28 September, 2020

Blog

The “Hot Potato” Which Came Wrapped Up From Geneva

By Bandu de Silva

Bandu de Silva

Bandu de Silva

The “Hot Potato” Which Came Wrapped Up From Geneva Which Had To Be Spewed Out

“It’s not as hot as we anticipated, not a hot potato. It is not blood curdling and the report has not mentioned any names,” Samaraweera declared. He opined the OISL report was more “a narrative” and as declared therein, was a “human rights investigation and not a criminal one.”

That is how The Sunday Times (September 20th) Political editor put across External Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s response immediately after a cursory glance at the UNHRC report which he received on September 11, 2015 through UNHRC High Commissioner’s special envoy. So, for the Minister, it was not the ‘hot potato’ that many people expected. Going on to details, he had said there was no naming of any people. Even later addressing the media in Colombo he repeated that the UNHRC report was only a “human rights investigation and not a criminal one.” That is what the Sri Lankan Government also informed the High Commissioner through the Note Verbale sent by the Foreign Ministry in Colombo on 15th September, complying with the five-day time – frame allowed to the government to reply.

The unfolding events, nevertheless, point to what came wrapped up from Geneva was a hot potato indeed, which, as Dr. Samuel Johnson did, had to be spewed out. What External Affairs Minister, Mangala Samaraweera who seemed to be all upbeat over the report, and reportedly became outspoken to the extent of discussing with the media on Friday 18th September, even the modeling of the Hybrid Special Court which the UNHRC report was insisting on, has within three days found the potato too hot and thought of spewing it out to the amusement of onlookers. As Dr. Johnson said, he could tell those who are amused that “only a fool would have swallowed it”.

MangalaNow the question is “Will the UNHRC report then remain a virtual ‘Sweet-potato’ that the government wishfully made out to be at the outset? One doubts? If it is going to be the ‘sweet-potato’ or even a worm-infested ‘kunu-batala,’ familiar in the Sri Lankan market, can one think that the UNHRC and the investigating trio appointed by UNHRC following the US sponsored resolution at the Council session in 2014, had wasted their time and public funds on this account. That is the main question now in the face of the understanding reached a few weeks back by the governments of US and Sri Lanka which was laid bare during the most recent visit of the US State Department’s two Assistant Secretaries to Sri Lanka.

The two visitors from US were not the decision makers. They were only the mouth pieces for the US government. The decisions were made earlier from the time of change of government (Wenasa) in Colombo starting from January 8, 2015 with the formation of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government. State Secretary Kerry laid down the parameters and the Biswal-Malinowski team which followed after the August 17 General Election which further confirmed the electorate’s decision for the change of government, confirmed the US decision on the future action in Geneva supporting an independent local investigation into alleged human rights abuses and criminal acts against civilians. The US decision announced in Colombo constituted a complete course-change from her previous stand calling for nothing less than an international inquiry which was demonstrated by her strong sponsorship of the Geneva Resolution on Sri Lanka which was carried out by majority vote resulting in the present UNHRC report.

What has then brought out the volte face on the part of US seems to nothing but the regime change itself in Sri Lanka and the mere belief that the new government would carry through the democratizing process and other anticipated reforms and investigations into war time events which had been the subject of discussion in Geneva and globally, to the satisfaction of all “stake-holders”. The US, however, will be facing a dilemma now about supporting the ‘independent local inquiry’ as it projected a few weeks back. That is in view of the strong findings in the UNHRC report which was published in Geneva and globally last week, and the strong support lent to the findings by Prince Zeid, the new High Commissioner of Human Right’s Commission. Can the US completely disown the findings of the Report which was, by and large, the result of her own persuasive efforts at the Geneva sessions 2014 and earlier? She cannot do that without loosing credibility.

Bridging the contradiction

How would the contradictions between the declared stance of supporting the new Sri Lanka government to conduct an independent local investigation and the one arising from UNHRC report requiring the Sri Lankan government to establish a Hybrid Special court be bridged? To be more precise, the UNHRC report requires the Sri Lankan government to, inter alia

(a)“Adopt a specific legislation establishing an ad hoc hybrid special court, integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators, mandated to try war crimes and crimes against humanity, with its own independent investigative and prosecuting organ, defense office and witness and victims protection program, and resource it so that it can promptly and effectively try those responsible;

(b) Carry out a comprehensive mapping of all criminal investigations, habeas corpus and fundamental rights petitions related to serious human rights violations, as well as the findings of all Commissions of Inquiries where they have identified specific cases, and refer these cases to the special court upon its establishment;

(c) Reinforce the forensic capacity of the judiciary and ensure that it is adequately resourced, including for DNA testing, forensic anthropology and archaeology;

(d) Review all cases of detainees held under the PTA and either release them or immediately bring them to trial; Review the cases of those convicted under the PTA and serving long sentences, particularly where convictions were based on confessions extracted under torture;

Truth/right to know

(e) Dispense with the current Presidential Commission on Missing Persons and transfer its cases to a credible and independent institution developed in consultation with families of the disappeared;

(f) Develop a central database of all detainees, with independent verification, where relatives can obtain information of the whereabouts of family members detained, and publish a list of all detention centres;

(g) Publish all unpublished reports of the many human rights-related commissions of inquiry, the Presidential Commission on the Missing, and the Army Court of Inquiry into civilian casualties;

(h) Develop a comprehensive plan/mechanism for preserving all existing records and documentation relating to human rights violations, whether held by public or private institutions;

The Background

The above recommendations are made amongst others, against the following background:

1. The view that designing of any truth-seeking and accountability mechanisms must be through a process of genuine, informed and participatory consultation, especially with victims and their families; and any new mechanisms should not be appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which “has systematically failed to deliver results”, but require new, purpose-specific legislation.

2. The degree to which Sri Lanka’s security sector and justice system having been distorted and corrupted by decades of emergency, conflict and impunity, for years, political interference by the Executive with the judiciary having become routine, as demonstrated in many of the cases investigated in this report; and the independence and integrity of key institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office and Human Rights Commission remaining compromised.

Against this backdrop, the High Commissioner’s belief that the Government will need to embark on fundamental reforms of the security sector and justice system, including a fully-fledged vetting process to remove from office security forces personnel and public officials suspected of involvement in human rights violations, before it can hope to achieve a credible domestic accountability process and hope to achieve reconciliation, has been taken into account.

In brief, the Investigating team cites the High Commissioner of being convinced of the view that for accountability to be achieved in Sri Lanka, it will require more than a domestic mechanism; and that Sri Lanka should draw on the lessons learnt and good practices of other countries that have succeeded with hybrid special courts, integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators, such a mechanism becoming essential to give confidence to all Sri Lankans, in particular the victims, in the independence and impartiality of the process, particularly given the politicization and highly polarized environment in Sri Lanka. OHCHR stands ready to continue providing its advice and technical assistance in the design of such a mechanism.

The High Commissioner is also cited as being of the view that the Human Rights Council has – and should continue to play – a critically important role in encouraging progress on accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. As the process now moves into a new stage, he urges Council members to sustain their monitoring of developments in Sri Lanka with a view to further actions that may be required at the international level should there not be concrete results.

In my short article published in The Island of Friday 18 September 2015, I observed that in view of the most recent developments in Geneva, the US might try to persuade the Sri Lankan government to accept a comprise formula on the Draft Resolution to be jointly submitted. The Sri Lankan government’s spokespersons, notably, External Affairs Minister has been rather vocal on the subject, or the printed media which has reported his responses has misreported his reactions. The most vocal scenario was reported by the Divayina correspondent in his headline report of 18th September where he stated Minister Samaraweera as saying that the “Hybrid Court would be appointed by the government of Sri Lanka and that there will be no role for the UN in it.”

“(යුද්ධය පැවැති කාලයේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සිදුවී ඇතැයි කියන මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝනය කිරීම් පිළිබඳ පරීක්‍ෂණ පැවැත්වීම සඳහා එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයේ මහ ලේකම්වරයාගේ වාර්තාව මගින් යෝජනා කොට ඇති ජාත්‍යන්තර විනිසුරු වරුන්ගෙන් ද සමන්විත මිශ්‍ර අධිකරණය (හයිබ්‍රිඩ්) පත්කරනු ලබන්නේ ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජය විසින් බව විදේශ කටයුතු ඇමැති මංගල සමරවීර මහතා ‘දිවයින’ට පැවැසීය.

ඒ සඳහා ජාත්‍යන්තර පිළිගැනීමක්‌ ඇති විනිසුරුවරුන් පත්කරන බව ද ඇමැතිවරයා කීය. එම අධිකරණය පත්කිරීමේදී එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ කිසිදු මැදිහත්වීමක්‌ සිදු නොවන බව ද ඒ මහතා අවධාරණය කළේය”).

