16 December, 2019

Blog

Implementing 13A, India And International Commitments

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

The exchange with Mr Mahindapala (‘What benefit is there in Dayan’s Deal in Geneva?’, HLD Mahindapala, Daily News, June 21, 2013) is useful not merely because it helps in setting straight the record of contemporary diplomatic history, but also because it is relevant, as the Daily News editorial (‘India in that Equation’, ibid) rightly implies, to the currently ongoing debates on the 13th amendment and Indo-Sri Lankan relations.

Let’s get the record straight. How and where did the commitment to implement the 13th amendment enter the picture and who made that commitment, to whom and when?

Was it during the war, when it may have been necessary to say and do whatever was needed to secure the conditions for our victory? Was the commitment made during the Indian elections then, when it may have been necessary to get our friends in Delhi off the electoral hook in Tamil Nadu?

The answer is NO, or rather, NOT ONLY during the war and the Indian elections, but far more solemnly and significantly, AFTER the war and that election, not only to India but also to the UN, and at the highest executive level, that of our Commander-in-Chief. The commitment was made by the same leader who had the courage and lucidity to say no to Miliband and Kouchner as well as to forestall the last ditch Western effort  at evacuation—an effort which shifted its goal posts from the evacuation of civilians to that of recommencing negotiations with the LTTE for a political solution.

If HLD Mahindapala or anyone else however highly placed, thinks that the President was wrong to declare his “firm resolve” to implement the 13th amendment even after the war had been won, they should come out and say so, instead of blaming the Geneva 2009 resolution which accurately reflected the commitment made by the President to India and the UN only days before. For the record and as Prof Rajiv Wijesinha points out in a recent article  (‘Misrepresenting History to Attack Moderate Perspectives’, Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Colombo Telegraph, June 18, 2013), the Geneva resolution, which followed not preceded the commitments made to India and the UN, was finalised by the entire Sri Lankan delegation present at the time, with the full knowledge and endorsement of the Presidential Secretariat and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This was authoritatively confirmed to a national audience recently by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister Bogollagma, in a Derana 360 interview.

The text of the Press Statement issued on May 21st 2009 after the top-level meeting with the Indian team and posted on the GoSL website reads:

“Mr. M.K. Narayanan, National Security Advisor and Mr. S. Menon, Foreign Secretary of India visited Sri Lanka on 20 and 21 May. They called on His Excellency Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka and met with senior officials, including Hon. Basil Rajapaksa, MP, Mr. Lalith Weeratunga, Secretary to the President and Defence Secretary, Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa. They also interacted with a number of political parties in Sri Lanka…Both sides also emphasized the urgent necessity of arriving at a lasting political settlement in Sri Lanka. To this, the Government of Sri Lanka indicated that it will proceed with implementation of the 13th Amendment. Further, the Government of Sri Lanka also intends to begin a broader dialogue with all parties, including the Tamil parties, in the new circumstances, for further enhancement of political arrangements to bring about lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. (21 May 2009)

Thus the commitment to ‘proceed with implementation of the 13th amendment’ was not contingent upon the statement that GoSL ‘…also intends to begin a broader dialogue with all parties, including Tamil parties…’ but was seen as preceding the ‘broader dialogue’.

Even more conclusive and significant is the joint statement with the UN Secretary-General. “Following is the joint statement by the Government of Sri Lanka and the United Nations at the conclusion of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s visit to Sri Lanka on 23 May:

At the invitation of Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, paid a visit to Sri Lanka.  During the course of his visit, he held talks with the President, Foreign Minister as well as other senior leaders of Sri Lanka…President Rajapaksa and the Secretary-General agreed that addressing the aspirations and grievances of all communities and working towards a lasting political solution was fundamental to ensuring long-term socio-economic development.  The Secretary-General welcomed the assurance of the President of Sri Lanka contained in his statement in Parliament on 19 May 2009 that a national solution acceptable to all sections of people will be evolved.  President Rajapaksa expressed his firm resolve to proceed with the implementation of the 13th Amendment, as well as to begin a broader dialogue with all parties, including the Tamil parties in the new circumstances, to further enhance this process and to bring about lasting peace and development in Sri Lanka…Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations.  The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.  The Government will take measures to address those grievances.” (May 23, 2009, my emphasis- DJ)

Thus the commitment contained in the joint communiqué with India two days before was no slip of the pen. The President’s “firm resolve to proceed with the implement the 13th amendment” was thus followed by the statement of intention to begin a broader dialogue with all parties including the Tamil parties in the new circumstances. The former was not dependent or conditional upon the latter.

The two documents were sent to us and had of course reached all delegations through their respective missions in Colombo and their capitals, as we were drafting our text in Geneva with our allies. The “firm resolve” of the President to “proceed with the implementation of the 13th amendment” reached the level of the United Nations, not because of our Geneva resolution but precisely because it was in the official communiqué released in New York and Colombo after President Rajapaksa made the pledge to no less than the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon himself! There was no question of non-inclusion of this commitment when Brazil, South Africa, India and Russia suggested it at the meetings of our ‘like-minded group’ (LMG) comprised of NAM plus BRICS, and did so with the fullest support of the Non Aligned Movement (with the Cuban Ambassador as Chair) and the complete concurrence of China. Contrary to Mr. Mahindapala’s rascally distortion, ‘the devolution for accountability trade-off’ was not a ‘deal’ cut by me ‘with India’. It lay at the heart of the strategy of our broad coalition consisting of the Non-Aligned movement and the BRICs. That broad coalition lay at the heart of our strategy.

I did have misgivings– but it was about any mention of accountability, not about devolution, which I fully supported. The Secretary General of SCOPP, who was in Colombo during the negotiations on both texts and was a crucial part of our Geneva delegation in May 2009 (and was also present in March 2012) sets the record straight in a rebuttal of a ‘co-thinker’ of Mahindapala’s:

“… [Shenali] is totally wrong to say that the 2009 vote in our favour in Geneva was because Dayan ‘secretly inserted a clause stating Sri Lanka would implement the 13th amendment’. This is of a piece with Tissa Jayatilaka’s claim that the victory in 2009 was a disaster because the draft contained pledges which have now come back to haunt us.

In both cases I fear that dislike of Dayan has led to falsification. I can also understand why neither will accept that the draft was discussed at length with the President’s Office before it was finalized…

In their haste to attack Dayan, both miss out on the fact that the particular clause to which Sri Lanka subscribed, which was used to build up a case against us, was signed by the President in Kandy, with Dayan nowhere near. I remember that, as I saw it, I said I thought it was inappropriately expressed, but I was assured by a leading light in the Foreign Ministry that it was not a problem. Dayan too, as he saw it, expressed surprise, whereas the rest of our delegation had not noticed the potential difficulties. The need of the hour was reconciliation and looking forward, so it was a mistake to dwell too much on the past.

Much later, when I told Palitha Kohona that he should have advised the President against accepting such a formulation, he told me that he had indeed done so, but the President was impatient at the delay in reaching an agreement, and authorized signing the document as it stood. However, I can see that that clause, for which the President was responsible, helped with a couple of votes to swell Dayan’s majority, and I believe we would have had no problems had the President acted promptly on his pledge and appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission straight away.” 

(‘Misrepresenting History to Attack Moderate Perspectives’, Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Colombo Telegraph, June 18, 2013)

Unlike most critics of President Rajapaksa I do not think he was duplicitous when he made that commitment. I believe the delay in implementation and today’s difficulties are of a piece with the ones that detained President Jayewardene who would have legislated provincial devolution any time between 1984 and 1987, thereby pre-empting the Indian intervention, but felt unable to do so because of the hawks in his ranks, most notably national Security Minister Athulathmudali, whose aggressive myopia and inability to calculate the balance of forces, almost cost us our sovereignty.

