Pradeepa unhappy with Dullas’ plight

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

Youth Affairs and Vocations Training Minister Dullas Alahpperuma’s wife, well known singer, Pradeepa has told with great sorrow the “political tragedy” faced by her husband.

Alahapperuma has started making various statements at public event since of late. He has said there would be another youth uprising with the next 10 years. He has attributed the reasons to the government’s failure to productively address the issues faced by the country’s youth population. He has said the government was pushing the youth in the country towards a culture of swallowing cyanide.

Minister Alahapperuma has suddenly remembered the many articles written by Dullas Alahapperuma the writer to alternative newspapers in the country during the early 1990s. The reason is because he is not been consulted on any matter related to the National Youth Services Council, which is under his purview. The National Youth Services Council is directly controlled by MP Namal Rajapaksa through Nil Balakaya. Head of the National Youth Services Council, Attorney Lalith Piyum Perera reports directly to the President’s son and not the minister in-charge. Alahapperuma has no other option to retire from politics given that he does not have control of one of the key instituted under his purview.

Alahepperuma met Pradeepa while acting in Nimal Ekanayake’s Ukdandu Ginna drama and married thereafter. He entered politics after contesting the 1994 general election from the Matara District. He was elected to parliament with over 70,000 votes after campaigning by walking from door to door without even carrying out a poster campaign. Following political disagreements with the then administration, Alahapperuma left the country to the US with his wife and two children saying he could not longer engage in principled politics in the country.

He returned to the country after Mahinda assumed office and has since been engaged in justifying the unjust acts that have taken place before their eyes. The person who revealed these details said that Alahapperuma through his recent comments was engaged in yet another acts.

Condemn Not Just North Korea; Deal with Global Nuclear Hypocrisy

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

North Korea has just announced that it has conducted a successful third underground nuclear test, and the world powers are all condemning the act unanimously. According to their reasoning, North Korea, Iran and a few other “rogue” countries they do not like cannot and should not develop nuclear energy or produce nuclear weapons.

But they themselves can do both. The United States, Russia, Britain and France can arm themselves to their teeth with thousands of nuclear bombs and all kinds of treacherous missiles. And, of course, we have nothing to worry about it as they are all White and straight. China, India, Pakistan and Israel are all encouraged to build more nuclear power plants and produce more nuclear bombs as these activities fetch more nuclear deals, more nuclear business and more billions of dollars to the big brothers’ nuclear industries and other MNCs. As an added advantage, this nuclearization entrenches the imperial powers’ world hegemony and neutralizes the growing economic and military strength of the “emerging” regional powers.

The U.S. disarmament ambassador Laura Kennedy has said at a Geneva disarmament forum: "I find it just an incredible contrast that while millions of people are celebrating the Spring Festival, a time which should be a time to celebrate peace and prosperity, that North Korea celebrates it by a third nuclear weapons test." This rule does not apply to the United States, however. They can invade any country anytime anyhow and do whatever they want whenever they want and wherever they want. If you wonder what moral authority and political legitimacy the United States government has to talk about nuclear armament and proliferation, you would be branded as a dangerous terrorist.

The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned the test as “a clear and grave violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions”. This Secretary General himself has been accused of not convening the Security Council in the wake of the Sri Lankan genocide against the Tamils and actually assisting in the genocide and related war crimes. Just as the UN has become pro-governments and anti-people thanks to Ban Ki-moon and company, several UN agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have become redundant and useless for the international community.

The South Korean disarmament ambassador Kwon Haeryong has said that North Korea was the "only country which has demonstrated blatant disregard by conducting nuclear tests" since a 1996 global treaty banning them was negotiated at the disarmament forum. He has conveniently forgotten that India and Pakistan conducted tests in 1998. Is it because South Korea has signed a nuclear business deal with India?

Similarly, the Japanese officials have said that they would deploy military jets to survey the radiation levels following the North Korean test and consider imposing “unilateral sanctions” on Pyongyang. But they themselves would hide so much vital facts and information about Fukushima and other nuclear installations from their own citizens and the international community. It is strange that they are more worried about the North Korean radiation when they have enough nuclear skeletons in their electricity closets.

