Ten months ago, Sri Lanka flexed its diplomatic muscles to flashpoint to muster 118 countries at the United Nations to pressure Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to call off moves to set up an Advisory Panel. This panel was to probe 'accountability issues' with the military defeat of Tiger guerrillas.
These countries belonged to the Non Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest regional bloc representing two thirds of the UN membership. Maged A. Abdelaziz, the Egyptian Permanent Representative in New York, the current chair of NAM declared in March this year the movement "strongly condemns selective targeting of individual countries, which it deems contrary to the founding principles of "of NAM and the UN charter.
He charged that the appointment of the panel was based on "information that does not take into account the particularities of the domestic situation, and without consultation with the Government concerned."
Dr. Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a former Foreign Secretary, told a meeting of the NAM Bureau in New York in March that there was an immediate need to act. "If the Secretary General, whose responsibility is to engage with its Members, were to appoint advisory panels selectively on Member States against their wishes," it would set a precedent that will be difficult to manage, he argued.
External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, exhorted, "There has been a cynical rejection of values enshrined in the UN Charter in trying to set up this panel on an internal matter that is already engaging the attention of the Sri Lanka Government." He said Ban's move was "manipulative," at the behest of a "very small group," and he had not placed it before the UN Security Council.
 |
| File photo: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. |
In a conversation with Ban also in the same month, President Mahinda Rajapaksa flatly rejected the former's move. He was quoted in the state-run media as telling the UNSG "Sri Lanka looked forward to treatment as per the UN Charter that provides for equal treatment to all members of the UN, whilst respecting the principle of non-interference in the internal matters of States."
Ban responded that the NAM letter was a misunderstanding on the nature and purpose of the panel. At a news conference on March 16, he rejected charges of "interfering in Sri Lanka's internal affairs". "My appointment of this panel of experts," he said, was in accordance with the joint statement issued because of my visit and meeting with President Rajapaksa." The last paragraph in this joint statement by the UN Secretary General and the Government of Sri Lanka on May 23 said, "The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law."
On June 22, this year, Ban appointed a three-member panel. Indonesia's Marzuki Darusman serves as the chair, and the other two members are Yasmin Sooka of South Africa and Steven Ratner of the United States. The panel is looking into the modalities, applicable international standards, and comparative experience with regard to accountability processes, taking into account the nature and scope of any alleged violations in Sri Lanka.
Ban emphasized that the primary responsibility for investigating alleged violations during the conflict in Sri Lanka rested with the Sri Lanka Government. He said that the panel was not tasked to investigate individual allegations of misconduct. The UNSG's spokesperson was to add that "the panel will be available as a resource to Sri Lankan authorities should they wish to avail themselves of its expertise in implementing the commitment." External Affairs Minister Peiris, however, said that no assistance would be required and declared no visas would be issued to panel members to visit Sri Lanka.
Days after the appointment of the panel, Minister Wimal Weerawansa staged a fast unto death outside the UN compound in Colombo. The move drew angry protests from the UN and condemnation from the United States. It made prime time and front-page news worldwide. President Rajapaksa had to visit Weerawansa and give him a glass of water to call off the fast. Later, Ban re-called the UN envoy in Colombo, Neil Buhne to New York for consultations.
Ten months after these issues played out, the Government has done a total about turn. For some reasons known and many others unknown, it has now officially acknowledged the legitimacy of the United Nations panel. Yet the Government claims that the panel would be allowed to travel to Colombo and make "representations" to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. However, UN sources in Colombo have told the Sunday Times the panel had no plans to make "representations" but wanted to discuss issues that are before the two bodies. This was why both Ban as well as his spokesperson used the word "meeting" the LLRC.
The Government's continued stance was bolstered further when it said that any allegations would be probed locally. On May 15, this year, President Rajapaksa issued a warrant to establish an eight-member commission under the Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1978. Eminent President's Counsel and former Attorney General C.R. de Silva was to head it. The Commission was tasked to "inquire and report on the following matters that may have taken place during the period between February 21, 2002 and May 19, 2009:
- the facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement operationalized on 21st February 2002 and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to the 19th May 2009;
- whether any person, group, or institution directly or indirectly bear responsibility in this regard;
- the lessons we would learn from those events and their attendant concerns, in order to ensure that there will be no recurrence;
- the methodology whereby restitution to any person affected by those events or their dependents or to heirs, can be effected;
- the institutional administrative and legislative measures which need to be taken in order to prevent any recurrence of such concerns in the future, and to promote further national unity and reconciliation among all communities, and to make any such other recommendations with reference to any of the matters that have been inquired into under the terms of this Warrant."
