Silva’s Report, Role of International Community and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka
Repost This Article
GV caption: Three terrorists, two terrorists, former terrorists, patriots or a hero? How one sees this image is measure of how much Sri Lanka remains divided post-war. Image shows Secretary of Defense Gotabaya Rajapaksa speaking during the inaugural National Conference on Reconciliation in Colombo November 24 ,2011. REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte, courtesy MSNBC.
One of the most fundamental challenges of peacemaking and peacebuilding is confronting the past while building a just foundation for the future. Fighting impunity and pursuing peace are not incompatible objectives – they can work in tandem, even in an ongoing conflict situation. – Ban Ki -moon, The Secretary General, UN [1]
Background of Silva’s report
Since the brutal war in Sri Lanka came to an end in May 2009 with the violation of International Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law, the International community called for an International Independent Investigation [III] into war crimes and crimes against humanity. Due in part to this pressure, the UN Secretary General appointed a Panel of Experts (PoE) to advise him on accountability issues in Sri Lanka. The PoE findings also recommended an International Independent Investigation.
However, the Government of Sri Lanka (GosL) rejected this call and refused to accept the PoE as a UN report and called the UN Panel of Expert report as the “Darusuman” report. Mr.Darusuman, who was the head of the UN Panel of experts.
In response to war crimes allegations and the calls for an III, Sri Lanka came out with its own home grown report, which is a domestic “investigation”. The “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation commission – LLRC” is an outcome of this process. I call this report “Silva’s report” as Chitta Ranjan De Silva is the Chairmen of the so called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation commission and he was a former Attorney General and Solicitor General of Sri Lanka. Silva’s report is flawed and has completely failed to reveal the comprehensive facts and break the veil of silence that covers what occurred in the past. The key intention of the report is to hide the deliberate attacks on Tamil civilians and constant attacks on hospitals, committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces [SLAF]. In addition, it has gone to extremes to protect the Chain of Command [CoC], including the Defence Minister/President Mahinda Rajapakse, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, and Senior level commanding officers, especially those who are loyal to Rajapakse regime. This is one of the main reasons behind the appointments of alleged war criminals to Sri Lankan diplomatic missions. Furthermore, to ensure the impunity of the perpetrators, the regime has had a precise agenda to divert, obstruct, and, if possible, to curb international pressure to establish an III into war crimes and crimes against humanity which took place during the final stages of the Eelam War – IV. This becomes clear even through an interview[2] of Sri Lankan cabinet minister Wimal Weerawansa.
In addition, the Silva report is attempting to intentionally generate ‘new’ facts and to blackout important testimonies. A remarkable outcome of the report, finally, is that it mentioned that the SLAF was responsible for at least some civilian causalities, which is a major transformation from the Government’s previous version of so call “zero-sum-causalities”.
International human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group rejected the LLRC report and are still insisting for an III. Sri Lanka’s past is a good lesson learnt that none of the Sri Lanka’s commissions delivered justice for victims. Considering the fact and the reality, genuine reconciliation is possible, after producing justice for the war victims. It is feasible only through III and committed and collective efforts by the international community.
Flaws of Silva’s report
The Silva report has failed in several ways. Firstly, there is no credible information about war crimes and human rights abuses committed by the SLAF. It also built based on denials and fabricated information.
Foremost, Silva’s report failed to counter impunity, and did not attend to individual and collective accountability. Also, the report failed to address the real needs of the victims. In addition, the way the report was written leads to the conclusion that some important heartbreaking testimonies or serious incidents were purposely avoided from appearing in the report itself. For example:
- What is the fate of Rev. Fa. Francis Joseph, who initiated the surrender of most LTTE political officers during the final days of war?
- What about Rev.Fa. Jim Brown, who was providing humanitarian assistance to the Tamil civilians in August 2006 mid of intense fighting. According to a witness, the Sri Lankan Navy threatened him prior to his disappearance.
- The murder of Rev. Fr. M X Karunaratnam, who was a human rights defender and the Chairperson of the NorthEast Secretariat on Human Rights (NESoHR)[3] was also ignored.
- Particularly, two shocking attacks on school children were ignored in the report, as well. The first one, a massacre of fifty-three students (all school girls) along with their three teachers on the 14th of August, 2006 while the other attack was on the 29th of January, 2008, where a bus carrying mainly school children and teachers came under a claymore attack near the Madhu church complex in the Mannar district (Northern part of Sri Lanka). Twenty people in the bus were killed and a further twenty-one were injured, seventeen of them seriously injured. Among those killed were thirteen school children and a school principal. All of the thirteen students who died were between the ages of 10 and 16.[4]
- The report included the information that the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) was unilaterally declared by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] on Christmas Eve, 2001; however, nothing mentioned about the murder of the Tamil National Alliance [TNA] parliamentarian Joseph Pararajasingham, who was assassinated inside a Church during on Christmas Eve 2005.
- Besides, in his submission to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, the Bishop of the Mannar Catholic Diocese, Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph, pointed out that over 146,679 people in the Vanni are not accounted for in post-war Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, the report mentions a considerable number of his remarks while completely wiping out the numbers relating to the unaccounted.
- More importantly, an official from the Pooneryn Agriculture Development Authority went on to note in front of Silva’s commission in Kilinochchi and said, “the Army used cluster bombs and phosphorus bombs against innocent civilians. There were many casualties on account of this. Around 400-600 died daily, and around 1,000 were injured[5], but this testimony was also not mentioned in the report.
Above are some of the crucial events since the CFA was signed that cannot be avoided or ignored under any circumstances.
If the aim of the commission is to genuinely deal with lessons learnt and promote reconciliation, it has to be independent, transparent and accountable. However, what the Rajapakse regime wants is to place blame, in every instance, on the LTTE, which they have done through Silva’s report as well. But, “if Sri Lanka wants true reconciliation, simply blaming the Tigers is not enough. The government, and the country, must take responsibility for the dead, mend the lives of the survivors — whatever their ethnicity — and stop the vicious cycle of ethnic strife by arriving at a political solution that meets, if not all aspirations, most of them. Until then, the end of the war will not bring true peace.”[6]
Basically, in Sri Lanka’s cabinet minister’s word, a main intention of the report is: “really we do not want the LLRC report. The LLRC report was a requirement of local and international forces who are disenchanted over the military victory achieved by the Government against terrorism and to successfully defeat international pressure exerted on Sri Lanka over alleged war crimes.”[7] Considering the “war lord’s” intention, how can any dignified human being believe that the Silva report or any other so-called “home-grown” mechanism can deliver justice to the war victims?
Role of International Community and the Future of the “Tear Drop”
Indian Faction
India and the island nation of Sri Lanka have a longstanding and unique relationship, particularly with Tamils. There is no need to repeat the ties between India and the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Still, a considerable section of Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Tamil Diaspora believe in and want India’s positive intervention for Tamils in Sri Lanka. However, disappointment continues among most Tamils, as India welcomed the so-called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission [LLRC] report, which was published only in the middle of December. At the same time, India has yet to openly acknowledge the report of the United Nations Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. “New Delhi hesitates to push the Rajapaksa administration on governance issues and has resisted endorsing an international investigation into the atrocities committed during the last months of Sri Lanka’s civil war, in which as many as 40,000 civilians were killed. India’s longstanding interest in a peaceful and politically stable Sri Lanka is best served by strong messages to Colombo to end impunity and reverse the democratic decay that undermines the rights of all Sri Lankans”[8]. India’s constructive action vis-à-vis Sri Lanka will not only help to seek justice and sustainable political solution to the Tamils in Sri Lanka, but is safe for its national interest, particularly from the national security point of view. Also, it can be a precedent for India taking an adequate role as a global player. In contrast, there are more possibilities in the long-term that suggest that a lack of India’s appropriate action affect its own national interest and India may lose its remaining influence over Sri Lanka and gain more frustrations from the Tamils not only in Sri Lanka, but remarkably from Tamil Nadu, within India itself.
