Peace for the World

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

If PM goes to Lanka, visit to Tamil-dominated Jaffna likely: sources

Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: November 06, 2013

Sources said the PM's Office has not taken any decision on the Sri Lanka visit yet.
If PM goes to Lanka, visit to Tamil-dominated Jaffna likely: sourcesLatest NewsNew Delhi Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is under pressure to miss a Commonwealth meet in Colombo over Sri Lanka's alleged war crimes against Lankan Tamils, may consider including Tamil-dominated Jaffna in his itinerary as a compromise formula.

Sources say the foreign ministry has proposed a visit to Jaffna in northern Sri Lanka as a way out of Dr Singh's dilemma after Tamil Nadu politicians, including his own ministers, said he should boycott the November 15 meeting in Colombo to respect Tamil sentiment.

The formula to placate protesting Tamils gained ground as Union Minister ENS Nachiappan, who is an MP from Tamil Nadu, said the PM must visit Jaffna.

"India is spending Rs. 56,000 crore for Tamil resettlement in Lanka, PM must visit to see that it is reaching them. I request that he visits Jaffna and Colombo. People will welcome the visit," said Mr Nachiappan, Minister of State for Commerce.

Three other union ministers from Tamil Nadu - P Chidambaram, Jayanthi Natarajan and GK Vasan - are reportedly  against the Prime Minister's visit. Mr Chidambaram, say sources, favoured sending a government representative instead.

Sources say the foreign ministry and the PM's office are keen on Dr Singh attending the meeting of the leaders of the Commonwealth nations, as they believe that India should continue engaging with Sri Lanka to push the Tamil cause.

Last month, the Tamil Nadu assembly unanimously adopted a resolution that said India must boycott the session to register its protest against the Sri Lankan government's failure to investigate and punish those who allegedly persecuted the island's ethnic Tamils in the final phase of the civil war that ended in 2009.

Karunanidhi, the leader of regional party DMK, had last week warned the PM of 'consequences' for his Congress party if he went to Colombo, saying "not even a speck of dust should go". The DMK quit Dr Singh's coalition in March, accusing it of failing to take a strong stand on Sri Lanka.

The Prime Minister said recently, "We will consider the sentiments of the Tamil people."

Canada says message is clear


November 6, 2013
Deepak Obhrai
Canada says its message to the Sri Lankan government is very clear and that message is that the government cannot continue with its current stand on the human rights issue.
Deepak Obhrai, the Canadian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, said that Canada will continue to fight for human rights in Sri Lanka.
He said that Canada is the only country which will not be represented at the highest level at the Commonwealth summit owing to human rights concerns in Sri Lanka.
Obhrai will be representing the Canadian government at the summit after Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper pulled out in protest over the Sri Lankan government’s failure to meet the expectations of the international community on human rights issues.
Obhrai said that during his visit he hopes to travel to the North and see for himself the post war situation and will also meet with NGOs and civil society in the country.
He said that on his return to Canada he will brief the Canadian government on what he feels is the situation in Sri Lanka. (Colombo Gazette)


article_image
By Neville Ladduwahetty-November 5, 2013

At a media meeting with Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron is reported to have stated that he plans to have:"some very tough conversations with the Sri Lankan government… I‘m not happy with what they’ve done following the conflict and we’ll have some very frank conversations to make those points" (Daily Mirror, October 31, 2013). This was followed up by UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Hugo Swire in a statement to the House of Commons where he had said: "When visiting Sri Lanka for Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) we will take a tough message to the Sri Lankan Government that they need to make concrete progress on human rights, reconciliation and political settlement" (Daily Mirror, November 2, 2013). Continuing, the report stated: "During the CHOGM the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I will see the situation on the ground in Sri Lanka and deliver clear massages to the Sri Lankan Government that concrete progress is needed on human rights" (Ibid).

It is apparent from the foregoing that the British government has already made up its mind on the situation in Sri Lanka long before its representatives "see the situation on the ground". The need to indulge in tough talk without the need for a prior first- hand assessment as a matter of curtsey and for giving the benefit of doubt, is obviously motivated by compulsions of domestic politics back home. It is shameful that democracy today has deteriorated to such abysmal levels where the need to harvest votes at any cost has compelled political parties to indulge in practices where diplomatic restraint and the need to give the other side a "sporting chance" is sacrificed for political gain, even at a cost to a country’s national interests and in the case of U.K., to its special role as the originator of the very concept of the Commonwealth and its ideals.

INFLUENCE of PAROCHIAL INTERESTS

The Conservatives and Labour parties have been the victims of Tamil diaspora influence by way of votes and money. The current balance between these two parties is so tenuous that every influence counts. It is this background that has compelled successive U.K. Governments to cater to parochial interests of the Tamil diaspora in order to finance election campaigns even if their vote banks are relatively insignificant. However, this dynamic could change if Scotland votes for independence and Scottish Labour ceases to be represented in the British Parliament. Such an outcome would alter the current balance between the Conservatives and Labour in favour of the Conservatives in an English Parliament; a situation that would free England to pursue its politics without the need to engage in tough talk to placate puerile interests of new immigrants at the expense of the interests of the hosts.

In the case of India, these compulsions have reached such proportions that she is prepared to sacrifice the larger geopolitical and strategic interests as a regional power of the whole Indian nation in order to harvest the Tamil Nadu votes judging from its uncertainty as to its participation at the forthcoming CHOGM. The dilemma faced by India is how to balance participation in the CHOGM proceedings without jeopardizing its national interests while also showcasing its participation in a manner that reflects disapproval of the current regime in Sri Lanka in a manner that would satisfy the pretentious politics of the Tamil Nadu politician who by day vociferously express their concern for the Tamils of Sri Lanka and by night rob them of their livelihood by poaching in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters.

The Prime Minister of Canada on the other hand has decided not to participate in the CHOGM, despite the fact that Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, due to pressures and influences brought to bear by the Tamil diaspora in Canada. Under the circumstances, nonparticipation is tantamount to snub Canada’s own Head of State and Head of an institution that is meant to be a carryover of the former British Empire. If the reason for nonparticipation is because Sri Lanka is the venue and as an expression of disapproval of the current regime, Canada’s decision would make sense if she decides to leave the Commonwealth at least until so long as Sri Lanka’s President and Head of State is its Chairman for the next two years.

The need for the formation of coalition governments is what projects parochial influences to the forefront. If parochial compulsions are to determine whether or not to participate in the forthcoming CHOGM, would their absence not amount to undermining opportunities to revisit the goals and objectives of the Commonwealth and modify them to fit present circumstances? If the reason for tough talk or non-participation is due to the state of human rights in Sri Lanka, objective introspection would reveal that the state of affairs in Sri Lanka is not that different to what exists in former colonies in Asia and Africa. The common thread that binds former colonies is the struggle to cope with the legacies left behind by colonial powers such as Britain. Ironically, the very pressures successive U.K. Governments are experiencing in its domestic politics is from a remnant of this very legacy – the Tamil diaspora.

COLONIAL and other LEGACIES

Sri Lanka’s national question is a legacy of the policy of "Divide and Rule" where influential ethno-religious and socio-religious minorities were artificially created and majorities were marginalized. This policy was common to most of the former colonies in Asia and Africa and further compounded by arbitrary boundaries that even today assign the same tribe to separate countries in Africa. What has taken root over centuries is expected to be corrected in decades while maintaining high standards of Democracy, Human Rights and Rule of Law. While it is the desire of former colonies to live by these ideals for their own sake and in a form that best suits their respective cultures, the situation on the ground reflect the pitfalls experienced on their journey which often end up in violence of a sort that did not exist prior to the arrival of the colonizers.

There has to be accountability for the past. And it cannot be in the form of tough messages whether by Britain or by India. What Sri Lanka is struggling with is how to rebalance the aspirations of emerging generations with fresh priorities while being compelled to be governed by a political legacy in the form of the 13th Amendment imposed by India. Just as much as Britain wants to talk tough, India insists that Sri Lanka implement the 13th Amendment following intervention in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs in violation of International instruments to which they shamelessly subscribe. Notwithstanding the fact the 13th Amendment is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority in Sri Lanka the sticking point for India is still, according to The Indian Express is for the "implementation of the 13th Amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution for equal rights to Tamil citizens" (Sunday Island, November 3, 2013).

Since the Northern Provincial Council is empowered to exercise all the powers devolved under the 13th Amendment to the same degree as exercised by the other 8 Provincial Councils – no more no less, it is beyond comprehension how India could possibly maintain that Tamil citizens DO NOT have equal rights with the rest. The only explanation for the prevailing misguided impression has to be either ignorance, or as victims of misinformation perpetrated by parties interested in discrediting Sri Lanka. Whatever the case may be, compelling whole populations to live under a political arrangement that is not of their free choosing is not only undemocratic, but also morally wrong because it violates the universally recognized right of national self-determination of a whole Peoples.

CONCLUSION

The Commonwealth is supposed to uphold values of Democracy, Human Rights and Rule of Law. The situation in respect of these values has to vary considerably from time to time among its 53 members. Consequently, assessments are often driven by compulsions based on political expediencies. In the case of U.K., India and Canada such expediencies are driven by parochial influences of minorities at the expense of the national interests of the national majorities in their countries. The reality on the ground is an erosion of representative Democracy.

Considering the traumas of centuries old legacies left behind as a result of the injustices perpetrated by colonial policies of divide and rule where artificially created minorities were privileged and majorities marginalized, where crimes against humanity that included slavery were committed during their colonial rule, the situation in former colonies reflects the struggles they undergo and the challenges they have to overcome, often at great cost in blood and treasure to correct the wrongs perpetrated by their colonizers.

Under the circumstances, the forthcoming CHOGM should be an occasion to acknowledge that any deficits in respect of Democracy and/or Human Rights needs to be a shared responsibility between former colonies and their colonizers because the present is not free of the past. In the case of Canada, Australia and New Zeeland CHOGM should be an occasion to acknowledge the crimes they have committed against the Indigenous Peoples in their respective countries. Similarly, India should be held accountable for compelling a whole nation to live under a political system thrust on Sri Lanka by force to satisfy the parochial interests of Tamil Nadu; one of India’s coalition partners in Congress. Only then would CHOGM become an occasion for catharsis, healing and reconciliation so necessary in many members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Tamil Australians Protest Against CHOGM

campaignfortamiljustice logConsortium of Tamil Associations' spokesperson, Mr. Siva Sivakumar, said  that Victorian Tamils will conduct a peaceful protest from 5PM next Monday, 11 November 2013 five days before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to be held in Sri Lanka.
The Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) has made no progress towards an effective accountability process for the serious and widespread atrocities committed during the civil war. The heavy military presence in the predominantly Tamil areas, and continued arbitrary arrests, intimidation and killings are the main reasons for the Tamil youth fleeing Sri Lanka on leaky boats, to places like Australia. “We have written to the Australian Prime Minister asking him to reconsider his decision to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to be held in Sri Lanka from 15th  -17th

of November 2013. Australia can use the commonwealth summit to put pressure on Sri Lanka, not only to bring peace and reconciliation in the war-torn country, but also to see an end to the Tamil exodus from that country” said Mr. Siva Sivakumar. The rally on Monday is being organised by the Australian Tamils in Victoria to raise awareness among the Australian public to the tragic situation in Sri Lanka. They do not get the truth from the Australian Government, or from the brutal Rajapaksa regime in Sri Lanka. Mr. Siva Sivakumar said that Australia’s presence in Colombo may be construed as an approval for the continuing human rights violations by the current regime.
Sri Lanka is run by Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa, a man who is responsible for what the UN calls war crimes and crimes against humanity, at the end of the civil war in 2009. His military deliberately murdered at least 40,000 innocent Tamil civilians lured by the Army to so-called safe zones. They
also continue a long running campaign of persecution against the Tamils.
Mr. Siva Sivakumar said the protestors on Monday are calling on the Australian government to reconsider its decision to attend CHOGM in Sri Lanka. Australia should put pressure on Sri Lanka to agree to an independent inquiry into the war crimes and crimes against humanity, as cited by the UN, and call on the Rajapaksa regime to end a campaign of murder, rape, jailing, torture and other crimes against Tamils.
 'BOYCOTT SRI LANKA: DON’T LET CHOGM HIDE GENOCIDE” RALLY
Where: State Library of Victoria, Corner of Swanston and Latrobe Streets, Melbourne
When: 5PM Monday, November 11, 2013 
For further information contact Campaign for Tamil Justice Press Office on 0400 597 351 or 0404 
894 591

