Demonstrators in Jaffna call on Modi to pressure Sri Lanka to meet Tamil demands
14 March 2015

Photograph: Tamil Guardian

Tamils staged a silent demonstration at Jaffna Bus Station on Saturday, calling on the visiting Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, to pressure the Sri Lankan government to address immediate Tamil needs in the North-East.



Ending the demonstration with a march to hand in their demands at the Indian High Commission in Nalloor, the demonstrators called for, the release of those that surrendered at the end of the war, an appropriate response to the plight of the disappeared, resettlement of those displaced by the war to their homelands, action to address the basic needs of those that have been resettled, an increase of the Indian housing scheme budget, and action on the Indian Tamil fishermen issue.

Members of the Tamil Nation People’s Front (TNPF) were also present at the protests.

See also:
In Jaffna "to wipe tears" from those that suffered - Modi  (14 March 2015)

Elected Presidency! Double-bubble toil-and-trouble

19A is a curate’s egg; its yolk a burden (sic)

 

Bishop: "I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones";

Curate: "Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you in parts it is excellent!" (Punch: 1895)

by Kumar David-March 14, 2015

When Candidate Sirisena reneged on his promise to abolish the Executive Presidency (EP) he became the third leader following CBK and MR who has been deceitful. The Memorandum of Understanding which launched Sirisena’s campaign reads: "The present executive presidential system will be abolished within a hundred days and replaced by a Parliamentary form accountable to the people. Under the Parliamentary system, the President will symbolize national unity and have duties and powers appropriate to the position". There is not a shred of ambiguity. This refers to a figure-head president fulfilling ceremonial functions. Some may opine that that is not a good idea (I will discuss it anon), the point here is that this is what was pledged by Candidate Sirisena and those who backed him. These days I enjoy smirking at friends, comrades and neighbours who were aghast when I suggested in December 2014 that we should pressurize Candidate Sirisena by threatening to withdraw support if he dithered on his promise to abolish EP.

Elected Presidency! Double Bubble Toil and Trouble by Thavam Ratna

No credible steps taken to repeal arbitrary detention laws in Sri Lanka - Ruki Fernando

15 March 2015

There have been no credible steps by the new government in Sri Lanka to repeal draconian anti-terror laws that allow for the arbitrary arrest of Human Rights defenders, said the previously detained Ruki Fernando, speaking on the release of enforced disappearances campaigner Jeyakumari Balendran.

Addressing an event hosted by Forum Asia on creating space for human rights defenders at the 28th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday, Mr Fernando said, 

“The international community must not be deceived by token releases. In Sri Lanka there is a Structural problem that allows for the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders. This is the prevention for terror act.” 

The human rights defender, further noted that though there had been no recent large scale incidents of intimidation, 

“There are still isolated instances of the intimidation of Human Rights Defenders in the North and East.”

“My own mother is very scared when I go to do work in the North of Sri Lanka,” he added. 

Highlighting a climate of impunity allowing intimidation of human rights defenders, Mr Fernando said, 

“There have been Buddhist monks that have been involved in intimidation of human rights defenders, who the government washes their hands off.”

Reiterating the need for international involvement to protect human rights defenders in Sri Lanka, Mr Fernando added, 

“The UN has an important role in ensuring the protection of Human Rights Defenders in Sri Lanka and should also call on the Sri Lankan government to decriminalise legitimate diaspora organisations.” 

Modus Operandi For Good Governance: Can We Miss The Woods For The Trees?

By Elmore Perera -March 15, 2015 

Elmore Perera

Whilst endorsing the suggestions made by my friend Leo Fernando in his articles published in the Island of 9^th March 2015 and 14^th March 2015, I venture to suggest that, notwithstanding its vociferous claims to Good Governance, the present Government seems to be missing the woods for the trees.

From 1978 to 1983 in SLIDA Leo and I struggled to impress on public servants the importance of identifying the Critical Path in analysing any Network of activities. Seldom, if ever, did politicians bother about such concepts. Self-interest seemed to be their main, if not sole, consideration.

