The mission shifted hurriedly from purported investment promotion to tourism last Monday for External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, who is in Britain.
Bell Pottinger, the British-based public relations firm which receives millions of sterling pounds from Sri Lanka for promotion work and even conduct of diplomacy parallel to the High Commission in London, hurriedly summoned a news conference. It hand picked those to be invited. They were all travel writers in the British media.
There, Peiris extolled the virtues of tourism, a subject that now comes under Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa. Tourism in Sri Lanka, he said, was booming with the military defeat of Tiger guerrillas. The only exception to the travel writer types called in were two representatives from BBC. One was from the Sihala service Sandeshaya and the other from the Tamil service Thamil Osai.
The duo told Peiris, no sooner the other journalists were preparing to leave the new conference at the Sri Lanka High Commission at Hyde Park Corner, that they had two questions to raise. It was not over tourism but something that was of equal concern to the government of Sri Lanka. Though he appeared hesitant, he stayed behind. The first question was whether a Sri Lanka delegation had met UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's panel investigating alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka -- a matter that was revealed exclusively in the Sunday Times of March 6. "We meet people all the time," he replied and tried to parry the question. The BBC duo persisted and the Minister bared more details. Peiris got up and walked away in haste after that, preventing the duo from raising the second question. Minister Peiris appeared a little uneasy at the first question. In answering it, he had dropped a diplomatic bombshell wittingly, or unwittingly.
The unasked second query was to be on whether the government would hand over Kumaran Pathmanathan alias KP to Interpol. The French-based international police organisation has placed the one time head of the Tiger guerrilla procurement division on its red alert list. This was at the request of the Indian Police. Here is how Sandeshaya broadcast the story on Tuesday. The account of what Peiris disclosed was also posted on its website.
 |
| Ban Ki-moon |
 |
Robert O. Blake |
SRI LANKA MET BAN KI MOON PANEL
"External Affairs Minister GL Peiris says a delegation from his ministry had met the members of the UN Secretary General's (UNSG) Advisory panel on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka.
"The meeting in New York was not announced to the media by either the UNSG or the Sri Lanka government.
"Attorney General Mohan Peiris, Secretary to External Affairs Ministry at the time Romesh Jayasinghe, Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative at the United Nations Palitha Kohona and his deputy, Major General Shavendra de Silva meeting the panel in February was first revealed by the Sunday Times published in Colombo.
Minister Peiris said that the Sri Lanka delegation informed of the progress of the work carried out by the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and other measures of reconciliation.
The delegation had discussions with Secretary General Ban Ki Moon prior to meeting the panel.
UN panel appointed by the Secretary General is chaired by Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia). Yasmin Sooka (South Africa) and Steven Ratner (United States) are the two other members of the panel.
Investment opportunities
Addressing a press conference at the Sri Lanka High Commission in London, Minister Peiris said that he is in Europe to promote the investment opportunities in Sri Lanka and to counter false propaganda against the country.
He said that it is important to look at the situation in an objective manner.
A recent delegation from European parliament who had visited the North had commented the image they had about post war Sri Lanka was false.
"The bleak picture which had been painted in the west does not correspond with reality on the ground," the minister said quoting the European delegation.
The minister also admitted that there are around three thousand suspected Tamil Tigers still in custody without being charged.
 Replying to a question on the comments made by Robert O. Blake, Jr. United States Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Minister Peiris said the US government had not threatened to establish an accountability mechanism on alleged human rights violations.
On the 14th of March, speaking in New York Robert Blake said that his government will be seeking accountability.
"Our strong preference is that the Sri Lankan government establish its own transparent process that meets international standards. However, in the absence of such a mechanism, there will be mounting pressure for an international mechanism," Robert Blake remarked at an Asia Society event in New York. "
Just two days before his scheduled visit to Colombo, Blake went before the Senate Foreign Relations sub committee on the Middle East and South Asia last Tuesday (April 5). He made a brief but significant statement on Sri Lanka in his overview of issues.
He said: "Off the coast of southern India sits Sri Lanka, still recovering from the 26-year conflict with the LTTE.
Positioned directly on the shipping routes that carry petroleum products and other trade from the Gulf to East Asia, Sri Lanka remains of strategic interest to the U.S. An important contributor to global peacekeeping operations, Sri Lanka stands poised to be a capable and willing partner to effectively combat violent extremism, trafficking and piracy, and thereby help to ensure the maritime security of the region.
But the Government's worrisome record on human rights, weakening of democratic institutions and practices, and the way in which it conducted the final months of its conflict against the Tamil Tigers hamper our ability to fully engage.
The Administration believes -- and Congressional Appropriations language specifies -- that our security cooperation, in many forms, should remain limited until progress has been made on fundamental human rights, democracy and governance issues, and the concrete steps necessary for a true and lasting national reconciliation.
The United States welcomed Sri Lanka's establishment of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and its implementing body -- the Inter Agency Advisory Committee. Sri Lanka also has taken some steps forward on reconciliation such as resettling the vast majority of the nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons at the end of the conflict, demining 5 million square metres, reducing the reach of High Security Zones, and hiring 335 Tamil-speaking police, and beginning a dialogue with the Tamil National Alliance but more needs to be done. We have urged Sri Lanka to take credible and meaningful steps towards accountability and have warned that a failure to do so is likely to generate pressure for an international commission.
Our assistance programs aim to increase post-conflict stability in the North of Sri Lanka by promoting reconciliation, enhancing local governance, building civil society capacity, increasing economic opportunities to those affected by conflict, and assisting the continued resettlement and reintegration of displaced persons.
Blake's statement before the Senate sub committee on the Middle East (West Asia) and South Asia is significant for many reasons. This is the first time he has gone on record publicly stating, "Positioned directly on the shipping routes that carry petroleum products and other trade from the Gulf to East Asia, Sri Lanka remains of strategic interest to the U.S." In other words, reasons of strategic interests are influenced by the United States policy towards Sri Lanka. Standing in the way of an impediment to such strategic interest, Blake noted in his submission is the "Government's worrisome record on human rights, weakening of democratic institutions and practices, and the way in which it conducted the final months of its conflict against the Tamil Tigers hamper our ability to fully engage." Thus, according to Blake, the US is unable to engage Sri Lanka in view of its "worrisome record."
Then comes a warning: A "failure to take credible and meaningful steps towards accountability," Blake says, "is likely to generate pressure for an international commission." This is the same message that Blake wanted to deliver to the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration when he planned to come to Colombo on Friday.
The Sunday Times has learnt that the government was averse to a Blake visit at this moment. Senior leaders felt that such a visit and a resultant news conference where Blake would make the US position known would not be favourable to the government. It would not only muddy the National New Year mood but further cloud issues internationally. Like a Minister who sought anonymity explained, "It would be like the US bashing Libya, Syria and other countries. It will not help us in any way."
Thus, the US Embassy in Colombo and the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington were told that no engagement with Blake was possible. The official reason -- External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris was away from Sri Lanka. A US Embassy spokesmen said, "Upon a request from the Government of Sri Lanka, Assistant Secretary Blake will reschedule his visit to Sri Lanka to a time when the Minister of External Affairs is in the country."
The proffered explanation is in a sense a big snub to the US and perhaps not a studied one. Firstly, in the conduct of diplomacy, when an External Affairs (or Foreign) Minister is away from a country, there is always another like a deputy to act for him. Such a deputy or an acting Minister is appointed to that office on the basis that he is suitable to hold that post. Under these circumstances, the claim that a matter cannot be deliberated because the External Affairs Minister is not available is patently a lame excuse. Ironically, it also comes at a time when the Minister concerned, Peiris, is in London having to meet the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alastair Burt and not the Minister, William Hague. Secondly, the explanation suggests that all the dialogue with the United States rested on Peiris' shoulders and that no diplomacy on behalf of Sri Lanka could be conducted without his presence in Sri Lanka.
That suggestion does not hold water. In all past visits by Blake, or for that matter other senior dignitaries from India, consultations have always been with President Mahinda Rajapaksa and other senior ministers and officials including Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga. In these consultations, at most, Peiris has been a participant and not the principal player. Other than that, the visiting dignitaries have paid a call on the External Affairs Minister merely in keeping with protocol. Hence, the message to the US was as clear as it could be -- that a Blake visit is not welcome.
Snubbing the US would invite greater displeasure and perhaps draw other repercussions than what an engagement with its emissary would have brought about. There is little doubt that US allies including Britain, France and others in the European community would endorse the US position on Sri Lanka. Recent developments have shown that India, though not a backer, may not canvass support for Sri Lanka in such a situation. Last week it was revealed that relations between New Delhi and Colombo have taken a serious dip.
