Valikamam North people stage protest against land acquisition - Police warned Suresh Premachchandran

[ Monday, 29 April 2013, 09:26.51 AM GMT +05:30 ]

Protest staged infront of Thelipalai divisional seriate this morning against the Land acquisition in Valikamam North .

Tamil National Alliance parliamentarians Mawai Senadhiraja, C.Sridharan, Sumandhiran , General Secretary of the Tamil United Liberation Front Aandasangaree, members of the Tamil National Front Gajendran, Baskara, Chairman of the Valikamam North divisional secretary Sugirdhan and civilians were also present at this protest. This protest commenced at 7.00 am this morning. During the time of protest large amount of police personals present at the protest and provided special security for protesters. People were disappointed over this tight security and decided to enter the divisional secretary compound at 11.00 am this morning. However police officials stopped them from entering the compound. Later on protesters marched through the KKS road to their lands in the high security zone. Police warned Suresh Premachchandran. Police officials issued arrest warning against TNA parliamentarian Suresh Premachchandran when he tried to march up to the peoples land in the high security zone. Thousands of people present at this protest and raised voice against the Lankan government. This protest continued till 12.00 pm this afternoon.

Sri Lanka Belongs To The Sinhala Buddhists And Sarath Fonseka For The Presidency

By Rajiva Wijesinha -April 29, 2013 

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Political Machinations: The international dimension

Perhaps the most destructive of the machinations designed to weaken the government took place way back in 2009, when various groups got together to support the candidature of Sarath Fonseka for the Presidency. In one sense their getting together was not surprising, for all of them thought the President had to be weakened if their own ambitions were to succeed. But it was astonishing that they should have used Sarath Fonseka as their instrument, since in theory at any rate all of them found his basic mindset anathema.

Until late 2009 certainly Fonseka made no bones about that mindset. On the one hand, he believed strongly that Sri Lanka belonged to the majority of its inhabitants, not just the Sinhalese, but Sinhala Buddhists. He enunciated this clearly in 2007, bringing back memories of President Wijetunge’s claim that the Sinhalese were the tree around which minorities clung like vines.

Sarath Fonseka then was the most prominent exponent of one extreme which Fr Vimal Tirimanna described inLTTE Terrorism: Musings of a Catholic Priest, his balanced account of the crisis we went through. He writes there of political hypocrisy being often justified ‘using hackneyed, out-dated and false socio-political premises, like “Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala Buddhists” or “North and East of Sri Lanka is the Tamil homeland”.

For the TNA then to adopt a proponent of the first of these perspectives as its chosen Presidential candidate seems astonishing. On the other hand, it could be argued that they know well that extremes feed on each other, and thus the best way of arguing for the second perspective was to allow free rein to the other. Though they claimed that Fonseka had agreed to their conditions for supporting him, they could not be naïve enough to assume that he would stand by his commitments.

It is more likely then that they thought that their own agenda – and even the most moderate of them still hankers after the idea of a homeland, as is clear by their continuing hankering after the merger of the North and East – would more likely succeed if Fonseka pursued his own predilections after election. In a sense the strategy could not lose, for either he did what he promised, or else he let them down and cut loose in fulfillment of his previous perspective, which would immeasurably have strengthened their case internationally.

The international dimension is important here, for the Americans were actively behind Fonseka and behind ensuring that the TNA supported him. The argument one of them put to the Indians was that they had found the perfect weapon to pressurize President Rajapaksa, and it is conceivable that they did indeed promote Fonseka primarily to weaken what they thought of as President Rajapaksa’s Sinhala Buddhist base. About this they were myopic – or perhaps Pavlovian, given the way they salivated at anyone associated with the President – as can be seen from their description of Dayan Jayatilleka as a Sinhala hardliner.

Their adoption of Fonseka was the more strange because of what was seen as the other primary element in his mindset, namely ruthlessness when it came to military strategy. While it could be argued that this was one reason the Americans thought him a suitable instrument of their will, given the military extremists they had used in the past, ranging from Pinochet to Zia ul Haq, they had also decided after the end of the Cold War to put forward a more humane face, at least in public. Thus it was primarily Sarath Fonseka they had fingered in the Kerry report in which they had asked the Sri Lankan government towards the end of 2009 to look into allegations of possible war crimes.

This dual approach does not necessarily signifiy hypocrisy. It has been standard practice in many dispensations to pursue multiple options, and these have been most successful when those working on them are basically sincere. Thus we can assume that those who genuinely believed that Human Rights were important thought questions should be raised about Fonseka, just as those who thought America right or wrong was the only principle to follow were promoting his challenge to President Rajapaksa. Patricia Buteniswas the perfect exponent of this dual approach, given her own ambiguities, a ruthless Cold Warrior in her El Salvador days, a more mellow exponent of proconsular authority in Bangladesh, where her interference with military involvement was resented, but where she could argue that the end result was democratic.

