'Sri Lanka joins ignominious ranks of Myanmar, Syria and North Korea' - HRW

28 February 2020

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released a statement detailing the repeated failure of Sri Lanka to establish “a trustworthy domestic mechanism to address impunity” and urged the UN Human Rights Council to "create an international accountability mechanism as a matter of urgency".

According to HRW, Sri Lanka has continued to fail to deliver meaningful accountability due to ‘a lack of judicial independence, risk of reprisals, political interference, and “the deep-seated and institutionalised impunity that generates the risk of such violations being repeated”’. HRW maintains that for these reasons a purely domestic process is incapable of delivering on the UN mandate, stating that "there is no prospect that yet another domestic commission will advance justice for the tens of thousands summarily executed, tortured or forcibly disappeared."

In their statement, the organisation also highlights how the recent reelection of the Rajapaksa's, who have been directly implicated in war crimes, further damages the prospect for accountability and justice. HRW maintains that whilst the Rajapaksa’s have made clear their intention to walk away from the UN resolution; this is not possible hence it simply indicates an unwillingness to fulfil their commitments. In doing so Sri Lanka "joined the ignominious ranks of Myanmar, Syria and North Korea in refusing to accept responsibility for grave human rights violations," it added.

HRW’s statement on Sri Lanka follows, their praise of the High Commissioner for releasing a detailed list of companies directly involved in supporting illegal Israeli occupations; as well as their condemnation of China for denying the High Commissioner access to the Xinjiang region where the Muslim Uighur population are reported to be sent to reeducation and subject to human rights violations. 

Read HRW’s statement here.

Related Articles: 

28 February 2020 : Countries react to Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from UN resolution

27 February 2020 : UN human rights chief urges Council to ‘explore all possible avenues’ for accountability in Sri Lanka

25 February 2020 : UN Secretary General raises concerns over CAA in India

24 February 2020 : Sri Lanka informs UN rights official of withdrawal from resolution

17 January 2020 : HRW - Sri Lanka's human rights in grave peril

01 October 2019 : ‘Sri Lankan army institutionally committed to impunity’ - HRW

SRI LANKA: CRACKDOWN ON NGOS AND INGOS: GUIDELINES FROM DISTRICT SECRETARIES

29/02/2020

The Government has begun a crackdown on non-governmental organisations, both foreign and local, by urging them to cut down on programmes they are now engaged in.

The first salvo has already been fired in the Mullaitivu District where NGOs have been asked “minimise” programmes such as women empowerment, child rights, youth training, human rights, land rights training, formulation and strengthening of self-help groups.

Mullaitivu District Additional Secretary K. Kanakeshwaran has told all international and local non-governmental organisations that they should now embark on “social and economical programmes in the district.” He has set out eleven different areas:

• Renovation of tanks
• Renovation of agriculture roads
• Construction of rural
• access roads
• Construction of wells for the vulnerable people
• Repairing and deepening of wells
• Construction of temporary shelters to the Indian returnees
• Supply of Agriculture inputs
• Livelihood support to women-headed families and families of missing persons
• Preschool development programmes
• Supply of equipment to disabled people
• Supply of healthy food for pregnant mothers, lactating mothers and preschool children of rural villages.

NGOs and INGOs have been told that the Secretariat will not approve any action plan which does not contain “less than 70 %” of the guidelines set out.

A government source said similar instructions are to be sent out by other Districts Secretariats.
The Mullaitivu District is one of the areas where substantial work is being carried out by NGOs and INGOs.

One INGO representative, who did not wish to be identified, declared that they might be forced to cut back on their involvement. “It is our principals who identify the projects and programmes. It is only thereafter that they provide us the money. It is not within our writ to deal with matters beyond our purview.”

ST

For The Love Of My Motherland Sri Lanka: A Time To Rely On What We Have Seen & Heard Rather Than State Propaganda

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole –FEBRUARY 29, 2020

Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

It is Monday 25 Feb. 2020 as I hunt-and-peck my computer keyboard at Colombo International Airport Terminal 12 awaiting my flight to New York with my wife to attend a family funeral.

I had been catching up on yesterday’s The Sunday Times. It announced that the government, with cabinet approval, will withdraw from Resolution 30/1 of the UNHRC, solemnly cosigned by our government in 2015. The UNP’s Sajith Premadasa  has also promised to back the government, following Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who promised during the  presidential elections to protect soldiers who might be charged.

I cringe in fear because these moves threaten the lives of Tamils in this country. Effectively the two leaders of the two largest political groupings of Sri Lanka are jointly committed to letting off soldiers accused of war crimes. The government is also protesting against the US travel restrictions imposed on Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva, the Commander of the Sri Lankan Army.

The two matters relating to soldiers and their commander are closely related. For if there were war crimes at Nandikadal and the beaches of Mullaitivu, then Army Commander Silva would be guilty under Command Responsibility. Worse, our government would be guilty of a failure to uphold its Responsibility to Protect its own citizens. So, were war crimes committed towards the end of the war?

The Final Days of our War: Zero or 40,000 Casualties?

If yes, then the government and the opposition are jointly promoting the fracturing of Mother Lanka. For who is the Tamil who would want to be a part of Sri Lanka if murderers of Tamils would be protected by the two major political groupings in the country? Anyone loving Sri Lanka as his or her motherland must rise in protest.

