23 June, 2024


Enemies Of The President’s Promise

By Rajiva Wijesinha –

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP

In May 2009, Sri Lanka seemed on top of the world. Under President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan government and forces had defeated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which had dominated Tamil politics in Sri Lanka. It had survived conflict with not just successive Sri Lankan governments, but even the might of India.

Though the Tigers had been banned by several countries, there was some sympathy for them in many Western nations who could not distinguish between them and the Tamils of Sri Lanka, who they felt had been badly treated by successive Sri Lankan governments. Fuelled by a powerful diaspora that sympathized with and even supported the Tigers, several Western nations had tried to stop the war being fought to a conclusion. When this attempt failed, they initiated a special session at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, but the condemnation they anticipated of the Sri Lankan government did not occur.

Instead, Sri Lanka initiated a resolution of its own, which passed with an overwhelming majority. It received the support of most countries outside the Western bloc, including India and Pakistan and China and Russia and South Africa and Brazil and Egypt.

War Crime 1Less than three years later, the situation had changed. A resolution critical of Sri Lanka was carried at the Council in Geneva in March 2012, with India voting in its favour. It had been initiated by the United States, and won support from several African and Latin American countries, including Brazil, that had been supportive previously. Next year an even more critical resolution was passed, with a larger majority, followed in 2014 by a Resolution which mandated an investigation by the Office of the High Commissioner. India voted against this Resolution, but it still passed with a large majority.

Meanwhile international criticism of Sri Lanka has increased. It had a tough ride over the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Colombo in November 2013. Though the British Prime Minister withstood pressures to boycott the event, the Indian Prime Minister did not attend. The Indians did not engage in overt criticism, but the Canadian Prime Minister was extremely harsh in explaining his absence. And the British Prime Minister made it clear that he would raise a number of issues suggesting that Sri Lanka needed to address several grave charges.

How had this happened? How had a country that dealt successfully with terrorism, and did so with less collateral damage than in other similar situations, found itself so conclusively in the dock within a few years? How had it lost the support of India, which had been strongly supportive of the effort to rid the country of terrorism?

India had made clear its commitment to the welfare of the Tamil population of Sri Lanka, but the Sri Lankan government had initially acted in accordance, and managed to resettle all the displaced, to rehabilitate former combatants, and to rebuild the war ravaged areas more swiftly and successfully than had initially been thought possible. Despite all this, in the election to the Northern Provincial Council, in September 2013, it was trounced by the Tamil National Alliance, which had been under the control of the LTTE while it existed.

What made the government so unpopular amongst the Tamils whom it thought it had liberated, and for whom it had developed infrastructure so effectively? Why internationally had the impression been created that the Sri Lankan government was catering to a Sinhala Buddhist constituency, with no regard for pluralism and the pursuit of reconciliation? Why did the Indian government seem upset with progress when so much had been done?

These essays will attempt to answer the above questions, by looking at the ultimately destructive contribution of several individuals to whom the President had entrusted a range of responsibilities. My own view is that the President himself had wanted to move towards reconciliation, and also to address several questions that other countries had raised, but those he thought would fulfil these tasks had failed him. Of course the ultimate responsibility is his, and his failure to ensure that those working on his behalf fulfilled the policies he had enunciated cannot be excused. But it needs to be understood, if  Sri Lanka is to move forward from the morass in which it now finds itself.

Before discussing the problems caused by individuals in whom the President had reposed trust, I will set out here the major errors that I believe occurred in the last four years, to bring us to the current position.

First, in July 2009, soon after the seminal victory at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the Sri Lankan ambassador in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleka, who had been the architect of that victory, was summarily dismissed. Significantly, another ambassador had described the protective wall he had built as an empire. Yet the Sri Lankan government got rid of a diplomat who had commanded this level of confidence amongst his colleagues.

Second, when the American government in October 2009 addressed a list of questions about the conduct of the war, posed in a conciliatory manner, the Sri Lankan government failed to respond. This was though the questions were based on a Foreign Policy assessment by a committee chaired by John Kerry which suggested that the US government should engage more sympathetically with Sri Lanka.