It is also possible that initially the Americans promoted Fonseka because they believed it was the best way to divide up what they saw as President Rajapaksa’s Sinhala Buddhist vote base, and thus allow the alternative candidate to emerge as victor. This strategy however, if such it was, failed because on the one hand Fonseka was not willing to be merely an instrument of another’s victory, and on the other Ranil Wickremesinghethought he could not run the risk of coming in third behind both Rajapaksa and Fonseka. That was indeed conceivable, and not only for astrological reasons, given that the minorities might well have decided, given the threat presented by Fonseka, that they needed to ensure President Rajapaksa’s re-election.

I suspect that was what President Rajapaksa hoped for when he decided to deal firmly with the Fonseka mindset. His categorical refusal to expand the army as Fonseka had requested, and his determination to resettle the displaced Tamils quickly, made clear his much more pluralistic mindset. Dayan Jayatilleka has drawn attention to discussions with Israel about the post-war settlement, and it is not unlikely that Fonseka, and others, were being made familiar with a West Bank Settlement type approach in the post-war scenario. But the President was not inclined at all to such machinations, and made this clear.

Unfortunately, the machinations the Americans were engaged in, into which the TNA was drawn, threw all this into confusion, with catastrophic results – for all, at any rate in the short term.

Justice- seen to be done?

A senior police officer is seen saluting a smiling UPFA parliamentarian Duminda Silva soon after he returned home after he was granted bail. He is a suspect in the Mulleriyawa shooting, in which Lakshman Bharatha Premachandra and three others were killed. Pic by Gayan Amarasekara

Three police officers arrested over three missing people

Three police officers were arrested in Trincomalee for being allegedly involved in the disappearance of three people in 2008.

The CID which conducted investigations into the disappearance of a woman and two others on July 1, 2008 at Pimburugaspitiya in Gomarankadawala made the arrest.

Those arrested included an Inspector attached to the Thambalagamuwa police, a Sergeant attached to the Anuradhapura Uda Maluwa Police and a police constable attached to the Seru Nuwara Police.

They were reported to have been on duty at the Pamburugaspitiya police checkpoint at the time of the disappearances.

The arrest was carried out after the relatives of the disappeared made a complaint to the police.

The suspects had been summoned to the Trincomalee police station and arrested by the CID detectives. They were produced at the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Courts yesterday. (Athula Bandara)

Now Wild Statements Have Been Attributed To Bishop Rayappu!

By Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda -April 29, 2013

Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda

Bishop Rayappu of Mannar diocese has been accused again. The Nation paper says, ‘the Bishop, TNA resurrect LTTE’s ISGA demand’.

Who can challenge the source of reporting, when the ‘Nation’ is totally depending on the army intelligence?

I have been at several meetings where Bishop spoke his mind on the national issue. But he never stood for a separation of the country. He strongly stood for a political solution which respects the Tamil identity.

However he is deeply committed to cause of the Tamil community. For an example very bravely he stood by the Mullikulam people when their land was appropriated by the security forces quite unjustly. Due to such instances, many have misunderstood the Bishop because he takes up unceasingly the cause of the Tamil community despite of the threats he faces from different quarters including the intelligence services. Bishop strongly believes in the cause of Justice. That indeed is the Faith of Christian community which believes ‘Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream’. (Amos 5/24)

For some voicing on the rights of the Tamils equals Tigers or supporters of separation.

The real problem lies not with the Bishop but with the government who has no political will to draft a political solution. In fact, it is the opinion of the commission that cause of the crisis is the politicians who governed this country after independence. So far we have not seen any serious attempt on the part of the government to implement the recommendations of the LLRC which was appointed by the President himself.

Now wild statements have been attributed to bishop Rayappu! No one can prevent such accusations. But we can see that the nation paper is having a biased mind and an agenda to destroy the good name of the bishop.

It is a well known that Bishop Rayappu is one of the strongest voices of the Tamil community.  Branding him as a Tiger voice can be a strategy to silence such voices. If one vilifying Bishop Rayappu with that intention, he/she will have a short victory.

An unjust regime can harm Individuals as it is happening in the case of Bishop Rayappu but the prophetic voices cannot be stopped.  Church leaders have a calling to ‘speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute’ (Proverb 31/8).

We pray that Bishop Rayappu be continually blessed to continue his prophetic mission.

Ranil to table missing persons list in Parliament

MONDAY, 29 APRIL 2013 

Opposition United National Party (UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is expected to table a document comprising the names of 472 people who are known to have disappeared in Mannar during the war.

The document will be tabled in Parliament at the request made by Mannar Bishop the Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph and the Association of Families Searching for Disappeared Relations.

The request was made when Mr. Wickremesinghe met the Mannar Bishop and the members of this Association yesterday.

