Supreme Court deals blow to Modi's ambitions in northeast

A worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rides his bicycle past the party's campaign billboard featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi outside their party headquarters in New Delhi, India, February 10, 2015.REUTERS/ANINDITO MUKHERJEE/FILE PHOTO

Wed Jul 13, 2016

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's imposition of direct rule in Arunachal Pradesh was illegal, and the dislodged opposition Congress party should return to power immediately.

The government imposed so-called president's rule in Arunachal Pradesh, a vast but sparsely populated state bordering China, in January after the Congress party that had been ruling there suffered splits which the government believed left it unable to govern.

The court's order for the reinstatement of Congress rule in the state is a blow to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ambition of expanding the influence of his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the underdeveloped northeast.

"This court quashes the imposition of president's rule in Arunachal Pradesh," a five-judge constitution bench said in its ruling, calling the Congress party's dismissal "illegal and unconstitutional".

Congress, whose power base has shrunk across India since the BJP won a landslide general election in 2014, also saw its rule reinstated in May in Uttarakhand, another state where president's rule had been imposed as Modi's party attempted to wrest control.

The BJP scored its first state election victory in the northeast in May when it won in Assam, the region's most populous state, in a sign of its growing influence beyond its traditional heartland.

Congress is run by the fabled Gandhi dynasty that has led the world's largest democracy for most of its existence but now rules only a handful of India's 29 states, including Arunachal Pradesh, home to 1.38 million people.

(Reporting by Tommy Wilkes and Suchitra Mohanty; Editing by Robert Birsel)

EU officials finalise common asylum system to resettle refugees

Advocates say people can expect similar treatment wherever they settle, but critics say scheme is betrayal of refugee rights

Syrian refugees wait to be documented by Greek coast guards on the island of Kos, after crossing the Aegean sea from Turkey in August 2015. Photograph: Yannis Behrakis/Reuters

Patrick Kingsley Migration correspondent-Wednesday 13 July 2016

European officials have finalised plans to create a common EU asylum system and refugee resettlement scheme, which advocates portray as the solution to the European migration crisis but which critics believe will be a further betrayal of refugee rights.

Officials have proposed creating a semi-standardised system that would allow asylum seekers to expect similar treatment in whichever country they settle. The arrival of more than 1 million people in Europe in 2015 exposed differences between the continent’s different asylum procedures.

It is hoped that the proposed system would discourage the kind of country-hopping that saw hundreds of thousands of refugees settle in Germany last year having passed through other European countries such as Hungary and Greece.

The plans also include the establishment of a common European policy onrefugee resettlement. The policy’s proposers say it could allow Europe to resettle thousands of refugees through legal means, and so discourage the unusually high levels of irregular migration seen in 2015.

Commenting on the resettlement scheme, the EU’s migration commissioner, Dimitris Avramopoulos, said: “Today’s proposal is a major step in our efforts to offer legal avenues to allow persons in need to enter the EU safely and receive protection. It is an integral part of the larger objective of ensuring that protection is offered to those who need it, reducing the incentives for irregular migration, and protecting migrants from exploitation by smuggling networks and dangerous journeys to reach Europe.”

But other European officials and rights campaigners criticised the proposals, which they said would in reality lead to fewer refugees being given sanctuary in Europe.

Under the plan, refugees will only be formally resettled in Europe from third countries that agree to readmit migrants who arrived in Europe by informal means.

Additionally, the plans make it easier for refugees to be expelled from Europe in the first place. Brussels would be given greater say over which countries are deemed safe for refugees – overriding the wishes of independent appeals boards in nation states. In the current context, this would theoretically allow the EU to expel more people from Greece to Turkey, despite Greek officials deeming Turkey unsafe for some refugees.

Expanding on these criticisms, John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Europe director, said: “The proposals the commission published today are not about improving refugee protection globally, but about reducing irregular arrivals to Europe. They take good tools, like resettlement, and put them to bad ends; they use fine words, but these mask some pretty cynical intentions.”

Dalhuisen added: “What the commission is really trying to do with these proposals is resettle some refugees so they can return more. In the absence of any mention of the need to significantly increase resettlement numbers and heavily invest in conditions for refugees in third countries, the net impact of these proposals for refugee protection globally is very likely to be negative.”

