The Editor
Morning Leader,
Leader Publications (Pvt) Ltd.
24, Katukurunduwatte Road,
Ratmalana, Sri Lanka
Dear Editor,
Writing in the Morning Leader of Wednesday June 18, your regular commentator Ranjith Jayasundera states that: “The Geneva delegation was reduced to denying reports in the British media that Sri Lanka had "called for the abolition of the British monarchy" as the denial read. What actually transpired, and is minuted in UN proceedings, is that while Sri Lanka’s back was to the wall during the UN Human Rights Council’s periodic review of the country’s rights record, our erstwhile ‘permanent representatives’ tried to suggest that instead of focusing on Sri Lanka, the UN ask the United Kingdom to "hold a referendum" on the existence of the British monarchy.” (‘Divisive Politics and National Calamity’)
Now not only is this an easily demonstrable falsehood, and contrary to the writer’s claim, cannot be borne out by UN HRC minutes, for it to be true would require the invention by humankind of a Time Machine. The easily verifiable fact is that the UK’s Universal Periodic Review, in which Sri Lanka made its recommendation, took place weeks before Sri Lanka’s and indeed in separate rounds! The UK’s was in Round One and Sri Lanka’s came up in Round Two. Therefore the entire explanation, that Sri Lanka, with its back to the wall during the UPR sought to divert attention by suggesting that the UK have a referendum on the existence of the monarchy, is utterly outlandish.
The writer also makes a reference to our “erstwhile permanent representatives”. Well our erstwhile permanent representatives are Messrs Koelmeyer, Dhanapala, Rodrigo, Palihakkara, Kariyawasam and Ms Fernando, none of whom could have made the suggestion imputed to them, precisely because they are “erstwhile”. Obviously your correspondent’s ignorance extends to the very meaning of the words he uses.
Yours sincerely,
Dayan Jayatilleka
Ambassador/ Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva