The Poya day bombing occured just seven days after the United States on Oct. 8 listed the LTTE as one of 30 international terrorist groups. Colombo was then gripped by rumours that the Tamil Tigers were now targeting Americans, in this case a contingent of U.S. Special Forces — Green Berets — who were reported to be at the Galadari Hotel on the morning of the attack. In the immediate aftermath, the U.S. Embassy declined to comment officially on the bombing and security-related matters affecting Washington’s relations with Colombo. But last week, in the first of two interviews with The Sunday Times, Anne V. Barbaro, Director of the U.S. Information Service and the Embassy’s spokesperson, articulated Washington’s stance on these questions that have become grist for public debate
Q. The bombing in centre of Colombo on October 15 — widely suspected to be carried out by LTTE separatists — came exactly a week after the group was blacklisted by the U.S. State Department as an international terrorist organization. Was this attack an act of retaliation against the U.S. government and its citizens for banning the LTTE?
A. As far as we know, there is no evidence to suggest that the October 15 bombing was linked to the U.S. government’s designation of 30 terrorist organizations (among them the LTTE). Dozens of innocent civilians from at least 20 countries were injured in the blast; seven of those injured were American citizens. The immediate target of the attack appears to have been the World Trade Center, which is not American owned.
Q. Washington, it appears, has been slow to react to the point of not issuing a statement so far. What’s holding the U.S. back, given its stated vow to crack down on LTTE operations and funding on American territory?
A. Our public statement a week before the bombing made it crystal clear that the United States condemns all terrorist activity and that the LTTE has been designated, among 29 other groups, as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. That law requires that LTTE financial assets in the United States be blocked, that members and representatives of that organization be excluded from the United States, and that anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who provides material support to the LTTE can be brought to book. Material support includes fundraising on behalf of the LTTE. Anyone found guilty of providing material support faces fines and a possible prison term of up to ten years.
Q. Now that the LTTE has been classified as a terror group, will American arms makers and dealers, both big-time and small, be prosecuted under your nation’s laws? Will they also be considered as those who “provide material support to the LTTE,” or will America’s military-industrial complex, in fact, be legally immune to this?
A. Independent of the designation of the 30 foreign terrorist organizations, the U.S. has long had a stringent and effective arms control regime designed to protect American interests, including recognition of nations’ rights of self-defense and humanitarian concerns. The export of any defense articles –- and this includes even dual-use articles such as sporting shotguns or “rook rifles” — is prohibited without a specific Federal license. Each license must specify the country of destination and end-user, and those that evade or even attempt to evade these requirements have for many years been subject to prosecution. An application for a license for arms for the LTTE –- or for a shipment that would likely end up with the LTTE — would surely be rejected. We know of no reports from any credible source that U.S. arms manufacturers or dealers are supplying the LTTE. Should they attempt to do so, their prosecution would already be provided for under prior laws — and anyone familiar with U.S. license regulations would know that such cases are prosecuted and that criminals go to jail.
Q. Colombo’s World Trade Center was probably the LTTE’s target, but can you confirm reports that a contingent of U.S. Special Forces was housed in the Galadari or Hilton Hotels at the time of the attack? It may have been “purely coincidental” that U.S. temporary military personnel happened to be there, but the comings and goings of Green Berets here has been public knowledge for quite some time, as they have been seen frequenting first-class hotels in Colombo. Perhaps they weren’t being targeted in this attack, but were the LTTE in this instance, conveniently tagging a warning message to their bomb? After all, within an hour of the attack, according to reports, the Voice of America relay station at Chilaw was alerted to imminent possibility of such a reprisal.
A. Along with many private American citizens, four U.S. military personnel on temporary duty with the Embassy were staying at one of the hotels in question on October 15. There was no “contingent of Special Forces” at any of these hotels. Private and official Americans stay at many of the hotels in Colombo, often making reservations only a few days in advance. All accounts indicate the LTTE attack on the World Trade Center was planned well in advance. It seems highly unlikely the LTTE would have rushed into an attack of such magnitude on short notice on the outside chance the blast would affect a few Americans. As I said earlier, innocent citizens from at least 20 countries were injured in the blast.
