Israeli PM accuses UN's top official of encouraging terror

Netanyahu criticises Ban Ki Moon after the UN Secretary General said it was 'human nature' for oppressed people to react to occupation


Tuesday 26 January 2016

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday accused the UN chief of "encouraging terror" after Ban Ki-moon said he could understand Palestinian frustration at Israel's occupation and that it was natural to resist.

"The comments of the UN Secretary General encourage terror," Netanyahu said in a statement. "There is no justification for terror."

Earlier on Tuesday, Ban told the Security Council of the "profound sense of alienation and despair driving some Palestinians - especially young people" in the upsurge of violent attacks against Israelis since the start of October, according to a UN statement.

"Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process," he said.

"As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism."

Violence since 1 October has killed 159 Palestinians and 25 Israelis, as well as an American and an Eritrean, according to an AFP count.

Most of the Palestinians killed since October have been attackers, while others have been shot dead by Israeli forces during protests and clashes. 

In his comments, Ban condemned the Palestinian attacks, but said Israeli settlement building cast doubt on Israel's commitment to the goal of an independent Palestine alongside Israel.

"Continued settlement activities are an affront to the Palestinian people and to the international community," he said. "They rightly raise fundamental questions about Israel's commitment to a two-state solution." 

Netanyahu responded that the Palestinians themselves were not working for two states.

"The Palestinian murderers do not want to build a state, they want to destroy a state and they say it out loud," he said.

"They want to murder Jews wherever they are and they say so out loud. They do not murder for peace and they do not murder for human rights."

Vulture arrested in Lebanon on suspicion of spying

Bird that flew from Israeli nature reserve into Lebanon caught by locals suspicious of its transmitter

 Locals swooped on the vulture in the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil. Photograph: Social media

Agence France-Presse-Tuesday 26 January 2016

A vulture from an Israeli nature reserve has been captured in Lebanon on suspicion of espionage after flying across the border, Israel’s nature reserve authority has said.

Members of the Israeli public phoned the Israel Nature and Parks Authority to alert it to Facebook reports and pictures of a vulture with an Israeli identification ring and location transmitter captured by residents of the south Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, a spokeswoman, Tali Tenenbaum, said.

“Reports passed to us show the vulture tied with a rope by local people who write that they suspect Israeli espionage apparently because of the transmitter attached to him,” the authority said.

“In the 21st century, we expect people to understand that wild animals are not harmful,” it added. “We hope that the Lebanese will release him.”

Tenenbaum said the authority’s experts had been aware for some days that it had flown about 2.5 miles (four kilometres) into Lebanon. “But we did not know he’d been captured,” she said.

Reports later said the bird had been freed after it was deemed not to pose a threat.

Conspiracy theories are endemic in the Middle East. Last summer, Palestinian media reported claims by the Gaza Strip’s Hamas rulers that they had apprehended a dolphin off their Mediterranean coastline equipped with video cameras for an Israeli spying mission.

In 2011, Saudi media reported that a vulture carrying a GPS transmitter and an identification ring from Tel Aviv University had been detained by security forces who suspected it was being used for espionage.

In 2010, Israel’s foreign ministry dismissed Egyptian reports linking a spate of Red Sea shark attacks to Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency.

In defence of dissent: Arundhati Roy

Roy challenges the Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) order to launch criminal proceedings against her, in the Supreme Court. SC issues notice but directs her to appear before the High Court on January 25 

Image Courtesy: K. Pichumani, The Hindu

The order of the Bombay High Court directing criminal contempt proceedings against me is untenable legally besides raising crucial questions of the right to freedom of expression in a democracy, says Arundhati Roy in her appeal; SC issues notice to Bombay High Court and the Maharashtra government on Friday (January 22) but directs Roy to appear before the Court on January 25, 2016

Published on: January 23, 2016

Noted writer Arundhati Roy has challenged the order of the Napur bench of the Bombay High Court dated December 23, 2015 directing criminal defamation proceedings to be filed against her[1]. The special leave petition was filed on January 7, 2016 in the Supreme Court of India.
 
Roy has challenged the High Court’s Order on grounds that it is not tenable in the eyes of the law and in fact militates against the law laid down by Constitutional Courts from time to time. Besides, it raises crucial questions of freedom of expression and the right to criticise governments and state institutions in a democracy.
 
