Sri Lanka: Making LLRC Report Meaningful

By Col R Hariharan

The Rajapaksa government should be happy with the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation (LLRC) presented to the Sri Lankan parliament on December 16, 2011 as it has not pinpointed responsibility on anyone (other than political and systemic weaknesses and the LTTE) for the mess Sri Lanka finds itself after the Eelam War.

The report provides badly needed breathing space for the government, as the Commission has has done a fairly good job if one goes by the President’s mandate given to it. The well written report analyses in detail the reasons for past and present discontent of Tamils and has drawn the government attention to a number issues that had triggered Tamil insurgency.

An ode to the Indian soldier

March 09, 2011   7:57:38 PM
Manvendra Singh

While India has chosen to forget the sacrifices of its soldiers in foreign land, Sri Lanka has erected a memorial in honour of the IPKF’s fallen heroes.

I was on the lookout for Harpal’s name. Like all those who knew him I too had been devastated by the loss of the Ropar Khalsa. He had that infectious persona. I had last seen him at his unit mess, during the 1987 cricket world cup. Even as the country partook in its cricket craze, there were those who didn’t have that luxury, as they were at war for India.

Sri Lanka Perspectives – January 2011

By Col R Hariharan 

Politics

Sri Lanka political scene is getting hot as new members are being elected for 330 local bodies throughout the country on March 17, 2011. In these elections, 12.7 million voters would be electing 3,931 members to four Municipal Councils, 39 Urban Councils and 258 Pradeshiya Sabhas.

These elections in the Northern Province have become a prestigious one for President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and its Tamil partner Eelam Peoples Democratic Party (EPDP) had not fared well in winning voter confidence in the presidential and parliamentary polls and local body elections for Jaffna and Vavuniya. 

Rajapaksa would like to use the local elections to establish the UPFA footprint in the North to legitimise his claim of being the leader of people from all communities. With the work on restoration of infrastructure and rehabilitation of internally displaced population going at a slow pace in the war torn north, the morale of a northern Tamils is low. Another irritant for the Tamils is the visible presence of the army everywhere; the army has been acting as an overlord of the civil administration. To top it all, law and order in Jaffna has deterriorated fast with murders and other criminal acts showing a sharp increase. So as of now UPFA and EPDP’s chances of asserting their presence in these elections in the North appear low.

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the former political proxy of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), contesting now as the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) – the Tamil name of the erstwhile Federal Party – is expected to capture majority of the seats in the elections in this district. They had fared well in the Jaffna local poll and parliamentary elections. The United National Party (UNP) which had some roots in the past in the North hopes to do better. The President would like to strike a deal with ITAK to prevent it from becoming a loose cannon in the power play in the North. So far the ITAK had been elusive. It is using this opportunity to leverage with the President for finalising the much delayed devolution package for Tamil minority. As of now, there is no sign of any quick progress in this regard.

In the East, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) led by the President’s former ally Pillaiyan has decided to contest on its own symbol. As the three communities – Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalas – are almost in equal numbers, the election results are a wide open question, though UPFA is expected to do better.

The whole local election scene became a comedy of errors as nearly 20 percent of the nominations were rejected on technical grounds and trivial errors by returning officers. Both the UPFA and the main opposition party United National Party (UNP) were mortified to find a large number of their nominations rejected in many parts of the country. This was particularly damaging for the UPFA as its nominations to 35 local councils in 12 districts were rejected. The rejection in 16 local bodies in the Jaffna district including three Urban Councils (Velvettiturai, Point Pedro and Chavakachcheri) and 13 Pradeshiya Sabhas will perhaps become the biggest spoil sport for the UPFA’s efforts to show flag in the North.

Tamil Diaspora

To gain maximum mileage out of the publicity generated by the disastrous visit of President Rajapaks to the Oxford Union last month, pro-separatist segments of Sri Lanka Tamil Diaspora appear to be getting their anti-Rajapaksa act together. Though they are rive with internal differences, they appear to be united in bringing down President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s reputation using his problems in handling the strong adverse international allegations about Sri Lanka army’s war crimes and human rights violations.

The latest salvo was fired when three plaintiffs filed a law suit in a US District court in Washington seeking $ 30 million to compensate relatives of victims of killed in three incidents during the war by Sri Lanka army. The case was filed under the U.S. Torture Victim Protection Act 1991 which provides for victims to seek compensation from individuals in foreign states who commit acts of torture. The President’s spokesman dismissed the case as a publicity stunt by “mercenaries” of the LTTE. 

The Tamils Against Genocide, a Diaspora Tamil organisation, expressed disappointment that the U.S, had not taken action on this issue when President Rajapaksa made a quiet visit to the U.S. said to be for medical check up during the month. The Amnesty International also expressed similar sentiments.

The Eelam sympathisers were shocked when Swiss police arrested ten former LTTE representatives in the country on January 11, 2011. According to knowledgeable Diaspora columnist DBS Jeyaraj, those arrested included the present head of the LTTE in Switzerland Vijaratnam Sivanesan alias Ragu alias Ragupathy, his predecessor Chelliah Kularajasekeram alias Kulam and the influential Swiss Tiger finance chief Chelliah Jeyapalan alias Abdullah. They are facing charges of money laundering and belonging to a criminal organisation. Switzerland is the home of about 32, 000 Sri Lanka Tamils; and the country had been an important source of  LTTE funding.  

India-Sri Lanka relations

The usually cordial relations between India and Sri Lanka came under severe pressure when two Tamil Nadu fishermen were killed within a span of ten days during the month allegedly by the Sri Lankan Navy. Though Sri Lanka vehemently denied the involvement of its navy in the incidents and attributed them to ‘miscreants’ there was widespread anger in Tamil Nadu. In a slightly disturbing aftermath, some fringe elements of pro-LTTE parties in Tamil Nadu raided the Mahabodhi Society in Chennai and attacked a Bhikku and damaged some of the property at the Buddhist temple. This was the first time such an attack on Sinhalas has taken place in Tamil Nadu during the last two decades.

Reflecting the political sensitivities in Tamil Nadu, Government of India has reacted very strongly to the killing of fishermen. Terming the incidents as "very serious" and "unacceptable", India has said that such incidents had "no justification" and called on Sri Lankan authorities to "desist" from the use of force. India lodged a strong protest with Colombo.

In the latest incident one fisherman was killed and two others injured while fishing off Kodiakarai coast on January 22. The man, who had put out to sea with two others from Pushpavanam coastal hamlet, died after Sri Lankan Naval personnel allegedly tied a rope around his neck and pushed him into the water. Earlier, in another incident on January 12, an Indian fisherman was killed in Palk Straits when Sri Lankan Navy allegedly opened fire at three fishermen, who put out to sea from Jagadapattinnam near Pudukottai.

As stated in the Sri Lanka Perspectives December 2010, such incidents gain greater significance as the Congress-DMK is alliance passing through a critical phase due to the 2G scam, and as the Tamil Nadu state elections are nearing. So New Delhi’s strong reaction is not surprising. In a follow up, India’s foreign secretary Ms Nirupama Rao is slated to proceed to Colombo to discuss the issue when she calls upon President Rajapaksa and meets other leaders.

In October 2008, India and Sri Lanka had reached an understanding on “practical arrangements to deal with bona fide Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line.” After that, killing of Indian fishermen, particularly those crossing Sri Lanka maritime boundary had decreased rapidly. In view of this, the latest killings particularly the one said to be on the Indian side of the boundary, need to be investigated fully. The possible involvement of elements opposed to the growth of cordial relations between the two countries in triggering such incidents should not be ruled out.    

Written on January 31, 2011

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, February 2011, www.security-risks.com

Sri Lanka Perspectives – December 2010

By Col R Hariharan

[I apologise for uploading this piece written on December 31, 2010 late; my academic teaching commitments at the IIM, Raipur and IIM, Indore had been keeping me busy. I am completing my  teaching commitment by next week.]

