Peace for the World

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

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Still Homeless, Two Decades Later

Over two decades after they were forced to flee their homes in northern Sri Lanka, tens of thousands of Muslim IDPs still feel reluctant to return. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS
Over two decades after they were forced to flee their homes in northern Sri Lanka, tens of thousands of Muslim IDPs still feel reluctant to return. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

PUTTALAM, Sri Lanka, May 8 2013 (IPS) - The camp should not have been difficult to find. We were told to drive straight on the road that leads north away from the town of Puttalam, 140 kilometres from Sri Lanka’s capital Colombo, and we would come upon the settlement of internally displaced people.
What IPS found were not the typical temporary shelters of the war displaced – no tarpaulins stamped with the telltale insignia of donor agencies, no busy aid workers; only a cluster of small villages comprised of white-painted houses on the outskirts of Puttalam’s narrow traffic-clogged, sewer-lined streets.
But on close inspection it became clear that these were, indeed, the homes of the roughly 75,000 Muslims and their descendants who were forced to flee the northern provinces at the height of this country’s civil war in 1990.
IPS spoke with Ahamed Lebbe, a casual labourer in his fifties originally from the village of Pallai in the northern Jaffna Peninsula, who said his life changed forever on Oct. 29, 1990, when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – the rebel group that was then fighting the Sri Lankan government for a separate state for the island’s minority Tamil population – ordered all Muslims to evacuate the province within 24 hours.
The message that he would have to leave with nothing more than 300 rupees (about two dollars) in cash came to Lebbe by word of mouth, though there is some evidence the Tigers made a public announcement in Jaffna Town earlier that day.
The public rationale behind the order was that Muslims, along with their fledgling national political party, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, represented a threat to the Tigers’ ideal of ethnic hegemony in the North, which formed the basis of their demand for an independent Tamil state.
The command was taken dead seriously and on the night of Oct. 29 the exodus began, with one Muslim family after another leaving behind homes, valuables and businesses, carrying with them only the meagre monies allowed by the LTTE, fear, and memories.
“There were only four Muslim families in the village where we lived,” Lebbe told IPS. “But it was our home – I still speak in the Tamil dialect used in Jaffna.”
Twenty-three years later, Lebbe has still not regained a sense of belonging, even though he has lived half of his life in an exclusively Muslim village in Puttalam.
“There is always this sense that we don’t belong here, that we are not at home,” he said.
The number of IDPs living in these semi-permanent “camps” has now swelled to nearly 250,000, according to some researchers. The majority never left the northwestern coastal belt, where they arrived over two decades ago.
Locals’ initial welcome of the refugees quickly turned to resentment when it became clear that these visitors would not be leaving anytime soon, and would ultimately start clamouring for scarce government resources like jobs, schools and healthcare.
Employers here wasted no time identifying the displaced as a source of cheap labour, quickly hiring them to work in sectors like construction, fishing, and agriculture, and as causal labourers.
Today, the demand for government services in Puttalam is under enourmous stress. With a total population of 700,000 the province is one of the poorest in Sri Lanka. Ten to 11 percent of its residents live below the poverty line, compared to a national poverty rate of about eight percent.
Local authorities are also seriously concerned about the lack of safe water here, exacerbated of late by a long drought.
Mirak Raheem, former researcher with the Centre for Policy Alternatives, a national advocacy body, told IPS the infrastructure in Puttalam is in urgent need of an upgrade. He also stressed the importance of implementing development projects like road construction, which can create jobs for the displaced.
Few incentives to return home
Ever since the government wiped out the LTTE in May 2009, over 400,000 Tamils who were displaced during the 30 years of fighting have been resettled, but nothing of the sort has taken place for the Muslims.
The situation raises the question of whether or not the IDP settlements in Puttalam – built with generous support from international agencies like the World Bank, which funded the construction of over 4,400 housing units – will ever be empty of their current residents.
Mohamed Abdul, a rights advocate who works closely with the community, believes displaced Muslims will not return to the north unless they are presented with a solid plan of action for rebuilding their homes, or offered loans for start-up businesses.
So far, he told IPS, much has been promised but little delivered.
In mid-2010, IDPs wishing to return to their old neighbourhoods were instructed to register with the Sri Lankan authorities. Almost all of the 250,000 Muslims in Puttalam did so, but few ended up making the return journey. It later transpired that most registered only in order to receive the promised six months worth of government rations.
According to Farzana Haniffa an academic at the Colombo University, displaced Muslims were never given priority, even among international organisations, because theirs was not considered an “emergency” humanitarian situation.
“There was never (the threat) that they would starve,” Hanifa, editor of a report on Northern Muslims, told IPS. As a result, only a fraction of the millions of dollars of development aid that have flooded this country since the 1980s has found its way to Puttalam.
For people like Lebbe, the decision on whether or not to return to the north is a simple one.
The formerly war-torn province has little to offer: unemployment rates in the northern Vanni region are feared to be as high as 20 or 30 percent, according to Muttukrishna Sarvananthan, who heads the Jaffna-based Point Pedro Institute of Development, indicating that anyone who wishes to start life there faces, at best, an uncertain future.
“At least here we know for sure what to expect,” Lebbe said.

