Columns

Ever since the LTTE was militarily crushed finally in May 2009, Sri Lanka has been wallowing in triumphalism. This is not to belittle the achievement of the country’s security forces which were dismissively discarded particularly by so-called western experts and analysts as incapable of militarily defeating the LTTE.

Western media were not remiss in propagating these views and adding their own condescending ‘expertise’ and denigrating the armed forces for violating international humanitarian law.

One cannot believe there has ever been a war where no violations of law ever occurred. In October 2016, British Prime Minister Theresa May and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon jointly announced that in any conflict henceforth UK will opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to protect its frontline troops from “spurious legal claims.”

It was the same British Government that in 2015, sponsored along with other western nations an anti-Sri Lanka resolution before the UN Human Rights Council, accusing the Sri Lankan armed forces of war crimes and of violating international humanitarian law.

If I remember correctly President Mahinda Rajapaksa defending the Sri Lankan armed forces once said that our soldiers fought with a weapon in one hand and the human rights law in the other.

That might sound rather hyperbolic but it was a signal that the then government was determined to defend the armed forces against those who wanted to criminalise the soldiers and label them as instruments of viciousness that should earn the derision of the “civilised world.”

In standing up for the military, the government was not only paying the soldiers a tribute, the administration was also making a political point that would earn it the gratitude of the people as the government that saved the nation from division and collapse.

After he became president in 2015, President Sirisena did not take the same stance. His political promises were tuned to another ‘station’. He was determined, he said, to end corruption and punish those who had robbed the nation of its assets. He was also committed to abolish the executive presidency.

Valuable goals indeed! But, as the days turned into months and years, his interests veered in a different direction. The pursuit of power became an end in itself. His stated commitment to spend only one term in office was increasingly jettisoned and staying on longer turned into an obsession with the judiciary also being asked for advice on whether he could continue for six years.

One important objective, if he intended to stay on, was to strengthen his hold on power which led him to clash with the Rajapaksas and SLFPers who were committing their support to the former president.

At the same time, President Sirisena was increasingly at loggerheads with his prime minister and the Ranil Wickremesinghe-led UNP, his main coalition partner whom he began to contest in cabinet and thrash in public.

The President’s strategy was to short-circuit UNP-initiated legislation and blame it for all the woes, to which the UNP graciously contributed. He was also intent on holding on to his diminishing power in the original SLFP and containing the growing influence of the Rajapaksas, one of whom was a likely challenger at the presidential election.

So he was fighting on two fronts — inside the government and the Rajapaksa-led opposition on the outside, a task beyond his capabilities as has been shown. Instead of governing the country based on the promises he made to the people, fighting for survival turned into an obsession.

But blaming others was not enough to win over the people. He had to project himself as a patriot and a leader who cleansed the country of evil. So he, too, pledged to protect the armed forces and ensure that its officers were never dragged before foreign tribunals for alleged war crimes.

Not only was he competing with the Rajapaksas to win the affection and loyalty of the tri-forces, he went further. He committed himself to rid the country of the drug menace and hang a few drug- dealing convicts to show the country his determination.

To vigorously pursue this goal, he needed the full backing of the forces of law and order. This made Sirisena and the top layers of the law enforcement agencies take their eyes off the ball. They turned their attention away from national security to fulfill the Sirisena aim and earn his gratitude.

Whether the Rajapaksa boast that terrorism had been eliminated and would not rise again was a political ploy to keep him forever in the national conscience or whether he truly believed that he had ended terrorism will remain a matter of debate.

The fact is that such thinking permeated the upper echelons of the forces and further down. They seemed to believe their task was done and they could now relax as there was no perceivable enemy in sight.

Generals with multiple chips on their shoulders were telling tales of derring-do as though they, like David, single-handedly slew the mighty Goliath. Such self glorified popinjays threw themselves into political movements doubtless expecting future rewards.

So with current political leaders praising the men in uniform or those who have hung up their boots, there has been for some years an aura of complacency in the political arena and in the defence/military establishment.

This cock-a-hoop attitude seems to have penetrated the thinking of those who should keep their eyes and ears open and their mouths shut. But Sirisena’s choice of staff at the highest levels seems to be as curious and absurd as Donald Trump’s appointments to the White House and elsewhere. This rapid turnaround does not allow appointees time to settle and look beyond their allocated tasks making them appear like subject clerks.

Those whose primary task is security/defence intelligence gathering and analysis appear to have turned their attention to other matters like tracking the work of political foes and even government allies.

Indian media reported the other day that intelligence passed on by India about an impending attack by Islamic extremists was pushed aside as probable attempts by New Delhi to assign the blame to Pakistan to create a rift between Sri Lanka and Pakistan. The media were citing high officials in Colombo.

Did those officials, whose thinking this was, even consult the Foreign Ministry on this interpretation of events or seek the advice of foreign policy analysts who work in government posts?

What expertise did those officials who came to this conclusion have with regard to foreign affairs and current bilateral/multilateral regional developments? Surely these were extremely important pieces of intelligence that should have been passed on to high political authorities but so cavalierly discarded as seems to have happened.

If those who are mandated to follow developments around the world should study modern-day terrorism, especially changes in the modus operandi of modern terrorist organisations, they would know that increasingly terrorist cadres or those attracted by today’s extremist ideologies associate with such organisations and even fight for them in wars and conflicts as has been repeatedly mentioned in reports and media despatches.

Were our intelligence services aware that one of the Easter suicide bombers studied in the UK and had links with the British national popularly known as Jihadi John who was a fighter for the IS and executed several hostages including a journalist? If so, did they keep an eye on him after he returned to Sri Lanka or just forget about him?

Some Muslim organisations have claimed that 11 dockets of information relating to the activities of extremist Islamic preacher Zahran considered to be a leader, if not the leader of the Suicide bombers, had been passed on to officials starting in 2017. Officials included the then Defence Secretary, IGP and the Attorney General. Apparently Zahran had begun to preach against the government, the courts and other religions. Did they track his activities or just throw the documents away. Or maybe they are gathering dust on some shelf like those annual assets declarations nobody ever glances through.

A mosque trustee of who was involved in preparing the documents was quoted as saying that all the efforts “fell on deaf years.”

It is the political complacency bred by a political class more interested in safeguarding their own interests and the route to wealth that appears to have created the same lackadaisical attitude among officials some of whom are inclined to follow the same route as politicians with bloated egos.