Does The Silence Of The Sinhalese Signal Complicity?

By Raashid Riza –April 15, 2013 

Raashid Riza

There is that scene from Schindler’s List which had a profound impact on me. I had forgotten about it, I never knew it existed, except that it has lain somewhere in the fibre of my brain, dormant, latent, waiting for the opportune moment for it to be of use. The state of Muslims in Sri Lanka is changing, it is perilous, getting graver with each rising of the sun, and suddenly this scene makes a lot of sense. It draws lessons from the attitudes of races and ethnicities and the chemistry between religious communities in Sri Lanka, a chemistry which is at threat of losing its equilibrium.

In the film Ralph Fiennes, playing the character of Amon Goeth, an SS officer, is in his bedroom with a girl. He rises to use the bathroom from where he sees an inmate in the concentration camp taking a break from the heavy painful labour he is being subjected to. As Goeth sees it, he is wasting time, being disobedient. So with the girl still teasing him in the background, he picks up the rifle and shoots him. He then surveys the working landscape from the balcony and walks the few feet back to the room where he and the girl continue to laugh and argue, as if they never had an interlude in which misery was wreaked on another.

For all the details in this scene, it is the image of the girl that recurs – she didn’t kill anyone, she was only an onlooker.

Except she wasn’t. There are no mere onlookers or observers under such circumstances. Inadvertently or not, you are a participant. You contribute to a crime, to someone else’s suffering by inaction, by a silence that spells out consent.

Were the Nazis, the Serbs, the Hutus or Tutsis, the monk-led groups in Myanmar or ironically the Israelis, who are largely descendants of those killed in concentration camps, able to go on the rampage with their killings because of Ralph’s character? No, it was because of people like the girl, the silent majority, who in their silence precipitated the suffering of others.

What then of the situations that we aren’t privy to? That we aren’t as contiguous to, like the girl was contiguous to in that crime?

As a human being, and as a Muslim, my conscience prickles to the murder waiting to happen, of the girl denied her hijab or sari, her jeans or her skirt, being calculated and honed-in for an imminent rape. Of a father fearing for the security of his daughters, bereft of his sons who in distant places toil away for the collective comforts of themselves, their families and their communities. Of the mothers who have lost their sons when they were incarcerated, tortured or killed. Of the numerous wives widowed – or worse, not knowing if they are widowed or not, some only daring to hope.

But do I heed my pricking conscience? Do I do something? No, I choose to be an onlooker, a bystander. Why? In doing something, there is a risk, a risk that my interests may be harmed. I am shackled in a world that entraps me in a suffocating embrace, seducing me with a culture that I cannot liberate myself from, a participant of a club I have to be a member of, spending needlessly and forcing upon me vacations that I justify as mandatory.

I too am aiding to a crime, I let it happen.

There is a fine line here – this is not a call to arms or a veiled threat, nor is it a subscription to the vile Bush-esque dictum “you’re either with us or with the terrorists”. But this is a conscience call, to me, as much as it is to you.

This history of Muslims in Sri Lanka is not just another story of a minority community. Sadly and very inaccurately, the term ‘minority’ is used to describe Sri Lankan Muslims in the same vein as European Muslims are described as minorities. This history of Muslims in Sri Lanka is as old as Islam itself.

Geographically, Sri Lanka previously held a central location in ancient trade routes, and was the traditional resting spot of sailors and merchants who were travelling from the east to the west. Therefore, Arab merchants had been frequenting Sri Lanka long before the advent of Islam in Arabia. With the ideological transformation of Arabia, the same Arabs coming to Sri Lanka were now Muslims, and in addition to marrying local Sinhalese and Tamil women, helped create the Sri Lankan Muslim population on the island.

Unlike their other Muslim ‘minority’ counterparts, the Sri Lankan Muslims bear the exact same physical resemblance to the rest of the Sri Lankan communities and speak the same local tongue. Traditionally, Muslims in Sri Lanka have had the best of relationships with the two other communities in Sri Lanka – the Sinhalese and the Tamils – and have a history spanning well over a millennium.

The Muslims in Sri Lanka are now in a perilous state, a state which they aren’t used to being in following their long history in Sri Lanka. Their shops are being attacked or looted; girls have been harassed on account of wearing the hijab. Racist Buddhist monks in their religious garb, with no regard to the pristine beauty of the teachings of the Gautama Buddha, yawp in derogatory terms, hurling abuse and damaging Muslim-owned properties as the police stand by doing nothing to uphold law and order. The rancid inaction of the police has been attributed by many commentators to be in deference to orders from the highest echelons of the state.  A state contaminated by politicians of the most nefarious ilk, who would benefit from ethnic disturbances just right now to conceal their misgivings, corruption, extra judicial killings, daylight robberies of the state coffers, mass unemployment and the rising costs of living.

The Sinhalese in Sri Lanka are suffering the traumas of a corrupt government and an insipid and emasculated opposition. But the Sinhalese are a cultured people, armed by the virtues of Buddhism, a proud people with a celebrated history of close to three millennia, except that in their midst, like almost every other nation on earth, they have a minority of extremists who would kill, rape and steal, like they did to the Sri Lankan Tamils in July 1983.

Should the situation of the Muslims in Sri Lanka deteriorate, like that of the girl in Schindler’s List, it will be the nonchalance and silence of the decent majority of Sinhalese, imbibed by the salience of Buddhism, be it religious or cultural, that will scream the loudest. By their silence, and by virtue of their inaction, they will incontestably be contributing to a crime. They have a power, a power greater than that of the racist monks that feed the Bodu Bala Sena or the Sinhala Ravaya. They must use it, and they must use it now.

A peaceful vigil conducted a few days ago was hijacked by the Bodu Bala Sena with the connivance of the police. The collective voice of the Sinhalese majority, aided by like-minded Muslims and Tamils, has to make itself heard. Until then, there will be a deathly and eerie silence in which Sri Lanka will be engulfed, much to its peril.

*Raashid Riza is the Politics & Society Editor of The Platform. He tweets on @aufidius. Above article was first published in the www.the-platform.org.uk

Sri Lanka’s racism juggernaut and the war against it

Sri Lanka’s racism juggernaut and the war against it

Dinouk Colombage-15 Apr, 2013

Sri Lankan society is being divided and systematically targeted as the racism juggernaut continues to gain momentum around the country. Minorities face growing persecution with nationalist groups sprouting up and feeding on the insecurities and economic decline of the nation.

The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) was the first organised group to rise up and openly target minorities, namely the Muslims and Evangelicals. As their racist and unopposed crusades continue other more radical groups are forming such as the Sinhala Ravaya, who was credited with the recent attack on the Muslim run Fashion Bug outlet in Pepiliyana.

Last Friday (12) open opposition to the BBS and its offshoot nationalist groups was staged with a candlelit vigil. Unfortunately it was only minutes until state intervention arose on behalf of the nationalists with the arrests and dispersal of the protesters. The police spokesperson, G.M.H.B. Siriwardena, was only able to say that the protesters had not acquired the proper approval to stage a gathering and as such the police had been forced to take action.

The Bodu Bala Sena has another story as the “venerable” Saravasiri explained that they had called the police as the protesters were allegedly singing a new national anthem and as such should be branded as traitors to the nation and arrested. He then went on to explain that had the protesters called for discussions ahead of holding a public demonstration, the BBS would have welcomed them. He added that they were forced to call the police when they learnt that Muslims were also taking part in the demonstration.

While opposition from the group to this vigil was expected, the efficient display by the police in cracking down on such a demonstration begs the question as to who they supported. Police on the scene explained that they were acting in response to a complaint made against the protesters. Incidentally, the protest was planned for 7pm and it was by 7.15pm that the police had arrived and were in the process of making arrests.

While the argument would be made in favour of the efficiency of the police in responding to a complaint, the question must then be posed as to why they have failed to take action on the numerous occasions that these nationalist groups have attacked shops and mosques. The police spokesperson defended their actions saying they were within the law as those organising the vigil had not got a permit. However, he was unable to confirm whether or not BBS or any other of the nationalist groups had acquired permits before demonstrating and subsequently attacking Muslim owned shops.

While it is becoming clear that opposition to the rising nationalism in Sri Lanka is facing barriers from both the state and the nationalists themselves, the need for opposition is great. Friday’s incident was just a brief insight in to the growing influence the nationalist groups hold in the country.

Those who turned up for the vigil on Friday should be applauded but also reminded that it is not over while others must be encouraged to join the cause. BBS and other such nationalist groups, with the assistance of those under the guise of saffron robed monks, are spreading nationalist sentiment far and wide. Misinformation, propaganda and intimidation are tools of their trade.

However, those who wish to promote the idea of a diverse society will need to take an immediate stand. This can only be done through the reinforming of those around them about the dangers of such a rise in nationalism. While the nationalists claim certain actions by minority groups are holding the country back from prospering, it is ironically the growing racial tension that is the cause.

Economically, internationally and culturally Sri Lanka has only to lose if this rising racism continues to go unabated. Those who are considered Sri Lanka’s allies will distance themselves, while critics of the country will only have more fuel to add to the fire. Sri Lanka’s economy is as much driven by the minorities as it is by the Sinhalese, a shift in this balance will only serve to deplete an already weakened economic situation. While culturally Sri Lanka has prided itself on a diverse society, the racial conflict can only disperse what is now becoming a false notion.

While vigils such as the one on Friday are necessary, they will need to be boosted with the assistance of members of the clergy. Religion is pivotal in influencing the trend of thought of Sri Lankan society; as such it will be necessary to ensure a united front both religiously and racially in opposing the nationalists.

Sri Lanka now faces an uphill task in dislodging the racist sentiment that is slowly creeping in to society. However, it is clear that if the country wishes to prosper, racial unity and diversity is a must. The United States was only truly considered a world superpower once it had broken down the racial barriers that left its society divided and conflicted. Similarly Sri Lanka’s bid to become a post-war success story can only be accomplished once these barriers are removed.

No Indian fishermen arrested: Sri Lankan Navy

 PTI-April 14, 2013

Sri Lankan Navy on Sunday denied the arrest of nine Indian fishermen hailing from Pudukottai district in Tamil Nadu, as reported in the Indian media.

"We have not arrested any Indian fishermen anywhere", Commander Kosala Warnakulasuriya, the naval spokesman said. Indian media had reported that nine fishermen were arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy when they were fishing mid-sea.

The incident comes two days after Sri Lanka freed 19 Indian fishermen arrested last month, following a court order.

Early this month, some 56 fishermen had been arrested on two separate occasions by the Sri Lankan Navy on charges of poaching in Sri Lanka's international maritime limits.

A Sri Lankan court has extended the remand of the 26 fishermen from Karaikal upto April 19 while the case relating to the arrest of 30 fishermen from Rameswaram on April 6 has been been posted for hearing on April 18.

Also, on April 12, six fishermen, who ventured into the sea from Karaikal were injured when they were allegedly attacked by Sri Lankan naval men off Kodiakarai coast.