The judgement directing Roy to be proceeded against through criminal contempt proceedings was based on an article that she wrote for Outlook magazine on May 9, 2015. In response, her special leave petition states that “ a reading of the contents of the article authored by the petitioner (Roy) on the basis of which criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated, would reveal that she was only bringing forth the plight of a person who is ninety per cent disabled, wheelchair bound and suffers from a degenerative medical condition that requires constant medical care.”
 
The special leave petition of Arundhati Roy argues that there are three crucial aspects which show that the Bombay High Court has erred in law. These  are:

1. That no application for bail was pending when the petitioner (Roy) had written her article. The court itself had noted that the previous proceeding that resulted in the dismissal of the bail application moved by Dr. Saibaba, had come to an end on August 25, 2014. The article authored by the petitioner was published by Outlook magazine on May 9, 2015, a full seven months later. Therefore, there is no basis to hold that the petitioner had a “malafide motive”or a “game plan” to “interfere in the administration of justice.”
2. That Roy’s article was a bonafide exercise of her Freedom of Expression. Arundhati Roy has stated in her petition, that “For the sake of argument let’s leave the decision about whether Dr Saibaba is guilty or innocent of the charges levelled against him to the courts. And for the moment let’s turn our attention solely to the question of bail—because for him that is quite literally a matter of life and death.”  Roy believed that the question of Dr. Saibaba’s liberty in the given circumstances, was quite literally a question of life and death due to his worsening medical condition, and therefore it was of urgent and utmost importance that he be granted bail.

The same Court that is the Bombay High Court (that had cancelled Professor Saibaba’s interim bail on December 23, 2015), had, on June 26, 2015 (in Criminal PIL No 4/2015) stated quite the contrary to what was held in the December 2015 order. The Court had earlier said, “We are satisfied that if Professor Saibaba is not released on temporary bail for medical treatment and supportive care as indicated above, there could be a risk to his life and health.” At that stage, the High court at Bombay had held that the medical condition of Dr. Saibaba required immediate medical attention, and hence he was entitled to be released on temporary bail.                         See more

        

Iran’s president asks pope for prayers during Vatican visit on Mideast crises

Pope Francis and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the Vatican before talks on Tuesday. (Andrew Medichini/AFP/Getty Images)

By Brian Murphy-January 26 

Iran’s president asked Pope Francis for his prayers, and the pontiff bestowed a medal depicting an early Christian saint, Tuesday in a Vatican encounter rich with spiritual symbolism but also touching on Middle East conflicts and terrorism fears.

The 40-minute meeting — the first between an Iranian president and a pope since 1999 — was something of a sideline to the wider objectives of President Hassan Rouhani’s four-day European trip, which began Monday.

Rouhani and his 120-member entourage seek mostly to drum up foreign investment from Italy and France after the lifting of international sanctions under the nuclear accord with world powers.

[Despite nuclear deal, Rouhani blasts U.S. policies]

But Rouhani also used his talks with Francis to bolster his personal image as a moderate comfortable in dealing with the West. In addition, Rouhani did not miss a chance to strengthen his calls for Iran to play a bigger role in Mideast affairs, including bids to reach a political accord in war-battered Syria.

 

Iran is a critical ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose envoys will take part in U.N.-backed peace talks that could begin later this week in Geneva. Francis, meanwhile, has frequently denounced the ongoing bloodshed in Syria, and the increasing pressures and persecution facing Christians across the region.

“I ask you to pray for me,” Rouhani said to the pope after their private meeting. He presented Francis with a carpet — about 3-by-4 feet — made in the seminary city of Qom, the center of Shiite Muslim scholarship in Iran.

Francis, in turn, gave Rouhani a medal depicting a famous act by the 4th century St. Martin: giving part of his coat to a cold beggar — a gesture Francis called “a sign of unsolicited brotherhood.”

[Italy approves cover-up for Iran visit]

Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did not make a visit to the Holy See, which had joined in denunciations of his combative comments, including warnings against Israel.

Read more>>>

China deports Swedish human rights activist Peter Dahlin

by Asian Correspondent Staff-26th January 2016

THE Chinese government has released and immediately deported a Swedish man it accused of training and funding unlicensed lawyers in the country.

Swedish embassy spokesman Sebastian Magnusson confirmed Tuesday that Peter Dahlin had left China but was unable to provide further details.

