Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, March 25, 2013


Towards Tamil Eelam: London Speech


http://www.salem-news.com/graphics/snheader.jpgI am rooted in Martin Luther King’s premise: “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere”.
Ron Ridenour
Ron Ridenour at one of Bornholm's beaches in Denmark anno 2006. Photo by Sandra Visit: RonRidenour.com
(LONDON) - This speech has been unusually difficult for me to prepare, because I am so angry with the whole world, and most of the people in it, including many of the victims of oppression. I will explain underway. I try to speak my talks and not read them, but this topic is too complex for me to rely on my spontaneity, so I have chosen to write it, and then rewrite it, and end up still angry.
Why did I, a white westerner get involved in this crazy world of Sinhalese and Tamils? I knew nothing about Sri Lanka until the end of the internal war, May 2009. I was asked by the Latin American Friendship Association in Tamil Nadu, India to look into it, because they knew of my work with Cuba and the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of our America (ALBA).
I am rooted in Martin Luther King’s premise: “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere”.
I got involved in solidarity with your people’s struggle because you have been so brutally treated, and because of the moral principle of solidarity with the oppressed, the struggle for justice.
In the land of my birth, The Devil’s Own Country, I experienced similar injustice committed against the native peoples and the black people as Tamils suffer. In the 1960-70s, I joined with millions of brothers and sisters of all colors to fight racism, to struggle for equal rights, for education and health care for all, the basic right to vote, and to assist the Vietnamese-Cambodians-Laotians win back their countries from the invading Yankees. We did help end the war in favor of the invaded peoples, and black people did achieve most equal rights.


I recently read, “Under My Skin” Doris Lessing’s first volume of her autobiography. She wrote this nearly 20 years ago when in her 70s. I quote from a passage on page 282 that took place during World War II or soon afterwards:
“We took it for granted that when the working class – or the blacks or any other disadvantaged people – took power, they would be inspired by only the purest and most disinterested ideals.”
What do we have in the world today so long afterwards?
1. A black-faced man as the most powerful president in the world engaging in more aggressive wars at one time than any time in US history. And where I live, Denmark, the so-called “red” government continues murdering people in Afghanistan and backing up capitalism just as the neo-liberal government did.
2. Former Tamil leaders of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) once fighting for the welfare and liberation of an entire people now engage in murdering, raping, kidnapping into slavery and prostitution, robbing their own people. Karuna, Devananda, Pillaivan—leaders of the groups TMVP, ERDP and others—work for some of the most vicious rulers in the modern world, the Rajapaksa family regime which commits genocide against the Tamil people.
3. Declared Marxists, Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Buddhist monks ally with the Rajapaksa reign and other Sinhalese mass murdering regimes before them.
4. Black, brown, yellow-skin people once achieving government power have committed genocide or mass murder and other violent crimes against their own people. Former revolutionary leaders, many of them former guerrillas who fought for liberation of the masses or ethnic groups in many countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe now work for capitalism and material riches.
The United States committed genocide against the Vietnamese, who are now engaging in capitalism as is China, led by the false Communist party.
5. Cuba, the most successful revolutionary nation promising equality, an end to racism and poverty based upon a socialist economy and aligned with the oppressed of the world is now regressing towards capitalism and inequality, and with a foreign policy that backs the vicious Sinhalese chauvinist governments and ignores the suffering plight of the Tamil people.

Courtesy: jdslanka
I am deeply hurt and disappointed that the government of Cuba—where I lived and worked side by side with the people and government for eight years—as well as the socialistic-progressive governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and other Latin American governments have not understood that their own principle of international solidarity must apply to the Tamil people of Sri Lanka.
Cuba with the other ALBA countries contend that they are opposed to the United States and European countries “intervening” in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs. But, in reality, all that the US asks is that the Sri Lankan government investigate itself and find some scapegoats to punish for massive war crimes that can no longer be hidden. But the greatest terrorist states’ minor critique of Rajapaksa’s government for “possibly” committing war crimes is only a symbol of critique, which allows these false “democracies” to maintain a public stance, in order to obtain votes from people who can be beguiled that they are really concerned about the human rights of any people. This is the perennial Human Rights Geo-Political Game.
ALBA cannot help but know this is so. They know that the US-UK-France-Israel and others in their alliance have all along supported Sri Lankan chauvinist governments with money, intelligence, surveillance, armaments, military boats and aircraft.

The progressive governments must have forgotten the Marxist principle of self-determination, the very moral principle of the right to life, the right to equality. What would the current government of Cuba mean today about what Fidel Castro told author-photographer Lee Lockwood?
“Those who are exploited are our compatriots all over the world; and the exploiters all over the world are our enemies…Our country is really the whole world, and all the revolutionaries of the world are our brothers.” (“Castro’s Cuba, Cuba’s Fidel”, New York, 1967)
What do Cuba and ALBA governments think today of Lenin and Marx on the matter of self-determination? In Lenin’s 1916 theses, “The socialist revolution and the right of nations to self-determination”, he wrote:
“Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession.”
Today this would mean that since the proclaimed socialist state of Sri Lanka—led by a self-proclaimed coalition of socialists, communists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Buddhist monks—refuses to grant equal rights to Tamils and maintains discrimination in language, religion, education and jobs it is necessary that the Tamils achieve self-determination through “free political secession”.
Karl Marx, who lived so many years in England and is buried here, supported national independence for Ireland and did so in the interests of the socialist movement of the British workers. Marx wrote in a letter, April 9, 1870:
“It is [Britain’s oppression of Ireland] the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite their organization, it is the secret of which the capitalist class maintains its power.”