 “I will definitely take this up in Parliament but I am not too sure whether the government is prepared to do anything about it,” he said responding positively to the request made by the Bishop.

The Association President M. Udayachadran said they only wanted a closure to this matter by knowing whether their loved ones were dead or alive.
“If we definitely know that our loved ones are dead we can engage in religious observances,” she said’

Ms. Udayachandran said there were a large number of young girls whose husbands are missing and they would be able remarry if it was confirmed that their spouses were dead.

The Mannar Bishop in his one to one meeting with Mr. Wickremesinghe had stressed the need for a proper system of resettlement and urged that those displaced be resettled in their original places of residence. Earlier Rev. Fr. E. Sabamalan who spoke on behalf of the clergy said there was racism when it came to resettlement and pointed out that there was little consideration given to Tamils specially by the politicians in the area.

 “In fact all political leaders are racially minded today,” he said.

Mr’ Wickremesingh in response said the government cannot acquire land according to the assurance it have the UN in 2009 as it was assured that all displaced people will be given their lands back’ However he said compensation should be paid if there is any acquisition’ Also he recalled that a clause was included in Ceasefire Agreement ( CFA)  in 2002’ He said the government reserved the right to take over land for defense purposes under this agreement’ (YP)





Pictures - Pradeep Pathirana

Ideas for Constitutional Reform 8 – Judicial Accountability

Rajiva Wijesinha

April 29, 2013 in Constitutional Reform | Tags: accountability, Judicial Accountability,Judicial Service Commission, judiciary, Law, transparency

The last section I had planned to look at in this series is the Judiciary, though that may be the most important in the current context. The basic suggestions I put forward some weeks back, before the crisis had got so grave, basically addressed problems that were developing precisely because we were confused about two principles that all constitutional dispensations should hold sacred.

The first is that the judiciary should be independent, which means that there should be no interference, by individuals or any other branch of government, with regard to the content of the decisions it makes.

The second is that the judiciary, like all other branches of government, should be accountable to the people. Its decisions should be subject to review, and it should follow procedures so that reliance might be placed not only on its judgments but on the processes through which it reaches such judgments. When procedures are established by law, it must itself obey those laws, though it should have leeway to recommend changes to the legislature when laws prove cumbersome or even unjust. When procedures have not been put in place, it must develop procedures through guidelines that are made known to the public.

For these purposes, so as to

1. ensure the independence of the judiciary whilst promoting transparency with regard to appointments
2. promote professionalism in the judiciary
3. institutionalize justiciability by making all decisions subject to review
4. introduce alternate mechanisms of seeking justice whilst preserving the ultimate authority of the Courts

I suggest that the Judicial Service Commission must formulate and make public rules with regard to transfers etc and perform its functions in accordance with such rules. Appeals with regard to any actions of the Commission may be made to the Commission and shall be responded to in writing within one month of the date of such appeal.

The Commission shall also each year formulate plans regarding a training programme for Judges of the High Court and Magistrates and prepare reports on the outcomes of such training each year.

The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement by executive or administrative action of any fundamental right or language right declared and recognized by the Constitution. As application in this regard may be proceeded with only after leave to proceed has been obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave may be granted or refused, as the case may be, by no less than two Judges.

The Supreme Court shall, subject to the Constitution, be the final Court of all appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or law which shall be committed by the Court of Appeal or any Court of First Instance. Appeals may be made against findings of the Supreme Court, which shall be heard by a bench of the Supreme Court consisting of no fewer than seven judges. Such appeals shall be disposed of within a month of being made.

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka may take up complaints with regard to Court decisions as well as other administrative or executive action in the public or private sphere. The Commission may request the Supreme Court for assistance in investigating such complaints, and shall seek to provide redress if required through consultation of the Court. The findings of the Commission shall be published in the event of agreement not being reached as to any remedial action recommended by the Commission.

Preparing For Northern Elections And Winning Hearts And Minds

By Jehan Perera -April 29, 2013 

Jehan Perera

The A9 highway that bisects the Northern Province and leads to its capital of Jaffna would be the best advertisement for the government in its election campaign to win the provincial council elections scheduled to be held in September. The dramatic improvement in the highway and the network of roads that connect to it have enhanced the quality of life to all who make use of them, be they the businessman or landless labourer, northerner or southerner.  But the A9 highway, which was once called the highway of death on account of the thousands of lives it consumed during the war, also shows why the government cannot win those forthcoming elections unless there is a change of course.

The huge military checkpoint at Omanthai, which was once the border between government and LTTE-controlled territories in the north, still stands like an ageing dinosaur. All vehicles traversing the road at this point have to stop to be checked.  At the best it means getting out of one’s vehicle and giving one’s identity card and vehicle number to be written down in a register.  But sometimes it can mean having one’s bags poked and opened for inspection.  Passengers in private vehicles are usually spared the hassle of getting down to be checked, but those travelling by bus have to disembark and line up to be checked. This war-time practice serves as a reminder of the war and the division of the country.