Two major issues came to the fore in Sri Lanka during the month. These were the mounting international pressure on Sri Lanka to probe allegations of war crimes and what appears to be waning commitment of the government to take speedy action to resolve the grievances of minorities. Both the issues have become foils in the fight for survival by the opposition United National Party (UNP), battered in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, and increasing political domination of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

War crimes allegations

International pressure on Sri Lanka to investigate allegations of Sri Lanka army’s war crimes in the last phase of the Eelam War is clearly mounting. Apart from the build up of well orchestrated campaign by sections of Tamil Diaspora there is sense of exasperation on this issue discernible particularly among the governments in many nations. Three developments during the month indicated that the issue was likely to come to the fore in the UN in the coming months.

Seventeen U.S. senators and 30 members of the House of Representatives in a letter to the Secretary of State Ms Hillary Clinton wanted the U.S. to seek a UN role in investigating the allegations of war crimes. They wrote “We strongly believe that any conclusions reached by the Sri Lankan government's commissions must be verified by a parallel international mechanism” backed by the UN. Their stand that without a means of verification, any findings “will lack credibility and true accountability,” generally reflected the view of Sri Lanka Tamil Diaspora. In a separate letter, the House members urged the U.S. to use its presidency of the UN Security Council during December to push forward “a credible and effective process for achieving accountability” in Sri Lanka.

The Wikileaks on Sri Lanka which came to light also showed American concerns on the issue. In classified diplomatic cables from the U.S. embassy in Colombo, officials wrote that the Sri Lankan government showed no signs of investigating alleged human rights violations committed by its side. They also that any effort to investigate was further complicated because President Rajapaksa, his brothers and Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, were responsible for many of the alleged crimes. The U.S. administration under President Barack Obama had been urging Sri Lanka to ensure accountability and to promote reconciliation. However, it had not supported the demand for an international probe of the allegations. This stand could be tested in the coming months.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a TV interview acknowledged that his country was having a difficult relationship with Sri Lanka. “We want the Government of Sri Lanka to do better on human rights, to investigate alleged abuses and war crimes in the past.” The frosty relationship between the two countries was demonstrated when the Oxford Union which had invited President Mahinda Rajapaksa to speak at the Union cancelled his engagement in the last minute, citing “security reasons.” The hugely embarrassing incident was triggered by protestors spearheaded by Sri Lanka Tamil Diaspora who threatened to converge on Oxford to disrupt the meeting. The cancellation came as a rude shock to the people of Sri Lanka as it demonstrated not only Sri Lanka Tamil Diaspora’s clout in the UK, but also the British government’s “hands off attitude” shrugging off  the President’s visit as unofficial. 

Sri Lanka’s Ministry of External Affairs, caught on the wrong foot over the fiasco of the President’s visit, appeared confused when the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at his year-end press conference in New York said the panel of experts on Sri Lanka “is now able to visit Sri Lanka and meet with the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation.” He further added that this was the result of “long consultations” he held with President Rajapaksa.

All along Sri Lanka government had been opposed even the appointment of the UN panel of experts, who the Secretary General were only to advice him and not probe the allegations. The news created a furore among the hawks in the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA). In a bid to clarify the government stand on the issue, the Presidential spokesman said that all arrangements would be made “for the panel to make representations before the LLRC. This position has been conveyed through diplomatic channels to the UN, as announced by the External Affairs Ministry.”

There was further confusion when Sri Lanka media quoted UN sources to say that the UN panel had no plans to make representations to the LLRC, “but would interact with members of the LLRC on subjects that are of common interest to both.” In a follow up, the government explained that it would issue visas for the United Nations expert panel to visit Sri Lanka and meet the LLRC, when such a request was made. Media Minister Keheliya Rambuklwella said “They [the UN panel members] will not be permitted to carry out investigations, record evidence or visit places of their choice without prior government approval.” As a face saving act, efforts are said to be underway for the LLRC members and the UN panel members to meet in a foreign venue.

From this botched up episode it would appear President Rajapaksa has softened his rigid opposition to the UN panel entering Sri Lanka. However, it is unlikely to represent any change in Sri Lanka’s stand against allowing any form of international involvement relating to the war crimes issue as the President appears to enjoy strong support on this issue among the public.

Resolving minority grievances

The Oxford fiasco has hurt the national sentiments of Sri Lankans by and large. Thus it could harden President Rajapaksa’s against external interference in the country’s handling of ethnic issue. This is further strengthened by information contained in Wikileaks on INGO relief money finding its way to the LTTE in the early years of the Peace Process 2002.

There are small indications of the hardening stand. The Minister of Economic Development Basil Rajapaksa has stopped construction of all new buildings in the North and East under projects planned with donor-funded loan or grant. With the reported return of Sinhalas, who were thrown out of the Northern Province by the LTTE, in large numbers to Jaffna, Tamils are complaining of preferential treatment meted out to the rehabilitation of Sinhalas, than the war affected Tamils.

In the latest intake of 135 recruits to the Sri Lanka Administrative Service there were no Tamils and just a single Muslim. Although none of the Tamil medium candidates were successful among 257 candidates who made it to the interview stage, it showed the government was not in a mood to take any special measures to increase minority representation in government service.

There was also the cabinet decision to allow the singing of Sri Lanka's national anthem only in Sinhala. As per this decision the Tamil version would no longer be played at any official or state functions as it used to be done in the North and the East, which have a large Tamil population. 

These developments are causing concern to Tamils and Muslims though they are reluctant to voice them in public. So they are likely to welcome the recent statement of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi that the Sri Lanka government was "not doing enough" for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. During a visit to Tamil Nadu he is reported to have said that he would take up the matter with "appropriate persons" at the Centre and see that Sri Lankan Tamils got justice. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi had also written to the Prime Minister on the subject. He had said the presence of about 30,000 Tamils in camps for internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka was a matter of "serious concern" as resettlement and rehabilitation of the Tamils had not been fully addressed by Sri Lankan Government in spite of earnest efforts and dialogue at various levels undertaken by India. With the Congress-DMK alliance passing through difficult patch due to the 2G scam, and the Tamil Nadu state elections around the corner, New Delhi is likely to increase its pressure Sri Lanka to improve its record in the coming months.

Courtesy: www.security-risks.com

Sri Lanka Perspectives - November 2010

 By Col R Hariharan (Retd.)

POLITICAL

Swearing of the President

Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as President for a second term on Nov 19, 2010. In a marked departure from the austere swearing-ins of the past, this time it had all the trappings of a coronation. After the swearing-in, colourful celebrations included a military parade with a fly-past of air force jets, a special display by Navy and a cultural display.  The pompous nationwide celebrations with huge cut outs of Rajapaksa showed that orchestration of  Rajapaksa personality cult is well under way and is likely to gather momentum.

Notable foreign representatives on the occasion included Bhutanese Prime Minister Lyonchhen Jigmi Thinley, Chinese Deputy Prime Minister Sang Giuowei and Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs Hu Zhengyue, and Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed. India was represented by Minister of State for External Affairs Ms Parmit Kaur. In a clear departure from past practices, the ceremony started with only Buddhist religious observance instead of multi-faith prayers. The main opposition United National Party boycotted the ceremony.

Jumbo cabinet

President Rajapaksa’s new cabinet has been shaped on the basis of constitutional amendments. DM Jayaratne was made be the Prime Minister setting aside media speculations that President’s brother Basil Rajapaksa would be the choice. Basil will now be handling  planning and development portfolio. For the first time a new category of 'senior ministers' with 11 members has been introduced. They included trusted members of his earlier team. In addition to this 61 cabinet ministers and 31 deputy ministers have also been inducted.

Thus in all 104 members out of 161 members of the President’s United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) have been included in the cabinet! He appears to have accommodated as many members as possible in the cabinet to prevent any defection from the ruling coalition. Apparently, political expedience appears to be the priority rather than efficiency of governance.

