Published On: Mon, Oct 10th, 2011

Wikileaks –Rajapksa has an inferiority complex – Somawansa said to US Ambassador

A very narrow vision – In Colombo on September 8, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse and JVP general secretary Tilvin Silva (right) sign an agreement on the JVP’s support for Rajapakse in the presidential election.

“Amarasinghe was very critical of President Rajapaksa, saying he had a very narrow vision and an inferiority complex, which stemmed from the fact that he was not from one of the traditional power families. As a result, he suspected everyone, especially ‘learned people.’” US ambassador informed to Washington.

The US ambassador Patricaia Butenis met the JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe and JVP MP Sunil Handunneththi on 15th January 2010. In that meeting they discussed the JVP’s version of a United, multiethnic, multi – lingual Sri Lanka, JVP’s support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential candidacy , JVP’s support for a truth commission instead of a war crimes trial and JVP’s view of the involvement of the international community in Sri Lankan internal affairs.

The cable classified as a “CONFIDENCIAL” by the ambassador Butenis. According to the cable she has reported to Washington that “ Amarasinghe described the JVP as a reformed Marxist Party, with equality for all. He emphasized that they were not a nationalist party and believed strongly in multiparty democracy. The JVP was even in favor of a Tamil prime minister. The JVP also believed in developing power as far as possible, including allowing villages to decide on the allocation of funds.”

Somawansa with US ambassador Butenis

Regarding JVP support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential campaign, JVP leader Amarasinghe cited seven reasons; he was the only person who could defeat President Rajapaksa, JVP has never supported the current government, Fonseka was willing to eliminate the executive powers of the president, he was well – respected by the people, he was very direct and he had a broad vision for the future of Sri Lanka. The ambassador further wrote “ Amarasinghe went to add that Fonseka was marginalized after the military defeat of the LTTE because he was in favor of reconciling with former LTTE members. This convinced the JVP that Fonseka was committed to uniting the nation.”

Expressing their view on war crimes issue Amarasinghe said there were human  rights violations in every war and with regard to the final year of the Sri Lankan war there were in fact far fewer human rights violations than ever before. In terms of moving forward, he favored the idea of a “truth and reconciliation commission,” not a war crimes trial.

Read the relevant part of the leaked cable below;
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000053

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/25/2020
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: LEFTIST JVP EXPLAINS SUPPORT FOR FONSEKA

COLOMBO 00000053 001.2 OF 002

Classified By: AMBASSADOR PATRICIA A. BUTENIS. REASONS: 1.4 (B, D)

¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a January 15 meeting with Ambassador,
neo-Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party chief
Somawansa Amarasinghe and JVP MP Sunil Hanunnetti discussed
the JVP’s vision of a united, multiethnic, multi-lingual Sri
Lanka; their support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential bid;
their support for a truth commission, instead of a war crimes
trial; and their view of the involvement of the international
community in Sri Lankan internal affairs. END SUMMARY.
JVP REVAMPING IMAGE
——————-

¶2. (C) Amarasinghe described the JVP as a reformed Marxist
Party, which stood for a united, multiethnic, multi-lingual
Sri Lanka, with equality for all. He emphasized that they
were not a nationalist party and believed strongly in
multiparty democracy. The JVP was even in favor of a Tamil
prime minister. The JVP also believed in devolving power as
far as possible, including allowing villages to decide on the
allocation of funds. On election violence, Amarasinghe
claimed that although JVP members were forceful at
demonstrations, they were very disciplined and avoided
violence. He asserted that the JVP had never engaged in
political violence during peacetime. (NOTE: The latter claim
might only hold true if one accepted the JVP line that the
1971 and 1987-89 JVP insurrections, in which thousands lost
their lives, could be considered “wartime.” END NOTE.)

SUPPORT FOR FONSEKA
——————-

¶3. (C) Regarding JVP support for Sarath Fonseka’s
presidential campaign, Amarasinghe cited several reasons: 1)
He was the only person who could defeat President Rajapaksa;
2) the JVP had never supported the current government (NOTE:
This strains credulity. The JVP supported Rajapaksa in 2005
then grew increasingly alienated as Rajapaksa favored his own
party supporters over the JVP in government appointments.
END NOTE.); 3) Fonseka was willing to eliminate the executive
powers of the president; 4) his focus was on education and
health issues, not the military; 5) he was well-respected by
the people; 6) he was very direct; and, 7) he had a broad
vision for the future of Sri Lanka. Amarasinghe went on to
add that Fonseka was marginalized after the military defeat
of the LTTE because he was in favor of reconciling with
former LTTE members. This convinced the JVP that Fonseka
truly was committed to uniting the nation.

THE JVP AND RAJAPAKSA
———————

¶4. (C) Amarasinghe was very critical of President Rajapaksa,
saying he had a very narrow vision and an inferiority
complex, which stemmed from the fact that he was not from one
of the traditional power families. As a result, he suspected
everyone, especially “learned people.”

WAR CRIMES
———-

¶5. (C) On the JVP’s position on the war-crimes issue,
Amarasinghe said there were human-rights violations in every
war. In the last year of the Sri Lankan war, however, there
were, in fact, far fewer human-rights violations then ever
before. In terms of moving forward, he favored the idea of a
“truth and reconciliation commission,” not a war-crimes
trial. He added that the JVP had issued a statement in favor
of this approach, which was provided to the Ambassador.

———————————————————–

Related links

Wikileaks – JVP is a reformed Marxist party- Somawansa said to US Ambassador

By Colombo Telegraph –

“ Amarasinghe described the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna as a  reformed Marxist Praty, which stood for a united, Multiethnic, multi – lingual Sri Lanka, with equality for all.” US ambassador Patricia Butenis wrote in a confidential cable to Washington. The Colombo Telegraph is in a position to publish a part of the secret cable today.

The US ambassador Patricaia Butenis met the JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe and JVP MP Sunil Handunneththi on 15th January 2010. In that meeting they discussed the JVP’s version of a United, multiethnic, multi – lingual Sri Lanka, JVP’s support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential candidacy , JVP’s support for a truth commission instead of a war crimes trial and JVP’s view of the involvement of the international community in Sri Lankan internal affairs.

we are reformists

The cable classified as a “CONFIDENTIAL” by the ambassador Butenis. According to the cable she has reported to Washington that “ Amarasinghe described the JVP as a reformed Marxist Party, with equality for all. He emphasized that they were not a nationalist party and believed strongly in multiparty democracy. The JVP was even in favor of a Tamil prime minister. The JVP also believed in developing power as far as possible, including allowing villages to decide on the allocation of funds.”

Regarding JVP support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential campaign, JVP leader Amarasinghe cited seven reasons; he was the only person who could defeat President Rajapaksa, JVP has never supported the current government, Fonseka was willing to eliminate the executive powers of the president, he was well – respected by the people, he was very direct and he had a broad vision for the future of Sri Lanka. The ambassador further wrote “ Amarasinghe went to add that Fonseka was marginalized after the military defeat of the LTTE because he was in favor of reconciling with former LTTE members. This convinced the JVP that Fonseka was committed to uniting the nation.”

Expressing their view on war crimes issue Amarasinghe said there were human  rights violations in every war and with regard to the final year of the Sri Lankan war there were in fact far fewer human rights violations than ever before. In terms of moving forward, he favored the idea of a “truth and reconciliation commission,” not a war crimes trial.

JVP had never supported the current government

Related links;  http://transcurrents.com/tc/2009/12/both_mahinda_and_sarath_playin.html#more

Read the relevant part of the leaked cable below;

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000053

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/25/2020
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: LEFTIST JVP EXPLAINS SUPPORT FOR FONSEKA

COLOMBO 00000053 001.2 OF 002

Classified By: AMBASSADOR PATRICIA A. BUTENIS. REASONS: 1.4 (B, D)

¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a January 15 meeting with Ambassador,
neo-Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party chief
Somawansa Amarasinghe and JVP MP Sunil Hanunnetti discussed
the JVP’s vision of a united, multiethnic, multi-lingual Sri
Lanka; their support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential bid;
their support for a truth commission, instead of a war crimes
trial; and their view of the involvement of the international
community in Sri Lankan internal affairs. END SUMMARY.
JVP REVAMPING IMAGE
——————-

¶2. (C) Amarasinghe described the JVP as a reformed Marxist
Party, which stood for a united, multiethnic, multi-lingual
Sri Lanka, with equality for all. He emphasized that they
were not a nationalist party and believed strongly in
multiparty democracy. The JVP was even in favor of a Tamil
prime minister. The JVP also believed in devolving power as
far as possible, including allowing villages to decide on the
allocation of funds. On election violence, Amarasinghe
claimed that although JVP members were forceful at
demonstrations, they were very disciplined and avoided
violence. He asserted that the JVP had never engaged in
political violence during peacetime. (NOTE: The latter claim
might only hold true if one accepted the JVP line that the
1971 and 1987-89 JVP insurrections, in which thousands lost
their lives, could be considered “wartime.” END NOTE.)

SUPPORT FOR FONSEKA
——————-

¶3. (C) Regarding JVP support for Sarath Fonseka’s
presidential campaign, Amarasinghe cited several reasons: 1)
He was the only person who could defeat President Rajapaksa;
2) the JVP had never supported the current government (NOTE:
This strains credulity. The JVP supported Rajapaksa in 2005
then grew increasingly alienated as Rajapaksa favored his own
party supporters over the JVP in government appointments.
END NOTE.); 3) Fonseka was willing to eliminate the executive
powers of the president; 4) his focus was on education and
health issues, not the military; 5) he was well-respected by
the people; 6) he was very direct; and, 7) he had a broad
vision for the future of Sri Lanka. Amarasinghe went on to
add that Fonseka was marginalized after the military defeat
of the LTTE because he was in favor of reconciling with
former LTTE members. This convinced the JVP that Fonseka
truly was committed to uniting the nation.
WAR CRIMES
———-

¶5. (C) On the JVP’s position on the war-crimes issue,
Amarasinghe said there were human-rights violations in every
war. In the last year of the Sri Lankan war, however, there
were, in fact, far fewer human-rights violations then ever
before. In terms of moving forward, he favored the idea of a
“truth and reconciliation commission,” not a war-crimes
trial. He added that the JVP had issued a statement in favor
of this approach, which was provided to the Ambassador. BUTENIS

—————————-

Wikileaks -There is no “International Conspiracy” against Sri Lanka – President raises this because his desperation- Somawansa said to US

that there is no international conspiracy against Sri Lanka, claiming instead that the President’s raising this issue was a sign of his election desperation – Somawansa with Rajapaksa

“Nevertheless, he went on to say that all countries had to surrender some of their sovereignty when they signed international agreements and that this gave other countries the right to interfere to some extent in other nations’ affairs. He also said that there was no international conspiracy against Sri Lanka, claiming instead that the President’s raising this issue was a sign of his election desperation”  US ambassador wrote in a confidential cable. 

The US ambassador Patricaia Butenis met the JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe and JVP MP Sunil Handunneththi on 15thJanuary 2010. In that meeting they discussed the JVP’s version of a United, multiethnic, multi – lingual Sri Lanka, JVP’s support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential candidacy , JVP’s support for a truth commission instead of a war crimes trial and JVP’s view of the involvement of the international community in Sri Lankan internal affairs.

The cable classified as a “CONFIDENTIAL” by the ambassador Butenis. According to the cable she has reported to Washington that “ Amarasinghe described the JVP as a reformed Marxist Party, with equality for all. He emphasized that they were not a nationalist party and believed strongly in multiparty democracy. The JVP was even in favor of a Tamil prime minister. The JVP also believed in developing power as far as possible, including allowing villages to decide on the allocation of funds.”

Regarding JVP support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential campaign, JVP leader Amarasinghe cited seven reasons; he was the only person who could defeat President Rajapaksa, JVP has never supported the current government, Fonseka was willing to eliminate the executive powers of the president, he was well – respected by the people, he was very direct and he had a broad vision for the future of Sri Lanka. The ambassador further wrote “ Amarasinghe went to add that Fonseka was marginalized after the military defeat of the LTTE because he was in favor of reconciling with former LTTE members. This convinced the JVP that Fonseka was committed to uniting the nation.”

Expressing their view on war crimes issue Amarasinghe said there were human rights violations in every war and with regard to the final year of the Sri Lankan war there were in fact far fewer human rights violations than ever before. In terms of moving forward, he favored the idea of a “truth and reconciliation commission,” not a war crimes trial.

By Colombo Telegraph

Related news links
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000053

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/25/2020
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: LEFTIST JVP EXPLAINS SUPPORT FOR FONSEKA

COLOMBO 00000053 001.2 OF 002

Classified By: AMBASSADOR PATRICIA A. BUTENIS. REASONS: 1.4 (B, D)

¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a January 15 meeting with Ambassador,
neo-Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party chief
Somawansa Amarasinghe and JVP MP Sunil Hanunnetti discussed
the JVP’s vision of a united, multiethnic, multi-lingual Sri
Lanka; their support for Sarath Fonseka’s presidential bid;
their support for a truth commission, instead of a war crimes
trial; and their view of the involvement of the international
community in Sri Lankan internal affairs. END SUMMARY.
JVP REVAMPING IMAGE
——————-

¶2. (C) Amarasinghe described the JVP as a reformed Marxist
Party, which stood for a united, multiethnic, multi-lingual
Sri Lanka, with equality for all. He emphasized that they
were not a nationalist party and believed strongly in
multiparty democracy. The JVP was even in favor of a Tamil
prime minister. The JVP also believed in devolving power as
far as possible, including allowing villages to decide on the
allocation of funds. On election violence, Amarasinghe
claimed that although JVP members were forceful at
demonstrations, they were very disciplined and avoided
violence. He asserted that the JVP had never engaged in
political violence during peacetime. (NOTE: The latter claim
might only hold true if one accepted the JVP line that the
1971 and 1987-89 JVP insurrections, in which thousands lost
their lives, could be considered “wartime.” END NOTE.)

SUPPORT FOR FONSEKA
——————-

¶3. (C) Regarding JVP support for Sarath Fonseka’s
presidential campaign, Amarasinghe cited several reasons: 1)
He was the only person who could defeat President Rajapaksa;
2) the JVP had never supported the current government (NOTE:
This strains credulity. The JVP supported Rajapaksa in 2005
then grew increasingly alienated as Rajapaksa favored his own
party supporters over the JVP in government appointments.
END NOTE.); 3) Fonseka was willing to eliminate the executive
powers of the president; 4) his focus was on education and
health issues, not the military; 5) he was well-respected by
the people; 6) he was very direct; and, 7) he had a broad
vision for the future of Sri Lanka. Amarasinghe went on to
add that Fonseka was marginalized after the military defeat
of the LTTE because he was in favor of reconciling with
former LTTE members. This convinced the JVP that Fonseka
truly was committed to uniting the nation.

THE JVP AND RAJAPAKSA
———————

¶4. (C) Amarasinghe was very critical of President Rajapaksa,
saying he had a very narrow vision and an inferiority
complex, which stemmed from the fact that he was not from one
of the traditional power families. As a result, he suspected
everyone, especially “learned people.”

WAR CRIMES
———-

¶5. (C) On the JVP’s position on the war-crimes issue,
Amarasinghe said there were human-rights violations in every
war. In the last year of the Sri Lankan war, however, there
were, in fact, far fewer human-rights violations then ever
before. In terms of moving forward, he favored the idea of a
“truth and reconciliation commission,” not a war-crimes
trial. He added that the JVP had issued a statement in favor
of this approach, which was provided to the Ambassador.

INTERNATIONAL “INTERFERENCE”

COLOMBO 00000053 002.2 OF 002

—————————-

¶6. (C) Amarasinghe expressed opposition to any outside
“interference” seeking to impose solutions on Sri Lanka, such
as the UK government’s drafting of a new constitution without
consulting Sri Lankans. (NOTE: We assume Amarasinghe was
referring to the joint British-Sri Lankan drafting of a
constitution in 1948, which adopted many terms from British
usage but also took into account local conditions. END
NOTE.) Nevertheless, he went on to say that all countries
had to surrender some of their sovereignty when they signed
international agreements and that this gave other countries
the right to interfere to some extent in other nations’
affairs. He also said that there was no international
conspiracy against Sri Lanka, claiming instead that the
president’s raising this issue was a sign of his election
desperation.

Facebook Comments

முகநூல் பின்னூட்டல்கள்

prabakaran-history
EelamView All Rights Reserved
error: முடிந்தால் பகிரவும் திருட வேண்டாம் !