Will U.S. back new Nigerian leader’s tough stance against Boko Haram?

Taiwan Coast Guard's new patrol ship, the 3000-ton 'Ilan' (L), is seen during a commissioning ceremony in the port of Kaohsiung, southern Taiwan, June 6, 2015.-REUTERS/PICHI CHUANG

By Kevin Sieff-June 5

NAIROBI — In the week since Muhammadu Buhari was inaugurated as president of Nigeria, vowing to eliminate Boko Haram, the extremist group has responded with a series of deadly bombings that have killed dozens of people across the country’s northeast.

Those attacks have underscored the enormous task ahead for Buhari, a former military dictator who was seen by many as the right man to rid the country of terrorism. They have also highlighted the challenge for the United States, which is eager to defeat Boko Haram, but leery of offering a large increase in military assistance to Nigeria before its security forces — known for serious human rights abuses — are restructured.

The next fight against Boko Haram could be the most difficult to wage.

“I think we might be seeing the end of the large battlefield phase of this, but if Boko Haram goes back to hit-and-run tactics, it could be even harder for Nigerian military forces,” said a senior U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about bilateral relations.

Last week, militants conducted attacks near Maiduguri International Airport, killing eight, and in a mosque, killing about 25. Then, on Tuesday, a man blew himself up in a slaughterhouse in the same city, killing about 40. Maiduguri, a major city in the northeast, was among the places where Nigerian security forces said they had vanquished Boko Haram. Over the past few months, there had been relatively few attacks, and the city’s markets and streets were packed.

The Nigerian military has said for months that Boko Haram has been forced out of key cities and villages in operations that seemed to lay the groundwork for the group’s elimination after Buhari took power. Instead, the last week has been the bloodiest in recent months.

The surge in attacks comes as the military itself has found itself under greater scrutiny for its own human rights violations. A report released Wednesday by Amnesty International alleged that the military had caused the deaths of about 8,000 civilians since 2009. Some were executed, the report said, but the majority died in military custody.

“Former detainees and senior military sources described how detainees were regularly tortured to death — hung on poles over fires, tossed into deep pits or interrogated using electric batons,” said the report. It named five military officers who it said should be investigated by Buhari’s government.

Now, the United States is trying to navigate ways to support Nigeria’s new leader, who bills himself as a reformer, without violating American legislation that prevents the country from giving aid to human rights abusers. The authors of the Amnesty International report suggested that foreign funding to the military should continue, but a more robust effort should be made to punish those responsible for human rights violations.

“For a long time, many states supported the military and police with human rights training, but that hasn’t led to the results we would hope for,” said Daniel Eyre, Amnesty International’s Nigeria researcher. “Until you hold them accountable, you can train them all you like, but they will continue committing those violations.”

So far, U.S. officials say they are confident that they can increase military assistance while simultaneously encouraging the Nigerian military to improve its record. The so-called Leahy amendment prohibits the approval of U.S. assistance to foreign military units that violate human rights.

“The way you help struggling military to get better is to roll up your sleeves and help, but it doesn’t mean you turn a blind eye to the bad stuff,” said the senior U.S. official.

 

For his part, Buhari, who received training in the 1980s at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania, appears eager for more American military assistance.

“He’s looking for us to continue that and to expand our assistance,” said the senior U.S. official. “We’re willing to look at new forms of training, equipment and these kinds of things,” including the expansion of intelligence sharing.

The U.S. official described American interactions with Buhari at this point as “broad, high-level discussions.”

The United States gave $6.3 million to the Nigerian military and police in 2014, despite tensions with former president Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, which often appeared to shrug off claims of human rights abuses.

Meanwhile, insurgents appear to be intent on proving their capacity to launch deadly attacks. In a 10-minute video released Tuesday, the group rejected the military’s claims of success.

“Most of our territory is still under our control,” said an unidentified man featured in the video, who was carrying an AK-47 and standing in front of two SUVs.

Also in the video, militants show the identification cards of soldiers they claim to have killed and the wreckage of a jet they say they brought down.

But the group’s leader, Abubakar Shekau, is notably missing from the video, raising questions about whether he was injured or killed in Nigeria’s military offensive in the northeast.

Even if Shekau is dead, analysts have long warned that Boko Haram could retain its capacity to conduct periodic attacks for months or years after insurgents have lost ground in their traditional strongholds. Most of the fighters appear to have fled to the Sambisa Forest, a vast and mostly uninhabited stretch of land where they appear to be able to move freely.

“Here in Sambisa you can travel more than four to five hours under the black flag of Islam,” said the man in the Boko Haram video released Tuesday.

After his victory in a historic election — the first time an incumbent had ever lost a presidential contest in Nigeria — many Nigerians have huge hopes for Buhari, who last ruled the country for less than two years, from 1983 to 1985. In his first week in office, he has already condemned Boko Haram and criticized his predecessor, Jonathan, for allowing them to take root. In hisinauguration speech last week, he explained the group’s ascent as a product of “official bungling, negligence, complacency or collusion,” calling Boko Haram “godless” and “mindless.”

He has not articulated a clear strategy to defeat the insurgency, but one of his first directives as president was to move the military headquarters out of the capital and to Borno State, considered Boko Haram’s stronghold in Nigeria.

It’s unclear how effective that move will be. Some experts say that defeating Boko Haram isn’t simply about military strategy, but addressing the reasons why the group emerged in the first place.

“The Buhari administration is going to have to think about the center of the fight not just in geographic terms,” said Carl LeVan, a Nigeria expert at American University. “What is really the heart of the battle? Is it retaking Gwoza and other Boko Haram strongholds and holding them? Or is it tackling the broader message about the role of Islam in a multicultural Nigeria?”

G7 summit: 8,000 protesters gather as leaders prepare wide-ranging talks

Protesters set up a tent camp and police run checks on borders, with Fifa, US trade and climate change high on activists’ and world leaders’ agendas

 

A protester talks to a police officer in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, ahead of the G7 summit. Photograph: Boris Roessler/dpa/Corbis

Jessica Elgot-Saturday 6 June 2015

Thousands of activists have gathered in the German Alpine resort town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, as G7 leaders prepared for wide-ranging talks on subjects from Fifa corruption to controversial free trade agreements.

At the two-day summit, David Cameron will call on his fellow members Germany, France, the US, Italy, Canada and Japan, to tackle international corruption. In a speech on Sunday, in the wake of the crisis that has engulfed world football’s governing body, the prime minister is set to call corruption a “cancer” and the “arch-enemy of democracy”.

Cameron is also expected to urge fellow world leaders to come to an agreement on the controversial US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), to which many of those protesting have strong objections. Negotiations on the treaty have now lasted more than 700 days.

Campaigners at Global Justice Now, one of the groups protesting in the resort, said they expect a Europe-wide petition against the TTIP deal to hit 2m signatures in the coming week.

GJN’s Guy Taylor said: “There is clearly no mandate for the G7 leaders to be pushing ahead with this disastrous trade deal.

“TTIP may bring some economic benefits for a tiny handful of the business elite but for the rest of us it would mean compromising vital public services, the stripping of regulations protecting labour rights and the environment, and a dramatic erosion of democratic process.”

The summit is also expected to discuss the possible renewal of sanctions against Russia (which was refused an invite to what would have been a G8 summit over its involvement in Ukraine), funding for programmes to combat medical epidemics like Ebola, and the risk of a Greek exit from the euro.

The Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, has been invited to the G7 meeting to discuss the US-led campaign against Islamic State in his country and in Syria.

Climate change is also high on protesters’ and politicians’ agendas, and German chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday called for the industrial powers to throw their weight behind a longstanding pledge to seek $100bn to help poor countries tackle climate change, agreed in Copenhagen in 2009.

Merkel said in a video message on Saturday that it was important to have a “confirmation of this fund” from the G7.

Protesters set up a makeshift tented camp early on Saturday, and many more people are expected to arrive on buses from across Germany in time for the summit’s start on Sunday.