Whether a visit from the UN panel would eventually materialise still remains a critical question. UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told the Sunday Times by e-mail: "Regarding any meeting with the LLRC, all I can say is that the matter is still being considered and we're looking at possible arrangements." On Thursday, he told reporters at the UN, "…. The panel will work broader than simply dealing with the LLRC".
The remarks made clear that the UN panel planned not only to meet the LLRC but also others -- a move which the Government will resist. This is whilst opposition is building up in sections of the Government itself on whether the panel should be allowed to come.
The Government has now taken up the firm position that any visit by the panel will only be to "make representations" to the LLRC. They will not be allowed to meet or interview persons or conduct any other official business during the proposed visit to Sri Lanka. This position has been conveyed to Sri Lanka's UN ambassador Dr. Kohona. It is in this backdrop that the Chief of Staff of the UN panel, Richard Bennet, is expected to visit Sri Lanka next week.
Another official assisting the panel will accompany him. Bennet is a representative of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (OHCR). He last served as OHCR representative in Nepal. UN sources in New York told the Sunday Times by telephone that a visit by the panel was unlikely if conditions were placed on their visit.
Ban's announcement of the panel's planned visit to Sri Lanka caught the Government completely off guard. External Affairs Minister Peiris was to explain to LLRC members at a December 18 meeting how the announcement had come about. He said he was doing so in the light of "media reports." In other words, Peiris, wittingly or unwittingly disclosed that as External Affairs Minister, he had been unaware of the unfolding of events. Not until the media had reported it, did he know.
Some present at the discussion were left with the impression that a Sri Lankan diplomat to the UN in New York had 'mishandled' the entire issue that paved the way for a possible visit. Peiris insisted the visit was not the result of a Government decision. The result of the meeting was a statement from the LLRC on Wednesday. It said:
"There have been some inquiries from the national media regarding a visit to Sri Lanka by the UN Secretary General's Panel. Any decision to facilitate the UN SG's Panel to visit Sri Lanka lies entirely with the Government of Sri Lanka. If a decision is made to permit such a visit the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) will hear such representations on the basis of its Warrant and the usual procedures followed for such hearings"
According to an LLRC source, "our Commission does not go into the legality or otherwise of those who want to make representations. Those who want to appear before us will have to write to us first - unless we invite them ourselves. They will have to give us a brief account of what they want to say. They will then be given an opportunity to appear before us. The issue of visas for those coming from abroad is a matter for the Government. We remain an independent body that works on our mandate. If the UN panel has any information to give us, we will look into it".
Nevertheless, developments related to the panel's visit do raise some very critical questions. Though the LLRC would stick to its own procedures and allow anyone to make representations before it, for the Sri Lanka Government, the case of the UN panel is quite different. It is a body, which the Government had declared, is illegal and mustered two thirds of the world's countries to protest. State run media outlets had carried out a fierce campaign against them.
Granting those visas and permitting members of the panel to appear before the LLRC amounts to the Government granting formal official recognition to the UN panel. Whether they come to Sri Lanka or not, the official response to Ban's remarks has already conferred it. After all, the three members are not coming to Sri Lanka in their individual capacity to make "representations," as Peiris contends on an "internal matter." Their visit, as Ban says, is the result of "long consultations" with President Rajapaksa. The question, therefore, is whether such consultations have made the Government of Sri Lanka change its mind and recant on the accusations made against Ban, the UN and the panel? Such accusations even included a charge by former Minister, late Jeyaraj Fernandopulle that the then UN under Secretary General John Holmes was a terrorist.
This also raises the all-important question whether Sri Lanka has a coherent foreign policy. If indeed, there is one, who executes it? Until UN Secretary General Ban announced at his year-end news conference in New York on December 17, the fact that the UN panel planned to visit Sri Lanka was not known to most in the Government. Not even to External Affairs Minister Peiris who had to brief the LLRC on the basis of what he had seen in "media reports."
