28 September, 2020

Blog

Sri Lanka’s Counter-Hegemonic Coalition & The Distortion Of Diplomatic History

By Dayan Jayatilleka

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

While it is relatively unimportant for me to defend myself against a critique by a hitherto unknown and probably pseudonymous writer, it is far more important that the record be set straight, not simply about Geneva – where Sri Lanka is seriously threatened by an international inquiry and a report due in September 2015—but about Sri Lanka’s contemporary history, including its diplomatic history. That history must not be permitted to be falsified, not least because it shows us who are, and who are not, our real friends are in the international arena. This is especially vital since our best friends are now being insulted by our new government.

This pseudonymous critique appears to target me, which it indeed does, but what is insidious is that it targets and strives to discredit a successful strategy of counter-hegemonic resistance and a particular way of being in the international arena which enables Sri Lanka to build the broadest defenses and protect its political independence and national sovereignty; its ability to determine its own destiny and its power of exclusive decision-making on matters as fundamental as war, peace and peace-building within its own legitimate national borders.

Let us commence by getting two things out of the way.

  • Under President Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka never made any international commitment to set up any accountability mechanism, and is therefore not committed to any such thing.

In May 2009 the Foreign Minister at the time, Mr. Bogollagama and Foreign Secretary Kohona telephonically instructed me and our delegation to “stick strictly to the language of the joint statement on the issue of accountability”. The joint statement between UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and President Rajapaksa on May 23 2009, said, inter alia, that:

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.”

Ambassador Palihakkara, then Permanent Representative in New York, was in Sri Lanka at the time of the statement assisting with the visit of the Secretary-General and was privy to its contents long before we received it in Geneva, after it was signed by both sides.

It is the UN Secretary General alone who uses the term “accountability process”. The joint statement does NOT say that “the Secretary General and the GoSL agreed on an accountability process…” The Government’s non-specific promise (in response to the Secretary General’s concerns) to “take measures to address those grievances” cannot be twisted to mean an agreement, still less a commitment, to set up an accountability mechanism of any sort. It is a masterpiece of diplomatic ambiguity. Indeed the LLRC could very well be said to fulfill the GoSL commitment. I have been a consistent critic of the previous Government’s failure to fully and speedily implement the LLRC’s recommendations, but that in no way justifies either the UNHRC mandated inquiry by the OHCHR or the new Sri Lankan government going beyond the LLRC’s recommendations with regard to accountability.

  • The second issue that requires rebuttal upfront is that Sri Lanka was under serious threat in the UN in New York in 2009.

Not only does this fly in the face of published material, it would mean entertaining the absurd assumption that Russia and China would not have used their vetoes in defense of Sri Lanka! By contrast, in Geneva, there are no vetoes to protect anyone.

Don’t take my word for it. If any evidence were needed about our situation in New York, Gordon Weiss provides it in his book, The Cage:

“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 in New York, Sri Lanka was structurally safe.

The contrast with the UN Geneva is brought to life in 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)

In his concluding chapter 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. He had also been one of the most trenchant advocates within the government for meaningful constitutional reform, including the devolution of power to the provinces (p256-7)” adding this evaluation in his notes: “Jayatilleka was the most lucid of the vocal Government of Sri Lanka representatives…” (p 330)

That having been dispensed with, the record must be set straight by tracing the truth. What does the record show?

The Backdrop to the 2009 Special Session

The backdrop of the special session of the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 on Sri Lanka was this: The thirty year-long Sri Lankan war was reaching its endgame and we were going to win; the Tigers were going to lose. There was a lot of pressure not only from the Tamil Diaspora communities from the émigrés but also the liberal humanitarian view that there would be a blood bath which had to be stopped by a humanitarian intervention by the formula of a ‘humanitarian pause’. Lakhdar Brahimi and Chris Patten had written a piece in the New York Times about the imminent “bloodbath on the beach”. The EU Parliament was pushing a resolution for a ‘humanitarian pause’ and the resumption of negotiations with the Tigers. This was the template for the EU resolution that was planned for the Human Rights Council.