Two young women raped by six men

SUNDAY, 14 APRIL 2013 

Two suspects have been arrested by police regarding an incident where two young women were raped by six men at the bund at Deduruoya project in Mahawa Police Division say reports.

The two young women of 16 and 20 are sisters residing at Kobaigana and have been raped first by their lovers. Later, four others who had come to the site too have raped the young women.

Mahawa Police have commenced investigations to apprehend the other four suspects. The two young women have been admitted to Kurunegala Hospital.

Political Machinations: A Prime Minister Without Any Stakes

By Rajiva Wijesinha -April 15, 2013

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Much energy has been expended in recent months in speculation as to whether we will soon have a new Prime Minister, and if so, who it will be. I was confidently told by an opposition Member of Parliament that 7 Ministers had applied in writing for the post, and opposition papers are having a field day in declaring that senior members of the SLFP are disaffected because their claims might be ignored.

All this speculation is destructive, not least because those about whom there is speculation feel both that they must defend themselves against allegations of untoward ambitions, and also against the possible untoward ambitions of others. Thus opposition politicians and media outlets will in fact contribute to fulfillment of the prophecies they make.

What is not taken into account in all this is that such speculation is inappropriate when there is no impending vacancy in the position of President. Given that the post of Prime Minister carries little power, there is no reason for anyone to want that appointment. Though it is true that both Ranasinghe Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksa did much as Prime Minister, they would have done the same without such a position. Conversely, the only person who succeded to the Presidency by virtue of being Prime Minister was D B Wijetunge, and he did nothing of any significance in that position.

I could understand there being frenetic anxiety now for the position of Prime Minister had we not had the 18th Amendment, but since that was supposed to put paid to the lame duck syndrome, it is unfortunate that speculation still continues, and in the process weakens the Presidency. One reason I thought the removal of term limits, which is generally not a good idea, acceptable in the Sri Lankan context is that I had seen what happened to Chandrika Kumaratunga towards the end of her second term. Indeed I was told by a shrewd political commentator around 2004, when I had been impressed by her courage in dealing with the harassment she faced as President when the opposing party was in power, that there was no point in wondering what she might do, for she was history.

Aided and abetted by the absurdities of the limits of her second Presidential term, and also I feel by her adverse reaction to the work of the Prime Minister with regard to tsunami relief while she was away, she ended up achieving nothing in the truncated period she had following the 2004 election that once again gave her a majority. My fear now is that, despite the relief provided by the 18th amendment, that should have stopped speculation about the succession, the same may happen to the present President if he does not firmly assert his authority for the rest of his Presidential term.

Unfortunately, though I am sure that he hopes the current Prime Minister will fulfil that role for the foreseeable future, the latter’s health will inevitably ensure that speculation continues. And while one hopes that he will continue to serve in Parliament for the rest of his current term, it is not fair either on so loyal and effective a servant of the SLFP in his day, nor on the country, that the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka is not in a position to contribute to policy or to decisions.
Even though this may suggest that the position is redundant, and certainly I personally believe we should move to an American style Presidential system with no necessary linkage between the Executive and those elected to the Legislature, while we have such a position in our Constitution, it should exercise influence and authority. Since this is not possible now, it would make sense for the President, as happened with the previous Prime Minister, to make a change while ensuring respect for those who had held such high office.

In making any fresh appointment, the President must of course ensure that he avoids controversy. It would be inappropriate to appoint a member of his family, and I am sure they would not want this, given the difficulties it would cause the President. The work of the Secretary of Defence over the last several years shows that one can achieve much through an executive position without involvement in the legislature or in political activity. I am sorry then that our Constitution does not permit greater use of outstanding capacities in similar positions, without piling on political responsibilities and the need to nurse potential voters and vote getters too.

What we would need then is a neutral personality, and it might be best for the President, given current speculation about problems within the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, and the looming shadow of his predecessor, if he were to appoint one or other of the senior members of the SLFP. To me they have the added advantage of having made it clear that they stand unequivocally for a pluralistic society, and giving them a platform from which they can enunciate this ideal clearly and productively would do much to overcome the current gathering resentment of minorities against the government.

If however it is felt that the position of Prime Minister might give any individual undue advantage in seeking a Presidential nomination at some stage, far in the future though this will be, it would make sense to appoint someone with no claim at all to becoming the SLFP candidate for the Presidency. Certainly we have two capable politicians in harness still who also command international credibility beyond any other member of the cabinet.

I refer to Sarath Amunugama and D E W Gunasekara, who both also command the confidence of the President as the responsibilities he has entrusted to them over the last year indicate, despite their having been made Senior Ministers. And there is also a third individual who, while still engaged in active electoral politics, has recently made clear his commitment to pluralism, even while he commands the confidence of a nationalist constituency. I refer to Dinesh Gunawardena, who again is no threat to any other contenders for future promotion because he belongs to another party, but who can command both national and international confidence.

Though it may seem that doing nothing is the best recourse now, I do not think that, with speculation increasing and corroding trust, the President can afford to wait much longer. A clear assertion that he will continue in office without any change in the constitution, and that he will be the Presidential candidate of his party when the next election is held – I hope not earlier than 2016 – will help the country move forward, along with a new Prime Minister who can relieve the President of some of the burdens of policy making and implementation.

New Year’s celebrations in Jaffna

14 April 2013 The Sri Lankan military “celebrated” the Tamil and Singhalese new year by organising a festival for Tamil civilians in Iyakkachchi near Elephant Pass. Although the region is nearly exclusively Tamil, the Army reported that “a range of Sinhala and Hindu traditional sports had been organized for civilians”. According to the army-run Civil Military Coordination website, local people “really enjoyed the programme”. “People in Iyakkachchi and surrounding areas, especially young crowd, had fun dancing and singing to the tune of the 12th Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment beat group who sang popular Sinhala, Tamil and English songs for the entertainment of the crowd.” the website reported.

ASIA: Professional independence of judges and lawyers central to the protection and promotion of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Asia

April 15, 2013

The following is a statement issued by a group of Asian jurists, who met from 9-11 April in Bangkok, to discuss about threats to professional freedom of lawyers and the independence of the judiciary in Asia. Jurists from Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, and Hong Kong attended the consultation. The Asian Human Rights Commission along with the Lawyers' Collective of Sri Lanka organised the consultation.

On 11 April 2013, the Government of Bangladesh arrested the Interim Editor of a Bangla daily, Daily Amardesh, Mr. Mahmudur Rahman. When the police produced Rahman before the Dhaka Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, he reportedly said: I know well that if I appoint any lawyer, he or she will submit prayers for my bail and cancellation of the remand prayer foolishly. The court will act on whatever decision comes from the government.

This statement and its insight concerning the absence of judicial independence are unfortunately resonated in most of Asia. The public perception in Asia is that, in matters where the government is keen in persecuting a person, the government dictates the courts to be biased in favour of the executive, and hence the courts cannot act independently.

The expectation, that the judiciary is to act independently and impartially at all circumstances, has eroded in most of Asia. This has led to a distrustful outlook about judicial independence in Asia. The spread of such a viewpoint is the reflection of massive changes that have already taken place or of conditions that have not improved in Asia, that poses serious threats to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law itself in the region.

The participants expressed serious concern about the threats to the judiciary, arising from different sources and sometimes reflected by the internal changes within the judiciary itself. The unanimous view of all the participants is that, the independence of the judiciary must be taken up as a major concern in Asia, and that it must be reflected in the interventions by the international community, including the United Nations in its efforts that are undertaken to promote and to protect human rights in Asia. Protection of human rights is seriously undermined and threatened, when citizens cannot expect their courts to act independently, and to guarantee individual rights.

Concern about the absence of adequate protection for judges, lawyers, and litigants was a major sentiment expressed throughout this consultation. The participants felt that, a citizen commencing the path of seeking justice through courts, is exposed to serious threats to his or her life, liberties and to property. A citizen also has to take into consideration the threats that lawyers themselves are being exposed to, and the possible unwarranted influences that may affect the judiciary from acting independently.

Many examples of threats were cited; faced by lawyers, judges and often litigants and witnesses, when they resort to litigation.

The following is a list of concerns expressed by the participants: (i) threat of disenrollment of lawyers; (ii) actions of contempt of court against litigants and lawyers; (iii) attempted abduction of lawyers, witnesses and litigants; (iv) absence of investigation by the police on complaints of threats and intimidation of lawyers and litigants; (v) fabrication of criminal charges against lawyers, litigants and witnesses; (vi) illegal arrest and custodial torture of lawyers, litigants and witnesses, in which, often even on complaints, courts are unable or unwilling to promptly intervene; (vii) close surveillance by state agencies of lawyers, judges and litigants, that violates privacy and privilege of professional communications; (viii) lawyers who are employed in government as well as private sectors restricted from freely exercising professional freedom; (ix) organised vilification campaigns of lawyers and judges by state and non-state actors; (x) intimidation of judges by arbitrarily transferring them repeatedly or promoting judges tainted with corruption overlooking seniority; (xi) internal as well as international travel restrictions imposed upon lawyers.

The above list is not exhaustive. Lawyers who dare to challenge the smothering of professional freedom risk the loss of practice and income.

Analysing a recent example, extensive discussions were held on the impeachment of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. The Government of Sri Lanka abruptly removed Justice Bandaranayake from service, when a Supreme Court Bench led by her delivered judgments that were unfavourable to the government. The illegal removal of the Chief Justice from office, without adhering to universally approved fair trial guarantees, itself is a stark expression of the threats that the judiciary is exposed to while trying to discharge their duties independently. The dismissal of the Chief Justice also strongly indicates selection processes, where persons willing to sacrifice the independence of the judiciary in favour of the executive, are preferred by the government in such designations.

The participants highlighted the centrality of the independence of the judiciary to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights. Efforts to promote the rule of law and democracy are inseparable from judicial independence in Asia. Fundamental to this is the elimination of all threats against the exercise of professional independence of the judiciary.

It must be restated, that the role of the magistrate, is to protect the individual from undue interferences from the executive. This mandate is seriously undermined when the executive makes all efforts to subjugate magistracy to its administrative writ.

Lawyers are officers of the court. Threats to lawyers are threats to the independent operation of the judiciary. When the executive prevents, the possibility of citizens with grievances against the executive seeking redress through courts, the very notion of the separation of powers is jeopardised and negated.

The executive, to undermine judicial independence, denies the judiciary adequate resources. In all Asian states, there are serious complaints, from the judiciary and the general public, that necessary budgetary allocations are not provided to judicial institutions. This has hampered seriously the efficiency of these institutions. In India for instance, this has led to delays in adjudication, that a case today takes more than a decade to complete, rendering the concept of justice itself a misnomer.

The participants further expressed serious concerns about judicial corruption and accountability. In most Asian states, the judges face serious allegations of corruption. In Bangladesh for instance, judges openly demand and receive bribes. In most of Asia, an independent oversight mechanism that could investigate into judicial corruption does not exist. Often judges themselves prevent the creation of such an institution.

The participants affirmed that in Asia, judicial independence as a subject of discussion is to be brought to the forefront of national, regional, and international debates. This, the participants confirmed is the most urgent requirement, without which all discussions about protection and promotion of human rights, on prevention of corruption, and on democracy and the rule of law would be meaningless. The participants urged that the international community, including the United Nations -- particularly its human rights mechanisms -- should prioritise the need to protect the rights of the people to seek judicial protection and to obtain it within a framework of justice and fairness.

The participants reiterated that if there is failure in ensuring judicial independence in Asia, then, much of the global efforts to promote the rule of law, democracy, and human rights in Asia will not render any practical and tangible results. Without a concentrated effort to ensure judicial independence, the participants expressed fear, that the people living in states where the judiciary does not enjoy the independent status it disserves, will continue facing huge stumbling blocks in the realisation of universally accepted fundamental human rights guarantees, most importantly of dignity, equality and freedom.

The participants urged that the international community, including the United Nations, should acquire adequate knowledge about the threats posed to the independence of the judiciary and to the lawyers in Asia. The participants further reiterated their concern, that today, the issue is not adequately addressed regionally and internationally, and called upon the states and all other international as well as regional entities, having their influence in Asia, to develop bilateral policies with Asian states where threats to judicial independence is considered as a matter of utmost urgency.

The participants emphasised, that there is much to be done, by Asian lawyers and judges, in order to promote their own concerns about professional independence. The participants affirmed that more discussions like the one held at Bangkok need to take place within domestic jurisdictions. They urged, that to realise this, Asian jurists should come together, and pursue the development of the institution of justice as a common cause in Asia.

The participants reiterated that it is the duty of Asian jurists to demand policy changes from their governments, so that states give priority to the advancement of justice and to the development of domestic institutions' capacities to deliver justice. The participants are unanimously of the opinion that towards the above end, a network of lawyers and judges - siting and/or retired - should be developed in Asia. This network should lead the way to bring the discussion of independence of judges and lawyers to the forefront.

As a matter of priority, this network should develop capacities to assist lawyers and judges who face threats. Each case of threat to professional freedom needs to be expeditiously documented and shared with others within the country as well as internationally. With adequate utilisation of modern communication facilities, such sharing of information could be done without incurring exorbitant costs. Towards this, lawyers must be trained to document the treats they face, meticulously and with the greatest possible details.

The practice of such documentation and dissemination of information is inadequate in Asia so far. The participants opined, that the quality of the documentation and its widest possible dissemination seeking interventions, whenever professional independence of either the judiciary or that of the lawyers are under attack, could be a game changer to the existing conditions dominated by fear and isolation in Asia. Besides, practical steps should be developed to assist persons facing threats, for instance, by ensuring protection of lawyers and judges under threat by safe relocation, whenever necessary.

The participants agreed to take active part in the development of this network for protection of independence of the judiciary and that of the lawyers.

Video: Sinhala Nationalism, Tamil Nationalism And Military Triumphalism – Interview With Nirmala Rajasingam

By Colombo Telegraph -April 15, 2013 

Nirmala Rajasingam, founder of the Sri Lanka Democracy Forum and who is based in the United Kingdom speaks to Newsclick about the challenges faced by the civil society and democracy activists in Sri Lanka.

22nd Prime Minister Of Aussie Wants Julia To Reconsider CHOGM 2013 In Sri Lanka

By Colombo Telegraph -April 14, 2013 

Malcolm Fraser, the 22nd Prime Minister of Australia has endorsed the petition for Commonwealth Summit in Australia- Reconsider attending CHOGM 2013 in Sri Lanka launched jointly by Australian Tamil Congress and Sri Lanka campaign for peace and justice. 

Malcolm Fraser -Former Australian Prime Minister

The petition “Petitioning Hon Julia Gillard - Prime Minister: Reconsider CHOGM 2013 in Sri Lanka” says;

Dear Prime Minister,

We urge you to reconsider Australia’s decision to attend CHOGM 2013 in Sri Lanka.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meets in less than a month (April 26). The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) is in less than nine months. It is due to be held in a country where a brutal tyrannical regime continues to commit acts of murder, torture, and rape – while ignoring the core values of the Commonwealth. People are looking to you for leadership.

We appeal to you to follow the example of your Canadian colleague Prime Minister Stephen Harper and announce that you will not attend if you do not see progress in Sri Lanka in terms of human rights and that you will push for CHOGM to be moved or postponed.

The petitioners say; “The Human Rights Council has once again condemned Sri Lanka’s human rights record, this time in even more damning terms. This is great news for everyone who cares about Sri Lanka – but to turn it into meaningful action we need your help.

So in the next month we need our leaders to show leadership, and show the Commonwealth that it must not be business as usual.

They can do this by following the Canadian Prime Minister’s example and announcing that if the summit goes ahead in Sri Lanka, without an improvement in the human rights situation there, then they will not attend.

This is the most effective way we can put the pressure on the Commonwealth to act.

Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Geoffrey Robertson QC, the Royal Commonwealth society President Peter Kellner, Bloomberg, The Age,  the Washington Post, the Guardian, prominent Caribbean diplomat Sir Ronald Saunders, David Milliband, Malcolm Rifkind, Ricken Patel (the founder of Avaaz), Amnesty International,the International Commission of Jurors, Forum Asia, the Asian Legal Resource Centre, Civicus, the Commonwealth Journalists Association, the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, the Human Rights Law Centre (Australia), Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, the International Federation for Human Rights, Minority Rights Group International, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and a number of Sri Lankan NGOs have all expressed grave concerns about the human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and the summit being held there. “

The petition has been endorsed by:

* Professor Raj Rajeswaran, Chairman, Australian Tamil Congress

* Hon Malcolm Fraser, Former Australian Prime Minister

* Lee Rhiannon, Senator, The Australian Greens

* David Shoebridge, Member of the NSW Legislative Council, The Greens

* Colleen Hartland, Member of the Victorian Legislative Council, The Greens

* Bruce Haigh, Former Australian Deputy High Commissioner in Sri Lanka

* Professor Jake Lynch, Director, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, The University of Sydney

* Professor Damien Kingsbury, Director, Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human RightsFaculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University

* Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees AM, Director, Sydney Peace Foundation

* Antony Loewenstein, Independent journalist and author

* Professor Wendy Bacon, Australian academic and investigative journalist

Click here to see the petition

Foreign policy outsourced at Rs. 500,000 a day

• Sunday, April 14, 2013
• Peiris denies any change in policy towards US and its resolution; but Central Bank and embassy in Washington hire lobbying firms to woo Obama
• US ambassador Sison in a tough speech, insists on reconciliation and accountability; but Gota hits back, saying she is not governor of Sri Lanka

By Our Political Editor

Notwithstanding a campaign to bring about a change of heart by the Obama administration towards Sri Lanka, costing the taxpayer Rs. 15 million a month, the UPFA Government will not change its official policy towards the United States. Or so it seems.

A strong assertion came from External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris on Tuesday. “I wish to state emphatically that there is no change of Government policy towards the US. We do not concur with their (latest UN Human Rights Council) Resolution and our representatives in Geneva distanced Sri Lanka very clearly from its contents,” he told Parliament. He said the Government “rejects this resolution because it has been the most powerful catalyst for dissension, discord and even violence.” An extension of the remarks would mean the External Affairs Minister is complaining that the US is destabilising Sri Lanka.

U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Michele Sison speaks at the Foreign Correspondents' Association meeting in Colombo. REUTERS

His statement came after Opposition United National Party Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe asked whether the Government has “signalled a desire to broaden the relationship with the United States.” He referred to the recent article by Jaliya Wickremesuriya, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the United States, to a Congressional website (and reproduced in these columns) and opined that it was in concert with provisions of the second US resolution passed in Geneva by the UN Human Rights Council. He quoted Ambassador Wickremesuriya as saying “we agree that whilst much has been done, more needs to be done.” Wickremesinghe declared “this has not been contradicted to date and therefore can be accepted as reflecting the official government position.” He pointed out that Ambassador Wickremesuriya had said that “commitment is not just to democracy, but also to respecting rule of law and the principles of sovereignty.”

This, Wickremesinghe revealed, was in accordance with Item 3 of the Resolution which calls upon the Government to implement the recommendations of the LLRC. The provision, he said, reads “welcoming and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining, resettling the majority of internally displaced persons, and noting nonetheless that considerable work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation and resumption of livelihoods, and stressing the importance of the full participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts.”

Whilst arguing that Ambassador Wickremesuriya’s remarks in the article amounts to accepting the resolution adopted in Geneva, the Opposition Leader wanted to know where “anticipated talks will take place” between the US and Sri Lanka. He also wanted to know whether the Government would consult the stakeholders before proceeding. “Will the discussions be confined to the US Government or include India, the United Kingdom and the other countries that voted for the resolution,” he asked.

Being the senior and well-informed politician that he is, Wickremesinghe knew all too well that no Colombo-Washington talks were imminent. It is clear his strategy was to seek an official response on who speaks for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and more importantly what their confines were. As expected, Peiris responded making clear “no talks are anticipated” since there was no policy change towards the US. Needless to say a few professionals in Peiris’s own Ministry challenged the wisdom of going public with remarks suggesting relations with a particular country would remain bad. “Whether such a country is big or small is immaterial.

In the past we have not made such negative public declarations,” said one speaking on grounds of anonymity. The External Affairs Minister said the important reasons why Sri Lanka did not accept the second US resolution were two factors. One was asking the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to present an oral report to the Council in September and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion in March next year. “That is one of the most important objectives that had been achieved by the Resolution. The Government of Sri Lanka does not accept this position; it never has, it never will.” Peiris said in a letter early this year to Foreign Ministers of member countries of the UN Human Rights Council, “Just as the Government of Sri Lanka did not recognise the last HRC resolution, it rejects the new resolution.”

UNP MPs Ruwan Wijewardena (C) and Dr. Harsha de Silva (R) at a media briefing held at the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union auditorium, accused the Govt. of doublespeak in its dealings with the U.S. govt. Pic Athula Devapriya

During both the March 2012 and March 2013 UN Human Rights Council sessions Peiris did not speak. He attended the first event in Geneva but did not go this year. Delegation leader Mahinda Samarasinghe, President’s Special Envoy on human rights, during his speech in 2012 did protest over the resolution. However, during his speech at the main segment he briefed the Council on what aspects of the Resolution were being implemented and what remains to be done. In other words, whilst disagreeing, Sri Lanka did explain that concerns listed in the Resolution were being addressed. During the last sessions in March this year, Samarasinghe re-iterated the same position though he strongly criticised UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay, making some personal accusations too.

Even if Minister Peiris quite boldly asserted some aspects of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in Parliament, he seems totally helpless over others. In the alternative, he has chosen to remain silent over them. That is the moonlighting by other important Government personalities. They are not only evolving their own new foreign policy initiatives for Sri Lanka but also tying up thousands of dollars or millions of rupees in taxpayer’s money to promote them. In fact Opposition Leader Wickremesinghe’s brief statement in Parliament seeking a clarification on Sri Lanka’s policy towards the US was borne out of this fact. His question followed Ambassador Wickremesuriya’s call for Sri Lanka’s inclusion in a “US pivot” that was to checkmate the emergence of China as a regional power. It has now come to light that US Secretary of State John Kerry too is sceptical of the move. He made this position clear at his Congressional hearing when he said he was uncomfortable with the Administration’s “pivot to Asia” and declared this was either unnecessary or unwise.

Ahead of Wickremesinghe raising issue, a larger thrust of the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington DC has been on the Sri Lankan community living in that country. Other than that, some news releases have reflected foreign policy perceptions not consonant with those propounded by the External Affairs Ministry. These are besides claims that it has secured enormous foreign investment in Sri Lanka from the US in press releases distributed to the local media.

The Sunday Times can reveal today that Ambassador Wickremesuriya has signed (on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka) an agreement with the lobbying firm Majority Group for US$ 50,000 or Rs, 6,300,000 a month to, among other matters, lobby the US Government to change its attitude towards Sri Lanka. It will also lobby Congressmen and Senators to reach out to President Barack Obama. US law requires that such agreements are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act within three months after an agreement is signed. As exclusively revealed in these columns last week, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has already entered into a similar agreement with the US lobbying firm Thompson Advisory Group LLC for US$ 66,600 (Rs. 8,337,600) a month.

Added together, the two lobbying firms would have to be paid a monthly fee of US$ 116,600 or more than Rs. 14.8 million in this exercise of outsourcing diplomacy when it should remain the sovereign responsibility of the state. Of the 58 Sri Lanka diplomatic missions overseas, the one in Washington is the costliest in operational terms. The payment to the two lobbying firms, a source familiar with the subject said, was roughly 50 per cent of the cost of running the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington DC. A Ministerial source said yesterday these deals had been worked out without any Cabinet approval or the formal consent of the Ministry of External Affairs.

The Thompson Advisory Group is now busy preparing a programme for Central Bank Governor Nivard Cabraal who will arrive in Washington DC on April 19. Sarath Amunugama, Minister of International Monetary Co-operation, is also due in the US capital on April 16. They are attending the joint World Bank-IMF Development Committee meeting.

Last week, the Sunday Times (Political Commentary) reported that TAG, the US lobbying firm, was recommended to Sri Lankan officials by an expatriate Lankan who is operating a limousine service in Maryland, Washington DC. Among his clients is said to be the head of TAG, Robert J. Thompson, our report said. This week, the widely accessed US website Politico reported that “In a recent FARA filing, Thompson Advisory Group listed a limousine driver as a consultant to the firm.

Thilak Mohan Siriwardena is being paid $ 7000 (over Rs. 889,000) per month on a contract with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. He is also registered for “hire-driver” in Maryland. Multiple calls and e-mails this week and last week to Thompson Advisory Group went unanswered about the nature of the contract�..” The Sunday Times inquiries in Washington DC revealed that Siriwardena holds official Badge No: 48258 valid till February 28 2016. The carrier number allotted to him is 4182 and the website for his hire service is

http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/Transport/forhiredriver_new.cfm?var=S . It is not immediately clear what form of consultancy Siriwardena is offering the TAG.

Some foreign governments as well as voluntary bodies do obtain the services of Washington based lobbying firms to undertake special tasks. For example, a Caribbean country sought the help of a firm to promote its tourism. Friends of Earth, a Canada based group hired a lobbying firm to lobby against a 2000 mile long pipeline from Alberta in Canada to Texas in the US in what came to be known as the Keystone project. The purposes are clearly focused on a particular subject. Moreover, in the case of foreign governments, the relevant ministry gets involved in the tie-up with the lobbying firms. In the two latest instances, Sri Lanka’s case is unique. One has been initiated by Ambassador Wickremesuriya with The Majority Group. Another has been initiated by Central Bank Governor Cabraal with Thompson Advisory Group. Though these are on matters that are foreign-policy related, neither was the External Affairs Ministry consulted nor was prior Cabinet approval obtained. An extension of the logic of hiring lobbying firms in the US would mean that other influential UPFA personalities heading a government body could easily tie up with a firm to promote their perceived interests. It goes without saying that sidekicks in some part of the world would receive monthly commissions in these deals.

Peiris’ statement in Parliament on Tuesday assumed greater significance for many other reasons as well. As he made his speech, he occasionally looked at the Speaker’s Gallery where eight members of a visiting Indian parliamentary delegation were seated. Since India voted for the US backed resolution, there was in fact a message for New Delhi too. In some informed Indian quarters, Peiris’ remarks were to create confusion. It was coming amidst reports that the Rajapaksa administration now wanted to restore normal relations with India and the US. After the Geneva event, diplomatic initiatives at the highest levels have been made from Colombo to New Delhi to repair ties.

However, developments this week led to fears that ties both with Washington and New Delhi would remain strained, at least for the time being. This is whilst some parliamentarians of the main opposition United National Party (UNP) opined that Government was trying to follow its own brand of “two track” diplomacy with the US. One was being publicly critical of Washington whilst secretly taking various initiatives towards rapprochement. The hiring of lobbying firms was one such exercise, they contend. They believe that the domestic political fallout from a publicised move to build good relations with the US would hurt Government allies and anger sections of their support base, particularly trade unions.

A more significant reason came in the form of Peiris providing the answers to some issues raised by US Ambassador Michele Sison on Monday, a day ahead of his response in Parliament. In an address to the Foreign Correspondents Association in Colombo, a speech that was widely publicised by news agencies overseas, Sison Spoke “about the next steps for US engagement with Sri Lanka”. This was in the aftermath of the second US-backed resolution at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last month.