Chinese authorities said in a statement he was suspected of “funding criminal activities harmful to China’s national security” and would be expelled, according to the New York Times.

Dahlin was featured in a 10-minute segment on state broadcaster CCTV last week in which he gave what was described as a confession for breaking Chinese law.

A number of doubts have been raised over Dahlin’s confession, with Quartz reporting last week on some discrepancies between what he actually said, and what was reported in Chinese.

He was arrested Jan. 3 on his way to Beijing’s international airport, becoming the first foreigner to become entangled in a wide-ranging crackdown on the country’s increasingly assertive legal rights groups.

Dahlin, 35, is a co-founder of the Beijing-based NGO Chinese Urgent Action Working Group.
He spent more than 20 days in detention before he was expelled from China this week.

The Swedish embassy issued a statement Friday in which it said it was seeking clarification of the charges against Dahlin and another detained Swedish national, Gui Minhai.

Gui Minhai also made a public – and according to some forced – apology on Chinese television this month, a number of months after he had gone missing from Thailand. He is one of five people involved in a Hong Kong book publishing operation who went missing in suspicious circumstances.

Additional reporting from Associated Press

WARNING IF YOU FIND THESE IN YOUR HOME GET TO A DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY

2016.01.24
Pests can be a problem no matter where you live. People all around the country have to deal with roaches, ants and even mice or rats. Most of the pests you encounter in a home are just a nuisance and are not really any threat to the residents. This is not always the case. Some rare pests are starting to invade the United States. These invasive species can sometimes make people very sick. The bugs are hard to find and harder to stop. One of the latest dangerous arrivals is known as a kissing bug.

The kissing bug is not native to the United States. It has started to appear in the state of Texas where it is invading homes. The name of the pest comes from the fact that it prefers to bite human beings around the mouth. Kissing bugs tend to be most active at night. They attack people who are sleeping. The bite of a kissing bug could leave a parasite under the skin. This parasite can cause a serious condition known as Chagas disease. The disease has mild symptoms at first and feels like a flu or cold. Unfortunately, it can progress. Around a third of the people who get Chagas disease will develop heart problems. One out of every ten will develop gastrointestinal problems.

Chagas disease can be fatal in some cases. There is not any known treatment for the disease. The best experimental medications have a success rate of just 85 percent. Most experimental treatments are effective only if they are administered right after the bite occurs. Kissing bugs look like small, tapered beetles with dark coloration, six legs and a light goldish pattern on the back.

Specifically, the CDC reports the following about kissing bugs, says NBC-12 News:

Sri Lanka: Fulfill Rights Council Call for Justice

Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena at the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan, New York on September 27, 2015. 

Foreign Judges, Prosecutors are Crucial to Prosecuting Wartime Abuses

JANUARY 25, 2016

(New York) – The Sri Lankan government should fulfill its commitments to the United Nations Human Rights Council by ensuring that foreign judges and prosecutors play a significant role in the mandated accountability mechanism for wartime abuses, Human Rights Watch said today. On January 21, 2016, President Maithripala Sirisena told the BBC, contrary to Sri Lanka’s council commitments, that he will “never agree to international involvement,” saying “[w]e have more than enough specialists, experts and knowledgeable people in our country to solve our internal issues."

Human Rights Council member and observer countries that backed the consensus October 2015 resolution, should make clear that foreign participation in a war crimes tribunal was already decided by the council and is not subject to renegotiation. After adoption of the resolution, Sri Lanka told the council that it was pleased to join as a co-sponsor “as a further manifestation of Sri Lanka’s commitment to implement the provisions of the resolution, in a manner that its objectives are shared by the people and all stakeholders in the country, for their benefit.”

“The Sri Lankan government sought international involvement to ensure justice and accountability so there’s no excuse for backtracking now,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “President Sirisena needs to understand that international participation in a war crimes tribunal was not a vague promise to the UN but a firm commitment to the thousands of Sri Lankans who suffered during the country’s long civil war.”

President Sirisena’s statement comes just weeks before a scheduled visit to the country by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. The high commissioner’s office released a report detailing wartime abuses by both sides, calling for a “hybrid” justice mechanism given the shortcomings of domestic institutions to ensure impartial investigations and witness protection, and the Sri Lankan government’s failure to take meaningful accountability measures since the war ended in May 2009. The 2015 Human Rights Council resolution affirms the importance of participation in a justice mechanism of “Commonwealth and other foreign judges … and authorized prosecutors and investigators.”

