 |
|||||||
| |
|||||||
Be prepared, LTTE tells villagers
If on the peace front the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are demanding the Government to disband paramilitary groups, with veiled threats to boycott the upcoming Geneva talks, in the one time battlefronts of the north and east it is a different story. They are hurriedly stepping up preparations for war. Some villages in the north and east have become centres for military training for civilians. In the north the areas set apart include the villages of Nedunkerny, Kanakarayankulam, Puliyankulam and Puthukudiyiruppu. In the east several areas including Rugam and Sinna Pullumalai in the Batticaloa and Eechalampattu in the Trincomalee districts have been designated for this purpose. Of particular significance is the expansion of the seagoing arm of the LTTE, the Sea Tigers. Whilst dredging of the sea was being carried out in the waters off Mullaitivu to Chalai, new units have been formed. The latest is the Sea Tiger auxiliary force incorporating able bodied members of families of fisherman. A 500 strong group of them is reported to be undergoing training near Mullaitivu. In the Wanni, over a thousand civilians from the Jaffna peninsula who entered the Wanni following violent incidents late last year are being put through courses. They include weapons handling, treating the wounded, recovering weapons from the defeated enemy and evacuating casualties. In some of the villages in the north that adjoin or overlook armed-forces-controlled areas, civilian committees have been formed. Their task is to identify infiltrators. These Committees have been told that soon all civilians living in guerrilla-dominated areas would be issued with what are called National Identity Cards. Such cards would carry the photograph of the holder, his name, address and personal particulars. Committee members have been told it was their duty to apprehend persons who do not possess identity cards and hand them over to the LTTE "Police." These developments have prompted the Government to ensure that the armed forces and the police are in a much higher level of preparedness. Towards this end, it has decided to provide them with their equipment and other needs to ensure any surprise moves by the LTTE on the battlefront are thwarted. This has seen the birth of a new policy by President Mahinda Rajapaksa's administration. In future, the Ministry of Defence wants to ensure that all military procurements are on a Government-to-Government basis. More significant, the Ministry wants to eliminate the role of local agents. Instead, it is to set up a state company that will play that role on behalf of a foreign supplier. The profits made by such a company are to be diverted for troops and police welfare. The first major step in this regard came last week when Defence Secretary Gothabaya Rajapaksa renewed a contract during a visit to Beijing with China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) - the state owned manufacturer of military hardware. This renewal means China will continue to operate a Bonded Warehouse in Sri Lanka to hold weapons, ammunition, spare parts, vehicles and accessories provided by NORINCO. Though the Chinese firm will own these items, the Sri Lanka Government will be entitled to make payment and purchase them. The defence equipment to be provided by NORINCO will be less than an year old and will meet the needs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Police. With the renewed agreement, the Ministry of Defence also wants to severely restrict military procurements from several Eastern and Western European sources. In the case of the former, the move stems from the repeated discovery whilst in use of outdated defence equipment being passed off as new. Defence Secretary Rajapaksa learnt from an Indian military official how a piece of brand new military equipment procured from an Eastern European supplier by India contained 20-year-old spare parts inside. In the case of procurements from Western European sources, the Ministry of Defence is seriously concerned about the price factor. During his tour of China, Defence Secretary Rajapaksa found that prices for the identical product differed vastly from those available in China to other Western European sources. Another reason is the Defence Ministry's discovery that some of the equipment obtained from these sources did not suit the requirements of the armed forces adequately or was in excess of the needs. Hence, the Ministry has had reasons to believe local agents have pushed their sales purely for monetary gains. Hence, military procurements are likely to be focussed largely from China, Pakistan, India and such other sources. Later this month, Defence Secretary Rajapaksa will also accompany President Mahinda Rajapaksa on his official visit to Pakistan. Over the years Pakistan has been providing training for armed forces officials besides making available a variety defence equipment to Sri Lanka. Recently Pakistan granted a credit line of US dollars 25 million for military procurements. Meanwhile, last week's reference in the Situation Report about a meeting between Foreign Secretary H.M.G.S. Palihakkara and Norway's Ambassador Hans Brattskar has had a sequel. Hours after The Sunday Times hit the streets (last Sunday) Foreign Secretary Palihakkara has been trying to reach me on the telephone. I was travelling and was some 150 kilometres away from Colombo. There were desperate messages asking me to telephone him. Mobile telecommunications were garbled in that area. I had to divert course for some seven kilometres. From a spot where signals were good, I rang him from my mobile phone. After exchanging pleasantries, Mr. Palihakkara told me that my references to his meeting with Mr. Brattskar and consequently the discussion that followed were wrong. There had been no such meeting. Hence comments attributed to him were incorrect. "I don't want to damage the credibility of your newspaper by issuing a denial. So please correct it and say you are sorry about it," he said. He cautioned "however, I cannot do anything if Ambassador Brattskar chooses to issue a denial." I replied that Mr. Brattskar was at liberty to do so and I would deal with the matter next week. I thanked Mr. Palihakkara for the confidence he had in The Sunday Times and its credibility. I told him if there were any factual inaccuracies I am honour bound to set the record right. I said I certainly would do so since I was not hesitant to admit if there has been a mistake and make amends for it. I reminded him that in the past too when a mistake occurred, I have unhesitatingly corrected it. Then Mr. Palihakkara, who is the Foreign Secretary of the Government of the Democractic, Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka asked me what I would seriously consider the most unprofessional question. "I know you may not want to answer me. But can you tell me who gave you the information?" He then made some insinuations about