One soldier and eight LTTE cadres were killed after the army launched an attack on seven LTTE bunkers in the Parappakandal area in Mannar last morning, the military said.
Six soldiers and 12 LTTE cadres were also injured in the confrontation which resulted in the army capturing the LTTE entry-exit point at Uyilankulam in Mannar, Military spokesman Udaya Nanayakkara said. He said traffic along the A 14 – Mannar-Medawachchiya road -- was closed for several hours due to this confrontation but the road was opened by evening.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
NGOs out: Mullaitivu faces food crisis
GA summons meeting; LTTE adamant
International and local NGOs operating in the Mullaitivu district have withdrawn from relief work and food distribution and returned to Kilinochchi on the instructions of the LTTE, officials said. Mullaitivu Government Agent Emelda Sukumar summoned a meeting on Friday to discuss the food situation in the Mullaitivu district in view of possible food shortages for displaced people in the area.
The LTTE representatives were also called for a separate meeting where they were told that food shortages could arise due to the non-availability of backup food stocks in the district. They were requested to provide their assistance for food distribution, but the LTTE had made no change in its decision.
The GA also urged the International and local NGOs not to abandon their food distribution programmes as some 26,000 families displaced due to the conflict would be seriously affected. Among the groups which were forced to withdraw from Mullaitivu are the World Food Programme, CARE, German Red Cross, FORUT, Seva Lanka, the UNICEF and the UNHCR.
WFP Deputy Country Director Jean Yves Lequime said there was some concern about security prompting the withdrawal. “Food security is our priority and we wanted to ensure that the situation was stable. Our activities in the area will resume soon,” he said.
International and local NGOs operating in the Mullaitivu district have withdrawn from relief work and food distribution and returned to Kilinochchi on the instructions of the LTTE, officials said. Mullaitivu Government Agent Emelda Sukumar summoned a meeting on Friday to discuss the food situation in the Mullaitivu district in view of possible food shortages for displaced people in the area.
The LTTE representatives were also called for a separate meeting where they were told that food shortages could arise due to the non-availability of backup food stocks in the district. They were requested to provide their assistance for food distribution, but the LTTE had made no change in its decision.
The GA also urged the International and local NGOs not to abandon their food distribution programmes as some 26,000 families displaced due to the conflict would be seriously affected. Among the groups which were forced to withdraw from Mullaitivu are the World Food Programme, CARE, German Red Cross, FORUT, Seva Lanka, the UNICEF and the UNHCR.
WFP Deputy Country Director Jean Yves Lequime said there was some concern about security prompting the withdrawal. “Food security is our priority and we wanted to ensure that the situation was stable. Our activities in the area will resume soon,” he said.
Prabha: Confusion and contradiction
Soon after the devastating tsunami of 2004, he re-appeared to scotch rumours that he was dead. Now, the Government claims that the same man, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, was injured in an air raid.
The official claim came in a news release put out by on Wednesday by the Media Centre for National Security (MCNS) under the name of its Director General Lakshman Hulugalle. It said intelligence sources had confirmed Mr. Prabhakaran sustained injuries in air strikes carried out by four Sri Lanka Air Force fighter bombers at 5.25 p.m. on November 26. This was just a day ahead of his annual “Maveerar (Great Heroes) Day” address. It was also the day before Air Force bombers carried out aerial attacks on the clandestine Voice of Tigers (VoT) radio station.
Reports of minor injuries being sustained by the LTTE leader first surfaced in a report in a Sunday newspaper. According to the report, he had sustained a minor injury during an air raid on his Wanni hideout on November 28. However, Air Force sources said there had been no air raids conducted on this day. These reports also claimed that members of the Christian clergy and well wishers had met the guerrilla leader after the incident. However, he remains incommunicado and does not meet visitors due to security reasons. LTTE military spokesman Rasiah Ilantheriyan told Tamil language newspapers that the reports were incorrect and “no such incident took place.”
The official news release that said Mr. Prabhakaran had sustained injuries came after Wednesday’s meeting of the National Security Council. Defence sources said the matter had come up for discussion there. According to a high ranking defence official, the injuries had been to both his hand and leg. The official announcement also sparked widespread rumours, strongly denied by intelligence sources, that Mr. Prabhakaran was to be taken to India for medical treatment. “If indeed there were minor injuries, the LTTE has the medical facilities to treat the wounded,” said one source.
Soon after the tsunami JVP’s K.D. Lalkantha, a Cabinet Minister then, declared publicly that there was evidence that the LTTE leader had died when his house and its environs were devastated. During a visit to Dubai, he told the Khaleej Times newspaper that although there was “no definitive” information, the destroying of his house made it difficult for one to assume that he escaped.
The reports of Mr. Prabhakaran’s death then gained so much currency that his photographs in the media thereafter were questioned. Some strongly believed that a look-alike was posing off as the LTTE leader and his physical features were quite different. The story was taken seriously by the defence establishment. So much so, then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga inquired from the then Chief of Defence Staff, then Vice Admiral Daya Sandagiri, whether his body has been found.
At that time, the LTTE chose to remain silent and did not contradict the reports of the death of their leader. Months later, one of the senior members told a Norwegian official their silence was ‘studied and deliberate’. “Aircraft from some leading countries, having surveillance capabilities, were over flying the Wanni during tsunami relief operations. If we said he was living, they would have been further encouraged to find out where,” quipped the LTTE senior.
(http://www.sundaytimes.lk)
UNESCO statement on air attack ill-advised: Envoy
Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to UNESCO and Ambassador Chitranganee Wagiswara has written to the UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura stating that the country is deeply distressed at the ill-advised statements that have come from him on the aerial attack on the Voice of Tigers (VOT) radio station earlier this month.
She urged him to make a statement to rectify the prevailing misconceptions so that the issue may be laid to rest. “As your pronouncements have created a difficult political situation in Sri Lanka, a country struggling to eradicate the menace of terrorism and to create space for democracy, I urge that you make a statement to rectify the prevailing misconceptions so that we may lay to rest this issue,” the Ambassador said in the letter dated December 21.