A Special Session of the sort that was held years later on Libya and Syria in the Human Rights Council was sought to be held on Sri Lanka. This required 16 signatures. The Sri Lankan team and its allies in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), managed to hold it back while the war was on. As Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva at the time, I was fully conscious of what we were doing in fighting hard to hold back the 16 signatures from being obtained so that a special session could not be moved in which there could have been a UN mandated call for a ‘pause’ on what would be the final attack on the Tigers. Personally driven by David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner, “led from behind” (as the Wikileaks cable of May 9th 2009 proves) by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and carried on the wave of mass demonstrations in almost every Western capital by the Tamil Diaspora (including a self-immolation in front of the Palais de Nations), there was no possibility of preventing the issue coming up later, though delay it we did, buying precious time until the war was fought to a victorious finish by our armed forces.

That this is no self-aggrandising personal claim made by me, is proved by the critical observations of a Western scholar Professor David Keen of the LSE. Writing in Conflict, Security and Development he states that “The Sri Lankan government very astutely created the political space—both nationally and internationally—in which a ‘ruthless’ solution to the civil war became possible.” He proceeds to quote me on the closing weeks of the war, describing our effort in Geneva as “Colombo’s successful lobbying of the UN Human Rights Council…

Professor Keen writes that “Strikingly the UN Human Rights Council rejected a draft statement that was critical of the Sri Lankan government and on 27th May 2009 (after the mass killing and defeat of the LTTE) put out an alternative statement…” He observes “Colombo cleverly portrayed itself as standing up for national sovereignty, and standing up to the West …Asked in June 2009 about media allegations of abuses in the camps, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Dr Dayan Jayatilleka replied […] anyone who has read Noam Chomsky on Kosovo will know the pernicious role played by sections of the Western media in artificially creating the impression of a humanitarian crisis which provided the smokescreen for intervention. These media you speak of are the very same that tried to convince the world that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction!

So what really happened in those halls, rooms and corridors? Soon after the Special Session was announced by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, instead of waiting for the EU resolution to be tabled and voted on, Sri Lanka together with the Non-Aligned Movement seized the initiative. We presented a resolution of our own, co-sponsored by another 37 countries. Uruguay, which was originally a signatory to the request for the convening of the special session on Sri Lanka, voluntarily approached us to become a co-sponsor of the Sri Lankan draft resolution, having being satisfied with our document which had been drafted after intense consultations and negotiations with many delegations of the Human Rights Council, including at the mandatory open ended consultations required to be held as per resolution 5/1 of the UN HRC.

Negotiating a compromise

Did Sri Lanka have the option of a dignified compromise in Geneva in 2009, a compromise that could either have kept the EU resolution from being placed on the agenda or one that could have led to a consensus?

Negotiations between Sri Lanka and the EU-led West were conducted at our behest by a Quartet, comprising our main neighbours India and Pakistan, and the current and incoming Chairs of the Non Aligned Movement, Cuba and Egypt, together with Sri Lanka. The stance of the West even at last minute backstage talks, and more clearly and publicly, the amendment moved by Germany in the Council after formal session resumed (successfully forestalled by Cuba), clearly proved the impossibility of a compromise: the EU and its allies were dogmatically insistent that any reference to ‘sovereignty’ should be deleted from the text, that UN Human Rights High Commissioner should engage in a fact-finding mission to the war zone and report to the Council within six months, and that an international accountability mechanism was imperative.

The Quartet comprising of Ambassadors of India, Pakistan, Cuba and Egypt unanimously and decisively refused to accommodate those amendments, and I as SL’s PR, rejected such a sellout of the Sri Lankan armed forces and citizens, our hard fought and finally won victory over secessionist terrorism, and the long-standing principles of the NAM.

In a search for a synthesis of values, many amendments were added to our original draft containing only 17 paragraphs. The final resolutions that was adopted had 29 paragraphs   which included a number of the points contained in the EU draft resolution i.e. everything that was unobjectionable, that was progressive, that was generally liberal in the EU’s resolution.

All our strategic and tactical decisions were taken in a collective and collegiate manner, at consultations with our coalition, including crucially, NAM and the BRICs. Not a single decision was taken outside of and other than by our ‘united front’; not a move made without consultation with and concurrence of trained, experienced and accomplished senior diplomats of a diverse array of states who were in touch with their capitals –with Russia represented by a former Deputy Foreign Minister and China by the Ambassador who would go onto be the PR on the Security Council in New York and is currently Vice Foreign Minister in charge of UN Affairs and Human Rights.