Chinese Faction
China as a leading player in geopolitics should support those international actors concerned with protecting and promoting human rights and justice in Sri Lanka. China should not be an obstacle to seeking justice for war victims. While extending its economic interventions in Sri Lanka, China should not oppose a human rights-based intervention in Sri Lanka, which China itself calls as an intervention on one countries internal matters. Ethno-political conflict in Sri Lanka is not any more an internal matter. It became an international issue long ago. China should support or, at the very least, not oppose bringing any resolution to the UN Human Rights Council or UN Security Council, which is connected to accountability in Sri Lanka.
Role of the West
It was both tragic and unfortunate that Western countries could not stop the slaughter of Tamil civilians at-least during the final stage of the bloody war. Western countries were waiting for the publication of Silva’s report. Now, the report is published, but it is clear that the report has not met international standards. Also, the outcomes of the report raises serious questions about its credibility. According to Human Rights Watch, the report “disregards the worst abuses by government forces, rehashes longstanding recommendations, and fails to advance accountability for victims of Sri Lanka’s civil armed conflict.”[9] Western countries have to take all needed and helpful measures to establish an independent, international investigation into the violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Also, they have to send independent fact-finding missions to get the full picture regarding the past abuses and ongoing land grabbing, systematic demographic change and militarization in the Tamil homeland, which is the worst part of “post-war” Sri Lanka. Therefore, as responsible global players who promote liberty and democracy, the West has to act constructively and swiftly in order to create a lasting peace in the island nation rather than waiting further. Especially, as the US concerns itself to strengthening its presence in the Asia-Pacific region, they have to take bold and genuine efforts to ensure that justice will be delivered to the war’s victims without any delay.
[1] Kai Ambos, Judith Large and Marieke Wierda, eds, Building a Future on Peace and Justice: Studies on Transitional Justice, Peace and Development (Berlin: Springer, 2009), 3.
[2] http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/01/01/pol01.asp (Accessed 5 January 2012)
[5] http://groundviews.org/2010/09/24/did-the-sri-lankan-army-use-cluster-bombs-and-phosphorus-bombs-against-civilians/
Nirmanusan, are you aware that NESOHR was created by the LTTE?
Did you know this is LTTE report not UN – http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
What a disgustingly, yet typically, anti-Asian (both India and China) and pro-imperialist interventionist view. Ugh!
Part of Russia is also in Asia
Oh dear!!
It must be a Sri Lankan thing to be ironical.
I don’t think one needs to look further anywhere for pro-impeialists than the GoSL itself, which ironically seems to make use of the anti-imperialist sentiment in their defense.
In fact, MR himself had hoped for an UN intervention some time back during the JVP insurgeny – something that he ironically speaks against now.
I don’t think justice, particularly collective justice (which the HRW and other reports alike keep silent about), is something that can be pursued in the short term.
To talk of human rights is like chasing after a mirage. But you bring an important point. India cannot ignore it for their own national interest in the region. Whether justice is delivered or not will depend on the shift of power politics – even though, some still believe having a regime change would somehow do the magic.
Likewise, Sinhalese maybe realizing that denying justice (be it political or otherwise) have its dire cosequences on them as well i.e. militarization.
Oops Groundviews…that last post was not meant to be a reply to DJ.
Excellent Nirmanusan.
Despite being a ‘peace scholar’ Mr Balasundaram appears quite ignorant of the fact the it was the threat of Western intervention which ensured an even bloodier end to the LTTE’s struggle in May 2009. Who can forget Miliband’s ridiculous mission to Colombo to read the riot act to MR & GR?
“It was both tragic and unfortunate that Western countries could not stop the slaughter of Tamil civilians at-least during the final stage of the bloody war.” Yeah, damn tragic that Western countries (with honourable exception like the US) weren’t able to stop the LTTE replenishing their war chest in preparation for Final War.
And it was even more tragic that Western countries were unable to prevent the LTTE slaughtering anyone who disagreed with them. Expecting Western intervention is a sure sign of delusional thinking.
