Sunday, January 30, 2011

‘We will not be intimidated by LTTE front organizations’ says Lankan envoy in US


article_image
   















LTTE front organizations will eventually be exposed and brought to justice, says Jaliya Wickramasuriya, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the United States. "They cannot intimidate the President or the people of Sri Lanka", he noted.

Recently foreign supporters of the LTTE terrorist group that fought and lost a conflict against the Sri Lankan people have accused President Mahinda Rajapaksa of committing war crimes as commander in chief of Sri Lanka’s armed forces, he noted. Today, LTTE supporters outside of Sri Lanka continue to accuse the government of human rights violations. Those groups continue to raise funds for violent terrorist activities.  Swiss federal police recently arrested 10 alleged LTTE supporters who police say were threatening Sri Lankan Tamils into providing money to the LTTE, Wickramasuriya said in a statement.

A number of LTTE support groups have put the word "Tamil" in their names, hoping to attract attention and avert suspicion, he said. "The LTTE, banned in the U.S. and a number of other countrie, was responsible for the murder of thousands of civilians and assassinated numerous heads of state including Sri Lanka’s then President Ranasinghe Premadasa, India’s Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar".

"It is clear what these groups are doing, and they have already drawn attention from law enforcement in countries where the LTTE is banned," Ambassador Wickramasuriya said. "The LTTE has tried before to raise money by using groups that pose as humanitarian organizations, and they have been caught. Those attempting to do this now must cease or face prosecution."

He said that front organizations have been discovered in the past and were brought to justice.

"Let me be clear when I say that a majority of Sri Lankans living in the U.S.- Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese alike- are grateful to our President Rajapaksa for liberating 300,000 citizen from terrorist captivity and uniting our island," he said.  A very small group of the Sri Lankan Diaspora is made up of supporters of the LTTE terrorist group.  For the past ten or fifteen years, this small minority has been very vocal in spreading propaganda against the Government of Sri Lanka.

The Ambassador pointed out, "The LTTE, an organization that was once described by the FBI as the most ruthless terrorist organization in the world, received a majority of its funding from outside of Sri Lanka.  Over the past several years the Government of Sri Lanka worked very closely with the U.S. Department of Justice to identify the sources of this terrorist funding.  A few years ago the U.S. Department of Justice found numerous so-called charity organizations were in fact fronts for the LTTE."

In 2007 the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (T.R.O.) was proscribed as a foreign terrorist organization after the U.S. Justice Department found that donations collected for purportedly charitable purposes were actually being spent on further militarizing the LTTE terrorists.  The U.S. Treasury Department issued a press release in 2007 noting that the "T.R.O. passed off its operations as charitable, when in fact it was raising money for a designated terrorist group responsible for heinous acts of terrorism."  The Tamil Foundation was also proscribed as a front organization, he recalled.

"What we are seeing now is that the same individuals or relatives of these individuals that were part of these proscribed LTTE front organizations have started new groups.  These so-called advocacy organizations have the same membership and directors as the proscribed organizations.  They continue to spread propaganda against the Government and carry out publicity stunts like this baseless law suit."  Wickramasuriya noted that the Government of Sri Lanka continues to work closely with the U.S. Department of Justice and other agencies in identifying LTTE front organizations.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

The Wikileaks Revelations about attitudes to Sri Lanka


By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Island.lk
January 22, 20100

Reading through the revelations about Sri Lanka in Wikileaks, I am struck most of all by how they confirm the assumptions on which I have been working over the last few years.

I cannot pretend I knew all the ramifications of government policy over this period, but obviously, in fulfilling my responsibilities, as Head of the Peace Secretariat, and also Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, I had to relate to interlocutors in terms of their essential attitudes to the Sri Lankan government.

This was particularly important since a fair amount of my work was with the international community, both in helping to coordinate international humanitarian assistance, which was a responsibility allocated to my Ministry, and also in assisting my Minister and our Ambassador in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleka, with the various attacks on us that were being launched at the Human Rights Council.

Dayan had realized, soon after he went to Geneva in 2007, that the British were our main enemies. He was practically told as much by Nick Thorne, the then British Ambassador, and also by various others who, though they had to follow the British line, were not so happy with it. Thorne was a bit of a bully, and one did not mind responding to him forcefully.

More upsetting was the approach of his successor, who was clearly a very nice man, but permitted his young ladies, who had been trained as it were by Thorne, to be crudely, and often inaccurately, critical.

In a sense the situation was similar in Sri Lanka, where Dominic Chilcott went out on a limb to be harsh about us, in particular the Secretary of Defence. Peter Hayes, though less flamboyant, was no better, indeed probably worse, having served previously in David Miliband's private office - and not really being ambassadorial material, given his unfortunate interpersonal skills, so that he is unlikely to get any important ambassadorial position in the future.

Meanwhile other British officials, in particular the Defence Attache, seemed much nicer and more sympathetic. This did not mean they did not toe the line, but they did not adopt a sanctimonious approach as Chilcott and Hayes did.

That, unfortunately, is the trouble with the British, whom in general I love exceedingly, having spent the best years of my life amongst them. Like everyone else, they ultimately do what is best for themselves. However, having a more active conscience than others - my Chaplain claimed it was because the decision making classes were terrified of their nannies - they needed to prove to themselves that they were being high-minded.

So they get all moral about what they do, even though, as with all countries, they are essentially just fulfilling their own interests. Sometimes they get so moral that, anxious to please as we ex-colonials are, we search desperately to find out what we have done wrong.

On the whole I felt we had not done much wrong, and the British critiques were unfair. But it was nice to find this proved in the Wikileaks account of Miliband's confession to the Americans as to why he was so obsessed with Sri Lanka. Unfortunately his hyper-active period coincided with one of extreme vulnerability to such pressure on the part of the Americans.

The Obama administration was just finding its feet, and it had many officials who had preconceptions about Sri Lanka. Unable to act on their feelings about Iraq and Afghanistan, given the need for continuity that Obama could not escape, they indulged their consciences to the full with regard to Sri Lanka.

That I think explains the one blunder Hilary Clinton made, revealing what underlay her generally nuanced approach, when she made her preposterous claim about Sri Lanka using rape as a weapon of war.

Ambassador Butenis made up for that pretty smartly, and by and large I think she has confirmed my view about American policy towards Sri Lanka, which is that they have a better understanding than north Europeans of what terrorism is, and how one needs to deal with it, and that they were therefore more sympathetic to our government.

This did not mean that they were not concerned about possible Human Rights abuses. Though they know as well as we do that they have done much worse things, and sometimes as a matter of policy, in their struggle against terrorism, many officials involved in the civilized dimension of international relations do not like such things, and excuse them only because they think them essential to safeguard the American way of life.

Others, who do not enjoy such a life, have less reason to deviate from the straight and narrow, and must be judged accordingly.

Within that framework however, they were less negative, and indeed successive American ambassadors realized very soon the actual ground situation in Sri Lanka. Thus, though Robert Blake came out with preconceptions about the Karuna faction soon after he arrived here, it was not long before he realized that the real horrors were the LTTE.

We in turn should not forget that, when the Europeans, led by that other wonderful British specimen, Julian Wilson, were being negative about the East, the Americans stepped in smartly and joined our Asian friends (and a couple of the South Europeans) to help with development.

So too, while I was sorry to see Patricia Butenis too seeming to leap on the Sarath Fonseka bandwagon, who could blame her, given how extravagant were the claims made by Colombo society on his behalf, with concomitant noises presumably from the bleeding heart brigade back in Washington?

I believe however that, even if the evidence of his negative approach to politics was not apparent, she was soon disabused by her fellow Western ambassadors who, to a man (including the ladies amongst them, though not Dr Hayes) understood very well, as one of them told me, what Sarath Fonseka was about.