CHOGM: Keeping Mum, Dr. Manmohan Singh?

By Jagath Asoka -November 6, 2013
Dr Jagath Asoka
Colombo TelegraphDr. Manmohan Singh, the Gentle Lion of Asia, this is your god-given moment to change the course of Sri Lanka. It is your Dharma to help hapless Sri Lankans! Dr. Singh, your prime task is to help us resurrect our Freedom of Speech and the Rule of Law. The new menace to our future is our current regimeYou cannot help us by keeping mum. Even a ten year-old kid knows that Gandhi stood up against the British Empire; Lincoln against Slavery, Nelson Mandela against Apartheid, Lenin against Tsars, and Martin Luther King against racists; this world is a better place because brave people stood up against bullies. Are you going help us deal with these thugs and bullies of our current regime, because our Opposition has become impotent?
I think you must do what FDR did in 1932, during his campaign against Herbert Hoover and during his inaugural speech. FDR remained almost mum about what he was going to do when elected. Even his very close friends and associates had no clue. We all know that FDR always talked with a fatherly voice of Yahweh. He was charming, witty, affable, and knew how to diffuse any threatening situation with his humor and charm and kept people and events at a distance, giving people the impression that he was above the fray. He never let the hatred of his enemies enter his heart—even Hitler ridiculed FDR when he requested not to attack. When FDR delivered his solemn inaugural speech, he was like a prophet of the Old Testament. His enemies called him “a cripple” to cripple him politically; but he stood up like Atlas, and killed the worst dictators in the universe.
All bullies are cowards; they bully you until you stand up and fight. Those who have changed the history and made this world a better place for us, have only one thing in common: You cannot bully them.
Dr. Singh, you have helped us before; you helped us defeat terrorists in 2009. Sri Lankans do not give you enough credit for that. We need action, and ask for action, now. We started dreaming of a utopian Shangri-La after we had defeated terrorists in 2009 with your covert help. You showed the world that you are not scared to take action when action is needed. But now, we are scared, again.
I have to tell the same thing to the rest of the world: Canada, England, or any other nation who is on the fence. You must participate; you must empower hapless Sri Lankans who are suffering secretly and who are scared to talk. CHOGM is not about politicians. You participate to empower the ordinary hapless Sri Lankans; we are not inviting all of you to a soiree where you are going to have champagne and caviar and covet irresistible voluptuous women when you are drunk and have orgies and then go to your luxury hotels in comfortable Mercedes cars.

I only watched ‘No Fire Zone’ by chance. But its revelations about Sri Lanka are surely unmissable

How can it be that the message of this documentary hasn't got through?

