British troops face fresh charges of Iraq war torture and killings

A still from video of a British soldier screaming abuse at hooded Iraqi detainees played to the public inquiry into the death of of Baha Mousa. Photograph: PA-Saturday 19 January 2013 

Britain will face fresh charges of breaching international law over the alleged torture and killing of prisoners during the war in Iraq, which began almost exactly 10 years ago. The allegations will be unveiled in the high court, when Britain will stand accused of a "systemic" policy of abuse committed over five years, from 2003 to 2008.

At a hearing scheduled over three days from 29 January, lawyers for 180 Iraqis who claim they are victims of abuse, or that their family members were unlawfully killed, will place a file of statements before two judges presiding over the court in London accusing British soldiers and intelligence officers of unlawful interrogation practices. These include hooding and the use of "stress positions", sexual abuse, beating and religious abuse of illegally detained prisoners. In some cases, the testimonies allege, the torture led to the death of the prisoner.

The statements were compiled during meetings with victims and relatives, mostly in Lebanon, by human rights lawyer Phil Shiner of the Public Interest Lawyers group, based in Birmingham.

The court will rule on whether the abuses were isolated incidents of which commanders, senior ministry officials and politicians were unaware, as the government insists, or "systemic" and authorised as policy. The MoD contends that any general problems of detention and interrogation were dealt with by an inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, an innocent hotel worker killed while in British custody in Basra in 2003, and continuing internal investigations by its own Iraq Historic Allegations Team.

But the author of a book on the killing of Baha Mousa, Andrew Williams – a law professor at the University of Warwick – says: "What happened to Baha Mousa, and how the army and the government responded to his death is emblematic of a whole system in operation … a callous culture that … permeated far up the command chain, both military and government".

Shiner says of his evidence that the Baha Mousa inquiry "may have shone a torch into a dark corner" but what is before the court next week is more like "a stadium in which we will switch on the floodlights.

"We've got the training materials", he says, "we've got the policy documents. Violence was endemic to the state practices and part of the state practices".

His counsel team, led by Michael Fordham QC, will present five so-called "state practices" they claim were "unlawful, right to the top", including illegal interrogation techniques taught at the army intelligence facility at Chicksands, north of London, unlawful detention and unlawful use of lethal force

Shiner's files are deeply shocking. Insults to Islam and sexual depravity feature frequently in the statements: a soldier is alleged to have masturbated over a prisoner, another to have committed sodomy with his finger; female interrogators are claimed to have stripped and feigned seduction in exchange for "information".

Most of the alleged incidents took place while prisoners were in custody, though some occurred during "strike operations" on people's homes, with suspects and their families allegedly subjected to abuse and crude violence. Prisoners who died in custody were invariably said to have done so due to "natural causes", despite beatings and kickings.

The hearing comes just weeks away from the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, and will be counted as a measure of how far Britain can reckon with its own legacy in Iraq. South African archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu last year urged in this newspaper that the then prime minister Tony Blair and others should be prosecuted by the international criminal court over the legality and conduct of the invasion.

"This is the crucial moment of decision", says Williams. "This is our last chance to get to the truth of what happened. This is what we demand of others, but we do not demand it of ourselves. What kind of message does that give the world about who we are?"

• This article was amended on 20 January 2013 to correct errors in the editing and production process that attributed quotes from Phil Shiner to Prof Andrew Williams

Sri Lanka’s ‘Basha Mandiraya’ calls for mother tongue promotion

[TamilNet, Sunday, 20 January 2013, 09:48 GMT]
Genocidal Sri Lanka’s ‘Basha Mandiraya’ (Languages Ministry), marking International Mother Language Day, has called for an essay competition at school level “to sensitise public opinion towards the mother tongue.” The organisers, saying that another aim of this competition is “promoting mutual respect based on the love for one’s mother tongue,” want the participating school children to address their essays to ‘Basha Mandiraya’, said an advertisement in the SL government-run Sunday Observer. The SL ministry should first learn to respect the right of the school children to address the name of the ministry in their mother tongue, commented Tamil education circles in Colombo. Mr. Vasudeva Nanayakkara is Sri Lanka’s Minister of ‘National Languages and Social Integration’. 

The Sinhala State’s ministry has chosen two topics for this year’s essay competition: “My language – Our country” or “Protect the Language – Develop Country”.

Candidates can submit essays in English, Sinhala or Tamil, the Sunday Observer advertisement said.

Loss Of GSP Plus Takes Its Toll »

By Mandana Ismail Abeywickrema- Sunday, January 20, 2013

Factories shifting to Bangladesh – TU

The loss of the GSP Plus facility that was granted by the EU to Sri Lanka is continuing to result in the closure of factories in the country resulting in thousands of employees jobless.
It is learnt that two such factories had closed down on January 2nd since they are shifting their businesses to Bangladesh, which is a reception of the GSP Plus facility.
President of the Inter Company Employees Union (ICEU), Wasantha Samarasinghe said that contrary to claims made by the government, the loss of the GSP Plus facility has affected many private sector businesses in the country.He observed that the recent closure of two garment factories in the Gampaha District had affected the direct employment of 1,500 while a large number of indirect employment opportunities have also been affected.

He said that Chrystal Sweater (Pvt) Company in Malwatta Investment Promotion Estate in Nittambuwa was closed down on January 2nd and Firefox Pvt Ltd in Pamunugama in Wattala was closed down on the same day.
According to Samarasinghe, these factories have been established with Board of Investment (BoI) approval.
“The government assured that the country would not face any economic fallout due to the loss of the GSP Plus facility. But now factories are closing. The government needs to provide solutions to the current crisis,” he said.
Samarasinghe added that the government has failed to address the issue of people losing their jobs.
“Although some employees have received some form of compensation payments due to the intervention of traded unions, some others workers have lost their jobs even without proper compensation,” he said.
The EU’s GSP Plus tariff concession allowed Sri Lanka to sell over 7,000 products to the EU countries tax-free. The country’s garment industry benefitted most by the facility.
It is learnt that 10 garment manufacturing factories have been closed in Biyagama, Nittambuwa and Katunayake investment zones.
The government has stated that these closures have caused losses amounting to around Rs. 5 billion to banks.

China card becomes ‘license’ for genocidal order

[TamilNet, Sunday, 20 January 2013, 10:27 GMT]
With the seemingly blackmailing speech of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, reported in Colombo media on Friday that if the USA withdraws its military training programmes to Sri Lanka, China would replace them, it becomes very explicit that the China card is now openly used for justifying a genocidal State order in the world, Tamil political analysts in the island said. Gotabhaya’s stand reported in Colombo media as “We don’t need you, we got China, Gotabhaya tells US,” is not taken seriously by Tamil political analysts, since Gotabhaya would have thrown away his US pass port if he was that ‘Sri Lankan’ and the US policy analysts and groups would not have been engaged in ‘reaching out’ Sri Lanka and engineering the integrity of the genocidal State, if Gota’s speech really means anything, the analysts said. 

Both the USA and India follow only a policy of ‘reaching out’ to Sri Lanka, whatever genocidal it is, and sections of the US and Indian analysts go to the extent of blaming the sentiments of the people of Tamil Nadu for being an impediment in the process, Tamil political analysts said.

If a card is repeatedly misused by a State, that too to the extent of committing and sustaining genocide and defying all norms of civilised humanity, then citing the card and advocating for ‘reaching out’ the State is only a criminal approach to international relations that will have a domino effect. The suspicion increasingly falls on those who cite the card than the one in whose name the card is used, the analysts said.

Geopolitical preoccupations may come and go. But credibility lost will not come back and will take its toll on the blunderers. If geopolitics is the problem, change the geopolitics, bring in new equations, but abetting genocide is not the answer, the Tamil political analysts responded to the current media deliberations in the West and in South Asia that blow geopolitical sirens to push the question of the right to liberation of genocide-facing Eezham Tamils to the margin.

Speaking at a ceremony of Sri Lanka’s National Chamber of Commerce held at Hotel Hilton in Colombo, the SL Defence Secretary and presidential sibling, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was cited saying, “The biggest threat the US can pose to Sri Lanka’s military is to take away their defence scholarships”

“We can send our soldiers to China for training,” Gotabhaya added.

This is the same thing Colombo told India too, when Tamil Nadu protested over India training Sri Lanka’s military, and how New Delhi uses that to justify its continued complicity in Colombo’s genocide of Eezham Tamils is well known.

The Maldivian media was equally sceptical about the West practically acting against the Rajapaksa regime.

“His sacking of Sri Lanka's chief justice may have prompted new international condemnation, but analysts say President Mahinda Rajapakse is not merely impervious to foreign criticism -- he thrives off it,” The Maldivian media Haveeru said on Thursday.

“Given that Western criticism of the army's actions at the end of the civil war had little impact on the government, it is unlikely to worry about the response to the impeachment," Haveeru cited Chatham House think tank’s Gareth Price telling AFP.

According to news reports, Gotabhaya speaking at Hilton has also claimed that Sri Lanka had not received any weapons assistance from the US during the war.

Whether he was subtly shielding the USA from its architecture cum gang-up contribution to the genocidal war, Tamil political observers in the island ask.

Meanwhile, elements close to Gotabhaya, who cast sane images in New Delhi and Washington, are actively engaged in campaigning in the US, defending the Rajapaksa regime on the SL Chief Justice impeachment case, informed circles said.

China’s continued silence over a paradigmatic misuse of its card in the genocidal context of the island is not going to help its image in the region in the long run, if it really cares for long-term achievements in the region, commented Tamil political analysts in the island.

Beware the ides of March – Rajiva

SUNDAY, 20 JANUARY 2013 

There is an attempt to remove Mr. Rajiva Wijesinghe, the national list MP of the UPFA, from his Parliamentary seat as he has become a bother for the government since the impeachment motion was brought against the Chief Justice say reports.

Mr. Wijesinghe was to vote against the impeachment motion in Parliament. Several stalwarts of the government who were aware of it had forcefully taken Mr. Wijesinghe away from the chambers.

The Parliamentarian had had a heated argument with those who forced him out of the chambers in the lobby and he had said “We’ll see what will happen after March.”

Internal sources of the government say there is an attempt to remove Mr. Wijesinghe from his Parliamentary seat.

Evaluating the National Plan of Action to implement LLRC recommendations

By Vositha Wijenayake-Sunday, 20. January 2013 

“Twenty eight per cent of the LLRC recommendations are omitted by the National Plan for Action to Implement the Recommendations of the LLRC,” says Sri Lanka: LLRC Implementation Monitor, a recently published statistical and analytical review by Verit¬é Research.

The LLRC Implementation Monitor, a study with three objectives focuses on publicising a list of the actual number of distinct recommendations in the LLRC which are identified and categorized according to the constructive categories mentioned in the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 19/2 on Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka. It also examines the extent to which these distinct recommendations have been incorporated into the National Plan of Action to Implement the Recommendations of the LLRC (NPA), and assesses the NPA’s content, timeframes, key performance indicators and implementing agencies.
 
The final report of the LLRC was released to the public on 16 December 16, 2011 and the NPA drawn up by the Government of Sri Lanka was released to the public on July 26, 2012. The plan specifies timeframes, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and responsible agencies with respect to the future implementations of the LLRC recommendations.

The total of 180 recommendations needs to be implemented. However the LLRC Implementation Monitor provides that 13 recommendations out of the original number are not actionable in their current form, being directly related to the Land   Circular No.2011/04, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus the number of implementable recommendations remains at 167.

The review provides, “Popular  discussion  of  the  LLRC  cites  the number  of  recommendations  in  the  LLRC Report as 285. This number emerges from the fact that the LLRC Report, in its ninth chapter, has 285 paragraphs. However, upon close   scrutiny, it is clear that many of those paragraphs contain observations or comments, rather than recommendations.”
 
The calculated time frames for the recommendations by the review illustrate that only 27% of the 167 recommendations need more than a year to be implemented, 23% could be implemented within one month and the rest is assessed as being implementable within one year. Furthermore it presents that out of the 167 LLRC recommendations, 69 (41.3%) recommendations are fully included in the NPA, 51 recommendations (30.5%) are partly included while 47 recommendations (28.1%) have been omitted. 
 
Gehan Gunatilleke, co-author of the LLRC Implementation Monitor said, “Several of the assigned timeframes in the NPA appear to be unsatisfactory, owing to being overly long, too short to be effective, or unspecified. This is the same concerning the Key Performance Indicators.”
 
He further added, “Some issues relating to the implementing agencies currently assigned in the NPA to implement specific recommendations include the inappropriate selection of agencies, the non-selection of appropriate agencies and the lack of clarity as to the functions of selected agencies. Moreover, it is not clear as to whether at present there is an agency that is tasked with the overall monitoring of the implementation of the NPA.”
The LLRC Implementation Monitor observes that the NPA falls back on existing procedures and institutions, while the LLRC specifically calls for new procedures and institutions. One such examples is the call of the LLRC for the establishment of a Special Commissioner of Investigation to investigate alleged disappearances, whereas the NPA invokes the present procedures and seeks to enhance the Government Information Centre. It also indicates that the LLRC recommendations are subjected to re-examination rather than implementation. It indicates the LLRC Report calling for legislation to ‘specifically criminalize enforced or involuntary disappearances’ while the NPA does not envisage the formulation and presentation of this legislation to Parliament.

  
Among some of the recommendations that have been omitted from the NPA are providing redress to families of those killed or injured, providing redress for those affected by hospital shelling regardless of which party is culpable in the said shelling, and examining the humanitarian issue of medical supplies to civilians in conflict areas during the final days of the war considering all relevant factors upon which the supplies can be assessed.

When questioned as to what he sees as the future of the implementations of the LLRC recommendations, he said, “It is important to remain positive. There is still potential for implementing many of the recommendations. However, there must be accuracy in the information provided to the public. As far back as in July 2012, the Government was reported to have claimed that over 50% of the LLRC recommendations were already implemented. This percentage has to be tested for accuracy and the actual status of implementation needs to be closely monitored.”

Top international jurists powwow with Mugabe

By Christina Stucky-March 17 2001 

Harare - A top delegation of international jurists has met President Robert Mugabe in Harare, seeking assurances that he would halt the intimidation of judges in Zimbabwe.

In a three-and-a-half-hour meeting with Mugabe on Friday, the jurists expressed concerns raised by Zimbabwean lawyers and members of the judiciary regarding the perceived breakdown of the rule of law and the erosion of the judiciary's independence in Zimbabwe.

The high-level delegation of the International Bar Association (IBA) is in Zimbabwe to get a first-hand account of moves against the judiciary by Mugabe's government, which have caused a worldwide uproar.

The meeting with Mugabe was seen by the IBA delegation as a positive indication of the Zimbabwean leader's willingness to accept the judiciary's independence.

A European Union diplomat said it was encouraging that Mugabe had received the delegation.

The meeting lent support to those in the EU urging engagement with the Zimbabwean leader rather than following Britain's isolationist approach and the United States call for sanctions against the Mugabe government.

South African lawyer George Bizos, Nelson Mandela's personal lawyer from the Rivonia trial days, and Ashwin Trikamjee, another South African lawyer, were part of the delegation.

The group is to draw up a first-hand account of what has been described as the "crisis in the judiciary", which culminated in the government's recent attempts to force certain supreme court judges into early retirement.

Mark Ellis, the IBA's executive director, said the allegations of attacks on the independence of the country's judiciary were "serious enough to demand serious attention".

The delegation encouraged Mugabe to make statements that would reinforce the importance of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, regarding this as "vital to re-establish the confidence in the independent judiciary", Ellis said.

He said Mugabe "spent considerable time presenting the historical case of some of the injustices committed against the people of Zimbabwe" and "spoke passionately" about the right to land as the cornerstone of the struggle for independence.

"Mugabe said Zimbabwe is still a young country going through a transition. Some errors were made but there was no doubt about the government's commitment to assuring that there is an independent judiciary and that the law is respected," Ellis said.

The government was "quite adamant" that the land issue should be regarded as a political matter and should therefore not be in the domain of the judiciary.

The delegation told Mugabe that it accepted the need for social justice, which included land reform, but that this aim needed to be accomplished without undermining the judiciary.

"The relationship between the executive and the judiciary is exceedingly important for enforcing that concept of social justice," the delegates told Mugabe.

Mugabe gave assurances that the concept of an independent judiciary would be supported "and supported publicly".

"Time will tell whether this will occur and we will watch this carefully," Ellis said.

The seven-member delegation also met with Zimbabwean lawyers and judges, as well as with the justice minister Patrick Chinamasa.

Ellis described the talks with government officials as "frank and open" but said the delegation's report would not "mince words".

Describing the meeting with Chinamasa, he said that the delegates had conveyed to him "the significant concerns expressed by lawyers and judges here".

While emphasising the importance of an independent judiciary as a fundamental pillar of a democracy, Ellis said the IBA delegation also sought reassurance from Zimbabwean officials on four policy measures:

the halting of "what we see is intimidation of judges", in particular the practice of forcing the resignation of judges;

an end to "attacks and derogatory remarks against the judiciary and lawyers";

the assurance from the government that there would be no "manipulation in the selection and appointment of judges"; and

the enforcement of the decisions of courts.

Relations between the judiciary and the executive have been strained for about a year, beginning with the farm invasions and the government's refusal to enforce the court's orders to evict the war veterans. But the relationship reached an absolute low with the government's recent attempts to force Anthony Gubbay, the chief justice, into early retirement.

According to Sternford Moyo, president of Zimbabwe's Law Society, the agreement "opens a new chapter" in the relationship between government and the judiciary.

Moyo said he believed that the tensions between the judiciary and government had been defused, but acknowledged that this "unprecedented attack is something from which we will need to recover". The success of this recovery would depend on whether or not government would abide by its "renewed commitment to judicial independence".

Not all members of Zimbabwe's legal profession share Moyo's belief that the worst has passed.

Adrian de Bourbon, the chair of the Bar Council in Zimbabwe, is a senior advocate involved in negotiating the agreement between Gubbay and the government.

He regarded the recent attempts to force Gubbay into early retirement as part of a "concerted attack on the judiciary and a move to place on the judiciary people who support the ruling party".

He is not alone in viewing the attacks on the judiciary, as well as on the independent press, as part of a strategy to secure a victory for Mugabe in next year's presidential elections.

‘Hats Off’ To The ‘De Jure Chief Justice’

By Elmore Perera -January 20, 2013

Elmore Perera

Any individual willing and able to discern the rationale of what is taking place in Sri Lanka can have no doubt that the 43^rd Chief Justice of Sri Lanka has been unjustly vilified, persecuted, condemned and crucified. A once respected academic prostituted any little reputation he had left, by stating that “the Supreme Court decision was not worth the paper it was written on” and justifying the unlawful process as being “in accordance with local procedures”.

Non-Sri Lankans who dare to comment adversely on this injustice will immediately be labelled as traitors and/or as “International Conspirators”. This perhaps explains, what appears to be the surprisingly lukewarm concern expressed by the International Community.

The Sovereign people of Sri Lanka have, willy-nilly mortgaged their “inalienable Sovereignty” to the 225 “geniuses” who purport to represent them in the Legislature. The Sovereign people fear to expose themselves to a swift demise on the direction of the all-powerful executive, for alleged “acts of treason”, by failing to acknowledge the majesty of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

When the decade of Judicial Terrorism ended in June 2009, Bandaranayake J and Attorney General K.C. Kamalasabeyson PC were the only qualified appointees to the exalted position of the 42^nd Chief Justice, in terms of the 17^th Amendment. The independence and integrity of both were unimpeachable – thereby rendering them unsuitable for service in the emerging empire. However, a judge who was guilty of collusion in an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore  unable to resist easily manipulation by the Executive President, was appointed as the 42^nd Chief Justice.  Simultaneously, the President appointed the spouse of Bandaranayake J as Chairman  of the Insurance Corporation, giving rise to the clearly false impression that it was part of a deal he had made with Bandaranayake J. Hon, K.C. Kamalasabeyson was thereafter required to retire prematurely, to make way for the President’s confidant, legal adviser and friend as Attorney General.

This 42^nd   CJ served his master well, by inter alia,

(i)            paving the way for the President to appoint as Secretary to the all-important Treasury, an officer who, the Supreme Court had held to have deceived the Cabinet and arrogated to himself the powers of the Cabinet,

(ii)          putting Gen. Sarath Fonseka (who led the armed forces to defeat LTTE terrorism) behind bars and depriving him of his seat in Parliament by holding that the Court Martial was a Court, and

(iii)        engineering the repeal of the 17^th Amendment and abolition of the limitation on the President’s eligibility to seek re-election as President, by the adoption of the 18^th Amendment which effectively vested in the President the “inalienable Sovereignty of the People”.

The illusion that Bandaranayake J had sought the President’s patronage was reinforced when the President, on his own initiative, appointed her spouse as Chairman of the National Savings Bank on 15^th May 2010.

One year later, on 18^th May 2011, Bandaranayake J was appointed as the 43^rd  Chief Justice in preference to the then Attorney General, Mohan Peiris P.C. who was appointed as Legal Advisor to the Cabinet – a clearly political appointment. The 42^nd CJ was amply rewarded for his treacherous services to the Executive President by appointment as the Senior Legal Advisor to the President to further exploit his special expertise.

Recently, Senior Minister Tissa Vitarana confirmed to the media that, when asked why he had appointed Bandaranayake J’s husband as Chairman, N.S.B., the President had replied that it was at the request of Bandaranayake J.

Within a few months, the independence and integrity of this 43^rd  Chief Justice, which seemed to have been blunted by the 42^nd Chief Justice, proved irksome to the President for well  known reasons. He would have none of this nonsense. She had to be impeached!

117 of the President’s minions in Parliament signed a document which purported to be a resolution for the impeachment of the Chief Justice. It certainly did not contain “full particulars of the alleged misbehaviour”, as specifically required by the proviso to Article 107(2) of the Constitution. However, it was accepted by the Speaker on 1^st November 2012 and placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 6^th November. A Select Committee of 7 “Super Geniuses” from the Government and 4 MPs from the Opposition was appointed on 14^thNovember, in terms of Standing Order 78A. A sham of an inquiry commenced on 23^rd November. The conduct of the 7 super geniuses was such that the 43^rd Chief Justice withdrew on the 6^th December at 6.30 p.m. and the Opposition MPs withdrew at 5.30 p.m. on 7^th December 2012. These 7 Super Geniuses thereafter summoned 18 witnesses, recorded the evidence of 16 who answered the urgent summons, evaluated the evidence, weighed it against reported judgments, wrote a learned judgment holding the CJ guilty of 3 charges and exonerating her from the other 11 charges, and compiled a report of more than 1500 pages, before 7.30 a.m. – all within the space of 14 hours. Such efficiency will surely find its place in the Guiness Book of Records, in due course!

The Supreme Court entertained a reference by the Court of Appeal on 22^nd  November, 2012 and made a determination on 1^st January 2013 that Standing Order 78A was ultra vires the Constitution, in that it could  not empower these Super Geniuses to arrive at any finding of guilt. On the 7^th January 2013, the Court of Appeal quashed the purported finding of guilt by these Super Geniuses.

Undaunted, these Super Geniuses succeeded in prevailing on 148 other geniuses in Parliament to disregard with contempt the rulings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and resolve that the President  should be humbly requested  to authorise the crucifixion of the Chief Justice.

In obedience to the dictates of his “Conscience” the President authorised the unlawful eviction of the incumbent Chief Justice. Soon thereafter he purported to “swear-in” the once discarded candidate, to the non-existent vacancy in the position of Chief Justice. It is widely known that this appointee had an unparalleled (and much sought after, in today’s context) reputation for blatant corruption since retiring from the public service as Senior State Counsel. The Government MPs and the State Media vociferously claim to have acquired an amazing, and amusing, capability of authoritatively interpreting Constitutional provisions, hitherto assigned by the written Constitution, solely and exclusively to the Supreme Court. The Government’s minions amongst the “vigilant” public and the numerous fawning Counsellors of the President have acted swiftly in an attempt to clothe this vile and unlawful deed with legal validity.

To avoid the inevitable blatant victimisation of many law-abiding persons, the Chief Justice has acted with remarkable wisdom. She has however, rightly stated that she is the one and only lawful Chief Justice. Sooner rather than later, it will be revealed that she was betrayed by more than one Judas, by the subsequent conduct of such Judases.

It is the fervent hope of all “law-abiding” Sri Lankans that she, the braveheart who dared to stand up against anarchy, will be restored to her rightful position of Chief Justice, sooner rather than later, to serve this country as Chief Justice, long before she reaches the age of retirement in 2023.

Long live Madam Justitia!

*Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law, Founder CIMOGG, Past President OPA  

This is our country too and it is worth fighting for

In memory of Father Tissa Balasuriya

| by Tisaranee Gunasekara

“Never to submit and never to oppress…”

Camus (Reflections on the Guillotine)

( January 20, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Last week Fr. Tissa Balasuriya died. Fr. Balasuriya, in and through his life, personified what is best and most humane about Christianity. ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’: that was Father Balasuriya in thought and deed. In a previous repressive era, when many chose indifference or equivocation, he stood up for democracy, provided a platform for dissent and kept his doors ever open for those in need. He was reviled as a CIA Agent/a Catholic conspirator by Sinhala fanatics and persecuted by the Vatican as a heretic.

This article is not about Fr. Tissa Balasuriya; it is for him, in memory of his passion for justice, his rational progressivism, his commitment to sanity, honesty, honour and decency in public life and, above all, his large-hearted generosity which was incapable of discrimination. For all that and more, this article is a very inadequate public ‘thank you’ to a priest, a fighter and a man this country needs more than ever today.

***

In a dishonourable hour, Rizana Nafik’s mother has reminded us what honour is. In an unprincipled hour, Rizana Nafik’s mother has demonstrated that principles can be found where they are most unlooked for.

None would have thought that a poor woman, with a sick husband, two dependent children, no steady source of income and a tumbledown shack for a home, would refuse the money offered by Saudi Arabia. Who could have blamed her for accepting that money? But she did not. And in her refusal to take the blood money offered by her daughter’s murderers, she acted with a dignity which is almost non-existent amongst our political, economic and religious elite, the powerful, the influential and the rich of Sri Lanka who have made a creed out of the most myopic and unenlightened self-interest.

If we had parliamentarians like her, the impeachment would not have happened and we would not be afflicted with the most supine and unprincipled ‘chief justice’ in the history of Sri Lanka.

Mohan Peiris epitomises the new Rajapaksa Man; he is the Model Subject for an enslaved Sri Lanka. His willingness to worship the powerful and place self-advancement/protection above all else symbolises the ‘ethos’ the Rajapaksas want to inject into all Lankans.

Rizana Nafik’s mother epitomises the values of a dying Sri Lanka, as did Father Tissa Balasuriya. Mohan Peiris epitomises the values of the new Sri Lanka which is being created by the Rajapaksas and for the Rajapaksas.

That Rajapaksa Sri Lanka despises the poor and weak. It is unequal and discriminatory and lacks all sense of common or garden decency. It is blustering and cowardly; it is a haven to religion without morality; it criminalises independence and freedom. It is unmoved by the plight of its malnourished, abused children. It loves vulgar exhibitionism and opulent bad taste, gloats over the fallen foe and seeks to keep its people shacked in ignorance and fear.

Do we want Sri Lanka, our common home, to become that country?

Resisting Rajapaksa Reality

Tyranny is deceptive. It must be because it needs to hide its true nature from the eyes of those on whose support/indifference its continued survival rests. Successful tyrannies excel at hiding reality, turning the truth on its head and criminalising its victims.

The Rajapaksas too want us to believe in an alternate reality.

In that make-believe world, Sri Lanka is a rapidly developing land - its debt burden is not spiralling out of control; its poor are not been deprived of their homes and livelihoods; its environment is not been degraded; its health and education systems are in mint condition; its prices are falling; and its Central Bank always tells the truth.

In this make-believe world, the impeachment was an exercise in justice - the Rajapaksas knew nothing about anything until 117 UPFA parliamentarians, renowned for their independence, their zeal for good-governance and their crusading efforts against corruption, prepared and signed the impeachment (on their initiative) and presented it to President Rajapaksa and the Speaker Rajapaksa as a fait accompli.

In this make-believe world, a laissez faire judiciary is necessary to protect democracy, promote human rights and ensure good governance.

The Rajapaksas want us to accept this imagined reality as the real one. After all, we did accept the twin myths of ‘humanitarian operation with zero-civilian casualties’ and ‘welfare villages’. So why not Rajapaksa democracy, Rajapaksa justice and Rajapaksa development?

The Rajapaksas want us to become our own ‘Thought Police’, to suppress the truth we know and to believe the lies they tell us.

They do not want us to see nepotism in the elevation of Yoshita Rajapaksa as the new captain of the national rugby team. They do not want us to discern signs of megalomania in (or even be embarrassed by) ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa International Challenge Football Championship’, ‘President Mahinda Rajapaksa T-20 Under 19 Triangular Cricket Tournament’, ‘Chamal Rajapaksa Challenge Trophy’, ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa Theatre’, ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa Tele Cinema Park’ and ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa Vidyalaya’ (to mention a few).

If the Rajapaksa-hatred of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake has not been appeased by her illegal ousting, if they decide to make her suffer more iniquity and indignity, they want us not to be angered or appalled by it, but accept it as justice.

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is to commence another programme ‘to totally eradicate the underworld’, using ‘various tactics’, according to media reports. When ‘Suspects’ in their thousands are murdered, while ‘resisting arrest’ or ‘trying to escape’, the Rajapaksas want us not be outraged, but to accept the bloodletting as good and proper. (The Rajapaksa CJ will make it all legal).

The Rajapaksas are particularly interested in moulding the younger generation into becoming ‘Perfect Subjects’. They want a younger generation which esteems power and strength and despises physical and politico-economic weakness; a younger generation incapable of being outraged by a society in which the powerful and the rich will always have their way while the poor and the powerless are denied even their ineffectual say; a younger generation habituated into regarding intolerance as the moral-ethnical norm and violence as the optimum solution to all problems/differences; a younger generation focused on ‘getting ahead’ and incapable of resisting.

Had Vellupillai Pirapaharan won the Eelam War, he would have created an enslaved state in which the Tamils would have had only one freedom and one right – the freedom to worship the ‘Sun God’ and the right to hate his enemies. The Rajapaksas are no different. They focused on winning the Eelam War, so that they can rule over Sri Lanka in perpetuity. In Rajapaksa Sri Lanka, we too have the freedom to support the Siblings and the rights to oppose their enemies. Everything else is crime or treachery. If the Rajapaksas have their way, this country will become poisoned by violent mores and brutal deeds.

Sri Lanka is not a Rajapaksa property. Not yet. It is our country too. We must resist the Rajapaksa-plague, by thought, word and deed, because Sri Lanka is worth fighting for.

From Nandikadal To Impeachment And Beyond

By Kumar David -January 19, 2013

Prof Kumar David

Now patience, preparation and determined mobilisation; From Nandikadal to impeachment and beyond

This is the time to take a long view of history, understand how we got here, and take measure how to meet the challenges of the coming years. To proclaim that the regime is moving to dictatorship with implacable determination is repetitive waste of newsprint, it is the best known fact of the current political conjuncture. Newspapers are saturated with furious articles, grave statements and editorials bewailing the loathsome deed; thank you, all excellent in preparation for the next step. But what is the next step? How did we get here? What is the balance of forces at this time? This is what must occupy our attention now; but there is little said on this score.

The journey that brought us here started four years ago on the shores of the Nandikadal. Sure Prabaharanwas a brute; sure LTTE terrorism was no better than state terrorism; sure by subordinating politics to an outlandish military project, Prabaharan and the LTTE sealed their own fate and are a party to the traumatisation of the Tamils. None of this is in question. However, a tangential aspect is where the collapse of Lanka’s politico-constitutional order originates. (Make no mistake; the post-independence liberal-democratic project has collapsed). When the Sinhalese people cheered-on their military and their government to make race-war, they also loaded the guns that would one day be turned against them. The brutalisation of Tamil civilians and the trampling underfoot of human rights, to which they acquiesced by silence or cheered-on drunk on majoritarianism, are the chickens now coming home to roost. The power and the glory that tramples on judiciary, decency and constitution, was fashioned on the anvil of race-war.

How much I warned the Sinhalese people in this column that they were sowing the wind and would reap the world wind, but few took notice; it’s like that in race things. The impeachment is only a scene in a bigger unfolding where the Rajapakses are preparing to entrench a Corporatist State, a certain type of dictatorship, in Lanka. The ink and hot air decrying the brutish regime does little good unless it grasps this larger dynamic and mobilises to counter this momentous threat. It is we the people, or those of us who cheered militarisation, that created a lacuna in public consciousness allowing goons to patrol the streets of Colombo unchecked, and an opportunist lapdog turned traitor blurt out: “We have told the judiciary to go to hell!” This was so obnoxious, even DEW and Tissa had to distance themselves; they could not bear the stench any longer.

Welcome, wakeup; this is the new Lanka under the sway of the Rajapakses, their goons, and their toadies. Dictatorship has arrived and the Sinhala-Buddhist petty bourgeois, generically as a class, raised not a murmur in protest! Who is to blame, the dictator, or the nation that lies prone, like a bitch, to welcome a mount by the dictator? Every people gets the government it deserves; and in Lanka, as the people sleepwalk into servitude, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

The balance of forces

I have attempted to briefly map the road which brought us to where we are; not because it gives me great joy to say “I told you so” (it does, but only a little), nor because it is gratifying (it is not) to say that the many are mistaken much of the time; rather because it facilitates the drawing up of a balance sheet of the correlation of forces. The regime is strong, not because of hirelings, stooges and assorted murderers and drug peddlers, the regime is strong because it retains the support of a majority of the Sinhala-Buddhist semi-urban petty-bourgeoisie (the classes in the informal economy) and the Sinhala-Buddhist rural population. I have said Sinhala-Buddhist twice in one sentence because the Sinhala Catholics and Christians have deserted it, and the Tamils of course always despised it. The Muslims do not support the Rajapakses per se, but they will for the time being, follow the Muslim Congress like Mary’s little lamb.