The other cables relating to Sri Lanka show a much more sensible approach to the Tigers than Norway for instance evinced at times. And yet, with Norway too, excepting always Mr Solheim, who I have always felt was a shady character (as was Jon-Hanssen Bauer, who was really no character at all, but seemed rather a schoolboy apprentice to Solheim, when I met them together), there was much more balance than is generally supposed.

Indeed, when the then government wanted to hand over transmitting equipment to the Tigers, the Norwegians were astonished (incidentally, as I suggested three years ago, that is a deal that should be examined further - I wonder indeed whether Ranil were not dragooned into it by his advisers, who had agendas that sometimes I think he never properly understood).

Finally, what comes out most positively is the enormous integrity of the Indians in supporting us throughout the most difficult period. Japan too comes out well, and we know China was a tower of strength, though obviously American diplomats are not in a position to let us know the inner thinking of the Chinese.

But, given the pressures on India from politicians in Tamilnadu, given the arguments of the West at a time when India was developing stronger economic ties with it, we must be grateful for India's unswerving opposition to terrorism and appeasement, and its willingness to let the Sri Lankan government go ahead with the struggle against the Tigers, when other nations were dubious about us.

In short, then, Wikileaks confirms to us that those who matter were with us when we needed them. These included the Americans, though I hope the revelations will suggest to them that they need to be less ambiguous about supporting democratic governments than those with dubious agendas advocate.

Finally, though the rot Miliband initiated may take some time to heal, and some elements in the Foreign Office will still be negative, the opportunity presented by the new British government should not be ignored.

The new British High Commissioner will have much to do, but we should accept any positive measures and reciprocate with the affection that a nation in thrall to its nannies surely deserves.

The Wikileaks Revelations about attitudes to Sri Lanka





 
By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Reading through the revelations about Sri Lanka in Wikileaks, I am struck most of all by how they confirm the assumptions on which I have been working over the last few years.
I cannot pretend I knew all the ramifications of government policy over this period, but obviously, in fulfilling my responsibilities, as Head of the Peace Secretariat, and also Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, I had to relate to interlocutors in terms of their essential attitudes to the Sri Lankan government.