Let us conclude by reconstructing the scene with historical accuracy. Mr Mahindapala contrasts New York with Geneva, arguing that soft ball cricket was played in Geneva while the leather ball was used in New York. The reality by contrast, is that in New York, Sri Lanka is under the umbrella of two veto-wielding powers, Russia and China, while in Geneva, no one has a veto. Furthermore, in the last stages of the war, the rotating chair of the UN Security Council was with Russia and Vietnam, two firm allies of Sri Lanka. But is this merely my version? Let us turn to a source from the other side of the barricades as it were; the side that was hoping for a UN intervention, and see the diplomatic battlefield through his eyes.

In his book The Cage, Gordon Weiss focuses on the UN in two theatres, New York and Geneva. In Chapter 8 he makes clear the situation in New York: “As the situation unfolded, the positions of China, Russia and India became clear. There would be no resolution from the UN Security Council warning Sri Lanka to restrain its forces. China and Russia, with separatist movements of their own would veto any motion within the Council. India struck a pose of outward ambivalence, even as it discreetly encouraged the Sri Lankan onslaught, though urging it to limit civilian casualties. But of the veto-wielding ‘perm five’ in the Security Council, it was China…which was the largest stumbling block” (pp.139-140)

“In the halls of the UN in New York, Mexico, which held one of the rotating Security Council seats, tried to have Sri Lanka formally placed on the agenda. While Western and democratic nations broadly lined up in support, it quickly became clear that China would block moves to have the council consider Sri Lanka’s actions….The possibility of an influential Security Council resolution remained distant…Sri Lanka had deftly played its China card and had trumped.” (pp 200-201)

Thus as Wise sees it, in New York, Sri Lanka was structurally safe. The scene and the stakes at the UN in Geneva 2009 are brought to life rather differently in the next chapter of Weiss’ volume: “On 27 May  at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanetham Pillay, addressed the Human Rights Council and called for an international inquiry into the conduct of both parties to the war. While the EU and a brace of other countries formulated and then moved a resolution in support of Pillay’s call, a majority of countries on the council rejected it out of hand. Instead they adopted an alternative motion framed by Sri Lanka’s representatives praising the Sri Lankan government for its victory over the Tigers…” (p229)

It is in his concluding chapter that Weiss describes my role: “Dayan Jayatilleka, one of the most capable diplomats appointed by the Rajapaksa regime, had outmanoeuvred Western diplomats to help Sri Lanka escape censure from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. (p256-7)” 

The morning after our vote, THE TIMES (London) which had been running a crusade against Sri Lanka, which included Op-Ed pieces by David Miliband, summed up in the very caption of its report, the outcome and its significance, far better than Mahindapala’s pathetic attempts at revisionism: “Sri Lanka forces West to retreat over ‘war crimes’ with victory at UN”- The TIMES (London), May 28, 2009.

How does Geneva 2009 seem in cooler retrospect? In a piece significantly entitled ‘Lessons to Learn from Geneva’ the international award-winning journalist and author Nirupama Subramanian made this observation in 2012 (when Sri Lanka was again the subject of a hostile resolution which was carried successfully at the UNHRC): “As Sri Lanka mulls over last month’s United Nations Human Rights Council resolution, it may look back with nostalgia at its 2009 triumph at Geneva. Then, barely a week after its victory over the LTTE, a group of western countries wanted a resolution passed against Sri Lanka for the civilian deaths and other alleged rights violations by the army during the last stages of the operation. With the blood on the battlefield not still dry, Sri Lanka managed to snatch victory from the jaws of diplomatic defeat, with a resolution that praised the government for its humane handling of civilians and asserted faith in its abilities to bring about reconciliation.” (The Hindu, April 7th 2012)