Signs of Coming Genocide in Burma?

Army trucks line up along a road in downtown Meikhtila on March 23. (Photo: Teza Hlaing / The Irrawaddy )

The Burmese majority are in a state of denial that Burma now displays the early warning signs of genocide, “ethnic cleansing” or “crimes against humanity.” Rights activists are among them. Aung Myo Min, the director of Human Rights Education Institute of Burma (HREIB), has called the findings of last month’s Human Rights Watch report into violence in Arakan State “unacceptable.”
By rejecting the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the attacks on Rohingya Muslims there, these people have become both active and passive accomplices to the crimes. The criminals enjoy safe haven, continuing to pursue a situation where full-scale mass killings are possible. They run the risk of staying silent while all the warning signs are there.
Burmese tend to conflate “ethnic cleansing” and genocide based on two assumptions: that the outbreak of violence is sudden and that many thousands are killed. This is a misconception, leading many Burmese to assume genocide has not taken place in their country. The longer-term campaigns that lay the groundwork for the mass slaughter do not seem to matter. For them, speaking out about what might be coming is unacceptable incitement.
But internationally-recognized definitions are broader. The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as constituted by acts committed with intent to destroy an ethnic, racial or religious group. Physical as well as mental injury is included in the definition, as is preventing births and transferring children to destroy a group’s existence.
Even the April 29 government-sponsored Arakan Conflict Inquiry Commission’s report, according to this definition, can be considered as part of a form of genocide. One of many potentially destructive recommendations in the report is promoting birth control among Rohingya women. Whether intended to be so or not, this policy is genocidal.
In the cities and towns, far removed from the violence, the killings are out of sight, out of mind. This is what happened in Rwanda in 1994, when in the space of about 100 days at least 800,000 Rwandans were killed, mostly from the Tutsi minority. Rwanda’s genocide was not a sudden “outbreak.” The conditions for full-scale killing were developed over many years, particularly the 40 months prior to April 1994.
Peter Uvin, a former UN officer and the author of Aiding Violence, explains these events. Shocking are not just the events, but the neglect over the signs of genocide. The signs were clear, but people simply ignored them. These signs are now visible in Burma. This does not mean that Burma will inevitably become the next Rwanda; but the point is that the signs of pre-April 1994 Rwanda can be detected in Burma today.
Prior to April 1994, the international community was congratulating the ethnic Hutu-dominated government for improved state capacity, and awarding it with aid money. What was the award for? Economic reform. Millions upon millions of dollars of developmental aid were channeled to the country. The government had complete control over foreign aid money in Rwanda. More than 80 percent went to the governmental sector and the rest needed government approval. Despite on-going gross abuses the US, for example, did not even bother reducing military aid.
Recent international engagement with Burma, the inflow of aid money, International Crisis Group’s award to President Thein Sein, and the US’s plan for military engagement, are the Burmese equivalent of Rwanda.
In Rwanda, the US, EU, the World Bank, bilateral donors, and international organizations all moved away from working with the community towards directly engaging with the government. Programs were designed to build up human capacity for the government. The government openly discussed genocide in cabinet meetings. But international donor governments ended up helping and strengthening it by pouring in money.
The government bought arms from abroad; 581,000 machetes were imported from China. According to British journalist Linda Melvern, an arms deal worth $26 million was signed with Egypt in 1990.
Hate messages against Tutsis were openly broadcasted on radio stations. Thousands of Tutsis were already being massacred. The international community not only failed to react, but continued to present a positive image of the government’s reform initiatives.
Although it was not sure how much power-holders within the international community knew what was happening in Rwanda, there were two reports published in 1993, one by four NGOs and another by the UN special rapporteur. They detailed massive arms distribution, extreme anti-Tutsi rhetoric, and government-backed killings mainly targeting Tutsis. No one reacted.
