The Sunday Leader (Dec 13, 2009) interview of General Sarath Fonseka, the challenger of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s re-election, shook the Sri Lanka government’s carefully built edifice of waging a “humanitarian war” it had built to ward off accusations of genocide and human rights violations committed by the army during the Eelam war.
The General accused the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa of instructing a key ground commander in the north that all LTTE leaders must be killed and not allowed to surrender. The three key LTTE leaders allegedly done to death were probably Nadesan, Pulidevan and Ramesh who wanted to surrender. According to the armyTheir bodies were found on May 18 during operations on the last stronghold of the LTTE. The General’s accusation only confirms earlier suspicions on this count. There were similar accusations of Prabhakaran’s death also but few appear to believe that.
However, the General appeared to have learnt the fine art of politics in double time. Like a good politician, he quickly denied that he made the accusation, and said he was misquoted. Despite the denial, as it always happens in political misquotes, the damage was already done. And it is clear that the General has challenged the government on its weakest wicket – accusations of human rights violations and genocide – in its war against the Tamil insurgents.
The Sri Lanka government has been left red in the face because it reinforces international suspicion of the government indulging in genocide. So far the government had been calling the international outcry against its poor human rights record a foreign conspiracy of INGOs, Western nations, and LTTE moles to tarnish Sri Lanka’s reputation. In response to the General’s allegation Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe called it a “great betrayal,” and said the ‘baseless allegation’ was made for personal gains and such allegations were ‘extremely harmful’ and provide ‘oxygen the US State Department attempt to inquire into the so called Human Rights violations during the humanitarian operation.’
In response to international community’s concerns, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has already appointed a six-member committee to look into the charges of human rights violations during the war. However, performance of such committees in the past had been shoddy and left the international community unconvinced of the govrnment’s sincerity.
Now the General had questioned the credibility of the government stand, it is unlikely to let him off easily. The government has sought the opinion of Attorney General for recording a statement from General Fonseka on his remarks to the media regarding Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
In an indirect response to the General’s allegation, Army Commander Lieutenant General Jagath Jayasuriya, while addressing the troops at the Army Headquarters said that the Army faced its “biggest betrayal.” He asked them to be conscious about this betrayal and face it together.
General Fonseka is believed to have a personal following of loyalists in the army. This had been worrying the Rajapaksa government and the President’s campaigners. Rumours of an impending coup d’tat by the army were in the air sometime back and quickly denied. But it is clear that army is slowly being drawn into eddy of election politics in support of the President. Already senior army officers have appeared on the TV in a bid to downgrade the role played by General Fonseka signaling the increasinglypartisan role of the army in this murky contest.
In an indirect response to the allegations of politicization the army, the Army Commander while recently addressing the Defence Services Command and Staff College had cautioned that the loyalty of the troops “should be to the organization and not individuals.” Asking them to “work with the interest of the organization and the country first” he said “individuals will come and go but the organization needs to function with equality and without a conflict in loyalties. This can make or break an organization and is very detrimental to a fighting Army and to the services.
This is something that we have to guard as advocating disloyalty to the organization amounts to subversion.” There are serious words coming from the army chief within seven months of a resounding military victory and shows how seriously the risk potential of Fonseka loyalists is being viewed by him. After General Fonseka’s latest allegations the situation could get worsen on the issue of divided loyalties.
Quickly responding to the government accusation of “betrayal” the General said today (December 14) that he would take responsibility for what happened in the hands of the army throughout the war and as the then army commander, and no field commander acted in violation of any international law.
At the heart of Rajapaksa’s problem is that General Sarath Fonseka almost matches him in national popularity. As the two “national heroes” have been claiming credit for the success in the Eelam war, both should responsible for any offences committed by the troops operating under their directions.
The General’s latest salvo is only one more episode in the dirty drama that the government has been playing ever since it became clear that Fonseka could spoil the cake-walk victory President Rajapaksa was hoping for in the presidential poll scheduled for January 26, 2010. Not to be outdone, the General has now entered the fray. Skeletons of misconduct and corruption are tumbling out everyday as mutual recriminations are exchanged by both sides. More and more salacious details of favouritism, nepotism, and corruption in a whole range of things from arms deals to rehabilitation projects are floating in the air. In a way it is good that these allegations are being aired in public; at least it will provide some hope for remedial action subsequently.
But the tragedy is instead of fighting on concrete issues and pressing national problems both sides are out with their tar buckets. Apart from brad and butter and human rights issues that affect all, the Tamil issue has now been relegated to the sidelines, much to the detriment of permanent peace that could have followed the end of war. This has been the sad story of Sri Lanka. And nothing seems to have changed.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote556.html
No comments:
Post a Comment