Image from The Nation

It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest. When it is committed by politicians it is an act of unconscionable opportunism. When it is perpetrated by so-called intellectuals belonging to civil society, it is a counterfeiting of the currency of the intellect and the function of the educated, which is to educate the public.

One of the rankest untruths in the public domain today is that the US resolution is innocuous and unobjectionable because it only seeks to commit the government of Sri Lanka to implement its own LLRC report within a reasonable time frame. This untruth is perpetrated by the dominant elements of the UNP, the TNA and the civil society commentariat.

The utter falsehood of this assertion is instantly provable by a mere glance at the Resolution itself. Far from limiting itself to the harmless and arguably even constructive pursuit of merely seeking the implementation of the LLRC’s recommendations, the Resolution actually criticises the LLRC. The fifth and final paragraph of the preamble of the US Resolution, immediately preceding its operative clauses, reads: Noting with concern that the LLRC report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law…”

It is nothing short of disgusting that this sentence, in plain view in the text, is being hidden by pro-US resolution politicians and opinion-makers. It is one thing to be a critic, however harsh, of the government, quite another to be a supporter of the US Resolution and worse still, to brush under the rug that which is quite overt in the Resolution itself.

The Resolution’s criticism of the LLRC report is itself an untruth. That report not only earmarks issues of accountability which it states should be addressed by the government of Sri Lanka, it contains an impressively thick and closely argued chapter precisely on international law issues pertaining to the conflict. Given that one of the LLRC report’s authors is the former Chairperson of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism and a former member of the International Law Commission, this assertion by the US Resolution is indeed disingenuous.

Having made this criticism of the LLRC, the US Resolution then goes on to stipulate measures in its operative clauses which range well beyond the LLRC’s recommendations:

“(1). Calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans,

(2) Requests that the Government of Sri Lanka present a comprehensive action plan as expeditiously as possible detailing the steps the Government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations and also to address alleged violations of international law. (My emphases-DJ)

This plainly gives the lie to the assertion that the US resolution seeks only the (harmless) implementation of the LLRC’s recommendations. It is permissible to argue that the additional measures are good and necessary, but quite another to sweep under the rug, or divert attention from these stipulations which range beyond the LLRC into the domain of international law. That practice of providing a smokescreen for external interventionism is rather like persuading customers, in this case the Sri Lankan citizenry, to participate in a Ponzi scheme.

The third and final operative clause of the US Resolution reads:

(3) “Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures to provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those steps and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance at its twenty-second session.”

In other words, the High Commissioner becomes the monitoring authority, with operational functions as well, of the compliance of the elected government of Sri Lanka with the US request to “take all necessary additional steps [beyond the LLRC] to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans…and also to address alleged violations of international law.” This seeks to give the Office of the UN High Commissioner the role of an overseer, in relation to a national process of (national) reconciliation. In the US Resolution, the political and policy implementation process in Sri Lanka changes its circuitry and loops through the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights; an extra-national entity, accountable not to the UN Human Rights Council but primarily to the UN Secretary-General in New York.

  • luxmy

    Any decent government or group of governments should have brought up the inhuman treatment of the people in the post-war Northeast in a Resolution at UNHRC a few sessions back.

  • wijayapala

    It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest. When it is committed by politicians it is an act of unconscionable opportunism.

    So Dayan is saying that Mahinda committed an act of unconscionable opportunism when he claimed there were no civilian casualties?

  • “It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest.”

    Precisely why you and the regime you support are criminals.

  • jmn

    Dear Dayan,

    While reading your first paragraph i wondered increduously for a second if you were actually referring to the SL government. Your second paragraph brought me back to earth and made me laugh out loud at the irony and the sheer gall at your making such a statement with a (assumedly) straight face.

    People in your government live here like chandiyas – lying, stealing, murdering and plundering in broad daylight- but in front of the international spotlight put on this sad little “Oh, why are you picking on us poor, innocent Sri Lankans when all we did was defeat terrorism” face.

    I wonder where this poor, sad face of innocent rightousness is when you shoot at workers protesting over their rising cost of living, or when you abduct dissenting journalists and businessmen, or when you turn a blind eye on politicians who murder in front of hundreds of eye witnesses.

  • aadhavan

    “You guys, the INGOs, the western media, tens of thousands of demonstrators, one poor self-immolating youth and the Mighty Miliband took their collective best shot at this in May 2009 at the UN Human Rights Council, and crashed and burned. as i once said there, they’d picked on the ” wrong continent, wrong country, wrong ambassador”.” – DJ

    Far as I know, continent and country haven’t changed, so who do we blame? For all the cheap braggadocio of the time, the government failed to realise that having promised 13th plus and reconciliation, breaking that promise comes with costs. Reputational costs. Sampanthan and co’s moderation and willingness to even provoke the ire of the extremists within their own community means that the familiar tactic of blaming the Tamils for intransigence didn’t work either. The government has a clear choice – prosecute those responsible for war crimes; implement the LLRC’s recommendations including demilitarising the NE and disarming Karuna, Plllaiyan, Douglas et al; reach a measure of agreement with the TNA; implement a power sharing deal and institute good governance reforms OR risk further isolation. The longer the ignorant tough-talkers are allowed to run policy, the longer the isolation will last.

  • Dayan, since the US had invited SL to be a part in drafting the resolution, why didn’t the latter do so; thereby ensuring that the more objectionable bits of the document would be left out? How can we refuse to engage in the formulation and then complain about the result?

    • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

      Hi David,

      I cannot speak for the GoSL delegation– or should I say armada- in Geneva, but I can reproduce a (hostile) report of what I did under the circumstances, at a similar ‘interactive informal’ event on May 21st, 2009. (please see below)

      As for the other critics on this discussion theead who equate my criticism of the US resolution with a defence of the regime, they must ask themselves why Asia does not support the resolution, and why Japan spoke the way it did. Is all of Asia ‘whitewashing’ the SL administration, or does it have issues of principle with the resolution? The answer should be obvious to all but the prejudiced.


      Sri Lankan U.N. envoy lashes out at Western “colonizers” over emergency meeting of human rights council
      Published by UN Watch- at May 22, 2009 in Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and Sri Lanka. 3 Comments

      Today at the U.N. Human Rights Council informal consultations were held on the draft text for the special session on Sri Lanka to be held this Tuesday. The meeting was chaired by Muriel Berset of Switzerland, sponsor of the text, along with representatives of the European Union (the Czech Republic), Chile and Mexico. The group took pains to emphasize their “cooperative” and “consensus” approach, underscoring the special deference shown to Sri Lanka in contrast to the approach taken toward other countries that the council has censured — Israel, 26 times; Myanmar, 4 times; and North Korea, twice.
      Whlie the purpose of the meeting was for the international community to work on the resolution to hold Sri Lanka accountable for its actions, Switzerland and its co-sponsors, evidently fearful of upsetting the alliance of repressive regimes that dominates the council, went so far as to grant the ambassador of Sri Lanka the right to participate in the meeting — and even to join the podium and speak first following their brief introduction.

      This he did with much drama. Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka walked in late, delivered a 30-minute harangue against Western “colonizers,” and then walked out.

      It being so rare for most of the UN’s 192 members to be censured, the Sri Lankan ambassador felt the need to show that his country enjoyed broad diplomatic support. He began by insisting that he considered the Western-led consultation on the draft resolution as one organized by “friends”, even if they some may be “misguided.” The “only enemy of Sri Lanka was the one within its borders,” now defeated.

      Sri Lanka “put an end to that problem” after several attempts at negotiation failed and that all civilians caught in the conflict were hostages to the Tamil Tigers. The ambassador argued that it made no sense to hold a special session now that the 30-year war is over and “no one is dying,” and considering that the regular human rights council session is only a week away.

      He complained that Tiger sympathizers are planning a demonstration on Monday, saying they should not be allowed to “hold the Human Rights Council hostage.”

      Ambassador Jayatilleka used his remarks to rally the council’s majority of African and Asian states to his cause, attacking the sponsors of the special session as Western “colonizers” who refused to consult with the Asian bloc. How, he asked, could “distant” states know better than Sri Lanka’s neighboring states, who agreed with its positions?

