British Tamils protest against Sri Lanka at Olympics

Hundreds of British Tamils gathered in London on Friday evening to protest against Sri Lanka’s participation in the 2012 Olympic Games, as well as the reported invite to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa to attend the opening ceremony.

Protestors gathered along Aspen Way, where Olympic vehicles passed on their way to the opening ceremony at the Olympic Stadium. Beating drums and chanting slogans condemning Sri Lanka’s genocide of the Tamil people, the protesters called for the suspension of the country from inetrnational sporting events.

Reports that Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa was in the city to attend the Games spurred protesters on, who called for his arrest, however sources alleged to TamilNet that the Sri Lankan delegation did not attend the opening ceremony.

Simultaneously, a group of protesters also gathered near Marshgate lane, close to the entrance to the Olympic Stadium. With East London packed with thousands of spectators for the Games, a keen interest was shown in the protest. Many members of the public stopped to talk with the protesters and took home leaflets, with hundreds having been distributed by members of the Tamil Youth Organisation throughout the day.

Many Olympic fans expressed their solidarity with the Tamil people and asked to have their photos taken with the Tamil Eelam National Flag.

A large group of Tamils also went to support hunger striker Gobi Sivanthan, who was entering the 6th day of his strike, on the busy Stratford High Street.

See our earlier post: Tamils protest against Sri Lanka's participation in the Olympics (22 July 2012)

Full Story>>>

Sri Lanka Rupavahini Is Not Allowed To Enter 2012 Olympic Opening

By Colombo Telegraph -July 27, 2012

Sri Lanka Rupavahini media crew was not allowed to enter Friday night’s Olympics opening ceremony the Colombo Telegraph has learnt. The reason behind the decision is still unknown . Olympic fans in Sri Lanka won’t be able to watch tonight opening ceremony via Sri Lankan national TV.

Progressives, Nationalism and the ‘Global Establishment’

I had to think twice before I started writing this; because, I was not sure, whether it is proper for a humble columnist like me to confront the Editor in chief of this paper. However I know Rajpal is a democratic progressive. I have been writing this column, for nearly a decade, most of the time attacking the establishment, and Rajpal without a murmur, has allowed all that to come out. 

Take up the issue 
Having considered that, I thought it is my duty to take up this issue raised in a most gentlemanly manner by Rajpal. He said in his article last week “I think if people such as Nimalka and Vickramabahu understood that being ‘Nationalist’ today is the best posture against the right-wing global Establishment, they would not have indulged in such absurd political contortions such as promoting themselves as ‘progressive,’ when they are in fact playing into the hands of the global Establishment that is   working overtime against the interests of this country...
It is of course true that there are a thousand things that are wrong with the government, which makes the oversight of international bodies a good thing sometimes. But the oversight of international bodies is not the same as the interference of internationally funded non-governmental organizations for instance, which are known to subvert national interests as in Venezuela for example.”
It is true that we as leftists should be in the fore front in the struggle against the global Establishment that is working overtime against the interests of this country. In fact this Establishment is working against the interest of the oppressed people in the entire Globe. But is this government in conflict with this global Establishment? It has got in to a debt trap enslaving our country. IMF while praising the development efforts of the government has tied the government to a so called development programme which satisfies only MNCs and their local agents and brokers. In fact a whole layer of new rich families have come up binding the Rajapaksa to these rapacious masters. Never in the recent past has this bondage been so cruel and so open. All resources are, one by one, passed onto the hands of foreign powers. Every form of repression is directed against the working class undermining Labour laws, provident fund legislations, and trade union rights. It is hilarious to see every week emissaries of all kinds visiting here to check whether the government is following the path it has promised to the masters. How on the earth one could say this is a nationalist government when in all aspects, politically, economically and socially it follows the path laid by the global Establishment.

Global powers
This government fell into this tragic condition by pursuing a war with the support of the global masters including India. War is a path for enslavement for such powers. Such a war will strengthen the right wing oppressive sections in the society and such forces in turn will link up with the global Establishment. Any one with open eyes could see what has happened; progressives such as Rajpal have made the mistake of accepting Sinhala chauvinism as Lanka nationalism. On the contrary Lankan nationalism should be able to mobilize all oppressed sections in this country against the actions of the global Establishment and its agents here. Indian nationalism thrived, at least for a period, as it stood for secularism, devolution on state wise and revival of all cultures. It dissociated from Siva sena and Hinduthva extremism. To the extent we allow discrimination and minority dissatisfactions to thrive, we will be helping global powers to intervene in our affairs. 

Lankan establishment
“Those against the global Establishment, automatically identify with the local Nationalism that offers the only antidote to the dynamic of neo-liberalism and corporatism that operates as the global currency of power. But here in Sri Lanka, the ‘Nationalist’ establishment is seen as being somehow rightward, the reason being that ‘Nationalists’ are seen to be in power now.” said Raj.  
This Lankan establishment is not nationalist; at least not the men at the top. All those who believed in this myth are breaking away in great disbelief. It is high time Rajpal the progressive open his eyes to the stark reality before him. Yes this is pity. It also promotes a fallacy. The truth is that progressive people become right-wing Establishment totems, because unfortunately they are defending set of robbers who are dismantling all welfare and subsidies of the people and dance to the tune of the IMF. Break this fallacy by not defending rogues; be true nationalists and play the real role that is in need; to defend the economic sovereignty of Lanka, mostly, from rapacious foreign onslaughts. Thus correct  the narrative that is so skewed.

GCE A/L results still in a pickle – SB’s solution makes it worse
(Lanka-e-News-28.July2012, 10.00 PM) Owing to the egregious blunders committed in the GCE adv. Level examination results , changing of muddled up results and the lunatic Z score markings , the GCE adv. Level students who sat the exam in 2011 had to face undue hardships and acute sufferings for which the architect is the Govt. examination Dept. Yesterday , (26) , the National University youth Front and Lanka Teachers service Association with the participation of a large number of students staged a massive demonstration in front of the University commission Board.

At these protests , a story related by one girl student to the media brought tears to the eyes of the journalists . She has obtained three ‘A’s , but under the new lunatic scheme , she had been deprived of a place in the University. She was overtaken with emotion and said , she has to sit again for the exam to be held in a week because of the eccentricity prevailing in the Ministry and the education Dept. But she hasn’t the wherewithal to sit again, she sobbed .

There were many students who were in the same predicament who participated in yesterday’s protests. UNP M.P. Harin Fernando speaking on behalf of the National University youth front who organized these protests said , a student who obtained a result of two As and one C , was placed at 25th position based on all Island results , but a student who secured three As has been placed in the 250th position on the all Island result , he pointed out. Hence , a grave injustice has been committed on these students. We shall therefore not abandon our struggle until justice is done to these innocent children , he emphasized.

Mahinda Jayasinghe of the Lanka teachers Associations who had met the Secretary to the Commission said , the Secretary is totally in the dark on this subject , and has stated , they are only implementing the court directive. We tried to make it clear to him by reiterating that the SC did not order to perpetrate injustice on the children. 
With such stupid pompous Secretaries , we cannot expect justice . Yet , we will not yield and we will carry on our struggle until justice is meted out and every child gets fair treatment . We will not look back in our forward campaign , Jayasinghe asserted. 

Meanwhile Minister S B Dissanayake who attended the cabinet meeting revealing cabinet decisions said , these students will be given an opportunity to sit the exam even four times in order to enable them to enter Universities. This year’s GCE exam cannot be postponed , he added. This Minister must be an idiot or a lunatic to say, a child can sit the exam four times , while in the same breath saying this year’s exam cannot be postponed . How can this child whom he expects to sit the exam four times complete it within this year without waiting until next year ?
The pictures hereunder depict the huge crowds including students and parents who participated in the protests at Galle Town .

Dictatorships that dangle on a Sino-Russian 

thread-Beijing, Russia, Assad – Colombo

There has been news, mostly good but not yet conclusive, about two tottering dictatorships in the Middle East. First, Hillary Clinton threw America’s weight in support of democracy in Egypt and told the military to get back to the barracks. How sincere the Americans are depends on whether deeds follow declarations; so optimism should be tempered with caution. Since the Egyptian military leans on the US for hand-outs and because rapprochement between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Americans will be a global game-changer, there is hope. 
Is it in the interests of imperialism, or what’s left of it in Washington, to reach deals with democratic alternatives to rotten old dictatorships? Is it in the interests of the global bourgeoisie to compromise with moderate Muslim political manifestations such as the Brotherhood? The answer is sometimes “Yes,” if the outcome benefits Washington (vide Burma, Libya, Egypt and in the future Syria and Lanka), and sometimes “No,” as in countless past examples. It varies case by case and fortunately, at this point in time, it is in the interests of the people of the countries of the Arab Spring, of Burma and of Lanka, and to the benefit of Washington (and London, Berlin, Canberra and Ottawa) to punish dictators and putative dictators, and to bolster bourgeois democratic alternatives. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt therefore is wise to promote an understanding with America, albeit an uneasy one, with Washington’s support for Egypt’s military dictatorship all these years notwithstanding helps to weaken the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (the core of the dictatorship). 
I have been saying for over a year in this column that the Syrian monster Assad will be overthrown; sometimes, as now, the process seems to be accelerating; sometimes the road ahead seems hard and strewn with corpses of the Syrian people. Events in July have been encouraging; high-level rats are deserting the sinking ship, the fight has been taken right to the citadel of the Syrian defence establishment and the defence minister, and a top team blown to pieces during a high level meeting, and an uprising is in progress on the very streets of Damascus. The revolution is fighting to take control of several border crossing posts into neighbouring countries. The clandestine assistance that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Western countries are channelling to the freedom fighters is far from adequate but Syria is a peculiar case in which foreign assistance to freedom fighters must be injected with great care. 
The problem is not Russia and China; they are but a diplomatic nuisance at the Security Council. Nor can Iran call the shots if a free flow of foreign support for the Syrian revolution is authorized. The grave danger is that the Arab people of the region must not feel that forces inimical to the liberation of the Palestinian people and supportive of the Israeli cancer are pulling the strings. But as the ‘noose’ tightens around Assad and the firebombing encircles his presidential palace there is reason to hope that the Syrian people can finish the job by themselves with a reduced level of foreign military and diplomatic assistance. The fall of the Assad military dictatorship is a certainty but the timing is another matter; I guess the same can be said of authoritarianism nearer home.

The strange case of 
Russia and China                        Full Story>>>

A Tale Of Two Interventions

By Col. R. Hariharan -July 28, 2012

Col. R. Hariharan

A quarter century on, India’s military involvement in Sri Lanka remains relevant as a lesson in poor leadership in contrast to the 1971 war to liberate East Pakistan

The India-Sri Lanka Agreement 1987, also known as the Rajiv-Jayawardene Accord, completes 25 years on July 29. As a soldier who actively participated in India’s military intervention in both Sri Lanka (1987-90) and East Pakistan in 1971 (that created Bangladesh), I cannot help comparing the two exercises in the assertion of India’s power.

The two theatres, and the environment in India at the time of the two operations, were totally different. In Bangladesh, it was conventional war against the well trained Pakistan army. India went into it after much military planning and preparation. In contrast, in Sri Lanka, the army got embroiled in counter-insurgency combat with Tamil insurgents, for which it was unprepared. Force levels in Bangladesh were much higher. The air force and navy formed part of the overall offensive plan. In Sri Lanka it was essentially a decentralised infantry operation against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Biggest difference

The biggest difference was perhaps in the tasks given to the army. The objective of the 1971 war was not the capture of East Pakistan, but the establishment of an independent Bangladesh government on East Pakistan soil. In contrast India’s military intervention in Sri Lanka came with a vague mandate to “guarantee and enforce cessation of hostilities” (between the Sri Lanka Army and Tamil militants) as part of the Rajiv-Jayawardene Accord. There was no mention of fighting anyone.

There were similarities too between the two outings. In both, India had broader strategic objectives with Cold War connotations to curtail American influence in South Asia. India also thought it in its national interest to help people asserting their rights — in East Pakistan, the Bengalis, and in Sri Lanka, the Tamil minority. Both interventions were preceded by the affected communities rising up to fight their state forces.

The 1971 war served Indian strategic goals by cutting Pakistan’s access, and that of its ally, the U.S., to eastern India. It also met the aspirations of the people who wanted to be freed from the yoke of Pakistan. India did not politically intervene before East Pakistan’s unchallenged leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, declared independence on March 26, 1971. After that it took over eight months to go into the war.

The war lasted barely two weeks from December 3 to 17, 1971. The help of Mukti Bahini — Bangladeshi freedom fighters — was key to the Indian success. It was a tribute to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s leadership and a moment of triumph for General Sam Manekshaw, the army chief, for masterly planning and execution of the war. The Indian armed forces lost over 3,000 lives in the battlefield; over 9,000 Pakistani soldiers were killed and 97,000 taken prisoner. India had sent a strong message in power assertion in South Asia and the nation applauded the achievement.

When thousands of Tamils fled Sri Lanka in the aftermath of the July 1983 pogrom in Colombo against the Tamil minority, at first India tried to engage the Sri Lankan leadership to defuse the crisis. After the signing of the Accord, Tamils built up high expectations based on the Indian intervention in Bangladesh, without realising that the circumstances were different.

Sent to Sri Lanka to help implement the Accord, the Indian Army unexpectedly got entangled in war with the LTTE insurgents who refused to lay down arms and join the political mainstream. The three-year war cost the lives of 1,255 Indian soldiers; thousands of Sri Lankans were killed or wounded. The Indian intervention ended abruptly when Sri Lanka’s democratic process showed the door to the architects of the Accord in both countries.

Both the military interventions hold lessons for India and its armed forces. Firstly, such interventions need dynamic leadership. Undoubtedly, it was Indira Gandhi’s leadership that provided the momentum for success in 1971. She had a nationwide following, beyond the inherited afterglow of Jawaharlal Nehru. Her strong-willed leadership bordered on autocracy, and she focussed on ends rather than the means to achieve them.

She was also a pragmatist; she deferred military intervention in East Pakistan after General (later Field Marshal) Manekshaw sought time to prepare the army for war. Before she went in for the “kill” in East Pakistan, she built strong international constituencies of support. She had a Plan B — the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty — to discount the possibility of American or Chinese military intervention in support of Pakistan. A blundering Pakistani military dictatorship played into her hands and President Nixon blinked when Indian troops moved in and the rest is history.

By the time Rajiv Gandhi inherited the leadership from his mother, Indira Gandhi’s ill-conceived national Emergency had considerably dimmed her halo. He was politically naïve. As he gathered more experience, he had an impatient leadership style, and paid little heed to advice from the seasoned Congress leader and ministerial colleague, P.V. Narasimha Rao, not to go sign the Accord.

When I landed in Jaffna in August 1987, Sri Lankans who knew Jayawardene warned that he would make Indian forces fight the LTTE. I did not believe them then; but in hindsight that seems to have been the plan. Rajiv Gandhi also made unwritten promises that India could not sustain later. When Premadasa gave an ultimatum to Indian troops to quit Sri Lanka, Rajiv had no Plan B.

The second aspect relates to the army. The absence of a national goal in the intervention in Sri Lanka led to warped military thinking. Success in an overseas operation requires the army to be closely involved in the structured strategic decision-making process. The absence of this approach made military sacrifices in Sri Lanka meaningless. The army had not factored in the LTTE reneging on its promise and taking up arms. As a result, forces had to be rushed to Sri Lanka to fight in unknown territory barely a few hours after landing.

The army responded in a knee-jerk fashion to the political leadership’s instant demands without visualising what tasks that involved. When it had to undertake the operation against the LTTE, it lacked intelligence resources, military or civil. In any case, Military Intelligence was not in the loop even as the army was preparing for its role. It was as late as July 23, 1987, when the Deputy Director General of MI informally briefed me, the most senior Tamil speaking officer in the MI, on “possible involvement of army” in Sri Lanka and asked me to meet the Southern Army Commander for further briefing.

When I met the army commander in Chennai on the day our troops landed in Sri Lanka, he expected our role to last no more than a few days or weeks. Civil intelligence agencies played truant; they were reluctant to share information with us for their own reasons. It took nearly two years and the loss of a thousand Indian troops for the civil intelligence flow to improve. By then, it had no worthwhile field intelligence. In Bangladesh, on the other hand, civil and military intelligence had clearly coordinated their operations well in advance.

Strong message

Despite these imponderables, the Accord sent home a strong message to all stakeholders: India would not ignore strategic developments in its close proximity in Sri Lanka, and would support the minority demand for an equitable deal. The most significant achievement of the Accord was the introduction of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution which provided a degree of autonomy to the newly created provinces. And it still exists as the only constitutional tool available to redress Tamil grievances.

Twenty five years after the Accord, and three years after the Sri Lanka army wiped out the LTTE along with its leader V. Prabakaran in May 2009, two questions come to mind in the changed strategic environment:

Did the Accord serve India’s strategic goals? Can India successfully undertake an overseas military intervention to serve its strategic interests based on lessons from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka?

The Accord failed to achieve its strategic goals in full. The devolution of powers to the Tamil minority promised in the Accord remains unfulfilled despite the 13th Amendment. But the Accord retains the potential as an instrument of Indian influence in the region. As far as the second question is concerned, yes we have a national strategic decision-making structure, though the armed forces are only on listening watch; and intelligence coordination has presumably improved. What India does not have is a dynamic national leadership.

(Col. R. Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. E-mail:colhari@yahoo.com)

Current Crisis in the University Admissions and FUTA solutions
(Lanka-e-News-28.July.2012, 2.00PM) The Executive Committee of the Federation of University Teacher’s Associations (FUTA) met on 26th July 2012 to discuss the current crisis in the university admissions created by the University Grant Commission (UGC). The FUTA holds the view that the number of students who had qualified to enter universities should be increased considerably for the 2012/13 intake as it is the best way to resolve the issue.

The FUTA urges the UGC to follow the provisions in the University Act, 1978 (as Amended) on student enrolment (in sub sections six and seven of Section 15) in accommodating more students. Accordingly, the UGC should consult the faculty boards, senate, and university councils when deciding the number of students to be accommodated in relevant universities. Members from the sister unions of the FUTA who represent 99 % of the members of the Senates and Faculty Boards would arrange for universities to accommodate more students. Such an arrangement would not be the Uva-Wellassa University.

The FUTA believes that it is the responsibility of the government to take a policy decision to provide necessary resources and infrastructure facilities to accommodate more students. The FUTA also urges the government to increase its spending per student from the current provision of Rs. 181,000/= to at least Rs. 450,000/= and reduce the student teacher ratio from the current position of 1:17 to the 1985 ratio of 1:8 in order to produce quality tertiary education. The FUTA requests the government that it should commit itself to increasing government spending on education up to 6% of the GDP by 2015 as agreed up on at various international forums. FUTA wishes to remind that our members have agreed to go along with the decisions of enrolling double-batches of students in 1991 and 2000 without demanding extra payments for additional work load in conducting lectures, tutorial classes and practical classes.

Dr. Devaka Weerakoon
Media Spokesman

‘WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF JAFFNA’ CONTINUED Blaming the Sinhalese for the “insane fury” of Jaffna

Sunday 22 July 2012
A closer look into what happened in the history of Jaffna will reveal that dark, demonic and destructive forces presided over its hidden past. Tragically, these dark forces have not evaporated. They still cloud the skies of Jaffna casting long shadows ominously across its future. The ill-fated future of Jaffna was first identified by Mylvaganam Pulavar who wrote the first official history of Jaffna, Yalpana Vaipava Malai, at the request of the Dutch governor in 1736. The forecast of Jaffna’s doomed future is pronounced by Suppathidda muni who told King Pararajasegaram that “sovereignty will never again come back to your descendants.” However, this prediction in Mylvaganam’s history is less important — perhaps, even irrelevant in rational historiography — than his focus on the cruelty (he calls it the “insane fury”) that bloodied the pre-Dutch period, from Sangkili to the Portuguese. One strand of the dark forces that haunted Jaffna throughout its history is the unrestrained “insane fury” of the pre-colonial period  (starting from Sangkili) that flowed right down, going through the phase of the Vellahlas, to Prabhakaran. The average Jaffna man, living under the oppressive regimes of each phase, was a victim of the “insane fury” that dehumanized him, making Jaffna a brutal enclave with no parallel in any other part of Sri Lanka.  
Besides, an overview of the history of Jaffna that has unfolded so far signposts an intransigent movement led by extremist leaders unwinding its way to an end without hope. No other community in Sri Lanka has suffered as much as the people of Jaffna under their self-centred and myopic leaders. At no time in their history were the Jaffnaites free from oppression. In addition to this, the Tamil leaders who were in command of peninsular politics never failed to lead their people into recurring disasters in the 20th Century. The known events of the past records that the Tamil leadership went down the wrong path each time they arrived at the critical fork of the road. They seem to have the unerring knack of picking the wrong turn each time they decided to go their own way dismissing the other communities that have compromised seeking the path of non-violence for the common good. Their intransigence leading to “insane fury,” which, of course, leads to death and destruction, is a curse they have brought upon themselves. This makes them look as if they had walked out of  Albert Camus’ ill-fated landscape. The fatalism that runs through his short story The Guest fits Jaffna like a glove. In it he wrote: “This is the way the region was, cruel to live in, even without men — who didn’t help matters either. But Drau (the school teacher living way up in a plateau, cut off from the rest) had been born here. Everywhere else he felt exiled.” (There is more to this story which will be related in due course.)

Locked inside a socio-political framework      Full Story>>>

‘Give our son back to us’

By Azra Ameen-Date:2012-07-08

Riots and violence inside prisons are not novel occurrences in Sri Lanka. It was only in January this year that a group of inmates at the Welikada Prison rioted, and in the events that ensued, 26 inmates and several prison guards were injured. This raised a number of questions about the state of Sri Lanka’s prison system.

However, the chaos that prevailed in the Vavuniya Prison last week was not just riot where a group of inmates tried to take control of the guards to demand their rights. It brought a life to an end.

Ganesh Nimalaruban, one of the Tamil political prisoners, who was allegedly attacked during a rescue drama in Vavuniya Prison last week, died on Wednesday (4). He was transferred to the Mahara Prison after being injured in the Vavuniya Prison, and had died on Wednesday morning, while receiving treatment at the Ragama Hospital.

More than 15 detainees had sustained severe injuries, and among them three were in a critical condition, and Nimalaruban was one of them.

Joint operation       Read more

LLRC Report Affirms the Need for an Impartial Enquiry Into Lanka's War Crimes
Paul Newman Special to Salem-News.com

The LLRC does not give details of the exact or approximate numbers of civilians killed, missing or unaccountable.

The LLRC is silent on the 'incarceration' of 282,000 Tamils in the Manik Farm camps for more than a year (Photos: www.warwithoutwitness.com)

(LONDON) - After the ending of the nearly three-decade old civil war in Sri Lanka, Human Rights Groups across the world demanded an impartial International Enquiry into war excesses committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces. When the pressure started mounting, the Sri Lankan government quickly formed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to give an impression to the world that it was serious about an impartial inquiry.

However, the real motive of LLRC was to bail out the government from being brought under the scanner of an international commission of enquiry that would have meant big trouble for Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The Permanent People’s Tribunal on War Crimes against Sri Lanka held at Dublin in January 2010, and the report of the International Crisis Group in March 2010 had already indicted Sri Lanka for its war crimes. The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon had also appointed a very credible panel of experts under Marzuki Darusman.

It was only after this the Sri Lankan government appointed the eight member LLRC with only a couple of names from the aggrieved community.

However, international human rights groups were against a domestic investigation for the simple reason that the previous Presidential commissions on many other issues did not bear any positive outcome for the victims.

The chairperson of the LLRC was the attorney general, who is the chief law officer of the present government. Another member was part of the UN ad-hoc Committee on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, and a third member served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the final stages of the war.

All members were hand-picked stooges of President Rajapaksa. Even at the outset, it became clear that no credible report could be expected from them. The LLRC was in the field for just 17 days, and only 6 days at the war theatre in Vanni out of its tenure of nearly 18 months!

The commission lacked a victim centric approach and it functioned from Colombo instead of from any of the Tamil areas. There were no professional counselors to aid the victims deposing before them.

The LLRC lacked gender sensitivity. Though women and children constituted 80% of the victims, the LLRC had only one aged woman representative. There was absolute lack of transparency, as nobody knew what the commission was working on. There was no provision for a grievance redressal mechanism either.

Witnesses had no security or protection. A witness had to go back and live with the perpetrators of the crime - that is the Sri Lankan armed forces, which has taken over 40% of the land belonging to the Tamils.

The LLRC does not give details of the exact or approximate numbers of civilians killed, missing or unaccountable.

According to records of the Government Agent offices at Mullaiththeevu and Killinochchi districts, the population of Vanni was 429,059 in October 2008. The total number of people who got into government control after the war was 282,380, according to an UN update as of 10 July 2009.

The Catholic Bishop of Mannaar, Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph raised this point in his submission to the LLRC on the 9th of January 2011. “Due clarification should be made regarding what happened to 146,679 people, which is the discrepancy between the number of people who came to government controlled areas between October 2008 – May 2009 and the population reported to be in Vanni in early October 2008,” he stated.

The Bishop had also raised the issues of militarization, colonisation, land grab, Sinhalization, Buddhicisation and civil as well as human rights abuses that continue to take place in the Tamil land following the war. The LLRC has no answers to these very important queries.

The continuation of the high security zones comes at a high human cost. In Jaffna alone, over 60,000 Tamils have lost their homes. Restriction of fishing and cultivation continues in the high security zones everywhere. Outside the high security zones, fishermen need to collect 24 signatures from different officials before they could go out for fishing.

There is also a clear instruction from the government to the churches and the Non Governmental Organizations not to counsel the war affected Tamils or organize life skill training for them, as they claim such exercises would rekindle ‘the old wounds’. By failing to address these important issues, the LLRC has totally failed in its mission.

The UN panel report mentions rape and sexual violence against Tamil women in the final stages of the war and its aftermath. Many video evidences depicted naked bodies of dead women alleged to be fighters. There were also reports from international agencies working in camps of instances of rape in the IDP camps, but the LLRC does not respond to these charges at all.

Though two and a half years have passed since the war ended, the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act continues. The LLRC has nothing to say about this. The commission speaks of individual excesses by the state forces but does not speak of institutional violence perpetrated by the state during the war.

There is no mention of aerial shellings of homes and the lives lost in such attacks

It is silent on the expulsion of INGOs and NGOs from the war zone in September 2008, and the ban on private and independent media on covering the war.

There is no mention of the white van abductions, the killing of independent journalist across the island, the recruitment of child soldiers by pro-government para military groups, the plight of the 90,000 war widows from the north and the east, and the incarceration of 282,000 Tamils in the Manik Farm camps for more than a year.

It has not addressed the catastrophic fallout of the economic embargo on the Tamil areas from the end of 2007, the starvation of civilians from June 2008, the continuous aerial bombings on civilian targets, the shoddy resettlement of Tamils, and the state of Tamil refugees around the world.

The only positive outcomes are the recommendations to demilitarize the north and east and to dismantle the paramilitary groups.

The world has read and seen the gory incidents of the war, thanks to the UN Experts’ report, ‘The Cage’, a book written by Gordon Weiss, former UN Spokesperson in Sri Lanka, the Channel 4 documentary, ‘The killing fields of Sri Lanka,’ and ‘I witnessed Genocide’ by Indian TV channel Headlines Today, to name a few.

The Weekend Leader’s documentation of the continuing oppression of Tamils and the ongoing Sinhalisation efforts in its series, ‘Inside Sri Lanka,’ was another proof of the miserable conditions of Tamils in Sri Lanka, even after the end of the war.

The LLRC has proved its loyalty to President Rajapaksa by giving a clean chit to the Sri Lankan state and absolving it of the charges of ‘state terrorism’. The LLRC was nothing but a sham. Only an international enquiry will establish the horrendous truth of Sri Lanka’s genocidal war

The author holds a Doctorate of Philosophy on ‘Internal Displacement and Human Rights situation in Northern Sri Lanka from Bangalore University. He was one of the four public speakers at the Permanent People’s Tribunal on War Crimes against Sri Lanka

DEATH THREATS AGAINST ME IN 2000 - ERIK SOLHEIM

Erik Solheim skulle drepes

Disse plakatene av Erik Solheim, Hillary Clinton og David Miliband ble klistret opp i Sri Lankas hovedstad Colombo i april 2009. Alle beskyldes for å støtte og oppmuntre til terrorisme.

FOTO: Eranga Jayawardena

DEATH THREATS AGAINST ME IN 2000 - ERIK SOLHEIM

July 27, 2012

Erik Solheim travelled to Sri Lanka Monday 22, May 2000 with then-Undersecretary of State Raymond Johansen, among other things, to meet then Pesident Chandrika Kumaratunga. The Norwegian delegation was going to be in the country for three days. In an interview with the Aftenposten Newspaper Solhiem claims that there was a bomb attack planned to assassinate him.

“We assumed that the threat came from extreme Singhalese, said Solheim today, twelve years later.

He confirmed that he was briefed about the assassination plans. Police Security Service (PST), which at that time was named service, was made aware of the threat several days before Solheim travelled to Colombo. The tip came from people in Norway with knowledge of radical communities in Sri Lanka.

“We were at different points in time, made aware of the threats and were also given access to highly classified information on the situation in Sri Lanka, said Solheim.

Had bodyguards

-During all the time in Sri Lanka, we were aware that we were at risk. Sri Lanka is probably the only place where we are vulnerable precisely because we are Norwegians.

“We never travelled in Sri Lanka without having bodyguards from PST. They were everywhere. In addition, there was a large security presence both from the Singhalese Government and from the Tigers when we visited them. but there is no absolute guarantee of that. The many leaders in Sri Lanka who was killed, had also a large security forces around them.

-Very excited mood

Today he does not remember whether the threats were related to the use of explosives or firearms, but points out that both have been used in attentive in Sri Lanka.

-It was very tense mood in Colombo since the Tamil Tigers had much military progress at that time. We were actually in dialogue with India about a possible evacuation of the entire army of the Singhalese to the Indian mainland, said Solheim.

On Wednesday, 21-24. May 2000, the same day as Solheim left Sri Lanka, unknown perpetrators threw an explosive at the Norwegian Embassy in Colombo. The thing went over the roof of the Embassy and ended up in the garden on an uninhabited neighbor’s House, where it exploded. Solheim don’t know for sure if he was the target of this action.

-It might have been, it is impossible for me to know. I perceived it as a warning against Norway.

Follow through

The ceasefire which came in 2002, in reality, short lived. Solheim resigned as a Special Adviser in 2005, when he was minister for environment and development. The Norwegian peace efforts on the island continued, but did an abrupt end in 2009, the same year as the Government initiated the violent offensive that finally crushed the Tamil Eelam. At the same time came news that Norway was no longer wanted as peace broker in the conflict. However, still with Solheim follows the development of the country.

Courtesy aftenposten

Sri Lanka Says Investigations Of Alleged Tamil Killings By Government Troops May Take 5 Years Lanka Killing Fields - Channel 4 UK Part 1

Sri Lanka Says Investigations Of Alleged Tamil Killings By Government Troops May Take 5 Years

Lanka Killing Fields - Channel 4 UK Part 1

Sri Lanka Says Investigations Of Alleged Tamil Killings By Government Troops May Take 5 Years

By Associated Press, Published: July 26

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka estimated Thursday it may take up to five years to investigate alleged killings of ethnic Tamil civilians by government troops at the end of the country’s devastating civil war — a timeframe criticized as an attempt to outlast international attention.

The government recommended that investigators conclude inquiries into alleged killings within a year and start court proceedings up to four years after that.

Sri Lanka’s government, which initially denied any abuses occurred, has come under intense international pressure to investigate allegations of summary executions, kidnappings and other abuses by troops just before they defeated separatist Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009.

The rebels fought a quarter-century civil war to create a separate state for ethnic minority Tamils, citing marginalization by majority ethnic Sinhalese.

Lawmaker Suresh Premachandran of the Tamil National Alliance, the largest party representing Tamils, dismissed the plan as one prepared for “international consumption.”

He said the five-year timeframe is an attempt to drag on the process until the international community has forgotten the issue.

Presidential spokesman Lalith Weeratunga told reporters the plan shows the government’s keenness to move forward.

A U.N. report released last year said government troops deliberately shelled civilians and hospitals and blocked food to people trapped in the war zone and said the rebels recruited child soldiers and held civilians as human shields. It said tens of thousands of civilians may have been killed in the final months of the conflict.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

LLRC roadmap: An ‘action plan’ to suit the US, not us!

LLRC roadmap: An ‘action plan’ to suit the US, not us!

Photo credit: Daily FT

Groundviews

The government announced (26 July, 2012) it has drawn up a comprehensive “National Action Plan to Implement the Recommendations of the LLRC” and has released same to the public domain. This comes after the Geneva Resolution and the discussions the Rajapaksa government had thereafter with the US administration. Immediately after the Geneva Resolution was adopted in March 2012, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton extended an invitation to External Affairs Minister Peiris, for a discussion in Washington that was accepted by Minister Peiris.

Summing up the meeting Minister Peiris had with Secretary Clinton, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told the media on Friday 18 May 2012, “The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister presented a very serious and comprehensive approach to the Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s implementation”. Secretary Clinton was quoted saying, the (SL) presidential secretariat’s programme is an, “excellent mechanism for implementing the LLRC’s recommendations”.

The Rajapaksa government nevertheless tried it’s best, to tell the Sinhala gallery that it has not compromised with the US on the implementation of LLRC recommendations. External Affairs ministry Secretary, Amunugama told the local media a week later (24 May), the action plan is still being prepared by a Committee headed by Presidential Secretary Weeratunge and no date could be fixed for its completion. He stressed Minister Peiris had not given a written document to US Secretary Clinton. Its only a verbal explanation, he stressed.

Yet the compromise between SL and the US Administration on this “National Action Plan” for implementation of LLRC recommendations was quite evident from other issues that fell in place to the advantage of the Rajapaksa regime. While the IMF has agreed to begin a new round of talks for another loan, the US GSP Review on Sri Lanka, closed without any change and for trade benefits to continue. US Trade Rep Ron Kirk said the decision to close the review in favour of SL was based on the “Sri Lankan government’s noteworthy efforts to address worker rights issues, over the past few years”, despite everything negative happening here on the ground.

Praise showered over this “Action Plan” by the US administration is no different. Out of some 285 recommendations in the LLRC Final Report, the Action Plan, Secretary Clinton said is “excellent”, excludes or bluffs over  most important issues. The “Independent Police and Public Service Commissions” (9.215 and 226) the LLRC recommended, are listed in this Action Plan as already established. What are these “independent” Commissions that are said to be already in place ?

This Rajapaksa government was from its very inception, against any independence in administering and regulating State agencies. They refused to establish “Independent Commissions” under the 17^th Amendment to the Constitution, for they would then remain comparatively independent and out of the Executive President’s and his Defence Secretary’s authority. The Defence Secretary for one, wields unlimited power, beyond that of any public administrator. Immediately after the 2010 April general elections, elected for a second parliamentary term, President Rajapaksa decided to repeal the 17^th Amendment and introduce the 18^th Amendment that now allows the President to appoint Commissions, labelling them as “independent”. The Commissions are now like “moonshine” labelled as champagne. Without shame, the Action Plan takes pride in calling them “independent” and as already established.

Following that bluff, the recommendation to de-link the Police Department from other security agencies and such related operations, has been subtly avoided in the Action Plan with no  direct commitment. It says, the “Activity” would be to “refer it to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) as it deals with an entirely policy/political issue” and the “Key Responsible Agency” would be the “Proposed PSC”. There are no “Key Performance Indicators” and no “Time frame” applicable as well. The PSC as it is, is only a “punching bag” to box on. There is no guarantee it would happen this year, or at all. Therefore the bottom line is, the Police Department would remain as it is now, totally politicised and used as an auxiliary force when the defence authority wishes so. The LLRC recommendation, comfortably shoved under, within the Action Plan.

This proves what bluffing and false interpretations this regime would resort to in avoiding actual and honest implementation of its own LLRC recommendations. With no politically important issues related to power sharing touched upon, all other recommendations are treated in the same vein too.

The issue of de-militarising civil administration has also been covered with niceties that amounts to nothing. There was no mention of “phasing out” security forces’ involvement in civil administration, discussed in the LLRC Recommendations, though the “Action Plan” opts for such language (9.171, 227). The LLRC as a policy, strongly advocated and recommended to the Government that Security Forces should disengage itself from all civil administration related activities as “RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE.” Eight months after the LLRC Final Report was handed over to the President, the Action Plan proposes to “Formulate Plan for further reducing involvement of Security Forces in civilian work.”  It needs another 06 months for that and have the audacity to note , 95% as “already withdrawn from civilian duties.” One is left bewildered, calculating the remaining 05% that would need formulating a plan and another 06 months.

This is a total lie and a means for continued military interference in civil administration. The responsible agency is given as the Defence Ministry that has always been the bottle neck in sorting out issues in the North and the East. The key performance indicator is identified as “A marked reduction or withdrawal of security force personnel for civil activities”. Note the confusing language. While talking of already withdrawn 95%, it is “civilian duties”. When talking of indicators, it is not “civil administration”, but “civil activities”. Nuances in such calculated language needs to be stressed to.

In very plain language, de-militarising civil administration and civil life, needs only one simple step and that is no complicated or difficult step to take. It is to immediately replace ex- servicemen in civil administrative positions with SLAS officers and post, reputed independent civilians for positions like Governors of Provincial Councils. If the Action Plan accepts de-militarising in such depth, it would immediately remove the military presence in the Trincomalee district administration which has a Major General as its District Secretary. It would immediately replace the Major General as Governor, NPC and the Rear Admiral (Rtd) as Governor, EPC. Most importantly, it would have to replace all ex-servicemen and servicemen from all posts in Ministries, State departments and institutes, that essentially should be clean and straight civil positions.

Therefore, what should be recorded as “key performance indicators” is not a very generalised, “marked reduction or withdrawal”, but a clear “total replacement of security personnel in administrative positions” with a “Time frame” of just “Two weeks”.

The issue of disbanding “illegal armed groups” as the LLRC termed them, has also been reduced to mere “persons” in possession of “unauthorised” weapons (9.204). This shows the sheer reluctance in the Rajapaksa regime in giving up organised armed presence, especially in the North – East. The social problem of unauthorised weapons in the hands of persons, and the political issue of “illegal armed groups” operating with State patronage, are completely two different issues that needs two different solutions. The proposed “National Action Plan” has very comfortably left out “illegal armed groups” the LLRC was very much concerned about.

The LLRC was extremely clear about this, naming organisations and groups. There is mention of “EPDP”, “Karuna group”, the “TMVP” and also of a “Major Seelan’s gang”. In fact the LLRC notes on page 174, “The Commission is constrained to observe the attitude manifested by the leadership of the TMVP and EPDP in their explanations provide little or no consolation to the aggrieved parties, and tends to militate against any meaningful reconciliation process.” These are facts the LLRC did not wish to ignore. But the “National Plan of Action” has.

One of the most pressing issues for livelihood security and settlement, the “Land” issue, is to be dragged almost endlessly. According to this Action Plan it would take 03 years more to “Take steps to re-locate or to pay compensation”. It also says, 03 more years are necessary to make budgetary provisions available, provide resources to the Lands Ministry and then to  draw up a land use policy for North and East.

All issues would thus be colour washed to please the international community and the UN HRC review. Beyond that, for those who wish to have realistic answers here on the ground, this Action Plan is plain bluff. One should remember, these people in the North – East have already lived out 03 post war years for now, without answers for any of those issues. The Action Plan would not get off into implementation immediately, for sure. The government is more than happy to leave it open as a draft for discussions, over which it could buy more time. It could even organise protests and lobbies to further water down the proposals, in the absence of a strong “Southern” lobby to push the Rajapaksa regime to come up with constructive proposals. Thus for any semblance of an answer to their issues, the Tamil people would have to wait for at least more than 06 years after the war ended. That too without the most important and most wanted political solution to their grievances.

For the Sinhala South that sees any answer to any issue as those conceded to the Tamil people and therefore unnecessary, the wait for a decent, civilised life in a post war society that cherishes law and order with a de politicised and a de militarised State and an independent police department, would also be a long and a traumatic wait through increasing crimes, rape of their children and women, murder and drug pedalling, most with political patronage.

Such is what the US State Secretary, Hillary Clinton sees as an “excellent mechanism” to address post war reconciliation and rehabilitation. It therefore goes to prove, that the International Community pressure now controlled according to the US agenda, is not what would bring answers to our national issues. The responsibility of finding answers to post war issues, can not be outsourced any more.