In spite of such large number of ministers, the President has retained the vital portfolios of defence, finance and planning, ports and aviation and highways under him. The senior ministers have been given other important portfolios indicating though their attendance at cabinet meetings was optional! The President’s strategy appears to be to keep coalition flock together and allow ministers and deputy ministers to perform only nominally. It indicated Rajapaksa’s lack of faith in retaining of the loyalties of the members of his coalition despite his mass popularity and lack of effective opposition.

Tamil politics

Heroes Day celebration: The deafening silence that greeted November 26, the birthday of Velupillai Prabhakaran, which used to be celebrated by the LTTE and its supporters as Maveerar Naal (Heroes Day) in Tamil areas of Sri Lanka showed the extent of disillusionment with the ideal of a separate Tamil Eelam. A former LTTE leader Athavan, now settled in Vanni, in a poignant statement issued on the occasion castigated the Tamil Diaspora for using the name of Prabhakaran and the Tamil Tigers for selfish reasons unmindful of the plight of former cadres and their families in Sri Lanka.

The Tamil Political Parties Forum (TPPF): All Tamil political parties excluding the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) have formed the TPPF to take up issues affecting Tamils in one voice. A TPPF delegation met President Rajapaksa on Nov 26 and handed over a letter expressing their concerns. The TPPF asked the President to find a political solution to the ethnic question within a united Sri Lanka so that Tamil people can fully participate in the governance in the North and East. “The implementation of the 13th amendment in full will be a positive beginning of the political process in this regard,” the TPPF said. The TNA is also said to be in informal touch with the TPPF so that they can come to a political understanding. Presumably this is in preparation of the Northern Provincial Council elections which are likely to be scheduled in March 2011.

DEFENCE

Joint exercise: Sri Lanka army, navy and air force carried out the first ever joint exercise in the last week of Nov 2010. Around 2500 armed forces personnel participated in the exercise code-named 'Cormorant Strike’ carried out along the coast in area Silawaturai, Mannar in Northern Province. According to defence sources Commando Regiment and Special Forces made amphibious landing during the exercise and participated ground operations. The objective of the exercise was to train leaders at different levels in planning, command and decision making . The selection of the Mannar coast for the regiment-group sized exercise across India’s Rameswaram coast is interesting. Probably the exercise was also to send a warning to LTTE’s international elements trying to revise the Eelam separatist movement among the Diaspora.

LTTE massacre of military prisoners: The army has opened a mass grave in Viswamadu jungle in Mullaitivu district where 26 armed forces personnel who were taken prisoner were shot dead by the LTTE were buried. The prisoners included 18 SLN sailors (including two naval officers) and eight army personnel. The naval prisoners were survivors of a LTTE Sea Tiger attack in 2007 in which Navy lost three Dvora craft. The security forces are in the process of identifying the dead. 

Army de-mining program:  The U.S. has donated US$500,000 worth of items including several vehicles, trucks, ambulances and equipment to Sri Lanka Army providing further assistance of de-mining operations underway in the North. India, Japan, Australia and the U.S. are among the countries assisting de-mining operations. While so far 856,203,415 square meters have been de-mined, parts of Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts still remain to be de-mined.   

FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Hambantota port inauguration 

President Rajapaksa fresh from a visit to China, formally inaugurated the Hambantota Port on November 18. The just completed Phase-I of the Chinese assisted project was launched in January 2008. The $360 million Phase-I includes a bunker terminal. The Chinese government provided 85% of the funding while the remaining 15% was to be met by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority.  The launch of the second phase of the development of the port is said to have commenced on the same day.

Around 29 companies a majority of them Chinese are reported to have expressed interest in investing in various industries in the Hambantota Port. The Chinese companies have shown interest in manufacture and assembling of automobiles. At present Sri Lanka automobile market is dominated by India and the Chinese entry is likely to pose a stiff competition to the Indians. 

India 

Not to be outdone by China, India is also trying to increase its visibility in Sri Lanka. India’s External Affairs Minister S M Krishna paid a three day visit to Sri Lanka from November 25. He attended the 7^th India-Sri Lanka Joint Commission meeting on November 26 with his Sri Lankan counterpart Prof GL Peiris. According to Indian press note Joint Commission discussions covered all areas of bilateral relevance, including trade, services and investment, development cooperation, science and technology, culture and education. 

Krishna in a media briefing on arrival reminded Sri Lanka on the need for a structured dialogue mechanism with a mutual understanding of both parties in finding a political solution to the ethnic issue. He also said India would continue to assist Sri Lanka on various issues such as resettlement, rehabilitation, de-mining and agriculture development.

He alos inaugurated Indian consulates in Jaffna and Hambantota. While the Jaffna consulate would lessen the hardship of Tamil travellers to India, the Hambantota consulate would facilitate greater trade and investment from India likely when the area around the port develops and marine traffic increases.

Krishna also inaugurated the pilot project to construct 1000 houses for internally displaced people in Vanni. This is a part of India-aided project to construct 50,000 houses. He also flagged off the work on the Medawachchiya-Madhu railway line being constructed by Indian engineers with India’s assistance. Work will also begin simultaneously on the Madhu-Talaimannar and Omanthai-Pallai railway lines, which are being revived with Indian assistance. 

Pakistan President Zardari’s visit

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari paid a four-day state visit to Sri Lanka at the invitation of President Rajapaksa from November 26. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar and a business delegation accompanied the Pak President.

Following bilateral talks between the two presidents, four agreements relating to visa abolition of diplomatic and official passports, agricultural cooperation, and assistance in Customs matters and agreement on the fields on arts and creative studies were signed on November 28.

November 30, 2010

Reproduced from South Asia Security Trends Vol 4 No 11

Copyright: www.security-risks.com

Sri Lanka: False Notes in Rajapaksa's Second Symphony

By Col R Hariharan

 

President Mahinda Rajapaksa started his second innings as President when he was sworn in at an auspicious hour on November 19, 2010 with all the pomp and ceremony associated with the coronation of royalty. “It Is fitting in a way” thousands of his supporters would say because President Rajapaksa is now “monarch of all he surveys.” Not only his United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) has bagged two thirds majority in parliament but also dutifully amended the Constitutional two-term restriction imposed on presidents. With that the President’s second tenure that would have been his swan song, has now been turned into an orchestration for a second symphony, with options open for him to compose more.

Though the beaming President Rajapaksa looked supremely confident as he watched a military parade and the screaming fly past of air force jets on the occasion, there were a few false notes within few days of the second term.

• The first came when 104 members out of 161 members of the UPFA coalition were ushered into a jumbo cabinet. It included the prime minister, the new class of 11 senior ministers, 61 ministers and 31 deputy ministers. In his first term Rajapaksa’s coalition did not enjoy the advantage of two-thirds majority and his adoption of the ‘jumbo cabinet’ strategy to strengthen his coalition in parliament had some validity. But why has he fallen to the same ‘jumbo’ tactic? Does it mean he has doubts about retaining the loyalties of his coalition members? With his mass popularity, does the President really feel politically insecure? This doubt is further reinforced when we see the senior ministers - trusted lieutenants of earlier years - have been given the option of attending cabinet meetings when they chose, despite holding high sounding portfolios! Have they been put to pasture? Does it mean the President wants to keep them at arms length in his decision making process?

• The second jarring note is the way portfolios have been allotted to the ministers. In spite of such large number of ministers, the President has retained the vital portfolios of defence, finance and planning, ports and aviation and highways under him. President’s brother Basil Rajapaksa will be handling planning and development as before. The portfolios allocated to other ministers and deputy ministers are confusing. They also appear apportioned from cohesive entities, and we can expect the ministers to trample upon each others territory. Does this mean the President has little confidence in his cabinet members in delivering his development agenda of which he has been speaking at length? Or is it for more mundane reasons of keeping the ministers on the leash as they look for small pickings?

