Sri Lanka rebuts report in The
Economist
Permanent Mission of Sri
Lanka - Switzerland
23rd July 2007
The following was sent by the Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat
(SCOPP) to the Economist in London, following the publication of an
article highly critical of the Sri Lankan government, which was also
cited in the Sri Lankan media. It is now on the website of the Economist.
The delay in writing was because SCOPP was awaiting written confirmation
from the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) that it had not said what
the Economist claimed about Sri Lankan soldiers. The formal denial was
received last week and is also reproduced.
SCOPP then received a pleasant response from the author of the article
asking for further substantiation of the charge of misrepresentation.
These were supplied. Both letters are reproduced.
" The Economist Article (Jun 7th 2007 ) : A war strange as fiction
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9299003
SECRETARY GENERAL
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
Block 05,BMICH,Bauddhaloka Mw,Colombo-07,
Sri Lanka
Initial response to the Economist
The Editor
The Economist
Dear Sir,
I write with reference to the article on Sri Lanka in your June 9th
- 15th issue. I am sorry this comes late, but I was waiting for a response
from the 'joint Norwegian-Icelandic monitoring mission' you refer to
on p 24. I had asked them about the article in mid-June but have only
now received a written response which I can send on to you.
As you can see, they categorically deny your assertion about '200
soldiers', and suggest it may have been due to an 'LTTE claim' they
reported. They go further and say here that 'The article in The Economist
has seemingly not used credible sources, as facts and figures are taken
out of context and assumptions made that might not reflect the reality'.
Since the piece is more a commentary than a report, there is no point
in taking issue with most of its substance, misleading though some of
it might be. However I should point out that much of it repeats the
substance of a paper presented by Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the
opposition United National Party, to the International Democratic Union
at a meeting last April. The country situation report, as it was termed
when carried in a local paper, was clearly designed to heap obloquy
upon the current government of Sri Lanka.
Perhaps the most prominent criticism that you repeat was that about
the President nabbing several ministries for himself. Under our current
constitution, imposed by the government of J R Jayewardene, Mr. Wickremesinghe's
uncle who first elevated him to political prominence, the President
is entitled to hold ministries, and is mandated to take responsibility
for Defence. Mr. Jayewardene, who introduced that constitution through
an amendment and thus elevated himself to an Executive Presidency, himself
held seven ministries together.
It was President Wijetunge, under whom Mr. Wickremesinghe first became
Prime Minister, who kept Finance for himself along with Defence and
Education and other very important portfolios. There was not a squeak
from Mr. Wickremesinghe at the time, though he now pronounces sanctimoniously
to the international community about practices he celebrated when he
was in power. Your journal is of course in a better position to criticize,
but the use of the word 'nabbed' suggests that you should seek for better
sources in general.
I should not spend time on too many of the misrepresentations in the
article, but I believe it important to refute your claim that the government
is 'almost entirely composed of Buddhist Sinhalese'. All Tamil parties
in parliament except for the TNA, which is seen as a surrogate for the
LTTE, are represented in cabinet, as are both Muslim parties. Several
other Muslims are in the cabinet, including senior members of the SLFP,
Mr. Rajapakse's own party, and of the UNP democratic wing which split
from Mr. Wickremesinghe at the beginning of this year. Sadly, though
it is generally believed that Mr. Rajapaske would have appointed Lakshman
Kadirgamar as his Prime Minister, that Tamil Christian who stood steadfast
against terrorism was killed by the LTTE three months before the presidential
election - in part, it is believed, precisely so that the Western media
would not notice the pluralistic character of the government.
One significant change in your article is the description of the governor
or the Central Bank as a 'crony' of Mr. Rajapakse. Mr. Wickremesinghe's
outburst had described him as a relation by marriage. The change your
source made may have been because he had heard that Mr. Cabraal - a
Catholic, I should note - had been advised to sue. Neither Mr. Cabraal
nor his wife is related to Mr. Rajapakse, though the latter has a distant
connection dating back several generations, not quite as close as her
connection to Mr. Wickremesinghe. Perhaps more pertinently, whilst Mr.
Wickremesinghe's characterization was obviously designed to denigrate
Mr. Cabraal's qualifications for the post, the latter (a well known
writer on economic issues who had chaired an Association of Accountants)
was in fact a UNP Provincial Councillor before he changed allegiance,
in part because of what seemed the disastrous impact of Mr. Wickremesinghe's
economic policies.
Mr. Wickremesinghe was unfortunately like his uncle who had famously
invited the robber barons to come when he opened up the economy. Sadly,
benefits do not trickle down simply because political leaders assume
they will. In 2003 the LTTE withdrew from talks with the Wickremesinghe
government - and did not return to negotiations until 2006, after Mr.
Rajapakse was elected - in part because, as they put it in the letter
they addressed to Mr. Wickremesinghe on that occasion, the Tamils of
the North and East had not benefited economically from the peace dividend
Mr. Wickremesinghe claimed to have facilitated.