The countries that worked so closely with Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council last year have a responsibility to ensure that this important resolution will be properly adopted. The real rights gains made by the Sirisena administration will rapidly fade if the families of wartime victims feel that their one hope for justice was dropped on the basis of political calculations. 

Brad Adams

Asia director

In line with its commitments, the government should be implementing its plans for a war crimes tribunal with international participation, a Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation, and Non-recurrence, and an Office on Missing Persons. Progress on those commitments has been slow and not wholly transparent. A task force on consultations on the Human Rights Council resolution has been established, but there is little public information about its mandate and terms of reference. Victims and their representative groups have not been informed about the consultation, leaving many feeling isolated and shut out from a process ostensibly intended to provide real justice to them. The recent statements by the president and prime minister, who said that all missing persons are presumed dead, raise concerns that consultations will merely be window dressing for a predetermined outcome.

“The countries that worked so closely with Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council last year have a responsibility to ensure that this important resolution will be properly adopted,” Adams said. “The real rights gains made by the Sirisena administration will rapidly fade if the families of wartime victims feel that their one hope for justice was dropped on the basis of political calculations.” 

Relatives of missing and political prisoners protest in Jaffna

25 January 2016

The relatives of Tamil political prisoners and those who have disappeared staged a protest in Jaffna on Monday, demanding to know the whereabouts of their loved ones.

The protestors, who gathered at Jaffna bus station this morning, demanded the release of all political prisons, the abolishment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the whereabouts of all missing persons to be documented.

The relatives of the missing in particular demanded that Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe state reveal all information the government has on those who disappeared.

Mr Wickremesinghe told an audience in Jaffna earlier this month that missing people from the Tamil North-East of the island are considered to be dead.

If the prime minister’s comments are true then the people who killed them must be revealed and held to account, stated the protestors.

Mr Wickremesinghe’s comments come just weeks after over 1,620 complaints were lodged before Sri Lanka’s presidential commission into disappearances, which held a sitting in Jaffna.

The protestors also criticised the sittings, stating that since the new Sri Lankan government has assumed power, no further information regarding missing persons has been revealed.

Sukeertharajan who revealed the Trincomalee students mass murder commemorated

- Jan 25, 2016

A commemoration ceremony held yesterday 24th at the YMCA Kalmunai, following ten years of the murder of Subramaniam Sukeertharajan, who worked as a journalist at the “Sudaroli” newspaper.

Sukeertharajan’s wife, daughter, son, Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim journalists, Eastern Journalist Association, Jaffna Media Society and the active committee for media freedom, participated.
 
Subramaniam Sukeertharajan was murdered for revealing factual information about the five students who was killed in Trincomalee in 2006.
 
When the authorities tried to undermine the murder of the five students due to a bomb blast Sukeertharajan produced photographic evidence confirming the murder was committed due to bullets. These evidences helped the local and international human rights organizations to expose the truth.

Transitional Justice Process Needs To Become More Inclusive 

By Jehan Perera –January 25, 2016

Jehan Perera

A high level delegation of EU officials was in Sri Lanka last week to have meetings with a cross section of society prior to engaging in discussions with their counterparts in the Sri Lankan government. When they met with civil society representatives they said that this was the first joint meeting on issues of human rights with the government and saw this as a positive breakthrough. They also said that they had come to see what had been delivered by the government in terms of the promises it had made. The media release that they issued after a joint EU-Sri Lanka Working Group on Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights concluded its first meeting in Colombo on 21 January 2016 stated that they expected the full implementation of the UN Human Rights Council resolution as a priority.

During the visit of the EU delegation to Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka’s Deputy Foreign Minister Dr. Harsha de Silva said he was confident that Sri Lanka will regain the EU’s Generalized System of Preferences plus (GSP+) facility during this year. The EU, citing Sri Lanka’s failure to meet human rights conventions relevant for benefits under the scheme, in August 2010, suspended the GSP+ tariff concession for Sri Lanka that provided tax free access to European markets for the country’s products, especially for garment exports which was Sri Lanka’s second largest foreign exchange earner next to worker remittances. This illustrates the holistic dimension of the UN Human Rights Council resolution. It is not only about accountability and war crimes. It is also a matter of employment and the development of the economy.

