President Mahinda Rajapaksa met a group of Bodu Bala Sena representatives at Temple Trees yesterday in view of religiously motivated attacks and protests in some parts of the country. The President is seen stressing the need for forging strong ties among religious and ethnic communities to achieve

national progress. (Picture Courtesy: President’s Media)

Bodu Bala Sena meets MR 

While discussing a number of problems pertaining to Buddhist temples, priests and the practice of the Buddhist religion in the country overall, one of the main points of the conversation revolved around some of the ongoing disputes between some Muslim and Buddhist groups.

Referring to the various messages that have appeared in the media recently, President Rajapaksa requested the group not to engage in any activities that would be seen as promoting communal hatred.

The five priests at the meeting, including the head priest Kirama Vimalajothi Nayaka Thero, Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thero and Vitharandeniye Nanda Thero, informed the President that there are duplicate groups that claim to represent Bodu Bala Sena and use the name for their own purposes. The group reassured President Rajapaksa that they do not condone insulting other religions.

Provincial council minister Udaya Gammanpila, who further detailed the problem with duplicate groups, reiterated the importance of inter-religious harmony. Condemning the recent incident that insulted the Islamic religion with the photograph of a swine, Minister Gammanpila said, "Just as we love our religion, they love their religion."

Priests form the Bodu Bala Sena added that they too do not condone such behavior. Referring to the protest in front of the Nolimit store in Maharagama, one of the Buddhists priests said, "We said don't do it. It's not good for Buddhism or the country. Let's fix problems within our own religion. Let's learn from the Muslim community and their discipline."

For several questions that arose pertaining to the Halal certification, President Rajapaksa and Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa outlined in detail the Halal certification process and the reasons for its use by businesses.

Before the discussion ended, President Rajapaksa once again repeated his request for Buddhist priests to help maintain ethnic and religious harmony in the country. "It is OK to work to strengthen the Buddhist religion, but it should be done without creating conflicts with other religions," President Rajapaksa said.

Among the others present at the discussion were Minister of Water Supply & Drainage Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Petroleum Industries Susil Premajayantha, Deputy Minister of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs M.K.A.D.S. Gunawardana, Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunga and Chief-of-Staff Gamini Senerath. (Presidential Media)

Kamal’s Vishwaroopam on a roll

A still from Vishwaroopam.-

January 28, 2013After rave reviews and pre-realease controversies, the film is now running to full houses

The release of Kamal Haasan’s latest extravaganza, Vishwaroopam that was touted to be one of the most expensive films made in South India, was in a rather staccato fashion, but on day three of its opening here, it got rave reviews. The film, now is running full houses.

According to P.D.V. Prasad, general manager, Siri Media Private Limited, which distributed the Telugu prints of the movie, the screening was not affected as it was feared, initially. “There was absolutely no trouble and there were only a few instances of community elders requesting us to defer the film’s release (January 26) by a day because it coincided with ‘Milad-un-Nabi. Police also told us they would not be able to provide protection at every theatre,” he said.

News about ‘Vishwaroopam’ also attracted attention because a major stakeholder in Siri Media happened to be former Union Minister Dasari Narayana Rao. “We actually planned to release the film in 225 theatres and have been able to stick to the schedule,” Mr. Prasad said. On Day One, the shows ran in Hyderabad and Cyberabad limits only as police told us not to take any chances; so was the case with Vijayawada and Nellore.

Following a request from community elders, the screening was suspended on Sunday in Nizamabad.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that Kamal Haasan will fly back to Chennai from the U.S. on Monday. On Wednesday, he is likely to participate in road shows here.

Petition submitted to UN 47 membership countries to induce Sri lanka for settlement.

TESO movement on the leadership of Karunanidhi had taken a decision to urge the UN Council membership countries, to strongly pressurize Sri Lanka government to take necessary measures to provide equal rights to Eelam Tamils.

The delegates would personally meet and urge External Affairs Minister Sal­man Khurshid and ambassadors of 47 UN member nations,  to prevail over Sri Lanka to implement the resolution of UN Human Rights Com­mission to hasten the rehabilitation of the war-hit Eelam Tamils and find an early political solution there.

The team comprising DK president K. Veeramani, VCK leader Thol Tiru­mavalavan, professor Su­bha Veerpandian and former Union minister Sub­bulakshmi Jagadeesan, and DMK Parliament Committee Leader T.R.Balu  rushed to Delhi yesterday.

Referring to the 14 resolutions adopted at the Teso conference at Chennai on August 12, 2012 and subsequent representations made with the UN deputy general secretary Yan Lia Sen by Stalin earlier, the statement said that Teso led by DMK chief M.  Karunanidhi has decided to approach the UN member nations to urge UN to exert more pressure on Lanka to change the prevailing situation in the Island nation and restore the political, economic and cultural rights of  Eelam Tamils there.

 Towards this the TESO delegates visited Delhi yesterday, and today they would personally meet and hand  over the petition by meeting Indian External Affairs Minister Salman Kurshith and the Delegates of 47 membership countries of UN Council

The delegates will request to persuade the Sri Lanka government to find a political settlement, to expedite rehabilitation of war-hit Eelam Tamils, to maintain peace for the Eelam Tamils,  by proposing at the Geneva UN human rights assembly and to process the resolution implemented.

Monday , 28 January 2013

Sri Lanka is in grave crisis in Geneva. Lack of friendly countries, government tensed.

China, Russia, Cuba including Sri Lanka's very close vital friendly countries have lost membership, by the United Nation Council's Human Rights Assembly's rotation system for membership, for  the diplomatic debate of the Geneva sessions which is scheduled to be held in the month of March would be a critical ordeal for Sri Lanka is according to diplomatic circles.

 

Further Qatar, Kuwait countries which were supportive countries of America rejected the motion against Sri Lanka last time, but this year, there is danger that these countries too may turn against Sri Lanka, hence it would become a grave crisis at  the Geneva sessions which was underlined and quoted.

 

In this state,  Sri Lanka government now have commenced its final attempts through  diplomatic activities to defeat it by  strong pressures against  the Geneva sessions, through his diplomats in western world, have advanced its activities is according to sources.

 

Meanwhile the petition which was brought with the support of America, Malaysia and Botswana countries were in the stance of not partaking, but now these countries are disappointed regarding Sri Lanka's activities.

 

Jordon which did not partake at the voting, this time has been discharged from the membership. 

 

The petition which brought against Sri Lanka in the year 2012 at the Human Rights Assembly, eight countries did not partake at the voting. Mainly the above countries did not participate at the voting in the belief that Sri Lanka government will implement the international sector's expectation in the human rights affairs after the Geneva resolution. 15 countries in this stance opposed the petition.

 

However, due to the multiplied human rights violations, suppressions against the minority races, are still continuing to unleash hence the Muslim countries are pushed to a state of re-scrutinizing is stated by international medias.

 

The recommendations of Reconciliation Commission not implemented by the Sri Lanka government in the proper manner, have paved way for the submission of another petition is the allegations made by the Opposition parties which  cannot be denied by the Government's activities was pointed out by local political observers.

 

At the 19th session of Geneva Human Rights Assembly’s implemented resolution urged  the recommendations of Reconciliation Commission should be completely implemented was pointed out, however, Sri Lanka government explicitly  informed that the international observation is not necessary to the implement the  Commission’s recommendation and  affirmed to the worldwide society that the Commission’s proposals will be implemented.

 

In this state, many months have gone after the implementation of Geneva resolution, government had fail to reveal any developments in this issue, hence America which brought motion against Sri Lanka last, year, will submit a strong motion this time for which activities’ are processed is according to sources.

 

India made it weaken at  the last year America’s resolution, is now drastically contemplating concerning Sri Lanka issue, hence it will not at all interfere is according to the information received from diplomatic level.

 

Meanwhile America has decided to submit another petition against Sri Lanka, and as part of this is, the three members delegation which has arrived Sri lanka to take a note of the happenings is according to White House circles.

 

The three members delegates’ panel which reached Sri Lanka visited the north and examined the current situation will submit a report to the State Department and the petition which would be submitted by America, these matters would be pointed out is according to report.

 

Further critical political crisis has occurred in Maldives and Pakistan hence more attention is now focused what sort of stance would be adopted by these countries concerning Sri Lanka  at the Geneva sessions.  At the last sessions, the two countries functioned in support of Sri Lanka.

 

Belgium, Cameron, Hungary, Mexico countries which last time supported the petition against Sri Lanka, has been discharged from the human rights assembly on rotation system and the newly membership countries, Germany and Brazil will oppose Sri Lanka, for which there is not a drop of doubt.

 

Due to the procedure that 47 countries could be members of the UN human rights council, according to rotation system, granting membership to countries is the normal procedure. On this basis, from last June, the countries which were members of human rights council have been discharged from membership.

 

Meanwhile the 19th human rights assembly sessions the petition which was brought by America against Sri Lanka,  27 votes supported and 15 votes were against. 8 counties did not partake the voting.

 

 China, Cuba, Russian countries whatever resolution brought against Sri Lanka would oppose it, but due to rotation system, these countries are discharged from membership would be a massive blow to Sri Lanka.

 

 Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia too has lost membership, hence Geneva debate would be  critical crisis for Sri Lanka is predicted 

Monday , 28 January 2013

Ambassador Donahoe: US Working With Partners to Make HRC as Effective as It Can Be

Ambassador Donahoe spoke January 24 at the Geneva Center for Security Policy

As prepared for delivery

“The Human Rights Council: How relevant is it and what
is the role of the United States?”

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe
U.S. Representative to the UN Human Rights Council

Delivered at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy
January 24, 2013

Thank you Ambassador Tanner for this invitation and the lovely reception. I am so pleased to see friends and colleagues here who have become close partners at the Human Rights Council.  I have heard a great deal about the Geneva Center for Security Policy, but this is the first time I have been able to participate in a GCSP event and I am delighted and honored to be here.  Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to reflect today on the U.S. role at the Human Rights Council.                          Full Story

Sri Lanka In Dock Of World Opinion »

 Monday, January 28, 2013

The Mahinda Rajapaksa government has been outstanding in fighting terrorism at home but has fared disastrously in diplomacy. This is in marked contrast to the Chandrika Kumaratunge government whose record in fighting terrorism at home was an absolute disaster but was outstanding in its efforts diplomatically getting the LTTE proscribed as a terrorist organisation by most of the important Western nations.
The Rajapaksa government will come under scrutiny next month at the 22nd session of the UNHRC in Geneva. The Human Rights record of the country along with other recent issues will be taken up at the Council. Sri Lanka will be in the dock at the March session with an American sponsored resolution being adopted last year calling for an examination of the conduct of our armed forces during the last phases in the conflict against the LTTE. The American resolution adopted last year with 24 voting in favour, 15 against and eight abstentions noted that though the War ended three years ago, Sri Lanka had even failed to implement some of the key recommendations made in its own commission, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). The progress made on these recommendations in the past year will feature in the UNHRC discussions.
There are UN members with far worse records on human rights which includes the sponsor of the resolution on Sri Lanka itself but little Sri Lanka with no diplomatic clout is now under intense scrutiny. The resolution is a ‘non-binding’ but if adopted by the UNHRC could lead to the issue being taken up by the United Nations Security Council which can refer it to the International Criminal Court. Sri Lanka’s two main backers Russia and China will not be in the UNHRC this year on the principle of rotation of membership every two years.
The Rajapaksa government’s cavalier attitude towards Western diplomacy has placed Sri Lanka in this position. At the very commencement of its rule it did away with the peace process initiated by Chandrika Kumaratunge by kicking out the
Four Co-Chairs – America, European Union, Norway and Japan – out of the peace process and initiating its own modus operandi. The hard reality of support the international community for the Western nations was ignored and instead diplomatic relations strengthened with nations that have locked horns with the West like Libya, Iran, Russia and China.
In the post Cold War era Sri Lanka has come a cropper in the choice of its allies. Western nations though debilitated economically are still the biggest markets for products of Third World countries. China though it’s the second most powerful economy in the world and has a population of over one billion people is not a market for Third World produce other than oil, steel, and other industrial products. Thus many Third World countries voted for the American resolution and many abstained for the fear of antagonising America.
Has Sri Lanka been able to win over some nations after last year’s meeting at Geneva? Foreign Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris has visited many African countries during the past year but whether he would have achieved his objectives is to be seen next month. More important will be improving relations with America and Britain for their influence with small nations could produce positive results.
By far Sri Lanka has blundered through with its relations with India. The quick silver changes from extremely warm relations, to hostile moves and now frozen relations have cost Sri Lanka its most important and valued ally. The West regards India as the regional power of South Asia and India’s opinion on Sri Lanka can decide any vital issue.
If Sri Lanka treasured its relations with India, construction of a harbour with Chinese assistance on a vital sea lane and the development of the Hambantota region with Chinese finance would not have been done. The other is the attitude towards the 13th Amendment which is entirely a New Delhi product for which India landed troops here and resulted in the loss of about 1,200 Indian soldiers and several thousand wounded. It now appears that the 13th Amendment would be thrown out even though it has been in the statute books for over 25 years. Whether Sri Lanka has been able to persuade New Delhi leaders for a change of attitude is indeed doubtful.
While leaders of the government seem convinced that they have done sufficiently well to redress Tamil grievances, the main Tamil party the Tamil National Alliance and foreign powers reject the idea. Emotions in Tamil Nadu are running high over what they consider to be the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils. The 13th Amendment is projected as having the potential of creating a political backlash in the Sinhala areas. Quite obviously it is not popular with kopi kade politics down south. The government has to choose between Kopi kade politics and UN diplomacy.
The Rajapaksa regime it appears has a penchant of kicking into its own goal. Whether the impeachment of the Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayaka was justified or not it was done in a very shabby way. The over enthusiasm displayed by government supporters on the streets and other public places to impeach the CJ has resulted in opprobrium being brought upon the government as shown by widespread criticism of Western powers as well as condemnation by reputed international bodies. The ICJ has called for her reinstatement while criticising the appointment of her successor.
Indications are that the impeachment of the CJ is to have a fallout in the Geneva conference.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and Foreign Service needs to be revamped. While attempts are being made to hold Prof. G. L. Peiris responsible for the current crisis it is obvious that he is only carrying out policies of greater powers in government.

US TO BRING NEW HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION AGAINST SRI LANKA

January 28, 2013 

The US will bring a fresh resolution to the UN Human Rights Council in a bid to force Sri Lanka to deliver on promises to probe its troops for war crimes, top US diplomats announced Monday after talks with Lankan officials.

“The US has decided to sponsor a procedural resolution (against Sri Lanka) at the March 2013 sessions of the UNHRC,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Moore said.

The US recognised Sri Lanka had made “some progress” since the previous US-led censure of Sri Lanka at the March 2012 UNHRC sessions in Geneva, but Washington believed more needed to be done, Moore said.

“The US and the other 23 members of the UNHRC who voted for that resolution in 2012 believe that the government of Sri Lanka needs to fulfil its commitments made to its own people,” Moore said.

He added that the fresh resolution to be moved in March was a reflection of “US commitment” to the people of Sri Lanka which emerged from nearly 37 years of ethnic bloodshed in May 2009 after security forces crushed Tamil rebels.

The US has been highly critical of Sri Lanka’s human rights record and has refused to train several of its senior military officers, saying they were linked to credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Another top US diplomat, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Vikram Singh, said the US wanted to keep Sri Lanka’s case fresh at Geneva by moving a new resolution against the island.

He said the government’s impeachment of the country’s chief justice, despite two court rulings that the process was illegal and against the constitution, also contributed to the US decision for a fresh resolution.

“It is safe to say that the impeachment of the Chief Justice also contributed to the decision to ensure that the record (against Sri Lanka) stays fresh in Geneva,” Singh told reporters in Colombo.

The US has asked Sri Lanka to reconsider the sacking of Shirani Bandaranayake following an international outcry over the impeachment earlier this month, in what activists have said was an assault on the independence of the judiciary.

The US delegation, which also included Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labour Jane Zimmerman, said the US recognised that reconciliation was hard after decades of ethnic strife, but that more progress had to be made, AFP reports.

Bishop calls for US consulate in Jaffna

MONDAY, 28 JANUARY 2013 

The Rev. Thomas Saundranayakam Bishop of Jaffna requested the US delegation which visited Jaffna yesterday to open a US consulate in Jaffna.

The delegation met the Bishop at his residence in Jaffna. (S.K.Pirasath)

Catholic Bishop request US officials to open embassy in Jaffna peninsula

Bishop of the Jaffna District Rev.Thomas Saundranayakam requested US delegates to open a US embassy in Jaffna peninsula.

Bishop pointed out government fail to implement recommendations of LLRC panel appointed by the Lankan government especially they fail to reduce number of military presentation in the peninsula. Delegates hold discussion for a one hour and discussed about the uncompleted resettlement projects, lack of essential facilities for war victims and bishop requested officials to open US embassy in Jaffna peninsula to check and balances the government activities in the area. Responding to the question delegates stated it’s unable to make quick decision on this request. Jaffna district army commander Maj.Gen.Mahinda Hathurusinghe met US delegates today and brief about the humanitarian activities, rehabilitation programmes and several other activities carried out by the Lankan army. Commander further noted since 2009 we have rapidly decrease number of military personals from the Jaffna peninsula and also we hold discussions with army headquarters on further decreasing military presentation in the district, he said. Commander finally stressed out that military personals never interfere on civil administration.

Critical motion getting processed. Visiting American representatives discuss with Alliance.

Sri Lanka is continuously ignoring the resolution implemented at the UN Human Rights Council sessions last year which was submitted by America against Sri Lanka.

 

In view of this,  the motion which would be implemented against Sri Lanka at the forthcoming March month sessions will consist imperative issues, hence a discussion was held  with Tamil National Alliance by the American high level panel visited Sri Lanka.

 

The American high level panel visited Sri Lanka and  had  initial discussion with  Tamil National Alliance yesterday afternoon in Colombo.

 

The American representatives attended this meeting had informed the Alliance that America is confirmed that another motion would be submitted against Sri Lanka at the forthcoming sessions at Geneva in March.

 

Further the panel required the opinions of Alliance and discussed about the issues encompassed in that motion.

 

 Asian Pacific Regional Defense Office Southern and South Asian Defense Affairs American Deputy State Secretary Vickram Jay Singh, American Deputy State Secretaries James Moor, James Burman including American high level panel arrived Sri Lanka yesterday Saturday.

 

The first meeting was with the Tamil National Alliance members. The meeting was held at Colombo American Embassy yesterday afternoon.

 

Tamil National Alliance leader R.Sambanthan, parliament members, M.A.Sumenthiran and C.Sritharan attended the discussion.

 

The meeting lasted for more than one hour, and regarding the meeting, Alliance parliament member M.A.Sumenthiran said, at the last year March month human rights council sessions, the motion brought by America against Sri Lanka was implemented successfully.

 

Sri Lanka government is holding back in executing the implemented resolution which we pointed out to the American officials with evidences.

 

Further we in detail explained the systemized Sinhala colonization by the Sri Lanka government, military expansion in the Tamils motherland of  north and east of Sri Lanka and  unprincipled activities advanced  in Jaffna by the military .

 

 

Reconciliation Commission which was appointed by Sri Lanka government submitted its recommendations, but was not implemented. Sri Lanka has not still originated the attempt to take responsibility.

 

The working plan was prepared by the Sri Lanka government last year, the Sri Lanka military too was present for this arrangement. Currently they cannot function according to the working plan is stated by them was further pointed by us to the American panel.

 

America is firm and will submit   a motion against Sri Lanka at the next Geneva assembly in March. However, Sri Lanka has ignored the resolution which was implemented last year, the American representatives took our opinions in which form the new resolution should be prepared for submission was stated. 

Sunday , 27 January 2013

US delegation visits Jaffna

MONDAY, 28 JANUARY 2013 

The visiting top level US delegation on Sunday visited Jaffna and held talks with Security Forces Commander-Jaffna Maj.Gen. M.Hathurusinghe, the army said.

“The delegation was briefed on present situation in Jaffna in terms of security, economic development, rehabilitation and resettlement and social harmony during the meeting,” the Army said.

Speaking during the discussion, Maj.Gen.Hathurusinghe told the delegation that the Army has reduced the strength of troops in Jaffna in large numbers since 2009.

“Army does not involve in civil administration at all and the government mechanism similar to the South is very much in place with all responsibilities discharged by them. With regard to the Army, plans are under way to reduce more troops in consultation with higher Headquarters in the near future”, the SF Commander explained.

Commenting on de-mining and resettlement in the peninsula, Maj. Gen. Hathurusinghe said less that 3% of the land is yet to be de-mined. It was further said that many blocks of lands, though months have passed after they were de-mined and released, are still not resettled since their owners presently living overseas do not want to return.

The 10 member delegation comprising US Ambassador in Colombo Ms Michele J Sison, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for South and South Asia Wikram Singh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour Ms. Jane B. Zinnerman and other diplomatic Officials later visited several places in the Jaffna peninsula before departure for Colombo, the army added.

No serendipity for Sri Lanka

Catherine Ashton: The EU has shown “considerable concern” about the situation in Sri Lanka. |AFP PHOTO / JOHN THYS

Nicolas -Beger-

JANUARY 27, 2013 
The recent impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, has re-focused international attention on the country. Catherine Ashton, head of the EU’s External Action Service, has expressed “considerable concern”. However, the problem with Sri Lanka runs deeper than any single case. Despite the Sri Lankan Government’s claims of progress on human rights since the conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the ‘Tamil Tigers’, ended in 2009, the reality is very different.

For 30 years Sri Lanka was ravaged by civil war between the government and the LTTE, during which tens of thousands of civilians may have been killed. The war is over, but human rights violations persist. In 2011, the government lifted its state of emergency, but retained the repressive Prevention of Terrorism Act. The authorities also introduced new regulations, which maintain detention of LTTE suspects without charge or trial. And political activists, journalists, human rights defenders and others who criticise the government still face intimidation and smear campaigns, and some have been subjected to enforced disappearance.

The Sri Lankan Government has also failed to ensure accountability for alleged crimes under international law committed by its armed forces during the conflict. Allegations include indiscriminate attacks, some with heavy weapons, which resulted in civilian deaths, enforced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial executions. The LTTE, too, allegedly committed crimes under international law, including forcibly recruiting adults and children as combatants and using civilians as human shields. This goes beyond war crimes: in 2011, the report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, stated that credible allegations supported a finding that various crimes against humanity had been committed by both sides during and after the conflict’s final stages.  The country’s Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission recommended independent investigation and prosecution of these violations. The government responded with a National Plan of Action, but its proposed actions often mention existing mechanisms or procedures that we consider ineffective. It also asks agencies associated with violations to investigate and police themselves. This fails to meet international legal standards. How can anyone expect perpetrators of human rights violations to investigate themselves properly? 

Here in Brussels, certain MEPs seem strangely determined to ignore the truth. At a hearing of Parliament’s human rights sub-committee last November, the ‘Friends of Sri Lanka’ group said the EU should offer a message of “sympathy and good will” to the Sri Lankan Government, and casually dismissed abuses as “mistakes”. Yet these MEPs have been confronted with evidence of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial execution and other human rights violations. The Friends of Sri Lanka consistently deflects any criticism of the country’s human rights record, effectively acting as the Sri Lankan Government’s mouthpiece in Brussels. Why do they continue to defend the indefensible? 

Fortunately, this group is heavily outnumbered by other MEPs who aren’t willing to ignore ample evidence of alleged violations. But overall the EU must be more vocal about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. With the Sri Lankan Government continuing to commit grave human rights violations and refusing to ensure accountability for past crimes, the country is heading in diametrically the wrong direction. 

The EU must extend its scrutiny and criticism of Sri Lanka beyond individual cases like the Chief Justice’s and focus on widespread violations of human rights. It must use all its influence with Sri Lanka to ensure justice for past violations and an end to the many present ones so that the people of Sri Lanka can enjoy the future that they deserve.

Who Decides the Laws of War?

WASHINGTON-

Enlarge This Image

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

Brig. Gen. Mark S. Martins, the chief prosecutor for military commissions, wants to focus on “legally sustainable” charges.

UNTIL recently, no uniformed lawyer was viewed by the Obama administration with greater favor than Brig. Gen. Mark S. Martins, the scholarly chief prosecutor of themilitary commissions system who is leading the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other Guantánamo Bay detainees accused of aiding the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in his class at West Point and earned a Harvard law degree alongside a young Barack Obama, General Martins served for five years in Iraq and Afghanistan, helped review detainee policies for President Obama in 2009, and was handpicked to reboot commissions in the hope that his image and conduct would persuade the world to respect the outcome of the Sept. 11 case — prosecutors are seeking death sentences — as legitimate.

But next week, when General Martins returns to public view at a pretrial hearing in the Sept. 11 case, he may appear to have gone rogue. He has engaged in an increasingly public dispute with the administration centered on an uncomfortable question he is refusing to drop: is it valid for the United States to use tribunals to charge idiosyncratic American offenses like “conspiracy,” even though they are not recognized as war crimes under international law?

General Martins’s standoff with the administration is writing a new chapter in a familiar narrative: since the 2001 terrorist attacks, military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps have repeatedly clashed with politically appointed lawyers over the laws of war.

During George W. Bush’s administration, uniformed lawyers pushed back against civilian officials over the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the war on terrorism, torture and protections for defendants in tribunals. Then as now, uniformed lawyers adopted rigid interpretations of the rules of warfare as constraining government policies, while civilian lawyers gravitated toward more flexible (or expedient) understandings.

The current dispute traces back to an appeals court ruling in October that vacated a tribunal’s verdict in 2008 against an Al Qaeda driver because his offense, “material support for terrorism,” was not a recognized international war crime at the time of his actions. The judges rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the charge was nevertheless valid under an American “common law of war” and because Congress had listed the crime as an offense for the tribunals in a 2006 statute.

The ruling raised the question of what to do about other cases with the same defect, including the appeal of a convicted Al Qaeda propagandist whose charges included “conspiracy,” which is also not an international war crime but was sometimes charged by tribunals in American history, including in cases from World War II and the Civil War.

General Martins pushed to abandon the propagandist’s conviction and scale back the charges that are triable in a military commission, contending that pressing forward with failed arguments would delegitimize the system and cast a distracting cloud over the Sept. 11 case. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to go forward with defending the propagandist’s conviction and the validity of conspiracy as a tribunal charge, and the schism opened.

General Martins refused to sign the Justice Department brief in the propagandist case and announced he would seek to drop conspiracy from the list of charges in the Sept. 11 case and focus on “legally sustainable” ones, like the classic war crime: attacking civilians. But the Pentagon official who oversees tribunals refused to withdraw the conspiracy charge, citing the Justice Department. General Martins responded that his prosecutors would not argue against a defense motion asking a judge to scuttle it.

“It really is amazing,” said Gary Solis, a retired military judge who teaches wartime law atGeorge Washington and Georgetown Universities. “They brought Martins in to square it away, and everyone on all sides said ‘if anyone can do it, it’s Martins.’ Then when Martins offers his best advice, it’s rejected.”

In certain respects, the current dispute is knottier and more abstract than Bush-era fights over the laws of war. But a common concern connects them: reciprocity, or the principle that a military should treat wartime prisoners the same as it wants adversaries to treat its soldiers.

David Glazier, a retired naval officer who teaches the laws of war at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, posed the question: if Iran someday shoots down an American pilot, could the Iranian military — citing the administration’s position — prosecute and execute him for an idiosyncratic war crime derived from Persian tradition rather than international law?

“What we are seeing is that it’s easy for civilian members of the government, who are in power for a comparatively short time, to get tunnel vision on a particular case or situation,” he said. “But how the United States handles these cases is going to influence how other countries in future wars treat captured Americans.”

There are complications. Few expect a terrorist group to obey the laws of war regardless of the example the United States sets. The administration’s arguments have focused on litigation strategy as much as principle. Some civilian officials backed General Martins, while some military lawyers disagreed with him.

And shortening the list of charges for tribunals could mean that fewer Guantánamo detainees get trials rather than indefinite detention. A 2009 review deemed about three dozen detainees eligible for prosecution, but only about a third of them were linked to specific attacks, officials have said.

Other triable detainees might be charged with conspiracy with Al Qaeda under domestic law, but Congress has forbidden prosecuting them in civilian courts. Against that backdrop, Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School, argued that the drama may be less about individuals than it is about institutions struggling to make the system work despite impediments.

“It’s tempting to view this as about General Martins, but it’s not,” he said. “Decisions about prosecuting detainees have become about what is feasible as opposed to what is rational. The constraints imposed by Congress are forcing officials into contorted positions which are particularly uncomfortable for military lawyers, who don’t want to get near the ‘third rail’ of destroying reciprocity.”

Charlie Savage is a security reporter for The New York Times.

No Substitute For A Strong Opposition

By Jehan Perera -January 28, 2013

Jehan Perera

The appearance of a national crisis over the impeachment is fast beginning to recede and become like another episode in the past. Most of those who opposed the impeachment of former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayakeappear to have given up their resistance. Even today a small group of lawyers in the Lawyers Collective continue to object to the outcome of the impeachment. They rose up for a national cause in which there was an asymmetry of power. But even they have been restricted to issuing statements. They are now on the run, figuratively if not also literally. The brief period of public protest is at an end. Their leaders have faced death threats and some have been compelled to approach President Mahinda Rajapaksa to ensure their safety.

Newer issues are taking the centre stage, such as the threat by Muslim political parties associated with the government to decide on a course of action if the government does not rein in the anti Muslim campaign by some allied Buddhist groups. Another is the passage of a law that increases the time given to the police to hold suspects without producing them before the judiciary to 48 hours, up from 24 hours. The strengthening of the political and extra legal arms of government over the judiciary and rights of citizens alike is also seen by the news that a government minister who has an arrest warrant against him has been seen fraternizing with his government colleagues in public and safe from the arms of the law. Members of the higher judiciary and many lawyers were present at the ceremonial welcome accorded to the new Chief Justice Mohan Peiris.

At its height, the impeachment of the former Chief Justice was fiercely opposed by virtually the entire legal profession. As lawyers are a powerful group, who are represented in the corridors of power including Parliament there was a belief that the government had got itself into a confrontation that could lead to its defeat, at least on the issue of the impeachment. The higher judiciary ruled that the impeachment procedure was a nullity in law. The Bar Association summoned a meeting attended by more than two thousand lawyers, who resolved to request the President that the impeachment process be reconsidered and that they would not welcome any new Chief Justice who was appointed under the prevailing circumstances. The lower judiciary in turn resolved that they would follow the position taken by the Bar Association.

RESTRICTED PROTESTS

However, even at its height the agitation against the impeachment did not take on a mass character as occurred in Pakistan in 2007 when the Chief Justice was sacked. The public protests against the impeachment were, by and large, confined to the precincts of the superior courts complex. What was special was the participation of a large number of lawyers who are not seen as social activists and as engaging in public protests. But this was not on the scale of the Pakistan protests which were a demonstration of people’s power that went beyond the lawyers associations. In Pakistan, the political opposition mobilized their supporters to back the lawyers’ protests. This was similar to the civic uprising in Nepal in 2006 that overthrew the Monarchy. There too civil society activists were in the forefront. But it was the support by opposition political parties that brought the masses of people to join the protests.

Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has sought to explain the end of the anti-impeachment campaign by saying that neither the courts nor the media could topple the government and it could only be done through a people’s uprising. On the one hand, the lawyers could not expand their public protest campaign to involve the masses of people. On the other hand, the government used the state controlled media to launch a powerful propaganda campaign. Even in Colombo, which contains the largest number of media outlets by far, the general public’s view appeared to have been influenced by the government’s propaganda machine. Most people I spoke to on the street appeared to echo the government propaganda. One view was that the Chief Justice had behaved out of order as she had been appointed by the President and therefore should not oppose him. Another view was that the Chief Justice had been shown to be guilty of the charges against her.

These partial views reflected the lack of countervailing information and analysis, particularly in the Sinhala language media, which caters to the majority of the population. It appears that the privately owned Sinhala language media has either been co-opted or intimidated so that they failed to counter the government propaganda machine or even provide an alternative view. Therefore the Opposition leader’s statement that neither the judiciary nor media was effective was in conformity with the situation that prevailed during the impeachment. Both the lawyers and media were unable to educate the masses of people regarding the government’s violation of the Rule of Law in the course of the impeachment. This was indeed the task of the opposition political parties, who have networks of party workers that reach to the community level. A fractured and weak opposition failed to make use of the bridgehead made available by the struggle of the lawyers to uphold the Rule of Law.

OPPOSITION FAILURE

There has been a strong sense of disenchantment amongst lawyers and those who spearheaded the protest campaign against the impeachment that the opposition political parties did not give them adequate support. This has also reinforced the negative perception in the international community about the lack of strength of the opposition. From their perspective a strong opposition will be one that puts more pressure on the government rather than seeks to rely on the international community to do the needful. They would like to see an opposition leadership that is presenting the masses of people in Sri Lanka with a vision of how they intend to solve the problems of the country. The problem facing those who want to see change in Sri Lanka is that the opposition is currently no alternative to the government.

The lack of effective action by the opposition parties has led to high hopes among sections of society and the opposition that international pressures will compel the government to uphold the Rule of Law and act in a more democratic manner. Some of the statements emanating from the international community have been extremely critical of the government, such as those by the International Commission of Jurists and by the US government. However, international pressure is unlikely to be able to compel the government to do what the people of Sri Lanka themselves are not pressurizing the government to do. So long as the government can show that it enjoys the support of the majority of the people it will be able to defy international pressures imposed on it regarding issues of good governance and human rights.

At the present time, those institutions that have traditionally played a role in checking and balancing the abuses of government have been subordinated to the enormous power of the Presidency and the Parliamentary supermajority. Civil society organizations are being subjected to greater governmental scrutiny and the space for their free functioning appears to be closing. In a context in which the government is unwilling to change, and the judiciary and media have failed to be countervailing institutions that could keep the government in check, it falls upon the opposition political parties to take on the role of being the campaigners for democracy and Rule of Law. The clarity of analysis that the Opposition leader has demonstrated now needs to be backed up by actions that unify the opposition political parties to face up to the juggernaut of government.