      He complained that states “in the region” were “bypassed,” “their advice and views completely ignored,” and not even sought. He decried the Swiss text, complaining that “those who are former colonizers somehow know more about how to handle Sri Lanka than our immediate neighborhood.” Sri Lanka can only take on the Swiss proposal if it is “de-mined and removed of booby traps,” something, he said, his country knew how to do very well militarily.

      Adopting a pugilistic tone, the Sri Lankan envoy said he welcomed a diplomatic battle at the session, unafraid of a contested vote. He suggested that the Western-sponsored resolution was meant to force Sri Lanka to respond with a no-action motion — a procedure favored in the past by China, Zimbabwe and other repressive regimes in order to kill a censure resolution — so that Sri Lanka would be “trashed for the international media.” Nevertheless, he welcomed any such contest.

      Ms. Berset of Switzerland thanked the Sri Lankan ambassador, who already got up and walked out, for his remarks and his “eloquence”, and said that her country sought “total openness, transparency, and inclusiveness.”

      Next were a long list of speakers who opposed holding a special session, and who voiced their support for Sri Lanka’s outrageous competing resolution that is designed to praise itself and preempt any scrutiny: Egypt, Cuba, the Philippines, India, China, Malaysia, Syria, Thailand, Indonesia, and Lebanon…”

      • Frankly, Dayan, I don’t see the relevance. The US has drafted a resolution that is largely pressing for SL to carry out the recommendations of its own fact finding commission, the LLRC. It may simultaneously be critical of the LLRC for not being more extensive enough in said recommendations. But my point is that you are critical of the wording of the resolution, in spite of the opportunity given SL to help draft that resolution. You may not speak for the Geneva delegation, but you certainly speak for SL as a diplomat. Therefore, my question remains directed to you since you have spoken out in criticism of the resolution.

    • Arabinder

      Dear David,
      The answer is simple. One does not get into a Minefield specially laid out for you. What if we joined the resolution and then USA refused to alter anything at the negoitiations? We would have to leave the ‘party’, and all kinds of accusations would have been thrown at us. We are guilty, we don’t want to implement the LLRC report, we are not genuine etc., etc.
      DJ did the same in 2009. He refused to join that party and offer comments and alterations. He fought from outside and successfully rubbed their noses in the mud of their own minefield. I salute him. He should have been in charge this time too.
      It is funny that the biggest perpetrator of Human Rights violations in the world, USA, is talking HR and accountability.
      I feel sorry foe Luxmy and some others. They still seem to be supporting the other biggest HR violators we have seen recently, namely Prabhkaran and the LTTE.

  • luxmy

    ”…. and crashed and burned …”:
    Human rights-violating members and geopolitics have been paralysing intergovernmental organisations from resolving many conflicts of several decades around the world and that’s going to happen for a very long time to come. This is much more so with the great geopolitical significance of the geographical location of Sri Lanka, its hate-mongering education and its band of ambassadors around the world to justify the barbaric governance of the country.

  • luxmy

    ”It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest”:

  • Pandukabaya de Silva

    People like Dayan are the opportunists as much as our lying and cheating politicians. Is there anything sinister about the UN offering ‘technical assistance’ to Sri Lanka? This is what UNDP and other UN agencies do all the time. Accepting it or not is up to SL.

    But when this government does not respond to any internal calls for reform, rides over all opposing voices, imprisons a former Army Commander on trumped up charges (thank god, one brave judge acted on the law in acquitting him in at least one case yesterday), who can crack the whip at the Rajapaksas and their clan?

    Have you noticed why public outrage (except that drummed up by the govt in Colombo’s streets) are not as visible over the US resolution as was the case in 2009? Why is that? People are sick and tired of this corrupt, greedy regime.

    But then, who can blame Dayan for singing for his supper!!

    • yapa

      Without just humiliating(yourselves)can somebody seriously challenge and counter Dr. DJ’s argument, in its totality, and negate the existence of the serious threat Dr. DJ points out here?


      • I believe I’ve asked the pertinent question, Yapa.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Dear Yapa,

        There is not point of counteracting DJ’s arguments because he argues these points not from any convictions of their truth but from the sole purpose of safeguarding Rajapaksha siblings and their rule.

        If he is genuinely opposing any international intervention of our affairs he should advice the government to reform it so that the international community does not have a valid reason to interfere with our affairs.