According to the text of the statement issued by the joint working group which has obtained considerable publicity , “Both sides recognised the full implementation of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution of October 2015 as a priority.” This has been interpreted by the opposition to mean that the government will have to cave in to international pressure and appoint foreigners to sit in judgment over Sri Lankan military commanders and their political masters. The main thrust of the opposition’s campaign amongst the general population is to instill fear that the collaboration of the government with the international community will lead to an erosion of Sri Lankan sovereignty, and that this will ultimately pave the way for the division of the country.

Mixed Signals                                                Read More

Dissolution of parliament or impeachment to bring Sirisena to heel?

January 23, 2016, 5:52 pm 

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was attending the World Economic Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos while back in Colombo the stock market was setting records in the wrong direction and the promised addition of Rs. 2,500 to the basic salaries of government servants in January failed to materialize. What conceivable advantage would Sri Lanka have by attending an event such as the World Economic Forum? One very prominent pro-UNP website described the meeting in Davos that Wickremesinghe addressed on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum as an ‘investor’s conference’ and said that there was so much investor interest in Sri Lanka that there weren’t enough seats at the conference venue. Despite such starry-eyed effusions, the prospect of any investor from Davos or anywhere else coming to Sri Lanka is pretty slim. No significant Japanese investment came to Sri Lanka even after Wickremesinghe addressed the Japanese parliamentarians and Japan is a country that has always had a prominent presence in Sri Lanka unlike Europe. Europe is known in Sri Lanka not as an aid giver or investor but as the main international backers of separatism in this country.

In any event, what the world’s economic glitterati heard in Davos about the future prospects of the world economy in 2016 and beyond, would not put them in any mood to invest anywhere let alone a country like Sri Lanka. Even George Soros who was in Sri Lanka earlier this month to advise this country on its future course of action went to Davos and sounded a dire warning about the state of the World economy and predicted that the global financial system was on the cusp of a major meltdown like in 2008-2009 which will if anything be worse than the previous instance. As Soros explained, what set off the 2008-2009 world recession was the non-performing mortgage crisis in the USA. This time it is the gradual conversion of the Chinese economy from being export driven to being driven by its own internal market.

Soros had told Bloomberg TV that it has been 80 years since the world last faced a deflationary environment, and the world doesn’t know how to handle it. In other words, Soros was predicting that the melt down that was coming was going to be much worse than the 2008-2009 episode. Back in 2008, the economic crisis was described as the worst since the great depression of the 1930s. During the 2008 financial meltdown, the Sri Lankan public hardly even knew that the world was going through its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. Those were the years in which the war reached its peak and the people of Sri Lanka were glued to their TV screens and the war drowned out all other news.

An even more important factor was that back then, we had competent managers running the economy and they were able to take whatever steps that could be taken to cushion the impact of the global downturn. This time if a world economic crisis hits us, we are going to feel the consequences perhaps with even greater acuteness than most other countries in Asia. We now have to brace ourselves for a crisis of unprecedented proportions when we are least equipped to handle it. We have a dysfunctional government which has no conception whatsoever of economic management.

Read More..

This Is The Best Time For A New Constitution – Hector Appuhamy

By Camelia Nathaniel-Monday, January 25, 2016

The need for a new constitution has drawn criticism and praise by many quarters. According to UNP Puttlam District MP Hector Appuhamy, sometimes the government does not reveal its real intention in certain matters and the media also reports on the negative aspect rather than the real intentions. “This is a shortcoming on the part of the government, and they should be more open,” he said.  In an interview with The Sunday LeaderAppuhamy said the media always focuses on highlighting the popular things rather than focussing on the good. “Hence even the people think that these popular persons are the ones who are right. Therefore most often the truth is concealed or forgotten,” he said.

Following are excerpts of the interview:-

Q:  If a new Constitution is to receive the approval of people, its provisions should be drafted after extensive debate and discussion in the country. A rigid time frame of six months or one year should not be a barrier to come up with the proper document. Drafting and adopting the right Constitution is vital even if it is going to take a longer period. What is the reason to try and rush a new Constitution?