I append in this context the report in our 'Financial Times' - no supporter
in general of the current government - of an address I gave recently
to the Sri Lanka - Italy Business Council. It suggests ways in which
more productive use might be made of the undoubted energies of our business
community, to promote peace and prosperity together.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
Response from James Astill, South Asia correspondent of the Economist
Dear Professor Wijesinha,
Thank you for your detailed letter on the report "A War Stranger than
Fiction" that I wrote. I am sorry you did not like it. Clearly, it contained
some criticisms of government policy. But I must refute the inference
that it was soft on the LTTE, specifically that it peddled their claims.
I did not read any LTTE report on the army's recent advances near Omantai;
that piece of information indeed came from the monitors' spokesman.
It was corroborated by several independent sources. I have spoken with
Ms Sender about the letter she sent you; she says she cannot say more
until the mission's spokesman returns from holidays in Iceland in two
weeks time. I will forward the substance of any further communications
I have with the Scandinavian observer mission to you.
In addition, I assure you that I did not read the paper by Mr. Wickremesinghe
that you refer to. I make no claim that the president has acted unconstitutionally
in my report. But perhaps you would agree that it is not entirely in
keeping with the spirit of Sri Lanka's democracy for one man to take
direct control over several of the most important ministries of the
country. By the same token, I am unaware of any specific allegation
concerning the central bank governor's familial relations to the president.
But I understand that he is a close supporter of the president.
You suggest also that there are misrepresentations in my piece that
you do not spell out in your letter. If so, I would genuinely be grateful
if you would let me know of them.
Best wishes,
James Astill
SECRETARY GENERAL
Secretariat for Co-ordinating the Peace Process
Block 05,BMICH,Bauddhaloka Mw,Colombo-07,
Sri Lanka
Further response to Mr. Astill
Dear Mr. Astill,
Thanks for your e-mail of July 17th. It was good of you to confirm
that your information came from the SLMM spokesman, because since I
took over this post I have had to point out several times to their Head
of Mission that he has been the source of much misleading information.
Though he has denied making statements attributed to him, it took some
time to convince Gen Solvberg that what the spokesman claimed were misleading
interpretations of what he said had to be denied. This has now happened
twice over the last fortnight (see the Sunday Leader of July 8th (p
3) and 15th (p 2) for the latest examples. Though I have, in view of
what seems to be the integrity of Gen Solvberg and Ms Sender, accepted
the official position, your letter confirms my view that the SLMM must
ensure that this type of loose gun (in the tradition of the previous
Head of Mission, concerning whom I have requested the Norwegian Government
to take disciplinary action) is no longer given a license to do damage.
The corroboration is neither here nor there, since your attribution
created the impression that the SLMM had itself pronounced, and that
was not the case. I hope therefore that you will carry at least the
most important parts of my letter as well as their official denial.
Sadly, as you may be aware, Sri Lanka is still a class ridden society,
and the class that probably constitutes the bulk of your informants
is deeply influenced by the pronouncements of Mr. Wickremesinghe. You
may be aware that, when the Jayewardene government - in which he first
came to prominence - postponed elections for six years, and the London
press celebrated this, his uncle - a radical Bishop - had to remonstrate
with I think the Times for an article claiming that 'Capitalist Tea
tastes sweeter'
In those days, sadly, democracy did not seem to matter to opinion makers
in the West. I am however pleased that at least now there is some commitment
to what should be universal standards. In that context, whilst multiple
ministries are not part of the British tradition, from 1947 onward the
Sri Lankan Prime Minister did have multiple ministries, including Defence
and Foreign Affairs as a matter of course. When therefore President
Jayewardene changed the Constitution, there was no outcry about him
arrogating so many ministries to himself. This was exacerbated when,
as I mentioned, President Wijetunge combined Defence with Finance. What
is sad now is to find attention drawn to this by Mr. Wickremesinghe,
and then by you, when there were no such objections in the past.
The Governor of the Central Bank is a close supporter of the President,
but being a close supporter of an Executive Head has never been a reason
for not nominating someone to an executive position, not in this country
nor in bastions of democracy such as your own. Obviously you must understand
that you used the word 'crony' rather than' close supporter' to convey
a particular impression. As mentioned, the juxtaposition of that phrase
soon after the reference to the President and his brothers suggested
a similar source. I would refer you to the text of Mr. Wickremesinghe's
paper which appeared in the 'Sunday Leader' some weeks back, though
characteristically he was not mentioned, but rather it was described
as a UNP position paper. To whom it was addressed was also not stated,
though that was made clear in the last few paragraphs. Let me know if
you have not seen it previously, and I will send you a copy.
With regard to other misrepresentations, to cite a few 'His killers
were from another Tamil militant group, in the pay of Sri Lanka's democratically
elected government...''a history of pogroms..' - though true in the
past, under the Jayewardene government in particular, such pogroms have
not taken place after 1983
'The government of President Mahinda Rajapakse also uses terrorism.'north-eastern
Tamils did not vote. Had they done so, most would have plumped for Mr.
Wickremesinghe..' - The Tiger enforced boycott was only in the north.