We did relocate some personnel from our VOA site, but that was on a temporary basis, unrelated to the October 15 attack. The relocation allowed us time to review the overall security situation in light of recent events.
Q. We appreciate that your military personnel should be protected by your country’s privacy laws, but it could be argued that their presence on Lankan soil attracts public controversy and places those civilians around them at risk. One doesn’t have to look far to see that the presence of U.S. government emissaries in this nationally and politically charged country can lead to trouble. So what has happened to these temporary military personnel? Were any injured in the blast? Were they moved from Colombo to Sri Lankan military bases, or were they flown abroad for their safety?
A. We do not believe the presence of American citizens — private or official — in Sri Lanka threatens anyone. We have had official Americans in this country since well before Sri Lanka achieved independence, right through the entire period of this nation’s tragic conflict. In fact, Americans have had a presence here for almost 200 years. For instance, American missionaries helped found the American Ceylon Mission in Jaffna in 1816, beginning a long and proud relationship between the United States and the people of Jaffna. So, as I said, we do not believe our presence here is a threat to anyone. As for the military personnel who were in Sri Lanka at the time of the bombing, they have returned to the United States with the conclusion of their consultations with the Embassy.
Q. Yes, but of the military personnel who were in Sri Lanka on the exchange program at the time of the October 15 bombing, was their mission completed? Are other missions in the works? And how do you assess the security situation, will these exchanges continue?
A. Your use of the terms ‘completed’and ‘mission’ imply a specific project. Let me stress again that what we have here is a series of on-going, low-level, meetings and contacts, much as the U.S. has with some forty other countries in this region. While the Embassy and our military colleagues continuously assess the security situation in relation to the security of all U.S. citizens in Sri Lanka, in both the official and non-official communities, to date there has been no decision taken to discontinue these exchanges.
Q. What is their mission in Sri Lanka? Has the Pentagon sent Green Berets here to train local troops in anti-terrorism, or jungle warfare and counter-insurgency, which, during the Vietnam War, was where Special Forces made their name? On their training runs here, do they ever go into the field with Lankan troops to gather intelligence about how the LTTE wages its guerrilla war against the Sri Lankan forces ? Might Green Berets also be used to train for the securing of American installations like VOA? As the U.S. expands its commercial role in Sri Lanka, can we expect to see them returning to train for the safeguarding of U.S. companies doing business here?
A. As has been publicized before, very small groups of U.S. military personnel come to Sri Lanka for a limited number of exchange programs (three or four) each year. These programs are essentially identical to programs the U.S. conducts with dozens of countries in the region; materials covered range from aviation and orthopedic surgery to land navigation and first aid. The exchanges are not secret. The courses are always limited in duration to a few weeks at most, and all exercises and meetings take place well away from the areas of conflict. U.S. military personnel have never gone into action with Sri Lankan forces; they do not gather intelligence about the LTTE, nor do they operate against that organization. The United States is not a party to the conflict here and has no wish to become a party to this conflict.
The exchange programs here do, however, have one particular objective in mind: to help professionalize Sri Lankan military personnel to whatever extent we can. Our programs, for instance, stress respect for humanitarian law. By doing so, we hope to help minimize civilian casualties in the conflict and build a respect for and appreciation of POW rights.
The Green Berets do not have a responsibility for protecting U.S. government facilities or U.S. businesses in Sri Lanka. That responsibility lies with the host country security services.
[More next week...]–
The EPDP has decided not to meet the main opposition UNP together with the other Tamil-speaking Parliamentary parties to discuss issues which remain to be resolved but indicated that it will meet the UNP by itself when the need arises.
EPDP spokesman S. Thavarajah told The Sunday Times that a story was going round that some parties representing the Tamil-speaking people will be meeting the UNP soon to discuss the government’s proposal for constitutional reforms. He said he did not believe this story.
“Our views on the government’s proposal have been aired at the Parliamentary Select Committee, and through it, to Parliament and publicity has been given in the media to our rider to the government’s proposal,” he said.
“It should be clear to anyone that the TULF and the SLMC accept the government’s proposal in toto except the proposal to hold three referenda for parcelling out the Eastern Province,” he pointed out and reiterated, “We will never be a party to any attempt to excise any part of the already merged North-East Province.”