        There are only few things to be done for this. Implement LLRC recommendations for good governance and have a some form of independent inquiry into the alleged war crimes. They could have done them before US and UNHRC took these issues as their own.

        Has he done anything to promote good governance? Has he done anything to make the government to look into these ‘war crime allegations’? what is he doing? While enjoying all the perks and privileges of a Diplomatic post defend the Rajapaksha siblings and their rule in the international arena.

        What should an intellectual, who loves the country and its people do today? Is it defending the Rajapaksha siblings and their government? Today a true patriot should be able to sacrifice this corrupt regime and save the country. What would happen even if Rajapakshas and their goverment is out of power? It would be a blessing to our country. The international pressure would cease and we should be able to start fresh.

        The best thing, which can happen to our country today, is dethronement of the Rajapakshas regime. Those who love the country should work for that.

      • yapa

        Yes!DB, you have asked a question that is good and pertinent, but I was talking about negating his argument. Has someone done it yet?

        Some people babble at arguments,
        Some insult them,
        some question them,
        Only a few negate them,

        I think first three options are inferior to the final one.

        Inability may be due to

        1. Strength of the argument or
        2. Weakness of the opposition(factual or human)

        I think one should prefer the forth option if he is able and honest about his opinion.


      • To Yapa et all

        Yapa says an argument should be negated.
        Well this is my feeble attempt.

        Dr Jayathilleke begins his argument based on the following premise.

        “It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest. When it is committed by politicians it is an act of unconscionable opportunism. When it is perpetrated by so-called intellectuals belonging to civil society, it is a counterfeiting of the currency of the intellect and the function of the educated, which is to educate the public.”

        Let us apply the same to 2005 Election Manifesto of HE President Rajapakse AKA Mahinda Chinthana

        Mr Rajapakse proposed constitutional reforms; (a Vital National Interest)

        ‘With the consensus of all, I expect to propose the abolition of the Executive presidency…’


        “Steps will be taken to include The Charter of Rights in to the constitution……….”

        Mahinda Chinthana 2005 ‘Streagnthening the Peoples Will’ pp97-98

        Also Mr Rajapakse wowed;

        ‘The executive Presidency will be converted to a Trusteeship….’

        Mahinda Chinthana 2010 pp.56-57

        Contrary to the pledge he made, he introduced the 18th Ammendment! In a hurry!! As an urgent bill!!!

        Now let us relate Dr Jayathilleke’s proposition again to the statements of H.E Mahinda Rajapakse’s manifesto.

        Dr Jayathilleke says ‘It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest’.

        1. The Vital National Interest here is Mr Rajapakse’s proposed constitutional reforms.
        2. It is a crime because he lied and misleads the public on the matter.
        3. It is an act of ‘unconscionable opportunism’ because Mr Rajapakse is a politician.

        Dr Jayathilleke also says ‘When it is perpetrated by so-called intellectuals belonging to civil society, it is a counterfeiting of the currency of the intellect and the function of the educated, which is to educate the public’.

        Dr Jayathilleke is an intellectual. Dr Jayathilleke belongs to the civil society too. Dr. Jayathilleke and like minded intellectuals, either defended the 18th Amendment or did not criticise the implementation of the 18th Amendment, instead aided and abated a crime as they supported a politician who committed an act of ‘unconscionable opportunism’ through lies misleading the public. 4. Therefore Dr Jayathilleke has counterfeited the currency of the intellect and the function of the educated, which was to educate the public.

        I would argue that Dr Jayathilleke’s argument should be universal in its applicability if it is to be considered valid. As shown above, Dr. Jaythilleke in criticising the US resolutions has also criticized President Mahinda Rajapakse. Himself included. Either Dr Jayathilleke himself is lying or implying both the US and Mr Rajapakse belongs to the same kettle of fish. Or, is this a Liar lying about a Liar, lying about another Liar??

      • yapa

        Dear Thilina Rajapakse;

        Your argument about the particular part of Mahinda Chinthanaya seems to be reasonable. But the argument here is not that, can you negate his argument in this article,I quoted in my previous post, ie,

        “…….can somebody seriously challenge and counter Dr. DJ’s argument, in its totality, and negate the existence of the serious threat Dr. DJ points out here?”

        Same way, Please negate it.


      • Dear Yapa

        Do you believe in promises made by ‘unconscionable opportunistic criminals’ and their perpetration by ‘so-called intellectuals’?

        “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” -Thomas Sowell

      • yapa

        Dear Thilina Rajapakse;

        I think I should be open minded and should not be on pre-assumptions when looking at an argument or a debate. Pre-assuptions are harmful to fair debates and I believe debtors should be limited to the particular argument at hand and to it alone, in an intellectual sort of one. In Court of Law it can be seen using outside matters to bring down the moral of the opposition, that is however, with the objective of winning the debate at ant cost for the fee paid to the man with the back coat.

        I think the practice here should be different and should directly address the issue and the issue alone.

        Would you undertake the burden, dear Thilina?


      • Dear Yapa

        A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, “Wolf! Wolf!” and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.

        The Wolf, however, did truly come at last. The Shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: “Pray, do come and help me; the Wolf is killing the sheep”; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The Wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock.

        Moral: There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth!!

      • yapa

        Dear Thilina Rajapakse;

        Can I conclude you have given up the task on the way?


  • Buddhika

    We’ve been lying at the UN too much too long and things have thus become a very big tight knot which needs much more than nitpicking the technical details of any Resolution. We need to look at the overall message of the Resolution against the real background of unabating oppression of the people all over the country and esp. in the Northeast. When and how are we going to end it? Only a few days ago, HE Tamara Kunanayagam has been continuing to tell UNHRC what many of her predecessors did: distorting ground reality.

    The UN has become not just irrelevant but a block to justice for the oppressed:

  • Lanka Muslim, UK

    Leave the issues of Tamils, War Crimes allegations, etc.alone. Is the present Govt. respecting basic human rights laws in dealing with people in South; workers, fishermen, students, academics, when they protest and demonstrate on their grievances? What has Dayan got to say on these. The Govt. behaves arrogantly as it is too much hero worshipped by people like Dayan and the ordinary Sinhala masses who are misled by such people. Of course these people have to earn their living; for this can we forget Dayan few years ago even went to the extent of making adverse remarks on the British monarchy. Timely intervention by the then High Commissioner, Ms. Kshenuka Senevirate,saved a lot of embarrassment and problems for Sri Lanka. Dr. Dayan, when claiming to be an intellect, please be honest to the unfortunate people of Sri Lanka who continues to suffer by the long misdoings of dishonest and corrupt politicians without dancing to their music.

  • Silva

    One of the dependable props of the Rajapakse government is a handful of ambassadors singing superbly for their supper.

  • Silva

    ”It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest”:

    The President and his cabinet set example to the citizens by telling the truth:

    President Rajapakse handed them a flat ‘Nyet’ and for once in a lifetime he spoke the truth. “If I make any devolutionary concessions to the Tamils, 13A Plus, Minus, Divided or Subtracted, it will be curtains for me.” The government’s parliamentary group met the evening before the esteemed visitors arrived and decided; ‘’Let’s tell them the truth straight from the shoulder and upfront; let’s tell them. if we do it we are dead meat” – Sri Lanka: Indian Delegates go Home Empty Handed, Kumar David, 15 June 2011 –

  • Silva

    ”It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest”:

    Then why do we have

    i.journalists attacked, abducted, murdered, websites blocked and or closed, preventing journalists from going to the war-affected areas, if journalists are allowed in, then the army of occupation following them wherever they go, …. ?

    ii.election manifesto says removal of executive presidency but the 17th amendment is over-ridden by the 18th amendment …. ?

    iii.President tells journalists: No camps, no barbed wire:

    What’s the definition of ”lie” as used by the author??

  • Silva

    ”When it is committed by politicians it is an act of unconscionable opportunism”:

    No shortage of it in the post-independence history:

    B-C pact, D-C pact …. Language Special Proisions Act, …..

    In 2006/7/8 alone the President said many times he would implement the 13th amendment ”plus”.

    Refusing to publish the reports of 14 comissions/committees appointed by this President to fulfil the promise to the people to ”find” the truth but not making them public

    Mahinda Chinthana:
    “The All Party Conference continued simultaneously and through its Representative Committee critical political issues were subject to open discussion. Rather than imposing a solution from above, I have sought to arrive at a solution through discussion and dialogue with political parties, civil society organisations and the people representatives – people themselves” ….

    What really happened?
    Reports of 15 comissions/committees (including APRC) appointed by this President to fulfil the promise to the people to ”find” the truth but not making them public. One Commission was so flawed that IIGEP that was appointed to oversee it left.

    “I will re-establish the Northern Provincial Council under the 13th amendment with immediate effect” ….

    What happened?
    The nineteen person-Presidential Task Force implementing the government’s “Northern Spring” program has not a single Tamil member and does no consultation with the local communities involved or with their elected representatives, (mostly TNA). LLRC says: “The Government should ensure that development activities should be carried out in consultation and with the participation of the local people. Such a transparent approach in administration would make the people feel an ownership to the development activities, as well as give them a sense of participation in nation building (LLRC Final Report 8.207).

    “Given the security risks and high security zones will be gradually phased out”

    What happened?
    While the owners have been languishing in camps/squeezing relatives, moving to the South, fleeing the country,… Luxury Hotel is built there and farming is done by Sinhalese brought from the South.

    “Each family that is resettled will be provided with Rs.50,000/- to construct temporary shelter and additional building materials worth Rs.50,000/-. On a long term basis, Rs.325,000/- will be provided to each family to reconstruct houses destroyed in the war” ….

    What happened?
    CHAP Action Plan is not endorsed. Willing aid agencies are prevented from helping them. Indian Housing impedimented by occupation army and Governor.

    Lies of the Sri Lankan political leaders to their own citizens affect their lives very much. Lies of the outsiders have negligible effect. In the first place the outsiders won’t have anything to comment on if the Sri lankan rulers have been behaving properly over the last six decades.

    Dear Ambassador
    You can do better things than this with your knowledge if you choose to let your conscience dictate you.

  • SD

    Dear Groundviews, Dayan

    I wish there was a +1, -1 button (or an up-vote, down-vote button), so one could indicate which posts he/she agrees with/is concerned with, the most.

    Wijayapala, Agnos, JMN, Luxmy – +1 for flagging the stumbling block before the argument even boards the train.

    Pandukabaya de Silva, Aadhavan – +1 for highlighting the fact that Dayan is flagging the conspiracy theory, while ignoring the obvious reasons! Perhaps Dayan can articulate what exactly is motivating this sinister US conspiracy?

    David – +1. I also noticed that Dayan never replied to David’s previous question in some other thread – why is the government inviting disaster by not taking a single, dignified step towards reform in the aftermath of the war? Isn’t opinion building also a part of the govt’s agenda? Dayan keeps implying that the govt is merely capitulating to public sentiment. But isn’t building public sentiment also part and parcel of the govt’s repertoire?

    How come the govt. was so good at building that public sentiment in favour of the brutality that we all accepted would be unleashed during the final stages of the war? How come the lowly CBK built up quite a bit of public sentiment in favour of the “package”? How come the all-powerful king is unable to do the same? Why is it that the govt. is all helpless now and unable to stand up against nationalist sentiment? Unless of course, feudal nationalism is the very thing that defines this govt!

    Come on Dayan! Let’s not kid ourselves. Most of us do know the truth. We all knew the toll during the last stretches of the war would be terrible, and we endorsed it nonetheless, just so we could see a better tomorrow for Sri Lanka. The only thing that was required for that better tomorrow, and the avoidance of all these international embarrassments, were genuine, dignified steps in righting the wrongs that took place. I’m willing to bet that the Tamil populace at large would have been understanding of the carnage, given the nature of VP’s outfit, IF the govt. had taken genuine steps in addressing their concerns. Starting with an apology and taking actual steps to uplift and embrace the people in the North would have done much to allay their concerns. Guess how that played out eh Dayan? Why is that? What is the real problem here? Do you genuinely not see it?

