Cost of Sri Lanka Oxford Union PR is $ 8 million

Hiya,

As a student of the effects Wiki Leaks has on various conflicts I ike to attract you to searching the database with all these various players. It is not just the president who try to speak in Oxford that is fishy.


Searching with the name Bogollagama brings this on where US collusion in hiding the killings is very clear.

It seems as if the Americans knew all along.
The general is a US citizen!


US embassy cable - 10COLOMBO111
FM BOGOLLAGAMA SUMMONS CHARGE FOR FOLLOW-UP ON FONSEKA, U.S. STATEMENT
Identifier: 10COLOMBO111
Origin: Embassy Colombo
Created: 2010-02-12 11:56:00
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
Tags: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
Redacted: This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.

VZCZCXRO2383
OO RUEHAG RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHLM #0111/01 0431156
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 121156Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1300
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 2420
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 9442
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 7697
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 5447
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 3858
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 0033
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0233
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 0851
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 4496
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI PRIORITY 0003
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI PRIORITY 7237
RUEHON/AMCONSUL TORONTO PRIORITY 0228
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0140
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000111

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/13/2020
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PREF, PHUM, PTER, EAID, MOPS, CE
SUBJECT: FM BOGOLLAGAMA SUMMONS CHARGE FOR FOLLOW-UP ON
FONSEKA, U.S. STATEMENT

COLOMBO 00000111 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: CHARGE D'AFFAIRES VALERIE C. FOWLER. REASONS: 1.4 (B, D
)

1. (C) On February 12, Foreign Minister Bogollagama summoned
Charge to provide more information regarding her question at
a February 11 briefing for the diplomatic corps regarding
General Fonseka's medical care. At the February 11 briefing
the FM enumerated the legal provisions that govern the
process underway following the decision to arrest General
Fonseka on February 8. When asked whether General Fonseka
would be able to receive care from his personal physician, an
active duty Army officer, the FM affirmed to the assembled
diplomatic corps that General Fonseka would be able to select
the medical care of his choice, adding that clearly his own
physician would know the general's medical situation best.
The FM told Charge on February 12 that immediately after the
briefing he had met with President Rajapaksa and told him of
Charge's "useful and helpful" question and his reply. The FM
wanted to share with the embassy the president's response
that the government would not only permit General Fonseka to
use medical care of his choice, the government would actively
support visits by the general's doctors and family.

2. (C) The Foreign Minister stressed that Sri Lanka is a land
of laws and cited two events on February 12 that he said
prove the importance of due process. He noted the Supreme
Court decision to grant leave to proceed in the Fundamental
Human Rights petition filed by General Fonseka's wife and
commented that the early date of February 23 to hear the case
indicated that the court understood the importance and
timeliness of this case. The FM highlighted the critical
comments by a "junior magistrate" (Colombo Chief Magistrate,
Champa Janaki Rajaratne) regarding the police handling of the
protest outside of the Supreme Court building on February 10,
commenting that her critique of the police for bias in favor
of the government showed the independence of the judiciary.

3. (C) Foreign Minister Bogollagama noted that the election
process is now underway and that he expected and hoped there
would be vibrant participation in the parliamentary
elections, as we had seen for the presidential elections. He
said he wished to inform the embassy that "the opposition has
a tendency to rake up issues for political gain, and when
elements from outside support these agendas, it can be
difficult." He immediately stressed that he was not
referring to the United States but cautioned that the
opposition wanted to make non-issues into issues. The Charge
responded that on occasion government officials also made
statements for political gain and noted that the FM had a
copy in front of him of the embassy's February 10 press
release regarding Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa's
allegations on U.S. financial support of Fonseka's
presidential campaign. The Charge told the Foreign Minister
that the U.S. had found the defense secretary's comments
surprising, distressing, and even provocative, and that there
was no truth to his allegation that we had provided financial
support to the opposition candidate. FM Bogollagama said
that he knew that the comments were false and had said so
bluntly earlier that day in his press briefing when asked
about the defense secretary's comments. The Charge mentioned
the FM's agreement, from an earlier meeting with the
Ambassador, that the U.S. had a right to defend itself in
such circumstances. The FM agreed, noting that he had made
the same point when he was asked about our embassy press
statement in his briefing. He said that he explained that as
Foreign Minister it was his responsibility to support the
right of a bilateral partner to defend its national
reputation when called into question.

COMMENT

COLOMBO 00000111 002.2 OF 002


-------

4. (C) Following the embassy's press statement of February 11
regarding Gotabhaya Rajapaksa's allegations, this meeting
could have gone either way, but Bogollagama chose cordiality.
They appear to have recognized our line in the sand and seem
to be walking back the allegations. Their response on
Fonseka's medical care also hold promise -- if they follow
through.
FOWLER

The deal to sell fighter planes by BAE to India is second only the deal with Saudi Royals.

