What
of Eric Solheim now, ladies and gentlemen?
A few years ago, when I was working in a Sunday newspaper, I was
tasked among other things, to write the editorial. One Saturday a
strange thing happened. I usually wrote the editorial on Saturday
morning. I start on my weekly political column around 11.00 am and by
about 1.00 pm I am done for the day. I then hang around until the city
edition is all done, joking around with colleagues. That Saturday, the
December 23, 2006, I had to go to Kegalle, so I left around 5.00 pm.
I didn’t get a chance to read the newspaper on Sunday, but when I
found a copy on Monday, Christmas Day, I was surprised to find that my
editorial missing. I still remember the title of the piece: ‘What now on
Norway, Mr.
President?’ This was after Eric Solheim and other top Norwegians
involved in the so-called ‘peace process’ in Sri Lanka had made
tendentious comments at the funeral of LTTE ideologue, Anton Balasingham.
Those remarks clearly demonstrated Norway’s partiality to the LTTE. For
the record the editorial that was carried was essentially a vilification
of the Rajapaksa regime that this newspaper had by that time made its
signature theme.
My relations with the editor were strained even then, so I called the
CEO of the company and asked him what happened. He told me later that
the position of the editor was ‘we are for negotiations’. Well, the
newspaper had a tag, ‘fiercely independent’. More than this, there was a
scandalous lack of courtesy on the part of the editor. As the final
gatekeeper he had the right to reject my copy, but not only did he not
tell me, but got someone else to write something else while I was still
in office. I quit in disgust immediately.
I was reminded of this today as I read the lead story in The Island
(September 28, 2009): ‘Norway, Solheim helped establish LTTE-Eritrea
links for arms deals’.
Norway’s complicity in the Eelam Project and the terrorism that was
its unmistakable signature was even at that time obvious and well
documented. Norway’s role as facilitator was therefore nothing less than
a facilitation of terrorism and the division of the country.
When the editor said ‘negotiation’ in real terms it meant
‘negotiating surrender to terrorism and the Eelam agenda’.
Today no one in his or her right mind would defend Norway’s role in
Sri Lanka. High-ranking LTTE leaders who have been captured have
squealed and this explains in part why Norway and others complicit in
the LTTE agenda did their best to secure some ‘out’ for the LTTE when it
became clear that the terrorists could not stop the Sri Lankan Security
Forces despite all the braggadocio.
Solheim is reported to have said at one point that Mahinda Rajapaksa
does not understand that Prabhakaran cannot be defeated militarily.
Later, Solheim probably realizing that he was dead wrong, tried to
secure safe passage for Prabhakaran. Now, this having failed, he has
gone out of his way to vilify the Rajapaksa administration calling for
war-crimes probes and what not.
Quite apart from the double-standards evident in the call by certain
sections of the international community for investigating Sri Lanka,
today we are compelled to ask if the logic behind these moves is to stop
investigations into their own roles in supporting the LTTE. The capture
of ‘KP’ seems to have irked them all. The man is reported to be spilling
the beans, dropping names by the dozen, revealing links and support
chains. Those who are guilty are now very likely to be sweating, even if
they are in the arctic.
Norway’s love for the LTTE was essentially one that was predicated on
economic interests. They were eyeing to oceanic resources of the island
and of course oil.
To this end, they offered all kinds of goodies to the LTTE. According
to the Island report, the Norwegian Embassy in Colombo had gone to the
extent of contacting the Maldivian Government in May 2007 when the Coast
Guard of that country had intercepted a trawler carrying cargo for the
LTTE, to see its release. As for Solheim, the chief ‘facilitator’, he
stands accused of being directly involved in establishing Eritrean-LTTE
links.
So much for ‘neutrality’ and so much for their ‘desire to see a
resolution of the conflict’! Bunkum!
I would re-formulate the question that I asked in the
killed-editorial. What now of Norway, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe? In fact
I could ask the same question from Chandrika Kumaratunga, who was
instrumental in getting Eric Solheim and other Norwegians to poke their
dirty and greedy fingers in the conflict. It could be asked of all those
who howled in protest when in January 2008 Mahinda Rajapaksa officially
abrogated the Ceasefire Agreement.
It could be asked of all ‘journalists’ and ‘media rights advocates’
who turned a blind eye to the machinations that made up the days and
nights of the likes of Eric Solheim. What now, ladies and gentlemen? How
about some confessions, what do you say?
[email protected] |