Somehow, intrinsic to withdrawing from the resolution is the blind belief that there were no war crimes committed towards the end of the war in 2009. Is it possible that no war crimes were committed towards the end of the war? Indeed not. We have the report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts. Their finding is that over 40,000 civilians were killed mainly because of shelling by Sri Lankan forces. Even our government agreed to trying soldiers, which they never would have done if no crimes had been committed.

In 2015 when Resolution 30/1 was signed, it was clear to most of us that war crimes had truly been committed. Decent Sri Lankans heaved a sigh of relief that the government would protect civilians and  punish those responsible. With the government effectively admitting that war crimes did happen, the restrictions of the silent were lifted. Up until then, many of them were scared to speak of their experiences. Lorry drivers, university staff, and people like Shanthi Sriskantharasa, MP (who lost her leg from Sri Lankan bombing) told me of the incessant lightning-like flashes as bombs fell all around them. Renowned international human rights workers told us of the evidence they had. A New Zealand human rights judge told us at Jaffna Public Library  that once an inquiry was agreed to, evidence began mounting like fruits falling off a shaken tree. UK’s Channel 4 brought to our homes the most horrific images from the war. The image of an infant with its head chopped open particularly stands out. No one would kill an infant child simply to make separatist propaganda. 

The state is trying to drown us in a deluge of untruths and convenient doubts. We need to rely on our own intelligence and reasoning. We need confidence in ourselves to judge what the truth is; otherwise we risk upholding the implausible claims of politicians made for their short-term electoral gain at the expense of the unity and integrity of our motherland.

The government and the opposition, it seems clear to me, are playing nationalist politics, stoking communal hatred at the expense of the unity of Sri Lanka. Over the past four years after signing Resolution 30/1, the government ramped up its propaganda and the newspapers have become silent. As a result, many decent Sinhalese have begun to question the 40,000 numbers. I have been told by many Sinhalese friends at work not to mention 40,000 dead, and that 10,000 was more like it. Many thinking Sinhalese seem to be in thrall to the propaganda being put out. As the state mounted its propaganda, even I in my weaker moments wondered if the reports are untrue after all.

Necrophilia – Worse than Bestial

Indeed no. Hundreds of credible eyewitnesses saw people surrendering to the armed forces before their disappearances – that number of people could not have a reason to lie. Photographs shown on Channel 4 do not lie. Most photographs were given by decent Sinhalese soldiers who were repulsed by the most murderous carnage and necrophilia they witnessed – I desist from using the word bestial on our soldiers because that would be to insult beasts since beasts do not engage in sex with corpses.

Even President Gotabaya Rajapaksa despite his position on protecting the soldiers at all cost, has now suddenly admitted for reasons I do not understand that 20,000 disappeared and they are all dead. 

Remember that at the end of the war, then-President Mahinda Rajapaksa solemnly claimed zero civilian casualties. Not a single Tamil civilian died, he said, because his troops went in with the gun in one hand and the human rights charter in the other.  Presumably having been advised how laughable this claim is, the number then got bumped up to 10,000 to give it some credibility. Now it is 20,000. Who knows whether tomorrow it might be 40,000? 

All those nationalist scribes and subservient stooges who wanted to side with their president must be blue in their faces and numb in their souls after his admission. That is the cost of loyalty to ideologies rather than the truth. It is time for Sri Lankans to wake up and realize that we, like the rats who followed the Pied Piper of Hamelin, are following an alluring tune that will ultimately lead to our own undoing.

Read More

Consequences of dreadfully fractured logic in Geneva for Sri Lanka

Sunday, March 01, 2020

There is a dreadfully fractured logic in what the Government of Sri Lanka articulated before the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as it withdrew from UNHRC Resolution 30/1 this week. This is playing to the nationalist gallery with an eye to the impending General Elections. It has disastrous consequences for the country, make no mistake.

The hoopla surrounding the Resolution

Let me be clear. This is not about Sri Lanka agreeing to co-sponsor this Resolution of much fame in 2015. It is not even about whether, as some would cogently argue, that the Resolution, despite all its hoopla,  only brought about cosmetic changes while leaving intact, the gigantic apparatus of security sector impunity. Though if we are to dwell a moment here, one does not have to go very far to validate that logic. For the past five years, parents of Sri Lanka’s ‘disappeared’ have been camped out on the roads of the North, asking for justice even as they die, one by one, as the relentless pressure takes its toll.  Indeed, as the Resolution’s key sponsors within the ‘yahapalanaya’ Government bragged many a time, this was a ‘device’ to free the country from being called to order in the halls of the Council.

True, legislation was enacted to criminalise enforced disappearances. But what good is that when the two primary arms of the State tasked with law enforcement and prosecution remained so pitifully vulnerable to political pressure without clear institutional reforms being pushed through? We see that result now as the criminal law enforcement machinery breaks down leaving even Courts helpless when the police refuse to adhere to a direction of the Attorney General and evade serving summons on military personnel. We will return to that matter later.

