 |
|||||||
|
The facts speak
for themselves Last week's Situation Report in The Sunday Times headlined "HOW EELAM WAR 4 WAS AVERTED" has prompted Brgiadier S.G. Karunaratne, Military Spokesman, to forward what he terms a "clarification." However, he has not disclosed who the official author or issuing authority of this "clarification" printed on four plain sheets of paper is. It only bears the initials of Brig. Karunaratne. The
Sunday Times has learnt that Defence Secretary Austin
Fernando prepared this "clarification" with the help of
officials and legal advisers from his own Ministry. How
Eelam War 4 Was Averted "1. Mr. Athas states in the exclusive situation report in the last paragraph of column four that "the SLMM monitors had made their first determination - for two guerrilla cadres to surrender with the weapons to the Navy and the rest to the SLMM." "The factual position however is that the SLMM in its first ruling did not state anything of that sort. Having emphasized on the background to the situation in Thiriyaya (off Kuchchaweli), it stated as follows.
Quote:
"No one would see any similarity between what happened and what is reported in this article. In the ruling there isn't a word on surrender of cadres or weapons to the Navy or SLMM. A certified copy of the Fax Message - I received from SLMM at 7.10 pm on 23-4-03, informing the first ruling is attached for reference. One would observe that the reference to the two guerrillas, weapons etc is only a figment of imagination. "2. According to Mr. Athas, by the second determination or the ruling, there had been a "proposal for the Navy to release the seven Tiger guerrillas in exchange for a soldier and Policeman in LTTE custody." See paragraph two of column 5 of the report. "Quote below is the second ruling given by the Head of the SLMM received at 7.26 p.m. on 23-2-93. See annexed Fax Message 2. Quote: "Interestingly, the second determination according to the report has relevance to a prisoner swap and it flows from his imaginary first determination/ruling - a theory enunciated by the reporter. This is another absolute falsehood as proved beyond any doubt from the above quoted rulings given by the HOM/SLMM. "3. First paragraph of column 6 of the report states that the Defence Secretary has raised the prisoner swap "issue" with Mr. Karuna of the LTTE in Batticaloa, when they met on the 28th February 2003. Those who attended this meeting such as the Resident Representative of the UNICEF and all SLMM personnel who are independent of the Ministry of Defence or the LTTE would bear witness that it is a deliberate and mischievous lie. "When this matter was raised by Mr. Karuna, both the Secretary of Defence and Gen. Furuhovde (HOD/SLMM) objected to a prisoner swap as the circumstances under which these individuals were taken into custody differed. The Secretary has insisted on honouring, respecting and adhering to the ruling of the SLMM, for which a swap was not necessary. The Head of the SLMM endorsed this view and even went to the extent of requesting Mr. Karuna to inform the LTTE hierarchy to that effect. What the writer has tried to do was to fuel the dangerous notion that the Government was trying to swap prisoners by getting two GOSL prisoners released having given up thirteen persons (i.e. seven from Thiriyaya incident, who were only surrounded but could not be taken to custody as they resisted with shooting/suicidal threats, automatically returned due to the separation order of the SLMM under the CFA, which the government had to abide under the circumstances to avert a deadly clash - six prisoners who are in custody in Trincomalee Remand Prison, whose release was demanded by LTTE and Mr. Karuna). If this release had taken place there would have been utter pandemonium in the south, and what else could have been in the mind of the writer than the creation of such calamity, so that there could be another exclusive situation report on the blunders of individual officers or on the part of the Government. Therefore, the attempts to create this dangerous notion could be termed as selfish and irresponsible, not expected from senior journalists of the calibre of Mr. Athas. "The release of the two prisoners held by the LTTE on 5.3.03 without any swapping has proved that the dream world logic of the author has been proved incorrect. The people who are involved in the peace process know that the release was on the representations made by the SLMM to the LTTE, based on the above-mentioned second ruling, which was constantly supported by the Ministry of Defence. "What the Hon. Prime Minister stated at the Commonwealth Press Union Biennial Conference is relevant here, while lamenting that there are instances of "baseless and inflammatory" reporting.
Quote: "How relevant is this statement to this article is unquestionable. The regret is that a week after this statement was made, still "baseless, inflammatory and unsubstantiated deliberate misrepresentations" appear in national newspapers. It is expected that this negative attitude will cease in the future, not for the sake of the military establishment or the politicians, but for the sake of our motherland and its future generations, irrespective of how much individuals would loose personally by refraining from unethical writing. "We hold The Sunday Times in high esteem and categorically state that reports of this nature do not do justice at all to the credibility of your esteemed newspaper. This is not the first occasion where the Situation Report has cast aspersions on issues related to the implementation of the Cease-fire Agreement, based on half-truths. The Ministry of Defence chose to ignore such reporting purely for the respect we had towards your esteemed newspaper and being disinterested in engaging ourselves in verbal assault or harangue. Since the malicious campaign against the Ministry is continued unabated we considered that it is timely that we put the record straight, at least once for the public to know what is disseminated in the name of Defence reporting. We further hope this constructive criticism of your reporting will not cause the opening of a barrage of wild allegations against the Defence establishment. It is a pity if it happens so. "All this mess we believe is due to not verifying the information received by the writer. It must be stated here that to the credit of some journalists in your newspaper and many others, verification of information is made before publication. If Mr. Athas requires such verification we would always gladly treat him in the same manner we oblige others. I believe that such interaction would eliminate making silly mistakes as had been done in this report and moreover prevent deliberate misrepresentation of the truth and misguiding the readership of your valuable and esteemed newspaper. We trust that in keeping with fairness expected from a responsible and esteemed national newspaper you will publish this clarification in its entirety, by giving equal publicity, as given to the quoted report.
Iqbal Athas adds: Let me deal with the three actual matters that (Mr Fernando's) "clarification" seeks to challenge: 1. It challenges the paragraph that says "the SLMM monitors had made their first determination - for two guerrilla cadres to surrender with the weapons to the Navy and the rest to the SLMM." The "clarification" says "there isn't a word on surrender of cadres or weapons to the Navy or SLMM…." Pointing out that it is "only a figment of imagination" the "clarification" goes on to quote an SLMM ruling to give what is claimed to be "the factual position." Mr. Fernando has conveniently chosen to ignore the factual position given by the Sri Lanka Navy whose men were at the scene. It is not too late, even at this stage, for Mr. Fernando to refer to the "restricted" signal COMEAST (Commander Eastern Naval Area) sent to Naval Headquarters on February 24. The D.T.G. (Date, Time Group) Number is 2422100203. This is what the relevant paragraph (IV) says: "SLMM MEMBERS AND CCON (Reference is to Contingent Commander) ARRIVED LOCATION AND NEGOTIATED WITH LTTE. LTTE TEAM LEADER REFUSED SURRENDER WITH WEAPONS. ON A DISCUSSION CCON AND LTTE TEAM LEADER CCON HAD MANAGED TO OBTAIN CONSENT TO SURRENDER TWO LTTE CADRES WITH WEAPONS TO SLN AND OTHERS TO SLMM. PROPOSAL CONVEYED TO SLMM AND AGREED. SUBSEQUENTLY TWO CADRES WITH WEAPONS SURRENDERED TO SLN. CCON REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS FROM COMEAST TO PROCEED WITH PROPOSAL…… The CCOM referred to is Sri Lanka Navy's own representative who negotiated with the LTTE together with the SLMM members. He was identified in the Situation Report last week as Commander K.K.J. Silva, Contingent Commander who is based at the SLN detachment in Nilaveli. He was the senior-most Navy officer and consequently the highest-ranking Government representative on the spot. He has not only referred categorically to the first SLMM determination but also negotiated on behalf of Mr. Fernando’s Government. Why then is a lowly attempt being made to hide the role-played by this senior Navy official who was the senior-most Government representative (together with the SLMM) at the negotiations in Kuchchaweli? How does it, therefore, become a "figment of imagination." Why this sinister move to hide the truth? 2. The "clarification" next challenges the reference made to a "proposal for the Navy to release the seven Tiger guerrillas in exchange for a soldier and Policeman in LTTE custody." Mr. Fernando says the "report has relevance to a prisoner swap" and claims "this is another absolute falsehood." Well, here is more to confirm what I reported. As I said last week, Defence Secretary Austin Fernando dealt with matters relating to the Kuchchaveli incident from the office of Major General Sarath Fonseka, Security Forces Commander, Jaffna, in the late afternoon of February 23. The following were among those present with him: Minister Milinda Moragoda, Army Commander Lt. Gen. Lionel Balagalle, Navy Commander Vice Admiral Daya Sandagiri, Air Force Commander Air Marshal Donald Perera, Rear Admiral Nandana Tuduwewatte, Commander, Northern Naval Area and Group Captain Kolitha Gunatilleke, Air Officer Commanding, SLAF Base, Palaly. Defence Secretary Fernando was dealing on the telephone with Gen. (retd) Trond Furuhovde about the rounding up of the seven guerrilla cadres near Kuchchaveli. He was watched by a senior Cabinet Minister and high ranking military officials. When he was told about the SLMM's first determination, Mr. Fernando was not satisfied. He made a second telephone call to Gen. Furuhovde to make a plea on behalf of the soldier (Nihal Kumara) and Constable (Ananda Gunasekera) who were then in LTTE custody. Whilst pointing out that as a Government, they were obliged to accept the determinations of the SLMM, Mr. Fernando made the point that the release of the soldier and constable would have to be ensured. He said otherwise there would not only be strong media criticism but the Government would find it difficult to face the people in the South. I have re-confirmed this with many who were present in Maj. Gen. Fonseka's room and others. I am at a loss to understand why on earth, the "clarification" attempts to hide this truth. It is because Mr. Fernando raised issue that the SLMM in their second determination (a copy was delivered to The Sunday Times together with the "clarification") declared "LTTE will immediately release Corporal Kumara and RPC Gunasekera." This same document (SLMM’s second determination) declares in paragraph one that "As a result of repeatedly arrests (sic) of strayed individuals and with reference to the extremely dangerous situation West of Kuchchaveli, HOM (Head of Mission) has made the following ruling: "LTTE will immediately release Corporal Kumara (SLA) and RPC 31224 Don Sumith Ananda Gunasekera held in LTTE custody. The basis for the ruling is found in the final Paragraph of the Preamble in Cease-fire Agreement." In other words, SLMM acted on Mr. Fernando's representations and made this second determination. 3. Next, the author of the clarification says, I referred to a "prisoner swap" issue being discussed between Mr. Fernando and Mr. Karuna of the LTTE in Batticaloa on February 28. This is an ugly attempt to mislead the public. Dealing with the talks with Mr. Karuna, I made no reference to any "prisoner swap" in this column. Here is what I said (Situation Report - March 2) dealing with Mr. Fernando's talks with Mr Karuna: "….But there was no news in the days that followed about the soldier and the policemen, much to the chagrin of the SLMM. They wrote a strong letter to the LTTE. "Defence Secretary Fernando raised issue with LTTE's "Eastern Commander, Colonel" Karuna, with whom he held talks in Batticaloa.…." How did the author of the "clarification" come to the conclusion that I raised the "prisoner swap issue” The author has got his knickers in a twist. The issue here was not so much as what Mr. Fernando raised, did not raise or was hesitant to raise. I was making the point that the Government has not been able to secure the release of a single soldier who had been languishing in an LTTE jail for nearly three months. And a constable was taken in only just over two weeks ago. And now, LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran ordered their release only last Wednesday. That was only after SLMM Chief, Trond Furuhovde and his new successor Triggve Tellefson met him. Mr. Fernando’s "clarification" is therefore a futile attempt to not only hide the truth but to villify those who report it. I thank the author of this "clarification" for reminding me of the sacred journalistic edict of checking facts. I would, however, advise him, as a person holding a responsible office, to practise his own gratuitous advice. More so when he unashamedly wants all the media to “interact” with him, to use his own words, “to eliminate making silly mistakes ... to prevent deliberate misinterpretation of the truth...” |
|||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
