It is a contradiction of the President Mahinda Rajapakse, who had on the one hand most rightly promoted the leadership of the Government Armed forces in recognition of their heroic contribution to save Sri Lanka from the perils of terrorism, and on the other hand to have “sacked” the most distinguished , brilliant, forthright, and an outspoken diplomatic worrier who won another “war” for him in the diplomatic front in Geneva.
It was a great fortune that we had Dayan Jayatilleke in
Dayan Jayatilleke a diplomat of exceptional quality, defeated the aims of another sort of terrorists who made all efforts to give a life line to Prabhakaran and his terrorist cohorts, and having failed in that effort to accuse the Sri Lanka Government Forces for war crimes.
It was indeed the most remarkable event in the annuls of the history of Sri Lanka for the Government Forces to have eliminated terrorism that had caused so much of material and human damage to the country, and was on the verge of breaking away a part of its territory to create a Tamil Eelam State.
The
Navy Pillay like Prabhakaran the terrorist would not accept defeat, and when the resolution against
Dayan Jayatilleke’s diplomatic clashes to avoid bringing discredit to our government, and shame to our armed forces which had sacrificed large numbers of men, and risked their lives to end the cancer of terrorism that had eaten into the flesh of our motherland was also fraught with danger. The gratitude the President showed to Dayan Jaytilleke who valiantly faced the onslaught of determined International Community to bring the government before a tribunal accused for war crimes, was simply to have sacked him.
If giving credit to this hero who had fought the invisible forces unleashed by the Western powers and the UN, is to throw him out like a used dirty chiffon, it would remain in the history of our nation as a shameful aftermath for a glorious battle fought with brilliance, intelligence , and vibrant verbal force for the glory of the motherland. All the laurels won by the President Mahinda Rajapakse for his great contribution for saving the country from terrorism, is blown away in the dry wind of shameless ingratitude by this one act.
What could be the great wrong committed by Dayan Jaytilleke for him to deserve this inglorious end of a remarkable diplomatic carrier in the service of his country ?
When I wrote to a friend on the subject asking him whether it was a decision made by the President, and if so whether it is not an unpardonable error. He wrote to me giving details of the “erratic” political path traversed by Dayan Jayatilleke , and explained that he as a Diplomat representing Sri Lanka should have been more careful making statements which may have contradicted the President’s not yet decided views on the 13 Amendment, and that his statement on Israel was an embarrassment to the President.
I disagree on both counts. On the 13 Amendment Dayan Jayatilleke had made his personal views as any other citizen even if his official capacity demanded him to be more cautious. He has a right to express his view on a matter that affects the future of
With regard to his statement on
As to his erratic political path , that was the past. We always learn from our past to relate ourselves to the future. Many are those who had followed erratic paths, but it should not stand on the way to judge them for what they are now. One of the worst, mentioned in the Buddhist Canon is Angulimala !!
The President should not have precipitated to take a very unfair and unjust decision to sack Dayan Jayatilleke for those statements made in his private capacity. Even many soldiers may have been allowed to die in vein by sheer miscalculation of military strategies by the Army Commanders. The bus load of Navy personnel massacred by the terrorists at Habarana was due to the negligence of the Security staff. And so was the terrorist suicide attack of the Anuradhapura Air Force Camp where the security guards were said to have been watching a television show.
If those incidents had been overlooked in view of the over-roll performance of the Army, why was Dayan Jayatilleke not given such consideration for the greater services he had contributed for
And
__________________________________________________________
a comment:
Dayan Jayatilleke too won a “war ” for the President
by claude » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:08 am
Granted DJ was a magnificent and brilliant diplomat but he took advantage of his status and became ill disciplined and the 2 reasons given by CSP are very severe acts of responsibilities and unpredictable behaviour of a career diplomat:
1 Despite the fact that the President had instructed all his officials not to speculate views on the 13 Amendment, DJ defied the president’s orders perhaps thinking he is now indispensable!
2 I’m not familiar with his statement on Israel but it must have either upset the Israel or the Arabs – both supported SL against the war on the terrorist.
Of course DJ is allowed to express his personal views but surely must be guarded and cautious and contradicting the President openly is it not a act of defiance?
Are not all diplomats hypocrites? What so special about DJ?
Is it fair for CSP to equate the mistakes by the army, navy and air force to justify DJ’s action? DJ was a loose cannon, which I hope CSP will not provide any more “balls” for his lost cause! I’m sure his home rest will deflate his ego and perhaps one, learning from his mistakes be a proud SL warrior!
How is the President ever going to revamp the SL political system if he is going to exempt special “Diplomat”? In yesterday’s news it was reported that the foreign Minister who also played a key role in the recent elimination of the LTTE spent 4.5million rupiahs to celebrate his daughter’s birthday bash in the US had asked shamelessly the SL government to handle the bill after the US refused to settle it. If this report is true, this is another official that should be sacked not matter what! These gentlemen are not role models for the young diplomats.
I’m from Singapore and am amazed that although some of the country’s diplomats are from the opposition but when they are posted overseas as diplomats to UN, US, UK, Europe etc none had voiced they views in openly on policies which they differ with the government. SL need to study and implement Singapore code of conduct for politicians and diplomats if SL truly needs to reach a higher level.
No comments:
Post a Comment