That means the Minister had already conceded the principle of appointing a Hybrid Special Court suggested in the UNHRC report.

The same correspondent reporting in more detail on an interview held with the Minister Samarweera, had raised the issue again (published in Sunday Divayina of 20th September) but the Minister’s response this time was not so forthcoming as was reported by the correspondent on Friday 18th in Divayina (daily). Now the Minister is seen avoiding reference to a Hybrid Court but to a judicial mechanism (අධිකරණ පද්ධතිය) and that a final decision would be taken after a broad national consultation (පුළුල් ජාතික කතිකාවතකින් පසුව), and even if we (Government ?) presented a preliminary draft, it could be transformed into a definitive programme only after discussions with all stake holders. (මේ අපි මූලික සැලැස්‌ම ඉදිරිපත් කළත් මේ සැලැස්‌ම නිශ්චිත වැඩපිළිවෙළක්‌ බවට පත් කර ගන්න පුළුවන් වෙන්නේ මෙහි මේ සියලුම කොටස්‌කරුවන් සමග සාකච්ඡා කළාට පසුවයි).

In an interview given to Ceylon Today (published in Sunday 20 September), Justice Minister, Wijedasa Rajapakshe had reportedly said “that in order to accommodate a domestic mechanism they would hold discussions with political party leaders and discuss the issue in Parliament. “It is a matter for Parliament to decide,” he said.
The UNHRC report said Sri Lanka should draw on the lessons learnt and good practices of other countries that have succeeded with hybrid special Courts, integrating international Judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators. The High Commissioner for Human Rights last week said such a mechanism will be essential to give confidence to all Sri Lankans, in particular the victims, in terms of the independence and impartiality of the process.

They have recommended the special hybrid Court, the modality and the mechanism at the entire discretion of Sri Lanka. “Therefore we will have to think about this modality. And the first thing I must mention is this domestic mechanism is what the previous regime was asking throughout. And the international community wanted to set up an international mechanism. But, in view of the regime change and our change in policies only we were able to get the domestic mechanism,” he noted.

He also said “We have on behalf of Sri Lanka made a representation to relevant stakeholders and the United Nations High Commissioner to allow us to have our own Judges. Simply because we have Sri Lankan Judges with international exposure. So far they have not informed us their decision.”

From these reports appearing in Sunday newspapers it would appear that more caution is being expressed now on commenting on the UNHRC proposed “Hybrid Special Court” after External Affairs Minister’s earlier outburst reported in Divayina correspondent’s first report. In a note I circulated among a Googles discussion group I said I would verify the Divayina report with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but which was delayed by the week-end intervening. Now there is no need for that as the Minister Samaraweera’s non- reference to the Hybrid Court but to a “Judicial mechanism” and the need for broad national consultation before working out a programme, and Minister Rajapakshe’s more precise statement that it needs Parliamentary approval, seem to show the introduction of caution in discussing the issue on the part of the government. That is if it is not a retraction by Minister Samaraweera from his earlier expressed position indicating willingness to be forthcoming on the UNHRC proposaal. Is this then the result of dissenting views expressed by many to which the Minister himself has since drew attention. It is also revealed that the subject when discussed in the Cabinet met with reservation/opposition from some members. The government may also not want to see a division caused in Parliament when the subject of a hybrid mechanism is brought up there.

Has the Minister of External Affairs been cautioned then by the Prime Minister not to express over-enthusiasm and create confusion, for which the media is always ready to play ball?

Information emerging from Geneva points to a Draft of the Resolution doing the circles already. That type of kite-flying is usual. Indications are that so far the draft favours a reference to a hybrid mechanism. The government of Sri Lanka would purpose try its best to avoid binding to such a formation which could have costly electoral repercussions on the new government. As Minister Wijedasa Rajapakshe told Ceylon Today, “We (the government) have on behalf of Sri Lanka made a representation to relevant stakeholders and the United Nations High Commissioner to allow us to have our own Judges. Simply because we have Sri Lankan Judges with international exposure. So far they have not informed us their decision.”