 This was particularly important since a fair amount of my work was with the international community, both in helping to coordinate international humanitarian assistance, which was a responsibility allocated to my Ministry, and also in assisting my Minister and our Ambassador in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleka, with the various attacks on us that were being launched at the Human Rights Council.
Dayan had realized, soon after he went to Geneva in 2007, that the British were our main enemies. He was practically told as much by Nick Thorne, the then British Ambassador, and also by various others who, though they had to follow the British line, were not so happy with it. Thorne was a bit of a bully, and one did not mind responding to him forcefully.
More upsetting was the approach of his successor, who was clearly a very nice man, but permitted his young ladies, who had been trained as it were by Thorne, to be crudely, and often inaccurately, critical.
In a sense the situation was similar in Sri Lanka, where Dominic Chilcott went out on a limb to be harsh about us, in particular the Secretary of Defence. Peter Hayes, though less flamboyant, was no better, indeed probably worse, having served previously in David Miliband's private office - and not really being ambassadorial material, given his unfortunate interpersonal skills, so that he is unlikely to get any important ambassadorial position in the future.
Meanwhile other British officials, in particular the Defence Attache, seemed much nicer and more sympathetic. This did not mean they did not toe the line, but they did not adopt a sanctimonious approach as Chilcott and Hayes did.
That, unfortunately, is the trouble with the British, whom in general I love exceedingly, having spent the best years of my life amongst them. Like everyone else, they ultimately do what is best for themselves. However, having a more active conscience than others - my Chaplain claimed it was because the decision making classes were terrified of their nannies - they needed to prove to themselves that they were being high-minded.
So they get all moral about what they do, even though, as with all countries, they are essentially just fulfilling their own interests. Sometimes they get so moral that, anxious to please as we ex-colonials are, we search desperately to find out what we have done wrong.
On the whole I felt we had not done much wrong, and the British critiques were unfair. But it was nice to find this proved in the Wikileaks account of Miliband's confession to the Americans as to why he was so obsessed with Sri Lanka. Unfortunately his hyper-active period coincided with one of extreme vulnerability to such pressure on the part of the Americans.
The Obama administration was just finding its feet, and it had many officials who had preconceptions about Sri Lanka. Unable to act on their feelings about Iraq and Afghanistan, given the need for continuity that Obama could not escape, they indulged their consciences to the full with regard to Sri Lanka.
That I think explains the one blunder Hilary Clinton made, revealing what underlay her generally nuanced approach, when she made her preposterous claim about Sri Lanka using rape as a weapon of war.
Ambassador Butenis made up for that pretty smartly, and by and large I think she has confirmed my view about American policy towards Sri Lanka, which is that they have a better understanding than north Europeans of what terrorism is, and how one needs to deal with it, and that they were therefore more sympathetic to our government.
This did not mean that they were not concerned about possible Human Rights abuses. Though they know as well as we do that they have done much worse things, and sometimes as a matter of policy, in their struggle against terrorism, many officials involved in the civilized dimension of international relations do not like such things, and excuse them only because they think them essential to safeguard the American way of life.
Others, who do not enjoy such a life, have less reason to deviate from the straight and narrow, and must be judged accordingly.
Within that framework however, they were less negative, and indeed successive American ambassadors realized very soon the actual ground situation in Sri Lanka. Thus, though Robert Blake came out with preconceptions about the Karuna faction soon after he arrived here, it was not long before he realized that the real horrors were the LTTE.
We in turn should not forget that, when the Europeans, led by that other wonderful British specimen, Julian Wilson, were being negative about the East, the Americans stepped in smartly and joined our Asian friends (and a couple of the South Europeans) to help with development.
So too, while I was sorry to see Patricia Butenis too seeming to leap on the Sarath Fonseka bandwagon, who could blame her, given how extravagant were the claims made by Colombo society on his behalf, with concomitant noises presumably from the bleeding heart brigade back in Washington?
I believe however that, even if the evidence of his negative approach to politics was not apparent, she was soon disabused by her fellow Western ambassadors who, to a man (including the ladies amongst them, though not Dr Hayes) understood very well, as one of them told me, what Sarath Fonseka was about.
The other cables relating to Sri Lanka show a much more sensible approach to the Tigers than Norway for instance evinced at times. And yet, with Norway too, excepting always Mr Solheim, who I have always felt was a shady character (as was Jon-Hanssen Bauer, who was really no character at all, but seemed rather a schoolboy apprentice to Solheim, when I met them together), there was much more balance than is generally supposed.
Indeed, when the then government wanted to hand over transmitting equipment to the Tigers, the Norwegians were astonished (incidentally, as I suggested three years ago, that is a deal that should be examined further - I wonder indeed whether Ranil were not dragooned into it by his advisers, who had agendas that sometimes I think he never properly understood).
Finally, what comes out most positively is the enormous integrity of the Indians in supporting us throughout the most difficult period. Japan too comes out well, and we know China was a tower of strength, though obviously American diplomats are not in a position to let us know the inner thinking of the Chinese.
But, given the pressures on India from politicians in Tamilnadu, given the arguments of the West at a time when India was developing stronger economic ties with it, we must be grateful for India's unswerving opposition to terrorism and appeasement, and its willingness to let the Sri Lankan government go ahead with the struggle against the Tigers, when other nations were dubious about us.
In short, then, Wikileaks confirms to us that those who matter were with us when we needed them. These included the Americans, though I hope the revelations will suggest to them that they need to be less ambiguous about supporting democratic governments than those with dubious agendas advocate.
Finally, though the rot Miliband initiated may take some time to heal, and some elements in the Foreign Office will still be negative, the opportunity presented by the new British government should not be ignored.
The new British High Commissioner will have much to do, but we should accept any positive measures and reciprocate with the affection that a nation in thrall to its nannies surely deserves.
-The Island/Asia News Network

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Who is responsible to the fear psychosis of the Tamils in Jaffna ? Are the Tamils in Sri Lanka willing to be Sri Lankans ?