For Burma, the recent report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and statements by UN envoys to Burma, Mr. Tomas Quintana and Mr. Vijay Nambiar, detail mass killing, systematic and widespread violence against ethnic Rohingya. Mr. Quintana stated in the case of anti-Muslim violence in central Burma that he received evidence of state involvement, while Mr. Nambiar stated the violence was done with “brutal efficiency”.
Even more disturbing in the case of Rwanda is that the UN secretariat was well informed about potential genocide by General Romeo Dallaire, head of UN peace keeping in Rwanda. But information was ignored.
A Human Rights Watch report pointed out that a CIA analyst predicted in January 1994 that half a million people would die. In February, Belgium predicted mass killing. France also knew enough. But they did not react until late April.
International development aid workers in Rwanda were aware of killings and abuses. They did not speak out for various personal and organizational reasons. They kept silent as they did not expect the scale of violence to be so massive. They were in a  state of denial, just like the Burmese today.
Genocide could not happen without turning a large portion of the population into thugs and killers. As Alison Desforges detailed in a Human Rights Report on Rwanda, genocide is a campaign to which potential killers are recruited over time.
But people did not simply become killers. They were turned into mass murderers by propaganda that drugged their mind with misinformation and lies. Some key points from the report detailed by Alison Desforges are worth paying attention to, as similar signs can be seen in Burma.
In Rwanda, the newspaper Kangura (meaning: “wake others up”) was the most vocal “voice of hate”. It was soon joined by other journals and newspapers that have ties to politicians and businesses linked to the regime. Radio stations were established. They performed their function by stroking racism and providing misinformation so that the people became delusional and bloodthirsty.
In Burma, local media is stirring up resentment of Rohingya and Burmese Muslims.
Since hate messages require validation, propagandists refer to the work of “intellectuals” or “professors”. In Rwanda, two professors, Nahimana and Leon Mugesera, played a key role. They both studied in the West. They taught at universities in Rwanda before becoming propagandists. The equivalents of these “intellectuals” in Burma are not hard to find.
In Rwanda, Tutsi were described as foreigners who stole the land from the rightful owners, the Hutu. Hutu propagandists accused “Tutsi Unity” to be the idea that facilitated Tutsi’s past conquest and helped in their quest for domination.
In Burma, ethnic Rohingyas, and now Burmese Muslims, are widely portrayed as foreigners. They are said to be taking over the land, race and Buddhist religion. Equivalent to “Tutsi Unity” was the number “786” used by Muslims. According to anti-Muslim preachers, 786 stands for Muslims take over of Burma and the world in the 21st century. According to Muslims, it represents a Quranic phrase: “In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate”.
Tutsis in Rwanda were labeled “cockroaches”. In Burma, followers of these propagandists have called the Rohingyas “viruses” and “dogs”.
As the case of Rwanda shows, the Hutu-led government was cunning and ruthless. Propagandists were drugging people with misinformation only to turn them into mindless murderers. Many people were being killed every day but the international community ended up supporting the regime in the name of economic reform.  Even though the governments of the West appeared to know that genocide was coming, they could not take action until too late. Westerners staying in Rwanda did not expect a full scale slaughter. But it happened.
In Burma, most people reject the term genocide to protect the innocence of the nation they are so dear to. It is hard to imagine that their denial supports mass slaughter. But denying the warning signs is not really serving their purpose; it only blocks attempts to take preventive measures so that unimaginable cruelty is not unleashed.
Unlike Rwanda, Burma has been forewarned. Taking advantage of this, serious preventive actions must be taken. If such cruel human slaughter ever happens in Burma, all those who have blocked investigation and preventive measures are share responsibility. After all, it is the majority Burmese who have the power to shape the the country’s fate.
Sai Latt is a Burmese and a PhD candidate at Simon Fraser University in Canada. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial policies of The Irrawaddy.

Assaulting The Rugby Referee: ‘It Was A Misunderstanding’ – Namal Rajapaksa

May 9, 2013 |
Colombo TelegraphNamal Rajapaksa MP today said his younger brother’s attack to a Rugby referee ‘was a misunderstanding’. Namal Rajapaksa’s response came as a reply to a tweet sent to him by another tweeter user Zaman Alfeoz. Zaman asked “@RajapaksaNamal, did your younger brother Rohitha Rajapaksa attack the refree at 7 a side game… is it true?”
Presidential offspring Rohitha Rajapaksa assaulted Rugby referee Dimitri Gunasekera on May 05th at the Havelocks Grounds in Colombo after the Navy lost a qualifying match.
The incident took place when the Police A team defeated Navy knocking the latter out of the Inter-club Rugby sevens tournament organised by the Sri Lanka Rugby Football Union.
Rohitha Rajapaksa, the youngest son of President Mahinda Rajapaksa was captaining the Navy A team at today’s game. His brother Yoshitha usually captains the team.
Following the Navy defeat, Rohitha Rajapaksa picked up referee Gunesekera by the collar and assaulted him in full public view, eyewitnesses say. The attack on the referee only ceased when Yoshitha Rajapaksaintervened, even slapping his younger sibling when the latter refused to break up the altercation.
With referees refusing to stand to protest against the assault, the tournament was suspended for over 45 minutes. Finally, following a meeting of high level officials with the referees the tournament resumed. Both Rohitha and Yoshitha Rajapaksa were seen regularly in discussions with the referees during the rest of the evening.
The game of Rugby in the country has been severely politicised by the Rajapaksa family in recent years.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second son Yoshitha is the captain of the Sri Lanka Rugby team and the Navy Sports club.
Related posts;

