Saravanamuttu exposed in New York

by Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke and Prof. Asoka Bandarage:

H. L. D. Mahindapala

Change of subject: Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, the director of the Colombo-based think tank, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), was billed to address the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC, on May 24, 2006, on the topic of:" Sri Lanka's Elusive Peace Process - a Role for the United States Government?"

But invitees were surprised to read on the CSIS board that the subject has been changed to: "Sri Lanka's Human Rights and Humanitarian situation".

Saravanamuttu too was shocked when the Asian Tribune, just the day before his talk, ran an article almost foreshadowing what he was likely to say on the subject of the elusive peace in Sri Lanka.

It is possible that the sudden change in the subject occurred because his script was pre-written in the Asian Tribune.

However, the South Asia Director of CSIS, Ms. Teresita Schaffer, who usually invites Saravanamuttu as the authority on the Sri Lankan affairs (even though his punditry is heavily biased, predictable, and counter-productive) had not explained as to why only a known partisan of the agenda of CSIS was invited excluding other shades of opinion.

Think-tanks in USA tend to invite only the hired anti-Sinhala-Buddhist NGOlogists. Protests have been lodged also with Asia Society, another think tank in New York, which tend to believe that the monopoly of brains is only with the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist NGOlogists.

This one-sided dialogue conducted by NGOs in Sri Lanka (they never invite opposite points of view to their discourses) has been one of the basic causes for the failure in understanding and developing strategies to solve the north-south crisis.

Getting back to Saravanamuttu, he got exposed by Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke and Prof. Asoka Bandarage of Georgetown University who pointed out the falsities and the inconsistencies in his presentation.

Saravanamuttu referred to US involvement in Sri Lanka. One point was that there should be a curtailment of US military aid and assistance. He did not say bluntly that such assistance should be stopped but implied it in the statement that such assistance should be tied to benchmarks.

Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke, who was present at the meeting responded by saying that the military assistance the US gives Sri Lanka is mostly limited to training and limited military sales. He added that when such is the case, curtailment of military assistance is not going to be a very effective tool. He said that if the government's back was pushed against the wall, Sri Lanka would seek military purchases from other countries which do not impose conditions.

Saravanamuttu commented that when Sri Lanka veered toward the west in the late 1970s, New Delhi was concerned. He added that in the contemporary global political arena, given the current relationship between the US and India, both these countries look upon Sri Lanka's relationship with China, with much wariness.

However, Ambassador pointed out that Sri Lanka has had a stable relationship with China for over 50 years. Furthermore, China has no intention of getting involved in Sri Lanka's conflict or in filling an existing vacuum.

He illustrated his point with a very potent Chinese adage which says that if one's house is on fire, one should seek water, not in the neighbour's well, but in one's own well. In other words, a country needs to look within to resolve a national conflict.

Saravanamuttu also complained that there was a duality in the US policy on the ground in Sri Lanka and added that his present visit to the US was an attempt to raise awareness and to seek support for an international human rights monitor. He labeled Sri Lanka as "the worst place in the world for civilians, in the past 15 months."

Ambassador Goonetilleke replied that he had personally been involved with the human rights situation in Sri Lanka since 1986, and what is true of all armed conflicts in the world is that it is the civilians who suffer the most, not the combatants.

He commented on Saravanamuttu's reference to LTTE leader Prabhakaran's statement in November 2005 that he would give the newly-elected president time to solve the conflict. Despite that, within two weeks of President Mahinda Rajapaksa assuming office, Prabhakaran had started attacking Security Forces and civilians.

He said that the first time the government responded to LTTE violence was after the assassination attempt on the Army Commander inside Army headquarters on April 25, 2006.

Thereafter, as the number of terrorist attacks increased, government's strategy changed and with the current heightened violence, it would be difficult for the government to control the situation in the short term. He added that when there is a peace-like situation in the country, the human rights violations reduce substantially.

However, with the conflict in its present proportions, the situation naturally gets out of control.

He also commented that the figures of Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) he possesses are much less than the 300,000 Saravanamuttu stated.

Saravanamuttu spoke of the inviability of a military solution to the conflict and the need to negotiate with the LTTE.

Ambassador Goonetilleke very pertinently asked what kind of negotiations he is speaking of - whether they would be the kind of negotiations we have had with the LTTE thus far, where peace talks are limited to day-to-day logistical issues of the Tamil people and which they abandon the moment they are ready to restart the war, or whether they would be meaningful discussions of a substantive nature to arrive at a durable solution, that have never taken place before.

Having been involved in the peace process during 2002-2003, as head of the Peace Secretariat, Ambassador explained that at that time the government delegation was not allowed to raise any substantive issues.

Are peace talks to go the same way the next time too? he asked. Saravanamuttu said that the merger of the northeast being overturned in the current context had potentially ominous long term consequences.

Professor Asoka Bandarage at George Town University who was in the audience, asked if such a merger was fair to the Muslims and the Sinhalese in the east. She asked if the Muslims should then ask for a separate state for the Muslims.

She also very pertinently commented that large numbers of Tamils in the north and the east have fled to the south to live peacefully among the Sinhalese and the Muslims. In such a situation, she pointed out, there was no justification for the LTTE to wage war seeking secession.

Saravanamuttu was very clear on the point that there was no way the LTTE could claim to be the sole representative of the Tamil people. He added that that there will never be a majority opinion among the Tamil community in Sri Lanka for secession.

He believes that the best option for conflict resolution is the exploration of a federal solution within a united Sri Lanka and he emphasized that negotiations should not end up with a compact between the LTTE and the Government.