If that is comical enough, there is more. Even the statement in this regard from his own Ministry began by saying "The attention of the Ministry of External Affairs has been drawn to reports in the media of a possible visit to Sri Lanka by the United Nations Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka." In other words, until the media reports, even the Ministry was unaware of such a "possible visit." Sri Lanka's friends in the Non Aligned Movement were unaware too. Why does a "possible visit" by a panel, once declared officially by the Government of Sri Lanka as an "illegal" entity, warrant an External Affairs Ministry response?
Then, the Ministry statement refers to notices displayed in Sri Lankan newspapers calling for representations to the LLRC. The Government of Sri Lanka therefore, the statement adds, "has the responsibility to facilitate those desirous of presenting representations, as set out in the mandate of the Commission." The Ministry says, "Accordingly, in the event of the Panel of the Secretary-General wishing to present representations to the Commission, the Ministry of External Affairs will make the arrangements that are necessary to enable the panel to do so…." Even before there is any certainty over the visit of the panel, the Ministry has laboured hard to volunteer to make the "necessary arrangements." Why this volte-face?
Pointing this out is not to say it is neither good nor bad to allow the UN panel to visit Sri Lanka. That is a separate debate. Until last week, it was the Government that had chosen not to allow them to come and maintained the body was illegal. It is being pointed out purely to highlight the serious lacunas in the conduct of Sri Lanka's foreign policy. When there are debacles, spin doctors go to work to shroud reality and give Sri Lankans and the outside world an entirely different picture. The ploy is transparent, unrealistic and glaring.
Strange are the ways of Minister Peiris and his External Affairs Ministry. In the past ten months, he has continued to call the UN panel illegal and described the panel as a "manipulative" step by Ban. His ministry now says that it "will make necessary arrangements that are necessary" for the same panel and that too "in the event" they want to come. When did Peiris and his ministry realise that the panel was wishing to make "representations" to the LLRC? Is it not after Ban's "long consultations" with President Rajapaksa?
Ban has said he appreciates the "flexibility" of the President. That suggests that the UNSG persuaded Rajapaksa to agree though the basis on which it was done is not clear. The Presidential Secretariat has not explained matters. Yet, the minister and the External Affairs Ministry want Sri Lankans to believe they were merely acting on "media reports" and offering to "make all arrangements." Is this not an insult to the intelligence of Sri Lankans?
If one is to believe them, the Minister who is expected to run the country's foreign policy as well as Sri Lanka's diplomatic mission in the UN was in the dark until Ban made the announcement. After he had done so, they had assumed that the UN panel was simply heeding the LLRC announcement in Sri Lankan newspapers to come to Sri Lanka and make "representations." Surely, the ministry should be well aware that the UN panel has been given a mandate by the Secretary General.
Last week's developments came about quite casually during a Q & A at the UN. Here is what the official record said:
"Q: Mr. Secretary-General, my question is on Sri Lanka and just about when your Panel of Experts plans to release its report on the LLRC [Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission] and will it be made public? And do you have any comment on independent media reports that the conduct of the LLRC has been way below standard, and the testimony has only come from a fairly small fraction of the population, and is there anything that can be done about that at this late stage?
SG: After long consultations between myself and President [Mahinda] Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, I am pleased that the Panel of Experts is now able to visit Sri Lanka and meet with the Commission on Lessons Learned and Reconciliation, and I sincerely hope that the Panel of Experts will be able to have good co-operation, to have an accountability process and make progress as soon as possible. This is a result of long consultations, and I appreciate the flexibility of the President Rajapaksa on this issue."
This is not the first time that Peiris and his ministry have been caught off guard. Early this month, the fiasco, where President Rajapaksa had to hurriedly return from London to Colombo after the Oxford Union cancelled an invitation for him to speak, caused widespread embarrassment both in Sri Lanka and abroad. Neither the ministry nor the Sri Lanka High Commission was aware that well laid plains had been made to obstruct Rajapaksa's speech. None of the British Government Ministers afforded the visiting President of even a courtesy call other than for Defence Secretary Liam Fox. Just last month, Peiris repeated in Parliament that the President of Nepal had asked President Rajapaksa to mediate in that country's internal political crisis. For the second time, the President's spokesperson in Kathmandu strongly denied the claim.
In just one month, Sri Lanka has gone through two major foreign policy fiascos. The first was the one in Oxford where a few hundred youth armed only with Tiger guerrilla flags chanted slogans and forced the Oxford Union to cancel an invitation. Now, the UN Secretary General has claimed success in his "long consultations" and praised Rajapaksa's "flexibility" for the UN panel to have a "meeting" with the LLRC.