Nirupama Subramanian’s article is preceded with the summary that “Had Sri Lanka taken steps to implement the 13th amendment, India may never have associated itself with the UNHCR resolution.” Which is true. India’s diplomatic support, then and now, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of Sri Lanka’s diplomatic success and indeed safety. In and of itself it is insufficient, as votes on Myanmar demonstrated. Despite the support of Russia, China and India, Myanmar lost those votes. Thus even in May 2009, securing India’s support would not have done the job for us, but as the votes of March 2012 and 2013 show, without India, the job cannot be done either.  As Mervyn de Silva, whose 14th death anniversary falls this weekend, cautioned in a lecture at Marga Institute on ‘External Aspects of The Ethnic Issue’ in 1985, two years before the airdrop, the Accord, the IPKF and 13A, “Sri Lankan foreign policy must be centred on a non-hostile relationship with India”.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    As a Tamil myself I never expect from these monsters. Hope IC and India come to the conclusion why tamils gone for a violent struggle against most blood thirsty mongrels…

    • 0
      0

      My dear Muthu: IC including India, supported the Sri Lankan government in that brutal war in which thousands were massacred. Why did they support the SL government? Have you ever thought about this?

      India did “come to the aid of the Tamils”, initially by training Tamil youth and then actually sending in a big army and forcing the hands of the JR government to sign the 13A. That did not go well, did it? Why would India come in to help now? Have you ever thought about this?

      • 0
        0

        Sorry, I’m an idiot. I should have thought about these things before posting comments.

        • 0
          0

          use u r own name…

      • 0
        0

        Yes India came to help Tamils but ltte sabotaged everything. yes we Tamils paid a huge price. Time changed ic and india believed ltte never going to come for a peaceful solution, now whole world knows Sinhala Buddhism never allow Tamils and other minorities live in peace. Hope time will tell…

        • 0
          0

          Gr8 thank you — now, what lesson you learnt from that huge price?

          • 0
            0

            zero brains never under stand..gr8 will…

    • 0
      0

      Do Tamils have any shame left?

      If so they should leave SL right away after so many humiliations, violence, discrimination, etc.

      It is shameless to remain in the island after such humiliation. Do you see a bright future for Tamilians in SL. I don’t. Then what should you do? Get out of SL.

      • 0
        0

        no no we want go that easily. we will see the place is destroyed before we depart. is that clear you black sinhala monkey. what are the 100,000 sinhala black monkey army doing in the north
        east. black chandrasiri and fat slob hathurasinghe are screening candidates for northern elections. siunhala army pariahs should go back to the southern jungles and swing on trees.

    • 0
      0

      Oh please Dayan, stop being so bllody INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST and Rajpassa’s pet poodle and apologist. Rajapass’s only project is power for himself and his corrupt rent seeking family – brothers, sons and their cronies!
      Rajapassa is also a massive LIAR who thinks that the bigger the lie the better! Rajapassa will say what he feels like when he feels like to hood wink everyone, and advance his long term strategy of CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN HIMSELF AND HIS UNEDUCATED and CORRUPT FAMILY OF THUGS. Thus he has cultivated JHU and Weerawansa and Balu Sena to the dirty work and provide him cover to back track on power sharing.
      So the bugger (MR) makes promises to devolve to all and sundry (INdia, UN, TNA etc) and then back tracks, because devolution is really NOT on his radar screen. TO share power with any one would interfere with his and his family’s POWER GRAB and GREED for wealth for which they are consolidating a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP in Lanka. STOP BEING SO BLOODY INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST and angling for another foreign posting form Rajapassa by pretending to be a diplomatic historian!
      People see right though you BULLSHIT, DAYAN!

  • 0
    0

    “Sri Lankan foreign policy must be centred on a non-hostile relationship with India” noted the visionary journalist giant
    Mervyn de Silva. He may have sensed the growing prejudice around him
    may lead both countries to difficult times ahead. He was perhaps expressing the thoughts of Mahathma Gandhi made during the latters visit to the Island (prior to WW2) in different words. The Mahathma was hoping both governments, in their wisdom, must avoid damaging confrontation as he noted “It is, at least it should be, impossible for India and Ceylon not to quarrel” These words are carved on a
    beautiful statue of the Mahathma at the entrance of the IHC’s office
    at Kollupitiya – that I noticed in my visits there.