But to illustrate the caution that glorifying this Resolution misses the point, yes, an Office of Missing Persons was established as a result. Yet as this column has frequently argued, much to the ire of proponents of that  legislative measure, what good was that if the findings of the OMP are not directly linked to criminal prosecutions? Whether in the South or in the North, parents of the ‘disappeared’ want state acknowledgement for the deaths of their children and justice thereon, not money to be doled out or certificates of missing issued either by the OMP or by the Office of Reparations, another entity brought into being by this UNHRC Resolution.

Grievously letting down the Sri Lankan people

In fact, the far humbler and much less talked about Commissions of Inquiry looking into the ‘disappeared’ and the extra-judicially executed during the Kumaratunga Presidency in the nineteen nineties did all that and more. But in what way did those Commissions and others like them, bring justice to the victims? Their recommendations were ignored and their reports, including the Report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) tossed into the pale of the forgotten. As the Sri Lankan Government proposes yet another Commission of Inquiry at the Council now, let us remember that stark fact.

It is in these aspects that this week’s Statement by the Government of Sri Lanka grievously lets down its own people, confounding all previous prevarications and obfuscations at several levels. First, we are told that Resolution 30/1 contributed to the 2019 Easter Sunday jihadist attacks on churches and hotels in that the national interest was undermined and national security compromised. Yet, all indications emerging from the probes on these attacks are to the contrary, are they not? This happened due to criminal failures in Sri Lanka’s political establishment, not deficiencies in intelligence. Warning of the rising tide of jihadist extremism was very clearly  conveyed by ground-level intelligence to their superiors who however were more preoccupied with a bickering Prime Minister and President.

Thus indeed we have an asinine Secretary Defence who blurted out that, ‘we knew something would happen but not this big.’ But the point is that Resolution 30/1 cannot be blamed for the fact that Sri Lanka’s politicians chronically put their political interests first rather than the national interest. To foist the blame in this way is a trick worthy of a Houdini and dastardly so, at that.

Down that long and weary road of Commissions again

Then again, we are told that a Commission of Inquiry (COI) headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court would be appointed  ‘to review the reports of previous Sri Lankan COIs.’ Really? Are we down that long and weary road yet again? Who will believe in this rhetoric? Not Sri Lankans and certainly not others. In fact this approach only pushes us down the road of internationalisation of state failures to ensure accountability.

For this proud articulation that domestic avenues of justice will be pursued ignores a fundamental problem, much like the very large elephant in the room and no, I am not talking of the United National Party’s decimation as a political force. Simply, the question is this. On what basis can we claim that our domestic systems of justice are functional when a basic act of the police serving summons on a ‘missing’ Admiral to compel his appearance before a court becomes a veritable circus? This week, the Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar inquiring into the abduction of eleven children allegedly held for ransom and then ‘disappeared’ a decade ago, served summons for the fourth time on Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda.

It is not due to mere carelessness that law enforcement officers cannot locate the ‘missing’ Admiral who continues to be gaily seen at public events. Indeed, the framing of this as a clash between the Attorney General (whose officers appear in court to bewail the absence of the elusive Admiral) and the acting Inspector General of Police is not entirely proper. In fact, it is the writ of the Court itself which is, not to mince words, laughed at.

An inevitable day of reckoning

Called on to explain this bizarre happening, a Pohottuwa spokesperson said that this must be because the Admiral has been ‘framed’ and that a Commission inquiring into ‘yahapalanaya’ era political victimisation was examining the mattter. If so and as has been said before, the best forum for the Admiral to explain himself is the Court, not a fact finding Commission of Inquiry. With such palpable failures of justice in respect of the most heinous of atrocities, Sri Lanka does not have the proverbial leg to stand on when chanting its ‘domestic justice’ mantra.

Whether in 2015 or now, it is important to keep in mind that little attention was given to actually reversing our culture of impunity. To be quite clear again, this is also not about pointing the finger at powerful States who have got away with far worse than Sri Lanka in respect of atrocities that they have committed and continue to commit. This is simply about calling the State to account by its own citizens. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wagging the mocking finger at Sri Lanka’s victims, including innocent children robbed of their youth and bright promise by money hungry scoundrels, only makes the inevitable day of reckoning much worse.

Geneva Withdrawal: As Namaste turns nasty and coronavirus attacks markets

by Rajan Philips-February 29, 2020, 12:00 pm

Last Monday, Modi’s India ‘bowed to the divine in’ (Namaste) Trump. The namaste turned nasty even before President Trump left India after his whirlwind trip. Deadly serious Hindu-Muslim clashes broke out in New Delhi. Trump returned home furious, blaming the media for exaggerating (as he sees it) the coronavirus threat and triggering stock market collapses in the US and around the world. In Geneva, Dinesh Gunawardena, Sri Lanka’s first Foreign Minister with a leftist pedigree, tried to land as softly as possible his government’s decision to withdraw its predecessor’s co-sponsorship of the UNHRC resolutions on postwar accountability.

In one long week, South Asia saw the brash new Modi-Trump chumminess, and the world watched the global sweep of the coronavirus and the market carnage it caused. For the markets, it was the worst week since the 2008 recession. The wheels did not come off because the markets have been performing at record levels after Christmas until now. Sri Lanka’s withdrawal in Geneva is lighter than a pin prick in the scheme of things, but it was a big move for the new government and a pointer about the direction that it is still trying to establish.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been in office for over 100 days. But the government has been in a virtual holding mode, waiting for the parliamentary elections and a constitutionally ambitious two-thirds majority. As Executive President, Mr. Rajapaksa should be able to govern with any parliament under the Jayewardene constitution. That was the whole point of every word that JRJ uttered on the matter. The last government foundered because of the inability of two (or one and a half) parties and their leaders did not know how to cohabit. It is a different situation now, with one governing party having two heads, one in parliament and the other at the executive.