This week, in the backdrop of WikiLeaks exposés, Peiris summoned US Ambassador Patricia Butenis for a discussion at the Foreign Ministry on Wednesday. The subjects were references made in US Embassy cables from Colombo to Washington.
Among other matters, he raised issue over a cable her predecessor, Robert Blake, now Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia in the Department of State, has written. This is what the External Affairs Ministry statement had to say on the subject:
"He said that he is constrained however to point out that the purported cables do contain glaring instances of allegations totally unwarranted by the ground reality, being conveyed to Washington. As examples, the Minister cited the claims of children being sold into slavery, with the boys to work in camps and the girls to prostitution rings. The Minister emphasized that conveying of such mendacious stories clearly fabricated to denigrate Sri Lanka, are totally negative to the objective of diplomacy, which is building bridges and promoting understanding. The Minister expressed the view that at least where future instances may be concerned, greater circumspection would be appropriate…."
It is only because of WikiLeaks exposures that some of these cables have entered the public domain. There may be hundreds if not thousands of other cables, which are not public. US diplomats including their ambassadors are posted to various countries including Colombo to further and protect their interests and no amount of diplomacy or "ear bashing" can change the prism they look through. It is their perceptions that are reported to their country and that is a key component of diplomacy worldwide. It would be much the same if a Sri Lankan envoy in Europe was to report to Colombo on developments concerning that country. That is if the External Affairs Ministry is not seeking only "sunshine stories." However, Peiris cannot be faulted for raising issue over concerns that may have arisen creating a necessity to set the record right.
Yet, as Peiris noted in the statement, the objective of diplomacy is "building bridges and promoting understanding." How many Sri Lankan missions abroad are doing this? Have countries in the west in particular, despite alleged prejudices, been diplomatically engaged by Sri Lanka to provide them a correct picture of what is going? Like those in Colombo, most have followed the new culture of painting black all those who raise uncomfortable issues that are not to our liking.
The visit of the UN panel to Sri Lanka may still not materialise. However, the External Affairs Ministry wants Sri Lankans to believe it came to know claims of the panel's visit from "media reports" and it is yet prepared to make "all arrangements." That is for a panel that had remained outlawed in Sri Lanka for the past ten months or more. One is not too sure whether to laugh or cry at the pathetic state of how Sri Lanka's foreign policy is conducted. Most things seem to be foreign to those responsible. What was said yesterday is contradicted today. The trend continues.
Disputes continue: Ranil, Sajith seek unity
Two weeks after its annual sessions where a new constitution was adopted, the game of musical chairs continues in the United National Party, the country's premier opposition.
With just five more days to go for the New Year, one might say such games are part of year-end fun and frolic. However, it is different in the case of the UNP. They will only be for those who are jockeying for the top seats in the party. Others, who fail to obtain one, will not only lose their revelry but also their power in the party.
The new game for securing positions began just as the UNP's annual sessions ended on December 12. As reported last week, Sajith Premadasa (MP- Hambantota District), a strong aspirant for the post of leader, stole the show at the annual sessions. Buoyed by that, his supporters pressed on their hero to stake his claims for the leadership.
 |
| Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe distributes leaflets at the Maradana Railway Station urging the public and private sector employees to fight for the Rs. 10,000 salary increase |
A former UNP chairman played the role of mediator between leader incumbent, Ranil Wickremesinghe and leader aspirant Sajith Premadasa, as revealed last week. These references prompted Wickremesinghe to tell the Sunday Times yesterday, "no one is talking on my behalf. I have not authorised anyone to do so." A senior member of the Premadasa faction said, "We are talking to Malik (Samarawickrama) only because he is playing the role of a mediator. Otherwise, for us, it would be like talking to a blank wall."
Yet, Wickremesinghe was in consultation with senior leaders of the party including one-time Speaker Joseph Michael Perera and one-time Minister John Ameratunga about the new developments, while another group of party new-comers were huddled in consultation with Premadasa. It seemed that it was now turning out to be a tussle between the senior elephants and the young elephants, remarked a party insider. These talks are to be continued after the Christmas holidays.
