Tamils for Obama wrote a letter to Jim Rogers, investor and co-founder (with George Soros) of the Quantum Fund, warning him that his apparent plans to invest in Sri Lanka will involve him with an increasingly disreputable business partner as news of Sri Lankan government's mistreatment of its Tamil minority during and since the civil war inevitably filter out. This story names some of the damaging allegations the will probably make investing in Sri Lanka embarrassing.
New York (PRWEB) September 21, 2009 -- Jim Rogers, a world-known investor and co-founder (with George Soros) of the Quantum Fund, recently visited Sri Lanka and saw "great, cheap opportunities in Sri Lanka because of dramatic changes in the country after the end of the war." Tamils for Obama, however, sent him a letter warning that as evidence of Sri Lankan behavior during and since the civil war becomes widely known he will find that he has new partners he will wish he never met.
"He is investing his clients' money," explained an officer of the Tamils for Obama organization. "We think that investing in Sri Lanka will get Mr. Rogers, his firm, and his clients involved in situations that will embarass all of them."
Mr. Rogers recently made a quiet 3-day trip to Sri Lanka "which included meetings with top government officials," the Sunday Times Financial Times reported. "He met several government officials during a hitherto-unannounced visit," the Times reported. "'Yes, he was here and told me - during a long conversation - that he is very bullish on Sri Lanka,' said one official, who declined to be named" the Sunday Times FT said.
Another spokesman for Tamils for Obama said "We told him in our letter that investing in Sri Lanka would have unwelcome consequences, consequences he has evidently not considered.
"What we actually wrote," the spokesman said, was "'Don't dive into that pool yet, Mr. Rogers. There are good reasons to avoid Sri Lanka and its bloody-handed government.'"
"We want to warn Mr. Rogers, along with any other well-meaning investment advisors, that the Sri Lankan government's history of brutality against its own Tamil population will become widely known and that as it does it will tarnish everyone sending money there. Public pressure to disinvest in Sri Lanka (as with South Africa from the '60s to '80s) will make investment there into an embarrassment," the spokesman explained.
"In our letter, we cite facts of which Mr. Rogers might have been unaware," the Tamils for Obama spokesman continued. "For instance, we told him about how in the final months of the civil war the Sri Lankan government killed huge numbers of Tamil civilians by shell fire and air attacks, this in the 'safe zone.' According to a U.N. report which The London Times uncovered, around 1,000 civilians were killed every day from late April until May 19, when the war ended. The final civilian death toll for this period was more than 20,000, according to The Times."
Tamils for Obama noted that the Sir Lankan government has made great efforts to keep their activities secret. Since the end of the war, he said, "The Sri Lankan government has held over 300,000 Tamil civilians in internment camps, and shows no sign of letting them go any time soon."
"These 'internment camps' will only become more widely known and reported in the near furure," said the TfO spokesman. "We read two recent articles. One was in the UK's Guardian newspaper, which wrote 'With less than 5% of the 300,000 Tamils released from what the United Nations describes as "internment camps", [frightening stories such as [one refugee's have only just begun to be told.' Another story, written by an Indian journalist and carried by Al Jazeera, used the widely-accepted figure of 300,000 inmates and quoted U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon as saying "I have travelled round the world and visited similar places, but these are by far the most appalling scenes I have seen..."
The spokesman added that anyone who wants to read the original can find The Guardian story at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/13/tamils-camps-sri-lankaand the Al Jazeera article at
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=300%2C000%20Tamil%20civilians%20in%20internment%20camps&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
"The Sri Lankan armed forces seal the camps so that nobody can get in or get out," the spokesman went on. "The U.N., the Red Cross, the international press, human rights and humanitarian aid organizations, and elected officials are not allowed into the camps. We and everybody else in the world wants the Sri Lankan government to release these civilian prisoners, but they show no sign of releasing the prisoners any time soon. We think that many of these prisoners have been witnesses to Sri Lankan war crimes, and so the government is afraid to let them out where they can talk to reporters and diplomats. Mr. Rogers should be aware of that."
"We also told Mr. Rogers about an Australian MP," this spokesman said. "The Australian MP made a speech in the Australian parliament. He talked about 'a humanitarian disaster' and 'hundreds of thousands of innocent Tamils… living in camps in appalling conditions' and 'horrifying evidence of the worst violations of human rights, including starvation, rape, killings and torture.' These reports are going to pile up until the ghastly story of Sri Lankan atrocities becomes common knowledge, and we want potential investors in Sri Lanka to know what they should expect."
The spokesman said that a video recently surfaced showing Sri Lankan soldiers shooting Tamil prisoners. "This was shown on British TV," the spokesman said. "We referred to it in our letter to Mr. Rogers. He certainly knows that as this kind of thing becomes widely known, the reputation of anybody who is closely associated with the Sri Lankan government will suffer." (To see the video go to: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=35256686001
The spokesman said "Our letter concludes: 'In short, Mr. Rogers, you are about to embrace the most brutal national government since the Khmer Rouge held power in Cambodia. You might be thick-skinned, but the investors you represent will probably be shocked at your choice of partners. No one wants to get involved in a holocaust, especially on the side of the killers. The history of the Sri Lankan government shows that they are capable of such atrocities, and at least until they open up the camps you can't be sure that they are not perpetrating a massacre there right now.'"
To see the entire letter go to:http://www.tamilsforobama.com/Letters/Rogers.html
Tamils are an ethnic group living mainly in the northeast of Sri Lanka and southern India. During the final weeks of the recent civil war, the Sri Lankan government killed about 1,000 Tamil civilians per day, according to the United Nations, and about 30,000 in 2009. Tamils are a minority population in Sri Lanka, and have borne the brunt of a civil war they regard as genocide. One-third of the Tamil population has fled the island and formed a substantial diaspora overseas. Tamils for Obama is comprised of Tamils who have settled in the U.S. or who were born in the U.S.
To contact the group, call at (617) 765- 4394 and speak to, or leave a message for, the Communication Director, Tamils for Obama.
http://www.tamilsforobama.com/
###
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Indian troops move to China border
Tawang (Arunachal Pradesh), Sep 20 (IANS) India has moved hundreds of troops to the Chinese border along the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, but an army officer said Sunday that this was a routine winter exercise.
A visiting IANS correspondent saw 60 to 70 trucks carrying soldiers proceeding towards the Chinese border in Tawang and nearby posts, snaking through a rough mountainous terrain at an altitude of over 14,000 feet.
Army officials denied they were deploying extra soldiers in the forward posts.
According to army commanders, the troop movement was part of "Operation Alert", a winter exercise that sees soldiers move into inhospitable border areas of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast ahead of the bitter weather conditions that make the roads impassable due to heavy snowfall.
"There is no threat or no extra forces being sent to the border," an army commander told IANS requesting not to be named. "Reports of troop build up are rumours. Don't read too much into army convoys moving to the border."
Local residents, however, said they had not seen such military activity in recent years.
"The movement of troops has surely increased," said Moni Lama, a Buddhist monk.
The border deployment comes amid persistent reports of Chinese incursions and Beijing's opposition to the visit of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.
China has denied any incursions by its army into India. And Indian officials say the number of border breaches has shown no dramatic increase to warrant undue worries.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said: "We firmly oppose the Dalai (Lama) visiting the so-called 'Arunachal Pradesh'." China disputes the ownership of Arunachal Pradesh.
India has said that the Dalai Lama is free to travel to any part of the country. The Tibetan spiritual leader has lived in India since fleeing his homeland in 1959 after a failed revolt against Communist rule.
Takam Sanjay, a ruling Congress MP from Arunachal Pradesh, told IANS: "We welcome the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh. China has no reason to interfere in India's internal matters."
It is through Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh that the Dalai Lama entered India.
The India-China border along Arunachal Pradesh is separated by the McMahon Line, an imaginary border now known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
India and China fought a border war in 1962, with Chinese troops advancing deep into Arunachal Pradesh and inflicting heavy casualties on poorly armed Indian troops.
The border dispute with China was inherited by India from British rulers, who hosted a 1914 conference with the Tibetan and Chinese governments that set the border in what is now Arunachal Pradesh.
China has never recognised the 1914 McMahon Line and claims 90,000 sq km, including nearly all of Arunachal Pradesh. India accuses China of occupying 8,000 sq km in Jammu and Kashmir.
After 1962, tensions flared again in 1986 with Indian and Chinese forces clashing in Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese troops reportedly built a helipad in the valley leading to the fresh skirmishes.
China policy: Is foreign ministry at odds with security establishment?
New Delhi, Sep 20 (IANS) Is India's security establishment at odds with the foreign policy establishment over the threat perception vis-a-vis China?
Even as the government sought to play down reports of Chinese border "aggression", saying there was nothing alarming about them, there are sections of the strategic establishment, whose views are articulated through retired armed forces personnel and strategic experts, who appear to think that the government is underplaying the Chinese "threat".
With some sensation-seeking television channels happy to play along, this section also feels the government was not ready to concede that Chinese forces have made serious "incursions" into Indian territory and have scaled up their aggressive postures in trends ominously reminiscent of the months preceding the 1962 war between the two countries.
The first alarm bell was raised by Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor Aug 31 saying there have been several border violations by Chinese troops in the past few months, including an incursion by a helicopter. However, he clarified that these infringements could have been inadvertent. By this Saturday, he was saying that the number of incursions this year was the same as last year and there was nothing to be worried about.
"There have been several violations and one incursion by a Chinese helicopter in the past few months. It could have happened due to a navigational error but that does not justify it. It was taken up at the border personnel meet," Kapoor had said earlier.
Prior to that, former Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta warned that Beijing was in the process of creating formidable military capabilities and it would be more assertive in its claims on the neighbourhood.
Speaking at the National Maritime Foundation, he said: "China is in the process of consolidating its comprehensive national power and creating formidable military capabilities. Once that is done, China is likely to be more assertive on its claims, especially in the immediate neighbourhood."
These fears were further amplified when a section of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the country's external intelligence agency, reportedly briefed the political leadership of China's "ambitious designs" in the region and how it was making massive investments in the neighbourhood.
At a closed-door session in the recently held police chiefs conclave this week, two senior RAW officials said these incursions should not be overlooked as China had "bigger designs" and was investing huge amounts of money in countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar to isolate India.
However, the nature of these investments and the grand designs to offset India's regional goals were not spelt out.
But despite the alarmist reports, fanned by some television channels, the external affairs ministry has sought to play down the incursions, saying these are "routine incidents" that occur due to differences in perception about the Line of Actual Control, the ceasefire line, as China does not recognise McMahon Line that then Tibetan rulers agreed with the British rulers of India.
In the midle of this confusion, a high-level meeting of officials that was to be held here Thursday to discuss the alleged Chinese border intrusions was postponed. The meeting was expected to be chaired by National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan. Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar, Home Secretary G.K. Pillai and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and the three service chiefs were to attend.
No reason was given for the postponement. But reliable sources said this followed differences between the external affairs ministry and the Prime Minister's Office on the one hand and the defence ministry on the other on how to deal with China.
Since then, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, followed by National Security Adviser M.K Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Nirumpama Rao and even the army chief have sought to downplay the threat perception with Gen Deepak Kapoor now saying "there was no cause for worry or concern".
External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna cautioned against creating "excessive alarm" over the reported developments and stressed that India's border with China had been "most peaceful".
The defence ministry has on the other hand pitched for a more assertive approach vis-a-vis the alleged incursions, which Beijing has denied. The defence ministry wants curbs on army patrolling of the border lifted and a more pro-active approach towards building border infrastructure that lags far behind China's.
Currently, there are patrolling restrictions in certain "sensitive areas" of LAC to avoid possible clashes with Chinese troops.
Security analyst B. Raman, a former RAW official, has in his latest blog posted that he was "not unduly worried over the continuing reports of Chinese troop intrusions".
"We are fortunate in having a competent, professional army, which is capable of taking care of them. There is no need for a hysteria over the intrusions," he said.
"I am more worried about the diplomatic, economic and strategic intrusions which the Chinese are quietly making in our neighbourhood and the inability of our diplomacy to counter them," he wrote.
A visiting IANS correspondent saw 60 to 70 trucks carrying soldiers proceeding towards the Chinese border in Tawang and nearby posts, snaking through a rough mountainous terrain at an altitude of over 14,000 feet.
Army officials denied they were deploying extra soldiers in the forward posts.
According to army commanders, the troop movement was part of "Operation Alert", a winter exercise that sees soldiers move into inhospitable border areas of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast ahead of the bitter weather conditions that make the roads impassable due to heavy snowfall.
"There is no threat or no extra forces being sent to the border," an army commander told IANS requesting not to be named. "Reports of troop build up are rumours. Don't read too much into army convoys moving to the border."
Local residents, however, said they had not seen such military activity in recent years.
"The movement of troops has surely increased," said Moni Lama, a Buddhist monk.
The border deployment comes amid persistent reports of Chinese incursions and Beijing's opposition to the visit of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.
China has denied any incursions by its army into India. And Indian officials say the number of border breaches has shown no dramatic increase to warrant undue worries.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said: "We firmly oppose the Dalai (Lama) visiting the so-called 'Arunachal Pradesh'." China disputes the ownership of Arunachal Pradesh.
India has said that the Dalai Lama is free to travel to any part of the country. The Tibetan spiritual leader has lived in India since fleeing his homeland in 1959 after a failed revolt against Communist rule.
Takam Sanjay, a ruling Congress MP from Arunachal Pradesh, told IANS: "We welcome the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh. China has no reason to interfere in India's internal matters."
It is through Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh that the Dalai Lama entered India.
The India-China border along Arunachal Pradesh is separated by the McMahon Line, an imaginary border now known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
India and China fought a border war in 1962, with Chinese troops advancing deep into Arunachal Pradesh and inflicting heavy casualties on poorly armed Indian troops.
The border dispute with China was inherited by India from British rulers, who hosted a 1914 conference with the Tibetan and Chinese governments that set the border in what is now Arunachal Pradesh.
China has never recognised the 1914 McMahon Line and claims 90,000 sq km, including nearly all of Arunachal Pradesh. India accuses China of occupying 8,000 sq km in Jammu and Kashmir.
After 1962, tensions flared again in 1986 with Indian and Chinese forces clashing in Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese troops reportedly built a helipad in the valley leading to the fresh skirmishes.
China policy: Is foreign ministry at odds with security establishment?
New Delhi, Sep 20 (IANS) Is India's security establishment at odds with the foreign policy establishment over the threat perception vis-a-vis China?
Even as the government sought to play down reports of Chinese border "aggression", saying there was nothing alarming about them, there are sections of the strategic establishment, whose views are articulated through retired armed forces personnel and strategic experts, who appear to think that the government is underplaying the Chinese "threat".
With some sensation-seeking television channels happy to play along, this section also feels the government was not ready to concede that Chinese forces have made serious "incursions" into Indian territory and have scaled up their aggressive postures in trends ominously reminiscent of the months preceding the 1962 war between the two countries.
The first alarm bell was raised by Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor Aug 31 saying there have been several border violations by Chinese troops in the past few months, including an incursion by a helicopter. However, he clarified that these infringements could have been inadvertent. By this Saturday, he was saying that the number of incursions this year was the same as last year and there was nothing to be worried about.
"There have been several violations and one incursion by a Chinese helicopter in the past few months. It could have happened due to a navigational error but that does not justify it. It was taken up at the border personnel meet," Kapoor had said earlier.
Prior to that, former Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta warned that Beijing was in the process of creating formidable military capabilities and it would be more assertive in its claims on the neighbourhood.
Speaking at the National Maritime Foundation, he said: "China is in the process of consolidating its comprehensive national power and creating formidable military capabilities. Once that is done, China is likely to be more assertive on its claims, especially in the immediate neighbourhood."
These fears were further amplified when a section of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the country's external intelligence agency, reportedly briefed the political leadership of China's "ambitious designs" in the region and how it was making massive investments in the neighbourhood.
At a closed-door session in the recently held police chiefs conclave this week, two senior RAW officials said these incursions should not be overlooked as China had "bigger designs" and was investing huge amounts of money in countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar to isolate India.
However, the nature of these investments and the grand designs to offset India's regional goals were not spelt out.
But despite the alarmist reports, fanned by some television channels, the external affairs ministry has sought to play down the incursions, saying these are "routine incidents" that occur due to differences in perception about the Line of Actual Control, the ceasefire line, as China does not recognise McMahon Line that then Tibetan rulers agreed with the British rulers of India.
In the midle of this confusion, a high-level meeting of officials that was to be held here Thursday to discuss the alleged Chinese border intrusions was postponed. The meeting was expected to be chaired by National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan. Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar, Home Secretary G.K. Pillai and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and the three service chiefs were to attend.
No reason was given for the postponement. But reliable sources said this followed differences between the external affairs ministry and the Prime Minister's Office on the one hand and the defence ministry on the other on how to deal with China.
Since then, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, followed by National Security Adviser M.K Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Nirumpama Rao and even the army chief have sought to downplay the threat perception with Gen Deepak Kapoor now saying "there was no cause for worry or concern".
External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna cautioned against creating "excessive alarm" over the reported developments and stressed that India's border with China had been "most peaceful".
The defence ministry has on the other hand pitched for a more assertive approach vis-a-vis the alleged incursions, which Beijing has denied. The defence ministry wants curbs on army patrolling of the border lifted and a more pro-active approach towards building border infrastructure that lags far behind China's.
Currently, there are patrolling restrictions in certain "sensitive areas" of LAC to avoid possible clashes with Chinese troops.
Security analyst B. Raman, a former RAW official, has in his latest blog posted that he was "not unduly worried over the continuing reports of Chinese troop intrusions".
"We are fortunate in having a competent, professional army, which is capable of taking care of them. There is no need for a hysteria over the intrusions," he said.
"I am more worried about the diplomatic, economic and strategic intrusions which the Chinese are quietly making in our neighbourhood and the inability of our diplomacy to counter them," he wrote.
Defeated politicians conspiring with Western countries
Minister Dulles Alahapperuma has accused certain defeated political parties of collaborating with Western countries to take Sri Lanka’s military leaders to courts.
Addressing an election propaganda rally at Puhulwella in Kirinde, Matara, the Minister said two or three defeated politicians with several western countries conspired in April and May to save the LTTE from defeat. The conspiracy was in place to save the LTTE even by destroying the President. He claimed that Sri Lanka was fortunate to have a strong and courageous Head of State who did not shiver or was not afraid. Therefore, the country was able to enjoy freedom after the liberation from the terrorists.
The meeting was organised to consolidate the victory of Freedom Alliance candidates contesting the Southern polls. Ministers Rajitha Senaratne, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena and Mervyn Silva, Parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa and several people’s representatives were present.
Addressing an election propaganda rally at Puhulwella in Kirinde, Matara, the Minister said two or three defeated politicians with several western countries conspired in April and May to save the LTTE from defeat. The conspiracy was in place to save the LTTE even by destroying the President. He claimed that Sri Lanka was fortunate to have a strong and courageous Head of State who did not shiver or was not afraid. Therefore, the country was able to enjoy freedom after the liberation from the terrorists.
The meeting was organised to consolidate the victory of Freedom Alliance candidates contesting the Southern polls. Ministers Rajitha Senaratne, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena and Mervyn Silva, Parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa and several people’s representatives were present.
Sri Lankan refugees commence indefinite fast
According to police sources, 20 other refugees also joined the fast to express support to the aggrieved ones.
Police as well as revenue officials denied reports that the protest was due to lack of facilities in the camp and said they have been extended 'utmost consideration'.
The refugees have been under detention for over 10 years and they had been brought to the camp from different areas and charged under CrPC and NSA.
Due to practical difficulties, the cases cannot be disposed off promptly, the officials said.
The prisoners have been demanding to let them rejoin their relatives.
Even in victory the Sri Lankan govt seems unable to define peace
Colombo risks squandering Sri Lanka's hard-won peace - article by Brahma Chellaney
If Sri Lanka is to become a tropical paradise again, it must build enduring peace. This will only occur through genuine interethnic equality, and a transition from being a unitary state to being a federation that grants provincial and local autonomy. It will be a double tragedy for Sri Lanka if making peace proves more difficult than making war.
Yet even in victory the Sri Lankan government seems unable to define peace or outline a political solution to the long-standing cultural and political grievances of the Tamil minority, which makes up 12 percent of the 21.3-million population. A process of national reconciliation anchored in federalism and multiculturalism can succeed only if human-rights abuses by all parties are independently investigated. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has acknowledged that civilian casualties were "unacceptably high," especially as the war built to a bloody crescendo.
The continuing air of martial triumph in Sri Lanka, though, is making it difficult to heal the wounds of war through three essential "Rs": relief, recovery and reconciliation. In fact, the military victory bears a distinct family imprint: President Mahinda Rajapaksa was guided by two of his brothers, Gotabaya, the defense secretary who authored the war plan, and Basil, the presidential special adviser who formulated the political strategy. Yet another brother, Chamal, is the ports minister who awarded China a contract to build the billion-dollar Hambantotta port, on Sri Lanka's southeast.
In return, Beijing provided Colombo not only the weapon systems that decisively tilted the military balance in its favor, but also the diplomatic cover to prosecute the war in defiance of international calls to cease offensive operations to help stanch rising civilian casualties. Through such support, China has succeeded in extending its strategic reach to a critically located country in India's backyard that sits astride vital sea-lanes of communication in the Indian Ocean region.
Sinhalese nationalists now portray Rajapaksa as a modern-day Dutugemunu, a Sinhalese ruler who, according to legend, vanquished an invading Tamil army led by Kind Elara more than 2,000 years ago. But four months after the Tamil Tigers were crushed, it is clear the demands of peace extend far beyond the battlefield. What is needed is a fundamental shift in thegovernment's policies to help create greater interethnic equality, regional autonomy and a reversal of the state-driven militarization of society.
But Rajapaksa, despite promising to address the root causes of conflict, has declared: "Federalism is out of the question." How elusive the peace dividend remains can be seen from Colombo's decision to press ahead with a further expansion of the military. Not content with increasing the military's size five-fold since the late 1980s to more than 200,000 troops today, Colombo is raising the strength further to 300,000, in the name of "eternal vigilance." Soon after the May victory, the government, for example, announced a drive to recruit 50,000 new troops to help manage the northern areas captured from the rebels.
The Sri Lankan military already has more troops than that of Britain or Israel. The planned further expansion would make the military in tiny Sri Lanka larger than the militaries of major powers like France, Japan and Germany. By citing a continuing danger of guerrilla remnants reviving the insurgency, Rajapaksa, in fact, seems determined to keep a hyper-militarized Sri Lanka on something of a war footing. Yet another issue of concern is the manner the nearly 300,000 Tamil civilians still held by the government in camps where, in the recent words of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, the "internally displaced persons are effectively detained under conditions of internment."
Such detention risks causing more resentment among the Tamils and sowing the seeds of future unrest. The internment was intended to help weed out rebels, many of whom already have been identified and transferred to military sites. Those in the evacuee camps are the victims and survivors of the deadly war. To confine them in the camps against their will is to further victimize and traumatize them.
Sri Lanka's interests would be better served through greater transparency. It should grant the U.N., International Red Cross and nongovernmental organizations at home and abroad full and unhindered access to care for and protect the civilians in these camps, allowing those who wish to leave the camps to do so and live with relatives and friends. Otherwise, it seriously risks breeding further resentment.
Then there is the issue of thousands of missing people, mostly Tamils. Given that many families are still searching for missing members, the government ought to publish a list of all those it is holding — in evacuee camps, prisons, military sites and other security centers. Even suspected rebels in state custody ought to be identified and not denied access to legal representation.
Authorities should disclose the names of those they know to be dead — civilians and insurgents — and the possible circumstances of their death. Also, the way to fill the power vacuum in the Tamil-dominated north is not by dispatching additional army troops in tens of thousands, but by setting up a credible local administration to keep the peace and initiate rehabilitation and reconstruction after more than 25 years of war.
Any government move to return to the old policy of settling Sinhalese in Tamil areas is certain to stir up fresh problems. More fundamentally, such have been the costs of victory that Sri Lankan civil society stands badly weakened and civil liberties curtailed. The wartime suppression of a free press and curtailment of fundamental rights continues in peacetime, undermining democratic freedoms and creating a fear psychosis.
Public meetings cannot be held without government permission. Sweeping emergency regulations also remain in place, arming the security forces with expansive powers of search, arrest, detention and seizure of property. Individuals can still be held in unacknowledged detention for up to 12 months. For the process of reconciliation to begin in earnest, it is essential the government shed its war-gained powers and accept, as Pillay says, "an independent and credible international investigation . . . to ascertain the occurrence, nature and scale of violations of international human-rights and international humanitarian law" by all parties during the conflict.
Pillay has gone on to say: "A new future for the country, the prospect of meaningful reconciliation and lasting peace, where respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms can become a reality for all, hinges upon such an in-depth and comprehensive approach."
Unfortunately, Colombo still seeks to hold back the truth. Those who speak up are labeled "traitors" (if they are Sinhalese) or accused of being on the payroll of the Tamil diaspora. Last year, a Sri Lankan minister accused the U.N. undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs, John Holmes, of being on the rebels' payroll after Holmes called Sri Lanka one of the world's most dangerous places for aid workers.
The media remains muzzled, and a host of journalists have been murdered or imprisoned. Lawyers who dare to take up sensitive cases face threats. Recently, a well-known astrologer who predicted the president's ouster from power was arrested. And this month, the U.N. Children's Fund communications chief was ordered to leave Sri Lanka after he discussed the plight of children caught up in the government's military campaign.
