Down SLPA's throat

This newspaper first broke the story of the navy's plan to force the Qinetiq system down SLPA's throat on March 25, 2007, in an article wherein we highlighted the many reasons that the Qinetiq 'Cerberus 360' sonar system was unfit for guarding Sri Lanka's harbours.

To that story, Qinetiq sent a reply to the Navy Commander with a series of misleading assertions. Qinetiq stated that they had "recently sold a system" to the German navy, which may be true, but it was not the same 'Cerberus 360' system acquired for the Sri Lankan Navy.

The letter also listed several places in which actual Cerberus 360 had been installed, while disguising the fact that none of these customers, including the US Navy, British Aerospace and Engineering (BAE), the British Royal Navy or the Spanish Government ever actually purchased a Cerberus 360 for protecting a harbour. This is the first time that their system is being bought for such a purpose.

Qinetiq also told the navy that it was due to their "honesty and discrete nature" that led to them gaining the "support of leading defence primes and establishments such as the British High Commission (in Colombo) and DESO (Britain's Defence Exports Services Organisation.)"

A lie

This claim, as it transpires, is a lie. The British Embassy's Defence Advisor, Lt. Col. Anton Gash, told The Sunday Leader that the British High Commission does not recommend or support the bids of specific British companies when more than one is tendering for a commercial transaction.

Lt. Col. Gash was clear that the support extended by his office to both Qinetiq and Oceanscan was "even handed" emphasising that their interest is to "support British business" opportunities in Colombo, having verified that both companies were reputable defence contractors.

"The competition is a matter between the two companies," he said, making it clear that the British government does not support "either of them over the other." The Defence Advisor also clarified that both companies have been recommended to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence by his office.

Reading a quote from the Defence Exports Services Organisation (DESO), Lt. Col. Gash quoted them as stating that "when more than one UK company is competing for the same overseas contract it is our policy to be even handed in our support," highlighting that this policy applied to the competition between Qinetiq and Oceanscan for the Colombo Harbour sonar contract.

Qinetiq, being a large defence firm with dealings around the world, would have known full well that the British High Commission submitted their proposal to the Ministry of Defence at their request simply because they asked them to, and that it is British government policy to extend support to its companies trying to do business abroad.

Never heard of Oceanscan

The British government would have extended the same assistance to Oceanscan, except that there was no need for this since unlike Qinetiq, Oceanscan has set up operations in Colombo, with their local agent handling research and development work based in the city.

The Navy Commander however told us that the British Defence Advisor had told him that "he has never heard of Oceanscan" and that the British authorities were supporting Qinetiq. On this issue, it is clearly the word of Rear Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda against that of the British Embassy's Defence Advisor, Lt. Col. Anton Gash. 

Dissenting naval officers suspect that the Navy Commander has been trying to play the 'British government' card to have his way by making the Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapakse and his brother, President Mahinda Rajapakse, be wary of upsetting the UK government since the latter's son Yoshitha Rajapakse is currently attending a training course with the British Navy.

"Especially after the Karuna passport fiasco, they must be scared, and don't want to upset the career chances for Yoshitha," a senior officer told The Sunday Leader on the grounds of anonymity. He was referring to the scandal in which the Defence Ministry facilitated the smuggling of renegade LTTE Leader Karuna Amman to the UK on a false passport, deliberately deceiving the British authorities.

 Failed to perform

It is also pertinent to note that in the navy's full page reply to The Sunday Leader's expose, they did not refute the fact that the Cerberus 360 had completely failed to perform outside the harbour - where it is currently installed - and yet the navy selected the system and instructed SLPA to pay for it without having conducted successful trials under the conditions that it would face in operation.

The decision to purchase the Qinetiq sonar was taken without the Ports Authority even being informed, although SLPA Chairman Saliya Wickremasooriya did his best while speaking to us to shower praise on the navy and avoid criticising their decision to cut his management out of the decision making process.

In fact, when the navy decided to install the Qinetiq system last month, the Ports Authority was given no notice at all, and the navy decided to shut down the harbour, suspending commercial shipping operations for nine hours and causing absolute chaos within the port terminals.