The 180 – day programme conceptualised by the National Movement for Social Justice included a Referendum, and was based on a Critical Path which did not exceed 180 days. The telescoping of all these, and several other desirable activities, into a 100-day programme was apparently misconceived, if not entirely mischievous.

There can be no dispute that three critical activities were envisaged viz.

1. Abolishing of the Executive Presidency, and replacing it with a Parliamentary System.
2. Replacing the 18^th Amendment and reinstating the 17^th Amendment, duly strengthened, and
3. Reforming the Electoral System.

All these three activities could, and verily should, have commenced on day 2 after the Prime Minister and Cabinet were appointed, and proceeded with, in parallel. The 1^st two activities could, if necessary, have been carried out in series, in parallel with activity 3 (Reform of the Electoral System) which necessarily had to proceed in parallel, from day 2 itself.

Certain events that constitute activity 3 have been assigned dates in the 100-day calendar without any logical rationale. The explanations tendered in the electronic media to justify the failure to observe such deadlines, are far from convincing.

It was reported that, prior to leaving for the UK, the President was assured by inter alia, the Attorney General, the Polls Chief and the Surveyor General, that a delimitation of the electorates could be conveniently completed within 4 weeks. The Polls Chief has reportedly told the President that relatively short notice would be sufficient to conduct the next election, on that basis. The Opposition is clearly willing to give the government as long as it may take, to do so. The bane of preferential voting and crossing-over with impunity must no longer be inflicted on the people.

The current proposal is to have 134 MPs elected on a first past the post basis to represent 134 electorates, with the balance 91 seats allocated to the contesting parties and Independent Groups. 25 MPs will be appointed from the National Lists of each party/group and 66 MPs from the losing candidates on the basis of the percentage votes obtained in their electorates.

This will ensure that the total representation of each party/group in Parliament will be in proportion to the total votes obtained by such parties/independent groups, country wide. This proposal seems to be acceptable to 70 to 80% of MPs and could be pursued

Of equal, if not greater, importance is whether or not the 19^th Amendment will unequivocally provide for appointment of Ministry Secretaries and Heads of Department to be made, not by politicians but by a truly independent Constitutional Council (CC) and /or the Public Service Commission (PSC).

As stated by Leo, I was summarily dismissed from SLIDA in 1983 and from the Public Service in 1984, by the Minister of Public Administration, by abusing his powers through the agency of his Secretary (a Senior Mandarin) for the sole reason that the Minister was denied preferential treatment in the Tennis Association. The Supreme Court made no strictures regarding the conduct of this politician but severely reprimanded two Secretaries and a Head of Department who were all appointed by politicians.

Leo’s understanding that the proposal to bring appointments of Ministry Secretaries and Heads of Departments, (the highest ranking officers in the Public Service, many of whom are professionals) within the scope of the PSC had been included in the Draft 17^th Amendment submitted by the OPA (to PresidentChandrika Kumaranatunga through the good offices of the JVP) is substantially correct. Article 54(17) in the OPA proposals, provided that “the powers of appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of Secretaries to Ministries and Heads of Departments vested in the PSC, may not be delegated even to a sub-committee of the PSC”.

However, Article 52(1) of the 17^th Amendment that was finally approved by Parliament in September 2001 provided that “There shall be for each Ministry a Secretary who shall be appointed by the President”, and Article 55(3) provided that “notwithstanding the provision in Article 55(1) that the appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of public officers shall be vested in the PSC, the appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of all Heads of Departments, shall vest in the Cabinet of Ministers”.

This pernicious practice has apparently not been addressed in the draft 19^th Amendment. As opined by Leo “if the appointment of Secretaries and Heads of Departments continues in the manner as set out in the Constitution, there will be no end to political interference, abuse of power by Ministers and a plethora of uneconomic capital projects”.

The single most important plank on which President Sirisena was elected in preference to incumbent President Rajapaksa was the corruption resulting from abuse of power by the President and his Ministers. It is evident that the alleged corruption resulting from abuse of power by the present regime is taking the limelight away from the alleged corruption of the previous regime.

The time table for the abolition of the Executive Precedency must be set out in full, before dissolution of Parliament and not left for a future Government which may well have different ideas.

The full implementation of the 100-day programme was the covenant made between President Sirisena and the people who elected him. He can be forgiven for taking longer than 100 days to implement the covenant in full, but he cannot reasonably expect to be forgiven if he divests himself of the powers he was elected with and thereafter dissolves Parliament without having fulfilled the aforementioned 3 principal items in his covenant. Doing so will be a betrayal of the trust placed in President Sirisena and will certainly result in disaster.

A possible option is the dismissal of the present government and replacing it with a government more likely to implement fully the undertakings in the 100-day programme.

The Ides of March are come – but not yet gone!

The Ball is fairly and squarely in President Sirisena’s Court.

*Elmore Perera, Attorney-at-Law, Former Additional Director SLIDA and Surveyor General, Past President SLTA and OPA.

International judicial mechanism needed to serve justice for all in Sri Lanka - Callum Macrae

 

 15 March 2015

The United Nations Human Rights Council will have to act on the investigation into Sri Lanka’s atrocities (OISL) and move to set up some form of international judicial mechanism to ensure justice is served to all communities, said the No Fire Zone director Callum Macrae.

Speaking in a press release after the new Sri Lankan president rejected cooperation with the OISL, refuted No Fire Zone evidence of mass atrocities and pledged to set up a domestic investigative process, Callum Macrae said, 

“He says this domestic inquiry will be conducted ‘efficiently, in a balanced, legal and impartial manner’, but when asked about the allegations in No Fire Zone he said he ‘doesn’t believe’ them.”

“President Sirisena, like President Rajapaksa before him, has refused to let the OISL investigators in to Sri Lanka. So we are back to square one and when the OISL report is presented in September the UN Human Rights Council will have to act on that report and move to set up some form of international judicial mechanism which can ensure that justice is done for all the communities of Sri Lanka.”

“These comments by President Sirisena are both surprising and disappointing and represent a step backwards in the search for justice. I’m afraid his proposal for a domestic inquiry is profoundly undermined by his own subsequent comments.”

Mr Macrae questioned further, 

“How does he expect witnesses and survivors of these awful crimes to come forward and testify at a domestic investigation set up by someone who has effectively said in advance that he “doesn’t believe” the events they will describe. How can such a process be described as ‘impartial.’” 

Commenting on President Sirisena’s refusal to accept a copy of the No Fire Zone documentary in Sinhalese, Mr Macrae added, 

“He also says he has not yet seen the film, yet when I offered him a copy outside Number 10 yesterday he declined to take it.  I’m afraid there seems to be a huge gulf between what he says and what he does in practice.  That too will seem familiar to those who knew the last government of Sri Lanka well.”

Maithri Says No to Un Investigators in Sri Lanka_ and No Guarantee Sinha... by Thavam Ratna

1815 and 2015

In Sri Lanka diehard Rajapaksa-supporters see 2015 as 1815. In their paranoid eyes, what happened on January 8^th was not a democratic defeat but an evil conspiracy masterminded by foreigners and implemented by locals. In 1815 Lanka lost its independence; this lost independence was really regained not in 1948 or even in 1972 but in 2009, with the defeat of the LTTE. Just five years later, another bunch of unpatriotic Lankans, following in the treacherous footsteps of their 1815 forefathers, betrayed the country again and turned it into a de facto colony.

by Tisaranee Gunasekara

“One must always say what one sees. But especially – and this is the hard part – one must always see what one sees.” – Charles Péguy[i]

( March 15, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Paranoids live in their own world, uncluttered by facts and unrestrained by reality.

