IBAHRI seriously concerned by decision of Sri Lankan government to block entry of high-level delegates

05/02/2013

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expresses serious concern at the Sri Lankan government’s decision to deny entry to Sri Lanka to senior international figures, including a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Justice J S Verma.

Dr Mark S Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association stated: ‘It is disappointing that the Sri Lankan authorities have missed the opportunity to cooperate on a visit by respected foreign members of the legal system. It will suggest to the international community that the Sri Lankan authorities are fearful of having independent eyes on the issues of interest to the legal profession.’

The IBAHRI wholly refutes the assertion made by the Sri Lankan External Affairs Ministry that information contained in the online visa applications was inaccurate.

The Sri Lanka online visa application process provides four options to indicate the ‘purpose of visit’. Option one was selected, to ‘participate in conferences, workshops and seminars’, the category which best fits the intentions of the delegation, which were to hold a range of consultations and seminars with various participants. The alternative options were to participate in ‘art, music and dance’, ‘business meetings and negotiations’, and ‘short training courses’. The online visa application process does not allow applicants to provide further information on the purpose of their trip.

A visa had been issued to one member of the delegation, facilitated through the relevant national diplomatic channels on 18 January 2013 but was revoked on 29 January. Approval to enter the country was suspended on 29 and 30 January in the cases of the other delegates, who had applied and been approved for entry to Sri Lanka through the online application process on 21 January 2013.

The visit was planned from 1–10 February 2013 to meet members of the legal profession, and representatives of government, media and civil society.

Following the suspension and revocation of the visas the IBAHRI was assured that the Sri Lankan High Commission in London would cooperate in the investigation and resolution of the matter. To date, no further information has been forthcoming. However, we remain hopeful that the Sri Lankan government will wish to remain open to international engagement and will reinstate the visits accordingly.
ENDS

Notes to Editors

The IBAHRI has previously conducted two fact-finding missions to Sri Lanka in 2001 and 2009.

The 2001 IBAHRI fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka was specifically convened in response to parliamentary attempts to impeach the then Chief Justice. The 2001 mission report found serious threats to the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka and called for constitutional reform to strengthen the rule of law.

The 2009 IBAHRI mission to Sri Lanka concluded that many of the problems identified in the 2001 report continued to affect the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law in Sri Lanka and that in some respects the situation had deteriorated significantly. The 2009 report specifically outlined concerns regarding attacks against lawyers and severe tensions between the executive and judicial branches.

Both the 2001 and 2009 IBHARI reports on Sri Lanka recommended that the procedure for impeachment proceedings should be reviewed and amended to ensure judicial, not parliamentary, supervision over judicial conduct. Both reports noted that existing impeachment procedures are subject to significant politicisation and undue executive interference that severely compromise the independence of the judiciary and rule of law. 

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) undertakes regular fact-finding missions to a wide range of countries to investigate issues related to the rule of law and the legal profession. The IBAHRI has conducted more than 40 since 1995 and has only ever previously been refused entry to one other country, Fiji in 2008. Fiji was later suspended from the Commonwealth in 2009.

Romana St. Matthew - Daniel
Press Office
International Bar Association
4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street,
London EC4 4AD

IBAHRI Seriously Concerned By Decision Of GoSL To Block Entry Of High-Level Delegates

By Colombo Telegraph -February 6, 2013

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expresses serious concern at the Sri Lankan government’s decision to deny entry to Sri Lanka to senior international figures, including a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Justice J S Verma.

Dr Mark S Ellis

Dr Mark S Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association stated; ‘It is disappointing that the Sri Lankan authorities have missed the opportunity to cooperate on a visit by respected foreign members of the legal system. It will suggest to the international community that the Sri Lankan authorities are fearful of having independent eyes on the issues of interest to the legal profession.’

The IBAHRI wholly refutes the assertion made by the Sri Lankan External Affairs Ministry that information contained in the online visa applications was inaccurate.

The Sri Lanka online visa application process provides four options to indicate the ‘purpose of visit’. Option one was selected, to ‘participate in conferences, workshops and seminars’, the category which best fits the intentions of the delegation, which were to hold a range of consultations and seminars with various participants. The alternative options were to participate in ‘art, music and dance’, ‘business meetings and negotiations’, and ‘short training courses’. The online visa application process does not allow applicants to provide further information on the purpose of their trip.

A visa had been issued to one member of the delegation, facilitated through the relevant national diplomatic channels on 18 January 2013 but was revoked on 29 January. Approval to enter the country was suspended on 29 and 30 January in the cases of the other delegates, who had applied and been approved for entry to Sri Lanka through the online application process on 21 January 2013.

The visit was planned from 1–10 February 2013 to meet members of the legal profession, and representatives of government, media and civil society.

Following the suspension and revocation of the visas the IBAHRI was assured that the Sri Lankan High Commission in London would cooperate in the investigation and resolution of the matter. To date, no further information has been forthcoming. However, we remain hopeful that the Sri Lankan government will wish to remain open to international engagement and will reinstate the visits accordingly.

Mohan Pieris Tries To Select A Bench To Hear Case Challenging His Own Appointment- Lawyers Object

By Colombo Telegraph -February 6, 2013 

SC (FR) 23/2013 filed by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr.Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu challenging the controversial Mohan Pieris, PC (6th Respondent in the case) exercising the powers and functions of the Chief Justice without a legal vacancy in terms of court rulings as to the requirements of the Constitution after the incumbent Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was forcefully excluded from exercising her functions by the regime of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, came up today (06.02.2013) before Justice Shiranee Tilakewardane, Justice S. I. Imam and Justice Priyasath Dep (PC).

Mohan Pieris

Earlier, lawyers for the petitioners had moved court by a motion dated 28.01.2013 that the whole bench of the Supreme Court should hear the case, since it would not be proper for Pieris to select judges to hear the case.

It emerged when the case was taken up, that although the case was placed on the list of cases for support on 06.02.2013, the 6th respondent Pieris (who was neither present nor represented by a lawyer in court as a party) had made a minute on the case record (a journal entry) on 01.02.2013, that the case should be taken off the list of cases to be supported and only mentioned. He had minuted that he orders this with a view to considering whether the case should be taken up along with cases SC (FR) 665/2012, 666/2012 and 667/2012. The Colombo Telegraph notes that those three cases are filed by three other parties challenging the legality of the Standing Order 78A, which although held unconstitutional and lacking due process was used by the Rajapaksa regime to boot Dr. Bandaranayake from office, in a move widely condemned by the legal fraternity, opposition and international community as a serious violation of judicial independence. Pieris is not made a party to those cases which were filed before he was installed in the office of Chief Justice. Those cases are now in limbo after a request of Shavindra Fernando, Deputy Solicitor General made to court for them to be sent to the ‘Chief Justice’ to constitute a fuller bench. No date of hearing has been given for those cases to date.

The Colombo Telegraph is reliably informed that immense pressure is being exerted on the Supreme Court judges by the Rajapaksa regime to somehow reverse the earlier Supreme Court determinations through those cases, in an attempt to try and give the act of ousting Bandaranayake at least some appearance of legality. Some judges had received phone calls and visits from various intermediaries offering various inducements if they cooperated to make the ousting seem proper. Judges are limited in the extent to which they can act without fear against such attempts at influence because of the fact that after the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, all appointments and promotions to high judicial office (and high public office) are effectively at the sole discretion of President Rajapaksa. Also, any judge seen as disloyal or an obstacle to the wants of the regime runs a real risk of impeachment without due process as Bandaranayake did. This has been the focus of widespread grave concern expressed at both local and international level.

In this situation, the 6th respondent had directed through his minute in the case filed by CPA, that it is to be considered whether this case should be taken up along with the other three cases. He had further minuted that the CPA case should be resubmitted to him to make an appropriate direction as to the constitution of the bench.

When the case was taken up, M. A. Sumanthiran, senior counsel for the petitioners submitted to the court that he was compelled to inform court with due respect that it is completely improper for the 6th respondent Pieris to purport to make such a direction, since he should not play any role in choosing judges to hear his own case, in that he has a personal interest in the matter. He further submitted that this is why a Motion was filed with notice to all respondents (including Pieris), that all judges of the Supreme Court should hear the case without any selection of members. This he submitted with reference to decided legal authorities, is essential to safeguard the dignity and integrity of the judiciary.

Ronald Perera, PC appeared for the 3rd respondent Ranil Wickremesinghe and agreed completely with the legal submissions and issues raised by Sumanthiran.

Shavindra Fernando, Deputy Solicitor General who appeared for the Attorney General insisted that the matter should be submitted to the ‘Chief Justice’. However, he did not address on the serious issues of conflict of interest Sumanthiran pointed out would arise, if this is done.

After hearing submissions, the court directed for the case to be mentioned on 05.03.2013, with the matter of reference of the case to a full bench as asked by the petitioners to be considered by then.

Several leading legal experts contacted by The Colombo Telegraph said on condition of anonymity that in view of the developments, it would be completely improper for Pieris to play any role at all in the listing, hearing or deciding of this case or even the other three he had referred to in his minute, since he has an obvious personal interest in their outcomes and the Rules of Natural Justice prevent him from in any way influencing their outcomes. They however welcomed the decision of the court today as a step in the right direction, since if a full bench is constituted there may be a possibility of some impartial rulings from any judges brave enough to be undeterred by the threats now faced by judicial officers.

What happens hereafter remains to be seen.

M. A. Sumanthiran with Viran Corea, Bhavani Fonseka, Suren Fernando, S. A. Beling and Luwie Ganeshathasan instructed by Namal Rajapakse appeared for the petitioners. Ronald Perera, PC appeared for the 3rd respondent Ranil Wickremesinghe. Shavindra Fernando, Deputy Solicitor General with Sanjay Rajaratnam, Deputy Solicitor General and N. Pulle, Senior State Counsel appeared for the Attorney General.

Genocide prosecution, a Guatemalan lesson

[TamilNet, Wednesday, 06 February 2013, 00:05 GMT]
A Guatamalan judge made history Monday by authorizing a public trial to prosecute a dictator and former Guatamalan "head of state" in Guatamalan domestic court for the ultimate crime of genocide. While Guatamala's counter-insurgency massacres provide a stark parallel to Mu'l'lvaaykkaal killings of Tamil civilians, and even while, Sri Lanka's hardline nationalist Sinhala population and the passive liberal voices will likely take generations to chart a similar path to justice for Rajapakse crimes, the Guatamalan lesson is crucial to the Tamils and its widely spread diaspora: "Credit for [the landmark case] goes to the survivors and victims’ families for 30 years of tenacious research and advocacy. International human rights groups, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the United Nations and foreign governments helped," New York Times said of the struggle in Guatamala to seek justice. 

Former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt

Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez

Judge, Miguel Ángel Gálvez, made his country, Guatamala, the first in the Americas to prosecute former "head of state," Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide.

The judicial landmark, further comes at a poignant moment, to Eezham Tamils, when the United States Department of State, is exercising its discretion to intervene in the appellate proceedings in the Appeals Court of District of Colombia, where three Tamil families are plaintiffs in a case charging the crime of genocide and war-crimes against Sri Lanka's President Rajapakse. Rajapakse's appointed lawyers in Washington, Patton Boggs, are depending entirely on the U.S. Government to save their client from receiving justice through the legal system, by claiming "Head of State immunity," legal sources in Washington said.

Montt seized power by a coup in March 1982, taking charge of a 20-year old counterinsurgency. "To deny the guerrillas local support, he sent soldiers to wipe out hundreds of Mayan villages," NYT said, adding, [i]n 1999, after the war’s end, the United Nations-sponsored Historical Clarification Commission tallied thousands of rapes, tortures, disappearances, violations of cultural rights and extrajudicial executions his forces committed while he held power, and concluded that he presided over acts of genocide."

In Mu'l'livaaykkaal, under Rajapakse command, the State military slaughtered more than 80,000 Tamil civilians under the pretext of wiping out 5000 strong LTTE fighters, Petrie Report and UN appointed Expert panel concluded. Accusations of war-crimes, and crimes against humanity during the war, and post-war continuation of systemic cultural genocide, including rapes, disappearances, abductions including planned colonization continue with unchecked belligerency, commented Tamil activists, drawing parallel to Guatemala.

Montt was ousted in another coup in August 1983, but became a right-wing congressman and a losing presidential candidate. No other high-ranking Guatemalan Army or police official was brought to justice. Military rule formally ended in 1985, and a peace accord was signed in 1996. But activists seeking to shed light on the past were still threatened and killed, a story familiar to Sri Lanka observers.

While elected as president Otto Pérez Molina, a former general who commanded troops in the Ixil region — the focus of the genocide trial — during Mr. Ríos Montt’s rule, insists “There was no genocide,” resilience of the victims families, rights groups, and Guatemalan Attorney General since 2010, Claudia Paz y Paz, who revolutionized the prosecutor’s office, pushing cases involving war crimes, have made the difference, NYT says.

"The overarching goal of the Guatemalan counterinsurgency was to destroy all oppositional thinking," the NYT story author, Kirsten Weld, an assistant professor of history at Harvard writes, and quotes Hannah Arendt, the German political scientist who wrote that any state’s efforts to make its opponents “disappear in silent anonymity” are doomed to failure.

Event Invitation: 20th Commemoration Of N. Sanmugathasan

Invitation: 20th Commemoration Of N. Sanmugathasan
-February 6, 2013 

N. Sanmugathasan (right) with Mao Zedong

Organised By Sanmugathasan Center For Marxist Studies – Colombo
Date   :    February 10, 2013
Time   :   05.PM
Venue: Sangarapillai Hall, Colombo Tamil Sangam, No. 7, 57th Lane ,COL 06-Wellawatte.

PROGRAM;

CHAIRMAN:   S.K. Sentivel ( GEN SEC. NEW DEMOCRATIC MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY

BOOK RELEASE: Tamil version of “Political Memories Of An Unrepentant Communist” Release by Shan in July 1989

SPEAKERS:                PROF. SABA JEYARAJ (PRESIDENT: COLOMBO TAMIL SANGAM

SURENDRA AJIT RUPASINGHE (GEN.SEC; CEYLON COMMUNIST PARTY -MAOIST)

MEMORIAL LECTURE:    PROF. A. MARX FROM TAMIL NADU ON THE THEME ‘ CHALEENGES FACED BY CONTEMPORARY LEFT MOVEMENTS

SANMUGATHASAN CENTER FOR MARXIST STUDIES;
COLOMBO

Feb 4th Srilanka Independence Day for Singala People... Not for Eelam Tamils

Veluppillai Thangavelu Special to Salem-News.com

The Thamils and the Sinhalese are divided on the basis of territory, language, religion, and culture.

(TORONTO Tamil Canadian) - On February 4^th, 1948, the 2.5 million Thamils of Ceylon exchanged their white masters (British) for the brown sahibs - the Sinhalese. Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, would not have gained independence from Britain without the support and consent of the Thamil people. In fact it was the Thamil leaders like Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan (1851-1930) and Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam (1853-1924) who fearlessly spearheaded the struggle for constitutional reforms that led to independence from colonial yoke.

However, the Ponnambalam brothers in their evening of life realised that the Sinhalese politicians have taken them for a ride to advance the interests of the majority community at the expense of the Thamil people. Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan foresaw that the democratic principle of one-person one vote in a heterogeneous society would ultimately lead to tyranny of the majority.

In a speech to the Legislative Council during the debate on the Donoughmore Reforms, Mr. Ramanathan appears the precursor of the Thamils demand for a sovereign state of Thamil Eelam.

"Why did the (Donoughmore) Commissioners not study Ireland, which is next door to them? They (Irish) said that we are one lot and you are another. We cannot work together. We must have separate governments. Then I ask what happened in the Dominion of Canada? The officials concerned said, it is an impossible situation.... Let us give these French descendants one form of government and let us give the other people another form of government - forms of government suitable to the interests of each of these great big communities. Why did the Commissioners think of that?"

It was Sir Arunachalam Ponnambalam who first (1923) exhorted the Thamils that -

"They should work towards promoting the union and solidarity of what we have been proud to call THAMIL EELAM. We desire to preserve our individuality as a people, to make ourselves worthy of inheritance. We are not enamoured about the cosmopolitanism which would make us neither fish, fowl nor red-herring."

D.S. Senanayake, the first Prime Minister of independent Ceylon, gave the following solemn promise to the Thamil and other minority communities "no harm need you (non-Sinhalese) fear at our hands (Sinhalese) in a free Lanka." He was speaking in the State Council in October 1945 when all the Thamil members had unanimously voted for the acceptance of the Soulbury constitution in a White Paper.

"Do you want to be governed from London or do you want, as Ceylon, to help govern Ceylon? On behalf of the (Ceylon National) Congress (founded by Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam in 1919) and on my behalf, I give the minority communities the sincere assurance that no harm need you fear at our hands in a free Lanka."

But in 1948, the very year of Independence, D.S.Senanayake blatantly went back on the promise and bared his true colours as an unrepentant champion of Sinhala chauvinism by depriving one million Thamils of their citizenship.

The Citizenship Act No. 18 was unique in that it denied citizenship to a person born in the country before or after 1948 unless, at least, his father was born in or was a citizen of Sri Lanka. The following year, the same Thamils were deprived of their franchise rights by a simple amendment to the Parliamentary Elections Ordinance which said only citizens have the right to vote in elections. This reduced Thamils representation in Parliament from 33% in 1948 to a mere 20% in 1952.

The Citizenship Act #18 of 1948 opened the floodgates to further legislative and administrative acts, which robbed Thamils of their language, educational, and employment rights. It might be informative at this stage to recapitulate the history of the National conflict between the Thamils and the Sinhalese.

THE MAHAVAMSA MIND-SET

The Thamils and the Sinhalese are divided on the basis of territory, language, religion, and culture. The enmity between the Thamils and the Sinhalese go back to at least two centuries before Christ.

The Mahavamsa, a Buddhist chronicle written in the 6th century AD by a Buddhist monk portrays the Sinhalese King Dutugemunu as the National Hero who defeated the Thamil King Ellalan and unified the whole of Ceylon. Though Buddhism infinitely values human life as being the one and only condition from which nibbana (salvation) could be attained, Mahavamsa made a virtue of killing in defence of Buddhism. This 2nd century B.C book has been used to raise the cry of Race, Land and Faith by the Sinhalese-Buddhist chauvinistic forces during the last hundred years or more.

The Mahavamsa has perpetrated the myth that Sinhalese-Buddhists are a chosen people with the special mission of preserving the Buddhist religion in Sri Lanka. Dr.Walpola Rahula, a scholar monk, wrote "for more than two millennia the Sinhalese have been inspired that they were a nation brought into being for the definite purpose of carrying the torch lit by Buddha."

In Mahavamsa tradition the Thamils are considered unbelievers, villains and invaders. It is the Mahavamsa theory that the Island as a whole belongs to the Sinhalese Buddhists only, and that there is no place or only second class status for Thamils. This Mahavamsa tradition is the root cause of the present conflict between the Thamil Nation and the Sinhalese Nation.

Those who wish to see an end to the national conflict would have to take into consideration the Mahavamsa mind-set. For it is the Mahavamsa mode of thinking which has influenced all the rulers, especially the governments of post independence Ceylon. The Mahinda Chinthanaya is another version of Mahavamsa mind-set Champika Ranawake, a cabinet minister, belonging to the extremist Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) went further and opined that "the Sinhalese are the only organic race of Sri Lanka. Other communities are all visitors to the country, whose arrival was never challenged out of the compassion of Buddhists … What is happening today is pure ingratitude on the part of these visitors."

The former Army Commander Lt. General Sarath Fonseka now stripped of his titles and imprisoned in jail claimed in an interview to the National Post (23rd September, 2008) that the Sinhalese accounted for 75% of the population and ,therefore, they have the right to rule and the minorities should realize this and desist making undue demands.

The planned state-aided colonization of Thamil traditional Homelands, the Sinhala Only Act, the recognition of Buddhism as the state religion, the lion flag as the national flag, the national anthem and the stubborn insistence on a unitary constitution are manifestations of the Mahavamsa mind-set deeply embedded in the Sinhalese psyche. Initiatives in the past to settle the national conflict by the signing of the Bandaranayake-Chelvanayakam pact (1957), Dudley Senanayake- Chelvanayakam pact (1965), and the Indo-Ceylon Accord (1987) failed because of this single factor.

BROKEN PROMISES AND PACTS

The Thamils have experienced numerous betrayals by successive Sri Lankan governments since independence. They include the following signed pacts between the leaders of the Sinhalese and the Thamils, which were torn-up under pressure from Sinhalese-Buddhist extremists: 1. Bandaranaike - Chelvanayakam Pact (26 July, 1957) 2.Senanayake - Chelvanayakam Pact (24 March, 1965) Under both these pacts, a certain degree of autonomy was to be vested in the administration of Thamils traditional homeland (Northern and Eastern Provinces.)

COLONISATION

Through a systematic state-aided Sinhalese colonisation of the traditional homelands of the Thamils, the demographic profile of the Thamils has been drastically altered. In the Eastern Province, the once majority Thamil community (52.3 % in 1946; 41.9 in 1981) has been reduced to a minority, whereas the percentage of Sinhalese rose from 8.4% in 1946 to a staggering 32.2% in 1981.

REJECTION OF CONSTITUTIONS

The Thamil people and their leaders rejected both the Sri Lankan Republican constitutions of 1972 and 1978. With Sri Lanka becoming a Republic, sovereignty reverted to both the Sinhalese and the Thamils. The Sinhalese are able to exercise their sovereignty through the state of Sri Lanka, but they deny Thamils their right to exercise their sovereignty through a de jure state of Thamil Eelam.

MANDATE FOR THAMIL EELAM

The Thamil people in all the parliamentary elections held since 1956 has consistently voted for the Federal Party, which stood for a Thamil State within a federal structure. In 1977, the Thamil United Liberation Front sought and obtained an overwhelming mandate for the restoration of the State of Thamil Eelam - status quo ante. The LTTE through a revolutionary armed struggle is implementing the mandate given by the Thamil people. For well over a quarter of a century, the Thamils pleaded for autonomy for a Thamil Homeland within a united Sri Lanka, but such non-violent struggles were crushed through the use of brute military force. When all peaceful means failed the Thamils seeing no other options were forced to take up arms in defence of their rights.

SINHALA ARMY OF OCCUPATION IN NORTH EAST

Though the war ended 32 months ago, Thamils in Northeast continue to be oppressed under the jackboot of the Sinhala occupation army. Every aspect of Thamil civilians is controlled by the army. In the Jaffna peninsula alone, a 50,000 strong Sri Lankan Army has occupied large tracts of territory as HSZs. There are 18 such HSZs in Jaffna peninsula composed of 260 sq.kms out of the total area of 880 sq.kms. The Governor of North is Major Gen. G.A. Chandrasri and in East, the Governor is Retd. Naval Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama. The Government agents of both Trincomalee (Retd Major General Ranjith Silva) and Mannar districts are Sinhalese.

CONTINUING VIOLENCE AGAINST THAMILS

Despite claim of progress on reconciliation, the Tamil people of the North and East continue to be subjected to violence. Manifestations of such violence include the failure to re-settle over 300,000 IDPs in transit camps in Vanni, Sampur etc. in their original homes. Those who have been permitted to settle down in their original places have been deprived of all state assistance and left to fend for themselves. The continuing displacement of several thousand persons who either continue to be confined in transit camps or have been compelled to take shelter with host families in Valikamam North in the Jaffna Peninsula. The forcible occupation of agricultural and occupational lands belonging to the Tamil people by the armed forces and by Sinhalese. No action has been taken to remedy these blatant violations.

The allocation of state land in the Northeast without any public notification exclusively to Sinhalese persons purportedly for development purposes continue. Persons from outside the Northeast are being settle in different parts of the Northeast and more recently, in the coastal areas of Mullaitheevu and Vadamaraatchi east with the intention of changing the demographic composition of those areas and creating new administrative divisions.

The destruction and desecration of Hindu and Christian places of worship and other cultural sites like the historical Agasthiar Sthaapanam in Kanguveli and the Hot wells in Kanniya, so as to transform the religious and cultural identity of the said historical areas.

The government continues to suppress legitimate public protests through the use of military force throughout the Northeast as evidenced recently in Batticaloa, Amparai and Navanthurai, Kokkuvil and Chullipuram in Jaffna.

Over 500 persons have been reported missing in the North and East alone over the past few years. Of those missing are 110 persons from Trincomalee, 100 from Mannar, 140 from Vavuniya and several others from Jaffna, Kilinochchi and Batticaloa. According to former MP Mano Ganeshan between 2005 – 2009 around 550 persons have been reported missing in Colombo and its suburbs.

Despite tall claims by the government that it has repealed emergency regulations and restored normalcy in post-war Sri Lanka, the government chose to retain emergency era powers through the promulgation of Regulations under the PTA. These Regulations ensure the seamless continuation of emergency rule, replete with the grant of extraordinary powers to the armed forces and police to arrest and detain suspects for long periods.

In a Joint Statement, President Rajapaksa and the Secretary-General agreed that 'addressing the aspirations and grievances of all communities and working towards a lasting political solution was fundamental to ensuring long-term socio-economic development.' President Rajapaksa also 'expressed his firm resolve to proceed with the implementation of the 13th Amendment, there has been no progress to implement those referred to in the joint statement.

On this Black Day, Thamils should firmly resolve to fight and regain their state of Thamil Eelam they lost to foreign invaders. Only an independent Thamil Eelam will guarantee our people freedom, dignity and security.

"The cost of freedom is always high, but our people always paid it. One path we shall never choose is the path of surrender, or submission." (John F Kennedy (35th US President)

Sri Lanka's Independence Day- a Black Day for Tamil Eelam

Sri Lanka And Geneva 2013: When National Interest Must Supersede Ideology – Analysis

  

By: Salma Yusuf

   -   February 4, 2013

It is that time of the year. As the heat builds up in an otherwise wintry Geneva, capital cities of the world are abuzz with preparations for the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions to be held in February-March 2013.

While UNHRC sessions in general are important for Sri Lanka, the upcoming sessions in February-March 2013 are uniquely important for Sri Lanka for four reasons: first, it is the first time that Sri Lanka will come before the UNHRC after the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) review meeting; second, it is the first time that Sri Lanka sits at the UNHRC after the first ever UN Resolution has been adopted and passed on Sri Lanka; third, there continues to be intense international scrutiny and mounting national criticism on a variety of post-war issues; and fourth, diplomatically speaking, Sri Lanka will have to confront for the first time an unusual combination of forces that have lobbied against it.

A PRE-EMPTIVE STRATEGY

Sri Lanka

According to experts in Sri Lankan foreign affairs the most effective pre-emptive strategy to avert an adverse outcome would be to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report. Implementing at least a significant portion of the most critical recommendations would then provide the Government of Sri Lanka a platform to argue that serious attempts have been made at addressing issues of accountability, socio-economic development and reconciliation through credible domestic mechanisms.

A BILATERAL STRATEGY

Senior experts on Sri Lanka’s external relations have also pointed out that we must not wait until the sessions begin in Geneva to consolidate our position but rather put in place immediately a bilateral strategy with all countries who are members of the UNHRC to provide an update on progress. Such a bilateral strategy, it is pointed out, must be continuous and ongoing and be activated periodically even after the UNHRC sessions in February-March 2013.

The raison d’etre for the foregoing strategy rests on the fact that decision-making processes take shape in the capital cities in advance of the actual sessions being held; hence attempts at advocacy on the side-lines of the sessions can be of limited consequence. Those familiar with UNHRC diplomacy believe that such bilateral strategies effectively complement what can be achieved at international forums such as the UNHRC. The caveat however is equally clear: the defense must first be strategized internally and should reflect a uniform position that is then projected to the international community. A single interlocutor must be maintained though could take varying forms depending on the demands of varying contexts.

CONTINUED AND CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT

Continued engagement which is both structured and constructive is the order. Senior diplomats argue that responding with hostility will not take us very far. Furthermore, it is necessary to study and address underlying causes and changes of position that led to previously supportive countries voting in favour of the UN resolution in Geneva in 2012.

Moreover, Sri Lanka must seek to regain its reputation as consensus-builder by allaying concerns of countries that have expressed concern. This in turn will be in our best interests as is the need to maintain good relations with key players in the international community.

DE-EXTERNALIZING POST-WAR SRI LANKA

Given that the conflict in Sri Lanka has largely been ‘externalized’ due to a combination of events, interventions and circumstances over the years; it is becoming increasingly apparent that Sri Lanka’s post-war era is no different. This observation propelled an enquiry with senior diplomats and foreign policy experts on the best possible way of ‘de-externalizing’ current post-war efforts in Sri Lanka.

The recommendation is to put in place a domestic process of dialogue to neutralize two key drivers of externalization, namely the section of the hostile diaspora community and the combination of forces that worked actively towards the UN resolution in Geneva in 2012. The domestic process of dialogue must be with the minority communities to address the root causes of the conflict. Addressing concerns domestically in a credible manner is the surest way to foster internal stability and ‘de-externalization’ of Sri Lanka’s post-war era. The importance of achieving genuine and sustainable reconciliation in this regard cannot be overstated.

SRI LANKA IN THE WORLD

Turning to Sri Lanka’s role in a new and emerging world order of the much touted Asian Century, it must be stressed that an Asian Century is still in its earliest stages of establishment and can only proceed to materialize if growth within the region is manageable and development is sustainable. Asian diversity must be harnessed as an opportunity and strength but as long as the current challenges of disparities and divisiveness remain, Asian influence is unlikely to increase any further.

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS AND RIVALRIES

Worthy of note in such a context is the strategic interplay of forces that has come about as a result of such an emerging new world order – in this context, Sri Lanka too must be keenly aware and respond appropriately to the plethora of strategic partnerships and strategic rivalries that are fast developing within, across and beyond the Asian region.

It is safe then to conclude that we are living in a period of transition and redefinition: the questions are many, the principal one being whether nuclear powers will fuel strategic rivalries between themselves or instead choose to maximize strategic partnerships through commercial cooperation.

FLEXIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS

Assessing Sri Lanka’s role in the above backdrop becomes essential if we are to secure our international positioning and establish our global role. The guiding principle would be to ensure flexibility and responsiveness while not losing sight of our key assets and strengths: Sri Lanka prides itself as being one of the oldest Parliamentary democracies in the Asian region; with all its challenges it still remains fertile ground for agriculture and hence has the raw materials for self-sufficiency; and most importantly, is strategically located in the Indian ocean in terms of geo-political positioning.

BUILDING SOVEREIGN CAPABILITY

The concern of course is that we are increasingly becoming enmeshed and mired in the strategic interplay of forces between countries’ rivalries and partnerships. Furthermore, despite a strategic geo-political positioning, we do not possess our own economic or other capabilities. Focusing on building internal and sovereign capabilities will be vital if we are to consolidate a position in the global interplay of relationships and become a key player in the international arena. The bottom line is that our internal and external relations cannot and indeed must not be motivated by ideology alone but rather be driven by our national interests.

About the author:

Salma Yusuf

Salma Yusuf is a Visiting Lecturer, Masters in Human Rights, University of Colombo and University of Sydney; Visiting Lecturer, Bachelor of Laws, University of Northumbria – Regional Campus for Sri Lanka & Maldives; LL.M, Queen Mary, University of London; Queen Mary Scholar 2008-2009; LL.B (Hons), University of London. She provides legal and policy advisory services on both national and international programmes in the fields of human rights law, transitional justice, comparative social justice, and peace-building. She has authored publications for the Sri Lanka Journal of International Law; the Seattle Journal for Social Justice; the Complutense University of Madrid; the Institue of Human Rights; and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Email:salmayusuf@gmail.com

UK urges Govt. - TNA to make serious progress

TUESDAY, 05 FEBRUARY 2013

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for South Asia Alistair Burt said his country will continue to urge the Tamil National Alliance and the Sri Lankan Government to make ‘serious progress’, towards a political settlement in the country.

Answering questions today on social networking site, Twitter Mr. Burt said, “Details of a political settlement must be for Sri Lankans themselves to work out. And the political settlement is fundamental.”

Commenting on the forthcoming Commonwealth Meeting scheduled to be held in Colombo; Mr. Burt said Britain is yet to decide on the level of attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM).

While claiming that physical change such as roads or return from camps is ‘genuine,’ he said that those were in themselves not sufficient.

“We look forward to Sri Lanka demonstrating those commonwealth values of good governance, rule of law and human rights and continue to press the government to do so,” he tweeted.

He said it was essential that human rights defenders were free to speak out as they continued to make it clear to Sri Lankan authorities.

Even as President Mahinda brags of country’s freedom, his own Minister Mahinda’s wife flees in fear
(Lanka-e-News -05.Feb.2013, 8.30PM) The wife of Mahinda Aluthgamage , the Minister of sports has alleged that her husband is conspiring to murder her and therefore left the country secretly along with her two children seeking political asylum , according to reports reaching Lanka e news. Though we are aware of the country to which she had fled , we shall not disclose the information on security grounds in view of the murder threats the Minister had held out to her.

The Minister’s wife who was aware that her husband was attending the independence day celebrations at Trincomalee , had arranged to flee the country that night.(3rd of February Night) At the final stage when the Minister Aluthgamage got wind of this and tried to stop her at the Airports by dispatching the police , it was too late. Lanka e news always first with the news and best with the views wishes to recall that on an earlier occasion too it highlighted an incident when the wife of the Minister was attacked by an individual until she bled when she and the Minister husband were at a function . The Minister took no notice of it when she was assaulted. According to the persecuted wife , as a large number of properties are in her name , and after she came to know that the Minister is planning to kill her she took the decision to flee the country.
The photograph herein shows how murderous Minister Aluthgamage looked when he attended the Trincomalee independence celebrations today. 

It is significant to note that even as the President of the Country, Rajapakse regime chief bragged at the same celebrations that even a bird in this country now has freedom to be in its nest as it fancies, the wives of his own Ministers are fleeing the country in fear and under death threats of his own Ministers. How shall we call his bragging ? – ridiculous , ludicrous , madness or maniacally miraculous?

American delegates panel discuss in Delhi. India briefed about the resolution brought against Sri Lanka

America high level delegates is an urgent tour to New Delhi held discussions in the manner of collecting  support to the resolution brought by America against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council sessions held next month in Geneva.

Three delegates from America visited Sri Lanka and on conclusion of their Sri lanka tour proceeded to New Delhi and were engaged in discussions.

During the discussions, it is much aware; the American delegates had briefed New Delhi concerning the resolution brought against Sri Lanka.

Indian External Affairs Ministry Secretary Ranjan Mathaaya, National Defense Advisor Sivashankar Menon including high officials of Delhi administration had met this delegate’s panel.

The objective of the resolution against Sri Lanka, India's support, the security situation of South Asian region, the  issues discussed during the Sri lanka tour including vital issues, were shared during these discussions.

Mainly the issue of originating reconciliation, Sri Lanka is still in the bottom level. Hence to move towards reconciliation and to encourage Sri lanka, the resolution would be brought this time, was pointed out by the American panel to the Indian diplomats.

During the meetings with American delegates Indian officials and Sri Lanka High Commissioner for India Asok K.Kantha was present.

The three members American delegate panel which was on an official tour to Sri lanka and Maldives, visited Sri lanka last 2nd of this month.

American Deputy External Affairs Secretary James Moore, Deputy Defense Secretary Vikram Singh, Deputy External Affairs Secretary Jane Zimmerman the three members consisted in the diplomatic panel.

On their tour to Colombo they held discussions with Tamil National Alliance, and later had discussions with officials from the government sector.

In the tour   itinerary prepared for American delegates’ panel, the tour about Sri Lanka and Maldives were already scheduled.

 However the American delegates visit to Delhi is much important because this tour was not scheduled in the programme itinerary.

Tuesday , 05 February 2013

Expose: Sri Lanka’s Covert Support To CIA Secret Detention And Extraordinary Rendition

By Colombo Telegraph -February 5, 2013 

“Sri Lanka permitted use of its airspace and airports for flights associated with CIA extraordinary rendition operations.” says New York based Open society Foundations. The report published byOpen society Foundations says; “ There have been no known judicial cases or investigations in Sri Lanka relating to its participation in CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations.”

According to the OSF, this report focuses primarily on human rights abuses associated with the CIA’s post-September 11, 2001, secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations. The report does not document extra-legal overseas transfers or secret detention of detainees by agencies other than the CIA. Thus, the U.S. Defense Department’s detention practices and its transfer of detainees to and from Guantánamo Bay or other military detention facilities are not the focus of this report.

The factual contents of this report are derived from credible public sources and information provided by reputable human rights organizations. Sources for the factual assertions are provided in accompanying endnotes. While every source has been carefully reviewed for indicia of credibility, it is ultimately impossible to corroborate every factual assertion due to the extraordinary level of government secrecy associated with secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations

OSF report says; “Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency embarked on a highly classified program of secret detention and extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects. The program was designed to place detainee interrogations beyond the reach of law. Suspected terrorists were seized and secretly flown across national borders to be interrogated by foreign governments that used torture, or by the CIA itself in clandestine “black sites” using torture techniques.”

Globalizing Torture is the most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations. It details for the first time what was done to the 136 known victims, and lists the 54 foreign governments that participated in these operations. It shows that responsibility for the abuses lies not only with the United States but with dozens of foreign governments that were complicit.

More than 10 years after the 2001 attacks, Globalizing Torture makes it unequivocally clear that the time has come for the United States and its partners to definitively repudiate these illegal practices and secure accountability for the associated human rights abuses.

Page number 109 in the report says; “Sri Lanka permitted use of its airspace and airports for flights associated with CIA extraordinary rendition operations.Court documents indicate that at least one flight operated by Richmor Aviation (a company that operated flights for the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program)landed in Sri Lanka in 2003.The documents show that between August 12 and 15, 2003, a Richmor flight registered as N85VM took off from Washington, D.C., and stopped in Bangkok before making another stop at Sri Lanka’s Bandaranaike international airport in Colombo, and then flying on to Kabul, Dubai, and Shannon airport in Ireland.That flight coincided in time with the capture of Riduan Isamuddin (Hambali) in Bangkok in 2003.Isamuddin spent the next three years in secret CIA prisonsbefore ultimately being transferred as a “high value detainee” to Guantánamo Bay in September 2006, where he remains detained.See the detainee list in Section IV.There have been no known judicial cases or investigations in Sri Lanka relating to its participation in CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations.”

The report also shows that as many as 54 foreign governments reportedly participated in these operations in various ways, including by hosting CIA prisons on their territories; detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing individuals; assisting in the capture and transport of detainees; permitting the use of domestic airspace and airports for secret flights transporting detainees; providing intelligence leading to the secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals; and interrogating individuals who were secretly being held in the custody of other governments. Foreign governments also failed to protect detainees from secret detention and extraordinary rendition on their territories and to conduct effective investigations into agencies and officials who participated in these operations.

The 54 governments identified in this report span the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, and include: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong,Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Read the full report here