The final outcome which would emerge this week in Geneva in the form of the Draft Resolution to be tabled would indicate if the potato is still hot or not. It is more likely that Sri Lanka would have no alternative but to swallow it, nevertheless. That is the price she has to pay for going along with US. The earlier question I raised in my last article in The Island if Sri Lanka would get trapped in Geneva is still food for thought.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 7
    4

    The entire weight of the “hot potato” was based on the claim 40,000 innocent people died there. The Human Rights Watch chief based in NY for example still Tweets claiming this figure.

    The Paranagama Commission had already established that figure had been grossly exaggerated.

    Its ridiculous neither Paranagama nor the Permanent rep at Geneva did not think to let others know for 6 years.

    The Army took 24,000 casualties to end this menace. Most of the casualties they took in order to protect lives of the civilians. It was just mindless violence.

    It will be a tragedy if the bureaucracy of Sri Lanka is unable to let the world know.

    This demands Sri Lankan foreign service to evolve and innovate ways of taking Sri Lanka’s message out there. For starters it can have more of a presence in Social Media for example where most exchanges take place these days.

    • 3
      3

      Vibhushana,

      “It will be a tragedy if the bureaucracy of Sri Lanka is unable to let the world know.”

      The Rajapaksa administration, which had significant resources and control of the state apparatus, could not let the world know.

      How, then, can you expect Sirisena and Ranil to do this?

      • 2
        0

        @Swing Low, Sweet Chariot

        Correction:

        Mahinda Chinthanaya DID let the world know but it was ignored or loud hue-and-cry followed, declaring it a lie

        We thought that the pro-Western Yahapalanaya would be able to do achieve what the Mahinda Chinthanaya could not

        :) Clearly both Yahapalana cannot deliver on it’s big promises and we were mistaken. The West takes equal amount of notice of both Yahapalanaya AND Mahinda Chinthanaya

        Now the problem is, we have no one who has our back. Amarasiri has got it right

        • 1
          1

          maalumiris,

          You mean to say that the citizens of Sri Lanka voted for Sirisena so that he could save the Rajapaksas from the UN?

          If so, I must say that you have a fine sense of humour.

          After the war ended in 2009, the Rajapaksa Administration invited the West to come and look at the development that was taking place in the North. The West, being the hypocrites that they are, did not take up this offer and even went to the extent of boycotting CHOGM. The visits of Ban Ki Moon in 2009 and Navi Pillay in 2013 were perhaps an exception.

          Since the January 2015, the West is insisting on access to Sri Lanka. So, why don’t we allow them to come here and see what’s going on?

          Even Sarath Fonseka, Sri Lanka’s greatest war hero in 2300 years, states that we should subject our selves to an investigation to clear our name. Since you are challenging Fonseka’s position, are the hoi polloi to assume that you are a greater war hero than Fonseka? If so, Please declare so here so that we can begin a campaign to award you the title of Generalissimo.

          A Field Marshal need only salute the head of state. A Generalissimo need not even do that and is even entitled to give the finger to the head of state! Imagine yourself having such powers!

          I think the best solution now is to bring back the Rajapaksas into power. At least they had the magnanimity and modesty to invite the West to come and look at what’s taking place in the North of Sri Lanka.

    • 0
      1

      Was it not Gordon Weiss who concocted this figure, long after arriving in Australia (remember he had a book to sell) after putting out a figure of 7000 with no evidence whatsoever, while in Colombo. Neil Buhne who had responsibility was completely eclipsed.
      Harrison (another book to sell) ran with the figures.
      You should consider yourself lucky in one sense. Yousuf the Catholic Bishop from Mannar came out with the allegation that 140000+ were missing since the end of the war. Other LTTE proxies with great malice aforethought, some very visible in these columns, did their utmost to imprint this as the number of civilian dead at the last phase of the war, fortunately with no success.

    • 1
      1

      Vibhushana,

      “The Paranagama Commission had already established that figure had been grossly exaggerated.”

      This report is yet to be made public. Have you seen it already?

      On another note, I am thinking of travelling abroad next week. When I call over at the security counter at the airport to have my baggage examined, I am going to take your advice and proclaim and it need not be checked because I have already done it! I am also going to state to the security officer that the Paranagama Commission has already examined my baggage and has given clearance although the report is yet to be made public!

      That should satisfy the security officer at the airport right?

  • 3
    1

    Bandu de Silva

    RE: The “Hot Potato” Which Came Wrapped Up From Geneva

    “That is in view of the strong findings in the UNHRC report which was published in Geneva and globally last week, and the strong support lent to the findings by Prince Zeid, the new High Commissioner of Human Right’s Commission. Can the US completely disown the findings of the Report which was, by and large, the result of her own persuasive efforts at the Geneva sessions 2014 and earlier? She cannot do that without loosing credibility.”

    Indeed, a hot potato, both for Sri Lanka and USA.

    In Sinhala , like “Koyti Walgaya”, “Tigers Tail”, can’t keep holding it, can’t let go of it.

    • 1
      2

      Findings? what findings?…. you mean concoctions of callum and weis!.

      • 3
        1

        NAK

        If are not happy with the numbers you read, could you tell us exactly how many innocent civilians perished in the war.

        None, 7,000, 40,000, 70,000, 135,000, 145,000, …………..

  • 5
    2

    Excellent analysis of the predicament we find ourselves in!

    If only the deadheads in the previous Government could have foresaw that all they were doing, (through not holding a domestic inquiry to clear Sri Lanka’s good name once and for all) they were simply handing the rope to the UN which in turn allowed them to make the noose. Now its just a case of what type of hangman the UN wish to employ – Domestic, Hybrid or International ???????????

    Our usual defenses of obfuscation, foot dragging and blanket denial are not going to work on the International Community !
    The cat is most definitely out of the bag and there is no way we can coax it back in now!

    Oh what lies we weave in order to deceive !

    • 1
      1

      curtis,ever heard of LLRC?

      • 2
        1

        NAK

        “curtis,ever heard of LLRC?”

        What about it?

        Did the report identify the war criminals?

        Report of the
        COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON LESSONS LEARNT
        AND RECONCILIATION

        The Mandate

        1.5 In the Mandate, contained in the Proclamation, the Commissioners were to “inquire and report on the following matters that may have taken place during the period between 21st February 2002 and 19th May 2009, namely;

        i. The facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the Ceasefire Agreement operationalized on 21st February 2002 and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to the 19th of May 2009;

        ii. Whether any person, group or institution directly or indirectly bear responsibility in this regard;

        iii. The lessons we would learn from those events and their attendant concerns, in order to ensure that there will be no recurrence;

        iv. The methodology whereby restitution to pay persons affected by those events or their dependants or their heirs, can be effected;

        v. The institutional, administrative and legislative measures which need to be taken in order to prevent any recurrence of such concerns in the future, and to promote further national unity and reconciliation among communities and; to make any such other recommendations with reference to any of the matters that have been inquired into under the terms of the Warrant.”.

        NAKIA

        Has it ever occurred to you the mandate of LLRC did not mention about war crime investigation, nor demanded the commissioners pursue identify war criminals.

  • 3
    0

    The present goverment is carrying the hot potatoe that belonged to the previous regime. No matter, think that we are all in it and should find a solution to preserve our self respect.

  • 1
    1

    Since I wrote the above piece on 20 September, significant developments have taken place in Geneva ans Colombo. In Geneva, the text of the forthcoming D/R proposed by what is called ‘a core group’has surfaced to be good enough to be taken note by our Perm Rep in Geneva, Ambassador Ravinath Ariyasinghe, a lad who was introduced into scientific diplomacy by me 16 years back, who has been left alone now do the damage control.As the fate of irony would have it, Ravinath has had to hit back at the text of the proposed D/R rather than be the joint sponsor along with US of a D/R favourable to Sri Lanka which was much hyped about a few weeks back after the two US Assistant Secretaries ‘went to town’in Colombo promising to co-sponsor a joint D/R supporting a local inquiry as the new Sri Lankan government had envisaged.
    Now who is in the ‘core group’ which has presented the ‘thunder-bolt’ text? Isn’t US part of it? Why the silence about it? If US is also a party to it, can one accuse US of being double-tongued? No! I do not think. There were sufficient nuances attached to the promise by the two Assistant Secretaries during the Colombo visit. If one was so naive not to get at them as it has happened, it is not the fault of the US. The fault lies with Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry for accepting the statement without reading the nuances and even arranging a ‘Tovile’ of a reception for the two visitors throwing Protocol asunder. Did the External Affairs Minister and his advisers think that by treating the guests well everything would be hunky-dory? If so, now it is clear if all that has played dividends or not. Hence poor Ravinath’s dilemma of having to pull the coal out of fire.One clear lesson is that diplomacy needs good honing and cannot be earned overnight.Without that quality diplomacy can prove to be turning into idiocy.