who my source may be but I will not refer to them. I flatly refused to answer his question. "As a matter of principle, I do not discuss sources. If I had erred, I am more than willing to rectify it. I don't think you have any right to ask me that question," I told Mr Palihakkara. He said "I am sorry, but let me re-phrase the question…..," he went on trying to suggest possible sources from which the information could have come. This intrigued me. I insisted I would not answer such questions except say it was from an "impeccable Government source." He stopped pressuring me. In what seemed a move to soften my response over his most unprofessional and unethical demand for sources, Mr. Palihakkara told me "I have still not met Brattskar. I am only meeting him tomorrow (Monday). I sought a meeting with Mr. Palihakkara when I returned to Colombo on Wednesday. He asked me to telephone him upon my return and assured he would see me. I had sought the meeting to fully ascertain what had gone wrong. A few minutes after I had finished that telephone conversation, I had another call on my mobile phone. This time it was Tom Knapskogg, spokesman for the Norwegian Embassy. He also told me that the references I had made to his Ambassador meeting Mr. Palihakkara were wrong. I told him I had just been told by the Foreign Secretary that the meeting would take place on Monday. "Oh! so he told you that," remarked Mr. Knapskogg. I asked him to tell the Ambassador that any inaccuracies in my report would be corrected. On Wednesday, after returning to Colombo, I found that Mr. Palihakkara had acted contrary to what he told me. I was surprised. I rang him and told him there was no need for a meeting. That very day (last Sunday) he spoke to me, a letter was sent to The Sunday Times. Himalee Arunatilaka, spokesperson, Public Communications has signed for Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Palihakkara). For some strange reason, Mr. Palihakkara had told me no such letter was being sent. But that very day one arrived. It was a case of terminological inexactitude as one would call it in diplomatic parlance. This is what it said: "Situation
Report," in The Sunday Times of 12th March 2006 "The Ministry wishes to express its concern over the contents of the above report since no such meeting as described in the column had taken place. "The Ministry is always open to dialogue with the media to disseminate foreign policy related information accurately and in a professional manner. The Ministry therefore regrets the publication of such reports without any factual basis, particularly concerning confidential diplomatic discussions of a sensitive nature, in your reputed newspaper. "It
would be appreciated if suitable action is taken to correct the
distortions in this report in the next issue of your esteemed newspaper." It is well known that DPL practice is that a "demarche" is delivered by very publicly calling in the head of mission and delivering the message. Usually this is in response to public or political pressures. This DPL practice is not to hide such a communication. The simple truth is a discussion on the peace process took place at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on March 8 (Wednesday). It was chaired by Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. Taking part, among others, were Ministers Nimal Siripala de Silva, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, Rohita Bogollagama, Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera, Foreign Secretary H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat John Gooneratne, JVP's Somawansa Amerasinghe, Wimal Weerawansa, JHU's Champaka Ranawaka, Udaya Gammanpilla and D. Warnasinghe. Foreign Minister Samaraweera told this conference that Foreign Secretary Palihakkara would summon Norway's Ambassador Hans Brattskar tomorrow (March 9 - Thursday). He said it was to express the Government's displeasure over the Norwegian Government laying out a red carpet welcome to the LTTE delegation that attended the Geneva peace talks last month. They were received by Oslo as official guests. This was in direct response to an issue raised by JVP parliamentary group leader Wimal Weerawansa. He told Parliament on March 7 (Tuesday) that Norway should be removed immediately from its role as a peace facilitator because of what he called that country's pro-terrorist stand. He was angered by reports that the Norwegian Government laid out the red carpet and extended an official welcome. The remarks were to prompt Norway's Minister for International Development, Erik Solheim to telephone Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, chief negotiator of the Government. See details in the opposite page. Why
did not the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and the Norwegian
Ambassador take place on Thursday March 9? At the meeting Mr. Palihakkara politely welcomed Mr. Brattskar. The very first subject they discussed was last week's Situation Report in The Sunday Times. The Foreign Secretary was to say neither he nor his officials were in any way responsible for this report. Mr. Brattskar did not seem pleased. Yet Mr. Palihakkara expressed the Government's displeasure over the LTTE delegation being extended a red carpet official welcome in Oslo. The Norwegian envoy in turn explained his Government's position including its commitment to ensure the LTTE remained in the peace process. How then did last week's Situation Report contain remarks attributed to both Mr. Palihakkara and Mr. Brattskar? I can only faithfully say they were not my own. My source, an impeccable one in the Government, was briefed accordingly. To say how it happened is not only a highly sensitive issue. It would amount to opening a can of stinking worms that will badly expose the intrigue, skulduggery not to mention the nature of some who claim exclusive rights to foreign policy, patriotism and national interest. Another
matter in the Foreign Ministry letter that should not go unchallenged
is the claim that the "Ministry is always open to dialogue
with the media to disseminate foreign policy related information
accurately and in a professional manner." It was most unprofessional
that Foreign Secretary Palihakkara thought it fit to demand my source
of information. As
for the Ministry spokesperson, Mr. David said "the response
almost always has been to say we are not in a position to comment."
There were no laws in the country of his arrest to retain him there for a longer period. He was brought to a neighbouring capital and the Government was in consultation with a friendly country to shift him for follow up interrogation with expert foreign help. Alas, someone had allowed him to fly to Colombo and easily make his way into Wanni. Thus a golden opportunity was missed. A tough task lies ahead for the Government in the weeks ahead of the next round of Geneva talks. Fast changing developments can make or break them. |
|||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