Malin Björk, the European parliament’s rapporteur on the proposal, called it “disgraceful”. The Swedish politician said: “As the parliament’s rapporteur, I will do what I can to stop this distortion of the international right to asylum and the notion of global responsibility and solidarity.”

The draft law is likely to be amended by EU home affairs ministers and the European parliament, who will determine the final legislation.

Politicians have dwindling confidence in the viability of common European asylum policies due to the failure of their previous incarnations.

Last September, European leaders promised to relieve Greece and Italy of 160,000 refugees stranded on their territory. On Wednesday the EU admitted that member states had accepted just 3,056 – nearly 10 months after promising to help out.

Only 8,268 refugees have been resettled directly from the Middle East, despite a promise almost a year ago to resettle 22,504.

What a Hullablue! City dyes for its art as sea of people strip off and daub themselves in body paint for huge art installation

• Streets of Hull were transformed into an ocean of painted human flesh as 3,200 volunteers braved North Sea chill
• Called the Sea Of Hull, it was the brainchild of a US photographer and the biggest art installation UK has ever seen
• Spencer Tunick was impressed at how much his idea was embraced as people stripped and dyed themselves blue
• Among people gathered before dawn to daub their naked bodies in one of four shades of blue was an 80-year-old

• 
  

By STEPHEN ADAMS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

They came, they stripped, and they dyed themselves blue – and all in the name of art.

The streets of Hull were yesterday transformed into an ocean of painted human flesh as 3,200 volunteers braved the North Sea chill to create an incredible spectacle.

Called the Sea Of Hull, it was the biggest nude art installation Britain has ever seen and the brainchild of US photographer Spencer Tunick, who was impressed at how wholeheartedly his idea was embraced.

'I can't believe it,' he said. 'It was cold, it was chilly, people had to put lotion-like paint all over their bodies – every part.'

Among those who gathered before dawn to daub their naked bodies in one of four shades of blue was 80-year-old Stephane Janssen, a veteran of 20 of the artist's similar endeavours.

'It's beautiful,' he said. 'We are little strokes of paint. Everybody is equal.'

The project, which aimed to represent Hull's maritime heritage, was devised to celebrate the port's status as the UK City of Culture next year, when Tunick's photographs from the day will be displayed.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682009/Why-blue-Sea-people-strip-daub-body-paint-city-centre-huge-art-installation.html#ixzz4EK3bcwJd 

That New Study Linking Nail Biting To Fewer Allergies Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does

A new study links nail biting and thumb sucking in childhood to fewer allergies in adulthood. But this isn’t an endorsement of the habits. 

Anna Almendrala- 07/12/2016

A new study finds that biting one’s nails in childhood, while gross, may lower one’s risk of allergies in adulthood.

The study’s authors say that the findings support the unproven “hygiene hypothesis,” which suggests if a child’s environment is too clean, their immune system isn’t properly trained to recognize and fight off germs. Proponents of this hypothesis say an underdeveloped immune system could then put the child at a higher risk of developing hay fever, asthma, eczema and other medical conditions later on in life. 

However, it’s important to note that this study didn’t find evidence of exactly the same thing. While researchers did find that kids with certain hand-mouth fixations had lower risk of testing positive for certain allergies on skin prick tests, they weren’t less likely to develop actual allergic diseases. This is because the skin prick test measures only sensitization to an allergen, and it can’t actually predict whether or not the substance you’re allergic to will actually cause a reaction in the nose (resulting in hay fever) or in the lungs (resulting in asthma). In other words, just because you test positive for a cat allergy on a skin prick test, that doesn’t mean you’re going to start sneezing and coughing in the presence of a cat.

“Although thumb-suckers and nail-biters had fewer allergies on skin testing, we found no difference in their risk for developing allergic diseases such as asthma or hay fever,” said Stephanie Lynch, a medical student at the Dunedin School of Medicine in New Zealand, in a statement about her research. 

Because of the lack of any real health benefit, Lynch and co-author Dr. Robert Hancox, also of The Dunedin School of Medicine, say that kids shouldn’t be encouraged to suck their thumbs or bite their nails over these findings.

