By The Sri Lanka Study Circle 

A monkey edict at the instigation of the CORE group?  

Reacting defensively to a scathing criticism of his fly-by night conduct, pastor Colombage, at a hastily convened interview, with journalist Raymond, went on record to say, ‘Sri Lanka has a clear foreign policy; neutrality is the key and we want to maintain neutrality. We will not take sides and we will remain neutral. Technically, we are a Non-Aligned country but that is alright because we know Non-Alignment was created after World War 2 when the world was different to what it is now’. 

Has the pastor run mad? Why did he utter such a devilish lie? Did he do so at the instigation of the CORE group with whom he is in deep dialogue? Was Colombage attempting to alienate our fellow members and friends in the Non-Aligned Movement, to ensure Sri Lanka –in Colombage’s words – ‘surrenders after a (fake) fight’? 

Excerpts from Gota’s vision of vistas of prosperity 

In 2019, 2/3^rds of the people delegated their power to Rajapakse (GR), impressed by his projected political stance and their confidence in his pledge to implement the stated goals during his watch; these were clearly enunciated in his policy document touted as ‘Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’.    

In Chapter One of that document are enumerated the ten key priority policies of GR.  

Top priority is given to National Security. Next comes ‘Foreign Policy’; in that Policy document GR has pledged to the people that the key to our Foreign Policy is Non-Alignment. 

Gotabaya Rajapaksa Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour – My Vision…  

Our 10 Key Policies 

1. P
   1. Priority to National Security 
   2. Friendly, Non-aligned, Foreign Policy 

priority to National Security 

1. Friendly, Non-aligned, Foreign Policy 

The Foreign Policy pledged is further elaborated in the Policy document thus: 2. Friendly, Non-aligned, Foreign Policy The basis of our foreign policy will be ensure that Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity and independence are respected and protected in the interests of the citizen and future generations of this country. It also aims to ensure that Sri Lanka’s dignity as a sovereign nation is respected. No harmful agreements /treaties will be entered into by our government. Our foreign policy will be based on non-alignment and mutual friendship and trust among nations. 

Colombage shows his contempt to the people 

Why then does pastor Colombage barefacedly lie that the key to our Foreign Policy is Neutrality? He gives the impression of being the standard-bearer of the fifth columnists aspiring to wreck the country from within; he is emerging as a major threat to the National Security of Sri Lanka 

And Colombage, whose Foreign Ministry salary, emoluments and perks are met by the people of Sri Lanka, shows utter contempt to those very people who overwhelmingly wanted the country to have Non-Alignment as the plank of the Country’s Foreign Policy.  

Downright treachery? 

What is Colombage’s motive?  

The devious pastor is a member of the CIA funded think tank, ‘Centre for Indo-Lanka Initiatives’; with his present appointment in the Foreign Ministry Colombage has a definite conflict of interest.  

It would be hard to counter arguments by some critics who construe Colombage’s conduct as downright treachery. 

Self-styled ‘Professor’ unable to differentiate between Non-Alignment and Neutrality 

Colombage, a self-styled ‘Professor’ is unable to differentiate between ‘Non-Alignment’ and ‘Neutrality’. 

The Non-Aligned Movement came into being in 1961, following a meeting in 1955, in Bandung, of delegates from Nation States that had recently gained independence from the European Colonial Powers.  

These delegates had met to find ways and means to protect their respective countries from being Colonised, ever, in the future and to preserve the World order based on Multilateralism which respects and recognises the Sovereign equality of all Nations.   

Non-Alignment is the biggest weapon in our armoury in our battle against big power hegemony.   

The delegates in Bandung, at that time, identified an emerging threat that could endanger the Sovereignty and Independence of their respective States; they saw through the US moves, the intention of the Americans to Colonise their Countries and impose a World Order based on American Unilateralism which does not respect and recognise the Sovereign equality of all nations. 

The Non-Alignment Movement arose from the need to protect the Sovereignty of Nation States and the need to protect the World Order that recognised and respected the Sovereign equality of Nations. 

The Non-Alignment Movement is a principle-based organisation; it is based on the principles of the UN Charter which include non-intervention, non-aggression, international co-operation, mutual benefit and mutual respect and has no place for big-power hegemony.  

Neutrality is a mongrel- like Switzerland  

In contrast, Neutrality is a mongrel and has no principles. Nations adopting Neutrality end up mongrel-States.  

 For example, when Germany was engaged full time in the holocaust, setting up a master race, slaughtering millions of Jewish people in a campaign of mass murder and genocide while robbing the victims of their wealth and belongings, Switzerland adopted a policy of ‘Neutrality’ and looked the other way, choosing to ignore what was happening  

And what did this mongrel State do? They, like as Pastor Colambage is suggesting, exploited the situation to act as an international fence, a dealer in stolen goods; Switzerland permitted the killers and rogues to keep their booty ‘safely’ in their country, on paying Switzerland a percentage of money annually. That is Neutrality. That policy still exists and perhaps is why Switzerland is regarded internationally as a ‘pariah’ State. 

Colombage logic 

To give meaning to ‘Neutrality’ in the local context, when the local thug rapes, kills, robs and maims individuals, Pastor Colombage’s logic is that passers-by look the other way and if possible, flick his wallet and make a financial gain.    

Do not take sides says Colombage, see what advantage you can take from this situation. What a man, what a disgrace! 

The Non-Alignment Movement takes a definite stand on global issues based on the very principles that the UN is structured on. 

Why all countries in the Non-Aligned Movement must vote against the Resolution 

The Resolution that is being debated in Geneva affects not just Sri Lanka alone, but all the Non-Aligned countries in the World. The Americans are using the Sri Lankan issue to change structures of the present Multilateral World Order to a Unilateral American World Order. This was clearly explained by that brilliant Sri Lankan diplomat Tamara Kunanayakam, in her many interviews with the media.  

Colambage, standing with the fifth columnists on one side while the people of Sri Lanka are on the opposite side, gives the impression of pushing the American line. When the need of the hour is to talk with our friends, comprising 35 of the 47-member assembly, Colombage is talking with our enemies who brought the Resolution.  

Colombage shies away from public debate 

  Many are clamouring for Colombage to engage in a one-on-one prime time TV debate. From all accounts Colombage is very reluctant to do so fearing he will be exposed.  

The HRC procedure Sri Lanka must follow to ensure a vote is called for  

From all accounts there are many countries that will stand-up for Sri Lanka and vote in her favour at voting time. But there is a snag. 

No vote can be taken unless another country gets up, at decision-taking time, and informs the Chair of the HRC that they are speaking on behalf of Sri Lanka, that they reject the Resolution and ask that a vote be taken.  

Then only will the Chair permit a vote to be taken and the countries get an opportunity to vote.  

That is the procedure. If we do not follow this procedure even Dinesh Gunawardena’s fiery rejection of the Resolution will come to naught. 

Unconfirmed reports suggest that Colombage has not canvassed the friendly countries and has not requested any country to address the Chair, on behalf of Sri Lanka, at decision-taking time. 

If that were the case, when the anti- Sri Lankan Resolution is taken up and silence follows, the Chair will interpret the silence to mean that there are no objections to the Resolution and that ‘Consensus’ has been reached; he will bring down the gavel to record that the Resolution was a Consensual one and adopted unanimously. 

The result would be the same as Mangala Co-sponsoring that infamous Resolution of 2015. 

Insiders are puzzled; they ask whether this is a ruse of the interloper in the Foreign Ministry who is aware that 35 of the 47 members in the HRC are in the Non-Aligned Movement, the largest organised group of Nations, next to the UN; the NAM has a membership of 120 States. 

What the vote means 

When the Countries vote, there are two issues that will be determined by that one vote; the obvious is the issue of the damnable lies in that anti – Sri Lankan Resolution.  

The not-so-obvious issue, deftly concealed in the Resolution, are the landmark changes being made to the Global Order which are precedent-setting and are in total violation of the UN Charter.  

These changes would make all countries in the Global South vulnerable to American military intervention and aggression and vulnerable to illegal sanctions and embargos -not authorised by the UN Charter – that would result in the gross violation of basic Human Rights of people in the affected countries.   

The concealed concepts in the Resolution would deprive countries of their Armies to defend themselves because this Resolution permits the Americans to unilaterally pick-up heroic soldiers from any country and incarcerate them in American prisons. 

Colombage, an ingratiating sycophant of the Americans, has not made one single statement condemning this aspect of the Resolution. 

The simple act of taking a vote at the HRC is a victory for Sri Lanka and the NAM 

Even one vote cast is a victory for Sri Lanka and the Global South; it is a victory statement for the Sovereignty of all Nation States and for the concept of sovereign equality of all Nations. 

There is not a sausage the HRC can do thereafter other than bringing in another Resolution the next Year or bringing it up at the UN Security Council where we have our friends who understand the vile American motives.