More light was thrown this week on the developments after the UNP adopted a new constitution a fortnight back. Premadasa's archrival Ravi Karunanayake (MP-Colombo district), who has exchanged a war of words, returned to Colombo after a European-Union-sponsored tour last Tuesday. He was incensed. Hardly had he got off the plane, he made a bee-line to Wickremesinghe's office room at Cambridge Terrace. He stormed into his room and protested vehemently over what he called the "secret deals" Wickremesinghe was reportedly working out. "When you were in trouble, we stuck our head out. You are now doing deals behind our back with those who were described as a cancer in the party. This is a complete let down", he said.
However, the Colombo North/Kotte parliamentarian declined comment except to say he met his leader. Nevertheless, he could not contain his anger. He has given at least three different interviews to Sinhala Sunday newspapers. Of course, he does not refer to his spat.
"No, No!! Malik is doing this without my approval. I am kept informed. Malik is not acting on my behalf," Wickremesinghe had replied. Karunanayake had said he did not accept that position and was fully aware of "what has been going on." According to one high ranking UNP source, Karunanayake had gone to the extent of telling his leader that he was doing all this "only to keep his own seat warm all the time." After making a lengthy protest, he had stormed out, with the same gusto he stormed in, from the opposition leader's office.
The mediator, Malik Samarawickrema, a former Chairman of the UNP, is a close friend of Wickremesinghe. He also enjoys close ties with President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Early this year, Samarawickrema brokered a meeting between Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe to discuss issues related to the Constitution before the 18th Amendment was eventually passed. Yet other Wickremesinghe loyalists believe UPFA leaders inducted Samarawickrema to the cause.
In the past several days, Samarawickrema has been talking to Bodhi Ranasinghe, a former Wickremesinghe confidant and one-time chairman of the Hotels Corporation. He is now a close associate of Premadasa. Insiders say, Samarawickrema's task is to bring about a rapprochement between Wickremesinghe and Premadasa with the former to remain as party leader.
He wants Wickremesinghe to continue as the leader of the UNP whilst Premadasa would become the deputy leader. That would see the present incumbent Karu Jayasuriya unseated and offered the ceremonial position of party Chairman.
Jayasuriya has said he would not stand in the way of party unity but his own supporters are strongly of the view he should not step down. Samarawickrema is learnt to have told Mangala Samaraweera that some Premadasa supporters wanted him (Samaraweera) made the UNP national organiser. Samaraweera is learnt to have rejected the offer and declared that he would not seek any such office. Currently, he heads the party's media unit though. This is the understanding he had reached with Wickremesinghe, when he joined the UNP, he had pointed out.
Last week as we exclusively reported, Bodhi Ranasinghe had conveyed to Samarawickrama the view of the pro-Premadasa group, i.e. that the young MP from Hambantota and son of President R. Premadasa would be inclined to make a bid for the party leader's post with the promulgation of the new party constitution earlier this month. The group was willing to make another amendment to the constitution to create the post of senior leader and offer it to Wickremesinghe.
Samarawickrama had asked for three days to revert, but the three days lapsed last Saturday with no come back from Samarawickrama.
On Monday Ranasinghe had called Samarawickrama to ascertain the position, but on Tuesday Samarawickrama told Ranasinghe that party seniors John Amaratunga and Joseph Michael Perera had informed Wickremesinghe that Premadasa was prepared to accept the deputy leader post and that there was no need for further consultation.
The night before, both Wickremesinghe and Premadasa were on the same platform at a meeting to felicitate a party provincial councillor in Kelaniya and both showed a united front by calling for party unity. Premadasa had then begun a five day tour of the provinces meeting the Maha Nayakas in Kandy, MPs, ex-MPs and professionals of the party and came for a meeting at Ranasinghe's residence on Friday night where his backers were waiting for him.
Among those present were MPs Ranjit Madduma Bandara, Rosy Senanayake, Thalatha Atukorale, Dayasiri Jayasekera, Sujeeva Senasinghe, Gayan Karunatillake, Asoka Abeysinghe and former party secretary Daham Wimalasena and lawyers Upul Jayasuriya, Ronald Perera and Maithree Gunaratne.
It was not quite the numbers expected, but the low turn out was put to the Christmas season and most MPs having left for their constituencies and on vacation. After all, the group has claimed to have 28 out of the 42 MPs of its parliamentary group supporting Premadasa over Wickremesinghe. Premadasa was asked directly if he had given such a commitment to the party seniors saying he would accept the deputy leader's post, something he vehemently denied.
After a patient hearing to the views of others, Premadasa again said he was grateful to Wickremesinghe for having come to his late father's assistance during the party revolt of the 1990s and the impeachment motion, but that he acknowledged the pressure on him especially after the convention to make a bid for the leader's post. The next question was on the timing.
There was a chorus that chanted that this was the time to make his move. Dayasiri Jayasekera (MP-Kurunegala) almost chided him by saying he had to leave for a party that night and singing "karanawa nam dan karanna naththan api giya" (if you are doing it do it now, otherwise we are off) as he bid adieu.
The confidence of the group was reflected in the discussion as to whether to offer Wickremesinghe any post whatsoever.
Premadasa made his oft repeated comment that he would not want to make the same mistake his father made with stalwarts like Lalith Athulahtmudali and Gamini Dissanayake and would want Wickremesinghe within the fold. He said that he would like Ravi Karunayake also to be given a post which drew an immediate murmur. The consensus was that they were willing to offer Wickremesinghe the post of senior leader and continue as leader of the opposition, but that would not be 'offered' in the first instance.
To the burning question whether he was going to make a bid for the top post, and make it now, Premadasa consented to do so now. The final decision being that Premadasa will meet Wickremesinghe together with Ranjith Madduma Bandara and two others whom he did not mention and declare his intention to make a claim for the party leadership. But before that he will meet party seniors like Joseph Michael Perera, John Amaratuga, Gamini Jayawickrema Perera and General Secretary Tissa Attanayake who are all vacationing, to convince them of his intentions. Ranasinghe moved swiftly into action by asking Samarawickrama on Friday around 10.30 am for an appointment with Wickremesinghe on a date next week.
A consensus vote for the leader, according to the new UNP Constitution, would have to be held at a joint meeting of the Working Committee and the Parliamentary Group. A date for this has not yet been fixed, but it was likely to be on or about 10 January next year. The Interim Working Committee was constituted this week with all members reappointed other than Abdul Cader, Lakshman Seneviratne and Earl Gunasekera who joined the Government recently to support the 18th Amendment and get ministerial and deputy ministerial posts.
Meanwhile, Wickremesinghe has tasked attorneys Daya Pelpola and Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa to draft a working paper on the modalities to be adopted with the new constitution now in place. It is only thereafter that a date is to be fixed for a Working Committee meeting, though many think 10 January, 2011 or thereabouts would be the date.
Premadasa is also working towards the enrolment of former General Sarath Fonseka into the UNP fold should he become the leader of the party. The groundwork for this has been going on for months with Tiran Alles, the General Secretary of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA). The move has caused strains with the JVP, the main constituent partner in the DNA.
JVP sources say they would not stand in the way over such a development since they could move forward politically with their own identity. However, these sources said they would avoid an open confrontation over the differences.
In terms of the UNP constitution, now in force, the party leader among others would have to be elected by consensus. If that fails, the party's Working Committee would have to decide to hold a secret ballot. Thus, during a vote, only 87 UNPers - 75 members of the Working Committee and 43 MPs (12 of them are not members of the Working Committee) who would have to cast their vote.
Wickremesinghe supporters argue that he could easily muster more than 50 votes and remain leader. That is if he calls the Working Committee and the Parliamentary Group to meet early to conduct an election. However, they are yet to convince Wickremesinghe to call such a meeting early. On the other hand, Premadasa loyalists insist that the numbers game is very much in their favour. One loyalist said somewhat humorously "those who talk to him in the morning talk to us at night."
Premadasa told the meeting in Kelaniya that he was willing to work with the party leader. This could of course mean that he as lLeader and Wickremesinghe as senior leader cum opposition leader. The sentiments were reciprocated by Wickremesinghe loyalists at a news conference on Wednesday, that both can work together; the nagging question being who would be numero uno.
Wickremesinghe, his loyalists say, has asked three pro-UNP websites not to criticise Premadasa. Two websites - saathakaya.com and ethulata.com are run by a close Wickremesinghe aide. The third run by a former Southern Province MP is unp.lk. Another pro UNP website aththa.com has just been registered. Also advised not to criticise Premadasa is the website srilankamirror.com, backed by Mangala Samaraweera. Wickremesinghe is said to have told them to instead emphasise in their reports that there was a greater need for party unity.
The year is not yet over, nor is the clarity as to who would lead the UNP in 2011. |
E-mail