Politically the two are united by family, so any attempt to drive a wedge between them will only cause grief to those who push the wedge. Functionally, it is a different story with as many ropes as there are hands behind the two leaders. The political unity manifests itself quite robustly in the single-minded purpose to win the parliamentary election, and win it two-thirds big. Don’t waste time looking at the other party, the new Divided National Party and its never-ending tomfooleries. On the other hand, the new government’s only discernible purpose and direction is about winning the parliamentary election. The withdrawal in Geneva fits four square into that strategy.

At the same time, the government would appear to have wanted to avoid a full-throated withdrawal. It was a soft landing, as I said at the outset. Dinesh Gunawardena was quite unlike his fiery father and father of Sri Lankan Marxism, Philip Gunawardena. He was even more unlike his predecessor, the yahapalana government’s first Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, exaggerator par excellence. It was he who led the co-sponsoring in Geneva, in 2015, promising the sun and the moon to Sri Lankans and the fellow sponsors. Sirisena knew it, but the new government is trying to wash off his hands saying that nobody told him anything because the cabinet that he led took him to be a simpleton. The performance of the previous government fell far short of the promise, but there were significant achievements, such as the creation of the Office on Missing Persons and the Office of Reparations.

Resolution 30/1 of 2015 and its annual successors were both the code and the slogan in the Rajapaksa presidential campaign, along with the promise to withdraw from the co-sponsorship. Much will be made of last week’s withdrawal in the upcoming parliamentary election. Election rhetoric about the withdrawal will be quite loud and perhaps even obnoxious in contrast to the measured tone that Dinesh Gunawardena used in his speech in Geneva.

Not Convinced

While withdrawing from co-sponsorship of the Resolution, Mr. Gunawardena affirmed Sri Lanka commitment "to achieving the goals set by the people of Sri Lanka on accountability and human rights, towards sustainable peace and reconciliation." And to that end, the Foreign Minister said that the government will appoint a new "Commission of Inquiry (COI) headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court, to review the reports of previous Sri Lankan COIs … assess the status of implementation of their recommendations and to propose deliverable measures to implement them keeping in line with the new Government’s policy."

In addition, the government "will also address other outstanding concerns and introduce institutional reforms where necessary, in a manner consistent with … (and) implement policies rooted in the Government’s commitment to the people by advancing individual and collective rights and protections under the law, ensuring justice and reconciliation and addressing the concerns of vulnerable sections of society." Lastly, the Minister assured that Sri Lanka will "remain engaged with, and seek as required, the assistance of the UN and its agencies including the regular human rights mandates/bodies and mechanisms in capacity building and technical assistance, in keeping with domestic priorities and policies."

In response, Michelle Bachelet, the Secretary-General and High Commissioner of the UNHRC, would appear to have quietly rebuffed the new government’s fresh promises. Specifically, the UN agency is "not convinced with the appointment of yet another Commission of Inquiry to address Sri Lanka’s human rights issues." Ms. Bachelet expressed concern that the "very different approach" taken by the new government "to the commitments previously made in the resolution (which) risks setting back efforts to advance reconciliation, accountability and human rights. She urged the government "to preserve and build upon the gains which have been made over the last few years … (and) to ensure the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) and the Office of Reparations (OR) are provided with political and resource support. "The families of missing persons from all communities, the High Commissioner said, "deserve justice and redress."

It is noted that in his second intervention, following the High Commissioner, Minister Gunawardena confirmed that the OMP and OR offices will be allowed to continue with their work. It would be interesting to see how the government’s civilizational school of supporters will respond to this concession by the government. But it also shows, however softly the government may have executed its withdrawal, the withdrawal symptoms are not going anywhere.

Sovereignty and Human Rights

Writing from his diplomatically free and politically untethered current position, Dayan Jayatilleke has called the government’s move in Geneva "Right Cause, Wrong Tactics." Dr. Jayatilleke is critical of the obvious failure of the government, going by Minister Gunawardena’s speech, to commit to implement the recommendations of the two COIs (the LLRC and the Paranagama Commission) appointed by Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) during his second term as President. The failure of the MR Administration to implement these recommendations was one of the reasons for Mr. Rajapaksa’s defeat in 2015, and the principal reason for the sponsorship of UNHRC Resolution 30/1 (2015) by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government. Why another commission to revisit the LLRC and other recommendations? That is the question.

Beyond making specific criticisms and recounting at his usual length the postwar diplomatic battles since he led the Sri Lankan forces in Geneva, in 2009, Dayan Jayatilleke provides a succinct formulation of the principles linking international system, national sovereignty, domestic politics and human rights imperatives, which his old colleagues in the new government, as well as the new permanent representative designate to Geneva would do well to learn from. To paraphrase, the international system is essentially an inter-state system in which commitments made by a country’s state should not be unilaterally changed merely because there is a change in government after elections. National sovereignty is the defining value for a state. Democracy, on the other hand, is predicated on popular sovereignty. Lastly, to quote DJ, "for the United Nations, UNHRC, UNESCO and most UN/UN-affiliated organisations, the highest values are universal human values, such as human rights." Well said, Sir, and I could not help thinking that Dayan Jayatilleke can do real justice to his obvious knowledge and occasional brilliance when he is not in the pay of a government.