A: The problem here is not that there is hurry but the point is that this is a consensual government and there are several parties sitting together in parliament and this is the best time to go for a new constitution when there is agreement with all these parties. If we fail to make use of this chance, we may not get another opportunity to agree on this issue. We as the UNP would like for this united governance to continue, but it’s hard to predict how long all parties will be in agreement. One of the main factors agreed upon my all were the abolition of the executive presidency and this is the main promise that we made to the people.

However we have still not determined how the new constitution needs to be drafted, so let’s wait and see. As for the time, I think that this is the best time and we need to take advantage of this opportunity.

Q. The discussion and debate that will ensue about a new Constitution for Sri Lanka is by itself not a bad thing. However why is this only discussion and debate that is being promoted by the current regime, and being done at the cost of having no discussion or debate on the economy of the country?

A:  I don’t agree that the economy is weak or that this government has failed to address the economic issues. The last budget was formulated to uplift the economy of the country. No matter what people may say, this budget did not opt to fool the people by giving into popular demands, but instead it opted for a more long term proposals that would be beneficial for the country as a whole in the long run. For example, had we decided to give the farmers the fertiliser subsidy, it would have been a popular decision that would have been accepted by the people. However even though it was not a popular decision, we chose to refrain from giving the farmers the fertiliser subsidy, because it was doing them more harm than good. Our decision may have come under criticism, but it was done with the best interest of the farmers at heart. What we intended was to get the farmers to produce their own organic fertiliser which is better as a whole. Sometimes the right thing is not highlighted even by the media and as such people misunderstand even things that are done with good intentions.

Q:   Some say that it is unlikely that political devolution as envisaged will be a solution to the ethnic conflict, and they claim that it will exacerbate the divisions between the communities and within communities. What is your take on this?

A:  Still we have no idea as to how the new constitution will take shape or what clauses will be included or not. But I am on a different level and I believe that whether or not the executive presidency is abolished or not, I am against the changing of the electoral system. The reason is that I believe that the current preferential voting system is the most democratic voting system in the country. Therefore it is my view that if we change this electoral system, irrespective of who does it, would be a big mistake. This will also not benefit the country.

Now with this current system, the people have the power to elect who they want and send who they don’t want, home. The new system is unclear and perhaps the right people may not get into parliament and this could lead to issues within the country. I don’t believe that J.R. Jayewardene simply changed this system without proper consideration.

Q:  Why are you against the new electoral system?

A. One of the main reasons for wanting this system changed is that some have the capacity to spend and others who can’t are at a disadvantage. But if this good governance can change so many things in the system, why can’t they change the way in which some spend on election campaigns and control it in a manner that is fair to all? There are stipulated election laws and if they insist that everyone follow the proper guidelines, then there is no room for anyone to use this system and spend unnecessarily and unfairly.

Most think that the new system will not allow for corruption but that is a mirage. The candidates or parties will have enough freedom to spend as much as they want for their electorates in order to win over the votes.

If we can devise a proper programme for the entire 14022 GS divisions then even we can work efficiently without any issues. It is my view that priority should be given to strengthening the parliament members properly. During the Rajapaksa regime the parliamentarians were given the freedom to rob as much as they wanted and these parliamentarians were well off. That was the political trend. But today there is no room for them to rob but the remuneration they receive is totally inadequate to support them. Hence I think that the proper facilities and benefits should be given to the MP’s and then get the maximum output from them.

Q. There are concerns that the proposed constitution is an Apartheid Constitution, which is against the interests of Sinhala natives just like the South African old Apartheid Constitution. What is your take on this? 

A:  The issue is that we always categorise ourselves according to our race or religion. We should all consider ourselves Sri Lankans irrespective of which race we belong to. The whole problem is that we have always had issues because we always looked at issues from a racial angle and this was the reason for even the war. If a Sri Lankan goes to America or Canada or any other country and becomes a citizen there, he is not referred to as a Sinhala American or Tamil Canadian, but they are all referred to as citizens of that country irrespective of their race. We should get used to this system and forget our petty issues and work as citizens of Sri Lanka.

Q: Do you support the  proposed ‘Theravada Bhikkhu Dialogue’ Bill ?

A: The prominent Buddhist monks in the country are of the view that this is a good proposal.

