The Nandikadal Diplomacy

If we lose a vote by a larger margin than we did the last time, it will show our growing weakness and isolation. If on the other hand, while there is nothing wrong with a compromise, if instead we capitulate and surrender a portion of our national sovereignty, then we are in a different kind of danger.

DR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA

( March 3, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Replies to questions posed by Sanjaya Nallaperuma of the Sunday Lakbima. Excerpts of the interview appeared in Sinhala translation in the Irida Lakbima (March 3rd, 2013)

1. What are the major challenges that Sri Lanka faces in the UNHRC?

A: The major challenges are threefold: the possibility of a vote and losing that vote; the possibility of getting fewer votes or losing that vote by a larger margin than a year ago in March 2012; the possibility of an unfair or imbalanced compromise which is actually a capitulation, which affects our vital interests such as national sovereignty.

2. What is the possibilities that Sri Lankan delegation to win the international community in Geneva?

A: I hope that it is possible, but I confess I am rather pessimistic, just as I was in the run-up to the vote in March 2012. I hope that we do not get fewer votes than last year, where in March 2012 we saw a reversal of the dramatic diplomatic victory we had obtained in the same diplomatic arena, the UNHRC, in late May 2009. I hope that the vote does not give our enemies—the hardcore Tamil Eelam separatists—evidence that our international standing is growing weaker by the year.

3. This year politicians will participate only for final sessions. The officials will lobby international community and they will play big role in Geneva, rather than politicians. How do you elaborate this process?

A: Well it will depend on how they perform, which in turn depends upon the options they have been provided by Colombo. Be it politicians or officials, what is crucial is that they speak with credibility so as to convince the members of the Council. However the wicket they have to bat on is not a good one, and that is due to the fundamental miscalculations of our policymakers.

4. What are the steps Sri Lankan government should take to win international community?

A: The government should learn from how Myanmar slipped out of a far worse situation by liberalising, by opening up and democratising more. Instead, with the impeachment the Sri Lankan government went in the opposite direction. The government must not assume that world public opinion is gullible or that every administration in the world community is like them and responds to the same material incentives and disincentives. The government must learn to communicate successfully outside their cultural comfort zone, because the international system is based, by definition, on universal global norms and values, and this is even more so in United Nations bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The government must know that its crude propaganda and denials have no currency outside their borders and probably outside their vote base. A lie or denial however loudly repeated has no credibility and the government must know that credibility is vital in winning over the international community. The government must know to listen to early warning signals and not shoot the messenger. The government must ask itself why those who voted for us in 2009 are either voting against or abstaining. The government must know to seek the opinion and advice of its friends and patiently construct or reconstruct our international support. The government must understand that its aggressively unilateral domestic actions have external ramifications. The government must realise that we cannot even get the support of Asia, the Non-Aligned Movement and the larger Third world, if we do not have the support of India, and that with an actively hostile Tamil Nadu in play, the only way we can win back India’s support is by strengthening Delhi’s hand so it can balance off Tamil Nadu. This can only be done by fast-tracking a political solution to the Tamil issue through a successful negotiation with the elected representatives of the Tamil people, mainly the TNA, on the basis of implementing the arrangements for devolution already embedded in our Constitution.

5. If Sri Lankan Government lost again, what is the danger that the country faces?

A: If we lose a vote by a larger margin than we did the last time, it will show our growing weakness and isolation. If on the other hand, while there is nothing wrong with a compromise, if instead we capitulate and surrender a portion of our national sovereignty, then we are in a different kind of danger. The worst thing that could happen is the setting up of an international inquiry, but even the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Sri Lanka would mean a whole new ball game. In any case these repeated resolutions and defeats suffered by Sri Lanka at voting time, constitute a gradual encirclement and choking of the State. It is not yet the end-game but these are all steps that will lead to such an endgame. There are moves against Sri Lanka on several routes: the Darusman and Charles Petrie reports in New York and their follow-ups, the several votes in Geneva, the campaign over the Commonwealth summit, and the most serious of all, the build-up in Tamil Nadu and in Indian political spectrum, about Sri Lanka. When all these tracks of the multi-track strategy converge, someday sooner rather than later, we will find ourselves in a diplomatic Elephant Pass or worse still, a diplomatic Nandikadal.

We Have To Grill Aspirants To The Supreme Court

By Malinda Seneviratne -March 4, 2013 

Malinda Seneviratne

Problems between the Executive and Judiciary, interestingly, have all been related to judges whose appointments have been colored by political preferences.  It is not that they were unsuited, but nevertheless their appointments and therefore integrity were naturally questioned.  Still, as happened when Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached and removed from office, the focus was less on injudicious selection than on constitutional provision for removal.  Thus, until such time appointments to the Supreme Court are made only consequent to a stringent screening process provided for or supported by relevant legislative enactment, there can and will be impeachment circuses while the 1978 Constitution remains effective.

Now that it’s all done and dusted it is perhaps time to think of ‘starting point’ rather than anticipating and taking precaution against endpoints similar to what we saw a few weeks ago.

In many countries aspirants or nominees to the Supreme Court are subjected to rigorous scrutiny.  Their histories, professional track record, all judgments passed, political positions taken, statements made as well as the lives of close associates including friends and family, are carefully considered in order to evaluate impartiality and integrity.  Not so in Sri Lanka.

True, a president cannot pick just anyone off the street.  There are certain categories that are privileged.  We have had judges of the Supreme Court promoted from lower courts, moved from the Attorney General’s Department or drawn from the academic community.  Thus, there are some basic credentials that one must possess.  On the other hand, credentials are only part of the story.  An example might shed better light on the matter and hopefully prompt appropriate safeguards to be put in place.

Shirani Bandaranayake was an academic and one with explicit ideological preferences.   In fact she was admonished and instructed not to take cases that had anything to do with devolution, given certain outcome preferences and particularities of political reading.  She did.  She irked the Executive.  She paid the price, and the legality or ethicality of process of the matter are not our concern here.  The issue is ‘ideological preferences’. The issue is past record.  Let’s consider these via an unlikely appointment which is useful for purposes of illustrating the importance of circumspection in appointment.

Let us assume that President Mahinda Rajapaksa goes for certificate-weight. Let us assume that he picks Dr Lakshman Marasinghe, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Windsor, Canada, Attorney-at-Law and Barrister-at-Law (Inner Temple), one time Visiting Professor of Law, University of Colombo and Legal Director of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) during the early days of the Ceasefire Agreement.  Impressive indeed, no one would dispute the fact.

But is Marasinghe ‘clear’ on other issues, especially but not limited to matters arising from the constitution (as is) and questions of sovereignty, territorial integrity and so on?

In an interview published in the Sunday Observer (March 14, 2004), Marasinghe waxes eloquent on ‘extra constitutional methods to change the constitution’.  He interjects an interesting term: ‘the doctrine of necessity’.  It’s about measuring evils and picking ‘the lesser’.  Subjective to core, one would observe.  He also interjects ‘efficacy’, in the event of a coup d’tat.  He adds that all that is required is ‘judicial control in the determination of (the) particular formula’ when certain articles are changed.  Now, if he were Chief Justice in a time of upheaval, say in an Arab Spring, post-Gaddafi Libya or ‘Imminent Syria’, where political control is dispersed, what then?  It would depend on his political preferences!   ‘Necessity’ then would justify and legitimate judicial action even if it amounted to recognizing de facto control of part of Sri Lanka by the LTTEand thereby conferring such with illegal control, with de jure status.

Marasinghe also spoke about ‘extra constitutional means to set up an interim administration a la the infamous ISGA proposals.  He states, ‘A two-thirds majority is not relevant’ according to the present constitution’ a claim that has been disputed.  More importantly says that ‘if you set up an interim administration outside the constitutional framework (as would have been the case if the ISGA proposals had gone through) then you would be recognizing that, that territory is apart from the constitution and not within the territory of Sri Lanka’.

He illustrated the point graphically thus: ‘If you cover a table with a green cloth and put a white cloth over it and then withdraw parts of the white cloth, the green will appear.  Setting up an interim administration outside the constitution would be similar – two different territories.’

Marasinghe, in his capacity as Director (Legal) of SCOPP, was involved in preparing the MOU to be entered into between the Government and the LTTE in order to place foreign funds directly in the hands of the LTTE.  The MOU, moreover, provided that these funds would be treated as loans to the Government and repaid therefore by the Government, although they would be sent directly to accounts not controlled by the GOSL, accounts which the LTTE could access!  The Supreme Court, later, stayed these provisions as unconstitutional (Weerawansa v Attorney General).

Marasinghe advocated this mechanism at the relevant government ministries and departments.  His approach was clearly unprincipled as demonstrated by the SC decision

It’s all scholarly.  Eminently ‘respectable’.  Impeccable academic credentials, however, is still only a thin film in the matter of covering up political project, ideological drive and such.

The problem is that the current system is so loose that a Marasinghe could very well creep into the Supreme Court.  When Bandaranayaka was appointed, her ideological preferences were not scrutinized or rather they may have been scrutinized and won approval from a like-minded political establishment.  Bandaranayaka subsequently went on to do her utmost to wreck the Government’s signature development project.  That was scripted, not when Divi Neguma came up but when she was appointed to the Supreme Court.

The question is, can we (forget the Government) afford to err?  Should we not subject those who are recommended to such positions to rigorous scrutiny?  Isn’t that a price that aspirants ought to be ready to pay?  Or is a Marasinghe going to wreck us somewhere down the line?

*Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com

UNFULFILLED PROMISES

By Ranga Jayasuriya-2013-03-03 The government’s primary defence against the impending resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been its 38-page report, titled ‘The Monitoring Report on National Action Plan (NAP) for the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.’ The NAP report maintained that much of the LLRC recommendations have been implemented, in part or full. However, even before its ink dried up, the report was challenged by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, who in her report on Sri Lanka, which was issued two weeks ago, catalogued a series of broken promises blamed on the government in terms of the implementation of the LLRC recommendations. The monitoring report on the NAP is impressive on paper. But on the ground, it is a different story. And for the victims of the prevailing culture of impunity, like Arumugam Weeraraj, the father of abducted Tamil political activist Lalith Kumar, the report is not worth the paper it was written on. Weeraraj had been petitioning the government agencies to learn about the whereabouts of his only son, who was abducted in Jaffna in December 2011. The report gives neither hope, nor relief to him or to thousands of other families, who have their relatives abducted or disappeared. The government has tactfully dodged a key recommendation made by the LLRC, that a Special Commissioner be appointed to investigate abductions and disappearances. Weeraraj has visited all the available government agencies, from the police to the National Human Rights Commission, to no avail. Selective LLRC recommendations have been implemented selectively and many key recommendations, such as a survey on the civilian casualties of the final phase of the war, are put on the backburner while others, such as the independent commissioner on disappearances have been dogged. Should they be implemented, those new institutions would have challenged the status quo. Those concerns, needless to say, should ring alarm bells in the corridors of power in Colombo: Hence the selective implementation of the LLRC recommendations. The LLRC recommended the government ‘ascertain morefully the circumstances under which specific instances of death or injury to civilians could have occurred, and if such investigations disclose wrongful conduct, prosecute and punish the wrongdoers.’ In response, the Commander of the Army appointed a Court of Inquiry, which released its report ahead of the UNHRC session. The report, rather predictably though, cleared the military of charges of shelling civilians. The report, while absolving the army, blamed the LTTE for the civilian deaths, which the UN agencies and other agencies have counted as ranging from 10,000 to 40,000. However, given the magnitude of the issue and the scale of human casualties, the report of the Court of Inquiry was seen, understandably enough, as a mere whitewash. The report reasserted the repeated denial on the part of the military. It even denied the occurrence of collateral damage, which is bound to happen in any war. The approach of the Court of Inquiry, which it appeared was driven by a predisposed agenda, did not address original concerns it was meant to do. Sri Lanka could, with justifiable reasons, deny the deliberate targeting of civilians. However, its insistence on a ‘zero civilian casualty policy’ and denial of the obvious fact that many thousands of civilians perished during the war has been counterproductive. This could also be proof of the dearth of credible domestic mechanisms to conduct internal inquiries. The second part of the Court of Inquiry would deal with the footage that shows alleged summary execution of surrendered Tiger cadres. One cannot help but feel its judgment is a foregone conclusion. The LLRC also recommended that a comprehensive household survey on the scale of death and injury be conducted, in order to ascertain the full-scale of the civilian death, injury and property damage. However, the only remarks in the NAP report in this regard is that a ‘mechanism launched to conduct a survey.’ Nearly four years since the end of the war, the country is still kept in the dark about the civilian losses of the war. Abductions The LLRC also recommended that a Special Commissioner of Investigation be appointed to ‘investigate alleged disappearances and provide material to the Attorney General to initiate criminal proceedings as appropriate.’ It also recommended the government to provide the Office of the Commissioner with experienced investigators. However, the government tactfully ditched the recommendation. It, instead proposed to ‘invoke’ the existing mechanisms to deal with the matter, despite it had patently been clear that the said mechanisms have woefully been inadequate. The overlooking of that particular recommendation has its toll. The NAP report itself confides that 2,729 complaints regarding disappearance of persons have been reported to Terrorist Investigation Division (TID). It adds that investigations into 1,616 complaints have been completed. However, abductions are continuing and white vans resurface momentarily. Families of the disappeared and the missing are kept in the dark of the plight of their relatives. Tamil businessman, Ramasamy Prabhakaran, also known as Majestic Prabha, was abducted after he was released by the TID, on 11 February 2012. His abduction, allegedly by the same State apparatus, took place after he filed a FR petition against custodial torture he had been subjected to during his previous detention. Ghost detainees The LLRC recommended that a database of Tamil detainees held in a network of prisons islandwide be set up. It also recommended that information on detainees be available for the next of kin. The time-frame for the implementation of the proposal was six months. However, now the government states the information is available, but the Attorney General’s advice is required to release the information. Since the Government of Sri Lanka is well versed in dilatory tactics, one would expect this is one such strategy. Meanwhile, the relatives of missing Tamils, some believed to be held in detention centres, claim they had regularly been denied information on their family members. At the same time, the report confides that 2,680 have been arrested by the Terrorist Investigation Division since 19 May 2009. The NAP report also outlines certain other recommendations, such as the issuance of a certificate to the detainees who are being released from the rehabilitation camps, in order to prevent them from being rearrested. However, Tamil youth who have been released from the military rehabilitation camps continue to be abducted by the military and para-military groups. Kugan Murugan, a rehabilitated LTTE cadre and a member of radical JVP dissident group, was abducted allegedly by the State apparatus in December 2011, along with Lalith Kumar. In addition, the LLRC recommended the government investigate the killing of five students in Trincomalee and 17 relief workers of ACF (Action Against Hunger). The report states: “The Criminal Investigation Department has conducted investigations into the case of killing of five students in Trincomalee in 2006. The outcome of the inquiries have been forwarded to the Attorney General on 13.03.2006 under Reference Number CR1/59/2006. On the advice of the AG, the CID is conducting further investigations. Magistrate’s Court Trincomalee Case Number is B/11/2006 (b). The CID has conducted investigations into the killing of 17 Non-Governmental Organization workers on 04.08.2006 in Muttur. Outcome of the inquiry have been forwarded to the AG on 18.04.2007, under the Reference Number CR1/185/2007. Magistrate’s Court Trincomalee Case Number is B/843/2006. Advice of the AG is awaited.” It is ludicrous to suggest that the Magistrate had been awaiting the AG’s advice on both cases for six long years – since 2007. That may be proof of callous disregard on the part of the State apparatus, which have now become subservient to a larger political agenda. That again may be proof of the absence of credible local mechanisms. The LLRC also recommended that disciplinary and legal action be taken against those involved in alleged abductions and disappearances. However, preponderance of cases has not been investigated and not a single military officer has been convicted. In another recommendation, LLRC proposed that an independent institution with a strong investigative arm be established ‘to address the grievances of all citizens, in particular the minorities, arising from the abuse of power by public officials and other individuals involved in the governance of the country.’ The government conveniently dodged that recommendation. At its outset, the LLRC was seen as a farcical affair, but suddenly it turned up with a largely acceptable report. That in fact provided a degree of credibility to local institutions. Now, the ball is on the government’s court and it has to retain that credibility. However, sadly though, the government’s performances are not convincing enough.

BBC Says Applying For GSL Interest Free Loan Is Violation Of Its Code, Sinhala Service Corrupt Journalists To Be Re-Trained On Ethics

By Colombo Telegraph -March 4, 2013

The BBC World Service accepts that some of its Sinhala Section journalists have breached journalistic ethics and violated BBC’s code of conduct by applying for interest free vehicle loans offered by the Sri Lankan Government. The BBC has also stated that the staff in breach of the code would be sent for retraining.

The Colombo Telegraph exposed the applications made by two BBC World Service journalists to the Sri Lankan government to obtain interest-free loans. After a series of exposures about the serious conflict of interest issues and violations of standard journalistic ethics, a public-spirited individual made a complaint to the BBC. The BBC initially responded with a rejection of an inquiry on the basis that their employees had not in fact accepted the loans. This ridiculous response was quite rightly appealed, and last week the BBC has accepted that the complaint in fact raised a serious breach by its staff of the BBC code of conduct for its employees.

Two of its journalists, BBC World Service producer Chandana Keerthi Bandara and the Colombo ReporterElmo Fernando, applied Rs. 1,200,000/-each by way of interest free loans from the state banks to purchase cars or vans, where the interest will be paid by the Treasury using tax payer money.

In a letter dated February 25, 2013 the BBC says; “The applications for the loans were reviewed and it was made clear to staff that it was not appropriate to have applied for them. All staff in question have been reminded of the BBC Conflict of Interest Guidelines and are re-doing the BBC’s training course on this subject.” ( Read letter below)

Responding to the complainant, British journalist, Dushy Ranetunge, on February 11, 2013, BBC forwarded a letter by its Sinhala Service Editor Priyath Liyanage, which says, “BBC Sinhala member of staff Chandana Bandara was one of the hundreds who applied. From what he had told me, that his application had been successful… However, after careful consideration, the employee had decided not to go through with the application and accept the loan…Under these circumstances, I do not see the need for an investigation at present.”

Forwarding Liyange’s letter Dejan Calovski, BBC World Service, Audience Relations said, ‘I hope the above allays the concerns you have raised and thank you for taking the time, and making the effort, to write.’

Responding to the above letter the complainant said; “I wish to refer my complaint to stage 2, as I feel that your response does not address my concerns, especially when Mr Priyath Liyanage himself, who has responded to my complaint has been involved in this process, by issuing letters in support of these applications to secure the inducements/bribes. ..There is no such thing called an interest free loan. The Sri Lankan tax payers have to subsidise these inducements, which the government of Sri Lankan is offering to Journalists, clearly with the motive of influencing them. These loans have to be approved and it is unlikely that they will be approved for journalists who are critical of the regime.’

According to the Colombo Telegraph sources the inquiry has not yet been concluded.

TN MPs meet Rahul on Lanka issue

MONDAY, 04 MARCH 2013 

Congress MPs from Tamil Nadu today told Rahul Gandhi that India should take a tough stand against Sri Lanka at the upcoming UN meet on Tamils issue as it was crucial for the party's future in the state.

Party sources said that the MPs including Union Ministers P Chidamabaram, G K Vasan and Jayanthi Natarajan and PCC Chief B S Gnanadesikan wanted India to support the resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission on the Sri Lankan Tamil's issue and found the party Vice-President "very sympathetic" to the cause of Tamils.

Though the meeting was customary affair following the start of the budget session of Parliament, MPs utilised the opportunity to impress upon the leadership that the Sri Lankan Tamils issue needed to be tackled strongly.

They also raised the issue of fishermen from Tamil Nadu getting killed by Sri Lankan Navy as also the general political situation in the state.

The MPs said that Gandhi was told of the problems faced by Sri Lankan Tamils and the need for a political reconciliation and implementation of the 13th Amendment.

The meeting came in the wake of Dravidian parties, DMK and AIADMK, making the Tamil problem a major issue in state politics and putting pressure on the Centre to take a tough stand in the UN Human Rights Commission.

India has already said that there should be accountability for such issues but has remained evasive on the position it will take at the UN on a resolution against that country.

DMK, a key UPA constituent, had said in the Rajya Sabha last week that it has lost faith in the government on the issue and its members had staged a walkout along with those from AIADMK and Left, dissatisfied with External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid's reply to the debate on the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka. (Source:business-standard)

Sri Lanka CHOGM boycott calls multiply

[TamilNet, Sunday, 03 March 2013, 21:45 GMT]
While former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in a video message to the 22nd Sessions of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), called for a shift in venue for the Commonwealth Head of Governments Meeting (CHOGM) now scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka this November, the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) and the eminent human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC, released a report criticizing the impeachment of Sri Lanka's Chief Justice, called for the suspension of Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth, and urged the Queen not to attend the November Heads of Government meeting if held in Sri Lanka. 

• Robertson: Legal Opinion on Impeachment

• BHRC, Robertson report on Sri Lanka

“Given the blatant breach of the rule of law, for which the government purports to stand it would make a mockery of the Commonwealth as an organisation if it permits the Rajapaske government to showcase its destruction of judicial independence by presiding over CHOGM,” Robertson said in his report prepared for the BHRC.

David Miliband

Miliband said in his video message, “Now is the time for international bodies such as the UN and the Commonwealth to demonstrate their relevance by promoting and upholding core values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Therefore, I support further action on Sri Lanka at the Geneva session and urge the UK and all Commonwealth members to call for a change of venue for 2013 CHOGM, so that the principles of these institutions are not undermined," according to UN media reports.

Geoffrey Robertson

Robertson also recommended that the 117 MPs who signed the motion to impeachment Sri Lanka's Chief Justice Bandaranaike, and the 7 government ministers who convicted her, should all be subject to international measures now available for use against human rights violators, called the “Magnitsky Act”.