On December 3, Mr. Matsuura, issued a a statement condemning the aerial attack on the VOT describing the radio station as a ‘civilian media’ and after strong protest from the Sri Lanka Government to withdraw the statement, UNESCO released a second statement expressing “strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes.” However despite the demand from the Government for an apology, the UNESCO chief failed to do so in his second statement.
The Ambassador in her letter stated that the conflict in Sri Lanka is a complex political issue on which UNESCO does not have either the competence or the mandate to express views. The Ambassador also said that the important factor is that any activity of UNESCO should fall within the “UNESCO domain”.
She urged him to make a statement to rectify the prevailing misconceptions so that the issue may be laid to rest. “As your pronouncements have created a difficult political situation in Sri Lanka, a country struggling to eradicate the menace of terrorism and to create space for democracy, I urge that you make a statement to rectify the prevailing misconceptions so that we may lay to rest this issue,” the Ambassador said in the letter dated December 21.
On December 3, Mr. Matsuura, issued a a statement condemning the aerial attack on the VOT describing the radio station as a ‘civilian media’ and after strong protest from the Sri Lanka Government to withdraw the statement, UNESCO released a second statement expressing “strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes.” However despite the demand from the Government for an apology, the UNESCO chief failed to do so in his second statement.
The Ambassador in her letter stated that the conflict in Sri Lanka is a complex political issue on which UNESCO does not have either the competence or the mandate to express views. The Ambassador also said that the important factor is that any activity of UNESCO should fall within the “UNESCO domain”.
Washington's curb on military aid: What justifies war?
An Associated Press report said that the Appropriation Bill for 2008 of the United States' Federal Government was withholding military aid to Sri Lanka. It said that despite certain shortcomings in their human rights records, allocations in the bill for military aid to Indonesia and the Philippines had been substantially approved, whereas Congress "decided to bar all but a small amount of military aid to Sri Lanka until the Bush administration … certified that the Sri Lankan government had made certain improvements in its human rights practices." (AP 18/Dec/07)The bill stated that future arms sales to the country was dependent on the secretary of state certifying that the Sri Lanka government was prepared to prosecute military officials who had allegedly recruited child soldiers and committed extrajudicial executions, provide access to humanitarian groups and reporters to the North and East and allow the United Nations to establish a human rights office in the country.
The ban makes it clear that unless the government agrees to adhere to basic principles of respecting human rights and international humanitarian law by making the armed forces more accountable and responsible, no more military aid would be forthcoming. To many Sri Lankans exasperated by the government's deplorable human rights record and its increasing confidence in committing violations with impunity, the strictures that "no defence export licence may be issued, and no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred," unless Colombo delivers on the three conditions insisted upon by Congress, are welcome. The question is however, what lies behind Sri Lankan security forces acting with impunity? Why is it that they commit atrocities that have led Washington to impose a curb on military aid?
We all know that actions of any military are driven by political agenda, whatever such agenda might be. The Sri Lanka army is no exception. From the 1950s it has been called upon to suppress Tamil rebellion demanding equal rights, which has taken different forms over the decades. In other words, a Sinhala-majority military was protecting a state that reflected Sinhala hegemony by suppressing the Tamils' struggle for their rights.
Therefore, it was the Sri Lankan state's project of using armed force to maintain a disparity of status between different communities in Sri Lanka that has led the present government to violate human rights with impunity, to bar humanitarian workers and the media from accessing IDPs in the North and East, and its cavalier attitude towards permitting a UN a human rights monitoring mission in the country.So, we have to agree that human rights violations by the security forces in their war against the Tamils, that began in the 1950s and which is today causing much suffering to civilians, is only a product or a consequence of a much deeper malaise. Therefore, if we want human rights violations to come to a halt, the fundamental problem faced by the Tamils and other communities living in Sri Lanka has to be addressed. This would mean addressing the core issue of access to political power, which would guarantee the rights of Tamil citizens, as much as the rights of citizens of other communities are guaranteed.
The fact that the American government too believes that a lack of acceptable power-sharing lies at the heart of the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka is exemplified in the numerous statements by White House, the State Department, Congressmen, and the Co-chairs to the Sri Lankan Peace Process of which the US is a member. However, in its denial of military aid to the Sri Lankan government, the US only refers to the Sri Lankan military's continuing record of violating human rights and humanitarian law principles in prosecuting the war, and not to any power-sharing exercise whatsoever, not even the APRC, which all Tamils have regarded as grossly inadequate to address the complexity of Tamil demands.
In other words, hypothetically, if the culture of impunity by the Sri Lanka government comes to an end or even reduces (we should not forget the Rajapaksa government has been killing civilians, starving and abducting them from 2005, but the US has decided to take action against Colombo only now), humanitarian and media access is allowed to the North and East and a UN human rights field presence permitted, the ban on transferring arms to the Sri Lanka government would be withdrawn so that the military option could be pursued against the Tamils without hindrance. No one denies that enforcement of the rule of law and the transformation of the Sri Lankan security forces into a professional outfit is important. But, in today's context it is secondary.
The primary issue is bringing a halt to the conflict which can only be done by placing on the table a credible set of proposals to share power that would help evolve a political solution.But, by making further military aid dependent on fighting the war without large-scale, visible civilian casualties, the impression the US conveys is that it is supportive of a 'clean war' by a professional military outfit. And, we all know that in any strike by a military outfit - be it the Sri Lankan security forces in the Wanni or the world's most advanced, the US, in Iraq or Afghanistan - civilian casualties are inevitable. But these are obviously not Washington's concern. The fact that it is not is demonstrated in the bill's qualification on the ban of military exports, by allowing equipment for aerial and maritime surveillance. It is well known the Sri Lanka government is taking delivery of such equipment from the US after the LTTE knocked out some of it surveillance aircraft in the raid on Anuradhapura air base.