Defense of Sovereignty

It was the defense of national and state sovereignty and the political independence of our countries, that enabled us to obtain the support that we did and to pre-emptively defeat the resolution against us.

Geneva 2009 was far from a defeat of the Tiger Diaspora alone. It was the defeat of a powerful bloc of forces: the foreign affairs apparatuses of the European Union (driven by several Western European states), the Western dominated international media, the amply endowed international NGOs, the pro-Tiger Tamil Diaspora, anti-Sri Lankan elements within the UN system, and an ideological Fifth Column embedded within Sri Lanka itself (which clearly lives on, as revealed by this piece of pseudonymous falsification of history).

Sri Lanka saw and heard hypocrisy at work in world affairs. It also saw and heard fairness, friendship and solidarity.

Getting the better of the opponent

A considerably important cable conveys the assessment made to Susan Rice, Cabinet-ranked US Ambassador/Permanent Representative in the Security Council, by Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay, on the results of the Special Session on Sri Lanka. The assessment was that “Sri Lanka and its allies…simply outmaneuvered the EU”. [Cable date 25 June 2009]

This is not a one-off assessment. A cable from the US Embassy in Paris to Washington DC quotes France’s Official Representative for International Penal Tribunals, Christian Bernier, as saying that Sri Lanka was “very effective in its diplomatic approach in Geneva”:

“Bernier opined that the Sri Lankan government is “very effective” in its diplomatic approach in Geneva and said France is in an information-collection phase to obtain a more effective result in the HRC”. [Cable dated 16 July 2009]

The international award-winning journalist and author Nirupama Subramanian wrote in “The Hindu” 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)

Vanguard role in counter-hegemonic diplomacy

As earlier cited, there has also been a body of academic research and publication. The most interesting is a piece which helps advanced students of international relations understand the deeper dimension and wider ramifications—far wider than Sri Lanka—of the battles in UN forums including most notably the May 2009 Special session. This essay talks about a clash on norms which took place in the UN Human Rights Council over the Sri Lankan issue and says that Sri Lankan diplomats played a role of ‘norm entrepreneurs’.

Research scholar David Lewis presented a paper at the University of Edinburgh, entitled ‘The failure of a liberal peace: Sri Lanka’s counterinsurgency in global perspective’, and published in Conflict, Security & Development, 2010, Vol 10:5, pp 647-671. Lewis is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Co-operation and Security in the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, and headed the International Crisis Group’s Sri Lanka programme in 2006-7. In the study, he writes:

“Many of the battles over conflict-related norms between Sri Lanka and Europe took place in UN institutions, primarily the Human Rights Council (HRC)…it was Sri Lanka which generally had the best of these diplomatic battles…”

“Although this process of contestation reflects shifting power relations, and the increasing influence of China, Russia and other ‘Rising Powers’, it does not mean that small states are simply the passive recipients of norms created and contested by others. In fact, Sri Lankan diplomats have been active norm entrepreneurs in their own right, making significant efforts to develop alternative norms of conflict management, linking for example Chechnya and Sri Lanka in a discourse of state-centric peace enforcement. They have played a leading role in UN forums such as the UN HRC, where Sri Lankan delegates have helped ensure that the HRC has become an arena, not so much for the promotion of the liberal norms around which it was designed, but as a space in which such norms are contested, rejected or adapted in unexpected ways…”

“As a member of the UN HRC Sri Lanka has played an important role in asserting new, adapted norms opposing both secession and autonomy as possible elements in peace-building—trends that are convergent with views expressed by China, Russia and India…”

“The Sri Lankan conflict may be seen as the beginning of a new international consensus about conflict management, in which sovereignty and non-interference norms are reasserted, backed not only by Russia and China but also by democratic states such as Brazil.” (Lewis: 2010, pp. 658-661)

So there we have it; that’s the story as seen by critical observer-analysts. Perhaps most conclusive is the pithy headline in The Times (London) which had campaigned against Sri Lanka in the closing months of the war, running stories of possible war crimes, and impending carnage and catastrophe. On May 28th 2009, the morning after the vote, The Times (London) headline was: “Sri Lanka forces West to retreat over ‘war crimes’ with victory at UN”. If the West had to “retreat” that was because the West was the diplomatic aggressor and had been diplomatically repulsed by Sri Lanka and the broad alliance it had constructed. Thus the question of whether Geneva 2009, during which I was proud to have served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador/Permanent Representative, was Myth, Mistake or Model, is purely a rhetorical one, since the answer, going by the facts on public record and the evaluation of critical experts, is utterly unambiguous and unequivocal. Geneva 2009 was Sri Lanka’s diplomatic Thermopylae–except that Sri Lanka, unlike the 300 Spartans, actually won.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 9
    6

    Dev

    Is this another me, me, me, (the harem fantasy) ……… typing?

    • 8
      6

      Native Vedda,

      This guy Dayan has a frozen head with fixed ideas and notions, and he is not amenable to reason, logic or even creative ideas: His imagination power is virtually zero.

      It’s a waste of time trying to argue with him or trying to expose the truth.

      Isn’t it why he, and all the Sinhala chauvinists don’t want an international investigation to lay bare the truth of “Humanitarian Operation in Vani” He is one of the gang of liars and thieves, who lost their power recently.

      He is hell bent on taking his cooked path to his ultimate demise.

      • 5
        4

        Dear Mr Thiru,
        Please do not use abusive language if you want to make a point.
        You and your LTTE followers cannot intimidate the Sri Lankans into submission just because you have the supprt of our colonial masters, who looked after you well for 150 years and discriminated against the majority community the Sinhalese.. You are whistling in the wind. This country despite setbacks has always and will remain a sovereign nation. The time of your colonial masters and neo colonialists is running out fast. They have no clout in the present day world.
        I see a man frustrated, angry and venomous just like Mr Prabakaran.

        • 2
          2

          gigurawa

          “You and your LTTE followers cannot intimidate the Sri Lankans into submission just because you have the supprt of our colonial masters,”

          I hate to agree that Thiru and his LTTE followers cannot intimidate the Sri Lankan. No need for them when the Sinhala/Buddhists themselves have been doing it splendidly to themselves and the rest of the people for about 100 years.

          ” The time of your colonial masters and neo colonialists is running out fast. They have no clout in the present day world.”

          However they have the military asset to destroy this world many times over.

          “I see a man frustrated, angry and venomous just like Mr Prabakaran.”

          Sorry did you mean Dayan? You may be right.

      • 1
        1

        Thiru, Dayan has got to his ultimate demise.He had done himself on here.Why do you think he is trying to reserect his only hope MR ?

        • 0
          0

          Simon
          You seem unable to write a sentence in English, How can you grasp th the contents of the articles and opinions and comments that follow . Is not a case of dogs barking at the moon.

      • 1
        0

        Thiru the racist idiot – It is a waste of space to react on your comment – instead I will re edit your comment to suit you – because everything in your comment exactly suits you not Dayan

        “This guy Thiru has a frozen head with racist ideas and notions, and he is not amenable to reason because his brain capacity is so small he cannot understand logic, – creative ideas -Phoo !!: His imagination power is virtually below zero. It’s a waste of time trying to argue with this donkey or trying to expose his hidden agenda.

        He is one of the gang of liars and thieves and blood thirsty goons, who lost their dream of Eelaam recently. He is hell bent on inventing his cooked stories of genocide during last stage of eelaam war until he understand one funny day – I have been day dreaming all these time and will embrace his ultimate demise.

    • 8
      7

      ha ha I was about to say the same thing, ah well poor man, let him re-live his glory days …no one esp. Ranil and CBK seems to be taking any notice of his shouting.

  • 7
    7

    Dayan is getting quite boring now.He is failing to entertain us..
    and that was his only value other than rounding up some parya states to back our home grown wsr criminal.

    Dayan some gymnstics please…dont disapoint us.

  • 9
    8

    If weiss who is a diplomat is quoted for the truth then everything Dayan says also should be considered truthful as he is also a diplomat. As Dayan is flattered with what weiss said i can conclude weiss is a good diplomat because it is the job of a diplomat to lie on behalf of their country ! This Dayan is just a pompous ass who shines in an administration like MR’s because after him the other big theoretrcian in it was Gotabaya !

    • 1
      0

      In sinhalese we call people like you as “KUHAKAYAS” – by looking at your analysis of Dayan’s article I would add few more words to describe you – [Edited out] – You have all the qualification to be a Diplomut – because according to you all the Diplomat are liars

  • 10
    4

    My question is, since Dayan quotes Weiss as an authoritative source, does it also mean he accepts Weiss’s allegations on war crimes?

