UKAsian Editor's Note; General
Sarath Fonseka - the man who helped vanquish the LTTE and bring to an
end Sri Lanka's bloody 30-year Civil war in 2009, and who was
subsequently imprisoned for daring to challenge the country's president
at the ballot box - was released from prison last week.
The career military man, a war hero to many, had been jailed after
standing against his former masters - President Mahinda Rajapakse and
his brother Gotabhaya, the powerful defence secretary - at the general
election which followed in the aftermath of one of history's most
violent and crippling ethnic conflicts.
General Fonseka's imprisonment attracted widespread criticism -
nationally and internationally - and was seen as yet another ploy by the
ruling Rajapakse family to suppress dissent and extend its' hegemony
over the picturesque island.
Some say the general's release was a way for the Rajapakse regime to
counter waning support home and abroad. In spite of Sri Lanka's booming
economy, the country continues to be dogged by myriad troubles: from
the often brutal suppression of opposition to the government to the
skyrocketing cost of living.
It is still unclear whether General Fonseka will re-enter politics.
Even if he does, he is not seen as an immediate political threat as the
next presidential election is due to take place in 2016.
The BBC's Charles Haviland was the first journalist to interview
General Fonseka following his release from the notorious Welikada prison
in Colombo.
Following is the full transcript of the interview.
The BBC met Sarath Fonseka on Tuesday morning at the
rented house where the family now stays on the outskirts of Colombo.
Two restless barking dogs – a Dalmation and a Dachshund – calmed down by
the time we started filming and the place was peaceful, the only
extraneous noise being the occasional lowing of cattle in an adjoining
field. The former army chief looked tired but was due to set off to pay
homage at Buddhist temples in the provinces the same afternoon.
Charles Haviland: Why do you think you’ve been released now?
Sarath
Fonseka: There’s a lot of pressure on the people who were behind
putting me behind bars – internally, the local aspirations of the
people, the sentiments of the people, the pressure was building up.
Then internationally we know that there was unlimited pressure. The
international community did a great job by maintaining continuous
pressure on them. Because they were interested to see proper democracy
in this country. With that in mind, they I think exercised a fair
amount of pressure on the people who were behind my incarceration.
CH: You have your differences with President Rajapaksa but are you grateful to him for signing the papers for your release?
SF: I will ask you the same question. If I put you behind bars, later on I put you out, what would you feel about it?
CH: Are the terms of your release unconditional – will you be allowed to go back to politics?
SF:
As yet I have not seen this legal document. Unless they have remitted
the prison sentence which I have completed already, unless they do that I
can’t do politics. I can do politics but I can’t vote or contest. So
as it is, we don’t know exactly what is there in the document but we’ll
come to know.
CH: There’s still another charge outstanding against
you, of harbouring army deserters. Could you still go back to court
and be sentenced again or is that out of the question?
SF:
Yes naturally they want to hold on to it, thinking they can put
pressure on me by maintaining that. But that’s another case as far as
I’m concerned. Obviously we don’t agree with the charges. If they
think they can put me behind bars again using that, most probably they
are repeating the same mistake.
CH: Would you like ideally to go back to politics again and challenge the president in an election once more?
SF:
Umm – yes, it’s not that I want to become the president of the country
or something. My intention and my agenda is not to contest for the
presidential and become the president of the country only. I have a
political agenda: to change the corrupt political culture in this
country. As far as I can do that, I don’t mind not becoming president
or not being an MP. But we’ll definitely try to gather all the forces
together for that purpose. So when we go ahead with that, they will
already be confronting us, obviously.
CH: How do you see yourself in terms of being an
opposition leader in this country? Do you think perhaps you are the
best placed to be such a leader?
SF: It’s not a case
of whether I am the best or anyone else is the best. It’s a case of
who is really interested, genuinely interested, about the country’s
interest. Let the people decide that. The people who think that this
government is not doing their job and if they think there is a change
required now then they will have to decide basically who is the best
person or who are the best people to do that. Otherwise I don’t want to
get into a leadership clash or fighting for appointments or something.
CH: I’d like to talk about human rights issues
starting with the international angle. In March the US sponsored a
resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva which was critical
of Sri Lanka on human rights. It was adopted, India supported it, and
it basically said Sri Lanka should do more to implement reconciliation
recommendations which came from within Sri Lanka and should do more
about accountability in respect of alleged war crimes. Were you happy
to see that resolution passed?
SF: Yes – because –
on certain issues in that resolution we straight away we agree – the
violations of human rights, the reconciliation, yes, it’s a must, but
the war crimes – there are various different opinions. So we have to
argue with that, argue it out and clarify any doubts so that those who
are pointing out any issues – I always believe that they must point out
specific issues, then we are ready to answer them, we can clarify
anything. I don’t want to hide and wait. The way some people are
trying to hide their face when it comes to war crimes and other issues –
it gives the impression to the rest of the world that these people are
guilty of something. I have always said that I am ready to answer for
any allegations about the war crimes in relation to the military
operations, so that is my position.
But human rights violations, yes, and the intimidation, the people
are under pressure, terrified, terrorised, all due to the abuse of power
by the government – I fully agree that if there is a dictatorship,
ongoing dictatorship, or someone looking forward for a dictatorship,
tyrannical politics – if people’s interest is not looked after, people
are intimidated, if the opposition is suppressed – then obviously if
things go beyond the control of the law-enforcing agencies in the
country, if the judiciary is being pressurised, influenced – then
obviously the accepted thing in the whole world – the rest of the world
must also take some interest in those issues to help a country out.
CH: So you say the judiciary is intimidated, that
there is intimidation in wider society, threats, etc? Is this what you
are saying?
SF: Yeah that’s true. Judiciary –
although it is not direct intimidation there’s a certain amount of
influence on judiciary because after the 18th Amendment was brought in
[taking away limits to presidential terms and providing the president
with numerous new powers] – Powerful, and the judges and everybody else
in the judiciary, Attorney-General’s Department, everybody [is]
vulnerable for a one-man show. So obviously they can’t be independent,
they can’t take decisions. They themselves are human beings who have to
look after their families, who have to look after their jobs. So
indirectly they are pressurising the judiciary and judiciary cannot be
independent under a situation like this.
CH: You’re saying that’s because the president has the power to directly appoint so many of these people?
SF: Yes. Everybody knows in this country and he’s not doing it sincerely.
CH: Before you left the army some people accused you of taking part in that same kind of culture of intimidation and threats.
SF:
That is also the fault of the government. When there were incidents
here and there, the government did not come out and face the criticism
and settle those issues, then the people formed their own opinion. If
someone is killed in Colombo or a journalist is attacked or killed, then
if the government does not find the culprits, the people, the
opposition will point the finger at the government and those who are –
the military and the police, the people who have power. As the people
who are responsible. In fact this president, very unfortunate, I know
at certain media briefings , after some incident took place in relation
to a media personnel, he has been saying “don’t disturb the military, if
you disturb the military we will not be able to look after you” – and
words like that. So obviously the people were suspicious about
everybody else, not only the army I mean, the servicemen – the
intelligence –
CH: So you deny having taken part in those kind of violations in the past?
SF:
I had more important things to do. I was full time to ensure
[indistinct word] fighting a huge war. Rather than going behind one or
two people in Colombo which didn’t matter to me at all. If that is the
case now, the way they are criticising me, the mud-slinging, I must
start attacking each and every man in the government, if I had that
frame of psychology.
CH: On the subject of the war – we’ve referred to it
already – a panel appointed by Ban Ki-Moon said there might have been
up to 40,000 civilian casualties – civilian casualties on a mass scale.
The government absolutely rejects that. Where do you stand on this?
SF:
I totally reject, refuse the numbers given that thousands of civilians
died. Because I knew exactly how the battle was fought. How the
military was moving forward. The reaction of the civilians. What were
the civilians doing. Of course a certain amount of casualties would
have been there because everybody knows the civilians were also manning
the LTTE bunker lines. Civilians – there were pictures and the video
footage to show that even elderly women aged 60 or 70 going through
weapon training. So there is no question – of a few civilians getting
killed obviously but you can’t blame the military for that – because
civilians were given weapons and put in the front line, it would not be
possible for the military to identify such people. But the large
figures of 30,000, 40,000, dying, it was not practicable. The way we
conducted the war, the type of weapons systems we used, the manuals we
made, we were always concerned about the security of the civilians.
CH: So what’s your view of the idea that there should be an international independent investigation of those claims?
SF:
That is up to the international community – if they have any doubts, if
they have any questions they can do it. I think they have all the
right and freedom to do it. Then it’s our business to confront them,
meet them and discuss with them and thrash out any doubts.
CH: And Sri Lanka should be open to that?
SF: Definitely, yes.
CH: And you would be open to that even if you were to come under the spotlight of investigation?
SF:
I’ve said from the very beginning, to safeguard the name of the
military, those who sacrificed their lives, those who conducted that
operation, I’ll come out at any time, I’m not scared to come before
anybody.
CH: Who was really in charge of the war effort in the last months or years – you or the defence secretary or the president?
SF:
If I could run it for two years and eight months, there was no reason
for take over during the last month. Nobody else would have had the
knowledge about what’s happening on the ground more than me at that
time. Of course everybody wants to say, “we conducted the war”. I
don’t know what they have been talking, what they have been doing. If
they were discussing things without my knowledge without my presence, I
don’t know. They are themselves saying they planned certain things,
they worked out certain strategies, they have to answer for that then.
They must say what they exactly did.
CH: But you were in overall charge?
SF: Yeah, definitely.
CH: Sarath Fonseka, thank you very much for speaking to us.
SF:
Thank you very much. You take my message to the international
community also. We want them to be with us, to build the country, and
clear the name of the image of this country. And we need their
assistance. And we are ready to cooperate and work with the rest of the
world any time. Thank you.
http://www.ukasiaonline.com/
Acid
attack victims in Pakistan have threatened legal action to block the
release of award-winning documentary Saving Face in the country for fear
of reprisals.
Schools
in Britain should record more information on the languages spoken by
pupils from minority communities to better support students who struggle
with education, a new study has found.
Director Anurag Kashyap is creating waves in India all the way from France.
A
friend recently asked what I thought of the song “Chammak Challo Chel
Chabeli” from the upcoming movie “Rowdy Rathore.” My unfiltered reaction
was something along the lines of “Ugh,” not because of any particulars
of the music or choreography but because once again a mainstream Hindi
film has given us a jodi in which the man is ridiculously older than his
female co-star.
The
South Asian Cinema Foundation is set to honour the work of pioneering
Indian filmmaker Shyam Benegal with a series of events in London this
June.
An Indian student in the US who secretly filmed his gay roommate kissing another man has been sentenced to 30 days in prison.