A police officer who flagged down our vehicle and requested a short ride was present when this exercise took place.  He explained that the roots, or is it seeds, of militancy still remained in the people of the North and needed to be guaded against.  The visible surveillance serves as a reminder to them that the government is watching and it is better to keep out of trouble.  Viewed from the other side the visible presence of the military in the North is a constant reminder to the people that they are mistrusted and being treated differently.  It also sends a harsh message that the North is still not fully integrated with the rest of the country, remains a potential threat, and hence it is under a state of military occupation, even if largely benign.

Military Presence

The large military presence in the Northern and Eastern provinces, even after the war, has been a source of grievance to the people living in those parts. The issue of the military presence has re-emerged in full force due to the government’s decision to acquire over 6000 acres of prime land in the Jaffna peninsula to set up a regional military headquarters.  It is reported that as many as 25 Grama Niladari divisions (which means more than 25 villages) will be affected.  Thousands of people will be affected, with an estimated 29,000 still in camps for the displaced.  The military has said that this land is being acquired under relevant law, and this is done in other parts of the country also.  But given the large territory and population that will be affected, and the lack of transparency in military affairs, it has also given rise to fears of army-sponsored Sinhalese settlements in the North.

It is noteworthy that the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has recommended the de-militarisation of the north and the full restoration of civilian administration.  The two resolutions passed by theUN Human Rights Council in 2012 and again in 2013 call upon the government to implement the constructive recommendations of the LLRC.  The LLRC was very specific on this issue, especially in regard to land issues, which is at the heart of people’s sense of belonging and security.  The LLRC said that many people who were displaced in the war had lost their title deeds and other documents proving their ownership or rights to use the land.  It recommended an expert and civil administration to restore to the people what had been theirs.  It also said that land policy should not be used to effect artificial changes in demography and the ethnic composition of the population.

The refusal of the military authorities to permit the Leader of the Opposition and a delegation of opposition parliamentarians from entering the area to see the situation for themselves is bound to send an adverse message to the Tamil people and to the international community about the ground realities in the north.  It highlights the lack of transparency that accompanies military affairs, which is why the military is unsuited to engage in civilian affairs. Unfortunately the indications of a shift in government policy towards the demilitarization of the north are bleak at the present time.  The government has recently added a second compulsory checkpoint in the North in addition to the one at Omanthai.  This is one at Elephant Pass at the entry/exit point of the Jaffna peninsula.  This latest checkpoint was announced a few days ago in the context of the sudden upsurge of politically motivated violence in the North which saw events organized by opposition parties broken up allegedly by security personnel in civilian attire.

Government Concern

The acts of violence that have started taking place against opposition activities in the North, as occurred with the Uthayan newspaper and TNA meetings, can be a harbinger of things to come.  The government’s determination to win the Northern Provincial elections reflects the government’s concern that it will pave the way to political and international challenges with the establishment of an opposition Tamil-led administration with a democratic mandate.  So far the government’s chief response to its local and international critics has been that it is the sole elected authority in the country entitled to speak on behalf of all the people.  Every time it wins an election it reminds its detractors that whatever they may say, it has the democratic sanction of the people.  An opposition and Tamil led provincial administration in the North would have a corresponding legitimacy to speak on behalf of the people who elected it.

Already two constituent parties of the government have expressed their opposition to these elections being held.   The All Ceylon Muslim League headed by Minister Rishard Bathiuddin has objected to the elections being held until all war-displaced Muslims are resettled in the Northern Province.  The National Freedom Front headed by Minister Wimal Weerawansa has stated that these elections can lead to an outcome that is detrimental to the country’s unity.  He has also said that the system of provincial councils should be scrapped and replaced by district councils.  Interestingly, President Rajapaksa himself articulated this vision of district-based devolution several years ago until local and international pressure caused him to withdraw from this position.  It is possible that views such as these are being floated to justify a postponement of the elections.

However, too much is at stake for the government to now seek to either abolish the provincial council system or postpone the promised September elections.  The President’s promise to hold the elections by September this year is noted in too many international documents, such as the joint communiqué signed by the Prime Minister of Japan and President Rajapaksa following his visit in March to Japan, and also in the UN Human Rights resolution on Sri Lanka which was also passed by a large majority of countries in March this year.  With the provincial elections to be held in September, there is still time for the government to make the shift that would make it more attractive to the northern voters.  De-militarisation of the North would come as the first priority accompanied by the resettlement of displaced people in their own lands.

The wheels turn for Sri Lanka at CMAG: But there is a price to pay

• �A powerful Commonwealth member country works behind the scenes to defeat moves to shift CHOGM from Sri Lanka
• Commonwealth SG confident can iron out issues with Colombo; Canadian Foreign Minister calls GoSL ‘evil’

By Our Political Editor

The massive rise in electricity tariffs to at least partly avert the loss of billions of rupees by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) has met with some protests by the opposition and trade unions.

Parliament sittings were interrupted this week by MPs holding lit candles inside the chamber as a show of disapproval. The tariffs did not come down, but the sale of candles in Colombo was brisk. A motley collection of trade unions, a few belonging to alliance partners of the UPFA Government, will stage protests beginning next week. A signature campaign outside the CEB headquarters was launched by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). Only nights earlier, at a protest rally in Maharagama, its supporters held flaming torches, used widely in the days when electricity was scarce.

Yet there will be no immediate change in electricity rates. It was made clear on Monday by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He told national newspaper editors and heads of electronic media if the electricity tariffs were not revised, it would have had an adverse impact on the country’s economy. Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa who elaborated did offer some insights.
The private power suppliers, he charged, were “mafia” selling electricity to CEB at “exorbitant rates”. Those remarks made clear all was not well with the CEB. In fact, such an issue should have been factored in by them before seeking a price revision.

Be that as it may, this week, the Government’s attention was more focused on London. There, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) was meeting ahead of the summit in Colombo in November this year. With barely an hour to go for the CMAG event, External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris made a last minute call on Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma. He was to again canvass for Colombo to be the venue for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in November. He told the SG that besides the summit, the Government was also ready for the three side events– the Business Forum in Colombo, the Youth events in Hambantota and the People’s Forum in Dambulla.

Friday’s CMAG meeting at ‘Marlborough House’ in London had only one item on the formal agenda, a discussion on Fiji, whose membership was suspended in 2009 following the military leaders’ failure to hold elections and restore democracy after the 2006 military coup.

Participants re-iterated their “commitment to Fiji’s reinstatement as a full member of the Commonwealth family, through the restoration of constitutional democracy, the rule of law and human rights, in accordance with the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth.” Other than that, also listed was “Matters of interest to Ministers,” under which Sri Lanka came up for discussion. Though fuller details of what transpired were not immediately available, one source said it was the majority view that the CMAG had no mandate to change the venue of CHOGM. It noted that it was the responsibility of the heads of Commonwealth. Hence, an official statement after the meeting and posted on the website of the Commonwealth Secretariat made reference only to the participants and the CMAG position in respect of Fiji.

The statement said:

“1. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) held its thirty-ninth meeting in London on 26 April 2013.
2. The meeting was chaired by Hon.Dr.DipuMoni, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh. It was also attended by Senator the Hon. Bob Carr, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia; Hon. John Baird, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada; Hon. A.J. Nicholson, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Jamaica; Hon.Dr. Abdul Samad Abdullah, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Maldives; Hon.Dr.Samura Kamara, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sierra Leone; Hon. Bernard K Membe, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Tanzania; Hon. Winston Dookeran, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago; and Hon.Nipake Edward Natapei, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade of Vanuatu.
3. CMAG welcomed the recent adoption by Heads of Government, and signature by The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, of the Charter of the Commonwealth, encapsulating the core values and principles of the Commonwealth. It noted that the Charter reaffirmed the Commonwealth’s commitment inter alia to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, separation of powers, freedom of expression, good governance, tolerance, respect and understanding and the role of civil society. As the custodian of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values, the Group pledged to continue to promote these commonly agreed goals.
4. The Group reviewed developments in relation to the country currently on its formal agenda, Fiji��..”

Canada backed by Sierra Leone and Trinidad and Tobago spearheaded the protests over developments in Sri Lanka. Contrary to claims that Sri Lanka was not discussed, diplomatic sources in London said it did figure. It was later confirmed by DipuMoni, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister who was the chair when she spoke at a news conference. Outside the CMAG, their efforts were backed by countries including Britain which lobbied for weeks ahead of the CMAG event. Joining in the same efforts were the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other organisations. Although Friday’s CMAG event makes clear there is no impediment to the conduct of CHOGM in Sri Lanka, another meeting of the body is expected to take place in September. Some sections argue that paragraph three of the CMAG statement (see above) would thus be relevant then. After the CMAG meeting, Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma addressed a news conference. Excerpts from the official transcript give an idea of how the events played out.

“Jonathan Miller (Channel 4 News): I would like to address, if I could, a question to the Secretary General, please. Secretary General, I understand that in the meeting that has just been concluded, it seemed like the question of Sri Lanka hosting this year’s CHOGM was discussed. Could you tell me, sir, whether you think it is appropriate that Sri Lanka hosts this meeting given the fact that there have been serious questions raised about human rights issues, rule of law and good governance of the country?

Kamalesh Sharma: The CMAG has no role in the matter of a decision concerning CHOGM. The venue for CHOGM is decided by the leaders, and the leaders first discussed it in 2007, agreed it in 2009, and confirmed it in 2011 that it would be in Sri Lanka. Parliament leaders continue to take soundings with leaders, and have been doing so recently as well, and no member of government has indicated remotely that it wishes to change the venue. It clearly is a collective decision that it will take place in Colombo, and the date of it is in November.I must say that I am also engaged myself with Sri Lanka on many levels in order to pursue the Commonwealth values that are so dear to us. These values are not just the Commonwealth values; they are also their values, because they want to subscribe to them as a nation.

“In the spirit of a helping hand, which we give to all members, we have been engaging across a wide front in Sri Lanka with my good offices, and this will continue in the months to come. I am sure it will yield very good results in all the areas of human rights, of rule of law, of governance, institution building and strengthening.

Sam Jones (The Guardian): I hear what you are saying about the need to engage to promote the values which CMAG defends and seeks to uphold, but given the allegations of war crimes, of torture of people who return from this country, of the impeachment of the Chief Justice, of the failure to investigate the high-profile murder of a British national in Sri Lanka, do you not feel that, by not taking a stand, the Commonwealth is actually risking compromising its integrity and its credibility.

Kamalesh Sharma: The Commonwealth works on the priorities which have been given to the Commonwealth to act on the member states. This does not mean that we do not discuss many other issues with the member states. We sympathise with the fact that Sri Lanka has had a long period of agony from which it is emerging and it will take a while before a lot of the healing which we expect can take place. Next week we are going to have a workshop here on reconciliation. In that workshop their own historical experience of reconciliation and Sri Lanka will be present as well. Our expectation is that, moving forward, there will be impulses given by all that the Commonwealth will be able to do in partnership with Sri Lanka which will help them in all the other very deep, ingrained issues.
Question: Could I just follow up on that question from The Guardian? What was being addressed there was not so much what the Commonwealth’s efforts are here to bring back workshops and for reconciliation, which I am sure we would all applaud, there are those who say, however, that given the past role of the Commonwealth, for example, with the Eminent Persons Group at the time of apartheid and that sort of thing, that the Commonwealth took a real forefront role in human rights-related issues. The question I would like to ask, again, is there not a danger that the integrity of the Commonwealth is at stake if these very issues are ignored in the case of Sri Lanka.

Kamalesh Sharma: I think that the credibility of the Commonwealth is increasing right now. As far as the judicial sector is concerned, we are the ones who are working with them on what can be a solution to the polarities and institutional confrontations that they have had in the past. We are the one organisation that is working with them on institution-building in the way that I have described. I do not see many other institutions doing such a comprehensive exercise with Sri Lanka. So I think the way in which we are acting and the way in which we are trying to make real progress on the ground, is actually a sign of this institution’s relevance in the difficulties which are faced by the member state rather than the other way around.

Question: You speak of engagement with Sri Lanka, but do we really feel there is engagement around that. Sri Lanka rejected over 100 of the recommendations. Sri Lanka has been sending out propaganda packs to Commonwealth Nations that label accusations or allegations of human rights abuses as mischievous ways of defaming the country’s name. So, can we really say that Sri Lanka is engaging, and at a level to engage with constructive work in the field of human rights and reconciliation, where they persistently deny abuses and recommendations given to them.

Kamalesh Sharma: When I spoke of engagement, I meant engagement with the Commonwealth. We have proven competitive strengths on which we work. We have engaged with Sri Lanka in my good offices in those areas. There are many of them. In all of these areas I have found they have engaged and are willing to take forward the template of increased performance in all of these areas, between social building or by any other means. That is what I meant by engagement.

Frances Harrison: I was confused by the progress that the Secretary General was talking about in the engagement with Sri Lanka in the judicial process, because we are seeing every Commonwealth lawyer or legal body talking about suspending Sri Lanka, talking about the problems of rule of law in Sri Lanka. We now have a country that is going to be head of the Commonwealth that has two chief justices and has violated Latimer House Principles. How can you actually say there is progress in judicial reform of any kind? How come you are the only body that seems to see this progress? We do not see this sort of statement coming from India, from the United States, from the UN Human Rights Council, or from many of the other key players involved?

Kamalesh Sharma: By progress, I mean the road map which we have developed for ourselves. I had a very long meeting with the Speaker when I was in Colombo and it was clear from the discussion that the appointment and dismissal practice of judges had to be corrected. So, I made an offer. We would be happy to make an illustration of what the practices are in the rest of the Commonwealth in respect of the appointment and dismissal of senior judges. This is what we are engaged in right now. Secondly, we said that once this exercise is done, we will be happy to make analysis as well as to what is closer to the Sri Lankan experience and institutional type than any others.

“From this exercise, we will be able to make recommendations as to what needs to be done moving forward in order to have those immediate measures, whether systemic or legislative, so that the kind of constitutional crisis which arose earlier and the polarity and the excuse for confrontation never arises again.”