Significantly, despite previous Tiger support, and the assumption of
the West even then that Mr. Wickremesinghe was the preferred candidate
of Tamils, Mrs. Kumaratunga did better amongst Tamils in the North at
the 1999 presidential election
'Yet no sooner was Mr. Rajapakse elected than both sides were shelling
and murdering each other.' - in fact the Tigers started attacks a couple
of weeks after the election (of mid-November 2005) and escalated them
so that a hundred or so servicemen (plus civilians) were killed, but
there was no response from the government. In fact the Tigers were persuaded
back to the negotiating table in February. Then, with still no military
activity from the government, they tried to kill the Army commander
in April, and killed the third in command in May. There were some responses
from the government at this stage, but talks were arranged again in
June, and the Tigers, having gone to Norway, refused to talk. It was
only after their attacks in August - including at Muhumalai, which was
resisted successfully, though as you rightly say an army offensive in
that area in October proved disastrous - that army offensives to prevent
such surprise attacks began on a regular basis.
It is unfortunate that you make no reference at all to the peace talks
which President Rajapakse was able to restart after the Tigers walked
out on Prime Minister Wickremesinghe in April 2003, when he was fully
in control of the government. The Tigers participated in talks in February
2006, went but did not talk in June, and went and talked in October.
This was very positive I am told by colleagues on the first day, and
then, on the second, there was, as the British High Commission put it,
a call from Kilinochchi - i.e., Mr. Prabhakaran drew them out.
President Kumaratunga ...'waged a policy of "war for peace" - true
but it was after the Tigers unilaterally withdrew from talks with her,
engaging in sudden offensives on the very day they announced their withdrawal
autonomy. At the last round of peace talks, in Oslo in 2004, even the
Tigers seemed to accept this.' - The talks you refer to were in 2002.
Though I am sure your mistake about the date was a misprint, it suggests
continuing talks until Mr. Rajapakse was elected, which is not at all
the case. With regard to the substance, the commitment of Mr. Balasingham,
the Tigers' chief negotiator at the time, to a federal solution, was
repudiated by Mr. Prabhakaran, and in fact Mr. Balasingham seemed to
be sidelined in subsequent talks - though he wrote the letter through
which the Tigers withdrew in April 2003.
'Mr. Rajapakse, however, has proposed as his solution a modest devolution
at the village level.' - The proposal is that of the SLFP, Mr. Rajapakse's
party, and is more complex than that, since it proposes several tiers.
Other parties in the government have gone much further, and the government
itself has left the matter open until at least basic consensus is achieved
at the APRC, which you do not mention at all. I attach for your information
a briefing note on this which we prepared.
'Mr. Rajapakse has appointed his three brothers to run important ministries.'
- Mr. Rajapakse's elder brother Chamal, who has been in parliament for
nearly two decades, is a minister, with two portfolios, though one of
them was intended for the former Foreign Minister who turned it down.
The youngest brother, Col Gotabhaya, is Secretary to the Ministry of
Defence, which is a Ministry mandatorily under the President. The other
brother Basil is an Advisor who is certainly heavily involved in the
Nation Building process, but we for instance deal with the Ministers
and the Secretary overseen by the unelected Gotabhaya Rajapakse.' -
he is not the Minister. Where in the world is a Permanent Secretary
elected?
"The Sinhalese authorities are not willing to talk to moderates," says
Suresh Premachandra, a parliamentary member of the Tamil National Alliance..
- ' Though Suresh, who is certainly well worth talking to, did escape
LTTE assassination attempts in the past, he is now a member of the TNA
which has got rid of all those who do not follow the LTTE line completely.
For instance, the previous head of this party, Mr. Anandasagaree, was
driven out of the party, and now has to have government security. Anyone
elected from the East who was thought to owe allegiance to Karuna was
forced to resign.
'Mr. Wickremesinghe, an uncharismatic sort, had the right vision but
failed to sell it. If Mr. Rajapakse were wiser than he is, he might
have done better.' - The implications are rather sweeping 'the UNP,
a score of whose MPs Mr. Rajapakse has co-opted into his coalition,
would probably have none of this' - the MPs, representing the intellectual
and professional cream of the party, wanted some sort of national government,
but Mr. Wickremesinghe refused. Sadly, since he is leader for life,
and appoints all other offices and the entire Working Committee himself,
under a constitution he introduced soon after he became leader, he cannot
be challenged. He also got rid of the Deputy Leader, who then joined
the government along with several Ministers of Mr. Wickremesinghe's
2002 government, who felt they would otherwise be sidelined by the latest
set of favorites.
Finally, there was no inference in my letter that you were 'soft on
the LTTE'. I can actually understand English and I do not work by innuendo.
My objection was to your suggestion that the government was as bad as
the LTTE.
I have written at length, in part because of the great respect in
which I hold your journal. If you are interested in Sri Lanka, and the
historical background to the present situation, you may like to pick
up a copy of 'Declining Sri Lanka: terrorism and ethnic violence as
the legacy of J R Jayewardene, 1906-1996', just published by CUP Delhi
as an expansion of two earlier works.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process
|