This is exactly the situation for the past six decades in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese workers have been fooled by the Sinhalese ruling class’ promulgation of racism and chauvinism, and the religious system of castes, to discriminate against Tamils. And Tamils have not been insightful enough to try to create working class and solidarity alliances with other ethnic and religious groups.
6. The peoples’ whistle blowing medium Wikileaks is a major factor in our knowing as much as we do today about the crimes of state. These communicators, especially those under attack by the terrorist governments—Julian Assange and Bradley Manning—must be supported. If our joint enemy succeeds in crushing them we will all suffer because of it.
Why is it, then, that there are so few of the 99% who are actually engaged in anti-capitalist action? Why do most of the workers, the poor and disenfranchised still cling to supporting one or another of the capitalist political parties?
The answer(s) could lie in a lack of confidence in our selves as worker leaders. We place too great a reliance on authorities be they religious or spiritual gurus or political leaders. India, for example, is still a hot bed of authoritarianism, which I witnessed recently during my book tour. The caste system is as thoroughly racist as apartheid. It is absolutely maniacal that racism is practiced within the same race or nationality or religion. This self-defeating practice is capitalism’s greatest weapon to divide and conquer. Socialism is absolutely impossible as long as people fall into the self-defeating trap of perpetuating castes and discrimination of one ethnic group over another.
We must realize that government leaders, and most religious-spiritual leaders, are not like us. They are well paid by our taxes, and many skim money from the public tills and under-the-table deals. They do not suffer materially. They are not unemployed or homeless. We must drop the illusion that they will save us.

There are positive struggles

Despite my despair of the inhumanity of humanity we do have some positive movements underway now. The Mondragon cooperatives in Spain is a possible vehicle for the transition from capitalism to socialism, at least the workers are also owners and decision-makers, which is more than socialist states accomplished. The Bolivian indigenous culture to Live Well, and not to live better—never content with just enough—is another equalitarian movement. Another great step forward is that of Occupy Wall Street. The OWS has extended into many US cities and a few other countries. In one important way, it is more advanced than the movements I was part of in the 1960s-70s. Our movements were usually single-issue oriented. Only a minority of us held socialist or communist views and we could not organize any significant movement for socialism. The OWS starts from the logic that it is capitalism that is the true culprit. This movement has to move out to the working class and convince them of this reality. I know many are making efforts.

Then we have Arab Spring. Here are millions of people literally risking their lives, willing to be killed while fighting through non-violent actions a democratic form of rule with jobs and food for the majority who are poor. I am not referring to Libya, which is a different struggle—one mainly rooted in war lord clans seeking national power supported by the imperialists. They were successful in aborting the desires of the initial protestors who were, in fact, positively influenced by the masses in Tunisia and Egypt. Even though two brutal dictators were thrown out, the capitalist system led by the army and corporations are still in control. The US-NATO’s key ally Saudi Arabia is used to brutally put down protestors in Bahrain. Today, the situation in Syria is most complicated. All sorts of forces are at play and there is no clear revolutionary force fighting for justice and equality midst the clash of national and foreign powers’ manipulations.

The Human Rights Game!

