IMF Confirms, in its Fashion, Sri Lanka Defense Spending Increase

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 23 -- When the International Monetary Fund establishing a lending program with Sri Lanka in 2009, the year in which according even to a UN report the government killed tens of thousands of civilians, the IMF stated that

"This, together with savings on military spending ... should help finance the considerable reconstruction spending needs... Cuts in military and other expenditures will help make room for post-conflict reconstruction and relief spending."

  The IMF has since been ducking questions about its program in Sri Lanka, declining to answer questions submitted during and after its biweekly media briefings, most recently this year on January 12 and January 26, by email in February and at the February 9 briefing.

   This has been an ongoing pattern. Inner City Press first asked the IMF about Sri Lanka in March 2009, when spokesman David Hawley saying the IMF would support the government's priority. Since then, despite some answer on other countries, the IMF has stonewalled on Sri Lanka.

  The IMF's reasoning has belatedly become clear in a table of data the Fund sent out on January 31 in response to inquiries by the Sri Lanka Campaign to Managing Director Christine Lagarde.

  First, the IMF's "head of mission" to Sri Lanka Brian Aitkins sent a response claiming that in Sri Lanka "overall security-related spending has declined both as a share of GDP and of total government spending."

  When asked for the data behind this claim, the IMF produced a chart, about which Inner City Press has asked the IMF for comment -- so far, there has been none -- and which is now being placed online here.

  Contrary to the IMF's table, according to the SLC,

"much of the so called 'reconstruction' work the Government is conducting in the north and the east – no doubt under non military budget headings – is actually a form of militarization by stealth. Our contacts in the north talk of the creeping infiltration of the military into every aspect of civilian life – and that in the Vanni area soldiers now form one third of the population.

A non exhaustive list of industries the military is involved in would include: construction, fruit production, whale watching, fishing, hotels, management of the three largest cricket stadiums, pedalo hire, and transport. This militarization is doing untold damage to Sri Lankan society and rapidly undermining the primacy of the civilian state. The IMF demanded a cut in the defense budget and instead the Government of Sri Lanka increased defense spending by 30%. This demands firm action."

   On February 23, Inner City Press submitted the question for the third time just as Lagarde's spokesperson Gerry Rice began his biweekly briefing:

"On Sri Lanka, please explain Mr. Aitken's numbers downplaying Sri Lanka defense spending increase of 30%, asked earlier this month with reference to IMF correspondence, and now the UN Senior Advisory Group barring Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN due to war crimes allegations?"

  Rice did not read out and answer the question, but one minute before the 10:30 am embargo deadline, this answer was provided, from "the" IMF spokesperson -- that is, Mr. Rice:

"Please attribute to the IMF spokesperson:

"There’s no dispute over numbers. Mr. Mortimer acknowledged Mr. Aitken’s central point that defense spending had fallen as a share of GDP and of total spending.  Mr. Mortimer’s central point was that despite this being the case, defense spending had increased in absolute terms.  This is not in dispute either (although we can’t quite replicate the 30 percent quoted by Mr. Mortimer).  We would note that the bulk of the increase in defense spending appears to be on wages and salaries—non wage spending has declined in absolute terms—which has increased with public sector pay awards over the past 3 years.  Further progress in reducing defense spending, in absolute terms, would likely require a comprehensive demobilization program.  While we would be supportive in principle of such a move, this is not an area that the Fund has expertise. We would say though that international experience suggests that such programs need to be very carefully designed and executed to be successful."

  Ah, increased military spending using an IMF lending program -- click here for IMF not answering at all on February 23 Inner City Press' question about criticism of the IMF dealing with the military SCAF government of Egypt. We'll have more on this.

Sri Lanka concerned about campaign ahead of UNHCR

TIMESonline THURSDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2012 

Sri Lanka has raised objections about what it called ‘manoeuvres to deceive the Human Rights Council’,  by the United States.  

Sri Lankan Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam,  has rejected what it called a ‘ misleading and unethical communication sent out to Missions in Geneva by the Permanent Mission of the United States’.