How the study worked

Researchers followed about 1,000 people who had been born in 1972 and 1973 and checked in on their thumb-sucking and nail-biting habits at ages 5,7, 9 and 11 years old.

They found that kids who had either sucked their thumbs or bitten their nails had a lower rate of testing positive for an allergy with the skin prick test at age 13. Specifically, only 38 percent of kids who had either sucked their thumbs or bit their nails tested allergic for at least one common allergen (like dog or cat dander, dust mites and grass), as opposed to 49 percent of kids who did not suck their thumbs or bite their nails. And among kids who both bit their nails and sucked their thumb, only 31 percent tested positive for an allergen.

Except for the dose-responsive relationship that found kids who both sucked their thumbs and bit their nails were even less likely to test positive on an allergy skin prick, these associations generally held true 19 years later when the participants were pricked with common allergens for a second test.

And they remained even after controlling for potentially confounding factors like sex, family history of allergies, pet ownership, breastfeeding and parental smoking. The theory is that more exposure to microbes under the nails or on the thumb may have prepared their immune systems to handle allergens better than kids who didn’t bite their nails or suck their thumbs.

What we should take away from this study

This study aligns with past research that finds, for instance, that babies whose parents suck their pacifiers to “clean” them (passing oral microbes from the adult to the infant) are less likely to develop eczema and asthma in toddlerhood. 

Malcolm Sears, a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Canada and a co-author on the paper, wants to emphasize that this paper wasn’t designed to recommend whether or not a parent should encourage nail biting or thumb sucking. Instead, he simply described it as an observation that adds to scientific knowledge of the potential causal connection between exposure to microbes in childhood and a healthier immune system later in life.

”The bottom line, I would say, is that what the paper tells us is that a little exposure to dirt is not necessarily a bad thing.” ― Malcolm Sears

“We don’t go out and tell people to eat a handful of dirt, even though we know a little dirt exposure, whether through the microbes or other substances, does influence the immune system in making it more tolerant to allergens,” he said in a phone call with HuffPost. In the same way, Sears explained, parents shouldn’t take this study as license to encourage nail biting or thumb sucking in their children.

In fact, Sears himself is conducting another long-term study in Canada that follows pregnant moms and their children in order to examine the potential contributors to asthma and allergy risk. He doesn’t plan on asking about thumb sucking and nail biting because there’s no practical application to the finding. 

This is because, as the paper also points out, there are documented health risks to sucking thumbs and biting nails, and they include teeth misalignment, gum injuryand finger infections. 

”The bottom line, I would say, is that what the paper tells us is that a little exposure to dirt is not necessarily a bad thing,” Sears concluded.

The research was published in the August issue of the journal Pediatrics.  

The challenge of building confidence

JUL 09 2016

The UN Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva this time did not make headlines though the so-called Combined Opposition blamed the government for not responding to the criticism of Prince Hussein. 

During the time of the previous government the UNHRC sessions in Geneva were utilized to rally popular support on the grounds that the west is using HR to undermine our independence. The fascistic regime used to say that HR issues are used by the west to create instability in developing countries such as ours.

As such Mahinda regime gave the work of the UNHRC the maximum of negative publicity during time of those sessions. It accused the international community of seeking to harass those in the Lankan Security Forces who had won the war against the LTTE and promised to defend them. Fascistic regime said the successive resolutions of the UNHRC since 2009 as being motivated by the desire to discredit Lankan forces and its war heroes. They insisted that the Tamil liberation is a design of western imperialism.

UN human rights policy

By way of contrast, the policy of democracy with equality of the successor government in office since 2015 has succeeded in assuring the Lankan masses about the attention given by the international community and the UN human rights policy which is binding all members of the UNO. Most people in Lanka would now see the government as handling the international obligations, with skill and with tact.

More than nine months have elapsed since the government took the clever step of co-sponsoring the UNHRC resolution of October 2015 and disarming hostile countries in the UNHRC into friends once more. However it is true that the resolution itself is only implemented in part as yet. Though defeated pervasive culture of fascistic force was able to slow down the process so that only one of the four transitional justice mechanisms that the government promised to establish has appeared, and that too only in draft form.

However the present government did not allow any facetious displays during the UNHRC sessions. It made aware that what the international community is seeking from Lanka in terms of addressing the human rights violations of the past, fraught with fascistic inhuman deeds.