Is the government’s Sinhala-Buddhist base beginning to erode, are there signs of large sections peeling off? No, I don’t think so, not yet. There are no short-cuts in the tasks facing the political opposition in year 2013. The JVP, unlike the UNP, is showing fire in its eye and passion in its belly, but I believe it is positioned to make headway for another reason too. The 2010-2011 specious economic short-boom is over; the bust part of the cycle commenced in early 2012 and will persist this year.

I will have to reserve discussion of short-term economic prospects for another essay, but I do believe that in year 2013, the disappointment of 2012 will persist; there is no reason why it should not. I see no way the trade deficit or the fiscal deficit can be reversed, I don’t see how inflation can be held to substantially below 10%, I don’t see how the government can go on borrowing to pay interest and living from hand to mouth. ButRanil and the UNP have lost the plot; it’s the JVP’s game to play. It has shown shrewdness and tactical agility in recent months; I hope it can sustain this momentum while holding in abeyance the anti-Tamil chauvinism that it is congenitally prone to.

Two more comments on the balance of forces and I am ready to move on. The Rajapakse regime has lost the educated middle classes, the professionals (lawyers, university teachers etc) and the capitalist class. I think it has lost these classes in perpetuity. It never had the Tamils or commanded Muslim loyalty directly. In a nutshell, the UPFA and its stooge parties are weaker now than they were at the time of the provincial elections last year. This hypothesis will be put to the test in upcoming local elections this year. The reason why the government is attempting to do away with the next parliamentary election and extend the term of parliament till 2023 is because, obviously, it senses weakness.

There were sound economic grounds why the petty-bourgeoisie stayed loyal in the last three years. The country expanded from seven provinces to nine; produce flowed in from the North and East. Economic activity expanded; after the war farmers all over were secure and extended cultivation to previously shunned marginal lands. Small and informal businesses (food vans, small trade, small contractors, transport services, etc) expanded. There was in fact a post-war economic dividend that benefited the petty-bourgeoisie, but big capital, smacking its lips in expectation foreign investment, joint ventures and export growth, withered, except in hotels and tourism. This short false-boom has ended and the government is desperate to climb out of the 2012 downturn but as I said before I do not see the fundamentals to support it. The end of the false-boom has not hurt the petty-bourgeoisie yet, but steep price increases have commenced, menacing the regimes support base.

The second comment is about the International Community (IC). Though patience with the government has run out the absence of a credible alternative government holds back the IC. It is the local scenario that is decisive though export and import trade, finance, banking, and the accoutrements of material and cultural life are West-dependent, and tightening this lifeline will drive the regime to crisis. Instead the IC expresses grave concern, wrings its hands and sighs!

The regime shrewdly counts that the IC is all piss and wind and no action. It is not concerned about theUNHRC sessions in Genevain March or cancellation of the Commonwealth Heads Conference later this year. It is confident that after a few hearty bursts of flatulence the IC will quieten down and impose no sanctions or penalties on the regime or its leaders. So long as the IC allows Colombo to thumb its nose at the community of nations, there is nothing it can do to restore democracy and human rights in the country. The fight for democracy in Sri Lanka will be a lonely one in this fateful year

Preparation and mobilisation

The most important qualities at this time are patience and determination. The masses will not wake up to the appalling transgressions of this regime overnight. The regime has to expose its own criminality by its own deeds as Mervyn has done in Kalaniya. Cannibalism will become more frequent and ever more rats will jump from the sinking ship; DEW, Tissa and Rajiva Wijesingha have started walking the plank. Among my friends, yesterday’s Rajapakse apologists are today introverted. It is beginning, but only just, and such folk are ever ready to walk back.

I have been pushing hard for political education and mobilisation and the Marx School that a few of us conduct is for this purpose. The misuse of state and private TV (all outright stooges) is responsible for the shocking ignorance of the petty-bourgeois. Nevertheless this challenge must be taken on board by the opposition and defeated. A quote from an e-mail I received makes the point from another direction.

“The CJ and the judiciary have gone as far as they can. The task of impeding the regime from violating the Supreme Court ruling belongs to us, those elements of political and civil society who have not succumbed to the Rajapaksas”.

Appealing to the good sense of the Rajapakses is a waste of time. NGOs, business chambers and professional bodies should stop wasting their time and turn to the urgently needed tasks of building public awareness and well planned mobilization of the public at large. They have to coordinate and plan over a medium time-period. Issuing statements and writing appeals to the President is all stuff and nonsense. Those who want to intervene in practical ways must do it in Sinhala. Is it not incredible that there is not one Sinhala daily – Ravaya is a weekly – to educate the public about the regime’s appalling activities?