Third, when the former Commander of the Army alleged that decision makers in government were responsible for the execution of Tigers who had come forward with White Flags so as to surrender, he was accused not of lying, but of being treacherous. This created the impression that what he had said was true. In fact he had made a very different allegation some months earlier, in claiming that he had been ordered to spare people carrying White Flags but, since he knew their enormity, he had acted as required. It would seem that his position then was that he was the hero of a tough war, whereas the government had been soft. But a few months later, he was able to present the government as the tough guys, a trap into which they readily fell.

Fourth, though the President had frequently promised interlocutors from the Indian government that he would move swiftly on greater measures of devolution, statements to this effect were rejected by various government spokesmen. The understanding the Indian government thought it had was never confirmed by either the President or the Minister of External Affairs, though the Indians believed the position they had put forward had been agreed.

Fifth, understanding the damage done by the new ambassador in Geneva, the President recalled her and replaced her with a trusted confidante, Tamara Kunanayakam, but the Ministry of External Affairs sent a massive delegation to Geneva in March 2012 which subverted her efforts and embarrassed the Indian government. Following the vote, she was dismissed.

Sixth, despite difficult relations with Britain, the position of High Commissioner there was left vacant for several months, and the opportunity to establish good relations with the new Conservative government, following the low level to which they had sunk while David Miliband was Foreign Minister, was lost.

Seventh, following her removal from Geneva, the President asked Ms Kunanayakam to serve in Cuba with a brief to develop better relations throughout Latin America, but the Ministry of External Affairs did not allow this initiative to go ahead.

Eighth, though Dayan Jayatilleka was appointed to Paris several months after being dismissed from Geneva, he was subject to harassment, from the Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Ministry of Defence. Having finished his contract, he returned to Sri Lanka but has not been deployed effectively.

Ninth, the President’s commitment to address accountability issues was forgotten until after the UN appointed its own panel of investigation. Though the President then appointed a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, its interim report was ignored, whereas swift action could have overcome some of the criticism raised in the UN report.

Tenth, there was no rebuttal of the charges made in the UN report, even though several of the allegations it recorded contradicted what UN records of the period in question had established.

Eleventh, though the President asked in December 2011 for an Action Plan to carry out the recommendations of the LLRC , nothing was done about this until after the HRC Resolution of March 2012. A Task Force to implement the Action Plan did not meet for several months, and only began to act and report coherently in 2013.

Twelfth, the negotiations between government and the TNA, which the President initiated in 2011, were sabotaged, with the government for the most part failing either to put forward any ideas of its own, or to respond to those the TNA put forward.

All these inadequacies need to be discussed. I propose to do this through an assessment of those in whom the President reposed trust but who, in fulfilling their own agendas, failed to deliver what he and the country needed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3

    When the Tigers were bashing up the SL army – the pro Tamil expats were “on top of the world” – just like you were. Now you tell us that it is your government (whom you were defending heartily against international accusations) and not the army that is criminal and have started posting the CV of your friend DJ again ?

    Why does Sri Lanka has to produce 3rd rate Professors like you ? neither logical nor moral ? in a way that is so obvious to the dumbest Sri Lankan.

    • 1

      Funny that when this supposedly 3rd rate professor was the lone voice evidencing the fabrications of the Killing Fields in Sri Lanka shown on Channel 4 you were all in praise of him. He does not waiver from the truth and you will learn something from this great man instead of the vomit you seem to have picked up from the gutter.

  • 1

    I have one simple question for all those who seek to speak on behalf of the ‘silent majority’ or tell us how the ‘silent majority’ feels or think about various issues. By definition, the silent majority does not express itself. So, how do you know how they think and feel?

  • 5


    When the first resolution was passed in favour of Sri Lanka, India went out of the way to favour Sri Lanka for defeating the LTTE outright.

