A New Regime, Not a New Country

By Ren Zhiqiang, published: October 3, 2015

Dissent keeps rolling in, not only from “dissidents.” Over the week-long National Day holidays in China, Ren Zhiqiang (任志強), a high-profile real estate mogul who has earned the nickname “the Cannon” online for his provocative opinions, took aim at the notion of the “New China.”  To a global audience, Ren’s argument may seem obvious, but not to the hundreds of millions Chinese who have been indoctrinated, unthinkingly, with the Party’s “New China.”  — The Editors

On this day [October 1] 66 years ago, the central people’s government of the People’s Republic of China was established. But did this day declare to the world that a new country had emerged, or that a new regime was established to replace the old one?

From the perspective of traditional Chinese culture and international law, China is still the same China. China’s culture, national borders, and treaties signed with other countries in the past—none of these underwent any change. All that happened was the government of the Republic of China under the Nationalists (国民党) lost more and more of the area under its control, and the Chinese Communist Party, who said it was representing the interests of the broad masses of the Chinese people, and its People’s Republic of China government, came to control the principle area of mainland China. They announced that they had replaced the Republic of China in governing China, and began to exercise national sovereignty.

Indeed, if the People’s Republic of China is a new country, then it would have no way to carry on the original country’s culture, history, national boundaries, international protocols and diplomatic relations—and in particular, its status in the United Nations and other international organizations would differ.

The so-called “New China” indicated precisely that it wanted to take over everything of the existing country, but also believed that they had established a new country.

If it’s a new country, then it must have all countries in the world recognize anew its place in the international order, reestablishing their diplomatic ties with the new country. If it’s a new regime, then it needs to contest with the old regime for its international place and relations with other countries—the original international relations don’t change because the regime does. At the same time that the new regime is recognized, it also inherits the former country’s international rights and duties.

The government established on October 1 was only truly recognized by the international community, and had the right to represent China, when Deng Xiaoping walked in the United Nations representing PRC, replacing the Republic of China in the UN and the UN Security Council. Before then, it was the Republic of China government representing China on the world stage.

Before that the PRC government was only recognized by, and had diplomatic relations with, a small number of countries. It’s not that other countries didn’t recognize there was a China, or never thought there could be two Chinas, but that they didn’t recognize that the People’s Republic of China government could represent China—they only recognized that the Republic of China represented China.

From the configuration of permanent member states in the United Nations Security Council, it can be seen that the world didn’t see the People’s Republic of China as a newly established country—they simply looked at whether the new government could represent China. What the PRC inherited was the position of China in the United Nations—the position established during World War II, through the great achievements of the war of resistance against Japan (反法西斯战争)—formerly represented by the Republic of China government.

It’s just as, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new government of Russia represented the international place formerly occupied by the Soviet Union. Russia isn’t a newly established country—it simply inherited the Soviet Union’s international position and diplomatic relations, including the international agreements signed by the Soviet Union. And the former Soviet Union satellite states, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, each reestablished their respective diplomatic relations and positions in the UN.

It’s precisely because the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China’s sovereignty that the Republic of China could no longer represent China in the United Nations or in relations with other countries.  It was only with the permission of the People’s Republic of China that it was allowed to enter these organizations, and participate in international events, under the name of Chinese Taipei.

Even till today, many people living in mainland China still harbor a misunderstanding that October 1 was the birth of a new country. They think that the homeland just had its 66th birthday. But this ancient nation of China has a history of thousands of years. All the changes of dynasty in this country are merely the changes in rulers (or changes in governments who say they represent China’s sovereignty)—they’re not changes of the actual nation.

China is still that nation with a history of thousands of years of traditional culture. Every change in ruler is just a part of the nation’s history—it’s the continuation of history, not a new start.

If you think this is a country with just 66 years of history, then how could there be a 70th anniversary celebration of the war of resistance against Japan? How could there be the successive dynasties of rulers and the teachings of Confucius and Mencius?

When you’re shouting fervent patriotic slogans, please don’t think that the country you love is merely the People’s Republic of China established in 1949, and don’t think that the People’s Republic of China is a newly founded country.

This ancestral land of ours, this nation, also includes all of the history before 1949, and it includes the territory not under the control of the People’s Republic of China, but still under the administration of the Republic of China. You absolutely can’t say that loving Taiwan isn’t loving the homeland, or isn’t loving China.

It’s just like how the people and government of the Republic of China will never acknowledge that the People’s Republic of China is a new country, and have believed all along that there’s only one China—just as how the PRC has never recognized Taiwanese independence, and only recognizes one China. Therefore, we must acknowledge that what was established in 1949 was a new government, not a new country. (If it was a new country, then it would have no right to take as its own a region that it had neither occupied nor exercised administration control over—whereas as a successor state, it could.)

The new government was established by the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, on September 21, 1949, by electing the Central People’s Government.

Thus at the rostrum overlooking Tiananmen Square on October 1, Mao Zedong announced that “the Central People’s Government has been established.” What was originally planned for the big ceremony held on October 1 was not for the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, but the ceremony celebrating the establishment of the Central Government.

Every Chinese person must know that on October 1, 1949, what was established was not a new China. China established a new Central People’s Government through the process of consultation and election by multiple political parties! This holiday is not that of the birth of a new country, but the creation of a new government.

When the whole of China celebrates this great holiday, be sure not to forget its original historical aspiration. This holiday does not signify the establishment of a new country, but of China establishing a new central government! Today is not the 66th birthday of our homeland, but the anniversary of a new government.

I hope this new government can abide by the initial promises it made, and actually realize the “common platform” it held up when coming to power: bestow the citizens their rights, and bestow them the united front of a democratic system.

PHOTO CREDIT: THE WEB.

Ren Zhiqiang was the chairman of the Hua Yuan Real Estate Group until late 2014 when he retired and one of the most well-known, and well compensated, executives in China. His regular, biting social commentary on current affairs has attracted over one million followers on Sina Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter.

India’s New Green Revolution

India's latest commitment to fight climate change defends the country's right to keep pumping out more emissions. But in the run up to Paris, it's still a big leap forward.

BY NEIL BHATIYA-OCTOBER 2, 2015

The stakes for India’s contribution in fighting climate change are high. As the fourth largest producer of greenhouse gases, assuming the European Union’s emissions are counted collectively, what India is willing — and able — to do to curb its emissions will have a major impact on whether the international community can avoid runaway global warming. Under most business-as-usual scenarios — if it doesn’t change its behavior — the country is on the hook for some of the most significant emissions growth in the coming decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, India, along with China, will be responsible for nearly half of the growth in global energy demand. And as the world has readied itself for December’s summit in Paris, which will outline how the global community will deal with the increasingly pressing issue of how to deal with climate change, India’s plan has been a looming question mark.

India’s New Green Revolution by Thavam Ratna

Families mourn victims of Guatemala landslide, hundreds feared dead

A rescue team recovers the body of a mudslide victim in Santa Catarina Pinula, on the outskirts of Guatemala City, October 3, 2015.

 BY ENRIQUE PRETEL AND SOFIA MENCHU-Sun Oct 4, 2015

Weeping families lit candles for relatives buried in a massive landslide in Guatemala that killed at least 95 people and left another 300 missing and feared dead, as final, desperate rescue efforts began on Sunday.

A few miles from the hillside that came crashing down onto the town of Santa Caterina Pinula on Thursday night, Reginaldo Gomez stood by the body of his young grandson Andres, who lay garlanded with flowers in a small coffin lined with satin.

The four-year-old boy's mother and sister are among those still missing among the mounds of earth, shattered buildings and personal belongings scattered on the valley floor.

About 300 people are believed to be missing, officials said on Sunday, and the rescue teams that have pulled 95 corpses from the earth and rubble have found no survivors this weekend.

"Andres was a happy, sweet, mischievous child but he isn't here any more. He isn't here and we have to stay here without them," said his grandmother Angela in the modest home where family members gathered to mourn him.

The tragedy on the southeastern flank of Guatemala City was not the first blow to strike the family. Reginaldo said he

became a pastor following the death of two other children in an accident some years ago.

"When I lost my two sons, I wanted to die. I even tried to kill myself and thought I'd never be able to move on. That's why I can face my sorrow now," he said. "I weep and I suffer like Jesus Christ, but I know it's part of God's grand plan."

The El Cambray II neighborhood battered by the landslide lies at the bottom of a deep ravine ringed by trees.

Authorities had warned about risks of building homes in El Cambray II, which was established in 1999. However, like many others in the impoverished Central American country with a history of catastrophic landslides, the neighborhood kept on growing.

In 2005, hundreds of people were killed when torrential rains triggered a landslide that buried the village of Panabaj. Many of the bodies were never recovered.

The question of how to avoid these disasters has reared up just as Guatemala is preparing to elect a new president in a second round run-off on Oct. 25.

The government has been in disarray for months. President Otto Perez was forced to resign and was arrested on corruption charges last month, with his former vice president Alejandro Maldonado stepping in until the election winner takes office.

The relatives of some of those killed in the latest tragedy said they were grateful they were at least been able to bury their loved ones.

"I feel lucky because other families can't even cry over their dead," said Alejandro Lopez, a 45-year-old taxi driver, who recovered the bodies of two daughters and a grandson.

"But I would like to find the mother of my daughters," he said inside a small Evangelical church near Santa Catarina.

(Editing by Dave Graham and Kieran Murray)

French Riviera floods leave 16 dead and trail of destruction

Local residents describe apocalyptic scenes as violent storms spark flash floods, submerging homes, overturning cars and knocking out electricity
People look at damage in the aftermath of violent storms and floods in Biot, south-eastern France Photograph: Jean-Christophe Magnenet/AFP/Getty Images

 

French fireman inspect an abandoned car stuck in muddy waters near an underpass in Cannes. Photograph: Eric Gaillard/Reuters

Kim Willsher and Rob Harrison in Antibes-Sunday 4 October 2015

A family of three were reportedly among 16 people killed when torrential rain across the French Riviera sparked flash floods that upturned cars, submerged whole streets and inundated homes.

French Riviera Floods Leave 16 Dead and Trail of Destruction by Thavam Ratna

Typhoon heads for south China; tens of thousands evacuated

Boats berth at Xingang harbor in Haikou, capital of south China’s Hainan Province ahead of the arrival of Typhoon Mujigae. Pic: AP.

By AP News Oct 04, 2015

BEIJING (AP) — Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from coastal areas of southern China as a strong typhoon moves toward the mainland, bringing powerful winds and heavy rain.

Typhoon Mujigae was heading gradually toward the Leizhou Peninsula in Guangdong province on Sunday morning, just north of the resort island of Hainan.

Packing winds of 180 kilometers (112 miles) per hour at its center, Mujigae was moving northwest at about 20 kph (12 mph) and was expected to make landfall on Sunday afternoon.

Heavy rain is expected for both Guangdong and Hainan, where thousands of Chinese have flocked during the weeklong National Day holiday.

More than 60,000 fishing boats have returned to port in the two provinces and more than 40,000 fishermen working on fish farms have moved to shelters.

Depression Can Affect Every Aspect of Your Body and Mind…Right Down to Your DNA, Study Says

MAY 25, 2015

Depression affects almost 7% of the US population, according to the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance(1) and the effects of it can be more than just psychological.

Neurological and physical effects of depression can include trouble concentrating, insomnia or hypersomnia, excessive weight loss or weight gain, and even panic attacks(2).

But now researchers are finding that there may be more to the physical effects of depression than previously studied. Specifically, it may affect individuals on a cellular level.

How Depression Affects Your DNA

A major study from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics examined the genomes of more than 11,500 women. They were hoping to find evidence that depression can have a genetic root – that something in our genes may predispose us to developing or not developing the mental illness.

What they found instead was a signature of metabolic changes in the study participants cells that appears to be caused by depression itself.

Specifically, women who had depression relating to external factors – such as childhood abuse or sexual trauma – had more mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, than those who did not.

Mitochondria are organelles which provide energy to cells. Researchers believe that stress and trauma had caused the cells of these women to need increased energy, essentially changing their stress response on a cellular level.

Lead researcher Jonathan Flint said in a recent press release that:

“We were surprised at the observation that there was a difference in mitochondrial DNA. So surprised it took us a long time to convince ourselves it was real, not an artefact.”(3)

Depression Shortens Telomeres

When the researchers on the study re-examined their results, they noticed another consistency: women with stress-related depression had shorter telomeres than women without stress-related depression.

Telomeres are essentially caps at the ends of our chromosomes which protect DNA. They shorten naturally with age, which caused the research team to question whether the shortening process of telomeres was sped up by stress or trauma.

To confirm this hypothesis, they decided to test it in a mouse model. Over a period of weeks, they placed mice in stressful situations and monitored them for any genetic or cellular changes.

Once again, they were surprised to have their hypothesis confirmed by the mouse experiment. Not only did the stressed mice have an increase in mitochondrial DNA by the end of the trial period, but they also had shorter telomeres than the control group(4).

Consistent Findings

While this study gives only a “snapshot” of the relationship between depression and our DNA, it’s not the first to make the connection between stress, mental illness and change at a cellular level.

Earlier this year, a team of researchers reported that trauma in childhood can alter the way your cells age(5).

The good news is that the damage is at least partially reversible; a 2014 study, for example, found that mindfulness meditation and yoga can actually help maintain telomere length despite stress(6).

Emotional Stress and Rate of Telomeres Shortening

India’s Abdul Kalam and our Kaala-Aami

Oct 03, 2015

He owned only five trousers. Four shirts. Three suits - one western and the two others native. He lived in a housing complex of common people. He used only one email account and one twitter account, and one website.

Reading the above, you will be reminded of just one of the majority of people living in society. You are correct. He was a person who had lived as a common man. But, he was not one of the majority of peoples. He was a person who had brought repute to his motherland through his knowledge. He was a great son of India, ex-president Abdul Kalam.

Mr. Kalam had the following assets – 2,500 books, one Padmasri award, one Padmabhooshana award, one Bharataratne award and 16 doctorates. He did not have televisions, valuable cars, air-conditioned rooms, shares in big companies, valuable properties or bank accounts with millions.

He was the great Indian Abdul Kalam.

Now, from India’s Kalams, we turn to our Kaala-Aami.

What happens in Sri Lanka is persons without any asset or income entering politics and becoming millionaires through their MP, prime minister, president salaries.

R. Premadasa, who never did a permanent job became an MP, minister, prime minister and president, and he died an owner of estates and houses in Colombo 07. He bought Ambanpola estate and other estates and houses at Wijerama Road, by his president’s salary. Not only that, he maintained the family with his president’s salary and bought an apartment from a housing complex near Kensington Palace in Central London. It is what he left from that salary that his son Sajith is donating today.

Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was elected as Beliatte MP and was without any property to mention, went home after 10 years of presidency with assets worth 18 billion US dollars. His eldest son wore wrist watches worth millions. The second started a television channel and the youngest studied abroad to become an astronaut. All of them wore shoes worth Rs. 150,000.

Those are our Kaala-Aami.

Among such Kaala-Aamis, there was a notable exception.

He owned five shirts and three trousers and had a bank account balance of Rs. 300 when he died. That was the first and the last (because future is unlikely to have such men) in this country to have resigned from his prime minister position – Dudley Shelton Senanayake. He lived and died a common man. He was our Abdul Kalam.

Geneva 2015: from the quasi savagery to civilisation

by Izeth Hussain-October 2, 2015, 9:19 pm 

Sri Lanka is on the brink of a revolutionary transition from quasi savagery to civilisation. My main focus in this article is on the domestic dimension of our ethnic problem and not on its international dimension. My argument that we are on the brink that I have mentioned is premised on one incontrovertible fact: all civilized societies have sanctions against crime and in so far as a society has a culture of impunity it is to that extent a quasi savage or a totally savage society. With the support of, and under pressure from, the international community – which in the present context really means mainly India, the West and the white Commonwealth countries – the present Government can take appropriate action on the crimes committed both by the Sinhalese and the Tamils from 2002 to 2009. We will thereby move from quasi savagery to civilization. If, on the contrary, that is prevented by the Sinhalese racists who have frustrated every attempt at ethnic accommodation since 1958, we will continue to remain in our present quasi savage state.

In the preceding paragraph I have focused on incontrovertible fact. I now move into the controversial area of the pressure exerted on us by the international community, which has taken the form of the UNHRC Resolution adopted consensually on September 30. The most important subject of controversy has been that of "hybrid courts". The popular misconception is that they are courts consisting of local and foreign judges. Hybrid courts are really a sub-category of international courts. Wikipedia defines international courts as follows: "International courts are formed by treaties between nations, or under the authority of an international organization such as the United Nations – this includes ad hoc tribunals and permanent institutions, but excludes any courts arising purely under national authority", The Resolution does not envisage any treaty with another nation about setting up a special court, or one that is under the authority of an international organization. The correct position is that the Sri Lanka Government had already decided to establish a special court – established under "national authority" – to deal with violations of humanitarian law etc, and the Resolution merely requires us to include in it Commonwealth and other foreign judges, prosecutors and investigators. There cannot be the slightest doubt that what is envisaged is technically not a hybrid court.

But, does not the inclusion of foreign judges etc make it a hybrid court in all but name? The counter argument is that we had English Chief Justices from 1948 to 1955, and no one held that we had thereby compromised our sovereignty. We even allowed recourse to Britain’s Privy Council without that charge being made. I recall that some years ago Lee Kuan Yew, annoyed by the fact that the best Singapore lawyers would not opt to join the judiciary, threatened to appoint foreign judges to the Supreme Court. Lee was not exactly the kind of leader to brook the slightest attaint on the sovereignty of his country. So, there seem to be very plausible arguments to show that the special court would not be a hybrid court in all but name.

But, I believe that it would be disingenuous to stop at that without considering possible further counter- arguments. The important point is the reason why a foreign presence is required in the special court. The ostensible reason is that we lack expertise in international humanitarian law – that is the law relating to war crimes. That may or may not be so, but we all know that another reason has loomed large in the minds of the international community: they have no confidence in the impartiality of our judges. It is arguable in that context that some degree of attaint on our sovereignty is implied. But we must consider yet another argument. Assume that a special court without a foreign presence delivers absolutely impartial judgments. The international community won’t believe a word of it. So our best interests require that we agree to a foreign presence. I believe that in effect the special court will amount to a domestic process but not a purely domestic process.

I support the Government on its co-sponsorship of the Resolution and going for its consensual adoption. First of all, we must acknowledge that the present situation is not of its making. It is the consequence of the MR Government winning the war in 2009 and proceeding relentlessly thereafter to lose the peace. The confrontational positions adopted by that Government at Geneva worsened the situation year after year. I believe that the present Government had no viable alternative to agreeing to a process that is not fully domestic. The Opposition has argued that it should have rejected the Resolution and gone for a vote. Certainly our staunch allies in Geneva, most of whom have sorry records on human rights, would have stood by us and the Resolution could have been defeated. But, the Government unlike the Opposition had to consider the consequences that could follow. Very probably unilateral sanctions would be imposed by the US and other Western countries, the impact of which would be much worse than the suspension of GSP+. The Government cannot be blamed if it thought that a consensual approach would serve the national interest better.

In conclusion, I must revert to the first paragraph of this article and point out that what ultimately matters is not what goes on in Geneva but what goes on within Sri Lanka. The external dimension is really important only in relation to India. What, after all, are we required to do? We are required among other things to take credible action over alleged rape of Tamil females by our soldiers. Why should that requirement outrage us? If we are outraged, it certainly means that ours is a quasi savage society. And what about Buddhism? As far as I am aware Buddhism, unlike Islam and Christianity, does not have behind it a tradition of humanitarian law. But, surely any reluctance to take credible action over crime would be contrary to Buddhist principles.

In the external dimension it is only India that really counts. If there were no Tamils in Tamil Nadu there would be no Tamil ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. India would not care two hoots about what happens to the Tamils here. It is only because of the fallout in Tamil Nadu from what happens to the Tamils here that there is a Tamil ethnic problem. If successive governments refuse to take credible action over alleged war crimes, there could well come a time when India believes that the only solution for the ethnic problem would be Eelam. (izethhussain@gmail.com)

University Academics Appeal to the Authorities Regarding the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka

• by Groundviews 
 
• - on 10/03/2015 

TO:         H.E PRESIDENT MAITHRIPALA SIRISENA
HON. RANIL WICKRAMASINGHE, PRIME MINISTER
HON. MANGALA SAMARAWEERA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HON R. SAMPANTHAN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION 
PRINCE ZEID BIN RA’AD, UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Your Excellency and Honourable Sirs,

SRI LANKAN UNIVERSITY ACADEMICS APPEAL TO THE AUTHORITIES REGARDING THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON SRI LANKA

One of the greatest challenges facing the new government today is that of reconciliation between ethnic and religious communities. This challenge is all the more formidable because ever since the end of the war in 2009 in Sri Lanka, the ideology of the ruling regime reinforced ideas of Sinhala majoritarian supremacy and the suppression of minorities. It is in this context that we need to respond to the recent UN Human Rights Council Report on Sri Lanka and the resolution to which the current government is a co-sponsor.

University Academics Appeal to the Authorities Regarding the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lank... by Thavam Ratna

PEARL urges 'maximum international involvement' in accountability mechanism

03 October 2015

The resolution on Sri Lanka, passed at the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday, "falls short" of ensuring the international justice mechanism long demanded by Tamils, the advocacy group PEARL said in a press release on Friday.

PEARL Urges 'Maximum International Involvement' in Accountability Mechanism by Thavam Ratna

UNHRC chief Zeid Al Hussein

October 2, 2015

• Zeid Al Hussein in broadside against Sri Lanka
• Ravinatha registers timid and cowed response
• Pakistan, Russia say what SL should have said
• Maxwell Paranagama Commission specifically targeted
• Former Khemer Rouge war crimes prosecutor coming to SL

By A Special Correspondent

The report on Sri Lanka by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) was taken up for discussion by the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday the 30th September. In introducing the OHCHR report on Sri Lanka to the Council, the Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Al Hussein was unrelenting in his criticism of Sri Lanka. Even though he did say that this report on SL was being released in circumstances very different to that in which it was mandated, he engaged in an overall condemnation of Sri Lanka which applies to the present government almost in the same measure as to the previous one. The overall tenor of his speech was interventionist. No respect was shown for the new government.

Hussein said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Sri Lankan security forces and armed paramilitary forces associated with them were implicated in widespread and wilful killings of civilians and other protected persons and that Tamil politicians, humanitarian workers and journalists were particularly targeted. He also stated that identified LTTE cadres and unidentified individuals may have been killed extra judicially around 18th of May 2009 after surrendering to the Sri Lankan military and made reference to ‘long standing patterns’ of arbitrary arrest and detention by government security forces and abductions by paramilitary organisations in unmarked white vans. He also referred to ‘widespread’ torture by the Sri Lankan security forces of LTTE members and civilians detained en masse in the immediate aftermath of the conflict and said that there were reports of the widespread use of rape and other forms of sexual violence by security forces against both male and female detainees. The Human Rights Commissioner also said that there were reasonable grounds to believe that repeated shelling by the government forces on hospitals and humanitarian facilities in the densely populated no fire zones which the government itself had announced. (However in this instance, Hussein was charitable enough to acknowledge that "The presence of LTTE cadres directly participating in hostilities and operating within the predominantly civilian population, launching attacks in close proximity to these locations and the LTTE policy of forcing civilians to remain within the area of hostilities may also have violated international humanitarian law.") Hussein also said that the OHCHR investigation had also found that the government had placed considerable restrictions on humanitarian access and may have deliberately blocked the delivery of sufficient food and medical supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population and that this may amount to the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.

Referring to the manner in which screening processes were carried out at the end of the war to separate civilians from LTTE combatants, Hussein said that almost 300,000 IDPs were deprived of their liberty in camps far beyond what is permissible under international law and that there are also reasonable grounds to believe that the IDPs were treated as suspects and detained because of their Tamil ethnicity which may amount to discrimination and to the crime against humanity of persecution.

To this our Ambassador in Geneva Ravinatha Ariyasinghe basically gave a timid and capitulationist response referring to an ‘epoch making event in January this year when people voted decisively for change’ and that the culture of impunity where the rights of the individual had been violated for almost a decade had ended. He further stated that the new government was committed to the freedom of expression, the rule of law, good governance and the protection and promotion of all human rights. He said that the government of Sri Lanka will "take note of the OHCHR report and will ensure that its contents and recommendations receive due attention."

However the changed situation in Sri Lanka does not seem to have impressed Al Hussein to the extent that the government would have wished. In referring to the present situation in the country, Hussein described the total failure of domestic mechanisms to conduct credible investigations. He further insisted that the Maxwell Parananagema Commission (on enforced disappearances) should be disbanded and its cases transferred to a credible investigating body established in consultation with the families of the disappeared.

(The reason why Zeid Al Hussein singled out the Maxwell Paranagama Commission for condemnation is quite clear. Some of the world’s foremost experts on the international law of armed conflict including the Sir Desmond de Silva QC, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, David Crane, Paul Newton and Rodney Dixon provided legal opinions to this commission on the law of armed conflict and Desmond de Silva had further provided to the Paranagama Commission a comprehensive analysis of the law of armed conflict in relation to the allegations against Sri Lanka. These legal opinions by experts who have long years of experience within international war crimes courts basically takes the bottom out of the case that the OHCHR was trying to make against Sri Lanka. That is obviously why Hussein wants the Maxwell Paranagama Commission out of the way completely.)

Be that as it may, Al Hussein was also reluctant to admit that any significant ‘improvement’ had taken place in the situation in Sri Lanka. He charged that intimidation and harassment by the military and intelligence services is still going on in the North and East and that this "This demonstrates the pervasiveness of the structures and institutional culture that created the repressive environment of the past and highlights the importance of much more fundamental security sector reforms." This is the purge of the armed forces that the OHCHR report and the American sponsored resolution continue to demand from the Sri Lankan government.

To bolster his contention that Sri Lanka is unable to look after its own affairs Hussein further said that reports have continued to suggest the existence of secret and unacknowledged places of detention’ which require urgent investigation and that from January to August, 19 people were arrested under the PTA, and 12 of them continue to be in detention and 14 cases of torture have been reported by credible sources since January 2015. Hussein stresses that "In our previous reports to the Human Rights Council we had described the total failure of domestic mechanisms to conduct credible investigations into past events and provide redress to victims. He further stated that the state security system and justice system have been distorted and corrupted by decades of impunity. The independence and integrity if key institutions such as the attorney general’s office and the human rights commission remain compromised which is why he recommends the establishment of a hybrid special court integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators mandated to try war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The only challenge to what Zeid Al Hussen was saying did not come from Sri Lanka but from two steadfast friends of Sri Lanka in the UNHRC, Pakistan and Russia. They were not in a position to oppose the report as Sri Lanka herself had all but accepted it. Given Al Hussein’s aggressive pitch for intervention, Russia stressed that Sri Lanka should itself without influence from outside define what help it needs and on what issues. Colombo itself should decide what advise it would follow in national reconciliation and investigating past crimes and the process should take place exclusively by the Sri Lankans themselves. (One would think that it should be Ravinatha Ariyasinghe who should have said that and not the Russian Ambassador.) The Pakistani Ambassador said that those who have been critical of Sri Lanka’s efforts to overcome separatism and terrorism would do well to look at their own track record in the so called war on terror. The High Commissioner on Human Rights should demonstrate the same alacrity that he has demonstrated regarding Sri Lanka to other cases of violence and torture in the cause of countering terrorism by several major powers. The Japanese Ambassador said that Japan will be sending Moto Noguchi a former international judge of the Extraordinary Chamber in the Courts of Cambodia to Sri Lanka next month. However the government of Sri Lanka has not said that they have sought Japanese help to set up a hybrid war crimes court. Furthermore Ambassador Ariyasinghe made no mention of any special Japanese help either.

So, it looks as if Sri Lanka were being frog marched to establishing a war crimes court by her ‘international partners’. Truly this is the lowest point we have reached as a sovereign nation!

TGTE to form an International Team to Monitor Implementation of the HRC Resolution on Sri Lanka

HRC 30 insession

Details of this team will be announced on November 2, 2015.

1)  Vision of justice dispensed at Human Rights Council is in contradiction to the findings of the High Commissioner’s Report.
2) Expresses disappointment at dilution of principles of justice.
3) No explicit reference to the important elements of hybrid court identified in the Resource Paper.
4) Call for extradition proceedings under universal jurisdiction.
5) Request the Commissioner to make the evidence available for prosecution under universal jurisdiction.

“The Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) will form an International Team comprising international Judges, international lawyers and Human Rights specialists to monitor the implementation of the present UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka. Details of this Committee will be announced on the 2nd of November 2015.”

TGTE to Form an International Team to Monitor Implementation of the HRC Resolution on Sri Lanka by Thavam Ratna