India is the key to Sri Lanka’s future stability and frankly I’m surprised that India has not yet called in its debts owed from GoSL. Perhaps they’re waiting for the next UNHRC sessions.
@Mango
Yes, most certainly western countries could not stop the slaughter of Tamil civilians even during the final stages of the bloody war…but just like every action has an equal and opposite reaction…western countries, the UN, Human Rights organisations and the Tamil Diaspora will pursue war crimes as long as MR and and other culprits are alive.
Have you forgotten what happened to Slobodan Miloševi?,Ratko Mladi? and Radovan Karadži??
And have you forgotten the ongoing Cambodian War-Crimes Trial over crimes that happened over 30 years ago?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099940,00.html
MR can hire all the Bell Pottingers in the world try and make him and his despotic regime look as white as snow, but that will be to no avail. As long as there are western countries, the UN, Human Rights organisations and the Tamil Diaspora…the hunt for Sri Lankan war criminals will not stop.
Presiduncebean,
“western countries, the UN, Human Rights organisations and the Tamil Diaspora will pursue war crimes as long as MR and and other culprits are alive.”
Unfortunately, some of us are still believing in this fairytale, aren’t we? much like people still believing commissions like LLRC will yield results in sri lanka.
I’m sorry but I object to language and rhetoric such as ‘Silva’s report’ which is neither helpful nor constructive. True, the Commission should have gone much further but what about its good points? What about its outright condemnation of Devananda and the paramilitaries? And let us not forget please that Sri Lanka, in its present sorry state, cannot ‘run’ before it can learn to ‘walk’ all over again.The appalling Rule of Law situation needs to be redressed and the Report speaks to the failure of the Rule of Law very well. Even the ICG acknowledged that, even though the writer has failed to mention this.
One is ridiculing all this when one refers to it as ‘Silva’s Report’. People like this writer who engages in such unhelpful ridiculing while calling for a war crimes inquiry internationally. It is such ridiculing that gives support to this government and to Mahinda Rajapaksa.
The writer may ridicule all he lies while living oveeseas but is he naive enough to think that the US and forign governments will really push Rajapaksa come March or later ths year before an international tribunal? Come, come, you must be joking.
This government nust be thrown out by Sri Lankan public opinion. It is not such an impossible task given the mess that it perpetually lands itself in these days. The Commisison report must be used to that end and not ridiculed.
@Pandukabaya de Silva
So what’s wrong in calling this the ‘Silva Report,’ when the Ban Ki Moon sanctioned UN report on war crimes in SL was called the ‘Darusman Report’ by Rajapaksa acolytes?
Even after the UN/Darusman report came out, the Rajapaksas’ opted for a cynical policy of total denial; their zero-casualty lie was too preposterously absurd to be even marginally credible.But in time, as evidence started mounting, they too realised how idiotic this continued denial was. Hence the LLRC/Silva Report.
Let’s now wait for time to take it’s course. Saddam, Gaddafi, Bin Ladan, Ben Ali, Mubarak they all got what they deserved, even though in some cases it took many many years. Likewise those responsible for war crimes in SL will get what they deserve. It looks like that even the once invincible Dr.Mervin Silva will be discarded according to MRs condom theory, so he can gain some brownie points from the disgusted masses. So wait and see how the cookie crumbles…
@MV
The wheels of justice might turn slowly, as in the case of Cambodia…but turn they will.
Click the link and see what is happening to some Cambodians in their 80s who were involved in the genocide called the “Killing Fields.”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099940,00.html
PresiDunceBean,
To say that is to place blind faith. In fact, the West or India may talk of war crimes or political solution now as it lends them a legitimate ground to enter into that region. However, it must be understood that it does not mean they have real concern or intention to solve the issue. Wikileaks may shed a bit of light. One just hopes that our Tamil politicians do not compromise on war crimes or Tamil struggle just to keep the powers and in turn GoSL happy.
There are others who suggest a regime change i.e UNP in power would somehow reform Sri Lankan state, which is quite laughable.
Dear President,
At the risk treading over well trodden ground, all those names you listed (Mladic, Milosevic etc) are of people who lost their wars. Remember, war crimes trials are for losers.
