China’s Buddhist Diplomacy In Sri Lanka:What Is The Endgame With China, India, And America (CIA)?

By Patrick Mendis -May 14, 2013 |

Dr Patrick Mendis

Summary: The strategic players of China, India, and America (CIA) are all attempting to restore historic supremacy and legitimacy in the Indian Ocean through Sri Lanka—as if the island’s post-Eelam War’s peace dividends could benefit all stakeholders. Sri Lanka, the crown jewel of China’s multibillion dollar New Silk Road—or the String of Pearls—strategy across the Indian Ocean will be home to a $100-million plus, all-encompassing Lotus Tower. The tower, named in deference to the Buddha’s Lotus Sutra, is being paid for by Beijing. Cementing longstanding historical ties as well as reaffirming the Buddhist bonds between China and Sri Lanka, the Chinese-funded telecommunications tower is a physical manifestation of Beijing’s foreign policy slogan of a peaceful rising. The Lotus Tower shrewdly embodies a Buddhist emblem of peace; it also harkens back to the ancient power that once radiated from the Middle Kingdom. The construction of the tower in Colombo comes at a time when India and the United States have purposefully reengaged with strategic Sri Lanka to rebalance international relations and power structure in the region. With an extensive diplomatic and trade history, this millennia-old island is generating a subtle but far-reaching influence on its powerful neighbor, India, as well as both the United States and China in the new maritime theater of geopolitics and trade relations across the Indian Ocean.

No Nation is an Island

Sri Lanka has never been an island; its trade and diplomatic relations traced back to the ancient kingdoms of Asia as well as the ruling empires of Europe. Trade linkages—in the form of goods, services, and knowledge—have long connected Sri Lanka with the rest of the world, including the 1773 Boston Tea Party and the new American republic. Trade in knowledge proved more enduring and important than mere goods and services; and the Portuguese, Dutch, and British all carried Christianity to the predominantly Buddhist nation. Buddhism itself came to the island from India centuries before colonialism. Sri Lanka then acted as a magnifying conduit, diffusing Buddha’s noble teachings around the world and attracting Buddhist scholars like Chinese Monk Fa-hsien in the early fourth century, and peace activists like Army Colonel Henry Olcott of the American Civil War in the late nineteenth century, to its shores. Arab traders introduced Islam; Indian rulers promoted Hinduism. Today, Sri Lanka is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and multilingual nation. The island—with such diversity within a highly-educated and entrepreneurial population of 20 million—remains a grand central seaport in the Indian Ocean, one that has increasingly become of strategic importance to China, India, and America (CIA). As in ancient times, trade and safe passageway through the Indian Ocean have become a national security matter to each of these and other nations far and near.

In the recent past, the United States has retreated from the Indian Ocean region; in doing so, it allowed “non-traditional donors like the Chinese to fill the vacuum” in Sri Lanka in particular and the South Asian region in general. In its report, “Sri Lanka: Re-charting U.S. Strategy after the War”—known as “The Kerry-Lugar Report”—the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also presented a complete review of the failures of Washington’s approach. The report notes, “While the United States shares with the Indians and Chinese a common interest in securing maritime trade routes through the Indian Ocean, the U.S. Government has invested relatively little in the economy or the security sector in Sri Lanka.” Both China and India have attempted to fill that void by reasserting claims to restore their legitimacy and historical supremacy over Sri Lanka—a strategically located island at the southern tip of the South Asian sub-continent.

China’s New Silk Road—a strategic engagement with countries along the ancient Silk Road for largely energy security purposes—culminates with the Beijing-funded $100 million Lotus Tower situated in Sri Lanka’s largest city, Colombo. The hi-tech Lotus Tower will be the tallest structure in South Asia and the nineteenth tallest building in the world—reportedly visible from as far away as New Delhi. The iconography makes India nervous, and jealous. In the meantime, the United States is also uneasy about recent developments in this strategic maritime corridor. Beijing is likely funding the project to reflect one of the core foreign policy interests of China’s peaceful rising strategy. In the midst of this momentous Lotus Tower development, the historically Buddhist nations of China and Ceylon (Sri Lanka)—a Theravada Buddhist nation—have joined forces to distinguish their ancient connections from the majority Hindu population of India and the predominantly Christian nation of the United States. Despite widespread recognition of their political branding as the largest and most powerful democracies, India and the United States respectively represent a lesser union—by way of shared political philosophy and history—when compared to the centuries-old religious and cultural bonds that link China and Sri Lanka together.

In international affairs, nations tend to act based on self-interest. The interplay between various nations promoting their own security in world politics is a dynamic part of realpolitik; former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger defined the term as “calculations of power and national interests.” Foreign policy textbooks characterize this behavioral interplay as geopolitical realism. Former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston captured the very essence of geopolitics when he said, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” This behavioral analysis is relevant to understanding the geostrategic CIA drama underway in the Indian Ocean region.

United States as a Global Nation    Read More

What’s next to sell?

TUESDAY, 14 MAY 2013 

A massive protest was organised by the Medical Faculty Students’ Union of the Colombo Medical College, in front of the Faculty last week, against the intake of unqualified local and foreign students into local universities for the academic year 2011/2012, for LKR 7.5 million per head. The second appeal to the Government was to withdraw the students of the Kothalawala Defence Academy which is run under the Ministry of Defence and in the process of privatisation, from hospitals attached to local universities which are maintained under the Ministry of Higher Education, when receiving clinical training.

The latest ploy of the government in privatisation of education is selling government university degrees to both unqualified local and foreign students. For this year the UGC (University Grants Commission) has laid the groundwork to facilitate 42 students with insufficient qualifications in Government medical faculties. The minimum academic requirement made public is a mere 3 ‘S’ passes either through local A/L or the London A/L routes, which is again an incoherent and ridiculous action to take.
The bottom line of 3 ‘S’ passes was set since the inception of the PMC concept in Sri Lanka and it has a strong economical basis from a business point of view. A student entering the PMC has to pay monthly LKR 100,000 on an average. How many parents in Sri Lanka can afford such a huge investment for the education of one child? It is merely 1 to 2 per cent of the population according to the data from the Central Bank. When it comes to the said percentage, out of the students who obtained at least 3 ‘C’ passes from those who have opted for the Biology stream in Local A/Ls, it is absolutely not a sufficient number of prospective students, for a business venture. This fact itself projects the sorry state of the future image of Sri Lankan education.

In keeping with continuous Government strategy failures, the current protocol which has been set in motion by the Government reflects a failed strategy and weak efforts of showing off a flash in the pan. A failing Government possesses classic features such as a wide information gap among politicians about the type of services to provide, unnecessary and silly political interference especially taking cognizance of the short term view rather than considering long term effects, sky-high administrative cost of Government bureaucracy in public services and lack of incentives leading to inefficiency and due to overstaffing. All of the above key features are clearly evident in our present scenario. The next move to save the current crisis is to decide the next item to sell and to fix the next auction date. So what is left to sell for tomorrow? It is prudent to ponder a wee bit more than yesterday.



The Government has backed the insidious scholarships given to prospective students from the Malabe PMC (Private Medical College), reinforcing privatisation of medical education while saying that there won’t be enough available admissions for those who have obtained 3 ‘A’ passes in the Biology stream in Sri Lanka, which invariably is an irrational statement even an Advanced Level (A/L) student can understand, though our political rulers cannot comprehend. Instead, the responsible parties can easily afford to accommodate a student at a Government Medical Faculty for less than LKR 1.5 million, if there are hardly any students left with 3 ‘A’ passes, in spite of wasting colossal amounts, through Government banks.

At the moment the quota of the foreign and local students from different routes who are allowed to study at Government universities has been increased up to 5% per year, from 0.5%, where it was exclusively for foreign students during the previous years. Still the majority of local A/L students are given the opportunity. But, the moment for the percentage to turn around is not far away as of now, as we are passing a dynamic totalitarian rule. When it happens, the victims would not be the minority who are capable of affording a sum of several million rupees over one’s education per year, but the children of parents who strove hard to win 2/3rds majority to the present rulers.

Massive protest march on 15th by all opposition parties before the 21 st Islandwide strike – MaRa to be electrocuted

(Lanka-e-News -13.May.2013,11.30PM) Following the cruel electric shock given to the people by the murderous Medamulana Rajapakse regime by raising the electricity tariffs , all the political parties and trade unions have organized a protest march on the 15th against MaRa for introducing the people electrocuting tariff hikes.

The main opposition party , the UNP and ten other opposition parties as well as the JVP are to participate in this march. The trade unions and organizations which have united under the name of people’s campaign against the electricity tariff hikes are also joining in the protest march. It is worthy of note that the trade unions of the LSSP which is a constituent party of the government had also joined in the campaign against the electricity tariff hike.

This massive protest march had been organized for the 15th prior to the All Island strike to be staged on the 21 st. The march is to commence from Campbell place, Borella and will proceed to the Fort.

The organizers of this march have urged the nation that has been subjected to abysmal suffering by the despotic MaRa regime traitors who had raised the electricity tariff unreasonably and unconscionably, to extend their fullest support to make their protest campaign a success and force the cruel regime to yield to their demand.

Indian central government prepared to revise Kachchatheevu issue.

Tuesday , 14 May 2013

Indian central government is prepared to review the Kachchatheevu issue said Central Coordinating Minister Narayanasamy on his visit to Chennai amidst journalists at the airport.

 

In his interview he said according to Indian, Sri Lanka accord, Kachchatheevu was granted to Sri Lanka. However Indians are not permitted for the festivals held there.

 

There is provision for Indian fishermen to relax and dry their fishing nets at Kachchatheevu when they go for fishing. However in recent times, complaints are received that agreement is violated.

 

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha in this situation implemented a resolution at the Legislative Council to recover Kachchatheevu from Sri Lanka.  Diravida Munnetra Kalaga Leader Karunanidhi has filed a case in Supreme Court to claim Kachchatheevu.

 

The opinions of the Tamil people subsequently compelled the Central government to process preparations to revise the Kachchatheevu issue said Naranayasamy.

 

He said authorization is for the Indian fishermen to relax in Kachchatheevu and to dry their fishing nets, when engaged in fishing.

Political Monks And The Kelaniya Declaration

By Sumith Ariyasinghe -May 14, 2013 

Mr Sajeeva Samaranayake’s recent article (CT April 28, 2013) on the Kelaniya Declaration merits a longer response than is practical under “Comments”.  This document is a unilateral declaration of independence by the monks of the Vidyalankara monastic college at Kelaniya in January 1947. The British government had already decided to grant independence to Ceylon, and it was to be ceremonially effected a year later, on February 4^th, 1948.  The intention of the Declaration was to derive independence from what the monks considered its authentic source, namely the people as represented by the Buddhist Monastic Order (Sangha) rather than an Act of the British Parliament resulting from an agreement between the British government and the Ceylonese leadership. The latter was not considered to be true or full independence by these monks and other radical nationalist groups. Samaranayake attaches great political and moral significance to the document, considering it “a declaration of high principles as a guide post and reference point in our continuing search for political adulthood”. He further considers it “clearly ahead of its time”. His reasons for this high valuation are that it envisages “true independence” and it “speaks for the rights of all the people of the country” and for “a single nation”, transcending the Buddhist clergy’s traditionally exclusive identification with Sinhala Buddhists.

Walpola Rahula

“Comments” on Samaranayake’s article in the CT show that many readers were impressed. I am not only unimpressed, but contend that the Declaration is not what it seems, and what it really represents has caused great harm to our nation, leading us to a protracted civil war and other evils, not the least of which is the government we are saddled with today. In my view, far from being a statement of lofty intentions, the Declaration was a publicity stunt engineered by the Left, in particular by the LSSP, in its attempt to challenge the dominant political clique at the time that became theUNP. Several capable young scholar monks of Vidyalankara were sympathisers if not members of the LSSP or the CP, and it is they, and not the totality of the Vidyalankara monks that made the Declaration, although they managed to gain the consent, enthusiastic or lukewarm, of some senior monks, most importantly the erudite Principal of the College, Kirivattuduve Pragnarama. It is highly unlikely that the monks wrote the Declaration. It was probably written by the LSSP, the monks merely translating it into Sinhala, a language in which the LSSP leadership had only shouting proficiency. It is however possible that the monks were consulted in the process of writing it. Its lapidary articulation suggests that it is the work of a mind familiar with or trained in constitution making and law. It is no accident that the 1972 constitution drafted by Colvin R de Silva incorporates the basic ideas of the Declaration, in particular its derivation of sovereignty.