    When Navi Pillai was strongly raising war crimes issues and the Indian representative made a hammer blowing demand for her to ‘shut up and put up’ with the resolution to be passed by them.

    Indian network is a massive one and Sri Lanka gained and Dayan Dayatilake is the self proclaimed victor for the success.

    Dayan Jayatilake has been an irritant in many ways. I am aware of his desk top harassment campaign from Paris against his counterpart Mrs Kshnuka Seneviratne in London.

    He is a garbage puller in his relentless writings and did not execute his ambassadorial work properly to be called back to Colombo.

  • 4

    Thirteenth (point), Not responding to the UN resolution favourably thus exposing so overtly that serious war crimes have taken place.

    Fourteenth (point), appointing a commission to investigate the missing persons with the limited scope and then desperately expanding it further with the appointment of controversial international observers who are friends of the President.

    Sixteenth (point), Seeking refuge under the wings of controversial China to cover up truth and gain reprieve in the UN efforts.

  • 1

    What ever Rajiv writes hear the biggest problem for Mahinda was his inability to understand what he should do as the ruler not as a listener.listener. Mahinda created all the problems by himself, as he believed his brother Basil and Nadesan (Nirupama’s husband) and removed General Sarath Fonseka after he completely annihilated the LTTE, when he wanted to be the Army Commander for another ONE year to decommission the forces and allow the Northern and Eastern people to assimilate with other while doing re-construction work to rehabilitate them after the 30 years of prolong war. As the Jaffna Commander for two consecutive periods he knew how Jaffna and the Northern Tamils as well as the Eastern Tamils should be handle to make them friends.But as Basil and Nadesan with the then Indian HC created some type of wrong impression with Mahinda and SF was suddenly removed and made the CDS, so Basil can undertake the UTHURU WASANTHAYA, a multi billion rupee project to make money.

    Second mistake he did was to signed a document with SG-UN on 23rd may 2009, without even any consultation with the Army Commander to to conduct a accountability inquiry.
    Third mistake he did was to appoint Dayan Jayathilake, a man none of us ever heard in the Diplomatic Service, an Academic also happened to be a Christian who was party with Perumal to establish a separate State in the North, as the Permanent Representative at Geneva, and he did due to his inability to understand the correct procedures and protocols of the UN included the 13th Amendment as part of the resolution he presented to the UNCHR, and open the Pandora’s box to make the 13th Amendment a local issue as a International Issue. Dayan Jayathilake created all these problems for Sri Lanka but Rajiv is trying to show him as a man who did every thing to help Sri Lanka. The win he created in 2009, was the worst single defeat Sri Lanka faced as it was the beginning of all these inquiries. Mahinda should have never appointed Dayan Jayathilake as the Permanent Representative of the UNCHR-Geneva, as he lacks experience and knowledge to handle that position.

    The President appointed Tamara Kunanayakam, a junior employee of the UNCHR as the Permanent Representative and she played havoc by trying to rough shod the UNCHR top people, as she was not aware how she should behave as the Sri Lankan representative. Mahinda created both these blunders as his knowledge about the UN system was not followed by him or he never listen to any advice he was given by others.

    His opinion about General Sarath Fonseka was very correct and not for putting SF behind bars and utilizing him as a partner as they did in eliminating the war this situation should have completely avoided.

    After the eliminating the war Rajiv played a very important role, but he failed to get any result as he was not a man with any knowledge to do what he was appointed to do. Once he wanted to establish a committee to find out how LTTE utilize the money they collected, and that inquiry never materialized even up to now.

    In 2009, at a side show in Geneva, where Rajiv and Dayan was responsible for conducting the side show, some one asked a question about Rayappu Joseph Bishop of Jaffna, but both in unison replied they never heard about such atrocities committed by Jaffna Bishop Rayappu Joseph. If we measure Rajiv with that answer every one who was present at that side show will agree that both these guys are playing for the Christian Church.

  • 0

    [Edited out]

  • 0

    There you Go! Launch your White-washing campaign before the Presidential election!

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.