At a political rally at Chennai's Island Park last Tuesday, Sonia Gandhi, the powerful president of the ruling Indian Congress Party, used some strong words against Sri Lanka. Though it may have been said to gain votes for the Congress Party's Tamil Nadu ally, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the tone was harsh, according to those who listened. She said that the central government (of India) would pressure Sri Lanka to make constitutional changes to help the (Sri Lankan) Tamils. She said they should be given equal status with other citizens, a remark that indicated that they do not enjoy equal status now.
Naturally, the matter was discussed at this week's Cabinet meeting and the Cabinet spokesman said the Government would be seeking clarifications on these remarks, meaning that it would ask the Indian Government for an explanation on what Ms. Gandhi said.
Whilst Peiris was in Britain, the Sri Lankan situation also figured at the House of Commons. It was during part of a wide-ranging back-bench debate titled 'General Matters' and not specifically on Foreign Affairs or International Development. Gareth Thomas MP, (Labour Party) for Harrow West, where there is a larger number of voters of Sri Lankan Tamil origin, spoke on the Human Rights situation in Sri Lanka. The Parliamentary Secretary, David Heath MP, provided the British Government's response: Here is a brief account from the Hansard.
"Gareth Thomas: I want to ask a series of questions on the Government's view of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and, through them, to ask a series of questions of the Sri Lankan Government. I understand that the UN Secretary-General is due to receive a report on 13 April produced by a three-member panel that has been mandated to advise him on options for addressing accountability for crimes committed during the final stages of the recent conflict with which all who have an interest in Sri Lanka will be familiar. I ask whether that document will be published, and if not -- or, indeed, if we are unsure whether it will be published -- I ask the British Government to call on the UN Secretary-General to publish it.
"The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons Mr David Heath replied. He said, "The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) rightly raised the issue of Sri Lanka, as he has done on a number of occasions. He knows that the Government continue to have grave concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, including in respect of disappearances, extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests and restrictions on free expression. These concerns are constantly raised with the Sri Lankan Government and we have also consistently stressed the need for Sri Lanka to have an independent and credible process to address allegations of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the conflict. I think we can only maintain that pressure."
On Thursday, the New York-based Human Rights Watch issued a statement continuing to harp on what it called were indiscriminate killings of civilians during the final stages of the battle with the LTTE. It came ahead of the UN panel's report. "The Sri Lankan government should account for everyone who was taken into custody at the end of Sri Lanka's 26-year-long armed conflict in May 2009 and are feared to have 'disappeared'," HRW said.
Despite numerous requests from families for information about their relatives, the authorities do not appear to have conducted any serious investigations, it claimed.
Blake's visit was to deliver what is described as a "strong message" to the Rajapaksa administration. Blake's remarks before the Senate sub committee reflect the character of such a message. That is to warn the Sri Lanka government on the need for an "international commission" to probe alleged violations of humanitarian and human rights laws during the final stages of the separatist war.
Surely, there should be tough talking personalities in the government who could have articulated Colombo's position on why such a demand is not necessary. They could well have explained why the government is not in favour of such a move. Even if Blake were to refer to what he discussed at a subsequent news conference, government leaders had the opportunity, to rebut those arguments. That way they could have rallied opinion both domestically and abroad.
The latest faux pas reflects the absence of a cohesive foreign policy approach that is essential to promote the country's interests. An earlier and glaring example is UNSG Ban's appointment of the three-member panel. The Government rejected it outright at first calling it "illegal", but later chose to send a delegation to meet the panel secretly in New York. This was after diplomatic consultations that lasted several weeks. More on that later.
It is now clear that a Blake visit to Colombo may not materialise at all. His mission was intended to precede the handing over of the UN panel report. Since that report is expected to be handed over next week, diplomatic sources in Colombo say, there would be less validity now in a Blake visit. Moreover, the handing over of the panel's report to Ban will see one of two ways in which an initial announcement is to be made. Reports from New York say that Ban may issue a statement, which will include a summary of the panel's findings and what further measures were necessary. The other is for the three-member panel to hold a news conference.
The next phase, after the report is handed over to Ban, is still not clear. UN officials in New York have said that it was a matter for Ban to decide. However, countries like the US, Britain and several other EU countries have said that they would back follow-up action based on the findings of the report. Yet, it is unclear at which forum they would call for such action. Ban himself is under pressure because his own re-election is due later in the year and it will be suicidal for him to rub these powerful western member-states on the wrong side.