Speaking of the system's performance, two critical issues have made the system's suitability questionable from the point of view of securing the Colombo Harbour. The first, and in our opinion most serious issue, is the one that Rear Admiral Karannagoda requested that we omit from publication due to national security. We will respect that request.

Dredge the harbour

The second issue with the system is that when it was initially installed, the cables running to it ran across the harbour channel, and the Ports Authority had to request that the navy move it's cabling away from the channel in order to ensure that they are able to dredge the harbour regularly. This misunderstanding took place despite the Navy Commander telling us that his officers had carefully studied the harbour environment before planning their installation.

While Ports Authority Chairman Saliya Wickremasooriya was non-committal in raising the issue, he did concede that there was a "good possibility" that "where ever these cables are installed," he cannot rule out the possibility that dredging may be required.

The Navy Commander however speaking to The Sunday Leader, said that the Ports Authority would not be allowed to dredge the area under any circumstances, making clear the likely situation should dredging of the cable area be required in the coming months. Wickremasooriya told us that he neglected to warn the navy of the need for using "minimal cabling along the seabed" from the point of view of the SLPA due to the fact that the navy had included this requirement in their own tender requirements.

Should the navy be forced to allow the SLPA to dismantle their sonar for dredging operations at the beginning of a monsoon - however unlikely it is that the navy will compromise, given that its Commander has now drawn a line in the sand - they would be unable to reinstall the Qinetiq sonar until the end of the monsoon, given the problems that Qinetiq faced with the monsoon last year. Thus a gaping hole could be left in the harbour's security during such a period and we are highlighting this issue so that the President can take timely action to address the issue.

Unable to instal outside

Also at the request of Rear Admiral Karannagoda, we spoke with the chairman of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), Rear Admiral Hettigama, who confirmed to us that Qinetiq were unable to install outside the harbour, and that Oceanscan similarly refused to install their system inside the harbour.

Attributing the difficulties to the "egos" of the two companies, the TEC chairman told us that his committee recommended Qinetiq on the basis of its performance inside the harbour waters, which was better than that of Oceanscan's performance in the rough open sea.

He said however that TEC recommended that the Qinetiq system be purchased only on the basis that its performance inside the harbour could be replicated outside as well. This recommendation was over-ruled by cabinet, and the letter of credit was opened with Qinetiq without its performance out at sea being compared to that of the Oceanscan system.

Oceanscan's local representative Shiran Fernando however, vociferously disputed the TEC Chairman's version of events. Fernando when asked by The Sunday Leader not only said that at no time did Oceanscan refuse to install their system inside the harbour, but that he "was only asked to install it inside once Qinetiq had failed to install outside, and had already performed their tests inside." Fernando says that at no time before Qinetiq failed to install outside the harbour was Oceanscan told by the TEC of "even the possibility" of installing inside.

Competitor's failings

"Oceanscan wrote to Admiral Hettigama questioning his reasons for asking us to install inside the harbour just because of a competitor's failings. We were prepared to test inside the harbour also, but never received any invitation to do so." This leaves questions for the TEC to answer, as again there is a clash between statements.

The pricing and payment procedures for the Qinetiq Cerberus 360 system have also come into question. Despite the navy in its response to us stating that the Cerberus 360 system would only be purchased after it was tested, documents in our possession show that up to 60% of the final payment is to be made before the Cerberus even satisfies all of its performance criteria.

More mysteriously, the price to be paid for each sonar head has been jacked up from an already exorbitant 240,000 Sterling Pounds each, to 375,000 Sterling Pounds each. The Navy Commander initially denied that the price increase was so large, and was ultimately not in a position to provide us any final comment on the matter.

The facts are that Qinetiq wrote to him on March 27, 2007, stating that they were offering the two Cerberus 360 head to the navy at 240,000 Sterling Pounds each, and that this price included "cabling, processing, power control, software, displays, guarantee and support."

Astronomical increase

How the total purchase price has thus jumped from 480,000 Sterling (Rs. 102 million) to an astronomical 746,107 Sterling (Rs. 159 million) the Navy Commander was at a loss to explain. The President should bear in mind that we have left out significant aspects on the Qinetiq system due to national security considerations, and we hope that he asks Rear Admiral Karannagoda to explain these issues to him personally.