The three decade long war is over and the military battlefields have been cleared but the divisions of the past continue with the political demands of the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities not able to find a common platform against fascistic villainy. In working out answers to the demands of the UNHRC process, the government was constantly under the pressure of fascistic forces who are hell bent on sabotage.

Central Bank Governor

The issue of the reappointment of the Central Bank Governor who had come under a cloud for bond transactions worth billions of rupees showed how the fascistic forces work. These forces were able to bring the two main constituent parties of the government against each other, the Prime Minister supporting the reappointment of the Governor but the President not willing to do so. Better sense has prevailed and a mutually acceptable choice for the position of the Governor of the Central Bank has been made.

The appointment of Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy to the top position in the Central Bank has brought a statesmanlike conclusion to a problem that was threatening to undermine the unity of the government. It is in this context we have to comment on the report of UNHRC.

Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)

In his report to the UNHRC, High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, appreciated the progress made by the government in a number of areas, but also pointed out that the government has not moved fast enough with tangible measures to build confidence among victims and minority communities and that there are anxieties that the full promise of governance reform, transitional justice and economic revival, risks stalling or dissipating. This fact has been highlighted by local HR organisations and there were protest throughout the country!

He said the progress in identifying and releasing land in the North and East still held by the military has been slow. He also said that the military presence in the north and east remains heavy and that a culture of surveillance, and, in certain instances, intimidation, also persists. He said that the fate of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) remains a concern and that while government released on bail 39 individuals detained without charge, the fate of around 250 detainees remain unclear and that more than 40 new arrests reportedly took place in 2015-16. Absolutely correct and our campaigns continually highlighted the lapses.

Accountability process

However, the understanding of the High Commissioner about the cause of delay is incorrect. It is false to believe that these delays and lapses come because of structural faults in the state; civil service, armed forces, judiciary and police are filled with structural defects. There could be minor defects; but all state structures are intact and educated and professional people are in charge.

The problem is that there is an organised fascistic force with millions in coffers, who intervene to sabotage the process of redemption. Prince made specific mention of the government’s failure to set up a special court for war crimes and to bring foreign judges, prosecutors and investigators into it to make the accountability process a credible one.

He expressed his view that “a valuable step for the Government to quickly build public and international confidence will be to advance some of the emblematic cases pending before the courts and achieve successful prosecutions.” For that, mass mobilization to break the power of fascistic menace is necessary. Technical operations will only strengthen the fascistic forces. 

INFOGRAPHIC: Opportunity Costs – What Rs. 1 Billion Can Buy

Featured image courtesy Asian Mirror

GROUNDVIEWS on 07/11/2016

On June 7, a supplementary estimate was submitted to Parliament for the import of luxury vehicles for Ministers and their deputies.

Rs. 1.17 billion was sought, with several, including Joint Cabinet Spokesmen Ministers Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and Deputy Minister Karunaratne Paranawithana defending the estimate.

 Follow

Groundviews @groundviews

This is very saddening. How can Govt justify this Rajapaksa-esque spending? http://www.dailymirror.lk/110653/Car-wars-Yes-we-want-em … #lka #srilanka

12:20 AM - 9 Jun 2016

Minister Senaratne said Ministers and Deputy Ministers needed super luxury vehicles to travel to their electorate, various functions and ceremonies round the country.

The announcement however led to public outcry on social media.

View image on Twitter

 Follow

Nalaka Gunawardene @NalakaG

Car promises, then and now...
What a difference 18 months make!#අයියෝජහමනයා#අයියෝයහපාලනය #රටකන්නෝ #lka

1:36 AM - 9 Jun 2016

A month ago, Sri Lanka was grappling with floods across the island, which had displaced hundreds of families, leaving them destitute. Landslides in Aranayake also left several dead/ Just two days before the presentation of the supplementary estimate, there was an explosion at an ammunitions depot at the Salawa Army camp, leaving an estimated 800 houses damaged, and most of the residents in the area without electricity.

In this atmosphere, the news of Ministers preparing to import luxury vehicles was not well received.

As pushback increased, several MPs including Harsha de Silva, Ranjan Ramanayake and Palitha Thewarapperuma were quick to say they hadn’t asked for or wanted a new vehicle.

