It is a week of ecstasy and agony for the two national heroes who defeated the Tiger guerrillas just this month last year.
For President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave political leadership, it is the third most ecstatic moment, perhaps the most important one. On Thursday, he will stand before the valiant troops to salute them for defeating terrorism and restoring normalcy. The victory day parades, telecast live nationwide will see Rajapaksa paying tribute to those who sacrificed life and limb to unite a nation. His other ecstatic moments this year came when he trounced his comrade-in-arms turned archenemy at the January presidential election. The UPFA's landslide victory at the April 8 parliamentary elections followed.
For retired General Sarath Fonseka, who led troops to victory, it would be agony. Ensconced in the small drawing room of his annexe at Navy Headquarters, where he is now under detention, he would have to be content watching it on a television set, if he intends watching it all. He was allowed to obtain his own TV set and subscribe to newspapers since becoming a parliamentarian. The fact that he directed the military machine to victory and won plaudits as the "best Army Commander in the world" is not in dispute. This war hero faces two different inquiries from Courts Martial. This is whilst the Attorney General's Department prepares to indict him in the Colombo High Court on charges of conspiracy. They are also poring over other evidence that may lead to more indictments.
Last year, when the battles raged on the sandy beaches astride Mullativu, it was inconceivable that the Commander-in-Chief and his then Commander of the Army would become political archrivals. They won the war together. The guerrillas are no more, except for the 10,000 in custody who will face trial, or those who have fled the country. Their armoury is gone. Sri Lanka is no longer making world headlines for bomb explosions or assassinations.
 |
| President Rajapaksa together with war-winning armed services commanders, including Gen. Sarath Fonseka, at last year’s victory parade in Colombo. |
Yet, some of the issues that transformed Tamil moderation into militancy, interesting enough, appear to engage the Government in the past weeks. Even more importantly, it even pre-occupied neighbouring India where the separatist groups first trained and armed themselves to fight a war in Sri Lanka two and half decades ago. It was clear the Congress Government is laying the foundation for opinion building to create an external atmosphere to prompt the Government to address issues relating to Tamil grievances.
The Indian Government's official stamp was seen in an International Conference on Sri Lanka in New Delhi this week organised by the Observer Foundation. Corporate bodies including the Reliance group finance this non-profit group. Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, a veteran on Sri Lankan affairs, delivered the inaugural address.
Political settlement is not a zero-sum game, she said. She noted: "It need not and should not come at the cost of another. The 13th Amendment (to the Sri Lankan Constitution) was designed to provide for considerable devolution of powers to the provinces. This Amendment has gained broad acceptance and has become the fulcrum around which the provincial administration revolves. There is, consequently, need to strengthen and empower these provinces further."
Ms. Rao added: "India's own experiment with democracy has taught us that effective devolution of powers, equal status before the Constitution, equal access to opportunities and addressing of minority concerns ensure that fissiparous forces are contained and differences addressed in an open and democratic fashion."
Three days before the Government made an official decision, Ms. Rao declared that India welcomed "as an important first step the decision of the Sri Lanka Government to constitute a Commission for Reconciliation and to introspect on the conflict and the lessons learnt."
Quite clearly, the remarks followed on the talks between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Mahinda Rajapaksa during the SAARC summit in Bhutan. Rajapaksa told Colombo-based diplomats that "it is our intention to shortly appoint a Commission on Post-Conflict Study and Reconciliation."
Last Wednesday, the Cabinet approved a memorandum from President Rajapaksa to establish a Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation. Rajapaksa wants seven eminent persons in the Commission that will report on matters during the period between February 21, 2002 and May 19, 2009. In other words, the period beginning with the Norwegian brokered Ceasefire Agreement until the military defeat of the Tiger rebels will be probed. Rajapaksa's cabinet memorandum notes that the proposed commission will be modelled on the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and Britain's Iraq war inquiry.
In South Africa, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TERC) was set up to deal with what happened during apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses. The TRC effected its mandate through three committees: the Amnesty Committee, Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee and Human Rights Violations Committee. During past four months, Britain's Iraq war Inquiry has begun uncovering the truth behind that conflict. Then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown ordered the inquiry, which is chaired by former civil servant Sir John Chilcott.
India has asserted that the 13th Amendment that devolves powers to the provinces should be implemented. It views the proposed TRC as a major instrument to elicit issues and formulate remedies. Besides the Indian concurrence for the TRC, the Government's objectives in appointing this body are multi faceted.
Attorney General Mohan Peiris, who was on a visit to the United States last month in the capacity of a special envoy, met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He conveyed the Government's view that the appointment of a panel of experts to advice the UN Secretary General on alleged "war crimes" issues during the end of the separatist war would not be necessary since the Commission would deal with that aspect. Peiris expressed similar sentiments during his talks with senior US Government officials.
Senior UPFA leaders believe Ban may delay the appointment of the panel at least until the Commission launches its inquiry. This is on the grounds that the UN Secretary General would want to see how transparently and independently the TRC would set about its task. However, diplomatic sources say, "the issue will not go away that soon." A further report from the US State Department to the Congress is due this month. The contents, these sources say, may generate international attention.
The implementation of the 13th Amendment is already a thorny issue among some constituent partners of the UPFA. Indian Foreign Secretary Rao's remarks about its implementation had already drawn an angry retort from National Freedom Front (NFF) leader and Minister Wimal Weerawansa. He said the remarks amounted to an interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka. Weerawansa's remarks gain significance for another reason altogether. Leaders of constituent parties of the UPFA decide upon all matters relating to constitutional amendments after detailed study. Our front-page story today reveals one such aspect.
At their last meeting, party leaders decided that amendments to the Constitution should be carried out in different stages. The first will be amendments that will remove from the Constitution the provision to restrict a candidate for presidency contesting only twice. Such a removal will mean a candidate can contest any number of times, opening the door for President Rajapaksa to continue after 2017.
It will also contain amendments to existing provisions in the 17th Amendment. That is to empower the President to appoint the Chairpersons and members of the Elections Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Permanent Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery (PCIAB) or Corruption, the Finance Commission and the Delimitation Commission. In other words, it will completely do away with the 17th Amendment that was unanimously passed by Parliament in 2001. With the conclusion of terms of office of the Police Commission and thereafter the PCIAB, both bodies now remain dysfunctional. The creation of a second chamber or a Senate and other related matters are to be incorporated in later stages.
Indian leaders have shown considerable interest in the recent developments in Sri Lanka. This is reflected in the talks Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe held with top members of the ruling Congress Party during what was deemed a private visit. Among those he met were Home Minister P. Chidambaram, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao. He had also spoken on the telephone to Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee who was away in West Bengal.
Wickemesinghe returned to Colombo on Thursday. At the wedding ceremony of a schoolmate's (former Tourist Board Chairman Paddy Vitharne) daughter at a five-star hotel, he engaged in a public relations drive of sorts. He was seen moving from table to table talking to friends and guests to show he was still upbeat despite the party being hit by a major crisis over his leadership. Yet, the next day Wickremesinghe was busy taking stock of the new developments over the crisis relating to his leadership.
On Friday afternoon, he met with the team appointed by the UNP's Working Committee to recommend reforms including changes in the party's constitution. The Committee headed by one-time Speaker Joseph Michael Perera includes MPs John Ameratunga, Kabeer Hashim, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, Lakshman Kiriella and Attorney Ronald Perera. With the exception of Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, who was at a temple ceremony at Mahiyangana that day, all other members met Wickremesinghe at his Cambridge Place office for a detailed discussion.
The UNP leader had handed to the committee a document containing his own suggestions. In the event of a decision being made to elect a party leader, he has recommended that provision be made to empower such a leader to select the General Secretary and the Treasurer. He was of the view that elections to such posts could cause problems of compatibility to the leader.
Wickremesinghe told the committee that as they had got the opportunity now to make substantive suggestions they should not rush into making hasty recommendations. He had wanted them to look into the composition of the Executive Committee and District Organisers as well.
A factor this Committee is studying right now is how officials, including the party leader, are to be elected. For instance, can anyone stand up and nominate a person to be the party leader. Will this enable a rich businessman who can buy his votes to become the next UNP leader? There were concerns whether the President could foist a popular figure in the party as his conduit to be the party leader. A popular actor could get ideas, but is that what is in the best interest of the party. These nagging questions are what the committee is grappling with right now.
It would therefore seem that the committee will need to go into some kind of pre-qualification scheme prior to electing these officials lest fly-by-nights end up heading the party. Another area the committee is studying is the need to form a sub-committee that would prevent a contest should there be more than one candidate for the leadership and other posts, and to see that these posts are elected, but by consensus vote and not by actual voting; but then this would go against the principle of elections however much it could fracture the party through balloting.
Last week's reference in these columns to the document on UNP reforms submitted by Kurunegala district parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekera has drawn a response from him. "Neither UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe nor any other party senior requested me to prepare a report for party reforms. It was totally a volunteer initiative by me fulfilling my duty and responsibility as a Working Committee member," says Jayasekera in an e-mail to the Sunday Times. I stand corrected.
In fact Wickremesinghe did not ask Jayasekera for any report on reforms. He told the Sunday Times "he (Jayasekera) wanted to see me. He was in hospital and met me soon after he came out. He said he was eager to give me his own views on how the party reforms should be carried out. I asked him to go ahead. The report figured at the Working Committee meeting too."
Thus, Jayasekera's report was unsolicited and the party had chosen to appoint its own committee to study reforms instead of his "five-point strategy."
Jayasekera says in his e-mail that his original document was in English. He adds, "I am not in a position to send you the original English document as it was a restricted document for internal consultation of the party working committee. Whatever struggle we embark on for the purpose of democratising the party would be conducted within the strict disciplinary parameters of the UNP and with due respect to the present leadership. I do hope you would also respect this policy."
Jayasekera, however, has forgotten what he has said in his letter of May3, 2010 to the party leader forwarding his "simple five-point strategy" in achieving reforms "within four months." He says "I have copied these proposals for the entire membership of the Working Committee along with the Party Chair, General Secretary and other officials."
So, it would not be a bad idea for Jayasekera to direct his unsolicited advice to his own party colleagues. Both his letter and the unsolicited (since Wickremesinghe did not ask for it) "simple five-point strategy" circulated within the UNP like their Siyarata newspaper of yore. It will not be a bad idea for him to preach "strict disciplinary parameters" to his colleagues and perhaps practice it himself.
The six-member committee also met Karu Jayasuriya and Dayasiri Jayasekera over the week where both had their own proposals for reform. They intend meeting Sajith Premadasa possibly tomorrow despite some reports to suggest that he was not interested in meeting the committee. Another section of the media is referring to a collective leadership for the party via a Leadership Council and gone to the extent of naming who should comprise the council, viz., Karu Jayasuriya, Sajith Premadasa, Ravi Karunanayake, Gayan Karunathillake and Dayasiri Jayasekera, something that is unlikely to finds its way to the committee's report which is expected to be handed over to Wickremesinghe in the coming week.
On Tuesday, the UNP parliamentary group will meet and thereafter the UNP leader is expected to decide on the date for a joint meeting of the parliamentary group and the Working Committee. It is at this meeting that the party's main policy making body will decide on the future course of the party. In the event of a decision being made on the party leader being elected, it would require amendments to the UNP constitution. Once amended, such a move could be given effect only at the national convention of the UNP in July.
Wickremesinghe also had a one-on-one meeting with his deputy, Karu Jayasuriya, at his Cambridge Place office. The duo are learnt to have discussed developments during the former's absence from Sri Lanka. Ahead of Wickremesinghe's visit to India, Jayasuriya joined his leader for a meeting with India's High Commissioner Ashok Kantha.
There was widespread speculation during Wickremesinghe's absence that he would step down from leadership. Asked for a response upon his return, he told the Sunday Times, "I will remain silent until the Working Committee meeting is over. We are a democratic party. Let them decide what they want to do. I have my plans. I will decide thereafter."
What clearly intensified the problems for Wickremesinghe seems to have been not so much the electoral drubbing the UNP received at the general elections, but his selection of MPs from the National List. Hampered as he was with the limited number of seats available to the party to nominate MPs from that list because of the low vote at the polls, Wickremesinghe fell foul within his own party, especially the National Lawyers Association for overlooking the lawyers who helped the party during the 2005-2010 period in Opposition. Senior partymen omitted from the list like former party chairman Rukman Senanayake moved for a coalition of forces against Wickremesinghe's leadership. On the other hand, coalition partner, the Mano Ganeshan led People's Democratic Front (PDF), has also broken away on the issue, and the UNF's 60 seats in Parliament has now been reduced to 57 with the breakaway of Sri Ranga Jeyeratnam (Nuwara Elita district) and Abdul Cader (Kandy district).
Ganeshan is bitter and has written a biting letter to Wickremesinghe about what he calls the "betrayal" of his party by the United National front (UNF). "The National List issue is over," Ganeshan said in a brief letter to Wickremesinghe; while Tamil members of the UNP blame Wickremesinghe for laying too much emphasis on Geneshan's party in the first place at the expense of the UNP Tamil vote bank that has also now eroded as a result of the UNP sub-contracting its duties to the Tamil voters to other parties.
In the meantime, Sajith Premadasa has begun what is clearly a move to rally round the party membership in the rural areas to his cause, whatever that may be. He is careful in not criticising the party leadership, and recently has said something nice as well thereby causing some concern among those who are backing him for the leadership against Wickremesinghe.
When he met UNP Bala Mandalayas (Branch offices) in the Gampaha district, none of the other MPs from the district was present, prompting Wickremesinghe to rule that he should not summon these meetings. Premadasa's position is that he is not summoning them but only being invited to them. Not to be discouraged he is spending this weekend in the Kandy district addressing some Bala Mandalayas and attending to some religious functions organised by the Aluvihara clan in Matale in memory of the late Alick Aluvihara, the senior UNPer who passed away recently.
It would seem that Premadasa is taking a leaf from President Rajapaksa who went about drumming up support for himself from among the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) during the tenure of President Chandrika Kumaratunga. The rest, of course, is history.
|
E-mail