 Of course, there was also the President’s ill-timed, if not ill-advised, visit to the U.K. to address the Oxford Union. The President’s 100-strong entourage  marked a big occasion in his calculus. The organisers aborted the meeting the day before it was scheduled for reasons of security after a well orchestrated protest march of Sri Lankan Tamil expatriates, largely peppered with Tamil Tiger acolytes, threatened to converge on Oxford to disrupt the meeting. The Tamil protest had a well-timed added provocation when Channel 4 TV beamed an old but more detailed version of the gruesome slaughter of Tamil women captives allegedly by Sri Lankan army soldiers in uniform. The British government kept the legendary stiff upper lip and had nothing to say Oxford SNAFU as Rajapaksa’s visit was ‘unofficial.’ Wikileaks also added its pennyworth up loading cables on how the US ambassador Ms Patricia Butenis felt the President and his team had collective responsibility for war crimes.

The President bravely weathered the cold rebuff in Oxford in the icy British winter and went home to a thundering reception by an adulatory crowd. Regardless of the Tamil Tigers colouring of the war crimes issue, the Oxford experience should be a moment of truth for the President. He has to face the issue squarely at the international level and clean up, if not erase, his and Sri Lanka’s image blurred by war crimes allegation. No locally compounded formulation of the Lesson Learnt Commission-kind will can do this. Solutions like the one proposed by his irrepressible minister Mervyn Silva to educate all Englishmen from the highest officers to the lowest on Mahinda Chinthanaya can only provide comic relief. Sri Lanka has a credibility deficit in this respect. And this has to be overcome.

The President in a recent interview given to N Ram, the Editor in chief of the Hindu, had explained the rationale behind getting the constitutional two-term bar on the president lifted. He said he had found in the past, presidents were effective only in the first year of their second term after which they became lame ducks. As per this reasoning, the lifting of the constitutional limitation would enable him to use the second term fully for “development of the people.” If that was his idea, neither his cabinet nor its structuring gives confidence of fulfilling Rajapaksa’s hopes.

Moreover, with the abolishing of the two-term limitation for the President, Sri Lanka may end up with a life time president, though Rajapaksa had disclaimed any such intention in his Hindu interview. Going by his demonstrated political acumen, President Rajapaksa is probably shrewder than other ‘life term’ presidents of the world to make such a mistake. Some of the ‘life termers’ who rose to pinnacle of fame ultimately ended up in the dust bin of history. [Of course, there is a modern day precedence of a president who became an emperor! Jean Bèdel Bokassa, President of Central African Republic, declared himself President for Life in 1972 and crowned himself as emperor in 1976! Of course, he was overthrown later and died in custody is a matter of inconvenient detail.]    

As Oliver Goldsmith wrote “Popular glory is a perfect coquette; her lovers must toil, feel every inquietitude, indulge every caprice, and perhaps at last jilted in the bargain.” President Rajapaksa needs to rewrite his opening of the second symphony lest it fails at the altar of popular glory. He needs it to get his development agenda succeed.

 

Sri Lanka Perspectives - September 2010

Col R Hariharan (Retd.)

President Rajapaksa’s UN address

President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his speech at the UN General Assembly at the UN Headquarters in New York on September 23, 2010 has indicated that Sri Lanka was unlikely to change its stand against allowing any form of international scrutiny of its actions during the war. These include allegations of war crimes and violation of humanitarian laws mainly from the West and the Tamil Diaspora. He sought to vindicate Sri Lanka’s stand saying “such [humanitarian] laws were evolved essentially in response to conflicts waged by forces of legally constituted States, and not terrorist groups.”

Dwelling on his country’s long conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), he said he was elected on a promise to rid the country of the menace of terrorism. He appealed to the international community to examine “the capacity of current international humanitarian law to meet contemporary needs” where legally constituted states had to fight terrorists in asymmetric conflicts.

This argument would have been acceptable if Sri Lanka had cleaned up its act on its own. Unfortunately this is not so. Even the proceedings of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) constituted to investigate the events leading to Tamil insurgency lack transparency. Its hearings are held in camera. Media coverage of testimonies made at LLRC sittings is selective.

This was evident when most of the media did not report the testimonies made by Tamils at Kilinochchi. Some of them were damaging. For instance, Ananthi Sasitharan, wife of Elilan, former political head of Trincomalee, in an interview to the BBC said she had requested the LLRC to find out about the fate of her husband and other senior leaders of the LTTE (including former LTTE negotiators Yogi and Lawrence Thilakar, and the LTTE political wing deputy chief Thangkan) who had surrendered to the army in her presence. This testimony was not covered in the national media at all. This has reinforced the suspicion of large sections of world community that the government was not sincere in its reconciliation process and the media was working under external pressures. This does not bode well for speedy restoration of ethnic amity in the country.

Sarath Fonseka’s woes

It seems there are no let up in the woes of the Eelam War hero and former Chief of Defence Staff General Sarath Fonseka ever since he entered politics after retirement. A General Court Martial (GCM) on September 17, 2010 found him guilty on four counts of irregularities in military purchases while serving as army commander, favouring his son-in-law’s company. The GCM sentenced him to three years imprisonment. However, the President while confirming the sentence reduced the period of imprisonment to two and a half years.

Only last month another GCM stripped him of his rank and military honours for dabbling in politics while serving as army commander.The treatment meted out to Fonseka sharply contrasts with the handling of LTTE prisoners none of whom have been prosecuted. In fact, even as the President signed confirmation of Fonseka’s jail sentence, 397 Ex-LTTE combatants were released from a rehabilitation camp in Vavuniya after being detained for 16 months. Both the main opposition parties -the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the United National Party have condemned Fonseka’s conviction as politics of persecution.

Bottling up human trafficking

The issue of Sri Lankan boat people – mainly Tamils from Sri Lanka – illegally trying to enter Australia and Canada had been a major source of embarrassment and concern for Sri Lanka. To curb such traffic and prevent external assistance from flowing into Sri Lanka that could lead to resurgence of Tamil insurgency once again , Sri Lanka’s has taken a series of measures to prevent illegal use of sea routes to and from the country. The assets of navy and air force are being re-positioned to support ground deployment in coastal areas.

The navy has shifted its North Western Headquarters from Puttalam to Mullikulam. This would facilitate prevention of illegal use of north eastern seas for nefarious purposes ranging from human trafficking to drug and arms trafficking. According to media reports Sri Lanka has already received two Israeli-built Fast Attack Craft (FACs) and four more FACs are expected to join the navy. The US is reported to have increased Sri Lanka’s air surveillance capability by providing sophisticated real time data link system. The system received early this year is mounted on two Beech King Aircraft SMR 2201 and SMR 2202 would obtain real time intelligence.

The illegal fishing by Indian fisherman in Sri Lankan waters off Mannar coast had been a major thorn in Sri Lankan security. There had been frequent seizure of boats from Tamil Nadu and in some instances of Sri Lankan navy had opened fire on them.
Considering the political sensitivity of the issue, the Sri Lankan and Indian navies have agreed to conduct extensive educational programmes for their local fisherman on the issue of maritime boundary between the two countries. This was decided recently at a meeting between senior officers of the two navies on board INS Kukri, an offshore patrol vessel, at the International Maritime Boundary Line near Point Calimere. They also discussed ways of ending the illegal activities of drug trafficking and human smuggling through improved surveillance methods.

Representatives of the Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters and the East, North and North-Central Naval Commands took part in the meeting. Indian navy was represented by Commodore Rajiv Girotra, Naval Officer In-Charge, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.
Therese measures are of security interest to India as an increasing number of instances of Sri Lankan Tamils fleeing from the country using India as a take off point have come to notice. Recently Tamil Nadu police searched a lodge in Courtallam and rounded up 53 Lankan Tamils some of whom had promised to pay up to Rs 300,000 to Chandrakanthan, a Sri Lankan refugee in Chennai for smuggling them to Australia and Canada. Police have arrested Chandrakanthan.

Sri Lanka economy

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecasted “strong growth” of Sri Lanka economy this year while commenting on its 8.5 percent growth during the second quarter of 2010 as against 7.1 percent growth in the first quarter.

