Tale of two govts or Two of the

same!

Sadly the government is trying to belittle the Paranagama Report to prevent

MR from scoring points the previous administrations high officials and its
few Cabinet Ministers that could read English were lazy to read a lengthy
text.... That is the kindest excuse ...
2015-11-04

Fortunes

of a
nation lie on a trunk of a leader. If the
heart of Mahinda Rajapaksa were
attached to the mind of Ranil
Wickremesinghe, the nation could come
smelling of roses after the war. Patriotic
sentiments blended neatly with worldly
wisdom. It was not to be. Becomes a
land of a splintered torso.
Who is Boss? Need is for a Boss of Bosses - Capo di Cape.

President Sirisena wisely leaves thorny issues with a foreign component to

his better-educated Prime Minister than to the sartorially elegant Foreign
Minister.
President Sirisena falls into the frame, in search of politics. Ceremonially
presided over the All Party Conference, a showcase of no value blown to
make a President look regal on television. Any equation in modern Sri Lanka
is a bare cupboard without Mahinda Rajapaksa [MR] for the good, bad or
ugly.
The Prime Minister placed the Udalagama Report in Parliament setting the
findings in Muttur, Sencholai and Trincomalee incidents along with 14
others on war crimes. Though presented to MR, never was the Report
released to the public.
Suppression gave rise to unnecessary suspicion. MR never read it or
possibly had bare conclusions read to him or more likely, had the gist
conveyed. Being an able man, he would have placed it in the public
domain, as credit was his, only if he had bothered
to study?
Honour the true author of the script of the Udalagama Report
posthumously- doughty Douglas Premaratne P.C. (Former Solicitor General).
Useful contributions came from Javid Usoof (former Ambassador) and
Jezima Ismail (leading educationist).The credit goes to the trio that formed
the brains trust behind the compilation of the report. Nissanka Udalagama
spent his time in office enjoying perks of a Chairman lending his title of
being an ex-Supreme Court Judge to the Report.

"We dropped a sitter with

the Action Plan when
lackadaisical Lalith
Weeratunga and G.L. Peiris
forfeited a way out of
international inquiry during
the Rajapaksa days and now
its another dropped chance
with the Paranagama
Report, where we can wave
as a friendly flag to display
a credible mechanism is in
place and to canvass for a
truly domestic inquiry where
foreign experts are required
to help us with their skills
and foreign observers to sit
not as judges, prosecutors, counsel and investigators but
to give legitimacy."
The Udalagama Report contained sufficient substance to merit spreading it
to save our good name as culprits were found: some exonerated and still
more listed for investigation.
MR is averse and allergic to reading. Sadly, it does not broaden minds.
Nothing repeat nothing happens thereafter, because high officials dont
read and politicians dont know the contents in reports. Maxwell
Paranagama is much smarter than Udalagama, but the style, turn of phrase
and depth in law seen in his Report are beyond the comprehension of a
retired judge. Paranagama is above the ordinary, yet the footnotes give way
to footprints of extraordinary ability beyond the capacity of its simple
authors. Dare say, there was value in engaging foreign experts.
Lalith Weeratunga, was a heartbeat away from the President - slept over
the Udalagama and LLRC reports as he did with the Action Plan presented
to Clinton. Lalith Weeratunga to Rajapaksa was no Wijeyadasa or
Paskaralingam to Premadasa. A man of integrity in whose feeble hands
much work remained undone, been a failure in the art of delegation.
Holding matters close to his kind heart was his style in gaining authority in
a closed society.

The Paranagama Report executed by MR invited experts to bolster

Paranagama in an effort to thwart the efforts of the West to demonise the
war.
None have given sufficient credit to MR for a brilliant manoeuvre since he
has gone underground with the surfacing of corruption allegations that
surrounds his administration. Ushering peace was his true greatness but to
sustain it with proper governance was his weakness.

"Government called the Paranagama Report worse than

the UNHRC report to show its ignorance of the Report,
which after considering all the options available, as
mandated, recommends a local inquiry - comprehensively
domestic in character without foreign participation."
Wickremesinghe laid the Paranagama Report on the Parliamentary table
replete with value added insights of the foreign experts Sir Desmond de
Silva Q.C, Professor Geoffrey Nice Q.C (UK) and David N. Crane (USA)
inclusive of the brilliant military report of Major General John Holmes. There
lies a magic portion- not in the names but in the contents of their report.
More authentic than the Darusman report; it examined hard evidence from
the local scene along with the material gathered by Darusman from
overseas focusing on the charges. Unlike the Darusmans report it is not an
ex-parte hearing. The Paranagama Team shifted and arranged the evidence
to arraign it before a more authoritative body for a final conclusion.
Lawyer Darusman, should have declined the assignment if he had an iota of
self-respect having previously censured Sri Lanka on human rights. He was
unfit to chair a committee to probe human rights having slated Sri Lanka in
writing at the time of exiting as an Eminent Person to the Udalagama
Commission, which he never attended and operated via a foreign
representative in Sri Lanka.
Why did Ban-kin-moon with the whole world before him select biased
Darusman disqualified on natural justice as chairman?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs headed by an erudite law professor neglected
to disqualify Darusman and cried over the spilt milk after the event. The
Experts report headed by Sir Desmond considered the allegations made in
the Darusmans report and Chanel 4 documentaries and other criticisms
and tossed it against the live evidence and gave a more balanced appraisal.
The cutting edge is in the assessment of the White Flag story, deaths of
Balachandran, Isaipriya and Colonel Ramesh finds the material provided
inadequate to reach a conclusion and makes a call for fuller inquiry, since it

has a semblance of accuracy - realistic and reasonable, leaving conclusions

to a comprehensive inquiry.

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs headed by an erudite law

professor neglected to disqualify Darusman and cried
over the spilt milk after the event."
Surely, the Paranagama Report would not please the ultra - Sinhala or Tamil
opinion -therein lies its true potential. It does not cater for extreme
elements.
This Report reinforces our capability of creating transparent domestic
tribunals to hear war crimes sans foreign intervention. Government must
not bow to the international community and become their servile lap dog.
Last government made us live in an island like Robinson Crusoe and this
government is taking on a cruise in the western waters in an effort to throw
us over board. The Paranagama Report, with foreign expertise, brings
credit to the Rajapaksa regime for selecting and initiating men of repute to
assess Sri Lanka dispassionately. This report was in the hands of this
government at the relevant time but was not presented to the UNHRC for
reasons unknown. If presented UNHRC would have known the flip side to
the Darusman edition and our responses to the charges in the Darusman
report. Foreign Ministers failure to bring it to the notice of the UNHRC has
led to hybrid tribunals and to an agreement we signed making it bind multi
polar.
Where do we go from here? To renegotiate to make it a truly domestic
inquiry by carrying the Paranagama Report to display our credentials of
capability and capacity for a fair trial.
On Channel 4 the Experts Report submits it provides enough material to
form a reasonable basis to believe war crimes may have been committed
warranting investigation; on the white flag incident suggests that a judicial
inquiry is necessary and believes more should be probed on the deaths of
Balachandran (Prabhakarans 12-year-old-son) Shoba alias Isaipriya the
pretty broadcaster and Colonel Ramesh since material provided by Channel
4 is insufficient proof. These deductions are made after examining the
credibility of every source material and reaching a finding of a prima facie
case made against the offenders but reaches no conclusions by pinpointing
names, as it requires proof of a higher degree to prove charges. Unlike the
Darusman Report, travel is not on a one-way fault street but on a dual
carriage moderating and assessing facts against the background of the
relevant laws.

Furthermore, on available evidence it dismisses the charge of genocide and

does not accept the allegation of 40,000 or fewer deaths caused by the
defence services or in the absence of evidence and is in tandem with the
UNHRCs report that states the LTTE caused deaths of unaccounted Tamils
civilians during the last phase.
Was it not presented to the UNHRC in being a product of the Mahinda
Rajapaksa administration or did they not study the report as required to
learn of its true value? Are we playing politics while the nation bleeds?
Opposition is asking for opinions furnished by the experts instead of
nudging the report to the UNHRC? Stupidity has reached new heights with
the fault lying with Foreign Ministry officials in not briefing the politicians
and the public trained as butlers with servility to murmur Yes, Your
Excellency obligingly.
We dropped a sitter with the Action Plan when lackadaisical Lalith
Weeratunga and G.L. Peiris forfeited a way out of international inquiry
during the Rajapaksa days and now its another dropped chance with the
Paranagama Report, where we can wave as a friendly flag to display a
credible mechanism is in place and to canvass for a truly domestic inquiry
where foreign experts are required to help us with their skills and foreign
observers to sit not as judges, prosecutors, counsel and investigators but
to give legitimacy.
The Government called the Paranagama Report worse than the UNHRC
report to show its ignorance of the Report, which after considering all the
options available, as mandated, recommends a local inquiry comprehensively domestic in character without foreign participation.
The Udalagama Commission had a French judge of eminence and Japanese
observer present till near end of the sittings and the foreign eminent
persons or their agents were permitted (When present unlike Darusman
who was permanently absent) to cross - examine witnesses. Sadly the
government is trying to belittle the Paranagama Report to prevent MR from
scoring points; just as much as the previous administration kept under its
wraps the Udalagama Report - since the previous administrations high
officials and its few Cabinet Ministers that can read English was lazy to
read a lengthy text. That is the kindest excuse on offer. The TNA opposed
the Paranagama Report and our great nationalists fail to play an ace in
hand. Instead these good people play the wrong card and do a great
disservice to the nation on the pretext of being patriotic by misreading the
Paranagama Report, our fast disappearing final frontier. We suffer, as both
governments are the same. - See more at:
http://www.dailymirror.lk/93905/tale-of-two-govts-or-two-of-the-

same#sthash.ai0yCzAF.dpuf
Posted by Thavam