She said the “2012 resolution simply asked the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its own commitments to its people from its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report, and to meet its own international obligations.” A few months after the 2012 resolution, she said, “the Government of Sri Lanka took the positive step of releasing a National Action Plan to implement its commitments regarding the recommendations of the LLRC report.” Ambassador Sison said, “unfortunately, the National Action Plan did not cover all the recommendations of the LLRC, just as the LLRC recommendations did not address all the outstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability.”

At the beginning of 2013, she said “the US consulted widely with other countries. We found a broad consensus that the international community should remain focused on the situation in Sri Lanka. Many countries shared concerns about the pace of reconciliation and accountability.”

The US Ambassador said some had asked her what the US meant when it spoke of “reconciliation” or “accountability.” She explained, “When we say reconciliation, we mean finding a way for all Sri Lankans to live together in peace, harmony, and security in a unified country��..a country in which the democratic space exists for all to be able to express their views freely, and for all to share in the prosperity of the country in terms of access to land, employment, education, and so forth. When we say accountability, we mean, identifying those responsible for committing abuses and imposing consequences for these acts or omissions.” She noted that some form of credible investigation is in the interest of the Government concerned. “For when there are serious allegations of human rights violations — whether a government likes it or not — those allegations will persist until they are credibly addressed,” she said.
What happens next, she said, depends on the Government of Sri Lanka. “As we examine next steps, we will renew our consideration of all mechanisms available, both in the Human Rights Council and beyond,” she said.

The US Ambassador cautioned that calls “for reconciliation and accountability should not simply be seen as exhortations by the international community — reconciliation and accountability should be viewed as essential to ensuring a peaceful and prosperous future for the country.”

Among the other significant points made by her:

• = The United States has raised other concerns recently, as well, including dismay over the process that led to the impeachment of the Chief Justice and what that means for a free and independent judiciary in Sri Lanka. And just this weekend, we saw that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and others raised concerns about the announcement of a significant number of transfers of judges and magistrates by the Judicial Service Commission.
• = The March 21 Geneva United Nations Human Rights Council resolution also cited concern about discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. Against this backdrop, the United States, along with many Sri Lankan citizens, is alarmed by the recent attacks on Muslim businesses and certain inflammatory calls to action. This type of hateful sentiment must not be allowed to fester.

A remark that was to spark concerns in Government circles was one where Ambassador Sison said “History has shown us that societies that do not adequately address reconciliation and accountability usually return to a conflict situation at some point down the road.” She added, “Thus, however, difficult the process is, it is ultimately vital to the stability of Sri Lanka.”

It was to draw an angry retort from one senior member of the Rajapaksa government — Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He asked whether it was correct for a foreign diplomat to predict another war in Sri Lanka, and that the job of an ambassador was to strengthen relations between two countries not to ruin them by giving lessons in good governance in the host country. Sri Lanka was not a colony of America; nor was the ambassador a governor representing President Obama. He told the Sunday Times “the President (Mahinda Rajapaksa) was responsible to the people of this country, not to America”, and that his international obligations are only part of his responsibilities. “His larger responsibility is to the people of Sri Lanka”, he said.

Two UNP MPs gave a news conference on Thursday to speak on Ambassador Wickremasuriya’s controversial article as well as the deals with US lobbying companies. Gampaha District Parliametarian Ruwan Wijewardene said: “The Government’s failed foreign policy is bringing disrepute to the country. Our leader asked in Parliament from External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris whether the Government has changed its policy towards United States and wants to hold talks with them. He replied that there was no change and they do not hope to talk to the US government. The Sri Lanka Government (Central Bank) has contracted the US based Thompson Advisory group for a monthly payment of Rs. 8.3 million to build closer relations with the US government.

“G.L. Peiris says the Government is rejecting the US, but from the rear door they are trying to restore good relations. This is public money they are spending. They tell one thing to the public. They say the Government will not allow the US to get involved in Sri Lanka’s affairs. On the other hand they woo the US. This shows that the Government does not have a proper foreign policy. This also show that they are misleading the public.”

National List UNP Parliamentarian Harsha de Silva said: “I want to draw attention to an important issue. On April 9, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, raised a question in Parliament whether there is a change in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. The Government rejected the resolution moved by the US, but Ambassador Jaliya Wickremasooriya says something contradicting this. He said the Government wanted to build a new relationship with the US. G L Peiris says that ‘We do not concur with the US Resolution.’ Now attempts are being made to ‘shape up’ things. The Central Bank too gets involved in it. This is the contract with the Thompson Advisory Group. The Group has promised to do various things including to persuade Senators and Congressmen to speak to President Obama.”
US Ambassador Sison says the next move depends on the Government of Sri Lanka and reminds Colombo that the US will consider “all mechanisms available, both in the Human Rights Council and beyond.”

Peiris has now answered the question by explaining the Government’s move. His message to Washington is that there is no policy change and Sri Lanka does not accept the provisions of the US resolution. The ball is now in the Obama Administration’s court.
Yet, there is a lot to what Peiris did not tell Parliament. Until now, two US lobbying firms have been hired to canvas the US Government to change its mind towards Sri Lanka.

This is costing the Sri Lankan tax payer half a million rupees every day. If he is unable to, someone in authority in the UPFA Government should explain why public funds are being wasted for outsourcing Sri Lanka’s diplomacy in the United States. Or is it something that should remain a public secret until there is a US change of heart. Such an event is highly unlikely since the two resolutions will not simply fade away. Two opposition parliamentarians have already raised issue. The question is whether it would go into the limbo of forgotten issues like all others.