LTTE's Trinco build up: the spin around the facts
Reports of a non event in Sri Lanka - the declaration of a state of emergency - continue to have its sequel. Media reports worldwide have been overwhelmingly hostile over something President Kumaratunga wanted to but did not do - sign a proclamation under the Public Security Ordinance to invoke emergency rule. That it gave her powers to over ride any law other than the Constitution provoked the media backlash. It conjured up memories of a horrible past.

A sampling of just two reports to give an idea of the chaos and confusion she caused: TIME magazine "…intensifying the unpredictability were the President's starkly contradictory actions. Kumaratunga declared a state of emergency, then declined to sign the order two days later…." NEWSWEEK " ……two days after declaring a state of emergency, the island nation's feisty President Chandrika Kumaratunga replaced it with less severe measures….."

This week the Joint Business Forum, the apex body of business, industry, banks and commercial organisations complained about the serious economic downturn. They said the rupee had depreciated, the stock market had collapsed and the tourist industry was suffering a negative impact.

Little wonder, media staff at Janadipathi Mandiraya lined up one interview after another for President Kumaratunga with the foreign media. With a deteriorating slump in the economy, damage control became paramount. But that emergency operation was not for the locals. It seemed they did not matter.

One such encounter was with Edward Luce, South Asia Bureau Chief of The Financial Times. Regarded as the business world's bible, the newspaper is widely read in most countries. He had a 50 minute fully tape recorded interview on November 13.

Mr Luce asked "Many of your supporters say that Mr. Wickremasinghe's government is pursuing peace talks with the LTTE without broader guiding principles or even pursuing 'peace at any cost.' Is this a correct summary of why you've taken the action you've taken?"

President Kumaratunga gave a lengthy answer. In the course of that she referred to The Sunday Times. She said "…..But before we talked about it all this was leaked in The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka). And so I talked to the Commander of the Navy and blasted him and he said 'Madam what are we to do? We are not supposed to tell you anything."

The question and the relevant answer where the reference is made appear in a box story on this page. It also contains a subsequent denial from the President’s Office to The Financial Times. Though some local media reproduced this interview, no copies of this denial were released to them.

Like the reports of the declaration of a state of emergency, the remarks made by President Kumaratunga to The FinancialTimes is also over a non event. Her charge that the Navy leaked the story about a Tiger guerrilla build up in Trincomalee to The Sunday Times is simply not true. Hence, the claim that the Navy Commander (Vice Admiral Daya Sandagiri) was "blasted," logical enough, is equally not true. No doubt he would have felt embarrassed and humiliated. That is in the eyes of the whole world and before the troops he commands.

In fact Vice Admiral Sandagiri wanted to point out to President Kumaratunga she had made a serious mistake. That was last Tuesday afternoon, just before the National Security Council met at the Janadipathi Mandiraya. It was soon after the President had received Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe to discuss matters relating to the ongoing political crisis - the result of her taking over the portfolios of Defence, Interior and Mass Communications.

The Sunday Times learnt that Vice Admiral Sandagiri could hardly say the reported remarks were not true. He was pre empted. "I know all about it," said President Kumaratunga. She was just then poring over a draft letter that was to be sent to The Financial Times. She told him The Sunday Times had already "protested" over her remarks published in that newspaper.

That was because I wrote to President Kumaratunga expressing my "dismay and concern." I told her the disclosures in The Sunday Times were made after my own investigations over which I had spent considerable time and effort. Even the map accompanying my report, I said, was formulated by The Sunday Times staff and asserted that the report was in no way based on information "leaked" to me by the Navy. I requested her, in fairness to both the Navy and myself, to set out the correct factual position.

That was how she was busy with that draft letter. Later, Janadasa Peiris, Director General (Media) in the President's Office had signed it. He faxed it to Edward Luce at The Financial Times South Asia Bureau in New Delhi. (See box story for full text) I telephoned Mr. Peiris to obtain a copy. Though he had signed it, I found it was not dated. Nor has it been released to the local media that published the interview last week. Here again, the local media, it seems, did not matter. Or was it out of fear that there would be more embarrassment or another credibility crisis?

In that undated letter Mr Peiris said "The manner in which certain statements made by the President have been strung together leaving out other sentences which could clarify the said statements, has given the impression:

• That the President criticized the Commander of the Navy for not keeping the President informed about the serious security situation in time, and
  
• Secondly, that the Navy Commander without informing the President has given information to the media.
  "This is not at all what the President said. What the President said were the following:
• That although the President was kept informed of a deteriorating security situation, the President learnt of the details from the Defence column of a particular newspaper.
• That the President asked the Military authorities why she was not informed of all these details. The response was that there was no system put in place for briefing the President since the subject of Defence was handed over by the President to a separate Minister, they were reluctant to do so."

In effect, Mr. Peiris, the Director General (Media) in the President's Office is saying boldly that President Kumaratunga did not say the Navy "leaked" the information to The Sunday Times. He is also saying quite categorically that she "merely asked the Military authorities why she was not informed of these details" (printed in The Sunday Times).

Therefore it is very clearly manifest that she did not "blast" the Commander of the Navy. The fault, according to Mr. Peiris, was the way Mr. Luce, a graduate in politics, philosophy and economics of the Oxford University, "had strung together" certain statements made by the President "leaving out other sentences."

If that assertion of Mr. Peiris is correct, The Financial Times had placed the President of Sri Lanka, who is the Minister of Defence, Commander-in-Chief, Head of Cabinet, Head of State and Head of Government in very poor light. The person who is holding the highest office in Sri Lanka has been reported wrongly (if not mischievously) of publicly admonishing an armed forces commander for leaking information to a newspaper.

If indeed, such a misdemeanour occur, a commander should have been reprimanded in private. Not publicly for the whole world, his own subordinates and even those in the other services to see. That is in fact the accepted norm worldwide when a Commander-in-Chief deals with an armed forces commander. They are not publicly ridiculed or humiliated. Both hold high office. The dignity as well as the honour of their office has to be upheld.

Though trivial, Mr Peiris' assertion that "the President learnt of the details from the Defence column of a particular newspaper" is still a serious matter. If these were the words used in The Financial Times interview, why on earth did they quote President Kumaratunga as saying "…all this was leaked in The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)…" Surely that newspaper could not have introduced the reference to The Sunday Times on their own, or did they? Or, is Mr. Peiris or President Kumaratunga too shy to identify The Sunday Times.

I asked The Financial Times what they had to say about the denial from the President's Office. They issued an official statement. This is what it says "The Financial Times fully stands by its reporting of the interview with Her Excellency President Chandrika Kumaratunga." Needless to say that one line rebuttal will appear when they publish Mr. Peiris' letter.

That one liner sums up the exact truth behind what The Financial Times has reported. In other words it debunks all the claims made by Mr. Peiris (on behalf of President Kumaratunga) in his two page letter. A mistake has been made through some utterances. A bigger mistake has been made in the subsequent attempt to cover up. To use Mr. Peiris' own words this cover up is also by making certain statements "strung together" leaving out "other sentences." As a result, the highest in the land is projected as telling untruths.

Another glaring fact is the local media that published the interview has been kept in the dark. They have not been told of the denial. Nor are they aware that The Financial Times has insisted that their report was an accurate account. A corollary of this is the fact that Sri Lankans are being kept in the dark. That is barely two weeks after the media portfolio was taken over by President Kumaratunga to provide accurate accounts to the Sri Lankan public - the dawn of a true, transparent media culture as some PA leaders claimed.

There is a moral to this story - attempts to distort the truth through various means, some violent, some through intimidation, harassment and others through spin - will not succeed in the long run. Those in successive governments, including the high and the mighty, have accused both The Sunday Times and me in the past of being terrorist accomplices, brothel owners (a bizarre mode to obtain information), darlings of arms dealers and "spoilers" of the peace process - all in that desperate bid to hide the truth being told to the public. Let them take the credit if there is any. But in doing so, let them not bury the truth.

It would not be inappropriate to recount here some of the repercussions after The Sunday Times (Situation Report - August 3) exclusive revelations about the Tiger guerrilla build up in the Trincomalee district. The disclosure gave details of the gradual transformation of the landscape around Trincomalee with guerrillas opening new camps, re-occupying ones abandoned and setting up satellite camps around bases that existed.

It lays bare how these developments also posed a threat to a major Indian investment - state owned Indian Oil Corporation's (IOC) leasing out of a part of the World War II vintage oil tanks. The report was accompanied by a map from The Sunday Times graphics expert Wasantha Siriwardena. It gave the locations referred to in the report.
The very next day (August 4) President Kumaratunga ordered Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Sandagiri and Army Commander, Lt. Gen. Balagalle to brief her senior advisors on the guerrilla threats in Trincomalee. They did so to Lakshman Kadirgamar, senior international affairs advisor and Chandrananda de Silva, senior defence advisor. Also present were Rear Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, Commander, Eastern Naval Area and Brigadier Nimal Jayasuriya, Director Operations of the Army. The briefings confirmed the revelations made exclusively by The Sunday Times.

By September, the People's Alliance was armed with full details. In addition to the revelations in these columns, the Navy had made available a grid map marking out the areas. President Kumaratunga wrote to Premier Wickremasinghe raising issue. A letter war erupted between the two.

Her senior international affairs advisor, Mr Kadirgamar who visited New Delhi briefed Indian leaders, those in the Government and in the Opposition. Interesting enough, they were made available with a dossier that contained The Sunday Times (Situation Report) of August 3 and a map provided by the Navy. This was to raise concerns in the higher echelons of the Indian Government.

In Colombo, former Defence Secretary, Austin Fernando, called for a full report from Army Commander Lt. Gen. Balagalle expressly on the revelations in The Sunday Times. He was also asked to make his observations about the map where guerrilla positions were identified. In a report the latter submitted on September 12 (along with a detailed map), comments were made on each location identified in these columns.

The Army confirmed the markings in the map that was published were checked and found correct except in one case. The presence of one camp was not verifiable, they said. Chief Government Spokesman Prof. G.L. Peiris claimed at a news conference there were no new camps in Government controlled areas in Trincomalee except in Manirasakulam (Puli Paanchan Kulam). But it was countered by PA spokesman, Sarath Amunugama who declared they existed and warned that "we are facing a serious situation."

In September, the The Sunday Times revelations figured at a meeting President Kumaratunga had with Japan's Special Envoy for the Sri Lankan peace process, Yasushi Akashi. During a discussion on the security situation in the east, President Kumaratunga, asked whether he was aware of security developments in the Trincomalee district. When he showed unfamiliarity, she asked why then Japan's Ambassador to Sri Lanka Seichiro Otsuka had not briefed him about the "report in The Sunday Times by Iqbal Athas."

The matter also figured at a meeting between President Kumaratunga and Premier Wickremasinghe. She raised the issue drawing a comment from the latter. "Iqbal Athas can report what he wants. But security chiefs have not told us," he quipped. It was Mr. Kadirgamar who interrupted to point out that the security chiefs had in fact warned his Defence Minister, Tilak Marpana of the portending threats in Trincomalee.
On October 8 Mr Marapana admitted in Parliament that there indeed was a guerrilla build up in Trincomalee.

In the aftermath, Premier Wickremasinghe succeeded in obtaining Indian Premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee's support to forge a Defence Co-operation Agreement. India also declared it had an "abiding interest" in Sri Lanka's security. President Kumaratunga has quite rightly taken control of the defence portfolio. As I said last week this has halted a deteriorating security balance. This was with the guerrillas becoming stronger and the armed forces weaker.

Since the ceasefire the United National Front government's policy objective was to downsize the military and find placements for their personnel in the UN Peace Keeping force. With this in mind, the armed forces were not re-equipped at the beginning. A so called Defence Review Committee (DRC) churned out report after report spending millions of rupees from tax payer's funds.

Its only objective, though not formally declared, was to deprive President Kumaratunga's powers as Commander-in-Chief. All these have now become pipe dreams. Whether those responsible for these wasted efforts would learn lessons from the futile exercises remains a crucial question.

On the subject of formal interviews with the media, it is customary for responsible media officials to be present when a President, Prime Minister or even a Minister is interviewed. This is to ensure no mistakes are made. They usually point out factual inaccuracies or wrong assertions.

This is a standard practice in many countries. If such media staff were in fact present when President Kumaratunga gave interviews to the foreign media, it would be incumbent on them to point out mistakes that affect national security interests, causes her acute embarrassment or seriously damages her own credibility. The question is whether such a practice is followed by those in the Presidential media apparatus. Leave alone sending out undated letters, even the issue of press releases from the Presidential Media unit go by favour. Sometimes one has to be influential enough to obtain a copy.

A common practice of politicians in Sri Lanka is to accuse the media whenever they bare the truth about deficiencies in the military including corruption. They take shelter behind the facade that such reports affect morale.

If that is hilarious enough, media staff tasked to do a job in assisting the highest in the land seem to be failing. They should ensure there is greater restraint and responsibility by doing their own job - pointing out the flaws. It is not only troop morale that is affected by irresponsible utterances but also national security interests. Much more importantly the credibility of the highest in the land has to be maintained if public confidence here and abroad is to be elicited.

In this instance an armed forces commander has been reprimanded before a world audience for no offence on his part. No amount of spin can help except in the servile media. A nation cannot afford such blunders at a critical moment in its history. One has to say enough is enough.

What CBK told The Financial Times
In a 50 minute fully tape recorded interview she gave Edward Luce, South Asia Bureau Chief of The Financial TimesPresident Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga answered many questions.

The interview appeared on November 14 issue of the widely read newspaper and was reproduced in the local media last week. One of the questions Mr. Luce asked was: "Many of your supporters say that Mr. Wickremasinghe's government is pursuing peace talks with the LTTE without broader guiding principles or even pursuing "peace at any cost." Is this a correct summary of why you've taken the action you've taken?
President Kumaratunga gave a lengthy answer. In that reply she made reference to The Sunday Times. Here is the full text:

"I wouldn't agree that I took defence over because they were negotiating "peace at any cost". How could I correct a peace process that was going wrong by taking over defence, by going to war even? No, it certainly wasn't that at all. But the only reason that I said in my speech is that during the ceasefire period (which began in February 2002) and while this so-called peace process was going on, the government permitted the security situation to slide very seriously and dangerously. And people began to tell me - I always advised the prime minister and warned him sometimes very firmly but none of it was taken seriously - until obviously it came to this point. They just ignored it and then washed their hand off it - blamed somebody else.

"I will give you two examples. The main point is that because of the very serious security situation that was threatening the integrity of the state that I felt large numbers of people including those who voted for the UNP (Mr. Wickremasinghe's United National Party) said to me: "You are supposed to be a powerful president you haven't used your executive powers, do something about it."

And by the way, after I took over the defence portfolio, in the three days before I made the speech, some organisations have done some surveys and 82 per cent of the people shared my concerns and supported this.

"So I did not take the defence portfolio back to attack some LTTE camp or other things. I had to take over defence. Even according to the ceasefire agreement there are certain limits the LTTE are meant to follow. But the defence minister and prime minister allowed some gross things to happen. They said: "Well madam you have to turn a blind eye to some of this". Six shipments of arms (for the LTTE) were allowed to be brought in. Some of them were 60-tonne ships carrying surface-to -surface missiles. In other words, they allowed the LTTE to do things that no sovereign state would even dream of permitting. So all I did was try to balance it.

"The LTTE has now surrounded the chief naval base of the country in Trincomalee, which is also the second largest port in the country. They have surrounded it with 17 camps put up in total violation of the ceasefire agreement. And the government is doing nothing about it. When I got official reports from the navy on the situation and the army and I kept telling the PM he was doing nothing about it - at the national security council meeting they would say "How did you get this information?" and they kept dismissing it.

But the army and navy were getting very restless and kept telling me: "Do something about it." And finally it came to a point where we confidentially briefed some representatives of countries that are important to us - I didn't but I got some of my advisers to do that - then we told some senior editors of the situation.

This was in August or September. But before we talked about it all this was leaked to the Sunday Times (Sri Lanka). And so I talked to the Commander of the navy and blasted him and said: "Madam what are we to do? We are not supposed to tell you anything." And then we told a few people because we love this country.

And then the prime minister found out about it and started saying that we were trying to sabotage this peace process. Obviously I know it's a tightrope walk to keep the ceasefire and dialogue going with the LTTE and at the same time not permitting them to do all the things they are doing at the moment. But I think if one was firm they (LTTE) would understand.

So all I did was take over the defence portfolio and gave instructions as soon as I took over not to allow LTTE to do anything that would harm the ceasefire arrangement. Today I had a much more detailed discussion with the commanders about the pros and cons of this situation. And I have given very specific instructions and guidelines within the law - please keep the status quo and do not harm the peace and dialogue process. But this had better stop.

Now this defence minister and the prime minister handed over the entire responsibility of the government of Sri Lanka to the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (Scandinavian ceasefire monitors). The government was putting the whole thing onto the monitors. And the government says "Why don't you tell them to remove the camps?" But they (the monitors) can't. Dismantling a camp is entirely the government's job. The poor things didn't know what to do.

President Chandrika Kumaratunga's response to the references made to The Sunday Times and the Navy Commander came through Janadasa Peiris her Director General (Media).

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.