Conceding in London that the Sri Lanka delegation met the three-member UN panel in New York in late February, Peiris has already caused a stir at UN headquarters in New York. The External Affairs Minister has maintained a close dialogue with Lyn Pascoe, the United Nations Under Secretary General for Political Affairs. The Sunday Times learnt it is through Pascoe (and with Ban's concurrence) that he arranged for the Sri Lanka delegation led by Attorney General Mohan Peiris to secretly meet the panel.
At that time, a source said, Peiris had sought and obtained an assurance that the matter should be kept strictly confidential. The senior UN official not only agreed to it but also made sure that his media officials parried questions at news conferences that followed the meeting. Now, UN officials accuse Peiris of breaching that trust and bringing them embarrassment. They complain that he had not advised them earlier of an official announcement of the meeting.
After the Sunday Times exclusive revelation on March 6, the first official confirmation, as earlier revealed, came from the South African government. Its Vice President Kgalima Petrus Motlanthe told the country's National Assembly, "As of March this year, we are aware that a Sri Lanka government delegation met with the UN panel in New York." His remarks came in response to a query from a parliamentarian of the ruling African National Congress, a party that was reported to have had links with the LTTE. In other words, though South Africans were told through their Parliament of such a meeting, in Sri Lanka, the government remained silent.
Peiris's disclosure of the meeting has several important connotations. The most significant among them is the fact that the Government of Sri Lanka has officially recognised the status of the UN panel looking into the internal affairs of this country. Many government leaders including Peiris had earlier claimed that the panel was "illegal" and had "no right to investigate" issues in Sri Lanka. That official recognition came formally through UN Under Secretary General a Ban confidant Pascoe, who has visited Sri Lanka on a number of occasions. Pascoe and Peiris are known to be in regular telephone contact. Any form of testimony by a Sri Lanka delegation before the UN's three-member panel could not have come without the initial acknowledgement of their official legitimacy. That the granting of such legitimacy through a meeting with the panel remained a top secret until the Sunday Times disclosure was not a good reflection on the UPFA government that seemed confused on how to react to the UN panel.
Now that the panel has been recognised, and Sri Lanka's position explained, there was hardly any follow-up action by either the government or the External Affairs Ministry. No one thought it fit to explain to Sri Lankans why there was a total about turn in events. None of the Colombo-based diplomatic missions was given a briefing. Neither were Sri Lankan missions overseas briefed. Parliament was kept in the dark even though the South African Parliament was not. The fact that the dialogue with the panel was wrapped in secrecy made matters worse.
It was on July 6 last year, that Minister Wimal Weerawansa staged a fast unto death hitting world headlines. His demand was to call upon UN Secretary General Ban to immediately disband the three-member panel. He warned that his fast would continue until that was done. Angry supporters of Weerawansa even broke into the UN compound, drawing strong protests from the world body.
Weerawansa gave up his fast on July 10 at 4.30 p.m. only after President Rajapaksa gave him water and urged him to call off his fast. Later, Weerawansa declared that Rajapaksa had agreed to his demand to appoint a Committee to probe issues that were being investigated by the UN panel. He was alluding to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) which was formally appointed on May 15 last year though it did not hold public sittings until August 11.
Another assurance given by the President, Weerawansa said, was that the government would not co-operate with the UN panel.
It is fortunate that Weerawansa did not continue his fast. No one, except perhaps his unenlightened political enemies, would have wished that he died due to the fast. If that were to happen, the country would have lost a good Sinhala orator and a politician who had grown from grassroots level. Worse enough, such a death would have been for an unworthy cause. Now, the government has co-operated with the UN panel by not only recognising it officially but also allowing a delegation to testify before it. Surprisingly, or on the other hand, not surprisingly, even Weerawansa's National Freedom Front (NFF) has remained stoically silent on the issue.
It is clear that the issue is a knotty one for the opposition parties. They are most likely to remain silent on the issue. That would amount to tacit support for the government, intentional or otherwise. The argument by the UNP, the Sunday Times learnt, is because the then UNP regime had not signed the Rome protocol under which 'war crimes' issues are dealt with. Hence, a UNP source said, "We did this consciously to prevent ourselves being subjected to that protocol. Therefore, the UNP position is not to support any move arising from the UN panel issue." Yet, the main opposition party in the country did not raise much issue when it became known that a Sri Lanka delegation has had a meeting with the UN panel. Not even an official statement was released.
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) seems undecided. It is likely that it would follow suit because it supported the war effort and knows that the general public will support a beleaguered President, should the western-backed International Community (IC) call for his head on any 'war crimes' related issues.
Those positions by the opposition parties will naturally embolden President Rajapaksa domestically. Hence, what happens internationally would be another issue. At least seemingly, he will be carrying almost the entire nation with him, at least on this issue.
Ranil purges dissidents from top posts
 |
| Ranil Wickremesinghe |
UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe moved swiftly to purge the party's highest decision-making body of members who revolted against his leadership and appoint loyalists to positions created by the new party constitution.
When the party's advisory council met this week, several dissidents who had mounted an almost a year-long campaign to oust him from the party leadership by backing the candidature of Sajith Premadasa, the MP from the Hambantota district, were left out. Their places were given to those who backed the incumbent leader in the power struggle that culminated late last month with Mr. Wickremesinghe being re-elected UNP leader and Mr. Premadasa backing down and accepting the post of co-deputy leader.
On Monday, Mr. Wickremesinghe appointed 15 nominees out of the 20 he is entitled to nominate under the new constitution into the party's Working Committee. This he did before he left for Spain on a ten-day trip.
The 15 he nominated are: Malik Samarawickrama, Tilak Marapana, Chanaka de Silva, C.P.Y. Ram, Sunethra Ranasinghe, Ananda Kularatne, M. Maharoof, Niroshan Perera MP, Suranimala Rajapaksa, Karunasena Kodituwakku, Chandrani Bandara, Srinal de Mel, Milroy Perera, Ronald Perera and Ranjan Ramanayake.
During Monday's advisory council meeting comprising Mr. Wickremesinghe, deputy leaders Karu Jayasuriya and Sajith Premadasa, General Secretary Tissa Attanayake and chairman Gamini Jayawickrama Perera to which the party's three main legal advisers, Mr. Marapana PC, Mr. Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha PC and Ronald Perera were invited the issue of nominations for the post of the party's National Organiser came up for discussion.
Moneragala district parliamentarian Ranjith Madduma Bandara had already declared his intention to contest the post, but party leader Wickremesinghe had said last week the post should be picked by consensus. This week, the three legal advisers argued among themselves whether there was a vacancy in the post, which needed to be filled, or if the electoral process has begun with Mr. Madduma Bandara putting forward his candidature. Mr. Marapana and Mr. Rajapaksha argued that under section 16 (5) (2) of the new constitution, a vacancy exists and the post needs to be filled, but Mr. Perera argued that the electoral process has begun with Mr. Madduma Bandara's name and that there were no exceptional circumstances that permitted the vacancy to be filled otherwise. By majority decision Mr. Perera was, however, over-ruled and Mr. Madduma Bandara's candidature remains in abeyance.
Meanwhile, a tussle arose over the removal of Thalatha Athukorale, MP from the Ratnapura district, as the head of the Lakvanitha movement, the party's women’s organisation. Ms. Athukorale, sister of one-time UNP General Secretary Gamini Athukorake and strong supporter of Mr. Premadasa for the party leadership, was replaced by Shanthini Kongahage, provincial council member from the Central Province. Mr. Premadasa vehemently objected to the move, and the post remained vacant.
Ruwan Wijewardene, MP from the Gampaha district, was, however, picked as the head of the Yovun Peramuna, the youth front.
Other positions that were filled were:
Senior Deputy Chairmen: former Ministers Lakshman Kiriella and Joseph Michael Perera;
Vice Chairpersons: Kabeer Hashim, M. Swaminathan and Amara Piyaseeli Ratnayake;
Additional Secretaries: Renuka Herath and K. Velayuthan;
Legal Secretary: Daya Pelpola;
Human Rights Secretary: Dr. Jayalath Jayawardene (to be appointed as the Deputy General Secretary in an upcoming amendment to the new constitution);
Research and Policy Unit President: Wijeyedasa Rajapaksha;
Media Spokesperson: Gayantha Karunatillake;
International Affairs Secretary: Sagala Ratnayake and;
Deputy Opposition Whip: Dayasiri Jayasekera. |
|
E-mail