DICNOTIONS for about 300,000 refugees forcibly detained in camps across Sri Lanka remain dire, with reports of a prostitution racket run by officials in a remote camp.
Aid workers told The Australian yesterday officials at the internally displaced people's camp in Pulmoddai, a remote northeast region, are running the prostitution ring using women kept in the camp.
The Australian understands the allegations are the subject of a joint investigation between the Sri Lankan government and an aid organisation.
"It's been brought to the attention of senior government officials but no one seems to be doing anything about it," said an aid worker, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.
"It's hard to know whether it's coercive or not, but there is an average of three families living to a tent and it can be extremely difficult trying to get privacy. You can imagine the military coming in and asking for something in return for more space or more favours."
Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Palitha Kohona described the claims as "absolute rubbish", but confirmed the government was investigating the reports.
"These (the military) are the guys who were winning the war - they could have raped every single woman on the way if they wanted to. Not one single woman was raped," he told The Australian last night.
"I am sure in a mass of people there may be individuals who want to make a quick buck one way or another, but you have to remember the tents are so close together you can't do anything without the entire neighbourhood knowing. If you had a racket going, thousands of people would know about it."
A UN official said yesterday many families remained separated in the camps and that men and women believed to be Tamil Tiger fighters were being removed with "no due process or proper documentation, like arrest receipts, given to parents or guardians". "These issues are of huge concern for us," the official said. "The lack of freedom of movement is a violation of human rights under Sri Lanka's own constitution."
The restrictions have heightened tensions in the camps, including a mass protest in the Ramanathan camp in the northern town of Vavuniya on Sunday in which IDPs tried to break down barbed-wire fences separating one camp zone - and many relatives - from another.
Tamilnet.com claimed two people were killed and at least two were injured when troops opened fire on the refugees.
But reports from aid workers in the camp suggested troops fired only into the air, causing no casualties, and that camp officials reached a compromise that allowed the IDPs movement between the two camps.
UN Sri Lanka co-ordinator Neil Buhne said camp conditions were slowly improving, thanks to better water and sanitation facilities.
"But the main thing is people are still inside these camps and they can't go anywhere. The government has made public commitments to get 80 per cent of people back to their homes by the end of the year (after separating civilians from the fighters) but that's going to be a difficult target to meet."
The Sri Lankan military crushed the Tamil Tiger rebel forces in May after a 26-year civil war. President Mahinda Rajapakse has committed to reaching a political settlement with the Tamil leaders that goes some way to addressing their grievances.
This week he gave the All Parties Committee, established some years ago to find a compromise solution, until next month to submit its report.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25721366-25837,00.html
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sri Lanka revives draconian law to gag media
By Sampath Perera
1 July 2009
The Sri Lankan government has revived legislation that vests the Sri Lanka Press Council, a statutory body, with broad powers to restrict the media and punish offending journalists and publishers with fines and imprisonment.
The law was first enacted in 1973 by the coalition government of Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike amid a deep economic crisis and widespread social discontent. The government had just suppressed an armed uprising of rural Sinhala youth and was facing growing industrial action by the working class, including an all-island bank workers strike. The Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), which broke from Trotskyism in 1964, played a key role in the ruling coalition.
The Press Council continued to function as a mechanism to intimidate the media under successive governments until 2002 when it was rendered inoperative through a bipartisan resolution in parliament. The United National Front government of Ranil Wickremesinghe had just signed a ceasefire agreement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as the basis for internationally-sponsored negotiations for a permanent peace. The law, however, was never scrapped.
After plunging the country back to war in 2006, President Mahinda Rajapakse and his government pressured and intimidated the media, but did not revive the Press Council. His decision to do so now is a sign of political weakness, not strength. Having militarily defeated the LTTE, the government is now facing a worsening economic crisis as the result of huge defence spending, compounded by the global recession.
The President has the sole prerogative to appoint the revived Press Council, including its chairman. Its orders and censures cannot be challenged in any court of law. Moreover, the Council is set above public criticism. Clause 12 states that it is a punishable offence if anyone “without sufficient reason publishes any statement or does anything that brings the council or any member thereof into disrepute during the progress or after the conclusion of any inquiry conducted by such Council”.
The law prohibits the media from revealing any aspect of government discussions. “No person shall publish, or cause to be published, in any newspaper, any matter which purports to be the proceedings or any part thereof, of a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers,” it states. Even the contents of documents exchanged between ministries are prohibited from publication.
The most important restrictions are in clause 16. Subsection 3 states: “No person shall publish or cause to be published in any newspaper any official secret within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act or any matter relating to military, naval, air-force or police establishments, equipment or installation which is likely to be prejudicial to the defence and security of the Republic of Sri Lanka”.
This sweeping prohibition on matters related to the military is particularly significant. Rajapakse has repeatedly accused opponents—the media, striking workers, protesting students and opposition politicians—of undermining “national security”. In the wake of the LTTE’s defeat, the government has retained draconian emergency powers and is boosting the military. It has been particularly sensitive to any criticism of the army’s killing of civilians in its final offensives and the internment of nearly 300,000 Tamils in detention camps.
Subsection 4 prohibits the publication of “any statement relating to monetary, fiscal, exchange control or import control measures alleged to be under consideration by the Government or by any Ministry or by the Central Bank, the publication of which is likely to lead to the creation of shortages or windfall profits or otherwise adversely affect the economy of Sri Lanka”.
Under the guise of a “nation building” program, the government is preparing a massive assault on the social position of the working class. In his victory speeches, Rajapakse declared that working people would have to sacrifice like the “war heroes” had. This subsection of the law effectively provides the means for suppressing any criticism of the government’s economic policies.
The revival of the Press Council comes amid an atmosphere of communal triumphalism whipped up by the government after the LTTE’s defeat, which was accompanied by intensified harassment and intimidation of anyone critical of the government or the military. In the first instance, Rajapakse is determined to block any investigation, no matter how limited, into his government’s criminal war.
Last month, the opposition United National Party called for a parliamentary select committee to examine police investigations into the abduction and killing of hundreds of people, including journalists and politicians, over the past three years by death squads associated with the military. Media Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa summarily dismissed the proposal. “When you say that 11 journalists were killed, we have doubts about this figure. In this list of journalists, there are names of those who worked for the LTTE’s Voice of Tigers. I don’t know whether we can identify them as journalists,” he said.
The abductions are continuing. Last Wednesday, Krishni Kandasamy (Ifham), a Tamil journalist, was seized by a gang, whom she suspected were policemen, on the outskirts of Colombo city. They arrived in a white van, the hallmark of the pro-government death squads. The thugs dropped her in Kandy, 116 kilometres away, without facing any challenge at the numerous security check-points in between.
Reporters, sales agents and other employees of Uthayan, a Tamil newspaper published in the northern town of Jaffna, received an ultimatum to stop working for the newspaper by June 30 or face the consequences. The newspaper has been repeatedly attacked during the past three years. Last week, copies of Uthayan and other Tamil newspapers were seized and burned in Jaffna town after refusing to publish an unsigned pro-government letter sent by unknown persons.
Earlier this month, Poddala Jayantha, the general secretary of the Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association, was abducted and brutally beaten by an unidentified gang on the outskirts of Colombo. Last year he was summoned by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse and warned not to criticise the military.
None of the attacks on the media has been seriously investigated by police. The reestablishment of the Press Council provides the government with the means to further suppress any critical reporting. Sections of the media, which has for the most part backed the war and raised very limited objections to the government’s policies, have raised some concerns about the new law.
An editorial in last weekend’s Sunday Times declared: “The Government’s act is a stab in the back not only to the media but to the citizenry. The Press Council is meant to have a ‘chilling effect’ on media freedom; it is the proverbial ‘sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the media practitioner.” It continued: “These undemocratic moves are totally un-becoming of the president, and the re-introduction of the Press Council betrays a gloomy picture for the future of the post-war Sri Lanka, and the questions are being raised if there is ‘deep state’ syndrome in Sri Lanka.”
President Rajapakse, however, has increasingly acted with contempt for the constitution, the law and parliament, operating through a cabal of selected ministers, senior officials and military officers. The Sunday Times editorial reflect concerns in sections of the ruling elite that Rajapakse’s open attacks on democratic rights will only undermine the legitimacy of the state apparatus and provoke opposition from working people.
The revival of the Press Council poses an obvious question: if the war is over, why is the government imposing tighter controls on the media? The answer is equally clear: it is to gag the press as this shaky government proceeds to make savage attacks on the jobs, living standards and democratic rights of working people.
1 July 2009
The Sri Lankan government has revived legislation that vests the Sri Lanka Press Council, a statutory body, with broad powers to restrict the media and punish offending journalists and publishers with fines and imprisonment.
The law was first enacted in 1973 by the coalition government of Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike amid a deep economic crisis and widespread social discontent. The government had just suppressed an armed uprising of rural Sinhala youth and was facing growing industrial action by the working class, including an all-island bank workers strike. The Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), which broke from Trotskyism in 1964, played a key role in the ruling coalition.
The Press Council continued to function as a mechanism to intimidate the media under successive governments until 2002 when it was rendered inoperative through a bipartisan resolution in parliament. The United National Front government of Ranil Wickremesinghe had just signed a ceasefire agreement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as the basis for internationally-sponsored negotiations for a permanent peace. The law, however, was never scrapped.
After plunging the country back to war in 2006, President Mahinda Rajapakse and his government pressured and intimidated the media, but did not revive the Press Council. His decision to do so now is a sign of political weakness, not strength. Having militarily defeated the LTTE, the government is now facing a worsening economic crisis as the result of huge defence spending, compounded by the global recession.
The President has the sole prerogative to appoint the revived Press Council, including its chairman. Its orders and censures cannot be challenged in any court of law. Moreover, the Council is set above public criticism. Clause 12 states that it is a punishable offence if anyone “without sufficient reason publishes any statement or does anything that brings the council or any member thereof into disrepute during the progress or after the conclusion of any inquiry conducted by such Council”.
The law prohibits the media from revealing any aspect of government discussions. “No person shall publish, or cause to be published, in any newspaper, any matter which purports to be the proceedings or any part thereof, of a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers,” it states. Even the contents of documents exchanged between ministries are prohibited from publication.
The most important restrictions are in clause 16. Subsection 3 states: “No person shall publish or cause to be published in any newspaper any official secret within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act or any matter relating to military, naval, air-force or police establishments, equipment or installation which is likely to be prejudicial to the defence and security of the Republic of Sri Lanka”.
This sweeping prohibition on matters related to the military is particularly significant. Rajapakse has repeatedly accused opponents—the media, striking workers, protesting students and opposition politicians—of undermining “national security”. In the wake of the LTTE’s defeat, the government has retained draconian emergency powers and is boosting the military. It has been particularly sensitive to any criticism of the army’s killing of civilians in its final offensives and the internment of nearly 300,000 Tamils in detention camps.
Subsection 4 prohibits the publication of “any statement relating to monetary, fiscal, exchange control or import control measures alleged to be under consideration by the Government or by any Ministry or by the Central Bank, the publication of which is likely to lead to the creation of shortages or windfall profits or otherwise adversely affect the economy of Sri Lanka”.
Under the guise of a “nation building” program, the government is preparing a massive assault on the social position of the working class. In his victory speeches, Rajapakse declared that working people would have to sacrifice like the “war heroes” had. This subsection of the law effectively provides the means for suppressing any criticism of the government’s economic policies.
The revival of the Press Council comes amid an atmosphere of communal triumphalism whipped up by the government after the LTTE’s defeat, which was accompanied by intensified harassment and intimidation of anyone critical of the government or the military. In the first instance, Rajapakse is determined to block any investigation, no matter how limited, into his government’s criminal war.
Last month, the opposition United National Party called for a parliamentary select committee to examine police investigations into the abduction and killing of hundreds of people, including journalists and politicians, over the past three years by death squads associated with the military. Media Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa summarily dismissed the proposal. “When you say that 11 journalists were killed, we have doubts about this figure. In this list of journalists, there are names of those who worked for the LTTE’s Voice of Tigers. I don’t know whether we can identify them as journalists,” he said.
The abductions are continuing. Last Wednesday, Krishni Kandasamy (Ifham), a Tamil journalist, was seized by a gang, whom she suspected were policemen, on the outskirts of Colombo city. They arrived in a white van, the hallmark of the pro-government death squads. The thugs dropped her in Kandy, 116 kilometres away, without facing any challenge at the numerous security check-points in between.
Reporters, sales agents and other employees of Uthayan, a Tamil newspaper published in the northern town of Jaffna, received an ultimatum to stop working for the newspaper by June 30 or face the consequences. The newspaper has been repeatedly attacked during the past three years. Last week, copies of Uthayan and other Tamil newspapers were seized and burned in Jaffna town after refusing to publish an unsigned pro-government letter sent by unknown persons.
Earlier this month, Poddala Jayantha, the general secretary of the Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association, was abducted and brutally beaten by an unidentified gang on the outskirts of Colombo. Last year he was summoned by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse and warned not to criticise the military.
None of the attacks on the media has been seriously investigated by police. The reestablishment of the Press Council provides the government with the means to further suppress any critical reporting. Sections of the media, which has for the most part backed the war and raised very limited objections to the government’s policies, have raised some concerns about the new law.
An editorial in last weekend’s Sunday Times declared: “The Government’s act is a stab in the back not only to the media but to the citizenry. The Press Council is meant to have a ‘chilling effect’ on media freedom; it is the proverbial ‘sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the media practitioner.” It continued: “These undemocratic moves are totally un-becoming of the president, and the re-introduction of the Press Council betrays a gloomy picture for the future of the post-war Sri Lanka, and the questions are being raised if there is ‘deep state’ syndrome in Sri Lanka.”
President Rajapakse, however, has increasingly acted with contempt for the constitution, the law and parliament, operating through a cabal of selected ministers, senior officials and military officers. The Sunday Times editorial reflect concerns in sections of the ruling elite that Rajapakse’s open attacks on democratic rights will only undermine the legitimacy of the state apparatus and provoke opposition from working people.
The revival of the Press Council poses an obvious question: if the war is over, why is the government imposing tighter controls on the media? The answer is equally clear: it is to gag the press as this shaky government proceeds to make savage attacks on the jobs, living standards and democratic rights of working people.
Sri Lanka Urged to Probe the Murder of Tamil MPs
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
01 July 2009
The Inter-Parliamentary Union says the Sri Lankan government no longer has any reason for not investigating the murders of the Parliamentarians now that its long-running civil war with the Tamil Tiger rebels is over.
Chair of the IPU's Human Rights Committee, Canadian Senator, Sharon Carstairs, says the government has always maintained it was unable to investigate the murders because they occurred in rebel-held territory. She says that excuse no longer exists.
She tells VOA, Tamil Parliamentarians are subject to arbitrary arrest, harassment and intimidation. She says her Committee is concerned about the situation of 12 Tamil Parliamentarians. She says they essentially have been stripped of their rights of freedom of movement and of their ability to perform their legislative duties.
She says the Tamil Parliamentarians are reluctant to leave the capital, Colombo, because their security is not guaranteed.
"So, there is great fear among the Tamil Parliamentarians," Carstairs said. "So, what we hope from Sri Lanka at this point is to get a new signal from them that Tamil Parliamentarians will have freedom of movement, they will have adequate security, they will be full participants of the government of Sri Lanka because they are duly elected Parliamentarians."
The IPU Committee is also very concerned about the cases of two Parliamentarians in Iraq. Hareth Al-Obaidi, who was the Vice-Chair of Iraq's Human Rights Committee, was murdered on June 12. His colleague, Mohammed Al-Dainy, who also was a member of the Committee, disappeared on February 5th.
Carstairs says Al-Dainy eventually surfaced in another country. But, she says 19 of his family members and staff were arrested and some were tortured.
"Now both these men, and this is what I think is important, had both called for the creation of a Commission of Inquiry in cases of torture, rape and death in Iraqi prisons," Carstairs said. "And, so, they essentially were working on the same file together… The concerns were that these were not American-run prisons that these two men were concerned about. They were Iraqi-run prisons."
The IPU Committee is calling for the reinstatement of a female MP in Afghanistan. She was suspended from her duties two years ago for publicly criticizing some warlords on television. Carstairs says the male-dominated Parliament described her remarks as un-Islamic.
"If you are a Parliamentarian and a you are a woman in Afghanistan, it is better to be seen and not heard," Carstairs said. In a rare bit of good news, the IPU welcomes Israel's decision to release three Palestinian Parliamentarians who were duly elected in Gaza in 2006. It calls on the Israeli government to also release 40 other Palestinian Members of Parliament who the IPU charges were kidnapped and imprisoned in Israel after the election.
Geneva
01 July 2009
Sharon Carstairs
The Inter-Parliamentary Union is calling on the government of Sri Lanka to mount a thorough investigation of the murders of three Members of Parliament, two of them Tamils. The IPU's Human Rights Committee, which has wrapped up its latest session, has examined cases of abuse of some 300 MPs in 29 countries. The Inter-Parliamentary Union says the Sri Lankan government no longer has any reason for not investigating the murders of the Parliamentarians now that its long-running civil war with the Tamil Tiger rebels is over.
Chair of the IPU's Human Rights Committee, Canadian Senator, Sharon Carstairs, says the government has always maintained it was unable to investigate the murders because they occurred in rebel-held territory. She says that excuse no longer exists.
She tells VOA, Tamil Parliamentarians are subject to arbitrary arrest, harassment and intimidation. She says her Committee is concerned about the situation of 12 Tamil Parliamentarians. She says they essentially have been stripped of their rights of freedom of movement and of their ability to perform their legislative duties.
She says the Tamil Parliamentarians are reluctant to leave the capital, Colombo, because their security is not guaranteed.
"So, there is great fear among the Tamil Parliamentarians," Carstairs said. "So, what we hope from Sri Lanka at this point is to get a new signal from them that Tamil Parliamentarians will have freedom of movement, they will have adequate security, they will be full participants of the government of Sri Lanka because they are duly elected Parliamentarians."
The IPU Committee is also very concerned about the cases of two Parliamentarians in Iraq. Hareth Al-Obaidi, who was the Vice-Chair of Iraq's Human Rights Committee, was murdered on June 12. His colleague, Mohammed Al-Dainy, who also was a member of the Committee, disappeared on February 5th.
Carstairs says Al-Dainy eventually surfaced in another country. But, she says 19 of his family members and staff were arrested and some were tortured.
"Now both these men, and this is what I think is important, had both called for the creation of a Commission of Inquiry in cases of torture, rape and death in Iraqi prisons," Carstairs said. "And, so, they essentially were working on the same file together… The concerns were that these were not American-run prisons that these two men were concerned about. They were Iraqi-run prisons."
The IPU Committee is calling for the reinstatement of a female MP in Afghanistan. She was suspended from her duties two years ago for publicly criticizing some warlords on television. Carstairs says the male-dominated Parliament described her remarks as un-Islamic.
"If you are a Parliamentarian and a you are a woman in Afghanistan, it is better to be seen and not heard," Carstairs said. In a rare bit of good news, the IPU welcomes Israel's decision to release three Palestinian Parliamentarians who were duly elected in Gaza in 2006. It calls on the Israeli government to also release 40 other Palestinian Members of Parliament who the IPU charges were kidnapped and imprisoned in Israel after the election.
Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Politicised Courts, Compromised Rights
Source: Crisis Group
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
Colombo/Brussels, 30 June 2009: The Sri Lankan government must reform the country’s judicial system urgently if the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers is to lead to a lasting peace.
Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Politicised Courts, Compromised Rights,* the latest policy report from the International Crisis Group, warns that the Sri Lankan judiciary is not working in a fair and impartial way that secures justice and human rights for everyone regardless of ethnicity. This risks undermining the government’s recent military victory over the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). A durable national reconciliation process is only possible if human and constitutional rights are fully restored.
“The judiciary has not acted as a check on presidential and legislative power but has instead contributed to the political alienation of Tamils”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director. “Under the former chief justice, the Supreme Court’s rulings strengthened political hardliners among Sinhala nationalist parties”.
Rather than assuaging conflict, the courts have corroded the rule of law and worsened ethnic tensions. They are neither constraining militarisation of Sri Lankan society nor protecting minority rights. Instead, a politicised bench has entrenched favoured allies, punished foes and blocked compromises with the Tamil minority. The judiciary’s intermittent interventions on important political questions have limited settlement options for the ethnic conflict.
Today, neither the lower nor the higher courts in Sri Lanka provide any guarantee of personal security or redress against arbitrary state violence. Although torture in police custody is endemic, courts are unwilling to provide adequate remedies for illegal or abusive detention. Police, judges and government officials have acted in ways that further the goals of powerful political actors, undermine the rule of law and deepen the current political and humanitarian crisis. The possibility of transitional justice, which is necessary for society to break the cycle of violence, is still missing.
The recent appointment of a new chief justice is an opportunity for reforms to begin. A first step toward restoring judicial independence would be a return to an orderly appointment and transfer of judges. This needs to be done both in the lower and appellate judiciary. There should also be fundamental reform of Sri Lanka’s extensive and often abused emergency laws, which are used disproportionately against Tamils. Provisions in the emergency laws concerning arrest, detention and derogation from routine criminal procedures need to be removed, as well as those that criminalise free speech and the exercise of associational rights.
“Fixing institutions and reforming laws will only have a limited effect until political actors, and especially the presidency, feel the cost of infringing on judicial independence”, warns Donald Steinberg, Crisis Group Deputy President for Policy. “Without a concerted effort by the bench and bar, the political costs of interfering with the judiciary will remain minimal”.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ICG/6170ca02fa9d99027397073d759508a0.htm
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
Colombo/Brussels, 30 June 2009: The Sri Lankan government must reform the country’s judicial system urgently if the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers is to lead to a lasting peace.
Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Politicised Courts, Compromised Rights,* the latest policy report from the International Crisis Group, warns that the Sri Lankan judiciary is not working in a fair and impartial way that secures justice and human rights for everyone regardless of ethnicity. This risks undermining the government’s recent military victory over the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). A durable national reconciliation process is only possible if human and constitutional rights are fully restored.
“The judiciary has not acted as a check on presidential and legislative power but has instead contributed to the political alienation of Tamils”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director. “Under the former chief justice, the Supreme Court’s rulings strengthened political hardliners among Sinhala nationalist parties”.
Rather than assuaging conflict, the courts have corroded the rule of law and worsened ethnic tensions. They are neither constraining militarisation of Sri Lankan society nor protecting minority rights. Instead, a politicised bench has entrenched favoured allies, punished foes and blocked compromises with the Tamil minority. The judiciary’s intermittent interventions on important political questions have limited settlement options for the ethnic conflict.
Today, neither the lower nor the higher courts in Sri Lanka provide any guarantee of personal security or redress against arbitrary state violence. Although torture in police custody is endemic, courts are unwilling to provide adequate remedies for illegal or abusive detention. Police, judges and government officials have acted in ways that further the goals of powerful political actors, undermine the rule of law and deepen the current political and humanitarian crisis. The possibility of transitional justice, which is necessary for society to break the cycle of violence, is still missing.
The recent appointment of a new chief justice is an opportunity for reforms to begin. A first step toward restoring judicial independence would be a return to an orderly appointment and transfer of judges. This needs to be done both in the lower and appellate judiciary. There should also be fundamental reform of Sri Lanka’s extensive and often abused emergency laws, which are used disproportionately against Tamils. Provisions in the emergency laws concerning arrest, detention and derogation from routine criminal procedures need to be removed, as well as those that criminalise free speech and the exercise of associational rights.
“Fixing institutions and reforming laws will only have a limited effect until political actors, and especially the presidency, feel the cost of infringing on judicial independence”, warns Donald Steinberg, Crisis Group Deputy President for Policy. “Without a concerted effort by the bench and bar, the political costs of interfering with the judiciary will remain minimal”.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ICG/6170ca02fa9d99027397073d759508a0.htm
Quiet or simply silent diplomacy?
Ban Ki-Moon has been secretary general of the United Nations for exactly two and a half years on Wednesday, July 1.Ban took over as the world's leading diplomat on January 1, 2007 from Kofi Annan.
But whereas Annan was seen as ready to speak his mind, Ban is regarded as a much quieter bureaucrat, working behind the scenes to get things done.
It's thought Ban, a former foreign minister of his native South Korea, would like to serve for a second term at UNHQ in New York.But many wonder if his brand of low key diplomacy is right for today's troubled and divided world.
He is only the eighth man ever to be elected UN secretary general, attending his inauguration at the end of 2006.
Ban Ki-Moon replaced the once popular African born two-term secretary general Kofi Annan, whose reputation towards the end had been tarnished by the Iraq Oil For Food scandal.
It was Asia's turn for the job and Ban was selected with the full backing of Security Council heavyweights America and China.
From the outset he made it clear his approach to the job would be low-key.
'Restore trust in UN'
"My first priority will be to restore trust," he said at his inauguration.
Two and a half years on and the secretary general is trying to build-up confidence in his first 900 plus days in office... aware there are those who think he's not quite up to the job.
On June 11, he said: "It is just impossible. I need more political support. I need more resources by the member states. Then judge my support on the basis of that."
As Ban positions himself for a second run at high office his professor at Harvard University, Joseph Nye, says the secretary general's chief selling point is precisely that below the radar approach.
He told me: "The problem with that job is that you have soft power of attracting people. You don't have much hard power, so you are more secretary than general."
But many on the UN staff are not convinced Ban's the man for the top job in these troubled times.
They point to the length of time it took him to get aid into Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis.
They are critical of his decision to visit Myanmar this week when Aung San Su Kyi is on trial.
They express amazement he praised the Israeli government on the day he published only a summary of the UN's report into the Gaza War.
And they highlight the UN's lack of clarity regarding civilian deaths at the end of the Sri Lanka's war with the Tamil Tigers.
There is also a feeling that Ban sides too often with the major powers.
Nye disagrees: "It's one thing to say you're the hero of the small countries, but if you can't get the big powers to behave, to go along with things, then you're not going to be very effective."
'Silent diplomacy'
But critics argue Ban fundamentally misunderstands the role of the secretary general in the new century and has failed to grow into the job.
Thomas Weiss, who teaches UN studies at the City University of New York, says: "There's a difference between quiet diplomacy and non-existent diplomacy, or silent diplomacy, which is what we have at present."
While Ban's applauded for his work talking-up the risks of climate change even his supporters recognise he scores low in other vital areas of leadership.
Joseph Nye from Harvard University suggests: "He might ask himself whether he's got the balance quite right on speaking up verses mediating.
"I think he might ask himself if he might do a little bit more on managing the institution."
There is a sense that Ban lacks the ability to defend the UN and stand up for its staff in the way this man Kofi Annan used to do.
But unless he gets a better offer from his native South Korea it is expected Ban will get his second chance on the 38th floor here at UNHQ - if only because he doesn't antagonise the powerful permanent five Security Council members.
Power sharing can benefit all Sri Lankans
By Jehan Perera
Column: Pursuit of Peace
Colombo, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka is a plural society in which there are diverse communities. Its people see themselves as Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers, Malays, Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus, low country and Kandyan, and of various class and caste groups. Sociologists have documented the pluralism in Sri Lankan society from the earliest times, when writings were inscribed in stone carvings. It was acknowledged during the British colonial period when more than a dozen communities were described as inhabiting Colombo. However, in today's context, the main line of division is ethnic, with political parties being set up to advance ethnic agendas.
The diversity in Sri Lanka varies from province to province and locality to locality. The people who live in areas that have been traditionally multi-ethnic have developed coping mechanisms that are in advance of those to which ethnic diversity is less common. An area of old ethnic diversity and plural settlement is Puttalam in the North West Province, where I spent last weekend as a participant in a seminar on pluralism.
Puttalam has also come to bear some of the impact of the 30-year ethnic war that ended in the final defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It is now home to tens of thousands of Muslim people who were expelled from the North by the LTTE in 1990. There are tensions between the traditional inhabitants and the newer settlers, who intended to be temporary settlers but have now resided in Puttalam for close to two decades.
One of the observations made at the seminar was that the traditional inhabitants of the Puttalam district have purposefully made accommodations to enable multi-ethnic coexistence. The main mosque in Puttalam town was constructed over seven decades ago, in a much more peaceful and optimistic time. Therefore a deliberate decision was taken to make the construction of the mosque an interreligious and inter-ethnic effort.
The architect who designed the mosque was of Sinhalese ethnicity, while the engineer who did the wiring was Tamil. Although there have been instances of inter-ethnic tensions, these have so far not got out of hand. In 1976 there were Muslim-Sinhalese clashes in Puttalam town, but these were an exception.
Throughout the seminar in Puttalam, the spirit of coexistence was manifested in the interaction and contribution of the participants. These included central government officials now working in the districts, local government officials from the Puttalam area, leaders of community-based organizations, Buddhist monks and other religious clergy.
This micro-level meeting of less than 40 persons, with its nonviolent and rational discourse, belied the ferocity of the national debate on issues of ethnicity and power sharing. The religious clergy represented their communities, and their willingness to interact and demonstrate empathy for pluralism reflected the ethos of their religions and their communities.
Unfortunately, they too are often bracketed as being in the nationalist category due to the debate that is currently monopolized by those espousing nationalist views on the political stage and national media.
At present, the national debate on the future direction of society in Sri Lanka is being dictated by the nationalist groups. They are dominant, but are not necessarily a majority in either the government or in the electorate at large.
The co-opting of Tamil and Muslim political parties into the ruling alliance and the manner in which they have been compelled to contest together in the forthcoming northern elections is an indication of the present governmental desire and design for unity within a single alliance. The vision appears to be one of ethnic minority participation within a centralized system of power, rather than of independent decision-making powers within a devolved system of power.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa has regularly stated that a political solution is necessary to resolve the ethnic conflict. At the same time however, there are other members of the government who are adamant that a political solution has become irrelevant in the aftermath of the defeat of the LTTE.
With the restoration of central rule over the entire country, this section of the polity sees no need for a political solution. It has even argued that to call for a political solution is to denigrate the sacrifices made by the Sri Lankan military to defeat the LTTE at such a high cost. The failure of previous attempts at a political solution have convinced them that the only way to deal with the problem is a military solution and continued military dominance so that another insurrection does not happen.
In the context of the LTTE's total military defeat there is obviously no further need to negotiate a political solution with the group. However, the roots of the ethnic conflict need to be dealt with in a democratic and peaceful manner, through negotiations with them. A stable and negotiated solution is necessarily one that ensures all sides that they have been fairly treated and that they are joint participants in the outcome. The purpose of devolution of power is to ensure that one section of the population does not feel it is being unfairly dominated by another section of the population or their political leaders.
In view of the dominant nationalist sentiment that is being articulated today, the government will face a problem with regard to enhancing the devolution of power to satisfy ethnic minority sentiment that could pave the way to a political solution. Some of the proposals being put forward are to increase the quantum of powers available under the present Provincial Council system, and to establish a Second Chamber of Parliament with representation from the provinces and with veto power over parliamentary legislation.
The current nationalist dominance of the Sri Lankan polity, coupled with the nearness of decisive national elections, not least the general elections, would reduce the likelihood of any substantial movement forward for the ethnic minorities.
On the other hand, if people see the devolution of power as empowering their own provincial council rather than resolving the ethnic conflict, it is unlikely that they will oppose such a strengthening. At the seminar in Puttalam, the participants complained about outsiders running their affairs, rather than people of their own area. They called for additional powers and financial resources to be made available to the people of Puttalam and their elected officials.
In other words, people who might be swayed by nationalist fears of the devolution of power as a solution to the ethnic conflict might be supportive of devolution of power to strengthen their own provincial council. This may be a way forward for the government in an election period.
--
(Dr. Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. ©Copyright Jehan Perera.)
http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2009/07/01/power_sharing_can_benefit_all_sri_lankans/8198/
Column: Pursuit of Peace
Colombo, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka is a plural society in which there are diverse communities. Its people see themselves as Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers, Malays, Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus, low country and Kandyan, and of various class and caste groups. Sociologists have documented the pluralism in Sri Lankan society from the earliest times, when writings were inscribed in stone carvings. It was acknowledged during the British colonial period when more than a dozen communities were described as inhabiting Colombo. However, in today's context, the main line of division is ethnic, with political parties being set up to advance ethnic agendas.
The diversity in Sri Lanka varies from province to province and locality to locality. The people who live in areas that have been traditionally multi-ethnic have developed coping mechanisms that are in advance of those to which ethnic diversity is less common. An area of old ethnic diversity and plural settlement is Puttalam in the North West Province, where I spent last weekend as a participant in a seminar on pluralism.
Puttalam has also come to bear some of the impact of the 30-year ethnic war that ended in the final defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It is now home to tens of thousands of Muslim people who were expelled from the North by the LTTE in 1990. There are tensions between the traditional inhabitants and the newer settlers, who intended to be temporary settlers but have now resided in Puttalam for close to two decades.
One of the observations made at the seminar was that the traditional inhabitants of the Puttalam district have purposefully made accommodations to enable multi-ethnic coexistence. The main mosque in Puttalam town was constructed over seven decades ago, in a much more peaceful and optimistic time. Therefore a deliberate decision was taken to make the construction of the mosque an interreligious and inter-ethnic effort.
The architect who designed the mosque was of Sinhalese ethnicity, while the engineer who did the wiring was Tamil. Although there have been instances of inter-ethnic tensions, these have so far not got out of hand. In 1976 there were Muslim-Sinhalese clashes in Puttalam town, but these were an exception.
Throughout the seminar in Puttalam, the spirit of coexistence was manifested in the interaction and contribution of the participants. These included central government officials now working in the districts, local government officials from the Puttalam area, leaders of community-based organizations, Buddhist monks and other religious clergy.
This micro-level meeting of less than 40 persons, with its nonviolent and rational discourse, belied the ferocity of the national debate on issues of ethnicity and power sharing. The religious clergy represented their communities, and their willingness to interact and demonstrate empathy for pluralism reflected the ethos of their religions and their communities.
Unfortunately, they too are often bracketed as being in the nationalist category due to the debate that is currently monopolized by those espousing nationalist views on the political stage and national media.
At present, the national debate on the future direction of society in Sri Lanka is being dictated by the nationalist groups. They are dominant, but are not necessarily a majority in either the government or in the electorate at large.
The co-opting of Tamil and Muslim political parties into the ruling alliance and the manner in which they have been compelled to contest together in the forthcoming northern elections is an indication of the present governmental desire and design for unity within a single alliance. The vision appears to be one of ethnic minority participation within a centralized system of power, rather than of independent decision-making powers within a devolved system of power.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa has regularly stated that a political solution is necessary to resolve the ethnic conflict. At the same time however, there are other members of the government who are adamant that a political solution has become irrelevant in the aftermath of the defeat of the LTTE.
With the restoration of central rule over the entire country, this section of the polity sees no need for a political solution. It has even argued that to call for a political solution is to denigrate the sacrifices made by the Sri Lankan military to defeat the LTTE at such a high cost. The failure of previous attempts at a political solution have convinced them that the only way to deal with the problem is a military solution and continued military dominance so that another insurrection does not happen.
In the context of the LTTE's total military defeat there is obviously no further need to negotiate a political solution with the group. However, the roots of the ethnic conflict need to be dealt with in a democratic and peaceful manner, through negotiations with them. A stable and negotiated solution is necessarily one that ensures all sides that they have been fairly treated and that they are joint participants in the outcome. The purpose of devolution of power is to ensure that one section of the population does not feel it is being unfairly dominated by another section of the population or their political leaders.
In view of the dominant nationalist sentiment that is being articulated today, the government will face a problem with regard to enhancing the devolution of power to satisfy ethnic minority sentiment that could pave the way to a political solution. Some of the proposals being put forward are to increase the quantum of powers available under the present Provincial Council system, and to establish a Second Chamber of Parliament with representation from the provinces and with veto power over parliamentary legislation.
The current nationalist dominance of the Sri Lankan polity, coupled with the nearness of decisive national elections, not least the general elections, would reduce the likelihood of any substantial movement forward for the ethnic minorities.
On the other hand, if people see the devolution of power as empowering their own provincial council rather than resolving the ethnic conflict, it is unlikely that they will oppose such a strengthening. At the seminar in Puttalam, the participants complained about outsiders running their affairs, rather than people of their own area. They called for additional powers and financial resources to be made available to the people of Puttalam and their elected officials.
In other words, people who might be swayed by nationalist fears of the devolution of power as a solution to the ethnic conflict might be supportive of devolution of power to strengthen their own provincial council. This may be a way forward for the government in an election period.
--
(Dr. Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. ©Copyright Jehan Perera.)
http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2009/07/01/power_sharing_can_benefit_all_sri_lankans/8198/
Elie Wiesel: Sri Lanka's victimization of Tamil people must stop
Holocaust surviver, Jewish icon, and Nobel laureate, Professor Elie Wiesel, in a message posted on his website said: "Wherever minorities are being persecuted we must raise our voices to protest. According to reliable sources, the Tamil people are being disenfranchised and victimized by the Sri Lanka authorities. This injustice must stop. The Tamil people must be allowed to live in peace and flourish in their homeland."
In 1986, Prof. Wiesel won the Nobel Prize for Peace, and soon after, Marion and Elie Wiesel established The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.
For his literary and human rights activities, Prof. Wiesel has received numerous awards including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal and the Medal of Liberty Award, and the rank of Grand-Croix in the French Legion of Honor.
Dr Elyn Shander, a Connecticut physician and a member of US-activist group, Tamils Against Genocide, has been working with the Elie Wiesel Foundation, updating the organization on the ground situation in the NorthEast. The Elie Wiesel Foundation has been receiving regular updates of the condition of the 300,000 Tamil civilians in the internment camps., Dr Shander said.
"We are very grateful that he [Prof. Wiesel] has responded to our request to support the Tamil people. Now that it is official on his website, we are certain that other institutions that are involved in holocaust and war-crime research will take up Sri Lanka case," Dr Shander told TamilNet.
Shander is also the vice president of a new organization USTPAC (United States Tamil Political Action Committee), an independent democratic organization dedicated to lawful means to restore Tamil Peoples right to self-determination and democratic self rule in their traditional homeland.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed Elie Wiesel as Chairman of the President's Commission on the Holocaust. In 1980, he became the Founding Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. He is also the Founding President of the Paris-based Universal Academy of Cultures and the Chairman of The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, an organization he and his wife created to fight indifference, intolerance and injustice. Elie Wiesel has received more than 100 honorary degrees from institutions of higher learning.
External Links:
US: The Elie Wiesel foundation for humanity
In 1986, Prof. Wiesel won the Nobel Prize for Peace, and soon after, Marion and Elie Wiesel established The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.
For his literary and human rights activities, Prof. Wiesel has received numerous awards including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal and the Medal of Liberty Award, and the rank of Grand-Croix in the French Legion of Honor.
Dr Elyn Shander, a Connecticut physician and a member of US-activist group, Tamils Against Genocide, has been working with the Elie Wiesel Foundation, updating the organization on the ground situation in the NorthEast. The Elie Wiesel Foundation has been receiving regular updates of the condition of the 300,000 Tamil civilians in the internment camps., Dr Shander said.
"We are very grateful that he [Prof. Wiesel] has responded to our request to support the Tamil people. Now that it is official on his website, we are certain that other institutions that are involved in holocaust and war-crime research will take up Sri Lanka case," Dr Shander told TamilNet.
Shander is also the vice president of a new organization USTPAC (United States Tamil Political Action Committee), an independent democratic organization dedicated to lawful means to restore Tamil Peoples right to self-determination and democratic self rule in their traditional homeland.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed Elie Wiesel as Chairman of the President's Commission on the Holocaust. In 1980, he became the Founding Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. He is also the Founding President of the Paris-based Universal Academy of Cultures and the Chairman of The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, an organization he and his wife created to fight indifference, intolerance and injustice. Elie Wiesel has received more than 100 honorary degrees from institutions of higher learning.
External Links:
US: The Elie Wiesel foundation for humanity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
