[Tamil] Sivanthan Gobi on 22 day fasting campaign in London
Sivanthan Gobi who starts a fasting campaign in London on 22 July 2012 talks about his campaign and demands.
Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Friday, August 3, 2012
Self-determination: Myth and Reality
Date:2012-07-29
Date:2012-07-29
M.A.Sumanthiran
 The phrase ‘self-determination’ raises many alarms in Sri Lanka today. The reason for that is the myth that somehow, if the right to self-determination is ceded to the Tamils of this country, it will automatically lead to secession.
Although, various shades of this concept were expressed in different times before the twentieth century, particularly in the American Independence and the French Revolution, it was actually brought to the fore during World War I. It is generally accepted that it was President Woodrow Wilson of the United States who mooted the concept of self-determination as the aim of the war for the Allies, which was later followed by the other leaders of the Allied states.
Purpose of the UN
When the United Nations (UN) was created after World War II, one of the purposes of the UN was spelt out in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter to say:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
Article 55 of the UN Charter provides inter alia,
…based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote …
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 2 declares that, …no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty in that person’s entitlement to the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration.
The right to self-determination of peoples as enshrined in the UN Charter was originally applied in respect of peoples and nations who were under colonial rule and their independence. This is seen very clearly in the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples, 1960. Whilst Declaration No.2 lays down that,
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
And when the UN finally adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966, Article 1, which is common to both, read thus:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Right to self-determination
Once the process of decolonization was almost exhausted, the scope for the exercise of the right to self-determination started to expand. Although for the first two decades of the UN Charter, the right to self-determination was considered to be one that is limited to the colonial context, there was no real rationale for such a narrow approach. Several jurists have criticized this limited application of the right to self-determination as being without any justification. Amankwah argues that “Freedom should not, in principle, be confined and that, therefore, the right to self-determination should be available even to peoples within the pre-existing state, that is, ‘minorities.’” He cites the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Western Sahara case as having enunciated the legal principle for the right to self-determination. Gerry Simpson points out that the attempt to restrict this right to the colonial context was for pragmatic reasons, and that there are several incongruities as a result. The most recent examples are the former states belonging to Yugoslavia and the USSR, Kosovo being prominent among them. There is no question that the right to self-determination of peoples is a customary principle of International Law. The only contentious issue is with regard to the application of that principle to all distinct minorities within pre-existing states, as that will tend to validate the claims of all secessionist groups. It is important to note that a people can, in the exercise of their right to self-determination decide to remain within in a pre-existing state, but choose the degree of autonomous self-government within the framework of a sovereign state. This is known as internal self-determination, as opposed to external self-determination when a people are granted the right to establish their own separate sovereign state. Naturally it is easier to find legitimacy in International Law for the claim of the right to internal self-determination.
The UNESCO meeting of Experts on further study of the Rights of Peoples (Paris 1990) proposed that the following criteria be used to determine a people:
(a) Cultural homogeneity;
(b) Linguistic unity;
(c) Religious ideological affinity;
(d) Common historical tradition;
(e) Racial and ethnic identity;
(f) Territorial connection;
(g) Common economic existence or life.
Tamils were a sovereign nation
The claim of the Tamils to self-determination is also based on the fact that prior to colonization they were a nation, exercising sovereignty over a defined and separate territory. Consequently, they claim that the right to independence from colonial rule was a separate right that vested with the Tamil People. However, it must be remembered that the Tamils in Sri Lanka did not demand a separate sovereign state at the time of independence from colonial rule. The demand at that stage was for parity of status. Within ten years of independence, the demand for a federal state intensified. It was only after a series of repressive measures by successive governments, and broken agreements that the demand for a separate state as an expression of their right to self-determination emerged. Thirty-Five years after the call for a separate state, still the majority of the Tamils are ready to exercise their right to self-determination internally, if only that right is recognized and meaningful autonomy is granted. It is at this point that a seemingly irreconcilable difference arises between the parties to the conflict. The reluctance of the state to recognize the right to self-determination of the Tamils is based on the myth that it will automatically grant them the right to secede unilaterally; and state sovereignty will be blown apart and territorial integrity compromised.
Customary International Law recognizes a sovereign state to possess (1) a territory, (2) a people, (3) an effective government and (4) the capacity to enter into foreign relations. Early jurists considered sovereignty as being the authority of the monarch or of one centralized government. This meant that federations were suspected to be weak forms of governments as far as state sovereignty was concerned. However, one could not reconcile such an idea with the form of government in the American federal system.
Today sovereignty is classified into universal sovereignty, popular sovereignty and state sovereignty. According to Elazar, “Popular sovereignty…makes it possible for two or more governments to share the attributes of sovereignty without altering the indivisibility of sovereignty.” In fact, in a democratic system, sovereignty actually rests with the people and thus can be described as popular sovereignty. In an extended sense, even a monarchy can be described as popular sovereignty if the people choose the king and he rules them with their consent. Therefore, although state sovereignty in the past meant an absolute right that vested in a central authority to do whatever it willed in relation to the people and territory, such a notion is a fallacy in the context of modern nation-states. State sovereignty can also be divided into internal and external. Internal refers to the governmental authority and power over the people and territory governed, while external concerns its existence as a free entity in the world of nations.
Shared sovereignty
The possible exercise of self-determination by various peoples within a sovereign state has demanded greater imagination over the last sixty years all over the world. Today, there are several models of shared sovereignty in Europe, America, Asia and even in Australia. Models of federation as seen in Australia, and the USA today are not necessarily linked to the right of self-determination of peoples, although the debate over the right to self-determination and to sovereignty of indigenous peoples have gained momentum. In Europe, the movement towards European Union has raised a whole host of issues with regard to the state sovereignty of participating states. The decision of the French Constitutional Court on the compatibility of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties relating to the European Union with the constitutional provisions on sovereignty, necessitated amendments to the French Constitution. In the UK, devolution of power to Scotland and its effect on state sovereignty, among other issues, are constantly being debated. The decision of the Canadian Supreme Court holding that Quebec did not possess the right to unilaterally secede from Canada discusses the principles of International Law in relation to the right of ‘peoples’ to self-determination and sovereignty.
Right to unilateral secession
The opinions expressed by the International Court of Justice in Portugal v. Australia in the case concerning East Timor does not deal with the issue as to the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination since both contestant countries conceded that right. Although subsequent discussions on Kosovo, South Sudan are available, the Canadian Supreme Court judgment on Quebec, albeit by a court exercising domestic jurisdiction, has the most relevant pronouncement on the International Law principles of the right to self-determination. The court lays down the exceptional circumstances in which a right to unilateral secession will be permitted in International law in the exercise of the right to self-determination. These are, (1) when ‘a people’ is governed as part of a colonial empire, (2) where ‘a people’ is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation and (3) possibly where ‘a people’ is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part.
The court recognizes that in International Law even if ‘a people’ fall outside the category of colonial people, they are entitled to secession as an expression of their right to self-determination, if they are an oppressed people or if no meaningful access to government has been permitted to them in order to exercise their right to self-determination within the bounds of a sovereign state.
The Tamil People in Sri Lanka have been subjected to discrimination within the model of a unitary state where they have been denied the right to express their right to self-determination within an internal arrangement, such as a federal government. In such a situation the continued denial of the existence of the right to self-determination itself may give rise to the right to unilateral secession as an expression of that right. Therefore, it is the recognition of the right to self-determination of the Tamil People, and not its denial, that will help preserve the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka from claims to the right of secession. Thus it is a sine qua non that the right to self-determination of the Tamil People is recognized and the nature of the state is restructured to enable meaningful exercise of internal self-determination if the right to external self-determination is to be avoided.
| |
Buddhists Behaving Badly
File Photo
Buddhists Behaving Badly
What Zealotry is Doing to Sri Lanka
McGowan provides a fascinating account of the war's tragic, mounting equation, and he is doubtful that anything can save this country from its own internal flames.
A Buddhist monk protesting in Colombo, 2010. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / Courtesy Reuters)
In Sri Lanka last September, a Sinhalese mob led by some 100 Buddhist monks demolished a Muslim shrine in the ancient city of Anuradhapura. As the crowd waved Buddhist colors, gold and red, a monk set a green Muslim flag on fire. The monks claimed that the shrine was on land that had been given to the Sinhalese 2,000 years ago -- an allusion to their proprietary right over the entire island nation, as inscribed in ancient religious texts.
The Anuradhapura attack was not the only recent incident of Buddhists behaving badly in Sri Lanka. In April, monks led nearly 2,000 Sinhalese Buddhists in a march against a mosque in Dambulla, a holy city where Sinhalese kings are believed to have taken refuge from southern Indian invaders in a vast network of caves almost two millennia ago. The highly charged -- but largely symbolic -- attack marked a "historic day," a monk who led the assault told the crowd, "a victory for those who love the [Sinhala] race, have Sinhala blood, and are Buddhists."
Such chauvinism is at odds with Western preconceptions of Buddhism -- a religion that emphasizes nonviolence and nonattachment -- but is in keeping with Sri Lanka's religious history. Militant Buddhism there has its roots in an ancient narrative called the Mahavamsa (Great Chronicle), which was composed by monks in the sixth century. According to the Mahavamsa, the Buddha foresaw the demise of Buddhism in India but saw a bright future for it in Sri Lanka. "In Lanka, O Lord of Gods, shall my religion be established and flourish," he said. The Sinhalese take this as a sign that they are the Buddha's chosen people, commanded to "preserve and protect" Buddhism in its most pristine form. According to myth, a young Sinhalese prince in the second century BC armed himself with a spear tipped with a relic of the Buddha and led a column of 500 monks to vanquish Tamil invaders. In addition to defending his kingdom from mortal peril, the prince's victory legitimized religious violence as a means for national survival.
Militant Buddhism was a driving force behind the 25-year war between the majority Sinhalese (74 percent of the population) and the minority Tamils (18 percent), who were fighting for an independent state in the island's north and east. (Muslims, who make up six percent of Sri Lanka's population, were often caught in the middle.) During the war, monks repeatedly undercut efforts to work out a peace agreement.
The sangha, as the clergy is collectively referred to in Theravada Buddhism, has historically exercised political power from behind the scenes, embodying a broad form of religious nationalism. But in the later years of the war, it became more overtly politicized. In 2004, the hard-line National Heritage Party (known as the JHU) elected seven of its members to Parliament; all were monks, and the party ran on a platform calling for a return to Buddhist morality in public life. Soon after being seated, the JHU staged an intramural brawl on the floor of Parliament.
The JHU also worked to scuttle a March 2002 Norwegian-brokered peace settlement that called for limited Tamil autonomy. Monks declared that Sri Lanka had always been a Sinhalese kingdom, that autonomy violated the near-mystical idea of a unitary state, and that there was no option other than a military one. Peace negotiations simply made the Tamil Tigers stronger, as one of the party's more outspoken clerics, Athuraliye Rathana, whom the Sri Lankan media dubbed the War Monk, argued. "If they give up their weapons, then we can talk," he said. "If not, then we will control them by whatever means necessary. We should fight now and talk later." In the spring of 2006, monks attacked an ecumenical group of peace marchers and led a long sit-in against a cease-fire agreement that soon came apart, leading to another round of fighting.
As the bloodshed wore on, much of the Buddhist clergy gave its blessing to a final offensive on the separatist Tamil Tigers. In May of 2009, the Sri Lankan military emerged from that battle triumphant. But its brutal offensive against the Tigers has made President Mahinda Rajapaksa's government the target of broad international condemnation. Reliable estimates of civilian deaths range as high as 40,000, and Britain's Channel Four has documented summary executions of Tamil Tiger prisoners in its program "Sri Lanka's Killing Fields." Although human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council, have called for an investigation into humanitarian abuses and possible war crimes, the Rajapaksa government has resisted. The monks have backed this obstinacy, saying that such demands attack what Sinhalese refer to as the Buddhist "motherland."
Controversy About Self-Determination
By Laksiri Fernando -August 3, 2012
Dr Laksiri Fernando
There is much confusion about the concept of ‘self-determination’ or the ‘right to self-determination’ as it became almost a dirty word particularly among the Sinhala majority during the LTTE’s separatist war. It was synonymous with separatism. There is equal apprehension about the usage of the term even after the war, for the same reasons or for reasons surrounding its narrow usage. This is partly understandable because there is no universally agreed definition or interpretation of the concept, except what is stated in various international laws. The concept has always been dynamic and evolving. While the liberal and the Marxist views differed greatly on the subject, the significance also changed depending on the particular historical context i.e. the pre-war, inter-war or under globalization.
International Law
There are several reasons, however, why this concept cannot easily be discarded. As the Charter of the United Nations clearly declared in its Article 1 (2), one of the main purposes of the organization is “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” Based on the experience of Germany – the German nation and Jewish people – by nation it meant the member nations of the UN and by people, the various communities within those nations. If we translate this concept into Sri Lanka, it means the ‘Sri Lanka nation’ respecting the ‘equal rights and self-determination of the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslim peoples.’
This is only one instance where it is centrally highlighted in the UN Charter. Even if one argues that the above principle applies only to ‘nations’ (= peoples) as collectives and that only means the member nations of the United Nations, this argument is not valid in respect of the two identical articles (Article 1 of both) that appear in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Sri Lanka is an unequivocal party to both of the covenants.
The central principle of this common article is: “All people have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” There is no dispute that some of the terms used here (i.e. ‘freely-determine’ or ‘political-status’) are subject to interpretation and admittedly the drafters perhaps were not in a position to anticipate all the implications of what they spelled out.
However, there is good reason to believe that as these principles are meant to apply within countries, or more precisely within member nations of the UN, these principles could be achieved only through the arrangements of devolution, autonomy or federalism, apart from ‘freedom to determine their political status’ if they so wish. This is what is called the ‘internal self-determination.’ Otherwise, there is no particular reason why these are enshrined in human rights covenants. The article further says that “The State parties to the present Covenant…shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Dayasiri goes to Bangkok before trying to give strength to the President
Jayasekera has left for Bangkok at 1.25 a.m. on SriLankan Airlines flight number UL 888 on the 1st. He is to stay in Bangkok till the 6th and is to return to the country in SriLankan Airlines flight number UL 423 at 21.10 p.m. on the 6th.
His air ticket was processed though BT Air Services in Colombo.
One of Jayasekera’s close lady friends is accompanying him in the trip to Bangkok. She has left on SriLankan Airlines flight number UL 882 at 7 a.m. on the 1st. She is to return to the country on SriLankan Airlines flight number UL 887 at 6.55 p.m. on the 6th. He airline ticket was processed through Classic Travels.
Unconfirmed reports state that Jayasekera and his lady friend have traveled to Bangkok to deposit the millions of rupees received by the President for agreeing to give strength to him.
Jayasekera had denied meeting the President in recent times when he had met with the Mahanayake Theros.
However, informed sources say that Jayasekera had met the President on July 24th at 5 p.m. at businessman Thiru Nadesan’s residence. Minister Dullas Alahapperuma had also participated at the meeting. Sources said that Jayasekera had arrived at the meeting in a vehicle driven by his lady friend who is now in Bangkok with him.
After returning on the 6th, Jayasekera is to make an official announcement on the 7th or 8th about joining the government.
Although Jayasekera has had close links with Lanka News Web all avenues to contact him have now been closed. Therefore, attempts to get confirmation on the above mentioned details have failed.
Sri Lanka: Massacre of Aid Workers Goes Unpunished
AUGUST 2, 2012
The sixth anniversary of the summary executions of 17 aid workers has brought the Sri Lankan government no closer to obtaining justice for the victims. President Rajapaksa’s callous indifference to the suffering of the aid workers’ families will be a sad hallmark of his administration.
(New York) – The Sri Lankan government’s failure to hold accountable those responsible for the execution-style slaying of 17 aid workers six years ago is indicative of its deeper unwillingness to prosecute soldiers and police for atrocities, Human Rights Watch said today. Despite compelling evidence of participation by state security forces in the killings, government inquiries have not progressed and no one has been charged with the crime.
AUGUST 2, 2012
The sixth anniversary of the summary executions of 17 aid workers has brought the Sri Lankan government no closer to obtaining justice for the victims. President Rajapaksa’s callous indifference to the suffering of the aid workers’ families will be a sad hallmark of his administration.
(New York) – The Sri Lankan government’s failure to hold accountable those responsible for the execution-style slaying of 17 aid workers six years ago is indicative of its deeper unwillingness to prosecute soldiers and police for atrocities, Human Rights Watch said today. Despite compelling evidence of participation by state security forces in the killings, government inquiries have not progressed and no one has been charged with the crime.
On August 4, 2006, gunmen executed the 17 Sri Lankan aid workers – 16 ethnic Tamils and one Muslim – with the Paris-based international humanitarian agency Action Contre La Faim (Action Against Hunger, ACF) in their office compound in the town of Mutur, Trincomalee district in northeast Sri Lanka. The killings followed a battle between Sri Lankan government forces and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for control of the town.
“The sixth anniversary of the summary executions of 17 aid workers has brought the Sri Lankan government no closer to obtaining justice for the victims,” said James Ross, legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. “President Rajapaksa’s callous indifference to the suffering of the aid workers’ families will be a sad hallmark of his administration.”
The bodies of 15 of the aid workers, both men and women, were discovered on August 6 lying face-down with bullet wounds to the head and neck fired at point-blank range. Two bodies of ACF workers who apparently had tried to escape were found in a vehicle nearby. The group had been providing assistance for survivors of the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
The nongovernmental organization University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) in April 2008published detailed findingson the ACF killings, including accounts from witnesses, weapons analysis, and compelling information about the government security forces believed responsible. Those allegedly directly involved include two police constables and Naval Special Forces commandos. Senior police and justice officials were linked to an alleged cover-up.
In July 2009 the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, created in November 2006 to investigate 16 major cases of human rights abuse, exonerated the army and navy in the ACF killings, instead blaming the LTTE or Muslim militia. The commission made it difficult for witnesses to testify and made no effort to remedy a botched police investigation. Its full report to President Mahinda Rajapaksa has never been published.
In response to a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution in March 2012 calling on Sri Lanka to provide a comprehensive action plan to implement the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), established by the Rajapaksa government to analyze the failure of the 2002 ceasefire agreement, the government on July 26 published a National Plan of Action to Implement the Recommendations of the LLRC.
The plan of action vaguely calls for the government to “[a]scertain more fully the circumstances under which specific instances of death or injury to civilians could have occurred, and if such investigations disclose wrongful conduct, prosecute and punish the wrongdoers.” Itsets out a 12-month timeframe to conclude disciplinary inquiries and 24 months for prosecutions.
The government proposal merely leaves responsibility for investigations with the military and police, the entities responsible for the abuses, using processes lacking in transparency, Human Rights Watch said.
The Sri Lankan government has a poor record of investigating serious human rights abuses, and impunity has been a persistent problem. Despite a backlog of cases of enforced disappearance and unlawful killings going back two decades that run to the tens of thousands, there have been only a small number of prosecutions. Past efforts to address violations by creating ad hoc mechanisms in Sri Lanka have produced few results, either in providing information or leading to prosecutions.
On May 23, 2009, shortly after the LTTE’s defeat, Rajapaksa and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a joint statement from Sri Lanka in which the government said it “will take measures to address” the need for an accountability process for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.
The eight-member Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission held public hearings on human rights abuses during the last years of fighting. But the commission did not have an investigatory mandate, nor did it demonstrate independence or impartiality in its proceedings.
In April 2011 a panel of experts authorized by the UN secretary-general issued a comprehensive report on violations of international law by both sides during the final months of the conflict with the Tamil Tigers. It called on the Sri Lankan government to carry out genuine investigations and recommended that the UN create an independent international mechanism to monitor the government's implementation of the panel recommendations, conduct an independent investigation, and collect and safeguard evidence.
Human Rights Watch repeated its call for the secretary-general or other UN body to create an independent international investigation into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all parties to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. This investigation should make recommendations for the prosecution of those responsible for serious abuses during the armed conflict, including the ACF case.
Governments concerned about impunity for serious human rights abuses in Sri Lanka should publicly support an independent international mechanism, Human Rights Watch said. Sri Lanka’s history of inaction on even prominent cases with strong evidence demonstrates the need to avoid further delay.
“Governments that demanded action at the UN Human Rights Council shouldn’t be mollified by the Sri Lankan government’s tepid proposal to pursue criminal inquiries,” Ross said. “Regarding investigations into wartime abuses, the government’s ‘action plan’ reads more like an ‘inaction plan.’”
The bodies of 15 of the aid workers, both men and women, were discovered on August 6 lying face-down with bullet wounds to the head and neck fired at point-blank range. Two bodies of ACF workers who apparently had tried to escape were found in a vehicle nearby. The group had been providing assistance for survivors of the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
The nongovernmental organization University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) in April 2008published detailed findingson the ACF killings, including accounts from witnesses, weapons analysis, and compelling information about the government security forces believed responsible. Those allegedly directly involved include two police constables and Naval Special Forces commandos. Senior police and justice officials were linked to an alleged cover-up.
In July 2009 the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, created in November 2006 to investigate 16 major cases of human rights abuse, exonerated the army and navy in the ACF killings, instead blaming the LTTE or Muslim militia. The commission made it difficult for witnesses to testify and made no effort to remedy a botched police investigation. Its full report to President Mahinda Rajapaksa has never been published.
In response to a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution in March 2012 calling on Sri Lanka to provide a comprehensive action plan to implement the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), established by the Rajapaksa government to analyze the failure of the 2002 ceasefire agreement, the government on July 26 published a National Plan of Action to Implement the Recommendations of the LLRC.
The plan of action vaguely calls for the government to “[a]scertain more fully the circumstances under which specific instances of death or injury to civilians could have occurred, and if such investigations disclose wrongful conduct, prosecute and punish the wrongdoers.” Itsets out a 12-month timeframe to conclude disciplinary inquiries and 24 months for prosecutions.
The government proposal merely leaves responsibility for investigations with the military and police, the entities responsible for the abuses, using processes lacking in transparency, Human Rights Watch said.
The Sri Lankan government has a poor record of investigating serious human rights abuses, and impunity has been a persistent problem. Despite a backlog of cases of enforced disappearance and unlawful killings going back two decades that run to the tens of thousands, there have been only a small number of prosecutions. Past efforts to address violations by creating ad hoc mechanisms in Sri Lanka have produced few results, either in providing information or leading to prosecutions.
On May 23, 2009, shortly after the LTTE’s defeat, Rajapaksa and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a joint statement from Sri Lanka in which the government said it “will take measures to address” the need for an accountability process for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.
The eight-member Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission held public hearings on human rights abuses during the last years of fighting. But the commission did not have an investigatory mandate, nor did it demonstrate independence or impartiality in its proceedings.
In April 2011 a panel of experts authorized by the UN secretary-general issued a comprehensive report on violations of international law by both sides during the final months of the conflict with the Tamil Tigers. It called on the Sri Lankan government to carry out genuine investigations and recommended that the UN create an independent international mechanism to monitor the government's implementation of the panel recommendations, conduct an independent investigation, and collect and safeguard evidence.
Human Rights Watch repeated its call for the secretary-general or other UN body to create an independent international investigation into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all parties to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. This investigation should make recommendations for the prosecution of those responsible for serious abuses during the armed conflict, including the ACF case.
Governments concerned about impunity for serious human rights abuses in Sri Lanka should publicly support an independent international mechanism, Human Rights Watch said. Sri Lanka’s history of inaction on even prominent cases with strong evidence demonstrates the need to avoid further delay.
“Governments that demanded action at the UN Human Rights Council shouldn’t be mollified by the Sri Lankan government’s tepid proposal to pursue criminal inquiries,” Ross said. “Regarding investigations into wartime abuses, the government’s ‘action plan’ reads more like an ‘inaction plan.’”
SRI LANKA: Milking cattle's potential
COLOMBO, 3 August 2012 (IRIN) - Dairy farming could boost incomes and the nutritional status of tens of thousands of returnees in Sri Lanka’s former war zone in the north of the island, where wage-paying jobs are still scarce.
“The livestock sector has vast potential for contributing towards economic development, poverty alleviation and nutritional deficiency, and creating opportunities for involving [more] women in the economic development process,” said Patrick Charignon, Head of Livelihood Development at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Sri Lanka.
Many households have taken up cattle farming or, in some cases, returned to it. Over 51 percent of the 131,000 returnee families in the former conflict zone now manage livestock, a recent UN and government survey discovered. Others who currently do not have cattle report owning them in the past.
From 1983 to 2009 there was civil war between Sri Lankan government forces and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), based mainly in the north and east. Northern Province used to be a milk-producing area, and more than half the population worked with livestock before farmers started fleeing the fighting in late 2008.
Livestock management was a major cottage industry in the region even during the war, said Seenithamby Manoharan, the senior rural development specialist in the World Bank’s office in Colombo, the capital. Livestock rearing has grown more popular among returnees since it is relatively easy to manage and does not involve long hours when there are few animals, as is the case with most households.
Current dairy production meets less than 15 percent of the demand in Northern Province, which IOM estimated at more than 91,000 tons of milk annually in a recent assessment, and concluded that there is untapped potential in dairy farming. Increasing dairy production by about 50 percent is “critical” to improving nutritional status in the region.
The preliminary findings of a March 2012 nutrition assessment by the government, the UN World Food Programme, and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicated worsening acute malnutrition in children aged under five, currently estimated at 18.3 percent for the entire Northern Province and 20 percent among returnees. Anything beyond 15 percent is widely considered an emergency.
Experts at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said nurturing dairy farming could benefit related industries like milk processing, veterinary services and animal feed.
Barriers
Yet keeping livestock is still seen by many as something to meet a household’s needs rather than earning income. Not many young people are taking it up, said Shakthevale Arinesarajah, an FAO livestock consultant in Sri Lanka.
Livestock farming cannot take off without more infrastructure. “We have a good market and good prices, but still, if we can have large [milk] collection centres with electric [chilling] storage… we can get more [money],” said a returnee who gave his name as Pathinathan, in Darmapuram village in Kilinochchi District, where he manages a herd of about 50 cows.
Another drawback is herd quality. Pathinathan says unlike in other parts of the country, he is working with animals left behind during the war, and there is little effort to introduce better breeds in the north where a cow produces at most two litres of milk daily, a fraction of what is needed to meet the region’s dairy demands, as calculated by IOM.
Proper veterinary and breeding services are scarce due to lack of funding, said FAO, whose appeal for US$3 million to replace lost livestock and build infrastructure in the region had not received any pledges by the end of July.
Farmers’ organizations could benefit from better infrastructure and collective bargaining. Currently, there is no set price for milk and most farmers sell for what the buyer offers. “Having their own [milk] chilling centres will make them [farmers] viable and competitive,” said FAO’s Arinesarajah. “Then they could bargain and supply milk to any collector who pays them [a good price].”
ap/pt/he
COLOMBO, 3 August 2012 (IRIN) - Dairy farming could boost incomes and the nutritional status of tens of thousands of returnees in Sri Lanka’s former war zone in the north of the island, where wage-paying jobs are still scarce.
“The livestock sector has vast potential for contributing towards economic development, poverty alleviation and nutritional deficiency, and creating opportunities for involving [more] women in the economic development process,” said Patrick Charignon, Head of Livelihood Development at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Sri Lanka.
Many households have taken up cattle farming or, in some cases, returned to it. Over 51 percent of the 131,000 returnee families in the former conflict zone now manage livestock, a recent UN and government survey discovered. Others who currently do not have cattle report owning them in the past.
From 1983 to 2009 there was civil war between Sri Lankan government forces and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), based mainly in the north and east. Northern Province used to be a milk-producing area, and more than half the population worked with livestock before farmers started fleeing the fighting in late 2008.
Livestock management was a major cottage industry in the region even during the war, said Seenithamby Manoharan, the senior rural development specialist in the World Bank’s office in Colombo, the capital. Livestock rearing has grown more popular among returnees since it is relatively easy to manage and does not involve long hours when there are few animals, as is the case with most households.
Current dairy production meets less than 15 percent of the demand in Northern Province, which IOM estimated at more than 91,000 tons of milk annually in a recent assessment, and concluded that there is untapped potential in dairy farming. Increasing dairy production by about 50 percent is “critical” to improving nutritional status in the region.
The preliminary findings of a March 2012 nutrition assessment by the government, the UN World Food Programme, and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicated worsening acute malnutrition in children aged under five, currently estimated at 18.3 percent for the entire Northern Province and 20 percent among returnees. Anything beyond 15 percent is widely considered an emergency.
Experts at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said nurturing dairy farming could benefit related industries like milk processing, veterinary services and animal feed.
Barriers
Yet keeping livestock is still seen by many as something to meet a household’s needs rather than earning income. Not many young people are taking it up, said Shakthevale Arinesarajah, an FAO livestock consultant in Sri Lanka.
Livestock farming cannot take off without more infrastructure. “We have a good market and good prices, but still, if we can have large [milk] collection centres with electric [chilling] storage… we can get more [money],” said a returnee who gave his name as Pathinathan, in Darmapuram village in Kilinochchi District, where he manages a herd of about 50 cows.
Another drawback is herd quality. Pathinathan says unlike in other parts of the country, he is working with animals left behind during the war, and there is little effort to introduce better breeds in the north where a cow produces at most two litres of milk daily, a fraction of what is needed to meet the region’s dairy demands, as calculated by IOM.
Proper veterinary and breeding services are scarce due to lack of funding, said FAO, whose appeal for US$3 million to replace lost livestock and build infrastructure in the region had not received any pledges by the end of July.
Farmers’ organizations could benefit from better infrastructure and collective bargaining. Currently, there is no set price for milk and most farmers sell for what the buyer offers. “Having their own [milk] chilling centres will make them [farmers] viable and competitive,” said FAO’s Arinesarajah. “Then they could bargain and supply milk to any collector who pays them [a good price].”
ap/pt/he
India pays special attention to Sri Lanka-Pakistan nuclear power plant
Friday, 03 August 2012
The Indian government is paying special attention to reports published in the Indian media that the Sri Lankan government has agreed to set up a nuclear power plant in Sampur with Pakistan aid.
The Indians believe that Power and Energy Minister Champika Ranawaka since assuming office in his portfolio had shown interest in generating power through nuclear power. Their belief has been confirmed by the fact that he is the general secretary of the Sinhala extremist JHU. India believes that regardless of power generation through nuclear power, Sri Lanka was trying to get hold of nuclear technology for weapons through Pakistan.
Forces from within India and external forces affiliated to India have expressed concern over the possibility of manufacturing nuclear weapons and storage since it would be a risk to India’s political stability and security.
Experts on foreign affairs say that the briefing given to Indian Premier by India’s resident High Commissioner in Sri Lanka Ashok Kantha on the issue once the Indian media had broken the story could not be considered lightly.
The Indians are concerned that Atomic and Energy agency is under the purview of the Power and Energy Ministry that is held by a politician with radical ideas. The Indian concerns have grown to such an extent against Ranawaka that Tamil Nadu politicians recently protested against him. The Indian government has exerted pressure on the Sri Lankan government in various ways to get Ranawaka removed from his post.
However, Ranawaka has told the media that there is no plan to set up a nuclear power plant in Trincomalee with Pakistan. He added that the Indian reports were false.
Hint Fiction
By Sanjana Hattotuwa -August 3, 2012
Sanjana Hattotuwa
When your columnist put out a call for contributions towards a new anthology of fiction, the majority of submissions took an interesting turn. The call was for hint fiction – stories that in twenty-five words or less, demonstrated the quality that they were at the beginning, middle or end of a larger narrative, giving just a hint of what that larger canvass was or could be. The idea wasn’t original, and is anchored toHint Fiction by Robert Swartwood, who in turn was inspired by Ernest Hemingway’s possibly apocryphal six-word story, “For Sale: baby shoes, never worn”.
The Sri Lankan anthology had a twist. Prospective writers were asked to anchor their stories to something unmistakably Sri Lankan – a phrase, place, event, issue, marker, adage, trait, historical chapter, reference, image, dish, sweetmeat or map, for example. The idea was to evoke something of our country – something loved, reviled, longed for or missed. Around fifty submissions have come in to date, leading to a story around the stories.
It turns out that twenty-five words at the most is, for many who sent in their writing, deeply cathartic. The fifty odd stories already sent in come from writers who are award-winning novelists to working mothers, from those who have published widely to those writing for the first time. At present, the writing is split almost evenly between men and women, though there’s a large difference in the age of the contributors, going by those whose names are somewhat better-known or indexed online. Most are Sinhalese, though there have been a number of submissions by Tamils, Burghers, Muslims and non-Sri Lankans. A leitmotif across the majority of stories is the violence of the past 27 years. The stories are compelling, sometimes visceral snapshots that can certainly be read by those with little or no knowledge of Sri Lanka’s bloody past as good fiction. In fact, however, the stories sometimes directly access memory and personal experience. Displacement, loss and anxiety feature as much as resilience and hope. How a child sees, how a woman feels, and what men do feature as much as resonant word strokes on the joy of childbirth during a pogrom or a christening during a riot. An ominous Army and Police are invoked with alarming regularity. Fiction, it appears, imitates life.
Your columnist did not quite expect this. Though an economy of words is very difficult to manage even for seasoned writers, the quality of submissions to date is very high. Hint Fiction was intended to capture the best of our imagination, and perhaps though not explicitly noted, writing that captured the potential of a country post-war, looking forward. The fiction was expected to look inward for inspiration, and project to the future. What it’s succeeded the most in doing thus far is to inspire even those who have never written before to experiment with ways of telling a story they’ve carried inside for years. Here is a larger lesson, one that is not in the least fictional.
We remain deeply hurt, fractured nations.
Sri Lanka’s own marvellously irreverent novelist Carl Muller coined the term “faction” to describe his oeuvre – writing that is a combination of fact and fiction. Many others are now following his lead. In the absence of public, perhaps even safe private fora to unpack trauma, a call for literary submissions was a trigger for writing stories for years locked in, guarded, even feared. This is in English, by those who write in it very well. It doesn’t take much to imagine how much trauma exists amongst those who are primarily monolingual in Tamil or Sinhala and how little we really know about it, particularly in the North and East but also amongst families in the South. This is real grief. The pain of loss comingled with the loss of hope, an anguish around and yearning for remembering that grows inversely to efforts aimed to deny, decry and delete.
It is, as yet, not a given that the anthology of Sri Lankan Hint Fiction will make it to print. The prospective publishers want around a hundred and sixty stories. Perhaps they will come, in the fullness of time.
Not unlike justice, and a real peace.
Sajanana’s blog ; http://sanjanah.wordpress.com/
Chandrika Kumaratunga denies Maithree's statement
(Lanka-e-News- 03.Aug.2012, 10.00AM) Mme Chandrika Kumaratunga has noted with surprise, reports of statements made by several Senior Members of the present Cabinet to the effect that Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Leader of the UNP, met her during the Presidential Election Campaign of 1994 and provided her with confidential information regarding the campaign strategies of the late Mr Gamini Dissanayake – the UNP Presidential Candidate.
Madam Kumaratunga categorically denies this assertion. Mr Wickremasinghe did not at any time, give her any information about Mr. Dissanayake’s or the UNP’s campaign.
Mr. Wickremasinghe did pay a courtesy call on her after she assumed duties as Prime Minister, in his capacity as the outgoing Prime Minister. He also called on her at the time she left office as Executive President. Likewise Madam Kumaratunga called on President D B Wijetunga, at the time he retired from office to bid him farewell. This is a customary practice of cultured persons.
Madam Kumaratunga wishes to add that she is not in any way surprised that senior members of her party failed to understand this, as very few of them took the trouble to indulge in this little courtesy at the time she left office as President.
(Lanka-e-News- 03.Aug.2012, 10.00AM) Mme Chandrika Kumaratunga has noted with surprise, reports of statements made by several Senior Members of the present Cabinet to the effect that Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Leader of the UNP, met her during the Presidential Election Campaign of 1994 and provided her with confidential information regarding the campaign strategies of the late Mr Gamini Dissanayake – the UNP Presidential Candidate.Madam Kumaratunga categorically denies this assertion. Mr Wickremasinghe did not at any time, give her any information about Mr. Dissanayake’s or the UNP’s campaign.
Mr. Wickremasinghe did pay a courtesy call on her after she assumed duties as Prime Minister, in his capacity as the outgoing Prime Minister. He also called on her at the time she left office as Executive President. Likewise Madam Kumaratunga called on President D B Wijetunga, at the time he retired from office to bid him farewell. This is a customary practice of cultured persons.
Madam Kumaratunga wishes to add that she is not in any way surprised that senior members of her party failed to understand this, as very few of them took the trouble to indulge in this little courtesy at the time she left office as President.
A Silent Revolution? ‘Free Education’ And Sri Lankan Women
By Carmen Wickramagamage -
Dr.Carmen Wickramagamage
It is no exaggeration to say that one of the social groups that has most benefited from the revolutionary education reforms implemented starting 1947 [which most of us know as either Free Education or Kannangara Reforms] is Women. In 1946, when the overall literacy rate for the country was 57.8%, only 43.8% of the female population was literate as opposed to
70.1% of the male population (Panditaratne and Selvanayagam, 1973). By 2001, however, the percentage of literate women had gone up to 90% of the female population in comparison with 93% for the male population. Among Lankan youth between the ages of 15-24, it is even higher at 97% literate females to 99% literate males, according to UNICEF Sri Lanka statistics for the 2005-10 period.
This poses an interesting question: How did the gap between the percentages of literate men and women come to be narrowed so rapidly and significantly during the intervening 60-odd year period? What was the equivalent of the “open sesame” that opened the closed doors of formal school-based education for Lankan women in the post-independence period? The simple answer: “Free Education.” While the Kannangara reforms did not introduce “free education” to Ceylon/Sri Lanka, they (i) abolished the earlier two-tiered education system very much pegged to class where fee-levying “English Medium” schools catered to the local elite and a system of “free” Vernacular Schools catered to the masses; (ii) introduced Swabhasha [or First Language] Education into the school system starting 1947, where it was made compulsory for students to be educated in their “mother tongue.” It was these two reforms that have enabled Education to function as an instrument of social justice in Sri Lanka, freeing individuals from the debilitating impacts of ascribed social status such as caste, class and gender and instituting a meritocracy of sorts in Sri Lanka, however imperfect it might be, where the deserving individual can move up the social and economic ladder on the basis of merit irrespective of his/her “origins.”
The writer teaches English at the University of Peradeniya.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
‘Jana Pelagasma’ warmly received in the North – 1st defeat of Rajapaksa regime states JVP
THURSDAY, 02 AUGUST 2012
The procession of vehicles for the ‘Jana Pelagasma’ mass agitation by the JVP that commenced from Dondara Point on the 27th ended yesterday (1st) at Point Pedro. Tamil masses warmly welcomed the JVP leaders when they reached Jaffna town.
The procession of vehicles with JVP leaders drove through Medawachchiya, Vavuniya and Killinochchi towns and reached Jaffna where they carried out an awareness programme and a meeting.
Addressing the crowd JVP Leader Somawansa Amarasinghe said, “We came to meet you after commencing a new movement of struggle. The JVP came to the North with a new message from the South. ‘Jana Pelagasma’ that commenced from the South victoriously reached Jaffna today. The procession of vehicles of the ‘Jana Pelagasma’ enters records in this country’s history as the longest protest procession of vehicles ever to be held. The government attempted to stop the journey. However, Mahinda Rajapaksa was defeated. This is only their first defeat. Rajapaksa administration will be confronted with a series of defeats in the future.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)