    Senguttuvan

  • 0
    0

    Isn’t this Indian fuss about not giving the LTTE proxy TNA the right to own all Common Property from Vavniya to Point Pedro and rule the land with Sambandan’s own Police wearing TNA badges?.

    Isn’t there anything else that Sambandan can’t have after September, which eight other CMs enjoy now?.

    Hirohitho and Hitler waged war and got done by the American and British alliance.

    First thing the Victors did was to castrate their Military Forces.

    Even to date these two countries have to depend on American to protect themselves.

    Do the great majority of our inhabitant population have to do the same and depend on India to protect their Border?.

  • 0
    0

    India’s treatment of Tamils has also been appalling. Without consulting the views of Tamils India constructed the Kudankulam nuclear plant endangering the lives of Tamils.

    India was the biggest weapons supplier to SL (free of charge) during the war to kill Tamils.

    IPKF has committed some of the worse and unspeakable atrocities on Tamils than anyone else.

  • 0
    0

    We should understand there is a dispute over 3 amendment.

    What is the right thing to do?

    Put it to a referendum!

    SL is not the private property of Rajapaksha. He cannot decide what SL should do with 13 amendment. The people should decide.

    Why 13 amendment supporters are so scared of the people and referendums?

    • 0
      0

      Referendum is the best solution to solve this.

      People’s verdict should be the final.

  • 0
    0

    “With the BLOOD on the battlefield not still dry, Sri Lanka managed to snatch victory from the jaws of diplomatic defeat, with a resolution that praised the government for its humane handling of civilians and asserted faith in its abilities to bring about reconciliation.” (The Hindu, April 7th 2012)”
    “humane handling of civilians”. Is this woman’s idea of a joke.
    As regards “reconciliation” we have yet to see this happening.
    Dr DJ you might have ensured a diplomatic victory but by initiating that infamous resolution you are also complicit in the massacre of 40,000 innocent civilians.There is blood on your hands too.

  • 0
    0

    Most probably President has two auditory channels, one in the front and one at the rear controlled by Mahindapala, Shenali, Champika, Udaya, Gnanasara et al. They have the facility to give out a bad racist smell as well.

    • 0
      0

      The bad smell coming from the rear channel is really mainly because of Shenali’s gas. Even Mahindapala’s gas smells sweeter in comparison. I thought Ill just let you know. And for this, MR gets a bad name whenever he passes by.

  • 0
    0

    Is this guy is really mad ? highly overrating himself, thinks he is the authority in all foreign policy issues all over the world. When it comes to Sri Lanka thinks he has the mandate of people to decide Foreign policy of this country, bloody madness, won’t even suitable to do a Driver job of Embassy. Always trying to project himself as the best Lanka ever had & trying level best to get Ambassador post. MAD IDIOT, should understand elected govt. & President would implement policies right for this country .

    • 0
      0

      Dear John,
      Tell me,
      Aren’t you really,
      Mahindapala,
      H.L.D ?

      • 0
        0

        mervyn the vermin,

        It’s a rare honor if some body compares me in wildest imagination to HLD ex Editor Ceylon Sunday Observer. Thanks. I’m not, better check with HLD, but i’ll do wonders if I ever get job of Editor of Sunday Observer.

        • 0
          0

          John-
          Dont flatter yourself or HLDM.
          HLDM was one the worst editors of SO.
          He lost all credibility after the Premadasa era.
          He is considered a senile joker by most.
          Spends most of his time making pizza for young ****

    • 0
      0

      You should better go to kindergarten to get the basics. Unfortunately, you and you ilk represent the masses of theocuntry, which is not uncommon to a poor nation like ours.

      May be DJ is not perfect, but his genuine efforts defending the motherland from anyone was Glass clear to everyone in UN debate sessions. There are enough in the world who would appreciate his articles or any arguments in terms of lanken ethnic problems.

      May god help our nation :(

      • 0
        0

        Dan
        “you and you ilk represent the masses of theocuntry, which is not uncommon to a poor nation like ours”.

