CJ had to withdraw from Greek bonds case

TUESDAY, 26 MARCH 2013 

The Chief Justice had to withdraw from hearing of the case regarding inflicting losses to the government due to investments in Greek Government Bonds when defense councilor objected to him being part of the panel of judges hearing the case. Objections were raised as Mr. Mohan Peiris had been a legal adviser to the Central Bank. Several, including the Governor of Central Bank Ajith Nivard Cabraal, have been named as respondents of the case.

The hearing participated by Judges Mohan Peiris, Sathya Hettige and Nimal Gamini Amaratunga held yesterday and filed by Parliamentarian Sujeewa Serasinghe will be heard again on 25th May.

The government has incurred a loss of about 22 million Euros valued at more than Rs 3.4 billion due to investing in Greek Government Bonds.

Upul follows Wijedasa’s path

Monday, 25 March 2013 

The new head of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), Attorney Upul Jayasuriya after showing great courage and a conviction to fight against lawlessness has now changed his stance and is seen to be following the path of his predecessor, Wijedasa Rajapakshe, sources from the BASL said.

When a majority of the BASL members have said that the new President of the Association should assume office before the 43rd Chief Justice, Jayasuriya had said that such a move would create an unwanted conflict with the government. Jayasuriya’s policy is to try and resolve all matters through discussion with the government without going in for a confrontation.

The senior lawyer who spoke to us said that although Jayasuriya had participated at the meeting of Commonwealth lawyers held in London, he had not spoke a word against the government.

Jayasuriya had also not spoken in support by the Australian QC Geoffrey Robertson who had compiled a critical report on the impeachment of the Chief Justice where he had called on countries not to issue visas to the 117 members of parliament who had signed the impeachment papers and to impose a travel ban on the seven government members in the parliamentary select committee (PSC) that probed the impeachment charges.

The senior lawyer told us that the Association did not have a problem in the silence maintained by Jayasuriya at the Commonwealth lawyers’ meeting, but that the BASL had a problem with the disgraceful manner in which he had begged the BBC Sandeshaya producers not to broadcast the interview given by him to them.

The senior lawyer said that if Jayasuriya is going to follow such a backboneless policy, there were doubts about the kind of action he would take during his period as the head of BASL.

In Sri Lanka, India has lost the plot to China

by FP Staff Mar 25, 2013

If there was a guidebook on ‘How to sour relations with neighbours and lose whatever little influence you have’, India is playing it out to perfection in Sri Lanka, yielding ground progressively to China.

On land, sea, and air—so to speak—India has steadily lost the plot, and the logical beneficiary of India’s maladroit moves is China, which has been quick to fill the vacuum created by India’s diplomatic self-goals, according to this report in Business Standard.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife Peng Liyuan. AFP

Just last week, as India ended up falling between two stools—of first whittling down the US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka and, later, looking to beef it up in response to the DMK’s pressure tactics on the UPA government—China was quietly savouring a moment of diplomatic triumph.

Incoming Chinese President Xi Jinping telephoned his Sri Lankan counterpart Mahinda Rajapaksa to reassure him that China would continue to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to protect its national sovereignty—presumably from attacks such as those inspired by the UNHRC resolution—and would continue to offer assistance.

And with politicians in Tamil Nadu—not just the DMK, but the AIADMK and other fringe parties as well—still indulging in competitive ethno-nationalism centred around the Sri Lankan Tamils issue, and with the UPA government hell-bent on survival, even at the risk of compromising on its foreign policy objectives, the diplomatic slope for India in Sri Lanka will remain slippery for some more time.

For instance, both the DMK and the AIADMK are now stepping up their rhetoric and demanding that the UPA government announce a boycott of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in Sri Lanka later this year.

The recent spate of attacks on Sri Lanka Tamil pilgrims in Tamil Nadu, and Sri Lankan commercial interests in the state, have compelled the Sri Lankan government to decide to shut down its consulate in Chennai.

This is the latest in a series of “losses” that India has received, most of which revolve around India’s strategic and commercial interests. And in almost all these cases, China has walked away with easy pickings.

Indicatively, the report notes, citing an analysis by an Indian company with business interests in Sri Lanka, the mood in Sri Lankan society has turned against India, and in favour of China, which is seen as more of a “friendly nation”.

The Chinese footprint in Sri Lankan—both at the strategic and commercial levels—has grown vastly bigger in recent times. For instance, the Hambantota Port was built with Chinese aid to the tune of $1 billion, after India passed up the opportunity to participate by claiming the project was commercially unviable. An Indian shipping industry official reasons that India will regret this decision –- on considerations of both security and trade.

Recently, Rajapaksa inaugurated the $206 million Rajapaksa International Airport in Mattala, built with help from China’s Export-Import Bank. Chinese officials were present at the inaugural.

Last year, Sri Lanka pointedly sold to a Chinese aircraft manufacturer a prime plot of land on Colombo’s Galle Road that had earlier been set aside for an India Cultural Centre. India was upset by that decision, but could do nothing about it.

Chinese aid to Sri Lanka – in excess of $2 billion since 2007 – dwarfs India’s measly $298.1 million. And Chinese investments in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure are pretty mind-boggling, the report notes. Chinese engineers today build roads, railway lines, telecommunication links, dams, hospitals, stadiums, schools, hotels and power plants, it adds.

Last year, for instance, Sri Lanka launched its first communications satellite with the help of China Great Wall Industry Corp, Business Standard adds. “It has since signed a string of satellite deals with Sri Lanka. It is also helping build a space academy. Deals are being struck between the two countries to build telecommunication and information technology networks. The two have also pledged to improve their defence ties.”

In short, India’s loss in Sri Lanka is China’s gain. China today literally owns Sri Lanka, effectively displacing India’s strategic and commercial interests there.

Read the full report in Business Standard here.

Jayalalithaa has her way, no Sri Lankan players in Chennai IPL matches

March 26, 2013

Chennai:  Sri Lankan cricketers will not play Indian Premier League matches in Chennai. The IPL governing council decided this at a hurried tele-conference with team owners after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa wrote a letter to the Prime Minister today saying that no IPL matches would be allowed in the state capital if they involved Sri Lankan players, umpires or officials. The tournament begins next week and at least 10 matches are scheduled in Chennai.

Here are the top ten developments in this story:

1. Ms Jayalalithaa said in her letter to the PM that emotions in her state are running high over the Sri Lanka Tamils issue. "In such a hostile and tense environment, we apprehend that the participation of Sri Lankan players in the IPL tournament, with many games to be played in Chennai, will aggravate an already surcharged atmosphere and further offend the sentiments of the people," she said.
2. She also said that her government would allow matches in Chennai only if the organiser, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), gave an undertaking that no Sri Lankan will be involved in them.
3. IPL Chairman Rajiv Shukla said, "Since the local administration has advised something, we have to keep that in mind. The security of Sri Lankan players is paramount."
4. Mr Shukla also said that IPL team owners had expressed concern about security and that "we cannot take a tough stand." However, he denied that this amounted to buckling under pressure from the Tamil Nadu government.
5. The IPL chairman made it clear that the 13 Sri Lankan cricketers in the tournament would play matches at other locations in the country. "The problem is only in Chennai", he said.
6. The chief of the Lankan board, Ajith Jayasekara, said the players and his country's government had been informed. "We won't tell them don't go for the IPL, but we did inform them about the situation right now and it is for them to take a decision," he said.
7. There have been protests all over Tamil Nadu for days now, with political parties and students demanding that the Centre take a strong stand against what they call Sri Lanka's "genocide" of its ethnic Tamils in the final months of the civil war that ended when defence forces crushed the separatist Tamil Tigers in May 2009.
8. Last week the DMK pulled out of the UPA coalition at the Centre, accusing India of watering down a UN resolution against Sri Lanka that was adopted last week. India voted against Sri Lanka, but the Tamil Nadu parties say it let down Sri Lankan Tamils by failing to persuade the UN to use stronger language against the island nation and by not pushing for an independent rather than an internal inquiry into the alleged war crimes.
9. The sixth edition of the IPL is scheduled to be held from April 3 and will be played in different locations in the country over 45 days.
10. Ten matches are to be played in Chennai, which also has a home team in the Chennai Super Kings, with two Sri Lankan players in it, who will now be benched for all home matches. Eight of the nine IPL teams have Lankan players.

AP: Chavez Wasted His Money on Healthcare When He Could Have Built Gigantic Skyscrapers Makes Chavez's schools and health clinics look pretty sad, doesn't it? (Photo: Joi Ito) By Jim Naureckas  One of the more bizarre takes on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's death comes fromAssociated Press business reporter Pamela Sampson (3/5/13): Chavez invested Venezuela's oil wealth into social programs including state-run food markets, cash benefits for poor families, free health clinics and education programs. But those gains were meager compared with the spectacular construction projects that oil riches spurred in glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world's tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi. That's right: Chavez squandered his nation's oil money on healthcare, education and nutrition when he could have been building the world's tallest building or his own branch of the Louvre. What kind of monster has priorities like that? Souce: NACLA's Keane Bhatt In case you're curious about what kind of results this kooky agenda had, here's a chart (NACLA,10/8/12) based on World Bank poverty stats–showing the proportion of Venezuelans living on less than $2 a day falling from 35 percent to 13 percent over three years. (For comparison purposes, there's a similar stat for Brazil, which made substantial but less dramatic progress against poverty over the same time period.) Of course, during this time, the number of Venezuelans living in the world's tallest building went from 0 percent to 0 percent, while the number of copies of the Mona Lisa remained flat, at none. So you have to say that Chavez's presidency was overall pretty disappointing–at least by AP's standards. Saudi threatens to ban WhatsApp, Viber and Skype TUESDAY, 26 MARCH 2013  Internet messenger applications such as Skype, Viber and WhatsApp, used by many migrant workers including Sri Lankans, face being banned in Saudi Arabia if operators fail to allow authorities in the kingdom to censor them, industry sources said. Local telecommunication providers have been told to ask the operators of the services to furnish means of control, an official at the kingdom's Communications and Information Technology Commission said, requesting anonymity. Another source at telecom operator Saudi Telecommunications Co. (STC) said the commission gave service providers one week ending on Saturday to respond, warning it would "take measures to ban them" if they failed to comply. An industry source said telecom operators were behind the move, accusing the STC, along with Mobily and Zain, of asking the commission to impose censorship due to the "damage" caused by the free-of-charge applications. In neighbouring UAE, most Skype applications and Viber are blocked but WhatsApp messenger remains accessible. The two countries in 2010 threatened to ban BlackBerry instant messaging and demanded installing local servers to censor the service. The services remain uninterrupted but it was not clear how far the RIM Canadian maker did comply. (Source: Bangkok Post)

TN govt asks Centre to withdraw 1974 agreement with Sri Lanka

PTI | Mar 26, 2013

CHENNAI: Voicing concern over increased attacks on Indian fishermen by Sri Lankan Navy,Tamil Nadu government today asked the Centre to initiate diplomatic steps to check it and urged for withdrawal of the 1974 agreement cedingKatchatheevu islet to the island nation. 

Replying to a special call attention on the issue in the assembly, chief minister J Jayalalithaa said her government will seek legal course if the UPAgovernment failed to accede to the demand. 

The Centre seemed to be of the opinion that fishermen from the state were beyond India, she said while decrying the continued attacks. 

In her detailed reply, she said ceding of Katchatheevu had resulted in attacks on Indian fishermen by the Sri Lankan navy as Colombo was not respecting various provisions of the agreement relating to traditional rights. 

Citing the Berubari judgement in the Supreme Court in the 1960, she said then West Bengal government had moved the court against ceding it to then East Pakistan and the court had ruled that such ceding could be done only after getting the approval of the two Houses of the Parliament besides constitutional amendments. 

"Had (DMK president) M Karunanidhi followed this in 1974 as chief minister, Katchatheevu would not have been ceded to Sri Lanka. He failed to do it," she alleged. 

Jayalalithaa recalled that in 2008 she had filed a case in the Supreme Court against the 1974 accord with the state revenue department later impleading in the case. 

She said that every time fishermen were arrested, she took up the matter with the Centre and in the last one month, four attacks had been reported. 

"Centre should strongly condemn these attacks, and to end these brutal attacks and arrest of fishermen should take diplomatic steps at least now. The Sri Lankan envoy in Delhi should be summoned and protest should be lodged over the attacks. 

"Further, I insist that India should immediately withdraw the Katchatheevu agreement. Else, we will place strong arguments in the Supreme Court when the case comes up", she said. 

A Response To Professor Savitri Goonesekere’s Response

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole -March 26, 2013

Prof S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

Careless, Ungrammatical, Untruthful Writing

It is not worth arguing with Professor Savitri Goonesekere  who is rather careless in her writing, starting with my name, which is not R.S. Hoole. Perhaps she is mixing me up with my great-grand father Modliar R.A. Hoole.

She responds “I have checked my facts.” I say check again. She writes, “Dr. Hirimburegama who has applied for the Vice Chancellor’s post in the University of Colombo is a Lecturer Grade II of this university. I did not make the derogatory remarks that Prof. Hoole suggests I made in reference to Dr. Hirimburegama.”

Untrue! Her exact words in her first article are “It is alleged that both do not possess the academic qualifications required for promotion to the immediately higher grade of Senior Lecturer Grade I in the state university system.” My point is that if he was Senior Lecturer Gr. II in 2005, he had the required years of service for promotion to Senior Lecturer I. It is not possible therefore that he did not possess the academic qualifications for promotion.

Being a lawyer Prof. Goonesekere may argue turning her horrible grammar to her advantage. In saying “both do not possess” I think she really meant “neither possesses.” But now she can say “Yes, Hirimburegama possesses the qualifications but I only said that both do not possess!”

Tenured and Confirmed Posts

Prof. Goonesekere further wrote in a another derogatory remark about Dr. Hirimburegama and the other candidate, “The other two applicants are reported to be Senior Lecturers Grade II, the lowest post in the state university system regulated by the Universities Act 1978.” Lecturer Grade II is not the lowest regulated grade. The Universities Act, if Prof. Goonesekere ever read it while administering University of Colombo as VC, has a lot to say about Assistant Lecturers – now renamed Lecturers (Probationary). To overcome this faux pas, she now claims, “The university system may recognise a lower grade than Senior Lecturer Grade II. However, we are all aware that the lowest tenure track post in the system is Senior Lecturer Grade II. Why or how Dr. Hirimburegama continues in this post I do not know.”

Sri Lanka does not have the American tenure-track and tenure system she writes about, but a similar system with probationary and confirmed posts. In another difference, the Universities Act speaks of Assistant Lecturers eligible for confirmation as Permanent Assistant Lecturers. Tenure-track academics in America are those eligible for tenure and tenured persons are those who have been given tenure. If she meant to use American terms as a matter of style, then she should know that most Senior Lecturers would be seen as tenured and not tenure-track as she calls them; the tenure track Senior Lecturers then would be those who joined newly and have not served three years to be confirmed. While studying in America I do not know if she was aware of things around her. As a former VC if she knows her stuff, she should also know that Lecturer Grade B-04a is a confirmed post. She can call them tenured if she wants to; but not tenure track.

Doctorates and Advertisements

Professor Goonesekere also dismisses the importance of the doctoral degree which is widely recognized as the best training for research. We may expect that from someone who does not have a doctorate and it is not worth rubbing it in. She also makes much of the advertisement which really is an instrument for judging applicants. But the reality is that we appoint the best of the applicants. If we treated the advertisement as an absolute standard many of our VCs, past and present, could not have been appointed.

Lankan roulette

An international airport, a strategic port, communication satellites, road and railway links - China is spreading its web in the island nation. India has to take decisive steps or else the tide could

T E Narasimhan & Veenu Sandhu  |  New Delhi  March 22, 2013 

In June 2009, when Sri Lanka officially celebrated the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam after a bloody war that lasted 25 years, the victory parade, which included tanks, fighter jets and artillery pieces, made India sit up: most of the military hardware on display was of Chinese make. China had played a key role in making that victory possible, and the Mahinda Rajapaksa government made no attempts to hide its gratitude. India has since watched with increasing concern, and some helplessness, China's growing presence in the island nation which sits barely 31 km across the Palk Strait from the southern tip of India. The wave of protests in Tamil Nadu against the Sri Lanka government's alleged atrocities on Tamils and India's vote in favour of the US resolution against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Thursday is further working towards China's advantage.

The sentiment is not limited to the country's leaders, who obviously know that gains can be made by playing one country against the other; it now runs deep. An assessment report of a political analyst to a company with business interests in Sri Lanka, which Business Standard has accessed, points that Lankan society is now vehemently arguing that it should lean towards China - a "friendly nation" - and not rely on India, particularly on the economic front. The speculation that India played a key role in watering down the resolution hasn't allayed the disgruntled sections of Lankan society, the report says.

Thus, Sri Lankan Airlines has cut its flights to Chennai by half, to 14, following the attacks on Sri Lankan tourists, including two monks. There are reports that Sri Lanka has decided to partially take over a strategic oil storage depot in Trincomalee from Indian Oil Corporation's Sri Lankan arm, Lanka IOC. India has denied the reports. A day before this news broke, Lanka IOC Chairman Makrand Nene had said that there was no competition from China "but we have no plans to expand in Sri Lanka at the moment."

* * *

Recent events show how close China and Sri Lanka have become. A few days ago, Rajapaksa inaugurated the country's second international airport, the $206-million Rajapaksa International Airport in Mattala built with money from China's Export-Import Bank. Some Chinese officials were present at the function. Some 40 km to the south is the China-funded $1 billion Hambantota Port. Why not India? "It's not that China is getting preference; it was always India first. We invited India first to build our ports, including the Hambantota port, but it rejected it saying it's not viable, so we invited China," Rajapaksa had said earlier. A senior official from the shipping industry in India says the port project "is really a great miss and India will regret it on all fronts, be it security or trade".

The Hambantota Port is located on a key shipping route which sees around 300 ships, mostly oil tankers, passing through every day. Ironically, when the deep-water port formally opened for international shipping in June last year, the first consignment it moved was 1,000 Hyundai cars from Chennai, outbound for Algeria. If you look at it from the commercial point of view, then the port is meant to provide docking and refuelling facilities to the thousands of ships that ferry oil and raw materials from Africa and the Persian Gulf to China every year. But, this also happens to be a geo-strategically convenient location. It is a crucial link in the "string of pearls" which China is building in the region through a network of ports to consolidate its economic and military influence in the Indian Ocean: Sittwe in Myanmar, Chittagong in Bangladesh, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Gwadar in Pakistan and Marao in the Maldives.

Chinese money is pouring into Sri Lanka. From 2007 to 2011, while India extended aid of $298.1 million to Sri Lanka, China gave $2.126 billion to become the largest foreign aid provider to the country. While Indian aid has been for "soft" purposes like healthcare and education, the Chinese have funded highly-visible infrastructure projects. As on today, reports say, China has pledged more than $3 billion for infrastructure development in Sri Lanka. Some industry watchers have expressed concern that China might even be getting contracts for mega projects by bypassing tender procedures.

Its engineers are building roads, railway lines, telecommunication links, dams, hospitals, expressways like the one between Colombo and Katunayake, stadiums, schools, hotels and power plants. Last year, Sri Lanka launched its first communications satellite with the help of China Great Wall Industry Corp, China's state-owned space technology firm. It has since signed a string of satellite deals with Sri Lanka. It's also helping build a space academy. Deals are being struck between the two countries to build telecommunication and information technology networks. The two have also pledged to improve their defence ties.

Two years ago, China had gifted Sri Lanka Nelum Pokuna, a state-of-the art theatre and convention hall in the heart of Colombo. And now, Lotus Tower, a 350-meter multi-functional telecommunication tower and entertainment centre, is being constructed in Peliyagoda, near Colombo, with financial assistance from the Export-Import Bank of China. Sri Lanka's defence secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has justified China's increasing presence in the Indian Ocean saying that "the safety and stability of the Indian Ocean is critical for China's energy security and its increasing interest and increasing naval presence in this region is quite understandable."

Some of the gains to China are clearly at India's expense. Last year, a plot of land in the heart of Colombo earmarked for an Indian cultural centre (the Indian High Commission had completed all formalities) was sold to Chinese aircraft manufacturer, China National Aero Technology Import and Export Corporation, at the eleventh hour. The incident brought an uneasy feeling of being elbowed out to make way for China. M Rafeeque Ahmed, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, fears that India is missing opportunities which are now favouring China and this "will make Sri Lanka economically colonised". India's national security agencies have expressed concern over these developments. But it is not clear what the government is doing to consolidate India's economic position in Sri Lanka. All that Foreign Ministry spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin is willing to say is: "When we have to, we will issue a press release."

But companies with business interests in Sri Lanka want to hear more than that. Sri Lanka says there is no threat to Indian investments. Sam Wijesekara, counsellor (Commercial), Sri Lanka Deputy High Commission, says: "It is wrong to say India does not have any role to play in the Sri Lankan economy. Today India is on top of the list when it comes to private investments." Official data shows that in 2011, investment worth $98 million came to Sri Lanka from India as compared to $3.5 million from China. Leading Indian companies in Sri Lanka include the Tata group, Ceat, Nicholas Piramal, Ashok Leyland, SBI, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank and LIC. Somi Hazari, managing director of the Shosova group of companies, who trades in textiles with Sri Lanka, however says business has come down drastically. "Business is moving towards China, and it's not just because trade with China is cheaper. The Tamil issue is playing out in China's favour." From 2001 to 2011, India's textile exports (mainly from the southern districts of Tamil Nadu and Punjab) to Sri Lanka have increased about three-folds. But China has during the same period increased its textile exports to Sri Lanka by almost eight times. In the cement market, too, India is losing share to China and Pakistan. India-Sri Lanka trade has increased by one per cent per annum on an average from 2007 to 2011. On the other hand, average growth of China-Sri Lanka trade has been 32 per cent annually.

* * *

There are other areas of concern too. Sri Lanka is believed to hold sizeable deposits of natural gas and fossil fuels. For India's energy security, the country is extremely important. As of now, Cairn Lanka, a subsidiary of Cairn India, is the only company from outside Sri Lanka which is actively involved in hydrocarbon exploration here. It has so far drilled four exploration wells in the block in the Mannar basin. This has resulted in two discoveries: natural gas deposits in Dorado and Baraccuda. But there could be competition soon. "I understand that China is also looking at exploration opportunities in Sri Lanka," says R S Sharma, former chairman and managing director of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and ONGC Videsh Ltd.

Sri Lanka has already announced the second round of bidding for licences for the remaining blocks in the Mannar basin. China, it is believed, will be a major contender and a strong competitor in the bidding. Industry watchers say India's position has become shaky after the recent incidents in Tamil Nadu. If China wins the bid to drill in the Mannar basin, it will be positioned right under the nose of Tamil Nadu, a few kilometers away from the Indian coast.

The way things are going, it won't come as a surprise if China bags several of these blocks. Colombo's leading newspaper, Sunday Times, has reported that the Lankan government has decided not to consider international companies and their "key shareholders" who have "known alignment in world politics" when offers are invited to assess its offshore petroleum data. The decision, it said, was taken on a recommendation by Rajapaksa who also looks after the petroleum resources development secretariat which handles the country's hydrocarbon exploration. This was after the Sri Lankan government ran into trouble with the Norway-based TGS Nopec to analyse Sri Lanka's offshore petroleum data. The decision could impact Indian companies too, given that the Cabinet, as reported by Sunday Times, has also decided that companies should not in any way impair Sri Lanka's national interest.

Recently, India's National Thermal Power Corporation also faced hurdles and considered pulling out of Sri Lanka, its maiden overseas venture, following fresh terms set by the Ceylon Electricity Board. The board wanted downward revision of operations and maintenance cost to Rs 20.5 lakh per MW each year from the current Rs 38.92 lakh. Officials at NTPC now say the issue has been resolved and the 500-MW coal power project at Sampur in the Trincomalee district is on track.

China, meanwhile, is sending just the right feelers to Sri Lanka on the Tamil issue. Last week, the newly-elected Chinese president, Xi Jinping, telephoned Rajapaksa to say that China supports Sri Lanka's efforts to protect its national sovereignty and would continue to offer assistance. In Tamil Nadu, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is, meanwhile, determined to wrench back its core issue - of the rights of the Tamils - which it feels is being hijacked by fringe elements. With the Lok Sabha elections just a year away, DMK's chief, M Karunanidhi, is going all out on this. And in doing so, the man who turns 90 next year is pushing Sri Lanka deeper into the arms of China.

Government Must Keep Its Promises – To India, Japan, The UN And To US

By Jehan Perera -March 25, 2013 

Jehan Perera

The bitterness of the pill that the government was forced to swallow once again at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva was assuaged somewhat by the support that Sri Lanka received from significant parts of the world.  Despite eloquent speeches by the Sri Lankan representatives and supportive countries such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka lost the vote by an increased margin of 25 to 13 compared to the previous year.   But Japan broke ranks with its fraternal Western allies to abstain from the vote.  The government has also been able to take consolation from the 13 countries that voted along with it in opposition to the resolution titled “Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability” sponsored by the United States.  The government has much to be grateful to the Muslim countries that voted along with it.

Pakistan’s representative in Geneva is reported to have actively lobbied with other member countries on behalf of Sri Lanka.  His speech also brought out the inequitable treatment being meted out to Sri Lanka.  He pointed out that the UN High Commissioner’s report went beyond the scope and mandate of last year’s UNHRC resolution and therefore any action based on it could not be conceived as “a reasonable basis for a further engagement of that country in a constructive manner.”  The last resolution of March 2012 only called on Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.

The present resolution signifies a hardening of the international community’s stance on human rights issues in Sri Lanka.  In comparison to last year’s resolution there is a shift away from a focus on reconciliation to a focus on accountability for past human rights violations and war crimes.   The resolution noted the call made by the UN High Commissioner for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.    The resolution also stated that it “Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon the Government to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable.”

PROMISES MADE

The countries that voted against the resolution, particular those from the Muslim world, would have noted that the preamble to the US-sponsored resolution affirmed that “States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law as applicable.”  The Muslim countries would be most aware of how these obligations are being violated internationally when anti-terrorist and regime-change actions are taken in their parts of the world.  The Sri Lankan government has taken the position that it ended the scourge of terrorism that had plagued the country for three decades in the only way that was possible.  It further argues that this involved less civilian casualties than some of the international operations against terrorism by countries that are calling it to account.

By and large the majority of the Sri Lankan population would also view the UNHRC resolution as being against Sri Lanka and meant to punish it for defeating the LTTE in battle.  This is the interpretation that is dominant in the country’s media and intellectual discourse.   A very large proportion of Sri Lankans would see the elimination of the LTTE as being in the national interest and they would validly say that life in the country has improved dramatically as a result.  Those who take their memories back to 2006, and to the first few months of the Rajapaksa presidency, would remember how the LTTE created a situation in which war became the only option.  The watershed came earlier during the Norwegian-facilitated peace process when the LTTE rejected it, walked out of peace talks and rejected even the bold offer of federalism made by the previous government.

However, what is now lost sight of in Sri Lanka is that the elimination of the LTTE was not only due to the efforts of the Sri Lankan people, the valour of the soldiers and the leadership of the President and the Rajapaksa family as is claimed on political platforms.  The war victory was also made possible because of military support given to the government by the international community, the intelligence they shared with it and sanctions they adopted against the LTTE especially after it walked away from the Norwegian-facilitated peace process.  The entire spectrum of the international community, including the countries that now seem to oppose Sri Lanka, supported the government’s war effort on account of the government’s promises and commitments regarding post-war reforms and solutions.

JAPAN’S SUPPORT

The UNHRC resolution contains the promises and commitments that the government made to the international community and to its own people during the war.  These include the devolution of power to the provinces, ensuring the rule of law, putting an end to extra-judicial killings and disappearances, resettling and rehabilitation of all displaced persons and ending military interventions in civil administration.   It is unfortunate that these promises and commitments have not been kept.  The most obvious failure has been with regards to the devolution of the power which was made repeatedly in person by the President himself especially to Indian leaders including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then subsequently denied in cavalier fashion.  This has been most deplorable and would account in substantial measure for the Indian decision to vote against Sri Lanka.

It is important that Sri Lanka does not repeat this mistake with Japan, whose abstention from the vote in Geneva has been most gratifying to the government.  The Japanese support followed President Rajapaksa’s visit to Japan in the immediate run up to the Geneva vote where he met with Japanese leaders including its Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.  Once again the President gave a series of promises to his Japanese hosts which have been documented in the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.   In particular, the President made four promises. The first was to continue to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission; the second was to hold elections to the Provincial Council for the Northern Province in September this year; third was to commence the  political dialogue on constitutional reforms through a Parliamentary Select Committee process; and fourth to take necessary measures regarding human rights and accountability.

The special relationship that Sri Lanka enjoys with Japan is also evident in the Japanese foreign ministry communiqué.  It mentions that the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s grandfather, Prime Minister Nobushike Kishi, visited Sri Lanka on his first official tour abroad after World War 2.  To this day the Japanese political leadership has warm memories of Sri Lanka’s intervention on their behalf after the end of World War 2 when the Soviet Union and other countries were trying to punish Japan.  Instead Sri Lanka’s representative J R Jayewardene asked for magnanimity towards the defeated and renounced Sri Lanka’s claim for compensation.  The spirit of magnanimity that the then Sri Lankan government showed to Japan has been paid back manifold as the eternal spiritual and moral teachings have promised.  It is very important that this goodwill must not be lost, and the promises that President Rajapaksa made during his visit to Japan are kept.

Likewise the other countries of the world that the Sri Lankan government now sees as its enemies have been its good friend in the past, donating much aid and also sharing warm human memories.  What they are all looking for are promises that are kept.  We too, as Sri Lankan citizens, must look to our government to keep its promises which are for the good of all Sri Lankans.