    The second scenario is in Colombo. The Prime Minister having to take over and make a statement in Parliament affirming that the government would be pursuing the course of a local inquiry as he promised at the outset of his first term under the “Yahapalanaya’ government. He was reportedly seen reprimanding senor officials in the Foreign Ministry over what is now clear as a messing up the whole affair by the Ministry by over-playing the American support card.
    May I be proved wrong? Will there still be hope that the US would still come round as the good Samaritan to pull Sri Lanka out the woods into which she has worked her way?

    • 0
      1

      As the saying goes, as there is no such thing as a free lunch, What is it that the US wants from us to let us off the hook. I believed that that has been all done and dusted when Biswal so boldly declared Sri Lanka would be off the hook, of course in other words. Has India got cold feet all of a sudden of having a US military base so close to it.

    • 0
      0

      Sri Lanka is presented with the ‘Rambouillet document’ from the US/’core group’. How soon will it be before RW/MS surrenders. Avamangala is nearly there.

      Sri Lanka can forget about ELECTING it’s own government democratically, when one could be appointed to run it’s affairs, much more cheaply as happened in Yugoslavia. Remember Milan Panic, the US puppet.
      “White man speaks with forked tongue” said a wise man before he and his were exterminated..

    • 1
      1

      Bandu Silva:
      “Scientific diplomacy”? Oh Dear! Do us all what kind of animal this is. Did you, do you, practice it? Or is this a typo and you meant to write “sinhala diplomacy…

  • 2
    1

    John Fisher (HRW) says

    “Sri Lanka is asking the world to accept its promise to bring accountability as it sees fit. *******But trust must be earned******. Against a decades-long backdrop of politically motivated interference and inaction on justice issues, there is simply no basis – whatever the sincerity of top officials – to be confident of Sri Lanka’s ability to deliver justice without a significant international role. “

    Highlight with *** is mine

  • 0
    1

    NAK

    Yes of course I have heard of the LLRC report.

    Did the Rajapakse deadheads rush to implement all the proposals.

    Er no.

    Rajapakse thought that by commissioning the LLRC report he would appease the rest of the international community, diffuse any criticism, and allow his government to carry on as all governments since 1948 have done, encouraging communal violence, openly encouraging institutional racism, while at the same robbing the public purse!

    Well the reality turned out different for the delusional Rajapakse and his crony’s and daft supporters.

    The LLRC was never set up to Investigate War Crimes it was set up to identify the problems that led to the War and remedy’s that would enable non-recurrence to take place.

  • 1
    0

    So as I hoped, the first draft which circulated in Geneva was kite-flying. As I wrote and hoped in my further comment on 24 Sept in Colombo Telegraph, US has come round to play Good Samaritan. Sri Lanka, as Secretary Kerry envisages will co-sponsor the UK, Macedonia …and US co-sponsored Draft. Sri Lanka has got the point of a local mechanism included instead of the international mechanism which was included in the first draft proposed by the so called ‘core group’ which was all theatrics. The new draft still contains unfavourable Preamble paras and Operative paras, which need not have been there from Sri Lanka’s point of view but apparently had to be conceded in order have her main interest of a domestic inquiry accepted, Even there, Sri Lanka has had to make concessions (Op.para 6) which reads:

    .further affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”

    According to Bastian’s report in F/T (Sept 25), the compromise formula of para 6 was proposed by Sri Lankan Prime Minister’s Office. If so, this confirms my earlier observation in my article published in Ceylon Telegraph that the initiative on handling the Geneva resolution has passed on to Prime Minister’s Office.
    Bandu

    • 0
      0

      ” US has come round to play Good Samaritan. “

      In the same way it has done with the Palestinians, while funding the destruction of their homes and the way of life and protecting their transplanted European enemy at the UN. Apart from being able to plant an obviously unwelcome kiss on Biswal, Mangala Samaraweera has had a further ‘success’ when Tamil terrorist LTTE persuaded Ecuador to throw in it’s support behind the TGTE.

  • 1
    0

    Please read State Secretary Kerry’s Press Release on the new D/R and Sri Lanka joining co-sponsorship.
    I am reminded of the popular old Calipso of mid 1950s “Your wife is my wife: My wife is your wife….” What Kerry says is just that -Sri Lanka has joined the ‘wife-exchange’ cub with joint sponsorship of this D/R.
    Bandu

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.