To the Tamils, as well as others who support them in fighting for a just solution for Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict, the only effective way of compelling Colombo to sincerely address not only human rights issues but also those of power-sharing, is by withdrawing the facility it enjoys - the ability to re-arm, while its opponent cannot. And the only way of doing that is by placing a strict embargo on the arms supply to Colombo. But, to implement this is to tie arms supply to an effective set of proposals for power-sharing that would eventually bring about a solution and not to make arms supply to Colombo contingent on its military measuring up to professional standards. War by a state on its own people cannot be justified just because it is fought professionally. The question should be whether it is a just war.
If it is only military professionalism Washington is looking for, it would mean committing the cardinal error of encouraging Colombo to fight, based on the premise that all wars against anti-state forces are justified, without looking into the fundamentals that drive such wars.
The ban makes it clear that unless the government agrees to adhere to basic principles of respecting human rights and international humanitarian law by making the armed forces more accountable and responsible, no more military aid would be forthcoming. To many Sri Lankans exasperated by the government's deplorable human rights record and its increasing confidence in committing violations with impunity, the strictures that "no defence export licence may be issued, and no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred," unless Colombo delivers on the three conditions insisted upon by Congress, are welcome. The question is however, what lies behind Sri Lankan security forces acting with impunity? Why is it that they commit atrocities that have led Washington to impose a curb on military aid?
We all know that actions of any military are driven by political agenda, whatever such agenda might be. The Sri Lanka army is no exception. From the 1950s it has been called upon to suppress Tamil rebellion demanding equal rights, which has taken different forms over the decades. In other words, a Sinhala-majority military was protecting a state that reflected Sinhala hegemony by suppressing the Tamils' struggle for their rights.
Therefore, it was the Sri Lankan state's project of using armed force to maintain a disparity of status between different communities in Sri Lanka that has led the present government to violate human rights with impunity, to bar humanitarian workers and the media from accessing IDPs in the North and East, and its cavalier attitude towards permitting a UN a human rights monitoring mission in the country.So, we have to agree that human rights violations by the security forces in their war against the Tamils, that began in the 1950s and which is today causing much suffering to civilians, is only a product or a consequence of a much deeper malaise. Therefore, if we want human rights violations to come to a halt, the fundamental problem faced by the Tamils and other communities living in Sri Lanka has to be addressed. This would mean addressing the core issue of access to political power, which would guarantee the rights of Tamil citizens, as much as the rights of citizens of other communities are guaranteed.
The fact that the American government too believes that a lack of acceptable power-sharing lies at the heart of the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka is exemplified in the numerous statements by White House, the State Department, Congressmen, and the Co-chairs to the Sri Lankan Peace Process of which the US is a member. However, in its denial of military aid to the Sri Lankan government, the US only refers to the Sri Lankan military's continuing record of violating human rights and humanitarian law principles in prosecuting the war, and not to any power-sharing exercise whatsoever, not even the APRC, which all Tamils have regarded as grossly inadequate to address the complexity of Tamil demands.
In other words, hypothetically, if the culture of impunity by the Sri Lanka government comes to an end or even reduces (we should not forget the Rajapaksa government has been killing civilians, starving and abducting them from 2005, but the US has decided to take action against Colombo only now), humanitarian and media access is allowed to the North and East and a UN human rights field presence permitted, the ban on transferring arms to the Sri Lanka government would be withdrawn so that the military option could be pursued against the Tamils without hindrance. No one denies that enforcement of the rule of law and the transformation of the Sri Lankan security forces into a professional outfit is important. But, in today's context it is secondary.
The primary issue is bringing a halt to the conflict which can only be done by placing on the table a credible set of proposals to share power that would help evolve a political solution.But, by making further military aid dependent on fighting the war without large-scale, visible civilian casualties, the impression the US conveys is that it is supportive of a 'clean war' by a professional military outfit. And, we all know that in any strike by a military outfit - be it the Sri Lankan security forces in the Wanni or the world's most advanced, the US, in Iraq or Afghanistan - civilian casualties are inevitable. But these are obviously not Washington's concern. The fact that it is not is demonstrated in the bill's qualification on the ban of military exports, by allowing equipment for aerial and maritime surveillance. It is well known the Sri Lanka government is taking delivery of such equipment from the US after the LTTE knocked out some of it surveillance aircraft in the raid on Anuradhapura air base.
To the Tamils, as well as others who support them in fighting for a just solution for Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict, the only effective way of compelling Colombo to sincerely address not only human rights issues but also those of power-sharing, is by withdrawing the facility it enjoys - the ability to re-arm, while its opponent cannot. And the only way of doing that is by placing a strict embargo on the arms supply to Colombo. But, to implement this is to tie arms supply to an effective set of proposals for power-sharing that would eventually bring about a solution and not to make arms supply to Colombo contingent on its military measuring up to professional standards. War by a state on its own people cannot be justified just because it is fought professionally. The question should be whether it is a just war.
If it is only military professionalism Washington is looking for, it would mean committing the cardinal error of encouraging Colombo to fight, based on the premise that all wars against anti-state forces are justified, without looking into the fundamentals that drive such wars.
Fixation or friction? UN’s battle with Sri Lanka
When a senior UN official addressed a recent news conference on human rights violations worldwide, a reporter asked him about the incarceration of a UN human rights official, Sigma Huda, by the military-run government in Bangladesh. A native of Bangladesh and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Huda was barred from leaving the country on the ground she was "a security risk for Bangladesh as she may give statements detrimental" to the government in Dhaka, when she was scheduled to address a human rights meeting in Geneva later that month.
Responding to the question, the UN official unwittingly — and mistakenly — criticised the Sri Lanka government, instead of lambasting the Bangldeshi government. Obviously, he had Sri Lanka in his sub-conscious mind, when the real culprit was the Bangladeshi government. Was that a Freudian slip — a mistake in speaking or writing, which in effect, shows what you really think or feel about?
And last week, in another obvious goof, the UN spokesman's office put out a statement by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the suicide bombings in Algeria which killed 17 UN staffers, among others. The statement read: "The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attacks in Algeria." But the headline on the email message erroneously read: "Ban Ki-moon on Sri Lanka."
After the email message landed in the mail box of hundreds of journalists, the spokesman's office realized the mistake and ran a correction within minutes of discovering the blunder. Was it a second consecutive Freudian slip? Although both can be construed as genuine mistakes, the fact that the blame was laid on the wrong country gives the impression that Sri Lanka is very much in the subconscious mind — particularly when the world body talks of human rights, humanitarian assistance, suicide bombings, civilian killings, child soldiers and unbridled LTTE terrorism.
When we posed the question in this column last week whether Sri Lanka should stay in the UN or walk out of the world body because of the ongoing battle between the two, that piece was written with tongue firmly entrenched in cheek. As Kumar Fernando of the UN Association of Sri Lanka rightly points out no country has ever "left" the UN. "Of course, Sri Lanka must stay and fight," says Fernando, whose longstanding organisation has been promoting the ideals of the UN in Sri Lanka, and acting as a bridge between the two.
As we pointed out last week, the present government has been engaged in a running battle with the UN over several politically sensitive issues, including refusal of visas to some UN staffers, charges of human rights violations against the government, lack of security to humanitarian aid workers, and the participation of UN staffers in at least one public demonstration. But despite the total mis-characterization of a senior UN Under-Secretary-General John Holmes as a "terrorist" in the payroll of the LTTE, and despite charges of human rights violations and disappearances, Sri Lanka is still way ahead of countries such as Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus, Burma and North Korea, who are singled out for country-specific resolutions earning the wrath of the General Assembly every year.
Notwithstanding annual strictures for human rights abuses, none of these countries has ever threatened to quit the world body because they are conscious of the fact that all — or most — of these resolutions are politically-motivated and triggered either by the US or the 27-member European Union.
Sri Lanka has escaped any censuring by the General Assembly primarily because of our diplomacy and our ability to maintain politically cordial relations with other member states — either bilaterally or multi-laterally. But one fine day we may run out of smooth-talking diplomacy?
If the government thinks it's getting an unfair deal, we said rather flippantly last week, it should perhaps show its disdain by refusing any high level representation during the next General Assembly sessions rather than bring a 70-member delegation on a junket. We had two strong responses to this. An expatriate Sri Lankan in New York wrote: "There is no way in hell the Sri Lanka government will take your suggestion seriously for one simple reason: if there is no General Assembly sessions for 60 to 70 government officials and hangers-on every year, they will be deprived of their annual pilgrimage to New York at tax payer's expense." Perish the thought, he added. Sounds logical.
A more serious response came from a former Sri Lankan diplomat:"To go on in your article making such preposterous suggestions as to downgrade our representation at the UN General Assembly (was it tongue-in- cheek?) and so on, was only feeding the current mood of xenophobia in the country and quite unworthy of your role as the premier Sri Lankan journalist covering the UN."
"As we all know," he continued, "the UN is not perfect but then is the growing estrangement between the UN and Sri Lanka in anybody's interest? It is this amorality among some journalists that I find so sad when you should be upholding basic principles."
On the other hand, a deep throat from the bowels of the Foreign Ministry in Colombo writes: "Great Story. Well received here." And a longtime Sri Lankan international civil servant, who has served in several Western capitals and knows the UN inside out, sent an unsolicited email message that read: "Excellent piece." Well, you win some, you lose some.
Responding to the question, the UN official unwittingly — and mistakenly — criticised the Sri Lanka government, instead of lambasting the Bangldeshi government. Obviously, he had Sri Lanka in his sub-conscious mind, when the real culprit was the Bangladeshi government. Was that a Freudian slip — a mistake in speaking or writing, which in effect, shows what you really think or feel about?
And last week, in another obvious goof, the UN spokesman's office put out a statement by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the suicide bombings in Algeria which killed 17 UN staffers, among others. The statement read: "The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attacks in Algeria." But the headline on the email message erroneously read: "Ban Ki-moon on Sri Lanka."
After the email message landed in the mail box of hundreds of journalists, the spokesman's office realized the mistake and ran a correction within minutes of discovering the blunder. Was it a second consecutive Freudian slip? Although both can be construed as genuine mistakes, the fact that the blame was laid on the wrong country gives the impression that Sri Lanka is very much in the subconscious mind — particularly when the world body talks of human rights, humanitarian assistance, suicide bombings, civilian killings, child soldiers and unbridled LTTE terrorism.
When we posed the question in this column last week whether Sri Lanka should stay in the UN or walk out of the world body because of the ongoing battle between the two, that piece was written with tongue firmly entrenched in cheek. As Kumar Fernando of the UN Association of Sri Lanka rightly points out no country has ever "left" the UN. "Of course, Sri Lanka must stay and fight," says Fernando, whose longstanding organisation has been promoting the ideals of the UN in Sri Lanka, and acting as a bridge between the two.
As we pointed out last week, the present government has been engaged in a running battle with the UN over several politically sensitive issues, including refusal of visas to some UN staffers, charges of human rights violations against the government, lack of security to humanitarian aid workers, and the participation of UN staffers in at least one public demonstration. But despite the total mis-characterization of a senior UN Under-Secretary-General John Holmes as a "terrorist" in the payroll of the LTTE, and despite charges of human rights violations and disappearances, Sri Lanka is still way ahead of countries such as Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus, Burma and North Korea, who are singled out for country-specific resolutions earning the wrath of the General Assembly every year.
Notwithstanding annual strictures for human rights abuses, none of these countries has ever threatened to quit the world body because they are conscious of the fact that all — or most — of these resolutions are politically-motivated and triggered either by the US or the 27-member European Union.
Sri Lanka has escaped any censuring by the General Assembly primarily because of our diplomacy and our ability to maintain politically cordial relations with other member states — either bilaterally or multi-laterally. But one fine day we may run out of smooth-talking diplomacy?
