The outcome of Sri Lanka’s latest parliamentary elections, in which the ruling Sinhala party secured a near two-thirds majority, are held by some to make possible the constitutional changes that would attenuate and address the island’s acute ethnic divide. No such thing will happen. The central driver of Sri Lanka’s politics has, since independence, been Sinhala majoritarianism, a reality simply ignored by proponents of the arguments presented for such optimism (arguments which, in any case, ring utterly hollow given the politics and events of recent years). The point is strikingly underlined, moreover, by how 2010’s elections are a replay of 1956’s.

That President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led coalition would convincingly win this month’s elections was never in doubt. The fait accompli was already reflected in the feeble campaign run by the main opposition United National Party (UNP). The focus on whether the UPFA gets a two-thirds majority in the 225 seat house turns on this being the threshold to change the constitution.

What is ignored in this logic is, had they wanted to, the SLFP and the UNP could have at any point in the past six decades made some changes, no matter how trivial, to accommodate the basic Tamil grievances. They never have. Instead they have consistently sought to pursue Sinhala nationalist goals more stridently than the other, a dynamic that has been succinctly labeled ‘ethnic outbidding’. It is worth remembering that when then President Chandrika Kumaratunga invited Norway to facilitate peace talks with the Tamil Tigers, the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was amongst the first to denounce it in Parliament.

The UPFA almost secured the two-thirds majority, and it did so on the basis it has defeated the LTTE and, therefore, seen off the Tamil demand on the state to share power. The UNP had nothing to say on the ethnic question, let alone power-sharing. These dynamics are identical to 1956. The then SLFP-led MEP coalition came to power on a single pledge: to replace English with Sinhala as the official language. Then too the UNP had no reply - it belatedly joined the anti-Tamil bandwagon, but most Sinhalese had rallied to the SLFP.

Conversely, the Tamils voted overwhelmingly in 1956 for the Tamil-led Federal Party, which was insisting English be kept as the official language. (Out of 95 seats, the SLFP-led MEP took 51 seats, the FP 10 and the UNP just 8). In this month’s election the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) secured 14 seats. It did so, moreover, campaigning explicitly on a federal solution.

The comparison between 1956 and 2010 is not some inane exercise in pattern matching. Rather, it is to argue that central dynamic in Sri Lanka’s ongoing crisis is majoritarianism facilitated by electoral democracy: the Sinhala vote is swayed primarily by anti-Tamil sentiment. (That the JVP lost several seats this month should be no surprise: its core platforms of Sinhala nationalism and anti-market economics have been more convincingly taken up by the UPFA and Rajapaksa.) Moreover, every attempt by Tamil leaders, ever since the fifties, to negotiate a solution with their Sinhala counterparts have come to naught in the face of Sinhala public pressure, often vented through the Sinhala opposition.

These dynamics are recurrent and will not change from within. While the past few decades have been marked by processes of globalization, Sri Lanka’s greater integration with international spaces have not produced an enlightened liberal politics. Indeed both this and globalization itself have been strongly resisted, not only by the mass of Sinhala voters, but by the main Sinhala parties. Even the UNP, understood as a market-friendly, and thus liberal party, has followed a stridently Sinhala nationalist path when in government. President J. R. Jayawardene’s regime led other developing countries in liberalizing the economy, but was explicitly Sinhala nationalist. It also oversaw the July 1983 pogrom. Ironically its legacy was a cynical attempt to secure Indian support for the war against Tamil militancy: the 13^th amendment. President R. Premedasa’s idea of governance speaks for itself.

In short, any expectations that President Rajapakse’s regime is going to pursue a path of ‘reconciliation’ or even the slightest variant of power-sharing are wholly misguided. The core driver of Sri Lankan politics is Sinhala nationalism, a mass ideology that predates independence, and which has since been entrenched in the state. It is the central obstacle to the constitutional recognition of the Tamils, and other Tamil speaking peoples, as having a rightful place, equal to the Sinhalese, on the island. And until it is confronted and checked, a truly democratic and peaceful Sri Lanka integrated into a global liberal order will remain an impossible dream.

There is little doubt the war crimes issue would have any impact on this parliamentary election. The April 8 election has nothing serious on its platforms. It’s all about athletes, film stars, cricketers, journalists and also lumpens, and more about these “wonderful” personalities.

What is nevertheless important is how the Rajapaksas would avoid facing war crimes investigations. This leads to the question whether General Fonseka would play a role in complicating the situation. The issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity is up again with UN Secretary General (SG) Ban Ki-moon deciding to appoint a panel of experts to advise him on Sri Lanka.

“I made clear to President Rajapaksa that I intend to move forward on a group of experts which will advise me on setting the broad parameters and standards on the way ahead on establishing accountability concerning Sri Lanka,” Ban Ki-moon told the media in New York. He qualified his reference on Sri Lanka by saying, “I had a frank and honest exchange of views with the President.”

That accountability Ban Ki-moon talked of, concerns possible breaches of international humanitarian law or abuses of human rights carried out during the final phase of the war against the LTTE. The worst affected in this war were women and children. A sneaked camera by British Channel Four into the wired IDP camps in Vavuniya in August 2009 that then held over 250,000 displaced Tamil people, revealed the agony and humiliation young girls and women underwent with interrogating male security persons. Channel Four again topped that story with the now controversially famous video clip they aired which claims, stripped and unarmed youth were shot to death at close range. Certified as authentic footage by three international experts, the case against Sri Lanka on war crimes gained a new impetus.

What Ban Ki-moon politely wraps up as “accountability” is all about those war crimes touted once more in international human rights circles and by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navenetham Pillai.  Yet the SG is considered as lacking “a moral voice and authority.”

“Another example of weak handling from the Secretary-General’s side is the war in Sri Lanka. The Secretary-General was a powerless observer to civilians in their thousands losing their lives and being driven from their homes……..the Secretary-General’s moral voice and authority have been absent,” says a Norwegian diplomatic report in 2009 August, stamped “highly confidential” by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, but “leaked” to a leading Norwegian news paper, the Aftenposten.

Written by Norwegian deputy ambassador to the UN, a senior career diplomat Ms. Mona Juul, the highly confidential but damning report notes with a dry tone, “at a time when solutions by the UN and multilateral agencies are more necessary than ever to resolve global conflicts, Ban and the UN are conspicuous in their absence.”

It was obvious therefore the Sri Lankan government and the President would reject the SG’s decision on Sri Lanka and its accountability. President Rajapaksa was reported as having told Ban Ki-moon that the SL position on the proposed advisory panel would be sent in writing. Now it is said, by no other than the SG himself that the proposed advisory panel will only be appointed after Under Secretary General of Political Affairs Lyn Pascoe makes an early visit to Colombo, a visit he was expected to make in February, but never did.

The UN and its SG are an important factor in taking Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as Sri Lanka is not a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In fact, none of the SAARC member countries except Afghanistan have signed the Rome Statute that has 110 state parties. The ICC can only initiate proceedings against citizens of state parties that have signed the ‘Rome Statute.’ Therefore the Sri Lankan case has to be referred to the Hague based ICC by the UN Security Council.

The Indian “People’s Union for Civil Liberties” (PUCL) argued this position in its in early May, 2009 addressed to all members of the Security Council (SC) requesting the SC to refer Sri Lanka to the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is often said and the French diplomat at the UN, Gerard Araud had gone on record telling “Inner City Press” that the UN and the SG have been slow in taking up Sri Lankan issues due to pressure from member countries. First is India and then China.

The Indo – China rope could be strong enough for President Rajapaksa to hold tight in the UN. But the issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity does not stop with UN and other international lobbying. The Rajapaksa regime has created its own “devil” at home by targeting their former Army Commander turned common opposition presidential candidate against Rajapaksa. The two have gone beyond any possibility of compromise with General Fonseka now detained and investigated upon, for breach of army law and possible indictment on other issues in a civil court.

This egoistic conflict may not end the way the Rajapaksa regime would want it to end, if on April 8, a sizeable number of Colombo voters decide to elect Fonseka to parliament. While his image as a war hero and as a man with integrity had been badly chewed up with regular news reports to the contrary, he still has a sympathy vote that may elect him to parliament. That would not be something the Rajapaksas would be able to handle to their advantage with media campaigns.

If elected, his bitter animosity frothing in continued detention, may prompt him to use parliamentary privileges to make statements against his former friends adding more fuel to international lobbying. His statements on war related crimes if made in parliament, would not be  retractable as those made to the media. What then would this government do as damage control?

Accusations and counter accusations for sure would provide more ammo for international lobbying against Sri Lanka. But what purpose, what satisfaction would it be for all those innocent Tamil people, who lost all things dear to them in their hard earned life? To at least those 300,000 Tamil civilians who were herded into barbed wire camps, without basic facilities and with no privacy and safety? For how long would they have to wait for any justice to be meted out, as the world calls for war crimes investigations?

Engaging sections of vested interests in the diaspora to elude righteous causes of struggling people, in order to achieve imperialist goals in war and peace, is a long time strategy of powers. International foundations, firms and other such outfits are created from time to time for this purpose.

How such outfits envisage to blunt the cause of Eezham Tamils by locking vulnerable sections of the Tamil diaspora into a Sri Lankan diaspora identity, and how the outfits wish to achieve it behind the back of Tamil people and their media, is clearly revealed in a ‘confidential’ Assessment Report and Program Strategy of the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), prepared in March 2009.

A global group for legal professionals, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), joined the growing condemnation of the Sri Lankan Government’s intimidation and harassment of human rights advocates.

Citing the leaked intelligence surveillance list, first brought to the world’s attention by Amnesty International, IBAHRI reiterated the significant concerns surrounding the safety of Mr Weliamuna, Director of Transparency International Sri Lanka and human rights lawyer, and Dr Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA). Both men, no stranger to state intimidation, have previously experienced death threats and physical attacks.

‘We consider this current campaign against those who are perceived as being critical of the Government or its policies to be extremely serious’ said Alex Wilks, IBAHRI Programme Lawyer. ‘Not only does it compromise the physical safety of those named on the list, it exacerbates the climate of fear within which civil society is currently operating.

This is not the first time, the IBAHRI’s has been critical of the Government of Sri Lanka’s attitude to freedom of expression and rule of law.

The May 2009 ‘Justice in Retreat’ report, drew attention to the regular intimidation of lawyers, academics and NGO workers was criticised along side the impunity with which such attacks are carried out. 

In Zone II, tattered UN tents helplessly flap against the strong breeze as red dust swirls up like a thousand tiny tornadoes. Inside the 16 feet by six feet tents where a dozen would stay, the heat takes your breath away; outside, the temperature and dust makes it difficult to breathe.

UN and government officials admit that the shelf-life of the IDP tents is long over though they still shelter about 20,000 displaced Tamils in Zone II.

But it’s unlikely that their tents would be replaced. From December, the government’s focus has shifted from displacement to “resettlement” of those released from the camps.

“Distribution of ration has become irregular and hygiene kits are no longer available. Many of the (communal) toilets cannot be used anymore,’’ a public health inspector, said.

“In Menik Farm (Vavuniya)… funding shortages will affect humanitarian operations starting the end of February. This includes, among others, complementary food distribution, water bowsering, toilet maintenance and healthcare provision,’’ an UN report recently said.

The remaining IDPs are, however, putting their heads down and living their hard lives in the hope of getting released from the camps, soon.

But how different is the life of a ‘resettled’ IDP?

HT met few resettled families in Kilinochchi last week. They have been given Rs 5,000 (Sri Lankan) in cash and promised another Rs 20,000 and some basic provisions like tarpaulin sheets and cooking utensils. A weekly ration of rice, flour and sugar is given as well.

The families of Kanikarasa and Kamaladevi were standing on the rubble of their former homes in Kilinochchi.

“Our homes were destroyed in the fighting. We have to rebuild from scratch. But first, I have to look for a job,’’ a family head said.

Nearby, S Silvadasan and his two neighbours of 22 years were tightening the poles of their three adjoining tents — where there homes once were. “There is nothing left. But we are happy to be out of the camps,’’ he said.

On the stretch of the A9 highway between Vavuniya and Jaffna, hundreds of released IDP families have put up flimsy tents or taken shelter in broken houses. After months in camps, they now have the freedom of movement. But little else.

In government statistics, these families have been resettled. In reality, it will take years for their uprooted lives to be anchored.

Sri Lanka violated human rights last year as it dealt a final blow to Tamil Tiger insurgents the US State Department said in its annual human rights report.

"The government's respect for human rights declined as armed conflict reached its conclusion," the 2009 country report, released by the US Department of State on 11^th March 2010 said.

The report adds that young Tamil men accounted for an "overwhelming majority" of victims of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings.

The report highlights the concerns surrounding the estimated 11,700 LTTE combatants held by the government in detention centres near Vavuniya, especially with regards to the use of torture by the Sri Lankan army. including ‘beatings, often with cricket bats, iron bars, or rubber hoses filled with sand; electric shock; suspending individuals by the wrists or feet in contorted positions, abrading knees across rough cement; burning with metal objects and cigarettes; genital abuse; blows to the ears; asphyxiation with plastic bags containing chilli pepper mixed with gasoline; and near‑drowning’.

The US Department of State’s report adds significant weight to the international calls for war crimes investigations. Examining what is described as the Sri Lankan government’s declining respect for human rights, all aspects of liberalism, including freedom of expression, press, religion and movement, are analysed, with extensive coverage of the latter stages of the conflict. Alleged human rights abuses by the LTTE are stated. 

Acknowledging that extrajudicial killings were the carried out by those ‘working with the awareness and assistance of the government’, the report describes the disappearances and murders of activists, ‘armed attacks against civilians’ and the practice of torture, kidnapping and extortion. The disappearances, abductions, physical abuse and killings within the IDP population features highly, with sources said to include several international NGOs.

The unequal treatment of Tamils by the Sri Lankan state through the ‘longstanding systematic discrimination in university education, government employment and in other matters controlled by the government’ is unequivocally stated.

The requirement of all Tamils wishing to move within the country to obtain a special pass from the security forces is highlighted, with a poignant reminder of the law, which grants ‘freedom of movement and of choosing his residence’. The compulsory registration of any Tamil tenants by all landlords and reporting of their presence to the police is also mentioned.

The unequal access to legal proceedings was specifically stated. The lack of availability of Tamil language hearings, court appointed interpreters and legal textbooks in Tamil was argued to restrict the ‘ability of Tamil-speaking defendants to receive a fair hearing’.

The country’s rule of law was repeatedly brought under question with specific examples of crimes inadequately investigated such as high profile political assassinations and the killing of prominent journalists. The COI (Commission of Inquiry) set up in response to the growing criticism of Sri Lanka’s lack of justice and culture of impunity took a particular battering. The COI was slammed for its ineffectiveness, having investigated only seven of the seventeen cases it was asked to review, and for blaming the killing of 17 French NGO workers on the LTTE. An allegation, the report describes as ‘contrary to many independent analyses of available evidence that pointed toward involvement in the killings by police, Muslim Home Guard and Special Task Force members’.

The annual country reports on human rights are compiled by the US department of state and sent to the Congress, in accordance with US legislation which dictates that US foreign policy and trade policy should consider a country’s human rights record. Information gathered is said to be assessed ‘objectively, thoroughly, and fairly.’

CHINA has loaned US$290 million (S$405 million) to the Sri Lankan government to build an airport and expand the island's railway network, according to Sri Lanka's foreign ministry.

The Export-Import Bank of China loaned $190 million to construct a second international airport in Sri Lanka's south and $100 million to develop the island's railways.

The loan agreement was signed in Beijing last week and the two countries also discussed more funding for highways in the island's war-ravaged Jaffna peninsula, the foreign ministry said in a statement.

Officials in India, Sri Lanka's neighbour and China's rival, fear Beijing is trying to undermine Delhi's influence in the region through its economic assistance.

India, for its part, has just announced a credit of $70m to help upgrade Sri Lanka's southern railway line. The two countries are vying for contracts in Sri Lanka following the end of more than 20 years of civil war.

However, analysts say India is playing a losing game.

Sri Lanka successfully played off its larger neighbours against each other during the war to obtain military and monetary assistance needed to sustain the war. However since the end of the war, although Sri Lanka praises India as its closest ally, China has won all the key development projects in the island clearly indicating Sri Lanka has strategically aligned itself with China for political and economic support in the post war period.   

The new airport will be near a vast sea port at Hambantota, which is largely being funded by the Chinese government's lending arm, the Export-Import Bank. Both projects have the same Chinese state-owned company as contractor, says the BBC's Charles Haviland in Colombo.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka received further funding assistance from China to build a flood protection system for parts of the capital Colombo, a government minister said.

Colombo suburbs of Kotte, Dehiwela-Mount Lavinia, Maharagama, Kesbewa and Moratuwa will be protected from storm water flooding by the project, minister Gamini Lakshman Peiris said.

The 6,800 million rupees (59 million US dollar) project will be financed with a loan from China Construction Bank.

China, which is a key military and political ally of Sri Lanka, loaned the island $1.2 billion in 2009.

The projects Beijing is financing in Sri Lanka include a host of road improvements in the formerly war-torn north, a huge theatre in the capital and coal power plants.

Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse has claimed that constitutionally he is above the law.

Rajapakse made the claim whilst addressing an election rally in Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama’s constituency in Kotte, according to media reports from Colombo.

“Republic Constitution of 1978 brought by the then J. R. Jayawardene government places me above the Law. Accordingly judiciary cannot take action against me. The constitution empowers me to punish any soldier of the Sri Lanka Army who works against the country,” he stated, in obvious reference to the incarcerated former Army chief and Presidential Candidate Gen. Sarath Fonseka.

“The Foreign Ministry and Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama acted firmly and responded decisively during the final stage of the war against LTTE to avoid unnecessary foreign interference,” he added.

Federal solution based on shared sovereignty and right to self-determination in a contiguous north and east of Sri Lanka was the highlight of the TNA manifesto released on Friday, March 12, leading to international media, including the BBC, Guardian and AFP, claiming the party has dropped its demand for statehood for Tamils.

While irreversibly committing on federal solution, the manifesto is ambiguous on the nature of the sovereignty of Eelam Tamils and their right to self determination, said Tamil political circles in their immediate responses.

The party manifesto also referred to "shared sovereignty among the peoples who inhabit this island". The term shared sovereignty is used to describe structures such as the European Union as well as federal structures with or without the right to secession.

The manifesto refrains from asserting to Tamils exercising their right to self determination to decide the national question in an internationally monitored arrangement.

Reinforcing the party's position of distancing itself from Tamil Eelam, last month TNA leader, Rajavarothayam Sampanthan, told the BBC he believed most Tamils in Sri Lanka no longer believed in violence or separation, but nevertheless wanted equality.

Another TNA parliamentarian, Suresh Premachandran, told the BBC a federal solution was appropriate given the "changed global and regional situation".

Premachandran said he was inviting the government to respond by solving Tamils' problems within a united Sri Lanka.

"If the Sri Lankan state continues its present style of governance without due regard to the rights of the Tamil-speaking peoples, the TNA will launch a peaceful, non-violent campaign of civil disobedience on the Gandhian model," according to the TNA.

The TNA also said it would lobby neighbouring India and the international community to ensure the island's Tamil community gets a greater say in the administration.

The TNA, a coalition of Tamil parties, had 22 seats in the outgoing parliament, but the various elements have split in recent weeks.

Sri Lanka is the only country added on the annual human rights report by Britain this year as a country of concern by the Foreign Affairs Committee, according to British Foreign Office. The Annual report on Human Rights 2009 presented on Wednesday March 17 to British Parliament says, ‘Since the last report, we have added one country of concern. We agreed with the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recommendation to include Sri Lanka. This reflects our concern about allegations of serious conflict violations, as well as the deteriorating status of the rule of law and freedom of expression.’

The following are some excerpts of the HR report:

‘Human Rights Council Special Session on Sri Lanka

The EU led efforts in May to call a special session of the HRC in response to the situation in Sri Lanka. We found support for the session from select members of other regional groups who shared our concerns. Together we worked hard on a draft resolution that could be presented to the wider HRC membership, even those with misgivings about the focus on Sri Lanka, as a constructive expression of HRC concern.

In doing so we hoped for a consensus outcome. Sri Lanka, unfortunately, tabled a text with a different purpose, which was passed by majority vote. The UK could not agree with their assessment of the situation and voted against the resolution because it:

• comitted to reaffirm that it is the primary responsibility of the state to ensure protection of the human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction;

• failed to call on the government of Sri Lanka to start an inclusive political process, which would address the legitimate concerns of all of Sri Lanka’s communities; and

• did not address the need to ensure the protection of human rights defenders, journalists and minorities or the right to freedom of expression.

The session, nonetheless, presented an opportunity for many States, UN Special Procedures, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to put on record the plight of civilians caught up in it. We continue to believe that the situation merited the attention of the UN’s primary human rights body and that it was right to call the session.’

‘Since the end of the conflict we have been calling, along with the EU, for an independent and credible process to address possible violations of IHL. The Sri Lankan government has made little progress.

In October, President Rajapakse announced the formation of a committee to look into a US State Department report on possible violations. In late December, the President extended the deadline for the committee to report until the end of April 2010.’

‘Freedom of Expression

Sri Lanka ranks 162 out of 175 countries in the Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index 2009. The environment for free expression deteriorated in the early part of 2009 as the conflict intensified.’

‘A Tamil journalist, J S Tissainayagam, was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment on 31 August for charges related to his writing. In addition, Tamil language newspapers (such as Sudar Oli, Uthayan and Valampuri) continue to operate in extremely difficult conditions, with their staff regularly receiving anonymous threats.’

‘Disappearances and Abductions

Reports of abductions and disappearances of civilians continued throughout 2009. In the vast majority of cases the reported victims are Tamil civilians.’

Dozens of unidentified men pelted stones at the headquarters of a private television station sympathetic to the opposition United National Party (UNP) in Sri Lanka's capital, causing damage to the building, police said.

Officials at the MTV channel said they suspected the attack on Monday March 22 was politically motivated ahead of next month's parliamentary elections.

"We have arrested 16 people who were involved in the stone-throwing incident," a police official outside the MTV premises in Colombo's Braybrooke Place told reporters.

He said several staff members were wounded while windows in the building were broken. Several cars had their windshields shattered.

Unidentified attackers torched the studios of MTV in January last year and the authorities are yet to bring the perpetrators to justice. The station is widely seen as pro-opposition, but the network insists it is independent.

Justice Minister Milinda Moragoda rushed to the MTV office shortly after Monday's attack and promised to investigate.

"Whoever has done this will be brought to justice," the minister told reporters.

The latest attack came as Sri Lankan and foreign media rights groups accused the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa of cracking down on dissent, a charge the government has denied.

Sri Lanka dismissed a U.S. State Department report accusing it of violating citizens' rights, saying the allegations were unsubstantiated and based on reports by unnamed sources.

The State Department's annual human rights survey faulted both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers in the island's 25-year-civil war which ended last year.

"The document is a conflation of historical background, repetition of statements in earlier reports, unverified assertions of facts and broad generalizations," said a statement released on Monday, March 15, by the Sri Lanka's Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights.

The ministry said the allegations were based on "reports that are mainly attributed to anonymous NGO's, international sources, human rights groups, observers and other unnamed sources."

Wimal Weerawansa, the leader of the National Freedom Front, a member party of the ruling alliance told reporters that the U.S. Embassy in Sri Lanka had provided wrong and distorted facts to the State Department.

"This was part of a sinister campaign to destabilize the country and pave the way for U.S. intervention here," Weerawansa said.

He said the main opposition United National Party and the leftist party JVP or the People's Liberation Front would benefit from the U.S. strategy in the forthcoming parliamentary election.

Referring to the annual Human Rights Report 2009 released by the U.S. State Department, Weerawansa said the United States had depicted Sri Lanka as a country run by the Rajapaksa brothers.

He said earlier a section of the international community had portrayed Sri Lanka as a Sinhala majority country but now they referred to the island as the Rajapaksa brothers' country.

Weerawansa said the United States had turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam before it was defeated by the government troops in May 2009.

He alleged that defeated opposition presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka had been fully backed by the United States and other interested parties aimed at changing the government in Sri Lanka.

A spokesperson from the U.S. Embassy in Colombo had denied Weerawansa's allegations, saying the embassy would reply the accusation later.

Rights groups and Western governments are pressing for some kind of accountability for thousands of civilian deaths in the last months of the war against the Tamil Tigers.

The government has denied charges of deliberately targeting civilians and other human rights breaches.

Sri Lanka's Election Commission has turned down the demand for presence of foreign poll observers at the counting centres for the upcoming parliamentary polls.

The demand was made by some opposition parties including United National Party (UNP) which said that such a presence would ensure accuracy in election results. The opposition request comes in the backdrop of allegations of malpractices in the vote count for Presidential elections.

Election Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake did not outright reject the proposal but said that the political parties should have made such a request on the nominations day.

The main Opposition United National Party (UNP) has sent a written request to the Election Commissioner asking for the presence of foreign poll observers at the counting centres to ensure accuracy of election results.

Meanwhile, Rohana Hettiarachi, Director of People's action for Free and Fair elections (PAFFREL), said the organisation has sent several letters and reminders to the EC regarding the appointment of observers at the forthcoming general elections without avail.

"The Elections Commissioner did not even dwell on the subject, it was pointed out, the UNP website claimed.