This bill is not proposed by the current government, but this bill has been in the pipeline for many years and this is something that the Mahanayake’s wanted. Monks should not get on the streets and be allowed to behave like thugs. Therefore this bill will give the Chief Prelates the authority to have a better control. Politics and religion are two very different fields, and the clergy, be it Buddhist, catholic, Hindu or Muslim, should not get involved in the politics of the country. This has always been a problem when they try to interfere. Therefore I don’t think that this bill will be detrimental for the country.

Q: One of the main allegations against the previous regime was that they used the police and the military for their political purposes. However these police atrocities still continue. Why has this government failed to address this issue?

A: I am not a big fan of these police commissions etc. But in the government programme  as there was a need for this commission I too agreed. However in the past the police did corporate with the politicians and do certain acts in support of these politicians. However I believe that the police should be controlled by the government and put in line when they fail to uphold the law.

Here the people want a commission and when the commission is established then they are unsatisfied with the commission. Therefore it is my opinion that there is no need for any police commissions but like in the past the police should enforce the laws of the country without the involvement of the politicians.

In the Embilipitiya incident the police had acted in a very degrading manner and they should be punished without political interference

TAG horrified at Sri Lanka u-turn on accountability

25 January 2016

Together Against Genocide (TAG) said it was "horrified at Sri Lanka's u-turn on the pledges it made" after the country's president last week said that no international experts would be included in the accountability mechanism, despite this being a specific aspect of the UN Human Rights Council resolution adopted last year.

“We are horrified by Sri Lanka’s duplicity towards survivors of mass atrocities: they have been promised a credible justice mechanism involving international judges and legal assistance.” TAG Director Jan Jananayagam said.

“It is critical that the UN and members of the Human Rights Council take immediate steps to ensure full implementation of the pledges made at the 30th session of the Human Rights Council”

See full statement here.

Extract reproduced below:

"The present Sri Lankan government came into power due to  pressure at the Human Rights Council on former President Rajapaksa who was accused of overseeing mass atrocities. The new government co-signed resolution 30/1 to ward off a referral to the International Criminal Court or other justice mechanism outside of Sri Lanka.
 
Prior to agreeing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council Sri Lanka faced boycotts at the Commonwealth Heads of Government and other international arena. After agreeing to cooperate, Sri Lanka has seen unprecedented international engagement including visits from British and American diplomats seeking to encourage Sri Lanka’s implementation of its pledges to the Human Rights Council.
 
Notably in November 2015, Samantha Power, US Ambassador to the UN visited Sri Lanka, followed within a month by the State Department’s Counsellor Shannon and Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal. In January 2016, Hugo Swire, British Foreign Office Minister for Asia, visited Sri Lanka for discussions that spanned the implementation of UN HRC resolution  30/1.
 
The Sri Lankan government has marketed these visits as signs of its ‘reinstatement’ in the international community. Simultaneously Sri Lanka has sought a fresh influx of aid, including the restoration of its privileged EU tax status under the GSP+ regime.
 
It is in this context that the country’s President told the BBC that he has no intention of allowing international involvement in the proposed justice mechanism. He said ‘we do not need to import any one to solve our country’s problems’. He rejected the possibility of international judges.
 
Other recommendations of the OISL remain unfulfilled. Contrary to recommended demilitarisation, Sri Lanka continued to increase its military budget and the vast majority of its ethnically Sinhala troops remain stationed in the Tamil North East."

Speaking to BBC Sinhala Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena responded to questions on ongoing torture in the country by saying,

“I totally deny that. If someone can prove with evidence I am ready to give them the opportunity. Justice is served equally in this country.”

His comments come despite a report released by the International Truth and Justice Project: Sri Lanka (ITJP) last month which detailed evidence of on-going torture and sexual violence by Sri Lanka’s security forces.

See our earlier post:

Systemic torture and rape oppressing Tamils under new Sri Lanka government (05 Jan 2015)

Also see:

Sri Lanka rejects international component to accountability, denies reports of ongoing torture (22 Jan 2016)

Triumphant return for president who 'achieved a great victory' at UNHRC, as he pledges 'domestic inquiry' (03 Oct 2015)
Consensus resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka adopted at UNHRC (01 Oct 2015)
Sri Lanka cannot domestically deal with 'grave crimes' found in OISL report says UN Rights Chief (16 Sep 2015)

Key to Lanka’s success

SEEMA SENGUPTA

Published — Monday 25 January 2016

It is not easy for societies riven by internal disagreements or mistrust to draft a democratic constitution, especially to replace the existing one. And that too after a deadly ethnic war, the trauma of which still remains fresh in peoples’ memory. As Sri Lanka, despite its continuing sociopolitical polarization, embark on a constitution re-writing journey shortly, the leadership needs to be reminded that for a constitution to be lastingly effective it must not only be framed for the future, keeping in mind the peoples’ sentiments, but also justifiable on ethical, moral and practical grounds. 

