Thursday, November 15, 2012

IMF Put Off Sri Lanka Military Budget Question, Then Ignored, Mali & Romania

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 15 -- The International Monetary Fund lent into Sri Lanka's military build-up, then when challenged tried to downplay it.

Two weeks ago, Inner City Press asked the IMF to comment on the Rajapaksa government's new 2013 budget, which reportedly has $2.2 billion for defense / "urban development," a 26% increase over 2012. Inner City Press asked, "Given past IMF claims defense spending was not rising, what is IMF comment now?"

The IMF did not give a substantive response, but a spokesperson replied, "On Sri Lanka, the 2013 budget is expected to be finalized and presented in early November (we understand November 8). We have not yet seen the 2013 budget, and thus would not be in a position to comment at this time."

The spokesperson, asking to be identified as such, told Inner City Press "it would be the best if you could follow up on this later this month."

On November 15 the IMF announced a "Press Briefing by William Murray, Deputy Spokesman, External Relations, IMF, at 9:30 a.m., Washington time."

And so at this IMF briefing, after the Sri Lanka budget was released, Inner City Press asked again: "On Sri Lanka, now that the budget is out: given past IMF claims defense spending was not rising, what is IMF comment now?"

In light of news all over the world this week, Inner City Press also asked, "in light of this week's UN report on its failures in Sri Lanka during the killings in 2009, does the IMF as a member of the UN system have any review of or comment on its performance with regard to the killings, accountability and defense spending in the country?"

But during the IMF's embargoed briefing, alongside question after question on Greece, an online question was taken, why can't the IMF make concessionary loans to Greece? The answer given was that Greece is a relatively affluent country, not eligible for concessionary loans.

It was said that the IMF has a relationship with Portugal, but only monitors banks in Spain. Then the new Deputy Spokesman said it was over, there were no more questions.

What about the deferred Sri Lanka questions? What about the new questions on Mali and Romania which Inner City Press submitted, through the IMF Media Center and by email?

On Mali, did IMF's $18 million agreement on a Rapid Credit Facility include any consideration of the involvement in the government of those participating in the coup d'etat earlier this year? Would any funds be used for military activity in northern Mali?

On Romania, what is IMF's response to Economy Minister Traicu's criticism that IMF doesn't understand that appointing private sector managers for public companies takes time?

None of these questions were answered. Inner City Press e-mailed again, asking for an explanation before deadline / embargo time. None was received. This is Lagarde's new IMF? Watch this site.

Click for BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN Corruption

Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God,Nonzero) and Matthew Lee (Inner City Press, Predatory Bender)
PLAY ENTIRE VIDEO

Appointing An Acting CJ: It Is Absurd To Even Imagine That Such A Provision Exists

By Colombo Telegraph -November 15, 2012

“Appointment of a Chief Justice can be made of only after removing the Chief Justice. But the only way in which chief Justice can be removed is by presenting an impeachment motion passed by Parliament. There is no provision to remove the Chief Justice or to stay her functioning as Chief Justice temporarily. Any action taken in violation of the Constitution will further erode the confidence the people has on the independence of the judiciary, the Rule of Law and the constitution. An ill advised step in this direction will only further bring disrepute to the country in the eyes of the international community. We earnestly call upon the President to restrain from such action.” says the Lawyers for Democracy.

Lal Wijenayake

Issuing a statement LfD Convener Lal Wijenayake says “‘Lawyers for Democracy’ condemns the move by certain individuals to mislead the authorities concerned and the public to believe that there are provisions in the Constitution to appoint an acting Chief Justice pending the inquiry before the select committee of Parliament”

We publish LfD statement in full;

‘Lawyers for Democracy’ condemns the move bycertain individuals to mislead the authorities concerned and the public to believe that there are provisions in the Constitution to appoint an acting Chief Justice pending the inquiry before the select committee of Parliament. It is absurd to even imagine that such a provision exists. An acting appointment can be made only in the situations set out in Article 109(1) of the Constitution, that is, when the Chief Justice is temporarily unable to exercise, perform and discharge the powers, duties and functions of his office, by reason of illness, absence from Sri Lanka or any other cause. As it is today the Chief Justice is in Sri Lanka and is functioning as the Chief Justice and hence there is no room to make an acting appointment. Appointment of a Chief Justice can be made of only after removing the Chief Justice. But the only way in which chief Justice can be removed is by presenting an impeachment motion passed by Parliament. There is no provision to remove the Chief Justice or to stay her functioning as Chief Justice temporarily. Any action taken in violation of the Constitution will further erode the confidence the people has on the independence of the judiciary, the Rule of Law and the constitution. An ill advised step in this direction will only further bring disrepute to the country in the eyes of the international community. We earnestly call upon the President to restrain from such action.

“‘Lawyers for Democracy (LfD) is a representative body of legal practitioners throughout the island. Conveners include Lal Wijenayake, Chandrapala Kumarage, J. C. Weliamuna, K. S. Ratnavale, Sudath Netthisinghe, Sudarshana Gunawardana. It was established on 10^th December 2009’.

SRI LANKA: Speak out in defending judicial independence, before it is too late

November 15, 2012

An Open Letter from the Asian Human Rights Commission to the Judges of Sri Lanka
Honourable Judges:

I am writing on behalf of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) under extraordinary circumstances as the gravity of the issues involved compels me to do so.

The issue that I wish to seek your attention is the impeachment proceedings of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, which violates the principles of separation of powers, due process and the right to a fair trial that the Chief Justice is entitled to. All of this is denied to the Chief Justice in the impeachment procedure as set out in Article 107 of the Constitution and the related Standing Orders.

It is the duty of the Supreme Court and all other judges in Sri Lanka to protect the dignity and the liberty of every individual. This is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary. It is a universally recognised principle in all countries where independence of the judiciary exists and is valued. This is also a principle well enshrined in Sri Lankan law as so beautifully expressed by Sir Sydney Abraham in the Mark Anthony Lyster Bracegirdle case.

Defending the liberty of an individual and the independence of the judiciary weighs heavily on the shoulders of all the judges in the country, more importantly upon the Supreme Court. If the judiciary falters or fails in this, it will not only destroy individual liberty and also the very existence of an independent judiciary.

History is proof to the fact that in the past decades, the Sri Lankan judiciary has on crucial occasions failed to protect its own independence. Two of those crucial moments were when the Constitution itself was changed in 1972 and further in 1978, attacking fundamentally judicial independence. Had the judiciary used its inherent powers and constitutionally resisted these attacks, judicial independence and the entire nation would not have suffered the setbacks, Sri Lanka has suffered so badly, in the recent times.

In the very vocation of being a judge is the duty to be courageous, even at the expense of great personal sacrifice at crucial moments when the integrity of one's position is challenged.

The Sri Lankan judiciary is facing one such crucial situation at the moment. Perhaps a time in history that is so important, that if it is lost, the very independence of the judiciary will suffer a setback so devastating, from which it would be difficult to recover.

The independence of the Chief Justice's office is being challenged, and the Chief Justice is deprived of the basic right, which every citizen of Sri Lanka is entitled to, in defending oneself within a framework of fair trial, observing standards that are universally recognised. If the Chief Justice falls, the entire judiciary will fall with her.

It is within the powers of the judiciary in Sri Lanka to prevent this by demanding justice for the Chief Justice, who is also a colleague. It is not a mere act of solidarity or friendship, but a step so vital to the survival of an independent profession.

History will question whether the judges of Sri Lanka rose to the occasion and faced it with courage in defending the very foundation of their own profession and their independence. If the judiciary is not willing to shoulder this responsibility, that too will be on record and generations to come will suffer the loss of their liberty as a consequence of this failure.

Global support for just causes often begins from bold initiatives of a few individuals, who make the first move from the frontline of defence. It is equally the responsibility of the global human rights community to support initiatives in Sri Lanka in defence of fundamental freedoms.

I therefore, on behalf of the global human rights community and in the name of the best ideals on which human rights and human liberty rest, most humbly call upon all the judges of Sri Lanka, more importantly the judges serving at the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, to face this moment of destiny, boldly, and with the farsightedness the situation warrants, in defending the Chief Justice in her right to just and fair treatment.

Sincerely

Bijo Francis
Interim Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission

A dossier concerning the impeachment proceedings is available at:www.humanrights.asia/countries/sri-lanka/cases/sl-impeachmentdossier.pdf

Basil directs PSC proceedings on impeachment motion to be completed in three months

S E R V I N G C A N A D I A N S

CA N A D A’S
SY S T E M o f
JU S T I C E

Basil directs PSC proceedings on impeachment motion to be completed in three months

Thursday, 15 November 2012

Minister Basil Rajapaksa had summoned the governing party members in the parliamentary select committee (PSC) to probe the impeachment motion against the Chief Justice and given directions on how to carry out the PSC proceedings. The PSC met on the 14th for the first time.

Basil had summoned the governing party members separately and said he had received information that the opposition political parties were trying to drag the proceedings and therefore, the PSC proceedings need to be concluded in three months.

Head of the PSC, Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa and Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva have expressed their displeasure at the directive. They have said that as lawyers they could not go against natural justice.

They have indirectly told Basil that as senior parliamentarians and senior lawyers, they did not want any advice from a junior MP on how to carry out the PSC proceedings.

A senior government minister said that Basil was engaged in an action of killing two birds with one stone. He said that Basil by issuing directives to two senior SLFPers like Yapa and de Silva was trying to take control of them and to clear his path of becoming the next leader of the SLFP.

At the first meeting of the PSC, although the opposition political parties wanted to raise objections to the appointments of several governing party members to the committee, they had decided to avoid such a move as strategy.

The PSC is to meet again on the 26th of this month.

Appeal to the Executive and the Legislature to Guarantee Respect for the Judiciary and the CJ and to Guarantee the Independence of the Judiciary -Academics on Motion to Impeach the CJ
(Lanka-e-News -14.Nov.2012, 11.00PM) The varied types of attacks on the judiciary in Sri Lanka have risen to alarming proportions over the last few weeks and suggest that the very institution of the judiciary is under serious threat in the country. We the undersigned are extremely disturbed by these developments and would like to request that both the Executive and Legislative arms of the state fulfil their duty and guarantee the security and independence of the judiciary. In making this request we would like to remind the government and the public that;

1. ALL public power is derived only from the People (Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution). As such, public power whether executive, legislative or judicial can only be exercised according to law and the democratic values of a society. Public power can only be exercised for the benefit of the People of Sri Lanka.

2. The ‘benefit of the People’ cannot be equated with a majority view, a majoritarian approach, the political interests of the political party(ies) in power or of a powerful few within a government. Contemporary society world over has accepted that the dignity and equality of all human beings is inherent, inalienable and that protecting that dignity is the primary responsibility of a state. Accordingly the ‘benefit of the People’ can only be understood as a framework for decision making which respects the inherent dignity and equality of ALL people in this nation.

3. Guaranteeing the independence and effective functioning of the judiciary in Sri Lanka is a prerequisite for protecting the dignity of all Sri Lankans. The judiciary are mandated under the Constitution to adjudicate on disputes that arise between private parties and between the state and individuals. It is only in a context where the judiciary can function independently and is also generally perceived as functioning independently that society could expect to live and act according to law.

4. Recent events such as the attack on the Mannar Courts, the assault on the Secretary to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), understood in the light of the unprecedented public statement issued by the JSC, at the very least, suggests that the judiciary in Sri Lanka is struggling to maintain its independence. Political analysts have gone as far as to suggest that the Executive is directly interfering with the function of the judiciary.

5. Against this background, the motion to impeach the Chief Justice that has been handed over to the Speaker of Parliament is highly suspect. At the face of it, it seems to be evident that the all powerful Executive arm of the government is taking advantage of its position to undermine the judicial arm of the state, through a subservient Legislature. This is a manifest abuse of public power and goes against all accepted democratic norms of government. While the politicians and the political party(ies) in power may seemingly emerge as victors in the short run in this matter, in the long run, neither those politicians, those political parties, the Opposition nor the People would stand to benefit. ALL Sri Lankans will suffer grave consequences due to this interference with the Judiciary.

6. While politicians and political parties in power are understood as being susceptible to act according to prevailing political interests, the judicial arm of a state is designed specifically to defend against all, the law and the spirit of the law. That includes the democratic values of a society and the rights of all persons. In a society where the other arms of the government interferes with that function of the judiciary and is aggressive towards the judiciary, the political sustainability of that society is under threat.7. The motion to impeach the Chief Justice and the other attacks on the judiciary are but only symptoms of a more alarming, complex and long standing crisis of governance in Sri Lanka. With each new incident the crisis becomes more embedded and widespread. The broader political context in which these incidents have taken place suggest a complex inter-play of different factors characteristic of a society where political patronage, expediency and convenience are the reference points for exercise of public power rather than democratic principles of governance and the law.

Therefore, we appeal to our representatives, the Executive and the Legislature, to fulfil their political and legal obligations towards us, and to guarantee respect of the judiciary and to defend their independence. The motion to impeach the Chief Justice should be withdrawn, those responsible for the assault on the Secretary to the JSC should be brought to justice and those responsible for the attack on the Mannar Courts should also be brought to justice.

Signatories

1. Dr Ranil Abayasekera (University of Peradeniya)
2. Dr Harini Amarasuriya (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
3. Prof Samuel Anbahan Ariadurai (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
4. Dr KKIU Arunakumara (University of Ruhuna)
5. Prof Navaratna Bandara (University of Peradeniya)
6. Dr G Bandarage (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
7. Dr Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri (University of Colombo)
8. Prof Priyan Dias (University of Moratuwa)
9. Dr Lesly Ekanayake (University of Moratuwa)
10. Dr GWAR Fernando (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
11. Mr Rohan Fernando (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
12. Dr Theodore Fernando (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
13. Dr Hans Gray (University of Moratuwa)
14. Dr Ranil Guneratne (University of Colombo)
15. Dr Dileni Gunewardene (University of Peradeniya)
16. Dr Jinasena Hewage (University of Ruhuna)
17. Prof Rohini Hewamanne (University of Colombo)
18. Dr Rangika Halwatura (University of Moratuwa)
19. Dr Prabhath Jayasinghe (University of Colombo)
20. Dr Janaki Jayawardena (University of Colombo)
21. Dr Barana Jayawardana (University of Peradeniya)
22. Dr Romaine Jayawardena (University of Colombo)
23. Dr Ananda Jayawickrama (University of Peradeniya)
24. Mr Nandaka Maduranga Kalugampitiya (University of Peradeniya)
25. Dr Parakrama Karunaratne (University of Peradeniya)
26. Dr Danesh Karunanayake (University of Peradeniya)
27. Dr Chulantha Kulasekere (University of Moratuwa)
28. Ms Rushira Kulasingham (University of Colombo)
29. Prof Amal Kumarage (University of Moratuwa)
30. Dr Shamala Kumar (University of Peradeniya)
31. Dr Nilantha Liyanage (University of Ruhuna)
32. Dr Sanjeeva Maithripala (University of Peradeniya)
33. Mr Sudesh Mantillake (University of Peradeniya)
34. Dr Suresh de Mel (University of Peradeniya)
35. Dr Mahim Mendis (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
36. Dr Neavis Morais (The Open University of Sri Lanka)
37. Prof Harsha Munasinghe (University of Moratuwa)
38. Dr M M M Najim (University of Kelaniya)
39. Mr Nilhan Niles (University of Moratuwa)
40. Mr Chaminda Pathirana (University of Moratuwa)
41. Prof Milton Rajaratne (University of Peradeniya)
42. Mr Rohana Rathnayaka (The Open University of Colombo)
43. Dr Uditha Ratnayake (The Open University of Colombo)
44. Dr A C Ratnaweera (University of Peradeniya)
45. Ms Dinesha Samararatne (University of Colombo)
46. Ms Thanuja Sandanayake (University of Moratuwa)
47. Dr Vajira Namal Seneviratne (University of Colombo)
48. Prof Upul Sonnadara (University of Colombo)
49. Mr Ranil Sugathadasa (University of Moratuwa)
50. Dr Sivamohan Sumathy (University of Peradeniya)
51. Ms Imalka Tennakoon (University of Peradeniya)
52. Prof R O Thattil (University of Peradeniya)
53. Mr Chandraguptha Thenuwara (University of Visual & Performing Arts)
54. Prof Vasanthi Thevanesam (University of Peradeniya)
55. Prof K S Walgama (University of Peradeniya)
56. Dr Ruvan Weerasinghe (University of Colombo)
57. Prof Carmen Wickramagamage (University of Peradeniya)
58. Prof P Wickramagamage (University of Peradeniya)
59. Prof Suren Wijeykoon (University of Moratuwa)

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

A Bloody Riot

By Kath Noble -November 14, 2012

Kath Noble

There was one thing that everybody was sure of on Friday afternoon as news of the riot at Welikada prison broke – there would be a lot of bodies.

And so it happened. Twenty-seven deaths had been announced by Saturday morning. The stand-off lasted for an hour, as inmates somehow managed to get the better of not just their regular guards but 200 fully-armed members of the STF. They battled their way through clouds of tear gas to break into the armoury, then made their way up to the roof with a haul of more than 80 guns, from where they proceeded to shoot at passers-by. Some escaped, somehow.

This story is in itself fairly extraordinary.

But so too was our reaction. We knew very well that a lot of people would end up dead.

Some said it approvingly. Prisoners may be human beings, as the sign on the wall declares, but human beings can behave worse than animals. Welikada houses convicted rapists and murderers, amongst others, and some people wouldn’t mind seeing them knocked off, legally or otherwise.

This constituency is behind the intermittent attempts to revive the death penalty, which they regard as cheaper and easier than keeping criminals in prison. And cheap and easy is all the rage these days.

It doesn’t matter to the Government whether restarting executions really does reduce the crime rate, since the objective is not to achieve anything but just to look like it is trying. That is, when it can’t persuade us that it is only media coverage of crime that needs to be reduced! Its representatives say the funniest things. Like when a minister explained how criminals are needed for election campaigns. Well, then we’ll just have to put up with crime!

Even cheaper and easier than executing prisoners is shooting them in a riot, of course.

This group argued that we need not worry about how a simple search got so out of control since the deaths are to be welcomed. They aren’t interested in investigating what happened.

I fear that after three decades of war, there are rather more people in this camp than ‘normal’.

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

New York, 5 March 2009 - Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Sri Lanka

The Secretary-General is extremely concerned over the deteriorating situation for civilians trapped in northern Sri Lanka. He strongly deplores the mounting death toll of civilians in the area of fighting, including a significant number of children. There is an urgent need to bring this conflict to a speedy end without further loss of civilian life. In this respect, the Secretary-General renews his call to the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to suspend hostilities for the purposes of allowing civilians to leave the conflict zone, and allowing immediate humanitarian access to them.

The Secretary-General calls on the LTTE to remove its weapons and fighters from areas of civilian concentration, to cooperate in all humanitarian efforts calculated to relieve the suffering of civilians, and to immediately cease recruitment of children.

The Secretary-General strongly urges the Government to begin serious efforts to resolve the underlying causes of conflict. http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=3768

New York, 3 April 2009 - Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Sri Lanka Read more...

Adding Substance To SAARC: India-Sri Lanka Experience

By R Hariharan -November 14, 2012

Col. (retd) R.Hariharan

[This article includes extracts from the valedictory address delivered by the author at the International Conference on “India-Sri Lanka Relations: Strengthening SAARC” organised by the Centre for Indian Ocean Studies, Osmania University Hyderabad on November 8 and 9, 2012.]

Introduction

There is a widespread feeling of pessimism among South Asians at the halting progress made by the South Asia Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) since its inception in 1985. Though SAARC is world’s largest regional grouping of 1.47 billion people, it has not been able to assert its collective strength like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the European Union (EU).

But the comparison is a little unfair as both ASEAN and EU were formed in different historical contexts and environments. They were conceived when the world was in the grip of Cold War.[i] The European grouping came about to minimize the impact of twin threats: post war economic privations of Europe and the fear of Soviet Union destabilizing Europe. For ASEAN, the U.S. penchant for building regional alliances to fight Communist threat in Southeast Asia provided the incentive.

When the Cold War compulsions vanished, both the groupings seamlessly focused on other fronts – energy, resources, economic development, environment protection and counter terrorism – to benefit from collective strengths. Both ASEAN and EU streamlined structural frameworks of their members to take the best advantage of global economic liberalization that came about towards of the end of the last century. They coordinated their policies and practices to reap maximum advantage for the members. And this process is constantly reviewed to remove the functional kinks and minimize damages due to external and internal pressures.

On the other hand, SAARC came about without the trappings of ideology and external pressures. Unlike the more prosperous ASEAN and EU groupings, SAARC has the largest number of people below poverty level in the world. Its members have some of the highest population densities in the world. And the region has been the scene of extremism and insurgency from the 1950s when most of the members became free nations. This scourge later gave birth to both Jihadi terrorism and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) who accounted for some of the worst acts of terrorism the world had ever seen. So the growth of SAARC has been stunted from birth.

ASEAN took nearly three decades to gather full momentum; the EU took even longer – nearly four decades – to master its act. Compared to this, the progress made by SAARC in two and a half decades of active existence is not too bad. But the sad truth is SAARC has remained a potted plant. It is yet to make a difference in the lives of South Asians, despite pious speeches made by leaders at every SAARC conference.

Both EU and ASEAN have shown that bonding between members was the key to their success as a group. Their members used the strength of bilateral relations to minimise negative influences during group formation and later in their group operations. This was brought to bear upon in shaping collective responses to issues relating to larger issues of strategic security and terrorism, environmental threats, and global trade and commerce.

The reasons attributed to SAARC’s slow progress are unequal size and relative strength of member- nations, memories of shared history, bilateral problems of members, political and economic compulsions of nations, and differences in responding to external influences – global power play, terrorism, and competing political and economic interests. But these are neither unique nor special to SAARC; both ASEAN and EU also have been facing the same problems since their inception.

India’s domination of South Asia is often cited as the main reason in the way of SAARC’s progress. It is true India’s influence derived from its huge geographical size and economic, political and military power overwhelms the region. And it forms a major part of the historical experience of most the member-nations. They have also been impacted by India’s soft power which has become a part of their religious, social and cultural influences. In this environment, India’s success as a democracy and rise as a dominant economic power have given rise to contrarian feelings of love and hate among SAARC members. The fear of being overwhelmed by India is probably a constant in their security calculus, although its impact on their decisions may not always be negative. These feelings also often influence their internal politics as well the world view. Often India is branded as a bully or “hegemon” (if such a word can be coined) by them.

India appears to be aware of the positive and negative vibrations it generates among other SAARC members. Over the years, India has tried to understand this “contrarian chemistry” and temper its policy prescriptions with some success. However, the bitter India-Pakistan relations, bloodied by wars and skirmishes, continue to hobble the full bloom of SAARC. Recently, with a democratic government staging a painful comeback in Pakistan, there are hopeful signs of improved relations between India and Pakistan.

There was increasing realization among SAARC members, including India and Pakistan, that group’s progress cannot be hostage to the bilateral relations of these two important members. As a result, SAARC had been able to take halting steps to identify areas of cooperation and tried to build upon them and take a few initiatives. It has made progress in evolving outlines for action in five areas of common interest for cooperation: terrorism, economic growth, social issues, energy and environment management, and development of inter-connectivity. It has managed to evolve conceptual frame works in all these areas.[ii]

In particular, the SAARC protocols adopted to combat terrorism in the region are of special relevance as the region has become the epicenter of Jihadi terrorism.[iii] Similarly, SAARC initiatives taken to rationalise economic structures of member countries for collective advantage are encouraging.[iv] But the initiatives have not been fully translated into action except in a few areas. So, overall rhetoric rather than action still dominates SAARC.

To make SAARC vibrant, a qualitative change is required among SAARC members to improve the form and content of bilateral relations among members. It will help create better understanding among members to appreciate the nuances of collective cooperation. In this context, growth of India-Sri Lanka relations during the last three decades is an interesting example of building win-win relationship. In this period, the bilateral relations of both nations have weathered conflict situations without suffering serious damage.

India-Sri Lanka Relations Read More

Leaked Report on Sri Lanka Critical of U.N.

By ROBERT MACKEY-Wednesday, November 14, 2012

“Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields,” a documentary broadcast by Britain’s Channel 4 News in 2011.

An internal review of how the United Nations handled the bloody final months of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009, when as many as 40,000 civilians were killed, has concluded that the response was “a grave failure of the U.N.,” according to a leaked draft of the report.

The investigative panel, led by Charles Petrie, a former United Nations official, criticized what it called “a sustained and institutionalized reluctance” by staff members in Sri Lanka at the time “to stand up for the rights of the people they were mandated to assist.” In blunt language, the report’s executive summary states that “many senior U.N. staff simply did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility.”

The report, copies of which were given to the BBC and The New York Times, also found fault with the way the crisis was dealt with by senior United Nations officials in New York. “Decision-making across the U.N. was dominated by a culture of trade-offs – from the ground to U.N. headquarters,” the draft report states. Officials chose “not to speak up” about “broken commitments and violations of international law” by both the Sri Lankan government and Tamil Tiger rebels because that “was seen as the only way to increase U.N. humanitarian access” to victims of the conflict.

The report does note that “the last phase of the conflict in Sri Lanka presented a major challenge” to the international body.

The U.N. struggled to exert influence on the Government which, with the effective acquiescence of a post-9/11 world order, was determined to defeat militarily an organization designated as terrorist. Some have argued that many deaths could have been averted had the Security Council and the Secretariat, backed by the U.N. country team, spoken out loudly early on, notably by publicizing the casualty numbers. Others say that the question is less whether the U.N. should assume responsibility for the tragedy, but more whether it did everything it could to assist the victims.

The internal review panel was established by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. A spokesman for Mr. Ban refused to comment on the leaked draft on Tuesday, but told reporters that the secretary general planned to meet Mr. Petrie on Wednesday morning and that the final version of the report would be made public soon.

Lyse Doucet, the chief international correspondent for BBC News who obtained the leaked draft, reported on Tuesday that United Nations sources said that the “brief executive summary, which sets out the panel’s conclusions in stark terms, has been removed,” from the final report.

Condemn The Massacre Of Prisoners At Welikada By The STF/SF

By Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe -November 14, 2012

Ajit Rupasinghe

Whatever reason the Regime and its officials may spin, the killing of 27 prisoners at Welikada constitutes a massacre, and the perpetrators and their commanding officers should be prosecuted for this gross and abominable crime against the people.

The known facts of the case are that the STF, later backed by the SF, had entered the prison claiming that they were there to conduct a search, and that an armed conflict had broken out between them and some prisoners, resulting in the killing of 27 prisoners and injuring 59. The first thing to be stated is that neither the STF nor any other regular outside law enforcement agency, has a legal right to enter the prison with arms and engage in such searches. The law stipulates that only the prison authorities have the right to deploy its security guards for any such purpose. Who then, ordered this search? What was the reason to override the authority of the prison officials?

There are of course conflicting versions of the events that unfolded. One official version given by Minister Gajadeera is that some inmates had broken into the medicine cabinet and had taken some drugs and gone berserk. Whereupon the prison guards had tried to quell them, other prisoners had begun attacking them. It was then that the STF was called in to quell a prison riot. All those who were killed and wounded were victims of an effort to crush this prison riot. Another version is that the STF entered on its own, without any provocation. Upon entering the premises, the STF personnel had stormed the cells to engage in a command style search operation, and, as it appeared, started to look for selected targets. They had fired tear gas into the cells when the prisoners had begun to get agitated. According to this version, the STF had then handcuffed and brought some prisoners to the open and shot them. Some inmates had broken into the armory and accessed some weapons to defend themselves. They had then fired into the air in self-defense to give some warning that this assault should be stopped. It is alleged that it was after the situation had been brought under control, that the STF.SF forces, aided by CID officers, had brought other prisoners together and shot and killed them, to make up a total of 27. If this scenario is correct, what was the reason? Was it a vendetta carried out against selected targets that could have compromised the Regime and its favored war lords? The accused in the murder of two Bhikkus at the Raja Maha Viharaya in Kotte was also selectively shot and killed. Did the heavily armed STF enter to make an illegal search in the dead of night? Or, did it respond to a need to quell an armed prison riot? Or, did it enter under a plan to achieve any other objective or agenda? Like the litany of other official inquiries, will these – 4 in all!- reveal the truth and bring the real criminals to justice?

It is the supreme duty of the State to protect the life and freedoms of prisoners who are brought under the custody of the State. We remember how, in 1983, 53 Tamil political prisoners kept in maximum security at the same Welikada prison were brutally massacred at the instigation of ministers of the state, with complete impunity. Two alleged ex-LTTE detainees were also tortured and killed by the STF in Vavuniya, in the course of suppressing a ‘prison revolt’. The continuing reign of terror in the North East against the oppressed Tamil people has long since begun to stalk and kill workers, fishermen, journalists, political activists and student leaders in open broad daylight.

In the context of the intensifying militarization of the political order, the unabated culture of impunity and the abuse of the Rule of Law, along with the centralization of absolute state power in the hands of the ruling Rajapakse troika, this outright massacre of prisoners has to be condemned by all citizens who cherish life and freedom. We demand a full scale, impartial investigation into this massacre and the perpetrators of this heinous crime be held accountable to the people.

*The writer is the Secretary, Ceylon Communist Party-Maoist

UN under fire for its failure in Sri Lanka

Ben Doherty-November 15, 2012

A "grave failure" ... a leaked report says the UN failed in its mandate to protect Sri Lanka's non-combatants. Photo: AFP/Ministry of Defence

THE unwillingness of the United Nations to protect civilians at the end of Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009 was a ''grave failure'' that harmed hundreds of thousands of people, a leaked report says.

The internal dossier, seen by the BBC, says the UN failed in its mandate to protect Sri Lanka's non-combatants because staff ''did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility''. ''Events in Sri Lanka mark a grave failure by the UN to adequately respond … during the final stages of the conflict and its aftermath, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of civilians,'' the report said.

A UN Panel of Experts report last year found up to 40,000 civilians were killed in the final months of the war, as government troops waged a brutal offensive against the separatist Tamil Tigers in the north-east of the country. The Sri Lankan government rejects that figure, saying it pursued a ''zero civilian casualty policy'', but rights groups say the number of dead may be even higher.

Under pressure from the Sri Lankan government to sanitise its reporting the UN failed to make public that ''a large majority'' of civilian deaths in the final months of fighting were caused by government shelling of hospitals and declared no-fire zones.

The report said that at UN headquarters in New York, ''engagement with member states regarding Sri Lanka was heavily influenced by what it perceived member states wanted to hear, rather than by what member states needed to know if they were to respond''. The report was also scathing of the UN's decision to pull out of the conflict zone in the north of the country.

A spokeswoman for the Australian Tamil Congress, Dr Sam Pari, said an independent and international investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka was overdue. ''Such reports will only hold any weight if the UN acts to ensure that it redeems itself from its colossal failure in protecting the Tamil people,'' she said.