Partisan Amnesty International Targets Sri Lanka

By Lakshman I.Keerthisinghe -May 9, 2013 
Lakshman Keerthisinghe
Colombo TelegraphThe cold neutrality of an impartial judge -Edmund Burke-Preface to the Address of M.Brissot
Reuters reported recently that Amnesty says Sri Lanka represses dissent to consolidate power.The report stated that Amnesty International said that the Sri Lankan government is intensifying a crackdown on critics in order to tighten its grip on power, and urged the Commonwealth countries not to hold a summit there in November. But the Media Minister of the Sri Lankan government Keheliya Rambukwella accused Amnesty International of being in the pay of supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), once known as the most brutal terrorist organization in the world defeated in a nearly 30-year war that ended in May 2009. The Minister further stated that Amnesty is always against Sri Lanka and they never see anything positive. We accept still there are some problems, but they need to see what we have done good also.”
The London-based rights group, citing specific rights abuses in a 78-page report entitled ‘Sri Lanka’s Assault on Dissent’ said a crackdown on critics had intensified through threats, harassment, imprisonment and violent attacks.”Violent repression of dissent and the consolidation of political power go hand in hand in Sri Lanka,” said Polly Truscott, Amnesty International’s Deputy Asia Pacific Director.”Over the past few years we have seen space for criticism decrease. There is a real climate of fear in Sri Lanka, with those brave enough to speak out against the government often having to suffer badly for it.”The rights group further said the report was based on interviews with witnesses, lawyers and activists, legal affidavits, court records, reports by Sri Lankan, United Nations and international human rights organizations, as well as local and international media reports. The report also said journalists, the judiciary, human rights activists and opposition politicians were among those who have been targeted in a pattern of government-sanctioned abuse, often involving the security forces or their proxies.
Amnesty International was founded in London in July 1961 by English labour lawyer Peter Benenson According to his own account, he was traveling in the London Underground on 19 November 1960, when he read of two Portuguese students from Coimbra who had been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment in Portugal for allegedly “having drunk a toast to liberty” Researchers have never traced the alleged newspaper article in question. In 1960, Portugal was ruled by the Estado Novo government of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar The government was authoritarian in nature and strongly anti-communist, suppressing enemies of the state as anti-Portuguese. In his significant newspaper article “The Forgotten Prisoners”, Benenson later described his reaction as follows: “Open your newspaper any day of the week and you will find a story from somewhere of someone being imprisoned, tortured or executed because his opinions or religion are unacceptable to his government  The newspaper reader feels a sickening sense of impotence. Yet if these feelings of disgust could be united into common action, something effective could be done.” The article described these violations occurring, on a global scale, in the context of restrictions to press freedom, to political oppositions, to timely public trial before impartial courts, and to asylum. It marked the launch of “Appeal for Amnesty, 1961″, the aim of which was to mobilise public opinion, quickly and widely, in defence of these individuals, whom Benenson named “Prisoners of Conscience”. The “Appeal for Amnesty” was reprinted by a large number of international newspapers. In the same year Benenson had a book published, Persecution 1961, which detailed the cases of nine prisoners of conscience were investigated and compiled by Benenson and Baker In July 1961 the leadership had decided that the appeal would form the basis of a permanent organisation, Amnesty, with the first meeting taking place in London. Benenson ensured that all three major political parties were represented, enlisting Members of Parliament from the  Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party On 30 September 1962, it was officially named ‘Amnesty International’. Between the ‘Appeal for Amnesty, 1961′ and September 1962 the organisation had been known simply as ‘Amnesty’.
Amnesty International is financed largely by fees and donations from its worldwide membership. It says that it does not accept donations from governments or governmental organisations. According to the AI website, “these personal and unaffiliated donations allow AI to maintain full independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions. We neither seek nor accept any funds for human rights research from governments or political parties and we accept support only from businesses that have been carefully vetted. By way of ethical fundraising leading to donations from individuals, we are able to stand firm and unwavering in our defence of universal and indivisible human rights.” However, AI did receive grants from the UK Department of International Development  the European Commission the US State Department and other governments contrary to its aforesaid policies. In November 2012, the Amnesty staff in London went on strike to protest work conditions and financial issues with the organisation. Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor said, “They really are in trouble. They’ve been in crisis for a number of years.”
Criticism of Amnesty International includes claims of excessive pay for management, under-protection of overseas staff, associating with organisations with a dubious record on human rights protection, selection bias, ideological /foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries or Western-supported countries, criticism of Amnesty’s policies relating to abortion, and assertion that “defensive jihad” is not antithetical to human rights. Governments who have criticised Amnesty include those of Canada Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, Russia and the United States,[ for what they assert is one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments—and of other governments critical of Amnesty International—have been the subject of human rights concerns voiced by Amnesty. As of February 2011, Amnesty is engaged in a dispute with the British union ‘Unite over Amnesty’ allegedly attempting to de-recognize some of its foreign-based workers’ rights.(Wikepedia)
In the above scenario it is an open secret that cash strapped Amnesty may receive funds from the diaspora and the TGTE who are hell bent on destabilizing the legitimately elected Sri Lankan government and replacing it with a puppet regime amenable to the US and its Western allies in order to gain support for their separatist agenda to establish a State of Eelam in the North and East of Sri Lanka.
The reporting by the Amnesty is therefore biased and one sided as Minister Rambukwella very correctly stated thereby ignoring all the welfare activities undertaken by the Sri Lankan government for the rehabilitation of the former LTTE cadres, providing them with funding,employment and housing and the replacement of the displaced persons during the conflict by returning them to live happily in their former areas where they lived prior to the unfortunate civil war.
In conclusion it is noteworthy to consider whether the Amnesty International could maintain impartiality in its reports emulating the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as quoted at the outset of this piece as it is obvious that cash strapped AI has to do the bidding of its paymasters.

Myanmar: Anonymous rallies around Rohingya, prepares for online operation

Worried that ethnic cleansing may take place without international attention, Anonymous is preparing an operation in support of Myanmar's minority Muslim Rohingya ethnic group, possibly targeting government officials.