By Charles S. Perera


LankaWeb.com
January 07, 2011


 Douglas Devananda had spoken in the Parliament  to say about the fear psychosis of the Tamils in Jaffna. With a 30 years of war and uncertainty of life under the terrorists during that time,  the fear psychosis  is nothing new to Tamils in Jaffna.  However, what is “new” is that it follows the elimination of their bane -the terrorism.

This second wave of  the “old” fear psychosis  with which  Devananda says the people in the North are gripped with has come about  hardly two years after the elimination of terrorism by the  Government  Armed Forces consisting of  the Sinhala Buddhist Officers and Soldiers.

The report adds that  Devananda said  the people of the North looked forward to a  peaceful environment after the end of the  war against terrorist, and now the fear is that north will slip back to violence again.
'
If that fear had arisen among the people of the North it is interesting to examine who is responsible for this state of affairs ? Who brought about that fear psychosis ?

The moment the terrorism was eliminated the people of the north, did not turn to the government to allow it to continue  to create  an environment of peace , despite the fact that the people  of Jaffna were aware of  the tremendous development projects the government undertook for their welfare.

The people of Jaffna and those in the East in the succeeding elections after the elimination of terrorists, did not show any gratitude or place any confidence in the government to  create  the necessary environment of  peace that should have naturally come after the thirty years of continued terrorism.

The people of Jaffna and the Tamils of the East instead took to their confidence the very same people that was responsible for the thirty years of  their suffering and daily dose of fear psychosis- the  lackeys  of the  terrorists  the Tamil National Alliance to provide them a peaceful sanctuary.  It is like asking jackals to look after the  chicken farm.

It is  evident to any fool who had followed the statements of Sambandhan the Leader of the  TNA  and  its MPs through out the terrorism after they were named by the terrorist Prabhakaran to represent the terrorists  in Parliament. They were a part and parcel of  Prabhakarans terrorism.  Their existence depended on their servility to the terrorist Prabhakaran.  They had no voice of their own as they had to  run to Kilinochchi every now and then  to get Prabhakaran’s  approval of their actions and speeches in Parliament.

How could TNA MPs have ever given to the people of  Jaffna and the East  peace or progress ?
The fear psychosis  Devananda is reporting to the Parliament , is the making of the Tamil people of the North and East, themselves.  There is none to be blamed for the sad state into which they have pushed them selves into.  The TNA has no other political aim other than  that they had been trained in,  and brainwashed to follow  by the terrorist Prabhakaran.

The TNA stands for division , and separation of the Tamils from the Sinhala people, and they cannot stop terrorism if there is to be another wave of it in Jaffna or the East, as in case terrorism  raises its “bloody” head again  in Jaffna in what ever way, the TNA will stand by the terrorists as their lackeys- that is their raison d’etre.

Devanada had said that he would not embarrass the government internationally by raising the matter in the Parliament.  Devananda should not  worry,  as he does not embarrass the government at all.  The Government is aware that any disturbance of peace in the North and East, will automatically be made the responsibility of  the Government and Armed forces.

Because as long as things are going well for the Tamils,  there would be those from the diaspora, the international Community, and the TNA taking credit for it.  But moment things go wrong they will accuse the government for abductions, white vans , murders and now the fear psychosis.

But it is the foreign and anti government Media, International community,  Human Rights Watch, the Amnesty International and the Internal anti-government forces  who made an issue of the suspected terrorist kept separately and demanded their release, who should take full responsibility for what is happening in Jaffna.

The terrorists who escaped during the last phase of the military operations against the terrorists, along with the  IDPs  who were evacuated by the humanitarian mission of the Government armed  forces, were rightly separated from the Tamil Civilians and kept in separate camps for security reasons.  If the government was left alone to settle all these matters of terrorists things would have been different.

But unfortunately the government had to please these “foreign vultures” out to divide Sri Lanka, and make it a sort of a “banana state” dependent on them.  It does not matter to them whether the release of suspected terrorists in camps will affect the country negatively, and that it would be a security risk.  The fear psychosis now taking its grip in the North  may be the result of this “hasty release” of  terrorists who had been kept in separate camps.