As we meet today, the 19th session of the so-called Human Rights Council is meeting. Nothing will come out of this farce to favor the Tamil people. The US had hoped that Rajapaksa would ease real critique of his war crimes by adopting his own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s mild findings and recommendations, and that he would say so at this HRC session. But the arrogant king of the lions did not feel compelled to lift even that finger. He has had all the support he needs from the west and genocidal Zionist Israel all these years, and in latter years from India, Russia, China and Iran. But western governments live in an historical conjuncture where they need to raise the façade of protecting human rights, in order to pacify their populations and to conduct “humanitarian operation” wars for profit and global domination.
Unlike in previous years, however, the US now feels like pushing the human rights button a bit more firmly since it has lost its hope of obtaining access to Trincomalee harbor for a naval base. The rising super-power China already obtained its naval-commercial port at Hambontota, and it looks like either it or the former super-power Russia will be granted the Trincomalee port too.
The latest information is that the US will introduce its own resolution regarding Sri Lanka in the last week of the HRC session (March 19-23). It purportedly will call upon the government to implement “the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and additionally to take immediate steps to…address serious allegations of violations of international law by initiating credible and independent investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for such violations.”
As in the special HRC session in May 2009, the US and its European allies are calling upon Sri Lanka’s government to police itself. But this time, given its loss of favoritism, the US has added that it should initiate “independent investigations”, albeit the US does not back the UN’s own expert panel report calling for “an international independent investigation”.
There is a fine line between the government’s own LLRC and what the US is calling for but there is much fanfare in the world community of geo-politics. Cuba-ALBA, and the Non-Aligned Movement of 113 nations generally, resist, understandably enough, when the major imperialist state and its allies among the former colonial powers demand that they do this or that. Cuba-ALBA lands had long been forced to bow to these demands. While Cuba-ALBA are not terrorist states as are the US-EU-NATO states, they have fallen into the trap of “an enemy of my enemy is my friend”. What they fail to recognize, or admit, is that the western powers are not the only terrorist states. They fall into the double morality trap of backing the sovereignty of all Third World governments no matter how they treat their populations. Sri Lanka government is a terrible violator of human rights, and not just against the Tamils, but also against Muslims, the indigenous tribes, and it also exploits Sinhalese workers, the poor, and lower castes.
Cuba has told Sri Lanka that it “extends its utmost support to Sri Lanka at the 19th Summit of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.” The Cuban ambassador to Sri Lanka who conveyed this message of President Raul Castro is named Nursia Castro Guevara, of all names. She stated that her government “vehemently rejects fake allegations on human rights against Sri Lanka”.
It is immoral, it is a shame that Cuba totally dismisses the testimony of thousands of eye witnesses to and victims of mass murders, rapes, incarceration; and then dismiss as well serious reports by international organizations, including the findings of the UN expert panel on accountability, the videos broadcast by Channel Four, the diplomatic correspondence leaked by Wikileaks.
My statements here must not be taken out of context and misinterpreted, as Sri Lankan officials and some Cuba-ALBA solidarity people have done, to represent my position as one of siding with the US. I have not supported US governments for half-a-century.
I predict that the majority on the HRC will vote against the US’s mild resolution to be put forth and they will do so, in part, because of opposition to the US’s constant human rights abuse in many parts of the world.
But the fact that the US will lose its resolution will result in a victory for it. That nothing will occur at the HRC to force the hand of Sri Lanka’s war crimes will be used by the “democratic” West to pontificate against Cuba-ALBA, NAM, Russia, China, Iran complicity with war crimes. And these war crimes, which the US & co. helped create, will remain without accountability just as the US actually wishes. Otherwise, if there were a real investigation, the US’s own dirty linen could be exposed. Yet for many millions of unaware people in the US, the West generally, and elsewhere, it will seem as though these governments are the good guys fighting the bad guys—communists and former communists, and “colored third world” governments. It should mean a lot of votes for the puppet president of the US.
What can be done!
Tamils must not rely on the greatest terrorist in the world to help them. The Yankees offer no help without dire costs. The United States of America kills tens of millions; tortures hundreds of thousands; starves hundreds of millions. We must be aware that since World War 11, the US has invaded or intervened militarily 160 times in 66 countries. At present they are murdering people in seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, and until recently in Libya where their allies continue murdering people. They arm some Syrian rebel elements and prepare to invade Iran, or let Israel do so.
Without US support to Israel, the Palestinians would be a free people today. Zionist Israel commits genocide against the Palestinian people. It offered Mossad intelligence, great amounts of weaponry, fast Dvora naval attack craft, Kfir killer aircraft and even pilots to Sri Lanka to murder the Tamils. After the end of the war, Sri Lanka sent its military chief-of-staff, Donald Perera, to Israel as its ambassador as a reward for Zionist assistance. He told the largest Zionist daily, Yedioth Abornoth,: “I consider your country a partner in the war against terror,” thus coupling terrorism with the Palestinians’ struggle for their homeland and the Tamils’ right to exist in peace and equality. He also supported the cold-blooded murders in international waters, on May 31, 2010, of nine Turkish solidarity activists bound for Gaza with survival supplies.
I believe that your organizations must create grass roots organizations and discuss these realities. You have to abandon false hopes and stop wasting time lobbying terrorist states. You need to discuss these realities with people’s grass roots and indigenous organizations and unions in Latin America, Palestine and elsewhere where people are struggling for sovereignty, for liberation. You must explain to them your history, why you had to take up arms and fight for separation, for an independent nation. They have to hear of your suffering, of your struggles, why Tamil Eelam, political separation is a necessity when ruling powers will not grant a people their basic democratic and equal rights.
The progressive governments have won majority votes for new constitutions in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Venezuela that grant equal rights to their indigenous peoples. In Bolivia, for instance, under the new constitution there are four official national languages, three of them are indigenous as well as Spanish. If these people could know you simply want these same rights, they might listen to you and stop backing Sri Lanka.
Tamils, stand up to all terrorist states, which also support the terrorist state of Sri Lanka!
We must work for a worldwide boycott of Sri Lanka and join in the boycott of Israel.
We must communicate with other people who are struggling for their rights and join forces.
We must join with others to combat the growing racism-fascism in the West against Muslims and Arabs.
We must prove the case of genocide against Tamils as did the International War Crimes Tribunal during the war against Southeast Asians. We could ask the Permanent People’s Tribunal—which found that Sri Lanka committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during its sessions in Dublin, Ireland, January 2010—to take up such an investigation.
We have wandered over the deserts and the seas. We have been hungry and thirsty. We have been murdered and tortured. We are of the working class, of the castes; we are many races and nationalities. We share a common vision: freedom and equality; bread and water on the table; a shelter over our heads. We must fight together to live in peace and harmony.
CHE GUEVARA would be on our side today! March 4, 2012
But now, decades later, the world still looks as bad or even worse.

Sunday, March 24, 2013


War Or Peace: Our Choice


By Tisaranee Gunasekara -March 24, 2013 
“The future lies in darkness and the forces of right are weak”. Brecht (On the suicide of Walter Benjamin).
Colombo TelegraphAlmost four years after winning the Eelam War, Sri Lankahas no discernible enemy and a very discernible military. This gross disproportion would not have mattered overmuch had the economy fared better and the people were burdened less. But with a distorted economy and a weighted-down populace, even Rajapaksa supporters might question the logic of maintaining a gargantuan military sans an enemy.
There are two ways out of this Rajapaksa-made conundrum. The logical path is to impose a resources-diet on the obese military establishment; the illogical path is to create an enemy. In Rajapaksa Sri Lanka, the logical way is a non-option. That leaves the illogical way – create an obvious, omnipresent, terrifying enemy.
An enemy can justify dumping endless resources into Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s Defence-cum-Urban Development black hole, in the midst of a biting economy. It can also explain the radical departures from democracy and justice visceral to Rajapaksa rule.
Up to early 2012, the rulers thought that the Tiger-spectre would suffice for the purpose. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa himself made this point: “The re-grouping and the re-organisation of Tiger separatists within Sri Lankais still a threat to national security.…. That is why we must maintain a sizeable defence force as well as defence spending, although there are some people who question why the defence establishment is so large and the amount of money allocated for defence” (LBO – 11.1.2012). But as economic hardships reached new zeniths in 2012, the Siblings would have realised that the Tiger-spectre alone will not do.Geneva too would be inadequate while most Lankans are indifferent about the Hambantota Commonwealth Summit. Once the dreaded electricity price-tsunami hits, even a Canadian-led boycott of Hambantota will elicit nothing more than a collective shrug.
Thus the regime’s desperate need for an enemy terrifying enough to make the Sinhala masses forget hunger, want and insecurity.
The explosion of anti-Muslim hysteria, literally out of the blue and the Rajapaksa-tolerance of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) become perfectly explicable in this context.
Until the attack on the Dambulla mosque on 20th April, 2012, the Sinhala-Buddhist lobby was focused on Christians. The Tamils have been defeated and humbled; and, almost as soon as the war ended, attacks on Christians resumed with a new vigour. Until last April, the Muslim threat did not exist. The All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU) was actually functioning as a Rajapaksa ally; it even sent representatives to Geneva last March to lobby Islamic nations on Colombo’s behalf.
With the Dambulla attack there was a sudden shifting of focus. A new conjuncture characterised by anti-Muslim hysteria came into being. Suddenly, the main enemy was a man in a cap and a woman in black.
Amidst this new madness, the BBS emerged fully formed, organised and financed, possibly from the belly of the Ministry of Defence and Urban Development. (The BBS facebook page[i] contains the latest demonstration of the special nexus between the BBS and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa).
The BBS – and others of its ilk – are going around the country trying to convince Sinhala Buddhist masses that they have only one threat and one enemy – the Muslims. Every other problem and concern, from economic hardships to crime wave, is pushed out of sight. To the extent these other issues are acknowledged, it is as by-products of the overarching ‘Muslim problem’. Once one is lost in this imaginary chamber of horrors, the real horrors of Rajapaksa rule vanish, from sight, consciousness and memory.    Commenting on the anti-Muslim riots of 1915, the first low-country Sinhala representative of the Legislative Council, Sir Christoffel Obeysekere, said, “These disturbances would not have taken place had it not been, as I believed, for the incitement of the ignorant villagers – poor Buddhist villagers, than whom I have never seen a better set of men – by half a dozen misguided, designing villains, who have been trying to pose as leaders of the Buddhists. Had it not been for this encouragement, these disturbances would never have occurred. I therefore feel most strongly that any of the proprietory peasant villagers – whom I regard as true Sinhalese gentlemen – should have been deluded into this trap for the personal aggrandisement of a few who are nobodies, but who hope to make somebodies of themselves, by such disgraceful tactics”[ii].
That analysis could have been made about the current anti-Muslim hysteria. The Rajapaksas want to remain top-bodies, forever, while the BBS leaders want to become somebodies (who knew the name Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara just a year ago?). And they – following in the footsteps of their nefarious forefathers – are trying to incite an anti-Muslim mania, to retain power and relevance.
Are we going to allow free-rein to these unscrupulous power-hungry opportunists and let them devastate our future, again?
The Muslim Response
Fanatics of every ilk feed from the same trough of extremism and intolerance. They bring destruction and self-destruction.
If the Tamils, instead of accepting the counter-extremism of Vellupillai Pirapaharan, chose a moderate path, they could have avoided Nandikadal. So far, the Muslims have responded with reason and moderation to the ugly and violently provocative campaign of the BBS. The BBS would be elated if the Muslims abandoned that rectitude and reacted with a comparable – or worse – fanaticism. If the Muslims take that path, they will isolate themselves from moderates of other communities. And that is precisely what the BBS and its political masters would want.
Throughout history, ideas and values have been peripatetic; they were never the sole monopoly of this or that region/religion/culture.
When Justinian apostrophised Hellenism as an unclean heresy abhorred by God and banished it from Rome, the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of Antiquity found a home in Persia and (subsequently) in the Islamic Caliphates. As Rome (and the West) receded into a long night of intellectual obscurantism and economic regression, Persia and the Caliphates experienced a golden age civilisation, made possible by the tolerance and openness of most of their rulers who promoted culture and learning not only of the Greco-Roman variety but also of the Babylonian and Indian variety. By the 12th Century, the Arabs were at the forefront of scientific discovery, technological innovation and arts. This intellectual accumulation fed the European renaissance subsequently, via Muslim Spain.
For centuries the Ottoman Turkish Empire was far more tolerant in its attitude to other religions/cultures than the Christian West. The great Akbar practiced many of the Enlightenment values, centuries before Europe.
There is no pure anything in this world; every culture, every religion, every civilisation learnt from and built upon the achievements and advances of preceding ones. We stand on the collective-shoulders of giants and those giants belong to every race, region, creed or none.
Hopefully, in its response to the BBS fanatics, the Muslim community will be informed and influenced by its own traditions of tolerance and moderation. If the battle-lines are drawn between Buddhist-fanatics and Muslim fanatics, all will be lost; but if the Muslims close their ears to the siren song of extremism and face the BBS in the company of moderates of every community, they will win and so will Sri Lanka.

Impact Of Resolution Would Be Determined By 

Govt’s Reactions – Sumanthiran

 Sunday, March 24, 2013

  • Govt has had ample time and space to address concerns raised four years ago
The Sunday LeaderTNA parliamentarian, Attorney-at-Law M. A. Sumanthiran says the international community has realized that the request for time and space is not a genuine one but only for the government to implement its own agenda. He observed that if the government acts responsibly at least at this stage and engages constructively with the international community following the adoption of the 2013 resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the country could deal with all outstanding issues. “The people of this country will have to ask themselves the question as to why the very countries that banned the LTTE and helped the government win the war, are now applying pressure to settle the six-decade long ethnic issue by peaceful means,” Sumanthiran said.
Following is the interview:
Q: What impact do you think the adoption of the latest US backed resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC would have on the country?
A: That will be determined by how the Government reacts to this. If it acts responsibly at least at this stage and engages constructively with the international community, we can do ourselves a favour and deal with all outstanding issues that hinder genuine reconciliation with the help and assistance of the international community.
Q: Do you believe the government statement that progress has been made in implementing the LLLRC recommendations and the post war reconciliation process?
A: An emphatic ‘No’! The National Action Plan doesn’t even deal with half the constructive recommendations of the LLRC. The more important ones have been studiously left out. Even the ones dealt with by the National Action Plan have not been implemented except the one on teaching Sinhala and Tamil in schools, which has commenced in some schools.
Q: How do you view India’s vote in favor of the resolution?
A: India voted in favour of the resolution last year too. The present resolution is a follow up on that. Any country that voted for last year’s resolution could not have voted against this.
Q: In your view, what is the progress required from the government in addressing concerns of human rights, accountability and reconciliation?
A: His Excellency the President acknowledged that there were serious allegations of violations of human rights that needed to be inquired into as early as 26th May 2009, when he undertook to do that in the joint communiqué he issued along with the Secretary General of the UN. At the same time several undertakings were given in Geneva at the UNHRC by Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe. It is precisely those undertakings and promises that need to be fulfilled.
Q: How much time and space does the government need to address the concerns raised by the international community?
A: The government has had ample time and space to address all these concerns which they undertook to address four years ago. The international community has at least now realised that the request for time and space is not a genuine one but only for the government to implement its own agenda of grabbing the lands belonging to our People, changing the demography of the North and East and to militarily subjugating the Tamil People.
Q: Would pressure mounted on the Sri Lankan government by the international community help bring about a lasting solution to the ethnic issue?
A: Yes it will. The people of this country will have to ask themselves the question as to why the very countries that banned the LTTE and helped the government win the war, are now applying pressure to settle the six-decade long ethnic issue by peaceful means. The legitimate political aspirations of the Tamil People must be accommodated within the governing structures of the country. It is a pity that even the 13th amendment to the Constitution that reversed the Sinhala Only policy, was conceded to only after the Tamil youth took to arms. There was a thirty-year long peaceful agitation by the Tamil People prior to that. But all that happened during that period was the unilateral abrogation of even the two pacts signed by the governments of the day. Now there is another opportunity to resolve this. The TNA is not asking for anything more than what successive governments offered between 1993 and 2006.
Q: India has once again called for the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and to go beyond. Do you feel that the 13A and beyond would be the only solution for Sri Lanka?
A: Well the 13th Amendment is a part of the Constitution of the country. The Tamil People did not accept that as the final solution because it did not lay out a meaningful scheme of devolution of power. That is why, after the enactment of the 13th Amendment, there were several processes in which the successive governments came up with several proposals to address these defects. I do not say that a solution must necessarily be based on the 13th Amendment, but it is obvious that no solution can be less than what is contained in that. Prof. Peiris is on record describing the 13th Amendment as being ‘fundamentally flawed’, when he campaigned for a federal constitution. Either, these fundamental flaws must be rectified in order to achieve meaningful devolution, or we must draft a new Constitution that goes well beyond that and establishes a system of proper power-sharing between the different Peoples of this country.
Q: How would the growing dissention against Sri Lanka in Tamil Nadu affect the country’s progress?
A: That is only a symptom of the disease that afflicts our own country. We must put our house in order and that symptom will disappear.
Q: How strained do you think Indo-Sri Lanka relations are at present?
A: To the extent Sri Lanka violates the commitments it has made to India and the international community at large. The answer to that is in the hands of the Sri Lankan government.
Q: Do you believe that the Rajapaksa government could deliver a lasting solution to the ethnic issue after winning the war?
A: Yes. There is nothing that stops them from doing that, except their own sense of misplaced pride and plans for dynastic succession.
Q: Are you satisfied with the role played by the TNA in raising the issues faced by the Tamil community in the country?
A: Yes I am, to the extent that our human and other resources have permitted us. But we need to do much more in convincing the Sinhala People that our struggle for justice and equality will not take anything away from the position they enjoy in the country as the numerical majority.


Sunday , 24 March 2013
In the intention of colonizing the Muslim community in the Mullaitheevu and Mulliyavalai locality, the surveyors attempted to survey  the locality, have retreated when a large gathering of Tamils assembled to show their oppose was said.

540 acres of forest area located in Mulliyavalai locality was cleared and activities were processed to colonize one thousand and 445 Muslim families in that locality.

Thekkattu region near Mullaiyavalai 6th mile post is still not handed over by the Department of Forest Conservation to the divisional secretariat.

Department of Forest Conservation has taken measures to survey through the Survey Department to provide resettlement to the Muslim people.

Accordingly, to survey the said locality the surveyors visited some days back to the vicinity. People came aware of this, and about 80 Tamil families assembled and strongly protested, lands can be given to the Muslim community only after accomplishing in providing lands to them.

Due to this pandemonium, the officials returned back without surveying the locality.

In the backdrop of colonizing the Muslim people, a Minister from the minority community is determinedly operating is according to reports.
Sunday , 24 March 2013
Australia criticised over Sri Lanka war crimes vote
Resolution passed: The UN says it has "credible allegations" that both government forces and the Tamil Tigers carried out war crimes during Sri Lanka's civil war. (Credit: AFP) 
By Gillian Bennett, wires-23 March 2013
abc.net.auHuman Rights Watch has criticised the Federal Government for waiting until the last minute to endorse a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for a war crimes investigation in Sri Lanka.
Human Rights Watch has criticised the Federal Government for waiting until the last minute to endorse a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for a war crimes investigation in Sri Lanka.
The US-sponsored resolution, which passed on Thursday night, says the Sri Lankan government should conduct independent investigations into violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law during the country’s 30-year civil war.
Of the 47-member UN forum, 25 countries voted in favour, 13 against, eight countries abstained and one was absent.
Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said Australia endorsed the resolution reluctantly, and at the last minute, because of concerns it would offend the ruling Rajapaksa brothers.
"It is pretty clear Australia's policy toward Sri Lanka is the asylum seeker tail wagging the bilateral dog," he said.
"And it's pretty clear that Australia's policy is entirely set by its determination to stem the flow of boat people, mostly Tamils, from Sri Lanka."
According to the UN, tens of thousands of civilians were killed in the final months of the decades-long civil war as government troops advanced on Tamil Tiger rebels fighting for an independent homeland.
The UN says it has "credible allegations" that both government forces and the Tamil Tigers carried out war crimes, but it singled out the government for most of the responsibility for the deaths.
The Sri Lankan government rejects that.
While not binding, scrutiny by the UN Human Rights Council maintains pressure on the government to prosecute crimes committed in the conflict against Tamil Tiger rebels.
In a statement, US secretary of state John Kerry said Sri Lanka must take meaningful action on reconciliation and accountability, and while some important progress had been made, there was much work still to be done.
While human rights groups welcomed the continuing spotlight on Sri Lanka, some regretted that the council failed to establish an international investigation into wartime crimes.
In a statement, Amnesty International said an international probe was the only way to obtain the truth and justice necessary for genuine reconciliation.
Ben Saul, a professor of International Law at Sydney University, said the resolution was a "preliminary step".
"With distance from the end of the civil war, [there is less] pressure to resolve these problems," he said.
Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper has threatened to boycott the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting - due to be held in Sri Lanka later this year - over the country's human rights record.
Professor Saul has called on the Federal Government to join Canada’s boycott, saying it would send a "powerful signal" that Australia disapproves of Sri Lanka's human rights record.
Australia does not hold a seat on the Human Rights Council, but Mr Roth says Australia's two-year seat on the UN security Council offers the country an opportunity to work towards resolutions on these issues.
ABC/Reuters

Sunday , 24 March 2013
To construct military camps in Jaffna district,  lands belonging to state departments are compelled to grant  from the divisional secretaries, by those attired in uniform is according to reports.


Concerning the forcible action of uniformed men, so far the political sectors from the Jaffna district have not taken any action was said.

Lands are appealed to construct permanent camps by the military in the Jaffna district from last year 2011, and mainly many lands belonging to state departments are requested by them.

The said state department has not consented in granting the lands, and approval was not granted at the district coordination committee meeting, hence the respective divisional secretariats have not granted the said lands to the forces.

In this situation on last 11th, Land Minister Janaka Bandara Tennakone visited Jaffna district, had instructed the respective divisional secretaries to immediately forward letter to him, that they do not object in granting lands belonging to state departments, which activity should be expedited. Minister said there is not necessary to acquire approval from the District Coordination Committee meeting.

 In this state the uniformed men are recently visiting the respective divisional secretariats and are requesting to sign letters written in Sinhala language.

Uniformed men notify that such activity is processed according to the instructions from Land Ministry.

No objection letters completely written in Sinhala language to issue lands demanded by the forces is distributed to the divisional secretaries for signature and such documents are signed as there is no option was said. The letters are completely prepared in Sinhala language, highlights the request made by the forces for lands.

Concerning this, Jaffna district government sector members and ministers continuing to  maintain silence, whether they  are aiding and abating in granting lands to the uniformed personnel is the speculation amidst the society.
Sunday , 24 March 2013


U.S. Department of State - Great SealQUESTION: Madam, after this UN Security Council – Human Rights Council vote on Sri Lanka, what are the consequences or what do you think the Sri Lankan Government should do now?
MS. NULAND: They should implement the plan that they have never implemented. They should listen to the words of the international community. As you know, we welcome the passage of this new resolution; 24 other countries also voted for it. We call on the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its obligations to its own people. The resolution very clearly expresses the support of the international community for Sri Lanka, addressing its outstanding issues related to reconciliation and for meeting its obligations for accountability, which it has not yet done.

See question from 35 mins 45 seconds

QUESTION: Let me ask you, since this resolution has been going on for some time, and I’m sure there was ample warning and discussions and dialogue with Sri Lankan Government or officials, either from the U.S. or UN or other international community, was there any time when – that Sri Lanka could have avoided this resolution against them?
MS. NULAND: We’ve talked about this for the past week here, Goyal, and I said that we had made clear, including when senior Sri Lankans had visited Washington, that if they didn’t take steps that they could – would see this kind of a resolution coming forward. That was about six months ago, and we didn’t see any progress.
QUESTION: So finally, how can you enforce it now?
MS. NULAND: Again, we want to see the Sri Lankans take their own decisions. As we’ve said before, if those are not forthcoming, the international community will look at whether there are other steps we can take.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Like what? Like doing the same exact resolution next year?
MS. NULAND: No. We have talked in the past about whether there ought to be an international effort on this front rather than a Sri Lankan-led effort.


Nuland responded


CMAG to discuss SL under "any other matters"

By Sujeeva Nivunhella in London-March 23, 2013,

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has not listed Sri Lanka or the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) on its agenda for the April 26 in London, Richard Uku, spokesperson for Commonwealth Secretariat, said last week. 

However, according to unconfirmed reports although Sri Lanka is not on the agenda, CMAG ministers have agreed to talk about the country under "Any Other Matters". This decision apparently has been taken when the CMAG ministers had their tele-conference last Wednesday.

Uku told The Sunday Island that there have been so many inquiries whether the CHOGM 2013 venue will be shifted. However, there has been no request from any Commonwealth member government for a shift of the venue. Commonwealth Heads of Government remain committed to the decision they took collectively in 2009, and which they reaffirmed in 2011,  to hold the summit in Sri Lanka", Uku said. 

He said that the Commonwealth Secretary-General’s "Good Offices" role has not been expired and it is very much alive. 