The West will use the war-crimes drivel when its to their advantage. The distraught pro-LTTE diaspora will continue their whining ad infinitum. International humanitarians like Amnesty have just lost the plot completely.
Amnesty has accepted a $50,000 donation from the Canadian Tamil Congress, a pro-LTTE (terrorist) lobby group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nZVpRwygv4
Incredible, no? And I thought the only modayas were in the Sri Lanka parliament.
@Mango
Oh dearie me….looks like you have put your foot in your mouth.Ha…ha…you said, “(Mladic, Milosevic etc) are of people who lost their wars. Remember, war crimes trials are for losers.”…continue reading…
General Augusto Pinochet was indicted for human rights violations committed in his native Chile by Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón on 10 October 1998. He was arrested in London six days later and finally released by the British government in March 2000. Authorized to freely return to Chile, Pinochet was there first indicted by judge Juan Guzmán Tapia, and charged of a number of crimes, before dying on 10 December 2006, without having been convicted in any case. His arrest in London made the front-page of newspapers worldwide as not only did it involve the head of the military dictatorship that ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990, but it was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet's_arrest_and_trial
Dear President,
Good point about Pionchet. He wasn’t tried by an international court, but in his own country by his own judiciary. So, one Pinochet doesn’t make a summer. My rule of thumb about war crimes trials being for losers still stands. GoSL of course may do something incredibly stupid to disprove that rule..
@Mango
My dear Mango,here is another example…and now there are 2 swallows…:D
Keep reading…
On 14 July 2008, Luis Moreno Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), filed an indictment against President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan, the first time the ICC indicted a sitting Head of State. The ICC’s unrelenting commitment to end impunity sent a strong message to all state leaders that they will be held accountable for international crimes they commit against their populations.
On 4 March 2009, the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest for Omar Al-Bashir on five counts of crimes against humanity, and two counts of war crimes. The five counts of crimes against humanity were for murder, torture, rape, extermination, and forcible transfer; the war crimes charges were based on intentionally directing acts against civilians and pillaging. Genocide charges were not accepted on the grounds that the Prosecutor had not provided sufficient evidence. However, the ICC judges found that Al-Bashir had played an “essential role” in orchestrating and coordinating the state apparatuses and security forces (including the Janjaweed militias), and that the attacks had followed a consistent and repetitive pattern.
On July 12, 2010 a second arrest warrant was issued for al-Bashir on three counts of genocide committed in Darfur, the first time an arrest warrant for the crime of genocide was issued by the Court.
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-darfur
@Mango
Didi you also know that, The United Nations (UN) Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in November 1994 to investigate and, when an apparent case exists, prosecute a select number of political, military, and civic officials for their involvement in the Rwandan genocide that took place from April to July 1994. An estimated 500,000 Rwandans, overwhelmingly Tutsi, were killed during this period.
The ICTR issued its first indictment in late 1995. By early 2004 it had issued approximately seventy indictments, and more than fifty-five indicted individuals were in the custody of the ICTR, either on trial, awaiting trial, or pending appeal.
Jean Kambanda, the Prime Minister of Rwanda during the genocide was the first head of state to have been convicted of genocide, establishing that international criminal law could apply to the highest authorities.
Those in the GOSL who were responsible for similar crimes against unarmed Tamil civilians and journalists like Lasantha and Ekanaligoda should be very afraid.
http://www.enotes.com/international-criminal-tribunal-rwanda-reference/international-criminal-tribunal-rwanda
Dear President,
Sudan’s case doesn’t make a second swallow and to compare Sudan to Sri Lanka, (a standard tactic of the R2P brigade) is also quite pointless. Bashir appears quite unconcerned and was a recent visitor to ‘Free Libya’ much to the annoyance of concerned humanitarians.
There are three sets of circumstances under which the ICC can launch a prosecution.
