'War Is Too Serious A Subject To Be Left For The Military'

In the face of severe criticisms of the Rajapakse government both locally and internationally on attempts to suppress the freedom of the media, it was announced last week that a ministerial sub-committee was to be appointed to inquire into the threats posed against journalists and that an office operating 24 hours would commence operations by Friday. However journalist organisations and journalists have expressed many reservations about the functioning of the proposed sub committee because the appointment of such committees is a universal reflex reaction of governments when they find no solution to a crisis.

Sri Lankan journalists may be pardoned for their scepticism in the light of their trials and tribulations - from harassments by government agencies to abduction, arson and even murder - during the past two years and the inaction of the government to bring offenders to book as well as provide adequate protection to them. Two glaring examples are the seeming immunity of Minister Mervyn Silva from the law despite his treatment of the media and the abduction of The Nation Associate Editor Keith Noyahr followed by a brutal assault. Noyahr was also the paper's defence correspondent.

Mervyn Silva had the audacity to storm the headquarters of the government's main TV channel, Rupavahini with thugs that resulted in the news director being assaulted. The reason for this attack was that the channel had not broadcast a foul speech of the politician. Employees of the institution collectively gave Silva a dose of his own medicine. There then followed mysterious attacks on Rupavahini employees associated with the incident on highways by 'unidentified' thugs - one women employee being even slashed with a razor.

A threatened strike by employees of the government's main propaganda channel saw President Rajapakse summon a hasty meeting of the employees with Mervyn Silva where he appealed to Silva to bring a halt to his activities. It ended this bout of thuggery but the effect of the Presidential order explained the whole incident.

Keith Noyahr was abducted in a white van and went missing for more than six hours and was dumped near his home battered and bruised. His crime appears to have been that he had been critical of the armed forces.

There has been numerous other attacks and harassment of journalists and journalist organisations in recent times. They have been arrested on false complaints and in the instance of the Sunday Times correspondent Tissainayagam, he has been arrested and kept in custody for well over 100 days without being charged before courts. Attempts were made to set The Leader press ablaze. The culprits entered and got away even though the location of the press was in a high security zone. In all these instances no arrests have been made and no action has been initiated to punish the offenders. All such incidents naturally make journalists view with scepticism this newly constituted 'Appeal Court' comprising government ministers.

A new code of conduct for journalists on defence affairs was recently barked out by the Defence Ministry web site in intemperate language. Assuming the role of the Mura Devathavas (guardian angels of the nation) this web site has laid down the rules for the media in reporting and commenting on defence matters. Titled: "Deriding the war heroes for a living - the ugly face of defence analysts of Sri Lanka," the authors have assumed the role of lecturing to journalists on what journalism is all about.

The most chilling aspect of this strategy is that journalists are not certain whether this is the official policy of the government or the blabbering of a Colonel Blimp. There is no identified writer of the communication which leaves journalists in a quandary. What the Defence Ministry says need not be government policy as was evident when Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse warned two Lake House journalists that criticism of the armed forces was not possible by Lake House journalists but was contradicted 24 hours later by the Media Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa. This appears to be a double edged strategy where the Defence Ministry could claim it is government policy and gag journalists while the government could tell international audiences that it was only the opinion of a writer to the Defence Ministry web site.

Based on the fatuous assumption that all in the armed forces are 'war heroes' the writer of the article confers omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility on those of the armed services. On the criticism of military operations by 'defence analysts,' it claims that operations are planned by 'officers of 30 to 40 years of service who are battle hardened and equipped with a sound knowledge in warfare obtained by experience and professional education. No one other than military officers is qualified to plan, conduct and analyse military operations.' It is further declared that the so called 'defence analysts' are devoid of any such military education and experience.

True, journalists are by no means military strategists. At best they are typewriter strategists. Neither do they claim omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility in military affairs. What they do is to listen to military experts in active service as well as those retired and analyse an event or situation based on common sense and logic. They bring out facts which the officer caste may be inclined to hide under the carpet or even six feet under ground.  If they are wrong they are compelled to carry contradictions issued and if necessary apologise as well. That is the function of most journalists covering military conflicts of varied sorts in most parts of the world. Indeed that is how a journalist covering any other field be it education, health, science or space science operates.

The advantage of a non specialist covering any field is that he is not bound by professional ties and loyalties and hide mistakes of their colleagues or brother officers under the carpet. Where the non experts are concerned they are not bound by the loyalties of the military caste.

While we grant the military their exalted position of omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility as contended, commonsense dictates the query: With this entire god like attributes of military leaders who conducted this war against a once rag-tag band of terrorists, why is it going on even after 25 years? Were journalists the cause? Did not these highly trained military officers with 30 to 40 years experience commit military blunders? How did massive debacles like at Pooneryn, Mullaitivu and Elephant Pass happen? Were not some commanders who should have been held responsible and even court martialled been promoted even after the debacles to the highest of ranks? Why did the armed forces after sweeping through the Jaffna Peninsula in Operation Riviresa get lost in the Wanni and are still not out of the woods there? Who was the military genius who planned clearing the A-9 Highway through enemy held territory on both sides of the road? 

Some Indian generals of the IPKF are still guffawing at those blunders. To what extent did politics influence military operations and strategies? And if journalists are traitors for questioning the manner in which the military is run how would Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse describe Major General Parakrama Pannipitiya who was credited with capturing Toppigala for taking such issues before the people directly through the Supreme Court? Does he deserve to be dealt with like Keith Noyahr was for questioning the conduct of the Army Commander on men and matters?

The main reason why successive governments could not win the war against terrorism is provided in one document of the Defence Ministry's own web site. Titled: "Stop media treachery against the armed forces members," it says that among the myriad of reasons that stands out most 'is the failure of successive governments to rally sufficient international and public support to sustain any meaningful military effort. This failure should be attributed to the strong anti-Sri Lanka propaganda mechanism operated by LTTE sympathisers and indeed the lack of counter strategies on the part of the government.' This statement itself is a confession of the failure of government policy and not of three or four 'military analysts' of the country's Sunday papers as claimed in the language of a sergeant majoring his barracks.

The code of conduct of the Defence Ministry web site takes objection to reporting on defence procurements. Have not members of the present government made objections about defence procurements when in opposition? Did not President Chandrika Kumaratunga cancel a massive procurement deal immediately on assuming office? Were not tanks that could not move brought in? Did not ammunition purchased for some guns not fit the size of the barrels? Did not some Russian built cargo planes virtually drop down from the skies? Did not President Mahinda Rajapakse himself appoint a commission of inquiry headed by Supreme Court Justice Shiranee Thilakawardena to go into some military deals which report is still gathering dust at Temple Trees? Do not the people have the right to know how their money is squandered when they could hardly afford a square meal a day?

The standard excuse of the armed forces against any kind of criticism has been: 'It's bad for the morale of the forces.' The forces cannot expect the public to keep up the morale of their troops or maintain their discipline. That is the job of the forces. Certainly the armed forces need all the encouragement in their endeavour to fight terrorism but gross violation of human rights of their own people cannot be ignored. The servicemen should be dealt justice as any other laymen. Maintenance of the morale of the forces cannot be used as an excuse for gross violations of the law.

The accusation has been made that media persons are betraying state secrets to the enemy and thus they are traitors. If any such traitorous act is committed by any media person he should be certainly brought to book and there are plenty of laws such as the Official Secrets Act. But what is an official secret?  True, subjects discussed at the Security Council that could be official secrets are at times leaked to the media. Who could leak such secrets but those members of the Security Council themselves?

If the media can get those secrets out it is a safe conclusion that Velupillai Pirapaharan would have them much earlier. He will not be waiting for the Sunday papers to read them.

The sum and substance contained in the code of conduct of the Defence Ministry is: 'Leave matters military to us. You ignorant laymen cannot understand the complexities of it all.'