Given that the Oceanscan system, which had performed well in the eyes of the Ports Authority - despite the Navy Commander's clear prejudices against the company visible from his comments to us - and that the total cost of the Oceanscan system was under 200,000 Sterling Pounds, the navy would be hard pressed to explain what was so great about Qinetiq, or so bad about Oceanscan that they can justify spending three times this price on a system with classified failings.

Ultimately, from the many persons who have spoken to The Sunday Leader both on and off the record about this sonar drama, it appears to be the word of the Navy Commander and his subordinate, TEC Chairman, Rear Admiral Hettigama, versus that of the Ports Authority Chairman, Oceanscan, and the British Embassy's defence attache.

Saliya says Navy responsible for selection

Q: How did the SLPA end up getting involved in procuring a sonar system for Colombo harbour?

A: The Ports Authority's objective in getting involved in sonar procurement was to test and develop confidence in a surveillance system that would make the navy comfortable with us opening the north gate to the harbour, which has remained closed for quite some time.

What we spend on buying these sonar systems would be insignificant compared to the amount of additional revenue that would come our way from being able to operate both gates at the harbour.

The navy had the sonar procurement process underway since 2004 and so we asked them out of commercial interest about two years ago whether we could expedite it

We have over the last year made several representations to the navy over the need to open the north entrance, but security concerns have precluded them from agreeing to this thus far.

The Ports Authority and navy have traditionally worked very well together and cooperated effectively to fulfil our mutual goals and ambitions.

I can understand the pressure that the navy may be under. They may have responsibilities that perhaps the SLPA does not see. But each organisation has a specific role in the economy of Sri Lanka, and must both play their part effectively.

Q: Are you aware that the installed sonar system that the Ports Authority is paying for has failed to perform as expected?

A: No. I was not aware of this at all. The trials and performance specifications for this are up to the navy. The Ports Authority's place was to provide guidance on our practical requirements and assist where required by the navy. We were authorised by cabinet to pay for whatever sonar system was ultimately selected, and this we were happy to do, as any increase in harbour security would serve our main interest, which is to expedite the opening of the north entrance.

Q: The SLPA was present at the trials last year where Qinetiq failed to perform outside the harbour and was therefore tested within the calm waters inside the harbour. Are you aware that you have paid for this system to be installed outside the harbour and it has never been tested there?

A: During our trials in 2007, Qinetiq were unable to install their system outside the harbour due to the monsoon climate, and this is something that they mentioned in their report. This is why they tested it in-harbour.

We received an invitation from the navy to attend those trials, which they conducted. You would have to ask the navy about any further trials after that, as the SLPA has not been present at any stage since then.

Q: You mean you cannot tell me whether something you have bought was tested properly or not?

A: This was not our responsibility. Our presence at the last trials was at the invitation of the navy. We haven't been invited by them for further trials so I don't want to hypothesize

on whether such trials took place and what their results were. That is for the navy to know. But I should say I have no reason to believe that the navy would not fulfil their responsibilities in this regard.

Q: Wasn't this a joint project between the SLPA and navy? In which case why was the SLPA not informed of trials considering that you are footing the bill?

A: Our footing the bill was a mutual agreement between the SLPA and navy reached last March and subsequently approved by cabinet. And yes, this was a joint project, but you have to understand that ultimately it is up to the navy to decide whether or not to invite us for trials. We were involved in the process until the August trials that you mentioned, but from that point on we didn't receive any word from the navy up until April 10 when they informed us that they had already selected the vendor and signed a supply agreement.

Q: In the meanwhile you installed the Oceanscan sonar which was already in-country?

A: Yes we did, because we felt it was better to have some protection than none at all and the system was already in-situ at the north entrance. We were unaware that the navy had already decided to purchase the Qinetiq system, and on the basis of information available to us, we were able to convince their competitor, Oceanscan to install their system in the harbour temporarily at a very reasonable price on a monthly rental basis.

Q: What about the practical difficulties for the harbour with the Qinetiq system? They have a 200 metre cable deployed outside the harbour, in an area that has to be dredged. Did you not inform the navy that this would cause a problem for you?

A: I'm not sure of the details of the system's installation. But going on your word, if there is a long cable attached in this area, it would be a practical problem as we have to dredge the entrance very frequently, sometimes monthly, in order to maintain a certain depth and maintain the harbour's hub status.

As for informing the navy no, we did not. The navy's technical specification required a system with 'minimal cabling' and we assumed that this met our requirement without any further clarification. They are very familiar with our dredging operation.

If you are right about this long cable, we would have to seek the navy's cooperation to make sure that the harbour entrance can be dredged. We cannot avoid doing this as we have to maintain the published depths of Colombo harbour. We would have to speak to the navy about decoupling and dismantling the cable as often as is necessary for dredging if this is the case.

Q: So you are saying that as of now you have no information from the navy in this regard, and that they would have to shut down their sonar as often as once a month for you to dredge the harbour?

A: Possibly, if the cable gets in the way of navigation. However, although it is an un-anticipated situation, the SLPA and the navy have a very close working relationship and I have no doubt that they would facilitate our requirements whilst keeping security in mind at all times.

Q: Wasn't shipping stopped for nine hours when the navy decided to install the system without any notice to the Ports Authority? How can you expect such cooperation in this climate?

A: Yes. However, we have communicated with the navy about this and do not expect it to happen again.

Q: Do you have any reservations at all about having opened a Letter of Credit, and paid advances for a 170 million rupee contract without the equipment being tested in its installation conditions - given especially that it has once failed to perform under such conditions?

A: I am sure the navy takes full responsibility for its selection.

Navy Commander confused over price hike

Q: The Ports Authority Chairman has said that the Ports Authority has received no information as to whether the current sonar system is functioning or not. Has the navy not informed the SLPA of the system's performance?

A: There is no reason for us to tell him anything. I am in charge of harbour security. The complete authority for the security of the harbour lies with the Navy Commander. This system is working fine. I have personally inspected it myself some days ago and it is working perfectly every day.

Q: Why has a 20% advance payment been made without any trials being performed outside the harbour?

A: We have paid 20% since they are importing all this valuable equipment, but we have obtained a bank guarantee for this.

Q: How did the Oceanscan system perform in the August trials?

A: It has failed! Every time! All three times. The SLPA has brought an inferior system and is trying to install this after it was rejected three times by the same committee. I am saying with authority that Oceanscan was rejected by the TEC three times.

Q: What about the Qinetiq system?

A: It did much better. I will categorically say that it is working perfectly. And on Friday I even reported to H.E. that it is working and we are still not going to pay until it has performed well for one month.

Q: The Ports Authority has told us that the sonar cable position might pose an issue for dredging the harbour, and that they would have to cooperate with the navy in this regard?

A: No the cable goes along the breakwater. It will not upset the dredging. The channel is 200 metres wide, and they only dredge the middle 100 metres. Where the sonar is now, they will not be allowed to dredge that area because that is not the channel. We have laid the sonar away from the channel. There is no obstruction and this has all been properly studied.

Q: Has the area where the cable has been laid ever been dredged by the Ports Authority?

A: No. Where the cable is it is not dredged. We have studied and then only we have done this.

Q: The price that Qinetiq claimed to have quoted last year was 240,00 Sterling Pounds per sonar system. The SLPA has been invoiced for 375,000 Sterling Pounds per system. What is the reason for this price increase?

A: Who gave this information to you...

Q: We have the shipping invoice and the letter of credit, which contains the figure that was paid. And we have a letter written to you by Qinetiq confirming that they were offering the system to you for 240,000 Sterling Pounds per sonar head system?

A: We have purchased it at the price that they offered last year. The amount that you have got is wrong. Maybe the letter is addressed to you not to us.

Q: The letter is addressed to "Vice Admiral Karannagoda" written by Qinetiq to you on March 26, 2007 referring to the article we published on March 25. It says that they were offering the heads to you at 240,000 Sterling Pounds each?

A: Then maybe the balance is from local taxes and other charges, all that has to be taken into account.

Q: This is a customs invoice where it says 375,000 Sterling Pounds per sonar head. It was the value declared to UK customs. It must be correct?

A: I can't tell you offhand what the disparity is. What the Ports Authority has paid is based on the invoice given by Qinetiq. We can open an L/C on a different invoice, so it was the amount submitted through Lanka Logistics by Qinetiq.

Q: But this price that you have been invoiced for, is over 100,000 Sterling Pounds more per sonar head than they quoted to you last year. This is the disparity we are asking about.

A: No way. There was a price increase. But we wrote to the defence advisor and negotiated and brought back the prices to the same amount. The subsequent increase of the price was under 10% more than they offered in 2007.

Q: The documentation says otherwise. You have paid 100,000 Sterling Pounds more than you were quoted?

A: No. I am saying that is not correct.

Q: We have the invoice and letter of credit. These are very clear that the price is 375,000 Sterling Pounds per sonar head?

A: Who gave you all that?

Q: We can't name our sources, this is policy.

A: These are very serious matters. It has come from (name withheld) hasn't it? I can't stop you from publishing, but I ask only that you do not write anything to damage national security. You can say this. They tried to increase their price and we went to great lengths to bring it down. We reported all this to the cabinet. The UK Defence Ministry, the Royal Navy helped us and finally we managed to settle on only a slight increase. I know 100% the increase was less than 10%.

Q: How did the Qinetiq offer reach the navy?

A: It came through the UK Ministry of Defence in 2006. You can find that Oceanscan came last. The Oceanscan is not a surveillance system. They came even in 1999 and they failed. It has broken down here as well. It got washed away and it was lying from last November or December without anything. It gives only 180 degree coverage whereas the other one gives 360 degrees.

Q: You have other reservations about Oceanscan?

A: You can also find out about the Oceanscan company. When you call that company they don't even answer a telephone when that guy is in Colombo. It is a one man company. It is supposed to be British but we don't know.

Q: But the British Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Gash has told us that his office has recommended both Qinetiq and Oceanscan as 'reputable British companies?'

A: No. Colonel Gash told me that he has never even heard of Oceanscan. He knows about Qinetiq. It used to be government owned, now it has been privatised but I believe a certain percentage is owned by the British government.

Democracies don't let their people die

By Rupert de Alwis Seneviratne

Just two weeks ago two senior journalists attached to Lake House were summoned to an audience with the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse. The media men, Poddala Jayantha and Sanath Balasuriya were the Secretary and President of the Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association  (SLWJA) respectively.

According to details divulged by them, Rajapakse accused them of propagating anti Sri Lankan sentiment. When the duo reacted to these accusations, they were immediately barked at by the Defence Secretary who told them he had not summoned a meeting to listen to what they had to say but rather to dispense with his own views on various subjects relating to the media.

On the matter of the Keith Noyahr incident according to reports, Rajapakse had shrugged his shoulders allegedly stating the government could do nothing if perhaps elements who love and support the security forces carry out such attacks.

Keheliya reveals 

Curiously enough, also last week, the defence spokesperson for the government Keheliya Rambukwella was to dismiss the stream of media bashing articles posted on government websites stating that just as much as the media could write anything so could the Defence Ministry website. Rambukwella should know that the media is bound by the rules of law and of defamation. What the government and its various websites here and abroad are bound by it is hard to say. An oppressive spirit perhaps.     

And there you have it. A government at best, that sits back and applauds, in the best traditions of July 1983. A cabal consumed with its own political survival, it has lost sight of its sacred responsibility towards its people.

There is no method in this particular madness. But there is an ignorance in the words of the ruling cabal from time to time made known to us, in various forms of vilifications and temperament, that reflects a coarse environment.

Web of lies

That the Defence Ministry has a website is a good thing. That shows progress. That it uses its website to vilify its own citizens - unless members of NGOs, media personnel and members of peace organisations are no longer considered citizens - is not a good thing. It shows inanity on the part of the government.

The website's latest diatribe one is certain, has as little resonance with the brave soldiers at the front lines as has a badly drawn cartoon with Michael Angelo.

The headline "Stop media treachery against armed forces members!" is a harbinger of the molten lava that is to follow, albeit occasionally but uncomfortably couched in moderate terms.

The government immediately begins by reminding the public of a 28 year old war and 70,000 dead. A fact, believe me, the country knows only too well. Just ask the widows and orphans, the refugees, those children born and bred in makeshift camps sleeping on fly infested sand in torn tents. 

Rule of law

Seventy thousand dead is a modest estimate. According to the Media Centre for National Security and the Defence Ministry the number of LTTE dead has now exceeded the population of Wanni. But they are all terrorists and they deserve to die! Wait a minute. Wasn't it just last week that Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage, in parliament likened the JVP to the LTTE? Is this the ultimate political insult? Or is it worse to claim legitimacy as a democratic government and kill people.

Didn't the media bleed during those dark days in the late '80s as it found itself exposed to the death squads and black cats unleashed by the government to rid itself of southern terrorism? Didn't the free media make strident calls at great personal risk for the restoration of the rule of law?

Didn't many journalists/lawyers fight for the rights of every citizen irrespective of whether he/she were a JVP cell member, regardless of whether these journalists believed in the cause or not?

That's democracy. That's good governance. That's rule of law.

Facetious

The Defence Ministry website article states facetiously that the media and other elements contribute or propagate anti Sri Lankan propaganda. The obvious aim of media elements the website states, is to bring international and public pressure on the government to abandon the military effort. It cites the example of the Keith Noyahr case calling the media reaction over the assault the work of LTTE stooges.

It accuses human rights pressure groups, the media, relief workers and civil society members of carrying out propaganda work of the LTTE.  This cannot be farther from the truth. In fact if the government could hear these organisations and institutions over the boom of guns and the bang of bombs it would notice that these organisations have been saying the same thing. Not abduct and kill and bomb the north with no thought for the rules of war expecting the civilised international community to applaud, but pay close attention to human rights abuses and the rule of law because these are the first and most vulnerable elements during war.

Nurture and protect your own citizens because as a legitimate democratic government that is your sacred duty. Is that not what Mahinda Rajapakse did when he was in the opposition as published elsewhere in this newspaper, and does that make him a traitor in the book of Gotabaya Rajapakse?

If the Defence Ministry, despite its Secretary's penchant to talk at rather than to listen and hear as recently demonstrated during his meeting with the two Lake House journalists, were to pay attention, it would realise that the media has been entreating the government to change international opinion by addressing grave human rights abuse.

Wresting the initiative

Our political commentaries are replete with paragraphs where we urge the government to wrest the international initiative from the LTTE by conforming to political and social indicators that would ensure a flood of aid from such allies as the Untied States and the European Union. We have been coaxing the government to address several issues in order that Sri Lanka may retain the GSP Plus and not risk the future of 300,000 garment factory workers and 700,000 more by way of indirect employment.

Despite government bravado we warned of impending doom come the Human Rights Council vote last month. We warned the culture of impunity, the escalating human rights situation would lead to further isolation.

Yet funnily enough the Defence Ministry now accuses the media which has been urging the government not to alienate itself and the country from the global community, not to isolate itself from the international community so that its only friends in the world would be like minded regimes such as the junta led Burma and Iran.

Instead the government continues to ignore the human rights situation which is steadily getting out of control, it continues to aerially bombard the north, it continues to pretend there was a free and fair election in the east while putting in place an armed faction of the LTTE to govern the provincial council, it continues to do nothing while media persons are harassed, killed, assaulted, threatened, and instead, merely wants like an untidy housewife reacting to unexpected guests, to sweep the whole sorry mess under the carpet - bones, blood and all in the hope that the guests won't notice the unbecoming bulge under the Persian rug not quite covered by a strategic placement of the family dog.

Why give a good hand?

And if the Defence Ministry now says that the LTTE with the help of the media is getting international opinion in its favour by playing the "human rights card," then firstly don't deal them such a bloody good hand. That's what the free media has been saying. Pay attention to human rights and you can't go wrong. This is in the Kindergarten primer of good democratic politics.

In fact so important does the international community consider the issues of human rights and democratic values in the world, last week even George Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget request called to increase funding for democracy and human rights by 20 percent. The next US administration will therefore inherit a $1.7 billion democracy assistance budget.

On the other hand the US has cut funding to the Sri Lankan government and frozen its Millennium Challenge Account as it faired poorly in several social indicators essential to the award. Ditto the EU and the UK with regard to aid.  These are matters our media institutions repeatedly warned against.  

Rights campaigner

And in so far as playing the 'human rights card' goes it was none other than Gotabaya Rajapakse's brother, President Mahinda Rajapakse, who in the late '80s and '90s, vigorously lobbied on United Nations platforms and in international fora that the international community pay attention to the deteriorating human rights situation in the country at that time.

Consider. Sri Lanka was facing a terrorist onslaught from both extremities at the time. The southern terrorists had succeeded in closing educational institutions, holding hartals, extorting money, killing hundreds of soldiers and terrorising the south and the capital.

In the north of the country the government was waging an internecine war. But that did not stop Mahinda Percival Rajapakse from speaking his mind on the human rights issue. What is more he urged the international community on several separate occasions to link their aid to Sri Lanka to the issue to human rights. Here's an elementary MCQ for the Defence Ministry website. (a) Was that treachery? (b) Was that treason? (c) Was that anti Sri Lankan propaganda. (d) Was that political opportunism? (e) Or was that a genuine concern for rule of law and good governance? 

The website asserts that "we must have the right to defend ourselves, we must have the right to live in a country free of terrorism and that is exactly why our soldiers are risking their lives in the battlefield." Perhaps the Defence website will do well to also define "WE" and "OUR" as they see it.

Standing tall

Even as another bomb ripped through Moratuwa last Friday the media is well aware of what it means to be hunted. What it means to be afraid and threatened and anxious and harassed. But the media has to stand tall and true. It cannot fall, for with it will fall everything else. However much it is criticised for its work it has to be the voice for the voiceless, the bell of peace, the ring of hope.

It is mischievous to suggest that the media has at any time been critical of the armed forces. We humbly salute our brave soldiers who risk life and limb to go to the front lines.  We empathise with those mothers and daughters and wives mostly from poor families in remote villages whose men have gone to war.

Nevermind that some join the forces not because of a cause, except perhaps an economic one. Sometimes it is the pension plan, the salary that would get the young daughter through school and on to university, that will give the sister a better jab at life that attracts the young man to the uniform.

And a uniform in itself does not wash away your sins just as much as there is an on going investigation over Sri Lankan soldiers accused of sex crimes in Haiti.

But human beings are fallible, they make mistakes. And whatever the reason to join the army in the first place every citizen must bow before those brave young men and women who now fight in this war.

Policy makers

Surely it is theirs but to do or die, theirs not to reason why for these poor sons of the soil. But what of the policy makers? The defence secretaries, the defence ministers, the top brass. The strategists. They are fallible too.  There are flaws in strategies. If there were not, Sri Lanka would have not had a 28 year old war. There would be no bombs exploding in the major cities and in Colombo killing innocent civilians. The LTTE could not have penetrated the heartland of the army headquarters in a daring attempt on the Army Commander's life.

Pointing out flaws in strategy, presenting different points of view, safeguarding the rights of Sri Lankan citizens is not an act of treason. It shows a deep love for the country over self interest.

It is taking the path of the difficult right rather than the easy wrong. It is easier to pay lip service to what one sees as wrong morally and politically and then rake in the perks showered by the government at public expense. That is no skin of anybody's nose.    

For the website to then blame those who point out weaknesses and faults of damaging military discipline shows not only puerility but a serious lack of military discipline in the first place.

Fallible

The very fact that there are members of the armed forces, hundreds of them war hardened soldiers who have earned their stripes with honour who talk to the media, many due to their helplessness in getting their voice heard above the din of Yankee doodles come to town, is evidence that there are faults within that need to be seriously addressed. Human beings are fallible. So is Lucifer. Either way, every citizen in Sri Lanka is well covered. 

And if there was just one way to achieve a goal then the Defence Ministry itself would not have had cabinet approve a change in its overall structure including the setting up of a Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee under new legislation which is to be presented to parliament soon.

Rightly or wrongly the President himself has stated the primary objective of the proposed legislation would be to provide for stable, efficient, transparent and accountable higher defence management and public security management; the effective strategic direction of the armed forces; and the joint operation of the armed forces.

This necessarily means that there are several problems in these areas that the government itself admits to. Is this cabinet paper then treason also? Is it treachery to admit that there were faults within the armed forces which needed changing?

Funnily enough the website article does have a give away. It says, "we do not believe that Sri Lanka's media freedom has any threat from our soldiers. But of course there may be other problems that the media people may have to face when they try to do too much dirty work of their paymasters."

Veiled threat

Could this be a veiled threat? One hopes not. It has been the trend of this regime to merely say we can't help it if people break the law or kill you.

And the Defence Ministry website proceeds to identify The Sunday Leader, The Morning Leader, Irudina, Sunday Times, Daily Mirror and Sirasa TV as media organisations that fall into the category of traitors when the Defence Minister Mahinda Rajapakse just the previous week invited the editors of all these newspapers and the head of Sirasa TV for a breakfast meeting at Temple Trees.

Is the Defence Secretary wanting the people to believe that the Defence Minister and the Commander-in-Chief, his brother, is breaking bread with traitors? What would that make the Commander-in-Chief?

Furthermore, when the President marks each Poya day with religious ceremonies at Temple Trees, it is Sirasa TV that is the accredited TV sponsor, all of which make a mockery of Gotabaya's charges.

As for the reference to Greek Mythology and "the trite campaigns undertaken by their paid Cassandras," while one is pleased that the writer has some general knowledge of the subject there are pitfalls with these characters and several versions of myth. Poor Cassandra was murdered by Clytemnestra who was cheating on her husband Agamemnon while he was away at war.

And in a modern psychological perspective on Cassandra she is presented as a child, molested by a man pretending to be a god. His warning "No one will believe you!" is one often spoken by abusers to their child victims.

Unpopular

The myth of Cassandra is also retold by German author Christa Wolf in Kassandra. She retells the story from the point of view of Cassandra at the moment of her death and uses the myth as an allegory for both the unheard voice of the woman writer and the oppression and strict censorship laws of East Germany.

As for the legitimacy of war. The government often uses Guantanamo Bay, and the US in Iraq as defences to US reports on human rights in Sri Lanka. But it is this war that has left over 4000 US soldiers dead in four years that has made Bush so unpopular.

The Democrats, both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of understanding, negotiation, dialogue and an end to war. They campaigned on a platform of bringing the soldiers home. Did that make them traitors to the United States of America?

Nay, between them they received 36 million votes as Obama created history as not only the first black presidential Democratic nominee but a man who had more than dallied with the Islamic nation. Now if that isn't a clear message I don't know what is.

Mahinda wanted aid linked to human rights

Mahinda Rajapakse, addressingparliament said that he had gone before the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, asking them not to "stop aid" to Sri Lanka but to safeguard human rights in the country and ask donor countries to link aid to human rights.

"Why can't you lay down conditions on human rights in this country while giving aid?" Rajapakse had asked donors. Addressing parliament, he said "That is what we asked for. That has been done now."

The incumbent President has said in parliament that "if this government is going to suppress human rights, not only to Geneva, we will go even to hell to work against this government. We are prepared to go to any place to save human rights from this government," he insisted adding that he would "not allow" the people's "rights to be suppressed."

Readers, this is not a practical joke, but extracts taken from parliament's Hansard - to be precise, beginning from column 361 from the Hansard of October 25, 1990.

It would appear that the Rajapakse government's accusations levelled at opposition parliamentarians, mediaand NGOs - of "conspiring against the country" to isolate Sri Lanka internationally by "carrying tales" of human rights violations abroad - all stem from his own actions while in opposition.

What is ironic is that while Rajapakse has openly told parliament that he wanted aid tied to human rights, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is flying up and down to and from Europe, at the cost of earning the ire of party supporters at home, in order to coax the EU into reissuing their GSP+ concession despite the government's "climate of impunity" for human rights violators.

It is also significant to note that at the time Mahinda Rajapakse as a human rights defender waslevellingcharges against the government, his own brother, Gotabaya Rajapakse was serving in the army. Now, would Gotabaya say that his brother Mahinda Rajapakse was a traitor to Sri Lanka for raisinghuman rights abuses and calling on donors to link aid to human rights?  Sorry Gota, we caaaaaan't hear you...

And in making his case for human rights in Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapakse was to also tell parliament that the government's standard defence was that it was to help the Tigers.

"We were accused that we are helping the Tigers," Mahinda Rajapakse was to tell parliament.

How about that Gota? Did you agree at the time as a soldier that your brother was helping the LTTE by raising human rights issues and that such conduct has helped the Tigers prolong the war?

What's that? We still caaan't hear you...

Following is an English translation of the Hansard report dated October 25, 1990 and we leave it to the readers to judge for themselves who the real humbugs are: