A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, March 18, 2019
SRI LANKA AND ACCOUNTABILITY: CRIME IS CRIME; NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE
by Needhiyin Kural’ Krishna.
“The day a war hero goes and commits murder, he is no longer a war
hero. He is then only a murderer. He has to be brought before Sri Lankan
law and given maximum punishment in Sri Lankan courts” – Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando (21 January 2019)
While demand for accountability for war crimes is made repeatedly still
it is resisted by extremist groups and establishments—this remains a
deeply polarising issue. In fact, those extremists failed to see or purposefully hide the
distinction between a war hero and a murderer which resulted in a false
campaign that war heroes are being targeted and hunted down. However,
the statement of Defence Secretary Fernando refutes the allegation of
“hunting down the war heroes.” Some politicians of this nation tend to
maintain the prevailing impunity by defending alleged war criminals who
have committed crimes, some of whom have shocked the nation, under the
guise of the “war hero” notion. Defending alleged war criminals is used
as a powerful tool by some politicians to achieve personal petty
political gains.
30/1 resolution has been excessively coloured dark by extremists and
their opinions on it may lead a person who is ignorant of the 30/1
resolution to think that the resolution indeed targets military
personnel. The uproar over the passage of 30/1 resolution which requires
the prosecution of LTTE cadres has disappeared amidst the outcry over
purported hunting down of the military. The Opposition party tries to
acquire the diadem of ‘Defenders of Sinhalese race’ by criticising the
government or persons who advocate for accountability as traitors of the
country. Such persons who tend to maintain the identity of “defenders
of Sinhalese race,’’ claim that the Government of Sri Lanka committed an
irrefutable mistake by cosponsoring 30/1 resolution which requires
international investigation into war crimes. Reading the resolution
carefully, one could understand that it does not mandatorily require
international investigations, but it requires the participation of
foreign judges in domestic investigation.
That the question arises is whether Former President and the Current
Leader of Opposition Mahinda Rajapaksa stood stable in his position of
defending the war criminals. It is true that Rajapaksa had consistently
maintained that no war crime probes were necessary, since Sri Lankan
troops have not committed any of them. “Our forces carried the
firearm in one hand and the human rights charter in the other. Our
forces never harboured hatred towards any community or individual” Rajapaksa
stated in his own words in 2011. However, the time came in 2014 for
Rajapaksa to take a U turn on his position. Deviating from his earlier
stance, Rajapaksa expanded the mandate of the Paranagama commission to
probe war crimes in 2014. In his own words, Rajapaksa stated in the
gazette issued to expand the mandate of the Paranagama Commission that, “WHEREAS,
I am of the opinion that it is in the interest of public welfare to
make further inquiries into several other matters specifically and
generally referred to in the Report of the LLRC which require further
inquiry… NOW THEREFORE I, Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,…extend the scope of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on
the principal facts and circumstances that led to the loss of civilian
life during the internal armed conflict that ended on the 19th May 2009, and whether any
person, group or institution directly or indirectly bears
responsibility in this regard by reason of a violation or violations of
international humanitarian law or international human rights law, etc…”
The specific matter to be highlighted in this regard is that then
President Rajapaksa who completely opposes foreign involvement in the
transitional justice process in Sri Lanka saying that the sovereignty of
Sri Lanka would be impeded, stated in the same gazette that, “AND WHEREAS, I am of the opinion that it is expedient that the saidCommission of Inquiry should have the benefit of the advice of distinguished international experts, whose
internationally recognized expertise and experience encompasses legal
and other relevant dimensions of the matters set out above…” Going a step beyond, he appointed three foreign experts to oversee and monitor the actions of the Paranagama Commission namely,
Right Honourable Sir Desmond de Silva, QC (Chairman), Sir Geoffrey
Nice, QC and Professor. David Crane. Nevertheless, the reason for such a
sudden policy change in the Rajapaksa regime was not made public.
The story of Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman
The criticism levelled by opposition MP Wimal Weerwansa against the
recently approved legislation for reparations is that the government
tries to support the LTTE ex-cadres by paying them compensation. He
claimed that the government was planning to pay compensation to LTTE
ex-cadres who have killed many Sri Lankan politicians by carrying out
mass massacres and suicide bombings. The question raises here as to why
the said MP remained silent when the current Leader of Opposition went
to great lengths to rehabilitate the LTTE ex-cadres. Similarly, a
question remains as to why such criticism was not levelled by the likes
of Weerawansa when Rajapaksa appointed a former LTTE leader
Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman as vice president of Sri
Lanka Freedom Party and then later as a deputy minister, who is accused
of killing many civilians and attacking places of religious worship.
Working for their personal gain, politicians constantly change their
policies from time to time. As the politicians are concerned with what
we will enable them to remain in power or continue in government,
instead of what will work in the best interest of the country or the
people of the country, they are able to oppose a matter which they have
previously supported. It is paramount to be aware of such political
deception and to accordingly make wise decisions.
Above image by Kuanan,/social media