Police spokesman Hans-Peter Kammerer said the 8,000-strong crowd had so far been peaceful but added that 22,000 officers were on standby over fears more extreme factions from Germany, Austria, Italy and Britain could join the demonstrations.

German police said they would carry out spot-checks at the country’s borders, which, because Germany is a member of the Schengen agreement, are normally openly accessible.

Police had planned to keep all demonstrators away from the venue, which is in a tiny village five miles from Garmisch-Partenkirchen, but a court ruled that 50 protesters could be allowed inside the security zone, so G7 leaders would be able to hear them outside.

Simon Ernst, one of the organisers of the Stop Elmau demonstration, called the G7 leaders “the henchmen of bankers and corporations” and said that having just 50 demonstrators allowed to be near the actual venue was far too few.

“We think it shows an arrogant attitude toward freedom of assembly,” he said.

The group takes its name from the luxury hotel where the summit will take place, nestled 3,000 ft high in the snow-capped Bavarian mountains, from Sunday until Monday.

Stop Elmau said it is also demonstrating in opposition to free trade agreements like TTIP , as well as expressing opposition to Nato, and solidarity with migrants and refugees.

It will also draw attention to the “surveillance society and the dismantling of democratic liberties”.

At the demonstration on Saturday afternoon, participants ranged from anarchists with their faces covered, to peace protesters wrapped in rainbow flags, as well as many families with children.

One of the most striking groups were six clowns who blocked a main road in the town and forced a police van to seek an alternative route.

Monika Lambert, from the Bavarian city of Erlangen, said she had come “to exercise my democratic rights to say that everything the G7 decides is in the interest of the banks and capitalists”.

“I asked my parents what they did during the Nazi period and they did nothing,” she said. “I don’t want to tell my children and grandchildren the same thing.”

The court’s quagmire: How to deal with Amos Yee?

Singapore teen blogger Amos Yee, center, speaks to reporters while leaving the Subordinate Courts after being released on bail, Tuesday. Pic: AP.

By Carlton Tan Jun 06, 2015 

Having pronounced Amos Yee guilty, the court is now faced with the unenviable task of determining how to rehabilitate him. What should it do with the recalcitrant teenage blogger who insists on being a martyr?

Should it send him to the much-feared Reformative Training Centre (RTC), it would have to do so for at least 18 months. This would far exceed the length of custodial sentences that are typically meted out to persons guilty of charges of similar severity. (An individual was sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment for possessing 209 obscene magazines for sale while Andrew Kiong was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment for having printed 16 anti-Muslim cards and leaving them on cars which he believed belonged to Muslims.)

If it decides to impose a punitive sentence, it would mean that it considers the rehabilitation of Amos unnecessary or unimportant. Given his rejection of probation, his re-uploading of his offending video and image, and given the remarks he has recently made online, rehabilitation (at least in the eyes of the law) is necessary. It is also as important as the laws’ objectives are important.

Commenting on this issue is difficult. It is difficult to separate opinions on Amos’ guilt or innocence—informed by legal, sociological, religious or moral perspectives—from opinions on how he should be sentenced.

Since the Court has already pronounced him guilty, the question about reformative training is now not about Amos’ guilt or innocence, it is about whether courts have / should have the power to impose long custodial sentences for non-punitive purposes, and whether the courts should indeed use that power in this particular instance.

Most countries grant judges the power to impose longer custodial sentences for the purpose of corrective training (although their power to do so is far more circumscribed in other countries than in Singapore where a premium is placed on crime control and prevention).

The purpose of the Reformative Training Centre is essentially similar to corrective training sentences which may presently be imposed on repeat offenders. This corrective training sentence can extend beyond the normal sentence. The purpose is to rehabilitate the criminal. So even though it might be excessive as a punishment or unnecessary as a deterrence measure, the corrective training sentence can still be justified on rehabilitative grounds. The aim is to get the criminal to reform and to not repeat his offence when he returns to society.