Read More

The 1948 – 1949 Watershed: Remembering H. Sri Nissanka & T.B. Subasinghe

By Rajan Hoole –July 11, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

One could hardly fail to detect a note of despondency among writers who advance a constitutional settlement. Kalana Senaratne (Groundviews 26 Apr.2016) envisages that a settlement agreeable to the South would lean towards Sinhalese-Buddhist pre-eminence thereby leaving the Tamils dissatisfied. The only prospect of mitigating this eventuality, he suggests, is an arrangement ‘which tries to ensure that the natural and ineradicable dominance of the Sinhala-Buddhists does not result in the perpetration of a wilful and targeted policy of discrimination of minority groups’. Laksiri Fernando (Colombo Telegraph 1 May 2016), while finding the proposals by the Tamil People’s Council clear and well-drafted, is troubled by their lack of realism, ideological dependence on the LTTE and the mutation of its innate of brutality into virtue of ‘self-defence’.

T.B. Subasinghe

The question one needs to ask is whether the terms of the debate centring on nationalities and ‘real-estate’ (Fernando) are mistaken. If we traverse back to understand the origins of the controversy, a settlement should be easier to identify. After all in early 1948 we had the Soulbury Constitution that nearly everyone accepted. What the Tamil leader Chelvanayakam sought then, was not federalism or separation, but parity of status for the two languages, as in Canada.

The problem as addressed for many years takes for granted the inequality that has come to be embedded in our institutional orthodoxy and administrative practices as the direct result of the three Citizenship Acts of 1948/49. Its consequences are the death of secularism and the rise of extremism even among minority religious groups that now canvass external protection. Attempted devolution has so far failed, because the starting point is a framework concealing inequality in equivocation, as for example the ambivalence about religion in our present Constitution. The fate of the Bandaranaike – Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957 is fairly explanatory of the present deadlock. Bandaranaike tore it up under pressure from extremist clergy, and as I understand from contemporary observers, Chelvanayakam was not too sorry over it.

Post-War Malaya and Ceylon

As Britain accelerated decolonisation after the War in 1945, both Malaya and Ceylon had large Indian immigrant populations – in Malaya the Chinese outnumbered the Indians. Many of the immigrants knew no other country. Under the Indian Emigration Act of 1922, the Indian Government permitted emigration of unskilled labour only to countries which provided reciprocal assurance of ‘perfect equality of status of Indians’ with other local British subjects.

In Ceylon the Soulbury Commission adapted the Ceylonese Ministers’ draft constitution of February 1944, and felt the retention of its provision prohibiting discriminatory legislation against any community or group (Article 29(2)) to be an adequate safeguard for minorities.

In Malaya, after due consultation, the British on 21st January 1948 obtained the signatures of the Sultans of the States to the Federation of Malaya Agreement. No one was permanently excluded from citizenship. For non-Malays, it placed a residence qualification of 15 years or 12 years at the time of application. A child whose father was born in Malaya was conferred citizenship. The Ceylon Citizenship Act was passed by Parliament on 20th August 1948, as the first major act after Independence, and was calculated to exclude permanently Indian immigrants to the largest extent possible, by introducing cut-off dates.

Herbert Sri Nissanka

During the debate on the Citizenship Bills in the Ceylon Parliament, government spokesmen belittled and attacked Indian immigrants, as bearers of Cholera (Senanayake) who stole Kandyan lands from the peasants. The government insinuated that those who opposed the Citizenship Acts were traitors, both inside and outside Parliament, and aroused Sinhalese ire against them. T.B. Subasinghe (Bingiriya), himself a Kandyan, with quiet dignity exposed the hypocrisy of government leaders who wrongly blamed the Indian settlers living on large expanses of estates as responsible for landlessness among Kandyans. He pointed out that the government while vilifying the Indians, had no intention of taking over the estates to provide relief for landless Kandyan peasants; indeed they had assured European estate owners of security of their holdings.

Read More

Remarks to Press by Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal and Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski following discussions with Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera

July 12, 2016

Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal

Thank you Mr. Minister for the very warm and gracious welcome, and also for the very productive meeting that we've had today.  This visit and this meeting builds on a tremendous trajectory of partnership between our two countries and enumerated some of the key touch points of that relationship, including last year's visit by Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Samantha Power, and the Partnership Dialogue we inaugurated in February this year.

