Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United States Prasad Kariyawasam has written to the ‘New York Times’ Editor saying that the newspaper has misrepresented Sri Lanka’s position in their editorial ‘Sri Lanka’s Intransigence ‘which appeared on August 23.

‘Sri Lanka has enjoyed uninterrupted democracy since 1931. Last September we held the first election to the Northern Provincial Council, delayed by more than two decades because of the refusal of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to politically empower people in the North. Now, the Tamil National Alliance is in control of provincial administration. To compare Sri Lanka to human rights and humanitarian emergencies elsewhere in the world is unjust,’ the letter said.

The article which appeared in the New York Times criticized the Sri Lankan government’s decision to deny access to the UN probe panel. The article also reflected that the Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa acted out of ‘intransigence’ and also criticized the president’s decision to look for a solution internally.

‘We reject the United Nations investigation because its intrusive nature exceeds its mandate. It challenges the sovereignty of our country; violates basic principles of international law; vitiates the atmosphere needed for reconciliation; and ignores substantial and progressive socioeconomic and political progress already achieved, including the resettlement of 300,000 displaced people and the reintegration of 11,000 armed cadres, "the Ambassador stated.

Prasad Kariyawasam said that it is not the Sri Lankan government that has acted out of intransigence but the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) who terrorized the country for over three decades.

The Ambassador lashed out at the news agency saying that the LTTE was able to establish a foothold in Sri Lanka because of the support they received from the international community and that the LTTE ‘menace’ rattled the country’s infrastructure and stability.

Kariyawasam maintained that ‘local accountability mechanisms, now strengthened with international experts, are respectful of inherent social, cultural and ethnic susceptibilities, unlike the United Nations-driven process, which serves externally motivated interests and will destabilize the intricate balance of the national reconciliation process.’