The Ministry of External Affairs released the text of a letter circulated by Ms Kunanayakam to the member countries. The letter said;

It has been brought to our attention that an e-mail dated 21st February, purporting to have originated from the Mission of the United States to the United Nations and other International Organisations at Geneva, signed by one Miriam Shahrzard Schive has been sent to Member States of the Human Rights Council and Diplomatic Missions in Geneva. It seeks support for a resolution on Sri Lanka supposedly sponsored by the United States, that is to be presented to the Human Rights Council Sessions in March. This e-mail creates the impression that diplomatic officials of the U.S. have been in close contact with the Government of Sri Lanka, as well as this Mission, to work, “collaboratively on issues of accountability (in Sri Lanka) and the implementation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s Report”. It goes on to express the hope that ‘the Sri Lankan Government will work with us on this Resolution’. It obliquely canvasses the position of a co-sponsorship of a Resolution and conveys a false impression that Sri Lanka is working with the United States on this Resolution.

Sri Lanka categorically states that at no time has the Government or its Mission in Geneva, ever worked with representatives of the United States on any Resolution on whatsoever. It is inaccurate and misleading to seek to create such an impression that Sri Lanka was consulted, has cooperated or in any other manner been part of such a process. Indeed, Sri Lanka has started on the implementation of the recommendations of the LLRC, among other initiatives to secure peace, prosperity and reconciliation for our people, in the aftermath of the thirty year conflict against separatist terrorism. We have consistently maintained that it is unnecessary, unhelpful and counterproductive to bring any resolution concerning this matter barely two months after the publication of the LLRC Report and more particularly in the context of implementation of its recommendations.

We have continued to openly and comprehensively brief the international community in Geneva and elsewhere of all recent developments in this regard. Moreover we plan to inform the Council and its Membership of the current position as to all relevant matters during the forthcoming session of the Council – a practice that we will continue in the future.

It is unfortunate that such an unethical distortion of the true position has been resorted to by interested parties who can only be pursuing some parallel agenda, seeking to achieve some collateral gain, given Sri Lanka’s commitment to engage constructively with its partners, its forthrightness in discussing issues pertaining to post conflict recovery and the realization of positive developments within its territory relating to reconciliation and development.
 It is opportune to observe that we have received widespread support on the endorsement of the principle that a domestic mechanism must be given the time and space, to achieve its objectives. Sri Lanka’s position is that given the considerable progress that has been achieved in the implementation of the recommendations of the domestic mechanism from the release of the Report to date and the path to further progress, any resolution of whatsoever nature is most unhelpful and highly unwarranted. 

SL scotches rumours of collaboration with US

Sri Lanka yesterday scotched speculation in diplomatic circles here in Geneva that the country had agreed with the United Stated to draft the proposed resolution to be presented at the upcoming sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) with regard to the country’s human rights situation. 

According to sources, the US has resorted to such an action in its lobbying spree to discourage the member countries from taking a stand in favour of Sri Lanka. Currently, the government of Sri Lanka has undertaken a diplomatic offensive in Geneva to secure the support of friendly countries to defeat such a resolution against the country.

“They have spread rumours that we have agreed to draft this resolution together. In this manner, they have tried to convince the other countries that Sri Lanka is also supportive of the proposed resolution. 

Once the member countries are convinced that the resolution will be brought by the US with the consent of Sri Lanka, they will not take the issue seriously. That is the ploy. We will not allow such rumours to gain ground. 

"This is to discourage the countries supporting us. There is no any element of truth in such rumours,” sources said.

Sri Lankan diplomats based in Geneva for the diplomatic offensive are perturbed over this development.

Asked about the latest situation, External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris said that Sri Lanka would not agree to such a measure with anyone at all.

“We will inform the diplomats of the countries supportive of us in this regard. We are not agreeable to such a move at this juncture,” he said. (Kelum Bandara reporting from Geneva)

A false spring in South Asia

 Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012
By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
NEW DELHI — From the armed coup that recently ousted the Maldives' first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, to the Pakistani Supreme Court's current effort to undermine a toothless but elected government by indicting Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on contempt charges, South Asia's democratic advances appear to be shifting into reverse.