First, it can be invited in by a government which has ratified the treaty setting up the court, as in the ICC’s current prosecutions in Uganda, DRC and the Central African Republic. [not applicable to SL]
Second, it can have a case referred to it by the UN Security Council, as with its prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al Bashir. [not applicable to SL]
Third, it can launch an investigation on its own initiative as it has done in Kenya, but only in relation to states which recognise its jurisdiction and national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute.[not applicable to SL]
There’s a further catch. The UN Security Council can halt any investigation it doesn’t wish to proceed.. initially for a year, but … renewable indefinitely. Permanent members of the UN Security Council – such as the United States or Britain – are never likely to face prosecution, and could stop any investigation dead in its tracks.” [SL's UNSC allies have ensured that this route has been blocked off]
http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2011/battles/5400/
Again, unless GoSL does something really, really stupid, [which given their recent performance may be possible] war crimes trials will remain a figment of many people’s fevered imaginations.
p.s. I really liked this sentence from your link… “The ICC’s unrelenting commitment to end impunity…” Yeah, the ICC is so ‘unrelenting’ that it conveniently managed to ignore key Western powers engaged in wholesale slaughter of civilians
Dear President,
Why stop at Rwanda? It’s Cambodia next and then only a small step to compare Sri Lanka to the Nazi Holocaust. Actually the more inflated and absurd these comparisons gets, the more removed from reality, such arguments become.
@Mango
For now MRs Regime might have the support of the permanent members in the UN Security Council, China and Russia…but nothing is permanent and anything can happen in the future. Who ever thought an Arab Spring would take place?
All dictatorships start in the same way: with promises of a radiant future (Mahinda Chinthana, Wonder of Asia ect)but what the people get is misery, fear, gags and blood and frequent dissaperances. And they usually all end alike: the dictator is eventually killed, like Gaddafi, is judged like Mubarak, or flees like Ben Ali. There is, however, a rare type of dictatorship that is harder to predict – the ones that dismantle themselves: Spain after Franco, Chile after Pinochet, Poland after Jaruzelski.
So which way do you think the Rajapaksa Dictatorship will go? And dictatorship it is today. The 18th amendment completely buried whatever vestiges of democracy there was here.
If you and I live another 20 years we will be able to see for ourselves what will happen to Sri Lanka and the MR regime.
Dear President,
To make a valid comparison, you have to choose relevant examples. None of the Arab Spring countries were democracies – and I grant you that Sri Lanka’s version of democracy is very far from perfect.
I’ve consistently maintained that this administration has repeatedly messed up a once-in-a-generation, post war political settlement due to its own hubristic mindset. Sri Lankans (of all ‘ethnicities’) are simply too unruly to be kept in line forever.
I think Prof Robert’s piece “Some pillars for Lanka’s future, written June ’09 in is still relevant today as the questions he posed then have yet to be answered by this govt. Especially his point that “The concept of pirivaragena is deeply etched within Sinhalese thinking”
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2612/stories/20090619261202400.htm
“In response to war crimes allegations and the calls for an III, Sri Lanka came out with its own home grown report, which is a domestic “investigation”. The “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation commission – LLRC” is an outcome of this process. I call this report “Silva’s report” as Chitta Ranjan De Silva is the Chairmen of the so called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation commission and he was a former Attorney General and Solicitor General of Sri Lanka”
The writer is completely missing the point, by naming the LLRC Report as “Silva’s Report”. Also he failed to explain what was the advantage of naming like that.
One of the prerequisites for an international inquiry is the evidence of exhausted domestic judicial procedures. Therefore it is imperative to demonstrate that the government appointed commission has failed to deliver the justice according to the international standards.
@Mango
I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say, “I’ve consistently maintained that this administration has repeatedly messed up a once-in-a-generation, post war political settlement due to its own hubristic mindset.”
I also agree with everything in Mr.Michael Roberts article “Some pillars for Lanka’s future.” (thanks for the link)
The problem is that ‘this administration’ (as you call it) revolves around the all powerful PresiDunce and his family members. Around 70% of the economy is handled by the the PresiDunce and his two brothers Gotabaya and Basil (who if I may add are US citizens). Never before in Sri Lanka’s 63 year old history has one man and his family held so much power in their hands. The PresiDunces UPFA party has a 2/3rds majority in parliament.The PresiDunce has the support of a majority of the Sinhalese. So what is stopping him from implementing the 13 (plus) amendment?