If we read the Declaration as a free standing document, that is, with no reference to the rest of the literature with which it is inextricably linked, especially a second Declaration made by the same monks on the heels of the first, and with no reference to the social and political context of the time, the Declaration does sound impressive. But that is really the problem, because it is precisely in relation to the linked literature, especially the second Declaration that ensued, and the broader socio-political context alone that we can properly understand the Declaration.  Seen thus, the Declaration is no more than a preamble to its twin, the second Declaration. Declared by the same monks at the same place a few weeks after the first, it does not take a great deal of insight to see that the two are related. The first Declaration prepares the ground by spelling out, in the lofty terms that understandably impressed our writer and readers, the case for not just independence (which was imminent anyway), but a certain specific kind of independence. And the second Declaration elevates the monks to the status of ideal agents and carriers of that particular kind of independence. Thus, the two Declarations reflect the status and power aspirations of these political monks. Underlying these aspirations and legitimizing them is the idea of return to a utopian Buddhist state that allegedly existed prior to the arrival of the European conquerers. Empowered by a brilliant re-articulation of the monk’s political role by Walpola Rahula, these monks eventually evolved into an influential monastic upper class of wheelers and dealers, of which the robed marauders of the Bodu Bala Sena are the latest mutation.

In this perspective, the Declaration emerges in its true colours, not as a lofty and inspiring national document, but as just another example of empty words so familiar to us from our standard political talk high on precept and abysmal on practice.  I would in fact argue that it’s worse than empty words.  Because, the Declaration’s denunciation of colonialism has led to a pathological antipathy towards the west in general that has been detrimental to the national interest and exploited by all nationalist groups for narrow political advantage. The latter is an exercise the present regime is doing with great skill as we can see, for example, in the antics ofWimal Weerawansa, and the numerous theories of western conspiracies against Sri Lanka, which serve to camouflage the regime’s ubiquitous failings.  Irrespective of how and why we were colonized, and the merits and demerits of colonialism, the reality is that we did go under colonial rule. Given that reality, the rational attitude, and that in keeping with the national interest, would have been to use the colonial experience to our best advantage. The scholar monks of the sister college of these monks, those of the Vidyodaya monastic college at Maligakanda, Maradana, adopted this more rational, realistic, and indeed more Buddhist attitude, much to their and the country’s advantage. The latter attitude should have been carefully nurtured and allowed to thrive and bear fruit, which would have brought us to a happy, peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, broad minded and modern society, but that was unfortunately nipped in the bud by the narrow Sinhala Buddhist nationalism of these monks associated with the Declarations.

The two Declarations, taken together, are the charters and founding documents of Sinhala Buddhist hegemony, and therefore represent the origin of our problems and our regression to mediaevalism. Although the first Declaration talks about “a single nation” and “the people”, the context and the actions that followed demonstrate clearly that these terms do not mean all the people as equal citizens of a “single nation”, but the Sinhala Buddhist people in a Sinhala Buddhist nation, with the minorities excluded or relegated to second class status. It is obvious that the pro Sinhala Buddhist Constitution of 1972 is rooted in these Declarations.

It’s the same monks who made the Declarations who a few years later formed the Eksat Bhikshu Peramuna(The United Bhikkhu Front) that more or less forced S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike to accept a majority hegemonic platform in the election campaign of 1956, the centerpiece of which was Sinhala Only. It is hard to imagine a piece of legislation more injurious to the idea of a “single nation”. We cannot accept, as Samaranayake does, the mere mention of “people” as meaning all the people of the island when the overwhelming evidence, literary and sociological, is for it to mean only some people, the Sinhala Buddhists. While some of these monks were close associates of the left parties, especially the LSSP in its glorious youth, they were at heart narrow and parochial nationalists, believing in a Sinhala Buddhist utopia. Deriving from the Sinhala-centred chronicle, theMahavamsa, this utopia is also powerfully envisaged in the work of the nationalist leader Anagarika Dharmapala. The narrow Sinhala Buddhist nationalism of the monks was made readily apparent when these “socialist” monks abandoned the left parties as soon as they found a nationalist alternative, that provided by Bandaranaike’s SLFP. Far from a “single nation” consisting of all ethnic and religious groups, the rallying cry of these monks, borrowed from Dharmapala, was “country, race and religion” (rata, jatiya, agama). While “jatiya” in Sinhala can mean “nation”, what these monks and their lay cohorts meant was race, far from anything like “a single nation”.

In his evaluation of the Declaration, Samaranayake resorts to the realm of the mystical. He talks about freedom having a “spiritual core” and as “men and women in robes in search of the truth … united with people of this country in their quest for true peace and happiness”. Behind this attempt to elevate the Declaration to a spiritual plane is the idea that pre-colonial Lanka was a paradise, in which the king and the monks and the people were united in a spiritual bond and lived in idyllic harmony. Even the great Ananda Coomaraswamy contributed to this fallacy by his romanticization of the pre-industrial world. Similarly, the world of contemporary Buddhist scholarship has been deluded at times into believing in a harmonious “Buddhist State”. We however know enough of the realities of pre-colonial Lanka to realise that it was a system of feudalistic, despotic rule in which the elites, including the monks, were partners with the despot in oppressing the masses of the people. The “hydraulic civilization” and the monumental stupas are built on the sweat of the oppressed, although tyrants take the credit for them, much like the state of affairs today. The “Ancient Compact” Samaranayake talks about is no more than the unfettered exploitation of the ordinary people by the despot and his feudal minions, a system duplicated at different levels of administration down to the village in which the village elites extracted the labour of the poor.

This is neither surprising nor confined to Lanka but is the story in all pre-modern systems. The first colonialists, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British in their early rule were of the same mould, and undoubtedly committed atrocities. But in the late British period, starting about mid 19^th century the colonial government, spurred by the rise of liberalism in their own backyard, gradually introduced reforms based on enlightened social ideas. Colonialism thus played a positive role in the lives of the ordinary masses. It is instructive for us to recall that in a classic essay on India, Karl Marx, no friend of colonialism, stated in no uncertain terms that whatever the crimes of England are, British rule in India was effecting a social revolution. The same is true of Lanka and all other colonies, and what these Declarations did was to lay the foundation for reversing that social revolution, and diverting the course of our history backwards, eventually to the mediaeval tyranny under which we are labouring today.

It is remarkable that aggressive anti-colonialist and post-colonialist nationalism is a pre-occupation of the educated indigenous elites of colonies and post-colonies. Other carriers of this genre of nationalism are the English educated elites who are the descendants and inheritors of these indigenous elites. The reason for their aggressive anti-colonialist nationalism is that it is the colonial power that deprived them of the feudalist licence to oppress the poor of their societies at will. As far as the majority who were born to poverty were concerned, colonialism was not oppression but liberation. Because, in the pre-colonial era these elites enjoyed hierarchical privileges and feudalist perquisites, and could abuse, abduct, kill, rape, plunder, imprison and more with impunity, being protected by their birthright, whereas a hungry commoner stealing a fruit could be punished with death. It was colonialism that introduced enlightened social ideas like individual rights, equality, the rule of law and universal suffrage, ideas that struck at the root of privilege and feudalist elitism. Here we are talking about some of Marx’s “social revolution”. These ideas of course are very much present in Buddhism. But that Buddhism, the Buddha’s Buddhism, never touched our culture, our Buddhism being a cultic ritualism, which the Buddha derided. To his credit Samaranayake concedes that these colonial derived ideas “represented modernity and the clear way forward”. But unfortunately he does not pursue that conviction to its logical end. After merely mentioning these ideas that “represented modernity” he re-enters his make believe world of ancient glory in which these monks represented something “more fundamental”. Closer examination shows that the “more fundamental” thing they represented is none other than the framework of unequal, feudalist, social relations.