Contrary to claims that Sri Lanka was not discussed at CMAG, Bangladesh Foreign Minister and CMAG chairperson DipuMoni declared there indeed was a discussion. She told the news conference: “Sri Lanka is not on the agenda. However, as you are aware, the group also takes up for discussion other situations or issues and other matters of interest to ministers. This provides our ministers an opportunity for a free and frank exchange of views. These deliberations are in-house and not reflected in the concluding statement. At today’s meeting, we did also discuss situations in various other countries, including Sri Lanka. These discussions, as per CMAG procedure, are confidential and not for public disclosure.”

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird who was at the CMAG meeting and present at the news conference asked:”So, the issue of the possible change of venue was not on for discussion today (Friday)?”

Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni parried the question by saying: “As I told you before, the issue of CHOGM and its venue is not a matter of CMAG. It is a matter of the heads.”

An angry Baird later told the Guardian newspaper:”We’re appalled that Sri Lanka seems poised to host CHOGM and to be chair-in-residence of the Commonwealth for two years. Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it. We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role”.

Far from seeing “meaningful progress” since the last CHOGM in Perth in 2011, said Baird, the Sri Lankan Government had only grown more authoritarian and less accountable and open to reconciliation.”

Leaving ‘Marlborough House’ after the CMAG meeting and the news conference, Baird alighted from his car to join a group of protestors holding anti-Sri Lanka placards. He spoke with them before being driven off.

According to highly placed diplomatic sources in London, an influential member of the Commonwealth who is not a CMAG member staunchly lobbied for Sri Lanka ahead of Friday’s event. These sources say this was a further indication that relations with this country, which was on its lowest ebb, has begun to improve as a result of a better dialogue now under way. Some of the joint projects with the country in question, which were in limbo, have been resurrected.

The same sources said that Commonwealth Secretary General Sharma, a former Indian diplomat (he was India’s High Commissioner to London prior to taking over the Secretary General’s post),and a very close friend of the Rajiv Gandhi family, has explained that he proposed a roundtable in London, most likely in June this year, where Sri Lanka’s reconciliation process and related issues would be discussed. He has told Commonwealth members that he had obtained the consent of President Mahinda Rajapaksa for a Government representative to take part. This event, ahead of the CHOGM, would thus focus on some of the concerns expressed earlier by member countries of the Commonwealth. The exercise is aimed at “ironing out” some of the contentious issues before the summit so the major event would take place with little or no criticism on the Sri Lanka government.

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird attended the CMAG meeting at Marlborough House on Friday. Later, he also took part at a news conference. When he was driven away to his hotel, he found a group of anti-Sri Lanka protestors. He alighted from his car to speak to them and shake their hands before resuming his journey.

Sharma even scheduled a voice cut with the BBC’s Sinhala service Sandesaya on Friday to confirm that CHOGM would be held in Sri Lanka. With formal confirmation now on hand, what the Government would now have to look for is confirmation on how many top level delegations would attend. Here again, diplomatic sources in London say, the powerful member country of the Commonwealth was likely to bring its influence to bear on leading member countries to attend the event. In this regard, a Government source argued, that even Britain may take part at the highest levels in the light of Prime Minister, David Cameron’s Government weighing in favour of trade as part of its foreign policy pursuits. However, this could not be independently verified.

Such a major trade deal was given the green light when the cabinet met for its weekly meeting on April 19. This was when it was decided to offer a multi-billion dollar deal to Air Bus Industrie with British-built Rolls Royce engines in a major re-fleeting for the national carrier, the fledgling SriLankan Airlines. According to the annual report of the Central Bank for 2012, released just last week, “The total revenue of SLA (SriLankan Airlines) increased by 36.1 per cent to Rs. 107.4 billion, while the operating expenditure increased by 30.6 per cent to Rs. 128 billion resulting in an operating loss of Rs. 20.5 billion. Emerging competition from other international airlines and the volatility of fuel prices has adversely affected the profitability of SLA. Mihin Lanka recorded an operating loss of Rs. 1 billion in 2012 compared to the operating loss of Rs. 455.3 million incurred in 2011.”

Mounting SriLankan Airlines losses and a financial crisis prompting an electricity price hike notwithstanding, the Cabinet last Thursday approved a request by the Minister of Civil Aviation, for US$ 80 million (Rs 10.1 billion). It came on a recommendation made by Civil Aviation Minister Priyankara Jayaratne. The amount is just a part of the monies needed for SriLankan Airlines to purchase six Airbus A 330 aircraft powered by Rolls Royce Trent 700 engines. SriLankan Airlines will also buy four A350-900 aircraft powered by Rolls Royce Trent engines. In addition, three more A 350-900 will be obtained on lease by Sri Lankan Airlines. Minister Jayaratne has not told cabinet how the moneys required for the deal would be obtained nor explained how the US$80 million for which he obtained approval would be disbursed.