Op rohingya 05 06 2013ENLARGE
In this photograph taken on April 8, 2013, a young Myanmar Muslim Rohingya refugee looks on behind a wired fence at Indonesia's Belawan immigration detention center in Medan city located on Sumatra island, where eight Myanmar Buddhist detainees were killed by Myanmar Muslim Rohingya refugees inside the detention center on April 5, 2013. Some 200 asylum seekers, from countries including Sri Lanka and Afghanistan as well as Myanmar, remain at the detention center in the port town of Belawan, with some rooms holding large groups. They have been badly shaken by the killings. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Factions within the global hacker collective Anonymous are preparing to launch a digital campaign in support of the Rohingya – Myanmar’s Muslim minority – who potentially face what a Human Rights Watch report last month classified as “ethnic cleansing.”
“Currently we are keeping an eye on the situation making sure the... violence against the Rohingya does [not] spin into another massacre again,” one of the managers of the Anonymous-aligned Twitter account, @CIApressoffice, told GlobalPost. “Our targets will include those who turn a blind eye or actively allow this tyranny to continue.”
More than just a group of hackers in search of lulz and glory, those involved in OpRohingya are taking their cues from Rohingya community leaders on the ground, who relay reports to Anonymous through established internet activists such as Heather Marsh.
Some activists involved in the operation want to push up the June launch date as crackdowns force Rohingya community leaders further underground.
“What we do know is, yes, the Rohingya are asking for assistance and an end to the violence being bestowed upon them and their children,” the @CIApressoffice contributor told GlobalPost.
Prominent netizens and supporters of Anonymous organized a Twitter storm in March to raise awareness about violence against Rohingya communities and to pressure Myanmar’s government to protect those facing harm and displacement. 
In spite of greater visibility in the West, however, the conflict between Myanmar's Buddhist majority and the Rohingya Muslims continued throughout the country, forcing many Rohingya to leave their homes amid growing threats of violence. 
“It really is a tragedy on many levels,” said the @CIApressoffice contributor. “[First] and foremost the Rohingya are facing certain death and the world (at least before this operation) was completely unaware of their existence. Anonymous thus decided to use its current popularity within the public to give voice to the voiceless.”
The "Anons" (as members of the collective are known) behind OpRohingya plan to target those they deem to be guilty of, or apathetic about, what they consider to be ethnic cleansing of Myanmar’s Muslim minority.
Those targets may include Myanmar’s most prominent and widely beloved political figure, Aung San Suu Skyi.
“[Targeting Suu Kyi] is debatable. I (@CIApressoffice) cannot speak for my fellow Anons on the matter. Let's just say … it's very possible,” said the @CIApressoffice account contributor. 
Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Laureate, was long lauded for her democratic struggle against the oppressive military junta that ruled Myanmar for over five decades. However, she is now facing criticism for her failure to help resolve the conflict between the country’s Buddhist majority and Muslim minority. 
“She believes, in Burma, there is no Rohingya ethnic group. It is a made-up name of the Bengali. So she can’t say anything about Rohingya. But there is international pressure for her to speak about Rohingya. It’s a problem,” Suu Kyi’s spokesman Nyan Win told Patrick Winn, GlobalPost’s senior correspondent in Southeast Asia.
Some Anons who spoke to GlobalPost pointed out that the Rohingya are threatened on two fronts: by anti-Muslim mobs and by a government complicit in the violence against Muslims.
“The Rohingya people are under [the] oppression of their government and local people,” said one Anon, affiliated with the Anonymous-linked account @Crypt0nymous. “It was clear that this is a humanitarian crisis like the one facing the people of Gaza, the West Bank/Israel, Kashmir and Gabon.”

Businessman kidnapped in Inamaluwa

profileKidnapMan 410px 13 05 09








Thursday, 09 May 2013
The owner of the NB- 1763 bus has been kidnapped today (09) early morning by an unidentified armed group when he was in his bus, which was travelling from Sigiriya to Kandy.
The victim is identified as Damayantha Danapala a 45 year old business man who is a resident of Sigiriya, 7th Post.
Two vans have blocked the road when the bus was travelling from Sigiriya to Inamaluwa. Over 10 people armed with sharp tools has gotten down from them, stepped in to the bus and kidnapped the individual.
Following primary investigations Sigiriya Police suspect that the businessman has been kidnapped due to a certain deal he was involved in.
Police have received a tipoff that the businessman is being confined in Polonnaruwa area.

Human Rights Commission visit Azad Salley

PrethibaM 410px 13 05 09profile
Thursday, 09 May 2013
Commissioner of the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission Prathiba Mahanamahewa including six other members of the commission has visited the former Deputy Mayor Azad Salley at Colombo General Hospital.
The officials have visited him following the complaint lodged by Azad Salley’s daughter with the Human Rights Commission against the detention of her father.
He was detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and was admitted to Colombo General Hospital following his deteriorating health.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Jaffna landowners to file more than 1000 cases against military ‘land grab’
The Sundaytimes Sri LankaSunday, May 05, 2013
More than 1000 Jaffna landowners are to file petitions in courts against an alleged land grab by the military in Valligamam north that local MPs claim is causing severe concern among civilians.

Landowners hold a demonstration in front of the Pradeshiya Sabha Tellipalai. Pic by T. Premananth
Landowners held a public demonstration last Sunday in front of the Pradeshiya Sabha Tellipalai demanding the return of their lands.
Nearly 10,000 acres was acquired by the military in the early 1990s and declared a high-security zone. This resulted in the displacement of 90,000 people from the Valigamam north and south-west divisional secretariats. TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran said that in 2006 the Court ordered the Ministry of Defence to explore the possibility of releasing the lands in Valigamam north to the owners given the current situation, and a committee was appointed to look into this without causing any hindrance to national security.
The committee included the Jaffna High Court Judge, District Secretary and Jaffna Security Forces Commander.
Up until November 2011, nearly 50,000 persons were able to return to their lands following recommendations by the committee.
After the establishment of a Lands Secretariat in Jaffna Kachcheri in 2012, the military acquired 6000 acres to expand the Palaly garrison and push forward the defence line.
Mr Sumanthiran said that under the Land Acquisition Act no private property could be acquired for any reason other than the benefit of the local people.
“We are going to challenge this as 35,000 people are still displaced,” he said.�Mr Sumanthiran said more than 5000 cases would be filed in courts. �“We do not (seek) to find justice to Tamils by going to the courts – yet the cases will have an impact and give a message to the government as well as the international community,” he said.
“Contradictory to expectations, all of a sudden land acquisition notices have been expedited not only in Jaffna but also in Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu and Mannar,” Mr Sumanthiran said.�Landowners say that Minister Douglas Devananda had previously given assurances that once the war ended, people would be given back their land.
The Minister of Lands, Janaka Bandara Tennekoon, said the Lands Office had been opened in Jaffna according to the recommendations of the LLRC in order to solve land issues. �“We have acquired land according to the law of this country,” he said.

 07 May 2013
The Jaffna Press Club expressed concern on Tuesday, regarding copycat social media accounts after it emerged a copycat Twitter account had been created asserting itself as the Jaffna Press Club.
In a statement the consortium of journalists said:
"We believe these to be yet again another pattern of distraction, intimidation and hindrance of press freedom in Jaffna."
JPC has confirmed @JaffnaPressClub as its official Twitter account. 

‘YELLOW CARD’ FROM EU TO BE WITHDRAWN IN JUNE - RAJITHA

May 8, 2013 
Sri Lanka’s government is confident that a European Union warning on illegal fishing in the island will be retracted soon paving the way for German and Chinese investors to double fish export income to around half a billion U. S. dollars, an official said today.

Extensive lobbying has been done since the warning was issued in November 2012 with the EU officials indicating that it will withdraw its “yellow card” in June, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development Minister Rajitha Senaratne told media.

The warning was issued to Sri Lanka and seven other countries over illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The minister said the EU had complained about 11 cases during the past year where Sri Lankan fishermen had intruded into territorial waters of other countries.

However, Senaratne was upbeat of the progress insisting that he had worked hard to ban illegal fishing methods including bottom trawling nets that deplete fish habitats and had imposed stronger penalties for fishermen that illegally fish in seas belonging to other countries.