    You cannot pick and choose from the book, either you believe him when he praises you and also believe him in his allegations or not.

    • 8
      1

      Well said, Robert R, of this intellectual humbug!

      In one way it is good that he writes so much. Each time he does, he unfrocks himself a little bit more.

      I think he is ill.

    • 0
      0

      Do you believe every article on your daily paper as gospel truth ??

      Your comment shows your capacity to analyse an article –

  • 11
    5

    Monkey prises it’s own tail. Waste of time reading and making comments on J’S articles.

  • 6
    6

    Dayan why don’t you prove your honesty and courage by demanding an internal investigation led by Tamils inclusive of all community professionals to lead the inquiry. Victims or perpetrators who should feel the trust in mechanism of inquiry. If both should feel equal trust what is the best way. Truth and reconciliation commission wouldn’t have any meaning if it lead by apartheid. Tamils plea for international inquiry come from their hopelessness and helplessness. How much you feel the shame they encounter in everyday life and wounds they bear to their dignity.

    Be a true Srilankan feel for all it’s people to live with dignity. Hope you know what is dignity. If not read very useful book called DIGNITY The essential role it play in resolving conflict by Donna Hicks.

    Try to promote new generation of people who value justice, rule of law, dignity for all with equal rights and opportunity regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender and cast. That is the future Srilankans are dying for. Our mothers have sacrificed thousands of their children.You can hear their cry and plea if you can feel their pain. Being fond of Che be a revolutionary with vision,love and courage. Don’t encourage new generation along wrong path to undermine social equality of human kind in your mothers womb. A request on behalf of all our mothers lost their children in brutal war. Regards

  • 7
    4

    Nothing new here! All predicted in the Armando article. Dayan you are water under the bridge. Frozen. Please stay that way.

    • 3
      4

      Really?. Water under the bridge? What do you mean? Navin, Please brush up your linguistic skills. You don’t seem to have the fluency of English language to read Dayan Jayatilake’s article, never mind the intelligence to analyses the content.

      • 1
        1

        Why are you obsessed that others should brush up their “linguistic skills”” to correctly use the language of your colonial master? And what makes you think Dayan needs your services to extol the “high quality” of his very regular garbage disposal?

        I suggest that instead of singing the praises of Anagarika, Gandasara, and Dayan Jayatilleke, and worshipping trees, and teeth that belonged to dead men, use that time to get an education on how to act civilized on a public forum. Your comment at 8:16 shows you are as venomous a Sinhala snake, as much as Thiru is a venomous Tamil snake.

  • 4
    0

    This “counter hegemonic coalition” is made up of those who REJECT the global civilization and who want to take us back to an age of authoritarian dictatorship and feudal despotism with religious absolutism and possibly further to hunter gatherism. They are sick people!mentally retarded.

  • 6
    2

    DJ

    The superficial win which you gloat achieved at UN in 2009 may be a win for you but, not for SL. Since, put on Notice, SL has been spending a huge amount of money in trying to prevent the resolutions from being passed on its sessions. Next one is due in September. Not sure you get this point but MR and Gotta have got it, that was the reason they pulled the rug under you. Perhaps, you would not write under what circumstance the GoSL withdraw your service, despite your believe that you have done a perfect job. It is the case of, the operation success, but patient died.

    Your won reminds me the story of an ant and an elephant. Trying to teach a lesson to the elephant, the ant did something while the elephant was fast asleep. Didn’t see any agony or feeling of humiliation the elephant endured, the ant went closest to its front and asked it seems, “did it hurt”. Woken up just, the elephant took a big breath and the ant sucked in the inhalation. You had only helped woken up a sleeping giant, and doing so, you hooked up your hero big time.