1815 and 2015 by Thavam Ratna

Rethinking the Ethnic Imbroglio 

By Izeth Hussain-March 13, 2015, 7:04 pm

It is widely accepted that the election defeat of President Rajapakse shows the maturing of our democracy. But it does not signify a final and definitive victory of democracy: the impressive pro-Rajapakse rallies at Nugegoda and then at Kandy attest to the continuing wide appeal of racist neo-Fascism in Sri Lanka. We should not, however, jump to the facile conclusion that democracy therefore is not really congenial to the national ethos. We must bear in mind the travails that democracy had to face elsewhere before finally coming through, a process that in Britain took many centuries beginning with Magna Carta. The crucial point is that in recent times we have seen a new dynamism in the Sri Lankan civil society, the essential desideratum without which there can be no democracy worth speaking about in Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately an important aspect, the ethnic aspect, of the last Presidential elections has been very seriously, and perhaps even widely, misunderstood. It has been seen as a victory of the ethnic minorities over the Sinhalese majority. It was on that ground that the former President held that he was not defeated and that the correct position is that he was unseated through a conspiracy, A bizarre argument, surely, considering that the minorities who at the most constitute 30% of the electorate could not by themselves have out-voted the former President. For that, a substantial proportion of the Sinhalese – 45% - had to join the minorities in voting against him. Furthermore, it is a fact that the vote went heavily against him in several true-blue predominantly Sinhalese areas. A most telling point is that the minority ethnic parties – the TNA, the SLMC, and others – voted for the Sinhalese candidate Maithripala Sirisena in the hope that he would end the woes to which they have been subjected by the Sinhalese racist neo- Fascists. The vote transcended the ethnic divide. The correct interpretation of the vote therefore is that it was a victory for the forces working for democracy and solutions for our ethnic problems. In other words, it was a victory for the forces working for a true multi-ethnic nation, the gestation of which we are presently witnessing.

But the process can of course be aborted. There should be no great difficulty in working out a national consensus on constitutional changes aimed at entrenching democracy. But difficulties could arise over a political solution for the Tamil ethnic problem. It seemed to most of us that the recent elections inaugurated a new period of Sinhalese/Tamil ethnic accommodativeness, but the UNHRC decision to postpone the presentation of the war crimes report by six months has been taken by the Tamils as a defeat for them. The near- unanimous rejection of that decision by Tamils both in Sri Lanka and in the diaspora is quite understandable. What is not so easy to understand is why Chief Minister Wigneswaran chose this moment to demand an international inquiry into alleged Sinhalese genocide against the Tamils since 1948, a demand that has drawn wide Tamil support. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of the genocide charge. Instead I will limit myself to making just one point, a point that is essential to the argument of this article: international inquiry into the genocide charge will not conduce to the spirit of mutual Sinhalese-Tamil accommodativeness that is essential for the working out of a political solution.

After the recent elections it seemed to be halcyon weather on the ethnic front, so that Wigneswaran’s demand came like a thunderbolt out of a bright blue sky. It was deeply disappointing, all the more so as it was unexpected. But should we not have expected something of the sort? After all there have been so many initiatives towards a political solution that came to nothing. Is history going to repeat itself? Is it that when it comes to the ethnic problem the only thing that we Sri Lankans can learn from history is that people will not learn from history? My questions point to the need for a radical re-thinking of the ethnic imbroglio. I suspect that what is needed above all is that each side – the Sinhalese and the Tamils – recognize and acknowledge certain unwelcome truths about their own contributions to the ethnic problem.

It should not be necessary to go into the entire history of Sinhalese-Tamil relations. We can conveniently begin with the period 1970 to 1977 when Sinhalese supremacy over the minorities was established beyond dispute. The imbalance of Tamil over-representation in the State sector was corrected. All that remained to be done was to hold the promised All Party Conference and work out a political solution, which may have been difficult but not impossible. Instead President JR unleashed his State terrorism on the Tamils, which reached its apogee in 1983. There is no rational ground on which the neo-Nazi genocidal 1983 pogrom can be excused. It was an explosion of gratuitous racist hatred towards the Tamils.

At this point I must make a clarification. There is law and there is morality and the two may not coincide. There are many things that are against the law but which may be excused or even approved on moral grounds. We must also take into account the moral conceptions of the international community. I don’t think that there can be the slightest doubt that the international community would have approved of the Tamils taking to the gun after 1983. The Tamils were being reduced to subhuman dirt, there was not the slightest hope of redress from the Sinhalese side, and it would have seemed at that time that the Tamils had no alternative to recourse to the gun to affirm their human status. Thereafter India trained and armed Tamil rebel groups, obviously because in the alternative the fall-out in Tamil Nadu would have been far too inimical to India’s legitimate interests. Certainly what India did was illegal in terms of international law but we have to bear in mind the moral factor. It is a significant fact that there has been no international condemnation worth speaking about of India’s counteraction.

