The whole incident is unclear: JVP

WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2012 

Propaganda secretary of the JVP Vijitha Herath commenting on the recent  abduction of two Frontline Socialist Party activistssaid that there are contradicting stories regarding the issue. “There are contradicting views given by all relevant parties related to the incident. Even the media has different stories about the incident. We have to wait for clear evidence on the issue before making any comments regarding it” he said.

Herath also maintained the JVP stance about the existence of Kumar Gunarathnam. “A person by that name was never a part of the JVP Politburo or the Central Committee” he said( By Hafeel Farisz)

Eyewitness Geneva

By Guido Paola Brunetti -April 11, 2012

The divisions within the Sri Lankan delegation to the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council in March 2012 reflected at least two different political orientations, which had already become manifest at the 18th Session of the Council in September 2011.

The two principal lines were:

1)     Sri Lanka should collaborate with the United Statesand its Western allies. This line was followed primarily by the delegation from the Foreign Ministry and the Head of Delegation, Mahinda Samarasinghe.

At both the 18th and 19th Sessions of the Council in September 2011 and March 2012, respectively, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Kshenuka Senewiratne, Sajin de Vass Gunawardena, and Mohan Peries, had entered into a process of compromise and had been ready to succumb to US pressure to place Sri Lanka on the Councilís agenda.

It should be recalled that in September 2011 Wikileaks had revealed Mahinda Samarasinghe’s hostility to President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his readiness to collaborate with the United States.

The Ambassadors of US, Israel, Canada, and UK had on several occasions alluded to the privileged relations they had had and continued to have with the previous Permanent Representative Kshenuka Senewiratne. Even after Kshenuka’s recall and return to Sri Lanka, the US Ambassador had continued to communicate with her via her private email. Western Ambassadors in conversations with members of the Sri Lankan delegation had let slip that they are in constant telephone and email communication with Kshenuka.

On several occasions, when information was leaked that Sri Lanka was secretly negotiating with the US, the Permanent Representative Tamara Kunanayakam was forced to intervene to keep Sri Lanka’s allies on its side. At the 19th Session, when Sri Lankaís allies began changing their intention to vote following an email from the US Mission claiming that the Sri Lankan delegation in Geneva was collaborating on the draft resolution, Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam had insisted on the urgent need to issue a public statement denying collaboration, whereas her predecessor Kshenuka Senewiratne argued against it. When Asian allies began receiving instructions from their capitals to abstain, in desperation she had to turn to the President to authorize her to send a public letter to her counterparts in Geneva to make clear that Sri Lanka was not collaborating on the text.

2)      Sri Lanka should obtain the support of countries of the Non-Aligned Movement and the like-minded such as Russia and China by mobilizing and uniting them on a common platform. This principled and visionary position is that of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, reflected in his Mahinda Chintana and loyally defended and implemented by his Minister of External Affairs, Prof. G.L. Peries, and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative, Tamara Kunanayakam.

This political orientation sought to mobilize and unite Sri Lanka’s natural allies against what they also saw as attempts by the US and its Western allies to instrumentalize and hijack the United Nations in the service of their own hidden agendas, creating a dangerous precedent that by transforming it into a tribunal, would make them future targets. Such an orientation would also enable Sri Lanka to recover the leadership role it had once played as promoter of the Non-Aligned Movement.

It is clear that those attacking the Minister of External Affairs, Prof. G.L. Peries, and the Permanent Representative, Tamara Kunanayakam, were in fact targeting the President.

Brawn not brain in public display

The two distinct political orientations were also reflected in two distinct behaviours. The one identified with power, greed and domination, combined with personal and career ambitions, was represented by Mahinda Samarasinghe, Kshenuka Senewiratne and Sajin de Vass Gunawardena. Bullying, harassment, veiled threats, humiliation and public displays of aggression, including in the famous Serpentine Bar in the presence of other diplomats, NGOs, and separatist diaspora, as well as efforts to take control over the Mission, and divide and rule, became the order of the day. The political orientation identified with principles such as solidarity, complementarity and cooperation, represented by the Foreign Minister, the Permanent Representative and the young and dynamic Second Secretary Natasha Gooneratne, focused on professionalism, intellectual persuasion, and getting the work done.

A battle led by the enemy at the highest level of foreign policy, in this case the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, requires engagement at an equally high level, including competent diplomats and politicians who are well-equipped in the field of international relations, particularly the United Nations system and international law. Paradoxically, the most competent members of the delegation, including certain capable Ministers were totally isolated and marginalised and brawn not brain was on public display!

It is symbolic that on the day of the vote, it was Mahinda Samarasinghe who sat in front and Professor Peries behind him, and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative was nowhere to be seen!

Several Ambassadors had complained that members of the delegation had violated established diplomatic practice short circuiting the Missionand even sending contradictory signals, which were counterproductive.

It has become routine in the Foreign Ministry to treat political appointees with disdain and suspicion, preventing them from fulfilling their responsibilities by denying or withdrawing support, approval and authorization, or even by framing them. This is a subject repeatedly echoed in the media and is aimed at discrediting the President’s representatives and through them the President himself.

An elitist Foreign Ministry bureaucracy

Despite warnings to the Foreign Ministry, there is an extreme negligence of countries of Africa and Latin America. Sri Lanka’s skeletal representation in these two regions do not contribute in times of difficulty to obtain the support that is needed at multilateral fora. Today, Sri Lanka is paying the price of the elitist attitude of the Foreign Ministry bureaucracy that considers it a waste of time to cooperate with poor countries. The argument constantly advanced is that these countries have nothing to offer to Sri Lanka, but go begging when a vote is needed at the United Nations!

Mahinda Samarasinghe’s betrayal?

What is not known to the Sri Lankan public is that India had not only expressed its support to Sri Lanka at a very early stage, but that it had actually been actively soliciting others to also do so. Due to the internal situation, however, the Sri Lankan delegation had been specifically asked not to make this information public. Nevertheless, only minutes after the request was made, Samarasinghe walked out of the room with Blackberry in hand and called his friends in the Sri Lankan media boasting “India is fully backing us”. In hindsight, with the knowledge of the political upheaval that this statement had provoked in India, including suspension of the Indian parliament and threat of collapse of the central Government, we may quite legitimately ask ourselves whether the real intention of Mahinda Samarasinghe was not to achieve precisely that. Was it just an irresponsible statement by an opportunist and ambitious politician seeking personal fame and glory, or was it more than that? Today, we know who profited from the crime: the United States!

Guido Brunetti<guido.paola.brunetti@gmail.com>

Tsunami warning in South and East

WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2012
Tsunami warning issued for Sri Lanka’s coastal areas and the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) advices people in coastal areas to evacuate to safe areas, the Government Information Department said. 

Indian Ocean tsunami alert lifted after Aceh quake

11 April 2012

Geophysics Prof John McCloskey explains why the earthquake impact was minimal

Full Story>>>

Continue reading the main story

Jaya Withdraws Party MP From SL Bound Delegation

PTI | CHENNAI | APR 11, 2012

Expressing displeasure over the itinerary of the all-party MPs delegation scheduled to visit Sri Lanka next week, AIADMK leader Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa today announced pulling out her party's lone representative A William Rabi Bernard from the team.

Jayalalithaa slammed the "anti-Tamil" approach of Sri Lanka as regards rehabilitation of internally displaced Tamils, Lankan navy's attacks on Tamil Nadu fishermen, Colombo's recent objection to Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant on radiation grounds and said she did not want this visit to be a "mere eye-wash like the previous one" comprising of DMK and Congress MPs including Kanimozhi.

"According to itinerary sent by External Affairs Ministry, there are no opportunities to interact with war-affected persons and know about their difficulties while the priority is placed on feasts with President Mahinda Rajapakse and Lankan authorities," she said in an official statement.

From the looks of it, this visit seemed more like a "formality," and prepared by Sri Lankan government to favour itself, she said adding the absence of journalists and independent monitors in the delegation "further strengthens my apprehensions."

"A lack of enough opportunities to interact with the affected persons is disappointing. I wish to inform that AIADMK is withdrawing from the delegation and its member Bernard will not participate (in its functions)," she said.

An all-party MPs delegation led by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka from April 16 to April 21 to assess the resettlement and political process.

India's vote at UN not good for Lanka: Chandrika Kumaratunga

Suhasini Haidar, CNN-IBN

Former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga on Tuesday said that India's decision to vote against the country on a UN resolution is not good for the island nation.

Speaking exclusively to CNN-IBN's Senior Editor Suhasini Haidar, Kumaratunga said something "serious must have happened" that India took a decision of not supporting Sri Lanka.Former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga on Tuesday said that India's decision to vote against the country on a UN resolution is not good for the island nation.

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

Suhasini Haidar: Your views on India's vote against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council...

Chandrika Kumaratunga: It's not good for Sri Lanka, and I personally am very sad that this came to this state of affairs, but I'm rather bewildered why we should have allowed it to come to this, because India, for example, two years ago I believe it was two years or one year,

Suhasini Haidar: That's right 2009.

Chandrika Kumaratunga: Was it 2009 when the last resolution came up?

Suhasini Haidar: That's right straight after...

Chandrika Kumaratunga: And I noted, India supported us fully and even canvassed on our behalf so that we won... the resolution was defeated... so something must have happened in between for India to have voted against us, and I don't think India would have taken a decision lightly.

Suhasini Haidar: In fact, do you think the government has done enough when it comes to not just convincing the world on human rights abuses, but actually working on the ground there?

Chandrika Kumaratunga: Much more can be done, for reconciliation, for physical reconstruction, its three years since the war ended...

Suhasini Haidar: One of the ministers today has in fact said that India's vote dealt a killer blow to relations between India and Sri Lanka. Do you think that's the case?

Chandrika Kumaratunga: Well you see, what you see in Sri Lankan press, we have a totally controlled press, if I may say so, may not be what the majority of the Sri Lankan people think. And India has not in the recent past tried in any way to obstruct Sri Lanka's policies and programmes and government. And I know personally that, well this is a publically known thing that India has been asking for political settlement of the Tamil people's problem. And I have always held this view that ending the war does not bring peace by itself. That's obviously the necessary first step, especially to do away with terrorism, and you know all that kind of thing, but then thereafter there is a lot of rebuilding.

Suhasini Haidar: There are hundreds and thousands of Tamilians today who have suffered from the excesses of the Sri Lankan army, and certainly of the war against the LTTE. Many have talked about torture. Do you think it's going to be possible for the people in the north and east of Sri Lanka to move on in this process of reconciliation?

Chandrika Kumaratunga: Of course it is, if the government takes the lead. See what happened in South Africa.

Suhasini Haidar: And India's role should be?

Chandrika Kumaratunga: India's role should be to help us, to encourage our government, to move forward in this way, and India is doing that very effectively, but well one has to listen.

O’ Mother Lanka What Ails Thee ?

April 10, 2012 

By Vickramabahu Karunaratne -

Dr Vickramabahu Karunaratne

Though the treasury vehemently rejected the claim, that the tax revision which came into effect from March 31, was made on the requirements of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), facts were revealing. The Treasury said that the decision to raise the import tax on vehicles was taken for the economic development of the country and to save foreign exchange. The decision to increase taxes on vehicle imports was taken on a common basis and therefore taxes for three wheelers and motor cycles also had to be increased.

Increase in prices

It was pointed out that the increase in fuel prices and a large number of vehicle imports to the country have expanded the trade deficit and steps should be taken to control foreign exchange spent on imports. Well, are not these situations the background for the conditions outlined by the IMF? Increase in taxes pushed the

anger simmering around the poorer classes  in to the upper class society. Many from the bourgeois society made devastating attacks on the government. They say that the authorities must think far, before making haphazard changes which affect the business community. When investor confidence in a country is lost, it is at a cost to that country. Who would want to expose themselves to invest in a country where there is no proper policy? Apparently the business community was made to understand that the 2011 budget would consist of  remedial measures for the problems faced by them and that the policy decisions would prevail for the next decade. Having trust on that, the business community went ahead investing and negotiating transactions with foreign counterparts. Suddenly when changes have been made prior to the lapse of even six months, after announcing the set targets for the year, how can the business community have any faith in investing in this country?  What is the guarantee given to the investor to say that there is no risk in investing in this country? How can one expect foreigners to have investor confidence when local bourgeoisie has no confidence? Such lamentations were heard from all sections of the business community.
The entire country is agitated by the sudden changes that are taking place. All those who expected prosperity are made to abandon such hopes. Many are yet to come out of the shock they are faced with. How could they believe this regime that fed the fire of patriotism could play out the people so rashly? Billions of dollars are not properly accounted while the corruption and waste has come to rule the entire structure of the regime.

Slave of IMF

This intern has made the government a slave of the IMF. It is usual in countries guided by the IMF and other multilateral organizations that corrupt layers become the strongest supporters of the path proposed by such agencies. We are witnessing that scenario here. While the masses including the local business community are super exploited and plundered, the upper most rich society will live in extreme luxury. Naturally they are scared and they depend on repression and state terror against all those who take the path of agitation. Open and subtle repression of media is a primary aspect of this repression. In a climate of increasing  intolerance and jingoism, state media are conducting a malicious smear campaign against critics of the current regime, including media activists. SLWJA President G Koththigoda, for instance, has been targeted in a sinister character assassination campaign by the government controlled television channel, ITN.

Media traitors

On its news telecast on 22 March, ITN stated it would soon be exposing a ‘traitor’, while showing pictures of Koththigoda in the background. The news anchor noted that a group of ‘media traitors’ had earlier fled the country, and added that the government controlled news channel would soon be exposing another ‘traitor’ who had been a close supporter of Nava Sama Samaja party. The ITN programme is part of a government orchestrated campaign of discrediting dissenting voices. A similar attack was aimed at media union leader Dharmasiri Lankapeli, a well known NSSP leader. Following FMETU-organized protests against the suppression of media trade unions within Lake House, leaflets were circulated by Lake House accusing Lankapeli of supporting the LTTE and participating in anti-government activities. The programme Vimasuma renewed its attacks on 1 February with a report about the “Black January” campaign that highlighted Lankapeli’s role and accused its participants of not recognizing LTTE atrocities.
Given the degree of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of attacks against media, media people are either leaving the country or have become silent about the deeds of the government. However this kind of state terror has not suppressed the mass agitation. The fourth Vipaksaye Virodhaya held in Kandy was successful, in spite of some agents of the government making an idiotic attempt to disrupt the agitation.

Frontline socialist party launched without Gunaratnam

( April 09, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) today officially launched its political movement, despite the disappearance of its unofficial leader Premakumar Gunaratnam and another key activist.

The sessions opened at the Sugathadasa Indoor Stadium today morning as the office bearers are due to be elected later in the day, a party spokesman said. Police said they have deployed five teams to look for Gunaratnam and Dimuth Atygalle who have been reported missing.

Meanwhile Australia has appealed to the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa to ensure the safety of Gunaratnam who is an Australian citizen.

 

Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) sees the series of abductions as the undisclosed state policy of the Government to suppress dissent

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Urges the Government to disclose what happened to Gunarathnam and Attygalla!

Continuing with its episode of abductions, Sri Lanka is presently witnessing a well planned series of disappearances of dissenting voices. It was reported this week of two activists Premakumar Gunarathnam and Ms. Dimuthu Attygala of the Movement of People's Struggle, a breakaway group of the JVP. This group has been challenging the undemocratic actions of the Rajapakse Government and two of their activists had been previously abducted in Jaffna, which has been strictly under military control. From the available information in the public domain, it is reasonable to infer that the defense authorities are directly involved in these abductions.

LfD firmly believe that all political parties, groups and citizens have a democratic right to engage in political activities including to change the government by lawful means. However, these recent abductions are a warning to the remaining few dissenting voices in Sri Lanka not to organize themselves in challenging undemocratic actions on the part of the government. Seriousness of the government move must be viewed in a backdrop of a collapse of Rule of Law under the present political leadership and in a inexplicably militarized exercise of political power.

Therefore we urge the President and his Government to take meaningful measures to immediately stop these abductions and deal with those who are responsible for it. We also remind the government that the most important human right for all citizens is the right to life; that should be respect at any cost. Thus there is duty on the part of each citizen of this country and the international community to closely monitor this situation and take all meaningful steps to restore dignity of human life in Sri Lanka.

SRI LANKA: The government's abduction industry exposed

April 10, 2012

In one of the most shameful episodes ever to be revealed the Sri Lankan government's involvement in the 'abduction industry' was exposed last night (April 9) when the government took action to deport Premakumar Gunarathnam alias Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Dayalal who was abducted on April 6, 2012. This abduction brought immediately reactions from the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), human rights organisations and the Australian government. The Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, Gotabaya Rajapakse initially declared that he was unaware of any such abduction. The Director General of the Media Centre for National Security (MCNS), Lakshman Hulugalle, previous stated to the BBC that there was no reason for the government to arrest Mr. Gunarathnam and Ms. Dimuthu Attigala. Then, even shortly before the deportation Gotabaya Rajapakse told the media that Mr. Gunarathnam would be charged in many cases.

The Police Spokesman, SP Ajith Rohana, now claims that Mr. Gunarathnam was abducted by some unknown persons and brought to Dematagoda and later to the Colombo Crime Division.

This episode clearly exposes the government involvement in abductions. Earlier two officers of the rank of captain from the Sri Lankan military and two other officers were arrested after an attempt to abduct the Mayor of Kolonowara. The photographs of these officers were taken by their captors and published leading to their identification. The government later claimed that they were mistakenly arrested while they were on their way to arrest some army deserters.

The latest incident relating to Mr. Gunarathnam and Ms. Attigala has vividly exposed the government's abduction industry. The number of abductions in recent months has risen to around 60.

As long as Gotabaya Rajapakse remains the Secretary to the Ministry of Defense there is no likelihood of any credible inquiry into the allegations of the government's involvement in these abductions.

The Asian Human Rights Commission calls upon the government to appoint a high level inquiry into the abduction of Mr. Gunarathnam and Ms. Attigala and also all other recent abductions. Unfortunately, we are compelled to state such an inquiry is most unlikely due to the high level position held by Gotabaya Rajapakse who is also President Mahinda Rajapakse's brother.

The Sri Lankan opposition have an obligation to the people to demand such a high level inquiry into this particular incident and all other abductions. The newly formed Frontline Socialist Party and all other political parties need to make it a high priority to take all possible action to stop abductions taking place in Sri Lanka. It is also the duty of all civil society organisations to intervene effectively to ensure that the government takes effective action to remove all those in high positions who are suspected of having links to such abductions.

We also call upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, to request the Sri Lankan government to initiate a high level inquiry into this particular abduction as well as all reported abduction in recent months.

Document Type :

Statement

Document ID :

AHRC-STM-083-2012

Countries :

Sri Lanka

Issues :

Rule of law, Enforced disappearances and abductions

Abductions lack evidence: Govt.

 ( April 10, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian)The authorities today informed the international community that the recent abduction of Premakumar Gunaratnam and Dimuthu Attyagalle was staged by the pair and their backers in order to bring disrepute to the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL).

A statement from the External Affairs Ministry and circulated to foreign embassies and UN offices said that their statements lacked credible evidence to confirm that these two persons were abducted while the story put out by Mr. Gunaratnam stands entirely on its own without corroboration.

The statement added: "For example, the abduction of Mr. Gunaratnam is alleged to have occurred at 4.00 am on April 07th but a complaint to police was made only at 4.00 pm later in the day. There was a lapse of 12 hours.

With regard to Ms. Dimuthi Attygalle, the abduction was alleged to have taken place at 8.00 pm on April 06th April. However, the complaint with regard to this matter was made to police only at 3.35 pm on the following day.

The interval was therefore almost a full day. It is quite obvious that a genuine abduction would have been reported to the police more swiftly".

Here is full text of the statement released to all Diplomatic Missions, the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies and other International Organizations based in Colombo on the recent media reports in regard to the alleged abduction of Mr. Premkumar Gunaratnam and Ms. Dimuthu Attygalle by the Ministry of External Affairs, Colombo

Statement

The Ministry of External Affairs wishes to inform the Diplomatic Missions, the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies and other International Organizations based in Colombo of several maters relating to the sequence of events involving Mr. Premkumar Gunaratnam and Ms. Dimuthu Attygalle.

These events have been the subject of extensive media attention during the last few days. Statements with regard to the matter have captured headlines in the media and have been the subject of vigorous comment by leaders of political parties, academics and civil society activists. All these persons have united in making a variety of grave allegations, the gist of which is to impute responsibility to the Government for an alleged abduction.

Mr. Gunaratnam has now re-appeared and has in fact been deported from Sri Lanka because his stay in this country was in breach of Sri Lanka's Immigration laws and therefore illegal. Ms. Attygalle has also re-appeared.

The Ministry wishes to emphasize to the diplomatic community the following aspects of
the situation:

(a) It appears that Mr. Premkumar Gunaratnam has changed his name three times.

The first name, Wanninayake Mudiyanselage Daskon, appears in his marriage certificate. A different name, Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Dayalal, is used in the passport which he obtained from this country. Yet another name, Noel Mudalige, was used when he obtained the Australian passport which he produced on his arrival in Sri Lanka on 4th September 2011.

(b) Other circumstances relating to his previous history, which are clearly relevant in assessing the credibility of his statements, will be communicated to the Australian High Commission in Colombo. These are circumstances which have come to light in the course of detailed interrogation by the Police, who have questioned Mr. Gunaratnam and members of his family.

(c) There are many features relating to the alleged abduction which throw considerable doubt on the reliability and trustworthiness of the version of the events which have been released to the media. For example, the abduction of Mr. Gunaratnam is alleged to have occurred at 4.00 a.m. on 7th April 2012. A complaint to the Police in this regard was made only at 4.10 p.m. in the afternoon. There was a lapse of 12 hours.

(d) With regard to Ms. Dimuthu Attygalle, the abduction was alleged to have taken place at 8.00 p.m. on 6th April 2012. However, the complaint with regard to this matter was made to the Police only at 3.35 p.m. on the following day, 7th April 2012. The interval was therefore almost a full day. It is quite obvious that a genuine abduction would have been reported to the Police far more swiftly. (e) The story of Mr. Gunaratnam stands entirely on its own without corroboration in any manner whatsoever. It suffers from a series of infirmities which significantly detract from its credibility. For example, although there is clear evidence that elaborate arrangements were made by his political group in respect of his security, which had been entrusted in particular to a definite person, it is claimed that at the time of the alleged abduction, he was occupying a room in the upstairs portion of a partly constructed house, which had not been inhabited for a long period.

(f) Mr. Gunaratnam's wife who made several public statements about his alleged abduction, had stated categorically to the Police that she had not lived with her husband since 7th November 2006 and had no knowledge of his whereabouts.

(g) It is quite clear that Mr. Gunaratnam was staying in this country illegally for more than 5 months. His visa had expired 5 months ago.

(h) It is evident even at a glance that there are significant discrepancies between the versions of Mr. Gunaratnam and Ms. Attygalle.

The Ministry of External Affairs wishes to state that, while the Government is responsive
to constructive criticism, it is important that allegations of a volatile nature should be based on facts properly ascertained and objectively assessed. Whenever a person chooses to withdraw from the community for personal reasons, or with the deliberate intention of causing embarrassment to the Government, it is grossly unfair to arrive at the conclusion that there has been an abduction and to point a finger at the State. This has happened on many occasions and now seems to reflect a recurring pattern. The objective of this is clearly to target Sri Lanka in international foam on the flimsiest of evidence. What is lacking by way of evidence seems to be amply compensated by emotion, surmise and invective. The Government asks nothing more than that objectivity and basic fairness should be the criteria governing reactions to these irresponsible and malicious campaigns.

Ministry of External Affairs
Colombo
10,h April 2012