“the Magnitsky Act is a new tool to name, shame and actually punish those human rights violators who fall within the class of “train drivers to Auschwitz” – they do not order an atrocity, but it would not have happened without their help. These 117 tame MPs started the impeachment process by making false accusations against the Chief Justice. Some are likely to want to visit the UK, other have funds in UK banks. All democracies should act to protect judicial independence as a core value, and there should be a stigma attached to those that have destroyed it in Sri Lanka.”

In February, Human Rights Watch (HRW), a US-based rights organization, also called on the Commonwealth to shift the venue of CHOGM from Sri Lanka.

Geoffrey Robertson QC was the First President of the UN Court in Sierra Leone and a ‘distinguished jurist’ member of the UN Internal Justice Council which disciplines UN judges.

BHRC is an independent body concerned with protecting the rights of advocates, judges and human rights defenders around the world. The Committee is concerned with defending the rule of law and internationally recognised legal standards relating to human rights and the right to a fair trial.

International probe is necessary to Sri Lanka. Alliance notify in Geneva

International probe is essential concerning the executed war crimes against Tamils during the final war in Vanni. We will not believe that Sri Lanka will carry out internal investigation was said by Tamil National Alliance.

Two days back at the UN Human Rights Council premises in Geneva, the "No Fire Zone" documentary film was screened, and Tamil National Alliance parliament member M.A.Sumenthiran on his participation at this event made such statement.

Before the "No Fire Zone" film was screened Sumenthiran made an introductory address to the audience said, at a state judicial independence, has been badly affected there is no question for internal investigations, which Tamil National Alliance believe.

Tamil National Alliance will support to the encouragements given for the Sri Lanka government to corporate with UN Human Rights Council to implement the recommendations of the Reconciliation Commission.

If Sri Lanka government is pushed to the voting in UN Human Rights Council, it will defeat and this would be a disgrace in front of the international society.

Losses occurred during war, is the first factor. Sri Lanka denies this fact publicly Now is the proper time for Sri Lanka to find the truth was said by him.

Sunday , 03 March 2013

Sri Lanka war is genocide. International should accept. Eelam Tamil movement urge in UN

Monday , 04 March 2013

War crime probe should be carried out against the Tamils genocide occurred in Sri lanka. UN and International society should accept the genocide or ethnic eradication was carried out in a well schemed manner in Sri Lanka. To find the desire of Eelam Tamils under the supervision of UN a referendum should be held.

Insisting with the above issues including many demands, a petition was handed over by the international Eelam Tamils movement to UN Council Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon concerning the human rights violations addressed amidst cosmopolitan community at the Geneva worldwide conference hall last Friday.

Diaspora Tamil people, Tamil National Alliance parliament members, Tamil National People Front members, Canadian parliament members and worldwide Eelam Tamils movement members participated at this meeting.

The worldwide Eelam Tamil movement, on behalf of UN Secretary presented a petition to its Spokesperson Martin Nesriki at the meeting, insisting an international independent probe, and UN and international society to expedite and to grant a settlement without delay to the affected Tamil community concerning the genocide occurred in Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile in the manner of explaining to the genocide occurred in Sri Lanka Island, the Global Eelam Tamils movement organized a world Tamil rights conference two days back on Saturday which commenced in Geneva city.

Already the UN Human Rights Council's 22nd sessions commenced in Geneva and in this state, to utilize international pressure against Sri Lanka government, this conference was arranged, was said by organizers.

A Monk Leads Mob Violence At Maligawatta With The Connivance Of The Police

By AHRC -March 4, 2013 

Swarnavahini reported a raid on a house maintained at a high rise building in Maligawatta by a mob led by a Buddhist monk, Galabodathe Yanasiri, the secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena (The Buddhist Power Army). Galabodathe Yanasiri claimed that a person residing there was keeping false deeds, fake ticket books and passing himself off as a Buddhist monk. A large crowd entered and searched the premises, allowed themselves to be videographed and then took the person into their custody. While this was going on the monk in charge spoke to the cameras saying that they will work towards exposing other similar incidents. Another person took the man impersonating a monk to apologise to the Buddhist people in Sri Lanka about the wrongs he had done, all of which he denied. Then another person was made to say that he was subjected to sexual harassment.

This crowd was accompanied by some officers of the Maligawatta police and the presence of the police could be seen in the video. The report further stated that the accused culprit was later produced before a magistrate.

The whole incident demonstrates how far mob violence is taking place in Sri Lanka. In this instance the monk who led the mob claimed that there are many more incidents happening in the country and that they intend to intervene in similar manner.

Whatever the truth or otherwise about this man alleged to be impersonating a monk, if there was any enquiry to be done it should have been done by the police and not by the mob. The very fact that the police accompanied the mob shockingly indicates the connivance of the police in the mob violence. If this group calling themselves the Bodu Bala Sena had, in fact, received some complaints against this individual it was their duty, under the law, to refer such complaints to the police and request them to take the appropriate action under the law.

However, when the Bodu Bala Sena act as a mob and engages in raids they are themselves violating the law and they should be charged under the law for trespass, illegal interference with the privacy of the tenant and mob violence. No monk or civilian has the power of arrest and therefore that too is a criminal offense. The monk who led the mob was also violating the law of the land.

It is the duty of the police to arrest all the persons who participated in this mob violence and to charge them before a court of law. As there is video footage of everything that happened during this raid there should be no difficulty in identifying the persons involved and also confirming the illegal acts that they committed. The video which was shown to the public by Swarnavahini itself may be used as evidence against those who participated in these illegal activities.

The Officer-in-Charge of the Maligawatta Police Station should be held responsible for allowing these illegal activities to take place. The Assistant Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police in the area should take appropriate action to investigate the matter and take action against the police officers concerned.

However, although this might be the position relating to the law, most likely nothing will happen as the Bodu Bala Sena is acting so boldly before cameras only because they are assured of political patronage. Thus, the allowing of mob violence happened in this instance does not seem to happen without the direct or indirect involvement of the government. What is most likely is that such activities are done with the knowledge of the Ministry of Defence.

Civilian policing has virtually collapsed with the promulgation of the 18^th Amendment to the Constitution. With that the police can no longer be relied on to maintain law enforcement. This situation allows the mobs to take the law into their own hands. It is this situation that the Bodu Bala Sena is exploiting knowing that they will enjoy impunity. Many attacks on civilians by the Bodu Bala Sena have been reported, including attacks on the places of worship belonging to other religions.

The Bodu Bala Sena has become the expression of the widespread lawlessness in the country. The failure of the government to take appropriate legal action against such activities demonstrates the government’s connivance in creating a situation of lawlessness.

It is quite likely that in the future, such mobs may attack those who are considered opponents of the government. Thus, trade unions, NGOs and individuals holding independent opinions such as journalists and the members of the press establishments can be targets of mob violence. Such mob violence could be directed towards various factions within Buddhism such as against those who claim adherence to Mahayana Buddhism.

As the sole authority that controls the country is the executive president the failure to stop such violence should be directly placed before the president as a failure of his responsibility.

Halal Issue Highlighted Importance Of Social Integration

By Jehan Perera -March 4, 2013 

Jehan Perera

The immediate crisis over the issue of Halal certification by the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama has been defused with the government’s appointment of a high level ministerial committee to make recommendations on how to address it.  The appointment of a parallel committee by the UNP is also noteworthy, not only because it is the main opposition party, but also because of the totally different composition of the two committees.  The ten member government committee includes nationalist Sinhalese politicians, some of whom have expressed strong views against the ethnic minorities.  On the other hand, the six member UNP committee goes to the other extreme and comprises only Muslims.

It will be interesting to see what the two committees come up with as their responses to resolving the Halal issue that has suddenly burst into national prominence and caused intense feelings of insecurity in the Muslim community but also fed into Sinhalese fears of being a beleaguered majority in Sri Lanka.  The government is likely to follow the recommendations of its own committee.  However, the UNP committee’s view would provide a useful indicator regarding the degree of polarization that exists between the two communities, and whether it is more acute at the political level than at the grassroots level. Explaining his party’s position on the matter, UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe said, “All Muslims do not share the same opinion on the matter. As such, the issue should not be held against the entire Muslim community.”

Although the public mobilization of the Muslim and Sinhalese communities for confrontation is not visible there continues to be an undercurrent of communal polarization that is taking place at the grassroots level.   Shoppers at grocery stores are looking to see what commodities have the Halal certification on them.  Some Muslim-owned shops are seeing a decline in their business.   There are messages being circulated on the internet that have a strong anti Muslim sentiment in them.  I received such a message from a person I would normally regard as being a pillar of middle class morality and religiosity.   This demonstrates the constant need for those concerned with social integration in a plural society to be at work.

NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENT

The surfacing of the Halal issue has given the opportunity for public discussion about what it means.  The public discussion has been positive to the extent that it has given Muslim spokespersons an opportunity to refute misconceptions about Halal certification.  They have been able to show that the certification process is a voluntary process taken on by businesses that wish to sell their commodities to Muslims also.  Businesses do not have to get the Halal certificate if they do not wish to sell to the Muslim consumer.  In fact there are many businesses that do not have the Halal certification and are doing very well.  However, businesses that do have the Halal certification contribute to economic integration and a common market for all communities in Sri Lanka.

On the other hand, the surfacing of the Halal issue has also provided an occasion for people in general to discuss about the Muslim community in general in a not-so-positive way.  There is an unfortunate tendency of human beings to speak ill of others if they are given the opportunity.  The targets of such critical commentary can be anyone, ranging from politicians to neighbours and even to less favoured family members.  However, in the case of most people, these critical ideas are not voiced in public but are thought about in private.  The problem is that when the opening is given via a problem that involves them, then the critical thoughts are given outward expression.

Unfortunately, the surfacing of the Halal issue has provided an opportunity for people in general to discuss the Muslim community and their practices in a way that generates a negative momentum.  The fact that there are some things we do not talk about in public was brought out in a recent discussion between several professionals who were discussing the Halal issue.  The Muslim amongst them had turned to one of his Sinhalese colleagues and asked him what his caste was.  The discussion immediately froze.  The Muslim person then said that there were some things we do not speak about in public, such as caste, and another is religion.

MAINSTREAMING RECONCILIATION

The problem is that both caste and religion are not only personal matters, but also have wider social and political dimensions to them.  For instance, caste factors are taken into consideration by families in making traditional marriage arrangements.  They are also considered by political parties in selecting candidates who will be appealing to different electorates.  Caste can also be an instrument of social oppression.  Those lower in the caste hierarchy tend to suffer from economic and educational deprivation.  These are matters that need to be discussed so that the problems they cause people can be solved.  They should not be discussed in a manner that will make the problem of social oppression worse.  The same is true of religion.

Despite rapid strides after the end of the war, Sri Lanka continues to be a polarised and fragmented society with cleavages at various levels including the economic, social, religious and political.   This has led to a lack of communication and acute mistrust between parties on different sides of the various divides.  There is a sense of exclusion among communities, who feel they are not being included in national decision making and in enjoying the fruits of development. The government’s creation of a Ministry of National Languages and Social Integration reflects a positive effort towards more conflict sensitive policy that emphasizes the need to bring all social, ethnic and religious groups into the national mainstream.

The Ministry, under the leadership of Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara, who has been long time campaigner of socially excluded populations, has come up with a social integration policy that it is trying to implement.  A recent cartoon in a newspaper showed him riding on a rocking horse, making efforts to move but staying in the same place.  This represents the reality and the lack of priority that has been given by those more powerful in the government to issues of national reconciliation and social integration after the war.  But now the need of the government to prevent the Halal issue and Sinhalese-Muslim tensions from getting out of control ought to impress upon the government the need to give more attention and resources to issues of national reconciliation and social integration.

GOVERNMENT’S ROLE

Over the past several years, the government used the war against the LTTE as its primary mode of unifying this Sinhalese majority behind it and obtained its vote at successive elections.  Now with the fourth year of the end of the war approaching there may be a need for new issues to keep Sinhalese solidarity perceived by sections within the government.   It may not be a coincidence that the government has declared its intention to hold three provincial council elections later this year.  It has also denied that an early presidential election will be held next year.  Those who view the government’s actions as being directed towards its political advantage would notice that the Halal issue can be used to unify the Sinhalese majority in a common cause.  However, keeping religious sentiments on the boil without creating a conflagration is likely to be impossible.

In an election time it will be difficult for political parties, including the ruling party, to be critical of the prejudices of the majority community or be seen to be taking the side of a minority community.  However, civil society organizations that have no such stake in party political outcomes can take on the challenge of correcting misconceptions and creating more empathy between the different communities.  Civil society organizations hope to work with government agencies in building links between the diverse communities that will create better country-wide understanding of the continuing grievances of the different communities.  One important tool for confidence building would be the implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) appointed by the government.

The LLRC report calls upon civil society to play an active role in addressing issues of social and national integration.  These include the formation of inter-religious committees at the grassroots level and people-to-people exchanges.  These are areas in which civic groups have expended considerable effort in the post-war period.  Although government leaders have pledged to implement the LLRC recommendations, there is skepticism regarding their seriousness in this regard.  However, civil society organisations have only a limited role to play in the remaking of the polity, and that role is to play a complementary, supplementary and catalytic role.  The government must provide an enabling environment by improving its relations with civic groups who campaign for inter-ethnic reconciliation and social integration.