        So, what, ? let masses run this country, after all it’s theirs (poor ours) you better find some “Rich” country , leave this to us. We don’t need you or this Writer to represent ‘us” anywhere, this is our prerogative okay, you got it?

        • 0
          0

          You and the people of your sort would just leave such statements, nevetherless those rich nations would not allow you the funds, how can you even think of your supper ?

          Your TOTAL ignorance is not that FAR from the idiot that represent the nation today. He is a PROVABLE person WHO would not even grasp the need of international community, for a country like Srilanka (one of the poor countries yet in the world).fORMER CJs of the country feel, MR notices even most critical issues bit late, unlike JRJ or CBK. You are apparentely ignoring the Facts and figures now, but would open your eyes, if not now tomorrow. Anyway, Chinese have paved the way to consolidate their powers in indian ozean to run their business in the region to face the giant concurrent India.

          • 0
            0

            Jaya the idiot,

            Tell me how much “funds” did we receive from those ‘Rich Nations’?, before scaring me off on my supper ?, peanuts ? Read, if you can understand Central Bank of Sri Lanka reports of last decade or more , only to find out there is a net fund outflow from Poor Lanka to Rich.

            Don’t write like a donkey without knowing facts.

            “..even most critical issues bit late, unlike JRJ or CBK…. giant concurrent India.”

            Don’t you idiot know how JRJ “critically” dealt with India, So India started terror & CBK “critically” lost the War ? & MR’s govt. won the War ?

            You loser just get lost, Your “brilliance” better be kept for yourself only.

  • 0
    0

    Well blaming the buddhists again…

    Who is Dayan J – a Christian

    Who is Rajiva W – a Christian and ever ready to come in defense of Dayan.

    Look none of those who comment hold any portfolios – but you two do… the most logical thing to do is resign if u dont like the President…

    • 0
      0

      Resign?

      For that they should have something called dignity. They don’t have it.

      Dayan earned the wrath of Tamils for defending the “genocidal” state. Now he is earning the wrath of Singhalese for praising 13 amendment.

      • 0
        0

        Probably, that helps his faith as well as his political beliefs.

    • 0
      0

      Blaming only buddhsts, that apparently are on mission of destroying buddhism.

      That is the difference of the few interllectuals of the current parliament. Even if they stood by the rulers at the beginning, but grasphing the manner the rulers handle them, now it is their rights to show the nation, CT readership, where are we marching ?

      If you dont know the great service of DJ in 2009, u also cant know how SF sacrificed his life for the sake of motherland then. These are not new to today srilankens, they look at all these with total ignorance. Who would abuse it is the rulers.

  • 0
    0

    Dayan,

    Hardly anyone reads the Daily News and hence we don’t know what Mahindapala wrote. In any case, I am no longer interested in reading anything written by Mahindapala.

    The Government of Sri Lanka agreed to implement the Thirteenth Amendment. It is better to remove the provisions that no government has been foolish enough to implement like handing over Police powers to a bunch of ex-militants and land powers to a group of high caste Tamils in the Northern Province and allow them to exploit the so called low caste people. Hence, it must be removed. The safeguarding of the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka is the responsibility of the Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

    Here is an extract from the Wikipedia on the subject of Territorial Integrity.

    “Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states. Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression.

    In recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement”

    When considering the actions of the hostile Tamil Diaspora and their ability to influence local politicians with their votes and extorted funds, Sri Lanka cannot allow any clause in the 13th Amendment that threatens its territorial integrity. This is the task of the Parliamentary Select Committee. Any clause that is a threat to territorial integrity must be removed, to allow the rest of the 13th Amendment to be implemented fully.

    It is also necessary to explain the rationale for the amendments to the international community, led by India.

    • 0
      0

      India agreed to disarm LTTE, did they do it ?
      No any donkey/monkey/India/self claimed IC ( west) can dictate terms to sovereign Sri Lanka. Only people of this country has the right to decide on SL constitution. If you cannot understand this you are not worth calling a sri lankan.
      This guy Dayan perhaps now on a very “RAW” deal, trying to defend damn 13A, which no any Sri Lankan ever liked , be it LTTE,TNA,JVP,UNP,SLFP commanding 99% or more popular support in this country.