The government statistics office reported growth of agriculture sector by 5.1 percent, manufacturing by 8.9 percent, and services by 8.8 percent over last year’s figures. The IMF said the country’s fiscal performance so far “remains consistent with achieving the government's full-year deficit target of 8 percent.”
Written on September 30, 2010

© South Asia Security Trends, October 2010, Vol 4 No 9
www.security-risks.com

Sri Lanka: The Rajapaksa juggernaut rolls on

By Col R Hariharan

Sri Lanka parliament voted to end the two-term limit imposed on the president by more than the required two thirds majority in the 225-member house on September 8. With the passing the 18th amendment of the constitution, the parliament has removed the constitutional bar and paved the way for President Mahinda Rajapaksa to get elected president a third term.

The ruling United Peoples Front Alliance (UPFA) with 144 seats was short of two thirds majority required to push through the constitutional amendment. Despite this, thanks to the President’s adroit advance political manoeuvres, the amendment had a smooth passage with 161 members voting in favour, and only 17 voting against.

The voting pattern showed deep divisions within opposition ranks in handling the relentless onslaught of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political juggernaut. The opposition members appear to feel helpless; a remark attributed to one of the members aptly described it: “what to do, he will be in power for the next 12 years”.

The main opposition party - the United National Party (UNP) – wracked by internal dissension boycotted the debate as well as the voting on the bill. Instead, it chose to demonstrate outside the parliament. It had to suffer the ignominy of seeing six of its members cross voting in favour of the bill. In the wake of the voting, the UNP-led opposition coalition is in tatters as four smaller constituent parties switched their loyalty to Rajapaksa. The after shock has left UNP left in disarray with 28 out of 43 MPs members raising the flag of dissent against Ranil Wickremesinghe’s party leadership.

Even before the bill came up in parliament, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) parted with the UNP alliance and announced its eight members would vote for the 18th amendment. Even the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) rank was depleted when its lone Sinhala member C.H. Piyasena voted for the bill.

The executive president enjoys enormous powers under the 1978 constitution. He can dissolve the parliament and declare emergency. In a state of emergency, the president can even promulgate regulations to override laws enacted by the parliament. Sri Lanka has had long spells of emergency. The state of emergency continues to be in force even now though the war ended in May 2009. He also appoints judges, heads of armed forces and police, election commissioners and secretaries to the government etc.

Both the opposition parties and the civil society had been demanding the curbing president’s powers by amending the constitution for quite sometime now. President Rajapaksa appears to have used their desire to his advantage with the18th amendment. The opposition parties and civil society have expressed serious concern over not only its form and content of the amendment but the unseemly haste with which it was being pushed through without adequate public debate.

In particular, they are concerned with two aspects of the amendment - the lifting of the two-term restriction on the president and the discarding of the 17th amendment to the Constitution. This amendment was adopted in 2001 to ensure some form of control over President’s powers in making appointments to high office.

The lifting of restriction on the number of presidential terms will provide enough time for President Rajapaksa to consolidate his power. Not only that, it could usher in dynastic rule of Rajapaksas. This is nothing unusual in South Asia; dynasties have been in power not only in the past in Sri Lanka, but also in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But after years of internal conflict, Sri Lanka is passing through a delicate stage as the process of reconciliation and reconstruction of its democratic structure is not yet complete. At this stage the enormous powers Rajapaksa enjoys, coupled with 16 years in office (if he gets elected even once more), could neutralise the checks and balances so essential for democracy.

The removal of the 17th amendment has done away with the Constitutional Council (CC) created under of the constitution. It was mandatory for the president to act on CC’s recommendations on appointments to high office. Though partisan politics of Sri Lanka had ensured the 17th amendment was never followed both in letter and spirit, the president was obliged to follow it. As per the new amendment, the CC has been replaced by a five-member council consisting of the prime minister, speaker, leader of the opposition and a member of parliament each to be nominated by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. This makes it purely political in character unlike the CC which provided for participation of eminent persons outside the political spectrum.

However, the catch is the president is only required only to seek the observations of the members of this parliamentary council while appointing the chairmen and members of election commission, public service commission, national police commission, human rights commission, permanent commission to investigate allegations of corruption and bribery, finance commission and delimitation commission. The president similarly consults the Council while appointing the chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court, the president and judges of the court of appeal, and members of judicial service commission other than chairman.

Almost all opposition leaders have condemned the adoption of the18th amendment saying it will lead to tyranny and dictatorship. The leader of the opposition Sarath Fonseka’s comment that the government was inviting revolutions and coups against it by creating a constitutional dictatorship through the introduction of the 18th Amendment was curious. Did have the example of rise and fall of President Fujimori of Peru in his mind?

Alberto Fujimori served as President of Peru for three terms from 1990 to 2000. During his controversial rule he eliminated the left wing Shining Path guerrillas and restored the economic stability of the country. Despite allegations of his authoritarian methods and human rights violations, he was enormously popular. In April 1995, at the height of his popularity, Fujimori was re-elected with almost two-thirds of the vote.

Though the constitution allowed only two terms for a president, he successfully contested for a third term after his party voted a law in parliament to allow him to contest. However, when a huge corruption scandal erupted, he fled to Japan in 2000. He lived in exile for five years; when he visited Chile in 2005 he was extradited to face criminal charges in Peru. He was convicted in a number of cases of bribery and corruption and human rights violations during his rule. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in connection with human rights violations when death squads of the government had carried out killings and kidnappings on his orders. While the example of Fujimori looks far fetched in the context of Sri Lanka, it is a grim reminder of how public adulation can turn change when unfettered power is misused.

What does it mean to India?

Strictly speaking, the constitutional changes in Sri Lanka are an internal structural rearrangement. However, the growing power of President Rajapaksa and the likelihood of its further consolidation during a decade and a half makes are of special interest to India. President Rajapaksa is firmly in saddle and as the opposition is weak and divided than ever before, his assertive style of governance is unlikely to change in his coming term. He would also have sufficient time and freedom to plan his foreign policy on the long term to achieve his ends. This luxury is not available to the Indian Prime Minister; so India will have to evolve at least the firm contours of its Sri Lanka policy for the long term. This becomes important as China’s foot prints in South Asia and Indian Ocean region are growing.

It also makes it imperative for India to structure its security relations with Sri Lanka on a firm footing and build India-Sri Lanka trade relations by removing India's non tariff obstructions stifling the growth of free trade with Sri Lanka.

With the President calling the shots, the political package for Tamils will come only as and when he decides. He seems to be in no hurry to do this. Apparently India is not happy with this as evident from the remark of Indian Foreign Secretary for External Affairs Ms Nirupama Rao during her visit to Sri Lanka in the first week of September. She said: “He [Rajapaksa] has constantly said that he is focused on that [political solution] need. And that he plans to move on it. He has his sight set on that. And this point about the need to be more than just focused on the economic issues and the development issues and to look beyond. Everybody in the government got a sense of how we look at it. From that point of view, I think they know how India is approaching or looking at this issue.” This issue is likely to become crucial when the election fever sets in Tamil Nadu. Presumably, the issue is to be discussed when SM Krishna, India’s external affairs minister visits Sri Lanka in October.

The United States has condemned the passing of the constitutional amendment saying it undermined democracy; reactions of other western powers are also likely to be the same. So Sri Lanka can expect a renewed spell of international confrontation on allegations over human rights violations and war crimes. Frustration on this count is manifest in the statements of Sri Lanka minister of external affairs as Sri Lanka does not want to change its stand against international accountability on allegations of human rights violations.

So Sri Lanka is likely to need India’s support in international forums more than ever before. With the continuing economic downturn in the West, Sri Lanka would also need more Indian economic assistance, investment and aid for economic growth apart from funds for reconstruction of infrastructure and rehabilitation. So New Delhi will have to work out a well rounded a strategy to handle the enormous clout of President Rajapaksa to its advantage.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group, September 11, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes7%5Cnote601.html

Sri Lanka Perspectives - August 2010

By Col R Hariharan

Constitutional amendments

The Rajapaksa government is set to carry out the much awaited amendments to the 1978 Constitution. The Supreme Court is to give its comments on the proposed amendments and the parliament is scheduled to discuss them on September 8.

The need for constitutional amendments, particularly with a view to exercise some form of parliamentary oversight on the executive presidency, had figured as a major issue in almost all elections. President Rajapaksa had been sounding leaders of most of the political parties including the opposition United National Party (UNP) on this issue ever since he was elected for a second term. However, till now he had not been able to push through the amendments as the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA), with 144 seats, fell short of two thirds majority support in the 225-member house.

However, towards the end of August, the president managed to win over the support of the opposition Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) which has 8-members in parliament. The surprise U-turn of the SLMC, which had been opposing President Rajapaksa all along, shows the declining fortunes of political opposition. The proposed amendments are likely to be passed in parliament with the committed support of 154 members in the first week of September.

The proportional representation system of voting makes it difficult for any political party or alliance to gain two thirds majority in the house Thus the amendment of the constitution will be a politically significant achievement for President Rajapaksa. One of the proposed amendments allows the election of the president for third term in office; this will enable President Rajapaksa a chance to be elected a third term. Thus consolidation of the president’s political power now appears to be almost complete.

Under the 1978 constitution, the President enjoys enormous powers including the unilateral dissolution of parliament and declaration of emergency. He also has powers to appoint judges, heads of armed forces and police, election commissioners and secretaries to the government etc. In a state of emergency, the President can even promulgate emergency regulations to override laws enacted by the parliament. Sri Lanka has a long history of emergency since 1970 mainly triggered by war against Tamil separatists. Even though the war ended in May 2009, the emergency continues to be in force. This has caused concern to civil society organisations both at home and abroad.

In a bid to ensure some form of control over President’s powers to make appointments to high office, the parliament adopted the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 2001. This makes it mandatory for the president to act on the recommendations of a 10-member Constitutional Council (CC) while making appointments. However, so far there had been no attempt to enforce the 17th Amendment in letter and spirit. One of the amendments proposed now, aims at replacing the CC with a five-member Constitutional Advisory Committee (CAC). The name of the proposed amendment would suggest the advisory rather than mandatory nature of its role. This could defeat the fundamental purpose of the 17th Amendment.
Sri Lanka’s credibility has suffered over allegations of humanitarian and human rights excesses both during the war, particularly in its last lap. Given this background its reputation as a democracy now depends entirely upon how President Rajapaksa handles enormous powers vested in him in the next decade and a half, assuming he is elected for a third term.

Court martial of General Sarath Fonseka

The process of downsizing of the political image of former Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka made significant progress when an army court martial found him guilty of engaging in politics while in service. With President’s approval, the General has been cashiered and stripped of his medals and honours.
Those who gave evidence against the General included the Cooperatives and Internal Trade Minister Johnston Fernando, UNP MP Lakshman Seneviratne, and Major General Krishantha Silva, former Military Secretary.

Fonseka is facing one more Court Martial for his alleged involvement in shady procurement deals, which also involved his son-in-law Dhanuna Tillekeratne. In addition to this, he has also been indicted for defamation over his alleged statement in The Sunday Leader accusing the Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of ordering the army not to take prisoners during the war in Vanni.

Fonseka is the leader of the opposition Democratic National Alliance (DNA) in parliament. The main opposition parties including the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) alliance partner of the DNA, and the UNP have condemned the conviction of Fonseka, as politics of persecution. Fonseka had opposed Rajapaksa’s bid for the second term as president. Whether it is true or not, the prosecution of the national hero marks the low ebb of politics in the country.

India raises its sights on Sri Lanka

As Tamil Nadu is gearing up for legislative elections, both the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) and its national ally the Congress Party have focused on Indian aid to Sri Lanka for the Tamils affected in the war torn Northern Province. The issue had figured in interaction between leaders of both parties at the highest level. And Tamil Nadu chief minister Karunanidhi expressing concern at the proper utilisation of the Indian aid had requested the prime minister for despatching a representative to make a first hand assessment.

Towards the end of the month, the Indian government despatched Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao on a visit to Vavuniya, Kilinochchi, and Jaffna areas for a first hand assessment of Indian assistance to the affected population. She met a number of displaced persons awaiting resettlement as well as those already resettled. She also visited sites of de-mining operations carried out by Indian agencies.

The visit has brought sharp focus on the implementation aspects of resettlement for which Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh had announced Rs 500-crore humanitarian assistance last May. Ms Rao also focused on India’s promise to construct 50,000 houses for the displaced population made during the visit of President Rajapaksa to India in June 2010. She said the houses would be constructed with local participation to give a fillip for their employment.

Both New Delhi and Colombo took another significant step to boost bilateral relations when they signed an agreement to establish Indian consulates general in Jaffna and Hambantota. This was agreed upon during Rajapaksa’s New Delhi visit. Sri Lanka is also likely to establish yet another consulate in India, in addition to the ones now in Chennai and Mumbai.

These Indian moves are significant in the face of sustained high profile interest of China in Sri Lanka for sometime now. On August 15, the President participated int the ceremonial filling of sea water in the harbour basin of the Chinese aided Hambantota Port under construction. This marked the completion of first phase for which the Chinese had given a loan of $ 425 million. Sri Lanka is negotiating for a further $ 800 million loan for the second phase of the $ 1.5 billion dollar project. When completed Hambantota will have bunkering facility and a tank farm project with a capacity of 80,000 metric tonnes. The port will begin handling ships from November. It is one of the four ports being built or upgraded as part of Rajapaksa's plan to boost the economy. They will significantly change the strategic profile of Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean security, apart from impacting trade and commerce.

Tamil refugees in Canada

The travails of Tamil refugees seeking safety overseas were highlighted when Canada intercepted MV Sun Sea carrying over 490 Tamils heading towards Port Alberni in British Colombia. They have been detained in camps apparently for screening before deciding their future. Sri Lanka has alleged that among them were LTTE cadres escaping capture from Sri Lanka and their supporters. In a similar incident last October Canada took in 72 Tamils asylum seekers after their ship Ocean Viking was stranded without a port to berth off Indonesia. It is going to be more and more difficult for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees to find refuge as Sri Lanka is no more considered as war torn country.
August 31, 2010
Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, September 2010 Vol 4 No 8
www.security-risks.com

Sri Lanka: Fonseka’s Perils of Playing Politics and its Implications

By Col R Hariharan

For General Sarath Fonseka who revamped a demoralised Sri Lanka army and led it to final victory in the nearly three-decade long campaign against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, its aftermath had not been peaceful. His woes appear to be mounting after an army court martial found him guilty of dabbling in politics while in uniform and recommended his cashiering. And President Mahinda Rajapaksa promptly confirmed the harsh sentence, stripping his rank and hard earned military honours and medals. The hapless General is facing a few more court martial that would haunt him in the coming years.

It will be difficult for non-military minds to understand the ignominy of cashiering. It is much more than stripping of rank and medals of General Fonseka (I do not have the heart to drop his rank and call him Mister Fonseka, although this is what has been reduced to now). It is the negation of the contribution of a person who served the army for 38 years to become the first-ever chief of defence staff. And in the history of Sri Lanka his victory against the Tamil insurgents will always be hyphenated with his cashiering. Only four years back he was lucky enough to escape (with serious injuries) a LTTE suicide bomber assassination attempt him in 2006. It seems the perils of politics have proved more deadly to the General than the Tamil Tiger assassin.

As I am not privy to Fonseka’s court martial proceedings or judgement I am unable to comment on its legality. Even if his political contacts were substantive as decided by the court, Fonseka was neither the first Sri Lankan army officer to do so nor will he be the last. The history of Sri Lanka’s three decades of war against the LTTE is strewn with examples of army officers either favoured or discarded by political masters, not necessarily for reasons of military competency. So it will be reasonable to conclude the Fonseka episode has its seeds in politics of power; after all the government has not shown the same alacrity shown in prosecuting the General to put on the dock even a single hardened LTTE leader held in custody for over a year.

This is evident if we see the sequence of events after the war ended and General Fonseka was hailed as a national hero, sharing the victory banners alongside the President. Politicians were a little unnerved at the soaring popularity of the General after the war and a subdued campaign sideline his contribution in the Eelam War was launched.

The campaign within the government against the General gained more decibels when he spoke of his plans to expand the army, making the politicians even more nervous. Though his plan was not accepted, the government’s mind on his future became clear when it decided not to extend his tenure as Chief of Staff after December 2009 when it ended. The process of cutting down the war hero to size was truly in place when the government offered him the job of secretary in the ministry of sports after his retirement!

The point of no return was probably reached when he developed political ambitions and decided to throw his gauntlet against President Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking his second term as president. The situation was further aggravated when the deeply divided opposition rallied together to put him up as their common candidate against Rajapaksa. In the run up to the presidential poll, Fonseka’s campaign threw a scare, though ultimately he polled fewer votes than Ranil Wickremesinghe did in the presidential election 2005.

The presidential election campaign saw the transformation of the General, generally considered a Sinhala hawk, into a champion of Tamil problem. And it was anachronistic to see that elements of Tamil Diaspora that had supported the LTTE, which tried to kill him, were his election bedfellows! Even as the pre-election campaign gathered momentum, political screws against the General were tightened. Conspiracy theories of military coup and take over abounded, Gajaba regiment troops deployed for his security were withdrawn for suspected personal loyalty to the General and serving officers considered loyal to Fonseka were given the walking papers. Even the retired servicemen who supported him were not spared. And in a clear break from the past even some elements of army joined the tar brush brigade to paint Fonseka as a villain during the election campaign. The smear campaign had three parts; prosecution of the General on the legal cases relating to three aspects.

The army and civil intelligence sleuths have "discovered" a whole range of offences committed by the General during his tenure as army commander. Presumably there was a prima facie case at least in some of them. But their inaction in showing the same diligence they later displayed when he became political loose cannon is rather intriguing.

Thus in an oblique way it was the General’s rapid rise in national popularity charts that did him in. It led him to the bogs of party politics and he quickly got entangled in its culture of intrigues and character assassination. Otherwise he would have probably ended up enjoying his well earned retirement, expanding on his concept of counter terrorism warfare in haloed portals of military learning everywhere.

But his prosecution has shown the weakness of Sri Lankan system in action where checks and balances of government action appear to have been sacrificed to serve political interest. While this is inevitable in party-politics it is detrimental to the long term interest of healthy growth of democracy. At present Sri Lanka is involved in a serious exercise of revising its constitution. A key dilemma is the changeover of the present presidential system to a Westminster type parliamentary democracy, limiting the powers of executive president. A compromise is likely to be struck - to have the cake and eat it in typical South Asian style - by retaining the presidential system while clipping his powers. But constitution largely remains a document in parchment unless political parties and the people are able to exercise full powers guaranteed to them in the constitution. Will they be allowed to do this or become victims of maelstrom of power? This question has to be confronted not only by politicians and the civil society but the intelligentsia as well. Otherwise mere changes in constitutional structure will be a cosmetic surgery that does not cure the underlying maladies.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group, August 29, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote598.html

President’s clear vision, key factor in eradicating terrorism

By Shanika Siriyananda

* Gotabaya - one of three leaders who crushed LTTE
* Lanka’s successful strategy - a valuable lesson
* Arrest of KP, a great success
* Indo-Lanka Accord had lots of loose ends

A specialist on South Asian military intelligence, Colonel R. Hariharan said that apart from lack of international support, including India to the LTTE to survive the final battle, the prime factor for the demise of the LTTE was President Rajapaksa’s clear political determination to eliminate Prabhakaran and the LTTE.

In an interview with the Sunday Observer Col. Hariharan, who served as the Head of the intelligence for the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990, said President Rajapaksa’s political leadership had geared the entire government machinery to achieve the single goal - annihilation of the LTTE.

“In brief, he provided the critical support needed for the success of military operations the national leadership”, he said.

The military intelligence specialist said that Sri Lanka’s successful war strategy would definitely provide many valuable lessons for all nations.

Col. Hariharan said Kumaran Pathmanathan’s (KP) arrest was a great success for Sri Lanka’s efforts to curb the resurgence of LTTE internationally and would have a big impact on the future of overseas LTTE operations.

According to Col. Hariharan, though the LTTE remnants are trying to ‘stage’ a come back, it will not be a reality as the internationally activated pro-LTTE groups are split into two factions - political and military.

He said that though there were some LTTE sympathizers who appreciate its militancy, it was doubtful that they have the capability of mastering the support of the Tamil Nadu’s mainstream politics.

Following are the excerpts of the interview:

Q: The government is credited for annihilating the LTTE. What were the main factors that contributed to the victory?
A: I have written extensively on this. I would summarize my reasons as follows, not necessarily in the order of priority:
1. President Rajapaksa’s clarity of objective - to eliminate Prabhakaran and the LTTE and providing leadership support to combine policy making, planning and executing actions not only the armed forces or the ministry of defence but the entire government machinery to achieve this goal. This enabled the government to cash in on the weaknesses of the LTTE not only on the military front but also politically and internationally. In brief, he provided the critical support needed for the success of military operations, the - national leadership.

President Rajapaksa’s efforts to transform the armed forces into fighting machines should not be ignored. To reach his goal he created a politico-administrative structure to help the armed forces achieve their military objectives, unmindful of its enormous cost in terms of finance, manpower, governance and international relations. He also provided the much needed political support for the armed forces.

2. Maintaining close relations with India and thereby ensuring that the LTTE does not gain either large scale political or other clandestine support from India, interfering politically or otherwise both internally and internationally to affect the Sri Lanka government actions or operations.

3. Allowing the armed forces to plan and execute their operations without political interference is achieved. Providing all out support to them to maintain military superiority all through the operations. This enabled the armed forces to build adequate fire power and carry out its offensive successfully.

4. Making full use of the global anti-terror environment to fight the LTTE. This made it possible to gain valuable international support - notably from the U.S. to conduct military operations, though there were critical moments towards the end of the war due to their human rights concerns.

The President in a strategic ploy identified his campaign against the LTTE as part of the global war against terrorism. India and the U.S. started providing regular intelligence inputs and technical support on the movement of LTTE’s shipping logistics. The LTTE was banned in 32 countries particularly after the assassination of Sri Lankan foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar. Consequently the foreign assistance to Sri Lanka in its war against the LTTE gained legitimacy.

5. Mounting a high profile information and publicity campaign on the war, which the LTTE could never match. This enabled to garner large scale public support for the war which was lacking in earlier campaigns as the LTTE propaganda organs were more effective.

Q: Where do you think was the turning point of the LTTE’s fall?
A: As a military analyst, I think the LTTE lost the war, when they could not break the army’s stranglehold of Elephant Pass-Paranthan-Kilnochchi area that started after the logistic shipping support was destroyed. The LTTE could not launch any sizeable counter attacks to break the investment.

Q: What went wrong for the LTTE?
A: Before the war the lack of political strategy was LTTE’s problem. In 2002, they were controlling most of what they called the ‘Tamil Eelam’, yet they could not take advantage of the peace process and strike a win-win deal with Sri Lanka. Similarly they never made up with India, where they were dependent upon weak political parties for support.

During the conflict LTTE choice of fighting a conventional war instead of fighting an insurgency battle which is their strength, was a big strategic error. They just did not have the numbers or fire power to fight a conventional battle with Sri Lanka, particularly after they lost recruiting bases in Tamil areas in the East when Karuna broke away. When they were overwhelmed by army, they did not have a responsive strategy in place.

Q: Still the LTTE’s remnants are trying to show that they are alive. Can they make an impact in the present environment?
A: I doubt very much that they can carry out any spectacular terrorist attack within Sri Lanka in their present state. However, they may have the capability to do something more visible overseas. We should remember it took Prabhakaran two decades to build the LTTE into a powerful force. They have neither a leader like Prabhakaran to lead them nor a global environment that would help them as it did in the 90s to stage a powerful comeback.

Q: What is your comment on post-war Sri Lanka?
A: While military success has been achieved, the charged atmosphere built up during the war needs to be defused. This would require people affected by the conflict resuming normal life as early as possible. While this is a huge national challenge, it has to produce more visible results. Modern governance demands ensuring people enjoy fundamental freedoms. As it is a notion in the minds of people, it is they who should feel a sense of security and trust in the government.

Q: What do you have to say about President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s military strategy?
A:Military strategy is only a part of national strategy when a nation goes to war. This was provided by President Rajapaksa and he gave enough space to armed forces to come into full bloom to carry out their campaign.

Q: The force behind the entire military manoeuvre was Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. How do you see his commitment?
A: Of course, he was fully committed to achieve the President’s objectives; that was why he was appointed for the job. The President had always been the supreme commander of the three services. While Basil Rajapaksa provided the political interface for the war, Gotabaya Rajapaksa provided the government interface for military operations. But as Defence Secretary he provided vital interface between the national leadership and military leadership so that the entire campaign was conducted smoothly. I am sure his military background was a great help in this. So I would rate him as one of the three key leaders who helped Sri Lanka win the war.

Q: Out of 11,000 ex-LTTE cadres, over 8,000 are still in state custody undergoing rehabilitation. How best do you think the government can train them to become useful citizens?
A:They should find a place in society to live a meaningful life without fear of deprivation. This requires more than a few months of training. It requires an environment where they can look forward to the future rather than go back to the past.

Q: How do you see the arrest of KP? Did it make a huge impact on the LTTE’s future in the international sphere?
A:It is a great success for Sri Lanka’s efforts to curb the resurgence of LTTE internationally. Yes, it will have a big impact on the future of overseas LTTE.

Q: How vital is his contribution to the post conflict Sri Lanka?
A:It is too early to assess.

Q: What is your assessment of the LTTE’s international network?
A: It is not united but split into two major groups the ideologues of Eelam who want to politically keep the Eelam struggle alive and the militant elements. I don’t know whether they will join together in the near term.

Q: What are your observations on the LTTE’s activities in Tamil Nadu and how do you view the pro-LTTE views expressed by certain politicians and sympathizers of the outfit?
A:The LTTE activities in Tamil Nadu are neither visible nor assertive. There are some LTTE sympathizers who appreciate its militancy. But the Eelam issue has a wider appeal. The plight of Tamils in war zones affects a very large number of people. There are issues which some of the political parties are trying to cash in. But I doubt whether they have the capability to make a strong on Tamil Nadu’s mainstream politics.

Q: Do you agree that India made a blunder by grooming LTTE in early 80s?
A: I am against arming any insurgent groups either locally or internationally. I had made this clear in my own military channels in the 80s, though army was not involved in the training of Tamil militants.

Q: How vital was the India’s stance on defeating the LTTE and do you agree that Prabhakaran had much hopes that the international community including India would save him at the last minute?
A: I think India’s intelligence, political and international support was one of the winning factors for Sri Lanka. I believe Prabhakaran overestimated the readiness of the international community to bail him out. Of course, political support in India for him was not sufficiently strong to do this job. Apparently he failed to realize this.

Q: Why did he fail to convince them? What went wrong?
A:Three things in his conduct were instrumental in losing international credibility over a time: killing Rajiv Gandhi, willful disregard for international efforts to make the peace process a success, and global war on terror after 9/11 the world was not prepared to accept terrorism as a tool to fight for ethnic or other rights.

Q: Did the IPKF fail in defeating the LTTE?
A:The IPKF was not sent to defeat LTTE. It was to help Sri Lanka government to enforce the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement in which the disarming of Tamil militants was provided for. That was how it got embroiled in war with LTTE.

Q: What were the difficulties the IPKF faced in dealing with the LTTE?
A:I can only give a strategic analyst’s perspective but it might disappoint those expecting political brownie points. The IPKF at the beginning faced three problems - lack of role clarity, inadequate information, and security forces’ own structural snags.

The Indian army had very little warning to prepare for its overseas deployment. Nobody was very clear what its role in Sri Lanka would be because the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord had a lot of loose ends. India was signing a third party undertaking to do its bit for an internal problem of Sri Lanka. So it was bristled with uncertainties as the two signing powers and the Tamil militants who were non-signatories had to conform to the Accord to make it a success. So the troops were initially sent only as a token force to show solidarity with Sri Lanka rather than fight a pitched battle with the LTTE.

Secondly, the Indian security forces had very little information available on Sri Lanka’s political and militancy problems. This might be surprising as many accuse India of plotting the whole thing. This is far from true. So the Indian army went there without adequate preparation.

It had obsolete maps and an inadequate knowledge of Sri Lanka. To top it all, it was supposed to meet the continuous demands of Sinhalese and Tamils who had built high expectations. Military Intelligence had a few assets - both information and sources - when it landed. (Information sharing among intelligence agencies in all nations is minimal for fear of compromise of sources.)

Structurally, when the war started, a joint services command had to be created to conduct an insurgency operation in a foreign country. This was totally a new experience for the three services. Troops had to be flown in and they were not familiar with either the terrain or ground situation when they were put directly from Jaffna airport to join the operations. However, the three services rose to the occasion and improvised command and control structure and improved it as operations progressed.

Q: Do you think the LTTE became stronger with the withdrawal of the IPKF?
A:The LTTE was at its weakest when the IPKF left. It was confined to a small space in Vanni. It had suffered heavy casualties - losing most of the junior leaders. That was why it desperately built bridges with President Premadasa which resulted in the pull out of the IPKF at a crucial stage for LTTE. In fact, it provided the oxygen the LTTE needed for survival and stage a comeback in the North and parts of East where it massacred a few hundred policemen. So it became stronger by default.

Q: Who were the main LTTE leaders who came across during your stay in Sri Lanka? How do you see Prabhakaran’s militant mind?
A:When we were in talking terms initially in August 1987, I have seen all the top leaders of the LTTE including Prabhakaran, Kittu, and Mahatthaya etc. I had no rapport with them but they knew who I was. Prabhakaran as a militant believed in the overwhelming power of the gun to achieve his goals. This led to his downfall as he failed to seize the opportunities the peace process offered in 2002.

Q: How do you recollect your three -year stay in Sri Lanka as the intelligence head of the IPKF?
A: As a Tamil, Sri Lanka was never a foreign country for me. So it pained me more to see the great human tragedy that was turning the country - one of the most beautiful ones I had seen - into a battleground. I found the people of Sri Lanka - Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims and everyone warm hearted and more easy-going than Indians. When I visited Colombo I was amazed everyone revelling as though they had nothing to do with the war in the North!

Q: Sri Lanka’s military strategy that ended the Asia’s longest civil war will be a case study for other nations threatened with internal conflicts?
A:Of course; even failed operations teach us many things. So a successful war like Sri Lanka’s definitely provides many valuable lessons for all nations.

Q: The Maoists and the Naxalites have increased their attacks in India. Do you think the LTTE cadres who are believed to have escaped from Sri Lanka are supporting them?
A: No. There were some marginal contacts between Maoists and the LTTE when the latter was powerful. To my knowledge, even these were commercial deals between two ‘fraternal’ organizations. Now there are safer pastures for fleeing LTTE elements to seek refuge than the hotbeds of Maoist violence in India.

Q: Where are these safer pastures for fleeing LTTEers?
A: I can only conclude that they would mix with families fleeing Sri Lanka as refugees; of course that does not make all those refugees LTTEers. I am sure Canadian and Australian intelligence also some of the countries like Indonesia would be doing this.

Q: No doubt, intelligence played a vital role in defeating the LTTE. How vital is strengthening the intelligence networks locally and in the post conflict era?
A:Intelligence is a silent shield. It does not distinguish between war time and peace time. At all times it has to be functional. As it provides foreknowledge, it is vital to prevent wars as much as to win them.
Courtesy: Sunday Observer, August 15, 2010
URL:http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/08/15/sec03.asp