    • Burning_Issue

      Dear SD,

      I am sorry; it appears that people like you with good intentions stood by the bloody war not seeing the real objective of this chauvanistic regime. If you study the following article that will give you a good understanding of the real objectives of this regime as far as the North & East is concerned. How can they implement a solution when the project is incomplete? Do you remember the statements MR made? There are no minorities in Sri Lanka; everyone can live anywhere etc. But he did not state how he would achieve these sentiments; the article below will give you the insight:

      International Crises Group:

      “Sri Lanka’s North I: The Denial of Minority Rights”

      So, people like Dr DJ is about buying time for the regime; he can write meaningless articles but very good at window dressing with numerous quotes from various writers regardless of relevance!

      • wijayapala

        Dear Burning_Issue

        it appears that people like you with good intentions stood by the bloody war not seeing the real objective of this chauvanistic regime.

        And what were you doing during the bloody war that was different from SD?

    • rajivmw


  • Panabokke

    The first lie that dispelled the fear of lying from all the successive rulers:

    ”On behalf of the Congress and on my behalf, I give the minority communities the sincere assurance that no harm need you fear at our hands in a free Lanka.”
    – Don Stephen Senanayake, November 1945

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    Dear Dr DJ,

    After writing this you have shown us beyond any reasonable doubt how far you are prepared to go to white wash this disgusting regime of Rajapaksha siblings.

    The US resolution contains what is desperately wanted by the ‘right thinking’ people all over the world, especially those who are in Sri Lanka with no say whatsoever in these matters, as the base for any kind of resolution of the current situation.

    Implementation of the LLRC recommendation is the only possible way to come out of the current break down of law and order of this country.

    Some form of inquiry into the war crime allegation is the only way to know the truth about what happened in the war.

    Whatever the purported intentions of the US the resolution is good for the democracy, good governance, human rights etc. of our country.

    If US and UNHRC is not doing that some one should do that.

    Those who love Sri Lanka and its people should support this resolution.

    Those who love Rajapaksha siblings for their own personal gains can oppose it by showing the ignorant that they are dangerous to Sri Lanka and its people.

  • People in Sri Lanka will have to decide whether they want to be part of United Nations or belong to a group of Uncivilized Nations whose rulers are not held accountable to the people?

    • yapa

      Looking at the way things happening around even the second option seems to be better!


  • justitia

    The government’s big worry is that if the resolution is passed in an an international forum like the UNHRC, it cannot back away or just let it be forgotten like the reports of about 15 commissions earlier,including the APRC.
    The proposed Parliamentary Select Committee was/is another effort to bypass the LLRC report but this US resolution has made it unnecessary in the glare of international awareness of the lankan situation.

  • yapa

    ‘I don’t understand why champions of Tamil Eelam are supporting US Resolution on Sri Lanka at UNHRC’- ‘Thuglak’ Editor



  • Orion

    Your observation that SL accepts aid and loans from UN institutions – I will add IMF and World Bank to the list – with many strings attached is a good point. For example World Bank requires an Environmental Impact study and applies a Conflict Filter – i.e. the project being funded should not bring conflict within or between communities etc. to the loan given. GSL sign on to all of that and more conditions to get the money and let WB monitor the projects and approve the next installment of the funds. There are projects where funding is not renewed for such and other reasons.

    May be the US should have considered the LLRC report as a project that the GSL want funds to implement and included the dollar amount that it and those supporting countries would donate to implement the LLRC proposal on conditions that GSL would allow monitoring and review and the GSL would submit the report to the UNHRC later this year. Also, instead of letting those in power siphon off commissions that may make some of them feel guilty, a scheme for awarding Bonus can be devised for those who do their duty and are just.

    Another option for US and the UNHRC would be to ask the GSL to submit the LLRC report as a project to the World Bank to fund it with the usual strings attached. That would be a lot of commissions from the top to the bottom. Such alternatives would have been very palatable to the GSL patriots and it would not have necessitated the GSL to send an “Armada” of loyal warriors at the expense of the Tax payers and obfuscated funds from the loans and aids.

  • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

    Frankly David, the relevance is that we should have got up close and personal with the resolution and its movers at the ‘interactive informal’, if needed in a close quarter combat mode. I did in 2009, but didn’t negotiate the text with them or suggest amendments. Today different tactics may be needed, but the essential point is to actively engage, use every space available to wage the battle of ideas, of narratives, of arguments.