As there is a fundamental difference in perspective between the EPDP and other two Tamil-speaking parties - TULF and SLMC - which have already submitted riders, EPDP therefore does not see any usefulness in meeting the UNP along with the parties referred, he said.
A group of irate Sri Lankans went on rampage damaging the furniture, equipment and the official vehicle of the Sri Lankan Consulate in Jeddah on Wednesday, diplomats said.
The Sri Lankans, who had overstayed their visas in Saudi Arabia, were to be repatriated under an amnesty given by the Saudi Arabian government. These Sri Lankans, who had overstayed their visas in Saudi Arabia, were to be repatriated under an amnesty given by the Saudi Arabian government. These Sri Lankans, numbering 85, had sought the help of the consulate for their repatriation as they were unable to buy their tickets.
It is learnt that when the mission’s action was delayed even after the deadline stipulated by the Saudi government, expired, the group had unleashed their anger towards the mission which was looking after them and making arrangements for their journey.
Police arrested some of the Sri Lankans. The head of the mission, M.U.M. Sabry was not available for comment since the communications systems of the mission is seriously damaged after the attack. The Saudi government had set October 16 as the deadline for the overstayers to leave for home. Under the amnesty programme, the mission assisted more than 500 Lankans who were able to purchase their air tickets on their own.
Sri Lankan embassy official in Riyadh said the mission had given all possible assistance to these illegal residents who sought refuge in the embassy under the amnesty regulation.
The Army High Command has overridden a tender body’s recommendation of a British bid to sell mortar and field gun-locating radars to Sri Lanka —at around half the cost of the next recommended bid according to well-placed defence sources.
Hughes, an American defence contractor is reported to have gained the inside track in bids to sell a package of two radars to the Armed Forces for as much as $11.2mn, insiders told The Sunday Times.
On Friday, short-listed bidders, including Racal (UK), submitted fresh bids for a tender called only on Oct. 24 and closed on Oct. 31.
According to documents, an earlier bid by Racal this year to sell two Cymbelines at a cost of $7.1mn was not “recommended”, despite the radars apparently meeting most of the technical specifications laid down by an inter-departmental tender committee. On top of this, Racal claims that their radars could be shipped to Sri Lanka “in one month and be operationally available two weeks later....”
According to one source, Ministry of Defence brass, as late as “two weeks back”, may have already decided who would be awarded the contract, although the tender process is on-going. They would have called for the latest tender on Oct. 24, in a move to squeeze out other prospective bidders, the source said.
“The order for Cymbeline was unofficially placed and later cancelled,” the source said yesterday. “A fresh tender was then called for within seven days.”
“One of our officials was trying to influence the outcome, and another top-level source wanted to give the contract to an American party [Hughes],” he said.
The rejection of the Racal has yet to be made official, he added, and Hughes appears close to clinching the deal, along with USSR Rosnovia, a Russian defence contractor, and an unnamed Chinese one.
The fact that MOD called for a new bid to be closed so quickly was also irregular, since tenders are normally issued to some 99 registered “restricted suppliers” worldwide, with at least a month’s notice, he noted.
On Saturday, local agents for Hughes and Rosnovia could not be reached for comment.
Employees of the National Development Trust Fund, formerly known as the Janasaviya Trust Fund, are protesting against the closure of the institution which they say will throw them out of job.
The directors of this institution, which played a major role in poverty alleviation during the Premadasa administration, have appealed against the closure saying that more than 1600 people would lose their jobs and some Rs. 1,300 millions in the account of the fund from the World Bank possibly go unused.
Officials said the directors had written to the Labour Commissioner asking him to intervene in getting the government to review its decision.
They said letters of letters of termination had been sent to employees of the institution though the World Bank had promised that aid for poverty alleviation would continue for the next five years.
Finance Ministry sources said that the government would not close down the entire institution but only sections of it. Employees, however, said all sections had been informed of the closure. Some employees are refusing to accept the letters of termination sent by the Fund’s Managing Director N. H. Perera, saying the move is unlawful and unfair.
Continue to the News/Comment page 3
Return to the News/Comment contents page
| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk