சிங்களத்தின் கூலிப்படைக் கல்விமான்கள்!

தனது இனக்கொலையை நியாயப்படுத்த கொழும்பிற்கு உதவும் மேற்குலகில் படித்த நான்கு தனிநபர்கள் - சுவீடிஷ் பேராசிரியர்

சுவீடன் உப்சாலா பல்கலைக்கழகத்தைச் சேர்ந்த பேராசிரியர் பீடர் ஷல்க் என்பவர் சிங்கள இனக்கொலை அரசின் நடவடிக்கைகளை நியாயப்படுத்தவும், அதற்கெதிரான சர்வதேச கண்டனங்களைக் கைய்யாளவும் என மேற்குலகில் படித்துப் பட்டம் பெற்ற நான்கு சிங்களவர்களை சிங்கள அர்சாங்கம் பாவிக்கிறது என்று தனது ஆய்வொன்றில் கூறியுள்ளார். இவர்களைக் கூலிப்படை கல்விமான்கள் என்று குறிப்பிடும் இந்தப் பேராசிரியர் இவர்களை சிங்கள அடிப்படை இனவாதிகள் என்றும் அழைக்கிறார். இவர்களிடமிருந்து தமிழருக்கு எந்தவித சாத்தியமான தீர்வுகளோ கிடைக்கப்போவதில்லை என்றும், இவர்களின் கல்வித்தகமையென்பது எந்த விதத்திலும் பயனற்றது என்றும் கூறுகிறார்.

சுவீடிஷ் பேராசிரியரின் தமிழ்நெட்டுடனான நேர்கணலை தொடர்ந்து வாசியுங்கள்.

'Mercenary Intellectuals'

[TamilNet, Monday, 28 December 2009, 14:14 GMT]

Prof. Peter Schalk, of Uppsala University, Sweden, identifies four western educated individuals hired by the Government of Sri Lanka to defend Colombo's decisions and criticisms from the West, and labels them as "mercenary intellectuals." He dismisses even discussing the "Sinhalatva hard core idealogues" from whom, Schlak says, one cannot expect any "rational reaction of responsibility in the Tamil issue," and that one cannot expect any "academic performance" from these Sinhalatva types.

Full text of the write-up by Professor Peter Schalk follows:

On my Encounter with Intellectuals among Sinhala Speakers

Peter Schalk

Peter SchalkThe article “Diplomatic misstep” in TamilNet, Friday, 25 December 2009, which is about a well documented verbal misbehaviour of Professor Rajiva Wijesinha actualises an important problem of responsibility of intellectuals Sinhala speakers which I have taken up in another article in TamilNet. Here I tell about my encounter with different types of intellectuals who have chosen to abandon the academic discourse and become mercenary intellectuals of a political regime.

There is of course no such entity or essence like “the Sinhala intellectual”. There are only different categories among them. I focus here the political intellectual among Sinhala speakers. I have no hope here for one type, for the Sinhalatva hard core ideologue. We cannot expect from him any rational reaction of responsibility in the Tamil issue. His tunnel vision focuses on Sinhalatva (=Sinhala ethnonationalism) only. He has marginalised himself as ultra extremist on the political stage. We cannot expect any academic performance from him.

There is another type, a special group of leading intellectuals among Sinhala speakers known as Buddhist monks. Their support of the war is now made object in many academic seminars around the world in comparative studies of “the political Lankan Buddhist monk”. I am fully aware that that there is no such single category as “the Buddhist monk”, but when it comes to the leadership there is a continuity and concord of their opinion that the war was just and that it had to be conducted for the sake of peace according to well-known saying samaya sandaha yuddhaya ‘war for peace’. It was retrieved from past historiography by the monk Valpola Rahula in 1992 as collective political program in the present conflict. These leading monks have misunderstood the teaching of the Buddha. They create an embarrassment to global Buddhism.

The Sri Lankan Government has hired a group of Western educated intellectuals whose task is to defend its decisions and to attack criticism from the West. Just to mention four of them representing not only individuals, but they also represent the type of a mercenary intellectual. The first calls himself “Professor” or “Dr” and runs a one-man institute in Europe or Asia financed by obscure sources collecting and making up intelligence reports which he delivers to the Defence Department. He is regarded as a specialist on terrorism, albeit his works do not stand a test in a basic academic seminar. We are used to work with open sources in the academic interaction, which has not yet been practised by this type of political activist.

The second type uses in his capacity as diplomatic representative of Sri Lanka a filthy and abusive language and irrational and dogmatic argumentation in relation to the Tamil Resistance Movement. His language alienated him completely from a sophisticated diplomatic and academic-critical discourse. He also applied a just war theory on the persecution of Tamil speakers by his President. In international diplomatic circles he is known as “Bully”.

There is also a third type, a professor again, this time one of humanities. He is also employed by the Defence Department. He is 150% faithful to his leader, the President. He attacks others verbally with scorn and disdain, interrupts and preaches. He does not allow any contradiction. He also has abandoned the academic and diplomatic discourse with his street fighter jargon that has become also a common form of official communication in Lankan embassies.

There is finally a fourth type, again a professor, who always holds the view that the Big Man/Woman in charge expects from him to have, and he shifts party accordingly. I am aware of two of his party defections. When he is abroad he speaks for federalism as a solution, when at home he condemns it. He is a typical survivor among hired intellectuals on the political stage.

All four have established firmly an image of the intellectual mercenary. When they speak up we already know what they are going say. They are predictable and therefore not especially interesting for us who have followed their careers, in some cases for decades. They have now become living semiotisations and fossilisations of the Rajapakse Government. My point is that they have no excuse for their acting as they know very well alternative views and ways of performance. They are in the position of saying no. They cannot even refer to a special duty or even right of being obedient.

Now we come to “the liberal” who is well aware of possible violations of human rights by the Government, but who still hoped that the Government would “humanise” the war. He recommended the Government to increase the number of latrines to the prisoners in the concentration camps, but he has no recommendation to close the camps. Some think that “the welfare camps (sic)” were functional in the beginning but are now becoming an object of criticism by foreign powers and are therefore dysfunctional for the external trade economy of the country. Which further wisdom can we expect from these liberals among Sinhala speakers in the Tamil issue?

Finally, there is the dissident type of Sinhala speaker, monk or layman, who, however, has to choose inner or outer emigration facing the iron fist of the present Government. I respect them deeply for their integrity, but I am worried about their welfare. They are the hope for the future of Lanka. The Tamil Resistance Movement and progressive Western forces should cultivate close contact with them and encourage them. There is already a chain of connections. These resilient and defiant intellectuals among Sinhala speakers have a potential to form and lead a Sinhala Resistance Movement for democracy and to initiate a de-sinhalatva-fication from primary schools to universities.

# The first calls himself “Professor” or “Dr” and runs a one-man institute in Europe or Asia financed by obscure sources collecting and making up intelligence reports which he delivers to the Defence Department. - Prof. / Dr. Rohan Gunartne?? ( http://www.tamilsydney.com/content/view/2548/37/ and http://www.start.umd.edu/start/research/investigators/investigator.asp?id=65 )

# The second type uses in his capacity as diplomatic representative of Sri Lanka a filthy and abusive language and irrational and dogmatic argumentation in relation to the Tamil Resistance Movement. - Sri Lankan Government's Secretariat ... Prof Rajiva Wijesinha ??( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiva_Wijesinha )

# There is also a third type, a professor again, this time one of humanities. He is also employed by the Defence Department. He is 150% faithful to his leader, the President. He attacks others verbally with scorn and disdain, interrupts and preaches. - Dr. Palitha Kohona ??( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palitha_Kohona )

# There is finally a fourth type, again a professor, who always holds the view that the Big Man/Woman in charge expects from him to have, and he shifts party accordingly. - Prof. G.L.Peiris ??( http://www.asian-affairs.com/biographies/glpeiriscv.html )

அகூதா,

நீங்கள் சந்தேகிக்கும் அந்த நான்குபேரையும்தான் நானும் நினைக்கிறேன். ஆனால் ரொகான் குணவர்த்தன என்பவன் சிங்கள அரச ஆளா அல்லது தாந்தோன்றி ஆய்வாளரா??

Prof. Rohan Gunaratna, a Sinhalese from Sri Lanka, is a so called "expert" on terrorism.

Pre 9/11era

Prof. Gunaratna worked for the Sri Lanka Government between 1984 and 1994. In late 1989 he visited the US for the first time on the State Department International Visitor Program. He stayed for there a month and was impressed by the experience. On return to Sri Lanka after a month in the United States, Prof. Gunaratna, along with others, set up a group called the South Asian Network On Conflict Research (SANOCR). Prof.Gunaratna left his Sri Lankan government job in 1994 and began terrorism related studies in the United States. In 1994 he worked at the Office of Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security at the University of Illinois. In 1995 he worked at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland where he says he worked with Stansfield Turner, the former head of the CIA.

In 1996 Gunaratna began a master of arts at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame University in Chicago. Prof.Gunaratna then said, this was his first “opportunity to focus on their [the Sri Lankan insurgencies’] international operations”. At Notre Dame University he linked up with the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence and got to know the Centre’s then head, Bruce Hoffman who also served as director of RAND. Gunaratna’s Masters thesis was ‘Changing nature of warfare: Ltte at the razor’s edge’ and was published in 1997. After completing his Masters, Prof. Gunaratna went on to study a for Phd at the Department of International Relations, at the University of St. Andrews where he was British Chevening Scholar (The UK Foreign Office's Scholarships and Awards Scheme) from 1996-1999. His PhD was supervised by Bruce Hoffman. After completing his PhD he became a Fellow at the University’s Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence. Still his expertise were in South Asian conflict, and he is described in publications as for example “a specialist on Asia-Pacific guerrilla and terrorist groups".

Post 9/11

Invited to testify before the 9-11 Commission on the structure of al Qaeda, Gunaratna led the specialist team that built the UN Database on al Qaeda, Taliban and their Entities. He debriefed detainees in the U.S., Asia, Middle East, including high value al Qaeda detainees in Iraq. He served as trainer for law enforcement, the intelligence community, and the military. He conducted field research in conflict zones including in Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Colombia.

Author and editor of 12 books including “Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror” (Columbia University Press), an international bestseller, Gunaratna is also the lead author of Jane’s Counter Terrorism, a handbook for counter terrorism practitioners. His latest book with Michael Chandler, former Chairman of the UN Monitoring Group into the Mobility, Weapons and Finance is "Countering Terrorism: Can We Meet the Threat of Global Violence?”

Credibility at stake

In the shadowy world of intelligence gathering, all is often not what it seems. And the same appears to go for the sometimes just as shadowy world of the intelligence analyst.

Prof.Rohan Gunaratna, lauded by the media as a global authority on international terrorism. Prof. Gunaratna is one of the fastest-rising stars among the ranks of a new breed of celebrity analyst, roaming the world making headlines based on leaked information from their own anonymous intelligence sources, drawing on details held in massive databases, and criticizing governments for not doing enough to fight terrorism.

US, Canada, British and Australian television networks, radio, magazines and newspapers have turned to him for expert analysis and commentary on the war on terrorism since September 11, 2001. Let us separate some facts from myths.

1. Prof. Gunartna's former role as principal investigator has also been highlighted in appearances on the BBC, CNN, Australia's ABC radio, and at prestigious international conferences on terrorism. But Alex Schmid, the senior crime prevention and criminal justice officer at the UN's terrorism prevention branch, in Vienna, told The Sunday Age that Prof. Gunaratna had never worked as a principal investigator with the organisation. In fact, the position of principal investigator was "a title we do not have", Mr Schmid said.

"Mr Gunaratna was, for a while, a consultant of the terrorism prevention branch," he said. "He was not a principal investigator. He also did some work for the UN University in Tokyo."

2. The biographical details in the book also state that Prof. Gunaratna "was called to address the United Nations, the US Congress and the Australian Parliament in the wake of 11 September, 2001".

Addressing the Australian Parliament is a rare privilege, normally reserved for visiting heads of state. Checks with the parliamentary library and a comprehensive search of Hansard could find no record of him having done so. He did, however, speak at a parliamentary library seminar held on September 26, 2001, at which some members of Parliament would have been present. He also spoke at a Menzies Research Centre function at Parliament House in May.

Likewise, claims to have addressed the US Congress and the UN appear to refer to testimony he gave to a congressional sub-committee on national security in October 2001, and a paper he presented the same month at a symposium on terrorism and disarmament organised by the UN's Department for Disarmament Affairs.

3. Australian David Hicks, who has been detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba after his capture in Afghanistan, was "not a member of al-Qaeda", "did not plan to attack civilian targets", "never

intended to attack a civilian target" and was a "romantic" not taken seriously by other Taliban fighters, said Prof.Gunaratna.

Eyebrows were raised among fellow intelligence analysts when Prof.Gunaratna reversed his position on Hicks, after the US announced the Australian was one of six detainees it had enough evidence against to put before a military tribunal. This time Gunaratna, said Hicks had undergone "more advance and more specialised training" with al-Qaeda, which "had some special plans for him".

Prof. Gunaratna attributed his change of heart to information gained from "more recent investigations" and given to him by sources he refused to identify. Another person with raised eyebrows was Hicks' Adelaide lawyer, Frank Camatta, who maintains that Gunaratna could not possibly have had access to transcripts of his client's interrogations in Guantanamo Bay. "We'd sure like to know who his sources are," said Camatta.

Conclusion

One former Australian intelligence officer says a problem with Prof.Gunaratna's approach is that he tends to look at international terrorism from the perspective of how it relates to the Tamil Tigers.

In Australia, journalist and commentator on intelligence issues Brian Toohey is one of the few to have openly questioned Gunaratna's credentials, describing him as a "self-proclaimed expert" and dismissing some of his claims as "plain silly". He uses as an example a warning by Gunaratna published in November 2001 in the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council Review that terrorist groups might try to influence Australian politicians by rallying "10,000 or 20,000 votes" in their electorates.

Gunaratna's work on Thailand has been criqued by Michael K. Connors in the academic journal Critical Asian Studies in 2006. Connors extended critique:

interrogates how terrorism experts have interpreted the recent escalation of violence in the Thai southern border provinces. It does so by questioning the authors' use of sources, and draws on a range of alternative Thai-and English-language sources to suggest that the authors have reached poorly founded conclusions.

Where facts are few, experts are many, and sure Prof. Gunartna knows that very well!

ஐ.நா செயற்குழுவின் இணைத் தலைவராக பாலித கொஹணே தெரிவு‐

30 December 09 01:18 am (BST)

ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் செயற்குழுவின் இணைத் தலைவராக அந்த அமைப்பிற்கான இலங்கைக்கான நிரந்தரப் பிரதிநிதி பாலித கொஹணே தெரிவு செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளார்.

ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் அமைப்பின் கனிய மற்றும் உயிரிப் பல்வகைமை குறித்த அமைப்பின் இணைத் தலைவராக பாலித கொஹணே நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார்.

குறித்த செயற்குழுவினால் கனிய வள பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் கடல் உயிரின பாதுகாப்பு தொடர்பில் ஆய்வு நடத்தப்பட்டு ஐ.நா பொதுச் சபைக் கூட்டத்தில் பரிந்துரைகள் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படவுள்ளன.

இந்தச் செயற்குழுவின் மற்றுமொரு இணைத் தலைவராக நெதர்லாந்து வெளிவிவகார அமைச்சின் சட்ட ஆலோசகர் டொக்டர் லெசித் லின்ஸார்ட் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

http://globaltamilnews.net/tamil_news1.php?nid=19064&cat=1

Journalist name command officers involved in killing surrendering combatants in Sri Lanka :

- 59 division led by Prasanna Silva

- 58 div led by Shavendra Silva

- 53 div led by Kamal Gunaratne

- Task Force 8 led by Col Ravipriya

".. From the Government side those in the loop were President Mahinda Rajapakse, Presidential secretary Lalith Weeratunga, Defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, Parliamentarian and Special adviser to the President Basil Rajapakse and then Foreign secretary Palitha Kohona .."

http://www.warwithoutwitness.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=287:journalist-name-command-officers-involved-in-killing-surrendering-combatants-in-sri-lanka&catid=39:by-war-without-witness&Itemid=62

Edited December 31, 200916 yr by akootha