Nasheed's forced resignation at gunpoint has made the Maldives the third country in the region, after Nepal and Sri Lanka, where a democratic transition has been derailed. The Maldives, a group of strategically located islands in the Indian Ocean, now seems set for prolonged instability.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has yet to begin a genuine democratic transition, because the chief of army staff remains its effective ruler. How can democratization begin if Pakistan's army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency are immune to civilian oversight and decisive power rests with military generals?      Full story >>

At UN, Weakness on Rights Enabled by HRW & Scribes, Sri Lanka's Silva Push

By Matthew Russell Lee, Media & NGO Watch

UNITED NATIONS, February 22 -- How can it be that Sri Lanka thought that the UN of Ban Ki-moon and those who surround and enable it would accept as a member of the UN "Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations" Major General Shavendra Silva, whose Division 58 is repeatedly named in connection with war crimes in Ban's own Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka?

  The answer is multifaceted. Ban has shown himself weak when faced with the pushback of even small states like Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka, if he is not being pushed forward and given scripts by Western powers. (Even then he is sometimes silent.)

  Non-governmental organizations which should be critiquing him, like Human Rights Watch, have decided to go silent and even offer praise and excuses, in exchange for access.

  Much of the press that covers the UN simply takes press releases or spin or "leaks" as news, happy to be able to take credit for stories they did no or little work on.

  Into this morass, four weeks ago Sri Lanka launched Silva as a Senior Adviser to Ban on peacekeeping, after getting Saudi Arabia and Nepal to stand down as candidates.

  Inner City Press, which covered Ban's trip to Sri Lanka in May 2009 when while Tamil children at gunpoint sang Ban's name, Ban waved a blue baseball cap, immediately began to question Ban's spokesman and then member states and other UN officials about how this could be accepted.

  Sri Lanka responded with a letter of complaint, with copies to Ban's spokesman and to UN Correspondents, who made no reaction, having invited Silva and Palitha Kohona to screen in the UN their rebuttal to a war crimes documentary which was not, itself, shown in the UN. But clearly the Sri Lankan Mission and Silva thought the cc's would help them.

  Then Inner City Press asked High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay about Silva, and get her on camera to say she was concerned, and had written to Ban Ki-moon.

  Quickly, some who had done no work on the issues tried to grab it, to save face. But even then Human Rights Watch argued that it was not Ban Ki-moon's fault. 

  We disagree: Sri Lanka only had the hutzpa to submit Silva because Ban had shown himself so weak, had in a closed door meet with Mahinda Rajapaksa berated his own staff, as exclusively reported by Inner City Press.

   But Human Rights Watch some time ago decided to go soft of Ban, refusing even to summarize the topics of director's Ken Roth's meeting with Ban. HRW's new UN representative, a French former UN correspondent, selectively doled out information to old office mates, and directly refused to tell Inner City Press the topic of the meeting with Ban he attended, or even to send HRW's press releases.

   His predecessor, who moved on to Amnesty International, was quite different. Is it personalities? Is it the downside of accept a huge contribution from a single donor? Would donors be told the topics of HRW's meetings with Ban?

   Even when, after Inner City Press got on the record quotes of concern about Silva from the Permanent Representatives of Bangladesh, Pakistan and the US, and Senior Advisory Group chairperson Frechette belated said Silva could attend but not participate, the spin game continued, with HRW doling out a quote that media which never worked on the issue dutifully ran.

Silva shakes with enabled Ban, "member states made me do it" (c) MRLee

   This is why Ban's UN for now continues as it does. And it should change. Watch this site.

Update: in interviews conducted Wednesday evening, a range of diplomats predicted "this is not over." A South Asian DPR argued that Sri Lanka will push through the Asia Group for Silva. A Western diplomat said, they'll fight. Another said, the best thing for accountability is that Ban Ki-moon is out of town. It's in this context that this analysis is written - and will be pursued.

Sri Lankan anger over US move at UN rights council

Interned civilians after the end of Sri Lanka's civil war (AFP/File, Ishara S. Kodikara)

COLOMBO — Sri Lanka on Thursday vowed to hold mass protests against US-backed moves at the United Nations to press for an independent probe into alleged war crimes during the island's civil war.

Government spokesman Susil Premajayantha said rallies would be organised across Sri Lanka to display opposition to the planned proposal at next week's Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva.

"We will organise demonstrations to show that the people of this country are with the government. They are against the Western forces," Premajayantha told reporters.

He said the US was leading moves to bring a resolution against Sri Lanka at the UN council, but Colombo was confident of being able to block it.

"We have lobbied member countries and the feedback that we have is very positive," he said. "We will be able to block any resolution against us."

Human rights groups say up to 40,000 civilians perished in the final months of the government's military campaign to crush the Tamil Tigers in 2009, but Colombo maintains no civilians were killed by its troops.

Last week, the US made it clear that it would support moves against Sri Lanka in Geneva.

Sri Lanka has avoided censure at previous meetings thanks to backing from Russia and China. India, the island's closest neighbour, has also supported Colombo in fending off censure.

The military last week announced appointing a five-member panel to probe allegations of excesses -- an apparent change in the government's approach to charges of war crimes.

The UN estimates some 100,000 people died during Sri Lanka's decades-long ethnic conflict, which ended with the killing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leadership.

Gananath review shows nations divided in perception

[TamilNet, Thursday, 23 February 2012, 01:44 GMT]
“I will confess that, as I write this essay, many do see him [Rajapaksa] as someone who “saved” the nation from the brutal LTTE. Surely such a view is not without its truth. But that truth cannot excuse human rights violations that currently afflict the nation as a whole; or for that matter obscure the looming threat of the cultural and political colonisation of the north by the Sinhala Buddhist majority,” writes Gananath Obeyesekere, in reviewing a recent book on Sri Lanka. Commenting, a Tamil academic said Gananath’s reference to ‘nation’ in singular confines to the Sinhala nation, for despite differences of opinion on ways and tactics, many Eezham Tamils see the LTTE as something that was checking brutal genocide by the Sinhala state. The divided perception is sign of nations in plural, justifying their separation even for reconciliation in future, the Tamil academic said. 

Further comments from an Eezham Tamil academic in Jaffna follow:

Gananath Obeyesekere giving an interview in 2003

The divided perception is striking, especially when it comes from a veteran Sinhala scholar like Gananath Obeyesekere, pointing to no way other than separation to the affected nation of Eezham Tamils, even to stop the “cultural and political colonisation of the north by the Sinhala Buddhist majority,” referred to by him. 

Conspicuously, Gananath left out the East, where the process was going on for a long time, preceding the current structural genocide in the north.

• Book review of The Sri Lanka Reader by Gananath Obeyesekere: Biased and Prejudiced Collection on Sri

Professor Gananath Obeyesekere’s book review on “The Sri Lanka Reader: History, Culture, Politics”, edited by John Clifford Holt and published by the Duke University in the USA, appeared in Mumbai-based Economic and Political Weekly, dated 28 January, with the title “Biased and Prejudiced Collection on Sri Lanka.” 

The editor of the book, Professor John Clifford Holt is a leading historian of religion in the USA.

Gananath Obeyesekere, now 82-years old, is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University in the USA. Hailing from a village in southern Sri Lanka, he left the island permanently after the JVP insurrection of 1971. Before that he served in the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya in Kandy.

In the review Gananath didn’t fail to make a comparison between the genocidal war and the state’s suppression of the JVP insurrection:      Full story >>

Biased and Prejudiced Collection on Sri Lank

UN body bars Sri Lanka diplomat Maj Gen Shavendra Silva

23 February 2012

Major-General Silva's participation in the committee was described as "not appropriate or helpful"

A controversial Sri Lankan diplomat has been excluded from taking part in the deliberations of a committee advising the United Nations Secretary General.
Major General Shavendra Silva led a division of the country's army during its civil war, and is the subject of a US lawsuit accusing him of war crimes.
He was chosen by Asian countries to sit on a UN committee about peacekeeping.

Sri Lanka's 26-year civil war ended in May 2009 with the military's defeat of separatist Tamil Tiger rebels.

Maj Gen Silva and Sri Lanka's UN mission appear to have made no public comment on the exclusion yet. He was appointed to the Special Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations in January 2012.

However Louise Frechette, the Canadian diplomat leading the group, said Silva's participation was "not appropriate or helpful", and went on to say that "he will not participate in its deliberations".

Lawsuit

The BBC's Charles Haviland in Colombo said the Sri Lankan government had stated that raising concerns about the former commander was "unethical".

Our correspondent adds that a UN diplomat had told the BBC that Maj Gen Silva did attend the group's first meeting, but no members spoke to him and no documents were given to him.

Maj Gen Silva, who is Sri Lanka's deputy ambassador to the UN, describes himself as a "real hero" for his command of the 58 Division, central to the defeat of the Tamil Tigers.

However, a private lawsuit accusing the former soldier of war crimes is in progress in the US, and a number of UN officials have raised concerns over his actions during the war.

Last week the UN's human rights chief, Navi Pillay, said Maj Gen Silva was suspected of committing human rights violations.

Meanwhile, last year, a rights panel commissioned by Ban Ki-Moon said it believed several Tiger leaders were shot dead while trying to surrender as they walked towards the 58 Division's territory. Maj Gen Silva and the government deny this.

His exclusion from the group was praised by Philippe Bolopion, the United Nations director for Human Rights Watch, according to AFP.

The agency quoted him as saying: "By defeating Silva's attempt to pose as a respectable peacekeeping expert, Louise Frechette took a principled stand ... member states and the UN secretary general should publicly back her decision."

UN committee bars Sri Lankan general linked to atrocities

  

Major General Shavendra Silva (AFP/File, Ishara S. Kodikara)

UNITED NATIONS — A top UN peacekeeping committee on Wednesday barred a Sri Lankan general accused of carrying out a military onslaught against civilians.

But Major General Shavendra Silva still attended the first meeting Wednesday of a special advisory panel to UN leader Ban Ki-moon. He sat in the room but no other member spoke to him and no documents were given to him, diplomats said.

Silva's nomination to the panel by Asia-Pacific countries at the UN set off a storm of protest by rights groups. A Canadian official who chairs the special advisory group (SAG) said in a statement that Silva "will not participate" in the panel's work.

Silva has been accused of playing a central role in the Sri Lankan military's crushing of a Tamil separatist uprising in 2009 in which tens of thousands of people died, according to UN experts and rights groups.

"Following careful consideration and consultation with other SAG members, the chair, Louise Frechette, has advised Major General Shavendra Silva of Sri Lanka, that his participation is not appropriate or helpful for the purposes of this group. He will not participate in its deliberations," said a statement released by Frechette.

Frechette is a former UN deputy secretary general and top Canadian diplomat who was named by Ban to chair the committee.

"If Frechette had not acted this panel would just have fallen apart, nobody wanted him on the panel," said one diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Silva, who has not faced any charges over his role in the military campaign, was not immediately available for comment.

The peacekeeping panel, which is to set payments to countries that contribute troops to UN missions, has 10 members, half named by Ban and half nominated by regional groups.

Silva's nomination was strongly condemned by Human Rights Watch and other rights groups. UN human rights chief Navi Pillay also wrote a letter condemning the appointment.

But the UN secretariat had previously said it could do nothing about Silva's appointment as it was decided by member countries.

Sri Lankan monk is condemned to death for murder

By Charles Haviland
BBC News, Sri Lanka

Theravada Buddhist monks play a prominent public role in Sri Lanka

A Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka has been sentenced to death – the first monk in 50 years to receive such a sentence in the country.

Gomadiye Sarana, 37, was convicted for a murder committed before he was ordained into the clergy.

His fate is unclear, however, as no death sentence has been carried out for more than three decades in Sri Lanka.

Sarana and an accomplice were found guilty of murdering a man 12 years ago by a court in the south of the country.

The crime appeared to be linked to a dispute over an affair the monk had with the murder victim’s sister.

Reports say the judge ordered the defendant to remove his robes before he delivered the judgement – probably because he did not want to sentence a monk to death.

But the convicted man refused.

Theravada Buddhist monks play a prominent public role in Sri Lanka.

This is the first time a monk has been given the death sentence since the hanging in 1962 of Talduwe Somarama, a fierce Sinhalese nationalist who assassinated a prime minister.

Other monks have recently been implicated in serious crimes.

Last year a court ordered the arrest of a Buddhist cleric in northern Sri Lanka for allegedly sexually molesting a teenage girl.

In the south a crowd of protesters demanded the arrest of someone they said was a monk for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl.

And last week police said they detained a monk in possession of heroin.

People are regularly sentenced to death in Sri Lanka but the last judicial execution happened in 1976 so there are hundreds on death row.