Legal amendments that impose heavy fines of around 200,000 U.S. dollars and prison sentences are to be presented before parliament to be passed into law shortly, he added.

“I have had extensive discussions with European Commissioner Maria Damanaki, who is in charge of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and she has indicated that the EU is satisfied with our progress,” he said.

Currently Sri Lanka earns around 250 million U.S. dollars annually from fish exports, out of which 48 percent are earnings from tuna.

Europe usually purchases around 38 percent of Sri Lanka’s fish exports but this amount has fallen to 33 percent last year with Japan and the U.S. increasing its stake to 47 percent and 17 percent respectively.

Senaratne remarked that agreements have been finalised with two companies from China and Japan to increase deep sea fishing, which has seen slow growth due to lack of equipment.

“Two deep sea fishing boats from Sri Lanka are expected in Sri Lanka within the next two weeks. Eventually we hope the number will increase to around 20 and we are having discussions with other Chinese companies to enter the market as well.”

Japan’s leading fish producer, known as “Tuna King”, Kiyomura Corporation Chairman Kiyoshi Kimura, will also start a company in Sri Lanka soon, the Minister assured.

Both companies will be registered in Sri Lanka and will operate under the Sri Lankan flag. Once they are in operation, the Sri Lankan government expects fishing revenue to double hitting 500 million U.S. dollars, Xinhua reports.
'No Fire Zone -The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka' screened at LSE
07 May 2013
The London School of Economics screened the feature length documentary, ‘No Fire Zone- The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka’ , today.

No Fire Zone - Trailer from Zoe Sale on Vimeo.

The film screening was preceded by a series of panel presentations on options for accountability and victim support and followed by a Question and answer session. Members of the panel included No Fire Zone director Callum Macrae, Shivani Jegarajah of the Renaissance Chambers, Janani Jananayagam, founding director of Tamils against Genocide and Dr Devika Hovell a lecturer in law at the LSE.
Addressing the audience, Barrister of the Renaissance Chambers, Shivani Jegarajah outlined her findings of the situation in Sri Lanka after working on the country guidance case, stating
“No-where in the world has there been such a thorough investigation as we have carried out in Sri Lanka”
“When I finished the country case, I realised that you cannot analyse a Tamil asylum case without considering at the forefront of your analysis that there was genocide.”

The director of the Non Governmental Organisation Tamils Against Genocide (TAG), Janani Jananayagam, outlined that the problem in Sri Lanka was more than an unruly regime, drawing upon several historic presidential statements that highlighted the inconsiderate nature of the Sri Lankan government towards the Tamils in the North-East.

“When you watch, think about why this is happening,” she told the audience.

No Fire Zone director, Callum Macrae, introduced the film noting that the film was a piece of evidence as well as being a documentary, and purported the international communities duty to act on the issue. He stated,

“The Sri Lankan government will tell you that everything you see in this documentary is a lie. This film is not a lie, everything in this film has been independently verified. “
“What has happened is that the government makes promises to do something and does absolutely nothing. They have ignored their own recommendations. The recent UN resolution called on Sri Lanka to investigate itself. Sri Lanka has demonstrated quite clearly that it cannot investigate itself. It is absurd to let Sri Lanka to hide behind false pretences of conducting its own inquiry, The international community under the responsibility to protect resolution has a duty to now call for an international independent investigation.”

The film was received well by the crowd and ended in a question and answer session that discussed the lack of action by the international community.

Callum Macrae slammed the recent failure of the Commonwealth in holding a stance on the issue,

“Commonwealth General Secretary Sharma is responsible for the most appalling breech of the commonwealth values.”

He went on to note,

“There is a tendency to see this as a static situation. The fact is that it is much more volatile. The regime is dangerous and unstable. It is actively trying to deny autonomy in the North-East. It is simply repressing the Tamils.”

The question and answer session ended with Jan Jananayagam, reiterating the importance of No Fire Zone as a tool to pressure the international community to take a stronger stance against Sri Lanka.

Callum Macrae echoed Jan Jananayagam’s calls urging supporters of the documentary tofund the project using the website kickstarters.
See our twitter account for proceedings from the event.