Thai police arrest foreign man over Bangkok bombing

BANGKOK | BY PAIRAT TEMPHAIROJANA AND SIMON WEBB-Sat Aug 29, 2015

Thai police said they arrested a foreigner on Saturday who matched the description of a man who left a bag at the site of a Bangkok blast that killed 20 people nearly two weeks ago.

Police raided a decaying four-storey apartment block in a suburb of the capital and found "multiple" fake passports and bomb-making materials they said may have been used in the Aug. 17 bombing at a Hindu shrine, the deadliest in the country's history.

The suspect was a 28-year-old foreign man who had been in Thailand since January last year. He was being held at a military facility on charges of possessing illegal explosives and had admitted the passports were fake, police said.

"It's unlikely to be terrorism," Police chief Somyot Pumpanmuang told a news conference. "It's not an international terrorist act," he said of the attack.

Somyot did not explain how police had come to that conclusion, but said the motive was "taking personal revenge for his comrades". He did not elaborate.

The bomb tore through the crowded Erawan Shrine, one of the country's top tourist attractions and close to several of Bangkok's most luxurious hotels and biggest shopping malls.

Among the dead were 14 foreigners, seven from mainland China and Hong Kong, in an attack the military government said was intended as a strike at Thailand's ailing economy. Scores of people were wounded.

Police have found few clues to the mystery of who masterminded the devastating attack.

MURKY PROBE

No group has claimed responsibility and speculation has focused on who has motive and capability, pointing to southern ethnic Malay separatists, opponents of the junta, international extremists or sympathisers of Uighur Muslims, of which Thailand forcibly repatriated more than 100 to China last month.

Many of the minority Uighurs from China's far west have sought passage via Southeast Asia to Turkey. Thai police on Thursday said they were looking into recent arrivals from Turkey as part of their bomb probe.

National police spokesman Prawut Thavornsiri said more people were being sought and evidence pointed to the suspect's involvement in a second bomb a day later in the city's Sathorn area, which caused no damage.

"We found he's connected to both Bangkok blasts," Prawut said. "We believe the perpetrators are from the same group."

Prawut said the man detained "looks like" the prime suspect, who is a young man with shaggy dark hair and yellow shirt seen on grainy closed-circuit television footage dropping off a backpack and casually leaving the scene before the bomb went off.

Television showed still images of bags full of what appeared to be bomb-making materials seized at an apartment in Bangkok's Nong Chok district, which has a Muslim community and is close to mosques and Halal restaurants.

A rescue worker and policeman at the scene of the raid told Reuters the suspect had rented four apartments on the same floor.

Many Muslims lived in the area, according to second floor resident Khantree Srisombat, who said tenants of Middle Eastern appearance had rented rooms in the building, which cost as little as 2,000 baht ($56) a month.

"I'd seen him (the suspect) around... "I'd only seen him go into his room once," he said.

About the siezure of explosives there, he said: "I was quite afraid at first. Now I feel safe because police have cleared it away."

Police released photographs of the suspect, barefoot, hands behind his back, with a beard and hair shaved short. An image of a Turkish passport was shown on television with a photograph that appeared to be of the same man. Police indicated the passport was fake.

Police have been criticised over their conduct of the investigation. Reuters reporters on Friday found the authorities had not checked some CCTV footage taken minutes after the blast, which featured a man dressed like the chief suspect.

($1 = 35.8200 baht)

(Additional reporting by Aukkapon Niyomyat, Khettiya Jittapong and Panarat Thepgumpanat; Writing by Martin Petty; Editing by Andrew Roche)

Can the IAEA’s New Nuclear Fuel Bank Prevent a Future Iran Crisis?

BY REID STANDISH-AUGUST 28, 2015

Whether to accept or reject a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program will be at the top of Congress’s agenda when lawmakers return to Washington next month. But a storage facility for low-enriched uranium run by the International Atomic Energy Agency is shedding new light on how such a standoff might be averted for future generations.

The globally administered IAEA nuclear fuel bank, hosted by Kazakhstan and operational in 2017, aims to provide countries with a steady and predictable supply of low-enriched uranium. It is also set up to discourage governments from building facilities that could be used to purify uranium to weapons-grade levels — an issue that has been at the heart of the deadlock between Iran and world powers for more than a decade.

The fuel bank agreement, which was signed Thursday at the Kazakh capital Astana, comes after the nuclear deal reached between Iran and six world powers in July. The deal, if enacted, will limit the amount of uranium that Tehran produces and opens the Islamic Republic’s enrichment program to international inspections, in exchange for an easing of harsh sanctions that have cropped Iran’s economy. All along, Iran has maintained its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, and necessary to meet the country’s energy and medical demands. The IAEA’s fuel bank, in theory, could negate the need for Iran or other nations to produce their own uranium in the future.

But questions remain over how the new initiative will work in practice.

Supporters view the fuel bank as a way to safeguard nuclear supplies and reduce countries’ needs to develop nuclear weapons. “If this fuel bank had existed ten years ago, perhaps Iran would not have pursued uranium enrichment even to low-enriched uranium for peaceful use in its power reactors,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Andrew C. Weber, who oversees the Pentagon’s nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, told the crowd in Astana.

It may also help as a non-proliferation tool, said Kingston Reif, director of disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

The IAEA repository “can serve as a fuel supply of last resort in the event that a state with civilian reactors can’t access fuel from the international market,” Reif told Foreign Policy. “In that regard, it can reduce the incentive that states might have on the basis of a fuel supply cutoff to develop their own enrichment and reprocessing.”

But the storage supply will only hold up to 90 tonnes of low-enriched uranium, enough to run one light-water reactor to power a large city for three years. An estimated 40 nations currently are eyeing building maiden nuclear power plants, according to the IAEA, and each will either need to produce fuel to operate or buy it elsewhere. With such relatively little uranium available, the fuel bank largely will serve as a last ditch reserve should supply be disrupted for any given reactor.

And that might not be enough to turn a country away from pursuing its own enrichment capacity. Moreover, the facility in Kazakhstan makes available low-enriched uranium for governments to purchase, but the uranium still needs to be fabricated into fuel — a potentially lengthy process that could make countries think twice about using the bank.

“If a government is in a situation where its supply is quickly cut, it would likely take a few years to find a country to manufacture this enriched uranium and then license this fuel for the reactor,” Pavel Podvig, the head of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project in Geneva and columnist at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, told FP. “It would be very difficult to resolve these problems on a practical timescale.”

With concerns about running out of fuel, the economics of nuclear energy could push a government toward building its own enrichment capacity. “For example, building a fleet of five reactors would cost a government at least $10 billion and an enrichment plan would cost a few billion more. If a country is already willing to pay this much, it might make sense to invest the extra billions on enrichment to make sure they don’t turn into pumpkins,” Podvig said.

That renders the IAEA supply bank a largely symbolic stopgap to keep nations from running out of fuel. Experts say all eyes will be on the program to see if it, in fact, steers countries away from enrichment.

The Kazakh government is also hoping its resume on nuclear non-proliferation can lend to the fuel bank’s credibility.

Most of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear tests took place in Semipalatinsk, in north-eastern Kazakhstan. By 1989, following the closure of the program due to protests, Semipalatinsk had held 30 surface, 88 atmospheric, and 340 nuclear underground tests. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan has followed a foreign policy strongly against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, voluntarily surrendering its nuclear weapons stockpiles, the fourth largest in the world at the time, which it inherited from the Soviet Union.

Nuclear fuel bank programs from the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom already exist, but the bank in Kazakhstan is the first under international auspices. The IAEA hopes it will play a larger role in preventing proliferation by persuading countries they can afford to forgo the ability toenrich their own fuel without risking political fallout or national security.

“Countries will be watching how this fuel bank performs,” Reif said. “If it can deliver to customers in a timely fashion and ease concerns, the implications could be big.

IIPA via Getty Images

Egypt court sentences three Al Jazeera journalists to three years in prison

A Cairo court sentenced three journalists, who were arrested in 2013 for allegedly aiding the banned Muslim Brotherhood, to three years in prison on Aug. 29. A lawyer for one of the journalists said the verdict sends a "dangerous message in Egypt." (Reuters)

By Erin Cunningham and Heba Habib-August 29

CAIRO — An Egyptian court on Saturday sentenced three Al Jazeera journalists to three years in prison on charges of broadcasting without a license and “spreading false news.”

The verdict came after an appeals court granted the reporters a retrial earlier this year. The journalists — Canadian Mohamed Fahmy, Egyptian Baher Mohamed and Australian Peter Greste — were first convicted of aiding a terrorist organization in April 2014. The court sentenced Greste in absentia after authorities deported him to Australia in February.

In rendering his verdict, Judge Hassan Farid said the journalists had not officially registered as members of the press, used unlicensed equipment and broadcast false material that was “harmful to Egypt.” A court-appointed technical committee said in the trial that they found no evidence the reporters had manipulated footage.

“If this was an independent court, there would have been a full acquittal,” Amal Clooney, human rights attorney and defense lawyer for Fahmy, said outside the courtroom Saturday. “This sets a dangerous precedent for journalists being imprisoned in Egypt.”

Rights groups have slammed Egypt’s judiciary for what they say are “sham trials” and harsh sentences against political dissidents. Amnesty International called Saturday’s verdict an “affront to justice.”

A June photo of Canadian Al-Jazeera English journalist Mohammed Fahmy, left, and his Egyptian colleague Baher Mohammed in a courtroom in Tora prison in Cairo. (Amr Nabil/AP)

[Cairo judge sentences Egyptian American to life in prison]

Egypt clamped down on freedom of the press after a military coup ousted Muslim Brotherhood leader and Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in 2013. Officials then accused the Al Jazeera satellite network, which is owned by Qatar, a Brotherhood ally, of backing the Islamists against the state. While Al Jazeera’s Arabic-language channel openly supported the Brotherhood, the convicted journalists worked for the English-language network, a separate channel widely viewed as more objective.

Police detained the three journalists in December 2013, later broadcasting Fahmy and Greste’s arrests to dramatic music on Egyptian television. All three journalists have already spent more than a year in prison.

On Saturday, Fahmy’s wife, Marwa Omara, cried out as the judge read the guilty verdict in court. “This is wrong!” she said, breaking down into tears.

Fahmy and Greste were both sentenced to three years in a maximum-security prison, while Mohamed was sentenced to an additional six months of hard labor because police found a bullet in his home at the time of his arrest.

Fahmy and Mohamed, who has three young children, were taken into custody following the verdict on Saturday.

In an interview with The Post earlier this year, Mohamed said he was “enjoying limited freedom” while out on bail. “But one thing I learned in prison, is to lower your expectations.”

Al Jazeera responded to the judge’s ruling Saturday by calling it a “dark day for Egypt’s judiciary.”

“There is no evidence proving that our colleagues in any way fabricated news or aided and abetted terrorist organizations,” Al Jazeera Media Network’s acting director, Mostefa Souag said in a statement Saturday. “Baher, Peter and Mohamed have been sentenced despite the fact that not a shred of evidence was found to support the extraordinary and false charges against them.”

Clooney said she would be meeting with Egyptian officials to lobby for the deportation of Fahmy, who is a Canadian citizen. Egyptian law allows foreign nationals convicted of crimes in Egypt to be deported to their home countries. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi issued an order to deport Greste.

“Shocked. Outraged. Angry. Upset,” Greste tweeted following the verdict Saturday. “None of them convey how I feel right now.”

Erin Cunningham is an Egypt-based correspondent for The Post. She previously covered conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan for the Christian Science Monitor, GlobalPost and The National.

Julian Assange 'told Edward Snowden not to seek asylum in Latin America'

WikiLeaks founder says he told the NSA whistleblower he could be kidnapped or killed, and that he was better off sheltering in Russia despite ‘negative PR’

 Julian Assange also accused US officials of breaking the law in their pursuit of him and his whistleblowing organisation. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

Damien Gayle and agencies-Saturday 29 August 2015

Julian Assange has said he advised the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdenagainst seeking asylum in Latin America because he could have been kidnapped and possibly killed there.

The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief said he told Snowden to ignore concerns about the “negative PR consequences” of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA’s influence did not reach.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Times, Assange also said he feared he would be assassinated if he was ever able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition.

He accused US officials of breaking the law in their pursuit of him and his whistleblowing organisation, and in subjecting his connections to a campaign of harassment.

WikiLeaks was intimately involved in the operation to help Snowden evade the US authorities in 2013 after he leaked his cache of intelligence documents to Glenn Greenwald, then a journalist with the Guardian.

Assange sent one of his most senior staff members, Sarah Harrison, to be at Snowden’s side in Hong Kong, and helped to engineer his escape to Russia – despite his discomfort with the idea of fleeing to one of the US’s most powerful enemies.

“Snowden was well aware of the spin that would be put on it if he took asylum in Russia,” Assange told the Times.

“He preferred Latin America, but my advice was that he should take asylum in Russia despite the negative PR consequences, because my assessment is that he had a significant risk he could be kidnapped from Latin America on CIA orders. Kidnapped or possibly killed.”

However, Assange’s story appears to be at odds with reports from the time, which detail a plan hatched to whisk Snowden from Russia, where he was stuck in the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport after his US passport was revoked, and into political asylum in Ecuador.

In a statement issued as the drama unfolded, WikiLeaks said of Snowden: “He is bound for the republic of Ecuador via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisers from WikiLeaks.”

But the plan unravelled after Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, declared invalid a temporary travel document issued by his London consul – in collaboration with Assange – after other Ecuadorean diplomats said in leaked correspondence that the Wikileaks founder could be perceived as “running the show”.

Correa went on to criticise the consul, Fidel Narvaez, telling the Associated Press that to have issued the document – which was thought to have been used by Snowden to travel from Hong Kong to Moscow – without consulting Quito was a serious error.

In his Times interview, Assange also outlined his own fears of being targeted. He said that even venturing out on to the balcony of Ecuador’s embassy in Knightsbridge posed security risks in the light of bomb and assassination threats by what he called “unstable people”.

He said he thought it was unlikely he would be shot, but that he worried that if he was freed he could be kidnapped by the CIA.

“I’m a white guy,” Assange said. “Unless I convert to Islam it’s not that likely that I’ll be droned, but we have seen things creeping towards that.”

Ecuador granted the Australian political asylum in 2012 under the 1951 refugee convention.

He believed he risked extradition to the US from the UK and Sweden, where he is under investigation for his involvement with WikiLeaks. He also faces extradition to Sweden for an investigation into an alleged rape.

He has remained in the embassy for nearly three years, with a round-the-clock police guard thought to have cost more than £11m. Assange believes his situation will be resolved in the next two years.

Malaysia: Thousands gather for Bersih 4 rally, urge PM to quit

Supporters of pro-democracy group “Bersih”pose for photographs before the start of a rally in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Saturday. Pic: AP.

By Asian Correspondent Staff Aug 29, 2015

Thousands of Malaysians wearing yellow T-shirts and blowing horns are gathering in Kuala Lumpur for a big rally to demand the resignation of embattled Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Some local news outlets put the crowd gathering in central Kuala Lumpur as large as 20,000 as the really kicked off at 2pm local time. It is scheduled to run until midnight Sunday.

The crowds were undeterred by a heavy police presence after authorities declared the rally illegal, blocked the organizer’s website and banned yellow attire and the logo of Bersih, the coalition for clean and fair election that’s behind the protest.

Gatherings were also taking place in Kuching and Kota Kinabalu, as well as in cities around the world.

#BERSIH4 at Auckland, New Zealand. pic.twitter.com/hiF6araeko

— Adrian Lim Chee En (@adrianlimcheeen) August 29, 2015

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) said Thursday that it was blocking websites which “promote, spread information about and encourage people to join the Bersih 4.0 demonstration” because the event’s protestors “threaten national stability”.

Najib has been fighting for political survival after leaked documents in July showed he received some $700 million in his private accounts from entities linked to indebted state fund 1MDB. He says the money was a donation from the Middle East.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. Pic: AP.

Najib also has fired his deputy and four other Cabinet members who opposed him, as well as the attorney general investigating him.

Bersih 4.0’s five demands are: Free and fair elections; A transparent government; The right to demonstrate; Strengthening the parliamentary democracy system; Saving the national economy.

Meningitis vaccine 'will cause fever'

Babies who are about to be given the new meningitis vaccine are likely to suffer a fever that can last several days, Public Health England is warning parents.

FRIDAY 28 AUGUST 2015
Babies should be given paracetamol to bring down the fever, which is a sign that their bodies is responding to the new Bexsero vaccine, said Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at the agency.

Infants will get the meningitis B jab from September 1, in the first national government-funded programme against the disease in the world. It will be given alongside other routine vaccinations at two months, four months and 12 to 13 months.

There will be a temporary catch-up programme for babies who are due their three and four-month vaccinations next month.

Bexsero

Dr Ramsay said: "Bexsero has a good safety record, but Public Health England is also making parents aware of an increased risk of fever when the vaccine is given alongside other immunisations, and the need to purchase infant liquid paracetamol for the two and four-month appointment visits.

"It's important that parents use paracetamol following vaccination to reduce the risk of fever.

"The fever peaks around six hours after vaccination but is nearly always mild and gone within two days.

"The fever shows the baby's body is responding to the vaccine, although the level of fever depends on the individual child and does not indicate how well the vaccine has worked - some infants may not develop a fever at all.

"We know that fever in young infants may cause some parents concern, but it's important to be aware that it will be short-lived in nearly all cases.

"The vaccine will go on to help protect against meningitis B disease during a period when babies and young children are most at risk."

Meningitis B can affect people of any age but is most common in babies and children under five, although another vaccine has been offered to 17 and 18-year-olds starting university.

Research suggests the new meningitis B vaccine will protect against about 90 per cent of the bacteria strains circulating in the UK.

“TNA will Accept Domestic Investigation if it has International Participation”- M. A. Sumanthiran

 

By P.K.Balachandran.-27/08/2015

The US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Nisha Biswal, has said that the US will be moving a resolution on human rights and war crimes in Sri Lanka at the September session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). But the resolution will be drafted in collaboration with the Lankan government, key stakeholders within and outside Lanka, and the international “core group” on Lanka, she added.

Briefing select media here on Wednesday at the end of a two day visit, Biswal said that the US-led “collaborative” resolution will “reflect” on the way forward for Lanka in its bid to address human rights and governance issues.

Nisha Biswal said that the US resolution will depend on the findings and recommendations contained in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The US has not seen the report yet, she said.

The US resolution will not only be a “collaborative” one, but will also take into account “changes in the landscape” that had taken place in Lanka in the past year and the “substantial progress” made towards reconciliation in the past few months, Biswal stressed. It will reflect on the way forward for Lanka.

Change in Stand  

The US had been in the forefront in adopting three resolutions at the United Nation Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka, the last of which in 2014, had called for an international independent investigation into alleged rights abuses and war crimes.

But the US is now “fine” with a credible domestic investigation which will satisfy all stakeholders in Sri Lanka, Biswal said.

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had made it clear that an international investigation is not possible because Lanka has not signed the Rome Statute to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera told Biswal on Tuesday, that the government is in the process of setting up an independent domestic mechanism togo into charges of rights violations.

Promises Won’t Do

However, the more forthright US Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Tom Malinowski, said that the credibility of the domestic investigation will be judged not by promises, but by what is delivered.

The drafting of the “collaborative” resolution on Lanka is not going to be easy because there are “important constituencies” both within and outside Lanka which care about what is happening in the island nation, Malinowski said.

But he assured that that the resolution will take into account the progress made in the field of reconciliation in the past few months.

TNA’s Stance

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which has been insisting on an international investigation, said after meeting Biswal and Malinowski, that it will accept a domestic investigation if it has international participation.

“We cannot get justice if it is purely a Lankan domestic mechanism. It has to be an internationalized investigation. The involvement of international experts is a must. We would also like the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to set up a monitoring unit here,” said MA Sumanthiran, TNA MP from Jaffna.

Courtesy:New Indian Express

Sinister Campaign Afoot To Block Sri Lanka Using Paranagama Report At UNHRC

By Chris Dharmakirti –August 28, 2015

Chris Dharmakirti

The release of the long awaited Paranagama Commission Report, officially known as the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints Regarding Missing Persons that was established in 2013, has now come into sharp focus, because both the UN and the world at large has been stuck with the conclusions of the Darusman Report, (officially known as the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka), released in 2011, namely, that up to 40,000 civilians have been killed by the army in the final phase of the conflict.

In the wake of a global civil society outcry on possible genocide in Sri Lanka, the 47-member UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution in March 2014, which requested the Office of the High Commissioner (OHCR) to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the last phase of the armed conflict. An expert panel was set up by the UN in late June 2014 and OHCHR was to present a comprehensive report on its findings by March 2015.

In response to this, the Government of Sri Lanka, on the 15th of July 2014, issued a second mandate to the Paranagama Commission, that obligated the Commission to inquire into the facts and circumstances that resulted in the principle loss of civilian life in the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka and to issue a report on or before the 15th of August 2015.

After all, the unverified death toll figure of 40,000 or more has led reasonable people all round the world, to conclude that the Sri Lankan army acted in a way that failed to observe the laws and customs of war.  The term “a genocidal army” stems from here.

Therefore, in order to come to the conclusion of how many civilians were killed, the UN must satisfy, as to who was a civilian in those circumstances. The UN needs to carefully consider the role of the Tamil civilians in this conflict, including the children who were forcibly conscripted. If a civilian joins the LTTE, and becomes part of the LTTE war machine, then they have to be properly classed as a combatant. The issue is further compounded by the fact that some of the Tamil civilians were forcibly conscripted whilst others volunteered freely to take up arms and they were engaged in combat in civilian clothes. According to reports, many of these civilians who were in the front line as LTTE combatants were killed.Read More

The Use of Strategic Considerations in Elections

Photograph by REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte, via Daily Nation

• by Devanesan Nesiah 
• - on 08/28/2015 

On what criteria should we vote in elections? Should it based on the issues closest to our own, irrespective of likely consequences? Or should it be strategic, designed to achieve the best possible results (long term and immediate)?

I have been mostly Colombo based and voting since the parliamentary elections of 1956. Initially, there was no conflict because the candidates with election manifestos I liked were electable. Later, they changed to policies on ethnic issues that were not to my liking but I was able to find other candidates who had better policies who were also electable. Later, they too changed to ethnic policies that I disliked and I found myself voting for candidates who were not electable, i.e. their vote base was too small. I thought that they may become electable or, at least, influential in due course, but that did not happen. My votes were, therefore, wasted.

In due course, I thought I would vote strategically to achieve the best possible results even if I had serious reservations on some of the policies of the persons for whom I voted. This year I decided to vote accordingly and, happily, all three candidates for whom I voted got elected to Parliament. I decided that this shall be my policy in the future – I will vote strategically. This is in keeping with the Christian teaching to be as harmless as doves and as wise as serpents. What is meant by ‘wise as serpents’? I think in every culture, including that in the myth of the Garden of Eden, serpents are not seen as wise in the sense of possessing expertise in philosophy or mathematics or science, but in cunningly achieving their objectives. They are also sometimes seen as evil, but the other objective, be as harmless as doves, overrides that problem.

It is interesting to see strategy employed not only by voters but also by politicians. Happily, in the recent elections those politicians who promoted Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist ideologies on the grounds that two thirds of the total electorate is Sinhala Buddhist have not been very successful. Similarly, politicians in the North who promoted Tamil chauvinist ideology on the grounds that their electorate is overwhelmingly Tamil have also not been very successful. Overall, the message is that increasingly our people of all ethnicities are gradually turning away from chauvinism towards national reconciliation. Hopefully, this trend will continue.

Politicians, like voters, have strategic options. Contrary to what many predicted, the chauvinist line promoted by the UPFA has not been very successful. In contrast, the UNP, which this time promoted national reconciliation, has gained and Ranil Wickremasinghe, to the surprise of many, has established his leadership with no serious challenge from within his party. Most other parties have either split or have lost ground. This has happened, in particular, to the parties of the Left and to the UPFA.

A few days before the elections President Maithripala Sirisena firmly reiterated his position that Mahinda Rajapaksa will not be appointed Prime Minister and went further to publicly name seven persons (six Sinhalese and a Muslim) from the UPFA from among whom he proposed to nominate the Prime Minister. This precipitated a crisis which was further complicated by the six Sinhalese UPFA leaders named being summoned to the residence of Mahinda Rajapaksa and from there issuing a letter refusing to accept the post of Prime Minister and instead supporting the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.

The voting as between the UNP and UPFA was expected to be, and in fact was, quite close. In the event that no party gains an absolute majority, the President is required to select the person who in his opinion is most likely to be able to form the most stable coalition. The President had this option but had tied his hand as he had publicly said that he preferred a UPFA Prime Minister from among the list that he named. But since the UPFA leaders named had all refused to accept the nomination and since he did not consider Mahinda Rajapaksa to be eligible he had no option but to appoint Ranil Wickremasinghe. Of those whom he named Fowzie may have been included for cosmetic reasons but each of Nimal Siripala de Silva, John Seneviratne, Chamal Rajapaksa, Athauda Seneviratne, Susil Premajayantha and Anura Priyadharshana Yapa clearly had the capacity to muster a stable coalition government, but they had ruled themselves out. Sri Lanka’s political culture is such that engineering the crossover of ten or fifteen members with the promise of portfolios or other inducements is not difficult. Since the President’s letter was made public he would have been obliged to appoint one of them if they had not declined in advance. In consequence, the President had no alternative but to appoint Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister contrary to the hopes he had expressed in his open letter and also contrary to the intent of the UPFA response. There is no doubt that Ranil Wickremasinghe will be able to establish a stable government and will work together with the President to bring progress to the country. Curiously, this outcome is not the result of successful execution of good strategy but the failure of bad strategy.

Perhaps if the President’s letter was not made public there may have been no public response rejecting the proposed appointment of a named UPFA leader. Once appointed, that leader would have consolidated his rule by co-opting supportive Members of Parliament and it would have been difficult to dislodge him. Similarly, if the joint letter was not sent to the President, one of the UPFA leaders may have been appointed and taken office. Finally, but was the thinking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe? Had he responded in any manner to the President’s open letter expressing his preference for a UPFA Prime Minister, he would have messed up the issue and ruled himself out. Presumably, he thought all this through, opted to keep a discrete silence, and won. This outcome underlines the need for both voters and politicians to gain a better understanding of strategic considerations in decision making.

Steps From victory

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera –August 28, 2015

Asanga Abeygoonasekera

After a victory at the recent parliamentary elections, Sri Lanka is seen by the outside world as a shining example of democratic peaceful elections and political transition. Our democratic values in society are far superior to an individual politician.

According to Justice Weeramantry, “our ancient civilization fore-shadowed concepts of equality, freedom and democratic procedures in a manner which throws on us the burden of carrying on these democratic practices and developing them to the best of our ability”. We have made history by creating a national government and by signing a MOU between Government and Opposition for the first time. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghebacked by his long political career has exercised within the democratic framework trying to accommodate all voices from many political parties. As he says “Our aim is to emulate the dignified tradition of King Lichchavi, whereby people would meet peacefully, discuss issues peacefully and disperse peacefully, in order to ensure good governance and build a united and prosperous nation”. The Lichchavi kings had ruled the Kathmandu area in Nepal from 400 to 750 AD. This period saw the flowering of a liberal political Culture and coexistence of Buddhism and Hinduism.

It was a ballot based silent revolution that changed the Rajapaksa regime on 8th January- orchestrated by the people of Sri Lanka. The people reaffirmed their verdict at the 17th August Parliamentary elections. This secured a clear victory for the United National Front for Good Governance taking 106 seats while the opposition could secure only 95 seats. The new Government with the leadership of the new Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will be ready to take Sri Lanka towards 2020. As he pledged to introduce good governance and fight against corruption to bring economic prosperity in his election manifesto its time he executes the promises with the right kind of cabinet ministers.

The four time Prime Minister who understands and knows most politicians in his political sphere would have to find the art of moving away from playing prisoners dilemma as he needs to get everyone to cooperate and move forward not stagnate at one place. According to my fellow Young Global Leader and Adjunct Prof. Lutfey Siddiqi, “If you and I were to change our ways together, we could both get to a better place. However, if I was to change and you were not, I’d be much worse off. And because I can’t be sure that you will move, I won’t make the move either. These words demonstrate a classic “prisoners’ dilemma,” where groups of people settle for a suboptimal outcome because they cannot ensure coordinated action that could take them all to a better outcome.

Read More

Two suspects of Thajudeen’s murder have fled the country

FRIDAY, 28 AUGUST 2015

According to police sources two suspects of the Rugby player Thajudeen’s murder have secretly fled to Italy when an outburst of indignation broke out in the society against the murder.

After receiving information that the two suspects were in Italy a lawyer close to Thajudeen’s family had gone to Italy, found information regarding suspects whereabouts, where they were employed and had given the information to the CID.

It has been revealed now that the two suspects were helped by a supporter of a politician of the previous regime to flee the country.