UK PARLIAMENT TELLS GOVERNMENT: UK MUST DO MORE TO ENSURE END TO IMPUNITY IN SRI LANKA

The importance of ensuring an end to impunity and ongoing abuses in Sri Lanka reverberated in Westminster today with an excellent and well-attended parliamentary debate on human rights in the country. MP after MP from all three major parties rose to draw attention to the clear failure by the Sri Lankan government – and in turn the international community - to ensure accountability for war crimes and prevent ongoing torture and disappearances, despite a growing clamour among victims, human rights activists and decision-makers alike for the need for an international investigation to be launched. Parliamentarians pressed the UK government to step up to the plate and ensure Britain is doing what it can to move the situation forward.

For Government Ministers in London, this is not simply a peripheral issue of terrible things happening far away from British shores, but directly relevant to both UK home affairs and foreign policy: the British government continues to return Tamils who have been refused asylum in the UK to Sri Lanka, despite great concerns that they could face a serious risk of torture on return.  Siobhain McDonagh MP asked: “What message does Britain send to the world when it sends Tamils back to Sri Lanka and fails to support the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts report [which recommended an international investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka]?”

Accountability: robust action at the Human Rights Council needed

So what progress have we seen to date toward securing justice in Sri Lanka, MPs asked? The recent Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report – the fruits of a highly-criticised domestic accountability process set up by the Sri Lankan government – came in for some scrutiny; Shadow Foreign Office Minister Kerry McCarthy MP, for example, flagged that there was no mention at all of torture within the report, while Siobhain McDonagh suggested that the LLRC is an attempt to “brush war crimes under the carpet”. Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt, who was formally responding for the government within the debate, argued that the LLRC “does form the basis for progress, but implementation of its recommendations is the real test...but  more must be done on accountability” following the credible allegations of violations of international law which have been amassed. The UK government’s approach is to work both with the Sri Lankan government and other international partners.

Mike Gapes MP, a member of parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, was among those using their interventions to call for UK action within the Commonwealth and at the UN to work towards an independent international inquiry. Virendra Sharma MP emphasised how important it is that an independent investigation is initiated, “as victims and their families deserve to know the truth about what happened” and perpetrators must be held to account; while Lee Scott MP told those gathered that he would personally be travelling to Geneva for the upcoming session of the Human Rights Council to push for action at an international level. Alistair Burt later confirmed to the MPs that, as suggested, the US is drafting a resolution on Sri Lanka for the Human Rights Council and the UK would likely support it.

The UK government has sufficient influence to do a great deal more on the international stage than simply signing a resolution, for example in mobilising a wide range of states for action: let us hope that there is a lot more going on behind closed doors than the Minister’s response suggests.

Inconsistent UK practice to protect Sri Lankans forcibly returned

A good number of the MPs speaking acknowledged that human rights abuses continue unabated in Sri Lanka, despite the Sri Lankan government’s protestations. Barry Gardiner MP said “it is not a matter simply of looking back at the period before and during the civil war”. In November last year, the UN Committee Against Torture raised serious concerns about ongoing torture in Sri Lanka, following the presentation of evidence by Freedom from Torture and other human rights organisations. Freedom from Torture had provided forensic documentation of the torture of a significant number of Tamil survivors after the end of the civil war - many of whom had been tortured on their return to the country after periods abroad - and has been continuously calling on the UK government to ensure robust safeguards are in place, including monitoring, to protect those at risk on return.

Freedom from Torture has just brought to light today the fact that even the basic safeguards which are afforded to those forcibly removed on “mass removal” charter flights – namely being met by British High Commission officials and given a small assistance package to pay for onward travel within Sri Lanka – do not apply to individuals being forcibly returned on scheduled passenger flights. Freedom from Torture believes that this inconsistent practice has placed those returning on scheduled flights at an even greater risk of detention and torture on return. Following detailed questions on the UK returns policy from Virendra Sharma MP, Alistair Burt publicly acknowledged this discrepancy in the Westminster Hall debate and said that he had now asked his colleagues at the British High Commission in Sri Lanka to ensure the same reception package for all those being returned, including being met at the airport “where practicable” – not just from the charter flights. This is of course an important step – but the UK needs to go further and see that arrangements to ensure that returning Tamils are not subjected to serious abuses don’t just end at the airport, given the continuing risks that exist.

Attention now turns to the beginning of next week, when both UK and Sri Lankan Government Ministers will address the Human Rights Council on 27^th February, with a charter flight due to remove Sri Lankans from the UK the following day. It is clear that a significant number of parliamentarians will be watching the UK government’s actions closely.

Westminster Hall
Meeting started at 9.29am. Ended at 11.30am

Private Members’ Debate: 
Human rights in Sri Lanka – Mr Virendra Sharma
Private Members’ Debate: 
Flood defences in Exeter – Mr Ben Bradshaw

Watch the full debate here.

Robert Halfon MP: The Sri Lankan government must stop persecuting Tamils and acting like a rogue nation

acting like a rogue nation

Robert Halfon is the Member of Parliament for Harlow. Follow him on Twitter.

Today there was a major debate in Westminster Hall. With many other backbench Conservative MPs, I urged the Government to speak out against the persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

As many ConservativeHome readers know, the years between 1983 and 2009 saw a bitter civil war between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tigers. During that long and bloody conflict, both sides were responsible for atrocities. But following the ceasefire three years ago, Tamil civilians have been subject to outrageous abuse of their basic human rights. In 2009, for example, 300,000 Tamil civilians were displaced or caged up in barbaric internment camps. As late as November last year, 7,000 remained in these camps. Many more are unable to return home. Thousands are forced to live in tents without access to basic health care, sanitation and education. Even worse: the Sri Lankan military is still occupying 7,000 square miles of Tamil land in the North and East, where they have no credible property rights.

The UN Committee Against Torture has said that the military behaves as if it was above the law; threatening and harassing human rights workers, defence lawyers and journalists. There are reports of violent suppression of Tamil dissidents, disappearing civilians, and secret executions. The Committee to Protect Journalists have said that Sri Lanka still has the 4th highest unsolved rate of journalist murders in the world. For far too long, Sri Lanka has assured the world that they are making improvements, but refused to give concrete details of the Tamil families still detained in camps. Very limited access is given to foreign journalists. It is without doubt a hideous regime.

Of course there will be many who say “Sri Lanka is the other side of the world. What can Britain do?” But the truth is that Britain is in a surprisingly powerful economic and political position to ask Sri Lanka to respect the human rights of all its people. After China, we are Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner, and their main source of Western tourism. In 2009, Britain imported over £600 million worth of goods and services from Sri Lanka. The UK should be ready to look elsewhere for these imports, if Sri Lanka refuses to improve their tragic record on human rights.

Britain also holds a unique place within the Commonwealth. This is relevant, as Sri Lanka is due to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in 2013. The Canadian Prime Minister has already said that he will boycott the summit if Sri Lankan authorities continue to brutally oppress the Tamils. As I said in Parliament today, this is an action that the British Government should seriously consider. I believe that the international community must now outline a clear set of expectations for Sri Lanka, and give them a firm deadline to comply.

First, if Sri Lanka does not implement the recommendations of the “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission” (LLRC) by the time it meets again this September, I believe that Britain should boycott the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in Sri Lanka. Second, Sri Lanka must prove that it is making clear progress towards the following, before the Heads of Government Summit:

• Persecution of the Tamils and other minorities must stop - once and for all
• Concrete steps must be taken to demilitarise the north and east of Sri Lanka
• Civil administration must be restored
• Tamils and other minorities must have basic human rights: the right to life, a fair trial, freedom of expression, movement and assembly
• The Sri Lankan Government must publish a list of all prisoners, and where they are being held
• The International Committee of the Red Cross must have access to all detention centres
• A neutral Commission must be appointed, by the UN, to safeguard property rights in Tamil areas, and to oversee resettlement programmes
• Above all, Sri Lanka must comply with the recommendations of the UN panel of Experts report, and arrive at a durable justice for the Tamil-speaking minority

If the above goals are not met by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in 2013, the international community must then consider what further legitimate and peaceful pressure that it can put on the Sri Lankan regime. Economic sanctions must remain on the table, including sanctions on overseas investment and tourism.

We must make it very clear to the Government of Sri Lanka that they cannot continue to act like a rogue nation. Enough is enough. Clearly the Tamil Tigers were highly dangerous, but they are no longer a threat. And yet persecution continues. The excuse of “security” must not be used as a cover to wipe out the inheritance of the Tamil-speaking minority.