If the government thinks it's getting an unfair deal, we said rather flippantly last week, it should perhaps show its disdain by refusing any high level representation during the next General Assembly sessions rather than bring a 70-member delegation on a junket. We had two strong responses to this. An expatriate Sri Lankan in New York wrote: "There is no way in hell the Sri Lanka government will take your suggestion seriously for one simple reason: if there is no General Assembly sessions for 60 to 70 government officials and hangers-on every year, they will be deprived of their annual pilgrimage to New York at tax payer's expense." Perish the thought, he added. Sounds logical.
A more serious response came from a former Sri Lankan diplomat:"To go on in your article making such preposterous suggestions as to downgrade our representation at the UN General Assembly (was it tongue-in- cheek?) and so on, was only feeding the current mood of xenophobia in the country and quite unworthy of your role as the premier Sri Lankan journalist covering the UN."
"As we all know," he continued, "the UN is not perfect but then is the growing estrangement between the UN and Sri Lanka in anybody's interest? It is this amorality among some journalists that I find so sad when you should be upholding basic principles."
On the other hand, a deep throat from the bowels of the Foreign Ministry in Colombo writes: "Great Story. Well received here." And a longtime Sri Lankan international civil servant, who has served in several Western capitals and knows the UN inside out, sent an unsolicited email message that read: "Excellent piece." Well, you win some, you lose some.
Time for Chief Minister Karunanidhi to quit: Dr.Swamy
Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy has said that time has come for Tamilnadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi to go into retirement.
In a statement issued in Chennai on Tuesday evening, Swamy said, ‘It is time for Karunanidhi to realise that his brand of Dravidian politics has failed.
Tamilnadu is largely of Hindu-minded people and other minorities live in harmony. Hence rationalism of the Dravidar Kazhagam variety to which Karunanidhi claims legacy, has no future in the State. It is now time for him to go into retirement,’ he said.
Stating the resolution passed in the DMK youth wing convention at Tirunelveli, Swamy said it exhibited the anger and deep frustration of DMK at not being able to implement Sethusamudaram Ship Channel Project.
The DMK for the first time is frustrated for not doing what it wanted, he added.
The Janata Party leader said that the DMK has always thought that if it is in power in the State and a coalition partner in the Centre they can get anything of their choice implemented .
In a statement issued in Chennai on Tuesday evening, Swamy said, ‘It is time for Karunanidhi to realise that his brand of Dravidian politics has failed.
Tamilnadu is largely of Hindu-minded people and other minorities live in harmony. Hence rationalism of the Dravidar Kazhagam variety to which Karunanidhi claims legacy, has no future in the State. It is now time for him to go into retirement,’ he said.
Stating the resolution passed in the DMK youth wing convention at Tirunelveli, Swamy said it exhibited the anger and deep frustration of DMK at not being able to implement Sethusamudaram Ship Channel Project.
The DMK for the first time is frustrated for not doing what it wanted, he added.
The Janata Party leader said that the DMK has always thought that if it is in power in the State and a coalition partner in the Centre they can get anything of their choice implemented .
DMK Government aiding and abetting to the LTTE –Dr. Swamy
“Two top leaders of the LTTE are wanted as Accused No.1 and 2 by the trial court in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, and have been declared as proclaimed offenders. Hence the DMK State Government deserves to be dismissed, as it was for the same reason in 1991,” - Dr. Swamy
“The AIADMK leader and former CM of Tamil Nadu Ms.Jayalalitha has in her statement very pertinently posed the question to the Centre about the anti-national activities of the DMK Government in aiding and abetting the LTTE which is a banned terrorist organization in several countries of the world including India,” Janatha Party President Dr. Subramanian Swamy said in a latest press statement.
According to Swamy, “besides, two top leaders of the LTTE are wanted as Accused No.1 and 2 by the trial court in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, and have been declared as proclaimed offenders.”
“Hence the DMK State Government deserves to be dismissed, as it was for the same reason in 1991,” he also said.
Dr. Swamy accuse to DMK and its leadership to supporting the killers of Rajiv Gandhi, he also accepted Ms. Jalalitha’s opinion on DMK government.
“Ms.Jayalalitha has also correctly called the Congress Party to account on why the Party (which is headed by the widow of Rajiv Gandhi) is in coalition with the DMK, a Party that is supporting the killers of Rajiv Gandhi,” Dr. Swamy said.
“This question needs to be answered because no Indian widow would even contemplate aligning with those who keep the company with the killers of her husband,” he asked.
“The AIADMK leader and former CM of Tamil Nadu Ms.Jayalalitha has in her statement very pertinently posed the question to the Centre about the anti-national activities of the DMK Government in aiding and abetting the LTTE which is a banned terrorist organization in several countries of the world including India,” Janatha Party President Dr. Subramanian Swamy said in a latest press statement.
According to Swamy, “besides, two top leaders of the LTTE are wanted as Accused No.1 and 2 by the trial court in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, and have been declared as proclaimed offenders.”
“Hence the DMK State Government deserves to be dismissed, as it was for the same reason in 1991,” he also said.
Dr. Swamy accuse to DMK and its leadership to supporting the killers of Rajiv Gandhi, he also accepted Ms. Jalalitha’s opinion on DMK government.
“Ms.Jayalalitha has also correctly called the Congress Party to account on why the Party (which is headed by the widow of Rajiv Gandhi) is in coalition with the DMK, a Party that is supporting the killers of Rajiv Gandhi,” Dr. Swamy said.
“This question needs to be answered because no Indian widow would even contemplate aligning with those who keep the company with the killers of her husband,” he asked.
How Vulnerable Is Prabhakaran To A Decapitation Air Strikes?
"The LTTE's ground-based anti-aircraft capability is very weak due to the difficulties faced by it in procuring new equipment from abroad. It was able to penetrate the SLAF base at Anuradhapura and destroy a number of surveillance and trainer planes. It has not been able to mount any operation to penetrate the bases in which the SLAF attack aircraft are kept."
The Sri Lankan Government claimed on December 19,2007, that the head of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Velupillai Prabhakaran, was injured last month during an air strike by Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) jets.