The main task for the government at the UNHRC and at home is, therefore, to find a way "to balance and accommodate these four legitimate principles," in a practical way. The obviously missing dimension in this formulation is the matter of the ‘minorities’ who constitute Sri Lanka’s plurality along with their majority co-existence. A part of the primary task would be to include the minorities, their representatives, in finding the balance between Sri Lanka’s international commitments and credibility, national sovereignty, popular democracy, and human rights imperatives. And a homegrown process of national reconciliation, considering that the leaders of the present government privilege anything homegrown over anything alien, will not at all be comprehensive if it does not include the minorities and their representatives in that very process.

In his speech in Geneva, Minister Gunawardena asserted that his "government is committed to examining issues afresh, to forge ahead with its agenda for ‘prosperity through security and development’, and to find home-grown solutions to overcome contemporary challenges in the best interest of all Sri Lankans." But he gave no indication how the government will balance Sri Lanka’s international commitments on human rights and national sovereignty, or how it will involve the minorities in its homegrown efforts. It was left to High Commissioner Bachelet to remind the government delegation that "the State must work for all its people and the needs of all communities, particularly the minorities, must be acknowledged and addressed."

The only hint about how the government plans to engage the minorities came in Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s interviews in India. The government will wait till the Provincial Council elections are over and then ‘deal with’ whoever is elected from the northern and eastern provinces. Then what about those who will be elected from these provinces in the parliamentary elections, not mention the MPs from north and east who are already in parliament? The government is also trying to create alternative Tamil and Muslim representatives to the TNA and the main Muslim parties who were associated with the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government.

The government already seems to have a lock on some of the political parties and potential representatives from the plantation Tamil communities. It might be looking to create similar divisions within the Sri Lankan Tamil and Muslim political formations. Regardless of the fact such machinations are more likely to boomerang than succeed, such an approach is unworthy of, and counterproductive to, any serious and genuine effort towards reconciliation. It is unworthy as well of the promises and commitments that Dinesh Gunawardena gave in Geneva, even though they were diluted from what were given by Mangala Samaraweera in 2015.

To put it bluntly, there is no alternative way out for the government but to directly and continuously talk with the TNA on all matters pertaining to the UNHRC resolutions. The need is all the more imperative after the withdrawal in Geneva. There is no need to wait for the parliamentary or provincial council elections. And the engagement must continue after the elections. It may be that after those elections, the government may have to deal with more than the TNA representatives, asserting less than their moderate positions.

The government has indicated that it is not going to do anything that is not acceptable to the Sinhalese people. But it cannot determine what it can do without talking with Tamil political leaders. And there is much that can be done by a government that is honest and sincere without risking a blowback from the Sinhalese. Our long post-independence history shows that blowbacks occur only when orchestrated by governments which do not want to do anything that is reconciliatory. Either it is time that this deception is stopped, or it is time to acknowledge that the annual pilgrimage to Geneva will continue even after this year’s withdrawal. 

On Sri Lanka’s Renunciation Of Its Obligations To The International Community

By C.V. Wigneswaran –FEBRUARY 28, 2020

Justice C.V. Wigneswaran

 Lanka’s withdrawal from co-sponsorship of UNHRC Resolutions 40/1, 34/1, and 30/1, is a disappointment to the Tamil people of the North-East and worldwide. However, this decision comes as no surprise. Minister Gunawardena’s announcement in Geneva yesterday closes a decade. For ten years, Sri Lanka regularly undertook obligations toward the international community—and with equal regularity, refused to honour them. In fact some of us objected to the American Representative to time being granted at the end of the first two years in the absence of any perceivable progress being   made in the first lease granted.

Although Sri Lanka has fallen short of many obligations, its consistent refusal to establish any mechanism of accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide stands out most prominently. The Hon Minister Gunawardene who says “I would like to state with pride that since May 2009 not a bullet has been fired in the name of separatist terrorism in Sri Lanka” has not explained why the Draconian Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary  Provisions) Act of 1979 has still not been withdrawn.

Yesterday’s promise of a domestic Commission of Inquiry only repeats its narrative from 2010—a “new” Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. Even if Sri Lanka honours this new pledge, the country will still make no progress in the decades to come to ascertain the Truth. These promises hold no value because there is no will on the part of successive Sinhala majority governments to bring out the Truth. 

We urge the international community to respond adequately to this flouting of its collective will. The international community now has a duty to use its powers of universal jurisdiction to charge Sri Lankan personnel at the International Criminal Court or at any other venue competent to hear cases on crimes of such gravity. 

We believe that Sri Lanka’s repeated violations of UN Resolutions, combined with its long record of state-sanctioned abuses against various sectors of the island’s population, justify reference to Article 6 of the UN Charter which states as follows – “A member of the United Nations who has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the organisation by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council”. 

We call on the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, to review Sri Lanka’s membership in the United Nations.