In Amos Yee’s case, the criminal justice system sees him as a criminal who has been tried and convicted. His guilt has already been determined. The question of sentencing is now a question of rehabilitation more than it is one of deterrence or punishment. Thus I think it highly likely that he will be sent to the Reformative Training Centre given his rejection of the only other alternative of probation.

The problem with this is therefore not a problem with his conviction. The problem here is that longer than usual custodial sentences are too frequently meted out for the sake of rehabilitation, without due consideration of the impact it would have on the individual’s freedom. There is arguably a need for courts to balance the individual’s interest (in being free) with the society’s interest—both in general and in Amos’ case in particular.

In particular, then, the question is whether–given the courts’ confidence that the criminal will reoffend–it will be too late to try to deal with Amos Yee then.

The obvious alternative to RTC for Amos is not to let him go scot free should he break the laws again (from the court’s point of view). The alternative is to catch him when he does. The prosecution will then have to prove their case again for whichever offense they then think he is guilty of. This would, of course, be highly inconvenient. But surely a person’s freedom (for 18 months) is worth the court’s time and attention? Or are his offences so egregious and so dangerous that we cannot even risk it? If so, why do sentences for similar crimes typically only last 2-4 weeks?

All this is of course assuming that Amos Yee did indeed break the law. An esteemed judge thinks so. So if it is indeed clear that he did break the law, it should also be clear, if and when he does reoffend, that he broke the law again. There should therefore be no need for a lengthy trial and the cost to the courts may easily be limited.

Given this balance of considerations, I think it’s appropriate to say that the judge ought to just let Amos out and consider the time spent in remand prison time served. If he does reoffend again, a longer custodial sentence may be imposed and RTC considered.

Unfortunately, the nature of Amos’ offense is such that it is seldom clear where the line ought to be drawn. Unlike repeat shoplifters or molesters, Amos’ crime was speech crime. The questions of whether his speech crosses the line and of what his speech even consisted of are far more complicated in comparison. Therefore the prosecution is ironically not wrong to say it “cannot be popping back into court every other day”.

So the court is in a real quagmire. If it is clear that Amos will reoffend, why does it need to rehabilitate him right now and not later when it is a legal fact that he has reoffended? If indeed the concern is, as the prosecution claims, that too much of the state’s resources will have to be expended on this case, how good is its claim that it has a strong case against Amos?

Maybe Amos himself will have the answer for us—in 2017.

Contact Lenses May Alter Bacteria in the Eye

Acanthamoeba keratitis, an infection of the eyeball's outer layer, can be caused by using contact lenses that were washed with tap water. Credit: Image via Shutterstock View full size image

by Agata Blaszczak-Boxe, Contributing Writer 

May 31, 2015 01:44pm ET

Wearing contact lenses may change the community of bacteria living in your eyes, according to a small new study.

In the study, the surface of theeye in the people who wore contact lenses had triple the proportion of certain bacteria species, on average, compared with the people in the study who did not wear the lenses, researchers found.

Moreover, the researchers found differences in the composition of the bacterial community on the surface of people's eyes. In the people who wore contact lenses, this composition more closely resembled the bacteria on the individuals' eyelids, as compared to the nonwearers. The study included nine people who wore contacts and 11 who did not.

"Our research clearly shows that putting a foreign object, such as acontact lens, on the eye is not a neutral act," study author Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello, a microbiologist at NYU Langone Medical Center, said in a statement.

More research is needed to examine whether these changes in eye bacteria come from fingers touching the eye, or whether the pressure of a contact lens somehow alters the immune system in the eye, she said. [5 Experts Answer: What’s the Best Way to Preserve My Eyesight?]

The findings may shed some light on "the long-standing problem of why contact-lens wearers are more prone to eye infections than non-lens wearers," Dominguez-Bello said.

Since the introduction of soft contact lenses in the 1970s, there has been an increase in the prevalence of corneal ulcers, which are sores on the transparent covering of the eye, study co-author Dr. Jack Dodick, a professor and chair of ophthalmology at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

One type of bacteria that may cause corneal ulcers, calledPseudomonas, was more abundant in the eyes of people who wore contacts, the study found. Because these bacteria may come to the eyes from the skin, people should pay close attention to eyelid and hand hygiene to avoid getting corneal ulcers, Dodick said.

More studies need to be conducted to see how exactly these differences in bacterial composition may affect eye health, the researchers said.

Millions of people wear contact lenses, and even though these individuals may have an altered bacterial community in the eye, most do not experience complications related to wearing the lenses, said Dr. Mark Fromer, an ophthalmologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York.

However, when such complications do occur, they are quite serious, Fromer told Live Science.

There are simple steps that all contact-lens wearers can take to prevent potential complications from wearing the lenses, Fromer said. "Wash your hands, change your lens solution every day, keep your lens case clean," he said. People  using daily lenses, which need to be changed every day, should not keep wearing the same lenses for several weeks, he said.

Individuals should also visit their ophthalmologists regularly to check on their eye health. And if lenses feel uncomfortable, the wearers should take them out and consult their ophthalmologists, Fromer said .

"If something does not feel right, it means that it is not right," he said.

The results were presented today (May 31) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans.

Follow Agata Blaszczak-Boxe on Twitter. Follow Live Science@livescience, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on Live Science.

 

Editor's Recommendations

• 3 Ways Technology Affects Your Eyes
• Eye Tricks: Gallery of Visual Illusions
• Painful Peepers: How Can Dry Eyes Be Treated?

Trishaw Connected to Raviraj Killing Found; Murder Weapons belongs to Security Forces

05/06/2015 

ID today informed Colombo Additional Magistrate Nirosha Fernando that they had recovered the trishaw allegedly used in the killing of TNA Jaffna District MP Nadaraja Raviraj and sought the Magistrate’s approval to take the trishaw into CID custody.

Consequently the Magistrate allowed this request and fixed further inquiries for June 19.

The CID also told Court that it was continuing with the investigations into the case and the productions recovered including the blood samples and the weapons which were being examined for identification.

The CID said that the weapons recovered were found to have been used by the security forces.

Four Navy officers including Munasinghe Arachchige Nilantha Sampath Munasinghe alias Navy Sampath reportedly involved in the killing of Mr. Raviraj.
Parliamentarian Raviraj was shot dead near his residence at Manning Town in Narahenpita when the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado bearing No: WP KE 1279 was being driven by Mr. Raviraj along Martha Road. The assailant who is said to have travelled on the pillion of motorcycle with the number: JE 3507 had come from the opposite direction and shot Mr. Raviraj.

Senior Counsel K.V. Thavarasha is watching the interest of the aggrieved family of the late Mr. Raviraj.(Farook Thajudeen)
DM

Burmese Buddhist Boy, Sri Lankan Buddhist Boy & Slow Genocide Of Rohingya

By Mass L. Usuf –June 5, 2015 

Mass L. Usuf

Slow Genocide Of The Rohingya People of Myanmar (Burma)

When The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof asked a Buddhist boy of around 12 years old, “what would you do if you meet a Rohingya Muslim boy?”. He nonchalantly replied, “I will kill him”. (NYT, The-21st-century-concentration-camp video). Curious about this, I asked a Sri Lankan Buddhist boy (Kavinda), “what would you do if you meet a Muslim boy?” He shyly replied, “I will ask his name”. I then asked him, after that what will you do ? He innocently said, “I will ask him if he will play with me”.

It is not that the Buddhist boy of Burma was a devil and the Sri Lankan boy an angel. What it means is that one is indoctrinated and the other is not. The Burmese boy’s response was not a sudden eruption of religious sentiments but the result of carefully cultivated hatred. Hatred that generates a situation of anger, making one community inflamed against another.

This is exactly what responsible, unbiased, civic minded Sri Lankans should fear against happening to our children, the innocent Sri Lankan masses and, most significantly, to the Samaneras (the novice monks). Hatred and violence should not be seen by these novice monks as the proper way to achieve their goals. Indications are that indoctrination is taking place in Sri Lanka too, in a subtle way, unduly exploiting the honour and respect of the robe.