According to Jayaratne, the wide-body fleet of SriLankan Airlines which consist of 13 aircraft (six A-340s and seven A 330-200s) need to be replaced at the end of their respective lease terms which fall between 2014 and 2019. The age of the wide-body fleet, he has said, at present ranges from 13 to 18 years for the A-340s and from nine to 13 years for the A 330 aircraft. He has said that SriLankan Airlines requires new aircraft to replace the current wide-body fleet and this cannot be timed with the return of all existing wide-body aircraft to lessors upon expiry of lease terms.

The Board of Directors of Sri Lankan Airlines had appointed a team headed by its Chief Executive Officer Kapila Chandrasena to “provide expert advice” to the internal team in the selection process. Others included the Chief Operations Officer, Head of Finance and the Head of Engineering. A person described as an�“External Consultant” had assisted the team. They reviewed offers from the US based company Boeing which offered its new generation ‘Dreamliner’ either with Rolls Royce or General Electric engines.

Now that the decks are cleared for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November, arrangements will no doubt be stepped up from this week. That is notwithstanding a situation where the Government is cash strapped and is forced to raise electricity rates. Now, billions will have to be found to procure new aircraft for Sri Lankan Airlines. The critical question is whether the taxpayer would have to pay more for different goods and services in the weeks and months to come.

Geneva: From ‘Roasting’ In ‘87 To Toasting In ‘09

By Dayan Jayatilleka -April 29, 2013

Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

Let’s see what an independent and authoritative source has to say about May 2009 Geneva and the role of Sri Lanka’s Ambassador/Permanent Representative at the time. In its 8^th-14^th August 2009 issue,  the prestigious journal The Economist (London) referred to “…Dayan Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Geneva, who warded off the threatened UN war-crimes probe in May [2009]…” (‘Sri Lanka after the war: Behind the Rajapaksa Brothers’ Smiles’, p 43)

How does one identify successful diplomacy and who is to do so credibly and authoritatively? Wikileaks revelations of confidential cable traffic to Washington DC, threw a spotlight on a moment when the US, and in one case France, another Permanent member of the Security Council, regarded Sri Lanka as following “an effective” and even “a very effective diplomatic approach”, in challenging conditions.

Though newspapers had already published the Wikileaks cable disclosing that in April 2009, the UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, spent 60% of his time on Sri Lanka due to the “very vocal Tamil Diaspora in the UK”, what was unknown at the time was that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State of the world’s sole superpower, had instructed its Mission in Geneva to throw its weight behind the move on Sri Lanka at the UN HRC Special Sessions in 2009.

“Mission Geneva is requested to convey to the Czech Republic and other like-minded members of the HRC that the USG supports a special session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and related aspects of the humanitarian situation. Mission is further requested to provide assistance, as needed, to the Czech Republic in obtaining others, signatures to support holding this session…Mission is also instructed to engage with HRC members to negotiate a resolution as an outcome of this special session, if held. Department believes a special session that does not result in a resolution would be hailed as a victory by the Government of Sri Lanka. Instructions for line edits to the resolution will be provided by Department upon review of a draft.” [Cable dated 4th May 2009 from Secretary of State (United States)]

Those were the odds then; that was the combination that Sri Lanka was up against in May 2009. We entered the battle with an added disadvantage: we were no longer a member state of the UN HRC. Nominated by the Asian Group, I had been a Vice President of the Council in 2007-8, but we had lost the election held in the UNGA New York by 2009, a venue I was not allowed to attend as PRUN-Geneva, by the edict of the then Foreign Minister, which reversed a norm.

As early as September 2007, just two months after I had taken over as Ambassador/PRUN, the Western Group, led by the UK, was revising and reactivating a resolution that had been hanging over Sri Lanka in the previous year, 2006 – a danger and challenge which I had inherited.

“….a UK Mission contact told us that work is only at an early stage on the text of a possible resolution, which would update one that the EU put forward in last year’s Council session.” [Cable dated 10th September 2007]

                 Read More

Protest against ethnic hatred in Sri Lanka

28 April 2013 

About 500 people have marched through the centre of the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, protesting against a recent wave of ethnic hatred which has seen hardline Buddhists targeting the Muslim minority.

The march comes amid calls against Sri Lanka's hosting of the Commonwealth summit later this year.

The BBC's Charles Haviland was at the rally.

Read More

• Commonwealth faces 'real test' on Sri Lanka

• Summit in Sri Lanka 'appals' Canada

Hate has no place in Sri Lanka!

Senior politician Imtiaz Bakeer Markar and Southern Provincial Council Member Ven. Baddegama Samitha Thero share a lighter moment at the ‘Rally for Unity’, a non-partisan, non-violent awareness rally promoting the understanding of diversity and unity, held at Green Path yesterday.

by Lasantha Kumara