"The Sri Lankan Defence Ministry has been disseminating a lot of disinformation through its statements and the web sites of the Government regarding its claimed successes against the LTTE. One has, therefore, to be careful in accepting its claim without independent corroboration."
The Defence Ministry has been quoted by the media as saying: "Intelligence sources confirmed that the LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran had sustained injuries in the air strikes carried out by four fighter aircraft of the Sri Lanka Air Force on a bunker complex in Jayanthinagar, Kilinochchi around 5.25 pm on November 26.Intelligence had confirmed that the bunker complex was frequented by Prabhakaran. Acting on reliable intelligence, the Air Force carried out a successful air strike targeting the leader of the LTTE, on November 26.Attack aircraft of the Air Force carried out another air strike on the same target on November 28.The Air Force confirms that the target was successfully destroyed amidst heavy LTTE ground to air fire towards the Sri Lanka Air Force aircraft. Subsequent to the attack, the Air Force monitored movements around the target. Though the Air Force believed that Prabhakaran had been hit in the attack, non-availability of ground information to confirm it at that time prevented the Government from releasing this information to the media."
Earlier, the "Nation" newspaper of Colombo had reported on December 16,2007,that Prabhakaran sustained injuries during an air raid in rebel held areas of Kilinochchi on November 28, 2007. However, the LTTE had strongly denied it."It is a lie. Nothing of that sort happened," an LTTE spokesman was quoted as saying.
"Since the LTTE has killed many Sri Lankan leaders including former President Premadasa and former Foreign Minister Laxman Kadirgamar and had tried to kill Mrs.Chandrika Kumaratunge when she was the President, they have every right to personally target Prabhakaran and try to eliminate him. In fact, Mr. Gothbaya Rajapakse, their Defence Secretary, had openly stated that they were targeting Prabhakaran himself for an air strike."
The Sri Lankan Defence Ministry has been disseminating a lot of disinformation through its statements and the web sites of the Government regarding its claimed successes against the LTTE. One has, therefore, to be careful in accepting its claim without independent corroboration.
However, this analysis is based on the presumption that the claim may be correct. For over a year now, the Sri Lankan Air Force has been trying for a decapitation air strike against Prabhakaran. Since the LTTE has killed many Sri Lankan leaders including former President Premadasa and former Foreign Minister Laxman Kadirgamar and had tried to kill Mrs.Chandrika Kumaratunge when she was the President, they have every right to personally target Prabhakaran and try to eliminate him. In fact, Mr. Gothbaya Rajapakse, their Defence Secretary, had openly stated that they were targeting Prabhakaran himself for an air strike.
The Americans too have been trying to kill Osama bin Laden, his No.2 Ayman Al Zawahiri and Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban, through air strikes. One of the air strikes in the Bajaur Agency of Pakistan, which killed a large number of civilians, was based on information that Zawahiri was in the area. The information proved to be wrong.
Even after six years of targeting them, the Americans have not succeeded. Reasons: Firstly, the high level of communication security of Al Qaeda. Secondly, the refusal of the tribals to betray them. Thirdly, Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not have the paraphernalia of a State. They do not have any permanent infrastructure. bin Laden, Zawahiri and Omar lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village. Nobody knows in which village they are or they will be at particular moment. Moreover, the Air Force does not like to bomb villages unless it has pin-point information.
"In the case of Prabhakaran, things are different. One does not know about the quality of the LTTE's communications security. He has the paraphernalia of a state because of his pretensions of running a shadow state. He considers it beneath his dignity to lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village and taking shelter there. Even in the Wanni area, the circle of the safe areas available to him is getting smaller and smaller."
In the case of Prabhakaran, things are different. One does not know about the quality of the LTTE's communications security. He has the paraphernelia of a state because of his pretensions of running a shadow state. He considers it beneath his dignity to lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village and taking shelter there. Even in the Wanni area, the circle of the safe areas available to him is getting smaller and smaller.
The two or three small planes, which he has procured for the so-called Tamil Eelam Air Force, have added to the intimidatory capability of the LTTE, but not to its defensive capability. They are unlikely to be in a position to protect him.
What can protect Prabhakaran from a successful decapitation strike by the Sri Lankan Air Force are good ground-based anti-aircraft defence capability and a capability to penetrate the bases of the Sri Lankan Air Force and destroy its attack aircraft on the ground. The LTTE's ground-based anti-aircraft capability is very weak due to the difficulties faced by it in procuring new equipment from abroad. It was able to penetrate the SLAF base at Anuradhapura and destroy a number of surveillance and trainer planes. It has not been able to mount any operation to penetrate the bases in which the SLAF attack aircraft are kept.
A good system of bunkers on the ground can protect just as Sir Winston Churchill and other British leaders were protected against the Nazi Blitzkrieg during the Second World War.But the bunkers were not alone in protecting them. They were supplemented by an excellent anti-aircraft capability on the ground and the planes of the RAF, which countered the German air strikes in the air. Bunkers alone without a good cover of anti-aircraft guns and LTTE fighter planes in the air can protect for some time, but not for all time.
After an unsuccessful attempt to kill Mrs.Margaret Thatcher, the then British Prime Minister, in 1985 through an explosion in a Brighton Hotel in which she was staying, the Irish Republican Army, which had placed the bomb, was reported to have stated:" She has to be lucky every time. We have to be lucky only once."
The reverse is true in the case of a decapitation air strike against a terrorist leader. He has to be lucky every time. The SLAF has to be lucky only once.
The Sri Lankan Government claimed on December 19,2007, that the head of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Velupillai Prabhakaran, was injured last month during an air strike by Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) jets.
"The Sri Lankan Defence Ministry has been disseminating a lot of disinformation through its statements and the web sites of the Government regarding its claimed successes against the LTTE. One has, therefore, to be careful in accepting its claim without independent corroboration."