Liam Fox and Adam Werritty are wrongly accused for their deeds in Sri Lanka when in fact it was this arms deal that its all about.
The keen interest in The Oxford Union Debating Society is explained by the unbroken colonial military links maintained clandestinely. The interview below throws out any assumptions that Liam Fox was working for the Sri Lankan government.
In fact he wanted to hold Sri Lanka accountable too.


 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-needs-defence-partners-not-suppliers-Liam-Fox/articleshow/9166901.cms

India needs defence partners not suppliers: Liam Fox
Indrani Bagchi, TNN | Jul 10, 2011, 12.17AM IST

Investing in the Eurofighter would give India a relationship with "partners of choice" in global security, says British defence secretary Liam Fox. In an exclusive conversation with TOI, Fox also said that while China is seen as an emerging superpower, the UK was looking closely at how Beijing manages its internal challenges. Excerpts:

Q: You have been promoting the Eurofighter in your meetings with the Indian leadership. Why is it a better deal?

A: We shouldn't see this as simply an aircraft. It's about buying into a strategic relationship. Britain's approach to these things has been too transactional in recent years. But what we now need to do is think strategically, think about interoperability, about our partners of choice in global security. Start to recognize that India wants partners not suppliers. In terms of the aircraft itself of course, we've just been using it in Libya. That's the first time we have used it in combat. We have been extraordinarily impressed by its capability and availability. India would be building a relationship with four European partners - it would be buying into that in terms of strategic outlook. Especially, when you've got countries like Britain who are very open in terms of their defence market. I mean it gives you a much better chance in terms of a constructive longer term relationship, to technology transfer. France, for instance, has a completely closed defence industrial sector.

Q: Will we have to pay a whole lot more for the Typhoon and what do we get for that much more?

A: In defence you tend to not get the best for the lowest price. So, if you want a quality product you have to pay a reasonable price. We've chosen Typhoon in the UK because we believe the best serves our interest in the years ahead. We plan to eventually phase out the Tornados and use Typhoons in the multi-role capability. We've also packed in the world's first second generation e-scan radar, the most advanced of its type.

Q: India is looking at this deal to also help build its indigenous defence industry. How can you help?

A: We shouldn't be looking at this as a simple transaction of a single item. Over time - as India's defence industry develops we will share technologies, we have a genuine partnership. That will take time. We expect to have Typhoons for a long time in the UK. Ultimately, we're looking at two types of fast jets - Joint Strike Fighter and the Typhoon. That would be what the RAF would want in terms of capability.

We've just completed a major defence review - of all types of equipment and all the forms available to it. And we decided to phase out Harrier, although it had previously done great service, because it didn't have the future capabilities that we wanted. We will eventually phase out Tornado as Typhoon takes on an even greater multi-role capability.

Given what it has shown so far in Libya, looks like we've bet on the right horse.

Q: China too has an ambitious defence agenda and capability. Do you look at it as an opportunity or a challenge?

A: Both, I think. China is developing a lot of military capability. There is no reason to suspect it's a threat to our security. Indeed, in things like blue water naval capability they have an absolute right internationally to do so. Obviously economically China is still an opportunity. But we always are watching to see how China develops internally. Its response to some of the big challenges it has demographically, and in terms of natural supplies, not least water. Although we often see China as an emerging superpower, it is in many ways, struggling as a developing economy with issues of mass poverty. So I think that with China we have to watch and encourage it to go in the right direction.

Q: What's the prognosis in Libya and are you at a stalemate?

A: I don't think we can call it a stalemate. When we began, the population of Benghazi were under threat of a humanitarian disaster. The people of Misrata have come under bombardment from the mountains. We've now got a substantial portion of the country free from the regime. We've taken out the command and control capabilities of the regime, we're increasingly taking out their intelligence operations. In other words the things that underpin the Libyan state of Gaddafi. It would end tomorrow if Gaddafi recognizes there is no future for his regime.

Q: How does this end?

A: It ends with the Libyan people being saved. It's about protecting civilians. The NTC (National Transitional Council) have made it clear that the people would not be saved if Gaddafi was still in office. He must leave office. How much of the regime continues alongside the NTC and whatever transitional government happens is for the Libyan people, not for us. What happens to Gaddafi, whether he goes into exile, into another country to the ICC, these are things for the next government to decide. We mustn't be too prescriptive about it.

Q: Will the aerial operations continue until a new government is in place?

A: When Gaddafi's forces stop firing on the civilians. It's very simple. But we're still seeing operations mounted against opposition forces. But they are much less capable than they were in doing so. And we will continue to degrade their capabilities as long as it poses a threat and we have the will and capability to do so. The key element will be when the people around Gaddafi recognize that he is no longer worth investing in, because sooner or later, whether it's a week, or a month or more, he will be gone. So getting them to recognize that it's in their best interests, more important for the interests of the Libyan people.

Q: You have a withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan too. What kind of a presence will you have there ultimately?

A: We have a force of 9500. We're only withdrawing 500 by end of 2012. It's a very modest reduction, taking account of the increasing capability of the Afghan national security forces. If you talk to our commanders who work with them, they will tell you that not only have they increased in number but they say they're very quick learners.

Q: What's your position on the reconciliation with the Taliban?

A: That's an Afghan government issue. But we have said where there are those willing to reconcile with the Afghan constitution, stick by the norms asked of them. However, there will be those who are irreconcilable and who will be never sign up to a fundamentalist, Islamist movement. They will provide a constant threat to the people of Afghanistan and we will have to deal with them militarily. But I think the growing signs the Afghans themselves want to take on a faster and deeper role in their sovereignty and we should welcome that.

I met with NSA and will speak to the defence minister this afternoon. Again this conversation is part of regional security and the point I made this morning is that in the interdependent global economy we no longer have the security silos in different parts of the world. Instability here as we saw in 9/11 can cause destruction in different parts of the world. We have to develop partnerships for regional security looking not five years into the future but 15-20 years ahead.

Q: Piracy in the Indian Ocean is a chief concern for Indian security establishment. Did that come up in your conversations?

A: We have a conversation on a daily basis on piracy. We've seen an interesting model. We've seen in the response to piracy off the Somalian coast - we've seen NATO, European Union, UN, non-aligned countries because all have a common purpose - protection of the sea lanes on which trade depends. And it was organic. We didn't invent a structure and hoped that the effect would follow. There should be a lesson for that in global security and how we develop strategic partnerships so people can have a flexible response to problems. In the naval arena again joint capability and interoperability are quite important.

Q: Is India ready to work on interoperability?

A: We're looking at the concept of building a new fighter vessel, called a global combat ship, which we want to have other countries in at the beginning of the project rather than merely making something and selling something. We would like our partners to help us develop something that would suit their interests. So that even though we might have variants of the same basic ship, we would have interoperability. If we have a strategic relationship, we need to have openness.

Q: Are you encouraged by India's response?

A: I think its something the Indian government will think about. Basically, we're trying to find countries that show an interest in it. We've got a basic design and I hope it's something the Indian government would think about as part of a wider strategic relationship given that it's likely to include a number of other countries.

Q: You will be visiting Sri Lanka. What's your message to them?

A: I think the government there is at a crossroads. They need to decide whether with the end of LTTE they should now come to terms with that element of their history, assess where mistakes were made, ask questions openly, if there are individuals to he held to account, do it in a transparent way and move into situation where they can become a valued member of the international family of nations. This is a time of choice for them. They have a huge amount potentially to offer, in terms of their development, the role they can play in the region. I want them to become Malaysia not Myanmar.

Q: What is your vision for the larger India-UK defence relationship?

A: We share a lot of common global security analysis. That's the first - we have a common view of the world. We want to see it outward looking, free trade and that obviously requires a level of protection.

Q: Do we see it governed by a single global structure or single global superpower?

A: No. We would describe it as multi layered security approaches.

Q: Is there a place for India and UK?

A: Absolutely. We also have a lot of shared military common experience. We can offer cooperation that will gradually help India's indigenous defence sector develop. Not overnight, but over time. We obviously have, as the world's fourth biggest military budget, quite a lot of expertise. So I think there's a lot for both of us.

Q: What would Britain get out of it?

A: Britain would get a partner in a region of the world which is quite important for our security and our prosperity. We are no longer a nation that can patrol the world on our own but working with like-minded countries to develop a security strategy over time makes perfect sense. Our relationship of mutual dependence is usually a strong basis for cooperation.

Thank you.

Sri Lanka said on Thursday that it was counting on its own how many civilians were slain at the end of its bloody civil war to counter claims that tens of thousands were killed and fend off international calls for a war crimes investigation.

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan defence secretary, acknowledged for the first time that soldiers may have committed unspecified "crimes." He promised to investigate and punish them.

Both the count of the killed and the admission of misconduct were a major shift for a government that had sworn its soldiers were beyond reproach and insisted for more than two years that not a single civilian was killed by its forces during the final stages of the war.

Mr Rajapaksa's speech to a conference on postwar ethnic reconciliation was the government's latest attempt to show it was taking action on its own and blunt the calls for outside investigations into the war against the Tamil Tiger rebels.

Mr Rajapaksa said the census department's count, which is near completion and will be released soon, shows a very small number of civilians died because of military action. He said people who died due to natural causes or accidents, as well as those who fled the country illegally, died fighting for the rebels or were killed by the rebels, were also counted in order to reconcile the number of people unaccounted for.

"As a result of the census, we already know that the real number of the dead and missing is far too small to provide any substance to absurd allegations of genocide and war crimes that have been made," he said.

A UN report released in April said tens of thousands of civilians may have been killed in the last months of the decades-long war that a final government offensive ended in May 2009.

The government has also dismissed as fabrications video footage apparently showing soldiers shooting bound, blindfolded prisoners.

Christof Heyns, the UN's independent investigator on extrajudicial killings, said the video was authentic and provided enough evidence to open a war crimes case. Human rights groups have also called for a war crimes probe.

Last year, the government appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which submitted its report to President Mahinda Rajapaksa earlier this week. The government has said it will submit that report to Parliament before making it public.

On October 20, 2010 Adam Werritty attendsed a meeting he has set up between Dr Fox and Sri Lankan foreign minister Gamini Peiris at the MoD.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049222/Liam-Fox-resigns-Defence-Secretary-finally-quits-Adam-Werritty-scandal.html


Now we have Private Eye article (HP Sauce, 29 November) that Werritty was not thoroughly investigated
Revisiting Sri Lanka dealings in detail is a good deed

 http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&

IN GUS WE TRUST?

Cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell’s “inquiry” into the Fox–Werritty affair identified two meetings between the former defence secretary Liam Fox, his chum Adam Werritty and Matthew Gould, the UK ambassador to Israel. But a former diplomat has been able to uncover at least six meetings between Gould and Werritty.

According to O’Donnell, Fox and Werrity met Gould in Tel Aviv at “a private dinner with senior Israelis” and before Gould took up the ambassador’s post in Tel Aviv for “a general discussion of international defence and security matters”. O’Donnell says Werritty was invited “as an individual with some experience in these matters”.

While O’Donnell did at least say it was “not appropriate” for Werritty to be briefing British ambassadors or meeting “senior Israelis” at dinners with the defence secretary, ex-diplomat Craig Murray has established that there were at least four other Werritty-Fox-Gould get-togethers that O’Donnell did not consider.

Outfoxed?
The Foreign Office (FCO) admits that the three men had a formal meeting and a “private social engagement” when Dr Fox was still shadow defence secretary in 2010. Murray spotted two more meetings at conferences in 2011; but the FCO won’t even discuss whether there were meetings between Werritty and Gould without Fox.

Murray, who lost his job as ambassador to Uzbekistan after complaining about torture, speculates on his website that the meetings involved talks about attacking Iran. Given Gould’s experience in British embassies in Washington and Tehran, Werritty’s interest in Iran and his Atlantic Bridge charity linking US neo-cons and UK Conservatives, Murray might be right. But the cabinet secretary seems to have avoided the question entirely – surely not because he was trying to put a lid on the affair as quickly and cleanly as possible?

Evading the questions
More recently O’Donnell has been busy mimicking senior HM Revenue & Customs officials’ economy with the truth when discussing the dodgy Vodafone and Goldman Sachs tax settlements in parliament (see last Eye).

Defending tax boss Dave Hartnett’s legendary lunching (and coincidental sharing of his corporate schmoozers’ view of the tax world), O’Donnell scoffed at any link: “The fundamental flaw with that argument,” he told MPs, “is that, if you discovered that Dave was secretly having these lunches and had not told anybody, it is a fairly weird conspiracy when it is all published, and we took the initiative to publish all these things.”

Er, not quite. “These things” – ie details of Hartnett’s and top mandarins’ hospitality – were published only after a two-year freedom of information battle fought by the Eye, which O’Donnell’s Cabinet Office resisted at every turn. His officials even instructed other Whitehall departments to block requests for information on grounds they knew to be false, and they were eventually forced to apologise by the Information Commissioner (see Eye 1279). Only then did O’Donnell make a virtue of the “transparency” that had been foist upon him and start publishing limited details (omitting names of restaurants etc to spare embarrassment).

This knee-jerk porkie is part of a “defend Dave” mission across HMRC, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Losing one civil servant, in Brodie Clark, is unfortunate. If Hartnett had to go it would make the government (and Sir Gus) look distinctly careless.

Most of these meetings were covered up instead of being inquired

 http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/werrittymiliband-they-were-all-in-it/#comments