These elements moving freely in Jaffna, could still be contacted by the pro terrorist Tamil diaspora, through TNA , and through people like Jehan Perera, Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu and rein them in to create an anti government group to cause  difficulties to the Government to maintain peace and security in the  North.  It may be the beginning of another armed group calling for a separate Eelam State.

UNP also had been calling for the release of  these suspected terrorists  in separate camps, and they may also be responsible for the reported fear psychosis in the North.

If peace is to be brought about in the North and East, to  avoid the people  to be gripped in to another wave of fear psychosis; the Tamils will have to put their trust in the Government and the Sinhala people and become Sri Lankans without  seeking a narrow communal existence.

The media in Sri Lanka today is the worst a fast developing country like Sri Lanka could have.  A progressive media should work along with the government  to unite the communities.  After the 30 years of savagery under terrorism what is needed today is to create possibilities of bringing the communities together as  Sri Lankans. Instead the media publish all types of  contradictory news items without any basis  merely to discredit the government.  The people are at a loss not knowing what is  the correct situation and what is  not.

An armed Force that waged a war against terrorist at a greater cost to themselves, is now not going to abduct,  kill, or rape the very people they saved from terrorism.  The Tamil people should be able to give credit to the armed forces and place their trust in them,  otherwise they will not be able to save themselves from their fear  of , “….. whether their area will be stained with blood again…….”   as Devananda stated in Parliament.

In the mean time , a group calling it self, « We Are Sri Lankans’ (WASL) organization backed by the Inter University Students Federation (IUSF)  »  had held the security establishments of the country responsible for the string of abductions taking place in the North that had led to an atmosphere of fear in the area.  This is a statement that should not go with out proper action against  Udul Premaratne who appears to be  behind it.  These are the people responsible for the « fear psychosis » in the North and they should be stopped before they cause further damage.

Tamils should be willing to become Sri Lankans.

Tamils will  not be a part of Sri Lanka as long as they refuse to integrate with other communities to become Sri Lankans. If Tamils stand aloof participating in  narrow Communal politics associating with TNA and their political objectives they cannot be Sri Lankans a part entieres .  They will then be a  race with one leg in India and the other in Sri Lanka.

There are Tamils in Tamil Nadu. There are Tamils in Malaysia. There are Tamils in Sri Lanka.  Tamils in Tamil Nadu are Indians, Tamils in Malaysia are Malaysians.  But the Tamils in Sri Lanka refuse to be Sri Lankans, they still want to be Tamils.

The  Tamils in Sri Lanka  should accept  to be Sri Lankans  before they make any demands.  The Sinhala the majority do not want to give any rights to the Tamils,  but they are ready to share their rights with other Communities including the Tamils, if they give up their narrow Communal identity to identify themselves with all communities as Sri Lankans.

The Tamils do not want to integrate with the Sinhala because of their inane inferiority complex.  The Tamils find strength in  the “ we Tamils” complex.  That  is again the reason why they want a Tamil homeland so that they can feel strong  being among themselves.

It is only in giving up their call for a homeland and integrating with other communities as Sri Lankans that  they will  be real patriots of their motherland -Sri Lanka, sharing every thing with their compatriots. The Sinhala,   who ask Tamils to come and become one with them are not racists. Nor are they supremacists or Chauvinists.  Those are the name callings of un Sri Lankan Tamil racists.

The Tamils of the  Diaspora are not  Sri Lankans because they were born to Tamil parents.  They will be  Sri Lankans only if they begin to love  Sri Lanka with all its communities without demanding a separate Tamil homeland.   Their cultural and mental make up do not have any resemblance  to the Tamils in Sri Lanka, therefore they should convert themselves to become Sri Lankans.

The Tamils joining hands with the Sinhala and other communities to become Sri Lankans will also be saved from any fear psychosis as the other communities will be there to rally together  to dispel their fear and give them patriotic affection.