What I have written in the two preceding paragraphs may seem outrageous to some Sinhalese. I must clarify that I am not arraigning the Sinhalese as a whole as racist. My targets here are the racists among the 1977 power elite who allowed a free hand to Sinhalese racists to go on the rampage against the Tamils with total impunity. I want the Sinhalese to recognize and acknowledge that it was those racists, not the Tamils, who were responsible for starting the 30-year civil war. One point to be borne in mind by the Sinhalese is that a huge number of their fellow-Sinhalese – maybe twenty thousand, maybe forty thousand – died in the war and that the primary responsibility for those deaths lies with the Sinhalese racists. Unless these facts are recognized and acknowledged by the Sinhalese as Sinhalese contributions to the ethnic problem there will never be any ethnic reconciliation worth the name in Sri Lanka.

I am not writing this article from a partisan point of view. The Sinhalese racists started the war, but the Tamil racists were responsible for its prolongation after 1994. In the remainder of this article I will mention only the salient points in support of my argument. Hardly anyone doubts that President Kumaratunga was absolutely sincere about a peaceful solution for the ethnic problem, going even to the extent of offering Prabhakaran lordship over the North for a period of ten years. True, she could not push things to a conclusion but the outcome could have been different if during the period 1994 to 2000 there had been a positive response from the Tamil side. The Norwegian peace initiative was rendered farcical by the LTTE insistence that no matters of substance be considered at all until the so-called existential problems of the Tamils were disposed of. Why did the LTTE deliberately sabotage Ranil Wickremasinghe’s chances of victory over Rajapakse? The former was a soft-liner and his victory would have meant very considerable Western pressure on the LTTE to agree to a peaceful solution. The truth is that the LTTE never wanted a peaceful solution because it was convinced of a military victory and behind that conviction was a notion of Sinhalese racial inferiority. The Tamil side should acknowledge its own contribution to the ethnic imbroglio.

izethhussain@gmail.com

In Defense Of Arjuna Mahendran

By Sarath de Alwis -March 14, 2015

Sarath De Alwis

“I am time, the destroyer of all; I have come to consume the world. That one is dear to me who runs not after the pleasant or away from the painful, grieves not, lusts not, but lets things come and go as they happen.” The Gita

Money markets need laws, rules and regulations. The integrity, competence and judgment of the Monetary Authority is what is at stake today. Lee Kwan Yew in his memoirs describes how he set up the capital market in Singapore and dismissed critics who complained of overregulation. ‘In Hong Kong what is not expressly forbidden is permitted; in Singapore what is not expressly not permitted is forbidden’.

To take up the assignment, Arjuna Mahendran gave up a lucrative career in International Banking and his Singapore Citizenship. When he sought more time, he was persuaded to take over immediately and his nationality issue was resolved by fast tracking the process.

Had he waited till April to take over, the bond fiasco would have been under the watch of someone else or there would have been no fiasco at all.

The rocket science of bond trading is explained by a central banker in a paper presented in 2008. The Additional Superintendent of Public Debt Department Central Bank of Sri Lanka Mr.C.P.J. Siriwardene explains the growth of the Bond Market.

Treasury bonds are traded through competitive auctions conducted by the Central Bank on a regular basis. Primary dealers who have been involved in the government debt market since 1992 have direct access to the primary auctions. According to the present regulatory framework, primary dealers should subscribe the entire sale and single primary dealer minimum investment level is set at 10 per cent of the volume of sale to avoid any possibility of under subscription. The present auction system is on multiple price basis. Since 2000, all auctions are conducted electronically using an on – line system. Before each auction, the debt authority accesses the potential investors via primary dealers to make sure the availability of funds for the full subscriptions. Private placements of Treasury bonds also take place as a contingency to accommodate unexpected borrowings to avoid market shocks by offering large volumes to the auctions and cancellation of planned bond auctions. Successful 21 bidders are informed on the same day of the auction and the settlement is two days after the auction (T+2 system). Since the establishment of the primary dealer system, the Central Bank continued its role as a debt manager to develop the primary dealer system. They include streamlining of dealers (removing nonactive dealers, appointing new dealers, etc.), introducing necessary regulatory framework for dealers and building up close relationship between primary dealers and the Central Bank.

Dr. Harsha De Silva the Deputy Minister of Planning has announced that the committee of three lawyers will examine all issues and trace any irregularities up to 2012. His erudite posturing and justifying of three mediocre lawyers on a voyage of discovery tracing misdeeds up to 2012 amounts to bottom trawling for red herrings.

This writer did not know who Mr. Gamini Pitipana was until learning that he was to be the chairman of the probe committee. These days Google does much more than Dunn & Bradstreet. So the name was googled. What  appeared was mind goggling. Royal College Class of ’72. Attorney at Law. Apollo foods Private Ltd. In the absence of any further information from the usually expansive ,Dr.Harsha what should we make of the meagre information? That Mr.Pitipana is learned in the law and could cook? Is that what is expected of an oldRoyalist buddy? Cook a report?

Let us get back to the world of bond trading. A basis point is a hundredth of a percentage point. To make it simpler, if a yield moves from 5.5% to 5%, it has moved 50 basis points.

Obviously Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe thinks that the average quantum of gray matter which serves to process information in the brain of the average Gamarala’ in Sri Lanka is far less than one basis point! But ‘Gamaralas’ are beginning to run out of patience. Moving from bad governance to good governance the ‘Gamaralas are now experiencing a spell of ugly governance. Indeed very ugly governance at that.

It would be grossly unfair to accuse Governor Mahendran of withholding any information pertaining to his son in law. Sri Lanka is a small country. The incestuous world of the money market knew about the two Arjunas. Ranil Wickremesinghe decided to play Sri Krishna and persuaded the elder Arjuna to battle in the harsh world of greed.

Arjuna Mahendran is only a man. Power is not of a man. Wright Mills the author of ‘Sociological Imagination’ the seminal study of twentieth century society identifies five problems we face today in a free market economy; alienation, moral insensibility, threat to the spirit of democracy, disregard to human freedom and most significantly the conflict between bureaucratic rationality and human reason.

The problems such the one that is discussed are commonplace.

“Wealth does not center in the person of the wealthy. Celebrity is not inherent in any personality. To be celebrated, to be wealthy, and to have power requires access to major institutions.” What is nauseating with the governance style of the Prime Minister is that he reminds us of the commandant of Auschwitz who insisted “I never got complaints!”

Democracy & The Politics Of Patrimony

by Ruwantissa Abeyratne

“We shall speak of a patrimonial state when the prince organizes his political power over extra patrimonial areas and political subjects – which is not discretionary and not enforced by physical coercion – just like the exercise of his patriarchal power”.- Max Weber

( March 15, 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) Can democracy and patrimony can co-exist?   The political philosopher  Max Weber  said that  a patrimonial State is where “practically everything depends upon personal considerations: upon the attitude towards the concrete applicant and his concrete requests; upon purely personal connections, favour and promises”. 

Democracy & the Politics of Patrimony by Thavam Ratna

Chinese Company Summoned

Sunday, 15 March 2015 

The Chinese company handling the Colombo Port City Project construction has been summoned before the special ‘Port City Investigation Committee’ next week.

The committee has informed the construction company to furnish all documentations issued by the government related to the project, and the project report of the construction company – the China Communications Construction Company Limited (CCCC).

The project manager of the Port City Project Chandana Gunawardena said that due to the suspension of construction, around 250 metres of the breakwater had washed away to sea and the company was losing about Rs. 3.80-5 million daily.

While about 13% of the construction has been completed so far, the company is losing heavily, as they have to pay the rent on three ships that had been taken on rent for construction purposes.

Gunawardena also pointed out that if the project recommences without delay, direct employment of the 1000 workers as well as the 5000 strong indirect work force benefit. Due to the suspension of work they become jobless.
Courtesy- www.thesundayleader.lk

Sovereignty And The Port City

By Ranil Senanayake -March 15, 2015

Ranil Senanayake

Throughout the world, the owning or holding of and that belongs to another sovereign nation, termed “territories held” have recently been largely returned. The Panama Canal was returned to Panama in January 2000, Hong Kong was returned to China by the United Kingdom in 1997, and Portugal returned Macau Island to China in 1999. The notable global exception has been the US base in Cuba. This history is interesting, as it will certainly have a bearing on the historical events that we are attempting to set in motion.

In 1903 after the turbulent period following the wars of independence, President Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with Cuba’s new government, leasing Guantanamo bay for 2,000 gold coins per year. History notes that the agreement was forced on the new Cuban government to give the U.S. navy permission to occupy the bay. As Cuba attained more independence and the Platt Amendment was annulled a new lease was negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and a Cuban government that included Fulgencio Batista as one of three signatories. When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, the new Cuban government requested that Guantánamo be returned to Cuba. Instead of returning it, the U.S. banned its soldiers stationed at the bay from entering Cuban territory. After this the Guantánamo base became a constant source of friction between the two nations. Ever since, Cuba’s call for the return of the area that the United States occupies is based on the principle of sovereignty,”

Sovereignty means supreme power or authority. When used as national sovereignty the authority of a state to govern itself or another state. Normally, it is granted to foreign diplomatic missions and local laws are not implemented on these lands; as seen in the case of Julian Assange, sheltering from the British police, in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The question that should concern us is: Will giving outright ownership of our land to non-diplomatic entities, dilute our authority to enforce the laws of the land within such lands? It is in this context that the agreements entered to by our Government and foreign Companies should be looked at. A deal as important as this should not have be left to a few bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen to decide, it should have been put before the people. Who will define the limits of our sovereignty over the new landfill? Those drooling over the possibility of making a quick buck should slow down and think.Read More

The other side of Narendra Modi’s Sri Lanka visit

by Saif Ahmad Khan 

- on 03/15/2015 

Ever since becoming the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy, Narendra Modi has concentrated on building strong diplomatic ties with foreign nations. The process began with the swearing-in ceremony of the new Indian Prime Minister when Modi extended a formal invite to the heads of state of neighbouring countries which included Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

There were two principle intentions behind the move. The first was obviously to attempt a geo-political re-alignment in the region aimed at containing China’s influence in South Asia. The second one was slightly personal. When Modi was serving as the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, communal riots in the region led to large scale death of Muslims. The incident hit his reputation badly as he was turned into a “pariah”. The United States refused him a visa while the European Union also remained suspicious of his role in the anti-Muslim riots.

However, Modi started becoming diplomatically acceptable to the West as he emerged the frontrunner in the 2014 Indian General Elections. Therefore, the invitation extended to foreign leaders on the occasion of Modi’s swearing-in ceremony was the Indian Prime Minister’s way of announcing his arrival at the global stage and putting an end to the political isolation or untouchability associated with him internationally.

On 13th March, 2015, Narendra Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Sri Lanka following a gap of 28 years. The last Prime Minister to do so was Rajiv Gandhi who sent peacekeeping forces to Sri Lanka in the battle against LTTE. Rajiv’s involvement in the Sri Lankan civil war cost him his own life as he was assassinated by an LTTE suicide bomber on 21st May, 1991 in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.

By ending a near three-decade long absence of an Indian premier in the island nation, Modi made it well known that Sri Lanka happens to be in his priority list. His trip to Sri Lanka was as well planned as his previous foreign visits. In USA, Modi addressed a jam packed public meeting of Indian Americans at the Madison Square Garden in New York. He addressed a similar public meeting in Brisbane, Australia when he visited down under for the G-20 summit.

In Sri Lanka, Modi met President Maithripala Srisena and batted for better ties by stating, “The future I dream for India is also a future that I want for our neighbours.” He stressed on the need for Tamils to be able to lead “a life of equality, justice, peace and dignity in a unified Sri Lanka.” But Modi’s symbolic visit to the war-torn region of Jaffna was the most crucial event.

Modi became the only second international leader after British Prime Minister David Cameroon to visit Jaffna where he handed over 27,000 homes to Tamil families who became homeless as a result of the civil war.

This move of Modi was indeed strategically carried out as it had a significant domestic importance. The plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka has been a subject of high political relevance in India. Tamil Nadu based parties, namely Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam, have strongly supported the Tamil cause in the past.

During the 2014 General Elections, Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept through nearly all regions except for places which had strong regional leaders. These included Mamata Banerjee ruled West Bengal, Naveen Patnaik’s Odisha and Jayalalitha’s Tamil Nadu.

Jayalalitha’s hold on Tamil Nadu has slipped since then as she was convicted in a disproportionate assets case. As a result, Jayalalitha was disqualified from being Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. However, she continues to exert political influence in Tamil Nadu through proxy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam. AIADMK also has 37 Member of Parliaments (MPs) in Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian Parliament, and 11 MPs in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house.

While Modi’s BJP has a majority of its own in the Lok Sabha, it is clearly short of numbers in the Rajya Sabha. Considering the arithmetic, AIADMK can be a crucial player in helping the Modi government pass key reforms in the Union Parliament. In January this year, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had paid a visit to Jayalalitha’s residence in Chennai. Though the meeting was labelled as a “courtesy call”, its political ramifications cannot be overlooked.

Narendra Modi’s BJP is in search of an aide inside the Union Parliament. As Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka indicates, the ally which they are seeking is definitely Jayalalitha’s AIADMK. By reaching out to the oppressed Tamils in Sri Lanka, Modi intends to not merely position himself as a statesman but also capture the imagination of Tamil-sympathizers in India, a large section of whom reside in Tamil Nadu and support Jayalalitha’s AIADMK.

The move is set to catapult Modi’s popularity in the region. It would ensure that AIADMK extends support to the government at the Centre because the Dravidian party would not wish to be seen as being opposed to a pro-Tamil government. Considering BJP’s expansion programmes and the recent inroads which it has made into West Bengal, AIADMK would remain wary of allowing a national party like the BJP to eat up its vote-bank and it is most likely to compliment BJP’s initiatives at the Centre to keep them in good humour.

However, it would be interesting to see as to what extent Modi will go to win the trust of Tamil sympathizers in South India. Tamil politics in the region has often attracted controversy as demands have been raised to grant clemency to the killers of Rajiv Gandhi. The state assembly in Tamil Nadu had unanimously passed a resolution on 30th August, 2011 seeking clemency for the three persons who are on death row for assassinating Rajiv Gandhi. The resolution was moved by none other than the former Chief Minister Jayalalitha herself.

The BJP’s trump-card has been its supposedly uncompromising approach towards terrorism.

Will Modi cave into any such pressures which might be exerted by Jayalalitha in exchange for her support? Another interesting development to watch out for would be to see which way India would vote when it comes to the 28thSession of the UNHRC where a US-sponsored probe report is to be tabled documenting the human rights abuses carried out by the Sri Lankan army and LTTE between 2002 and 2011.

In case a resolution is initiated against Sri Lanka, Jayalalitha would surely pressurize the Modi government into voting against Sri Lanka but such a measure would only alienate the Lankans more from India as they continue to drift towards China. India cannot afford to be isolated any further in the region as neighbouring Pakistan is already seen as close to Beijing. A hostile Sri Lanka would mean a volatile neighbourhood which is tantamount to speedy economic growth which Modi’s government is desperately eyeing.

In an interview given to Hong-Kong based South China Morning Post, Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa accused India, US and other European countries for having played a key role in his defeat in the Sri Lankan Presidential Elections held in January 2015. Though Modi did meet Rajapaksa before concluding his visit to Sri Lanka, the fact is that the former president is visibly miffed with India.

With his visit to Sri Lanka, Modi has certainly tried to build a rapport with Srisena which was obviously lacking in the case of Rajapaksa as his recent comments indicate. But how long will Modi-Srisena camaraderie last will depend largely on Modi’s relationship with Jayalalitha and the political concessions which she would seek to extract from Modi.

The writer is pursuing MA Convergent Journalism from AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi. He has written several opinion pieces, news reports and letters for various news websites and newspapers.