The framers of the 1972 constitution think no end of the “true independence” it allegedly ushered, as we saw most recently in a boastful newspaper article by the LSSP leader Tissa Vitarana on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of that constitution. One criterion of “true independence” as suggested before, is the alleged derivation of power from the people rather than an Act of the British Parliament. This is purely a legal nicety that may be important to the elites, but meaningless for the ordinary working people. For the people, it is far more beneficial if, for example, we retained those vestiges of “false independence”, like the availability of appeal to the Privy Council, the presence of British bases, and a mutual defence agreement with Britain. Had our people been given the opportunity to retain the right of appeal to the Privy Council, chances are that the occasion for such appeal would never arise, because that opportunity itself would have acted as a deterrent to compromising the independence of the judiciary. Had we had British bases, the LTTE would never have been allowed to build a navy, to raise its violent head in the north and east and, for that matter, to gain the strength it altogether did. As far as individual freedoms, democracy and governance are concerned, one needs only to compare the era of late colonial rule with today’s tyranny that is upon us as a direct result of “true independence”.

One reason for the Declaration’s position, shared by the Left parties and some of the nationalist elites, that the impeding Independence of February 4, 1948 was not full independence was that it retained the British monarch as the head of the state, to be represented by a Governor-General. It strictly legal terms this is correct. But it is a legal nicety with no consequence for the sovereignty of the country.  Some countries of the Commonwealth, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have the British monarch as their ceremonial head of state, and are no less sovereign for that reason. For a period of 24 years, from 1948 until the coming into force of the Colvin R de Silva constitution of 1972, the head of the Ceylonese state, the Governor-General, was appointed by the king and Parliament of Britain. But the Governor-General was merely a ceremonial functionary, and his appointment by the king and Parliament of England was fictional. It was solely the prerogative of the elected government of Ceylon to appoint the Governor-General. Besides, some of our kings were of total or partial Indian origin, and unlike the British monarch or the Governor-General, they enjoyed real power. In hindsight, it is clear that this ceremonial link with Britain would have been beneficial to the country, although it pleased the egos of certain nationalist elites, and suited the designs of some wily politicians to ask for “true independence”, and claim credit for it.  The abolition of this link is another example of our cultural inability to adopt the pragmatic, advantageous and statesman-like position when confronted with a choice.

It is appropriate here to make a brief reference to sovereignty.  This was a useful concept at the birth of the nation-state, but has lost most of its applicability and moral validity since then. In a globalized world in which high technology can ignore political boundaries, no country is sovereign in the absolute legal sense in which it has been classically defined.  Besides, on a different plane, that of power, some countries are more sovereign than others. Small, underdeveloped countries can yell sovereignty at the top of their voice, but in reality, when it come to a push, they have no sovereignty worth talking about as we know from the Indian airdrop and the subsequent appearance of the Indian army on our “sovereign” territory. Whatever sovereignty a small country enjoys is not the result of any recognition of such in the abstract, but the self-interest of potential violators.  Among some of the former colonies including Sri Lanka, sovereignty has become a curtain to hide behind in the face of the international vigilance on governance and human rights, inevitable in the contemporary world system.

Samaranayake begins his article with the Declaration’s “high principles as a guide post and reference point in our continuing search for political adulthood”.  The truth is that under late colonialism, we already had reached substantial political adulthood, and what the Declaration represents is a regression not just to political infancy but political imbecility.

Sinhalese jury acquits death row soldier over Pulmoaddai Massacre

14 May 2013

A Sri Lankan soldier was acquitted by an all Sinhalese jury, after previously being sentenced to death for the killing of five Muslims, in Pulmoaddai, Trincomalee.

Gardiya Weligamage Indra Kirthi de Silva, from the Sinha regiment, was accused of killing the Muslims with a machine gun in May 1995. The soldier was charged with the killing of Abdul Javahir Kaiz, Umardeen Meera Sahidu, Mohideen Bava Aviva Umeema, Kachicha Mohamed Balkis Umeema and Kachichia Mohamed Payas.

He was sentenced to death on 26 October 2009 but his lawyers appealed the conviction. After hearing evidence, the jury decided that de Silva was not guilty of the killings.

An Amnesty International document, detailing extrajudicial killings in May 1995, reported the incident as follows:

Five Muslim civilians, including a 2-year-old child, a 10-year-old child, a 23-year-old woman, a 56-year-old man and a 70-year-old woman, were killed when members of the army stationed at Pulmoddai retaliated against local civilians on 6 May 1995. A local member of parliament alleges that the retaliation occurred several hours after an attack by the LTTE during the night on a sentry point at Arafath Nagar, Pulmoddai. In the LTTE attack, five soldiers had been killed. According to a statement issued by the operational headquarters of the Ministry of Defence in Colombo, quoted in the Island newspaper of 8 May 1995, four civilians had been "caught in crossfire".
However, according to Amnesty International's information, the army fired indiscriminately from their camp into the village killing four civilians and wounding several others. One of the wounded, the 10-year-old boy, later died of his injuries in hospital.

Reports of Extrajudicial Executions During May 1995

Amnesty International, Reports of Extrajudicial Executions During May 1995, 1 June 1995, ASA/37/10/95, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a9a138.html [accessed 14 May 2013]

The attached document details reports received by Amnesty International that at least a dozen civilians have been extrajudicially executed in northeastern Sri Lanka during May 1995. Some of the killings apparently took place in reprisal for attacks by members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on members of the security forces after the LTTE on 18 April called an end to a truce in force in the area since January 1995. Other killings reportedly occurred during cordon-and-search operations when individual members of the security forces resorted to killing as an alternative to arrest. Members of the police, army, Special Task Force (a police commando unit) as well as Muslim Home Guards are reported to be responsible for the alleged extrajudicial executions. While appreciating the difficult security situation currently prevailing in the area, Amnesty International is calling upon the government to at all times and in all circumstances fulfill its obligations to protect fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life. Killings by the LTTE, however heinous, can never provide justification for government forces to deliberately kill defenceless people. Amnesty International is urging the government to initiate independent investigations into the incidents with a view to identifying and bringing to justice those responsible. Amnesty International believes that instituting independent and impartial investigations by setting up a commission of inquiry or similar procedure would give a clear signal to the security forces of the government’s commitment to human rights. And, foremost, it would impress upon members of the security forces that those among them who are responsible for human rights violations will invariably be brought to justice, a measure which in itself serves to prevent further killings.Disclaimer

Jury frees solider from death penalty

An Army soldier who was sentenced to death over charges of gunning down 5 Muslims including a child was found not guilty and acquitted by a jury at Anurdhapura High Court.

A seven member jury before the North Central Provincial High Court judge, Sunanda Kumara Ratnayake made the decision following a hearing of evidence.

Army solider of Sri Lanka Sinha Regiment (00737) Gardiya Weligamage Indra Kirthi de Silva a resident of 282/8, Walasbedda, Bandarawela was thus released.

The army soldier was charged under section 296 of the Penal Code for the murder of Abdul Javahir Kaiz(13), Umardeen Meera Sahidu(70), Mohideen Bava Aviva Umeema (65) Kachicha Mohamed Balkis Umeema (30) and Kachichia Mohamed Payas residents of division number 01 of Pulmoddai Police Division .They were allegedly shot to death by the suspect using a machine gun on May 6th or a closer date in 1995 . A case was filed against the suspect by the Attorney General at Anuradhapura High Court.

The case had been hearing for several years and the former High Court Judge Menaka Wijesundara sentenced the convict to death on October 26th,2009.

The convict appealed in a petition requesting for relief to the Court of Appeal in Colombo challenging the decision of the High Court Judge.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal ordered the case to be heard before a jury at Anuradhapura High Court. The Jury following the hearing of evidence found him not guilty and acquitted on all charges.

After coming out of the court premises the army soldier happily stated that he did not commit the crime.

“From the day I received the death sentence I meditated following Buddhist teachings. I begged the Gods to free me as I was punished for crime which I did not commit. I had faith on them”, he said.

J.D Nilsuha Shaymali, A .M Nanda Kumari, Anula Kumari Ratnayake, Piaysenage Kumarasena, Malani Hewa Pathirana, Lakshan Dayasiri and Disanayake Weerasinghe were amongst the jury members, while State Counsel Agbo Panditharatne appeared on behalf of the aggrieved party and Attorney at Law Bharana Kubalathara appeared on behalf of the accused party.

Southern workers sexually abuse Tamil woman in Batticaloa

[TamilNet, Sunday, 12 May 2013, 23:56 GMT]
Four Sinhalese men who were riding in a van, lured a Tamil laundry-woman into their vehicle promising to give her a lift home and sexually abused her in a nearby jungle on Tuesday. A woman herding cows found the 45-year-old victim at unconscious state in the jungle near Ma'ndoor Black Bridge and admitted the victim at Ka’luvaagnchik-kudi hospital. 

The victim was later transferred to Batticaloa Teaching Hospital. 

A complaint has been lodged with the SL police at Vellaave’li.

In the meantime, SL police officials said they had arrested four workers on suspicion but declined to provide further details. 

The victim has stated in her complaint that she could identify the four culprits.

BBS suspects Wimal – Shiv Sena links (Audio)

May 13, 2013

The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) today claimed that Minister Wimal Weerawansa may have links with Shiva Sena in India.

BBS general secretary the venerable Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara thero said that the Minister’s wife is working with a Buddhist monk in Padukka who is funded by the Shiva Sena.

Shiv Sena, is a Hindu nationalist political organisation in India. Gnanasara said that the Shiva Sena is working on the policy that Buddhism did not originate in India and the monk in Padukka is doing the same.

“Shiva Sena is working to protect Hinduism in India. A lot of Hindus are converting to Buddhism and that is a big problem for the Shiv Sena. The monk in Padukka is being funded by them. He has written books saying Lord Buddha was born in Sri Lanka. So we suspect Minister Weerawansa’s and his wife are linked with Shiva Sena,” he said.

Gnanasara thero also challenged Minister Weerawansa to prove claims he had made that the BBS is funded by Norway.

He said that if the claims are proven then the BBS will disband after making a public apology to the nation.

If not then he says Minister Weerawansa should wear a loincloth and go home for telling lies.

“He is saying we are trying to remove Muslim Ministers from the government. He is telling lies and we cannot allow such Cabinet Ministers to continue like this,” Gnanasara thero said.

Gnanasara thero said that the Minister has not raised his voice against Muslim extremists operating in Sri Lanka but yet goes on protest when anything is said against Cuba.

“We know politicians always tell lies. We will reveal more about that Minister (Weerawansa) if the need arises. There are three groups working against us and we will reveal things about them as well soon,” the BBS monk said. (Colombo Gazette)

CLICK HERE FOR BBS AUDIO

None could query regarding our foreign tours. Pothu Balasena in annoyance

Tuesday , 14 May 2013
Pothu Balasena is in the midst of massive controversies in their tours to U.S and Norway, and in this situation the movement General Secretary Galaboda Athey Ganasara Thero said, they can go to any part of the globe, and could hold discussions with anyone. But none could query them regarding that.

 

Pothu Balasena acquired funds from a organization in Norway is operating here against the Muslims, and the movement's tour to United States and Norway was to convert their network international wide was the allegations made by opposition parties.

 

In this situation, Ganasara Thero made the above statement.

 

Concerning this he said, protest and reviews are against us in recent times. However we will not fear for this.

 

Many are making different opinions regarding our movement tours to United America and Norway. Allegations are that we are obtaining finance from western countries.

 

All these allegations are total lies. Some cannot tolerate our movement's development are advancing such campaigns.

 

The crisis faced by Buddhist living in Sri Lanka, to clarify  the Buddhist monks residing in US and Norway, and the Buddhist movements and to process activities to find a settlement, we visited those countries said Ganasara Thero.

Tuesday , 14 May 2013

A New Direction For Peace

By Kamaya Jayatissa -May 14, 2013 

Kamaya Jayatissa

“Peace begins with a smile.” -Mother Teresa

An assessment of women’s contribution and influence in post-war situations is essential in providing a new perspective; one could even say a new direction for peace.

Emphasizing the importance of women’s participation in peace-building processes was not a priority for most States for decades. It was only in October 2000 that the first resolution on women, peace and security, was unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR 1325). Resolution 1325 marked the first time the Security Council specifically addressed the disproportionate impact of armed conflict on women. Not only does it recognize the under-utilized contributions women make to conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peace-building but it also encourages States to consider women’s inclusion in post-war reforms (reforms pertaining to security, judicial, constitutional and electoral processes). Mostly, rather than considering them simply as war-victims, the resolution stresses the importance of women’s equal and full participation as active agents in peace and security.

Many studies revealed the significant contribution that can be made by women in regard to peace and national reconciliation. However, such contribution can be possible only if they are empowered to participate in post-war decision making processes and other settlements that are made to bring about peace. This concerns especially women who have lost their sons, their husbands, their lands and are now rebuilding their lives. In fact, these same researches also point out the existence of gendered perceptions which lower the capacity and general potential of women in society.

In Sri Lanka, nearly 80% of the refugees and IDPs were women and children. Among the most vulnerable groups during times of conflict, women are often considered to be more susceptible to marginalization and poverty. Whether they are war widows, former combatants, victims or survivors of war, their understanding of war becomes multifaceted. Due to this complexity, their vision as peace-makers will vary depending on their respective experiences, responsibilities and needs. Therefore, rather than restricting themselves or been restricted to the roles of wife and mother, women should be empowered to build their own perspective in order to develop it for larger achievements such as restoring peace and the process of social transition.

Despite the numerous grass root level initiatives such as ‘Women for Peace’, ‘The (Northern) Mothers’ Front’ or ‘Women’s Rural Development Societies’ which focused on women’s concerns and advocacy for peace, no recognition was clearly given to women in formal processes. Representing different communities, these peace activists have sometimes even come together to promote causes and interests that were common to them by developing links and solidarity across ethnic barriers.

However, their work in rebuilding trust and understanding was often been ignored or invisible during war time. Yet, today, as stakeholders for peace, the recognition of their role becomes fundamental. Indeed, for a broader peace to exist, Sri Lanka, like many other post-war countries, needs the inclusiveness of women into its national reconciliation process. In this regard, more efforts need to be made in order to address the issue of women’s empowerment by strengthening existing institutions, ensuring equal opportunities for their participation in decision-making and mainstreaming gender concerns in processes of development as underlined in UNSC Resolution 1325.

Often described as the backbone of the household, women also have a leadership role to play in the economic landscape.  Whether it is during war time or during peace, they often become the main support of their family and ultimately carry most of the social and economic burdens. In this context, initiatives such as micro financing appear as an effective tool to empower women especially in war affected areas.

This perspective was further emphasized by Ela Bhatt –lawyer and founder of the Self-Employed Women’s Association of India- who argues that “equity, local economies and the empowerment of women through work are central to supporting economic freedoms and eventually peace”. Delivering her speech upon accepting the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development in February 2013, Bhatt shared her own vision of peace, a peace that can only be achieved through socio-economic development and eradication of poverty:

“Certainly, absence of war is not peace. Peace is what keeps war away, but it is more than that; peace disarms and renders war useless. Peace is a condition enjoyed by a fair and fertile society. Peace is about restoring balance in society; only then is it lasting peace. In my view, restoration and reconstruction of a society are essential and key components of the peace process worldwide. […] Poverty is lack of peace and freedom. In fact, removing poverty is essentially building peace. […] Focus on women and you will find an ally who wants a stable community. She wants roots for her family.”

According to Bhatt, by putting the focus on women’s participation we won’t only find a worker and provider but we will also find a caretaker and educator; components that make women a unique factor or combination of factors in rebuilding communities and bringing constructive and sustainable solutions to the table.

In Sri Lanka, since the war ended, steps have been taken to increase women’s participation in policy making and development; such an illustration is the Giritale Consultation held in 2010 to strengthen livelihood possibilities for women. But, as we know, a lot more remains to be done in order to foster this type of initiatives. It is indeed necessary for politics – or a politics –to further support women focused activities that address socio-economic realities by ensuring that women have sufficient resources to accomplish their goals through new forms of entrepreneurship. Investing in the empowerment of women will not only strengthen the economy required for societal stability in the island but it will also benefit the peace-building agenda as a whole.

Inquiry of Sivaram assassination after eight years.

Tuesday , 14 May 2013

Registering the evidences for the brutal murder case of Journalist Sivaram, for the first time after eight years began in Colombo High Court yesterday.

 

Journalist Sivaram  in year 2005 April 28th was abducted from Colombo, Bambalapitiya locality and his body was found near parliament complex.

 

Concerning Sivaram assassination, Attorney General filed a case against the suspected person Arumugam Sriskandaraja attached to PLOTTE movement

 

This case was taken for inquiry, and Journalist Kusal Perera gave evidence in courts. Kusal Perera in courts said, that he personally saw Sivaram getting abducted.

 

Those travelled in a black Pajero vehicle abducted him, and they were unable to be identified said witness Kusal Perera.

 

At that instant, he was under liquor, and he hesitated to make a complaint to the Bambalapitiya police station which was nearby, replied to the cross examination of state Counsel.

 

Kusal said, Sivaram functioned against the Liberation tigers, and he cannot be considered as a supporter of tigers.

 

Further investigation of the case was postponed. Main suspected Sriskandaraja was released on bail.

by Nimalka Fernando

(June 06, Zurich, Sri Lanka Guardian) Thank you for inviting me to say few words during this Sivaram memorial meeting. One of main features of the meetings organized by the Platform Freedom soon after the assassination of Lasantha campaigning for Rights to Life and Freedom of Speech in which I am a convenor is the performance of Jayathilake Bandara a well known people’s vocalist to sing songs from his collection of People’s Echo. The songa are written by him to challenge our conscience. At every meeting we held during the period 2007- 2009 all over the country a song specially dedicated to Sivaram. I would like you to listen to this song. He tells us about the singing fish of Batticaloa calling for Sivaram – He reminds about the deep voice of Taraki. Where ever we went this song haunts us – tell us about the brutal reality that Taraki is no more.

Sivaram has continued to live with us as we campaign for Right to Life and Freedom of Expression to universal principles which still remain threatened in Sri Lanka and continue to challenge the civil society activism in post war era.

Death is sad and to lose a friend makes it worse. During this life of mine I have seen the death of Rajani Thiranagama who was my colleague in the Student Christian Movement, then some time later I saw the smashed body of Neelan Thiruchelvam and near my leg the head of the suicide bomber who blew him out. Two human beings wiped out of this world. We have lived through such shocks. On that day for a moment I lost my bearings – asked myself whether is it of any value to work for peace? You still see me worthy of being invited to deliver this memorial and I am humbled by that experience. At times we try to train people for peace and also to become human rights defenders. Governments think that NGOs are creating peace activists and human rights defenders using funds. It is my personal view that we can not make HRDs or Pas. They are products of experiences and history. We can not offer money and ask some one to become and HRD it comes out of personal experiences and convictions. They are those who dare to dream dreams. Sivaram was one such person a human being who spoke out and wrote what he believes or to what he was born into.