      • 0
        0

        Amending the 13th Amendment based on National Interest and then explaining the rationale to the international community, led by India, is good diplomacy.

        In my comment,I have agreed with your point that “Only people of this country has the right to decide on SL constitution.”

        • 0
          0

          Truth

          “In my comment,I have agreed with your point that “Only people of this country has the right to decide on SL constitution.”

          In 1972, 1978 and subsequent amendments to constitution particularly 18th were passed through the parliament. Its strange that a few people are now in favour of referendum.

          John says:

          “This guy Dayan perhaps now on a very “RAW” deal”

          Another person with VP mindset.

        • 0
          0

          I too agree with you, apologize, if you were hurt for anything.

      • 0
        0

        John

        Were you at the cricket match in Cardiff?

        How many tiger cubs did you hunt?

        • 0
          0

          Native Vedda,
          I outsmarted them, just provoked them, they got caught & some were arrested by Police.
          PS. I did not see anybody with any wood sticks from jungle, weren’t you there ?

          • 0
            0

            John

            Unlike shameless people like you I refused to go because it is white man’s game.

            White man enslaved the stupid Tamils and stupid Sinhalese for which I am still protesting.

            Remember my people fought the last war against your last white masters.

  • 0
    0

    It is no big deal that our President expressed with his good intentions the need to address the grievances of the minorities. However his reference to the implementation of the 13th towards that end is not a tacit commitment or resolve as the writer seem to imply. Besides, it is provided in the democratic process to amend legislation when deemed necessary. What is the big deal?

    • 0
      0

      That is why Colombo bishop said that the SL-president is a Closet-catholic.

  • 0
    0

    I vividly remember when watching the first US sponsored resolution at the UNHRC in 2012, how the member from Cuba tried to delay the vote by requesting more time for debate. Eileen Donahue’s response was a dismissive statement to the effect of “No, we are going to have the vote now. If you support the resolution vote Yes, otherwise just vote no”.

    She was addressing Cuba, but might as well have been addressing India. The choice before India was to vote yes or no to a resolution that was going to pass anyway. This is the same choice they had in 2013 and it will be the same choice in 2014. Therefore, India’s “yes” vote cannot be interpreted as anything other than an act of saving face. The US has made it very clear to India that they are moving into NE Sri Lanka and implementing a solution that advances their national interest and their values (in that order). Given the events of 2009 the US is never going to have a better opportunity to do – and they didn’t become the sole superpower by passing up on golden opportunities. The only way India can prevent this is to go to war with the US, to which I’m sure Washington will reply: “Go ahead, make my day!”

    The only option before India is to save face as best they can, and make it look like they also support a US led intervention on the island, and that the US is acting in close consultation with India. I think this is a sensible move by New Delhi.

  • 0
    0

    All Dayan Jayatilleke is doing here is defending himself against allegations made by H.L.D.Mahindapala and Shenali Waduge. In this it is Dayan J who is right. Mahindapala and Waduge cannot blame Jayatilleke when we all remember the fervent promises made by the President. So if the President has not kept to his word it is immoral and unjust to blame another. It is also unbuddhistic to do so.

    Let the President sort out his problem. He has so far not denied having agreed with the UN and the others regarding 13A. He is also entitled to change his mind. The editors of the Government media want to show the President as the unwitting victim of bad advice. This is not so. I think he made the correct decision at the time, and it is unfortunate that he is now backtracking. Let that remain as it is without falsely accusing another!

    Mahindapala and Waduge may convince ignorant readers with their writing but recent history is fresh in our minds, and it is also on record. The truth is known.

    This is one area the Law on media ethics must focus on: punishment for deliberate misreprentation of facts.

    • 0
      0

      It is true. President does not have a vision or a clear conviction. If he has that it is not what the majority Sri Lankan people wants.