False Propaganda

The sinister strategy is to alienate or distance a minority people from the majority population. This methodology is adopted by first constructing a negative identity about the targeted minority group. The labeling of Muslims of Sri Lanka as extremists, the bygone halaal issue, symbolization of the Islamic dress code, threat of population increase etc. are good examples of the construction of that identity. This is followed by false, distorted, unfounded, make believe propaganda. The consistent perpetuation of this propaganda creates an unwholesome identity about the Muslims in the minds of the majority. The extent of the bias will be such that whenever a Sinhalese sees a Muslim person, he sees him with the tainted lenses of these carefully fostered lies. This over a period of time cultivates hatredness and alienates one from the other. It is our responsibility to ensure that Kavinda does not become a killer. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen recently speaking at the Harvard Global Equity Initiative describing propaganda against the Rohingyas said, “you can make a people totally beastly by just propaganda and creating a condition in which they feel justified in doing it”.Read More

America's Effusive Praise for Sri Lanka Continues

Taylor Dibbert

-06/05/2015

Richard E. Hoagland, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the U.S. State Department's Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, recently spoke at the Washington International Business Council. He began by speaking about Nepal and then moved on to address improved U.S. -- India ties. He also spoke about Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Central Asia, U.S. business interests and the commercial advocacy work undertaken by the U.S. government. This was a pretty standard speech and Hoagland even managed to find a few nice words for China.

Regarding U.S. - Sri Lanka relations, Hoagland said the following:

Democratic elections have also brought about a sea-change in our relationship with Sri Lanka, a mere 35 miles across the Palk Strait from India's southeast coast, where the new president has moved the country away from divisive politics and crony capitalism toward a new path of reconciliation and inclusive development.

We plan to do a lot to support Sri Lanka's pursuit of that new path, to strengthen its governance, especially its judicial and financial institutions. This new path will be a boon for the Sri Lankan people, but also for U.S. interests: we can now work together with Sri Lanka to promote good governance and human rights abroad, as well as improve maritime security in the Indian Ocean.

The abovementioned paragraphs may constitute the most optimistic part of the speech. Indeed, the Obama administration shows no signs of ending its lovefest with Sri Lanka's newly elected president, Maithripala Sirisena. Hoagland's reference to Washington's support for Sri Lanka's judicial and financial institutions deals directly with the range of corruption investigations (for actions which occurred when Mahinda Rajapaksa was in power) which are currently underway. To some extent, the possibility of the recently ousted Rajapaksa making a comeback remains the elephant in the room. Sirisena is still having trouble controlling the political party which he leads, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

This is a chaotic time in Sri Lankan politics. There have been reports that Sirisena will dissolve parliament and hold important parliamentary elections in August, yet that decision remains his alone. Besides, transparency hasn't exactly been a hallmark of the Sirisena administration and, in theory, the current parliament could run until April 2016.

With U.S. government assistance, streamlining corruption investigations would be one way to tarnish Rajapaksa's brand in the run up to those polls. Sirisena has made it clear that he would not let Rajapaksa run as prime ministerial candidate for the United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA), the political alliance which is led by the SLFP. Nonetheless, many SLFP members would like to see Rajapaksa contest and so there has been some talk that the former president may break away and form a different political force.

Sirisena's performance as president has been decent, although not great. It's tough to predict how things will play out in the coming months. For now, at least two things are clear. First, that Sirisena needs all the help he can get, especially as it relates to support from within his own party. Second, that no matter what happens, Sirisena is not Rajapaksa. And since that's the case, it looks like the honeymoon period of renewed U.S. - Sri Lanka relations will continue for some time yet, especially if Washington's unbridled support undermines a Rajapaksa comeback.

N to fund accountability process in Lanka

By admin-June 4, 2015

The United Nations today said that it is working with Sri Lanka to fund building peace through reconciliation and accountability by addressing the critical core grievances of minorities in an inclusive and consultative manner.

The UN Country team is working with its counterparts – coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – and finalizing an initiative for support from the UN Peacebuilding Fund.

The Peacebuilding Fund will support Sri Lanka, initially with $3 million, to establish and operationalize processes for building peace through reconciliation and accountability by addressing the critical core grievances of minorities in an inclusive and consultative manner.

In particular, with the support of the Fund, the UN is looking at supporting the Government in four areas including through technical support to establish an inclusive and credible domestic mechanism to address human rights violations and accountability and provide redress to victims and conflict affected groups, including families of the missing, in line with international standards.

This was revealed by Subinay Nandy, Resident Coordinator of the United Nations in Sri Lanka at the Donor Conference on the Comprehensive Policy Framework and Formulation of the Resettlement Action Plan held today.

“We in the UN are encouraged as we continue working closely with the Government of Sri Lanka, and see the consultation today as an important step in part of a longstanding partnership to ensure durable and lasting solutions for all internally displaced persons,” Nandy said.

Nandy said the UN is ready to support the Government in understanding the nature and scale of the issues in Sri Lanka, and to look at joint and innovative solutions. He also said the UN would also encourage the adoption of a coordinated approach by all development partners to maximise aid effectiveness. (Colombo Gazette)

Controversy over Chinese investment in Sri Lanka

5 June 2015

Author: Smruti S Pattanaik, IDSA

Chinese investment in Sri Lanka is causing major problems for Sri Lanka’s President Mathripala Sirisena and has become a point of tension in Sri Lanka–China relations.

Before taking office, Sirisena had promised that he would look into alleged corruption, stating he would investigate how Sri Lanka is ‘being obtained by foreigners by paying ransom to a handful of persons’. His election manifesto simultaneously acknowledged Sri Lanka’s economic difficulties. It reads, ‘Sri Lanka is a country with excessive state debt and a dangerous ratio with regard to loan payment and state revenue’.

During the previous regime, led by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka borrowed billions from China to develop mega-projects that many thought were economically unviable. Critics also feared that Sri Lanka would not be able to pay back the loans and as a result China may take control of these vital infrastructure projects, providing it with a strategic presence in the country.

At the time, no information was available in the public domain regarding interest rates on the loans. There were also allegations of corruption and bribery, which may have allowed Chinese companies to secure these projects without open bidding process. As a result, the incoming Sirisena government promised that it would re-assess all mega-projects undertaken by the previous government.

One especially controversial project is the Colombo Port City project. The Colombo Port City project is being built by China Communication Construction Company (CCCC), a subsidiary of China Harbour Engineering Company, in cooperation with the Sri Lanka Port Authority. The project amounts to a US$1.4 billion investment, but — according to Sri Lanka Government Spokesperson Rajith Senaratne — the project was awarded ‘without relevant approvals’. Interestingly, the World Bank has barred CCCC on charges of corruption until 2017.

During his visit to Beijing after being elected president, Sirisena assured China that‘the current problems facing the Colombo Port City is temporary and the problems do not lie with China’. Chinese President Xi Jinping in return expressed his hope that ‘Sri Lanka could ensure the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises’.

But in an interview with CNN Money, Sri Lanka’s Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake said, ‘the Chinese companies used the opportunity of a corrupt regime to crowd out other companies coming in … There was no even playing field’.

Other Chinese projects have also drawn criticism for being unproductive investments and are considered bad loans. Chinese companies built the Hambantota Port, Mahinda Rajapaksa International Airport (MRIA) and a cricket stadium in the former president Rajapaksa’s political constituency, Hambantota. These are now incurring losses because they are not commercially viable. In September 2013, the interest rate for MRIA, which cost US$209 million to build, was increased from 1.3 per cent to 6.3 per cent.

Rajapaksa’s government took several steps to make the airport commercially viable. For example, according to Civil Aviation Authority 2014 Annual Report, the Rajapaksa government implemented an ‘open skies’ policy for granting third, fourth and fifth freedom traffic rights out of MRIA to foreign airlines. It also provided concessional landing and parking facilities. But MRIA attracted only 20,474 international passengers and 2984 flights according to this report. In the same year, it incurred a loss of LKR2.75 billion (approximately US$20 million).

The Hambantota Port has also not been able to return the economic dividend it promised. The port was built with a US$306 million loan, 85 per cent of which was provided by China’s Exim bank with a fixed interest rate of 6.3 per cent. In September 2014, Sri Lanka reportedly granted Chinese state-owned companies, China Merchants Holdings International and CCCC, operating rights to four berths at the Hambantota Port, providing it with nearly 65 per cent share in the project as per the agreement reached with China in 2010. But Hambantota is yet to attract investment despite being declared a ‘free port’, alongside Colombo Port, in July 2013.

The Sri Lankan government has also declared that Katunayake Export Processing Zone, Koggala EPZ and MRIA are bonded areas in an attempt to attract investors. According to the Minister of Port and Shipping the loss from the Hambantota Port in 2012 was LKR678 million (approximately US$5 million). The Hambantota Port was maintained from the profits made by the Colombo Port. The Sri Lanka Port Authority, which was earlier providing bunkering services, has now asked private companies to takeover or develop a joint venture for bunkering operations.

China has invested around US$5 billion in Sri Lanka. The Sirisena government faces a dilemma. While Sri Lanka is not in a position to spurn Chinese investment, or to repay the huge loans, it also does not know how to ensure these mega infrastructure project make profits that would help pay back the loans. It is under tremendous pressure from China on the Colombo Port City project, where CCCC is reportedly claiming to be losing US$380,000 a day. It would be financially difficult for the Sri Lankan government to provide such huge compensation in case it decides to cancel the project.

At the same time, there is enormous domestic pressure to abandon the Colombo Port City project because it has no environmental clearance and is likely to provide China a strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean, which could draw the wrath of India and the US. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said it expects Colombo to ‘preserve Chinese companies’ confidence to invest in Sri Lanka in the overall interests of China–Sri Lanka friendliness and the fundamental interests of Sri Lanka’s national development’.

Sri Lanka has always tried to leverage its ties with Beijing in its relations with Indiaand the West. But the previous Rajapaksa government went too far in courting China and did not consider the strategic consequences. It would be difficult for Sri Lanka to withstand Chinese pressure. But it is likely that China will not be in a hurry to take punitive action if the Colombo Port City project does not materialise. After all, Colombo continues to be a major lynchpin in China’s Maritime Silk Route and is an important partner in the larger geopolitical game.

Dr Smruti S Pattanaik is a research fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Dehli.

Susil removed – SB given the alliance secretary post

Friday, 05 June 2015

President secretariat inside information states that president Maithripala is considering to remove Susil Prem Jayanth from the UPFA secretary post and appoint S.B Dissanayake to the post. The reason is due to the fact that Susil Premjayanth has been confirmed by the state intelligence as a 100% pro Rajapaksa.

One such incident confirmed the former minister Susil Premjayanth’s pro Rajapaksa attitude yesterday during a SLFP media communiqué. When a media reporter raised a question from Susil Premjayanth regarding the booklet published by the SLFP media unit under the theme “Think about this and protect the party” he has responded that it was an anonymous material (Kele Paththara). Thilanga Sumathipala who was there during the media communiqué has showed his resentment and said that he printed the material following the permission of the SLFP secretary Anura Priyadharshana Yapa. This incident has gained a wide controversy up to now.

The booklet “Think about this and protect the party” has been written by Minister S.B. Dissanayake and published and printed by Mp. Thilanga Sumathipala.

Susil Premjayanth’s this duplicity has been spoken by the senior SLFP’s yesterday. President Maithripala have reminded how Susil Premjayanth had a stealthy discussion before the Maithri –Mahinda meeting. Meantime the SLFP seniors have proposed Maithripala Sirisena to immediately remove all pro Rajapaksa stooges from the SLFP central executive committee. All the members including the president have complied to the decision.

As a first step, it is proposed to remove Susil Premjayanth from the UPFA secretary post and appoint S.B Dissanayake. However the president has decided to exercise this imminent change.