As a peace activist as we went through the various phases of the conflict we tried to explain to our community in the Sinhala south that peace is not merely silencing the opponents but it requires the need to recognize and affirm the rights of the Tamil speaking people for self determination and rights of the Muslim and other communities to live in dignity sharing equal rights.

Today we are all gathered here as a grieving society coming from a country which became the tear drop of the Indian Ocean. We ourselves have to take the responsibility to some extent. We are also not afraid to name and shame the political leaders and their goons and brothers who has turned Sri Lanka into a battle field and a den of thieves.

One of the first casualties of the war was the truth. Journalist were not allowed to enter the war zone and Sri Lankan journalists were targeted for speaking out – the killing of Lasantha Wickramatunga in January 2009 who had predicted his own assassination a few days earlier, was the most poignant illustration of the nature of this assault. Truth about violations is not an abstract notion in Sri Lanka. Rather, it is a suppressed memory of harm done and pain and suffering caused. Acknowledgment and truth, including a frank discussion of the root causes of conflict and violations, are imperative not only for the victims of the final stages of the conflict: it is also vital for many other victims of violations committed over the last decades and for Sri Lankan society as a whole, if there is any hope of overcoming deeply entrenched collective trauma.

We have to understand and accept the need to acknowledge the shared suffering …..

Why is it important to remember ?

UNFORTUNATELY we are getting unconscious. We do not speak about July 1983 ethnic holocaust; the burning of the Jaffna public library with its irreplaceable old Tamil manuscripts and books (sometimes referred to as cultural genocide); the Indian military operation to capture Jaffna in October 1987 ; and the tsunami of December 2004.

For years we have lived with the phenomenon of 'disappearances', torture and landmines. Even in the south, when we organise meetings the issue of getting Poloice permission becomes a matter of debate. The governments have harnessed the tools of repression carefully. These weapons have been developed into a physical and psychosocial tools. To break the individual personalities, those who try to resist, as well as encompassing community into submission. Though many individuals will not survive torture, those who did are released in a broken condition; or when dead, their maimed bodies were conspicuously exhibited to act as a warning to others. With the promulgation of laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations, this violence was instituionalized. These regulations facilitate prolonged incommunicado detention without charges or trial, in locations at the discretion of the Security Forces, and allowed for the disposal of bodies of victims without judicial inquiry. These laws legitimized the use of torture and death in custody . Thus torture became institutionalized as an aspect of state terror. Even the militants used such methods.

The overriding experience of Tamils has been a discriminatory system and injustice. Those responsible for what may be called war crimes and the worst types of human rights abuses have never been punished. The few cases of massacres, disappearances, torture, rape, custodial killings, mass graves that have been investigated and brought to light have not resulted in justice being done. Impunity prevails. Though perpetrators have been identified, and in some rare cases arrested and court cases instituted, none have been sentenced (the sole exemption being the highly publicized Krishanthy case which was taken up by many women's and other human rights organizations), or punished . The perpetrators are promoted (such as diplomatic posts overseas), or they are transferred elsewhere. In the case of abuse and injustices committed by the Tamil militants the victims usually had to bear it in silence.

What is Post-war, Sri Lanka we are talking about. It is a country of symbols. Country cheering , eating milk rice, crowds carrying lino-flags, covering themselves and painting cheeks during the World Cup. Huge cut outs of the President – which was taken down recently during the demonstration of the garment workers few days ago at the airport junction. The post scenario heralded in a Raja Mela and we also heard about a crown being prepared by some clowns in the Palace.

This post war scene hid from our eyes the cramped and ill equipped camp sites which literally imprisoned hundreds and thousands of Tamil who became internally displaced, thousand others detained in unkown centres beaten up and tortured, several hundreds disappearing every day from the camps, killing and beating up of media personnel.

The war is over. But defence expenditure keeps on increasing. The defence allocation for 2011 wis Rs.214 billion as compared to Rs.201 billion for 2010, an increase of Rs.13 billion. Logically, such a massive hike in the defence budget should not and need not be in a post war scenario. Yet there is increase in the defence budget and military strength to 300,000. We are not a rich country and is facing a burgeoning debt burden. I asked a Sri Lankan politicians where all these funds borrowed are going , the government is borrowing funds from local banks and also from the World Bank. The simple answer was to pay back for purchasing military equipments as well to strengthen the defence establishment.

This seems an inexplicable anomaly, until one considers that Sri Lanka is undergoing not one but two radical transformations – from a flawed democracy to not just to a familial oligarchy but also a National Security State. Post-war, Sri Lanka is experiencing a galloping militarization in the North and a firm calculated strategy of militarization of the South.

In the North, temporary military camps are being made permanent while new camps and military cantonments are being set up. At an Army Day ceremony held at the Sri Maha Bodhiya to bless the Army Flags, the Army Commander has spoken about plans to station at least one army division and one STF camp in each district. Visiting Vanii and the displaced will show us the level of militarization. Resettlement is a process of militarizing the Vanni. While the government is speaking about rapid resettlement what has actually happened or is happening is taking over of land to establish military cantonment surrounding villagers who are going back. Those who are returning has no freedom of movement and there is heavy surveillance. Those who are visiting the area require permission and at times soldiers take photographs using telephone cameras. This situation reminds me of the occupied territories of Palestine.

Women are the worst affected. Random study would tell us that in most of the resettled areas villages have more single women headed households. Male member were lost in the war or are in detention. Some others have disappeared. We all know that more than 200 women came to the LLRC to give testimony. The women have young girl children or adult daughters to look after. They are afraid to leave them alone and go out in search of work/employment. There are soldiers all over and also men. Such vulnerable conditions are often breeding grounds for sex trade and harassment. Many bear witness to extreme vulnerability of women and are afraid to speak about the actual conditions due to fear and intimidation by the armed forces. Women have spoken to us about their fears; the need to provide security for the daughter who is left behind in the houses while they go out to find some income or to attend to some matters related to their resettlement.

Though during the past years I have not agreed to her politics I am quoting Thisaranee Gunasekera today. In one of her articles she has touched a raw point in relation to the present state of affairs in Sri Lanka. I quote “Philip Giraldi (former CIA agent and counter-terrorism expert turned anti-war political commentator) identifies three preconditions for the creation of a ‘National Security State’: a narrative which explains and justifies the idea of a ‘national security state’; a system of laws and regulations which accords the right of impunity to that state; and a high-tech system of surveillance which enables that state to monitor and control its citizens.

The narrative creates a new ‘national security consensus’; the legal changes enables the regime to repress those who are outside this ‘consensus’, with impunity; the spying permits the state to keep tabs on potential opponents of this ‘consensus’. All three preconditions are present in Sri Lanka, some in embryonic form.

The narrative justifying the de-democratisation of the Lankan state is almost complete. Two arguments are being used to justify the departure from democracy: one is the ‘need’ to safeguard independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity, from Tiger separatists and their Lankan and international allies; the second is the ‘need’ to achieve rapid economic development.

This narrative enables the Rajapaksas to demonise its democratic opponents as either ‘anti-national’ or ‘anti-developmental’; both are deemed anti-patriotic and deserving of the harshest of treatment. Thus Gen. Fonseka is being punished for being ‘anti-national’ while those Colombo poor who oppose their eviction from their traditional localities will be castigated as ‘anti-developmental’. “

So the war continues, post-war.

The political leadership of Mahinada Rajapakse grew within the national chauvinist womb of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Even though some left leaders have justified their association with the SLFP identifying it as a progressive force in actual fact and in reality nothing got transformed in Sri Lanka during the SLFP eras socially. Under the UPFA even women’s rights we are in the worst era. All what we advocated for has been folded back with the appointment of two men and several other women to whom CEDAW is western and to talk about women’s rights in Sri Lanka has become an imperialist conspiracy. The main ideology that governs our rulers today is Sinhala supremacy. Rajapakse’s are the Sinhala rulers bestowed with that blessing to defeat all other claims to this island. Other people can live in Sri Lanka but paying homage to the king of Sri Lanka is a must and anybody who utters words against this authoritarianism is shunned as a traitor.

Can we expect a rational reasonable just solution to the ethnic problem from the Rajapakse regime? Today every perceivable subject of governance from housing to street cleaning, including garbage collection is in the hands of the Rajapakse family. I think over 65 state institutions come under the dictates of Gotabaya, Basil and Mahinda.

Does a spring of hope await the north? The government amended the Emergency Regulation but in practice continue to extend the Emergency with the warning of the possibility of the emerging Tiger. The large presence of the military has stifled civic and democratic rights of the people in the North. Activities related to resettling Sinhala people in traditional Tamil areas have begun in the north with the support of the government. A programme aired on France 24 TV highlighted the plight of Tamil fishermen who were uprooted from their traditional sea side habitats and housed inland, while their old houses were given to Sinhala fishermen and the army. As a result the Tamil fishermen have been effectively deprived of their livelihood.

Monuments and Memories

New monuments are rising in the Northern landscape. They are trying to erase the memories of the past. Budha statues are seen in every corner in the North. New Sinhala victory monuments adorns the A9 road. While family members of the North have no freedom even to offer prayers to the beloved in the month of May. Memories of Thileepan is removed and LTTE graves and monuments are bulldozed to the ground. Can we erase the memories in this manner? Can the removal of stones and bricks silence the voices of the people? Or assassinate the aspirations within them.

In his speech on 27th May the President has called us not to open up the wounds. In response I would like to share with you a quote from Truth Commission in East Timor.

In order to heal a wound treatment is necessary. To apply necessary medication we have to open up the wound. Otherwise it get infested.

There is an urgent call for collective acknowledgment of suffering. I am also well aware of the pain and agony of the Sinhala widow of the soldier who find herself in marginalized situations in the village. The child who is shunned away in the school because he has no father.

Thousands of Muslim IDPs remain uncertain about their future and right to land and property. The forcible eviction of the Muslims in 1990 was a tragic event in the struggle for identity in Sri Lanka.

Media and Civil Society

The relationship between media and civil society especially human rights advocates in South Asia is a very complicated one. At one level, it seems to be fairly strongly influenced by the relationship between civil society and state-especially in less democratic contexts wherein the state tends to dictate all relationships. In Sri Lanka the media is hostile to civil society in general but with few exceptions.

There also the question of competencies, both within the media, to comprehend the messages and arguments put forward by human rights advocates, and within civil society, to be able to communicate more effectively. Fundamentally, the dominant media’s appeal to popular opinion and ‘common sense’ politics may put it at odds with the more critical approaches advocated by human rights activists. The stereotyped images and even demonisation of human rights activists or those who challenge the legitimacy of dominant notions of state- as anti-national, traitors, etc. On the other hand, the tendency of many civil society actors to expect a privileged relationship with the media, especially on grounds that the media has a larger ‘social mission’ is also a matter requiring some attention. Human rights advocates need to review their own approach to the media to insist on professional standards rather than privileged access. Moreover, given that the ‘social mission’ of the media is open to diverse interpretations, being also an argument often harnessed by the state or dominant interests to advance their own views on wider issues of public interest, falling back on good media and journalistic practice appears more effective and strategic. This is also critical in terms of nurturing stronger and more independent media – hence instrumentalising the media and overlooking incompetency or relying on ‘cultivating’ individual journalists may not be an effective strategy in the long-run. At the same time, this is rendered very difficult given the lack of a consistent interest in and transparent engagement with civil society within most media institutions and their vulnerability to larger and more powerful political and business interests. A sustained and broader dialogue and engagement rather than just an issue based approach with media institutions as well as associations of media persons was underlined as important at a recent meeting held in Nepal and I wish to affirm this position.

The Report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka relating to the final stages of the war in 2008/2009 was finally published on 25 April 2011. It is the first time that the country has received the attention at UN level that its record of conflict and violations merits. The Report reads as a major indictment of both parties to the conflict that ended with the defeat of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in May 2009: “…the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed [by both parties], some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace.”

Where do we go from here? Experiences of people who were affected by the war both directly and indirectly forms the basis of this report. To me this is an opportunity accorded to us as citizen’s of Sri Lanka to ask a simple question. Do we want to continue to be governed and live hearing all these things happening around us. We saw our sons and daughters disappearing in 1989 in the South, now families in the North have also reported to say the same things after 3 decades of the conflict. Husbands have disappeared, we found the body of Sivaram very close to the temple of democracy- the Parliament building on that fateful day. Ang Sun Sukii in her writing say `a country that fails to be the refuge to its own people can not be called a country’. How many have left Sri Lanka. We have the displaced and the refugees all over the country and outside. Surely some where we have failed. It is time we collectively begin to address the challenges before us – we have to move away from partisan political positions to develop high idols of politics and democracy, of dignity , justice and equality.

Read More...