The nuclear proliferation and the missile programs around the world are getting out of hand and the global nuclear hypocrisy is endangering the Earth and life on it very badly. It is high time we, the peoples of the United Nations, convened an international conference of the citizens of the Earth, and decided to abandon Uranium mining, phase out nuclear power, intensify non-proliferation efforts and begin a serious initiative on abolishing nuclear weapons all together in a time-bound manner. There cannot and should not be different types of justice for small and weak countries and the bigger and powerful countries. Let us get rid of everything nuclear from the face of the Earth! Here and Now!

People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE)

Idinthakarai 627 104

Tirunelveli District

Tamil Nadu, India

India Losing Patience With Rajapaksa

By R Hariharan -February 13, 2013 

Col. (retd) R.Hariharan

President Mahinda Rajapaksa is well known for wrongly timing his foreign visits. In the past his India visits were more successful than his European sojourns because they were diplomatically ‘tenderized’ in advance to avoid any embarrassment to the President. His two-day ‘pilgrimage’ trip, with an entourage of 70, to Tirupati and Gaya after a stopover at Chennai that ended on February 8, 2013, ‘pilgrimate’ visit was also probably tenderized in advance. But this time, it completely failed for two reasons.

The first was the unusually strong and well orchestrated protests organized across India against his visit over allegations of war crimes and genocide. For some time now, Rajapaksa’s hardening stand on the ethnic issue, coupled with the increasingly authoritarian style of functioning has not endeared him to the minorities. Increasing anti-minority activities of Sinhala chauvinist elements particularly against anti-Muslim activities have added to their nervousness. Collectively these developments offered a wonderful opportunity to anti-Rajapaksa and pro-Eelam lobbies in Dravidian parties of different alphabetical prefixes in India to raise their voices against his visit in high decibel.

The significance of the Communists as well as the as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) backing the anti-Rajapaksa protests should not be missed. In a belated move, the Congress party also added its bit to this sentiment. Perhaps for the first time, nearly all political parties seem to be realizing the importance of the issue at the national level.

The second was the President’s statement ruling out autonomy to Tamils three days before his visit which enabled anti-Rajapaksa protestors to gleefully point out “we told you so.” This ill timed statement beefed up the protestors.

Clearly New Delhi was extremely uncomfortable with Rajapaksa’s visit particularly after he ruled out granting any political autonomy to Tamils of the North to resolve the political gridlock over devolution of powers in his independence day speech at Trincomalee on February 5. He said, “It is not practical for this country to have different administrations based on ethnicity. The solution is to live together in this country with equal rights for all communities.”

This statement ripped off the last vestige of credibility in New Delhi’s Sri Lanka policy. Implementation of the13^th amendment in full as promised by him had been the only hope for New Delhi’s ruling coalition to save its face so far. It not only to kept its Dravidian partner DMK satisfied, but also saved a bit of Congress leaders’ reputation already tarnished in Tamil Nadu. The Congress party was not amused by Rajapaksa’s statement; this was evident from the Congress President Ms Sonia Gandhi’s January 30, 2013 reply to DMK leaderKarunanidhi’s letter on the failure of Rajapaksa to live up to his promises. She said: “I share your concern regarding the disturbing developments in Sri Lanka vis-a-vis the Tamils. I shall take up the matter with the Minister of External Affairs (Salman Khurshid).”

So it was not surprising that Manish Tiwari, Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting, made an unusual comment on the anti-Rajapaksa protests on the day of the President ended his visit. He said “We understand the sensitivities which are involved with regard to the issue of Sri Lankan Tamils, especially in Tamil Nadu. We are absolutely in sync with some of the concerns which have been articulated…”

His further noted that India had walked the ‘extra mile’ at the United Nations Human Rights Commission(backing a resolution against Sri Lanka) and engagement with Colombo “in no way means that we are insensitive or we tend to undermine the concerns, which a section of the population of India, may legitimately have.”

Not to be outdone, V Narayanaswamy, Prime Minister’s points man and Minister of State in the PMO, did not mince his words on India’s likely stand at the forthcoming UNHRC session on the issue of Sri Lanka’s accountability. He said:”When the UN brought forward a resolution against Sri Lanka, India voted for it. If UN’s recommendations are not honoured by Sri Lanka, India will support any resolution brought by it against the island nation.”

President Rajapaksa invariably met with the Indian Prime Minister ‘informally’ during his non-official visits in the past. Prof GL Peiris, Sri Lanka minister for external affairs, met with Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh when he was in New Delhi to attend the 8^th India-Sri Lanka Joint Consultative Commission (JCM) meeting on January 22, 2013.

Sri Lanka needs India’s support during the forthcoming session of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva in March 2013. It cannot afford to take India’s support for granted anymore after it “betrayed” (as some of my Sri Lankan establishment friends termed it) and voted for the U.S. resolution seeking accountability from Sri Lanka. In this context, an informal meeting with the Indian Prime Minister would have been useful to Rajapaksa to put across Sri Lanka’s case for support.

So it would be reasonable to assume that Prof Peiris probably tried to arrange such a meeting when he met Dr Manmohan Singh. We do not know whether he did so. But such a meeting never came through because Rajapaksa neither visited New Delhi nor met anyone of importance except Alok Joshi, the chief of the Research and Analysis Wing who called upon him at Tirupati after Rajapaksa’s Darshan of Balaji. So either Rajapaksa’s visit was intended only as a pilgrimage or New Delhi wanted to send a clear signal to Rajapaksa of its growing disillusionment with him.

Three senior U.S. officials – Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Moore, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Vikram Singh, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jane Zimmerman – visiting Colombo last month to assess the progress made by Sri Lanka on implementing the LLRC recommendations. At the end of it they gave notice that a ‘procedural resolution’ aimed at “pushing Sri Lanka” to address human rights concerns would be submitted at the next UNHRC meeting. This has set the dovecotes of power in Colombo in a tizzy.

If we go by the comments of the American visitors it looks doubtful whether Sri Lanka would be pushed to the wall. They said, “Certainly we have seen progress in infrastructure development, demining, rehabilitation and the release of former combatants. However there are still families who feel that their loved ones are being held somewhere. There is a desire for accountability with regards to extra judicial killings. Therefore there is a need for accelerated implementation.”

Last month the visiting British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for South Asia Alistair Burt had also expressed similar assessment of the work in progress in Sri Lanka’s post war recovery. He said that he was pleased to see the post-war recovery process in Sri Lanka, though challenges remained.

These comments are almost the same as those made before the last UNHRC meeting when the U.S. sponsored resolution was passed. However, this time around the U.S. and British statements would indicate they would not go beyond what was done at the last UNHRC. So for all practical purposes the U.S. ‘procedural resolution’ would probably be a tepid one, reiterating all that was said earlier giving Sri Lanka yet another opportunity to save its face by buying time.

Can India accept this situation in an increasingly embarrassing political atmosphere in which it has been placed by President Rajapaksa?

The political logjam building up in Tamil Nadu over New Delhi’s passive response in the past is unlikely to allow New Delhi to continue with business as usual as far as Sri Lanka is concerned. So New Delhi will have to take a nuanced approach in handling Rajapaksa.

Under eight years of President Rajapaksa’s leadership Sri Lanka is full of ‘mores’. It has become more inward looking, more authoritarian, more worried about the dead LTTE rising up again and more paranoid about foreign influence threatening its freedom. On the whole, the country looks less confident of itself and the leader less sure than they were when they went to war against the LTTE.

The reason for this mess is simple. Rajapaksa is one of those political leaders who thrive on conflict situations because they see themselves as the slayer of the dragon on a white horse. A man blessed with uncanny ability for political manoeuvres enjoying nationwide popularity in the wake of his military victory, he could have helped Sri Lanka become a free, happy and peaceful democracy where the majority and minority worked together. But he has chosen to be different. An oligarchy is being positioned to rule the country with key reins of power in the hands of his immediate family. He is supported by a political class that respects only power and not propriety or people.

As a result Sri Lanka has become a land of contradictions. Pious affirmation to the Constitution goes hand in hand with the ditching of constitutional amendments to ensure transparency and integrity. Talks of freeing the people from the tyranny of Tamil Tiger terrorism goes on even as goons intimidate opponents and media staff. Rule of law is quoted even the highest officer of judiciary is impeached through a suspect process. Political horse trading has been replaced by political killings as criminalization politics has gained upper hand.

So subtle back room persuasions adopted by India so far are unlikely make headway anymore. It would be better for India to spell out in unambiguous terms its increasing concerns at the way things are being done in Sri Lanka.

For starters such a statement made at the highest level should include:

• Non implementation the 13^th amendment in full as promised, although it is still figures in the Constitution. Remind Sri Lanka that it is imperative to do so as it forms part of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement which is still in force.
• Expression of India’s concern at the slow progress made in implementing rehabilitation projects financed by India in war ravaged areas to speed up the process.
• Expression of India’s serious concern at Sri Lanka’s tardy and selective implementation of the LLRC recommendations which could affect India’s tradition support to Sri Lanka at UN forums.
• Need for adopting non-discriminative trade practices on Indian business to enable the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement to encourage further Indian investments with an assurance to improve facilitation for such a growth at the Indian end.
• Kick start the stalled political reconciliation process with Tamils by evolving a game plan with a clear schedule of action. Emphasize India’s readiness to assist in this respect.

Then only Rajapaksa would understand that New Delhi has ended its futile exercise of running with horses and hunting with hounds on complex issues affecting India-Sri Lanka relations which are getting out of hand. And the people on both sides of Palk Strait would understand that India means action now and refuses to be a pushover anymore.

Of course, the $64 question is would India do it? Should not the national parties take it up rather than leaving it to Dravidian parties to keep the limelight on this issue?

*Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blog:www.colhariharan.org 

Sri Lanka fails to keep war probe promises: UN

AFP | Feb 13, 2013,


COLOMBO: Sri Lanka has failed to honour promises to investigate serious rights abuses and allegations that thousands of civilians were killed in the final stages of its ethnic war, a UN report says.

The report by human rights experts, which was submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Monday, found that investigations by local authorities were inconclusive and were not independent or impartial.

"The steps taken to investigate allegations of serious violations of human rights have been inconclusive, and lack the independence and impartiality required to inspire confidence," according to the report seen by AFP on Wednesday.

The document, compiled by experts who visited Sri Lanka in September, asked the government to establish a "truth seeking mechanism" to address "transitional justice" in a country emerging from nearly four decades of ethnic strife.

It said grave human rights violations, including the killing of 17 aid workers of a French charity in August 2006, had not been probed despite government promises swiftly to bring perpetrators to justice.

There was also no transparency in alleged military investigations into claims of summary executions during the final stages of the war.

UN figures show that up to 100,000 people were killed between 1972 and May 2009, when security forces declared victory over Tamil Tiger separatists who had fought for independence for minority Tamils in the Sinhalese-majority state.

The bloody finale to the ethnic conflict drew international condemnation and sparked allegations that up to 40,000 civilians were killed by security forces in the last months of fighting, a charge Sri Lanka denies.

The UN expert report was commissioned after the United States moved a resolution at the UNHRC asking Sri Lanka to probe war crimes and ensure accountability for civilian loss of life.

The experts said that "continuing reports of extrajudicial killings, abductions and enforced disappearance in the past year highlight the urgency of action to combat impunity".

The US has already announced that it will move another censure motion against Sri Lanka at the current UNHRC sessions in Geneva to force the government of President Mahinda Rajapakse to deliver on his promises.

The experts said attacks on independent media and rights activists continued in Sri Lanka and there were also allegations of extra-judicial killings of prisoners.