"It is producing practical outcomes. We have agreed to contribute to enhancing the independence and authority of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL). In practical terms, we are exploring options to provide technical support to the HRCSL in staff training; expanding training of police personnel on human rights obligations; strengthening capacity in the media on human rights reporting; bolstering capacity to be involved in national reconciliation processes; and strengthening capacity to investigate human rights abuses", he noted.

According to Uku, a Commonwealth expert round-table conference on reconciliation will be held in London in May for which Sri Lanka participate to share the experiences of reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation. 

"The aim of the conference is to share experiences of the challenges faced and lessons learnt during post-conflict reconciliation in Commonwealth member states. Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report is a pivotal national plan for moving forward, to achieve a multi-ethnic nation at peace with itself. We have urged the report’s expeditious implementation, which the Commonwealth remains committed to supporting. The Commonwealth will continue to explore opportunities where it can offer its collective wisdom and experience, and will aim to agree by mid-2013 on areas where it can support Sri Lanka’s implementation of the LLRC Report’s report", he added.

Noam Chomsky: 'No individual changes anything alone'

- 
Aida EdemariamNoam Chomsky is one of the world's most controversial thinkers. Now 84, he reflects on his life's work, on current events in Syria and Israel, and on the love of his life – his wifeThe Guardian home
Noam Chomsky
'I grew up during the Depression. People would come to the door trying to sell rags - that was when I was four' … Noam Chomsky. Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian
It may have been pouring with rain, water overrunning the gutters and spreading fast and deep across London's Euston Road, but this did not stop a queue forming, and growing until it snaked almost all the way back to Euston station. Inside Friends House, a Quaker-run meeting hall, the excitement was palpable. People searched for friends and seats with thinly disguised anxiety; all watched the stage until, about 15 minutes late, a short, slightly top-heavy old man climbed carefully on to the stage and sat down. The hall filled with cheers and clapping, with whoops and with whistles.
Noam Chomsky, said two speakers (one of them Mariam Said, whose late husband, Edward, this lecture honours) "needs no introduction". A tired turn of phrase, but they had a point: in a bookshop down the road the politics section is divided into biography, reference, the Clintons, Obama, Thatcher, Marx, and Noam Chomsky. He topped the first Foreign Policy/Prospect Magazine list of global thinkers in 2005 (the most recent, however, perhaps reflecting a new editorship and a new rubric, lists him not at all). One study of the most frequently cited academic sources of all time found that he ranked eighth, just below Plato and Freud. The list included the Bible.
When he starts speaking, it is in a monotone that makes no particular rhetorical claim on the audience's attention; in fact, it's almost soporific. Last October, he tells his audience, he visited Gaza for the first time. Within five minutes many of the hallmarks of Chomsky's political writing, and speaking, are displayed: his anger, his extraordinary range of reference and experience – journalism from inside Gaza, personal testimony, detailed knowledge of the old Egyptian government, its secret service, the new Egyptian government, the historical context of the Israeli occupation, recent news reports (of sewage used by the Egyptians to flood tunnels out of Gaza, and by Israelis to spray non-violent protesters). Fact upon fact upon fact, but also a withering, sweeping sarcasm – the atrocities are "tolerated politely by Europe as usual". Harsh, vivid phrases – the "hideously charred corpses of murdered infants"; bodies "writhing in agony" – unspool until they become almost a form of punctuation.
You could argue that the latter is necessary, simply a description of atrocities that must be reported, but it is also a method that has diminishing returns. The facts speak for themselves; the adjectives and the sarcasm have the counterintuitive effect of cheapening them, of imposing on the world a disappointingly crude and simplistic argument. "The sentences," wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in a brilliant New Yorker profile of Chomsky 10 years ago, "are accusations of guilt, but not from a position of innocence or hope for something better: Chomsky's sarcasm is the scowl of a fallen world, the sneer of hell's veteran to its appalled naifs" – and thus, in an odd way, static and ungenerative.
Link to video: Noam Chomsky: violence and dignity – reflections on the Middle East
To be fair, he has – as he points out the next day, sitting under the gorgeous, vaulting ceilings of the VIP section of the St Pancras Renaissance hotel – not always been preaching to the converted, or even to the sceptically open-minded. "This [rapturous reception] is radically different from what it was like even five years ago, when in fact [at talks about Israel-Palestine] I had to have police protection because the audience was so hostile." His voice is vanishingly quiet as well as monotonal, and he is slightly deaf, which makes conversation something of a challenge. But he answers questions warmly, and seriously, if not always directly – a surprise, in a way, from someone who has earned a reputation for brutality of argument, and a need to win at all costs. "There really is an alpha-male dominance psychology at work there," a colleague once said of him. "He has some of the primate dominance moves. The staring down. The withering tone of voice." Students have been known to visit him in pairs, so that one can defend the other. But it is perhaps less surprising when you discover that he can spend up to seven hours a day answering emails from fans and the questing public. And in the vast hotel lobby he cuts a slightly fragile figure.
Chomsky, the son of Hebrew teachers who emigrated from Ukraine and Russia at the turn of the last century, began as a Zionist – but the sort of Zionist who wanted a socialist state in which Jews and Arabs worked together as equals. Since then he has been accused of antisemitism (due to defending some 35 years ago the right to free speech of a French professor who was later convicted of Holocaust denial), and, as the Nation once pointed out, it is a measure of the limitations discussions of the Middle East have sometimes had in his home country that he at one point acquired the reputation of being America's most prominent self-hating Jew. These days he argues tirelessly for the rights of Palestinians. In this week's lecture he quoted various reactions to the Oslo accords, which turn 20 in September, including a description of them as "an infernal trap". He replied to a question about whether Israel would still exist in 50 years' time by saying, among other things, that "Israel is following policies which maximise its security threats … policies which choose expansion over security … policies which lead to their moral degradation, their isolation, their deligitimation, as they call it now, and very likely ultimate destruction. That's not impossible." Obama arrived in Israel this week accompanied by some of the lowest expectations ever ascribed to a US president visiting the country. There was so much more hope, I suggest to Chomsky, when Obama was first elected, and he spoke about the Middle East. "There were illusions. He came into office with dramatic rhetoric about hope and change, but there was never any substance behind them," he responds.