The Defence Ministry has been quoted by the media as saying: "Intelligence sources confirmed that the LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran had sustained injuries in the air strikes carried out by four fighter aircraft of the Sri Lanka Air Force on a bunker complex in Jayanthinagar, Kilinochchi around 5.25 pm on November 26.Intelligence had confirmed that the bunker complex was frequented by Prabhakaran. Acting on reliable intelligence, the Air Force carried out a successful air strike targeting the leader of the LTTE, on November 26.Attack aircraft of the Air Force carried out another air strike on the same target on November 28.The Air Force confirms that the target was successfully destroyed amidst heavy LTTE ground to air fire towards the Sri Lanka Air Force aircraft. Subsequent to the attack, the Air Force monitored movements around the target. Though the Air Force believed that Prabhakaran had been hit in the attack, non-availability of ground information to confirm it at that time prevented the Government from releasing this information to the media."
Earlier, the "Nation" newspaper of Colombo had reported on December 16,2007,that Prabhakaran sustained injuries during an air raid in rebel held areas of Kilinochchi on November 28, 2007. However, the LTTE had strongly denied it."It is a lie. Nothing of that sort happened," an LTTE spokesman was quoted as saying.
"Since the LTTE has killed many Sri Lankan leaders including former President Premadasa and former Foreign Minister Laxman Kadirgamar and had tried to kill Mrs.Chandrika Kumaratunge when she was the President, they have every right to personally target Prabhakaran and try to eliminate him. In fact, Mr. Gothbaya Rajapakse, their Defence Secretary, had openly stated that they were targeting Prabhakaran himself for an air strike."
The Sri Lankan Defence Ministry has been disseminating a lot of disinformation through its statements and the web sites of the Government regarding its claimed successes against the LTTE. One has, therefore, to be careful in accepting its claim without independent corroboration.
However, this analysis is based on the presumption that the claim may be correct. For over a year now, the Sri Lankan Air Force has been trying for a decapitation air strike against Prabhakaran. Since the LTTE has killed many Sri Lankan leaders including former President Premadasa and former Foreign Minister Laxman Kadirgamar and had tried to kill Mrs.Chandrika Kumaratunge when she was the President, they have every right to personally target Prabhakaran and try to eliminate him. In fact, Mr. Gothbaya Rajapakse, their Defence Secretary, had openly stated that they were targeting Prabhakaran himself for an air strike.
The Americans too have been trying to kill Osama bin Laden, his No.2 Ayman Al Zawahiri and Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban, through air strikes. One of the air strikes in the Bajaur Agency of Pakistan, which killed a large number of civilians, was based on information that Zawahiri was in the area. The information proved to be wrong.
Even after six years of targeting them, the Americans have not succeeded. Reasons: Firstly, the high level of communication security of Al Qaeda. Secondly, the refusal of the tribals to betray them. Thirdly, Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not have the paraphernalia of a State. They do not have any permanent infrastructure. bin Laden, Zawahiri and Omar lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village. Nobody knows in which village they are or they will be at particular moment. Moreover, the Air Force does not like to bomb villages unless it has pin-point information.
"In the case of Prabhakaran, things are different. One does not know about the quality of the LTTE's communications security. He has the paraphernalia of a state because of his pretensions of running a shadow state. He considers it beneath his dignity to lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village and taking shelter there. Even in the Wanni area, the circle of the safe areas available to him is getting smaller and smaller."
In the case of Prabhakaran, things are different. One does not know about the quality of the LTTE's communications security. He has the paraphernelia of a state because of his pretensions of running a shadow state. He considers it beneath his dignity to lead a gypsy-like existence moving from village to village and taking shelter there. Even in the Wanni area, the circle of the safe areas available to him is getting smaller and smaller.
The two or three small planes, which he has procured for the so-called Tamil Eelam Air Force, have added to the intimidatory capability of the LTTE, but not to its defensive capability. They are unlikely to be in a position to protect him.
What can protect Prabhakaran from a successful decapitation strike by the Sri Lankan Air Force are good ground-based anti-aircraft defence capability and a capability to penetrate the bases of the Sri Lankan Air Force and destroy its attack aircraft on the ground. The LTTE's ground-based anti-aircraft capability is very weak due to the difficulties faced by it in procuring new equipment from abroad. It was able to penetrate the SLAF base at Anuradhapura and destroy a number of surveillance and trainer planes. It has not been able to mount any operation to penetrate the bases in which the SLAF attack aircraft are kept.
A good system of bunkers on the ground can protect just as Sir Winston Churchill and other British leaders were protected against the Nazi Blitzkrieg during the Second World War.But the bunkers were not alone in protecting them. They were supplemented by an excellent anti-aircraft capability on the ground and the planes of the RAF, which countered the German air strikes in the air. Bunkers alone without a good cover of anti-aircraft guns and LTTE fighter planes in the air can protect for some time, but not for all time.
After an unsuccessful attempt to kill Mrs.Margaret Thatcher, the then British Prime Minister, in 1985 through an explosion in a Brighton Hotel in which she was staying, the Irish Republican Army, which had placed the bomb, was reported to have stated:" She has to be lucky every time. We have to be lucky only once."
The reverse is true in the case of a decapitation air strike against a terrorist leader. He has to be lucky every time. The SLAF has to be lucky only once.
Uylankulam entry-exit point overran by Sri Lanka Army, six LTTE cadres killed
Sri Lanka Army overran LTTE entry-exit point in Uliyankulam located in the south of Mannar district. This confrontation which lasted over one and a half hour with the LTTE is said to have paved the way for Sri Lanka Army to consolidate their position, a Military spokesperson said.
According to reports, five bunkers along the Uyilankulama LTTE defenses were seized by security forces, while identified LTTE ground constructions have come under concentrated artillery and mortar barrages by advancing troops
Reports revealed that 6 LTTE cadres died and 12 injured, meanwhile one Army soldier died and 6 injured.
The ground sources revealed that when army advanced into the LTTE controlled area, LTTE requested for reinforcement, but it was noted that LTTE area leadership did not send any reinforcement.
