, University of Peradeniya (7) Dr. Dayani Panagoda – Social Activist, former director of Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process and Lecturer, former member of the Official Languages Commission (8) Ms. Visaka Dharmadasa – Peace Activist, Chair of Association of War Affected Women (9) Dr. Jehan Perera – Executive Director of NPC (10) Dr. P. Saravanamuttu – Founder and Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives (11) Hilmy Ahamed – Vice President, Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, Civil activist with 35 years of communicating on issues of Peace and Justice, Chairman of Young Asia Television (12) Sanjeewa Wimalagunarathna – Former Director of Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (13) Rohana Hettiarachchi – Executive Director PAFFREL (14) Javid Yusuf – Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former Principal, Zahira College and Founder member and Governing Council member, National Peace Council NPC (15) Varnakulasingham Kamaladas – President, STA Solidarity Foundation, Vice President Batticaloa-Ampara Hindu Temples Federation, former President of Inland Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (INAYAM) Batticaloa, and (16) Ms. Sarah Arumugam – Human Rights Lawyer.

SLCC responds

Dr. Perera emphasized that they were prepared to work with any party to achieve genuine post-war national reconciliation.

The livewire behind the NPC Dr. Perera responded swiftly to several questions posed to him regarding the latest civil society initiative.

(1) The Island: Did the SLCC reach consensus with what it called ‘wider Sri Lanka civil society’ regarding the dialogue you are having with the SLPP administration?

SLCC:

No, we did not. SLCC is a loose collection of individuals drawn from civil society organisations that have reconciliation and peace building aims in their work. We have no one leader or office-bearers. Each of us is part of other networks where we have discussed the stands we take. But we do not speak as their representatives. Our common position is commitment to a united Sri Lanka that is founded on ideals of pluralistic coexistence, human rights and justice.

(2) The Island: When did you set up the SLCC?

SLCC:

We could say it was on June 23, 2021. That was the day we decided on our name. This followed two earlier consultations, organised by the Association of War Affected Women (AWAW), which were held in Kandy, to have an in depth discussion on the lessons learnt through our reconciliation process. We felt there was a need for a group, such as ours.

(3) The Island: Did you have discussions with the TNA (Tamil National Alliance) or other Tamil parties, represented in Parliament, regarding the current initiative?

SLCC:

We have not met with the TNA as yet, though we plan to meet them, and other parties, too. Earlier on we met with Charitha Herath of the SLPP, leader of the DPF Mano Ganesan, General Secretary of the SJB, Ranjith Madduma Bandara. More recently we met with Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa. We had arranged for a meeting with the Chairman of the National Movement for Social Justice, Karu Jayasuriya, but this was postponed and we hope to have it soon.

(4) The Island: Who decides the agenda?

SLCC:

Agendas of the meetings are decided by consensus, prior to the meeting, based on the need and the responsibilities of those whom we meet. Usually, following a self-introduction, we present the issues highlighted in the memorandums we have submitted.

(5) The Island: You represent the NPC, Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu represents the CPA and all others in the SLCC are members of various civil society groups. Do the SLCC members represent those organisations in the ongoing dialogue?

SLCC:

Those in the SLCC are mostly heads of organisations, who will naturally be in line with the positions of their organisations in any discussions on principle or decisions arrived at. But they are here as members in their personal capacities.

(6) The Island: Did the SLCC ever discuss these issues with the late Mangala Samaraweera?

SLCC:

No, we did not.

(7) The Island:

On the basis of BHC cables (Jan-May 2009), Lord Naseby, in Oct 2017, challenged the massacre claim of 40,000 on the Vanni east front as mentioned in the Darusman report. In June 2011, US Embassy staffer, Lt Col Smith, at the 2011 Defence Seminar, in Colombo, denied war crimes accusations (weeks after the release of Darusman report).

(8) The Island: Did government representatives or the SLCC referred to/discussed/raised the need to examine the BHC cables during discussions?

SLCC:

We limited our discussion to issues that we presented in our memorandums to them with a view to be forward looking. This included the Office of Missing Persons and its work. We did not discuss the death toll, at the end of the war, or issues of war crimes.

Contentious issues

Some of them had been involved in previous peace initiatives, including the Oslo project, finalised in Feb 2002. The SLCC has essentially pursued issues that had been taken up by a section of the international community (those who voted for Geneva resolutions or conveniently abstained) both during the conflict and after. Let me reproduce the SLCC’s stand on three key issues verbatim as mentioned in a memorandum handed over to Prof. Peiris.

Prevention of Terrorism Act:

Until the promised amendment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to cease using this law to detain people and to expedite the release of those taken into custody, under its draconian provisions, either on bail or totally where there is no legally valid evidence to justify their continued detention, especially when they have not even been charged. This applies to both long term LTTE prisoners and more recent Muslim prisoners with only a peripheral relation to the Easter Sunday bombings.

Provincial Councils:

Improve the implementation of the 13th Amendment and expedite the holding of provincial council elections so that the ethnic minorities may enjoy a measure of self-governance in the areas where they predominate.

Targeting of Minorities:

The issue of Muslims being targeted continues to fester in proposed legislation regarding personal law, the continuing refusal to permit burial of Covid victims, except in a single designated location and the imprisonment, without trial, of a large number of Muslim persons, following the Easter bombings. All communities need to feel that they have been fairly consulted and treated without discrimination for national reconciliation to become a reality.

The 13th Amendment is quite a contentious issue, especially against the backdrop of India stepping up pressure over its implementation. The government is in a quandary as regards the much delayed Provincial Council polls. Today, the government, the Opposition, the civil society and the international community had conveniently forgotten the origins of the Sri Lankan imbroglio. Clandestine Indian intervention long before the July 1983 riots, most probably precipitated by the then 20th Century Fox JRJ openly flirting with the idea of giving the Trincomalee deep harbour to the US. The subsequent building up of terrorist power, leading to the forcible deployment of the Indian Army in Northern and Eastern regions, in July 87, paved the way for the 13th Amendment. Sri Lanka almost disintegrated.