      Dr. Dayan Jayathilake also discusses that saying that in more than instance president had given assurances and made public saying that he would implement 13++.

      It is Simply, Dayan Jayathilake and President are both Pro-Indian and Pro-Christian.

  • 0
    0

    Dr. Dayan Jayathilake:

    this is why even the USA when they interview key people to the very top posts of the govts, when they appoint Supreme court justices, they question every thing. Because, that explains what their mentality is.

    You say that Mahinda Rajapakse said things that he should not have told or he took decisions important to sri Lanka on his own without getting the consent from citizens of the country.

    On the other hand, President should have recruited you into that particular diplomatic position knowing what your political ideology and preferences are.

    Because, what ever you do automatically reflect what your mentality with respect to that “that particular issue” is.

    You are a pro-Indian, Pro-13th amendment and you like Sri Lanka to be a Shanty state in which Tamils, christians and Muslims all have their cultures establishe while Sinhala – buddhists are marginalized.

    Christians and muslims can boast their domianance all over the world, they can boast how Indian-Tamil culture is thriving every where. Sinhala-buddhists can grieve how they screwed up themselves.

    Any politics is for those who want power and are greedy. they always have money and then only they need power.

    Only thing that poor people want is something to eat, a place to live and a future to their children.

  • 0
    0

    Why is it that some people want Sri Lanka to belong to the West?

    Always asking West’s interference?

    Do they not look at the countries that the West intereferred in and ruined?

    Do they want to give India a piece of Sri Lanka to be flooded by Tamil Nadus… and where would all these commentators run of to? Do they think that the West will take them in? The West is economically falling apart… it is trying to take over countries for its own survival…

    Wake up people… we are living in cuckoo land if we do not protect our country..

    commentators need to read more…

    this lot of commentary is far better than another article i just read anyway… some people are at least talking sense..

  • 0
    0

    Dayan,

    Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice Doggie’ until you can find a rock.

    Will Rogers

    Your main question is “How and where did the commitment to implement the 13th amendment enter the picture and who made that commitment, to whom and when?”

    Sri Lanka has never made a statement that it abrogates the right to amend the 13th Amendment. Hence, we are free to amend it, as long as we can show the world that the amendments were done to protect the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, in a democratic manner consistent with our Constitution. Thereafter, we must implement the 13th Amendment fully.

    We need well trained diplomats who respect the pride of powerful nations and keep saying “Nice Doggie”. We cannot achieve satisfactory results through confrontaition in international forums.

  • 0
    0

    Thank you Dayan!
    You hit the nail on its head. President Rajapaksa thinks he can deceive the internal players the way he does with stupid local politicians. Indeed it’s Sad. Mahindapala is only singing for his supper.
    Dayan vs. Mahindapala- Dayan defended the nation in Geneva at a very crucial time of Sri lanka’s history. What did Mahindapala do? Dayan has a doctorate, what does Mahindapala has? Diploma?

    • 0
      0

      “What did Mahindapala do?” Well, he did a lot for himself. Like condemning everyone who was intellectually & academically smarter and socially, at an untouchasble distance from himself. the venom he constantly spews bear ample testimony to his background and upbringing.

  • 0
    0

    It Looks that Dayan Jayathilake wants to promote his pro-christian agenda which is “side with India and fully implement the 13th amendment” but he does not want to accept that he had any role promoting it and he further says, It is all what the Sri Lankan president wanted. There, he wants to maintain good office with the president too by mentioning that It was not the president’s duplicitous nature to say yes to foreigners about the full implementation of the 13th amendment. May be he is accusing indirectly the Sinhala -buddhists as he had done earlier and has stopped it now.

    Anyway, it is Dayan Jayathilake who suggested in an article because of the heavy military might of India and it would invade Sri Lanka. At that point my only thinking was that India which has a non-aligned and non-interweaning – live and let live (not exactly that) type of policy would militarily invade Sri Lanka and would become the NEW BULLY in the world. I mean would follow their colonial master.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.