He seems cautiously optimistic about the Arab spring, which he sees as a "classic example … [of] powerful grassroots movements, primarily in Tunisia and Egypt" – but is dryly ironic about the west's relationship with what is happening on the ground. "In Egypt, on the eve of Tahrir Square, there was a major poll which found that overwhelmingly – 80-90%, numbers like that – Egyptians regarded the main threats they face as the US and Israel. They don't like Iran – Arabs generally don't like Iran – but they didn't consider it a threat. In fact, back then a considerable number of Egyptians thought the region might be better off if Iran had nuclear weapons. Not because they wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons, but to offset the real threats they faced. So that's obviously not the kind of policy that the west wants to listen to. Other polls are somewhat different, but the basic story is about the same – what Egyptians want is not what the west would like to see. So therefore they are opposed to democracy."
What does Chomsky, who has infuriated some with his dismissal of the "new military humanism", think should be done in Syria, if anything? Should the west arm the opposition? Should it intervene? "I tend to think that providing arms is going to escalate the conflict. I think there has to be some kind of negotiated settlement. The question is which kind. But it's going to have to be primarily among Syrians. Outsiders can try to help set up the conditions, and there's no doubt that the government is carrying out plenty of atrocities, and the opposition some, but not as many. There's a threat that the country is on a suicidal course. Nobody wants that."
Chomsky first came to prominence in 1959, with the argument, detailed in a book review (but already present in his first book, published two years earlier), that contrary to the prevailing idea that children learned language by copying and by reinforcement (ie behaviourism), basic grammatical arrangements were already present at birth. The argument revolutionised the study of linguistics; it had fundamental ramifications for anyone studying the mind. It also has interesting, even troubling ramifications for his politics. If we are born with innate structures of linguistic and by extension moral thought, isn't this a kind of determinism that denies political agency? What is the point of arguing for any change at all?
"The most libertarian positions accept the same view," he answers. "That there are instincts, basic conditions of human nature that lead to a preferred social order. In fact, if you're in favour of any policy – reform, revolution, stability, regression, whatever – if you're at least minimally moral, it's because you think it's somehow good for people. And good for people means conforming to their fundamental nature. So whoever you are, whatever your position is, you're making some tacit assumptions about fundamental human nature … The question is: what do we strive for in developing a social order that is conducive to fundamental human needs? Are human beings born to be servants to masters, or are they born to be free, creative individuals who work with others to inquire, create, develop their own lives? I mean, if humans were totally unstructured creatures, they would be … a tool which can properly be shaped by outside forces. That's why if you look at the history of what's called radical behaviourism, [where] you can be completely shaped by outside forces – when [the advocates of this] spell out what they think society ought to be, it's totalitarian."
Chomsky, now 84, has been politically engaged all his life; his first published article, in fact, was against fascism, and written when he was 10. Where does the anger come from? "I grew up in the Depression. My parents had jobs, but a lot of the family were unemployed working class, so they had no jobs at all. So I saw poverty and repression right away. People would come to the door trying to sell rags – that was when I was four years old. I remember riding with my mother in a trolley car and passing a textile worker's strike where the women were striking outside and the police were beating them bloody."
He met Carol, who would become his wife, at about the same time, when he was five years old. They married when she was 19 and he 21, and were together until she died nearly 60 years later, in 2008. He talks about her constantly, given the chance: how she was so strict about his schedule when they travelled (she often accompanied him on lecture tours) that in Latin America they called her El Comandante; the various bureaucratic scrapes they got into, all over the world. By all accounts, she also enforced balance in his life: made sure he watched an hour of TV a night, went to movies and concerts, encouraged his love of sailing (at one point, he owned a small fleet of sailboats, plus a motorboat); she water-skied until she was 75.
But she was also politically involved: she took her daughters (they had three children: two girls and a boy) to demonstrations; he tells me a story about how, when they were protesting against the Vietnam war, they were once both arrested on the same day. "And you get one phone call. So my wife called our older daughter, who was at that time 12, I guess, and told her, 'We're not going to come home tonight, can you take care of the two kids?' That's life." At another point, when it looked like he would be jailed for a long time, she went back to school to study for a PhD, so that she could support the children alone. It makes no sense, he told an interviewer a couple of years ago, for a woman to die before her husband, "because women manage so much better, they talk and support each other. My oldest and closest friend is in the office next door to me; we haven't once talked about Carol." His eldest daughter often helps him now. "There's a transition point, in some way."
Does he think that in all these years of talking and arguing and writing, he has ever changed one specific thing? "I don't think any individual changes anything alone. Martin Luther King was an important figure but he couldn't have said: 'This is what I changed.' He came to prominence on a groundswell that was created by mostly young people acting on the ground. In the early years of the antiwar movement we were all doing organising and writing and speaking and gradually certain people could do certain things more easily and effectively, so I pretty much dropped out of organising – I thought the teaching and writing was more effective. Others, friends of mine, did the opposite. But they're not less influential. Just not known."
In the cavernous Friends' House, the last words of his speech are: "Unless the powerful are capable of learning to respect the dignity of their victims … impassable barriers will remain, and the world will be doomed to violence, cruelty and bitter suffering." It's a gloomy coda, but he leaves to a standing ovation.
• This article was amended on 23 March 2013 to clarify the sentence that refers to Chomsky being accused of antisemitism. This article was further amended on 24 March 2013. An incorrect reference to Chomsky having been called "America's most prominent self-hating Jew" has been deleted. The error was the result of a quote being misconstrued.