Unfortunately, successive governments quite clearly failed to examine the current situation in a proper perspective. There had never been a genuine attempt to set the record straight. The incumbent government, too, pathetically failed to address accountability issues properly. Dr. Perera’s response to The Island query, based on Lord Naseby’s challenge and Lt. Colonel Smith’s denial of war crimes accusations six years before, revealed the failure on the government’s part to recognise the threat facing the country’s unitary status. Prof. Peiris and the SLCC owed the public an explanation how they discussed matters, including Office of Missing Persons, or OMP, leaving the primary accusation that the military killed 40,000 Tamil civilians on the Vanni east front. That is the charge Sri Lanka continues to face in Geneva, though Prof. Peiris’s predecessor, Dinesh Gunawardena, declared, in the Feb-March 2020, sessions, the government’s decision to quit the 2015 resolution. In fact, Sri Lanka is now facing a new investigation and actions so far taken by the incumbent government seems insufficient. As long as HRC turns a Nelsonia eye to all the grave crimes the West has committed and continuing to commit, from Palestine to Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc., how can we expect any fairplay from it. Maybe Minister Gunawardena played the only card there, we could have played, considering the ground realities.

The rationale in seeking the support of the civil society should be studied, taking into consideration the government’s failure to revisit accountability issues. Instead, having repeatedly promised the electorate in the run-up to the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary polls, a robust defence at Geneva, the government appeared to have accepted the agenda, pursued by Ranil Wickremesinghe and the late Mangala Samaraweera.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government established the OMP, in August 2016, less than a year after the signing of the Geneva resolution. The OMP came into being under controversial circumstances with the then Joint Opposition (now SLPP) accusing the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government of jeopardising national security. Today, the incumbent government has accepted responsibility for taking forward the much maligned and controversial Geneva process, much to the disappointment of those who genuinely believed an attempt would be made to reverse the project.

Key architects of the yahapalana project are in the current Parliament. Ranil Wickremesinghe is the solitary UNP MP. The former PM entered Parliament on the National List whereas Maithripala Sirisena returned from his home base Polonnaruwa after having contested the last general election on the SLPP ticket. Sirisena’s SLFP is the second largest constituent with 14 lawmakers, including one National List MP. As regards the accountability issue, the government seems to be moving in a direction contrary to the much publicised promises made.

In the absence of cohesive Sri Lanka response to Geneva threat, interested parties, such as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, have been freely bashing Sri Lanka. Massive foreign funding to the civil society lobby here and various other outfits are meant to ensure they follow the dictates of their sponsors. Often repeated claims that they refrained from taking government funding should be examined taking into consideration how these groups pursued Western interests and those of various other parties.

Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka (1997-2009)

, released in 2011, two years after the eradication of the LTTE, provided an insight into foreign funding for a particular purpose. The Norwegian study dealt with funding provided to various peace merchants assigned the task of propagating the inevitability of a negotiated settlement in the absence of military muscle to bring the war to a successful conclusion. For Norwegians funding for such initiatives had never been a problem. Sri Lanka is a case in point. They lavishly spent on the dicey Sri Lanka project on the basis that the LTTE cannot be defeated militarily, the then government has no option but to accept a deal even at the expense of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The Norwegian report revealed the funding of Sri Lankan outfits to the tune of USD 28 (NOK 210 mn) mn during the conflict. The recipients included Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe’s Foundation for Coexistence (largest single beneficiary with USD 6 mn during 2004-2008 period), the then Minister Milinda Moragoda’s MMIPE for humanitarian demining, Sarvodaya, Sewalanka (its former head Harsha Kumara Navaratne, an original extremely talented breakaway from Sarvodaya and now a member of the Human Rights Commission will soon relinquish office to take over Lanka mission in Canada as HC), Sareeram Sri Lanka National Foundation, Hambantota District Chamber of Commerce, One-Text Initiative, the National Anti-War Front also led by Dr. Kumar Rupasinghe, the National Peace Council, the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Forum of Federations and the People’s Peace Front.

The Norwegians also provided funding to the TRO (Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) an LTTE front organisation. The Norwegians went to the extent of providing funding to the then LTTE Peace Secretariat though it knew the group was rapidly preparing to resume hostilities. When Norwegian funding of LTTE front organisations drew strong condemnation, they funded the setting up of a Buddhist academy in Kandy in addition to reconstruction of Buddhist temples on the southern coast destroyed by Dec 2004 tsunami.

However, Prof. Peiris in a note recently submitted to diplomatic missions, based in Colombo, ahead of the 48 Geneva sessions, emphasised that the March 2021 resolution adopted by a divided vote hadn’t been accepted by Sri Lanka, rejected establishment of an external evidence gathering mechanism targeting Sri Lanka and questioned the rationale in spending meager financial resources on such a politically motivated Geneva initiative. The FM’s note dealt with progress made as regards port-war reconciliation with the focus on OMP operations, Office of Reparations, Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, Sustainable Development Goals, National Human Rights Commission, Presidential Commission of Inquiry, Accountability, PTA, Pardon to ex-LTTE cadres, Resettlement of IDPs, Releasing of Lands, engagement with the civil society (Prof. Peiris referred to the discussion President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had with SLCC on Aug 3, 2021) and International Human Rights and other Treaty Obligations and Engagement with the UN Special Procedures Mandate Holders.



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:

Published

on

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

Published

on

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

Published

on

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

Trending