Read More

IMPUNITY, LACK OF RULE OF LAW & ACCOUNTABILITY ARE AMONG THE MAIN REASONS FOR RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM & HATE SPEECH IN SRI LANKA – UN RAPPORTEUR

From the Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on Sri Lanka.

29/02/2020

The culture of impunity in Sri Lanka has been repeatedly pointed out as one of the main reasons for which religious extremism and hate speech thrive in the country, undermining the rule of law and human rights. Many complained about how acts of violence are “indulged” by the silence and inaction from the authorities illustrated by some examples discussed above. Some expressed surprise and dismay that large mobs could openly and for several hours rampage through minority community neighbourhoods without hindrance or reaction from law enforcement authorities, or that some of the police participated in those violent incidents or that authorities fail to adequately protect those under attacks even when some of violence continued for several days. In some cases, the attacks took place during curfew hours. These happened during the riots in Kandy district in 2018 and in May 2019 in several locations in the Western and North Western provinces for example.

Some also expressed concern about perceived bias in the way the police addressed complaints. This was particularly the case were the assailants were members of the majority community. Many complained that either police failed to register and investigate complaints raised by them or that they would act in a punitive manner on complaints raised against them while failing to take similar measures when they were the target of attacks, or that generally the police were unsure on how to act in responding to infringements of the law by Buddhist monks. Some blamed politicians for influencing law enforcement citing examples where politicians were allegedly involved in pressuring the police to release persons arrested following violent attacks.

The Rapporteur received reports from the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of about 87 cases of recorded physical attacks at places of worship, residential area, pastors or members of the Evangelical churches (2015-2019); while only 50 cases were reported to the police, and 8 cases went to the courts, there has been not a single conviction of perpetrator even though in some cases, compensation has been granted to the victims. Similarly, the Evangelical Christians communities have documented over 11 cases of incitement to hatred and violence against them, and about 300 instances of harassment or discrimination based on their religious identity. Among those cases that were taken to the police or courts, the result was the same, there was not a single conviction.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses also reported at least 58 cases were referred to the police 2017-2019 of physical assaults, harassments and intimidation, disruption of their worship meetings, vandalism on the places of worship, and refusal of permit for building places of worship. 33 cases have been taken to the court, only 5 cases have been decided in favour of them where perpetrators agreed to stop harassing them but there is still not a single conviction.

Many described problems of double standards in law enforcement depending on which community offends or finds itself targeted by the actions of other. For instance, the Rapporteur heard of cases of violence against minorities perpetrated by the majority community where perpetrators are clearly identified in video recordings but remain unaccountable for years after the incident. Reversely, many complained, that when a complaint is brought forward by members of the Buddhist community, action is swift and, at times, disproportionate and lacks legal impartiality.

The Rapporteur would like to point out that Section 2.4 of SCP’s interim report on Communal and Religious Harmony clearly reported the challenges of the law enforcement, indicating that “[…] The recent incidents of serious violence in Kalutara, Galle, Ampara and Kandy districts have exposed the Police Department’s inexcusable delays to enforce the law and the Attorney-General’s failure in most instances to prosecute the perpetrators of violence.”1

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism who visited Sri Lanka in July 2017 in his report2 noted that “the absence of reaction from the Government to incitement to hate speech and racism, and attacks on minorities, including Muslim places of worship, in what is perceived by Tamils and Muslims as ‘Buddhist extremism’, increases the deeply-engrained sense of injustice felt by these minority communities, and increases Tamils’ national sentiments”.

Despite the pledges by the Government to strengthen fundamental freedoms and the rule of the law, it has so far failed to undertake the following critical steps:

• the establishment of a commission for truth, justice and reconciliation as well as a judicial mechanism with a special counsel;
• initiation of a judicial process to look into the accountability for abuses by all sides of the internal conflict;
• the full restoration of land to its rightful civilian owners;
• the cease of military involvement in civilian activities;
• an effective security sector reforms to vet and remove known human rights violators from the military;
• a review of witness and victim protection law including investigators, prosecutors and judges;
• a review and repeal of various legal provisions or legislations, such as the PTA, that are incompatible with international human rights standards;
• domestic law reform to prohibit and try serious human rights violations;
• investigation of hate speech, incitement to violence (including by religious leaders) and any attacks on civil society.

The list above shows that the authorities have not yet demonstrated the capacity or willingness to address impunity for gross violations and abuses of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The State must recognise that without the truth and justice, without the restoration of trust in the people by demilitarizing boundaries and prosecuting perpetrators of the conflict; without the appropriate mechanism and legislation that are compatible with international human rights standards, there will be no reconciliation and peace in the country.

Moreover, Government should not allow the influence of religious clerics to determine public policy in secular matters. On 3 June 2019, a Buddhist monk commenced to fast unto death, demanding the resignation of three Muslim politicians whom he claimed were linked to the Easter Sunday attackers. The leader of the BBS paid him a visit and issued a statement warning of mass mobilisation if the Muslim politicians did not comply with the demand. Large mobs gathered in central Kandy in support of the monk and threatened to get onto the streets to attack Muslims. Without any formal investigation, two Governors had to resign on the same day. Many worry that this incident sets a dangerous precedent of recognising the authority of religious leaders in political matters.

