Colombo plans settling 5,000 Sinhala families in Mannaar: TNA MP

[TamilNet, Thursday, 09 May 2013, 22:11 GMT]
The occupying Sri Lanka has planned to appropriate lands in Mannaar district of the occupied country of Eezham Tamils to settle five thousand Sinhala families thus creating two new Sinhala villages, said Vanni district Tamil National Alliance (TNA) parliamentarian Mr.Selvam Adaikalanathan citing inside instructions coming from Colombo to Mannaar district secretariat. “According to this covert plan one thousand five hundred Sinhalese families in Maanthai West DS division, one thousand Sinhalese families in Madu AGA division and one thousand five hundred Sinhalese families in Musali DS division are to be settled down in the district,” Mr Adaikkalanathan further told media. 

Selvam Adaikkalanathan [Library Photo]

According to reliable information, a Sinhalese village to be created between two Muslim villages and another Sinhalese village is to be created between two Tamil villages in Mannaar district. 

The covert plan for the land appropriation and creation of two Sinhala villages in the district has the blessing of a Cabinet Minister who hails from district, Mr. Selvam Adaikalanathan further said.

The TNA parliamentarian and TELO leader who also hails from Mannaar said land appropriation and creation of new Sinhala villages are to take place while large number of uprooted Tamils and Muslims are still waiting for the resettlement in their own villages.

Govt. invites UNP to join Select Committee

FRIDAY, 10 MAY 2013

The Government extended a fresh invitation to the main opposition United National Party (UNP) to join the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to evolve a political solution to the national question.

During question time, Chief Government Whip Dinesh Gunawardane told parliament that it was important for the UNP as the main opposition political party to join this select committee.

“It is better for the UNP to participate in it and submit its proposals,” he said.

The Chief Whip said this when UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe asked whether action would be taken to establish an independent police commission as recommended by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

Mr. Wickremesinghe said the Government had agreed, at a meeting with the opposition including the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), to present a formula for political negotiations.

“It is yet to be revealed so that we can participate,” he said and added that the government should promise to repeal the 18th Amendment and reintroduce the 17th Amendment for the establishment of independent commissions.

“If you give us that assurance, we can join the PSC,” he said.

Jaffna Development Council – Efforts And Demise

By S. Sivathasan -May 10, 2013 

S.Sivathasan

When the Jaffna Development Council started functioning a Minister who made frequent official visits to Jaffna was Hon. Gamini Dissanayake. His known closeness to the President lent some significance to the discussions he had with Mr. Nadarajah the Chairman of the Council. A warm rapport developed between the two. To the Chairman it opened a two way communication connecting the District with the Centre. The Minister perhaps was not unaware of the political fall-l out for the government, if things turned out well.

Quite a few meetings with the Minister were held in Colombo. The Chairman, the GA Dr. Nesiah and the writer participated at these meetings. What were emphasized from the Council side were substantially larger funding and more devolved powers to utilize the finances effectively. The proposition struck a sensitive chord with the Minister and he took the initiative in arranging for a meeting with President JR Jayawardene one evening at his residence. It was in the latter part of 1982.The five of us took part in the discussions for over an hour. Development priorities with central funding were outlined by us. The Jaffna Lagoon Scheme and bridging the Mahadeva Causeway were among them. There was responsive interaction.

In mid 1982, to mark the first anniversary of the Development Council a special sitting was organized. Policy and programme set out in a document of fifty pages was readout by the Chairman at this ceremonial sitting. It became the base for discussions in Colombo. In a subsequent document, another exercise was undertaken to define objective principles for block grants to Development Councils. The capital votes were taken together and after setting apart a certain percentage for central government works, the balance was to be given to the districts. Distribution based on the criteria of population and area of each district will compose a share and the remaining amount will be apportioned according to a district’s state of growth, development needs and other relevant criteria.

This proposition with figures extracted from the Printed Estimates and worked out with a district perspective was sent to the powers that be in Colombo. To continuous correspondence and personal contact, there was a response from the President. Three from the Development Council, Chairman, GA and the writer were invited for a discussion on a day of a Cabinet meeting. After the conclusion of the meeting, President retained a handful of Ministers including Lalith Athulathmudali and Cyril Mathew and called on the Chairman to address them. The strategy appeared to be to expose them to the suffocation suffered by a Development Council for want of finances and of authority. The Chairman a former Senator had the respect of the President for his outspokenness. He explained the proposition urging the need for meaningful financial devolution and for increased funding. Lalith showed interest and even appeared impressed with the proposition.

The above meeting was about January 1983, after the conclusion of the referendum and the general election in 1982. About two weeks subsequently, I was summoned by the President for a discussion on budgetary support.  Those present included Lalith, Dr. Ranjit Attapattu from the deep South and the DST. Issues related to making the Councils effective were discussed. In passing even the creation of a District based Public Service from among serving officers was touched on. An important decision taken was to appoint a Committee of Secretaries – about six – to suggest ways for greater financial support. Lalith was to be Chairman and Mr.Bradman Weerakoon Secretary. Mr. Felix Dias Abeysinghe though retired was in the committee for his Local Government background. I was appointed Assistant Secretary, so that as a wearer of the shoe in Jaffna District, I could explain where it pinched and how hard. After deliberations spread over a few weeks, an Interim Report was submitted in May 1983. The highlight of it was a recommendation for an allocation to all Development Councils of a sum equivalent to the allocation for the Decentralized Budget (DCB). It meant a doubling of Rs. 420 million to 840 million for direct spending by the districts.

This was far from satisfying. The North South dialogue with the President from October 1982 to September 1983 achieved precious little. No meeting ground came about. Each side was reinforced in its own position and policy stance on the scope of devolution. Political power residing in the South prevailed over the North. There was not even a thought of sharing. The failed attempt at building bridges alienated the Tamils still further. They saw the effort and the minimal financial support through the prism of a Tamil saying, show the moon to distract the child that pesters. The simmering Tamil problem only festered. The Tamil side was neither distracted nor convinced nor satisfied. To those who pegged their vision on a federal arrangement, the Development Council with proven impotence was a far cry.

The Chairman did not wish to continue with a position that offered little prospects for meaningful engagement. He relinquished his post and informed the President accordingly, about the 12^th July 1983. The next week the Ex-Chairman and I were invited for a discussion on devolution at the President’s residence. At this point of time we had come to the position that a Province and not a District should be the unit of devolution. We wanted to put forward this point of view.  At the conference seated on one side were about five others including Lalith and facing them were both of us. President’s opening sentence was “Chairman, if you are thinking of any scheme outside the Development Council set up, WE PART”. So the discussion was limited to refining the existing scheme.

The next day July 22nd, we travelled back to Jaffna by car with the GA. Explosions that midnight changed the political scene. In late September I was called for a one to one discussion on Development Council and Devolution.  In a fortnight I was summoned again. At this discussion senior officials too participated. I said “Sir, if we can take up the most sensitive issue of land and make some progress, it will clear the way to success in other subjects”. Devolution of all powers relating to land was put across. After some deliberations on land Mr.GVP Samarasinghe said, “you can’t override the Minister”. After some more discussions the meeting ended. It marked the end of an year’s effort. India’s involvement grew thereafter eclipsing any local initiative.

After the riots many of the MPs were in self – exile. The Development Council lingered on for a few more months making little impact on economic life. When it was born, there were no comets seen. At its demise there was not a whimper. Having lived up to the objective of the President it derived neither power nor finances. It just withered away. There was no devolution and little development. Even the meager expectations of some Tamils were completely belied. In the words of a Tamil recluse, uttered 1,000 years ago, “everything receded as a phantasm, an old tale and a dream”. The Council merged in the Kachcheri, losing its brief authority and identity. The district had to wait for the next five years for the North – East Provincial Council.

*The writer is a former Advisor to President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

Despotic MaRa regime plots to detain 5000 others using Sally DO method –Ad wolf Hitler still alive !

(Lanka-e-News -10.May.2013, 6.00PM) The MaRa regime is plotting to take action against 5000 others resorting to the same treacheries and tactics employed to take Azath Salley into custody, according to news reaching Lanka e news inside information division. 

This has come to light following the printing afresh of papers , that is, 5000 DO order papers for detention based on the Prevention of terrorism Act (PTA) under the signature of defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse. This printing order had been given by the defense Ministry and 3800 papers of this order had been supplied to the government already.

This is an accurate clue that the despotic regime in its utter desperation is seeking to take in for detention a large number of individuals under the PTA. Even during the period of the war , 5000 D O papers were not printed , inside information division points out.

Meanwhile , a fundamental rights petition has been filed by relatives of Azath Salley in the Supreme court (SC) which was postponed until the following day. However, sources within the courts say , this petition may be dismissed because, the three judges panel to hear the petition is comprised of : Mohan Peiris the chief justice better known as ‘cheat justice’; Sathya Hettige his next in command when Peiris was attorney general (AG) , and justice Eva Wanasundara , all three of whom are infamous stooges of MaRa .

At the same time, parties of the joint opposition and ten Organizations have issued special communiqués roundly condemning the arrest and detention of Azath Salley without justification and most unreasonably, as Azath Salley was never a member of any terrorist Organization.

On today later news comes Azath Salley has been released from CID custody after President Mahinda Rajapaksa revoked the detention order against him, Now has been admitted to a leading private hospital in Colombo, 

Rajapkses to buy up ‘Ravaya’ News Paper

(Lanka-e-News -10.May.2013, 6.00PM) ‘Ravaya’ newspaper which had been functioning for some time as a dissent media, and which became a half stooge of Mahinda Rajapakse since his return is to be completely bought over by the Rajapakses. This is being bought by Milinda Moragoda, the Presidential advisor. The price to be paid is Rs. 70 million it is learnt.

On the pretext that it belongs to the journalists working in the Institution , small shares of it had been distributed among them while the main shareholder is Victor Ivan who is its owner and editor. Since the Ravaya is not a much profit making concern , the ownership of shares by the journalists is of no gain to them. The bottom line is, as owner-journalists they will have to work for the lowest remuneration in the world. 

Ravaya provided sustenance to two Editors. In the recent past , Victor Ivan the unscrupulous scoundrel ,one of its Editors started doing the sordid biddings of the MaRa regime while the other Editor, Mr. Janaranjana, a Lawyer carried on as a government opponent. Rajapakse regime gave the govt. advertisements to Ravaya and the taxes due to the government were also waived. 

Finally, the Rajapakse regime which is getting ready to face a decisive election had decided to buy over at once all opinions and views that are arrayed and growing monumentally against it and fill its underwear . 

Accordingly Ravaya is also to be thrust into it. Victor Ivan who is notorious for his evil streak of selling his soul and even national interests as a journalist for filthylucre is ever ready to creep into the regime’s underwear, stench regardless. Ivan has therefore notified his subordinates that he is having discussions with Milinda Moragoda to sell it to him. Though the price is not revealed , it is to be sold for Rs. 70 million , according to reports reaching Lanka e news. A media personnel linked to Ravaya told Lanka e news , 20 million is to be divided among the staff while Rs. 50 million is to be pocketed by Ivan.

It is impossible to imagine that the owners of Ravaya which dragged on for 25 years since it commenced had suddenly encountered financial difficulties. 

Of course there are some among us when they are growing old , sell all their assets and deposit the proceeds in a fixed deposit ,and wish to be happy after paying the bill of the florists ahead before their funeral, and wait the death . When a man who has no aim, no worthy tasks, no principles, no scruples, and for whom money by his side physically however earned is what gives eternal bliss, desires such acts he cannot be blamed.

Political Machinations: The different Forces Ranged Against The Military In The North

By Rajiva Wijesinha -May 10, 2013

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP

One of the more bizarre aspects of the post-conflict situation is the strange combination of forces trying to undermine the security forces in their work in the North. I believe their presence there is essential, and not only for security reasons, which we cannot ignore just because the LTTE in Sri Lanka has been destroyed. LTTE sympathizers are still active elsewhere, as we can see from the determination not to condemn any acts of the LTTE – except only for the occasional general admission that both sides violated international norms, followed by a catalogue of what the forces are supposed to have done, with no specifics with regard to the LTTE.

But it is not only fear that the enormous resources LTTE and separatist sympathizers command will be used again for violence that requires the continuing presence of the armed forces in the North. It is also that they still continue with massive services with regard to the restoration of basic infrastructure. Unfortunately they have not developed a system yet of recording the number of wells they have dug, the houses they have built, the roads they have repaired, the playgrounds they have constructed, so their contribution goes unsung. And trying to introduce coherence into the government narrative is of course impossible, given that it privileges style over substance, but really has no idea of the style that would carry conviction.

Meanwhile the vociferous opponents of reconciliation in Sri Lanka ignore all the work the military has done, and continue to talk of a military presence, which only they seem now to see. Most disinterested observers, on the contrary, are now struck by the absence of soldiers on the ground in most of the North. Interestingly, the assistance provided still by the military is appreciated not only by those who actually supply assistance and see how the military has facilitated resettlement, but also by the majority of the resettled. At Divisional Secretariat meetings, while they continue to draw attention to what they see as shortcomings – and also what is occasionally described, in the Vanni, as the unfair allocations decided on by politicians – there is no criticism of the military.

Ironically, I gather that it is some of those politicians, who are seen as parochial in their concerns, who are most opposed to the military. There have been regular attempts to remove the commanders who are thought the most highly of by the civilians in those areas, and there is no doubt that, if they went, we would have the type of exclusively political decision making that now happens so often in the South. And while in the South at least – though I do not think that is a good enough reason – it could be claimed that the politicians exercising authority represent a majority of the people, that is obviously not true in the North.

I should add that allowing politicians a free hand in the North would be as disastrous for those politicians as for the country. Since they necessarily represent a minority of the population, the decisions they make will naturally increase the unpopularity of the government, and lead to disaster in any election. But unfortunately they do not recognize this, or perhaps they feel that their obligation is to satisfy their supporters, and the long term consequences are not important.

So we find both opposition politicians and some government politicians united in their efforts to reduce the role of the military. Added to this however is another element that is perhaps even more dangerous. Recently we have had a spate of attacks on opposition politicians and media outlets, which unfortunately the police have not dealt with firmly. Some government politicians claim that their supporters are condemned for what elements in the military have perpetrated, whereas the military claims the opposite.

In both cases I would assume that the leadership had made it clear, unless they are particularly stupid and want the government to become unpopular, that violence must be avoided. Indeed I had what seemed evidence of this in that I was told by a TNA supporter with regard to one incident that nothing happened until after he had left, even though it was apparent to him that there were members of the forces present in mufti during the event that was later subject to violence.

This would suggest that orders were simply to observe. Though that in itself might seem an unnecessary imposition, given the state of mutual distrust that has been built up, it is understandable. What is not understandable is how later violence was deployed.

It is possible that there was excessive provocation, and even servicemen present, if they did get involved, forgot the training they had received. Representatives of other politicians could also have failed to exercise self-control. But it seems to me also possible that there are elements purporting to be supporters of the government who are in a win-win situation if they employ violence. Some elements may be racist, others may be implacably opposed to the TNA and therefore determined to remove any possibility of them working together with government – a position that obviously the extremists in the TNA reciprocate. And those in theory with the government who do not want reconciliation can work to this end while knowing that government will suffer, and that their actions can only strengthen opposition forces in the South in the long run.

Government unfortunately does not seem aware of the dangers, and by not taking firm action against rogue elements, by whomsoever they have been sanctioned, is contributing to its own downfall. Some elements opposed to Reconciliation might have thought they did not have to worry for a long time, since they could have the election to the Northern Provincial Council postponed. But given the commitment of the government to go ahead with this, it is vital that it get its act together and stops the various efforts to undermine its position.

Karuna demands that India boycott CHOGM in Lanka

PTI | May 10, 2013
CHENNAI: DMK president M Karunanidhi ​has once again demanded that India boycott the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November, citing Queen Elizabeth II's decision to skip the meet.

Karunanidhi described Queen Elizabeth II's decision as "important". 

"Since the formation of a Commonwealth federation, this is the first time that the Queen has boycotted the conference which is an important information," he said in a statement here on Friday. 

For the first time in 40 years, Queen Elizabeth II will skip the Commonwealth summit, deciding to send her son Prince Charlesinstead for the biennial event. 

However, Buckingham Palace has said the Queen's decision not to attend was not related to the political situation in Lanka. 

Various movements were on, including in Australia, urging that theCHOGM be not held at Colombo, though "arrangements are on for the conduct of the conference in Sri Lanka," he said. 

With the island government charged with alleged "war crimes," it was not acceptable that the CHOGM be held there. There were strong opinions that if it was held as per schedule, Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa will remain as head of Commonwealth for two years and "problems could arise in initiating probe against him," for war-crimes, he said. 

In such a situation, if India participates in the meet as a friendly nation, it would amount to it "endorsing the genocide" (against Tamils)."Therefore, considering that Tamils are also a part of India, India should at least now come forward to extend a hand of friendship," he said. 

"Acceding to the request of Tamil people and others around the world, India should announce it will not participate and also seek to mobilise support of member countries against holding the conference in Sri Lanka," he said. 

India should give credence to the sentiments of Tamil people and devise a strategy accordingly, he added.
Evaluation of Charles Petrie report on Sri Lanka to conclude next month

Friday, 10 May 2013 - 12:53 PM

Deputy UN Secretary-General Jan Eliasson states that the Petrie report commissioned to investigate the role of the international body during the final stages of the war in Sri Lanka would most likely conclude by the end of next month.

Addressing the UN’s daily media briefing in New York yesterday, Eliasson stated that the final stage of the reports evaluation was currently underway.

The Petrie report controversial in nature criticized the UN’s role in Sri Lanka especially during the final stages of the conflict.

According to Deputy UN Secretary-General Jan Eliasson the aim of the report is to prevent similar occurrences in future.

When inquired from Eliasson as to when UN Human Rights Commissioner Navaneethan Paillai would make her visit to Sri Lanka he noted that discussions with Sri Lankan officials in this regard were still proceeding.

On Sri Lanka, UN Panel Met Egeland, De Mistura, Schulenburg, Finish in June

On Sri Lanka, UN Panel Met Egeland, De Mistura, Schulenburg, Finish in June

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 9 -- Four years ago in May 2009 the Sri Lankan Army was advancing north toward a "bloodbath on the beach" in which tens of thousands of civilians were killed.

  The UN has been criticized for its inaction (and some of its actions) in Sri Lanka, and is now again studying itself to come up with recommendations. A panel under Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson was announced, in responseto an Inner City Press question, on December 5, 2012. What has it accomplished?

  On May 9, 2013 Inner City Press asked Eliasson where things stand. Video here, embedded and UN transcript below. d

  He answered that earlier in the day he had an hour and a half meeting about the Sri Lanka review, by video, with such "outside experts" as Staffan De Mistura, Jan Egeland andMichael von Schulenburg, who was thrown out of Sierra Leone.

  (The 2009 successor to Egeland and Eliasson as Emergency Relief Coordinator, John Holmes, has been interfacing with UN-linked NGOs, but apparently not on this report on Sri Lanka. When Inner City Press quoted him about deleting at least some e-mails from Tamils, his staff complained with UN Media Accreditation. And see second footnote below.)

  The goal, Eliasson said, is to come up with recommendations to not have this happen again (he cited Myanmar and Syria). He will get the report, from two of his staff members and Michael Keating, and assess it and give it to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, all by mid-June.

Will the report be public? That is a question that will be asked. Watch this site.

Footnotes: 1) Following up, Inner City Press asked theOffice of High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay if there has been any progress on her visiting Sri Lanka. The answer was, Discussions continuing with Sri Lanka on possible dates.."

  2) When the Sri Lankan government screened its war crimes defense film inside the UN and Inner City Press wrote about it and some background, a fight began that continues to this day. Most recently, a pro government Sri Lankan told Inner City Press they will "complain to UNCA." And what? (Though even the threat is quite telling.) Due to attempts at censorship, for example demands that articles be taken down, Inner City Press co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access. So, send away. We may have more on this.

UN's transcription:

Inner City Press: ... You are the head of this review panel on the Charles Petrie report on Sri Lanka, and I wanted to know, I think that was announced back in December, what have you found, where does it stand, what improvements or reforms have been made?

DSG Jan Eliasson: Thank you very much.... On Charles Petrie’s report on Sri Lanka, it was taken very seriously by the Secretary-General and made public also. I was asked by him, the Secretary-General, to head a group to look, go through the recommendations of the report, and above all look forward to the future so that we avoid coming in such situations as we did in Sri Lanka, and as we have in several other tragic situations. This group was established in January, and they have worked very diligently. It is co-chaired by Andrew Gilmour of the Political Unit, and Paul Akiwumi, my Chief of Staff. And we have a very good secretariat headed by Michael Keating who is a very respected colleague, who was the Deputy SRSG [Special Representative of the Secretary-General] in Afghanistan. What I found most important was to bring was to bring in all the agencies, departments, programmes, funds, who indirectly or directly are involved in the situation or the role of the United Nations in Sri Lanka. So we have had a working group with representatives of all groups working very intensely on taking these recommendations seriously. We also have invited experts from the outside for hearings. Today, I had a hearing with a group of very respectable colleagues of mine and many others – Jan Egeland, Staffan De Mistura, Michael Van Den Schulenberg – I can’t give you the whole list – but we had a video conference of one and a half hours today, where we got their reactions to the report. So, it is a big process right now. And I suppose I will, within a month or so, receive the report and then it is up to me to assess these recommendations and go to the Secretary-General and discuss what measures should be taken. I hope this whole process will be finished by the middle of June at the latest, I would hope. We take it very seriously.

We have of course situations today where all these questions come up. I mentioned Myanmar, but above all, I think about Syria. We need to really prepare ourselves as good as possible for this type of situation in the future.

UK Border Agency insists that Sri Lankans pay to get maimed so they can claim asylum

FRANK ARNOLD 8 May 2013

Burnt with metal rods and cigarette butts? Maybe so, says the Border Agency, but you paid someone to do this to you. A surgeon with expertise in torture scars argues that 'self-torture by proxy' is a dangerous fiction.

This is the back of a Tamil man, photographed in London soon after he arrived here and just before he claimed asylum this year. I examined him recently. The more nearly healed scars I saw correspond precisely to the fresher, scabbed injuries visible in the picture. The burns are pretty blatant. As we used to say in med school, “a bobby on the beat could diagnose that at ten paces”. This man has given informed consent to distribution of anonymised medical data about him, in particular, this photograph, which would otherwise be strictly confidential. (1)

At his asylum interview, he gave copies of these photographs to the UK Border Agency case officer. He explained that he had been tortured by branding with hot metal rods, late last year while being interrogated by the Sri Lankan security forces. He also handed over a recent letter from his new NHS GP which described the doctor's examination findings confirming the presence and nature of the scars and added that the patient was being started on treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The asylum claim was rejected.

In the “Reasons for Refusal” sent to the applicant and his lawyer, each page was headed by a  strapline “the factual accuracy of statements recorded in this letter has been assessed for immigration purposes only”.

In it, the Border Agency held that: 

“Your claim has been considered but for reasons given below it has been concluded that you do not qualify for asylum or Humanitarian Protection....you claim that whilst in detention ….you were burnt with metal rods and cigarette butts....the information provided in the photographs have not been supported by a medical report....You are therefore not considered to have made a genuine effort to substantiate your claim.”

The doctor's letter was not even mentioned. Nor does the interview record (written by that caseworker) show that the asylum seeker was informed that he needed to provide a “medical report”.

In isolation, this Kafkaesque illogic would just be further evidence of the well known culture of disbelief within the Border Agency and of the damage this does. Amnesty International have recently analysed how it is that 2192 appeals against refusal of asylum, or 27 per cent of the total, came to be overturned by the courts in 2012, at huge and avoidable emotional cost to the applicant and financial ones to the exchequer. (PDF)

However, not content with ignoring the evidence before them, the caseworker went on to cite a UK government official report:

"A letter from the British High Commission (BHC) Colombo dated 11 May 2011 reported:

'I asked the Senior Government Intelligence Official is there was any truth in allegations that the Sri Lankan authorities were torturing suspect. They denied this was the case and added that many Sri Lankans who claimed asylum abroad had inflicted wounds on themselves in order to create scars to support their stories.'

'[A Colombo based human rights worker] added  that is was well known that many persons who were held in IDP camps at the end of the conflict scarred themselves so that on release they could make allegations that the Sri Lankan government had tortured the.” (Sri Lanka COI report, dated 4 July 2011, para 8.35'"

What lies behind the bizarre contention that anyone could or would pay another to damage them to the extent shown in the photographs? This is not a one-off case. That precise argument (self-torture by proxy for malicious ends) has been produced by Immigration Judges or Border Agency caseworkers in at least 10 Sri Lankan cases with equally blatant evidence of torture in which I have examined the subject and at least twice as many seen by colleagues.

Under pressure from the office of the Chief Inspector of UKBA (PDF) and from the charity, Freedom from Torture, (PDF) the relevant part of the COI report was retracted for lack of evidence in 2012. But it still continues to be used. This raises several questions:

1. The basis of these asylum claims was the blatant evidence of torture. How likely is it that someone could or world pay others to damage them so severely? From extensive experience of inflicting pain as a surgeon and suffering it as a patient I am certain that the answer is that no one could hold still for such harms without a general anaesthetic (which is and was almost certainly unavailable to detainees in displaced persons camps in Sri Lanka.) A colleague has carefully searched the world medical and legal literature on factitious torture. So have I. We have found a tiny number of cases, none of them connected with asylum or Sri Lanka. Absent hard evidence in the specific case, self-torture by proxy is simply not a rational argument.

2. The standard of evidence required for acceptance of an asylum claim is “a reasonable likelihood” (eg less even than balance of probabilities). Why is such highly improbable behaviour repeatedly cited as “evidence” against asylum claimants?

3. The argument has been withdrawn at the insistence of appropriate authority. However immigration judges are now making the same allegations of “self-torture by proxy" against asylum seekers from countries other than Sri Lanka. How is it that a year later it is still being used, and what does this tell us about the asylum system?

4. What is the genesis of this myth and why is it being disseminated? The “Senior  Government Intelligence Official”, the “Colombo based human rights worker” and the organisations for which they work are not named by the British High Commission whose letter contributed to the COI Report. Nor is any evidence whatever advanced to support their allegations.

This calumny is almost certainly widespread in Sri Lanka itself, and clearly started there. For example, at a meeting organised by UNESCO  (PDF) (about medical ethics education, of all things) which I attended last year, I encountered a very eminent psychiatrist who practices in Sri Lanka. The conversation went like this:

Frank Arnold: Do you see a lot of post-traumatic stress disorder, as might be expected in a country emerging from a civil war?

Psychiatrist: No, why?

FWA: I do  - particularly among Tamils whom I examine after they apply for asylum in the UK.

Psychiatrist: They are lying.

FWA: I've seen the scars on their backs.

Psychiatrist: They pay people to do that to them.

Atrocities have been committed in every land and time. Perpetrators usually feel the need to deny their actions, if only to their inner voices and to their coterie. In self-proclaimed “civilised” or “democratic” industrially developed societies, perpetrators also need to rationalise or disguise their actions to a wider public, which — these days — is international. 

Modern purveyors of such falsehoods employ public relations battalions, squadrons of spin doctors, and collaborating international partners to help cloak themselves with respectability and disseminate their denials and evasions. The process is not new. Stalin referred to his Western admirers as “useful idiots”. Some of Hitler's US and British supporters in the 1930s had more financial incentives.

It is wholly comprehensible that Sri Lanka's rulers should want to hide their crimes or blame the victims. They are engaged in an international campaign to detoxify their image. Discrediting the evidence, promoting tourism, hosting the next Commonwealth Conference and seeking investment in joint ventures to grab and exploit formerly Tamil land, with assistance from  a former British Minister are all part of the process.

It is less understandable why British authorities should uncritically parrot the abusers' claims. This has contributed directly to the involuntary return and re-torture of at least 15 asylum seekers who have, according to the Border Agency, managed to come back to this country, often with new scars. It also assists the propaganda offensive of a regime whose masters stand accused of the most extreme of war crimes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lest it be claimed that this man is being put at undue risk because the scars could identify him, he has given formal informed and signed consent to publication of this photo and other information about him. The number of Tamils whose backs display this kind of branding is large and their marks are similar. Thus the practice of this form of torture is recurrent and widespread.

See also: Preventing Torture: the role of physicians and their professional organisations: principles and practice, (PDF), Medact 2011; and Prevention of torture by doctors and organisations, The Lancet, Volume 378, Issue 9809, Pages e22 - e23, 17 December 2011 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61300-7

Frank Arnold is a independent doctor. He has examined and written medico-legal reports or similar about at least 800 people who gave a history of being physically tortured for (among others) Freedom from Torture, the Helen Bamber Foundation and the Medical Justice Network, which he co-founded. He is a trustee of Medact, a charity which campaigns for human rights and medicine.

Medact are holding a series of public meetings on medical collusion in and opposition to torture around the world. The next, concerning Sri Lanka, will be at the House of Lords, on 22 May 2013, from 5.30pm to 7.30pm.

If you want to attend, please contact: info@medact.org

A Warning Sign Of Things To Come

By Mandana Ismail Abeywickrema-Friday, May 10, 2013

US Secretary of State John Kerry

The proposed 20 percent cut in US aid to Sri Lanka sent a warning signal to Sri Lanka that the government’s actions could have an impact on the country’s economic growth and further push the country towards an abyss.

Despite claims by the government that the proposed aid cut would not have a bearing on the Sri Lankan economy, the actions of the US would send a negative message to other donors and lending agencies.

Warnings by members of the international community that continuous resolutions on Sri Lanka in the international fora and the Sri Lankan government’s failure to address issues like human rights, democracy and follow proper fiscal policies would have a drastic impact on the country’s economy are now showing signs of becoming a reality.

The move by the EU to withdraw the GSP Plus trade concession offered to Sri Lanka in 2010 and now the proposal by the US to cut its annual aid to the country together would add to an impending stand by the international community to demand action on continuous issues raised by them with the government in the past few years.

It was US Secretary of State John Kerry who proposed a 20 percent cut in American aid to Sri Lanka.

This move is viewed by foreign analysts as part of the unease in the ties between Sri Lanka and the US over issues related to human rights, reconstruction and reconciliation in Sri Lanka following the end of the civil war.

Foreign media reported that the aid cut to Sri Lanka is believed to be the highest drop for any South Asian country in Kerry’s budgetary proposals, which were sent to the Congress last week for approval.

In actual terms, Kerry has proposed US$ 11 million in aid to Sri Lanka for 2013, which, according to a senior State Department official, is a “drop of 20 percent” from the actual spending in the 2012 fiscal year.

While the actual US development assistance to Sri Lanka in 2012 was US$ 8 million, Kerry has proposed only about US$ 6 million for 2014.

Economist and UNP parliamentarian Dr. Harsha de Silva has said that despite claims by the Sri Lankan government that the aid cut does not matter much, because the amounts cut are very small, it is the thinking that matters.

“It doesn’t matter whether the amount is big or small,” he observed.

He has pointed out that the US has been a friend of Sri Lanka during the period of the war and helped crack down on the LTTE funding mechanisms in the West.

What the government has failed to comprehend is the underlying message sent out by the US through its move to cut aid to Sri Lanka.
Economists also warn that the country would be faced with a difficult situation if other countries also try to follow the EU and the US and withdraw concessions and aid given to the country.

Economist Muttukrishna Sarvananthan said that the country’s economic growth is decelerating, government revenue is declining, exports are declining and inflation is rising.

In this backdrop, the government that is having balance of payment issues would have to be concerned about preventing the country from experiencing spiraling inflation.

The loss of the GSP Plus facility has resulted in many foreign investors in Sri Lanka moving out to other markets.
Most of the investors in the country’s apparel sector have shifted their businesses to other countries in the region, especially to Bangladesh.
The overall income from apparel exports in 2011 was US$ 4,100 million, which had declined to US$ 3,850 million in 2012.
Joint Secretary of the Free Trade Zones and General Services Employees Union, Anton Marcus has said that Sri Lanka enjoyed the benefits of the GSP Plus concession since 2003.

“As a result of this from the year 2000 there were about 835 garment manufacturing factories in the country, employing a huge workforce, but now there are only around 314, employing only around 283,000 workers,” he has observed.

Meanwhile, President of the Inter Company Employees Union (ICEU), Wasantha Samarasinghe said that contrary to claims made by the government, the loss of the GSP Plus facility has affected many private sector businesses in the country.
He observed that the closure of two garment factories in the Gampaha District had affected the direct employment of 1,500 persons while a large number of indirect employment opportunities have also been affected.

He said that Chrystal Sweater (Pvt.) Company in the Malwatta Investment Promotion Estate in Nittambuwa was closed down on January 2nd and Firefox Pvt. Ltd. in Pamunugama in Wattala was closed down on the same day.
According to Samarasinghe, these factories have been established with Board of Investment (BoI) approval.

“The government assured that the country would not face any economic fallout due to the loss of the GSP Plus facility. But now factories are closing. The government needs to provide solutions to the current crisis,” he said.
Samarasinghe added that the government has failed to address the issue of people losing their jobs.

“Although some employees have received some form of compensation payments due to the intervention of traded unions, some other workers have lost their jobs even without proper compensation,” he said.

The EU’s GSP Plus tariff concession allowed Sri Lanka to sell over 7,000 products to the EU countries tax-free. The country’s garment industry benefited most from the facility.
It is learnt that 10 garment manufacturing factories have been closed in Biyagama, Nittambuwa and Katunayake investment zones.
Therefore, considering the domestic economic conditions, Sri Lanka cannot afford to lose its image with the international community as well.
The government has already boasted about not taking any loans in future from lending agencies at concessionary interest rates, but has opted to borrow monies from the commercial banks at higher interest rates.
The onus is on the government to step up and take the necessary action to prevent the country from falling further into an economic abyss.

No PR firm on earth can white wash this

Development Economist, Principal Researcher, Point Pedro Institute of Development, Muttukrishna Sarvananthan said the government is concerned about the waning economic euphoria although the proposed 20 percent aid cut by the US would have only a marginal impact on the country’s economy. “Having failed to whitewash the human rights violations and weakening Rule of Law in the country through a PR firm in the UK, the government is attempting to whitewash the economic decline through a PR firm in the US,” he added.
Following is a brief interview with Sarvananthan:

Q: How will the proposed 20 percent aid cut for this year by the US affect the Sri Lankan economy?
A: Only marginally because bilateral American aid (grants and loans) to Sri Lanka is very small. American aid cut to Sri Lanka is part of huge reduction in public expenditure and tax hikes in the USA in order to reduce their budget deficit. In 2012, American grants to Sri Lanka was just Rs. 3.1 billion (US$ 24.5 million) or 15.7% of the total grants received by Sri Lanka (Rs.19,708 million). There was American aid cut to Bangladesh as well in the region. Besides, Sri Lanka has not got any loans from America for a long time now.

Q: The government says it would not have an impact on the economy. Do you agree?
A: The aid cut by America will have only a marginal direct impact on the Sri Lankan economy. Sri Lanka depends much more on exports to the US and portfolio investments from the US primarily in government securities. The US is the single largest market for exports from Sri Lanka and source of the single largest portfolio investments in Sri Lanka.

Q: The government said the same thing when the EU withdrew the GSP Plus facility. What impact has the loss of GSP Plus had on the economy?
A: EU countries accounted for 38.5% (US$ 2.7 billion) of the total exports from Sri Lanka in 2009, which dropped to 34% in 2011 (US$ 3.6 billion) and 33% in 2012 (3.2 billion $). However, in absolute value there has been an increase in exports to the EU by Sri Lanka after 2009; US$ 2.9 billion in 2010, US$ 3.6 billion in 2011, and US$ 3.2 billion in 2012.

Q: What is the current state of the economy?
A: Economic growth is decelerating, government revenue is declining, exports are declining and inflation is rising; however, private foreign remittances and earnings from tourism are also rising.

Q: Should the government be worried about the country’s economic conditions?
A: Of course, the government is concerned about the waning economic euphoria. That is, why the Central Bank has hired a public relations firm in the US (largest market of Sri Lanka’s exports and the largest portfolio investor in Sri Lanka) to whitewash the economic decline. Having failed to whitewash the human rights violations and weakening Rule of Law in the country through a PR firm in the UK, the government is attempting to whitewash the economic decline through a PR firm in the US. Lies never die. Sri Lanka has amply proved to the world that her Chief Executive, Chief Justice and Chief Banker are a pack of liars.