Rather than begin a political dialogue on regional autonomy and a more level-playing field for the Tamils in education and government jobs, the government has seen its space get constricted by the post-victory upsurge of Sinhalese chauvinism opposed to the devolution of powers to the minorities.
The hardline constituency argues that the Tamils shouldn't get in defeat what they couldn't secure through three decades of unrest and violence. Indeed, such chauvinism seeks to tar federalism as a potential forerunner to secession, although the Tamil insurgency sprang from the state's rejection of decentralization and power-sharing. The looming parliamentary and presidential elections also make devolution difficult, even though the opposition is splintered and Rajapaksa seems set to win a second term.
Reversing the militarization of society, ending the control of information as an instrument of state policy and promoting political and ethnic reconciliation are crucial to postconflict peace-building and to furthering the interests of all Sri Lankans — Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. So also is the need to discard the almost mono-ethnic character of the security forces. Colombo has to stop dragging its feet on implementing the constitution's 13th amendment, which requires the ceding of some powers to the provincial or local level.
Sadly, there is little international pressure on Colombo, despite the leverage offered by the Sri Lankan economy's need for external credit. The U.S. can veto any decision of the International Monetary Fund, but it chose to abstain from the recent IMF vote to give Colombo a $2.8 billion loan. In the face of China's stonewalling at the U.N., Ban has been unable to appoint a special envoy on Sri Lanka. A U.N. special envoy can shine an international spotlight to help build pressure on a recalcitrant government. But on Sri Lanka, the best the U.N. has been able to do is to send a political official to Colombo this month for talks.
It is thus important for the democratic players, including the United States, the European Union, Japan and Norway — co-chairs of the so-called Friends of Sri Lanka — and India, to coordinate their policies on Sri Lanka. If Rajapaksa continues to shun true reconciliation, these countries should ratchet up pressure on Colombo by lending support to calls for an international investigation into the thousands of civilian deaths in the final weeks of the war.
The International Criminal Court has opened an initial inquiry into Sri Lankan rights-abuse cases that could turn into a full-blown investigation. Sri Lanka, however, is not an ICC signatory and thus would have to consent — or be referred by the U.N. Security Council — for the ICC to have jurisdiction over it. As world history attests, peace sought through the suppression and humiliation of an ethnic community proves to be elusive.
If Rajapaksa wants to earn a place in history as another Dutugemunu, he has to emulate that ancient king's post-victory action and make honorable peace with the Tamils before there is a recrudescence of violence. It will be a double tragedy for Sri Lanka if making peace proves more difficult than making war.
Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the independent, privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is on the international advisory council of the Campaign for Peace and Justice in Sri Lanka.
First Published by Japan Times
If Sri Lanka is to become a tropical paradise again, it must build enduring peace. This will only occur through genuine interethnic equality, and a transition from being a unitary state to being a federation that grants provincial and local autonomy. It will be a double tragedy for Sri Lanka if making peace proves more difficult than making war.
Yet even in victory the Sri Lankan government seems unable to define peace or outline a political solution to the long-standing cultural and political grievances of the Tamil minority, which makes up 12 percent of the 21.3-million population. A process of national reconciliation anchored in federalism and multiculturalism can succeed only if human-rights abuses by all parties are independently investigated. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has acknowledged that civilian casualties were "unacceptably high," especially as the war built to a bloody crescendo.
The continuing air of martial triumph in Sri Lanka, though, is making it difficult to heal the wounds of war through three essential "Rs": relief, recovery and reconciliation. In fact, the military victory bears a distinct family imprint: President Mahinda Rajapaksa was guided by two of his brothers, Gotabaya, the defense secretary who authored the war plan, and Basil, the presidential special adviser who formulated the political strategy. Yet another brother, Chamal, is the ports minister who awarded China a contract to build the billion-dollar Hambantotta port, on Sri Lanka's southeast.
In return, Beijing provided Colombo not only the weapon systems that decisively tilted the military balance in its favor, but also the diplomatic cover to prosecute the war in defiance of international calls to cease offensive operations to help stanch rising civilian casualties. Through such support, China has succeeded in extending its strategic reach to a critically located country in India's backyard that sits astride vital sea-lanes of communication in the Indian Ocean region.
Sinhalese nationalists now portray Rajapaksa as a modern-day Dutugemunu, a Sinhalese ruler who, according to legend, vanquished an invading Tamil army led by Kind Elara more than 2,000 years ago. But four months after the Tamil Tigers were crushed, it is clear the demands of peace extend far beyond the battlefield. What is needed is a fundamental shift in thegovernment's policies to help create greater interethnic equality, regional autonomy and a reversal of the state-driven militarization of society.
But Rajapaksa, despite promising to address the root causes of conflict, has declared: "Federalism is out of the question." How elusive the peace dividend remains can be seen from Colombo's decision to press ahead with a further expansion of the military. Not content with increasing the military's size five-fold since the late 1980s to more than 200,000 troops today, Colombo is raising the strength further to 300,000, in the name of "eternal vigilance." Soon after the May victory, the government, for example, announced a drive to recruit 50,000 new troops to help manage the northern areas captured from the rebels.
The Sri Lankan military already has more troops than that of Britain or Israel. The planned further expansion would make the military in tiny Sri Lanka larger than the militaries of major powers like France, Japan and Germany. By citing a continuing danger of guerrilla remnants reviving the insurgency, Rajapaksa, in fact, seems determined to keep a hyper-militarized Sri Lanka on something of a war footing. Yet another issue of concern is the manner the nearly 300,000 Tamil civilians still held by the government in camps where, in the recent words of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, the "internally displaced persons are effectively detained under conditions of internment."
Such detention risks causing more resentment among the Tamils and sowing the seeds of future unrest. The internment was intended to help weed out rebels, many of whom already have been identified and transferred to military sites. Those in the evacuee camps are the victims and survivors of the deadly war. To confine them in the camps against their will is to further victimize and traumatize them.
Sri Lanka's interests would be better served through greater transparency. It should grant the U.N., International Red Cross and nongovernmental organizations at home and abroad full and unhindered access to care for and protect the civilians in these camps, allowing those who wish to leave the camps to do so and live with relatives and friends. Otherwise, it seriously risks breeding further resentment.
Then there is the issue of thousands of missing people, mostly Tamils. Given that many families are still searching for missing members, the government ought to publish a list of all those it is holding — in evacuee camps, prisons, military sites and other security centers. Even suspected rebels in state custody ought to be identified and not denied access to legal representation.
Authorities should disclose the names of those they know to be dead — civilians and insurgents — and the possible circumstances of their death. Also, the way to fill the power vacuum in the Tamil-dominated north is not by dispatching additional army troops in tens of thousands, but by setting up a credible local administration to keep the peace and initiate rehabilitation and reconstruction after more than 25 years of war.
Any government move to return to the old policy of settling Sinhalese in Tamil areas is certain to stir up fresh problems. More fundamentally, such have been the costs of victory that Sri Lankan civil society stands badly weakened and civil liberties curtailed. The wartime suppression of a free press and curtailment of fundamental rights continues in peacetime, undermining democratic freedoms and creating a fear psychosis.
Public meetings cannot be held without government permission. Sweeping emergency regulations also remain in place, arming the security forces with expansive powers of search, arrest, detention and seizure of property. Individuals can still be held in unacknowledged detention for up to 12 months. For the process of reconciliation to begin in earnest, it is essential the government shed its war-gained powers and accept, as Pillay says, "an independent and credible international investigation . . . to ascertain the occurrence, nature and scale of violations of international human-rights and international humanitarian law" by all parties during the conflict.
Pillay has gone on to say: "A new future for the country, the prospect of meaningful reconciliation and lasting peace, where respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms can become a reality for all, hinges upon such an in-depth and comprehensive approach."
Unfortunately, Colombo still seeks to hold back the truth. Those who speak up are labeled "traitors" (if they are Sinhalese) or accused of being on the payroll of the Tamil diaspora. Last year, a Sri Lankan minister accused the U.N. undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs, John Holmes, of being on the rebels' payroll after Holmes called Sri Lanka one of the world's most dangerous places for aid workers.
The media remains muzzled, and a host of journalists have been murdered or imprisoned. Lawyers who dare to take up sensitive cases face threats. Recently, a well-known astrologer who predicted the president's ouster from power was arrested. And this month, the U.N. Children's Fund communications chief was ordered to leave Sri Lanka after he discussed the plight of children caught up in the government's military campaign.
Rather than begin a political dialogue on regional autonomy and a more level-playing field for the Tamils in education and government jobs, the government has seen its space get constricted by the post-victory upsurge of Sinhalese chauvinism opposed to the devolution of powers to the minorities.
The hardline constituency argues that the Tamils shouldn't get in defeat what they couldn't secure through three decades of unrest and violence. Indeed, such chauvinism seeks to tar federalism as a potential forerunner to secession, although the Tamil insurgency sprang from the state's rejection of decentralization and power-sharing. The looming parliamentary and presidential elections also make devolution difficult, even though the opposition is splintered and Rajapaksa seems set to win a second term.
Reversing the militarization of society, ending the control of information as an instrument of state policy and promoting political and ethnic reconciliation are crucial to postconflict peace-building and to furthering the interests of all Sri Lankans — Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. So also is the need to discard the almost mono-ethnic character of the security forces. Colombo has to stop dragging its feet on implementing the constitution's 13th amendment, which requires the ceding of some powers to the provincial or local level.
Sadly, there is little international pressure on Colombo, despite the leverage offered by the Sri Lankan economy's need for external credit. The U.S. can veto any decision of the International Monetary Fund, but it chose to abstain from the recent IMF vote to give Colombo a $2.8 billion loan. In the face of China's stonewalling at the U.N., Ban has been unable to appoint a special envoy on Sri Lanka. A U.N. special envoy can shine an international spotlight to help build pressure on a recalcitrant government. But on Sri Lanka, the best the U.N. has been able to do is to send a political official to Colombo this month for talks.
It is thus important for the democratic players, including the United States, the European Union, Japan and Norway — co-chairs of the so-called Friends of Sri Lanka — and India, to coordinate their policies on Sri Lanka. If Rajapaksa continues to shun true reconciliation, these countries should ratchet up pressure on Colombo by lending support to calls for an international investigation into the thousands of civilian deaths in the final weeks of the war.
The International Criminal Court has opened an initial inquiry into Sri Lankan rights-abuse cases that could turn into a full-blown investigation. Sri Lanka, however, is not an ICC signatory and thus would have to consent — or be referred by the U.N. Security Council — for the ICC to have jurisdiction over it. As world history attests, peace sought through the suppression and humiliation of an ethnic community proves to be elusive.
If Rajapaksa wants to earn a place in history as another Dutugemunu, he has to emulate that ancient king's post-victory action and make honorable peace with the Tamils before there is a recrudescence of violence. It will be a double tragedy for Sri Lanka if making peace proves more difficult than making war.
Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the independent, privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is on the international advisory council of the Campaign for Peace and Justice in Sri Lanka.
First Published by Japan Times
UN political chief voices concern about SL's displaced, says there is a real risk of breeding resentment
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in Government-run camps in Sri Lanka lack basic rights of freedom of movement, and the country is not making the expected progress towards a lasting peace in the wake of the end earlier this year to fighting between military forces and Tamil rebels, the United Nations political chief said Friday.
He stressed that the IDP issue is particularly important because it provides Sri Lanka with “an opportunity to move beyond simply ending the fighting to solidifying the peace. As the situation currently stands in the camps, there is a real risk of breeding resentment that will undermine the prospects for political reconciliation in the future.”
B. Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, told a press conference in Colombo at the end of his visit to Sri Lanka that the UN had not observed the progress expected after the world body and the Government issued a joint statement following the conclusion of fighting with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May.
More than 280,000 IDPs now reside in often congested camps in the north of the country, and Mr. Pascoe – who visited some camps yesterday – said he was very concerned about the lack of freedom of movement for residents and what he called the “closed nature” of the camps.
“People are not free to come or go and they are understandably upset,” he said. “We picked up great frustration on this point in the camps that we visited yesterday. I was told by many – and quite emphatically – that they just want to go home.
“We understand there are security concerns to be addressed. At the same time, this kind of closed regime goes directly against the principles under which we work in assisting IDPs all around the world.”
Mr. Pascoe urged the Government to allow those IDPs who have completed the screening process to leave the camps as they choose, and for those people remaining to be able to exit the camps during the day and to freely meet with family and friends in other sites.
On the last day of his visit to Sri Lanka, Mr. Pascoe held talks today with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, senior Government ministers, military officials, opposition leaders, Tamil politicians and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society groups.
During the meetings the Under-Secretary-General discussed the situation of the IDPs as well as human rights accountability and political reconciliation.
He told the press conference that he was pleased that Walter Kälin, the Secretary-General’s Representative on the human rights of IDPs, will visit the country next week.
But Mr. Pascoe said he remains concerned about the pace of the process of allowing IDPs to return to their former communities.
“If there is more screening to do, it should be speeded up. It appears there are areas where de-mining is not a big concern. For those areas, families who have passed the screening process could be resettled without much further delay. More people should be allowed to stay with relatives and host families.”
Mr. Pascoe said he was informed by the Government today that it intends to both provide day passes to allow people to go to work or visit family and friends and to more aggressively publicize the option of accommodation with relatives and other host families.
“Of course this is not the ultimate solution to the problem of getting people home quickly, but it is an interim measure that reduces congestion in the camps,” he said, calling for the Government to show more transparency and to consult more widely to allay the fears and concerns of the IDPs.
He stressed that the IDP issue is particularly important because it provides Sri Lanka with “an opportunity to move beyond simply ending the fighting to solidifying the peace. As the situation currently stands in the camps, there is a real risk of breeding resentment that will undermine the prospects for political reconciliation in the future.”
He stressed that the IDP issue is particularly important because it provides Sri Lanka with “an opportunity to move beyond simply ending the fighting to solidifying the peace. As the situation currently stands in the camps, there is a real risk of breeding resentment that will undermine the prospects for political reconciliation in the future.”
B. Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, told a press conference in Colombo at the end of his visit to Sri Lanka that the UN had not observed the progress expected after the world body and the Government issued a joint statement following the conclusion of fighting with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May.
More than 280,000 IDPs now reside in often congested camps in the north of the country, and Mr. Pascoe – who visited some camps yesterday – said he was very concerned about the lack of freedom of movement for residents and what he called the “closed nature” of the camps.
“People are not free to come or go and they are understandably upset,” he said. “We picked up great frustration on this point in the camps that we visited yesterday. I was told by many – and quite emphatically – that they just want to go home.
“We understand there are security concerns to be addressed. At the same time, this kind of closed regime goes directly against the principles under which we work in assisting IDPs all around the world.”
Mr. Pascoe urged the Government to allow those IDPs who have completed the screening process to leave the camps as they choose, and for those people remaining to be able to exit the camps during the day and to freely meet with family and friends in other sites.
On the last day of his visit to Sri Lanka, Mr. Pascoe held talks today with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, senior Government ministers, military officials, opposition leaders, Tamil politicians and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society groups.
During the meetings the Under-Secretary-General discussed the situation of the IDPs as well as human rights accountability and political reconciliation.
He told the press conference that he was pleased that Walter Kälin, the Secretary-General’s Representative on the human rights of IDPs, will visit the country next week.
But Mr. Pascoe said he remains concerned about the pace of the process of allowing IDPs to return to their former communities.
“If there is more screening to do, it should be speeded up. It appears there are areas where de-mining is not a big concern. For those areas, families who have passed the screening process could be resettled without much further delay. More people should be allowed to stay with relatives and host families.”
Mr. Pascoe said he was informed by the Government today that it intends to both provide day passes to allow people to go to work or visit family and friends and to more aggressively publicize the option of accommodation with relatives and other host families.
“Of course this is not the ultimate solution to the problem of getting people home quickly, but it is an interim measure that reduces congestion in the camps,” he said, calling for the Government to show more transparency and to consult more widely to allay the fears and concerns of the IDPs.
He stressed that the IDP issue is particularly important because it provides Sri Lanka with “an opportunity to move beyond simply ending the fighting to solidifying the peace. As the situation currently stands in the camps, there is a real risk of breeding resentment that will undermine the prospects for political reconciliation in the future.”
Sri Lanka responds to Prof Philip Alston on Channel 4 video
The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes the media statement issued today (17) by Prof. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in which he now acknowledges that the report which was shared with him by the Government leads him to the conclusion that "the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic".
The Government of Sri |Lanka also welcomes Prof. Alston acknowledgement that the government's investigation has been prompt. The government regrets however, that Prof. Alston has characterized the professional investigation as not independent merely because the experts concerned were Sri Lankan.
Prof. Alston does not appear to have carefully perused the Government's Consolidated Response of 09 September in which a URL to Mr Siri Hewawitharana's experience and qualifications was included on page 4.
Contrary to Prof Alton's assertion, the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe, contacted Mr Hewawitharana on 05 September, several days after the short op-ed opinion piece in The Island newspaper appeared and requested him to provide the Minister with a more detailed analysis of the video in the form of a short report. The said report was received on 06 September.
With regard to Dr De Silva, the sole reason for Prof. Alston's characterization of his analysis as partial is that he appears to have been consulted by the Government of Sri Lanka on previous occasions. The Government is of the view that it is quite legitimate to consult acknowledged experts from autonomous academic institutions and this in no way makes the expert part of the Government nor does it render the view tainted by bias.
Moreover, the fact that Prof. Alston now acknowledges that the video needs further investigation to prove its authenticity is sufficient to establish that the work of the experts consulted by the government of Sri Lanka is credible. This also confirms the governments concern that Prof. Alston was unduly hasty in issuing his original press statement concerning the contents of the video in the absence of any credible material.
It would be pertinent to note that the High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the Sri Lankan delegation's communication that a prompt investigation had been carried out into this matter. She also mentioned that, being a lawyer herself, she had thought it fit not to make a pronouncement on this issue until the authenticity of the contents of the video in question was established.
The Government is of the view that any further comment on this issue by Prof. Alston should only be consequent to the receipt of fresh and cogent evidence that will enable him to conclude that the video in question is genuine.
-- Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights
The Government of Sri |Lanka also welcomes Prof. Alston acknowledgement that the government's investigation has been prompt. The government regrets however, that Prof. Alston has characterized the professional investigation as not independent merely because the experts concerned were Sri Lankan.
Prof. Alston does not appear to have carefully perused the Government's Consolidated Response of 09 September in which a URL to Mr Siri Hewawitharana's experience and qualifications was included on page 4.
Contrary to Prof Alton's assertion, the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe, contacted Mr Hewawitharana on 05 September, several days after the short op-ed opinion piece in The Island newspaper appeared and requested him to provide the Minister with a more detailed analysis of the video in the form of a short report. The said report was received on 06 September.
With regard to Dr De Silva, the sole reason for Prof. Alston's characterization of his analysis as partial is that he appears to have been consulted by the Government of Sri Lanka on previous occasions. The Government is of the view that it is quite legitimate to consult acknowledged experts from autonomous academic institutions and this in no way makes the expert part of the Government nor does it render the view tainted by bias.
Moreover, the fact that Prof. Alston now acknowledges that the video needs further investigation to prove its authenticity is sufficient to establish that the work of the experts consulted by the government of Sri Lanka is credible. This also confirms the governments concern that Prof. Alston was unduly hasty in issuing his original press statement concerning the contents of the video in the absence of any credible material.
It would be pertinent to note that the High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the Sri Lankan delegation's communication that a prompt investigation had been carried out into this matter. She also mentioned that, being a lawyer herself, she had thought it fit not to make a pronouncement on this issue until the authenticity of the contents of the video in question was established.
The Government is of the view that any further comment on this issue by Prof. Alston should only be consequent to the receipt of fresh and cogent evidence that will enable him to conclude that the video in question is genuine.
-- Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights
IDPs in Sri Lanka's camps growing impatient: UN political chief
“I saw some efforts under way to make areas suitable for resettlement, both through clearing landmines and rehabilitating schools and economic infrastructure, said B. Lynn Pascoe, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, who arrived in the country yesterday.
“I also met with people in the camps who want to leave and return to their homes, but cannot do so, and are understandably growing impatient and anxious about their future,” he added.
In May the Government declared victory over the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), ending more than two decades of fighting. There are some 280,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) residing in camps in northern Sri Lanka.
Mr. Pascoe, accompanied by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hussein Bhaila, visited Mannar, where he witnessed preparations to construct a water reservoir for resettled communities, and received a briefing and demonstration by the armed forces on progress in clearing mines from the surrounding Mannar Rice Bowl region.
The delegation then visited two IDP camps and a rehabilitation centre for former LTTE members in Jaffna, before concluding the field visit at the Manik Farms camp in Vavuniya, the largest of the country’s IDP camps.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today voiced his concern about developments regarding the IDPs, as well as the political process and a possible accountability mechanism for alleged human rights violations committed during the armed conflict.
Speaking at his monthly news conference in New York, Mr. Ban said he had discussed these issues with President Mahinda Rajapaksa last Monday, and then dispatched Mr. Pascoe to follow up.
“I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” said the Secretary-General, who also reiterated his concern at the continued detention without charge of two UN staff members in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Pascoe is expected to conclude the two-day visit tomorrow in Colombo, where he will meet with President Rajapaksa and other Government officials, as well as with opposition and Tamil politicians, members of civil society and UN representatives.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Tamil national aspirations, TNA and transnational governance
The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from the 1977 mandate for independence and sovereignty of the Eezham Tamil nation, to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. Meanwhile, the emerging novel concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.
TamilNet Editorial Board
Brutal military victory and inhuman incarceration will make Eezham Tamils to forget their national aspiration is the belief of Colombo and the powers that abetted it in the course of war.
Not that they don’t know that the war and the attitude behind the war have made Eezham Tamils to feel the necessity of their national liberation more than ever now.
But arrogance and greed never see reason.
Some of the powers are very honest in the show. They openly sit on all international intervention. Never hide their greed in grabbing land or resources of Tamils while they are incarcerated and one of them is said to be overtly intimidating Tamil political leaders not to voice political aspirations of their people but to accept formulas dictated by it as solutions.
Then there is another set of powers, which now shed tears for the incarcerated, advice reconciliation for the sake of the unity of the island, urge the diaspora to engage with Colombo government and show semblances of diplomatic and economic pressure just for getting official entry into the scenario.
While the former are not at all recognising their responsibility to the current plight of Tamils, the latter are at least indirectly recognising it, and are demanding for certain immediate humanitarian measures.
However, none of them were so far able to make even little impact in altering the genocidal attitude of Colombo. On the contrary, Colombo is fast institutionalising ethnic totalitarianism in all its forms in the island.
Sense and sensibility would tell anyone that realities in the island demand partition for lasting peace, democratisation, eventual reconciliation and for regional /global cooperation.
But Tamils have to carefully note that none of the powers want to recognise the inevitability and righteousness in the development and demands of Tamil nationalism in the island. Rather they want us to believe that national liberation was only a demand of ‘terrorism’, what exists is only an ordinary ‘minority issue’ and this could be sorted out by reconciliation, development and little international pressure on Colombo to observe human rights.
Everyone knows what is behind this attitude is no sane political ideology but sheer power opportunism.
The powers are fully aware that what they are doing is not going to resolve the conflict in the island. If they are confident in the righteousness of their outlook there is no need for them to worry about an armed struggle erupting in the island again. Their anxiety only reveals that they are wrong in their moves. India’s fear, stemming from its guilt, is very explicit as could be seen from the observations of M K Narayanan recently about the possibilities of Tamil diaspora supporting another armed struggle.
They all come out with a sane advise to Tamils to struggle politically. But what is unholy behind this advice is dictating and coercing Tamils to drop their liberation aspiration even in democratically organised political movements. In short, ‘defeated Tamils’ have no political rights either, even to democratically tell what they want.
This is where Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka and in the diaspora need to take a firm stand and voice it boldly.
When Tamils had the last chance of democratically voicing themselves in 1977, they have given a clear and overwhelming mandate, based on their self-determination, for the creation of an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in their homeland, i.e., North and East of the island.
The Tamil National Alliance or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from this mandate to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. This is a new reality.
The Eezham Tamil diaspora living as free citizens in liberal democratic countries, outside of the dictates of Colombo and New Delhi, has a bigger responsibility in evolving a political formation to represent the hearts of Tamils.
TamilNet has long been writing on democratically formed transnational governance of Eezham Tamils and as prerequisites re-mandating the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution and forming grass root democratic bodies.
It is with sadness we note that according to BBC report Wednesday, the proposal to form a transnational government by V. Rudrakumaran talks only of homeland and self-determination – a truncation of the vital parts of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution.
Some supporting circles of this move said that the phrase ‘transnational government of Tamil Eelam’ covers the rest of Tamil aspirations. They should realise that the phrase ‘Tamil Nadu’ doesn’t mean anything in India.
Why the hesitation in telling what the Tamils have mandated democratically? Who is blocking?
Transnational government is primarily a symbolic as well as a functioning body that should be formed by the free will of the diaspora Tamils upholding the independence and sovereignty of Eezham Tamils in the island. It is an alternative government to be formed democratically when all governments disregarded them.
The whole concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.
Another unsafe move in the announcement for transnational government, in the given hostility of Colombo and some powers, is the call for voter register. All know how totalitarian powers in the past made use of voter register to hunt people. Voter register will make only a faction of core supporters to register and the transnational government will not be truly representative. Attention has to be drawn here how a successful poll was conducted in May this year, among the Tamil diaspora in Norway, without any voter register.
The BBC reporter Wednesday was unkind even to the ‘homeland’ of the proposed transnational government. “The group is clearly still wedded to the idea of a separate homeland, which many observers consider to be defunct after their military defeat,” he said.
This is not a conducive image for the effort when such a government has to be formed with a new and inclusive paradigm. The move for the transnational government has to go beyond the already created image that it is an LTTE project.
According to BBC, the Colombo government has made it clear that it is now hunting for Mr. Rudrakumaran, even though it has no business to interfere into the democratic activities of the free citizens in the diaspora in the liberal democracies.
The best option for a successful transnational government is not making it from the above but evolving it from the grass root. Such a government cannot be intimidated or hijacked by anyone, as it will be prevalent everywhere in the diaspora.
Eezham Tamils in Norway are already discussing the formation of a democratically elected country council, adopting the goal for independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam, which has been mandated by 99 percent of the Norwegian Tamil voters (the voter turn out was 80 percent). If such elected councils in every country could device ways of forming a transnational government, that will be more representative, democratic, secure and forceful.
Re-mandating the main principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution, preceding the formation of the transnational government, is vital for setting the goals of the government democratically and in no uncertain terms, convincing everyone of their validity without doubt or refutation.
TamilNet Editorial Board
Brutal military victory and inhuman incarceration will make Eezham Tamils to forget their national aspiration is the belief of Colombo and the powers that abetted it in the course of war.
Not that they don’t know that the war and the attitude behind the war have made Eezham Tamils to feel the necessity of their national liberation more than ever now.
But arrogance and greed never see reason.
Some of the powers are very honest in the show. They openly sit on all international intervention. Never hide their greed in grabbing land or resources of Tamils while they are incarcerated and one of them is said to be overtly intimidating Tamil political leaders not to voice political aspirations of their people but to accept formulas dictated by it as solutions.
Then there is another set of powers, which now shed tears for the incarcerated, advice reconciliation for the sake of the unity of the island, urge the diaspora to engage with Colombo government and show semblances of diplomatic and economic pressure just for getting official entry into the scenario.
While the former are not at all recognising their responsibility to the current plight of Tamils, the latter are at least indirectly recognising it, and are demanding for certain immediate humanitarian measures.
However, none of them were so far able to make even little impact in altering the genocidal attitude of Colombo. On the contrary, Colombo is fast institutionalising ethnic totalitarianism in all its forms in the island.
Sense and sensibility would tell anyone that realities in the island demand partition for lasting peace, democratisation, eventual reconciliation and for regional /global cooperation.
But Tamils have to carefully note that none of the powers want to recognise the inevitability and righteousness in the development and demands of Tamil nationalism in the island. Rather they want us to believe that national liberation was only a demand of ‘terrorism’, what exists is only an ordinary ‘minority issue’ and this could be sorted out by reconciliation, development and little international pressure on Colombo to observe human rights.
Everyone knows what is behind this attitude is no sane political ideology but sheer power opportunism.
The powers are fully aware that what they are doing is not going to resolve the conflict in the island. If they are confident in the righteousness of their outlook there is no need for them to worry about an armed struggle erupting in the island again. Their anxiety only reveals that they are wrong in their moves. India’s fear, stemming from its guilt, is very explicit as could be seen from the observations of M K Narayanan recently about the possibilities of Tamil diaspora supporting another armed struggle.
They all come out with a sane advise to Tamils to struggle politically. But what is unholy behind this advice is dictating and coercing Tamils to drop their liberation aspiration even in democratically organised political movements. In short, ‘defeated Tamils’ have no political rights either, even to democratically tell what they want.
This is where Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka and in the diaspora need to take a firm stand and voice it boldly.
When Tamils had the last chance of democratically voicing themselves in 1977, they have given a clear and overwhelming mandate, based on their self-determination, for the creation of an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in their homeland, i.e., North and East of the island.
The Tamil National Alliance or any other political party claiming that they represent Tamils have no right to proclaim that they have moved away from this mandate to satisfy India, Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other power. They may negotiate but without dropping the fundamentals, until any acceptable formula is freshly mandated by all Tamils including those who are now in the diaspora. This is a new reality.
The Eezham Tamil diaspora living as free citizens in liberal democratic countries, outside of the dictates of Colombo and New Delhi, has a bigger responsibility in evolving a political formation to represent the hearts of Tamils.
TamilNet has long been writing on democratically formed transnational governance of Eezham Tamils and as prerequisites re-mandating the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution and forming grass root democratic bodies.
It is with sadness we note that according to BBC report Wednesday, the proposal to form a transnational government by V. Rudrakumaran talks only of homeland and self-determination – a truncation of the vital parts of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution.
Some supporting circles of this move said that the phrase ‘transnational government of Tamil Eelam’ covers the rest of Tamil aspirations. They should realise that the phrase ‘Tamil Nadu’ doesn’t mean anything in India.
Why the hesitation in telling what the Tamils have mandated democratically? Who is blocking?
Transnational government is primarily a symbolic as well as a functioning body that should be formed by the free will of the diaspora Tamils upholding the independence and sovereignty of Eezham Tamils in the island. It is an alternative government to be formed democratically when all governments disregarded them.
The whole concept of transnational governance will be misled if it is orientated merely with an idea of negotiation. It is not just a negotiation platform. There is no need to show Tamils have ‘democratically’ dropped their aspiration just because some powers want it as a pre-requisite for negotiation.
Another unsafe move in the announcement for transnational government, in the given hostility of Colombo and some powers, is the call for voter register. All know how totalitarian powers in the past made use of voter register to hunt people. Voter register will make only a faction of core supporters to register and the transnational government will not be truly representative. Attention has to be drawn here how a successful poll was conducted in May this year, among the Tamil diaspora in Norway, without any voter register.
The BBC reporter Wednesday was unkind even to the ‘homeland’ of the proposed transnational government. “The group is clearly still wedded to the idea of a separate homeland, which many observers consider to be defunct after their military defeat,” he said.
This is not a conducive image for the effort when such a government has to be formed with a new and inclusive paradigm. The move for the transnational government has to go beyond the already created image that it is an LTTE project.
According to BBC, the Colombo government has made it clear that it is now hunting for Mr. Rudrakumaran, even though it has no business to interfere into the democratic activities of the free citizens in the diaspora in the liberal democracies.
The best option for a successful transnational government is not making it from the above but evolving it from the grass root. Such a government cannot be intimidated or hijacked by anyone, as it will be prevalent everywhere in the diaspora.
Eezham Tamils in Norway are already discussing the formation of a democratically elected country council, adopting the goal for independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam, which has been mandated by 99 percent of the Norwegian Tamil voters (the voter turn out was 80 percent). If such elected councils in every country could device ways of forming a transnational government, that will be more representative, democratic, secure and forceful.
Re-mandating the main principle of the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution, preceding the formation of the transnational government, is vital for setting the goals of the government democratically and in no uncertain terms, convincing everyone of their validity without doubt or refutation.
UN envoy Lynn Pascoe insists on early release of IDPs
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe who met Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse Friday to present the letter from UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon outlining the concerns of the international community on the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and other related matters, said that he had raised the issue of the early release of the IDPs and their freedom of movement with the President, sources in Colombo said. "It is frustrating to live in such conditions and therefore the people should be allowed to return to their original homes at the earliest. The security concerns of the government are understandable but at the same time the people must also be taken into serious consideration", Mr. Pascoe said.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the United Nations expressed concern Friday about the agreement reached in May between its General Secretary Ban Ki-moon and President Mahinda Rajapakse regarding the resettlement of the IDPs commenting that it did not see any anticipated progress through the agreement.
The visiting UN envoy further said that among the various issues that he discussed with the President the early release of the IDPs and their freedom inside the camp took precedence, the sources added.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the United Nations expressed concern Friday about the agreement reached in May between its General Secretary Ban Ki-moon and President Mahinda Rajapakse regarding the resettlement of the IDPs commenting that it did not see any anticipated progress through the agreement.
The visiting UN envoy further said that among the various issues that he discussed with the President the early release of the IDPs and their freedom inside the camp took precedence, the sources added.
The other matters of importance that Lynn Pascoe was concerned about were the well-being of the two Sri Lankan UN employees now under detention for alleged links with Liberation Tigers and Mr. James Elder, Communications Chief of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Funds (UNICEF), being expelled from Sri Lanka, according to the sources.
=
Lynn Pascoe visits IDP detention camps in Jaffna
Mr. Lynn Pascoe, United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, who was in Jaffna Thursday, visited the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) detention camps in Koapaay and Kaithadi, accompanied by Jaffna Sri Lanka Army (SLA) Commander, Major Gen. Mark and Jaffna Government Agent, K. Ganesh under heavy escort. Non-government organizations in Jaffna expressed concern that independent civil society representatives in the peninsula were not given an opportunity to meet the visiting UN envoy and inform him of the true situation in the peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe was also taken to Maravnpulavu and Thangki’lappu in Thenmaraadchi South where paddy lands occupied by the SLA for the past nine years had been allowed to be cultivated again.
The NGO organizations blamed the government for exploiting the UN envoy’s visit to show that all was well in Jaffna peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe who arrived in Sri Lanka Wednesday night proceeded to Vavuniyaa after his brief visit to Jaffna.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe was also taken to Maravnpulavu and Thangki’lappu in Thenmaraadchi South where paddy lands occupied by the SLA for the past nine years had been allowed to be cultivated again.
The NGO organizations blamed the government for exploiting the UN envoy’s visit to show that all was well in Jaffna peninsula.
Mr. Lynn Pascoe who arrived in Sri Lanka Wednesday night proceeded to Vavuniyaa after his brief visit to Jaffna.
Video investigation by Colombo not impartial - Alston
Noting that two of the four experts cited by the government were full-time government employees, another had previously acted on behalf of the government, "and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear," Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday, that studies could not be characterized as impartial. "The only way to do this [authenticate the video] is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place,'' Alston said. The video clip, aired in British Channel-4 TV, allegedly showing Sri Lankan troops executing Tamil prisoners stripped naked and hands tied behind backs, has shocked the world community, and re-ignited calls for investigations of war-crimes against Sri Lanka military.
Alston's rebuke of Sri Lanka's 'independent' experts has effectively negated Colombo's hurried attempts to contain the damaging impact of the video, and thrust the burden back on Colombo to have the forensics carried out by "demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned." Compliance to "United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions," was also noted as necessary.
Alston also noted that no original reports were available from three 'experts,' and the fourth originated as an opinion piece on Island, before declaring that findings cannot be characterized as impartial.
Full text of Alston statement published in UNHCHR (United Nations High Commission on Human Rights) website follows:
Professor Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council today issued the following statement:
I have been requested by the Government of Sri Lanka to issue a public statement in response to the latest information provided by the Government in relation to the Channel 4 video which purports to show extrajudicial executions being carried out by the Sri Lankan Army. I have carefully reviewed the various briefings and statements made by the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights, which are essentially based upon a detailed "Consolidated Response" issued by the Government to the local and international media on 7 September 2009 and to the diplomatic community the following day. The Government's response was summarized in the Minister's statement on 15 September 2009 to the Human Rights Council in which he stated that "four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake."
I welcome the fact that the Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue. The legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this is to undertake a "thorough, prompt and impartial investigation."* My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is to evaluate whether the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria established under international law, and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly.
I can attest to the fact that the investigation has been "prompt" since it was completed within two weeks of the information becoming available.
I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it was "thorough." I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations. The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the Government's request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes "observations" made by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the "four separate investigations" meet the criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has advised the Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist based in Australia, who is said to be the former head of Cisco's global broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been provided by the government on Mr Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is a member of a network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity, what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as "impartial".
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would do likewise.
Alston also noted that no original reports were available from three 'experts,' and the fourth originated as an opinion piece on Island, before declaring that findings cannot be characterized as impartial.
Full text of Alston statement published in UNHCHR (United Nations High Commission on Human Rights) website follows:
Professor Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council today issued the following statement:
I have been requested by the Government of Sri Lanka to issue a public statement in response to the latest information provided by the Government in relation to the Channel 4 video which purports to show extrajudicial executions being carried out by the Sri Lankan Army. I have carefully reviewed the various briefings and statements made by the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights, which are essentially based upon a detailed "Consolidated Response" issued by the Government to the local and international media on 7 September 2009 and to the diplomatic community the following day. The Government's response was summarized in the Minister's statement on 15 September 2009 to the Human Rights Council in which he stated that "four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake."
I welcome the fact that the Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue. The legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this is to undertake a "thorough, prompt and impartial investigation."* My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is to evaluate whether the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria established under international law, and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly.
I can attest to the fact that the investigation has been "prompt" since it was completed within two weeks of the information becoming available.
I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it was "thorough." I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations. The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the Government's request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes "observations" made by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the "four separate investigations" meet the criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has advised the Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist based in Australia, who is said to be the former head of Cisco's global broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been provided by the government on Mr Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is a member of a network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity, what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as "impartial".
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would do likewise.
Pascoe to deliver Ban Ki-Moon’s letter to Rajapakse Friday
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe is to deliver the letter given by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapakse when meets the latter on Friday. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, told reporters in New York Thursday, he has sent a letter to President Mahinda Rajapakse outlining the concerns of the international community on the developments regarding internally displaced persons, the political process and a possible accountability mechanism.
“I have spoken directly with President Mahinda Rajapakse about these pressing matters last Monday. This week, I have sent the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to Sri Lanka to follow-up. I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” the UN Chief said.
The UN Secretary-General also said he was also deeply troubled by the continued detention without charge of the two United Nations staff members.
“I have spoken directly with President Mahinda Rajapakse about these pressing matters last Monday. This week, I have sent the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to Sri Lanka to follow-up. I have asked him to deliver my letter to the President outlining the concerns of the international community and immediately report back to me,” the UN Chief said.
The UN Secretary-General also said he was also deeply troubled by the continued detention without charge of the two United Nations staff members.
No time frame for resettlement of Vanni IDPs - Media Minister
The Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) Thursday said a time frame for the completion or partial completion of resettlement cannot be given despite the assurance given to the UN chief that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year, according to Media Minister and cabinet spokesman, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa.
“The resettlement procedure takes a long time, therefore it’s unfeasible to set up a time frame. It depends on how the de-mining process takes place,” he added.
Earlier this year the government assured the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year.
According to the Minister around 250,000 persons are living in camps in Vavuniya.
“The resettlement procedure takes a long time, therefore it’s unfeasible to set up a time frame. It depends on how the de-mining process takes place,” he added.
Earlier this year the government assured the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that 80 percent of the resettlement will be completed by the end of this year.
According to the Minister around 250,000 persons are living in camps in Vavuniya.
Backsliding on Human Rights
NEW YORK — The European leaders gathering at the United Nations for the General Assembly may feel a little smug. For eight years they struggled to persuade George W. Bush that multilateralism mattered. Now Barack Obama has embraced the U.N. enthusiastically.
The United States has finally agreed to pay off $2 billion in outstanding U.N. dues. Later this month, Obama will chair a session of the Security Council on nuclear proliferation — the first American president to do so.
But the last year has seen worrying trends at the U.N. for the U.S. and Europe. Support for their human rights positions continues to slide, poisoning diplomacy in New York and Geneva and even threatening to undermine the U.N.’s ability to deliver humanitarian aid.
Russia and China, having played power politics in the Security Council on issues like Kosovo and Darfur in the last years of the Bush administration, have not backed off.
This year they repeatedly blocked European efforts at the U.N. to put pressure on Sri Lanka to show restraint and allow full humanitarian access to the suffering during its bloody victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Human Rights Council passed a resolution endorsing Sri Lanka’s offensive. Up to 10,000 civilians died.
This tragedy was indicative of a wider erosion of support for Western positions on human rights. Of the U.N.’s 192 members, 117 voted with the European Union less than half the time on human rights issues in the General Assembly over the last year. This is almost twice the number of a decade ago.
This decline has been driven by politics, economics and religion. Developing countries still suspect Western human rights policies are ill-concealed efforts to interfere in their internal affairs. They resent the fact that the big economies are tackling the global recession through the G-20 and G-8 rather than the U.N. Islamic governments exploit U.N. resolutions to assert that religious values trump individual human rights.
Some fear that the United Nations could return to the dark days of the 1970s, when the Security Council was paralyzed by cold war tensions and the General Assembly was a pulpit for anti-Western ideologists. The situation is not that bad yet, but the United States and the European Union cannot ignore how debates over values are weakening them at the U.N.
European diplomats are wary of high-level divisions within the Obama administration between those who favor a firm line on human rights and others who prioritize engaging with China and Russia. But American diplomats have been working hard at reaching out to moderate African and Asian governments on human-rights votes. They grumble that the E.U., focused on internal coordination, does too little outreach.
This isn’t entirely fair. The European Commission is developing new ways to fund human-rights commitments that poorer countries make at the U.N. In the Security Council, France and Britain have blocked efforts to derail the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur.
But the E.U. has suffered setbacks too. It split over whether to attend the U.N.’s Durban Review Conference on racism in April — Italy, Germany and the Netherlands joined the U.S. in boycotting the event on the grounds that it was anti-Israeli.
Given the chance to review China’s human rights record in the Human Rights Council, European countries took wildly differing positions. The British and Czechs said tough things about Tibet. But Hungary announced that “it took pride in being China’s partner in a common, bilateral human-rights dialogue.”
If the Europeans and the Americans want to stop the U.N. becoming a platform for their opponents, they need to improve their coordination. The current disputes over human rights will crystallize over the next two years, as 2011 will see an inter-governmental review of the Human Rights Council. China, Russia and other illiberal powers may try to set further limits on the U.N.’s human rights role.
The European Union, the United States and their remaining allies on human rights (such as the Latin American democracies) should form a high-level working group to prepare for the review. They should also talk directly to Moscow and Beijing about how to stop power politics in the Security Council from undercutting humanitarian aid, as it did over Sri Lanka. There is no point in celebrating America’s return to the U.N. if the U.N. cannot help the vulnerable.
Richard Gowan is a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Franziska Brantner is a German member of the European Parliament.
news
The United States has finally agreed to pay off $2 billion in outstanding U.N. dues. Later this month, Obama will chair a session of the Security Council on nuclear proliferation — the first American president to do so.
But the last year has seen worrying trends at the U.N. for the U.S. and Europe. Support for their human rights positions continues to slide, poisoning diplomacy in New York and Geneva and even threatening to undermine the U.N.’s ability to deliver humanitarian aid.
Russia and China, having played power politics in the Security Council on issues like Kosovo and Darfur in the last years of the Bush administration, have not backed off.
This year they repeatedly blocked European efforts at the U.N. to put pressure on Sri Lanka to show restraint and allow full humanitarian access to the suffering during its bloody victory over the Tamil Tigers. The Human Rights Council passed a resolution endorsing Sri Lanka’s offensive. Up to 10,000 civilians died.
This tragedy was indicative of a wider erosion of support for Western positions on human rights. Of the U.N.’s 192 members, 117 voted with the European Union less than half the time on human rights issues in the General Assembly over the last year. This is almost twice the number of a decade ago.
This decline has been driven by politics, economics and religion. Developing countries still suspect Western human rights policies are ill-concealed efforts to interfere in their internal affairs. They resent the fact that the big economies are tackling the global recession through the G-20 and G-8 rather than the U.N. Islamic governments exploit U.N. resolutions to assert that religious values trump individual human rights.
Some fear that the United Nations could return to the dark days of the 1970s, when the Security Council was paralyzed by cold war tensions and the General Assembly was a pulpit for anti-Western ideologists. The situation is not that bad yet, but the United States and the European Union cannot ignore how debates over values are weakening them at the U.N.
European diplomats are wary of high-level divisions within the Obama administration between those who favor a firm line on human rights and others who prioritize engaging with China and Russia. But American diplomats have been working hard at reaching out to moderate African and Asian governments on human-rights votes. They grumble that the E.U., focused on internal coordination, does too little outreach.
This isn’t entirely fair. The European Commission is developing new ways to fund human-rights commitments that poorer countries make at the U.N. In the Security Council, France and Britain have blocked efforts to derail the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur.
But the E.U. has suffered setbacks too. It split over whether to attend the U.N.’s Durban Review Conference on racism in April — Italy, Germany and the Netherlands joined the U.S. in boycotting the event on the grounds that it was anti-Israeli.
Given the chance to review China’s human rights record in the Human Rights Council, European countries took wildly differing positions. The British and Czechs said tough things about Tibet. But Hungary announced that “it took pride in being China’s partner in a common, bilateral human-rights dialogue.”
If the Europeans and the Americans want to stop the U.N. becoming a platform for their opponents, they need to improve their coordination. The current disputes over human rights will crystallize over the next two years, as 2011 will see an inter-governmental review of the Human Rights Council. China, Russia and other illiberal powers may try to set further limits on the U.N.’s human rights role.
The European Union, the United States and their remaining allies on human rights (such as the Latin American democracies) should form a high-level working group to prepare for the review. They should also talk directly to Moscow and Beijing about how to stop power politics in the Security Council from undercutting humanitarian aid, as it did over Sri Lanka. There is no point in celebrating America’s return to the U.N. if the U.N. cannot help the vulnerable.
Richard Gowan is a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Franziska Brantner is a German member of the European Parliament.
news
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Colombo's paranoid secrecy
"Why must the military be in control of the camps, why not civilian agencies? Why can't visitors enter the camps? Why are journalists barred? Why are international agencies kept out? Why is it taking the courts so long to make a straightforward order to allow members of parliament to visit the camps?" and quoting Mangala Samaraweera, "I can walk into any prison at will and meet any criminal, but I am not allowed to meet these people held in detention for no reason," Prof Kumar David, in an opinion column in Sunday's Lakbima, writes, "[t]he reasons offered for this paranoid secrecy varied from the need to hide human rights violations to calculations relating to the upcoming elections. I think it will be some time before the real reason comes seeping out."
While Delhi pressures the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to put forward a Delhi-centric political proposal for the Tamils for continued engagement with Rajapakse, Prof. David exposes the futility of it all, as he predicts a gloomy political scenario, saying, "[a]stute folks are pretty well reconciled that nothing will happen in the foreseeable future about devolution, thirteen plus, minus or zilch, and home-grown solutions. It's going to be the same old unitary state and constitution, with or without some superficial tinkering."
Full text of Prof. David's article follows:
What Ranil, Mangala and Mano Ganesan said on 3 September at a Platform for Freedom Press Conference on the IDP issue was fairly widely covered in the print and electronic media, but three other contributors, Siritunga Jayasuriya, Nimalka Fernando and Herman Kumara failed to attract coverage. They were more sharp and interesting, but not being parliamentarians, I guess, less news worthy. I will focus on them to redress this imbalance. But first a Mangala snippet which was both catchy and accurate; he defined the Vannie interns as FDPs (Forcibly Detained Persons) insisting that calling them internally displaced persons (IDPs) was simply not true.
First, let me have my say. It is my view that it is the FDP issue that will have more severe repercussions on the relationship between the Tamils and the government and on Sinhala-Tamil relations than the hotly canvassed political package uproar. Astute folks are pretty well reconciled that nothing will happen in the foreseeable future about devolution, thirteen plus, minus or zilch, and home-grown solutions. It’s going to be the same old unitary state and constitution, with or without some superficial tinkering, until and unless something dramatic happens, such as the change to a left government; and that’s not on the cards.
Siritunga’s take on it: For those who need some background, Siritunga is the leader of the United Socialist Party (USP), a non government left party and as presidential candidate in 2005 he polled 36,000 votes, certainly much more than I expected. I have been closely associated with him politically from 1970 when he was a key leader in the Vama or left tendency in the LSSP which matured into the NSSP in 1977. He parted company with us on the Indo-Lanka Accord and 13th Amendment which he opposed while we (the majority in the NSSP) gave these measures our conditional support. Nevertheless, he and I have remained personal friends. The USP has fraternal ties with international Marxist currents in many countries but I am not aware what its active membership within the country is.
Full text of Prof. David's article follows:
What Ranil, Mangala and Mano Ganesan said on 3 September at a Platform for Freedom Press Conference on the IDP issue was fairly widely covered in the print and electronic media, but three other contributors, Siritunga Jayasuriya, Nimalka Fernando and Herman Kumara failed to attract coverage. They were more sharp and interesting, but not being parliamentarians, I guess, less news worthy. I will focus on them to redress this imbalance. But first a Mangala snippet which was both catchy and accurate; he defined the Vannie interns as FDPs (Forcibly Detained Persons) insisting that calling them internally displaced persons (IDPs) was simply not true.
First, let me have my say. It is my view that it is the FDP issue that will have more severe repercussions on the relationship between the Tamils and the government and on Sinhala-Tamil relations than the hotly canvassed political package uproar. Astute folks are pretty well reconciled that nothing will happen in the foreseeable future about devolution, thirteen plus, minus or zilch, and home-grown solutions. It’s going to be the same old unitary state and constitution, with or without some superficial tinkering, until and unless something dramatic happens, such as the change to a left government; and that’s not on the cards.
But between two and three hundred thousand people of one community, held in indefinite and illegal detention by the hegemonic state of another community, well that’s tertiary stage cancer and its repercussions are going to be far, far more serious than people seem to realise. I give it three more months and if the FDPs are not all released from forcible detention, then the gulf will again widen to distrust similar to the post 1972-Constitution, post Vattukkotai Resolution, or intensifying LTTE periods. The gulf will become unbridgeable again. In a word, it’s the FDPs stupid, not the package that will hinge, or if you prefer unhinge, Tamil consciousness.
Siritunga’s take on it: For those who need some background, Siritunga is the leader of the United Socialist Party (USP), a non government left party and as presidential candidate in 2005 he polled 36,000 votes, certainly much more than I expected. I have been closely associated with him politically from 1970 when he was a key leader in the Vama or left tendency in the LSSP which matured into the NSSP in 1977. He parted company with us on the Indo-Lanka Accord and 13th Amendment which he opposed while we (the majority in the NSSP) gave these measures our conditional support. Nevertheless, he and I have remained personal friends. The USP has fraternal ties with international Marxist currents in many countries but I am not aware what its active membership within the country is.As a Sinhalese Marxist he expressed shock at the inadequate response in the South to the fact that such a large number of Tamils could be held in illegal detention for over 100 days. “Imagine the uproar in the country if two to three lakhs of ordinary Sinhalese people had been held behind barbed wire like this”. How much longer is this going to continue he inquired? And this inquiry continued to the heart of the matter. “These people have lived under LTTE Administration for nearly two decades. Of course a large number of them or a family member would have worked in that Administration, many would have associated with the LTTE, and to be perfectly frank, most would have supported or been sympathetic to the LTTE point of view”. This goes to the heart of the government’s conundrum; if the government intends to hold everybody who is or was sympathetic to the LTTE indefinitely, then it will have to hold some hundreds of thousands of people forever. The real problem is not a few thousand ex-cadres, the problem is hundreds of thousands who, come on be sensible about it, must have been pro-LTTE.
I think it is inevitable that he comes to the same conclusion as I have done in my third paragraph, but from an inside the camps perspective. I asserted that the FDP issue is destined to be the crucible in which the fires of broad ethno-political conflict will light up again. Siritunga says “If you hold people like this you are operating a farm for breeding the next generation of LTTEers, by whatever name they sprout. Is the government trying to breed another one lakh of terrorists?”
Insensitivity and secrecy: Nimalka introduced a women’s and welfare perspective as one would expect from a person of her background. Initially though she made a comment that was news to me. Most of the food, dry rations and other essential needs of the FDPs are provided by UN agencies and NGOs she said.
It is not GoSL but these organisations that foot the bill; the work in the camp is done by NGO volunteers and GoSL’s expenses, other than paying for the military, are small. Nimalka’s main grouse however was framed in these questions. “Do mothers have the right to take a fevered child to hospital? Can a woman who is bleeding seek emergency medical help?” The questions are rhetorical, the answers obvious.
Why must the military be in control of the camps, why not civilian agencies? Herman Kumara of the Fishermen’s Welfare Association was quite pointed in his repetition of the question on many people’s mind. Why can’t visitors enter the camps? Why are journalists barred? Why are international agencies kept out? Why is it taking the courts so long to make a straightforward order to allow members of parliament to visit the camps? As Mangala added “I can walk into any prison at will and meet any criminal, but I am not allowed to meet these people held in detention for no reason.” The reasons offered for this paranoid secrecy varied from the need to hide human rights violations to calculations relating to the upcoming elections. I think it will be some time before the real reason comes seeping out.
'Business can’t escape responsibility'
Britain as a country bears a big responsibility to the plight of Tamils in the internment camps of Sri Lanka. Because it was one of the major powers that had repeatedly asked the Tamil civilians of Vanni to go to the side of the Colombo government, knowing very well what awaited them were barbed-wire camps. The British business cannot shun its responsibility of freeing them through economic measures. British Retail Consortium sympathising Colombo government and campaigning against EU sanctions amounts to only encouraging the method of concentration camp as an effective tool of structural genocide in the island, blame Tamil activists in UK.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has expressed sentiments against the withdrawal of GSP Plus concession to Sri Lanka, citing that it would make businesses, especially the garment industry, to closedown and will affect hundred of thousands of workers.
Whatever the human rights concerns, any response has to be balanced. Otherwise, if the preferential access deal is withdrawn by the Commission, business in Sri Lanka could close,” was the comment of BRC circles.
“Sri Lanka has many very good textile factories, but profit margins are small, and if they lose their current import arrangements, there are textiles manufacturers in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand who will be ready to compete hard,” BRC circles said.
One supplier has gone to the extent of saying “I find the EU’s stance inconceivable considering that at the moment to my knowledge there is no certain proof of war crimes or crimes against humanity as mentioned. It’s easy to persecute a tiny Island like Sri Lanka whilst China and others like Burma are apparently invisible.”
Business circles in London said that some big British business houses like Marks & Spencer and Next produce garments in Sri Lanka. ';
news
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has expressed sentiments against the withdrawal of GSP Plus concession to Sri Lanka, citing that it would make businesses, especially the garment industry, to closedown and will affect hundred of thousands of workers.
Whatever the human rights concerns, any response has to be balanced. Otherwise, if the preferential access deal is withdrawn by the Commission, business in Sri Lanka could close,” was the comment of BRC circles.
“Sri Lanka has many very good textile factories, but profit margins are small, and if they lose their current import arrangements, there are textiles manufacturers in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand who will be ready to compete hard,” BRC circles said.
One supplier has gone to the extent of saying “I find the EU’s stance inconceivable considering that at the moment to my knowledge there is no certain proof of war crimes or crimes against humanity as mentioned. It’s easy to persecute a tiny Island like Sri Lanka whilst China and others like Burma are apparently invisible.”
Business circles in London said that some big British business houses like Marks & Spencer and Next produce garments in Sri Lanka. ';
news
How Sri Lanka governs through detentions
When the Sri Lankan government declared that the country's 25-year civil war was over in May, thousands of civilians took to the streets in celebration. The threat of the Tamil Tigers was gone for the first time in decades and the fears of violence that had held a nation in their clutch on a daily basis seemed to dissipate. But for many Sri Lankans things have only become worse since the war ended, says Global Post.
The article by Maura R. O'Connor in GlobalPost said: As part of the government's continued efforts to weed out possible terrorists and sympathizers, the military has begun detaining large numbers of people it suspects of collaborating with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In the majority of cases, the arrest and detainment is shrouded in secrecy under provisions of "emergency regulations," a set of vague but sweeping laws that give the government in effect unlimited powers.
Since the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was passed 30 years ago, Sri Lanka has operated nearly every year under emergency regulations ordered by the executive branch. Under the most current regulations issued by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, suspects can be arrested without warrants and held for 18 months without formal charges or access to legal representation. Few details of alleged crimes are ever released and trials, when they occur, are rarely publicized.
“No one can tell you what's in them," said James Ross, the legal and policy director for Human Rights Watch, of the country's anti-terrorism laws. "That’s part of the problem. It’s getting worse for journalists, it’s getting worse for human rights activists. Where restrictions should be lessening, they are actually getting tighter.”
The recent spate of detentions appear to resemble the United States government’s actions after Sept. 11, 2001, when Guantanamo Bay was filled with suspected terrorists who could be held indefinitely under an executive order issued by President George W. Bush in 2002.
But the use of unchecked detentions as a counter-terrorism strategy in Sri Lanka pre-dates 9/11, according to Nagaioh Manoharan, a senior fellow at the Center for Land Warfare Studies in New Delhi. “What is new now,” said Manoharan of post-war Sri Lanka, “is detentions in large numbers. The PTA and emergency regulations are used without much hesitation. The rule of law has not been abided by even approximately.”
Arguably the biggest difference between terrorism suspects detained by the United States government at Guantanamo Bay and Sri Lanka’s current detainment policies is that of citizenship: Detainees in Sri Lanka are citizens held in their own country. In many recent cases, they are the government’s own employees.
On Aug. 1, Nagalingam Vedhanayagam, a government bureaucrat, was arrested by the government's Terrorist Investigation Division which was reportedly given a tip by a detained LTTE cadre. Vedhanayagam worked in Kilinochchi when the area was under LTTE control. When fighting overwhelmed the region last January, he moved to the government-controlled area but continued to make frequent trips into the conflict zone to ensure that humanitarian assistance was being provided. Since his arrest, defense officials have not released any information about his whereabouts or what the accusations against him are.
In May, five government doctors were detained by the Terrorist Investigation Division and held for 100 days without access to legal representation. The doctors had worked inside the war zone during heavy fighting for months and communicated information via telephone and email reporting often desperate conditions facing civilians. One of the doctors remains in prison while the others are on parole, awaiting a court hearing in November for spreading "false information to the international community."
On Aug. 31, the Tamil journalist Jayaprakash Sittampalam Tissainayagam was sentenced to 20 years of hard labor under Sri Lanka's Prevention of Terrorism Act. Tissanayagam was the editor of a Tamil language magazine and the government accused him of accepting money from the Tamil Tigers and fomenting "communal disharmony" through his coverage of the war.
Even NGO workers are not immune from the government's far reaching efforts to prosecute suspected terrorists. Two United Nations employees, Charles Raveendran Navaratnam and Kanthasamy Sounthararajan, were arrested on June 11 and, according to a U.N. official in Sri Lanka, are accused of collaborating with the Tigers. Similar to the case of Vedhanayagam, the U.N. staff were originally reported as “missing” or “disappeared” and only later was it revealed that they were in government custody. Both of their lawyers have filed complaints in Sri Lanka claiming torture by security forces following their arrest.
Since Sri Lanka regained independence in 1948, the country has operated more often than not under an official state of emergency, allowing the repeated implementation of emergency regulations. The actual content of the regulations are difficult to obtain and cannot be challenged in court. In 2005, regulations were passed that allow the use of confessions made to police in a trial. Contrary to normal standards of criminal law, in Sri Lanka it is up to the defendant to prove that a confession was coerced, according to the International Crisis Group.
Many argue that the country's deeply unstable history — insurgencies include the separatist LTTE and the leftist People's Liberation Front, or JVP — since independence requires extreme measures. "The legal system here cannot cope with the breakdown of law and order, like two insurgencies by the JVP in 1971 and 1987-89 and a separatist insurgency by the LTTE the last thirty years," said Sinha Ratnatunga, a lawyer and president of the Editor’s Guild of Sri Lanka. "Does it lead to abuses? Of course it does. But, if the strict application of the 'rule of law' applied in both letter and spirit the JVP might well be running a 'Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat,’ and the LTTE might have their own Eelam.”
Ratnatunga argued that striking a balance between quelling armed uprisings and upholding the standard of innocent until proven guilty is easier said than done when violence overwhelms the system. In the last 25 years, at least 80,000 Sri Lankans have died due to the civil conflicts. “That does not mean that civil liberties must be given a complete holiday,” he said.
Since the end of the war in May, the Sri Lankan government has continued to operate under an official state of emergency. In a special debate held Sept. 10 in parliament, Leader of the House Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva argued that because “certain groups” were plotting to assassinate President Rajapaksa, upholding emergency laws was critical, according to the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation. The motion received 87 out of 100 votes in favor.
Secretary to the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights Rajiva Wijesinhe said that the threat of terrorism is still a reality in Sri Lanka and that emergency regulations should continue because, “we also owe it to our friends who supported us against terrorism to ensure that information pertaining to possible attacks on them, as part of the globalization of terror, will also be prevented.”
“Overall, regimes in Colombo have gotten used to 'rule by emergency,'” said Manoharan at the Center for Land Warfare Studies. “It is an exceptional case among democracies. By some pretext or the other, they are imposed and extended.”
By Maura R. O'Connor — GlobalPost, in addition to O'Connor, who reported from New York, one journalist in New York and one in Sri Lanka contributed to this story but wish to remain anonymous to maintain their safety and that of their colleagues.
news
The article by Maura R. O'Connor in GlobalPost said: As part of the government's continued efforts to weed out possible terrorists and sympathizers, the military has begun detaining large numbers of people it suspects of collaborating with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In the majority of cases, the arrest and detainment is shrouded in secrecy under provisions of "emergency regulations," a set of vague but sweeping laws that give the government in effect unlimited powers.
Since the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was passed 30 years ago, Sri Lanka has operated nearly every year under emergency regulations ordered by the executive branch. Under the most current regulations issued by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, suspects can be arrested without warrants and held for 18 months without formal charges or access to legal representation. Few details of alleged crimes are ever released and trials, when they occur, are rarely publicized.
“No one can tell you what's in them," said James Ross, the legal and policy director for Human Rights Watch, of the country's anti-terrorism laws. "That’s part of the problem. It’s getting worse for journalists, it’s getting worse for human rights activists. Where restrictions should be lessening, they are actually getting tighter.”
The recent spate of detentions appear to resemble the United States government’s actions after Sept. 11, 2001, when Guantanamo Bay was filled with suspected terrorists who could be held indefinitely under an executive order issued by President George W. Bush in 2002.
But the use of unchecked detentions as a counter-terrorism strategy in Sri Lanka pre-dates 9/11, according to Nagaioh Manoharan, a senior fellow at the Center for Land Warfare Studies in New Delhi. “What is new now,” said Manoharan of post-war Sri Lanka, “is detentions in large numbers. The PTA and emergency regulations are used without much hesitation. The rule of law has not been abided by even approximately.”
Arguably the biggest difference between terrorism suspects detained by the United States government at Guantanamo Bay and Sri Lanka’s current detainment policies is that of citizenship: Detainees in Sri Lanka are citizens held in their own country. In many recent cases, they are the government’s own employees.
On Aug. 1, Nagalingam Vedhanayagam, a government bureaucrat, was arrested by the government's Terrorist Investigation Division which was reportedly given a tip by a detained LTTE cadre. Vedhanayagam worked in Kilinochchi when the area was under LTTE control. When fighting overwhelmed the region last January, he moved to the government-controlled area but continued to make frequent trips into the conflict zone to ensure that humanitarian assistance was being provided. Since his arrest, defense officials have not released any information about his whereabouts or what the accusations against him are.
In May, five government doctors were detained by the Terrorist Investigation Division and held for 100 days without access to legal representation. The doctors had worked inside the war zone during heavy fighting for months and communicated information via telephone and email reporting often desperate conditions facing civilians. One of the doctors remains in prison while the others are on parole, awaiting a court hearing in November for spreading "false information to the international community."
On Aug. 31, the Tamil journalist Jayaprakash Sittampalam Tissainayagam was sentenced to 20 years of hard labor under Sri Lanka's Prevention of Terrorism Act. Tissanayagam was the editor of a Tamil language magazine and the government accused him of accepting money from the Tamil Tigers and fomenting "communal disharmony" through his coverage of the war.
Even NGO workers are not immune from the government's far reaching efforts to prosecute suspected terrorists. Two United Nations employees, Charles Raveendran Navaratnam and Kanthasamy Sounthararajan, were arrested on June 11 and, according to a U.N. official in Sri Lanka, are accused of collaborating with the Tigers. Similar to the case of Vedhanayagam, the U.N. staff were originally reported as “missing” or “disappeared” and only later was it revealed that they were in government custody. Both of their lawyers have filed complaints in Sri Lanka claiming torture by security forces following their arrest.
Since Sri Lanka regained independence in 1948, the country has operated more often than not under an official state of emergency, allowing the repeated implementation of emergency regulations. The actual content of the regulations are difficult to obtain and cannot be challenged in court. In 2005, regulations were passed that allow the use of confessions made to police in a trial. Contrary to normal standards of criminal law, in Sri Lanka it is up to the defendant to prove that a confession was coerced, according to the International Crisis Group.
Many argue that the country's deeply unstable history — insurgencies include the separatist LTTE and the leftist People's Liberation Front, or JVP — since independence requires extreme measures. "The legal system here cannot cope with the breakdown of law and order, like two insurgencies by the JVP in 1971 and 1987-89 and a separatist insurgency by the LTTE the last thirty years," said Sinha Ratnatunga, a lawyer and president of the Editor’s Guild of Sri Lanka. "Does it lead to abuses? Of course it does. But, if the strict application of the 'rule of law' applied in both letter and spirit the JVP might well be running a 'Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat,’ and the LTTE might have their own Eelam.”
Ratnatunga argued that striking a balance between quelling armed uprisings and upholding the standard of innocent until proven guilty is easier said than done when violence overwhelms the system. In the last 25 years, at least 80,000 Sri Lankans have died due to the civil conflicts. “That does not mean that civil liberties must be given a complete holiday,” he said.
Since the end of the war in May, the Sri Lankan government has continued to operate under an official state of emergency. In a special debate held Sept. 10 in parliament, Leader of the House Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva argued that because “certain groups” were plotting to assassinate President Rajapaksa, upholding emergency laws was critical, according to the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation. The motion received 87 out of 100 votes in favor.
Secretary to the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights Rajiva Wijesinhe said that the threat of terrorism is still a reality in Sri Lanka and that emergency regulations should continue because, “we also owe it to our friends who supported us against terrorism to ensure that information pertaining to possible attacks on them, as part of the globalization of terror, will also be prevented.”
“Overall, regimes in Colombo have gotten used to 'rule by emergency,'” said Manoharan at the Center for Land Warfare Studies. “It is an exceptional case among democracies. By some pretext or the other, they are imposed and extended.”
By Maura R. O'Connor — GlobalPost, in addition to O'Connor, who reported from New York, one journalist in New York and one in Sri Lanka contributed to this story but wish to remain anonymous to maintain their safety and that of their colleagues.
news
Let's help Sri Lanka win the peace
Sadly, the government's willingness to ignore universal principles of human rights and humanitarian law (which Sri Lanka agreed to uphold when it signed and ratified many treaties and conventions) has met with very little international resistance. Even the United States, which has urged the rapid release of all civilians and deplored the government's slow timetable on political reform, is encouraging U.S. investors to “make Sri Lanka your next business stop.” The Sri Lankan government has won the war. It must now win the peace, and the world, including Canada, must help.full story
Propaganda war: Truth is first casualty
Written by Marvin Kurz
If you repeat the same libel over and over again, at what point does it become true? That must be the question that occupies the minds of Israel bashers like Naomi Klein and John Greyson. Their letter of ‘objection’ to a film series dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the city of Tel Aviv has been taken up as a rallying call for a boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).
For ideologues, like them, there is no mention of Israel too benign, no event too apolitical that it cannot be transformed into an agitprop exercise to delegitimize the Jewish state. For them, any mention of Israel must be prefaced by the libel ‘Apartheid’ and must be followed by the discriminatory mantra ‘boycott, divestment, sanctions.’ The issue is not – as Klein et al claim – Gaza, or Lebanon, or even ‘the occupation.’ It is the existence of Israel, the lone island of liberal democracy in an ocean of Arab dictatorships.
More to the point, the issue of their campaign is the right of Israel to defend itself from the 10,000 missiles launched from Gaza, the kidnapping of its soldiers by terrorist groups and the intention of a number of its malign neighbours, including a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran to wipe it off the map.
In recent years, Israel has faced more existential threats than any comparable nation in the world. Yet it has maintained a judiciary that is the envy of much of the world, even the Middle East, a Parliament that has seen Arabs sitting in cabinet and an army that telephones civilians in their homes before an attack begins. It is far from perfect, but its record is better than numerous other nations at war around the world. At the same time though, it is the subject of more one-sided criticism for its defensive actions than any other nation in the world. The ironically named United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), led by such luminaries as China, Saudi Arabia and Kyrgyzstan, is a perfect example of this hypocritical approach.
The committee spends more time on issuing rote condemnations of Israel than it does on any other state. In doing so, it ignores the violations of favoured states such as China, Iran and Zimbabwe. When Sri Lanka killed about 20,000 Tamil civilians in the brutal end game to its civil war, the UNHRC did not see fit to condemn the Sinhalese regime. In fact, it congratulated the victors. In contrast, when Israel’s Gaza mission, which even by Palestinian figures led to the death of only about 5 per cent as many civilians as the Sri Lankan offensive, the UNHRC raced to condemn Israel’s “massive [human rights] violations.” Only then did it create a ‘fact-finding mission’ to prove its pre-existing determination. This is the stuff of the old British Star Chamber, not a legitimate human rights arbiter.
Closer to home, left-aligned unions, churches and student unions have joined in the crescendo of attempts to criminalize Israel. But did CUPE Ontario see fit to boycott Chinese academics to protest the occupation of Tibet? Did the Anglican Church seek to divest from Russia when its army was killing up to 35,000 civilians, including 5,000 children in the 1994-5 storming of Grozny in Chechnya? Did university student groups have a Sri Lankan Apartheid Week in solidarity with the Tamil nation? Has Naomi Klein and her coterie organized a political event to boycott anything to do with Sudan in protest for the genocide in Darfur? You know the answers to each of those questions.
In her op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail (Sept. 8, 2009) Klein claims that she is not looking to do anything as nasty as to boycott let alone censor TIFF over the Tel Aviv film series. Nor do they have any problems with the showing of the Israeli films at the festival. She and her group just wish to “protest” the use of the festival by the powerful “Israeli propaganda machine.” Ignoring the fact that her declamation is an echo of the nasty canard that the Jews control the media and even the fact that two Palestinian filmmakers are represented at TIFF, her statement is also demonstrably false. Her co-organizer John Greyson is more honest when he links this protest to the global boycott movement against Israel. He further admits the boycotters’ bullying tactics by writing that he and his co-organizers have set up “a type of picket line” around the TIFF. So there you have it, only one country’s films deserve to be picketed, even if Klein is ashamed to admit what she and her group are doing.
They say that in war, truth is the first casualty. The adage seems particularly apt when it comes to the propaganda war against Israel.
Marvin Kurz is National Legal Counsel to League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada.
story
If you repeat the same libel over and over again, at what point does it become true? That must be the question that occupies the minds of Israel bashers like Naomi Klein and John Greyson. Their letter of ‘objection’ to a film series dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the city of Tel Aviv has been taken up as a rallying call for a boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).
For ideologues, like them, there is no mention of Israel too benign, no event too apolitical that it cannot be transformed into an agitprop exercise to delegitimize the Jewish state. For them, any mention of Israel must be prefaced by the libel ‘Apartheid’ and must be followed by the discriminatory mantra ‘boycott, divestment, sanctions.’ The issue is not – as Klein et al claim – Gaza, or Lebanon, or even ‘the occupation.’ It is the existence of Israel, the lone island of liberal democracy in an ocean of Arab dictatorships.
More to the point, the issue of their campaign is the right of Israel to defend itself from the 10,000 missiles launched from Gaza, the kidnapping of its soldiers by terrorist groups and the intention of a number of its malign neighbours, including a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran to wipe it off the map.
In recent years, Israel has faced more existential threats than any comparable nation in the world. Yet it has maintained a judiciary that is the envy of much of the world, even the Middle East, a Parliament that has seen Arabs sitting in cabinet and an army that telephones civilians in their homes before an attack begins. It is far from perfect, but its record is better than numerous other nations at war around the world. At the same time though, it is the subject of more one-sided criticism for its defensive actions than any other nation in the world. The ironically named United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), led by such luminaries as China, Saudi Arabia and Kyrgyzstan, is a perfect example of this hypocritical approach.
The committee spends more time on issuing rote condemnations of Israel than it does on any other state. In doing so, it ignores the violations of favoured states such as China, Iran and Zimbabwe. When Sri Lanka killed about 20,000 Tamil civilians in the brutal end game to its civil war, the UNHRC did not see fit to condemn the Sinhalese regime. In fact, it congratulated the victors. In contrast, when Israel’s Gaza mission, which even by Palestinian figures led to the death of only about 5 per cent as many civilians as the Sri Lankan offensive, the UNHRC raced to condemn Israel’s “massive [human rights] violations.” Only then did it create a ‘fact-finding mission’ to prove its pre-existing determination. This is the stuff of the old British Star Chamber, not a legitimate human rights arbiter.
Closer to home, left-aligned unions, churches and student unions have joined in the crescendo of attempts to criminalize Israel. But did CUPE Ontario see fit to boycott Chinese academics to protest the occupation of Tibet? Did the Anglican Church seek to divest from Russia when its army was killing up to 35,000 civilians, including 5,000 children in the 1994-5 storming of Grozny in Chechnya? Did university student groups have a Sri Lankan Apartheid Week in solidarity with the Tamil nation? Has Naomi Klein and her coterie organized a political event to boycott anything to do with Sudan in protest for the genocide in Darfur? You know the answers to each of those questions.
In her op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail (Sept. 8, 2009) Klein claims that she is not looking to do anything as nasty as to boycott let alone censor TIFF over the Tel Aviv film series. Nor do they have any problems with the showing of the Israeli films at the festival. She and her group just wish to “protest” the use of the festival by the powerful “Israeli propaganda machine.” Ignoring the fact that her declamation is an echo of the nasty canard that the Jews control the media and even the fact that two Palestinian filmmakers are represented at TIFF, her statement is also demonstrably false. Her co-organizer John Greyson is more honest when he links this protest to the global boycott movement against Israel. He further admits the boycotters’ bullying tactics by writing that he and his co-organizers have set up “a type of picket line” around the TIFF. So there you have it, only one country’s films deserve to be picketed, even if Klein is ashamed to admit what she and her group are doing.
They say that in war, truth is the first casualty. The adage seems particularly apt when it comes to the propaganda war against Israel.
Marvin Kurz is National Legal Counsel to League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada.
story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
