DBSJeyaraj.com on Facebook

‘In the Face of such Overwhelming Pressures it is still Impressive that we Secured 15 votes’

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Print this page

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha~pic courtesy of: Centre for Security Analysis

By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I was first asked by the External Affairs Ministry to go to Geneva , after a lapse of a couple of years, the night the US tabled its Resolution.

The reason, I believe, was the work I had done in reconciliation, since the impression the United States and its friends were trying to create was that Sri Lanka would do nothing unless it was under pressure.

This is nonsense, given the massive amounts we have done in resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction, but sadly we have not been giving out the message, or detailed information, in any coherent fashion.

We have also failed to emphasise the improving situation with regard to Human Rights, and in particular the actions taken with regard to some of the interim recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, (LLRC), actions that had commenced long before that Commission was appointed.

With regard to reconciliation, I believe my office has done a lot, even though it receives no resources and has only one executive level member of staff, who has still not been paid. Despite all this, I was encouraged, I should gratefully note, by the Secretary of Defence, to go ahead with my plans, and indeed he arranged accommodation for me on early visits, though now I have to meet such expenses myself.

I did tell him I could not act quite as swiftly as he did, since I had no executive authority, but I am glad I went ahead, and I have had nothing but sympathetic cooperation from all officials from the Governor to the District and Divisional Secretaries in the North, and also from civil society.

In Colombo too, civil society has been most helpful, including the small group of Partners for Reconciliation I set up, and the religious educationists in religion, education and pluralism who, in any case, have been doing excellent work themselves, even before the conflict ended

The draft National Policy on Reconciliation we had produced was, I believe, useful in Geneva in making it clear that not only had we done much ourselves within the country, but also that we were able to conceptualise and work within a comprehensive framework, that encompassed restoration and empowerment as well as restitution.

Indicating the much wider range of activities required than the formulae those with political agendas repeat (accountability meaning retribution, and devolution meaning more power to provincial councils regardless of the aim of such power, which is empowerment) was illuminating, and we were able to invite and answer questions in a relatively positive atmosphere.

I had not been able to go when initially asked because the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats was meeting in Colombo under my Chairmanship.

However, I suggested that Jeevan Thiagarajah be asked, since he has led the civil society actors who have made me work even harder than I would otherwise have done on reconciliation as well as human rights, even before I was appointed to convene the Task Force intended to expedite work on the National Action Plan.

Overcoming what the Ministry of External Affairs had claimed were suspicions about Thjagarajah with regard to his NGO connections, he was invited and went, though unfortunately the Americans had not permitted him to speak at the informal consultation they had set up in Geneva . Having given former Attorney General Mohan Pieris just three minutes in what was supposed to be a two-hour meeting, they closed it down after just over an hour.

Thjagarajah had attracted the attention of the American ambassador who presided, but after what seemed hasty consultations, focusing on him, he was not given the floor. This is not surprising, because the American Embassy in Colombo (or at least its political affairs office) has declared him persona non grata, because he is too close to what are deemed well-known violators of human rights.

Anyway, the following week saw me there as well, along with Javid Yusuf, who had presided over the first seminar on reconciliation the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies had arranged, and who had then been asked to chair the discussions on the policy document.

Our ambassador in Geneva, Tamara Kunanayakam had laid out a good program for us that included two side bars, which had not happened before with lots of opportunities for questions in a cordial framework. I was sorry about this, for this had been one of the staples which Dayan Jayatilleka introduced when he was our representative.

Kunanayakam, who operates on similar principles, had not however been able to make changes on the scale that was needed. In fact, the open engagement Jayatilleka had facilitated seemed to have been forgotten.

I had indeed discovered a few months ago when Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe began to work on Human Rights again, that we were not regular in our replies to special procedures, the practice we had developed, of answering as quickly and as helpfully as possible, having fallen into abeyance.

As I got to the Palais, I was told by Amnesty International about a statement they had made, and I offered to respond at once. I was then told that the principle of the last couple of years was that NGO statements were ignored, since responding gave them too much prominence.

Fortunately, Kunanayakam told me to go ahead, and the silence that fell as I spoke reminded me of how Jayatilleka and I had worked in the period between 2007 and 2009 – responding to any criticism, and making valid points that could not be contested. That is what engagement means, because otherwise, what NGOs say passes by default and, in the absence of any strong information network on our side, becomes accepted wisdom.

However such responses are not enough, and it is lobbying with delegations in Geneva , and through them and otherwise the capitals, that is of the essence. Kunanayakam seemed to have excellent relations with many of the representatives, and the seven ministers and two deputies who attended, led by two of our best communicators, ministers, Prof G.L. Peiris and Mahinda Samarasinghe, also did very well, but we left things too late.

I was reminded then of what an Indian journalist had told me some years back, that in Jayatilleka’s time we had asked the Indians and others for advice, but now we just asked for support when there was a problem.

In short, we had failed to build on the excellent foundation Jayatilleka had laid. One of his last acts was to ensure that our President was asked to chair the G-15 group. Sadly, the Foreign Minister at the time was advised by his staff that this was not an important grouping, though to his credit, when I told him the group included India , Brazil and Egypt , he changed the advice he had given the President, and we duly took over the Chair.

Unfortunately, no use seems to have been made of the group subsequently, though it included Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Senegal, Peru , Chile and Mexico , seven countries of which only Indonesia voted for us on the Resolution.

Kunanayakam produced two fantastic documents during the week we were there which summed up the principles we should have enunciated, with particular reference to developing countries and the Non-Aligned Movement, but not enough use was made of them.

There was even a school of thought that sought to criticise her for having given publicity to the note she prepared, at Minister Peiris’ request, to brief the African group. It was very thorough, and one ambassador actually said he wished this had been given to him earlier, so that it could have been circulated to his capital.

I was in fact astonished that no such document had been prepared. We had an excellent team of lawyers, including Yasantha Kodagoda and Shavindra Fernando, who knew the workings of the Council backward long before Dayan was appointed to head the Mission in Geneva , and also Mohan Peiris, who was a tower of strength in the last year before the former was removed.

More use might have been made of their capacities, and a short and sharp document, circulated to all countries which might in time face similar problems through the acceptance of such country specific resolutions, might have roused more thought on the implications of the resolution for all.

It could however be argued that all efforts would have been in vain, once India decided to suggest it would vote for the Resolution. There may be some truth in that, and perhaps India would have proved unsympathetic anyway, but I believe more could have been done to ensure that India played a more positive role.

Two incidents occurred in the month before the Indian pronouncement which they could claim propelled their pronouncement, and while it might have been made anyway, we should not have left room for pressures to build up within the country.

I believe too that we should have been more aware of the forces that stood in balance in Delhi, and acted to forestall the more critical.

In that regard we should surely have at least one think-tank on the lines of the several in Delhi or Beijing that provide such helpful advice to policy-makers. I continue to be astonished at the failure to build up either the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies or the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies on the lines the visionaries those bodies are named after would have wanted.

Seminars with lively discussion should be promoted, led by in-house staff who prepare good policy papers, which should also be required of staff at the Ministry of External Affairs. In this regard I was sad to be told by one of its brighter stars, who had been asked to edit a collection of papers on international policy, that he had received no contributions at all as yet.

A close-up on voting of resolution on Sri Lanka L.2 during the 19th session of the Human Rights Council. 22 March 2012. Photo by Jean-Marc Ferré

With so much shortcomings, it is still impressive that we secured 15 votes, in the face of such overwhelming pressures. This is a tribute to the stature the country and President Mahinda Rajapaksa still have for having overcome such a powerful terrorist threat, and having kept so many of the pledges that we made in 2009, including in particular restoring normality to our Tamil citizens who suffered so badly during the previous period.

The manner in which many of those who worked against us have expressed themselves in a conciliatory fashion suggests they know they must work with the current government to take things forward, and in that regard I think India, which unlike some other supporters of the Resolution has never been interested in regime change, can play an important role in preventing the Resolution being used intrusively.

We however must also help ourselves by moving as swiftly as possible on the LLRC recommendations and other activities to promote reconciliation, including the host of positive recommendations in the Human Rights Action Plan that was adopted by the Cabinet.

If there are areas in the LLRC recommendations which we think would not be helpful, we should discuss these and explain what cannot be done, or what may require postponement. Similarly, the draft National Policy on Reconciliation should be reviewed, altered as appropriate, and then adopted for action. A time frame for what is to be done should be provided. In this regard President Rajapaksa’s concept of Senior Ministers, responsible for coordination, could prove helpful, but the concept must be given substance and teeth.

Much can be done, much should be done soon. It should be done in terms of our own priorities and needs, not external dictation, but it must be explained clearly, given that we live in a world where distances of time and space no longer mean anything.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Print this page


  1. Kadu Rajiva,

    You arrogant lot. In spite of getting a belting at the UNHCR you seem to be claiming that you did not kiss the dust! Hypocrites! Remember, now the rajathuma mahinda has to now fully implement the bogus LLRC which was hurridly prepared to hoodwink the world community. You have got caught in your own trap where you have to now bring to book the culprits. What a shame. The whole world is now watching you!

  2. You seemed to be a good Ravana unlike Mervin Silva and another Ravana name Veeravnsa
    All criminals should be arrested for war crimes
    Sorry India can not help you any more

  3. SriLanka would do nothing unless pressure being applied by IC- He is right at least on that. Then the Prof went on say my office has done a lot, but does not want to say what they were, instead went on with praising Sec. of defence saying he does things swift and quiet.

    Although he was involved in those sessions he involvement was short thus should not be held responsible for not getting the USA Resolution down; starts blaming the poor lady Tamara for every thing; not sure if Resolution had gone down all the credits could gone her way. The note she prepared on GLP’s request and passed on to African reps had apparently put her under lot of critics. In this Prof Views, she seemed stuffed up things big time. In terms of Team-Good lawyers, two able and capable Minister in communication, not Douglus though, himself etc were provided but could not stop the Americans. He seems to believe if there was good engagements with those countries that have voting right, this could have been cooked in their favour. Also he seems to give more weight to tackling UNHCR by having a good debating team rather than doing things on the ground and producing measurable outputs.

    Then he went on to praise MR initiatives making Snr ministers responsible for. The purpose of the LLRC exercise was to forestall the Moon’s report, which almost all knew; who would have thought this would come back and bite us. This is what West does. I am surprised he could not go with the argument like how could GoSL implement recommendations from a document which they have not formally submitted to the UN and so on. Receiving 15 votes is great but look at the lot supporting and ask a questing if you are honestly happy with what they do with Human Rights in their country. You put us in a band of countries, their track records in terms of HR speaks for itself. Tenement square in China, poisoning a journalists with palladium or and the like sending some one to UK by Russia, list goes on. This is not really pleasing. These are the kind of advisers MR has, and the future for SL looks grim.

  4. In my opinion the entire educated community including the leader of the democratic party Rajiva has failed the country and its people. Rajiva being the head of the democratic party has never condemned the perpetrators, as the head of the democratic party he should have. He was one of those who was not silent but supported and spoke in support to cover up all the undemocrating actions of the Govt. Today we are in this position only because the elite, educated people in Sri Lanka are either too scared to open their mouth, other than a few brave ones, or have forgotten the reality and happyly discussion the issues with their drinking partners in their daily boose sessions or private parties. What a sad affair. We should be ashamed of ourselves. WE cannot blame only the Rajapakse Govt, we have to blame every educated individual in the country who did not open the mouth and or write about the issues. If we had the decency to discuss amoung ourselves in the open forum then the Govt would have got better advice and acted differently. Shame on you all educated people of Sri Lanka, a country which has a higher rate of literate people.

  5. Here comes our English educated man in a suit claiming to do all kinds of reconcilliation. How many ordinary Tamil people have you spoken with? Many of them dont speak English, my friend, and I am sure you dont know a word of Tamil!

    You are only fit to talk to the Queen with your English. Perhaps you can advise her about National reconcilliation, Stop conning the Tamils some of whom at least have better understanding of how you are using your English skills for defenind genocide!

  6. This lamentation that his performance has been debilitated by a lack of authority is more of the same past gripes. Rajiva Wijesinha is a self-conscious intellect unhappy at having to play second fiddle to inferior dudes!

  7. Its about time singhalese and tamils join together these low life professors to the bin. This guy is full of himself.

  8. Can you provide us with detailed lists of LLRC recommendations that have been:
    1) Fully implemented by the GOSL,
    2) Partially implemented by the GOSL,
    3) In the process of being implemented by the GOSL,
    4) Which are due to be implemented in the near future, and
    5) Recommendations that are unlikely to be implemented?
    I thank you in advance for your answers.

  9. well at least good old Rajiva is loyal to his employer and trying to do what is known as damage limitation which wont be bought by most yet there will be some fools to buy it

    I also notice that he is praising Dayan and subtly condemning Tamara -:)

    Well Rajiva if only you had followed your own LLRC recommendations none of this would have happened old boy

  10. This man seems to be interested only in justifying his capabilities and there by retaining his “job” and the perks, which he will not anywhere else in the world!!! He thinks by churning papers, you can show the world that there is reconciliation and rehabilitation and progress on human rights going on!!!

    He does not seem to care that even after almost three years after the war, the TAMIL war victims are without a roof over their heads, no livelihood, still they do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones!! Still abductions, rape, murders are going on every day. Land grabbing from the Tamils and gifting it to SINHAL THUGS are going on!! The army still occupying the victims houses and farms in the so called high security zones. Army is poking into the every day lives of the people in the north and east.

    While the people are going hungry, the govt. is building sub standard roads and bridges in order that the Rajapakse family can make 20% commission on every construction!!!

    People are surprised at the wisdom of the Government in taking a well known criminal to Geneva!! That itself is proof what sort of government is there in Sri Lanka!!! The fifteen votes SL got is not for its “good behavior” It is a policy of “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” Birds of a feather flock together!!

  11. Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha – now that the US Resolution against Sri Lanka has been adopted by the UNHRC do not linger over the Vote for & against…nothing will change…..please use your energy to implement the recommendations of the LLRC as it is only MADE IN SRI LANKA if you or your Govt is sincere in finding a solution to this burning issue besides what has been recommended by the LLRC is keeping the average citizens of this Country…you look like a deflated tube…worried like GOOWIMAL…

  12. Rajiva

    Can Sri Lanka be really happy to have the support of these 15 countries – is that the company you wish to keep ? If you had gone for higher studies to any of these 15 countries would you be able to articulate your views so well ? Or for that matter be able to think ? You are the biggest traitor to your upbringing and your school and your UK education.

    What crap are you advancing to say that 15 voted for SL? Would you like to go and live in any of these 15 countries ?? Its a pity that Syria, Iran and North Korea were not in the Council, or else you would have got three more.

    Silly man stop fooling the people all the time. Persuade the govt to bring in reforms or just give up without going from country to country lying.

  13. Rajiva

    Can Sri Lanka be really happy to have the support of these 15 countries – is that the company you wish to keep ? If you had gone for higher studies to any of these 15 countries would you be able to articulate your views so well ? Or for that matter be able to think ? You are the biggest traitor to your upbringing and your school and your UK education.

    What crap are you advancing to say that 15 voted for SL? Would you like to go and live in any of these 15 countries ?? Its a pity that Syria, Iran and North Korea were not in the Council, or else you would have got three more.

    Silly man stop fooling the people all the time. Persuade the govt to bring in reforms or just give up without going from country to country lying.

  14. Before the vote the spin from Sri Lanka was that it was going to win because it had the support of NAM, OIC etc. Now that it has lost the spin is “we won although we lost”. The good professor’s article is to be expected.

    SPIN 1: 15 votes was impressive.
    FACT 1: In May 2009 Sri Lanka could muster 29 votes despite fierce opposition from the West. Support for Sri Lanka has halved in three years.

    SPIN 2: The abstentions (8) are added to the no vote (15) to claim a moral victory.
    FACT 2: But 8+15=23 and even if all the abstainers had voted against the resolution it would still have gone through.

    SPIN 3: Many of the countries who voted for the resolution did out of fear of losing American aid.
    FACT 3: Six UNHRC members are amongst the top 25 aid recipients. Of these two voted for the resolution (Mexico, Nigeria), two against (Indonesia, Russia) and two abstained (Jordan, Senegal). Aid isn’t a factor. Four countries (Cameroon, India, Nigeria and Uruguay) who voted with the West now voted against the West in May 2009. Weren’t they receiving Western aid in May 2009?

    SPIN 4: The countries who voted no or abstained did so because the resolution infringed on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.
    FACT 4: A day after the Sri Lankan vote, the UNHRC passed a resolution on Syria by 41 to 3. The Syrian resolution strongly condemned Syria; urged Syria to immediately end all violence and all human rights violations; Demanded Syria protect its population, and respect the popular will, aspirations and demands of the Syrian people; and extended the mandate of the three-member commission of inquiry that the UNHRC set up September to probe alleged abuses in Syria. Isn’t this an unwarranted interference in the sovereignty of Syria? 17 countries (Angola, Bangladesh, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Congo, Djibouti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Thailand) voted against/abstained on the Sri Lanka resolution but voted for the Syrian resolution. These countries seem to respect Sri Lanka’s sovereignty but not Syria’s.

    SPIN 5: The voting was based on regional/political allegiances.
    FACT 5: Countries from all continents voted for the resolution. Non Aligned Movement members voted for the resolution. Islamic countries voted for the resolution. Conversely, countries with close historic/political/military links to the USA voted against the resolution (Kuwait, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand).

    The only factor which affected the voting was the level of democracy of the members. I list below, in descending order, the Democracy Index of the UNHRC members and how they voted on the Sri Lanka resolution:

    9.80 Norway (Yes); 9.09 Switzerland (Yes); 8.49 Austria (Yes); 8.19 Czech Republic (Yes); 8.17 Uruguay (Yes); 8.11 United States (Yes); 8.10 Costa Rica (Yes); 8.05 Belgium (Yes); 8.04 Mauritius (Yes); 8.02 Spain (Yes); 7.74 Italy (Yes); 7.63 Botswana (Abst); 7.54 Chile (Yes); 7.30 India (Yes); 7.12 Poland (Yes); 7.04 Hungary (Yes); 6.93 Mexico (Yes); 6.59 Peru (Yes); 6.55 Thailand (No); 6.54 Romania (Yes); 6.53 Indonesia (No); 6.33 Moldova (Yes); 6.19 Malaysia (Abst); 6.12 Philippines (No); 6.06 Benin (Yes); 5.88 Guatemala (Yes); 5.86 Bangladesh (No); 5.72 Ecuador (No); 5.44 Senegal (Abst); 5.13 Uganda (No); 4.34 Kyrgyzstan (Abst); 4.17 Mauritania (No); 3.92 Russia (No); 3.89 Jordan (Abst); 3.83 Nigeria (Yes); 3.74 Kuwait (No); 3.59 Burkina Faso (Abst); 3.55 Libya (Yes); 3.52 Cuba (No); 3.41 Cameroon (Yes); 3.32 Angola (Abst); 3.18 Qatar (No); 3.14 China (No); 2.89 Congo (No); 2.68 Djibouti (Abst); and 1.77 Saudi Arabia (No).

    You can judge the voting pattern for yourself.

    Very good dissection Andy.Thank you for this post………….DBSJ

  15. I would like to ask what the likes of GTF, Jan Jananayagayyyaaammm et al have done to uplift the lives of the Sri Lankans, especially Tamils who have suffered during this war. All I see is that they are completely pre-occupied with dragging the Rajapksa’s to a war crime tribunal!!

  16. despite all the positive spin being provided by our much learned prof.rajiv wijesinha srilanka has to travel a lot of distance to gain credibility among the comity of nations.cursory reading of countries which supported srilanka reads like countries which are scared that their regime may be next on block for gross human rights violations.russia,china,indonesia,uganda,congo,cuba all these countries hardly have democracy and human rights is practically non existent.srilanka and sinhalese have to introspect why they are in such a situation.three years have passed since the war ended has rajapakshe government taken any genui8ne steps to implement 13th amendment?it could pass 18th amendment but for passing 13th amendment it refers the issue to parliamentary select committee.strange are the priorities of rajapakshe government and prof.rajiv wijesinha is tomtoming srilankan governments achievements.what has been the track record of rajapakshe government on human rights post may 2009 many journalist have been threatened blatantly and few of them have disappeared also.white vans are regularly sent to kidnap people who are critical of government.even ruling party office bearers are threatened with abductions if they show an independent streak.world is in much better position to know what is really happening in srilanka and i hope that much learned person like prof.rajiv wijesinha does not sell his soul for power and pelf.

  17. The king of the jungle, the Sinhaya’s (lion’s) tail has been set on fire.

    It is clear from the professor’s comments that he does not understand the real goal of the resolution: a lasting political solution – and not war crimes tribunals and/or regime change.

    The administration has been put on notice: you have one year to make significant progress towards re-democratization and re-conciliation. The Rajapaksa administration must recognize what they are up against: the entire democratic world, and not a terrorist in a cave. There are serious ideological and geo-strategic motivations behind the US sponsored resolution. The democratic world does not like the dictatorial direction the island is heading in, and they wish to stop it on its tracks. The LLRC report is a God-sent screwdriver to tighten the screws on the administration. Expect there to be lots of sweet carrots sent in the direction of Colombo to encourage the administration towards solutions. Since Geneva there have been two: relaxing of Iranian oil imports and US defense favors. These are proof that the Americans are not interested in regime-change rather a massive attitudinal change by the Rajapaksas.

    As to how well did the Lanka delegation really do? 24 yes, 15 no, 8 abstentions translate to a statistical 62% vs. 38% for the winners and losers (an abstention counts as 1/2 vote for each side). Ironically this ratio is identical to the one president Rajapaksa’s won the last election, hailed as a massive victory by the likes of the professor!

    It is high time to cease being juvenile – and get on with the serious job of discovering solutions. An aversive administration has been put on notice.

  18. This resolution would not bring the sky on our heads for it’s a non binding one. But, running with the hare, Indians have killed the hare with the hounds and now crave to give oxygen to it. For one thing, Indians have lost their clout among the majority Sri Lankan for good. They’ve lost their true friends and the only true relations. Pity, India does not know that it has got a snake in its pocket.

    I say, India may have forgotten but we remember very well that it is Tamils who tried to divide India long before Jinnah.
    India does not know but we know that Tamils are still lurking in the shade for an opportunity to turn Tamil Nadu a separate country.
    India may have forgotten but we cannot forget that it is India that had promoted a few rag tag Tamil thugs to be a world class terrorist organisation.
    India may have forgotten but we cannot forget that it is India that had invaded our air space and dropped lentils to bring fear upon President JRJ and saved Pira-pakaran.
    India may have forgotten but we cannot forget that it is India that saved would be killers of their own Prime Minister Rajiv, and our President Premadasa, opposition leader Amirthalingam and tens thousands of innocent civilians.
    India may have forgotten but we cannot forget that it is India that had rammed India-Sri Lanka agreement and thereby the white elephant 13A down our throat to waste billions of rupees.
    India may have forgotten but we cannot forget that it is India that brought all these problems upon us to keep Sri Lanka as their vassal state.

    Though Pira-pakaran had blasted India’s ex-PM Rajiv to pieces, mighty as they portray though, India couldn’t touch even the ass of that murderer. We Sri Lankans had to kill the killers for them. And this is how they showed their gratitude; ungrateful bastards. I propose we send them a ship load of cesspits for they have no toilets in Tamil Nadu.

    But we are not surprised of action by white colonialists of yesteryear for we know that they are nothing but hypocrites, liars and war mongers. Read just the last five hundred years of their history to learn their Human Rights record. No time for that, then just go through their action during the last fifty years in Hiroshima bombing, Dresden, My Lai and etc. Still pressed for time, then google and just read how sixteen women and children were gunned down by the US GIs this month. Those that killed there were real civilian killing. The fact that these very people; wanted us negotiate with the promoters of suicide bombers that killed Indian PM, Rajiv and thousands of others; sold us no arms to fight the terrorists when we needed it most; put obstacles to obtain loans; stopped GSP shows real motives of hypocrites, liars and war mongers. Sri Lankan government should keep them at arm’s length for their sweets are wrapped poison coatings as usual.

  19. You lost and that’s what matters at the end. You got 29 votes in 2009 and it is only half that number now. It is therefore a major defeat whichever way you look at it.Now, enough talk. You can’t defend the indefensible any more. Just get on with implementing the LLRC recs and bring to book the mass murderers.

  20. We Sri lankans can stomach this loss as a small counrty. I can’t even imagine the loss of face USA would have if US lost it with all the high and mighty supporting them and the diapora throwing money like nothing. That means they had to win this by hook or crook and they did’nt have the hook so it had be by crook.India made it so plainly clear why it did what it did. Mr.Manohan was forced in to a corner where he had no choice but to save his government from the fire lit up in Tamilnadu by non other than Mrs.Hillary Clinton, when she paid a visit to Ms.Jeyalalitha.The two old women hatched and excuted the plan to perfection,got the the two old men cornered cleverly,but MMS being the cleverer man he is got himself and his government out unscathed and left the US not with neck wringing bone bititing resolution they and the tiger clan wanted but with a useless piece of paper with just a statement of no real value.
    Now that the resolution is passed,those who were desperate for a win for a long time can enjoy their success. As for those dreaming about ICC and hague will be dissapointed to find that,that will not happen any time in the near future. Anyway not with this resolution.
    As for those who scorn at the 15 countries voted with Sri lanka for being human rights violaters,I say,dont be daft enough to tell us that the countries who won the vote are whiter than white protectors of human rights and human rights laws. From the proposer to the last arm twisted voter are only pretenders and are greater violators than the former 15 countries.


  22. Herr Professor is clearly desperate for a ministerial position – he is doing everything possible to please King Mahinda so he’ll make him Minister of Reconciliation. Please, King Mahinda – even if you don’t implement any of the LLRC’s recommendations, please spare us the punishment of seeing Rajiva as minister of reconcliation. His being head of the Liberal party of Sri Lanka has already done enough to besmirch the noble concept of liberalism – let’s leave reconciliation from the same fate.


Comments are closed.