It is essential for the Government to not ignore the simmering tensions and intolerance and the damaging consequences of incitement to hatred and violence in a country that has gone through a long period of internal conflict. Inaction by the authorities could aggravate the simmering tensions and if these were left unattended, Sri Lanka may risk being locked in a vicious cycle of ethno-religious violence. Building societal resilience against violent extremism and incitement to hatred requires a broad-based approach that relies on good governance, rule of law as well as respect for human rights and equality for all. This requires strong political will and strengthened State institutions to tackle the root causes of the religious tensions and intolerance analysed above urgently in order to achieve a sustainable peace and economic growth in the country.

Read the full report as a PDF: Sri Lanka report Religious Freedom by UN SR 28022020

USD 16.8 mil. bribe @SriLankan Airlines

- a response to Eran Wickramaratne

Reproduced herewith is a screenshot of page 8 from the airline’s 2007/8 Annual Report. Whereas Company Revenue amounted to Rs 78.128 billion, Operating Expenses amounted to Rs 82.154 billion, a Deficit of Rs 4.026 billion. Nevertheless, Profit Before Tax amounts to Rs 4.445 billion. The Profit Before Tax had resulted from the sale and leaseback of three A340-300 aircraft amounting to Rs 5.4 billion (Note 16.1 in Annual Report), in other words, by the sale of assets. In the case of laymen, it may be ignorance, but in the case of a banker, it is sheer skullduggery. Incidentally, the company's Profit Before Tax in 2006/7 is no better. Profit Before Tax amounts to Rs 568 mil. despite a deficit of Rs 1.4 billion in Operating Expenditure over Revenue.

by Rajeewa Jayaweera-February 29, 2020,

Former State Minister of Finance and line Minister for SriLankan Airlines (UL) for eight months from March 13, 2019, Eran Wickramaratne, took part in the Face the Nation talk show on TV 1 last week. Faraz Shauketaly moderated the programme. The other panelists were Chrishmal Warnasuriya, a former UL Pilot turned lawyer, Asoka Obeysekera, Executive Director of Transparency International, and Capt. Gihan (GAF) Fernando, a former UL pilot and President of Aircraft Owners and Operators Association. The theme of the one hour 20 minutes programme was "SriLankan Airlines in crisis" on the topic of the infamous Airbus deal. There were two journalists in attendance.

On Thursday, February 20, 2020, the Daily Mirror carried an extensive interview given by Wickramaratne to Susitha Fernando. It was titled, 'We suspect the Bribes paid on Airbus purchases were approximately USD 16.8 million.’

That same evening, the former State Minister had much to say during the Parliamentary debate on the Airbus corruption scandal.

This writer published a detailed essay titled 'SriLankan Airlines Airbus deal' in the Sunday Island on February 16, 2020. Those interested may access the article clicking on the link http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code title =218792 as it contains the aircraft acquisition process and other details. No repetition is necessary.

Having followed the Talk Show, carefully read the interview, and closely listened to the bombastic speech in Parliament, I decided to respond.

Wickramaratne holds BSc and MSc degrees in Economics from the University of London and is also an Eisenhower Fellow. He worked for Citi Bank for nearly two decades. Expectations from parliamentarians with such academic and professional credentials are much higher than from 'O' or 'A' Levels failures.

What stands out very clearly is the political bias and lack of objectivity in the arguments presented in all three instances. The focus is entirely on the wrongdoings of the Rajapaksa regime. However, Yahapalana misdemeanors in the context of the national carrier are sadly lacking.

Given space constraints, this writer will endeavor to provide a few instances utilizing selected examples. It will highlight the fact, whether it is the Rajapaksa or Yahapalana dispensations, what they do when in power, and say when out of power differ substantially. It is a case of ‘bale thibenakota mole naa, mole thibenakota bale naa.’

During the Talk Show, the former State Minister stated, "I was the Minister in charge of the airline in 2019 until the change of government. I inherited an airline Board in which I did not make any changes. It is usual when Ministers change that they change the Board, and they generally end up putting their friends and relations on the Board."

Rajapaksas appointed relations. Yahapalanites appointed friends from their alma mater and party hacks. The following are the Directors appointed by the Yahapalana government in February 2015 and their connections.

Chairman Ajith Dias (Prime Minister’s friend and ex-Royall College). Chanaka de Silva and Mahinda Haradasa, (PM’s friends, ex-Royal College, and members of UNP Working Committee). Rajan Brito (former President CBK’s friend), Hadindra Balapatabandi (former President Sirisena’s friend), Rakhitha Jayawardena (PM’ relative and old Thomian), Lt.Col. (Retd.) Sunil Peiris (Ravi Jayawardena’s friend and old Thomian), and N. De Silva Deva Aditya (PM’s friend and MP in European Parliament). CEO Suren Ratwatte, a pilot by profession, was the younger brother of PM’s financial advisor.

Ratwatte's ill-advised appointment had far-reaching consequences. At the end of six months, some directors wished to extend his probation period and assign Key Performance Indicators for evaluation in a few months. However, both the Prime Minister and Minister Kabir Hashim instructed directors to confirm him to his post without delay (Board Minute 2.6 dated April 28, 2016).

Financially crippled with lease charges of over USD 1 mil per month per new A330-300 aircraft, the airline desperately tried to lease out at least a few of them. One jet was wet-leased to PIA in early 2016 for six months. Discussions were ongoing to lease a total of three planes for three years.

Meanwhile, lease agreements of three older A330-200 aircraft MSN 303, 306, and 311 were due to expire in a few months. The CEO informed directors, if PIA leased the three aircraft, the three older planes would be necessary to operate the schedule. Directors gave him the mandate to renew lease agreements of the older planes subject to PIA leasing the more expensive jets. Finally, PIA did not take the aircraft. Meanwhile, the CEO had extended the lease agreements of the three older planes exceeding his mandate at a total cost of USD 54.5 mil. over 72 months, excluding related maintenance costs.

It eventually split the Directors into two groups. Four directors opposed the extension of lease agreements of the three older aircraft, whereas the Chairman and two others were in favor. One director abstained (Board Minute 10.4, dated January 25, 2017). The decision was overturned by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM item 22/3/2017/10 dated March 22, 2017), and lease agreements extended.

Several directors decided to suspend the CEO from work pending issuance of a Charge Sheet and also give him the option to resign (Board Minute 6.3 dated January 25, 2018). The Secretary to the Ministry of Public Enterprise Development, in a letter dated February 01, 2018, overturned the decision of directors.

UL is still in possession of these aircraft. Warnasuriya, in his opening statement, flippantly referred to the acronym UL as the ‘Usually Late’ airline. Wickramaratne taking umbrage, stated, "I would like to state, in 2019, SriLankan Airlines, in two months, won the world's most punctual airline awards. That credit goes purely to the senior management of SriLankan Airlines. When I left things to them, they knew how to make decisions and run the airline."

This assertion is pure eyewash. The reason for winning the said awards is due to the fact, the fleet contains three additional aircraft, signed up for 72 months by the Yahapalana appointed CEO. The management should be found fault for not achieving the award throughout the year despite the additional planes. According to the 2018/19 Annual Report, the daily average aircraft utilization of the six A330-200 planes was 10.92 block hours and of the seven A330-300 jets, 14.35 block hours, a clear case of severe underutilization of the older machines.

One of the journalists raised the question, "the Chairman appointed by the Yahapalana government declined to even internally investigate some of the less critical findings in the Weliamuna BoI report. The whole BoI report was added to history. Who can we hold responsible?

The question was avoided by giving unnecessary details of criticism of Rs 4 mil paid to Weliamuna. According to the response, the report was passed to the IGP, Bribery Commission, and the Government for necessary action. Paying for professional services is standard. What is not acceptable is to spend taxpayer’s money and do absolutely nothing with such reports.

The former State Minister’s offhand response, "I won’t comment on what SriLankan Airlines did internally with the report," fools no one. The question being, what the Yahapalana appointed directors did with the report, he should have answered it and not brushed it aside.

One area highlighted in the BoI report was the recruitment of over 500 persons from the ‘Nil Balakaya’ gang. Another was of a Flight Stewardess seconded to work in MP Namal Rajapaksa’s private company drawing two salaries besides flying allowances. Did the Yahapalana government and directors wait for the Serious Frauds Office in the UK to investigate such matters?

Shauketaly put it very aptly. He stated, "You said a number of factual things, but you forgot what happened under your watch (presumably under the Yahapalana watch).

During the interview with Susitha Fernando of the Daily Mirror, reference was made to profits amounting to Rs 4.4 billion in 2008 before the exit of Emirates management. Reproduced herewith is a screenshot of page 8 from the airline’s 2007/8 Annual Report. Whereas Company Revenue amounted to Rs 78.128 billion, Operating Expenses amounted to Rs 82.154 billion, a Deficit of Rs 4.026 billion. Nevertheless, Profit Before Tax amounts to Rs 4.445 billion. The Profit Before Tax had resulted from the sale and leaseback of three A340-300 aircraft amounting to Rs 5.4 billion (Note 16.1 in Annual Report), in other words, by the sale of assets. In the case of laymen, it may be ignorance, but in the case of a banker, it is sheer skullduggery. Incidentally, the company's Profit Before Tax in 2006/7 is no better. Profit Before Tax amounts to Rs 568 mil. despite a deficit of Rs 1.4 billion in Operating Expenditure over Revenue.

Truth be told, the Yahapalana government failed to investigate the Airbus deal chiefly due to its loss of moral authority, having embroiled itself in the Central Bank bond scam.

The former State Minister turned the spotlight on the Treasury for not having "questioned" the decision to acquire aircraft and for "allowing" it. Not since 1977 has the Treasury, or its Secretary overruled the Finance Minister, Prime Minister and President. Treasury Secretaries also kept silent during the ten-year Emirates management period over some very questionable decisions.

On the one hand, the Treasury remained silent and did not ‘question’ the decision to acquire aircraft. On the other hand, no one questioned the former Prime Minister’s interventions in the national carrier’s administration, not forgetting the loss of USD 54.5 mil. due to the incompetence of the CEO brother of one of his confidants.

Many believe, educated professionals are made of a different clay from that of the hoi polio. That is a misnomer.

From these few examples, one thing is clear.

Any person who remained silent through such malpractices does not have the moral authority to point fingers at others and pontificate in Parliament over "peers remaining silent."