    Thilina Rajapaksa, I have never read MR’s election manifestos of 2005 and 2010. I supported him, as did the voters, not for his manifesto but because he was willing to stand up to the Tigers while Ranil had done the opposite(2005) and because he was the overall political leader on whose watch we won the war (2010). We had given two terms to his predecessor who could have but didn’t win the war.

    As far as I am concerned, the only leader who stood by and strove to implement his election manifesto in some detail was R Premadasa. I supported him. He was murdered by the Tigers. I supported the man I correctly thought was willing to take them down.

    By the way, I also support Putin, as do 65% of Russians.

  • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

    David, you deserve a cleare reply than the on I gave earlier.

    1. It wasn’t the US that claimed the resolution was solely for securing the expeditious implementation of the LLRC. That smokescreen was laid down by its local puppets such as the dominant faction of the UNP, the TNA, the CPA etc. So, my critique was aimed at that lie, from those quarters.

    2. Our problem in Geneva is not that we did not negotiate amendments with the USA. The tiny Palestinian delegation, with its friends (among whom I am lucky to be counted) beat a far more serious US diplomatic offensive at UNESCO and obtained membership. The Cubans win a 190-3 vote against the US every year at the UGA in New York.

    3. The problem lies elsewhere: have we done what we need to, at home and abroad, in order to retain the winning coalition of May 2009? Have we kept our allies , our united front with us? have we safeguarded and sustained the Geneva Consensus? If we have/had, we have the option of going for a win or moving a counter tesolution or putting forward winning amendments not as Sri lanka alone but as a bloc. If not, not. This is a subject that I have focused on in my writings on GV and elsewhere, from 2008, the last year of the war, perhaps–or, probably–to little or no avail.

    We don’t need to talk beyond a point to our hypocritical accusers, but we do have to talk sincerely to our friends, neighbours and allies.

    • I don’t disagree with your points, Dayan, but it still doesn’t explain why the GoSL is choosing a hard defense over engagement in regard to a largely toothless resolution. The criticism of the LLRC would probably have been dropped by the US if we engaged with them in the drafting as they have pushed for.

      The GoSL is painting itself into a corner where it MUST win in Geneva at all costs if it is not to be humiliated at home. The GoSL made out the resolution to be as bad as an investigation, and incited people to protest it in the same manner. This is absurd, given the pointlessness of the resolution. However, the GoSL cannot now declare the resolution pointless because the locals will ask it what on earth the big deal is. The vocal protests from the GoSL has even convinced the diaspora that the resolution is worth supporting!

  • a voter

    Dear Dr. D.J,
    You mentioned this:
    “It is almost a crime to lie to the people and mislead them on a matter of vital national interest.”
    1. How will you respond to the statements made my government that there were only 70,000 civilians trapped in Vanni during the war.
    2. How will you respond to the claim by the president himself that there was zero casualty during the final months of the war.
    3. How will you respond to a statement that there is law and order in the country while even government MP involved in filling each other, and taking law in their own hands
    4. What is you response to your own statement that you were once removed from UN position because you spoke about solution to the ethnic problem

  • Karava Gamage

    Dr. Dayan, congratulations for UN resolution results. This is due intellectual prostitutes who replace career diplomats in Geneva and abroad (with half cooked leftist ideas in a remixed format).

    I wish you understand the global realities and stay out of advisory roles for MoE. The country does not need this.

    The confrontation approach towards West and USA that was maintained by yourself and others such as Prof.Rajiva is one of the courses for current predicament.

    So I congratulate you.

  • Wallflower

    “We should act strategically, with the awareness that global powers will act based on their domestic interests” says Mr: Sambanthan, but unfortunately the leaders of this country do not seem to understand this and are playing into the hands of powers who would use our internal conflict to their advantage when the time is opportune. That would even mean drawing a demarcating line in the middle of our country and saying you stay here and let them stay on the other side. Nobody will ever be able to develop this country by alienating this country from the Regional as well as the Global powers, and thereby antagonizing them. Neither can this country be ever lifted out of this deep rut by being at loggerheads for ever with the minority communities. The sooner we change this present constitution and devolve more power to the periphery, the better our chances of remaining as one country.

  • Pingback: What is the bigger lie? US resolution in Geneva or number of people in Vanni in 2009? | WATCHDOG Sri Lanka()