MEMPHIS BARKER-Monday 4 November 2013
The IndependentAbout two minutes in to No Fire Zone and holding the remote control I asked my mum if she wanted to change the channel back to Was It Something I Said, the comedy quiz show the family sometimes takes in after Homeland on Sunday nights. The answer was no. As a result, we watched this report on how in 2009 Sri Lanka’s government ushered Tamil civilians into “safe zones” – before subjecting them to sustained fire from heavy weaponry.
Neither of us had heard the story before. By the end of the broadcast – after 50 minutes of footage showing troops deliberately shelling  hospitals, executing huddled  prisoners, and yanking around the corpses of raped Tamil women – neither of us could believe the concluding point. In ten days’ time David Cameron and William Hague will meet and shake hands with the  orchestrators of this massacre, in which the UN estimates 70,000  civilians were killed, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
How is No Fire Zone’s message – that Sri Lanka should be a pariah state – not getting through?
This is not the first time that these war crimes have been shown on TV, nor is it the first time our Government has been informed of them. Much of the same footage was shown in the 2011 film Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields, also directed by Callum Macrae. Cameron – who didn’t watch that show himself – nevertheless alluded to it as “extremely powerful” in parliament. But two years later here we are. The Prime Minister is about travel to Colombo, Sri Lanka to discuss matters including “international peace and security” with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the smiling head of this ethnic cleansing operation.
It is an awkward fact that the scale of civilian deaths does not automatically determine the level of attention they will receive. Sometimes the story won’t reach the news agenda, others it can be effectively suppressed. As pointed out in yesterday’s Independent, the Sri Lankan government has hired PR firm Bell Pottinger to clean up its image. Aside from that, 22 journalists critical of President Rajapaksa have been murdered. The Lonely Planet recently felt comfortable enough to name Sri Lanka and its white beaches as the top travel destination for 2013.
Perhaps it is also harder to reach the nation through documentary reporting today. After No Fire Zone finished, my mum said it was the most distressing thing she had seen since the broadcast of the Ethiopian famine in 1984. That footage led to a tenfold increase in newspaper coverage, and a massive – if rightly criticised – aid effort.
But in those days, without cable TV, iPlayer or Sky Plus, people didn’t have as much chance to select what they viewed. I would never have chosen to watchNo Fire Zone – usually I catch Homeland later on 4oD. Only a jink in routine brought home what were by some distance the worst images I have seen in my lifetime. Children wrapped in plastic. People screaming over butchered corpses. What will be more horrifying still is if David Cameron and British tourists keep behaving as if this can be washed away, like so much blood on a beach. 

SRI LANKA GRANTS VISA TO CHANNEL 4 DIRECTOR CALLUM MACRAE

Sri Lanka grants visa to Channel 4 Director Callum MacraeNovember 6, 2013

Channel 4 Director of controvertial documentary ‘No Fire Zonec, Callum Macrae and his team were granted visa to enter Sri Lanka in order to cover the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka, the Secretary of the Media Ministry stated.

The controversial director was earlier denied a visa for India while Media Ministry Secretary Charitha Herath told Ada Derana that he and his team will be allowed to cover the upcoming CHOGM later this month.


Macrae, whose team was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize last year, made news again last Thursday when UK’s Channel 4 telecast footage acquired from him showing LTTE TV anchor-actor Isai Priya’s capture during the last phase of the Lankan war. Priya was found dead on May 18, 2009, with visible marks of torture. The video was telecast worldwide and caused an uproar that cast a shadow on the Colombo Commonwealth summit mid-November.
Don’t shelve human rights



 | Nov 6, 2013
Sri Lanka grants visa to Channel 4 Director Callum MacraeA few - depressingly few - Commonwealth leaders are currently agonizing about whether or not to attend CHOGM 2013 in Sri Lanka. The most important of those leaders is Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. But whichever way he falls on that question, an even bigger one looms - a question whose answer will be of existential significance to the Commonwealth itself.

Should Sri Lanka be allowed (as precedent would suggest) to become "chair in office" of the Commonwealth for the next two years? 

The Commonwealth is a strange organization. A faintly embarrassed legacy of colonialism self-consciously committed to building, encouraging and monitoring human rights, the rule of law, democratic accountability and anti-racism among its members. When it acts on those principles it can justify its existence - indeed it was those principles which motivated its stance on apartheid, which remains one of its proudest achievements. 

But if this CHOGM meeting passes with nothing more than a few ritual denunciations of Sri Lankan crimes, then we face the prospect ofa Commonwealth being steered, under the apparently wilful tunnel vision of its secretary general Kamalesh Sharma, into a stagnant and becalmed irrelevance - with the tarnished figure of a beaming Mahinda Rajapaksa at its head. 

Can the Commonwealth really allow itself to be "led" for the next two years, at least nominally, by a regime likely to be the focus of increasingly strident calls for some kind of independent international inquiry into allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity: a public process which could well start as soon as next March with a formal resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

Clearly India, by virtue of its geographical location and its political and cultural history, is the most important country in this whole question, after Sri Lanka itself. In the interests of regional stability apart from anything else, India has to confront the crimes and push for truth and justice - the preconditions for peace, reconciliation and political solutions to long-standing injustices. 

But there are huge questions for Britain and Australia too. There is an understandable and fairly widespread suspicion of the "ABCs" (Australia, Britain and Canada) among many of the less powerful developing nations of the Commonwealth. But it is an irony that in this case Britain and Australia are using that suspicion as a smokescreen to hide behind. 

The privately claimed justification for the British and Australian position (unlike the more honourable Canadian one) is that they cannot be too forth-right about Sri Lanka's crimes, in case the less economically powerful, non-white, Commonwealth countries perceive that they are "pulling rank". 

But that stance is profoundly dishonest. A more important factor is that Australia in particular - but also the UK - are extremely reluctant to seriously confront the real concerns over the ongoing repression in Sri Lanka, the brutal repression of the Tamils, the sectarian attacks on Muslims and the suppression of any dissent. They are reluctant to do that because if they admit how bad things are in Sri Lanka, they lose any excuse they have for sending Sri Lankan asylum seekers back. 

If the Commonwealth is to foster and adhere to the principles of justice and human rights, then Britain and Australia should apply those principles to their treatment of asylum seekers. 

Instead we see that the international conspiracy of silence behind which the Rajapaksa regime hid - while unleashing its war against its own innocent Tamil citizens under the cover of its war with the Tamil Tigers - still exists. 

And that is the final irony in all of this. The Sri Lankan government justified its brutal final offensive - and bought the silence of the world - by using the West's rhetoric of "global war on terror". Then in the aftermath of war, in 2010, Rajapaksa made a speech to the United Nations in which he turned that on its head - effectively warning the West to back off. 

"If history has taught us one thing, it is that imposed external solutions breed resentment and ultimately fail," he said. "Ours, by contrast, is a home-grown process, which reflects the culture and traditions of our people." 

It was a clever speech that still resonates with many non-aligned countries outside the ABCs. But it was a piece of rank hypocrisy. This "anti-imperialist" rallying cry was written for Rajapaksa by a western public relations company, Bell Pottinger, which is very close to the UK Conservatives. Rajapaksa had hired and installed them in his office to advise him. We even have secretly shot footage of a Bell Pottinger employee boasting about it. 

So while the UK and Australia hide their reluctance to confront Sri Lanka's crimes behind a phoney commitment to the "greater good" of the Commonwealth, Rajapaksa hides his guilt behind a phoney veneer of "anti-imperialism". 

The rest of the Commonwealth, led by India, needs to confront both of these false postures. Instead they must ask, without fear or favour, whether the Commonwealth can really allow a regime accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and the continuing repression of its own people, to become chair of the Commonwealth for the next two years. 

The writer, a journalist and filmmaker, directed the documentary No Fire Zone.

WikiLeaks: Govt. Restricted Blood Bags, ICRC Stopped Counting Dead Children Because No Blood Available – ICRC To US Mission To UN


Colombo TelegraphNovember 6, 2013
“De Maio was more critical of the GSL’s restrictions on humanitarian access and relief during the conflict. There was no good reason not to let certain types of materials, such as blood bags, be delivered to Vanni during the conflict, where ICRC was treating victims.” the US Mission to UN informed Washington.
The Colombo Telegraph found the related leaked cable from the WikiLeaks database. The “Confidential” cable discuses what had happened on the ground during and since the conflict. The cable was signed by the US Ambassador to Geneva Clint Williamson on July 15, 2009.
After a meeting with Jacque de Maio, ICRC Head of Operations for South Asia on July 9, 2009, just two months after the war,the Ambassador wrote; “ He had stopped counting the number of children who died because no blood was available, for example.”
Other related stories to this cable;

No Fire Zone – Full Documentary – Channel 4 ‘No Fire Zone’