Sri Lanka itself has been on a remarkable trajectory of addressing not only the internal issues that have challenged it, but also engaging with the broader international community in a spirit of partnership and dialogue.  The United States has welcomed a deepening of ties between our two countries.  The United States and Sri Lanka share common goals as fellow democracies, which are both working to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.  We are partners, and today our relations are at an all-time high.

We have been proud to partner with Sri Lanka over the past 60 years, during which development and humanitarian assistance has improved countless lives, livelihoods, and living conditions all across Sri Lanka.  We will continue to make substantial investments in multiple sectors -- agriculture, enterprise development, education, health care, energy and natural resources, and humanitarian activities.  As the Government of Sri Lanka moves ahead with its plans for constitutional reform, for justice and reconciliation, the United States will continue to partner with the government to foster economic development and encourage foreign investment, to work to advance opportunities for all Sri Lankans.

We continue to support the Government of Sri Lanka as it takes meaningful and concrete steps in response to concerns of its people related to democratic governance and advancing respect for human rights, for reconciliation, for justice and accountability.  We can envision a future which brings benefits to both countries, and to peace and prosperity and security across the Indian Ocean as Sri Lanka assumes a greater role as a key partner in this region.  As Sri Lanka assumes its great potential as a hub and a gateway to connect to a rising economic societies of South and Southeast Asia.

Much work remains, but the United States is committed to partnering with the Sri Lankan people to address challenges and help this country and its people to realise their true potential.

Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski

Minister (Samaraweera), I want to thank you for all the work you have done for our relationship, which is better than it has ever been before.  I want to say just how much we respect and appreciate the work you have done to help restore and strengthen Sri Lanka's international position.  Sri Lanka's diplomatic success in the last year and a half has happened in good measure because of your integrity and because of the weight that your word carries in the international community.  That is a very tangible benefit to this country.

In the last few months, and in particular the last several weeks, we have seen Sri Lanka take very concrete steps forward in its reform, democratization, and reconciliation agenda: the bill to establish an Office of Missing Persons, ratifying the convention on disappearances, additional land releases by the military, the President's very important directive on arrests under the PTA, progress in work on the constitution.  A lot of this work was foreshadowed in last year's Human Rights Council resolution.  That resolution embodied commitments the Sri Lanka people have made in their own national interests to restore accountability and the rule of law to their country.  The United States was a co-sponsor of that resolution, and as such we feel we have a shared responsibility to help see this process through.  So we look forward to supporting Sri Lanka as it puts into place the remaining institutions and reforms that the resolution endorsed.  We very strongly commend the government for working closely with United Nations and High Commissioner Zeid to advance that progress.

I also want to strongly second my colleague Assistant Secretary Biswal's comments on economic development and on the opportunity and responsibility we have as a partner of Sri Lanka to help the people of this country achieve the peace dividend that they so deserve.  I want to stress that in our minds these two objectives -- economic development and reconciliation -- go hand-in-hand.  Without a peace dividend, it will be harder to pursue reconciliation.

But reconciliation is also advanced, as we have seen in country after country in the world, where people can come together rather than let themselves be split apart.  In a larger sense, this reminds us why what is happening in Sri Lanka is so important to people all over the world, because if you look at what's happening in the world today, there's obviously not a lot of good news to be found.  A lot of the problems that we see are rooted in something that Sri Lanka knows all too well -- this contest between the politics of division and the politics of common ground.  We've seen, unfortunately, in many places around the world that it is easier to win in politics by making simple appeals to racial, religious, or national pride, than by doing the hard work of governing.  Easier sometimes to blame others for our problems than to take responsibility ourselves.  In that way you can distract people from your own failures and lack of vision.

I think the people Sri Lanka have shown us again and again, that regardless where they come from, or what language they speak, or what faith they belong to, everyone has the same fundamental interests.  Everybody has an interest in peace, everyone has an interest in law and order, in accountability, in moving this country forward.  The people of Sri Lanka chose a government that seeks to serve all its people rather than setting them against each other.  For that reason, the whole world needs Sri Lanka to succeed and to show others the way.  We are proud to be your partner in that effort.

Thank you very much.