A senior military officer on the ground said that overrunning the Uliyankulam was significant and very important for army strategy wise in the ongoing battle.
Meanwhile, according to Defense sources, it is learnt through unverified sources in non-liberated areas of Mannar, that LTTE elements are announcing people to move into close perimeters of LTTE camps, a desperate ruse by the Tigers to use human shields as last resort in its imminent collapse in Wanni.
According to reports, five bunkers along the Uyilankulama LTTE defenses were seized by security forces, while identified LTTE ground constructions have come under concentrated artillery and mortar barrages by advancing troops
Reports revealed that 6 LTTE cadres died and 12 injured, meanwhile one Army soldier died and 6 injured.
The ground sources revealed that when army advanced into the LTTE controlled area, LTTE requested for reinforcement, but it was noted that LTTE area leadership did not send any reinforcement.
A senior military officer on the ground said that overrunning the Uliyankulam was significant and very important for army strategy wise in the ongoing battle.
Meanwhile, according to Defense sources, it is learnt through unverified sources in non-liberated areas of Mannar, that LTTE elements are announcing people to move into close perimeters of LTTE camps, a desperate ruse by the Tigers to use human shields as last resort in its imminent collapse in Wanni.
UK takes up with Lanka issue of Karuna's passport
The British government has taken up with Sri Lanka the issue of LTTE breakaway faction leader V Muralitharan, better known as "Colonel" Karuna, obtaining a forged diplomatic passport to travel to the UK before he was arrested here last month.
Karuna, now facing allegations of war crimes, was arrested last month for entering Britain illegally using a "diplomatic" passport that reportedly described him as the "Director-General of Wildlife Conservation". He had claimed that he had come to attend a climate change conference.
The Sri Lankan mission here denied reports that High Commissioner Kshenuka Senewiratne was "called" to the UK Foreign Office to explain how Karuna got his passport but said the issue did come up at a routine meeting on December 17.
The British Foreign Office today said "the issue was raised at a meeting on December 17. We expressed our concern about how Karuna was able to obtain a diplomatic passport."
The Sri Lankan High Commission denied any knowledge of how Karuna obtained a false diplomatic passport.
"The Sri Lankan government is unaware of any diplomatic passport to Karuna or any application for a visa to enter the UK," a spokesman said, adding the rebels were "known for forging passports."
The British government has been concerned about Colombo's alleged backing for Karuna, who broke away from the LTTE three years ago to form his own group, Tameleela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), and is now engaged in fighting the LTTE amid allegations of recruiting child soldiers, many of whom have been reportedly killed.
But, according to Government of Sri Lanka in its official news service, “the Crown Prosecution Service of Britain is looking to charge the controversial former LTTE leader, Karuna Amman of war crimes, torture and hostage-taking, it is reported.”
“Karuna Amman, whose defection was the biggest split that the LTTE has suffered, was arrested in Britain last month on suspicion of immigration offences. He led the LTTE in the East until March 2003, when he left the terrorist organization and formed his own group, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP). The TMVP has since split with Pilliyan taking over the leadership after Karuna left the island,” it’s added.
Sources claimed that a section of British intelligence agreed to grant visa to Karuna if he presented a Sri Lankan passport with fictitious name.
After this, the passport was allegedly presented to the British High Commission in Colombo and an entry visa to Britain was stamped on the passport to enable Karuna to enter the UK to join his wife and three children, who live in a posh suburb of Kensington.
The sources said the other British intelligence group, which was responsible in moving for the arrest of Karuna in London, was not aware of the agreement and inadvertently arrested him.
Once he was arrested and the information about it made public, British authorities were finding it difficult to withdraw the arrest and allow Karuna to return back to Colombo.
Now even deporting him would be controversial as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers have all been urging British authorities to prosecute Karuna for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Karuna, now facing allegations of war crimes, was arrested last month for entering Britain illegally using a "diplomatic" passport that reportedly described him as the "Director-General of Wildlife Conservation". He had claimed that he had come to attend a climate change conference.
The Sri Lankan mission here denied reports that High Commissioner Kshenuka Senewiratne was "called" to the UK Foreign Office to explain how Karuna got his passport but said the issue did come up at a routine meeting on December 17.
The British Foreign Office today said "the issue was raised at a meeting on December 17. We expressed our concern about how Karuna was able to obtain a diplomatic passport."
The Sri Lankan High Commission denied any knowledge of how Karuna obtained a false diplomatic passport.
"The Sri Lankan government is unaware of any diplomatic passport to Karuna or any application for a visa to enter the UK," a spokesman said, adding the rebels were "known for forging passports."
The British government has been concerned about Colombo's alleged backing for Karuna, who broke away from the LTTE three years ago to form his own group, Tameleela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), and is now engaged in fighting the LTTE amid allegations of recruiting child soldiers, many of whom have been reportedly killed.
But, according to Government of Sri Lanka in its official news service, “the Crown Prosecution Service of Britain is looking to charge the controversial former LTTE leader, Karuna Amman of war crimes, torture and hostage-taking, it is reported.”
“Karuna Amman, whose defection was the biggest split that the LTTE has suffered, was arrested in Britain last month on suspicion of immigration offences. He led the LTTE in the East until March 2003, when he left the terrorist organization and formed his own group, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP). The TMVP has since split with Pilliyan taking over the leadership after Karuna left the island,” it’s added.
Sources claimed that a section of British intelligence agreed to grant visa to Karuna if he presented a Sri Lankan passport with fictitious name.
After this, the passport was allegedly presented to the British High Commission in Colombo and an entry visa to Britain was stamped on the passport to enable Karuna to enter the UK to join his wife and three children, who live in a posh suburb of Kensington.
The sources said the other British intelligence group, which was responsible in moving for the arrest of Karuna in London, was not aware of the agreement and inadvertently arrested him.
Once he was arrested and the information about it made public, British authorities were finding it difficult to withdraw the arrest and allow Karuna to return back to Colombo.
Now even deporting him would be controversial as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers have all been urging British authorities to prosecute Karuna for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