Well it’s all about continuation of family rule. Every institution in the country is being ‘occupied’ and rendered servile and inept. This includes even sports bodies like SL cricket and SL rugby. Only total power will satisfy the Rajapaksas; no institution is safe from the reach of their grasping fingers.Under this ‘Family Government’, the essential virtue for survival is subservience. Sins of omission and commission (including crimes like rape, murder and corruption) are forgiven if the perpetrators are loyal acolytes. Devolving power in what ever way would go against the family’s dynastic dreams. Compared to JR, Premadasa and Chandrika, this PresiDunce and his family are a total different kettle of fish. This is something that most people including the educated don’t seem to understand.
The armed forces are being groomed as a private army to safeguard the family. The army also is now involved in civilian activities like selling vegetables, running cricket stadiums and other business activities.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/16179-company-to-be-formed-by-army-to-undertake-projects.html
The armed forces are being given a stake in business so that one day when an Egypt style revolution to regain democracy takes place here, they will have everything to lose and nothing to gain by going on to the side of the people. The Rajapaksas’ I’m sure have been watching and learning lessons from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
My personal belief is that it will take another couple of years for that to happen. But when it does happen it will not end like it did in Tunisia and Egypt with just a couple of hundred killed. There will be a blood bath like what happened in Libya.
Dear President,
I also don’t disagree with a lot of what you’ve said. But I don’t yet see a viable alternative to MR & Co. Not at least until the Opposition finally wakes up. In the end frustrations within the SLFP alone about family rule will ensure that MR will lose his position. Consider also the protest that have occurred since War’s end. Fishermen, farmers, students, Jaffna civilians etc, and hardly indicative of Sri Lankans downtrodden serfs.
Gratitude for ending the war won’t last forever and at some point it may come to what you predicted, but whatever else he might be, MR’s not a dunce.
It is wrong to say that only 40,000 were killed in the war in Srilanka. SL govt acknowledged that there are 90,000 war widows in the North and East of Srilanka. I am sure over 10,000 war widows left the country and over 10,000 women were killed with their husbands during war. So we can conclude over 110,000 married men were killed in war. If 110,000 men killed it is obvious that at least 100,000 women also killed by war. So overall 210,000 adults were killed. If add to the children to this figure I am sure over 400,000 people were killed in North and East by war.
@PresiDunce Bean
I seem to have missed this thread…sorry!You have said that whats wrong in calling this Silva’s report when the MR acolytes called the UN Advisor Panel report, the Darusman Report.
To make this analogy is to miss the point. Whether it is the MR acolytes or writers like Nimalarajan who appear to be at the opposite end of an equally extremist pole, use of such terms is inflammatory and overtakes the need for rational conversation. Put simply, one ‘wrong’ does not make another ‘wrong’ right!
Sinhala extremists (read JHU along with the latest reference by Gunadasa Amarasekera callng them LLRC pundits, see Saturday Island today) as well as the Tamil extremists (read, TNA) have both rejected the LLRC report. Surely does this not say that there is something good in the Report which we can all use pragmatically! But pinned between two extremes, where are the moderate voices?
I seem to have missed this thread…sorry!You have said that whats wrong in calling this Silva’s report when the MR acolytes called the UN Advisory Panel report, the Darusman Report.
To make this analogy is to miss the point. Whether it is the MR acolytes or writers like Nirmanusan who appear to be at the opposite end of an equally extremist pole, use of such terms is inflammatory and overtakes the need for rational conversation. Put simply, one ‘wrong’ does not make another ‘wrong’ right!
Sinhala extremists (read JHU along with the latest reference by Gunadasa Amarasekera callng them LLRC pundits, see Saturday Island today) as well as the Tamil extremists (read, TNA) have both rejected the LLRC report. Surely does this not say that there is something good in the Report which we can all use pragmatically! But pinned between two extremes, where are the moderate voices?