My Promise to Children

http://www.salem-news.com/graphics/snheader.jpg

Robert J. Burrowes

Violence does not 'just happen'. It is perpetrated by damaged individuals, including ourselves.
Nov-05-2013
Balachandran Prabhakaran
Balachandran Prabhakaran, son of LTTE Chief Velupillai Prabhakaran in Sri Lanka, was taken into custody by the Sri Lankan Army, given candy, and then murdered in cold blood.
(TASMANIA, Aust.) - Every day, human adults kill 35,000 of our children. We kill them in wars. We kill them with drones. We kill them in our homes. We also kill children in vast numbers by starving them to death in Africa, Asia and Central/South America because we use military violence to maintain an 'economic' system that allocates resources for military weapons, as well as corporate profits for the wealthy, instead of resources for living.







Ranil’s Karu Mask


| by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka


(November 6,2013, Colombo. Sri Lanka Guardian) 
Karu Jayasuriya would make an excellent leader of the UNP. He would also make an excellent leader of the opposition. He might even make an excellent leader of Sri Lanka. The point is he isn’t any of these. He has just been made chairman of a Leadership Council. That council is not a collective leadership body of the UNP.
The UNP’s leader, Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe has just been made National Leader of the party. He remains the Leader of the Opposition and of the UNP parliamentary group. What the adjective ‘National’ does to detract from ‘Leader’ one fails to understand. That’s apart from the irony of naming a man who has shown not the slightest commitment to the nation or anything national, as the ‘national’ leader.
Thus the UNP’s Leadership Council is but a large Wesak lantern (a mere decoration) or as the brilliant cartoon by Gehan de Chickera depicts it in the Daily Mirror, a Trojan Elephant.
In his decision to front for the continued leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe, Mr Jayasuriya seems to have to have forgotten his experience of 1997, which Milinda Moragoda witnessed up close. When Karu ran for the Mayoralty of Colombo, a battle in which I supported him publicly, with cover stories in the Lanka Guardian and its Sinhala counterpart Vikalpa, both of which I edited at the time. Karu’s campaign manager Milinda Moragoda had planned a final wave of ‘killer advertisements’ in the media. This planned surge which would have enhanced Mr Jayasuriya’s and the UNP’s margin of victory had to be called off because Ranil Wickremesinghe gave stern instructions to that effect, much to the consternation and disgust of those of us in the Karu campaign. What is significant was that Karu was not challenging Ranil’s leadership in the least, during that campaign.
When Karu won, he hosted a victory celebration at the residence of the Mayor of Colombo which had chosen not to occupy and which the Deputy Mayor had therefore moved into. When Mr Jayasuriya graciously sat next to me at the main table in order to thank me, I predicted that Ranil would not let him consolidate as Mayor and would pitchfork him into a place where he would be expected to lose. Karu’s instant reply was that he didn’t hope to shift from the Mayoralty and wished to build it up. I responded that this was logical but neither good sense nor his wish would matter to Ranil. As it turned out, he was in fact prematurely shifted to Gampaha, the stronghold of the Bandaranaikes, by the UNP leader. He surprised everyone by doing exceedingly well.
My public political criticisms of and rupture with Ranil Wickremesinghe commenced in that year, 1997, and was occasioned by four moves that he made. One was the last minute sabotage of the Karu campaign. The second was the attempted sabotage of the Premadasa Centre’s Commemoration that year (the morning after the unfair incarceration – later dismissed with costs by the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Mark Fernando—of the Center’s Chairman Sirisena Cooray by Chandrika Kumaratunga). The third was Ranil’s affiliation of the UNP with the International democratic Union, the global coalition of the right, headed by the US Republicans and the UK Conservatives. Fourth and most important was the Liam Fox agreement and the shift in the UNP’s position on the LTTE and the war despite the Tigers’ murder of half a dozen top UNP personalities including president Premadasa. The ‘minoritarian’ turn of the UNP under Ranil – the inverted mirror image of the no less disastrous ‘majoritarian’ turn of the DB Wijetunga presidency—began in that year and has continued to date.
The UNP’s top rankers criticise the Reformist tendency as playing into the hands of the Rajapaksa regime. That’s a laugh. I was around when Ranil phoned CBK to secure patronage when he had been jeered and his convoy besieged by Gamini Dissanaike’s supporters at Sirikotha earlier that day. More to the point, when a patriotic rebellion arose in the UNP against Ranil after the defeat at the Presidential election of 1999 in which he had taken a pro-Tiger stance – a rebellion which rallied round Karu Jayasuriya and none other—I was told on separate occasions by Mangala Samaraweera and SB Dissanaike, that President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga sternly cautioned them at the airport (while emplaning for the UK for treatment of her eye having the survived a suicide Tiger blast), that they should do absolutely nothing against Ranil or in support of the UNP rebels. Thus it is clear that both President Rajapaksa and his predecessor CBK, strongly felt that they had a vested interest in retaining Ranil as an easy to defeat electoral rival, despite the private mistrust and even disgust they may have felt for him. If anyone is propping up the status quo, it is not the anti-Ranil rebels of 1999, 2011 or 2013, but precisely Ranil and those who retain him as leader. Thereby, logically, if Karu Jayasuriya is propping up Ranil who is propping up the regime, then Mr Jayasuriya is unwittingly a prop of the incumbent regime; hardly its opponent or challenger.
As for the so-called Leadership Council, the proof of the political pudding is in the electoral eating. Will the new make-up or camouflage persuade the voters to push the UNP above the 40% mark which was the UNP’s baseline even when it lost governmental office after 17 years in 1994? Or will be unable to surpass a measly 30% at the upcoming Provincial council elections? Or will the UNP remain stuck at a pathetic 25%-30%?
The real hope for the UNP and the Opposition, and the authentic challenge to the status quo comes from the UNP Reformists. By refusing to go along with the sham and scam of the puppet Leadership Council, young Sajith Premadasa may have done something to what his father did when the latter sidestepped the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord, refusing to be identified with it. As the party plummeted down the chute, that conspicuous breaking of ranks positioned Ranasinghe Premadasa for the candidacy, the party leadership and the country’s top spot. It is a good sign that his son has stopped singing ‘Master Sir’ on public occasions.

Ministries still waiting to get full allocations in 2013 Budget

parliament slA majority of the ministries in the Mahinda Rajapaksa  government is yet to receive the full fund allocations made to them in the 2013 budget.
The Rajapaksas who always take the major portion of the budget has failed to allocate monies to the other ministries.
The JVP has pointed out that a majority of the ministries are yet to receive the entire funds allocated to them in the 2013 Budget even a few weeks ahead of the 2014 Budget presentation.
JVP politburo member and parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake has said that most of the ministries have not received more than 50 percent of the funds allocated in the 2013 Budget.
He has observed that some ministries have had to face many hardships since they are unable to cover their daily expenses since the Treasury has not released funds to the ministries.
According to Dissanayake, even parliament is in arrears to the tune of Rs 40 million in dues to suppliers of goods and services.
He has added that the electricity supply to the Prisons was interrupted since the authorities had failed to pay electricity bills for six months.

De Facto CJ Hears And Decides On Appropriation Bill In Secret Before CPA Petition


Colombo Telegraph
November 6, 2013 
President Mahinda Rajapaksa had referred his Government’s Appropriation Bill for 2014 to the Supreme Court for legal opinion in complete secrecy, disallowing interested parties from filing submissions and legal arguments on the contents of the bill, Colombo Telegraph learns.
After the furore over the Appropriation Bill for 2013 was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Court found in favour of the petitioner and ruled sections of the bill were unconstitutional, the President has sent this year’s bill for referral to the Mohan Peiris Supreme Court for opinion.
The fact that the matter had been referred to the Supreme Court and deemed constitutional by a five judge divisional bench only came to light when the CPA petition against the 2014 bill came up before Court on Monday (4).
De Facto Chief Justice Mohan Pieris told the Petitioner that the same points raised by the petitioner had been dealt with in the referral, and five judges had ruled the bill was constitutionally sound. He indicated there would be no different decision that would emerge from the bench comprising himself, and Justices K Sripavan and Sathya Hettige, he said, although permitting the Counsel for the petitioner to make submissions on the petition.