Many right-thinking Sri Lankan citizens are eagerly looking up to President Maithiripala Sirisena for an egalitarian statute, which does not give prominence to ethnicity or religion. 
Indeed, Sri Lanka is in dire need of a nationalist constitution, which eternally embodies the highest values and aspirations of the people and gives equal status to all religions practiced in the country while recognizing the three major spoken-languages as official ones simultaneously. To reap the benefit of a new constitution, Sirisena must strive to evolve a popular consensus on the necessity of replacing the flawed charter that has remained in force since 1978 with intermittent amendments. Since, continuation of a constitution depends on public acceptance of its provisions, the people of Sri Lanka, especially those who are apprehensive of a new constitutional arrangement, must be taken on board by explaining the urgency of overhauling the current constitutional mechanism, which is partly responsible for the bloodbath that the picturesque island nation has witnessed for over two decades. 

Though, none can ever apportion blame to the constitution alone for the devastating and long drawn ethnic conflict or violent terror acts, the fact is, it did promote a unitary presidential system that was exploited by leaders with authoritarian attributes. Moreover, such a constitution was not conducive for mitigating fratricidal violence. The constitution also had a negative impact on the economy, which ended up creating vast social disparities. As previous promises to abolish the current presidential system — the fountainhead of obnoxious authoritarian rule — have remained unfulfilled due to partisan political reasons, Sirisena has a golden opportunity to break this vicious cycle once and for all by revamping the constitution. 

However, for Sirisena’s endeavor, of restoring an equitable governance model with adequate constitutional checks and balances, to succeed, the national constitution-making process should not degenerate into a tactical instrument to stave off international retribution. Indeed, there is global pressure for instituting a hybrid judicial enquiry, based on UN Human Rights Council’s Geneva resolution, into the indiscriminate massacre of hapless minorities by the Sri Lankan Army during the ethnic war, particularly in its final stages. After all, a robust domestic constitution-making process continuing in right earnest gives the impression of Sri Lanka moving steadfastly on the path to creating a just political order so as to efficaciously deal with the horrors of ethnic fratricide, majoritarian communalism and serious distortion in the country’s political process. 

Not many knows, when Colombo was on the verge of losing all legitimacy in the eyes of the world in the immediate aftermath of the bloody ethnic strife, a team of friendly nations led by America proposed a two-fold solution, involving domestic and global manipulations, to extricate the island nation out of the mess. And making Sirisena, with his clean image and impeccable track record in politics, the face of a new Sri Lanka, longing for ethnic amity and democratization of governance, was one part of the master plan that had New Delhi’s tacit approval. Sirisena made all the right noises on ushering a radical power-sharing arrangement on pluralistic and egalitarian lines, thus helping his beleaguered nation to tide over a serious credibility crisis. Thankfully, Sirisena will find in Sri Lanka’s new generation a more liberal voice of reason, who believes in accommodation and pragmatism to take the country forward. There seems to be a realization in this segment — representing the future of Sri Lanka — that geographically concentrated minority communities within a particular landmass wants much more than the right to equality guaranteed by constitutional law. They not only seek an inalienable right to manage their own affairs locally but also demand political recognition of unique sociocultural identity in a majoritarian milieu. 

Since ethno-political conflict is essentially a struggle for achieving shared sovereignty, there is a conviction in Sri Lanka today that by shedding majoritarian ego and displaying magnanimity the country can be re-invented and all citizens irrespective of ethnicity can work shoulder-to-shoulder for the common welfare of the state. And it is this conviction that Sirisena must harness for greater conviction of togetherness and an honest willingness to recognize the legitimacy of the numerically inferior. As Sirisena seeks apolitical support to bear a “beautiful constitutional offspring,” his goal cannot be accomplished unless regional and global powers stop treating Sri Lanka like a client state in their geostrategic matrix.