    The story I heard was, yes, GoSL expected a special session were to be called for, by the west bloc for a cessation of hostilities by their forces, obviously to free up the civilians. GoSL didn’t want to give a pause and wanted to go all the way to lay its hand on VP, didn’t want to give a damn about civilian loses. As, it knew there were no independent media to witness the impunity with which it carries on its war. GoSL alerted you and others to stop such a session at any cost. Yes, you were the key figure in lobbying and doing the back door deals, in rounding up those 16 nations for your support if such a session were to eventuate, to vote against any move to halt the war. However, Westen bloc didn’t see the need for it dealing with a small county as SL. One more reason to not to request for an special session being was, with sending Nambiar it thought it has facilitated a smooth and safe passage of civilians from the NFZ with GoSL’s agreement. With an assurance from the top, Nambiar returned NY assuming thing will be ok. That is where the West caught off-guard and disappointed with SL for being renegaded on its promises. Its disappointment seen in the actions that followed; pursuing on a step by step fashion -an independent panel nomination and the report preparation, the photos/ TV shows, etc. It is all GoSL’s own making not only what it promised to UN officials but aligning with its opposing bloc at UN and collaborating with them, blaming diaspora for it is only a game to play for gullible and allocate a big budget to defense and make more money.

    You have had those 16 nations in your pocket, didn’t want to go waste what spent on them and brought a commendation resolution and passed, and a complete surprise for the West. And, West even did believe even POW would be accepted if they came raising white flags up. What happened after is history and truth wont be known until an independent inquiry submit its findings.

    The more you shout about this, understand it will make you feel happy,the more nails you drive on the war criminals’ coffins or, faster you facilitate the process to Hague that MR and his cohorts so much worried about nowadays.

  • 7
    2

    Hey Dayan,

    Since you now concede “about Geneva – where Sri Lanka is seriously threatened by an international inquiry and a report due in September 2015” – wouldn’t that imply that all your past pompous chest-thumping over the last several years of the one-man victory in Geneva was at least pre-mature, if not utterly false? There was no victory – just a temporary dodging! If you had established victory, then how come we are now “seriously-threatened”?

  • 6
    2

    sorry, I have stop following this Medamulana ‘Washing Machine’ anymore.

    This is a waste of space for CT to give this man an opportunity in these columns.

    • 2
      1

      @ Matilda Ellepola

      I agree. [Edited out]

  • 2
    6

    An excellent riposte to those who would attempt to belittle and demean Sri Lanka and it’s citizens. Gordon Weiss who spearheaded the campaign from Colombo was the first to concede defeat, while others under different guises still continue. The terrorist LTTE is not dead.

  • 0
    0

    History has been corrected, Dayan, we thank you for your efforts, but explain how we can win against powerful countries?

    Let’s just appear to give in for a change, that will confuse them:

    “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

  • 0
    0

    Here’s another good one:

    “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

  • 1
    1

    When will this crazy [Edited out] Dayan stop praising his own tail, a [Edited out]. This fellow calls himself a diplomat? he only made a fool of himself in Geneva in 2009 . What happened after that ,we were slowly but surely put in the dog house as violaters of human rights by not only the big powers but our so called former friends like India.We still have not escaped the human rights violators trap with more accusations coming in the future. Dayan with his lofty talk and double standards making crooked Mahinda Mama and criminal white van Gota his heros shows what a hypocrite this fellow is. We are sick of reading his non ending rebuttals and excuses from this con man. PLease give us a break we need some space to relax and read more interesting columns from writers to the C.T.

  • 2
    1

    I say Dayan Silva,

    We now hammer you without reading any of what you write!! Nice No?

  • 0
    0

    I wish DJ would quote from Gordon Weiss’s book more often.

  • 0
    0

    “it is not simply about Geneva – where Sri Lanka is seriously threatened by an international inquiry and a report due in September 2015” OK DJ after all your diplomatic efforts and alleged “success stories” we are still trapped in the accounatbility & HR violations. So you were good back in 2009 in defending SL but not successful enough to save us from this so called harresment of the west. Please bring some light into the matter; what is wrong in an international inquiry? it sounds as we are hiding something? If you are right that we were no culprits then let them find it out themselves? and boasting about the 16 countries who supported SL…. you know the reputation of these countries in the world arena?
    Or I suspect, you are just sending in your application to the SL President for a diplomatic job to twart the due report in September. Since you were successful in 2009 you can be succesful again? why not try you best to keep the wast and enemies of Sri Lanka away from us.

    Please do not forget the fact, that MR kicked you out of your office after your great success in Geneve in 2009. I ask myself how could sombody so ungrateful to you after all you saved his racist ass in Geneve?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.