State Sovereignty And The United Nations Organization

By R.M.B Senanayake -February 13, 2013

R.M.B Senanayake

The President in his Independence speech has stated that the UNO is violating the sovereignty of individual states. But the UNO has come a long way since the original Declaration in 1948 and his Advisers don’t seem to have briefed him on the present status of the UN. Then the emphasis was on preventing wars between States. The UNO is committed to maintaining peace between States. One of its earliest attempts was to have a UN mission to monitor the line of control frontier between the Arab States and Israel and in Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani Armies. But after the end of the Second World War most conflicts have been within individual States rather  than between States although the latter was not totally absent.

Next came the end of the cold war between the West and the Communist States . It has meant that the UN Security Council, a body earlier paralyzed by US and USSR vetoes, was able to make progress and intervene in aid of international peace and security in a way that had never been possible before. The 1990’s saw a host UN attempts to stop violent conflict within States.

There are two chapters of the UN Charter that deal with settlement of disputes that are likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. The first, Chapter VI, deals with pacific settlement, and also gives the Security Council the right to investigate and arbitrate, which are usually put in practice under observer missions, diplomatic envoys, and good offices (UN Charter). Chapter VII gives the Security Council the right to impose economic sanctions under Article 41 and the right to ―take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security‖ under Article 42 (UN Charter).

Obviously, diplomatic means are always the first employed by the United Nations, and Chapter VI takes precedent in all cases. This can range from preventive diplomacy, peacemaking or negotiating settlements, to post-conflict maintenance and continued negotiation. Peacekeeping goes a step beyond this with the deployment of troops. However, the presence of troops does not mean that the UN is using force. Peacekeepers have a wide range of mandates,

Early goals of peace keeping were limited to maintaining ceasefires and stabilizing violence in order to make diplomatic solutions more reachable, but as the Cold War ended, the range of activities and mandates for peacekeepers has expanded. Peacekeepers now help build government institutions, promote human rights, set up local police forces, and disarm former combatants (UN Peacekeeping) to protecting and building peace after a conflict. UN peacekeeping aims to adapt to each conflict in order to meet the challenges of each situation.

The widely publicized peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia called into question the legitimacy and limitations of UN military interventions. This led to the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), conceived in 2001 and formally accepted into UN vernacular at the 2005 World Summit.  The R2P asserts that if a state is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene: first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort with military force. States are bound by the UN Declarations on Human Rights and are required to abide by them and cannot plead State Sovereignty to shut out the UNO.

(With acknowledgments to “UN Intervention in Civil War and Post-Conflict Economic Recovery by Kelly Siegel)

Police violate national language policy: Vasu

WEDNESDAY, 13 

The National Languages and Social Integration Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara said the Police had violated the “national language policy” by distributing forms to motorists in Colombo containing instructions in only the Sinhala language

.

“It’s a clear violation of the national 

language policy and I have written to the Inspector General of Police to take immediate action regarding this,” the minister said and added that he was awaiting a response from the IGP

“The IGP has been very cooperative with regard to the national language policy. So this obviously seems to have been done without his knowledge,” he said.

Motorists in Colombo and its suburbs were handed over forms by policemen, for a survey on light vehicles entering and leaving the City. (Hafeel Farisz)

Reconciliation: Other Recommendations I Made Last Year To The President

By Rajiva Wijesinha -February 13, 2013 

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Further Recommendations for Reconciliation with regard to Conflict Related Problems

Following on suggestions made previously with regard to land and livelihoodissues, I present here the other recommendations I made last year to His Excellency the President as to the two other areas I highlighted.

Improving psycho-social services is vital, and it is astonishing that we have not paid greater attention to this in the past. We had been concerned about this problem at the Peace Secretariat, and I recently came across correspondence dating from 2008, when I went to the WHO offices in Geneva to urge preparation for the problems we saw as inevitable, given the protracted conflict.

Unfortunately the system initially recommended could not be implemented because of what seemed to be internal rivalries. No substitute was suggested, so it is a tribute to the system the Ministry of Health put in place in Manik Farm that basic support was made available to prevent breakdowns on a large scale.

But, though medical personnel also noted the need for long term planning, given the long term impact of trauma, there was insufficient attention to this factor. It has even been claimed that some elements in government did not want support work in this area, perhaps in the ostrich-like belief that, if such matters were ignored, they would go away. So even the imaginative proposal of the Commissioner General for Rehabilitation to develop counseling services, building on the input they had received from experienced international practitioners with regard to combatants in rehabilitation, was not pursued.

I have then recommended concerted efforts in this area, as well as with regard to language teaching, viz

Psycho-social Support

1. The Ministry of Health, with the support of the committee it has established to develop para-medical services, should be mandated to develop and implement a rapid programme of training of counselors. They should ensure cadre positions for Senior Counsellors in each Divisional Secretariat, with support staff available for community work and also for schools (where the skills of teacher counselors should be enhanced).
2. This can take up the proposal earlier put forward by the Commissioner
   General of Rehabilitation, to include the services of former cadres, with a view to enhancing the services available to rehabilitated cadres needing psycho-social support.
3.  A Reintegration Authority should be established, using the resources of the Bureau of the Commissioner General for Rehabilitation, to monitor reintegration and develop Vulnerability Indices to ensure support for those in greatest need, social and economic as well as psycho-social.
4.  Medical Officers of Health should, using the services of Divisional Secretariat Women and Children’s Units, monitor needs, in particular of the school going population and of women under stress.

Language Issues

1.  Different mechanisms of training teachers should be encouraged, in particular for all three National Languages as well as for Translation Skills. Religious organizations are well equipped to take on this task, and the Ministry of Education should encourage initiatives in this regard, by providing certification to those who reach the standards required for teaching in the school system.
2.  The military should also begin language classes, through Cadet Academies on the lines of those in other South Asian countries. These can concentrate on the three languages, plus education to equip students with the qualifications required for government employment. Recruitment to the police and the services would be facilitated, if such Academies also stress sports and character building extra-curricular activities.
3. Schools should be encouraged to offer voluntary language classes. They could use the services of the police on a voluntary basis for Sinhala classes, while school teachers could help with teaching Tamil to police personnel.

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on advice and technical assistance for the Government of Sri Lanka on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri L (Lanka-e-News-12.Feb.2013, 11.30PM) The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission made significant and far-reaching recommendations towards reconciliation and strengthening the rule of law in Sri Lanka, despite its limitations. In order to define areas of possible advice and assistance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the special procedures pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 19/2, the present report examines the recommendations of the Commission and the plans of the Government of Sri Lanka to implement them, and to address alleged violations of international law. To date, the Government has made commitments on only selected recommendations of the Commission, and has not adequately engaged civil society in support of a more consultative and inclusive reconciliation process The Government has made significant progress in rebuilding infrastructure; and while the majority of internally displaced persons have been resettled, considerable work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation and resumption of livelihoods. The steps taken to investigate further allegations of serious violations of human rights have also been inconclusive, and lack the independence and impartiality required to inspire confidence. Meanwhile, continuing reports of extrajudicial killings, abductions and enforced disappearance in the past year highlight the urgency of action to combat impunity. It is against this background that possible areas of technical assistance are identified, and recommendations are made. Contents ———————————- I. Introduction 1–4 II. Engagement by the Office of the High Commissioner 5–7 4 III. Engagement by human rights mechanisms 8–9 4 IV. National plan of action for the implementation of recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission 10–12 5 V. Areas of concern identified in Human Rights Council resolution 19/2 13–56 6 A. Rule of law and the administration of justice 14–16 6 B. Credible investigations of widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance 17–30 7 C. Detention policies 31–36 10 D. Internal displacement and land issues . 37–42 11 E. Right to freedom of opinion and expression 43–45 13 F. Demilitarization. 46–50 13 G. Reconciliation and reparations 51–56 14 VI. Possible areas of technical assistance by the Office of the High Commissioner 57–60 15 VII. Conclusion and recommendations 61–64 16 I. Introduction ——————————————- 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 19/2, in which the Council called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission1 and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans. The Council requested the Government to present a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps that the Government had taken and would take to implement the recommendations made in the Commission’s report, and also to address alleged violations of international law. It encouraged the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps, and requested OHCHR to present a report on the provision of such assistance to the Council at its twenty-second session. 2. In June 2010, the Secretary-General appointed the Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka to advise him on accountability issues in Sri Lanka and offered it as a resource to the Government, and particularly to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.2 The Panel, which submitted its report to the Secretary- General in April 2011, found credible allegations of potential serious violations of international law committed by the Government of Sri Lanka and by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).3 The Government of Sri Lanka has never afforded any credence or legitimacy to the report of the Panel. 3. In July 2012, the Government issued a national plan of action for the implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. According to the delegation of Sri Lanka participating in the fourteenth session of the universal periodic review, in November 2012, the Sri Lankan army had also appointed a board of inquiry to study the Commission’s recommendations and to formulate a viable action plan to implement the recommendations that are relevant to the army. The relationship of this mechanism to the national plan of action is, however, unclear. 4. In order to define areas of possible advice and assistance that could be offered to the Government by OHCHR and the special procedures pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 19/2, the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and the steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka or plans to implement (c) the denial of humanitarian assistance; (d) human rights violations suffered by victims and survivors of the conflict; and (e) human rights violations outside the conflict zone, including against the media and other critics of the Government. In the case of the LTTE, these were (a) using civilians as a human buffer; (b) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (c) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (d) forced recruitment of children; (e) forced labour; and (f) the killing of civilians through suicide attacks (paras. 176-177). The panel concluded that “the credible allegations trigger a legal duty of the Government to conduct immediate and genuine investigations and, if the evidence warrants, to prosecute those most responsible” (para. 425) them, and also to address alleged violations of international law, are examined in the present report. The report also draws on observations by an OHCHR technical mission to the country in September 2012.4II. Engagement by the Office of the High Commissioner

Full Story>>>

Militarization In A Socialist Democracy

By Elilini Hoole -February 13, 2013

Elilini Hoole

“When the people live together in unity, there are no racial or religious differences [...] The solution is to live together in this country with equal rights for all communities,” said President M. Rajapakse in Trincomalee during his Independence Day speech, most ironically forgetting the context in which he spoke. Trinco, like much of the North and East, is a symbol of the ‘peace and justice’ Tamils and minorities receive under today’s order of government.

Almost seven years ago, on the 27th August 2006 to be exact, the military took control of 5,000 acres of Sampoor, Trincomalee from the LTTE and converted the land into a high security zone in the process. On 4th September 2006, Mahinda Rajapakse announced that the capture was for the “welfare and benefit of the people living there.” Military Spokesman Brigadier Prasad Samarasinghe later confirmed that, “the threat posed by the LTTE to the Trincomalee harbor and the adjoining naval base was no more, following the successful operation involving the three forces.” It was a farcical statement of commitment to the minority people which resonates with the hypocritical eloquence of today’s political leaders. To this day 2,000 IDPs from the HSZ remain in the appalling “transit” sites set up in 2007, while their lands are sold at huge profit to private entities for business development. Last August, some 500 houses were destroyed to make way for the new Coal Power Plant now being constructed on this wrongfully acquired land. The government calls this economic development; but most of us call surreptitiously selling another’s lands without consultation or compensation, stealing.

It is clear that both the LTTE and the GoSL are responsible for the displacement of the people of Sampoor, but it is equally clear where the responsibility lies today in not returning the displaced civilians to their homes.

To Never Question that I am an Equal

Since 2009, the government has spent more energy celebrating and commemorating ‘new independence’ than understanding  the divided country and reconciling the different, but equal, sections. The government continues to lie to us about the true state of equality and rights in Sri Lanka.

What the Rajapakses and many Sri Lankans fail to realize is that we minorities just want to live in such a way that we never have to question whether we are equal. Working in the Vanni taught me that the equality promised to us does not exist. Fear is the mode in which Tamils live in the North. Fear is so strong that the Protection Working Group (PWG) in the North is conducted under every attempt at secrecy. Early last year when a rape case addressed at the group was leaked to the public, the raped victim committed suicide in fear of reprisal. Fear is not a sign of equality.

On one occasion, last June, I was enjoying the beach in Vadamarachchi when three Army men bearing guns accosted me and my friends with loud voices and forbade us from being on the beach after 6 pm. I had been on that beach several times before and several times after without a problem, but it seemed they enjoyed enforcing bizarre regulations and inciting fear. As incensed as I was that I had no freedom to dig my toes into the beautiful marble white beaches of Jaffna, it is difficult to argue with men holding guns.

This is a simple example, just the tip of the iceberg for Tamils in the military kingdom of the North. When a mother and daughter were raped and brutally murdered by a military gang in Kilinochchi, the village had no police or other authority to complain to or seek protection under. As a Tamil and a woman, I lost all sense of security. I felt fear engulfing my whole self whenever I passed the military check point next to my church, St. James in Nallur, Jaffna.

In Vavuniya, upon resettlement, the entire village was photographed and given a ‘village identity card’ written entirely in Sinhalese which they had to show the military during random searches. I asked the widow I spoke to if she even knew whether they had written down the names of her family correctly, but she had no clue and was too afraid to ask questions. (Every single card I saw, which was produced by the military, is written in Sinhalese unlike the neat cards in English produced for the international community and shown in the government’s “Action Plan”). Similarly, when the government planned to forcibly relocate Jaffna families to the jungles of Mullaithivu in order to maintain the HSZ, the people were too afraid to protest. In Sampur especially, people have faced injustice for nearly a decade with little resistance. At Omanthai, the bane of my existence and a farcical affair called a checkpoint, those travelling South are forcibly subject to military harassment but are too afraid to protest. I did once, but who could understand my ramblings in English? But I did understand the, Eya Dhemala (i.e., She’s a Tamil), spoken with disdain as the military threw my knapsack on the table.

Is this what the nation has in store for us under the banner of equality? And why should the Tamils in the North and East have to live under military rule when the military should absolutely not be involved in civilian affairs?

A Military Era

Immediately after 2009 there was hope, even among us Tamils, that a united nation would emerge, bringing equality and freedoms not afforded under the LTTE. However, Sri Lanka is fast becoming a global study of what a sick democracy is. It may even emerge as a failed nation if the elite keep exploiting the poor, and xenophobia remains ingrained in the very structure of government ideology, and nothing is changed. One could go further to say, this so called Socialist Republic is hardly even socialist when our welfare system, which is not only defunct but also mismanaged, is considerably less of a priority than sustaining a military despite the times of peace! If we are define peace in terms of money, peace surely should be indicated by a significantly diminished military budget no greater than required to sustain an inactive military, or just your basic military reserve. Instead in Sri Lanka the military is allocated Rs 235 billion (21%) of the budget –  while health and education for all citizens combined is a pitiful 12% of the budget (according to the budget posted by Law and Society Trust).

Besides, it begs the question, why is such a huge allocation for military expenses essential in a post-war time of peace? What is the purpose and what is the opportunity cost of building such a large military? While the purpose is still questionable, the opportunity cost is easy to see. The nation will face a budget deficit of several billion rupees this year; that is, we will spend much more on the military than we can afford while other social priorities languish.

When I was working in Kilinochchi, nearly every family I visited had a member with a shell piece still lodged in their body, sometimes in the brain, or a debilitating dismembering of muscles from bone, or a severe cough developed from walking hundreds of miles in the summer and monsoon at the point of near starvation. One little 12 year old boy, I cannot forget, had a rather lopsided hunch –  a hunch resulting from a bomb shrapnel searing away a good 4 inches of his right hand side of the body. He could not have been more than 9 years old when he was injured. It was the ICRC that saved his life then, and today it is not the government but NGOs who are building his future.

This is not how our nation should be. Many, like this thambi, will spend their lives without medical or disability assistance unless the people in government remind themselves that they are elected not to be served by the people but to serve the people.